I Think I Saw MH370

[stewball5]

Originally Posted by kayej1188

Saucy, I'll try to say this in the nicest way possible, but this thread has progressively regressed into a collection of your personal insecurities and emotional struggles. It's no longer about the incident of a missing plane full of people, it's now about you and your conquest to garner support, sympathy, and pity. It's become quite uncomfortable.

kayej1188, since no one else has responded to your above not-so-kind remarks, I will by simply saying that if you don't like what you read here, don't come back. It is your choice, you know.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by stewball5

kayej1188, since no one else has responded to your above not-so-kind remarks, I will by simply saying that if you don't like what you read here, don't come back. It is your choice, you know.

Now, now kids, play nice. kayej1188 was trying to state the obvious as nicely as possible. I doubt she/he is the only one thinking it. The thread has morphed from a technical aspect to an emotional one.
Many people have stated nicely that SS should not take it upon herself to assume responsibility. It's almost like she never reads or responds to those types of posts.

[stewball5]

After re-reading the blog today I felt compelled to writing something a little on the philosophical side. For sure, our personal experiences through life are used to form our opinions. I thought I’d use myself as an example.

My first experience with aviation tragedy occurred when I was six years old when my father was killed in a USAF KB-29P Boeing aerial refueling aircraft. The memories of that tragic day still haunt me and are blamed for my Post Traumatic Syndrome Disorder, commonly known as PTSD.

I served for twenty years in the Air Force and during that time was fortunately able to fly. Twice I came back to Edwards AFB, CA, after nearly having to eject from aircraft. Another time, I came home as co-pilot in a NASA Dryden Research Center “retired” USN R4D (aka C-47 and DC-3), with the right engine smoldering after a fire. I am very thankful for the flight engineer we had on board, who stop-cocked the fuel, increased power on the left engine, feathered the prop, and closed the cowl flaps. This was all done before either the pilot or I could take action. We were at 500 feet over Rogers Dry Lake going home. The flight engineer’s experience included flying the Indian “Hump” during WWII in a R4D and rebuilding the airplane we were in.

Experiences shape our opinions. First-hand experiences sharpen those opinions and often cause us to think out-of-the-box where others dare not think.

[MAP Waves]

Originally Posted by europaflyer

That 'startlingly simple theory' was nonsense when it was written in March and is nonsense now.

No fire. Not with what we now know.

That is exactly the point I am trying to make with my list of questions - we actually know nothing after 17:19!

Other than:

Secondary radar data has been tampered with
There is undisclosed further radar data.
Yesterdays cruising shows Inmarsat calculations were wrong and many still believe they are wrong.

There is a simple explanation - there always is - given facts one could find it, however without facts this mystery will never be

[fgilgo]

Originally Posted by MAP Waves

That is exactly the point I am trying to make with my list of questions - we actually know nothing after 17:19!

Other than:

Secondary radar data has been tampered with
There is undisclosed further radar data.
Yesterdays cruising shows Inmarsat calculations were wrong and many still believe they are wrong.

There is a simple explanation - there always is - given facts one could find it, however without facts this mystery will never be

It appears Katharine has already made it clear what she thinks or the below newspaper has quoted her wrong.

New crowd-sourced data shows Phuket yacht sighting, MH370 flight path correlate

“That meant the plane headed towards military exercises where we had seen what we now believe to be a military convoy, and an isolated marine buoy that was either a submarine buoy or an acoustic target buoy (used for missile practice).

“Now, I know that big military convoys have excellent radar tracking systems and etc, and yet they didn’t see this and report it? I don’t believe that, and don’t understand why not.”

Following the posting of the new data, Ms Tee said she now felt some sense of relief.''

[MAP Waves]

Why is everyone assume the MH370 flight path has anything to do with flightpath waypoints?, or is this just another assumption to further confuse facts?

[fgilgo]

Originally Posted by MAP Waves

Why is everyone assume the MH370 flight path has anything to do with flightpath waypoints?, or is this just another assumption to further confuse facts?

What about this story Saucy gave to the media?

New crowd-sourced data shows Phuket yacht sighting, MH370 flight path correlate

''Ms Tee provided the Gazette a copy of her report of the latest findings to the JACC (to read her report in full, click here), in which she detailed the sighting of a buoy and the glow of a “bright orange light” from beyond the horizon, which she saw after March 7.

An image highlights the yacht’s course as given by GPS data and the location of the ‘bright orange light’ Ms Tee reported as glowing from beyond the horizon. Image: Cruisers Forum

“If the [projected] flight plan is correct, and I genuinely believe it is, since it illustrates exactly what I saw, and where and how the trajectory changed, then this flight headed off back over our track,” Ms Tee told the Gazette.

“That meant the plane headed towards military exercises where we had seen what we now believe to be a military convoy, and an isolated marine buoy that was either a submarine buoy or an acoustic target buoy (used for missile practice).

“Now, I know that big military convoys have excellent radar tracking systems and etc, and yet they didn’t see this and report it? I don’t believe that, and don’t understand why not.”

Following the posting of the new data, Ms Tee said she now felt some sense of relief.''

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by MAP Waves

Why is everyone assume the MH370 flight path has anything to do with flightpath waypoints?, or is this just another assumption to further confuse facts?

Well yes, it is an assumption although not an unreasonable one. However it does simply remain an assumption that may prove to be untrue.

It is generally accepted the aircraft was been flown by the autopilot; at least for the last few hours. A 777 is usually flown by the autopilot (AP) and the airway routes are pre-programmed into the AP. Should the flight crew wish to deviate from a standard route, they simply re-programme the AP.

The easiest way to re-programme the AP is to use standard IFR waypoints as these are always stored in the AP database (which is updated every 28 days). However, any waypoint anywhere can be created by the operator if they so choose. But in the normal sense, standard IFR waypoints are used as they are known to ATC and all other airway users.

The biggest problem that if an assumption gets repeated often enough, it becomes the truth in the minds of many; just like the view that the transponders were turned off.

By the way, technically speaking, nothing is programmed into the autopilot, rather that the flightplan is created in the Flight Management System (FMS) and the autopilot is instructed to simply follow whatever the FMS tells it.

[Gclark8]

Originally Posted by MAP Waves

Why is everyone assume the MH370 flight path has anything to do with flightpath waypoints?, or is this just another assumption to further confuse facts?

Aircraft fly from Waypoints to Waypoints.
For centurys Poms have navigated from Pub to Pub. They are both known reference points.
The available evidence (radar and ping-rings) shows the aircraft followed and turned at known waypoints. Where Saucy saw it is was near a known waypoint. Where it entered the sea is between known waypoints.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Gclark8

Aircraft fly from Waypoints to Waypoints.
For centurys Poms have navigated from Pub to Pub. They are both known reference points.
The available evidence (radar and ping-rings) shows the aircraft followed and turned at known waypoints. Where Saucy saw it is was near a known waypoint. Where it entered the sea is between known waypoints.

While your point is how aircraft normally fly, there is very little about MH370 that is normal so it remains an assumption that is was using published waypoints.

I concede the primary radar data suggests known waypoints, I don't agree that the Inmarsat pings suggest the same.

As to where it entered the sea, well almost anywhere will always be between two waypoints

[MAP Waves]

Originally Posted by Wotname

While your point is how aircraft normally fly, there is very little about MH370 that is normal so it remains an assumption that is was using published waypoints.

I concede the primary radar data suggests known waypoints, I don't agree that the Inmarsat pings suggest the same.

As to where it entered the sea, well almost anywhere will always be between two waypoints

The reason for waypoint navigation question is very simple indeed - pilot does not need to have been part in the navigation - i.e. you plot a route into your autopilot and go to bed and wake up the next day hoping your plane has followed its route!

In our boat speed is determined by engine at preset RPM and course as bearing to waypoint, which update to next waypoint once you have reached the first one. Tides and waves are compensated by COG and our speed will alter accordingly too - so our SOG will not be constant. However i imagine on a plane without adjusting stuff, apparent wind speed is pretty critical to altitude etc.

So if waypoint route navigation was used by MH370 then

1 - It must have been programmed in KNOWINGLY setting it onto a course into the middle of an ocean where you will die and be lucky if someone finds you? This just totally overrules our animal instinct of survival and is totally irrational! You really must be pissed off if you going to take all those other lives as well! Cannot believe this!

If not programmed in why on earth would you assume this?? There is absolutely no rational reason because survival instinct would be to land where you can be saved! Some people have suggested airports were closed at night - in which case fly east to where the sun rises. Even under pressure this is the obvious thing to do. That would be pretty rational!

2 - All the flight must have been within reason (for apparent wind) a constant speed from way point to way point and "ping rings" - does anyone know if they do?

3 - Assuming you believe the radar info presented by ATSB's report then there certainly is no reason to assume way point navigation as there is no evidence from the data up to the final radar fix at 18:22 of using waypoints. So where is the reason to then all of a sudden start using them?? That is irrational!

[SaucySailoress]

Oh wow. Below is the personal email I sent to Chris five days ago, from which he has taken this article. This was reflective of my thoughts a week ago, and how scared I was back then. Now I realise that seeing bright white lights evidences only the presence of bright white lights. They could have been just what we thought at the time, a maintenance vessel or research vessel, working over a cable which was very deep, so it'd have to be massive and have lights bright enough to work in. And of course, in working lights that bright, nobody would see a plane go past, especially not if it had stopped glowing, which would explain why they didn't report it! So of course there could be a rational explanation, and my panic was hasty.

When that email was sent, I wanted to know if Chris had any answers. He says he a political guy, after all. I am surprised he published without asking, but I did have a missed call from him yesterday when my phone was off, so at least he tried. I sent it privately to others, too, because at that time I was really worried.

Below is my email from last week. Since then, Marc has published the facts anyway. I wouldn't have chosen to publish my questions, but those have since been addressed.

Me To Chris

Jun 20 at 2:19 PM
Thanks.


Chris, there is one last thing that is bothering me. In Post #218, I copied a follow up email I had sent to ATSB (I'll paste it below for your reference). If Stewart's flight plan is correct, and I genuinely believe it is, since it illustrates exactly what I saw, and where and how the trajectory changed etc), then this flight headed off back over our track. That meant the plane headed towards military exercises where we had seen what we now believe to be a military convoy, and an isolated marine buoy that was either a submarine buoy or an acoustic target buoy (used for missile practise).



Now, I know that big military convoys have excellent radar tracking systems etc, and yet they didn't see this and report it? I don't believe that, and don't understand why not.



The only reason I can think of is that they saw what looked like a missile (and remember, when I first saw it I thought asteroid, since at that stage it was a bright orange glow) or a kamikaze plane and took defensive action. But that would invalidate all the Inmarsat data which has been so depended on until now. Now this IS all conjecture, and I don't know what to do with it. Any advice?




The email, sent to ATSB, evidencing military presence in our path:

To follow up on what I saw when we were on the passage. I have already mentioned the bright white light [sighted over two nights over the horizon] that we thought was unusual but put down to work vessels since it was over a pipeline [I said cable on the phone, which is correct], and about the bright orange light that I saw at a later date.

It occurred to me that we had another unusual sighting. We spotted what we thought might be a DAN Buoy. We detoured to take a look, so it should be on our track, in case there was a person or body near it. It was what looked to be a research buoy. In my recollection it was simply a pole with a solar battery at the tip. I think it was about a metre high. It had no surface instruments. We determined it was nothing to worry about and moved on.

In Marc's recollection it looked like a DAN buoy, but as we got closer there was no flag. No more than a metre diameter, red, conical shaped, no more than half a metre high. Solar panels around a central area and what appeared to be a whip aerial. He has identified the date as 7th March. The time could have 1315 (local) (track index 8961) or 1615 (local) (track index 8996). I believe we first spotted it when it was at about 2 oçlock from the boat, which could make it the 1615 detour, but Marc believes we sailed backwards to check it, which would therefore make it the 1315 detour.

Not sure if this is of any use... But it's not for me to judge!

All the best,
Kate

[Gclark8]

www.smh.com.au - MH370 search: ocean scan begins - but more questions arise

MH370 search: ocean scan begins - but more questions arise

Date: June 26 2014

Keith Bradsher

• Hishammuddin Hussein replaced as Malaysia's transportation minister

Canberra: A commercial vessel under contract from the Australian government has begun mapping the floor of the southern Indian Ocean in preparation for a renewed search for Malaysia Airlines' missing Flight 370, but that search has been complicated by a complete lack of satellite images of the new search area from the week after the plane disappeared.
The Fugro Equator, a commercial survey ship on a three-month lease, is moving slowly around an area that is 800 kilometres southwest of the region where the ocean floor was searched in April and early May, according to commercially available data from a satellite locator beacon aboard the vessel. The new search area is 1540 km northwest of Perth, Australia.
Martin Dolan, the chief commissioner of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, said in an email response to questions on Wednesday afternoon that "Fugro Equator has been assigned to an area consistent with the provisional results of our search area analysis."
Tim Farrar, a satellite communications consultant in Menlo Park, California, one of a group of satellite experts who have been conducting their own independent analysis of clues to the final resting place of Flight 370, expressed surprise that the search area had not been moved even farther southwest. The plane disappeared March 8 with 239 people aboard during a flight from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, to Beijing.
The new location is consistent with the plane having travelled south at a speed of about 380 knots after it disappeared from Malaysian radar while over the northern end of the Strait of Malacca, Farrar said. The area of the sea floor that was checked in April and May, after US Navy contractors thought they had heard acoustic pings from the aircraft's "black boxes," was consistent with a plane limping along at only 325 knots.
But Mr Farrar said that the group of independent experts with whom he was working had assumed a speed of 460 to 470 knots. "We are unclear about why they are driving to a relatively slower solution," he said.
Two possible explanations are that the authorities believe the plane travelled farther west before turning south, or that the plane did not follow a straight path on its trip south, Mr Farrar said.
The Australian government has said that it will announce the new search area by the end of this month.
New York Times
This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use, copying or mirroring is prohibited.

There will be more from JACC later today. Media

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCKX5LEOq-U

[Advocate]

Originally Posted by kayej1188

Saucy, I'll try to say this in the nicest way possible, but this thread has progressively regressed into a collection of your personal insecurities and emotional struggles. It's no longer about the incident of a missing plane full of people, it's now about you and your conquest to garner support, sympathy, and pity. It's become quite uncomfortable.

Sorry but I don't see insecurities and "emotional struggles"; I see someone that is trying to figure out what they saw. Anyone with a heart would have a hard time dealing with this; unless the person was cold as ice with no conscience.

At the top left of every web browser is an arrow. Click on it; you won't have to read the post.

[Celestialsailor]

I knew I'd be sorry for re-subscribing