I Think I Saw MH370

[SaucySailoress]

Originally Posted by probrt

SaucySailoress wrote, there were two other planes, passing higher and moving in other direction (NW).

I checked at flightradar24.com and planes heading NW were:
UAE343, passing around 18:45 UTC
UAE405, passing around 19:05 UTC
UAE435, passing around 19:25 UTC
QTR945 and SIA346, passing around 19:45 UTC
SIA422, SIA402 and SIA306, passing around 20:10 UTC

But I don't know if fligthradar24 covers all flights.

QTR945 and SIA346... Is that two flights, or one flight with two codes?

[rydberg]

Originally Posted by SaucySailoress

About the firefighting planes, if that turns out to be what it was, then I will be relieved to hold up my hands and accept I am wrong in what I believe now, but was right in not being overly concerned at the time. But are these craft really likely to glow orange and fly without other nav lights?

I think this is basically what everybody else is wondering as well, since only you can determine if it fits what you saw. No pressure intended. :-)

I have one question, still: was the glow constant, or was there anything in the image that night that seemed to flicker, or otherwise appear dynamic in nature? You have previously stated that the reason you thought the plane was on fire was because of the dark exhaust. Was there anything else?

Henrik

[Jess928]

Originally Posted by SaucySailoress

It was towards the end of a three week passage, and we had plenty of clear skies, despite some very strong winds and heavy swells. Plenty of clouds too. Most of my stargazing had been done during weeks one and 2, even though that was when we had the heaviest weather. I think by week 3 my neck was sort of stuck in a backward bend.

That week we also ended up in a severe squall for a short while one night in flat seas despite the winds which picked up suddenly, and hardly any vis cos of the thick rain, and the whole sea around us was glowing green with phosporescence (also cos of the thick rain), and it was like being stuck in an alien dome. It was amazing, and the words aren't effectively describing the surreal feeling it left.

Like I said, by this stage I was seriously doubting my sanity.

Saucy,
ANY idea how long you observed this orange object for...seconds, ten minutes, an hour? Regardless of the boat's position, how long where you able to observe the other two aircraft further away?

[probrt]

Originally Posted by SaucySailoress

QTR945 and SIA346... Is that two flights, or one flight with two codes?

This are two different flights.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by probrt

……...

But I don't know if fligthradar24 covers all flights.

AFAIK:

Flightradar24 covers all flights transmitting an active ADS-B signal (via the aircraft's Transponder). This includes all civilian commercial passenger airlines but does not include military flights and many other "smaller commercial" and general aviation aircraft.

More simply put, it covers the big boys carrying passengers (and most civilian aircraft operating above 30,000 ft) but does not cover many flights in smaller private aircraft or any military flights.

[Gclark8]

Originally Posted by Gclark8

Australia chooses firm to map sea floor in MH370 search - The Malaysian Insider

If at first you don't find it, then FUGRO it!

Fugro - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Fugro Equator passed by Bali on Wednesday and should be on station (7th ping ring) this weekend.

More information on the vessel: http://mh370.fugro.com/download/pres...esentation.pdf


It should be noted:

1. This new search is only in the Australian SAR Region.
2. ATSB is only responsible for the Australian SAR Region. https://www.amsa.gov.au/search-and-r...-in-australia/
3. ATSB may not respond "favorably" to reports out of region.
4. Your "seeing report" should have been made to the local SAR region coordinating country as well as the ATSB. http://www.mpa.gov.sg/sites/images/p...gapore-srr.jpg
5. All the Satellite research has been re-checked by Professor Duncan Steel, I suggest reading his web site.
6. Saucy, you are a trained observer (Duncan Steel), not a scientist. Leave the agonizing over the details to those with the degrees. Stay with your original observation, meditate on the constellations you saw, forget the GPS.

cheers
George

[Armchair Pilot]

Just as a point of interest with reference to flights QTR945 and SIA346, passing around 19:45 UTC I looked at the gps logs that Marc had posted. One of the posts had the time in UTC so I looked at the position for 19.45UTC then compared it to the other posting which is in local time. The list of GPS positions starts with 02.00 local so I was not able to correlate the time exactly but I plotted the positions on Bing maps and between 19.45 UTC and 02.00 local, the boat only moved a little over one mile. This suggests that the local time posted is UTC + 6 hours and there are two other aircraft in the sky at that time. Also the headings for these two positions vary wildly, the first at 19.45 is 70 deg and in 15 mins time? at 02.00 local (20.00 UTC ?) the heading is 347 deg. All of this could help explain Saucy's observations but only if MH370 could actually be there at that time....

[Armchair Pilot]

....... and by the look of things, checking the ping rings, possibly it could?

[chris_gee]

Maybe. We don't know the ship time which is the local as far as the crew are concerned. It may have been set to Thai time i.e. + 7 or updated automatically according to longitude which is +6 not as Saucy reports. We also don't know exactly what time she was on watch and how she determined that time. That is in UST not how the gps or other method was set up. Yes as I suspected the UST can be relied on. What one thinks of as the local or ship time less so. That is no criticism of anyone - these things are complex and most of us neither need to know nor are familiar with the finer details.
Possibly she saw something of relevance and her recall is accurate but we cannot be sure because there is uncertainty about many of the so-called "facts".

[tomknack]

Originally Posted by SaucySailoress

About the firefighting planes, if that turns out to be what it was, then I will be relieved to hold up my hands and accept I am wrong in what I believe now, but was right in not being overly concerned at the time. But are these craft really likely to glow orange and fly without other nav lights?

I live in a town where a firefighting squadron is located. I have never seen or heard them fly at night. It's a dangerous job to fly those fire retardant missions. I seriously doubt they would be flying or dropping water in the dark!

[Jess928]

Originally Posted by tomknack

I live in a town where a firefighting squadron is located. I have never seen or heard them fly at night. It's a dangerous job to fly those fire retardant missions. I seriously doubt they would be flying or dropping water in the dark!

I have to agree. I looked into the compound agents used in the water bombing mixture and there is NO reason for it to contain a flourescent additive for night time use. It's just ammonia (lowers the temperature) and clays (binding agent). It takes a very dedicated and excellent air/ground team to fly in the day time never mind at night. No leader aircraft observed either.
The possible observance must have had a calorific value to give off smoke.

So this leaves;
1. Military exercise using missiles (too fast?)
2. Jet exhaust
3. Distant forest fire on Great Nicobar rising to the inversion layer...?
4. Aircraft in distress
5. Recent built oil rig with flare stack (unlikely)
6. Commercial ship transiting through just below the horizon on full tilt bellowing smoke rising up to inversion layer and dispersing.

With reference to 3,5 &6; could the sunrise be reflecting off the smoke as it drifts in the inversion layer?

Saucy, did you have a commercial radio to listen to music on during the trip?
How long did you observe the object...seconds, 10 minutes, 1 hour?

Thoughts

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by SaucySailoress

............
About the firefighting planes, if that turns out to be what it was, then I will be relieved to hold up my hands and accept I am wrong in what I believe now, but was right in not being overly concerned at the time. But are these craft really likely to glow orange and fly without other nav lights?

No, they would be using at least standard nav lights and standard strobes. Most firefighting aircraft I am familiar with, have additional strobes plastered all over them.

One wants as much visibility (i.e. strobes) as possible when operating in close formation in limited (smoky) visibility.

[tomknack]

Originally Posted by Jess928

With reference to 3,5 &6; could the sunrise be reflecting off the smoke as it drifts in the inversion layer?

From my house I can see the entire eastern sky with the commercial air routes up and down the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Sunrises are always amazing and surprising as the rising sun reflects on the high elevation objects, including contrails. Strategically placed clouds could completely block the light from reaching some objects while others, either higher or lower, are lit up in brilliant orange. Even earlier in the a.m., we can see the sun shining on satellites floating overhead while our sky is still completely dark. I'm thinking that this type of phenomenon is likely what Saucy saw.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by tomknack

From my house I can see the entire eastern sky with the commercial air routes up and down the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Sunrises are always amazing and surprising as the rising sun reflects on the high elevation objects, including contrails. Strategically placed clouds could completely block the light from reaching some objects while others, either higher or lower, are lit up in brilliant orange. Even earlier in the a.m., we can see the sun shining on satellites floating overhead while our sky is still completely dark. I'm thinking that this type of phenomenon is likely what Saucy saw.

Quite probable and the aircraft could well be MH370 - just not necessarily on fire.

We know MH370 will not appear on Flightradar24 but if the other two aircraft can be matched to Flightradar24 data, then the third aircraft is conceivably MH370.

[Jess928]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Quite probable and the aircraft could well be MH370 - just not necessarily on fire.

We know MH370 will not appear on Flightradar24 but if the other two aircraft can be matched to Flightradar24 data, then the third aircraft is conceivably MH370.

Got to be careful how I phrase this for fear of misinterpretation....
Why would it not appear on Flight24Radar? Is it because you're thinking the ACARS and transponders were turned off? Would it be tracked by another method on Flight24Radar?....or the third ?aircraft? being a non commercial 'big boy' such as a military asset?