I Think I Saw MH370

[Jess928]

I have to agree that Stew's theory is the most intense and the most plausible so far. I'm not sure what his background is whether professional pilot or other?
As suggested earlier, the mystery of the actual flight is irrelevant to a certain degree. It's whether Saucy potentially saw something of relevance to the search and if so, establishing the facts surrounding that sighting with a view to locating the resting place of 240 souls.

I am not familiar with the E systems on a 777 but I am familiar with similar assets so ANY theory is plausable (ISS, search plane, shooting star, meteor etc) as to what Saucy saw.

Either way, I can accept that after an exhaustive data mine using forum members, outside agencies and professional bodies, Stew's theory is the most acceptable so far. I congratulate and thank him on his commendable offerings and apologise for pushing the Dornier point.

I also have to acknowledge Saucy's calm, professional and metered responses to this situation. I wish you a guilt free and happy future after your trauma.

Only time, education and tenacity will show us the way now to the whereabouts of MH370 and 240 souls.

[Armchair Pilot]

Originally Posted by Wotname

I concur


I believe it is fairly well established that MH370 was still airbourne several hours after the time that Saucy saw something (possibly MH370). Unless of course, you chose to believe the INMARSAT evidence to be a hoax - not a view shared by most of us.

A Boeing 777 is capable of flying itself as long as the fire stays away from critical systems and it remains structurally sound. A slow burning interior fire may do this. This is just another theory. We need to find that plane to find out what happened...

[Jess928]

Originally Posted by stewball5

The first fire was, I believe, and as others have stated, in the Engineering and Electronics (E&E) bay below the cockpit. This fire caused a gradual loss of all communications as it smoldered, except the Inmarsat transponder.

Originally Posted by Armchair Pilot

A Boeing 777 is capable of flying itself as long as the fire stays away from critical systems and it remains structurally sound. A slow burning interior fire may do this. This is just another theory. We need to find that plane to find out what happened...

If the fire started in the forward cargo hold (speculative as we don't know where it started or if it started), it's a short hop from there to the E&E compartment. There's a lot of heat there being generated by a lot of electronic equipment. Apparently it has a 'vent' system to cool the compartment down. Note how easy it is to gain access.

The important information starts about 1:08.
2:30 Static charge line used.
3:30 Forward cargo door.
3:35 Circuit breakers.
3:59 Transponders/radios
5:47 Recirculate air to cool equipment in E&E bay.
Take a look at the link:

[jongleur]

It's my understanding that the black box cannot
be detected when underwater.

Would it be a good invention that if the black box
is in water, it could auto release an epirb that floats
up to the surface to ping a satellite?

Has this been thought of?

[kayej1188]

Originally Posted by jongleur

It's my understanding that the black box cannot
be detected when underwater.

Would it be a good invention that if the black box
is in water, it could auto release an epirb that floats
up to the surface to ping a satellite?

Has this been thought of?

Huh? What do you mean the black box cannot be detected when underwater? One of the main functions of the Flight Data Recorded (black box) is to emit a frequency if underwater, using it's Underwater Locator Beacon, so that those searching for it can find it. It uses a specific frequency and can be detected by Towed Pinger Locators, thus establishing a near definitive resting place of the black box.

[Koolinglass]

Originally Posted by jongleur

It's my understanding that the black box cannot
be detected when underwater.

Would it be a good invention that if the black box
is in water, it could auto release an epirb that floats
up to the surface to ping a satellite?

Has this been thought of?

Two solutions currently in discussions and to be implemented shortly.


The black box batteries to send signals for 90 days.


A new AFIRS to monitor the data stream going to the black boxes and designed to detect any abnormal occurrences during the flight. Once triggered, it will send an alert and begin to stream live data via Iridium to a number of pre-determined recipients, including technical and airline executives, manufacturers, air traffic control and search & rescue. This means no expensive search for the black boxes. Presumably they should have enough information as the cause of any accident and the location of the aircraft. The cost is minimal, as the use of satellite time is reduced to only when the AFIRS is triggered.


The AFIRS can be easily fited to most of the current aircraft types.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by kayej1188

Huh? What do you mean the black box cannot be detected when underwater? One of the main functions of the Flight Data Recorded (black box) is to emit a frequency if underwater, using it's Underwater Locator Beacon, so that those searching for it can find it. It uses a specific frequency and can be detected by Towed Pinger Locators, thus establishing a near definitive resting place of the black box.

Just to expand on this a little.
There are two "black boxes"; one is the flight data recorder (FDR) and the other is the cockpit voice recorder (CVR). At least one of these must have an Underwater Locator Beacon (ULB) fitted to the exterior of the box, however usually both have an ULB fitted to the box.

This ULB emits an ultrasonic acoustic "ping" about every 30 seconds or so. The frequency in not critical but is around 30 - 35 KHz. It is almost the same as that which a bat will emit. It can be picked up by an off the shelf bat locator. As others have posted, the battery life in a minimum of 3 months however there is a programme to replace these beacons with similar units that have a much extended transmit time. I am not aware of the battery life of these new units.

As their respective names suggest, the FDR records all sorts of flightdata (airspeed, altitude, engine settings, flap position and so on and so forth. It tells the history of the flight until power is removed from the unit. A "G" switch disconnects power in the event of a crash. The CVR records voice communications that occur in the cockpit. It is 4 channel recorder with one channel for everything the pilot hears and says, another for the copilot, another for interphone between flight crew and cabin crew and the last channel for an area microphone in the cockpit. It also is connected via a "G" switch.

[Gclark8]

I enjoyed the above video in the Boeing 777 systems. I believe the aircraft can be flown from the laptop in the electronics bay.

On Tuesday this week the following video was aired here by Channel 7. Several things stand out:
Fuel starvation.
All three Aircraft had flown to/from China recently (fuel from China)
More than one Boeing 777 is mentioned.
One Malaysian Airlines flight has similar issues. 9M-MRG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uO_wniPd6U

[Gclark8]

Investigation: 200503722 - In-flight upset; Boeing 777-200, 9M-MRG, 240 km NW Perth, WA

ATSB report on 9M-MRG

[Cpt Pat]

Originally Posted by stewball5

... The result was the majority, if not all of the back end passengers and flight attendants may not have survived, particularly the passengers. They died of asphyxiation due to hypoxia.

The cockpit crew was able to confirm that the fire was out in the E&E bay by inspection. They then re-pressurized the cabin and remained at 36,000 feet flying towards the airports and VAMPI in hopes of finding a lighted airport at what is now about 0200 Malaysian time. No luck with any lighted airports, so they pressed ahead thinking that they were safe and had enough fuel for another 6 hours or so until daylight.

From VAMPI, they flew northwest to the SAMAK waypoint and turned south. About three minutes after the turn, they saw the #1 (left) engine begin to spool down, a low oil pressure warning came on, and then the engine fire warning came on. They initiated the engine fire procedures and was able to put out the fire out by slowing down and using the engine fire extinguishers. This took about 12 minutes. With one engine operating, they were able to maintain about 19,000 feet at the gross weight they had.

Wow! That's a huge number of assumptions:

1) The crew intentionally killed the passengers by exceeding the capabilities of their supplemental oxygen.
2) The crew intentionally flew out into the vastness of open ocean.
3) An engine caught fire due to the (enormous assumption) that it lost oil pressure.

The last item is a real whopper, and it violates Occam's Razor: ""plurality should not be posited without necessity." In other words: single effects usually have a single cause. All other things being equal - the simplest explanation is usually correct. Unless there is some linkage, of which I am not aware, that would cause a fire somewhere in the fuselage to result in a loss of engine oil pressure, the likelihood that an engine would fail from a coincidental and unrelated oil pressure fault in the same flight is infinitesimal.

My own gut feeling is that a fire occurred in flight, that the crew pulled all the electrical circuit breakers to non-essential electronics in an effort to isolate the cause, while setting a course on the autopilot to divert to a suitable alternate airport, and then the crew was overcome by smoke (histotoxic hypoxia) causing the plane to continue on the last set heading until fuel exhaustion. It's just a gut feeling based on what I know about flight operations.

I believe than any altitude data pertaining to the flight that was not received directly from the aircraft's onboard altitude-encoding transponder (which was shut down soon after the flight left its planned course) should be viewed with strong skepticism. The reason altitude encoders were placed on aircraft is the wild inaccuracy of altitude information obtained from ("primary") radar returns alone.

There are few events more stressful for a flight crew than fire-in-flight. And they can be forgiven for not making a radio call before they shut down the radio and transponder, along with other electronics, in an effort to extinguish a fire.

Of course, there are those who insist it was all an act of suicide or terrorism. That's convenient: it means that no one has to fix or pay for anything.

Cpt Pat
Commercial Pilot, multi-engine airplanes

[Jess928]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

Wow! That's a huge number of assumptions:

1) The crew intentionally killed the passengers by exceeding the capabilities of their supplemental oxygen.
2) The crew intentionally flew out into the vastness of open ocean.
3) An engine caught fire due to the (enormous assumption) that it lost oil pressure.

Respectfully, With reference to point 1, I would suggest that in the heat of the moment and with limited available information starving the fire source of oxygen (and unfortunately the passengers) would be better than a fire spreading fast enough to disable the a/c and render it into a flying brick?

Point 3.
I am still battling with the engine fire(s) theory as non of the suggested areas are linked as far as I am aware for it to compromise the intergrity of each asset?

IMHO, this has to be either foul play (I'm sure of it) or a catastrophic cascadal failure of systems (hard to believe?).

[Advocate]

Originally Posted by SaucySailoress

Gentlemen, thank you for your help. I have had a terrible weekend, coming to terms with the fact that I now believe I watched a live cremation. I couldn't accept what I was seeing, so reasoned it off as just unusual, justifiable as other things. Then I got to shore and heard about the lost plane. And I told them what I saw, and heard my sighting waved off to Vietnam by the cruisers in the yacht club shack on the beach. And thanked I God that I hadn't seen what I thought I had seen.

But recently I heard that they couldn't find it. And I remembered that I had thought I had seen it. And so I came here and asked what to do. I said the same thing I said in the Yacht Club. I think I thought you'd also dismiss my sighting, and tell me what I really saw. But you didn't, you asked the right questions, and from those questions, Stewart took what I saw from the questions you answered, ignored the stuff I didn't see, and has illustrated what I saw.

I hoped I was wrong, but this is what I believe I saw. Stewart emailed my the pictures a short while ago, and they rang a bell. And I looked closely at our boat track, and what Stewart has illustrated fits in exactly with what we (the boat and I) were doing at that time. I emailed a copy of my track at that specific time to the ATSB (before Stewart flew the route to test it), and explained my belief that what I saw fitted in with the time of that gybe, one of the flight paths I had been sent. And Stewart flew it, and it's possible. Maybe not likely if you have faith in technology, but not enough to kill the very real possibility that this is what I saw and denied.

Rather than convincing me I was wrong, as I thought I had wanted, you have shown to me that it is perfectly plausible. Therefore, I have accepted that I saw people die, and I didn't know it at the time, and there was nothing we could have done anyway to save their lives, but I could have acknowledged it sooner, and would have if it didn't hurt so much.

Hi Kate; I'm a missing and unidentified persons advocate; someone linked your post at Websleuths in the MAH post there. I've read all of your posts; your hubs; as well as a few other people. I'd love to go back & read the other 450 posts; but in reality do not have time.

One of the biggest questions I had when I 1st started following MAH370 missing was what was the timeline between the "all right good night"; the left turn and the transponder being turned off. I stopped following it to help a family with a missing loved one around the time bluefin was almost done mapping. To date; I have not seen an answer to this.

1st; I am so sorry that you were the one to have possibly seen this. While I can tell you that there was nothing you could do to save anyone; you have to work that out in your own heart/head in order to believe it. My heart goes out to you; for being female; it will not be easy.

Being female; I have an idea of your frame of heart and mind while watching the plane go by; something a male can't even understand. I know how my hub gets when he doesn't speak to me; I can't even imagine being on the water in a boat. Talk about tense and intense!!!

The press are notorious for using quotes as they see fit and not necessarily how it was intended. I gave you credit for being transparent here! It was the smartest thing you did.

What really blows my mind; the last time I followed MAS; is that there is no military radar to back up the flight path; even in Australia. Malaysian military let the plane fly on... So many players that should have seen MAS... Your sighting should not have even mattered if you know what I mean. Others have come forward & were discounted.

My heart goes out to the families of MAH. Please know that the world wants to know what happened to the plane and your loved ones. We care. As I mentioned I'm an advocate for missing an unidentified person's; I have friends with loved ones missing 25 and 40+ years. I do not want that for you. The world does not want that for you. We want you to have closure; we pray it comes.

I pray that Kate is able to find peace in all of this. The media scrutinizing and misquoting is not easy as well as people talking about her can't be easy. From what I read; being in the frame of mind she was in; she has no clue what was happening. Unless someone has walked in these shoes; they do not know the "fit"; so their opinion is just that; an opinion; we all have them. Hold your head high Kate. Thank you for finally coming forward. ~Hugs

[Gclark8]

Christopher Bollyn has some good articles on the aircraft.

In March 2014, I posted a very important terrorism-prevention story that revealed that a near-identical twin of the missing Malaysian plane, that was Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, was sitting in a hangar in Tel Aviv.

The article, "Are the Israelis Planning Another 9-11 Using the Missing Boeing 777?" pointed out, with photos and documentation, that a plane, very similar to the missing Malaysia Airlines aircraft, that had been obtained by a Florida-based company called GA Telesis for dismantling in the United States, was actually being kept secretly in a hangar in Israel. What, pray tell, was a plane, nearly identical to the missing MH370, doing in an Israeli hangar?
Because this was such a suspicious and ominous development that clearly had the very real potential to become another 9/11-type attack, I delved further into the questions surrounding this mysterious plane in Israel and its relationship with the missing MH370 in a series of articles:
"Why is a Twin of the Missing MH370 in a Hangar in Israel?"
- April 18, 2014
www.bollyn.com/why-does-israel-have/
"Was MH370 Hijacked thru Remote Access to its Computer System?"
- April 24, 2014
www.bollyn.com/was-mh370-hijacked-by-remote-access-to-its-computer-system/
"Was MH370 a U.S./Israeli False Flag Operation?"
- April 30, 2014
www.bollyn.com/14671/
- See more at: http://bolly

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by Gclark8

Christopher Bollyn has some good articles on the aircraft.

Err, no he doesn't he is guessing like lots of other people.

From his website:

What are the Israelis doing with this retired Malaysia Airlines plane in a hanger in Tel Aviv? -

Perhaps they bought it

Pete

[MAP Waves]

I largely have not followed much after thread post 403 was made Australia chooses firm to map sea floor in MH370 search . WHY? Because ATSB in their early email to Kate said something along the lines (threats of disclosure prevent specifics) that what she saw largely fits in with what they already know - i.e. this sighting is not of any importance with their planned action!
From speaking to many cruisers this sort of behaviour seems to be a very common reason why we are actually cruising - to get away from this sort of nonsense. I am even cynical enough to believe a plane will be found on the next search unless there is open public scrutiny of the search and data.

I have been asked to elaborate on the "lights" (in one of Saucy's posts) and "buoy" (location post 219) so yesterday I got up to date and post 479 has a picture which immediately set of another "odd occurrence that happened on this passage " - the search vessel - pertinent because that is very similar (the one we saw was not red but grey and a helicopter landing pad was not evident) to a ship we saw "randomly sailing" - ships go via the shortest route between 2 points - it is cheapest and quickest - they do not go on one course, turn to anther course, head back to where they came from turn etc... that ship was searching for something! I f it was for MH370 - for gods sake we are a sailing boat and we are in the search area and they did not bother to stop us and ask us if we saw anything??? But then again when did they search in the Andaman sea start?
So for those cynics out there that Kate is doing this for fame and glory - The search party did not even think it was worth asking a potential witness if they saw anything??? Even after turning our radio off after passing through the shipping lane it is easy enough to make contact! Just steam 100m alongside and any idiot would know you want to make contact!

So from our ships gps log the following can be established.

Garmin still have not responded as to their time zone map, and so without actually knowing what time sunset and sunrise actually occurred I have shown the approximate night time
It did not happen on the night of the 3rd as there is no submarine cable in the location which is what we concluded it must be .
On the night of the 4th a bright light was visible over the horizon at about 1 oçlock from the bow through the night. How do I know it was the night of the 4th? We discussed what it might be -
Unlikely flare from unmarked rig (yes we got 4 year old charts) - We have seen many big bright flare stacks - sail through the Arabian gulf and you can see the glow from 30 to 40 miles and even then you can see "flicker".
A work ship working on the submarine cable was the most likely conclusion which is what we put it down to as there was a submarine cable on our chart which put it about in the correct bearing.
On the night of the 5th it was at about 2oclock off the bow. We assumed it was the same working ship - but having plotted it, that is not possible as the submarine cable was now to our port!
An approximate moving fix puts its estimated position as shown above. Does anyone have upto date charts, or info on what might be there because the most likely explanation to date is a naval flotilla which would substantiate assumption of the buoy!
On the 7th March Our crew spotted something in the water and I was on the helm - my first reaction was - nightmare DAN buoy (long stick) so we t0runed to see if we can help. As we were getting closer I thought no flag so it must have been bashing around for a while and I hope there is not a half eaten dead person hanging onto it! For detailed location see post 219.
The closest picture I could find of the buoy is this with a few significant exceptions!

We have commercial diving business where we maintain weather buoys and oceanographic instrumentation - so I have alot of experience with those sort of buoys!. Like the one above those buoys are yellow and have lights - they are meant to be seen as with the equipment on them they are very expensive!
All three of us concur the buoy we saw was NOT YELLOW it was red or orange and/or some black. that the diameter was no more than 1m, it had a whip antenna not highly visible like the antenna on the buoy above) 2 to 3m (, with small solar panels around the antenna base.
This adds up to a buoy that DOES NOT WANT TO BE SEEN EASILY!
The picture above is of a acoustic target buoy. The one we saw may have been one as well, or part of an acoustic target array. It may also have been a drifting wave buoy, but as I pointed out above - they are yellow, have lights and are expensive. Hence they are designed to be seen so shipping can avoid them!

I have been told by SWMBO that I can not put my political / controversial questions here! So does anyone have any other sites where the disappearance of MH370 is being objectively discussed and questions being asked to help answer the many anomalies in this mystery! Meantime, I will make a post with the unedited version on my own blog, so that you can read it if you're interested. But first I have to take the dogs to the beach.