I Think I Saw MH370

[Gclark8]

Malaysia Airlines MH370: Search for missing aircraft shifts further south into Indian Ocean - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Malaysia Airlines MH370: Search for missing aircraft shifts further south into Indian Ocean

Posted 9 minutes ago
Related Story: New data prompts MH370 searchers to revisit area
Related Story: Revised MH370 search zone to be announced by month's end
Related Story: MH370 families in bid to raise $5m to find 'whistleblower'
Map: Australia

The search for missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 will shift south along a narrow arc identified as the most likely resting place of the plane, Transport Minister Warren Truss says.
"The new priority area is still focused on the seventh arc where the aircraft last communicated with satellite," he told reporters in Canberra.
"We are now shifting our attention to an area further south along the arc based on these calculations."
The Boeing 777, carrying 239 passengers and crew, disappeared on March 8 shortly en route from Kuala Lumpur bound for Beijing.
Investigators say what little evidence they have to work with suggests the plane was deliberately diverted thousands of kilometres from its scheduled route before eventually crashing into the Indian Ocean.
More to come.

[Gclark8]

JACC released this today, 64 pages, it is a must read:
http://www.jacc.gov.au/media/release...rea_Search.pdf

[MAP Waves]

Originally Posted by Gclark8

JACC released this today, 64 pages, it is a must read:
http://www.jacc.gov.au/media/release...rea_Search.pdf

NOW WHAT A COINCIDENCE!

Thanks to ATSB for a well presented report which answers 4 of my original questions, as well as my subsequent questions pertaining to waypoints and autopilot.

What is clear is that there is a huge amount of almost unbelievable assumptions that have been made in what appears to be a report trying to justify BFO which is aimed at eliminating the possibility of a Northern route!

The most glaringly obvious one being a contradiction!
On Page 18 it says " BFO was used to estimate the speed and direction the aircraft was travelling relative to the satellite." Great so this crucial information can be calculated scientifically.........
But no this is not the case! On page 24 " For a given relative motion, there are many combinations of aircraft speed and heading that will produce the correct frequency change (BFO). There is however a limited range of speeds at which an aircraft can operate and therefore the number of feasible speed/direction solutions is limited (Figure 23)." If you read BFO validation page 29 " This simulation was able to prove definitively that the BFO value is influenced by the location, speed and heading of the aircraft.", none of which are known, "assuming a single turn followed by a predominantly straight track". and then go onto the assumptions made for the three Analyses.
Analysis A " Speed and heading modelled by a process18 in which values may drift over time but tend to revert to a fixed (unknown) nominal value",
Analysis B: " Heading changes allowed at each arc crossing" and in
Analysis C add on " Groundspeed can change at each arc crossing"

Talk about fixing inputs to try fit factual data! So really anything and everything is possible with this unscientific approach.

This really appears a case of no idea but need to be seen to be doing something, especially considering the wealth of information as a percentage of the report is "justifying" BFO, and in the small print on page 57 " They illustrate the sensitivity of the BFO frequency calculation to heading and latitude errors, showing that the calculation works and that it is reasonably sensitive to errors in aircraft location and heading." Wow - what a get out clause!

So Kate's sighting would actually give considerable weight to the Southern option as opposed to the Northern route as it occurred after the last known fix and heading at 18:22, From my cruising the net discounting the Northern route I think I understand why there is so much disagreement about this! I have no doubt they knew this anyway as pointed out in post 579 Malaysia says there's sealed evidence on MH370 that cannot be made public , and would offer a simple logical explanation of the lights, buoy and unusaul behaviour of the ship detailed in post 495 and Kate's previous recollections
If this is the case considering there are probably over 1000 relatives that lost loved ones why not just state this publicly at the time!

From this it is highly probable that really MH370 could be anywhere on the Southern portion of the 7th ping ring, within its fuel range of its last known position, which factually would be the last ACARS transmission at 17:06 as that includes fuel data, where using best efficiency to determine range the intersect of that circle with the last ping ring will give the extremes of the last contact! This most likely could be narrowed down further by recalculating from the last fix at 18:22 based on the average speed it did to that point of some 400 knots. If there is further radar data described as I suspect in the previous paragraph then this would be able to be narrowed down even further, and as even our GPS logs SOG and COG it could be verified that if there was an engine fire which is the simplest explanation of why Kate saw the orange glow the most probable location on the 7 ping ring could be narrowed down even further, as Stewart so far appears to be the only one who has used the facts to date to look for plausible solutions, rather than manipulating data to suit assumptions

I have no doubt Kate saw MH370 and I hope that all this discussion here will help to bring about a change in attitude to the way the poor relatives are dealt with, because all this job preservation and secrecy that is surrounding this disappearance is not going to help find MH370 and bring closure to them!


The search is clearly one of hope, but treating the public as mushrooms is not acceptable.

Thanks to those that helped answer my questions here and cruising the net over the last few days has only left my motive questions unanswered!

[GV500]

WELL DONE... The Liver Bird !

You needed to report this sighting.
If the a/c was "on fire" at the point you saw it...then in the investigation to come, your sighting maybe crucial in aviation safety.

Well done.

[Advocate]

This is not by me. Over at Websleuths; one of the members said that they believe either Kate or Mark said that Kate wanted people to come here to answer questions because she got money for the increase in traffic here. You can see their post below. I have spent a good deal of time today looking at posts to find it; but can find no record of either of you saying this. The WS member said the post may have been removed.

This is what I was able to find; SaltyMonkey saying that people would think that with Kate commenting that she's afraid of the media misquoting her; which to me makes perfect sense as I've seen my share of what the press can do with twisting words.

Originally Posted by SaltyMonkey

I agree, and all this talk of only answering questions on CF will grow suspicion you are only doing this to increase "click's" on the site.

Originally Posted by SaucySailoress

You guys know that I asked a question here, which is something I do often, and that we are all here for. When it got serious and there were many questions, I chose to keep them here where I had started, so as to keep it in the open and in one place. Fear played a large factor in that. Fear of media, and fear of conspiracy.

From WS -

that lady in the boat that also supposedly spotted smoke trailing a plane while she was sailing admitted to get funds for directing more "hits" on the website in which she released that information. According to what I read there. I dont consider her credible based on that.

[MAP Waves]

Originally Posted by Advocate

This is not by me. Over at Websleuths; one of the members said that they believe either Kate or Mark said that Kate wanted people to come here to answer questions because she got money for the increase in traffic here. You can see their post below. I have spent a good deal of time today looking at posts to find it; but can find no record of either of you saying this. The WS member said the post may have been removed.

This is what I was able to find; SaltyMonkey saying that people would think that with Kate commenting that she's afraid of the media misquoting her; which to me makes perfect sense as I've seen my share of what the press can do with twisting words.
From WS -

Unfortunately I am sure my basic philosophy of follow the money will bear me out that there has actually been a decrease in traffic from the point of Stewarts publication and my posting our reconstructed log with the sitightings and my questions. Why - people are bored of it and because people do not like to be challenged.

Just go through and look at the behavioural traits of comments. That will tell you alot. This is pretty basic human behaviour and that is why the answer will lie in the motive.

[Gclark8]

The full news conference, lots of answers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G97RCynAzxM

[SaucySailoress]

Originally Posted by Advocate

This is not by me. Over at Websleuths; one of the members said that they believe either Kate or Mark said that Kate wanted people to come here to answer questions because she got money for the increase in traffic here. You can see their post below. I have spent a good deal of time today looking at posts to find it; but can find no record of either of you saying this. The WS member said the post may have been removed.

This is what I was able to find; SaltyMonkey saying that people would think that with Kate commenting that she's afraid of the media misquoting her; which to me makes perfect sense as I've seen my share of what the press can do with twisting words.

From WS -

Back on 3rd June, I posted this:

Originally Posted by SaucySailoress

.

WWW.CRASH-AERIEN.AERO • Malaysia MH370: En attendant de retrouver l'avion (Partie 2)

I do work for CF as a sales girl with a fancy title. I updated my public profile soon after starting this thread to reflect that. I did so in the interests of complete and open honesty. I receive a percentage of the advertising I sell.

I do not receive any of the revenue generated from clickthroughs - only a commission on the ads I sell. I also have very little say in how to the market the forum itself. The boss believes it sells itself.

Here at least, all of what I chose to say publicly is in one place, warts and all. And no posts have been altered or deleted by the mod team, except to remove email addresses and duplicate posts.

The story the WS member is thinking of is probably the one on willyloman.wordpress

[MAP Waves]

Originally Posted by Gclark8

The full news conference, lots of answers:

A good job I got bit of time with the sanding going on in the boat!

Yet again omission, contradiction and assumption, however it really brings out the lack of co-operation between authorities and each party doing their own thing!
So omissions first (This is new stuff that I have not found anywhere - so please correct me if I am wrong if anyone has found this elsewhere as previously published data and this was not included in yesterdays fact sheet released by JACC/ATSB);
Screenshot from conference (app 6minutes 25 seconeds to 6:33);
1 - Attempts to connect mobile service? This shows rational behaviour if you have no working communications on the plane. How has this been established? What is the source of this information?

2 - Reappearance on radar. Whose radar and what was SOG and COG at the point this contact was lost and why is there no last fix and time given when it was again lost from radar ?

Contradiction next:
Look at the flight path shown from the radar previously. Note location and heading of plane. The next picture is then zooming out from their conference a few seconds later

This shows a different heading! Now look at the ping rings from yesterday's report.

The 18:25 ping ring intersect with the track shown in the picture more or less above the word plane in the white box! Yet if you listen to the answer given on autopilot around 9 minutes into the conference the assumption is made that autopilot was in use from first to seventh ping rings on a great circle route (10min43sec) yet at 12min45 he contradicts himself saying from the second arc. What is worse is that according to yesterdays report the assumption is made from the first arc for the suggested tracks on which they are basing their search on!

I take my hat off with their PR attempts, but listen to the early response about radar and auto pilot information, and the response on a possible flight simulator track - totally irrelevant as that is being dealt with by Malaysian authorities!

How on earth is anyone ever going to find this plane if each one is protecting their turf and hiding their information from one another?

[SaucySailoress]

I just posted this in the comments section of the Phuket Gazette follow up:

Chris, thank you for believing me and evidence presented by the members at CF, and getting the word out. In the conference held yesterday by the Oz Deputy and Boss of ATSB, there were a few noticeable changes:
1. The believed track now passes behind where our boat was, rather than over the tip of Indonesia as previous maps showed.
2. A slower speed is now being considered.
3. New radar data is present.
Good Job.

On this positive note, now that I think I know what the glowing plane was, can anybody help me identify what the bright white light was? To recap, we sighted it over the previous two nights off to starboard (South of us). The first time we saw it, when we checked the location it was over a marked cable. So we figured maybe it was a maintenance vessel, and since it'd have to be a pretty big boat to maintain anything that deep, that would explain the really bright light. It was over the horizon, we couldn't see the source. We saw it over two nights as we moved past it.

Anybody know what cable that is, and who would be maintaining it? And were they, at that time?

[GV500]

One of the other aircraft could have been SIA068 out of SIN.
The other aircraft I am unsure of.

I don't know their routing that night, but I imagine it was to waypoint MEKAR.
If this is correct, then MH370 may have routed that way also, then TRK heading South.

When you saw the two aircraft, did they look to be both "heading" along the same route....and approx (in time) what was their distance ? For example (they were separated, but "following" each other...in the same instance OR one passed along that track, then the other came after...also along that same track).

[Advocate]

Originally Posted by MAP Waves

NOW WHAT A COINCIDENCE!

Thanks to ATSB for a well presented report which answers 4 of my original questions, as well as my subsequent questions pertaining to waypoints and autopilot.

What is clear is that there is a huge amount of almost unbelievable assumptions that have been made in what appears to be a report trying to justify BFO which is aimed at eliminating the possibility of a Northern route!

The most glaringly obvious one being a contradiction!
On Page 18 it says " BFO was used to estimate the speed and direction the aircraft was travelling relative to the satellite." Great so this crucial information can be calculated scientifically.........
But no this is not the case! On page 24 " For a given relative motion, there are many combinations of aircraft speed and heading that will produce the correct frequency change (BFO). There is however a limited range of speeds at which an aircraft can operate and therefore the number of feasible speed/direction solutions is limited (Figure 23)." If you read BFO validation page 29 " This simulation was able to prove definitively that the BFO value is influenced by the location, speed and heading of the aircraft.", none of which are known, "assuming a single turn followed by a predominantly straight track". and then go onto the assumptions made for the three Analyses.
Analysis A " Speed and heading modelled by a process18 in which values may drift over time but tend to revert to a fixed (unknown) nominal value",
Analysis B: " Heading changes allowed at each arc crossing" and in
Analysis C add on " Groundspeed can change at each arc crossing"

Talk about fixing inputs to try fit factual data! So really anything and everything is possible with this unscientific approach.

This really appears a case of no idea but need to be seen to be doing something, especially considering the wealth of information as a percentage of the report is "justifying" BFO, and in the small print on page 57 " They illustrate the sensitivity of the BFO frequency calculation to heading and latitude errors, showing that the calculation works and that it is reasonably sensitive to errors in aircraft location and heading." Wow - what a get out clause!

So Kate's sighting would actually give considerable weight to the Southern option as opposed to the Northern route as it occurred after the last known fix and heading at 18:22, From my cruising the net discounting the Northern route I think I understand why there is so much disagreement about this! I have no doubt they knew this anyway as pointed out in post 579 Malaysia says there's sealed evidence on MH370 that cannot be made public , and would offer a simple logical explanation of the lights, buoy and unusaul behaviour of the ship detailed in post 495 and Kate's previous recollections
If this is the case considering there are probably over 1000 relatives that lost loved ones why not just state this publicly at the time!

From this it is highly probable that really MH370 could be anywhere on the Southern portion of the 7th ping ring, within its fuel range of its last known position, which factually would be the last ACARS transmission at 17:06 as that includes fuel data, where using best efficiency to determine range the intersect of that circle with the last ping ring will give the extremes of the last contact! This most likely could be narrowed down further by recalculating from the last fix at 18:22 based on the average speed it did to that point of some 400 knots. If there is further radar data described as I suspect in the previous paragraph then this would be able to be narrowed down even further, and as even our GPS logs SOG and COG it could be verified that if there was an engine fire which is the simplest explanation of why Kate saw the orange glow the most probable location on the 7 ping ring could be narrowed down even further, as Stewart so far appears to be the only one who has used the facts to date to look for plausible solutions, rather than manipulating data to suit assumptions

I have no doubt Kate saw MH370 and I hope that all this discussion here will help to bring about a change in attitude to the way the poor relatives are dealt with, because all this job preservation and secrecy that is surrounding this disappearance is not going to help find MH370 and bring closure to them!


The search is clearly one of hope, but treating the public as mushrooms is not acceptable.

Thanks to those that helped answer my questions here and cruising the net over the last few days has only left my motive questions unanswered!

Would it help to have a 2nd flight sim done? Can contact Mitchell Casado who did the flight sim for CNN. I have his twitter.

[Advocate]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

I knew I'd be sorry for re-subscribing

You seem to say it after I post. If it's directed at me; perhaps you should PM me.

[Advocate]

Originally Posted by stewball5

I believe it is time for me to share with this group the initial results of an analysis I have been doing on not only the entire MH370 flight profile, but also Saucy's sighting. I believe that she really did see MH370 and it was on fire caused by an engine failure.

I use several tools like Google Earth and MS Excel, but I also use an excellent simulation of the Boeing 777-200ER by X-Plane. I use the simulation to validate the flight profile time and distance calculations against aircraft performance. The simulation has excellent twin-engine performance very closely matching the real aircraft performance. When I fly the simulator, I have to fly it in real time and do not fly it manually. I fly it using the Flight Management Computer, the autopilot, and the auto throttles.

I have attached three figures for now. These figures are still work-in-progress. The first figure is an overview of the flight profile being use so far based on what I know and aircraft performance as validated on the simulator. Ignore the flight path south of the SELSU waypoint.

The second figure is the geometry of Saucy's observation. The figure shows MH370 going north to south from SAMAK and making a slight right turn at NOPEK. The timing is such that the plane begins passing the Aazu Dana at 1920 UTC. The white triangles represent the observation times along the plane's track as it passes from port to starboard across the stern. There is a one minute time period between observation times when Saucy went down below. The southern observation time period and geometry is such that to the eye, the plane seems to stay stationary in the horizontal, but changes elevation angles in the vertical. This figure will slightly change because the plane could not fly at 240 Knots True Airspeed (KTAS) as assumed, but with flaps up had to fly at least 270 KTAS.

Finally, I thought I'd share with you what a B777-200ER looks like just prior to takeoff at night at Kuala Lumpur International Airport. The plane is on the departure end of F runway 32R from which MH370 departed.

Cheers,
Stew

Have you put the SIM flight on a you tube video so that we can see it?

[Advocate]

Originally Posted by SaucySailoress

Back on 3rd June, I posted this:

I do not receive any of the revenue generated from clickthroughs - only a commission on the ads I sell. I also have very little say in how to the market the forum itself. The boss believes it sells itself.

Here at least, all of what I chose to say publicly is in one place, warts and all. And no posts have been altered or deleted by the mod team, except to remove email addresses and duplicate posts.

The story the WS member is thinking of is probably the one on willyloman.wordpress

Thanks Kate. I didn't think you were being paid for clicks. I do understand why you want to keep everything here. I've seen the press take things out of context; add things just for drama.

I watched the Swiss Air video yesterday; was very informative. I hope they're able to find MAH370 so that we will understand what happened. I've wondered if the batteries they were carrying had something to do with whatever went wrong. Hard to know what happened & when due to officials being secretive. It sounds like you saw military in the ocean; which adds more questions to this mystery. Why didn't they do something? Have you thought to contact Sarah? I'm surprised she has not joined here to speak to you. I think you've given the best tip so far to help the families. It is probably better that it did not come out back in March because you would have been blown off. Things happen for a reason.