I Think I Saw MH370

[Wotname]

............
The drama unfolded on flight NZ176 between Perth and Auckland on May 21, when the first officer was locked out of the cockpit for two minutes.
...............
The first officer eventually used an alternative method to access the cockpit.

Well, I guess this answers one of our earlier questions!

Somewhat concerning in my very humble opinion.

[Jess928]

Originally Posted by Gclark8

Mid-air drama on Air NZ flight - National - NZ Herald News

If this is true, my earlier 'scenario' post holds upto scrutiny and has credence!
Have a look at it again (especially Marc) and see what you think. I've amended my thoughts since that post and come to the conclusion that it has to be Captain/Pilot interference. The 'Good night....' message was confirmed as being the Captain and not the Co pilot by his wife after listening to a recording of it.

Again, its an assumption but the next leap of faith is to find out his intentions after the last radar contact. I'm beginning to think he purposefully just 'went rougue' with all the pressures he was under and was a last moment decision. I'm sure it wasn't terrorism related. Just a man at the end of his tether.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Jess928

If this is true, my earlier 'scenario' post holds upto scrutiny and has credence!
Have a look at it again (especially Marc) and see what you think. I've amended my thoughts since that post and come to the conclusion that it has to be Captain/Pilot interference. The 'Good night....' message was confirmed as being the Captain and not the Co pilot by his wife after listening to a recording of it.

Again, its an assumption but the next leap of faith is to find out his intentions after the last radar contact. I'm beginning to think he purposefully just 'went rougue' with all the pressures he was under and was a last moment decision. I'm sure it wasn't terrorism related. Just a man at the end of his tether.

Well, your theory is not contradicted by the known facts and fits with
Ockham's principle. The motive's behind suicide are always difficult to understand so there is no conflict there either.

Hard to argue against this view.

[Jess928]

Before I start to put another scenario together for the remainder of the flight, have we established whether or not MH370 vectored towards further waypoints around Saucy and Marc's region using the ping ring data timings?

[Gclark8]

Missing flight MH370: Malaysia to deploy more equipment in search for plane - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Missing flight MH370: Malaysia to deploy more equipment in search for plane

Updated 2 hours 10 minutes ago
Related Story: MH370 likely on autopilot when it crashed: Truss
Related Story: New data prompts MH370 searchers to revisit area
Related Story: Revised MH370 search zone to be announced by month's end
Map: Australia

Malaysia will send more equipment to the southern Indian Ocean to join the search for missing flight MH370.
Defence minister Hishammuddin Hussein said a Malaysian navy ship equipped with a multi-beam echo sounder - a device to map the ocean floor - would set sail on August 4 for the deep-sea search zone far off the West Australian coast.
He said state energy firm Petronas, together with Deftech and Phoenix International, would deploy a towed device called a synthetic aperture sonar to scan the ocean floor.
Shipbuilder Boustead Heavy Industries, together with iXBlue Australia, would send a deep towed side-scan sonar with a remotely operated vehicle.
"Instructions for immediate mobilisation have been given and the assets are expected to reach the search area in mid-August 2014," Mr Hishammuddin said.
He did not give a cost estimate.
Mr Hishammuddin said another Malaysian vessel that was deployed in April will stay in the search area.
The Malaysia Airlines flight lost contact on March 8 en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with 239 people aboard.
It is believed to have veered off course and, based on satellite data analysis, is believed to have crashed in the southern Indian Ocean.
Photo: The new priority search area (in orange) is about 60,000 square kilometres. (ATSB)

But an extensive Australian-led search has so far found no sign of wreckage.
Australian officials announced last month that the search would shift further south based on a review of the satellite data.
They also said the Boeing 777 was almost certainly on autopilot when it ran out of fuel and crashed.
Officials said the most likely scenario was that the pilots and crew suffered from hypoxia, or lack of oxygen, and became "unresponsive", which can occur when a plane loses air pressure at high altitude.
The underwater search will start in the new area, covering up to 60,000 square kilometres in the southern Indian Ocean, in August and take up to 12 months.
AFP

[SaucySailoress]

Guys,

I requested that this thread be kept open so that I have one place in which to address further queries or recollections about what I saw out there. This is not the place, really, to discuss personal opinions about what may or may not have happened. Much as we try, we ain't gonna solve this, and it's unlikely that the authorities will either as long as elitist companies and governments continue to withhold data. What is Boeing actually afraid of? And what is the missing radar data? Why can't we know what it is being withheld?

Yesterday I spent the afternoon on the beach watching planes take off. And I realise that my initial estimate of the plane's height (I said about half the height of regular flight paths, so maybe 10-15,000ft in one post, and about the height airliners fly in the Gulf) was no more than an uneducated on the spot estimate. Well, yesterday I realised that in order for me to have seen the hull as clearly as I did, the plane would probably have had to been even lower than 10,000ft (I even recall wondering at the time if it was high enough to do a hop and pop). And I never clicked until yesterday that the planes I was comparing it to flying along the Gulf were the ones coming in to land or had just taken off from Kuwait (since we're start of the line), and would have been about 40km flight distance from runway.

A question. When planes come in to land at Kuwait, it's normally a south to north landing, due to predominant northerly winds. As planes approach from the north, they fly south down the gulf past Kuwait City, then turn to the west directly over Fahaheel Sea Club where we used to keep our boat (on the charts, that's between the two oil loading piers). How high would those planes be during that southerly leg.?

I said to ATSB on the phone that I was looking (and I was looking intently, because i was really interested in the source of the orange glow) for the windows to see if they were the source of light, but I couldn't see them where they should have been. The whole thing was just glowing. I could see where the windows should have been (and I did think it was a passenger plane from its shape) but the whole hull just appeared to be one plain surface, as though they'd been painted over, which puzzled me, and was one reason I thought it might have been adopted by the military. Incidentally, I don't remember seeing any logo, either.

I also now realise that in order for me to have seen the upper part of the hull, the angle would have been nearer to the 30 degrees (I said between 30 and 45 early on, but nearer 30) or I wouldn't have been able to see that top part of the hull anyway. And it can't have been many miles away from me.

Am I changing what I am saying I saw? I don't think so. As time passes I do remember more of my thought processes. And as far as altitude and angles go, I have progressed from using a hastily piece of folded paper to establish it was less than 45 degrees, to using a protractor to establish it was nearer 30, to using real observations (not planned, I was simply walking the dogs on the beach after dropping Marc off at airport) of planes which have made me realise this thing was probably closer and lower than I initially estimated. Even though I also realise this does not fit with what everyone else in the world seems to think.

Some people (mostly the ones who suggested I am a plant for Inmarsat) picked up on my first post as having heard on the radio that these guys were looking in the wrong place. The radio news announced that the search area was being redefined, or something. It was me who thought they were looking in the wrong place. Because this plane was glowing orange, it was low, and I had the impression it was coming in to rendezvous with those white lights. Therefore I thought, if it was the same plane, that it couldn't be far away from we I saw it. I actually did think they were looking in the wrong place. I now know that this area is where the USA sent a navy vessel to search a few days later, even before the Gulf of Thailand had been ruled out. Why?

Given it's low altitude, I simply cannot see how this plane would have made it as far as MH370 is believed to have travelled. Therefore, it was either a different plane, or Inmarsat are wrong. From what I now understand a disabled plane at low altitude could never have flown as far as the southern ocean.

Given the nature of the military, whoever was under those lights (I heard the Chinese navy were in the area at that time, but have no idea how to verify that... Google has failed me) is clearly not going to reveal this radar data that is being withheld from the public. It would seem that national embarrassment is far more important than the lives of these people and their families, so I suspect I will never find out what it was I saw.

C'est la vie. And that is why I live on a boat, and avoid reading the news (well, maybe a bit of gossip in the Mail). And try to avoid anything to do with governments, except for visas and stuff.

[Jess928]

Originally Posted by SaucySailoress

A question. When planes come in to land at Kuwait, it's normally a south to north landing, due to predominant northerly winds. As planes approach from the north, they fly south down the gulf past Kuwait City, then turn to the west directly over Fahaheel Sea Club where we used to keep our boat (on the charts, that's between the two oil loading piers). How high would those planes be during that southerly leg.?

I used to operate out of KIA Saucy. I'll try to look into it for you.
With regards to your earlier comment. I think what the forum is trying to do is put together a scenario with known facts with a view to giving indictions of a potential flight path (if at all) over your location at the time.
I think it would be foolish to disengage from any flight information (relevant to you or not) at this moment in time.

I realise that this is a Sailors forum not and aviation forum. I would respectfully suggest letting this one develop for your sake aswell as the 240 lost souls.

[Jess928]

Originally Posted by SaucySailoress

Guys,
Well, yesterday I realised that in order for me to have seen the hull as clearly as I did, the plane would probably have had to been even lower than 10,000ft (I even recall wondering at the time if it was high enough to do a hop and pop). And I never clicked until yesterday that the planes I was comparing it to flying along the Gulf were the ones coming in to land or had just taken off from Kuwait (since we're start of the line), and would have been about 40km flight distance from runway.

A question. When planes come in to land at Kuwait, it's normally a south to north landing, due to predominant northerly winds. As planes approach from the north, they fly south down the gulf past Kuwait City, then turn to the west directly over Fahaheel Sea Club where we used to keep our boat (on the charts, that's between the two oil loading piers). How high would those planes be during that southerly leg.?

In general if an aircraft is flying over a congested area such as a village/town/city etc and unless it is taking off or landing, then it MUST remain 1,000ft above the highest obstacle and 2,000ft radius from the centre of it. Private aircraft may infringe these limitations occasionally but commercial aircraft very, very rarely do so. An airliner would typically drop to 1,000ftagl within four miles of the airport due to it's approach. There descent paths are around 3 degrees.

In your case as an example, the MINIMUM daytime they would fly is:
1,000ft aSl from north to south past the Sea Club,
1,200ft aGl round the New Oil Pier,
1,360ft aGl round South Al Ahmadi,
and 1,250aGl between Al Magwa and Al Dahar.

Realistically, to bleed off air speed and altitude it would probably be a MINIMUM of:
2,000ft aSl from north to south past the Sea Club (approx 8-10 degrees above the horizon in the daytime, approx 3-5 degrees above horizon at night),
2,000ft aGl round the New Oil Pier (aGl because of the man made structures on the terminal),
1,500ft aGl round South Al Ahmadi and slightly to the west of the hospital,
and 1,250ft aGl between Al Magwa and Al Dahar.
That leaves 1,000ft to bleed off on the approach into KIA.

Flight rules are slightly different at night time.

[Jess928]

Originally Posted by SaucySailoress

Guys,

1. I said to ATSB on the phone that I was looking...for the windows to see if they were the source of light, but I couldn't see them where they should have been. The whole thing was just glowing. I could see where the windows should have been...but the whole hull just appeared to be one plain surface, as though they'd been painted over, which puzzled me, and was one reason I thought it might have been adopted by the military. Incidentally, I don't remember seeing any logo, either...

2. ...I also now realise that in order for me to have seen the upper part of the hull, the angle would have been nearer to the 30 degrees (I said between 30 and 45 early on, but nearer 30) or I wouldn't have been able to see that top part of the hull anyway. And it can't have been many miles away from me....as far as altitude and angles go,... it was nearer 30,...made me realise this thing was probably closer and lower than I initially estimated...
...Because this plane was glowing orange, it was low, and I had the impression it was coming in to rendezvous with those white lights. Therefore I thought, if it was the same plane, that it couldn't be far away from we I saw it...

3. ...Given it's low altitude, I simply cannot see how this plane would have made it as far as MH370 is believed to have travelled. Therefore, it was either a different plane, or Inmarsat are wrong....

4. Given the nature of the military, whoever was under those lights (I heard the Chinese navy were in the area at that time, but have no idea how to verify that... Google has failed me) is clearly not going to reveal this radar data that is being withheld from the public...

5. ...so I suspect I will never find out what it was I saw.

I'm beginning to think now Saucy that this WAS NOT MH370. I have had suspicians for quite some time but have remained unbiased until further research has presented itself. This is in no way aimed at casting aspertions on your character or credibility but I now feel you have been guilty of nothing more than a victim of mistaken identity.

1. I think what you saw based on all the evidence so far was a 125 mile (38 minutes) transit flight from Great Nicobar Campbell Bay airfield to Sabang on Sumatra by an Indian Navy Dornier 228 aircraft. These are square bodied aircraft and very easily give off a light signature. Indeed, the do have external lighting systems that illuminate the body of the aircraft whilst in flight to make it easier for other aircraft to make visual contact. Obviously, there is a facility to turn the system off aswell for tactical purposes.

2. Using basic trigonometry, the flight path would have been around 5-6 miles away transiting from 310 degrees to 130 degrees or from approximately your 8 o'clock to your 5 o'clock position on the boat. It would have appeared to be have been at 15,000ft and visual would have been around 10 minutes.

3. We do NOT know where MH370 went after its last contact with a ground base trying to contact the aircraft's onboard telephone system to verify it's condition.

4. It would be highly unlikely for ANY military to divulge the effectiveness of their respective countries radar systems as this would open up their back doors to any unwanted infiltration. Remember the Cessna light aircraft that landed in Moscow's Red Square or Pearl Harbour? Biilons were spent afterwards to tighten up their securities. The 911 incidents where flown using civil disguises before anyone states the obvious.

5. In one respect I hope you did see the last moments of MH370 as this would be a welcome peice in the jigsaw puzzle. Regrettably and I hate to say it but the scarring of your wellbeing is a small price to pay for the answer to the whereabouts of 249 souls.
On the other hand, I sincerely hope that you are wrong as I believe now you are until further evidence presents itself.

IMHO, I think you can sit down with a glass of your favourite brew and rejoice in the knowledge that you were victim of a misidentified and misunderstood situation.
I will continue to monitor this thread just incase and if you wish to contact me directly, please make every effort to do so with my blessing.
Kindest regards.

[SaucySailoress]

It wasn't a Dornier.

But, my puzzle piece of a plane flying at low altitude , perhaps with an engine fire doesn't fit with some of the other pieces that we have been presented with, and especially not with a plane that could have flown as far as the Inmarsat data shows; and the investigators all seem to agree that it did fly that far.

So perhaps, after all, this was indeed some impressive military display for an audience of one. We'll probably never know.

[SaucySailoress]

Next question. How far would a Boeing 777 glide from 6,000 feet?

[Jess928]

Originally Posted by SaucySailoress

Next question. How far would a Boeing 777 glide from 6,000 feet?

That would depend on many variables such as air pressure/density, airframe integrity, parasitic drag etc. I'll get back to you.

[SaucySailoress]

Right. Here's what I think:


1 - In order for me to be able to check the hull, as I did, to see I the light was coming from the windows, then that plane had to be close (6km is the distance between us and NOPEK, and is about as far as the planes I was watching take off from Phuket).
2 - The angle WAS closer to 30 degrees than 45, which I have said on a few occasions. My first 'estimate' was done with a piece of paper folded to 45 deg, so I only knew it was less than 45; a later observation with a protractor in response to a question asking could it have been as low as 20 deg had me acknowledge yes it could have been.
3 - That plane was low. I suggested 10,000 feet at first. My calculations of a height based on obs angle of 30 deg and distance of 6km to NOPEK would make it's elevation about 10,000 feet.
4 - I have, several times, stated that I felt it was coming in to land (even though I knew that was a ridiculous idea).
5 - At those heights, if descending even slowly, it would have had to land a hell of a lot sooner than the Southern Ocean. Much sooner. I think.

I believe it's possible the plane did not make the ping rings. I believe that plane crashed near the military exercise, and the ping rings could have been planted to move attention away from that area near the entrance to the straights of Malacca (which the USS Kidd was sent to search a few days after it disappeared).

Now, since this is all in contradiction with all those FACTS we have (ping rings) I am quite sure that anyone who can be bothered to read this will write it off as insane crazy talk, or memories manipulated by a creative imagination. Whatever. At least I have said it.

Oh, and how far could a plane FLY on one engine at an altitude of 6000ft? Out of interest? COULD it have made it that distance?

Edited to correct distance / altitude calculations

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by SaucySailoress

Next question. How far would a Boeing 777 glide from 6,000 feet?

Extremely rough guess based on general flying principles - about 10 to 15 miles.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by SaucySailoress

Right. ..........
Oh, and how far could a plane FLY on one engine at an altitude of 6000ft? Out of interest? COULD it have made it that distance?

Very very very dependant on aircraft type but I assuming you are referring to a Boeing 777 and again this is only a very slightly informed guess - NO.

Although it could have flown one engine at 6000ft until fuel was exhausted so lets say maybe 1,000+ miles - give or take.

Hopefully someone with more knowledge of the 777 will chime in.