New Information On MH 370

They did find a group on a boat who saw a huge airplane low that flew over their boat. They reported it when they heard about this or that day and we are just today hearing of this.

Tony
 
Multiple residents of the Maldives island 'Kuda Huvadhoo' saw a extremely low flying jet, with a paint job which matches the one of the missing airliner, at 6:15am on March 8th, according to this report. Considering, that they are 3 hours behind Malaysian time, the time of the sighting would perfectly match.

This is how the route would look like on Skyvector, including the last know waypoints the plane passed: Click - 2311 nm

Has it ever crossed your mind, that this might be just one big marketing hoax and that everybody on board is happily sitting on a Meldevian beach, sipping ice cooled RedBull-Bacardi, waiting for the rescue teams to find them, only to greet them under a big RedBull sign?
01-Evening-Chill-at-the-Red-Bull-bar.jpg


This could turn out to be the most expensive marketing campaign in the world's history, though. :rolleyes: It would also be too good to be true.... :no:

However, none of the theories discussed in the media actually makes much sense:

  • Suicide? He simply could have crashed it, right were he was. Or, if he wanted it it look like an accident, to make sure that the life insurance pays to his family, he could have reported technical problems, fly it to a deeper part of the ocean an crash it there.
  • Convert it to a weapon? To Hijack / buy a freightplane would have caused a lot less attention, if any. It would also be easier to file a flight plan to some random location later on, with the tailnumber of another plane, without raising suspision.
  • Crashed in the middle of the ocean due to a lack of go juice? Apparently somebody knew what he was doing - I find it hard to believe that this person was not able to at least roughly calculate the range.
  • Crashed because of technical reasons? The known events seem to make this unlikely.
  • Terrorist attack? They would have crashed it in a more spectacular way. There would have also been somebody claiming to be responsible for it by now.
:dunno:
 
Last edited:
If they all saw a plane "down low" and under power, that tin can was sucking kerosene like there was no tomorrow. I wonder if those calculating circle of possibility took into account the fact that they weren't flying at optimum altitude for fuel burn.

Jim
 
weirdjim said:
If they all saw a plane "down low" and under power, that tin can was sucking kerosene like there was no tomorrow. I wonder if those calculating circle of possibility took into account the fact that they weren't flying at optimum altitude for fuel burn.
Click to expand...

Yeah... If they were trying to make Africa (and the map makes it look like they were headed that way), they'd have been at a high cruise altitude, unless they were trying to avoid radar in that particular area and climbed back up. Still, it seems like unless they had detailed knowledge of radar in that area, the only reason for flying low would be to have witnesses, and that makes no sense at all.
 
1600vw said:
They did find a group on a boat who saw a huge airplane low that flew over their boat. They reported it when they heard about this or that day and we are just today hearing of this.

Tony
Click to expand...

You're just hearing about it today, it, and the reporting in the Maldives of the low pass by a " Jumbo Jet" has been out for several days.
 
Henning said:
You're just hearing about it today, it, and the reporting in the Maldives of the low pass by a " Jumbo Jet" has been out for several days.
Click to expand...

And the report earlier today was that the Malaysian Minister Of Defense spoke with his counterpart in the Maldives and has ruled that sighting claim a hoax.

I'm not sure how the Malaysian MOD can make that determination over a phone call, but the Malaysians have been doing such a bang up job on this, how could the MOD possibly be wrong...
 
The mis-information that is freely flowing, I don't know who can be held directly responsible for that. Most of it seems to be leaks from anonymous (ostensibly official) sources.

As to the rest of it, the aircraft was clearly seriously off course and probably crashed in the ocean so it's not such a wild notion that nobody has been able to find it yet. There is a very good chance it may never be found.
 
nddons said:
Was there any evidence that 370 did any circling?
Click to expand...
No need to "circle", actually, in case you haven't seen my post in the parallel thread. Delete the last leg (to the Maldives) in the link provided by:

German guy said:
...
This is how the route would look like on Skyvector, including the last know waypoints the plane passed: Click - 2311 nm
Click to expand...
Zoom in on VAMPI and GIVAL (click World HI first). Note where Y337 crosses MH370's known track. The two legs of MH370 and Y337 makes an equilateral triangle. All a hijacker needs to do for an intercept is turn toward GIVAL when SQ68 is at their 6 o'clock position, slow down and tuck in. That's what it looks like it did in Ledgerwood's plotting here.

In fact, you can watch the traffic over Langkawi Int'l airport (WMKL) in an instant replay in real time today. MH370 is renamed MH318 and scheduled to depart at 12:45 EDT. SQ68 leaves Singapore at 12:50 EDT. MH318 should reach the handoff to Vietnam :40 mins after takeoff. From there, estimate a crossing time at Y337 on a course to VAMPI based on it's groundspeed. I figure the intersection is 76nm east of VAMPI. If it beats SQ68 to the intersection, an intercept is possible by making a turn toward GIVAL when SQ68 is directly behind it and adjusting speed and heading as required to follow it. SQ68 will be climbing, so it will be necessary for the "virtual hijackers" to descend to it's approximate altitude--between 24000' and 30000' I'd say.

If you open two windows in your browser and fiddle with the zoom control, you can match the scales and position in overlay fashion. Then mark the intersections with tape and flip back and forth between.

dtuuri
 
If this were true then none of us should ever have any problem finding airports because after all they are enormous blue and magenta circles on the ground. How could you possibly miss one? ;)
 
Silvaire said:
If this were true then none of us should ever have any problem finding airports because after all they are enormous blue and magenta circles on the ground. How could you possibly miss one? ;)
Click to expand...
Frankly, I don't know what you're referring to. I just watched a replay as I wrote above and I'm convinced it's possible. I was trying to do other things too, so it was a half-hearted effort. I was late with my plot of MH318 reaching the hand-off point, so that put them a few minutes behind schedule. Even though they, the virtual hijackers, got to Y337 after SQ68 because of me, it was close enough that they could have caught up anyway especially by turning toward GIVAL a bit earlier. I would expect better from a professional hijacker rather than an amateur like me. ;)

I think they'll repeat the reenactment in two days. You can try it for yourself.

dtuuri
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
Frankly, I don't know what you're referring to. I just watched a replay as I wrote above and I'm convinced it's possible....
Click to expand...

I'm referring to the illusion that you are getting from this Flight Aware display that an in flight B777 is some sort of enormous thing that you couldn't miss if you were blind in one eye. Consider in true perspective the actual relative size of an airliner is going to be only a small fraction the size of a single pixel on your screen. Much too small to be seen by the naked eye at that scale and resolution. Further expand that into the actual 3D environment at night and acknowledge my previous revelation that the use of TCAS or ADS-B with the transponder switched off is COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE then explain to us again how you can remain convinced that it is.

Nothing personal, I'm just telling you this thing you are imagining didn't happen.
 
Silvaire said:
I'm referring to the illusion that you are getting from this Flight Aware display that an in flight B777 is some sort of enormous thing that you couldn't miss if you were blind in one eye. Consider in true perspective the actual relative size of an airliner is going to be only a small fraction the size of a single pixel on your screen. Much too small to be seen by the naked eye at that scale and resolution. Further expand that into the actual 3D environment at night and acknowledge my previous revelation that the use of TCAS or ADS-B with the transponder switched off is COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE then explain to us again how you can remain convinced that it is.

Nothing personal, I'm just telling you this thing you are imagining didn't happen.
Click to expand...
Silvaire, I know all that. It's still plausible. In Ledgerwood's plot you can judge by the tic marks of longitude how close these two planes were. Near the equator longitude tics are equal to latitude tics are equal to 1nm. Receiving ADS-B, an intercept ought to be a no-brainer.

I don't know where you get your information about TCAS and ADS-B, but it makes no sense to me. Why would anybody design a system that would render the collision avoidance advantages of ADS-B EDIT: I mean TCAS (all these effing letters :rolleyes:) inop in the event they had to turn off the transponder at the request of ATC? Might be asked to do that if the sky is lousy with other airplanes.

dtuuri
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
Silvaire, I know all that. It's still plausible. In Ledgerwood's plot you can judge by the tic marks of longitude how close these two planes were. Near the equator longitude tics are equal to latitude tics are equal to 1nm. Receiving ADS-B, an intercept ought to be a no-brainer.

I don't know where you get your information about TCAS and ADS-B, but it makes no sense to me. Why would anybody design a system that would render the collision avoidance advantages of ADS-B EDIT: I mean TCAS (all these effing letters :rolleyes:) inop in the event they had to turn off the transponder at the request of ATC? Might be asked to do that if the sky is lousy with other airplanes.

dtuuri
Click to expand...

Think about the speeds - there's no "tucking-in" when you can only go about 8 knots faster than the traffic you're trying to hide behind - it takes miles to even get close. And factor in you don't know what their speed is to begin with. Then there's that whole trying to fly formation in night conditions and the fact that neither of these guys had ever flown formation in anything. But it's exciting and sounds like something out of the opening scenes of a James Bond movie so of course it's going to get great traction.
 
dtuuri said:
I don't know where you get your information about TCAS and ADS-B, but it makes no sense to me. Why would anybody design a system that would render the collision avoidance advantages of ADS-B EDIT: I mean TCAS (all these effing letters :rolleyes:) inop in the event they had to turn off the transponder at the request of ATC? Might be asked to do that if the sky is lousy with other airplanes.

dtuuri
Click to expand...

I believe you have a fundamental misconception of what TCAS is. It's an integral function of the transponder. There is no such thing as a "listen only" mode, if that's what you're thinking and ATC does not request airliners to "turn off" their transponder. The black boxes on a Triple Seven all talk to the AIMS cabinets and in there it's all a software function that determines how it get's presented on the screens in front of the pilots.
 
Art VanDelay said:
Think about the speeds - there's no "tucking-in" when you can only go about 8 knots faster than the traffic you're trying to hide behind - it takes miles to even get close. And factor in you don't know what their speed is to begin with. Then there's that whole trying to fly formation in night conditions and the fact that neither of these guys had ever flown formation in anything. But it's exciting and sounds like something out of the opening scenes of a James Bond movie so of course it's going to get great traction.
Click to expand...
It gets traction with me because I started flying in 1963 and did it as a profession. I laid out a scenario that shows how it could be done quite easily, especially with help from ADS-B. SQ68 was a lot heavier than MH307 and step climbs at 30,000 ft according to FlightAware. If, and I no longer believe it's "if"--just giving you the benefit of the doubt for a minute, MH307 can reliably beat SQ68 to Y337 and if it has TCAS or an ADS-B receiver, then it isn't a big trick to join up as I laid out in my post above. DOn't know where the idea that doing so is such an impossible mission. In my 50 years of flying experience, I think it's no big deal.

On another note... is there a way into your 777 cockpit from the EE bay? Is there a way into that bay from the ramp?

dtuuri
 
Silvaire said:
I believe you have a fundamental misconception of what TCAS is. It's an integral function of the transponder. There is no such thing as a "listen only" mode, if that's what you're thinking and ATC does not request airliners to "turn off" their transponder. The black boxes on a Triple Seven all talk to the AIMS cabinets and in there it's all a software function that determines how it get's presented on the screens in front of the pilots.
Click to expand...
Cite your source that states unequivically that TCAS doesn't receive if the transponder is in STBY. Please.

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
So then, you tried it out like I did? If you can disprove it, post your results. I'd like to see where this theory doesn't hold up.

dtuuri
Click to expand...
That isn't how this works bub. We are all still waiting with baited breath for you to prove that your theory is realistically possible.
 
Silvaire said:
I'm referring to the illusion that you are getting from this Flight Aware display that an in flight B777 is some sort of enormous thing that you couldn't miss if you were blind in one eye. Consider in true perspective the actual relative size of an airliner is going to be only a small fraction the size of a single pixel on your screen. Much too small to be seen by the naked eye at that scale and resolution. Further expand that into the actual 3D environment at night and acknowledge my previous revelation that the use of TCAS or ADS-B with the transponder switched off is COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE then explain to us again how you can remain convinced that it is.
Click to expand...

Receiving ADS-B with the transponder off in ANY airplane is trivial - I can do it with my freaking iPad and a receiver.

IF (and that is, of course, a big if with the lack of reliable info so far) the track that's been talked about was the plane's actual track, what reason would they fly that track EXCEPT to make an intercept?
 
Art VanDelay said:
Think about the speeds - there's no "tucking-in" when you can only go about 8 knots faster than the traffic you're trying to hide behind - it takes miles to even get close. And factor in you don't know what their speed is to begin with. Then there's that whole trying to fly formation in night conditions and the fact that neither of these guys had ever flown formation in anything. But it's exciting and sounds like something out of the opening scenes of a James Bond movie so of course it's going to get great traction.
Click to expand...

That's why they climbed to 45,000' so they could dive in right over them, hit the speed brake and fly formation over his tail.... :tinfoil:
 
Fearless Tower said:
That isn't how this works bub. We are all still waiting with baited breath for you to prove that your theory is realistically possible.
Click to expand...
I doubt if there's a lot of company in your "we" reference. I've proven it to myself in my own way that Ledgerwood's theory is viable. I've explained how you can test it similarly to disprove it. There are Flight Log tracks at FlightAware.com which show position altitude and groundspeed. Also departure time history. So, don't "bub" me, get off your arse and make a case or butt out.

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
I doubt if there's a lot of company in your "we" reference. I've proven it to myself in my own way that Ledgerwood's theory is viable. I've explained how you can test it similarly to disprove it. There are Flight Log tracks at FlightAware.com which show position altitude and groundspeed. Also departure time history. So, don't "bub" me, get off your arse and make a case or butt out.

dtuuri
Click to expand...
You have gotten one thing right. In reality, there is NO one waiting with baited breath for proof of your theory.....now that you have proven it to yourself.

Your post only proves how delusional you are. I don't waste my time with your type. Adios!
 
Fearless Tower said:
You have gotten one thing right. In reality, there is NO one waiting with baited breath for proof of your theory.....now that you have proven it to yourself.

Your post only proves how delusional you are. I don't waste my time with your type. Adios!
Click to expand...

I, for one, still find it plausible... And the only good explanation I've seen for the route that MH370 may have flown that's been posted everywhere.

So... Why couldn't they have used a portable ADS-B device to help find and intercept the other plane? Educate us, oh wise one - Because "I don't waste my time with your type" does not tell us anything other than you may not be able to make a solid case for why it couldn't happen. :dunno:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I, for one, still find it plausible... And the only good explanation I've seen for the route that MH370 may have flown that's been posted everywhere.

So... Why couldn't they have used a portable ADS-B device to help find and intercept the other plane? Educate us, oh wise one - Because "I don't waste my time with your type" does not tell us anything other than you may not be able to make a solid case for why it couldn't happen. :dunno:
Click to expand...
What were the speed differences between the two jets? Generally there isn't a lot of reserve performance left up there and it'd be pretty damn hard to just randomly intercept some aircraft if you don't have a major performance advantage.
 
dtuuri said:
Cite your source that states unequivically that TCAS doesn't receive if the transponder is in STBY. Please.

dtuuri
Click to expand...

I suppose you could simply Google "TCAS" and read the Wkipedia page if you want to learn more about the basics of what it is and what it isn't.

TCAS is intimately tied in with the Mode S transponder, it simply does not work without it. Furthermore TCAS would be completely unsuitable for use as an intercept or formation flying platform as it's directional resolution is extremely crude, not much better than quadrant accuracy. When a traffic conflict is detected TCAS gives absolutely no directional advisories, it can only tell you to either climb, descend or maintain altitude. The entire notion of using TCAS to accomplish this fantastical feat is ludicrous.

This isn't personal and you don't have to get mad about it, that's just the way it is. :dunno:
 
This whole "shadowing" theory is not that far fetched.... Leave out TCAS and ADS-B and any other electronic device...

The other aircraft would have listed its route and cruise altitude.. You position yourself above and in the general area they will be flying into.. It was a clear night so follow the plane you wanted to follow... Hint... there is only one plane going that way that time of night... with all its nav and strobe lights, it would stick out like a christmas tree.. The tracking plane would be running " silent".... ie,, no lights, transponder, ADS-B etc, etc... When they pass below you several things are a given...

1- you will see them in the dark
2- you will be able to catch up by converting altitude into airspeed
3- you will be behind them so they will NEVER see you
4- you can follow them by their lights alone....
5- who cares if you hit them during the shadowing.. you are destined to die anyway..:rolleyes:.... IMHO...

Tin foil hat off.......:D
 
Last edited:
N801BH said:
This whole "shadowing" theory is not that far fetched.... Leave out TCAS and ADS-B and any other electronic device...

The other aircraft would have listed its route and cruise altitude.. You position yourself above and in the general area they will be flying into.. It was a clear night so follow the plane you wanted to follow... Hint... there is only one plane going that way that time of night... with all its nav and strobe lights would stick out like a christmas tree.. The tracking plane would be running " silent".... ie,, no lights, transponder, ADS-B etc, etc... When they pass below you several things are a given...

1- you will see them in the dark
2- you will be able to catch up by converting altitude into airspeed
3- you will be behind them so they will NEVER see you
4- you can follow them by their lights alone....
5- who cares if you hit them during the shadowing.. you are destined to die anyway..:rolleyes:.... IMHO...

Tin foil hat off.......:D
Click to expand...

Don't you think you'd get picked up on some radar during the time that you are "waiting" to shadow?
 
Heftiger said:
Don't you think you'd get picked up on some radar during the time that you are "waiting" to shadow?
Click to expand...

I bet ALOT of governments use BI set ups and not skin paint units... Anyone without a transponder would be invisible...
 
This whole in-flight linkup and tight formation flight thing is just ridiculous. Having flown nearly 2000 hours of multi-ship flight I can say this is just not possible. Without radar it just isn't that easy to find an aircraft like that. The outward visibility isn't that great in a 777, and flying orbits doesn't guarantee you are looking in the right direction when they pass by. Even if you did find the other aircraft, it would not be easy to catch up and put yourself in formation. Having done this when both aircraft are working together, I can say it isn't that easy.
 
Half the time I never see traffic, even when it's pointed out by ATC! :dunno: I can't imagine lying in wait for another airplane and trying to catch and shadow it, but it's as good as some of the other theories! :D

Direct C51 said:
This whole in-flight linkup and tight formation flight thing is just ridiculous. Having flown nearly 2000 hours of multi-ship flight I can say this is just not possible. Without radar it just isn't that easy to find an aircraft like that. The outward visibility isn't that great in a 777, and flying orbits doesn't guarantee you are looking in the right direction when they pass by. Even if you did find the other aircraft, it would not be easy to catch up and put yourself in formation. Having done this when both aircraft are working together, I can say it isn't that easy.
Click to expand...
 
Direct C51 said:
This whole in-flight linkup and tight formation flight thing is just ridiculous. Having flown nearly 2000 hours of multi-ship flight I can say this is just not possible. Without radar it just isn't that easy to find an aircraft like that. The outward visibility isn't that great in a 777, and flying orbits doesn't guarantee you are looking in the right direction when they pass by. Even if you did find the other aircraft, it would not be easy to catch up and put yourself in formation. Having done this when both aircraft are working together, I can say it isn't that easy.
Click to expand...

This.
 
N747JB said:
Half the time I never see traffic, even when it's pointed out by ATC! :dunno: I can't imagine lying in wait for another airplane and trying to catch and shadow it, but it's as good as some of the other theories! :D
Click to expand...

It would be just a tad easier at night, but I still agree that a link up like this is not possible.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
It would be just a tad easier at night, but I still agree that a link up like this is not possible.
Click to expand...

Night rejoins were always more challenging than day rejoins. It's tough enough when both aircraft are on the same sheet of music and talking to each other.
 
If you are completely idle, bored out of your wits and are looking for some mild entertainment then pop over to the Ledgerwood blog site, the self proclaimed young entrepreneur who has obviously spent far, far too many hours staring at a computer screen and single handidly devised this elaborate brainstorm theory based on what he sees as clear and irrefutable evidence.

This guy does have a real talent for talking out of his hind end way past the point where the majority of people in the room have concluded that he has absolutely no clue what he's talking about. Still he persists and when faced with an overwhelming number of facts to blow his conjectures out of the water he simply abandons them and says it doesn't matter because well, they could have just eyeballed it. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top