There was a suprising number of planes in the air around Malaysia at 1
am local time.

-------------
A pilot flying another plane who tried to contact the pilots in the
cockpit of the Malaysia Airlines plane said he heard mumbled voices
before contact was lost.
-------------

So another theory: Something went wrong with the cabin air inside the
plane. Either it lost pressurization (slowly) or recirculation wasn't
working - causing buidup of carbon monoxide.

---------------
On October 25, 1999, a chartered Learjet 35 was scheduled to fly from
Orlando, Florida to Dallas, Texas. Early in the flight the aircraft,
which was cruising at altitude on autopilot, quickly lost cabin
pressure. All on board were incapacitated due to hypoxia — a lack of
oxygen. The aircraft failed to make the westward turn toward Dallas over
north Florida. It continued flying over the southern and midwestern
United States for almost four hours and 1,500 miles (2,400 km). The
plane ran out of fuel and crashed into a field near Aberdeen, South
Dakota after an uncontrolled descent. The four passengers on board were
golf star Payne Stewart, his agents, Van Ardan and Robert Fraley, and
Bruce Borland, a highly regarded golf architect with the Jack Nicklaus
golf course design company.

The NTSB determined that:

The probable cause of this accident was incapacitation of the
flight crew members as a result of their failure to receive
supplemental oxygen following a loss of cabin pressurization,
for undetermined reasons.

A possible explanation for the failure of the pilots to receive
emergency oxygen is that their ability to think and act decisively was
impaired because of hypoxia before they could don their oxygen masks. No
definitive evidence exists that indicates the rate at which the accident
flight lost its cabin pressure; therefore, the Safety Board evaluated
conditions of both rapid and gradual depressurization.

If there had been a breach in the fuselage (even a small one that could
not be visually detected by the in-flight observers) or a seal failure,
the cabin could have depressurized gradually, rapidly, or even
explosively. Research has shown that a period of as little as 8 seconds
without supplemental oxygen following rapid depressurization to about
30,000 feet (9,100 m) may cause a drop in oxygen saturation that can
significantly impair cognitive functioning and increase the amount of
time required to complete complex tasks.
----------------

So either MH370 depressurized quickly - or slowly.

The pilots might have been able to put their masks on - or realize they
needed to put their masks on.

Perhaps they did - but their supplemental oxygen supply didn't work.

Perhaps in their confused state, with or without functional masks, they
started an emergency descent before they blacked out, causing the plane
to smash into the ocean with the pilots incapacitated on the way down.

Note also that in the flight of the Lear Jet in 1999 that the pilots,
even if they did don their masks, made no attempt at radio contact.

-----------
2005 Helios Airways Flight 522 crash

On August 14, 2005, a Helios Airways Boeing 737-300 crashed 40 km (25
mi) from Athens after running out of fuel. An investigation later
concluded that an improper pressurization setting in the cockpit had
caused the cabin pressure to drop, and resulted in the incapacitation of
the passengers and crew. It was later determined that one of the flight
attendants had used the bottled oxygen supply and his pilot's training
to attempt to bring the plane down to a lower altitude. There were no
survivors.
-------------

I think this is looking more and more likely - that the pilots suffered
a slow asphyxia or hypoxia, caused either by a fault in the airframe or
the misapplication or failure of some valve or switch. The plane
descended rapidly, either as the last semi-conscious act of the pilot(s)
or because of a complete lack of pilot input to the controls.

This would be expected during the early phase of the flight, as it
climbs to cruise altitude.

On Monday, March 10, 2014 11:51:20 PM UTC-4, Home Guy wrote:
There was a suprising number of planes in the air around Malaysia at 1

am local time.



-------------

A pilot flying another plane who tried to contact the pilots in the

cockpit of the Malaysia Airlines plane said he heard mumbled voices

before contact was lost.

-------------



So another theory: Something went wrong with the cabin air inside the

plane. Either it lost pressurization (slowly) or recirculation wasn't

working - causing buidup of carbon monoxide.




Except that theory is totally inconsistent with the known fact
that the plan disappeared both from radar and ADS-B receivers
suddenly off the coast of Kohta Bahru. In the case of the ADS-B,
you have the plane making a final small turn to the right, just
like other flights on other days, then the data stops. If the
crew passed out, how do you explain that? Even if the pilot
slumped over onto the controls, you'd have some evidence of
the altitude, speed, etc changing before it disappeared.

wrote in message news:95b02554-320f-4775-ae05-

In the case of the ADS-B,
you have the plane making a final small turn to the right, just
like other flights on other days, then the data stops.

Another mark in the wing failure category. When you bank, it shifts the
load on the wing/fuselage connections and that's a very likely point of
failure. Was it the right wing tip that had been previously damaged? I
think so.

--
Bobby G.

On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 12:39:43 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
wrote in message news:95b02554-320f-4775-ae05-



In the case of the ADS-B,

you have the plane making a final small turn to the right, just

like other flights on other days, then the data stops.



Another mark in the wing failure category. When you bank, it shifts the

load on the wing/fuselage connections and that's a very likely point of

failure. Was it the right wing tip that had been previously damaged? I

think so.



--

Bobby G.

Yes it was, but if you're making a right turn, isn't slightly more force
going to be on the left wing, not the right? And you'd think a lot more
force would be on the wings during takeoff and climbing 2000 ft/min, than
it would be when it's level and just making a 5 deg turn.
But I agree with your overall assessment that the damage to the
wing from the prior accident should be high on the list. Previously
I was thinking of it from the standpoint that it was just a few feet
of the wing that was ripped off and then repaired. If just that had
come off, I would think the plane would likely fly for a long time,
probably even able to make a landing. It didn't involve a control
surface. But I hadn't thought about
the possibility that you're suggesting, that the accident could have
damaged where the wing spar attaches to the fuselage.

That would be something you would think Boeing could determine to
some extent. They could estimate the force it took to tear off that
wingtip and the resulting forces back at the base of the wing. If
you think about it, that's a long wing. The force that it takes to
rip off that wingtip is a lot and it's increased via leverage
back to the attachement point. Some calculations and/or
experiments on some scrapped similar wings should give an idea
if the forces were in the range to do damage.

For some more stuff that you don't know what to make of, there
are reports of 19+ families claiming they called cell phones
of those on the plane and they were ringing for days after
the disappearance. Again, the piece is poorly written, but
it sounds like what they are saying is that the phones rang like
the phone was active. But that's not clear, because they never
clarify how many times it rings. Most cell phones will ring a
couple times, even if it's off, before going into voice mail.
Unfortunately, no one says how many times these phones were
actually ringing. They even use the term that the families say
they were "connected", whatever that means.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...es-active.html

"Smartphones of the missing aboard Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 are still ringing according to reports

As many as 19 families of missing passengers have claimed to be connected - and airline says they have rung crew's phones"

On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 2:56:49 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:22:29 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:



"Smartphones of the missing aboard Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 are still ringing according to reports



As many as 19 families of missing passengers have claimed to be connected - and airline says they have rung crew's phones"







These are just people who do not have a clue how phone systems work.

Probably, but you would think they would have had enough experience
calling their friends and family to know how the cell phone behaves
when it's off versus when it's on.



You can take the battery out of your phone and anyone calling it will

still hear it "ring".



It rings, but not the same way. With the cell phones I've had with
AT&T, Verizon and now
Zact. If the phone is on it rings many times, then goes into voicemail.
If it's not on it may ring a couple times and then go into voicemail
or not ring at all and go directly into voicemail. Or if you have
no voicemail, it says the phone is not in service. So, you would
think these people would know the difference, but I agree, I wouldn't
put much credence in it. I just tried it on my cell phone and when
I call it on my regular line if the phone is off it rings 1.5 times,
then goes into email. If the phone is on, I hear it ring 5 times
and the cell phone rings 4 times. I think that difference is what
these people are saying. They are even saying the phones behaved
as if they were ringing the actual phone for a couple days, but then
later stopped. But I agree it's more likely just confusion.
Still you would hope that the authorities tried to trace the call
routing in the days when the phones could have still been active.
But I don't have much confidence in the way this thing has been
handled.



That signal is sent to you from your provider, not the phone you are

calling.

Yes, but in my experience it behaves as discribed above.

On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 2:54:11 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:39:43 -0400, "Robert Green"

wrote:



wrote in message news:95b02554-320f-4775-ae05-



In the case of the ADS-B,

you have the plane making a final small turn to the right, just

like other flights on other days, then the data stops.



Another mark in the wing failure category. When you bank, it shifts the

load on the wing/fuselage connections and that's a very likely point of

failure. Was it the right wing tip that had been previously damaged? I

think so.



The MAF is now saying they tracked the plane for over an hour after it

turned around. If they had a decompression I would expect them to

quickly dive to 6000-8000 feet so they had enough air to survive.



They are starting to suggest it may have been a hijacking by the

flight crew.



They have moved the search to the Straight of Malacca and I suppose

the Indian Ocean.

Anything is possible, but one thing we don't know is what exactly
the MAF is basing all this new theory on. Do they have consistent
hits, enough that they are highly confident it's this plane? Or
do they just have some intermittent contact with something that
might be some other small plane, etc. And if they have any decent
supporting evidence, why did it take 2 - 3 days before they started
to come up with this? The radar data is available and you'd think
within hours of the crash it would have been analyzed. If they have
hits from the area at the time the plane disappeared, a somewhat
consistent hit trail back over Malaysia, etc, then you'd think we
would have heard about it in hours. Seems more likely they have
some hits of something, we don't know how many, where, when, etc.
Just like the floating debris, oil, that have so far turned out
to be wrong, could be nothing.

As I said in another reply, post 911 one simple change that could
have been made would be to make it impossible to turn off the
radar transponders, the ADS-B, etc once a plane is in the air.
I can't think of any reason you would need to turn it off. That
would have gone a long way to resolving this.

On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:56:49 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:22:29 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

"Smartphones of the missing aboard Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 are still ringing according to reports

As many as 19 families of missing passengers have claimed to be connected - and airline says they have rung crew's phones"



These are just people who do not have a clue how phone systems work.
You can take the battery out of your phone and anyone calling it will
still hear it "ring".

That signal is sent to you from your provider, not the phone you are
calling.
If a CELL phone is turned off it will NOT ring. You will get a "phone
out of service" or "customer not available" message. If the phones are
under water or wet they fail and also give an out of service message,

On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 5:37:40 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:56:49 -0400, wrote:



On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:22:29 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:



"Smartphones of the missing aboard Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 are still ringing according to reports



As many as 19 families of missing passengers have claimed to be connected - and airline says they have rung crew's phones"







These are just people who do not have a clue how phone systems work.

You can take the battery out of your phone and anyone calling it will

still hear it "ring".



That signal is sent to you from your provider, not the phone you are

calling.

If a CELL phone is turned off it will NOT ring. You will get a "phone

out of service" or "customer not available" message. If the phones are

under water or wet they fail and also give an out of service message,

Here's another example of the incompetence of the media snd/or
those investigating:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...ation/6282557/


This is USA Today reporting 3 1/2 days after the crash. Look
at the map. They show contact with the plane lost at 2:40AM
in the middle of the waters between Malaysia and Vietnam.
Yet we've known for days now that in fact the ATC contact was
lost with the plane in that position at 1:20AM, 40 mins after
it took off, not 2 hours. And if was flying for 2 hours, it would
have to be going in circles to still be at that point. The point they
are showing on the map is exactly where it was supposed to be
at 1:40 AM and that's where the ATC data ends. The military
says it has some evidence that the plane turned around and
went back across Malaysia, but even if they're right, the USA
map is BS given the time and location shown.

Oh and did you see the pics of the two Iranians? Yesterday
the Malaysian officials involved in the investigation said
"one or both" (their words, not mine), of the guys looked
like Mario Barotelli, an Italian soccer star. Two things.
First you'd think they would know if it is indeed one or both.
And second, if you look at his pic, his black as coal and has
a mohawk haircut. Finally they've released pics of the two
and neither looks anything like Barotelli. I understand they
are refusing international help, like NTSB, other law enforcement
at this point too, refusing to let them be part of the
investigation until they find the plane.

On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 8:36:45 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:22:53 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:



On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 2:56:49 PM UTC-4, wrote:

On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:22:29 -0700 (PDT), "



wrote:







"Smartphones of the missing aboard Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 are still ringing according to reports







As many as 19 families of missing passengers have claimed to be connected - and airline says they have rung crew's phones"















These are just people who do not have a clue how phone systems work.



Probably, but you would think they would have had enough experience

calling their friends and family to know how the cell phone behaves

when it's off versus when it's on.







You can take the battery out of your phone and anyone calling it will



still hear it "ring".







It rings, but not the same way. With the cell phones I've had with

AT&T, Verizon and now

Zact. If the phone is on it rings many times, then goes into voicemail.

If it's not on it may ring a couple times and then go into voicemail

or not ring at all and go directly into voicemail. Or if you have

no voicemail, it says the phone is not in service. So, you would

think these people would know the difference, but I agree, I wouldn't

put much credence in it. I just tried it on my cell phone and when

I call it on my regular line if the phone is off it rings 1.5 times,

then goes into email. If the phone is on, I hear it ring 5 times

and the cell phone rings 4 times. I think that difference is what

these people are saying. They are even saying the phones behaved

as if they were ringing the actual phone for a couple days, but then

later stopped. But I agree it's more likely just confusion.

Still you would hope that the authorities tried to trace the call

routing in the days when the phones could have still been active.

But I don't have much confidence in the way this thing has been

handled.







That signal is sent to you from your provider, not the phone you are



calling.



Yes, but in my experience it behaves as discribed above.



Is that here or when the other phone is in Malaysia?


Let's say someone in Malaysia or China is used to calling their
relatives cell phone in Malaysia or China. I would think they
would know how the cell phone behaves when it's off, the battery
is dead, etc vs how it behaves when it's on. And if it's off,
it wouldn't matter whether the phone was still in Malaysia or
in China, or on the moon would it? They appear to be saying
that the phones ring like the phone is on and in contact with
the cell network.
But I agree there are few specifics, like the number of rings.
Mine will ring for 1.5 rings before going to voicemail. It
sounds like these people are saying the phones ring like they
normally would, ie for quite a while. An airline official
said they had the same experience. I agree it seems more
likely it could be confusion, differences in phone systems,
the people are in grief and desperately want to grasp at anything,
who knows.



At any rate the phone should be ain "airplane" mode which means you

are off the air.

It would be the same at 35,000 feet sipping a mai tai as it is on the

bottom of the Indian Ocean.

They should be, but with 239 people, it's very possible that
some were on. And since they don't know where the plane went, there
is some possibility that it could have crashed on land somewhere.
But even then, you have a point, what's the probability of 20+
phones surving that?

But from what I've heard, all the misinformation, BS, it was flying
for 2 hours when contact was lost, it was flying for 40 mins when
contact was lost, etc, my best guess is that it went down off
Kohta Bura right where we know the data ended. Something sudden, catastrophic,
that resulted in the plane losing power to the transponders, going
down mostly intact, near vertical, leaving little debris.

wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:56:49 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:22:29 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

"Smartphones of the missing aboard Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 are
still ringing according to reports

As many as 19 families of missing passengers have claimed to be
connected - and airline says they have rung crew's phones"



These are just people who do not have a clue how phone systems work.
You can take the battery out of your phone and anyone calling it will
still hear it "ring".

That signal is sent to you from your provider, not the phone you are
calling.
If a CELL phone is turned off it will NOT ring. You will get a "phone
out of service" or "customer not available" message. If the phones are
under water or wet they fail and also give an out of service message,

I'm see them going to voice mail immediately if off or out of range. If the
batteries die,, that should end th ringing.

Greg

In article ,
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:56:49 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:22:29 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

"Smartphones of the missing aboard Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 are
still ringing according to reports

As many as 19 families of missing passengers have claimed to be connected
- and airline says they have rung crew's phones"



These are just people who do not have a clue how phone systems work.
You can take the battery out of your phone and anyone calling it will
still hear it "ring".

That signal is sent to you from your provider, not the phone you are
calling.
If a CELL phone is turned off it will NOT ring. You will get a "phone
out of service" or "customer not available" message. If the phones are
under water or wet they fail and also give an out of service message,

I just checked and mine just goes to voice mail when it is turned off
and it did indeed "ring" at my end. I don't care enough to find out what
happens underwater (grin)
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
-- Aaron Levenstein

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

stuff snipped

I just checked and mine just goes to voice mail when it is turned off
and it did indeed "ring" at my end. I don't care enough to find out what
happens underwater (grin)

Were you in Malaysia when you turned it off? (-:

I am surprised so many people believe that cell phones work exactly the same
all over the world or that there's plenty of cell tower coverage in the
waters off the coast of Vietnam.

http://www.rebelfone.com/category/fl...ap-vietnam.gif

So the red herrings are beginning to multiply. Soon we'll have a whole
school of them.

--
Bobby G.

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 1:31:48 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 18:55:26 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:



At any rate the phone should be ain "airplane" mode which means you



are off the air.



It would be the same at 35,000 feet sipping a mai tai as it is on the



bottom of the Indian Ocean.



They should be, but with 239 people, it's very possible that

some were on. And since they don't know where the plane went, there

is some possibility that it could have crashed on land somewhere.

But even then, you have a point, what's the probability of 20+

phones surving that?



If there was a phone pinging a cell tower, they would know where it

was right away. We wouldn't be scouring a couple million square miles

of land and sea..

That assumes that those conducting the investigation listened to what those
people were saying and actually looked into it. Given the way this whole
thing has been mishandled, I have no confidence in that. For example, they
didn't start the search in the area where the plane suddenly disappeared from normal
ATC radar and data contact until 11 hours after. Three days into it, they
announce that they have some indication that the plane may have turned back.
Later that day, the chief of the AF and another military official tell the
press that they have tracks showing it went all the way to the Straits of
Malacca, ie all the way back across Malaysia. Not that it "might have" or
that there is some evidence, they flat out said that's where it went and
where contact ended. Whichoddly, is consistent with the very first
reports that last contact was two hours after takeoff, and not 40 mins.
A day later, they deny having said that and are now back
to saying that all they ever said is that they think it may have turned back.
They've refused to let other countries into the investigation that could
help, other than to help search.

A new thing I read this AM, was a statement by the guy who the two
Iranians spent the night before the flight with in Malaysia.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/day-malaysi...ry?id=22852454


He had gone to school and knew the 19 year old, but he didn't know the
the 29 year old at all.
He said they were on the phone a long time with someone, talking in
Persian, and he heard one of them say, OK Ali. Ali was the
name of the guy who allegedly provided the false passports. He said
they were travelling light, one had a backpack, they both had laptops.
Seems rather light for two people on their way to start new lives
in Europe. No suitcases? He also said he didn't ask why they were
in Malaysia, which seems very odd to me. Probably lying, even if it's
just that he knew they were trying to get to Europe using fake passports,
etc.

I'm still highly suspicous of these two. Not much is known about the
older one, AFAIK. Not much is known about this "Ali" guy. It seems
rather odd that officials seem to be mostly dismissing that angle of it
and not for any really good reasons that I can see. One aspect is they
keep saying the 19 year olds mother in Europe was waiting for him to
come home and when he didn't arrive, she called police. They're
touting that as evidence that it wasn't terrorism. Given what we've
seen other terrorists do, I don't see why that's out of the norm.
If he was a terrorist, was he supposed to call his mom and tell her
what he planned to do? And AFAIK, no one has said anything about what
the relationship was between these two guys. You would think 5 days
in, if everything was Kosher, we'd be hearing more about them as it
would be easy to find out, no?






I think the phone people could debunk this in 10 seconds but they do

not want to be the Debbie Downer who says this "ringing" thing does

not mean anything.

I think part of that problem is which phone people? As you pointed out,
how something works on one system in one country, could be different in
another and we don't even know where the phone was supposed to be. We
also don't know what records of calls that don't go through are kept.
I wouldn't be surprised that they don't keep anything. So, if the
investigators didn't take this seriously in the first couple days,
may be impossible to conclude much now. Certainly if they had been on
it when these folks claimed the phones were ringing, then the phone
companies could have definitely told them something. And I can see
those handling the investigation dismissing this, thinking they knew
where the plane was and would just find it the usual way.

There is also the possibility that something more is going on here.
IDK, either there is a hell of a lot of confusion, or maybe they are
trying to cover something up. I tend to still think it's a combination
of turf fights, stupidity, and confusion.

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 12:46:03 AM UTC-4, Gz wrote:
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:56:49 -0400, wrote:



On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:22:29 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:



"Smartphones of the missing aboard Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 are

still ringing according to reports



As many as 19 families of missing passengers have claimed to be

connected - and airline says they have rung crew's phones"







These are just people who do not have a clue how phone systems work.

You can take the battery out of your phone and anyone calling it will

still hear it "ring".



That signal is sent to you from your provider, not the phone you are

calling.

If a CELL phone is turned off it will NOT ring. You will get a "phone

out of service" or "customer not available" message. If the phones are

under water or wet they fail and also give an out of service message,



I'm see them going to voice mail immediately if off or out of range. If the

batteries die,, that should end th ringing.



Greg

Cell phones don't behave any differently when off then they do when
the battery is dead. And as I reported earlier, if I dial my cell
phone from another phone, I hear it ring 5 times before going to voice
mail if the phone is on. If it's off or the battery is dead, then
I only hear it ring 1.5 times when I've called it. Some cell phones
I've called in the past, if the phone wasn't there, it would either
behave similar to the above, would go straight into voicemail without
me hearing a ringing sound, or I'd get some kind of "not in service"
message.

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 8:39:52 AM UTC-4, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

wrote:



On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:56:49 -0400, wrote:



On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:22:29 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:



"Smartphones of the missing aboard Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 are

still ringing according to reports



As many as 19 families of missing passengers have claimed to be connected

- and airline says they have rung crew's phones"







These are just people who do not have a clue how phone systems work.

You can take the battery out of your phone and anyone calling it will

still hear it "ring".



That signal is sent to you from your provider, not the phone you are

calling.

If a CELL phone is turned off it will NOT ring. You will get a "phone

out of service" or "customer not available" message. If the phones are

under water or wet they fail and also give an out of service message,



I just checked and mine just goes to voice mail when it is turned off

and it did indeed "ring" at my end. I don't care enough to find out what

happens underwater (grin)


But how many times did you hear it ring before going to voicemail when:

A - The cell phone was turned off

B - The cell phone was on.

Mine you can tell the difference. It rings 1.5 times when off, but
5 times when it's on. I think it's that kind of behavior that the
friends/families were talking about, but again from the reporting
who knows. They made it sound like it just keeps ringing, which
is odd, because almost everyone has voicemail that it would go to
today if the phone were still on and no one answered.

wrote in message news:1bcef9a6-c8ae-45b3-a3b9-

stuff snipped

But I agree with your overall assessment that the damage to the
wing from the prior accident should be high on the list. Previously
I was thinking of it from the standpoint that it was just a few feet
of the wing that was ripped off and then repaired. If just that had
come off, I would think the plane would likely fly for a long time,
probably even able to make a landing. It didn't involve a control
surface. But I hadn't thought about
the possibility that you're suggesting, that the accident could have
damaged where the wing spar attaches to the fuselage.

Here's a new data point:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/mis...ng-777s-n50591

A cracking and corrosion problem on Boeing 777s that could lead to the
mid-air break-up of the aircraft prompted a warning from air safety
regulators weeks before the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370,
federal records show.
The Federal Aviation Administration ordered checks on hundreds of
U.S.-registered 777s after reports of cracking in the fuselage skin
underneath a satellite antenna.

In an airworthiness directive, it said the extra checks were needed "to
detect and correct cracking and corrosion in the fuselage skin, which could
lead to rapid decompression and loss of structural integrity of the
airplane."

The directive, first drawn up in September, was approved in February and was
due to take effect on April 9.

Sounds a little too much like Airbus/AirFrance being warned that the pitot
tubes could freeze over and then taking their sweet time about replacing the
units throughout the fleet.

Unfortunately as the planes age, all sorts of material failure modes raise
their ugly heads.

--

Bobby G.

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 9:48:44 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
wrote in message news:1bcef9a6-c8ae-45b3-a3b9-



stuff snipped



But I agree with your overall assessment that the damage to the

wing from the prior accident should be high on the list. Previously

I was thinking of it from the standpoint that it was just a few feet

of the wing that was ripped off and then repaired. If just that had

come off, I would think the plane would likely fly for a long time,

probably even able to make a landing. It didn't involve a control

surface. But I hadn't thought about

the possibility that you're suggesting, that the accident could have

damaged where the wing spar attaches to the fuselage.



Here's a new data point:



http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/mis...ng-777s-n50591



A cracking and corrosion problem on Boeing 777s that could lead to the

mid-air break-up of the aircraft prompted a warning from air safety

regulators weeks before the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370,

federal records show.

The Federal Aviation Administration ordered checks on hundreds of

U.S.-registered 777s after reports of cracking in the fuselage skin

underneath a satellite antenna.



In an airworthiness directive, it said the extra checks were needed "to

detect and correct cracking and corrosion in the fuselage skin, which could

lead to rapid decompression and loss of structural integrity of the

airplane."



The directive, first drawn up in September, was approved in February and was

due to take effect on April 9.



Sounds a little too much like Airbus/AirFrance being warned that the pitot

tubes could freeze over and then taking their sweet time about replacing the

units throughout the fleet.



Unfortunately as the planes age, all sorts of material failure modes raise

their ugly heads.



Yes, I had seen that same report. Some more good questions that should be
asked and answered, ie was this plane checked for that possible defect?

I've also seen where Boeing says that the plane was not part of their
data logging that they offer airlines. Apparently the onboard ACRS?
sends maintenance, performance data back, similar to Airbus that went
down near Brazil. But Malaysian airlines chose not to participate in
Boeings data collection, but Boeing says MA did use the system themselves.
From what I've read, MA hasn't directly answered the question of when
the last data from that was received, etc.

This is the most confused, screwed up investigation that I've ever
seen. They've switched major parts of the story so many times now
that the Malaysian officials need to hold a major press conference,
release more information and clear things up. Of huge significance
is on what exactly are they basing the ever changing story of the continued
radar tracking of the plane after it dropped off ATC. They should
just release the radar returns, at least to enough international
experts, so that there is some more credibility to where the plane
might have gone. At first thought, you'd think that the military
probably doesn't want to disclose what they can or can't see on radar.
But at this point I think it's obvious that you could fly a 777 over
their airspace and they don't know WTF is going on, so it would seem
releasing more descriptive information as to what exactly they have on
radar would be better than looking like total idiots. Last I heard
on this was that they were back to saying that all they had was some
kind of radar data right after the last known ATC radar, that showed
it "might have" changed direction. Yet the day before, two high ranking
AF officials said that they tracked the plane all the way to the
Straits of Malacca. Curiously, that would be about the two hour flight
time that the airline, Malaysian officials all were giving out for
two days.

I say the odds are still that it went down off Kota Bharu where
contact was lost 40 mins into the flight from some sudden catastrophic
event. I'm still suspicous of those two Iranians too, while it seems
investigators are downplaying it as they were just two more illegal
immigrants. We know a good bit about one, but I haven't seen anything
about the other. And the guy who dropped them off at the airport
says they only had only a backpack and two laptops? If you were going
to Europe for good, wouldn't you have some real luggage? This guy
knew the one guy from school, the other he didn't know at all. They
stayed at his house overnight, yet he says he didn't ask them why
they were in Malaysia? They got these fake passports from this
mysterious guy "Ali" who I believe is Iranian? Wonder where they
got the laptops from?

On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 18:55:26 -0700,
wrote:

...snip...
But from what I've heard, all the misinformation, BS, it was flying
for 2 hours when contact was lost, it was flying for 40 mins when
contact was lost, etc, my best guess is that it went down off
Kohta Bura right where we know the data ended. Something sudden,
catastrophic,
that resulted in the plane losing power to the transponders, going
down mostly intact, near vertical, leaving little debris.

In early 60's a satellite could read the headlines of a paper lying on the
ground, so why is it so hard to NOT see this plane?

This region has to be one of the most monitored regions in the world.

Aren't there satellite imaging services that supply photos to the public?

From memory flying IFR, you are radar tracked from start to finish, where
are those records? And from memory, alarms go off *IF* they lose track of
your little blip.

wrote in message news:1bcef9a6-c8ae-45b3-a3b9-

stuff snipped

I was thinking of it from the standpoint that it was just a few feet
of the wing that was ripped off and then repaired. If just that had
come off, I would think the plane would likely fly for a long time,
probably even able to make a landing. It didn't involve a control
surface. But I hadn't thought about
the possibility that you're suggesting, that the accident could have
damaged where the wing spar attaches to the fuselage.

That would be something you would think Boeing could determine to
some extent.

So you'd think, but reading how they botched repairs on aircraft that
subsequently crashed, they might not have looked for damage in unexpected
areas. It's pretty obvious, at least to me, that the guiding repair
principle is to return the asset to the air as quickly as possible. That's
why bad repairs almost always involve shortcuts.

I know I've seen a list of repair-induced crashes and near-misses somewhere
on the net. Just haven't found it yet. I do know that when working on
engines they try very hard NOT to break hydraulic connections and they
sometimes do that by improperly hoisting engines with lots of stuff still
connected.

They could estimate the force it took to tear off that
wingtip and the resulting forces back at the base of the wing. If
you think about it, that's a long wing. The force that it takes to
rip off that wingtip is a lot and it's increased via leverage
back to the attachement point. Some calculations and/or
experiments on some scrapped similar wings should give an idea
if the forces were in the range to do damage.

I suspect when they start retrieving large sections of the airplane they
will be doing some very similar testing if it's clear mechanical/structural
failure was the cause and not an explosion, meteor, suicidal pilots,
hijackers, aliens or Steven King in need of a new mystery book subject.

For some more stuff that you don't know what to make of, there
are reports of 19+ families claiming they called cell phones
of those on the plane and they were ringing for days after
the disappearance. Again, the piece is poorly written, but
it sounds like what they are saying is that the phones rang like
the phone was active. But that's not clear, because they never
clarify how many times it rings. Most cell phones will ring a
couple times, even if it's off, before going into voice mail.
Unfortunately, no one says how many times these phones were
actually ringing. They even use the term that the families say
they were "connected", whatever that means.

There's nothing sadder that families trying to cling to hope their loved
ones are still alive. The phone ringing stories illustrate how much they
want to believe there's hope. A lot of times families in grief become
victims of swindlers posing as mystics that can contact the dead or worse,
lead them to believe they are still alive. I remember one particularly
odious con man team that was preying on MIA families during the post-Vietnam
era, trying to convince them their loved ones were imprisoned in Cambodia,
etc. At the time I thought "can you GET any lower as a human being?"

As many as 19 families of missing passengers have claimed to be
connected - and airline says they have rung crew's phones"

I read that late last night and thought "don't they know that the ringing
noise they hear when dialing has very little to do with a phone ringing on
the other end?" They've dialed into switchboard/network that will make the
ringing sound to the caller until the phone is deactivated - from the
network. The phone could have been burned in the fires of Mordor and still
seem to be ringing. But that's another thing. When US 93 was hijacked,
there was an incredible amount of cellphone calling from the cabin before it
crashed. The silence of MH370 literally screams "instantaneous mayhem."

I assume they'll locate the crash site within the next 5 days as US and
Chinese search assets are put into position. So far the Malaysian
government
seems reluctant to accept our help. That's not unusual, unfortunately.
After the Snowden revelations a lot fewer people seem to trust our good
intentions.

--
Bobby G.

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 11:14:01 AM UTC-4, Robert Macy wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 18:55:26 -0700,

wrote:



...snip...

But from what I've heard, all the misinformation, BS, it was flying

for 2 hours when contact was lost, it was flying for 40 mins when

contact was lost, etc, my best guess is that it went down off

Kohta Bura right where we know the data ended. Something sudden,

catastrophic,

that resulted in the plane losing power to the transponders, going

down mostly intact, near vertical, leaving little debris.



In early 60's a satellite could read the headlines of a paper lying on the

ground, so why is it so hard to NOT see this plane?



I think it depends on what you're looking for and when you're looking.
If you're focused to see ICBM launches, then maybe you don't see aircraft.
But US intel has said that it has good coverage there, checked what it
has and there is nothing they have that shows anything.




This region has to be one of the most monitored regions in the world.



Aren't there satellite imaging services that supply photos to the public?



Yes, and a couple of them have websites where you can go look
and help search. If you see something you can flag it and they will
evaluate it. I tried many times, but couldn't get on, there are
reports the sites crashed due to overload.





From memory flying IFR, you are radar tracked from start to finish, where

are those records? And from memory, alarms go off *IF* they lose track of

your little blip.

The data that is almost 100% certain is that the flight was on
normal radar, normal ADS-B, until 40 mins, when it was off Kohta
Baru, over water between Malaysia and Vietnam. AT that point it
made a slight ~5 deg turn to the right, which is what that flight
does at that waypoint every other day. That's where the normal
data end. The other bizarre thing here is that for two days,
Malaysian Airlines and I think Malaysian officials, said that they
lost contact with the plane 2 hours into the flight. That
first day, I quickly could see that something didn't make sense.
At two hours, on the normal route the plane would be well over
the middle of Vietnam.

Three days into it, Malaysian AF officials said they had some
evidence to suggest that it turned back toward land just after
it disappeared from normal ATC and that this was confirmed by civilian
radar. They then expanded the search area back toward Malaysia
and over to the other side of Malaysia. Fourth day, the media
reported that the head of the AF and another high level AF officer
told them that they had tracked the plane flying at a lower altitude
all the way across Malaysia again, headed northeast to
the Straits of Malacca where contact was lost. Curiously, that
would be at about the two hour point.... Fifth day, AF denies
ever saying they tracked it over to the Straits of Malacca, only
that they had some evidence that it might have turned back toward
land from the point where data stopped at 40 mins.

The problem is that if it was still flying, then it was doing so
with the transponders turned off. So, instead of getting a strong
return signal, that also has the altitude, heading, squak code, etc,
all they would see would be a basic radar blip. How far their radar
coverage extends, what they should or shouldn't be able to see at
the point where the plane contact ended, by civilian and military
etc, no one has said. Good questions, and you would think reporters
would be asking.

To add to that confusion, on the day the plane was lost, right
after making that slight turn, it would have normally been in
contact with and under the control of Vietnam ATC. They said
the first day that they lost contact with it between the airspace
over Ca Mau which is southern tip area of Vietnam and Ho Chi Minh,
which would have put it at about 1.5 hours into it's flight.
But then next day they said it disappeared a minute before it would
have entered their airspace, ie near where the data ended, ie 40 min
point.

So... your guess is as good as mine. I'm leaning towards it's
in the water near where the data ended and everyone is just all
screwed up. I'd say it's time to start showing the radar returns
that they have. I can understand why the military might not want
to fully divulge what they can and can't see. But in this case
I don't see how it could get worse. It looks like you can fly a 777
across Malaysia and they don't know WTF is going on.

RobertMacy writes:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 18:55:26 -0700,
wrote:

...snip...
But from what I've heard, all the misinformation, BS, it was flying
for 2 hours when contact was lost, it was flying for 40 mins when
contact was lost, etc, my best guess is that it went down off
Kohta Bura right where we know the data ended. Something sudden,
catastrophic,
that resulted in the plane losing power to the transponders, going
down mostly intact, near vertical, leaving little debris.

In early 60's a satellite could read the headlines of a paper lying on the
ground, so why is it so hard to NOT see this plane?

This region has to be one of the most monitored regions in the world.

DSPS look for IR plumes indicating launch. They don't track aircraft.


Aren't there satellite imaging services that supply photos to the public?

Ask, and ye shall receive.

http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/malaysiaairsar2014


From memory flying IFR, you are radar tracked from start to finish, where
are those records? And from memory, alarms go off *IF* they lose track of
your little blip.

Flying IFR over the continental US, you're generally under someone's radar
umbrella. Over ocean and in less advanced parts of the world, not so much.

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:55:25 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 06:44:06 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:



On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 8:39:52 AM UTC-4, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,



wrote:







On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:56:49 -0400, wrote:







On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:22:29 -0700 (PDT), "



wrote:







"Smartphones of the missing aboard Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 are



still ringing according to reports







As many as 19 families of missing passengers have claimed to be connected



- and airline says they have rung crew's phones"















These are just people who do not have a clue how phone systems work.



You can take the battery out of your phone and anyone calling it will



still hear it "ring".







That signal is sent to you from your provider, not the phone you are



calling.



If a CELL phone is turned off it will NOT ring. You will get a "phone



out of service" or "customer not available" message. If the phones are



under water or wet they fail and also give an out of service message,







I just checked and mine just goes to voice mail when it is turned off



and it did indeed "ring" at my end. I don't care enough to find out what



happens underwater (grin)





But how many times did you hear it ring before going to voicemail when:



A - The cell phone was turned off



B - The cell phone was on.



Mine you can tell the difference. It rings 1.5 times when off, but

5 times when it's on. I think it's that kind of behavior that the

friends/families were talking about, but again from the reporting

who knows. They made it sound like it just keeps ringing, which

is odd, because almost everyone has voicemail that it would go to

today if the phone were still on and no one answered.



Try it when you are reporting as "roaming" in SE Asia, then get back

to us.

You're not roaming anywhere when your phone is off. That's precisely
the point. A cell phone is only roaming and known to the network
when it's on. And the folks over there are saying that the phones
were acting like those cell phones were in contact with cell phone service.
There is a difference here in how a cell phone behaves when dialed
depending on whether it's on and in contact with cell service or
turned off. I don't know why you find it so hard to believe that people
over there could be saying the same thing.

I mean there could be other explanations for it, but you seem to
be denying that the typical thing is for those calling cell
phones to notice a difference in what happens when the phone is on
and in cell phone service area and when it's off/not in contact.

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 9:15:59 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message



stuff snipped



I just checked and mine just goes to voice mail when it is turned off

and it did indeed "ring" at my end. I don't care enough to find out what

happens underwater (grin)



Were you in Malaysia when you turned it off? (-:



I am surprised so many people believe that cell phones work exactly the same

all over the world or that there's plenty of cell tower coverage in the

waters off the coast of Vietnam.



I don't see anyone saying cell phones work exactly the same all over
the world. But don't you think that people that have been using them
in Malaysia, China, etc know how they behave there? That includes some
Malaysian Airline officials. They appear to be saying that the cell
phones are ringing like they are on and in cell phone service. Can't
you tell the difference on your phone?





http://www.rebelfone.com/category/fl...ap-vietnam.gif



So the red herrings are beginning to multiply. Soon we'll have a whole

school of them.


If there is no cell phone service in an area the phone is in or
the phone is off, and you call it, what happens in
your experience? You can't tell the difference? The phone just
rings the same? With all the phones I've had, all the places I've
used them, I could tell a difference between how they behave when
called when the phone was off or on. The phone I have right now,
if it's on and I call it, I hear it ring 5 times, if it's not on
it goes to voicemail in 1.5 rings. I think that is what the people
over there are saying. There could be reasons, like everything else
in this story it could be misreported, etc, but I don't see why it
should be dismissed as nonsense because it's consistent with my
experience.

And it could be consistent with the other evidence too. They are
still searching boths sides and across the middle of Malaysia, no?
If crashed over land there is some chance some phones could have
survived. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that's likely, but
neither do I think what the people are saying is completely nuts.

On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 08:14:01 -0700, RobertMacy
wrote:

In early 60's a satellite could read the headlines of a paper lying on the
ground, so why is it so hard to NOT see this plane?

This region has to be one of the most monitored regions in the world.

"...China yesterday pressed ten high-resolution satellites to look for
the missing plane."

Read more at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/31852827.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medi um=text&utm_campaign=cppst

On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 07:37:12 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

This is the most confused, screwed up investigation that I've ever
seen. They've switched major parts of the story so many times now
that the Malaysian officials need to hold a major press conference,
release more information and clear things up.

The media in Malaysia it mostly state-owned by government or political
parties. This puts a "chilling effect" on reporters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Malaysia

http://gawker.com/oil-rig-worker-say...mes-1542226293

Oil Rig Worker Says He Saw Flight 370 Crash in Flames

A New Zealand man working on an oil rig in the South China Sea claims
he witnessed missing Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 burst into flames
before disappearing.

Mike McKay, who was working on the Songa Mercur drilling platform off
the Vietnamese coast, described the incident, which he said took place
50-70 km from his location, in an email to his supervisors.

ABC's Bob Woodruff confirmed with Mckay's employers that the email is
real. If what McKay witnessed was actually Flight 370, it would
disprove reports that the flight changed course and disappeared over
the Strait of Malacca.


You can read his email to his bosses at the above link.

In article ,
Moe DeLoughan wrote:

http://gawker.com/oil-rig-worker-say...-flames-154222
6293

Oil Rig Worker Says He Saw Flight 370 Crash in Flames

A New Zealand man working on an oil rig in the South China Sea claims
he witnessed missing Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 burst into flames
before disappearing.

Mike McKay, who was working on the Songa Mercur drilling platform off
the Vietnamese coast, described the incident, which he said took place
50-70 km from his location, in an email to his supervisors.

ABC's Bob Woodruff confirmed with Mckay's employers that the email is
real. If what McKay witnessed was actually Flight 370, it would
disprove reports that the flight changed course and disappeared over
the Strait of Malacca.


You can read his email to his bosses at the above link.

And he knew exactly how that it was MH370 or heck he knew it was a place
exactly how?
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

On 3/12/2014 1:54 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Moe DeLoughan wrote:

http://gawker.com/oil-rig-worker-say...-flames-154222
6293

Oil Rig Worker Says He Saw Flight 370 Crash in Flames

A New Zealand man working on an oil rig in the South China Sea claims
he witnessed missing Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 burst into flames
before disappearing.

Mike McKay, who was working on the Songa Mercur drilling platform off
the Vietnamese coast, described the incident, which he said took place
50-70 km from his location, in an email to his supervisors.

ABC's Bob Woodruff confirmed with Mckay's employers that the email is
real. If what McKay witnessed was actually Flight 370, it would
disprove reports that the flight changed course and disappeared over
the Strait of Malacca.


You can read his email to his bosses at the above link.

And he knew exactly how that it was MH370 or heck he knew it was a place
exactly how?


The answers to your questions are in his email, at the link above.
Basically, he's reporting seeing a burning object descending. He
thinks it may have been the plane, because the timing is right.

On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 14:54:06 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Moe DeLoughan wrote:

http://gawker.com/oil-rig-worker-say...-flames-154222
6293

Oil Rig Worker Says He Saw Flight 370 Crash in Flames

A New Zealand man working on an oil rig in the South China Sea claims
he witnessed missing Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 burst into flames
before disappearing.

Mike McKay, who was working on the Songa Mercur drilling platform off
the Vietnamese coast, described the incident, which he said took place
50-70 km from his location, in an email to his supervisors.

ABC's Bob Woodruff confirmed with Mckay's employers that the email is
real. If what McKay witnessed was actually Flight 370, it would
disprove reports that the flight changed course and disappeared over
the Strait of Malacca.


You can read his email to his bosses at the above link.

And he knew exactly how that it was MH370 or heck he knew it was a place
exactly how?
I a plane blows up 50 km away in clear weather at 37000 ft you will
see a small flash of light and a puff of smoke - and likely some
flaming peices falling. Not much question what it is - but definitely
would not be able to identify what plane. If he saw something at the
right time, you would assume it is the plane in question.

When my friend takes off from Stratford airport 40 km away and turns
on his wig-wag lights at 6000 feet he can be plainly seen from
Waterloo Regional (if he is pointed towards the airport).That is a
plane with a 32 foot wingspan, and the lights are 3 inches in
diameter.

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 2:54:06 PM UTC-4, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

Moe DeLoughan wrote:



http://gawker.com/oil-rig-worker-say...-flames-154222

6293



Oil Rig Worker Says He Saw Flight 370 Crash in Flames



A New Zealand man working on an oil rig in the South China Sea claims

he witnessed missing Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 burst into flames

before disappearing.



Mike McKay, who was working on the Songa Mercur drilling platform off

the Vietnamese coast, described the incident, which he said took place

50-70 km from his location, in an email to his supervisors.



ABC's Bob Woodruff confirmed with Mckay's employers that the email is

real. If what McKay witnessed was actually Flight 370, it would

disprove reports that the flight changed course and disappeared over

the Strait of Malacca.





You can read his email to his bosses at the above link.



And he knew exactly how that it was MH370 or heck he knew it was a place

exactly how?


They stretched what he actually said at bit. But heh, everyone is
doing it so...... He said he believed he saw 370 going down, but
in the letter he says twice that what he saw was burning (plane).
I'd take that to mean that as you suspect, he's not even sure it
was a plane. But he did see some kind of fire in the sky which
isn't normal.

The letter is here and he's been verified through his company by
ABC as being real and on the oil platform, etc.

http://www.businessinsider.com/oil-r...-flames-2014-3


Curiously absent is one of the most important pieces of info.
What time? He says the time was consistent with MA370, but since
no one even knows where the hell it was when, who knows what
that means. But it's also in the same general area off southern
Vietnam where a commercial airline reported seeing a large debris
field a couple days ago. Vietnam says it checked both and found nothing.

It's a long shot. IDK how you explain a plane turning off transponders,
apparently not being picked up by Vietnam radar at all, then being on
fire and going down where the oil worker saw it.

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 3:42:51 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 14:54:06 -0400, Kurt Ullman

wrote:



In article ,

Moe DeLoughan wrote:



http://gawker.com/oil-rig-worker-say...-flames-154222

6293



Oil Rig Worker Says He Saw Flight 370 Crash in Flames



A New Zealand man working on an oil rig in the South China Sea claims

he witnessed missing Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 burst into flames

before disappearing.



Mike McKay, who was working on the Songa Mercur drilling platform off

the Vietnamese coast, described the incident, which he said took place

50-70 km from his location, in an email to his supervisors.



ABC's Bob Woodruff confirmed with Mckay's employers that the email is

real. If what McKay witnessed was actually Flight 370, it would

disprove reports that the flight changed course and disappeared over

the Strait of Malacca.





You can read his email to his bosses at the above link.



And he knew exactly how that it was MH370 or heck he knew it was a place

exactly how?

I a plane blows up 50 km away in clear weather at 37000 ft you will

see a small flash of light and a puff of smoke - and likely some

flaming peices falling. Not much question what it is - but definitely

would not be able to identify what plane. If he saw something at the

right time, you would assume it is the plane in question.


Two problems there. From all that I've seen, particularly the letter
he doesn't say what time, which is the most critical piece of information.
He only says it was at the "right time". Right time based on what,
especially since there is so much confusion already?
And I've looked at the flight path that 370 took on several different days
before the crash. Where he saw the burning is 200+ miles from it's
normal flight path. Of course it could still be there, who knows
because I guess you have to assume that if it kept flying past it's
last known position, it could have gone anyhere within it's remaining
6+ hours of fuel. Just seems doubly odd that the transponders get
turned off and it winds up coming down as a fireball someplace else
hours later.




When my friend takes off from Stratford airport 40 km away and turns

on his wig-wag lights at 6000 feet he can be plainly seen from

Waterloo Regional (if he is pointed towards the airport).That is a

plane with a 32 foot wingspan, and the lights are 3 inches in

diameter.

"RobertMacy" wrote in message
newsp.xcl69njw2cx0wh@ajm...

stuff snipped

In early 60's a satellite could read the headlines of a paper lying on the
ground, so why is it so hard to NOT see this plane?

They could only "see" that well at places they were specifically aimed at.
Also, this was a night flight, further reducing detectability. The US does
have satelites capable of detecting explosions and from what I read, those
detectors did NOT go off. That tends to support either massive structural
failure or some weird act on the part of the crew.

This region has to be one of the most monitored regions in the world.

But hi-rez satelite cameras are usually aimed at points of interest like
Chinese military installations.

Aren't there satellite imaging services that supply photos to the public?

From memory flying IFR, you are radar tracked from start to finish, where
are those records? And from memory, alarms go off *IF* they lose track of
your little blip.

Malaysia isn't cooperating very fully with anyone. Countries in that neck
of the woods are very wary of disclosing the capabilities of their tracking
radars. It's one of the reasons flight KAL007 was shot down when it
overflew Russian air space. The Russians believed it was an attempt by the
West to find out their level of response and readiness to deal with an
aerial incursion.

I'm sure that the Malaysian government is not anxious to have either the
Chinese or Americans getting up into their air defense business. From what
we've seen, they aren't exactly "on top" of things in the radar and plane
tracking department. That's not stuff you want a potential enemy to know.

--
Bobby G.

wrote in message news:95ffcc47-c535-4e31-8100-

stuff snipped

I can understand why the military might not want
to fully divulge what they can and can't see.

Definitely. It's been put forth as a reason why they are being standoffish
about help from the US or China.

But in this case I don't see how it could get worse.

Oh, I have faith that it could and will get worse. (-: The Chinese are
getting pretty ****ed.

It looks like you can fly a 777
across Malaysia and they don't know WTF is going on.

Or a fleet of bombers . . . I think that's what they are trying to keep from
the world, particularly anyone they think might harbor ill intentions - the
fact they appear to have only limited control of their own airspace.

Here's a quote from the NYT about why pilots might not have radioed in to
report a disaster:

Pilots have a mantra for setting priorities in an emergency: aviate,
navigate, communicate. The first priority is to fly the airplane. Telling
air traffic controllers on the ground what is going on comes third, since
doing so is unlikely to instantly yield any help with the crisis in the
cockpit, whatever it may be. If the pilots are fighting to keep the plane
aloft, they may not have time to use the radio.

--
Bobby G.

On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 09:51:24 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 08:14:01 -0700, RobertMacy
wrote:

In early 60's a satellite could read the headlines of a paper lying on the
ground, so why is it so hard to NOT see this plane?

This region has to be one of the most monitored regions in the world.

"...China yesterday pressed ten high-resolution satellites to look for
the missing plane."

Read more at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/31852827.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medi um=text&utm_campaign=cppst

Breaking News: "CHINESE GOVERNMENT WEBSITE SAYS IT HAS IMAGES OF
SUSPECTED DEBRIS OF MISSING MALAYSIA PLANE, AP REPORTS"

Details developing...Fox News reports.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/03/12/chinese-government-website-says-it-has-images-suspected-plane-debris/

wrote in message news:ecdddfda-e79f-4c51-9d28-

stuff snipped

I don't see anyone saying cell phones work exactly the same all over
the world.

There's a pretty strong implication that you can read something out of the
scattered reports of grief-stricken people that some phones - probably from
a number of different carriers - are behaving oddly. Possible reasons -
journalists trying to hack them like the Murdoch newspapers in England did -
government agencies tracking them in case terrorism was involved - grief
stricken relatives dialing the wrong numbers - the possibilities are so
endless that to read something from them seems to really be grasping at
straws. If China's involved, you can bet someone's watching those phones
for anything that might involve terrorism.

If someone (like a journo trying to crack voicemail) was repeatedly dialing
a lost cell phone, isn't it possible that would affect what someone calling
in at the same time hears? So many possibilities other than "the phones are
still on - somewhere." I suppose the wish is that the plane is hijacked and
we'll get a ransom note one of these days but Occam's razor says: "Watery
grave" the most likely explanation.

A more newsworthy item would be a person who actually *talked* to a
passenger - not gotten what they believe to be an odd response from a phone
that's probably a few hundred feet over water. The phone "rang funny" just
doesn't seem to me to be indicative of anything, especially on phones that
have been transported from country to country.

But don't you think that people that have been using them
in Malaysia, China, etc know how they behave there?

Flights between countries with roaming and all sorts of odd cell phone
handoffs would lead me to believe that this is a cellular network issue, a
not an indication that anyone's still alive.

That includes some Malaysian Airline officials. They appear to be saying
that the cell
phones are ringing like they are on and in cell phone service.

Dude, my confidence in ANY sort of Malaysian official is probably at an all
time low. (-:

Can't you tell the difference on your phone?

I haven't dropped it in the ocean yet, where I am 80% confident that's where
the MH370 phones are. The other 20% is reserved for crashing on land
somewhere. If you believe the searchers, the crash site can't be in the
water. I don't remember what crash it was, but I do remember some plane
getting so thoroughly buried under silt it was nearly impossible to see from
the air.

If there is no cell phone service in an area the phone is in or
the phone is off, and you call it, what happens in
your experience? You can't tell the difference? The phone just
rings the same? With all the phones I've had, all the places I've
used them, I could tell a difference between how they behave when
called when the phone was off or on. The phone I have right now,
if it's on and I call it, I hear it ring 5 times, if it's not on
it goes to voicemail in 1.5 rings. I think that is what the people
over there are saying. There could be reasons, like everything else
in this story it could be misreported, etc, but I don't see why it
should be dismissed as nonsense because it's consistent with my
experience.

Your experience in America with a total of what, three carriers? These
systems are infinitely configurable. With the government and press both
likely to be snooping those numbers and the roaming issues, odd phone
behavior is dispostive of nothing, at least in my mind.

And it could be consistent with the other evidence too. They are
still searching boths sides and across the middle of Malaysia, no?
If crashed over land there is some chance some phones could have
survived. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that's likely, but
neither do I think what the people are saying is completely nuts.

I don't think it likely either and I think it shows that when people are
starved for information about their probably deceased love ones, they will
grasp at any straw left to them. It's more a concern that these people are
giving themselves false hope. It would be worse if it turns out to be the
fault of snoops ringing those phones and trying to hack into their voicemail
systems. Given everything we know about the Chinese government and the
press, that's the most likely explanation of oddball ringing. I guess a
little false hope might soften the eventual blow the relatives of the
passengers will face.

As you've pointed out before, we've not got the world's "best and
brightest - or most truthful" working on the problem. I also read, I think
in BusinessWeek, that it would cost $300M per airline to build real-time
black box transmissions through a satelite link. Not gonna happen given how
few of these they drop that turn into mysteries. The bottom line is that a
777 is a big honkin' thing and while one might go missing for a while, it
can't *stay* missing.

Even when we have video of the crash, like TWA 800, the puzzle can be very
hard to solve. I saw video that sure as hell looked like a missile but I
also saw the reassembled wreckage that didn't support a missile strike. I
can easily see a president, R or D, deciding to conceal a terrorist attack
to prevent widespread panic. Not sure it happened there, but there's enough
meat to feed a small army of conspiracy theorists.

--
Bobby G.

A Chinese satellite looking into the mysterious disappearance of
Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 "observed a suspected crash area at sea,"
a Chinese government agency said -- a potentially pivotal lead into
what has been a frustrating search for the aircraft.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/12/world/...html?hpt=hp_t1

Home Guy posted for all of us...

And I know how to SNIP

There was a suprising number of planes in the air around Malaysia at 1
am local time.



At Fantasy Island! Tattoo is calling out de plane deplane and Roarke is
admiring the fine Corinthian leather.

--
Tekkie

posted for all of us...

And I know how to SNIP


But how many times did you hear it ring before going to voicemail when:

A - The cell phone was turned off

B - The cell phone was on.

Mine you can tell the difference. It rings 1.5 times when off, but
5 times when it's on. I think it's that kind of behavior that the
friends/families were talking about, but again from the reporting
who knows. They made it sound like it just keeps ringing, which
is odd, because almost everyone has voicemail that it would go to
today if the phone were still on and no one answered.

WHO CARES?

--
Tekkie

Oren posted for all of us...

And I know how to SNIP


The media in Malaysia it mostly state-owned by government or political
parties. This puts a "chilling effect" on reporters.


Their version of MSNBC ?

--
Tekkie

On 3/12/2014 7:46 PM, Tekkie® wrote:
posted for all of us...
Mine you can tell the difference. It rings 1.5 times when off, but
5 times when it's on. I think it's that kind of behavior that the
friends/families were talking about, but again from the reporting
who knows. They made it sound like it just keeps ringing, which
is odd, because almost everyone has voicemail that it would go to
today if the phone were still on and no one answered.

WHO CARES?

THE FAMILIES OF THE DECEASED?
THE INVESTIGATORS?

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..