Missing Malaysia Airlines jet carrying 239 triggers Southeast Asia search

[beetlenut]

All the pilot has to do is at the change over point is get the 1st officer busy for a while in the cabin lock the door climb to 45000 and the plane is his. If he is very upset and wants to have his life insurance paid (no suicide) then head to the southern Indian Ocean as it will be very difficult to salvage to black box to find out what happened

Sent from my i-mobile IQ 5.1 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[canuckamuck]

All the pilot has to do is at the change over point is get the 1st officer busy for a while in the cabin lock the door climb to 45000 and the plane is his. If he is very upset and wants to have his life insurance paid (no suicide) then head to the southern Indian Ocean as it will be very difficult to salvage to black box to find out what happened

Sent from my i-mobile IQ 5.1 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

That theory is definitely in my top three scenarios

[Farma]

The Chinese Government is to give a news conference later on a large object 22 x 13 metres spotted on satellite image in the southern corridor.

Images taken lunchtime 18th 120 km west of where Australian debris located.

Edited March 22, 2014 by Farma

[3NUMBAS]

they got plenty ships on station soon so they will be first on the scene if its correct

updates here

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/22/mh370-search-continues-as-australian-pm-vows-to-find-wreckage--live-updates

Ferrari team has evicted the relatives from the hotel ! heartless swines

Edited March 22, 2014 by 3NUMBAS

[steven100]

MORE POSSIBLE FLOATING OBJECTS .......

China has a new satellite image of a large floating object in the Indian Ocean that could be related to missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370.

[mcfester]

New image from Chinese looks like one side of the cockpit, the earlier images looked like a dead hippo.

http://metro.co.uk/2014/03/22/missing-malaysia-airlines-jet-mh370-china-finds-possible-debris-on-satellite-4672826/

Edited March 22, 2014 by mcfester

[MK1]

Missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370: Floating debris spotted by Chinese satellite image

The Age- 22/03/2014 (10:21pm AEDT)

Lindsay Murdoch

Melbourne; A Chinese satellite has identified another object in the Indian Ocean that could be from the missing Malaysia Airlines airliner.......

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/world/missing-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-floating-debris-spotted-by-chinese-satellite-image-20140322-35ap6.html

Edited March 22, 2014 by MK1

[Shot]

What happened to the objects 2500km off Perth?

[MJP]

I think this thing's in a hanger somewhere.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Chicog]

What happened to the objects 2500km off Perth?

It could be the same object.

Pictures two days later and 120Km away.

[coma]

All the pilot has to do is at the change over point is get the 1st officer busy for a while in the cabin lock the door climb to 45000 and the plane is his. If he is very upset and wants to have his life insurance paid (no suicide) then head to the southern Indian Ocean as it will be very difficult to salvage to black box to find out what happened

Sent from my i-mobile IQ 5.1 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

That theory is definitely in my top three scenarios

Like what happened on this aircraft. Good documentary on Youtube. Quite relative and worth watching.

SilkAir Flight 185 - Pilot Suicide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SilkAir_Flight_185

[MK1]

What happened to the objects 2500km off Perth?

It could be the same object.

Pictures two days later and 120Km away.

According to The Age, the new objects spotted by the Chinese satellites are 120km from the previous objects spotted by the Australians.

However, I imagine that the Chinese need to also justify the means before participating in this costly search & recovery operation.

[Loptr]

All the pilot has to do is at the change over point is get the 1st officer busy for a while in the cabin lock the door climb to 45000 and the plane is his. If he is very upset and wants to have his life insurance paid (no suicide) then head to the southern Indian Ocean as it will be very difficult to salvage to black box to find out what happened

Sent from my i-mobile IQ 5.1 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

That theory is definitely in my top three scenarios

Like what happened on this aircraft. Good documentary on Youtube. Quite relative and worth watching.

SilkAir Flight 185 - Pilot Suicide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SilkAir_Flight_185

So you are saying that the pilot wanted to commit suicide? It took him 7 hours to decide whether or not to actually go through with it and the plane ran out of fuel due to his indecision. Right? Next hypothesis.

[Credo]

The pilot, or co-pilot, may have committed suicide. The passengers could have already died and the point that the last person ended his life, we don't know. The plane could have just been put on auto-pilot to continue it's journey until it ran out of fuel.

[boomerangutang]

All the pilot has to do is at the change over point is get the 1st officer busy for a while in the cabin lock the door climb to 45000 and the plane is his. If he is very upset and wants to have his life insurance paid (no suicide) then head to the southern Indian Ocean as it will be very difficult to salvage to black box to find out what happened

Sent from my i-mobile IQ 5.1 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

That theory is definitely in my top three scenarios

Like what happened on this aircraft. Good documentary on Youtube. Quite relative and worth watching.

SilkAir Flight 185 - Pilot Suicide

Initial investigation in to the Silk Air disaster claimed suicide. Subsequent lawsuit indicated it was mechanical problem in the tail section. Both sides of the discussion are convincing, so it's difficult (for some of us) to decide which is correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SilkAir_Flight_185

[JoeLing]

Most puzzling at all. Why is it not, as usual in such cases, an international team that leads and

coordinates the investigations? Why does Malaysia insists on doing it their own way? What

is there to hide?

A few days back I read, someone working on an oil rig to the east of Vietnam saw a fire in the sky.

At the same time, china recorded some seismic activities in the same area but I have not read

anything in the press saying they searched that area. Looking at the recent pictures with the

possible radius of the last ping but back to the east, that would just about be where that oil-rig

worker saw something.

An other theory, looking at the last position of civilian contact with the plane and the last possible

position by the army would suggest the plane would be heading to Langkawi as "Goodfellow"

suggests but if one extends that line, compares the distance from the initial loss of contact to

Bejing (≈ 2400 Miles) and measures that along that extended line, one would just about find

Diego Garcia (≈ 2375 Miles) as some Russians suggested.

As for the motive, I don't believe it's just the usual hijacking as there would be either demands

or someone would want to take credit for his achievement. Because of the altitude of 45'000 ft

the plane went up to, I believe the people on board were of no interest, passed away silently,

maybe just "collateral damage"?

Some already suggested, the plane could be repainted, re-coded and used for an other 9/11

and blame could be put in to some one else's back yard in order to justify some kind of action

against some "unfriendly nations". Somehow Iran, North Korea, even Russia springs in mind?

Maybe checking the stock market could give some clues of where that target could be and

who masterminded "with surgical precision" this whole story.

Now what's about the discrepancies? Malaysian Airways and the Malaysian Government kept

releasing contradictory statements about passengers who booked that flight, about passengers

who checked in and about the passengers on the plane? How comes?

Malaysia's government instantly denied the report that army radar picked up something that could

have been MH370 (they didn't say there might have been something but needs further examination,

they clearly said they did NOT see anything unusual) only to confirm later that one of their radars

did pick up something. Same with Thailand, first they didn't see anything on their radar, now they did.

("Either you're with us or you're against us" springs in mind)

In my opinion, the target was not the people and not necessarily the plane but what about the cargo?

There has been no information at all about the cargo manifest.The plane could have been ditched

anywhere but most likely, somewhere at sea far away from praying radar. I'm pretty sure, a skilled pilot

could ditch the plane safely somewhere on water as the pilot did on the Hudson river. The plane could

be sunk without traces after the cargo was removed.

Well, suppose WikiLeaks will inform us in due time.

I still thought my posting could make sense. Well, to some extend. Maybe as some suggested, after reaching the Andaman air corridors, the plane could have headed north in the shadow of an other plane just enough to fly right past in between Sumatra and Nicobar's radar, then head towards Mauritius (some 'big" plane was spotted there heading south) and down to Diego Garcia. So climbing up to 45'000 ft in order to glide slowly down below radar might increased the flight distance a few 100 km (although I recon, climbing at such altitude would use up more fuel as safe).

Anyway, not sure if "Flight by wire" would allow to remotely fly a plane or even take of like a drone but if, the plane could have been unloaden and sent back up in to the sky on a southern course within no time. It could have then crashed very much on the circle of that last ping and about 4500 km south-south-west from the last radar contact or, 3500 km south of Diego Garcia. Pretty difficult to recover the "black box" in those deep waters. The currents would have moved debris about 500 to 800 km east during a week in the water or sunk all together without trace.

The whole lot would look like someone had some personal issued.

Now I wonder, what was the cargo? Mangosteen? Or could MH370 hold 33 tons of gold?

http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/03/21/the-latest-heist-us-quietly-snatches-the-ukraines-gold-reserves/

How long would it take to unload?

[GentlemanJim]

So we now have the Malaysian Transport Minister admitting that when he answered the question last week "was the aircraft carrying any hazardous cargo"? He lied when he said, "no just 3 or 4 tons of Mangosteen". He has now stated the aircraft was carrying Lithium Ion batteries !!!!!

NOW, we need a lot more info to come out here, but I have it on very good authority that the cargo of lithium batteries was in the 'tons' in terms of weight and the pallets of batteries had been stood in the sun for two days! If this is true and the aircraft was brought down by a fire started by lithium batteries then it is goodbye Malaysia Airlines as the litigation will hit them on an unprecedented scale. I cannot believe such a large amount of this dangerous cargo would be on an aircraft full of passengers. Two or three tons of those things would cause a huge fire.

I think we are getting close to a solution and heads are going to roll. This would explain why the Malaysians suddenly turned on their own pilots as the potential scapegoats. I really hope nobody has purposely put out information to ensure error in the search for the aircraft and any possible survivors. The final outcome of this could be far more disturbing than a suicide or terrorist activity!

[MJP]

It's coincidence, but only a week before this plane went missing there were a few news items in the UK about the risk of those cheap non-OEM lithium batteries exploding and causing risks on flights.

I thought passenger flights were not permitted to carry hazardous cargo?

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited March 22, 2014 by MJP

[JesseFrank]

So we now have the Malaysian Transport Minister admitting that when he answered the question last week "was the aircraft carrying any hazardous cargo"? He lied when he said, "no just 3 or 4 tons of Mangosteen". He has now stated the aircraft was carrying Lithium Ion batteries !!!!!

NOW, we need a lot more info to come out here, but I have it on very good authority that the cargo of lithium batteries was in the 'tons' in terms of weight and the pallets of batteries had been stood in the sun for two days! If this is true and the aircraft was brought down by a fire started by lithium batteries then it is goodbye Malaysia Airlines as the litigation will hit them on an unprecedented scale. I cannot believe such a large amount of this dangerous cargo would be on an aircraft full of passengers. Two or three tons of those things would cause a huge fire.

I think we are getting close to a solution and heads are going to roll. This would explain why the Malaysians suddenly turned on their own pilots as the potential scapegoats. I really hope nobody has purposely put out information to ensure error in the search for the aircraft and any possible survivors. The final outcome of this could be far more disturbing than a suicide or terrorist activity!

I thought batteries were not allowed to transport by air anymore since some time already .

[GentlemanJim]

They are permitted to carry some but depending on packaging and storage etc. There are strict limits on the amount that can be carried. I am being told that they were over the limit (that explains a lot in terms of the disinformation coming out). Just need to wait now for the full amount carried to be released in the press, but the Transport Minister has now definitely admitted they were being carried and last week he denied it.

[NeverSure]

If I wanted to commit suicide but wanted to hide the fact (so life insurance would still be paid) by preventing any one from getting access to the black box where in the world would be the best place to ditch the aircraft. Right where they are searching now.

My life insurance will pay in a suicide after a two year waiting period. My beneficiaries are insured against my death including suicide.

Also, that seems like a mighty elaborate plan just to get insurance to pay.

[3NUMBAS]

everybody on board would have had a lithium battery in their phone or laptop so a few more in the hold at low temps must be a red herring.

from wiki

Transport restrictions

Japan Airlines Boeing 787 lithium cobalt oxide battery that caught fire in 2013

IATA estimates that over a billion lithium cells are flown each year.^[96] The United States Department of Transportation has not allowed passengers on commercial aircraft to carry spare lithium batteries (i.e., not installed in a device) in their checked baggage since 1 January 2008. Types of batteries covered by this rule are those containing small amounts of lithium, including Li-ion, lithium polymer, and lithium cobalt oxide chemistries. Lithium-ion batteries containing more than 25 grams (0.88 oz) equivalent lithium content (ELC) are forbidden in US air travel.^[109]

Replacement batteries may be transported in carry-on luggage. Tips are provided on safe packaging and carriage of batteries; e.g., such batteries should be in their original protective packaging or in individual containers or plastic bags.^[109][110]

Some postal administrations restrict air shipping (including EMS) of lithium and lithium-ion batteries, either separately or installed in equipment. Such restrictions apply in Hong Kong,^[111] Australia and Japan.^[112]

On 16 May 2012 the United States Postal Service (USPS) banned shipping anything containing a lithium battery to an overseas address, after fires from transport of batteries.^[113] This restriction made it difficult to send anything containing lithium batteries to military personnel overseas, as the USPS was the only method of shipment to these addresses; the ban was lifted on 15 November 2012.^[114]

[GentlemanJim]

everybody on board would have had a lithium battery in their phone or laptop so a few more in the hold at low temps must be a red herring.

from wiki

Transport restrictions

Japan Airlines Boeing 787 lithium cobalt oxide battery that caught fire in 2013

IATA estimates that over a billion lithium cells are flown each year.^[96] The United States Department of Transportation has not allowed passengers on commercial aircraft to carry spare lithium batteries (i.e., not installed in a device) in their checked baggage since 1 January 2008. Types of batteries covered by this rule are those containing small amounts of lithium, including Li-ion, lithium polymer, and lithium cobalt oxide chemistries. Lithium-ion batteries containing more than 25 grams (0.88 oz) equivalent lithium content (ELC) are forbidden in US air travel.^[109]

Replacement batteries may be transported in carry-on luggage. Tips are provided on safe packaging and carriage of batteries; e.g., such batteries should be in their original protective packaging or in individual containers or plastic bags.^[109][110]

Some postal administrations restrict air shipping (including EMS) of lithium and lithium-ion batteries, either separately or installed in equipment. Such restrictions apply in Hong Kong,^[111] Australia and Japan.^[112]

On 16 May 2012 the United States Postal Service (USPS) banned shipping anything containing a lithium battery to an overseas address, after fires from transport of batteries.^[113] This restriction made it difficult to send anything containing lithium batteries to military personnel overseas, as the USPS was the only method of shipment to these addresses; the ban was lifted on 15 November 2012.^[114]

A red herring? Lithium batteries have been responsible for bringing a few cargo aircraft down in the last 5 years. What low temperatures are you talking of? You say red herring and then go on to publish the fact that the batteries are banned from certain forms of carriage. If the batteries had been stood in direct sunlight for any amount of time and the casing on just one had been damaged leading to exposure with the atmosphere or short circuiting then there would be the possibility of a fierce fire on the aircraft (these batteries will expand and swell when exposed to excessive heat). Yes you are allowed them in your phone. Spares must be with you in the cabin and not checked in.

[sunshine51]

The satellite images are from March 16 . And now the vessels are searching in that area . The debris would have drifted a long distance by now. Why can't they just take new fresh satellite images of the same area today and try to locate the debris and give the coordinates to the search team ?

We have the technology and satellites ready to do this , so why this delay ?

Mainly because this could be leaking information governments would like keep secret.

As far as satellite capabilities in real time that is.

[sunshine51]

They are permitted to carry some but depending on packaging and storage etc. There are strict limits on the amount that can be carried. I am being told that they were over the limit (that explains a lot in terms of the disinformation coming out). Just need to wait now for the full amount carried to be released in the press, but the Transport Minister has now definitely admitted they were being carried and last week he denied it.

About the lithium batteries being carried and the double-speak here are two weblinks and the following quote...

"These are not regarded as dangerous goods... and were packed as recommended by the International Civil Aviation Organisation," said Malaysia Airlines CEO Ahmad Jauhari Yahya.

Links...

http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/se-asia/story/missing-mh370-carried-lithium-ion-batteries-cargo-not-seen-dangerous-201

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/not-just-mangosteens-on-board-mh370-also-carried-lithium-ion-batteries-says

Just Google..."MH370 Carrying Lithium Batteries"...and see what you get...heaps.

Plus here's a PDF file from IATA regarding lithium battery safety...

Lithium-Battery-Guidance-2013-V1.1.pdf

[GentlemanJim]

They are permitted to carry some but depending on packaging and storage etc. There are strict limits on the amount that can be carried. I am being told that they were over the limit (that explains a lot in terms of the disinformation coming out). Just need to wait now for the full amount carried to be released in the press, but the Transport Minister has now definitely admitted they were being carried and last week he denied it.

About the lithium batteries being carried and the double-speak here are two weblinks and the following quote...

"These are not regarded as dangerous goods... and were packed as recommended by the International Civil Aviation Organisation," said Malaysia Airlines CEO Ahmad Jauhari Yahya.

Links...

http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/se-asia/story/missing-mh370-carried-lithium-ion-batteries-cargo-not-seen-dangerous-201

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/not-just-mangosteens-on-board-mh370-also-carried-lithium-ion-batteries-says

Just Google..."MH370 Carrying Lithium Batteries"...and see what you get...heaps.

Plus here's a PDF file from IATA regarding lithium battery safety...

Lithium-Battery-Guidance-2013-V1.1.pdf

Correct.

Perhaps the Transport Minister and the MA CEO would like to see what happens if you short circuit a Lithium Ion Battery (and to think they do security checks at airports and confiscate your nail clippers!)

Imagine one setting off 30 or 100

while we are on this excellent safety subject, please do not go to sleep with your laptop on your knee in bed, whilst still plugged in etc. Some people have burned to death in exactly those circumstances.

Edited March 22, 2014 by GentlemanJim

[Chicog]

All the pilot has to do is at the change over point is get the 1st officer busy for a while in the cabin lock the door climb to 45000 and the plane is his. If he is very upset and wants to have his life insurance paid (no suicide) then head to the southern Indian Ocean as it will be very difficult to salvage to black box to find out what happened

Sent from my i-mobile IQ 5.1 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

That theory is definitely in my top three scenarios

Like what happened on this aircraft. Good documentary on Youtube. Quite relative and worth watching.

SilkAir Flight 185 - Pilot Suicide

Initial investigation in to the Silk Air disaster claimed suicide. Subsequent lawsuit indicated it was mechanical problem in the tail section. Both sides of the discussion are convincing, so it's difficult (for some of us) to decide which is correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SilkAir_Flight_185

But in the subsequent lawsuit the NTSB's conclusions were excluded from evidence. They showed how he disabled the cockpit voice recorder, and they also showed he was facing financial difficulties.

[3NUMBAS]

a billion batteries flown each year so its about the same as a plane being struck by lightning ,as i said a red herring ,but theres those who try to make out its important and caused a fire .

diddlysquat alarmists clutching at straws and dismissed by the experts .

they were NOT in use and stored according to CAO

quote

These are not regarded as dangerous goods...and were packed as recommended by the International Civil Aviation Organisation," Mr Yahya said.

The batteries have been known to explode when in use due to a process known as "thermal runaway" caused by the electric current getting stuck in an excited loop, leading to overheating.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2014/03/22/15/14/mh370-carried-potentially-dangerous-battery-cargo

[khaosai]

Hi,

Crews put a lot of faith in the people loading the aircraft, particularly when it comes to cargo that may be a potential threat to flight safety. Each airline will have its own policy on lithium battery transportation. Some airlines may choose not to transport them, whilst others will allow it.

If these batteries are carried then they must be loaded in accordance with the information provided in the ICAO dangerous goods manual that's found onboard the aircraft. There is also a manual onboard called the emergency response guide (ERG) with information on what specific procedure to follow depending on the nature of the emergency.

Certain batteries will require a notice to crew (NOTOC) whilst some will not. The specific battery type is recognised by a specific UN number.

There was a change to the IATA DG manual in 2013 which highlighted that the packing instructions for certain types of batteries had changed. The changes affected lithium metal batteries (UN 3090) and lithium ion batteries (UN 3480)

The manual has different sections which determine the packing instructions which may be regulated, partially regulated or unregulated. Regulated and partially regulated will require a NOTOC to be issued to the crew. Unregulated does not require a NOTOC. It is therefore possible to have batteries onboard without the crew knowing, however the airline will have applied a very thorough evaluation process prior to acceptance.

As an aside I was looking at the waypoints mentioned in the information that has been shared so far. It's possible to join them up with the South Pole (SPOLE) and the aircraft would then track laterally towards that point. Obviously not enough fuel to reach there of course. I wonder if the search has included that waypoint with regards to tracking. The aircraft could have travelled through Lumpur, Chennai, Jakarta, Colombo and then into the Melbourne flight information region.

[hawker9000]

IMHO, this event has demonstrated how aircraft technological design has failed 'to see the wood for the trees'. Many aircraft systems have double or triple redundancy, but they all overlook what can happen when the flight crew (or someone in the cockpit) deliberately try to override these systems.

I'm not saying that this was piloit suicide in this specific case. But previous tragedies have shown the world that pilot suicide is a factual event, (not just on one occasion, but several).

I raised the issue on Prune that too many aviation professionals were thinking with their hearts and not with their brains - eager to defend the reputation of flying professionals. My post was rapidly deleted.

Again IMHO, aircraft comms, emergency and flight systems should be designed 'survive' an attempt at 'pilot suicide'. Quite how one does that I'm not sure. But it is a bad oversight at the very least and a dangerous liability - especially in a fee-paying public aircraft - to design that aircraft without considering pilot suicide. Simon

I can understand being able to turn off 'auto-pilot' - but there are other devices that should not be able to be turned off. I don't know tech-names, as I'm not a pilot or techie, but an earlier article written by a pilot - made a good case for certain devices (flight data recorder, etc) be tamper-proof. If that had been the case with the Malaysian flight, it would have made a world of difference.

It's human nature to consider change in the context of some recent event that seems to demand it. Solutions seem obvious when you only think you have one requirement to meet. Unfortunately, the real world is more complex than that.

Almost any electrical device is a potential electrical fire source if it shorts. Even if a new location-transmitting device is installed with no ON/OFF switch, it's probably going to be on a circuit breaker or relay that can be pulled or disabled in an emergency. Isolating or securing its bus will also put it offline. There are no doubt exceptions (e.g., the black boxes and CVRs; I'm not actually sure what it takes to disable them or if they can be), but I sort of expect that the decision to keep something that'll involve a power transmitter entirely self-contained and beyond the reach of the pilot in an emergency like that isn't going to be taken lightly. Interference and integration with other existing systems also would need to be considered carefully. Should this be integrated with existing transponder or nav radio or comm radio systems or flight data recorder & CVR or engine data links or ??? ? Who's going to be monitoring this thing on the ground (or is the data just going to be recorded & stored somewhere by somebody until needed or will worldwide ATC have to be upgraded & trained to use it routinely)? What existing ground systems does it need to be integrated with and how's that going to happen? I'm sure the systems experts can come up with a zillion other concerns. I'm certainly not saying it wouldn't be worthwhile to hash it all out and build something, but....

And there are other reasons to be able to turn things off. Transponders are switched to Standby on the ground because of aircraft density, the interference they'd create, and the lack of any need for them to be on there. I think I heard something about the pilot being able to switch off the ELT because of the need to save battery life. I think you start down a slippery slope when you start putting things off-limits to the aircrew. If the pilots can't be trusted, you have serious problems that NO kneejerk reaction to a particular air incident is going to resolve.

...WRT the possibility that this was a hijacking... You know what they say: for every measure there's a countermeasure. If a hijacker is technically astute and has sponsorship & resources, and is aware that his plans are going to be thwarted by some particular aircraft component, he'll try to find a way to defeat or mask or jam it (just as, IF this was in fact a hijacking, they knew to secure the transponder & radios). Even worse, what if a hijacker can turn the tables and actually use the device to his advantage (e.g, cause it to transmit misleading data, or override it with something he brought along that does)? 'Seems far-fetched I know, but what's it worth to you if your aim is to hijack a $284M aircraft, not counting the ransom/extortion value of over 200 passengers?