patrick.net

http://www.youtube.com/embed/X3Hg-Y7MugU

Interesting interpretation here about MH370 shadowing another plane to get to the 'stans:

http://keithledgerwood.tumblr.com/post/79838944823/did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using-sia68-sq68

I would add that the ascent to 45,000 feet over land could be for a couple of reasons:

1) To reduce chance of someone on the ground noticing an unidentified night flight

2) Pressure in the cabin would drop enough they'd almost certainly all be unconscious or near enough. Take a portable oxygen unit, and disable passengers. Tie them up, drug them, kill them.

Now you have as long as fuel can be made to last, to accomplish your mission.

Sounds like this guy has cracked the case

44150

New Renter 2014 Mar 17, 6:10am

Mission being what exactly? There are only so may places one can land (intact) such an airliner and keep it out of sight.

One thing is for sure, that plane is on the ground - somewhere.

44151

Vicente 2014 Mar 17, 6:23am

Call it Crazy says

I have a hard time believing that no military radar didn't pick up this plane if it crossed all these air spaces... One of them would surely have seen it, and without a transponder, would have reported it......

I've done night shift work and I know how slack things can be. It shouldn't be that way of course, but it often is. No military alert was raised about an unidentified blip right over Malaysia!

If MH370 was lights-out, and tucked up behind and above/below SIA68, it would likely show up as one blob on radar, not 2 distinct ones. Radar operator would see a transponder return for the blob and move on to something else. Assuming they were at some times close enough in to transmitter or at right angle to show 2 blobs really close together, night operators might have assumed it's a ghost echo, and again ignored it. Your job is watching all these dots and making sense of them, and you've seen the same flights do the same things through your sector hundreds of times and you blank them out to look for the outlier. One part of working nights is filtering and only involving a second person if something seems really odd. Raw data might show this if they look.

Yeah it does sound like the opening to Moonraker or some other outlandish plot. Why do it? If you wanted the planes or the passengers there's lots cheaper/simpler ways.

44152

FortWayne 2014 Mar 17, 6:25am

"Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist." I got that when I clicked the link.

http://www.recourse-loans.com/2013/06/a-neocon-just-called-for-false-flag.html - not opening.

44153

Ceffer 2014 Mar 17, 6:28am

errc says

I think auto correct accidentally removed the word buttcheeks.

Suck 100k donuts with his buttcheeks

The other cops would tear him apart for the donuts. Remember the five second rule?

With cops and donuts up the ass, it's the ten minute rule.

44154

MisdemeanorRebel 2014 Mar 17, 6:31am

Quigley says

WWI brought the US in with a false flag, orchestrated by elements of American intelligence who claimed that Germany was arming Mexico and encouraging the Mexicans to wage war on the US.

Yep! The Luisitania was packed with arms ("Unrefrigerated Butter"), the German Gov't tried to buy ads in all the major papers inc. the NYT about the dangers of traveling on a ship carrying munitions to a belligerent - but every paper except one in the rural Midwest (ostensibly with a large German population) refused to run it. Not a surprise since most of the major papers & newsreels were all running bullshit about German soldiers killing babies and such. In actuality, the war was started by France and Britain.

Also, a bunch of Yiddish-speaking Russian War Refugees were imprisoned for trying to tell Americans get out of the dumb war. That's when Wendell Holmes made his baloney-pony fire in a crowded theater remark:

Thing is, there really was a fire.

44155

zzyzzx 2014 Mar 17, 6:38am

Call it Crazy says

I have a hard time believing that no military radar didn't pick up this plane if it crossed all these air spaces.

What if nobody is watching?

44156

rooemoore 2014 Mar 17, 6:48am

If MH370 was tucked up behind and below SIA68, it would likely show up as one blob on radar, not 2 distinct ones

How exactly would 370 be able to find and sneak up behind other plane? (SIA68). To do that and not be seen by the other plane would be very, very, very difficult. (read impossible) Remember, they were pretty much flying blind at that point, using the same navigation system as Columbus.

44157

Vicente 2014 Mar 17, 6:59am

rooemoore says

To do that and not be seen by the other plane would be very, very, very difficult. (read impossible)

Read the article. It's night, MH370 has lights off, and is coming up behind. SIA68 has all lights on and is transmitting it's location. Commercial jets don't have rear windows or cameras. Assuming it was a planned intercept, you already know it's usual schedule and just need to fine-tune the approach. It's plausible sounding to me.

44158

curious2 2014 Mar 17, 7:48am

If MH370 approached SIA68 so closely as to appear to be one object on distant military radar screens, wouldn't SIA68's onboard radar have detected the proximity of an object the size of a 777? Neither the linked article nor its comments addressed this question.

Also, as theories go, that one seems to have another flaw. Commercial Airliners tend to follow established flight lanes, just as commercial ships follow shipping lanes. The crews communicate back and forth about conditions (turbulence, icebergs, traffic, whatever). If one plane were following another very closely, the anomaly might be observed by anyone flying the same lane, in either direction, in addition to military radar on the ground. If anybody noticed, they would almost definitely say something. One airliner shadowing another would raise serious safety concerns, including the risks of wake turbulence, wind sheer, and collision.

Anybody planning a hijacking would have anticipated those risks, so shadowing another airliner across thousands of miles seems an unlikely plan.

44159

Vicente 2014 Mar 17, 8:00am

wouldn't SIA68's onboard radar have detected the proximity of an object the size of a 777?

What onboard radar?

2 radar stations in Malaysia evidently tracked this thing but did nothing. I'm curious to hear what story they told their bosses.

As to other aircraft observing the shadowing plane, it's night time, how does anyone see it?

At the very least, if this was the scenario I agree he'd have to stop shadowing by daybreak.

44160

curious2 2014 Mar 17, 8:03am

What onboard radar?

The radar onboard SIA68.

As to other aircraft observing the shadowing plane, it's night time, how does anyone see it?

Moonlight + starlight.

44161

rooemoore 2014 Mar 17, 8:03am

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

If MH370 approached SIA68 so closely as to appear to be one object on distant military radar screens, wouldn't SIA68's onboard radar have detected the proximity of an object the size of a 777? Neither the linked article nor its comments addressed this question.

I think they rely on the same ATC radar. It is my understanding that they don't have "onboard radar". But of course neither did 370 - they had to be flying by sight only.

The other problem with this theory is when 370 finally does break free it would be a huge radar blip. It would have been noticed.

I have always thought this was a pilot suicide. It is a thousand times more plausible but a lot less exciting.

44162

curious2 2014 Mar 17, 8:05am

rooemoore says

I have always thought this was a pilot suicide. It is a thousand times more plausible but a lot less exciting.

I started a thread about that, before AF started this one about uighur go-go dancers. Suicide by either the Captain or the First Officer seems most likely to me. That doesn't mean there weren't also go-go dancers involved, only that Occam's razor suggests they weren't necessary.

I believe aircraft over six tons generally do have radar onboard, they need it for instrument landings and to avoid mountains in the clouds. Any plane capable of completing SIA68's 10,000 mile route would need to be much larger than six tons. The radar is probably designed to look mostly forward and down, but a nearby object the size of a 777 would be rather conspicuous at any angle.

44163

Vicente 2014 Mar 17, 8:12am

rooemoore says

The other problem with this theory is when 370 finally does break free it would be a huge radar blip. It would have been noticed.

Or it only stayed in the shadow until it reached an area that was free of radar coverage, and then detached. Coverage is a station sends out a signal, and you are limited by the horizon and how far away the target is. The farther out the dimmer the return, I think I read 200-300 miles is a usual limit. Assuming you have a really strong transmitter, still at some point the target falls away over the horizon as surely as a ship sails out of your sight. There's an awful lot of ocean out there. And most countries only put stations on their border looking toward the enemy or the nearby coast. A great failing we realized after 9/11 was all our NORAD radars faced outwards, so we couldn't even locate fucking domestic airliners inside our borders.

44164

curious2 2014 Mar 17, 8:18am

curious2 says

before AF started this one about uighur go-go dancers.

Admit it: you can't stop thinking about them.

Well, I can admit that I think of them more often now than before, which was never. They might make a good opening act for Bill O'Reilly on The Factor, so he can explain the downside of electing them president. He could probably allege that they hijack and/or crash airplanes, which would require him to supervise them very closely at all times.

44165

Vicente 2014 Mar 17, 8:23am

The radar onboard SIA68.

Why would a civilian jetliner carry it's own RADAR set? Beyond perhaps a forward-looking sort that picks up weather I mean. Which would be completely blind to a plane on the rear quarter. Why do you think military fighter and attack planes depend so heavily on AWACS with it's big bulging antenna to give them the full picture? Because the little unit packed in their nose can't see behind, so they are vulnerable there.

Mark my words, there'll be a flurry of aircraft modifications now as they are all secured with location transmitters which cannot be trivially disabled.

44166

curious2 2014 Mar 17, 8:24am

Why would a civilian jetliner carry it's own RADAR set?

Weather as you mentioned, plus mountains in the clouds as I mentioned, plus instrument landings and collision avoidance.

Mark my words, there'll be a flurry of aircraft modifications now as they are all secured with location transmitters which cannot be trivially disabled.

Maybe so, but pilots are reportedly saying it's already "not easy." I don't know how much more difficult it could be made without interfering with the ability to shut down electrical systems in the event of a fire.

44167

rooemoore 2014 Mar 17, 8:24am

Or it only stayed in the shadow until it reached an area that was free of radar coverage, and then detached.

All this just to crash in the ocean? And once again, with all communication turned off, how would the pilot know he was in a dead zone?

If he wanted to go unnoticed by radar just to crash far away in the Indian ocean, he could have flown low :

44168 corntrollio 2014 Mar 17, 8:30am

Interesting interpretation here about MH370 shadowing another plane to get to the 'stans:

http://keithledgerwood.tumblr.com/post/79838944823/did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using-sia68-sq68

I've seen this theory on airplane enthusiast sites (well before this guy wrote about it -- relative newcomer this guy), but it's pretty far fetched. For example, what about wake turbulence? Military planes do this sometimes, but only under certain conditions and with certain distances. It would be extremely difficult to do this for several hours, given the concentration required and it being nighttime, and the overall margins of getting it right. You could probably do it for a very short time, but not for the period stated. If you made too many mistakes, the blip might be too big, and they might scramble planes after you anyway.

For the conspiracy theorists, the other possible shadow flight suggested is KL 836.

I would add that the ascent to 45,000 feet over land could be for a couple of reasons:

1) To reduce chance of someone on the ground noticing an unidentified night flight

2) Pressure in the cabin would drop enough they'd almost certainly all be unconscious or near enough. Take a portable oxygen unit, and disable passengers. Tie them up, drug them, kill them.

This is nonsense too. For 1) it would make more sense to fly at 5000 feet instead of 45,000 feet if you want to evade radar. For 2), the spec on a 777 is 43,000 feet, which likely includes a margin of safety. Do you really think 45,000 would incapacitate people on the plane? I doubt depressurization would be a problem at that altitude, and more mundane concerns like thrust and stall would come into play (i.e. that the airplane might not be able to achieve or maintain that altitude at close to full load -- remember that this is a big loaded plane).

The maximum altitude certification of a plane is also at least partially based on the ability to get to 14,000 feet. The plane must be capable of getting to 14,000 feet within a certain time period in the event of a cabin depressurization, according to legal requirements. It's not that the plane isn't capable of going higher than the certification, but rather that there are other concerns -- all of the above.

And before anyone says something about landing on a 3000 foot unreinforced runway, sure, you could, if you left zero safety margin, used maximum braking, and landed right at the threshold, especially if you weren't heavy loaded and are okay risking your airframe. The runway might also give way if you did that, so you'd probably only do it in an extreme emergency, and I'm not sure how you'd take off again with that short a runway.

44169

curious2 2014 Mar 17, 8:36am

One pilot suggests accident theories consistent with the reported altitude changes.

Shadowing SIA68 would not be consistent with the reported altitude changes, unless that plane also climbed and descended at odd times and for no reported reason.

Also, any altitude above 40,000 feet would probably be fatal if the cabin was not pressurized. That's why I suspect the plane climbed to its maximum altitude, i.e. to neutralize the passengers.

44170

New Renter 2014 Mar 17, 8:40am

A great failing we realized after 9/11 was all our NORAD radars faced outwards, so we couldn't even locate fucking domestic airliners inside our borders

I think that was done to keep the older radar systems from interfering with TV and radios signals.

44171 corntrollio 2014 Mar 17, 8:45am

One pilot suggests accident theories consistent with the reported altitude changes.

Those altitude changes must be bogus anyway because they don't meet any reasonable specs -- here is a link from the NYT article linked within that CNN article (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/world/asia/malaysia-military-radar.html):

Investigators have also examined data transmitted from the planeâ€™s Rolls-Royce engines that showed it descended 40,000 feet in the span of a minute

I think the data that was allegedly released is made up. There's no way it descended that quickly -- even if it was half that rate.

The problem here is that we have no way of knowing whether the reports have been accurate or not, especially because the Malaysians have been inconsistent on occasion. Either they're incompetent, they're hiding something, or they're trying to protect their government airline at the expense of a good investigation. That's how all this "the pilot supported the opposition government" nonsense strikes me.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2010-01-26/study-pilots-ignore-oxygen-regulations

Also, any altitude above 40,000 feet would probably be fatal if the cabin was not pressurized. That's why I suspect the plane climbed to its maximum altitude, i.e. to neutralize the passengers.

How would the cabin not be pressurized? The 777 pressurizes the cabin to about 8000 feet. Also, 45,000 isn't the maximum altitude in the spec for the 777 -- the max altitude was 43,000, or 43,100 to be specific (FL 431 in aviation-speak). The spec for a 747 is higher, more like 45,100 (FL 451). I've flown at 41,000 feet in a commercial airliner, but I believe the regs require at least either the pilot or first officer to wear an oxygen mask at above FL 410, so they don't usually fly higher unless there's a reason. I suspect that 747s may fly at FL 450 when the conditions warrant and they are flying empty, but otherwise, it's probably very rare.

Update: Cite for the 41,000 feet threshold for an oxygen mask:

44172

New Renter 2014 Mar 17, 8:48am

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-radiation_missile

Why do you think military fighter and attack planes depend so heavily on AWACS with it's big bulging antenna to give them the full picture? Because the little unit packed in their nose can't see behind, so they are vulnerable there.

More so to keep the fighters stealthy. Its kind of silly to spend a billion dollars to make a stealthy fighter only to light it up with the equivalent of a "kick me" sign.

44173

curious2 2014 Mar 17, 8:51am

"There is an axiom in Malaysian politics: Eventually everything comes back to Anwar Ibrahim. So, the longer that the fumbling and inept investigation into the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 has gone on, the more certain it became that it would somehow boomerang to the leader of the countryâ€™s democratic opposition."

Either they're incompetent, they're hiding something, or they're trying to protect their government airline at the expense of a good investigation. That's how all this "the pilot supported the opposition government" nonsense strikes me.

44174 bob2356 2014 Mar 17, 9:07am

Why would a civilian jetliner carry it's own RADAR set?

All airliners have weather radar. It would show other planes, but only forward since the antennae faces forward. It has limited range so finding another airliner would require very precies information on tracks and times. Snuggling up close enough for military radar to register one return would be very difficult. Keeping it up for hours would be even more so.

or 2), the spec on a 777 is 43,000 feet, which likely includes a margin of safety. Do you really think 45,000 would incapacitate people on the plane? I doubt depressurization would be a problem at that altitude, and more mundane concerns like thrust and stall would come into play (i.e. that the airplane might not be able to achieve or maintain that altitude at close to full load).

Airliners start cruise at 30,000 feet or so and gain altitude as they burn off fuel No way no how a 777 could get anywhere near 43,000 feet unless it had burned off most of the fuel. The other problem is speeds and elevations are very carefully calculated to avoid stalls. An airliner works very close to the edge of stall at cruise speeds and altiitudes. Aerodynamic stall speed gradually decreases with altitude, supersonic shock stalls speed decrease with altitude. At some point they overlap and the plane stalls. This is called coffin corner. Not at all a good thing with a 500,000 pound plane flying 500 miles an hour. A pilot randomly setting speeds and altitudes would be playing a very dicey game. Flying at 5000 feet would guzzle fuel at a huge rate, jets are only efficient at high altitudes. Pressurization wouldn't be any problem at all. Concords flew at 55,000 feet every trip.

44175

curious2 2014 Mar 17, 9:09am

How would the cabin not be pressurized?

Either by accident or on purpose (i.e. if whoever disabled the communications next disabled the cabin pressure). If either unattended or piloted by someone suicidal, the plane might reach a maximum altitude somewhat out of spec, which might explain the reported 45,000 feet.

44176 corntrollio 2014 Mar 17, 9:23am

corntrollio says

How would the cabin not be pressurized?

Either by accident or on purpose (i.e. if whoever disabled the communications next disabled the cabin pressure).

Okay, so I'm going to humor you here. If that's really the case, and you're already at 35,000 feet, why do you need to rise to 45,000 feet? I'm pretty sure people would be unconscious in less than a minute at 35,000 feet already, so why do you need to risk the airframe to go higher?

Again, I'd also point out that these numbers make no sense. There's no way in hell the pilot or first officer descended 40,000 feet/minute. That's 454 miles/hour downward, for one thing. Second, you would probably be going past Mach 1 when you got there, which means not good things. Third, you would have to be very skilled to take yourself out of the dive without ripping wings off or having G-forces rip something else on your plane. You can do some crazy shit in a 777, but they aren't designed for things fighter pilots might be able to do.

bob2356 says

An airliner works very close to the edge of stall at cruise speeds and altiitudes. Aerodynamic stall speed gradually decreases with altitude, supersonic shock stalls speed decrease with altitude. At some point they overlap and the plane stalls. This is called coffin corner.

Agree, I'm familiar with the coffin corner concept.

bob2356 says

A pilot randomly setting speeds and altitudes would be playing a very dicey game. Flying at 5000 feet would guzzle fuel at a huge rate, jets are only efficient at high altitudes. Pressurization wouldn't be any problem at all. Concords flew at 55,000 feet every trip.

Agree on all accounts. Flying at 5000 feet would guzzle fuel a lot faster and you couldn't fly the full 5-7 hours or whatever these guys allegedly flew, but it would evade radar. It would be far simpler to do this, to evade detection, than to shadow another 777 for several hours.

Concorde was designed for those high elevations more so than a 777 -- I believe there were additional systems in place for higher altitude, e.g. the smaller windows plus additional air systems in case there was a cabin breach. I believe Concorde also pressurized lower -- more like 6000 feet, but I'd have to check to be sure. I believe the new 787/Dreamliner also pressurizes around 6000 feet. Concorde also was still required to meet the emergency descent requirements I referred to above.

44177

New Renter 2014 Mar 17, 9:24am

Another thing I am wondering about. If the plane had exploded ala TWA 800 would early warning satellites have picked up the heat as a potential launch? If the plane crashed mid ocean might the sound of such a crash be detectable by SOSUS? I think the US has at least a small SOSUS by Diego Garcia. After the big quake of 2004 there was also talk of installing a more complete microphone network in the Indian ocean to better detect underwater earthquakes. If it was ever installed such a system might also be able to indicate where an airliner like this one went down.

44178 corntrollio 2014 Mar 17, 9:25am

If either unattended or piloted by someone suicidal, the plane might reach a maximum altitude somewhat out of spec, which might explain the reported 45,000 feet.

You added this text afterward.

How would the plane go to 45,000 feet unattended?

Also, why wouldn't a suicidal pilot just crash the plane into the ground/ocean at the first chance possible (again, Occam's Razor fail to suggest that they would fly around for several hours first).

On one site, some people were obsessed with the (im)possibility that the flight was going to Somalia. Why? Because there are pirates there? Mogadishu is too far, for one thing, but you'd also be crossing over Indian mainland territory if you went from somewhere near Port Blair (IXZ, where apparently the radar was off) to Mogadishu (MGQ).

44179

curious2 2014 Mar 17, 9:29am