Last week we discussed what we know about the first hour of MH370’s disappearance, based on primary radar data and the first Inmarsat BTO value. Today I’d like to talk about the BFO data and what it can tell us about MH370’s fate.
As longtime readers of this blog well know, the Burst Frequency Offset (BFO) is a type of metadata that measures how different the frequency of an Inmarsat signal is from its expected value. It is an important value to a communications satellite operator like Inmarsat because if the value gets too large, the system will be operating outside its approved frequency limit. One cause of such a change would be if a satellite begins wandering in its orbit, which indeed was the case with MH370. The fact that the Satellite Data Unit (SDU) aboard MH370 did not properly compensate for drift in the Inmarsat satellite overhead is the reason the BFO data contains a signal indicating what the plane was doing.
While each of the BTO values recording during the seven “pings” tells us fairly precisely how far the plane was from the satellite at that time, the BFO data points taken individually do not tell us much about the plane was doing. Taken together, however, they indicate three things:
- After the SDU logged back on with Inmarsat at 18:25, the plane took a generally southern course. If we didn’t have the BFO data, we wouldn’t know, from the BTO data alone, whether the plane followed a path to the north or to the south (see above.)
- The plane had turned south by 18:40. The BFO value at the time of the first incoming sat phone call at 18:40 indicates that the plane was traveling south.
- At 0:19:37 the plane was in a rapid and accelerating decent.
However, as I’ve previously described, if all of these things were true, then the plane would have been found by now. So at least one of them must be false. In the course of my interview with him, Neil Gordon said that the ATSB is firmly convinced that #3 is true, and that as a result he suspects that #2 is not. Specifically, he points out that if the plane were in a descent at 18:40, it could produce the BFO values observed. Thus it is possible that the plane did not perform a “final major turn” prior to 18:40 but instead loitered in the vicinity of the Andaman Islands or western Sumatra before turning and flying into the southern ocean. If this were the case, it would result in the plane turning up to the northeast of the current search area. An example of such a route has been described by Victor Iannello at the Duncan Steel website.
It is worth nothing that such a scenario was explicitly rejected as unlikely by the Australian government when they decided to spend approximately $150 million to search 120,000 square kilometers of seabed. The reason is that it was deemed unlikely that the plane would just happen, by chance to be descending at the right time and at the right rate to look like a southward flight. For my part, I also find it hard to imagine why whoever took the plane would fly it at high speed through Malaysian airspace, then linger for perhaps as much as an hour without contacting anybody at the airline, at ATC, or in the Malysian government (because, indeed, none of these were contacted) and then continuing on once more at high speed in a flight to oblivion.
Well, is there any other alternative? Yes, and it is one that, though historically unpopular, is becoming imore urgent as the plane’s absence from the search area becomes increasingly clear: the BFO data is unreliable. That is to say, someone deliberately altered it.
There are various ways that we can imagine this happening, but the only one that stands up to scrutiny is that someone on board the plane altered a variable in the Satellite Data Unit or tampered with the navigation information fed back to the SDU from the E/E bay. Indeed, we know that the SDU was tampered with: it was turned off, then logged back on with Inmarsat, something that does not happen in the course of normal aircraft operation. It has been speculated that this depowering and repowering occurred as the result of action to disable and re-enable some other piece of equipment, but no one has every come up with a very compelling story as to what that piece of equipment might be. Given the evident problems with the BFO data in our possession, I feel we must consider the possibility that the intended object of the action was the SDU itself.
When I say BFO tampering has been “historically unpopular,” what I mean is that almost everyone who considers themselves a serious MH370 researcher has from the beginning assumed that the BFO data was generated by a normally functioning, untampered-with SDU, and this has limited the scenarios that have been considered acceptable. For a long time I imagined that search officials might know of a reason why tampering could not have occurred, but I no longer believe this is the case. When I questioned Inmarsat whether it was possible that the BFO data could have been spoofed, one of their team said “all Inmarsat can do is work with the data and information and the various testings that we’ve been doing.” And when I raised the issue with Neil Gordon, he said, “All I’ve done is process the data as given to me to produce this distribution.” So it seems that the possibility of BFO spoofing has not been seriously contemplated by search officials.
If we allow ourselves to grapple with the possibility that the BFO data was deliberately tampered with, we quickly find ourselves confronting a radically different set of assumptions about the fate of the plane and the motives of those who took it. These assumptions eliminate some of the problems that we have previously faced in trying to make sense of the MH370 mystery, but introduce new ones, as I’ll explore in upcoming posts.
@Jeff:
“Close to Judaism” — but not quite there?
It can become “involuntary” funny sometimes when people are being claimed by more than one community, neither really knowing their parishioner.
@PaulC – I have seen a few analysis suggesting the mangosteen weight equivalent to the missing drone command centre that was lost in Afghanistan.
@PaulC
That information is accurately disclosed on the bottom of page 103 of the FI report I cited. Why don’t you read the official report and contrast it with is being reported in the tabloids?
I personally see no problem with the cargo. As far as I know the cargo manifest provided is complete and accurate. I know of no information which would credibly dispute it.
Flight MH370 Update: Hypoxia Theory Could Explain What Happened To Missing Plane, New Book Claims
BY JULIA GLUM @SUPERJULIA ON 09/24/16 AT 4:07 PM
Missing MH370 Plane: More Wreckage Found
Did Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 crash because the crew and passengers got hypoxia? Journalist Christine Negroni thinks so
Aviation expert Negroni focuses on hypoxia, a condition resulting from oxygen deprivation, in her new book, “The Crash Detectives: Investigating the World’s Most Mysterious Air Disasters,” the Observer reported Friday. Amazon shows the book is set to be released Wednesday.
Negroni told the Observer she blamed the March 2014 disappearance of MH370 on the faulty sense of judgment pilots can experience after encountering hypoxia, which can occur when a cabin gets depressurized at a certain altitude. MH370 and the 239 people it was carrying vanished en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.
Negroni suggested that the afflicted MH370 pilots tried to signal for help but were so confused they accidentally disabled communications. In Negroni’s scenario, First Officer Fariq Abdul Hamid managed to get the Boeing 777 on track back to Malaysia but fainted.
“It would have made a deep and startling noise, like a clap or the sound of a champagne bottle uncorking, only much, much louder and sharper,” an excerpt from her book in Air & Space Magazine read. “This would have been followed by a rush of air and things swirling everywhere. A white fog would have filled the space as the drop in temperature turned the moist cabin air into mist.”
The plane then likely crashed into the Indian Ocean.
Related Stories
Possible MH370 Debris Not Burned: Officials
Debris ‘Affirms’ MH370 Search Area
The book isn’t the first time Negroni has suggested hypoxia was behind the plane’s mysterious disappearance. Within months of the aircraft and its passengers vanishing, she wrote a blog post for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer laying out the theory and comparing MH370 to previous crashes linked to hypoxia.
Later, Negroni actually intentionally experienced hypoxia while researching her book. On her website, she wrote: “It was a totally unpleasant experience. I felt nauseous, blackness in my peripheral vision, out of breath and very, very flush. After about one minute, my breathing was labored. My head lolling started after about two minutes in.”
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau, which is leading the search for MH370, admitted in June 2014 that “the final stages of the unresponsive crew/hypoxia event type appeared to best fit the available evidence for the final period of MH370’s flight when it was heading in a generally southerly direction.”
The bureau used this information to set an area to sweep for plane debris. Since then, a variety of explanations for the crash have been proposed and probed, including a possible fire on board and a rogue pilot
The missing factor in claim MH370 search is stopping just short of predicted location
The ATSB has good reasons to exclude the Captain Hardy site for MH370 from its search, but are they good enough?
Ben Sandilands — Editor of Plane Talking
Ben Sandilands
Editor of Plane Talking
On first reading, reports that the ATSB is refusing to include a carefully predicted location for the wreckage of MH370 in its final sweeps of the south Indian Ocean search area are disturbing.
But there is a surprising missing factor in the much repeated main report by the highly respected air safety commentator David Learmount.
Mr Learmount has been a proponent for two years for looking at the predicted crash site calculated by Boeing 777 captain Simon Hardy. Captain Hardy developed a detailed mathematical and geometric calculation of the location of the sunk wreckage based on what he described as the known facts, leading to this sensational story about its imminent discovery in the Sunday Express and various News Corp publications on November 11 last year.
However Hardy also asserted that the flight was under pilot control for its duration, that its captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah made a sentimental flyover of Penang Island, before his premeditated murder of the other 238 people on board MH370, a Boeing 777-200ER, and then landed the jet on the surface of the ocean whereupon it sank, intact.
Those additional assertions, some of which seem reasonable at this stage of the mystery, betray Captain Hardy’s own claims of relying entirely on known facts, geometry, mathematics and the performance characteristics of the jet.
A controlled landing and an intact sinking of MH370 are also contraindicated by the state of some of the identified wreckage of the the exterior and interior of the jet. They show signs of an extremely violent event, and are supported by the analysis done for the ATSB of satellite signals indicating a final very rapid and out of control plunge toward the ocean after MH370 had exhausted its fuel.
That said, Captain Hardy places MH370 very close to the southernmost extent of the priority search area calculated by a different set of experts for the ATSB, which takes instructions from Kuala Lumpur in managing the search, which falls within Australia’s maritime search and rescue zone as defined by a UN agency agreement.
Most other informed advice on the closing stage of the search is that it should be well to the north of Hardy’s site.
However, unless there is a discovery before the search zone is exhausted there is a good case for the ATSB to look closely at Captain Hardy’s predicted wreckage site. But given indications that Hardy is wrong about the ‘intact’ landing of a jet under control without electrical power or assisted hydraulics, we also have the reasons as to why the ATSB might decide not to do this.
@MH
The one said to have been stolen by the Taliban and sold to China; then there were also the 2 dead US Navy Seals…
Problem is, there is no way anyone would ever admit any of it so it has to go in the speculation column. But it would certainly go a long way towards giving a reason for the Chinese authorities ‘keen interest’ in the search and rescue operation in the early weeks. There may have been something on board they wanted – and I do not believe it was the 152 Chinese bodies.
Leaving aside the rest, for me the following extract is the most significant part as it alludes to deliberate depressurisation to kill the pax and the time frame for that being the case is within the bounds of logic:
“Later, Negroni actually intentionally experienced hypoxia while researching her book. On her website, she wrote: “It was a totally unpleasant experience. I felt nauseous, blackness in my peripheral vision, out of breath and very, very flush. After about one minute, my breathing was labored. My head lolling started after about two minutes in.”
As the jigsaws slowly falls into place, the suicide scenario gets extra oomph.
@PaulC – also why China hacked into Malaysia govt email and file servers. Possibly to see what Malaysia might know of the suspected diversion. Might be they were planting diversionary evidence as well.
“If a plane is high enough to kill the average person through hypoxia, then everyone dies. No amount of oxygen bottles in the cabin will save the pilot – he dies too, as there is no way to get the oxygen from the bottle into his blood. … as he descends he will reach a point where his lungs will start working again – only at that point are oxygen bottles useful.”, PaulC
How about pre-breathing of 100% O2 in the cockpit? And how longer would this prevent the cockpit crew (other than the pax) from unconscio?
@DennisW
On page 103 of the FI report, ‘Table 1.18A – List of Cargo on board MH370’ shows item 2 as:
2,453kg – Lithium Ion Baterries-Walkie- Talkie accessories & chargers [sic]
Below the table is a note:
1.18.2.1 Lithium Ion Batteries
Lithium Ion Batteries (Li-Ion) carried on MH370 were from Motorola Solution Penang. Of the
total consignment of 2,453 kg, only 221 kg were Li-ion batteries, the rest were chargers and
radio accessories.
On pages 103 to 107 a great deal of information is provided about the batteries – but there is no mention at all of the balance of that consignment. 2,232kg of “chargers and radio accessories” is all we are told.
The same table on page 103 states that the Airway Bill is 232-10677085
You can find a copy of Airway Bill 232-10677085 here: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-05/latest-flight-mh-370-shocker-two-ton-cargo-mystery?page=1
The particular Airway Bill is page 5 of the embedded Scribd document.
The Airway Bill number checks out and the total weight checks out but the description does not check out. The Airway Bill states:
“THE PACKAGE CONTAINS LITHIUM ION BATTERIES.
THE PACKAGE MUST BE HANDLED WITH CARE.”
So the Factual Information package does not accurately describe the contents as listed on the Airway Bill and it then fails to provide any information at all about over 2 tonnes of the consignment.
I would say that is a discrepancy worth looking into.
@DennisW
Really do not want a showdown over this cargo manifest. If you feel like 3 million pounds (9k+ tonnes) of electronics is an aft definition of cargo content on the manifest, more power to you
@susie crowe, as @PaulC said “I would say that is a discrepancy worth looking into.” unless someone want to cover it up to continue with that “political suicide theory”.
I think you guys are finally into something.
@DennisW:
Aha, you mean the books that when borrowed from the public library would fall open at three fifths of the pages? And when one had read those, had a hard time focussing on the book’s beginning? I myself kept to MacLean’s sort: you could engulf yourself in the plot, knowing you would get value without the cheap tricks. British thriller authors generelly seemed a tad more realistic (in terms of promises) to us poor post war and cold war day-to-day victims.
@DennisW:
And further: MacLean was a bit complex, or saturated, but there was nothing in there that didn’t work out properly in the end. As opposed to someone like Ludlum and others who built their stories on intellectual fraud. That was smoke and mirrors compared to the more chekhovian MacLean. If there was a rifle on the wall in the first act, someone would fire it in the third.
@DennisW
Serves me right for trying to be a smart a••, my cut and paste skills could use improvement. Thousand of pounds of radios and chargers….
@Gloria
Gloria, you said
“Lights are not turned off until after the aisle run with the duty free. A flight leaving at 12.42 am, it would have been 2 am by the time the lights were dimmed in the cabin.”
Thank you for the description of the schedule. If the cabin lights were never dimmed and shades remained up it would have been an unnaturally bright view in the black of night
@MH
“@PaulC – I have seen a few analysis suggesting the mangosteen weight equivalent to the missing drone command centre that was lost in Afghanistan.”
It was not Mangosteen Season in March, the peak is June to December.
@all
About 18 months ago on MAS flights they started to give instructions, via yet another of their longwinded announcements that if an electronic device fell between, lodged down the side of seats, that they were to ask for crew help to retrieve this.
I’m not sure how volatile lithium batteries are, especially in bulk but cargo may have been held in an area that was 30-35 Deg C prior to it being loaded. Although at altitude the package will be cooled quickly around the outside, the core of the shipment would have remained at temperature.
@PaulC
In the FI (p. 103) these goods (airway bill 232-10677085) are declared as “Walkie-
Talkie accessories & chargers”. Sender is Motorola (Penang), receiver Motorola (Beijing). Same for the Lithium batteries.
I don’t think anyone considers hijacking the plane to prevent Motorola Beijing from receiving walkie-talkie accessories and chargers from their Penang branch. It would probably be easier to order them from ebay.
It also seems a bit pointless to investigate further these gadgets in the interim report, they are not declared as dangerous goods.
@Nederland
There were no walkie-talkies or chargers listed on the original Airway Bill. These items just appear in the FI but then we are not told anything about them at all – not even numbers of items.
The details should be available on the MAS ‘House Airway Bill’ or on Motorola’s packing lists but, for some reason, the information does not appear to have been made publicly available.
These items represent 22.4% of the total cargo weight on MH370 so failure to disclose even basic information, after more than 2 years, is odd to say the least.
@Nederland
“It seems a bit pointless to investigate further these gadgets in the interim report, they are not declared as dangerous goods.”
Really? If there is confidence in the accuracy and disclosure of information in this investigation and “…pointless to investigate further…” information in the FI report, then what is this about?
Ok, that consignment is a bit dodgy:
http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2014/05/03/what-were-the-23-tonnes-lithium-ion-batteries-weigh-less-than-200kg-says-firm/
May be unconnected, but I am surprised at the sort of cargo that is carried on passenger flights. e.g. “Chinese firm ordered to pay $65m over chemical-damaged MAS A330”.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/chinese-firm-ordered-to-pay-65m-over-chemical-damaged-mas-220107/
On a 2000 flight in the other direction (Beijing to KL) a shipment was declared a non-toxic solid when it was in fact a corrosive liquid. The plane was written off (and if my memory serves me right, had to be buried).
There has always been a question over those out-of-season mangosteens. There is a possibility that there was something very valuable or very dangerous in that cargo IMO but if so, without a whistle-blower, we are unlikely to find out.
@PaulC said:
“You are right that the FAA regulations require certification to 40,000 feet but that is for emergency use and is easily achieved by slight pressure in the oxygen flow through the regulator. This is why the mask must fit quite tightly and why beards/moustaches are a hindrance.”
And that is the point, surely? – There is a slight overpressure in the cockpit masks when is use at 100% and ‘Emergency’. If that overpressure was only (say) 4psi that would provide enough partial pressure for O2 to enter the bloodstream at 37,500ft and perhaps a little higher (3psi at 100% O2 is equivalent to breathing normal air at ground level).
We don’t have the actual overpressure figure, but 4psi is not a lot – the exhalation valves on those masks must be certified to open at no more than 4psi, so 4psi would be equivalent to the additional pressure inside the mask caused by exhaling (the exhaust valve is counter-pressurised to the same overpressure as the mask, so it does not open due to overpressure alone, only by exhalation).
“I don’t see how this changes anything. Either everyone lives, or, everyone dies. For extended flying at or above 40,000 feet, a positive demand regulator is essential.”
Yes, at or above 40,000ft. But this would be at or *below* 40,000ft – the partial pressure of O2 in the atmosphere (depending on temperature) reaches zero at around 37,500ft, so no need to go any higher to prevent the cabin/crew masks from being effective. That altitude may well have been achievable at the current weight, especially if helped by a short zoom climb.
Bottom line: With 4psi overpressure (or even 3psi) the cockpit masks would keep the users alive at an altitude where the cabin/crew masks would not. That’s perhaps why they’re certified to 40,000ft.
The brain begins to die about 4 to 6 minutes after O2 is removed, depending on age, health etc. After approx. 15 minutes without O2 very few people regain any cognitive function even if O2 becomes available again. The question is whether significant DCS would occur in that 15 minute period.
@Nederland said:
“… and if he had switched off airconditioning he would have frozen to death anyway”
Leave the packs on, turn up the temperature to max, but open the outflow valves fully?
@DennisW said:
“Yes, means, motive, AND opportunity. The back to basics of the traditional investigative process. Not a lot of candidates are there? ”
Perhaps it could be said: as many candidates as people who have 777 flying skills, devious motives, and can obtain access to the cockpit by some means?
Thanks Nederland
@AM2 said:
“There has always been a question over those out-of-season mangosteens. There is a possibility that there was something very valuable or very dangerous in that cargo IMO but if so, without a whistle-blower, we are unlikely to find out.”
Yes, especially since they were apparently ‘inspected but not X-rayed’ before being loaded.
There are reports that mangosteens can grow outside of the main season in various places in that region if the microclimate is suitable. The exporter was interviewed by a local reporter and said (IIRC) that he’d obtained them from Indonesia, and that they can be obtained outside of the main season if the price was right. The exporter also said that he was involved in businesses of other kinds but declined to say more.
The FI states that there were other shipments of mangosteens to Beijing on previous days. Although what better place to hide an unusual (secret) cargo – if that’s what happened – than inside containers of a regularly shipped fruit item that is heavy and not X-rayed?
And would you roster a senior Captain to fly a red-eye flight to ensure the safety of mangosteens?
so if this is related to the suspicious cargo calculations:
the missing equipment/weapons, including the drone command and control system which weighed about 20 tons and packed into 6 crates.
Old news I know.
Before MH370 take-off, sometime during the 9 hours it was on the ground, maintenance engineers conducted a stay-over-check, where they completed a few service requests and replenished the “crew’s oxygen from a decay in pressure”. Would this mean a leak?
@RetF4
I’m surprised to see a fellow pilot disagreeing so strongly on how a turn feels at night in the dark because the entire time we’re getting our IFR, we’re taught that the body lies to us, to trust our instruments, and that a coordinated turn shouldn’t feel like anything other than a little more weight in your seat. That’s the reason I linked the Hoover video in the first place. To help the many non-pilots posting here understand the mechanics of spatial disorientation and the magic of 1G maneuvers.
But what’s really weird is your comment on the youtube link. It wasn’t a 707. It was Bob Hoover in his famous Shrike. In fact, I write “Bob Hoover” in the comment right above the link. It’s ok that you didn’t actually watch the video. But I am rather astonished that a guy who claims to be a retired Phantom pilot would be unfamiliar with the legendary Bob Hoover. You flew between the 70s and 90s, right? I don’t think I know anyone of that generation of flyers who hasn’t heard of Bob Hoover (“greatest stick and rudder man ever”), especially if you’re also an aviation enthusiast posting here.
So, rather than accusing you of pretending to be someone you’re not, I’ll just simply agree that, sure, we’re done.
PS: my email is spamvat1234 at gmail dot com if you still want to bust me with your door latch pics.
All,
David Learmount at flightglobal.com claims that the MH370 search is stopping short of Simon Hardy’s prediction position.
https://davidlearmount.com/2016/09/25/mh370-search-to-stop-just-short-of-hardys-predicted-position/
Hard numbers for Simon Hardy’s predicted site are difficult to come by. (I refuse to register for an account at flightglobal just to read an article that is otherwise being discussed on that site publicly). I have found two alleged predictions in the popular press:
S38.082 E87.400 (Huffingtonpost.co.uk)
and
S39 22′ 46″ E087 6′ 20″ (express.co.uk)
Neither is actually on the 7th arc. Both fall within Richard Cole’s map of “scanned area”: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqkcvjbWcAAc1cJ.jpg:large
What am I missing?
@Gloria
The 2 possible suspects were sitting in row 27 against the bulkhead. According to seatguru.com these seats don’t recline much.
Q. In your experience with MAS, if passengers (especially Westerners) request to move to the business class up front because they aren’t ‘comfortable’ in the cramped seats would they oblige? Especially if a few hundred dollars are offered for the privilege?
@PaulC
Decimal places are being misplaced right left and center relative to the cargo manifest. If you have a reason to doubt its accuracy that is one thing. The fact is that you don’t. All you are doing is raising your eyebrows at the moment. Come up with some facts or let it go.
How much more detail to you want? Accessories and charges is good enough for me. I don’t need a count or color or the length of the power cord. Chargers are inherently heavy because they contain a transformer.
Who knows what could be hidden in the mangosteens. A manifest has been provided. If you want to doubt that is your prerogative. I am inclined to take it at face value.
@Jeff
“One of the reasons that this mystery has proven so tough to crack, I think, is that many continue to make reasonable assumptions. It is precisely where the story departs from reasonable expectations that we find clues. I’ve long argued that the reboot of the SDU is one of the most significant clues to MH370’s fate that we have. Yet to this day the majority of “mainstream” explanations (most recently, Christine Negroni’s book) simply ignore it.
I think you fall into this trap when you assert that it is “unnecessary” to ask whether the BFO data was spoofed. Yes, of course it’s reasonable to assume that it wasn’t. But if you don’t turn over that stone, you may very well miss an essential clue.”
Door opens on those theories that the logging back in was a drone or some other decoy plane.
If the operation was professional, highly planned and military. We are meant to believe the plane is in the SIO. Eventually it might well be (dumped) in the SIO, if not already.
Inmarsat is connected to Lockheed is connected to the military.
I might find the official narrative more credible if not for the Freescale passengers (cloaking technology) and the dodgy cargo manifest (mangosteens out of season) as well as the intended destination of the plane, China.
@Gloria, One problem with the decoy theory is that there would have to a spot where the two aircraft paths crossed — IGARI, presumably — and at that point both would have been detectable at the same time.
@CliffG, Chustrak and Deineka were sitting under the SDU, so probably happy where they were. Though I’ve often wondered if they might have gone forward, and started making a fuss about wanting to sit in the front, thus drawing attention away from the E/E bay hatch.
Etihad 777 returns after engine trouble, blown types, oxy masks down (the article has a photo of passenger oxy masks dangling on the flight), required to brace. Mitchell Bingeman, The Australian, 28th Sep
“An Etihad Airways flight from Abu Dhabi to Sydney with many Australians on board has been forced to conduct an emergency landing after it suffered a major engine fault.
The three-year-old Boeing 777 departed to Sydney on schedule yesterday but was forced to return to its airport of origin just 32 minutes into the flight.
There were 329 passengers on board Flight EY450, including Australian student Emily Waterson, 19, who was returning to Sydney after spending a gap year as a summer camp counsellor in the US.
She said the plane was forced to make the emergency landing after one of the plane’s pilots told crew and passengers of the engine problem shortly after takeoff.
The Etihad Airways flight on the runway in Abu Dhabi.
The Etihad Airways flight on the runway in Abu Dhabi.
“Everyone was crying and screaming. Everyone was holding hands. The worst thing was the stewardess opposite me screaming and screaming.
“I spoke to her afterwards and she said she practises shouting ‘Brace!’ every month but this was the first time she’d had to do it for real,” Ms Waterson said.
A passenger told The Australian that the plane’s tyres were completely burnt out following the emergency high-speed landing, with the rims left touching the ground.
A spokesman for Etihad Airways confirmed an emergency landing had taken place but could not offer an explanation for the engine fault.
Emily Waterson from Sydney was on the Etihad Airways flight.
Emily Waterson from Sydney was on the Etihad Airways flight.
“Etihad Airways Flight EY450 from Abu Dhabi to Sydney on Tuesday 27 September returned to the airport due to a technical issue. As is standard practice, emergency response was activated at the airport. The Boeing 777 aircraft landed safely,” he said.
Ms Waterson, who graduated from Sydney’s Wenona College last year, took photos of the incident mid-flight and the damage to the plane after it landed but was forced to delete the pictures after she was accosted by a soldier at the airport”
For those who can access it, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/aussies-caught-in-etihad-jet-scare-in-abu-dhabi/news-story/5bc9cab72c1aec5cb5edc6898c9a55fa
Tyres not types
@SusieC
I have read that the pilots put on the O2 mask when there is only one in the cockpit, so I was assuming routine top-off
@sk999
Can you use YouTube? – search on Simon Hardy Technique Video…I posted a link prior page here. Believe he is on the 7th arc just slightly south of where current search ends.
@Johan, MAS reported losses of USD550M up to 2014. Basically, their cost/income ratio’s were that bad, the company was already ailing badly. They were mopping with the fawcet open.
@DennisW,
“Chargers are inherently heavy because they contain a transformer”.
Really? We have so many gadgets nowadays, phones, tablets, cameras, walkytalkies, etc. They invariably come with their own chargers. Any one of those I came across in the last few years, feels bulky and light to me.
@jeff,
“two aircraft paths crossed — IGARI, presumably — and at that point both would have been detectable at the same time”
Wasn’t MH370 about to leave the primary radar range on its intended path at IGARI? If I recall that correctly, that would be the perfect spot for such a cross over then. There are a few problems in the official narrative, which could be explained by “two planes” there:
– sharp corner in the radar track (MH370 leaves range to the East, second plane enters from the East)
– problems with the timing of those tracks (e.g. VI’s analysis)
– Early reports of “wild altitude swings” (the two planes would be at different altitudes to “safely” cross over)
to name but a few…
@TBill
You’re right about the rules. When one pilot vacates the cockpit, the other pilot is required to go on the mask above FL250.
The reality is that maybe a third of pilots actually do it.
@Keffertje
A cost/income ratio is not a metric in the financial analyst vernacular. You should stick to things in your comfort zone – forensic accounting not being one of them.
@MuOne
“Really? We have so many gadgets nowadays, phones, tablets, cameras, walkytalkies, etc. They invariably come with their own chargers. Any one of those I came across in the last few years, feels bulky and light to me.”
Well, I guess that settles it. The Motorola shipment was obviously fraudulent, and it is the key to this whole episode. Or maybe not.
Thanks for the insight.
@Wazir, It has a lot of oomph:). my tack is on 31.71s/96.10e. ZS DoB. And if it isn’t there someone royally messed with the SDU or the mangosteens overheated and the crystal oscilator went berserk and gave us wrong BFO data. Incoming expected.
@Dennis@, Cost/income ratio is a key financial measure, which is what I was referring to. Not something financial analysts use perse. But of course you know better. Not going to start a pissing contest.If you want to split hairs, thats okay.
@Keffertje
Yes, I do know better.
@DennisW, As long as you believe that. That’s all that matters.
@Jeff
@MuOne
Two planes crossed but decoy plane was a drone, for instance, Lockheed’s RQ170 fitted with stealth technology that is operated by US military and CIA. I’ve not looked at the range, allowing for final pings so far south but sure to be in the information they, Lockheed posts on the web.
Why not look at the event in terms of modern (covert) operations and known technical capabilities of the (US/Israel) military, given that Lockheed and Inmarsat have so much technology advertised in the public domain, which is surprising but also not surprising given they are in the business of selling.
Lockheed and Inmarsat market through advertising on their Youtube channels. Such interesting content available for sale. But that advertised technology will be generations behind the next generation, in the hands of the (US/Israel) military and not advertised. They sell below their real capabilities to foreign governments etc but keep the trump technology themselves. Of course you want your perceived enemy to be punching well below your average.
Truth is stranger than fiction, fiction being the official narrative.
Look at capabilities and intent.
The technicians on the plane, destination China. Hello !
Oliver Stone’s next film, after Snowden.
@DennisW, I have no doubt your IQ is off the charts. If anything, it is evident you are a very intelligent and intellectual man, well read and hugely knowleagable. That deserves respect. None the less, it is no excuse to systematically burn people to the ground or attack them on this blog.
@Keffertje
What matters is what works – what consistently provides the experiential correct conclusion. What you believe does not matter at all.