“Alright, Goodnight” – Does Malaysia Want To Know What Happened To Flight MH-370?

SOFREP ^ | March 22, 2014 | Sean Spoonts

[FAA]

Inmarsat took the ping data it had and drilled down into further. They compared that with what they had from other known aircraft flying similarly southerly courses in that part of the world and the match was very close. They indicated the MH370 info did not match with known aircraft flying a northerly path away from the satellite in that part of world.

This is the last communication of any kind has with this aircraft and provides the best real indication of what it was doing before going into the water.

[gr8eman]

I still don’t get how they could estimate a DF from those signals unless there were 2 different transponders pinging and they compared the 2. Pinging is only one dimensional, meaning omnidirectional. That would cover basically the practical lines of sight to an aircraft on the horizon. The ENTIRE horizon of the Earth!

[gr8eman]

So what you are saying is that they used other aircraft signals and known location data to formulate an error trajectory with the unexpected pings from the Malaysian 777. Makes sense and is pretty brilliant. I still think the Navy knows where the plane hit the water.

[FAA]

As I understand it. There was an article on here yesterday detailing what they did and how they came to this conclusion. This was the “new analysis” that the Malaysian PM referenced yesterday in his press conference. Apparently, INMARSAT had never broken down this data in this fashion but pulled out the stops to see if there was anything else there that could indicate what happened.

[FatherofFive]

In my uneducated view, it would seem to be made possible to ward off hostile forces.

Interesting, but I don't buy it. Our fighters chasing hostiles do not rely on their transponders to track them. A commercial plane would be an easy target to find without a transponder.

[PghBaldy]

Thank you for posting this.

[Yosemitest]

Sometimes at very busy airports, transponders within a certain range can overpower the radar and you get "ring-around" from the squawk (transmission of the code dialed in).
First the controller will ask the aircraft to "Squawk Low" to resolved the problem and if that doesn't work, he'll ask the aircraft to "Squawk Standby" (Par. 5-2-12.
Other problems can be a malfunction with the transponder that the Code transmitted is NOT the code being transmitted (which might belong to another aircraft in that area) and that would cause identification problems.
So the controller would tell the aircraft that "BEACON INTERROGATOR INOPERATIVE/MALFUNCTIONING. STOP SQUAWK." (Par. 5-2-15 and Par. 5-2-22.

Then there's electrical problems that might develop a fire, so the pilot would need to shut down, and MUST shut down the power to the transponder.

[logi_cal869]

This was my problem with it too and renewed my interest in the flight’s mystery.

Apparently geo-synchronous satellites wobble a bit in their orbit and naturally skew their transmissions with the Doppler effect. The SatCom companies apparently ‘adjust’ for this Doppler effect.

Which led to my incredulity that they didn’t think of this sooner; it wouldn’t have taken days...a SatCom geek would have been all over this and guzzling Monsters until he had an answer...

[Yosemitest]

That article has several problems, and the one that bothers me the most, is the landing weight classifications of runways.
Does the author, Sean Spoonts, believe that there are NO RUNWAYS in Pakistan that can handle the weight of that Boeing 777-200 ? He'd better think again.

Okay ~ remeber Gen. McInerney said Allama [ Iqbal International ] Airport was the same distance from Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 point of departure, Kuala Lumpuras, its original destination airport, Beijing, China.

Now with Gen. McInerney's comments on Hannity's Mar 21 show, take a look at this research I did, and all the links.

It took quite a bit of time to put it together.



Gen. McInerney on the phone with Uma Pemmaraju on America's News HQ at 12:06 Central Time, said he thought the Pakistan Air Force had helped MH370 get into Pakistani Air Space.
PAF Base Mushaf (formerly PAF Base Sargodha) (IATA: SGI, ICAO: OPSR) It has two runways measuring 10,000, and 7,700 feet respectively and a large hanger.

PAF Base Masroor (ICAO: OPMR) is the largest airbase operated by the Pakistan Air Force It is stated to have a single runways measuring 10,000 feet and a parallel taxiway that could be used for emergency landing and recovery of aircraft.
But look for yourself and see that it appears to have 2 long runways and several large hangers.

PAF Base Shahbaz (IATA: JAG, ICAO: OPJA) It is a military base operated by the Pakistan Air Force as well as a civilian airport.
It has a single runways measuring 10,000 feet and some large hangers.


PAF Base Rafiqui OPRQ It has a single 10,000 foot long runway and a parallel taxiway that could be used for emergency landing and recovery of aircraft.
I noticed one large hanger.


PAF Base Peshawar OPPS It has a a 8,900 foot long runway.Not to be confused with Peshawar Air Station.
It is … located immediately to the east of Peshawar International Airport, which is shared by civil aviation flights and military flights.
PAF Peshawar has an 8,900 foot long runway. It has one large hanger.
Peshawar Air Station was located in Badaber, a remote area about 4 miles (6.4 km) south of the city of Peshawar, Pakistan.
Peshawar Air Station is a former Central Intelligence Agency[1]-United States Air Force Security Service listening post, used by the 6937th Communications Group from 1958 until January 7, 1970, when the facility was formally closed.
Currently, the base is housed by Pakistan Air Force and is known as PAF Camp Badaber.

PAF Base M.M. Alam OPMI use to be PAF Base Mianwali and it has a 10,000 foot long runway. There is a parallel taxi way that could serve as an alternate runway in emergencies.
It also has a large hanger.

PAF Base Minhas OPMS has a 9,950 foot long runway.
But their is a parallel taxi way is marked as Runway 30R that could serve as an alternate runway in emergencies.
It has several large hangers, and a large camouflaged and extra long hanger south of Rwy 30 approach end and East of the exiting taxiway.

PAF Base Samungli OPQT has a single 12,010 foot long runway and a parallel taxiway marked as 13R/31L.
It has a large hanger and is also listed as Quetta Samungli Airport (UET).

PAF Base Nur Khan Airbase Chaklala renamed as Nur Khan Airbase and is part of Benazir Bhutto Islamabad International Airport OPRN
It's runaway is 10,809 x 150 feet and it has an intersecting taxiway that could be used for a runway (approximately 270/090 headings).
It has several large hangers and some have camouflaged roofs.

PAF Base Faisal OPSF Runway 08/26 approximately 8,000 ft (2438 m SkyVector World VFR) with several large hangers. some with camouflaged roofs.

Pakistan Air Force Academy is also know as OPRS - Risalpur Air Base.
It has two runways, Rwy 09R/27L is 9,085 X164 Ft of ASP, and Rwy 09L/27R is 5,840 X 164 Ft of ASP.
It also has a narrow parallel taxiway, and one large hanger.

[logi_cal869]

Spoonts’ hypothesis is basically that which I asserted the other day.

I also don’t believe the US government is too keen to publicize another plane downed by a Muslim fanatic. (think?)

Probably the best analysis I’ve read yet, and stinging conclusion hypothesis, even if there are no facts to corroborate any of it. Speaking of which, there are no (public) facts to corroborate the Malay government’s conclusion that it crashed, either...let alone any other ‘theory’. /s

And insofar as the magnitude of the Inmarsat revelations: How frequently in the past have we been subject to ‘skewed data’ to support an agenda? I’m awaiting the ‘CIA Animation’ on how the plane went missing and crashed after flying ‘zombie’ for thousands of miles... (big /s)

[logi_cal869]

Well, yes, but it’s ‘getting there’.

I don’t have time so I’m subject to what I read here: Is it possible to reprogram in-flight a plane’s transponder data to ‘spoof’ another flight? Anybody?

It’s the only way any overland route hypothesis is possible, save for another government’s conspiracy in this.

[Jaded]

Yep

[Uncle Chip]

China is demanding the raw Malaysian radar data in order to firm up the search area and they should get it because the US has been requesting it for weeks to no avail.

Malaysia does not want to find the wreckage in the southern Indian Ocean — they still want it in the South China Sea and are trying to find a way to get it there.

[don-o]

make my mark

[Yosemitest]

Yes, it is.
But it would call immediate attention to that aircraft when the change of "Squawk" is made.
That attention is something that the pilot would not want,
and in today's security concerns, scrambling fighter aircraft to escort that aircraft to another airport with fire department, SWAT, ambulance, and all sorts of other agencies standing by for its landing ~ is just the start.

"It’s the only way any overland route hypothesis is possible,
save for another government’s conspiracy in this."

No, it's NOT !
In today's world, and even back to the Korean Conflict, "shadowing another aircraft" was a skill taught and practiced in most large country's militaries by Ace fighter pilots.
Research some of the "Ace" pilots and their discussion and computer simulations about how they became a "Fighter Pilot Ace".
You'll see their use of the "Shadowing" tactic.

[logi_cal869]

Correction: I misstated. One of a couple ways; not the only way.

I’ve had discussions with friends that didn’t know about ‘ghost’ returns and how to mimic them.

Preaching to the choir there. Right to correct my reply.

[Uncle Chip]

"shadowing another aircraft" was a skill taught and practiced in most large country's militaries

Yeh but fighter jets are more maneuverable than airliners the size of a 777.

Furthermore I listened to the General yesterday and he said that the 777 would have to fly within 200 feet of the plane it was shadowing -- and that is pretty tough to do as the General even reluctantly admitted

[discostu]

I think Malaysia wants to know but there’s a matter of scale involved. The area the plane could have gone down in is many times the size of their country, and mostly not terribly close to the country. They aren’t terribly rich, they aren’t terribly powerful, they really just don’t have the material or manpower to be running a high tech search over a massive area of ocean. And while help is available you still need co-ordination, everybody expects that to come from the “host” country, but in this case it’s a country that doesn’t really know how to do this stuff. Everybody is complaining they aren’t doing this stuff like well (like America would) and forgetting the fact this a country smaller (in every way you could measure) than California. Our NTSB probably has a bigger budget than their entire government, you just can’t expect them to throw a couple thousand highly trained people at a problem, they don’t have them. It’s kind of screwed up how much everybody seems to be looking at them going “it’s your plane find it”, especially given how regularly we send in groups like the Red Cross to this part of the world. We tend to solve most of their problems, and now we’re shocked they don’t know how to solve this problem.

[editor-surveyor]

The Inmarsat bit is for the very low information sponges.

I’ve tried to explain it to a few of them but they’re on MSM lock.
.

[FatherofFive]

Sometimes at very busy airports, transponders within a certain range can overpower the radar and you get "ring-around" from the squawk (transmission of the code dialed in).

That was my thought, could couse problems in airports. But why can they shut it down in flight?