Skip to comments.Is Oil Slick Found Near 'Ping' Site Linked to Missing MH370?
Posted on 04/14/2014 3:06:14 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Crews searching for the missing Malaysia Airlines jet are investigating an oil slick found not far from the area where underwater pings that may be linked to the aircrafts black box were detected.
A sample of about two liters has been collected and we are a number of days before it can be landed ashore and conclusively tested, said retired Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, the head of a joint agency coordinating the painstaking search off Australias west coast. I stress the source of the oil is yet to be determined.
The slick is approximately 18,000 feet down-wind and down-sea from signals consistent with an aircraft's black boxes that were detected by a U.S. Navy "pinger locator" that was towed in the southern Indian Ocean.
However, one expert warned that it would be impossible to directly link the sample to the Boeing 777 which vanished on March 8.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
The slick moved 3 miles in a month and remained intact?
If they used oil to refuel the plane that’s probably why it crashed. /s
Where is all the flotsam and jetsam usually found floating in the sea after airliner crashes?
There are always suitcases, pieces of insulation, etc.
Always except this time.
This time all they have found is Red Herrings.
Yep...it is just better refined diesel.
It's like obama
persecuting prosecuting a political opponent. The evidence they need will always be found, even if they have to plant it first.
Compare to the drop gun and/or baggie of drugs a crooked cop will always have handy...
Can we just declare that this has gone past bizarre? LOL!
I kinda knew this for two reasons...1) because I've been driving a diesel for about 5 years now and I've done some reading on the subject...2)years ago,when I was almost out of heating oil during an outrageous cold snap...and didn't want to pay a $200 penalty for an "emergency delivery"...I went down to a nearby gas station and bought about 25 gallons of diesel and put it in my tank.Worked perfectly...and I saved a ton of $$$.
I’m positive that jet-A fuel would remain as an intact slick in the churning, stormy, part of the Indian Ocean /s
I’m really starting to wonder how many countries know, and what do they know. Is this going to be a massive event that enables them to force a world government on us, or mass disarmament? I hate to think like this, but my mind keeps going there the more they try to cover this up. Something is afoot and quite a few countries have to know about it.
“My understanding is that jet fuel is very much similar to, but not identical to ordinary diesel. One would assume that a chemist would be able to tell the difference.”
Correct... Jet A vs. kerosene would have key differences that would be very easy to resolve. The analysis can be performed by most commercial labs with GS-MS probably being the primary tool. Interpretation of the data would probably go from a commercial lab electronically to a specialist to interpret. From the time the sample hits the laboratory door, the results can be out in 12-24 hours with a full blown rush priority (costs more! LOL).
Back to the fingerprint though... Not only can the fingerprint ID Jet A vs. kerosene, with more time, it can track back to what refinery it was produced from, to the airport tank farm in Malaysia and perhaps even drill down to the fuel truck the delivered it to the Boeing 777. Keep shoving $$$ at the chemists and they will keep bird dogging the trail.
30 days after going down? Doesn’t seem likely; but who knows.
Missing Japanese sub from WW2.....
I for one think they getting close to locating it.
FYI if you haven’t already seen this.
Probably 250 or more flotation devices (seat cushions), and who knows what else that will just NOT sink and we think it’s jet fuel from 370.
Where is the trash? Where are the seat bottoms, life jackets, bags, all the various pieces of paraphernalia that passengers supply themselves with for a flight? None of that stuff has ever turned up floating on the sea as with other crashes. Why?
JMHO that they are looking in the wrong place for the wrong things. Nothing makes sense, common or even the kind proposed by governments.
This type of sample and the lab procedures have been in use for several decades to ID the source of open ocean hydrocarbon sheens. The purpose is usually to track down the tanker or product hauler ship or perhaps a drilling or production platform or undersea pipeline with a foul up that spilled hydrocarbon so that they can be fined and if there is deficient equipment involved, force repairs.
BTW... The so called expert quoted in the news article is an idiot. I hope he gets flamed in his next job review. If they had wanted expert information, the news reporter should have contacted the Coast Guard to input directly or recommend a legitimate private expert. Or heck, just get the Houston, TX yellow pages and call up some commercial labs specialized in oil industry applications and talk to the lab manager.
Oil can be analyzed much more definitively than just "diesel" "jet A" or whatever. Analysis can show source of origin of the sample, unique like a fingerprint for example.
This looks somewhat promising because it could be seepage from fuel tanks co-located near the pinger source.
Possible MH370 ditched into the ocean intact, say aviation experts
As the search for the Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 entered its fourth week, two aviation experts told CNN there is a possibility the plane ditched into the ocean intact leaving little debris....
More likely Chinese trash.
Don’t they have amphibs that could meet this boat somewhere at sea pick it up and fly it back instead of waiting weeks for that ship to get in ?
Jet fuel is actually kerosene with some extra goodies in it for thermal stability and spark resistance.
Diesel is in the C8-C21 range and Kerosene in the C6 to C16 range with respect to hydrocarbon chain length.
Hmmm... a suicidal pilot decides that for his last bit of fun, he tries to land the plane Sullenberger style and after doing so successfully, it fills full of water and drops to the bottom of the ocean. Hence no debris field. Interesting theory.
...not only that, but the jet most likely crashed there FOR LACK OF FUEL. It’s tanks should have been filled with nothing more than fumes by the time that jet cartwheeled into the water with an engine out.
Naw, the CIA probably just spread the oil in the last week.
Like the spark that caused the center fuel tank problem in TWA800?
You broke the code.
With the rough weather that area had in the last month, there is no way any slick would stay intact. It would have been dispersed long ago.
Besides if the plane supposedly traveled until it was out of fuel, how much fuel would be left to create a slick this size?
<> the jet most likely crashed there FOR LACK OF FUEL<>
The following graph is evidence that the plane was likely ditched with enough fuel to go another 300+ miles —
— thus an oil slick from the engines on the ocean floor below is entirely possible along with the fact that there is no debris as it would all have been trapped in the fuselage as it sunk to the ocean floor.
Not if it had just seeped up from the engines laying on the ocean floor below.
The engines, like the rest of the plane, is probably in a million pieces.
A plane does not drop into the ocean and stay intact, from 35,000 feet. Hitting the water would be like crashing into the ground. One engine could have flamed out before the other, and there would be an awful uncontrolled descent, probably end over end.
Fuel would have been in the wing tanks and very little would be seeping from anywhere. It would have been dispersed.
Who knows—this fuel could be seeping from an old wreck from years ago. The water is almost three miles deep in this area.
Not if it ditched at that point and the absence of debris in that area is a pretty good indication that the pilot set it down instead of crashing it especially since he had atleast 300+ more miles of fuel onboard.
I honestly don’t think the pilot “set it down”. The indication s are the plane, at best, was on some kind of autopilot. It would not have landed itself. Even if it did, the plane would have been hit by the waves and flipped or broken up on impact.
Sullenberger accomplished that feat in the Hudson River while in control of the plane, and in better circumstances. He still could have flipped the plane at any moment.His great skill prevented that. And that was in a relatively calm river.
The Indian Ocean is anything but calm. And 300 gallons of fuel is only speculation at this point, like everything else about this plane.
The people who know what happened are not speaking. We are no closer to knowing what happened than we were a month ago.
Check the links at posts 21 and 32 —
Pilots are trained on ditching procedures as part of their training and planes are ditched all the time without breaking up. Otherwise what is the purpose of flotation devices on planes — just for appearance sake.
True about pilots, but all indications so far are that the pilots were dead,or unconscious. No one was in control of the aircraft.
The possibility of ditching intact are infinitesimal.
Yea, that “spark”...
Oh no -- that is most definitely not true.
Even the Malaysians admit that the maneuvers the plane took after it was diverted indicated deliberate action by a pilot who knew what he was doing.
It made precise turns to avoid Indonesian radar and hit the aircraft waypoints that only a professional pilot would be familiar with.
And it could not have been on auto-pilot and made those kind of maneuvers.
And it had atleast 300 miles of fuel left onboard when it was set down according to aviation analysts who drew up the graph of its flight path. So it didn't just drop out of the sky. It went down there by deliberate action.
The pilot, pilots, or hijackers may have been alive in the beginning, and there is no doubt that a waypoint was reached.
But the plane could have gone north as well as south.
If it went south, at the end of its flight the plane had no pilot. It went on a heading that would never get it to dry land and flew another seven hours.
What purpose would it serve to do that?
You, nor the Malaysian ministry, have no proof that the plane landed nicely in the Indian Ocean, nor that it had any amount of fuel left, let alone a precise number like 300 gallons.
With Malaysians’ track record of erroneous information and deception, why would anyone trust their charts or analysis at this point in time?
The idea that an uncontrolled plane ditched gently into an ocean that could have thirty foot waves, and then sank, intact, to the bottom, is extremely low on the probability scale.
There is no way that the US government satellites do not have a record of where this flight went. If it crashed into the ocean our subs and underwater acoustics system would have picked up such a noise. Diego
Garcia is beehive of electronic gear that also would have tracked a plane, especially one that was not reporting on schedule.
This plane could have gone north just as well as south. And if it did, that has far more sinister implications than the dead end in the southern Indian
And what would have killed him or them after the beginning??? the sojourn to 45000ft??? then who was piloting the plane after that making all the necessary course adjustments and altitude changes???
With Malaysians track record of erroneous information and deception, why would anyone trust their charts or analysis at this point in time?
Because it is not their charts nor their analysis nor anything they embrace.
Their position is the one being argued by you --
It went on a heading that would never get it to dry land and flew another seven hours.
That's not true. The heading was taking it toward the northwestern coast of Australia but it was ditched 600 miles short on purpose.
You need to keep up -- you are arguing with old discarded information.
What purpose would it serve to do that?
What purpose did hijacking the plane in the first place serve?? That one.
What purpose did evading radar and flying as fast and low as possible to get out of the area undetected serve??? That one.
You, nor the Malaysian ministry, have no proof that the plane landed nicely in the Indian Ocean
Sure I do -- pings from the black box below an area where there is an absence of debris.
Where is your or your Malaysian ministry's proof to the contrary???
nor that it had any amount of fuel left, let alone a precise number like 300 gallons.
Try rereading what I wrote rather than misquoting things. Aviation analysts per the chart I posted show where it had enough fuel to travel 2300 miles to the southeast. Where the pings from the black box are coming from is 2000 miles to the east south east. That means that it would have had around 300 miles left in its tank [That's 300 miles -- not 300 gallons -- please note]
Do you or the Malaysian ministry have any evidence to the contrary???
The idea that an uncontrolled plane ditched
That is ridiculous -- that's why the pilot was at the helm using his skill and training to ditch it with enough fuel in the tank to be able to choose a suitable location while it is still under his control.
The idea that an uncontrolled plane ditched gently into an ocean that could have thirty foot waves
swells not waves -- Anyway the sea surface at that search area looks like it can easily accommodate a plane ditching. Maybe it was that calm or calmer on that March 8th morning as well.
Diego Garcia is beehive of electronic gear that also would have tracked a plane, especially one that was not reporting on schedule.
It wasn't reported by the Malaysians until an hour after it failed to show up in Beijing -- and that was just about when it was being ditched thousands mile away from the South China Sea where the Malaysians said it went down and later in Pakistan where the Malaysians hoped it would be found.
You really need to keep up and quit siding with the Malaysian Ministry of Untruths.
At 19000 ft oil/fuel turns to sludge. It doesn’t flow.
So then if it oozed out of an engine on the ocean floor, would balls of sludge float to the surface where it could warm up and morph into an oil slick???
Don't understand your comment. Pressure at that level is approx 1000 bar. Most modern diesel fuel injections systems ("common rail") are running at about that pressure.
Sorry Chip, you don’t anything more than any of the so-called experts.
You don’t know he was heading for Australia. You don’t know that the pilot ditched the plane on purpose.
You don’t know how the plane impacted the ocean.
You don’t even know if they are looking in the right place.
You don’t even know if the pings are from the airplane in question.
But don’t let that stop you from spouting your theories as if they are proven fact.
You have your own version of the Ministry of Truth and how fortunate we are that you share it with us.
<>you dont anything more than any of the so-called experts.<>
I have the experts who drew this up:
You do notice where the 811 arc crosses the S20 Parallel. It is right where the black box pings were heard, wasn’t it???
<>You dont know he was heading for Australia<>
What is that big land mass in the direction that the plane was flying just to the east — ohh look it’s Australia.
I prefer the experts and information that we have rather than the experts and information that you don’t have.
It's not pressure, it's water temperature. The above link is to an oil tanker that went down after a collision off San Francisco Bay in 1953 while heading to Korea with war supplies. This wreck's position was not known with any certainty until recent times, but mysterious spills after storms reminded people in the area that it was out there.
The vessel is only in 180 FSW, but the fuel has to be heated in order to pump out the holds -- which was done to partially remediate the risks associated with a future major hull breach.
If the airliner "soft landed" (extremely unlikely) it is barely conceivable that the plane went down with its fuel tanks intact. (Even a controlled landing in open ocean is likely to break up the aircraft).
The point that I'm trying to make is that this plane, if it's there, is in 19,000 FSW. That is in excess of 3 miles below the surface. We are talking very cold water. I would expect even fairly light Jet-A to become very gooey at that depth.
But even if it didn't then this fuel has a long way to go before reaching the surface. There are a lot of sub surface currents & temperature gradients to cross. Any slick at the surface is bound to be so dilute as to escape notice as "a slick".
OTOH, I suspect that the aircraft either ran out of fuel or lost the ability of controlled flight and went in hard. In that case what little fuel the aircraft had has long had a chance to dissipate.
If that's the case and the SAR experts know that and the oil on the surface can't possible be from the plane, crashed or submerged, then why are these experts taking note of this oil slick and sending 2 liters of it it in for identification???