Pan Am 103: Unaccompanied bag from Malta: Evidence?

[Rolfe]

It's clear, if the time on the printout is reliable, that it was printed out before the crash actually happened.

Not necessarily, mate. Check above and consider with proper care.

Sorry, not seeing it. If the time on the printout is reliable, it was done at 6.32 GMT. Maid of the Seas blew apart at 7.03 GMT.

I'm open to suggestions as to why the time on the printout may not be reliable.

And besides, afaik, this whole thing was forged, and if so it's in what form they thought it should like and the time stamp is only an indirect clue.

I'm trying this on for size, however the time stamp, correlating as it does with Bogomira's story told to camera (which I always saw as being the more likely version) rather than to the evidential version, tends to push me to the "genuine" conclusion.

If you want a bit of CT with that though, how about postulatnig that the Frankfurt police did get all the records and removed them from prying eyes (such as Jones and Phipps) ASAP. Because there's no way we want the Scottish police rooting into what's been going on here as regards drug smuggling that we were turning a blind eye to.

Then they produced exactly what they wanted to produce (doctored as necessary) when it became expedient to try to show positive evidence a bag had come through Frankfurt from somewhere else.

There are quite a few people in this story I'd like to know more about. One is Mrs. Erac, and nother is Sulkash Kamboj, plus the baggage loaders who actually packed AVE4041 with the Frankfurt baggage.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Indeed, I had missed the obvious time zone discrepancy. And a quick check on being Stundied would not be a welcome award!

It just so happens that the January Stundie was won by someone who decided that time zones don't mean a thing.

physically, the intercept still took 20 minutes, your time zone **** doesn't mean anything, than you AGAIN playing with words...

The intercept he's talking about actually took an hour and 20 minutes, as a time zone boundary was crossed and both times were reported as local time. Nevertheless, it only took 20 minutes in twoofer-think!

Rolfe.

 

[commandlinegamer]

Don't suppose there are any other printouts which could be used as reference to verify the details on the one being discussed at present?

 

[Caustic Logic]

Don't suppose there are any other printouts which could be used as reference to verify the details on the one being discussed at present?

No and that's a big part of the problem. The time this was printed specifically would be hard to verift. I doubt there's a supplemental data printout log printout. Perhaps work logs might have someone writing down when they did things like this... but none of this is available if it exists.

On the debate over the time, Rolfe, I'm, not trying to be stubborn. I just am. All we have saying that's not Z time is the lack of a Z there. I admit that in itself is a good clue, it's not conclusive as time and date could be generated in a different way from the main baggage data that for some reason just doesn't bother with the Z.

ETA: And on it being reliable, I think the time (if actual data) is correct (give or take 2-3 minutes from what I hear), the Q is just which time zone its working in. Hour spread possible, 30 min before crash OR 30 min after. Right?

Now circumstantially, just so we're clear. If this is local time it's probably a routine printout for what was loaded on PA103A, but it was printed two hours and one minute after they finished loading, or 8 minutes or so after Heathrow takeoff, if they were waiting for that (which sounds weird but possible). That doesn't sound right to me, but could be. But otherwise we're cool with that, right?

And of course Mrs. Erac called it such a routine copy later, so the court's impression was apparently just wrong. I hope I can see the questioning myself sometime soon, because that also doesn't sound right to me. But it is of course possible.

The way things "sound to me" seems tied to my suspicious bias towards the issue, so I'm not sure I can therefore get a clear view on my own. And of course this all just reflects on the mode and mood in which this was printed, or appears to have been printed. It is a big clue, but still cannot explain what happened to all the regular data, nor do anything to explain the coincidence that some item was sent there in such a way it appeared to be from KM180.

Side track: Here's an article I'm not sure we've linked to here yet - a designer (?) of the Frankfurt system raises questions about the printout and lost records. He does sound maybe knowledgeable but not as up on the specifics as we are by now.
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009/05/from-sunday-times-malta.html

 

[Caustic Logic]

I know this has gotten really confusing, because of me I suppose. So far I do find local time would make the most direct sense from the paperwork, but the two-hour delay is a bit less odd as the quick 30 min response followed by the "meh" holiday vacation in Lockerstan. And then of course if it's faked/altered, this would only even reflect what someone wants us to see. (or perhaps to match some other record of when the REAL data was printed?) It's tough keeping all these options active, multiplying the possibilities to consider, so no shame in not going there.

On the above:

If you want a bit of CT with that though, how about postulatnig that the Frankfurt police did get all the records and removed them from prying eyes (such as Jones and Phipps) ASAP. Because there's no way we want the Scottish police rooting into what's been going on here as regards drug smuggling that we were turning a blind eye to.

Then they produced exactly what they wanted to produce (doctored as necessary) when it became expedient to try to show positive evidence a bag had come through Frankfurt from somewhere else.

There are quite a few people in this story I'd like to know more about. One is Mrs. Erac, and nother is Sulkash Kamboj, plus the baggage loaders who actually packed AVE4041 with the Frankfurt baggage.

You know... I always want to exculpate the poilce, but it a Federal police force of a nation as great as West Germany can't produce its own shady decision-making processes for Cold War national security operations, who could? They'd be the right ones, not "the CIA." At any rate, we DO have that blank spot on visit results from 12/21 to 2/2, so I'm sure something is amiss there and it's the BKA who never told us what, and who strangely sat on the printout for another six months (IF they even head it by February).

I actually suspect Erac will turn up relatively clean, but if you could map out who she's worked with, some of those people would be highly interesting. I for one will not be doing this.

Oh and hey, on the time thing again. I took a closer look at ol' 1060
again the link: http://www.mebocom-defilee.ch/jpg/shed-1.jpg
By this the plane had loaded primarily at gate B044 from around 15:20Z to 16:something, loaded its last two items at gate B041 shortly after 16:31, and then (not shown here) departed the airport at 16:53, which would be Z also I presume, so 17:53 local in Frankfurt. The luggage movements are of course marked as in Z time, while a time at top in discussion is not marked Z.

Would it be fair to divide this document into two basic blocks - the main data with its columns and rows, and a top portion with overview info? Well I'll do so. So the 1932 time is in the top section. I check it for any other times therein. The line above this looks like search terms or whatever, no times. The line below has handwritten labels I'm sure I could make out if the words were familiar. Looks like flight no., loading gates, loading start time? (1512) and EF 1652. These are clearly times and neither is marked Z.

Just talked myself back into post-explosion printup. Was that wrong?

 

[Caustic Logic]

Oh for goodness sake. I'm sorry I was right and obnoxious at the same time.

This is just a small part of the puzzle, but it's important to feel out the right curves so we know (best guess) it's true shape and what else fits in with it. In case I didn't make myself clearly enough last night, I think its shape is post-explosion since 1932 is UTC time.

* UTC is generally standard for the airline industry. I'm no expert, but I'd suspect their records would all be done in that.
* Two other apparent UTC times - start loading (BF, 1512) and end loading (EF, 1652) match well with luggage movements beneath them, which are in UTC (the Z)
* Finally the Zeist court's Production 1062, unspecified “documentary evidence” that “the aircraft used for PA103A […] left for London at 1653.” Local or Z? One minute after the “EF” if Z, (so push-off from gate) or actual departure an hour later? Clearly they mean UTC time, as 1653 local would be 1553Z, when the plane was still loading at the first gate.

And explained again in a new blog post:
http://12-7-9-11.blogspot.com/2009/11/no-morning-after-sentimentalism-here.html

 

[Buncrana]

Oh for goodness sake. I'm sorry I was right and obnoxious at the same time.

This is just a small part of the puzzle, but it's important to feel out the right curves so we know (best guess) it's true shape and what else fits in with it. In case I didn't make myself clearly enough last night, I think its shape is post-explosion since 1932 is UTC time.

* UTC is generally standard for the airline industry. I'm no expert, but I'd suspect their records would all be done in that.
* Two other apparent UTC times - start loading (BF, 1512) and end loading (EF, 1652) match well with luggage movements beneath them, which are in UTC (the Z)
* Finally the Zeist court's Production 1062, unspecified “documentary evidence” that “the aircraft used for PA103A […] left for London at 1653.” Local or Z? One minute after the “EF” if Z, (so push-off from gate) or actual departure an hour later? Clearly they mean UTC time, as 1653 local would be 1553Z, when the plane was still loading at the first gate.

And explained again in a new blog post:
http://12-7-9-11.blogspot.com/2009/11/no-morning-after-sentimentalism-here.html

Well, that is indeed quite a post CL! And thanks for the graphical blog post!

As I have mentioned before, your ability to formulate a clear picture from a plethora of opaque details, is most certainly appreciated. I am constantly throwing these inconsistentcies and contradictions around, and frustratingly, all too often, reach a point of some sort of mental impasse. Of course, maybe, just maybe, something else will eventually transpire which will alter, once again, the veracity and moreso the realistic, story relating to Mrs Erac's divine evidence. As it stands however, there may well have been ample opportunity for other forms of intervention.

She heard of the loss of PA103 during the evening of that day and realised that PA103A had departed during her period on duty. She was interested in the amount of baggage..

Okay, I have never worked in the airport industry, but are people who do of such mindset that, on hearing of a plane crash, this is their first thought? Possibly?

...decided to take a printout of the information as to baggage held on the computer in case it should contain any useful information.

Well, surely any information would be useful. How could one know what might and might not be useful if kept secret? How unfortunate the holiday was booked during the 2/3 weeks subsequent, when the German, British and US are scrambling around desperately hunting for documentation that was non-existent by 23rd.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Well, that is indeed quite a post CL! And thanks for the graphical blog post!

Thanks for the kind words.

Okay, I have never worked in the airport industry, but are people who do of such mindset that, on hearing of a plane crash, this is their first thought? Possibly?

It's such a first thought I'd expect several people to have it right after getting the news. That only she did so and it would take a night to think about it is an odd story. I'm not sure if that's what she said however.

Well, surely any information would be useful. How could one know what might and might not be useful if kept secret? How unfortunate the holiday was booked during the 2/3 weeks subsequent,

Indeed, quite a decision on her part, perhaps a little out of line. I will investigate this! Ah, it doesn't say much to ME, so it's just a sovenir now! The holiday vacation seems just a likely cover to take advanyage of, but it also seems a long one. Three weeks is only an estimate I've heard around, but the only hard date we have, Feb 2 for reported BKA visits to the airport, indicate a hand-over date closer to Jan 31, so I think we're looking at four weeks or more.

when the German, British and US are scrambling around desperately hunting for documentation that was non-existent by 23rd.

Which 23rd? We have Michael Jones vouching for PanAm's loading papers for 103A missing by January 23, and you found that article about police visits close to Dec 23, which also apparently came up empty-handed.

The question that no one has answered - not the Court, Mr. Marquise, Henderson, Cannistraro, the various Lords, special agents, prosecuting attorneys... How does a whole airport's baggage record just disappear? And when it reappears in someone's locker, why is it still considered good evidence? Why are we seeing different indications in the evidence about how and when and why this printout was made? Why must such an important, confusing, un-asked question have such an inconsistent, varyingly implausible answer?

 

[Rolfe]

I seem to be thinking like a zombie this morning, so pray ignore anything I say that's patently ridiculous.

Are you sure they'd do all these local records in GMT (UST)? All the clocks in the airport and the departure and arrival boards with flight times are in local time. Whenever I book flights, all times of departures and arrivals are given in local time. (Why does the flight take four hours to get there and only two hours to come back? Oh, mother!!!) The airport workers' watches would all be in local time.

We have the timing for the bag going through station 206 as 13.07, on that actual printout. The finish time for KM180 going through the station was given on the hand-written worksheet as either 13.10 or 13.16. (Or did it say 1.10 or 1.16, I don't remember.) We were told that the coder probably took these times from his watch, which might have been a few minutes out in comparison to the computer clocks.

This doesn't sound at all like a system where the computer clock was running GMT while "real life" in the airport (which I would expect to include the staff's watches) was running an hour ahead.

Tell me again, slowly, why you think the printout is in GMT.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

OK, you say Z definitely means GMT? (I thought Z was just "Zeit", which is just "time" in German, I didn't realise it had any other connotation.)

Sorry, zombie here.

Can you find the link to the scan of the worksheet? Would the clerk doing the coding set his watch to GMT? As we're told that the worksheet times were probably taken from his watch? Wouldn't having flight times and announcements and all that in local time, and the baggage computer system (which only relates to the airport itself after all) in a different time zone, be impossibly confusing?

Nevertheless, if we assume that the 19.32 time is indeed GMT, that would be 29 minutes after the plane exploded. Is it actually likely that anyone at Frankfurt, in the baggage handling department, would know about it as quickly as that, and instantly leap to make this printout?

Of course I don't know what the reaction was within the airline and airport systems to news that a plane had gone down, or how fast it travelled. I know ATC saw the plane disintegrate on the radar at 7.03, that's for sure, and I know it was a news flash on Channel 4 TV at about 7.55 (because I saw it), but that's about it. How fast would the news get to Frankfurt? How fast would it get to the baggage control computer centre?

What would be the reaction of people when they heard the news?

Shock, obviously. Heightened excitement. Horror. However, how soon before it would occur to anyone that Frankfurt itself might be involved? The plane took off from Heathrow, and it was a plane that had landed there much earlier in the day from the USA. Maid of the Seas herself hadn't been near Frankfurt.

Of the 243 passengers on board, only 28 embarked at Frankfurt, and another 21 were routed through Frankfurt to the flight from other airports. Indeed, the Frankfurt flight had been designated PA103A, but it doesn't seem to me that it would have been immediately obvious that it was particularly involved - not in the first half hour or so. (Probably the first 15 minutes or so - the news wouldn't have got to Frankfurt instantaneously.)

I could understand a standing order within the airline industry to the effect that whenever a plane goes down, immediate steps must be taken to secure baggage loading records from any plane that might have connected to it. But there seems to have been no such order. The news of the crash didn't immediately see teams of baggage controllers leaping into action at Heathrow and points east to secure the data as per standing orders. We don't even hear about anyone (at Frankfurt or anywhere else) shouting "OMG, that could be a bomb, we have to make sure all the records are preserved!"

What we hear about is Bogomira, on her own initiative, within (say) 15 minutes of hearing the news, just quietly making a printout "just in case", and hiding it away.

Does this sound realistic to anyone?

I can believe either of the tales we were originally told. The Conspiracy Files one is more believable, that there was a batch of routine printouts that Bogomira was about to throw away, but her eye was caught by the PA103A one as she realised that just over a third of the passengers on that plane had been on the crashed jet. She therefore put it away in her locker as her own little personal memento of the tragedy. What I don't understand about that is why a batch of routine printouts would be made in the evening, pretty much at close of play, after the planes had departed, only to be thrown in the bin the following day. What was the purpose of that?

The other tale is still believable though. By the following day, pennies might have been beginning to drop, even though the definite connection to Frankfurt (through the blast-damaged AVE4041) wasn't made until after Christmas. Certainly, if the news report is to be believed, police were already looking at Frankfurt by Christmas Eve, apparently simply because 49 passengers on PA301 had come from there. So possibly, even as early as the 22nd, before the police showed up (which should have been 23rd or 24th according to that report), she might have thought of making a printout "just in case".

Then, we suppose, she went on holiday before the police showed up, and wasn't there at the initial visit, which seems to have been as soon as the following day, when the apparently drew a blank, with the computer records already purged?

OK, maybe the news report was in error, and the police didn't actually visit the airport til the following week. Sunday was Christmas Day after all. Maybe they didn't get there till the Tuesday. Still less than a week after the crash. And they found everything deleted. Bogomira was on holday so missed the huge fuss and the recriminations and the frustrated policemen searching the bins - which surely must have happened, although we haven't heard a single word about it.

Goodness, wasn't it just as well she did the printout, though I'd have thought any normal person would have expected the whole lot to be secured in fairly short order. But it's only some time after she gets back from holiday that she discovers that in fact the rcords were purged before the police got there, and volunteers the saved printout.

I'm honestly struggling here.

I do have one little thought. Supposing Bogomira was well aware that there were shenanigans going on that might motivate a cover-up, but felt that a crashed Jumbo Jet was too big a deal to cover up merely on account of some drug smuggling. So she decided to make a quiet printout just in case that happened, and after her return she found out that's exactly what had happened?

Still doesn't really jell for me. I could see someone doing that the following morning, but to rush to do it within minutes of finding out the terrible news, with no idea what the hell had actually happened, at (for her) half past eight at night - er, really? Also, it doesn't entirely fit with the Frankfurt police sitting on it for quite so long, which suggests further intent to conceal. Or maybe it does.

Zombie here.

There could well be a perfectly simple, straightforward and reasonable explanation of all this, but at the moment it smells very strange to me.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I seem to be thinking like a zombie this morning, so pray ignore anything I say that's patently ridiculous.

Ignore something? Ridiculous! No, seriously, it's pretty simple but I'm a crummy teacher. It's true tho I'm right and hey, Happy Birthday!
ohno doggie!

Are you sure they'd do all these local records in GMT (UST)?

Not necessarily, but it seems likely. I've studied a few air-related things that tend to use GMT for everything - accident reports, FDR data from US air crashes, etc. NTSB uses GMT as standard, British obviously would, for the stuff that covers large areas, actual flights, etc. It's a coincidence I think 103's explosion time given in GMT as usual was also about exactly at the Greenwich Mean itself local time.

Local airport ops, it might go either way. Passengers might get a wall of clocks, local and neighboring zones, employees in the break room and punch clock maybe local, the luggage system ??? I'm guessing on all this. How does it work in China? Etc, I dunno. On it's own, the time zone is not evident. It's in the clues.

We have the timing for the bag going through station 206 as 13.07, on that actual printout. The finish time for KM180 going through the station was given on the hand-written worksheet as either 13.10 or 13.16. (Or did it say 1.10 or 1.16, I don't remember.) We were told that the coder probably took these times from his watch, which might have been a few minutes out in comparison to the computer clocks.

Huh, true that's what we've heard. Hadn't lines those up yet. To be sure I double checked and Z (zulu) means GMT or Universal time. So ... they set their watches to GMT? Maybe they switch back to local only as they drive home? Either that or the coders just corrected it to GMT in writing, but 1307 is Z, they've all SAID the two line up, and normal operations would run better if these logs were all on the same system consistently.

I do see where there's a CT possibility here... May be too small a rabbit to chase, but...

Tell me again, slowly, why you think the printout is in GMT.

Rolfe.

Certainly. I'm doing this very slowly, but the best way is to make sure you read it that way. First, let's ignore if anything in the printout is or isn't in GMT or local time. To be honest I haven't looked it over from all sides. The main thing is that all times in the printout are internally consistent. They're in the same time zone, whether the Z is there or not.

So, our 8849 gets coded at 1307, stored and then sent to gate 44 at 1523. Something in the top portion called BF reads 1512, so this could be start of loading. Items start going to 44 five minutes later, get loaded we presume, as late as about 1615. The plane moves to gate 41, two items there after 1631. Something called EF, (end loading?) reads 1652. The court had "departure" one minute after that. That too is consistent, if they mean push-off before departure (app. 1700?). The printout was made 2:40 after this if all times are consistent. Do we agree on that?

Now, there are other ways to look at it from there - eg, how does this line up with Heathrow? 103 took off about 18:25 UTC/GMT/local. If the Frankfurt departure of 103A was around 1700 in GMT, this would allow about 1 1/2 hr to get stuff to London and on the other plane. If that was local time, there's 2 1/2 hours. Either makes sense to me.

So we're down to which of those times to London makes more sense, how standard GMT is for record-keeping, how reliably Z means UTC, and whether a 30 min post-explosion search or 2-hours-after routine loading report makes more sense.

Again, happy birthday, and thanks for taking the time to sort this out.

ETA: It might not have helped, I suck at this. Just think about the times until it makes sense.

 

[Caustic Logic]

dbl pst

 

[Rolfe]

Z - Zulu? OK, I just googled it. Never heard of this before.

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

UTC is also the time system used in aviation. Weather forecastings, flight plans, air traffic control clearances, and maps all use UTC (also colloquially referred to as "Zulu Time") to avoid confusion about time zones and daylight saving time.

Look, "time" in German is "Zeit".

Are you sure the Z on the printouts isn't just confirming that these numbers are recording a time? Was this "zulu" thing widespread enough to be in probable use in Germany in 1988?

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Z - Zulu? OK, I just googled it. Never heard of this before.

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

Look, "time" in German is "Zeit".

Are you sure the Z on the printouts isn't just confirming that these numbers are recording a time? Was this "zulu" thing widespread enough to be in probable use in Germany in 1988?

Rolfe.

I don't know the history. It came up as a standard reference in US naval reports I looked at from the 1960s, re: the Mediterranean. Zeit does make some sense, just so you know "yeah, this is a time." It's also apparently optional if all times are in Z, cause some are labeled and some not.

Here's a bit on a non-British crash you know:

The aircraft departed from Rio de Janeiro-Galeão International Airport on 31 May 2009 at 19:03 local time (22:03 UTC), with a scheduled arrival at Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport approximately 11 hours later.[1]
The last verbal contact with the aircraft was at 01:33 UTC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447
On the ground, referencing local and Z, in the air it's on Z time. You could well configure your luggage system to be on Z or local. So far it seems to me Z means Z, and its times are pretty in line with the above ones.

 

[Rolfe]

OK, reading what you're explaining (I didn't know a lot of that), I think we have a confusion between this "zulu" thing, which I see is indeed used for the international aspects of aviation, and the German word "zeit".

As far as I know, airPORTS work on their own local time. When a plane lands, it seems to me to enter into "local time" space. Air traffic control, flight plans and clearances I can understand being standardised to GMT. But the ground staff, the airport itself, so far as I know all these things work on local time. Baggage handling systems, being tied to the ground, being part of the airport and not the moving aeroplane thing, I would expect to work on local time. It would surely be hugely confusing if they didn't.

I think "Z" on the printouts is just an abbreviation for "zeit".

Which gets us back to that printout having been made half an hour before the crash.

Rolfe.

ETA: Cross-posting again, but note that the report you quote is absolutely clear in using "UTC" to denote the time standard being used. I still doubt that a ground-based baggage system would use anything other than local time, or that a German system would use "Z" as an abbreviation for "UTC" when it could be ambiguous (as I said, I just assumed it was "zeit", and wiki does say that "zulu" is colloquial).

 

[Caustic Logic]

OK, reading what you're explaining (I didn't know a lot of that), I think we have a confusion between this "zulu" thing, which I see is indeed used for the international aspects of aviation, and the German word "zeit".

As far as I know, airPORTS work on their own local time. When a plane lands, it seems to me to enter into "local time" space. Air traffic control, flight plans and clearances I can understand being standardised to GMT. But the ground staff, the airport itself, so far as I know all these things work on local time. Baggage handling systems, being tied to the ground, being part of the airport and not the moving aeroplane thing, I would expect to work on local time. It would surely be hugely confusing if they didn't.

I think "Z" on the printouts is just an abbreviation for "zeit".

Which gets us back to that printout having been made half an hour before the crash.

Rolfe.

ETA: Cross-posting again, but note that the report you quote is absolutely clear in using "UTC" to denote the time standard being used. I still doubt that a ground-based baggage system would use anything other than local time, or that a German system would use "Z" as an abbreviation for "UTC" when it could be ambiguous (as I said, I just assumed it was "zeit", and wiki does say that "zulu" is colloquial).

Fair enough, I hadn't considered even the Z numbers and all might be local with Z just meaning time. I don't buy it yet but I'm open. I do think all printout times are in the same zone, and if we can agree on that it's a plus. (does all that fit well enough you suspect it's all consistent?) Some aviation professionals, old-timers, especially, could help here. I've taken these questions before to the science forum, stripped of context, to establish basic facts. I might now if I weren't bout to crash.

 

[Rolfe]

It's true tho I'm right

Maybe. You haven't convinced me yet.

and hey, Happy Birthday!
ohno doggie!

Thank you very much indeed.

If the Frankfurt departure of 103A was around 1700 in GMT, this would allow about 1 1/2 hr to get stuff to London and on the other plane. If that was local time, there's 2 1/2 hours. Either makes sense to me.

PA103A landed at Heathrow at 5.40pm GMT. However, it was late. I'm not sure how late, or whether it was delayed at the Frankfurt end or by the Heathrow holding pattern. Flight time would normally be about an hour and a half. (I just checked the BA web site for flights on that route, where I know "all times are local", and I'm coming up with a normal flight time of 1 hour 40 minutes.)

So if it was delayed at the Frankfurt end, with a normal flight time, it would have taken off at 4pm GMT. If it was meant to leave earlier, it's possible the bags would have been on board earlier than that. It might have left earlier than that if it was delayed by ATC at Heathrow. It couldn't have left significantly later than 4pm GMT, which is 5pm local time Frankfurt, because there's a limit to how much time you can make up on such a short flight.

Frankfurt departure of PA103 must have been close to 17:00 Frankfurt time, or 16:00 GMT. It could not have been 17:00 GMT.

Does that help? Still zombie here.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

PA103A landed at Heathrow at 5.40pm GMT. However, it was late. I'm not sure how late, or whether it was delayed at the Frankfurt end or by the Heathrow holding pattern. Flight time would normally be about an hour and a half. (I just checked the BA web site for flights on that route, where I know "all times are local", and I'm coming up with a normal flight time of 1 hour 40 minutes.)

Hmmm... It arrived that early? Yeah, 1653 would have to be local then... Do you get less zombie if I'm getting zombie now? The thought that I did that whole post... sorry, too late and tired to concede anything now but I'm puzzling again. Tomorrow I'll decide if I was wrong.

 

[Rolfe]

Early??!!

That was only 20 minutes before PA103 left! I was astonished that they got the Jumbo loaded with that baggage and the passengers transferred in such a short time. Twenty minutes is a very tight connection indeed for an airport, especially one as huge as Heathrow, and for an international flight.

I think that was why the baggage wasn't x-rayed at Heathrow. Possibly. Or it might have been SOP to rely on the Frankfurt security, and assume that nothing could penetrate it at Heathrow in the short turn-round time.

Nevertheless, although PA103A was indeed fairly late, and as a result they only had 20 minutes to do the job, they made it, passengers and bags and all, and PA103 pushed off from the Heathrow gate on time at a minute or two after 6pm (it took off at 6.25 and blew up at 7.03).

I was guessing about an hour and a half flight time just based on knowing the approximate distance, but when I checked it on the BA web site I found that if I wanted to fly that route tomorrow the flight time would be 1 hour 40 minutes. I assume it would have been about the same in 1988.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I notice a few other Zs on the printout, and in these case there are annotated explanations of what they mean - I suspect these might have been made by the original German investigators, though they could be Bollier's work if the image originates from his web site.

VZ is Vorziel (previous goal)
ZN is Ziel neu (new goal)
ZA is Ziel alt (old goal)

Z in these cases is "ziel", which means "goal". Not necessarily destination airport, more likely the place in the system the item was headed for. I also see "ziel zuweisung" as an explanatory note further along, which is "assigned goal".

I think that's more consistent with the single "Zs" by the obvious time stamps being "zeit" than "zulu".

Rolfe.