Fresh appeal applied for in the Lockerbie case

[LondonJohn]

And to correlate the delay issue with the potential flight path over the middle of Ireland:

Distance from LHR to Lockerbie = 450km (approx)

Distance from LHR to point on West coast of Ireland that the aircraft would have crossed had it been on that flight path = 625km (approx)

Differential in distance = 175km (approx)

Economical cruising speed of 747-100 = 907km/h*

Time taken to cover 175km at economic cruising speed = 19 mins (approx)


Therefore, if the flight had taken off at 18.05, and if it had flown on the flight path taking it across Ireland (i.e. not the "Daventry Departure"), it would have passed over the West coast of Ireland just before 19.03.

All that being said, I do agree that the smarter money is on a switch with at least some barometric element. However, I don't think it's possible to entirely rule out a simple timer device.


* http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=97

 

[LondonJohn]

I won't repeat what I heard an American lady who lost her son say about this at Lockerbie while waiting for the courtesy bus to the 25th anniversary service. I was that close to flying into a rage with her.

Erm......wow.

(my highlighting for emphasis)

 

[Strawberry]

Erm......wow.

(my highlighting for emphasis)

Emphasis of what? You've no idea what the woman said, for all you know it might be something that would push you close to anger too.

 

[Samson]

Emphasis of what? You've no idea what the woman said, for all you know it might be something that would push you close to anger too.

Presumably anger at Megrahi deliberately dropping the plane on Lockerbie??

 

[Strawberry]

Presumably anger at Megrahi deliberately dropping the plane on Lockerbie??

Why would you presume that? I'm sure Rolfe is well used to hearing sentiments like that about the Lockerbie case, would that really push her close to anger?

 

[Elagabalus]

And to correlate the delay issue with the potential flight path over the middle of Ireland:

Distance from LHR to Lockerbie = 450km (approx)

Distance from LHR to point on West coast of Ireland that the aircraft would have crossed had it been on that flight path = 625km (approx)

Differential in distance = 175km (approx)

Economical cruising speed of 747-100 = 907km/h*

Time taken to cover 175km at economic cruising speed = 19 mins (approx)


Therefore, if the flight had taken off at 18.05, and if it had flown on the flight path taking it across Ireland (i.e. not the "Daventry Departure"), it would have passed over the West coast of Ireland just before 19.03.

All that being said, I do agree that the smarter money is on a switch with at least some barometric element. However, I don't think it's possible to entirely rule out a simple timer device.


* http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=97

I think the only reason to speculate on why the timer went off when it did is to try and introduce the barometric timer idea instead. Why not just stick to the facts? The plane blew up because of an IED. Any evidence of Barometric timer? No. Any evidence of timer timer? Yes. Oh, wait, that evidence was just planted by some mysterious dark force ...

 

[ComfySlippers]

I think the only reason to speculate on why the timer went off when it did is to try and introduce the barometric timer idea instead. Why not just stick to the facts? The plane blew up because of an IED. Any evidence of Barometric timer? No. Any evidence of timer timer? Yes. Oh, wait, that evidence was just planted by some mysterious dark force ...

^This.

A discussion about "what the heck was this terrorist thinking?" is so pointless.
It'll be Barnacles[emoji769] again soon.
Maybe he'd had a bad day and set the timer wrong?
Maybe he was right handed but had hurt his thumb in a farming accident so had to use his left hand when setting the timer?
You can't guess these things!

When I drive past Lockerbie my brain doesn't think about arguing with a victims relative. Call me old fashioned but that is odd behaviour.

Nice to see you back Rolfe.
Take care.

 

[Venom]

I am really quite astonished at the level of detail Rolfe goes into pertaining to the Pan Am 103 case.

She's the one who convinced me of al-Megrahi's innocence. I thought reading the NIST reports was overwhelming.

 

[Ambrosia]

And on the switch issue, then your view has merit. Firstly, note once again that I originally said that I believed a timer MAY have been used - not that I thought a timer HAD been used. Secondly, I think it's entirely possible that a member of the German cell (or an associate) might have flown that route as a practice run some weeks or months earlier, and might have noted the time at which the aircraft passed over the west coast of Ireland, and used that as a basis for timings.

There were several tracks that aircraft going from LHR to JFK took in 1988. ATC routed planes depending on other traffic, and weather, so if a cell had flown a number of practise routes they likely would have taken different routes on some of those flights. Different weather conditions like the prevailing direction and strengths of winds will change the timings as the aircraft passes set points on the ground.

It's still a simple fact that if you want the plane to go down over the sea then you wait till midway into the flight, where delays to take off, adverse weather and such aren't going to stop that from happening.

If you want the plane to crash over land then it's a lottery whether or not you can make this happen *unless* you use a altitude based timer. (Don't forget, this is the middle of winter at LHR so weather delays are very possible)
Using a normal timer leaves you with a large risk of the bomb going off on the ground before the plane takes off. To hit the ground you need the aircraft to be airbourne above the ground, for a LHR to JFK flight that's a very small % of the actual flight time.

While you can't completely rule out a normal timer set to ~60 mins after scheduled take off, it makes little sense to use one in that way, so it remains much more likely that an altitude timer was used, given the evidence we see. Occam gets us to that pretty reliably.

So Malta IMO has clear links to the bombing.

The PFLP-GC was based in Libya at the time of the attack. Malta was a gateway from Libya to the west, this would be entirely unsurprising.

To link Megrahi to the plotting means there needs to be evidence he was involved. The fact that his job title sounds shady isn't that evidence.

How many people in the US or the UK or <insert any country> work for the 'government security services', while having a really boring normal job.

I agree that it's plausible that Megrahi might have been involved. That's as far as it goes though. There's no evidence that he was. He died as a convicted terrorist, and the whole argument of 'hey he was probably guilty anyway' means that re-opening the case to perhaps, actually discover who was in fact responsible, gets less and less likely.

 

[lionking]

I am really quite astonished at the level of detail Rolfe goes into pertaining to the Pan Am 103 case.

She's the one who convinced me of al-Megrahi's innocence. I thought reading the NIST reports was overwhelming.

Me too. I was openly sceptical of her position until I purchased and read her book. Anyone who thinks al-Megrahi is guilty is an idiot.

Welcome back, even if for a short time Rolfe.

 

[Ambrosia]

I think the only reason to speculate on why the timer went off when it did is to try and introduce the barometric timer idea instead. Why not just stick to the facts? The plane blew up because of an IED. Any evidence of Barometric timer? No. Any evidence of timer timer? Yes. Oh, wait, that evidence was just planted by some mysterious dark force ...

There's no evidence of any timer.

The fragment of circuit board known as PT/35b was not proved to be part of the IED that brought down the plane. It was never even tested for explosives residue for example.

In more recent times it's been proved using chemical analysis that the fragment did not come from a batch of timers with a similar board that were supplied to Libya.

Where did that fragment come from? - Noone knows. What was it part of? - the closest match to the board is an MST-13 timer, but it's by no means a conclusive match. The fragment itself bears hallmarks of both professional level (for 1988) manufacturing processes, *and* amateur level processes.



The chain of evidence for it is questionable, the prosecution claims it was found embedded in a shirt collar shown to have been in the primary case, but it still remains possible that it was placed into the evidence chain at some other time as the cataloguing procedures for evidence were generally poor, and in this specific pieces case, terrible.

[it was described in detail on an examiners notes, which were loose leaf, and which had page numbers altered. There seems to be no primary evidence photo taken contemporaneously on 35mm film. If there had been a roll of film with this fragment pictured on it, in sequence with other pictures, then all of the doubt about it's provenance goes away, if the forensic examiners notes didn't have the page numbers altered, or were in a bound notebook, likewise.]

We can't say for sure what this fragment is. It's probably not part of the IED but it can't be proved one way or the other, I wish it could.

 

[zooterkin]

The flight's take-off WAS delayed. It left the ground at 18.25 - some 21 minutes after it pushed back from the gate. This is a considerably longer time from push-back to take-off than would be considered normal: something between 5 and 10 minutes is standard.

Anyone who's ever flown more than a couple of times would know that wheels-up 20 minutes after the published take-off time is not at all unusual.

 

[Ambrosia]

If one puts together the small delay to push-back from the gate and the longer delay between push-back and take-off, one arrives at a total delay in the wheels leaving the ground of something between 15 and 20 minutes. Not a massive delay, but a delay nonetheless. Had the aircraft pushed back at 18.00 and had taken off something between 5 and 10 minutes later, it would have taken off somewhere between 18.05 and 18.10.

Where can I read about this?

AIUI the planes published Departure time, the one that's posted on airport screens for passengers to get to the boarding gate, is the Push Back time, the time the aircraft is supposed to leave the gate.

Then the plane has to taxi to the allocated runway, wait it's turn in the queue and then it takes off.

How long the difference is between push back time varies lots depending on the airport. I'm pretty sure all the long haul flights I've taken from LHR have been longer than 15 mins to get from pushback to take off.

Is there a source I can read that shows the average times for this? For 1988?

PA103 was a flight on December 21st, 1988. It was the middle of winter, so would be very possibly subject to weather delays, or delays from late passengers as it's close to Christmas as well.

I think the earliest you could reasonably expect the plane to be airbourne was 18:15.

 

[catsmate]

Anyone who's ever flown more than a couple of times would know that wheels-up 20 minutes after the published take-off time is not at all unusual.

Indeed. The FAA threshold for listing a flight as delayed starts at 15 minutes but the penalties only start after 3 or 4 hours. Likewise in the EU the threshold for compensation is 3 hours.

 

[LondonJohn]

Anyone who's ever flown more than a couple of times would know that wheels-up 20 minutes after the published take-off time is not at all unusual.

I've flown more than a couple of times.

(Not appreciating the unilateral condescension though )

 

[LondonJohn]

There were several tracks that aircraft going from LHR to JFK took in 1988. ATC routed planes depending on other traffic, and weather, so if a cell had flown a number of practise routes they likely would have taken different routes on some of those flights. Different weather conditions like the prevailing direction and strengths of winds will change the timings as the aircraft passes set points on the ground.

It's still a simple fact that if you want the plane to go down over the sea then you wait till midway into the flight, where delays to take off, adverse weather and such aren't going to stop that from happening.

If you want the plane to crash over land then it's a lottery whether or not you can make this happen *unless* you use a altitude based timer. (Don't forget, this is the middle of winter at LHR so weather delays are very possible)
Using a normal timer leaves you with a large risk of the bomb going off on the ground before the plane takes off. To hit the ground you need the aircraft to be airbourne above the ground, for a LHR to JFK flight that's a very small % of the actual flight time.

While you can't completely rule out a normal timer set to ~60 mins after scheduled take off, it makes little sense to use one in that way, so it remains much more likely that an altitude timer was used, given the evidence we see. Occam gets us to that pretty reliably.




The PFLP-GC was based in Libya at the time of the attack. Malta was a gateway from Libya to the west, this would be entirely unsurprising.

To link Megrahi to the plotting means there needs to be evidence he was involved. The fact that his job title sounds shady isn't that evidence.

How many people in the US or the UK or <insert any country> work for the 'government security services', while having a really boring normal job.

I agree that it's plausible that Megrahi might have been involved. That's as far as it goes though. There's no evidence that he was. He died as a convicted terrorist, and the whole argument of 'hey he was probably guilty anyway' means that re-opening the case to perhaps, actually discover who was in fact responsible, gets less and less likely.

I hope you're not representing my position as "hey he was probably guilty anyway". Because that's absolutely not my position.

 

[LondonJohn]

Indeed. The FAA threshold for listing a flight as delayed starts at 15 minutes but the penalties only start after 3 or 4 hours. Likewise in the EU the threshold for compensation is 3 hours.

What does that have to do with whether or not the flight was materially delayed? To take your argument to its logical conclusion, you could argue that a take-off 2.5 hours after the published push-back time might not be classified as a "delay"........


And, once again, my original point has totally been lost in a semantic argument about the definition of "delay". My actual point was that in my opinion it was impossible to rule out the possibility that a timer had been used, since had the aircraft taken off at roughly the expected wheels-up time, and had it flown out over Ireland, the detonation time would roughly have corresponded with the time the aircraft passed over the West coast of Ireland. I have also agreed that it's more probable, all things considered, that a switch with a barometric element was used. But my point is that I don't think it's possible to conclude that a barometric-based switch MUST have been used. As you were.....

 

[LondonJohn]

Where can I read about this?

AIUI the planes published Departure time, the one that's posted on airport screens for passengers to get to the boarding gate, is the Push Back time, the time the aircraft is supposed to leave the gate.

Then the plane has to taxi to the allocated runway, wait it's turn in the queue and then it takes off.

How long the difference is between push back time varies lots depending on the airport. I'm pretty sure all the long haul flights I've taken from LHR have been longer than 15 mins to get from pushback to take off.

Is there a source I can read that shows the average times for this? For 1988?

PA103 was a flight on December 21st, 1988. It was the middle of winter, so would be very possibly subject to weather delays, or delays from late passengers as it's close to Christmas as well.

I think the earliest you could reasonably expect the plane to be airbourne was 18:15.

Well, if you were interested in "reading about this", and you had a basic level of research skill, it probably wouldn't be hard to find something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6h88gB4hBw

Which is a video from a passenger's seat showing the push-back, taxi and takeoff of a United Airlines transcontinental flight from LHR. This flight most likely departed from LHR T3, so the gate-to-runway journey would have been similar to that of Pan Am 103.

The time from push-back to wheels off the ground is approx 6 min 15 seconds.

If you need any more help finding out information, let me know....

(And yes, of course I know that the published departure time is the push-back time)

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh and also for the record, in 1988 LHR was a far, far less crowded airport than it is now (or was in 2010 when the above video was made). There is the same runway space now that there was in 1988. It's therefore not at all unreasonable to suppose that in 1988, the average times from push-back to wheels up was lower than it would have been in 2010 or 2015.

 

[zooterkin]

Well, if you were interested in "reading about this", and you had a basic level of research skill, it probably wouldn't be hard to find something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6h88gB4hBw

Which is a video from a passenger's seat showing the push-back, taxi and takeoff of a United Airlines transcontinental flight from LHR. This flight most likely departed from LHR T3, so the gate-to-runway journey would have been similar to that of Pan Am 103.

The time from push-back to wheels off the ground is approx 6 min 15 seconds.

If you need any more help finding out information, let me know....

(And yes, of course I know that the published departure time is the push-back time)

Could you explain what you think this proves?