Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost

[susier]

In the recording at 12:26:21 in response to 'Request Level' I am almost certain that the pilot does not say as written in the transcript, 'Malaysian 370 we are ready requesting flight level...'


It sounds as though he is saying '770 we are ready...'


which makes no sense at all if that's correct. Though it is probably irrelevant.


Listen: Missing Jet MH370 Pilots Talking to Air Traffic Control - NBC News

[Lonewolf_50]

I think it worthwhile recalling that in the first few days, the search began in the South China Sea and the Mallaca Straights.

Whatever inquiries and coordination was done with countries for a northern search hypothesis has been either kept quiet (due to the issues and implications of the northern route on a variety of political fronts) or have been abandoned by a process of elimination.

The search efforts are not cheap. getting another government to search and having it turn into a wild goose chase can have political reprecussions of varying severity. Recall when the folks in Viet Nam packed up their kit and withdrew. Recall that India did likewise in a different area.

Yes, we the public do not know the whole story of the search effort. Do we have a need to?

James: thanks for posting that link. It adds little enlightenment, but does well explore the challenge of using the limited data set to establish a valid search datum.

[Fantome]

"using the limited data set to establish a valid search datum."



. . . . . . groping in the dark uncertain
of whether this is the right room or even the right building.

The conclusion of Ari Schulman's aforementioned
article in 'The Atlantic' -


An Inmarsat official told me that to “a high degree of certainty, the proponents of other paths are wrong. The model has been carefully mapped out using all the available data.”

The official cited Inmarsat’s participation in the investigation as preventing it from giving further detail, and did not reply to requests for comments on even basic technical questions about the analysis. Inmarsat has repeatedly claimed that it checked its model against other aircraft that were flying at the time, and peer-reviewed the model with other industry experts. But Inmarsat won’t say who reviewed it, how closely, or what level of detail they were given.

Until officials provide more information, the claim that Flight 370 went south rests not on the weight of mathematics but on faith in authority. Inmarsat officials and search authorities seem to want it both ways: They release charts, graphics, and statements that give the appearance of being backed by maths and science, while refusing to fully explain their methodologies. And over the course of this investigation, those authorities have repeatedly issued confident pronouncements about which they have later quietly given up on or tacitly refuted.

The biggest risk to the investigation now is that authorities will continue to assume they’ve finally found the area where the plane went down, while failing to explore other possibilities simply because they don’t fit with a mathematical analysis that may not even hold up. After all, searchers have not yet found any material evidence—not so much as a shred of debris—to confirm that they are looking in the right ocean.

[Porker1]

Thanks James7, interesting article indeed.

Presumably the dotted red line produced by Exner with the newly calculated satellite-to-plane shifts could be used to produce potential flight paths in the same way that Inmarsat used their assessed BFO values to produce the northern and southern ping arcs? Anyone?

The only fly in the ointment is Inmarsat's statement that their interpretation was validated by comparison with data from other flights pinging the same satellite.

[David Bass]

Sadly, The Ancient Greek's response does not answer my question, which is about the fact that the satellite is movement is in all three (geometric) axes, not just "vertically".

I agree with the point that if vertical movement is defined as changes in altitude, then at apogee the change is zero along that axis. But this is manifestly untrue for the other two axes - at apogee they are unlikely to be zero - my question is, does the motion in those axes matter at all, and if so, does it affect the assumption in Robin Clark's analysis.

[LTETristar]

BBC News Southern Flight Corridor

Saw BBC News Channel item last night summarising MH370 disappearance, summing up what we know 2 months after the incident.
Yet again, it claimed the satellite data revealed it flew "along the southern flight corridor", with a map showing the final southern ping arc.
Would somebody please tell them?

[Ian W]

Originally Posted by Porker1

Thanks James7, interesting article indeed.

Presumably the dotted red line produced by Exner with the newly calculated satellite-to-plane shifts could be used to produce potential flight paths in the same way that Inmarsat used their assessed BFO values to produce the northern and southern ping arcs? Anyone?

The only fly in the ointment is Inmarsat's statement that their interpretation was validated by comparison with data from other flights pinging the same satellite.

Two points raised

- the reassessment is based on assumptions that appeared to be correct because of one match which could be coincidental.

- the entire discussion justifies the encoding of ULBs so that their identity is known. If the ULB signals that were received had been encoded as MH370 airframe identity this entire discussion would be moot.

[Datayq1]

Data Validation and error analysis

Simulator flights would not generate handshake data, consequently would not yield any information about the errors associated with the observed data from the satellite.

Any observed data will have an inherent measurement errors that have to be quantified so that subsequent calculations (particularly innovative and untested calculations) will be useful.

Hopefully the Inmarsat guys have done exactly that, established the total error possible for each of their original conclusions. More specifically, what is the error and confidence that surrounds the "40 degree arc".

I'm sure that engineering folks have been frustrated by the legend given in the BFO plots provided by the AAIB. Assume that the green (triangle) plot points are controlled observations derived from actually replicating the MH370 flight through 17:07 UTC (and not as the legend states "predicted"), and the blue plot points ( diamonds) are the actual MH-370 observations.

Making those assumptions, one is left to explain the difference in BFO values at 16:49 and also at 16:55. Is that the potential for error, or is there some other explanation?

I'd agree that the investigation team (at this point) has no obligation to release error analysis, however I'd ask: Is there any reason withhold that information?

[olasek]

But Inmarsat won’t say who reviewed it, how closely, or what level of detail they were given.

And for a very good reason - by law they are prevented to release such information if they are participants in the investigation. Go then and bang your head against the wall ...

[Heathrow Harry]

One thing to take into account - Malaysia has the fourth LOWEST rate of suicide in the world

SUICIDE DEATH RATE BY COUNTRY

Only Antigua, St Kitts, Syria and Kiribati are lower.................

makes hanging the pilot (s) out to dry a little harder IMHO

[RichardC10]

The Atlantic Story

The problem with this story is that the reporter has gone to Inmarsat for fact-check and got "your story is entirely wrong" yet he has still published. Inmarsat are not the bad-guys here, it was not their plane that crashed, they did not build it, they are not trying to cover themselves. Yet this story implies they are completely incompetent (or worse) and by extension also AAIB who have stood behind this analysis in its presentation to the Malaysian authorities. If the story discussed some subtle extension to the Inmarsat analysis that would be one thing, but it is completely different (I have seen the derivation). Inmarsat have tested their analysis on other flights and that would have revealed gross errors immediately.

If this story were true it would imply conspiracy and cover-up within the UK air accident authorities, and I just don't think the World is like that.

[RIGHTSEATKC135]

Attempting data search

Please extend some leeway to this newbie posting...


Have any ARINC avionics device status data, which is capable of being transmitted as "artifact" within the ACARS and the SSR systems been listed - publicly, or even admitted to, anywhere??

Kudos to those who have taken the time-to, and put forth the effort-to advance trigonometric calculations of the proposed flight path, especially when "x" has been the most elusive of factors to determine.

Probably the only (politically safe) assumption capable of being made/stated within this, or any forum, is the fact that whatever the eventual outcome of the MH370 saga may be, it's resolution will greatly affect the future of commercial aviation, and the lives of those who supply and/or consume these services for a very long time to come.

[Propduffer]

@RichardC10

I agree. The Atlantic has taken a big hit in credibility for me.

Attacking the Inmarsat engineers' integrity is a non-sequitur IMO, and that is what all this questioning of their analysis appears to be based upon.

[Fox_JB]

Zebedie

And another place on the MH route network which would have made disappearing into the Southern Ocean even easier - Mauritius.

Malaysia Airlines don't fly to Mauritius. The route is a code share operated by Air Mauritius.

[hamster3null]

Originally Posted by RichardC10

The problem with this story is that the reporter has gone to Inmarsat for fact-check and got "your story is entirely wrong" yet he has still published.

He got "your story is wrong but we won't tell you why it's wrong". The technical term for this is "stonewalling". If I were him, I would have published too. The conclusion - that 'until officials provide more information, the claim that Flight 370 went south rests not on the weight of mathematics but on faith in authority' - seems undisputable.

by law they are prevented to release such information if they are participants in the investigation.

By whose law and in which jurisdiction?

Yet this story implies they are completely incompetent (or worse) and by extension also AAIB who have stood behind this analysis in its presentation to the Malaysian authorities.

Well, that's one possible interpretation. Another is that they were given "MH370 did not enter Indian airspace" as an input and they gave a competent conclusion that was conditional on that. In this scenario, failure to produce a northbound track in late March was an understandable oversight rather than incompetence. By now they can't revise their conclusions, because Australians spent something like $43m based on their word and they'd be exposing themselves to a huge liability if their information proved false. It's a classic case of "no good deed goes unpunished". This is why big companies have lawyers checking every word of every press release and every bit of information that is released to the public. The fact that Inmarsat got voluntarily involved at all seems like a lapse of judgement on their lawyers' part.

[porterhouse]

By now they can't revise their conclusions

Sure, I reckon this is your wonderful "possible interpretation"
I often wonder how much the world is missing of the infinite wisdom coming from this forum. So much insight, so much brilliant deduction.

[Leightman 957]

Bluefin limitations

The towed search has not found wreckage, but the search PC's seem not to have been unequivocal that wreckage is not in the primary search area, only that they had covered the area. 'None was found' was the wording at the end of each search day. But it was also stated that Bluefin was at its max depth, and that portions of the seafloor in the area remain to be mapped, the latter phrase suggestive. Other than 'sedimented', very few characterizations of the sea floor have been made. It remains possible that wreckage is within the search area, but too deep to be recognized by Bluefin, located in a chasm, or otherwise obscured by seafloor profiles. Again, there has not been enough information given to rule this out. I would be surprised if areas within the primary were not the first place searched when more capable equipment arrives.

[tdracer]

And for a very good reason - by law they are prevented to release such information if they are participants in the investigation.

Thank you olasek. This bears repeating (repeatedly). Anyone who is involved in the investigation is under an effective gag order (been there, experienced that). All public release of information must be approved and released by the responsible investigating agency, and unless the investigation uncovers a potentially urgent safety concern, there is no obligation to publicly release information related to the investigation.
Breaking the 'gag order' during an active investigation can result in serious repercussions (including loosing ones job).

In short, keeping the peanut gallery informed and entertained is not their job.

[MG23]

Originally Posted by hamster3null

By now they can't revise their conclusions, because Australians spent something like $43m based on their word and they'd be exposing themselves to a huge liability if their information proved false.

Accident investigators don't just say 'hey, someone thinks it crashed over here, let's spend millions of dollars looking'. All relevant information will have been analyzed and combined with other available information to determine the most likely spot for finding the wreckage. As tdracer said, those who are involved in an investigation are expected to release information through the investigation agency, not willy-nilly to the press.

Everyone wants to spot the one piece of overlooked or misinterpreted information that would finally locate the aircraft, but the investigation isn't being run by the Keystone Kops.

[porterhouse]

If you're suggesting that Inmarsat employees are so terrified

You simply don't get it.
No one has to be 'terrified'.
No one has to be afraid of police action.
People do it because this is how investigations are handled, by fiat, by historical precedence, by mutual agreement, by common sense.
Investigators rather be left alone than having to reply to a line of outsiders (usually media idiots) knocking on their door asking for 'verifications' or 'explanations'.
Any press releases, etc are totally at their discretion, they are not necessary, they may chose to communicate only through official reports.