Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why?
Just under three months ago, all we knew was that it was somewhere within a few thousand miles of the airport it took off from. Two months ago, all we knew was that it was probably somewhere around the southern Inmarsat arc. If this is true, all we know is that it's probably still somewhere around the southern Inmarsat arc, but not in the place they were looking.
The only way it would add a significant cost is if the ships which were looking in that area would otherwise have located the real ULB signals before the batteries expired.
And, from a purely financial point of view, the eventual cost of losing an aircraft full of passengers probably won't leave much change from a billion dollars. So it's worth spending at least tens of millions to try to ensure it doesn't happen again.
Just under three months ago, all we knew was that it was somewhere within a few thousand miles of the airport it took off from. Two months ago, all we knew was that it was probably somewhere around the southern Inmarsat arc. If this is true, all we know is that it's probably still somewhere around the southern Inmarsat arc, but not in the place they were looking.
The only way it would add a significant cost is if the ships which were looking in that area would otherwise have located the real ULB signals before the batteries expired.
And, from a purely financial point of view, the eventual cost of losing an aircraft full of passengers probably won't leave much change from a billion dollars. So it's worth spending at least tens of millions to try to ensure it doesn't happen again.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MG23:
"Try" is the operative word.
I suspect some person or persons is/are laughing at the focus on Western values.
And, from a purely financial point of view, the eventual cost of losing an aircraft full of passengers probably won't leave much change from a billion dollars. So it's worth spending at least tens of millions to try to ensure it doesn't happen again
I suspect some person or persons is/are laughing at the focus on Western values.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is now an official refutation from the USN, that Deans comments about the pings not coming from MH370, are wrong.
It appears there's a wide range of interpretation with regard to the signals received by the TPL, and that interpretation is still ongoing.
MH370: US Navy dismisses expert's comments on pings from missing Malaysia Airlines flight - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
It appears there's a wide range of interpretation with regard to the signals received by the TPL, and that interpretation is still ongoing.
MH370: US Navy dismisses expert's comments on pings from missing Malaysia Airlines flight - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
The key sentence in the ABC report is:
They are not denying the report so much as recognising it's up to Australia to break the news, hence terms like "premature".
Diplomatic embarrassment!
"As such, we would defer to the Australians, as the lead in the search effort, to make additional information known at the appropriate time."
Diplomatic embarrassment!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes. Long ago they should have begun throwing out an insane amount of money to buy information in confidence from participating or knowing evil persons who know how this tragic happening was planned and was to be executed. Either it was an aircraft failure or a planned attack. Why not try to find out which it was?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only real issues, are the speculation, and uninformed opinion by arm chair experts etc.
As has been made clear several times, about several aspects of the search including my self. The search works on probabilities of the information they deem is the most reliable at the time.
The authorities at each step of the way (Australian side) have always said the "best so far" or "most credible". It has also been stated that they are sharing that data with various outside organizations for separate analysis.
This all takes time, hence they will keep searching at the "most probable" site until they have other information to go on. If some of that data is found to be not valid, then they will rejig the search accordingly.
As has been made clear several times, about several aspects of the search including my self. The search works on probabilities of the information they deem is the most reliable at the time.
The authorities at each step of the way (Australian side) have always said the "best so far" or "most credible". It has also been stated that they are sharing that data with various outside organizations for separate analysis.
This all takes time, hence they will keep searching at the "most probable" site until they have other information to go on. If some of that data is found to be not valid, then they will rejig the search accordingly.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Either it was an aircraft failure or a planned attack. Why not try to find out which it was?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: btw SAMAR and TOSPA
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@propduffer
According to the plot in the latest Australian fact sheet, it went VKB VPG VAMPI MEKAR
Clearly passing overhead VPG
MEKAR is about 230 NM from Butterworth, on R285 ( the 200/295R on the "radar" picture is wrong )
If you use skyvector to construct this route it comes up with 460 NM. Together with the right, then wide left turn after IGARI it is about 480 NM in total.
IGARI plus a few miles was at 17:25, short of MEKAR was at 18:22
According to the plot in the latest Australian fact sheet, it went VKB VPG VAMPI MEKAR
Clearly passing overhead VPG
MEKAR is about 230 NM from Butterworth, on R285 ( the 200/295R on the "radar" picture is wrong )
If you use skyvector to construct this route it comes up with 460 NM. Together with the right, then wide left turn after IGARI it is about 480 NM in total.
IGARI plus a few miles was at 17:25, short of MEKAR was at 18:22
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just released
Media Release
29 May 2014—pm
Yesterday afternoon, Bluefin-21 completed its last mission searching the remaining areas in the vicinity of the acoustic signals detected in early April by the Towed Pinger Locator deployed from ADV Ocean Shield, within its depth operating limits.
The data collected on yesterday's mission has been analysed. As a result, the Joint Agency Coordination Centre can advise that no signs of aircraft debris have been found by the Autonomous Underwater Vehicle since it joined the search effort.
Since Bluefin-21 has been involved in the search, it has scoured over 850 square kilometres of the ocean floor looking for signs of the missing aircraft.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has advised that the search in the vicinity of the acoustic detections can now be considered complete and in its professional judgement, the area can now be discounted as the final resting place of MH370.
Ocean Shield departed the search area last night and is expected to arrive at Fleet Base West on Saturday.
As advised by the Australian Deputy Prime Minister on 5 May 2014, the search for MH370 continues and now involves three major stages:
The Chinese survey ship Zhu Kezhen has already begun conducting the bathymetric survey—or mapping of the ocean floor—of the areas provided by the ATSB. Its operations are being supported by the Chinese ship Haixun 01 and Malaysian vessel Bunga Mas 6 which are assisting with transporting the survey data to Fremantle weekly for further processing by Geoscience Australia. A contracted survey vessel will join the Zhu Kezhen in June.
The bathymetric survey is expected to take about three months. Knowing the seafloor terrain is crucial to enabling the subsequent underwater search.
The underwater search will aim to locate the aircraft and any evidence (such as aircraft debris and flight recorders) to assist with the Malaysian investigation of the disappearance of MH370.
It is anticipated that this component of the search will begin in August and take up to 12 months.
The ATSB will shortly release a formal request for tender to source the capability to undertake the underwater search. A single prime contractor will be chosen to bring together and manage the expertise, equipment and vessels to carry out the search.
Media Release
29 May 2014—pm
Yesterday afternoon, Bluefin-21 completed its last mission searching the remaining areas in the vicinity of the acoustic signals detected in early April by the Towed Pinger Locator deployed from ADV Ocean Shield, within its depth operating limits.
The data collected on yesterday's mission has been analysed. As a result, the Joint Agency Coordination Centre can advise that no signs of aircraft debris have been found by the Autonomous Underwater Vehicle since it joined the search effort.
Since Bluefin-21 has been involved in the search, it has scoured over 850 square kilometres of the ocean floor looking for signs of the missing aircraft.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has advised that the search in the vicinity of the acoustic detections can now be considered complete and in its professional judgement, the area can now be discounted as the final resting place of MH370.
Ocean Shield departed the search area last night and is expected to arrive at Fleet Base West on Saturday.
As advised by the Australian Deputy Prime Minister on 5 May 2014, the search for MH370 continues and now involves three major stages:
- reviewing all existing information and analysis to define a search zone of up to 60,000 square kilometres along the arc in the southern Indian Ocean;
- conducting a bathymetric survey to map the sea floor in the defined search area; and
- acquiring the specialist services required for a comprehensive search of the sea floor in that area.
The Chinese survey ship Zhu Kezhen has already begun conducting the bathymetric survey—or mapping of the ocean floor—of the areas provided by the ATSB. Its operations are being supported by the Chinese ship Haixun 01 and Malaysian vessel Bunga Mas 6 which are assisting with transporting the survey data to Fremantle weekly for further processing by Geoscience Australia. A contracted survey vessel will join the Zhu Kezhen in June.
The bathymetric survey is expected to take about three months. Knowing the seafloor terrain is crucial to enabling the subsequent underwater search.
The underwater search will aim to locate the aircraft and any evidence (such as aircraft debris and flight recorders) to assist with the Malaysian investigation of the disappearance of MH370.
It is anticipated that this component of the search will begin in August and take up to 12 months.
The ATSB will shortly release a formal request for tender to source the capability to undertake the underwater search. A single prime contractor will be chosen to bring together and manage the expertise, equipment and vessels to carry out the search.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: N. California
Age: 80
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Threemiles:
This doesn't match other known facts, the low altitude excursion being of prime importance. There are three independent sources that indicate a low level over Malaysia; the first being the earliest Malaysian press releases, the second was the eyewitness at Kota Bharu and third, the Thai radar report which stated that their track was intermittant - this would not be the case had the flight been at cruise altitude. The flight path would have been around 100nm from the Hat Yai radar, not at a range extremity for that radar. It was clear weather and the side profile of a 777 is literally as big as a barn. Any radar that couldn't display an unambigious track of that target (at altitude) would be a broken down radar. There is no reason to think the Thai radar was on the blink that night.
Then there is the question: where did the Australians get the information they used to draw that flight path, and how much critical thought went into plotting the early parts of the flight before the Inmarsat data provided their arcs? I have to assume that they just accepted a Malaysian plot without question.
If we take the 2:22 arrival at MEKAR as bedrock then the known information doesn't support that flightpath, a 777 doesn't go that fast.
(I have some personal doubts about the 2:22 time. Remember that in the first couple of days they gave a time of 2:40 for last radar contact. Then for a time they were using a time of 2:15. But for now we have to accept it.)
Portions of the flight path released makes no sense. They have the plane looping south of Butterworth and even south of Pulau Pinang island. That would just be an attention getting excursion, or diversion, from the intended direction of the flight. The only way one could make a case for that flight path is if they accepted the onboard fire scenario, which I do not. That has been discussed thouroughly here.
I ask you to reconsider.
This doesn't match other known facts, the low altitude excursion being of prime importance. There are three independent sources that indicate a low level over Malaysia; the first being the earliest Malaysian press releases, the second was the eyewitness at Kota Bharu and third, the Thai radar report which stated that their track was intermittant - this would not be the case had the flight been at cruise altitude. The flight path would have been around 100nm from the Hat Yai radar, not at a range extremity for that radar. It was clear weather and the side profile of a 777 is literally as big as a barn. Any radar that couldn't display an unambigious track of that target (at altitude) would be a broken down radar. There is no reason to think the Thai radar was on the blink that night.
Then there is the question: where did the Australians get the information they used to draw that flight path, and how much critical thought went into plotting the early parts of the flight before the Inmarsat data provided their arcs? I have to assume that they just accepted a Malaysian plot without question.
If we take the 2:22 arrival at MEKAR as bedrock then the known information doesn't support that flightpath, a 777 doesn't go that fast.
(I have some personal doubts about the 2:22 time. Remember that in the first couple of days they gave a time of 2:40 for last radar contact. Then for a time they were using a time of 2:15. But for now we have to accept it.)
Portions of the flight path released makes no sense. They have the plane looping south of Butterworth and even south of Pulau Pinang island. That would just be an attention getting excursion, or diversion, from the intended direction of the flight. The only way one could make a case for that flight path is if they accepted the onboard fire scenario, which I do not. That has been discussed thouroughly here.
I ask you to reconsider.
Based on the evidence available, the balance of probability would surely suggest the following deliberate sequence:
1. At FIR boundary, turn off ACARS / transponder and fail to handover to Vietnam ATC.
2. Low level flight back over the Malaysian peninsula
3. Once over the Indian Ocean and beyond primary radar, climb back to normal cruise levels, and turn south. Ultimately it likely headed towards Perth while hiding in plain sight flying along airways - possibly M641 (India to Perth) or L894 (Middle East to Perth)
This sequence would achieve the following outcomes, which I believe were intended:
1. Maximal confusion with ATC at handover. A catastrophic systems failure exactly at the FIR boundary is sufficiently unlikely to permit the tentative conclusion this was a deliberate act.
2. Minimse the risk of real-time detection crossing Malaysia. The main risk was primary radar, so a low level flight was necessary to make primary radar sporadic. Any layperson accounts of a low flying aircraft (in the middle of the night after moonset) would likely be contradictory, and would not emerge until the next day anyway.
3. Subsequent climb to normal cruise levels to maximise range and allow a long flight away from Malaysia in the wrong direction.
4. A chance sighting by a ship of an early morning flight at high altitude heading in the direction of Perth would not be suspicious.
5. A controlled ditching at first light so as to minimise the risk that debris would eventually wash up somewhere. Possibly turn off airway during descent so that any floating wreckage would be less likely to be seen by aircraft later that day.
If the pinger data is now void, all we really have is the Inmarsat data.
Without the Inmarsat data (perhaps an oversight), all we would have would be a sighting by an oil rig worker in the South China Sea, a suggestion of a turn back by Vietnam ATC, few vague reports of an aircraft crossing Malaysia at low level, and a sporadic primary radar contact.
How does this scenario fit with the last few Inmarsat arcs (assuming by then a constant course and speed)?
If we are now down to a needle in a haystack, it might be worth looking near the last arc along these two airways. Even then the search area would be huge. So far the Bluefin has only searched 850 square km.
The only other way we might get lucky is if someone provides information (e.g. that mystery telephone call prior to departure), or by looking for unlikely patterns of internet searches (this was likely very carefully researched).
1. At FIR boundary, turn off ACARS / transponder and fail to handover to Vietnam ATC.
2. Low level flight back over the Malaysian peninsula
3. Once over the Indian Ocean and beyond primary radar, climb back to normal cruise levels, and turn south. Ultimately it likely headed towards Perth while hiding in plain sight flying along airways - possibly M641 (India to Perth) or L894 (Middle East to Perth)
This sequence would achieve the following outcomes, which I believe were intended:
1. Maximal confusion with ATC at handover. A catastrophic systems failure exactly at the FIR boundary is sufficiently unlikely to permit the tentative conclusion this was a deliberate act.
2. Minimse the risk of real-time detection crossing Malaysia. The main risk was primary radar, so a low level flight was necessary to make primary radar sporadic. Any layperson accounts of a low flying aircraft (in the middle of the night after moonset) would likely be contradictory, and would not emerge until the next day anyway.
3. Subsequent climb to normal cruise levels to maximise range and allow a long flight away from Malaysia in the wrong direction.
4. A chance sighting by a ship of an early morning flight at high altitude heading in the direction of Perth would not be suspicious.
5. A controlled ditching at first light so as to minimise the risk that debris would eventually wash up somewhere. Possibly turn off airway during descent so that any floating wreckage would be less likely to be seen by aircraft later that day.
If the pinger data is now void, all we really have is the Inmarsat data.
Without the Inmarsat data (perhaps an oversight), all we would have would be a sighting by an oil rig worker in the South China Sea, a suggestion of a turn back by Vietnam ATC, few vague reports of an aircraft crossing Malaysia at low level, and a sporadic primary radar contact.
How does this scenario fit with the last few Inmarsat arcs (assuming by then a constant course and speed)?
If we are now down to a needle in a haystack, it might be worth looking near the last arc along these two airways. Even then the search area would be huge. So far the Bluefin has only searched 850 square km.
The only other way we might get lucky is if someone provides information (e.g. that mystery telephone call prior to departure), or by looking for unlikely patterns of internet searches (this was likely very carefully researched).
Last edited by slats11; 29th May 2014 at 07:51. Reason: typo
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: California
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "02:07:06" point is not aligned with the rest of the track and may be an unrelated aircraft (maybe SQ68 or UAE343) or just a false positive.
Lines marked "other a/c's" are waypoint corridors.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Gemini House
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Sir Richard #10929
Approach to PEN. Given decent cloudbase and surface W/V, a no-radio approach to R/W22 would be preferable. Not sure that they would have any on-board nav receivers remaining, and there are bits of dark forested hills just N of the approach to R/W04. All the lights of George Town are available for a sraight-in app to 22.
Whatever, we do know that they didn't land at PEN.
Any overall explanation of what went on has to include the Inmarsat curved position lines and, I believe, the reports from (several) fishermen at sea and others along the coast to the south of Kota Bharu. No-one has yet explained how the radar traces etc can be positively attached to MH370, except on the basis of 'well, who else can it have been?'
Approach to PEN. Given decent cloudbase and surface W/V, a no-radio approach to R/W22 would be preferable. Not sure that they would have any on-board nav receivers remaining, and there are bits of dark forested hills just N of the approach to R/W04. All the lights of George Town are available for a sraight-in app to 22.
Whatever, we do know that they didn't land at PEN.
Any overall explanation of what went on has to include the Inmarsat curved position lines and, I believe, the reports from (several) fishermen at sea and others along the coast to the south of Kota Bharu. No-one has yet explained how the radar traces etc can be positively attached to MH370, except on the basis of 'well, who else can it have been?'
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: btw SAMAR and TOSPA
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@propduffer
what you call independant sources is less than inofficial and called rumours. Nowhere has been any confirmation of the data you apply. Nowhere has been a release from Thai radars. Weather is not a factor for modern primary defense radar.
At 5000 ft a plane can go not faster than 330 NM ground speed (very optimistic). For half the way between IGARI and MEKAR it would lose 1/4 of its forward speed, which is 1/8 of the total route progress. This is at least 55 NM from a very conservative route length estimate (neglecting the 15 kts headwind and the lengthy turn after IGARI).
You may doubt the few hints that are published in official reports but believe the rumours from Malaysian newspapers, though.
what you call independant sources is less than inofficial and called rumours. Nowhere has been any confirmation of the data you apply. Nowhere has been a release from Thai radars. Weather is not a factor for modern primary defense radar.
At 5000 ft a plane can go not faster than 330 NM ground speed (very optimistic). For half the way between IGARI and MEKAR it would lose 1/4 of its forward speed, which is 1/8 of the total route progress. This is at least 55 NM from a very conservative route length estimate (neglecting the 15 kts headwind and the lengthy turn after IGARI).
You may doubt the few hints that are published in official reports but believe the rumours from Malaysian newspapers, though.
If the black box pings go down the drain, the conclusion for a south path from the sat pings might follow. After the release of the (incomplete and edited) raw data there is still no evidence, why only a southern path is possible.
There was and is no need to protect this evidence and the methods, how this conclusion for a southern path was reached.
Nobody has come up for a valid motive to choose a southern path, and discussions about a possible northern path have been avoided.
To repeat myself, if it wasn't some kind of a weird accident, the motive will lead to evidence.
edit:
Wise words. Doesn't that include the option, that not only an accident but also some kind of criminal action may have caused the disapearance of MH370?
There was and is no need to protect this evidence and the methods, how this conclusion for a southern path was reached.
Nobody has come up for a valid motive to choose a southern path, and discussions about a possible northern path have been avoided.
To repeat myself, if it wasn't some kind of a weird accident, the motive will lead to evidence.
edit:
henra
In an investigation it is of utmost importance to keep an open mind.
In an investigation it is of utmost importance to keep an open mind.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No joy from Curtin's undersea recorders either.
MH370: Curtin University team checks undersea recorders for sounds of plane crash - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
MH370: Curtin University team checks undersea recorders for sounds of plane crash - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: South Coast, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be helpful if the Curtin underwater acoustics experts had indicated whether they would have expected to hear a ditching aircraft or not. The absence of any sound at about the right time might be quite informative as it may exclude large areas.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: TheDesert
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Curtin University Acoustic Signals
What a small world, I used to work alongside these guys. Would be worth knowing the bearing of the signal and if interesects the Inmarsat arcs....
Join Date: May 2014
Location: TheDesert
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Curtin University Acoustic Signals
A controlled explosion (of the same energy as MH370 hitting the ocean) slightly below the ocean surface with the Curtin University & Cape Leuwin sensors listening might tell us whether the signal is genuine, by the received amplitude and the arrival time.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 12E CTY
Age: 69
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@P.J.M., map at http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post8498024
The times on that map do not match the (positive handshake) times on the most recent factsheet issued by the ATSB. The times on that map appear to be smoothed to provide an even hourly reference.
The times on that map do not match the (positive handshake) times on the most recent factsheet issued by the ATSB. The times on that map appear to be smoothed to provide an even hourly reference.
