PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (http://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rumours & News (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news-13/)
-   -   Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost.html)

rigbyrigz 17th Mar 2014 13:35

SLF: " A turn west from/after IGARI was entered into the active flight plan in the FMS; this is known as the last ACARS report indicated this waypoint change event."

IF this is TRUE and corroborated, it is extremely important, since said "last ACARS rpt" is 1:07
Ongoing events timing, including goodnight signoff, would CLEARLY RULE OUT electro-mechanical mishap, hypoxia as major cause, etc. It would make deliberate human action part of the equation for sure!

I am sure this is obvious to even the non-believers. If someone entered this waypoint request into the FMC in the 30 minutes before the 1:07 automatic (when ON) ACARS report (which listed it in event log) then it is what it is.

SO: Can this SLF quote be substantiated by any source other than "XYZ NEWS says unnamed sources tell them that..." and so forth? (or can a journalist viewing this thread ASK this of PM next chance?)

SO: Does the 40degree flight correction turn tracked by FR24 at IGARI around 1:20, ALSO show on the ACARS? IS it consistent with a pre-programmed LEFT turn? Or would it override the 40degree course correction for Vietnam. Credit to BARREL for raising this confliction.

overthewing 17th Mar 2014 13:36

Quote:

Overthewing, all of the TCAS units I've played with have been integrated with the transponder. Turn the transponder off and you don't have a TCAS, at all, not for receiving or transmitting. Think of TCAS as a type of transponder rather than a separate system.
Thanks for this. Not sure this is relevant to the current thread, but does that mean that your working TCAS becomes inop if you switch the transponder to Standby?

macilrae 17th Mar 2014 13:36

Arcs and pings
 
On the arcs and the pings, the published arc represents points on the earth's surface which are equidistant from the satellite and where the aircraft could be - we understand this was from the last ping received.

If, during its flight, the aircraft had been at some point, other than on the published arc, an earlier ping would have shown this - with a concentric arc of different radius - this would be pretty valuable information giving further hints as to speed and direction e.g. if two arcs an hour apart had almost the same radius then it's pretty likely the aircraft's path would have been substantially along that arc.

Again, if transit times for the earlier pings are available, all such data will surely have been already extracted but, seemingly, not yet published.

Hang Jebat 17th Mar 2014 13:38

Hi Clayne. ARB is correct. It's indeed "Indian Muslim" restaurant. "Mamak" is a colloquial term, a corruption of the South Indian Tamil word, "Maama", which means Uncle. Nevertheless, in M'sia, you would almost certainly say "mamak" instead of "Indian-Muslim" restaurant:)

Mahatma, the pilot is Malay. Which in Malaysia means he is a Muslim. No two ways about it. It is certainly possible he may have Indian blood. M'sia is often touted as being multi-racial. However, in the old days, we actually attempted to be a melting pot of cultures and inter-racial marriages were common. Hence he could be a mixture of Malay, Indian, Chinese, Arab, etc for all we know.

Regarding usage of the words/terms "all right", "roger that", "good night" etc, I can't speak on behalf of M'sian pilots, but it is certainly commonly used here. In my organization, gentle instructions to the chaps I supervise is usually met with an " All right, Boss" response. A more terse order usually elicits a "Roger that, Boss!"
And no, I don't work for the military.

Lastly, plenty of Malaysians, yours truly included, are fervent supporters of the Opposition party. I'm happy to state here that the Oppositon party in M'sia espouses the principles of democracy and equal rights for all Malaysians.
It is certainly not run by a bunch of zealots who would encourage their members to show their affiliations to the party cause by bringing down an aircraft full of innocent people. Or hijack a plane just to vent their anger at court rulings favouring the BN government.

Hope this helps.

Cheers

Eclectic 17th Mar 2014 13:40

The northern route potential land area is immense and a big plane going in fast and vertical only makes a fairly small crater. Also the ELTs wouldn't survive the impact.

This is a 757:

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/94_150.jpg

Do this where there are no population and it may never be discovered.

Beanbag 17th Mar 2014 13:40

There must be a finite number of airfields that can receive a 777 with full pax & cargo load, even with low fuel load. It's hardly going to land on a grass strip in the middle of nowhere. So in the unlikely event it's landed in one piece how hard could it be to find?

500N 17th Mar 2014 13:42

Beanbag

The media said over 600 airfields within the range of the 777 !

oldoberon 17th Mar 2014 13:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by litinoveweedle (Post 8383178)
IMHO pings are probably TDMA channel sync or frequency sync bursts. This means, that inside of data, there could be probably two low level identifiers.
1. the HW identifier (something like serial number of your phone (IMEI) or MAC address of you computer)
2. artificial identifier of the connection (which could be correlated with connection information stored previously in time of connection handshake)

There would be no data inside of these burst, as these serve only to SATCOM to keep connection to satellite synced and alive,

I would say that forging data connection on TDMA is possible and it is used for example to intercept GSM connections (man in the middle attack), but this process is definitely not trivial.

I would say, that probability, that these pings were mistakenly from another plane or forged to pretend to be from HM370, is really low.

Good post

yes it was posted earlier about the Imei/mac code principle I like it.

your 2nd point not valid MAS did not use satcom for any data transfer (no contract) used vhf (and perhaps HF)

barrel_owl 17th Mar 2014 13:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLFplatine (Post 8383125)
The current 'official' operational theory is this plane was, for lack of a better word, 'stolen' by person or persons unknown who knew what they were doing (disable transponder, ACARS, etc., took flight path to avoid radar detection) and who had meticulously planned the operation in advance. A turn west from/after IGARI was entered into the active flight plan in the FMS; this is known as the last ACARS report indicated this waypoint change event.
So, how come the highly knowledgeable careful planning 'perp(s)' left this big fat clue? -yes, perhaps the were unaware ACARS would report a waypoint change event however if one has carefully planned this type of operation one would certainly not do anything out of the ordinary before disabling ACARS.
So, again the Q

I dedicated not less than five posts last night trying to explain why it is impossible that VAMPI had been programmed in the FMC as next waypoint after IGARI.
The behavior of the aircraft completely disproves this claim. As anybody else here, I have no clue what the aircraft did after 1:21 MYT, but it is safe to say that BEFORE 1:21 it was still following its original flight plan.

http://www.pprune.org/8381692-post4796.html
http://www.pprune.org/8381648-post4781.html
http://www.pprune.org/8381726-post4809.html
http://www.pprune.org/8381732-post4810.html
http://www.pprune.org/8381954-post4864.html

Please note that this "report" comes from Daily Mail and ABC News, both quoting unverified and unverifiable sources.

cavortingcheetah 17th Mar 2014 13:49

It's not the potential existence of a landing field based upon length that should be concerning anyone as much as the location of a runway based upon the take off requirement for a heavily loaded machine.

aterpster 17th Mar 2014 13:49

Malaysian Flight 370: A Great Show of Smoke And Mirrors - Jetwhine - Jetwhine: Aviation Buzz and Bold Opinion

Msunduzi 17th Mar 2014 13:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by 500N (Post 8383268)
Beanbag

The media said over 600 airfields within the range of the 777 !


The one that "landed" at Heathrow took less than 300m to stop. depends whether you want it down, or want it to be able to fly again.

So add up all the flat pieces of ground, beach etc. ..................................

FE Hoppy 17th Mar 2014 13:56

Quote:

barrel_owl

Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Brazil
Age: 45
Posts: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLFplatine View Post
The current 'official' operational theory is this plane was, for lack of a better word, 'stolen' by person or persons unknown who knew what they were doing (disable transponder, ACARS, etc., took flight path to avoid radar detection) and who had meticulously planned the operation in advance. A turn west from/after IGARI was entered into the active flight plan in the FMS; this is known as the last ACARS report indicated this waypoint change event.
So, how come the highly knowledgeable careful planning 'perp(s)' left this big fat clue? -yes, perhaps the were unaware ACARS would report a waypoint change event however if one has carefully planned this type of operation one would certainly not do anything out of the ordinary before disabling ACARS.
So, again the Q
I dedicated not less than five posts last night trying to explain why it is impossible that VAMPI had been programmed in the FMC as next waypoint after IGARI.
The behavior of the aircraft completely disproves this claim. As anybody else here, I have no clue what the aircraft did after 1:21 MYT, but it is safe to say that BEFORE 1:21 it was still following its original flight plan.

Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost
Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost
Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost
Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost
Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost

Please note that this "report" comes from Daily Mail and ABC News, both quoting unverified and unverifiable sources.
You might have dedicated 5 posts but you proved nothing.

Insert waypoint at 07. Approaching boundary sync and select heading(incase you failed to make the waypoint a flyover).

After waypoint faint right then shortly afterwards when you think you are out of range turn left.

All the time you have your next waypoint in view for reference.

Prove that what I have written is "Impossible"!

cribbagepeg 17th Mar 2014 14:02

everyone pings all the time
 
The main barrier to requent, rich-content data packets is the infrastructure to support the comms. Terrestrial no big deal, but satellite bandwidth is another story. Haven't done the math, but ACARS context stuff was widely discussed in the AF447 thread, with cost also being a major hit.

Lost in Saigon 17th Mar 2014 14:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by FE Hoppy (Post 8383298)
You might have dedicated 5 posts but you proved nothing.

Insert waypoint at 07. Approaching boundary sync and select heading(incase you failed to make the waypoint a flyover).

After waypoint faint right then shortly afterwards when you think you are out of range turn left.

All the time you have your next waypoint in view for reference.

Prove that what I have written is "Impossible"!

You are correct. It is possible.

1) The aircraft could have turned right while still on autopilot if someone put it in heading mode and selected a new heading

Or...

2) The autopilot could have been disconnected and was being hand flown.

Or...

3) It could also mean the autopilot was off and no one was at the controls while there was a struggle in the flight deck. (That could also account for the altitude variations)

clipstone1 17th Mar 2014 14:10

Having travelled on MH 148/9 in Jan/Feb 2014, there is no First Class on the 777, hence why there's no satphones on board.

deadheader 17th Mar 2014 14:11

public record
 
No speculation here, these points are all a matter of public record. For anyone interested in all potential lines of inquiry:

Just days before the MH370 incident, Taiwan alerted China’s aviation authorities to a potential terrorist threat involving Beijing airport.
A known local organisation - Tanzim al-Qaeda Malaysia Group - has proven links to global jihadists, including Malaysian-born fighters on the ground in Syria.
The Jemaah Islamiah network (implicated in the Bali nightclub bombing 2002) includes at least one Malaysian with personal links to two of the 9/11 hijackers.
Convicted former Al Qaeda member Saajid Badat (part of failed trans-Atlantic flight shoe-bomb attack), stated in 2012 that a Malaysian Islamist Jihadist group were “plotting to hijack a passenger jet”.
Badat also said “the Malaysian plot was being masterminded by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the principal architect of 9/11”.
Prof Anthony Glees, director of the University of Buckingham’s Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies, stated “there is evidence of a Malaysian terror cell with ambitions to carry out such an attack”.

>


An opinion only: *IF* we are indeed looking at human intervention re missing MH370, given the knowledge, planning & skills needed for such a feat, it would bear all the hallmarks of a well-resourced organization, far from merely a disgruntled or suicidal member of crew. IMHO.

geneman 17th Mar 2014 14:13

Quote:

ana1936: Some of us, maybe myself included, have been a but loose with the term ping perhaps.

Just to clarify this a little.

My understanding is that the satellites in the INMARSAT network which deal with ACARS check on the presence of their registered aircraft every hour by initiating a ping operation. This involves the satellite asking to see if a particular aircraft will answer. Only the specified aircraft will answer. And it will only answer if its engines are operating and it hears the satellite request.
So presumably the aircraft being 'pinged' will still reply even if the onboard ACARS has been turned off (or has failed for some reason)?

It seems that a lot of commentators in the media seem to believe that it was the AIRCRAFT that was initiating a 'ping', every 60 minutes.

litinoveweedle 17th Mar 2014 14:18

Quote:

your 2nd point not valid MAS did not use satcom for any data transfer (no contract) used vhf (and perhaps HF)
Thank you, although are you really sure Malaysia Airlines not using SATCOM?

press release dated 21/07/2010

Quote:

Malaysia Airlines has chosen Thales’ TopFlight satcom (TFS) for its new B737s. This new ARINC 781 standard of satcom continues to support Inmarsat aero services for flight deck voice and data connectivity. In addition, for airlines that have the Thales IFE system, the TopFlight satcom enables data throughput to the passenger seat for internet connection......
and another older press release about inflight mobile phone usage.

Quote:

"We are also very well placed to upgrade our capability with Malaysia Airlines as, uniquely, the Honeywell avionics are already in place on their fleet to enable future Inmarsat SwiftBroadband upgrades later this year".

The first Malaysia Airlines B777-200 was installed with the AeroMobile system during a routine maintenance check.

Very nice article covering MH370 and SATCOM in detail.

barrel_owl 17th Mar 2014 14:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by FE Hoppy (Post 8383298)
You might have dedicated 5 posts but you proved nothing.

Insert waypoint at 07. Approaching boundary sync and select heading(incase you failed to make the waypoint a flyover).

After waypoint faint right then shortly afterwards when you think you are out of range turn left.

All the time you have your next waypoint in view for reference.

Prove that what I have written is "Impossible"!

I already answered this objection.
Why should you insert VAMPI as next waypoint at or before 1:07 in first place if you plan to turn 40° right after IGARI? Where is the rationale? You change your flight plan in your FMC just to override it? What for? Just to leave a trace of your foul play in the ACARS log? Makes no sense.

The sequence you describe is absolutely possible itself, still does not explain the behavior of the aircraft BEFORE 1:21 MYT. The right turn is a clear indication the aircraft was still following its original flight plan at the time it disappeared from radar, therefore next waypoint BITOD, not VAMPI.

Note. I do not and can not rule out foul play by the cockpit AFTER 1:21. It is absolutely possible that the flight plan was changed after 1:21. But I see no evidence that such change was made before 1:21, nor I see any rational explanation as to why it should be programmed more than 10 minutes before, so that it could be reported by ACARS.

Question: have you considered that that report could be simply inaccurate or false?


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:11.


© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network


SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1