Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost [Archive] - Page 19

brika

16th Mar 2014, 12:13

riginally Posted by dicks-airbus View Post
Why bother going to FL450 and then back to FL295 and making a lot of unexplainable turns?

Too many whys
The lobe patterns for some primary radars may limit their high altitude coverage.

The routing may have been designed to skirt the presumed edge of some search radars.

The reduction of height to 295 may also have been planned to get below long range cover of the ground radars.

A Question for Engineers and T7 pilots

Given that

1 Malaysian police said there were witnesses on the coastal area near the turnback path of MH370 who saw a/c lights and heard a loud bang

2 an oil rig worker (on the oil rig Songa Mercur, off south east Vietnam) ( about 360nm from turnback point saw a “burning in the sky in the direction of the plane for 10 to 15 seconds,

3 Compressor stalls can be transient and intermittent or steady state and severe. Indications of a transient/intermittent stall are usually an intermittent “bang” as backfire and flow reversal take place. If the stall develops and becomes steady, strong vibration and a loud roar may develop from the continuous flow reversal. Quite often the cockpit gauges will not show a mild or transient stall, but will indicate a developed stall. Typical instrument indications include fluctuations in r.p.m., and an increase in exhaust gas temperature. Most transient stalls are not harmful to the engine and often correct themselves after one or two pulsations.
Turbine engine thrust varies directly with air density. As air density decreases, so does thrust. While both turbine and reciprocating powered engines are affected to some degree by high relative humidity, turbine engines will experience a negligible loss of thrust. (US Private pilot ground school source)

Can the "sound and light show” at turnback point be explained by the above?
Can pilot perform such deliberate aerobatics in the lower reaches of the stratosphere for whatever purpose and recover?(Radar signals recorded by the Malaysian military appeared to show that the missing airliner climbed to 45,000 feet (NYT).

Nicolaus Silver

16th Mar 2014, 12:14

If this was a hijack then the perpetrators had a purpose and the cargo may have been mineral, military, narcotic or expertise.

They would have been very smart and using a decoy we were meant to believe that MH 307 went west to give MH 307 time to complete its journey probably to a military or a private strip.

If we follow hi jack scenario we need to know what was really on board. Cargo may have been anything with folk just accepting what the paperwork stated. All cargo should therefor be back tracked and verified. Might be a good exercise as we may find other items of interest to authorities.

Pax may now get nervous and want to know who and what cargo they are travelling with in future. "Yes madam, travelling with us today are 8 mafia guys, a ton of uranium and a passenger with the recipe for Coca Cola".

Guess search be called off and one day.....

oviano

16th Mar 2014, 12:15

How would that explain the investigators apparently focusing on the arcs to the north and South though?

Perhaps they must have more information, maybe the interim ping 'locations'? Or something else?

Whatever, it seems to me that the Malaysian government, whether prompted/using info by/from the US is quite confident in their belief this was a deliberate act, that certainly seems to be what is being widely reported. Did they not even use the words 'deliberately disabled' in the case of ACARS - or is that simply impossible to determine?

I find it interesting that many in this forum still prefer to put forward other more 'natural'/accidental explanations, despite this 'official' word. Perhaps the official sources are pulling wool over people's' eyes for whatever reasons?

Disclaimer - my only connection to the aviation industry is....as a passenger! I've found this discussion fascinating, I feel I've learned a lot. As with no doubt many lurkers/observers (7m views!) my interest stems from the deep rooted worry many of us have about flying and the need to know what happened to this plane. I'm grateful to all those pros who have posted here.

I hope I don't offend anyone by posting here (I've seen mixed opinions as to whether the likes of me are welcome?), but I noticed the other thread seems to have now disappeared.

BWV 988

16th Mar 2014, 12:16

@pjm#4523

The drawing appears to underestimate how far MH370 could have traveled before its last ping (00:11 UTC). As pointed out by ETOPS, SIA68 was around the point of MH370's last mil radar contact at the same time (18:15 UTC) and made it to the Mashhad/Asgabat area in less than 6 hours.

Ian W

16th Mar 2014, 12:16

The prime minister of Malaysia merely said that the known facts were "consistent with" foul play.

He said the ACARS were disconnected. Basically they failed to send further data. How can one distinguish between intentional vs. result of some failure?

ACARS has a log-on and a log-off protocol. If the log-off protocol was followed it would not raise any suspicions on the ground at the time. However, following the log-off protocol would also show that the system was closed down normally not as a result of some [explosion|fire|MEC access|wild elephant in the hold == choose one]. The wording in the briefings has been quite precise that the ACARS was turned off. The ACARS was also turned off at 1:07 before the aircraft's last transmission to Sebang which by all accounts was laid back and over casual - not I suspect what would be the case if a fire had been raging for 15 minutes or if there had been an explosive decompression. This is why the authorities are saying this must have been 'an inside job'.

The possibility of a rogue pilot is one that ought to have the professional members of this forum extremely concerned. The potential consequential ramifications are significant.

hornetgr

16th Mar 2014, 12:19

Guys , the sublieutenant of the ship stated in a phone call from the greek media , that them among other ships had informed to be careful at their route for possible suspect things floating . They do not instructed to change course, i thing it a media overact.

onetrack

16th Mar 2014, 12:19

"Elka Athina" is on a trip from Singapore to Port Said and is nearing the top of North Sumatra (Aceh Province).
The co-ordinates provided by the Indos to the "Elka Athina" are in the Southern Andaman Sea, in waters off the tip of Aceh Province.

mseyfang

16th Mar 2014, 12:21

...ACARS had been disabled BEFORE the final voice transmission...

In the legal terms, this is known as introducing facts not in evidence; the issue being the word "disabled". There is no factual evidence whatsoever to establish that ACARS was disabled. It remains speculation without a factual basis. It may be the most probable explanation, but without facts to back up the assertion, it is still simply a theory.

The simple and unfortunate truth is that we have very few facts with which to work and most of what is being discussed here is theory and speculation, no matter how informed it may be. There's nothing wrong with theorizing about this -- it is a fascinating and compelling mystery.

Nevertheless, I think it is important to differentiate between what is established fact and what is theory. Unless and until the aircraft is recovered, there is little to work with here. Even the "facts" here remain somewhat confused and incomplete.

One last point: I think the flight crew is entitled to the benefit of the doubt and the presumption of innocence absent facts to the contrary. Pilots have been scapegoated in the past (Google TWA flight 260 as a case in point) and the last thing the profession needs is an unwarranted public concern, stirred up by the media, that professional pilots can't be trusted. There are a lot of eyes on this thread and that should give us all pause in theorizing that the flight crew was involved.

snowfalcon2

16th Mar 2014, 12:24

I stand corrected on this Doppler thing :O . Perhaps some RF experts are even working on it.

Wantion

16th Mar 2014, 12:26

I think they should try re-enacting the flight ..(not on a sim ..which they have said they have already done)..but on a 'real' 777...and see if they can recreate the sequence of events and correlate the results.

mixture

16th Mar 2014, 12:29

but on a 'real' 777...and see if they can recreate the sequence of events and correlate the results.

And who exactly do you suppose is going to fund this little jolly ? :rolleyes:

They're already running up a hell of a SAR bill as it is !

Shutterbug

16th Mar 2014, 12:34

Regarding "investigations" on the ground, I would lend zero credence to any findings. What do we know with certainty? This a/c went missing 6 full days ago; Malaysian authorities launched serious investigations into the crew yesterday. That's five FULL days where serious investigation has simply not been done. Unforgivable.

The decision-making processes and investigative acumen of the Malaysian authorities inspires contempt.

ana1936

16th Mar 2014, 12:38

The red arcs are determined just by working out the accurate distance of the ping source from one single satellite (IOR).

The ping messages are very accurately timestamped using very accurate clocks at both ends. Even though this communication system is not for GPS purposes it uses similarly accurate clocks. So we know that the plane was, say 38000km, from the satellite at 0:11Z.

That gives a circle on the surface of the earth.(The so-called 40 degree circle).

No other satellites could be used as there are only four satellites altogether in space listening for ACARS pings. They do not cover the relevant longitudes: they are below the horizon from most of the Indian Ocean and middle Eurasia.

The fact that that the other satellites (POR and AOR-E) did not hear the 0:11Z ping rules out some chunks of the red circle.

This leaves the two red arcs.

mseyfang

16th Mar 2014, 12:38

The possibility of a rogue pilot is one that ought to have the professional members of this forum extremely concerned. The potential consequential ramifications are significant.

Quite true. Which is why speculation over flight crew involvement in this should be carefully considered before posting.

mbriscoe

16th Mar 2014, 12:44

The military "got distracted" at the beginning.

Is it not just that most countries do not see much of a threat from an aircraft at that altitude so quite possibly 'muted' them on their display to avoid clutter, leave them for the civil ATC people to look after.

They could see their biggest threat as low level flights being used by insurgents or smugglers of various sorts.

An aircraft at that height without transponder could also be the Americans up to no good so best to not get involved.

jimster99

16th Mar 2014, 12:45

Two points:

(i) It is a frustrating thought that the Malaysians knew the plane was missing while it was still in the air and potentially still discoverable and interceptable! With the benefit of hindsight, if only they had not waited several hours before making the inevitable announcement, it might have made a huge difference to the progress of the search.

(ii) Regarding the Inmarsat satellite that was pinged by the missing aircraft. Would the pings continue to be sent if the aircraft had landed safely? And if so, can we infer from the presumed absence of such pings that the aircraft did not land safely?

andrasz

16th Mar 2014, 12:50

I think it is important to differentiate between what is established fact and what is theory

Precisely. However based on possible outcomes of unknowns, certain outcomes can be eliminated, and likelihoods can be assigned to others:

Facts
(assuming being reported by authorities as fact is true - only the transponder timing is verifiable from an independent source)
ACARS stopped transmitting at 01:07
Last voice communications 01:20
Transponder ceased transmitting 01:22

Assumpton A: ACARS switched off deliberately

It was either a member of the real crew communicating 'roger that' - in which case whatever happened is most likely deliberate crew action,

OR

It was not a crew member communicating, indicating that at that time already someone other than the crew was in control of the aircraft, for purposes unknown

Assumpton B: ACARS disconnected due to some malfunction

13 minutes later crew were either not aware of it, or whatever was the case did not trigger enough alarm to notify ATC of a problem
2 minutes later issue propagated to a transponder failure.

Beyond that, crew were either too busy to communicate, or failure propagated to comms systems, or crew became incapacitated (or all of these in some sequence). In this case a good explanation needs to be found on how the aircraft could have stayed in the air and conducted the observed flight path for several more hours.

Likely conclusion

I don't have the technical knowledge to go through all possible failure paths in Assumption B, but I'm sure many have worked overtime in Seattle to do so, and my assumption is that most possible failure scenarios have either been eliminated, or tagged as extremely unlikely requiring the line-up of too many layers in the swiss cheese to make it a plausible one.

The logical conclusion is then that it must have been Assumption A, either initiated by the crew (wilfully or under duress) or by a yet unidentified third party. It is this scenario that is being communicated at present in a rather assertive way.

Quite possibly the last ACARS transmission had some information whether it was deliberately switched off, which would actually make Assumpton A. a fact.

Ian W

16th Mar 2014, 12:57

Communicator (http://www.pprune.org/members/427660-communicator) said

Initial remarks are "last contact 2:40" while last primary radar contact just happens to be... 2:40

Yeah, obviously someone connected the flight path instantly but someone else apparently didn't like them saying it and the "official" position was blurred/changed/danced around for a while before being changed back a full week later after it was "corroborated" by the satellite =====SNIP=====

=====SNIP=====
Does the Left hand not know what the Right is doing? Do they just desperately want to ignore anything they don't want to know? (many people here show that quality, so that is kind of understandable I guess...) Do they think they can will the plane into a body of water they want it to be in? Maybe get the Shaman to use his magic and make it be true?

...no matter, all those countries wasting all that time in a Gulf of Thailand that officials pretty much knew the entire time that the plane didn't crash into - and many here selectively believing very few things the Malaysian Officials tell us while ignoring absolutely everything else they and other Governments say

Reality is, the plane turned around and they knew it instantly

I see this as quite normal.

The initial briefing is given based on loss of transponder response followed by primary response for a further hour plus... But all the pundits want it to be an immediate emergency (there are a huge number on here too that still want the aircraft to have ditched just after the last RT call).

So very senior general says to minion - "Where did this information come from - I am being told by experts that it must be wrong - are you ABSOLUTELY certain this was the aircraft?" Minion says that's what he was told by the radar unit - but it will be checked. Minion repeats to junior at radar unit "are you ABSOLUTELY certain this was the aircraft? The general will be extremely upset with you if you are wrong!" Radar unit now has to go to tape archive and check and recheck and make absolutely certain all the way down the technician chain. In the mean time General starts back tracking and using civil reports of loss of transponder only waiting until he gets a totally certain reply from minion. Then the SATCOM pings are reported and grudgingly the primary radar response is now more trusted. But the story of 'total loss of contact at 1:30' has to be carefully backed out of so not to look foolish.

I suspect this is what happened. It is one of the reasons that NTSB is irritatingly cautious on release of details in similar incidents.

ana1936

16th Mar 2014, 13:04

Time of last appearance on primary radar has now been corrected to 2:15.

Exclusive: Radar data suggests missing Malaysia plane deliberately flown way off course - sources | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/14/us-malaysia-airlines-radar-exclusive-idUSBREA2D0DG20140314)

(Not 2:40am)

Speed of Sound

16th Mar 2014, 13:09

Quite possibly the last ACARS transmission had some information whether it was deliberately switched off, which would actually make Assumpton A. a fact.

Electrical equipment is usually switched off by removing the power to the unit. This is because it is usually the power which is most likely to cause a fire or smoke event rather than data.

Even a smart box can only tell you that the power was removed, not whether this action was deliberate or accidental.

Monsun

16th Mar 2014, 13:18

Something I would like to know. Would voice analysis be able to ascertain whether the final call (Roger that) was made by the same person who had carried out the previous radio transmissions?

training wheels

16th Mar 2014, 13:19

Regarding the potential southern track, the Australian government Over The Horizon radar (Jindalee Operational Radar Network) at Laverton has coverage out across that part of the Indian Ocean and would be capable of tracking the aircraft for a consderable distance if indeed it flew that path.

I'm sure the Australians will be looking at this now.

Didn't someone say earlier that it was switched off for the weekend? So if you were ever going to invade Australia, please do it on a weekday so we'll be ready for you!!

flown-it

16th Mar 2014, 13:19

Aviator 1970 in post 4349 said:-

ADS-B usually set on auto needs to be deliberately selected off with the FMC interface.

I'm not sure that is correct. Some info on ADS:-

ADS-B is transponder to antenna transmissions and thus is LOS. ADS-B will work as long as the transponder is "on". Thus FMCS has nothing to do with ADS-B.
The -B means broadcast and that's what the transponder does

ADS-C is, on the other hand, data transmitted via FMS/ ACARS and will only be transmitted if the pilots have logged on and Contracted ( that's what the -C means) with the appropriate ATC authority. It is used in conjunction with CPDLC when out over the briny.

Question for 777 pilots.
How can you disable ACARS? I don't recall being able to do that in my airline days and I'm not sure I'd know how to do it in the G-550!

Speed of Sound

16th Mar 2014, 13:23

Something I would like to know. Would voice analysis be able to ascertain whether the final call (Roger that) was made by the same person who had carried out the previous radio transmissions

That would depend on the length of the recording and the quality of the recording, but in principle, yes.

FE Hoppy

16th Mar 2014, 13:24

Some posters are still operating under the misapprehension that the ACARS may have gone out or range or failed due to a technical reason.

The statement that the ACARS was selected off is verifiable and obviously has been which is why it is one of the very few definitive statements the officials are making.

Read back a couple of pages to see a technical description of logoff protocol.

ana1936

16th Mar 2014, 13:24

Here is a map of a relevant part of INMARSAT coverage and the red circle.

http://www.csse.uwa.edu.au/~mark/personal/MH370/por.png

The red circle are the points which see the Indian Ocean IOR at 40 degree altitude.

The pink circle are places which can just see the pacific POR above the horizon (I think about 8 degrees). So if you are east of the pink line and ping then POR will hear you. (This did not happen to MH370 at 8:11am).

The green circle is the limit for the Atlantic AOR-E. So if you are west of that then AOR-E will hear you.

Hence, if you ping on the red line and POR does not hear you as well as IOR then you can not be in the South China Sea.

Golden Rivit

16th Mar 2014, 13:28

The Air France 447 thread post count is soon to be exceeded by this event, and they are no where close, if ever, to finding this aircraft. May God watch over the Pax and Crew. One thing I observed from these threads, is that people love to talk, while actually siting no reality.

Aireps

16th Mar 2014, 13:31

Greek news sites posted that :

The greek oil tanker " ELKA Athina " received orders from indonesian station to investigate at Latitude 0551N and Longtidude 09657,5 Ε (malaca straits) suspect things that they look like suitcases. The ship is 3 to 4 hours away from the indicated point.
The position of the alleged suitcases reported above is here: SkyVector Aeronautical Chart (http://skyvector.com/?ll=05.51,096.575&chart=304&zoom=3) (center crosshair)

Which is:

73 NM SW of VAMPI
123 NM SW of GIVAL
282 NM SE of IGREX

(On Mar 14th, Malaysia's Transport Minister stated that MH370 had routed via waypoint VAMPI, then GIVAL, and finally towards IGREX. The target was said to be lost at FL295 after GIVAL)

Ebow

16th Mar 2014, 13:32

Question for 777 pilots.
How can you disable ACARS? I don't recall being able to do that in my airline days and I'm not sure I'd know how to do it in the G-550!

Via the comms menu on MFD (multi function display) ACARS can be turned off. To be honest; had to look it up in FCOM manual...

SOPS

16th Mar 2014, 13:35

I just looked it up as well, because to be honest, it's not something you ever think about doing.

Ian W

16th Mar 2014, 13:37

Shadow - Re E&E cabinet access.

Access to this cabinet and tripping the appropriate breakers (which would take some expertise) should be indicated by ACARS ceasing to transmit rather than tidily logging off. I agree with the security hole but before you have a world conspiracy to hide a security weakness, it would be sensible to show that all these comms just stopped as they would have with a CB being tripped or wires cut in the E&E bay.

Similarly, explain why the expert knowledgeable in all E&E bay comms CBs did not trip the SATCOM. One would have thought that all comms would have been disabled.

You would also need to explain why the crew carried on and leveled off and gave a relaxed good night call to Sebang on handoff - while 10 minutes before handoff there was already some miscreant in the E&E bay turning off the ACARS who somehow knew to wait to turn off the Transponder and VHF RT after handoff and only then. With of course unfussed FAs just preparing the meal as normal while this was going on and not alerting the cockpit.

It starts to get a little difficult logically.

overthewing

16th Mar 2014, 13:39

If ACARS is anything like software I've worked on, a menu-driven closedown may be a 'graceful' termination, ie there's some housekeeping done and a minimal 'That's it for now. Goodbye'. An abrupt closedown, say by pulling a CB, may not be graceful, it seems to me.

Rabbitwear

16th Mar 2014, 13:41

Were the pilots friends at all , had they flown together recently , it doesn't sound like a 2 crew spur of the moment Idea.
Hijack is possible , the unaccounted for ULD could have contained the perpetrators and weapons. It is possible to get from cargo to EE bay to cabin.
Could disable systems including cockpit door and walk right in.
Leaves 2 possibilities
1. They got away with the aircraft and it's hidden or on the sea floor.

2. The plot was discovered and the aircraft shot down and now covered up for some unknown reason.

ana1936

16th Mar 2014, 13:44

There has been no official confirmation whether Australia's Jindalee (JORN) radar system was on or off on the morning of 8/3.

Or to what extent it had to be focused in that direction if it was on.

See

Australia Silent On Whether OTH Radar Tracked MH370 (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_03_13_2014_p0-672073.xml)

for an official no comment statement.

However, it is widely known that the system is not always operated.

777fly

16th Mar 2014, 13:46

As far as I know, all B777 satcom links can be disabled by a few simple selections within the CDU interface on the flightdeck. No need to 'pull CB's' down in the EE bay at all. If data pings were being received after the LKP, either the satcom links were not disabled, or there is an independant satcom data logging system that I was not made aware of in my 15 years of flying the B777.

Kooljack

16th Mar 2014, 13:47

Not sure if this has been mentioned before - all Comms (HF & VHF) C/B's are located in the flight deck Overhead Panels. Only SatCom C/B's are in the E & E Bay.

Wantion

16th Mar 2014, 13:50

Thanks to ana for providing some true tech reality to the thread ! :ok:

Hunter58

16th Mar 2014, 13:53

Rabbitwear

you cannot go through LD3 stuffed with bags and cargo unless you are a gas. Possibly there is a maintenance access, but restricted to ground use for lack of space.

ana1936

16th Mar 2014, 13:54

Sheep Guts

The ACARS SATCOM system (even when ATCARS is off but the engines operating) just broadcasts (initial parts of ) ping messages to whoever is listening.

If an INMARSAT is above the horizon it will hear that message.

It does not matter if several hear the message.

Jumpjim

16th Mar 2014, 13:55

"I can think of no reason you would EVER want to turn off the transponder once in flight, and I think that we will find this option is rapidly removed from the flight deck.. "

The time mine started squawking 7600, despite what it was set for, in the YYZ control zone comes to mind

14k hours and never had a transponder squawk something that I hadn't set (deliberate or as a mistake). Besides you've got two... Switch it over to the other one. HIGHLY unlikely that both would be buggering around... The point stands..

andrasz

16th Mar 2014, 13:58

Electrical equipment is usually switched off by removing the power to the unit.

Electrical, yes. Electronic, no. Any device which has a data processing capability (and let's not dwell on the depth of that capability) is usually not powered down by a simple switch breaking the power circuit. Usually the off switch does nothing more than sends a signal to the processor, which then proceeds with the shut-down routine. I need not explain more to anyone who is watching this on a computer.

I assume that the ACARS transmitting unit has a built in processor (probably multiple processors), which would go through a shut-down routine (and as part of it, possibly 'say good-bye' to the receiving end). A power disconnect would have a different signature (or rather lack of it) which is why I presume authorities can say with confidence that it was intentionally shut down, not failed.

FE Hoppy

16th Mar 2014, 13:59

Quote:Jumpjim
"I can think of no reason you would EVER want to turn off the transponder once in flight, and I think that we will find this option is rapidly removed from the flight deck.. "

The time mine started squawking 7600, despite what it was set for, in the YYZ control zone comes to mind
14k hours and never had a transponder squawk something that I hadn't set (deliberate or as a mistake). Besides you've got two... Switch it over to the other one. HIGHLY unlikely that both would be buggering around... The point stands..

There has to be some form of overheat protection.

Hunter58

16th Mar 2014, 13:59

NWA SLF

the flight plan would become active at take-off and this message and the relevant times when to expect the aircraft at their area of responsibility is sent on to each ATC unit downline.

However, military centers would not care to look closely at something flying on an airway or outside of their boundaries. And unless they at least receive the data from the civilians they would not know which aircraft is not supposed to be there. And the coordination between the military and the civils does not work all too well in may countries.

Ninja as

16th Mar 2014, 14:04

Would it be possible to calculate from met info and the given FL whether the aircraft would have left a contrail. As I understand it, satellites can look through cloud base to view the surface by using certain filters or wavelength technology. Is it even possible to look for a contrail on the suggested or predicted route for that time.

Jumpjim

16th Mar 2014, 14:04

FE Hoppy: I agree but there is nothing in the transponder that allows us to see if it's overheated. The first we would know on the flight deck is when it fails.

I'm talking about flight crew having the option to manually select the transponder off. By all means retain the option to select another transponder and maybe set the transponder to squawk when the park brake comes off for ground surveillance, but in flight? Maybe going forward we would be better off working around the concerns mooted but lose the ability to disable it so easily.

EDTY

16th Mar 2014, 14:07

An OTH radar like JORN works properly when MUF (maximum usable frequency) is high, this almost during daylight, because you have good propagtion up 30 to 35 MHz during high solar flux in F2 layer, as in the last weeks. During nighttime the MUF goes down rapidly to 15 MHz atm, so have less range and resolution. The range of JORN is between 1000km and 3000km, this is limited to MUF and day- and nighttime. The same facts are for the Chinese OTH.....
So JORN may be on, but due to less range, caused by low MUF in nighttime, it couldn't catch MH370 at all. A good short overview of JORN is here: https://www.airforce.gov.au/docs/JORN_FAQS.pdf (https://www.airforce.gov.au/docs/JORN_FAQS.pdf)

my 2 cent about OTH, Michael

buttrick

16th Mar 2014, 14:10

Forgive me if this is a repeat, but how do we KNOW that the acars was switched off and not just catastrophically compromised? Ditto IFF.

fe hoppy

Can you give me the post no.?

FE Hoppy

16th Mar 2014, 14:14

buttrick read back 3 pages.

barrel_owl

16th Mar 2014, 14:17

Too many questions still answered. Too much information of dubious authenticity and from questionable sources being used for fancy claims and any kind of speculation. No surprise when this comes from the MSM, but really hard to accept when you read the same in a self-proclaimed professional pilot forum.

Example 1. The alleged radio contact with MAS370 made by the anonymous captain of a Japan-bound airliner makes me smell rats. Why should a real pilot with a verifiable record refuse to give his own name and his flight number in such a situation? What's the problem with it? Wouldn't this help the investigation? His alleged statement is also highly suspicious. He heard nothing, all he says is that "there were a lot of interference… static… but I heard mumbling". In short, he is unable to refer the content of the transmission, he is unable to say whether he spoke with the captain or the F/O, the alleged time of the radio transmission is after the time the datalink had been turned off and the transponder had been turned off. Sorry, but to me this smells like a typical piece of disinformation. Someone planted this interview just to "prove" that the captain and the F/O were still at the controls of the aircraft at that time. I will believe this captain as soon as he will come out with a real name and the exact position of his aircraft, which should not be so difficult to verify with a map and radar data.

Example 2. Someone posted here a video where an alleged "friend" of the captain suggests "you can elaborate scenarios with a flight simulator". Question: did someone bother to verify the authenticity of this report? Who is this guy? How do I know he was actually a friend of the captain? He claims he tried to contact the captain's family, but.. oops.. was unable to talk with any member of it. How convenient.
Not to talk about the thousands of allegations the captain was "obsessed for politics" or had more or less terrorist tendencies just because he owned a simulator at home. Ludicrous, not to say outrageous.

As anybody else, I ignore the truth. Yet it appears to me that two professional pilots with an excellent flight record and an unquestionable reputation are being massacred by the media without any shred of evidence and I can't help concluding that this is part of a deliberate disinformation campaign.
Note to the mods. Feel free to delete this post, I only want to make clear that based on the current verifiable information I do not buy the hijack scenario perpetrated by the cockpit. The theory makes no sense. And I add that I would expect pprune would defend their reputations as far as any real evidence to the contrary exists.

Sheep Guts

16th Mar 2014, 14:19

ANA that 8 degree pink ring is the horizon line for the POR. That is to say its on the extreme receptive edge of its coverage. Yet it intersects with the strong IOR 40 degree red band which has received all the pings since 01:07am to 08:11am.
So I would say the fact the POR didn't pick up the 08:11am Ping is pure guess and not certain. So far not enough info has been given to us to eliminate that arc in the South China Sea.

GlueBall

16th Mar 2014, 14:19

..."Why bother going to FL450 and then back to FL295 and making a lot of unexplained turns?"

If true, it could be a sign of a struggle in the cockpit. Because at the time, the airframe was too heavy to maintain FL450 and likely stalled, then dropped and was recovered at the lower altitude.

The experienced suicidal pilot/hijacker(s), behind locked armored door, after setting autopilot course to mid Indian ocean, could then have turned off the packs, (airframe pressurization) and leisurely asphyxiated along with the rest of the occupants during the 6 hours' phantom cruise. This gentle death would have spared them the adrenaline filled black-hole drama of violent impact on a moonless night after fuel exhaustion. :ooh:

JoeBloggs719

16th Mar 2014, 14:22

Would a crew ever consider decompression/high-altitude to fight a fire?
(over the ocean, last gasp, nothing else left to try ...)

dmba

16th Mar 2014, 14:24

Example 2. Someone posted here a video where an alleged "friend" of the captain suggests "you can elaborate scenarios with a flight simulator". Question: did someone bother to verify the authenticity of this report? Who is this guy? How do I know he was actually a friend of the captain? He claims he tried to contact the captain's family, but.. oops.. was unable to talk with any member of it. How convenient.
Not to talk about the thousands of allegations the captain was "obsessed for politics" or had more or less terrorist tendencies just because he owned a simulator at home. Ludicrous, not to say outrageous.

That guy? He is apparently involved in politics, strongly. He is apparently the secretary of an opposition party politician...he wears the badge on his chest during interviews.

He never mentions that though...

Niner Lima Charlie

16th Mar 2014, 14:26

Very little chat here about the lack of any ELT signal from the 406 beacon. This indicates to me that at the end of the flight, there must have been an almost normal deceleration below the G level needed to activate the ELT. Worst case the newer 406 ELT would provide a location within 2km with only a .25 second transmission upon activation.

Pontius Navigator

16th Mar 2014, 14:29

As I read this I have one ear to the news coverage on the TV.

I guess it is inevitable that the professional talking heads read this thread but many items here are either picked up by the THs or the contributors here feed back what the THs have said on their goggle box.

A veritable self-licking lollipop.

The 'free' sharing of technical data, such as radar or military capabilities has been mentioned as being less than complete because of secrecy considerations.

While this may well be an elaborate misappropriation of the aircraft it does not follow that it ended successfully. As Bill MacGillvary pointed out back on #2917 but it would appear possible that it did not impact (if it did) in the sea, but may have continued on a track that put it over some fairly inhospitable land terrain (Jungle/mountain).

That possibility could be true if the northern track is correct. I would suggest that a crash on land would concentrate the debris and be far less noticeable than debris in the open ocean.

Luke SkyToddler

16th Mar 2014, 14:32

The alleged radio contact with MAS370 made by the anonymous captain of a Japan-bound airliner makes me smell rats. Why should a real pilot with a verifiable record refuse to give his own name and his flight number in such a situation? What's the problem with it? Wouldn't this help the investigation? His alleged statement is also highly suspicious. He heard nothing, all he says is that "there were a lot of interference… static… but I heard mumbling". In short, he is unable to refer the content of the transmission, he is unable to say whether he spoke with the captain or the F/O, the alleged time of the radio transmission is after the time the datalink had been turned off and the transponder had been turned off. Sorry, but to me this smells like a typical piece of disinformation. Someone planted this interview just to "prove" that the captain and the F/O were still at the controls of the aircraft at that time. I will believe this captain as soon as he will come out with a real name and the exact position of his aircraft, which should not be so difficult to verify with a map and radar data.

I really wouldn't read too much into that one. I was on frequency at the time, I heard the other MH aircraft transmitting on 121.5 trying to contact the MH370 (along with many transmissions from HCM control) and never heard anything resembling a reply, mumbled garbled or otherwise.

There's a fairly common interference phenomena around SGN that seems to cause short 5-10 second bursts of buzzing static on VHF. He might have heard that, there was plenty of that going on that night but nothing out of the ordinary.

bono

16th Mar 2014, 14:37

"Several nations will be embarrassed by how easy it is to trespass their airspace," said Air Vice Marshal Michael Harwood, a retired British Royal Air Force pilot and ex-defense attache to Washington DC. "Too many movies and Predator (unmanned military drone) feeds from Afghanistan have suckered people into thinking we know everything and see everything. You get what you pay for. And the world, by and large, does not pay."

Separately, a defense source said that India did not keep its radar facilities operational at all times because of cost. Asked what the reason was, the source said: "Too expensive."

Australian civilian radar extends only some 200 km (125 miles) from its coast, an Australian official said on condition of anonymity, although its air defense radar extends much further. Australia's military could not be reached for comment on Saturday and if it did detect a transponder-less aircraft heading south, there is no suggestion any alarm was raised.

Malaysian plane saga highlights air defense gaps | Reuters (http://goo.gl/WO2sPK)

... These guys have been caught with their pants down and some very embarrassing holes in their national defense preparedness have been exposed by this errant aircraft. You could not make this stuff up if you wanted to.

barrel_owl

16th Mar 2014, 14:39

I really wouldn't read too much into that one. I was on frequency at the time, I heard the other MH aircraft transmitting on 121.5 trying to contact the MH370 (along with many transmissions from HCM control) and never heard anything resembling a reply, mumbled garbled or otherwise.

There's a fairly common interference phenomena around SGN that seems to cause short 5-10 second bursts of buzzing static on VHF. He might have heard that, there was plenty of that going on that night but nothing out of the ordinary.
I am not questioning the intererence itself, I know it is highly possible in that area given the alleged distance between both aircraft. I am questioning THAT report itself. I can't understand why a pilot should refuse to give his own name. Don't you find it strange? I do.

Juice Rider

16th Mar 2014, 14:47

Most people seems to be assuming that the a/c ran out of fuel then speared into the ocean.
What if all the turns it made were to lose time and reduce the weight of the a/c to a minimum before attempting a ditching over the deepest part of the indian ocean, where a boat was waiting for them. All the pax and crew would already be dead or hypoxic, leaving only the high jackers to evacuate.
If it were terrorists, they could then carry out the same again at a later date, having now gained even more knowledge from the SAR attempt and this forum.
If the ditching was done with the outflow valves open I'm sure it would soon fill with water and sink leaving no trace.

ana1936

16th Mar 2014, 14:47

Sheep Guts. The public have not been given much information at all. We were shown a map with two red arcs along a circle marked 40 degrees centred on the point below IOR. The eastern part of the circle between the arcs was not red and is not included in official discussions of searches. Also Western half missing.

We are trying to reconstruct an explanation for that map.

If you want to believe the 40 degrees circle but do not want to believe the gap then that is fine.

If you want a reasonable explanation which explains the circle and gap then the relative positions of the two satellites explains it perfectly.

Pontius Navigator

16th Mar 2014, 14:52

... These guys have been caught with their pants down and some very embarrassing holes in their national defense preparedness have been exposed by this errant aircraft. You could not make this stuff up if you wanted to.

Bono, don't read too much in to this. If there is no assessed threat then there is no reason to maintain a high air defence alert state. In the UK for instance, with the end of the Cold War, much of the air defence system was dismantled and the number of aircraft on alert was reduced.

Even at the height of the Cold War the US did not keep all its SAM sites on 24 hour alert.

While countries in that region may not all be buddy buddy they do not necessarily feel the need for 24 hour coverage. Where you may well be correct it that they don't want their actual readiness states, or periods of operation, to be published.

wild goose

16th Mar 2014, 14:52

It is unfortunate that some people here keep posting nonsense about the aircraft reaching FL450 when it has been repeatedly been explained that the T7 at that weight cannot reach FL450! Not to mention that primary radar at that range has a very large margin of error :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Some take exception to the scrutiny of the flight crew. Whilst they may turn out to be heroic victims of all this, there are still too many questions about the apparent highly skilled manipulation of systems immediately prior to disappearance. In addition the history of Islamic terrorism and the methods of Al Qaida to dress its operatives as harmless secular citizens has already been well documented, as per 9/11 for example. Therefore this scrutiny of the crew is legitimate and called for, despite the unfortunate possibility that they may be innocent. Time will tell and if necessary they will be exonerated and lionized.

SaturnV

16th Mar 2014, 14:54

NY Times reports that Malaysian authorities now report that pilot spoke to ATC after the ACARS was turned off, and gave no indication of trouble.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/17/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-flight.html?hp

Also,

Within the land area with 60 minutes of fuel remaining on the northern (final ping) arc is this:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/facility/testarea.pdf

Not sure this area can be reached with 20 minutes of fuel remaining. (Using the NY Times graphic showing distances from the centerline of the arc.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/world/asia/series-of-errors-by-malaysia-mounts-complicating-the-task-of-finding-flight-370.html?hp

dazdaz1

16th Mar 2014, 14:56

David75

16th Mar 2014, 14:58

>If you want to believe the 40 degrees circle but do not want to believe the gap then that is fine.

By inspection of the map the 40 degree line goes pretty close to the last acars message - if you assume ditching and the plane floats for a couple of hours then you end up back at the starting point for the search.

I think we all want to see the accuracy of the 40 degree reading and the previous pings - if they are all around the 40 degree mark +/- accuracy then I'd say they are barking up the wrong tree.

Pontius Navigator

16th Mar 2014, 15:00

I have a gut feeling (coupled with false flag information) this a/c has landed. It is known the Malaysian government are 'not as open' as to per maybe western countries as to security issues.

I suggest, nor am a pilot, but logic thinking (as we all understand how government secrecy works) the Malaysian government, behind the smoke screen are negotiating with a ransom request.

Must be true. Keep quiet, let 25 countries expend hundreds of man hours, thousands of dollars, all to preserve your privacy.

Then, when all the passengers are released, hope there is no adverse publicity.

snowfalcon2

16th Mar 2014, 15:01

There has to be some form of overheat protection.

Yes.
But.
Turning off the transponder in flight without notifying ATC is.... a no-no.

Technology exists that can solve this dilemma, see e g here (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-222.html#post8380235).

1a sound asleep

16th Mar 2014, 15:01

I have a gut feeling (coupled with false flag information) this a/c has landed. It is known the Malaysian government are 'not as open' as to per maybe western countries as to security issues.

I suggest, nor am a pilot, but logic thinking (as we all understand how government secrecy works) the Malaysian government, behind the smoke screen are negotiating with a ransom request.

I think that has something to with Najib Razak and the rising revolution with Anwar Ibrahim. There is something going on

dmba

16th Mar 2014, 15:04

Must be true. Keep quiet, let 25 countries expend hundreds of man hours, thousands of dollars, all to preserve your privacy.

Then, when all the passengers are released, hope there is no adverse publicity.

That being the point. The adverse publicity is the way to force the PM to resign...the motive

Pontius Navigator

16th Mar 2014, 15:07

The media keep reporting that the two pilots did not ask to fly together. That of course predicates that it was 'essential' that it was this flight that was chosen.

It might equally have been that the two pilots waited until chance put them on the same flight.

This is not to say that the pilots were the culprits but that not asking to fly together is a red herring.

ildarin

16th Mar 2014, 15:11

Inflight Firefighting
Would a crew ever consider decompression/high-altitude to fight a fire?
(over the ocean, last gasp, nothing else left to try ...)
On a freighter, they would.

The Wawa Zone

16th Mar 2014, 15:18

Does anyone know if the Vietnamese or Malaysian ATS declared the first SAR phase on the aircraft, and when ? Once declared, would it not be SOP to alert active or inactive RMAF AD radar ? If not done, this would be one more little question for the Malaysians to answer.

Red arcs, as in .. which one ? There should be no reason why an earlier arc did not correspond to near one of the primary radar paints near Thailand, and using that as a fix, or an area of probability, and knowing the max and min ground speeds to later arcs, it would be possible to resolve the 'true' and 'false' arcs with a set of running fixes (or areas). So why at this stage would the Malaysian government have not removed one arc ?

PA28Viking

16th Mar 2014, 15:21

GlueBall

16th Mar 2014, 15:30

... These guys have been caught with their pants down and some very embarrassing holes in their national defense preparedness have been exposed by this errant aircraft. You could not make this stuff up if you wanted to.

There are PRIMARY radar targets every day in many countries. It involves not just airliners, but corporate and general aviation aircraft with inoperative, faulty, or improperly switched transponders. An aircraft that is not sqwaking a code becomes a PRIMARY target. It's impractical reality to launch interceptors at every Primary aerial target.

The Malay peninsula along the Thai-Malaysian border is only 100 nautical miles in width, about a 15 minutes' cruise. According to the primary targets volunteered by the military, MH370 actually had first penetrated Thai airspace in a straight line towards Langkawi in the northwestern corner of peninsular Malaysia. So, technically the initially unidentified primary radar target had penetrated and crossed the extreme north western tip of Malaysia in less than 10 minutes at high altitude and not in a threatening flight profile suggestive of imminent response.

In my flights en route HKG-SIN, for example, there have been many occasions when we were out of radar contact and unable to establish VHF/HF communications for up to 20 minutes for various reasons: lower assigned flight levels, frequency congestion, weak or degraded VHF/HF transmitters . . . And if our transponder had gone on vacation, I seriously doubt that we would have been intercepted. Air Traffic Control is aware of civil radar & radio blind spots and aircraft system limitations (typically up to 20 Watts transmitting powered radios) and will not alert military assets.

CodyBlade

16th Mar 2014, 15:30

worldpilot

16th Mar 2014, 15:30

There is nothing that is impossible when it comes to software configured environment.

As long as accessibility is available, the cockpit technology configurations can be manipulated in such a way that the intended behavior is subjected to extortion.

If a pilot has malicious intend and he/she is able to hide that from external comprehension, there is nothing that will stop him/her from manipulating cockpit controls to achieve a different goal than anticipated with a normal cockpit configuration.

WP

ekpilot

16th Mar 2014, 15:31

Question for ana/snowfalcon;

Would the previous IOR pings be stored somewhere with associated arc positions available for those heading this search?

On a sidenote, it is very interesting to see at the press conference how they do their utmost to make sure not all the facts are presented. Evasive and incomplete answers combined with semi-smart constructions leading the journalists to believe that their questions have actually been answered... I can however, see why some information would be held back if there is the slightest chance that divulging this information would compromise the search and rescue efforts. Personally I would like to see the release of the cargo manifest and the fuel load/endurance. "No hazardous cargo onboard" says nothing about VAL or other sensitive cargo. And as those who are professionals amongst us would know, semantics can make the statement "There was no ADDITIONAL fuel onboard" true but it can also make the unspoken statement "There was EXTRA fuel onboard" true...

Piltdown Man

16th Mar 2014, 15:33

Please, don't think for one minute that I do not care about the passengers who boarded this flight. These and thousands like them are the people who pay my wages and put my family's food on the table. But I also quite like my fellow man (women actually)!

But this is where I might start being controversial. There are several interesting aspects to this incident. One of them is is security, both national and international. We can clearly see that very few people are watching anything and those who do see things are either ignored or their observations 'classified'. Therefore it remains that are still vast chunks of unmonitored airspace where you can do whatever you want. Personally, I don't think this a problem but it does show that certain countries spend a fortune in air defence yet when tested, have nothing to show for their investment. But what's really interesting is that they don't have the backbone to admit that nor are they prepared to state that anybody can pitch up by air and they'll not have any advance warning.

That a piece of airspace is not actively monitored should also be announced. Many believe that every single aspect of flight is actively managed by ATC. Europeans generally do not understand the concept of a Procedural Service yet not realising that such a service is the only one on offer in most parts of the world.

Then we have the control aspect. What do airlines do to ensure sanity in their aircrew? Every day, we get accosted by the Gestapo who run airport security, fight the 'system' just to depart, deal with surly cabin crew, bolshy passengers and still carry the baggage of our personal and home lives. Personally, I think I can deal with most things that are thrown at me (just as long as I don't have to fly with a certain F/O!) but there are times... Basically, we are expected to pitch up, do our stuff and bugger off. Just think back to the times when Danny started this site. This was the time when the taxi drivers and caterers knew more about your airline than you did. Hence the rumours! Now, everybody else knows more than you.

Returning to security - just a simple question: Who ensures that the correct people are on the flight deck? With few exceptions there is no real identity confirmation. In the UK, the clowns by the metal arches just want to abuse flight crew and make your life difficult. But the only thing they achieve is to ensure that we're not carrying an effing yoghurt! You couldn't make it up.

Sitting at the pointy end, you have to be able to turn things on and off. To be learn that the entire output of a IDG and two batteries is being directed though a faulty transponder or ACARS unit which can't be isolated because of a campaign by a 'concerned' Daily Mail reader is not acceptable. As yet nothing has changed, yet I feel the political pressure for meddling in aviation affairs.

So how do we prevent re-occurrence? A good start would be to make it so that flight crew have an even greater vested interest in performing well. By that, may I suggest that the consistent attack our T's and C's should stop forthwith. More enlightened and liberal management practices will also help. And then we have to make sure our political systems work. Failure to do so may result in unexpected outcomes.

As to what happened and why, I haven't clue. But my fingers are crossed for those on board and their relatives.

PM

Lonewolf_50

16th Mar 2014, 15:33

:cool:As a 772 driver ... I can think of no reason you would EVER want to turn off the transponder once in flight, and I think that we will find this option is rapidly removed from the flight deck.. To prevent an electrical malfunction (albeit rare) from becoming an electrical fire. Any piece of electronic equipment is a hazard to be the source of an electrical fire. Securing current removes some of the problem. That is why. (Yes, malfunctions that severe are very rare).
I agree but there is nothing in the transponder that allows us to see if it's overheated. The first we would know on the flight deck is when it fails. I'm talking about flight crew having the option to manually select the transponder off. By all means retain the option to select another transponder and maybe set the transponder to squawk when the park brake comes off for ground surveillance, but in flight? Maybe going forward we would be better off working around the concerns mooted but lose the ability to disable it so easily. Because it is a piece of electrical gear. Sometimes, you turn it off and turn it back on, and it works.
That's been true for a long time. Granted, maybe the modern generations of electronic gear are so good one never needs to do that. I'd be skeptical, however, if that is claimed given the problems I have with my current smart phone. :cool:

@ Piltdown Man: well said, sir. At last, a post from the point of view of a professional pilot. :ok:

techgeek

16th Mar 2014, 15:34

@uncle_maxwell

That is an interesting proposition. If IR sat photos, taken at night, are available that cover each arc at the time of a given ping it is a reasonable computational exercise to use standard image processing techniques to find the a/c. in a photo. The search algorithm could match a rendered IR image of the a/c with "camera view" of the sat. Big data search techniques like map/reduce on a supercomputer could perform this search quickly. I've written such programs myself and know what I am talking about.

Same goes for daylight photos although the pattern matching would probably be done differently.

This would answer the N or S question and greatly narrow the SAR parameters. IMHO it's is well worth looking into if photos are available.

lapp

16th Mar 2014, 15:36

There is nothing that is impossible when it comes to software configured environment.

As long as accessibility is available, the cockpit technology configurations can be manipulated in such a way that the intended behavior is subjected to extortion.

If a pilot has malicious intend and is able to hide that from external comprehension, there is nothing that will stop him from manipulating cockpit controls to achieve a different goal than anticipated with a normal cockpit configuration.

Totally false.

Ian W

16th Mar 2014, 15:41

It may have been answered before, but can satellite pictures usually show aircraft in (cruise) flight? Just wondering if they are recognisable as aircraft or even aircraft types.

Seems like many a satellite from various governmental and commercial operations routinely take pictures of Mother Earth, some of them quite frequently. Lots of data to get and go through, but it might provide a few more locations at different points in time during the later stages of the flight.

Yes but you have to be looking for an aircraft or catch it inadvertently. There are multiple aircraft in flight caught by serendipitously by Google Earth in their satellite photograph captures. For example:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/08/22/article-0-14A5592F000005DC-309_634x482.jpg

and

http://ursispaltenstein.ch/blog/images/uploads_img/all_aircraft_in_flight.jpg

strake

16th Mar 2014, 15:42

Lonewolf_50

16th Mar 2014, 15:43

For example: http://ursispaltenstein.ch/blog/images/uploads_img/all_aircraft_in_flight.jpg
Ian, that the ghost plane is flying superb formation on the aircraft in the picture. Hmmm, who was out practicing formation flying that day? :}:cool::hmm:

techgeek

16th Mar 2014, 15:44

@ekpilot

Short answer is yes. I believe this fits the category of information withheld. One can posit a range of reasons for the authorities slowly releasing tidbits they have known for some time. Only a fool thinks that we know what stakeholders know in this incident, not yet known to be an accident.

FE Hoppy

16th Mar 2014, 15:46

@Snowfalcon2

Quote:
There has to be some form of overheat protection.
Yes.
But.
Turning off the transponder in flight without notifying ATC is.... a no-no.

Technology exists that can solve this dilemma, see e g here.

You are not thinking of the impact such a regulation has on the industry.

This would require that every aeroplane has a realtime data transmission of every system. Including everything! It's basically more data than the FDR records transmitted real time.

Have you thought about the finical implication and time frame required to implement this regulation?

SOPS

16th Mar 2014, 15:47

Pit down, I can say in my airline there a several layers to ensure the correct people are on the flight deck. Having said this, I suppose anything is possible.

So now we have another game changer. If this is some form of terrorist attack, nod the law makers come up with the idea that everyone on the flight deck has to be confirmed who they are, then who confirms the confirmation? And who confirms that the confirmer is confirmed to confirm?

We have a complete melt down in air travel, and the other side has finally won.

While we are on the subject, who is checking those that check for our yogurts? And who checks them?

This thing could result in the complete shut down of all flights, world wide, unless sensible heads prevail.

EngineeringPilot

16th Mar 2014, 15:47

If the truth is being told by the various agencies, after so long, it must be nigh impossible to:
a. keep all those people and their mobile phones quiet,

This has been covered as well, you can easily get a device that jams all mobile phones so keeping phones quiet is a piece of cake.

EngineeringPilot

16th Mar 2014, 15:51

I think Occam's Razor comes into play and that would suggest the wreckage of the aircraft is at the bottom of the sea within a few hundred miles of where it was lost on radar. It just hasn't been found yet.

Yep, i think the idea of the plane crashing around where it was lost on radar has been pretty much eliminated after 8 days of SAR

buttrick

16th Mar 2014, 15:52

I think people are forgetting the far eastern face saving culture. They have locked themselves into a spiral which is rapidly disappearing up their own fundaments.

I posted it before, there are only TWO facts:

1. Where the transponder transmitted last
2. Where the ACARS last transmitted.

Anything else cannot be proven yet!!!!!

To quote Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle, via Sherlock Holmes,

"When you have eliminated the improbable the impossible must be true"

The aircraft is somewhere not too far from its last KNOWN position.

henra

16th Mar 2014, 15:54

Now it is a broader goal. The goal is to create terror.

Yes but until it is clear it was terrorism, there is no terror. At least for me there isn't. I wouldn't be any more worried boarding a flight tomorrow than I was before.

No one claimed responsibility for 9/11, nor for various incidents since. Terrorist groups have been held responsible, but they haven't claimed responsibility themselves.

They didn't have to in that case(s). It was clear that it was no accident.

In this particluar case of MH370 it is still completely unclear whether it was a tragic accident, suicide or terrorism. (I leave the totally alien scenarios out).
If the wreckage will never be found it will remain as a mystery and Holywood films will be made about the stranger theories but what else?
Maybe some improvments re Satelite tracking and possibly making it more difficult to switch to 'staelth' mode.
I can't see why on the basis of the known facts huge changes and expenses for security would have to be made. I can rather see some alarm in the HR departments of airlines from what we know so far, how ever sad and uncomforting that is.

So how effective did that work from a Terrorist's perspective?
And which Terrorist for that matter. The Uighurs? Al Qaeda? Czechen? One of the many others e.g. from the Middle East?
You see where I'm getting at?
There seems to be a naive thinking that tere is one World Terror Organisation Ltd. And all are working together to achieve one common goal.
Total Bo**ocks.
That's simply the result of Western Mass Media simplification. Reality is much more complex.

jugofpropwash

16th Mar 2014, 15:56

ACARS had been disabled BEFORE the final voice transmission. So it seems to me that identification of the voice making the final transmission will greatly assist in steering the investigation towards the person(s) responsible. The hijacking had already commenced.

There's been much discussion regarding the wording of the final contact. If one of the pilots was up to no good and wanted to disguise the fact and leave as much confusion as possible, using a signoff that's non-standard but not odd enough to cause immediate concern would be a simple way to do it.

Ian W

16th Mar 2014, 15:56

Certainly the most reasoned scenario so far.

All this nonsense about terrorists, robbers or suicide pilots all seem to be based on evidence that is at very best sketchy.

1. "The ACARS/Transponder/Comms were disabled deliberately."

There is no evidence for this and there won't be until the aircraft is found and even then, maybe not.

===SNIP====

This is not true. If the ACARS went through a normal log-off sequence then it was shut down deliberately. If it just stopped reporting then it could have been some other reason. As it has been said multiple times 'the ACARS was deliberately switched off' that implies that it went through a log-off sequence and tidy shut down, something it would NOT have done if the power to it was cut by the circuit breaker being tripped.

lapp

16th Mar 2014, 15:56

Anything else cannot be proven yet!!!!!

Inmarsat/SITA are far east asian? Which face are they saving? Satellite logs and Primary radar is an invention too? Is Elvis Presley still alive ?

bono

16th Mar 2014, 15:58

Pontius Navigator, GlueBall : If we are looking at a situation that national air defense radars are there to mainly scare and not do the job the taxpayers paid millions for, then it makes it a risky proposition. Now, entire world (including some very bad people) are aware that if a giant B777 can get lost without a trace over south east Asia, then their KingAirs or Gulfstreams carrying drugs, weapons etc. can get away with it as well . Two, it displays a lack of seriousness, as the Indian guy in the article said "nothing much happens at night" which made me sit up. The radars need to be constantly monitored by atleast a pair of eyes and incursions by aircraft flying incognito need to be checked out. If Malaysia had scrambled some rusty F16s at a big plane flying around with no identification, not only millions spent on this massive search could have been saved but who knows, those 239 souls might still be with us.

FIRESYSOK

16th Mar 2014, 15:59

To prevent an electrical malfunction (albeit rare) from becoming an electrical fire. Any piece of electronic equipment is a hazard to be the source of an electrical fire. Securing current removes some of the problem. That is why. (Yes, malfunctions that severe are very rare).

There is no checklist that I know of that would direct a crew to put a transponder into 'STBY', which incidentally, does not remove power from the unit.

Any electrical smoke/fire checklist has the crew de-power/isolate busses via the elec panel and/or circuit breakers, not individual components (unless it is definitively known as being the offending kit).

It's obvious we have a lot of armchair wannabes on this thread. Sit tight, the relevant (and knowledgeable) authorities are working overtime on this. They know leagues more than any one person on this site.

PA28Viking

16th Mar 2014, 16:00

I think people are forgetting the far eastern face saving culture. They have locked themselves into a spiral which is rapidly disappearing up their own fundaments.

I posted it before, there are only TWO facts:

1. Where the transponder transmitted last
2. Where the ACARS last transmitted.

Anything else cannot be proven yet!!!!!

Yes - With the transponder we would expect another signal ½ second later and we didn't get it.
But we don't know when the next ACARS message was to be expected.

acad_l

16th Mar 2014, 16:02

Are we really claiming that the only mechanism for orderly shutdown of the ACARS transmission is deliberate crew action? That the software/system does not provide for other paths (consistent with an accident or some failure scenario) leading to an orderly shutdown?

I would say it would take an in-depth knowledge of the system and its software for anyone to be able to make such a claim.

Other question: would it really come to mind to someone who wants to hide to shut down the ACARS? To shut that down first and then ten minutes later, the transponder? The opposite sequence would make so much more sense. Or both roughly at the same time.

FIRESYSOK

16th Mar 2014, 16:07

would it really come to mind to someone who wants to hide to shut down the ACARS?

What you've failed to glean from news reports is that the ACARS sent a final message indicating the active waypoint in the FMS had changed to one that gave the initial left-hand turn.

In other words, it had been programmed to turn by someone in the cockpit. This aircraft did not go into a heading mode. It was a deliberate, and premeditated turn, if the investigators' leaks to the media are to be believed.

This is why they know 'conclusively' that the airplane was hijacked/piloted on its rogue course.

Surtchris

16th Mar 2014, 16:09

If the truth is being told by the various agencies, after so long, it must be nigh impossible to:
a. keep all those people and their mobile phones quiet,
b. select somewhere to land so remote that no one sees it
c. take an aeroplane load of passengers hostage and not tell anyone.

I hear about satellites pinging, weak radar trails, mobile phone batteries etc but that doesn't really prove anything.
I think Occam's Razor comes into play and that would suggest the wreckage of the aircraft is at the bottom of the sea within a few hundred miles of where it was lost on radar. It just hasn't been found yet.

I agree Strake.

The T7 entered service in 1995 (United airlines) and I believe that 1178 are now in service with many more on order. The aircrafts development in the late eighties focused on the use of state of the art materials and composites to reduce the aircrafts weight and improve its economic viability. All believed at the time that these new materials would be tough and stand the test of time. It is evident that this is not the case. Last September authorities issued a global warning regarding the structural integrity of the T7 following reports of cracks and corrosion and the FAA issued a directive requiring airlines to inspect their T7 fleets. For comparison in the late eighties I wrote a prospectus for a company to purchase a BAC 1-11 in an executive jet configuration and I researched the aircraft type’s history of airframe integrity and found in its twenty years of service there was no record of any problem. I last flew on a BAC 1-11 in 2000 and the aircraft was then nearly forty years old.

Until such time as hijacking/ conspiracy theories are proved we might consider the fact that one of the T7’s that developed the cracks and corrosion had only been in service for fourteen years and there may be ongoing problems with structural integrity of the fleet. My gut instinct has never wavered that MH370 lost contact when it suffered a fatal decompression as a result of structural failure and if this is the case then this hasn’t happened since the Comets in the fifties.

The US and Malaysian agenda will be to deflect the public’s attention from the probable cause of the disappearance of the AC for obvious reasons. The radar contacts and satellite comms probably relate to other AC/drones. I hope I am proved wrong.

Lonewolf_50

16th Mar 2014, 16:09

There is no checklist that I know of that would direct a crew to put a transponder into 'STBY', which incidentally, does not remove power from the unit.
I was referring to turning something OFF, NOT putting it in standby. Please read for comprehension before you criticize my post. Thanks for your point on this procedure. Criticism of my not quite understanding that point that is accepted.
Any electrical smoke/fire checklist has the crew de-power/isolate busses via the elec panel and/or circuit breakers, not individual components (unless it is definitively known as being the offending kit).
Insight is appreciated.
Surtchris
... we might consider the fact that one of the T7’s that developed the cracks and corrosion had only been in service for fourteen years and there may be ongoing problems with structural integrity of the fleet. My gut instinct has never wavered that MH370 lost contact when it suffered a fatal decompression as a result of structural failure and if this is the case then this hasn’t happened since the Comets in the fifties.
Have you considered why that is?
The US and Malaysian agenda will be to deflect the public’s attention from the probable cause of the disappearance of the AC for obvious reasons. The radar contacts and satellite comms probably relate to other AC/drones. I hope I am proved wrong. I hope I am proved wrong .
You have added quite a bit of dross to a technical assessment on risks of fatigue failure. If you had stuck to that, your PoV would be worthy of consideration. By adding the rubbish, I am not sure what to make of your assessment. Specific to the drones ... if the drones have not gone down, then the folks who run them can identify the signals from the drones and eliminate them from consideration in the signals analysis.

I'll bet a case of Guinness on your position being not the answer.

lapp

16th Mar 2014, 16:10

Other question: would it really come to mind to someone who wants to hide to shut down the ACARS? To shut that down first and then ten minutes later, the transponder? The opposite sequence would make so much more sense. Or both roughly at the same time.

Perhaps it was done surreptitiously, being an uncommon action, the other pilot did not noticed or questioned. Only after few minutes, having incapacitated or killed the other pilot, xponder was shut down and the rest of the actions took place.

GlueBall

16th Mar 2014, 16:10

I can say in my airline there a several layers to ensure the correct people are on the flight deck. Having said this, I suppose anything is possible.

It's hard to get into people's minds. No matter how wholesome, intelligent, kind, a loving parent, loyal, dedicated and competent worker can be: For whatever reasons, one day the employee can snap and come off the rails.

There was a time when big jets had Flight Engineers and when two (2) crew members would ALWAYS be in the cockpit when another visited the Lav or galley. Maybe it's time to have a 3RD pilot in the cockpit, not just for safety, but for sanity. :ooh:

Sheep Guts

16th Mar 2014, 16:12

Agreed ANA. Let's hope they find it. The search area this weekend has grown way too large. In fact not searchable due to not enough assets.
They need to run live test flight as I've said before, with a B777 fly on same tracks as shown by Military radars and see what results they get with Ground radar stations and satellite reception and returns. I'm sure they are doing something like this now and verifying their data.

Pontius Navigator

16th Mar 2014, 16:14

would it not be SOP to alert active or inactive RMAF AD radar ?

It should be but does not follow that it is. As argued by Glueball it does not follow that an active radar unit is actually operating with an operational watch staring intently at the screens.

As pointed out, the track was of non-threatening nature and going the 'wrong way' for the lost aircraft.

The inactive radar units would probably be at no higher alert than 2 hours and that presupposed a highly motivated unit and it would be wrong to compare a highly advanced, and vulnerable, air defence system on a high alert posture with Malaysia or Thailand where there is no significant threat. As for driving airliners in to buildings; is that a realistic threat for a Muslim country to consider?

Bono said If we are looking at a situation that national air defense radars are there to mainly scare and not do the job the taxpayers paid millions for, then it makes it a risky proposition.

No, I would argue that the majority of developing world 'air defence systems' are vanity forces and not first rate units such as you would expect in countries that face a significant threat.

Now, entire world (including some very bad people) are aware that if a giant B777 can get lost without a trace over south east Asia, and you are surprised?

as the Indian guy in the article said "nothing much happens at night" which made me sit up.

Smugglers, yes, military threat, no as not many forces have a 24 hour capability.

The radars need to be constantly monitored by at least a pair of eyes and incursions by aircraft flying incognito need to be checked out.

Can't argue with that, but it presupposes the political will to maintain a highly effective and fully operational 24 hour air policing operation.

Tourist

16th Mar 2014, 16:15

To all those who declare that there is never a reason to turn off a transponder in flight.

I have turned of my transponder in a civil transport type in flight.
It had stopped working and I happened to have both an engineer on board and a spare box on board.

We asked ATC if we could take up a PPOS hold rather than land back on. We turned it off, swapped it out and turned it back on.

Now this is an unlikely situation in a civvy airliner, but if there is one reason to do it, there are likely many more.

FE Hoppy

16th Mar 2014, 16:15

FIRESYSOK

Quote:
To prevent an electrical malfunction (albeit rare) from becoming an electrical fire. Any piece of electronic equipment is a hazard to be the source of an electrical fire. Securing current removes some of the problem. That is why. (Yes, malfunctions that severe are very rare).
There is no checklist that I know of that would direct a crew to put a transponder into 'STBY', which incidentally, does not remove power from the unit.

Any electrical smoke/fire checklist has the crew de-power/isolate busses via the elec panel and/or circuit breakers, not individual components (unless it is definitively known as being the offending kit).

It's obvious we have a lot of armchair wannabes on this thread. Sit tight, the relevant (and knowledgeable) authorities are working overtime on this. They know leagues more than any one person on this site.
FIRESYSOK is online now Report Post

NOT TRUE. All the aircraft I am familiar with have wording equivalent to:

If smoke/fumes/fire source known:
ELECTRICAL POWER (Affected equipment) . . . .REMOVE
If practical, remove power from affected equipment by
switch or circuit breaker in flight deck or cabin.

so busbars are only de-powered when source is unknown and an immediate landing is not available.

DCrefugee

16th Mar 2014, 16:17

would it really come to mind to someone who wants to hide to shut down the ACARS? To shut that down first and then ten minutes later, the transponder? The opposite sequence would make so much more sense. Or both roughly at the same time.

Sure:

-- You're the bad guy. The a/c is at TOC, so it's time to get to work hiding.
-- After the TOC message is sent, shut down ACARS first, since you're still in Malaysian ATC radar coverage.
-- A few minutes later, once the handoff to Vietnam's ATC is attempted by Malaysian ATC, you go further dark by turning off the transponder(s).
-- You're now invisible to ATC secondary radar, the handoff was never completed, and you've bought yourself some extra time since neither Malaysia nor Vietnam can see the a/c (except for a primary target).
-- Do whatever voodoo it is you need to do.

FIRESYSOK

16th Mar 2014, 16:18

Here's what I wrote:

Any electrical smoke/fire checklist has the crew de-power/isolate busses via the elec panel and/or circuit breakers, not individual components (unless it is definitively known as being the offending kit).

Here's what you wrote:

If smoke/fumes/fire source known:
ELECTRICAL POWER (Affected equipment) . . . .REMOVE
If practical, remove power from affected equipment by
switch or circuit breaker in flight deck or cabin.

What is the difference.:ugh:

The Wawa Zone

16th Mar 2014, 16:22

EngineeringPilot

16th Mar 2014, 16:22

-- You're the bad guy. The a/c is at TOC, so it's time to get to work hiding.
-- After the TOC message is sent, shut down ACARS first, since you're still in Malaysian ATC radar coverage.
-- A few minutes later, once the handoff to Vietnam's ATC is attempted by Malaysian ATC, you go further dark by turning off the transponder(s).
-- You're now invisible to ATC secondary radar, the handoff was never completed, and you've bought yourself some extra time since neither Malaysia nor Vietnam can see the a/c (except for a primary target).
-- Do whatever voodoo it is you need to do.

Imo, this is a genius strategic planning!

The Wawa Zone

16th Mar 2014, 16:24

According to Aust media, AMSA has received no request from Malaysia as of Sunday, to start searching the southern Indian Ocean 'arc'. Tony Abbott is offering to help (with RAAF P3's).

FE Hoppy

16th Mar 2014, 16:24

Tfor2

16th Mar 2014, 16:26

The latest speculation (Daily Mail) suggests that Captain Shah was behind this, given his political obsessions, sympathy for the Malayan opposition leader whom he'd just watched being jailed, along with a picture of him wearing a tee shirt with the slogan "Democracy is Dead." Oh, and he has a home simulator. Let's go along with this for a moment.

He's secured the flight deck, turned off the transponder(s), and turned off the pax oxygen rendering passengers harmless or dead. Now what? He has the fuel, and is now in a position to aim his ship and do something somewhere to shock the world, as happened on 9/11. So should he fly to the Northwest, or Southwest, and land the plane, and then do it? No sense in that. The time is now. But he doesn't do it . . .

Which is where the theory falls down. We are all theorists now. Every one of us, governments and people. An answer had better be forthcoming eventually, because it is driving us nuts. The only people made happy are Hollywood screen-writers, free to write a bunch of stories to fanciful conclusions.

mikechekker

16th Mar 2014, 16:34

I hope this doesn't get lost in the spotters conspiracy theories on here. But if you go back to

this article here (http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/mas-ceo-says-still-verifying-if-mh370-landed-in-nanning): it says in black and white that MAS had information that the plane landed in Nanning.

Who told them that? And why didn't they dismiss it like they dismissed the "possible air turn back" as far back as 9 March,

here (http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/se-asia/story/missing-malaysia-airlines-plane-flight-mh370-could-have-made-turn-back-a),

possible oil slicks (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-search-teams-scramble-helicopters-and-ships-to-investigate-sighting-of-possible-life-raft-9180759.html),

possible debris fields on the 10th and 12th, a "seafloor event" at 2:55am on 8 April.

Why hasn't anyone asked them about Nanning? And most of all, WHERE DID THEY GET THAT INFORMATION FROM? They're first reports said radar contact was lost at 0220 local, quickly corrected to 0121 when they decided to hide their primary radar data. Fair enough, but why then did they leave six navies searching for almost a week in the South China Sea, when they knew from the get go that that 9M-MRO was not there?

I'm not trying to put the blame on some night shift military radar operator not wondering what that blip was at FL350, then FL450, then 230, then 295. If he missed it then it probably represents a culture that filters down from the top. If he reported it (which is likely considering the minister's two 180s before arriving back at the same place we were at before he was woken up on the 8th) then I shudder to think what else is known but but must be kept from the rest of us. Mr Minister, you had your own primary radar plots but because you were asleep now you want 25 other countries to share their primary radar data with you?

Considering where we're at now they may just do that. I just hope at the least you lose your job, regardless of whether or not we recover the 237 people on board. Besides that, I would hope you're police force would have searched the pilots' homes before that stage-managed search we saw on Saturday.

They knew it was a hijack from the first morning, just hoping it would be found crashed before they had to admit it. Sad to say, and not likely, but now I'm hoping it was some rogue action by the crew and the passengers are waiting for a ransom somewhere.

techgeek

16th Mar 2014, 16:35

@Ian_W

Precisely right!

If the ACARS went through a normal log-off sequence then it was shut down deliberately. If it just stopped reporting then it could have been some other reason. As it has been said multiple times 'the ACARS was deliberately switched off' that implies that it went through a log-off sequence and tidy shut down, something it would NOT have done if the power to it was cut by the circuit breaker being tripped.

ACARS log-off from the cockpit is a reasonable interpretation that fits two stated facts:

cessation of normal ACARS data
multiple hourly SAT data link connections with no buffered data to send

For those in the catastrophic failure camp - I haven't seen ACARS - LOGGED OFF in the various emergency procedures stated here so far.

FIRESYSOK

16th Mar 2014, 16:37

The difference is you add it as an afterthought whereas it's the first investigative action in the procedures. It shows clearly the reason electrical equipment must be able to be electrically isolate individually and therefore addresses the original point.

When/if I have smoke in the flight deck, I'm going to know right away which system is offending? You sure about that?

I'm going far, far out on a limb here and pretty much say that unless it's clear it's a coffee maker, oven, or something not in the FD, I'm not going to have time, nor want to waste time analyzing which system it is, then waste more time considering how to do that ("where is that darn VHF3 circuit breaker again?!"). Rather, I'm going to depower busses PER THE CHECKLIST, and wait to see if smoke decreases or not. All the while running toward the ERA or nearest airport.

To add to my point, an airplane like a 777 has avionics in the bay. Most panels in the flight deck are merely control heads. To try and determine from which LRU/bussbar the smoke is emanating is virtually impossible.

mikechekker

16th Mar 2014, 16:37

I hope this doesn't get lost in the spotters conspiracy theories on here. But if you go back to

this article here (http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/mas-ceo-says-still-verifying-if-mh370-landed-in-nanning): it says in black and white that MAS had information that the plane landed in Nanning.

Who told them that? And why didn't they dismiss it like they dismissed the "possible air turn back" as far back as 9 March,

here (http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/se-asia/story/missing-malaysia-airlines-plane-flight-mh370-could-have-made-turn-back-a),

possible oil slicks (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-search-teams-scramble-helicopters-and-ships-to-investigate-sighting-of-possible-life-raft-9180759.html),

possible debris fields on the 10th and 12th, a "seafloor event" at 2:55am on 8 April.

Why hasn't anyone asked them about Nanning? And most of all, WHERE DID THEY GET THAT INFORMATION FROM? They're first reports said radar contact was lost at 0220 local, quickly corrected to 0121 when they decided to hide their primary radar data. Fair enough, but why then did they leave six navies searching for almost a week in the South China Sea, when they knew from the get go that that 9M-MRO was not there?

I'm not trying to put the blame on some night shift military radar operator not wondering what that blip was at FL350, then FL450, then 230, then 295. If he missed it then it probably represents a culture that filters down from the top. If he reported it (which is likely considering the minister's two 180s before arriving back at the same place we were at before he was woken up on the 8th) then I shudder to think what else is known but but must be kept from the rest of us. Mr Minister, you had your own primary radar plots but because you were asleep now you want 25 other countries to share their primary radar data with you?

Considering where we're at now they may just do that. I just hope at the least you lose your job, regardless of whether or not we recover the 237 people on board. Besides that, I would hope you're police force would have searched the pilots' homes before that stage-managed search we saw on Saturday.

You guys knew it was a hijack from the first morning, just hoping it would be found crashed before they had to admit it. Sad to say, and not likely, but now I'm hoping it was some rogue action by the crew and the passengers are waiting for a ransom somewhere.

lapp

16th Mar 2014, 16:38

SLFgeek

16th Mar 2014, 16:40

We are trying to reconstruct an explanation for that map.
The last ping received was on the red arc. The aircraft was not necessarily on the arc prior to that time.

The aircraft was not necessarily at the western-most end of the arc at that time. The western end of the arc is probably where the pings would have been seen by next satellite west (but were not).

For all we know, the aircraft may have been on the ground at that time (but that implies the northern arc). Being on the ground may have resulted in two very similar pings tho.

I do not believe there has been anything that describes which arc earlier pings were on. Earlier would still have been mirrored north/south, but might (with some squinting of the eyes) given clues to which was it was moving after the last PSR contact.

Also keep in mind that there could have been some amount of time after the last ping that the aircraft continued to move.

Neogen

16th Mar 2014, 16:40

Now India has suspended the search:

India suspends search operation for missing Malaysian aircraft - The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-suspends-search-operation-for-missing-Malaysian-aircraft/articleshow/32154146.cms)

Then Malaysian PM calls Indian PM for help in locating plane:

Missing plane: Malaysia?s premier calls Indian PM for help | Business Line (http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/international/missing-plane-malaysias-premier-calls-indian-pm-for-help/article5792355.ece)

Rumor is that, India is not happy with information shared by Malaysia so far. India feels that they are being sent on wild goose chase and seem they support China theory that plane never flew west.

Seriously, whats happening.

techgeek

16th Mar 2014, 16:44

My gut instinct has never wavered that MH370 lost contact when it suffered a fatal decompression as a result of structural failure and if this is the case then this hasn’t happened since the Comets in the fifties.

... and the wreckage continued to contact satellites for hours thereafter but was missing when everyone went looking for it so the US Navy decided to go to the Indian Ocean to search for it.

DCrefugee

16th Mar 2014, 16:47

DC, if Vietnamese ATS gets no reply, it will eventually start a SAR phase, as it probably did. If being voodoo, it would be far better to wait until after contact with Vietnamese ATS, that way you would only be missed after the next reporting point, not immediately.

It's nominally a radar environment, so there may not be a next mandatory reporting point...

Each minute you fly along the cleared route puts you another minute from your destination, wherever that is, and behind schedule.

A missed/delayed handoff at zero-dark-thirty isn't something the next sector is going to get immediately stressed about, unlike an identified target in your sector suddenly going dark.

In the event, Vietnam ATC (which seems a bit more competent than Malaysia's) did wig out, and after not much time elapsed (a previous poster to this thread said he was on-freq at the time...).

Ian W

16th Mar 2014, 16:48

How have they determind that VFR ACARS was disabled before the handover comms?

MH370 reached its cruising altitude FL350 at 17.03 UTC. At 17.07 UTC (01.07 local) the last RR (TOC) message was transmitted).
After that no RR ACARS messages was to be expected for a long time.

So how do they conclude 'disabled' and not just 'not transmitting'?

I would say the ACARS could have been disabled around the same time as the transponder - at 17.21 UTC.

This is the reason they are saying that ACARS was 'deliberately turned off'. It would appear it went through a tidy log off of some sort at 1:07 local. Had it just been failed by circuit breaker then it would just not have reported any more and there would be no time of its disconnect. A tidy shut down means it was not (name a disaster) and that as the briefings have repeatedly been told 'deliberately turned off'. That the Malaysian authorities can repeat very simple things and be continually disbelieved only adds to the confusion.

ArthurQUnit

16th Mar 2014, 16:49

How many times have we done this at recurrent, regardless of type, make or model???
Over water, in the dark with a lot of fuel. Hurtling along through space in a giant aluminum and plastic tube filled with flammable insulation and miles of electrical cables. Everything, with the exception of the engines and flight controls need those pesky electrons. Whether from the batteries or generators or alternators, in older jets. Mr. Murphy shows up. Do you smell something? Yeah, smells like burning wires. Get out the checklist. What does it say? Gang bar and start turning everything off, pull circuit breakers. Now it’s dark and the flashlights are all you’ve got.
Captain takes the stick/yoke, FO runs the checklist.
Now you wait. Still smell the smoke? Roger. Batteries back on.Now you get a few things back. Check the voltage. Voltage is normal. Wait. Still smell smoke? Yup. And on through the checklist, trying to isolate the culprit. Worse case scenario: Can’t get the fire out. Everything is gone, no nav, no autopilot, no transponder, no radios and you’re hand flying, battery voltage is dropping. Molten aluminum is raining in the cockpit (Swissair 111) Trying to maintain altitude and heading. Smoke is getting pretty thick, O2 is depleted, she’s trimmed up as good as possible. Cough, cough, now you’re dead. Engines keep running, no one at the controls, now it’s either fire gets to the fuel and BANG, little sparkles fall from the sky, or kerplunk, into the drink and maybe a few larger pieces….

Or, the fat boy from North Korea was playing with his new drone...

LukeSkyRunner

16th Mar 2014, 16:50

Article in Times of India - says its tough for the aircraft to fly over Indian mainland. Not a surprise, but thought I'd share it here for some interesting quotes from spokespersons:

Link to the article (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Missing-aircraft-couldnt-have-entered-our-airspace-undetected-India/articleshow/32093403.cms)

According Guild member Sushil Mondal, all hell would break loose if the IAF detected an aircraft that did not have air defence clearance. Any plane flying through Indian airspace is first required to submit the flight plan and manifest to the air traffic controls in its flight path. This is then relayed to the air force for permission.

"There are times when the Air Force finds a blip that does not match a flight plan. That usually happens when flight plans going missing at their end due to a system or link failure. They then immediately contact us for information. If the plane flight plan isn't of suspicious nature, a clearance is granted. Or else, it is asked to return to wherever it came from. In case, we too don't have any information of the aircraft, there will be trouble and the Air Force scramble jets to take the plane down. Nothing of the kind happened last Saturday," said Mondal.

Recently, the IAF scrambled a Su-30MKI in the western sector after noticing an unidentified 'blip' crossing over from Pakistan, It turned out to be a weather balloon.

dmba

16th Mar 2014, 16:50

Just because of 9/11 a plane hit something does not mean that every single event will repeat that ending. US narrow mindedness about possible endings is really shocking. There is a difference between a pilot taking a plane for political ransom and a terrorist group hellbent on murdering people.

david44

16th Mar 2014, 16:52

Until resolved it would be respectful to recall that the 259 on board who have families who can read if not this site but the increasing links to it

FE Hoppy

16th Mar 2014, 16:52

FIRESYSOK
The difference is you add it as an afterthought whereas it's the first investigative action in the procedures. It shows clearly the reason electrical equipment must be able to be electrically isolate individually and therefore addresses the original point.
When/if I have smoke in the flight deck, I'm going to know right away which system is offending? You sure about that?

I'm going far, far out on a limb here and pretty much say that unless it's clear it's a coffee maker, oven, or something not in the FD, I'm not going to have time, nor want to waste time analyzing which system it is, then waste more time considering how to do that ("where is that darn VHF3 circuit breaker again?!"). Rather, I'm going to depower busses PER THE CHECKLIST, and wait to see if smoke decreases or not. All the while running toward the ERA or nearest airport.

I suggest you follow the checklist for your type.

I have had smoke in the cockpit.
We were some way from a suitable airport.
We could identify the area the smoke was coming from and by opening a panel could identify the item.
We isolated it then removed it to a safe area.

In doing so we were able to maintain the other systems powered by the same bus.

This was according to our checklist.

All electrical smoke checklists have the same flow.

OXY/COMMS

ISOLATE THE SOURCE

IF UNABLE TO IDENTIFY THE SOURCE AND CLOSE TO A RUNWAY LAND

IF NOT CLOSE TO A RUNWAY POWER DOWN BUSBARS TO TRY AND STOP THE SMOKE.

They all are written in that priority.

dmba

16th Mar 2014, 16:55

I hope this doesn't get lost in the spotters conspiracy theories on here. But if you go back to

this article here: it says in black and white that MAS had information that the plane landed in Nanning.

Who told them that? And why didn't they dismiss it like they dismissed the "possible air turn back" as far back as 9 March,

They did dismiss this early on. In the first few hours after announcing the disappearance. They said they'd contacted the airport, after having mentioned reports of an emergency landing in Nanming in an updated official statement.

The Wawa Zone

16th Mar 2014, 16:59

DC, ok, if it's a radar environment then that's valid (if there was unlawful interference).

Ian W, until I see a copy of an ACARS 'log off' etc message, I won't accept any implication of what the Malaysians or anyone else says.

jcjeant

16th Mar 2014, 17:01

Hi,

Terrorism ??
Rep. Michael McCaul on Flight 370: All signs point to cockpit | WashingtonExaminer.com (http://washingtonexaminer.com/rep.-michael-mccaul-on-flight-370-all-signs-point-to-cockpit/article/2545734)

Ian W

16th Mar 2014, 17:05

@Snowfalcon2

You are not thinking of the impact such a regulation has on the industry.

This would require that every aeroplane has a realtime data transmission of every system. Including everything! It's basically more data than the FDR records transmitted real time.

Have you thought about the finical implication and time frame required to implement this regulation?

There will soon be a requirement for aircraft to be equipped with FANS B/2 ADS-C EPP as well as FANS 1/A ADS-C EPP (over SATCOM) for oceanic. With the large jumps in available bandwidth an EPP broadcast every 60 seconds would not overload the system, and your aircraft will almost certainly be retrofitted with the capability. A slight mod to the system or even just regulations that say that ADS-C EPP MUST be functioning during flight rather like normal SSR/Mode A/C, or you WILL need to land, would ensure that the proverbial F-16's would be escorting you should that broadcast stop or the aircraft wander too far from the EPP coordinates.

This would solve both MH370 and the AF447 issues in one simple regulation.

paxrune

16th Mar 2014, 17:05

By the way, it's possible to track the Greek freighter Elka Athina, mentioned a few pages back, in relation to possible sightings of floating luggage in Malacca Strait:

Live Ships Map - AIS - Vessel Traffic and Positions - AIS Marine Traffic (http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:101.0552/centery:2.806702/zoom:8/oldmmsi:240277000/olddate:lastknown#)

What is odd is that the Strait is incredibly busy with ships, so why this one would be singled out is odd. One would think many ships would be asked to be on the lookout.

jugofpropwash

16th Mar 2014, 17:06

XB70_Valkyrie

16th Mar 2014, 17:08

This is not true. If the ACARS went through a normal log-off sequence then it was shut down deliberately. If it just stopped reporting then it could have been some other reason. As it has been said multiple times 'the ACARS was deliberately switched off' that implies that it went through a log-off sequence and tidy shut down, something it would NOT have done if the power to it was cut by the circuit breaker being tripped.

Can you share that tidy shutdown sequence from the ACARS protocol with us?

WillFlyForCheese

16th Mar 2014, 17:17

So many agencies involved now,I get the feeling they have rough idea where the T7 is.

But if you trying to catch a car thief you won't broadcast to world you know where they are and coming for them.

Hence the Southern corridor.

I had thought this too. I can imagine a scenario where they've located it on the northern route, on the ground somewhere - but have not announced it because they are figuring out what action to take next, whether passengers are being held, etc.

Wild speculation, but as possible as anything else.

oldoberon

16th Mar 2014, 17:17

Can you share that tidy shutdown sequence from the ACARS protocol with us?

that has been answered many times, i could tell you but it would probably be deleted for being repititous, as it was when i answered the exact same question some 7 hrs ago

jeanlyon

16th Mar 2014, 17:18

A question please. If the aircraft sent out pings until approx 0800 hours, if it was on the ground somewhere would it not still send out pings?

LASJayhawk

16th Mar 2014, 17:18

Quick word on circuit breakers. They are not to protect the box, but the power wiring to it. We are trying to prevent the wiring from setting a fire, not prevent the box from smoking.

On the E&E door. Are you folks (pilots) really worried about this? It would be simple enough to retrofit an electric lock controlled from the flight deck. Might as well do it to the 747's too while we are at it.

On someone entering the E&E bay and pulling breakers. I would hope that if someone was pulling breakers on an active system, you would get an immediate advisory message ( if not a caution) on the EICAS "ACARS MU FAIL" "TRANSPONDER 2 FAIL"etc

I would assume even if you were to send the FO to investigate, that would be worthy of a radio call to someone first?

Surtchris

16th Mar 2014, 17:19

Quote:
The US and Malaysian agenda will be to deflect the public’s attention from the probable cause of the disappearance of the AC for obvious reasons. The radar contacts and satellite comms probably relate to other AC/drones. I hope I am proved wrong. I hope I am proved wrong .

I really hope you win the case of Guinness.

I have no expertise on radar/ satellites or drones but some on aviation matters in general. I was quoting from a previous thread (so many now I can't remember which) to suggest that there was some other explanation for the radar contact and pings. This closing comment was to suggest that at the moment the US and Malaysia would prefer the public to think hijackers took one plane rather than the possibility that there were safety issues on other planes. Perhaps I could have expresses it better it was not meant to be political statement.

SilverDawg

16th Mar 2014, 17:20

While it seems extremely unlikely that MH370 could maneuver over land undetected to a point that intersects the distance from the last satellite ping, nevertheless I looked at the only airport in northern Myanmar that could possibly be used by the 777 and the right distance from the satellite....although a night landing there would seem absurd, I suppose it could be done with enough simulator practice.
PBU / VYPT is 7000 feet long at 1500 ft elevation. Can't imagine the aircraft could be there or anywhere else on land....where would they hide it! Surely someone has checked PBU by now just in case. Anyone familiar with Myanmar capabilities?...is it possible a 777 could overfly their country without being detected as a primary target on their radar?

dmba

16th Mar 2014, 17:23

I earlier commented about there being access to the E/E bay located outside the cockpit and that this was questionable. However, it makes sense after reading this:

"This access is potentially needed for extreme emergencies, such as by the cabin crew to fight an E/E bay fire."

Question is do you put possibility of emergency above chances of sabotage...?

Lonewolf_50

16th Mar 2014, 17:27

I was quoting from a previous thread ... to suggest that there was some other explanation for the radar contact and pings. This closing comment was to suggest that at the moment the US and Malaysia would prefer the public to think hijackers took one plane rather than the possibility that there were safety issues on other planes. Perhaps I could have expresses it better it was not meant to be political statement.
I think that line of reasoning is inverse from the political positions of both US and Malaysian governments.

It seems to me that it is of greater political benefit for both of those nations if things are of a mechanical malfunction, burden of remedy on the aircraft manufacturer or MAS maintenance practices, than the burden being on either nations' security charade being exposed for the farce that it is. ;)

That's a bit more hurtful to Malaysia for this case, of course.

island_airphoto

16th Mar 2014, 17:29

Transponders off under pilot control:
I have turned off a transponder per ATC request when it was malfunctioning and doing something like a constant IDENT or jibberish numbers. Also when flying formation. Also with a generator failure to ease the load on the battery.

PlatinumFlyer

16th Mar 2014, 17:37

I beleive I have read every post.
Has it been verified that one of the last contacts signed off with the words "Roger that"? If so, then the investigators need to question as many crew as possible that flew with the Captain and FO to ascertain if they ever used those words. IF NOT, then I would investigate the individual who had flight sim training and see if he was taught or used these words in training. The answers to the above would point to either Southern route an Captain/FO surcide, or Northern route and hijacking.
The individual who had flight sim training intriques me. As a SLF, I had 2 separate one hour sessions in a major airline's 777 SIM. I found that controlling MASS is no easy thing. Some of the reported altitude excursions could be explained by someone like me thinking the real plane flew like the SIM only to find out that it was massively more difficulut in a real 777 for an amateur. The amateur would then switch to VNAV and LNAV and other modes to let the computers do the work.
Just thinking out loud......

glendalegoon

16th Mar 2014, 17:39

FAA to investigate coffee spill that diverted flight - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/01/05/faa.flight.diverted/)

DCrefugee

16th Mar 2014, 17:44

FAA to investigate coffee spill that diverted flight - CNN.com

There's a movie about such a scenario:

Fate Is The Hunter (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058091/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1)

Not at all like the book...

cynar

16th Mar 2014, 17:46

@ jcjeant:

"Politician whose career is tied to terrorism declares 'this is terrorism' "

cribbagepeg

16th Mar 2014, 17:48

First, Lithium cells. A pink herring sans roe each new day. Now they've latched on to the coffee thing. I'm heading for Fox who at least seem to stay current.

glendalegoon

16th Mar 2014, 17:50

DCrefugee

yes, that's the scenario. one of my favorite movies (though hated by many pilots). I saw it when it came out in the theatres in the 20th century.

It just tells everyone that the littlest thing can bring down something big.

Kooljack

16th Mar 2014, 17:51

With all the 'confirm' assumptions and concurrence that ACARS was deliberately disabled, wouldn't it be a possible scenario that the C/B's for VHF2 and 3 were pulled, and ACARS happen to transmit via VHF3?
And if it is a deliberate (i.e. hijack/suicide) action, I would want to keep VHF1 and HF1 alive to monitor radio chatter.

glendalegoon

16th Mar 2014, 17:52

for the record, the incident I inserted the link to was 3 years ago and CNN is not currently calling it involved with the current 777 missing.

let's all settle down and recall that just last week an official of the malaysian govt said the plane disintegrated in flight and that was what was being investigated

surely not

16th Mar 2014, 17:52

Maybe it has been refuelled and is now nowhere near where it first went to

Capetonian

16th Mar 2014, 17:54

The Telegraph is reportingMalaysian Airlines MH370: aircraft may have been on ground when last signals senthttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10700892/Malaysia-Airlines-MH370-plane-crash-live.html but I see nothing tangible to support that and I suppose on the ground does not mean intact.

EDLB

16th Mar 2014, 17:54

Reading the background of the two Pilots:

MH370: profile of missing Malaysian Airline plane's pilots starts to emerge - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10700273/MH370-profile-of-missing-Malaysian-Airline-planes-pilots-starts-to-emerge.html)

None of them had any reason to throw away his life let alone to take 238 people with along. That simply does not add up.
Any info about outsized life insurance?

I do not buy it that one of the two are involved in a plot.

glendalegoon

16th Mar 2014, 17:57

I do wonder how long it will take CNN to read pprune and replay the incident they covered 3 years ago, per the link

DCrefugee

16th Mar 2014, 17:58

Has it been verified that one of the last contacts signed off with the words "Roger that"? If so, then the investigators need to question as many crew as possible that flew with the Captain and FO to ascertain if they ever used those words. IF NOT, then I would investigate the individual who had flight sim training and see if he was taught or used these words in training.

Some have discussed in this thread -- and many more have discussed elsewhere, including in the lamestream media -- MAS370's last words to ATC. On one level, unless it was "Allahu akhbar!" or "Mayday, Mayday, Mayday!" who cares?

The two versions I've heard are either "Roger that," as quoted above, or "Alright, good night." Either phrase can be completely normal for a professional flight crew member to use, depending on what ATC said to engender the response.

Until we get a full/complete transcript of ATC comms, we don't know what was said by Malaysian ATC other than some version of "Contact Vietnam on such-and-such a frequency."

Desert185

16th Mar 2014, 17:59

Lonewolf

Comment on 777's (and other passenger liners) not flying formation in 3, 2, 1 ...

I actually have flown formation an airliner (DC-8 with a Gulfstream, with an F-18 and then again with a C-130, and a 747 with an F-18) and have been requested by ATC for one of us to squawk STBY. Same request with a flight of two or three in little airplanes.

num1

16th Mar 2014, 18:02

The aircraft is somewhere not too far from its last KNOWN position.
I could not agree more. Somewhere on the "red" 40 degree arc. Either in the ocean or in china.

MPN11

16th Mar 2014, 18:10

So, having been reading (and very occasionally posting) since the outset, it appears that these detected ACARS 'pings' are the definitive article, the 11th tablet of stone and thus an eternal truth? These signals to a satellite are 110% reliable data? ... and the lack of any information on previous pings should be regarded as unimportant, or potentially disturbing a pre-conceived idea?

In consequence all other possibilities are to be discarded, because these 'pings' are deemed so absolute that no other feasible options can be considered?

I earnestly hope that the subsequent investigation will be more rigorous.

barrel_owl

16th Mar 2014, 18:16

It's been reported that his wife and children moved out of the house on March 6th...may or may not be true but it is certainly something that can affect people's state of mind
It has been reported. Where? Who? Who verified the report? Not you, for sure.
At least four or five out of your 22 posts suggest foul play by the cockpit, all based on unverified reports and information. Just because the media said so, it does not mean it is so.
Tell me. Are you obsessed with pilots in general or is it part of your agenda to destroy the reputation of these two people?
Don't worry, anyway. I am sure this post will be deleted, but yours will be kept for the world to see.

er340790

16th Mar 2014, 18:19

Better to give pilots more psychological checks.

Well, yes, I imagine that may help in some cases...

BUT - unfortunately there is no reliable test for sanity.

fairflyer

16th Mar 2014, 18:22

Large new permanent and fabric hangars at Diego Garcia, big enough for B52s - Google Earth, 2014 imagery.

ensco

16th Mar 2014, 18:24

If (big if) it turns out that one of the pilots or crew committed an act of murder/suicide, and it wasn't a political act, we need to be very careful about what that means or what we should do about it. Despite the publicity these events generate, mass murder is exceedingly rare.

So far we have avoided putting security inspection into malls, theaters, schools (mostly), and I would hope that common sense can prevail here.

There are usually no conclusions to be drawn in these events. To quote the New Yorker: The problem with generalities about mass murderers is that the sample size is tiny, and most die before they can be examined. Almost half of all mass murderers commit suicide in the act, and many others are killed by police.

lapp

16th Mar 2014, 18:25

It has been reported. Where? Who? Who verified the report? Not you, for sure.
At least four or five out of your 22 posts suggest foul play by the cockpit, all based on unverified reports and information. Just because the media said so, it does not mean it is so.
Tell me. Are you obsessed with pilots in general or is it part of your agenda to destroy the reputation of these two people?
Don't worry, anyway. I am sure this post will be deleted, but yours will be kept for the world to see.

Calm down. Investigation is underway. Leaks can happen but as the subject of your angry reply had said, may or may not be true. By the way, hipothsis are about one pilot's actions, not two. And finding truth is more important that preserving reputation, hope you will agree.

cribbagepeg

16th Mar 2014, 18:25

As with the AF447 saga, there are some very bright and well-informed people both on this excellent blog and involved in the search, analysis and information release. I have great faith that all of the obvious scenarios are under intense scrutiny, but have laid in a bunch more popcorn.

Airbubba

16th Mar 2014, 18:26

There's a movie about such a scenario:

Fate Is The Hunter

Not at all like the book...

From the imdb link posted in the earlier message, on the 'Trivia' page:

Although Ernest K. Gann, who wrote book on which film was based, later claimed he was reportedly so unhappy with film that he demanded his name be removed, his name does indeed appear in credits as author of source material.

Similarly, Tom Wolfe disowned the movie version of 'The Right Stuff'.

However, the threat of a liquid spill in the cockpit is very real in my view (though not necessarily a player with MH 370). Some crewmembers insist on using the center console for a dining table, drink tray and reading desk all at the same time. Bulletins about passing drinks outboard to folks in the pilot seats have been issued for at least two decades, probably longer.

There are drip guards and such to protect the avionics under the flight deck but I still wince at that tall cup of Starbucks precariously perched on buttons next to the, uh, transponder control head and engine fuel cutoffs.

One thing verified by the latest press conference in K.L. is that MAS ran the profile of MH 370 in the company simulator to see how it fit with the reported data.

Also, the arcs of probability from the last Inmarsat ping were independently verified by both the Brits and the Americans according to the acting transport minister.

dmba

16th Mar 2014, 18:27

bunk exceeder

16th Mar 2014, 18:31

Those hangars on DG on Google Earth don't look big enough even for the B-52's parked right next to them.

spooky3

16th Mar 2014, 18:38

US intelligence fears the plane may have landed somewhere to be used later as a 9/11-style "cruise missile".

Missing Plane 'May Have Sent Signals On Ground' (http://news.sky.com/story/1226767/missing-plane-may-have-sent-signals-on-ground)

RatherBeFlying

16th Mar 2014, 18:41

Admittedly the Malaysian military radar operators did not bring their top game to the 0 dark 30 shift -- and yes, targeting assets to the T7 when it was still in range might have shed more light on the situation.

But remember that an interceptor has limited range and would have to head back home for gas.

Something with longer range would have to be dispatched, but most maritime patrol aircraft are turboprops and at best could only hope to pick up a blip receding at max range. However an interceptor or patrol aircraft might possibly have given us a track to work from.

With that track, other countries could have been put on a timely alert along with some indication of where the T7 would be.

The SAR authorities have been doing their best with very limited information. It took several days for the engineers to develop arcs from the 8:11 ping.

Perhaps it takes that much more time to work out arcs from the earlier pings, but yes, we would like to see all of them. Once those arcs are produced, there's a bunch more work to work out possible courses. It would not surprise me if some heavily caffeinated programmers are busy developing and testing code.

On a personal note, I had once developed some code to speed up transaction rates in a pseudo-reentrant environment. The first test in a single thread environment worked and I went off on an extended weekend to hear on return from my supervisor that my new code was in production.

I immediately told him that the multi thread test had not been done. We held our breath waiting to see if Data Control found the transaction counts off at the end of the day.

They did not complain -- because the person who did the check was off work. A few days later customers began complaining that their deposits had been lost. A few seeing that their large withdrawal had not been posted helped themselves to the extra money and were not seen again:E

Lots of holes in the Swiss cheese anytime there's a complex human endeavor.

volcanicash

16th Mar 2014, 18:41

MPN11 said...

...it appears that these detected ACARS 'pings' are the definitive article, the 11th tablet of stone and thus an eternal truth? These signals to a satellite are 110% reliable data? ... and the lack of any information on previous pings should be regarded as unimportant, or potentially disturbing a pre-conceived idea?

In consequence all other possibilities are to be discarded, because these 'pings' are deemed so absolute that no other feasible options can be considered?

I earnestly hope that the subsequent investigation will be more rigorous.

The 'pings' were covered in today's (Sunday) press conference. 6 handshake signals provided by Inmarsat, data analysed by independent teams from the US and UK, both teams arrived at the same conclusion regarding the final ping location arcs which resulted in the diagram and associated information released yesterday.

Sounds pretty rigorous to me.

DrDonkey

16th Mar 2014, 18:49

oldoberon

16th Mar 2014, 18:52

Actually I'm commenting on developing events instead of focusing on things that have been ruled out.

I certainly haven't created anything. I have no vested interest in either protecting pilots nor slating them without any thought.

It may be a bitter pill to swallow that 'one of your own' may be the culprit.

I apologise if this is too difficult for you to stomach and I'd be happy to sit back and watch some desperately scrounge around for technical fault reasons that will, in the end, have had nothing to do with this...

I am pretty sure that from reading air accident reports over the years there have been more mistaken judgments of pilot error that the reverse.

The last we;; known ones was the chinook that crashed enroute Ni to Scotland, it took years to clear the pilots even to the point it looked like a cover up of known technical defect/deficiencies.

Certainly was a time that rather than have unexplained accidents it was decalaed as pilot error.

Undertow

16th Mar 2014, 18:56

I've been wondering if the reason we've only seen the "arc" for the supposed final ping is because a prior ping had exactly the same "arc". Suggesting the plane was on the ground for at least an hour if so.

Also I wonder if there's enough info anywhere to get doppler shift on the received signal. If not from the Inmarsat satellite then perhaps some less spoken about assets.

wild goose

16th Mar 2014, 18:57

What lies behind these references to hangars on Diego Garcia?
Are people here suggesting that the US has engineered a kidnapping/hijacking and is now hiding the aircraft in a USAF base??

What are you people smoking?

With a president who talks loudly and carries a big feather
who cant even protect innocent civilians being slaughtered wholesale
you suggest that they have done something as evil as this?

Is it sheer stupidity or just abuse of hallucinogenic chemicals?

Dingo63

16th Mar 2014, 18:57

Based on the pinging. I've read this whole thread over the days, and haven't commented because I'm not a pilot, just a retired ATC (28years).

I want to say too much weight , in my opinion , is being given to the pinging and radar track(s). A lot of room for misinterpretation of data.

None of the suicide stuff makes any sense. A coordinated takeover is improbable because of what do you do with the acft once you have it? If they're so smart to think of everything, why not just steal a plane off a ramp? It happens a lot. A smaller group of people involved for something like that and they could fly wherever, on legitimate FP and no one would know and they could use it for whatever.

On the tech side, avionics/electronics have been shown to do weird stuff when shorting out or on fire. Humans do odd things when hypoxic, especially if not aware. Confusion, smoke, who knows. I am NOT surprised at ALL that no contact with ATC was made if difficultly arose. You pilots don't do that. In my experience, I never had a ATP tell me about jack until they were way down the decision/action list.

It is natural I guess, but it is a shame this crew are being speculated about on such iffy evidence and extremely doubtful data. The Maylasian Government info is dubious. Too many factors. I think it is possible this one will be unsolved until/unless debri/bodies found. And I lean towards catastrophic inflight incident; fire, decompression, who knows.

Mods; feel free to delete. I just wanted to weigh in.

luoto

16th Mar 2014, 18:58

CodyBlade

16th Mar 2014, 18:59

wild goose

Trick is to filter out the BS.

Don't reply or acknowledge, it only empower's them.

alwaysontime

16th Mar 2014, 19:00

If the transponder was not accessible from the cockpit then how would the pilots enter the squawk - I had around 4 different squawks coming back from China last night and how would they ident when asked by ATC?
Would that B777 have Sat phones or internet aboard for PAX use - surely if a hijack was the case someone would have made a call. If it landed somewhere, someone would have got a phone signal. My phone often gets a signal below FL80 if i forget to turn it off.
Could a hostie have been last person alive, like the Helios 737 depresurisation, have been trying to tune a radio to request help and accidentally turned off the XPNDR? Knocked he controls and sent it off course
How much fuel was ordered? Flight Plan fuel or a load more to take it somewhere? If you were going to Hijack your own A/C then surely you'd take more fuel?

wild goose

16th Mar 2014, 19:03

I guess,
but these bored fools who now build the foundations for their next hare brained conspiration theory,
use the adage that a lie told often enough becomes the truth
They are one of the melanomas on the skin of our modern age.
See the nonsense about 9/11...:ugh:

MPN11

16th Mar 2014, 19:03

What lies behind these references to hangars on Diego Garcia?

One could postulate a terrorist inspired crash into the flight line at DG, taking out numerous B-52s and/or KC-135s.

That would, of course, require an anti-US mindset focussed perhaps on activity in Afghanistan (or elsewhere).

Somehow I'm not quite joining up the dots on that, unless the intended act originated in the passenger cabin. But there is no evidence to date. At least it's a possible target, though.

luoto

16th Mar 2014, 19:05

Quite. If you lock the ee bay someone has to have the keys. As it is, one or more persons on the flight deck are being suspected for their involvement (whether right or wrong and I do not judge). They would have the keys anyway. A locked flight deck still lets one or more person with access to the control surfaces to do things they shouldn't do if they are so inclined. Unless you have a "drone" you will always have this risk.

Some of the initial reports wondered if a drone could have had a mid-air with mh370. I know nothing about drones - are they so big/can access that Fl and really create a total loss?

mickjoebill

16th Mar 2014, 19:11

For those who consider hypoxia in their theory.
According to google:
Some 777s have chemical O2 generators.
Chemical Oxygen generators on 777 last 22 minutes once they are activated.
There are approx 170 generators on 777. (3 generators per seat row?)
The chemical reaction commences when passengers pull down on the masks after the masks have been deployed from the ceiling. So one generator does a few masks. Supply is not regulated and will be exhausted after 22 minutes even if only one mask is in use.
There are at least 10 sets of portable oxygen cylinders with 15 min endurance, for cabin crew use.
Flight crew oxygen is independent and has 2 hour endurance.

Therefore in theory it is possible for cabin crew or passengers to survive for an extended period by moving from an expired supply to one that has not been activated and so on. With luck there would be a few spare in business and first class. In economy where passengers tend to spread-out into empty rows. it is probable that all generators would be activated shortly after being deployed.

However if the O2 supply for the flight crew is as stated it is unlikely anyone in the back would have the fortune to successfully swing from one supply to the next for two hours.

Confirmation that the above applies to MH370 anyone..?

Whilst on the subject, do all newer aircraft have bottled air supply for passengers? If so is it regulated somehow, lasting longer if in use by fewer passengers?
Do the loos in 777s each have a individual generator?

Mickjoebill

alwaysontime

16th Mar 2014, 19:12

Some drones are the size of light aircraft and yes several jets have been brought down by light aircraft collisions in the past

PSA Pacific Southwest Boeing 727 Flight 182 Aircraft Midair Crash With Cessna ATC FAA Audio - YouTube

Lemain

16th Mar 2014, 19:13

They would have the keys anyway.Yes, but then the perpetrator(s) wouldn't have planned it that way...they'd have found some other way to meet their objective (assuming they have the information and skills, which is what we are being told). If you block one avenue, the bad guys go down another. Same with tax, burglary, vote-rigging,.....

sellbydate

16th Mar 2014, 19:13

Diego Garcia hangars not big enough for 777-200.

I guess the theory there is that there was something on the aircraft that the USA did not want to fall into Chinese hands and somehow, aircraft was redirected to the one place nobody would monitor or track it, aside from the US Navy themselves.

Unfortunately, if you can't hide the aircraft, that does fall apart fairly quickly.

It's 'James Bond' plot stuff, nevertheless, one wonders to what lengths USA would go to stop certain technology going to Chinese superpower?

The Chinese deny it entered their airspace, but you would if you were hiding the aircraft at a Chinese airbase, having arrived at night, for whatever reason.

freshgasflow

16th Mar 2014, 19:14

Now that it appears that Boeing itself is not at fault, does it imply that there will be less funding to retrieve wreckage / boxes ?

EPPO

16th Mar 2014, 19:23

The 'pings' were covered in today's (Sunday) press conference. 6 handshake signals provided by Inmarsat, data analysed by independent teams from the US and UK, both teams arrived at the same conclusion regarding the final ping location arcs which resulted in the diagram and associated information released yesterday.

I wonder why earlier pings don't deserve much attention. They could at least tell us whether it is the northern arc or the southern one which should be taken into consideration.

num1

16th Mar 2014, 19:23

Isn't the overt response of the US and other possible target nations (India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, China etc) extremely muted to the possibility, no matter how remote, that terrorists somewhere just might have a 777 in their posession? Not really, or?
From all the countries in your list, only China is the one where the aircraft could have actually gone to. What would you expect China to do? Admit that they saw no unidentified AC on their radar? Or say that they saw one, but didn't care? (How long are military radar tracks stored anyway? Days? weeks?)
Just imagine a terror attempt gone bad. Instead of putting a plane down with 280 dead bodies (of whom 150 are chinese) at the end of the runway in Urumqi, the terrorist didn't make it and crashed somewhere in the Xinjiang. Would China ever announce that they found the plane if the would find it there?
And use the 777 later? what do you do with the dead bodies? If not removed, you don't want to go near that plane after the 8 missing days now.

LASJayhawk

16th Mar 2014, 19:24

A long time ago Collins had a problem with a control head having a high failure rate. It was determined that the control heads were filling up with beverages and corroding the switch contacts. A service bulletin was issued instructing where to drill holes to let the coffee drain out...

We post coat boards now a days, and don't use open frame switches as much. You might get unlucky and make a control head inop, but it is more likely you will just make the push buttons sticky (if you like sugar in your coffee).

Not recommending coffee baths for the avionics, but I highly doubt you could cause much more than an annoyance by doing so.

RetiredBA/BY

16th Mar 2014, 19:26

After AF 447, two years to find the FDR and CVR, this must surely be a pivotal time to re-appraise FDRs. If pax can phone home from the A/c anywhere in the world, and connect to the internet, its high time that FDR data (including GPS/IRS position) was streamed via ACARS using satcom. to a ground station.

Technology and electronics has moved on from the FDRs of old so lets have a complete revision of FDR requirements. MH370, like AF 447, HAS to be found, but is going to be one helluva job.

.........and no I am NOT an amateur, 10,000 hrs plus in the LHS of various ETOPS and non ETOPS Boeings, a former company FSO and twice vice chairman of the UK Flight Safety Committee, tells me that we HAVE to change thinking AND equipment after these two incidents. The technology is there, we need to embrace it.

Will MH370 be found ? well a BSAA Tudor, Star Tiger, disappeared without trace and another BSAA aircraft, a Lancastrian IIRC, was not found for almost 50 years. (yes I know things have moved on BUT !!

The Indian Ocean is very large and very deep.

I am not expecting a swift resolution to this bizarre situation.

Chronus

16th Mar 2014, 19:27

Letest news repots informs us investigations are being conducted with emphasis on the greater probability of unlawful interference with the flight. The focus on the pilots indicates the reasonable assumption, they alone posessed the technical competency for a reasonable succes to attempt and avoid detection. Many of us on this forum, with knowledge of the area and sufficient flying experience, particularly those with a military background, may be well able to postulate how they would undertake such a flight/mission and avoid detection. This may be best left untold on this forum, for obvious reasons. I do however feel confident that this could not escaped the Malaysian authorities attention. In extending such line of thought, I am somehat puzzled that the search area has been extended North West to cover overland routes. On my part I consider that the obvious route to avoid detection with a reasonable chance of success would be the Indian Ocean. I would consider that the likelihood of the pilots being involved in taking the flight on a suicidal course is relatively small compared with a third party forcing the diversion of the flight on to such a course. The fact that the aircraft failed to make land fall must suggest that had it been a hijack attempt, it simply failed.
I await with interest to hear of the revalations regarding the enquiries being made into all the passangers backgrounds. If these also result in the elimination of likely candidates, then the only explanation must be a series of systems malfunctions and crew incapacitation through smoke and hypoxia.
Has there been any reports of the cargo manifest.

redmin888

16th Mar 2014, 19:33

Mickjoebill

777 I work on do not use chemical oxygen generators for passengers.

techgeek

16th Mar 2014, 19:39

5.2.3.6 System Management Traffic
The data channels carry the following data related to the management of Inmarsat system:
􀂃 Logon management data: this includes traffic generated by the system logon procedure, which includes in particular logon and logon/logoff acknowledgment SUs sent over the R-channel, logon confirm and logon/logoff acknowledgment SUs sent over the P-channel.

citation (http://www.ispacg-cra.com/FANS_1_A_Datalink_Comm_V1.0.pdf)

SLFplatine

16th Mar 2014, 19:40

Quote (luoto):
Last night Indian newspapers suggested not all radar units were "awake" (I posted a link). The longer this sad, sorry affair goes on the harder it feels to accept any official statement on face value. I am not usually paranoid, but there is a feeling of "positioning" about this, at a level much higher than pax and crew.
Agree: Australia, which has highly sophisticated radar, interestingly said the same thing and for the same reason -costs; its expensive (really? -why build it in the first place?). I find it hard to believe that military radar does not operate 24/7 -airborne threats only show up during business hours? I agree with Glueball that aircraft sans ident at non-threat altitudes would be routinely ignored (someone else's problem, not mine) on a normal night, however think that would change once a long haul passenger craft goes missing with its transponder off. Also I find it a bit incredible that with all the spook sats up in the sky watching this area that the only info for determining possible flight paths came from a commercial sat. The Malacca Strait is a critical shipping route for China, hard to believe they would not have sats looking at it 24/7. And the U.S. of course looks at everything -this neighborhood is about midway between Guam and Diego Garcia; once the U.S. became aware a T7 with about 7 hours of fuel had gone AWOL here alert levels would have been raised a bit (unless like India and Australia supposedly did, took the weekend off -hardly). Point is I believe it is known where this plane went and what happened to it but it is no one's interest for this to become public. We are being fed a story to lay the groundwork for the convenient explanation. Either this plane will never be found (southern arc) or wreckage which could possibly be MH370 will be spotted somewhere around 8,000 meters in a totally inaccessible area of the Himalayas (northern arc). Depends on which story they can make sound more credible; suicide mission or hi-jack. Personally I do not buy at all the 'rogue pilot on a meticulously planned suicide mission' theory. Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

alwaysontime

16th Mar 2014, 19:42

Its not rocket science to uplink a few hundred parameters via Satlink from a digital FDR:D

Nozzer

16th Mar 2014, 19:42

What happened to the report of suitcase debris in the Malacca Strait from earlier today? Or have I missed something?

poorjohn

16th Mar 2014, 19:45

Near the top of this page, MH370 summary (http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/6027228/) one 'rcair1' has posted a long and detailed summary of what is known, what is maybe, and what is insane. I like it.

memories of px

16th Mar 2014, 19:45

exactly, the oxygen is on a gaseous ring main and the portable oxy bottles last at least 60 minutes depending on if you are on hi or lo flow.

Machinbird

16th Mar 2014, 19:47

I do not know what luck you have had with using the search function on this thread, but for me, it has been inoperative.

Fortunately there is an excellent alternative: Google is keeping this thread well indexed. You can structure Google searches as follows:

Supposing you want to search for references to NYT.
Then structure your search as:
<nyt site:http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost> (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost)
Just remove the <> part of the above for your search. (Had to do that to keep it from being truncated.)

For a different search term, you can use the above string and substitute your search term for NYT in the above example.

Maybe we can cut down on some of the repetitive question asking.:ok:

lapp

16th Mar 2014, 19:54

What happened to the report of suitcase debris in the Malacca Strait from earlier today? Or have I missed something?

Nothing has been reported or found. Simply, ships directed to that area have been asked to be on the look for debris. One would suppose that ships have been navigating there at all times, so perhaps is just a bit of publicity for someone.

Gordon Fraser

16th Mar 2014, 19:57

Newsreader on ITV tonight twice announced that the search area now covers 28 million square miles !!!

mickjoebill

16th Mar 2014, 19:57

777 I work on do not use chemical oxygen generators for passengers
Thanks for the info any idea what MH 370 has/had?

Is the passenger bottled air regulated, does it have a defined endurance once activated, regardless of the number of passengers who are using it?

Is the figure of 2 hour endurance for flight crew in the ballpark?
I assume flight crew O2 is regulated, does it then follow that the 2 hour figure would double to 4 hours, if in use by only one crew member instead of two?

exactly, the oxygen is on a gaseous ring main and the portable oxy bottles last at least 60 minutes depending on if you are on hi or lo flow.
Thanks MoP, to be clear the gaseous main is for passengers and it lasts sixty minutes?

Mickjoebill

Mesoman

16th Mar 2014, 19:58

The older days (pre 406.25 MHz) the position of downed aircraft was with the the Doppler shift of 243MHz signal,,, if my memory serves me right... It was done by INMARSAT satellites in conjunction with Local user terminals... if a stationary crashed aircraft position can be located than why not a slow flying one? This approach is not relevant to the current event.

Until a few years ago, 121.5/243.0 MHz ELT signals were located using doppler from the COSPAS/SARSAT satellites. On one pass, the doppler (generated from the satellite's motion) would yield two areas (one on each side of the satellite track). A second pass would determine which of the areas was the actual one in which the beacon should be found.

Doppler Processing (http://www.cospas-sarsat.org/system/systemoverview/leosar-system/230)

rigbyrigz

16th Mar 2014, 19:58

Regarding expectations and comments about searching the captain's simulator and laptop and finding something incriminating, no one has mentioned this aspect (so i will try):

IF hiding a plane on the way to demise (for insurance reasons or to create a mystery or both) is the objective of some skilled misguided but capable individual, they are surely able to use established erase and cleanse protocols to purge such evidence as could be found by investigators. And would have?

I also wish to say that while I also don't like the idea of a fellow pilot being the main suspect, I find it irresponsible to harp on electro-mechanical failures as explanatory, when this FACT has been both reported and presented here several times:
The left turn was pre-programmed into the FMC and noted on an ACARS event log before ACARS stopped (for whatever reason).

If you wish to blame electro-mechanical causes (such as coffee spills) please address this FACT (rather than ignore it) in your post. TY.

BobT

16th Mar 2014, 20:02

Perhaps those who fly in the area regularly (I do not) could 'rate' the quality of the ATC authorities in the area?

Which are more likely to not notice a primary target entering their airspace?

brika

16th Mar 2014, 20:03

The Chinese deny it entered their airspace, but you would if you were hiding the aircraft at a Chinese airbase, having arrived at night, for whatever reason.

The a/c was legitimately heading for China in the first place, so why would the a/c pilot do James Bond stuff to get to China and then for China to cloak it? Please stop spouting this gibberish which obfuscates the real issues. What is PPRuNe descending to?

hillberg

16th Mar 2014, 20:04

"Thunder Ball"
Heard some of the Chinese pax were high profile Businessmen of some major companys & their worths in the 100s of millions.
One was also at odds with the U.S, Governmen in the past.

Would a Government go to such means to pay back someone?

Yea, I'm full of it.

Skyring66

16th Mar 2014, 20:13

I wonder why earlier pings don't deserve much attention. They could at least tell us whether it is the northern arc or the southern one which should be taken into consideration.

Well, no. Assuming only Inmarsat picks up the ping - reasonable if the plane continues generally westward - you have no cross reference. Just an angle.

All that does if give you another set of arcs with a slightly different radius.

The key point is that the arcs we see from the last ping position go right over the last radar position, which means that the airliner very likely took a course roughly corresponding to one of those arcs.

Earlier signals could indicate whether the plane might have "cut the corner", which would be reasonable to assume if it flew a straight course.

All we can now from the arcs is that the plane is now on the surface of the planet up to a half hour's flying distance from the arcs.

That's a huge area, the size of a large country.

Pontius Navigator

16th Mar 2014, 20:17

Agree: Australia, which has highly sophisticated radar, interestingly said the same thing and for the same reason -costs; its expensive (really? -why build it in the first place?).

They have sophisticated radar systems so that they MAY operate them if required. In the same way that the military have Reserves as well as Regular soldiers in case they are required in the future.

I find it hard to believe that military radar does not operate 24/7 -airborne threats only show up during business hours?

They are provided against known threats based on intelligence and it is simply not affordable for many smaller countries to maintain high readiness at all times.

Jake the Peg

16th Mar 2014, 20:24

The report on Captain Shah by The Daily Mail may be a hatchet job, but it does suggest that he spent all day Friday awake and engrossed in this big trial. It claims he left the court at 9pm straight for the airport to fly overnight to Beijing. Surely he's likely to be tired, and this could lead to poor judgement, possible mistakes and short-temperedness, and not the masterminding of a multinational heist or terrorist plot?

GCharlie

16th Mar 2014, 20:25

For me, this event may only make sense in hindsight once more information is known. With the conflicting and sketchy information currently available, none of it makes sense in totality.

For those in the commercial aviation industry, how do you posit an entire planeload of people were kept under control for the length of time this A/C was apparently operational? This is what I cannot wrap my head around.

If one accepts the argument that the shut down of ACARS, then the transponder, followed by routine communication with ATC in a situation that demanded anything but routine communication is suggestive of deliberate disruption of the flight, then this mean that passengers and some flight crew were essentially hostage. If the dramatic changes in altitude are even close to accurate, people on that flight had to be aware very early on that something was wrong. Let's say that there were no dramatic changes in altitude because those reports were incorrect; wouldn't you expect one or more of the FA to notice something during that period of time when direction was reversed along with those waypoint crossings? As in, hey the water is supposed to be starboard, but now it's port?

What announcement could possibly be given to more than 200 people to ensure their complacency and/or cooperation for this number of hours? Well past the scheduled landing time of their flight, well past sunrise?

From what I can gather, if the A/C was operational at 08:11, this would not support some kind of situation where hypoxia was a factor, simply because oxygen supplies would not have been available for that length of time. My understanding is that O2 supplies for the flight crew should have been 2 hours and this does not reconcile with the almost 6 hours since the ACARS system stopped reporting. Can anyone confirm how much oxygen would have been required for the FD crew?

It would be helpful for authorized spokesmen to be more transparent with information, including releasing detailed info on the Inmarsat data transmissions.

Curious Novice

16th Mar 2014, 20:26

Sorry to intrude into such a knowledgeable (or wannabe knowledgeable) group. I've been lurking to learn, and test a few theories of my own (i.e. catastrophic electrical fire/failure, followed by loss of pressure in cabin). To that, I've paid attention to those that note the shut down of ACARS first. So to that, I have a question that I don't believe has been addressed to the pros here yet.

Much of the suspicion that is being cast on the cockpit crew at this moment stems from a Malaysian authority's (is that an oxymoron??) insistence that ACARS was deliberately shut down over 10 minutes before final communications and transponders failure/turned off. On one hand, I have to agree with one prior comment that until I saw a log off log, I'm not sure we can believe much from Malaysian authorities, or the press. Lousy track record and all that jazz... But for now, let's assume there was a formal log off.

I've heard pilots over the years mention that the ability to disable transponders is an important safety feature while in flight. But I don't hear much about the the same for ACARS, or the limited access you have to ACARS thru MCDUs on the pedestal. I have gone back to read older threads here about the value of ACARS, not to mention the insecure communications that are part and parcel of the system.

So two questions:

1: Is there a reason a pilot would voluntarily log off of ACARS?

2: Doesn't ACARS, if it loses VHF communications for a gap of time, request a voice log on at that time, forcing it to SATCOM? In which case, does it go thru it's own "log off" sequence? And isn't it possible that the crew would not notice if they were not depending upon it for weather (great weather that night), or confirming general log in events not needed until later?

The only reason I ask was that I tried some self education on ACARS and any anomalies - or why a crew may voluntary go thru a log off procedure in flight. And what I landed on was Canada's TSB report on the Swiss Air 111 crash back in 1998.

Transportation Safety Board of Canada - AVIATION REPORTS - 1998 - A98H0003 (http://c66.203.200.38.tidc.telus.com/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/1998/a98h0003/02sti/06aircraft/acars.asp)

It probably taught me enough to know I'm even more a clueless novice. So I thought I would put it to the forum for further education.

Personally, can't see much reason for terrorism or suicide. The political views held by Capt Shah are about as far away from militant actions and fundamentalists as possible (pro Demoracy/anti-corruption). Nor would disgruntled attitudes towards Malaysian politics INRE the jailed opposition leader be much of a reason for killing what is a majority of innocent Chinese citizens.

Most importantly, I'd certainly hate to think that pilots' political views have to be considered for employment, or used to destroy reputations as a scapegoat. That's a dangerous precedent.

INRE suicide, according to media accounts, he and his wife had been separated for some time, but were sharing a home. So I can't see existing marital problems as suddenly being a reason for suicide.

All theories around deliberate acts, targeting the crew, start with ACARS... *if* it was deliberately shut down. Thus my questions. My thanks for your explanations, and I'll go back to lurking now.

Boeingrestricted

16th Mar 2014, 20:26

You only occupy either seat (L/R) , because of your PA . Pax don't get on board a remote.

bunk exceeder

16th Mar 2014, 20:27

Someone mentioned DG as being conceivably within range dozens of pages ago. Then the subject of hangars there was mentioned. They're not big enough for the B-52's so they wouldn't be for a 777 either, judging by Google Earth. So that should be the end of that one....

And this has probably been done, but as for the 777 integral ELT, shouldn't SARSAT/коспас pick up any 406 MHz ELT's going off? There has mostly been discussion of search planes and Inmarsat. Sorry if it's a dumb question.

Machinbird

16th Mar 2014, 20:27

It has been a few years since my last low pressure chamber run, but here is what I remember:

Above FL350, even breathing 100% oxygen will not keep your blood oxygen level up and you must pressure breathe.

Pressure breathing is a lot of work and very unnatural, but can keep you going at altitudes of up to 50,000 feet for up to 30 minutes.

If one of the crew or a bad guy had access to pressure breathing equipment, then the climb to high altitude as reported by NYT informant makes ominous sense as a means to disable and possibly terminate all others in the aircraft.

Radar signals recorded by the Malaysian military appeared to show that the missing airliner climbed to 45,000 feet, above the approved altitude limit for a Boeing 777-200, soon after it disappeared from civilian radar and turned sharply to the west, according to a preliminary assessment by a person familiar with the data.
The radar track, which the Malaysian government has not released but says it has provided to the United States and China, showed that the plane then descended unevenly to 23,000 feet, below normal cruising levels, as it approached the densely populated island of Penang.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/world/asia/malaysia-military-radar.html?hp&_r=0

I concur with the first part of post 4377 by xcitation
Assuming the hijack hypothesis are we talking a very skilled pilot with planning or an extremely lucky amateur?

Data points:

Precise timing of disappearance at the minute when switching between Malaysia and Vietnam airspace.
FL450 excursion when heavy requires skillful handling at performance limits (maximum energy climb). [contested by some posters with experience on type. However service ceiling is not absolute ceiling!]
Cruise at FL295 which avoids outbound/inbound traffic.
Follows border between Thailand/Malaysia when crossing peninsula.
Minimal air defense monitoring at night - opportunity to leave the area before dawn when full air defense is active.
A/c avoids areas with active radar coverage.I speculate that the path chosen afterwards depends on the motivation of the hijacker. If a suicide plan, he took the Southern route.
If there was high value cargo, then he took the Northern route.

The Malaysian authorities should have the data for that logical decision point.

Cheerio

16th Mar 2014, 20:28

Astana is 3800 Miles or so. Kerguelen Island is 4000 'ish miles on a rough extrapolation of the Southern arc. Is is feasible? Vallee des Sables would be a lovely quiet place to put down?

mickjoebill

16th Mar 2014, 20:29

Some 737 O2 discussion here on Pprune
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/298833-flight-crew-portable-oxygen.html

This link indicates that at least one portable bottle is pressurized to 1800psi with a flow rate variable to deliver between 7 and 70 minutes.

Are all ten or so portable bottles the same specification?

It raises the issue of hypothermia on the flight deck and instruments freezing (?) if the plan was to keep cabin depressurized beyond the endurance of the emergency O2 supplies available to cabin crew.
Or does 777 have cockpit heating that overcomes the issue, if so can it work for an hour or more?

Mickjoebill

formationdriver

16th Mar 2014, 20:29

Here are the last few pghs of a good peice by James Fallows in the current online issue of THE ATLANTIC:

"I agree about the streaming of black box data. It would be hideously expensive, and black boxes are (at least until now) invariably found.

But I hope this episode (regardless of how it ends) leads to more robust flight tracking. It really is not acceptable that airplanes can vanish over water any more; there are simply too many flights over water, and the incidence of catastrophic events on such flights seems to be once every few years, if this and AF447 are any guide. It does not appear that the combination of ELTs and underwater pingers is nearly reliable enough to dependably locate the site of crashes into large bodies of water.

The structure for such tracking is largely in place with all large modern transports fitted with ADS-B; the remaining tasks seem to be around the robustness of the tracking.
5) On Malaysia. Disasters often have entirely unforeseen political and social effects. Chernobyl, Katrina, the Fukushima nuclear breakdown -- these all became shorthand for points about institutions in those countries and their newly revealed vulnerabilities. A reader in Asia introduces a point that's been on my mind, especially considering my oft-pronounced and sincere enjoyment of Malaysia and its people in the years my family lived there. The reader says:

I've lived/worked there 2X. I like it. the people, country, and most of all, food.

But they have serious problems. In two decades, they're falling behind in the region. To me, its 'crony capitalism', which exists in Indonesia as well (lived/worked there for almost 2 yrs)
This is going to be a millstone around their necks for the immediate future. And it was all preventable-if they had just been honest WITH THEMSELVES.
There is a lot this last note implies that needs to be more fully explained for people unfamiliar with Malaysia's strengths, weaknesses, and similarities and differences with Indonesia. That will have to wait for the next time. Thanks to all who wrote in (and thanks to United for ever-so-slowly closing the WiFi gap with Delta, Alaska, and other airlines)."

Pontius Navigator

16th Mar 2014, 20:31

-- and yes, targeting assets to the T7 when it was still in range might have shed more light on the situation.

But remember that an interceptor has limited range and would have to head back home for gas.

This assumes that the Malaysian Air Force maintains an interceptor on a 15 minute alert. From the time of the turn back it would have taken only about 15 minutes before the target was back overland. It would take almost as much time to determine that a scramble was necessary.

Once the aircraft is overland the interceptor probably has no chance of catching it up because, as you point out, it is fuel limited.

Something with longer range would have to be dispatched, but most maritime patrol aircraft are turboprops and at best could only hope to pick up a blip receding at max range. However an interceptor or patrol aircraft might possibly have given us a track to work from.

What other aircraft could have been used? As you say, a turbo prop would be too slow. You also assume that one was on standby.

The highest alert for a patrol aircraft is usually no more than 60 minutes and more likely 2 hours. Even more likely is that no standby is maintained at night and 3-4 hours being a more likely reaction time.

brika

16th Mar 2014, 20:36

Captain Shah..Surely he's likely to be tired, and this could lead to poor judgement, possible mistakes and short-temperedness, and not the masterminding of a multinational heist or terrorist plot?

Yep, it is possible that with fatigue (and short temperateness, he could have made a monumental mistake by deciding to do something to the flight (and pax). A spur of the moment act thought through from 9:30pm to midnight?

This begs the question as to what he did with FO and pax? Further, what was the ultimate end of MH370 according to the captain's spur of the moment plan?

rigbyrigz

16th Mar 2014, 20:38

Re: "Astana is 3800 Miles or so. Kerguelen Island is 4000 'ish miles on a rough extrapolation of the Southern arc. Is is feasible? Vallee des Sables would be a lovely quiet place to put down?"

With various altitudes and maneuvers of course affecting it, CNN meterologist Chad Myers today has suggested that destinations up to 3000 miles away are the most reasonable realm of possibility, based upon available fuel.

Backseat Dane

16th Mar 2014, 20:39

I'm sorry if this has been touched upon before, but a search in this thread for "fake flight plan " doesn't return any hits. So:

Could whoever piloted MH370 have filed a "fake" IFR flight plan for "Whatever flight XXX/Private XXX" in advance and then, when the aircraft had been disappeared over the ocean in an area without ATC and radar coverage, simply present himself as "Whatever flight XXX/Private XXX" in accordance with the filed flight plan to ATC when entering controlled airspace, set the ACs transponder to the designated squawk and then all of a sudden be a legit flight being able to travel in controlled airspace without anyone including military types noticing (for the time being at least)?

Or would ATC know in advance that "Whatever flight XXX/Private XXX" had in fact never taken off from it's filed origin and therefore flag it as trouble? Does - or rather must - the ATC handing the aircraft off into uncontrolled airspace advise the ATC in the other end that "Whatever flight XXX/Private XXX" is approaching in accordance with filed flight plan?

(With a Mode S XPDR I guess you really can't unless ATC doesn't couple the transponders ID with the ICAO database or doesn't notice the discrepancy, but can the pilot of a 777 toggle the transponders mode and run in ie mode A/C?)

((Asking because I'm trying to weed out a conspiracy that's pretty much off the top))

physicus

16th Mar 2014, 20:40

Pressure breathing equipment is not standard in airliners. It would have had to get on there somehow, and not in a carry on: An O2 tank of sufficient size would cause all sorts of alarms, considering what happened to me and my spinlock life vest on my last transpacific flight! It's got a 20 gram CO2 cartridge in it which made the doozies lose their plots, knickers their twists and all such things.

Having said that, climbing to FL450, depressurising, waiting until you're almost out of O2 yourself (~30-45min?), then descending to a manageable FL295 on a low O2 flow to maximise range sounds like an awesome plan - but not a if you think about it in detail. Out of your 23x specimens in the back, there are at least 10 or so that will come back without permanent damage. Altitude tolerance is extremely individual. I don't think that's a risk I'd take.

I think I like my theory still the best: A spook sliced them open near where contact lost, that might have well resulted in the reported altitude excursion, crew and pax out etc, and subsequent fireball into the ocean. The PSR target then was the spook making its way out of the area, apparently not fully disabled at that stage.

barrel_owl

16th Mar 2014, 20:42

The left turn was pre-programmed into the FMC and noted on an ACARS event log before ACARS stopped (for whatever reason).
Then why did the plane clearly turn right just after the waypoint IGARI?
If the original flight plan had been changed and a new waypoint West of IGARI had been inserted before 1:07 (in order to be allegedly reported in the last ACARS log), supposedly VAMPI, then why do we clearly see the aircraft turning right as per original flight plan indicating he's headed for BITOD, as any other MAS 370 (now MAS 318) did before and after March 8, 2014, before it disappears from secondary radar?

I never saw an aircraft, which is following the flight plan stored in the FMC, turning right when the next point clearly requires a left turn.

Can anyone please care to explain me this?

RetiredF4

16th Mar 2014, 20:44

The disapearance of MH370 was either caused by cascading technical failures followed by a crash or it was a deliberate act, like it is the comunicated official version at the moment. And it is fair to say that we meanwhile see it as the most probable event as well.

A deliberate act to prevent MH370 from reaching its planned destination can only be executed from within the aircraft, from one or more passengers, from one or more crew members, or a combination of both, one single passenger being the most unlikely one in my humble opinion. All passengers and all of the crew are suspects at the moment.

A deliberate act could be a single persons deed like suicide or some kind of personal vandetta, or it could be an outside job with the acting people on board being the mercenaries. A suicide or personal vandetta could be straight forward, get the aircraft and do something weird with it, thereby killing yourself and doing whatever damage you intend to do. I'm no shrink, but i can't see a person with a suicide will go to such detailed planning and execution and missing the final big bang glory, to let everybody know what he did.

That leaves the outside job, from a group with resources, money and motive.

Could that group be some political motivated group from inside or outside malaysia to make some statement and do some damage (terror), or a criminal group with the intent to make money from the load and aircraft (crime)?

If it is some terror scheme, then their aim may be reached by making aircraft and load disappear without trace ( crash it in deep water),or by crashing it in 911 style which did not happen. Other option would be landing it somewhere for the purpose of using its load or / and the aircraft for a later purpose (terror or crime). Landing it in the water would be not an planned option for that last intention, too many unknown risks for the aircraft and the load would be involved. Imagine unloading some tons of gold in the middle of the ocean from a sinking aircraft by hand from the hold. If the load was of interest, the number of suspects is limited to the circle in the know of the shipment, in the first line being the sender and the recepient, as only those both would have the detailed insight about the kind of shipment, the size, the weight, the look alike, the value of the shipment and the planned timing.

Landing the aircraft somewhere on land (normal or crashlanding) needs lots of preparation and logistcs to make sure the place is suitable, the place is deserted at landing time and the infrastructure for the getaway is safe and managable. Furthermore the place must be remote enough that actvities raise no suspicion and remain unobserved from legal forces like military, police and third country survailance systems like satelites. Furthermore, to not get caught later with such a crime all evidence has to disappear somehow pretty soon after landing and stay hidden for quite some time, the best forever.

Such a plot could only be pulled off with the help from powerfull organisations or with the tolerance and assistance of a whole state. Such help would bare great risk in case of failure, therefore the prize to be gained must be worth it in the long term or they don't have to loose anything.

What am i getting at?

1. The disappearance of MH370 was most probably a deliberate act.

2. MH370 was crashed on purpose if it was a personal act.

3. MH370 would have been crashed 911 style or similar, if some terror group wanted to make a statement

4. MH370 could have been hijacked with the intention to land it somewhere, for its load or for criminal or unknown political reasons.

5. Planning for such a landing needs wealthy, influential and powerfull asistance, only states or state organizations can provide.

Now look for somebody along the suspected flightpath with the power, the ability, the will and the reclessness for such a plan.

island_airphoto

16th Mar 2014, 20:44

Question:
If the plane really is intact someplace, what could you DO with it :confused:
No one is going to buy it.
No one is going to buy the parts either.
If you want to do a kamikaze attack, all the sleepy air defense operations are sure as hell awake and looking NOW.

Just don't get it...............

510orbust

16th Mar 2014, 20:45

Acars turned off - Transponder turned off - Acars transmitters would have still pinged satellites hence the ping from the aircraft - Most likely scenario is that it has been shot down for not responding, military radar picked up an unknown aircraft, military jets would have been dispatched to intercept, why is there no mention of this? Now how do the governments tell people and families we had to shoot it down...

galaxy flyer

16th Mar 2014, 20:47

Depends where in the FMS flight plan the new waypoint was entered and then made the active waypoint which was in the ACARS message. It could have been entered after BITOD.

GF

rigbyrigz

16th Mar 2014, 20:50

galaxy flyer

16th Mar 2014, 20:53

510orbust

So, someone onboard took the various actions, documented by independent sources, like the ACARS shutdown and the transponder disabled, while being intercepted and shot down. Is that you're idea?

GF

EDTY

16th Mar 2014, 20:55

You can't rule out human error for working guys at an ATC station....or at a primary military radar.....
Let me tell you a short story, when I served in GAF in the mid 80s. I was a normal soldier which worked shift on a radio support station (GAF) in the upper Bavaria. This station was remote from civilisation, but on a good location where you can operate radio on GHz waves. Our station was also a relay for data channels for example from CRC Freising to Ramstein Air Base, also the former Alpha Jet base (GAF) JbG 49 at Furstenfeldbruck was connected.
Due to the remote location, we had to call the guard post from JbG 49 twice a night, to know them, whether we're allright. During a nightshift at weekend, I did my first call before midnight and all was o.k. . When I made my second call in the next early morning, my call to the guard station failed. Finally I woke up the sergeant and told him what happened. He also didn't get a contact to them. So we decided to phone the local police station, because we didn't know what really happened. So the police went out to air base and found the complete guard soldiers drunken in the barracs, don't ask me what happened with these guys afterwards.....

You see, things happen.... . As a government, I would feel uneasy to admit, that my radar isn't operted well by human error without losing the face :\....

510orbust

16th Mar 2014, 20:57

The authorities are now saying that both systems were turned off, the jet turned off the intended route, was then picked up by military radar, jets would have been sent to intercept, if no response from the flight deck with the aircraft not obeying or trying to communicate with the military jets they would have taken action in my opinion to stop the aircraft being used as a missile. Its much more plausible then the governments saying we just dont know where it is....

LASJayhawk

16th Mar 2014, 20:57

Backseat Dane. That, from an avionics standpoint is doable. You could go A/C on the transponder, or it could be re-strapped in the air to a new ICAO code. I won't go into details on re-strapping it but it would only take 5 min top for an avionics guy. But I would want a test set to make sure I didn't screw up the code.

Maybe we should be playing the ball (the aircraft) and not the player (what happened)

777 drivers. Assuming your running on fumes, 230 pax and luggage, what is the minimum you would need to land and do a full stop? No safety margin or book approved field distance, just assume 0 Kts wind. And assuming you offloaded the pax and luggage, how much to take off again with say 3 hours fuel.

Is there any area in the northern track that would meet the requirements? Abandoned airstrips from WW2, dry lakebeds, etc.

Halfnut

16th Mar 2014, 20:57

'Fanatical' missing Malaysia Airlines plane pilot pictured wearing political T-shirt | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2581817/Doomed-airliner-pilot-political-fanatic-Hours-taking-control-flight-MH370-attended-trial-jailed-opposition-leader-sodomite.html)

Sober Lark

16th Mar 2014, 20:58

"MH370 would have been crashed 911 style or similar, if some terror group wanted to make a statement"

And after 9/11 reinforced cockpit doors were introduced to shore up the vulnerability of the cockpit from terrorist threats from the passenger cabin.

As I see it today, if the threat comes from within the cockpit we now have an argument against the use of secure doors.

GotoDengo

16th Mar 2014, 20:59

Last night Indian newspapers suggested not all radar units were "awake" (I posted a link). The longer this sad, sorry affair goes on the harder it feels to accept any official statement on face value.

I don't find this that surprising. I remember an analysis of the Bin Laden raid, and one of the reasons the US felt they could sneak in, is that Pakistan did not have much western-facing military radar; India is their only real foe in the region (discounting the US presence in Afghanistan) so most of, and the best, radar assets are pointed east.

I suspect India's strategy is much the same. They don't fear anyone coming in from the east -- most of their assets are directed at Pakistan and to a lesser degree China -- so the military radar there is likely to be inferior and coverage more spotty. The fact that nobody was paying attention to a low-risk area is an embarrassment for India, but not that surprising to me.

redmin888

16th Mar 2014, 20:59

Mickjoebill

Crew O2 has 2 setting continuous flow or on demand. How long it last is relative to how hard you breath and the setting selected. And each individual is different. If there is a decompression in in the cabin. One of the priority of the flight crew besides putting on their O2 mass is to reduce their altitude as fast as they can to get to an altitude where they do not need to depend on having oxygen. Believe me the 1800psi do not last as long as you think if you are breathing fast and hard. (how fast does your 32psi tyre deflate?)

The pax cabin has 12 to 16, (depending on configuration) 1800 psi bottle all connected together to feed the whole pax cabin. It only supply O2 when the mask is pulled towards you and not when it is just hanging down. How long is last is relative too. A fully loaded aircraft will use the O2 faster. So they are relying on the flight crew to get it down to a breathable altitude asap.

Zeflo27

16th Mar 2014, 20:59

Could a four-year-old thriller unlock the mystery of flight MH370? ? Telegraph Blogs (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100263838/could-a-four-year-old-thriller-hold-the-key-to-unlocking-the-mystery-of-malaysian-airlines-flight-370/)

barrel_owl

16th Mar 2014, 21:01

Reuters March 14:

"The military track suggests it then turned sharply westwards, heading towards a waypoint called "Vampi", northeast of Indonesia's Aceh province and a navigational point used for planes following route N571 to the Middle East."

...not sure where poster suggesting right turn at IGARI got their info?
Did you care to watch the flightradar24 playback?
Anyway, here is the text description of the behavior of MAS370 from Aviation Safety:

The Boeing 777-2H6ER took off from Kuala Lumpur Interational Airport's runway 32R at 00:41 and climbed to a cruising altitude of FL350.
Data of flight tracking website Flightradar24 show that the flight flew a 25° course towards the IGARI waypoint. Overhead IGARI, at 01:20, the flight changed course to 40°. Last contact recorded by Flightradar24 was at 01:20 at 175 km NNE off the Malaysian coast and 223 km SW off the Vietnamese coast, just within the Singapore FIR, 6 km northeast of IGARI. Malaysian officials reported that the civial radar lost contact at 01:30 at a position 2 km south of IGARI.
I repeat my question: how can an aircraft make a clear right turn (from 25° to 40°) after a waypoint if the alleged next point pre-programmed in the FMC requires a left-turn?