Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost [Archive] - Page 24

hornet22

18th Mar 2014, 19:17

Intel 101

The captain immediately did exactly what he had been trained to do: turn the plane toward the closest airport so he could land.

From the point of last contact, RMAF Air base Kuantan would have been on the reciprocal track back towards KL. If you look at Google Maps this will be evident. This was without doubt the nearest divert airfield with Fire Services.

Kuantan is a Fast Jet Base which has Mig 29, F/A-18D and other FJ assets.

Langkawai would have been at least three times the distance and around 60-70 degrees of the reciprocal track to Kuantan.

A "land as soon as possible - nearest divert" wouldn't equate to Langkawi or Penang airfield for that matter.

Good post, however imho unlikely.

Cheers

EDMJ

18th Mar 2014, 19:19

So the aircraft was allegedly seen at 06:15 (local) in the morning over a Maledivian island. That's quite early for many people (still sleeping or just gettting up) and only a couple of minutes after local sunrise (= not the best light to spot airliner paintschemes in)....

ManaAdaSystem

18th Mar 2014, 19:21

The captain and co-pilot tried to find the source of the smoke and fire. They switched off electrical "busses" to try to isolate it, in the process turning off systems like the transponder and ACARs automated update system (but not, presumably, the autopilot, which was flying the plane). They did not issue a distress call, because in a midair emergency your priorities are "aviate, navigate, communicate" — in that order. But smoke soon filled the cockpit and overwhelmed them (a tire fire could do this). The pilots passed out or died.

A pilot would know that we have oxygen masks in the cockpit...and the first course of action would be to put them on.

EPPO

18th Mar 2014, 19:22

I don't think the Maldives account and the Inmarsat tracks can be consistent. If Inmarsat hold to their technical knowledge about their system, then the Maldives witness account has to be spurious.

Agree. Moreover, if the Maldives sighting took place at 06:15, and there were pings at 11 minutes past each hour, one of them should match. But strangely, it seems we only have the timing (=angle) data for the last two pings.

Anyway, it's nearly impossible to sort out what info is verifiable. Garbage in, garbage out.

helimutt

18th Mar 2014, 19:24

A pilot would know that we have oxygen masks in the cockpit...and the first course of action would be to put them on.

and a pilot would also know that turning on extra oxygen in the event of a fire may just lead to a bigger fire!

I agree with Romeo ET

Ornis

18th Mar 2014, 19:26

Does Acars send data routinely for Boeing's and Rolls Royce's use, even if the airline in not paying for a maintenance programme?

awblain

18th Mar 2014, 19:26

EPPO,

Even then… the Maldives are across the red track from starting point. It would have to have doubled back.

The timings of a satellite communications operator shouldn't be garbage, but there may be snafus being incorporated into the information appearing.

ribt4t

18th Mar 2014, 19:29

and a pilot would also know that turning on extra oxygen in the event of a fire may just lead to a bigger fire!

Not really considering it feeds a mask attached to his face. It's still the first order of business if there's smoke or the smell of smoke in the cockpit.

LASJayhawk

18th Mar 2014, 19:29

Once again. If the waypoint change was reported via ACARS at 1:07

WHY DID IT TAKE 10 DAYS to realize this information.

It's a text message :mad: TEN :mad: DAYS.

Either they are oblivious to everything, or this report is untrue like most reports have been.

ManaAdaSystem

18th Mar 2014, 19:31

and a pilot would also know that turning on extra oxygen in the event of a fire may just lead to a bigger fire!

I agree with Romeo ET

Goodie, so your first action if the cockpit filled with smoke would be to???

INTEL101

18th Mar 2014, 19:32

Would correspond with what the oil rig worker saw.

YouNeverStopLearning

18th Mar 2014, 19:32

Question for B777 pilots. Sorry if this has already been discussed but there are too many pages to read:
I don't know this particular airspace.
If this aircraft suffered a total or substantial electrical failure, this being at night, would any of the actions documented or released so far be reasonable?
This is a substantially electrical aircraft and the "10 to the power of whatever" event that is a total electrical failure at night can occur.
Turn back is is understandable, but they didn't quite make it round to anywhere near to 180 degrees...
I wonder how well light up the Southern Thailand peninsula is?
Was it a moonlight night?
What was the cloud situation that night?
Is it easy to read the wet compass on a B777?
How long can the batteries sustain the Standby Instruments if the electrical failure removes any charging to the batteries or power to the emergency bus? 30 minutes? I.E. having a RAT did not help...
Is there a scenario where a forced landing on the sea might not create sufficient G-force to automatically trigger the ELT, yet still power the "ping" to the satellite the press are going on and on and on and on about?
If the forced landing was at the limit of the fuel endurance range to the South or SW, would anyone detect the 30 day DFDR transmission, from the deap sea? and if the ELT was not triggered, is there any other kit that floats that could be used by crew manually from either floating in the sea in lifejackets or in liferafts/slides?

Mesoman

18th Mar 2014, 19:33

Per the recent discussion on what additional satellite ping data (about which we have not been given info) could provide...

It is unlikely that the additional pings would tell us exactly where the aircraft was. But... it would change the probabilities regarding possible flight paths and thus possible end points. In other words, it almost certainly would allow additional refinement of probabilities along the final ping path.

Expert SAR techniques (such as by the US Civil Air Patrol) use probability to allocate assets to search areas. Higher probability sectors get more assets, sooner. As a sector is searched, the probability of not seeing the target if it is really there is used to assign a new probability to that sector, ultimately altering overall probabilities and subsequent assignments. Certainly some agencies are using these techniques in this search. *Any* information may be used to adjust probabilities.

Finally, I have yet to see a definitive source for the accuracy of the ping arcs. If timing is used, one mile of slant range (from satellite to aircraft) corresponds to about 10 microseconds of round trip latency. Uncertainties in this are introduced by any variation in the latency within the aircraft's satellite system, the precision of measurement at the satellite, and the resolution of the logged time. If signal strength is used, uncertainties are likely higher.

That the estimated last ping is located exactly on the 40 degree antenna tilt angle (a circle of constant range from the bird) suggests that the accuracy is not high. Otherwise, we'd more likely see something like 38.52 degrees, or whatever.

Hopefully, someone will find a definitive answer to this question, to satisfy the curiosity of some of us, if nothing else.

SLFplatine

18th Mar 2014, 19:34

Quote:
Then PF locks the cockpit door and does whatever he wants...

Okay, so why enter the course change in the first place before disabling ACARS if ACARS will report the wp change?
Only possible reason if this were the meticulously planned event by said PF (or persons unknown), and underline if, would be to leave a false trail. Thus the world has been searching in the wrong place for 10 days?

MPN11

18th Mar 2014, 19:40

@ overthewing ....greenhouses?

Remember some early imagery of "debris" that turned out to be dozens of illuminated greenhouses? "Fruit in season" doesn't happen much any more, especially when customers are prepared to have it air-freighted.

D.S.

18th Mar 2014, 19:41

LASJayhawk (http://www.pprune.org/members/414344-lasjayhawk) said

Once again. If the waypoint change was reported via ACARS at 1:07

WHY DID IT TAKE 10 DAYS to realize this information.

It's a text message :mad: TEN :mad: DAYS.

Either they are oblivious to everything, or this report is untrue like most reports have been.

There are reports that US officials are still attempting, yet being denied, access to the Flight Simulator.

It is possible the people Malaysia had interpreting the message either missed or concealed the fact (neither would be the first time in this investigation, sadly) until other officials were eventually given access to the hard data

It is also possible they all knew all along but were holding back the information until other information was leaked/released (similar to a few key pieces of confirmed "turning around" evidence that seemingly hit after it was leaked the plane was in the air much longer than first revealed)

I agree it is questionable, but it is possibly only that because we are not part of the investigation - we only know what the investigators tell us, when they decide to tell us stuff

rampstriker

18th Mar 2014, 19:45

INMARSAT ping received, as apparently Boeing's AHM report attempted to automatically transmit (thru Satellite)

The Boeing AHM system did not generate the pings as it was not activated. The hourly pings were generated by Inmarsat (initial ping from satellite and subsequent pings from the plane) for satcom service channel access (in case data was transmitted).

Here's a superbly informative post from yesterday with details. Many missed it apparently due to moderator approval time lag. (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-263.html#post8383477)

DaveReidUK

18th Mar 2014, 19:46

to fly equidistant from the satellite would require a non-great circle along the red arc

Why so? You can construct a GC between any two points on the globe, including any pair of points on that arc.

We only know that the aircraft was equidistant from the satellite at two specific points in time.

EPPO

18th Mar 2014, 19:48

@awblain
Even then… the Maldives are across the red track from starting point. It would have to have doubled back.

Right... Maldives fall roughly at the 75º circle from the sat footprint. Definitely, the plane [reportedly] seen there is not the same as the one that was pinged within the 40º arch a couple of hours later.

jugofpropwash

18th Mar 2014, 19:50

Quote:
Then PF locks the cockpit door and does whatever he wants...

Okay, but why enter the wp in the first place before shutting down ACARS which will report a wp change?

Because that's not the final direction, and is meant as a red herring? Or because the timeline is tight, and he needs to turn at that point so as to keep to the route he's already laid out?

albatross

18th Mar 2014, 19:51

Just a thought but should there not be a tape of all comms from ATC to the aircraft including Ground, clearance delivery, tower, departure or centre?
Should these tapes not provide an opportunity for voice recognition software to confirm who was talking when and what was said.
I am sure everybody would like to see a complete transcript of the last contact both from ATC and the aircraft.

Sorry if I was unclear in the original post. What I meant to ask was why have the authorities not referred to them. It would clear up, at least, the actual terminology used in the last contact.

D.S.

18th Mar 2014, 19:51

bsieker (http://www.pprune.org/members/183953-bsieker) said

D.S.,

sorry, I may have missed it, but where does it say that Boeing initiated or received, or tried to receive/transmit anything to/from this airplane?
...
My understanding is that the pings are only between that satcom installation on the aircraft and INMARSAT. If someone else initiated these pings I must have missed something.

I have read in numerous reports the pings are from an attempted Boeing AHM connection, and that it doesn't include data because MAH is not signed up for that report.

That does not mean Boeing initiated contact, just what would regularly be a scheduled contact was attempted regarding a Boeing report that would normally be transmitted to MAH if the contract had been purchased.

I would have to assume Boeing has a contract with INMARSAT in which each of their planes automatically attempts this contact, making future purchase/cessation of the airlines contract to receive said data easy to accomplish with a simple update.

Ornis

18th Mar 2014, 19:59

DS, doesn't make a lot of sense to set up a "link" unless you use it. I repeat:

Does Acars send data routinely for Boeing's and Rolls Royce's use, even if the airline is not paying for a maintenance programme?

GarageYears

18th Mar 2014, 20:00

I keep seeing questions related to why the SATCOM system was sent pings, etc, and discussion related to ACARS use, MAS subscription to the ACARS reporting service to Boeing (or not), but isn't it also the case that the SATCOM transceivers at ALSO available for voice comms?

cairnshouse

18th Mar 2014, 20:02

@overthewing

And it doesn't seem like the mangosteen crop is early this year.

(from a Malaysian newspaper on Monday)

Dry spell causes drop in fruit production | theSundaily (http://www.thesundaily.my/news/988635)

oldoberon

18th Mar 2014, 20:26

I may misunderstand this but if there was constant spacing (between rings?) then it would indicate flight along a radial from the nadir.

Any other angle would eventually result in flight on the tangent or for a short time effectively along the ring.

have to be on the radial to get the maximum space between rings, any other angle will reduce the ring spacing. after ring 2 look at the distance to ring two, if less than that for a radial note how much less.

npw treat ring 2 as your start again you know the max to ring three on a radial, if at ring 3 ping that distance is less than the radial spacing distance, note the difference.

compare the two noted differences if they are the same the plane is on a constant heading, that si the only info I could get from the previous ping rings.

Now I don't believe the 60, 55, 50 45 etc rings are the only fixed points he could come up at 38, 33 etc

Shadoko

18th Mar 2014, 20:28

FR24 : if you look at a "rewind" of what was ("legally" I suppose...) in the sky near between Kabul and Mazari Sharif (Aghanistan) on the 3/08 at 00:00 UTC (that is 8am Malaysian Time, 11 minutes before "last ping" of MH370), you find 4 a/c (direct link below in the post):
- THA960 (TG960 / THA960), B777 (HS-TKQ)
- KLM872 (KL872 / KLM872), A330 (PH-AKD)
- BAW142 (BA142 / BAW142), B747 (G-CIVC)
- TSO9184 (UN9184 / TSO9184), B767 (EI-DBG)
On planefinder.net, the three first are found with routes consistent with where they show on FR24 (on the right day):
THA960 : BKK to ARN
KL872 : DEL to AMS,
BAW142 : DEL to LHR
But for the TSO9184, planefinder doesn't find it on a search by UN9184 nor TSO9184, but finds it by EI-DBG and tells it was (on 2014-03-07) on the route CUN to DME as flight UN9184 (so the one near Mazari Sharif on the same day). And tells also it is a B763 (vs B767 on FR24). It is also found by direct typing of the searched address (see below).

On FR24, the flihgt TSO9184 disappears at 00:12 or 00:13
Flight disappearing for some minutes on FR24 is not uncommon, and KL872 disappears also at the same time and at 00:19 just the BA142 is remaining, and after 00:28 nothing in the sky near Mazari Sharif ! Probable problems with air data.
But what about the same a/c (EI-DBG) flying NE in Afghanistan and between Cancun and Moscow the same day? Some mispelling anywhere?

"Replay" from 03-08 00:01 between Kabul and Mazari Sharif : Flightradar24.com - Live flight tracker! (http://www.flightradar24.com/2014-03-08/00:01/12x/TSO9184/2d8435f)
UN9184 flight info - Plane Finder (http://planefinder.net/data/flights/UN9184)

Is it "business as usual"? And so, not very more useful than newspapers?

Sorry if all this is some more trash :uhoh:

brika

18th Mar 2014, 20:30

Right... Maldives fall roughly at the 75º circle from the sat footprint. Definitely, the plane [reportedly] seen there is not the same as the one that was pinged within the 40º arch a couple of hours later.

Roger that....and how would they have escaped the Diego Garcia sphere of surveillance?:hmm:

sycamore

18th Mar 2014, 20:35

Ref the Maldives sighting;a `Mega Maldives 767 `landed about 0600-30, lots of other local traffic,also upper transit stuff.

SLFplatine

18th Mar 2014, 20:38

Likely what is being reported as the cargo is based on the manifest. Inasmuch as airplane cargo is crated no one really would have noticed whether or not what was going into the cargo hold was what the manifest claimed it to be.

joelnthailand

18th Mar 2014, 20:42

For the Sat pings (besides the one at 8:11), was any information on the satellite distance arcs provided?

brika

18th Mar 2014, 20:44

Turn back is is understandable, but they didn't quite make it round to anywhere near to 180 degrees...

Malaysia-today postulates that "The Malaysia military took full delivery of one of the advanced Thales Raytheon Systems early last year with an integrated Sentry command and control system and the Ground Master 400 3D radar.

According to Thales, the MADGE system operates in real-time and features multi-radar tracking and a flexible human-machine interface.

The GM 400 radar also provides long-range surveillance capabilities for the Royal Malaysian Air Force.

Its reach is up to 400 km and it is more than sufficient to detect the MH370." Further " It is now clear that the four-man crew in the three air defence stations, who were supposed to be watching the radar screens, either did not notice or failed to report to their superiors that an unidentified plane was flying across the country."

So a high tech radar system was unmonitored and then when the lights came on, formed the basis of the turnback.

Possible scenarios along corridor routes then.:suspect:

Ornis

18th Mar 2014, 20:46

If the aircraft was shot down soon after it turned back where did the pings over the next several hours come from? These were detected independent of Malayasia.

felixthecat

18th Mar 2014, 20:48

Must have missed it somewhere in the preceding 250 odd pages, but where did the info that the aircraft climbed to 450 come from? Secondary turned off so no mode C, so where was it from and what was the timescale ie just after turn back or when?

Mahatma Kote

18th Mar 2014, 20:54

should there not be a tape of all comms from ATC to the aircraft

See Listen to Live ATC (Air Traffic Control) Communications | LiveATC.net (http://www.liveatc.net/)

Listen to the archives from WMKK for 16:30 UTC 7 March onwards. Takeoff was at 16:41 UTC

brika

18th Mar 2014, 20:54

If the aircraft was shot down soon after it turned back

Now where did you get the idea and evidence that the a/c was shot down soon after turnback?:confused:

125.77

18th Mar 2014, 20:55

If the FO was in the flight deck and made the last radio transmission but then didn't re-establish comms with the next ATC, and with systems shutting down 2 minutes after that, I'm thinking it is highly likely he was in the flight deck. It seems unusual to decide to go for a bathroom break or similar at that short time between the radio calls.
Also, if there's any night you don't want the Captain paying too close attention, that was a good night. We know he had a long, stressful day(s) and no doubt had the day's events heavily on his mind. I wouldn't be surprised if the Captain was already resting in the cabin when things started to go wrong.

I'd like to know more about the FO...did he have any associates / friends onboard? Were they in the flight deck with him? Maybe he even had a simulator at home too. Lots of focus seems to be on the Captain but something isn't adding up with the FO either.

awblain

18th Mar 2014, 20:56

DaveReidUK,

Why so? You can construct a GC between any two points on the globe, including any pair of points on that arc.

We only know that the aircraft was equidistant from the satellite at two specific points in time.

The reply was to a comment that the aircraft could be flying rather than stopped, and still remain equidistant from the satellite (if it ever was) - but that only works if it flies so that it's on the red arc at two points an hour apart. The red arc is not great circle. The coincidence for it to fly for an hour on a route that links two points on an arc equidistant from the satellite seems unlikely.

Without having information about the other satellite details though, it remains an enigma, and the only thing that's available is the red arc from Inmarsat.

funfly

18th Mar 2014, 21:00

The first officer made a laid back radio response after the problems started. This is the whole mystery of the scenario.

That is, of course, unless the first officer was unaware at the time that major systems had been put out of action prior to him giving the RT response.

oldoberon

18th Mar 2014, 21:00

The circles (assuming that more than one could be plotted, which now seems in doubt) would be 60 minutes apart, because that's how often the satellite pings the aircraft.

The only deduction that could reasonably be made would be if the spacing between two successive rings turned to be equal to the maximum distance that the aircraft could fly in an hour. Then it would follow (as previously suggested) that the track must be along the radius of the rings, but of course that doesn't identify which radial.

If two hourly rings are spaced closer together, then it's hard to see how anything can be deduced in respect of track or groundspeed.

But as it seems that only one ring is known, it's all a bit academic.

But if 3rd hourly ping is at the same reduced spacing to the 2nd one , as the 2nd one is to the 1st one that constant spacing tells you it is on a constant heading/trk but nothing about that heading or track.. Do you agree that?

Now you may think that is unimportant or of no use others will disagree a) it is an extra known and B) in IMHO it indicates a flight south, constant track north is eventually going to be spotted by the ground or another aircraft visually.

There was also another post by someone on rhumb lines and loxodromes and he reckons with the other ping arcs you could calculate track and heading do a search on the thread. Way over me.

awblain

18th Mar 2014, 21:02

Be careful with interpreting the "40 degrees" of the red arc.

The angle from the satellite to the opposite limbs of the Earth is only about 19 degrees, since it's very high.

The 40 degrees is the elevation angle of the satellite from the aircraft. [Thanks Sensor Validation]

brika

18th Mar 2014, 21:05

A Startlingly Simple Theory About the Missing Malaysia Airlines Jet | Autopia | Wired.com

No sensationalism, just common sense and a practical explanation that fits all the events.

Just try to fit that with 3 radar centers equipped with high tech equip. albeit asleep, but recording + normally fairly heavy air-routes crossing that area.:uhoh:

awblain

18th Mar 2014, 21:06

flash8,

But if it was shot down near Malaysia, even at 5000 feet, someone would have found wreckage at sea or on the ground.

Then the "red arcs" would have to be nonsense; why would Inmarsat damage its reputation by publicizing nonsense?

AlbertaGirl

18th Mar 2014, 21:06

Skyman01, thanks for posting the link. A sensible theory until we know what happened.

Some of the conjecture is so outlandish it's scary and the worst is maligning reputations of the pilots without proof.

Rengineer

18th Mar 2014, 21:08

Prompted by this remark a few pages back:

Quote:
The captain immediately did exactly what he had been trained to do: turn the plane toward the closest airport so he could land.

From the point of last contact, RMAF Air base Kuantan would have been on the reciprocal track back towards KL.
(...)
Langkawai would have been at least three times the distance and around 60-70 degrees of the reciprocal track to Kuantan.

A "land as soon as possible - nearest divert" wouldn't equate to Langkawi or Penang airfield for that matter (...)

The original assumption was that a possible scenario was smoke in the cockpit, which caused the pilots to "aviate, navigate, communicate" and start by turning off stuff to try and stop what might have been a fire or an electrical fault generating smoke. Let's assume for a moment that it was the communications equipment that had a failure; that's not unheard of as far as I understand. Let us also assume that the pilots may not have been at the top of their performance, given the time of day and an uneventful flight. Does it sound preposterous to you experts to propose it might have happened like this:
- Comms equipment develops electrical problem, fails shortly after A/C leaves Malaysian airspace
- Pilots start trying to identify the source of the problem, and in doing so also switch off the radar transponder and eventually unselect ACARS
- At the same time, being trained pilots, they divert, but fail to recognize Kuantan as their best option and instead head towards Langkawi or Penang (for whatever reason - stress, familiarity, you name it)
- Things continue to go pear shaped and the pilots' actions start to become erratic, leading eventually to the plane steering a course over the open ocean which otherwise doesn't make sense.

I would be first to accept that the scenario is weak and can't explain why the aircraft would follow the arc that it seems to have done, but at least there is no Blofeld-style supervillain needed here. What do you think?

oldoberon

18th Mar 2014, 21:11

Speed of sound,

You're right - to fly equidistant from the satellite would require a non-great circle along the red arc. If the ACARS was powered off, the alleged miscreants wouldn't think they needed to worry about that, and would it even enter their heads what Inmarsat logged about data signals for Rolls Royce, and where their satellites were located?

If there are prior distance measurements, then they will help. They'll give a time to some unknown point on the arc, and thus constrain possible paths between points on the different arcs.

If the Inmarsat signal has a frequency measured in fine channels, which it probably doesn't, and better a change in frequency from signal to signal, since the properties of the transmitter aren't known, that might even add a point measurement of line-of-sight speed which would help improve the possible paths it could have taken.

Not sure what you mean by fine channels but the inmarsat in use there has global beam ( the area footprint and regional beams within that that add up to the same coverage, it does not have the narrow beam of the next generation 1-4 alpha sats.

jeanlyon

18th Mar 2014, 21:13

I read that Chris Goodfellow blog a couple of days ago and it made perfect sense, even though I am not a pilot, but know quite a few. I wonder if they are searching that sea area on a line SW of Langkawi.

aerobat77

18th Mar 2014, 21:14

Is it so implausible, that control of the aircraft was taken by someone hostile, and that the Malaysian authorities , having seen it turning back towards KL , with none , or a bad, response to their queries, decided , simply , to shoot it down ?

this thread starts really to go FUBAR :8

Yes, the malaysian military shoots down a malaysian widebody with +200 people on board - over malaysian mainland because they believe it must be somebody bad on board since the plane returns. they do it with a super secret missile so absolutely no wreckege is found by 26 countries searching after the shoot down . i tend to agree this is the most probable scenario, well put :ok:

covtom

18th Mar 2014, 21:17

Far too logical. Will never attain V1.

deadheader

18th Mar 2014, 21:19

The missing data/arcs deduced from earlier pings tells us either:

They don't have the data

or

They do have the data but don't wish to publicly release it [at this stage]

I suspect its the latter (since INMARSATs business is, afterall, data), but I'm afraid that opens up a whole host of new questions, some of which are quite political/troubling...

Jetstream67

18th Mar 2014, 21:24

Its shame my original post on the 10th has vanished. To recap

I commented that the initial rate of turn and subsequent direction would hold some clues.
The rate of turn has still not been reported, lets guess it was 1 or 0.5 ?

I commented on Primary radar which I was told was not available . .
Just to nudge that radar debate along: Even Air Defence Primary radar is sometimes quite inaccurate on altitude, although it does estimate altitude .. so someone needs to fly the route in a 777-200 and see what range of altitudes a level flight returns on each of the same radar screens and where. Then they need to fly the Satellite 40 degree route using the same equipment for similar reasons

I've still not heard of all mobile operators in the region being asked to search for registration attempts by any phone on the flight . .

In fact Sherlock Holmes would be pretty much in despair by now . . .

JanetFlight

18th Mar 2014, 21:25

FJDG its not so secretive as many wonder or wish to be. FYI its used as an official civil ETOPS alt in the Indian Ocean, and some Civil airliners//airlines also are flying there from time to time. Portuguese (my country and aviation colleagues) Air Luxor, (nowadays HiFly) used to went there on very regular basis operating for UK and Oz DoD's with their A330s. Some videos and pics right here on my laptop btw.
Base has more than 3500 staff, between mil and civil, US&UK...so, they are all maintaining a T7 under their noses without saying a single word, sitting shiny on the paradisiac sunny ramp, and feeding/homing almost 300 souls including children in total secrecy?...dont think so :p
Another interesting theory to debate...how many pages this very thread are goin to reach?...i bet 373
PS: Indian Ocean its indeed immense and vast...as well as the West Xinjiang Province.

awblain

18th Mar 2014, 21:29

oldoberon,

I meant that if there is any spectral information recorded, you could get a Doppler shift from the received frequency at the satellite.

Unless the aircraft is flying on a track perpendicular to the satellite, like the red arc, it has an approach or recession velocity, and so could give a link between direction and speed, depending on whether the signal from the aircraft was sufficiently narrow and consistent in frequency to measure the shift hour by hour, and the satellite measures frequency sufficiently precisely.

I suspect it doesn't.

I agree with you that the Inmarsat-3 over the Indian Ocean has a single beam that offers coverage out to 82 degrees away from the point beneath the satellite measured around the Earth.

Above The Clouds

18th Mar 2014, 21:30

From the quality and content of a large proportion of the posts here, I would guess they are coming from the media, which could be indicated by the number of first time posters.

Some of the theories are quite alarming to say the least, and if people stopped repeating the same questions and info the whole thread would most likely be 50% smaller with more factual information.

rampstriker

18th Mar 2014, 21:31

The missing data/arcs deduced from earlier pings tells us either:

They don't have the data

or

They do have the data but don't wish to publicly release it [at this stage]

It's unlikely Inmarsat kept anything but the last ping, but perhaps a US spy satellite logged all of them?

EPPO

18th Mar 2014, 21:32

The missing data/arcs deduced from earlier pings tells us either:
They don't have the data
or
They do have the data but don't wish to publicly release it [at this stage]

Knowing the round trip times for all pings, and assuming MH370 maintained a constant ground speed, plotting the course hour by hour would be a trivial matter.

It's understandable that INMARSAT doesn't publicly release all the data, but I suppose it's been made available to selected parties in order to guide the search efforts.

funfly

18th Mar 2014, 21:34

Above The Clouds.

Stay cool, it's a gossip forum not a debating society.

D.S.

18th Mar 2014, 21:35

Ornis (http://www.pprune.org/members/303940-ornis)

DS, doesn't make a lot of sense to set up a "link" unless you use it. I repeat:

Does Acars send data routinely for Boeing's and Rolls Royce's use, even if the airline is not paying for a maintenance programme? Yes it does. Seems easier to just set up a predetermined automatic periodic "I'm active - do you have any reports for me?/"can I send you a report?" type connection on absolutely everything coming off the line than to try to establish/disconnect such a connection each time an airline might subscribe/unsubscribe from whatever contract(s) - which also includes each time a plane is taken out of an airlines service, so it is not only an airline subscribes/unsubscribes situation.

We also have a couple mentions that almost every airline subscribes to such/similar reports, so not getting it/something is seemingly the exception, not the rule, making the predetermined connection even more likely, imo

Besides, obviously there was such a connection here (well, based off the information we have been told) so why are we questioning it? But even if you really just insisted on knowing why, would you not be better off taking that up with INMARSAT/MAH/Boeing? I mean, how am I supposed to be able to perfectly explain all the thoughts behind what they have supposedly done?

And I am not sure either way if Boeing/RR definitely receives a copy of all ACARS reports (I would think there are some they do, some they just don't have need to know and therefore don't. Boeing & RR bother say they don't have "data" from this one, so obviously some reports they don't, right?) But regardless, either way I am pretty sure it has no barring on the confirmed attempted connection between INMARSAT & the Plane that we supposedly know about because it was an attempt to connect for a non-subscribed Boeing AHM report.

Above The Clouds

18th Mar 2014, 21:39

PositiveCynic
Now surely instinct these days is to grab for your mobile first - maybe even video the event! So it just appears odd that there is not a single piece of mobile transmission evidence appearing. A "ghost" plane with the pilots knocked out behind a security door run on autopilot would surely have every device owned by anyone still conscious at back on speed dial. Even in a hypoxia situation, then surely at least one phone would have been switched on by someone in distress and stayed on for the remaining time of flight.

The fact that they may have been over the sea and from what I understand there aren't to many floating cell phone masts in the middle of the ocean :ooh: might explain the lack of social media events at the time.

As for your statement regarding hypoxia, read about the subject first it might give you an understanding why they couldn't turn on a phone let alone use it.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

aerobat77

18th Mar 2014, 21:39

Even in a hypoxia situation, then surely at least one phone would have been switched on by someone in distress and stayed on for the remaining time of flight.

how many radio masts do you assume to be present over the indian ocean to logon with the cellphone ? even over land it will not work in 35000 feet.

GarageYears

18th Mar 2014, 21:44

jugofpropwash

18th Mar 2014, 21:45

200+ passengers sitting in the back with mobile devices.

Now surely instinct these days is to grab for your mobile first - maybe even video the event! So it just appears odd that there is not a single piece of mobile transmission evidence appearing. A "ghost" plane with the pilots knocked out behind a security door run on autopilot would surely have every device owned by anyone still conscious at back on speed dial. Even in a hypoxia situation, then surely at least one phone would have been switched on by someone in distress and stayed on for the remaining time of flight.

Our former tv weather and science guy wrote a good explanation of why cells don't work from the air. It's here:
Why Cell Phones Don?t Work (Well) From The Air ? My Permanent Record (http://www.geofffox.com/MT/archives/2014/03/15/why-cell-phones-dont-work-well-from-the-air.php)

flown-it

18th Mar 2014, 21:50

[QUOTE]I cannot help but still think its a catastrophic loss of electrical power, similar to to uncapping the battery switch and turning it off.......poof...instant darkness, no back up stby power....just total silence.

The engines will continue to work, being totally capable of suction feed only, as long as no large thrust changes are made./QUOTE]

Lots been said about total electrical failure.

The Rollers on my plane are certified to my 51,000 ceiling BUT RR only guarantees them to suction feed to 20,000.

So what ceiling will the Rollers suction to on the T7? If closer to my 20K then MH370 could never have flown for the 7 plus hours. Thus total electrical failure seems unlikely.:=
Answers from T7 drivers please.

Space Jet

18th Mar 2014, 21:51

@Mahatma Kote

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-post8374421.html#post8374421

BoughtMyPoints

18th Mar 2014, 21:57

MH used to have a very peculiar routing KUL-JNB-CPT-EZE, involving 2 trans oceanic legs.

albatross

18th Mar 2014, 22:02

Just a thought but should there not be a tape of all comms from ATC to the aircraft including Ground, clearance delivery, tower, departure or centre?
Should these tapes not provide an opportunity for voice recognition software to confirm who was talking when and what was said.
I am sure everybody would like to see a complete transcript of the last contact both from ATC and the aircraft.

Sorry if I was unclear in my original post. What I meant to ask was why have the authorities not referred to them. It would clear up, at least, the actual terminology used in the last contact.

paddylaz

18th Mar 2014, 22:11

http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article3258295.ece/ALTERNATES/s510b/malaysia-3258295.jpg

awblain

18th Mar 2014, 22:12

It's unlikely Inmarsat kept anything but the last ping, but perhaps a US spy satellite logged all of them?

Hopefully... but it wouldn't have the time of flight measured for a call and reply signal, so the location might not be up to much.

Maybe the hourly broadcast from the aircraft (in response to the satellite's call?) is precise enough in time to be measurable to 20ms each hour (or Inmarsat's broadcasts were snaffled up too). If both signals are heard by a Three Letter Agency, then the various times of flight should allow that all to be put together.

paddylaz

18th Mar 2014, 22:15

someone found it on tomnod.....not familiar with the website so not sure what the deal is....mirror is reporting it

D.S.

18th Mar 2014, 22:15

It is being reported that the US has requested Malaysia to "be transparent" and share the known information to eliminate confusion and speculation

...we might be on the verge of a huge and/or unbelievably interesting data-dump which will hopefully answer a lot of the questions and/or ideally stop a few of the many 'what-if...' theories

JanetFlight

18th Mar 2014, 22:16

what is that?

Air Bagan Fokker 100 »»»

planes.cz - F100 - XY-AGC - Air Bagan ( W9 ) - Chiang Mai ( CNX / VTCC ) (http://www.planes.cz/en/photo/1118881/f100-xy-agc-air-bagan-w9-chiang-mai-cnx-vtcc/)

LASJayhawk

18th Mar 2014, 22:18

2 thoughts
1) Inmarsat. Has anyone thought to ask them if they went back to the prior flight of this aircraft and verified the pings match it's known location? One you might be able to calibrate out any error from the comparison. And two, if the satcom RT had been swapped out with another aircraft, we are chasing our tails yet again.

2) I've seen somewhere that there was 600+ runways that the aircraft could land on within its range. I assume they mean "safely land on". What if you don't care about the airframe, but you would like to try not to kill anyone if possible. I came across an island on tomnod that appeared to be deserted, but you could see remnants of what appeared to be WW2 defenses along its southwestern side. Maybe an abandoned WW2 strip on a deserted island. If the pilot did this for political motivations, maybe he's siting till they run out of mangosteens before he manually sets off the ELT.

I'm just trying to hold out hope.:(

dmba

18th Mar 2014, 22:18

someone found it on tomnod.....not familiar with the website so not sure what the deal is....mirror is reporting it

It's not photoshop. There is an airport a few miles north-east of this plane. It's not on the ground, it's on its way to land at Port Blair, South Andaman.

brika

18th Mar 2014, 22:20

As for your statement regarding hypoxia, read about the subject first it might give you an understanding why they couldn't turn on a phone let alone use it

Couldn't agree more.

Hypoxia as a possible cause has been bandied about often enough and deserves some light being thrown on it.
It’s basically an incomplete interruption of O2 to the brain which uses 20% of body O2 intake. Consciousness is usually lost in about 15 seconds and irreversible brain damage starts after 4 minutes or so.
(Anoxia is complete interruption of brain supply of O2 eg hanging/strangulation)
The possible causes of hypoxia in an a/c in flight could possibly be high altitudes (unpressurised), smoke inhalation and CO inhalation.
The response of the body to hypoxia is to speed up the blood flow to the brain (max of 2x normal).
If this compensation is insufficient, symptoms start to appear - problems with concentration, attention, co-ordination and short-term memory, which may be relatively subtle to begin with. There may be headache, light-headedness, dizziness, an increase in breathing rate and sweating. There can be a restriction in the field of vision, a sensation of numbness or tingling and feelings of euphoria.
As the degree of anoxia becomes more pronounced, confusion, agitation or drowsiness appear, along with cyanosis. There may be brief jerks of the limbs (myoclonus) and seizures, both resulting from the damaging effects of lack of oxygen on the brain. If the anoxia is severe, it will result in loss of consciousness and coma.
In a rapidly developing situation (from fire for example), the window of about 15 seconds leaves very little time for pilots to take proper action. O2 masks would require presence of mind and only if something else has not arrested the pilot’s attention or even prevented that action.
Rapid fire progression in the cockpit with a locked doors and fire-knocked out or pilot-actioned comms, leaves the cabin pax and crew isolated, wondering and not taking action until they too late as they become incapacitated.
Hope this sheds some light. However this scenario is only possibly true IF fire is the cause. And one would expect the a/c to crash and be found not too far away. Tanks loaded with fuel on the first leg of the flight would also not help the a/c get too far.

NG1

18th Mar 2014, 22:28

off topic: interesting to see how much (or better: little) attention two incidents with US mainlines are getting in face of the unsolved mystery around this flight. Just imagine how the threads about a major airline loosing some parts of the wing inflight or another one relanding right after getting airborne and trying to stop on the remaining runway would look like in quieter times...

sleemanj

18th Mar 2014, 22:33

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/mh370-debunked-image-of-plane-over-andaman-islands-on-mapbox-map.3304/

Below is now debunked, leaving it in place only for future people reading the thread
http://static2.stuff.co.nz/1395180902/459/9844459.jpg

Plane satellite image uncovered - asia - world | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/asia/9844415/Plane-satellite-image-uncovered)

... the image was captured just above a forest and very close to the Shibpur air strip of Andaman Islands.

''The air strip is exclusively used by the defence forces with no permission for civilian aircraft in this area.''

Alloyboobtube

18th Mar 2014, 22:36

I don't believe the aircraft would have flown any great distance on autopilot with structural damage or a fire on board even with crew incapacitated .

The slow decompression scenario does not make sense either , nobody would ignore the EICAS warning , even if the pilots passed out before that point ( very unlikely) the cabin crew would have noticed masks dropping and after several mins notified cockpit if they did not recognise a descent and in desperation would have carried a portable bottle to the cockpit and energy opened the door.

It really only leaves the options
Deliberate Pilot hi jack
Unknown hi Jackers/s
Or the aircraft was shot down or destroyed in a short space of time...

mixture

18th Mar 2014, 22:42

''The air strip is exclusively used by the defence forces with no permission for civilian aircraft in this area.''

Seems to me to be a number of good reasons there why the aircraft in that sat photo would not be MH370 !

Livesinafield

18th Mar 2014, 22:46

the first sat pic looks like a tail mounted engine aircraft MD 80 F100 etc, the second is a 737....
outrageous that people try this sort of stuff!!

martynemh

18th Mar 2014, 22:47

The primary task is to find the aircraft. If you just concentrate on one thing for now - pls can we have those other Inmarsat 'rings'? Access to them would eliminate many wild ideas.

And if we believe Inmarsat's rings, please remember that they tell us that there was power on that aircraft until 0811 + 59 MINS. So no missile strikes near Kota Baru, no crashes in the Belum Forest, etc.

At the next conference, will some journalist please nag Hashim to give details of the other five rings? Don't worry about why we need the details, you'll get plenty of copy here afterwards.

cwatters

18th Mar 2014, 22:52

I didn't realise their sensors were that good but..

Flight MH370: No explosion or crash detected, UN N-watchdog says - The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/Flight-MH370-No-explosion-or-crash-detected-UN-N-watchdog-says/articleshow/32233725.cms)

A UN-backed nuclear watchdog has said that it did not detect either any explosion or crash that could be linked to the missing Malaysia Airlines plane, amid continued speculation over fate of the aircraft.

"Regarding the missing Malaysian Airlines flight... the Vienna-based Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) confirmed that neither an explosion nor a plane crash on land or on water had been detected so far," Spokesman for UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon Stephane Dujarric told reporters here on Monday.

Dujarric said plane accidents may be detected, depending on individual circumstances, by three of the four technologies used by the CTBTO's International Monitoring System (IMS).

While the verification system has been put in place to detect nuclear explosions, it is also able to detect the explosion of a larger aircraft, as well as its impact on the ground or on water.

CTBTO executive secretary Lassina Zerbo had last week said that he would put the sensors of the organization at work to see if a possible explosion at high altitude of the missing Malaysian Airlines plane could be detected.

Continues..

mickjoebill

18th Mar 2014, 22:55

1) Inmarsat. Has anyone thought to ask them if they went back to the prior flight of this aircraft and verified the pings match it's known location? One you might be able to calibrate out any error from the comparison. And two, if the satcom RT had been swapped out with another aircraft, we are chasing our tails yet again.

Unless criminal or terrorist activity is ruled out completely could the pings be spoofed?
Part of a very sophisticated plan to mislead?

Remember the press coverage of the threat of a smartphone hacking the flight deck originated back in April last year and again in October 2013 in an article written by a tech consultant who explores how ACARS could in theory be used to "attack" on-board aircraft systems.

Aviation Security - FMS exploitation over ACARS - n.runs security team (http://blog.nruns.com/blog/2013/10/14/Aviation-Security-Hugo/)

The main idea for the FMS exploitation is to send some malformed data to the FMS, via ACARS, that triggers a vulnerability on the parsing code allowing us to execute arbitrary code. If the vulnerability used is the appropriate, it will be triggered before the pilot has to perform any action and the full attack can be therefore remote and straight forward.

Our motivation is to help the affected industry to improve the security of their products. We strongly believe in responsible disclosure and we and act accordingly.

n.runs professionals was founded in 2001 as a competent provider of manufacturer-independent IT.Security, IT.Infrastructure, IT.Business Consulting services.
A few days ago they made this statement;
We would like to clarify that it is highly unlikely that, whatever happened to this flight, had anything to do with any form of cyber-attack against its systems.

"Highly unlikely" doesn't quite close the door on it being totally implausible:eek:, but my point is not that this flight was hacked and controlled by remote control but to pose a question, could the pings like other tech that is non military and electronic, be spoofed?

Probably too convoluted to be manage by a one man band?

EASA, FAA and Rockwall Collins state that Hugo's bench tests are not analogous to testing using certified equipment.
Researcher Says He's Found Hackable Flaws In Airplanes' Navigation Systems (Update: The FAA Disagrees) - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/04/10/researcher-says-hes-found-hackable-flaws-in-airplanes-navigation-systems/2/)

Then there is the concept of GPS spoofing. If a marine nav system can be spoofed with a briefcase sized transmitter, so too could an aviation system??

sing a laptop, a small antenna and an electronic GPS “spoofer” built for $3,000, GPS expert Todd Humphreys and his team at the University of Texas took control of the sophisticated navigation system aboard an $80 million, 210-foot super-yacht in the Mediterranean Sea.
“We injected our spoofing signals into its GPS antennas and we’re basically able to control its navigation system with our spoofing signals,” Humphreys told Fox News.

SLFplatine

18th Mar 2014, 22:56

... the image was captured just above a forest and very close to the Shibpur air strip of Andaman Islands.

And the very clear brightly lit by sunlight image it is (also notice the white clouds) ML370 went AWOL at night:ugh::ugh::ugh:

galaxy flyer

18th Mar 2014, 22:58

Somebody at the UN is dreaming...that they think they can detect an airplane crashing into the Indian Ocean is laughable. Land, maybe, ocean not a chance in hell.

kenjaDROP

18th Mar 2014, 22:58

Plane satellite image uncovered - asia - world | Stuff.co.nz (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_139518335323112&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Frumours-news%2F535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-295.html&v=1&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Frumours-news%2F535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-294.html&libId=e808e137-289e-4afd-8745-925e64742eb6&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stuff.co.nz%2Fworld%2Fasia%2F9844415%2F Plane-satellite-image-uncovered&title=Malaysian%20Airlines%20MH370%20contact%20lost%20-%20Page%20295%20-%20PPRuNe%20Forums&txt=Plane%20satellite%20image%20uncovered%20-%20asia%20-%20world%20%7C%20Stuff.co.nz)

If that is a 737-type image somewhere near Shibpur, then it could easily be one of the Indian Navy's new P-8I Neptunes.

Tfor2

18th Mar 2014, 23:01

how many radio masts do you assume to be present over the indian ocean to logon with the cellphone? Even over land it will not work in 35000 feet.

Cellphones with a satellite link? They call home from the top of Mount Everest, don't they?

Basil

18th Mar 2014, 23:05

Mahatma Kote

18th Mar 2014, 23:05

And the very clear brightly lit by sunlight image it is (also notice the white clouds) ML370 went AWOL at night

Actually the last signals were after sunrise in the Andamans.

awblain

18th Mar 2014, 23:07

Unless criminal or terrorist activity is ruled out completely could the pings be spoofed?
Part of a very sophisticated plan to mislead?

It would seem to be difficult, since you'd need to time the reply correctly if you wanted to tell a story in this very esoteric way. If you're using a similar set of machinery it would have to be closer to the satellite than the signal you're trying to spoof.

TEEEJ

18th Mar 2014, 23:08

Sleemanj,

That image isn't recent. It goes back to at least 2012.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/mh370-debunked-image-of-plane-over-andaman-islands-on-mapbox-map.3304/

Heli-phile

18th Mar 2014, 23:13

A number of previous posts have mentioned that only the last ping was recorded. obviously if the previous pings were available the track would have be plotted instantly -days ago!.

awblain

18th Mar 2014, 23:15

There are pictures of aircraft in flight all over Google Earth. They usually move between the color scans, so you get weird things like that.

Seeing signs?

Detecting 100-tons of fuel burning quickly?

It would be a tough job for a pressure detector.

It might show up in an infrared detector scanning for missile launches, although it would be a short track.

If the aircraft was over the ocean, then ocean surveillance radar constellations sweeping overhead should perhaps have seen something from it, although it's moving faster than they would be expecting, and they're probably not going to want to detect aircraft if they can help it.

No Hoper

18th Mar 2014, 23:19

I really HAVE to say something about hypoxia.
If you are involved in a decompression at altitude you will NOT feel dizzy, ill or euphoric. You will become unconscious without realising anything is wrong with you.
You absolutely MUST get the oxygen mask on immediately it drops and you MUST fit yours before assisting the kids.
Basil, You are correct. Pilots in PNG used it to quieten unruly highlanders on long flights to Moresby in unpressurised aircraft. Take it to 17 - 18 thousand and the pax go to sleep.
If the 777 did go to 40 - 45 thousand for a few minutes, whilst unpressurised, anyone not on oxygen would probably be dead.
As far as where the 777 is right now, the only certainty: - it is not in the air.
Prayers for the pax and families.

AndyJS

18th Mar 2014, 23:23

@Heli-phile (http://www.pprune.org/members/179599-heli-phile)

Didn't someone post a comment earlier today saying the 7:11 ping had also been tracked and was "near" 40 degrees, whereas the 8:11 ping was actually "on" it?

Capn Bloggs

18th Mar 2014, 23:24

That white image of the aeroplane is a 737. Check the wing sweep and engine positioning. Wave the Bullsh1t flag...again. :cool:

papershuffler

18th Mar 2014, 23:25

It is being reported that the US has requested Malaysia to "be transparent" and share the known information to eliminate confusion and speculation

The Malaysians' trust in the US may be ebbing as many of the recent stories come from 'US sources', i.e. leaks, and are critical of the Malaysians.
If there is sensitive data you really need to know it's not going to go any further.

The Malaysians may be thinking, 'You're going to blame either our pilots, procedures, or maintenance instead of your US-made aircraft, why should we work with you?'

Would you want to work with someone who may not be able to help, and could just stab you in the back, repeatedly? Then insist that you are to blame as their investigative bodies may conclude (e.g. Egyptair)?

(During one of the investigations I worked on several years ago, a copy of a request for information to a US state containing many sensitive details was uploaded to the state's public online library and made available for all to view. The state refused to remove it . It made relationships rather frosty.)

martynemh

18th Mar 2014, 23:26

Yes. I'm just asking for journalists reading this, to do their job and ask Hisham Hishammudin, Minister of Transport etc etc to answer the question at the next press conference, "Can we have the angle of the previous 'ping rings' pls"?

Lonewolf_50

18th Mar 2014, 23:27

Would you want to work with someone who may not be able to help, and could just stab you in the back, repeatedly? Then insist that you are to blame as their investigative bodies may conclude (e.g. Egyptair)? You might want to read the CVR transcript from the EgyptAir990 mishap.

deadheader

18th Mar 2014, 23:29

At the next press conference, please ask:

Do you have data relating to all satellite pings from MH370? Do you intend to release that data? Have you extrapolated a logical flight path using that data? Does that flight path indicate further course alterations?

Finally, please can you tell me where I can obtain 4 tons of mangosteens at this time of year?

rigbyrigz

18th Mar 2014, 23:29

- 1:07 - ACARS last transmission (thru VHF) which apparently includes notation of a WP change having been entered into system since last scheduled report at 12:37
- 1:11 - INMARSAT ping would have been received, as apparently Boeing's AHM report attempted to automatically transmit (thru Satellite?)
- 1:19 - 'Alright, Good Night' at handover (supposedly by co-pilot)
- 1:22 - Transponder goes off

Above (DS) for reference:
Erin Burnett on CNN just said twice in last 5 minutes that "we know now the left turn was programmed into the FMS "at least" 12 minutes before Good Night"
First I have heard something so "definite" - although coming from the appropriate Malaysian official at a news conference he can be questioned would be immensely better.

But (Erin's statement) obviously suggests that this "pre-programmed turn" was shown as some sort of data link report on the 1:07 ACARS transmission. (and so happened before 1:07, with obvious conclusions).

It would be great to have better sourcing, but Mike Schmidt, NY Times reporter interviewed an hour ago, suggested something very similar to Erin, from "his sources".

OTOH CNN then went to demonstrate this on their in-studio T7 FSim. The under-dressed pilot entered the course change and the AC started to turn, ie; Look how ez folks! Of course, it's moot, as the pre-programmed turn pre-1:07 "happened" at 1:22 or after. Let's see him program that in 2 keystrokes!

Note: On DS timeline, showing ACARS last transmission at 1:07, stopped some time before 1:37. Well, wouldn't the 1:22 transponder-off be sent to ground at 1:22 if ACARS was not disabled? If yes, then we can say ACARS was OFF at 1:22. ( 1:07 <-> 1:22)

P.S. Apologies to BARREL. The 40 degree turn from FR24, no longer discussed much but an obvious fly in the ointment, I can't stomach bringing up right now; esp. when FR24 has some accuracy issues.

AndyJS

18th Mar 2014, 23:30

I think martynemh (http://www.pprune.org/members/198332-martynemh) is right. The most important thing is the information regarding the other pings from 2:11 to 7:11. It's incredible that journalists don't seem to be doing their job on this subject.

The Bullwinkle

18th Mar 2014, 23:33

It is being reported that the US has requested Malaysia to "be transparent" and share the known information to eliminate confusion and speculation

Mmmmm............ Because the US is always transparent! :yuk:

grumpyoldgeek

18th Mar 2014, 23:33

AAKEE

18th Mar 2014, 23:34

papershuffler

18th Mar 2014, 23:34

You might want to read the CVR transcript from the EgyptAir990 mishap.

Yes, I am aware of the transcript, and that all evidence indicates pilot suicide. I didn't say that the US weren't correct in that instance.

One of my points is that the Malaysians may not want to lose control of the 'investigation', for several reasons. Ceding control to the US bodies while apparent leaks are still occurring? Not very attractive.

ana1936

18th Mar 2014, 23:36

There were very good reasons not to announce early in this investigation that pings were being picked up.

I can think of similar reasons not to release more details even now.

Lonewolf_50

18th Mar 2014, 23:41

One of my points is that the Malaysians may not want to lose control of the 'investigation', for several reasons. That is a valid position to take, as it is their airline, and the flight originated in their capital. A number of nations will doubtless be happy to assist. The UK and US are obliged to since Engines and Aircraft were built in those two nations.

Therefore, UK and US will be none too interested in a cover up. What they'll want is an actual investigation. My experience with morals and ethics in the third world advises me that this requires some effort to elicit, and pressure at time not to fall into the "same old same old" corruption and graft that a certain airline captain was so vocally against.

EDIT: @multicpl.
It's only been posted about fifty (https://plus.google.com/app/basic/stream/z13cv1gohsmbv5jmy221vrfyiz3vdhbop04) times. Not sure how many the mods have binned.

volcanicash

18th Mar 2014, 23:47

Rampstriker (and others) said:
It's unlikely Inmarsat kept anything but the last pingFor what it's worth, in Sunday's press conference the DCA Director specifically said that Inmarsat had provided data for six handshakes. He also said they had times and coordinates - although he obviously didn't actually mean "coordinates".

overthewing

18th Mar 2014, 23:52

I wonder whose idea it was to look for those pings in the first place? Inmarsat? Boeing? RR? The CIA?

With the Malaysians apparently not asking for much help, there must have been a bit of initiative and effort on the part of one of those organisations.

Backoffice

18th Mar 2014, 23:53

1. To everyone who has links to an airport within 6000 miles of KL, have you looked lately to make sure 9M-MRO isn't sitting on your tarmac, over in the cargo or maintenance area somewhere ?

2. Has anyone (I know the are a bit unpopular at the moment) asked the Russians - I seem to remember they gave the hint to the French where to look for AF447 ?

FE Hoppy

19th Mar 2014, 00:01

There is an inference that it is known now that the FMS route was changed. This can only be known by the ACARS transmission at 07.

If this is the case:

Everyone on the flight deck at that time would know the route had been changed.

Whoever made the radio call at 19 was aware the route had been changed.

Thomas Doubting

19th Mar 2014, 00:06

Please correct me if I am wrong. I make the 40 degree LOP arc a 2622 nm ground length (curved or great circle) radius on the earth’s surface, centred on the INMARSAT IOR satellite ‘pole’ at 0.0N 64.5E. i.e. 40 degrees latitude on an earth axis from earth’s centre to the satellite. I assume the satellite is over the equator because they claim equal coverage, North and South.

Approx 1680nm of the Northern LOP arc, most of it, is inside China.

I don’t want to play ‘Pin the tail on the Donkey’ with the rest of the guessing here. But on statistical (and political?) probability MH370 is in China. By the way, it’s been posted here before, are the Chinese investigating the cell operator logs about reports that pax telephones rang when relatives called them after the A/C was overdue?

Don’t hold your breath waiting for news reports.

RichardC10

19th Mar 2014, 00:09

I have done some simulations of whether the route of the flight could be determined if the arcs from the interim Inmarsat pings were available. So far we only have the final arcs (the north and south 'corridors').

I used the final published arc as the set of possible ‘destinations’ of the flight. One example destination on this arc was chosen, this determines the speed and heading from the last recorded radar position to achieve that final position, and hence where the hourly pings would be emitted over the 7 hours of the flight (and thus the distance from the Inmarsat sub-satellite point, which is what Inmarsat measures). A constant speed and heading was used as a first approximation.

The results of this example can be compared with the same calculation for each point along the published final arc, each of which requires a different heading and speed from the last recorded radar position and generates a different set of predicted ping arcs (distances from the sub-satellite point). An overall error can be calculated for each point along the published final arc.

The result is that there is only one constant heading course from the last recorded radar position that matches the example set of ping arcs, that is the destination is uniquely defined by the interim and final ping arcs (if interim arcs exist). There is a (rough) mirror course in the southern hemisphere which may be hard to distinguish as the last recorded radar position was close to the equator.

I also added a random error (noise) to the ping signals derived from course to the example destination, with the magnitude of the error being 50km on the ground (Gaussian, one sigma). This increases the error in deriving the final course giving an uncertainty of around plus/minus 100km in recovering the final destination – but it does not invalidate the technique.

I haven’t yet tried putting in a course with a change of heading along the route, but the method seems quite sensitive so I suspect such a course change could be recovered from the data. Many headings or speed changes would increase the final error, obviously.

So if the interim pings are available (to someone), and hence their arcs, it is very likely that the destination (or at least one in each hemisphere) could be derived with reasonable errors, at least up to the final ping.

Notes:
1. This is a rough piece of work done quickly to see whether the concept works. I have made a few assumptions that seem reasonable.
2. in this first try I have used simple Cartesian geometry (flat plane) rather than spherical geometry. The differences are relatively small as the area covered is reasonably close to the equator. A full spherical interpretation will not change the conclusion that the set of arcs define a single destination (or rather one in each hemisphere) but obviously would be needed to interpret the actual interim ping arcs.

Heli-phile

19th Mar 2014, 00:13

And......?
So what heading/ speed did you use and was was the results?

Heli-phile

19th Mar 2014, 00:17

I think the route change had only been set up and selected at the time of the last transmission. Not activated until a short time later.

FE Hoppy

19th Mar 2014, 00:21

Then how do they know the waypoint was inserted?

DaveReidUK

19th Mar 2014, 00:21

But if 3rd hourly ping is at the same reduced spacing to the 2nd one , as the 2nd one is to the 1st one that constant spacing tells you it is on a constant heading/trk but nothing about that heading or track.. Do you agree that?

Well no, actually. If the spacing between arcs 1 and 2 is less than the distance that the aircraft is likely to have flown in the hour, that tells us that the average track angle was somewhere between radial and tangential. If the spacing is the same between arcs 2 and 3 then there are at least two average track angles that would result in the same flight distance (more if we allow for possible differences in groundspeed, but let's discount that).

Now you may think that is unimportant or of no use others will disagree a) it is an extra known and B) in IMHO it indicates a flight south, constant track north is eventually going to be spotted by the ground or another aircraft visually.Why north or south in particular, rather than any other possible direction?

lakedude

19th Mar 2014, 00:22

Geostationary orbit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit)

I assume the satellite is over the equator because they claim equal coverage, North and South.
The satellites are over the equator because they are Geostationary. They are stationary relative to the surface of the earth.

EDIT: This is significent because it determines the arc(s). If there were multiple pings and if the satellites were moving relative to the surface of earth we might know exactly where the plane is.

oldoberon

19th Mar 2014, 00:26

D.S.

19th Mar 2014, 00:30

papershuffler (http://www.pprune.org/members/302414-papershuffler) said

The Malaysians' trust in the US may be ebbing as many of the recent stories come from 'US sources', i.e. leaks, and are critical of the Malaysians.
If there is sensitive data you really need to know it's not going to go any further.

The Malaysians may be thinking, 'You're going to blame either our pilots, procedures, or maintenance instead of your US-made aircraft, why should we work with you?'

Would you want to work with someone who may not be able to help, and could just stab you in the back, repeatedly? Then insist that you are to blame as their investigative bodies may conclude (e.g. Egyptair)?

(During one of the investigations I worked on several years ago, a copy of a request for information to a US state containing many sensitive details was uploaded to the state's public online library and made available for all to view. The state refused to remove it . It made relationships rather frosty.) This is honestly a flat out freakin disgusting post

First, those "leaks" are pretty much the only reason 14 countries aren't still wasting time looking in the Gulf today - remember, the official Malaysian position pretty much never changed from it going down there until US Officials "leaked" the plane flying for 5+ more hours... (only after which time did India and Australia really get involved searching places the plane could actually be)

Second, the Malaysian Governments biggest concern should be trying to find 200+ lives that may be able to be saved for all anyone knows

Third, the Malaysian Government can clearly not even begin to do this themselves, and has more than a little issue with transparency, consistency and even coming to grips with basic common sense (how long were they going to keep us looking in a gulf they knew on day 1 they had evidence it wasn't in, anyway? And how long was it going to take before they took seriously the possibility the pilot could ever be involved? And on and on...)

Forth, it is hardly JUST the US that is telling them to be more transparent; we have seen similar from just about every country involved in this search (especially Vietnam and China, the two countries Malaysia jerked around the most at the beginning of all this) Shoot, there are even endless reports that most of their own people and a few scattered officials are furious and distrustful of the way Malaysia is handling this!

Lastly, you seem to be under the impression it can not under any circumstances ever possibly be the "pilots, procedures, or maintenance" that is at fault here and absolutely MUST be because it was a "US-made aircraft" - being you have a god-like ability to be so all knowing, I suggest you tell the Malaysian Government exactly what happened and where the plane is then (just don't feel too bummed when they dismiss you outright; you have to understand they have actual evidence saying whatever your theory is, it is already basically impossible)

As I said before, just a flat out disgusting post consistent with a useless tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy nut, not a person with even basic level of critical thinking that should actually be taken seriously by anyone

It's offensive really even having to read the drivel when we have people possibly laying somewhere dying because of the Malaysian 'maybe we'll help, maybe we won't - we'll tell ya later' games with all involved; games you apparently full-heatedly support them playing

imaynotbeperfect

19th Mar 2014, 00:31

As opposed to earth orbiting which is what the GPS satellites are. Hence the ability to get a 3D fix using the latter

Wantion

19th Mar 2014, 00:33

Tomnod FWIW has released image maps of what seems to be the Australian Search sector - Indian Ocean

Example:

Tomnod (http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/mh370_indian_ocean/map/82002)

lat, lon 4.213168, 90.440788

Heli-phile

19th Mar 2014, 00:34

Final ACARS report detailed it. I will try to find the posts that reported this.

vapilot2004

19th Mar 2014, 00:34

smiling monkey

19th Mar 2014, 00:35

.

The result is that there is only one constant heading course from the last recorded radar position that matches the example set of ping arcs, that is the destination is uniquely defined by the interim and final ping arcs (if interim arcs exist). There is a (rough) mirror course in the southern hemisphere which may be hard to distinguish as the last recorded radar position was close to the equator.

Nice work. Many here would be interested in where you concluded the aircraft may have ended up. :)

Hempy

19th Mar 2014, 00:36

The Malaysians may be thinking, 'You're going to blame either our pilots, procedures, or maintenance instead of your US-made aircraft, why should we work with you?'

And all that blame may well be completely unfair, but the Malaysians WILL be fairly blamed for their initial in-flight emergency response.

RichardC10

19th Mar 2014, 00:38

And......?
So what heading/ speed did you use and was was the results?

What I have done is a demonstration that the course can be derived, if the interim pings are available. Without the actual ping data no further progress is possible.

papershuffler

19th Mar 2014, 00:39

"Be transparent" could mean anything up to "we know exactly what happened to the airplane and we know that you know. And we are giving you a chance to announce it first." Just saying. Yep, but with the amount of verbal 'misunderstandings' there have been so far, are you sure they'll understand what the US are saying?:uhoh:

That is a valid position to take, as it is their airline, and the flight originated in their capital. A number of nations will doubtless be happy to assist. The UK and US are obliged to since Engines and Aircraft were built in those two nations.

Therefore, UK and US will be none too interested in a cover up. What they'll want is an actual investigation. My experience with morals and ethics in the third world advises me that this requires some effort to elicit, and pressure at time not to fall into the same old same old corruption that a certain airline captain was vocally against. Very much an understatement; IME, I would have said nigh-on impossible. :( Records are 'lost' and witnesses disappear. Legal proceedings take years. Letters go amiss. No one returns your calls. People virtually laugh in your face. Sometimes it doesn't even take a third world country for this to happen.
Without considerable international pressure, I don't have faith in important evidence (e.g. maintenance records) making it to the investigative team, whoever and wherever they may be.

We've seen it all before; as time goes by, the shock will abate and career- and face-saving will take precedence, if it hasn't already.

It will be interesting when/if the fate of MH370 is finally discovered, how much involvement the Malaysians wish to take in the proceedings.

(Personal opinion/suspicion: if it hadn't been (more-or-less) confirmed that the FO Fariq Abdul Hamid was the last voice heard and therefore still alive, I suspect the negative stories discrediting Capt Zaharie would have gathered more pace...)

D.S.

19th Mar 2014, 00:40

rigbyrigz (http://www.pprune.org/members/427691-rigbyrigz),

Thanks for more confirmation of the WP being changed pre-ACARS report. Think I will still leave it as "apparently" though, as some data seems to be "confirmed" then debunked later when Malaysia decides to actually share the data instead of whatever they decided their theory of it was at whatever moment.

As far as your note - any system failure would have sent out an emergency ACARS. If the Transponder did drop because of a catastrophic event it would have. If merely turned off, I am not 100% sure. (but I think it would have) Hopefully someone else can clarify that last bit

GarageYears

19th Mar 2014, 00:56

Originally Posted by GarageYears http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-post8386247.html#post8386247)
I keep seeing questions related to why the SATCOM system was sent pings, etc, and discussion related to ACARS use, MAS subscription to the ACARS reporting service to Boeing (or not), but isn't it also the case that the SATCOM transceivers at ALSO available for voice comms?

Yes, 777 cockpit SAT comms out of the tin, and optionally, in-seat passenger satellite linked phone service.

Ah, thanks for the confirmation.

Right, so that puts to bed the occasional "well-if-they-aren't subscribed to Boeing's data monitoring... why does the satellite ping them" comment I've seen. The pings are there just as much for the cockpit voice comms link, as any data that may or may not be sent over the same link.

Heli-phile

19th Mar 2014, 00:57

So what you have done is say you cannot join the dots if there is only 1 dot..... OK

mm43

19th Mar 2014, 00:58

There still seems to be confusion over the 40° elevation angle arcs accredited to the last 'ping' timed by the Inmarsat IOR at 64°E over the equator.

The graphic below should provide insight into how that elevation relates to any angle subtended from the earths center in any plane. Note the graphic doesn't indicate the top or bottom of the earth sphere is North or South, as it could equally be 154°E or 26°W. Also, from 35,768km above the equator, the full disc is not seen, as reference to the graphic will show. 90° elevation is on the beam centerline, but at an earth elevation of 50° the angle subtended from the center of the earth is 35° and the angle at the satellite is 5° of its overall half beam-width of 8.7°.

http://oi62.tinypic.com/kvrqt.jpg

When plotted on a transverse Mercator chart/map, the ring drawn will start being circular immediately below the satellite, but as the angle gets bigger the Mercator projection makes the projection elongated in a polar direction. If drawn on a equidistant projection, the circles would remain just that.

Those who have referred to the AMSA search graphics will note that the tracks supplied by the NTSB are based on two different ground speeds, and they reproduce the diverging tracks. The track indicating the faster speed is the westward one.

GarageYears

19th Mar 2014, 01:04

For me this looks like there has been failure situation / slow decompression or problem with Oxygen for crew, they might have started diversion, altitude change, possible some issue with the Avionics, I don't know the T7 systems, so can't comment on details of this.

At one stage they have BOTH become incapacitated, and descended in altitude, flown on until running out of fuel (Similar Helios)

What exactly caused this to happen, none of us can only speculate in, but what is important is to create the most likely scenario and work with this.

Most such scenarios it will the most simple and least spectacular version that will be the truth.

The problem with this though is it conveniently ignores some parts of the data that just don't fit. Such as the voice radio transmission sector change acknowledgement AFTER the transponder was shutdown, etc.

Unfortunately it doesn't seem what is postulated is the simplest solution to all the information that we know, even if that answer isn't one that we'd like it to be.

Coming up with a half-baked hypothesis (and I'm not trying to insult anyone here) and suggesting the plane flew off in the murky blue yonder for 7 hours or so until it flamed out, doesn't seem to fit with the last radar track point and the INMARSAT ping arc.

500N

19th Mar 2014, 01:15

What are all these photos turning up in the media of jets in the jungle.
jets under the water "showing" wings and windows ?

Have they all been debunked and the media just using them to sell newspapers ?

FlightDream111

19th Mar 2014, 01:18

The Malaysian government has released an image showing maximum distance aircraft could have travelled - is this based on range at cruise speed or less?

As far as I know, range can be extended by flying at slower than the typical cruise speed listed as 490 kt?

What is the best range speed?

Speed
The speed which gives the maximum range for a given aircraft weight and altitude is called best range speed. Flying at higher speeds than the best range speed increases the drag and the fuel flow, and therefore reduces the range. Lower speeds than the best range speed reduce the drag and the fuel flow, but they also reduce the distance traveled per time which is more dominant, and therefore reduce the range.

SKYbrary - AP4ATCO - Factors Affecting Aircraft Performance During Cruise (http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/AP4ATCO_-_Factors_Affecting_Aircraft_Performance_During_Cruise)

Graham321

19th Mar 2014, 01:26

For direct access to my "nearest suitable", I have often pre-programmed (but not executed) a "Direct to ABC" and sat there watching a dotted pink line with an accurate track arc peeling out from the nose.

Would that sort of behaviour cause a log event in the ACARS or would you have to "Execute" for it to log?

aviation_watcher

19th Mar 2014, 01:27

If a plausible theory says that the 1:07 ACARS is that of the 12 minutes window to change a waypoint to do the westward turn. I wonder if it is likely the other subsequent waypoints of the new path that are keyed in would appear in the ACARS message? Afterall ACARS contains enough capability of interfacing with the FMC on flight path changes - in uplink and downlink modes.

The Wawa Zone

19th Mar 2014, 01:31

Do we actually know, other than third hand unsourced rumours from Reuters or the WSJ :

1. if the thing actually flew through the waypoints then turned to the new tracks, or just flew near them ?

2. when Vietnamese or Malaysian air traffic actually declared a SAR phase and messaged this to neighbouring country's air traffic services organisations ?

3. if Burmese or Bangladesh radar ever painted anything ?

4. if 'goodnight' etc was all that was said (bad) or was just tacked on to the end of a normal frequency change acknowledgement (good) ?

5. where the story about the new wpt in the FMS came from ?

Until we know these for sure, all that we know is that the aircraft is ... missing.

Vinnie Boombatz

19th Mar 2014, 01:35

There are 2 operational INMARSAT satellites that were within view of MH370 at various times. A 3rd satellite, INMARSAT-5 F1 was launched in December 2013, but is still undergoing on-orbit tests until mid-July 2014, per Slide 18 of:

http://www.inmarsat.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Inmarsat_plc_Preliminary_Results_Presentation_2013.pdf

Nit-picking a bit, the satellites are geosynchronous, not quite geostationary. Hence their latitude and longitude will vary slightly over the day, typically tracing a figure 8 on the ground. See Figure 3 in this page by T.S. Kelso:

CelesTrak: "Basics of the Geostationary Orbit" (http://celestrak.com/columns/v04n07/)

Note that the figure 8 is for a satellite whose orbit has eccentricity of zero, whereas non-zero eccentricity distorts the figure 8 somewhat.

Kelso lists orbital elements in TLE (two line element) format here:

http://celestrak.com/NORAD/elements/geo.txt

This is the active one for the Indian Ocean Region:

INMARSAT 3-F1
1 23839U 96020A 14077.02691924 .00000003 00000-0 10000-3 0 2792
2 23839 1.6580 73.1420 0005562 281.9751 254.5647 1.00273339 65760

Element 2 in Line 2 is the orbital inclination in degrees, in this case 1.658 deg. Thus both the latitude and longitude will vary a bit over a day, tracing a sort of figure 8

Element 4 in Line 2 is the eccentricity, with an implied decimal point at the left. The eccentricity is 0.0005562 for this satellite.

The N2YO website uses the TLE data to compute present position of the satellite:

LIVE REAL TIME SATELLITE TRACKING AND PREDICTIONS: INMARSAT 5-F1 (http://www.n2yo.com/?s=39476)

The Pacific Ocean Region satellite is INMARSAT-4 F1.

Kelso's TLE data:

INMARSAT 4-F1
1 28628U 05009A 14077.46405487 -.00000269 00000-0 10000-3 0 3195
2 28628 2.6638 355.1900 0002955 355.6954 135.5891 1.00271237 32824

Inclination is 2.6638 deg, eccentricity is 0.0002955.

Tracking data from N2YO:

LIVE REAL TIME SATELLITE TRACKING AND PREDICTIONS: INMARSAT 4-F1 (http://www.n2yo.com/?s=28628)

The latitude will range between plus and minus the inclination angle over one day.

Will attempt to calculate and post the latitude and longitude of both active satellites for the hourly pings.

The search agencies have certainly done this already. Which may be why they have plotted the circle for only the last ping, so they don't get bogged down in explaining to a low tech press pool why the circles aren't concentric.

rigbyrigz

19th Mar 2014, 01:35

RE: "Better still are you sure it wasn't a UFO he saw and decided to just go on a bit of joy ride, yeah, let's make sure our plan B includes a good swath of Malaysia and just for giggles we'll turn off the transponder. That'll put the meteorite/UFO/bigfoot off for a bit"

Just sayin... there could be a less-than-super-duper-brilliant Plan B in the FMS. That could have the left turn, and be what the investigator leakers are seeing.

Plan B becomes active when executed. An emergency is the reason. Not necessarily UFOs or BigFoot. Maybe from smoke. Or electrical mechanical malfunction. And the comms and transponder fail then as well as ACARS. and off we go (left) on AP.

truckflyer

19th Mar 2014, 01:37

"The problem with this though is it conveniently ignores some parts of the data that just don't fit. Such as the voice radio transmission sector change acknowledgement AFTER the transponder was shutdown, etc."

Some of the problems we are having, is that we have to few facts, and to much fantasy and theories.

How do we know the transponder was shut down before last voice transmission?

Depending on the failure they faced, we do not know what systems that would have failed.

Blake777

19th Mar 2014, 01:41

The Malaysians have not confirmed a last waypoint as such, but have definitely given the last position that their primary radar tracked the plane to as 320km north west of Penang. You can get that information from the New Straits Times.

Thailand have belatedly corroborated the primary radar data, though they are not giving details.

HappyJack260

19th Mar 2014, 01:42

… the Maldives are across the red track from starting point. It would have to have doubled back.

Would it have been possible to get from the area of the Maldives where an aircraft was spotted at 0615, to, say, Iran or Pakistan, on the red northern ping arc by 0811 when the last ping was received? Would the aircraft have had enough endurance and speed for the transit?

AndyJS

19th Mar 2014, 01:44

@Blake777

If Thailand had released this information earlier, almost an entire week of search and rescue efforts in the South China Sea could have been avoided. I think this just goes to show how suspicious most of the countries in this area are of each other.

rigbyrigz

19th Mar 2014, 01:47

In any case, MH370 apparently had a second Flight Plan (Plan B).

And it can be "executed" quickly and easily in an emergency (or by accident?)

Wouldn't it be nice for Malaysian officials to tell us what that Plan B has, waypoints, turns, destinations, and from what source???

merlin_driver

19th Mar 2014, 01:53

-After 10 days of SAR no wreckage has been found
-Thus the second possibility is most likely

Let me offer the view of someone with experience of North Atlantic open sea SAR (10 years).
It doesn't surprise me that they haven't found anything yet, because the search area is enormous, and the further away in time we go, the higher the uncertainty. Also, finding stuff in the sea is very difficult, even with Radar, IR, etc. It depends on weather, sea state, what sensor you are using, what you are looking for, etc. Remember than in the AF case there was a relatively good fix on their estimated position, here we are talking about searching (almost) a whole ocean. If the a/c flew for 7 hours, we don't have any idea of where it went, the uncertainty is huge, it's a nightmare from a SAR point of view.
Also, you have to understand something called "Coverage Factor".
When you do SAR, be it with airplanes, helis, or even ships, each Search Unit has a "view range" (it can be visual, radar, IR, whatever), over which it won't be able to detect anything - the technical name is "sweep width".
Now, when you have a small search area, you get the SAR vehicle to cover it with a given pattern (there are several types), in such a way that its track guarantees that the whole area is covered by the area "drawn" by the sweep width as you move along:
http://navyflightmanuals.tpub.com/P-553/P-5530149im.jpg
That's the figure to the right, which has a coverage factor of 1.0.
In the previous picture, notice the pattern on the left, because in that one, the coverage factor isn't 1.0, it's probably 0.5 or something like that.
When you cover huge areas (such as this case of MH370), if you aim for a CF of 1.0 you need lots and lots (and lots and lots!!!) of search units, which costs lots and lots of $$$, so what is usually done is simply to use math and get CF of between 0.5 and 1.0, according to several factors. You actually don't cover the whole area, you go through it with "gaps" to make sure you pass over it as quickly as possible, because as time goes by, the search area increases (due to uncertainty caused by the wind, sea currents, etc). So I'm sure they aren't using CF of 1.0 to cover the whole Indian Ocean, I think maybe not even 0.5...
If you realize that they are now searching in an ocean area that goes from India almost to Antactica, it's no surprise that they haven't found the a/c yet, assuming that it crashed into the ocean after 7 hours of flight, and it's also the reason why the conspiracy theories are growing.
Call me a pessimist, but as time goes by, the odds of finding debris go down, and with a search area this big, I find it possible (not very likely, but possible) that they'll never find anything... That is assuming, as I do, that the a/c had an emergency that incapacitated the pilots and the plane flew for hours until it ran out of fuel (I don't buy the media hype, sorry, if you have a strong electrical fire and you start to shutdown systems, your priority is not talking to ATC).
Either way, this is only me speculating on the limited information we have so far, and most of it filtered by the media.

White and Fluffy

19th Mar 2014, 02:04

As for the mid air intercept and subsequent formation there are plenty of products out there that work with an Ipad and allow reception of other aircraft ADS-B data, so no need to turn the aircraft transponder on. Just two examples are shown below, one of which also has an AHRS ability!!!

There is also a lot of navigation apps available for Ipad that would allow someone to accurately fly a predetermined route just using the aircrafts HDG control.

XGPS170 - GPS + ADS-B Weather and Traffic Receiver for iPad and Android Tablets | Dual Electronics (http://gps.dualav.com/explore-by-product/xgps170/)

iLevil - ADS-B AHRS GPS (http://www.aviation.levil.com/iLevil.htm)

Lonewolf_50

19th Mar 2014, 02:12

Did the 777 get a little too close to an American carrier group?
Nope.
That would get it done.
No, it would not. A carrier group can send up a fighter to see who the hell it is.
Capt Rogers didn't have a VID. (He was also in a little surface action with Iranian patrol boats, which also isn't something a US CV has been doing lately).
Most importantly, US Navy ship CO's are taught a few lessons about that little thing that Vincennes did as they go through their command track. ;) (It's a case study. :ok: )

Wolf, my fellow lupine, that was not even a nice try. :sad:

galaxy flyer

19th Mar 2014, 02:20

Not to mention there wasn't an American warship within a 1,000 miles of the southern end of that arc.

galaxy flyer

19th Mar 2014, 02:26

W&F,

You and others promoting the silly "shadowing" idea need to learn about formation. If SQ was minding its own business cruising at M.84 ish and our hero, unaware of SQ's take-off time were 12 minutes off, it would take 1800nm to catch up using Mmo on MH370's T7. You can only "make up" 24 nautical miles an hour, that's the speed differential between normal cruise and Mmo on the T7.

rigbyrigz

19th Mar 2014, 02:29

Speaking of facts and questions...

CNN's Richard Quest (to whom I tweeted a question on this) just said on TV that his understanding "from US officials" is that when ACARS "reported in" at 1:07, it communicated to ground the "next 2 waypoints"...

...one of which is presumably this "pre-programmed left turn" AWAY FROM BEIJING

If this is Flight Plan A (A for Active) why is KL ATC not saying,
what? huh? where are u going? come again???

OldDutchGuy

19th Mar 2014, 02:40

This quote from Flown-It at post 5871 five pages back, at 18th Mar 2014, 21:50
Lots been said about total electrical failure.

The Rollers on my plane are certified to my 51,000 ceiling BUT RR only guarantees them to suction feed to 20,000.

So what ceiling will the Rollers suction to on the T7? If closer to my 20K then MH370 could never have flown for the 7 plus hours. Thus total electrical failure seems unlikely.
Answers from T7 drivers please.

My buddy flies the 2ER and emailed me the fuel management system manual; I'll try to wade through it and figure it out for you. Just in general: the system is set up with (roughly) 26,000 gal in the center tank and 9,300 gal in each wing tank. Center has two fuel pumps, one for each engine, and each feed line tees into the line from the wing tank on that side. The center pumps are at a higher output pressure than the wing pumps, so with both center and wing pumps working all feed is from the center tank. If center pump is shut off and wing either fails or is shut off, then suction, but only from the wing tank apparently (at least, as far as I have deciphered). The entrained air in the fuel has been known to restrict power output and cause reverse flows through the compressor when the pump(s) are off, until all the air in the fuel is gone, so the drill is to run with all the pumps churning away, at least until center is reduced or empty.

From that I draw that after the fuel gets cold and the entrained air is finally gone, it should siphon just fine. At that point, likely not altitude dependent (although that is my surmise, and not from the manual).

ana1936

19th Mar 2014, 02:46

AMSA media release of this morning

https://www.amsa.gov.au/media/documents/190314MediaRelease_Update3MH370search.pdf

SLFplatine

19th Mar 2014, 02:58

merlin driver:

Yes, excellent points concerning SAR, thank you, I am aware. However the objective at that point in my little exercise was to determine which was the greater of two possibilities; aircraft/aircraft system failure or hijack. If aircraft/aircraft system failure I assigned a high probability that the crash would be within a reasonable distance of last known position and 10 days of high coverage SAR in this space under this scenario should turn up some wreckage, it did not. Thus, all I am saying is that this fact makes the probability of a hijack greater than that of aircraft failure

techgeek

19th Mar 2014, 02:58

@Ornis
@D.S.

Here is why network links are kept up. Suppose you have a scenario generating LOTS of ACARS messages in succession (e.g. AF447). If each message has to set up and tear down the link there is tremendous overhead added. Just setting up and tearing down a connection involves the exchange of a bunch of messages. When networks are designed a lot of attention is given to the most efficient use of resources to meet the design objectives of the network. We can rest assured that the keepalive ping is actually very efficient use of the sat link.

Just think how handy it is to have a SAT link up, whether you need it or not, all for the low, low cost of 1 ping each hour!

By the way, the computer you are reading this on is sending periodic keepalive messages so it can keep using the network address it currently has been assigned (assuming you are using DHCP and not a static IP address). It wants to avoid the extra headache of having its address expire and being forced to renew it. This is a very, very common practice in networking.

SpannerTwister

19th Mar 2014, 03:07

I'm not aware of the fuel setup on the 777, but assuming it's like others I do know, is this possible, either on its own or in combination with other circumstances?

In aircraft I do know about, this is a possible scenario that came too close, far too close, to happening.

A) Aircraft takes of with fuel in both wing tanks and centre tank with all boost pumps on.

B) Due centre pumps having higher pressure they override the wing tank pumps and both engines feed from the centre tank.

C) Once all the fuel is used from the centre tank the wing tank pumps automatically take over as they have higher pressure then the now empty centre tank pumps.

D) Aircraft I am familiar with can suction feed from the wing tanks but not the centre tank.

Is it possible that the aircraft took off with the centre tank pumps not turned on?

Result, Everything is normal until the wing tanks run out of fuel at which time the engines EGT rapidly drops and due no engine-generator, electrics to power the centre tank pumps they don't work and as the aircraft cannot suction feed from the centre tank altitude is rapidly lost until such time as the aircraft makes contact with the ground after running out of fuel with the centre tank still full?

aviation_watcher

19th Mar 2014, 03:26

4 Holer

19th Mar 2014, 03:32

The Wawa Zone

19th Mar 2014, 03:35

CNN's Richard Quest (to whom I tweeted a question on this) just said on TV that his understanding "from US officials" is that when ACARS "reported in" at 1:07, it communicated to ground the "next 2 waypoints"...

And the next bit of teeth pulling would be ... and which 2 wpts where these ???

galaxy flyer

19th Mar 2014, 03:40

aviation watcher,

If one were to tail another aircraft's radar shadow not only one needs military pilot skills especially when flying in the night (when one can possibly only see the tail lights or wingtip lights only) but also have the communications systems in "ON" mode to receive updates on exact flight path of the aircraft ahead. Given that all such equipment were switched off - this seems too unlikely.

Why do you assume that? Do you have much formation time, especially over long routes? I've flown across the Atlantic without the foggiest notion of the navigation, just when I needed to refuel.

GF

PlatinumFlyer

19th Mar 2014, 03:45

Interesting inteview on the Hannity show with General McInerny. He retired as Vice Chief or Staff of the Air Force and appears to have significant intelligence connections. A week ago he was saying don't ignore Pakistan. He was back on tonight making the case stronger. Some of the information he mentioned was that he believed the aircraft was in the Taliban controlled areas of Paksitan (Western?) where there were 3 airfields capable of handling the plane. He said that he beielved both pilots were complicit and that they did NOT turn off their communications (VHF, HF,SATCOM) and that US 'vacuum cleaners' would be expected to pick up their communications with their destination. He believed that the pressure will build on Pakistan and things will come to a head in 24-28 hours.
He also said that the US Navy would not have pulled its ships from the Indian Ocean unless they knew something. Also, Israel has gone on a higher state of alert, somenting they would not have done without intelligence.
He is, by far, the most believeable individual commenting on the situation.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/03/18/lt-gen-mcinerney-flight-370-could-have-landed-pakistan

SLFplatine

19th Mar 2014, 03:48

Quote:
Put it in your flight planner from where it went missing then was sighted (if it was sighted ) in Maldives from where it was last known and you end up DIRECT LINE TO Somalia.

Why did the US Navy ships stop looking and go West with 7th fleet.

Because at the time it was supposedly sighted in the Maldives it was 8hr 45 after it left KL, a trip entirely over water and would have long before run out of fuel and buried itself in the ocean:ugh::ugh::ugh:

White and Fluffy

19th Mar 2014, 03:51

If one were to tail another aircraft's radar shadow not only one needs military pilot skills especially when flying in the night (when one can possibly only see the tail lights or wingtip lights only) but also have the communications systems in "ON" mode to receive updates on exact flight path of the aircraft ahead. Given that all such equipment were switched off - this seems too unlikely

Not true, the apparent turn at waypoint VAMPI is a perfect setup for a 45 to 90deg intercept for a formation join, just need to adjust speed and heading to allow for the join target being early or late.

slats11

19th Mar 2014, 03:52

I think we all agree (and hope) the authorities have more information than has been publicly released.

I wonder if the Inmarsat satellites are really the information the authorities are going on. It certainly does sound plausible. However it does seem an odd coincidence that the claimed level of precision should just happen to produce a result of 40 degrees.

It also took a few days for this information to come out. While this delay does make sense, it also makes sense if there was a need to develop a plausible explanation in order to protect true capabilities.

The US has likely invested heavily in the area of tracking airliners - especially post 9/11 when primary radar was unable to track large jets flying around 2 of the most important US cities. They also have plenty of experience tracking phones - and have spent many years delivering "air mail" on the basis of real time phone intercepts.

We will likely never know. But it is possible the search is not quite the needle in the haystack that it appears. Hope so anyway.

SLFplatine

19th Mar 2014, 03:53

Quote [platinum flyer]
Also, Israel has gone on a higher state of alert, something they would not have done without intelligence.
They suspect Iranian involvement.

HappyJack260

19th Mar 2014, 03:54

Put it in your flight planner from where it went missing then was sighted (if it was sighted ) in Maldives from where it was last known and you end up DIRECT LINE TO Somalia.

Why did the US Navy ships stop looking and go West with 7th fleet.

It's around 1700nm from the Maldives to Mogadishu in Somalia. IF it was at the Maldives at 0615 local (0915 KL) there would have been an additional 0911 ping (which has not been reported, and the 0811 ping would not have been along the arc shown unless that ping arc was a false report,

Apart from which, if it were only as far west as the Maldives, 7 hours after it went missing, then it must have been going very slowly (~250 knots), and probably would not have had enough fuel to make it much further west, anyway.

whatziznehm

19th Mar 2014, 04:00

Presumably whomever was in control would have entered a waypoint into the autopilot to take it to the southern Indian Ocean. Wouldn't setting it to 90°S be the simplest? The eastern of the two tracks devised by the NTSB is close to a direct track toward the South Pole.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/5329096-3x2-700x467.jpg

mm43

19th Mar 2014, 04:04

The graphic below is using an equidistant projection, and has a 40° and derived satellite elevation arcs drawn on it from backtracking the data provided by AMSA / NTSB. The red tracks represent the two speeds used by the NTSB and an assumption is made that the aircraft passed well to the west of Aceh, North Sumatra, to avoid PSR detection.

All times shown are UTC, commencing with the LKP at IGARI (1720z) and a possible PSR position at 1822z, all interconnected by an orange track to intercept the possible backtracked position west of Aceh.

The east track has been overlaid with light blue and hourly positions placed on it using a GS of 470 KTS.

Earth-SAT elevation angles are shown for the estimated arcs.

http://oi61.tinypic.com/2i07sq0.jpg

As the projection used is Equidistant, the tracks appear to be diverging to the west. If stretched in a polar direction, i.e. Mercator projection, those tracks should form a straight line and cross all Lat/Long at constant angles. However, if a way-point a large distance away has been entered into the FMS, the aircraft will be following a great circle path and a curved track on a Mercator projection is what one would expect.

RatherBeFlying

19th Mar 2014, 04:06

China, though, has radar installations arrayed on mountains with overlapping coverage and the ability to look deep into neighboring countries, according to Mark Stokes, a former United States military attaché in China who is now the executive director of a defense research group, the Project 2049 Institute in Arlington, Va.

The Chinese are probably “a little bit more on the ball,” Mr. Stokes said.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/19/world/asia/experts-see-robust-radar-along-missing-jets-potential-path.html?hp&_r=0

The Indian and perhaps Nepalese military may have more exact knowledge of where and how low Chinese primary radar reaches -- not that I think they will share that with us.

The Chinese of course want attaches to think that everything will be detected and tracked.

Mind you, taking a Turbo Porter on a smuggling run down a Himalayan gorge looks much more doable than in a T7.

Remember that there's not much point running primaries in a mountainous area without an interceptor force that can get to low level traffic sneaking up a valley.

A mountaintop primary getting an echo from a target below it needs software to separate that echo from the ground behind it.

These concerns stated, the Chinese primaries could be as good as advertised.

slats11

19th Mar 2014, 04:09

awblain

Hopefully... but it wouldn't have the time of flight measured for a call and reply signal, so the location might not be up to much.

But they wouldn't need the return path time (I think that is what you meant).

If they had the Inmarsat ping, and another satellite in a different orbit recorded the same ping, that would help.

From the Inmarsat data they would have the absolute time the ping was sent. They would have the time the 2nd satellite detected the ping. They could then calculate distance from this 2nd satellite (which would be at a known location at this known time).

That would give them 3 spheres with which to work - known distance from Inmarsat, known distance from 2nd satellite, and surface of earth.

Blake777

19th Mar 2014, 04:12

I think the best information you are likely to get on the waypoints is in the attached link. Putting together what separate unrevealed sources close to the investigation have stated with what Malaysian authorities have revealed publicly. They have publicly acknowledged the aircraft was heading north west about 320km from Penang at 2.15am, which adds up with the "sources" state.

MISSING MH370: Radar data suggests plane flown deliberately toward Andaman - Latest - New Straits Times (http://www.nst.com.my/business/latest/font-color-red-missing-mh370-font-radar-data-suggests-plane-flown-deliberately-toward-andaman-1.512761)

harrryw

19th Mar 2014, 04:15

@ RatherBeFlying
I am sure the Indians, Pakistaniis and Chinese all have very very good coverage of the disputed area.
Recent wars have been fought there over territory (and not all is probably heard of it).
The do not need a fighter to check a target. A missile can do the job quicker.

Airbubba

19th Mar 2014, 04:15

Why did the US Navy ships stop looking and go West with 7th fleet.

Wouldn't be the first time in the past few days that the USS Kidd made a move to a different area of operations before new MH 370 intelligence was publically revealed:

USS Kidd sent to Indian Ocean after 'indication' of Malaysian jet crash - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/13/us-orders-uss-kidd-indian-ocean-search-malaysia-pl/)

FE Hoppy

19th Mar 2014, 04:21

mm43
Back tracking NTSB positions
The graphic below is using an equidistant projection, and has a 40° and 50° satellite elevation arc drawn on it. The red tracks represent the two speeds used by the NTSB and an assumption is made that about 200+NM west of Aceh, North Sumatra, the heading was set to 180°M.

Could you mirror those routes to the north please?

fred_the_red

19th Mar 2014, 04:30

All talk has been about a/c heading North, West or South. Any possibility it could have doubled back in an Easterly direction? Don't :ugh: me #JustAsking ;)

FE Hoppy

19th Mar 2014, 04:40

The ACARS will have been current position and next 2 waypoints from the active flight plan. It's one of the standard ATSU and AOC ACARS messages.

There are plenty of documents online which describe the different types of ACARS services and their message formats.

Pontius

19th Mar 2014, 04:43

Rigbyrigz,

ACARS is not going to report positions in an 'emergency route' i.e. Route 2, it will only report positions of the active route.

It's not overly difficult to 'accidentally' execute Route 2 (or Route 1 if Route 2 is in use). If, without thinking, you went to the Route page, activated the other route and executed it then the machine (assuming LNAV engaged and A/P in CMD) would turn towards the active waypoint, which may not be in the direction required. HOWEVER, it is extremely easy to remedy the situation and it does not require disengaging autopilots or random climbs to FL450. A simple push of the HDG button and you can then 'manually' steer it until you get the route situation sorted out and then re-engage LNAV. None of the theatrics you describe are necessary nor likely.

Shadoko

19th Mar 2014, 04:47

@jmmilner: thank you for answer.
What you are seeing is due to the cell or cells in range being fully subscribed.You could be right: I have not enough "data" to exclude this... but I am not conviced :confused: Hope I can try again soon!

May be someone ask this question in the next conference: are all the known phone numbers of the pax been searched for connexion or a simple "ping" on the 03/08 after 01:20?

harrryw

19th Mar 2014, 04:47

@Airbubba
It is also possible that they decided it was just too hard to bother with the area after Indonesia refused the overfly of territory and used the excuse of the southern area which is easier under the circumstances.
BBC News - Missing Malaysia MH370: Search planes grounded by 'red tape' (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26629937)

Wannabe Flyer

19th Mar 2014, 04:48

Would be interesting to see the past 6 months flights of both the crew.

If and a big if any one of them were involved part of the meticulous approach would have been to probe reaction to transponder switch offs and military radar reaction etc.

MH flies the north west route and the part of the southern route too with the 777 so it could be a probability which I am sure the investigators should have analysed.

ETOPS240

19th Mar 2014, 04:52

You're perhaps a bit misinformed or I'm perhaps misunderstanding you. There is no 'emergency flight plan' by default in the 777 FMC.

There is one active flight plan. There is also a route 2, which can be any other plan. It can be used in a variety of ways, for example route 1 copied identically in to route 2, but at the end of route 2 have a different STAR or approach. Many also will use route 2 to input enroute diversions, around high terrain in the event of a depressurisation or engine failure, etc.

Regardless of what you put in the second route, it only takes 2 button pushes to activate it. The first push brings up route 2, and the second push 'executes' it, which makes route 2 the active route. ATC via CPDLC/ADS-C will not see anything from route 2 until it is 'executed' and actively navigating the aircraft. Likewise for any amendments to the active route 1.

Over the planned route of MH370, I don't see a reason for route 2 to be different to route 1 in the cruise phase. I also would find it highly unlikely that route 2 could be inadvertently selected AND executed. If it was, and a turn to the left suddenly ensued, why not just re-activate route 1?

Blake777

19th Mar 2014, 04:54

Shadoko that second question is answered here:

Triangulation using cell phones fails - General - New Straits Times (http://www.nst.com.my/nation/general/triangulation-using-cell-phones-fails-1.520250)

Airbubba

19th Mar 2014, 04:58

Now my REAL question. How easy is it to "execute" alternate Flight Plan B by accident? A slip, a slide, a push-pull? By definition, an emergency back-up flight plan should be quick and easy to execute, was it too easy?

This other flight plan in the FMS is normally called the secondary flight plan. Just like disabling ACARS, it can be selected, then activated by a fairly simple keystroke sequence on the CDU (the box with the keys and buttons on it).

Since you have to select the secondary flight plan and then activate it, I can't think of a time when I've seen it done accidentally (or on purpose, for that matter) in the aircraft. I have practiced using the secondary flight plan in the sim on occasion.

Some folks use the secondary flight plan to plot things like ETP's and other stuff over water. I'm a minimalist, the less buttons I push, the less chance of screwing it up is my thinking. We still do legacy plotting and position tracking paperwork. However, in a modern jet I'd rather mess up the paperwork and get it right in the FMS than the other way around.

The primary and secondary flight plans are normally erased automatically after a flight. Some, but not all, carriers also have canned flight plans stored for frequently flown routings that can be called up on preflight into the primary and secondary FMS flight plans.

Over the planned route of MH370, I don't see a reason for route 2 to be different to route 1 in the cruise phase. I also would find it highly unlikely that route 2 could be inadvertently selected AND executed. If it was, and a turn to the left suddenly ensued, why not just re-activate route 1?

Yep, I agree.

jugofpropwash

19th Mar 2014, 05:20

If and a big if any one of them were involved part of the meticulous approach would have been to probe reaction to transponder switch offs and military radar reaction etc.

That occurred to me, too - but if the transponder was turned off and nobody noticed, would there be any record of it? It seems ATC wasn't paying a whole lot of attention on the night the plane disappeared - so how much attention were they actually paying on other nights?

rigbyrigz

19th Mar 2014, 05:25

Thank you for all the pilots and expert commentary on Flight 1&2, ACARS, FMS, and general topics as well!

I have seen what here is often called Flight-2, referred to as "Alternate Flight Plan" in many ACARS documents available to peruse. There also seems to be many many versions of ACARS packages, and development over the years. Suffice it to say different airlines in different countries with different manufacturer models and different budgets, might have different ACARS versions?

Documentation for some, under "Flight Plan Report" (in-flight) do say the report includes both "active" and "alternate" flight plan. One might think the MH370 ACARS 1:07 report must have such a version for this 12 minutes story to make any sense at all...(but what makes sense w/ MH370)

...after all, if the Active or Flight 1 shows a change at 1:07 to the West, why isn't ground control going ballistic? If I am all wet, then sorry, but, just sayin. Anyway It's good to know the conscientious pilots here do not seem to ever have willy-nilly Flight 2... wonder if that's true worldwide?

jugofpropwash

19th Mar 2014, 05:40

Over the planned route of MH370, I don't see a reason for route 2 to be different to route 1 in the cruise phase. I also would find it highly unlikely that route 2 could be inadvertently selected AND executed. If it was, and a turn to the left suddenly ensued, why not just re-activate route 1?

If there was a plan to steal the plane, could the carefully planned "hijack route" meant to confuse/avoid radar/etc have been pre-entered into the computer as route 2, so that at the appropriate time, all that would be needed to execute would be to press a couple buttons?

ETOPS240

19th Mar 2014, 05:51

There certainly are numerous operator options on ACARS packages, and the like. However, what we've been talking about is standard. It is part of the FMC/CDU from Boeing/Honeywell. There is one active route, and one 'backup' which can be used for the reasons mentioned.

What is in the inactive route will not be shared via ACARS, regardless of what operator options are chosen.

Jug:

In a word, yes. Or said route could be manually flown, or flown in basic modes. I'm not sure what your point is.

In summary, two flight plans can be loaded in to the FMS. One is active, the other isn't. The inactive route can contain anything - a diversion, an escape route, a mirror image of the active route, a modified version of the active route, or something completely irrelevant. To activate it, it's just short keystroke sequence.

What is in the inactive route is not displayed to ATC in any way. There's a good reason for that, as many of us like to make many modifications to it en-route - particularly over high ground.

rigbyrigz

19th Mar 2014, 05:56

JugofP... "If there was a plan to steal the plane, could the carefully planned "hijack route" meant to confuse/avoid radar/etc have been pre-entered into the computer as route 2, so that at the appropriate time, all that would be needed to execute would be to press a couple buttons?"

I just watched Hannity on Fox and by coincidence this McInerney retired AF general was on. Not my usual network, by the way. If he is not off his rocker, anything is possible! It certainly would explain this campaign of misinformation-trickle.

Very scary though. Scary if he is wrong that he would espouse such views in a serious forum under presumably legitimate media coverage. Even scarier if he is right!

ETOPS240:
Thank you for insights. Does this mean the 12-minute story, if true as widely reported by good news organizations, implies the re-programmed route was in the ACARS 1:07 as "Active"?

If yes, it begs the question; does not ATC or anyone on the ground react to these reports in a way that helps protect the public interest? (in that neck of the woods) - Surely it would stand out as more than a course correction to avoid bad weather.

jugofpropwash

19th Mar 2014, 06:01

Jug:

In a word, yes. Or said route could be manually flown, or flown in basic modes. I'm not sure what your point is.

Just thinking that if the hijack route could be programmed ahead, it would be really fast and easy to switch without consulting maps, etc.

ETOPS240

19th Mar 2014, 06:06

In which case, yes, you're right.

It would still require the route to be entered at some stage, though.

In all actuality, however, once you have control of the aircraft, there are a zillion ways to take it off the planned route, which would take nigh-on zero time.

I think that any route 2 garbage is just a moot point.

jmmilner

19th Mar 2014, 06:11

If they had the Inmarsat ping, and another satellite in a different orbit recorded the same ping, that would help.USA-223, aka NROL-32, is a geosynchronous signals intelligence satellite launched in 2010, now located at 100.9E. It is reported, by the head of the NRO, to be the "largest" satellite ever launched. It is understood that "largest" in his terms refers to the size of the associated antenna, which is estimated to be roughly 100m in diameter. USA-202, another Orion class sig int satellite launched in 2009, is geosynch at 44E.

Both these bird, was well as some older satellites which may no longer be functional, would be able to see the region in question and, as others have alluded to, be able to detect and localize Inmarsat signals. As "national assets", their involvement would not be disclosed but I'm reading something into the White House press officer's statements last week as suggesting the call on what role they could play was Obama's, as CINC.

Airbubba

19th Mar 2014, 06:12

If there was a plan to steal the plane, could the carefully planned "hijack route" meant to confuse/avoid radar/etc have been pre-entered into the computer as route 2, so that at the appropriate time, all that would be needed to execute would be to press a couple buttons?

As far as I can see, yes. I'm guessing that the FO loads the FMS at Malaysian, and the captain checks it. With some carriers the PNF loads and the PF checks. In all honesty I don't think I've ever checked the secondary flight plan on preflight. Maybe I'll start.

Also, some of the folks I fly with seem to spend more time out of the seat than in it once airborne, don't know about this crew. One of the pilots could have programmed the second route after takeoff without the other's knowledge. In the Egyptair 990 crash the FO waited for the captain to go to the lav, then he started chanting and pulling circuit breakers.

Since the waypoints on the turnback route were well behind the KUL-PEK route, they would not appear as clues on the nav display screens in front of the pilots.

jugofpropwash

19th Mar 2014, 06:16

What is in the inactive route will not be shared via ACARS, regardless of what operator options are chosen.

Bear with me for a moment - I'm trying to fit together bits from various posts and get my head around the whole thing. Is the following correct?

The "B" route is not shared via ACARS until it is selected. When/if it is selected, it shares essentially a step ahead of what the plane is currently doing? So if you programmed the plane to fly straight for ten minutes (or miles, or to a specific point) and then turn to a specific heading, ACARS would send out the information that you intended to turn while you were still going straight?

If I'm correct on this - that could explain a lot. PF pre-programmed route B with the hijack route - but the first 10 minutes of that route were the same as route A. While the PNF is distracted, PF activates route B. Not knowing of the change, PNF proceeds to contact ATC. PF then gets PNF out of the cockpit, locks the door, and flight turns and continues along the remainder of route B.

rcsa

19th Mar 2014, 06:25

Let's consider the vested interests involved... if this is a "nutty pilot commits suicide" story, the cost will be born by airline training and line management departments. If it's a "loony fundos steal plane and screw up" story, the cost will be carried by security and intelligence departments and communities. (ie in both these cases, ultimately by us, the travelling public).

If, however, there was (another) 777 electronics bay fire - remember Egyptair on the ground at Cairo a couple of years ago - it will be Boeing that carries the can. And after the 787 PR fiasco, I wonder if Boeing can survive if their cash-cow 777 turns out to be prone to spontaneous in-flight ignition...

Check the Boeing share price ticker for the past couple of weeks. Big drop 12 days ago when MH370 disappeared. Back up again when the suicidal pilot/loony fundo theories took hold. Starting to drop away again now....

Follow the money, as always.

Above The Clouds

19th Mar 2014, 06:26

The secondary flight plan/route in the FMS is exactly what ETOPS240 has quoted.

In summary, two flight plans can be loaded in to the FMS. One is active, the other isn't. The inactive route can contain anything - a diversion, an escape route, a mirror image of the active route, a modified version of the active route, or something completely irrelevant. To activate it, it's just short keystroke sequence.

We use the secondary flight mode all the time for forward planning on multi sector days or where a quick turn around is required on the ground, once loaded it takes a couple of key strokes to activate.

@Jug

The secondary flight plan is displayed on the MFD as "secondary" when activated you cannot pretend to use the primary flight plan while actually using the secondary.

D.S.

19th Mar 2014, 06:29

slats11 (http://www.pprune.org/members/189735-slats11) said,

However it does seem an odd coincidence that the claimed level of precision should just happen to produce a result of 40 degrees.I'm not so sure I understand why 40 Degrees is seemingly so odd.

The Map

http://tvaraj.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/flight-map-released-by-malaysian-officials-shows-two-red-lines-representing-the-possible-locations-from-which-flight-370-sent-its-last-hourly-transmission.jpg

The lines are fairly close to begin with and a little bit of rounding would likely make little to no difference when we are talking about a last known with an up to a 59 minute margin for variance anyway, imo

The 8:11-9:10 time frame seems to mean a 4-5 Degree +/- in both directions is possible considering that (4-5 degrees) is roughly what the plane managed between last Contact and last Radar hit (roughly an hours time). The "40 degrees" already becomes anywhere from roughly 35-45, with fuel levels (as we believe we understand them) indicating it is probably closer to the initial 8:11 time anyway.

Plausible theory - 40 is easy for all to remember and report, and doing so would make no real difference, so they rounded it to that.

Or am I just thinking about this incorrectly?

ETOPS240

19th Mar 2014, 06:31

To be totally honest, I don't know exactly how much information can be sent by ACARS regarding position reports.

I do know that as a minimum, an automated position report sends from your aircraft tells them the waypoint you're heading to (the active waypoint, as it's known), and the one after that. Whether CPDLC can provide more info further down your flight plan automatically, I'm not sure.

So to answer your question, yes. An ACARS position report will tell ATC you're at XYZ, at 11:12z, FL350, estimating next WPT ABC at 11:25z, and then heading WPT DEF after that.

All of this elaborate conjecture of pre-loading RTE 2 is all well and good, but wouldn't be a deal-breaker. Ultimately, if someone got control of the aircraft, the use of automation, LNAV/VNAV, hand-flying etc. is a all irrelevant.

If you lock the other pilot out of the flight deck, who cares what medium you use to navigate?

I'd have thought the big 'breakthrough' in your hypothesis isn't a clever or covert insertion of a second route. The bigger news that someone locked themselves in the flight deck in order to hijack the aircraft.

xcitation

19th Mar 2014, 06:36

@TheShadow
Parallels with prior inflight fires

It's a reasonable theory.
If we look at the stats #1 cause is pilot error, #2 cause is mechanical failure. However the flight path/9-11 style stealth is more consistent with an intentional act.
It is hard to explain no communications were detected from mobile phones or other signal when the a/c crossed the peninsular and apparently this might have been at low altitude.
For me what is most odd about this incident is that after 10 days we have inconsistent data released, contradictions and an apparent lack of co-operation between the parties involved. Unlike AF447 there is very little stated plan of action and I fear there is a lack of leadership and focus in the investigation.
I understand that some data is classified however it appears that even the skunk works data has not helped locate the a/c except within a vast area.

D.S.

19th Mar 2014, 06:36

All talk has been about a/c heading North, West or South. Any possibility it could have doubled back in an Easterly direction? Don't :ugh: me #JustAsking ;)On the logic side; you would have had to of gone back across land yet again (almost certainly picked up on someones radar and/or spotted.) Why bother going across the Peninsula once (leaving your only known trail) just to do it once more? You were over there to begin with and could have just ensured you avoided all radar by staying there

On the technical side; doesn't match the Pings. Earlier pings they have would have indicated that eastward path, plus hitting the 40 degree at 8:11 after a short double back would be impossible. Going East also means they would be very close to/end up pinging a second Satellites range. That would have been unbelievably helpful in this SAR effort! (but sadly didn't happen)

slats11

19th Mar 2014, 06:48

I'm not so sure I understand why 40 Degrees is seemingly so odd.

It has been suggested the timing is highly accurate and so should have a fairly precise number. 40.00 (? how many significant figures) seemed a bit unlikely.

As you suggest, it is likely just rounding to a number.

fred_the_red

19th Mar 2014, 06:52

Thanks D.S
If it were possible (Terrain 'hugging', etc) , regardless how unlikely, to double back, then given all eyes appear to be on the Indian Ocean, it's mission accomplished in terms of diverting the SAR effort and execute Pt II of whatever overall plan is?

halfmanhalfbeer

19th Mar 2014, 06:54

TheShadows post Parallels with prior inflight fires strikes me as the most sensible thing I have read on this tragedy in the past few days.

Lazerdog

19th Mar 2014, 06:58

It would seem to me that in a fire, those thin ARINC 629 cables carrying ACARS data would be first to go. Failure of those might make it appear as if a human was turning knobs as systems can not connect to their LRUs.

Ramjet555

19th Mar 2014, 06:59

That's a hell of a good observation.

Wonder what happened to Air Malaysia Share price?

And if the wreck were found?

Right now , not finding the wreck appears to be
a financial plus for them and finding it
a hell of a liability.

No wonder they are sending everyone off on a wild goose chase..

rampstriker

19th Mar 2014, 07:03

Is it possible to upload a flight plan previously drafted on a PC to the T7's FMS from a flash drive or a smartphone/tablet USB connection? Is proprietary software required to draft a flight plan or is it available to the general public?

Elephant and Castle

19th Mar 2014, 07:04

What many of you dont seem to realise is that ACARS outages are pretty common, even in the middle of Europe. ACARS comes in and out sometimes and pilots would think nothing of it, a station might be congested or doing some maintenance or whatever. Likewise transponders fail on occasion, not very often but again if a transponder failed during my flight I would think nothing of it, that is why we carry two of them. I would not know it has failed until ATC told me though and at that point i would just switch to the other transponder.

Flying is not like the high security prison some of you imagine it to be where a change in the FMC triggers loud sirens at a ground facility. There might be 101 reasons why I do or change things in my FMS. There are literary 100 of thousands of flights every day, 99.99999999% of them landing safely. The role of ATC is to make sure that in this very congested airspace airplanes do not collide with each other. They do not have a role to police what I input or not in my FMC.

Most serious emergencies would be dealt with by turning the aircraft towards a suitable landing airport, if heading out across the sea turning initially back towards the coast would seems sensible if confronted with fire or fumes. Although pilots have their own supply of oxygen there have been occasions in the past where the crew oxygen has been filled with nitrogen by mistake. If that was the case the crew would have been incapacitated quite quickly. Passenger oxygen has a limited supply of about 15 minutes, at altitude they would have been incapacitated too. Cabin crew do have portable bottles but can the fly the airplane? They can try and maybe they did but the portable supply doesn't last vey long at the flow needed if the airplane has depressurized, one way or another they would have ended up incapacitated too if they did not manage to descent the airplane to bellow 10,000 feet. Finally incapacitated people can do all sorts of funny things while trying to do something else, that is the nature of incapacitation.

220mph

19th Mar 2014, 07:04

Amazing how the same ideas keep cycling ...

Info on 2009 777 onboard fire (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-53.html#post8368583) - check out the links for pictures of damage.

MountainBear

19th Mar 2014, 07:10

Elephant and Castle

19th Mar 2014, 07:23

On the contrary, many of us do realize that. The question must be put, however, is what are the odds of both of them failing on the same flight within minutes of each other? How often has that happened in your knowledge and experience?

What are the odds of flipping a coin and getting heads five times in a row?

Having flipped a coin four times in a row and got heads every time what are the odds of getting heads again if I flip it one more time?

I don't think probability works in the way you imply. ACARS fails quite regularly, once ACARS has failed what is the probability that the transponder fails? The same as it always has been for transponder failures. Unless there is a common mode failure in which case it is much higher.

Old Carthusian

19th Mar 2014, 07:32

The statistical approach whilst attractive is fundamentally flawed. Just because an event happens frequently and even more frequently than other events does not mean that it will prove to be the cause of the next incident (if you want a spectacular illustration of this take a look at the Fukushima nuclear power station). The fire explanation is just as far fetched as any of the other explanations - perhaps even more so as it requires an even greater number of unlikely events to happen (which does not preclude it from being the explanation). However, even though the rarity of the hijack or pilot deviance explanation is significant this particular line of investigation still fits the known facts better.

EngineeringPilot

19th Mar 2014, 07:35

@ Contact Approach

MH370 was overcome by a fire, why is this being overlooked?

This is exactly what I am trying to say. Electrical fire makes perfect sense for ACARS going off and pilots unaware of ACARS not transmitting, rather than a manual turn-off that everyone is implying.

Sober Lark

19th Mar 2014, 07:36

@Elephant - The St Petersburg paradox and Bermoulli?

@Ramjet555. Yes, I agree with you. It certainly suits Boeing if the aircraft was never found.

If this incident followed the Occam's razor principle we'd have found the aircraft. Looks like we are following Hickam's dictum instead.

TURIN

19th Mar 2014, 07:37

Elephant and Castle

19th Mar 2014, 07:43

In my A/C it would not show in the 777 I would imagine that it would depend on the failure mode. Either way it would be a low priority message and therefore buried underneath any other higher priority messages resulting from electrical / smoke / fire / pressurisation .

The East Rhodesian

19th Mar 2014, 07:44

For all the fire/catastrophic failure merchants; How was the aircraft still pinging INMARSAT afterwards? :ugh:

rampstriker

19th Mar 2014, 07:46

I don't think probability works in the way you imply. ACARS fails quite regularly, once ACARS has failed what is the probability that the transponder fails? The same as it always has been for transponder failures. Unless there is a common mode failure in which case it is much higher.

Say the odds are 1 in 1,000 that the transponder fails and 1 in 1,000 that ACARS fails. Then the odds that both fail at the same time are 1 in a million. Easy math.

EngineeringPilot

19th Mar 2014, 07:49

For all the fire/catastrophic failure merchants; How was the aircraft still pinging INMARSAT afterwards?

Considering it was an electircal problem or a slow electrical fire, aircraft flew on autopilot for several hours until it ran out of fuel, or until fire burnt controls electricals first, and the plane crashed.

CaptainEmad

19th Mar 2014, 07:49

skytrax

19th Mar 2014, 07:51

Thai army says that they also monitored the plane for a while after it turned but because nobody asked them, they didnt share the info until now. !!!!!????? Are they for real?!!
Ok, I know the plane was at no time above thailand, so why do they even bother to release this info publicly now? Tell the Malaysians what you have and shut up.

Another thing that it hard to get for me. They see an unidentified plane in the area and they dont scrumble a fighterjet to check it out?! Im referring here to the Malaysians, of course. Wouldnt this be the normal reaction to a plane that fails to be identified through normal sops.

My humble opinion is that they have no clue where this plane is. Americans looking north, aussie searching south, chinese looking in the wrong place initially.......
My heart goes out to those poor souls and their families.

gazumped

19th Mar 2014, 07:52

What type of electrical fire is severe enough to cause the failures on this flight, incapitate the crew, yet allow continued flight for 7 hours?

Smoke and or fumes could overcome the crew, if they failed to use the oxy masks,( or if oxy bottles inadvertently filled with nitrogen) however, the way I see it any type of fire that caused the aledged defects would certainly not allow continued flight.

IMHO, it is very likely that continued human intervention is most likely.

lakedude

19th Mar 2014, 07:53

There is absolutely no evidence the aircraft has been hijacked.There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the aircraft might have been hijacked or commandeered, there is no proof.

Sure the plane might have had some kind of fire or other disaster but the timing is very telling. No better time to disappear than at the hand off. Could be just a coincidence but I kinda doubt it.

That all the com/tracking equipment failed seems deliberate. Sure some disaster could have knocked out all the communications and tracking equipment (or the pilot's ability to use them) but left the ping? Once again, I kinda doubt it.

Thus our missing 777 will be found somewhere between maldives and seychelles, imo. This completely ignores the satellite ping evidence.

EDIT:

On the side of a possible disaster:

The aircraft might have been flying low to have breathable air rather than to avoid radar.

xgjunkie

19th Mar 2014, 07:58

The East Rhodesian
For all the fire/catastrophic failure merchants; How was the aircraft still pinging INMARSAT afterwards?

At risk of causing apoplexy from the herd.

Until all of the six pings and the message format are made public then I cant help but suspect gross incompetence and politics.
Dont you find it strange that the 40 degree arc if completed properly joining north route to south route passes very close to last point of contact.

Yes I know the centre part of the arc has been removed because POR didnt detect mh370 and the aircraft was supposedly detected on primary radar.

Seriously, nobody is really 100% sure that the primary paint was mh370 and if the aircraft was at sea level then POR would not have detected the plane as it would most likely be out of line of sight.

It is really important that the six ping locations nd message format be released to stop all this conjecture once and for all.

What exactly are they hiding and why is Inmarset not allowed to publish their data.

Charley B

19th Mar 2014, 08:02

One thing that I consider odd...when over UK/Europe and there loss of comms..certain fast jets will appear beside the aircraft!
If Ho Chi Min ATC were desperately trying to contact the aircraft after It had said Good Night to KL ATC(I did read many posts ago that this was heard) why oh why did they not take the appropriate action then..
Tragic really that this action was not taken..or is it not done in Asia?

jimster99

19th Mar 2014, 08:02

I notice people are misusing statistics on this thread to reject certain of the disapparance theories as being "too unlikely".

What they should realise is that even the more straightforward explanations (e.g. decompression or pilot suicide) are themselves incredibly unlikely and have only happened a minute number of times in the entire history of air travel.

The only certainty is that whatever the explanation is, it has to be extraordinary! And this means, in my view, that you can't discount the whackjob theories, no matter how odd they seem.

Contact Approach

19th Mar 2014, 08:03

Its probably all a massive load of nonsense to keep you all guessing. Aircraft caught fire and crashed somewhere unknown. They can't find it so cling to something else in their desperate attempts...

DaveReidUK

19th Mar 2014, 08:08

why is Inmarset not allowed to publish their dataIt's by no means certain that Inmarsat have access to any stored (ephemeral) data on any but the last ping.

slats11

19th Mar 2014, 08:10

Charley B

19th Mar 2014, 08:13

Then the Malaysians should have been a bit more thorough IMHO

Hempy

19th Mar 2014, 08:15

If Ho Chi Min ATC were desperately trying to contact the aircraft after It had said Good Night to KL ATC(I did read many posts ago that this was heard) why oh why did they not take the appropriate action then..

Because Vietnam radar saw them turn back west away from them. No threat to them so no action.

So because a commercial flight 'turns back' and isn't considered a 'threat', that therefore absolves the relevant ANSP from providing the appropriate and timely SAR response??

SOPS

19th Mar 2014, 08:35

Politics is really showing up now. Thailand had radar information about the change of track on day one, but did not share it, because 'they were not asked'.

Search aircraft are sitting on the ground because governments are reluctant to give over flight permission.

The whole thing is becoming a bigger mess as each hour passes.

500N

19th Mar 2014, 08:38

SOPS

Did you see the report (media) where it said Malaysia had asked (the US and Aust) for the raw data or any info from Pine Gap that might relate to the aircraft ! Not sure they will get a response they will like !

TWT

19th Mar 2014, 08:44

I can understand that 500N.They didn't ask Thailand and look what happened.Worth a try anyway.

aerobat77

19th Mar 2014, 08:45

regarding somekind of fire, let me quote my own post three days ago :

i must say i finally do not believe all the fancy rumours.

i think they had somekind of an initially undetected smoldering fire in the electronic bay which disabled one system after another - starting with acars. after system failures began they decided to turn back to malaysia , using the heading mode .

just in the turn the fire melted through the structure resulting in a rapid decompression. the crew oxygen bottles, stored in the electronic bay, failed and the pilots were out of order. the decompression by itself also put off this fire.

the autopilot continued to work and stucked in the turn on a heading towards indian ocean where the plane continued until fuel exhaustion and then crashed.

any news on altitude changes etc are just false rumour from the malysian side.

it maybe that "simple".

i of course also can only guess but tell you should the thing will ever be resolved many of you will look as stupid as it can be with all the conspirancy theories. it makes perfectly no sense to hijack an aircraft just to fly it on the open ocean and crash without any word, suicide by pilot for life insurance is if far more easy by car against a tree than with this scenario , an unknown landing can be pretty sure excluded.

look at AF447 - what was speculated by "experts" - and who assumed they just stalled the thing and three pilots were not aware of it for several minutes.

this thread started good with useful info but quickly turned stupid, overhelmed by the usual "professional" entries, and should some people involved in the search or broadcasting serious reports on the incident read this all they surely will only have a laugh. i strongly recommend in future somekind of a system where you have to proof to the admin who you are before contributing in such discussions, otherwise this will ever be only a valve for people searching the thrill in wild speculations without any relationship to reality .

A340Yumyum

19th Mar 2014, 08:46

Electrical fire, smoke, fought by increasing altitude to FL45,

Wow, 'increase alt to FL45'??

Mate, stick to FS98 like 99.9% of the posters on this forum!

Yancey Slide

19th Mar 2014, 08:47

Any fire/crew incapacitation theory has to account for the fire selectively disabling only comm systems yet leaving the AFDS systems alone so the aircraft then flies along last programmed route until fuel exhaustion and then crashing. I'm pretty sure all that stuff is in the ee bay.

500N

19th Mar 2014, 08:49

"Worth a try anyway."

I see you changed your post !

Yes, worth a try but I don't like the chances, even if it isn't so "super secret" any more but that is different to handing over data / info. If they did have anything I would say that Aus / US aircraft / ships would use it and suggest to Malaysia to help in that area.

As has been suggested by a SAR person before on another search, a discreet word was said to "search over there" without being told why and that is where they found it.

Swiss Cheese

19th Mar 2014, 08:49

Interesting and incisive thoughts about Boeing, and following the money.

In Air France 447, Airbus looked at the ACARS data (released into the public domain only 76 hours after disappearance - and 48 hours before any debris spotted), and formed their own view. Airbus certainly wanted the black boxes recovered, so they could tell their story about Air France. Hence 30m Euro was found by Airbus and Air France (and their insurers) to recover the boxes.

Has anyone asked Boeing publicly what they are actively doing to assist the Investigation?

ZAZ

19th Mar 2014, 08:54

What did the 200 odd pas do during this event. Sit and watch movies for 7 hours. I imagine at least some would try to storm the flite deck. If in fact anyone was still alive. Now we have the Maldives, some fishermen in Malaysia also reporting a low flying jet. And reluctant govts giving out radar data. As for Jindalee doubt if is operating in the wee small hours, it relies on hf prop which is not too good in middle of the night at 17 to 24 MHz.

slats11

19th Mar 2014, 08:54

I don't know Hempy. I though I had read ages back that Vietnam saw them turn back to Malaysia, and they had told the Malaysians. I don't know if this means they told them in real time, or only later when everyone realised it had gone missing. Not sure anyone knows given the way so may things have been stated one day and then revised the next.

People here have said they heard HCM trying to contact them. I think also the other MH flight was asked to try to raise them.

LegallyBlonde

19th Mar 2014, 09:01

If Aus/US had/have any useful data from Pine Gap they will be using it in the search. Australia is in charge of the southern search.

Not much point telling Malaysia unless to help them make a bigger pig's ear out of the matter than has already happened.
"Oh, it's Wednesday so today's story is ........."
JMO

Sheep Guts

19th Mar 2014, 09:10

Its shame the way this has all been handled. And how the lack of cooperation between countries seems to have let the search down. GEO political issues aside, I hope they can learn from this and have a concerted ASEAN approach to search and rescue. I 've been flying these routes and others daily for the last 8 years and since the debacle of the Adam Air search. I thought we were over this and lessons had been learnt. But obviously not.
In Central America they combined their ATC and SAR response many years ago, all for the better.

OleOle

19th Mar 2014, 09:12

I understand Australia has an impressive surveillance RADAR on their mainland (JORN).

Now I was wondering: If one inverts so much money into such a RADAR on the mainland, then wouldn't it be logical to take advantage of the location of Cocos (Keeling) Islands to dramatically extend the range ?

One of AMSAs media releases it states P3 Orion have relocated from Cocos (Keeling) Islands to Perth to assist the SAR, so there must be some infrastructure on the Island and MH370 may have passed close by. Maybe some data points may be derived by knowing if it was painted by primary radar or not.

Any of you folks from Down Under can comment ?

BTW: Kudos for your SAR effort.

Pontius Navigator

19th Mar 2014, 09:13

Hypoxia is nasty and extremely insidious.

I have experienced it in a chamber. After spending 2 mins off Oxygen trying to fill in a worksheet, I only managed to make a start on my name at the top.
The first two letters of my name.

Apart from a big grin, I wasnt aware of any problem.

And this paralysis occured after a rapid decompression from 8000 to only F250.

:eek:

Quite. Of course in the bang chamber you know it's going to happen. If it is not a rapid decompression, is no bang, no vapour, not sudden temperature drop, but a quick decompression you may not be as aware that you have decompressed until too late. Cabin pressurisation OFF even by accident?

We experienced this once when the PNF reacted wrongly to the checklist. He should have been switching fuel tank pressurisation and gave the response "No Pressure" which we recognised immediately was cabin pressurisation and not the response "Off" that we had expected. We decompressed but slowly.

Personally I am lucky; I feel sick before I become hypoxic.

tangolimasierra

19th Mar 2014, 09:14

It did occur to me that while there are clear geographical and logistic reasons for Australia to take charge of the Southern search area, there is also the possibility that the US may be more willing to reveal any information they may have to the Australians than the Malaysians.

Hempy

19th Mar 2014, 09:14

Slats,
It is the responsibility of the accepting ATC unit to initiate Comms checks in the event of a missed call, and after 15 minutes to initiate the appropriate SAR phase. These comm checks include coordination with the preceding ATC unit. Seeing the aircraft

a. stop squawking mode S,
b. cease comms, and
c. make an unapproved route AND level deviation,

surely would trigger DISTRESS in any mans language. The fact that a distress phase wasn't launched for 1 hour and 20 minutes after the transfer is an indictment on all involved, and no doubt has had an influence over the fact that this search has gone on so long with absolutely zero results..

harrogate

19th Mar 2014, 09:16

Question.

What would you do as pilot of a 777 (or comparable aircraft) if faced with a 'significant' electrical fire in the exact position south of Vietnam where MH370 deviated from course?

This is for commercial pilots to answer, not sim heads, fanboys, etc.

Space Jet

19th Mar 2014, 09:17

Daily press conference in 15 minutes
Live TV | Astro Awani (http://www.astroawani.com/videos/live)

DuneMile

19th Mar 2014, 09:18

#MH370 (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23MH370&src=hash) The chinese relatives of #MH370 (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23MH370&src=hash) creating a mayhem of the scheduled press conference.
(http://t.co/bxPqr3zDzi)

(http://t.co/bxPqr3zDzi)

(http://t.co/bxPqr3zDzi)
pic.twitter.com/bxPqr3zDzi (http://t.co/bxPqr3zDzi)

TRW Plus

19th Mar 2014, 09:19

Citizens of countries that claim that they don't operate military radars at night or on weekends should be asking some very searching questions.

Or at least they should apply for a 40% refund on taxes paid if the government is only working part-time to protect their territory.

Just a note on the Maldives report, there's no way that any such sighting could be consistent with the end-point on the now-infamous "red arcs" but we should get some clarity as to how the 0615h local compares to the 0811h end of sequence that establishes the red arcs. I understand that the 0811h is equivalent to 0011z (UTC) and would imagine that 0615h in Maldives time might be about 2315z, possibly 2215z or 0015z. Any of these is too close to 0011z to allow a plane to be in the two different locations. The minimum flight time from Maldives to the red arc to the north is about 4 hours, surely.