Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost

[Blue Amber]

It is noteworthy that ELTs are not mentioned in the official accident reports re. TWA 800, Swissair 111, PanAm 103 or Egyptair 990.

Thus one does not know whether the Emergency Locator Transmitters were activated or not in these instances.

[glenbrook]

They have a very accurate position at 07 due to the VHF ACARS transmission. They use that datum with the next ping to work out the return time at that known range. High school maths then allows you to work out future ranges based on ping return times.

It's not rocket science although they are capable of that too!

But if it is a one-way transmission from a/c to satellite then this is subject to error based on the clock drift between the satellite and the a/c. Even using the most accurate clocks drift with say one part per million stability would drift 3.6 milliseconds an hour. A millisecond clock error translates to roughly 300km position difference. Over seven hours, the location information based on a single, one-way ping would be useless. The satellite would have a high accuracy clock, but the a/c would have something normal, say 10ppm. Therefore, I guess they must to be talking about a two way communication, but I haven't seen the protocol spelled out anywhere. The details of this protocol matter a lot to determining the accuracy of the distance measurements.

Edited:
Ok I found this on the WSJ


After not receiving new data from the 777 after its automated reporting system was switched off, the automated satellite pings—the digital equivalent of a handshake—originated at a ground stations and was transmitted up to the orbiting satellite high above the Earth's equator. The satellite relays the ping down to the aircraft below, effectively asking the jet if it is still able to send and receive data. After receiving it, Flight 370 transmitted a return ping back up to Inmarsat, which in turn relayed it to the ground station.

To get a handle on the error we need to know where and how the ping transmit/receive time was measured and the total round trip time.

[BOAC]

I think the only thing that rules out the "Northern Arc" is the lack of any reported radar returns that way - don't forget that Transponder off wipes out a whole stack of ATC radars which look only at those codes. Also trying to fathom truth from fiction, deception and 'reluctance' to share info begs the question - can we be SURE there are no radar returns? I cannot see mil radars on that track readily sharing info even if they saw the 'blip' and chose to investigate it - there would be a load of traffic on that route at that time of night and would a sleepy scoper notice no transponder code if indeed checking? Look how long it appears to have taken various agencies to pass on info.

[MountainBear]

Inmarsat have many hundreds of thousands of flight records that they can test their method against. I'm sure they wouldn't broadcast faulty information.I believe their data. It's the fact that they are not accident investigators that concerns me. Any good accident investigator knows to be wary of projecting their own bias onto the data instead of letting the data takes it where it leads them. In fact, the fact that the normal assumption is that delay=distance makes me even more wary of it.

Several people have suggested that the plane flew low over the water in order to avoid radar detection. Flying low over the water could cause what is known as "tidal fading" which is interference as a result of multipath reflection off the surface of the water. It's theoretically imaginable that this tidal fading could cause the distance calculations to be messed up in unpredictable ways.

So I'm not wary of their data, I'm wary of their assumptions they are making in analyzing the data.

[MG23]

Ping time can increase for multiple reasons not related to distance. One obvious confounding factor is interference of some type.

They're talking about differences of a few milliseconds over the course of a flight, so the only way I could see interference affecting it would be to add noise to the signal that would make identifying those signals harder and increase the error bounds on the timings; I'm not sure exactly where the delay is measured, but, for example, a noise spike could presumably cause misidentification of the first bit, if that's the point used to determine delay.

So there's no 100% certainty here, but if the delays are consistent with an aircraft moving over time, particularly one moving at a constant speed, and the delays on earlier flights are consistent with position reports on those flights, then we can be pretty sure they're good positions. Bigger issues are probably things like transmitter synchronization drift over the course of a flight, which, again, can be checked by looking at earlier flights of the same aircraft.

Edit: just saw your post above mine about low-level multipath reflections: yeah, there certainly could be oddities like that which would affect the timings. I'm guessing no-one's going to offer a 777 to fly low-level over the ocean to provide calibration data.

[awblain]

BOAC,

I entirely agree, it would have to be military radars doing the finding, and silly o'clock on a weekend is probably not the best time to keep a keen look out.

Nevertheless, the timings of the Inmarsat round-trips should give a range of plausible tracks north too, and would help anyone to run back through saved data to look out in hindsight. The problem with the Southern track is there's absolutely nothing to run into.

Mr 172 has noted the plausible possibility of cellphone sign ins over more populated areas, and I suspect the lack of those should be able to rule out a northern route, making a trip south with no cell towers until Patagonia the default.

[BDiONU]

Lockerbie, The aircraft also vanished from the full radar coverage, It did not vanish. There was a vast return which took a long time to disappear as the wreckage slowly glided did. It was very obvious what had happened, although immediate thought was that it had hit something.

[JG1]

In August 2005 a 777 also Malaysian Airways, encountered an upset caused by the autopilot pitching the aircraft to FL 410 before the aircraft stalled.

Investigation: 200503722 - In-flight upset; Boeing 777-200, 9M-MRG, 240 km NW Perth, WA (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2005/aair/aair200503722.aspx)

Recently there was a warning about cracks in 777 fuselages.

I put it to you that perhaps a similar incident occurred here with MH370 withe the autopilot causing it to pitch to FL450 or higher with the aircraft structure actually failing explosively a la Aloha Airlines, incapacitating the crew but leaving the aircraft in a flyable state. Further Partial destruction, for example of the comms systems, could happen over time as loose pieces of the fuselage ripped away. The damaged aircraft sans crew somehow resumes level flight after the upset, (stranger things have been know to happen to ghost aircraft),but pointing in the wrong direction. It flies off and continues to do so.

After this 2005 incident it was discovered that sudden accelerations during the incident had damaged an accelerometer in the ADIRU and that an other accelerometer had failed previously.

Could it be that MH370, with the flight crew incapacitated, the passengers dying, flew an erratic track because the ADIRU was damaged and intermittently commanded turns which ultimately resulted in this aircraft flying south until it crashed in the sea due to fuel exhaustion?

[FE Hoppy]

From todays press brief it's clear that the southern route has some priority due to the time constraints in locating the recorders. The same doesn't apply to the north.

[DX Wombat]

Something which disturbs and saddens me about this, other than the probable loss of life, is the apparent unwillingness of various agencies to share information which may be of help. I'm thinking particularly of the "We didn't tell them because they didn't ask" situation with Thailand. Surely common decency should dictate that any possibly relevant information should be shared as a matter of course without having to be asked and as soon as possible after an event? I appreciate that security needs to be preserved but ways can usually be found of circumventing specific detail which might betray particularly sensitive information which the country of origin might wish to preserve.

[FE Hoppy]

@ JG1

It kept pinging and made course changes.

[JamesGBC]

The imersat track is shown as an Arc if transposed onto a globe does it become a direct great circle track as normally flown? I assume the track was calculated this way. Perhaps they should release the timing data for others to have a look.
Checking with the search aircraft should give a comparison timing.

How many way-points exist in the southern area that can be programmed into the 777 Internal navigation system?

After depressurization is it possible to open the doors and bale out the 777 did any crew have a unusual carry on bag?

[MrDK]

@ Bono
Appeal: Please Do Not Reveal Critical Security Info

Some one raised a very pertinent question about discussing cockpit door security procedures on an open forum. I believe that information that can reveal crucial security procedures related to aircraft operations such as access to vital areas, disabling any aircraft equipment by any manner, interfering with flight/cabin crew, ability to tamper with any equipment, etc. whether related to MH370 incident or not, must not be allowed on this forum. Posters and moderators please use caution, as innocent questions could be masking less than friendly intentions.

In principle just about anyone would agree with you, but try a Google search.
It is all available on the Internet.
I think ill minded people have Internet too.

[atr-drivr]

But after the initial turn westbound, if it did come back over Malaysia/Indonesia would there not have any cell phone sign in attempts as Mr172 points out? Especially if it, for whatever reason, was at a lower altitude? As was pointed out before, plenty of people leave their phone on after closing the door.

[DaveReidUK]

Therefore, I guess they must to be talking about a two way communication, but I haven't seen the protocol spelled out anywhere. The details of this protocol matter a lot to determining the accuracy of the distance measurements."Ping", which judging from the interview with the Inmarsat VP isn't a term they actually use, clearly implies a ping-and-response sequence in this context. Except in the case of the final ping, of course.

[FE Hoppy]

How many way-points exist in the southern area that can be programmed into the 777 Internal navigation system?

You can create a waypoint anywhere you like so gazzilions! And there and lots of ways to define a waypoint.

[DaveReidUK]

The imersat track is shown as an Arc if transposed onto a globe does it become a direct great circle track as normally flown? I assume the track was calculated this way.

The arc isn't a track. :ugh:

It's the set of possibilities for the position at the time of the final exchange with the satellite. And no, it's not a Great Circle.

[Golf-Mike-Mike]

From todays press brief it's clear that the southern route has some priority due to the time constraints in locating the recorders. The same doesn't apply to the north.

The other explanation for prioritising the southern arc was that a northerly route would have taken it over several countries' radar systems that - as yet - have drawn a blank. But I guess they may yet come up with something who knows ?

That said, the Malaysian's have continued to say they're keeping their options open, not ruling anything out without a fact-based reason to. There really are still very few facts, that we know of anyway.

[oldoberon]

But if it is a one-way transmission from a/c to satellite then this is subject to error based on the clock drift between the satellite and the a/c. Even using the most accurate clocks drift with say one part per million stability would drift 3.6 milliseconds an hour. A millisecond clock error translates to roughly 300km position difference. Over seven hours, the location information based on a single, one-way ping would be useless. The satellite would have a high accuracy clock, but the a/c would have something normal, say 10ppm. Therefore, I guess they must to be talking about a two way communication, but I haven't seen the protocol spelled out anywhere. The details of this protocol matter a lot to determining the accuracy of the distance measurements.

Edited:
Ok I found this on the WSJ



To get a handle on the error we need to know where and how the ping transmit/receive time was measured and the total round trip time.


ground to sat two fixed positions, sat to aircraft, aircraft to sat one fixed one moving, sat to ground two fixed items.

sat ground and vice versa absolutely irrelevant (the should be a constant). it matters not one jot whether the satellite has an hourly clock or the ground has the hourly clock, the only part that can measure the distance in time and relate it to distance is the sat-aircraft section.

The timing is almost certainly on the satellite why depend on extra transmissions from/to GS which may be down.

You fly into the coverage of a satellite, your presence is detected just like you going to an area of a new phone mast, it knows your there and both of them periodically check to see if you still are. So the satellite has detected a potential service user why tell the ground , it just logs it and checks in an hour

[JG1]

@ JG1

It kept pinging and made course changes.


Pinging because the system which pings is still intact.
Other comms out, some immediately some progressively.
As I said, erratic course because of damaged accelerometers in ADIRU.
That damage might even have caused it to only issue false commands at waypoints.

[25F]

unencrypted radio transmissions are in the public domain

Depends where you are. In the UK, this is what OFCOM says:

"Although it is not illegal to sell, buy or own a scanning or other receiver in the UK, it must only be used to listen to transmissions meant for GENERAL RECEPTION. The services that you can listen to include Amateur and Citizens' Band transmissions, licensed broadcast radio and weather and navigation broadcasts. It is an offence to listen to any other radio services unless you are authorised by a designated person to do so."

Full text here:

RA 169 - Receive-Only Radio Scanners etc (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/ra/publication/ra_info/ra169.htm)

In practice, of course, I've never heard of someone being prosecuted for listening to, or recording, ATC.

[MG23]

To get a handle on the error we need to know where and how the ping transmit/receive time was measured and the total round trip time.

Someone said earlier that the messages are sent in well-defined timeslots, so you wouldn't necessarily have to look at the round-trip delay, but the difference between the time the message was received from the aircraft and the 'ideal' start of the timeslot if the aircraft was directly below the satellite. That's assuming it's fairly well synchronized to the satellite, which you could determine by looking at previous flights that sent position reports.

[JamesGBC]

Thanks Dave
Hate to say your right and cleared my misunderstanding.

If they released the other pings and the last four are possible strait line. I'm sure someone by maths could work a possible track out.

[Speed of Sound]

The imersat track is shown as an Arc if transposed onto a globe does it become a direct great circle track as normally flown?

No of course it doesn't! :ugh:

A Great Circle track is a 'segment' originating roughly from the centre of the earth.

These arcs are segments exactly centred at the satellite sending and receiving the 'pings'.

Don't worry, you are not the only one who is having difficulty understanding what these arcs are and why they are not going to add much to the search for either a track flown or the final destination.

[D.S.]

Max Nightstop said,

A quick search reveals lithium batteries have UN code 3090 or 3481 in the dangerous goods manual, so they are categorized and the CEO is lying.

it is a Government owned and Run airline, the Government is effectively the CEO.

Trying to figure out the timeline of recent CEOs, I have run into a handful of confusing "appointments" press releases since 2010. Specifically, it looks as though Anand Selvaratnam and Ahmad Jauhari Yahya may have kind of been switched back and forth a couple times as CEO & Managing Director since April 2011, but who knows for sure. Before that, I am able to figure out

August 2009 - April 2011 - Tengku Datuk Azmil Zahruddin
Archives | The Star Online. (http://www.thestar.com.my/story.aspx/?file=%2f2009%2f8%2f28%2fbusiness%2f20090828125707&sec=business)

2005 - August 2009 - Idris Jala, current Senator and CEO of the Performance Management and Delivery Unit (Pemandu)
Idris Jala - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idris_Jala)

[Golf-Mike-Mike]

I haven't seen anyone post the other gem from today's press conference when a reporter asked if the SAR aircraft were being air refuelled, where that was technically possible, and had they asked the USA to provide tankers to do the honours. The reply was "no we haven't but I will now, now that you've asked!"

An Australian poster here made the point very clearly, days ago on PPRune, that the RAAF assets could air refuel so they weren't limited to just 2 hours on station in the Southern Indian Ocean. Sad then that they haven't done it.

[xcris]

I am not quite sure if this discussion is about how sat pinging is/was used for a/c positioning (a lot of inputs, harder and harder to follow).

However, pretty clear explained here:
Help from above: Satellite signals can confirm a plane's identity - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/17/world/asia/satellite-signals-plane-identity-flight-370/index.html?iid=article_sidebar)

The purpose of the hourly "handshakes" is to allow the satellite to know the approximate location of the aircraft so that it can efficiently relay any messages. For this, the satellite needs to know the angle of the aircraft from the satellite. An aircraft directly under the satellite would be at a 90 degree angle to the satellite; an aircraft at the poles would be at 0 degrees. (Inmarsat Official via CNN)


The probable track was obtained (backwards) starting from the last estimated position, using the know position of the (stationary) sat, the ground reference and the computed angle between the emitter (plane) and receiver (sat) when last ping has been sent - that is, not by time delay means (as GPS works). Which is straightforward...

They also said that's new territory:

"We're trying to get up to speed on what that means and how to interpret it," one U.S. official told reporters. "It's sort of a new technology for us."


regards,

[givemewings]

GMM, if I recall correctly, the poster stated that the RAAF Orions were unable to do AAR, however the US Navy Poseidon is capable of it. Of course others have already mentioned the other factors which come into play such as crewing levels and duty times...

[D.S.]

SLFplatine (http://www.pprune.org/members/414401-slfplatine) said

That there is a 50% possibility the flight ended at the southern most reaches of the Indian Ocean could indicate an attempt to return to KL which an incapacitated flight crew was unable to execute beyond setting HDG

The problems come in it getting there - or more specifically, back over the peninsula in the manor it did without a crew. Also the issue of ACARS having completely failed to alert anyone to said catastrophic event taking place. (although it appearntly, per Malaysian Press Conferences at least, let them know of WP changes (at least 2) in the last report at 1:07)

Possibility of incapacitated crew after exiting the Straights(/radar) area; very high. Up to that point though; unbelievably low. (and that seems to pretty much be the Official stance of the Investigation team, so...)

[givemewings]

To answer Pontius several pages back

However I don't know whether the drop downs work on a common system, ie one group are exhausted even is some drop downs have not been used. If that is the case then those crew on drop downs will be no better off than the pax.

It would depend on the system fitted, if chemical generators than only the masks in the units where one mask was pulled would flow. Therefore any units above unoccupied seats which were not activated would be available to the crew. I know on the 777 I trained on each unit lasts approximately 22mins. We know there were c50 empty seats on this flight...

However if it is a gaseous (bottled) systems as per 747, which one poster has suggested it was, duration would vary depending on altitude, number of masks in use and how many bottles are fitted to the system. Theoretically if only a couple of CC were quick enough they could long outlast the flight deck oxygen which is only designed for 2-4 people to use for as long as it takes to make an emergency descent. Of course if the pax are on it, it wouldn't last as long with 250+ using it...

[buttrick]

Have I missed it somewhere? How do they Know :
A. The radar tracks WERE 370 without IFF
B. The origin of the "waypoints"

Does MAS subscribe to ADS-C?

Please do not de-bunk unless you KNOW and can give the evidence!

[Pontius Navigator]

If they released the other pings and the last four are possible strait line. I'm sure someone by maths could work a possible track out.

The pings are time distances from the satellite and translated to an arc subtended from the point immediately below the satellite.

By definition these lines do not provide positions from which to drive a strait (sic) line. The lines will be a measurable distance apart. Let us assume they are at one hour intervals and are 200 miles apart; this gives a velocity vector of 200 mile/hr towards the statellite sub-point. You can then use a ruler marked off with the max ground speed, say 450 kts, and use this to fit the 450 mile marks to the arc. If you subtend this from the last know position it will give to a track at a given angle to the North with a similar mirror image to the South.

If you now mark the rule with either the minimum speed you can get another track which will be closer to the direct line to the satellite ground position.

You now have two sectors, one to the north and one to the south. The line joining the two points at the end of the sector arcs will give a possible line of position. These lines can then be plotted further on if it is assumed that the aircraft flew one for a time after the last ping. Only if you assume the correct groundspeed would you have a discrete pair of tracks.

The closer together the ping arcs the greater the track angle would be to the north and south.

The logic only holds good if the aircraft made no course changes between pings and flew at a constant ground speed.

[RichardC10]

Given a number of recent posts on the methods of interpreting the INMARSAT ‘ping’ data, here is my understanding of how this will have been done by the NTSB.

Each ping specifies a distance from the INMARSAT F1 sub-satellite point at 64degrees East on the equator. On the Earth’s surface this is a circle (but not a great circle). A model track can be specified from the last reported position of the aeroplane off the West coast of Malaysia to any point on the circle described by the last ping. The length of that track specifies the speed of the aeroplane (since the times are known) and hence where it would be when the intermediate (every hour) pings were exchanged. The distances of these ping positions from the sub-satellite point can be compared to the actual data (held by NTSB but not us). The point on the final ping circle (the arcs) can be moved until the model track matches the data. If there is no good match, change parameters like the final turning point, smooth changes in speed along the track etc. to get a good match to the data (there is a limit to how many things can be changed before the model can fit any data). Unless the aeroplane was performing extreme and random manoeuvres during its flight (in which case it would have crashed earlier) a course and speed of quite high accuracy can be obtained, I think.

The fuel exhaustion point is a different calculation and more uncertain IMHO.

A longer and even more boring post is at #5911 of this thread.

[Pontius Navigator]

I will start by stating that I don't KNOW and no one except the relevant military air defence operations centre will be able to tell you how they KNOW.

Have I missed it somewhere? How do they Know :
A. The radar tracks WERE 370 without IFF

Please do not de-bunk unless you KNOW and can give the evidence!

What I can say is how they should have known.

The air defence centre is responsible for compiling a recognised air picture in its AOR. A civilian aircraft entering the AOR will be wearing a civil squawk which will display adjacent to the primary radar return on the military radars. Now assuming the squawk decode and its position in the airway structure correlate with a known civil flight it will be allocated a Friendly track number - this is an AD assignment and not exchanged with the civil ATC (unless they are co-located).

If the aircraft then 'strangles its parrot' (:)) this will not affect the allocated track number. As the aircraft leaves the airway structure it will continue to 'wear' the same track number.

Should this aircraft then depart the relevant AOA it can be handed off to the adjacent Air Defence Centre, in this case that would be Thai if a bilateral agreement existed but we have not heard of such bilateral liaison.

[island_airphoto]

QUESTION RE PINGS:
Are the packets time stamped to enough accuracy for ranging or is INMARSAT timing the round trip or ?????
The error rate is around 186 miles (distance to satellite) per millisecond if I remember my math. You are deriving a sphere around the satellite and then plotting it against the surface of the planet which is another sphere.

[jmmilner]

Who did Boeing send there to make such unqualified remarks? An accountant? A lawver? A salesman?

The words are from a U.S. Senator, Saxby Chambliss, who was a lawyer before he entered politics 20 years ago. He threw out Boeing's name when he couldn't provide any direct support for his prior statement. This is standard behavior for US politicians.

[Swedish Steve]

However if it is a gaseous (bottled) systems as per 747, which one poster has suggested it was,

The MH B777 have oxygen generators.
The BA B777 have a gaseous system, customer option.

[Yancey Slide]

This hypothesis fits most of the bill. Even the cracks were found near the antennas. The only thing is the low flying reports from Maldives, if reliable. But the plane would have pinged and flown on until given an new waypoint and if the FMC had been damages or was getting bad input it could have gone haywire and given waypoints that had recently been used that were in its memory.

Except that this aircraft didn't have the antennas that caused the cracks spawning the AD.

[D.S.]

jmmilner (http://www.pprune.org/members/293542-jmmilner)

The words are from a U.S. Senator, Saxby Chambliss, who was a lawyer before he entered politics 20 years ago. He threw out Boeing's name when he couldn't provide any direct support for his prior statement. This is standard behavior for US politicians.

It should be noted that the words also perfectly fit the official position of the investigation (of which Boeing is a part of), and therefore could have very likely been said near exactly as Chambliss described them

[RatherBeFlying]

The only reliable LKP available to the public is the last SSR position.

Note that it's a few degrees above the equator.

Moving West from the LKP would reduce the distance to IOR -- as would a course of 180 True until crossing the Equator, whereupon the distance would steadily increase.

The first ping arc after LKP coupled with a/c g/s might be useful to determine whether MH370 turned North or South. The second ping arc may also be helpful in determining the relative probability of which way the a/c turned.

That said, there remains the possibility the a/c assumed a closed course. In that case, we might see a steady oscillation in ping arc distances or a constant one depending on cycle times. For example if the a/c was tracking a wide circle n times an hour, the ping distance could remain constant.

[kjblair]

Have I missed it somewhere? How do they Know :
A. The radar tracks WERE 370 without IFF
B. The origin of the "waypoints"

Does MAS subscribe to ADS-C?

Please do not de-bunk unless you KNOW and can give the evidence!

To the first point, in addition to what Pontius Navigator posted earlier, the authorities will have the data from the Inmarsat "pings". Since it has been reported the plane they believe to be MH370 disappeared from military radar in the 2:15-2:40 time period, they can use the distance to MH370 at 2:11 based on the Inmarsat data. If the arc proscribed by this distance matches up with the radar returns at the same time, that will be additional information to support their conclusion.

Additionally, you will have significantly different Inmarsat distance data if the plane did a 180 and tried to return along its original heading as opposed to making a left turn to cross over the peninsula along the Malaysian/Thai border as described by the authorities.

I believe they have a very high degree of confidence that the plane they saw was MH370.

[buttrick]

Does the 777 even carry an airframe ELT (the life rafts/slides have them but they are not automatic unless the slide is deployed)?

are you getting confused with the FDR sonar locating beacon (SLB)?

[oldoberon]

The MH B777 have oxygen generators.
The BA B777 have a gaseous system, customer option.

I have seen both quoted by posters claiming to know from experience is there a chance due to when they were ordered/delivered they could have either or is it a customer option.

[ukwomble]

Could it be that MH370, with the flight crew incapacitated, the passengers dying, flew an erratic track because the ADIRU was damaged and intermittently commanded turns which ultimately resulted in this aircraft flying south until it crashed in the sea due to fuel exhaustion?
Extremely unlikely for complex electronic systems to be damaged in such a way as to have such specific failures.

If I smash up a computer, what do you think the odds are that it'll (a) stop working / fail in many respects vs. (b) start doing something specific like sending an email every hour. I'm pretty sure you'd chose (a)....

Likewise having the flight systems damaged such that they change heading periodically but otherwise function perfectly, seems almost impossible.

[Cows getting bigger]

Buttrick, air defence radars since their conception have been able to assess height. In very simple terms, there is a radar sweep in the vertical plane as well as the horizontal.

[wiggy]

Does the 777 even carry an airframe ELT

Some certainly do, can't speak for MH's fit.

[oldoberon]

I haven't seen anyone post the other gem from today's press conference when a reporter asked if the SAR aircraft were being air refuelled, where that was technically possible, and had they asked the USA to provide tankers to do the honours. The reply was "no we haven't but I will now, now that you've asked!"

An Australian poster here made the point very clearly, days ago on PPRune, that the RAAF assets could air refuel so they weren't limited to just 2 hours on station in the Southern Indian Ocean. Sad then that they haven't done it.

and another poster (either RAAF or AMSA) stated categorically they can't only the americam P8 has that ability

[OleOle]

Some insight can be gained here:

Timing advance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timing_advance)

GSM and Inmarsat C both use time division multiplex technique, the principle is the same.


Think of many a/c (transmissions) wanting to land at the same destination airport (satellite) with all a/c coming from different origination airports (airborne transceivers)
- Each a/c (transmission) has a time slot assigned when it's supposed to arrive.
- For obvious reasons those time slots may not overlap.
- Radio waves behave different than a/c : they can not fly holding patterns.
- So take off time of the radio transmissions (a/c) have to be timed, such that all transmissions (a/c) arrive at the satellite (destination airport) in their assigned time slots.
- ATC at destination (the satellite) has to measure the distance between origin and destination, so it can tell ATC at origin (airborn transceiver) when the a/c (transmission) has to take off.
- This distance measuring happens by measuring round trip times.

[MATELO]

Little off topic but let us not get carried away with the capabilities of HMS Echo....

I spent 3 years on board and her sister ship as a civilian contractor providing support for the survey equipment and teaching Navy operators how to use it - (yes as a civilian - really!).

The vessel is fitted with survey equipment for up to 1000m depth. It is great at finding wrecks. A sidescan sonar can only see a 200m wide swathe and you can only survey at 4.5knots. Her hull mounted multibeam will see a much larger swathe, but it is not designed for detecting objects - just changes in seabed. The 'hit' rate per metre squared is too low.

While Echo is a valuable asset, but it is not magic and is limited by the equipment. What may be of more use is her ability to act as a command platform.

I now work as a Survey Party Chief running geophysical surveys (as well as a flight instructor) - so I do know this industry as well as flight instruction. Excellent bit of insight into how difficult the task is going to be to find the aircraft. This thread has gone into over kill with suggestions and hypothesis of what actually happened. Either way we wont know for sure until the plane is found and and even then we may never find out. The time is well and truly over for any thoughts of working out what happened.

On a side note, I find it rather tedious now watching the day after day updates (or non updates) in the press conferences. It is doing nothing more than fueling speculation and adding to the tension of the families. I know they want answers, but if there isn't any, then there isn't any.

[JamesGBC]

Pontius Navigator. Thanks for the excellent explanation, I did not consider the ground speed changing the track. You did remind me to consult my 1975 Ground studies for pilots, and perhaps navigators used to 50s and 60s radio and star navigation could solve the problem.

[Golf-Mike-Mike]

and another poster (either RAAF or AMSA) stated categorically they can't only the americam P8 has that ability

Thanks for clearing that up, I knew about the Poseidon capability and saw the first post about AMSA Orions, I missed the second

[glendalegoon]

UK telegraph claims to have ATC transcript.

Has anyone seen it?

[Airbubba]

and another poster (either RAAF or AMSA) stated categorically they can't only the americam P8 has that ability

Thanks for clearing that up, I knew about the Poseidon capability and saw the first post about AMSA Orions, I missed the second

Agreed, just as with B-777 pax O2, don't assume all P-8's have the same inflight refueling capability or that the crews are current and trained.

For example, most P-3's don't have inflight refueling capability, the P-3F's sold to Iran do (or did, its been a long time since they were delivered).

[Pontius Navigator]

Pontius Navigator. Thanks for the excellent explanation, I did not consider the ground speed changing the track. You did remind me to consult my 1975 Ground studies for pilots, and perhaps navigators used to 50s and 60s radio and star navigation could solve the problem.

Sadly that was simplified. You would also have to consider the width of each arc. You could also refine (complicate) the groundspeed
vector by applying wind to assumed airspeed.

[Golf-Mike-Mike]

Rather than some catastrophic loss of transmitting devices (VHF/HF radios, transponder/ADS-B, ACARS etc, is there any event that could cause all the relevant aerials to become inop, for eg does their wiring converge on some point, but would still enable the aircraft to be flown (albeit erratically) by a hypoxia affected pilot ? #clutchingatstraws

[OleOle]

sorry if this had been answered here before before . . . . . . the alleged nine witnesses on the Maldives . . . .. . .. have they been interviewed?. . .. .has any official credence come out about these 'sightings'?

Has been debunked by another eyewitness having seen it on the Andamans .:eek:
Malaysian woman 'saw missing MH370 in water near Andaman Islands' | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2586013/Malaysian-woman-claims-seen-missing-MH370-water-near-Andaman-Islands-day-disappeared.html)

[Lonewolf_50]

The Andaman Island question:

Trying to figure out why the Malaysian lady and her "sighting" from an aircraft (up high) near the Andaman Islands, as reported in a link further up, is being discounted. (There may be a lot of good reasons to do so).

Is the estimated position of her reported sighting too far from the north arc?

Her reported time of seing something is six to seven hours form the last "ping" that the Inmarsat folks have reported as registering on their satellite.

If the assumptions of last speed, or last altitude, or both are wrong ... is the locale where she thinks she saw it close enough to that arc/estimation to be worthy of investigating?

I am looking at maps, thinking about times, and that if the aircraft descended, and/or slowed down, for some reason, the furthest on circle shrinks a bit, and the fuel would run out sooner.

[Vinnie Boombatz]

A few definitions:

In the following the aircraft can be referred to as the UT (user terminal) or the AES (Aircraft Earth Station).

In the FCC documents, "downlink" is from the satellite, "uplink" is to the satellite. Don't guarantee that other documents follow that, have seen the terms reversed elsewhere, so one needs to skim any given document to get the sense of how those terms are used.

A few caveats:

The satellite antennas are not angle sensing, per se (e.g., no 4-horn feed or whatever). Spot beams and regional beams would have nominal angles relative to a satellite-fixed frame that would be known to the satellite operator. The documents linked do not contain a detailed frequency plan, but it seems reasonable that any pair of adjacent beams would employ some frequency separation.


A 4 MB "INMARSAT 101" briefing from 2009:

http://www.satcomdirect.com/connect/presentations09/Inmarsat%20101.pdf

Slides 32-33 show coverage for IOR and POR. Slide 17 says that Generation 3 satellites have 7 spot beams, so the numbers in the plots on Slides 32-33 appear to be the spot beams.

Slide 33 is actually moot, since the current POR satellite is Generation 4, located nearly 40 degrees further West in longitude:

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

MH370 should have been closer to the POR satellite at takeoff, and possibly within its field of view throughout much of its flight.

Haven't seen any "credible" statements of which INMARSAT satellite was providing the "ping" data. It could make a big difference, since the Generation 4 satellites (e.g., POR) have many more spot beams, which could help in the aircraft location.

FCC document that describes INMARSAT Block 3 communications (the Indian Ocean Region satellite is a Block 3):

https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=-136047

FCC document that describes INMARSAT Block 4 communications (the Pacific Ocean Region satellite is a Block 4):

https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=-94644

"The Inmarsat 4F2 satellite, licensed in the United Kingdom, will provide Mobile-Satellite Services to small User Terminals (“UTs”) . . .

The BGAN UT’s start by searching for the global beam signaling carrier. When acquired, the global beam holds information on any underlying regional beam channel the UT can use for registering on the network. No return communication is carried out in the global beam. The selection of regional beam channel is based upon UT GPS position and spot-beam maps or carrier C/No scanning. Once the correct regional beam has been acquired, the UT will attempt to register using either slotted aloha random access or un-slotted (in case the UT does not have its GPS position available) aloha random access on dedicated logical channels.

After registration the UT is handed over to a spot beam whenever a communications session is started. After the communications session has ended the UT is moved back to the regional beam to preserve resources in the spot beams."

"Regional Beam Signaling:
In the regional beam, two 50 kHz signaling carrier types are used for the BGAN. The modulation
is either 16QAM or QPSK.

The Return direction is used for the UT’s to register onto the network. Depending on the UT Class (1, 2 or 3), the UT will register using any combination of burst characteristics that closes the link. The return signaling carriers are either 25 kHz or 50 kHz and the modulation can either be QPSK or 16QAM."

It's not all that relevant, but if anyone gets hung up on the aloha protocol:

ALOHAnet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALOHAnet#Pure_ALOHA)

A draft RTCA spec with some system description for the latest version of ACARS (SBB, the broadband service with lots of spot beams):

http://www.icao.int/safety/acp/ACPWGF/ACP-WG-M-20/ACPWGM-20-WP05%20FRAC%20MASPS%20and%20SBB%20Material.pdf

On pg. 35, it mentions "performing link tests (keep alives)". Using those keywords in web searches doesn't seem to turn up much more than using "pings".

The document also mentions an "ICAO 24-bit aircraft address". That allows over 4 million unique addresses, though the bits may be allocated less efficiently (e.g., using BCD). Whatever, that identifier is likely part of the aircraft response to a "ping", hence uniquely identifying MH370.

[Ozlander1]

Have I missed it somewhere? How do they Know :
A. The radar tracks WERE 370 without IFF
B. The origin of the "waypoints"

Does MAS subscribe to ADS-C?

Please do not de-bunk unless you KNOW and can give the evidence!
Civilian aircraft won't have an IFF.

[Lonewolf_50]

Civilian aircraft won't have an IFF.
Sure they will: it is called a transponder, Mode 3/C.

"IFF" is a term used for transponder. Most mil transponders I worked with had modes I, II, III/C, and IV. The kit someone was painting your with would determine what part of the system responded to you.

Mode III/C interacted with standard air traffic control radar systems. A mil operator can refer to a standard civil transponder's response as an IFF (Mode III/C) reply to his interrogation. The advantage of this is that you only need one piece of kit to send out replies to interrogations via the antenna.

[balaton]

I'm sure most of us ("real" ppruners) recognized a long time ago: this topic is going around and around circles without anything valuable added for a long time now. Obviously, nobody takes the nuisance to read previous posts.
So: Anybody to come up with a timeline again... and again? More self made maps? More wild ideas? Conspiration theories repeated dozen times? Something again on "PINGS" ( oh, God I learned to hate this tiny world)? Something technical again on transponders? And you, search and rescue experts, want to repeat your opinion on awashed containers? Preconceptions on poor pilots experimenting with flight simulators at home (I know a couple of them, including myself) just for fun and because they love their jobs, addicted to aviation? I just hope we are not terrorists.. eeer.. I have to double check that...
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO POST THE SAME RUBISH AGAIN and AGAIN! We could barely wait to read the same thing again. Hey, PPRUNE hase a huge server, they can cope with it I'm sure.
PPRUNE (and us, "real experts") wasted 350 plus pages of this topic for nothing. Nothing new, nothing to learn, no knowledge to share, absolutely nothing.
Only one consolation: It seems that most of the professional ppruners left this topic for good reason...and I will do the same.

[Lazerdog]

Hoegh St. Petersburg should have been in the area for a while now and no news from them. Perhaps the only way to find MH370 is if the US Navy sends a sub into the area. They would have the technology to hear the pinger a long ways off.

[AT1]

My first post on this site :O – please be gentle! :uhoh:

I am a telecoms engineer, nothing to do with aviation.


Pings – let’s see if we can sort this out.


The satellite is always transmitting. Think of it as a steady “tick” from above. The receiver, not the ACARS system, or any other similar higher function in the plane, just the receiver is always listening to the tick. IN fact the receivers on all the planes and boats are listening to the "tick". By clever encoding the “tick” carries information to say “this is the start of my sequence of messages” at defined intervals, and then it sends data intended for specific receivers in various time slots. Of course, all receivers "hear" all the messages, but they only actually “listen” to the ones intended for them. But the background “tick” keeps going all the time, so every receiver can synchronise itself all the time, keeping track of where the sequence of messages starts, just listening and waiting for a message from them. When a receiver recognises a message is for that particular receiver (i.e. plane), of course it “listens” to the message and acts accordingly, passing the message on to the appropriate unit where necessary. But one of these messages it watches for is a message saying “are you still there”. When it gets that message the receiver has to reply in the correct “slot” to say “still here”. So now the sat system on the plane has to transmit to reply. In this case the reply is effectively an automatic response from within the satellite receiver – nothing else needs to be involved.



But notice the response to the “are you still there” message has to be sent in the correct time slot. Remember the receiver is listening to the “ticks” from the satellite all the time – not just when there is data to exchange. All the time, so the plane has a “clock” ticking at the same rate as the satellite’s clock. But, the plane’s clock is running late all the time as it takes time for the “tick” sent out by the satellite to travel the 35,000 km to the receiver. The equipment on the plane then has to reply in the correct slot after it has received the “are you there” message and so it replies. Now, the satellite has a problem. Because it does not know how far the plane is away, it actually does not know when the reply to its message is going to arrive. It cannot do what the plane has done and keep a “copy” of the plane’s clock ticking away because, firstly, the plane is not transmitting its own “tick” for the satellite to follow, and in any case it would need to have a similar clock running for every plane and ship using the service. In any case it does not need to.


What it does is allow a window for the return message to arrive. It has a petty good idea since it knows the earth is 35,000 Km away as a minimum, less the altitude of a plane, of course. It knows that the “receiver” has to respond so many ticks after receipt of the request. It knows the receiver has a good clock tick signal – it is the very signal the satellite is transmitting. So it has a time window when a response can be expected. The reply will arrive at the early end of the window if the message is from a transmitter directly under the satellite, later from one at the edge of the coverage, earlier from a plane than from a ship etc.
Now, here is the bit I have not seen mentioned before. The “tick” is related to the frequency of the satellite’s radio band. It has little to do with the relatively slow rate at which data can be sent over the communications channel. The frequency of Inmarsat C is around 1600 MHz. That is 1,600,000,000 “ticks” a second. So the timing resolution the satellite can see is to an accuracy of 1/1600000000 of a second. Light is fast. But the amazing speed of electronics we now have is such that we can measure time with astonishing precision. Just think about those laser tape measures you can buy. You can measure a distance to a millimeter, and they work by timing pulses effectively, all in something you can buy for a few £/$/Eu. Think about a GPS set. An ordinary GPS set will give you a position with in a few metres, limited not by the ability of measure time, but by various vagaries in the transmission of the signals. A “pro” surveying GPS set does clever things to reduce the vagaries, and while it may take a few minutes to give a good “fix” they can give your position to typically 15mm accuracy. Given longer to analyse and process the signals, weeks in some cases, to an accuracy of considerably less than 1mm. Note, accuracy, not resolution. Absolute accuracy, and all without a fantastically expensive atomic clock at the “user end” though there are several in each orbiting GPS satellite.


So, back to our satellite. It was expecting a response at “tick” number XYZ and it actually arrives at “tick” number XYZ + whatever. It knows, because it is in the standard, that the receiver on the plane is obliged to reply exactly N ticks after receipt of the request, so by subtracting N from XYZ + whatever it knows how long the message has taken to transit to the receiver and back again in “ticks”. Halve that and you have how many ticks away the plane is. One “tick” is 1/1600000000 of a second. In a vacuum- and remember part of this journey is not in a vacuum – 3 x 10 to the eight metres. So, divide this by 1600000000 i.e. by 1.6 times 10 to the nine and you get about half a metre as the potential accuracy (the satellite will have a VERY accurate clock onboard) and resolution of ths measurement. In principle the satellite could determine how far away the responding receiver/transmitter was to a precision in the order of a metre. In practice there would be no point in measuring this accurately and in any case the presence of the atmosphere and variations in the precise timing in the receiver makes this rather “optimistic”. These are, after all, communications systems not navigation systems. The satellite does not need to know to this level anyway, it can work with signals arriving in the allocated window.


This is a very simplified explanation, not always desperately accurate, but basically shows how it works. For example the frequency used for the plane to reply is actually slightly lower, but it will be locked to the satellite’s transmission clock tick.


As a further explanation, think of a lighthouse flashing away constantly with a constant beat. It flashes white. You sit and watch holding a torch. You watch and watch and tap your foot to the beat of the white light. You are told that if the light flashes red you MUST flash your torch back three beats later. And you do exactly that, exactly three beats later. The man at the lighthouse is watching and from his point of view he sees a torch flash back not three beats later, but three and a bit beats later. The three beats if the time you have been allowed to wake up, get your finger on the flash button, the “and a bit” is the time it has taken the light to get from his lighthouse to you plus the time it has taken your torch light to get back. Clearly in this case you could not measure the distance in this way, but you can see the principle.


As has already been shown, the satellites are at a very precisely known height over the earth, so equal distances from the satellite are where concentric cones intersect with the earth – circles on the earth’s surface representing equal elevations of the satellite.


My suspicion is, and I say no more than a suspicion, that the satellite’s system can also measure the frequency of the reply accurately and so have some estimate of the relative velocity of the plane relative to the satellite, but the geometry will limit how much use this would be. Clearly the plane’s altitude when transmitting is relevant; you would not be able to differentiate between a low plane nearer the point the satellite sits over and a higher plane further away.


I also suspect that the satellite would keep a log noting that it had received a response the “are you there” messages at such and such times, but it would only keep the technical details of the latest transaction, as this would help in allocating its time slots efficiently. Remember, while memory to hold this sort of data is cheap, on a satellite power is the limiting factor all the time, and weight adds to the “delivery” cost of getting these things up there. So the commercial birds would not want to retain data that they did not need to hold for longer than necessary. The logs may be downloaded to the ground too, but even downloading takes power.


Hope that helps. I have been reading all the posts since this thread opened. There are some on here that simply waste effort – and show complete disrespect, but there are some incredibly insightful and helpful posts here conveying real information. Not all are “hard” facts, but many are fascinating, like the description of what it is really like in a search plane. Many thanks to the posters.

[Ozlander1]

Sure they will: it is called a transponder, Mode 3/C.

"IFF" is a term used for transponder. Most mil transponders I worked with had modes I, II, III/C, and IV. The kit someone was painting your with would determine what part of the system responded to you.

Mode III/C interacted with standard air traffic control radar systems. A mil operator can refer to a standard civil transponder's response as an IFF (Mode III/C) reply to his interrogation. The advantage of this is that you only need one piece of kit to send out replies to interrogations via the antenna.
Nope. Transponder Yes
IFF NO

[Pontius Navigator]

Hoegh St. Petersburg should have been in the area for a while now and no news from them.

I imagine she was directed there to go to anything the aircraft found. For her to spot anything herself would be most unlikely. From a ship, spotting something awash in the water, not a 24 m item, such as a seat cushion or small debris more than 200 metres from the ship would be very lucky indeed.

If a aircraft spotted something they would drop a sonobuoy to mark on top and then direct the ship to the spot while remaining on top until either relieved by the ship or another aircraft.

And Balaton, some of us are trying to fill gaps or correct media comment while trying to avoid feeding parrots and trolls.

[Pontius Navigator]

Ozlander, the OP concerned how military radar could identify an aircraft without IFF. Lonewolf beat me to it so I deleted my post but A mil operator can refer to a standard civil transponder's response as an IFF (Mode III/C) reply to his interrogation is contextually correct.

[Coagie]

ukwomble: extremely unlikely for complex electronic systems to be damaged in such a way as to have such specific failures.
Not so. If the inputs are screwed up, because a sensor is thrown out of calibration from heat or other damage, you could get a specific fault. Heat can cause added resistance, that makes 5 volts, which would be a "1" in binary, low enough, where it shows up as 0 volts, which is a "0". This could feed some radical numbers into the brains of your "complex electronic systems", and cause an intermittent, as the sensor heats up or cools, or consistent, but specific failure, , due to ambient temperature change. I think such a failure of some acceleration sensors was the cause of the Malaysian 777 stall in 2005.

[500N]

Lazier dog

10 minutes ago was listening to the owner of the ship who gave an update on what the ship was doing, weather etc. he also said the ship was taking instructions from AMSA and all communication was with or via them and they were following their instructions.

Mk 1 eyeball was being used with binos. Weather ok, sea fog was a problem yesterday.

[mm43]

A backtracking exercise from the 40° arc positions supplied to AMSA using 470 kts ground speed, leads to a likely position outside PSR range west of Banda Aceh. The hourly positions have the appropriate SAT elevation circle drawn through them, though the actual elevation is not shown.

A previous post (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-post8386973.html) has been updated.

Note the comments about the projection used.

[autoflight]

Insurer?
Airline?
Boeing?
Government?
Aircrew
Other operators
Relatives of missing
Public
Other governments

[beamender99]

Hoegh St. Petersburg should have been in the area for a while now and no news from them.

A while back there was a press conference by the ship owners shown on UK TV.

I only caught the end of it but the owners said something like " Do not expect any further information from us as all findings will be passed to the SAR team"

[Heli-phile]

The pace of this thread has finally got ahead of me, I awake each morning with pages and pages of posts having racked up. Hidden amongst all the repeats, regurgitations, speculations and phishing media posts exist a very small group with some really insightful and knowledgable posts. Addressing this latter group, can I ask if any evidence has ever emerged to indicate MH 370's final 08:11hrs ping was emitted from a point on the southern arc rather than the northern arc?

[ChrisW67]

Lazerdog spake, "Perhaps the only way to find MH370 is if the US Navy sends a sub into the area. They would have the technology to hear the pinger a long ways off. "

No, they wouldn't. Manned submarine and air launch sonobuoys are designed to listen for much lower frequencies from submarine and ship machinery that travel much further in water.

The FDR/CVR pinger operates at 37.5kHz with a maximum detectable range of about 3 nautical miles (18200'). Given a water depth of 12000' a surface listening device would have to be within about 13400' (2.2 nautical miles) laterally to have a chance of hearing it. Put a manned sub at, say, 1000 feet under an you increase that lateral range to 14500' (2.4 nautical miles). Even then you'd only "hear" it if ocean conditions were favourable. The oceans loves to bend and distort sound waves.

A deeply submerged ROV (say at 10000 feet) with appropriate equipment is the best option only when they have a good idea of the location.

BTW: In a past life I was the engineer overseeing software development for the AP-3C acoustic processing systems.

[TelcoAg]

can I ask if any evidence has ever emerged to indicate MH 370's final 08:11hrs ping was emitted from a point on the southern arc rather than the northern arc?

No.

The problem is, no one starts a thread like this and expects it to go this long. I've seen this on every site I've been on.

If people really want to keep discussing certain aspects, such as the Inmarsat pings, I would suggest you break up the topic in different threads. It's been working on other sites, and it tends to break up the clutter of regurgitated theories and questions.

[No Hoper]

JAMES7 -There is no way the aircraft flew for 5 hours or so without the crew doing something.
Affects of hypoxia
Investigation: AO-2009-044 - Air system event - Beechcraft King Air C90 aircraft, VH-TAM, 74 km NE of Perth Airport, WA, 16 July 2009 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2009/aair/ao-2009-044.aspx)

5 hour flight
Investigation: 200003771 - Beech Aircraft Corp 200, VH-SKC (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2000/aair/aair200003771.aspx)

[Lonewolf_50]

Appears you are not the only one CNN is reporting 'breaking news' that search activity will be conducted in the Adaman Sea
I asked because of how big the datum became after last known position, and because whatever the entirety of the search team(s) have before them as information to work with, there is still a lot of unknown.
There may be a significant uncertainty regarding the efforts 2000 nm west of Oz ... but these efforts are quite possibly based on best possible information.

Grateful I am not the guy trying to coordinate this search effort. Nightmare.

[Ian W]

Im still baffled there isn't a single piece of debris located. AF447 wasn't exactly a heavy impact and this still left some traces albeit 50 passengers or so, a tail section and other objects. I cant believe a single body has not been found? Nothing....im not insinuitating conspiracy theories here, but there must be something floating, i can't believe it sank in one piece with nothing floating to the surface?!

Not exactly the case with AF447 it was descending at over 10,000 ft per minute so around 120 mph vertical velocity while the aircraft was in a slightly nose high attitude with a forward speed not much different to its vertical speed. IFF MH370 ran out of fuel and did a flame out glide to the surface it has been opined in a previous post that the descent rate would be around 300 feet per minute with a just over stall - say 190kts forward speed. Not comparable 'ditchings' at all.

[JamesGBC]

Another puzzle is it would be assumed only one person has gone a bit crazy when the other pilot left the cockpit. However top of the climb is a bit soon to need a nature break.

[Jilted]

Bearing in mind the note, 'Transcript based on Mandarin version of English language transcript. Some wording may not be exact.'What an understatement. Not only is the wording not exact, the terminology is all wrong. I have downloaded and listened to an hour of Lumpur control from liveatc.net and not once did anyone use the phrase "Kuala Lumpur ATC". All radio traffic uses simply "Lumpur".
Unfortunately liveatc.net only has a receiver on 132.8 and the NE sector is 132.6 so there is no MH370 traffic available to listen to.
The Telegraph has repeatedly asked Malaysia Airlines, Malaysia’s Civil Aviation Authority and the office of Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak to confirm the communications record; only the prime minister’s office responded, saying it would not release this data. I find it unfortunate that they feel that the transcript, along with the last ACARS message are some big secret.

[beamender99]

Hoegh joins MH370 search -Tradewindsnews.com (http://www.tradewindsnews.com/casualties/334519/hoegh-joins-mh370-search)


Plus ...( from 19 Mar ?)
Here's a full report on the press conference with the Norwegian ship's owners:

The owner of a Norwegian car carrier said it planned to search through the night for two large objects sighted off Australia that could be debris from a missing Malaysian jetliner, despite the official search being suspended because it was too dark.

The Hoegh St. Petersburg was the first ship to arrive in the area where the two objects were spotted by satellite four days ago in one of the remotest parts of the globe, around 2,500 km (1,500 miles) southwest of Perth.

"We will continue searching during the night at reduced speed and with all spotlights available, and we will increase the speed again when the light comes back (around 2300 GMT)."

Ingar Skiaker, Chief Executive of Hoegh Autoliners, told a news conference in Oslo.

"We have not had any report of any finds, but if or when they find something... the captain will report to the Australian authorities first," he said.

Hoegh Autoliners said as far as they knew theirs was still the only ship in the area in the southern Indian Ocean, with other ships on their way and expected to arrive tomorrow.

The Hoegh St. Petersburg would stay to help in the search for as long as it was needed, a company spokesman said.

"We are thinking about those who are waiting for news. We are thinking of the relatives," Skiaker said.

The car carrier was on its way from Madagascar to Melbourne when it got a request from Australian authorities to assist in looking for the objects.

The above source -
Missing Malaysia Airlines flight live: Search team finds suspected fragments of plane believed to be door and tail - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/missing-malaysia-airlines-flight-live-3219331#ixzz2wdfEKwa6)

[DCrefugee]

Affects of hypoxia
Investigation: AO-2009-044 - Air system event - Beechcraft King Air C90 aircraft, VH-TAM, 74 km NE of Perth Airport, WA, 16 July 2009

5 hour flight
Investigation: 200003771 - Beech Aircraft Corp 200, VH-SKC

...launching from Perth in a King Air has its risks, eh?

Mods: Feel free to delete (as if you wouldn't...).

[TylerMonkey]

300 ft /min on no engines ? That is about 64:1 glide ratio . . . I'm sure you meant 3000 ft/min. :ooh:

[deptrai]

The UK Telegraph has a document purporting to be the MAS370 ATC transcript

Weird/non-standard translation? So they claim all communications were in Mandarin? And then there's obvious spelling errors like "Hu (sic) Chi Minh city". Seems a bit weird? It's hard to believe anything the media report...

[Rob21]

I got curious and did a research on the antenna locations on the B-777. As I imagined, all the comm related antennas are under the "belly" and directly under the forward cargo bay. All the sat comm antennas are, of course, on the top of the fuselage.

Could it be possible that a fire in the front cargo bay destroyed the wiring "traveling" to the lower antennas? The upper antennas continued sending signals to Inmarsat and dense and toxic fumes took over the cabin and cockpit.

If dense smoke takes over the cockpit, it is impossible to fly any airplane. Change course on the FMS with almost no visibility very difficult, low fire but lots of smoke. For how long a crew can resist?

Antennas out?

[2dPilot]

Re: Telegraph transcript. According to that the plane climbed 35000ft in 8 minutes, roughly 4300ft/min. A bit extreme?

[FE Hoppy]

Two things I note from the translated twice transcript.

1) 370 call level FL350 at 01:01 and then again at 01:07:55

2) The previous hand off was answered with freq. followed by "Copies that" "copies that" was used to acknowledge instructions 5 times until the hand off to KL RADAR. It wasn't used in response to the climb clearances and it wasn't used in response to the last hand off.


I wonder if the PF changed during the climb or perhaps after the 01 level call. Other pilot not sure if they had called level so made the call again.

Nothing really obvious and because it's a translation of a translation "copie that" may well turn out to be "Roger".

[Bleve]

top of the climb is a bit soon to need a nature break

Are you absolutely 100% sure that is indeed the case for either of the pilots on this flight? :ugh:

[FIRESYSOK]

Weird/non-standard translation? So they claim all communications were in Mandarin?

ENGLISH > MANDARIN > ENGLISH

[OleOle]

"90S" will not take you anywhere as it is not a complete waypoint.

It would have to be in a lat/long format with the " S" first as in S90E127 .

I think I would choose S90E0 if I wanted to go to the pole. A waypoint behind the pole could do as well something like "Tierra del Fuego". If the south pole is chosen, the track must go straight down a meridian. If the flight path was a great circle or a constant heading path should be deductible by the ping arcs (hope that word is not banned yet).

[DCrefugee]

Weird/non-standard translation? So they claim all communications were in Mandarin?

I took that to mean English was the spoken language, it was originally written up in Mandarin, and then translated back to English.

No, I don't know why. LiveATC.com actually has a recording of some of the KL ATC freq that night. What little I heard of MAS370 was in English.

No one is going to use the callsign "MH370" on freq (which isn't the flight's actual callsign, anyway). But at least we have times/rough intent of the transmission. Looks completely normal to me, even the second confirmation of climbing to FL350.

[Aquatone1]

The RAAF P3Cs do not have a air refueling capability.
Given the range at which this search is taking place, with a transit time of approx four hours each way and two hours on station, I wonder how long the current sortie rate can be maintained?
I do not know how many P3 crews they have these days, but what they may lack in numbers is well compensated by their capability. If I was lost they are the people I would want searching for me!

[Lost in Saigon]

I got curious and did a research on the antenna locations on the B-777. As I imagined, all the comm related antennas are under the "belly" and directly under the forward cargo bay. All the sat comm antennas are, of course, on the top of the fuselage.

Could it be possible that a fire in the front cargo bay destroyed the wiring "traveling" to the lower antennas? The upper antennas continued sending signals to Inmarsat and dense and toxic fumes took over the cabin and cockpit.

If dense smoke takes over the cockpit, it is impossible to fly any airplane. Change course on the FMS with almost no visibility very difficult, low fire but lots of smoke. For how long a crew can resist?

Antennas out?

Not all COMMs are on the belly. Some Aircraft have VHF on both the belly and the roof. HF and SATCOM would also be usable. You can use SATCOM to call your girlfriend's cellphone if needed.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/photo%20stuff/Photo14/_777.jpg~original

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/photo%20stuff/Photo14/_777a.jpg~original

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/photo%20stuff/Photo14/_777b.jpg~original

[Lost in Saigon]

The UK Telegraph has a document purporting to be the MAS370 ATC transcript. Link:

Revealed: the final 54 minutes of communication from MH370 - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10714907/Revealed-the-final-54-minutes-of-communication-from-MH370.html)


http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/photo%20stuff/Photo14/_MH370a.jpg~original
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/photo%20stuff/Photo14/_MH370aa.jpg~original

[Airbubba]

No one is going to use the callsign "MH370" on freq (which isn't the flight's actual callsign, anyway). But at least we have times/rough intent of the transmission. Looks completely normal to me, even the second confirmation of climbing to FL350.

Obviously these were not the actual words used in the transmissions. Normally, all these radio calls would be in English with perhaps a word or two in a local language.

Phrases like 'runway ready, permitted to take off' will never be heard in real world ATC clearances.

If this leaked transcript was the original source of 'all right, good night', I sure wouldn't read too much into it.

[Neogen]

There is no way the aircraft flew for 5 hours or so without the crew doing something.


Hypoxia:
1999 South Dakota Learjet crash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_crash)

Learjet continued flying over the southern and midwestern United States for almost four hours and 1,500 miles (2,400 km). The plane ran out of fuel and crashed into a field near Aberdeen, South Dakota after an uncontrolled descent

[Old Aero Guy]

With a forward speed of 190kts and an L/D of 20:

Forward speed - 320.6 ft/sec

Vertical speed - 16.0 ft/sec

This is about the structural limit for the landing gear so it wouldn't be conducive for a successful ditching.

[500N]

Aqua tone,

As long as needed. They would pull people in from all over aus if qualified and required. It is part of what they train for, they won't want to miss the opportunity to take part.

[DaveReidUK]

There's still this plausible theory that MH370 avoided being noticed by any radars by shadowing SIA68 on its way across India."Plausible" only in the sense that, in the absence of any firm evidence to the contrary, pretty well any hypothesis that anyone can dream up can't, strictly speaking, be ruled out.

That would of course also include the "flying for 6 hours with an onboard fire" and "abducted by aliens" scenarios, as well as the above. :ugh:

[nitpicker330]

Regarding the possible report of reaching FL450.

This was from Primary radar data readings and estimations.

Today at FL380 our actual GPS ALT was 40,300'
So a 2,300' difference, this I've seen on every flight and can be up to 2,500' difference.

It's therefore reasonable that the 45,000' primary radar altitude above sea level was up to 2,500' above the Aircrafts pressure Altimeter reading of FL425 to 430. Hence the A/C wasn't as high as we think?

Not that it matters much.

[ZOOKER]

Please tell me the (alleged) transcript posted above isn't real.

[overthewing]

Re: Telegraph transcript. According to that the plane climbed 35000ft in 8 minutes, roughly 4300ft/min. A bit extreme?

My calculations say that it took about 5 mins to get to FL180, then about 15 mins to get to FL350?

Is 35,000ft a bit low for cruise on this flight? I noticed that on previous flights on this route, cruise was 37,000ft.

[nitpicker330]

1/ Alleged RT transcripts are bollocks, KL ATC and MH crews do not use such phrases EVER. In my experience working for MH and flying around Asia for the last 25 years is that MH crews have some of the best RT discipline I've heard.

2/ FL350 for this particular flight is not unusual, don't forget it always subject to ATC clearance regarding FL availability.

3/ reaching FL350 in 20 mins is reasonable for a 772ER at their TOW.

[parabellum]

"If MH379 was operating in LNAV which seems to have been agreed"


Nowhere has it "been agreed", nor should it be. As I mentioned in an earlier post, don't get mesmerised by the FMC, a very useful bit of kit for flying a pre programmed route, doing a SID or making an arrival.


The aircraft is believed to have flown a random route, devoid of known waypoints, from the time it went back over Malaysia until 08.11. If the aircraft was under the control of a person then FLCH and HDG Select are the most likely modes used.

[lostinp]

Big question remains
Was the aircraft tracked by the Jindalee radar system?

[James7]

Neogen .... Hypoxia: 1999 South Dakota Learjet crash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exactly my point. The crew must have been incapacitated.

Re phrase .. There is no way the crew would not have done something if they were not incapacitated in some way 5 hours.

MAS have something to hide here, why hide the existence of Lithium batteries in the first place. Everyone in aviation realizes these are a dangerous goods. Expect more angry scenes from the relatives in BJ and quite rightly so.

The relatives have been saying all along that MAS are not telling the truth, this just confirms their suspicions.

MAS should now produce a complete manifest of the cargo it was carrying.

[500N]

I doubt it. If it was they would know where it is or at least a more detailed point where contact was lost with heading.

[speedbirdconcorde]

Whatever the outcome..one thing HAS to change....aircraft should be required to 'ping' location data (sat ) more frequently...money and tech are not the problem in this case....

[Space Jet]

For anyone who is interested in what satellites are over the Indian Ocean take a look at this site LIVE REAL TIME SATELLITE TRACKING AND PREDICTIONS (http://www.n2yo.com/)

I have came across five that are in the search area.

[rampstriker]

Satcom units commonly have GPS units built into them. Seems like sending frequent live GPS updates would be trivial and inexpensive.

SMS text messages on GSM networks are ridiculously low bandwidth, they sort of piggyback on blank data areas in network handshake transmissions, no? Inmarsat uses TDMA provisioning just like GSM.

[timtrb]

I think the chances of finding anything in the southern ocean with the weather and currents in that part of the world are unlikely given the time that has passed. In the coming weeks items from the crash or bodies may find themselves washed ashore. A PM of any such bodies will reveal either smoke damage to lungs or possible other causes which will give clues to their demise and therefore what happened

[flexthrust]

G.F and SOPS. Autopilot will let speed reduce to top of amber band (min manouver) then maintain that speed until impact. However when the fuel runs out (dual engine failure) the Primary flight computers revert to direct mode and A/P disconnects.

[Evey_Hammond]

Either that ATC transcript has lost something in translation or something definitely is wrong in the cockpit. On all exchanges between MH370 and ATC there are the readbacks by MH370 (which is as it should be) right until the last readback which is just a casual "All right, good night".

That last sentence simply doesn't match the previously professional responses. I know that ATC & pilot exchanges can be a bit casual at times but there's always (at least in the UK) a proper readback.

Any pilots still reading this thread wish to comment?

[nitpicker330]

Yes I will.

I'll say again all those supposed calls are bogus, either that or heavily stuffed up in translation back and forth.

No Pilot or controller in Malaysia or indeed anywhere in the civilized world speaks that way.

Utter tosh.

[FlightDream111]

Has anyone raised the point that he may have tried to turn back unnoticed?

The turnback may have not been noticed at night and the lights of the Malaysian peninsula could have been mistaken for the the lights of Vietnam, being bright enough to be visible from space. He was at about halfway point between the two.

That would have given him a lttle more time - until possible Malaysian Air Force intercept.

[Mach2point7]

If I understand correctly The Telegraph obtained the so called transcript in Mandarin and somebody translated it to English, so it is no wonder, that after two unofficial translations, it is not useful.

However, it is now out there, and must place pressure on the Malaysian authorities to correct the record and release the original transcript. But after the events of the last two weeks we should not expect that they will do so.

[galaxy flyer]

parabellum,

Interesting you bring up FLCH. If they were in FLCH, a struggle involving the throttles would explain the altitude variations reported by military radar (the infamous F450 which was certainly not achieved). Pilots or hijackers try to grab the throttles, reset power and FLCH tries hold sped on pitch. Similarly, when the fuel gives out, plane descends at whatever speed was in cruise until impact, probably around 250 knots.

[Ka-life]

I been following this thread for long time and as a professional pilot in Asia I find it very strange that we haven't been able to see:

1 how much fuel was uploaded, it's right there on the load sheet.
2 DG, there is a NOTOC, I understand that there might be other undeclared freight.
3 real radio communication transcripts.

By not publish this details the Malaysians make it look like the hiding things.

[p.j.m]

3 real radio communication transcripts.


here's part of them - sort of puts all the "goodnight" comments to bed!

http://i.imgur.com/eTHCSSW.jpg

[Hempy]

3 real radio communication transcripts.


here's part of them - sort of puts all the "goodnight" comments to bed!

http://i.imgur.com/eTHCSSW.jpg

He said REAL transcripts....

[GarageYears]

Look, the transcript is clearly identified as a Mandarin translation of an English transcript, that has then been translated BACK to English... what the heck do you expect, eh? :mad:

Obviously we should see the original now, given this hack-job is out there, but you can probably bet the times and the overall message intent is perfectly obvious from what we do have.:oh:

[topspeculator]

Having worked in China, if the transcript was leaked in Mandarin then translated into English, if you gave the original doc to two different translators, you would get two different interpretations of the narrative.

[Pom Pax]

Do MH crew generally talk to KLI in Malay or English?
This not a transcript but I think a precis of the actual which has been rewritten to simplify it for a person not familiar ACT with usage which has been translated several times. As the source is stated to be a Mandarin version I conclude the leak has come from China.

There no mention of wind or pressure?

[UnreliableSource]

The simplest explanation is that inmarsat are tracing a terminal not installed on the lost aircraft.

Once ranging errors are allowed for, the likely location of the inmarsat terminal is the maintenance base at KL.

Take the pings out of the equation, and we have a very simple scenario; fire compromises comms system, fire results in loss of aircraft control. Aircraft crashes in Asia.


PS: i've been posting this hypothesis since the 16th, but my posts have never appeared.

[parabellum]

KA-life - Posted yesterday, I think, 53.tonnes of fuel, sound about right?


Galaxyflyer - Yes, agreed and the only sensible mode to use given there doesn't seem to be a specific destination.

[Porker1]

@ KaLife

Earlier Bloomberg article quote:

"The Boeing 777 was carrying 49.1 metric tons (54.1 tons) of fuel when it departed Kuala Lumpur, for a total takeoff weight of 223.5 tons, according to Subang Jaya-based Malaysian Air."

[MountainBear]

The simplest explanation is that inmarsat are tracing a terminal not installed on the lost aircraft.

This thought occurred to me too but Immarsat swears that it is absolutely certain they have the right device ID for the terminal. If it turns out they are wrong there are going to be some very very embarrassed people in the UK. :\

[Airbubba]

Do MH crew generally talk to KLI in Malay or English?

They usually talk in English on ATC freqs.

There no mention of wind or pressure?

You don't normally get an altimeter setting from ATC on the ground unless it changes from the ATIS but you do get a wind readout when cleared for takeoff.

[MG23]

This thought occurred to me too but Immarsat swears that it is absolutely certain they have the right device ID for the terminal. If it turns out they are wrong there are going to be some very very embarrassed people in the UK. :\

Spoofing would probably be possible, but would take a substantial amount of technical knowledge. The pings along show it's not a stationary terminal, unless someone has dismantled it and managed to adjust the synchronization internally to just the right level with millisecond accuracy, or has written some pretty complex software to emulate a terminal. They'd also need to know just when the real 777's SATCOM terminal went off so they could turn theirs on.

If it's not the real terminal, this would probably be the most sophisticated hijacking ever seen (which, admittedly, it may still turn out to be).

[UnreliableSource]

Spoofing would probably be possible, but would take a substantial amount of technical knowledge. The pings along show it's not a stationary terminal, unless someone has dismantled it and managed to adjust the synchronization internally to just the right level with millisecond accuracy, or has written some pretty complex software to emulate a terminal. They'd also need to know just when the real 777's SATCOM terminal went off so they could turn theirs on.

If it's not the real terminal, this would probably be the most sophisticated hijacking ever seen (which, admittedly, it may still turn out to be).

I have seen nothing about the pings that suggests motion. I think the accuracy suggested is wildly fanciful.

I wasn't suggesting spoofing. I'm suggesting screw-up. Administratively, one party in the chain has lost track of where this terminal/sim/identifier is.

Aircraft lost. Terminal not aboard 9M-MRO (terminal on the ground at KL) keeps transmitting. Someone comes in to work the next day at KL and turns it off. The signal was heard by the IOR bird but not the POR bird and this is being interpreted as "terminal not located near the equator"; I interpret the IOR but not POR as "there is a building/hanger on the eastern side of the terminal's location in KL."

[deanm]

@Timtrb (post #7171)

"In the coming weeks items from the crash or bodies may find themselves washed ashore. A PM of any such bodies will reveal either smoke damage to lungs or possible other causes.."

Unlikely for 2 likely reasons:

[1] = crabs,

[2] = fish.

Sorry, but that's reality....

Dean

[ZAZ]

Any pilots still reading this thread wish to comment?


Yes sometimes we revert to casual greetings like thanks, goodnight, good day good morning, a few words to humanise the relationship after lots of formal exchanges...
always thanks centre after landing and cancelling SAR and on transfer usually say call followed by thanks or see you later...why not

I think people reading too much into pilots contribution and should as I have said be asking what did the passengers do for 7 hours watch videos??

Very interesting article about the ramifications of this

The sinister, scary impact of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 - Intelligent Travel (http://intelligenttravel.com.au/travel-risk-management/sinister-scary-impact-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370)

[Earl]

What really bothers me here.
Is the Media.
As pilots we have jobs, we know how to do correctly.
CNN is the worst and should stop this.
Now some bad guy knows how to turn off the transponder.
He knows how to scratch pad another position in the FMS then execute it.
He knows the E and E and where to look for C/B acars etc.
Those in the sim everyday showing and demonstrating this on CNN is bad news.
The public does not need to know these things, the bad guys will use against us again.
I know the world wants news , but some things about how web operate should never be on the TV.
It will bite us all in the ass later.

[ZAZ]

Revealed: the final 54 minutes of communication from MH370 - Telegraph (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13954648211767&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Frumours-news%2F535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-358.html&v=1&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fworldnews%2Fas ia%2Fmalaysia%2F10714907%2FRevealed-the-final-54-minutes-of-communication-from-MH370.html&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Frumours-news%2F535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-360.html&libId=8c62bbe3-3624-4b7b-8b03-a1716fa5447b&title=Malaysian%20Airlines%20MH370%20contact%20lost%20-%20Page%20358%20-%20PPRuNe%20Forums&txt=Revealed%3A%20the%20final%2054%20minutes%20of%20communic ation%20from%20MH370%20-%20Telegraph)


That's a transcript that is nothing like any ATC to aircraft departure sequence that I have heard.


Even the take off clearance is read back as clear to take off"" and callsign last in which case it should have been Malaysian Three Seven Zero





Malaysia is ICAO..




Can some one confirm what the normal instruction and response is going out of any ATC airport in that region please?

[Space Jet]

I wish they would release the actual audio recording, they have released the transcript now release the MP3! :ugh:

@ZAZ

Go to http://www.liveatc.net/flisten.php?mount=wmkk2&icao=wmkk and listen live to KL

[bfd777]

The document posted by tbe Telegraph does NOT reflect normal communications by Malaysian ATC or pilots operating there. It's rubbish. No need to flog that topic anymore.
:rolleyes:

[bigjames]

I have flown in Malaysia (indeed very recently) and I can assure you, everyone speaks English, even locals to locals. Not always easy to understand their accents, but I have heard very little "jargon". I even tried to say "salamat pagi" on first contact with ground one morning and they came back with "good morning." Based on my experience, the transcript is nonsense and all instructions, whether commercial or GA flying are fully ICAO.

[Coochycool]

I've followed this thread pretty much all the way and resisted adding to the maelstrom until now.

But has anyone noticed the alignement of the runway at Langkawi?

03/21.

Now lets supposing we're talking about a Swissair 111/helios 552 type incident, basically crew incapacitation. And they manage to get lined up onto R21 before promptly succumbing.

Would someone better able than me care to plot one more map with that heading extrapolated? Where if anywhere does that intersect with the southern arc? And would anything from that coincide with probable range from the now reported 54.1 tons fuel? Just an idea.

Bless their hearts whatever happened to them.

[nitpicker330]

I agree, CNN had a reporter in a 777 Sim ( not a "real" Sim )
He showed the world where the transponder was located and how to select the Hijack code!!

I mean come on.........


Langkawi is a one way strip, land on 03 and depart 21 due to terrain..

[Coochycool]

Thanks for killing that one off succinctly nitpicker.

Flown in there as pax so should have known!

Does anyone know what the designated diverts were, dont recall any mention of it. Can Tho?

[TacomaSailor]

The transponder location, usage and FMS details are available for $90 US in a "BOEING Officially Licensed Product." Run the PMDG 777 sim package in FSX or Prepar3D on a $2000 PC and you have most of the answers. The PMDG sim will provide way more detail than has been conveyed on Television.

PMDG Simulations (http://www.precisionmanuals.com/pages/product/777LRF.html) - this link is for the 777 sim package - take a quick look at the details

There are also multiple manuals and study guides published on real paper and on the internet that provide very specific guidance to want-to-be 777 pilots.

Talking Heads (knowledgeable or not) are not revealing any secrets - at least based on the very technical discussions in the very PUBLIC PMDG and FSX user groups.

[nitpicker330]

On the 777 the suitable airports around his position would have been

Ho chi minh, Kuantan, KL, Subang, Langkawi, Penang, Johor Bahru, Sing etc some of those would have been closed at 2 am.

Others like Kota Bahru, Terengganu, Ipoh, Alor setar, etc are a little short for a 777 except for a grave and imminent emergency.

[ukwomble]

Earl: CNN should stop all this technical know how, as it can hurt us all later.
You dont think the bad guys are taking notes?

Security by obscurity is not security, and usually a bad plan. Usually its the bad guys who find out first.

Frankly its a good thing the unlocked EE thing was disclosed - perhaps now something will be done about it. Someone somewhere should be fired for letting that remain unsecured.

[ukwomble]

Coagie: Not so. If the inputs are screwed up, because a sensor is thrown out of calibration from heat or other damage, you could get a specific fault. Heat can cause added resistance, that makes 5 volts, which would be a "1" in binary, low enough, where it shows up as 0 volts, which is a "0". This could feed some radical numbers into the brains of your "complex electronic systems", and cause an intermittent, as the sensor heats up or cools, or consistent, but specific failure, , due to ambient temperature change. I think such a failure of some acceleration sensors was the cause of the Malaysian 777 stall in 2005.

Sensors are duplicated. The systems are duplicated (in the case of the 777 it appears multiple instances run in lock step with cross checking of outputs). Any differing values will be detected. So for your scenario to happen, you'd have to have all such sensors damaged in the same way and feeding exactly the same 'radical' numbers into the system.

The other thing that makes it seem very unlikely is the long time period (many hours) and small number of course changes with large intervals (based on the radar track at least).

Is it possible that systems damage caused the plane to change heading periodically but otherwise fly fine? Sure, but so are many other theories floated on here. Likely? I don't think so.

The 2005 incident you referenced was due to a software bug which caused the system not to reject a known faulty sensor reading. Left alone with no intervention, that one would have been catastrophic. Had that software bug not existed, the faulty sensor would have been ignored.

[Hempy]

Aus chartered Gulfstreams now on station in Southern search area. Time on station now pretty much limited to crew fatigue. For those advocating the carriage of a spare crew to extend search time, the cabin is full of eyes too..

[onetrack]

Search Update - 2:30PM Australian WST (0630GMT).

Two merchant ships are currently in the designated search area and carrying out a search by travelling back and forth through the search zone.

HMAS Success is expected to reach the search area mid-Saturday afternoon, local time (very soon).
The Chinese Government has re-tasked three warships - the Kunlunshan, the Haikou, and the Qiandaohu - to the Southern Indian Ocean search zone.
The Kunlunshan is a modern amphibious transport ship, the Haikou is a destroyer, and the Qiandaohu is a refuelling ship.
The Chinese icebreaker Snow Dragon (Xue Long) was fully refuelled and re-provisioned in Fremantle port and left at 6:00PM local time last night (Friday night) for the search zone. The Snow Dragon carries 87 crew.

Two commercial jets (Gulfstream & Global Express) and an RAAF P3 Orion left Perth 6:00AM local time (1000GMT) to carry out search duties in the search area.
The commercial jets have 5 hrs endurance over the search zone, the Orion has only 2 hrs endurance.

Ten volunteers from the local State Emergency Service (SES) have been tasked with search duties (air observers) on the commercial jets.

There have been 15 sorties carried out from Pearce airbase by the RAAF and RNZAF Orions since they arrived Thursday.

Three Chinese Iluyshin-IL76's are expected to arrive in Perth this afternoon to join in the search.
A number of Japanese search aircraft are expected to arrive in Perth on Monday to assist in the search.

Weather in the search area is reported as being exceptionally favourable today, with excellent visibility, and winds down to 10 knots.
The swell never lets up, though.

[mmurray]

I keep thinking this is a heck of a lot of activity for two smudges on a satellite photo. Does anyone know if what the satellite guys have looked at is higher resolution than the jpegs on the AMSA website ? I guess there could be better photos nobody wants to tell us about.

I hope they find something. I can't imagine what it would be like to have a relative on that plane.

[Elephant and Castle]

Security by obscurity is not security, and usually a bad plan. Usually its the bad guys who find out first.

"Bad guys" come in many different types , ranging from the well prepared to the nutter that acts on the spirit of the moment. History shows that a very large proportion of bad guys, in an aviation context, are very high on political or religious ideas and pretty low on technical knowhow. Unlike software hackers the vast majority are not conversant with the finer workings of large commercial airliners why spoon feed that info in the tv just to spice up a bit of "news"?

[ExSp33db1rd]

............and they came back with "good morning."

ATC-talk is really only totally procedural when they're busy, rest of the time they're as human as anyone else, and I think on the Graveyard shift ( Ooops, no pun intended ! ) over N.E. Malaysia / S.E. Vietnam is as borin' as anywhere.

Once finished an ATC position report - in English of course - over the USSR with "Do Svadanya". Guy came back with a torrent of Russian ! Bored out of his mind, just wanted someone to talk to !

[Slippery_Pete]

Groan. Geoffrey Thomas is at it again.

Australian, self appointed "aviation expert" :yuk: was just on Australian news program discussing the RT which have been released.

It has already been established that the released transcript has been subject to a double translation which, when it comes to RT phraseology, makes it even less likely to actually reflect the conversation and essentially irrelevant to speculation of cause.

He then went on to say what the required read back from the crew (for a frequency hand off) should have been - and he was COMPLETELY wrong.

Nothing irks me more than a supposed technical/industry expert making things up which are incorrect and disseminating to the public. An aviation expert in RT phraseology is a pilot or ATC, not a journalist.

"Aviation expert"... In his own eyes only.

[OleOle]

On the 777 the suitable airports around his position would have been

Ho chi minh, Kuantan, KL, Subang, Langkawi, Penang, Johor Bahru, Sing etc some of those would have been closed at 2 am.

Could it have been, that after an unknown chain of events, they tried to line up for 09 of Phuket? That would at least be consistent with the alleged primary radar tracks.

[SOPS]

It's getting worse. First the expert GT is on, sprouting rubbish as normal. Then Fox News, just now, showed an interview with the Australian Prime-minister, about the search. Well, I don't know who it was that they interviewed, but I know who the guy is that I voted for, for the PMs job, and it wasn't him been interviewed.:ugh::ugh:

[Pontius Navigator]

I was sent the following link by another ppruner who was not sure if it was useful. It shows the military radar plot of the LKP. It is hard to interpret a dynamic plot from a single screen shot.

Interestingly, as far as I can see, this is a raw radar plot and I cannot make out any track label on MH370 as screen does not have sufficient definition although the radar has an electronic map overlay.

What I think they have shown with the arrow is MH370 LKP. If they think it is returning from the east what did they think seeing it so far west?

Also this position is west, towards the satellite ground position which suggests that the aircraft had to have an easterly track component to reach the northern arc and a southerly one to reach the southern arc (assuming that Indonesian radar is correct with no track). Either way, pings preceding the last ping should show first movement west followed by movement east.

As usual it is in Mandarin.

??????????????? ??????[??] _????_??? (http://photo.china.com.cn/news/2014-03/21/content_31863360.htm)

[2dPilot]

I was sent the following link by another ppruner who was not sure if it was useful. It shows the military radar plot of the LKP. It is hard to interpret a dynamic plot from a single screen shot.

Interestingly, as far as I can see, this is a raw radar plot and I cannot make out any track label on MH370 although the radar has an electronic map overlay.

What I think they have shown with the arrow is MH370 LKP. If they think it is returning from the east what did they think seeing it so far west?

Also this position is west, towards the satellite ground position which suggests that the aircraft had to have an easterly track component to reach the northern arc and a southerly one to reach the southern arc (assuming that Indonesian radar is correct with no track). Either way, pings preceding the last ping should show first movement west followed by movement east.

As usual it is in Mandarin.

??????????????? ??????[??] _????_??? (http://photo.china.com.cn/news/2014-03/21/content_31863360.htm)

Which Translates as:


March 21 , Malaysian military representatives in Beijing Lido Hotel Malaysia Airlines lost contact with the families of airline passengers to meet military radar screenshot released . Source : CFP

China News Network March 21 the day of 11:00 , Malaysia, the military announced on behalf of the military radar shots in Beijing Lido Hotel. Screenshot shows , Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 lost contact last appeared on the radar screen of the Air Force Ma time at 2:22 on March 8 , from the Macedonian side air base of 200 nautical miles.

Malaysian military representative said the plane was last seen at 2:22 on the radar screen of the Air Force , Air Force Base, 200 sea miles away . Aircraft exhumation , but considered returning the aircraft is a normal phenomenon , determine takeoff point is Kuala Lumpur , it is considered to be friendly.

According to Legal Evening News reported that the military radar , lost contact after flight MH370 signs return, the aircraft turned around , flew over the Malay Peninsula , to Penang direction . But because the plane was taking off from Kuala Lumpur , so the flight was considered friendly , so did not issue a warning signal or intercept command. At 2:02 on the 8th , radar to detect aircraft in the vicinity of Perak Island. Subsequently, the horse near the Strait of Malacca military radar last detected traces of the MH370 .

[LFRT]

Following is all the ADS-B data i could gather from 1642 to 1721 UTC :
255 cue points with time, altitude and speed data (and discontinued lat/long, climb rate and squawk data).
Presented as such, these lines are quite ugly, but you can directly copy/paste them in a csv file (semi-colon separator) and work with the numbers if you're interested.

Originally, i wanted to collect this data only for the first 20 points, because they're in a straight line from runway 32R and i thought i could figure a way to deduce MH370's TOW from this climb data, even though i have no clue about MAS's tankering, derating rules etc... but Bloomberg released the TOW yesterday, so, probably pointless finally.
Still, i think this ADS-B data is pretty useful and among the most reliable we were given.



SOURCES/METHOD USED :

- "FR24 Gr" = FlightRadar24 graph (MH370 - Malaysia Airlines - Flight history - Flightradar24 (http://www.flightradar24.com/data/pinned/mh370-2d81a27/#2d81a27)). The raw figures (time, alt & speed) for the 185 cue points of the FR24 graph are included in the page's source code, all i had to do was grab them and translate them in the right units.
- "FR24 Pn" = FlightRadar24 "pinned" page (same url). The data you get each time you press the FWD button. Adds location and heading to some of the 185 "FR24 Gr" points.
- "GE" = Google Earth. For the first "FR24 Pn" points (just after takeoff, in the 327° straight line), i got the lat and long data from Google Earth. Presumably it can be done with every other "FR24 Pn" cue point, that's why i marked their missing lat/long data with a "*"
- "FR24 Pb" = FlightRadar24 "playback" page (Flightradar24.com - Live flight tracker! (http://www.flightradar24.com/2014-03-07/16:50/12x/MAS370/2d81a27)). Oddly enough, the points are not the same as in the "pinned" page. And these ones also include the climb rate, the squawk and the data feeder (registered ADS-B receiver which the data came from)
- "FA" = FlightAware data (Registre de suivi des vols ? MAS370 ? 08-03-2014 ? WMKK / KUL - ZBAA / PEK ? FlightAware (http://fr.flightaware.com/live/flight/MAS370/history/20140307/1635Z/WMKK/ZBAA/tracklog)). No squawk data on this one, and some minor discrepancies when compared to FR24 heading and velocity data.
- "PF" = PlaneFinder. 3 additional cue points, still better than nothing.

Once all this data collected, i ordered them by growing altitude until FL350, and adjusted the remaining cue points, based on their timestamp (feel free to interpolate the points where seconds are replaced by XX).




T[UTC];LAT[°];LONG[°];HDG[°];ALT[ft];SPD[kts];RoC[ft/mn];Squawk;ADS-B feeder;Data Source
16:42:22;2,7983;101,6890;328;1500;183;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn+GE
16:42:26;;;;1543;185;;;;FR24 Gr
16:42:29;2,8033;101,6860;327;1575;188;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn+GE
16:42:32;;;;1603;190;;;;FR24 Gr
16:42:33;;;;1622;194;;;;FR24 Gr
16:42:35;2,8083;101,6830;327;1650;196;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn+GE
16:42:38;;;;1682;199;;;;FR24 Gr
16:42:39;;;;1687;199;;;;FR24 Gr
16:42:XX;2,8100;101,6800;327;1700;200;896;2157;F-WMSA2;FR24 Pb
16:42:42;2,8129;101,6800;327;1725;201;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn+GE
16:42:45;;;;1757;203;;;;FR24 Gr
16:42:46;;;;1789;206;;;;FR24 Gr
16:42:48;2,8184;101,6760;327;1825;207;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn+GE
16:42:52;;;;1879;209;;;;FR24 Gr
16:42:54;;;;1888;207;;;;FR24 Gr
16:42:57;2,8245;101,6730;327;1950;210;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn+GE
16:43:06;;;;2108;213;;;;FR24 Gr
16:43:11;;;;2214;228;;;;FR24 Gr
16:43:XX;2,8444;101,6604;333;2400;235;0;;;FA
16:43:20;2,8473;101,6590;336;2375;237;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn+GE
16:43:23;;;;2424;240;;;;FR24 Gr
16:43:24;;;;2427;239;;;;FR24 Gr
16:43:27;*;*;346;2475;240;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn
16:43:29;;;;2517;241;;;;FR24 Gr
16:43:31;;;;2522;240;;;;FR24 Gr
16:43:33;2,8600;101,6600;353;2600;242;1280;2157;F-WMSA2;FR24 Gr+Pb
16:43:41;;;;2872;248;;;;FR24 Gr
16:43:46;;;;3016;252;;;;FR24 Gr
16:43:XX;2,8751;101,6607;024;3100;257;1980;;;FA
16:43:54;*;*;024;3350;258;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn
16:43:56;;;;3446;260;;;;FR24 Gr
16:43:58;;;;3560;259;;;;FR24 Gr
16:44:00;*;*;024;3675;260;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn
16:44:03;;;;3810;261;;;;FR24 Gr
16:44:04;;;;3844;260;;;;FR24 Gr
16:44:07;*;*;025;3975;261;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn
16:44:XX;2,8953;101,6698;026;4000;262;2820;;;FA
16:44:10;;;;4124;262;;;;FR24 Gr
16:44:12;;;;4209;263;;;;FR24 Gr
16:44:15;*;*;026;4375;264;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn
16:44:17;;;;4499;265;;;;FR24 Gr
16:44:18;;;;4585;265;;;;FR24 Gr
16:44:21;*;*;026;4700;265;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn
16:44:24;;;;4835;265;;;;FR24 Gr
16:44:25;;;;4866;266;;;;FR24 Gr
16:44:28;2,9203;101,6822;026;5000;266;2760;;;FR24 Gr+Pn+FA
16:44:35;;;;5326;267;;;;FR24 Gr
16:44:XX;2,9300;101,6900;026;5400;267;3072;2157;F-WMSA2;FR24 Pb
16:44:38;;;;5521;268;;;;FR24 Gr
16:44:XX;2,9342;101,6891;026;5800;270;2820;;;FA
16:44:45;*;*;026;5850;269;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn
16:44:50;;;;6101;270;;;;FR24 Gr
16:44:53;;;;6175;269;;;;FR24 Gr
16:44:58;*;*;026;6450;270;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn
16:45:03;;;;6725;271;;;;FR24 Gr
16:45:XX;2,9638;101,7035;026;6900;273;2940;;;FA
16:45:06;;;;6970;272;;;;FR24 Gr
16:45:11;*;*;025;7225;273;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn
16:45:16;;;;7460;274;;;;FR24 Gr
16:45:18;;;;7473;276;;;;FR24 Gr
16:45:23;*;*;025;7675;277;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn
16:45:28;;;;7893;278;;;;FR24 Gr
16:45:31;;;;8030;278;;;;FR24 Gr
16:45:36;*;*;025;8275;279;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn
16:45:XX;3,0000;101,7200;025;8475;280;3072;2157;F-WMSA2;FR24 Pb
16:45:41;;;;8520;280;;;;FR24 Gr
16:45:43;;;;8645;280;;;;FR24 Gr
16:45:XX;3,0097;101,7254;026;8800;282;2820;;;FA
16:45:49;*;*;025;8900;281;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn
16:45:53;;;;9135;282;;;;FR24 Gr
16:45:56;;;;9265;283;;;;FR24 Gr
16:46:01;*;*;025;9500;284;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn
16:46:XX;3,0334;101,7367;026;9700;285;1620;;;FA
16:46:05;;;;9715;285;;;;FR24 Gr
16:46:07;;;;9907;284;;;;FR24 Gr
16:46:12;*;*;025;10025;286;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn
16:46:24;;;;10357;288;;;;FR24 Gr
16:46:30;;;;10408;304;;;;FR24 Gr
16:46:XX;3,0800;101,7600;025;10600;314;512;2157;F-WMSA2;FR24 Pb
16:46:43;*;*;025;10625;318;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn
16:46:55;;;;10848;332;;;;FR24 Gr
16:47:02;;;;10795;345;;;;FR24 Gr
16:47:XX;3,1119;101,7740;026;11000;347;1440;;;FA
16:47:14;*;*;025;11125;355;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn
16:47:28;;;;11485;366;;;;FR24 Gr
16:47:XX;3,1337;101,7844;025;11500;332;1980;;;FA
16:47:35;;;;11791;365;;;;FR24 Gr
16:47:XX;3,1600;101,8000;025;11950;367;2560;2157;F-WMSA2;FR24 Pb
16:47:49;*;*;025;12350;369;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn
16:47:XX;3,1807;101,8068;026;12500;369;2220;;;FA
16:48:02;;;;12861;373;;;;FR24 Gr
16:48:09;;;;13215;373;;;;FR24 Gr
16:48:21;*;*;025;13800;375;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn
16:48:XX;3,2351;101,8325;026;14000;376;2640;;;FA
16:48:34;;;;14385;377;;;;FR24 Gr
16:48:XX;3,2500;101,8400;025;14475;377;2816;2157;F-WMSA2;FR24 Pb
16:48:40;;;;14769;375;;;;FR24 Gr
16:48:53;*;*;025;15275;377;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn
16:49:XX;3,2828;101,8554;026;15400;378;2400;;;FA
16:49:18;;;;16239;379;;;;FR24 Gr
16:49:XX;3,3302;101,8781;026;16500;385;2160;;;FA
16:49:30;;;;16570;386;;;;FR24 Gr
16:49:XX;3,3500;101,8900;025;16925;387;2304;2157;F-WMSA2;FR24 Pb
16:49:XX;;;025;17425;391;;2157;;PF
16:49:54;*;*;025;17475;391;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn
16:50:XX;3,3878;101,9058;026;17800;394;2220;;;FA
16:50:18;;;;18380;396;;;;FR24 Gr
16:50:XX;3,4286;101,9253;026;18700;396;2160;;;FA
16:50:31;;;;18927;395;;;;FR24 Gr
16:50:XX;3,4500;101,9400;025;19225;399;2432;2157;F-WMSA2;FR24 Pb
16:50:55;*;*;024;19800;400;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn
16:51:XX;3,4807;101,9496;025;19800;402;2160;;;FA
16:51:20;;;;20687;405;;;;FR24 Gr
16:51:XX;3,5325;101,9736;025;20900;408;1980;;;FA
16:51:32;;;;21065;411;;;;FR24 Gr
16:51:XX;3,5500;101,9800;025;21275;410;1920;2157;F-WMSA2;FR24 Pb
16:51:57;*;*;025;21875;416;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn
16:52:XX;3,5924;102,0018;026;22000;418;1740;;;FA
16:52:21;;;;22685;421;;;;FR24 Gr
16:52:XX;3,6466;102,0276;025;22800;426;1800;;;FA
16:52:XX;3,6600;102,0300;025;23100;426;2560;2157;F-WMSA2;FR24 Pb
16:52:34;;;;23134;420;;;;FR24 Gr
16:52:59;*;*;025;23850;424;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn
16:53:XX;3,7073;102,0563;025;24000;427;1800;;;FA
16:53:23;;;;24554;428;;;;FR24 Gr
16:53:XX;3,7630;102,0825;025;24800;433;1560;;;FA
16:53:35;;;;24840;432;;;;FR24 Gr
16:53:XX;3,7700;102,0900;025;24850;434;1536;2157;F-WMSA2;FR24 Pb
16:53:59;*;*;025;25425;438;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn
16:54:XX;3,8187;102,1087;025;25600;440;1380;;;FA
16:54:24;;;;26010;444;;;;FR24 Gr
16:54:XX;3,8740;102,1346;025;26200;448;1260;;;FA
16:54:36;;;;26220;447;;;;FR24 Gr
16:54:XX;3,8800;102,1400;025;26300;448;1280;2157;F-WMSA2;FR24 Pb
16:54:XX;;;025;26475;451;;2157;;PF
16:55:00;*;*;025;26775;452;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn
16:55:XX;3,9316;102,1618;025;26900;454;1380;;;FA
16:55:25;;;;27330;457;;;;FR24 Gr
16:55:37;;;;27645;457;;;;FR24 Gr
16:55:XX;4,0000;102,1900;025;27675;459;1536;2157;F-WMSA2;FR24 Pb
16:55:XX;3,9968;102,1926;025;27700;458;1320;;;FA
16:56:01;*;*;025;28200;461;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn
16:56:XX;4,0740;102,2289;025;28600;465;1320;;;FA
16:56:XX;4,0700;102,2300;025;28625;464;1280;2157;F-WMSA2;FR24 Pb
16:56:25;;;;28755;465;;;;FR24 Gr
16:56:38;;;;29039;467;;;;FR24 Gr
16:57:XX;4,1430;102,2615;025;29400;469;1260;;;FA
16:57:02;*;*;025;29550;470;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn
16:57:XX;4,2042;102,2904;025;30000;472;1200;;;FA
16:57:27;;;;30069;473;;;;FR24 Gr
16:57:XX;4,2200;102,3000;025;30175;473;1280;2157;T-WMSA8;FR24 Pb
16:57:39;;;;30301;473;;;;FR24 Gr
16:58:04;*;*;025;30775;476;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn
16:58:28;;;;31241;479;;;;FR24 Gr
16:58:XX;4,3300;102,3500;025;31275;481;1152;2157;T-WMKP2;FR24 Pb
16:58:40;;;;31290;485;;;;FR24 Gr
16:59:05;*;*;025;31900;485;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn
16:59:32;;;;32580;485;;;;FR24 Gr
16:59:XX;;;025;32800;480;;2157;;PF
16:59:XX;4,4600;102,4100;025;32825;480;2176;2157;T-WMKP2;FR24 Pb
16:59:45;;;;33341;476;;;;FR24 Gr
17:00:13;*;*;025;34000;472;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn
17:00:XX;4,5800;102,4700;025;34475;470;1536;2157;T-WMKP2;FR24 Pb
17:00:37;;;;34591;469;;;;FR24 Gr
17:00:XX;4,7015;102,5251;025;35000;468;960;;;FA
17:00:XX;4,7000;102,5200;025;35000;467;0;2157;T-WMKP2;FR24 Pb
17:00:49;;;;35025;467;;;;FR24 Gr
17:01:13;*;*;025;35025;467;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn
17:01:39;;;;35025;467;;;;FR24 Gr
17:01:52;;;;35000;467;;;;FR24 Gr
17:02:18;*;*;025;35000;467;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn
17:02:43;;;;35000;467;;;;FR24 Gr
17:02:XX;4,7073;102,5278;025;35000;468;0;;;FA
17:02:XX;4,7900;102,5700;025;35000;468;0;2157;T-WMKP2;FR24 Pb
17:02:55;;;;35000;469;;;;FR24 Gr
17:03:20;*;*;025;35000;469;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn
17:03:45;;;;35000;469;;;;FR24 Gr
17:03:XX;4,9400;102,6400;025;35000;468;0;2157;F-WMKC1;FR24 Pb
17:03:57;;;;35000;469;;;;FR24 Gr
17:04:22;*;*;025;35000;469;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn
17:04:48;;;;35000;469;;;;FR24 Gr
17:04:XX;5,0400;102,6800;025;35000;468;0;2157;T-WMKN1;FR24 Pb
17:05:01;;;;35000;467;;;;FR24 Gr
17:05:27;*;*;025;35000;467;;;;FR24 Gr+Pn
17:05:XX;5,1700;102,7400;025;35000;468;-128;2157;T-WMKN1;FR24 Pb
17:05:53;;;;35000;467;;;;FR24 Gr
17:06:06;;;;35000;468;;;;FR24 Gr
17:06:33;;;;35000;468;;;;FR24 Gr
17:06:XX;5,2900;102,8000;025;35000;468;-128;2157;F-WMKC1;FR24 Pb
17:06:59;;;;35000;468;;;;FR24 Gr
17:07:12;;;;35000;469;;;;FR24 Gr
17:07:38;;;;35000;469;;;;FR24 Gr
17:07:XX;5,3900;102,8500;025;35000;469;0;2157;T-WMKN1;FR24 Pb
17:08:03;;;;35000;469;;;;FR24 Gr
17:08:15;;;;35000;470;;;;FR24 Gr
17:08:39;;;;35000;470;;;;FR24 Gr
17:08:XX;5,5300;102,9200;024;35000;471;-128;2157;F-WMKC1;FR24 Pb
17:09:04;;;;35000;470;;;;FR24 Gr
17:09:16;;;;35000;471;;;;FR24 Gr
17:09:XX;5,6500;102,9700;025;35000;471;0;2157;F-WMKC1;FR24 Pb
17:09:41;;;;35000;471;;;;FR24 Gr
17:10:06;;;;35000;471;;;;FR24 Gr
17:10:18;;;;35000;472;;;;FR24 Gr
17:10:XX;5,7700;103,0300;025;35000;472;0;2157;F-WMKC1;FR24 Pb
17:10:43;;;;35000;472;;;;FR24 Gr
17:11:07;;;;35000;472;;;;FR24 Gr
17:11:19;;;;35000;472;;;;FR24 Gr
17:11:XX;5,8900;103,0900;025;35000;472;0;2157;F-WMKC1;FR24 Pb
17:11:44;;;;35000;472;;;;FR24 Gr
17:12:09;;;;35000;472;;;;FR24 Gr
17:12:21;;;;35000;472;;;;FR24 Gr
17:12:XX;6,0000;103,1400;025;35000;472;0;2157;F-WMKC1;FR24 Pb
17:12:46;;;;35000;472;;;;FR24 Gr
17:13:10;;;;35000;472;;;;FR24 Gr
17:13:22;;;;35000;472;;;;FR24 Gr
17:13:XX;6,1300;103,2000;025;35000;472;0;2157;F-WMKC1;FR24 Pb
17:13:46;;;;35000;472;;;;FR24 Gr
17:14:11;;;;35000;472;;;;FR24 Gr
17:14:24;;;;35000;472;;;;FR24 Gr
17:14:XX;6,2400;103,2600;025;35000;472;0;2157;F-WMKC1;FR24 Pb
17:14:48;;;;35000;472;;;;FR24 Gr
17:15:13;;;;35000;472;;;;FR24 Gr
17:15:25;;;;35000;472;;;;FR24 Gr
17:15:XX;6,3600;103,3100;025;35000;472;0;2157;F-WMKC1;FR24 Pb
17:15:49;;;;35000;472;;;;FR24 Gr
17:16:14;;;;35000;472;;;;FR24 Gr
17:16:26;;;;35000;473;;;;FR24 Gr
17:16:XX;6,4800;103,3700;025;35000;473;0;2157;F-WMKC1;FR24 Pb
17:16:51;;;;35000;473;;;;FR24 Gr
17:17:05;;;;35000;473;;;;FR24 Gr
17:17:12;;;;35000;473;;;;FR24 Gr
17:17:26;;;;35000;473;;;;FR24 Gr
17:17:XX;6,5800;103,4100;025;35000;473;0;2157;F-WMKC1;FR24 Pb
17:17:50;;;;35000;473;;;;FR24 Gr
17:18:02;;;;35000;473;;;;FR24 Gr
17:18:26;;;;35000;473;;;;FR24 Gr
17:18:41;;;;35000;473;;;;FR24 Gr
17:18:49;;;;35000;473;;;;FR24 Gr
17:18:XX;6,6800;103,4600;025;35000;473;0;2157;F-WMKC1;FR24 Pb
17:19:04;;;;35000;473;;;;FR24 Gr
17:19:08;;;;35000;473;;;;FR24 Gr
17:19:10;;;;35000;474;;;;FR24 Gr
17:19:15;;;;35000;474;;;;FR24 Gr
17:19:XX;6,8000;103,5200;025;35000;474;0;2157;F-WMKC1;FR24 Pb
17:19:35;;;;35000;474;;;;FR24 Gr
17:19:45;;;;35000;473;;;;FR24 Gr
17:20:05;;;;35000;472;;;;FR24 Gr
17:20:11;;;;35000;472;;;;FR24 Gr
17:20:XX;*;*;028;35000;472;;;;FR24 Pn
17:20:15;;;;35000;471;;;;FR24 Gr
17:20:22;;;;35000;471;;;;FR24 Gr
17:20:33;;;;35000;471;;;;FR24 Gr
17:20:49;;;;35000;471;;;;FR24 Gr
17:20:XX;6,9300;103,5900;040;0;471;0;2157;F-WMKC1;FR24 Pb
17:21:XX;6,9700;103,6300;040;0;471;0;2157;F-WMKC1;FR24 Pb







A BONUS QUESTION :
It has probably been asked several times, so i will check, but i'm curious : What is, exactly, the "information flow" of ADS-B ? When a cue point seems weird, i can't figure if i'm reading a bad approximation by the ADS-B receiver, the exact number that appeared in 9M-MRO's cockpit, or some GPS data relayed by 9M-MRO then by the ADS-B receiver.
Examples :
- is it KIAS ? GS ?
- the point at 16:47:XX where speed suddenly drops to 332kts
- the final 2 points, where altitude drops to zero, but everything else continues normally

It's also interesting to see that the last 3 HDG figures seem to indicate that the plane was following the flight plan, at least until ADS-B data was disrupted.

[threemiles]

What I think they have shown with the arrow is MH370 LKP. If they think it is returning from the east what did they think seeing it so far west?

The plot shows segments of a route from Penang thru a danger area direct to VAMPI and further on N571 to IGOGU. This is the last recorded segment West of Malaysia. The LKP is East of Malaysia. Penang is about 220 NM from IGARI or 30 flying minutes.

The plot was shown on a presentation to the relatives. The route had been announced earlier albeit with a Z turn southwest of Penang which can not be seen here. This may have been another airplane that was identified in the meantime.

The Prime Minister had addressed during his press conf that the determination that the trace would belong to flight 370 was made independantly by Malaysian and several foreign agencies.

The plot is from raw primary data therefore no tags or so. The map is overlaid for the presentation.

There are holes in primary radar coverage which speak about the quality of the Butterworth radar. The radar can be seen here 5.462348, 100.387213. It looks more like an elevated ASR than a long range defense radar. The quite long radar traces also speak in favour of a fast turning device, also the cone of silence above Penang. The 4 people sitting in the radar room of Butterworth that night probably had no defense duties but were approach controllers, my guess

[Cows getting bigger]

Those plots aren't just primary radar. Zoom in and you can see lots of overlapped labels. Of course, these could be SSR labels or air defence tags allocated to primary returns.

[hamster3null]

I was sent the following link by another ppruner who was not sure if it was useful. It shows the military radar plot of the LKP. It is hard to interpret a dynamic plot from a single screen shot.

Interestingly, as far as I can see, this is a raw radar plot and I cannot make out any track label on MH370 although the radar has an electronic map overlay.

What I think they have shown with the arrow is MH370 LKP. If they think it is returning from the east what did they think seeing it so far west?

Also this position is west, towards the satellite ground position which suggests that the aircraft had to have an easterly track component to reach the northern arc and a southerly one to reach the southern arc (assuming that Indonesian radar is correct with no track). Either way, pings preceding the last ping should show first movement west followed by movement east.

As usual it is in Mandarin.

??????????????? ??????[??] _????_??? (http://photo.china.com.cn/news/2014-03/21/content_31863360.htm)

This is curious. One of the notable features here is that the track does not match the original description in the media. You can't really make out the letters, but there's good agreement between lines in the picture and waypoints. The one near the top is GIVAL. The track never goes near it. The one under the left side of the white circle is VAMPI. The track goes from VAMPI along route N571 to MEKAR and NILAM. (You can sorta make out the label for MEKAR, look for white pixels near the left edge of the pic, under the track.)

Though the comment says "200nm from Butterworth AB", this is clearly wrong. MEKAR is ~235nm from either Penang or Butterworth and last known is past MEKAR. I'd estimate that it's about 250nm from Penang.

This also seriously undermines the "hiding under SIA68" theory, since, if this is the correct track, it was nowhere near SIA68 when it was lost. (According to FR24, the closest aircraft was UAE343, Kuala Lumpur to Dubai, same route but about 5 minutes behind.)

P.S. By the way, if you assume that it's stuck in heading mode at this point (which would be heading 285 give or take a few degrees) and you extrapolate the course for 6 hours, you get Yemen. Which is nowhere near Inmarsat arcs. So there had to be at least one additional change of heading. N571 is pretty much a straight line from MEKAR all the way to Dubai, but there's a small turn at MEKAR and it's impossible to tell if it was executed by MH370. Dubai (heading 300) is far from the arcs as well. If we assume Indian ocean, the only way to get to the area where Australians are searching (above 40 degrees of latitude) is to to take a 90 degree left turn within 1/2 hour after going off Penang radar.

[Pontius Navigator]

There have been questions about the rate of climb shown in the transcript to be 'wrong'.

Bad as the double translated transcript is I believe it shows a normal climb departure with an initial clearance to FL180, a further clearance to FL250, and a final clearance to FL350. In each case the revised clearance being issued before the aircraft had reached the cleared level. As a continuous climb to FL350 in 19 minutes it looks perfectly normal.

[Widger]

Things get worse.

This so called transcript appears to be nothing of the sort but someones interpretation of the comunications. It is riddled with flaws like using altitude instead of flight level and not one single readback. Either the authorities need to ensure information is accurate or Malaysian need a huge education programme in ICAO phraseology

This is only going to lead to more speculation as people will be commenting on something that is not accurate. If they cannot get this right, what else can we believe?

[CaptainEmad]

Sky news reporting that the Chinese aircraft arriving today to assist in the search landed in Perth instead of Pearce, despite the protests of ATC.

"They then took off straight away and headed to Pearce, where the deputy PM was waiting for them."

:confused:

Any truth in that? Clearing customs or something?

[PPMAGETO]

Forensic experts find nothing suspicious in pilot’s flight simulator, says report' on Yahoo News Malaysia. As the search for missing MH370 enters the third week, forensic experts examining the home flight simulator which was seized by police from the home of Malaysia Airlines pilot Zaharie Ahmad Shah have found nothing suspicious, The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) reported.

[evilroy]

I'm trying to get something clear. The media circus that has evolved around this incident makes it difficult to know what is confirmed and what is conjecture.

What I am trying to get clear is the last known position of MH370.

It was lost to ATC at about 0122L.

Then there are the claims that it was tracked on radar and / or that ACARS 'pings' had it in different locations, which led to claims it had been flown north-west or south-east for up to 7 or 8 hours flying time.

Have the radar tracking or ACARS data been confirmed i.e. not "it might be" but rather "it is definitely" ?

I believe that the last confirmed position was at 0122 and everything else is maybe / possible / could be, etc.

Is this correct?

[Andu]

Uncomfortable as it is to consider this, it's something that will have to faced eventually:

how much is this costing?

And who is paying for it?

At some time, someone is going to have to ask the uncomfortable question: how long do we continue the search, or at least when do we scale it back to something even halfway sustainable? The military - or certainly the Australian military - don't have six to eight crews per aircraft like most airlines do. One point something crews per aircraft is what they aim for - and they don't always achieve that. The huge expenditure in hours can be taken from the training budget - but only for so long. The servicing schedule of every airframe and component carried on that airframe will need to be brought forward. Planned budgets are already out the window - the money will have to be found somewhere, and that means some other area of Defence will have to suffer. (They won't dare try to take that money from any politically 'vital' area like Welfare.)

Now to the really uncomfortable bit... It's now completely immaterial whether this was done by terrorists or a rogue pilot. It doesn't matter if it was a technical fault, (any one of the theories currently out there). The uncomfortable fact is that, having seen the way the world has reacted to the disappearance of this aircraft, the Bad Guys, even if they had absolutely nothing to do with this, will without doubt now know that they are on a real winner if they can pull off another one (perhaps their first).

In my first post on this thread, I said it was all about the money. Airlines and regulatory authorities will now have to revise their procedures to cover a terrorist attack along similar lines to the one that MAY have happened in regard to MH370. Any such procedures are going to be damned expensive - and if a second attack even halfway similar to what some suspect happened to MH370 was to occur over the next few months, it will have a crippling effect on the whole aviation industry, to the point where it may send some major airlines to the financial wall.

Not at all unrelated to the question of the industry remaining viable, how long before some ambulance-chasing lawyer gets some of the families of the passengers on MH370 together to launch a class action suite claiming billions against MAS, Boeing, right down to the manufacturer of the toilet rolls carried on the flight?

[Space Jet]

XUE LONG is a survey vessel and is heading to the search area

XUE LONG - Research/survey vessel: current position and details | IMO 8877899, MMSI 412863000, Callsign BNSK | Registered in China - AIS Marine Traffic (http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/8877899/vessel:XUE_LONG)

[SOPS]

Andu, I heard your lawyer in question on the BBC this morning. He is already in China, and lining the families up for a class action. And he won't be the last, that is for sure.

[threemiles]

The last primary plot at 18:22 UTC (02:22 LT) seen on the Chinese picture is past MEKAR which is 248 NM/R-295 from Butterworth (courtesy Skyvector). Around N6.533 E96.383

The "letters" seems to be the time of plot, not a tag.

UAE343 was executing the turn over VAMPI at 18:17 UTC, ground speed 488 kts, FL340.

Its position at 18:22 UTC (02:22 LT) was N6.4 E96.86. This is just 29 NM in trail of the supposed MH370. Given that this is straight out from the Butterworth radar there must be a lot of confidence in the equipment that those two targets were not mixed up.

http://i61.tinypic.com/2lwoc3k.jpg

Tracks between IGARI and VAMPI are just hypothetical. The ground speed should have been around 470 kts in the area with that track. Given the delay of a wide turn at IGARI the timing should be about correct, though.

[Hempy]

Uncomfortable as it is to consider this, it's something that will have to faced eventually:

how much is this costing?

And who is paying for it?

At some time, someone is going to have to ask the uncomfortable question: how long do we continue the search, or at least when do we scale it back to something even halfway sustainable? The military - or certainly the Australian military - don't have six to eight crews per aircraft like most airlines do. One point something crews per aircraft is what they aim for - and they don't always achieve that. The huge expenditure in hours can be taken from the training budget - but only for so long. The servicing schedule of every airframe and component carried on that airframe will need to be brought forward. Planned budgets are already out the window - the money will have to be found somewhere, and that means some other area of Defence will have to suffer. (They won't dare try to take that money from any politically 'vital' area like Welfare.)

Not sure of the political answer (although I'd suggest political pressure in the democracies would demand the search continues until it's found...it hasn't 'disappeared'...it's missing), but I'm pretty sure the RAAF crews will keep going until they either find something or the area is cleansed.

[brika]

BREAKING

At KL press conf today, message received that China has identified a 22 x 30 metre sized object in Southern corridor (not specified where in that area) identified by their satellite(s).

This message was passed to deputy transport Minister during the conf. he was unable to give further details.

Later officially corrected by Malaysian Govt to 22.5 x 13 m

Good example of the truth of "facts" being bandied about. Even Official govt agencies make errors!

[Passagiata]

Andu asked:

Uncomfortable as it is to consider this, it's something that will have to faced eventually:

how much is this costing?

And who is paying for it?Australia has a population of only 22 million but is the 12th largest economy in the world (17th by some measures). We are rich. I stand to be corrected here, but would think Australia will bear the cost of the rescue, being in our search and rescue zone 'n all. Australia will also take into account the benefits of treating this search as a training & learning exercise. The Chinese contribution has been deliberately described as "volunteered" so their contribution won't be charged. All of the contributions will be on a goodwill basis I would think - with eg the Norwegian car carrier chatting with its own government re its costs. Re whether to recover any costs from Malaysian Airlines - that would be pretty diplomatically nuanced, you would think, even if a viable proposition.

[Capot]

What a commentary on the whole operation that the announcement just now was, in effect, that China had spotted something 22 X 30m and that China is sending 2 ships to search for it".

Hardly a co-ordinated operation then; it sounds more like an international competition to find the aircraft rather than an international effort to do that.

Exactly what we would expect when politicians call the shots.

[catch21]

Andu: Now to the really uncomfortable bit... It's now completely immaterial whether this was done by terrorists or a rogue pilot. It doesn't matter if it was a technical fault, (any one of the theories currently out there). The uncomfortable fact is that, having seen the way the world...


Completely wrong. It has to be part of the learning process for the whole industry. I would go as far as to say it is essential to eventually understand what happened to drive improvements in safety for future confidence in air travel.

[slats11]

Can't be too many pieces of a T7 that size that could be floating.

Could conceivably be the same piece as seen before. That was described as "awash" and I imagine could look quite different sizes in different photos.

[A69]

Here's the picture of the paper handed over during the press conference
http://s28.postimg.org/3luslo5kd/Bj_Uu_YZj_Cc_AAJpg_R.jpg

[Passagiata]

Capot said:
What a commentary on the whole operation that the announcement just now was, in effect, that China had spotted something 22 X 30m and that China is sending 2 ships to search for it".

It's being coordinated. The fact that Chinese planes are flying into WA's Pearce Base and heading out under Australian coordination & management along with the other planes, and the fact that Chinese ships were heading for the Southern Ocean, were both announced on Thursday evening.

[awblain]

TURIN,

22x30m? That's a very big red herring indeed.

I suspect what we're seeing there is a potentially embarrassingly report of the woeful imaging resolution limit of that particular satellite, and unless it's a radar image, that someone might be about to get it in the neck.

[brakedwell]

It has just been announced that the Chinese Govt has received satellite images of a substantial piece of 'debris' and are sending ships to the area (South Indian Sea)

I have been wondering why "debris" sighted in the Southern Indian Ocean hasn't been monitored as closely as possible until identified and marked from the air or surface vessels arrive. If the latest report is correct they now have an accurate position and hopefully one of the ships will reach there soon.

[deadheader]

sky news reporting the latest item found by the Chinese is actually 22m x 13m (not 30m) according to source in Beijing. Dimensions lost in Chinglish?

[hamster3null]

Matelo, i'n not sure if the plane being in the Andaman Sea area has been confirmed or not. I was under the impression it was and then headed South from there. To me, anything between DG and Indonesia is within DG area. I would think the base at DG would be able to see anything as far as Sri Lanka at the least, and if so it should have seen MH370 heading South. There are way too many American assets there for them not to keep a wide eye in the area.

GRANTED, FACT was the wrong word to use.

One thing that's for sure, is that there's a definite shortage of FACTs in this whole affair. Even things that initially seem to be facts, ultimately turn out not to be. It exploded in midair. There are oil slicks in the Gulf likely caused by the accident. Chinese satellites spotted pieces of the plane in South China Sea. It crashed into Malacca Strait. It crashed into Andaman Sea. It flew for 5 hours. It flew for 7.5 hours. Etc, etc.

Part of the problem is that everything we know is third-hand or fourth-hand information. And somehow the people in charge of the investigation are really good (bad?) at playing broken telephone. Just take the radar chart linked on the previous page. This is the closest thing to the primary source we (the general public) have in the whole investigation, because it purports to show raw data rather than someone's interpretation of it. Previously, we only had someone's retelling of someone else's interpretation of that data. It took me 2 minutes of staring at the radar chart and at the skyvector map to convince myself that either the radar chart, or the original description of the track, had to be wrong.

Right now the entire search is guided by yet another fourth-hand factoid: the infamous Inmarsat arc. In the grand scheme of things, this factoid makes very little sense, since it implies one of two things - either that the person in control of the aircraft skilfully navigated his way into Andaman Sea, waypoint to waypoint, only to turn the plane 90 degrees towards one of the most remote parts of the ocean and fly in that direction for several hours, in effect, making this an extremely elaborate suicide; or that the same person managed to evade air defense systems of India, Pakistan and/or China and either crash or land in Central Asia.

I can't help but start feeling that it's yet another false lead. Someone made a mistake somewhere along the way, and now everyone is chasing their tails searching for it in the wrong part of the planet.

Suppose that we don't have the Inmarsat distance data, all we have is two bits of information. 1) MH370 was on heading 285 in south Andaman Sea at 1822 UTC. 2) it was still airborne at 0011 UTC. Where would we look for it? Early on, several people in this very thread suggested Somalia. Could be Yemen, or even (less likely) Iran. All somewhat credible destinations for a pirate, all in the right direction and reachable in 6 hours, give or take, without coming afoul of Indian air defense installations.

[A69]

Malaysia has clarified that the object found by China is 22.5m by 13m, not 22m by 30m.

Its transport ministry says it received the information by phone during the press conference and was misheard,

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BjUzgj2CYAAGMaU.jpg

[Ian W]

The simplest explanation is that inmarsat are tracing a terminal not installed on the lost aircraft.

Once ranging errors are allowed for, the likely location of the inmarsat terminal is the maintenance base at KL.

Take the pings out of the equation, and we have a very simple scenario; fire compromises comms system, fire results in loss of aircraft control. Aircraft crashes in Asia.


PS: i've been posting this hypothesis since the 16th, but my posts have never appeared.

And

This thought occurred to me too but Immarsat swears that it is absolutely certain they have the right device ID for the terminal. If it turns out they are wrong there are going to be some very very embarrassed people in the UK. :\

And

Spoofing would probably be possible, but would take a substantial amount of technical knowledge. The pings along show it's not a stationary terminal, unless someone has dismantled it and managed to adjust the synchronization internally to just the right level with millisecond accuracy, or has written some pretty complex software to emulate a terminal. They'd also need to know just when the real 777's SATCOM terminal went off so they could turn theirs on.

If it's not the real terminal, this would probably be the most sophisticated hijacking ever seen (which, admittedly, it may still turn out to be).

To put this hypothesis to bed. The satellite has a footprint that covers approximately one third of the Earth's surface. Even though there are lots of empty spaces in the southern Indian Ocean, this satellite also covers a lot of Africa, India, most of Russia and most of Europe. These are not silent areas, there are lots of transmissions to 'listen' to. The only way the satellite can discriminate between 'pings' from aircraft is that these low level protocol 'pings' are actually short messages with a unique 'electronic aircraft address'. It is the INMARSAT business to ensure that these thousands of aircraft transmissions are not mixed up. So the hypothesis that they 'tracked the wrong plane' is just not supportable.

[hamster3null]

Chinese image:

https://twitter.com/money_china/status/447317458454843392

They keep looking further and further south. It's really starting to stretch imagination. Latitude 45 south? I understand that there's wind and ocean currents and the object (if it were related to MH370) would have drifted in 2 weeks, but still. MH370 _might_ have run out of fuel close to the spot if it turned due south as soon as it was out of range of Butterworth, passing over a broad swath of Sumatra along the way. If (more likely) it continued at least 30 min. on the original heading before turning, in order to stay clear of Indonesia, it would only get as far as latitude 36 by the last ping, latitude 40 if it stayed airborne for another 30 minutes after that.

But let's wait and see what this mysterious object really is. Who knows.

[mmurray]

Is there a time stamp on that photo ? Is that what the Chinese characters say ?

[onetrack]

@capot - The search is being co-ordinated internationally by the UN-SPIDER organisation. UN-SPIDER is a platform set up to co-ordinate space-based information for disaster management. This is the first time that it has been initiated for lost aircraft recovery.

Re the on-the-job co-ordination; it is exceptionally difficult to co-ordinate SAR groups that have different languages and differing levels of discipline and command structures.
English is still a foreign language to many billions of people.
Therefore, it is easier to merely co-ordinate the separate search groups into a common aim, allowing each group to operate independently using its native language and command structure.
Local level co-ordination is being handled by AMSA, as the search zone is within AMSA's recognised maritime control area.

International Charter activated for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 | UN-SPIDER Knowledge Portal (http://www.un-spider.org/about-us/news/international-charter-activated-missing-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370)

[slats11]

Given the pixelation and the revised dimensions, could be same. Does seem a long way south, but the earlier bit was 44S I think.

[truckflyer]

In reference to last ATC conversation, did the MH370 ever read back the new frequency?

All the casual stuff about good night etc. is not an issue, as this is normal, however 2 things that you would expect that is not specified in the transcript, and that is why was not the new frequency read back, and the aircraft's call-sign?

These might be small details in the big picture, however sometimes the devil lies in the detail.

Why would they fly at 29.500 (FL295)

How has the documentation of the inital climb to FL450 - then FL230 and then FL295 - during same time new tracks.

To many questions and not enough answers.

[threemiles]

Chinese finding is 3092NM from last radar plot past MEKAR.

Flying time 6 h 52 min at 450 kts.

Not taking into account turn at a later waypoint, zig-zag flying, debris drift etc.

Just for overview.

http://i60.tinypic.com/ngrj3k.jpg

[atakacs]

Chinese finding is 3092NM from last radar plot past MEKAR.

Flying time 6 h 52 min at 450 kts.

Not taking into account turn at a later waypoint, zig-zag flying, debris drift etc.

Well that just doesn't make any sense I'm afraid - way beyond range.

And good luck mounting a SAR expedition there...

[onetrack]

Nearly 45 deg S is definitely in the region of regular remnant icebergs. 90% of a 777 is metal, 10% is composite.
Does anyone really believe that a 22m x 13m (72' x 42') section of a 777 would still be floating on the surface after 2 weeks in Southern Indian Ocean swells and storms?? :rolleyes:

[Eclectic]

Some points.

The Southern Ocean is full of debris because it has nothing to bump into. It can just go round and round.

The Northern route could have gone through some very soft or non existent air defences and primary radar. Myanmar. The Myanmar/Chinese border, Tibet, Natal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan.
Especially in the early hours of the morning at the weekend.

It is very difficult not to have rechargeable lithium cells on a flight. They are in everything these days.
Very many thousand of torches like this are flying right now in jiffy bags, for instance: UltraFire 2000Lm CREE XM-L T6 LED Zoom Zoomable Flashlight Torch Light 5 Modes | eBay (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/UltraFire-2000Lm-CREE-XM-L-T6-LED-Zoom-Zoomable-Flashlight-Torch-Light-5-Modes-/350908513725?pt=UK_SportsLeisure_Camping_LightsLanternsTorch es&var=&hash=item51b3c6fdbd)

UK defence planners have seen this and must now be making a very good case for a purchase of Boeing P-8s. It is a scandal that we don't have this resource.

T7 entered service in 1995 and nearly 1,200 have been built, so it has many millions of flying hours. But this does not mean that every possible fault in the aircraft has been found. As BA 38 and SU-GBP proved.

[Golf-Mike-Mike]

Rory 166 refers us back to AT1's post no.7124, now on page 357, where, a telecoms engineer explains in striking detail how these satellites work and the accuracies involved.
This is dense stuff, but well written and I would like to add my thanks to AT1 for his work in putting that very helpful explanation together.

And @Ian W
It is the INMARSAT business to ensure that these thousands of aircraft transmissions are not mixed up. So the hypothesis that they 'tracked the wrong plane' is just not supportable.

Those who have laboured through thousands of posts this week will have heard the INMARSAT chap explaining in very clear terms that the nearest analogy is the SIM card in your mobile phone having a unique identity that carriers pick up. Similarly INMARSAT satellites pick up the unique IDs from aircraft, no confusion at all.

[hamster3null]

To put this hypothesis to bed. The satellite has a footprint that covers approximately one third of the Earth's surface. Even though there are lots of empty spaces in the southern Indian Ocean, this satellite also covers a lot of Africa, India, most of Russia and most of Europe. These are not silent areas, there are lots of transmissions to 'listen' to. The only way the satellite can discriminate between 'pings' from aircraft is that these low level protocol 'pings' are actually short messages with a unique 'electronic aircraft address'. It is the INMARSAT business to ensure that these thousands of aircraft transmissions are not mixed up. So the hypothesis that they 'tracked the wrong plane' is just not supportable.

What if they tracked the right plane, but they messed up their calculations?

I took a look at post 7124. I have to say that I don't buy this. It basically says that the antenna on the aircraft is tied to an extremely fast computer chip that is guaranteed to send a response to the "ping" from the satellite within a few nanoseconds of receipt. I don't have any documentation to back this, but I find this extremely improbable, especially for a 1980's system (classic aero). And, more generally, no one writes networking code like this, not even in perfectly controlled conditions, let alone for a noisy 36000 km long satellite link. The computer in charge of sending the response may have other things to do, it will reply eventually, but realtime response is not guaranteed.

What I _could_ easily buy is the presumption that the satellite has a very precise clock, and the aircraft has a different clock, and the response to the ping has a timestamp that the satellite can compare against its own clock, thus estimating time of flight. We are still talking about extremely precise timing. The entire process could be rendered useless if there's an unpredictable source of lag on the order of as little as 1 millisecond between timestamping and sending/receiving, or if the clock that's attached to the Classic Aero antenna on the aircraft drifts off by 1 millisecond over the course of flight. Since this system was never designed for the purposes of tracking aircraft, there can be any number of potential unknown sources of error.

[NigelOnDraft]

Chinese object is a 18 Mar image
Original objects are 16 Mar, and approx. 70NM NE of the latest Chinese position.

Surface drift I believe is a little North of East? i.e. wrong way.

Does not figure to me they are logically connected... if so, 1 set or other are false, and if we can get false images, or rather objects not related to MH370, seems to me P any image is MH370 is reduced?

[brika]

Assuming longer meaning distance...
(and applying to southern red line)

..if a/c climbed back to FL350 or so and then, for whatever reason, descended gradually along the same path...pings would get longer as the a/c would be increasing it's distance from the satellite (direct line of comm at lower altitude=further from sat)(but further u are from sat, the smaller the difference becomes)

One possibility.

The other would be.... flying away, directly or tangentially, from satellite...and, if descending, would make pings even longer.

Just a thought.

Note: timestamping errors as mentioned by hamster3null #7286 would be an added problem for calculations.

[Aireps]

I was sent the following link by another ppruner who was not sure if it was useful. It shows the military radar plot of the LKP. It is hard to interpret a dynamic plot from a single screen shot.

Interestingly, as far as I can see, this is a raw radar plot and I cannot make out any track label on MH370 as screen does not have sufficient definition although the radar has an electronic map overlay.

??????????????? ??????[??] _????_??? (http://photo.china.com.cn/news/2014-03/21/content_31863360.htm)

The caption showing "BUTTERWORTH AB R295 200 nm" probably means 200 nautical miles from Butterworth VOR (VBT), radial 295 (VOR on the airfield).
VBT R295 200 NM is here (clearly not the point depicted on the radar plot):

VBT R295 200NM - SkyVector Aeronautical Charts (http://skyvector.com/?ll=6.8571677372036195,97.3493042030182&chart=304&zoom=4&plan=V.WM.VBT:G.6.854258997248339,97.35095215223699)

http://s28.postimg.org/7a9ibphkd/VBT_R295_200_NM.jpg

[Sunnyjohn]

A bit late but thanks, ZAZ, for posting the link:
The sinister, scary impact of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 - Intelligent Travel (http://intelligenttravel.com.au/travel-risk-management/sinister-scary-impact-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370)
This is an intelligent piece of writing and I thought, bearing in mind the criticism of the amount of dross that has been posted on this thread, that is was worthwhile highlighting this paragraph: (the italics are mine)
Ethiopian Airlines Flight 702 was significant not because it involved the alleged hijacking of an aircraft heading to the EU and a major capital city but because the story was not released by professional or government agencies and it involved one of the crew as the alleged hijacker. Online enthusiasts, rank amateurs and other crowdsourced intelligence were responsible for the identification, reporting and tracking of the incident which in turn fed the international news community. If not for this happenstance and skilled online community coming together at that particular time and seeing the incident through until conclusion, it would have just been a single line news updates online or during the evening news. If one is intelligent enough to spot and ignore the dross, one can learn a lot from a thread like this, as indeed I, and I am sure many others, have. Thanks to all of you.

[ChickenHouse]

One thing which bothers me from the very beginning of this strange "ping" discussion: who says the latency of the ping signal is the same as in clear sky and fully operational device?

These southern and northern arcs are derived from a time delay measured from a satellite and calculated straight forward. BUT, how says there is nothing obscuring the delay, i.e. covers are known to delay these signals and maybe the device aboard is not fully functional, even a torn wire will put additional latency? So, conclusion: these arcs are the max. distance from the satellite, not necessarily the most probable. With this, the plane can sit anywhere on half the world.

This speculation is not less probable as all the others, or?

BTW: 45 south? I find it hard to believe that MH370 could come that far. How many abandoned ships float there in the roaring forties?

[Golf-Mike-Mike]

BBC News now carrying this easy guide to how it worked for AF447. Must admit I found this rather neat !
BBC News - MH370 Malaysia plane: How maths helped find an earlier crash (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26680633)

[rh200]

What am I missing here?

Is it possible that they are taking images at lower resolution to cover more area in each pass?

[Ian W]

What if they tracked the right plane, but they messed up their calculations?

I took a look at post 7124. I have to say that I don't buy this. It basically says that the antenna on the aircraft is tied to an extremely fast computer chip that is guaranteed to send a response to the "ping" from the satellite within a few nanoseconds of receipt. I don't have any documentation to back this, but I find this extremely improbable, especially for a 1980's system (classic aero). And, more generally, no one writes networking code like this, not even in perfectly controlled conditions, let alone for a noisy 36000 km long satellite link. The computer in charge of sending the response may have other things to do, it will reply eventually, but realtime response is not guaranteed.

What I _could_ easily buy is the presumption that the satellite has a very precise clock, and the aircraft has a different clock, and the response to the ping has a timestamp that the satellite can compare against its own clock, thus estimating time of flight. We are still talking about extremely precise timing. The entire process could be rendered useless if there's an unpredictable source of lag on the order of as little as 1 millisecond between timestamping and sending/receiving, or if the clock that's attached to the Classic Aero antenna on the aircraft drifts off by 1 millisecond over the course of flight. Since this system was never designed for the purposes of tracking aircraft, there can be any number of potential unknown sources of error.

I think you will find that messages are timestamped probably synched to GPS clock.

The calculations will have been checked by a whole raft of international experts in SATCOM that have the raw data from INMARSAT. I don't think someone worked this out on the back of an envelope using iffy data and phoned it through.

[compressor stall]

Minske/SpaceJet,

I understand that the VIC SES crew heading over are qualified air observers who have been trained by AMSA and participate in aerial searches, usually with the civvy SAR aircraft.

[nitpicker330]

The trained specialist Air Observers from the Vic SES have been flying out to the search area for 3 days now on Corp Jets looking.

Nothing new now, this info was posted from AMSA days ago.

[UnreliableSource]

To put this hypothesis to bed. The satellite has a footprint that covers approximately one third of the Earth's surface. Even though there are lots of empty spaces in the southern Indian Ocean, this satellite also covers a lot of Africa, India, most of Russia and most of Europe. These are not silent areas, there are lots of transmissions to 'listen' to. The only way the satellite can discriminate between 'pings' from aircraft is that these low level protocol 'pings' are actually short messages with a unique 'electronic aircraft address'. It is the INMARSAT business to ensure that these thousands of aircraft transmissions are not mixed up. So the hypothesis that they 'tracked the wrong plane' is just not supportable.


For starters, the satellite doesn't discriminate between anything. It's just a bent pipe retransmitting what it hears in an analogue sense. All demodulation and interpretation occurs on earth.

An end point in such a network would be identified by a DNIC or number, something that looks like an international phone number or an x.25 address. It certainly isn't identified by an aircraft manufacturer's serial number. If the data service isn't paid up and active (there was an early post in this thread indicating the airline didn't use the inmarsat service) who cares about keeping this number-to-plane mapping in sync. Or who cares if the non-useful bit of kit is removed for testing etc.

If the service was not paid up, there would be no polling from the network towards the terminal. There may be polling from the terminal towards the network "->can I logon"...."<-no"... Unless there is a two way flow from the network to the terminal and back to the network timing is going to be very hard to establish. That the range ring lay exactly on the 40 degree contour is telling of the precision the author felt they had. This wasn't 41.5deg, or 42deg, it was more like vaguely in the vicinity of 40deg.

That the inmarsat range calculations were calibrated by the "known" location of the aircraft pre-disappearance is also troublesome. A vague range ring drawn through the place the sat terminal was assumed to be.

Look, I'm accepting that this hypothesis can go right out the window if a few bits of information (like it being and inactive sat service) turn out to be incorrect. There might also be non-public information clearly discrediting this theory. But to me, fire causes loss of comms, then loss of control sounds more plausible than deliberately evades radars to end up in the southern ocean.

[dmba]

...and the BBC mistakenly have 'Breaking news - China satellite finds debris in the south China sea '

They actually say 'debris' in inverted commas, suggesting it's not actual fact. Besides, whatever it is could well be debris of some sort.

[Seat 32F]

I think you will find that messages are timestamped probably synched to GPS clock.

I think AT1 in his post 7124 explains that the satellite sends out a precise timestamp as part of its ping and the receiver returns it along with the receiver's unique iD, this allowing the lag to be precisely calculated irrespective of how good the clock on the receiver is.

[UnreliableSource]

Rory 166 refers us back to AT1's post no.7124, now on page 357, where a telecoms engineer explains in striking detail how these satellites work and the accuracies involved.

This is dense stuff, but well written and I would like to add my thanks to AT1 for his work in putting that very helpful explanation together.

I've read all 7000+ posts here, but must have skipped this one!


The low data rate inmarsat services that work with omnidirectional antennas are not as sophisticated as the poster may imply. Inmarsat-C is a teletype era service.

[mm_flynn]

Is it possible that they are taking images at lower resolution to cover more area in each pass?

The 'high quality' Google images are from aircraft not satellites. If you look at GE images in the outback you will see the resolution of the civil satellite images.

On the question of Ping latency, this is not an ip type network ping (which can have lots of reasons for latency), but appears to be a clock synchronisation ping to get the right time division for the TDM to work. As such it will be implemented in hardware not software, so it is unlikely there is anything to influence that latency. It is also likely to be only a rough time synch (say 10 to 100 Microseconds - which would be a 6 to 60 mile precision - so altitude changes would not meaningfully change the time delay.

[mmurray]

This is supposed to be a comparison of satellite resolutions

IMINT - Coverage - Resolution (http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/resolve4.htm)

Globalstar images are said to be 1m or 50cm I think.

[catch21]

Previous posters have incorrectly looked upon the aircraft's Inmarsat receiver clock as if it was a free-running quartz wall clock. It's not free running, its locked synchronous to the incoming bit stream from the satellite (which in turn locks it's own highly accurate caesium or rhubidium clock to other satellites in the constellation and timing sources on the ground).

Once the receiver is synchronised to the bit stream it can start looking for a unique (nearly) repeating pattern of bits to tell it where a frame starts, once it knows where a frame starts it can start to assemble groups of bits into bytes, which will start to assemble into a packet.....etc...

[jmjdriver1995]

KH-11 satellite imagery from 30 years ago had a resolution of only a few inches. It is probably even better now. The problem is that thing(s) is usually looking at items of special interest, mostly in the northern hemisphere. They have very little coverage in the south and it is a real bear to retask them. Even then, the targeting can only be changed a slight amount. Satellites don't make right angle turns in orbit.
- Another problem is that the area of coverage is VERY small for each frame of imagery. Some satellite imagery covers many miles per frame, but the trade off is resolution measured in many 10s of feet. The images presented so far in this search appear to be in the latter category.

[awblain]

Inmarsat know what they're doing. When they say how far the aircraft was from their 64E satellite at 11 minutes past the hours they can be trusted.

They're about the only originator of useful information in the whole saga.

Sadly, it looks like this could remain unsolved, unless someone has a lot of luck with a 43kHz sonar, or some international persons of mystery are willing to stack weather satellite/IR full-disk early warning images from the night of the flight or gets lucky with some archived radar data. Even then, it's going to be hard.

I hope I have to retract that, but two weeks on, it's looking like it'll be a long time before there's any more real news.

[UnreliableSource]

I hear they are sending SES crews from VIC as well now ?

Bloody hell, what a circus.

Must be a few, well connected "wanna be's" in the VIC SES

Airservices Australia trains volunteers they largely source through the SES to be air observers on SAR missions. Commercial aircraft get chartered and the eyeballs come from this pool of trained volunteers. Volunteers are flown on both training and real missions.

When I was in the SES in my younger days I flew on a whole bunch of SAR missions. I personally never saw anything, but whenever something was found, somebody's eyeballs found it.

[deadheader]

They keep looking further and further south. It's really starting to stretch imagination. Latitude 45 south? MH370 _might_ have run out of fuel close to the spot if it turned due south as soon as it was out of range of Butterworth, passing over a broad swath of Sumatra along the way. If (more likely) it continued at least 30 min. on the original heading before turning, in order to stay clear of Indonesia, it would only get as far as latitude 36 by the last ping, latitude 40 if it stayed airborne for another 30 minutes after that.


Interesting, Hamster... Has anyone here determined a reasonably accurate range/endurance given we know:


49.1 metric tons of fuel, TOW 223.5 tons, air temp & meteo/wind, rate of climb, cruise speed (to loss of comms), & we have an idea of flight path (radar) & descent to 5000ft AMSL from LKP to LEP.


From that info some here must be able to ascertain a reasonably accurate estimated max range based on a couple of scenarios:


A> 2nd climb back to FL350, cruise until flame out + glide
B> no 2nd climb, continue at 5000ft until flame out + glide
C> assume no descent from IGARI & FL350 maintained until flame out + glide


Any navigators here with the appropriate knowledge & skills willing to post some calcs/estimates???


Might prove helpful for the crowd ;-)

[lostinp]

UnreliableSource
The satellites are digital launched in 1995
You may be thinking of the original Satcom A satellites launched in 1979

[threemiles]

http://i62.tinypic.com/ff6z2d.jpg

Last radar plot is R285/250NM from Butterworth.

That the Chinese twitter image shows R295/200NM is irritating again. If this is the quality of investigation how can we believe what they say else.

[UnreliableSource]

What am I missing here?

My garden is 5 metres x 12 metres and even on the standard Google Maps satellite view you can see my garden shed, footpath, fruit trees and a 2m x 3m vegetable patch. Standard Google Earth will even show the 20cm x 40cm steps on my grass.

So why are we being shown these very low resolution satellite photos anytime anything is found? I know the operators of these satellites don't want to reveal capability but come on, I'm sure a resolution at least as good as to that of Google Maps is no big military or commercial secret.

Google maps pictures might be updated once a year; this is because it takes that long to get around a photographing every place of interest at high resolution. If you look at google maps images away from metro areas the resolution gets quite poor.

Trying to quickly cover huge areas of oceans that may never have been photographed before is challenging.

[Pontius Navigator]

49.1 metric tons of fuel, TOW 223.5 tons, air temp & meteo/wind, rate of climb, cruise speed (to loss of comms), & we have an idea of flight path (radar) & descent to 5000ft AMSL from LKP to LEP.

. . .

A> 2nd climb back to FL350, cruise until flame out + glide
B> no 2nd climb, continue at 5000ft until flame out + glide
C> assume no descent from IGARI & FL350 maintained until flame out + glide


Any navigators here with the appropriate knowledge & skills willing to post some calcs/estimates???

Deadheader, as with everything else here, not enough information.

Would need the operating data manual, did it descend to 5000ft and only C applies. Did it cruise climb so have a longer descent? What met winds at all heights and over a whole postulated route?

[PerS]

This is a video regarding "who to" find objects in deep water.
Belive this company was part of the recovery of Air France black boxes.

F-1 Engine Recovery | Bezos Expeditions (http://www.bezosexpeditions.com/updates.html)

[RATpin]

onetrack,a different set of protocols apples to visiting foreign airforces.

[MC3]

I am an ATC and the transcript also surprised me.
I guess the problem is that it is a translation from English to Chinese and then to English. However, the lack of read back is not explained by incorrect translation.

[PilotsResearch]

In populated areas, Google's "satellite" images aren't from satellites. They're taken from planes flying over at 800-1500 feet altitude.

See Google's description (https://support.google.com/earth/answer/21417?hl=en)

To get a sense for Google's true satellite resolution, zoom in on a remote area, say, rural Newfoundland. Even buildings look blurry there.

[oldoberon]

fg32 :-

The plane flew steadily away from the satellite over the equator while pinging, McLaughlin said.

are you interpreting this as ( note the comma)

The plane flew steadily away from the satellite over the equator, while pinging, McLaughlin said.

or

The plane flew steadily away from the satellite, over the equator while pinging, McLaughlin said.

At least one of those interviews is on here I will see if I can find it

[awblain]

From their own data, Inmarsat can't say whether it was going North or South: they inferred that North was unlikely, as someone would have seen it go by.

[fg32]

Sorry oldoberon

Both quotes are cut and paste from the interview reports

IBTimes report of interview: Report 20 Mar
Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 Would Have Been Found If Communications Box Had $10 Upgrade (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-would-have-been-found-if-communications-box-had-10-upgrade-1441174)

There are multiple reports of the Fox news one. I got my quotes from here, well down under "satellite Analysis:
Hunt for Jet Switches to Visual Search as Radar Empty - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-21/missing-plane-flew-steady-speed-over-ocean-inmarsat-estimates.html)

[Speed of Sound]

PilotsResearch, UnreliableSource, & mm_flynn, thank you for your replies.

I had always assumed that as you toggle between 'Map View' and 'Satellite View' on Google Maps, all images were from a satellite. :*

[fg32]

awblain
From their own data, Inmarsat can't say whether it was going North or South: they inferred that North was unlikely, as someone would have seen it go by.

Agreed. The only reasons I have seen against North are
"it would have been seen" - but how about the long transit across Indonesia?
And (more recently) "the pinger batteries will run out, so sea first".
I don't think much of either.

Particularly since, in the south, nothing but dead people.
In the north, tiny chance of survivors on a remote hillside.
I know which I'd prioritise.

The resources aren't interchangeable, though, are they, and the access more problematic. I'd at least throw all at the north that I could, though. The Malaysians have two search aircraft in Khazakstan. Maybe its just the media neglecting the northern efforts.

[oldoberon]

Sorry oldoberon

Both quotes are cut and paste from the interview reports

IBTimes report of interview: Report 20 Mar
Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 Would Have Been Found If Communications Box Had $10 Upgrade (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-would-have-been-found-if-communications-box-had-10-upgrade-1441174)

There are multiple reports of the Fox news one. I got my quotes from here, well down under "satellite Analysis:
Hunt for Jet Switches to Visual Search as Radar Empty - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-21/missing-plane-flew-steady-speed-over-ocean-inmarsat-estimates.html)

Apologies not needed and thanks for reply

Here is what i believe to be one of the source interviews with megan kelly on Fox, she appears to be far more objective than your average talking head, I did not hear in the interview that exact quote.


Satellite Company Inmarsat Says Its Data Could Help Find Malaysia Airliner - Fox Nation (http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/03/21/satellite-company-inmarsat-says-its-data-could-help-find-malaysia-airliner)

[awblain]

The lack of a beacon signal also indicates something: either a hard impact or a safe landing in the north or a quick sinking in the south. A sinking in the South makes more sense to me.

If it's sitting on the ground somewhere in central Asia, and there were no further Inmarsat calls because the power was turned off, I'm sure a radar difference image between three weeks ago and two weeks ago would have been able to show it up.

How many places with a 777-sized hangar to hide it in are there in central Asia?

There would seem to be no prospect of survivors, so the only issue is whether the causes can be determined.

[felix505]

WMKK Kuala Lumpur Control radio traffic 1700-1730Z is available as a downloadable archive.
The transcript suggests there are comms from Malaysia 370 (MH370) at 17:01:14 (+8 01:01:14)
The archived radio recording is silent at the time indicated in the transcript. The other times indicated in the transcript also do not bear these communications, through to 01:19:29.

Each downloadable file is 30 minutes long, so that final transmission would be at 19:29 in that 30 min file.
http://archive-server.liveatc.net/wmkk/WMKK-Lumpur-Control-Mar-07-2014-1700Z.mp3
LiveATC.Net ATC Audio Archives (http://www.liveatc.net/listen.php)

One of the transcript links Revealed: the final 54 minutes of communication from MH370 - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10714907/Revealed-the-final-54-minutes-of-communication-from-MH370.html)

Maybe I have got the wrong day...

[fg32]

Pontius Navigator
If it flew over the equator then it had to fly south.
McClaughlan said it, but he gave no evidence.
Later he has said the reason he said it is that "it would have been seen if it went north".
Firstly, thats an assumption, Secondly, as Inmarsat, such a judgement is not his job.
Look at his resume. He's not technical. PR man.

[fg32]

odoberon
Here is what i believe to be one of the source interviews with megan kelly on Fox, she appears to be far more objective than your average talking head, I did not hear in the interview that exact quote.
Maybe I'm confused, and my second interview was with Bloomberg. I had about seven interview windows open at one point.
Anyway, the link is there. Thats my source.

I'm confident he said it…and twice.
And I find it pretty significant.

[AT1]

I took a look at post 7124. I have to say that I don't buy this. It basically says that the antenna on the aircraft is tied to an extremely fast computer chip that is guaranteed to send a response to the "ping" from the satellite within a few nanoseconds of receipt. I don't have any documentation to back this, but I find this extremely improbable, especially for a 1980's system (classic aero). And, more generally, no one writes networking code like this, not even in perfectly controlled conditions, let alone for a noisy 36000 km long satellite link. The computer in charge of sending the response may have other things to do, it will reply eventually, but realtime response is not guaranteed.

This is exactly NOT what I was attempting to explain. Firstly, as a bit of context, one of the most powerful computers you will ever come close to is in your mobile phone. The digital signal processors in these cheap phones pack astonishing punch, and run "fast". They are pretty well dedicated hardware only good for running phone comms, so not as general purpose as an Intel i7 for example, but by some measures much more powerful. Don't underestimate the power in relatively cheap comms kit. Inmarsat C may not support high data rates, but remember it is serving many many planes and many many ships all at the same time.

The key point here is that I am NOT requiring a response in a nanosecond. The response could be half a second later - 500,000,000 nanoseconds later. The terminal just counts ticks while a far more pedestrian processor prepares the response and sets it up ready to be sent, and it is then sent at the right "tick". The satellite knows the defined protocol and so can eliminate the delay, giving it access to the actual "flight" time of the message.

But I also said these are communication systems, not navigation systems. The overall system is designed to maximise the data they can handle as it is data that makes money. They could at one extreme simply say we have no idea where each user station is, we will provide in the protocol a "window" wide enough to accommodate the user being anywhere over the 1/3 of the globe. That would mean the satellite had wasted potential fee earning capacity waiting for the full potential window for each and every communication exchange, when in fact it can reduce, though not eliminate the window.

My explanation was, as I had said, simplified. In practice there are a whole load of other complications, spreading data bits over many carrier cycles and error handling codes etc etc all of which will introduce more variability, but at the heart the system is operating at 1600 MHz, giving an inherent timing capability irrespective of GPS time stamps etc, with the potential of measuremment to quite high levels of accuracy. In practice the level will not approach this - but talk of "miliseconds" and hundreds of Km is not appropriate. The underlying principles may be designed in the 1980s - as was GPS - but we are not talking valves and clockwork here!

I say again, I can go to my hardware shop and buy for a few £/$/Eu a handheld laser tape measure that can fire and time a pulse of light sufficient to measure distance to a few mm. Give it a more stable clock - which the satellite will have, and using the same principle of counting ticks you can time to great accuracy over very long periods, eliminate the "processing" time at the receiver by specifying how many ticks later the reply is sent, and there you have a system with the potential of astonishing accuracy - just as GPS has.

But one last repeat - Inmarsat is a comms system designed to support comms. It is talked of as a bent pipe, but that is a great simplification. The content of the data being exchanged may appear to pass through a bent pipe, but there is a lot going on over and above passing the data to keep the pipe itself working.

[Air33bus]

if yours and all other theory's about flying further is correct without electrical or any control who will take care about trimming,we also have to know the c.g. of the aircraft, because the c.g. will shift and there will be no trimming so the aircraft will climb or descend during fuel burn.

[Methersgate]

"I am an ATC and the transcript also surprised me.
I guess the problem is that it is a translation from English to Chinese and then to English. However, the lack of read back is not explained by incorrect translation."


I lived in China (next door to the Air China Airbus rep - thereby hung a few tales...) for a few years. Believe you me, a translation into and then out of Chinese, a language very different to English, can very easily explain the lack of read back!

[castleford tiger]

Medan airport ATC did they pick anything up? If it came back there way as suggested they should.
There is also a fair size Base close to there with a fair few fighter jets. Again not heard anything from them?

[EPPO]

From their own data, Inmarsat can't say whether it was going North or South: they inferred that North was unlikely, as someone would have seen it go by.

The north path would be very embarrassing for many people.
The south path hypothesis (fire - decompression - zombie a/c), however unlikely, is the only one that allows to save face for all countries (eastern and western) affected in some way by this 'event'. Any other explanation would point to incompetence or worse, misbehaviour by some governments.

So I guess we'll have to buy that one.

[Sheep Guts]

castleford tiger Medan airport ATC did they pick anything up? If it came back there way as suggested they should.
There is also a fair size Base close to there with a fair few fighter jets. Again not heard anything from them?


Castleford Tiger,
Still a lot of unanswered questions. They must have something that area of airspace very busy. The investigators and search coordinators in Malaysia who are running this SAR op may need to keep checking all reports and sightings they have be given. Of course we don't know what they have been given, only snippets and releases from the so called Us officials and Chinese news conferences etc have been leaked to the media.
Maybe something they were given days ago and discounted previously may be more relevant now, and needs further investigation. I just hope the foreign investigators who have volunteered their services from different bureaus are being utilized to their fullest. The search window is so large now. No stone should be left unturned.

[Durou]

I noticed the wording at the time of interview and wondered about the "steadily away from the satellite". At last military radar fix the plane was two ping hours north of the equator so would need one hour (maybe two) coming towards the satellite to cross the equator on the journey south. Was he referring to the last few pings or the continuous set?

[DX Wombat]

Nigel Osbornea Transponder that someone just can't turn off with a flick of a switch. Needs to be fitted so it cannot be tampered with from the cockpit, if that is indeed the actual reason of its lost signal.
From personal experience signal from a transponder may not necessarily be turned off deliberately. I am well aware that the vintage transponder in the C152 which I was flying was likely to be far less refined than that on MH370, however, in my particular case was asked by D&D to squawk 7700 and promptly complied - or so I thought. The transponder was certainly set correctly and should have been squawking but in fact was not. The request to squawk 7700 was the last transmission from D&D which I was able to hear for quite some time. D&D could hear me, but I couldn't hear D&D (or at least all transmissions from D&D were almost inaudible and muffled with no identifiable words). Communication was eventually restored via an Emirates Airbus and following a request to turn up the volume on the radio (it was already at maximum) I was asked to squawk 7700. My reply was that I was already doing that but would recycle, did so, and the problem was resolved. It is entirely possible that the crew of MH370 did squawk 7700 but was completely unaware that the transponder was not functioning.

[overthewing]

@felix505

The archived radio recording is silent at the time indicated in the transcript. The other times indicated in the transcript also do not bear these communications, through to 01:19:29.


Several posters have stated that ATC is only available for sectors west and north of KL.

Edited to add: I meant listening in to ATC, not actual control. obviously!

[Capt Pit Bull]

Nigel Osborne

Also they need to come up with a Transponder that someone just can't turn off with a flick of a switch. Needs to be fitted so it cannot be tampered with from the cockpit, if that is indeed the actual reason of its lost signal.

Perhaps you should have a think about the reasons why we need to be able to turn it off.

[arearadar]

Have I got this right?
The secondary response disappeared, then primary return disappeared. R/T shut down.....

Did somebody continuously track the a/c after that..who...verified?

So, the a/ may have disintegrated, it may have dropped below radar cover.
Maybe Blind Velocity Speed (unlikely at cruising speed and altitude) or Tangential Fading. (Radar Type in use ?)

So who continuously tracked the primary return?

If it was not continuously tracked it becomes unidentified. Who then re-identified it and how ? A primary return way off the flight planned track ??

I don`t think so.

[awblain]

McLaughlin might not have meant that all (eight?) distances (0111-0811) to the satellite were monotonically increasing - perhaps just the final few.

If he did mean that all eight distances were steadily increasing, then to accord with the timings, the number of possible routes likely isn't very large.

[Savas]

I just find it difficult to comprehend, that after 2 weeks, still no sure on where it is.
Surely if they can spot the plate numbers on cars from satellites, then surely they can figure out 370 and it's location, if intact.
Also, once it disappeared, I would like to really know, what and whom the Malaysian ATC, contact immediately.
I think, there is a lot that we are not been told, for some odd conspiracy.

[BOAC]

One of the many puzzles I have lies in the (by now basic) assumption that the a/c for some reason 'tracked' along the 40degree Inmarsat arc. Do we not think that would be a remarkable co-incidence?

[Ozlander1]

Regarding the possible report of reaching FL450.

This was from Primary radar data readings and estimations.

Today at FL380 our actual GPS ALT was 40,300'
So a 2,300' difference, this I've seen on every flight and can be up to 2,500' difference.

It's therefore reasonable that the 45,000' primary radar altitude above sea level was up to 2,500' above the Aircrafts pressure Altimeter reading of FL425 to 430. Hence the A/C wasn't as high as we think?

Not that it matters much.


Good point. Pressure altitude is NOT the actual altitude.

[Lonewolf_50]

BOAC, either "track" is an area of best probability X nm wide. Depending upon the angular precision, and the number of "degree circles" it may have crossed, the thickness of that band looks to me to get into a few hundred miles either side of the theoretical center. I don't like thinking of those arcs as a "track" but as "areas of probability" that have variation between estimated points/times.

I did a little back of the napkin math. One degree of error or imprecision is in the range of 600 nm.

I am on board with your raised eyebrow regarding such a coincidence.

[jugofpropwash]

I understand why the pilots need to be able to switch off the transponder in case of malfunction. However, would it be possible to have a secondary transponder on board which would be automatically activated in the event that the primary was switched off? Perhaps the backup could even be battery powered, and could be set to squawk a particular "warning" code. (A warning code indicating there -could- be a problem, rather than an emergency code indicating hijack, etc.) Is there a reason that wouldn't work? It would be unlikely that two different transponders with two different power supplies would both have electrical malfunctions at the same time, so there would be no reason to shut both off.

[Lonewolf_50]

However, would it be possible to have a secondary transponder on board which would be automatically activated in the event that the primary was switched off?
jug: some pages back, a 777 operator indicated 777's have two transponders. Switching from one to the other pretty easy.

This makes sense, having two transponders as a measure of redundancy. Large airliners travel in dense traffic control areas in the departure and arrival phases of flight. Having the transponder working so that ATC knows who you are, and where you are, is to me a critical requirement, both for safety and for timely arrivals and sequencing.

[Alchad]

From the Daily Telegraph online


"11.53 Here's the latest information from SASTIND, China's State Administration of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defence, via state news agency Xinhua:
Captured by the high-definition earth observation satellite "Gaofen-1" at around 12 a.m. on March 18 Beijing Time, the imagery spotted the object at 44 degrees, 57 minutes south latitude, and 90 degrees, 13 minutes east longitude, in the southern Indian Ocean, the SASTIND said"

[Pontius Navigator]

One of the many puzzles I have lies in the (by now basic) assumption that the a/c for some reason 'tracked' along the 40degree Inmarsat arc. Do we not think that would be a remarkable co-incidence?

I think most of us realise that the 40 deg arc is an ambiguous position line with a margin of error quoted as up to+/- 50km.