Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost

[Sober Lark]

NoD, I agree with you but what airlines don't spend on implementing recommendations they will spend on increased insurance premiums. MH370 will most definitely force insurers to reinvent risk classification and charge accordingly. Nobody wants a long drawn out search.

[takata]

So if MH370 flew faster than previously thought and the last (partial) ping was received at 08:11 then I would imagine the flight would've traveled a longer distance (possibly further south). What am I not getting right?That this change is only related to its early flight before heading South? (as specified on official press release)
Timeline doesn't change, it seems that its flight profile is simply readjusted to a different flight dataset.

[Frequent Traveller]

@ hamster3null, re possible mismatching 'ping' data shortly before impact ?

9M-MRO : wasn't it a 777-200ER MTOW 297,500 kg ? ... hence, equipped with a high-lift wing ?! ... assuming headwind 25 kts, all its active high-lift surfaces extended, assuming CoG had been shifted markedly aftwards before ditching, reserve fuels jettisoned as well (except tail-tank, if available ??), assuming "surface effect" in near-water approach and expert handling by pilot (whomever that was at that time), the true speed upon water contact could have slowed down enough for the aircraft to successfully survive a ditch ?

Any PPRuNe 777 driver to estimate final ditching 'minimum conceivable speed' ?
Is the result compatible with integrity of aircraft structure/pilot survival ?

Then, seek if last 'ping' discrepancies could be interpreted as an approach + ditching manoeuvre going on at end-of-flight somewhere in the Indian Ocean ? Manual final VFR conditions ?

We are exploring likeliness of a successfully executed RDV for pilot pick-up by some sub-marine at some pre-agreed set of co-ordinates fed into the FMS ?

[weebobby]

I'm assuming the final half ping will be as a result of the plane ending its time in the air...

so if the plane covered less miles what could of been burning up the fuel quicker??

travelling at high speed at a low altitude ?

to be honest it is hard to know anything with a high degree of conviction with so many details being withheld....

hopefully the NZ Orion MIGHT have seen something ( although we have had false leads before...)

[Golf-Mike-Mike]

I've searched for these points but with no joy. At risk of stating the obvious, it strikes me that the on-board helicopters (6 involved?) would have a better vantage point than the ships and SAR aircraft:
- they can hover to distinguish between a white horse and debris
- they can operate higher than the ships but lower than the other aircraft
So:
Q1 have there been any reports or video of them getting airborne yet to check out the "credible" sitings, eg from the Aussie and NZ P3s ?
Q2 does anyone know the range of said helicopters so they could fly out and back, ahead of the ships now converging on the new search area, and get to the point of the latest debris sighting sooner rather than later ?

[Red Plum]

Shipborne helicopters are rarely considered as an aircraft in their own right. They are normally considered to be a part of the ship's assets - like radar, sonar etc

[Robin Clark]

.....until debris is found to confirm the straight line flight suspected , the ping data may still support the possiblilty that the plane was flying large orbits , about 50 minutes each , south of the equator and out of sight of land , say south of Indonesia...????.....

[polax52]

The higher speed suggests to me that the crew wound the speed up during a rapid descent after a catastrophic failure, as per standard Boeing procedure.

[YYZjim]

There have been many comments on this site about MH370 flying on a constant heading during its last hours. All but one of these comments suggested it was a constant magnetic heading. Question: under what circumstances would a 777 fly on a constant gyro heading? Second question: would the rate of gyro drift (degrees per hour) remain constant?

[atr-drivr]

"New credible evidence"... Radar data from Jindalee? New plot would be significantly closer to it...

[Golf-Mike-Mike]

NB they are not searching where they think it crashed. They will search taking where they think it crashed, plus 20 days of appropriate drift. No idea of the details, but 1K of drift would now be ~500NM.

Thanks Nigel, wouldn't it be the case though that they need to search at both the likely impact point (for the FDR and larger chunks of sunken debris), as well as the latest search zone for floating debris?

[Ian W]

with all the technology having been put on this aircraft...radio vhf/hf, locator beacons, satcom, gps, transponder...even satellite in space dont give much info... all of these designed to locate an aircraft in flight ...not a single one of these technology is able to help pinpoint the exact location of the final resting place of this aircraft on the ground :(

this tragic event has only proven one thing....aircraft technology haven't really improved much in terms of locating a lost aircraft

That's actually not true - the technology is there but nobody is prepared to pay for it.

[weebobby]

5 of 10 planes spotted multiple images of various colours and a buoy? (from sky news)
some pictures might start to surface
NZ plane spotted light or white objects
Aus plane went to location of NZ plane and spotted blue and grey rectangular objects
Another Aus plane spotted objects in a location 500km away

From memory of flying on a couple of MH 777s early last year is the plane white on top half and grey on the bottom half ?

[Wantion]

AMSA LATEST MEDIA RELEASE

"28th March, 2014: 1115(AEDT)

Search operation for Malaysia Airlines aircraft: Update 25

Five aircraft spotted multiple objects of various colours during Friday’s search for the missing Malaysian
Airlines flight MH370.

Search activities have now concluded. A total of 256,000 square kilometres was searched.

Photographic imagery of the objects was captured and will be assessed overnight.

The objects cannot be verified or discounted as being from MH370 until they are relocated and
recovered by ships.

A Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF) P3 Orion reported sighting a number of objects white or light in
colour and a fishing buoy.

A Royal Australian Air Force P3 Orion relocated the objects detected by the RNZAF Orion and reported
it had seen two blue/grey rectangular objects floating in the ocean.

A second RAAF P3 Orion spotted various objects of various colours in a separate part of the search area
about 546 kilometres away.

A total of ten planes were tasked by AMSA in today’s search and all have now departed the search area.

AMSA has tasked Chinese Maritime Administration patrol ship, Haixun 01, which is in the search area
and will be in a position to relocate the objects on Saturday.

Friday’s search area was shifted north after international air crash investigators in Malaysia provided the
latest credible lead available to AMSA.

This was on the advice of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB).

Weather conditions in the area are expected to be reasonable for searching on Saturday."

[500N]

"Friday’s search area was shifted north after international air crash investigators in Malaysia provided the
latest credible lead available to AMSA.

This was on the advice of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB)."


Someone is cross checking :rolleyes:

[Ian W]

Thanks Nigel, wouldn't it be the case though that they need to search at both the likely impact point (for the FDR and larger chunks of sunken debris), as well as the latest search zone for floating debris?

There is no point in aircraft searching for the crash point as they cannot see a sunken fuselage. I would expect that the towed sonar array will be dragged to where the impact point is expected to be as that will need to get searching where the DFDR/CVR ULBs may be making their last signals.

So there are in fact two different searches: a surface search to confirm the crash point and a subsurface search to find the ULBs before they go quiet. The surface search provides information that should narrow down the subsurface search.

[cats_five]

BBC news has just said that a Helicopter is on it's way to work off the deck of one of the vessels - possibly HMAS Success which has a helipad.

[onetrack]

The new debris sightings look promising. An RAAF Orion backed up the sightings by the NZAF Orion.
Another RAAF Orion spotted more coloured debris around 546 km away from the NZAF Orion sighting position.
Pictures will be assessed overnight, and the Haixun 01 will move into the position of todays sightings to try and get confirmation of wreckage, tomorrow.
Weather is reported as "reasonable".

The Japanese satellite pics picked up two coloured objects in this area, one around 8M x 4M.

http://www.amsa.gov.au/media/documents/28032014MH370Media_Update25.pdf

In the background of the Skynews video, there's a chopper being unloaded from a cargo 'plane. It's hard to see the detail.

http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=962163&vId=4387640&cId=Top%20Stories

[500N]

The RNZAF landed just over an hour ago (based on AMSA's tweet time)



"BBC news has just said that a Helicopter is on it's way to work off the deck of one of the vessels - possibly HMAS Success which has a helipad."

It's it is almost dark there now ????

[onetrack]

500N - Currently 2118HRS local time, sunset is 1816HRS, and I can assure you, the place is a hive of activity, and work is going on around the clock.

I can't see the chopper leaving until tomorrow, they've got a bit of work in front of them before it's "work-ready", I'd say.

[Wakner]

"Can't comment on that but he definitely said that the aircraft could have been sinking at the moment the ping was interrupted and that if could have been floating prior to that."

Fair enough - wouldn't be the first mixed message to be communicated in this sad affair.

[500N]

One Track

Understand it will be a hive of activity and round the clock work but
using a helo at night to search for non human items ?
Would have thought launch would be a dawn.

[TerryB]

There have been a few comments on the partial ping at 8.19 (including latest one that it may be been when aircraft sank). Most seem to suggest that the ping could have been caused by power being cycled off and on to satellite system on the plane causing it to restart and sending ping to satellite. I am not an expert on these large aircraft but from what others have said this could be caused by the first engine shutting down due to fuel exhaustion which then caused power interruption as systems switched over to power supply from the other engine.

The question would then be why only a partial ping? Obviously one possibility is that power was then lost again but could another reason be unusual attitude of the plane? I don't now about 777 but on smaller/older aircraft loss of an engine will cause autopilot to disconnect and if pilot doesn't stop it pretty quickly the asymmetrical thrust will cause plane to rapidly bank towards dead engine and potentially enter a spiral dive, etc.

Just wondering whether anyone with more experience on these aircraft can comment on whether autopilot will remain connected when first engine fails and if not whether there would be anything (other than a conscious pilot of course!) that would stop the aircraft rapidly losing control (which could explain the partial ping if the satellite antenna was no longer pointing skywards??).

[Red Plum]

The helicopter has to be prepared for flight having just been transported across Australia.

It then needs to fly out and embark in HMAS Success from where it will operate. It can certainly do that at night but with limited SAR capability and no life saving reason why take such a risk on such a long transit by night?

Far better to launch at dawn with the top cover of other SAR fitted fixed wing aircraft around.

[gas path]

Just wondering whether anyone with more experience on these aircraft can comment on whether autopilot will remain connected when first engine fails and if not whether there would be anything (other than a conscious pilot of course!) that would stop the aircraft rapidly losing control (which could explain the partial ping if the satellite antenna was no longer pointing skywards??).


The electrical system has a 'no break' power transfer so the A/P should stay engaged. The TAC will correct for the asymmetry with a bit of rudder input.

[500N]

Looks like one of the Chinese warships has been sent to look for the objects.

From AMSA

"AMSA has tasked Chinese Maritime Administration patrol ship Haixun 01 which is in the search area and will be in a position to relocate the objects on Saturday."

[Blueyonda]

Ocean Shield disappeared for while on marine traffic but I see it is a few hours out of Albany at this time. Google marine traffic. It is a fuscia coloured hull.

[Red Plum]

Why just to the point of no return? If you think about it a little more, what will be it's 'point of no return' once it operates from a ship? That said it could well 'hop' from one deck to another as stages however there are difficulties with cross operating with other nations' ships.

Having spent a couple of thousand hours operating from ships with 'non-diversion' flying you work with 'Mother' being your destination!

[Unixman]

Anybody know if HMS Echo has arrived in the search area yet? Gone very quiet on that front.

[takata]

Official news about today search here:
http://www.amsa.gov.au/media/documents/28032014MH370Media_Update25.pdf

[Golf-Mike-Mike]

Why just to the point of no return? If you think about it a little more, what will be it's 'point of no return' once it operates from a ship? That said it could well 'hop' from one deck to another as stages however there are difficulties with cross operating with other nations' ships.
Having spent a couple of thousand hours operating from ships with 'non-diversion' flying you work with 'Mother' being your destination!

It's fairly simple fuel endurance maths to know when a helicopter could leave the 'mother ship' before the ship gets to the new search area, operate for an hour or so in the search area (guided by co-ordinates from RAAF/AMSA/RNZAF), then return to the ship which by then would be a few miles nearer too? But I guess you're right in the need to consider alternates as well.

[lpatrick]

Unixman, HMS Echo still en route according to Belfast Telegraph.

[Big Toe]

Updates on Ocean Shield position from Marinetraffic.com
OCEAN SHIELD - Offshore supply ship: current position and details | IMO 9628374, MMSI 503728000, Callsign VHEH | Registered in Australia - AIS Marine Traffic (http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/503728000)

[Coagie]

I think the final "partial" ping was partial because of a bad signal between the satellite and the aircraft, because the aircraft may not have been straight and level at that point, thus putting it's antenna in a non-optimum position, rather than the ping being cut off in mid signal due to the plane sinking in the ocean.

[Pontius Navigator]

Coagie, all things are possible. It would need an AOB over 50 degrees (I guess) for airframe blanking followed by a recovery so the antennae could see the satellite.

[TxAggie94]

I've never been clear on the "partial ping"...was it the satellite system pinging the aircraft or was it a message initiated by the aircraft's satcom? I've been assuming the later, but...that would mean that "ping" is not an accurate term. Or at the least, the final ping is quite different from the other pings. Yet, I continue to see it referred to as a "ping".

[misd-agin]

AAKEE- 3500, and perhaps 4000 nm, would be a reasonable estimate.

Optimum performance would start at approx FL 380 and increase as the aircraft weight was reduced with fuel burn off.

Range at very low altitude would be around 60-70% of it's high altitude range but the endurance at low altitude would be very similar (90-95%?).

[RichManJoe]

From what I can infer from the comm protocol, the partial ping was initiated by the aircraft. I won't speculate on why. The satellite did not know to initiate the ping.

IMHO:

The partial ping can be analyzed for doppler and that might give some indication of position. However, since only one satellite is involved, this would produce a curve of possible positions, with an associated uncertainty, not a point.

Unless there was a complete handshake with the satellite (ie. aircraft sends ping to satellite, satellite replies, aircraft replies) timing data would not be generated, so one can not calculate a corresponding curve for aircraft position due to timing.

I have not analyzed the time and doppler information (don't have the proper tools in place and would take to long to generate - would rather work on my boat), but from experience on other systems, these might create somewhat orthogonal or independent curves which at their intersection would produce a position. Just speculating.

[Ian W]

That was the assumption by the INMARSAT guy who thought the aircraft was trying to handshake.

The aircraft systems logon to the satellite(s) by calling them first then they are polled at intervals to check that their receiver is still ready and the low level link is still good. If the aircraft system thinks it has lost the signal - say due to a power down then back up - it might try to restart the lost link. As this last ping was from the aircraft and out of time, it is possibly another log on attempt from the aircraft system that was interrupted.

[hamster3null]

3. Changing the assumed speed would cause problems for the Doppler model that INMARSAT used. This is very sensitive to the aircraft speed which has to be removed to reveal the spacecraft Doppler signal used to decide it was on the Southern route.

If (if) the interim ping arcs are being used and are still constraining the choice of route and hence search area, I would guess that the constant magnetic heading option is now being used, which allows a shorter required range.



Consider the following.

Doppler shifts are measurements of "radial speed": speed with which the aircraft is getting closer to or further away from the satellite.

If you have a bunch of speed values and you assume that the trajectory is reasonably smooth (no zigzagging), you can calculate the change in radial distance (ie arc) by summation of speed*time.

In other words, if the aircraft is moving in a smooth manner, Doppler shifts and arcs are not independent sources of information. You can fit a number of trajectories to the Doppler shift curve, but, as long as they fit, all points always end up on the same arcs. The unknown is the transverse speed and the transverse distance traveled: how far along each arc your points end up.

So, if we take the previous search point and recalculate the trajectory using lower speeds, all points move northeast and the point of last transmission moves northeast quite a bit, while staying on the ~40 degree arc.

If you look at my spreadsheet a couple of pages ago, I had possible Southern routes worked out for 400 knots and 450 knots, and the results were as expected: going from 450 to 400 moved the endpoint 4 degrees north and 5.5 degrees east.

[FE Hoppy]

Of course the assumption that the final range was based on fuel starvation could be false in which case you have a wider search arc.

[ekw]

I do not buy crew and without solid evidence think they deserve some respect media rubbish or no media rubbish.



So if a bus disappears off a deep ravine you would be prepared to suspect all causes except the driver? Your position is illogical. Any cause which has not been eliminated must stay in the running. Most rational people can distinguish between speculation and fact. I concede that large sections of our media do blur the lines at times, but that is in their nature.

[JamesGV]

The satellite/satcom provided the "pings".
Doppler analysis provided direction.

What process/data provided fuel burn/speed/altitude calcs ?
Must have missed it.

[500N]

So, a new day, is it today that we will get some recovered "something" ?

IF something is recovered from the aircraft, we will get another media storm.

If they don't find something by Sunday evening AEST, I question if they will.

[Chronus]

I find it surprising that the US Navy has not tasked an aircraft carrier to assist. The avialbility of such vessels would greatly assist by substantially increasing time over the search area conducted by carrier based aircraft.

Perhaps some on this forum with better knowledge of US Naval fleet ops could enlighten us.

[hamster3null]

I tried to recalculate the northern route as well using lower speeds (400-420 kts).

At all speeds, it slices off a bit of Eastern India, goes above Himalayas between Nepal and China, and terminates in Tajikistan or Kyrgyzstan.

Below 420 kts it may never even get out of the mountains: there's a pretty formidable and desolate mountain range with peaks up to 23000' across the route along Tajikistan/Kyrgyzstan border, right in the area where the "partial ping" could have come from at 400 kts.

I know, I know, "how come no one saw it on the radars?" Suppose that Indians missed it for whatever reason. Nepal has no radars and even no air force. The rest of the way is over pretty rugged terrain, mostly above 15000'. My routes even pass in the vicinity of K2. We already heard that the aircraft flew lower than normal (FL295) in the Straits of Malacca. Flying FL295 in the Himalayas could significantly limit its exposure to radars.

The biggest thing I don't like about this is that slower routes take it into the southwestern corner of the Tibetan Plateau. It's still pretty desolate, but it's flat and the aircraft could be visible to Chinese military radars if there are any in the vicinity.

P.S. If you think that Tajiks would have reported a big aircraft crashing into one of their mountain ranges or at least would have gone to look for it, then a) the area we're talking about looks roughly like so http://www.panoramio.com/photo/49758018, and b) Tajiks have bigger problems than looking for other people's lost aircraft: http://en.itar-tass.com/world/725561

[Chronus]

The Pacific based US 7th Fleet has despatched a second P8 Poseidon Patrol aircraft to join the search today.
In terms of mission effectiveness and reliability, the P-8A represents a leap forward for the Navy's maritime patrol and reconnaissance community. The aircraft has a maximum speed of 490 knots, a ceiling of 41,000 feet, and provides a range of more than 1,200 nautical miles with four hours on station. For a mission such as the MH370 search, the P-8 will typically fly at 5,000 feet at 350 knots, dropping to 1,000 feet to get a visual identification of any radar returns. It may also fly at 1,000 feet for an extended period of the flight, depending on the environment and mission for the flight. It has a search time of approximately eight, nine hours depending on distance to search area, though during this mission the search time on station is greatly reduced due to the distance of the search area from Perth.

The emphasis is "search time on station is greatly reduced due to the distance of the search area from Perth."

[RGN01]

I'm confused by the announcement about the new search area and would appreciate it if anyone could explain it to me (fascinated by aviation but not a pilot).

So, we have been told that:
- MH370 sent a series of pings that have helped us understand how long it flew for
- It was originally reported that it had flown at high altitude and thus flown a certain distance (high altitude flight being more efficient)
- it is now reported that it flew faster and therefore used more fuel
- the primary search area has been moved Northwards and somewhat Westwards

It is this part that I'm battling to understand. If we know how long it was flying, and it is now reported that it flew faster, why has the search area been moved closer to the origin? Surely if it flew for the same length of time at a higher speed it would have flown further?

I'm sure I'm missing something but I can't see what :ugh:

Thanks!

[JamesGV]

Still can't grasp this.

Given new analysis, it is believed that MH370 was travelling at (quote) "a higher speed than previously thought".
This information was supplied by the chaps at the NTSB.

Leg 1 calculated via Secondary radar. Leg 2 estimated via Primary.
Leg 3, how do you work out the "speed" (K ?) for this leg ?

You could use the data collected from leg 2 ...and assume it was then a constant ?
Thus assuming speed and alt you'd get burn and therefore a lesser distance ?

Any ideas how this was arrived at ?

[igs942]

JamesGV

Maybe the new analysis came from RR.

[Ian W]

I'm confused by the announcement about the new search area and would appreciate it if anyone could explain it to me (fascinated by aviation but not a pilot).

So, we have been told that:
- MH370 sent a series of pings that have helped us understand how long it flew for
- It was originally reported that it had flown at high altitude and thus flown a certain distance (high altitude flight being more efficient)
- it is now reported that it flew faster and therefore used more fuel
- the primary search area has been moved Northwards and somewhat Westwards

It is this part that I'm battling to understand. If we know how long it was flying, and it is now reported that it flew faster, why has the search area been moved closer to the origin? Surely if it flew for the same length of time at a higher speed it would have flown further?

I'm sure I'm missing something but I can't see what :ugh:

Thanks!

The fuel burn rate increases so that although the aircraft is flying faster it will run out of fuel earlier after a shorter distance. It will also be less affected by winds as it was faster.

Range speed of an aircraft (where it gets the most range) is not normally at particularly high Mach No. for the aircraft. Endurance speed of an aircraft (where it stays airborne longest) is slower and less range than range speed.

[CONSO]

P8 was designed/built to be aerial refueled with long boom typical of Air Force- whereas normal navy is probe and drouge.

It is still in early deployment- some issues with electronic suite still remain

It takes many months of training and certification to do such refueling

Probably not scheduled till 2015-2016 for such training and certification

Only a few have been put into operational use so far.

[SeenItAll]

Let me repeat something. Where the plane crashed and where the current search zone is are two interrelated, but different things. The search zone is where 20 days of ocean currents and winds are believed to have moved things after the crash occurred. The fact that the search zone has now been moved to a location that is northeast of the previous zone does not mean that the crash site has also been presumed to have moved by an equivalent displacement. Ocean winds and currents different in direction and intensity at different locations. Furthermore, the previous search zone was based on two weeks of drift, while presumably the current zone is based on three weeks of drift.

[500N]

As I said a few days ago, I thought they'd fly in a helo on a C-17.

A specialist Seahawk


Here is some video and photos.

Missing Malaysia Airlines plane: Seahawk helicopter arrives at RAAF Pearce (http://www.smh.com.au/national/missing-malaysia-airlines-plane-seahawk-helicopter-arrives-at-raaf-pearce-20140328-35p23.html)


http://i62.tinypic.com/2ui9j6q.jpg

[suninmyeyes]

As a 777 pilot I, like many others, have wondered how the 777 would perform in the scenario where the pilots were incapacitated and the aircraft ran out of fuel. I had my ideas but there is nothing like seeing it for "real" so we tried this in a 777-2 full motion zero flight time approved simulator.

We used a zero fuel weight of 175 tonnes. We let it run out of fuel at FL 250 in track hold and alt capture. However it would not make any difference what mode it was in as everything would drop out. In real life one engine uses fractionally more fuel per hour than the other and there is typically a difference between main tanks of a few hundred kilos, so we had a 300 kg difference between the contents of the left and right tank.

When the first engine failed TAC (Thrust asymmetry compensation) automatically applied rudder. The speed reduced from 320 knots indicated to 245 knots indicated. It was able to maintain 245 knots and FL250. When the second engine failed the rudder trim applied by TAC was taken out and the trim went to zero. The autopilot dropped out and the flight controls reverted to direct mode. The speed initially came back to 230 knots but then the nose started to lower. The nose continued to lower and the rate of descent increased to 4,000 feet per minute, the nose kept lowering and the descent rate increased to 7,500 feet per minute with a bank angle that increased to 25 degrees. The speed at this point had increased to 340 knots indicated, above VMO but there was no horn as it was on limited electrics. About this point the RAT (Ram air turbine) chipped in and the CDUs and copilot's PFD (Primary flight display) came alive. The flight controls stayed in direct mode.The eicas screen was full of messages like pitot heat, flight controls, APU fault (The APU had tried to autostart due double engine failure but failed due no fuel to start it) low fuel pressure etc.

Then with a max descent rate of almost 8,000 feet per minute the nose started to slowly rise and keep rising. We had dropped to about FL170 but the nose slowly rose up to 6 degrees pitch up and we started climbing at about 3000 feet per minute and the bank angle reduced to only 5 degrees. It climbed back up to FL210 at which point the speed had come back to 220 knots and then the nose dropped down again and we were soon back to descending at 8000 feet per minute. So basically a series of phugoid oscillations with bank angle between 5 and 25 degrees and pitch attitude between about 9 degrees nose down and 6 degrees pitch up. It was losing about 8000 feet and then gaining about 3 or 4000 feet with airspeed fluctuating between 220 and 340 knots.

We didn't watch it all the way down due time constraints and stopped the experiment at 10,000 feet but it was consistent all the way down. Having watched it I can say with certainty that if the pilots were incapacitated and it ran out of fuel there is no way it could have landed on the water with anything like a survivable impact. Just passing on the info.

[balthasar63]

hamster3null - have you tried to factor in the winds aloft into your calculations? They seem to be considerable that night (and would of course affect the ground speed at each point). The problem with "crowd computing" is not having all the best information published.

This link was mentioned a while back and is the only place I've seen that attempts to show winds aloft at that time:

Investigation of a possible "southern arc" contrail from Malaysia Flight 370 - 8 March 2014 - Weather Graphics (http://www.weathergraphics.com/malaysia/contrail.shtml)

If needed, I bet Tim Vasquez at Weather Graphics could get them for the altitudes and locations of interest.

[Golf-Mike-Mike]

As a 777 pilot I, like many others, have wondered how the 777 would perform in the scenario where the pilots were incapacitated and the aircraft ran out of fuel. I had my ideas but there is nothing like seeing it for "real" so we tried this in a 777-2 full motion zero flight time approved simulator.

Fascinating - since the net effect was a gradual descent, was it possible to project how far, or for how long, you would have flown in total doing all the phugoid oscillations ?

[JamesGV]

Well done Sir.

The APU attemped autostart. Possible explanation for the "partial handshake" ?

[sflaperons]

We had dropped to about FL170 but the nose slowly rose up to 6 degrees pitch up and we started climbing at about 3000 feet per minute and the bank angle reduced to only 5 degrees.

Would not have guessed that possible. Wow.

[ulrichw]

The fuel burn rate increases so that although the aircraft is flying faster it will run out of fuel earlier after a shorter distance. It will also be less affected by winds as it was faster. [...]

But this would be impossible given current assumption because it is thought that the plane was in the air until the last ping, so it couldn't have run out of fuel "earlier."

The actual source of the confusion in the post you're responding to is that the "faster" referred to the first part of the plane's flight, which means less fuel was available for the final constant-speed portion of the flight, which in turn means that that portion was actually *slower* than initially assumed.

This is explained well in this older post:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-427.html#post8405815

The new assumed speed for the final leg is 400kts, revised down from 460-480kts.

[MG23]

The APU attemped autostart. Possible explanation for the "partial handshake" ?

Yeah, that's very interesting. Could there be enough fuel available to the APU (e.g. in the fuel lines between tank and APU) to run the SATCOM terminal for a minute or two, even when there's not enough to run the engines?

I've no idea how much it burns, or how it's hooked into the fuel system.

[Contact Approach]

There are far too many misinformed/ignorant/radical posts in this thread. Please, if you don't know what you're talking about, keep quiet!

[igs942]

Re debris, only a ship retrieval can confirm anything seen by sat or other is related, considering there's still a shed load of junk working its way towards the US from the Japanese tsunami.

[CowgirlInAlaska]

There is not just one of those rectangular objects, there are 11.

"A cluster of 11 white rectangular objects is sitting just below the surface about 1600 kilometres west of Perth"

from: Coloured objects spotted in MH370 search area - Yahoo!7 (http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/22234065/nz-plane-spots-debris-in-mh370-search-area/)

Anyone know what they could be? Are there white plastic panels in a B777 that would match this description or what? Article doesn't state size at all.

[buttrick]

Call me stupid but:
They think it flew faster for the same amount of time, but didn't travel as far!!

Does that sound right, or have they got something the wrong way round?

Previous answers to this question do not make sense either!

Do they mean flew with a higher Fuel flow????

[DaveReidUK]

Call me stupid but:
They think it flew faster for the same amount of time, but didn't travel as far!!

Does that sound right, or have they got something the wrong way round?Read the ATSB statement quoted in this post:

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-286.html#post8406162

and come back if you still don't understand.

[rh200]

Call me stupid but:
They think it flew faster for the same amount of time, but didn't travel as far!!

Does that sound right, or have they got something the wrong way round?

Previous answers to this question do not make sense either!

Let me try from dumbed down level that I am,:p

speed and distance are linear, speed and energy are non linear square law type of relationship.

another words if you increase your speed the distance travelled per unit of time will increase proportionally. But to get more speed you need a sh!t more go go juice, hence it runs out quicker, a lot quicker, hence you don't go as far.

Now theres heaps more in it than that from a aircraft viewpoint, but its morning and I'm still getting coffee

[mmurray]

Inother words if you increase your speed the distance travelled per unit of time will increase proportionally. But to get more speed you need a sh!t more go go juice, hence it runs out quicker, a lot quicker, hence you don't go as far.

But I think buttrick's point is that the time hasn't changed. So you can't run out of fuel quicker. I'm guessing they are assuming the timelines are those quoted here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370#Timeline_of_disappearance) with the crash defined by that last partial ping at 7.38.

[RGN01]

Yes, that's what is confusing me too - they flew for the same time, it seems, yet the one that flew faster traveled a shorter distance?

[Lemain]

suninmyeyes: That is without doubt the most interesting post I've read. Why the oscillation?

[MG23]

If I remember correctly, the aircraft would not have run out of fuel at the point where it crossed the final ping arc on the earlier estimates; didn't they say it had 30 minutes to an hour of fuel left?

It may be that the new estimate now has it running out of fuel on the final arc, which seems likely to be the case.

[rh200]

It may be that the new estimate now has it running out of fuel on the final arc, which seems likely to be the case.

Thats sort of what I was presuming, the final position derived position area is still the same, but the amount of time possible after that point has decreased.

[hamster3null]

They flew faster than expected during the first 2 hours. Which means that they had less fuel left than expected. Which means that they had to fly slower than expected for the remaining 6-ish hours if they were to stay airborne for the duration.

Also, since the last known position (just under 2 hours into the flight, 18:22 UTC) is fixed by the radar, the fact that they flew faster before that point does not put them any further out.

[onetrack]

The media wording about the increased speed and fuel usage is particularly bad.

The original explanation of the latest new crash position calculation, that I believe, explains the reduced distance travelled - is that the aircraft initially used more fuel than originally estimated, because revised calculations of the flight path, speed and height, in the sector between where the aircraft initially diverted from its flight plan, to the point where it was last sighted on radar, showed an increased fuel burn over initial calculations.

This then left less fuel to burn between last radar sighting point, and fuel starvation point. The new calculations obviously pick up increased flight phugoid movements or perhaps even throttle position changes.
Spare a thought for those doing the calculations, with so little real information from the flight deck.

[buttrick]

Nothing to do with arcs.
Pure physics

Speed x time = distance

Simple as that

For it to have flown a shorter distance then either speed or time MUST be lower.

[JamesGV]

Buttrck

Are you asking....
If he is going faster, then how come he went "less far".....in the same amount of time.

[p.j.m]

Its a confusing post (the arc's bit is irrelevant to the equation, its only relevant to the distance traveled or the final location).

If the aircraft traveled faster, then it would have run out of fuel earlier, so the "time" part of the equation IS shorter (lower).

[awblain]

I find it very hard to understand why almost a whole week's time and effort was spent searching an area 2500 miles from Perth, when a better analysis of the satellite communications data on Friday now suddenly puts the most likely site of the crash to be 700 miles closer to the coast.

There are only eight hourly points in a time series giving distance and speed away from the satellite. Given that the radar data in the early stages of the flight is - at best - of very modest use, why did it take a week to make the fix?

There are only so many possible speeds; follow a swarm of consistent Monte Carlo-ed paths to the best place to search, and don't be distracted by various random pictures of whitecaps taken by random satellites from random countries.

It would seem to be long past time to release the full set of distance and speed values from the Inmarsat system and allow the world's spring-breaking students to mail in a guess. They couldn't do much worse.

There's also the issue of the lack of information about the time of flight after 0811, other than to say that it didn't extend as far as 0911. It could be anywhere from ~100km to ~900km. None of the search box plots include this degree of uncertainty along the track. Is this reported partial call after 0811 being assumed to be a clear sign of the first engine running dry, or is it wanting to present an unduly optimistic picture to the press?

There is a pressing need to try to find the wreckage before the sonar pingers run out of power, but that goal is surely not served by doing lots of MPA flying in the wrong place.

[mmurray]

Also, since the last known position (just under 2 hours into the flight, 18:22 UTC) is fixed by the radar, the fact that they flew faster before that point does not put them any further out.

Ah thanks. So the assumption that has changed is the amount of fuel left at the point of that last radar fix. From then to the last partial ping is a fixed time interval so you have to adjust the speed to get the right fuel efficiency for the remaining fuel to last that length of time. Then you can compute speed multiplied by time to get the distance.

I'm sure it's more complicated than that but is that roughly the idea ?

[olasek]

.in the same amount of time.
No, in less time.
He was out of fuel sooner. The last ping really doesn't define when exactly flight ended, we don't have this data, not yet.

[RichManJoe]

Unless they are trying to obfuscate because they have data from another source they don't want to talk about.

[JamesGV]

olasek

No I get "energy" (work).
But to be fair, "time" is the only part of the equation we have (08.11).

Then again, that is an assumption !

What the Malaysian minister for chaos should have said is...
We believe the distance to be shorter AND THEREFORE he was flying faster.

What he said was "He was flying faster (an unknown) and so likely the distance is shorter"

[oldoberon]

There is a pressing need to try to find the wreckage before the sonar pingers run out of power, but that goal is surely not served by doing lots of MPA flying in the wrong place.

so how much closer to finding MAH370 would they be if there were no pings, compare the area they could have had to search with no pings to the current general area, ( with the north now excluded|).

[Mesoman]

Having watched films and read books on the cold war antics of the submarines of various navy`s, they lead you to believe that they can pick up and identify the sound of another Sub from hundreds if not thousands of miles away whilst submerged. Would this not be the same with the black box locator or is that a different situation all together? Just curious.

Submarines listen to low audio frequencies, which can travel very long distances underwater.

The pinger is at a much higher audio frequency (37Khz) which is attenuated (reduced in strength as it travels) much more quickly. It might not even be detected from the surface in a deep ocean, much less at distances of many miles.

Also, as far as is publicly known, submarines are not equipped to even listen at the high audio frequency. Of course, actual sonar capabilities are highly classified.

[GunpowderPlod]

I posted this long ago.

There should preferably be a second FD access door to prevent follow-through.

I found a reference to IATA considering this but now I can only find this article on the proposal:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/business/widow-of-sept-11-pilot-seeks-more-cockpit-security.html )

There should also be a third person on the FD so that there can always be two on the FD at all times. This 3rd person could be security instead of FC if necessary.

[sflaperons]

He was out of fuel sooner. The last ping really doesn't define when exactly flight ended, we don't have this data, not yet.

I know we don't have anything concrete yet but I thought there was a relative, rough consensus that the partial ping occurred at the time of fuel exhaustion as what else but an engine shutting down could have triggered it?

The only thing that sort of explains the "flew faster in the same amount of time, ergo, flew a shorter distance," that I can think of at least, is that the westbound leg was flown faster than previously believed, leaving less fuel for the southbound leg, which meant the southbound leg would have had to have been flown at a lower thrust setting for the a/c to stay aloft until the partial ping.

???

[porterhouse]

What he said was "He was flying faster (an unknown) and so likely the distance is shorterWhat he said is correct, they FIRST computed he was flying faster (say based on radar returns, I don't think they explained how) therefore distance had to be shorter. You got it backwards.

rough consensus that the partial ping occurred at the time of fuel exhaustion I don't know about any consensus (I don't live on this forum) but such consensus would have absolutely no solid facts behind it, just guesswork.

[jugofpropwash]

What you are suggesting creates security problems for legitimate pilots in the flight deck. We will just have to accept the small risk of "Rogue Pilots" in order to protect the integrity of the flight deck.

It does if you look at the SLF as prospective terrorists. It might be wiser to look at them as the last line of security. Keep in mind that it wasn't the TSA gropers that stopped the shoe bomber - or the underwear bomber - it was the passengers. It was also the passengers who kept the 4th 9/11 plane from reaching its target.

Things changed on 9/11. Before that, hijacking pretty much meant sit down, shut up and go for a joyride to some third world country. Now, even the SLF realizes the rules have changed, and they are ultimately responsible for their own survival - and that of the people who know how to fly the plane. Pilots need to remember that the passengers aren't the enemy.

[sflaperons]

I don't know about any consensus (I don't live on this forum) but such consensus would have absolutely no solid facts behind it, just guesswork.

Fair and important point, it is complete guesswork.

I guess a better way to come at this is that I haven't seen any explanation for the partial ping other than that it was triggered by the engines shutting down. So if this whole "flew faster and not as far" business means authorities are recalculating the distance flown after the partial ping, then we don't seem to have even a theory as to what caused the partial ping (as it would not, it stands to reason, have been the engines shutting down). That is certainly possible. It is also weird.

Maybe others can shed some light on what could cause a partial ping?

[LongTimeInCX]

MickJoeBil -
Finally the auto pilot or other contols........
..... have restricted function when only one seat is occupied (except if master caution has activated)
Seriously, that has to be one of the dumbest proposals ever from a flight simulator expert on this topic.
If you ever get around to operating multi-crew aircraft you'll understand why from a common sense point of view very quickly.

[JamesGV]

Porterhouse...

"(say based on radar returns, I don't think they explained how)"

You put an edit in there !
Because that is the "bit" I couldn't work out.

Increased work (eg) increased speed (or lower altitude) equals shorter distance travelled.

They would have had to model various scenarios to move the whole SAR effort....or it was "other" information.

Well I hope they are right.
And from early indications (the latest P3 reports) they maybe correct.

[Oro-o]

suninmyeyes: That is without doubt the most interesting post I've read. Why the oscillation?

The aircraft trades potential energy (altitude) for speed as it noses down and accelerates. This eventually creates additional lift, reversing the descent. The process repeats. But a glider can't do this forever and eventually comes down.

This clear illustrated example from Aerospaceweb can help explain it more fully:

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Lift, Wind & Porpoising (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/dynamics/q0233b.shtml)

[500N]

Very interesting development re possible investigation !

Push to take control: Australia to lead the probe into MH370

The air crash investigation into the ill-fated Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 is likely to be based in Australia, amid a push for the wreckage and the black box to be scrutinised here.

In a day of significant developments in the search for the lost flight, the Malaysian government announced it won't establish an inquiry until the black box - or flight recorder - is found, something that could take years, if it is even discovered at all.

The decision created uproar in Malaysia's parliament amid lingering concerns about the nation's investigative effort thus far, which has been characterised by mistakes and miscommunication and enraged some families.

Read more: Push to take control: Australia to lead the probe into MH370 (http://www.smh.com.au/world/push-to-take-control-australia-to-lead-the-probe-into-mh370-20140328-35onf.html#ixzz2xJDkOupy)

[TerryB]

Call me stupid but:
They think it flew faster for the same amount of time, but didn't travel as far!!

Does that sound right, or have they got something the wrong way round?

Previous answers to this question do not make sense either!

Do they mean flew with a higher Fuel flow????

Ok Stupid :) (sorry - only joking)

I am sure someone will correct me (or just delete this post) if I am wrong but I think the way this was presented was very confusing. It is my understanding that what was said was that the examination of the data they have from the early part of the flight (radar tracks from various sources I think) has suggested that the plane flew faster FOR THAT PART OF THE FLIGHT which used more fuel in the initial stages. By working with what fuel was on board at take-off and then estimating fuel usage for the initial flight that was tracked they have come up with an estimate of the fuel onboard when radar contact was lost.

They know (or are pretty sure) that the plane was still airborne at the time of the last full ping so they can work out what the endurance was (but not exactly because the plane could have run out of fuel right after the last ping or up to 59 minutes later). Based on the fuel available and endurance you can work out what airspeed would give the correct timing. If the plane had less fuel when it started the track south then in order to still be airborne at the last ping they have now deduced it must have been flying slower than initially thought FOR THAT SOUTHWARD part of the journey - hence the plane has not travelled as far south as their initial estimate.

Also I assume from the pings they have they know what the distance from the satellite was at each ping time so if the plane was travelling slower it was also on a more easterly path to put it on the right distance from the satellite at each point.

Hence why the search area has moved north and east due to the plane flying faster at the start, using more fuel and having to fly slower at the end to make the duration correct.

As an aside can any 777 people give a rough idea of what speed does give you maximum range at cruising altitude? It would seem to me that IF it was intentional and they wanted the plane as far south as possible then they would have gone for max range speed rather than anything else. Although the more easterly track doesn't seem to tie in with that as you would assume you would want to be further away from Australia if possible (unless of course you were aiming for a particular seabed location for the wreckage).

[jmjdriver1995]

Posted by suninmyeyes:


As a 777 pilot I, like many others, have wondered how the 777 would perform in the scenario where the pilots were incapacitated and the aircraft ran out of fuel. I had my ideas but there is nothing like seeing it for "real" so we tried this in a 777-2 full motion zero flight time approved simulator. .......
Thank you sir for a very informative post based on real evidence from simulator ops instead of conflicting "opinions".

[FGD135]

They think it flew faster for the same amount of time, but didn't travel as far!!

Does that sound right, or have they got something the wrong way round?

Previous answers to this question do not make sense either!

Do they mean flew with a higher Fuel flow???? Generally speaking, the faster an aircraft flies, the shorter will be its range.

To achieve the maximum range, there is an optimum speed an aircraft (any aircraft) must fly. If the aircraft is flown at a speed greater than the optimum, the range will be less than maximum. If flown at a speed slower than optimum, the range will again be less than maximum.

There is ONE optimum speed for maximum range. That speed tends to be quite a bit slower than normal cruising speed however, so it is only used when maximum range (or maximum fuel conservation) is required.

It makes perfect sense for the authorities to say "the plane travelled less distance because it was travelling faster".

The same is true for your car. There is one speed for maximum distance. Drive faster than that and you won't be able to go as far. Drive slower than it, and again you won't go as far. It is all to do with the magnitude of the drag forces (and engine efficiency), which vary enormously with speed.

[etudiant]

Low frequency sound requires a larger and more powerful source, plus it is more difficult to localize. ELTs have severe size and power limits, so a high frequency noise to pinpoint the source makes sense.
The ELT design requirements may now get another look, as very long range trans oceanic flights have become much more frequent and the ELT is becoming more critical. However, given the unhappy experience recently with a runaway ELT damaging a 787 at Heathrow, people are unlikely to embrace bigger, more powerful ELTs. The insurance industry will work with the aircraft makers to come up with a better system, something that leaves a reliable breadcrumb trail for every flight.

[rh200]

I take the calculations of those "bureaucrats" than yours any time.

I would be fairly confident to say no bureaucrats are involved in any calculations.

Common sense will tell you this, to much of a political football and its easier to point the figure at a boffin if its wrong.

There is a huge amount of extremely talented people putting their all into trying to solve this. A lot will be going way beyond what they are paid for and its very insulting to them to imply they are bumbling fools.

[Mises]

@FDG135: To achieve the greatest range, there is an optimum speed an aircraft (any aircraft) must fly. If the aircraft is flown at a speed greater than the optimum, the range will be reduced. If flown at a speed slower than optimum, the range will again be reduced.

There is ONE optimum speed for maximum range. That speed tends to be quite a bit slower than normal cruising speed however, so it is only used when maximum range (or maximum fuel conservation) is required.

It makes perfect sense for the authorities to say "the plane travelled less distance because it was travelling faster". Everyone knows that there is an optimum speed for distance of travel for a given amount of fuel and hence, that any vehicle traveling faster than the optimum speed will travel a shorter distance in a shorter time. Using the faster = shorter explanation hence provides some specious credibility to what really is an admission of previous mistakes.

The current location is shorter than the previously estimated position for a KNOWN TIME 8.11, which was based on a slower speed. That's impossible. Perhaps they know something knew, which they are not sharing. Perhaps the 8.11 ping is a myth.

[BrookeEngineer]

141 Battery Incidents 20 March 1991 to 17 Feb 2014

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ash/ash_programs/hazmat/aircarrier_info/media/battery_incident_chart.pdf

I remember reading about the 12-Apr-1999 case where two pallets of CR2 batteries. One pallet was damaged by a fork lift and it was some hours later that to caught fire and there was difficulty in putting it out.

This was after a pax flight from Japan and happened at the airport, but it just as well could have happen in the cargo bay.

What type of fire detection system was used on MH370, Ionization smoke, optical smoke, flame, high temperature, etc?

[DocRohan]

I think one thing that may have been overlooked, is how far north of Banda Aceh the plane would have had to have flown to avoid Indonesian radar (they said they didnt track it)....So, if we concluded and calculated that the plane ended it's trip sometime not long after the partial handshake, it was in the air for a total flight time of somewhere around 7.38 to *unknown* extra minutes. Let's "speculate" that it was 8hrs. We "conclusively" know about 1:34 (initial flight and turn back), which takes us over Pualu Perek. What we dont know is how long the flight continued north so as to avoid turning over Indonesia. If we said "okay...30 minutes" and then turned south...that takes off 2:00, leaving remaining flight time of somewhere around 6 hours. Lets then "speculate" that the plane turned somewhere 300km past Indonesia, so as to avoid Indonesian radar. "If" the plane maintained a speed of 850kmh (only saying that as it seems a lower flight level=lower speed and it "may" have lowered its flight level according to the reports), then "unknown" travel (after disappearing!) would be somewhere near 5100km....Take off 300km (avoidance of Indonesian radar), then its 4800km. That would mean the crash zone could not be below Perth....Actually somewhere west of Geraldton would be closer.
I understand that this is all "speculation", but so is pretty much everything else at this point :uhoh:

[Blake777]

One thing we do not know which may have affected the range of the aircraft is exactly how far WNW it flew from Butterworth. It appeared to drop off primary radar at 200nm. Further elucidation of this may have been possible by data collected by other agencies not disclosed for security reasons.

However, if this is so, it does make it even more confusing that the final position appears to be closer to Perth. It would help to explain the time and speed, however.

[FGD135]

Mises,


But, the current location is shorter than the previously estimated position for a KNOWN TIME 8.11, which was based on a slower speed. That's impossible.
Not impossible at all when you consider that the only thing they have to work with is the Doppler shift values.


When you have only the Doppler shifts, the only thing you know is the speed of the aircraft RELATIVE TO the satellite. You don't know the distance between the two, and nor do you know precisely the track of the aircraft.


You can estimate a track, based on an assumption of the aircraft's true speed. If you assume a different speed, however, then the entire track direction changes, as does each ping position along it.


If the estimated track had stayed the same, then I would agree with your "impossible" claim. But note that they have come up with a new track.

[p.j.m]

They know the distance from the satellite by the ping response time, and that is the 40° degree arc.

[buttrick]

No, in less time.
He was out of fuel sooner. The last ping really doesn't define when exactly flight ended, we don't have this data, not yet.

The pings DO set the timeframe, and the point of fuel exhaustion is almost certainly when the partial ping was received AFTER 8:11, as the APU and/or RAT took over electrical generation (causing the satcom to re-set and send a new initial handshake request).

They flew faster for a shorter distance still doesn't pan out.

[md80fanatic]

Maybe I have missed something but it seems that calculations of final position based on satnav pings is assuming the signal received at the satellite is strictly Line Of Sight, which may not be the case. There is a well known phenomena called Tropospheric Ducting

E-skip, tropospheric ducting and other VHF propagation phenomena « Engineering Radio (http://www.engineeringradio.us/blog/2010/05/e-skip-tropospheric-ducting-and-other-vhf-propagation-phenomena/)

,amongst a few other VHF propagation effects that typically occur in areas of temperature inversions (warmer air above cooler air). Under these conditions VHF signals can travel far beyond LoS range making it nearly impossible to determine the position of the transmitting station.

As a young amateur radio operator I remember holding a conversation with a man in Houston from my apartment in Austin (~200km) using a low power 146 MHz walkie talkie. Since then I have listened to conversations between two people in Louisiana as clear as if they were across the neighborhood as well as an equivalent discussion originating in Oklahoma.

There is a chance, no matter how remote, that the emissions from MH370 could have been caught in a tropo duct for a considerable distance and emerge generally pointed skyward where the satellite picks it up. In that case the ping timing calculated doppler effect may point to a spot the actual aircraft never passed through.

[porterhouse]

as the APU and/or RAT took over electrical generation (causing the satcom to re-set and send a new initial handshake request).
Pure supposition, apart from flightaware or pprune forums there is absolutely nothing out there with minimum credibility that confirms it.

[ZAZ]

It is all at lower altitudes if the plane was above 20,000 would not have any affect as signals would be going up at 15-25 degrees not down to the sea, air is dry and rh is very low (basic met) SALR DALR
If the sat was low on horizon maybe could like when you look and see the black inversion layer but above an inversion layer signals are refracted up not down

[porterhouse]

Maybe I have missed something Yes you did, the satellite was high above Indian Ocean, no over the 'horizon' effect applies.

[UnreliableSource]

When you have only the Doppler shifts, the only thing you know is the speed of the aircraft RELATIVE TO the satellite. You don't know the distance between the two, and nor do you know precisely the track of the aircraft.

Doppler shift gives you radial speed relative to the satellite. ie, a hypothetical plane flying a curved track along the 40 degree contour would have zero doppler shift (and constant ping time.) Nobody thinks a curved track was flown by 9M-MRO.

The combination of changing ping time and doppler gives further information, but does not appear to be sufficient to identify a single location without assumptions about speed, fuel, and altitude.

It's all going into a mathematical model. When some of the assumptions (variables in the equation) change, the results change.

[Mises]

If the last 3 ping circles are known, then assuming reasonably constant speed, altitude and direction, there will be 3 equidistant intersecting points along the actual path which can be found on those circles.

No need for doppler measurements.

Anyone see a problem with this geometrical method?

[Creampuff]

The consequences of the laws of physics can sometimes be counterintuitive.

Faster does not necessarily mean further.

In nil wind conditions, any airspeed above the aircraft's best range speed will result in shorter range.

Much faster equals much shorter.

[Datayq1]

01:34 02:15 18:15 Last primary radar contact by Malaysian military, 200 miles (320 km) NW of Penang

Are we REALLY even certain of that? (Considering it was a primary target only)

[JoeBloggs2]

Regardless , we are assuming that there was fuel available at 08:11 :ugh:

Fuel exhaustion is not a given. Maybe the aircraft arrived at the desired destination...

[Sheep Guts]

Olasek,


Only if you believe that partial ping had anything to do with running out fuel, I personally see little confirmed evidence of that.

I agree the SATCOM makers who ever they are being Rockwell Collins, Honeywell, etc, will know the reason and the logic behind that last partial ping. We don't know yet. Let's hope they have an answer and are being called upon by the investigation team...

[Shadoko]

buttrick (03:47):
01:30 02:11 18:11 First of seven automated hourly Classic Aero pings (handshakes) (since last ACARS transmission) via the Inmarsat-3 F1 From the published chart the six "pings" before the 00:11 read on the chart at:
~18:25, ~18:28, 19:40, 20:40, 21:40 and 22:40. They are not every hour, as written everywhere:
http://www.straitstimes.com/sites/straitstimes.com/files/20140325/graphe.jpg

Is any body have an idea why there are 3 pings in about five minutes around the time the plane ("possibly") turn south?

[buttrick]

Only if you believe that partial ping had anything to do with running out fuel, I personally see little confirmed evidence of that.
Pure speculation.

OK a bit speculative but not pure!
It would be exactly the sort of consequence of the gennys going off-line and RAT or APU coming on line.

[Datayq1]

Assuming that the "last radar return" is true, (it is possible that the military radar had labelled a different aircraft at the IGARI waypoint).

I'm really questioning the primary returns at GIVAL and IGREX ( the NW, "avoid" Indonesia route). Any coorborating evidence? (Could the Indonesian military radar been asleep also?)

[olasek]

I'm really questioning the primary returns at GIVAL and IGREX
you have right to question anything you want, nothing is 100% official appart from disappearing of this plane.
But I think you have to be reasonable. Every piece of info, every map analyzing possible tracks shows all tracks converging at IGREX, this seems to be an undisputed origination point for the tracks heading South. I haven't seen any mention that it could still be disputed.

[glenbrook]

Well, they really have no duty to throw anything technical to the media at this point. They could have said "we are investigating" and be done. Frankly I think they have been flapping their mouths too much.

I disagree.
They just had a plane and 239 people disappear on their watch. Despite the fact that no physical evidence has been found, the Malaysian President said the plane is destroyed and all the passengers are dead. A profoundly disturbing conclusion like this needs a better explanation than "oh some clever satellite guys in England worked it out."
They have a duty to explain this conclusion in excruciating detail, not just morally, but legally under agreements signed under the auspices of the ICAO.

Personally, I don't doubt the conclusion that the a/c is somewhere in the Indian Ocean, but I am starting to doubt the Malaysian authorities competence and commitment to transparency in this investigation.

[MG23]

It would be exactly the sort of consequence of the gennys going off-line and RAT or APU coming on line.

I believe the RAT won't power the SATCOM terminal, but the APU presumably would.

[FGD135]

Anyone see a problem with this geometrical method?No problem, Mises, but there are an infinite number of solutions to it.

To buttrick and the others that are still having difficulties understanding how, if the plane was at a higher speed, the crash location would be closer to Malaysia:

If the plane travelled faster, then it would have achieved less range. This is a well known fact of aerodynamics. The laws governing this reality are the same as those for your car. Try driving somewhere at 100 until you run out of fuel. Then, try again at a speed of 80. You will get further along the road at 80.

So, at the higher speed, the plane covered less distance. Therefore, the crash point is closer to Malaysia than originally calculated. So the crash point would still be on the 40 degree arc, but at a point further up - which is a point to the northeast of the original area - which is exactly how they have moved the search area.

[porterhouse]

They have a duty to explain this conclusion in excruciating detail,
99.99% would not understand the explanation, and because of that would claim conspiracy, including the most 'vocal' victims.

but legally under agreements signed under the auspices of the ICAO
Under ICAO charter they have to eventually come up with the report, there is no duty to stand in front of some hysterical crowd
and play psychologist and mathematician at the same time.

[olasek]

Something is missing.
What is missing is that some people are married to the idea of time being known, constant, this is a mirage, at best we know elapsed time of this flight +/- 20 mins.

There is a PR machine at work, portraying the Chinese families as "hysterical"
I would claim reverse - there is a PR machine to give those few 'hystericals' more credence than they deserve and discounting families of other passengers.

[p.j.m]

They have revised the TAS upward, keeping flight time constant, and yet somehow arrived a shorter distance traveled. That doesn't make sense.

Have they?

I think the only thing that has changed is where around the 40° arc they are searching.

Speculation about the speed the aircraft may have been traveling and when is just an irrelevant furphy (primary radar speculation withstanding) until the black boxes are found.

[500N]

Glen

Holding multiple press conferences makes you a target.

I think what Amsa are doing releasing multiple updates, charts and photos via the internet plus the raaf pilots bad pollies found media conferences has kept everyone in the loop, even when large changed occur.

Just my HO.

[mm43]

From the published chart the six "pings" before the 00:11 read on the chart at:
~18:25, ~18:28, 19:40, 20:40, 21:40 and 22:40. They are not every hour, as written everywhere:

In practical terms, I suspect that the 'pings' happened every 30 minutes, i.e. 11 and 41. My question would be, "Where are the missing 'pings'? Did they not fit the expected Doppler.

In relation to the 18:25 and 18:28 graphed points, there is no straight forward explanation, but may be the cockpit SatPhone has been used??

[buttrick]

You used the word "same". Such a word implies two things. Of what two things do you speak? Are you referring, in the case of MH370, to the following two enroute scenarios:


1. Cruise speed based on original assumptions, and
2. The higher cruise speed, giving rise to the search area being moved to the northeast

Same elapsed time - 6 hours from last radar return (if not bogus)

[LongTimeInCX]

But don't forget, you'd need a dog on the 4th seat just in case the retired Captain decides to go postal with the Taser.
I'm glad this thread has degenerated to a level whereby all commonsense, reason and useful facts are no longer being submitted.
I wonder why I stopped reading this a while back, and now I know.
When you have 'members' who are clearly not professional flight crew clogging up pages because they can't understand how you can travel less distance when cruising at a higher speed, you have to wonder.

Let's hope the ongoing search can reveal a few facts, then perhaps 99% of the posts by Mar2014 joiners can be eradicated to remove a lot of the uneducated bullcr@p.

I'll give this post 5 mins.

[FGD135]

Something is missing.
The most likely thing to be "missing" from their statement is a revised fuel quantity estimate at the start of the southward journey.


These guys are constantly revising their calculations and assumptions. You can't expect them to tell you everything all the time.

[JoeBloggs2]

The assumptions are to cover the move of the search area 1100km NE

I am also willing to assume based on the rest of the pings that the aircraft flew a 'track' of some kind not just circling west of Sumatera...

But agreed not enough real info

[RatherBeFlying]

In the hope of reducing the quantity of posts here on range and speed, it may be helpful to summarise from D. P. Davies Flying the Big Jets as best my fading memory permits:
Fuel consumption in a jet at cruise does not much change with altitude
True Airspeed is substantially greater at cruise altitudes than lower down
i.e. at cruise altitudes you get substantially more nautical miles per pound of fuel
The alleged low level sector to past Banda Aceh used substantially more fuel than if it had been done at FL350, leaving less fuel for the Southbound leg.

Obviously somebody has worked through the performance charts (or plugged the numbers into the computer program) to derive a new expected range from the last suspected turnpoint and has plotted that to the final ping arc -- and has incorporated the uncertainties to produce a search area.

[porterhouse]

total flight time has apparently stayed constant throughout this revelation.
Only through misinformation spread in this forum.
I don't recall any press briefing where someone would claim a certain known 'constant' elapsed time of this flight.

[Shadoko]

Simple physics:Nobody knows if the place where MH370 gone in water was at fuel exhaustion.

If they supposed the flight was slower (for any reason), they have to make its trajectory more east:
1- To have the frequency drift (from Doppler effect) to remain the same*: it is because the drift is related to the speed of the a/c relatively to the Inmarsat sat. At 0:11 (UTC) the sat is wobbling to the south, so its speed has to be substract in whole from the a/c speed if the a/c is also going south. If the a/c goes more east with a lower speed, the result of the substraction remain the same, because the sat speed you have to substract is smaller.
2- The time between the path comes into two successive "arcs" (from pings, not published) have to be smaller, so the path have to be "more perpendicular" (to the "arcs").

*More west (mirror path relative to North-South) would have the same effect for the drift, but the "40° arc" at 0:11 could not been achieved).

[Ornis]

For any given time interval, a higher average speed means the distance travelled is more.

For any given fuel load, a higher average speed means the distance travelled is less.

Both statements are correct.

[Stanley11]

I'm going to sound heartless but would like to state a fact here. From this event, we can see how disproportionate air disasters are treated as compared with other accidents. It is unfortunate that 239 lives were lost in one event but more lives are lost on the roads everyday. The amount of money poured into this incident is astronomical. Frankly speaking, considering how rare this incident is proves that there already are sufficient layers in the aircraft and off-aircraft systems to 'prevent' something closely similar. The reality of it all is that we may not see any changes made after this incident. The cost versus probability just does not work out. It is like the 50-year storm or 100 year earthquake. Do we see huge tsunami walls built along the west coast of thailand? So I wouldn't expect much to change that will result in expensive hardware upgrades or mods. Perhaps only policy reviews and tighten procedures, if ever they find out the loopholes that led to this incident.

[Shadoko]

mm43: In practical terms, I suspect that the 'pings' happened every 30 minutes, i.e. 11 and 41.The published chart (http://www.straitstimes.com/sites/straitstimes.com/files/20140325/graphe.jpg) is a little misleading in the way that the dots "measured" are joined: OK for the South and North "predicted tracks", but joining the dots of the pings truly received is going too far (IMHO): anything could have happened between them!

[Ixixly]

You're going to sound ignorant Stanley11, you cannot simply say that because it has never happened before, this is the first time something like this has happened then it's obviously a once off so why waste all the money? What happens if something like this happens again? Will you explain to the families and friends of the next 239 people why they're lives were not saving because of an assumption?

There is still a good chance this aircraft will be found, there are solid leads and items that can potentially be recovered that have been identified, they will not give up until they are positive there is almost no chance of finding it. The Inmarsat details have given them a credible lead, satellite images have found possible debris in the area they suspect it went down in and there are still a few days left for them to try and hear the pinger before it's battery runs out. So why would they discontinue at this point?

You're right, people die on the roads all the time and you know what? MASSIVE money is spent on preventing that, by thousands of authorities around the world, by all the major manufacturers, but hey, there are millions of vehicles out there driving all the time, billions of kms a year that they drive and only a very small portion of accidents so why bother with that either? Probabilities show it as having being infinitesimally small chances of it occurring...

[Mises]

For the sake of clarity, my understanding is that the last ping responded to was at 8.11. Another ping at 8.28 went unanswered. If that is correct and confirmed, the flight time is known to within 17 minutes (approx 130nm of flying).

Can someone confirm if this timeline is official / confirmed?

[Mesoman]

It's important not to look at unconditional probabilities.

For example, it is highly unlikely that a specific flight will end up the way MH370 did. And yet, MH370 had the extremely unlikely result.

If we say that it's highly unlikely that cause X could happen, that doesn't help. What's important is how likely is cause X compared to cause Y, under the condition that the MH370 event actually happened.

Thus cause X can have a very small probability. But given that this event happened, the probability in this event is obviously much higher. If we summed up all of the unlikely causes, the result would be 1 (100%). The important probability is whether X caused this accident, out of the set of all possible causes. So, 10 scenarios (for example), each with an unconditional probability of less than 1/1,000,000 add up to 100% when you take this into account, because under this condition, they would average 10% (1/10) rather than 1/1,000,000.

The key here is to look at the relative probabilities: rank cause X and cause Y etc and compare them only with each other.

SAR officials understand this. Conditional probabilities of this sort (and with lots of other things thrown in) are fundamental to assigning SAR assets - picking what grids to search and when and how and how often to search them, adjusting as the conditional probabilities change in response to the results of negative findings.

[wheelsright]

There do not appear to be sufficient facts to justify searching the Indian Ocean. It is a desperate action that is motivated in part to placate public opinion... better to be seen doing something rather than nothing.

The possibility of finding the floating wreckage is extremely small unless there is a small defined area of search and even if wreckage is found, locating the site of entry is almost impossible.


It is not what anyone wants to hear but it is closer to reality.

Better to investigate other possibilities and leads rather than waste resources in this way.

[Creampuff]

Therefore if the aircraft flew faster then it MUST cover a greater distance (+/- 20 mins worth - see a previous post).No arguing with that, for the same time period. But...

60q of fuel at x, consumed at 15q per hour equals 4 hours' endurance after x.

Same aircraft but with 80q of fuel at x, consumed at 20q per hour still equals 4 hours' endurance after x.

They'll run out of fuel at the same time (A) but won't run out of fuel at the same place (along the arc plus post fuel-exhaustion 'glide').

That's why I guess a change in understanding of FOB at x is changing the estimated impact location.

[jolihokistix]

This talk about redirecting "the search" is fine, but surely there are two very different searches going on here.

The crucial one for the fuselage and blackbox will have found a new focus now, yes.

But the wider searches for floating debris must surely continue on in the same general areas where bits were spotted by Chinese, Thai and Japanese satellites. Perhaps this latter search will have had to become wider though.

[wheelsright]

Correct me if I am wrong but we do not know what speed, direction or altitude the aircraft was flying for most of the flight.

The Doppler analysis does not appear to be able to accurately access the speed or direction other than it was coming towards or away from the satellite.

Given this, the plane could be just about anywhere on the arc.

This does not appear to be a sound basis for the current search.

The search area is based on a series of additional assumptions that really have no basis other than conjecture.

[DaveReidUK]

I can't believe we've needed 50-odd posts to try to explain what was crystal clear in the original ATSB statement - that in the early stages of the flight, the aircraft burned more fuel than had previously been thought. :ugh:

Well 51 posts if I include my own, suggesting that the OP simply re-read what the ATSB had said, which the mods clearly thought was unhelpful and deleted, as they no doubt will this one too.

[bobcat4]

Mesoman wrote:
Submarines listen to low audio frequencies, which can travel very long distances underwater.

The pinger is at a much higher audio frequency (37Khz) which is attenuated (reduced in strength as it travels) much more quickly. It might not even be detected from the surface in a deep ocean, much less at distances of many miles.

Why use 37kHz when lower frequencies travel longer in water? I'm just curious.

[UnreliableSource]

Why use 37kHz when lower frequencies travel longer in water? I'm just curious.

The lower the frequency the more power is required to generate the sound.

Think about subwoofers in a stereo system; generally there is more amp power going to fill out the lowest octave than is going collectively to the other nine octaves.

They would have been trading off detection distance against battery life.

[onetrack]

SEARCH UPDATE: 1700HRS local time 29th March (2100GMT 28th March).

One of the Chinese Iluyshin IL-76's has spotted three debris objects today in the current search area, that are coloured, white, red and orange.
These objects were sighted from 300M altitude (1000' approx).
No confirmation of the debris being MH370 wreckage will be available until ships find the debris spotted today. This will not be likely until tomorrow.
The search is still on for the two blue and grey objects sighted from the air yesterday. HMAS Success is not expected in the search zone until tonight.

Weather in the search zone deteriorated in the afternoon with the passage of a weak cold front and associated low cloud.
The weather will improve tomorrow with light clearing showers and light scattered cloud.

The Anzac-class frigate HMAS Toowoomba left port this afternoon with the Seahawk S-70B2 helicopter aboard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Toowoomba_(FFH_156))

The ADV Ocean Shield leaves the port of Fremantle tomorrow with the towed pinger on board to travel to the current search zone.
Ocean Shield is currently just off Mandurah and will reach Fremantle tonight.

http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:115.3971/centery:-32.05434/zoom:8/oldmmsi:503728000/olddate:lastknown

[Wannabe Flyer]

IF this new area is the correct area and IF this was a controlled crash / Landing on the water with the assumption of a smoother surface than the 40's would it be prudent to assume the hull remained relatively intact?

If that is the case would the hull have breached / imploded as it sank below 1000 ft or just cracked with small openings.....

I ask this as small debris devoid of the 24 x 14 sightings that amassed in the past area would seem to point towards a controlled splash down with hull intact.

On a side note with over 800 objects of considerable size and shape being spotted in a low trafficked area of the ocean (initial search area) with practically no habitable land within 1500 km that is a lot of floating garbage and would be worth a treasure hunt someday. ;)

[mm43]

Has anyone noticed that the information stream on this "search" has dried up?

The latest tweet I have seen is that HMAS Toowoomba (an ANZAC class frigate) has left Garden Island, near Perth for the search area. Transit time about 3 days.

[Ian W]

One thing we do not know which may have affected the range of the aircraft is exactly how far WNW it flew from Butterworth. It appeared to drop off primary radar at 200nm. Further elucidation of this may have been possible by data collected by other agencies not disclosed for security reasons.

However, if this is so, it does make it even more confusing that the final position appears to be closer to Perth. It would help to explain the time and speed, however.

Everyone should note that there are multiple calculations going on. The search is being made where it is thought the floating debris may be not where the aircraft actually hit the surface of the sea.

Do a calculation yourself aircraft missing for say 20 days. Initial estimates of drift due currents in the area (say) 2 KPH after dropping buoys and small change in impact point estimate for currents (say) 4 KPH look at the difference in distance. Now say the small change in impact point also put the crash into an area where the vector of the drift current was in a different direction perhaps 070 rather than 140 - again a large change in position.

So a relatively small change in impact point of 100 miles could change drift current and vector of the drift current leading to a large change in debris search area coordinates.

[onetrack]

MM43 - The "information stream" hasn't dried up, the search is ongoing with all available aircraft plus an increased number of ships.
It's just that nothing major has been confirmed, it's still an ongoing "slog". Expect an update from AMSA shortly.
I don't think it will take 3 days for HMAS Toowoomba to travel the approximately 550-600NM to the search zone, she has a good turn of speed, around 27kts maximum. Even at 25kts, that's only 22hrs to travel 550NM.

(EDIT: Toowoomba is currently making 17kts, as her CODOG propulsion system only uses the gas turbine for high speed dashes. And yes, my error, the information I had contained a typo and the distance to the search zone is 1800+km).

[mm43]

onetrack
I don't think it will take 3 days for HMAS Toowoomba to travel the approximately 550-600NM to the search zone
The problem I have with that statement is that AMSA say it is 1860km to the search area! Whether I believe that or not (their media graphics leave something to be desired), the quoted distance happens to be 1004 NM.

[500N]

MM43

Yes, this happened which the media obviously thought was of consequence.

"Late on Saturday, a Chinese surveillance plane reported it found three more objects - white, red and orange ............


That was only a few hours ago and hit the papers almost immediately.


I think the time lag between take off and return doesn't help. You get this 9 hour void from 0900 onwards (AEST)
for about 9 hours until the first aircraft returns and the pilot does an interview (if they do).

[Mahatma Kote]

It would not be hard to incorporate a transponder, which would only use power when interrogated by a SAR vehicle

On the surface it seems reasonable - somewhat like that decades ago fad for keyrings you could whistle up and have them beep back at you

Practically it would need quite a bit of power for a decent receiver and signal processor to unambiguously detect the interrogation. Perhaps overall life wouldn't be improved much?

On the other hand, modern MEMS technology may make the detection much less power hungry?

[philip2412]

For what it`s worth.
10 minutes ago ,i talked to one of my clients ,who stays every year in Malaysia from De. til March-
He told me public opinium there is,that the pilot has stronger ties to radical/anarchistic circles than the authorities have told us.

[awblain]

Ian

I think you summarize very nicely.

This is a considerable scientific effort which has pulled together multinational specialists in widely diverse areas working at the ragged edge of what is possible in their fields. I hope that their work does not go unrewarded.

If it's right.

There shouldn't be a reward for the people (not necessarily the technical team - it could be the Australian cabinet office) who set the zone for the wild goose chase that took place pre-Friday. Just an invoice for all the wear and tear, jet fuel, lost sleep, potential risk to crew and needless gigabytes of satellite imaging.

There should be more than enough information available to get it right.
There are eight precise distances to the satellite with eight reasonably accurate speeds away from the satellite. You're spot on that the substantial motion of the satellite N-S about its station rules out the North, and the ~100km/h satellite speed is a big deal for calculating the resulting Doppler signal - as the Straits Times powerpoint picture shows.

As you say, there are also the practical limits on endurance, plus some ropey radar information from some less than alert countries near the point of origin.

There should be a clear Monte-Carlo distribution of locations where it might have sunk.

I fail to see the reason for all the Australian and Malaysian governments' PR hoopla, trumpeting random pictures of whitecaps from random satellites, and using such "information" to divert searches.

So far, Inmarsat alone have made a contribution to where the search should be carried out. If nefarious agencies do actually have information to help show where it actually came down, based on more powerful assets, but don't want to be seen saying it, then they should just call the Australian MOD and make things happen right.

There are only so many batteries in the recorders' sonar beacons, and that's what's important: finding a few bits and pieces on the surface three weeks after the crash is no use to anyone. We already know that it flew for hours and hours, and probably just ran out of fuel. It's hard to see how finding a piece of fairing or overhead bin on the surface will reveal anything useful about events three weeks ago, other than as a drift marker back to the crash site.

[wheelsright]

What I am saying is that assumptions have been made regarding constant speed, altitude and direction after the last radar contact. Further similar assumptions have been made between the point of loss of transponder contact and last radar contact but with supporting evidence as a result of some sketchy radar data.

The range is calculated using these assumptions and then fed into the known ping data and low resolution Doppler calculations.

If these assumptions do in fact result on the location of wreckage it will be a result of some very clever investigation and math but also a large slice of luck based on someone's hunch.

Given the flight time that is known (subject to the last ping and partial ping uncertainty) The assumption that the aircraft remained in flight until fuel exhaustion is a good one. It is also a likely assumption that the aircraft continued on a constant heading, altitude and speed (assuming no pilot). But constant speed and altitude are reliant on autopilot control.

What that constant speed and altitude may have been is an educated guess. It also assumes without autopilot, the trimmed aircraft could not have remained in flight oscillating between altitudes on an inexact heading.

[Lemain]

On the other hand, modern MEMS technology may make the detection much less power hungry? I think the main receiver would be left power-off, switched on by a broader-band and very low power receiver that would only power-up the main receiver on receipt of a signal in roughly the right band. Possibly a passive filter. I designed something along those lines for surveying weather balloons in the 1970s and it worked well. Simple design.

We (the industry) has to address this issue now and ensure that 'black boxes' are interrogatable for years if not decades. It isn't that hard, it's down to cost and the will.

Of course, that's today's public issue. Tomorrow it'll be the safety of composites, fuel systems, anti-hijack, anti-explosives, etc. and the public will forget about the need to find lost aircraft in savage terrains.

[TWT]

It's hard to see how finding a piece of fairing or overhead bin on the surface will reveal anything useful about events three weeks ago, other than as a drift marker back to the crash site. There still isn't any concrete proof of the whereabouts of the aircraft.Finding anything confirmed to be from the aircraft in the south Indian ocean will prove that it crashed in that vicinity and will negate a lot of alternative theories that have been proposed.

[JayEmKay]

philip2412

For what it`s worth.
10 minutes ago ,i talked to one of my clients ,who stays every year in Malaysia from De. til March-
He told me public opinium there is,that the pilot has stronger ties to radical/anarchistic circles than the authorities have told us.

There are two pilots on the flight deck...
One is the 'Captain' and the other is the 'First Officer'
Which one are you referring to? ...

[Ulight]

We (the industry) has to address this issue now and ensure that 'black boxes' are interrogatable for years if not decades. It isn't that hard, it's down to cost and the will.

Lemain, I agree there is without doubt a better way to track flights and provide better, faster information (real-time uplinks of location and black box data, etc). However, I postulate that if prior to this someone said a commercial flight in a modern, so far bulletproof airframe, could 'go missing' and not be found in year 2014 after 20 days, it wouldn't sound plausible. Part of the 'hype' about all of this is everyone's (including mine) *need* for information and in real-time.

The unfortunate reality of this is, having seen this happen in numerous parallel industries, and after 9/11, is the vigilance increases for a period (days, weeks, months, years or decades) and then eventually laxes and something happens. Even in this instance, a heavily contested piece of ocean, with undoubtedly immense surveillance, was not being watched at the time.

Airline travel remains one of the safest around, and these events are thankfully rare.

[bud leon]

I disagree.
They just had a plane and 239 people disappear on their watch. Despite the fact that no physical evidence has been found, the Malaysian President said the plane is destroyed and all the passengers are dead. A profoundly disturbing conclusion like this needs a better explanation than "oh some clever satellite guys in England worked it out."
They have a duty to explain this conclusion in excruciating detail, not just morally, but legally under agreements signed under the auspices of the ICAO.

Personally, I don't doubt the conclusion that the a/c is somewhere in the Indian Ocean, but I am starting to doubt the Malaysian authorities competence and commitment to transparency in this investigation.

I've been following this thread since post #1 (why I sometimes wonder) but I feel compelled finally to address the smug outrage that continually crops here.

They have no duty to do that whatsoever. They don't owe you or any other unaffected but morbidly, curiously or fearfully interested third party anything. Even if it was on their (stupefyingly cliched) "watch". I'm sure obligations to ICAO and international legal obligations are well understood and I'm sure they are getting better legal advice than you could give.

Maybe Malaysia is less competent at this than other nations. It's pretty naive to think that all countries will be equally competent at all things. But how could anyone possibly know that from a removed vantage point? Whether they have been any less transparent than they should be, by some stakeholder derived criteria, is impossible for anyone to make a call on at this stage.

It's also naive to think that international politics and limits on communication and resources are not going to play out.

In other posts, there are idle flaneurs coming to the conclusion that amongst all the countries and companies involved individuals have not worked through the panoply of scenarios and lack the requisite technical rigour. That's ignorant and arrogant.

Most of the critics might be unable to realise that in their lives they are going to encounter events which have no precedent, events for which countries are not prepared for, and for which there are no immediate answers. This is one of the many cognitive biases that are writ large in this thread.

All these posts originate from a logical fallacy underpinned by one or more cognitive biases. The logical fallacy is that not being able to locate the aircraft proves incompetence. There are too many cognitive biases to list.

[wheelsright]

Bud Leon you have it in a nutshell. :D

[Giboman]

For what it`s worth.
10 minutes ago ,i talked to one of my clients ,who stays every year in Malaysia from De. til March-
He told me public opinium there is,that the pilot has stronger ties to radical/anarchistic circles than the authorities have told us.


I'm currently in Malaysia. I have heard all of the speculation from the locals from day 1. The captain/co-pilot having stronger ties to radical/anarchistic circles is a new one to me.

Several of my friends and neighbours are working for MAS, Firefly and Air Asia. I spoke to a colleague of Captain Zaharie on the Sunday after the flight had been declared lost. He had nothing but praise for the guy, he believed the Captain to be one of the best pilots within the company and he himself had been a student of Captain Zaharie. He continued to say that if anyone could recover an aircraft from an almost impossible situation it would be Zaharie.

I'm not ruling out anything but suicide and hijacking are way down my list!

[StokeCity]

Personally, I don't doubt the conclusion that the a/c is somewhere in the Indian Ocean, but I am starting to doubt the Malaysian authorities competence and commitment to transparency in this investigation.

That may look like so to Joe Six Pack watching the news and from reading the media. It's so easy for the man on the street to accuse Malaysia as `incompetent' and `not transparent'. Yes, they had made a hash of it initially during the start. But it's more due to inexperience and the lack of any real plan in dealing with public communications. They don't make public each and every detail from the data they have (or been given as is more likely). But it would be simplistic, at this stage, to say they aren't committed to transparency. And wrong to accuse them of "covering up", as some Chinese families accuse (conveniently ignoring "what" is covered up).

Notice that the US and other countries involved in the SAR (with the exception of China) - or at least the professionals and experts directly involved - have not pressured Malaysia to announce anything. It's reasonable to assume that a lot of the critical data had come from surveillance resources outside Malaysia, given to the country on a need to know basis specifically for the SAR operations. This data and details aren't to be handed out to the public, and end up with "not friendly" countries. This is China's main grouse: it claims Malaysia "is hiding informations." That's true - information that isn't Malaysia's property which the country is trusted not to reveal without owner's permission.

Don't forget nothing from the aircraft is recovered yet. In fact, even the proximity of the plane's last location isn't known. First things first. Joe Six Pack will not be happy about the lack of news but the release of data isn't his call to make. Nor China's. All in good time.

[Backoffice]

There is still the possibility that close analysis of satellite pictures taken on the day it went missing could find a contrail or cloud track as the aircraft descended.

It’s quite amazing what detail you can see of the clouds on the Worldview site if you zoom to max plus you can go back to the date in question.
These are 250m resolution with no timestamp, but the raw data or better resolution must exist somewhere.

https://earthdata.nasa.gov/labs/worldview/

[mseyfang]

For what it`s worth.
10 minutes ago ,i talked to one of my clients ,who stays every year in Malaysia from De. til March-
He told me public opinium there is,that the pilot has stronger ties to radical/anarchistic circles than the authorities have told us.


Which tells me only that possibly the Malaysian government has an interest in blaming its opposition for this incident. I will not let a colleague left to twist in the wind based on mere speculation connected to his support for an opposition party and a party leader that may well have been convicted of trumped-up changes.


Here in the US, many pilots tend to be politically conservative -- I'm not, which leads to a lot of "agree to disagree" conversations -- but my opinion is not swayed one way or another as I assess each on their flying ability and nothing else. Politics in the cockpit can be poisonous, though, and I as a Captain, will gladly "agree" with someone with strongly held views in the interest of getting a flight safely to its destination.

[silvertate]

Lets look at a graphic of aircraft speeds. The following is a map illustrating flights following the same ping-rings with different airspeeds. (For illustration only, not drawn to a particular speed-scale.)

Red is the median TAS.
Yellow is faster TAS.
Purple is slower TAS.
(disregarding wind, as it will be te same in each case.)

Each hourly checkpoint is set to the same ping-ring location. And remember that the ping-ring location is a known fixed point (a location on an arc). For instance, if the aircraft ended up on the 40 degree ping-ring after 6 hours, then that is where it must have been - somewhere on that arc. Same for all the previous ping-ring locations at the previous hourly pings (that we still have not been given).

But notice how the faster TAS speed-track trends westerly, while the slower TAS speed-track trends easterly. So if they are looking at a new track (purple) to the northeast of the original (red) track, then they must be looking at slower aircraft speeds, not faster speeds.


I presume what they meant was that the aircraft was flying lower, so it had a faster IAS but a slower TAS.

ie:
39,000' 260 kts IAS = 463 kts TAS. (slower speed = faster TAS)
10,000' 290 kts IAS = 335 kts TAS. (faster speed = slower TAS)

((Remember that if the aircraft flew for 6 and a bit hours, then it flew for 6 and a bit hours - so the fuel burn is irelevant. The aircraft flew until 08:11, whatever the fuel burn was. So if it flew faster it went further. UNLESS, of course, they were referring to IAS rather than TAS.))

http://oi57.tinypic.com/1gli8g.jpg

[dghob]

Apologies if this has been dealt with in earlier posts.

Highly unlikely after 3 weeks perhaps, but if at some stage bodies are recovered what is the likelihood of tests being able to show hypoxia as the cause of death, that is, all on board passed out before impact?

[M.Mouse]

But the bottom line is that every time the public get on an aircraft, they put their trust and lives in the hands of pilots with absolutely no idea just how skillled, trust worthy or mentally balanced they are.

A bit like getting in a taxi or on a bus or driving amongst other road users. What do you propose? Certainly in the Western world airline recruitment of pilots certainly contains elements which assess the psychological profile of a prospective pilot.

There is no knowledge either of just how well the aircraft has been maintained. Virtually every aircraft takes to the skies with a list of deferred faults which can cause problems in an emergency.

Which is why I fly with established airlines with a proven track record and where the culture tends to be one where corruption, nepotism and lack of accountability is not endemic.

The fact that a large aircraft can just disappear or that another 911 type scenario could have been enacted with apparently no chance for the passengers to intervene just serves to demonstrate that profit and not public safety is the primary concern for airlines.

Complete nonsense.

The public have been browbeaten into behaving like cattle and subjected to ridiculous security procedures, which have been proven to be singularly ineffective in preventing bombings and hijackings, all in the interests of maximising profit, by giving the impression that aviation has been made safer.

So how many similar 9/11 type events have occurred since the change in the security regimes?

It hasn't and if MH370 has served to demonstrate anything, it is that it still only takes one thing to go wrong for a flight to end in disaster.

What went wrong then? Nobody yet knows so any theory you have is based on conjecture not fact.

[oldoberon]

Silvertate,

I thought the wind would have a greater effect on a slower speed aircraft but if correct no idea if that difference would be significant to the position of the area of search

[b55]

There seems to be an acceptance of the idea that the aircraft had to fly to fuel exhaustion. What about the possibility of it flying to the point that the person, hijacker or pilot, in the flight deck finally thought, well that is long enough, and pulled the two engine fuel levers to shut off.

[henra]

So if they are looking at a new track (purple) to the northeast of the original (red) track, then they must be looking at slower aircraft speeds, not faster speeds.


Indeed, based on the arc where the aircraft was at the time of the individual pings, there is a combination of direction and Speed in the way your graphic shows. Faster on the same course means more rings crossed between two pings. If not more rings have been crossed despite being faster the plane would have to fly a course more parallel to the rings, i.e. SW in this case.

Therefore a higher than assumed speed seems indeed somewhat contradictory to the position of the plane being more to the East.

The Problem in this is probably to do with the level of accuracy of these calculations based on Signal strength and Timing. Would be interesting to know the tolerances of these calcs.

Apart from that I somewhat share your confusion about the combination of higher Speed and more Easterly Search Location.

[G0ULI]

M.Mouse
Well if money isn't an issue, let's make a start by reinstating three crew members on the flight deck. Can't see many airlines prepared to sign up to that.

Current security procedures serve only to irritate the public and promote some belief that safety has been improved. Complete nonsense of course. There are YouTube videos demonstrating how an improvised device can be made from objects bought in duty free areas of an airport after all the security checks. There have been several incidents over the past few years since 911 of inert explosive packages and ammunition found on aircraft left behind by training search teams.

I maintain that the entire industry is primarily motivated by profit and that public safety is incidental to airline operations. It is only the total loss of an airframe, passengers and crew that seem to motivate airlines to attempt any genuine improvements and that is only to mitigate increased insurance costs.

I learned to fly because I was terrified of being in an aircraft with no prospect of being able to do anything if something happened to the pilot. A completely irrational reason because the likelyhood of being able to actually rescue the situation is nil. But it helped calm my fear of flying to the extent I can now board an aircraft in the knowledge that I am not completely powerless if the worst should happen and at least I'd have a good idea of what was going on if it did.

People are irrational and it is the (remote) possibility that one irrational person was responsible for what has happened to MH370 that is most disturbing.

[etudiant]

There is a misplaced belief in the pervasiveness and effectiveness of nameless national surveillance bodies.
The fact is surveillance costs big money, a few billion apiece for each of the large NRO payloads, so the number of satellites is small and they are fully tasked. The US push to use commercial sources more extensively simply underscores these economic realities.


If any of these entities had a clue, the searchers would not be stumbling around as at present, trying to 'find the haystack' in the lapidary words of an Australian search leader.

[Little cloud]

There is still the possibility that close analysis of satellite pictures taken on the day it went missing could find a contrail or cloud track as the aircraft descended.

It’s quite amazing what detail you can see of the clouds on the Worldview site if you zoom to max plus you can go back to the date in question.
These are 250m resolution with no timestamp, but the raw data or better resolution must exist somewhere.

https://earthdata.nasa.gov/labs/worldview/ (http://apicdn.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Frumours-news%2F535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-438.html&out=https%3A%2F%2Fearthdata.nasa.gov%2Flabs%2Fworldview%2F&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Frumours-news%2F535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-439.html)


Backoffice, this was discussed some time ago when I posted a link to the raw 250m resolution images. For the search areas the time stamps were around 3-4 hours after the final 'ping'. Tim Vasquez replied with a detailed explanation of why in most of the area conditions were not conducive to contrail formation.

[awblain]

Feel free to delete if this is not helpful - or ask me to delete in a PM.

Q1) To start with the satellite:
a) We were told, I believe (Inmarsat?) that the signal was a/c to sat only since Malaysian have no monitoring contract with RR. I see folk talking about returns from both sat and a/c now?
b) We were told the pings were ‘hourly’ until the 0019(Z) ping. Now it is being said half-hourly. Which is it and what do we know about any half-hourly ping factors?
c) Inmarsat initially talked of an ‘elevation’ component to the received signal (the ’40 degree arc’). Now I understand they are talking only about Doppler shift. It should be remembered that Doppler shift is only ‘valid’ when motion is to or from the receiver and that tangential shift is zero.
d) Do we know for sure what the Doppler variations were?
e) Are we sure that the a/c was still transmitting at 0019Z having tried a ‘regular’ ping at 0011Z? If so, what do we make of this confusing statement that the a/c appears to have flown at a higher speed for the same time but travelled less distance (s=ut and all that)? Is there a given Doppler factor for the 0019 ping?

I don't work for Inmarsat, but I know a certain amount about satellite and radio systems, inference and imaging.

The radar data I see as at best very badly presented, and at worst useless. The zigzagging also: I have seen no solid evidence for it. Perhaps your request might throw some up, BOAC.

I suspect Inmarsat won't want to confirm details, as their clients probably wouldn't want any precedent set for revealing their business.

a) My understand is that there was no data transfer from the aircraft via satellite, but that there was an account - so the satellite checks in with the aircraft (every hour?) to know if it's awake. That signal is timed, and the distance of the aircraft from the satellite can be found. The signal frequency can also be used (it is now discovered) to provide a Doppler measurement of the aircraft's speed in the direction of the satellite.
b) No information. All reports I've seen are hourly.
c) The 40 degree arc: reflects that the distance from the aircraft to the satellite is such that the satellite is at an elevation of about 40-degrees above the horizon as seen from the aircraft. A 35 degree arc would have the aircraft further away, and the satellite lower in the sky. The Doppler velocity tells you only the component of velocity along the satellite-aircraft straight line. Thus it is not ambiguous. The satellite is also moving in a north-south ~1000-km figure-8 about its geostationary station every 24 hours, which helps the Doppler analysis.
d) There's a plot in the Straits Times. Malaysia releases satellite analysis by UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch (http://www.straitstimes.com/the-big-story/missing-mas-plane/story/malaysia-releases-satellite-analysis-uk-air-accidents-investig#3), reportedly from the AAIB. But there isn't an equivalent plot for the distance/elevation time series. So, to answer your question: no, only from a plot from a powerpoint presentation. The Australians went off at a tremendous rate in their search once this was published though, and so in my mind that lends a great deal of credibility to the result.
e) No information. To analyze the Doppler and arc information to find possible tracks isn't difficult, but there are some problems: there isn't a public set of Doppler and elevation data, and the initial conditions for the problem are not well determined. There are similar classes of problems that have been solved to find the wreck of the submarine Scorpion and to recover nuclear weapons lost at sea. [I suspect the solution is a ~500-mile wide swath that sweeps from 2500miles from Perth to 1000miles from Perth, which will make the search for the data recorders very challenging - but that's just my opinion.]

[Finally - another opinion - I have yet to see a single photo of any "wreckage" that doesn't look like a whitecap, or waves washing over a freight container. The visual search for items three weeks after the crash seems to be a waste of time, and even if anything is found, it will be less helpful after all the drifting it's done in terms of locating the data recorders than the Inmarsat data.]

[juice]

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370: Ships retrieve possible debris in ocean - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/malaysia-airlines-flight-370-ships-retrieve-possible-debris-in-ocean/)

Possible debris recovered, say CBS. Not confirmed.

"For the first time, ships taking part in the massive search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 retrieved debris in the ocean Saturday, CBS Radio News correspondent Steve Futterman reports from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

According to a statement from the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, which is overseeing the search, so far no objects recovered are confirmed to be related to the missing jet.

Two ships - one Australian and one Chinese - were able to pick up what is described as a number of objects."

[Speed of Sound]

There has been some discussion on here about making the ULB an 'active' system where it scans for an 'initiation' signal from searchers and then replies, therefore extending battery life.

What can be done much more simply is to double the time intervals between 'pings' which will roughly double the battery life. This increased 'capacity' could alternatively be used to power a frequency lower than 37.5KHz for the same 30 days but with an extended range or indeed a combination of the two things depending on what SAR believe would be more useful.

Personally I believe an extended range would be more beneficial than greater endurance, especially in situations like we have with MH370 where we don't have an exact location. In fact I would suggest that the frequency of pings are reduced from once per second to an interval which will provide enough power to support a frequency that allows the range to extend above the surface of the sea in most areas.

Then a ULB search could be done from the surface or the air without having to rely on the much slower towed array.

[Coagie]

"bobcat4: Why use 37kHz when lower frequencies travel longer in water? I'm just curious."


The main reason is the ULB was never meant for finding a crash site. It was meant to find the black boxes within a crash site, and a higher frequency is easier to pinpoint, and less likely to be confused with lower frequency noises from ships and other equipment. Also, it uses less battery power than lower frequencies.
Back when 37.5khz was established as the frequency in ULB's, people figured if a crash was so far out in the ocean, where you didn't know where it went down, it would be too deep to get to anyway. Now that the use of deep diving robot vehicles is not uncommon, maybe it would be a good idea to add an 11khz ULB to locate a crash site, since 11khz travels farther through water than 37.5khz, and common sonar can hear 11khz, so you wouldn't need special equipment.

[bono]

1. Flight tracking over the oceans is already possible and it's cheap
2. Make accident conditions trigger black box data bursts
... more at New Scientist
Five ways to make sure we never lose a plane again - tech - 28 March 2014 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25317-five-ways-to-make-sure-we-never-lose-a-plane-again.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|online-news#.UzbmfvldW8w)

[Speed of Sound]

"bobcat4: Why use 37kHz when lower frequencies travel longer in water? I'm just curious." As well as what Coagie said it takes proportionately more power to generate and transmit an 11KHz signal than it does a 37.5KHz one, therefore for a given amount of power the 11KHz will be sustained for less total time than the higher one.

[sky9]

TwoOneFour.

How did you derive those co-ordinates?
Plotting those points into Google Earth the eastern boundary line follows the direct track from IGREX to YWKS, the western boundary line goes very close to the direct track from IGREX to SPOLE.

[RatherBeFlying]

AMSA has rightly pointed out that any retrieved object has to be positively identified as coming from MH370.

This piece of ocean receives very little close scrutiny. There seem to be a number of gyres where flotsam goes round and round. Any MH370 debris may be a very small proportion of what has already been there for quite a long time.

[overthewing]

I am sure the powers that be will have gone through every medical record, through every bit of paperwork, computer entries, interviews with work colleagues, even down to drinking/drug habits etc.

One sincerely hopes this is the case, but evidence so far suggests such enquiries are being done reluctantly and without enthusiasm.

[twentyman]

Spy planes and satellites are said to be able to read a numberplate from a great height. Why are all the pix of probable wreckage such poor definition?

[RichManJoe]

Because they are not using the same cameras as do the satellites or spy planes. Most pictures seem to be taken using a handheld camera, some are of a picture on a computer screen.

[bobcat4]

Speed of Sound wrote:

As well as what Coagie said it takes proportionately more power to generate and transmit an 11KHz signal than it does a 37.5KHz one, therefore for a given amount of power the 11KHz will be sustained for less total time than the higher one.

I found out that the main reason is the size of the beacon. I'm not sure about the power consumption.

According to https://fenix.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/downloadFile/395143172651/resumo.pdf
Decreasing the ULB transmitted signal’s frequency. The attenuation losses induced by the Underwater Acoustic Channel (UAC) are highly dependent on frequency, and increase proportionally to its cube. Hence, reducing the current 37.5 kHz to a reasonable 10 kHz has the potential to greatly enhance the maximum depth and range for which the ULB signal can be detected. The downside of this solution is that the physical size of the beacon would have to increase

[Ornis]

Facts. We have science and technology because Man didn't wait for facts. He guessed and he imagined and he tried and he demonstrated.

It's perfectly obvious that the chances this was not a carefully planned act of vengeance is somewhat less than my winning Lotto. Of course someone does win Lotto, so it's not impossible it was the wrong kind of fire at the wrong place at the wrong time.

The fact is, the Universe is based on probabilities, and so is our knowledge of it; how we make sense of it.

[Ornis]

The Australian-led search is looking west of Perth because there is a high probability that is where the aircraft crashed. It might have gone north but the science points south. Unfortunately there isn't enough information to pinpoint a small area, so there's a big element of luck. Never want to underplay the part of luck in life.

If there's bits floating, the Orion crews will find it. These guys want to show their mettle.

[bdignen]

Hi

One fact seems indisputable amid all the speculation, that MH370 executed an extreme turn to the left. The notion that the plane then flew south to the Indian Ocean also now seems to be accepted as fact.

Question: is there anything in the nature of the turn to the left and its subsequent route which gives us a clue as to the nature of the events on board. If the desire was to fly to an unknown point in the Indian Ocean (or indeed any location), was this the only way to execute such a desire. Was the route to a point off Perth the only route available> If not, why this particular manoeuvre and why this particular route?

Theory: Is it possible to speculate that the plane was hijacked, and the pilot instructed to fly to a destination such that it became clear that a 9/11-type event was planned? The pilot was instructed to fly to an altitude to incapacitate the passengers, with hijackers and pilot provided with sufficient oxygen.

Could the pilot, in an act of heroism, have set autopilot to fly the plane to a harmless destination in such a way that it could not be reprogrammed, likely sacrificing himself in so doing as hijackers would have become aware of this at some point. The plane then flew its course, unable to divert, with hijackers alive onboard until the moment of crash.

[UnreliableSource]

There shouldn't be a reward for the people (not necessarily the technical team - it could be the Australian cabinet office) who set the zone for the wild goose chase that took place pre-Friday. Just an invoice for all the wear and tear, jet fuel, lost sleep, potential risk to crew and needless gigabytes of satellite imaging.

The Australian government is searching the most likely locations. What would you have them do, search the least likely locations?

Of course, if the wreckage if found at a given lat/lon then all the armchair sleuths will say "why didn't you search there first?" but they will only say that after the event. :-(

And yes, the Australian government *ARE* going to get the bill for all the wear and tear, jet fuel, etc...

[BelfastChild]

The search area roughly corresponds to the area of the Diamantina Trench, which is up to 25000 feet deep. What are the chances of hearing the black box signal, or even being able to retrieve it, if it is down at those depths?

[Ornis]

Flight MH370: Searchers follow NZ lead - National - NZ Herald News (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11228953) New Zealand Joint Forces head Air Vice-Marshal Kevin Short said the Kiwi searchers had been heartened after spotting 11 objects about 1600km west of Perth on Friday.

"Those objects turned out to be rectangular in shape, nothing bigger than 1 metre, some of them down to half a metre in size,"

[Standard Toaster]

Spy planes and satellites are said to be able to read a numberplate from a great height. Why are all the pix of probable wreckage such poor definition?

People watch way too many movies.

No satellite can read a license plate, even a military one. The distortion caused by the atmosphere alone would make it almost impossible.

But regarding the definition of the images so far released and their quality, it's easy to explain why they appear to have such a low definition.

You have to think of a satellite as a SLR camera... You either "zoom in" and cover a small area, and if you do so you're able to better identify anything that's inside that area, or you "zoom out" and cover a wider one, but of course if that's done it's harder to identify individual pieces or wreckage or so.

As no one really knows where the wreckage is, they have to cover a wider area hoping to find something resembling what they want to find. If they "zoom out" they'll cover more area and have more to work with, but they'll have to magnify and try to extrapolate anything they find.

Regards.

[porterhouse]

What are the chances of hearing the black box signal, or even being able to retrieve it, if it is down at those depths? Not much, realistic, available search and salvage operations end at depth of around 15,000 ft.

[overthewing]

So because they have found no evidence of any dodgy behaviour they are not looking hard enough?

It may be that much is being investigated, but that the public is not being informed, and /or that the western media doesn't know how to dig and probe in the context of an oriental culture.

[island_airphoto]

IMHO money should be spent on the decades-old detachable ELTs rather than lower frequency pingers on the FDR if you can only do one thing. We are all looking something going BEEP-BEEP with our ears in an area nearly the size of Australia right now. The 406 MHz signal wouldn't find the needle, but it would find the haystack :ok:

[TylerMonkey]

The MIR can dive to 19,000 ft ( and also retrieve items ). Two were built in Finland , Titanic filmed most of their footage from MIR. Crew size is 3.

[BJ-ENG]

To add to the many suggestions attempting to ponder the question regarding a water landing for any aircraft, and particularly a large wide body aircraft like a 777, it is worth pointing out some of the differences between ground and water impacts, much of which was covered in the AF447 thread.

When considering relatively slow speed aircraft impacts, water impacts vary from those on hard terrain in the following way. During an impact with rigid ground, the undercarriage, if deployed, absorbs a significant portion of the impact energy, with the remainder being transferred to the stiffest structural members such as the energy absorbing subfloor beams. These are generally designed to progressively collapse in order to limit to G load on the occupants. The key thing to think about here is “progressively collapse”. To give an example, drop tests on passenger sized airframes at NASA Langley Research Centre have shown how the cabin section experiences quite a pronounced deformation even for a 10m/s drop. The section progressively collapsed, as designed, and but remained intact.

For a water impact, the loading mechanisms differ significantly. The landing gear is unable to absorb the impact energy and instead the impact loads are distributed as a transient dynamic pressure load over the fuselage skin. This initial absorption by the skin momentarily slows the rate that force is applied to the structural members, and has the effect of inhibiting the buckling process to the extent that energy absorbing subfloor components become ineffective. This is why Navy helicopters are designed with additional features to improve their crashworthy response over both hard terrain and water.

In addition to the previous mechanism, the structure also experiences considerable hydraulic shock as the aircraft skin is penetrated and fluid is forced into the interior allowing large pressure forces to act directly upon the cabin floor and interior bulkheads, and as a consequence, actually increases the damage. The result is that vertical accelerations experienced by the occupants is higher due to the lack of initial buckling and rogressive collapse, compounded by the hydraulic shock effect on flooring.

In the Hudson river Airbus ditching on a smooth surface, the evidence for significant hydraulic surge is evident as can be seen from the damaged to the fuselage underside and the dislodged rear bulkhead.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/nytint/docs/documents-for-the-testimony-of-us-airways-flight-1549/original.pdf


http://www.aero-farm.com/museum/pa-ditch.jpg


How ditching should be done - Learmount (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/learmount/2009/01/how_ditching_should_be_done/)

[tail wheel]

One of the more accurate media comments:

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

[Vinnie Boombatz]

@hamster3null (#8555, 28 Mar 2014, 02:13)

Excellent spreadsheet!

The problem is made harder by having two sources of Doppler -- aircraft motion and satellite motion.

Even for a stationary satellite, the problem is still hard because of the unknown aircraft velocity vector orientation.

So all one can do is hypothesize a set of aircraft positions and velocities, and look for a decent fit to the measurements.

INMARSAT or AAIB must have done something quite similar.

[olasek]

And yes, the Australian government *ARE* going to get the bill for all the wear and tear, jet fuel, etc..
For their own aircraft/ships, etc, I suspect every participating country is paying their own expenses.

[500N]

The base cost for the military and the military aircraft is the same whether used on the search or not.

[Orestes]

BJ-ENG:

Interesting to note that in the Hudson River Airbus ditching, the NTSB report states that although the CVR remained in the plane and was physically undamaged, its underwater locating beacon (ULB) was tested and found to be non-functional.

[ana1936]

Former Australian Defence chief Angus Houston to help coordinate search for missing plane

Malaysia Airlines flight MH370: former Defence chief Angus Houston to help coordinate search for missing plane - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-30/angus-houston-to-help-coordinate-search-for-mh370/5354588)

[etudiant]

"Commodore Peter Leavy, the overall military commander of the search effort, said: ''This is a very, very big operation … Normally a military exercise involving different nations is the result of a lot of planning. Something like this … we had to come together very quickly and just get on with the job.''

This is a sign that the search is nearing its final stage.
To coordinate any kind of large, multinational effort, there needs to be a boss. He can allocate the resources and make the tough decisions, such as when to call it quits.
The reality is that nothing is being found and the odds are declining.

Only a boss can call a halt to an obviously futile effort without anyone losing face.

[777fly]

Olasek:
Then you don't know the B777 in alternate nav. All radios have to be tuned in alternate radio mode, no needles or ILS otherwise. There is no situational guidance unless you programme it in, its not a question of following the magenta line, its simply needing to know where you are. Looking out of the window at night is not enough.
I'm talking about a back up mode, not normal nav.

[Porrohman]

Ambient Sheep. If it was a criminal act then misdirection could have been an important part of their plan. By manipulating the response to the satellite pings, the aircraft could have flown west whilst giving the search teams the impression that it was flying north or south.

Buttmonkey1; the existence of the pings might not have been widely known amongst the aircrew community but it will have been part of a specification and I would be surprised if that specification is secret. I would accept that this would require some detailed technical knowledge but I expect that this information was in the public domain, albeit not widely known.

[oldoberon]

Skynews showing a graphic of the fdr/cvr as one unit, a cylindrical one mounted on a L shaped one, and 1 beacon, I always thought they were separate and two beacons, twice the chance of finding something.

Are they wrong or is the 777 a combined unit.?

[training wheels]

Forget all about LNAV in the immediate aftermath of a serious problem, it will be FLCH and HDG Select, bring up ARPT display and head for nearest suitable. Pumping in Lat and Long would be unnecessary and both time and attention consuming, maybe revert to LNAV when everything is under control but if it is an immediate landing even that is unlikely.

Yes, agreed. Actually if you look at the track that they were on at the time on airways R208 from IKUKO to IGARI, it has a reciprocal track of 197 deg M. Assuming they wanted to return to Kuala Lumpur immediately, could they have set a heading of 197 initially and for whatever reason, the aircraft wondered further to the west, possibly with a DIRECT TO WMKL (Langkawi) set in the FMC? Once having passed WMKL with no further waypoints to track to, could LNAV then later have disconnected due to flight track discontinuity and then reverted to HDG select with the original 197 Heading that was selected?

If so, this matches the heading of 197 deg M and associated track that Capt Kremin was suggesting in his post 7539 (http://www.pprune.org/8396063-post7539.html) of where the aircraft may have ended up.

[vapilot2004]

Skynews showing a graphic of the fdr/cvr as one unit, a cylindrical one mounted on a L shaped one, and 1 beacon, I always thought they were separate and two beacons, twice the chance of finding something.

Are they wrong or is the 777 a combined unit.?

2 separate boxes, although they are located side by side. There is a CVR and a DFDR. Both are equipped with a ULB (beacon.)

[nnc0]

IMHO money should be spent on the decades-old detachable ELTs rather than
lower frequency pingers on the FDR if you can only do one thing. We are all
looking something going BEEP-BEEP with our ears in an area nearly the size of
Australia right now. The 406 MHz signal wouldn't find the needle, but it would
find the haystack :ok:


Absolutely! Something is very wrong that in this age of satellites, cpdlc, etc, we still lose track of airplanes. What if there had been survivors from this crash or AF? They'd have perished waiting for rescue. What if there was a aircraft issue or a handling/maint issue that leaves other aircraft in danger. We need those black boxes! We sent rovers to deliberately crash on mars and survive. Surely we can build a better ELT that is cheap, rugged and effective and spares us all the time, effort, money and heartbreak running around blindly.

[ferry pilot]

The airplane left a major airport with a competent crew, no known deficiencies and the best navigation and communication equipment available. It apparently ended up in the least accessible area it could reach with the fuel on board, and there is still debate about the possibility it did this without deliberate action on the part of a pilot. It keeps the story alive, but needs more imagination than fact, of which there is an unlimited supply of the former but very little of the latter, which only points in one direction. Somebody put this airplane wherever it is, and knew what he was doing.

[sardak]

oldoberon-
Two separate boxes. Here is a link to the photo of the Asiana 777 CVR and DFDR next to each other in the NTSB lab. They look similar but note the size difference of the "box," while the cylinder with the memory cards and ULB appear to be identical https://twitter.com/NTSB/status/353891249230585856
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BOlGN1gCIAA6Vvl.jpg)

[hamster3null]

It apparently ended up in the least accessible area it could reach with the fuel on board

I'd dispute this conclusion.

If you take a map and draw a circle with the radius of 2500 nm centered in Kuala Lumpur, at least a third of the circle would be comparable to the current search area in terms of inaccessibility. One could even ditch it in the Mariana Trench (and good luck retrieving the wreckage from the depth of 36,000'...)

Inaccessible areas don't have to be in the ocean, either: ASN Aircraft accident Antonov 12BP BL534 Dhaka Glacier (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19680207-1)

[Coagie]

Decreasing the ULB transmitted signal’s frequency. The attenuation losses induced by the Underwater Acoustic Channel (UAC) are highly dependent on frequency, and increase proportionally to its cube. Hence, reducing the current 37.5 kHz to a reasonable 10 kHz has the potential to greatly enhance the maximum depth and range for which the ULB signal can be detected. The downside of this solution is that the physical size of the beacon would have to increase Just like on your stereo speakers, the tweeter handles the high frequencies and is physically smaller than the woofer that handles the lower frequencies. The physical size is certainly a factor, but I don't think it's a show stopper. You would also need a larger battery to handle the larger power needs of the lower frequency, but maybe, like was suggested in an earlier post, it could make up for some of the added power consumption by not sounding off as often.

[Flybrat]

On “good” authority we became aware early on the plan was for the captain to fly MH370 to Mongolia.


This would be close to the reciprocal of the heading of 197 deg M that Capt Kremin was suggesting in his post 7539.

[ferry pilot]

Reply to hamster3null

Diamantina Trench

[threemiles]

from 47 CFR 87.145
(d) Aircraft earth stations must correct their transmit frequencies for Doppler effect relative to the satellite. The transmitted signal may not deviate more than 335 Hz from the desired transmit frequency. (This is a root sum square error which assumes zero error for the received ground earth station signal and includes the AES transmit/receive frequency reference error and the AES automatic frequency control residual errors.) The applicant must attest that the equipment provides adequate Doppler effect compensation and where applicable, that measurements have been made that demonstrate compliance. Submission of data demonstrating compliance is not required unless requested by the Commission.

It seems this requirement was not fulfilled by the airplane's equipment. Tests with other MAS 777 airplanes during the first two werks seem to have shown evidence that all those airplanes had the same behaviour.

My assumption is that a satellite is just a very wideband transponder and plays no active role in analysing. I am surprised that raw data are recorded in the ground station that allow a retrospective doppler analysis to this degree. I would have expected that only data packets would be stored, albeit with a timestamp, channel information, maybe beam antenna employed. But retrieving such small amounts of frequency deviation as 100 Hz from 1600 MHz requires raw data be stored.

Assuming the Doppler effect can be modified by a person on board is pure bs, though.

[ferry pilot]

The pilot has an excellent personal and professional reputation, but was involved in politics that may have placed him in conflict with his employer.

[clayne]

The pilot has an excellent personal and professional reputation, but was involved in politics that may have placed him in conflict with his employer.

For as many problems as Malaysia has at the government level it is not a totalitarian or fascist state. It is extremely unlikely the captain is the only pilot on the MH roster who supports the "opposition." I'd also imagine there's plenty of time flying long haul for politics as a subject to be discussed and for that I'd speculate it's quite unlikely other pilots didn't know his leanings (just as he may have known theirs).

These discussions of who he supported, politically, need to stop. They show a real ignorance of politics in Malaysia and unnecessarily disparage a most likely dead pilot who's life was invested in flying airplanes.

[Passagiata]

Clayne:
These discussions of who he supported, politically, need to stop. They show a real ignorance of politics in Malaysia and unnecessarily disparage a most likely dead pilot who's life was invested in flying airplanes.

Hear hear. Moderate them out. Who knows what egregious quarter that sort of speculation is coming from, but it does everyday, politically engaged Malaysians (of whom I know a handful well, and have had collegiate conversations with dozens more) a great disservice.

[jugofpropwash]

These discussions of who he supported, politically, need to stop. They show a real ignorance of politics in Malaysia and unnecessarily disparage a most likely dead pilot who's life was invested in flying airplanes.

I think the pilot's politics are germane. Yes, he could have been making some sort of statement - but on the other hand, it's been widely reported that the opposition leader was found guilty on trumped up charges. If true, then the government might be more than willing to pin the disappearance of a plane on one of his supporters, even if the pilot is totally innocent. The political angle works both ways, but I do think it's something that needs to be taken under consideration.

[ferry pilot]

There seems to be little support for a pilot directed disappearance of this airplane and perhaps that is not surprising. A crime, unlike an accident, is
not open to public speculation and conjecture, litigation being a serious and effective deterrent. That fact may however, discourage the open discussion by those best qualified to determine the cause of this most perplexing of aviation disasters. There is a reason this happened, and people who know what that reason is. They are pilots, aviation professionals, and investigators
who follow this forum, and should by now have been heard from.

[Green Guard]

BBG
The reason one switches to standby before changing the code

if you read rules and regs ...no transponder should ever be switched to standby in flight UNLESS you are asked so by ATC

[JoeBloggs2]

It has been discussed in round about terms since very early in the thread. I suspect many people have reached similar points of view but you need to focus on the specifics without going into the geopolitical aspects or you get moderated tout suite.

The main objection I have is incapacitating the passengers to a point where no attempt is made over the next 6 hours to regain control. Which logically should have resulted in either a crash well before 08:11 or a diversion towards the West Australian coastline...

People have suggested hypoxia/ hypothermia but having just reread the Helios crash report where the FA with the CPL was seen entering the cockpit 1 ~ 2 hours after the loss of communications, I am still not 100% sold

[mseyfang]

The pilot has an excellent personal and professional reputation, but was involved in politics that may have placed him in conflict with his employer.


And there are pilots are in direct conflict with their employers through involvement in their unions, which can at times be quite acrimonious. I've never heard of a case where those conflicts have led to a deliberate accident. So your point is?

Absent evidence to the contrary, this kind of implicit allegation is close to libel.

There are plenty of pilots with passionate political views. I have yet to learn of an accident deliberately caused to make a political point. If this one is the exception, I'm open to that possibility provided that there is actual evidence to back it up. The US FBI has analyzed Captain Zaharie's computers and has not found anything suspicious. Time to stop beating this dead horse unless something incriminating turns up, particularly in view of the fact that the man is not around to defend himself.

[ekw]

Absent evidence to the contrary, this kind of implicit allegation is close to libel

There is no liability for defamation of the deceased. At least not in English Common Law. Whether comments are in good taste is another matter. But the constant refrain from some pilots to stop speculation on this line of enquiry is just silly. You cannot ignore that which is staring you in the face. I will not repeat the arguments which have been made hundreds of times on this forum, but if this was a deliberate act, whoever did it went out of their way to make it very difficult ever to be found. Without that unexpected 'ping' we would still be looking in the South China Sea, and the sleepy heads in the RMAF may never have been caught napping. Incidentally, some have assumed that the RMAF Air Defence Radar is antiquated. That is not true. The Kuantan and Butterworth stations were upgraded in 2005 at a cost of RM$43 million. Since the same contractor provides SSR for ATC I would be surprised if they did not have he ability to track civil aircraft on transponders or notice when one went covert. Their buzzers must have been turned down too.

[buttmonkey1]

What is the Malaysian navy / air force contributing to the search,
they seem have a range of vessels including hydrographic, mine sweepers and submarines that could be out looking.
I don't see one Malaysian asset actively involved on the list.

[ampclamp]

Buttmonkey, 2 Herc's from the RMAF have arrived in WA. Tardy yes, but at least contributing.

[UnreliableSource]

Buttmonkey, 2 Herc's from the RMAF have arrived in WA. Tardy yes, but at least contributing.

Not tardy at all.

Look, the overall search has different areas of possibility. The possibility of a crash closer to Malaysia has been declining, but was not zero.

Malaysian assets have been used closer to Malaysia.

[InfrequentFlier511]

It would be ironic if, as a protest against a government's alleged assault on democracy, an individual were to deprive a couple of hundred others of their democratic right to self-determination. It would be an empty gesture too, unless a statement was made to explain the reason for the person's actions. It seems there was no such statement made, publicly or privately. No doubt, if there *had* been such a statement, the government would not be reticent about revealing its existence, if not its content.


If we are to continue to explore the possibility of pilot suicide, it should be considered that Islam (I think Capt Zaharie is Muslim, we have already heard from the Imam at FO Fariq's mosque) takes the same dim view of suicide as does Christianity. A devout Muslim would consider it a crime against Allah, just as a devout Christian would consider it a crime against God. Of course both religions also take a pretty dim view of the slaughter of innocents. This both makes pilot suicide seem less likely, and perhaps explains why a suicidal pilot might choose to engineer an unexplained disappearance over a straightforward plunge into the South China Sea. Of course a suicidal B777 pilot could probably have borrowed or hired a light aircraft and done the deed with far less questions and without the loss of his passengers, colleagues and friends - assuming it was premeditated.

[JamesGV]

Pontius

I think that "everything" is on the list of probable cause at the moment, however abhorrent some of them may be.

The Malaysian authorities have used the term "manual intervention" in respect to the deactivation of the transponder. That is what they have stated.

If they are correct (and "we" do not know), the reason for that alleged "intervention" is unknown. As is the person or persons responsible, their technical knowledge and background(s) or their motivation.

[highcirrus]

InfrequentFlier511

Are/were not the legions of islamist suicide bombers which now plague the world also devout muslims and do/did they consider their plans/actions as crimes against Allah? Perhaps they consider/have been told that they have dispensation?

[Flightmech]

FedEx 705? That was a mix of employee conflict and personal issues. No fatalities but easily could have ended up that way.

[Airbubba]

If we are to continue to explore the possibility of pilot suicide, it should be considered that Islam (I think Capt Zaharie is Muslim, we have already heard from the Imam at FO Fariq's mosque) takes the same dim view of suicide as does Christianity. A devout Muslim would consider it a crime against Allah, just as a devout Christian would consider it a crime against God. Of course both religions also take a pretty dim view of the slaughter of innocents.

And earlier posts here suggested that MH 370 couldn't be a hijacking since Malaysia is a Muslim country. Many airlines in Muslim countries have been hijacked in years past, just ask some of the Ozmates who have worked overseas.

I believe Egyptair 990 and the 9-11 attacks kinda blew away the theory that Muslims wouldn't commit suicide and take others, thousands in the 9-11 attacks, with them. Somehow the 'slaughter of innocents' clause didn't seem to apply in 1999 and 2001.

I can see your point though that the dim societal view of suicide might be an incentive to engineer a mysterious disappearance.

[multycpl]

Has the climb to 45'000 now been discounted ????

[BWV 988]

We're looking at residuals of a process performed by an unknown device with the intention of bringing these residuals to zero. It's pure luck that we didn't get random noise!

Inmarsat has deduced a trend which is supposedly significant enough to distinguish between north and south. Speed/course determination would appear more uncertain now, especially if data logging isn't lossless. Relative changes, however, might still hold some information.

[onetrack]

I've said it before and I'll say it again - there is nothing in Capt Zahari's 33-yr work history with MAS that represents even the slightest misbehaviour of any kind.
The CEO of MAS has stated his work record and performance was utterly faultless.

To state unequivocally that the Capt suddenly turned into a mass-murdering hijacker with a terrorist streak, after 33 yrs of airline loyalty and job performance that could not be faulted, is an affront to all right-thinking people.

I trust those who suggest this scenario are well-prepared to issue an abject apology when the truth is finally discovered.
As I have also previously stated, physics rule in flight, the same as in every other field.

Man-made equipment breaks and suffers maladies that combine to cause unplanned destruction, despite the best efforts of thousands of brilliant designers and numerous redundant systems. When that happens, aircraft obey the laws of gravity.

There are any number of scenarios that could have combined to end up with the aircraft following the unplanned flight path that it did.
Until we have some evidence of exactly what happened, please refrain from impugning the memory and actions of a talented and quite possibly, totally innocent man.

[Blake777]

If it is true that a person or persons unknown has masterminded the disappearance of this plane, then (a) we don't yet know who that person is and (b) they will not have been in a sane mind by all normal standards. That's about all that can be said of that eventuality and therefore better to leave criminal and forensic investigators to do their job if and when the time comes. Trying to understand motives or reasons at this stage is somewhat pointless.

Without wreckage authorities are struggling to say more than that they believe the flight was deliberately diverted. Let's leave it at that until more evidence gathers.

[Airbubba]

US Navy P8 turning back to Perth

Don't think so. It looks like the inbound and outbound tracks are joined on Plane Finder at the point where the ADS-B signal is lost either direction.

Similar plots occur for VH-OCV and VH-TGG for today's search.

Indeed. The moderators need to get that nasty speculation off this thread the minute it's trolled. Time enough for discussion after the fact, if such is established. In the meantime - respect and a presumption of innocence please, unless you're adding new info!

I suggest we need less political correctness here, not more.

When was the last time a Boeing pilot tried to hijack his own aircraft? :confused:

About six weeks ago:

Co-pilot hijacks Ethiopian Airlines, flies to Geneva for asylum - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/17/world/europe/ethiopian-airlines-hijacking/)

A few of us are actually pilots you know.

Pilot involvement certainly seems no less probable than some of the other theories bandied about. I hope it is not the case. But it definitely appears to me to be a possibility.

[clayne]

He's been with the airline for 30+ years, 18k+ hours, and dedicated his life to aviation. If there's anything stable in his life it would be that - and I seriously extremely doubt he would threaten it.

[Rob21]

What I understood about pings is that the trajectory arc is based on supposed speed and possible fuel range. Since the "handshake" received by Inmarsat means "engine still running", could it be possible the airplane landed somewhere within the arc and kept the engines running for 7 hours to make people think the airplane flew until fuel starvation?

From a ping we can only find the distance (angle) from the satellite. With a "handshake" is not possible to determine if the airplane is moving, or not.

Am I wrong?

[Airbubba]

He's been with the airline for 30+ years, 18k+ hours, and dedicated his life to aviation. If there's anything stable in his life it would be that - and I seriously extremely doubt he would threaten it.

It might seem unlikely that one of the pilots would fly the plane for hours in the wrong direction. But it also seems incredible that the plane would turn itself around, kill all the radios and head for the great abyss on autopilot no matter what the failure mode. The theories advanced so far for an emergency divert followed by crew and pax incapacitation are no less convoluted than many hijack scenarios in my view.

The captain did have a couple of significant events in the days leading up to the flight with his wife and kids moving out and his political hero being sent back to prison for sodomy.

MH 370 in the Indian Ocean is kinda like that turtle on a fencepost. You know it didn't get there by itself.

[highcirrus]

Stirrings in SE Asia seem to suggest that the Malaysian Government's tardiness in getting information out, plus obfuscation of events/retraction of previously reported facts might have something to do with the following (conspiracy, rather than cock-up) theory:

Captain plus other crew member(s) were avid supporters of Anwar Ibrahim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_Ibrahim), yet again consigned to jail on (fake) sodomy charges by the UMNO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Malaysia) regime which he aims to overthrow, and had hijacked MH 370 to hold as airborne hostage against his release, following which event, a safe landing would then have been made.

On turn-back from the Malaysian/Vietnamese FIR/UIR boundary, a period of subsequent VHF negotiations (on Company frequency) between the crew and Government representatives, for Anwar's release, proved fruitless. Net result, captain plus complicit crew eventually turned south (as it turned out, tracked by the INMARSAT "pings") and flew the aircraft into the ocean (somewhat short of the first calculated search area).

Do we have a strong rational and motive here? Ideas please.

PS. I'm very familiar with SE Asian politics, I've lived and worked in Asia/SE Asia for the past twenty years and I'm a long time air transport professional with plenty of time on the 777 and the regional/international routes originating from the area - so please, no ignorant shoot-downs from Flight Sim operators, I'd like some serious response.

[1a sound asleep]

highcirrus - I agree it is totally plausible and the opportunity was even more available with the most inexperienced FO you could have dreamed for. It certainly explains the silence during the first few days of denial about the turn back

PS I think you would have had to spend some time in Malaysia to understand the dynamics of politics there. Without this insight it may be very hard for others to see the reality. Making the hugest sacrifice for the bettering of one's countrymen

[nh1200c]

500N - well, it may just be me, but I read the press release exactly as it's being reported by the media that you cite.

I believe the Orion IS en-route to the probable location of the ELT activation. The "if required" clause, I think, applies to "render assistance", not "fly to the area".

If they hadn't have already dispatched the Orion to fly south, there wouldn't be any requirement to bring in another civil jet to replace the Orion.

I think it's the press release that had a bit of ambiguity in the writing, and the media folks might have clarified the actual operation before they wrote anything.

However, I sure might be wrong here, just a thought.

[JamesGV]

What IS interesting about the Chris McLaughlin, senior vice-president for external affairs at Inmarsat interview is that....

.....once the "ping data" (and the subsequent "arc") had been established and released to the Malaysian authorities, they (Inmarsat) began work to analyse their data.

When the boffins emerged, they had established that the direction of travel could be determined (by using the Doppler effect).
This data they also released to the Malaysians.

The next day (!) Inmarsat released this information to the AAIB.
It appears that only then did the Malaysians act (no doubt with a "guiding hand" from the AAIB) on this data.
The "Southern route".

I am not saying that the Malaysian authorities were "unwilling" to act, they were no doubt dealing with an unprecedented work load and data overload. But you'd think, "further data" from the private company that had given you the biggest lead you had gained thus far....would "kinda" be important.