Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost

[Triskelle]

Just supposing there was a reasonably controlled descent to the sea surface then sinking (as suggested by the incomplete final ping) there might be little or no debris field, no ELT activation and the FRD/CVRs, if triggered at all, might be still inside the fuselage - the aircraft could be reasonably intact on the seabed somewhere close to the last partial-ping?

[glenbrook]

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.


A pilot with marriage problems and strong views on politics, well blow me down.
But a pilot who murders his passengers and hides the plane where it can't be found? Is that likely?

I am not saying it is impossible, but the fact that his wife left him is not really evidence that he is to blame. I just don't think it is justified add A + B and get C like this, otherwise I am never getting in an aircraft again.

Assuming this was deliberate act, then it seems to me at just as plausible that there was a motivated yet competent lunatic amongst the passengers who worked out some way to get control of the flight deck. You don't need 18,000 hours experience to fly a plane into the sea for instance.

[SLFgeek]

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.
Indeed. The only hard evidence we have to go on, after 3 weeks of analysis, is the brief PSR returns and a small number of satellite handshakes as provided by INMARSAT.

The satellite handshakes are believed to show the aircraft heading south. There are also a small number of handshakes that are not keeping with the hourly keep-alive inquiry. One of those is the partial one (the last communication with the satellite) plus several at the incident time (aka the FIR boundary over the Gulf of Thailand).

Several commenters have wondered aloud about that last partial handshake. One comment (several hundred comments back, concerning the full sim run with fuel starvation) suggested that failed electric was briefly/partially restored when the RAT deployed. This may be connected with the partial handshake at the end of flight.

That leaves us with the several unscheduled handshakes at the incident time. Could it be that those were also due to loss of power, and then a resumption of power to the SATCOM ? If something catastrophic happened to the power bus(es), over the Gulf of Thailand, the pilots may have found themselves with an extraordinary unexpected workload. Several of the failed comms systems have been described as "can only be disabled via the CBs". Too many circuit protection devices tripping simultaneously ?

One possible scenario that does not involve malice on the part of the flight deck crew, nor any of the passengers.

[averow]

Very intriguing theory, but it does beg the question that if such a
discussion took place on a company frequency would it not be then easily
overheard and then disseminated or leaked by other company personnel
or amateur enthusiasts ? I occasionally listen in to chatter on the local
approach frequencies at home. Are company frequencies somehow deliberately
scrambled or kept anonymous for commercial or proprietary reasons ?

[Hyperveloce]

Hi there.
The more I am trying to understand the D2 doppler (plane->satellite doppler, not compensed and measured by the ground stations) profile presented by the AAIB, the more I get confused. Maybe some tech guys here can help.
I understand that this D2 doppler is the plane-satellite relative speed (the 3D vector Vplane-Vsat) projected (using a dot product) onto the line of sight, the 3D vector POSplane-POSsat. This is also the 1st order derivative of the range between the plane and the satellite.
The Inmarsat satellite in geostationary orbit is moving (in the earth referential) with a Vz speed, I have modelled the Inmarsat satellite trajectory using (the sat. parameter are derived using the AGI Satellite Toolkit or STK):
Duncan Steel | Space Scientist, Author & Broadcaster (http://www.duncansteel.com/)
As I modelled it, the max Vz speed of the Inmarsat satellite (65 m/s) is far lower than the plane speed (235 m/s), so that the plane's heading changes are primarily shaping the D2 doppler graph.
I have also modelled the plane trajectory (but with a constant altitude) in spherical coordinates with the varied heading changes.
I get a D2 doppler which can be either positive (the plane is moving away from the satellite) or negative (a closing speed meaning the plane is moving closer to the satellite). For exemple on the 1st protion of the trajectory (heading toward Beijing), my D2 doppler is positive, and just after the large heading change toward the south, my doppler is negative (plane coming closer to the satellite). Another point: the magnitude of my doppler (from -750 Hz to 750 Hz) cannot compare with the presented D2 doppler (between 100 and 275 Hz). :ugh:
My resultats are there:
https://imageshack.com/i/eun1u9p
https://imageshack.com/i/jjxqdup

[JamesGV]

Pontius....

Oh I'd agree with your reply ....BUT for the issue that they had already released the previous information (the Arc) that this "mere slip of a company" had provided to them with.

There's the rub !

Why act "so slowly" on the direction information.

[highcirrus]

averow

--- it does beg the question that if such a discussion took place on a company frequency would it not be then easily overheard and then disseminated or leaked by other company personnel or amateur enthusiasts ?

Yes, such a discussion could be easily overheard and then, in theory, disseminated or leaked by other company personnel. However, we are not looking at a "western situation" here. In this part of the world, dissemination is easily and routinely curtailed and I'm not too sure that "air band" radio receivers are widely available to and used by, the general public, especially in the small hours of the night.

Are company frequencies somehow deliberately scrambled or kept anonymous for commercial or proprietary reasons ?

No, not as far as I am aware.

[Hyperveloce]

There is more confusion about that: Doppler effect is compensated. Only Inmarsat knows in fact how, so any hypothesis based on these data is speculated.


The AAIB presentation (annex 1) gives some idea about what is compensated / measured or not I think ?
http://www.mot.gov.my/en/Newsroom/Press%20Release/Year%202014/Information%20Provided%20To%20MH370%20Investigation%20by%20U K%20Air%20Accidents%20Investigation%20Branch%20%28AAIB%29.pd f
It seems that the D2 doppler is the plane to satellite doppler contribution.
But you are right, either there is a problem with this D2 definition or measurement, or I have to go back to my trigonometry course (but that the plane can be either closing to the satellite or going away from it depending on the portion of its trajectory seems obvious).
Thanks for the tech. spec. for the max Hz/s tracking (I can introduce it in my little sim).

[OleOle]

I understand that this D2 doppler is the plane-satellite relative speed (the 3D vector Vplane-Vsat) projected (using a dot product) onto the line of sight, the 3D vector POSplane-POSsat.

Vplane causes the doppler shift D1. As you state correctly D1 is in the order of ~750Hz. That would probably be too much because it would interfere with adjacent frequency channels. That is why big parts of D1 are taken out of the equation by some preemptive compensation the plane's transceiver does. How exactly this compensation works is not yet understood by the general public, but (hopefully) by the inmarsat engineers.

[JamesGV]

Pontius

Did they have confidence in the data ?

I can only assume they "bought into" the initial findings.
They even went public with them.

However the "direction" findings ? The Doppler effect ?
I wonder if the "bought into" that.

Do they buy into that now ?
The Acting Minister for Transport has since "given hope" to the relatives with his recent "hotel lobby statement".
And "who knows what" their thoughts are in private.

[Shadoko]

@Hyperveloce, AndRand and OleOle

As probably many others, I tried to make some maths, just to see if I have understood anything about those Inmarsat conclusions. It is relativly simple maths because we have the sat data trajectory using Internet data (LIVE REAL TIME SATELLITE TRACKING AND PREDICTIONS: INMARSAT 3-F1 (http://www.n2yo.com/?s=23839)) and softwares to extract 3D position of the sat. Also, finding 3D a/c positions along suppose path is easy. And thus, finding approximated distance between them for example every minute is not complicated. So, a very good approximation of the relative speed by "derivating" for each minute.
And what I found is, as you say, very far from what is in THE chart, about a 5 times factor. And also neg values, that are very logical when the a/c was flying west. So, what?
Perhaps the Inmarsat data show only a delta (absolute value)?
Threemiles post last night these data: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-440.html#post8409275 probably from this page: Acceptability of transmitters for licensing. (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title47-vol5/xml/CFR-2010-title47-vol5-sec87-145.xml)
If the "335Hz" max value was applied, could we have to substract a constant, say 200Hz?

[Datayq1]

From the AAIB data there were 13 transmissions that were analyzed (did not include last "partial").
Four of those thirteen were prior to 1710 (UTC) and presumably were expected transmissions.
From that time forward the (approximate) intervals between transmissions are:
78 minutes,
2 minutes,
2 minutes,
70 minutes
60 minutes
60 minutes
60 minutes
31 minutes
followed by the "partial" 8 minutes later.

Can anything be deduced from the inconsistant time intervals, particularily contacts 6,7,8 (at approximately 18:25, 18:28 and 18:30 (UTC)?

[orbit12]

It has not been made public what was said to the captain from a disposable cell phone before his flight took off. The phone was purchased by a woman using a fake ID. maybe she was breaking things off or the affair had been discovered by her husband. we just don't know.


If his girlfriend were married, they both could face punishment in malaysia;
caning for her.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2010/0218/Malaysia-begins-caning-women-for-adultery


possible 2 year imprisonment and fine for him.

Section 498 Penal Code:
“Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows, or has reason to believe, to be the wife of any other man, from that man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals, or detains with that intent any such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”



Zaharie had just come from his friend's trial where he saw that the democratic leader had his appeal overturned.

he had been distant with his wife and children for weeks leading up to the flight.

a few days ago, i had heard the theory that highcirrus posted above . it could have happened.

it's possible Zaharie snapped.

[sky9]

Doppler Data.

1 If power is off an aircraft on the ground does the aircraft ACARS ping when power is turned on or does it wait until INMARSAT interrogates it?

2 I'm not familiar with the T7, but flew the 763. Does the apu autostart if there is a complete loss of electrical power on the busses.

3What's the location of the fuel feed for the APU in relation to the Engine feed. Is it likely that that APU would find fuel other than in the fuel line if the engine feeding from that tank shuts down due to fuel starvation.

4 If there is a total AC electrical failure the aircraft will have battery power. What bus is the ACARS receiver powered from? In other words when a 777 is on 30mins (?) of battery power is the ACARS still functioning in its basic mode?

[SwattingFlies]

Fact: There was no mysterious phone call from an illegal phone. Malaysian investigators are on record denying this report.

Fact: Zaharie Ahmad Shah was as political as the average American who believes strongly in a candidate and who volunteers as a canvasser or as a get out the vote activist. In other words, his politics and his involvement were as mainstream plain vanilla as it gets in a country where opposition is fairly to very difficult to undertake.

Fact: The opposition leader who was once again convicted that day was also released on bail. There was nothing unexpected in the verdict. It was the second or third time the ruling party had effectively taken out this leader via the court system. Zaharie Ahmad Shah may well have been angry. But surprised? No. Pushed to a breaking point? Ridiculous.

Fact: Shah's children are grown up. His wife did not leave him " taking the children."

Fact: The FBI has said no files were deleted on Shah's simulator. Some Some files were overwritten by the system. Nothing even slightly out of order was found in his computer files either.

Not a fact: Shah's marital status. Only rumors are out there. His wife typically left when he was away flying.

Fact: She does not believe he committed suicide. Neither do his "children" believe this.

I come to this board to read factual reasoning of what might or might not happened. If you're discussing pilot culpability please at least keep to the facts.

[Datayq1]

Pontius wrote:
What we do not know is the norm for handshakes.


Information Provided by AAIB (UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch):
If the ground station has not heard from an aircraft for a hour it (the ground station) will transmit a "logon /log off" message sometimes referred to as a ping, using the aircraft's unique identifier"

From the AAIB report there were satcom transmissions at 16:30, 16:40 and 16:55 (approximate UTC) that would be consistant with 'push back, wheels up, and FL100, the next satcom was at 1707 (cruise alt).

I was given to believe that ACARS transmissions were routed (automatically) to VHF, and failing that Satcom was used. If the AAIB data is correct, then it implies that Satcom transmits "something" when ACARS is transmitting via VHF. (otherwise there would be no doppler analysis of the first four transmissions).

[Zionstrat2]

This may have been covered at some point however it seems likely that satellite photos, experience, and powerful analytics should work well together and I wonder if anyone has knowledge?

There should be thousands of satellite photos of sea junk in the 40s with good documentation of local weather. For other purposes I would imagine that organizations interested in oceans would have developed an algorithm that looks for relationships in this data and should develop relatively distinctive snapshots from these combinations.

Lots of junk with 10 foot waves and clouds with sun 20 degrees above horizon looks very different from no junk with sun overhead etc. Feed in enough data and it would cover practically any combination.

Then you run images of a week old aviation crash, sunk ship or other specific event and it seems likely that the profile would be significantly different. The algorithm would effectively say "haven't seen anything like that before under random circumstances. ''

The reason I ask is that we do similar process with business and finance data and law seem to be doing similar things with gang groupings.

It seems logical that shipping opperations, environmental, science types would have ocean models as I have described.

If so is it possible that no one has thought of this approach or am I missing something obvious?

[MountainBear]

Now these handshakes were obviously initiated by the aircraft; what conditions determine when it will seek to connect with the satellite?

Has that been established? The last time I looked at this thread last week I thought there was agreement that the satellite initiated the handshake.

As for the two minute intervals that looks superficially like data corruption. 30, 60, 90, 120 seconds are standard intervals for wait times if the connection is not satisfactory. E.,g. Try the connection, if it doesn't work, wait 120 seconds, try again.

[bono]

The search for missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 could take years, a United States naval officer suggested today, as search and rescue officials raced to locate the plane's black box recorder days before its batteries are set to die.

Australia Establishes Search and Investigation Protocol

Australia, which is coordinating the search in the southern Indian Ocean, said it had established a new body to oversee the investigation and issued countries involved in the search a set of protocols to abide by should any wreckage be found.
This week, Australia issued a set of rules and guidelines to all parties involved in the search, giving Malaysia authority over the investigation of any debris to be conducted on Australian soil, a spokesman at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade told Reuters.
"Australia intends to bring the wreckage ashore at Perth and hold it securely for the purposes of the Malaysian investigation," the spokesman said.

https://my.news.yahoo.com/search-mh370-could-years-says-us-naval-officer-074140872.html

This is beginning to look like a long long operation. There is obviously no detectable debris on the ocean surface and the only way to go ahead is the long haul ocean floor sonar scanning which could take years.

[Leightman 957]

There is an unhelpful continuing confusion between intention as a cause for the disappearance, and pilot intention. MH370’s disappearance was either unintentional or intentional. Unintentional causes are being covered. General intention does not impute pilot cooperation, though it could. Hypothesizing pilot involvement does not cast aspersions on all other pilots any more than the good reputation of all pilots ensures the performance or behavior of any single pilot at all times. Nor does it necessarily suggest the pilot acted in an antisocial or violent way, which is no small point. Posters irately suggesting that moderators remove any posts that suggest pilot involvement are not distinguishing between some general intention and pilot involvement, and are wrong to try to impede ideas which may prove true and useful in as yet unrecognized ways. While life history and societal norms are strong circumstantial evidence, there are probably a thousand possibilities why a good person might take a completely unanticipated action for the greater good as he saw it in the moment, or a greater good as described to him by others to whom he ascribes authority or high regard who may have hidden agendas, or for many other reasons. In fact, acting "under authority" or within a chain of command but against personal opinion or judgment is usually recognized as exemplary behavior. Both pilots demonstrate a solid and predictable history but no one yet knows what led to MH370’s disappearance. There is no shred of evidence excluding general intention as the cause, or excluding intentional misdirection. If one wanted to lose an airliner there would be few better places to travel near or aim for than the Ninety East Ridge and the Diamantina Trench. There is nothing wrong with asking why someone would want an airliner to disappear. Asking this question directly confronts why this might have happened.

[MountainBear]

@dataq1 post #8850

Can anything be deduced from the inconsistant time intervalsIf the ground station initiates the ping then the inconsistent time intervals indicate some issue with the ground station, not with the plane. The question why would SW that is supposed to ping every sixty minutes not do so. The most obvious possibility is that the pings are low priority. So if the ground station is busy handling other traffic then it is waiting until it has free CPU cycles to send the ping.

78 minutes...late because CPU is overloaded
2 minutes...got corrupted data, retry
2 minutes..got corrupted data, retry
70 minutes...late because cpu is overloaded
60 minutes....on schedule
60 minutes....on schedule
60 minutes....on schedule
31 minutes...????

(note that the above is pure speculation on my part)

So it's the last one that puzzles me. I can't think of a good reason off the top of my head why the ground station would be 29 minutes early.

[Jilted]

On Mar 30th 2014 AMSA reported that an emergency signal received from a fishing vessel about 3300km/1780nm southwest of Perth needed to be addressed, two aircraft thought to participate in the search for MH-370 were tasked to respond to the fishing vessel - as only debris was located at the point of the signal, the search for the vessel is going to continue on Mar 31st. The remaining 9 aircraft and now 8 ships continued to scan the northern search area west of Perth, aircraft reported new sightings. The objects retrieved from the ocean yesterday have been described as "fishing equipment and other floatsam" unrelated to MH-370.
Apparently at least some objects have been examined.

[Jilted]

It's not that he said "goodnight" that's odd, it's that he didn't readback the frequency. For some unknown reason MAS has never released the preceding few transmissions leading to the last transmission causing all this speculation. He may, in fact, have read back the handoff and ATC replied with "have a good flight" or "see you at the party tomorrow night".

[RichManJoe]

IMO, this is how the protocol works.

ACARS <-> A/C Terminal <-> INMARSAT Satellite <-> INMARSAT Ground Station

Typically messages go between ACARS and the INMARSAT ground station (GS) and, even though the messages pass through the the aircraft terminal and the satellite, these are invisible, just like when you talk on cell phone, the terminal in you phone, the tower and network are (hopefully) invisible to you.

When ACARS is off or when the aircraft doesn't have anything to send for a long period, the aircraft terminal and the ground station stay in contact so that the INMARSAT system can keep track of who is in its communication environment and who is not. This is done by the the GS querying the terminal once an hour. The GS sends a message to the INMARSAT satellite, which generates a "ping" to the terminal. If the terminal can hear the satellite, it responds with a simple message saying yes, I am still here. If there is no reply, then the INMARSAT GS probably eventually logs the terminal off and stops polling - we have not been made privilege to this - just speculating on this, having developed other satellite protocols. This is also why you shouldn't carry your cell phone in your pocket, right next to your jewels.

Now, the terminal also may have a timer which says if I don't hear from the satellite in a certain time (longer than the 1 hour above) then it may send a message to the satellite saying hey, I am still here. If it doesn't get a reply, then it possibly tries to connect to other INMARSAT satellites. We haven't been made privi to this part of the protocol either.

If the terminal is powered up or reset, it would probably try to initiate a connection to an INMARSAT satellite / GS. IMO, this is what I think the final ping is. If it was, did the GS / satellite try to handshake back with the terminal - if it did, then maybe it is possible to determine the final location and doppler.

[Squawk_ident]

Jilted
For some unknown reason MAS has never released the preceding few transmissions leading to the last transmission causing all this speculation
MAS is an airline not the NTSB/AAIB/BEA. It is to the official state agency in charge of the aircraft accident branch to release such informations. This official state agency asks the agency in charge of the ATC to give them the transcript for a possible, or not, later public publication. This is an ATC communications not OPS ones. And we are still waiting. In the AFR447 case, transcripts were published by the Brazilian authorities rather quickly and, in this case, nothing yet.

[vapilot2004]

Mr. Sky,

Doppler Data.

1 If power is off an aircraft on the ground does the aircraft ACARS ping when power is turned on or does it wait until INMARSAT interrogates it?

Power up sequence would have SATCOM waking up and sending an initiating "I'm here" logon message. This is also true in the case of a temporary loss and subsequent recovery of the Left Main AC bus.

2 I'm not familiar with the T7, but flew the 763. Does the apu autostart if there is a complete loss of electrical power on the busses.

It does upon loss of both AC transfer busses.

3What's the location of the fuel feed for the APU in relation to the Engine feed. Is it likely that that APU would find fuel other than in the fuel line if the engine feeding from that tank shuts down due to fuel starvation.

According to our guy in coveralls, the DC APU pump suction port is located within a few yards of the aft main AC boost pump inlet. The DC APU pump housing is located in the center tank, but the inlet is in the left main tank. If there is pressure on the left engine fuel manifold, the DC pump does not run and the left main boost pumps are the source(s) of fuel pressure for the APU.

4 If there is a total AC electrical failure the aircraft will have battery power. What bus is the ACARS receiver powered from? In other words when a 777 is on 30mins (?) of battery power is the ACARS still functioning in its basic mode?

There is no dedicated ACARS "receiver", however the VHF radios provide a primary means of communication and are powered by DC busses. ACARS is an integrated sub-function of the dual AIMS, which is also DC powered. (I covered this function earlier.) Provided there is no DC bus fault, the AIMS, Comms radios, and ACARS would be up and running despite a loss of AC power. Naturally, any data inputs from equipment that relies on AC power would go quiet.

Total loss of AC power would be a very unusual event on this aircraft, barring fuel starvation. There are a total of 5 high-capacity AC generators on the aircraft, 4 engine mounted and one 120kva unit in the APU.

[Christoph1945]

Pontius,


Many thanks for your swift and informative reply.


Wondering about press reports, I stuck me head in the recycle bin and recovered several of last weeks newspapers. The Daily Mail for Thursday, March, 27th stated that MH370 was tracked by military radar and was shown to make a sharp turn to the west ( away from it's north easterly course ) and started flying as high as 45,000ft and as low as 12,oooft before contact with it was lost. Would 45,000 feet be above the normal operational height for this aircraft?

[oldoberon]

Missing Malaysia Airlines plane: Australian aircraft spots four orange objects at sea

Read more: Missing Malaysia Airlines plane: Australian aircraft spots four orange objects at sea (http://www.smh.com.au/national/missing-malaysia-airlines-plane-australian-aircraft-spots-four-orange-objects-at-sea-20140331-35s9l.html#ixzz2xTuLvnUq)

[etudiant]

Many have commented that the MH370 thread is becoming unwieldy, despite the heroic efforts of the moderators.
Perhaps the moderators could ease the crush by setting up the first 10-30 or so comments as status reports, summarizing the state of discourse. That way, the few facts and the very useful technical contributions that are the meat of this discussion would be more easily available to all. The moderators could extend the utility of such a fixed input by highlighting open issues and maybe even FAQs.

[Evey_Hammond]

"An Australian military aircraft has spotted four orange objects at sea, more than two metres in size, which will be analysed by the Australian co-ordination centre for missing flight MH370"

For those with the knowledge, is there anything on the 777 that would match this description?

[bcpr]

Jilted:

For some unknown reason MAS has never released the preceding few transmissions leading to the last transmission causing all this speculation. He may, in fact, have read back the handoff and ATC replied with "have a good flight" or "see you at the party tomorrow night".

From:
Malaysia says there's sealed evidence on MH370 that cannot be made public (http://www.straitstimes.com/the-big-story/missing-mas-plane/story/malaysia-says-theres-sealed-evidence-mh370-cannot-be-made-publ)

BEIJING - A Malaysian team have told relatives of Chinese passengers on board the missing Malaysia Airlines (MAS) flight MH370 that there was sealed evidence that cannot be made public, as they came under fire from the angry relatives at a briefing on Wednesday.



The sealed evidence included air traffic control radio transcript, radar data and airport security recordings.

[olasek]

For those with the knowledge, is there anything on the 777 that would match this description?
According to some 777 pilot on CNN - not likely. All inflatable life rafts are yellow, pilot's life jackets are orange but the size is too large unless you clamp them together.

[RichManJoe]

Seabed of jet hunt zone mostly flat with one trench (Update) (http://phys.org/news/2014-03-seabed-jet-zone-flat-trench.html)

[etudiant]

It seems increasingly unlikely that any trace of this aircraft will ever be found.


In US terms, the current guidance is roughly this:
We think an aircraft has crashed about 1100 miles off the coast of California.
Please find the debris. We don't know that there are any afloat, but some may wash ashore, so check the West Coast and the sea bed.


Am I the only one to think this absurd?

[Lemain]

Had there been a credible threat of the a/c being used as a weapon in a populated area it would have been shot down by military. No question about it, post 911. After all, all souls on board would have been lost either way. I still hope, albeit less optimistically, that there are survivors and hope the search continues in earnest.

[Mesoman]

Had there been a credible threat of the a/c being used as a weapon in a populated area it would have been shot down by military. No question about it, post 911. After all, all souls on board would have been lost either way. I still hope, albeit less optimistically, that there are survivors and hope the search continues in earnest.

You are putting too much faith in the capabilities and alertness of the relevant militaries.

[HarryMann]

Of course it's just PURE SPECULATION but it fits the known facts as well as anything else. (And as well as many other scenarios)

No.. it doesn't fit the facts...
for one of flying along FIR borders.

[Datayq1]

MountainBear wrote:
As for the two minute intervals (in the doppler data) that looks superficially like data corruption. 30, 60, 90, 120 seconds are standard intervals for wait times if the connection is not satisfactory. E.,g. Try the connection, if it doesn't work, wait 120 seconds, try again.

Sounds logical, however how would/should/could the dopper shift be calculated if there was an incomplete or corrupted response from the a/c.
As I understand it these are very simple transmissions, as simple as:

Sat: "MH370?" (or other identifier)
A/C: "MH370"

Of the a/c response were corrupted, how could one tell that it was MH370 responding? If it were corrupted but identifiable as MH370, perhaps the doppler shift not be given the same weight as other uncorrupted responses.

I'm not suggesting that you are incorrect, rather just wondering about the validity of the shift data at 18:25 and 18:28 (if corrupt). If they were not included in the AAIB curve, it would certainly change the shape of that curves during the first couple of hours.

[oldoberon]

todays search area 31/3/14

https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/asset.amsa.gov.au/MH370+Day+14/Charts/2014_03_31_search_area_wide.pdf

[8/8ths Blue]

I want to go back a ways. If for some still unknown reason at the time of reaching the FIR boundary, everything went dark (on a moonless night to boot), what actual systems would the crew have available to them to work with?

And as far as all the ‘pings’ are concerned… does the RAT factor in here at all? Understand that it alone does not power Satcom, but what are the triggers for RAT auto activation /deployment?

Is it only fuel exhaustion (as seen in Gimpy Glider scenario)?

Also can the RAT be deployed manually… and is there a max airspeed/altitude either for initial deployment or continuous operation?

[vapilot2004]

I covered the 777 RAT a few pages ago. It deploys automatically after both AC transfer busses remain unpowered for 15 seconds. Can be deployed at the push of a button, yes.

Fuel exhaustion is one scenario that would trigger auto RAT deployment, that is to say a loss of AC power due to both engines spinning down and no APU start. Not a 777 driver, mind you, but you'll find the information above to be accurate from a maintenance engineer's point of view.

[harrryw]

Many people seem to consider the mobile phone being unidentified is suspicious. As someone who lives in Asia I can say that most of the phones here are of the same type. A sim card is bought at a 7/11 or any corner shop. It is prepaid and can be topped up. Postpaid phoness are a much more complicated process as they involve credit checks etc.
In theory ID is needed to buy a phone but almost without exception the clerk at 7/11 will make an error in transcribing the ID munber. This may of course be an accident but it happens so often that I think an understanding of privacy needs is assumed or a dislike of being regimented.
As it is so easy to get a phone number may change them often. In fact last week I left my phone home and had to buy a sim myself so I could use other people's phones to ring home. It took me one minute.

[Shadoko]

If they were not included in the AAIB curve, it would certainly change the shape of that curves during the first couple of hours.
In fact, there is NO curve for the pings retrieved, just dots. For the "predicted" data, as the are from maths, ok to publish curves. But joining the data by a line between true pings it is (IMHO) way too far. Look at the charts (blue dots have been made bigger on the chart without the lines just for better looking):
http://i55.servimg.com/u/f55/14/14/01/64/burst_10.jpg
Just to show the limit of these data. The chart are respectively from http://www.straitstimes.com/sites/straitstimes.com/files/20140325/graphe.jpg and from Excel by using the values deduced from the first chart (and thus not perfectly the same).

[oldoberon]

AMSA News ‏@AMSA_News 3m
HMAS Toowoomba has made best speed and has entered the search area for #MH370 after departing on Saturday afternoon.

[onetrack]

HMAS Toowoomba doesn't have the pinger locator nor the ROV - they're only leaving Perth later today on the Ocean Shield - and there have been repeated statements from AMSA that the pinger locator will
only be deployed, when confirmed wreckage is discovered.
I don't know if that attitude will alter when Ocean Shield reaches the search zone, and there's still no sign of confirmed wreckage. :(

[olasek]

But joining the data by a line between true pings it is (IMHO) way too far
If you don't like the connecting line - fine, but it doesn't change anything - the data points alone still point to much better fit for the southern route than northern.

[G0ULI]

The engine monitoring system sends messages via ACARS to Rolls Royce as and when certain parameters change in the engines. If ACARS is unavailable then the aircraft attempts to forward the data via the INMARSAT system. Malaysian Airways chose not to pay the subscription fee for the satellite service, although the aircraft satellite transponder remained active.

So the aircraft satellite transponder just sends an hourly data ping to the satellite confirming the system is there, similar to a mobile phone on standby or emergency calls only setting notifying the network of its availability and location.

The pings that appeared out of schedule were in all likelyhood a response to some change in the engine parameters. Because ACARS was unavailable, an attempt was made to transmit the data via INMARSAT. A ping was sent to establish communication. The satellite recognised that no paid subscription was in force, so the request for further data transmission was rejected.

Everything worked exactly as it was supposed to.

The final partial ping can be attributed to power being interrupted to the satellite transponder and it powering up and running a self test program that was interrupted by losing power again. Just like turning a mobile phone on and off again before it has finished initialising. A data burst is sent to the network saying 'I am here'.

It would be reasonable to assume that the final partial ping corresponds to the approximate time the engines stopped due to fuel exhaustion and power was lost to the electrical systems. The satellite transponder is not considered an essential system, so it would not run from the RAT generator if deployed.

Everything points to the system operating entirely normally including the out of sequence pings.

[imaynotbeperfect]

To quote G0ULI ..."The engine monitoring system sends messages via ACARS to Rolls Royce as and when certain parameters change in the engines."

I guess the protocol is proprietary to RR but do we actually know just what such a message would contain ? Is it just engine related or does it contain location / height information also ?

[ReadMyACARS]

Some of the B777 messages have lat/long and Alt in them and some do not. However the spatial data refers to where the engine snapshot was taken, not where it was transmitted. The messages sent back to RR would have been just off the runway to reflect take off power and possibly, not definitely, at a nominated height to reflect climb power.

If something had malfunctioned or there was an out of spec reading then this would have triggered a different report. A lot has been made of the ACARS system being off, but unless there was something wrong with the aircraft the system would have created a snapshot when it was supposed to and transmitted it when it could.

[MountainBear]

If ACARS is unavailable then the aircraft attempts to forward the data via the INMARSAT system.No. Swift will only attempt to forward the data via any connection if the airline has subscribed.

The satellite recognised that no paid subscription was in force, so the request for further data transmission was rejected.No. Details about the subscription is located in the FMS on the plane.

Malaysia Airlines didn?t buy computer upgrade that could have given data on missing flight - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/malaysia-airlines-didnt-buy-computer-upgrade-that-could-have-given-data-on-missing-flight/2014/03/19/40e2484c-af7c-11e3-a49e-76adc9210f19_story.html)

So Swift trying to contact the ground station cannot possibly explain the odd pings.


Edit: According to the article below the only ping that originated in the aircraft was the final "partial ping". All the other pings were initiated by the ground station.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304679404579461900800102412?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702 304679404579461900800102412.html

[mm43]

According to the article below the only ping that originated in the aircraft was the final "partial ping". All the other pings were initiated by the ground station.That statement happens to be correct. I have found that depending on the volume of satellite Aero traffic, the GES will delay the interrogation packet, and the GES software will reset the next time.

I have also found that the Malaysian fleet have been, or are using the FANS SAT ADSC system, which ensures that the open source ACARS code is actually encoded, and therefore privileged info such as the RR data remains that way. When using FANS, each AES to GES transaction includes a basic lat, long, alt report.

The only RR reports were sent on take-off and top of climb, and were routed via VHF ACARS.

[OPENDOOR]

From the Washington Post article; Malaysia Airlines didn't buy computer upgrade that could have given data on missing flight.

Many major airlines use the full package of Swift options. The detail it provides is mandated under international aviation guidelines for airlines that ply the busy North Atlantic corridor between the United States and Europe. There are no such requirements elsewhere in the world, the industry official said.

But MAS say;

"The need for SWIFT has never been mandated and all our aircraft have what is called the Aero H SATCOM communications systems,” Malaysia Airlines said in a statement. “This installation is sufficient to meet all of MAS’s operational requirements and at the same time meets all international requirements that enable us to fly international airways.”

So are MAS, semantically, incorrect in that they would need the full Swift package if they flew the Europe/USA route?

[bono]

Deep-sea search tools ready for deployment
Phoenix Towed Pinger Locator 25
http://i62.tinypic.com/9jhtnm.jpg

Bluefin-21 autonomous underwater vehicle
http://i57.tinypic.com/oirk1t.jpg

'Abyss' type deep-sea submarine
http://i59.tinypic.com/if1thd.png

The side scan sonar imagery collected by the Bluefin Robotics deep-sea search submersible is capable of capturing great detail
http://i59.tinypic.com/30ab090.jpg
Source:
MH370 crash: Deep-sea search tools ready for deployment - Nation | The Star Online (http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2014/03/30/MH370-crash-deep-sea-search-tools-ready/)

[500N]

.
Australia's Prime Minister with a representative of every nation involved in the search from RAAF Base Pearce.

As I said before, not often you'll see this lot together and smiling ! :O


Edited
New resized photo
http://i62.tinypic.com/a0fcjp.jpg

[deanm]

Bono - great pictures.

Could you provide some detail around the last photo (side-scan image(s): what are we seeing, from how far away & what kind of resolution i.e. metres/centimetres per pixel?

[awblain]

etudiant


In US terms, the current guidance is roughly this:
We think an aircraft has crashed about 1100 miles off the coast of California.
Please find the debris. We don't know that there are any afloat, but some may wash ashore, so check the West Coast and the sea bed.


It's a bit more pessimistic than that. Rather, the current detail is "it's somewhere in a 500-mile swath N-S that extends from 1000-2500 miles away". So, keep your eyes open too Hawaii, and watch your beaches Oregon and Mexico.

The Intelsat information is excellent. However, the search guidance seems to be being set by a mix of political grandstanding, and an irrational reaction to satellite photos of freight containers and whitecaps. Tony Abbott says that the search will go on indefinitely: it might need longer than that.

It now seems reasonable to assume that all the satellite information that's going to be available is available, at least to governments, if not to the public, although I find it hard to believe that no-one has some ocean radar satellite data that they can't catch the track of MH370 on. Could its contrail really not be stacked to appear on weather photos taken after dawn over the ocean either? Just a single location enroute would make the search box much much smaller.

If the sonar data recorder detection effort fails, and given the several hundred thousand square kilometer positional uncertainty - that seems likely - it will be a long haul of hoping imaging sonar surveys can locate the wreckage somewhere on the favorably-shaped abyssal plain.

That sonar image in 500N's post shows wreckage, so it's ~100m across with few-cm resolution. If the same can be done with a 5-km swath, and meter resolution, then the wreckage might be found after sailing ~20,000km, which seems to be a bit of a challenge. A spot survey of likely locations based on a coarser survey would seem to be more realistic. Whatever method found the Titanic would seem to be a template, but the location of the Titanic was known to within a few hundred square kilometers: that's about a thousand times better odds for the searchers.

[bono]

deanm


Could you provide some detail around the last photo (side-scan image(s): what are we seeing, from how far away & what kind of resolution i.e. metres/centimetres per pixel?

The PDF at http://goo.gl/oN0wp6 has some useful technical info. Else try www.bluefinrobotics.com (http://www.bluefinrobotics.com).

[glad rag]

Nice flat sea bed there...... same as "latest" idea where it went down..the linked article is quite interesting indeed..

http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/newsinfo.inquirer.net/files/2014/03/620xNxMH370-search-trench-660x324.jpg.pagespeed.ic.fbP4lHKkGm.jpg



Ref.. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/590562/seabed-of-jet-hunt-zone-mostly-flat-with-1-trench

[Daermon ATC]

First of all, my apologies if my question is just plain wrong or absurd, I'm no pilot just a lowly atco. :suspect:


Broadly speaking the two concievable scenarios are either some sort of combined mechanical failure or intentional misdirection of the plane. In the former scenario a constant magnetic heading has been proposed as an explanation of why the plane should have ended close to Australia.

If the latter scenario is correct the method could be the same but it also allows for a conscious and able person piloting the plane. In that case the logic for crashing the plane in the southern indic ocean would be to severely difficult any recovery efforts.

The last two search areas have been calculated from a series of automatic signals with several assumptions about constant direction, speed and altitude, I believe.

However, if there was somebody piloting the plane who knew about these signals and could not disconnect them like the ACARS and the transponder then these assumptions might not be correct.

For example, if after about 5 hours of flight the pilot would simply turn 180 degrees, fly that track for half an hour, turn 180 degrees and repeat untill fuel exhausted... wouldn't the relative angle to the satellite still be about the same?

My point here is that if somebody intentionally made that plane disappear then he might have taken further steps to avoid this plane ever to be found.

:(

[Pontius Navigator]

For example, if after about 5 hours of flight the pilot would simply turn 180 degrees, fly that track for half an hour, turn 180 degrees and repeat untill fuel exhausted... wouldn't the relative angle to the satellite still be about the same?

The relative angle would be the same. The point is, AFAIK, it wasn't.

According to Inmarsat the aircraft exhibited a consistent track away from the satellite. The Doppler would have been negative, the time delay would increase.

In your scenario, while the Doppler shift may also have been negative the time delay and angle would have remained constant.

[NigelOnDraft]

I think it fairly safe to assume nobody, including Inmarsat, quite understood the implications (or even presence of) the "pings" and the subsequent analysis. A scenario where somebody aimed to "fool" the process is, IMHO, unlikely.

[Shadoko]

In your scenario, while the Doppler shift may also have been negative the time delay and angle would have remained constant. It's seem there are only "delta" values, not negative ones: if negative was possible, the path towards the sat (from "disappearance" to west of Malacca Straits) have to be also negative.

For example, if after about 5 hours of flight the pilot would simply turn 180 degrees, fly that track for half an hour, turn 180 degrees and repeat untill fuel exhausted... wouldn't the relative angle to the satellite still be about the same?The sat data give a speed (Doppler) but also a distance (in and out signal). So, with your guess, the last "arc" couldn't be 40° but a smaller value.

All this from I have understood...I

[onetrack]

AMSA has reported that the four promising orange objects sighted yesterday are fishing objects, and have nothing to do with any aircraft.
The search goes on. The weather today was scattered low cloud with a few isolated showers - the next 5-6 days are promising to be excellent weather, with minimal cloud and fine conditions.

ADV Ocean Shield has left Garden Island port this evening to do a test run with the pinger locator.
If the test run produces satisfactory results, she will leave later tonight for the search zone.

[500N]

Further to my photo above, people might be interested to know that 550 people are involved in the Search from RAAF Base Pearce near Perth in Western Australia.

You can then add the AMSA staff in Canberra and support people at Garden Island Naval Base and on ships.

I reckon you'd be looking at 1000 people or maybe more.

[awblain]

There are two pieces of information -

i) the Doppler shift, revealing the instantaneous speed along the line between the satellite and aircraft during the "ping". Various three-dimensional velocities are consistent with this line-of-sight speed.

ii) the round-trip timing of the "ping", giving the distance between the aircraft and satellite during the "ping". A whole arc of positions on the Earth's surface are consistent with this distance.

If the aircraft turned around, then the rate of change in the timing distance would have reversed, and so would the sign of the Doppler signal, becoming higher in frequency instead of lower as compared with the broadcast frequency from the aircraft.

That the Doppler shift didn't change sign all the way to 0811, based on the Straits Times' excel figure, means that the aircraft probably crashed still heading away from the satellite.

However, after 0811 it could have turned, as there was no subsequent satellite data to check that.

[bsfish2003]

I suspect that, which ever areas they searched in the southern Indian Ocean, they would find debris similar to that which is currently being found.

[Lonewolf_50]

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.
Not effective application of that asset.
I am not at all surprised that the US has NOT assigned a CV/CVN to this effort. Further that point, with the large degree of uncertainty involved in any localization effort, there is no reason to steam a national asset of that particular capability out into the middle of nowhere.
None.

awblain
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.
Not a waste of time. As you and others have noted, all of this stuff is related to probabilities, not certainties. It is called "search" for a reason. People DON'T know where it is, and the probability areas based on such information as is available are large, not small. Put a different way, the areas of uncertainty are large. Is one searching in a circle/oval with a radius of about 20 nm, 200 nm, or 2000 nm?

The drift can be calculated to provide some pretty good best estimates of a vary good localization area. There have been a lot of posts that show the various ocean research buoys that are tracked to learn of current and drift in oceans all over the world.

[awblain]

Lonewolf,

It's been about 550 hours since the disappearance. How accurate a tracked-back position is even a large number of drifting fragments now going to provide realistically?

To try to be positive, currents have been traced by buoys; however, each floating object will interact with wind and waves in a different way, and it's quite possible that debris has travelled over 1000 miles from where it went into the sea.

Given the uncertainty in the crash location is currently a box that is up to 500 x 2000 miles in extent, I agree with you that almost any more information would be better than nothing, and if it's providing useful training for the crews doing the search, and no searchers get hurt, then it's probably harmless; however, it seems to me to be reaching the point that potential returns from finding flotsam using anything other than a beach are diminishing.

Again, to try to be positive, the discovery of a sure-fire-from-MH370 item out in the ocean would provide a firm limit to the easternmost position of the crash, and given that the uncertainty about range beyond the 0811 satellite contact also remains large, it would still probably constrain the N-S position, but it's not getting any more accurate with time.

Is there anything else to do? I suspect that looking hard for a contrail using stacked weather satellite data after dawn as the flight neared its end might be a way to go at this stage, because at some point, criss-crossing the ocean looking for surface debris is definitely going to stop being useful.

[Ian W]

Lonewolf,
I think you are missing a point. Just the discovery of a windb lown seat cushion or galley items that were indisputibly from MH370 would settle a whole lot of arguments. It would show that the aircraft had crashed in the southern ocean and was not in one of the 'stans. There would be some closure (not complete) for the families, Israel could relax more, etc., etc., Then the vagaries of drift would be investigated by an entirely different team of experts and a new type of search would start.

[tdracer]

Quote:
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.
Not effective application of that asset.
I am not at all surprised that the US has NOT assigned a CV/CVN to this effort. Further that point, with the large degree of uncertainty involved in any localization effort, there is no reason to steam a national asset of that particular capability out into the middle of nowhere.
None.

According to a discussion on the radio while I was driving in this morning, the US had volunteered to assist in the search shortly after the aircraft went missing, but were politely declined since the Malaysians figured they could handle it.
Now that Australia is heading up the search, the US has been requested to provide any and all assistance possible.

Also saw this on Reuters the morning:
The Ocean Shield, an offshore support vessel that will be carrying the ping-detecting device, was supposed leave Perth on Sunday, but its departure was rescheduled for Monday, officials said. The ship will also be carrying an unmanned underwater vehicle.
But the ping detector’s utility, in the absence of more specific information about the location of the wreckage, is questionable. The device will be towed behind the ship at no more than about five knots, or about six miles per hour, and needs to be within about a mile of the black boxes to pick up the signal reliably, making for a slow and painstaking process. The new search area, which was established on Friday, is roughly the size of Poland.

:sad:

[wheelsright]

There is a difference between probabilities and guesswork. The current known facts do not provide sufficient information to calculate probabilities. The missing evidence has been replaced by assumptions. Assumptions are generally subjective views of likely occurrences from within our own experience.

Earlier in the thread someone suggested the scientific research is underpinned by probabilities. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the proper and refined understanding of what is possible rather than what is probable that forces back the boundaries of our understanding.

If our understanding of the physical world was based on what was probable, we would still believe Newton's theories to be true. It is only with disciplined thought that the most unlikely can be ruled in or ruled out properly.

It is the unknown unknowns that are the hardest to allow for, as has been quoted a number of times.

What we do know is that without a more restricted search area it will be almost impossible to locate the aircraft. This fact is a known known but emotions are running high.

AF447 had a similar scenario, but after the public gradually lost interest, the search was scaled down and then ended. It was only a proper review of the evidence, and a proper and thorough search of the only area it could have been, that solved the mystery.

This situation is not so easy. As time goes by evidence is lost and overwritten. It is more evidence that is needed, and if the aircraft is to be found, that is where the focus should be.

The SAR process is more of a PR exercise than anything else.

I hope I am wrong...

[portmanteau]

it took 2 years to find AF 447 , in a defined area following the discovery of wreckage on the surface. locating the aircraft on the sea floor was'nt a matter of luck either, just the logical result of searching for, and finding, something known to be there. compare that with the 370 situation. no surface wreckage yet to help define a search area on the bottom. it has been mentioned that a sea floor search might not start until some evidence turns up to justify it in a particular area. the present deployment of the towed locator will at least be seen as an attempt to find 370 while the signal from it is still hopefully being transmitted. miracles do happen... but if not this time, the searchers will just buckle down to painstakingly cover a very wide area at 1.5 kts per hour and one day, like AF 447, they will find it... but it could take a lot longer.

[GarageYears]

I think we can pretty safely assume the existence of the satellite system 'pings' was a fine-print detail that was entirely unexpected/unknown at the time of the incident (no matter what the cause) - hence the occasional allegation that the aircraft was flown in circles/jinked back on itself, or whatever really doesn't seem to hold any credibility with respect to the computed track.

[me myself and fly]

Last words from cockpit of MH370 were "Goodnight Malaysian three seven zero" (http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/se-asia/story/last-words-cockpit-mh370-were-goodnight-malaysian-three-seven-zero-20140#sthash.ja0V4uEX.dpuf)

KUALA LUMPUR - Malaysia's Department of Civil Aviation has said the last words from the cockpit of missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 were "Good night Malaysian three seven zero".

"We would like to confirm that the last conversation in the transcript between the air traffic controller and the cockpit is at 0119 (Malaysian Time) and is "Good night Malaysian three seven zero," it said in a short statement issued on Monday night.

It was said earlier the last words from the flight were "Alright, goodnight".

"The authorities are still doing forensic investigation to determine whether those last words from the cockpit were by the pilot or the co-pilot,'' said the statement.

It added that acting Transport Minister Hishammuddin Hussein "has instructed the investigating team to release the full transcript" which will be made available during the briefing to the next-of-kin of passengers on board the flight, which disappeared on March 8.

[PriFly]

To be fair, for the first couple days I like to think Malaysia genuinely believed the aircraft 'crashed' somewhere in SCS relatively close to their shore in which case they probably have sufficient assets in place to look for it w/o outside help.

In regards to aircraft carrier I agree. I think the USN should at least send a LHD/LPD (heli carrier not full flat top) to join in the effort.

[DaveReidUK]

Now that Australia is heading up the search, the US has been requested to provide any and all assistance possible.A USN P-8A has in fact been deployed in the search area for the last two weeks, and was joined by a second one a few days ago.

[Tommytoyz]

At this point in time, any debris left floating,will have drifted well away from the actual crash site. Continuing to look for floating debris in the same area, where the crash is suspected to have occurred, will ensure no floating debris is found.

The trouble is, the crash site is close to an ocean gyre. This means the floating debris could have drifted in almost any direction, depending on the exact crash location, and traveled over 1,000 miles by now.

This, assuming that ocean currents and not winds are the main factor in determining the path of the drift.

[Lonewolf_50]

Ian W: I am not missing the point, at all. I absolutely agree with how valuable any debris found would be. It would go a LONG WAY to changing the search operation's basis from an area of uncertainty to a more useful datum.
One could then use current models to estimate a better LKP, or LKPAoU, that would confine the actual search for the aircraft, and those acoustic beacons, to an area that has a hope in hell of hearing a noise before the beacon goes silent.

Closure? That isn't the primary mission area I care about. I understand the politics of this issue, but that is in my mind a secondary consideration until someone can figure out where MH370 came to rest.
In regards to aircraft carrier I agree. I think the USN should at least send a LHD/LPD (heli carrier not full flat top) to join in the effort.
Why? Because we have one, or because it will aid the effort in a particular fashion? I have a few ideas, but would be interested in what yours are.

[porterhouse]

AF447 had a similar scenario, but after the public gradually lost interest, the search was scaled down and then ended. It was only a proper review of the evidence, and a proper and thorough search of the only area it could have been, that solved the mystery.
With AF447 it was actually different, first of all floating debris was identified relatively soon - within a few days. Then French searched underwater for a year and could not find anything. A US oceanography research firm was then hired to perform extensive calculations which ultimately led to finding the wreck.

[oldoberon]

It could have been found faster. There was a lot of modelling to reduce the search zone as much as possible from the defined area, and it actually backfired. If the search team had started out with the full-on systematic scan to which it eventually was forced to resort - and which turned up the wreck in about a week - it wouldn't have taken anywhere near as long.


I read they recalled the american modelers who re- did the model after changing some parameters the main one being to assume the pinger had'nt worked and with the new area went and found it almost immediately.

[hamster3null]

With AF447 it was actually different, first of all floating debris was identified relatively soon - within a few days. Then French searched underwater for a year and could not find anything. A US oceanography research firm was then hired to perform extensive calculations which ultimately led to finding the wreck.

I think the example of AF447 is instructive.

Just by combing the surface, they found 50 relatively well-preserved bodies, about 30 external parts including the tail fin and one engine cowl, and hundreds of internal parts even including one toilet door and one whole galley. All this was found within 3 weeks after the crash, spread over 2x2 degree area.

If the debris field of MH370 is similar and if Australians are looking in the right place right now or were looking in the right place at any point in the last two weeks, it's hard to explain whey they did not find anything at all so far.

[PriFly]

Lonewolf50 - Well the most obvious one is time on station. Since they are still doing visual SAR, aircrafts from a LHD (SH-60s, CH53s and MH22s etc can fly multiple sorties on the search area instead of just having a small handful of aircrafts taking turns one or two at a time flying out of Pierce AFB over a thousand miles away.

A lot of the helos are also outfitted with sensors sensitive enough to pick up a periscope potruding from the surface soi I'd imagine similar sensor can be tweak if necessary ti pick up metal debris etc.

A LHD can also operate independantly w/o the need for escorts etc to lessen the operational costs of having an entire CSG there and be almost as effective.

anyway just my 2c.

[awblain]

If satellite dopper data exists for the first four transmissions (through 17:07) and while the a/c was still in VHF range, I can only conclude that data transmissions occurred over both VHF and SAT simultaneously (or nearly so).

Even if that happened, the problem would be timing. The relative timing of receipt by ground-based VHF probably won't be precise enough to use. The ground-signal travels a few hundred km, while the satellite-signal travels 36000km, and is received by a machine detected to precise timing. Perhaps there's something useful in there, but it seems hard to picture it would be crucial.

The satellite pings were also sent for the benefit of Inmarsat's network management, via a directional satellite antenna on the crown of the aircraft. Since they're not intended to transmit information, it seems unlikely that the same signal would also be broadcast from the aircraft over ground-communication VHF.

[Lonewolf_50]

PriFly:

Good points. Part of your idea requires a tailor-made detachment of SH/MH-60 variants to plus up the Marines.

The normal Air Group on an LHD/LHA is cargo-people haulers and attack helicopters, and maybe even some Ospreys. Plenty of eyeballs to help in a search. :ok:
Ship has good C2 capability, air traffic control facility for others coming from farther off, and good sized boats that the ship can launch to recover bits and pieces as needed.

Based on what I am looking at on the map, you'd still ned a tighter search area first before the LHD's strengths could be best utilized.

Without wanting to sound the conspiracy theorist again, is it possible that these pings are incorrect and the aircraft is actually on the ground somewhere?
Possible? Given that most of us in the general public only have bits and pieces of information, and based on those bits and pieces ... yes, it is possible, but I won't take it to Vegas and lay down the rent money. Feel free to consider how that "northern arch" referenced to the satellite ping (go back a few pages, some posts have that picture in them) would be possible AND how it would be possible without being noticed somewhere, somehow.

[Oro-o]

It was essentially a complete scan of the areas which hadn't already been searched.

Not exactly. It was a weighted search of the suspected area. It would eventually have been "complete" if unsuccessful at any point. But it focused on particular areas up-front. Metron, the US search consultants, used a well-known search formula (Bayes' rule) to figure high-probability areas for the search. Here is a simple 3rd-party precis of the forumal and methodology:

Bayes' rule found AF 447 - Sharon Bertsch McGrayne (http://www.mcgrayne.com/blog.htm?post=854513)

Keep in mind, this could in no way be created without prior knowledge of search failures.

Eventually someone decided to stop pussyfooting around with probabilities and, on the assumption it had to be there somewhere, just scour the 10,000sqkm region from one end to the other until they found it.

No, it was not a systematic drag or grid search of the area. Here's a detailed report about how the searches were performed, both early (failed) and later (successful). If you skip to page 17 (fig. 14), you'll see the final search pattern priorities. Compare that to fig. 15 on the following page - the previous search probabilities of a systematic search a priori. It's not "systematic." It uses the Bayesian method to assign probabilities, the highest of which were to the previously unsearched areas.

http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.af.447/metron.search.analysis.pdf

[NigelOnDraft]

True, hopefully those lessons will have been learned and if a reasonable point of loss can be found, it will be far more initially effective in this caseAs above, the "key" to finding AF447 was re-evaluating the P of the "pingers" actually working / being heard. Contrary to the opinion of industry, the firm conducting the analysis downgraded this P, which led to the area close to LKP being the "most likely" to be found. It had earlier been eliminated since the much heralded "pinger detectors" had already tried there IIRC?

There was little incompetence AFAIK. The same firm had already taken part in earlier searches. I think you'll find the mathematical principals are already being applied to MH370 e.g. why the SCS was still searched even when it was "not likely" there.

My only conclusion from AF447 as applied here is it is unlikely the recorders will be found.

[Oro-o]

Contrary to the opinion of industry, the firm conducting the analysis downgraded this P, which led to the area close to LKP being the "most likely" to be found. It had earlier been eliminated since the much heralded "pinger detectors" had already tried there IIRC?

There was little incompetence AFAIK.

Exactly. Once they through out the "well, we searched their for the pinger" thinking, all those areas were back in play and the sss found it very near the LPK.

I am unclear if the pingers failed in AF447, or were just not heard for some reason. The area where the boxes were located were well covered initially via acoustic search. I will have to re-read the Metron report. Considering the pinger failed in US1549, there has to be some real worry here.

[Jimmy Hoffa Rocks]

Obviously, there is a lot the US military, Malaysian military and Chinese are not telling us. Interesting, I smell a cover up,as they protect their secrets and capabilities.
( Also who has info on the US Military satellite tracking capabilities.? )


¨China has also been critical in Malaysia's handling of the case, but in a sign of softening, the official China Daily said it was understandable that not all sensitive information could be made public.

"Although the Malaysian government's handling of the crisis has been quite clumsy, we need to understand that this is perhaps the most bizarre incident in Asia civil aviation history," the editorial on Monday read.

"Public opinion should not blame the Malaysian authorities for deliberately covering up information in the absence of hard evidence.¨

[Chronus]

"Good night Malaysian three seven zero"

A perfectly normal and routine and curtious signing off, nothing more can possibly be imputed.

What remains to be revealed are;
The full ATC transcript and how busy the KL airspace was at the relevant times.
Did the aircraft re enter KL TMA, the radar services charts and all KL FIR info may be found at the following link.

http://aip.dca.gov.my/aip%20pdf/ENR/ENR%201/ENR%201.6/Enr1_6.pdf

[oldoberon]

Oro-o the 1st and 2nd searches were thorough searches based on the baysain principle and the data they were given, the second one had one major change in as much as they were told the fail rate of beacons and that is what shifted the search ara, plus ruling out where they knew it wasn't, it was a scientific/mathematical based search not a thorough search of a huge area.

if i recall on the second search they hit it very quickly, MAH 370 would have to be a huge area as they are not even certain until debris is found, but I agree they should start based on Inmarsats best data for LKP.

Who knows they might get lucky before the debris searchers do.

[mm43]

The TPL from the USN is that the only one in the whole wide world?Not the case. Two TPL's were used during the Phase 1 search for AF447.

Just a reminder that only one ULB was eventually retrieved after the wreckage was finally located using side-scan sonar, and that was found to have never worked.

[porterhouse]

They have announced things that turned out to be incorrect (let's look in the Gulf of Thailand!) and denied things that turned out to be correct
They did not deny anything.
Gulf of Thailand had to be searched based on early available data, based on what Vietnamese were saying, based on spotted oil slicks, etc.
Only about 5 days after the accident the consensus was growing that the plane flew much longer in different direction.

[PriFly]

... because hindsight is always 20/20 ? I agree with you completely but I doubt anyone would even know to ask ... hey USN.. do you have a TPL 25 I can borrow for a couple weeks?

[olasek]

The central issue remains unchanged: the final search was much more no-stone-unturned effort, intended to cover the whole area if necessary, because the previous target searches had failed.
No, the central issue was this: through mathematical work they managed to shrink the search area to something manageable.

[mm43]

No, the central issue was this: through mathematical work they managed to shrink the search area to something manageable.In practical terms, the Metron analysis only confirmed the area that the search had already progressed to, was in fact the most likely. The final search phase resumed exactly where the previous phase had finished.

[Lemain]

MM43 The detection range of the TPL looking for a 37.5kHz ULB is 1730 meters when aiming for a 90% reliability of detection.

The TPL is a sort of torpedo-shaped device. Is the 1730m looking along the front centreline, or what? If you think of the search as needing a 'lawn-mower' - i.e. searching in strips - then we'd need to know the strip width and, in hilly terrain, the sensitivity in the vertical axis.

[HeathrowAirport]

Malaysian authorities have issued new security instructions ordering that the pilot and co-pilot are not allowed to be left alone in the cockpit, even when one of them is taking a toilet break. A cabin crew member has to be in the cockpit until the pilot or co-pilot returns from the restroom.

When bringing food to the cockpit, a flight attendant is required to stand guard at the door to make sure no passenger enters the restricted area.

On the ground, MAHB has made it mandatory for anyone taking an international flight to pass through two metal-detectors and undergo a body search before they board.

The travellers must now also remove their shoes, belt, jackets and any electronic devices such as cellphones and laptop computers for separate scanning.

Bottled drinking water is not allowed to be brought aboard.

Missing MH370 plane: Security tightened in cockpits, airports in Malaysia - The Economic Times (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/33019684.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst)

[hamster3null]

MM43

The TPL is a sort of torpedo-shaped device. Is the 1730m looking along the front centreline, or what? If you think of the search as needing a 'lawn-mower' - i.e. searching in strips - then we'd need to know the strip width and, in hilly terrain, the sensitivity in the vertical axis.

The document referenced above says it's 1730 m lateral to either side of the tow line, accounting for the distance from the TPL to the seabed.

I'm not sure everyone appreciates how big a haystack it is. Uncertainty in the course and speed means that one pass along the arc (without any extremes, just hitting all areas already searched) would be ~1000 nm long. At the maximum towing speed of 5 knots, it takes 8 days to do one sweep.

Now suppose that the aircraft flew for an unknown amount of time between 0 and 20 minutes after the last ping, with the speed of ~400 knots. That would put it between 0 and 250 km from the arc. To cover the entire area with 2*1730 m strips, we need 70 passes, which, at 8 days per pass, would take 1.5 years.

I haven't even begun to consider that the arc itself may be only known with precision up to 100 km (or worse), that the aircraft could have continued flying close to an hour after the last ping (if it had fuel for that), and that it could have glided possibly as far as another 200 km in a random direction after its engines went out.

In this situation, odds of stumbling upon a working pinger without knowing the location of the debris field are so low that SAR understandably tried to find some debris first, then call in the TPL. Calling in the TPL now is a hail mary, with no realistic expectation of it finding anything.

[vapilot2004]

However, if there was somebody piloting the plane who knew about these signals and could not disconnect them like the ACARS and the transponder then these assumptions might not be correct.



Daermon, this is valid in that flight deck crews are trained on how to stop ACARS reporting and of course, switching the transponder to standby is avionics 101 level expertise. In addition, both of these tasks can be accomplished without leaving the flight deck.

SATCOM disablement is another story however. There is no off switch and one must leave the flight deck and go down below and pull a couple of circuit breakers. This is not covered in pilot training and would be most likely accomplished with the help of a maintenance engineer, should the need arise.

As others have stated, even the satellite operator, Inmarsat, was not fully aware of the locational aspects available via mathematical wizardry, so it seems entirely reasonable that a sinister element, be it a rogue pilot or third party interlopers, would be unaware of the capability and despite all efforts to evade detection, did not bother to disable this system. In your scenario involving foul play, this omission could be chalked up to a lack of knowledge, or an unwillingness to venture outside of the cockpit.

[jugofpropwash]

Malaysian authorities have issued new security instructions ordering that the pilot and co-pilot are not allowed to be left alone in the cockpit, even when one of them is taking a toilet break. A cabin crew member has to be in the cockpit until the pilot or co-pilot returns from the restroom.

So how many FAs know enough about the workings of the plane to know if the pilot is doing something fishy - much less know how to fly the plane in an emergency? For that matter, how many are burly enough to fight off an intruder?

[Robin Clark]

Although the timing of the last few pings does support a relatively straight line flight , surely it is not the only solution ...????....... The last four complete pings only really show that the source was south of the equator , and in an hour moved about 186 nm further Eastward/further from the satellite's longitude. , then another 240 some nm East during the next hour , and then about 266 nm in the following hour . This could mean a crippled aircraft was flying slowly SSE but turning gently left to end up flying East ........putting it in the sea somewhere between the equator and 10 degrees South latitude.....??....

[Vinnie Boombatz]

From a volume of the BEA reports on AF 447:

http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.af.447/sea.search.ops.af447.05.11.2012.en.pdf

"As a rule, acoustic searches should always be preferred during the transmission time of the beacons. They are more effective than searches using sonar, magnetometers or video cameras.

The maximum range of these beacons is of the order of 2,000 to 3,000 m. However, in the search area the average depth was 3,000 m. It was therefore necessary to bring the hydrophones closer to the source of transmission, by towing specialized equipment nearer to the seabed."

"The TPL20 and TPL40 systems are deep-towed devices belonging to the family of the “Towed Pinger Locators” manufactured by Phoenix International for the US Navy. The United States government made both the equipment and the associated operators freely available to the French government (17 people distributed on the two ships). In June 2009 the TPLs were the only systems capable of carrying out passive acoustic searches over large areas at significant depths.

The two TPLs are towed devices each equipped with an omni-directional hydrophone which can operate down to depths of six thousand metres with towing speeds ranging from 1.5 to 5 knots. They can be installed on all types of appropriate vessels capable of carrying a load weighing around 25 tonnes. A mapping software application uses GPS positioning information to follow the ship’s movements and the position of the towed device. The latter is equipped with a pressure sensor that permanently transmits the immersed device’s approximate depth of submersion. Management of the deployed cable length and ship towing speed is used to place the acoustic sensor at the required average submersion depth For example, an average submersion depth of 2,300 m for the TPL is achieved by deploying approximately 6,000 m of cable at a towing speed of 3 knots. "

"The immersion depth of the acoustic sensor induces high mechanical constraints on the self-supporting electro-cable; limiting these constraints restricts the manoeuvring capabilities of the ship. The speed is limited to 4 kt maximum, and bearing changes are restricted to a few degrees
As an indication, under these conditions an area 30 NM long and 10 nm wide was covered in a little less than 5 days. Within this area a longitudinal pass was carried out in 9 hours, followed by a reverse phase lasting approximately 5 hours. One branch was therefore completed in 14 hours. Long passes were preferred to avoid the multiplication of reversal operations. "

"The searches took place in a particularly unfavourable environment due to the great variations in depth in the area and the extremely uneven topography of the sea bed. The bathymetric data available to the search teams in June 2009 (see the figure below) was of limited accuracy, since the seabed in the area was little known.

Each flight data recorder was equipped with an underwater locator beacon transmitting on 37.5 kHz (± 1 kHz). In this type of search, priority should be initially given to acoustic searches by passive devices (hydrophones), taking into account an average range of between 2,000 and 3,000 m.

Given their limited range and the average depth in the area (3,000 m), listening from the surface was not possible. It was therefore necessary to bring the hydrophones closer to the source of transmission, by towing specialized TPLs near the seabed. "


"A report(24) details the examination of the CVR ULB. The damage to the body of the ULB was due to the impact. The characterization of the acoustic signal from the ULB made on the day of the examination was not nominal, despite the renewal of the power source (new battery).
This examination more than two years after the accident is not conclusive because it is impossible to decide on the level of damage to the ULBs that equipped the aeroplane and their ability to nominally transmit a signal in the aftermath of the accident.

24) http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.af.447/cvr.ulb.examination.report.pdf "


Others have posted this link, which includes specs on the TPL:

Phoenix International Holdings Inc, Marine Services and Subsea Technology: ROV | DIVING | SHIPS HUSBANDRY (http://phnx-international.com/towed-pinger.html)

[rigbyrigz]

CNN is finally displaying a map that shows the 25 degree right turn correction reported (here!) as by FR24, but ignored by CNN (many tweets to them) and almost everyone else.

I expect this new diagram, which of course adds some new meaning to the piloting aspect, may finally become the official track before long. (the right turn was of course before the left turn already depicted).

(p.s. to those suggesting a US Naval aircraft carrier should be tasked to Australia to help. --unfortunately in today's troubled world, ALL the carriers are suitably employed elsewhere for considered good cause.)

[StrongEagle]

Malaysian authorities have issued new security instructions ordering that the pilot and co-pilot are not allowed to be left alone in the cockpit, even when one of them is taking a toilet break. A cabin crew member has to be in the cockpit until the pilot or co-pilot returns from the restroom.

When bringing food to the cockpit, a flight attendant is required to stand guard at the door to make sure no passenger enters the restricted area.

On the ground, MAHB has made it mandatory for anyone taking an international flight to pass through two metal-detectors and undergo a body search before they board.

The travellers must now also remove their shoes, belt, jackets and any electronic devices such as cellphones and laptop computers for separate scanning.

Bottled drinking water is not allowed to be brought aboard.

Missing MH370 plane: Security tightened in cockpits, airports in Malaysia - The Economic Times

I traveled internationally from KLIA at least once a week for more than a year. There has been a two pass metal detector system in place for at least 3 years, but the first stop, after immigration and before the airline concourses, has always been a bit weak... no separate removal of laptops, etc, and I've walked through with bottles of water in my backpack.

But at the second screening at the gate, the inspections have been much more thorough... I've seen plenty of bottles, containers, and other paraphernalia confiscated. It has also been mandatory over the total of more than 6 years that I flew out of KLIA to remove laptops and electronics, and remove coats for separate scanning. Bottled water, a cup of coffee or a canned soda has never been allowed through the boarding gate in all the time that I've flown through KLIA.

Edited to add: If one failed to pass the scanner at the gate, then a "body search" did ensue, consisting of a hand scan and sometimes a pat down. But like virtually every other body search I've undergone, they are relatively ineffective because to find well hidden contraband, the search must be much more intrusive.

This nonsense of removing belts and shoes is unfortunate... I've seen it only in the US and in the Philippines, and I don't see the point in this implementation.

[bes]

My airline required an fa in the flight deck if a pilot left it for any reason in flight. This was for several reasons : So we could respond to and signal for help if the pilot became incapacitated for any reason, so we could defend the flight deck, or at least slow down the person in case some one actually got through the door, so we could assist the pilot if directed in the case of a critical emergency, keep the pilot alert , especially in overnight and long haul flights with little communication from ATC. We do know where emergency equipment and extra firefighting equipment is in the flight deck. We also knew how to make pa's, interphone calls and how to use the pilots oxygen system. In the light of pilot/ crew suicide or hijacking scenerios I think that new communication signalling procedures need to be created even if it means separate briefings between The captain, first officer and purser. As it stands the current policy is less about preventing suspicious behaviour in the other pilot though it might discourage them or distract them.

As to Fa's not being able to fight someone off, you might be surprised, I could throw a 6 foot man over my back when I was 7 and I am a women. It's true that most cabin crew are not trained pilots, but there are actually quite a few of them who have commercial and private liscences, who work as cabin crew while also building up there hours in other jobs. I've worked flights where I've had two of them on board.

[ThadBeier]

Due to changes in temperature at different depths, it's unlikely that the sound of a beacon a few thousand meters deep would be detected by a submarine at a couple of hundred meters depth. The sound tends to radiate at about the same depth, which is good in that it doesn't decay as fast horizontally, but in this case would keep the sub from hearing it. Nice idea, but it just wouldn't work.

[LightBulbBlown]

Tony Abbott says that the best minds are at work on this. Given that a pilot suicide is one scenario that fits, wouldn't it be sensible to get a savvy psychologist or two on the job? It's obvious by now that if this was an intentional act, then hiding the evidence was part of that intention. What SAR and technical people keep honing in on is finding physical evidence based on physical data. How about bringing some decent psychological evidence into play? If a person is responsible for this tragedy and he/she wanted to hide the evidence, I'm guessing that causing the minimal damage possible in ditching is one factor. But where would such a mind choose to do it? Away from shipping and flight routes I guess, but where in that ocean is the best hiding place?

[olasek]

How about bringing some decent psychological evidence into play?
I doubt it would do you any good.
First of all psychologists know nothing about flying, secondly they are notoriously wrong about many things that involve human mind. Third, they typically deal in generalities.

[James7]

Eclectic .. Another conspiracy theory: Freelance journalist: ?Hijacked flight 370 passenger sent photo from hidden iPhone tracing back to secret U.S. military base Diego Garcia? | Alternative

This has been banded about on Twitter, It is of course a complete fake. The GPS co-ordinates can be manually inserted to the Exif data. Also the raw data indicated the photo has been modified.

This was the original post
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/27839190/

[LightBulbBlown]

Well, the aviation and search professionals have assuredly milked all the available data but have narrowed the search to a huge version of "narrow" with no result. A wise psychological insight could well reduce that narrow and save a lot of time and money.

[Lonewolf_50]

A wise psychological insight could well reduce that narrow and save a lot of time and money.
Right. A psychological insight like ...

The plane hasn't been found because it doesn't want to be found.
:p

If the Captain or First Officer had been regularly consulting with, or under the care of, a psychologist, then perhaps there might be some psychological insight available. Otherwise ... not so much.

[StrongEagle]

How about bringing some decent psychological evidence into play?
I doubt it would do you any good.
First of all psychologists know nothing about flying, secondly they are notoriously wrong about many things that involve human mind. Third, they typically deal in generalities.

I beg to differ. I'd bet money that there are at least a few forensic psychologists in mix, looking at everything from the crews to radar crews, to passengers and ground crews, trying to assess the probability of action (or inaction) on the parts of any of these people. I'd sure want their best guess as part of my data stream.

[wiggy]

bes

As to Fa's not being able to fight someone off, you might be surprised, I could throw a 6 foot man over my back when I was 7 and I am a women. It's true that most cabin crew are not trained pilots, but there are actually quite a few of them who have commercial and private liscences, who work as cabin crew while also building up there hours in other jobs. I've worked flights where I've had two of them on board.

I don't have a problem with any of that, but at the risk of sounding like a stuck record I fly with folks who, like myself in a previous life have been vetted to a very high level ( as in their reliability to release a "bucket of sunshine" or something similar). Suddenly it seems those same individuals who are now a bit older but the same individuals can't be trusted to be alone on the flight deck - so do we really think the answer to the loo break "problem" is to park someone with no flying knowledge and perhaps someone who perhaps couldn't have passed any serious vetting process right behind the only pilot. Ever heard of a cabin crew member or a fellow employee who didn't like pilots/have personal problems?

Federal Express Flight 705 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Express_Flight_705)

[bsfish2003]

The search for surface debris seems to be getting nowhere. Maybe the majority of the resources should be directed towards finding the FDR and CVR. Battery time is running out.

[porterhouse]

Maybe the majority of the resources should be directed towards finding the FDR and CVR.
You will never find FDR or CVR without first finding the debris that could narrow the underwater search.

[wes_wall]

The search for surface debris seems to be getting nowhere. Maybe the majority of the resources should be directed towards finding the FDR and CVR. Battery time is running out.

What a great idea. Why don't you post exactly where to begin this resource towards finding the FDR and CVR. If you find the airplane, battery time is no longer all that important.

[bes]

Wiggy,

I could understand how that feels. We all go through security clearances, and most airlines I know do psychological screening on their pilots, not necessarily their fa's, so if the policy is put in place as a security measure against a rogue pilot, I too would feel a little insulted. As I noted most places I've worked its not been about baby sitting the pilots, but rather as an added safety measure. Most pilots at my airline welcome a new face in the flight deck anyways, since the locked flight deck door policy, and it's actually great for building trust and rapport among the whole crew ( is. Cc feel more confident in expressing their concerns to a pilot who has taken some opportunity to speak with them a little).

[JetHutek]

The search for surface debris seems to be getting nowhere. Maybe the majority of the resources should be directed towards finding the FDR and CVR. Battery time is running out.

What a great idea. Why don't you post exactly where to begin this resource towards finding the FDR and CVR. If you find the airplane, battery time is no longer all that important.

A few posts back, I suggested the following. And this could have been started days ago, or longer, once they got the pinger detector here.

Start with the detector on the 40 degree line and tow it on a path along that line, the offset to one side in mile or so wide increments (depending on the range of the detector) and make another pass the other way...keep doing it offset to each side.

It's a longshot but it's SOMETHING and it only requires one boat to do this. It must be equally as worthy as chasing garbage around the SIO trash gyres.

[SupplierSam]

I like this idea!
The only risk I see is that the pinger detector might be damaged.

[james ozzie]

The media is reporting that the last heard radio voice comm sounded more formal than previously reported. Without going into the reasons for this (astonishing) change of story, does it not change the possible scenarios? That the co-pilot was fully awake and that he had been handed off to the next controller. The first controller would assume him to be off frequency and the new controller has not yet had first contact. The ideal time to do a vanishing act. So it says to this Poirot that the captain was not there or incapacitated and the FO was the instigator.

[rigbyrigz]

I see follow-up posts to the new (CNN) "loop" turn flight path map have been deleted here despite some interest. 2 people (trying to post) sent me private comments about ADS-B Right turn tracking info they saw early on consistent with it.

CNN has led with the "new map" on 3 straight live shows, yet the map is hard to find online anywhere. The person behind the report is CNN's Nic Robertson, and for those asking there is at this moment a picture of this new map at CNN's site here:

Sources call MH370 turn a 'criminal act' ? The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer - CNN.com Blogs (http://situationroom.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/31/sources-call-mh370-turn-a-criminal-act/)

Its the purple with red track on the left, under Flight 370. As experts are commenting, if indeed accurate (and no one knows the source other than "from the Family Committee" at this moment) at the very least it would indicate fuel burn and other issues that might affect the search area, etc...

(For what its worth)
P.S. The Malaysian minister was asked about it; replied "I cannot confirm or deny".

[mm43]

It appears that the ultimate command structure for the search for MH370 using the resources of the Australian government has been assigned to the new Joint Agency Coordination Centre. (http://www.jacc.gov.au/)

All future Media releases will be found at:-

JACC-Media (http://www.jacc.gov.au/media/)

[Datayq1]

The aviationist.com:
"Between 17:19 and 17:20 the aircraft turned right, changing heading from 25 to 40 degrees. Someone said this is a sign the aircraft was turning back to Kuala Lumpur or had already experienced an in-flight problem. However, the change in heading was probably performed in accordance with the FPL (Flight Plane) as the plane did the same, at the same position, on Mar. 4, 2014.

The last location tracked by Flightradar24 is Lat: 6.97 Lon: 103.63."

[Sheep Guts]

Surely Singapore would have seen it with some of their Radar assets flying to the South? I haven't heard anything other than the Singapore Prime Minister offering all help, once the initial missing report was given. Of course they helped in the South China Sea and Malacca Straits searches.

[SierraTango1]

Strong Eagle said: "I traveled internationally from KLIA at least once a week for more than a year. There has been a two pass metal detector system in place for at least 3 years, but the first stop, after immigration and before the airline concourses, has always been a bit weak... no separate removal of laptops, etc, and I've walked through with bottles of water in my backpack.

But at the second screening at the gate, the inspections have been much more thorough... I've seen plenty of bottles, containers, and other paraphernalia confiscated. It has also been mandatory over the total of more than 6 years that I flew out of KLIA to remove laptops and electronics, and remove coats for separate scanning. Bottled water, a cup of coffee or a canned soda has never been allowed through the boarding gate in all the time that I've flown through KLIA.

Edited to add: If one failed to pass the scanner at the gate, then a "body search" did ensue, consisting of a hand scan and sometimes a pat down. But like virtually every other body search I've undergone, they are relatively ineffective because to find well hidden contraband, the search must be much more intrusive.

This nonsense of removing belts and shoes is unfortunate... I've seen it only in the US and in the Philippines, and I don't see the point in this implementation."

I would presume that this tightening up reported by Malaysian Airports is due to the footage released of the pilots walking through the gates with jackets on, and setting off an alarm, yet not being searched or asked to remove metal objects and being re checked. Everyone wants to trust pilots, but obviously, the checks need to be as stringent for them as anyone else.

The psychological profilers being called for (really, not just plain psychologists) would likely confirm that the likelihood is equally as great for a pilot to go off the rails as anyone else. We're talking about a fraction of 1% of the population who go off for whatever reason. Emotional, political, financial.

The psychologists would also confirm that tighter security is/was necessary to maintain passenger confidence. That's common sense.

I would like to believe there was catastrophic damage that caused all of the comms failure, and let the plane fly until fuel was exhausted, with a plane full of people who had a peaceful (relatively) death from hypoxia and knew nothing of it, but the longer it takes to find any signs and the more left field theories and conspiracies thrown in, the more we falter from accepting it as an a/c problem, and pin it on a person problem imo.

[aviation_watcher]

With so much being touted about multi country search, defence secrets etc. leading to lack of coordination, why is it that so far corporates are not being included in any of the searches and public releases?
Surely Boeing will be able to explain all how the ACARS, Transponders, Batteries on ELT and the CVR/DFDR as well as their technical functioning issues much better than all the agencies put together. After all it is their most advanced technology in the 777.
Sharing of these in public by Boeing will enhance the investigation and search procedures considerably instead of beating around several false leads which are just feeding speculation and have wasted more than 3 weeks of time.

[Shadoko]

From Search and Recovery Operation for MH370 (http://www.jacc.gov.au/media/releases/2014/april/mr001.aspx) :
At the moment we have some 550 personnel on this base involved in the search ... today we'll have more than 100 people in the air ...We'll have just on 1000 sailors in the area looking for debris.
.../...
Is there a point, though, that things start to be scaled back? ... If nothing of substance is found, obviously such a point is eventually reached, but we are well short of that point
.../...
Do you have a certain time? ... I'm certainly not putting a time limit on it.Appears to be large numbers! Major means? It could be a sign that, without excluding suicide or accident, a highjack is feared and there is no evident clue to how it was made: Clearly the worst scenario, and perhaps no pings for the next one... The wreck has to be retrieved!

[vapilot2004]

With so much being touted about multi country search, defence secrets etc. leading to lack of coordination, why is it that so far corporates are not being included in any of the searches and public releases?

AW, as the home country of the airline involved, Malaysia is in charge of the investigation and information dissemination protocols and timing are entirely up to them. Under ICAO rules and other agreements, it would be inappropriate for Boeing or any other commercial or government entity to comment without the consent of the Malaysian government.

Note: Had there been a known crash site, the country where it occurred would be in charge.

[jmjdriver1995]

Regarding Boeing and other companies with ties to this tragedy, maybe they are keeping their collective mouths shut for a good reason. There will undoubtedly be many lawsuits for enormous amounts of money and they don't want the lawyers and/or judges using published information against them. "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."

[n6330v]

jmjdriver1995 is absolutely correct. As far as Boeing is concerned, their best strategy is to separate themselves from the incident avoiding any potential relationships that could lead to them being at fault. In their position, coming up to the podium and discussing technical aspects immediately associates, from the public's perspective, with technology potentially being at fault.

[500N]

And you don't want to be doing those types of discussions "on the run". "off the cuff" and in front of the world wide media as we all know where that would end up.

[vapilot2004]

None of this legal eagle/"marketing strategy" talk plays into the current situation in any way. Boeing and other commercial interests are barred from releasing information by international law and treaty agreement. So are any governments outside of Malaysia.

The Australians have taken the lead in SAR and as such will disseminate information regarding that part of the MH370 saga, but the primary control of information on the loss of flight MH370 remains with the Malaysian government.

[jumbo1]

"Surely Boeing will be able to explain all how the ACARS, Transponders, Batteries on ELT and the CVR/DFDR as well as their technical functioning issues much better than all the agencies put together. After all it is their most advanced technology in the 777.
Sharing of these in public by Boeing will enhance the investigation and search procedures considerably instead of beating around several false leads which are just feeding speculation and have wasted more than 3 weeks of time."

Boeing don't need to explain the workings of all these mentioned systems. The relevant search and investigative authorities already know how they all work and making all this information public will not enhance anything except provide information to people with ill- intent. Leave the investigation to the experts and when the boxes are found and the accident investigation complete, then all the relevant facts will be known. Media speculation and sensationalism (never let the truth get in the way of a good story) are not facts and are purely designed to sell newspapers no thought given to the families,friends and colleagues of those who are missing. We all want and need answers. They will come but it takes time.

[SupplierSam]

Folks, I think now would be a fine time for some busy beaver to make a list of the best posts on various categories and post it each day.

That way, we don't have new folks coming and bringing up stories already debunked.

Let me make an example: don't you think any posts about cargo fires need to take into account posts #8155 and #7596?




BTW, looking back on those posts, Albert Driver said:
Cargo Fire:
The T7 is fully equipped with cargo fire detection and suppression for some 30 minutes or so (T7 drivers will fill in the number).


Your Halon cans are good for your ETOPS time for your particular plane = up to 330 minutes + some extra just because.

[500N]

"Sharing of these in public by Boeing will enhance the investigation and search procedures considerably instead of beating around several false leads which are just feeding speculation and have wasted more than 3 weeks of time.""


Jumbo

Exactly as you said.

No, it won't enhance the investigation one bit, in fact it would just make more noise with even more wild theories.

If any of the agencies have any questions of Boeing, they would pick up the phone and ask them, that is if Boeing hasn't already got a liaison person on site.

[Blake777]

A modified 737 is to act as a flying air traffic controller over the search zone to prevent a collision between the numerous aircraft now tasked with searching for debris. This lonely stretch of Indian Ocean has become a busy place!


MH370 Tragedy: Australia to deploy flying air traffic controller - Latest - New Straits Times (http://www.nst.com.my/latest/font-color-red-mh370-tragedy-font-australia-to-deploy-flying-air-traffic-controller-1.543478)

[bud leon]

"Boeing Statement on Malaysia Airlines Flight 370
SEATTLE, March 24, 2014 - Boeing is saddened by the March 24 announcement by the prime minister of Malaysia regarding Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. Our thoughts and deepest sympathies continue to be with the families and loved ones of those aboard. Boeing continues to serve as a technical advisor to the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board."

[500N]

Blake

We have them, a very good opportunity to use it and the crew in a great training environment.

[londonman]

"Sharing of these in public by Boeing will enhance the investigation and search procedures considerably instead of beating around several false leads which are just feeding speculation and have wasted more than 3 weeks of time.""

The Boeing lawyers will almost certainly have a blanket ban on any discussion by Boeing on their involvement, the plane etc outside the official circles.

[jugofpropwash]

I would presume that this tightening up reported by Malaysian Airports is due to the footage released of the pilots walking through the gates with jackets on, and setting off an alarm, yet not being searched or asked to remove metal objects and being re checked. Everyone wants to trust pilots, but obviously, the checks need to be as stringent for them as anyone else.

If you're going to allow the copilot to leave the cockpit (even if a FA who may or may not have any idea how to fly a plane takes their place) then searching the pilot to be sure he's not carrying a knife or a bottle of water is pretty ridiculous.

[bono]

Having realized that there is no detectable debris on ocean surface in their search areas and that resolving this incident will take a long time, Australia has set up a dedicated Joint Agency Coordination Center with a retired defense chief as its head.


"As the search and recovery process may take some time, the Australian Government is seeking to provide a single point of contact for affected parties, while also taking into account the interests of other stakeholders.
The JACC will continue the close cooperation with the Government of Malaysia, which under international law has overall responsibility for the search, and with Malaysia Airlines.
The JACC will not be performing any search, recovery or investigation activities. These will remain the responsibility of the expert agencies.
Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston AC, AFC (Ret'd) will be leading the JACC to coordinate various aspects of the search on the ground."
Joint Agency Coordination Centre (http://www.jacc.gov.au)

[bono]

Can anyone explain why search effort is again taking place over the areas already searched before?


http://i61.tinypic.com/rr8uvq.jpg

[Hot n Heavy]

Can anyone explain why search effort is again taking place over the areas already searched before?

Maybe because the ocean is moving? We are looking for stuff that is probably hundreds of miles from where it started.:)

[planoramix]

After weeks of search not a single item belonging to MH370 has been found.

It has vanished.

My personal view as B777 Captain:

no structural damage, smoke/fire condition or other non normal event could have prevented the pilot to transmit a distress signal.
If for any reason any of the above situation could have developped into a rapid loss consciousness and control by the pilots the aircraft would then have crashed somewhere in the proximate area of the event.

Initiation of an unlawfull interference would have given the pilots time to either set ATC code of transmit on VHF (even blind) and trace of it would then exist.

Without the intent to bring blame to anyone without having proof of it I can see the following scenario:

- A pilot wants to disappear without leaving trace and by doing so creating a situation putting a governemt in the international spotlight and only by leaving no trace, whatever the cost, will the action be successful.

- Once set on the task the pilot would, at an appropriate time, take control of the flightdeck.

- At a FIR ATC change over, disable Transponder (switch) and ACARS (cb's) and turn to the new course

- Cabin crew and eventually passengers could become a 'threat' .
Manual depressurization of the aircraft and a climb will within 22 minutes exaust the passenger oxygen whilst the freezing temperature takes care of any cabin crew member eventualy gone on portable oxygen.

- From then on the flight continues on a pre-planned course and level to avoid VHF and direct radar coverage.

- Once reached the area with a deep ocean bottom and before running out of fuel the pilot, as smoothly as possible (FCTM 8.5), ditches the aircraft

- No doors are opened and the aircraft sinks in one single unit without leaving debries.

The aircraft has vanished.

[RifRaf3]

Regretably I feel that planoramix's scenario best fits the 'facts' thus far revealed, perhaps with a few variations.

[SOPS]

Maybe not exactly, but I'm starting to think along the same lines as well.

[Bill Harris]

That is a strange scenario presented, but this is a very usual incident. I agree, it is a best fit for the known events.

[Andy_S]

I'm in agreement with planoramix and have had a similar theory for the past fortnight. It really is the only logical theory in the light of the evidence so far.......

Whether the motives were political, personal or a mixture of both is up for grabs, as is whether it was a planned act or carried out on a whim, but on the whole I agree.

I think it’s fair to say that the ‘pilot suicide’ scenario is, based on what is known and can be credibly inferred, the least improbable.

[hamster3null]

- Once reached the area with a deep ocean bottom and before running out of fuel the pilot, as smoothly as possible (FCTM 8.5), ditches the aircraft

- No doors are opened and the aircraft sinks in one single unit without leaving debries.


I see two large potential problems here.

1. By all indications, the aircraft either ran out of fuel, or in any event came within 1 hour from running out of fuel. What's the point of taking the aircraft that far out? It could have been ditched in exactly the same manner in South China Sea, for the added benefit that it would never have to go within sight of land after leaving Malaysia. If the pilot was afraid that shipping lanes in South China Sea were too dense and created a risk of someone seeing the ditching, there's Philippine Sea, and there are hundreds of thousands of square miles of desolate 15000' deep ocean within 1 hour's flight from Straits of Malacca.

2. Ditching as described would require perfect surface conditions. Roaring 40's would be the last possible place to hope finding these conditions. Take a look at historical weather satellite imaging here: https://earthdata.nasa.gov/labs/worldview/ On the night in question. East Bay of Bengal could have worked, but the actual search area looks pretty bad.

P.S. My 1st point above touches on a bigger conceptual problem. We are presented with a sequence of actions and we're trying to find an overarching explanation (and we naturally end up leaning towards ditching/suicide). But even within this sequence, its parts don't logically flow into each other.
* It is not necessary or logical to ditch/suicide in the Indian Ocean when you're flying out of Malaysia in the northeasterly direction.
* Even if you choose to ditch/suicide in the Indian Ocean, it is not necessary or logical to do this in the area where everyone is looking. Natural/logical choices are (1) Bay of Bengal, (2) middle of the ocean (halfway between Australia and Madagascar).
* Even if you choose to ditch/suicide in that specific spot (maybe you're aiming for Diamantina Trench, even though Mariana Trench would be deeper, equally as accessible, and therefore more logical), there's no reason to do a U-turn across Malaysia and then veer north towards Andaman Islands. As long as you're crossing land, might as well take a direct route and cross Java.

However, all of these difficulties hinge on a single assumption - final destination in southeastern Indian Ocean. Without that piece of data, all others point in the opposite direction: towards most likely final destination northwest or possibly west of Andaman Islands. The aircraft was systematically taken off the original course and placed on a standard route which, without further deviations, would have put it in the Persian Gulf. It could have deviated from the route at a later point, and we'd need more information to narrow down the destination, but any destination there would present a more coherent picture than what we have.

[500N]

AVM Angus Houston calling a spade a spade, and that "it may never be found".

Wreckage of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 may never be found: Angus Houston (http://www.theage.com.au/national/wreckage-of-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-may-never-be-found-angus-houston-20140401-35w60.html)



Re "The biggest looser in this episode are Malaysian Govt and MAS. Their credibility has nosedived and fares of MAS have tumbled."

Self inflicted by the Malaysian Govt.

[ana1936]

Not quite sure where the current best estimate of crash position is but it seems to be at about 30 degrees South, 97 degrees East.

So not in roaring forties and not in the dark at 8:11am Malaysian time.

[dsc810]

I would add to the above comment that it is unlikely that you could ditch a 777 in the open ocean which is subject to large swells without it breaking up on impact.
An ocean is very different surface to land on compared to a river....such as the Hudson.

On another topic:
I suspect Freescale is just "bigging up" the status of their 20 employees lost in the accident. They were probably just general workers rather than key executives/dept heads.
If one of our employees was lost then I expect my company would start pumping out the PR about how essential they were and how it was a tragic loss and how we are all devastated: yeah I'll bet. Meanwhile back at the ranch the other employees would have already put in their CV's for the post and the company would actually be wondering whether we could do without the positions anyway.

[Pontius Navigator]

Bono, if you look at the grey underlay you will see that it shows track coverage of the whole area but with gaps.

It is standard search procedure to set out post-flight the actual areas searched. Subsequent searches will thentry and cover the gaps.

The yellow overlay is the total area and when that is searched further gaps will appear.

Now we know in this case that the geographical location of those gaps moves hour by hour so really it is luck if you don't miss any on the refly.

[Fake Sealion]

Following a ditching, wouldn't the aircraft structure be subject to very high pressures as it sank?
This would surely at some point cause disruption to the fuselage permitting some buoyant objects to spill out and find their way to the surface?

Admittedly in much smaller quantities than with a high speed impact.

[Pontius Navigator]

Surely Singapore would have seen it with some of their Radar assets flying to the South? I haven't heard anything other than the Singapore Prime Minister offering all help, once the initial missing report was given. Of course they helped in the South China Sea and Malacca Straits searches.

I haven't seen any posts related to the aircraft being within range of Singapore radar. What did I miss?

[ETOPS]

Just going back to the change in phraseology used in the last RT transmission..

How on earth can it have taken 3 weeks for this info to be clarified? Who listened to the ATC tape initially and why was the false information published?

[SOPS]

I was thinking the same thing ETOPS. For weeks we have people commenting on what the use of 'all right, good night' could mean. Nearly all of the conclusions were rubbish. Now we find out the final transmission was something a little different. Not that it makes much difference.

But like you said, why has it taken weeks for this information to be realised?

[orbitjet]

Been watching the marinetraffic.com website for the last few days and notice the XUE LONG was slowly moving out of the search area and now its off the coast of Karratha and its destination is CN SHA looks like its going back home at a steady speed of 15.3 knots.

[mattyj]

Ok my post disappeared as usual,

I'll re-phrase..Malaysia Airlines is majority owned by the Government of Malaysia and the Captain was a supporter of the opposition leader who has recently been reconvicted of a made up crime, and the Captain was present at the court case, and also recently divorced. So maybe in a state that wasn't conducive to work..

[Pontius Navigator]

Just going back to the change in phraseology used in the last RT transmission..

How on earth can it have taken 3 weeks for this info to be clarified? Who listened to the ATC tape initially and why was the false information published?

Whilst your question is valid for the public at large, do you suppose that this is new information to the authorities?

[orbitjet]

Further to my post about the XUE LONG leaving the search area and currently off the coast of Karratha and heading back north, I notice there is a Chinese search vessel HAI XUN 31 moving around Christmas Island.

Is there something going on around there? One vessel searching and another heading there way?

[funfly]

Let us not loose sight of the fact that the current possible location is based on a mathematical extraction of the Inmarsat data (as the data itself contains no pinpointing reference) combined with an estimation of fuel endurance.

Nothing else that we are aware of except the fact that the aircraft has not been located anywhere else.

[onetrack]

I find the lack of debris in the areas that have been searched to indicate that the plane did not crash thereI guess I'm not the only one to have the nagging feeling - exactly as I stated, when the first search area turned up nothing - that they were looking in the wrong place - and, as this search area has turned up exactly nothing, the logical conclusion is - the search is still in the wrong place.

Please show me the past aircraft crashes onto the open ocean surface, where no damage was done, and no debris was left floating.

The basic problem is the sheer paucity of real information such as speed and altitude in the last sector of the flight path.
The aircraft could have ditched 200NM further North, or gone 200NM further South than the initial search area.
I'm of the opinion a lot more work needs to go into pulling together any of the smallest shreds of evidence, that could produce a more precise definition of the actual flight path.

Perhaps a "convention" is needed, where all the experts get brought together to have a serious "idea-bashing" meeting - which might produce better results, than individual agencies working alone and independently.

[papershuffler]

Is there any way anyone could possibly have known how poor/switched off the primary radar coverage for that part of Asia and Australia (especially considering all the hype regarding JORN) actually was, prior to this event?

[Sir Richard]

It is normal practice to give POB and registration in many parts of the world (it confirms the billing process!) Certain areas require more information. "security check complete, ADC number xxx, etc."

It is not too unusual to repeat the FL350 Level call if you think you may have forgotten it. It was 0108 local time after all!

[Luc Lion]

Thanks.
I remember situations where I did repeat report messages ; they involved higher-than-normal stress level.

[onetrack]

NoD - All I'm stating is that comparing a crash on a calm icy river with an Airbus as against a crash on a windy open ocean with swell and waves with a 777, is the equivalent of comparing apples with oranges. We have no ditching crash record for a 777 to refer to for comparison. We have a crash into a seawall, and that crash showed us the 777 is built like a tank - but it still can't be compared to a ditching for comparison purposes.

Somewhere out there, there's some identifiable pieces of MH370 wreckage, and they will almost certainly appear in the next few weeks.
It just needs a particularly alert person, and the right circumstances. It will probably be a fisherman.

How many times have people found a critical item that was being searched for, that couldn't be found - despite thorough searches being carried out - and the finder found it by pure accident, by looking at the right place, at the right time, in the right light?

[PerS]

MAS 370 (Kuala Lumpur to Beijing)
PILOT-ATC RADIOTELEPHONY TRANSCRIPT
Departure from KLIA: 8 March 2014

12:25:53 MAS 370 Delivery MAS 370 Good Morning
12:26:02 ATC MAS 370 Standby and Malaysia Six is cleared to Frankfurt via AGOSA Alpha Departure six thousand feet squawk two one zero six
12:26:19 ATC ... MAS 370 request level
12:26:21 MAS 370 MAS 370 we are ready requesting flight level three five zero to Beijing
12:26:39 ATC MAS 370 is cleared to Beijing via PIBOS A Departure Six Thousand Feet squawk two one five seven
12:26:45 MAS 370 Beijing PIBOS A Six Thousand Squawk two one five seven, MAS 370 Thank You
12:26:53 ATC MAS 370 Welcome over to ground
12:26:55 MAS 370 Good Day

12:27:27 MAS 370 Ground MAS370 Good morning Charlie One Requesting push and start
12:27:34 ATC MAS370 Lumpur Ground Morning Push back and start approved Runway 32 Right Exit via Sierra 4.
12:27:40 MAS 370 Push back and start approved 32 Right Exit via Sierra 4 POB 239 Mike Romeo Oscar
12:27:45 ATC Copied
12:32:13 MAS 370 MAS377 request taxi.
12:32:26 ATC MAS37..... (garbled) ... standard route. Hold short Bravo
12:32:30 MAS 370 Ground, MAS370. You are unreadable. Say again.
12:32:38 ATC MAS370 taxi to holding point Alfa 11 Runway 32 Right via standard route. Hold short of Bravo.
12:32:42 MAS 370 Alfa 11 Standard route Hold short Bravo MAS370.
12:35:53 ATC MAS 370 Tower
12:36:19 ATC (garbled) ... Tower ... (garbled)
MAS 370 1188 MAS370 Thank you

12:36:30 MAS 370 Tower MAS370 Morning
12:36:38 ATC MAS370 good morning. Lumpur Tower. Holding point..[garbled]..10 32 Right
12:36:50 MAS 370 Alfa 10 MAS370
12:38:43 ATC 370 line up 32 Right Alfa 10. MAS 370 Line up 32 Right Alfa 10 MAS370.
12:40:38 ATC 370 32 Right Cleared for take-off. Good night.
MAS 370 32 Right Cleared for take-off MAS370. Thank you Bye.

12:42:05 MAS 370 Departure Malaysian Three Seven Zero
12:42:10 ATC Malaysian Three Seven Zero selamat pagi identified. Climb flight level one eight zero cancel SID turn right direct to IGARI
12:42:48 MAS 370 Okay level one eight zero direct IGARI Malaysian one err Three Seven Zero
12:42:52 ATC Malaysian Three Seven Zero contact Lumpur Radar One Three Two Six good night MAS 370 Night One Three Two Six Malaysian Three Seven Zero

12:46:51 MAS 370 Lumpur Control Malaysian Three Seven Zero
12:46:51 ATC Malaysian Three Seven Zero Lumpur radar Good Morning climb flight level two five zero
12:46:54 MAS370 Morning level two five zero Malaysian Three Seven Zero
12:50:06 ATC Malaysian Three Seven Zero climb flight level three five zero
12:50:09 MAS370 Flight level three five zero Malaysian Three Seven Zero
01:01:14 MAS370 Malaysian Three Seven Zero maintaining level three five zero
01:01:19 ATC Malaysian Three Seven Zero
01:07:55 MAS370 Malaysian...Three Seven Zero maintaining level three five zero
01:08:00 ATC Malaysian Three Seven Zero
01:19:24 ATC Malaysian Three Seven Zero contact Ho Chi Minh 120 decimal 9 Good Night
01:19:29 MAS370 Good Night Malaysian Three Seven Zero

[philip2412]

I think nearly everbody expected,that some debris would have been found after 3 weeks.Somehow the mystery deepens.
This is truly an extraordinaire accident,we still have 3 possibilties :
1.Technical faillure
2.Pilot action/suicide
3.Third party

Maybe we shall think about an event nearly already forgotten, ca. 3 weeks before MH370 we had those mysteries fires on the airline with know name.
The culprit was still onboard,when thea/c landed in DXB.
Sometime i think it`s to much coindience,two unusual events in such a short time in the same region.

[RifRaf3]

The fewer the number of pieces of wreckage on impacting the water, the lower the chances of discovery. Even a bad ditching in the dreaded 'roaring forties' may only result in a few pieces of wreckage; a wing, a tail an engine, etc., compared with hundreds of pieces from a high speed impact. It's also well outside any expected search area. Anyone planning this is unlikely to have known about the ACARS pings, much less the doppler effects resolving the ambiguity of direction. Finessing the ditching is rather irrelevant to someone planning this. Suiciding prior to impact does dramatically increase the chances of discovery due to the fragmentation of the aircraft, but this does involving guessing the perpetrator's mindset.

The same scenario in other optional ocean regions involves a far greater chance of eventual discovery because of greater radar coverage and much shallower water.

[joe_bloggs]

Having read the radio transcript something is not right. All the conversations prior to contact with departure radar use MAS370 not Malaysian 370.

But after radar contact the transcript show Malaysian 370 being used by both ATC and the aircraft.

It doesn't appear to be an accurate transcript. Or am I missing something?

[MartinM]

SSN wouldn't help
Due to changes in temperature at different depths, it's unlikely that the sound of a beacon a few thousand meters deep would be detected by a submarine at a couple of hundred meters depth. The sound tends to radiate at about the same depth, which is good in that it doesn't decay as fast horizontally, but in this case would keep the sub from hearing it. Nice idea, but it just wouldn't work.


This is called the thermal layer. All you need to go is beyond the thermal layers that isolate. At some point, the temperature are no longer significant as the temperature will stay the same throughout the year.

e.g. here in Switzerland the lakes tend to be all year the same temperature at a depth of around 20m. The lake stays at 5°C. At the surface diving down it can change
In winter times you have from 3°C at the surface down to 20m and increase in temperature. In summer at the surface to 3m you get around 20°C decreasing as you go down. In summer you have drastic jumps.

The ocean follows the same principle.

[Pontius Navigator]

This is called the thermal layer. All you need to go is beyond the thermal layers that isolate. At some point, the temperature are no longer significant as the temperature will stay the same throughout the year.

There is more to the ocean than that. Unlike a lake it is hugely different and you are likely to get more than one layer. An ocean surface current often has a subsurface counter current and also deep to shallow currents too.

[Luc Lion]

Having read the radio transcript something is not right. All the conversations prior to contact with departure radar use MAS370 not Malaysian 370.
But after radar contact the transcript show Malaysian 370 being used by both ATC and the aircraft.
It doesn't appear to be an accurate transcript. Or am I missing something?
Yes, you're missing something.
Obviously, delivery, ground and tower parts of the transcript have been written by another person than the approach and radar part.
When you read "MAS370", you should understand that it is pronounced "Malaysian-three-seven-zero".

[igs942]

I did post a question over the weekend about validating the sat data but it was culled.

Would it be possible to employ an aircraft with a greater range to fly the suspected route and compare the ping signature with what Inmarsat already have. Wouldn't that validate the suspected route and speed and therefore the search area?

Or are there too many variables for this to be accurate?

[SOPS]

Ok, please stop this....they did not read back the frequency nonsense.....it happens hundreds of times a day. Especially when you are handing off from a home ATC.

IT MEANS NOTHING.Stop hanging on to it.:ugh:

[Capn Bloggs]

You guys need to chill out about the radio calls! Radio calls are messed up every day by virtually every pilot flying. A few hiccups/errors here and there mean absolutely nothing in the big scheme of things.

[Capn Bloggs]

Why would you need to freeze the occupants and "yourself"...? Is it not possible to raise the cabin altitude by manual control of outflow valves, without shutting off the packs?

Interesting concept. Cabin altitude of 40,000ft/-56°C OAT with the packs on full hot trying to keep it warm enough for the driver. I wonder if that would work?

[GlueBall]

Interesting concept. Cabin altitude of 40,000ft/-56°C OAT with the packs on full hot trying to keep it warm enough for the driver. I wonder if that would work?

You don't need to raise the cabin altitude to FL400 to asphyxiate occupants; 25,000 feet will do it gently.

[Smudger]

Apropo of nothing.... hypoxia / anoxia is a good way to go... having done several decompression runs in the RAF chambers I can say fron experience that it is not unpleasant... you don't gasp for breath as in the movies, you are breathing air, it just doesn't have enough oxygen in it to maintain conciousness... you just gently drift away.... (until the doctor in attendance puts your oxygen mask back on for you that is)... should I ever consider ending it all that is the way I would want to go for sure.... not that I am I hasten to add

[portmanteau]

I trust you mean thin as in not much to tell us. you can forget any suggestion that things will be left out deliberately. accident investigators dont work that way, read any report on any accident certainly by icao/aaib/ntsb and you will see how thorough they are.

[gayford]

Portmanteau, Your assumption is only correct if the controller is using both primary and secondary radars. However, on this occasion I suspect that the en-route control centres might have been operating utilising secondary radar only, a common mode of operation within regulated airspace, where authorised.

[G0ULI]

igs942
Even if the exact position was known where the engines ran out of fuel, the aircraft could still have glided for over 100 miles in any direction. So pi times the radius squared gives a search area of 3.14 times 10000 = 31,400 square miles as a minimum.

Because of the depth of water, a towed sonar array would be needed to pick up debris on the sea floor and the maximum speed would be in the region of 5 knots. Perhaps you could survey as much as 250 square miles a day with side scan sonar. It would still need 125 days just to totally cover this relatively small area. It could be many years before any wreckage is discovered on the sea bed.

[MarkJJ]

I think the point is with the last radio call, yes he didn't read back the freq, yes this happens a lot, but there's normally a reason for not reading it back, perhaps you were day dreaming, filling in a log book, A nav check, systems check, shoving food down your face, chatting. The list is endless. But, what was the reason that the PNF didn't read back the frequency? What was is that lead him not too, an innocent reason? The start of something that distracted his attention? As this was the last human interaction from the flight it deserves an analysis?

[old,not bold]

Once upon a time, Gulf Air lost a Skyvan in the Gulf, not very far from Das Island, following a double engine failure.

The pilot did a successful ditching, and was picked up, along with his only passenger, from the top of the aircraft by a helicopter which was in the area and heard his Mayday. The aircraft sank shortly afterwards. The helicopter pilot had obtained a very good fix on its location; plus/minus 100m, say?

We wanted to recover the aircraft to find out exactly what had happened, especially the fuel cross-feed settings. The seabed was flat, sandy and quite shallow; about 30m is my recollection, but I can't remember.

We hired an oil industry service vessel equipped by Decca and capable of finding almost anything made of metal on the seabed, down to a large wrench.

We paid for 10 days searching by that expensive piece of kit, and they found nothing. After that time the magnesium in the engines would be trickling on to the sand, so we gave up.

With that experience, I have to say that finding any part of MH370, let alone the FDR and CVR is unimaginably difficult by comparison with our search, with the position uncertainly, great depth and seabed topography. Any success will be the result of very, very intelligent guesswork, a lot of experience of the ocean, and a huge dose of luck.

[albatross]

Not /forgetting too read back a freq is certainly not uncommon especially if you, in anticipation, already have the freq set up in standby on the radio.
ATC clears you from his freq, gives new one - you glance at the radio to confirm it is as you entered it.
Say goodbye to ATC, forget to read back the freq.
Switch freqs on the radio.

Not reading back the freq is not going to cause any reaction on the part of ATC.

Certainly no: "My Gawd he didn't read back the freq! We had better scramble the fighters!"

If by analysis you mean endless posts of speculation, let's not do that.

[PA28Viking]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BkIAPZMCEAAogfL.png:large

Would you normally wait 4 minutes before checking in on the new frequency?

Change from Delivery to Ground: 32 sec delay
Change from Ground to Tower: 11 sec delay
Change form Tower to Approach: 1:27 minutes delay (from take off clearance)
Change from Approach to Radar: 3:59 minutes delay

Yes, you could have important things to do (aviate, navigate) but 4 minutes ...?

I guess what I'm saying is; Was there some problem developing at that time already?

[core_dump]

Would you normally wait 4 minutes before checking in on the new frequency?

The transcript does not include transmissions to/from other aircraft. The frequency could have been busy at the time.

[WeeJeem]

Yes, you could have important things to do (aviate, navigate) but 4 minutes ...?

I guess what I'm saying is; Was there some problem developing at that time already?

...like procrastinating on reaching a go/no go point before committing to an preplanned but irreversible course of actions? Is that what you're saying?

[PriFly]

Knowing human nature in all honesty probably not a good idea. Why? because you will have 'experts' and laypeople alike coming out of the woodwork trying to decipher every single word, every single annunciation, grammar, making 'guesses' as to what the 'garbled' part really means etc not to mention have 100000000 different people arguing who's voice was really speaking etc.

What I like the Malaysian authroities to do however is to release the transcript like they did HOWEVER to also add on that it is literally VERBATIM word for word transcribing so there are no controvercies at all as far as what the actual words spoken are concern.

[RatherBeFlying]

While I have great difficulty understanding just what is to be gained by mysteriously disappearing without a trace, there's a possibility that VNAV could be set up to start a descent at a waypoint where you would be down to minimum fuel, but you would still have to be conscious to put down flaps to achieve a ditching at minimum speed.

Without flaps, the speed would be much higher and we could expect some breakup and release of buoyant items in the fuselage.

The longer we go without turning up any debris, the more it looks like a controlled ditching - - with the very faint possibility the Inmarsat folks missed something in their calculations.

Given the more Northerly position estimate of the ditching, it's reasonable to expect some debris, if there was any, to make its way to WA. The drift models will suggest a time when it may be useful to check WA beaches at low tide.

[Ian W]

Although the timing of the last few pings does support a relatively straight line flight , surely it is not the only solution ...????....... The last four complete pings only really show that the source was south of the equator , and in an hour moved about 186 nm further Eastward/further from the satellite's longitude. , then another 240 some nm East during the next hour , and then about 266 nm in the following hour . This could mean a crippled aircraft was flying slowly SSE but turning gently left to end up flying East ........putting it in the sea somewhere between the equator and 10 degrees South latitude.....??....

My understanding of the INMARSAT information is that it is both timing and doppler shift. The timng gives the range ring, the doppler shift an indication of the relative velocities of the aircraft and satellite during that ping. The velocity of the satellite is known so the velocity of the aircraft across the range ring can be calculated. Thus for any likely speed two tracks for the aircraft can be calculated for each ping. Then the probabilities come in plus the airborne time vs endurance at varoius speeds and levels. I would think by logical steps the possible aircraft htrack, speed, and level can be estimated reasonably accurately.

[Halfnut]

MH370 wreckage, probable cause may never be found, says ex-NTSB investigator | Leeham News and Comment (http://leehamnews.com/2014/03/31/mh370-wreckage-probable-cause-may-never-be-found-says-ex-ntsb-investigator/)

[LookingForAJob]

Gayford and all. I would be curious to know how common it would be for ATC to only use secondary RADAR.Not uncommon at all in areas with civil ATC where it's very unlikely that unknown aircraft would appear. That doesn't stop the mil having primary radar coverage too if there is some threat perceived but civil ATC often does not have easy access to the primary picture. The benefits are a 'cleaner' picture and cost savings by not having to install and operate a primary radar.

[2dPilot]

HMS Tireless joins search: BBC News - MH370: UK submarine joins search for missing plane (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26845118)

[cappt]

I don't see anything unusual about losing comm after the frequency change hand off, this happens on regular basis. Usually a quick switch back to the previous frequency will clear up the error. However this is the most likely place where a mistake is to be made by the controller assigning the new freq or the pilots receiving the new frequency. I see too much focus on this being an intentional nordo situation.

[ZOOKER]

Could it be that the 01:01:14 Tx was initiated by the crew to remind ATC that they were still on frequency?
Without access to the full frequency transcript, it may have been that MAS370 was the only a/c on the Lumpur Control frequency, or had not heard any other RTF for 10 minutes and therefore thought it timely to remind ATC they were still there.
This happened often at the area-control units where I worked, especially after the traffic 'turndown' associated with the global recession.
On several occasions, I warned flight-crews that if the RTF sounds unusually quiet, it was because yourselves and I are the only people here.

[JamesGV]

Hishammuddin Hussein, Malaysia's transport minister, said it was unfair for all of the blame to focus on the Malaysian response to the crisis.

"Just putting MAS on the witness stand (is not enough). We also need to bear in mind what is the role and responsibility of Rolls-Royce, of Boeing, of all these expert agencies. Where is their voice ?" He told Chinese TV.

Make of that what you will !

[lomapaseo]

Only official spokespersons should be heard. If it isn't the Malaysians they should say so and identify who it is.

From my narrow viewpoint there are too many voices speaking from within Malaysia without support from the other parties.

[TopBunk]

Chronus

From your declared profile, I will forgive your ignorance, on this occasion, but request that appreciate that you have 2 ears and 1 mouth, and suggest you use them in that proportion to learn from those that are professionals.

It is perfectly normal around the world to report when you are maintaining your cleared level, for ATC information as much as anything. Often it will alert them to the possibility of re-clearing another aircraft to a FL you have now cleared. Quite often it allows you to benefit, and be cleared to your requested level and save some fuel by getting a climb a minute or so before ATC might have noticed on secondary radar that you were maintaining your level. When it comes to primary only radar cover, a report of maintaining cleared FL is even more inportant.

As I said before, sometimes you forget is you called level. It is then simpler to repeat the call to be sure. Nothing should be inferred from it, none of us has 100% total recall.

Good night.

[mickjoebill]

Live telephone interview this Wed morning with Angus Houston, retired chief of the Australian Airforce, who is in charge of the new joint agency MH 370 coordination centre, including search organisations, governments, industry, family and media.

He said the ATC transcript appears as a normal pilot exchange.

He also stated that they will continue to search and to search with vigour.


There is no time frame, but if nothing is found on the surface they will have to make other plans.

He reiterated that search was based on satellite datum and unambiguously kept referring to the plane in the Ocean.

When asked, he said was not aware that a British submarine was to join the search and commented that it was currently 5am his local time.

ABC shortly after the interview stated that an Malaysian minister announced the subs involvement via twitter in the early hours.

[curious digger]

even an RF com can be forensically distinguished to be or not to be spoken by only one person or more, doesnt it

[JamesGV]

The transcript....and the "pause".

Sounds like it could be due to anything "minor".
It's NOT a long pause. Five seconds or less until the reply (and it'll take a second to finish the rest of his sentence, so 3 or 4 seconds at the outside).

The "odd" bit is, they included it in the transcript !

[Bleve]

2dPilot
?... is 'unreadable' usual with 'local' (ground control) communications?

Yes. You often get more than one station transmitting at the same time. The transmissions interfer with each other and all you get is a 'garbled' or 'unreadable' transmission. Once again completely typical and nothing to be getting our knickers in a twist over.

[D-IFF_ident]

Is it SOP for Malaysia Airlines to state the tail number as part of the pushback clearance read back?

[Vinnie Boombatz]

IATA chief: 'We cannot let an aircraft simply vanish' - 4/1/2014 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/iata-chief-39we-cannot-let-an-aircraft-simply-vanish39-397662/)

"International Air Transport Association director general and chief executive officer Tony Tyler, speaking in Kuala Lumpur at IATA's annual operations conference . . . says a viable process for tracking aircraft in airspace beyond radar coverage must be agreed by December this year. . . .

Tyler says IATA will convene an expert task force, that will include ICAO. 'This group will examine all of the options available for tracking commercial aircraft against the parameters of implementation, investment, time and complexity to achieve the desired coverage. This group will report its conclusions by December 2014, reflecting the need for urgent action and careful analysis,' he says."

IATA task force to explore live data streaming: Tyler - 4/1/2014 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/iata-task-force-to-explore-live-data-streaming-tyler-397659/)

"IATA director general Tony Tyler says that the loss of an aircraft such as Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 must never happen again, and that live streaming of data is something that needs to be seriously examined. . . .

The IATA Ops conference has a very strong focus on safety, but its presence in KL during the MH370 crisis is a coincidence, as it was organised months ago. . . .

He said that live streaming of data is an issue that should be 'looked at quite carefully,' but questioned the technical practicality of having 100,000 flights daily streaming all data."

[porterhouse]

with the aircraft heading off into the wild blue yonder on whatever heading/track was last selected on the MCP?
Now, what remains is to explain why the aircraft changed heading many times and why it made those turns in places which are far removed from any alternate airports. You have to be much more specific to have viable hypothesis.

[Lonewolf_50]

'We cannot let an aircraft simply vanish' Who is "we" in this case? I, for one, had not a bloody thing to do with MH 370 vanishing, and neither did most of the people he was talking to.
"IATA director general Tony Tyler says that the loss of an aircraft such as Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 must never happen again,
When I hear the term "must never happen again" I immediately wait for the other shoe to drop, as whomever is saying that is either selling something or an utter moron.
but questioned the technical practicality of having 100,000 flights daily streaming all data." Ah, a grain of sense entered the proceedings ...

[RifRaf3]

Thanks, that's VERY helpful. I tried a search and came up with nothing.

Sorry I was not aware that we all had to search for your immediate needs.
The thread starts at 1. Just start reading.

[Bravo Romeo Alpha]

There have been some posts regarding the use of primary radar (PSR) by ATC. The normal configuration for radars used by ATC in Malaysia is a 60 nm range PSR, co-mounted with a 200 nm range SSR, turning at 15 RPM. Of course these ranges are limited by the radar horizon and any terrain obstructions to the line of sight signal. The Military ATC radars are configured as a 50 nm PSR co-mounted with a 250 nm SSR, rotating at 15 RPM. See the Malaysian AIP ENR 1.6 for details.
The PSR/SSR configuration described above is common in many other countries, including Australia. In theory you can do without the PSR and just use SSR, however for busy approach control airspace (within 60 nm), PSR is used as an insurance against non-transponder aircraft (equipment failure, not switched on etc.). The PSR/SSR co-mounted configuration is the most economical way to provide ATS.
Long range PSR is much more expensive, and the rotation rate has to be slowed to about 5 RPM to obtain ranges to about 200 to 230 nm. 5 RPM will not normally support the use of 3 nm separation in approach airspace, thus reducing capacity. Hence the use of short range PSR/long range SSR @ 15 RPM – it provides surveillance for both approach control using PSR and SSR, and enroute surveillance using SSR only. ADS-B and Multilateration surveillance data are now also displayed at many ATCCs, but these, like SSR, are dependant or cooperative systems – no transponder and you are not seen.
It should be noted that at the time when MAS 370 disappeared, the airports and approach control services at Kota Bharu and Langkawi were closed. However the radars were turning to send SSR data to the KL ATCC at Subang for enroute surveillance. Butterworth/Penang, Kuantan, Subang and KL were open. In all cases all radar data would have been recorded.
Singapore ATCC has 220 nm range PSR, and 250 nm SSR coverage surveillance. However the LKP is 340 nm from Singapore, 96 nm from Kota Bharu and 290 nm from HCM and would be out of ATC PSR coverage. The Air Defence Radars are/should be a different story.
As an ex ATC (including time in Malaysia) I agree that the transcript shows a normal situation. I would be more interested in the transcripts of air/ground and ATC coordination communications after the MAS 370 data block disappeared from the ATCC displays. These may be revealed when the initial investigation report is released.

[ShenziRubani]

funny to see the official narrative coming out of Malaysia focusing on the criminal act. They are over it, want this story to be gone and what best than "lost at sea at the hands of a criminal".

watching CNN is sadly too funny.

[wes_wall]

A question which has not been raised, if the airplane goes missing, or radio contact is lost, then why no aircraft painting occurred immediately upon loss of communications. Seems that if ATC is unable to contact the airplane via radio, then their tracking becomes key in where the airplane might be. Since they had confirmed transponder contact, then loss, some passive contact would have still been possible. I would think that any thing being painted at or around this time would be of extreme interest.

[Propduffer]

if the airplane goes missing, or radio contact is lost, then why no aircraft painting occurred immediately upon loss of communications. Seems that if ATC is unable to contact the airplane via radio, then their tracking becomes key in where the airplane might be. Since they had confirmed transponder contact, then loss, some passive contact would have still been possible. I would think that any thing being painted at or around this time would be of extreme interest. In this case the flight did not go missing for Malaysian ATC - they had handed the flight off to Vietnamese ATC. The Vietnamese did look on primary radar once they determined it was missing from their ATC radar; they saw what could only have been MH370 headed west, back towards the Malaysian landmass - and they reported this to Malaysian authorities (we don't know exactly when or how but they have said that they did do so.)

Interestingly enough, the Malaysian military much later acknowledged tracking a flight on primary radar at about that time and on about that course until it went out of their range somewhere in the Malacca Strait at 2:40 am local time.
A week or ten days later the Thai government piped up and said that their military had also tracked (apparently) this same flight at that time.

The interesting part is that on March 8th, in the first reports of a plane missing, the Malaysian government issued a statement that the last sighting of MH370 was at 2:40 am on the 9th. We know this for a fact!
So we know that the Malaysian government was aware of MH370's filght path out of the South China Sea from the very beginning of this event.

Now, why did the Malaysian government let 8 nations search the South China Sea looking for an airliner they knew wasn't there for the next week??

Can anybody answer that question?

[vapilot2004]

Having read the radio transcript something is not right. All the conversations prior to contact with departure radar use MAS370 not Malaysian 370.

But after radar contact the transcript show Malaysian 370 being used by both ATC and the aircraft.

It doesn't appear to be an accurate transcript. Or am I missing something?

Many airlines require the captain to handle the aircraft on the ground. RT would be covered by the PM. Perhaps the co-pilot took over and the subsequent RT was handled by the captain could be one theory. Also, generally ATC will often parrot a crew's phraseology and vice versa.

Point of interest: It is a transcript, so I would imagine there are no shortcuts and what is written is exactly what was said.

How common are garbled radio communications?


Quite common in my experience, 2dpilot, particularly at a large airport with many A/C on the same frequency.

Is there any way anyone could possibly have known how poor/switched off the primary radar coverage for that part of Asia and Australia (especially considering all the hype regarding JORN) actually was, prior to this event?

A quick gander at a map tells the story very well - track is well out of radar range because it is far from any populated land masses.

[Blake777]

A few posters have mentioned the possibility of some items of wreckage washing up on West Australian beaches.

We have some very isolated areas where debris items could remain undiscovered for long periods of time before anyone ventured there. It would depend entirely where the items were carried to, but we can only hope that if this does turn out to be the case, something lands in a more populated area where people frequent the coastline on a regular basis. This is a very big state with a small population.

[MountainBear]

I noticed there was a dispute a few days ago about the "partial ping" and fuel starvation and I agree with Porterhouse that this is unlikely. The reason is that even assuming there was enough residual power from the ram turbine or some other source to power the SATCOM the fact is that the firmware of the terminal has to go through a boot sequence when it is powered on again--the length of time which is unknown. The boot sequence could be as little as a few seconds or as long as a minute or two. As an illustration: when the power flickers on and off in one's home the refrigerator powers off and then immediately powers back on again. On the other hand, when the power flickers on and off one's computer simply turns off an does turn on again until one presses the power button and goes through the entire boot sequence.

So it would be a hell of a coincidence for the power to go off from fuel starvation, come back on as the result of the ram turbine or something else, the boot sequence in the SATCOM firmware to comeplete, and just at the precise millisecond it is sending a ping to log-on to the system again the power dies again. :suspect:

[SOPS]

In the 777 at least, the door unlocks if the aircraft depressurises.

And to the person talking about biz jets and cloaking the radar...please....

[jugofpropwash]

In the 777 at least, the door unlocks if the aircraft depressurises.

Wow. That certainly throws some water on the whole "intentional depressurization to knock out the passengers" theory. Although - is that just the "standard" door lock? Can someone on the flight deck still override that?

[deanm]

"In the 777 at least, the door unlocks if the aircraft depressurises."

Any 777 drivers or techs able to advise at what cabin altitude this mechanism unlocks the cockpit door?

If it doesn't activate until (say) 15-20,000 feet, a gradual cabin depressurisation would likely go unnoticed & generate no response.

[EW73]

After what looks like roughly 9,107 posts talking about this mystery with the 777, and only now somebody just happens to mention this about the flightdeck door???

[Xeptu]

Personally, I’m thinking a power interrupt to explain the partial ping is plausible. If shortly after the 0811 ping the left engine were to flame out, that would cause a momentary loss off AC power to the left AC bus (Satcom unit powered by the left AC bus) would it not, until auto AC crossfeed joins the AC busses.
A momentary power interrupt could cause the satcom unit to reboot and re-establish the satellite connection, this could be interrupted by either a steep bank to the left shielding the antennae or a flameout of the right engine removing all AC power available to the satcom unit.

What do you think. plausible and worthy of a forensic investigation or impossible.

[ampclamp]

777 door unlocks when depressurised? Really?

None of the aircraft I have experience with do. Even if it had this feature it would not unlock the manual operated mechanical lock.
Security doors have a blow out panel for rapid depressurisation but (afaik) no unlocking feature I am aware of.

[Datayq1]

While pondering why a turn back to the mainland at IGARI would not have reentered KL FIR I came across the following tidbit dated 2007:

"KUALA LUMPUR FLIGHT INFORMATION REGION
CHANGES TO AIRSPACE STRUCTURE OVER THE EASTERN PENINSULAR...

1.3 Under this improvement, a new surveillance radar has been installed at Kota Bharu and this will enhance radar coverage (expected to be commissioned in July 2007) and provides redundant surveillance coverage to the current radar networks.

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w3/dataq1/IGARI-Last-2.jpg

[Richard C]

I think it can be taken as a given that if/when the drift calculations show that debris from the search area could have drifted onto a coastline, the RCC will task aerial littoral search missions.

[mm43]

We already know that the aircraft missed its regular check-in at 23:41 UTC and only got through at 00:11. The timing of the AES interrogation is set by the GES software; dependent on packet traffic.

In other words, the GES polls the AES.


My guess from what has been stated in other posts and my experience with computer systems is that the aircraft sent a login type message to the satellite to say "I'm active" (presumably after some type of reset which we are guessing may be due to a power off/on event).That is valid following any short-term power outage or loss of the GES P channel signal.

[rigbyrigz]

The special closed briefing for Family that traveled to Malaysia (video-conferenced to China) is over; no news yet on the result of the Powerpoint presentation of the Family Committee "loop map" that showed 270 degree turn. (They submitted it for "consideration").

News will probably "leak out" soon enough, although Civil Aviation Director-general Rahman said a report would be given out later.

The PM and trans minster were out of the country, but the meeting included several biggies:
"It is learnt that the briefing was also attended by Malaysian prime minister's special envoy to China Tan Sri Ong Ka Ting, China ambassador to Malaysia Dr Huang Huikang, Royal Malaysian Air Force chief General Tan Sri Rodzali Daud and the investigation team."

[hamster3null]

The timing of the AES interrogation is set by the GES software; dependent on packet traffic.

In other words, the GES polls the AES.


I stand corrected. In either case, after successful interrogations at 19:41, 20:41, 21:41 and 22:41, the gap at 23:41 is at least curious. Especially since 23:41 is middle of the night for most of the coverage area of Inmarsat 3-F1, and traffic should be at the daily low.

Although, if I'm reading the spec correctly, failure to respond to an interrogation (due to LOS or for whatever other reasons) is supposed to result in attempts to resend it every 10 seconds until either the AES comes back or it misses 5 requests. At which point it would be kicked off the table and there would be no 0:11. So maybe the satellite was just too busy. (Or maybe I have an outdated spec.)

Incidentally, do you have any idea what, if anything, other than temporary loss of power / reboot, could cause the aircraft to send 3 packets in 18:27 to 18:29 as it was turning?

[mary meagher]

It seems unlikely that both Captain and First Officer would conspire to bring about the vanishing act. Have the Malasian police turned up any evidence of collusion? We know the Captain was concerned about recent political events; he may not have intended a fatal outcome.

The first officer was handling the RT, and all seemed routine up to the incomplete handover. If the captain was acting alone, what excuse could he make to the first officer for turning off course? a technical failure that required a return to base? a call from the cabin crew that somebody was setting fire to the waste bin in the WC and the First Officer was needed to sort things out? This could leave the captain alone locked in the cockpit to carry out his plan, which may not have included vanishing at sea. Apoxia leads to inappropriate decisions.

[FlightDream111]

Still puzzled by the lack of detection by radar. Malaysia has a new very sensitive radar system, procured among other thingsfor the purpose of detecting intrustions by the Singaporean Air Force:
the Defence Ministry admitted that between 2008 and mid-2011, there were a total of 2,508 Malaysian airspace intrusions by the Singaporean air force


Air Force caught napping, MH370 could have been saved | FZ : Malaysia News - General, Political, National, Business, World (http://www.fz.com/content/air-force-caught-napping-mh370-could-have-been-saved)

If they were able to detect airspace instrusions by medium sized fighter aircraft, presumably in real time, why would they not detect the B777?
Does Malaysia lack active real-time air defences?

Perhaps similar gaps exist in the radar systems of other countries - nothing is 100% perfect after all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/19/world/asia/experts-see-robust-radar-along-missing-jets-potential-path.html?_r=0

Which means that it may make sense to search the northern route.

[the incivil beast]

why would they not detect the B777?Maybe they were told to ? :suspect:
I'm usually quite reluctant to follow conspiracy theories, but this event is quite special. Don't forget that some Malaysian officials publicly stated that there were some informations that could not be made public.

[glenbrook]

Now, why did the Malaysian government let 8 nations search the South China Sea looking for an airliner they knew wasn't there for the next week??

Can anybody answer that question?

No-one had seen an incident like this before and the Malaysians were clearly not prepared for it. I think seeing the haphazard way that information has come out, it is fair to say that the Malaysians did not share information with the other nations promptly or accurately enough. In fact I would guess that even within Malaysia the different agencies did not coordinate well. They wasted their own resources as well as others. They didn't share the satellite data for several days after it had been given to them and even then they only shared the barest conclusions, not the analysis. One of the particular complaints of the Chinese families was that they were only shown two powerpoint slides as proof that their loved ones were dead.

Personally I think the Malaysians should now come clean with the entire data set and analysis. Maybe not to the massive sewing-circle of amateur sleuths on PPRUNE, but at least to other competent authorities in China, US, Australia and UK. That way the analysis can be checked by independent experts. I don't believe this will change any of the conclusions, but at least it would negate the charge that they are hiding things.

The handling of the SAR may be embarrassing for some parties, but ultimately it is hard to see we would be any closer to finding the aircraft, even if they had worked better.

[mm43]

Incidentally, do you have any idea what, if anything, other than temporary loss of power / reboot, could cause the aircraft to send 3 packets in 18:27 to 18:29 as it was turning?Without going back and checking the spec; it is possible this particular SATCOM installation was also equipped with IRS ability to compute the satellite position and therefor calculate the doppler shift. The rate of doppler change may well have triggered an AES to GES packet, if the the P channel hadn't already done so.

[DJ77]

Posted by Propduffer: "Now, why did the Malaysian government let 8 nations search the South China Sea looking for an airliner they knew wasn't there for the next week??"


Perhaps because they were believing the radar returns they saw were not from MH370.


Perhaps they were right.

[500N]

Glen

Re "No-one had seen an incident like this before and the Malaysians were clearly not prepared for it."


It is not a case of an incident like this, it is how you handle disasters and emergencies full stop and they obviously do nit gave SOPS in place and rehearsed, especially the media side.

[Blake777]

There is not a complete lack of radar data. There is some of the data available which can be found if you search for it - printed in Chinese media, as shown to Chinese relatives. However, not all the data is available as it seems the sensitive data of exactly how the turn around was achieved hasn't been seen by anyone in the public arena.

Vietnamese authorities advised Malaysia in real time of the westbound course but did not receive an official reply.

There was not an immediate connection between MH 370 dropping off communication and the westbound unidentified aircraft. It would be most natural to believe in the immediate aftermath that the aircraft was lost shortly after last contact and was in the South China Sea. The Malaysian Prime Minister did not want in the circumstances to make a definitive public announcement of a connection of the lost aircraft and the westbound track until other data corroborated the primary radar data. Whether this was wise in hindsight is another matter but it is unusual behaviour for a public carrier to suddenly go dark and head seemingly purposefully in another direction without a mayday.

We aren't privy to any corroborating satellite data other than what has been released by Inmarsat, nor are we privy to radar data from other countries. I think it best to leave super conspiracy theories of a Malaysian shoot down to one side - there are other more likely (but still not palatable) reasons the aircraft was diverted.

[funfly]

You do, however, get the distinct impression that there were facilities in place for whatever reason and the people manning these were in effect sleeping on the job.
…just when they were needed :ugh:

[glenbrook]

There is not a complete lack of radar data. There is some of the data available which can be found if you search for it - printed in Chinese media, as shown to Chinese relatives. However, not all the data is available as it seems the sensitive data of exactly how the turn around was achieved hasn't been seen by anyone in the public arena.

Vietnamese authorities advised Malaysia in real time of the westbound course but did not receive an official reply.

There was not an immediate connection between MH 370 dropping off communication and the westbound unidentified aircraft. It would be most natural to believe in the immediate aftermath that the aircraft was lost shortly after last contact and was in the South China Sea. The Malaysian Prime Minister did not want in the circumstances to make a definitive public announcement of a connection of the lost aircraft and the westbound track until other data corroborated the primary radar data. Whether this was wise in hindsight is another matter but it is unusual behaviour for a public carrier to suddenly go dark and head seemingly purposefully in another direction without a mayday.

We aren't privy to any corroborating satellite data other than what has been released by Inmarsat, nor are we privy to radar data from other countries. I think it best to leave super conspiracy theories of a Malaysian shoot down to one side - there are other more likely (but still not palatable) reasons the aircraft was diverted.


I think if you let data leak out via private press conferences that way you are almost guaranteeing that people will fill the void with conspiracy theories.
I think not releasing the satellite data for four days is almost unforgiveable. In particular it takes days to reach the current search zone and a few days delay makes it much worse. Spy satellites could have been tasked to the site earlier. Perhaps debris which was floating sank in the mean time. Even if they did not want to make a public announcement and tell the press, they should have shared the Inmarsat data immediately with the Chinese, US and Australian authorities.

[DX Wombat]

multycpl - there are only three known facts about the flight:
1 The aircraft took off.
2 The aircraft has disappeared.
3 Various communication devices failed to communicate whether by deliberate action or other failure has yet to be determined. There is a plethora of ideas on this forum for the cause of this which you can spend a happy week or two working your way through.
We who are not directly involved in the SAR efforts are not entitled to any information and any which we are given is done so as a courtesy.
No country is going to reveal details of its surveillance measures but will often find ways of conveying relevant information to those who need it.
The AAIB and INMARSAT have done a brilliant job of attempting to determine where the aircraft may have flown but until definite proof, ie identifiable wreckage, is found even this remains a theory.

[Passagiata]

hedge:

However if lets say one of the crew was affiliated to the opposition party and was being penalized for this to an extent where the misguided individual developed a plan to take control of the aircraft and commit an act of mass murder (lets not say pilot suicide) to turn the international spotlight on the Malaysian government.

Hedge, if you followed the news, you'd know that the spotlight has been comprehensively and internationally turned onto the Malaysian Government over the Anwar Ibrahim issue consistently and persistently for at least ten years. This is just nonsense, sorry.

[Sober Lark]

Remember how MAS reacted when questioned over running their aircraft on fumes in LHR? Expecting accurate feed back on MH370 is something to do with leopards and spots.

[oblivia]

@hedge

No group or individual has so far claimed responsibility.

This has been mentioned a few times, but I think you're remembering 1970s/80s IRA SOPs and imagining that this is how Islamic extremists act.

When did anyone claim responsibility for 9/11? Or the Bali bombings? Or 7/7? Bin Laden mentioned 9/11 in one of his taped messages, much later, but never said he was responsible. Al-Qaeda didn't claim responsibility for the July 7 bombings until September, and intelligence sources reckon that was false anyway. The men convicted of the Bali bombings went to their deathbeds denying responsibility.

[Silver Shadow]

CNN now reporting :

" All MH370 passengers cleared of any role in hijacking or sabotage of missing plane, according to Malaysian police"

[Backoffice]

A question for 777 engineers out there.
The wiring bundles and oxygen hoses route from lower deck to the cockpit.
Can anyone provide a description or image of how this is achieved.

The link below might give a clue to my thoughts.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://www.smartcockpit.com/download.php%3Fpath%3Ddocs/%26file%3DAircraft_Fumigation.pdf&sa=U&ei=aPo7U4DpBImBhAfRhYGwDA&ved=0CCkQFjAC&usg=AFQjCNE0pVUcxn4YawrI5QRsSY4rWZzrEg

[Blacksheep]

If the debris field of MH370 is similar and if Australians are looking in the right place right now or were looking in the right place at any point in the last two weeks, it's hard to explain whey they did not find anything at all so far. The 'Occam' explanation would be that the aircraft did not come down anywhere near where they are looking.

Everything is being done on the basis of an estimated 'radar range' analysis of a Satcom 'handshake'. But a Satcom system is not a Transponder system. The reply delay on a transponder is very finely calibrated. The range information is extracted by subtracting the time of transmission from the time of reply, further subtracting the calibrated reply delay and dividing the result by two to get a very accurate measurement of the time the radio wave took to travel between the ground station and the transponder. From the time it took the radio wave to transit and the transit velocity (assumed as 'c') we derive the slant range. [Slant range - e.g. an aircraft directly overhead the ground station at 18,000 feet would show a slant range of 3.0 NM]

Unlike the precision of a transponder operation, Satcom reply delay during a 'handshake' is not finely calibrated to define distance from the satellite. The delay could be anything from nothing to a few hundred milliseconds, and we don't know what assumptions were used in calculating the two 'possibility arcs'. The true radial distance from the satellite position could be much different to the assumed distance currently used to direct the search. A slightly longer than assumed internal time delay could erroneously place an aircraft that was close to the satellite, as being several thousand miles away.

[Carjockey]

All MH370 passengers cleared of any role in hijacking or sabotage of missing plane, according to Malaysian policeHow in the name of logic can anyone be cleared of anything when nothing is known of what actually happened to this aircraft?
This is pure and absolute nonsense!

MH370 passengers ?cleared? in four areas of probe, says top cop - The Malaysian Insider (http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/mh370-passengers-cleared-in-four-areas-of-probe-says-top-cop)

[compressor stall]

I'd hope that the "cleared" is lost in translation. Maybe "have not found any evidence that would make them suspects" would be better?

But you'd have thought they'd have a very switched on translator prepping the multi medalled generals.

[lynw]

Good luck to the Malaysian authorities trying to sue media for false reporting when their press conferences have often announced their assumptions rather than facts. The announcement about the Thai radar detecting MH370 springs to mind as an example.

AM Monthon said further investigation is needed to find if the plane really passed the Thai skies... He said Malaysia's latest remarks were only assumptions theorising the plane's possible route. (MCOT online news)

If the Malaysians have been announcing their assumptions at press conferences, they cant then criticise the media for reporting their own or printing their own theories given the overwhelming lack of facts in this case.

The comments about Boeing, RR etc not being vocal and now this smacks of desperation to divert the criticism about the handling of this incident away from themselves by the Malaysian government.

[Feathers McGraw]

I have to take issue with the comments about the Satcom system. The delays in the system are very well understood and compensated for.

The initial reply transmission will be a deliberately shortened data packet to ensure that the last symbols in this packet do not collide with the next timeslot (it will arrive later by 3.3us/km), this will be during the setup phase. It might well take only one packet to determine this time delay, the next response packet will be correctly timed because the satellite end of the link will have determined the timing delay and told the aircraft terminal what timing advance to use to ensure that the packet arrives in the correct timing window. This process is exactly analogous to how 2G GSM mobile networks operate.

The doppler shift is calculated by the modem DSP software at the point where the demodulation is done, this is a digital correction inside the modem to de-rotate the symbol constellation points to establish the symbol timing. This doppler shift will be dependent on the relative velocity of the two ends of the link, it will be very accurate provided that the signal levels are adequate.

From the data a set of equations can determine the range of position, this of course is limited by the resolution of the timing advance and the possible speed variation of the aircraft.

Of all the information that has come out, the Inmarsat data will be absolutely solid and the least likely to be open to question.

[JSmithDTV]

LynwIf the Malaysians have been announcing their assumptions at press conferences, they cant then criticise the media for reporting their own or printing their own theories given the overwhelming lack of facts in this case.

I think they can criticise as items that were clearly a supposition or a theory were announced as such, however then reported as fact by certain media outlets...

[duffyp99]

My Q probably wont last, or even make it to the board, but a fairly simple question if anyone can answer. Would the AC flying in anticlockwise circles of approx an hour circumference not give precisely the same Doppler shift data on the pings ? Unlikely coincidence I suspect, but would I think give precisely the same data wouldn't it ..And locate the AC in a completely different place.