Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost [Archive] - Page 37

WillowRun 6-3

2nd Apr 2014, 14:32

Soon a full month will have lapsed. The wisdom of the aviators who have populated this forum in its past few years compels not drawing conclusions absent facts. Typically the set of facts which the professionals await are those reduced to published form by one or another of the various national air accident investigation boards (e.g., National Transportation Safety Board, for the United States). It is no small irony that the professionals' "Rumour" message board has yielded up, in this thread, a great deal of technical, scientific, engineering, and flight operations information of a factual nature (some poor fraction of which has been understood here). And some rolls of tin foil (all literally incomprehensible, here).

Thinking about the systemic governance implications presented by the present situation, and in urgent anticipation of facts pronounced by the pertinent official bodies, four questions of material relevance seem worthy of posting. (By "systemic governance" I mean the web, the system, of legal and juridical structures which govern how these processes go forward, such as ICAO annexes, other bilateral and multinational agreements (as in the S&R context (discussed boatloads of posts ago)), operating protocols for INMARSAT resources, and similar 'arrangements' all the way down to interagency operating protocols as between NTSB and FAA.)

1. Is there any precedent for the accident investigation and reporting process to be undertaken on a multi-national basis, jointly and severally shared and operated? Understanding that Malaysia has "first in line" jurisdiction (for lack of a better descriptive term), the locus of facts spans an unprecedented scope of nation-state jurisdiction. And the technical aspects are becoming immensely complex. The INMARSAT analyses alone argue for a "deep bench" of investigatory and fact-finding national air accident board expertise. Would ICAO appear equipped and prepared to innovate and provide an organizational situs for a multi-national inquiry board? (Note: "locus" is legal terminology for "place"; "situs" similarly means place but generally connotes a more specific location (just in case legalese is not your first language).)

2. Posters galore have written, or speculated, about national air defense capabilities, practices, and the like. And such have noted the quite significant reluctance of nations to air this out, even when prompted by the given incident. So: is there precedent, in any air accident inquiry anywhere, for an executive or classified component to be reserved for such sensitive matters? Governing boards of institutions as relatively straight-forward as a municipal public library routinely move to closed session to discuss sensitive matters (such as personnel decisions). What if anything precludes examining all the radar (and even the hypothecated fighter intercept, tin foil wings or not) data in closed session and issuing the ultimate inquiry board report in bifurcated form?

3. The given incident does appear to break new ground (or new space, if you prefer) in the application of satellite orbital dynamics and parameters, and data communications protocols, to a search and rescue situation. The criticisms leveled at the public dissemination of information by the Malaysian government might be better understood if one takes into account SPECIFICALLY what data the Malaysians had received from INMARSAT on a very detailed timeline basis. In other words unless one knows the PRECISE state of information flow from 'Marsat to Malay at a given moment in time, it is not valid to critique Malaysia's pronouncements. It is way too easy to unconsciously impute information to the Malaysians which they actually did not receive until later. Thus: is there precedent for any air accident inquiry board to coordinate closely with the INMARSAT organization so as to acquire an officially validated timeline of information flow to an S&R entity? If this has not been done previously, does it not lend further support to the structuring and convening of a multi-national inquiry board for this incident? (Editorial comment: once more, the roots of the law applicable to international civil aviation and aeronautics - Admiralty Jurisdiction - are plain to see for those who will look - INMARSAT which began operating in orbit in the late 1970s was and is a project of the Int'l Maritime Organization.)

4. The air carrier representative body, IATA, has proclaimed the need to augment data link capacities of certificated air transport category aircraft. Presumably advocates for implementation of such a shift in data link technologies and operations would advocate also for making things change much more rapidly than the way things usually have worked in such matters. Hence: is there any established vehicle for taking the accepted inter-agency coordination of the NTSB and FAA with respect to changes in airworthiness certification stemming from air accident inquiry findings, and "scaling such coordination up" to a more global, at least multi-national level? Presumably ICAO (again) would provide the situs for such an effort of multiple nations and multiple agencies (sovereign as well as multi-national in form).

G0ULI

2nd Apr 2014, 14:37

duffyp99
The positional arcs produced by INMARSAT have been developed using original source data and a deep understanding of the equipment and specifications. Ultimately it is a pure guess, but a guess based on the best interpretation that can be made by people at the peak of their careers and with experience and access to data that has not been publically released.

JamesGV

2nd Apr 2014, 14:55

One question.

Is "this" the correct route now or not ?

http://multimedia.asiaone.com/sites/default/files/styles/500x400/public/original_images/Mar2014/mh370families-7.jpg?itok=0kg0aSeD

G0ULI

2nd Apr 2014, 15:17

Willow Run 6-3
Given that the aircraft appears to have disappeared in international waters, primary responsibility for the investigation will lie with the Malaysian authorities. If it subsequently comes to light that the aircraft crashed in territory claimed by another sovereign state, then they will assume a lead in the investigation.

It would be futile to attempt to force any nation to reveal details that they are not prepared to divulge voluntarily. Commercial organisations would doubtless be prepared to reveal data and cooperate with investigations so long as their costs were covered. Commercial interests will force companies like Boeing to participate because they are anxious to prove that it is not a fault in their product that was responsible for the event.

So basically it comes down to money. How much will it cost to equip every aircraft with a tamper proof satellite position transponder? Who will be responsible for gathering and safe guarding the data? Who will set the technical specification? How will international agreement be reached? How will compliance be enforced? Who is going to pay for the engineering development, international conferences and behind the scenes diplomacy? How long will it take?

The unique nature of this incident has brought together resources from many nations who would not normally be expected to cooperate. Not all of the resources are being paid for by the Malaysian government, but the SAR experience gained by the parties taking part can make it worthwhile. How much to rent a nuclear sub for a day? Opportunity to check out some of the latest Chinese military equipment, priceless.

Blake777

2nd Apr 2014, 15:29

I have been searching for confirmation or denial of that turnaround. It was put together by Chinese relatives who believe based on the various headings in and around IGARI that it may have been a looping turn around to the right, less perceptible to passengers than a hard left so to speak.

There has been no public comment from Malaysia yet about whether it is factual or not. They have refused to comment on today's behind doors meeting with relatives. This is part of the radar data that either has not been released or is possibly missing.

if true it may explain why more fuel was used in the initial stages of the diversion.

JohnPerth

2nd Apr 2014, 16:26

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.

Well, that depends on where the aircraft is. If it's in the Indian Ocean perhaps things floated for even a week or two and then sank, in which case searching there earlier might have made all the difference.

The trouble is that right now we don't seem to have much to go on! I'm not even completely sure we know it went south. That seems to my mind to be a solid hypothesis rather than an established fact. Sufficient to direct resources there, but...

drwatson

2nd Apr 2014, 16:47

Love the unanswered questions..I'm no pilot but earn a living troubleshooting and solving problems as part of a global IT sofware company in a 24x7x365 follow the sun support model with multi tiered escalation matrices. Anyways enough about me...question time..and before that a quote of why questions are important.

If I had an hour to solve a problem I'd spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and 5 minutes thinking about solutions.
Albert Einstein

So questions and problems/issues..starting with my fav right now

"We're not searching for a needle in a haystack, we're still trying to define where the haystack is. That's just to put it in context,” Australian Defence Force vice chief Mark Binskin told the media at Pearce RAAF .The BB was not designed for this scenario . Ok where is the crash site ? Wait a minute..is the direction or route of the plane is still in doubt right?

Why? The transponder was turned off either mechanical failure or by hijackers and no VHF maydays were sent out..

This immediately comes down to a scenario close to tracking military or enemy a/c via .... If it were still in the air..primary radar and satelite and even.visual contact by interceptor jets

Have we faced this scenario before. I would say yes as we are post 911. I must add at this juncture if MH370 was on route to the US we may not be in this situation right?

However the question which has got me puzzled ever since the mh370 decided to dissappear is although we are not in the USA is why murphys law has not happened sooner?
So can a/c dissappear if they are not in range of primary radad? Arnt modern air defences manned 24x7x365 all REALLY asleep? Before my current job as tech support i use to work for a IT monitoring sofware and it is more or less fully automated..we get pinged via email /sms/phone and if we dont respond in 30 mins / 2 hours more ppl get pinged till someone responds. A case of multiple failures by just the malaysians..how about Thailand or Vietnam or Indonesia or Singapore.
Have they all REALLY failed? What were the equivilant of homeland security intelligence doing when the jetliner dissappeared and possibly headed to crash into a city?

Heres what I think happened..as soon as word got out to millitary intel in the all airforces they were put on high alert and all primary radar was switched on at full power and everyone in the region with surveillance capabilities were on the lookout to confirm if the plane was going to used similar to 911. It went missing 1 -2 hours into flight and the press got wound of it very soon after that what not of military intel in this post 911 scenario. Someone please answer that?
What was military intel doing and did they not alert their airforce to monitor radar ? We need to find the haystack. If they did and MH370 did in fact evade all that radar what route did not have any radar coverage at all during those hours.
Are immarsat sateline pings the only lead?If so we are on the right path but we really need bigger black boxes in future which transmit to larger distances or work like GPS mobile apps and for commercial aircraft to have transponder reduncies or advances in primary radar quickly. This cannot be a precedence for things to come

Lonewolf_50

2nd Apr 2014, 16:52

Salesmen moving in?
Indeed, but I doubt many are well versed in systems integration and airworthiness certifications. ;) That's for someone else to deal with. There's a buck to be made, eh? :p

To whomever, thanks for the link to Duncan Steel. A worthwhile read.
Note: he's not debunking anything. He is demonstrating how to analyze and judge a hypothesis or a theory based on a given set of information and a given set of assumptions.
The Bottom Line: A northerly route for MH370 deep into central Asia cannot be excluded on the basis of the publicly-available Inmarsat-3F1 satellite data.
For drwatson:
What was military intel doing and did they not prime thier radad ? We need to find the haystack. It was Friday night going into Saturday Morning.
It is the Third World. As I noted a few hundred pages ago, the odds of your A Side being on watch in peacetime at that hour aren't good.

Recall 07 Dec 1941. One book covering that event is entitled "At Dawn We Slept." Fast forward to Sept 11, 2001. It was a normal work day, but nobody was expecting what happened to happen. In the military, we used to call that "the element of surprise."

I think you can put the pieces together.

Lonewolf_50

2nd Apr 2014, 17:06

Communicator:

The last time I went looking for my dog, I had a few ideas on where to find him, and a report from my neighbor that he'd seen the dog heading down the street "about ten minutes ago," toward the intersection by the local gas station.

Lucky for me, I didn't have the whole world's media looking over my shoulder and barking at me about what data I was using to find my dog. I got to conduct the search without being second guessed. It took me about an hour, and asking a few more people if they'd seen a golden retriever go by, before I got a good lead and found the little rascal lying under a tree happily chewing on a plastic water bottle.

Whilst I appreciate your points, those who are involved really don't need a globe full of back seat drivers to help them find this "dog."

drwatson

2nd Apr 2014, 17:26

Pontious

There was no threat.. my question is when it became a threat.. what was military intel doing?

Next Singapore..I know that singapore spends more on its airforce ..enough to have powerful radar which overlaps into the malacca straits and the south china seas given its importance to shipping and air routes into Singapore?

24X7x365 response .....if anything thats what the military..and not from IT. There are operational and reserve units going into a rota at all times. But again this is based on good monitoring and intel and eventual activation.

Was everyone really caught by surprise and did no one in the region not react?

StrongEagle

2nd Apr 2014, 17:36

The positional arcs produced by INMARSAT have been developed using original source data and a deep understanding of the equipment and specifications. Ultimately it is a pure guess, but a guess based on the best interpretation that can be made by people at the peak of their careers and with experience and access to data that has not been publically released.

And it would be appropriate for the data to be released to qualified individuals or agencies for independent verification of InMarSat's findings.

MG23

2nd Apr 2014, 17:42

And it would be appropriate for the data to be released to qualified individuals or agencies for independent verification of InMarSat's findings.

One of the early news stories said independent teams in the US and UK had calculated positions from the raw data, and both ended up with the same arcs. So it has been independently verified to that extent.

Lonewolf_50

2nd Apr 2014, 17:56

LW 50 - you found your dog based on information you sought and obtained.
I was worried that I'd find him dead, run over by a car, or that I'd not find him and he'd run off, never to be found again. In a search, with limited information, one still searches with such info as one has. In a more complex search, such as for a missing aircraft over the ocean, when you have conflicting input, where do you begin? Best estimate, which was probably something related to LKP. As other info gets to you and shapes your understanding, you may change your area of search. I find no intentional screw ups there, but their handling of the PR and press has been sub par, at best.
MAS and various national agencies have NOT found MH370. The crucial first days of the SAR operation were INTENTIONALLY WASTED
Respectfully disagree. I try not to ascribe to malice what is usually explained by incompetence.
More importantly, real experts are not afraid to re-examine even very basic premises in light of seemingly "ignorant" questions and comments from "non-experts". This leads one to question how many experts Malaysia actually have on staff. ;) See my first point. :} Add in the pride factor, and it makes sense to me how the early search efforts ran adrift.

ADDED later:

Communicator, for you to assert intentional waste of search time and assets, by someone in the Malaysian circle involved in this, you can't just leaved it hanging there.
Where does this assertion/assumption take you? It takes you to someone with material involvement in this search who wants this plane not to be found, or, wants to embarrass MAL, the government, the various ministers, high officials, etc.
Where does that lead you?
Deliberate sabotage, and a human agency either linked to a passenger who is not whom he/she seems to be, or collusion with a member of cockpit or cabin crew to deliberately stage a crash of that aircraft to achieve ... what political end?

To take the heat off of the trial of the opposition leader?
To deliberately piss of that large and powerful neighbor to their north?

What sort of conspiracy theory are you harboring? Or, if not, why didn't you think that through before making that accusation?

Leightman 957

2nd Apr 2014, 17:57

CodyBlade

2nd Apr 2014, 18:24

Next Singapore..I know that singapore spends more on its airforce ..enough to have powerful radar which overlaps into the malacca straits and the south china seas given its importance to shipping and air routes into Singapore?

They hv a G5 eye in the sky 24/7.

Ian W

2nd Apr 2014, 18:30

Specifically regarding the Duncan Steel post, three people including active airline pilots well versed with airline procedures and airliner capabilities and controls who wish not to be identified due to the obvious high degee of conjecture involved at present have responded to my inquiry regarding the Steel theory with these comments:

1. Route over land would have been easily picked up by numerous radar
sites. Any plane without a transponder signal at cruising altitude, without a transponder signal, would stick out like a sore thumb. 2. The first initial turn (if correct) is a classic "return to safety" in an emergency. 3. Total (electrical) power loss would have created the known fact of Transponder and ACARS loss. 4. The two engines can continue running with full aircraft (electrical) power loss as in they have isolated generators that continue to running EEC power. The engines will continue to maintain performance, and all necessary functions independent of aircraft central inputs. 5. All opinions/theories resulted in: The aircraft flew statically on the last course. The last course was a sloppy 180 most likely set in by pilots in a rush, or with limited visibility to PFD or CDU. Pilots lost consciousness, aircraft continued on course. If you go by such a scenario, the aircraft most likely took a western route as that was the initial turn programmed by hurried pilots.

Can we hit something on the head now before it comes up yet again. Area radar controllers do not use primary radar, they are not interested. All the aircratft in their airspace are transponding and their systems label the display with all the required information. A primary track will not even be noticed by most civilian area controllers.

Primary radar cover from military radars is geared to identifying threats; aircraft that are known are labeled and their primary response is correlated with their secondary (transpomder) response. If their secondary response stops then the correlated label still follows their primary response - that is why they are correlated. So MH370 transponder goes off but the label carries on as a non-threatening Comair track. 9/11 is something that happened to the USA - who is going to attack Malaysia? So don't expect anyone to react to a 777 from a local airline with no transponder.

Primary cover is extremely sparse as it is expensive. Civil area control do not use it or reallly want it, airports use it but don't really need it. Military are then given the bill of runnig it and set up their radars where threats may occur. There is very little primary cover over the CONUS for this reason; However, Thai long range primary probably saw the MH370 track but it was no threat, same for Indonesia. What do people expect? Woulld the USA go on alert for a Mexican commercial airliner that turned back to Mexico in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico?

Random primary tracks are common - nobody is going to react to them. This may be why the transponder was turned off.

Communicator

2nd Apr 2014, 18:32

airsound wrote:
I don't think the rest of us not having enough information to check the calculations is the fault of either Inmarsat or UK AAIB.

The published graphs are illogical and clearly misleading on their face.

I prefer to think that UK AAIB can do and is doing rather better than the pretty but grossly misleading graphs of spurious "elevation angles" that have been bandied about.

Same for investigators in Australia, the U.S. and even Malaysia itself - one certainly hopes and expects that their efforts are not based on pretty but largely meaningless graphs. There are lots of smart and competent Malaysians, but they have to live and hold on to jobs under a venal and opaque political system.

Communicator

2nd Apr 2014, 18:53

Communicator, for you to assert intentional waste of search time and assets, by someone in the Malaysian circle involved in this, you can't just leaved it hanging there.

Another poster (D.S.) pointed out long ago that Malaysia was aware of the primary radar track on Day 1 - they referred to contact with MH370 having been lost at 2:40 am. This is the time when the aircraft went beyond the reach of primary radar.

As to what may have motivated the Malaysians subsequently to deny the existence of the primary radar information from their own radar, it is indeed difficult to think of any political rationale that makes remote sense even by their own lights.

Most likely, there was internal wrangling between military and civilian authorities within Malaysia and/or a misguided and ultimately counterproductive attempt to portray MH370 as a routine, "nothing-to-see-here" crash.

ZAZ

2nd Apr 2014, 19:02

What do people expect?

Well one things for sure a serviceman can not reveal classified data, no one in MIL is going to jump onto CNN and risk a court martial and time in the stockade.
And yet I am quite sure under the scrutiny and intense interest in finding this plane, anyone with half a heart or morality would risk it, not even wiki leaks has picked up on any traffic..

As for having a G5 or AWACS in the air 24/7, impossible, cos then you need a tanker or another G5 and so it goes, and what is the current threat situtation in the region, mild to luke warm.
Govts don't have that sort of cash to throw around, look at the fuel cost alone in boats and planes from Western Australian, millions per week, which we the tax payer will foot the bill for..we are already 70 billion in the red in the budget and cuts are starting even in defence budget..

JINDALEE OTRH runs on Diesel fuel at some sites so again need to have transmitting and not at night.

Anyone found as much as one piece of foam or Mylar or any other floating object anywhere yet?
If it broke up on impact and the Mylar insulation was still in that plane body there could be hundreds of pieces floating around like the Halifax Nova Scotia fire and crash.

Vinnie Boombatz

2nd Apr 2014, 19:08

#MH370 search areas in perspective (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:7a78f54e-b3dd-4fa6-ae6e-dff2ffd7bdbb&plckPostId=Blog%3a7a78f54e-b3dd-4fa6-ae6e-dff2ffd7bdbbPost%3a0e887c64-2d33-4702-8ced-7eca2dad9c0d)

"A graphic which puts the changing search areas for Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 into a clearer context has been produced by Scantherma, an Australian remote sensing and thermal imagery company commissioned by a global insurance company to find debris from the missing Boeing 777-200ER."

Scantherma web site:

Scantherma - Specialists in Thermal Energy Inspections & Remote Sensing (http://www.scantherma.com.au/)

PriFly

2nd Apr 2014, 19:16

I believe it was the AAIB and the NTSB that concurred with Inmarsat's conclusion about the Southern arc theory.

Malaysia's politician are risk averse when it involves the world's spotlight on them. I highly doubt the Malaysian PM would make such a bold statement (plane ended in South Indian Ocean) if he wasn't 100% sure that the 'westerners' told him they themselves are 100% sure of the Southern arc route.

anyway just my 2c.

DH_call

2nd Apr 2014, 19:35

EEngr

2nd Apr 2014, 19:49

Leightman 957 (http://www.pprune.org/members/428146-leightman-957)

3. Total (electrical) power loss would have created the known fact of Transponder and ACARS loss.Except for the continued operation of the Satcom system. Someone will have to propose an electrical system failure that takes the transponder and ACARS down but leaves Satcom up.

And then there's the 'Goodnight' message after the transponder shut down. I understand the need to aviate first. But if you've got the time to key the mic and say goodnight, a little aside to note the ongoing systems failures wouldn't be out of line. Its possible that the ACARS/transponder losses may have presented as passive failures at the outset. But here again, some serious systems analysis is in order to identify the sorts of failures possible. VHF comm was still up at this point, adding another constraint to the problem.

Propduffer

2nd Apr 2014, 20:06

A thought on the partial ping.

An explanation for this occurs to me. If the last ping was sent at the moment of impact with the water there probably were other electronic devices collapsing and shorting themselves out at the same time, these might have created EMP pulses strong enough to overpower the ping in progress. The EMPs might even have come from batteries being crushed.
If the 777 struck the water forcefully, there would have been an electromagnetic splash as well as a H2O splash.

Leightman 957

2nd Apr 2014, 20:17

Ian W, James GV, and EEgr--I was passing on very carefully limited opinions of three aviation people with current operational familiarity with 777 systems, radar, and airline operation who have more knowledge than I and who were responding specifically to the Steel theory after conversing together about that site. I had hoped their opinions might be useful but I can't answer the questions you pose. I can add something that came after I made that post:

....your question about flight controls with total loss of power. Yes, they would maintain course. All flight controls stay at neutral when there is no input. The only time flight controls deviate from neutral is during hydraulic failure, a situation that would not arise as long as the engines are spooling.

If their opinions cause further dispute I apologize for the post. The one thing that is not in short supply is differences of opinion--not a good thing if those in contention are all aviation people with current operational familiarity with 777 systems, radar, and airline operation.

andianjul

2nd Apr 2014, 20:32

Hamster:
You are forgetting that transponders and ACARS were switched off before the last communication with ATC.
It is 'known' (or, we have been told by the Malaysian authorities) that the transponder and ACARS stopped transmitting at different times prior to the final communication with ATC. It is, however likely, still an assumption that they were actually switched off. What actually occurred to stop them transmitting and the reasons for this occurring, are still the subject of conjecture.

500N

2nd Apr 2014, 20:52

The Malaysian PM might get an eye opener today when he visits RAAF Base Pearce and JACC and gets a briefing ;)

Will be interesting to see what the media do and how they cover it as I doubt they will be allowed to "run amok" in press conferences like they did originally.

Luckily the families of those lost don't arrive until after he has left !

JamesGV

2nd Apr 2014, 21:27

Leightman 957

I am merely pointing out that in the absence of anything, the situation is confusing.

I may even "self quote" myself in the future with that "Rumsfeldism" !

In the event of complete electrical failure, it would appear that, at various stages, there was a variety of inputs, up until, what appears to be the "navigated" turn "due south"....along with a (singular) component response, which continued for what appears to be the duration of the flight.

...and no one appears to have a clue what happened.
Now "something" happened. We know as much as that.

pax britanica

2nd Apr 2014, 21:37

I do not see that many posters 'from the east' on here and perhaps that in itself tells us something about the current western obsession with needing to know everything about an incident immediately , something we have been conditioned to expect by 'the media'. So after so many posts, some fascinating some bizarre I thought a few points of reflection about the overall incident might be an idea to bring a bit of perspective back, albeit from a personal point of view
I have visited Malaysia and worked with companies there .It is a complicated place politically and to western eyes there are a number of wrongs, it is said to be corrupt, but then who defines corruption and its political complexity is a reaction to the country's history and diversity. But their streets are pretty safe and not populated by druggies and 'gangstas' and their country pretty stable despite a potentially fairly inflammatory mix of races and religions. They don’t leave their elderly to starvation and mistreatment in state hospitals nor do their financial communities lie and cheat and steal money from governments and populace on a scale big enough to trigger global recession
Equally despite past troubles the ASEAN nations plus China and a few others get on quite well and certainly quite practically, as has been pointed out they do not have any reason to send Mach 2 interceptors after anyone with a radio failure.
All would agree that this is an unprecedented event and perhaps the US or Uk would have handled the media side more professionally but at the end of the day we would still know nothing more would we-making it quite clear that the media are not at all as important as they like to think they are .
Malaysia's preparedness for such an event, bizarre as it is, is probably no worse than any other country which has not had to deal with what could be 'an internal problem'. The US, for all their defence spending could not easily see rogue traffic over the domestic US pre 9/11 and worse still upheld the ludicrous idea that domestic passengers were subject to far less security than those on international flights.
As to the Malay Govt covering things up , well that's a hell of a risk to take for a small Asian country if the information you are hiding impacts China more than any other country, even their own.
Diego Garcia keeps popping up to, I am pretty sure if MH370 headed their the US Military would know about it, after he USS Vincennes tragedy though I think they would have been hugely reluctant to down another airliners , especially one from a friendly Muslim country. They would have been aware of its approach and identity for some time I am sure, and what real damage could it cause anyway, not least because it would be dark at DG at the time, Hitting a specific building would be close to impossible and a smoking hole on the airfield while tragic in terms of lives lost would have no material impact on the base itself. In any event who would be the target, DG is not American it is British.
So perhaps we should reflect a little before posting , especially if that is a critical and defamatory post, this is truly a mystery and hopefully will be solved on day , but for the countries involved and their experts and service personnel it is hard enough without the constant we know better attitudes displayed here and on so many TV news broadcasts.

chillpill

2nd Apr 2014, 21:48

The world did not see 911 coming...

The world did not see MH 370 coming...

Consider this... a 'perfect' terror plot?

Pick an airline, coerce or infiltrate of one of the Flight Deck into making a 350 tonne aircraft 'vanish'...(up to 450, depressurise, turn off systems, HDG SEL into the vast open spaces... or whatever other theories we may all simply continue to hypothesise about...)

Wait for some time... then repeat the event and another airliner vanishes... and perhaps one more...

The aviation world and business would collapse... what a coup.

I really do believe it is an absolute imperative to fit completely independent GPS tracking systems to all airliners. NOW...

portmanteau

2nd Apr 2014, 22:06

Lonewolf_50

2nd Apr 2014, 22:22

370 was known to be missing at the time it should have contacted vietnam and it is inconceivable that the word did not reach all parts of se asia in a very short time. all surrounding atccs would be on alert for the aircraft on radio and radar. interest would be of a very high order I would say.
Inconceivable? Why?
As to "all surrounding ATCCs on alert" -- what is the trigger for this "high alert" and when would interest become of a high order? There is a time delay between "hmm, haven't checked in yet" and "where the EFF is that plane" of X amount. What do you think X is, in terms of minutes or hours?

Beyond that, on what do you base your set of presumptions? :confused:

From what is available to the public, the ATCC in Viet Nam had an interest, and they communicated their concern to a Point of Contact in Malaysia.
(Enroute ATCC asks Departure ATCC "we were expecting this flight, have not heard them check in as expected, were they delayed? Do you know where it is?" That sort of communication would be my guess. )

Whiskey Mike Romeo

2nd Apr 2014, 22:23

SLFguy

2nd Apr 2014, 22:24

Anyone who doesn't think that there is a government agency that knows what happened to MAH370 is kidding themselves.

Not a scrap of identifiable wreckage? Just not believable.

hamster3null

2nd Apr 2014, 23:08

We can go on ad nauseam creating posts about Inmarsat pings but the $64,000 question remains 'Who was flying the plane post FIR handover, where to and why?'

Surely nobody really believes, any more, that it was flying itself having taken the trouble to go incommunicado except for satellite linked ACARS.

Even Malaysian investigators can't figure out the "who". And they have far better knowledge of everyone on board than we do. They can't find anyone on the passenger list with terrorist connections or adequate knowledge of piloting a 777. The closest they got is one guy who used to work as a flight engineer for a jet charter company. And they can't find anything in backgrounds of either pilot that would raise any suspicion. At least so they say. It makes me wonder how hard it would be for an organized group of hijackers to simply intercept both pilots at some point prior to takeoff and to "substitute" their own guys without raising the alarm. But I don't want to go deep into conspiracy theory land.

As to "where to and why", southern route is only consistent with a very complicated and illogically executed suicide. I tried to point out a few pages back that actions up to 18:22 look less illogical and not so overly complicated if they were followed up (or were intended to be followed up) with a route to the west or to the northwest (most likely towards the Persian Gulf.) But that's still about as far as available evidence can take us.

The very strong rumour in SE Asia is that the 'perpetrator' did attempt to speak to the government via air traffic and make demands regarding the charges against Dato Seri Anwar Bin Ibrahim.

On an open ATC channel with possibly dozen other aircraft listening in? And no one came forward and reported it in the media the morning after the disappearance? Count me as skeptical.

Watchful

2nd Apr 2014, 23:40

@hamster3null: the inmarsat press document with the doppler graph describes the method. It does not say that the AES adjusts transmit freq. Instead, it suggests freq search is done by the ground station. The ground station computes the expected sat down link doppler shift, any residual doppler shift is logged as the offset due to a/c + up link motion.

I have verified the qualitative Match to the published graphs, as have you. My calculations result in shifts 250% of those charted. By coincidence, this is the conversion factor for Hz to mph, so I wonder if in the hurry to publish, someone labelled the graph with the wrong unit or forgot about a conversion factor in the spreadsheet.

If there was any other kind of compensation going on, or the modeling was more sophisticated, I don't think we could Get such a good qualitative match. If anything, thus supports their calculation and their conclusion as to likely flight path.

Shadoko

2nd Apr 2014, 23:56

If the AES has to compensate for Doppler, it have to do this from its own.
When AES is pinged by the sat, it could "deduce" the offset from the signal frequency it receives. But it can't do that when it initiates the transmission.
How to do that?
From a patch of data (one for each Inmarsat sat) included in the AES?
If those data are related for a theoretical position of the sat, the remaining offset which was used to compare north/south routes could come from the wobbling of the sat which appeared slowly with the sat aging, and not included (or not "includable") in the data patch.
In this case, it could explain the low values of the offset compared to the true relative speed of the sat and a/c.
Il also could explain why there is no negative values in the published chart: the sat is at every time of the flight north of its theoretical position above equator.

Just an idea...

cappt

3rd Apr 2014, 00:43

The FBI has completed of review of the in-home flight simulator that belonged to the captain of the missing Malaysia Airlines (http://abcnews.go.com/topics/business/airlines/malaysia-airlines.htm) passenger jet and found "nothing suspicious whatsoever."
It was the latest dead end in the investigation of the jetliner's disappearance on March 8 with 239 people on board.
The home-made flight simulator belong to the plane's pilot Capt. Zaharie Shah. It was seized by Malaysian investigators when baffled authorities began to look into the background of the plane's crew. Officials looking for signs that the pilot may have practiced certain routes or maneuvers found that some files had been deleted from the simulator's computer. The simulator was sent to the FBI's lab in Quantico, Va.
"They (FBI analysts) have finished with the simulator. There is nothing suspicious whatsoever about what they found," a senior U.S. official told ABC News.
"There's nothing at all (criminal) about the pilot. Right now there is zero evidence of a criminal act by the flight crew," the official said.

mm43

3rd Apr 2014, 00:59

One more guess about Doppler...
If the AES has to compensate for Doppler, it have to do this from its own.

No. The Ground station runs a continuous carrier on the P-channel. The Aircraft Satellite Data Unit compares the "offset" frequency it receives to the known frequency of that channel using a Phase Locked Loop with an Oven Controlled Crystal Oscillator as its reference. This offset frequency has the percentage difference of the Tx/Rx (1.6GHz/1.5GHz) added to it, and is used to adjust the Tx frequency by the same amount, but in the opposite direction.

The aircraft communicates this "housekeeping" data to the Ground station as a "burst offset" signal on the R-channel. The fact that the burst offset seems to be smaller than the expected doppler shift is the issue that is really creating the problems with those on this thread trying to make sense of it.

For good measure, here is a list of the data channels and for what purpose they are used:-
P-Channel: Packet-mode TDM channel used in the forward (outbound) direction (ground-to-aircraft) to carry signaling and packet-mode data. The transmission is continuous from each GES in the satellite network.

R-Channel: Random access (slotted Aloha) channel used in the return (inbound) direction (aircraft-to-ground) to carry signaling and packet-mode data, specifically the initial signals of a transaction (typically request signals).

T-Channel: Reservation TDMA channel used in the return direction only. The receiving GES reserves time slots for transmissions requested by an AES according to message length. The sending AES transmits the messages in the reserved time slots.

C-Channel: Circuit-mode SCPC channel used in both forward and return directions to carry digital voice or data/facsimile traffic. The use of the channel is controlled by assignment and release signaling at the start and end of each call or FAX transmission.

Vinnie Boombatz

3rd Apr 2014, 01:28

IATA - Remarks of Tony Tyler at the IATA OPS Conference, Kuala Lumpur (http://www.iata.org/pressroom/speeches/Pages/2014-04-01-01.aspx)

"Speculation—of which there has been much—will not make flying any safer. "

"Whether or not there is a security dimension to this tragedy, that two passengers could board an aircraft with fake passports rings alarm bells. Airlines are neither border guards nor policemen. That is the well-established responsibility of governments. The industry goes to great effort and expense to ensure that governments who require API (or Advance Passenger Information) receive reliable data. And, along with our passengers, airlines have a right to ask these governments review their processes for vetting and using this data—for example against databases such as the Interpol stolen and lost passport database. The information is critical and it must be used effectively.

It costs the airlines millions of dollars every year to provide API to some 60 governments. I’ve often wondered whether they were using it.

So in the name of the effective use of passenger data, we call on governments

To harmonize on the ICAO standard elements and eliminate all other requirements

To eliminate the collection of passenger and cargo data on paper forms

To create a single harmonized window through which airlines can submit electronic data to governments

And to use this data to improve both the efficiency and effectiveness of border controls. "

FlightDream111

3rd Apr 2014, 01:31

458 pages, is a northern route, still possibility? Well I think so.

Many accept so easily that one country did not respond to an unidentified aircraft crossing their borders and overflying their territory, and not letting on until days later, but only a few accept the possibility of a nothern route.

What is the intersection of the satellite - ping flight path and the Nothern arc? What are the countries that would have to be overflown?

There is also nothing to say that these countries need to publicize instances of unidentified aircraft crossing their borders. In fact there are many good reasons why they cannot.

I am trying to help. Check the northern route.

auraflyer

3rd Apr 2014, 01:40

The aviation world and business would collapse... what a coup.

This thought has been canvassed already: see e.g. http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-220.html#post8380096

fred_the_red

3rd Apr 2014, 02:08

Police investigate possible poisoning of food on missing plane (http://www.theage.com.au/world/police-investigate-possible-poisoning-of-food-on-missing-plane-20140403-zqq33.html)

Passenger 389

3rd Apr 2014, 02:29

Police investigate possible poisoning of food on missing plane

Good grief. It is a routine check, since they have so little to go on. Irresponsible to portray as some important new development. Odds of it having anything to do with this situation are less than of the plane being struck by a meteor.

500N

3rd Apr 2014, 02:38

Isn't it a bit late to check for food poisoning ?

Every batch that was made would be good by now, 3 weeks later ?

theAP

3rd Apr 2014, 03:29

hamster3null
You have a valid point indeed!
On an open ATC channel with possibly dozen other aircraft listening in? And no one came forward and reported it in the media the morning after the disappearance? Count me as skeptical.

jugofpropwash

3rd Apr 2014, 03:48

philbky

3rd Apr 2014, 05:07

To my mind there are only two sensible reasons for this disappearance, both with similar scenarios after an event.

First a rapid depressurization leading to an hypoxia event. Someone turned the aircraft around but was unable to complete a diversion and the nav and management systems, having had their original inputs changed, but not finalised to a new destination due to crew incapacity, eventually went walkabout.

Second a smouldering cargo which vented toxic fumes from the wrapping which overcame the crew who, identifying a problem, turned back. This begs the question as to why tthe diversion wasn't called to ATC, but human beings don't always do the expected/necessary when faced with a crisis. Can anyone say what the fire suppression equipment on a 777-200 is able to cope with in terms of smouldering rather than outright fire?

neville_nobody

3rd Apr 2014, 06:38

To my mind there are only two sensible reasons for this disappearance, both with similar scenarios after an event.

I don't think you can rule out a professional hijack yet

JoeBloggs2

3rd Apr 2014, 06:40

For those of you looking for more satellite protocol information. This appears to contain quite a lot of the frequency, channel, packet info etc
Report of the seventh meeting (http://legacy.icao.int/anb/panels/acp/meetings/amcp3/)

I doubt it's really going to get us any closer than the perfectly understandable inmarsat ping arc map, plus the measured and apparently tested against 777 airframes with same electronics suite doppler shifts...

martynemh

3rd Apr 2014, 06:44

Let's get it right -

Radios etc were not 'switched off', they stopped working.

Earlier posts referred to the effects of 'neurotoxic particulates' on flight crew performance.

We still haven't seen a radar plot.

Or the cargo manifest, I think?

And finally, how did they 'positively identify' an 'unidentified primary target' without taking a look at it?

500N

3rd Apr 2014, 06:45

Looks like any investigation might be held here in Aus ?

Australia to represent Malaysia in MH370 investigation

Australia has agreed to be an “accredited representative” of Malaysia in the investigation into missing Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370, a development that could lead to the lengthy probe into the jet's disappearance being based here. The announcement was made by Malaysia’s Prime Minister Najib Razak on his visit to Perth on Thursday and came as the search zone was “further refined” and shifted north as aircraft, ships and a nuclear submarine continued the hunt for remnants of the passenger plane.
As revealed by Fairfax Media, a group of nations have been pressing Malaysia to allow the investigation into MH370 to be based in Australia amid concerns about the chaotic handling in Kuala Lumpur of its disappearance.
While Malaysia will formally head the investigation as required by international convention, Mr Najib told media on Thursday that Australia was now “an accredited representative”.

Read more: Australia to represent Malaysia in MH370 investigation (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australia-to-represent-malaysia-in-mh370-investigation-20140403-zqqaz.html#ixzz2xnqvXHvV)"

arlev

3rd Apr 2014, 06:55

Radios etc were not 'switched off', they stopped working.

Or, perhaps better, nothing was received from the aircraft except SATCOM communication?

Walnut

3rd Apr 2014, 06:55

DaveReidUK

3rd Apr 2014, 07:03

Australia has agreed to be an "accredited representative" of MalaysiaThat's not how I read it.

Australia is not representing Malaysia, poor choice of words on the journalist's part. Australia is an accredited representative to the investigation, which is only to be expected per ICAO Annex 13, 5.23:

"Any State that provides an operational base for field investigations, or is involved in search and rescue or wreckage recovery operations ... may also be invited to appoint an accredited representative to participate in the investigation".

Pace

3rd Apr 2014, 07:13

I agree with Martynemh All his questions must be answered. The industry can not less this incident go unresolved, with circa 1100 777s still flying. Remember the Comet disappearance. The radar plot must be published in full, along with the cargo manifest.
Whatever the political pressure the Malaysian PM should take the lead here.

Walnut

Sadly as in life we cannot always get what we want. Personally I think we are as likely to get a definitive answer to this tragic event as you are likely to be the next man to set foot on the moon.
In a week the blackboxes will run out of charge and then what? How much has it cost already for all the searches to date?
The chances of even getting an answer as to where the wreckage lies is probably almost zero.
so barring a miracle this will end up as one of lifes unsolved mysteries

Pace

Blacksheep

3rd Apr 2014, 07:30

developed using original source data and a deep understanding of the equipment and specifications.I admit that Inmarsat and academic scientists know their systems inside out, but my question on the accuracy of their prediction is based on my own knowledge of aircraft systems and equipment that interface with the outside world [40+ years as an avionics specialist on Boeing 707, 737, 747, 757, 767 and currently on 787].

The MOPS for a Mode S Transponder (which includes Modes A and C functions) requires a very precise 8 microsecond interval to identify an interrogation, and trigger the response. The response is then either a 56 microsecond or a 112 microsecond burst of data. The 120 microsecond reply is very finely calibrated. A recent Airworthiness Directive (2014-05-07 for those who are interested) directed at a particular manufacturer's Mode S transponder requires them to be sent for bench testing and re-alignment every 4 years to detect and correct age related alignment drift in the electronic components. Such drift cannot be noted by crew or maintenance monitoring. DME Interrogators require similar calibration accuracy, but DME indications are directly monitored by the aircew and drift is quickly noted.

Now, compared to the precision calibration of ATC transponders and DME interrogators, there are no such requirements for Satcom systems. A one microsecond variation within the airborne equipment's processing circuits could easily result in a 2,000 km error in the position calculation. There is nothing in the equipment specifications that makes that unlikely - the equipment is just as likely to suffer age related drift as any other avionics equipment. Unlike transponders, Satcom equipment is maintained purely "On Condition" and there is absolutely no way that the scientists producing their range predictions, based on analysis of "handshake" responses that were never intended for range determination, could know the internal condition of the airborne components of the Satcom system. I have been sceptical of the predicted range arcs since they were first promulgated and nothing I have seen or heard since has changed my opinion - these Satcom range arcs are of questionable accuracy.

Sadly, they are the only thing the search coordinators have to go on.

Frequent SLF

3rd Apr 2014, 07:30

Well spotted JoBloggs2.

That material made it into ICAO Annex 10, Volume III in more-or-less that form. Now I think it has been moved into an ICAO manual which forms and appendix or some-such to Annex 10. It is based on the Inmarsat specification as outlined in their System Definition Manual for their aeronautical service. It should be mandatory bedtime reading for those commenting on satcom matters on this site.

Interestingly, the so-called "pings" will probably contain information pertinent to the investigation, such as class of log-on (high gain, low gain etc.) which will indicate whether the aircraft antenna was pointing at the satellite and which in turn will indicate the status of the FMS.

All good stuff.

sandos

3rd Apr 2014, 07:38

there is absolutely no way that the scientists producing their range predictions, based on analysis of "handshake" responses that were never intended for range determination, could know the internal condition of the airborne components of the Satcom system

They don't really need to know the exact condition: they could use the "pings" on ground, when the satcom gear is in a known location, to calibrate from. Barring extreme drift during flight, this should be very accurate.

AT1

3rd Apr 2014, 07:58

A one microsecond variation within the airborne equipment's processing circuits could easily result in a 2,000 km error in the position calculation.

Light (and radio waves) moves quickly. I cannot keep up with it.

But. The speed of light is approx 3 x 10^8 metres per second. One microsecond is 1 x 10^-6 seconds.
So, in one microsecond light (and radio) will travel approx 3 x 10^2 metres.
At an "altitude" of 40 degrees - lets change that to 45 degrees to keep it simpe - a 300 metre variation in the hypotenuse would mean, roughly, a 200 metre variation in the horizontal position.

Is my maths wrong? If not, hardly 2,000Km.

And as has already been posted, while the equipment may not be bench calibrated , Inmarsat are very likely to have had similar "ping" data from when the plane's postion was known with considerable precision - as when on the ground - to calibrate their analysis.

There will, of course, be variances between different pieces of equipment. An individual piece of equipment will also have variations over time. But do not underestimate the sophistication of the equipment, particularly of the complete end to end comms system including the plane mounted equipment, the orbiter and the ground station. Or the capabilities, experience, and intelligence of the people that have carried out the analysis.

hikoushi

3rd Apr 2014, 08:21

Has there been any discussion regarding the background checks of the flight attendants? Certainly they would be somewhat familiar with the cockpit layout from sitting in there while the pilots go on bathroom breaks. If one of them had ill intentions and a modicum of flight-simulator experience they could easily have murdered the remaining pilot (using the axe or any other heavy object) while the other was outside, and initiate a sequence of events leading to this aircraft's disappearance. An FA with a long-stewing intention of accomplishing something like this could gain all the information they would need to shut off various systems (communication, dump cabin pressure, etc) simply by asking questions while seated in the cockpit over various flights. Not to mention studying any number of websites and messing around with X-Plane or whatever.

Let's face it it's not rocket science here. Pull a couple of circuit breakers, put on an O2 mask, manipulate some cabin pressure controls to dump the cabin, turn the altitude knob and pull, type a few keystrokes into the FMS, and that's it. A little homework is all it would take.

If according to the latest (CNN so take it with a grain of salt) all passengers and the pilots have been cleared of suspicion yet they are STILL viewing the aircraft's maneuvers as a "criminal act", then that basically just leaves the cabin crew, correct?

the incivil beast

3rd Apr 2014, 08:55

That might make sense until :
The Captain climbs to 45,000', DPs, and kills all others onboard
Then, that could fit with information publicly available :
Flies around Indonesian airspace
Turns the heading knob to 180 and drops O2 mask ...

Passagiata

3rd Apr 2014, 09:09

DH call:
So will the Chinese government foot the bill in this search effort or are they just going to sit back and enjoy the moment as the victims families blame every non-chinese government or organization for the lack of results in this search?
No, they are not obliged to. The countries who have contributed to the search will foot their own bills initially I would think. So China will be paying for any of its aircraft that it is using. Whether any bills would end up being charged to the airliner's insurers, I don't know. Australia will pay for all of its S&R efforts, eg those inside its S&R zone.

glad rag

3rd Apr 2014, 09:10

Take a look at the Malaysian PMs demeanour while in Australia
He knows it is not in the Southern Ocean

Don't suppose you have any kind of PROOF or INDICATION to support this?

BTW I am keeping a very open mind on this sad event, but really..........:suspect:

Mahatma Kote

3rd Apr 2014, 09:30

But. The speed of light is approx 3 x 10^8 metres per second. One microsecond is 1 x 10^-6 seconds.To simplify it even further. Light travels roughly one foot per nanosecond.

One microsecond is 1000 nanoseconds.

One microsecond is ~ 1000 feet not 6,561,679 feet 9 31⁄64 inches (2000 km)

500N

3rd Apr 2014, 09:30

So will the Chinese government foot the bill in this search effort or are they just going to sit back and enjoy the moment as the victims families blame every non-chinese government or organization for the lack of results in this search?

I haven't seen any or much criticism of Australia's efforts, or for that matter Vietnam, India who although the last two got tardy with Malaysia, who could blame them.

Apart from the number of Chinese being involved, the other MAJOR reason for China's huge response is because they got whipped badly a few years back for the tardy Chinese response to helping out a neighbour when every other country in the world put all hands to the grind stone !

They (the Chinese) didn't like it and were determined to make sure that type of criticism didn't happen again.

Re costs, remember the military costs are incurred whether they are searching for the aircraft or doing normal flying duties or sitting on the flight line.

Ian W

3rd Apr 2014, 09:58

ian w . your theory of little or no interest in an aircraft wandering around the skies might have some validity if the disinterested parties were unaware that an aircraft was missing. 370 was known to be missing at the time it should have contacted vietnam and it is inconceivable that the word did not reach all parts of se asia in a very short time. all surrounding atccs would be on alert for the aircraft on radio and radar. interest would be of a very high order I would say.

It would take sometime for the news to be shared with other civil units, sharing with the military would take longer if at all. Remember, the immediate thoughts were that the aircraft had dissappeared somewhere en-route to Vietnam at the extreme edge of Malaysian radar cover. Why contact internal military units to look for an aircraft that was assumed to be either en-route more than 200 miles away with some complex comms failure? After half an hour or so it was assumed that the aircraft was in the South China Sea again, why contact military? It was only when the news got out after seveal hours that the military said we think that one flew back overland out into the Malacca Straights. This was reported but then Iwould think the question was "are you absolutely sure?" - so while it was being checked the 'civilian loss of radar' contact was given as the time of last radar. Only when the military had time to pull the tapes and recheck did the time go back to 2:40 loss of primary radar over the Malacca Straights.

I see nothing suspicious in this although the management of information to the baying media could have been better handled.

londonman

3rd Apr 2014, 10:53

@9151 martynemh

Let's get it right -

Radios etc were not 'switched off', they stopped working.

Can I ask for clarification? If you are saying that no-one knows if the radios were switched off then I agree. However, your post could be read that the radios were not switched off because they broke down...then I disagree as how can anyone on the ground know that?

martynemh

3rd Apr 2014, 11:17

@9190 Londonman.

We cannot know that assorted radios etc were swtched off. All that we know is that, for example, the Transponder/s stopped giving out info, and none of the VHF radios transmitted any more, nor did the ACARS perform later on. We have no info that says 'Radios were switched off'.

And we still don't get to see the cargo manifest (which of course might not be accurate, in that some 'goods' might not have been manifested), nor have we got any access to the military radar records of several, probably useful, surrounding nations - as well as that of Malaysia itself.

James7

3rd Apr 2014, 11:28

Best suggestion I have seen on CNN, FAA chap talking about recreating the flight, according to the Pings, to try and narrow down possible crash site.

Will have to use the exact same equipment.

Should have been done weeks ago.

L337

3rd Apr 2014, 11:41

You can't lock the other pilot out and depressurise because the cockpit door will open even if holding lock.

That is incorrect, and has been covered earlier in the thread... the blow out panels will open, but the door will remain locked

Lonewolf_50

3rd Apr 2014, 12:38

We only know that none of the radios transmitted anymore on the frequency in use or 121.5. FWIW, "we" also know that the 01:37 ACARS data was not transmitted. As I understand how MAL was applying ACARS, they used the VHF option, not the satellite option.

That info and a buck fifty might get us a cup of coffee.

portmanteau

3rd Apr 2014, 12:42

Ian w. my reply to lonewolf 50 was modded out but I have to advise both of you of what goes on in atc from personal hands on experience. worldwide procedures as laid down by ICAO would have been followed by on-watch atcos in the KL and Ho Chi Minh FIRs immediately following the aircraft's disappearance which was when it failed to contact HCM. Search and Rescue action, mandated by ICAO, is usually devolved to military units since the states involved will not usually want to maintain specialised civil aircraft for this task. hence the military air forces in KL and vietnam would be in the loop immediately followed by those of other surrounding atccs.
It is likely that Lumpur Radar on 132.6 who was controlling 370 at the handover point, would have been looking at a feed from Khota Bharu radar whose cover stretches almost to the vietnamese coast. meanwhile HCM's radar cover reached at least to the handover point if their report of observing a turnback is correct, so I think 370 was not out of radar cover at any time. this would have considerably shortened any uncertainty time. look up incerfa/alerfa/detresfa... all will be revealed in the accident report and not before, at least to us onlookers and the media.

DocRohan

3rd Apr 2014, 12:42

one thing that still puzzles me.....AAIB say that 6 complete handshake were analyzed to plot the possible route after ACARS was disabled....So we "assume" that the 18:25 and 18:28 pings may have not been complete pings (????) Would that then make it difficult to accurately determine the doppler offset frequency if they were not complete pings??...One of these is the "possible turn" ping, so it could be even more important!
I still dont understand why anyone would release a statement saying 6 pings, then release a chart that shows 8?!!!

takata

3rd Apr 2014, 12:53

Hi,
I do remember the very high level of speculations following AF447 tragedy, and also that most of it (if not all of it) was simply based on false assumptions due to erroneous media releases, usually sourced from unknown people being 'familiar with the investigation'. Even those preliminary reports were not convincing people that no Airbus/BEA 'cover up' was taking place...

As I'm trying to cross-check some of the facts concerning MH370 published so far, it appears that the same context is producing exactly the same effects:

i.e.: those radar data showing:
- sharp turn... or shallow turn(s)?
- altitude changes ranging from 12,000 (or 23,000) to 45,000 ft... or no change from cruising altitude?

Check the previously posted link here: 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/)
interview with Greg Feith, a former investigator for the National Transportation Safety Board
Source: Aviation Week.

As for the related theory that the auto pilot took over after the crew was disabled by hypoxia, the series of left and right hand turns belies this, he said. If the crew were overcome, the airplane would have continued on its original course to Beijing. Instead, it made a “shallow” left turn after its last radio communication with Malaysian Air Traffic Control to a new course almost behind its original course. Then, over the Strait of Malacca, it made a right turn, a left turn and another left turn going south over the Indian Ocean.

Citing his sources familiar with the investigation, Feith said these were shallow banks of perhaps 20 degrees, normal turns that would not have alerted passengers that anything was out of the ordinary.

“The auto pilot isn’t smart enough [on its own] to make the maneuvers the airplane did,” Feith said.

All the altitude changes that have been reported in the media are incorrect, he said, citing his sources. The airplane never left its cruising altitude of 35,000 ft.

Well, I would wait for the first report to be released in order to check out what they really come up with...

RUTUS

3rd Apr 2014, 12:57

...
And as has already been posted, while the equipment may not be bench calibrated , Inmarsat are very likely to have had similar "ping" data from when the plane's postion was known with considerable precision - as when on the ground - to calibrate their analysis.
...

"While on the ground at Kuala Lumpur airport, and during the early stage of the flight, MH370 transmitted several messages. At this stage the location of the aircraft and the satellite were known, so it was possible to calculate system characteristics for the aircraft, satellite, and ground station."

Tuesday, March 25, 06:50 PM MYT +0800 Malaysia Airlines MH370 Flight Incident

MH370 Flight Incident | Malaysia Airlines (http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/my/en/site/dark-site.html) (as of today on dynamic page 3)

Lonewolf_50

3rd Apr 2014, 13:08

Ian w. my reply to lonewolf 50 was modded out but I have to advise both of you of what goes on in atc from personal hands on experience. worldwide procedures as laid down by ICAO would have been followed by on-watch atcos in the KL and Ho Chi Minh FIRs immediately following the aircraft's disappearance which was when it failed to contact HCM.
Would have been. How long does "immediately" take in your experience? I appreciate your familiarity with ICAO standards and with air traffic control. That doesn't answer the question originally posed.
Search and Rescue action, mandated by ICAO, is usually devolved to military units since the states involved will not usually want to maintain specialised civil aircraft for this task. hence the military air forces in KL and vietnam would be in the loop immediately followed by those of other surrounding atccs.
Again, how long does "immediately" take in your experience?
It is likely that Lumpur Radar on 132.6 who was controlling 370 at the handover point, would have been looking at a feed from Khota Bharu radar whose cover stretches almost to the vietnamese coast.
Aye.
meanwhile HCM's radar cover reached at least to the handover point if their report of observing a turnback is correct, so I think 370 was not out of radar cover at any time.
OK. This explains HCM contacting Maylaysian POC when they didn't get a check in.
this would have considerably shortened any uncertainty time. look up incerfa/alerfa/detresfa... all will be revealed in the accident report and not before, at least to us onlookers and the media.
Am familiar with those terms, thanks. :ok:

Datayq1

3rd Apr 2014, 14:27

@lonewolf:
As I understand how MAL was applying ACARS, they used the VHF option, not the satellite option.

That is what I surmised as well, however the Inmarsat provides a datum at 17:07 for satcom. Is that coincidential with the ACARS-VHF transmission, or is it possible that the ACARS tx was echoed by satcom?

Walnut

3rd Apr 2014, 15:00

It has been suggested that the cause may never be found, I think that is now highly likely. However historically as only about 10% or less of air crashes are caused by high jack or suicide then it has to be assumed that an aircraft malfunction has occurred. As such the travelling public are going to be very unhappy climbing aboard a B777 with a mechanical flaw. Boeing will try to pretend its not their machine but truth usually comes out. Its in their interest to press for a discovery of the reason. If there is a repeat it will lead to a grounding of the a/c. look what happened to the Comet.

500N

3rd Apr 2014, 15:15

Walnut

I think we are a long way from a Comet type scenario.

portmanteau

3rd Apr 2014, 15:18

lonewolf 50. you are the KL radar controller watching 370 on the screen in front of you. you instruct it to contact HCM then watch it continue NE. the moment you see its label vanish ( when the aircraft transponder stops), you reach for the phone to ask HCM atcc fellow controller on a direct line, whether he has ok contact with 370. he says no and may even tell you then that he can see it has turned back. you and he there and then initiate standard search and rescue procedures. atcos do not have to refer to anyone else first, their responsibility is to get the procedure under way without delay because time is of the essence. adjoining atccs are informed at the same time.

Andy_S

3rd Apr 2014, 15:26

However historically as only about 10% or less of air crashes are caused by high jack or suicide then it has to be assumed that an aircraft malfunction has occurred. As such the travelling public are going to be very unhappy climbing aboard a B777 with a mechanical flaw.

In the absence of anything new to report and the re-emergence of silly conspiracy theories, I’ve been avoiding any discussion of MH370. But I can’t let nonsense like this go unchallenged.

No, it does not have to be assumed that an ‘aircraft malfunction’ took place. There’s not one, tiny, shred of evidence to support such an absurd statement.

How long has the 777 been in service? How many 777’s are currently flying? And how many 777 hull losses have there been? You don’t have to be a mathematician to work out that the aircraft has an excellent safety record.

It’s been over three weeks now since the disappearance of MH370. I have seen no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that in that time the ‘travelling public’ have been ‘very unhappy’ about ‘climbing aboard’ a 777. If you have such evidence, perhaps you could present it to back up your assertion.

DaveReidUK

3rd Apr 2014, 15:47

However historically as only about 10% or less of air crashes are caused by high jack or suicide then it has to be assumed that an aircraft malfunction has occurred.Why is there a requirement that any assumptions should be made ?

MPN11

3rd Apr 2014, 16:16

lonewolf 50. you are the KL radar controller watching 370 on the screen in front of you. you instruct it to contact HCM then watch it continue NE. the moment you see its label vanish ( when the aircraft transponder stops), you reach for the phone to ask HCM atcc fellow controller on a direct line, whether he has ok contact with 370. he says no and may even tell you then that he can see it has turned back. you and he there and then initiate standard search and rescue procedures.
Having instructed many, many, thousands of aircraft to contact the next control agency in my career, I can assure you that from an ATCO's perspective that's it. He's gone, flight strip in bin, screen wiped, Endex.

If we went around calling colleagues saying "Have you got him yet?" There would be no time left to control the remaining aircraft on frequency.

It doesn't happen.

pax2908

3rd Apr 2014, 16:23

BusyB

3rd Apr 2014, 16:29

I may have missed it but I have seen no consideration given to the "Divert to ----" key on the FMC. If that was selected surely the a/c would turn to fly there and continue on if no further selections made:confused:

WillFlyForCheese

3rd Apr 2014, 17:15

Having read Duncan Steel's writings on Inmarsat data not ruling out a northerly route, and the apparent high confidence in government officials that the Inmarsat data confirm a southerly route . . .

I would like to see some type of confirmation that the folks that undertook the analysis of the data can reproduce accurate findings with aircraft that were not lost.

In other words - provide them the raw data from completed flights. Only the data that would be similar to that data sent by MH370. Have them calculate the position of that aircraft along the flight route and compare it to what actually happened. Possible? Was it done?

Basic scientific method - right?

flash8

3rd Apr 2014, 17:24

Prof. Duncan Steel's CV is extremely impressive, to the extent that he is likely one of the few people on earth with the credentials to be taken seriously in disputing the data, having arguably comparable if not greater experience than the Inmarsat team members.

With no flotsam found to date I for one remain somewhat skeptical the a/c ended up in the Indian Ocean.

Additionally I just don't feel confident that we have been told the entire story.

mm_flynn

3rd Apr 2014, 17:30

Sorry, simple question, maybe already answered (blacksheep ?)

Does the Doppler analysis / projected track, depend, OR does not depend, on the accuracy
of the local clock (the clock of the SATCOM terminal on the aircraft) ?

My understanding of the two measurements is
1 Doppler - which is a measure of the frequency shift of the Aircraft signal when received at this earth station and is dependent on the accuracy of the 'transmitting frequency' probably more accurately the precise bit rate. For the system to work, this needs to be very very accurate but is not a 'clock' in the sense of having a specific time, just a very accurate period between each bit. This measure tells if the plane was generally North or South of the satellite. I believe based on Inmarsat knowing the satellite's movement. But doesn't tell us much about the aircraft's speed or direction of flight.

2 The Ping - which is a time delay and tells us on which arc on the Earth the aircraft is located. The general conversation implies that it is a round trip delay of a message packet, however, it appears there is also is a calculation the satellite does to tell the Aircraft station what delay it needs to use from the satellite's reference clock in order to fit into the assigned TDM slot. This would be a pretty accurate number I order for the system to work effectively (because the more accurate each station is in hitting its time slot, the less buffer is needed between slots and the more data that can be transmitted). So if the arc is determined using this piece of data, it should be pretty accurate and pretty much independent of the condition of the Aircraft station.

I am sure a real expert will correct any errors. But from my perspective it seems very unlikely that Inmarsat will have gotten the Doppler direction wrong or the arc wrong. However, where the aircraft actually was on the arc depends on the assumptions of how fast it was going, and how steady that velocity was.

Biggles1957

3rd Apr 2014, 18:14

@WillFlyForCheese
I would like to see some type of confirmation that the folks that undertook the analysis of the data can reproduce accurate findings with aircraft that were not lost.

Inmarsat have said that they have indeed validated their findings by running the same analysis against their data from other scheduled MAH B777 flights where the flight path is known.

Chronus

3rd Apr 2014, 19:16

Blacksheep`s commentary makes a lot of sense in setting out the limitations of satcom data analaysis carried out by INMARSAT.
INMARSAT announced that after six complete handshakes recorded at the ground station following ACARS, the a/c`s operational comms sytem stopped sending messages. INMARSAT was then able to calculate range of a/c from sat and time taken for signal to be sent and received. They then generated the well published Northern and Southern Corridors. Which seemed to cover a large chunk of mother earth and water. So got their heads back down and developed a second innovative technique which took into account the Doppler effect, which we all know from watching ambulances, police cars and for train spotters, locos. They analysed the frequency that the ground station expected to recieve and the one actually measured, which they told all is called the Burst Frequency Offset. They then checked this prediction with six other B777 a/c flying on the same day in various directions which resulted in a good match with the Southern Corridor. So off went all the troops in that direction.
So it would seem to me at least, that the whole thing is built on much theory and little hard fact. Until such time when some debris is washed on someone`s shores nothing will be known.

jmmilner

3rd Apr 2014, 19:18

Now that HMS Tireless, the oldest active member of the Trafalgar class, has been added to the search, do we need to reconsider the usefulness of such an asset in light of lessons learned with AF447? In the AF case, the open literature suggests the on-board acoustic sensors were unable to locate the black boxes but we now know that the pinger on the CVR was defective when finally recovered. Perhaps some of the bright boys have added functionality, within the limits imposed by the physics of the actual sensors, to detect relevant frequencies. Sadly, Tireless, once scheduled to be retired last year, is also the only Trafalgar class not to retrofitted with the Sonar 2076 system, which the RN claims is the most advanced in the world. Seems like an odd choice on the surface (pun?) but perhaps in this case older is better while avoiding revealing just how good the new kit is.

YYZjim

3rd Apr 2014, 19:42

Under the terms of the IATA/ICAO treaties, the authorities in charge of investigating an aircraft incident involving death are required to publish a preliminary report within thirty (30) days of the incident. Recent experience with the Malaysian government suggests we should set the bar for details and truthfulness pretty low. Perhaps April 7th will come and go with no report at all. After all, there is no evidence of casualties. Nor, to be precise about it, is anything definitive known about the incident/accident. It would be nice to know the assumptions, science and conclusions which underpin the search and investigation so far, but they would not necessarily be described in an accident report. It is disheartening to imagine that we may never know what happened to MH370. Even worse: we may never find out why the search took the turns it did.

Biggles1957

3rd Apr 2014, 19:48

@WillFlyForCheese

I agree; as the UK AAIB have reviewed Inmarsat's work, presumably they have reviewed these tests as well. That the source data has not been made public has caused much debate here on PPRuNe.

I don't understand what Inmarsat are showing on their "Burst Frequency Offset Analysis" chart for the time-period, from take-off up to the time we are led to believe last primary radar contact was lost at approx 18:20UTC i.e. what the "Predicted Track" represents for this time period - the measured track here appears wayward but after this point it follows their Predicted Southern Track.

It is disappointing the Malaysians have not made public a definitive track from the last known position in the South China Sea at 17:20UTC, when the transponder stopped, to the position of last primary radar contact in the Strait of Malacca at 18:20UTC. (The Chinese media have released an alleged, incomplete, trace for the Strait of Malacca, but the Malaysians refused to comment on this.) I suspect that events including route/speed/altitude etc in that missing hour are key to this mystery.

Datayq1

3rd Apr 2014, 20:27

@biggles:
The Chinese media have released an alleged, incomplete, trace for the Strait of Malacca,

The only radar track that I've seen from the Chinese (families) is in the South China Sea/Gulf of Thailand.

Is there another (Chinese version) for the Malaccan Straits?

dicksorchard

3rd Apr 2014, 21:05

Do not know how reliable this report is but it makes interesting reading - Anyone got anything to add to the details on radar Capture .

MH370 Malaysia Airlines: Anwar Ibrahim says government purposefully concealing information - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10743378/MH370-Malaysia-Airlines-Anwar-Ibrahim-says-government-purposefully-concealing-information.html)

Lonewolf_50

3rd Apr 2014, 21:16

@dicksorchard. Nothing like some political noise to keep people stirred up. Does BFA to help find the missing aircraft, however ... comments on the criticisms from the political opposition.
He indicated that it was even possible that there was complicity by authorities on the ground in what happened to the plane and the 239 people on board. Gee, political opposition indulges in speculation about the evil in current party in power. Straight out of Politics 101 playbook. Not original. It was “not only unacceptable but not possible, not feasible” that the plane had not been sighted by the Marconi radar system immediately after it changed course. I'll suggest the man has never served a day in uniform, nor ever sat at a radar console on the mid watch. The radar, he said, would have instantly detected the Boeing 777 as it travelled east to west across “at least four” Malaysian provinces.
Indeed, if it was on, operating as advertised, and manned. Mr Anwar said it was “baffling” that the country’s air force had “remained silent”, and claimed that it “should take three minutes under SOP (standard operating procedure) for the air force planes to go. And there was no response.” Maybe nobody told the Air Force Planes to go. Maybe they were not in the Alert 5 status at midnight-ish on a Friday night. He added: “We don’t have the sophistication of the United States or Britain but still we have the capacity to protect our borders.” Fair statement. It was “clearly baffling”, he said, to suggest that radar operators had been unable to observe the plane’s progress. Maybe they saw it and it didn't register that something was well out of order. See above: midnight to dawn shift, your A side is probably not on watch.

@mickjoebill: why would they leave the navlights on if it's a human up to no good? If it was a "something's wrong" scenario, interesting idea there.

WillowRun 6-3

3rd Apr 2014, 22:11

Poster "YYZjim" recently noted the standard requirement of a preliminary report at the 30-day mark. Also noted was that one could argue as to whether the triggering event is known to have occurred - there's obviously no physical investigation site yet, etc.

In my legal view, there is unequivocally and literally zero basis to regard the incident as in abeyance. True, no wreckage (or other confirmatory physical evidence). But certainly the 30-day clock began to wind at the point in time no later than scheduled arrival plus 24 hours. I'd not want to advocate for any entity with any degree of involvement in the Mystery of MH370 that the fact of said Mystery bars the 30-day clock from starting to wind.

But that timing point is merely procedural. The substantive stuff is hinted at by YYZjim's noticing that Malaysian authorities seem not prepared to add generation of such a report to their already-overwhelmed capacities. One realizes the ICAO legal system does not presently contemplate, and perhaps does not even allow, a kind of mobilization of investigatory, legal, and technical expertise on a multi-national level. But this incident dramatically breaks the mold - and it's a fair bet that when the facts ultimately do become known, that breakage will extend far more deeply. So it is time to innovate, on the legal and administrative agency front. (I won't repeat earlier posts advocating broad outlines of such new approach.)

olasek

3rd Apr 2014, 22:48

But certainly the 30-day clock began to wind at the point in time no later than scheduled arrival plus 24 hours.
I think this a bit humorous, who cares about 30 days, 60 days, etc.
Cameroon didn't bother to release any preliminary report when KQ507 crashed and the final report was released like 3 years after the crash.

RatherBeFlying

3rd Apr 2014, 22:56

A. Inmarsat got it completely right and MH370 came down in South arc.

A1. Controlled ditching left nothing on surface
A2. Debris not yet found

B. Hole in Inmarsat calculations as noted by Duncan Steel and MH370 came down in North arc.

B1. Landed in North arc and concealed. Passengers???
B2. CFIT in mountainous terrain while flying below radar.

A1 looks most probable at present.

If/when raw Inmarsat data becomes available, Duncan Steel's possibility set will be either validated or dismissed.

Lemain

3rd Apr 2014, 23:20

The big difficulty with the Inmarsat analysis is that the equipment in the a/c was in a suspect condition. Possibly it had suffered physical damage from an event or it had been switched off. For equipment that isn't designed to stop cleanly on switch off, very odd things can happen as the supply rails fall so instead of some meaningful 'ping' that everyone has been analysing, they might have been analysing a 'chirp' as the volts die. A huge amount of weight seems to be given to this analysis. I'm with the group who feels that case is not proven. The a/c might be anywhere, even landed softly enough to let some or all souls survive. I hope so.

glendalegoon

3rd Apr 2014, 23:27

I've seen elt's fail because the antenna lead was ripped off the antenna at time of crash

I would like to see other methods trigger the ELT to transmit.

May I offer this:

Instead of JUST using impact G loads or even salt water emersion, how about: a timer.

During pre flight the timer is set for fuel exhaustion minus 30 minutes ( or anything you like ). It can be reset upon the ground (WOW switch for example) after safe arrival (do your checklists boys!)

But if you fly till fuel exhaustion time, its been sending out a signal for 30 minutes to aid in finding your plane.

Shadoko

4th Apr 2014, 00:32

The most official (and, IMHO,,accurate) info about maths done for looking at MH370 tracks is there:
You searched for mh370 - Inmarsat (http://www.inmarsat.com/?s=mh370)
It seems all those who have tried to make their own "predictions" from published pings data are coming with too high Doppler values vs the published chart.
With the chart, Inmarsat published this:
http://www.inmarsat.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Doppler-correction_contributions.jpg
and also a worded explaination ( http://www.inmarsat.com/news/malaysian-government-publishes-mh370-details-uk-aaib/ )The report states that the calculations were made using the automatic ‘pings’ sent to the satellite via the ground station and the aircraft after it vanished.
It explained that if the ground station does not hear from an aircraft for an hour it will transmit a ‘log on/log off’ message – a ‘ping’ – and the aircraft automatically returns a short message indicating that it is still logged on, a process described as a ‘handshake’.
The ground station log recorded six complete handshakes after ACARS, the aircraft’s operational communications system, stopped sending messages.
Refined analysis
Inmarsat was then able to calculate the range of the aircraft from the satellite, and the time it took the signal to be sent and received, to generate two arcs of possible positions – a northern and a southern corridor.OK, this is for the "arcs".
This follows:The report goes on to explain that Inmarsat developed a second innovative technique that took into account the velocity of the aircraft relative to the satellite and the resulting change in signal frequency, known as the Doppler Effect.
The Inmarsat technique analysed the difference between the frequency that the ground station expected to receive and the one actually measured, known as the Burst Frequency Offset.
And this is the Doppler from which is the well known chart.

But what is D1 in above picture? Is this the part (?) of the Doppler corrected by the a/c unit (as explained by mm43: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-457.html#post8416026 (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-457.html#post8416026)?) ) But then, what is D2?

Could be that the frequency (from the a/c) is corrected to zero Doppler (from true frequency received and internal clock), and Inmarsat made the measured from the length of the bits of data (lower "frequency" > lower Doppler)? Perhaps a stupid guess...

Ian W

4th Apr 2014, 02:31

In most countries, military assets exist to help the country's defence should it go to war. Such wars rarely start with a surprise attack. There are days, even weeks or months, of escalating tensions before armies face each other. The goal of the military is to have its assets ready, to train soldiers in their use, and to use them once hostilities actually start. Not before.

The United States is the exception. As the world's superpower, it sees a need to keep a proactive defence 24 hours of each day. It even needs to aware of the comings and goings (and communications) of its own residents. If MH370 gone missing in US airspace, it would be a wonder if the military bases within range were unresponsive.

Elsewhere in the world, though, common sense still prevails, and military assets are maintained for a state of war, not for the surveillance of civilian aircraft.

Not quite true - the UK has fighters on QRA that are quite regularly scrambled to assess civil aircraft, from hijack to commuter aircraft failing to flight plan or to navigate as expected; and of course the occasional Russian probing flights. This has been the case for decades. The Contiental US did not have any similar QRA capability until after 9/11 - a case of once bitten twice shy.

500N

4th Apr 2014, 04:58

I see they have announced that they have deployed the towed pinger locator".

"The hunt for the missing Malaysia Airlines plane has shifted below the surface, with the "towed pinger locator" deployed on Friday to search for the black box before its batteries expire.

mm43

4th Apr 2014, 06:26

I see they have announced that they have deployed the towed pinger locatorA stab in the dark!

However, a chance for the ship's crew to get familiar with towing the TPL25 at depth, including the constraints on speed and manouvering.

Pontius Navigator

4th Apr 2014, 06:50

What ATCC KUL and RMAF ( and even ATCC SGN -Ho Chi Minh) did those crucial hours went MH370 was trackable is important. When i lose anything i track back my exact actions to the time i last saw the missing item and the actions prior ..during and proceeding that.
True.

In professional terms an minute by minute detailed incident report from the time contact waa lost is needed. . . Simply assume the plane crashed into South china sea and do nothing?

We don't even know they made that assumption for some time.

No alerts went off to RMAF to scramble rescue..a plane down kn the seas wiyh possible survivors? No maritime or RMAF radar on high alerts? The current view is that they are a third world nation and simply messed up their SOPs does not cut it for me.

As pointed out below, there was no assessed air breathing threat to the CONUS so your military was effectively stood down prior to 911.

MH370 may not have been thought to be a threat or hijacked or been flown rogue but some reaction was taking place..adrenaline was rushing through some ATCC operations and MAS and RMAF and did they did nothing or everything wrong or made all the wrong assumptions is highky unlikely.

I think many people in a similar situation would be covering their six rather than admit out right that - they didn't notice, they didn't think, they weren't looking etc etc. It needs a special culture to say - Boss I goofed and for the Boss not to cover his 6.

DespairingTraveller

4th Apr 2014, 07:08

@ShadokoCould be that the frequency (from the a/c) is corrected to zero Doppler (from true frequency received and internal clock), and Inmarsat made the measured from the length of the bits of data (lower "frequency" > lower Doppler)? Perhaps a stupid guess...
I don't think it's a stupid guess at all.

A while back in the thread there was an excellent post explaining the nature of the satellite/aircraft handshake (the "ping"). This included a requirement for the aircraft equipment to Doppler correct its transmission to the satellite.

That being so, it's also possible that Inmarsat may have done some of its analysis not based purely on the straightforward Doppler effect between aircraft and satellite, but on the residuals left after that correction took place, whether in terms of uncorrected shift or some other consequent effect.

It's also noteworthy that Inmarsat were at pains to state that they had calibrated their work against other southbound Malaysian B777 flights. The specificity of that statement implies that such a calibration may not have been valid if done against a flight by another carrier, or by another aircraft type. Or, indeed, on another routing. Perhaps the work relies, in part at least, on the specifics of the performance of the particular equipment build installed in MAS B777s??

If so, then attempts to reconstruct what Inmarsat have done based purely on the freshman physics of the Doppler effect and basic orbital mechanics are doomed to failure.

As for why Inmarsat haven't released the full details of what they have done, a few potential explanations come immediately to mind:
It's just too complicated for ready public consumption . These are press releases, not technical papers, after all. The Doppler effect and geostationary orbits are pushing at the limits of public understanding as it is. I am sure that those who need to know have been given full briefings.
If their work relies on the specific performance of the equipment build installed on the aircraft, then divulging details could well compromise the commercial confidentiality of the equipment supplier.
If this really is "cutting edge" science (a description that doesn't exactly apply to orbital motions and the Doppler effect, after all!), then they may see commercial opportunities for what they've done and want to protect their interests before making a full, public disclosure.
Just a few thoughts... :)

ana1936

4th Apr 2014, 07:36

2:40am is the time when Subang ATC notified Malaysian Airways that they had lost radar contact with the plane and decided that MH370 was missing.

They actually lost radar contact at 1:21am but there was nothing strange about that as they thought it was heading off to Vietnam.

It was only after Vietnam could not contact the plane and there was a flurry of attempts at contacting it that it was realised that it was missing and MAS should be contacted.

It is perfectly reasonable that in the initial days these facts were sloppily reported by various people as "Radar contact was reported lost at 2:40am".

By coincidence it was discovered several days later that there may have been military radar recordings of the plane elsewhere until about 2:40am. However, this has now been corrected to 2:19am.

Obviously, conspiracy theories can be built on such a co-incidence by those who like to look for such.

awblain

4th Apr 2014, 09:55

Inmarsat are not the enemy here - they're the only organization that's provided any useful information whatsoever to the search.

Inmarsat have gone far beyond where they need to go in providing the service they were paid for. They've put considerable time and effort into new work to help the investigators, and located the wreckage to within a million square miles. I don't see why a reasonable court would demand they hand over their private records, even to someone with standing to ask for them.

Their reputation is now at risk from all the doubts flying around. The best way to avoid that would seem to be to publish their 12-16 data points for the arcs and doppler speeds, with a summary of the conclusions that set off the Australian snipe hunt. Duncan Steel can redo his sums, which might focus the snipe hunt, and the more reasonable conspiracists will be satisfied.

FlightDream111

4th Apr 2014, 10:09

Does anyone remember this earlier report - citing 'radar'? Since it is still not found, maybe worth re-looking at.

March 8th

The Vietnamese navy had earlier confirmed that Kuala Lumpur-Beijing bound Flight MH370 had crashed into the sea off Tho Chu island.
Tuoi Tre quoted Navy Admiral Ngo Van Phat, Commander of Region 5, as saying that military radar reported that the plane crashed into the sea at a location 246km south of Phu Quoc island.

Vietnam confirms MAS flight crashed into sea off Tho Chu island - The Malaysian Insider (http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/unconfirmed-reports-from-vietnamese-daily-says-mas-plane-crashed-into-ocean)

awblain

4th Apr 2014, 10:25

Why has this only been deployed today, just as the black box possibly starts to run out of charge?

Since Tireless was reported to have arrived in the general area on Monday 31st, that press release would seem to have been substantially overtaken by events.

Dangling a single microphone on a rope would seem to be less effective way to hear high-frequency pings than having seasoned and skilled ears using a big computer and a phased array of at least hundreds of them located beneath the thermocline. If I wanted to bet on the most likely to be successful, I'd put my money on the submarine.

Pontius Navigator

4th Apr 2014, 10:47

Is a 3 minute alert posture by the RMAF possible?

Yes, but consider what they need for 2 aircraft.

This is cockpit readiness. Assume a rotation of 2hrs on and 4hrs off. You need 6 crews per day and 12 for 2 days. That is a crew/aircraft ratio of 1:6. Then you have crews under taking routine training on leave etc.

A more normal peacetime readiness is Crewroom readiness - typically 15 minutes - but you still need 4 crews per day as a second pair would be on one hour. Typically you still need 6 crews in 2 days.

Small air force's would struggle to meet the task.

Oro-o

4th Apr 2014, 11:29

If you don't trust the Inmarsat data, then there's nothing else to go on.

Thank you for interjecting a massive dose of sensibility. I have also read Duncan Steel's blog and it is long on hubris, and a deep self-satisfaction smugly based on exploiting the fact that not all technical details are revealed (I am redundant; I guess that self-satisfaction he oozes can be called "hubris," too). Back-tracking from press releases and simplified graphics is not a way to do science, regardless of how hard he implies it is. It just seems terribly self-aggrandizing and without sufficient details to refute the Inmarsat assertions prior to a comprehensive review.

Again, thank you. Very little is publicly known. Trying to extrapolate much more from press releases is not only futile, it's foolish. It seems we now have more high-profile media fools in this tragedy than we have victims.

Perhaps in the future we'll have a new phrase, the "Malaysian Ratio" - the number of self-professed, highly paid experts who talk confidently about something they honestly know nothing about, vs. the real experts working day and night to solve the real crisis. I think the ratio is running 1,000:1 at the moment.

If I wanted to bet on the most likely to be successful, I'd put my money on the submarine.

Agreed, but only if the ssn is very,very near the impact point. Nothing from Inmarsat points to a search zone any one or multiple acoustic searches can grid search in a short while. While Tireless may have both sensitivity and specificity for this task, it won't have range. I honestly believe several US SSBN's are tasked likewise, but I do not believe it will help in a significant way, and it would be self-serving to claim it for a PR benefit.

I am going on record as saying this will be found. It may be a year or two. It may be within a month. Like AF447, the CVR and FDR will eventually be in competent air-board hands. It may take a while, but the search to find an answer is not going to be given up. The answer is going to be prosaic - it may be a single human-driven event. Or it may be a massively improbably technical one. But it is not going to be a massive conspiracy on behalf of multiple nation-states as the swell of opinion seems to favor.

dmba

4th Apr 2014, 11:29

The sudden reappearance of Anwar Ibrahim is quite unsettling. He is a politician hoping to use MH370 to his political advantage, which is dishonourable.

The fact that he has a direct relationship to the captain ought to keep him out of the spotlight, unless of course he is the one politician complicit in the entire thing...

lynw

4th Apr 2014, 12:09

@SheepGuts

And good old visual sightings don't rate anymore, which is a serious mistake in any investigation.
...
We need to get back to basics and stop betting everything on the tech stuff it does help. But we need to look at all the sightings.

Google the Innocence Project and then tell me you would happily take eyewitness testimony over scientific/technical evidence. In about 75% of convictions overturned by DNA evidence, the main evidence that secured the conviction was eyewitness testimony.

Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness memory is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be preserved carefully and retrieved methodically, or it can be contaminated.

This is why two people can witness the same event but their testimony will not be the same. Plus, eyewitnesses will not necessarily see the whole picture and the bit they do see can be biased to a certain conclusion which doesn't reflect the truth.

I would say it would be a serious mistake to discount eyewitness testimony, but a even bigger mistake to put more reliance on it than the technical evidence. I would argue the technical evidence is more likely to give you the truth than eyewitness sightings particularly in a situation where people are panicked or under stress.

awblain

4th Apr 2014, 12:19

The point is we do not have the data. We 'only' have Inmarsat's interpretation of the data.

"We" don't have much choice in that regard, since it's "their" system that has yielded the results, and "they" know more about how it works than anyone else.

If they say too much about how their system works, then they might be more prone to interference or jamming.

If they were to publish their analysis as a novel technical result or a patent, then the journal or patent office would send it to suitable experts to review.
If they were to submit it to a preprint server, then everyone qualified could have at it, but the best arbiter of the quality of this analysis would remain Inmarsat's own professional pride and responsibility.

The chance of a random blogger finding a crucial flaw in Inmarsat's timing and/or frequency shift analysis is not great.

The Lost Ark would have been investigated by "Top Men", who would include Jones' peers - and rivals - and who would be well known to Jones, if the general had been the boss of a patent office or a journal editor. It would be normal for their identities to be kept from Jones, to avoid the suggestion of any collusion or potential unfair influence.

However, if anti-Inmarsat noise builds further, then the company probably will have to release their arc/speed results. It won't quieten any hard-line conspiracy theorists, but it would allow any reasonable commentator to be absolutely certain that the missing 777 went south.

lynw

4th Apr 2014, 12:46

@SheepGuts:

DNA was once an untried method that is now an accepted method. Just because something is untried doesn't make it invalid. As I understand it, Inmarsat tested this against flights to confirm their interpretations and that was subsequently referred to AAIB who agreed. I find it hard to believe given the magnitude of this incident that Inmarsat would release this if they were not 100% confident in their calculations.

And it still doesn't change the fact that eyewitness reports are inherently unreliable. I am not saying technical data is infallible because it still is subject to interpretation from the examiner, but generally technical information doesn't change and a consistent interpretation is usually reached repeatedly.

Sheep Guts

4th Apr 2014, 13:21

lynw,
You need to read my post again. The majority of air accidents and rescues surveyed in Australia 1999- 2012 by AMSA and the ATSB were first notified by visual and aural witness. This is hard data..... You cant ignore them. But they are being ignored the Fisherman, Businessman and Bus Driver at Kota Bharu, the Oil Rig worker off Vung Tau. And the passenger of Malaysia Airlines from Jeddah to KL. All ignored.. All put in Police reports or reported to the Searching station close by. They cant be all wrong! I am not saying ignore the tech info but use everything they have. The last known heading or track off the Malay Defence Radar and use visual witnesses. Everything. Don't let one piece of sat data discount all the other pieces.

Pontius Navigator

4th Apr 2014, 13:48

You cant ignore them. But they are being ignored the Fisherman, Businessman and Bus Driver at Kota Bharu, the Oil Rig worker off Vung Tau. And the passenger of Malaysia Airlines from Jeddah to KL. All ignored.. All put in Police reports or reported to the Searching station close by. They cant be all wrong!

How do you know they were ignored? Maybe they were investigated thoroughly and discounted. There is no requirement for a press statement on every avenue of enquiry; indeed we know from the litany of complaints here that there are many things that have not been covered.

FGD135

4th Apr 2014, 13:49

They cant be all wrong!Oh yes they can! Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable.

The ATSB data you cite refers to cases where the person on the ground saw an aircraft crash, or an aircraft in trouble, AND THEN raised the alarm.

lynw and I are referring to cases like this one (MH370), where the people on the ground ("witnesses") heard about the accident via the media, then came forward, or were contacted by authorities some other way.

As the TWA800 accident painfully showed, how a witness stores a memory of something they see, then recalls that memory, is very much subject to a whole lot of interpretation.

Nobody is saying these witnesses are being dishonest. It is just that there are significant limitations to the usefulness of eyewitness accounts.

ancientaviator62

4th Apr 2014, 13:55

Sheep Guts
many psychological studies tell us that 'they' could all be wrong but one or more of them may be right. The classic case of ignoring eyewitness testimony was the loss of several US atomic bombe from a B52 near Plomares, Spain. The fishermen who witnessed the event were not believed and much time and effort was wasted in consequence.

belly tank

4th Apr 2014, 14:06

In the weeks that have passed, one would presume that the "Authorities" have contacted the Australian govt in relation to JORN (Jindalee operational radar network) project in the north of Australia.

In another industry I had a meeting with the directors of JORN a few years ago and its was astounding as to the coverage that this programme can achieve, let alone the information it can gather.

With this knowledge I'm presuming JORN would be able to track abnormal targets. One has to ask why it was not identified:confused:

JORN Radar scope
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4d/JORS.svg/600px-JORS.svg.png

RifRaf3

4th Apr 2014, 14:30

Sheep Guts
You are totally hung up on your pet theory that has no relation to probability and you just won't let go. You indulge the classic strategy of inventing endless auxiliary hypotheses to justify your primary obsession that you are hung up on.
You absolutely know what happened and those of us with qualifications far in advance of yours are just summarily dismissed. It's endless and relentless.
Please state your qualifications or go away. How many thousands of hours do you have on wide-bodied Boeings in SE Asia?

martynemh

4th Apr 2014, 14:56

Lets keep it simple - does everyone agree that there was power on that a/c until at least 0811 Malaysian Time?

TylerMonkey

4th Apr 2014, 15:08

" They can't all be wrong... " sheepguts.

Statistics and probability are unfortunately not on your side.
3 eyewitness events and one has to be true ? oh dear.

captains_log

4th Apr 2014, 15:32

The only tangible thing we have is the fact there were comms between ATC and A/C AFTER ACARS was registered offline. Satcomm was active.

Now forgive me for asking if it's been repeated but how how much of an alert would this event create on the display CDU?

Lets say ACARS was taken offline due to an electrical short/fire/surge/circuit failure.

We could ascertain at this point VHF radio comms was fine. There wouldn't be too much workload in the cockpit at this time?

lynw

4th Apr 2014, 15:47

@SheepGuts:

You need to re-read my post again. I am not saying eyewitnesses should be ignored I am simply pointing out that eyewitness testimony is proven to be unreliable and much more unreliable than technical evidence.

If all you have is eyewitnesses, then of course you need to investigate the validity of that evidence bearing in mind recall is not always complete, or accurate. If you have technical evidence that also needs to be assessed and investigated. Unlike eyewitness testimony though, that technical evidence is unlikely to change and the validation comes from another examiner using the same set of data and independently reaching the same conclusion.

In this case, Inmarsat have confirmed the aircraft pings long after these eyewitness reports saying they saw the plane. A company like Inmarsat is not going to put their reputation on the line over data they are not sure of. I suspect that these calculations would have been thoroughly validated and verified before release. The consequences for Inmarsat are very considerable if they have got it wrong.

The consequences for these eyewitnesses? they get the Daily Whinge probably paying them for their account and their pic in the paper. It's not rocket science to figure which one I would consider more credible and reliable. :hmm:

I am not saying all eyewitness accounts should be automatically ignored but their credibility and motives have to be considered, and considered in light of the technical evidence. The question becomes whether they genuinely reported something they think may be relevant even if they are mistaken or hoping the worlds press and its cheque book will come calling.

500N

4th Apr 2014, 15:57

Someone asked abut the costs of the search.

http://i60.tinypic.com/2jdrx5i.jpg

The search and investigation into missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 is already the most expensive in aviation history, figures released to Fairfax Media suggest.
The snippets of costings provide only a small snapshot but the $US50 million ($54 million) spent on the two-year probe into Air France flight 447 - the previous record - appears to have been easily surpassed after just four weeks.
The biggest expense involves the military and surveillance hardware - ships, satellites, planes and submarines - deployed for the search, first in the South China Sea and the Malacca Straits, and then in the remote reaches of the southern Indian Ocean.
For example, HMAS Success, the Australian navy replenishment vessel that was deployed two weeks ago, costs about $550,000 a day to operate, a Defence spokesperson said.
HMAS Toowoomba was diverted a week ago to join the hunt for MH370 and has direct costs - fuel, supplies, crew wages - of $380,000 per day.
Combined, the two vessels have cost more than $10 million while in the Indian Ocean, although Defence cautioned they were scheduled to be at sea anyway, so the additional expense to taxpayers of being re-routed was ''estimated to be negligible''.
Even so, the outlay can be included in a calculation of the resources devoted to the search for the Malaysia Airlines passenger jet, which disappeared on March 8 with 239 people on board.
It is also known that the US Navy has allocated $US3.6 million for the deployment of a pinger locator and underwater drone on the vessel that will search for the plane's black box recorders.
On Wednesday, the Pentagon revealed that - aside from the black box locators - it had spent $US3.3 million on its ships and aircraft during operations to locate MH370.
Vietnam, reportedly, spent more than $US8 million searching for the plane in the South China Sea.
Another major expense is the cost of as many as 12 aircraft which scour the seas for plane debris each day.
Geoffrey Dell, an air crash investigation expert from Central Queensland University, said the the daily cost of the aircraft flying 10-hour sorties each day would easily amount to $1 million a day.
Over four weeks, a conservative estimate of the cost of the airborne search - excluding the US planes - would be $25 million so far.
Known costs for the airborne search total an estimated $53 million. Yet this would be a small fraction of the expenditure so far given 26 nations have been involved in the search. More than 40 navy vessels have been involved. China has deployed seven vessels in the Indian Ocean alone.
Then there is the cost of the intelligence analysts, police and air crash investigators from Malaysia, the US, Britain and France, among others.
''It's a lot of money,'' said Air Chief Marshal (retired) Angus Houston on Friday, revealing he would give an overall estimate of the cost at a later date.

Read more: Costs reveal search for MH370 to be most expensive in aviation history (http://www.theage.com.au/national/costs-reveal-search-for-mh370-to-be-most-expensive-in-aviation-history-20140404-36479.html#ixzz2xvwA8Cvy)

Low Flier

4th Apr 2014, 16:16

"The hunt for the missing Malaysia Airlines plane has shifted below the surface, with the "towed pinger locator" deployed on Friday to search for the black box before its batteries expire."

I wish them luck with that. From experience on the SAA295 'Helderberg' job I know that they've got a sub-minimal chance of finding that pinger in the next week or two. This wreck will be found acoustically, that's almost for sure, but it'll be by low frequency (100kHz or better) side-scan sonar --- or perhaps by pp-magnetometer... Almost certainly not by a couple of pinger locators and most certainly not by a fleet of photogenic aeroplanes sent on a photo-opportunity in a show-biz charade to assuage the PR efforts of three politicians and to satiate half a hundred rolling-news networks on telly.

A comparison with the Helderberg job is quite informative, mostly for its differences rather than its similarities. The water depth was broadly similar, circa four and a half Klicks if I remember correctly in that case. We never found the pinger(s). Not acoustically, anyway. After the thirty days plus ten percent we gave up dragging pinger locators around the hydrospace of the survey ground. We had a list of the co-ords of hundreds of false positives because we were under orders from bozos ashore to crank the receiver gain up the the max, but nothing of any use.

We did eventually find the CVR, replete with dead pinger, but that was more or less by accident when picking up a piece of wreckage with which it was entangled. That thing of quasi-accidental discovery of the recorders is actually quite common. Same thing happened with Valujet in the swamp and yet again with TWA800. In both of those cases the {insert colo(u)r here} boxes were found when someone trod on them. We never did find the SAA295 FDR, despite the fact that it had been affixed to the aircraft immediately adjacent to the CVR. Hell, they never found the recorders from the two Boeings in lower Manhattan -- and that was a case where they knew to within ten metres or better the very exact three dimensional co-ordinates of the impact points and they had reps from Boeing subbies searching every scoopful of debris for the thick end of a year.

We had the same problem, in the case of SAA295, of people ashore repeatedly switching the target area(s) as is being experienced by the poor sods at the sharp end of the MH370 search. We dreaded the hour after the end of the morning 'prayer meeting' conference calls because we knew that someone ashore would get his pencil out and make up a new box, usually in a place which could not be reconciled with any of the previous ones. Out of earshot of the shadowy civilian guy from Virginia who was leading the search from below and behind, we used to refer to those boxes as "your target for tonight".

Same thing is happening with MH370.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/73907000/gif/_73907183_malaysian_airliner_search_624_300314.gif

If such a bet were enforceable, and if I could find any mugs foolish enough to be a counter-party to the bet, I'd happily and profitably give odds of 100:1 against them finding the pinger with a pinger locator. They've got, at most, a couple of weeks, with only a couple of ships, neither of which (incredibly), is simultaneously towing a 100 kHz side-scan sonar.

Even with vane depressors and drag reducing devices such as Hairy Fairy vortex interruptors on the lower quarter of the tow-cable, they'll be lucky to make much more than three or four knots of waterspeed. The end of line turnarounds are an absolute bitch. In 87/88 we quit after doing a thousand square miles and we had the twin advantages of knowing quite accurately where the aircraft stoofed in and we had our tools in the water (titter ye not in the cheap seats!) at the locus within a week of the crash. These poor sods have none of those advantages and they are being led by an Air Chief Marshal who has reversed seamanship and placed the surface ships at the disposal and in the service of the air fleet instead of the other way around.

This evening, by any timezone, we enter the fourth week of the search and they haven't found so much as a satay stick from that aeroplane. If anybody has learned anything from the AF447 fiasco, then surely they must have learned that becoming fixated on theoretical back calculations of the impact point from subsequently discovered patches of identified and confirmed flotsam can lead to unwise people becoming target fixated on wrong locations.

With Helderberg we had two major advantages. One was that the flight deck crew had been aviating;navigating;communicating right up until very few (less than five) minutes before impact and had been giving copious amounts of positional and intention information to ATC. Very different to MH370. The other massive advantage we had was that the first confirmed patch of flotsam from the wreck was found, and its co-ordinates measured, just 12 hours after impact. The second patch was located just 12 hours after that.

Given the non-linearity of the mathematics of oceanic dispersal, any positional information from that elusive MAS satay stick, even if found during the fourth rather than fifth week, is likely to confuse rather than clarify the impact location. It'll tell you that the wreck lies in the SouthEastern quadrant of the Indian Ocean and not at some fairytale Dawson Field in one of the 'stans, but we pretty much know that anyway.

The ugly truth, quite certainly unpalatable to the two prime ministers and 230 sets of bereaved relatives, is that the best chance of finding the wreckage and a few fragments of human remains lies in a very long hard slog with side-scan sonar. It's a search which is likely to take very large fractions of a year or, more likely, multiple years. Enthusiasm for funding such a prolonged and open-ended search will surely dry up, as it always does, when the bills start flowing in and become overdue for payment.

Datayq1

4th Apr 2014, 16:31

Captain's log wrote:
AFTER ACARS was registered offline

I've heard this several times recently and don't believe it is accurate.

Last ACARS was 17:07, Next ACARS was due 17:37. The 17:37 transmission was never received, leading to the deduction that ACARS was disabled sometime between 17:07 and 17:37. That's the most that can be said on that account.

Last VHF to ATC was 17:19, at that exact time we don't know if ACARS was disabled (offline) or not.

Another system, ADS-B, apparently up and functioning at 17:20 and transmitted lat/lon, speed, track and FL.

What we don't know is what was happening during and after 17:19 (last ATC comms).

Leightman 957

4th Apr 2014, 16:33

lynw: "....I am not saying eyewitnesses should be ignored I am simply pointing out that eyewitness testimony is proven to be unreliable and much more unreliable than technical evidence....technical evidence is unlikely to change and the validation comes from....A company like Inmarsat is not going to put their reputation on the line over data they are not sure of.

Excerpting above for brevity, not cherry picking your post. The fact is (not my opinion) that changes in tech conclusions from initial did occur and were sufficient to those spending money searching to significantly shift search locations two or perhaps four times (S China Sea, to Malacca Straits, to W of Adaman Isl, to west of Aus, then repositioning W of Aus).

I don't think anyone is arguing that eyewitnesses don't make mistakes or their memories are unchanging, or that refinements in analysis (or announcements of new information, postponed for whatever reason) don't later suggest more probable conclusions. The acceptance of an evolution of tech analysis begs the question of whether a parallel witness-based investigative evolution has similarly continued. There is a lot of differing certitude about where MH370 ended up, but only one of those conclusions will be accurate, and everyone else will be wrong. Focus should be on the highest probability, but absent any debris, now is no time to be closing doors.

IcePack

4th Apr 2014, 16:34

Getting back to the in flight fire scenario for those who have not read the Wikipedia on the SAA295 accident.
Quote Van Zyl took the voice recorder to the National Transportation Safety Board in Washington, DC, to show his goodwill and to ensure neutral observers.[9] Van Zyl believes that if he kept the CVR in South Africa he could have been accused of covering up the truth.[9] At the NTSB, Van Zyl felt frustration that the degraded CVR, which had been in the deep ocean for fourteen months,[19] did not initially yield any useful information. Around 28 minutes into the recording the CVR indicated that the fire alarm sounded. Fourteen seconds after the fire alarm, the circuit breakers began to pop. Investigators believe that around 80 circuit breakers failed. The CVR cable failed 81 seconds after the alarm. The recording revealed the extent of the fire.[9]un quote

Fire IMHO is still the most likely scenario

formationdriver

4th Apr 2014, 16:39

Low Flyer's post is as darkly humorous as it is wise and informed. A model for the rest on this forum.

Ozlander1

4th Apr 2014, 16:39

" They can't all be wrong... " sheepguts.

Statistics and probability are unfortunately not on your side.
3 eyewitness events and one has to be true ? oh dear.

And the other two have to be wrong. So, which one do you believe? :ugh:

etudiant

4th Apr 2014, 17:27

Low Fliers excellent post deserves extending to make it explicit.
We need to sonar side-scan(SSS) an area of about one million square km to be reasonably confident of finding the remains of MH370.
The approximate ship speed and width of scan are known, so a rough estimate of the scale of effort needed is simple. The SSS beam width is one km at most and the ship moves at 10 km/hr, consequently the effort needed is about 100,000 hours of ship time. That translates to about 10 ship years, so a determined effort with 5 ships should be fruitful within two years.
As a side benefit, the world gets a superb high resolution map of a large chunk of the Indian Ocean sea bed. A wonderful oceanography project which could easily be combined with more extensive geophysical measurements. Oil companies might even be willing to help underwrite part of the search, as the data might help guide the search for hydrocarbons in the area.

mm43

4th Apr 2014, 18:32

The recent post by Low Flier basically says it all.

Until the Australian government executive arm became directly involved in the PR issues, and removed AMSA and ATSB from providing media releases, we were provided with factual information and graphics showing what was going on.

Now that the new agency (JACC) has taken overall control operationally and in releasing information to the media, the public are being treated to "sound bites", "photo opportunities", and political "back-slapping". Little of anything "factual" is now available. The show goes on, but the well oiled veil of a secret military controlled operation has now quietly been put in place. When did they last find a plastic shopping bag?

EDIT:: Seems that AMSA (http://www.amsa.gov.au/media/incidents/mh370-search.asp) are now continuing to provide their media graphics updates separately to whatever appears on the JACC (http:jacc.gov.au/media/) website. Thanks to those who alerted me. This means the first part of my post was not warranted, and is of course now redundant.:ouch:

MPN11

4th Apr 2014, 18:42

Low Flier ... thank for that insightful input. Such a refreshing change from those of the tin-foil hat community.

A question, if I may, as a simple observer.

You refer to side-scan sonar. Without revealing anything sensitive, and as the RAAF Air Marshal noted "we haven't even found the haystack yet', what sort of lateral coverage are we talking about? Surely this implies many months of meticulous (and accurate) scanning over a fairly narrow search band? Wherever such search has as a datum, of course!

XB70_Valkyrie

4th Apr 2014, 19:04

DriverAirframeOneOf

4th Apr 2014, 19:21

Really...?
I thought the SAA Helderberg Combi crew fought the fire on the cargo deck for hours.
Some of the crew went in there and did not return...
The Captain was told by SAA Ops via HF not use Diego but to press on for Mauritius.
Story was they had rocket fuel on board from the Orient in the arms embargo days of Apartheid...
Did not want the world to know this, of course.
Somewhere short of Mauritius the aircraft went into a nosedive and the tail broke off.
Not sucking this out of my thumb.
It was common local knowledge at the time.
Just Google SAA Helderberg.
The Wikipedia report says it all.
Also YouTube search SAA Helderberg.

Chronus

4th Apr 2014, 19:23

500N `s post is informative on costs to date. In legal circles talk is that Litigation is inevitable. The question is who will ultimately bear the costs.
Current search and recovery efforts are focused on a remote area of the Indian Ocean that is seemingly not within the territory of any nation. According to Annex 13 Chapter 5.3, “when the location of the accident or the serious incident cannot definitely be established as being in the territory of any State, the State of Registry shall institute and conduct any necessary investigation of the accident or serious incident.” The “state of registry” refers to the “State on whose register the aircraft is entered.” Presumably, Flight MH370’s state of registry is Malaysia. Chapter 5.3 also permits a state of registry to delegate its investigative responsibility to another state. INMARSAT would appear to have dropped the hot potato in the right place to also create a bit of a dillema for the legal boys.
According to the Montreal Convention the burden is placed on the airline carrier in damages claims exceeding 113,100 SDRs to prove that it did not cause the damages or that a third party is at fault (see Article 21(2)). Absent such a showing, the airline carrier will be liable for all of the claimant’s damages. Regardless of fault, the airline will still be liable up to 113,100 SDRs. The scenario changes dramatically in the event evidence comes to light of mechanical failure for cause. Claims may then be brought in the US against the manufacturer.
But should it be established that cause was intentional act on the part of the crew,then wrongful death claims could significatly higher in value depending on the nation in which a claim is filed. Especially if the claim is brought in the U.S. courts, it’s of significantly more value than if it’s brought in any other. It is said that, “survivors of passengers who were U.S. residents could get as much as $10 million, while families of individuals who lived in other countries would get less than $1 million.”
At a conservative estimate the sums involved may well be in excess of $200m. I fear this could have similar effects on the beleaguered carrier, as was the case with PANAM in the aftermath of Lockerbie.
In all and every aspect the vanishing of MH370 is an unprecedented event in the annals of aviation history.
The excellent post by Low Flier 04/04 @ 17:16, does indeed give us some food for thought on the purpose and prospect of the current search effort.

Low Flier

4th Apr 2014, 19:34

You refer to side-scan sonar. ... what sort of lateral coverage are we talking about?

With the lower frequency of around 100 kHz which is used for initial area search work, the range is around half a kilometre on each side. Call it a kilometre wide swath width. For contact investigation, a higher frequency such as 500 kHz is used to give higher resolution. Then the max range is reduced and you would plan to run the towfish within a hundred metres or so from the target of interest.

There are other systems, called swathe bathymetry, which operate rather like a phased array radar head. Some of those things have slightly longer ranges, at the expense of lower resolution, but the basic physics of the inverse relationship of frequency and range still apply.

There really is no getting away from the limitations of sidescan sonar. With a survey ground of this magnitude it's pretty much like peering at the ground through a straw from the belly of an aircraft or trying to paint a prairie with a road crew's whitelining machine.

Pusser's T-boat has some intriguing possibilities though. Normally those guys never say where they are or where they are going or even where they've been. It is extremely exceptional for one of those boats to operate more or less openly like this, but they've been ordered by their lordships of the Admiralty to chip in and do their bit for the effort. This may perhaps not be limited to passively listening for the Dukane pinger. They may choose to use their quite powerful active sonar (submariners' equivalent of aviation's primary radar), which can send out a hell of a bark if it needs to and has very sensitive 'ears', to scan the seabed deep beneath its cruising level for any unusually metallic-sounding returns.

You certainly won't be seeing any sonar imagery from that boat being shown on the Dirty Digger's tv networks. For one thing, their form of sonar isn't much good at that sort of thing. More importantly for them, they really do have very good reasons for keeping their perf data to themselves.

I can only imagine the heated 'debate' in the RN's bit of (MoD) Main Building in Whitehall when they considered the implications of using that gear openly and actively within 'earshot' of a couple of Chinese oceanographic research ships! I think there'd have been much tossing of rattles out of prams and quivering lower lips and tears before bedtime for the Admirals who wear dolphins on their jackets.

IcePack

4th Apr 2014, 19:39

valkyrie
Sorry just pointing out the tripping of circuit breakers. Maybe fire extinguished :confused:

500N

4th Apr 2014, 19:44

"and actively within 'earshot' of a couple of Chinese oceanographic research ships!"

Within earshot of straight out Chinese warships ;)

lomapaseo

4th Apr 2014, 19:58

Until the Australian government executive arm became directly involved in the PR issues, and removed AMSA and ATSB from providing media releases, we were provided with factual information and graphics showing what was going on.

Now that the new agency (JACC) has taken overall control operationally and in releasing information to the media, the public are being treated to "sound bites", "photo opportunities", and political "back-slapping". Little of anything "factual" is now available. The show goes on, but the well oiled veil of a secret military controlled operation has now quietly been put in place. When did they last find a plastic shopping bag?

Am I being cynical?

"Am I being cynical? "

I suspect more like narrow minded :suspect:

I prefer to judge on the ratio of truth vs BS and ignore the PR as befitting of politicians.

I trust the working investigators and await any facts of progress rather than intent. With that said I expect those governments that are funding this progress will naturally want to convince their supporters that progress of any sort is being made.

Let's track this for investigative findings as progress and ignore the surface clutter

MPN11

4th Apr 2014, 19:58

"and actively within 'earshot' of a couple of Chinese oceanographic research ships!
Within earshot of straight out Chinese warships
Yup, it's a bugger, isn't it!

You can fuzz the hi-res overhead imagery for public consumption, but when you can actually find something you reveal capabilities.

Everyone know that everyone has 'something' ... what 'they' really want to know is how good it is. And when someone finds something, there will be a great deal of obfuscation to demonstrate that it was pure luck, and that "Pedro's magnifying glass and PPRuNe gave them the clue where to look."

Sorry ... worked in that sort of environment for a while.

ramble on

4th Apr 2014, 20:54

With respect to satellite data transfer with the aircraft, the aircraft IRS or IRU equipment would have to be working.

JoeBloggs2

4th Apr 2014, 23:18

Technology has moved on a little bit in the last 20+ years... :cool:

A fleet of AUV's might be a faster and cheaper way of doing the sea floor search. I guess it depends on how quickly someone can build and deploy them. I think 100 would be a reasonable number to start with and you might even get the unit price below the current 2M USD.

Ian W

5th Apr 2014, 00:01

Low Flyer
I can only imagine the heated 'debate' in the RN's bit of (MoD) Main Building in Whitehall when they considered the implications of using that gear openly and actively within 'earshot' of a couple of Chinese oceanographic research ships! I think there'd have been much tossing of rattles out of prams and quivering lower lips and tears before bedtime for the Admirals who wear dolphins on their jackets.

Which explains why this particular boat was chosen. It is the sole member of its class that has not been retrofitted with the new sonar systems. So the 'ears' of those listening will be listening to history - and the only information is that whatever they hear, the new kit is better. :cool:

Ornis

5th Apr 2014, 00:08

It's perfectly reasonable to try to find some debris, logical to listen for the recorders' pingers while they work, but why search further, exactly, with hardly a clue to location?

I don't believe for one moment the wrong kind of fire in the wrong place at the wrong time caused this aircraft to "disappear". Therefore I will step aboard certain B777s as usual. Rightly or wrongly.

I don't mind paying tax for RNZAF Orions, usually searching for lost yachties, but if we're going to be paying more for airline tickets the money would be better spent on safety, not satisfying curiosity, however nice that feels.

etudiant

5th Apr 2014, 00:08

JoeBloggs2 (http://www.pprune.org/members/363403-joebloggs2) Technology has moved on a little bit in the last 20+ years... :cool:

True for signal processing and batteries, but AUVs that can run a long distance (greater than 100km at a stretch) side scan sonar profiling run don't exist currently, at least afaik.
Constructing and then co-ordinating the fleet, keeping them on course to ensure gapless coverage, recovering them reliably to recharge/refuel them in challenging weather and then integrating the results is a novel task, one that would take years to do.
It would be quicker and cheaper to use chartered oil survey vessels, they exist in quantity, their operating costs are well known and they have the needed skills.

Blake777

5th Apr 2014, 01:57

Irish21

5th Apr 2014, 02:59

Aviation aircraft Hull & Liability insurance policies have an exclusion in their policies called "War, Hi Jacking and other Perils"....meaning the policy does not cover any of these acts.

Prior to 9/11 if the insurance market was soft insurance companies threw "War coverage" in for free but if the market was hard they charged for it...I am guessing after 9/11 you can not buy back "War coverage" it's just automatically not covered due to the catastrophic loss of 4 airlines/countless buildings in NYC.

Meaning "hi jacking" (criminal act) would now fall under this Montreal convention act that yyzjim is talking about limiting the liability of payouts to the families. Also the pay outs would be deflected back to the Malaysian airport security which if its like the US and most countries is run by the govt and here you can not sue the govt. It's possible that Malaysian airlines does have "war coverage" in their aviation hull & liability policy and this is the direction they are going in to get the insurance companies to pay all liability suits.

I think the malaysian govt/airline have had their lawyers manipulating the public/media purposely from day on for financial reasons.

Fairsky

5th Apr 2014, 03:21

After communications were lost, the only certainty I've seen is the radar data from just off Butterworth heading WNW at FL295 until it reaches waypoint MEKAR - the time over MEKAR is depicted as being 2.22 Malaysia time.

Where did FL295 come from?
I've only seen one image of the radar information and that showed not a waypoint at O2.22 but a RADIAL295 200nms from Butterworth[

Propduffer

5th Apr 2014, 04:52

1. The pings tell us that almost without a doubt the plane flew until fuel exhaustion.
2. The only possible way for a ditching to occur with the plane remaining intact is if it was under the control of a pilot. Without flaps the speed would be too high to allow the plane to stay intact.

Getting the plane ditched intact would also require luck, lots of it, in an open ocean ditching. The planning behind this episode appears to be methodical - leaving the final chapter up to luck seems out of place in this episode.

I can't imagine anyone sitting around for 5 to seven hours just to dead stick a plane into ocean swells in the hopes of a repeat of the Hudson river landing, and if a person were to attach importance to trying to keep the plane in one piece, they would want to have the engines running when he or she tried the ditching. So this argues against flying to fuel exhaustion.

I believe the plane broke up and there are floating debris. I also believe that without floating debris, there is no place to even begin a seafloor search.

Ian W

5th Apr 2014, 06:17

I have not seen posted here the fact that whilst the JACC has only minimal search information available on the media page, you can still access the search maps for the day from AMSA. Today's area is approx 1,000km WNW of Exmouth - one does wonder what the "further refinements of calculations" are revealing!

https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/asset.amsa.gov.au/MH370+Day+19/Charts/2014_04_05_cumulative_search_handout.pdf

You can expect the search area to move as the surface search is looking for debris that is drifting in ocean currents and with the wind. It looks like they have settled on a crash 'point' or area, but not so much on debris drift and will be making very careful overlapping but not conincident searches

JoeBloggs2

5th Apr 2014, 06:18

One gets the impression from the jumping search areas that they are targeting areas based on satellite photos of possible surface debris again.

Presumably there have been enough clear days now to have captured the entire region in high res.

India Four Two

5th Apr 2014, 06:30

Low Flier, :ok::ok:

A very refreshing breath of fresh air after wading through pages and pages of unmitigated rubbish.

I am involved with marine seismic operations and had done some back-of-the-envelope calculations about likely search times, but refrained from posting because of my lack of knowledge of deep-tow operations. It's nice to see someone with professional experience (and a sense of humour) posting some useful information.

It's an ironic coincidence that we in the SOL fleet have just sailed though the search area.

etudiant,

Oil companies might even be willing to help underwrite part of the search, as the data might help guide the search for hydrocarbons in the area.

Sorry. Not in a million years. There ain't no oil under them there abyssal plains!

RetiredF4

5th Apr 2014, 07:01

One thing that had always irritated with this datum is that all known primary radar facilities in the area have a range of 60 or even 50 NM only, which is normal for their purpose. The 200 NM offshore position must have been detected by something that was not land based or can a primary radar range be stretched beyond its nominal range when analysing raw data?

You are talking about the known ranges of the ATC radars. The track was created from a military radar, the ranges and capabilities are not public. And if we take a close look on the shown radar plot we will see no other traffic on it, which means it is an edited picture showing the assumed track of MH370 over a period of time, not one sweep, but multiple antenna sweeps put together.

A military PSR radar with a radar coverage of 60 NM would be useless, as incoming hostiles tend to fly with the transponder in off position. 60NM are covered in less than 7 Minutes at 540 groundspeed and would not allow for appropriate action.

Edit: Found this article:

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/putrajaya-must-justify-buying-new-radar-system-kua-kia-soong

DocRohan

5th Apr 2014, 07:35

I dont know....But i found this old article from 2000 that mentions radar there...." To date a total of 5 primary and secondary radars have been installed at Kutching, Kota Kinabalu, Johor, Subang, Langkawi, Labuan and sepang airports"..
New Straits Times - Google News Archive Search (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1309&dat=20000413&id=2FNIAAAAIBAJ&sjid=bBQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6649,3287225)

DriverAirframeOneOf

5th Apr 2014, 08:01

The Australian OTHR radar coverage and the new search area is starting to tell an interesting story...

The fact that Australia has more or less taken over the search with a military team, is also starting to make sense....

New search area
(https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/asset.amsa.gov.au/MH370+Day+19/Charts/2014_04_05_cumulative_search_handout.pdf)

AND...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4d/JORS.svg/600px-JORS.svg.png

India Four Two

5th Apr 2014, 08:34

It would be quicker and cheaper to use chartered oil survey vessels, they exist in quantity, their operating costs are well known and they have the needed skills.

Not in quantity - I'm not aware of any that are equpped to do sonar surveys at these kind of depths, although there might be a few in the Gulf of Mexico, Brazil and West Africa, using either deep-tow vehicles or AUVs.

The majority of the world's "oil survey vessels" are seismic vessels, which are completely unsuited for this kind of work.

Sober Lark

5th Apr 2014, 09:07

@Irish21

I work in that area and from an insurance point of view location of wreckage in the area they are presently searching would be more beneficial to claimants than if it were found along MH370's intended course or somewhere along the Northern arc.

Blake777

5th Apr 2014, 09:33

The flight level of 295 in the Malacca Strait was reported early by sources such as Reuters. I'm posting one such article here though it is very old now.

Since there's been no confirmation, and since Daud retracted some of the statements attributed to him, this is possibly now one more item to move to the "unconfirmed" basket in this frustrating case.

UPDATE 1-Missing Malaysian plane last seen at Strait of Malacca-source | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/11/malaysia-airlines-military-idUSL3N0M835C20140311)

onetrack

5th Apr 2014, 09:34

DocRohan - The CSIRO animated graphic is neat - but it's simplistic. The currents only play a major part in the movement of floating wreckage when the current is the primary controlling input.
For that to happen, the wreckage would have to be almost totally submerged for the prevailing winds to have little effect on its movement.
Light floating wreckage would be affected more by wind direction and strength, than by prevailing currents.

The prevailing winds in the South part of the Eastern Indian Ocean, during the Southern Hemisphere Spring & Summer (September to February by calculation, but more like late October to late March due to the heat latency of the Earth), are weakly Westerly, swinging from NW through West to SW - and occasionally, South for short periods.
In Winter, the prevailing winds are strongly Westerly, with strong swings to the NW and SW.

As we are in the early stages of Autumn (Fall), the prevailing winds have been relatively weak, due to the transition through the Summer equinox.

Therefore, the movement of light floating wreckage (seat cushions, light plastics and resins) will still be largely Easterly in the lower latitudes (30 deg and further South), but somewhat Westerly to stationary in the Northern latitudes above 30 deg, due to the still-strong Easterly surface movement of air from the Northern parts of Australia, out into the Indian Ocean.

The heavier, largely-submerged wreckage would be mostly travelling in the prevailing current direction, unless a strong storm pushed it Eastwards.
We have had no particularly strong storms in the Southern Indian Ocean search region since the search commenced there, so the heaviest portions of wreckage will be following the currents and eddies in the search region - whilst the lightest portions would almost certainly be nearing, or on, the West Australian coast somewhere.

Despite the strong Leeuwin Current (3kts) running North to South down the West Australian coast, it doesn't stop vast amounts of flotsam and jetsam being washed ashore regularly from the Easternmost section of the Indian Ocean.

Pontius Navigator

5th Apr 2014, 09:43

Quite right. Malaysians are not Americans:

- but have the authorities investigated whoever was in charge or present at Malaysia's military radars?

I am sure they have and the witch hunt will have started weeks ago. As you said, they are not Americans given to washing dirty linen in public.

That and the government hasn't been very enthusiastic in aiding with the search. The Australians have shown the most vigor in aiding with the search.

What may be true is that the government hasn't been very enthusiastic in its media releases regarding the search. The Australians have shown the most vigor in its media releases.

Even if the Malaysian government had nothing to do with their crash, their negligence and lack of ardor Is most likely as not a cultural thing.

pax britanica

5th Apr 2014, 09:48

One thing about this incident is that it should teach us a little more humility.
A month has passed and we cannot find any trace of an object that when it was last seen was 200ft long 200ft wide and 60 ft high, using pretty much all our latest technology the answer is zilch, not a trace.

That is not to say we will not find it but in terms of inhospitable areas it seems to be perfect , Southern India Ocean is very deep with a turbulent surface conditions and a very tricky 'mountainous' sea bed. Even if some smaller wreckage elements are washed up how long before they are found on one of the longest most desolate and isolated coastlines on earth sea bed.

That 'loss of control' seems to have fed something of a media frenzy and that to a degree is replicated here. Much of the focus is on cover ups and subterfuge perhaps because it seems too un nerving to consider that in 2014 something the size of a modest apartment block could just disappear , at lest for a month.

In terms of finding anything , always assuming we are looking in the right part of the world anyway, it can only be described as very difficult. The sea bed in that area is not used for exploration , no telecom cables transit that region and it is of virtually no strategic interest to any nation even the Aussies. For those reasons no one knows much about it compared to other oceans and seas where oil exploration, deep sea mining or telecom cables mean extensive work has been done on sub sea and sea floor conditions.

Even if some evidence is found tomorrow we should use this to remind us that we are not masters of our own planet let alone the universe. Perhaps a few second thoughts too about some of the more exotic long haul routings that we take for granted these days too.

Irish21

5th Apr 2014, 11:13

This was posted on Malaysia Airline's page:

Saturday, April 05, 06:06 PM MYT +0800 Malaysia Airlines MH370 Flight Incident - Press Briefing by Hishammuddin Hussein, Minister of Defence and Acting Minister of Transport

1. Introduction

It’s been almost a month since MH370 went missing.

The search operation has been difficult, challenging and complex.

In spite of all this, our determination remains undiminished.

We will continue the search with the same level of vigour and intensity.

We owe this to the families of those on board, and to the wider world.

We will continue to focus, with all our efforts, on finding the aircraft.

2. Investigation into MH370

As per the requirements set out by the ICAO in Annex 13 of the International Standards and Recommended Practices, Malaysia will continue to lead the investigation into MH370.

As per the ICAO standards, Malaysia will also appoint an independent ‘Investigator In Charge’ to lead an investigation team.

The investigation team will include three groups:

- an airworthiness group, to look at issues such as maintenance records, structures and systems;

- an operations group, to examine things such as flight recorders, operations and meteorology;

- and a medical and human factors group, to investigate issues such as psychology, pathology and survival factors.

The investigation team will also include accredited countries.

Malaysia has already asked Australia to be accredited to the investigation team, and they have accepted.

We will also include China, the United States, the United Kingdom and France as accredited representatives to the investigation team, along with other countries that we feel are in a position to help.

3. Formation of committees

In addition to the new investigation team mentioned above, the Government - in order to streamline and strengthen our on-going efforts - has established three ministerial committees.

Firstly, we have established a Next of Kin Committee. Hamzah Zainuddin, the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, leads this committee.

This committee will oversee all aspects regarding the Next of Kin of those on board MH370, providing families with information on the search operation, and offering support after the search operation has been concluded.

The committee will co-ordinate with relevant foreign governments, and will complement the work already being done for the families by Malaysian Airlines.

The second committee oversees technicalities, specifically, the formation and the appointment of the investigation team. Abdul Aziz Kaprawi, the Deputy Minister of Transport, leads this committee.

The third committee takes over issues related to the deployment of assets for the search operation. Abdul Rahim Bakri, the Deputy Minister of Defence, leads this committee. This committee will work with foreign counterparts involved in the search operation, and liaise closely with the Australian Joint Agency Co-ordination Centre.

4. US-ASEAN Defence Forum

This morning, I returned from the US-ASEAN Defence Forum, which I attended in my capacity as Defence Minister.

At the forum, I updated our ASEAN counterparts, and the United States, on the latest developments in the search for MH370.

I also spoke to officials from other countries involved in the multi-national search operation.

The spirit of co-operation at the meeting, and the support offered, was commendable.

During my bilateral meeting with US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Secretary Hagel reiterated his commitment that the United States would continue to support the search operation, and will provide whatever assets are deemed necessary.

I thanked Secretary Hagel for the United States’ unwavering support, which has included both the deployment of naval and air assets, sophisticated underwater search equipment, and assistance from the FBI, the NTSB and the FAA.

At the Forum, I also received strong support from our ASEAN partners in the search for MH370.

I would like to read out the joint statement issued by the ASEAN Ministers, which I believe underscores the tremendous spirit of co-operation within ASEAN, in the face of this difficult search operation:

“We, the Defence Ministers of the member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations express our deepest sympathies to the family members of the passengers and crew on board the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370.

We acknowledge that the member nations of ASEAN have participated in the search operations directly and indirectly since the plane went missing on 8th March 2014.

From the South China Sea, the Andaman Sea to the Indian Ocean - ASEAN has continued to assist in every way possible, true to the spirit of regional cooperation and friendship without any hesitation in sharing of information, assets and expertise.

We believe that Malaysia has done its level best in its response to this unprecedented predicament given the sheer scale of the Search and Rescue (SAR) operation which is the biggest and most complex we have ever seen.

We reaffirm our commitment for greater cooperation between each member nationespecially in the field of disaster management under the framework of the ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response. This incident stressed upon us the importance of information and resource sharing as we strive to be in the utmost state of readiness in mitigating potential calamities and risks.

ASEAN’s unity will remain solid and is totally committed to assisting Malaysia in coordinating this massive SAR to locate MH370. We are resolute in finding a closure to this tragic chapter in aviation history. Our thoughts and prayers remain with the families in these difficult times.”

5. Concluding remarks

Before I end, let me touch on some unfounded allegations made against Malaysia.

These allegations include the extraordinary assertion that Malaysian authorities were somehow complicit in what happened to MH370.

I should like to state, for the record, that these allegations are completely untrue.

As I have said before, the search for MH370 should be above politics.

And so I call on all Malaysians to unite; to stand by our armed forces as they work in difficult conditions, with their foreign counterparts, thousands of miles from home; and to support all those who are working tirelessly in the search for MH370.

---

Lastly, as I mentioned on Wednesday, while I was at the US-ASEAN Defence Forum, I spoke by telephone to the British Secretary of State for Defence, Phillip Hammond, regarding the nuclear-powered submarine HMS Tireless.

I hereby confirm that the submarine is now in the search area and helping in the search operation.

I shall now invite the Chief of the Defence Force to update you on the submarine’s capabilities.

-ENDS-

Sheep Guts

5th Apr 2014, 11:42

Chinese ship detects signal

China's Search Vessel Picks up Pulse Signal in South Indian Ocean (http://english.cri.cn/6909/2014/04/05/189s820764.htm)

Ian W

5th Apr 2014, 12:23

Note that the CVR which had been written off as of no use, may be considerably useful IFF someone was flying the aircraft and talking to themselves.

Sirlordcomic

5th Apr 2014, 12:43

Haven't seen an update on the AMSA site yet, just the AM update, but this was posted about 20min. prior to the news article on the signal detection (lacking details):

Chinese Air Force Plane Spots New Floating Objects in South Indian Ocean (http://english.cri.cn/6909/2014/04/05/3123s820762.htm)

alphasun

5th Apr 2014, 12:44

I hope this 37.5 signal is confirmed and leads to discovery of the plane. Scepticism seems churlish and unfriendly at this point.
The doubts with regard to range of the signal may not take into account the possibility of other floating wreckage having been spotted, or the signal having been detected initially by some other unknown equipment on/deployed from chinese ships, leading to to this vessel being sent to the location to confirm the detection.

Mimpe

5th Apr 2014, 12:45

About 1 hour over, no reserve calculated. I have no idea what fuel they were carrying, and interestingly i haven't read any public report of what their fuel reserves were. I understand the speed used for the search calculation are higher, and at a commensurately higher burn rate, than typical cruise.

Interestingly, the search areas they are looking at today are even further north than the chinese coordinates reported .

OZMST

5th Apr 2014, 13:00

It was reported that it lasted for only 90 seconds. Three crew members heard this signal but could not make a recording as they were surprised by the signal!! Hope its not another false hope.

grimmrad

5th Apr 2014, 13:16

If the Chinese received a signal - why were they looking between the designated search areas? Either the search is still not coordinated and every nation does what it wants or there are other informations available to them.

And why did the signal last 90s?

training wheels

5th Apr 2014, 13:26

Note that the CVR which had been written off as of no use, may be considerably useful IFF someone was flying the aircraft and talking to themselves.

Warnings and alarms going off in the cockpit would also be of some use I would think.

rog747

5th Apr 2014, 13:28

Chinese search patrol vessel picks up (hears) a ''ping'' pulse signal (reportedly the same 37.5Khz frequency as used by a FDR black box) sadly NOT recorded by them as it took them by surprise in the South Indian Ocean some 2/3 degrees south of the Australian search area they made yesterday

''if'' this proves to be a positive pulse I.D it narrows the search area down from 85,000 to 10 square miles - the undersea floor topography profile in that region is mountain ranges - any recovery of wreckage if this is the crash site by ROV will be challenging but viable

SOPS
If the MAS flight MH370 Boeing 777 had crashed in that region then any floating small wreckage will be soon reaching the shores of Western Australia due the prevailing weather and sea conditions

Time to get the Royal Navy up there quick with our sub HMS Tireless to confirm the pulse signal?

lomapaseo

5th Apr 2014, 13:35

Is there anything else that might have generated the signal?

With all the ships in that sea, might not a ship have generated the 90 sec pulse?

Speed of Sound

5th Apr 2014, 14:01

If the ULB is working properly and is 'pinging' once a second then a chain of 90 pings suggests that if this is MH370, they are dragging their microphone on the outer edge of a dome centred on the ULB.

I know that turning is a ball ache when towing such equipment but the common sense thing to do is run back along the track with the microphone much lower in the water.

I assume they have done/are doing this.

Pkasso

5th Apr 2014, 14:07

It might just be coincidental but HMS Astute left Gibraltar early last week en-route the Suez canal. It is the first boat of the class replacing the T class sub force. It has the 2076 sonar plus more.

me myself and fly

5th Apr 2014, 14:10

JTwitter ID James Chau ‏@jameschau
#exclusive My source: 37.5 kHz bang on, BUT indicates signal detected 4 only 15 mins. If #MH370 why nt longer? #breaking

‏@jameschau his colleague is aboard the ship who reported the pings.

xman80

5th Apr 2014, 14:33

Ahhhhmmmmmm

If you were on a boat searching for pings on 37.5 and you started receiving them, maybe you would think about...

STOPPING THE BOAT

Is there something with to do with thermal layers that could stop signals from reaching the surface or whatever depth they were towing their sonar array at?

Why would they only receive the ping signal for 15 mins, a month after the plane went down?

Something is not right here. It doesn't make sense to me.

Red Plum

5th Apr 2014, 14:34

Lompasso

Is there anything else that might have generated the signal?

37.5 is a frequency that was deliberately chosen because there is very little naturally occurring sources in the ocean anywhere near that frequency.

As for other ships accidentally generating that frequency - it is extremely unlikely.

xman80

What do you think happens when you stop towing a weight behind a ship? No wonder it doesn't make sense to you.

JayEmKay

5th Apr 2014, 14:34

And why did the signal last 90s?

Looking at seabed topography picture from PortVale (post #9268) transmission signal could be shielded by underwater peaks with a 90s gap.

Green-dot

5th Apr 2014, 14:49

Just on CNN:

The MAS CEO declared during a press conference that the FDR / CVR - ULB maintenance records indicate that the ULB battery due date is June 2014.

That would imply that these batteries should have been replaced during scheduled maintenance in an A-check at around this time or in the next month or so if the aircraft was still in service to avoid the battery expiring between scheduled maintenance intervals.

A69

5th Apr 2014, 14:56

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5nw6X2-Jfs
Reported onboard says they first detected the signals as late as friday.

xman80

5th Apr 2014, 15:12

Reporter onboard says they first detected the signals as late as friday

Yet the Malaysians gave their official press conference just a few hours ago and not a whiff of it.

And this Chinese ship is apparently way outside the international joint "co-ordinated" search area.

There's a serious solo run going on here.

OPENDOOR

5th Apr 2014, 15:13

rog747;
Time to get the Royal Navy up there quick with our sub HMS Tireless to confirm the pulse signal?

Surely time to send in a P3 to drop some sonobuoys?

Also;
If the MAS flight MH370 Boeing 777 had crashed in that region then any floating small wreckage will be soon reaching the shores of Western Australia due the prevailing weather and sea conditions

Perhaps time to calculate the drift current and dispatch an aircraft to hi-res image potential shore line for debris?

atr-drivr

5th Apr 2014, 15:19

According to CNN "expert", if the Chinese ship is towing the array at the surface and the wreckage is at the bottom there is no way it could hear the pinger. 4400 m depth.....plus no contact with Malaysia or AUS since the original report???? Something is not adding up....

cockpitvisit

5th Apr 2014, 15:22

As for other ships accidentally generating that frequency - it is extremely unlikely.

Could it be that another ship emitted the signal in order to calibrate their detectors? How else can you check that the equipment is working properly?

EEngr

5th Apr 2014, 15:22

the common sense thing to do is run back along the track with the microphone much lower in the water. They might be picking up an interference pattern caused by underwater mountains. Towing the sonar rig in a grid pattern at a consistent depth and creating a map of the signal strength might give them a better picture of where the side lobes and main lobe of the signal lies.

XB70_Valkyrie

5th Apr 2014, 15:22

Astounding this goes from the Chinese->media instead of to the search team.

If I did something like that during a search my ticket would be punched pretty quickly.

Rory166

5th Apr 2014, 15:32

It has been asked why not stop? The answer is that, aside from the practical considerations of a tow, a stationary detector provides no useful information. The 90 sec interval gives an idea of the wreckage being on a line perpendicular to the tow route corresponding to the middle of the 90 sec interval.

The technique would be to circle wide through 270 degrees and survey along the line just mentioned to hopefully detect over an interval thus producing another line. Approach this crossing point from a third direction between the other two to create a third line. The result of the three lines is known as a cocked hat and gives an idea of the position of the source. If the signal strength is measurably variable then the maximum strength gives a position for the perpendicular line.

The signals can be distorted by sea bed features and thermal/ salinity features in the water column.

Sheep Guts

5th Apr 2014, 15:41

Just watching that CCTV You tube link.

She said that the ship detected the same signal on Friday for 15 minutes but were unsure because there were other ships in the vicinity. Then they heard it at 4:00pm Beijing time today for just 90s. Now if they didn't record today. Did they record it yesterday? Something is a miss here. I'm afraid there seems to be no reports of this on Friday. I smell a sensationalist media release like their sat photos last month turned out to be. Was that XINHUA as well?:bored:

xman80

5th Apr 2014, 15:48

Is it known what depth this Chinese black box detector was being towed at?

Seems quite fundamental

EddyCurr

5th Apr 2014, 15:57

Astounding this goes from the Chinese-> media instead of to the search team.Watch the report in Post #9286 again.

The reporter states that China and Australia authorities had been notified.
No surprise Malaysia is quiet, Australia is supervising this.

Chinese press on board the vesselWhy the surprise ?

Western media reps have been present on numerous flights.

Speed of Sound

5th Apr 2014, 16:08

If this vessel is ploughing its own furrow miles away from the main search sites, I'd say it was highly unlikely they would be detecting a 'test tone' from another ship.

I would also like to think that anyone generating 37.5KHz anywhere near other search vessels, would let everyone know when and for how long they were doing it.

Mechta

5th Apr 2014, 16:25

xman80

What do you think happens when you stop towing a weight behind a ship? No wonder it doesn't make sense to you.

I guess towed arrays come in many different forms, but the ones I've seen were in tubes filled with a paraffin-type substance to give them neutral buoyancy.

rog747

5th Apr 2014, 16:26

sorry Pontius Navigator

devices are made in differing types and can descend below the surface or some types stay on the surface
both can set to listen at different depths etc etc

so a 4000m cable you suggest ? - of course a surface sonar would not hear it

also re wreckage the OP was responding to my original post where i stated
If the MH370 had crashed in that region then any floating small wreckage will be soon reaching the shores of Western Australia due the prevailing weather and sea conditions

seems you may not been reading the whole thread either

overthewing

5th Apr 2014, 16:32

If it was away from the main search site and just happened to trip over the jackpot, I'd like to know how.

According to one report, debris has /had been reported in the area. Perhaps they were investigating that?

Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston said: "The characteristics reported are consistent with the aircraft black box. A number of white objects were also sighted on the surface about 90 kilometres from the detection area.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/missing-plane-ship-detects-signal-ocean-114810601.html#QZGXWSG

catch21

5th Apr 2014, 16:37

Crikey there's come cynical folk posting. So they've possibly found something, great news.

Perhaps the Chinese vessel was relocating from one search area to another? If it was out-of-area, there are lots of innocent explanations why.

rog747

5th Apr 2014, 16:41

what happens if this is the FDR/CVR and the Chinese get hold of it - who then undertakes the data/tape play back and investigation??

Red Plum

5th Apr 2014, 16:45

I guess towed arrays come in many different forms, but the ones I've seen were in tubes filled with a paraffin-type substance to give them neutral buoyancy.

Absolutely right! However if you look at the device used it looked very much like a single hydrophone.

The American detectors are being towed by HMS Echo and HMAS Success. HMS Echo has sidescan sonar and specialises in ocean survey including sea bed. She has been used extensively in the Mediterranean (agreed much shallower) to successfully find wrecks.

grimmrad

5th Apr 2014, 17:04

@catch 21

I see your point - but in that case why towing equipment which has been said many times to be very slow? Wouldn't you want to reach the other side ASAP? Or is it common to keep on surveying on route to another search side?

I am not claiming any conspiracy but it seems that it is quite unusual, indicating that as we all know there is probably more info we do not know about.

If they have found something it would be great in any case!

DespairingTraveller

5th Apr 2014, 17:07

@catch21
Perhaps the Chinese vessel was relocating from one search area to another? If it was out-of-area, there are lots of innocent explanations why. I've been surprised at the cynicism and hostility, too. If they've found something, great.

Even if they were out of area, which is rather speculative at the moment, personally I'd rather that they were out of area and found something than in area and didn't...

wes_wall

5th Apr 2014, 17:07

what happens if this is the FDR/CVR and the Chinese get hold of it - who then undertakes the data/tape play back and investigation??

Anything discovered relative to airplane parts will belong to Malaysia. They have the legal right to determine what happens to them, and who gets them, when,and how.

OPENDOOR

5th Apr 2014, 17:58

Opendoor, yes, he is indeed wrong.

Oops, and Seacom made the pingers for MH370:ugh:

Datayq1

5th Apr 2014, 18:00

Over the past 10-15 days I've been checking in with marine traffic (AIS) for the region. While not definitive, when I have seen a Chinese patrol or research vessel declared to be SAR, they have not been in the designated search areas.

It appeared that at least some Chinese assets were "on their own".

Jilted

5th Apr 2014, 18:15

From the NPR report on the Xinhua story:We'll caution that the signal hasn't yet been investigated, and it's too early to draw a connection to the missing flight MH370. The signal's frequency is 37.5 kHz, according to Xinhua. That's the frequency underwater locator beacons use to transmit their location; it's also reportedly used by other systems.I thought that 37.5khz was chosen partly because it was unique.

Chronus

5th Apr 2014, 18:15

The ULB batteries are 30 days @4c . Does any one know the sea bed temp at pinger location. I understand the unit is powered by lithium ion batteries, how are these affected by temp.

etudiant

5th Apr 2014, 18:22

Deep ocean water is uniformly somewhat below 4 C, usually 1-3 C.
So the battery life expectancy was set to reflect expected conditions.
Afaik, lithium batteries drop their power pretty steeply once past their rated duty service, so there is not much time left to pick up the pinger.

jugofpropwash

5th Apr 2014, 18:30

If the Chinese actually have picked up the pinger off the black boxes, my guess is that they were led to them by some sort of high tech military technology they don't want the rest of us to know they have. Whether that is satellite imaging, submarines or something else... Hard to believe they just accidentally stumbled upon the scene.

500N

5th Apr 2014, 18:38

what happens if this is the FDR/CVR and the Chinese get hold of it - who then undertakes the data/tape play back and investigation??

You may have noticed a couple of weeks ago, the Australian Government put out a press release including diplomatic channels saying all items recovered must be returned to Perth first etc etc.

It was widely reported that this was directed at the Chinese without specifically saying so.

Reading between the lines, Certainly under currents within / in the SAR effort regardless of the smiles from the air side.

But it would also be good if they left the release of information, verified or otherwise, to the lead investigating authority. I'd then feel a little more convinced that it's less about PR and more about finding the aircraft.

A number of bits of information seem to have come via the Chinese
- from what I can gather - Chinese ship - to China - Chinese news releases information - someone from the SAR Effort comments.

I think this is China playing to domestic and making sure it is seen to be active, for the same reasons I have said before, previous tardy response to emergencies.

Captain_Snor

5th Apr 2014, 18:40

If the signals are from MH370's boxes and the source can triangulated, surely it doesn't matter if the batteries run out before they can be retrieved. If AF447's black boxes could be retrieved two years after the accident, surely these boxes and the wreckage will be found too? Or am I missing something?

Aireps

5th Apr 2014, 18:44

The ULB batteries are 30 days @4c . Does any one know the sea bed temp at pinger location. I understand the unit is powered by lithium ion batteries, how are these affected by temp.
Lithium based batteries have better than average performance at low temps and have much lower self-discharge than NiCd or NiMH.

Lithium-based Batteries Information - Battery University (http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/lithium_based_batteries)
Choices of Primary Batteries - Battery University (http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/choices_of_primary_batteries)

Cows getting bigger

5th Apr 2014, 18:45

Considering the nationalities of the passengers, I don't think the Chinese are behaving significantly more different than any other country might.

Put another way, if the pax manifest was predominately American, what communications channels would the USA use? That's not me being critical, I just think it is a fact of life and not necessarily an unreasonable thing to do.

BreezyDC

5th Apr 2014, 18:45

I think this is China playing to domestic and making sure it is seen to be active, for the same reasons I have said before, previous tardy response to emergencies....not to mention the international audience, especially in trying to highlight Malaysian incompetence.

500N

5th Apr 2014, 18:47

Breezy

Yes, you can add that as well, plus probably a few other things, like they find it and not the Japanese etc.

The "back channel" communications would be interesting to say the least :O
Luckily Angus Houston is the type of person with the knowledge of the people involved who should be able to keep things "in check".

Lemain

5th Apr 2014, 18:57

Echo sounding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_sounding)

Most hydrographic operations use a 200 kHz transducer, which is suitable for inshore work up to 100 metres in depth. Deeper water requires a lower frequency transducer as the acoustic signal of lower frequencies is less susceptible to attenuation in the water column. Commonly used frequencies for deep water sounding are 33 kHz and 24 kHz.

nonsense

5th Apr 2014, 19:22

Deep ocean water is uniformly around 4 C, which also happens to be the highest density temperature for water.

That's not coincidental...

BillS

5th Apr 2014, 20:00

The lack of any recording of that " regular, once-a-second rate" that would have been so useful alongside the 37.5khz frequency is most disturbing.

atr-drivr

5th Apr 2014, 20:05

What disturbs me is that China being deeply engaged in the search, when the reported pinger was detected they were so "surprised" that they did not record it??? Surely they had enough info as to know the frequency of the pinger so they could detect it. I still think something is not right...

Bollotom

5th Apr 2014, 20:05

Looks to not be operating 24/7.

. JORN was designed and acquired for the defence of Australia. In the context of the defence of Australia and peacetime military operations, JORN is not resourced or tasked to conduct surveillance operations 24-hours-a-day 7-days-a-week. To this end, JORN’s peacetime use is focused on searching for those objects that the system has been designed to detect, thus ensuring efficient peacetime use of JORN’s fiscal and staff resources

From https://www.airforce.gov.au/docs/JORN_FAQS.pdf

broadreach

5th Apr 2014, 20:16

atr-drivr, perhaps the Chinese are as susceptible to being taken by surprise as all us normal humans?

And I haven't read anywhere that the 90-second or 15-minute pings were NOT one-a-second. Like most on here I am hopeful that their find is authentic, regardless of the geopolitics.

Edit: I hardly think that, in the context of such a multi-national effort, China would be playing by their own rules, i.e. going it alone. If the find turns out to be authentic they'll have more than enough international kudos.

Pontius Navigator

5th Apr 2014, 20:16

Reading up on underwater acoustics Underwater acoustics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_acoustics) reminded me about convergence zone propagation.

Essentially radiated sound is reflecting between bottom and near the surface and down again. It may near the surface at some distance from the source in a narrow range like an annulus. It can then re-emerge at twice the distance and so on.

The short 90 seconds detection reported in characteristic of a convergence zone detection where the hydrophone has passed through the emitted sound. Sailing a cloverleaf will not work.

It needs to relocate the convergence zone. The shortest the time between signal gain and signal loss will give you a bearing the to source. This is an ambiguous bearing.

The zones could be typically at 30, 60, 90 miles etc depending on bathythermal conditions and power of the source.

Another phenomenon in the deep sea is the formation of sound focusing areas, known as Convergence Zones. In this case sound is refracted downward from a near-surface source and then back up again. The horizontal distance from the source at which this occurs depends on the positive and negative sound speed gradients. A surface duct can also occur in both deep and moderately shallow water when there is upward refraction, for example due to cold surface temperatures. Propagation is by repeated sound bounces off the surface.

I then found this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOFAR_channel which has an animated graphic that demonstrates the deep sound channel and convergence zone.

Acoustic pulses travel great distances in the ocean because they are trapped in an acoustic "wave guide". This means that as acoustic pulses approach the surface they are turned back towards the bottom, and as they approach the ocean bottom they are turned back towards the surface. The ocean conducts sound very efficiently, particularly sound at low frequencies, i.e., less than a few hundred Hz.

500N

5th Apr 2014, 20:39

Highland

Firstly, how would the Aussies know unless someone told them ?
- which is entirely possible.

"It could have been heading towards Oz, they must have been prepared for that scenario after 9/11."

Apart from Perth and Darwin and a few other smaller towns and cities, the rest of Aus is one GAFA - Great Australia F All,
1000's of Kms of sand and desert and a long way to get to another big city.

Pontius Navigator

5th Apr 2014, 20:40

Even if JORN doesn't operate 24/7, surely it must have occurred to someone it may be a good idea to switch it on with a large passenger jet "disappearing" within its range?? It could have been heading towards Oz, they must have been prepared for that scenario after 9/11.

Highland, first off if JORN was not scheduled to be on and there was no threat it follows that everyone would have been asleep with the weekend ahead of them.

Your second supposition didn't occur until many hours later. Recall it "crashed in the South China Sea" for several hours before they found it had "flown to the west north west" what, a day later? And a couple of days later that it might have been in the southern ocean or Kazakhstan? And days later that it might have been south west of Australia.

mm43

5th Apr 2014, 20:50

The following by auv-ee (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/449639-af-447-search-resume-part2-55.html#post6442133) explains in laymans language the affect of water temperature on acoustic channelling.For horizontal isotherms (temperature changes with depth but not laterally; the usual case considered), there is no bending of the straight-down ray. As the angle of incidence increases away from the vertical, bending will occur, either toward or away from the vertical.

Surface waters vary around the world, but are warm in the tropics. Thus, near the top of the water column, sound speed is elevated, due to increased temperature, and at great depth (1000s of meters) the temperature is uniformly cold, but the sound speed increases with depth due to increasing pressure. In the mid water (1000-2000m) the sound speed is minimum. This effect creates the deep sound channel, where near-horizontally directed sound is trapped and guided.

The critical angles vary with the particular profile of sound velocity vs. depth at any given place and time, but generally, sound can be exchanged between two points that are shallow and deep over a cone exceeding 45deg from the vertical. If this were not so, transponder navigation of surface vessels and acoustic communication with deep systems would not be possible. In fact sound leaving either a surface or deep source in tropical water will both be deflected toward the vertical as it approaches the mid-water channel. Things are different in the polar regions where the surface water is so cold that channelling occurs at the surface, rather than deep.

Cows getting bigger

5th Apr 2014, 21:02

Pontius Navigator

5th Apr 2014, 21:06

CGB, yes, but that is the start of a new problem.

IMHO the Chinese ship may have gained a convergence zone contact and may well not have recognised it as such. It is the sudden signal loss which is a clue.

If they held it for 15 minutes the first time, as 2 nm, then they may have been crossing the annulus. The 90 second contact may have been just clipping it.

I did post about the deep sound channel a few days ago but it was modded out.

jmmilner

5th Apr 2014, 21:19

Am I reading this right? Are the hugely knowledgeable (and most welcome) posters saying that the subsurface pinger signal may be subject to range extending effects just as HF radio waves are bounced/skipped off the ionosphere? Basically yes. Differences in the properties of a material, be it something as simple as a glass fiber or as complex as the atmosphere or the ocean can cause signals (acoustic, electromagnetic, or optical (a special case of EM)) to be bend. If the conditions are correct, the bending tends to refocus the energy of the wave in a channel so that the loss in energy becomes linear in distance rather than the normal quadratic (1/r^2). For those old enough to remember early microwave (not oven), the medium becomes a natural wave guide.

Physics may not find MH370 but the laws it provides still do provide rational explanations for all manner of natural phenomenon which have come up as a result. Sadly the "laws" of human nature don't.

Irish21

5th Apr 2014, 21:33

It's interesting that the Chinese are always the first to "find" something with regards to this aircraft.....first to spot floating "items" on their satellites photos now the first to "hear" the ping but did not record what they heard.

Mesoman

5th Apr 2014, 21:41

Am I reading this right? Are the hugely knowledgeable (and most welcome) posters saying that the subsurface pinger signal may be subject to range extending effects just as HF radio waves are bounced/skipped off the ionosphere? No. At the high ultrasonic frequency used by the pinger, attenuation with distance is very significant, so the signal at detectable levels just doesn't go very far.

At much lower frequencies, where passive sonar is used for submarine detection and tracking, signals can travel hundreds or even thousands of miles. They are refracted by the thermocline (an area of rapid vertical temperature change) a few hundred feet below the surface. In that sense, it is similar to tropospheric ducting of radio waves and perhaps a little analogous to HF ionospheric "skip" propagation.

mm43

5th Apr 2014, 21:46

... which means that either the speed of the aircraft was changing , or it was turning fairly slowly left from its southerly heading.The increasing westerly magnetic variation would provide the direction change you are suggesting, provided the a/c was in HDG mode of say 180°M from west of Banda Aceh.

The Ancient Geek

5th Apr 2014, 22:00

OPENDOOR

5th Apr 2014, 23:00

A black box detector deployed by the Haixun 01 picked up the signal at around 25 degrees south latitude and 101 degrees east longtitude. It is yet to be established whether it is related to the missing jet.

Does anyone know what the "...black box detector..." is? Is the Haixun 01 using a towed pinger locator?

From a ULD patent;

Experience during past recovery operations has shown the range of the current conventional ULD design to be approximately one mile.

One mile is about 1600m the depth at 25 S 101 E has been quoted as greater than 4000m so roughly 2500m of cable minimum needed. Specialist equipment surly?

ex_matelot

5th Apr 2014, 23:06

To summarise, the 37KHz pings heard near the surface (if true) indicate that wreckage is on the bottom somewhere nearby.

It is not, however, a simple job to narrow the search and determine an exact location because the signal could have bounced around in an underwater mountain range and been deflected by temperature and salinity layers.

The next part of the job, therefore, is to get listening devices as deep as possible whilst avoiding collision with the mountains. This requires specialist kit and is not easy.

This is going to take time and the batteries are nearing their end. It is therfore likely that a deep water sidescan survey will be required, the good bit is that the search area is now much smaller.

When wreckage is eventually located it will still take months rather than weeks to recover anything using UAVs

Once an area of search is established - sonobuoys and towed array will make short work of it. Probably other assets able to find it also...issuieng strong hints at where to look.

Well nothing's been found in the previous "areas of interest". If 25s 101e does prove to be the final resting place, there will be a lot of explaining to do by the likes on Inmarsat, and the Australian defense forces who's radar seemingly missed it

A naive assumption. Why would a nation claim to have / or not to have radar coverage over any given range? See my above.