Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost

[2dPilot]

@Ian W,
Unfortunately the best testing can only test for what you are looking for.
Test scripts will only be based on what are considered possible scenarios.
Furthermore, the IT industry is now full of people who have been taught to program, not learnt to program.
One would like to think an operating system like windows would be fully tested, yet a host of bug-fixes are released every month, for years.

[holdatcharlie]

One of the many frustrating and ironic twists in this baffling accident is that, if and when the CVR is finally found (and recovered), it will in all probability, just contain two hours of silence - because only the last two hours of cockpit audio is retained on the CVR. All preceding audio is over-written thus denying investigators arguably their best clues to this bizarre tragedy.

My question is this - How complete is that over-writing?

We all know that deleted data from a PC hard drive can still be read - if you know the right (maybe that should be 'wrong') people. We have already seen this demonstrated with regard to the Captain's flight sim. data.

Could this also be made easier by being over-written by continuous silence? Could there be recoverable 'soft' data under that pure white over-write? Or are there some subtle technical differences between delete, erase and over-write?

[YYZjim]

I have speculated that the ADIRU failure experienced by 9M-MRG, which led to a sudden climb, was experienced by 9M-MRO (on route MH370) on March 8, 2014. The sudden increase in the pressure differential across the hull may have led to another problem recently experienced by two other B777-200s.

On April 13, 2012, an Alitalia B777-200 (EI-ISB on route AZ-8320) flying from Rome to Dubai at FL370 declared an emergency near Athens. The first officer's windscreen had cracked. The crew descended rapidly to 6000 feet and diverted to Athens.

On July 3, 2012, an Air France B777-200 (F-GSPL on route AF-85) flying from San Francisco to Paris at FL370 declared an emergency over Hudson's Bay. The windscreen had cracked and the crew reported problems maintaining pressurization in the cabin. The crew descended to 10,000 feet and diverted to Montreal.

All three aircraft are of pretty much the same vintage:
Alitalia EI-ISB first flight December 18, 2002
Air France F-GPSL first flight June 12, 2000
Malaysian 9M-MRO first flight on May 14, 2002

One would need to know the number of cycles, rather than simply the calendar age, to determine if windscreen problems are fatigue-related, and possibly represent a systemic problem which is just now coming to light in the B777 fleet.

[Rightbase]

My concern is a systems concern,

The software engineer works in an environment that makes assumptions about its upstream inputs (eg, a sensor might fail - et al,) and downstream consequences.

Within that is the acknowledgement that the downstream resources (eg. fault condition SOPs - et al.) cannot cater for all eventualities and so must rely on pilot professional competence & expertise.

The assumptions (eg middle value is safe - et al.) exploiting multiple redundancy can render the remaining two of three working transducers worse than a singleto, since failure of either would give an erroneoous result - the Australian 777 episode exemplified this,

Iin that case, flying with a faulty third channel was worse than the system having no redundancy, Has this now been built into all triple redundancy middle value systems?

In both that case and the ill fated Air France episode, incorrect transducer readings were not sufficiently visible to the pilots - the last resort safety sytem - for it to be obvious to them just what was happening. Even the last resort 'hand fly the beast' option has to be negotiatedwith a software system that is already percieved - at lest partially - as working otherwise than as intended,

It is the combination of reliance on the pilot and being unable to guarantee to present the information the pilot needs that give the total system a level of vulnerability that can make a safely redundant system dangerous in the presence of a known failure.

An MEL that says a defective component can be tolerated must demonstrate a safe system (including a suitably informed pilot) in the event of ANY subsequent failure.

And when the statisticians do their sums, making standard 'independence' assumptions, they must be obsessive about them, as must everybody from people buying components to the authors of safety procedures,

[JamesGV]

Windscreen failure.

Accepted. At FIR handover ? Divert then to Penang.

Northern route ? Then change to Southern route at 180/182 ?
We forget "no trans", "no acars/satcom".

[olasek]

incorrect transducer readings were not sufficiently visible to the pilots
Actually they were, the rest of your stuff is so convolutely written, it is impossible to follow.

[GHOTI]

"Prior groundings such as the Comet I (c. 1952), Lockheed Electra (c. 1959), the DC-10 (1979) and 787 were based on physical evidence of a potentially catastrophic problem with the aircraft. In this case, such physical evidence is, to date, completely lacking."

The L-188 Electra fleet was never grounded. Restrictions on max IAS were imposed until the flutter problem was worked out, but unlike the DC-10s and Comets, they continued to operate. That was a decision based on the economics of an airline whose sole equipment was the L-188, and also because no-one knew how the two mid-air breakups they suffered had related causes.

[500N]

Green

I think part of the reason it is "boring" is the JACC / Angus Houston and others are not prone or see any need to having unwarranted news conferences and have succeeded in damping down media speculation.

And apart from the basic info on the search each day, not much else.

That will of course all change when they find something !

[PAXboy]

holdatcharlie asks the CVR question.
My question is this - How complete is that over-writing? Question asked and answered much earlier in the thread. The answer (as I recall) was that analogye CVRs might have some trace left - although two hours of continues erase means probably not. However, the CVR unit on this aircraft was digital so the answer is Zero. (I sit to be corrected).

[mm43]

AMSA have recently defined the search area as within a circle of 10km radius centered on the 2nd ping detection. That area is defined by the White circle on the graphic below. The rectangular area on a major axis of 030°/210° represents what previous AIS position reports indicate the area the Bluefin 21 AUV is working in. Each days positions are a different color, and the first position for today (20/04:03z) is shown in a Cerise color.

The Red stars represent when pings were acquired, and the sequence is numbered anticlockwise starting at the top. The White star is the position that the pings associated with the first ping were lost (LOS).

http://oi57.tinypic.com/2uo2eds.jpg

NOTE: Use Ctrl+ as many times as needed to enlarge the image, and Ctrl 0 will return the page size to normal.

[joy ride]

The speculation about possible ADIRU software and windscreen problems being an issue in this case begs the question:

<< IF >> one or both of these had been a contributory factor, and assuming substantial recovery of wreckage, would the investigators have any chance of finding evidence of it? Particularly as a windscreen cracked by altitude/pressure changes might resemble one cracked on contact with water.

[susier]

Just on the issue of windshield failure, there is an interesting digression on the manufacture of the above, in the TSB report pertaining to


AIR FRANCE
BOEING 777-228ER F-GSPZ
CHURCHILL, MANITOBA 290 nm NE
17 OCTOBER 2002


where an arc resulting from overheating in the J5 terminal caused a small fire and the windshield to crack.


I won't link as I can't get it through moderation,

but anyway comms were not affected (obviously)

so if this were a contributing factor in the present case we would need to find a reason for lack of comms.


ETA (from the report)


'Boeing has undertaken a program to redesign the window terminal block to eliminate the screw connection. The new window blocks were scheduled to be incorporated into Boeing 777 aircraft, Line Number 471 (delivery date February 2004). The new design incorporates a locking pin/socket, which will address issues concerning loose or cross-threaded screws and inset ferrules. All Boeing 747, 757, 767 and 777 windows delivered thereafter, either on new aeroplanes or as spares, will have the new terminals installed. Boeing intends to deliver spares in kit form with the new wire end terminals included. The operator will have to remove the existing wire end terminal and splice in the new one when replacing windows on existing aircraft. The intent is to eliminate concerns with arcing at the window power terminals.


Boeing released a Fleet Team Digest article to B757 operators in May 2003, discussing terminal arcing and overheating. The article detailed actions to incorporate re-designed terminals into the affected cockpit windows.'




I'm not sure how relevant this might be, but it looks like there was no retro-fitting of the new system so as far as I can figure out, 9M-MRO will have had the original sort.

[PPL Hobbyist]

Holdatcharlie,

As other people above have stated, when data on a PC or MAC has been deleted, the sectors on which the data resides is only flagged as deleted in the file allocation table. On the old 30 minute analogue tape CVR, it may still have been possible to recover over written audio, because the erasure head isn't always perfectly aligned with the recording head. or may not reset every magnetic fibre on the tape But on modern solid state digital CVR it is impossible because the memory modules only has 30 minutes or 2 hours of storage space depending on which model is on the plane, so the oldest data is constantly being over written by new data. The older data is completely erased.

I hope this helps.

[barcino]

The hope is on finding more cabin recordings based on passengers' personal devices being used during those dramatic final hours (i.e. smartphones, videocameras, etc.). Their memories might still be readable if sea water has not degraded its components seriously.

[mixture]

Unfortunately the best testing can only test for what you are looking for.
Test scripts will only be based on what are considered possible scenarios.
Furthermore, the IT industry is now full of people who have been taught to program, not learnt to program.
One would like to think an operating system like windows would be fully tested, yet a host of bug-fixes are released every month, for years.

Yawn ! :ugh:

You've already been told above not to compare the generic IT industry to the niche part of the IT industry that deals with safety-critical systems.

Windows and such like are not subjected to the same formal design process that safety critical systems are. Thus of course you will get a greater number of bugs, some of which may cause substantial issues to the stability of the system. Bleeding edge generic IT projects these days can use agile development.....no such thing in safety critical systems.... in safety critical systems there is a traceability requirement for you to be able to show that a given line of source code fulfils given requirement specifications, the level of detail is truly excruciatingly tedious... but it all serves a very important purpose !

Sure there's always scope for issues, but the whole point of the almost obsessive-compulsive development methodology for safety critical systems is that failure or bugs won't kill anyone !

[JamesGV]

On another note....

"Malaysian authorities are considering issuing death certificates for the missing passengers of MH370.
It's part of the plan to provide financial assistance to the families of passengers.
Deputy Foreign Minister Hamzah Zainudin, head of the next of kin committee, said no decision had been made on how much each family might receive".

Er ? The Montreal Convention.
Or is the carrier going to prove that they are totally "without fault".

[Mike-Bracknell]

Thanks PPL-Hobbyist

I used to do IC design when the Nimrod project was ongoing many years ago in So and GaAs and I haven't thought much about FETs in a long time! The media is almost certainly NAND memory.

What I was explaining is that depending on the technology used - FAT32 for example - that recording loads of the same noise will not take as much room (maybe 10%) as a chatty cockpit and that therefore voice files that have been tagged in the file table as deleted may not have been overwritten. If so, they may be recovered.

It's quite a mute point to be fair, because given the advances in technology if you're going to revisit the black box (and I think AF447 and MH370 prove there's at least a need for an updated spec, even if the cost-benefit analysis doesn't include retrofitting) then you'd include enough non-volatile storage per box to take many many hours of recording (along with other things such as an extendable, floating additional antenna).

[lpatrick]

I think I have read every forum page but have heard no news of the analysis of the two oil slicks, did I miss it ?

[Two to Tango]

Review the JACC media release recently. Confirmed oil not from a plane.

[kwh]

It strikes me that these days (a duplicate copy of) the recorded flight data from both black boxes could in fact be stored in something physically tiny that was entirely self contained and external to the plane. There have been demands for a transponder to be carried that cannot be disabled by the crew, under duress or otherwise, so how about a little unit, externally mounted, on the tail cone perhaps, top of the fuselage or tip of the fin. No physical connection to aircraft power or systems, powered by an on board battery, which in turn is charged by a miniature RAM air turbine when the aircraft is moving. Include a transponder that will respond on demand to an internationally standardised IFF style interrogation challenge, or maybe regularly just pings co-ordinates to a satellite. If the same device also contains a non-volatile memory module which is written to from inside the plane via a bluetooth interface from the _real_ black boxes, with a facimile copy of both CVR & FDR data, all in a package designed to survive a water landing and end up on the surface amongst the debris field, if there is one, perhaps with the on-board satellite pinger previously mentioned still operating, then this situation literally can't happen again...

[Kooljack]

joy ride:-
<< IF >> one or both of these had been a contributory factor, and assuming substantial recovery of wreckage, would the investigators have any chance of finding evidence of it? Particularly as a windscreen cracked by altitude/pressure changes might resemble one cracked on contact with water.

Without going into the microscopic details, I would reckon a fracture attributed to internal forces (failure with cabin pressurised) and one due to external forces (impact with water) will be pretty evident on close examination.

[lucille]

I really hope I'm wrong but it's not looking good for finding the aircraft in that 10km radius zone. It seems more than 2/3rd has been searched to no avail.

The Malaysians have long labelled the investigation as being a criminal one. One can only assume, it wasn't a knee jerk reaction and that they have solid reason to do so.

[Aviationexpert]

"Bluefin-21 has searched approximately 50 per cent of the focused underwater search area to date."
Search and recovery continues for Malaysian flight MH370 (http://www.jacc.gov.au/media/releases/2014/april/mr029.aspx)

[Howard Hughes]

Confirmed oil not from a plane.
The JACC were a little more non committal than that:

"Preliminary analysis of the sample collected by ADV Ocean Shield has confirmed that it is not aircraft engine oil or hydraulic fluid". (source: JACC website)

[broadreach]

Howard Hughes,
Are you suggesting that the oil is not totally discounted as being from the aircraft and that it could be from cargo? E.g. an electrical transformer ruptured in the crash?

[500N]

I notice in the JACC Press release that 11 aircraft are still being used
and this seems to be the case on a daily basis.

Not all the aircraft can drop buoys but are they still searching for debris, pings ????

Any comments ?

[polarbreeze]

by Terminus: I would say no chance, as a boating person I have had 3 un scheduled swims with smartphones and their behaviour has been identical in salt water, they go off instantly and don't respond to anything,then get hot as they short circuit, the flash comes on then the device finally dies within 30 minutes.Nevertheless, there is a good chance the non-volatile memory would retain its data which could potentially be recovered. If you'd broken your phone by going for a swim you wouldn't bother because the phone is not economically recoverable - but if it's a question of recovering data for a crash investigation that's another matter.

[Howard Hughes]

Are you suggesting that the oil is not totally discounted as being from the aircraft and that it could be from cargo? E.g. an electrical transformer ruptured in the crash?
I am just pointing out that they have given themselves a little room to move! :ok:

[mmurray]

Media Release
21 April 2014—am

Up to 10 military aircraft and 11 ships will assist in today's search for missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.

Today the Australian Maritime Safety Authority has planned a visual search area totaling approximately 49,491 square kilometres. The centre of the search area lies approximately 1741 kilometres north west of Perth.

This morning, Bluefin-21 AUV completed mission eight in the underwater search area. Bluefin-21 has searched approximately two thirds of the focused underwater search area to date. No contacts of interest have been found to date.

The focused underwater search area is defined as a circle of 10km radius around the second Towed Pinger Locator detection which occurred on 8 April.

Bluefin-21 AUV's ninth mission will commence later this morning.

The weather forecast for today has conditions deteriorating, particularly in the north of the search area, as Tropical Cyclone Jack continues its track southwards. Wide spread showers are developing with isolated thunderstorms to the north and east south-easterly winds.

[henra]

I really hope I'm wrong but it's not looking good for finding the aircraft in that 10km radius zone. It seems more than 2/3rd has been searched to no avail.


Indeed. This is a bit puzzling but on the other Hand that doesn't necessarily mean they are searching in the totally wrong area.
If the waterfall graphs were the real deal and it wasn't accidentally generated in the measuring device itself (which I hope they are examining), I would say there is very big chance it was from MH370. It looked perfectly constant in amplitude and frequency and the duration of the Signal seemed to match as well.
Natural phenomena won't achieve that in any likelyhood.
However, some querstions remain: Is Bluefin21 working as advertised?
Would it really detect shattered debris in silt?
And more importantly: How far do these signals really travel. Looking at the on/off nature of the detections, it looked more like signals that were channeled over a longer distance, leading to relatively short detection times (in some instances only minutes). At 2kts, a detection of 15 minutes means a length of 0,5 km. Perhaps behaviour of such signals in cold water under high pressure is not really 100% understood, yet.

Anyway, they will look at the results of the scans and be able to decide if Resolution was suffcient to 100% exclude they travelled over it.
Depending on that it would be: Either different Equipment (Abyss? Remus?) or enlarged Search area.

[joy ride]

Kooljack, thanks for clarification about determining the cause of any windscreen cracks, pretty much what I expected but nice to know!

Anyone know if investigators might be able to determine if the ADIRU software issues discussed here might have contributed?

[mm43]

The following are the times of ping aquisition as given by Angus Houston following a press request.

#1..5/16:45 WAST (5/08:45 UTC) Duration 2:20
#2..5/21:27 WAST (5/13:27 UTC) Duration 0:13 (return leg)
#3..8/16:27 WAST (8/08:27 UTC)
#4..8/22:17 WAST (8/14:17 UTC)

Does anyone have the AIS data for the 5 April dates?

If so please PM me.

The reason for asking is that:-

(a) the #1 positions do not reflect known tracks.
(b) the #3 & #4 positions appear to be transposed.

None of this will change the positions of the Ocean Shield, but could have an effect on the actual ping (Star) positions. They could shift ~2NM to the east.

[lynw]

@Paxboy and Holdatcharlie:

Whether data is recoverable from the digital CVRs depends on a number of factors. If these were normal magnetic media drives, then it would be likely that anything that hadnt been overwritten would be retrievable but also its likely it would need a lot of work to actually get anything constructive out of the data.

However, there are issues if the CVR drives were solid state drives (SSDs). Anyone with any clue of computer forensics should know you cant just plug them in and image as you would normal magnetic media drives. SSDs have a garbage collection function that can run independently of any software, all it needs is to be powered on so your drive can be deleting data in the background faster than your imaging software can collect it. Not good for a computer forensics examiner having to explain why you havent got any data at all. :\

First question is if SSDs are used in CVRs does the CVR programming have the garbage collection process running in the background while its writing data to the disk to free up disk space? If so, then all you are likely to retrieve is the current length of the recording. If not, then you may be lucky to get partial bits of the recording being overwritten although all that may get you is silence in this case.

Also, one would like to think those designing systems using SSDs are aware of the reliability issues that are being raised about them in certain situations (e.g. power failure). If power fails it can make the drives inoperable and even those supposedly guaranteed against power failures do not seem to live up to their stated reliability looking at some of the research going on.

I dont know much about the CVRs but do they have alternative power sources or backups in case of drive failure during the flight?

Some articles for the techies on the issues with SSDs and data retrieval:
Solid State Drives and Forensic Troubles - WP's Police Tech (http://tech.wiredpig.us/post/12292126487/solid-state-drives-and-forensic-troubles)

The mysteriously disappearing drive: Are power outages killing your SSDs? | ExtremeTech (http://www.extremetech.com/computing/169124-the-mysteriously-disappearing-drive-are-power-outages-killing-your-ssds)

[konradb]

CVRs are required to have an independant backup supply that lasts 10mins after main power is removed.

The CVR memory will be discrete memory devices not SSD. As in the discussion above, the software reading and writing memory will be to DO178.
Therefore any and every action (if it was) of an SSD drive would have to be specified and software tested.

The memory devices will always be older technology because every time a device is changed, e.g. size or manufacturer, they have to be re-qualified (crash tested, cooked, shake'n baked). The temperature and g-force is large.

No compression except dynamic on the audio amplitude is allowed. Therefore long spells of no speach will take exactly the same memory as speach. How do you determine what speach or noise, bangs cruches beeps etc you want to record?


The recorder will have the last 2 hours and that is it.

[LookingForAJob]

I dont know much about the CVRs...Clearly......

[Two to Tango]

Re: Oil Analysis:
Quote: I am just pointing out that they have given themselves a little room to move!

Thanks Howard Hughes - Agreed, they have left the door slightly open to revise statement, if they do a further analysis of the oil and results become relevant to the flight ~ my comment was "generalized" and not exactly as worded per JACC media release. :ok:

[Mesoman]

encounters 1 to 3 the plane seemed to be moving south at about 1 knot.

Maybe it was floating at some great depth or tumbling across the seabed

I really doubt this, but I'd love to hear from a maritime expert.

After a month on the bottom, it's unlikely it would still be tumbling. One would expect it to have reached a resting place. If it's floating submerged... well, that would be a remarkable accidental balance of buoyancy, if possible at all.

Best guess... anomalous sound propagation. Although, it's surprising the detection ranges implied by that. Perhaps the ping detector is more sensitive than is expected for the "specified" detection ranges. Or, perhaps the sound was caught in a duct and thus was subject to a loss less than 1/r^2 spreading and 5db/km absorption.

[Shadoko]

I really doubt this, but I'd love to hear from a maritime expert.No expert needed: it's simple physic matter!
If anything sank, it will be less and less buoyant with the pressure increasing. Even if the cabin sank in a whole, and it opened when it crashed on seabed, I don't see anything could be buoyant at ~5000 meters: all things which might float at the sea surface are crushed by the pressure (more than 7000 psi!). Polyethylene and like have an intrinsic density > 1: porous materials with "opened bubbles" are water impregnated and those with "closed bubbles" are crunched beyond floatting possibility. Even organic things which will slowly rot (sorry for the picture...) can't become buoyant with carbon dioxide or methane gassing: CO2 is solvable in water (and if protected from water, CO2 is a liquid at this pressure), and CH4 gives hydrate.
So...

[Carjockey]

Many theories have been put forward and there has been much speculation regarding the fate and final location of MH370. We have heard various reports of the aircraft being tracked on radar (or not) and of it following differing courses at various heights. We have seen an initial and fruitless search in the South China Sea and later, based on satellite info, we saw the search area shifted to the South Indian Ocean where we heard of 'signals' being detected which caused the Malaysian & Australian governments to express their confidence that the remains of MH370 would soon be found.

But, more than seven weeks after the event, it seems that we are no closer to understanding what actually happened to MH370 and are no closer to identifying it's final location.

How can this be?

It has to be time for a fresh look at all the available data and a re-think of the whole situation starting from scratch.

[Ornis]

Carjockey ... seven weeks ... no closer to understanding what happened ... no closer to identifying it's final location. How can this be? It has to be time for a fresh look at all the available data and a re-think of the whole situation starting from scratch.

Nobody knows what happened but the authorities clearly believe it ended up were they are looking and they know more than we do. The defined area has not been properly examined. If nothing is found either the search wasn't good enough or it isn't there. Time then for the next big decision.

[susier]

I'm inclined to agree with Ornis that they know more than we do, either way.


So either they know it's there, by whatever means (including the pings perhaps - but they certainly have more classified info that we're not party to) and they are looking in the right place, or they know it isn't there, and are looking in the wrong place for some obscure reason to do with obfuscating the truth.


More likely the first.


In which case I believe it's highly likely it will turn up there eventually. If you want to be a conspiracy theorist then that time might be once the geopolitical issues have been mostly ironed out and it's 'safe' to find it...

[Viscount43]

Despite all the "tech" information, not one shred of evidence has emerged, in the form of wreckage, despite a vast sea search and sat imagery.

My gut feeling still says they are looking in the wrong places!!!!

Somebody should start a rethink of this mystery!

[IRpilot2006]

One would think that either the aircraft was carefully and skilfully ditched, or some piece of wreckage would by now have turned up on some beach. Even at a few kt of current, it would have travelled 1000-2000nm by now.

This is completely bizzare, but then AF447 would have been too if it wasn't for the ACARS messages, and would have possibly never been found.

[Viscount43]

AF447 is not in the same catagory....at least it went down on it's flightpath and wreckage was soon found.

[IRpilot2006]

True, but it went down out of radar range and in between radio contacts and without those automatic messages the search area would have been huge too.

[Viscount43]

Yes, but, as with MH370, initial search was conducted close to where contact was lost and along the flightpath. Large peices of wreckage were soon located including the tail fin.

What bothers me with this MH is that despite massive satellite imagery nothing relating to MH370 has yet been located. Still think the search is in the wrong place!!!

[Pace]

Car jockey
I do not think the authorities had a lot to go on with an area selected just before the black boxes were due to die!
I see it as a clutching at straw site !
I am amazed how in this day and age that a jet of this size can fly for so long undetected! Just shows that if you ever wanted to attack any of these countries they would have no clue about you!
I know that in areas if the world I have flown in Europe you only have to go 1/2 a NM off track and someone jumps down your throat!
Even in Africa you are giving constant position reports and estimates as well as talking too other aircraft so this is amazing !

[Above The Clouds]

Pace
I am amazed how in this day and age that a jet of this size can fly for so long undetected! Just shows that if you ever wanted to attack any of these countries they would have no clue about you!
I know that in areas if the world I have flown in Europe you only have to go 1/2 a NM off track and someone jumps down your throat!
Even in Africa you are giving constant position reports and estimates as well as talking too other aircraft so this is amazing !


Why ?
Only one satellite over the Indian Ocean used primarily for ACARs that was switched off, no radar coverage there either, limited primary radar coverage on the original route, you can disappear in Scottish airspace quite easily.

And of course flying in Africa, well you answered your own statement, they use position reports like so many places in the world because of limited radar.

[Viscount43]

As far as I am aware, ELB do not carry source ident. Perhaps this is something else ICAO should be looking at.

I don't think we will ever know....better wait for the Movie!!!

[Zorin_75]

As far as I am aware, ELB do not carry source ident. ELTs do, ULBs don't. No idea about ELBs. :rolleyes:

[Carjockey]

MH370 did not fly near any countries for much of its flightWe don't know that; MH370's actual flight path has yet to be established as a known fact and everything is based on theory at this time.

What we do know is that 370 deviated from it's original planned route early in it's flight. This was apparently not seen as sufficiently unusual to start alarm bells ringing immediately and I would suggest that the delay in raising the alarm meant that MH370 was effectively allowed to disappear, for reasons which are as yet unknown...

[ComJam]

I haven't yet seen anyone in the media ask the question: "When it "disappeared" and was apparently then "seen" on Air defence radar an hour later, why was no action taken to intercept and identify it?"

This is the first thing that happens in Europe, the US and most areas when an airliner "disappears" or even loses radio contact. Malaysia is said to have a very advanced Air Defence System and yet it took no action....why?

[mixture]

I haven't yet seen anyone in the media ask the question....

Somebody needs to discover the wonders of Google.

Yes the media asked, and yes an answer was given. Back in March according to some newspaper articles I've found... so no doubt already discussed a million times on this thread, suggest you go back a few pages and have a read. :cool:

[BOAC]

No threat. - that is of great concern to residents in that part of the world. How can an unidentified non-transponding a/c flying over your territory be 'no threat'? Let's face it, they were asleep at the wheel and found it on the tapes.

[Pontius Navigator]

Define 'threat'.

As far as the theatre tensions are concerned I imagine that the military threat was assessed as low. The Comair threat negligible. A higher military posture unnecessarily expensive.

As far as the tax payer is concerned, if there are tax payers, tucked up in bed, the State apparatus is protecting them. They are probably unaware of how that is done.

Take UK, how many people know what air defence reactive forces we have and at what readiness? Do they know where they are? Do they know what the RoE are?

I imagine the answer is either a lemon or largely wrong. I am still not too far out but cannot pretend to know what our systems are.

[rampstriker]

- that is of great concern to residents in that part of the world. How can an unidentified non-transponding a/c flying over your territory be 'no threat'? Let's face it, they were asleep at the wheel and found it on the tapes.

Malaysia hasn't had a terrorist attack on their soil since the 1977 MAS653 hijacking (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_Airline_System_Flight_653).

[rampstriker]

- indeed, and the USA before 11/9? They too were 'asleep at the wheel', were they not?

Al Qaeda has no beef with the Malaysians.

[PuraVidaTransport]

It appears to me someone went to a lot of trouble to make the final resting place difficult to find. If that is the case, what are the odds the final act was doing something to induce an in-flight breakup, thus spreading wreckage over a vast area both on the surface and on the seabed..??

[DCrefugee]

what are the odds the final act was doing something to induce an in-flight breakup, thus spreading wreckage over a vast area both on the surface and on the seabed

If wreckage was spread over a large area of water, it's likely some of it would have been found by now.

Either it entered the water largely intact and didn't generate much (if any) flotsam, or it isn't where they're looking.

[500N]

Pura

If that was the case, then I would suggest they would have found something.

look at the 747 that exploded just out from NY and the spread of wreckage.

I would have thought that the more break up mid air, the more floating debris on the surface that would have stayed floating and therefore been noticed at some point.

[porterhouse]

to induce an in-flight breakup, thus spreading wreckage over a vast area
In flight break up would not spread parts over a very large area, parts would land probably well within a mile.

[rampstriker]

There's little doubt that the engines would be torn from the wings in any controlled ditching attempt as in US1549. They would be on the bottom near the coordinates of the point of impact even if the fuselage remained reasonably intact.

[captplaystation]

Reading Teddy Robinsons post (10167 as I write) I am still of the feeling that

A - The "Authorities" are totally clueless, or B - They are totally clued up & doing everything to appear to be clueless.

For quite some time now, I am unable to decide which version is the reality.

[susier]

We are forgetting that there may well have been debris to begin with, but we were all looking in the wrong place, and a large amount of it will probably have sunk by now.


So perhaps it doesn't have to have been an entirely controlled ditching.


And what was left could well already be on a beach somewhere remote.


Let's not give up hope that we will soon have an answer.

[rampstriker]

Right, because the terrorists never target predominately Muslim countries:

I didn't say that. But terrorists apparently don't target Malaysia. If they wanted to they surely would have done so in the past.

Bali attacks were directed primarily at Australian and European tourists and most Balinese are not Muslims. Marriott targets were officially Americans and Australians.

[Glacier pilot]

The Malaysian narrative supports a number of different scenarios. A steady state flight across Malaysia is one way to "evade" radar (by blending in) and evasive fighter pilot tactics are one way to cause someone watching radar to notice. Per MH370 first turn (Igari), Malaysia military radar might have noticed a offshore inbound unidentified target, but apparently it didn't. The next soonest time for a military alert would have been if ATC had notified Malaysian Air Dispatch and an alarm raised because of no contact . As soon as MH370 left Malaysian airspace, it was somebody else's business. The aircraft might have been seen paralleling borders by Thai or even Indonesian radar, but the aircraft might not have been 'noticed' unless it was headed to or over each's respective airspace. In effect, after 30 minutes this aircraft would have been off radar(and not a 'potential threat'), until and unless, it crossed another country's airspace.

[MELT]

The old generation ELTs prior to the introduction of 406Mhz ELTs were, I agree, notoriously unreliable.

However all those that are 406Mhz conform to new specs that were introduced, RTCA DO204 and Eurocae ED62, and spurious signals etc tend to be down to maintenance issues etc.

The type of ELT installed on the Malaysian aircraft is that used on many other Boeing and Airbus aircraft. It is a top of the range model known for the quality of it's construction. Yes, a ditching would certainly provide the de-acceleration forces required to trigger the "g" switch.

Serveral references have been made in the past to the 1992 Air Inter A320 Mont St Odile crash, and the fact that the ELT did not go off in this event. There is an extremely simple explanation as to why no ELT went off, since surprising as it may seem, no Automatic Fixed ELT was installed on that aircraft. Most likely because at the time it was not a mandatory requirement

[olasek]

An inflight breakup WOULD spread debris well over a mile..Ref Pan Am 103... Most debris was found well within 1.5-2 miles.

[rampstriker]

. . . But terrorists apparently don't target Malaysia. If they wanted to they surely would have done so in the past.Non sequitur. There are many countries that have not been targeted and these include Muslim countries popular with western tourists.


Actually, it was more of a tautology ;)

My original point was that the Malaysian perceived threat of a terrorist attack of any sort was low. And an airborne attack on the Petronas Towers, a potent symbol of Malaysian national pride, would make no sense at all for any terrorist organization, especially on a Friday night when it was virtually empty.

[JamesGV]

Montreal Convention.
Pilot Suicide/murder. How is that treated ?

In the event he was acting in a "political" manner, is that then terrorism (and hijack) which is treated differently.

I ask as MAS/Malaysian Govt appear to be setting up a "fund" to support relatives (and the issue of Death Certificates).
(my edit. So therefore no payment under the Convention)

Now the defence under the articles could only be "without fault", which points to only one thing (one "probable cause" in the eyes of Malaysian Airlines and their lawyers).

In the issue of "presumptive death" there would be an Inquest ?
Have I missed something here.

Any learned friends ?

[Gilmorrie]

"The magnetic declination is limited to 2° in this area of the world and along the trajectory"


Following a magnetic heading will automatically result it a curved, true course. Nothing to do with declination. Look at a globe to see why.

[going grey]

Could we hope for some news or otherwise from the Australian, British, Malaysian, Chinese and Indian submariners on ?? site ? Keep up the good work

[Shadoko]

I'm inclined to agree with Ornis that they know more than we do, either way.
So either they know it's there, by whatever means (including the pings perhaps - but they certainly have more classified info that we're not party to) and they are looking in the right place, or they know it isn't there, and are looking in the wrong place for some obscure reason to do with obfuscating the truth.
More likely the first.
In which case I believe it's highly likely it will turn up there eventually. If you want to be a conspiracy theorist then that time might be once the geopolitical issues have been mostly ironed out and it's 'safe' to find it...

Reading Teddy Robinsons post (10167 as I write) I am still of the feeling that
A - The "Authorities" are totally clueless, or B - They are totally clued up & doing everything to appear to be clueless.
For quite some time now, I am unable to decide which version is the reality.
Is the time for 1 and B coming next week?:

CNN Exclusive: MH370: Australia transport official tells what's next - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/22/world/asia/australia-mh370-search-efforts-whats-next/index.html?hpt=hp_c1) "
Australian officials are hammering out a new agreement put forward by the Malaysian government that will set out critical guidelines in the search for the missing Malaysia Airlines plane.
.../..."The Australian government is currently considering that proposal from the Malaysians and will respond as quickly as possible," Dolan said. "We hope to have resolved this within the next week." He declined to elaborate further on specific details put forward by the Malaysians, explaining that once finalized, details of the agreement probably would be confidential.../...

[Glacier pilot]

Pontius Navigator: Thank you. Still don't know why one or the other ATC didn't ask MA Dispatch to try contacting MH370; and agree with you the 'origin' of aircraft might have been seen & known, so no threat via military. My additional reasoning: 1) southern arc might be associated with 'pilot' suicide; 2) northern arc suggests a hijacking; 3) the 'Maldives' points to an inflight 'accident/event'.; & 4) a direct act of terrorism doesn't seem to have happened (attack on Kuala Lumpar, Singapore, Jarkata,etc). My conclusion is that the Malaysian narrative seems to be malleably and purposefully inconclusive.

[Wannabe Flyer]

Missing Malaysian jet MH370 may have landed and not ended in ocean? - The Economic Times (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/missing-malaysian-jet-mh370-may-have-landed-and-not-ended-in-ocean/articleshow/34080286.cms)

Multiple media resources are once again poking in the above or the "shot down by the Americans" theory!

Seriously??? While I empathise with the relatives on CNN even they are clinging to this hope and I would think the Aussies have done a great job in providing all evidence they have that this aircraft did end it's flight somewhere in the greater geographic area of Australia.

Is there something I am missing? :{

[MG23]

Is there something I am missing? :{

Lack of any physical evidence. All the circumstantial evidence we have says it should be on the sea bed around where they're currently searching with the AUV, but nothing's turned up in the right place yet, on the surface or under it.

I strongly suspect it's down there somewhere, but, until something is found, people will continue to consider other possibilities.

[susier]

The Aussies are doing a fantastic job imho but there will be background information that they are unable to share.


I think this is what makes it frustrating.


There is always going to be a hierarchy of information in a situation involving various countries and agencies, as well as various conflicting interests.


So trying to adjust our own mental settings, if you like, to take into account the fact that NOT all the relevant information is available to us, quite deliberately, is really almost certain to lead to degrees of conspiracy theory, because we simply don't know where that line is drawn between clarity and obscurity.


And there HAS to be a line, somewhere.

[500N]

"There is always going to be a hierarchy of information in a situation involving various countries and agencies, as well as various conflicting interests."

Especially where Pine Gap and the US MIGHT be involved.

They might have allowed a book to be written but that doesn't mean nitty gritty current detail is going to be laid out in public.

[Millski]

It's the Southern Hemisphere , very much uncharted waters .
From this it will be a bit more charted . I really hope they are looking in an area that has meaning for the aircraft . I am concerned that we Aus have found nothing. NOTHING!

[onetrack]

The major reasons why not a shred of wreckage has been found, are:

1. This is the first B777 out of over 1100 built that has crashed into water - anywhere. Thus we have no real comparisons to figure out how a B777 might behave when run out of motion lotion and then ditched. They're a very robust aircraft, and trying to compare the ditching of the Airbus A320 into the Hudson is trying to compare apples with oranges.

2. I think few very people have much understanding of the sheer vastness of the Indian Ocean. This is an Ocean where you can fly for 10 hrs at 550-600mph and not see a single solitary piece of land - and very few ships. Most shipping travels between Fremantle and Singapore, Japan and China - and only a relatively few go from Fremantle to the ME and India and Europe.

3. If the aircraft ditched in the current search area (as this is still the highest possibility of all the scenarios), any wreckage will have been driven by prevailing winds and currents in a Westerly, or Sth-Westerly direction.
Some permanently buoyant wreckage will possibly be merely circulating in eddies in the mid-Indian Ocean, far beyond any current aerial search area.

Possibly 50% of the initially-floating wreckage will have sunk by now.
In time, perhaps in weeks to come, some small pieces of identifiable wreckage may appear around Mauritius, Reunion, Madagascar, or the Seychelles.
I'm personally amazed that no reward offers for MH370 wreckage, to fisherman in the regions surrounding the Indian Ocean, have been made, to assist in wreckage recovery and ID.

4. I'm of the personal opinion that the Bluefin-21's capabilities are being stretched, and that better equipment is needed.
I feel that dedicated sea-floor mapping ships would be better suited to the search for the wreckage, from here on in.

[Pontius Navigator]

The only thing known about the military radar trace is one screenshot from a press conference back in March.

Thinking about that screen shot.

It was heavily synthesised as the only plot was that of MH370. There must have been other plots but they appear to have been suppressed.

A simple screen shot would have shown the contact at one moment. This short was clearly a composite showing an initial track, a dark period, and then a regain until it ran out of radar range.

What caused the initial 'dark' period?

Either they had no plot for some technical reason or the aircraft was at a medium level and ran out of radar range at that level.

Contact was then gained as the aircraft was climbed to a greater altitude and finally lost at that higher altitude when it was too far from the radar site.

[Millski]

I am just a Aussie person, of which we normally try very hard to try and fix problems if we can. With the evidence we have at hand. But surely we should have
Some evidence. Nothing floating. I agree how hard this must be be for the workers on this job
I have had to find 1 yacht in port Phillip , Victoria Aus it took 4 hours with air support. I wish them all the best but with not :1 bit of plane ?? How long do we
Keep searching .

[500N]

Interesting re debris.

Smart of the police to take and send photos :ok:

Hope they can tell from the photos but won't take long once the ATSB get hold of it.

[DocRohan]

Further to Andy above:
Possible MH370 debris found in WA (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2014/04/23/18/51/possible-mh370-debris-found-in-wa)
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/22881182/possible-mh370-debris-found/
Near Augusta...Long way from Ocean Shield...

[Rus_s13]

Similar news flash relating to possible debris washed up on WA coastline.

Channel 7 Local news Brisbane, QLD

[500N]

Long way but 7 weeks is long enough and that would follow the current down the coast
which is the major current.

[500N]

I think they are talking about the South Equitorial current
which is further north.

Have a look on Google.

[nigf]

MH370 search: 'Object of interest' found on Western Australian coast - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/23/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-plane/index.html?hpt=hp_t3)


Australian Transport Safety Bureau Chief Commissioner Martin Dolan described the object as appearing to be sheet metal with rivets.
"It's sufficiently interesting for us to take a look at the photographs," he said.
But Dolan also added strong words of caution: "The more we look at it, the less excited we get."
The object was picked up near Augusta, some 300 kilometers (186 miles) south of Perth, a source with the Australian Defence Force told CNN.
The source also described the object as having rivets on one side with what appears to be a fiberglass coating.
When asked about the shape and scale of the object, the source described it as "kind of rectangular," but torn and misshapen.
The source said it was too difficult to estimate the size because they had only seen one photo with no clear scale.
The object of interest is in the custody of a police agency in Western Australia. Authorities there wouldn't comment further because it's a federal investigation.

[mm43]

There may be some relevance, on the other-hand may be not??

http://oi58.tinypic.com/4ik50j.jpg

[I spy]

"But Dolan also added strong words of caution: "The more we look at it, the less excited we get."


This statement concerns me......:(

[captains_log]

Anything resembling fibreglass on the inner fuselage of a 777?

[RTD1]

Lack of any physical evidence. All the circumstantial evidence we have says it should be on the sea bed around where they're currently searching with the AUV, but nothing's turned up in the right place yet, on the surface or under it.

I strongly suspect it's down there somewhere, but, until something is found, people will continue to consider other possibilities.

What if the plane broke up shortly before entering the water?

That would account for the ULB pings (the black boxes are there but not the rest of the aircraft), the satellite arcs (the rest of the aircraft is nearby but just outside of the narrow search area defined by the ULB pings) and the lack of debris field (if the breakup occurred at a low altitude).

[susier]

'Anything resembling fibreglass on the inner fuselage of a 777? '


I would think it more likely to be a component in wing panels/flap covers etc

[Pom Pax]

In recent years several pleasure boats which have broken their moorings in W.A., have end up on the East African coast and Madagascar.

[500N]

Glea

"He said the debris appeared to be sheet metal with rivets."

It's BIG !

"Senior Sergeant Steve Principe at Busselton Police Station told The Busselton-Dunsborough Mail the object in their possession, which had washed up on a beach at Scott River near Augusta, was eight feet (2.43 metres) tall, half a metre wide and was an alloy type of metal.

[susier]

I'm not actually clear whether a fiberglass coating is plausible on parts that are not structurally composite, perhaps that broadens the areas it might be from.


Reading the Boeing site as we speak..

[JamesGV]

Hmmm...let me think about this.
Something that is in the sea....and is made of fibreglass !

It's a tricky one that.

[500N]

Why not wait until they say, yes, it is from MH370 and release the photo
then we can play jigsaw and work out where it fits :rolleyes: :O

[susier]

That's a good point.


Regarding the radar plot you posted about on the previous page, Pontius,


forgive me but is it a plot from one particular radar operator or something cobbled together from two different ones? If it was the latter that might explain the bit in the middle with no information.


I'm probably way off. I like your theory better.

[Pontius Navigator]

susier, how the radar plot was constructed I don't know.

If it had been a snap-shot then there would have been many different contacts shown.

Instead it was a clean plot showing a succession of plots for just MH370. It was this plot that was shown to the Chinese relatives.

I would speculate that it was a computer generated plot showing the historic plot rather than an image from the radar system.

[glendalegoon]

1. The PLOT showed to the chinese families is quite old and has already been disavowed by malaysian authorities. so just forget it. The plane went northeast and made a left turn to a heading that has not been released, but generally in the direction of the thai/malay border (imho shortest way to an airport).

2. LANDING GEAR DOOR...you heard it here first.

[Pontius Navigator]

glen different plot.

The one with the 270 deg RIGHT turn was a track plot. The one to which I refer is a different radar plot and was not a simple computer plot. It first surfaced via a photograph of the radar plot at a Chinese family briefing. The same plot was subsequently released by the Malaysians with Reuters as one source.

This radar plot is the one showing the last trace at 295/200 together with all the RPs and various FIR and sub region boundaries.

[DocRohan]

Speculating (its more likely a boat part)...but Alloy/fiberglass ???GLARE cargo floor debris??? Would likely be one part that could have enough impact strength to not break into a million smaller bits...

[onetrack]

Current information on the "wreckage" found is that it is metal sheeting with rivets, about 2.5M (8') long. Could be from anything.

[malc4d]

It is all complete and utter ball****............we are all mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed high level crap.........

[imaynotbeperfect]

ABC TV reporting that ATSB has discounted debris being from MH370

[JamesGV]

"Unidentified material that washed ashore in Australia and is being examined for any link to the lost Malaysian plane is unlikely to have come from the jet, an official revealed today.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau had been scrutinising photos of the object, which washed ashore six miles east of Augusta in Western Australia state.
But Martin Dolan, chief commissioner of the bureau, said an initial analysis of the material - which appeared to be sheet metal with rivets - suggested it was not from Malaysia Airlines Flight 370".


Missing Malaysia Airlines plane: Sheet metal that washed ashore in Australia is NOT wreckage from MH370 | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2611137/Have-MH370-parts-washed-ashore-Western-Australia-examine-unidentified-material-links-missing-Malaysian-plane.html)

[glendalegoon]

PONTIUS

can you post the radar track and or plot of which you speak. I would like to see it. I just haven't seen the one you are talking about, I am not doubting you.

When you see 10 tons of BS, its easy to miss one tiny diamond!

[500N]

"ABC TV reporting that ATSB has discounted debris being from MH370"

That saved 10,000 speculative posts :O

[otech]

Just for anyone looking for images of what washed up and is deemed unrelated at this stage by the ATSB:

http://images.canberratimes.com.au/2014/04/24/5373142/art-353-plane1-300x0.jpghttp://images-2.domain.com.au/2014/04/24/5373143/art-353-plane2-300x0.jpg

Repeat : DEEMED NOT RELATED so don't go crazy with guessing which part of the aircraft it was from :-)

Source: Debris from missing MH370 could wash up on WA coast: expert (http://www.smh.com.au/national/debris-from-missing-mh370-could-wash-up-on-wa-coast-expert-20140424-375wp.html)

[SteinarN]

Just for anyone looking for images of what washed up and is deemed unrelated at this stage by the ATSB:

http://images.canberratimes.com.au/2014/04/24/5373142/art-353-plane1-300x0.jpghttp://images-2.domain.com.au/2014/04/24/5373143/art-353-plane2-300x0.jpg

Repeat : DEEMED NOT RELATED so don't go crazy with guessing which part of the aircraft it was from :-)

Source: Debris from missing MH370 could wash up on WA coast: expert (http://www.smh.com.au/national/debris-from-missing-mh370-could-wash-up-on-wa-coast-expert-20140424-375wp.html)

My first thought was that this looked very much like aircraft relatet, however, when I look closer at it it seems to be from a (refrigerated) truck or sea going container. I've worked in that industry for many years and know the design of those. What you see is a part of the outside skin of the container. The structure that is on the underside and riveted to the outside skin is the vertical stringers which help connect the outside and inside skin and/or stiffen up the side panel. The stringers would be about 1 metres apart. In addition you see some of the insulation foam, which would be polyurethane in most cases or PVC if it was to withstand significant structural loads which is usually not experienced in a simple side panel of the container. The sheet metal would be steel or aluminum, alternatively stainless steel on the inside skin, with steel it would be about 0.5mm thick on the outside skin and closer to 1mm thick on the inside skin, with aluminum it would be about 1 to 1.5mm thick. In this case it looks to be aluminum though.

[hyetometer]

Debris from missing MH370 could wash up on WA coast: expert (http://www.smh.com.au/national/debris-from-missing-mh370-could-wash-up-on-wa-coast-expert-20140424-375wp.html)

Where did you get the picture from? I can't find it in the article.

[arearadar]

How was MH370 re-identified after total loss of primary and secondary radar and loss of R/T, and thus it`s track plotted ?

[Pontius Navigator]

How was MH370 re-identified after total loss of primary and secondary radar and loss of R/T, and thus it`s track plotted ?

You have asked this question before and it was answered. Many other answers to the same question have also been answered.

Given your handle you must have a pretty good idea yourself.

[MrPeabody]

SteinarN


Spot on with your assessment. Look at the fasteners and the foam; this is not anything I have seen on an aircraft.

Note that there is a centroid in each of the fasteners; this is not a pop or hylock used on a aircraft. Given the location its not from a truck!

[IRpilot2006]

Why is so much information being withheld in this case?

Is it simply because a lot of it is military and might reveal areas of missing radar coverage?

Is it reasonable to suppose all the radar data has been made available for the search, under an NDA? I read somewhere that Indonesia has been totally uncooperative.

Also I can't understand why any of the multiple weather satellites would not have picked up contrails. Unless the answer is that the aircraft flew low enough to not make them, in which case the search area is much too far south. But then what to make of the pingers? One really would hope that the frequency picked up was not 32.768Hz ;)

[flynerd]

Also I can't understand why any of the multiple weather satellites would not have picked up contrails.


It was at night, so only IR satellites would see anything. Contrails are very narrow and probably outside the definition as seen by weather satellites.

[threemiles]

One really would hope that the frequency picked up was not 32.768Hz

If if would have been 32.768 it would have been reported as 32.768. But it was reported as 33..... I don't believe that the basic assumption here should be that the international searching team, the ATSB and have you are just plain idiots.

[susier]

'Contrails are very narrow and probably outside the definition as seen by weather satellites.'


No, see here, a very clear con trail within the current search area, from 11th March. (EOSDIS website)


http://map2.vis.earthdata.nasa.gov/imagegen/index.php?TIME=2014070&extent=105.12022179857,-21.095829313158,105.92881554857,-20.421268766283&epsg=4326&layers=MODIS_Terra_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor,sedac_boun d&format=image/jpeg&width=368&height=307

[nigf]

Debris from missing MH370 could wash up on WA coast: expert (http://www.smh.com.au/national/debris-from-missing-mh370-could-wash-up-on-wa-coast-expert-20140424-375wp.html)

Where did you get the picture from? I can't find it in the article.

It's here

MH370 search: police tight-lipped about debris (http://www.watoday.com.au/national/mh370-search-police-tightlipped-about-debris-20140424-376li.html)

[Ian W]

'Contrails are very narrow and probably outside the definition as seen by weather satellites.'


No, see here, a very clear con trail within the current search area, from 11th March. (EOSDIS website)

{{SNIP IMage}}


Aircraft do not always form contrails it depends on the humidity of the air at the cruising level. So there may not have been a contrail to see.

[susier]

Indeed Ian and the point about night images is also very valid.

[RichardC10]

Also I can't understand why any of the multiple weather satellites would not have picked up contrails.

The type of satellites which acquired the posted images are in orbits fixed with respect to the Sun and so pass over the ground at fixed local times (generally each side of midnight/midday). These times do not correspond to the time of the flight, certainly the part when the position is uncertain.

In general low earth orbit metsats (and other climate science missions like TERRA and AQUA from which the posted images originated) have a narrow swath they can view and only see a particular location at the very most twice per day. It is unlikely that one would come over when a particular contrail was in existence, even at the right time of day.

Geostationary metsats do not have the resolution.

[IRpilot2006]

I don't think the last couple of hours of the flight were in darkness.

I agree about the probable lack of resolution, but there are other satellites up there too.

[ChrisJ800]

Not sure if this has already been posted as it seems to be a week old but is a list of questions from family members. Not sure who the q's were sent to:

The key of questions from family members_??MH370?????_???? (http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_12ece77a00101eh9v.html)

[ZOOKER]

arearadar, (post 10,218), has raised a very valid point about how the aircraft was re-identified using primary radar. In the U.K, as far as I am aware, there are only 4 ways of doing this, and none of them could be employed here.
Military radar units may of course have other available techniques, unknown to civilian ATCOs.

[anotherthing]

The mil method of re-identing primary tracks is the same as civvy. No other box of tricks available.

[Nemrytter]

Also I can't understand why any of the multiple weather satellites would not have picked up contrails.Contrails only form under specific atmospheric conditions. Those conditions were not present in the Southern Indian Ocean when MH370 was lost and hence no contrails would be visible.

Contrails are very narrow and probably outside the definition as seen by weather satellites.
Geostationary metsats do not have the resolution.Contrails are large enough to be seen by both low-orbit and geostationary weather satellites.

[IRpilot2006]

Different targets reflect in different ways. There is plenty on this in the public domain.

Whether a given installation has the capability I have no idea, but you would think the military would, because any "target of interest" is not going to be Mode S and ADS-B OUT, with G-BOMB configured as the aircraft reg.

[sardak]

An analysis of the weather satellite imagery and conditions, and contrail formation over the area of interest at the time of the flight can be found here (scroll down page): High-res visible sectors for Southeast Indian Ocean - 8 March 2014 - Weather Graphics (http://www.weathergraphics.com/malaysia/iozooms.shtml)

[Ian W]

Indeed Ian and the point about night images is also very valid.

I think you will also find that in supercooled >100% humidity which often occurs then a contrail can expand sometimes even into cirro-stratus by seeding further ice crystal formation. These widening contrails are not uncommon and may be the type that are easily found on satellite.

[Ian W]

arearadar, (post 10,218), has raised a very valid point about how the aircraft was re-identified using primary radar. In the U.K, as far as I am aware, there are only 4 ways of doing this, and none of them could be employed here.
Military radar units may of course have other available techniques, unknown to civilian ATCOs.

It all depends on other traffic.
If you have a tagged primary return without any secondary/ADS that flies into your overhead at a steady speed and track, and at the expected time (probably less than a minute) a primary only return appears flying out of th overhead at the same speed and on the same track and there is no other traffic around, then it is a reasonable assumption that it is the same aircraft. If the airspace is alive with maneuvering primary only traffic and the one that you have tagged is randomly changing heading and speed and disappears together with several others into your overhead - you have a different problem.

I would suggest that it was the former that was more likely at 2am that morning. It may also be that it was being 'watched' by other radars that nobody wants to talk about, so the radar shown is one that is well past its sell by date and can therefore be admitted to.

[glendalegoon]

REGARDING CONTRAILS


At least one report is the plane may have been at 12,000' or even 4000' for a great part of the journey.

NOW, I'm not an expert like Richard Quest or anything ( ;-) )

But contrails that low are unlikely, DON'T You all think?

[ATC Watcher]

No, see here, a very clear con trail within the current search area, from 11th March. (EOSDIS website)]

Not really, looks like a line of low level cumulus associated with a front or a (warm) current to me.... nothing to do with a high altitude contrail..

[Yankee Whisky]

I do not think we can state with any degree of certainty it is a contrail
shown in the picture posted by Susier.
There are natural phenomena that produce same results, such as the Morning Glory off the coast of Australia, mountain range wave, frontal wave and/or cloud and many more.

[Nemrytter]

MODIS sees plenty of contrails but that's not one of them - looking at other satellite data shows that it's a natural cloud which formed a couple of hours earlier.

[WillowRun 6-3]

Especially for those with extensive knowledge of airliner disaster investigations:

1. Reports have been published at least since April 18 indicating that Malaysia and Australia are negotiating an MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) that will apply to the assignment and division of various responsibilities (such as analysis of the flight recorders, if and when recovered, and autopsies, if bodies are recovered, among other things). Has such a bi-lateral MOU been put in place in any prior investigations of airliner disasters? And if so, what countries, what disaster?

2. Malaysia reportedly has completed a preliminary report yet also has indicated an intention not to allow it to be publicly released or disseminated. Any precedent for a preliminary report to be completed yet withheld? (Yes, it does appear that the subject prelim report is in the nature of the 30-day prelim report preparation (and presumably issuance) of which are done pursuant to Annex 13.)

Thanks in advance to all who may respond.

[Mesoman]

Too much awe of technology by decision makers who didn't understand it?As a techie who also has SAR experience, I think there is very strong evidence that the techies are right.

The INMARSAT ping data is pretty good - I doubt anyone just made it up for fun. Even more important, the detection of underwater pings is very close to conclusive - especially since it is almost precisely in the spot predicted by the INMARSAT data. Information provided (including a video of the detection waterfall) makes it an extremely high probability that this was a ULB. Since there aren't a lot of missing ULB's in the world, especially in the south Indian Ocean, this means that they very likely have localized the wreck. They just haven't pin-pointed it yet.

I would guess that, if the initial small search area doesn't turn it up, they'll do what SAR experts normally do: recalculate the probabilities. This would yield a likely search area just outside the initial area, along with some probability that it was in the initial area but missed.

The only even faintly plausible explanation for the aircraft not being in the south Indian Ocean requires either massive incompetence of initial and reviewing authorities, all down the line, or a massive conspiracy. This I relegate to very low probability (<1%).

[olasek]

Any precedent for a preliminary report to be completed yet withheld?
Who cares?
This sort of ICAO annex is purely advisory in nature, no on can force anybody to publish a report, there were precedents that no preliminary report was ever published ...

[Shadoko]

Hearing this, we understand why the 4 detections of supposed pingers are considered by prudent people (and real scientists are prudent people) only as a good track and not a certainty:
Mysterious Duck-Like Ocean Sound-Source Revealed | Video | LiveScience (http://www.livescience.com/45035-mysterious-duck-like-ocean-sound-source-revealed-video.html)
OK, it is not the right frequency nor a near one. But who knows if there is not another specie with a more pitched "voice"? The "mechanical" repetition of the sound is astounding!

[hamster3null]

If no floating or washed-up debris is found in a year or so, we can be pretty sure the a/c came to rest on land. In that case, one day it will be found.

A while back I posted a link here to an accident where an Indian Air Force aircraft with 100 people on board crashed in the Himalayas, 30 km from the nearest town, and it took 35 years for someone to stumble upon the wreckage.

MH370 is _probably_ not in the Himalayas, but that "one day" may still be pretty far away.

[boguing]

Mesoman.

I'm not doubting the Inmarsat ping reception for a minute. What I'm asking is if there is any way the transmitted signal could be altered to give the impression of movement away from the satellite. One example would be slow immersion in a shallow liquid. The doppler shift of the last broken ping could be due to any number of things, so I'm not considering that one.

I forgot to mention the sonic pings. I'm afraid that I'm classing them as too spurious along with the radar sightings. From what I've read here it seems unlikely that the ULBs expired completely more-or-less on their expiry date, a decaying signal was the prognosis so surely those would still be being heard?

[hamster3null]

Mesoman.

I'm not doubting the Inmarsat ping reception for a minute. What I'm asking is if there is any way the transmitted signal could be altered to give the impression of movement away from the satellite. One example would be slow immersion in a shallow liquid.

In order for the signal to be transmitted, at least one engine has to be running, which would, needless to say, be pretty hard to square with slow immersion in a shallow liquid. (Or with a land crash in Malaysia.)

[WillowRun 6-3]

@ Olasek
Two separate reasons, at least.

First, yes, we know ICAO standards are not governmental and are not enforceable in the way that a sovereign nation's (or State's ) actual laws would be enforceable. But the investigatory process set forth in Annex 13 is quite likely to be held relevant in the context of other ICAO procedures. Specifically, at some point this search effort will likely lead to examination of whether Annex 12 terms, and bilateral as well as multilateral agreements on SAR, need to be improved. In that examination I can see relevance in the extent to which the Malaysian government followed An. 13.

Second, again knowing An. 13 has not the force and effect of sovereign law, as and when the US Congress again takes up legislation changing and expanding the requirements for flight recorders (previously introduced as the SAFE Act), I can see the oft-times inexpert, or even misguided, Congressional process locking onto tangential factors. Knowing whether the Malaysian government followed An.13 timelines would be only a background fact, and not directly relevant to the hardware, SAR, and type certification questions presented by such a legislative proposal. Yet knowing those background facts nevertheless would be very relevant because such facts would help keep a side-issue from distracting consideration of the central facts. It's an open-and-shut case of "what you don't know can hurt you" when meritorious legislation is run aground on tangentially related points.

Perhaps you would state some of the prior instances to which you have referred, if this is requested very politely, please?

[Vinnie Boombatz]

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=122122

"WASHINGTON, April 24, 2014 – The Defense Department is continuing to support the international search mission for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, Pentagon spokesman Army Col. Steve Warren said today.

The total cost of the search to date is $11.4 million, Warren said. This figure includes $4,200 per flight hour for the two P-8 Poseidon aircraft involved in the search, he added. The plane and its 239 passengers disappeared March 8 on a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.

The costs break down as follows, Warren said:

-- $4.6 million in operations and maintenance funds;

-- $3.2 million in overseas humanitarian disaster and civic aid funds; and

-- $3.6 million for underwater search equipment and support.

The P-8s continue conducting aerial search operations, and the Bluefin-21 autonomous underwater vehicle completed its twelfth search mission, the colonel said.

'Bluefin-21 has now completed more than 90 percent of a focused underwater search ... . Unfortunately, no contacts of interest have been found,' he said.

The department has received no requests for additional underwater search assets, Warren said."

The last sentence probably means that the US DOD doesn't have any other underwater search assets that would be useful in this search.

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, which provided such assets for AF 447 search, has US Navy affiliations, but is not formally part of the defense establishment.

Some WHOI comments on this search:

FAQ: Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (http://www.whoi.edu/main/faq-malaysia-airlines-flight-370)

WHOI assets:

Underwater Vehicles : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (http://www.whoi.edu/main/underwater-vehicles)

[Niner Lima Charlie]

In 1950 NW2501 went down in Lake Michigan with 55 passengers and three crew. The airplane was on radar, only 18 miles from the shoreline. To this day, it has never been found. Clive Cussler, the author, funds an annual search for the missing airplane in the lake with underwater gear. No CVR/FDR, No pinger.

So maybe we will never find MH370.....

[Propduffer]

Did it turn "South" after almost reversing course and crossing back over Malaysia, or did it turn "North"?

The total lack of evidence found so far............

There is not a "total lack of evidence"; there is the Insat data. Dismissing the Insat data - as if it isn't on the table - won't fly: not around a knowledgable crowd as found here.

Insat engineers see the Equatorial turn represented in the data they have recovered and analysed.

If you have an argument against that, I'd like to hear it.

[DocRohan]

Looking at the JACC search map from yesterday, showing planned search and areas already searched....I wonder why they are searching back over what seems to be areas already searched??? http://www.jacc.gov.au/media/releases/2014/april/mr036.aspx
Wouldnt it make more sense to search closer to shore and also further out to sea??? Or, do they search on the way out to the search area??
Hopefully they are not flying out over debris without seeing it!

[Propduffer]

@DocRohan

The area where the pings are are close to the southern extent of a westerly current, so debris may have travelled west instead of east.
The plane entrance to the water came on one side or the other of where the westerly current flowed on March 10th and this would have made a drastic effect on which direction the debris may have travelled. The mathamatics of prediction for drift have received sophisticated analaysis from the tiome of WW2 until present. So we can expect the search direction to at least have thoughtful input.


Lately I'm beginning to question one of my assumptions about the flight of MH370. The pilot may have pulled off a successful ditching and kept the plane intact after impact.

Will a 777 pilot comment on the idea that when the plane came down, it may just have been at sunrise; the timing seems to say so. Could a pilot bring the plane in with full flaps just above stall speed and at that point add power from the two healthy engines and execute a manouver that in a super cub is called "hanging on the prop" (just keep raising the nose until the plane settles and then cutting power)?

This has certainly never been done before by a jetliner, but if your goal didn't include saving the airframe would it be possible for a pilot to get a 777 down to about a hunderd knots forward airspeed before falling (hopefully onto the top of a swell) into the water? Maybe this airframe is intact intact on the bottom. In deep silt.

[misd-agin]

777's isn't going to 'hang on the props'(N1's).

Stall speed with almost zero fuel would have been in the 100-105 KIAS range.

[glendalegoon]

a number of airplanes have been ditched largely intact.

I can think of a DC9 that sunk intact in the ocean and has never been recovered (5000' of water)

Other planes too.

I would say that an intact ditching is quite possible of this type of plane.

It is also possible that in a few minutes the plane sank, filled with water of course and not really crushed as both sides of the metal were equal pressure.

I think it is also possible the engines remained attached to the wings.

Just look up some historical ditchings. You have the internet to do it with.

[Propduffer]

100-105 with the engines shut down.

Now how about going very nose high at full thrust.
In this attitude a possible half the thrust is used to support the weight of the plane. In this attitude the plane would have more drag than any 777 has ever had before, even with wheels up.

Could a pilot drop it into the brine with almost no forward airspeed?


Forgive me but I'm processing this myself as I post. My prior thinking had it coming into heavy seas at night.

[misd-agin]

Power doesn't matter that much. Stall would be close to 100-105 KIAS.

Turn into the wind and ground speed (GS) would be 90-95 kts or less. Very survivable(see Ethiopian 767 hijack/ditching video which was at a much higher speed)

IMO if the plane had ditched, with empty tanks, it might have floated for hours. USAIR Hudson landing as an example.

But this is for a controlled ditching. There is no indication that this occurred.

[glendalegoon]

misdagain

the USAIRways plane in the hudson had taken off less than 10 minutes prior to ditching. The tanks were far from empty. Although for a flight to KCLT they might not have been full either.

[tdracer]

We have precious little data on controlled ditching of a jet airliner with high bypass wing mounted engines. Basically, the only 'good' data point is Sully's A320 on the Hudson. Ethiopian is not a good data point as the hijackers were reportedly fighting with the aircrew, trying to crash the airplane as they attempted to ditch. It's basically an unknown if it's possible to pull off what Sully did in a 777 in the open ocean.


Assuming a controlled ditching is possible with minimal airframe damage, the airframe could float a long time (after all, it's a lightweight structure that's designed to be airtight - Sully's A320 started sinking relatively quickly because they didn't have time to do the checklist which would have had them close the outflow valve). To sink, it would have been basically full of water and so it wouldn't implode as it sank.


That's all a long way of saying, assuming someone managed to pull off a 777 ditching with minimal damage, there would be minimal floating debris left behind.

[Jakarta Jock]

We should not forget that an Indonesia Garuda pilot ditched a 737 in a river largely intact in 2002

[Propduffer]

That is why I have been trying to determine what the lower end speed when it made contact with the water was (or might have been.)

With a plane empty of fuel we are told by 777 pilots that the stall speed would be 100-105 (IAS I assume.) Factor in a 20 knot headwind, that brings the speed on contact to 80-85.

Skully hit the Hudson at 137 and the plane stayed mostly intact.

Now factor in that MH370 may have been under control and with two functioning engines. Vectoring the thrust 45 degrees downward is certainly possible in a terminal touchdown. The power on stall speed must be at least 20 knots below power off stall speed.

I think that airframe engineer was figuring something closer to 200 knots at touchdown.

That airframe may be intact on the bottom, with little or no debris release. It is not at all unlikely that this is the case IMO.

[Mozella]

Vectoring the thrust 45 degrees downward is certainly possible in a terminal touchdown.

Hardly; ............... not even close.

This ain't no Sukhoi SU30 or F-22 or Harrier with vectored thrust. We're talking about a big commercial airliner here. It doesn't have thrust vectoring and it sure as heck won't be controllable at 45 degrees angle of attack.

You don't happen to be a technical expert working for CNN, do you? :ugh:

[Propduffer]

@Mozella

You can vector thrust by increasing the angle of attack from level flight. There is a power off stall speed and there is a power on stall speed, with power on, the stall speed is lower because a portion of the thrust is being vectored down.

You claim to be a pilot, you should know that.

[albatross]

re: Thrust vectoring:
Strange term to use for a power on stall
Yeah but you do not want to impact with an extreme nose up attitude as you will smack the tail into the water which will probably break off the tail while slamming the nose into the water.
Slow as possible with a relatively level but nose up would be best methinks.

[arearadar]

Ty Pontious,
May be some answers but not to my satisfaction.
As an ATCO of 33 years experience it was really a statement rather than a question!

Regards, Dave

[holdatcharlie]

Would this be a good time - if they haven't done it already - to lower a duplicate ULB (preferably with a dying battery) to the sea bed where they got the original readings?

Then, a) see if they can detect it, b) if they can, compare the readings and waterfall graph with the originals and c) check any signal deflection which they can then factor in to a new search area.

It would give them confidence (or not) to pursue the search in the current area.

[Grumpi]

Maybe it was mentioned, but I could not find it anywhere: Was any Global Hawk type aircraft used in the search? Especially for the more westerly search areas it seems like the right craft to use. Instead of just one or two hours, these could stay in the search area for many hours, almost the entire daylight period.

Of course that would be a different way of searching, which implies flying a bit higher than normal search craft, and taking thousands of pictures downwards like a satellite. Those you can then analyze later after landing. But since the resolution and color quality would be much better than that of a satellite (you can adjust it by choosing flight altitude) much smaller items would be visible (satellites really would require an oil slick, or a floating part the size of the vertical fin a la AF447 to be successful). And therefore also the analysis of such images could probably be highly computerized.

But there was no mention of the US deploying one or two of theirs as far as I know (though they have flown in Australia before), and the Aussie units are not yet ready, correct?

[Groundloop]

Assuming a controlled ditching is possible with minimal airframe damage, the airframe could float a long time (after all, it's a lightweight structure that's designed to be airtight - Sully's A320 started sinking relatively quickly because they didn't have time to do the checklist which would have had them close the outflow valve).

Have you never seen photos of the aircraft after it was lifted from the Hudson? The lower rear fuselage showed major damage. Pressing the Ditching switch would not have helped very much.

[SOPS]

There is no ditching switch on a 777.

[Northern Flights]

Razak says preliminary report will be released next week.

Malaysia to release MH370 report, Prime Minister tells CNN - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/24/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-plane/index.html?hpt=hp_c1)

[Grumpi]

Grumpi, one small issue with your ploy to use a high altitude search platform: clouds. Well, it is not cloudy every day, and the search time is much longer per mission, so you will gain a lot even if just flying every other day. Plus, low level clouds, and clouds that it rains out of are a problem for regular search aircraft as well...

One day with a 12 hour "shift" in the search area is as much as 6 days with just two hours each for a regular search craft.

Plus the swath width can probably be larger. At these very low altitudes that regular SAR craft fly I think you cover not much more than half a mile either direction (looking for stuff the size of a flock of seat cushions, containers etc.), One mile at most. Consider also that a lot of objects like suitcases, composite components etc. (and bodies), will be mostly submerged, and therefore will be much, much easier to spot when looking straight down rather than at a shallow angle from a low flying craft.

So if the camera on a Global Hawk can take images fast enough and the harddisk is large enough, I think you could cover up to four miles swath width at a much more useful visual angle and very high resolution. From, say 10000 ft AGL. That would give up to 10 or even 20 times the area covered compared to a low flying search plane, per day! Plus the risk of an observer missing an object zooming by is much reduced if there is enough computer force / image analysts available.
(if lower res is enough, swath width can even be increased much more)

If there were a chance of metallic objects floating, the thing could even stay for the night time and during clouds, and radar search for >20 hours per mission, with possibly even larger swath width. But I am not sure if the RQ-4 radar would pick up an object such as a mostly submerged LD3 container. On top of the water definitely, but submerged, not sure.

[ZeBedie]

Ditching in the open ocean would be a totally different prospect to the Hudson ditching. You would have to collide with the swell.

[JohnH23]

HoldAtCharlie wrote
to lower a duplicate ULB (preferably with a dying battery) to the sea bed where they got the original readings? Then, a) see if they can detect it, …
While it makes me fearful to see that idea published in the midst of a search (because of the confusion that it could cause), I admit that it could be useful if well thought out and monitored.

[sky9]

While doing the 767 course discussing the ditching scenario we were told that the first thing to hit the water during a controlled ditching would have been the engines that would then be expected to break way from the pylons (or the pylons from the wing).

[Shadoko]

From CNN TV exclusive: Malaysian PM not declaring passengers dead - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/24/world/asia/malaysia-pm-interview/index.html) (April 24th, Prime Minister Najib Interview):
(CNN) -- More than six weeks after Flight 370 disappeared, Malaysia's prime minister says his government is still not prepared to declare it -- and the 239 people on board -- lost.
"At some point in time I would be, but right now I think I need to take into account the feelings of the next of kin -- and some of them have said publicly that they aren't willing to accept it until they find hard evidence," Najib Razak told CNN's Richard Quest in an exclusive TV interview.

From Transcript of Press Conference, 31 March 2014 (http://www.jacc.gov.au/media/interviews/2014/march/tr001.aspx) (March 31st, Press Conference):
Question: Prime Minister, no wreckage has been found. Was your Malaysian counterpart, Prime Minister Najib, too hasty in announcing that everyone has died in this incident?
Tony Abbott: No. The accumulation of evidence is that the aircraft has been lost, and it has been lost somewhere in the south of the Indian Ocean. That's the absolute overwhelming weight of evidence and I think that Prime Minister Najib Razak was perfectly entitled to come to that conclusion and I think once that conclusion had been arrived at it was his duty to make that conclusion public.

Above clearly after an official statement:

From MH370 Lost in Indian Ocean: PM Najib Razak?s full statement - Latest - New Straits Times (http://www.nst.com.my/latest/font-color-red-mh370-lost-in-indian-ocean-font-pm-najib-razak-s-full-statement-1.530484) (March 24th, PM Najib Razak’s full statement):
.../... It is therefore with deep sadness and regret that I must inform you that, according to this new data, flight MH370 ended in the southern Indian Ocean.../...

Let hope the anounced-next-week-preliminary-report (MH370 Tragedy: Malaysia to release preliminary report next week: PM - Latest - New Straits Times (http://www.nst.com.my/latest/font-color-red-mh370-tragedy-font-malaysia-to-release-preliminary-report-next-week-pm-1.578532)) will not vanish

[Zorin_75]

You can vector thrust by increasing the angle of attack from level flight. There is a power off stall speed and there is a power on stall speed, with power on, the stall speed is lower because a portion of the thrust is being vectored down. You claim to be a pilot, you should know that. Uhm. As much as I'd like to see a T7 doing a cobra - the wing will stall at a certain AOA, thrust or not. That angle is obviously A LOT lower than your 45 deg. So your downward component of thrust is the sine of maybe 15deg. Multiply that again with the p/w ratio (~0.3) and you've reduced the lift you need by some whopping single digit percentage.

[rampstriker]

What were the sea state and wind conditions of the current underwater search area on the morning of March 8? Anybody know where to google this?

[MELT]

I cannot tell you what the ditching switch does on the A320 family of aircraft. However, I do know that it doesn't activate the Automatic Fixed (AF) ELT. Other than activation by the "g" switch, only other activation is from the control panel in the cockpit. Normal position on this switch is armed, after lifting a guard it can be moved to reset or on.

Without going into the exact parameters for the "g"switch I can advise that a simple way it is tested by avionics engineers is to hold the ELT like a rugby ball and do a gentle "dummy pass". This is sufficient to activate the ELT, hence my reason for stating in an earlier post that even a controlled ditching would generate sufficient longitudinal de-acceleration forces for it to activate.

[Uplinker]

I think you would have to be incredibly lucky to be able to accurately fly onto the downside of ocean swell without getting it wrong - given that it is something we never do, and the fact that the ocean swell is constantly changing.



The ditching switch on an Airbus closes all the doors below the floating line; pack doors, outlow valves, avionics cooling doors etc.

[Jetset 88]

Now that there are no more signals from the FDR/CVR, it seems that they won't be found for a very long time, if ever.
Surely there is a now a case to fit the FDRs and CVRs higher in the tail or rear bullet of ETOPS and LROPS over water flights that go outside radar coverage. They could be barostatically detached at a specified depth under water and fitted with a hi-vis, flotation device that has a solar-powered ELT. Regardless of cost this must surely be designable to avoid the anguish of the relatives after such an event.
The technology exists to also equip the kit with a simple gyro device which could show its postion of retrieval compared to that of release.
Or are we to assume that this was such a rare event that it is unlikely to ever happen again? Hmmmm.

[Carjockey]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hms-tireless-stands-down-in-search-for-missing-aircraft

[cwatters]

The majority of the latest posters on this forum appear to believe that 370 went down in the area which is currently being searched.

But where is the solid evidence to support this belief?

As far as I can see there is none...

Well they did use satellite data to predict where to search and when they looked in that area they heard locator pings. I'd say that was reasonably good evidence certainly worth following up for perhaps two years bearing in mind they can't actually search all year round due to weather.

As stated previously, I believe that it is time for a review of all available data and a total re-think of the entire situation.

What makes you think that investigators haven't been reviewing all the data made available to them on a regular basis? Someone is signing off £million bills and I doubt they would be doing that without regular reviews.

[MG23]

Well they did use satellite data to predict where to search and when they looked in that area they heard locator pings. I'd say that was reasonably good evidence certainly worth following up for perhaps two years bearing in mind they can't actually search all year round due to weather.

I think that's the fundamental issue here. If the sounds heard underwater were the recorder pingers, they shouldn't be too far from where they were heard, and we just have to find them. Which may still take months if the sound was bouncing around underwater, or prove impossible if they're not with large pieces of wreckage that can be seen on sonar.

If they weren't, all bets are off, and we may never find it.

[Ian W]

@propduffer
I have not discounted InmarSat's conclusions. But since this method of tracking is previously untested and has never been used before, I do question it's validity and I stand by my statement that no solid evidence of the track and final location of 370 exists.

On the contrary - INMARSAT did some live validation testing using an Malaysian Airlines aircraft and showed that their system was tracking it. They didn't fly the test all the way to the South Indian Ocean, they didn't need to as their tests validated their approach.

What _is_ obvious from this is that the ULBs should be encoded somehow so that there is no doubt what is being heard is a particular aircraft. This is not difficult it could be a modulation or a pattern of pings - that would prevent all these rumors and doubts.

[HeavyMetallist]

What _is_ obvious from this is that the ULBs should be encoded somehow so that there is no doubt what is being heard is a particular aircraft. This is not difficult it could be a modulation or a pattern of pings - that would prevent all these rumors and doubts.
Why? How many active ULBs do you imagine there are under the sea at any particular time? I don't imagine the searchers are in any doubt about which aircraft they would belong to, and nor are they particularly troubled by the rumours and doubts of keyboard warriors on the internet.

[metgrumps]

Quote:

Surely there is a now a case to fit the FDRs and CVRs higher in the tail or rear bullet of ETOPS and LROPS over water flights that go outside radar coverage. They could be barostatically detached at a specified depth under water and fitted with a hi-vis, flotation device that has a solar-powered ELT. Regardless of cost this must surely be designable to avoid the anguish of the relatives after such an event.

US Navy have been using Deployable Recorders manufactured by DRS since 1993 - they are excellent, usually survive and are found quickly despite the momentum with which an F18 can crash and also put out an ELT signal to the satellites as soon as they deploy.
Efforts continue to get ICAO to mandate them as the second recorder and I think we could see them by 2018 or 2020. SARPS grind slowly but 370 will help.

[Ian W]

Why? How many active ULBs do you imagine there are under the sea at any particular time? I don't imagine the searchers are in any doubt about which aircraft they would belong to, and nor are they particularly troubled by the rumours and doubts of keyboard warriors on the internet.

The searchers were the ones that expressed doubts, had searchers go to the initial 'Chinese' report area etc. A very low cost option adding an ID.

[OPENDOOR]

HMS Tireless stands down...

The commanding officer of HMS Tireless, Commander R Hywel Griffiths, said:

I am proud of the part HMS Tireless has played in the operation to find MH370. The only submarine participating, Tireless, with her advanced underwater search capability, is ideally suited to this challenging task.

Overcoming some of the most inhospitable sea conditions ever experienced by my crew, we searched 7,000 square nautical miles in a 16-day period.

I am also very proud of the professionalism and enthusiasm of my ship’s company. My highly trained and experienced young team of sonar operators were key to this operation, supported by the steadfast commitment of the remainder of my team, some in their very first months at sea.

Makes me wonder again why the Chinese with a handheld hydrophone claimed to have picked up the acoustic ping...?

[LCH77]

Quote:
Surely there is a now a case to fit the FDRs and CVRs higher in the tail or rear bullet of ETOPS and LROPS over water flights that go outside radar coverage. They could be barostatically detached at a specified depth under water and fitted with a hi-vis, flotation device that has a solar-powered ELT. Regardless of cost this must surely be designable to avoid the anguish of the relatives after such an event.

CNN ran a piece about 4 weeks ago regarding an existing design. During the discussion, they quoted an installed cost of $100,000 to retrofit one plane. They went on to say the cost was minimal compared to the $1,000,000/plane cost to install Wi-Fi.

[Golf-Mike-Mike]

Makes me wonder again why the Chinese with a handheld hydrophone claimed to have picked up the acoustic ping...?

For a few days after this was first reported, the media videos not only showed the chap hanging the hydrophone over the side of the boat then showing a display window with 37.5 kHz, but also another operator behind him holding a transmitter clearly labelled 37.5 kHz. Maybe they were recording themselves ?!? Later media coverage shortened the video clip to omit this.

[Agaricus bisporus]

Makes me wonder again why the Chinese with a handheld hydrophone claimed to have picked up the acoustic ping...?

Propaganda. Propaganda. Propaganda.

The great clumsy, clunky great people's blundering mastodon always has to prove it's superiority over the decadent West.

Thus they find "evidence" with an am dram $15 mike where the decadent West couldn't manage it with all the military resources of a dozen nations.

Superiority of the great people's dictatorship proven. QED. :ugh:

Naiive, isn't it? Scary too, that they believe we'd swallow that level of idiocy as thy expect their own domestic drones to do...

[meekmok]

CNN ran a piece about 4 weeks ago regarding an existing design. During the discussion, they quoted an installed cost of $100,000 to retrofit one plane. They went on to say the cost was minimal compared to the $1,000,000/plane cost to install Wi-Fi.

100,000 was to retrofit a cloud streaming black box, which have already been designed and are in service, not for detachable black boxes. Detachable black boxes would be much more (structural changes, test, cert, etc), not to mention the host of new failure modes it would introduce (can't wait to run over one of those fod's on the runway....)

[p.j.m]

Makes me wonder again why the Chinese with a handheld hydrophone claimed to have picked up the acoustic ping...?

As nothing of interest has been found in the current search area, the Chinese location is where I'd be deploying the Bluefin next.

[Machinbird]

As nothing of interest has been found in the current search area, the Chinese location is where I'd be deploying the Bluefin next. Fortunately, cooler, more experienced heads will be making that decision.

AF447 took almost 2 years to locate, mainly because they were searching the area at some distance from the LKP. Finally they got some of the best minds and searched near the LKP and found it in short order.

In the case of MH370, they indicated that they had two different pingers in part of the search zone if I recall correctly. That means they were darn close. These things take patience and perseverance.

[Innaflap]

Mahatir blames Boeing for the "loss" of MH370

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/dr-m-defends-mas-and-blames-boeing-for-mh370s-disappearance

[hamster3null]

MH370, Inmarsat: The fuzzy math behind the search for the missing airliner. (http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/04/mh370_inmarsat_the_fuzzy_math_behind_the_search_for_the_miss ing_airliner.html)

[TyroPicard]

Looks like Dr. M has spent too long reading PPRuNe ....

[susier]

'To add my take, I would also add that if it the mission was completely unsuccessful it may be expected that there would be some expression of regret which was not present in the statement.'


I wonder if it is simply not within their remit to express regret or any other sentiment regarding the success or otherwise of the exercise.


That would be for the JACC surely?

[Innaflap]

Interview on HMS Tireless' role

BBC News - Royal Navy withdraws HMS Tireless from search for MH370 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-27157554)

[Innaflap]

Squarecrow

I have very few politicians that I have ever admired and he is no exception.

The Malaysian government has not done MAS any favours throughout this ordeal and politicians looking for sound bites has, on occasion, been quite repulsive.

In the government's unseemly rush to get involved in the MH370 incident it has managed to encake itself in the brown stuff and this rather backfired on them.

Blaming Boeing for having equipment that can be isolated is like blaming a car manufacturer for having a light switch or a fuse box.

[roulishollandais]

Dr MAHATHIR, formerfirst Minister of Malaysia, should read or reread ICAO Annex 17. That text applies in case of criminal action against air security, which Dr MAHATHIR says it should be the case in MH370.
Annex 17 says, in that case, the responsibility belongs to the arline - MAS - and the State - Malaysia Dr MAHATHIR is the head from -, not the manufacturer Boeing:rolleyes:

[susier]

'That text applies in case of criminal action against air security' would imply that the Malaysian government is aware that some sort of terrorist or criminal act was committed.


The question is (still) how they are aware of this. I don't think we are any further on in this.

[s e t h]

as far as i can tell the 'criminal' investigation was only fired up when they wanted to start accessing things like the pilots homes and other records.
they needed the power to increase their investigative avenues.

it has nothing to do with their suspicion of a criminal act involving the disappearance of the flight

so all those hanging their theories on the word 'criminal' can give it a rest

[framer]

I wonder if it is simply not within their remit to express regret or any other sentiment regarding the success or otherwise of the exercise.


That would be for the JACC surely?
I agree completely. They were tasked. They carried out the mission. The boss was proud. Job done for that asset.

[dillboy]

Have been looking into an incident that took place 25 years ago over the Pacific (UA811), which involved search and eventual recovery of a relatively small piece of debris in similar depths, although the topography appeared to be a little easier.
Like many others I have found it difficult to comprehend, with all the resources being used and what we have been told was a much more focused search owing to the information from the ULB pings, that still nothing of importance has been identified.
UA811 lost its cargo door with a little of the fuselage, and about half a dozen seats. These relatively small pieces were found, and in the case of the door, recovered from approx 14000 feet.
The difference was that the search team had "a nominal radar accuracy of 1 nautical mile in range and 1 degree in bearing, resulting in a 90% probability search area for the debris of 5.5 nautical square miles".
It still took them the best part of 1 month to find the debris, even with the luxury of solid information so I do now understand the complexity of the search in this case.
What I do not believe for 1 minute unlike many of you (drivers as well?) is that this aircraft 'ditched'. If indeed it did come down in the general area, isn't it far more likely that it was destroyed completely on surface impact, as in SR111?

[DocRohan]

From the NTSB report: "The undersea search operation was begun on July 22, 1990, using the Orion, a state-of-the-art Navy side-scanning sonar “fish.” Searching in the area selected by analysis of radar data and undersea currents, the Orion located a debris field on its first pass over the 14,200-foot-deep ocean floor. The second pass located a significant sonar target, which later analysis indicated was probably the cargo door. Since the Orion is only capable of searching, the debris field was marked with transponders for use during the subsequent recovery phase."
Advantage was that the falling debris had been seen on radar...

[squarecrow]

Innaflap I agree with what you say. Always try to excuse the mistakes and then try to talk out of the bag as it were.

[Green-dot]

To quote the BEA final report on AF447, page 207:

"On the basis of this work, the BEA recommends:

that EASA and ICAO study the possibility of making mandatory, for
aeroplanes making public transport flights with passengers over maritime
or remote areas, the activation of the emergency locator transmitter
(ELT), as soon as an emergency situation is detected on board."

Source:
http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601.en/pdf/f-cp090601.en.pdf

Has this recommendation been implemented in any form since the release of the AF447 final report?

Seems to me that it could have simply been added to an emergency check list for aircraft fitted with an automatic fixed ELT and associated control panel in the cockpit.

Another thing I've noticed in this CNN video and related article:
Why didn't Flight 370's emergency beacon work? - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/25/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-flight-370-beacons/index.html?hpt=hp_c3)

The video only explains why an ELT would not work but does not mention how an ELT can be switched from ARMED to ON in the cockpit (provided the control panel is installed) although the accompanying article does mention this possibility.

The mods deleted my earlier post dealing with this subject and wonder why?


Without drawing any conclusions about the reason the plane was lost (mechanical or criminal intent) the question remains:
Why, with the automatic fixed ELT installed in 9M-MRO and provided that the control panel was installed, was it not switched to ON in the hours after it deviated from its original flight plan?

In case of a mechanical single point of failure regarding all the other communication systems located in the center pedestal, the ELT would have been the last option to "communicate" with the switch normally located on the overhead panel in a B777.

[Lonewolf_50]

"On the basis of this work, the BEA recommends that EASA and ICAO study the possibility of making mandatory, for aeroplanes making public transport flights with passengers over maritime or remote areas, the activation of the emergency locator transmitter (ELT), as soon as an emergency situation is detected on board."
Think through what that means in practical terms, on a flight deck, when the distinction between a malfunction and an emergency isn't always as clear as hindsight indicates, or for cases when a malfunction becomes and emergency and the Flight Deck Crew have no idea such a change of condition has occurred? Such a trigger would be more likely to generate false positives than do much of any good.
.Has this recommendation been implemented in any form since the release of the AF447 final report?
Seems like an extraneous requirement to me. They were called upon to look into, not implement. Perhaps, looking into it shone a little light on a few issues and unintended outcomes of such a system.

Now, apply that to a situation where either the crew are incapacitated, they are under duress, or maybe even are in on the deal?

Of no use beyond what is already in place.

[Hyperveloce]

Hi there,
I would like to submit an idea (for falsification purpose) about a possible clue/signature in the Inmarsat's BFO to decide whether the real underlying trajectory is toward the south or north corridor. My (MonteCarlo) simulations show that while there are some trajectories toward the north able to mimick most of the BFO profile, none is able to generate a doppler peak in the BFO around 120 minutes of flight (labelled "possible turn" by Inmarsat) with the same magnitude like the one observed for the MH370 measured data:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3srJsCh7WAtcE9yck1mTWVjNEE

[RetiredF4]

@Hyperveloce

Excuse my ignorance, but are not all those theories concerning the Inmarsat Data analysis based on constant track, constant altitude and constant speed?

And the measurement only took place at one specific tenth of a second with a time gap of about 1 hour in between those plots?

Now if at that exact time of measurement (when the ping occurrred) the jet was maneuvering like turning away from the sat thus changing the doppler shift for only this specific time frame, would then your statement from before still hold ?

At the end, we only have few pings which create distance rings from the sat plotted to the earth and a specific doppler shift asociated with those rings. But what happened in between those pings concernng height changes, speed changes and track changes is not known at all.

Could you explain, with what percentage those asumptions would be true?

[susier]

Regarding the fixed ELT, which according to the CNN article was the same type as was fitted incorrectly to the 737 which crashed in Resolute Bay in 2011. (Honeywell RESCU 406 AF-type)


From the accident investigation report:


'1.15.2. Emergency locator transmitter


There was no record of any agency detecting an emergency locator transmitter (ELT) signal from the aircraft. The investigation determined that the ELT had been installed with the activation switch in the OFF position and therefore could not automatically transmit upon impact. The cable leading from the ELT to its antenna was severed on impact, which would have significantly reduced the transmission signal had the ELT been armed. It was also determined that the aircraft interface module (dongle) contained the identifier code from the previous aircraft on which it was installed. Having the incorrect identifier programmed in the ELT would not have prevented it from performing as designed, but it would have indicated to Search and Rescue that a different aircraft was transmitting an emergency signal.'

[Propduffer]

@Hyperveloce

Thank you for your work on the BFO, I've been attempting similsr analysis but I've been stalled because of a few anomalies.

The first is the offset shift at 1:07 and the implication this shift provides,
the only explanation I can come up with is that the turnaround must have happened at 1:07. (This fits the timing for a turn south at 2:25. But these conclusions are a drastic departure from the Malaysian timeline of events so I haven't posted about this until now.)

The second is the seemingly odd times of the data points in the BFO chart, why was the handshake taking place at 1:07, 2:25 and 2:29?

Why are there no data points for the hourly pings if they happened at 2:11, 3:11, 4:11, 5:11........ as we have been told they occurred?

I was under the impression that Inmarsat had detected a shift about the time of crossing the equator, but I see nothing at that time.


What are your thoughts?

[Hyperveloce]

@Hyperveloce
Excuse my ignorance, but are not all those theories concerning the Inmarsat Data analysis based on constant track, constant altitude and constant speed?

As far as I know, they are constant speed trajectories (Inmarsat's). You may also want to fit constant bearing trajectories or variable speed/bearing trajectories... The altitude variations (unless they are well beyond those of a controlled aircraft) do not seem to impact the doppler profile significantly.

And the measurement only took place at one specific tenth of a second with a time gap of about 1 hour in between those plots?

Now if at that exact time of measurement (when the ping occurrred) the jet was maneuvering like turning away from the sat thus changing the doppler shift for only this specific time frame, would then your statement from before still hold ?

It is very much true that the underlying continuous doppler time serie has to be sampled at precise instants to see the doppler peak in the BFO... another way to put it: one the 3 consecutive handshakes around 18:30 in the BFO has to occur in a time frame of a few seconds (maybe not tenth of sec) centered on the moment when the speed vector is in the direction of the Inmarsat subsatellite. In my MonteCarlo simulations, this was the case for tens of simulated runs over a few thousands runs (a few percent probability)... This cannot be a coincidence, it would mean that the handshakes tended to occur when the flight conditions changed.

At the end, we only have few pings which create distance rings from the sat plotted to the earth and a specific doppler shift asociated with those rings. But what happened in between those pings concernng height changes, speed changes and track changes is not known at all.

Could you explain, with what percentage those asumptions would be true?

That's true again, we know nothing between the handshakes and we have to make assumptions like trying to find/fit trajectories with minimal speed or bearing variations. Back to the percentages, certainly, the lowest probability goes to the relative timing between the jet virage/manoeuver (toward the south) time sequence and the handshakes instants... either the handshakes are designed to be initiated when flight conditions change or this is a huge coincidence (which seems to happen also earlier in the flight when the plane diverted from its route to Beijing).
Jeff

[hamster3null]

Hi there,
I would like to submit an idea (for falsification purpose) about a possible clue/signature in the Inmarsat's BFO to decide whether the real underlying trajectory is toward the south or north corridor. My (MonteCarlo) simulations show that while there are some trajectories toward the north able to mimick most of the BFO profile, none is able to generate a doppler peak in the BFO around 120 minutes of flight (labelled "possible turn" by Inmarsat) with the same magnitude like the one observed for the MH370 measured data:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3srJsCh7WAtcE9yck1mTWVjNEE

It's a good observation. But I have two points to make:

* If you do a least mean square fit for all points except around 120 min, I think you'll find a scaling factor that is somewhere above 0.25 (not 0.15-0.2), and, at that scaling factor, you can't get the "possible turn" peak to match the data at _any_ heading.

* But if you assume that MH370 was climbing at around 18:25 UTC when the "peak" was observed, you can fit the peak nicely to the course before the turn. Put in something like ground speed 480 kts, heading 285, climb rate 4000 fpm. Recall that the Malaysian military radar picture has a "hole" in the track. It could be consistent with dropping to 5000' above the Strait of Malacca (for whatever reason) and then climbing back out.

BTW, how do you get the 17:07 data point to fit? It's been one of the problems bugging me for a long time. I can force-fit it by setting the heading to 5, but it's pretty artificial because we have the FR24 track up to 17:20 and it is showing straight and level flight at heading 25 from 17:01 to 17:20.

[Hyperveloce]

@Hyperveloce
Thank you for your work on the BFO, I've been attempting similsr analysis but I've been stalled because of a few anomalies.
The first is the offset shift at 1:07 and the implication this shift provides,
the only explanation I can come up with is that the turnaround must have happened at 1:07. (This fits the timing for a turn south at 2:25. But these conclusions are a drastic departure from the Malaysian timeline of events so I haven't posted about this until now.)

To me, both BFO inflexions at 1:07 and 2:25 are indicative of a turn (I don't see another phenomenon to explain such a rapid variation of the BFO), the 1st is when the plane diverted from the KL->Beijing route to turn back to Malaisia, the 2nd is the large turn toward the south.

The second is the seemingly odd times of the data points in the BFO chart, why was the handshake taking place at 1:07, 2:25 and 2:29?
Why are there no data points for the hourly pings if they happened at 2:11, 3:11, 4:11, 5:11........ as we have been told they occurred?


The handshakes timing is very intriguing since it seems to capture/retain the exact flight sequence. See my answer to RetiredF4.
Jeff

[RetiredF4]

Hyperveloce
The altitude variations (unless they are well beyond those of a controlled aircraft) do not seem to impact the doppler profile significantly.

Well, altitude changes produce speed changes. Climb or descend will produce different speed delta / doppler, lower altitude cruise will produce less groundspeed and thus different speed delta / doppler.
Therefore it has quite significant effect on those computations.

Hyperveloce (bolding by me)
That's true again, we know nothing between the handshakes and we have to make assumptions like trying to find/fit trajectories with minimal speed or bearing variations.


That´s where i have the most reservations against those theories. While a southern routing by deliberate human action or by autopilot with the human factor removed would fit straight track and constant altitude, the northern routing with human input would look quite different in order to avoid continueous detection threat, and that would have to include changes in track, altitude and thus speed.

Therefore in assuming a constant track and speed the northern routing is excluded by this assumption itself.

[Hyperveloce]

It's a good observation. But I have two points to make:
* If you do a least mean square fit for all points except around 120 min, I think you'll find a scaling factor that is somewhere above 0.25 (not 0.15-0.2), and, at that scaling factor, you can't get the "possible turn" peak to match the data at _any_ heading.

With a scaling factor of 0.25 (instead of 0.15-0.2), the 1st plot of the 2nd page of my doc would basically be translated higher (the 120 min peak would reach approx 290 Hz instead of 250 Hz): it would still be possible to reproduce the 120 min turn but no longer the initial conditions (already out of the enveloppe) and even around 180 min (the min enveloppe would be at 125 Hz slightly higher than the BFO).


* But if you assume that MH370 was climbing at around 18:25 UTC when the "peak" was observed, you can fit the peak nicely to the course before the turn. Put in something like ground speed 480 kts, heading 285, climb rate 4000 fpm. Recall that the Malaysian military radar picture has a "hole" in the track. It could be consistent with dropping to 5000' above the Strait of Malacca (for whatever reason) and then climbing back out.

Ok, this can kill this potential signature... 4000 fpm is ~22 m/s or ~14 m/s projected onto the LOS (@~40° of elevation)... which translates as a doppler of ~77 Hz (at 1640 MHz) hence 11.5 to 15.5 Hz after the scaling of 0.15 to 0.2... The last plot of my doc for the north trajectories shows that we need more than 50 Hz to get the BFO into the enveloppe of the tens of thousands of simulated flights. I would then need ~13000 fpm to fix the gap. But as RetirdF4 suggests, the ground speed would decline accordingly (also modifying the doppler), so I will introduce large altitude changes in the conditions you suggest to check it.

BTW, how do you get the 17:07 data point to fit? It's been one of the problems bugging me for a long time. I can force-fit it by setting the heading to 5, but it's pretty artificial because we have the FR24 track up to 17:20 and it is showing straight and level flight at heading 25 from 17:01 to 17:20.

I got these runs fitting the 17:07 value of the BFO through the MonteCarlo simulation: among the thousands of simulated runs, some of them happens to replicate this inflexion at 17:07... this is exactly the same for the ~18:30 turn (some of the thousands of simulated runs replicate the peak), it seems to rely on a precise relative timing between the bearing changes (we need a turn around 17:07 to generate it) and the handshake instants.
Jeff
PS) a scaling factor between 0.15 and 0.2 is close to the wavelength value at 1640 MHz (0.1825 m): would it be possible that the Inmarsat BFO plot is plotted with a wrong unit (m/s instead of Hz) ?
PPS) to RetiredF4: note that these models/assumptions for the simulated trajectories does not hold at the 120 min turn, the only assumption behind the potential signature is the turn (toward the south or the north) itself... these assuptions apply more to the following hours of flight .

[roulishollandais]

'That text applies in case of criminal action against air security'would imply that the Malaysian government is aware thatcsome sort of terrorist or criminal act was committed.
The question is (still)how they are aware of this. I don't think we are any further on in thisEven if the pilot wanted to commit suicide...Killing yourself pulling 228 persons in the death with you is terrorist and criminal. Isn't it? In that hypothesis too Dr M. assets that it is Boeing's responsibility:=

[Airclues]

Some earlier posters have implied that if MH370 ditched under control then it would have broken up on contact. This is not true. FAA certification requires that an aircraft can survive a ditching.

Fact Sheet ? FAA Regulations on Ditching (http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=10600)

Regulation 25.801(b) states "Each practical design measure must be taken to minimise the probability that in an emergency landing on water the behaviour of the airplane would cause immediate injury to the occupants or would make it impossible to escape".

25.801(c) states that the ditching behaviour must be investigated by model tests.

When I joined BOAC over 45 years ago we had to watch a film of the VC10 certification ditching trials. They were carried out in a large tank which was normally used for designing ships.

There have been several survivable airliner ditchings in the past. If MH370 was ditched then it will be intact on the seabed.

[Propduffer]

To me, both BFO inflexions at 1:07 and 2:25 are indicative of a turn (I don't see another phenomenon to explain such a rapid variation of the BFO), the 1st is when the plane diverted from the KL->Beijing route to turn back to Malaisia, the 2nd is the large turn toward the south.I agreed with you wholeheartedly at first, but other posters here have pointed out (in deleted posts) that FR24 data as well as the probable location of the aircraft at 1:07 make this premise unsupportable. It would probably have still been northbound over the Malaysian penninsula at 1:07. Bloomberg News informed us that the last ACARS transmission at 1:07 included a position report: The engineers at Inmarsat were able to validate their estimates of the plane’s location by matching its position at 1:07 a.m., when it sent a burst of data through its Aircraft Communications and Reporting System, McLaughlin said. That final transmission on Acars included a GPS position that was used to calibrate the other estimates, he said. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-21/missing-plane-flew-steady-speed-over-ocean-inmarsat-estimates.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-21/missing-plane-flew-steady-speed-over-ocean-inmarsat-estimates.html) - but we don't know what that position was. (Thank DocRohan for posting that link here)

[hamster3null]

With a scaling factor of 0.25 (instead of 0.15-0.2), the 1st plot of the 2nd page of my doc would basically be translated higher (the 120 min peak would reach approx 290 Hz instead of 250 Hz): it would still be possible to reproduce the 120 min turn but no longer the initial conditions (already out of the enveloppe) and even around 180 min (the min enveloppe would be at 125 Hz slightly below the BFO).

Consider this.

From the radar, I have the location of the turn roughly at 18:30 at 6.7N 95.5E, which gives me initial satellite elevation 53.2°. Final satellite elevation is 40°. We can calculate line of sight distances for these angles. I get the difference of 900 km (you can double check). To travel 900 km in 5.67 hours, we need mean line of sight speed 159 km/h and mean Doppler shift 235 Hz @ 1.6 GHz (241 Hz @ 1.64 GHz).

What we can do now is take BFO data points for 19:45..00:11, extrapolate them back to 18:30, and see what mean observed BFO we get, and what scaling and bias get us there. I get BFO 160.5 Hz. If I assume that the frequency bias is given by the BFO at 16:30 (~87 Hz), mean residual Doppler is 73.5 and scaling is 73.5/235 ~ 0.315.

In your case, you seem to be getting scaling below 0.20 because you're trying to fit scaling and bias at the same time, and you can only get low scaling together with high bias. Which is why you're getting bad fits to the first 30 minutes.

[rampstriker]

Does the satcom firmware command an updated handshake with the satellite whenever there is a significant bearing change? I've seen it reported that the antenna was low gain (omnidirectional?) and perhaps didn't have beam steering. So this would seem pointless. Can anybody clear this up?

[ZeBedie]

If MH370 was ditched then it will be intact on the seabed.

Calm sea, then yes, you could ditch keeping the wings and fuselage intact, but minus engines and flaps. But what are the chances of a calm sea in the open ocean? Flying into the swell would be a huge impact. Even flying boats avoided heavy seas.

And I don't believe a controlled ditching is compatible with a suicide. Suicides like a quick, painless death.

[Green-dot]

Lonewolf_50 (http://www.pprune.org/members/307224-lonewolf_50) wrote:
Seems like an extraneous requirement to me. They were called upon to look into, not implement. Perhaps, looking into it shone a little light on a few issues and unintended outcomes of such a system. Think through what that means in practical terms, on a flight deck, when the distinction between a malfunction and an emergency isn't always as clear as hindsight indicates, or for cases when a malfunction becomes and emergency and the Flight Deck Crew have no idea such a change of condition has occurred? Such a trigger would be more likely to generate false positives than do much of any good. I agree up to the point that under certain conditions, such as during imminent danger at remote locations (outside VHF radio / radar range or total comms failure), as a last item prior to an emergency landing on land or ditching in the ocean, why not add "ELT . . . ON" to the QRH / Emergency check list?

However unlikely, it does happen. An example of total comms failure but without any other failure modes and within radar range, enabling the use of the transponder:
Air France B772 near Zurich on Apr 15th 2013, loss comm | AeroInside (http://www.aeroinside.com/item/2330/air-france-b772-near-zurich-on-apr-15th-2013-loss-comm)

Obviously, in this situation the ELT activation would not be necessary.

[James7]

."ELT . . . ON" to the QRH
I mentioned this several hundred posts ago. I would certainly switch on if I was in any sort of emergency descent, depress, etc. It is just above my head and I have bashed it a few times.

I still maintain that the aircraft is at the bottom of the sea and intact.

No reason for the engines to be 'torn' off as the motors would be turning at initial impact. Most of the energy would have been absorbed by the time the flaps hit the water.

[olasek]

As nothing of interest has been found in the current search area, the Chinese location is where I'd be deploying the Bluefin next. Given how low credibility is assigned to the Chinese methods, I wouldn't consider it likely, there is still plenty of square km to be searched around the current spot. The "current" 10 km radius can be easily doubled and this quadruples the area to be searched.

[rampstriker]

No reason for the engines to be 'torn' off as the motors would be turning at initial impact.

Aren't the engine pylons attached to the wing with shear bolts to allow them to break away at impact?

[porterhouse]

Aren't the engine pylons attached to the wing with shear bolts to allow them to break away at impact? That's the general idea - you want to lose engines behind since they could be a source of ignition.

[lomapaseo]

Aren't the engine pylons attached to the wing with shear bolts to allow them to break away at impact?

The idea is to make the wing box and its fuel tanks not be overloaded by the impact moment forces on the nacelle/pylons when it digs in.

[Lonewolf_50]

I agree up to the point that under certain conditions, such as during imminent danger at remote locations (outside VHF radio / radar range or total comms failure), as a last item prior to an emergency landing on land or ditching in the ocean, why not add "ELT . . . ON" to the QRH / Emergency check list?

However unlikely, it does happen. An example of total comms failure but without any other failure modes and within radar range, enabling the use of the transponder:
Air France B772 near Zurich on Apr 15th 2013, loss comm | AeroInside (http://www.aeroinside.com/item/2330/air-france-b772-near-zurich-on-apr-15th-2013-loss-comm)
Fair point. Can't hurt to get it on before impact if you have the time/task load available.

[glendalegoon]

Lots of interesting things here to talk about

someone said the flaps would come off

if no one was flying, maybe they would not be down and less likely to come off?

about the ELT and switching it on as part of a checklist. How about also having the ELT on a timer, set before ENGINE START based on amount of fuel/estimated time to dry tanks at presumed fuel burn rate.

eg: 7 hours of fuel on board, set timer for 6 plus 45. And ELT will start transmitting with fifteen minutes of fuel left.


And the ELT timer would be reset to neutral/off during the after shutdown checklist.

In this way, "G" forces would not be the sole determining factor for transmission. Also remember that if the plane is still airborne, the ELT will transmit farther (ref terrestrial receivers)

[Khaosai]

Reference was made to switch the ELT on. I don't think this model of B777 would have the ELT switch on the overhead panel.

[Jilted]

Reference was made to switch the ELT on. I don't think this model of B777 would have the ELT switch on the overhead panel.Why would you think that? Remote switch installation is mandatory according to U.S. FAA rules (where the plane was built).

[Chris Scott]

The suggestion by James7 that a large jet with underslung engines could ditch in the middle of an ocean, come to rest, and then sink two or three miles to the sea bed, while remaining completely intact, is implausible.

Even if the ditching was flown by a practised pilot, and with all high-lift devices available, it is more than likely that the engines and pylons would be torn off, as well as all or substantial parts of the slats, flaps and elevators. Even if the engines remained attached, the fan cowlings would probably be ripped off. Apart from the engines themselves, most of these large items are made of composite material, and would float.

If the ditching was uncontrolled, it is likely to have been with a clean wing at a minimum of 200 knots, and the wings are unlikely to have been level (even if the surface of the water was). The chances of the a/c landing flat to the water and parallel to the swell are remote, so the a/c would be likely to cartwheel - like the Ethiopian Airlines B767 did many years ago - and break up. In that event, the fin would almost certainly detach and float, as-per AF447, together with an enormous amount of other debris.

The absence of any wreckage recovery is deeply puzzling, IMO. I'm not aware of any major storms in the search area in the interim, but I stand to be corrected. By now the search teams have had plenty of time to estimate the possible effects of current and wind on the movement of different types of weckage.

[GQ2]

We have an indicated area to search from the Inmarsat signals. We have, apparently, heard the 'Pings' from the CVR etc...but, as far as I'm aware..there is not one single, confirmed morsel of physical evidence from the aircraft..... Sure, most of it would have sunk.......but SOME items would have floated.....there must have been thousands of buoyant objects in that aircraft. One appreciates the vastness of the ocean......and the wind and currents, - but nonetheless....it does seem very strange. Then again, just about everything about this incident seems unprecedented and bizarre in just about every way...:hmm:

[md80fanatic]

Aren't the engine pylons attached to the wing with shear bolts to allow them to break away at impact?

That's the general idea - you want to lose engines behind since they could be a source of ignition.

The idea is to make the wing box and its fuel tanks not be overloaded by the impact moment forces on the nacelle/pylons when it digs in.


Priceless jewels of wisdom. It would be good to remember these the next time an airliner is depicted flying through solid objects. Thank you. :ok:

[Khaosai]

Hi,

According to the B777 FCOM emergency section, it does not show a fuselage mounted ELT is attached to the B777 200/200ER.

[Niner Lima Charlie]

There are two approved ELT providers for the B-777, Honeywell and ACR, both of which have cockpit control panels and interface with the master caution system. The ELT transmitter, with internal battery, is mounted inside the fuselage skin, above the aft cabin doors and is connected to an external antenna mounted very close above the ELT.

Second item, an earlier (deleted) post mentioned MAS avionics shop. To my knowledge their shop in KL does not have the knowledge, skills or approvals to do any work on the Honeywell AIMS cabinet modules nor the ADIRU.

Third item, The CVR/FDR are mounted in hard trays, attached to major airframe structure in the tail of the aircraft. Not accessible in flight, and not likely to be dislodged from the structure during a crash. Also please remember that there is a QAR module in the avionics package that might be readable when found.

[Two to Tango]

Malaysia's Prime Minister Razak says government will release a preliminary report on MH370's disappearance - @CNN cnn.it/QBIeTs

Can we expect fact to be separated from fiction given its coming from gov?

[Ornis]

There are only two possibilities: Those in charge are incompetent fools and completely wrong, or the equipment isn't sensitive enough to find the wreckage.

There isn't going to be an answer in the preliminary report.

[Tas62]

Chris Scott " I'm not aware of any major storms in the search area in the interim, but I stand to be corrected."

While the search was concentrated on the area south-west of Perth, TC Gillian passed through the current search area. Whilst it had weakened from its original Cat 5, it would likely have been generating wind and waves enough to pulverise any larger pieces of wreckage, and widely disperse anything left floating.

[LASJayhawk]

If the aircraft was built after 1992, the cockpit remote switch was a requirement of the TSO for ELT installations.

[lulu the dog]

Have been following the thread with interest from the initial sad loss.

Would I be correct to say that the Inmarsat satellite technology that has lead the search to the Indian Ocean has not previously been used to locate a lost aircraft? Perhaps we would have been more surprised to find it?

It seems to me that while the mathematics etc are very plausible, at the end of the day the technology is unproven to say the least. Maybe its time to start over?

[DocRohan]

@lulu....
While the application is new, the basics are very old....1842 to be exact :ok:
The doppler effect analysis is all they have to go on ATM....as far as we know ;)

[MG23]

Would I be correct to say that the Inmarsat satellite technology that has lead the search to the Indian Ocean has not previously been used to locate a lost aircraft?

No, but calculated positions from satellite handshakes have been compared with known positions of similar aircraft, and other flights of the same aircraft. So it seems quite accurate.

Besides which, if the sounds heard underwater were the recorder beacons, the satellite handshake data is largely academic at this point. The actual impact location was never known very accurately because there's only circumstantial evidence that the final handshake occurred as the aircraft was crashing... it could have continued flying for up to an hour afterwards.

[lulu the dog]

Thanks and i get that it should work in principle, and that theres nothing else better. Its just I reckon that as a plane finding technology it would have been too good to be true. I mean the margins for error are just unknowable.

[DocRohan]

Given that the Nuclear test ban treaty people said that their hydrophones at Cape Leeuwin did not detect MH370 impacting the ocean, it may place more weight on a controlled ditching.
This can detect icebergs falling in Antarctica, so if the plane struck the ocean with high force, it should have being able to detect the acoustic waves.

[Jetstream67]

It is not a new technology, and the next time you go through a police radar trap try and convince them the margin for error is unknowable.
In the end the Satellite track path took searchers to a place where ELT beacons could be heard. That is all that could really be asked of that approach

[MrPeabody]

Rampstriker,


The SATCOM system on this era B777-200ER consists of the following components:

Satellite data unit
High speed data unit
Top mounted high gain antenna
Beam steering unit
Low noise amplifier/diplexer

[porterhouse]

I mean the margins for error are just unknowable. And how do you know that? Clearly the first thing any engineer/physicists knows is importance of estimating the error, without that your calculations are almost useless.

[kayej1188]

I understand that the exact number is unknowable, but how low must the probability be that the plane is NOT in the general area where Inmarsat data lead the investigation to that was then shown to house a frequency that is said to be almost impossible to come from anything but the underwater beacon? With these 2 facts, the chances that the plane is not in this area must be approaching zero...correct?

[sardak]

In the end the Satellite track path took searchers to a place where ELT beacons could be heard.No, a possible track took them to a place where pings from a presumed underwater locator beacon (ULB) could be heard.

[Datayq1]

Mr Peabody,
Can you tell us what causes the beam to be steered. Also, each time the beam is repositioned is there communication between the aircraft and the satellite?