Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost

[slats11]

Confirmation today by Aust PM that surface search will finish today.

Underwater search to continue over a "much larger area."

Makes sense. Little prospect of finding debris floating now (although something might wash up on a beach at some future date), and drift analysis now wound be extremely speculative.

[chumley]

This may be a dumb question but has the US offered to or provided assistance in the sea surface search by the use of drones? If the haven't the question I would ask is why not? It would appear that they can readily pick out a terrorist target from altitude and conduct surveillance so why not utilise their range and stand off capability to conduct a detailed search of the Indian Ocean instead of putting PC3 Orions and other aircraft at risk.

[Tas62]

According to PM Abbott and Angus Houston the entire 700km X 80km 'splash zone' will be searched using equipment and personnel from private contractors.
The search is estimated to cost ~$Au60mil, and will take at least eight months to complete.
Meanwhile the ships involved in the surface search will remain in the area for 'continuity' and Ocean Shield will continue using the Bluefin-21.

[OPENDOOR]

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?

Yes, and without it the the SAR people would have had nowhere to start looking.

If one accepts the premise that someone rather than something caused this incident and that person hadn't considered that the Inmarsat method could be used then, using the logic of "when you've eliminated the impossible...", the motive must have been to make something disappear permanently.

Which begs the question; what could be so important as to go to all this trouble to attempt to permanently hide?

What was MH370 carrying?

[rh200]

Just watched the news conference on the new search area and outside contractors. On the positive side the university boffins should get some really good undersea bottom data.

[onetrack]

It's interesting to see that many whales produce sound bursts in the region of 20kHz - but some species produce sound bursts up as high as 40kHz.
Seeing as the signals picked up by the Australian Navy were reported as being around 33kHz, I wonder if this might have been sound bursts from a whale?
Whale sound bursts are reported as travelling up to several hundred kms. The Cape Leeuwin hydrophones of the CTBTO are constantly being bombarded with whale signals.

Whale signals detected by International Monitoring System (IMS) facility: CTBTO Preparatory Commission (http://www.ctbto.org/press-centre/highlights/2003/whale-signals-detected-by-international-monitoring-system-ims-facility/)

One has to ponder whether the major sounds produced by an aircraft ditching into the open ocean would be airborne or waterborne sound, as each has to be picked up by different methods and different instruments. It's interesting to note the CTBTO hydrophones pick up waves crashing, as permanent background noise.

The CTBTO has already stated the Cocos Island infrasound station did not, and could not, pick up any airborne sound from the region where MH370 is supposed to have been lost, due to extreme distance.

Acoustical Society of America - 166th Lay Language Papers (http://www.acoustics.org/press/166th/4pAO1-Prior.html)

[DocRohan]

Or...maybe its like JORN and we Aussies dont turn things on at weekends :)
All jokes aside...given the reported sensitivity of these things, i am a little surprised that analysis of their data was neg...
Maybe means nothing.

[onetrack]

micis - Station treaty code IS06 is an infrasound station on Cocos Island.

Station profiles - IS06 - Cocos Islands: CTBTO Preparatory Commission (http://www.ctbto.org/verification-regime/station-profiles/?station=222&cHash=8da79f523a6d6eb3163c895fabc25b4e)

The CTBTO has already searched their infrasound records for any signal peaks that might have come from MH370 on the morning of the 8th March and found nothing. This is because of the substantial distance from IS06 to the suspected crash site, and the high level of background noise created by wind, that is a feature of infrasound stations located on oceanic islands.

http://www.ctbto.org/fileadmin/user_upload/public_information/2014/IDC_infrasound_MalaysianAirlines_MH370.pdf

[500N]

One Track

You also have huge 30 - 40 foot waves crashing down at irregular intervals which must make some sort of noise. In addition, you have ships coming down off the top of these waves also making large sounds.

How would they differentiate between them ?

And wouldn't a ship make more noise than bits of aircraft falling into the water ?

[threemiles]

It's interesting to see that many whales produce sound bursts in the region of 20kHz - but some species produce sound bursts up as high as 40kHz.

Read it again
Whales are transmitting in Hz not kHz.

[onetrack]

500N - The CTBTO obviously set up parameters for background or white noise for the likes of waves, and can relegate the noise to the area of no consequence.
I would expect a ship would have a different noise profile to an aircraft hitting the water, and that the major source of noise from ships would be engines operating.
Ships hulls crashing down into troughs would be only be an event that happens in extremely heavy seas, and as the CTBTO can pick up the direction where sound is coming from, this sound would normally only be heard from the direction of the Southern Ocean, and during sizeable storms.

[onetrack]

threemiles - My apologies for my misreading of the frequencies. :uhoh:

However, there's a good discussion in the link below that raises the possibility of a dying ULB producing a variance in frequency that could make its signal hard to distinguish from marine mammal noises.

http://mashable.com/2014/04/07/malaysia-flight-370-search-pings-whales/

[DocRohan]

@onetrack.
This link you posted talks about the Cocos site as being to far away http://www.ctbto.org/fileadmin/user_...ines_MH370.pdf (http://www.ctbto.org/fileadmin/user_upload/public_information/2014/IDC_infrasound_MalaysianAirlines_MH370.pdf)
But, the report was prepared well before the Southern Indian Ocean was the search site.
That being said, if it didnt pick up an explosion or splash impact from about 1000 k's, that means something/ (distance roughly from Cocos to Ocean Shield site),

[Green-dot]

Susier wrote:
Forgive me but what does the lettering at the top far left, near the red switch, say? That looks like ELT to me but my eyes can't make it out.


Might be BLT : ) Thanks Susier. I Did some research on the panel you refer to because the text on that panel was not readable from the ref. picture.

Indeed, it turns out to be the ELT control Panel. Not for a Honeywell ELT but for an ELTA ELT. As the document in the link below states:
"To be connected to any automatic ELT in A06 or ADT 406 range.":
http://www.elta.fr/uk_doc/RCP.pdf

So there is an ELT control panel installed in the MAS B772 fleet, this issue can be removed from the list. Question remains why the ELT was not activated. Without the facts the answer remains subject to speculation . . . . .519 pages of it in this thread and ongoing.

[Seagull8]

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

While the application is new, the basics are very old....1842 to be exact
The doppler effect analysis is all they have to go on ATM....as far as we know Although the ages old Doppler shift calculations have been newly applied to the geostationary Inmarsatt satellite the use of this technique is not new in modern day satellite Search And Rescue operations.

The COSAPAS/SARSAT polar orbiting (non-geostationary) satellites perform mathematical calculations based on the Doppler-induced frequency shift received by LEOSAR and MEOSAR satellites as they pass over a beacon transmitting at a fixed frequency. From the mathematical calculations, it is possible to determine both bearing and range with respect to the satellite. The range and bearing are measured from the rate of change of the received frequency, which varies both according to the path of the satellite in space and the rotation of the earth. This allows a computer algorithm to triangulate the position of the beacon with 2 or more passes. A faster change in the received frequency indicates that the beacon is closer to the satellite's ground track. When the beacon is moving toward or away from the satellite track due to the earth's rotation, that Doppler shift also can be used in the calculation.

Bear in mind that the difference here is that the COSPAS/SARSAT LEOSAR satellites are moving whilst the Inmarsat satellites are stationary relative to the Earth. But the principle remains the same and is well established. The calculations would be similar whether the target or the receiver is moving.

Inmarsat has said they have peer reviewed their data with other industry specialists; they may have consulted COSPAS/SARSAT Doppler shift experts.

Here are some background links:
Cospas-Sarsat System - International COSPAS-SARSAT (http://www.cospas-sarsat.int/en/system-overview/cospas-sarsat-system)
International Cospas-Sarsat Programme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarsat#Doppler_processing)


My conclusion is that the location of a target by a satellite using Doppler shift has been proven many times before and although it is a new technique for Inmarsat birds, I think the maths can be trusted.

[GlueBall]

...Question remains why the ELT was not activated. Without the facts the answer remains subject to speculation . . . .

Maybe for the opposite reason why TPX & ACARS were deactivated, which is NOT speculation. :ooh:

[SRMman]

David Learmount is saying in his article in this week's Flight:

"Will MH370 ever be found? If it went into the southern Indian Ocean, probably not.

The facts are these: no floating wreckage has been found 6 weeks later. The accuracy of the satellite information on which the search area has been calculated is far from guaranteed, so the search team may not be looking in the right place."

[Green-dot]

Maybe for the opposite reason why TPX & ACARS were deactivated, which is NOT speculation.With accent on your 'Maybe' . . . . That the TPX & ACARS (and all radio comms) were deactivated may not be speculation but HOW and under which CONDITIONS they were deactivated has yet to be determined.

[AndRand]

This may be a dumb question but has the US offered to or provided assistance in the sea surface search by the use of drones? If the haven't the question I would ask is why not? It would appear that they can readily pick out a terrorist target from altitude and conduct surveillance so why not utilise their range and stand off capability to conduct a detailed search of the Indian Ocean instead of putting PC3 Orions and other aircraft at risk.
Yes, that request to US came in package with asking Chinese to steer the weather so the drones could operate.

[SKS777FLYER]

Apparently a dangerous thought some minutes ago posted merely mentioning
United States Patent: 7142971 assigned to the Boeing Company.

Wouldn't dare to post a link, but would suggest a google of the U.S. patent # which reveals public disclosure:eek: of an interesting Boeing invention which describes........
"A method for automatically controlling a path of travel of a vehicle comprising: engaging an automatic control system of the vehicle"

[Mesoman]

A CNN 'expert' said that they had not searched the bottom near the area of the first and longest ping detect, because it was too deep for the Bluefin.

This certainly contradicts the impression I get from reading all of the JACC press releases and transcripts, but there is not precise refutation - I've seen no scaled map superimposing the high probability underwater search area and the four ping detects.

Does anyone have exact information to refute this, or might it be true?

[Profit Max]

The 'expert' probably stopped reading after the first mission of the Bluefin; the one that was aborted as the ocean was a bit too deep. He might have forgotten that they modified the software to allow the Bluefin to go deeper, which would incur a risk that was deemed acceptable.

[oldjimh]

@sks777flier

that's some patent.
surely nobody would install such a thing on a real airplane?
As a consumer I'd not knowingly ride in one so equipped.

[Andrewgr2]

If I hadn"t seen the patent I would have thought we we were in the realms of sci fi. The idea that pilots would 'irrevocably lose control to an automated system' because 'for instance someone repeatedly pounded on the cockpit door" is truly frightening in its implications. But surely Boeing would not file such a patent unless they had some thoughts of implementing it?

[Profit Max]

Forget about the patents. All big companies patent everything they can think of. 99% of it will never be implemented.

[MrPeabody]

Datayq1,


The beam steering unit is for the high gain antenna system. The beam steering unit receives digital beam steering signals from the satellite data unit. The satellite data unit provides known satellite positions and steering signals to create a beam point.


The antenna then uses the signals to make a narrow beam to the satellite.


The beam steering unit changes the beam steering signals into phase shift data which is sent to the high gain antenna. The high gain antenna then uses this data to aim the RF signal at the satellite.


When the SATCOM finds an active satellite it will lock onto it and attempt a log on. From lock-on the system will simply follow the satellite. If the beam is interrupted, then the system will reacquire the satellite and lock-on again, therefore another log on attempt.


We know that the satellite was indeed acquired by the hand shake communications every hour from Inmarsat.

[HeavyMetallist]

If you look at that patent, it cites a long list of (very) similar patents attempting to cash in on, sorry, respond to, the post 9/11 hysteria. In all likelihood Boeing just obtained it as a defensive measure in case such a loony system were ever to be mandated and they found themselves being bent over a barrel for licensing fees. As someone else pointed out, just because a patent has been obtained doesn't mean it will ever be implemented. Nor has it.

[InfrequentFlier511]

I'm confident that the pilot lockout technology described in patent 7142971 was not a factor in the disappearance of MH370. Most patents are ambit claims, combining a range of innovations into a device that may or may not eventually prove viable. The point then is that any company that makes something that relies on any of these innovations has infringed on the patent. I doubt that Boeing has perfected a complete system as described, but if they have it would be doubly unlikely that it found is way into an aircraft that was flying before the patent was filed.

[RichardC10]

Inmarsat ping-arc data released today via the Malaysian authorities
https://twitter.com/IvanCNN/status/460977558168043520/photo/1

Very first fit to the data is shown in figure 1 using a great circle at constant speed, fitting the course and start point. No surprise perhaps, the course heads straight for the original search area, so that _was_ defined by the ping data. It's an excellent fit, with the last point only a bit wobbly, an error of 0.6degrees on elevation. The other fitted points are have errors around 0.1degree in elevation.

However, as mentioned a _long_ time ago, the ping-arc/elevation data cannot distinguish courses with smooth changes of heading - they look like other great circle routes. Since the search area changed, then this must be what happened. More to come.

Figure 1: Best fit to the Inmarsat ping-arc data.

First Fit To The Inmarsat Ping-Arc Data Released 29th April 2014 Photo by RichardC10 | Photobucket (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/RichardC10/media/map_zps008b98dd.jpg.html)

[sky9]

Are they going to release the Doppler rate if change data in relation to the Inmarsat?

[IRpilot2006]

I thought that the entire reason Immarsat was able to distinguish between the N arc and the S arc was because their satellite is not perfectly stationary above the earth but happens to move about a bit, which creates a second doppler shift which obviously varies according to which way the satellite happens to be moving.

[DocRohan]

Do we trust this new graph??? I have being searching the net like mad and an unable to find a legit source!....Nothing in the news about it being "released by the Malaysian authorities".
Any one have a legit link???

[RichardC10]

https://twitter.com/IvanCNN/status/460977558168043520/photo/1

Same reporter.

[DocRohan]

only reporter in the whole room with a camera??...and a poor one at that!!
It seems from your links that it may have being shown to the families...Not released yet as far as I can tell.

[RichardC10]

Not released yet as far as I can tell.

It's called a scoop, I think. Possibly photographed by one of the families.

[simmbo]

Probably just an error in the chart, (or my brain), but isn't the Ping 4 arc inside Ping 1 Arc - roughly -29?

[buttrick]

Here's the chart again


http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s675/RichardC10/map_zps008b98dd.jpg (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/RichardC10/media/map_zps008b98dd.jpg.html)

[RichardC10]

Probably just an error in the chart, (or my brain), but isn't the Ping 4 arc inside Ping 1 Arc - roughly -29?

Sorry, my poor labelling; '-' in the legend means 'minus'

So Final ping arc = 00:11UT
Ping arc - 1 = 22:41 Ping arc - 2 = 21:41
Ping arc - 3 = 20:41
Ping arc - 4 = 19:41


I didn't model the pings at around 18.30 as it is not clear how they relate to the final constant speed route.

[Ian W]

I thought that the entire reason Immarsat was able to distinguish between the N arc and the S arc was because their satellite is not perfectly stationary above the earth but happens to move about a bit, which creates a second doppler shift which obviously varies according to which way the satellite happens to be moving.

Correct the INMARSAT satellite moves in an extended thin North South figure of 8 (geoloocated as opposed to geostationary ) This provides two levels of Doppler shift due to the aircraft and the satellite.

[threemiles]

buttrick:
can you draw a line that ends up in the yellow final search box, with constant but much less speed?
Appears to me ground speed to be more 250 knots than 489 knots.
There is still something missing here.

[Evey_Hammond]

susier
"The posts relating to the Georesonance stuff have all been removed, rightly"

Why rightly?

[Profit Max]

Because GeoResonance is either a hoax or a scam or both, and just because a TV station fell for it, we don't need to perpetuate their claims further here.

I suggest to the moderators to leave one edited post in the thread noting why a certain group of posts has been removed so future questions about the issue can be avoided.

[harrryw]

Because everyone knows they are searching in the right place and it must be right for something they lost and cannot find.
Last time I lost my wallet I was sure I lost it at home...I did not bother looking at work as I knew it was not there. Cannot help thinking the same thinking applies here. The trace must be right because we say so.

[WillowRun 6-3]

@ oldoberon

Not challenging the correctness of your statements. Nonetheless, we want to know your basis of knowledge. That is: your statements about the tasks and methods utilized by the individuals and/or entities to determine the satellite-related data are:
(a) derived from first-hand knowledge of how the data were handled, because you were there and participated (in whole or in part), or
(b) derived not from personal knowledge but rather from knowledge about how the pertinent individuals and/or entities do things such as the effort to plot the flight path of the missing airliner, or
(c) derived, somehow, through some other means.

Again I'm not asserting disagreement. What I am saying is we want to know how much reliance may be placed on your statements, as a function of how you acquired the knowledge you have posted.

[Nemrytter]

Now all they need is some legit data.:ok:

I can't believe they are getting any publicity at all, guess it shows how desperate the journos are to turn up new stuff, anything at all, on the fate of the aircraft.

[Datayq1]

Willow,
The document released by Malaysia on 25/03/14 is titled:
Information Provided to MH370 Investigation by UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB)

The first sentence reads "On 13 March we received information from UK satellie Company Inmarsat...." (my emphasis on "we"

The second sentence reads" Inmarsat UK has continued to refine this analysis and yesterday the AAIB presented it's most recent findings,..."

The Satellite data originated from Inmarsat, and that data (and it's findings) were presented to Malaysia by AAIB.

I'm not certain that any of us can attest that NTSB reviewed or approved the Inmarsat analysis.

You could question whether AAIB reviewed the Inmarsat data, but it is reasonable to presume that the AAIB did so.

[SAMPUBLIUS]

Instead of arguing about how the data should have been or might have been handled and how official ..

Why not simply go to Inmersat at

Malaysian government publishes MH370 details from UK AAIB - Inmarsat (http://www.inmarsat.com/news/malaysian-government-publishes-mh370-details-uk-aaib/)

Right or wrong - I am sure they have had multi- experts and some equivalent tracking data for flights by 777 in the general areas.

PLease forget- the Diego garcia and wazooistan theories unles one has better data from credible sources.:ugh::ugh:

That sort of leaves out CNN for many issues.:rolleyes:

[onetrack]

Malaysian officials said they are assessing the claim by Adelaide-based GeoResonance.
“We’re not trying to say it definitely is MH370, however we feel it is a lead that should be followed up by the authorities,” GeoResonance director David Pope told Channel 7 News.
The company used imaging, radiation chemistry and other technologies to search the 2 million square kilometres of the ocean floor for chemicals that are found in Boeing 777 jets, and discovered aluminium, titanium, jet fuel residue and other elements in the Bay of Bengal.
GeoResonance compared images taken March 5 and 10 — before and after the plane’s disappearance — and found differences that could indicate a crash site.
The location is about 190 kilometres south of Bangladesh.
The company has been contacted by Malaysian officials, and was asked to give a presentation on its finding, Channel 7 reports.
“We’re a large group of scientists, and we were being ignored, and we thought we had a moral obligation to get our findings to the authorities,” Mr Pope told CNN.

Seems like the Malaysians are not dismissing GeoResonance's claim out of hand - but they want a properly-outlined presentation.
To me, it appears that the GeoResonance director is backing away from the initial claims that they actually found MH370.
Whether that claim was actually made by the company, or was made by the media in an unwarranted extrapolation of the initial information, is a moot point at this stage.

I can accept that GeoResonance has found all the materials that they have spoken of - but whether they come from MH370 or another crashed jet aircraft that has never been found, is something that needs to be investigated promptly, by researching aircraft crash records.

[harrryw]

It could definitely be worth a check as apparently the depth is not too great there. If it does turn out to be an aircraft wreck and not the right one it is another mystery solved. If it does prove to be a wreck the technique may be worth a try in the deeper water where they think MH370 crashed.

[drron9]

Just joined to say Georesonance has a CEO who lives in Sevastapol.
The technigues they use have not been able to find a ship sunk in the Black sea in WW2.So what chance MH370.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/dubious-claim-exploration-company-georesonance-believes-it-may-have-found-mh370.3558/

[Shadoko]

On their page "georesonance.com/georesonance-geophysical-survey-projects.html", they pretend having found the wreck of the ship Armenia in 2005 (press the "button" SUNKEN SHIP UKRAIN 2005).
But in 2008 the University of Texas was looking for the same ship:
Archaeologists unearth a graveyard of ancient shipwrecks in the Black Sea | Feature Stories (http://www.utexas.edu/features/2008/10/27/shipwrecks/) :
"This fall, the team returned to the Black Sea on a mission to locate the Armenia, a Soviet hospital ship sunk by German aircraft in 1941. The President of Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko, is eager to locate the wreck to honor those who died, Davis says."
They didn't find it (the article title is for another ship) and there is not a single word about the geothing company researches on the page...

One of their patents here: UA2011000033 SYSTEM FOR REMOTELY PROSPECTING MINERAL RESOURCE DEPOSITS (http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/WO2012154142) (AHMA, it is absolute crap)
Another there: Patents (http://transcomplex.uk.com/en/explore/patents) : Its reading will be a good abdominals exercise for any scientific...

[krysnkaz]

I did a google search on Georesonance and could only find links relating to MH370 - they seem to have not existed before MH370 disappeared :ugh:

[DaveReidUK]

they seem to have not existed before MH370 disappearedYou are mistaken. Their website appears to date back to June of last year:

http://web.archive.org/web/20130604173645/http://georesonance.com/

[hack404]

Their company was registered in January last year according to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission. Link (https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/RegistrySearch/faces/landing/panelSearch.jspx?searchType=OrgAndBusNm&searchText=161803201&_adf.ctrl-state=194zo1yejb_19)

[Soursop]

Hmm. Looked at Georesonance's images and based on the scale that plane looks like it's almost twice the size of a T7.
If these images are of anything real, I'd bet these could turn out to be images from an entirely different site and plane: the prototype for the experimental Ekranoplan (aka Caspian Sea Monster) which lies at the bottom of the Caspian sea.
Any other bets?

[cmyounger]

The folks at Metabunk have serious doubts about GeoResonance:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/dubious-claim-exploration-company-georesonance-believes-it-may-have-found-mh370.3558/

[Profit Max]

They seem a reputable experienced company who do not need to make extravagent claims.Not extravagant? Maybe to put a suitable analogy here, their claims are equivalent to "We built a prototype airliner for 500 passengers that can travel at Mach 8, does not create any sonic boom and needs 100 kg of fuel for a transatlantic flight. We are not saying how we are doing it, but we have 23 or 47 people working it, 12 of which have a PhD and 5 of which are professors. The plane was built using secret Soviet military technology. We sent a presentation to both Boeing and Airbus and are very surprised not to have heard back from them. We are not saying that this is the aeroplane of the future. But they should at least follow up as a potential lead for future airline technology!". Why? It is for three reasons of physics, military technology and economics:

(1) No electromagnetic wave can travel through water very far before being absorbed. Only ELF waves with a frequency of less than 100 Hz used for communication with nuclear submarines can penetrate a few hundred metres. The transmitters and antennas used for these waves are huge, expensive and power hungry so that there are only two or them in the US and Russia. Nothing on a plane wreck sitting on the ground of the ocean can create such waves so no electromagnetic detector on a aeroplane or satellite can detect any electromagnetic waves originating from the wreck.

(2) This technology could be used to spot submarines. If such technology exists, why do the nuclear powers still build hunter-killer attack submarines that try to sniff out the location of the enemy nuclear ballistic missile submarines? And why bother having nuclear ballistic missile submarines, the threat of which relies on being stealthy, if they can simply be detected from space?

(3) This technology would instantly reveal all mineral and oil deposits of the whole world. Why do the oil and mining companies then rely on other expensive, unreliable, methods to find valuable resources?

[onetrack]

The JACC are refusing to give any weight to GeoResonance's claim, and insist that the search area they have been looking at is correct, and the search will continue in that region as it enters its next phase - using deep-sea specialist contractors such as Woods Hole.

The only thing to be agreed on now, is who picks up the contractors tab for their efforts.
Obviously, the nations with pax on board the ill-fated flight will be asked to foot a portion of the new, expanded, underwater search bill.
Up to now, the expenditure has largely been military expenditure that would have been spent, anyway (with some of that expenditure brought forward).

The air search winds up today without a single item relating to MH370 being found - so the search effort from now on will be purely underwater, with an expanded search area that is estimated to be around 700km long and 40km wide.
The JACC estimates that the new search phase will possibly take up 8 or 9 months.

Search for missing MH370 to enter new phase: JACC - Xinhua | English.news.cn (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2014-04/30/c_133300728.htm)

[Robin Clark]

The more I look at the Inmarsat BFO chart the more it seems to be wrong...........almost as if the function is inverted , and the higher values towards the top of the chart are when the satellite and aircraft are approaching each other , and the pings nearer the bottom line are when they are moving apart...........e.g.........
.forgoing the maths for a moment , the aircraft was supposed to takeoff on a heading of 341 degrees for 11 nautical miles , before turning right to proceed on their planned route (latest/current departure chart), so the ping at 16.43UTC is about right for the turn at the end of climbout . So the takeoff represents initially , close to a radial arc from the satellite base position , ie , neither flying toward or away from the satellite , but the BFO value increases , so this has to mainly be from the aircaft motion vertically , climbing at an average of 2000 feet per minute .The satellite vertical motion is a much smaller proportion of this and is decreasing as it approaches its high point . So the aircraft is ascending faster than the satellite and the net effect is the distance is closing .....ie.doppler increase . After the turn the BFO increases at close to the same rate (the next ping at 16.55UTC)..... although the aircraft is now flying 032/025 degrees which includes a large component away from the satellite base position., this can only be from the vertical motion still , as the aircraft is increasing speed and continuing to climb......
Then at 17.07UTC the BFO value reduces and the only thing that has happened then , is that the aircraft has reached the top of its climb to the assigned cruising level and leveled off , ie. the vertical motion towards the satellite has stopped , and so the BFO correction value is reduced to suit.........
Then we have the large gap which looks wrong , I suspect that some part of the Satphone system has been powered off here at the same time the radios and transponder went off......
Then when the pings re-appear at 18.25UTC , we have several in quick sequence , which suggest to me that perhaps the satellite has assigned an idle transponder , or at least one where the 'default' value of max. BFO has been set , and so there is a fairly rapid adjustment in order to sync and lock on to the signal from MH370 , which it may regard as a new contact now.......this seems more likely than extreme aircraft motion ....
So now the last five pings would appear to be from motion towards the satellite instead of away from it , so it suggests moving in from outside the final ping arc............until you consider the satellite motion.........
.......... there is the unlikely symmetry in the three pings 18.29UTC , 19.40UTC , and 20.40UTC , and now this matches the relative motion of the satellite too closely to be co-incidence for me........From the data provided by STK , the satellite reaches its highest point close to 19.40UTC , then starts to descend again , so one might almost expect the chart of pings to have the same slope even if the aircraft were stationary and the BFO values were changing purely from the satellite position.....????????........ hmmmmmmmm????.......

[Profit Max]

Robin Clark, I think you are misinterpreting the Doppler effect. The numbers show a frequency offset. So when the satellite and the aeroplane are moving towards each other, the frequency is shifted up. If they move away from each other, the frequency is shifted down. However, the vertical component of the relative aircraft-satellite movement will be negligible compared to horizontal component. Just think about the relative magnitudes of descent rate and ground speed.

Mind you, it might still be possible to detect an ascent or descent in the data - after all, frequency can be measured quite accurately.

[Rus_s13]

According to everyone but GeoResonance, the Armenia has not been located.

Some good discussion about GeoResonance can be found here, the strongest point being the impossibility of detecting fuel - still in the wings - through an aluminum skin that far underwater.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/dubious-claim-exploration-company-georesonance-believes-it-may-have-found-mh370.3558/

Very strange indeed.

[rh200]

Not strange at all, think of all the free publicity they have gotten.

[OPENDOOR]

I think that you are being rather unfair. In 2005 they found the wreck of the WW2 Russian ship "Armenia" off the coast of Crimea.

Just had a look.

You've got to give these clowns 10 out of 10 for shear front. Slick web site, clever technology phraseology. The fact that anyone with O level physics can see at a glance it's utter b******s just proves there are a lot of gullible folks out there.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

[henra]

Robin Clark, I think you are misinterpreting the Doppler effect. The numbers show a frequency offset. So when the satellite and the aeroplane are moving towards each other, the frequency is shifted up. If they move away from each other, the frequency is shifted down.

Indeed.
Altitude variation will have negligeable effect compared to direction variation.
What strikes me is the spike around 18:25 in the actual values which is missing in the simulations. Did they not try to re- model and re-fly the actual track based also on the Radar data they have?
To me it seems not, which would have been a mistake IMHO.
Because due to the resulting positional variance this course change will have consequences on the relation of course flown and Doppler reading during the subsequent phases of the flight. By flying the same path/positions in the first stage, the direction of the flight could be more exactly derived in the latter stage by comparing the steepness of the Doppler change. This steepness will correspond to a combination of speed and course. At the same time speed and course are related to each other via the time distance between crossing the arcs.
Due to this double relationship you could theoretically narrow down the possible combinations significantly.
That would have given an important further data point for narrowing the search Location.
Would it be thus worth to do another re-fly of the whole flight path based on all the data they have now and then let the boffins re-calculate based on this?

[Green-dot]

Looking at the GeoResonance "presentations", I wonder, how can a scan for titanium have a larger area and be more intense than that for aluminum? A B772 is 70% Al and only 7% Ti by weight. While aluminum covers most of the aircraft structure, titanium is located at strategic locations such as engines, landing gear, ducting, and is used as shimming material to prevent "potential" between aluminum and CFRP (e.g. prevent the risk of galvanic corrosion of aluminum).

https://au.news.yahoo.com/sa/a/23036893/exploration-company-believes-it-may-have-found-mh370/

http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~jps7/Aircraft%20Design%20Resources/Structures/Boeing%20777%20materials.pdf

[JohnPerth]

If that does not sound pseudoscientific to you yet, the second stage involves shooting a narrow beam of terahertz waves into the earth and using it to scan for the precise location and shape of the deposit.

OK, this story now has everything.

:E

[RichardC10]

Following the post yesterday on the new satellite elevation graph, I have modelled a course with constant rate of turn that ends at the final search box, and which fits the elevation graph. As stated yesterday, a great circle course at constant speed leads to the original search area.

In this work I fitted the start point (lat, long), original heading, change of heading per hour and the (constant) speed, and of course the satellite elevation data. I have fitted the 19:41 to 00:11UT elevation data. The fit is shown below.

Best Fit To The Satellite Elevations Released 29-Apr-14 And The Final Search Box Photo by RichardC10 | Photobucket (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/RichardC10/media/map_zps1f55c707.jpg.html)

Some notes:
1. The best fit was a change of -10degrees/hour, from a start heading of 194.3, speed of 327kt.
2. The yellow point is the fitted course extended back to 18.27UT (the time of the pings previous to 19.41) so this point is not a fit to any data. The green box is the last reported radar position at 18:22UT. The model interpretation only requires that MH370 was established on the white arc of the track before the 19.41UT ping time. The exact route from the green box to the interception point on the white arc is not determined but I have plotted a small sector of the 18:27UT ping arc to show this is consistent.
3. The fit to the elevation data is excellent, r.m.s. error of 0.1degree, which is as good as the data can be read from the published fuzzy image (this may be a sign that the data has been over-fitted – the number of fitted parameters is large).
4. The plotted course is not consistent with an interpretation of the published BFO/Doppler data developed by myself and others. However, Inmarsat have said that their BFO model was ‘fine-tuned’ so it is quite possible (indeed almost certain) that the BFO data changed from the published set.
5. Constant magnetic heading courses to the final search box do not give enough heading change to fit the elevation data.

This graph does not prove that MH370 went to the area of the final search box. Presumably, the authorities used the results of modelling later generations of the BFO and elevation data, and perhaps other data sources. I think the graph does indicate that there is at least one such course (there will be others) that is consistent with the elevation data and hints at the route taken.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Very interesting RichardC10.
How might this path be followed - perhaps by an aircraft in attitude hold with the left wing slightly down?

[threemiles]

Thanks, Richard, great work, expected result.
At 327 kts ground speed the aircraft must have flown low.
At FL350 it needs flaps and slats to fly that slow I would guess.
At FL100 could be IAS 300 kts around, depending on wind and OAT.
Or it was circling.

Still unanswered: what had led JACC to assume this the correct route. Is it the doppler data?

[IRpilot2006]

How might this path be followed - perhaps by an aircraft in attitude hold with the left wing slightly down? Not possible.

Any autopilot mode which would fly anything resembling a straight track over that distance would have to be heading-hold (which would fly a curved track) or flying to/via some programmed waypoints.

The Georesonance stuff is nonsense and this would be immediately obvious to anybody who has got some scienzze edukatttionn. 10/10 for a good prank though.

[Chronus]

According to the National News Agency of Malaysia (BERNAMA) the preliminary report is to be released tomorrow, which given the time difference could well be in just a few hours for anyone on GMT.
It has also been announced that the next phase will be conducted by contractors with a high degree of specialisation for deep sea search operations. Expected costs are said to be in the region of AUD60m. Added to the $44m to date the cost of search is by far the biggest in history.

[gleneagles]

Talked to a former colleague from Malaysia who I regard as a consummate aviator. He mentioned something very peculiar...investigators are ignoring the report from a NRT bound pilot on MH088 and the initial reports of a distress message intercepted by a listening station at Rayong, to the detriment of the whole saga.

The MH 088 pilot had reported positive contact on 121.5MHz with MH370 pilots who came back with incoherent mumblings and static. The listening station at Rayong-VTBU revealed a distress message about " cabin collapse " with need for immediate landing.

He reckoned that this mysterious episode would eventually turned out to be a mind-blowing paradigm shifting occurrence which will be VERY CONFRONTING AND CHALLENGING. He personally knows the captain of MH370 and " knows " that what happened, is certainly beyond the comprehension of many just like the " adventures of Admiral Byrd ". Hope this survives the cull.

[KTVaughan]

I've raised this once before.
Early on there was a report from a Chinese News Service that a US Naval Station at Utapao heard a distress call with the details you mentioned.
The person who posted it said it was being discussed on some military internet.
The story has not been followed up on, and at least one person suggested it was discounted because of the Chinese news service connection.

[ZOOKER]

Surely if the cabin had structurally collapsed, it would be unusual for the airframe to produce about another 5 hours of geographically separated 'pings'?

[kayej1188]

@ gleneagles

Would you care to elaborate a bit on what you are implying with your final paragraph about minds being blown and paradigms being shifted? I'm not sure I quite caught what you were trying to convey there...But very interested, as I have had the thinking ever since this event began that crucial information was being withheld that would eventually become released one way or another.

[porterhouse]

revealed a distress message about " cabin collapse " with need for immediate landing.
Pardon my scepticism, I give next to zero credence to this piece of news.

[gleneagles]

I am well aware that the " cabin collapse " thingy cannot be reconciled with later reports of satellite pings. However the " cabin collapse " was only a perception...something very abnormal and odd happened as the erratic movements of MH370 both laterally and vertically indicated struggles and difficulties. I am pretty certain the pilots were completely befuddled at what had happened to their aircraft.

The satellite signatures certainly indicated that the aircraft survived the initial phenomenon and continued flight to some unknown location. The pilot's/pilots' reactions in the form of incoherent mumblings and " cabin disintegration " distress call suggest a stunned and uncoordinated response to whatever difficulties that plagued them...it didn't indicate they crashed or disintegrated.

We have all been thinking linearly. That former Malaysian colleague suggested against linear logical deduction the way the establishments are pursuing or want us to pursue. Be aware of the assets available in that region due to the Cobra Gold - Cope Tiger exercises. I believe that FIR prior to MH370's mysterious behavior is technically within WSJC jurisdiction but for practical reasons, aircrafts are handled between Lumpur and Ho Chi Minh.

The muddled misinformation or disinformation throughout are due to geo-political considerations amongst the participants of Cobra Gold - Cope Tiger. Kayej1188...I am afraid we need to leave it as it is. Going further will be venturing into the realm of the " woo woo " world as my Malaysian friend opined.

[Ian W]

I am sorry but you may not be thinking linearly, but you certainly are not logical. 121.5 is monitored by many many people, agencies and aircraft including the press who 0routinely listen to it,. Yet the claim is that only one aircraft heard the transmission despite MH 370 being at FL 350. That is patent nonsense.

[oldoberon]

wouldn't that 121.5 call be on tape at rayong.

[broadreach]

Collapse might not necessarily mean a structural collapse. In several other languages it could also mean "reduction" or "decompression".

[Datayq1]

If handshakes (other than 60 minute 'keep alive') are caused by course changes (beam reacquisition), why are there handshakes where there was no course change, and conversely, why would there be no handshakes between 17:21 and 18:25 where there were several major course changes??

see plot at :
http://tinypic.com/m/i6ax6u/4

[Sheep Guts]

Oldoberon,

wouldn't that 121.5 call be on tape at rayong.


Generally all ATC audio and Radar tapes are held for 30 days. Unless there is a specific request to hold them they are taped over and used again.

[Propduffer]

@Datayq1
I've never seen it unequivocally stated that handshakes were caused by course changes. That still seems to be based on an assumption.

[Luke SkyToddler]

I was also flying in the area at the time of the disappearance, I heard the SGN controllers and the MH088 trying to contact MH370 on 121.5 and I certainly didn't hear anything that resembled a coherent reply.

There's something in the SGN area which periodically causes 5-10 seconds bursts of buzzing static on all VHF frequencies. It's well known to all of us based out here, I'm pretty familiar with what it sounds like, and that's all I heard that night. Wish I had something more dramatic to report but I personally don't believe any transmissions were made on 121.5 from MH370 at that time.

[olasek]

and neither of these people would have reason to make up stories. People do make up stories all the time so there is nothing unusual about it. It is enough to recall numerous "UFO reporting", TWA800 accident, etc. etc, this includes airline pilots as "witnesses". Specially when you can claim a "privileged" position and know something that nobody else does - it has always been a big magnet to exaggerate your stories.

[Alloyboobtube]

I guess it's not real as a distress message on 121.5 would be investigated and recorded as evidence, you would hope.
I really find it difficult to accept that nobody on this planet knows or saw anything.

[porterhouse]

I really find it difficult to accept that nobody on this planet knows or saw anything. Actually Inmarsat satellites "saw" much more that one could have ever dreamt of. I am amazed we know as much as we do, if it was a general aviation long range aircraft - there could have been practically next to nothing to latch onto.

[BOING]

Let's face it, no one has the faintest idea were MH370 is. The present favorite hunch is based on a tolerably credible location based on the mathematical interpretation of a few isolated data points that even a political pollster would find inadequate. Come on Guys, show me a seat cushion, not a dozen reasons why you can't find one, you have been looking long enough to find something even though the search area is large.

As soon as you step back from the bustle and the numbers and ask the logical question "Why?", nothing about a Southern route makes sense in this situation. Why would anyone fly an aircraft towards the Antarctic? Does disappearing quietly make a statement? If you intend to crash an aircraft why wait 7 hours to do it? Why fly out of radar range heading Northwesterly then apparently turn Southerly if you intend to crash? Why would you head South when you could have achieved the same end by heading West or Southwest? How do you explain the actions of the flight crew, was one incapacitated, both incapacitated, hijacked?

Here is a simple question. If I intended to crash an aircraft in deep water why would I turn Westerly when I could turn Easterly and fly to the deepest water on the Earth in about the same flight time?

When I reach this illogical position in my own affairs I throw all of the paperwork in the garbage can and start afresh.

[MrPeabody]

Datayq1,

Course corrections between 17:21 and 18:25 are toward the relative position of the satellite therefore there is no beam disconnect.


Something has to break the beam (the wing or crown of the aircraft, geographic features or another aircraft) for a reacquire to occur. A SATCOM communication from the aircraft will also cause a reacquire.

[henra]

Come on Guys, show me a seat cushion, not a dozen reasons why you can't find one, you have been looking long enough to find something even though the search area is large.
...
As soon as you step back from the bustle and the numbers and ask the logical question "Why?", nothing about a Southern route makes sense in this situation.

These two issues indeed also still give me some doubts if the plane is really where it is assumed to be at the moment.
On the other hand the INMARSAT data and the apparent pings received do strongly indicate it is.
But I agree in so far that it is strange really nothing of a 250t airliner has been found in almost two months. Not a single small piece.
Also the second issue has something to it: If you really, really wanted to disappear, why flying back so 'close' to the Australian shore, taking the risk of being seen by JORN. Why not flying South West, where you would be out of reach for any land based Radar and Patrol aircraft? Or immediately flying South East iso first flying over potentially Radar/Electronic Intelligence covered Terrain. It makes no sense at all if you wanted to disappear. There would have been even better Options.

However, If the plane is roughly in the area where they are searching (IMHO still very likely), they will find it and chances are, we will get an idea of what really happened. So let's simply wait and hope for the second Phase of the underwater search.

[Wannabe Flyer]

Here is a simple question. If I intended to crash an aircraft in deep water why would I turn Westerly when I could turn Easterly and fly to the deepest water on the Earth in about the same flight time?


1) Few or no countries to overfly post the first 1 hour of confusion
2) Little or no radar coverage once you swing west and then south
3) Little or no air traffic on that route except for a couple of EK flights
4) Total opposite direction to where one would look (if not for INMERSAT then search would have still been on in an easterly direction using the Helios thought process or at best in the BoB).
5) Little or no boat/sea traffic in that area
6) Flying in darkness throughout with a dawn water splash down
7) Well out of reach of most if not all countries SAR
8) Deep enough water

But most of all...............250 tons of metal still remain hidden almost 50 days later even with a proximate location......so if it went South then it seems to be hidden well enough with no debris showing up.....

[IRpilot2006]

What reason would they have for not wanting it found?To make sure family picked up the life assurance payment. Often these exclude suicide, especially (IME) if you do it within 1 year of starting the policy.

IIRC the underwater pings were being picked up, at one stage, for a couple of hours, and that must exclude any possibility of a spurious signal, surely? There would also be a gradual change in frequency (unless the source is crystal derived) which the manufacturer could reproduce with end of life batteries in a test unit. And if the frequency is crystal controlled then it would be ultra stable long-term which would be hugely obvious over 2 hours (a few ppm long term variation) and the approx 7000 pings collected.

[PieChaser]

Georesonance press release
http://georesonance.com/20140501%20Press%20Release.pdf

[HeavyMetallist]

Georesonance press release

So now their "technology" involves quantum physics, as well as "invisible" parts of the EM spectrum somehow embedded in those satellite images and nuclear reactors and twitching twigs and everything. And of course they don't want publicity, that's why they've just put out a press release. :ugh:

[Blake777]

FWIW

MH370 Tragedy: Preliminary report - Latest - New Straits Times (http://www.nst.com.my/latest/font-color-red-mh370-tragedy-font-preliminary-report-1.584574)

[Sheep Guts]

The report states twice that HCM control lost radar contact at Bitod. Interesting....

[threemiles]

I would not give to much on that. IGARI and BITOD are quite close together.

Whats going to start now for sure is dirty laundrying ...

Eg: I find it remarkable that MAS OPS had delayed the necessary actions by using a public flight tracker (FR24 or Flightaware or Radarbox) with enabled position prediction capability and was reporting as last position a bit southeast of Danang. This was assumed to be in Cambodian airspace (!!) though.

So much confusion!

[Carjockey]

At 01:38 MYT HCMATCC made a query to KLATCC on the whereabouts of MH 370. Thereafter KLATCC initiated efforts involving MAS OPS Center, Singapore ACC, Hong Kong ACC and Phnom Penh ACC to establish the location of MH 370. No contact had been established by any ATC units and thus the Rescue Coordination Centre (RCC) was activated at 05:30 MYT.
The above is quoted from the NST report at MH370 Tragedy: Preliminary report - Latest - New Straits Times (http://www.nst.com.my/latest/font-color-red-mh370-tragedy-font-preliminary-report-1.584574)

According to this report 3hrs 52mins elapsed before big alarm bells started ringing.

What is the justification for this delay?

[Teddy Robinson]

If Geo-whatever are so convinced that their info is credible, why are they asking somebody else to put an ROV in the water to prove or disprove their assertion ?
It would indeed be a major breakthrough is they had found the wreckage, but one has to wonder that given the prospect of a global headline hitting success story, they don't put their own money where their proverbial mouth is and fund an ROV to examine the site they have identified.

The press release was smoke and mirrors.

[PlatinumFlyer]

I did not see this posted elsewhere. It is part of the newly released report:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/MH370CargoManifestandAirwayBill.pdf

[oldjimh]

page 5 of that manifest --

so now it's 2453 (pounds or kilos?) of lithium batteries , not 1/10th that many as per early reports ?

[onetrack]

oldjimh - The weights are kilograms and the measurements are centimetres on the manifest.

[Sheep Guts]

page 5 of that manifest --

so now it's 2453 (pounds or kilos?) of lithium batteries , not 1/10th that many as per early reports ?

Its definitely Kilos. Also it says packed under Section II PI 965.

133 PACKAGES total 1990KGS is roughly 15kg each package

and

67 loose packages total 463 kg average 7kg each package

They were packed in PMC 5871. Not sure if it was put in the forward or aft.

That's a lot of Lithium Ion batteries in a PAX aircraft.

LINK TO 965 Packing Instructions
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/cargo/dgr/Documents/Lithium-Battery-Packing-Instructions-965-970-EN.pdf

[Carjockey]

Malaysia recommends introduction of real-time aircraft tracking - The Malaysian Insider (http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/malaysia-recommends-introduction-of-real-time-aircraft-tracking)The horse has already bolted and only now do we consider closing the stable doors?

[RichardC10]

Full set of ICAO report documents

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1151155-mh370-preliminary-report.html

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1151152-mh370-actions-taken-between-0138-and-0614l.html

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1151153-mh370-cargo-manifest-and-airway-bill.html

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1151154-mh370-maps.html

[Carjockey]

MH370 preliminary report raises questions on reaction time by authorities - The Malaysian Insider (http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/putrajaya-releases-part-of-flight-mh370-preliminary-report)

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/01/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-plane-report/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

[roninmission]

I have no difficulty in believing this is total nonsense and/or a scam.

However, I have difficulty in following motivation or what their "upside" could be.

If nothing is found their credibility is shot.

If old wreckage is found their credibility is still shot since they stated that nothing was "detected" at that site shortly before 370 disappeared

Their statement only makes sense if they really believe they've found something, however this doesn't make their clain any less bizarre.

[threemiles]

RichardC10

thanks for the links. The maps make things clearer.

As you suggested yesterday a ground speed of 325 to 350 kts leads to the search area.

If the plane was in straight flight it needs a flight level well below 350 to stay above minimum clean.
E.g. I am just watching a plane IAS270 and GS320 at FL120, almost no wc.
Or another one IAS250 and GS360 at FL220, no wc.
There are altitudes of 30000, 15000 and 3000 indicated at the last spot.
Flying significantly lower and/or slower will affect the endurance, too. At least 320 kts at 3000 feet does not make too much sense to me.
If the MH370 was lower than F350 at 18:22 it is highly unlikely that Penang radar could pick it up at 220 NM range, so descent should have happened later.
But GS may have been calculated from Penang defense radar returns.
Lots of question marks

I am sure this is worked into the model. It seems the final ping at 00:19 is where a gliding start is assumed.

Another option is that it was zig-zagging, which I would believe needs manual control (or a perfectly designed pre-loaded flight plan). But if GS was low under Penang radar already, zig-zag is not an option.

Turning point is assumed 18:27 to the South, I guess this is from some sort of Inmarsat login or so.

How can we get to 10 degrees left drift per hour?

Looking for your next analysis, Richard

[sky9]

Icao Document:

MONTRÉAL, 13 February 2013 – Pending the outcomes of investigations now being carried out in the
United States and Japan, the President of the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO) has provisionally approved an interim amendment that will prohibit the carriage of lithium ion
aircraft batteries as cargo on passenger planes. Final approval of the amendment from the ICAO Council
is expected when it returns to Session later this month.

The new amendment will rescind ICAO’s recent inclusion of lithium ion aircraft batteries up to 35kg in
Special Provision A51 to the UN aviation body’s Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of
Dangerous Goods by Air. Special Provision A51 is designed to provide airlines with the operational
flexibility to transport aircraft batteries as cargo on passenger aircraft in special circumstances. The
inclusion of lithium ion aircraft batteries in A51 had only become effective on 1 January 2013.

“This amendment to Special Provision A51 is a temporary measure, taken to ensure that safety
considerations remain paramount while the related investigations in the United States and Japan remain
ongoing,” stressed ICAO Council President, Roberto Kobeh González. “Safety is the number one priority
of the aviation community and we are very confident that this situation will eventually be resolved in a
manner that further supports air transport’s admirable safety performance while addressing the
concerns of all stakeholders impacted by these events.”

The ICAO decision comes on the heels of the grounding of Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner fleet by the U.S. and
Japan more than three weeks ago, after a battery caught fire in a plane parked in Boston and a 787 with
a smoking battery was forced to make an emergency landing at Takamatsu airport in western Japan.

ICAO stressed that the new amendment does not affect the carriage of other aircraft battery types on
passenger planes under A51, nor will it place additional restrictions on lithium ion aircraft batteries
being carried as cargo on cargo aircraft. Similarly, it will have no impact on the extensive requirements
in the ICAO Technical Instructions governing the carriage of other types of lithium ion batteries.

According to the cargo manifest the aircraft was carrying 2453 kgs of cargo identified as Lithium Iron batteries.

Any thoughts?

[graphicdesign]

First time poster - please be gentle

The pdf on the link has been extensively altered - and not with any great skill. I don't think it's malicious, but it covers some probable procedural inadequacies and some dodgy English. You can take apart the pdf in Adobe Acrobat and see the different layers of edits and add-ons yourself.

http://i59.tinypic.com/xmpysi.jpg

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/MH370CargoManifestandAirwayBill.pdf

UPDATE: Apparently I was mistaken and this 'layering' of scanned PDF documents is a result of enhancement features of many scanner's software and is not evidence of tampering. Apologies.

[James7]

According to the cargo manifest the aircraft was carrying 2453 kgs of cargo identified as Lithium Iron batteries.

According to MAS they were packed according to regulations.

What else would they say:ugh:

[rampstriker]

It's not exactly confidence inspiring when the front page (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1151155-mh370-preliminary-report.html) of a government report misspells the name of the flag carrier.

[YYZjim]

The risk posed by lithium-based batteries is, of course, fire. A fire can be triggered by several mechanisms, one being physical damage to the casing or the innards.

Most lithium-based batteries have a venting valve which opens when the internal pressure exceeds some threshold value above the ambient pressure. I believe the pressure differential which triggers the vent is somewhere between two or three atmospheres. The purpose of the valve is to allow gases produced by a fire inside the battery to escape, preventing an explosion which would make a bad situation even worse.

The difference between cabin/cargo hold pressure at sea level and FL350 is a little less than one atmosphere. In normal flight, it would be impossible for the pressure differential across the wall of a battery to ever exceed one atmosphere. Even in the event of a sudden decompression, the pressure differential would not exceed one atmosphere, and the venting valve would not open.

There is, however, another factor which needs to be taken into account. The rate of change in the pressure differential may produce unexpected results. A sudden reduction in the ambient pressure in the cargo hold, not equalized by an open venting valve, could cause the battery to swell. Sudden swelling could cause the internal components of the battery to shift relative to one another, possibly leading to physical damage and resulting in a fire.

If this sequence took place on MH370, then decompression would have led to a fire, rather than the other way around. Two events usually assumed to be unrelated would both have taken place.

Unfortunately, I cannot find on the internet any description of the effects of sudden decompression on lithium-based batteries. Does anyone know what happens?

[ZeBedie]

I'm surprised that two tons of Li-ion batteries can be carried as freight on a passenger aircraft.

[WillFlyForCheese]

YYZJim:

The risk posed by lithium-based batteries is, of course, fire. A fire can be triggered by several mechanisms, one being physical damage to the casing or the innards.

Most lithium-based batteries have a venting valve which opens when the internal pressure exceeds some threshold value above the ambient pressure. I believe the pressure differential which triggers the vent is somewhere between two or three atmospheres. The purpose of the valve is to allow gases produced by a fire inside the battery to escape, preventing an explosion which would make a bad situation even worse.

The difference between cabin/cargo hold pressure at sea level and FL350 is a little less than one atmosphere. In normal flight, it would be impossible for the pressure differential across the wall of a battery to ever exceed one atmosphere. Even in the event of a sudden decompression, the pressure differential would not exceed one atmosphere, and the venting valve would not open.

There is, however, another factor which needs to be taken into account. The rate of change in the pressure differential may produce unexpected results. A sudden reduction in the ambient pressure in the cargo hold, not equalized by an open venting valve, could cause the battery to swell. Sudden swelling could cause the internal components of the battery to shift relative to one another, possibly leading to physical damage and resulting in a fire.

If this sequence took place on MH370, then decompression would have led to a fire, rather than the other way around. Two events usually assumed to be unrelated would both have taken place.

Unfortunately, I cannot find on the internet any description of the effects of sudden decompression on lithium-based batteries. Does anyone know what happens?
But - if you have 2400kg of Li-ion batteries - and a single battery catches fire due to some runaway condition (whatever the cause) - that single battery would certainly lead to a chain reaction as neighboring batteries overheated - which would create a domino affect with the entire 2400kg.

So - I think a single Li-ion battery running away would necessarily lead to a horrific at catastrophic fire that would most certainly bring down an aircraft.

UPS 1307 . . .
UPS 6 . . .

My understanding is the state of charge is a factor in the likelihood of thermal runaway - as is the construction of the battery.

I've not seen information on the type (manufacturer and model) of the battery nor on the condition of the batteries as shipped. Surely someone is aware of both?

It is just hard to imagine 2400kg of Li-ion batteries on fire with any continued flight . . .

[hamster3null]

Its definitely Kilos. Also it says packed under Section II PI 965.

133 PACKAGES total 1990KGS is roughly 15kg each package

and

67 loose packages total 463 kg average 7kg each package

They were packed in PMC 5871. Not sure if it was put in the forward or aft.

That's a lot of Lithium Ion batteries in a PAX aircraft.

LINK TO 965 Packing Instructions
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/cargo/dgr/Documents/Lithium-Battery-Packing-Instructions-965-970-EN.pdf

I understand the cargo manifest to mean that the shipment 232-10677085 was a consolidation shipment consisting of 133 boxes of "something" (average weight of 15 kg per box), stacked as a PMC pallet, and 67 boxes of "something else" (average weight 7 kg per box) in a big bag. Some of these unspecified items could have contained lithium batteries (maybe they were boxes of laptops or digital cameras). The detailed item breakdown should be in a separate manifest which is not part of the link.

P.S. Found one article that calls these items walkie talkies.

[Green-dot]

Since the preliminary report is based on the few know facts at this time, however, no mention was made of the amount of fuel on board when departing from KUL.

A quantity of 49.100 kg. / 108.000 lb. was apparently released by MAS to the press a while ago (March 21) yet no mention of these figures in this report (dated April 9).

[porterhouse]

If nothing is found their credibility is shot.
Nothing will be found because no one will be checking this place, in other words they risk very little.

[roninmission]

Bangladesh has despatched two naval vessels to investigate.

[olasek]

Bangladesh can dispatch whatever they want (their whole Navy too) - they have no technical prowess to check what's resting on the bottom at that depth. But they will check if anything floats ...

[PlatinumFlyer]

NBC News - Breaking News & Top Stories - Latest World, US & Local News (http://www.nbcnews.com/#/storyline/missing-jet/missing-jet-recordings-may-have-been-edited-experts-n94941)

[Voldemort]

@hamster3null...
Exactly! "The detailed item breakdown should be in a separate manifest which is not part of the link."

Besides the "lithium batteries" being cargo, which was mentioned early on, none of these so-called consolodations tell us anything. Freight forwarders can shove anything in there :ouch: !

In the Malaysian's Official Report, note well the absence of the breakdown of item/contents in the "consol" shipping containers.

[Lonewolf_50]

But, he said, "It's more likely to be an inadvertent thing. But it's not the way to handle evidence." The recording also could have come from different sources, he added.





"You can assume that the recording while they're still on the ground came from the tower and then you could assume that the communication with air controllers was while they're in the air," he said.
"They may have just mishandled the cobbling of it together."
This doesn't necessarily prove anything about the investigation, he added.

Having read this "news story" about people listening to audio ... it proves that digging the fly crap out of the pepper is a fine art.

[mm43]

Surely I'm not the only one that hasn't tried to check the sources of the "official" reports being propagated by the media, and by others in this thread.

Can anyone point me to a Malaysian government website, e.g. MOT/DCA that has them?

[harrryw]

@Rampstriker
I think you will find that although the public name is Malaysia Airlines it is really Malaysian Airline System as you will see if you look at the copyright notice on the Malaysia airlines homepage English | Malaysia Airlines (http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/)

[LGMX]

1. Do tons of lithium ion batteries release any particular chemical signature when exposed to seawater?

[BOING]

The charts released recently all seem to show MH370 on a curving track towards WA. I am willing to believe that this is perhaps an anomaly caused by the type of chart used but if the projected tracks are accurate it blows the "find a quiet place to crash" theory right out of the window.

[sedna]

sky 9 :

you are right. according to packing instructions 965 section II,, only 35 kgs of lithium ion allowed for "CARGO ONLY A/C" but only 5kgs allowed for "PAX A/C"...

i am sure the capt of Mh370 will suspect something when he saw 2400++kgs of lithium ion in his cargo..

very suspicious...

[kayej1188]

@ Sedna

Not sure what you're implying, but the amount of Li-on batteries contained WAS compliant with IATA regulations. Care to elaborate if you disagree with this?

[BOING]

Blake777

Yes, if the radar echoes seen heading West were actually MH370 we have to consider that there was someone in control of the aircraft at that time. After that we can imagine that if someone was deliberately flying the aircraft until it ran out of fuel, with the idea that the aircraft would never be found, they would take a more westerly heading than the published tracks. However, if the pilots were incapacitated the aircraft could have flown on the autopilot towards WA. I was a 400 driver but, unless the 777 system is different, heading select is the only AP mode that I can think of that would work without pilot intervention, I do not know if this fits in with the tracks.

Basically, if I wanted to crash an aircraft without it being found I would crash it into an uninhabited island jungle rather than the sea. That way it would be hidden by the jungle and terrain rather than having bits floating all over the place.

[malc4d]

Other papers are linking the report to the first "sighting" by the oil rig worker, the American pilot who 'found' the plane and this latest to the plane being in the area that was first talked about. The South China seas.........
Articles found by G**gle MH370 Tin Ankers

Maybe someone could bring this up at the news conference today ..

[Blake777]

Referencing back to Capt Kremin's post of long ago...

"If a 777 reaches has a route discountinuity in the FMC, it reverts to HDG mode. All the MCP setting are referenced on magnetic unless in the polar regions (80 degrees N or S) or the HDG REF button is pushed. That would be a deliberate act of someone who knows the systems and implications.

In the case of the "Ghost plane" scenario the aircraft, after it turned WNW would have been either tracking to a programmed FMC waypoint or it would have been in a lateral AP mode referenced on magnetic north, HDG or TRK, it does not really matter. If tracking to the FMC waypoint, once it reached it, it would have reverted to HDG."


Some of his earlier calculations based on the likely track have now been superseded by updated information due to continued analysis and therefore revised notions of direction, speed etc. But it does suggest the possibility that the plane could have been on AP for the most part of the southward curved leg of the track to suspected point of impact. That supports the idea that the flight path back to Malacca Strait and then WNW may have been controlled, whereas final leg south not necessarily.

The full post with Isogonal chart is available here:

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-377.html

[Mainsail]

Just to clear up a point.

There is a big difference between shipping Li-ion batteries and shipping equipment containing Li-ion batteries.

Li-ion batteries are classed as hazardous IMCO 9

BUT:- there is a special rule that says in certain circumstances, small Li-ion batteries installed in equipment, do not come under the full IATA Dangerous Goods regulations, and a declaration is sufficient.
Looking at the Airwaybill there is a declaration that Li-ion batteries are present.

The weight declared on the waybill is the total weight of the cargo, including all packaging. The weight of batteries will be considerably less.

The equipment must be shipped with the batteries in a low charge state, that is why you have to charge up a new camera, laptop etc.

For all hazardous material shipped by Air, Road, Rail or Sea the exporter gives a declaration that the goods are packed in accordance with the relevant regulations, and the carrier accepts that. Though in fairness most carriers do random hazardous cargo checks, and bear in mind that it is a criminal offence in most countries to deliberatly miss-declare hazardous cargo.

In short there appears to be no problem with this shipment provided that the cargo was equipment containing Li-ion batteries.

And before anybody asks I work in the shipping industry as a Hazardous Cargo Surveyor.

[Sheep Guts]

Not sure what you're implying, but the amount of Li-on batteries contained WAS compliant with IATA regulations. Care to elaborate if you disagree with this?

Sorry Sedna kayej1188 is right.

Those IATA Packing instructions for Lithium Ion Batteries are a nightmare to read and understand. I believe after ICAO Malaysian conference this month they will get the heave ho again as the did last year temporarily.
UPS Flt 6 Dubai in 2010 and ASIANA Cargo Flt 991 in near Jeju Island 2011. Saw the amendment last year to change them.
Honestly, Lithium ion Batteries as cargo on pax aircraft in any quantity surely now has to be stopped.:rolleyes:

[nigf]

"Joint Action Coordination Centre (JACC) Chief Coordinator Angus Houston said currently, three Bangladeshi navy ships were scouring the area, with one of the ships equipped with echo sound capability to assist in ensuring a thorough search in that particular area."
Read more: MH370 Tragedy: No plane wreckage in Bay of Bengal - Latest - New Straits Times (http://www.nst.com.my/latest/font-color-red-mh370-tragedy-font-no-plane-wreckage-in-bay-of-bengal-1.585259#ixzz30YR2m2QA)

[Sober Lark]

It's quite difficult to understand why others involved in this investigation such as the NTSB, FAA and AAIB haven't expressed even the slightest dissatisfaction at the weakness and simplicity of the MoT's preliminary report on Flight MH370.

[Carjockey]

@Sober Lark
It's quite difficult to understand why others involved in this investigation such as the NTSB, FAA and AAIB haven't expressed even the slightest dissatisfaction at the weakness and simplicity of the MoT's preliminary report on Flight MH370.I would suggest that 'quite difficult to understand' is not a strong enough description.

How about 'quite unbelievable'?

[Walnut]

All along there has been either a reluctance to reveal facts or in some cases misinformation. eg do we know the fuel load, do we have any outstanding ADDs,
do we have a hard copy of this "radar trace" tracked by the military, do we have a full cargo manifest, do we have an explanation of the large dangerous cargo shipment. All of the above are not state secrets and surely if the Airline wants this solved then the more hard facts published is the only way to solve this mystery.
Ultimately I believe this incident is a variation of the Helios disaster, but how and why??

[mseyfang]

It's quite difficult to understand why others involved in this investigation such as the NTSB, FAA and AAIB haven't expressed even the slightest dissatisfaction at the weakness and simplicity of the MoT's preliminary report on Flight MH370.


It's called diplomacy; complaints of this nature are not aired publicly. Adding to the complications: President Obama was in Malaysia this past week. Not a good time for the NTSB to critique the MoT report.

[portmanteau]

please, leave things to the experts. ntsb and aaib are sitting alongside the MH investigators and probably wrote the report. all it contains is the facts so far known and which I may say now gives us onlookers the first clear timeline of events. the time for criticism will come in the final report which could be years away.

[Blake777]

To be fair there are a few other factors such as a total lack of debris or tangible signs of the aircraft's demise to this point. Nevertheless would be nice to have those facts that are known fleshed out more substantially.

[Walnut]

Leaving things to the experts is obviously the "why & how" part of the solution. The trouble is the relatives do not have closure which is why a funeral is held.
Years ago I attended the funeral of the mid air collision between the BEA Trident & the Yugoslavian DC9. The coffin clearly only held bricks but his widow could now seek a solution & move on.
I believe the a/c is close to where the search is/has been processed. The authorities have got some some background help whether from Satellite pings or other tracking by the US or Chinese. With better subs, then I am sure it will be found.

[WillowRun 6-3]

Critique the MoT report? Well...memories evidently are short (though the thread is not).....not long ago posters with experience and credentials to deserve respect for their knowledge derided or at least downplayed questions as to whether the 30-day timeline would be met (that is, the ICAO Annex 13 timeline for prelim reports). Some posters even questioned whether such a report even was indicated (or, required) in the first place - standing on the perception that the "Contact Lost" incident of MH370 might turn out to have been a deliberate act and hence not an investigatory context as an Annex 13 enquiry nominally would be.
So MoT, working under a paradigm of incident not previously defined, specifically one defying logic- and technical-based analysis, hews to the Annex 13 process with material and substantial adherence thereto ..... in other words, they complied, substantially, given the ungodly unique factual knowns AND unknowns.
Shoot the scope and depth of the report full of holes if you enjoy the exercise, but I'll wager that the higher-level authorities (especially AAIB and NTSB) are in synch with how the Malaysian MoT has proceeded relative to the reporting process.

[malc4d]

Report into missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 confirms flight path and search delays | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/report-into-missing-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-confirms-flight-path-and-search-delays/story-fnizu68q-1226902829876)

[Heathrow Harry]

" if the Airline wants this solved then the more hard facts published is the only way to solve this mystery."

How - so that everyone at PPRUNE can give their expert opinion?

If the relevant authorities and manufacturers have unpublished facts what does the Great Public and the meeja add to the solving the problem?

Just acres of supposition and finger pointing

[2dPilot]

@LGMX. Lithium reacts with water to produce Lithium Hydroxide and Hydrogen. Lithium Hydroxide is already present in seawater in fairly high proportions (around 0.2 parts per million - around 230 billion tonnes of Lithium, world-wide) - a tonne extra would be, well, a drop in the ocean.

[threemiles]

Just listened to the ATC tape.
There is NOTHING unusal in it.
This is total professional and calm communication.
Just responding to the frequency change to HCM 120.9 with a "Good night, Malaysian 370" is typical for someone who has flown this route very often, knows the next frequency by heart anyway or/and even has predialled it in the COM set.

The only thing that is a little unusal is the repeated report to be at level 350. But these things can happen.

A terrible piece of recording knowing that a few moments later hell broke loose (one way or the other)

[portmanteau]

re atc tape. the time interval between 370 first on radio and signing off is 53 minutes. in the report the tape covering that time period only lasts 7 minutes so there must be plenty of splices perhaps explaining the noises-off. there were 7 minutes of real time between the repeats of level at 350. I am curious about another tape I have heard which had lumpur radar tell 370 to contact HCM three times. the aircraft did not respond until the third. will try to find tape again.

[threemiles]

re atc tape. the time interval between 370 first on radio and signing off is 53 minutes. in the report the tape covering that time period only lasts 7 minutes so there must be plenty of splices perhaps explaining the noises-off. there were 7 minutes of real time between the repeats of level at 350. I am curious about another tape I have heard which had lumpur radar tell 370 to contact HCM three times. the aircraft did not respond until the third. will try to find tape again.

The recording corresponds with the transcript that was published earlier

[hamster3null]

@LGMX. Lithium reacts with water to produce Lithium Hydroxide and Hydrogen. Lithium Hydroxide is already present in seawater in fairly high proportions (around 0.2 parts per million - around 230 billion tonnes of Lithium, world-wide) - a tonne extra would be, well, a drop in the ocean.

Technically true. However, lithium batteries don't contain metallic lithium. They (typically) contain lithium cobalt oxide, which is, I believe, chemically inert with regard to water.

The general problem with lithium batteries is that they pack a substantial amount of energy. A short in a fully charged lithium battery can easily heat it by 200 degrees Celsius. If there's another lithium battery nearby, this heat can short it and cause it to release its own energy, etc. in a chain reaction. That's why we have specific packing requirements for the transport of lithium batteries. We need the packaging to contain and isolate any individual short that occurs.

[Sheep Guts]

The general problem with lithium batteries is that they pack a substantial amount of energy. A short in a fully charged lithium battery can easily heat it by 200 degrees Celsius. If there's another lithium battery nearby, this heat can short it and cause it to release its own energy, etc. in a chain reaction. That's why we have specific packing requirements for the transport of lithium batteries. We need the packaging to contain and isolate any individual short that occurs.

And the most important point about Lithium Ion batteries and Cargo compartments in aircraft. Their fire suppression systems are next to useless against these types of fires. That's why IATA gave them a drill code of 9FZ previously 9FL.
The "Z" code states that 'Fire may not be be extinguished by cargo fire suppression systems'

[Propduffer]

Lithium Ion batteries have nothing whatsoever to do with the disappearance of MH370.

Maybe someone should start a Lithium Ion battery thread and keep the focus here on MH370.

[Seabreeze]

I suspect that there are large number of scientists and engineers worldwide who could have double checked the AAIB/Inmarsat calculations (and extended and improved the estimates of location) had the original calculations been released in detail. This might have led to searches in the most likely area before the FDR pinger batteries died. There are examples in this thread where the calculations have been almost replicated, but under untested/unknown assumptions. This worldwide expertise exists, but has been unused.

The reluctance to release these details makes no sense, except that is is "protocol"

A detailed tech report on the calculations, would have facilitated checking and advancement, with such tech details well over the heads of the spin doctors.

Arguably, in not providing the detail, the AAIB and Inmarsat (and the Malaysians)have impeded the refinement (after their undoubtedly good initial calculations) of location of MH370 at the most critical time.

[Nemrytter]

This worldwide expertise exists, but has been unused.What makes you so sure of that? Just because the data has not been 'officially' released to the public does not mean that it has not been checked by others. I can't see what good releasing all the data would do other than to satisfy the rabid demand of the media/public.

[rh200]

I suspect that there are large number of scientists and engineers worldwide who could have double checked the AAIB/Inmarsat calculations

There is indeed various scientific institutions looking a various data and providing independent analysis input to the search group. This is a fact.

[LGMX]

Was not that they brought down the aircraft. It was about whether upon contact with seawater or upon decomposition/discharge/etc they might emit something that could be detected from a distance using satellite sensing technology. I read that overcharging them can cause the formation of cobalt but a chemist would know more.

[SAMPUBLIUS]

PUUUHHHHLLEESE - all the speculation about finding traces of any so called chemical reaction traces in a few thousand square miles of salt water - OR that they had any significant effects on the routing- failure to comm- etc is simply that- and does not add at all to the subject. start a different thread-:ugh::ugh:

Thank you !

[JamesGV]

So the Malaysian's "Prelim" report recommends the "real time streaming" of data....

I think they better read the report if that is their findings !

Their ATC protocols and practices are clearly "unsafe" or being ignored.
If they can't get that right, then what hope for the investigation.

[henra]

( maybe 20 hours rather than 2hrs though).

Not really necessary.
These things burn intensely/violently for less than 10s. The remainder will stop to smolder and burn in not much more than a minute if at all. It's this first minute that counts.
The important and difficult thing is to relieve the pressure and fireball that builds instantly without letting the hot gases ignite surrounding material or blow up the container. It's a bit like Black Powder. You mustn't allow it to build up pressure in its containment. If within 1 minute nothing else started burning the danger is more or less over.

Regular Suppression Systems are extremely important in order to extinguish surrounding material that was ignited by a LiIon fire. The volume of packs of cells should be small enough that the violent Initial fire doesn't directly cause structural or flight control damage. And the distance between packs of cells needed be sufficient that no direct heat Transfer between the packs can take place that would ignite the next pack. Fire suppresion must be capable of extinguishing other material that is stored between the packs. Then, everything should be OK. Putting all the packs in one Container is a bad idea since it enables one run away pack to ignite others and thereby creating a very violent fire.
Edit:
Regarding relevance for MH370: Probably very low. Almost 3t (!!!) of LiIon in one Container would in all likelyhood have brought the plane down in a few minutes once ignited. Hardly conceivable that it would smolder for hours.
The Trouble with the freighters is that they don't have suppression Systems (Which I consider a big mistake). Which means that the battery fire may be over after much less than 5 minutes but by then other flammable material will have caught fire and keep burning. The hint is in the smoke in those instances. LiIons create very little smoke when burning. Copious amounts of smoke indicate that other stuff has caught fire.

[Airclues]

A thermal runaway in a lithium ion battery can be induced by either a heat source or a short across the terminals. Once one battery overheats it will induce a thermal runaway in other batteries close by.
This is the reason that there are strict rules about the carriage of these batteries. Some types of battery are CAO (Cargo Aircraft Only).
Having undertaken practical training in dealing with lithium ion battery fires, I doubt that this is the cause of this tragedy. These batteries are extremely explosive when in a state of thermal runaway so I doubt that the aircraft would continue to fly for several hours after the event.

FAA In Flight Laptop Fires - YouTube

[RichardC10]

The ICAO report analysis shows that routes can be generated from the start point to the final ping arc at a variety of speeds that are not impossible. Once a start point and a speed are selected there is only one choice for the Southern route (at least a route that has a chance of being close to the BFO data). I get speed changes of between 6 and 16degrees/hour for the first four route segments (a fit the red zone) and 1degree/hour for the 22:41-00:11 segment; the path looks roughly consistent with the report maps (figure 1). I get a slightly lower speed (311 against 323kt in the ICAO report) – the report analysis would have used wind corrections, I did not. Anyway, the precise route does not matter, the key issue is the BFO at the final ping arc(s).

Figure 1: Fit to the ICAO report start point and red-zone using a constant speed route of 311kt. To be clear this in not intended to prove the aircraft went to the red zone
Example Fit To The Positions In The ICAO Report Using A Constant Speed Course Of 311kt. Is Not Intended To Show That The Red-zone Is Correct Photo by RichardC10 | Photobucket (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/RichardC10/media/constant-speed-ICAO_zps339b22ec.jpg.html)

Red/yellow/green zones meaning: In the report map the 00:11 markers for speeds 323, 332 and 344 are marked with 30000, 15000 and 3000ft respectively. The ping-arc data is very slightly sensitive to the absolute height and the BFO not at all sensitive, so if heights has been used in these plots it must have used a change of height in the modelling. Also, if the fuel was exhausted at 00:18, flying at 344kt/3,000ft would not give a longer range than 323kt/30,000ft so these values are not height for the whole route. The rate of climb/descent is part of the overall Doppler due to the aircraft's own motion and is not corrected by the on-board system (as is clear by the change of BFO at 1710UT in the original Inmarsat graph - top of climb). So if the aircraft was descending at 00:11 the BFO value at the final ping arc would have been changed, giving a lower value.

The red-zone track states a final height of 30000ft, so no descent. The required descent rate for the 344kt track at 00:11 (green zone) to bring the BFO value back to that predicted for the 323kt track (red zone) is 230ft/min (4.2Hz in BFO). That would give a change of height of 21000ft in the 1.5hrs between 22:41 and 00:11, so compatible with the difference between the supposed height of 30000ft at 22:41 and the marked 3000ft at 00:11. Presumably work in the simulator has indicated some basis for this.

So in summary, the hypothesis:

a) The final BFO data (which we do not have – we have only the initial set released to the families) is a fit to the Red Zone.

b) The Red, Yellow and Green zones refer to possible rates of descent after 22:41. The red zone is the best match to the (assumed) 00:11 data with the aircraft level at 30000ft. If the aircraft was descending at 230ft/min the green zone would be the best match to the 00:11 data. It is taken here that some work on the aircraft analysis has given a basis for this.

c) This explains why there is no green or yellow zone North of the red zone. The aircraft is not expected to climb from 30000ft, so the BFO cannot be changed to deflect the final position North.

Again, here I am trying to understand the presented analysis, not offering some alternate model.

[threemiles]

Thanks, RichardC10, great analysis.

To be resolved for me remains:

- flight was well above F300 at MEKAR, otherwise no radar contact from Butterworth was possible. It should have made good GS 460 kts from IGARI to MEKAR, otherwise times do not work.

- GS of 311 to 340 kts, needs a lower level to stay above minimum clean ; or non-clean flying; or circling; too low level would reduce range significantly (people with 777 flight manual will tell)

- the curved track cannot be flown with autopilot in HDG mode as magnetic variation is not consistent (maybe with any lateral mode off?)

[RichardC10]

the curved track cannot be flown with autopilot in HDG mode as magnetic variation is not consistent (maybe with any lateral mode off?)

The report analysis does not require a 'curved' track, that is to say a continuous turn. As I noted, the rate of change of heading (averaged over each leg) is not constant so each leg just averages to a heading. Small heading changes make little impact on the average speed over that leg so do not invalid the analysis.

All the way through the AMSA/JACC maps, the possible tracks have been labelled with speeds, implying an assumption of constant speed (but not heading).

So, the following speculation (and I know nothing about B777s so this bit could be gibberish).

a. The analysis (after the turn) is based on the autothrottle being engaged, but at an unknown speed.
b. There is no heading autopilot maintenance mode engaged and the aircraft heading is wandering left and right, but with a general trend to the left which reduces with time during the flight.

[threemiles]

Thanks, Richard,

a. (N1 selected) and b. are the same assumptions I made.

[Ian W]

For those waxing poetic about Lithium Ion batteries, you have not traveled in an aircraft in the last 5 years that has not had tens of lithium ion batteries in the aircraft hold and passenger cabin. Even the Cathay Pacific rules upthread would allow 2 extended life laptop batteries (random packed by pax with cables and USB drives) in their checked bags - so in a widebody you have the potential for several hundred of these. And there HAVE been fires in the passenger cabin due to laptop fails.

Now as also said you have to come up with a practical way that a fire in the hold that would immediately trigger an alarm in the cockpit, could stop ACARS, SSR transponder and the three independent VHF radios in the short period of a simple change of frequency usually by selecting the 'other box' - without any distress call from the crew.

This would be a really severe fire.

Yet the aircraft flew a zigzag course across the Malaysian peninsula around the top of Indonesia and then flew South for another ~6 hours with continuous power to the SATCOM equipment.

So apply a modicum of logic to these theories.
I also second the idea of moving the detailed discussion on 'safety of LiIon Batteries' to the Tech Log in a new thread as it seems to excite 'heated reactions' ;) in some posters here.

[wiggy]

Richard

b. There is no heading autopilot maintenance mode engaged and the aircraft heading is wandering left and right, but with a general trend to the left which reduces with time during the flight.



The team may correct me but I think that with a serviceable 777 autopilot engaged you're always going to have some form of "firm", non random non wandering lateral mode, even if it's as basic as some variation of attitude hold.

[Sheep Guts]

Ian W,
Now as also said you have to come up with a practical way that a fire in the hold that would immediately trigger an alarm in the cockpit, could stop ACARS, SSR transponder and the three independent VHF radios in the short period of a simple change of frequency usually by selecting the 'other box' - without any distress call from the crew.

You are quite right About 3 different VHF sets and obviously there are 3 different antennas for these radios and different power Buses aswell. But how are the coaxial connections and coax run through the airframe to these antennas? That's what we don't know unless we have some B777 Avionics guys out there to tell us. If there are wire bundles or coax bundles, that could have been severed simultaneously because they were collocated .If that's been discussed and answered before please forgive me.

I agree with your "Lithium Ion phobia"synopsis. We have been flying many Lion batts for years. And it will only increase with the proliferation of Lithium Ion power sources and applications. That's why rules of carriage for the items need constant adjustment as new technologies are used. It needs to be proactive rather than reactive.

[UNCTUOUS]

If the favoured theory is fire being the cause of the MH370 disappearance, I'd tend towards a known quantity, the cockpit oxygen fire - rather than the Lithium Ion battery cargo-fire. From the SAA's ZS-SAS (the Helderberg) Nov 87 downing onwards, all instances of Li Ion fires have tended to be self-sustaining and progressive, in particular those with large quantities of batteries - whether containerized or not. MH370 was carrying two metric tonnes of them. The Helderberg 747 Combi was carrying a large quantity of Li Ion watch batteries in its aft cargo compartment. Worthy of note is that its self-sustaining fire ate its way through the container and aft cargo compartment bulkhead into the forward pax area over a number of hours, enabling the crew to communicate their plight and inability to locate or quell the fire.
South African Airways Flight 295 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Airways_Flight_295)

By comparison, the known quantity and prior experience of a 777 cockpit oxygen fire would:

a. make the flight deck more or less instantly (or at least quickly) uninhabitable due to intense heat and flaring (F/O's side first most probably).

b. alarm the flight-crew immediately to the extent that they would understandably misinterpret it as an electrical fire (thinking uppermost of Swissair 111 pilot errors of plodding through a lengthy checklist that kept power on the wires)....and they'd quickly start monitoring off all non-essential busses (quickly followed by flight essential busses - thus killing the comms and transponder). I'd guess that soon after the aircraft rolled out on its pilot-selected heading for Pulau Langkawi, all aboard could have expired - due to the limitations of cabin drop-down oxygen and the inability of the pilots to regain the cockpit and initiate or hasten any descent. The fact that MH370 did roll out on heading would tend to suggest that the autopilot was still functioning.... at least up to that point. Forget all priorities of aviate/navigate/communicate in any such instantaneous development. Personal survival would understandably be the paramount concern for the pilots. You cannot operate in an inferno.

c. An oxygen fire would burn out quite quickly with damage limited to very adjacent and localized equipments and control panels only (example being the early 1980's cockpit fire that destroyed the cockpit of P3B Orion A9-300 on the ground at RAAF Base Edinburgh South Australia). That fire was due to oil-induced combustion (not a chafing of electrics) and it was initially intense but not persistent or self-sustaining. After the initial flash-fire subsided, it simply smouldered. An airborne fire that pierced the 777's cockpit side-wall would have allowed any smouldering to quickly self-extinguish, even permit a surviving pilot to revisit what remained of the flight-deck.

d. An oxygen-based cockpit flash-fire would cause a rapid depressurization at Flt Lvl 350 due to hull burn-through - and consequent unconsciousness and death from hypoxia of all aboard. The piercing of the hull would tend to extinguish any interior fire.... but manual control via yoke may not have been an option (see photo below).

e. Pilots would have / may have found it necessary to quickly abandon the cockpit. Even if they made it to a portable oxygen bottle, it's a dubious proposition that they would have been able to return to and man the flight deck (let alone manually fly the airplane). They may have been later able to operate or restore some systems and even initiate a descent.

A Li Ion battery-initiated fire just doesn't fit the bill for the rapidity of known events aboard MH370. But it's logical that an oxygen flash fire (oxygen-fed only to the extent and so long as the cockpit oxygen pipes and pressure-hull remained intact) would be about the only other non-hijacking explanation for the instantaneous cascade of issues that led to the sudden loss of comms and squawk and the protracted MH370 ghost flight. Whether or not the pilot (or someone?) regained the cockpit and restored some electrics, selected a waypoint, autopilot etc after the fire subsided? Maybe, but depends on numerous factors. However the aircraft (due to its active controls and inherent stability) would still have been capable of autopilot-off flying a roughly sustained heading and tending to climb back up to height as fuel burnt off over the next six hours - due to its static trim state. Southbound and with a hole below the RH cockpit window might explain the Inmarsat-derived gradual arc to its right (i.e. due slight drag-induced asymmetry). Pilot(s) may have sustained fire injuries that caused one or both to succumb or to be unable to sustain themselves with portable oxygen bottles. The possibilities are many - but the plausibility for an oxy fire is intact.

Final Rule was only released by FAA a few days ago (the initiating ramp incident was in Cairo to an Egyptair 777 over three years ago).
"We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Boeing Company Model 777F series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of a fire that originated near the first officer's seat and caused extensive damage to the flight deck. This AD requires replacing the low-pressure oxygen hoses with non-conductive low-pressure oxygen hoses in the stowage box and supernumerary ceiling area. We are issuing this AD to prevent electrical current from passing through an internal, anti-collapse spring of the low-pressure oxygen hose, which can cause the low-pressure oxygen hose to melt or burn and lead to an oxygen-fed fire near the flight deck.
UNIFIED AGENDA
Airworthiness Directives
1 action from October 2014"

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/28/article-2591402-1CA3EBAE00000578-270_634x478.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/28/article-2591402-1CA3EBC700000578-867_634x478.jpg

The Most Likely Cause of the MH370 Loss and Ghost Flight) (http://tinyurl.com/lrhentv)

[misd-agin]

Even with no A/P engaged the 777 will keep pointing/going/flying in the direction it's going.

Previously posted range impact of lower altitude. Forget the details but it decreases to 60--70%(?) of OPT ALT performance. Endurance is basically unchanged.

[Viscount43]

Notwithstanding the lith-ion battery issue, I find Unctuous' scenario most plausible........ :ok:

[creeper00]

Anyone posting a theory that fire was responsible for what happened to MH370 must also explain how the airplane continued flying for seven hours. When you can do that, I'll believe fire was the cause.

[philbky]

UNCTUOUS's theory is interesting but I just wonder had the cockpit been severely damaged by an O2 fire, just how stable the aircraft and its control systems would have been.

Certainly any hole in the side of the aircraft would not have initially or later disabled its ability to stay aloft but the control surfaces are fly by wire so the questions have to be asked, in the light of the destruction to the Egyptair example, could the controls remain in a detente position exactly as they were at the time the cockpit end of the system burnt through? How would they cope with turbulence changing any of the axes of the aircraft? If there was time to handle the aircraft to turn it round, why did not the crew call Mayday a la Swissair 111?
How could anyone regain the cockpit and perform any useful function if the damage was as extensive as the Egyptair example and for that matter to the Swissair 111?

Had Swissair 111 suffered its fate an hour or two later we would likely still be looking for it given the hypothesis set out above as it would have been in mid Atlantic with, on the night, not the best HF comms, though the VHF guard frequency might have been used.

My money always has been and still is on a hypoxia situation but, like everyone else, I'm currently lost for a cause that ticks all the boxes.

[UNCTUOUS]

Creeper00 said:
Fire?
Anyone posting a theory that fire was responsible for what happened to MH370 must also explain how the airplane continued flying for seven hours. When you can do that, I'll believe fire was the cause.

It's the nature of a flash fire and the characteristics of today's push-button environment. Push that button and things will change. Melt that button and things just won't. It's merely the difference between the "status quo" and "que sera". A flash-fire just sweeps through and fizzles ( if you were a fireman you'd appreciate this distinction).

Just google flash-over or flashover. A flashover, when you unwisely open a door in a burning building, will kill you but it will only scorch the environment.....before subsiding as the combustive differentials in oxygenation are equalized. It's nothing like a fuel-fed fire. That's the nature of an oxygen fire in an enclosed area. While oxygen is feeding, the fire thrives and burning is less apparent than melting (particularly of most plastics). Done any oxy-welding?

Once the oxygen feed is compromised by the low-pressure oxygen hose being destroyed, that low-pressure flow's feed is no longer there past the oxy regulator's internals and so the fire subsides and it is quickly blown out by the slipstream (cockpit sidewall burn-through).

It's as if someone did a single pass through the flight-deck with a flame-thrower. It's a whoosh, lotsa melting and a charred interior. The proximity of the oxy-fed flamethrower to the cockpit sidewall is sufficient to quickly achieve burnthrough. That's why you get that blue flame at the tip of a blow-torch.

Once the fire's out, the systems' status are mostly as was (apart from whatever the pilots initiated in their early event response) .... but later actual actuation of a melted plastic button? Not gonna work again. You're stuck with its original selection.

Got the idea? Novel to you perhaps, but not anyways mysterious to crash investigators.

Try googling NASA the Apollo 1 oxygen fire. It tells a similar story.
P.S. I gave up sucking 100% oxygen after a hard night - once I realized the potential for beard-singeing after eating a greasy hamburger.

[silvertate]

unctious.

An oxygen fire would burn out quite quickly with damage limited to very adjacent and localized equipments.


The Egyptair fire was compounded/caused by crews carrying eau-de-cologne on the flightdeck (as a part of the normal catering supplies) and smoking. Get rid of the flammable liquid and the ignition source, and you greatly reduce the possibility of oxygen doing anything.

[Ian W]

UNCTUOUS's theory is interesting but I just wonder had the cockpit been severely damaged by an O2 fire, just how stable the aircraft and its control systems would have been.

Certainly any hole in the side of the aircraft would not have initially or later disabled its ability to stay aloft but the control surfaces are fly by wire so the questions have to be asked, in the light of the destruction to the Egyptair example, could the controls remain in a detente position exactly as they were at the time the cockpit end of the system burnt through? How would they cope with turbulence changing any of the axes of the aircraft? If there was time to handle the aircraft to turn it round, why did not the crew call Mayday a la Swissair 111?
How could anyone regain the cockpit and perform any useful function if the damage was as extensive as the Egyptair example and for that matter to the Swissair 111?

Had Swissair 111 suffered its fate an hour or two later we would likely still be looking for it given the hypothesis set out above as it would have been in mid Atlantic with, on the night, not the best HF comms, though the VHF guard frequency might have been used.

My money always has been and still is on a hypoxia situation but, like everyone else, I'm currently lost for a cause that ticks all the boxes.

Despite the severe fire in the cockpit roof of the Swissair- severe enough for molten metal to rain down on the fliightcrew, they were in contact with ATC until they lost control of the aircraft.
In Unctuous scenario the crew shut down the electric buses and then exit the cockpit. Miraculously, not shutting down the FMC/FMS and not shutting down the SATCOM allowing the aircraft to fly for 7 hours apparently on either track or heading hold. Note that upthread (a long way)there was a discussion of the Egypt Air cockpit fire and it it was doubted if the same result would have happened in the air, and, that there had been a Boeing issued requirement for all 777 to have the cabling and ties checked to ensure that there was no chafing of the oxygen supply tubing to the first officer's seat.

[BOING]

C'mon Guys.
It has been said several times in previous posts. Lithium Ion batteries and flash cockpit fires are both great subjects for discussion and deserve their own threads but to link them to the loss of MH370 is pie-in-the-sky.

You will need to explain how an aircraft can deviate from its planned route, which was presumably loaded into the FMS, then continue to fly on a fairly complicated route to the Andaman Islands, making track and level changes that could not possibly be made solely by the unattended aircraft systems, THEN, the aircraft decides to "straighten up and fly right" and proceed to head south on its own in stable flight for 6 hours.

When, exactly are you proposing this fire took place? What combination of damages allowed the aircraft to initially make dramatic course changes then heal itself, select a new track, and fly south on a constant heading and altitude?

[IRpilot2006]

I gave up sucking 100% oxygen after a hard night - once I realized the potential for beard-singeing after eating a greasy hamburger.

That, along with the story about oxygen igniting lipstick, is complete rubbish.

At sea level pressure (about 15psi) the partial gas pressure of even a pure (100%) oxygen atmosphere (about 3psi) is 2-3 of orders of magnitude below that required to ignite these substances.

You need an ignition source to make it go off.

[flyingfox]

Could the wandering heading and curved flight path be due simply to the varying cross winds encountered?

[arearadar]

JamesGV,

The ATC protocols and procedures are not, in my opinion, `clearly unsafe`!!

Maybe not quite ICAO standard but perfectly normal.

[JamesGV]

By "fire". Is this just a general "fire" ?

Or is this related to Li Ion Batteries ?
There would be a need for an "ignition source" in that case.

Afterall, thermal runaway is a chain reaction. By that definition there is a beginning. An ignition. (for example a battery receiving a charge).

[glendalegoon]

For the record, altitude is NOT mentioned in the Preliminary report except in terms of clearance and readback/report on ATC audio recording.

There are altitude ''guesses '' concerning the calculation of search area.


So, those talking of level changes or similar, please point to it in a document as opposed to often incorrect news reports.

[NWSRG]

If Lithium batteries were involved in the loss of MH370, then there must have been an amazing line up of holes in cheese...

And surely the authorities would by now have looked at the location of any batteries, and any possible areas of ignition that might have caused the loss of the various comms channels, but yet allowed the aircraft to continue to function for five or more hours...

[probes]

The ATC protocols and procedures are not, in my opinion, `clearly unsafe`!!
Maybe not quite ICAO standard but perfectly normal.

so, it's normal that it takes 4 hours to take serious action?

[Desert185]

Unctuous:

Ref O2 fire...If you think this is a possibility, nowhere in the checklist does it say turn off the transponder and/or the ACARS, and do not talk to ATC, to include not declaring a emergency.

[Lonewolf_50]

so, it's normal that it takes 4 hours to take serious action?
It does not surprise me.
Third world country.
Social norms with their own logic.
Midnight shift on a Friday night.
Possible cultural issues/obstacles.

[threemiles]

Ok, let's take the fire scenarios serious for one moment...

The question would be, is there a bus or device constellation in the 777 where
a) COM, ATC, ADS-B, ACARS routine report functions become inop or destroyed
b) SATCOM itself is fully operational, but there is no data feed
c) the airframe itself is flyable to some extent, laterally and vertically, but cannot land or has no navigational capabilities

Regrettably those who have access to 777 manuals have left this thread - and this is understandable because
a) a lot of nonsense has appeared over the last 500 pages
b) random deletion of posts

Assuming we have a flyable but partially destroyed airplane scenario JAL123 maybe the closest. Hadn't the captain selected (by differential thrust) to turn towards the mountains, but instead over the sea, the plane may have flown uncontrolled many hours over the Pacific (though a domestic flight and not filled up).

[BOING]

I too seem to have joined the ranks of the serially modded but I would like to repeat one observation in the hope that it would help the investigation, perhaps some of our mathematical types would care to comment or at least be given the opportunity to do so.

It appears to me that when the aircraft left its initial projected position near the Andamans it flew either an FMS track to the geographic South Pole or a heading to the magnetic South Pole.

This hypothesis fits with the Inmarsat proposed routes, in fact the two tracks bracket the Inmarsat based search areas.

Initially, although I was sceptical about the choice of the southern route I believed that the Inmarsat arc calculations were correct. This left my concern that the proposed Inmarsat southern route took the aircraft near to the WA coast and it did not seem a likely route for someone who wished to hide an aircraft crash.

Now, if we consider the mindset of someone who wished to simply "lose" an aircraft why not first head west to throw searchers off the trail and then head south to a desolate area and a tidy pilot would likely head due south. This route seems to be, in a way, a logical choice, it explains why the aircraft flew a track approaching the WA coast and it fits with the Inmarsat projections.

A consideration of this hypothesis may help reduce the size of the search areas.

Any comments.

[All-Ex]

so, it's normal that it takes 4 hours to take serious action? Look at the Air France 447 final report page 83:
From the last conversations between the aeroplane and the ground, it took more than 3 h 30 min before the SAR process was put into effect, more than 6 h 30 min to launch the INCERFA and ALERFA phases and over 9 hours to send the first search aircraft.

[glendalegoon]

I think there should be two tracks for the investigation

the inmarsat track

and the non inmarsat track


though, with confirmed SONIC pings, the inmarsat track should be given much weight.

But some effort to recreate the flight, even taking the last radar observed ground track and extending it to fuel exhaustion would make some sense to me.

[Robin Clark]

Further to my #10413 .......did some trig. and found that the satellite should have been on a bearing of 73.17 degrees to port as MH370 was on climbout ........so in fact they were flying partly toward the sat. so it looks increasingly likely that Inmarsat got it wrong and their chart is actually indicating the opposite sense......ie .up is towards the satellite , increasing any doppler shift .....and vice versa......

[MG23]

The APU will then attempt an auto-start with whatever fuel is left in the APU fuel manifold and left fuel tank. If the APU were to start (it wouldn't be for long); the buses would come on line again and SATCOM would power up and attempt to reacquire the satellite.

I believe this is the main circumstantial evidence for believing the aircraft was out of fuel at that time, and should be somewhere near that location. Which seems to be consistent with the current search area.

[onetrack]

The JACC has already stated the revised underwater search zone could be up to 700km (378NM) long - thus indicating the greatest area of uncertainty is just how far the aircraft travelled before it went in - because the aircraft speed and altitude on its last leg is nothing more than a WAG.

[onetrack]

A panel of international aviation and SAR experts from around the world will convene in Australia's National capital Canberra, this week, to go over all the previous information, calculations and assessments, to see if anything new can be added to it, and to try and further refine the current position of the aircraft.

The report produced by this panel will be handed to the independent underwater contractor hired by the three countries who are the search leaders - Australia, Malaysia and China.

Interestingly, the Chinese are refusing to wait for any private underwater contractor to be be hired, and are sending their own underwater search technology and ship to the search zone this coming Saturday, to continue to try and find the aircraft.
This rather secretive Chinese vessel is only defined as "Navy vessel 872, with strong underwater search capabilities".
There are apparently requests by some Chinese experts for the Navy to utilise the Chinese manned Jiaolong submersible, which has extreme depth capabilities - 7000M (22,965') - but there is no official indication at this point, that the Jiaolong will be used.
One would tend to define the Chinese efforts as "gung-ho", but that's the Chinese way.

MH370 search area to be reviewed (https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/23221597/mh370-search-area-to-be-reviewed/)

[onetrack]

Australia's Deputy PM, Warren Truss has outlined the need for more seabed mapping to be carried out in the search zone, as a joint meeting of the three countries involved, concluded today.

Truss has also revealed the JACC HQ will be relocated to Canberra, instead of Perth, "to bring the centre closer to the high-level representatives of Malaysia and China and other countries who are interested in the search".

MH370 search area to be expanded (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-05/malaysia-airlines-mh370-deep-sea-search-area-expanded/5430824)

[Porker1]

Thanks for that snippet of info Onetrack.

Am somewhat bemused by the JACC statement that the revised underwater search zone could be up to 700km (378NM) long. How can this tally with the CVR/FDR transponder pings picked up by the towed array and their reportedly short range? It either puts the provenance of these detections in doubt or implies they are being advised by experts that these high frequency acoustic signals can be channeled over greater distances.

[slats11]

Interesting that JACC is referring to the Inmarsat data as the "best information we have."

That comment seems to be downplaying the significance of the pingers heard.

In addition, the sharply revised estimate for the size of the search area seems to throw significant doubt on the pingers (surely this frequency can't transmit over many hundreds of km).





MH370: Countries vow to continue search

Date May 5, 2014 - 4:06PM http://images.nationaltimes.com.au/2012/06/14/3374370/David_Wroe_col.jpg (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/by/David-Wroe)
David Wroe (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/by/David-Wroe)

National security correspondent



Chinese, Malaysian and Australian ministers have met in Canberra, announcing a new phase in the search for MH370.




Australia and other countries involved in the search for missing flight MH370 remain confident they are hunting in the right area and are embarking on a global push for new search equipment.
Transport Minister Warren Truss, after meeting with his counterparts from Malaysia and China, vowed the search would continue though he admitted there was no telling how long it would take. Just to find and acquire the equipment for the next phase would likely take four to six weeks, he said.
“We obviously have no idea when it’s likely to be found. You just always hope it’s tomorrow. So far our very, very best leads – days when we were quite confident that this was going to be the day – have all proved fruitless,” he said.
http://images.smh.com.au/2014/05/05/5402002/1399269985161.jpg-620x349.jpg Malaysian Acting Transport Minister, Hishammuddin Husssein, Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss and Chinese Transport Minister, Yang Chuantan address the media after their meeting on the search for MH370 at Parliament House in Canberra. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen




International experts would meet in Canberra on Wednesday to sift through the information gathered so far in a bid to define the new search area and make sure nothing has been missed, Mr Truss said.
This audit of information would “look again at the satellite information that has been accumulated so that we can make sure that it's been accurately interpreted (and) whether it should lead to some further search for information”, Mr Truss said.
Former chief of the Defence Force, Angus Houston, who is heading the search, said: “I still think that that is the best information we have” but added it was sensible to go back over the data to “make sure there are no flaws in that”.
A key part of this week’s meeting will be identifying the equipment needed – largely sonar devices that can be towed behind a ship and submersible vehicles to search the sea floor.
Mr Truss said there were only a “handful” of such assets around the world, most of which are in the private sector. Authorities have begun a tender process so that companies could bid to supply the equipment.
Also, most of the ocean floor in that area had never been mapped and was therefore little understood.
“It will require a significant effort for us to understand the ocean floor in that area,” Mr Truss said.
“I should emphasise that there are only a handful of relevant pieces of machinery in the world … but we know that some countries have oceanographic vessels that are capable of mapping the sea at that depth, and hopefully we will be able to harness some of that equipment to get on with that job.”
Chinese Transport Minister Yang Chuantang vowed the search would not let up.
“We will continue to search in accordance with the consensus reached at this meeting and assure that the search will not be interrupted, not be suspended, not be given up and not be slacked,” he said.
On the question of the cost of the ongoing search, Mr Truss said the expected $60 million price tag would be discussed between the participating countries.
Malaysian Transport Minister Hishamuddin Hussein added that none of the countries involved had so far raised the matter of costs with Malaysia, and added that there was now “a good platform for others to come forward and participate”.
So far, each country involved has borne its own costs. But Mr Truss said Australia would be looking for increased involvement from companies such as Boeing – which made the 777 plane – and Rolls Royce – which built the engines – and their host countries.


Read more: MH370: Countries vow to continue search (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/mh370-countries-vow-to-continue-search-20140505-zr4r7.html#ixzz30ovJlX7p)

[Val d'Isere]

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/23222670/mh370-had-to-have-human-interference/

The disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 could have only involved human input, according to two aviation experts.

A senior Boeing 777 captain and a former crash investigator agreed that given the information outlined in the preliminary report issued late last week, "human input was essential" for the MH370 to end its flight in the Indian Ocean.
Comments from qualified airline pilots (preferably Boeing 777) would be welcome, please.

[Heathrow Flyer]

A panel of international aviation and SAR experts from around the world will convene in Australia's National capital Canberra, this week, to go over all the previous information, calculations and assessments, to see if anything new can be added to it, and to try and further refine the current position of the aircraft.
This is good news, as an Analysis of the MH370 Preliminary Report (http://www.airtrafficmanagement.net/2014/05/analysis-mh370-preliminary-report/http://www.airtrafficmanagement.net/2014/05/analysis-mh370-preliminary-report/) by an independent ATM consultant and an Engineering Fellow with Raytheon Company raises questions about the current search location, including:
The displayed initial estimated point seems somewhat inaccurate, as it implies that the aircraft performed a turn to the NW immediately after leaving radar coverage. On the basis of the presented information, it seems much more likely that the aircraft would have continued on its heading and that the initial satellite point should be located further south.

This would potentially have the effect of skewing the entire estimate satellite trajectory (and thus any impact point) by a number of miles.

[747SP5]

1) Lithium batts may have burned thru transponder feed and created toxic gas before burning out/being extinguished,and the pilot was trying to head back to KL before being overcome by gas.

2) IF there had been that amount of gold on board and there was a suspicion that it'd been hijacked then we WOULD NOT have all those ships/subs in the southern ocean - the authorities would have come out and laid their cards on the table from the start

[Ian W]

Further to my #10413 .......did some trig. and found that the satellite should have been on a bearing of 73.17 degrees to port as MH370 was on climbout ........so in fact they were flying partly toward the sat. so it looks increasingly likely that Inmarsat got it wrong and their chart is actually indicating the opposite sense......ie .up is towards the satellite , increasing any doppler shift .....and vice versa......

The INMARSAT satellite geolocation is over the equator on the Africa side of the center of the Indian Ocean. MH370 was climbing out of Kuala Lumpur towards Vietnam heading North East - away from the satellite. It was in the fringes of the cover of the Pacific INMARSAT satellite but had set up a connection with the Indian Ocean INMARSAT satellite. They only started flying toward the Indian Ocean satellite after breaking radio contact and turning back.

[mm43]

They only started flying toward the Indian Ocean satellite after breaking radio contact and turning back.As Robin Clark pointed out in his post on this subject, the aircraft on initial climb out had the satellite at - 73.17° (to the left), which meant that any Doppler shift with reference to the Inmarsat 3-F1 satellite would be increasing.

However, that is not the end of the story, as it is the aircraft that senses the Doppler shift between it and the satellite and shifts its Tx frequency to compensate. If flying toward the satellite it would shift its Tx frequency downward so that any transmission from the aircraft would arrive at the satellite at the assigned and expected Rx frequency. Likewise when flying away from the Satellite, the Doppler shift would be deceasing and the aircraft would adjust its Tx frequency in the opposite direction, i.e. upwards.

The satellite has nothing to do with the Doppler correction; that is assigned to each individual aircraft, otherwise the satellite would have a very large job on its hands when communicating with many aircraft. What the Satellite does do, is transmit a constant carrier on the P Channel which the aircraft uses to sense the received frequency offset from the assigned channel and then adjusts its Tx channel(s) in the opposite direct to compensate.

Any Doppler shift between the the Ground Station (GES) and the satellite is corrected at the earth side, which allows the separate isolation of Doppler between the Sat and the aircraft (AES).

Now start thinking about where this "burst frequency offset" info is coming from.

[UNCTUOUS]

Porker1 said Am somewhat bemused by the JACC statement that the revised underwater search zone could be up to 700km (378NM) long. How can this tally with the CVR/FDR transponder pings picked up by the towed array and their reportedly short range? It either puts the provenance of these detections in doubt or implies they are being advised by experts that these high frequency acoustic signals can be channeled over greater distances.
and
Heathrow Flyer (quoting an independent Raytheon assessment of Inmarsat data) said:
The displayed initial estimated point seems somewhat inaccurate, as it implies that the aircraft performed a turn to the NW immediately after leaving radar coverage. On the basis of the presented information, it seems much more likely that the aircraft would have continued on its heading and that the initial satellite point should be located further south.

This would potentially have the effect of skewing the entire estimate satellite trajectory (and thus any impact point) by a number of miles.
This would tend to agree with the hypothesis that Ocean Shield's limited and non-continuous pinger detections were genuine (but distant) second or even third "convergence zone" in origin. Sound propagation in deep water tends to be distorted by thermoclines in the depths (abrupt changes of temperature at different levels in deep water (aka layering)). It tends to cause large amplitude focussed ripples in detected acoustics (i.e. an erratically moving incomplete annulus every 30 to 50 miles or so - at or near the surface). Accomplished and experienced sonar operators can tell the difference between first, second and third convergence zones. This effect for a sea-bottomed "pinger" might also be focussed in a particular direction by the ocean bottom's topography (think of MH370's pinger being inside a deep valley with its pinger's acoustics being channelled in the direction of the valley or canyon's mouth). Ocean hydrographers cannot predict or allow for these geomorphic effects and time-warps in detected ensonification. It's at the same time both diffraction and refraction via its water-routing - and for a bottomed object, reflection. The phenomenon is a great friend of submariners as it can cloak their actual position even when making noisy high-speed progress. All they need do is "hide" beneath a layer and noisily propagate in all directions. After swamping all listening sonobuoys and fixed arrays with their high-speed sound signature, they then slow and go to a silent undetectable loiter mode. Concentrating an MH370 sonics search within the immediate area of a few pinger detections was overly optimistic and seems to have disregarded the characteristics of sound in deep water.
Add in the Raytheon claimed discrepancy and it's still a much larger and indefinite search area than those you see on the AMSA/JACC charts. I guess we will see whether this will be reflected in the next phase search zone prognostications.

It's worth noting as far as range of detection goes, that a blackbox pinger's job is to be heard, whilst a submariner's intention is never to be heard - yet, in my experience, long distant detections during aerial ASW sonics search was the norm for conventional snorting and/or nuclear boats (particularly the Soviet Echo II boats and later).

Desert 185 said: Unctuous:

Ref O2 fire...If you think this is a possibility, nowhere in the checklist does it say turn off the transponder and/or the ACARS, and do not talk to ATC, to include not declaring a emergency.
Fair comment for a mere nasty brown smell, but does not reflect what an injured crew might do after/during a sudden oxygen flare. There's no oxy on/off valve on the flight-deck and someone blinded by flame might just think that instantly killing the electrics might bring relief - from what is essentially a brief explosion and subsequent fireball. You only have to look at the cockpit photo of the MS 777 "Nefertiti" scorching to grasp that. I'd be surprised if they (or any surviving "he") didn't bale to the cabin immediately. But I'd also not be surprised if they were cooked where they sat.

[James7]

Unctuous... Excellent post.

I was wondering if the depth etc of the actual receiver would negate any of these anomalies.

I would have thought that if the receiver was virtually on top of the pings then that should give an accurate position. I would assume that IF the boxes are actually there then the receiver would have passed pretty close to one of them.

Of course does not necessarily mean the aircraft is there as well, which is probably why the are having so much trouble locating them with the UAV.

[threemiles]

Point taken on the deep water ping progagation.

But the spectrum/waterfall of the recorded pings (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-07/ocean-shield-detects-possible-mh370-black-box-signal/5372616) looked pretty clean. Except that the detected frequency was so offset by 4.2 kHz from 37.5 kHz.

The area searched was about 15 NM x 15 NM around the ping that was heard for 2 hours and 20 mins(!!). Do you think propagation can go beyond this?

[SKS777FLYER]

Quote:
The disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 could have only involved human input, according to two aviation experts.

A senior Boeing 777 captain and a former crash investigator agreed that given the information outlined in the preliminary report issued late last week, "human input was essential" for the MH370 to end its flight in the Indian Ocean.
Comments from qualified airline pilots (preferably Boeing 777) would be welcome, please.



Val'd....
For the jet to leave it's programmed waypoint to waypoint flight plan to China;stored in the flight management system; under normal conditions would have required a human to intervene.
1. A pilot could take the controls manually, click the autopilot off and hand fly the jet whatever direction or altitude.
2. A pilot could modify the upcoming legs in the active flight plan to have the autoflight system steer the jet to new waypoints.
3. A pilot could build a second flight plan in the second flight management computer, activate and execute the second flight plan and either hand fly or direct intercept a waypoint on the new flight plan.
4. A pilot could leave the autopilot on, but steer to whatever heading via heading select mode.

On "my" 777's, the company dispatch center can send via data link; new flight plans, to the inactive flight management computer system. To my knowledge, only a human actually on the flight deck of the aircraft could activate and execute such secondary flight plan.

Whatever capability an outside agency (human) might have to activate a secondary flight plan is unknown......

[RichardC10]

Ref: Steve Winter’s report at:

Analysis: MH370 Preliminary Report | Air Traffic Management | Air Traffic Management - ATM and CMS Industry online, the latest air traffic control industry, CAA, ANSP, SESAR and NEXTGEN news, events, supplier directory and magazine (http://www.airtrafficmanagement.net/2014/05/analysis-mh370-preliminary-report/)

It’s not my job to act as cheerleader for the analysis we have from the International Panel but Steve Winter has raised some points that I believe can be understood on the basis of the published data, so I offer the following comments:

I have edited the extracts of the report for length.
The first satellite “ping” occurred only five minutes after the last air defence radar contact at 02:22 MYT, so the estimated satellite position is quite tightly constrained….On the basis of the presented information, it seems much more likely that the aircraft would have continued on its heading and that the initial satellite point should be located further south … skewing the entire estimate satellite trajectory (and thus any impact point) by a number of miles.
I was also surprised that the turning point could be so tightly defined on the basis of the data to hand; as plotted it may reflect a best fit to all the ping-arc data, with the North/South constraint of the 18.30 ping-arcs. However, as I have proposed in previous posts, it is the value of 00:11 BFO that sets the final red-zone search area along the 00:11 ping-arc, not the overall course/speed from the ping arc data (at least in the case of level flight at 00:11). The 00:11 BFO has a latitude dependence via component D2.The maps also show the probability areas for the aircraft impact, corresponding with the final “ping” at 08:19 MYT. The areas are shown as the “Highest Probability Area” to the north, centred on the Zenith Plateau which was the focus of the initial underwater search; the “Lowest Probability Area” to the south of that, and finally, the “Mid Probability Area” to the south of that. This seems curious, as a simple probability distribution would be expected to have the “Mid Probability Area” adjacent to the “Highest Probability Area”. Perhaps this is a typo, but it also makes one wonder why there is no probability area to the north of the Highest Probability Area.
Again as I have proposed before, the high-probability area is set on the basis the aircraft was level at 30000ft at 00:11 so there was no effect of descent rate on the BFO. The width of this zone is set by the total statistical uncertainty. The maps show different heights for the three probability areas, the writer seems to have missed this.

There is no marked area to the North of the red-zone as any climb from 30000ft at 00:11 was regarded as improbable (climb shifts the area North).

This all indicates that further refinement of the satellite data would be useful and that the final resting place of MH370 may well be within a much wider search area.
Further thought since the last post on the differentiation of the red/green/yellow zones. If a descent is allowed as an option at 00:11, then the final BFO value loses most of its value for setting the speed (and hence course) – the mixture of position and descent contributions cannot be disentangled in one measurement. If there was any BFO measurement from the 00:19 partial pings they would be similarly affected as the aircraft would be descending steeply, since 00:19 is generally attributed as the fuel exhaustion point.

With the 00:11 point discounted for this purpose, the selection of the speed/course drops back to the earlier ping-BFO values. The mid-probability/green area may reflect the best fit to these data points only. With a speed/course selected on this basis the 00:11 ping then gives a predicted descent rate. However, the earlier BFO data must have lower value in setting the speed/course in this situation so the predicted area of search might get quite wide (and more so if the initial turning point is not pinned down accurately). The aircraft analysis based on possible autopilot modes/aircraft configuration may constrain the possible descent rates at 00:11 and so still provide some limit in the Southern direction particularly (which corresponds to higher descent speeds).

[Val d'Isere]

With thanks to SKS777FLYER:
For the jet to leave it's programmed waypoint to waypoint flight plan to China;stored in the flight management system; under normal conditions would have required a human to intervene.
1. A pilot could take the controls manually, click the autopilot off and hand fly the jet whatever direction or altitude.
2. A pilot could modify the upcoming legs in the active flight plan to have the autoflight system steer the jet to new waypoints.
3. A pilot could build a second flight plan in the second flight management computer, activate and execute the second flight plan and either hand fly or direct intercept a waypoint on the new flight plan.
4. A pilot could leave the autopilot on, but steer to whatever heading via heading select mode.

OK, that takes care of Nav (i.e. path over the ground/sea). The route followed could all have been input to the FMS and handed to the automatic flight system ('autopilot') at the time of deviation from the original route to Bejing. No further human input to Nav would have been necessary. Everyone on board could have been dead from that point onward and the route over the ground/sea would still have been flown.

However, could a vertical 'profile' to match the claimed visits to (lets assume) 39000ft and 5000ft be input to the FMS, handed to the automatic flight system ('autopilot') at (let's assume, for ease of discussion) the time of deviation from the original route to Bejing and thereafter be followed by the aircraft without further human intervention?

In other words, after input of the profile incorporating 39000ft and 5000ft, could everyone on board have been dead from that point and the profile still have been flown by the automatic flight system?

[LNIDA]

It could be programmed in such a way that it could make a series of climbs or a descents but not both (other than the final descent after the fuel runs out!!)

If the aircraft is flown in VNAV (vertical flight path) and is at say 37000 and a way point altitude of 6000 feet is entered at some point down line then the aircraft will descend to reach 6000 feet point in flight idle descent PROVIDED that 6000 has been entered in to the MCP altitude window, the reverse (climb) is true, but unless some one makes a further amendment to the MCP target it won't climb or descend again.

If you were at 37000 feet and selected 43000 at some point down line (even if this was above the aircrafts CRZ capability at that mass) and entered that in the MCP window, then the aircraft would attempt to make that climb, the speed would slowly decline until just above the min speed and VNAV would likely revert to level change with near zero rate of climb, it shouldn't stall, VNAV would not re engage without human input.

In other words it will not leave any FL or altitude in VNAV unless the MCP window is set to a different value, if the FMC constraint was FL100 and you selected 100ft in the MCP it would only descend to FL100, not 100 feet.

You could program multiple climbs or descents, but not both, so starting at 370 you could set WP 1 to 350, WP2 to 300, WP 3 to 270 and so on, BUT the MCP would have to equal the lowest programmed value for it to achieve that, ditto the reverse in the climb, so stepped climbs or descents are of course possible (creating the illusion that someone is in control?) but not up and down without someone in control !!

This flight went where (ever?) it did because someone made it so, not a Li on battery fire or cockpit 02 fire.

The and only saving grace in this event (from an industry point of view) is that it wasn't a dream liner, that could well have resulted in a fleet wide grounding, even if not justified by the facts, but after the previous battery problems one could understand why

[Rollleft]

Did you also account for the satellite motion due to orbit inclination?

[BOING]

Good post LNIDA, that should clarify the nav system operation.

The important point bought out is that there are only two possible scenarios. At the southerly turn point there was either a live operator at the controls to manually select a southerly heading with the heading select control or the FMS had been preprogrammed to make the turn and a live operator was not required.

Either option suggests that the person in control of the aircraft had some training on nav. system operation but it does not imply that a crew member was flying the aircraft. The system is simple enough to operate that a lightly trained hijacker could have steered the aircraft - after all hijackers took flying lessons for 9/11.

[lomapaseo]

This flight went where (ever?) it did because someone made it so, not a Li on battery fire or cockpit 02 fire

Could it not have both but at different times :confused:

[portmanteau]

yes it is curious. if there has been an explanation I have missed it. aircraft carries ulb. its range is 1 to 2 km in normal conditions. ulb signal is heard so the bearing of it from the tpl is known but not the range but hey we dont need that, it says on the tin it is no more than 2 km away. textbook stuff so far but ulb and aircraft not found. it seems ocean shield and echo together could not establish even a position line. how did this or any other ulb get certificated with such a dismal specification? apparently the number of successful ulb locations via pinger, ever, can be counted on one hand. just another piece of kit to add to the list of recommended upgrades. so its got to be the hard way, the ulb is obviously down there somewhere so its now a long slog to find it a la af 447.

[Mesoman]

Concentrating an MH370 sonics search within the immediate area of a few pinger detections was overly optimistic and seems to have disregarded the characteristics of sound in deep water.
Add in the Raytheon claimed discrepancy and it's still a much larger and indefinite search area than those you see on the AMSA/JACC charts. I guess we will see whether this will be reflected in the next phase search zone prognostications.

An important factor differentiating submarine sound propagation from ULB ping propagation is attenuation of the signal. At low frequencies used for submarine detection, there is virtually no attenuation. Signal decrease is due only to distance (r-squared law) and that can be significantly lessened by focusing effects.

At the 33.5kHz frequency of the assumed pinger detection, the ocean absorbs sound at a rate of about 4.5 dB per kM. This is in addition to r-squared loss. This substantially limits detection range, and is no doubt why the original search area was small. It also leads me to believe that, if the original pinger detect was valid (and I've yet to see another explanation for the signals), the wreckage should still be found close to the detect locations.

It will be interesting to see what the reviewers have to say about this, if any is made public.

See this attenuation calculator: Calculation of absorption of sound in seawater (http://resource.npl.co.uk/acoustics/techguides/seaabsorption/)

[Porker1]

Interesting article on detection of ULBs and their practical operating ranges. Apologies if it has been posted previously.

Deep-water Black Box Retrieval - November 2009, Volume 13, Number 09 - Archive - Hydro International (http://www.hydro-international.com/issues/articles/id1130-Deepwater_Black_Box_Retrieval.html)

[RichardC10]

@Propduffer
Who is "Steve Winter", and where does he get the location of the "last radar sighting of MH370 from?
Mr Winter seems to have a good Internet presence, e.g.
ATCA Technical Writing Awards (http://www.atca.org/atca-technical-writing-awards)

The last radar sighting at 18:22 is shown in the ICAO report maps and in the slides shown at the Beijing meeting a day or so before. Agreed that the lat/long position of the 18:22 sighting seems to have moved West since previous reports.

[henra]

Could it not have both but at different times :confused:

Thank you!

I'm at a loss why People feel so urged to exclude (or to foster on the other Hand) possible causes in this case?
What's the benefit of that?
Does it help improve safety?
Does it make somebody sleep better at night?

Why can't we just wait until they find the boxes?

[Robin Clark]

I have made attempted to account for all motion between the aircraft and the satellite..
The Inmarsat 3F1 was moving very slowly westward during the whole flight , this was not enough to significantly change the 'doppler' shift of the signals routed through it....IMHO...
It was also moving northward away from the equator very slowly , reaching a limit at around 18:41UTC , and then moving back toward the equator again . It is this 'wobble' which Inmarsat suggests could help distinguish between an aircraft route in the northern hemisphere , and one in the southern............via subtle differences....
By far the greatest motion is the up and down direction...........although the figures published are relative to the surface straight down and Kuala Lumpur is part of the way around the world , and so lower values would be experienced there .

In the chart the first section is defined with negative values as the satellite is ascending . The latter part as positive values as the satellite is descending . I converted the speeds to feet per minute , as this helps relate it to aircraft motion............


http://www.14594.mrsite.com/USERIMAGES/satspeedvert.jpg

[m-dot]

With a very hardline Federal budget due out next Tuesday, I wonder how much pressure the Australian government will find themselves under to wrap up/pass on the associated costs?

I'd like to find the answers with MH370 but at some stage the line has to be drawn. It's great publicity for Australia throughout the world but to fund an indefinite search might be close to political suicide (by a government who are about to implement a debt levy and take an axe to government spending).

Will be interesting to see what questions are asked come Tuesday.

[Datayq1]

Propduffer and Richard,

The last position given for some radar contact, surmised to be MH370, as given to the Chinese families was 200 nm from Butterworth on a 295 radial.

I don't know how you can "move" that point westward unless you possess some additional radar targets that have not been released to the families.

[4Greens]

The only possible improvement to safety at this time is to require the transmission of the crash recorder to the ground during the flight. It can be deleted on a flight/daily basis so there is no overload on the recording systems.

[wheels up]

If the aircraft is flown in VNAV (vertical flight path) and is at say 37000 and a way point altitude of 6000 feet is entered at some point down line then the aircraft will descend to reach 6000 feet point in flight idle descent PROVIDED that 6000 has been entered in to the MCP altitude window, the reverse (climb) is true, but unless some one makes a further amendment to the MCP target it won't climb or descend again.

As far as I am aware, the 777 will not climb/descend unless the MCP ALTSEL is pushed, changing the cruise alt in the FMC, even with a step climb/descent programmed and a higher/lower level set in MCP altitude window. The step climb/descents entered into the FMC are for the FMC to calculate performance and fuel burn. However, the aircraft will descend when the TOD point is reached, VNAV changes to VNAV DES mode and a lower level is set in MCP ALTSEL.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[RichardC10]

@Datayq1
I don't know how you can "move" that point westward unless you possess some additional radar targets that have not been released to the families. I have not moved anything. The ICAO report map refers to 'Updated Last Air Defense Radar Point' and the same point is on (a fuzzy copy of) the slide at the 29th April Beijing families meeting.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1151154-mh370-maps.html

Beijing-4_2014-04-29_zps0977658b.jpg Photo by RichardC10 | Photobucket (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/RichardC10/media/Beijing-4_2014-04-29_zps0977658b.jpg.html)

[4Greens]

Transmit the data and we don't have to search for the recorder. Saves a lot of money.

[Derfred]

Transmit the data and we don't have to search for the recorder. Saves a lot of money

Do you really think they wouldn't have bothered searching for AF, or indeed MH if they had the black box data already? Try telling that to the relatives of the deceased...

[porterhouse]

The step climb/descents entered into the FMC are for the FMC to calculate performance and fuel burn Not only to calculate performance but actually perform such step climbs/descents. As long as you don't cross through the altitude set up in MCP window you don't have to press anything to execute such step climbs/descents.

[wheels up]

Well I tried entering our climb level with a step climb at next waypoint and MCP altitude set to cleared level just to see what it would do (in a real 777) and the aircraft did not climb until the ALTSEL was pushed.

[DrPhillipa]

andrekik (http://www.pprune.org/members/429889-andrekik) : They would know ac's last position.... Unless the Aircraft has ADS, in which case the position is sent periodically anyway, the aircraft's actual GPS position appears not to be one of the required parameters for the FDR.

They would have details of lots of other things though, like probably what happened and when.

Unless the data link was switched off, of course, or failed before anything else untoward happened.

[amc890]

wheelsup you could try wpta .../180b
wptb .../200b
wptc .../240b
etc
then set fl 340 in the mcp push altsel and see what happens
starting in vnav alt first

[Val d'Isere]

Thanks for all the replies re FMS VNAV.

So, as I understand it, by any of four methods, a live human could climb from 35000ft to 39000ft and level off at 39000ft and, once that had all been achieved:

(1) - Input to FMS any number of existing (or their own) waypoints

(2) - Input to FMS a 5000ft level at a chosen waypoint using a chosen descent method, such as, for example, idle descent

(3) - Enable 5000ft by dialling 5000 in the (MCP?) window, with a press to pre-arm.

After completing (1) to (3), which might require nothing more than 10 minutes after levelling at 39000ft, said live human could then die (by depressurising, or, if already depressurised, by removing their oxygen mask) and the aeroplane would spend the next several hours automatically flying over the waypoints in sequence, descending when it calculated necessary to achieve 5000ft by the location programmed several hours earlier.

Are there any flaws in the above, please?

[LNIDA]

To be accurate i fly the 737NG which has a very similar system to the T7

The whole purpose of VNAV is to allow you to fly stepped climbs/descents, but the MCP alt window is king and will not allow you to fly through it in either climb or descent, i understood the T7 was more or less identical in this respect?

What you can do is climb or descend away from the MCP alt with no protection.

So you could be flying along at 1200ft and select 10000 feet in the MCP alt window, this would open up V/S (vertical speed) mode, if you then dialled a positive rate of climb the aircraft would climb away from the MCP alt value with no protection the reverse is also true.

So starting at 12000 ft with 10000 in the MCP and with a +V/S of a 100ft/pm and say a thrust limited climb ceiling of 45000ft it would spend 5 hours 30 minutes slowly climbing, of course as more fuel was used it would be able to climb further and in theory would keep going until it could climb no more and the speed came back to almost min speed, i think? it would probably revert then to level change and with 10000 in the MCP alt window it might descent back there at idle thrust until it captured the 10000 alt (or a 100ft if that was selected?) and that could be below sea level if the QNH was low (1009 or less) with STD (1013) set on the sub scale .

They may be difference between the NG &T7 in the logic but you get the idea, if i get chance i'll try it in the sim.....

[SOPS]

Putting a new altitude into the MCP does not open the V/S window on the 777.

[glendalegoon]

again, to remind people, NOWHERE in the preliminary report is there any verification of altitudes except during ATC radio recordings of assignments and readbacks/reports of altitudes.

there are guesses at the end of the track to the search area.

so why are we talking about modes of autopilot to change altitudes?

in other words, alot of BS has come down the pike and its time to dismiss altitudes like FL390, FL450, 12,000' etc.

Unless of course someone out there has any real info!??

[Val d'Isere]

why are we talking about modes of autopilot to change altitudes?
Because, as my fiirst post on this subject states:

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/...-interference/

The disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 could have only involved human input, according to two aviation experts.

A senior Boeing 777 captain and a former crash investigator agreed that given the information outlined in the preliminary report issued late last week, "human input was essential" for the MH370 to end its flight in the Indian Ocean.

The objective is to prove or disprove that human intervention was only essential for a short period after the first loss of contact. If proven, the vast majority of the flight, including any decreasing level changes, could have been entirely automatically flown, despite all souls on board being dead.

Other possibilities might then follow, but, if so, we should leave those until later, to avoid confused logic (sadly, all too easily generated on PPRuNe).

[SOPS]

If you knew the person that wrote that article, you would probably totally disregard it. I think most of us in Australia have.

[James7]

Val ..The objective is to prove or disprove that human intervention was only essential for a short period after the first loss of contact. If proven, the vast majority of the flight, including any decreasing level changes, could have been entirely automatically flown, despite all souls on board being dead.

Absolutely correct.

The authorities media etc. are obviously leaning towards one of the pilots (expert knowledge etc.) and the skipper seems to be favourite. Remarks about family life, flight sim, political etc..

However, what you have to remember is that they are talking about the murder of 227pax and 11 crew. Plus the destruction of well over a thousand lives associated with the deceased.

The immediate family will always be remembered for having a murderer amongst them. Your father, grandfather, great grandfather ancestor etc, was responsible for the loss of MH370 and 238 number of people.

Could HE really be responsible for such actions.
Having reached the top in his career would he really want to leave such a legacy for his family to bear.

If he was and this is a big IF then for sure he will do everything possible to make sure MH370 will never be found. Drawing on his considerable experience and expertise. So far he has done an excellent job of it.

This action would have been well planned and researched. There would be a paper, electronic, or oral trail somewhere. There usually is.

I believe some radical thinking has to be done to find the plane. Maybe a new team in place to generate some other ideas.

All the cards should be on the table.

[IRpilot2006]

the aircraft's actual GPS position appears not to be one of the required parameters for the FDR

It would be absolutely astonishing if the lat/long coordinates were not recorded. Can anybody confirm this?

[oldoberon]

Do you really think they wouldn't have bothered searching for AF, or indeed MH if they had the black box data already? Try telling that to the relatives of the deceased...


You are missing the point, they would have known WHERE TO SEARCH.

[Backseat Dane]

As SLF I don't know if this is off-limits in this thread? If so feel free to delete.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) today announced new proposals for flight recorders and underwater locating devices which aim at facilitating the recovery of an aircraft and of its flight recorders in the unfortunate eventuality of an accident.

The new EASA requirements include the extension of the transmission time of underwater locating devices (ULD) fitted on flight recorders from 30 days to 90 days. EASA also proposes to equip large aeroplanes overflying oceans with a new type of ULD that have longer locating range than the current flight recorders ULDs. Alternatively, aircraft may be equipped with a means to determine the location of an accident within 6 Nautical Miles accuracy. In addition, the minimum recording duration of Cockpit Voice Recorders installed on new large aeroplanes should be increased to 20 hours from two 2 hours today.

Patrick Ky, EASA Executive Director said: “The tragic flight of Malaysia Airlines MH370 demonstrates that safety can never be taken for granted. The proposed changes are expected to increase safety by facilitating the recovery of information by safety investigation authorities”.

These new requirements are included in an EASA Opinion and, when adopted by the European Commission, will apply to the operation of aeroplanes and helicopters registered in an EASA Member State.

EASA publishes new proposals for flight recorders and locating devices | EASA (http://easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and-events/news/easa-publishes-new-proposals-flight-recorders-and-locating-devices)

[Ian W]

Transmit the data and we don't have to search for the recorder. Saves a lot of money

Do you really think they wouldn't have bothered searching for AF, or indeed MH if they had the black box data already? Try telling that to the relatives of the deceased...

If the data included the position of the aircraft then it is true you would not have to search - you would know where it was. This entire thread and for that matter the one on AF447 exists because nobody knows where the aircraft is and what happened. After AF447 BEA proposed that aircraft over oceans should make regular ADS-C reports down to as often as once a minute so that in an emergency the search and rescue/recovery knows where to start. The BEA proposal was discarded of course as the beancounters wouldn't pay. Now INMARSAT is offering a free service for this 'tracking' perhaps someone will start setting ADS-C contracts down to say 90 seconds. For FANS 1/A aircraft this could be done today without any equipage change and with INMARSATs offer it could be done at no cost. :ok:

Why isn't it being done?

[DrPhillipa]

IRPilot2006: Nav Data must be recorded in the FDR (http://keiknowledge.com/report/fdr_rule_icao.pdf) where "available and used". It is not "required" per se.

One presumes that any GPS and WAAS systems would also be included here.

Operation Parameters ... Primary navigation system reference*: GNSS, INS, VOR/DME, MLS, Loran C, ILS

Those parameters designated by an (*) are to be recorded if an information source for the parameter is used by aeroplane systems and/or flight crew to operate the aeroplane.

[ZeBedie]

The hijack to Perth theory makes a lot of sense to me.

If it was the captain trying to disappear the aircraft, wouldn't it have been a whole lot easier to do it on a flight across the Pacific to LA?

[oldoberon]

I thought that when I 1st saw the revised track, but decided no way.

If the pilot voluntarily or under coercion was heading for Perth, he could have flow across Indonesia, if detected they would not have shot MAH370 down

We don't know whether if need be he could have used the radio and spun them a mulfunction story, then continued to Perth.

To me the only plausible reason for the diversion around Indonesia was to hide the track/destination.

[ZeBedie]

And another place on the MH route network which would have made disappearing into the Southern Ocean even easier - Mauritius.

[Datayq1]

Tell me how flying directly towards (and overflying) Banda Aceh and the International Airport was a Indonesian Radar avoidance attempt.

Possible that "human control of the aircraft" changed hands????

[short bus]

I see Google maps now has two patches of hi-res imagery for the search areas of the Indian Ocean west of Australia.

[DrPhillipa]

I see no clear unequivocal evidence for any "diversion around Indonesia". Subsequent to the loss of transponder signals there are only a couple of Malaysian military radar points over the Malaccan Straights reported, one of which has been subsequently moved, original height data has also been modified (negated). It is also unclear if these are points logged, or a track between them was logged.

No contact was reported on the presumed flight from IGARI across the entire Malay Peninsula.

A ping position (arc?) has been posited for 18:27 broadly consistent with the limited radar data followed by a posited southerly path which only just misses the Indonesian land mass.

Thai and Indonesian radar has not publically reported any contact, they have also not publically confirmed which radar were manned, active or logged - or their range. It is strange that neither saw the plane. If its path was as proposed it would have flown well within 200Nm of both Thai and Indonesian airspace. No word from JORN either.

If there is only confidential (military) information available, its existence (or confirmed absence of contact) should have been reported even if no details were.

[Ian W]

But the Malaysian radar was corroborated by the Thai military (who were excoriated for not coming forward sooner). There is absolutely no requirement for these military authorities to satisfy you or anyone in the peanut gallery by publicly publishing their data. The people that need to know have the information. The lack of information would apply if it were an NTSB or BEA or other investigation; only limited information is made available to the public until the final report.
JORN was almost certainly switched off as it was a peacetime weekend.

[Hyperveloce]

However, that is not the end of the story, as it is the aircraft that senses the Doppler shift between it and the satellite and shifts its Tx frequency to compensate. If flying toward the satellite it would shift its Tx frequency downward so that any transmission from the aircraft would arrive at the satellite at the assigned and expected Rx frequency. Likewise when flying away from the Satellite, the Doppler shift would be deceasing and the aircraft would adjust its Tx frequency in the opposite direction, i.e. upwards.

The satellite has nothing to do with the Doppler correction; that is assigned to each individual aircraft, otherwise the satellite would have a very large job on its hands when communicating with many aircraft. What the Satellite does do, is transmit a constant carrier on the P Channel which the aircraft uses to sense the received frequency offset from the assigned channel and then adjusts its Tx channel(s) in the opposite direct to compensate.

Any Doppler shift between the the Ground Station (GES) and the satellite is corrected at the earth side, which allows the separate isolation of Doppler between the Sat and the aircraft (AES).

Now start thinking about where this "burst frequency offset" info is coming from.

mm43, are you sure that this P-channel continuous monitoring of the doppler shift between the A/C and the 3F1 satellite was implemented by the MH370 AES ?
I ask because the Inmarsat annex 1 clearly states (red circling D2) that "D2 is not corrected by system" (meaning both GES and AES) hence it is "the observed frequency offset". Furthermore, if the BFO were only residuals of such a correction, it would be a poor correction (not that we can expect from the P-channel monitoring) of the relative A/C to sat doppler. D3 is easily predictible via the 3F1 ephemeris so I guess that it is compensed at GES level to reduce the doppler shifts (and it is not red circled).
The meaning of D1 which is an A/C induced doppler is not so clear, D1 could either be the A/C contribution to the relative A/C to 3F1 doppler (but the annex 1 also states that D2 combines the satellite & A/C motion so that this comtribution should be encompassed by D2), or it could be the AES correction to D2 (the opposite of the P-channel doppler shifts, or estimated via the IRS data and satellite ephemeris, but Imarsat says that D2 is not corrected). :ugh: Can you make sense of this ?

[mm43]

@ Hyperveloce

The Inmarsat graphic is essentially a media release designed to smooth over technical details that would "complicate" matters.

If you refer to SATCOM manufacturer's data, they have very little to say about what goes on in the Satellite Data Unit or the Satellite Beam Steering Unit, and Inmarsat are also very quiet on the subject. The best way to find what is going on is to go through Patent applications for alternatives to the methods in use. For the Patent application to succeed, it must show why it needs to use the methods that it is promoting. So this is where are a lot of the detail can be found.

US Patent #6008758 (https://www.google.com/patents/US6008758) will provide an insight into the mysterious "D1/D2".

The ADIRU also supplies data to the SBSU/SDU, and if certain parameters are exceeded, say momentary loss of the P Channel occurs, the AES may initiate an "I am here" handshake with the SAT.

[hamster3null]

mm43, are you sure that this P-channel continuous monitoring of the doppler shift between the A/C and the 3F1 satellite was implemented by the MH370 AES ?
I ask because the Inmarsat annex 1 clearly states (red circling D2) that "D2 is not corrected by system" (meaning both GES and AES) hence it is "the observed frequency offset".

All aircraft that ever enter the U.S. airspace (it would be pretty safe to presume that it means all 777's) are required by 47 CFR 87.145(d) 47 CFR 87.145 - Acceptability of transmitters for licensing. | LII / Legal Information Institute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/87.145) to correct their transmit frequencies for Doppler effect relative to the satellite and to bring them under 335 Hz.

Annex 1 could be interpreted to say that D2 is the real Doppler, D1 is the correction, and "measured frequency offset" is the part of D2 that is not subtracted by D1. It's a stretch but it is consistent with my first paragraph.