Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
true, however if indeed there is SATCOM telemetry for 5 hours, that would prove at least 5 hours of flight.
We don't know Inmarsat's reception coverage (although we'd like to think they can receive SATCOM anywhere), we do know the aircraft had around 7 hours worth of fuel.
We don't know Inmarsat's reception coverage (although we'd like to think they can receive SATCOM anywhere), we do know the aircraft had around 7 hours worth of fuel.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: redmond
Age: 88
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
excellent WSJ report
Insider Was Needed to Disable Plane Systems - WSJ.com
Insider Was Needed to Disable Plane Systems
If multiple communication systems aboard Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 were manually disabled, as investigators increasingly suspect happened, it would have required detailed knowledge of the long-range Boeing Co. 777's inner workings.
f multiple communication systems aboard Malaysia Airlines 3786.KU +2.13% Flight 370 were manually disabled, as investigators increasingly suspect happened, it would have required detailed knowledge of the long-range Boeing Co. BA +1.00% 777's inner workings.
The first loss of the jet's transponder, which communicates the jet's position, speed and call sign to air traffic control radar, would require disabling a circuit breaker above and behind an overhead panel. Pilots rarely, if ever, need to access the circuit breakers, which are reserved for maintenance personnel. …
…
A physical disconnection of the satellite communications system would require extremely detailed knowledge of the aircraft, its internal structure and its systems. The satellite data system is spread across the aircraft and disabling it would require physical access to key components. Disconnecting the satellite data system from the jet's central computer, known as AIMS, would disable its transmission. The central computer can be reached from inside the jet while it is flying, but its whereabouts would have to be known by someone deeply familiar with the 777.
Getting into the area housing the 777's computers would "not take a lot" of knowledge, said an aviation professional who has worked with the 777. However, this person added, "to know what to do there to disable" systems would require considerable understanding of the jet's inner workings. Some airlines outfit the access hatch to the area below the floor with a special screw to prevent unauthorized intrusion, the person added.
Orbiting satellites are designed to check in with the aircraft's satellite-communication system hourly if no data is received during that time. The pings from the aircraft became a subject of scrutiny earlier this week, said a person familiar with the matter, several days after the plane first went missing.
Goes on
Insider Was Needed to Disable Plane Systems
If multiple communication systems aboard Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 were manually disabled, as investigators increasingly suspect happened, it would have required detailed knowledge of the long-range Boeing Co. 777's inner workings.
f multiple communication systems aboard Malaysia Airlines 3786.KU +2.13% Flight 370 were manually disabled, as investigators increasingly suspect happened, it would have required detailed knowledge of the long-range Boeing Co. BA +1.00% 777's inner workings.
The first loss of the jet's transponder, which communicates the jet's position, speed and call sign to air traffic control radar, would require disabling a circuit breaker above and behind an overhead panel. Pilots rarely, if ever, need to access the circuit breakers, which are reserved for maintenance personnel. …
…
A physical disconnection of the satellite communications system would require extremely detailed knowledge of the aircraft, its internal structure and its systems. The satellite data system is spread across the aircraft and disabling it would require physical access to key components. Disconnecting the satellite data system from the jet's central computer, known as AIMS, would disable its transmission. The central computer can be reached from inside the jet while it is flying, but its whereabouts would have to be known by someone deeply familiar with the 777.
Getting into the area housing the 777's computers would "not take a lot" of knowledge, said an aviation professional who has worked with the 777. However, this person added, "to know what to do there to disable" systems would require considerable understanding of the jet's inner workings. Some airlines outfit the access hatch to the area below the floor with a special screw to prevent unauthorized intrusion, the person added.
Orbiting satellites are designed to check in with the aircraft's satellite-communication system hourly if no data is received during that time. The pings from the aircraft became a subject of scrutiny earlier this week, said a person familiar with the matter, several days after the plane first went missing.
Goes on
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Altitude and Direction changes
NY Times is reporting shared Malaysian military radar data shows extreme changes in altitude and direction following loss of secondary radar contact.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/wo...-radar.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/wo...-radar.html?hp
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: SW USA
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FIR Boundaries
@Physicus (#3579):
You can zoom in here:
ArcGIS Viewer for Flex
Some FIR boundaries look similar, some don't. The ICAO boundary between Thailand and Malaysia, for example, zigs and zags a lot.
You can zoom in here:
ArcGIS Viewer for Flex
Some FIR boundaries look similar, some don't. The ICAO boundary between Thailand and Malaysia, for example, zigs and zags a lot.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Birmingham, UK
Age: 42
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excuse me if I'm not up to date but are there any sources for this flying five hours/terrorism other than the Wall Street Journal? They won't say what their sources are and I get the feeling that most other news sites are just regurgitating the WSJ's stories. It must be doing wonders for their site views but is there any corroboration at all?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: merseyside
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a 727 can disapear never to be seen again why not a 777 ?
Historically the mystery of an aircraft disappearing never to be seen again is not something new . Happened not that long ago in 2003 . If a 727 can disapear - why not a 777 ? No trace of 844AA has ever been found or that of the two Non Pilots supposedly on board .
"According to press reports, the aircraft began taxiing with no communication between the crew and the tower; maneuvering erratically, it entered a runway without clearance. With its lights off and its transponder not transmitting, 844AA took off to the southwest, and headed out over the Atlantic Ocean. The 727 and the two men have not been seen since."
on May 25, 2003, shortly before sunset, Padilla boarded the company’s Boeing 727-223, tail number N844AA. With him was a helper he had recently hired, John Mikel Mutantu, from the Republic of the Congo. The two had been working with Angolan mechanics to return the 727 to flight-ready status so they could reclaim it from a business deal gone bad, but neither could fly it. Mutantu was not a pilot, and Padilla had only a private pilot’s license. A 727 ordinarily requires three trained aircrew.
Its an interesting story and well worth a read . If you want conspiracy theory's this has everything you need - but the fact is no trace of this aircraft has ever been found .
"According to press reports, the aircraft began taxiing with no communication between the crew and the tower; maneuvering erratically, it entered a runway without clearance. With its lights off and its transponder not transmitting, 844AA took off to the southwest, and headed out over the Atlantic Ocean. The 727 and the two men have not been seen since."
on May 25, 2003, shortly before sunset, Padilla boarded the company’s Boeing 727-223, tail number N844AA. With him was a helper he had recently hired, John Mikel Mutantu, from the Republic of the Congo. The two had been working with Angolan mechanics to return the 727 to flight-ready status so they could reclaim it from a business deal gone bad, but neither could fly it. Mutantu was not a pilot, and Padilla had only a private pilot’s license. A 727 ordinarily requires three trained aircrew.
Its an interesting story and well worth a read . If you want conspiracy theory's this has everything you need - but the fact is no trace of this aircraft has ever been found .
http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/the-727-that-vanished-2371187/?page=1
Last edited by dicksorchard; 15th Mar 2014 at 01:19. Reason: link wasnt working
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Leeds
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Altitude and Direction changes
NY Times is reporting shared Malaysian military radar data shows extreme changes in altitude and direction following loss of secondary radar contact.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/wo...-radar.html?hp
NY Times is reporting shared Malaysian military radar data shows extreme changes in altitude and direction following loss of secondary radar contact.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/wo...-radar.html?hp
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was a night flight. Many pax will bee asleep or dozing. A gentle turn will probably go unnoticed. So even if there was some malicious event occurring, e.g. an act of piracy, the passengers may have not even noticed that anything was wrong and switch on their phones to contact people (as 9/11 told us they would).
All the unofficial leaks so far have indicated a "sharp turn towards west".
And *if* as the latest NYT leak indicates, your behind was launched 10000 ft up into space, and then dumped 20000 ft I think you'd notice, sleeping or not.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am struggling to come to terms with the information presented, that the worlds superpowers, with their ability to land spacecraft on the moon, cannot find a 200+ tonne aircraft in the Earths atmosphere, or on land or water.
We were told over 30 yrs ago, that the cameras in satellites could read a car numberplate from 100 miles up. Admittedly, they have to be pointed in the right direction, and people with Mk1 eyballs, have to scan the info received. However, since 2001, surveillance and information processing has been increased 1000-fold.
We are left with only two eyewitness accounts.
1. EIGHT people, in a group on a beach in North Eastern Malaysia, ALL HEARD a massively "loud frightening noise" - a mid-air explosion - at around 1:30AM local time, pretty much right about the time of disappearance of the aircraft. This sound was so loud they rushed to the nearby area they thought it had come from.
2. An oil rig worker, on a highly-elevated platform WITNESSED a fireball in the sky, in the correct direction, at height, right about the time of the aircrafts disappearance.
It's been advised, no space satellite of any superpower, picked up this fireball. Despite this seemingly impossible scenario, it can't be dismissed that all the sky surveillance missed this event.
I can come to no other conclusion other than that a catastrophic event enveloped the aircraft and it suffered a mid-air explosion of such immensity (fed by 40 tonnes of JetA1, plus a possible list of flammable cargo items) that it was virtually vaporised. Think of the scenes of the Boeings hitting the WTC. They were virtually vaporised, and we saw the unbelievable intensity and immensity of the explosiveness of many tonnes of JetA1 when it was all ignited at once.
Yes, some parts of the aircraft survived and fell into the sea in the Gulf of Thailand. They were so scattered, they never produced an identifiable field of debris, in a sea full of SE-Asian rubbish - and the heavier parts went straight to the bottom, over a wide area.
The reports of the reputed flight path, the so-called "pings" being followed, are all electronic noise being erroneously followed - like confetti being tracked, instead of the wedding.
It's been proven, as Mickjoebill pointed out, that ACARS events have been recorded long AFTER a crash silenced the power plants.
I cannot really believe, for one minute, that the supposed "aircraft track" to the West is following a flight deviation that involves a dog-leg path from waypoint to waypoint. There is limited fuel, a hijacker of any persuasion isn't going to ignore that fact.
It's stupidity to even conjecture that a path such as the dog-leg one outlined to the West, is the aircrafts path, and that it has been hijacked with evil intent.
Aircraft follow the laws of physics and the laws of physics state that man-made constructions fail, and airborne objects return to Earth faster than you can say Jack Robinson.
We were told over 30 yrs ago, that the cameras in satellites could read a car numberplate from 100 miles up. Admittedly, they have to be pointed in the right direction, and people with Mk1 eyballs, have to scan the info received. However, since 2001, surveillance and information processing has been increased 1000-fold.
We are left with only two eyewitness accounts.
1. EIGHT people, in a group on a beach in North Eastern Malaysia, ALL HEARD a massively "loud frightening noise" - a mid-air explosion - at around 1:30AM local time, pretty much right about the time of disappearance of the aircraft. This sound was so loud they rushed to the nearby area they thought it had come from.
2. An oil rig worker, on a highly-elevated platform WITNESSED a fireball in the sky, in the correct direction, at height, right about the time of the aircrafts disappearance.
It's been advised, no space satellite of any superpower, picked up this fireball. Despite this seemingly impossible scenario, it can't be dismissed that all the sky surveillance missed this event.
I can come to no other conclusion other than that a catastrophic event enveloped the aircraft and it suffered a mid-air explosion of such immensity (fed by 40 tonnes of JetA1, plus a possible list of flammable cargo items) that it was virtually vaporised. Think of the scenes of the Boeings hitting the WTC. They were virtually vaporised, and we saw the unbelievable intensity and immensity of the explosiveness of many tonnes of JetA1 when it was all ignited at once.
Yes, some parts of the aircraft survived and fell into the sea in the Gulf of Thailand. They were so scattered, they never produced an identifiable field of debris, in a sea full of SE-Asian rubbish - and the heavier parts went straight to the bottom, over a wide area.
The reports of the reputed flight path, the so-called "pings" being followed, are all electronic noise being erroneously followed - like confetti being tracked, instead of the wedding.
It's been proven, as Mickjoebill pointed out, that ACARS events have been recorded long AFTER a crash silenced the power plants.
I cannot really believe, for one minute, that the supposed "aircraft track" to the West is following a flight deviation that involves a dog-leg path from waypoint to waypoint. There is limited fuel, a hijacker of any persuasion isn't going to ignore that fact.
It's stupidity to even conjecture that a path such as the dog-leg one outlined to the West, is the aircrafts path, and that it has been hijacked with evil intent.
Aircraft follow the laws of physics and the laws of physics state that man-made constructions fail, and airborne objects return to Earth faster than you can say Jack Robinson.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, an electrical fire would explain all of those things. For one, if there is an electrical fire (or a suspect electrical fire) turning off power to the affected system is exactly the right thing to do. It also could explain the flight path deviations because the an electrical fire in the cabin would not affect the engines but could affect the ability to control the plane.
FAA: Some Boeing 777s need fixes in case of fires
Batteries are NOT the only thing that can cause an electrical fire. The in- flight entertainment system can cause them too, see article above.
FAA: Some Boeing 777s need fixes in case of fires
Batteries are NOT the only thing that can cause an electrical fire. The in- flight entertainment system can cause them too, see article above.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The main reporter for the NY Times story wrote it from Sepang Malaysia, he was assisted by two reporters in Washington.
The climb to 45,000 ft, the descent to 23,000 ft, are based on Malaysian military radar. The 40,000 foot descent in one minute is based on engine data, and is discounted as unreliable by 'investigators'. (The source for the 40,000 foot descent reference was a Washington official.) The two initial course changes, and flight then stabilizing at a cruise altitude of 29,500 feet are based on Malaysian military radar.
The NY Times article does not reference the VAMPI, GIVAL, IGREX waypoints.
The VAMPI waypoint looks to be near the island of Pulan Perak, where earlier reports said Malaysian military radar lost track of it.
GIVAL is about 54 NM from VAMPI.
The climb to 45,000 ft, the descent to 23,000 ft, are based on Malaysian military radar. The 40,000 foot descent in one minute is based on engine data, and is discounted as unreliable by 'investigators'. (The source for the 40,000 foot descent reference was a Washington official.) The two initial course changes, and flight then stabilizing at a cruise altitude of 29,500 feet are based on Malaysian military radar.
The NY Times article does not reference the VAMPI, GIVAL, IGREX waypoints.
The VAMPI waypoint looks to be near the island of Pulan Perak, where earlier reports said Malaysian military radar lost track of it.
GIVAL is about 54 NM from VAMPI.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
multiple sources
In reply to Silanda --
Reuters and ABC News both independently have reported that there is data indicating that the plane flew for 4-5 more hours after transponder shutoff. Further, the WSJ has developed the story with additional sources subsequent to their scoop.
Reuters and ABC News both independently have reported that there is data indicating that the plane flew for 4-5 more hours after transponder shutoff. Further, the WSJ has developed the story with additional sources subsequent to their scoop.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Paso Robles
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
he so-called "pings" being followed, are all electronic noise being erroneously followed - like confetti being tracked, instead of the wedding.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Northern California, U.S.
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ACARS Pings
Note that BA claims no such contract- and RR also claims no ( engine? ) data after a few minutes before transponder shut down.
I suspect that some technical types consider DATA only to be ( engine parameters and the like ) and the non technical types do NOT consider a simple ping to be DATA … or vice versa depending on background.
And about 99 percent of the media pundits don't know the difference.
So when RR says NO engine data - they **probably mean ** no engine parameters- and do not count a ping per se as DATA
The press probably thinks or defines NO DATA as being NO pings
I suspect that some technical types consider DATA only to be ( engine parameters and the like ) and the non technical types do NOT consider a simple ping to be DATA … or vice versa depending on background.
And about 99 percent of the media pundits don't know the difference.
So when RR says NO engine data - they **probably mean ** no engine parameters- and do not count a ping per se as DATA
The press probably thinks or defines NO DATA as being NO pings
Not sure how often ACARS pings occur - would guess somewhere between once every 5 minutes and once every hour.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About an hour into the flight, the plane's transponders stopped functioning
In the ensuing minutes, a second system sent a routine aircraft-monitoring message to a satellite indicating that someone made a manual change in the plane's heading, veering sharply to the west.
Those system-monitoring messages are suspected to have been disabled shortly afterward, according to some of these people.
"Increasingly, it seems to be heading into the criminal arena," said Richard Healing, a former member of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm totally against sharing this but it's had over 1 million views and the guy is getting money for advertising...despite the "second video" showing reg of the flight from the next day. Ie this is fake. Sick.
Busted! Flight Radar Caught Changing Flight Path of Malaysia Flight 370! - YouTube
This had duped an awful lot of people, I do hope not related to NY Times though.
That video makes suggestions on this forum look far from fantasy.
Busted! Flight Radar Caught Changing Flight Path of Malaysia Flight 370! - YouTube
This had duped an awful lot of people, I do hope not related to NY Times though.
That video makes suggestions on this forum look far from fantasy.
The question is though is if this data from another flight be in obvious error, how can we rely on the actual flight data? Does ADS-B have error correction or CRC (Cyclic redundancy check)?
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Maryland USA
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if we have a given of:
Inmarsat data is good
This seems a huge amount of trouble to go to if the end result was the plane in the sea. Why not just go right in right away?
So this seems to leave us with the plane actually is hidden somewhere or the plan failed for unknown reasons.
Inmarsat data is good
This seems a huge amount of trouble to go to if the end result was the plane in the sea. Why not just go right in right away?
So this seems to leave us with the plane actually is hidden somewhere or the plan failed for unknown reasons.
The claimed altitude of 45Kft seems highly implausible - balancing a pin on a knife-edge sort of thing. As for the claimed altitude loss of 40Kft in one minute, well, it doesn't seem likely there would be much left after trying that one. Am I wrong? Anyway one of the CNN talking heads (I forget who), but covering the Pentagon I think, basically dismissed this as information derived from the Malaysian radar system at the extreme limit of it's capabilities and likely highly unreliable. Any other supporting evidence?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Age: 65
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aussiepax - it might be relatively easy to notice a turn in daytime when light levels and shadows in the cabin change in response to a turn (or you are sitting near a window) but it might not always be as detectable as many think. There's an excellent article on spatial disorientation in the current issue of Flight Safety Australia called 'Don't believe your ears". It also features Captain de Crespigny in an interesting experiment with a Barany chair and gives the methodology so anyone who's interested can replicate these somatogyral/somatogravic illusionary experiments with their own rotating chair at home. The author states that even the graveyard spiral isn't detectable to the inner ear - a pilot can still sense they are in straight and level flight. From the story... "One telling detail in how the vestibular apparatus functions is that the semi-circular canals have a stimulation threshold of two degrees a second. You will not feel yaws or rotations slower than this. Autopilot software on airliners exploits this fact; so that passengers are unaware an aircraft is zig-zagging to avoid storms or traffic. But the threshold also means pilots can't detect a slow divergence from straight-and-level flight."
Full article here:
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - FSA issue 97 - Don't believe your ears
Full article here:
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - FSA issue 97 - Don't believe your ears
