Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost

[PA28Viking]

How have they determind that VFR ACARS was disabled before the handover comms?

MH370 reached its cruising altitude FL350 at 17.03 UTC. At 17.07 UTC (01.07 local) the last RR (TOC) message was transmitted).
After that no RR ACARS messages was to be expected for a long time.

So how do they conclude 'disabled' and not just 'not transmitting'?

I would say the ACARS could have been disabled around the same time as the transponder - at 17.21 UTC.

[GlueBall]

... These guys have been caught with their pants down and some very embarrassing holes in their national defense preparedness have been exposed by this errant aircraft. You could not make this stuff up if you wanted to.

There are PRIMARY radar targets every day in many countries. It involves not just airliners, but corporate and general aviation aircraft with inoperative, faulty, or improperly switched transponders. An aircraft that is not sqwaking a code becomes a PRIMARY target. It's impractical reality to launch interceptors at every Primary aerial target.

The Malay peninsula along the Thai-Malaysian border is only 100 nautical miles in width, about a 15 minutes' cruise. According to the primary targets volunteered by the military, MH370 actually had first penetrated Thai airspace in a straight line towards Langkawi in the northwestern corner of peninsular Malaysia. So, technically the initially unidentified primary radar target had penetrated and crossed the extreme north western tip of Malaysia in less than 10 minutes at high altitude and not in a threatening flight profile suggestive of imminent response.

In my flights en route HKG-SIN, for example, there have been many occasions when we were out of radar contact and unable to establish VHF/HF communications for up to 20 minutes for various reasons: lower assigned flight levels, frequency congestion, weak or degraded VHF/HF transmitters . . . And if our transponder had gone on vacation, I seriously doubt that we would have been intercepted. Air Traffic Control is aware of civil radar & radio blind spots and aircraft system limitations (typically up to 20 Watts transmitting powered radios) and will not alert military assets.

[CodyBlade]

I have a gut feeling (coupled with false flag information) this a/c has landed. It is known the Malaysian government are 'not as open' as to per maybe western countries as to security issues.

I suggest, nor am a pilot, but logic thinking (as we all understand how government secrecy works) the Malaysian government, behind the smoke screen are negotiating with a ransom request.

You're taking on China not Malaysia..

[worldpilot]

There is nothing that is impossible when it comes to software configured environment.

As long as accessibility is available, the cockpit technology configurations can be manipulated in such a way that the intended behavior is subjected to extortion.

If a pilot has malicious intend and he/she is able to hide that from external comprehension, there is nothing that will stop him/her from manipulating cockpit controls to achieve a different goal than anticipated with a normal cockpit configuration.

WP

[ekpilot]

Previous "pings"

Question for ana/snowfalcon;

Would the previous IOR pings be stored somewhere with associated arc positions available for those heading this search?

On a sidenote, it is very interesting to see at the press conference how they do their utmost to make sure not all the facts are presented. Evasive and incomplete answers combined with semi-smart constructions leading the journalists to believe that their questions have actually been answered... I can however, see why some information would be held back if there is the slightest chance that divulging this information would compromise the search and rescue efforts. Personally I would like to see the release of the cargo manifest and the fuel load/endurance. "No hazardous cargo onboard" says nothing about VAL or other sensitive cargo. And as those who are professionals amongst us would know, semantics can make the statement "There was no ADDITIONAL fuel onboard" true but it can also make the unspoken statement "There was EXTRA fuel onboard" true...

[Piltdown Man]

Please, don't think for one minute that I do not care about the passengers who boarded this flight. These and thousands like them are the people who pay my wages and put my family's food on the table. But I also quite like my fellow man (women actually)!

But this is where I might start being controversial. There are several interesting aspects to this incident. One of them is is security, both national and international. We can clearly see that very few people are watching anything and those who do see things are either ignored or their observations 'classified'. Therefore it remains that are still vast chunks of unmonitored airspace where you can do whatever you want. Personally, I don't think this a problem but it does show that certain countries spend a fortune in air defence yet when tested, have nothing to show for their investment. But what's really interesting is that they don't have the backbone to admit that nor are they prepared to state that anybody can pitch up by air and they'll not have any advance warning.

That a piece of airspace is not actively monitored should also be announced. Many believe that every single aspect of flight is actively managed by ATC. Europeans generally do not understand the concept of a Procedural Service yet not realising that such a service is the only one on offer in most parts of the world.

Then we have the control aspect. What do airlines do to ensure sanity in their aircrew? Every day, we get accosted by the Gestapo who run airport security, fight the 'system' just to depart, deal with surly cabin crew, bolshy passengers and still carry the baggage of our personal and home lives. Personally, I think I can deal with most things that are thrown at me (just as long as I don't have to fly with a certain F/O!) but there are times... Basically, we are expected to pitch up, do our stuff and bugger off. Just think back to the times when Danny started this site. This was the time when the taxi drivers and caterers knew more about your airline than you did. Hence the rumours! Now, everybody else knows more than you.

Returning to security - just a simple question: Who ensures that the correct people are on the flight deck? With few exceptions there is no real identity confirmation. In the UK, the clowns by the metal arches just want to abuse flight crew and make your life difficult. But the only thing they achieve is to ensure that we're not carrying an effing yoghurt! You couldn't make it up.

Sitting at the pointy end, you have to be able to turn things on and off. To be learn that the entire output of a IDG and two batteries is being directed though a faulty transponder or ACARS unit which can't be isolated because of a campaign by a 'concerned' Daily Mail reader is not acceptable. As yet nothing has changed, yet I feel the political pressure for meddling in aviation affairs.

So how do we prevent re-occurrence? A good start would be to make it so that flight crew have an even greater vested interest in performing well. By that, may I suggest that the consistent attack our T's and C's should stop forthwith. More enlightened and liberal management practices will also help. And then we have to make sure our political systems work. Failure to do so may result in unexpected outcomes.

As to what happened and why, I haven't clue. But my fingers are crossed for those on board and their relatives.

PM

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by Jumpjim

As a 772 driver ... I can think of no reason you would EVER want to turn off the transponder once in flight, and I think that we will find this option is rapidly removed from the flight deck..

To prevent an electrical malfunction (albeit rare) from becoming an electrical fire. Any piece of electronic equipment is a hazard to be the source of an electrical fire. Securing current removes some of the problem. That is why. (Yes, malfunctions that severe are very rare).

I agree but there is nothing in the transponder that allows us to see if it's overheated. The first we would know on the flight deck is when it fails. I'm talking about flight crew having the option to manually select the transponder off. By all means retain the option to select another transponder and maybe set the transponder to squawk when the park brake comes off for ground surveillance, but in flight? Maybe going forward we would be better off working around the concerns mooted but lose the ability to disable it so easily.

Because it is a piece of electrical gear. Sometimes, you turn it off and turn it back on, and it works.
That's been true for a long time. Granted, maybe the modern generations of electronic gear are so good one never needs to do that. I'd be skeptical, however, if that is claimed given the problems I have with my current smart phone.

@ Piltdown Man: well said, sir. At last, a post from the point of view of a professional pilot.

[techgeek]

satellite pics of a/c in flight

@uncle_maxwell

That is an interesting proposition. If IR sat photos, taken at night, are available that cover each arc at the time of a given ping it is a reasonable computational exercise to use standard image processing techniques to find the a/c. in a photo. The search algorithm could match a rendered IR image of the a/c with "camera view" of the sat. Big data search techniques like map/reduce on a supercomputer could perform this search quickly. I've written such programs myself and know what I am talking about.

Same goes for daylight photos although the pattern matching would probably be done differently.

This would answer the N or S question and greatly narrow the SAR parameters. IMHO it's is well worth looking into if photos are available.

[lapp]

There is nothing that is impossible when it comes to software configured environment.

As long as accessibility is available, the cockpit technology configurations can be manipulated in such a way that the intended behavior is subjected to extortion.

If a pilot has malicious intend and is able to hide that from external comprehension, there is nothing that will stop him from manipulating cockpit controls to achieve a different goal than anticipated with a normal cockpit configuration.

Totally false.

[Ian W]

Originally Posted by uncle_maxwell

It may have been answered before, but can satellite pictures usually show aircraft in (cruise) flight? Just wondering if they are recognisable as aircraft or even aircraft types.

Seems like many a satellite from various governmental and commercial operations routinely take pictures of Mother Earth, some of them quite frequently. Lots of data to get and go through, but it might provide a few more locations at different points in time during the later stages of the flight.

Yes but you have to be looking for an aircraft or catch it inadvertently. There are multiple aircraft in flight caught by serendipitously by Google Earth in their satellite photograph captures. For example:



and

[strake]

If the truth is being told by the various agencies, after so long, it must be nigh impossible to:
a. keep all those people and their mobile phones quiet,
b. select somewhere to land so remote that no one sees it
c. take an aeroplane load of passengers hostage and not tell anyone.

I hear about satellites pinging, weak radar trails, mobile phone batteries etc but that doesn't really prove anything.
I think Occam's Razor comes into play and that would suggest the wreckage of the aircraft is at the bottom of the sea within a few hundred miles of where it was lost on radar. It just hasn't been found yet.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by Ian W

For example:

Ian, that the ghost plane is flying superb formation on the aircraft in the picture. Hmmm, who was out practicing formation flying that day?

[techgeek]

previous pings

@ekpilot

Short answer is yes. I believe this fits the category of information withheld. One can posit a range of reasons for the authorities slowly releasing tidbits they have known for some time. Only a fool thinks that we know what stakeholders know in this incident, not yet known to be an accident.

[FE Hoppy]

@Snowfalcon2

Quote:
There has to be some form of overheat protection.
Yes.
But.
Turning off the transponder in flight without notifying ATC is.... a no-no.

Technology exists that can solve this dilemma, see e g here.

You are not thinking of the impact such a regulation has on the industry.

This would require that every aeroplane has a realtime data transmission of every system. Including everything! It's basically more data than the FDR records transmitted real time.

Have you thought about the finical implication and time frame required to implement this regulation?

[EngineeringPilot]

If the truth is being told by the various agencies, after so long, it must be nigh impossible to:
a. keep all those people and their mobile phones quiet,

This has been covered as well, you can easily get a device that jams all mobile phones so keeping phones quiet is a piece of cake.

[SOPS]

Pit down, I can say in my airline there a several layers to ensure the correct people are on the flight deck. Having said this, I suppose anything is possible.

So now we have another game changer. If this is some form of terrorist attack, nod the law makers come up with the idea that everyone on the flight deck has to be confirmed who they are, then who confirms the confirmation? And who confirms that the confirmer is confirmed to confirm?

We have a complete melt down in air travel, and the other side has finally won.

While we are on the subject, who is checking those that check for our yogurts? And who checks them?

This thing could result in the complete shut down of all flights, world wide, unless sensible heads prevail.

[EngineeringPilot]

I think Occam's Razor comes into play and that would suggest the wreckage of the aircraft is at the bottom of the sea within a few hundred miles of where it was lost on radar. It just hasn't been found yet.

Yep, i think the idea of the plane crashing around where it was lost on radar has been pretty much eliminated after 8 days of SAR

[buttrick]

I think people are forgetting the far eastern face saving culture. They have locked themselves into a spiral which is rapidly disappearing up their own fundaments.

I posted it before, there are only TWO facts:

1. Where the transponder transmitted last
2. Where the ACARS last transmitted.

Anything else cannot be proven yet!!!!!

To quote Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle, via Sherlock Holmes,

"When you have eliminated the improbable the impossible must be true"

The aircraft is somewhere not too far from its last KNOWN position.

[henra]

Originally Posted by slats11

Now it is a broader goal. The goal is to create terror.

Yes but until it is clear it was terrorism, there is no terror. At least for me there isn't. I wouldn't be any more worried boarding a flight tomorrow than I was before.

No one claimed responsibility for 9/11, nor for various incidents since. Terrorist groups have been held responsible, but they haven't claimed responsibility themselves.

They didn't have to in that case(s). It was clear that it was no accident.

In this particluar case of MH370 it is still completely unclear whether it was a tragic accident, suicide or terrorism. (I leave the totally alien scenarios out).
If the wreckage will never be found it will remain as a mystery and Holywood films will be made about the stranger theories but what else?
Maybe some improvments re Satelite tracking and possibly making it more difficult to switch to 'staelth' mode.
I can't see why on the basis of the known facts huge changes and expenses for security would have to be made. I can rather see some alarm in the HR departments of airlines from what we know so far, how ever sad and uncomforting that is.

So how effective did that work from a Terrorist's perspective?
And which Terrorist for that matter. The Uighurs? Al Qaeda? Czechen? One of the many others e.g. from the Middle East?
You see where I'm getting at?
There seems to be a naive thinking that tere is one World Terror Organisation Ltd. And all are working together to achieve one common goal.
Total Bo**ocks.
That's simply the result of Western Mass Media simplification. Reality is much more complex.

[jugofpropwash]

ACARS had been disabled BEFORE the final voice transmission. So it seems to me that identification of the voice making the final transmission will greatly assist in steering the investigation towards the person(s) responsible. The hijacking had already commenced.

There's been much discussion regarding the wording of the final contact. If one of the pilots was up to no good and wanted to disguise the fact and leave as much confusion as possible, using a signoff that's non-standard but not odd enough to cause immediate concern would be a simple way to do it.