Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost

Old 17th Mar 2014, 15:10
  #5161 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Luton
Posts: 5
Having travelled on MH 148/9 in Jan/Feb 2014, there is no First Class on the 777, hence why there's no satphones on board.
clipstone1 is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2014, 15:11
  #5162 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2011
Location: directly below the zenith
Posts: 45
public record

No speculation here, these points are all a matter of public record. For anyone interested in all potential lines of inquiry:

Just days before the MH370 incident, Taiwan alerted China’s aviation authorities to a potential terrorist threat involving Beijing airport.
A known local organisation - Tanzim al-Qaeda Malaysia Group - has proven links to global jihadists, including Malaysian-born fighters on the ground in Syria.
The Jemaah Islamiah network (implicated in the Bali nightclub bombing 2002) includes at least one Malaysian with personal links to two of the 9/11 hijackers.
Convicted former Al Qaeda member Saajid Badat (part of failed trans-Atlantic flight shoe-bomb attack), stated in 2012 that a Malaysian Islamist Jihadist group were “plotting to hijack a passenger jet”.
Badat also said “the Malaysian plot was being masterminded by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the principal architect of 9/11”.
Prof Anthony Glees, director of the University of Buckingham’s Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies, stated “there is evidence of a Malaysian terror cell with ambitions to carry out such an attack”.


An opinion only: *IF* we are indeed looking at human intervention re missing MH370, given the knowledge, planning & skills needed for such a feat, it would bear all the hallmarks of a well-resourced organization, far from merely a disgruntled or suicidal member of crew. IMHO.
deadheader is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2014, 15:13
  #5163 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Newfoundland
Age: 74
Posts: 17
ana1936: Some of us, maybe myself included, have been a but loose with the term ping perhaps.

Just to clarify this a little.

My understanding is that the satellites in the INMARSAT network which deal with ACARS check on the presence of their registered aircraft every hour by initiating a ping operation. This involves the satellite asking to see if a particular aircraft will answer. Only the specified aircraft will answer. And it will only answer if its engines are operating and it hears the satellite request.
So presumably the aircraft being 'pinged' will still reply even if the onboard ACARS has been turned off (or has failed for some reason)?

It seems that a lot of commentators in the media seem to believe that it was the AIRCRAFT that was initiating a 'ping', every 60 minutes.
geneman is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2014, 15:18
  #5164 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2012
Location: under the glideslope
Age: 43
Posts: 14
your 2nd point not valid MAS did not use satcom for any data transfer (no contract) used vhf (and perhaps HF)
Thank you, although are you really sure Malaysia Airlines not using SATCOM?

press release dated 21/07/2010

Malaysia Airlines has chosen Thales’ TopFlight satcom (TFS) for its new B737s. This new ARINC 781 standard of satcom continues to support Inmarsat aero services for flight deck voice and data connectivity. In addition, for airlines that have the Thales IFE system, the TopFlight satcom enables data throughput to the passenger seat for internet connection......
and another older press release about inflight mobile phone usage.

"We are also very well placed to upgrade our capability with Malaysia Airlines as, uniquely, the Honeywell avionics are already in place on their fleet to enable future Inmarsat SwiftBroadband upgrades later this year".

The first Malaysia Airlines B777-200 was installed with the AeroMobile system during a routine maintenance check.

Very nice article covering MH370 and SATCOM in detail.
litinoveweedle is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2014, 15:22
  #5165 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Brazil
Age: 51
Posts: 41
Originally Posted by FE Hoppy View Post
You might have dedicated 5 posts but you proved nothing.

Insert waypoint at 07. Approaching boundary sync and select heading(incase you failed to make the waypoint a flyover).

After waypoint faint right then shortly afterwards when you think you are out of range turn left.

All the time you have your next waypoint in view for reference.

Prove that what I have written is "Impossible"!
I already answered this objection.
Why should you insert VAMPI as next waypoint at or before 1:07 in first place if you plan to turn 40° right after IGARI? Where is the rationale? You change your flight plan in your FMC just to override it? What for? Just to leave a trace of your foul play in the ACARS log? Makes no sense.

The sequence you describe is absolutely possible itself, still does not explain the behavior of the aircraft BEFORE 1:21 MYT. The right turn is a clear indication the aircraft was still following its original flight plan at the time it disappeared from radar, therefore next waypoint BITOD, not VAMPI.

Note. I do not and can not rule out foul play by the cockpit AFTER 1:21. It is absolutely possible that the flight plan was changed after 1:21. But I see no evidence that such change was made before 1:21, nor I see any rational explanation as to why it should be programmed more than 10 minutes before, so that it could be reported by ACARS.

Question: have you considered that that report could be simply inaccurate or false?
barrel_owl is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2014, 15:23
  #5166 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 12E CTY
Age: 65
Posts: 22
Originally Posted by rgbrock1 View Post
Including several "airfields" in Somalia.
Plus one very capable, but currently disused, air-strip in Pakistan ...
Shamsi Airfield - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
SLFgeek is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2014, 15:27
  #5167 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Surrey
Posts: 12
Consider this....

a. Heist
b. Plane theft
c. Hijack
d. Collusion with a militant country or sect

Authorities, US, NASA, Inmarsat and all the others mentioned during each briefing knew of this and were in "negotioations",

Then one might expect the "baddies" to go and let the world know by now to make the biggest PR disaster in the history of cover-ups!

BTW, I doubt many hijackers demands are to see how long they can play hide and seek for...

A wierd one is this. Still wonder if a gas entered the enviroment to render the pax inefective and the pilots to become paranoid and lose all sensibility leaving just a "muscle reflex" to keep the plane up until gravity won over gliding. Strange things Human Factors.
BoughtTheFarm is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2014, 15:27
  #5168 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 50
Posts: 1,609
Question: have you considered that that report could be simply inaccurate or false?
Yes of course. But it has not been proved either way. You are confusing lack of motive with lack of evidence.

You believe there is no motive to do so and therefore it didn't happen.

Someone reported that it did.

There is a way that could be proven through ACARS FMC WPR.

I have seen nothing to verify this did or didn't happen so it is currently possible.
FE Hoppy is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2014, 15:30
  #5169 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,045
"Apparently after". This should mean that Fariq Abdul Hamid must have been aware of the comms shutdown which happened prior to his last message. A planned job I would recon. Was Fariq Abdul Hamid the PIC? Perhaps he was already alone as the captain stepped out to rest (was up for already about 15hrs).

Btw - someone pointed out a few thousand posts back that a heavy 777 is unable to get to FL450. Thoughts?
  1. I would think it possible to disable ACARS without the pilot alongside knowing. There are plenty of Maint functions via the MCDU type boxes that some pilots know a lot about, some play with, others (like me) have no clue!
  2. It was a 2 crew flight, Capt would not "go back to rest". He might go out to use the toilet, but any "rest" would be in his seat.
  3. How "heavy" was this flight? Relatively short flight - just because FL450 is above the "Max Permitted FL" does not mean it could not get there. If one is prepared to fly at a reduced buffet level, say <1.3g, then my research shows FL450 is not out of the question, esp if the FL450 is a primary radar value (hence inaccurate, and not related to FL450 in altimeter terms). NB the 50 empty seats might relate to cargo v MZFW, not MTOW.
NigelOnDraft is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2014, 15:31
  #5170 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Originally Posted by overthewing View Post
Thanks for this. Not sure this is relevant to the current thread, but does that mean that your working TCAS becomes inop if you switch the transponder to Standby?
Effectively. In standby the TCAS is powered but won't interact with other TCAS.
Lord Spandex Masher is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2014, 15:34
  #5171 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,314
Originally Posted by xgjunkie View Post
My understanding is that if engine parameters dont change then no data other than a handshake occurs. That handshake essentially has no data.
The pings carry the ID of the sender - that is how INMARSAT know what to do with the ping, reject it or accept it and what level of service it should get. If you get a cell phone and turn it on - the first thing it does is start pinging the networks with its IMEI - the networks that do not service that phone take no notice the ones that do respond. So in this case no ACARS data but electronic identity data.
Ian W is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2014, 15:35
  #5172 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Brazil
Age: 51
Posts: 41
Originally Posted by FE Hoppy View Post
Yes of course. But it has not been proved either way. You are confusing lack of motive with lack of evidence.

You believe there is no motive to do so and therefore it didn't happen.

Someone reported that it did.

There is a way that could be proven through ACARS FMC WPR.

I have seen nothing to verify this did or didn't happen so it is currently possible.
OK, I see your point. I will correct "impossible" with "highly implausible". Does it sound better?

As long as I will see the ACARS log with a clear indication about the change of the flight plan, I will maintain that that report is a piece of misinformation, if not deliberate disinformation. Not the only one I noticed in the last 9 days, of course, but one I can clearly disprove with hard evidence.
barrel_owl is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2014, 15:45
  #5173 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Switzerland
Age: 42
Posts: 7
GSM portable jammer

The bad guys might carry these - GSM portable jammer - see here:

Cell Phone Jammer :: Phonejammer.com :: Buy Here !
APLFLIGHT is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2014, 15:45
  #5174 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sand ATC
Posts: 17
@ Zooker

At 500ft below the other aircraft wake turbulence would not be an issue. Wake turbulence sinks at a given rate behind an aircraft, so the 'following' aircraft couldn't lag too far behind without getting WT effect.
Vertical separation for wake turbulence is 1000ft, although I have had A321s complaining and asking for offsets when following below an A388 and being around 5 or 6 nm in trail.
Captain Charisma is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2014, 15:46
  #5175 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,613
Originally Posted by Eclectic View Post
The northern route potential land area is immense and a big plane going in fast and vertical only makes a fairly small crater. Also the ELTs wouldn't survive the impact.

Do this where there are no population and it may never be discovered.
Quite. Bill MacGillvary said this 4 days ago.

It is one of the options other than hijack etc where the consequence was not planned. It might have come down when fuel was exhausted in which case little or no fire and much of the aircraft buried.

Where could this have happened? Well looking at the maximum range arcs to the NW I think we can assume that it did not fly a direct track across India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and probably none of the Stans. Similarly it may never have reached China but that still leave plenty of land area where it could have penetrated undetected and then crashed.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2014, 15:50
  #5176 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK, South East
Posts: 59
Peter: The passenger sat phone system can be disabled in seconds from the flight deck and block all calls. I would be very surprised if , having found out how to disable ACARS, "they" didn't also disable the phones.

I am still mystified by this theory that ACARS reports all waypoints as you pass over. It doesn't. If you are logged on to ADS then the aircraft usually reports it's position over every waypoint, and then every 18 mins if running a standard "contract" with ATC. The aircraft would not report every waypoint as a matter of course.

As for cellphones, you are hard pushed to get ANY service above about 2000' unless in remote areas (Afghanistan, some parts of Russia, Africa) where you have 60k mast spacing and your phone isn't logged onto multiple masts simultaneously. Even then your phone will only hold a connection for a matter of 2-3 minutes max.
Jumpjim is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2014, 15:52
  #5177 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: East Anglia.
Posts: 416
One of the biggest aviation mysteries! Though the alleged manual switching off the transponder does confuse things, perhaps the search in the vicinity of the last known position should be intensified. That aircraft, or the remains of it has not vapourised.
Avitor is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2014, 15:53
  #5178 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Interloper
Posts: 108
The oil rig sighting ..... I have never seen a time quoted yet when he saw this.
Anyone ?
TylerMonkey is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2014, 15:54
  #5179 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Southampton
Posts: 1
Inmarsat have now two statements on their website, they tell us very little:


The Sixties is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2014, 15:55
  #5180 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: wales
Age: 76
Posts: 316
Originally Posted by litinoveweedle View Post
I started reading the thread at page 65 and recently started posting mainly with queries related to the satellites and the resulting arcs.

I am ABSOLUTELY sure I have read MANY TIMES that they did not subscribe to acars over satcom and did not subscribe to ACARS to Boeing only RR.

press releases

just because they chose it for their 737 in 21010 doesn't mean they did when they purchased the 777 many years earlier and neither would it indicate a retro contract for 777

Phones, there is a post just above/below yours stating 777 no 1st class therefore no phones

I find it hard to believe they don't have 1st class but there we are, perhaps they use that area for business class .
oldoberon is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.