Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: entre ici et là
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cargo
Likely what is being reported as the cargo is based on the manifest. Inasmuch as airplane cargo is crated no one really would have noticed whether or not what was going into the cargo hold was what the manifest claimed it to be.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turnback and radar
Originally Posted by YouNeverStopLearning
Turn back is is understandable, but they didn't quite make it round to anywhere near to 180 degrees...
According to Thales, the MADGE system operates in real-time and features multi-radar tracking and a flexible human-machine interface.
The GM 400 radar also provides long-range surveillance capabilities for the Royal Malaysian Air Force.
Its reach is up to 400 km and it is more than sufficient to detect the MH370." Further " It is now clear that the four-man crew in the three air defence stations, who were supposed to be watching the radar screens, either did not notice or failed to report to their superiors that an unidentified plane was flying across the country."
So a high tech radar system was unmonitored and then when the lights came on, formed the basis of the turnback.
Possible scenarios along corridor routes then.
Last edited by brika; 18th Mar 2014 at 20:46. Reason: quote lapse correction
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must have missed it somewhere in the preceding 250 odd pages, but where did the info that the aircraft climbed to 450 come from? Secondary turned off so no mode C, so where was it from and what was the timescale ie just after turn back or when?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Antipodes Islands
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
should there not be a tape of all comms from ATC to the aircraft
Listen to the archives from WMKK for 16:30 UTC 7 March onwards. Takeoff was at 16:41 UTC
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the FO was in the flight deck and made the last radio transmission but then didn't re-establish comms with the next ATC, and with systems shutting down 2 minutes after that, I'm thinking it is highly likely he was in the flight deck. It seems unusual to decide to go for a bathroom break or similar at that short time between the radio calls.
Also, if there's any night you don't want the Captain paying too close attention, that was a good night. We know he had a long, stressful day(s) and no doubt had the day's events heavily on his mind. I wouldn't be surprised if the Captain was already resting in the cabin when things started to go wrong.
I'd like to know more about the FO...did he have any associates / friends onboard? Were they in the flight deck with him? Maybe he even had a simulator at home too. Lots of focus seems to be on the Captain but something isn't adding up with the FO either.
Also, if there's any night you don't want the Captain paying too close attention, that was a good night. We know he had a long, stressful day(s) and no doubt had the day's events heavily on his mind. I wouldn't be surprised if the Captain was already resting in the cabin when things started to go wrong.
I'd like to know more about the FO...did he have any associates / friends onboard? Were they in the flight deck with him? Maybe he even had a simulator at home too. Lots of focus seems to be on the Captain but something isn't adding up with the FO either.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DaveReidUK,
The reply was to a comment that the aircraft could be flying rather than stopped, and still remain equidistant from the satellite (if it ever was) - but that only works if it flies so that it's on the red arc at two points an hour apart. The red arc is not great circle. The coincidence for it to fly for an hour on a route that links two points on an arc equidistant from the satellite seems unlikely.
Without having information about the other satellite details though, it remains an enigma, and the only thing that's available is the red arc from Inmarsat.
Why so? You can construct a GC between any two points on the globe, including any pair of points on that arc.
We only know that the aircraft was equidistant from the satellite at two specific points in time.
We only know that the aircraft was equidistant from the satellite at two specific points in time.
Without having information about the other satellite details though, it remains an enigma, and the only thing that's available is the red arc from Inmarsat.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 85
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The first officer made a laid back radio response after the problems started. This is the whole mystery of the scenario.
That is, of course, unless the first officer was unaware at the time that major systems had been put out of action prior to him giving the RT response.
That is, of course, unless the first officer was unaware at the time that major systems had been put out of action prior to him giving the RT response.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: wales
Age: 80
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The circles (assuming that more than one could be plotted, which now seems in doubt) would be 60 minutes apart, because that's how often the satellite pings the aircraft.
The only deduction that could reasonably be made would be if the spacing between two successive rings turned to be equal to the maximum distance that the aircraft could fly in an hour. Then it would follow (as previously suggested) that the track must be along the radius of the rings, but of course that doesn't identify which radial.
If two hourly rings are spaced closer together, then it's hard to see how anything can be deduced in respect of track or groundspeed.
But as it seems that only one ring is known, it's all a bit academic.
The only deduction that could reasonably be made would be if the spacing between two successive rings turned to be equal to the maximum distance that the aircraft could fly in an hour. Then it would follow (as previously suggested) that the track must be along the radius of the rings, but of course that doesn't identify which radial.
If two hourly rings are spaced closer together, then it's hard to see how anything can be deduced in respect of track or groundspeed.
But as it seems that only one ring is known, it's all a bit academic.
But if 3rd hourly ping is at the same reduced spacing to the 2nd one , as the 2nd one is to the 1st one that constant spacing tells you it is on a constant heading/trk but nothing about that heading or track.. Do you agree that?
Now you may think that is unimportant or of no use others will disagree a) it is an extra known and B) in IMHO it indicates a flight south, constant track north is eventually going to be spotted by the ground or another aircraft visually.
There was also another post by someone on rhumb lines and loxodromes and he reckons with the other ping arcs you could calculate track and heading do a search on the thread. Way over me.
Last edited by oldoberon; 18th Mar 2014 at 21:06. Reason: add rhumb lines
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be careful with interpreting the "40 degrees" of the red arc.
The angle from the satellite to the opposite limbs of the Earth is only about 19 degrees, since it's very high.
The 40 degrees is the elevation angle of the satellite from the aircraft. [Thanks Sensor Validation]
The angle from the satellite to the opposite limbs of the Earth is only about 19 degrees, since it's very high.
The 40 degrees is the elevation angle of the satellite from the aircraft. [Thanks Sensor Validation]
Last edited by awblain; 18th Mar 2014 at 21:38. Reason: Angle wrong
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
?Silent Flying MH370
Originally Posted by skyman01
A Startlingly Simple Theory About the Missing Malaysia Airlines Jet | Autopia | Wired.com
No sensationalism, just common sense and a practical explanation that fits all the events.
No sensationalism, just common sense and a practical explanation that fits all the events.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flash8,
But if it was shot down near Malaysia, even at 5000 feet, someone would have found wreckage at sea or on the ground.
Then the "red arcs" would have to be nonsense; why would Inmarsat damage its reputation by publicizing nonsense?
But if it was shot down near Malaysia, even at 5000 feet, someone would have found wreckage at sea or on the ground.
Then the "red arcs" would have to be nonsense; why would Inmarsat damage its reputation by publicizing nonsense?
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alberta Canada
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skyman01, thanks for posting the link. A sensible theory until we know what happened.
Some of the conjecture is so outlandish it's scary and the worst is maligning reputations of the pilots without proof.
Some of the conjecture is so outlandish it's scary and the worst is maligning reputations of the pilots without proof.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Europe
Age: 55
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just another wild speculation...
Prompted by this remark a few pages back:
(...)
Langkawai would have been at least three times the distance and around 60-70 degrees of the reciprocal track to Kuantan.
A "land as soon as possible - nearest divert" wouldn't equate to Langkawi or Penang airfield for that matter (...)
The original assumption was that a possible scenario was smoke in the cockpit, which caused the pilots to "aviate, navigate, communicate" and start by turning off stuff to try and stop what might have been a fire or an electrical fault generating smoke. Let's assume for a moment that it was the communications equipment that had a failure; that's not unheard of as far as I understand. Let us also assume that the pilots may not have been at the top of their performance, given the time of day and an uneventful flight. Does it sound preposterous to you experts to propose it might have happened like this:
- Comms equipment develops electrical problem, fails shortly after A/C leaves Malaysian airspace
- Pilots start trying to identify the source of the problem, and in doing so also switch off the radar transponder and eventually unselect ACARS
- At the same time, being trained pilots, they divert, but fail to recognize Kuantan as their best option and instead head towards Langkawi or Penang (for whatever reason - stress, familiarity, you name it)
- Things continue to go pear shaped and the pilots' actions start to become erratic, leading eventually to the plane steering a course over the open ocean which otherwise doesn't make sense.
I would be first to accept that the scenario is weak and can't explain why the aircraft would follow the arc that it seems to have done, but at least there is no Blofeld-style supervillain needed here. What do you think?
Quote:
The captain immediately did exactly what he had been trained to do: turn the plane toward the closest airport so he could land.
From the point of last contact, RMAF Air base Kuantan would have been on the reciprocal track back towards KL. The captain immediately did exactly what he had been trained to do: turn the plane toward the closest airport so he could land.
(...)
Langkawai would have been at least three times the distance and around 60-70 degrees of the reciprocal track to Kuantan.
A "land as soon as possible - nearest divert" wouldn't equate to Langkawi or Penang airfield for that matter (...)
- Comms equipment develops electrical problem, fails shortly after A/C leaves Malaysian airspace
- Pilots start trying to identify the source of the problem, and in doing so also switch off the radar transponder and eventually unselect ACARS
- At the same time, being trained pilots, they divert, but fail to recognize Kuantan as their best option and instead head towards Langkawi or Penang (for whatever reason - stress, familiarity, you name it)
- Things continue to go pear shaped and the pilots' actions start to become erratic, leading eventually to the plane steering a course over the open ocean which otherwise doesn't make sense.
I would be first to accept that the scenario is weak and can't explain why the aircraft would follow the arc that it seems to have done, but at least there is no Blofeld-style supervillain needed here. What do you think?
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: wales
Age: 80
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speed of sound,
You're right - to fly equidistant from the satellite would require a non-great circle along the red arc. If the ACARS was powered off, the alleged miscreants wouldn't think they needed to worry about that, and would it even enter their heads what Inmarsat logged about data signals for Rolls Royce, and where their satellites were located?
If there are prior distance measurements, then they will help. They'll give a time to some unknown point on the arc, and thus constrain possible paths between points on the different arcs.
If the Inmarsat signal has a frequency measured in fine channels, which it probably doesn't, and better a change in frequency from signal to signal, since the properties of the transmitter aren't known, that might even add a point measurement of line-of-sight speed which would help improve the possible paths it could have taken.
You're right - to fly equidistant from the satellite would require a non-great circle along the red arc. If the ACARS was powered off, the alleged miscreants wouldn't think they needed to worry about that, and would it even enter their heads what Inmarsat logged about data signals for Rolls Royce, and where their satellites were located?
If there are prior distance measurements, then they will help. They'll give a time to some unknown point on the arc, and thus constrain possible paths between points on the different arcs.
If the Inmarsat signal has a frequency measured in fine channels, which it probably doesn't, and better a change in frequency from signal to signal, since the properties of the transmitter aren't known, that might even add a point measurement of line-of-sight speed which would help improve the possible paths it could have taken.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Devon
Age: 76
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read that Chris Goodfellow blog a couple of days ago and it made perfect sense, even though I am not a pilot, but know quite a few. I wonder if they are searching that sea area on a line SW of Langkawi.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 46
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it so implausible, that control of the aircraft was taken by someone hostile, and that the Malaysian authorities , having seen it turning back towards KL , with none , or a bad, response to their queries, decided , simply , to shoot it down ?
Yes, the malaysian military shoots down a malaysian widebody with +200 people on board - over malaysian mainland because they believe it must be somebody bad on board since the plane returns. they do it with a super secret missile so absolutely no wreckege is found by 26 countries searching after the shoot down . i tend to agree this is the most probable scenario, well put
