Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost

[Ian W]

Originally Posted by susier

'Contrails are very narrow and probably outside the definition as seen by weather satellites.'


No, see here, a very clear con trail within the current search area, from 11th March. (EOSDIS website)

{{SNIP IMage}}

Aircraft do not always form contrails it depends on the humidity of the air at the cruising level. So there may not have been a contrail to see.

[susier]

Indeed Ian and the point about night images is also very valid.

[RichardC10]

Also I can't understand why any of the multiple weather satellites would not have picked up contrails.

The type of satellites which acquired the posted images are in orbits fixed with respect to the Sun and so pass over the ground at fixed local times (generally each side of midnight/midday). These times do not correspond to the time of the flight, certainly the part when the position is uncertain.

In general low earth orbit metsats (and other climate science missions like TERRA and AQUA from which the posted images originated) have a narrow swath they can view and only see a particular location at the very most twice per day. It is unlikely that one would come over when a particular contrail was in existence, even at the right time of day.

Geostationary metsats do not have the resolution.

[IRpilot2006]

I don't think the last couple of hours of the flight were in darkness.

I agree about the probable lack of resolution, but there are other satellites up there too.

[ChrisJ800]

Not sure if this has already been posted as it seems to be a week old but is a list of questions from family members. Not sure who the q's were sent to:

The key of questions from family members_??MH370?????_????

[ZOOKER]

arearadar, (post 10,218), has raised a very valid point about how the aircraft was re-identified using primary radar. In the U.K, as far as I am aware, there are only 4 ways of doing this, and none of them could be employed here.
Military radar units may of course have other available techniques, unknown to civilian ATCOs.

[anotherthing]

The mil method of re-identing primary tracks is the same as civvy. No other box of tricks available.

[Nemrytter]

Also I can't understand why any of the multiple weather satellites would not have picked up contrails.

Contrails only form under specific atmospheric conditions. Those conditions were not present in the Southern Indian Ocean when MH370 was lost and hence no contrails would be visible.

Contrails are very narrow and probably outside the definition as seen by weather satellites.

Geostationary metsats do not have the resolution.

Contrails are large enough to be seen by both low-orbit and geostationary weather satellites.

[IRpilot2006]

Different targets reflect in different ways. There is plenty on this in the public domain.

Whether a given installation has the capability I have no idea, but you would think the military would, because any "target of interest" is not going to be Mode S and ADS-B OUT, with G-BOMB configured as the aircraft reg.

[sardak]

An analysis of the weather satellite imagery and conditions, and contrail formation over the area of interest at the time of the flight can be found here (scroll down page): High-res visible sectors for Southeast Indian Ocean - 8 March 2014 - Weather Graphics

[Ian W]

Originally Posted by susier

Indeed Ian and the point about night images is also very valid.

I think you will also find that in supercooled >100% humidity which often occurs then a contrail can expand sometimes even into cirro-stratus by seeding further ice crystal formation. These widening contrails are not uncommon and may be the type that are easily found on satellite.

[Ian W]

Originally Posted by ZOOKER

arearadar, (post 10,218), has raised a very valid point about how the aircraft was re-identified using primary radar. In the U.K, as far as I am aware, there are only 4 ways of doing this, and none of them could be employed here.
Military radar units may of course have other available techniques, unknown to civilian ATCOs.

It all depends on other traffic.
If you have a tagged primary return without any secondary/ADS that flies into your overhead at a steady speed and track, and at the expected time (probably less than a minute) a primary only return appears flying out of th overhead at the same speed and on the same track and there is no other traffic around, then it is a reasonable assumption that it is the same aircraft. If the airspace is alive with maneuvering primary only traffic and the one that you have tagged is randomly changing heading and speed and disappears together with several others into your overhead - you have a different problem.

I would suggest that it was the former that was more likely at 2am that morning. It may also be that it was being 'watched' by other radars that nobody wants to talk about, so the radar shown is one that is well past its sell by date and can therefore be admitted to.

[glendalegoon]

REGARDING CONTRAILS


At least one report is the plane may have been at 12,000' or even 4000' for a great part of the journey.

NOW, I'm not an expert like Richard Quest or anything ( ;-) )

But contrails that low are unlikely, DON'T You all think?

[ATC Watcher]

No, see here, a very clear con trail within the current search area, from 11th March. (EOSDIS website)]

Not really, looks like a line of low level cumulus associated with a front or a (warm) current to me.... nothing to do with a high altitude contrail..

[Yankee Whisky]

Contrail in photograph

I do not think we can state with any degree of certainty it is a contrail
shown in the picture posted by Susier.
There are natural phenomena that produce same results, such as the Morning Glory off the coast of Australia, mountain range wave, frontal wave and/or cloud and many more.

[Nemrytter]

MODIS sees plenty of contrails but that's not one of them - looking at other satellite data shows that it's a natural cloud which formed a couple of hours earlier.

[WillowRun 6-3]

Two questions about the investigation being unique or not

Especially for those with extensive knowledge of airliner disaster investigations:

1. Reports have been published at least since April 18 indicating that Malaysia and Australia are negotiating an MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) that will apply to the assignment and division of various responsibilities (such as analysis of the flight recorders, if and when recovered, and autopsies, if bodies are recovered, among other things). Has such a bi-lateral MOU been put in place in any prior investigations of airliner disasters? And if so, what countries, what disaster?

2. Malaysia reportedly has completed a preliminary report yet also has indicated an intention not to allow it to be publicly released or disseminated. Any precedent for a preliminary report to be completed yet withheld? (Yes, it does appear that the subject prelim report is in the nature of the 30-day prelim report preparation (and presumably issuance) of which are done pursuant to Annex 13.)

Thanks in advance to all who may respond.

[Mesoman]

The techies are probably right

Too much awe of technology by decision makers who didn't understand it?

As a techie who also has SAR experience, I think there is very strong evidence that the techies are right.

The INMARSAT ping data is pretty good - I doubt anyone just made it up for fun. Even more important, the detection of underwater pings is very close to conclusive - especially since it is almost precisely in the spot predicted by the INMARSAT data. Information provided (including a video of the detection waterfall) makes it an extremely high probability that this was a ULB. Since there aren't a lot of missing ULB's in the world, especially in the south Indian Ocean, this means that they very likely have localized the wreck. They just haven't pin-pointed it yet.

I would guess that, if the initial small search area doesn't turn it up, they'll do what SAR experts normally do: recalculate the probabilities. This would yield a likely search area just outside the initial area, along with some probability that it was in the initial area but missed.

The only even faintly plausible explanation for the aircraft not being in the south Indian Ocean requires either massive incompetence of initial and reviewing authorities, all down the line, or a massive conspiracy. This I relegate to very low probability (<1%).

[olasek]

Any precedent for a preliminary report to be completed yet withheld?

Who cares?
This sort of ICAO annex is purely advisory in nature, no on can force anybody to publish a report, there were precedents that no preliminary report was ever published ...

[Shadoko]

Man made noises?

Hearing this, we understand why the 4 detections of supposed pingers are considered by prudent people (and real scientists are prudent people) only as a good track and not a certainty:
Mysterious Duck-Like Ocean Sound-Source Revealed | Video | LiveScience
OK, it is not the right frequency nor a near one. But who knows if there is not another specie with a more pitched "voice"? The "mechanical" repetition of the sound is astounding!