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 24th May 2014, 07:14
  #10721 (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: 16,610
Machinbird, thank you, that is exactly what we have been saying for weeks now until modded out each time. Even yesterday - there is no requirement for States to maintain an interceptor alert or even have the capability so to do.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 24th May 2014, 09:10
  #10722 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 66
Posts: 782
One more point to the interception option, which may be moded out though.

Remeber the first days of the missing MH370?
I remeber one statement repeated for some days until the questions got painful, then the statement was demented officially. Two month later we are used to receiving information, which is revoked few days later. Therefore make up your own mind whom you believe.

General Rodzali said interceptors were not scrambled because the unidentified plane appeared to be a civilian aircraft.


What can we read out of that information:
- There would have been interceptors available.
- There are procedures implemented under those a scramble would commence
- The plane was observed and reported in time
- With the information available the plane was declared civil no threat

I do not agree with Machinebirds analysis, that the discusssion gets unrealistic.
I know no airforce around my country with no air policing procedures in force. The end of the cold war nearly 20 years ago didn't change those procedures. The necessity for the grade of readiness is defined by the advance warning available. The costs of such a readiness is negligable. Soldiers are not paid for hours and aircraft cost not more money when they are kept in any kind of higher alert state.

It is unrealistic to assume an alert state of 5 minutes over prolonged time, and nobody did that. But having an alert state of 60 minutes or 30 minutes allows a gradual increase of the alert state when situation dictates. The persons on 60 minute alert will then raise out of bed, cloth up, aircraft are powered up and when ready to launch within the new readiness state next orders are awaited.

It is no argument that the task of interception of an unidentified target may turn out impossible due to fuel exhaustion or other factors, as those factors are only known in hindsight. A target may turn and solve the range problem, or it may turn away and create a range problem to the interceptor. Interceptor forces all over the globe can be considered useless, when the possibility of failure prevents the implementation of such force beforehand.

There might still be the option that no alert force in some readiness state was available, but why would the minister of defence not dodge those questions with something like

"i can not coment in public on the readiness state of our forces...."?

He clearly expressed that it was not necessary to launch, as he had no intention to shoot it down.

AIP Malaysia concerning interceptions.

http://aip.dca.gov.my/aip%20pdf/ENR/...20Aircraft.pdf

Last edited by RetiredF4; 24th May 2014 at 11:25. Reason: Link for AIP Malaysia
RetiredF4 is offline  
Old 24th May 2014, 10:08
  #10723 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Auckland
Age: 76
Posts: 191
"... interceptors were not scrambled because the unidentified plane appeared to be a civilian aircraft."
"... it was not necessary to launch, as he had no intention to shoot it down."

This is just talk, excuses, not reasons or explanations. You can't deduce anything from it.

Last edited by Ornis; 24th May 2014 at 10:21.
Ornis is offline  
Old 24th May 2014, 12:52
  #10724 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
"I know no airforce around my country with no air policing procedures in
force."

That's in Europe with a history of possible conflict and a very visible air threat

there is no such thing in East Asia or Australia

India & pakistan are probably the nearest to a C European condition - even N Korea poses no immediate air threat

None of the countries, including Australia, have aircraft on standby ready to intercept in the way the Luftwaffe or the RAF do
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 24th May 2014, 13:17
  #10725 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Auckland
Age: 76
Posts: 191
... resources were mobilised on the basis of the results of a system that they did not have, I mean really...?
ACARS. Data was transmitted by VHF only; it stopped. There was an active aerial for the satellite phone, which continued (handshake) pings.
Ornis is offline  
Old 24th May 2014, 14:55
  #10726 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Washstate
Age: 75
Posts: 0
Red face The China Rubber raft pings

As far as I've seen the original location where China heard their pings has never been searched.
There were initial reports that some of the first video releases of the china pings found via a fishing rod and rubber raft and mike in the water also showed on one side a hand held transmitter set on freq. Later video supposedly had cropped that potion out.


And as I recall- some sort of surface search for debris was made in that same area by a few ships before moving to the more north ( current ) area.
SAMPUBLIUS is offline  
Old 24th May 2014, 15:22
  #10727 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
chinese pings

sampublis


I recall that HMS Echo was working in concert with the Chinese Ping ship. For a number of days.

I am sure someone can "cull" the reports to verify, or take my word.
jondc9 is offline  
Old 24th May 2014, 17:00
  #10728 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: EU
Age: 49
Posts: 246
JACC Media release:

Media Release
7 April 2014—am

Up to nine military planes, three civil planes and 14 ships will assist in today's search for missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.
The search area is expected to be approximately 234,000 square kilometres.
Good weather is expected throughout the day with showers in the afternoon although this is not expected to affect the search.
ADV Ocean Shield is continuing investigations in its own area.
HMS Echo is en route to assist the Chinese vessel Haixun 01, which detected pulse signals in the Indian Ocean.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau continues to refine the area where the aircraft entered the water based on continuing ground-breaking and multi-disciplinary technical analysis of satellite communication and aircraft performance, passed from the international air crash investigative team comprising analysts from Malaysia, the United States, the UK, China and Australia.
DjerbaDevil is offline  
Old 24th May 2014, 17:35
  #10729 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: wales
Age: 76
Posts: 316
from the international air crash investigative team comprising analysts from Malaysia, the United States, the UK, China and Australia.
I don't know if Malaysia has any satellite experts but have no doubt they have some very competent mathematicians & electronics ppl in their universities etc, the same applies to the other nations plus satellite experience.

Three of the nations UK China and Australia, have no direct involvement with MAH370, so there is plenty of independent experts on the board, so why all the continuing clamour for the data to be released?
oldoberon is offline  
Old 24th May 2014, 21:21
  #10730 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Auckland
Age: 76
Posts: 191
...there is plenty of independent experts on the board, so why all the continuing clamour for the data to be released?
For the same reason intelligent educated parents take their children to quacks when medical science fails them. We believe there is an answer to everything and for some people the "wrong" answer is better than no answer.

Not too long ago we would have blamed gods for such a mysterious disappearance.

I believe they will find the plane, whether there's anything approaching a widely-accepted explanation is another matter.

Last edited by Ornis; 24th May 2014 at 21:38.
Ornis is offline  
Old 25th May 2014, 05:09
  #10731 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: This planet
Posts: 19
None of the countries, including Australia, have aircraft on standby ready to intercept in the way the Luftwaffe or the RAF do
Sorry to disagree but in India a/c take off from airbase in just seconds(not minutes) and recently couple of times it proved right.
theAP is offline  
Old 25th May 2014, 21:25
  #10732 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,313
Originally Posted by jondc9 View Post
IanW, interesting that you say by the book.

But nothing about this situation is really by the book, is it?

Sometimes you have to go above and beyond the book.
What controllers do is legally constrained. When a controller hands an aircraft to another agency particularly an agency in another jurisdiction/country there is a legal document called a Memorandum of Understanding that lays down precisely what the controllers each side of the boundary do on transfer of control and what legal responsibilities each controller and service provider have and how they will be enforced. This is why controllers always follow the regulations (the book). Once MH370 had been handed to Ho Chi Minh then Subang had zero responsibility to do anything. But more than that they were required to do NOTHING as it really confuses things if everyone and their dog starts getting involved bending rules because they think that they can help. Always ONE agency is the one with responsibility and in this case the agency was Ho Chi Minh center. They would have asked Subang - 'Is MH370 still with you - he's not talking to me' (an extremely common occurrence). Subang would have made a call on their frequency to MH370 to see if the aircraft was still on their frequency and if no response would have told Ho Chi Minh - 'no he's not with me'. The assumption would have been that MH370 was NORDO and still en-route to Beijing.

Ho Chi Minh center would have then been trying everything to contact the aircraft - and this was their task and their responsibility - NOTHING to do with Subang center.

This is the way the rules are defined. That is why [donning tin foil hat] it is said that this was an ideal place to break out of the system and stop cooperating with the surveillance systems. For a flight emergency to occur at precisely that moment is possible but highly improbable.
Ian W is offline  
Old 25th May 2014, 23:14
  #10733 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 67
Posts: 194
@ Ian W (25 May 15:25) and related posts:

Certainly the "one agency" only component of the way in which air traffic control and airspace management is handled across international borders as well as over international waters is as Ian W's post has stated it. At the same time, does not this situation call for asking a broader question? Particularly: is the current structure anything like optimum? Taking all the constraints of cost, international relations, and inertia of "the way things have been done for a long time now" into account, does "the System" actually accept this state of affairs as the best that can be done? Obviously by System I mean the web of ICAO (and IATA as well, probably) standards and recommended practices, subject matter MOUs, and presumably other components.

The several well-informed posts on interceptor scramble schemes and related costs seem incontrovertibly dependent for their pertinence on the observation that someone should have recognized the loss of contact sooner. But if the lost contact - and I hate to use a botched-up cliche, but it fits - "fell through the cracks", is it not a fair and reasonable inquiry to say "hey, is this as good as the System can do?", or are we left with, when reduced to simplest terms, a shrug, and an acceptance that this apparent gap in air traffic control and airspace management will be allowed to persist?
WillowRun 6-3 is offline  
Old 25th May 2014, 23:46
  #10734 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 68
Posts: 427
and an acceptance that this apparent gap in air traffic control and airspace management will be allowed to persist?
"Gaps" exist everywhere as far as human activities are concerned, specially the regulatory environment, few countries have resources to design systems that are prepared for the worst conditions or most unlikely scenarios, nobody builds levee that can withstand one-per-hundred years floods, only what you can reasonably expect short term, so to lament about "gaps" is simply like lamenting about strong earthquakes or some cataclysm. By the way, MH370 doesn't even register on a scale of importance where gaps should/could be mended.
olasek is offline  
Old 26th May 2014, 03:38
  #10735 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 67
Posts: 194
Quote: "MH370 doesn't even register on a scale of importance where gaps should/could be mended." On the premise that the important gaps you contend can and should be mended would be off-topic, I'm asking just whether any of the gaps to which you refer - if they were fixed - would indirectly help resolve a situation such as this? Of course I'm also curious about the complete assessment you only encapsulated, but whether it would drift the thread, it's hard to know.
WillowRun 6-3 is offline  
Old 26th May 2014, 04:34
  #10736 (permalink)  
Vercingetorix
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Ian W

Succinct and 100%.
 
Old 26th May 2014, 07:26
  #10737 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 69
Posts: 2,638
Iam W " totally correct , it is how it is done and I would even argue how it SHOULD be done.

WillowRun 6-3 : You have to realise hat the current system works extremely well , it is based on years of global experience and cover all cases to 1 to the minus 9 .

It is indeed frustrating for everyone not to understand what happenned, but most of us believe it was most probably a deliberate act by someone who knew exactly what he ( or they) were doing.
I do not think changing ATC ,SAR or military regulations will prevent another case like this to happen again.
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 26th May 2014, 16:14
  #10738 (permalink)  
vme
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Toowoomba Australia
Posts: 21
ATSB Info

The ATSB has established a sub-site for search info at
MH370
vme is offline  
Old 26th May 2014, 16:27
  #10739 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: .za
Age: 57
Posts: 16
ATSB Report

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5205507..._FactSheet.pdf

The last ACARS message received contained the fuel remaining...

It will take at least another month to get the ACARS data.

Last edited by sSquares; 26th May 2014 at 17:43.
sSquares is offline  
Old 26th May 2014, 16:56
  #10740 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Age: 56
Posts: 356
Thanks VME. That first fact sheet is fascinating reading.

It appears Inmarsat have been looking at these techniques since AF447. Certainly the range from the satellite stuff anyway. The doppler derived estimated of course and speed may have been more recent.

They have the fuel remaining at time of last ACARS. From this they believe fuel exhaustion would have occurred close to the last handshake.

And they seem to think last handshake was logon request from aircraft, consistent with aircraft equipment powering up - possibly following fuel exhaustion. So that fits with fuel calculations.

They also believe aircraft was descending at this time.

Intriguingly, they quote that study (Russian from memory) that suggests that in loss of control accidents the aircraft is usually found within 20NM of the last known position. So is there a suggestion they believe there was loss of control at the end - as opposed to a long glide from altitude and a controlled ditching.

Lots of independent validation, which is reassuring.
slats11 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.