Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Edit: BTW, here's the link to the logs on the DCA site, for those who haven't found it yet:
http://www.dca.gov.my/mainpage/MH370...ion%20Logs.pdf
Last edited by MG23; 27th May 2014 at 05:30.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontius :
There is no " airway" anymore at this altitude , there are only tracks with no width.
Blake 777 : What the Vietnamese military saw in real time we do not know. . Afterwards , looking at the tapes maybe. For Vietnam civil ATC , the last positive ID/position stopped when the transponder stopped. The left turn shown on the map was probably not seen ( or detected ) by them in real time .
Maps shown 2 months after the event can be very precise when dozen of people have been sudying for hours tons of tape recordings from various sources , but what controllers saw in real time , and were expecting is not what we see on those maps.
So saying they should have done this or that based on those maps is irrelevant and futile.. .
the diagram above shows the exit from the airway to the right followed by a left hand turn back through the airway
Blake 777 : What the Vietnamese military saw in real time we do not know. . Afterwards , looking at the tapes maybe. For Vietnam civil ATC , the last positive ID/position stopped when the transponder stopped. The left turn shown on the map was probably not seen ( or detected ) by them in real time .
Maps shown 2 months after the event can be very precise when dozen of people have been sudying for hours tons of tape recordings from various sources , but what controllers saw in real time , and were expecting is not what we see on those maps.
So saying they should have done this or that based on those maps is irrelevant and futile.. .
The density of sweater changes little with depth (about 1024 at surface to 1050 kg/m3 at 5000m). With pressure increasing at 1 atmosphere every 10m of depth, all air -pockets will be squeezed out or imploded as wreckage sinks. The aeroplane construction materials are pretty well all denser than seawater at any depth, so when filled with water, the entire wreckage will sink (excepting perhaps a few lighter items such as spongy seatbacks, personal effects, garbage etc which might escape prior to sinking).
They are looking at the right depth, but it appears in the wrong place....
I too would like to see the detailed calculations done by Inmarsat. If they had been released much earlier, just maybe the search would not have wasted time in the far southern Indian Ocean; just maybe there would have been a much greater opportunity to locate the FDR pinger.........
They are looking at the right depth, but it appears in the wrong place....
I too would like to see the detailed calculations done by Inmarsat. If they had been released much earlier, just maybe the search would not have wasted time in the far southern Indian Ocean; just maybe there would have been a much greater opportunity to locate the FDR pinger.........
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Malaysia releases raw satellite data on missing Malaysia Airlines flight
MH370: Malaysia releases raw satellite data on missing Malaysia Airlines flight - Australia Network News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
http://www.dca.gov.my/mainpage/MH370...ion%20Logs.pdf
The Department of Civil Aviation (DCA) said in a statement it had worked with British satellite company Inmarsat to provide 47 pages of data communication logs recorded by the operator as well as explanatory notes for public consumption.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It means that for AF447 flight, with cruise altitude of about 10700 meters, the duration of coming down was less than 3 minutes.
They have the fuel remaining at time of last ACARS. From this they believe fuel exhaustion would have occurred close to the last handshake.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: UK
Age: 61
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@mickjoebill: the last ACARS transmission, with the fuel remaining, was sent over VHF very early in the flight. The INMARSAT satellite handshakes are unrelated to ACARS (on MAS aircraft) and carried no ACARS data. This isn't new information.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: NJ
Age: 50
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm curious how the v-shaped route from the time of last secondary contact to the time of last primary contact was drawn. Is there actual evidence to support it or is it just based on the Thais saying "we didn't pick it up so it couldn't have flown over Thai airspace"?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: France
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Raw data PDF
Is there anybody who understands why the same line of data is repeated? For example, on page 10, there are 26 lines of data, 23 of them identical. Has this a meaning?
Another question: it seems that all the BTO times last digit are 0 and the penultimate are even. Could we state the time is filed with a 20 µs step?
Another question: it seems that all the BTO times last digit are 0 and the penultimate are even. Could we state the time is filed with a 20 µs step?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Shadoko
I would suspect the identical lines to belong to one data block that was transmitted in sub-blocks which were logged with the time stamp of the time when the block was completed.
I agree on the time resolution being 20µs. Taking into account it's round trip time and 1µs corresponds to 300m at speed of light, the line of sight resolution is 3km. With an elevation angle of ~45° the lateral resolution on the surface would be ~4.5km.
I would suspect the identical lines to belong to one data block that was transmitted in sub-blocks which were logged with the time stamp of the time when the block was completed.
I agree on the time resolution being 20µs. Taking into account it's round trip time and 1µs corresponds to 300m at speed of light, the line of sight resolution is 3km. With an elevation angle of ~45° the lateral resolution on the surface would be ~4.5km.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another question: it seems that all the BTO times last digit are 0 and the penultimate are even. Could we state the time is filed with a 20 µs step?
Join Date: May 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ian W
Thanks for the clear explanation http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post8492799
I note you had previously said: "the Malaysian ATC followed the book pretty well. They were not responsible for the aircraft which had been handed off and accepted by Ho Chi Minh center."
I just wonder where the certainly about handover and acceptance comes from. There are some anomalies:
(1) The Malaysian Preliminary Report does not say that the aircraft had been handed over and accepted.
(2) Both the Preliminary Report and the "Action Taken" document specify a lot about what KLATCC did to find the aircraft. For example in the PR "Thereafter KLATCC initiated efforts involving MAS OPS Center, Singapore ACC, Hong Kong ACC and Phnom Penh ACC to establish the location of MH 370. No contact had been established by any ATC units and thus the Rescue Coordination Centre (RCC) was activated at 05:30 MYT". Discussing what KL did is all rather beside the point if it is HCM's task and responsibility to contact the aircraft. Would it not have been HCM's responsibility to activate a search? [I do understand that much of this activity would be necessary to respond when HCM "asked Subang - 'Is MH370 still with you - he's not talking to me'".]
(3) Vietnam apparently denied responsibility Vietnam requests Flight 370 information after Malaysian claims | DTiNews - Dan Tri International, the news gateway of Vietnam saying "“In fact, there is no evidence that the aircraft had passed through the “Igari” way-point and entered our country’s airspace,” said Lai Xuan Thanh, Director of CAAV.". [I do understand that handover and entering the countries airspace are not necessarily the same thing].
I'm not trying to construct any conspiracy theory, I agree with you, peacetime, no threats apparent etc. I am just curious to understand. It seems pretty clear that HCM had probably accepted the aircraft, as they were the first to raise a query with KL, but the curious points above remain.
Thanks for the clear explanation http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post8492799
I note you had previously said: "the Malaysian ATC followed the book pretty well. They were not responsible for the aircraft which had been handed off and accepted by Ho Chi Minh center."
I just wonder where the certainly about handover and acceptance comes from. There are some anomalies:
(1) The Malaysian Preliminary Report does not say that the aircraft had been handed over and accepted.
(2) Both the Preliminary Report and the "Action Taken" document specify a lot about what KLATCC did to find the aircraft. For example in the PR "Thereafter KLATCC initiated efforts involving MAS OPS Center, Singapore ACC, Hong Kong ACC and Phnom Penh ACC to establish the location of MH 370. No contact had been established by any ATC units and thus the Rescue Coordination Centre (RCC) was activated at 05:30 MYT". Discussing what KL did is all rather beside the point if it is HCM's task and responsibility to contact the aircraft. Would it not have been HCM's responsibility to activate a search? [I do understand that much of this activity would be necessary to respond when HCM "asked Subang - 'Is MH370 still with you - he's not talking to me'".]
(3) Vietnam apparently denied responsibility Vietnam requests Flight 370 information after Malaysian claims | DTiNews - Dan Tri International, the news gateway of Vietnam saying "“In fact, there is no evidence that the aircraft had passed through the “Igari” way-point and entered our country’s airspace,” said Lai Xuan Thanh, Director of CAAV.". [I do understand that handover and entering the countries airspace are not necessarily the same thing].
I'm not trying to construct any conspiracy theory, I agree with you, peacetime, no threats apparent etc. I am just curious to understand. It seems pretty clear that HCM had probably accepted the aircraft, as they were the first to raise a query with KL, but the curious points above remain.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: France
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Raw data PDF
OleOle: Yes, 4.5 km. And because they are very cautious (and from data not absolutly steady when the a/c was stationary) they double it to ±10 km.
Another thought: After the handshakes at 19:41, 20:41, 21:41 and 22:41 there was no handshake at 23:41. It was (long time ago!) presumed as a "miss". But it is well explained by the sat call (from ground) of 23:15: this call attempt reset the one hour timer and so the next handshake was at 00:15. But no "ring" because C-channel BTO is not filed.
Seems consistent?
Another thought: After the handshakes at 19:41, 20:41, 21:41 and 22:41 there was no handshake at 23:41. It was (long time ago!) presumed as a "miss". But it is well explained by the sat call (from ground) of 23:15: this call attempt reset the one hour timer and so the next handshake was at 00:15. But no "ring" because C-channel BTO is not filed.
Seems consistent?
Last edited by Shadoko; 27th May 2014 at 15:30. Reason: 4,5 km > 4.5 km (sorry for the French wording)
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 12E CTY
Age: 69
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you compare the PSR track (in the recent ATSB document) to the map on this post ...
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post8364326
It seems pretty clear that someone was aware of the PSR track very quickly after the incident. The "E" box being the area where they lost PSR coverage.
I do wonder what altitude the aircraft was at when it passed Butterworth.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post8364326
It seems pretty clear that someone was aware of the PSR track very quickly after the incident. The "E" box being the area where they lost PSR coverage.
I do wonder what altitude the aircraft was at when it passed Butterworth.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: France
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Raw data PDF
"Raw data PDF": 18:25 - Log-on Request, initiated from the aircraft terminal. This is the end of the link lost period that began at sometimes between 17:07:48 and 18:03:41.
What it the meaning of that?
- a trick (before turning South) from somebody who handled the a/c knowing it had have to be "viewed" on a west route?
- an automatic sat link after HF was available along the route above Malaysia and lost again?
- some automatic data Tx from a so big change in flight caracteristics it had to be "signaled" for frequency or BFO adjustment between sat and a/c?
- ... ?
It would be interesting to know what were the subsequent "user data".
What it the meaning of that?
- a trick (before turning South) from somebody who handled the a/c knowing it had have to be "viewed" on a west route?
- an automatic sat link after HF was available along the route above Malaysia and lost again?
- some automatic data Tx from a so big change in flight caracteristics it had to be "signaled" for frequency or BFO adjustment between sat and a/c?
- ... ?
It would be interesting to know what were the subsequent "user data".
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's certainly a possible cause, but I would expect the aircraft to try to log on again soon after the turn. In this case, it appears to have been out of comms for at least 22 minutes.
I don't know whether there's any way it could have thought it was still logged on, but not have responded to messages from the ground? If it was still receiving the satellite signal, it should presumably have received those messages and been able to respond.
I don't know whether there's any way it could have thought it was still logged on, but not have responded to messages from the ground? If it was still receiving the satellite signal, it should presumably have received those messages and been able to respond.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: vancouver
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HrdoAcoustic Detectors
I found this from ATSB interesting:
Low frequency hydroacoustic signals present in the Indian Ocean are being examined to determine whether they can provide any information to help define the search area. These signals are recorded by hydrophones as part of the United Nations Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban-Treaty Organisation (CTBTO) or the Integrated Marine Observing System (IMOS).
Way above my pay grade but wouldn't one have expected it to be done long ago?
I assume that as well as the U.N. hydrophones it is entirely possible that there are military arrays as well?
Low frequency hydroacoustic signals present in the Indian Ocean are being examined to determine whether they can provide any information to help define the search area. These signals are recorded by hydrophones as part of the United Nations Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban-Treaty Organisation (CTBTO) or the Integrated Marine Observing System (IMOS).
Way above my pay grade but wouldn't one have expected it to be done long ago?
I assume that as well as the U.N. hydrophones it is entirely possible that there are military arrays as well?
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: N. California
Age: 80
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RTD1
Do we know when the military primary radar BEGAN picking up MH370?
I'm curious how the v-shaped route from the time of last secondary contact to the time of last primary contact was drawn. Is there actual evidence to support it or is it just based on the Thais saying "we didn't pick it up so it couldn't have flown over Thai airspace"?
I'm curious how the v-shaped route from the time of last secondary contact to the time of last primary contact was drawn. Is there actual evidence to support it or is it just based on the Thais saying "we didn't pick it up so it couldn't have flown over Thai airspace"?
As to the Vee shaped flight path in the diagram:
I see no reason to think the flight went near Butterworth; the pilot had brought the plane down to low altitude to avoid (at least) Thai radar, and ground speed was suffering as a result; he (or she) would have wanted to clear Thai/Malaysian airspace as quickly as possible so I predict a turn towards MEKAR somewhere around 5°36'25.08"N 101° 6'29.92"E (or about 45nm ENE of Butterworth.)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Extract of the explanations in the PDF:
- ACARS Messages are Ground to Air.
- link lost period that began at sometime between 17:07:48 and 18:03:41 due to electrical power issues?
- why no more Ground Initiated to Air Telephony Calls ?
Both Ground Initiated to Air Telephony Calls tried 1 minute before the caller gave up. Even though nobody picked up the phone, the terminal itself acknowledged it was there. Was it ringing in the a/c? Was the caller on the ground aware, that the terminal was still alive?
16:41 - Take-Off.Logged-On to Ground Earth Station (GES) 305/301, via the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) Inmarsat I-3 satellite
17:07 - Last Acknowledged Ground to Air DATA-2 ACARS Message. Link lost at sometime between here and 18:03:41.
18:03 - No Response to Ground to Air DATA-2 ACARS Data. Link lost at sometime between 17:07:48 and here.
18:04 - Last of five requests for Acknowledge to the Air DATA-2 ACARS Data at 18:03
18:05:11 - Data-2 Ground to Air transmission, automatic ACARS retransmission after expiry of 90 sec timer. Terminal is not responding.
18:25 - Log-On Request, initiated from the aircraft terminal. This is the end of the link lost period that began at sometime between 17:07:48 and 18:03:41.
18:39 - Ground Initiated to Air Telephony Call - Zero Duration (Not Answered)
19:41 - Handshake Request, with response
20:41 - Handshake Request, with response
21.41 - Handshake Request, with response
22:41 - Handshake Request, with response
23:13 - Ground Initiated to Air Telephony Call - Zero Duration (Not Answered)
00:10:58 - Handshake Request, with response
00:19:29 - Log-On Request (reported as a Partial Handshake), initiated from the aircraft terminal
00:19:37 - Note that the following R-Channel burst at 00:19:37.443 is the last transmission received from the aircraft terminal
01:15:56 - Handshake Request - No Response from Aircraft Terminal
01:16:06 - Handshake Request - No Response from Aircraft Terminal
01:16:15 - Handshake Request - No Response from Aircraft Terminal
17:07 - Last Acknowledged Ground to Air DATA-2 ACARS Message. Link lost at sometime between here and 18:03:41.
18:03 - No Response to Ground to Air DATA-2 ACARS Data. Link lost at sometime between 17:07:48 and here.
18:04 - Last of five requests for Acknowledge to the Air DATA-2 ACARS Data at 18:03
18:05:11 - Data-2 Ground to Air transmission, automatic ACARS retransmission after expiry of 90 sec timer. Terminal is not responding.
18:25 - Log-On Request, initiated from the aircraft terminal. This is the end of the link lost period that began at sometime between 17:07:48 and 18:03:41.
18:39 - Ground Initiated to Air Telephony Call - Zero Duration (Not Answered)
19:41 - Handshake Request, with response
20:41 - Handshake Request, with response
21.41 - Handshake Request, with response
22:41 - Handshake Request, with response
23:13 - Ground Initiated to Air Telephony Call - Zero Duration (Not Answered)
00:10:58 - Handshake Request, with response
00:19:29 - Log-On Request (reported as a Partial Handshake), initiated from the aircraft terminal
00:19:37 - Note that the following R-Channel burst at 00:19:37.443 is the last transmission received from the aircraft terminal
01:15:56 - Handshake Request - No Response from Aircraft Terminal
01:16:06 - Handshake Request - No Response from Aircraft Terminal
01:16:15 - Handshake Request - No Response from Aircraft Terminal
- link lost period that began at sometime between 17:07:48 and 18:03:41 due to electrical power issues?
- why no more Ground Initiated to Air Telephony Calls ?
Both Ground Initiated to Air Telephony Calls tried 1 minute before the caller gave up. Even though nobody picked up the phone, the terminal itself acknowledged it was there. Was it ringing in the a/c? Was the caller on the ground aware, that the terminal was still alive?
Last edited by OleOle; 27th May 2014 at 17:17. Reason: add considerations about Ground Initiated to Air Telephony Calls