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 8th Mar 2015, 11:13
  #11661 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SA
Age: 58
Posts: 314
The battery powering the underwater locator beacon on missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370's data recorder expired in 2012
from this site
"]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-08/mh370-report-says-black-box-locator-beacon-expired/6289462"]

Last edited by sunnySA; 8th Mar 2015 at 12:24. Reason: Link now works
sunnySA is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2015, 11:28
  #11662 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: In thin air
Posts: 186
RetiredF4:

I suppose mr. Duncan Steel doesn't like to be reminded of that blunder he published on 2014 April 02, when he did not understand the interpretation of the logged BFO's. That was explained in the ATSB report "MH370 - Definition of Underwater Search Areas" dated 26 June 2014.

Your first quote doesn't have a date and does not mention BFO.

The BFO's for a northern route would be about 78 Hz greater than the logged BFO's in level flight. To obtain the logged BFO's on the northern route the aircraft would have had to climb at 3360 feet per minute during the 343 minutes of flight remaining after the first 'ping' at 18:25 UTC. That is 1,152,480 feet.
Gysbreght is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2015, 12:04
  #11663 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: YBBN
Posts: 4
Missing page #93

Does everyone else see page 93 (as numbered on the pages) is missing from the Factual information report?
whatsthefrequencyken is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2015, 12:05
  #11664 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 66
Posts: 782
Gysbreght
The BFO's for a northern route would be about 78 Hz greater than the logged BFO's in level flight. To obtain the logged BFO's on the northern route the aircraft would have had to climb at 3360 feet per minute during the 343 minutes of flight remaining after the first 'ping' at 18:25 UTC. That is 1,152,480 feet.
Come on, I do not understand the whole mathematical stuff involved but the handshakes are just that, one transmission for a very short time, giving BTO data which locate the arc and BFO data which tell something about the speed from or to the sattelite. This speed is a function of sattelite movement to the north or south, aircraft altitude, track, horizontal speed and vertical speed. We have an equation with one known (sattelite movement) and 4 unknowns (aircraft data).

Only during the short time of those few handshakes about 1 hour apart from each other the BFO data have to be fullfilled, not for the whole time of the flight. The flight could do circles in between, as long as it reaches the corresponding BTO arc at the next handshake and fullfills the respective BFO data. On what heading, speed and altitude that would take place or if the aircraft is climbing or descending at that very moment is not shown by the data.

Your computation assumes again a given track and a given speed and the computed vertical speed not only for the respective time of the handshake, but over the complete flight. It is the assumption that it was flown on autopilot with one fixed final target until end of the flight.

Last edited by RetiredF4; 8th Mar 2015 at 13:09.
RetiredF4 is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2015, 12:20
  #11665 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Swansea
Posts: 61
Does everyone else see page 93 (as numbered on the pages) is missing from the Factual information report?
Yes - the page numbering goes from 92 to 94. There does seem to be a missing page as the para at the bottom of 92 stops halfway through a sentence.
DespairingTraveller is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2015, 12:20
  #11666 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In front of a computer
Posts: 1,864
I've just read all the ATC transcripts in the report.

The lack of action and confusion as the events unfolded would be comical if not so serious. All concerned appeared as "rabbits in the headlights" and thus laid down protocols went out of the window.

Why did the Vietnamese wait over 15 minutes before querying the Malaysians as to the location of MH370?

Why did ATC not declare an "uncertainty phase" as per their own laid down procedures?

Why was "aircraft overdue" not declared 30 minutes after the IGARI estimate?

When MAS ops failed to get a response to their ACARS messages what did they hear when they called the aircraft via Satfone? Was it ringing, busy or unavailable?

When they called again a few hours later what did they hear? And, by then, were the SAR team aware MAS ops were able to try to call the aircraft.

More questions than answers I'm afraid...
ETOPS is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2015, 12:31
  #11667 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Swansea
Posts: 61
At an early stage in this sad affair, much was made of a statement by a Malaysian official (the PM possibly?) that the SSR and ACARS systems were deliberately switched off from on-board the aircraft. Later on, something similar was said about the inflight entertainment system.

I'm not seeing any of those statements in this report. There's a reference to how the transponder could be switched off, but not that it was, only that the aircraft dropped off SSR.

Similarly I see a reference to the IFE not logging on to the SATCOM system late in the flight whereas it had previously, but not that this was the result of deliberate action.

Am I missing something in the 500+ pages? Is there something buried in the logs that I don't understand?
DespairingTraveller is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2015, 12:35
  #11668 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: London
Age: 59
Posts: 72
What I would like to have is the same set of data for BTO and BFO as we have for MH370, but for a flight that proceeded normally (and hence we know where it actually was for any given value pair).

Is that available anywhere? Any random flight would do, but obviously it would be nice to have something that proceeded at about the same distance from the recording satellite.
I believe this exercise has been done by Inmarsat as part of the work to validate their calculations. I'm not sure now whether I read it in an official statement from the investigation team, from Inmarsat or the independent group coordinated by Duncan Steele. Nevertheless, the data does exist and has been used to discriminate between northern and southern routes.

PS: Inmarsat's own statement - http://www.inmarsat.com/news/malaysi...tails-uk-aaib/

Last edited by Ulric; 8th Mar 2015 at 12:42. Reason: link added
Ulric is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2015, 12:38
  #11669 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Weedon, UK
Age: 72
Posts: 124
Originally Posted by RetiredF4
Only during the short time of those few handshakes about 1 hour apart from each other the BFO data have to be fullfilled, not for the whole time of the flight. The flight could do circles in between, as long as it reaches the corresponding BTO arc at the next handshake and fullfills the respective BFO data.
True, but the time of the handshakes was reset by external events a couple of times. Expecting any spoofing attempt (manual or pre-programmed) to take account of that pushes the limits of plausibility.
sooty655 is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2015, 12:42
  #11670 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: YBBN
Posts: 4
No Flight ID was present

On the page numbered 53, point #4 says...
When the SATCOM link was re-established at the above times, no Flight ID was present.
Is this normal after a logon, or perhaps a power interruption? I would have thought that the flight id was available from AIMS?
whatsthefrequencyken is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2015, 13:00
  #11671 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: YBBN
Posts: 4
Pay to fly

The report seems, in my view, critical of the FO.

Page 80...
The airline embarked into sponsoring fresh cadets for pilot training since it first started but
had slowed down this programme with the abundance supply of self-sponsored pilots
since the last 5 years.
and...

By the time a captain is ready for the B777, he would have at least flown
F50, B737 or A330 or combination of all the 3 aircraft with at least a total of 6000 hours,
part of which has to be a minimum of 2000 command hours on the smaller jets.
On page 14 we are given the FO's experience...
Date of joining MAS 23 July 2007
...
Aeronautical experience 2813:42 hours
Experience on type 39:11hours
Pay to fly?
whatsthefrequencyken is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2015, 13:04
  #11672 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 66
Posts: 782
sooty655
True, but the time of the handshakes was reset by external events a couple of times. Expecting any spoofing attempt (manual or pre-programmed) to take account of that pushes the limits of plausibility.
You may have missed the point, I'm not talking about spoofing the data nor assuming that the datas have been spoofed. Whoever was part of the disappearance of Mh370 knew nothing about those data as the rest of the world didn't know either.

All I'am saying is, that the southern arc is one interpretation of the data, even a highly probable one, but it is not an exclusive one as others have stated. The conclusion for the southern arc as the most probable track relies heavily on the assumption of near constant track, near constant altitude and near constant speed, simplified on a flight to a preset target in the south flown by autopilot.
RetiredF4 is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2015, 14:04
  #11673 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: In thin air
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by RetiredF4
The conclusion for the southern arc as the most probable track relies heavily on the assumption of near constant track, near constant altitude and near constant speed, simplified on a flight to a preset target in the south flown by autopilot.
No, it doesn't. Although some reconstructions have been based on those assumptions, that statement is not correct. After 18:40 UTC all BFO values indicate a southward component of groundspeed if one assumes level flight. They also show a smooth progression, increasing almost linearly with time. To support a northern route it is necessary to assume that the airplane was climbing at approximately 3500 fpm at the times of all six 'handshakes' and two 'unanswered ground-to-air telephone calls'. During the first unanswered call at around 18:40 86 responses were received from the aircraft during approximately one minute, all with BFO's of 88 +/- 2 Hz.
Gysbreght is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2015, 14:41
  #11674 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,314
Originally Posted by RetiredF4 View Post
You may have missed the point, I'm not talking about spoofing the data nor assuming that the datas have been spoofed. Whoever was part of the disappearance of Mh370 knew nothing about those data as the rest of the world didn't know either.

All I'am saying is, that the southern arc is one interpretation of the data, even a highly probable one, but it is not an exclusive one as others have stated. The conclusion for the southern arc as the most probable track relies heavily on the assumption of near constant track, near constant altitude and near constant speed, simplified on a flight to a preset target in the south flown by autopilot.
A flight at a constant speed South on autopilot fits the INMARSAT data. Data which as you say probably nobody in the world knew was available.

The alternatives, orbits crossing the distance ring (which you did not know about) at precisely the right time at precisely the right velocity (ground speed/track/climb corrected for winds) to look like an aircraft that was on a consistent southerly heading. Yes - it is possible. I challenge anyone to do it.

The problem I see is not overtly modeling all the other 'ideas' and showing where they fall down. If instead of repeatedly reassessing the one path, someone had set up a relatively straight forward computer model to vary the assumptions made within their possible limits and falsify (disprove) these alternate ideas. There might be a small family of possible tracks that would work. However, looking at the 'search area' which is very imprecise, I think that it may have been defined by an approach of varying the assumptions within their feasible limits, plus uncertainty due to error.

I have a feeling we will eventually find out.
Ian W is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2015, 14:58
  #11675 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,314
Originally Posted by ETOPS View Post
I've just read all the ATC transcripts in the report.

The lack of action and confusion as the events unfolded would be comical if not so serious. All concerned appeared as "rabbits in the headlights" and thus laid down protocols went out of the window.

Why did the Vietnamese wait over 15 minutes before querying the Malaysians as to the location of MH370?

Why did ATC not declare an "uncertainty phase" as per their own laid down procedures?

Why was "aircraft overdue" not declared 30 minutes after the IGARI estimate?

When MAS ops failed to get a response to their ACARS messages what did they hear when they called the aircraft via Satfone? Was it ringing, busy or unavailable?

When they called again a few hours later what did they hear? And, by then, were the SAR team aware MAS ops were able to try to call the aircraft.

More questions than answers I'm afraid...
Yes why not blame the controllers for not responding immediately to a routine event as if it was an emergency.

All controllers have had aircraft handed to them that do not call. It is not a startling event, in some instances such as crossing from oceanic to en-route airspace it is relatively normal to get a delay. SSR responses drop out and return to the extent that many ATC computer systems 'coast' a pseudo response to show the controller where the aircraft should be if it continued on its previous vector (some even turn that coasting response at waypoints).

So it is 1am on a quiet weekend night and an aircraft handed off drops off your radar. Not your problem - you handed it off. The receiving controller gives it a bit then buzzes you and says hey MH370 has not called me, is he still with you? You call, (it's not your problem really) and no answer. No he's not with me. END. The aircraft was handed off and not in my airspace. Yes the controller could have alerted people but they would have said where is it - it's in Vietnamese airspace and they know about it - why are you telling me then?

All these hindsight ideas of how controllers _could_ have responded are just that. About as useful as comments on how pilots _could_ have responded.

I hope that what this incident leads to is a far more rigid approach to aircraft dropping out of surveillance contact. The only way that things would have been different is a full scale emergency response when surveillance is lost. But remember that this is such a routine occurrence that coasting is built into ATC system software, so it will need to be very carefully done. I suspect that ADS-C SATCOM and VDL2 (VHF Data Link) will be mandatory for commercial aircraft within 5 years with continual ADS-C SATCOM at a 4 minute update rate (that supports RNP-10). Then when ADS-C SATCOM from an airborne aircraft stops reporting a full scale emergency will be declared.

However, in MH370's case would that have helped? Only if the military primary radars had immediately started tracking the aircraft. But what then? They see the aircraft out into the Indian ocean going West. No-one has interceptors on alert that would be able to fly into the Indian Ocean. Then outside primary radar cover MH370 turns South. And from then on we are where we are now - but without the search of the South China Sea.
Ian W is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2015, 15:43
  #11676 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 72
Posts: 0
Now that a factual report has been released, we can at least focus on it.
I find the following timing sequence of particular interest.

UTC

1701:43 a/c at 34998ft
1706:43 a/c at 35004ft
1707:56 with over 12 minutes to run to IGARI, crew report level at 350 without previous ATC instruction to report reaching or when level.
1708:02 ATC response instructing to maintain level.
1719:26 8.26nm to IGARI ATC release a/c
1719:30 a/c acknowledges
1720:31 a/c at IGARI
1720:36 MODE S off
1721:13 a/c drops off primary radar, turns left and then right before commencing descent and increasing speed.

It is inconceivable that between 1720:30 and 1721:13, in 73 seconds, a failure of all electronic/electrical systems may have ocurred so as to render all communication systems and life support systems inoperative and yet allow the aircraft to execute two turns before descending and continuing to follow a diversionary routing, towards an area outside all radar coverage.
Chronus is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2015, 15:48
  #11677 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In front of a computer
Posts: 1,864
Ian W

Having spent a lot of the last 12 years going back and forth over IGARI (4 years B772 and 8 years B744) I'm well aware of the ATC set up and their capabilities. I am very surprised that no "overdue" action was taken..
ETOPS is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2015, 15:57
  #11678 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 54
Chronus,

Quite obvious really, the autopilot is also knocked off so the a/c is randomly roaming the skies after the single mechanical failure event.
birdspeed is online now  
Old 8th Mar 2015, 16:12
  #11679 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: UAE
Posts: 9
@ Chronus: "It is inconceivable that between 1720:30 and 1721:13, in 73 seconds, a failure of all electronic/electrical systems may have ocurred so as to render all communication systems and life support systems inoperative and ....."

Some kind of outstandingly & extraordinarily different fault has to rise which could be 1 in 1000 - some thing that aviation industry encountered first time !

Or else, some one "forced" that fault ............. either in MAS ..... or in cockpit ...... or perhaps under the cockpit.
nashama is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2015, 16:29
  #11680 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 286
Goodness knows, there are so many questions that have been asked, discussed, and discarded. One that has consistently been on the forefront of my mind is why, that after one year, not one piece of the airplane or the contents therein have been seen or recovered. Yes, the oceans of the world are big, but sooner or later, they return things to land, somewhere.
wes_wall 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.