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, 15:36
  #11681 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Airborne
Posts: 125
Ian W
It is extremely unlikely that the person(s) flying MH370 were aware of the SATCOM tracking that could be done, therefore it is also extremely unlikely that they were spoofing the tracking.
If we assume that the disappearance was deliberate by person unknown, then after 1 year of not finding one single scrap from the aircraft, one can also assume that whoever did so was aware. He would have gone through every possible scenario of a search operation. So far he has succeeded.
James7 is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2015, 16:26
  #11682 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 451
Originally Posted by DespairingTraveller View Post
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?
I don't believe there's any way to tell for sure why the IFE didn't connect to the ground after the final SATCOM logon to the satellite. It could be the aircraft was out of fuel and the IFE had no power. It could have failed. It could have been turned off. The aircraft could have hit the sea before the IFE noticed the SATCOM connection was up and set up its connection to the ground. All that's known is that it didn't connect to the ground after the final logon, and didn't explicitly disconnect from the ground before that.
MG23 is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2015, 16:40
  #11683 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 67
MH370 report: Underwater locator beacon battery had expired

Locator beacon battery had expired over a year before departure.
bloom is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2015, 17:00
  #11684 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 179
etops. luckily ian w speaks only for himself. I can assure you and others that here is one controller who would have been highly interested in an aircraft that dropped off my radar seconds after I had spoken to it regardless of "not my airspace/problem etc". wait four hours to initiate a search? unbelievable. icao will have much to say about this incompetence alone.
portmanteau is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2015, 17:03
  #11685 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 275
For me, the single most remarkable fact about the event is that communications were 'lost' at EXACTLY the most 'convenient' time to facilitate a 'disappearance'.

As Ian W has eloquently explained - when Malaysian ATC handed the flight off that was probably the end of their interest in it.

Before Vietnam was contacted by the aircraft they would have no urgent reason to suspect anything was amiss.

So, for only that initial 10 - 15 minute time period there was the perfect 'window of opportunity' for something to happen.
And it happened.
Right then.
How convenient! What a coincidence!

In fact, the time window was shorter in reality, because the NORMAL practice is an immediate transfer. So whatever happened had to happen within seconds of the handoff by Malaysia.
How INCREDIBLY more coincidental!

Well, yes, there may well have been a purely coincidental MECHANICAL failure/event at just that instant. Its possible.
But common sense and experience would tend to suggest that's so far fetched it is really beyond the realms of possibility.

Whats much more likely is that SOMEONE took an initiative at that ideal moment to carry out whatever plan of interference they had already prepared.

Does anyone still seriously cling to the 'mechanical failure' scenario, rather than the 'unlawful interference' one?
Algol is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2015, 17:44
  #11686 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 72
Posts: 687
At 1707:56 when the crew made their unsolicited report of their cruise level, the aircraft had 60nm to run to IGARI. See ACARS position report for speed at 34998 given as 278kts. I find this rather curious. This kind of call is made more commonly when the frequency has gone silent for a while and the crew politely remind the controller of the approach to their next reporting sector. In this instance, the report clearly shows that atc were in communication with other aircraft on the frequency. Perhaps they were expecting an earlier release to the next sector. The question is why the rush.
Chronus is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2015, 17:46
  #11687 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: In a hold
Posts: 164
Algol I quite agree....therefore with that 'unlawful interference' theory it would have to be months in the planning, because the events after position IGARI what ever that maybe would unlikely be spontaneous. A plan was excecuted or attempted to be executed for what ever agenda. Also that would start pointing fingers within the flight deck, as when the aircraft reaches position IGARI, it could only be known from within the FMC/ND legs page and radio handover...no one down the back could determine when this position was reached i.e. The so called window of opportunity. Therefore clues could be found by further in depth investigation to the backgrounds of the Cpt and F/o.....something may have been missed that aids the investigation/search.
Fly26 is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2015, 17:55
  #11688 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 275
Yes Fly26 - I totally agree. In fact it was my next step in teasing this out.
Only the Flight Crew (or anyone else on the FD at that time) could have known that NOW was the moment to act.

The apparent lack of stress in the crews voice(s) - if we are to believe the statements from the authorities who have reviewed the tapes - would seem to indicate there was nothing 'untoward' going on right up to the point of handover.
Or else the crew member making the transmission was remarkably composed under duress?
Algol is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2015, 18:21
  #11689 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: In a hold
Posts: 164
No I dont think it's possible to sound that composed under duress, from what I remember the hand over and transcript sounded completely normal, as we do day in day out. if we look at the minute by minute time frame leading up to the 'event' the normal hand over is quite eery. It could imply that crew member had no clue about what was to happen next or was in on the plan. I have not reviewed in depths the flight path and altitudes of the aircraft after position IGARI, could it show some form of a struggle in the flight deck? Of course everything after IGARI is guess work, which is why more should be done to investigate the pilots, that's information that can be obtained, even if you need to go through it 100 times, it might uncover something to help. I think your theory Algol is that right direction.
Fly26 is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2015, 18:36
  #11690 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 130
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.
Report at 17:07:56 : Could this have been a deliberate action by whoever was going to change the plane's flightpath to confirm to ATC that all was well, immediately prior to the ensuing diversion ?
HamishMcBush is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2015, 18:49
  #11691 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: In a hold
Posts: 164
Report at 17:07:56 : Could this have been a deliberate action by whoever was going to change the plane's flightpath to confirm to ATC that all was well, immediately prior to the ensuing diversion ?

Yeh it's possible....it certainly keeps things to appear normal before a sudden change.
Fly26 is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2015, 19:09
  #11692 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 275
It seems obvious that the initiative was taken by someone on the FD. Someone who was meant to be there, hence no panic in the voices.

It kinda narrows things down a lot, doesn't it.

It also potentially eliminates a lot of the conspiracy theories.
Unless you believe the FD were in cahoots with other actors on board.
Algol is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2015, 19:25
  #11693 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Gold Coast, QLD, Australia
Posts: 21
KL ATC graveyard shift staffing "arrangements"

From page 94 of the Factual Report - 16 controllers were on the floor until midnight, after which half were sent off for a 3 hour sleep (or smoke or feed or whatever). Significantly for the region of interest (sectors 3 & 5), 2 controllers suddenly were tasked with controlling an area that 6 staff covered up until midnight. And the controller who took the last radio exchange with MH370 was off on break when more and more questions were asked higher up and from other centers. It surprises me that the numerous other AC in those sectors that night made it safely home. Reading between the lines the stress level eventually became palpable.
SLFstu is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2015, 19:28
  #11694 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: In a hold
Posts: 164
Yes it does..so if we take it further it begs the question what would be the plan after position IGARI? There's obviously a hundred possibilities, but in theory you would want people to know about it after the event, a statement made from your action...which leads to me to suspect it wasn't seen through and the final position of the aircraft is almost random depending upon the last inputs to the flight controls/MCP.
Fly26 is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2015, 19:45
  #11695 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 275
Fly26 we seem to have had the same thought processes!
My guess?
One or other pilot had a 'spectacular' in mind, as you suggest, to let the world know of his grievance perhaps (I won't speculate here what those were, but I have my suspicions).
So this person acts at the ideal moment - takes control - disables anyone else on the FD - then gets on O2, switches off the pax O2 and depressurises the cabin (outflow valves open). The reported climb to FL400(?) was to guarentee total final incapacitation of all others on board.
Aircraft is then descended and turned. This is where the plan changes. I think something changed his mind and he snaps out of it. Instead of the 'spectacular' he slinks off to die in the empty and vast Southern Ocean.

That's all speculation of course.
But having taken the a/c succesfully, in such a planned way, was this really the planned endgame? Or an improvisation?
Algol is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2015, 21:29
  #11696 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,295
Originally Posted by portmanteau View Post
etops. luckily ian w speaks only for himself. I can assure you and others that here is one controller who would have been highly interested in an aircraft that dropped off my radar seconds after I had spoken to it regardless of "not my airspace/problem etc". wait four hours to initiate a search? unbelievable. icao will have much to say about this incompetence alone.
Understandable that you would react immedately Portmanteau, you work with synthetic mosaiced or multi-sensor tracker integrated surveillance systems with coasting track infilling. It is not likely that you would see an aircraft 'disappear' on handoff to the next sector. However, in airspace where the controller is using one radar not a multi-sensor system having patches where aircraft drop out is not uncommon. After working with one of those for a few shifts people might get a little restive with emergency actions every time an aircraft handed-off dropped off the display due to being on the ragged edge of radar cover.
Ian W is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2015, 21:50
  #11697 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: England
Posts: 2
Is there ever a requirement for a proper handover rather than a simple hand-off ?

Like a courier delivering a parcel that has to be signed for, the current ATC must hear contact with the next ATC before the handover can be confirmed.
Scubascooby is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2015, 03:52
  #11698 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
Now they say the ATC was asleep.

MH370 report: Air traffic control supervisor asleep on duty after plane disappeared

A Malaysian air traffic control supervisor was asleep on duty four hours after MH370 disappeared amid confusion and misleading reports on the whereabouts of the Boeing 777 carrying 239 people.
Lantern10 is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2015, 04:30
  #11699 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 275
I don't fly the 777. Is it possible to access the CVR/DFDR in flight from a cabin access panel?
Algol is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2015, 06:41
  #11700 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Age: 56
Posts: 356
Surface debris

If the plane flew on AP until fuel exhaustion and then spiralled into the ocean, there would have been fragmentation of the fuselage and release of all sorts of floating items - pieces of composite lining, seat cushions, oxygen masks, possibly life jackets.

I'm not surprised none were found initially - roaring 40's, and several days before we started searching in the current area.

But it is surprising nothing at all has washed up after 12 months.

This makes me think wasn't a high speed crash with fragmentation.


Interesting site where you can input crash location and see where and when debris is most likely to wash up. It obviously depends exactly which position you nominate, but the densest flow of material is generally towards south and then SE coast of Australia (relatively densely populated).

Adrift: tracking the global ocean circulation


Famous rubber duckie story, but given these float on of water and are affected by wind, probably different to MH370.

What can 28,000 rubber duckies lost at sea teach us about our oceans? | MNN - Mother Nature Network
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.