Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost

[Xeque]

#1673 the photos of the two "Iranians".
Why do they have the same legs, feet and hand baggage?
This has to be one of the poorest examples of Photoshopping ever.
How can we believe anything the Malaysians are saying?
This whole thing has gone well beyond "ludicrous"

[Sober Lark]

A few days on and all we really know is that the data they have been using to reach their primary objective of defining a first position for the searches has been pretty flawed.

[J.O.]

#1673 the photos of the two "Iranians".
Why do they have the same legs, feet and hand baggage?
This has to be one of the poorest examples of Photoshopping ever.
How can we believe anything the Malaysians are saying?
This whole thing has gone well beyond "ludicrous"

The news article I read said that it was two pictures of the same individual.

[Mahatma Kote]

#1673 the photos of the two "Iranians".
Why do they have the same legs, feet and hand baggage?
This has to be one of the poorest examples of Photoshopping ever.

If you look carefully, the left photo has part of the right photo at the bottom. It's a mis-feed of a scanner or printer or fax. Pretty common.

[ekpilot]

So chances are that the military tracked the airplane across Peninsular Malaysia to the west coast. The military have stated that it descended 1000m, i.e. either 3000 or 3500 feet. Both these new flight leveles make sense from a pilot's point of view. Last known flight level was FL350. FL320 would be a correct level if they turned to a reciprocal or westerly track. If you wanted to be cautious and follow e.g. NAT contingency procedures, FL315 would also make sense. At this point it would appear that someone is atleast in partial control of the airplane.

I think for those of you unfamiliar with this part of the world, it is almost impossible to understand the ramifications of the "saving face" aspect of the information dissemination part of this ordeal...

[whoateallthepies]

Network and MartinM
Just reviewed your posts in light of my question. So I understand there should be data from ACARS regarding the status of the aircraft and you believe Malaysian are sitting on it?

[SOPS]

As I said earlier, the leaks are starting, the stories are beginning to change. And as EK Pilot has stated correctly, I bet face saving has an awful lot to do with what is going on behind the scenes.

[Chill]

Finally got to the end of this thread...

...and wish I didn't have to read half of it (but good on the Mods for clearing some of it up).

Not highly relevant I feel but those who wondered about seat-belt sign off policy it's 10,000' on the way up unless wx/turb dictates otherwise. On odd occasion below 10 they maybe off on short sectors as a courtesy to the crew if it's deemed safe/practical to do so.

There's often good reporting from Australia and then there's over hyped trash and the "A Current Affair" expose was a sad example of the latter. Yes the lads were not in compliance with company policy (indeed Civil Regulations) but the portrayal was appalling - utter trollop as a ratings grab, but given the owners of Nine Network no surprises there (and how much did they "pay" the lass for her story I wonder?). Undoubtably it's all true as evidenced by the photos and in another era it was okay but now showed poor choice of action by the crew (especially to be photographed). The FO can't defend himself now and the Captain will surely answer to the Company once they find out - might even get dismissed due to the public nature of this report in the current situation (perhaps he should sue Nine). Bad choice of broadcasting. Suffice to say jump-seat policy in MAS is quite strict (as MAS has pointed out to the program) and smoking in the cockpit is strictly forbidden, but does still happen as I'm sure it does in other companies - the Captain calls the shots.

And who said it was a B767... It's one of MAS' B737-400 still in operation in 2011. Look closer before you post.

Now I'm as perplexed as everybody else as to how, where and why, I'm open to any rational idea at this stage. Admittedly favouring hijack with the passport issue earlier perhaps it's just back to something more mundane like a badly crippled aircraft in some way with a major electrical problem (still wouldn't rule out a bomb which crippled avionics but not their ability to fly). For a long time now people have been saying why on earth are they on the west side of the pennisula (when the first news of search efforts in the Straits of Malacca hit)... I have no reason to disbelieve if these guys thought they could get the aircraft back safely they would try their damned hardest to do so. Yes if there was a raging fire onboard they might have tried WMKN (TGG) but from FL350 there's a heck of a lot of height to lose in a short distance. Same for WMKC (KBR) and anyone who's been there it's not much of an airport in a populated area. WMKP is more logical for a rapid descent to land in a straight line - if their controls were compromised who wants to man-handle a 777 more than necessary except a turn to finals and we've have no idea if they could get the gear out for example so even PEN might only be a second choice. Bear in mind all these airports are closed for the night (PEN maybe not, but very low key) at this time so crashing on the field is a last resort action especially since there appears to be a lack of communication they've no way of announcing their imminent arrival. I wouldn't be surprised if the crew felt KUL was their best, safest option and on top of that (and for the life of me can't fathom why nobody posting here didn't say it earlier) there is a Lost Comms approach procedure for KUL which this crew would have known. If they were down to basic night VFR flying then how best to get to KUL and comply with the procedure... find the west coast, turn south and fly until you pass KL. They could line up for a straight in similar to a KIKAL2 for RWY14L or give ATC a chance to guess what they are doing (if they hadn't already) and head down towards the lights of Malacca to come back for RWY32R approximating a LAPIR2 arrival. Makes logical sense if they were comms crippled so why people think it's stupid for the authorities to be searching the West Coast is a bit rich. If the guys were trying to get back to KUL then it's sad they might have been within reach of KUL and dropped it in the drink for whatever reason.

Having said that, why they're searching so far north is a bit odd but perhaps they have their reasons due radar information at their disposal and who are we to say. Just my thoughts on the situation.

[Yancey Slide]

Leading on, were the ac "interfered with" which seems to include Xpdr, ACARS, VHF etc. then I am sure ELTs were considered as well.

The ELT unit itself contains the G switch to set it off. Nobody said they're perfect (and do have a pretty good failure to activate rate). Point is if it's underwater, who cares? The only thing that would bring attention to the black boxes are the pingers, which are water activated. AFAIK the ELT is mounted outside the pressure bulkhead (usually) and someone would have to go pull the ELT battery out (there's one in the ELT container so it keeps transmitting when it doesn't have ships power after activation), as well as disable ships power. Now you're involving maintenance activities or a large gang of people to go around pulling power and batteries from devices. I know of no evidence pointing to the likelihood of such an organized event taking place here.

And as other non-US airlines have ELTs installed, it's probably safe to say it comes from the factory pre-installed, so one would have been here. Probably something the FAA wouldn't allow them to make a customer option during type certification but I know little of that beyond some paper-pushing on some 337s I had to do.

[andrasz]

I promised myself I shall remain silent until some new facts become known, but the official acknowledgement by the Malaysian Air Force chief that MH370 was tracked for over an hour after loss of transponder signal calls for some re assessment of what we know till now:

(NOTE: below deductions are valid IF the acknowledgement is substantially true)

• The loss of primary radar contact at 2:40 EXACTLY matches what was initially reported by MAS in their very first statement (still on their website). This was subsequently modified to 1:21 when transponder signal was lost (as reported by FR24), and a seemingly plausible explanation was given that the 2:40 is to be understood as when Subang centre notified MAS on the loss of comms.
• In a press conference on the 9th March, the Air Force chief already hinted that the aircraft 'may have' turned around. This was downplayed in the next couple of days, as SAR efforts concentrated around the last known transponder position.
• Clearly in the mean time significant SAR efforts have commenced in the Straits of Malacca, however in the past 2 days they were not commented on, or were dismissed with 'we are exploring all possibilities'. Only after if became clear (and extensively discussed on forums like here) to anyone with some knowledge that the search is now concentrated to the west of the Malay peninsula was the admission made.

From the initial slips of tongues (understandable in the evolving crisis situation) it would appear that already at the start of the events this was known, and possibly much more. In light of above, any official statement on (non)existing ACARS messages need to be treated with a good degree of caution.

All this is combined with the well known dread of 'losing face' in the region, which may result is some quite irrational decisions even quite high up in the hierarchy.

Of course several questions remain:

• Can we believe this information, after it is contradicting previous earlier statements (but add up with yet earlier ones) ?
• Do they have any more information on what could have happened other than the position of the aircraft ?
• Was the wild-goose chase in the Gulf of Thailand a diversion, or they genuinely had no clue which information to believe ?

[Murexway]

Well, I can now join the ranks of those whose posts have disappeared just as mysteriously as the 777. Perhaps there's a storage problem at PPRuNe and the server is dumping in order to stay under limits?

In any case, I posted a theory last night that perhaps the captain, upon becoming aware of a problem simply called dispatch and they suggested that he not continue, but return to Kuala Lumpur. Why he might have done so without informing ATC could have to do with losing his HF radios due to electrical problems. He might have still had VHF contact with company via the emergency bus.

That could explain why the company thinks he might have turned back. It's also why the wreckage isn't along the radar plot in the Gulf of Thailand to the North.

Even if he proceeded directly back along his route, he might have swung wide to the North and West of the airport due to limited flight control, in order to set up for a long final to runway 32 L or R. Thus he may be down in the northwestern end of the Malacca Strait.

As for why not a straight in to 14, he might have been conserving altitude and upon seeing the lights of the peninsula, realized he would be too high for that.

[Carjockey]

@ThomasDoubting

According to this report they descended to 1000m.

The daily also reported that a Singaporean air traffic surveillance and control unit had also picked up the signal to show MH370 "made a turn back before its altitude suddenly dropped from 10,000m to 1,000m".

Maritime agency says no information about signals from missing plane - The Malaysian Insider

But then again...

It was also reported that a Singaporean air traffic surveillance and control unit also picked up the signal that MH370 "made a turn back before it was reported to have climbed 1,000 metres from its original altitude at 10,000 metres”.

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/m...alacca-straits

Which report is correct? Take your pick...

[TheShadow]

On a Wing and a Prayer?

""The missing plane was involved in a crash in August, 2012, when it damaged the tail of a China Eastern Airlines plane at Shanghai Pudong Airport, according to unconfirmed reports.

....in the incident, the tip of the wing of the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 broke off..."


http://cdn.feeyo.com/pic/20120810/20...0951017177.jpg
China Eastern



One might assume that the wing(tip)(?) destroyed during the MH370 airframe's 2012 taxiing accident was repaired properly. However (see image) it did take one almighty clout when it struck the China Eastern acft's tail a few years back. That wing actually lost quite a few jagged feet of span. It was a classic case of a dominant force striking an immoveable object - and the failure was well inboard. A very pedestrian and mundane accident you might say. The fore-aft (i.e. chord-wise) propagation of the collision forces would have tended to concentrate, via the main- and sub-spar(s), at the wing-root - but the wing-root wouldn't necessarily be the weak focal point of any future turbulence (or metal fatigue) induced failure. I'll explain why below.

The wing out as far as the engine pylon mounting is quite beefy and rigid, because it has to contend with the inboard fuel tanks and the engine's weight and thrust - as well as minimizing the flexure caused by its inertia (you've seen how much the wing-mounted engines appear to move inflight relative to the fuselage, right?). From the engine's pylon-mount out to the wing-tip is less rigid, i.e. it's designed to allow a high aspect ratio wing to soak up turbulence-induced flexing. The mid-span of this pylon-to-tip distance was where the 777's RH wing was torn off. Not just damaged or dented, but TORN OFF. Did Boeing replace the entire RH wing? No it didn't. That starboard wing was "repaired". You'd have to wonder how the assessment of an "adequate" repair was done, given the extensive damage to a large section of outboard (i.e. missing) wing. Wingtip taxiing accidents tend to be dismissively "ground rash". This one may have been just a bit more than that. Wing repairs are several orders of magnitude more consequential than fuselage or tail repairs. "G", I wonder why? - you might ask. Obviously the considerations go far beyond the cosmetics of incidence, conformity and airflow-friendly re-skinning. Justifiably, the main concern would've been for ongoing operational structural integrity. This often leads to a very beefy repair scheme. No engineer would endorse or certify any repair less sturdy and reliable than afforded by the original structure..... and also because the question of "how much is enough?" is a tough one when considering a major wing repair scheme and the implications of undetected additional hidden damage. Replacement is often the better option. But that might not be what the insurance company is prepared to pay for, especially since there's a considerable history of simply replacing the wing-tip or its endplate winglet fairing after a bit of "ground rash". But this one was a little more than just a wing-tip. Try and convince an insurance assessor of that, in a circumstance that's so very familiar to insurance assessors and their bean-counters.

Catastrophic failure of a wing repair inflight is almost incredibly incomprehensible. But then again, the China Airlines 747's tail-scrape repair led to a high altitude instantaneous break-up at max cabin pressure differential a few years later - and consider as well the Boeing repair on the JAL 747 rear bulkhead that failed and led to a fatal loss of control? These events (and there have been similar others) should be convincing enough for an argument that a "sufficient" structural repair may not stand the test of time and the unforgiving operational environment. Consider also that a fuselage repair and a wing repair is chalk and cheese from a structural fatigue point of view. The wing-span is always "soaking up" an incredible continual imposition of very variable flight-loads, whilst the fuselage is merely taking a pressurization "hit" just twice per flight. So what are the chances and likelihood of the wing failing in the vicinity of the repair-patch? What could cause that and what would be the subsequent chain of events?

Consider that a wing is designed to have a natural harmonic and that this is achieved by a laterally harmonious gradation of each wing's structure from its wing-root to its wing-tip. Each side's original wing will have an almost identical natural harmonic (i.e. if you loaded up each wing-tip on the ground and simultaneously released those loads, each wing-tip's diminishing movements around the mean would be graphed as identical - as each wing's oscillation faded away cyclically to its static position). Would this be the case with a repaired wing? Not really, as the extra internal structure introduced by the repair's ironmongery would significantly change that sides' wing-flexure characteristics. Would Boeing engineers have compensated for this by ballasting (or beefing up?) the other wing? Not at all likely methinks.
Would a flight-crew detect any such dissimilar lateral flexure characteristic in the aircraft's gust responses? You have to take into account the "active controls" used in modern airliners for gust alleviation. Flight Control Computers compensate for turbulence-induced wing movements by minuscule aileron responses. It's designed to soak up and take the "bounce" out of turbulence and promote a more comfortable ride. If the wing on the collision side was slowly failing (i.e. structural fatigue damage propagating along micro-cracks in its repair doublers?), would the "active flight control" system disguise and (to a certain extent) alleviate or mitigate this? Possibly. Alternatively, could it exacerbate the cracking of a failing spar? Don't know .... but someone might. My suspicion is that "active flight controls" would promote crack growth in a weakened structure that was spider-webbing towards eventual failure. It would achieve a repetitive concentration of stress in its ongoing opposition to natural flexing.

If the taxiing collision occurred just two years ago, the MH370 aircraft may not have undergone a major servicing since its wing repair. Such servicings are predicated upon total flight-time and certainly that interval's not ever varied just because a major structural repair has been carried out. So anything going on inside that wing may have gone unnoticed in the long interim. It's unlikely that Boeing would have mandated any "how's it going?" non-routine inspection to see whether that repair was holding up OK - or to see whether there had been any further fatigue damage or developments (perhaps further inboard) that was beginning to manifest itself. As the manufacturer, Boeing would've been inclined to demonstrate "sight unseen" confidence in its repair work. Arrogant or not, the FAA wouldn't intervene. It's a Boeing supplicant.
When would such a culminating inflight failure be most likely? Possibly while the aircraft was still at its heaviest and on encountering clear air turbulence at or near top of climb (or whilst accelerating to cruise Mach). Would that be its most vulnerable point? If that repair gave way, (as most inadequate or improper wing repairs eventually do), what would be the sequence of events? Remember that up until the point of failure, the gust alleviation system would have been disguising (and even moderating?) any signs of imminent failure. In my opinion any such failure in turbulence would be in a DFDR identifiable two parts - firstly the progressive failure (over a few seconds) of primary structure (wing spars and internal bracing buckling as flight loads quickly transfer to inferior sub-structure) - and then the rapid deterioration of the scenario as the secondary structure failed under the increased loadings (the secondary structure being the wing-skin -as the skin does assume much of the inflight loading). As the wing folded, the aircraft would begin to roll to the right quite rapidly (at circa 180 - (increasing to about) 360 degrees per second - around its fore-aft axis). The pilots would be out of the equation at this point - as the aircraft spiralled rapidly down. However there are reports of a garbled transmission. This is likely to have been during the first phase of failure as the pilots became aware that something was happening. However they are unlikely to have discerned that the wing was slowly folding.... or rapidly losing its structural integrity.

What about ACARS reporting of these sudden developments? I'm wondering just what it could (or would) have reported to the company by way of exceedances or untoward abnormalities (??). Engines and systems would still be running normally, but the g forces in the spiral would've been quite high. In any case, would the ACARS report transmission succeed in a rapidly rolling and spiralling scenario? Or must its antenna be more or less static and upright in order to retain a synchronous lock with its associated satellite? Lastly, would the DFDR record of prior flights retain any record of differentially dissimilar flight control activity that may have indicated any deteriorating structural integrity in the RH wing? Probably not, as the compensating activity would've been via mutually synchronous aileron inputs - and not just the RH or LH spoilers. What would be the effect of landing arrivals impact be upon any propagating failure? Likely it would not tend to add to the deterioration of any cracking. It would be acting in the opposite sense.

If the pilots were disabled by the g forces and shock of a rapid roll into a spiral descent, the engines may have remained at high power and thus the aircraft's spiral would have tightened. The impact would have been at high speed under high positive g by an intact fuselage - and the damage would've been smithereening..... i.e. all fragments would likely have lost flotational dimensions - at least for anything visibly significant to aerial searchers.

Feel free to dismantle or disparage or to relate an alternative version of such an explanation. It is starting to look like a case of the simplest explanation being the most likely one. Falsetto passports don't necessarily promote accidents. Actual accidents always come complete with herrings rouge to some degree. Sometimes crashes just stem from the unexpected consequences of false economies. I'm reasonably confident that this will be the lesson learnt. They're always hard lessons and often they are quite revelational. Wing loadings are up. Think about that and respect that fact. It's an attritional process, post-repair degradation. Even when it's "just ground-rash", failure is never an option. How many other simplistic ground-rash repairs are out there awaiting their turn to insult Boeing or Airbus expertise? Think about it. Now repair the despair.

Accidents happen. But sometimes/oft-times, they are just a result.

[gear lever]

So reading through many of the posts, cannot see many theories that seem to fit what appears to have happened.

No debris spotted (still)
No mayday calls
No messages sent from aircraft via ACARS etc.
No transponder info

Which would appear to equal

Steep descent into water (small debris field and needle in a haystack)
No transmissions made (why?)
ACARs switched off or disabled (why?)
Transponder switched off or disabled (why?)

[dicks-airbus]

What we heard/know:

• MH370 made a turn at about 2:40 and at the same time all comms die
• At 2:43 a US base supposedly receives a message from MH370 that the cabin is "disintegrating"
• 1:10 later MH370 is spotted on military radar being near Pulau Perak
• No debris anywhere along route
• Two PAX with stolen passports are not related to any terrorist org

Conclusions:

• MH370 did not crash on/near the route
• Turn was manually initiated & comms disabled at same time (why)
• Plane was evidently still flying 1:10 after it had "disappeared"
• Most likely not a terrorist related event

But what it it then? It is starting to make less and less sense to me. Unless all the comms equipment is in the tail of the 777 and the airframe (cabin, not wing) had structural issues (why?).

[philipat]

Why?

So, as predicted (And challenged) way back in the thread, the Malaysians were indeed witholding information.

Don't we need to ask why, especially since it resulted in the waste of so many resources in the Gulf of Thailand/SCS for at least two full days.

The next question would be what else are they witholding? The aircraft was tracked with Military Primary radar into The Straits of Malacca. You can guarantee that the Indonesians were doing the same because its flight path would be towrads Aceh Province in North Sumatera, where the security forces are still very jittery. So with all this Military technology brought into play, surely they must have a much better idea of where to look.

As an earlier poster said, this aircraft could have continued to fly West into the Indian Ocean for another 5 hours before running out of fuel. Is Malacca yet another red herring?

[Trim Stab]

I have no reason to disbelieve if these guys thought they could get the aircraft back safely they would try their damned hardest to do so. Yes if there was a raging fire onboard they might have tried WMKN (TGG) but from FL350 there's a heck of a lot of height to lose in a short distance. Same for WMKC (KBR) and anyone who's been there it's not much of an airport in a populated area. WMKP is more logical for a rapid descent to land in a straight line - if their controls were compromised who wants to man-handle a 777 more than necessary except a turn to finals and we've have no idea if they could get the gear out for example so even PEN might only be a second choice. Bear in mind all these airports are closed for the night (PEN maybe not, but very low key) at this time so crashing on the field is a last resort action especially since there appears to be a lack of communication they've no way of announcing their imminent arrival. I wouldn't be surprised if the crew felt KUL was their best, safest option and on top of that (and for the life of me can't fathom why nobody posting here didn't say it earlier) there is a Lost Comms approach procedure for KUL which this crew would have known. If they were down to basic night VFR flying then how best to get to KUL and comply with the procedure... find the west coast, turn south and fly until you pass KL. They could line up for a straight in similar to a KIKAL2 for RWY14L or give ATC a chance to guess what they are doing (if they hadn't already) and head down towards the lights of Malacca to come back for RWY32R approximating a LAPIR2 arrival. Makes logical sense if they were comms crippled so why people think it's stupid for the authorities to be searching the West Coast is a bit rich.

Sounds plausible.

If the guys were trying to get back to KUL then it's sad they might have been within reach of KUL and dropped it in the drink for whatever reason.

Would be ironic if it turns out the Malaysians themselves then shot it down with a SAM, mistakenly believing it was some sort of North Korean mischief (the North Koreans have been lobbing missiles around unannounced recently). It would explain the lack of statements from the Malaysian military and government.

[NigelOnDraft]

Yancey

The ELT unit itself contains the G switch to set it off .... AFAIK the ELT is mounted outside the pressure bulkhead (usually) and someone would have to go pull the ELT battery out (there's one in the ELT container so it keeps transmitting when it doesn't have ships power after activation), as well as disable ships power. Now you're involving maintenance activities or a large gang of people to go around pulling power and batteries from devices. I know of no evidence pointing to the likelihood of such an organized event taking place here.

And as other non-US airlines have ELTs installed, it's probably safe to say it comes from the factory pre-installed, so one would have been here.

OK - we'll have to disagree I have fair reason to believe that some 777s (and know from other ac types I fly / have flown) only have non ship powered ELTs, that are manually activated by crew. They are fixed / stowed in the cabin towards the rear. No 'g' switch.

In each case, I also believe / know the more modern deliveries / variants have ELTs mounted in the roof, that are ship's power / systems connected, and deploy by 'g' switch.

But I am asking of a 777 current pilot to confirm (or not) what I am saying, and how that relates to this 777.

NoD

FAA AD extract posts 787 issue @ LHR:

AD Requirements
This AD requires either removing the Honeywell fixed ELT, or inspecting the ELT (for discrepancies associated with the ELT, ELT battery, and associated wiring), and doing corrective action if necessary, in accordance with a method approved by the FAA.
The applicability of this AD is limited to in-service airplanes, which have been delivered with Honeywell fixed ELTs having part number 1152682–2. Future production airplanes will be addressed prior to delivery.
We recognize that various civil aviation authorities (CAA) have different operational requirements regarding the use of ELTs. While the United States does not require a fixed ELT to be installed for operation, operation of an airplane without an ELT in a particular country’s airspace may require coordination with that country’s CAA.

i.e. some regulators do require "fixed" ELTs, some do not.

[Murexway]

No transmissions made (why?)
ACARs switched off or disabled (why?)
Transponder switched off or disabled (why?)

You are assuming a normal electrical system.....

[Skyjob]

Do you guys remember this image from the DELTA 767 showing the transponder after the MAD incident:



Simple question, but where is the same equipment located in the 777?
If as suggested by some an inflight wing issue would have taken place, and if the transponder is located in such wing, then this would then stop operating, all at the same time: 02:40