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

Closed Thread

Old 11th Mar 2014, 15:22
  #1781 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Canada / Switzerland
Posts: 506
Originally Posted by StormyKnight View Post
GE (Google Earth) doesn't have 100% coverage of the earth, most notably small islands offshore. In Google maps, it is drawn, but only sea is seen in the sat view.
Its not a conspiracy....
I concur with that comment and can support it with my own personal experience. On more than one occasion I have tried to locate a small island (typically in the South Pacific) in order to land on it using a Twin Otter, and the island - though very much present on the surface of the earth - has not been depicted in the Google Earth satellite view.

My guess is that Google Earth has an automated routine that filters out small visual anomalies in the sea surface such as sunlight reflections, oil slicks, stuff like that, and many small islands get caught up in that filtering process.
V1... Ooops is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2014, 15:23
  #1782 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 59
Posts: 5,112
(for Philipat and balaton)
In defense of the Malaysian authorities: it may have taken some analysis by the best radar operators and analysts -- who'd not be on the night shift, but on the day shift -- of radar the tapes/data from the night shift to arrive at the conclusion that the radar contact being tracked was indeed the airliner they had been looking for. Such analysis takes time. As they were undertaking this analysis, their request for US and AUS P-3 searches on that side of Malaysia was a prudent coverage of an unknown that had not been eliminated. Good to have friends like AUS and US, eh? As it was an unknown, the Occam's Razor search of last known posit was going to be a good best guess for a SAR effort.

Having both areas covered allowed Malaysian team trying to coordinate all this to get some eyes in possible search areas while they sorted out the (seemingly contradictory) information they had and got it into a comprehensible form.

Real life isn't Hollywood. As I noted some pages back, a real Search and Rescue operation confronts the organization tasked with conducting the search with a host of unknowns. If you add to that "face saving" bits, their odd disclosure pattern begins to make some sense, even if our own preference for transparency makes us hungry for more.

@ the Shadow: Thanks for that discourse on repairs. Good food for thought. Skyjob, also thanks for that ponit in re 767.

My problem with accepting the repair failure (fatigue) as the root cause of the missing aircraft is that a wing repair failure would not necessarily disable radios, transponders, nor ACARS. Then again, only some of the pieces of this puzzle are on the table. A few more pieces are needed to beging to recognize the picture taking shape. In support of your idea, some of what you present fits some of what is currently known.

As to the "it's breaking up" SIGINT point (2:43 am) from a Chinese source citing an American listening post in Thailand ... would not the US have confirmed or denied that data point in the interest of assisting the search effort? I'd be interested to see if that report is rubbish, or has some substance to it.

@ Trim Stab
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.
I think some of our friendly folks with eyes in the sky would have been tracking any North Korean missile that made its way a few thousand miles towards Malaysia. Just sayin' I think you are reaching on this ... with orangutang arms!

Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 11th Mar 2014 at 15:34.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2014, 15:24
  #1783 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 826
WHAT WE REALLY KNOW:

1. a 777 is overdue at its original destination.

2. it is well beyond fuel exhaustion by this time.

3. gravity has lead this plane to the earth, somewhere.


4. Search efforts by responsible military units and others have begun.


EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE HEARD SHOULD BE IGNORED or held in suspicion for some time.

We really don't know much else.

We can ask questions and the only ones I've asked regarded weather conditions and primary vs secondary radar targets. The weather question was answered and the other question has not been answered adequately by responsible authorities.


SO, I ask the moderators to stop the thread. And start a new thread.

And that we all take a breath. Call the new thread: Search for Malyasia 777 or something similar.
glendalegoon is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2014, 15:24
  #1784 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Usually on top
Posts: 77
Just looking at this map, at 3000ft from Kota Bharu to Kedha (just north of Butterworth) is a bit of a scudrun… not sure they'd make that. Also, Butterworth is an Aussie station afaik, wouldn't they have sent a friendly welcome fleet on an unidentified inbound? Perhaps Butterworth even was the target, if one wants to believe the terrorism theorists.

SkyVector VFR Chart Kota Bharu - Kedha
physicus is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2014, 15:25
  #1785 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 451
Originally Posted by philipat View Post
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.
No.

Suppose you had tentative information indicating the aircraft was still flying some time after the disappearance. Would you:

1. Say 'Stop! Everyone go home, it's not there'.
2. Continue searching around the last place you know the aircraft was, until you have some kind of confirmation as to whether that tentative sighting is real or spurious?

No-one wants to be sending people off on a wild goose chase, and later find the wreckage right where they should have been looking for it.
MG23 is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2014, 15:25
  #1786 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: LSZG
Age: 46
Posts: 86
About a week ago I was watching a documentation on a flight in troubles.

Reading aboves post of TheShadow, it does come into my mind.
China Airlines Flight 006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basically they lost complete control over the plane. luckly they were able to recover control and land the 747 in SFO.

What if the MH370 pilots were not able to control the situation? Tried to get back and lost control over Malacca strait.

In any case it would not tell us why the pilots would turn off the transponder. makes non sense. Nor it would tell us why tehy would have shut down in a sub menu of the ACARS config, the SATCOM transmission and subsequently switchd VHF3 to VOICE.

I cannot imagine any crew in troubles would do that. That is non sense.

And that would indeed lead back to the original statement, that Malaysia Airlines tries to keep their image and don't want to loose their face. If the aircraft was flying all the way back from 35000 ft down to 3500ft over Malaysian territory and into the strait of malacca, then the ACARS must have been ON and primary radar signal was received of an unidentified object, which of course no one would have initially identified as MH370.

The response in any case would have needed to be scramble Jets. Unless somebody in the ATC was sleeping.

Something went wrong and somebody is trying to play it down to make it look better but more and more it is surfacing and now communications are responding differently to the changing picture.

The passport thing was just to distract the press. I call this crowed control. Every body was all of a sudden looking at the passport issue, rather than to the search of the aircraft.

The truth will surface, the question is when.
MartinM is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2014, 15:27
  #1787 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sunny Island
Posts: 50
Originally Posted by Old Boeing Driver
Lots of range discussions regarding 6 to 7 hours.

I assume that would be for FL350.

What would be the range possibilities at 3,000 feet or lower?
Under standard conditions:

LRC at 6000' at 220T AUW, the fuel flow is about 7.8T per hour. This is with a TAS of about 340 KTAS.

For endurance, best holding speed of 225 KIAS at 5000' with 220T AUW, the fuel flow is about 6.5T per hour.

Depending on the ZFW, the estimated mission fuel is probably 45-50T for this sector. At position Igari, the fuel used would have been about 7-8T? Just rough estimation.

T = tonnes = 1000kg = 2200lb
NinerVictor is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2014, 15:30
  #1788 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 34
Posts: 71
Anyone's thoughts on this guy's take?

MH370 - what happened

He wrote to the NTSB regarding a directive about cracks under the SATCOM.

Lots of theories on this, but it's just as fun to discount certain scenarios as well.
Bobman84 is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2014, 15:31
  #1789 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Eden Valley
Posts: 1,675
their request for US and AUS P-3 searches
And what lousy maritime assets the Malaysians have. A few King Airs and an occasionally servicable MP configured Herc. Yet they have a responsibility to surveil some of the most important international waterways in the world.

But of course, they seem to have one of every available export fighter aircraft from Russia and the US to help keep the face of their Borat-like military leadership.
Gnadenburg is online now  
Old 11th Mar 2014, 15:36
  #1790 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Newfoundland
Age: 72
Posts: 17
New report in Australian newspaper

For what it's worth:

Malaysian Airlines plane: Military believes it tracked missing jetliner over Strait of Malacca
geneman is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2014, 15:39
  #1791 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Brazil
Age: 50
Posts: 41
I tend to subscribe andrasz' post entirely.
Lonewolf 50 also raises good points. As the amount of leaks and conflicting reports grows, it is becoming obvious that Malaysia Airlines and Malaysian authorithies are being withholding information since day 1. However, this does not necessarily suggest they are deliberately lying or are part of "cover up". Probably, they have themselves conflicting reports and are simply trying to coordinate and verify all information before going public.

That said, if the information from the military source reported earlier today by Reuters will be confirmed, then this changes whe whole picture completely.

Too many ifs, too many unverified reports, too many questions still unanswered. To all those who ask about ACARS: until the logs will be released, if ever, we can only speculate. The information provided by the airline so far are inconclusive, at the very least.
barrel_owl is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2014, 15:42
  #1792 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kent
Age: 60
Posts: 215
His theory is rubbish because even if everyone was incapacitated due to slow decompression(highly unlikely), the aircraft's transponder would not have gone offline.
If you read his theory carefully, he says ' It’s plausible that a fuselage section near the SATCOM antenna adapter failed, disabling satellite based - GPS, ACARS, and ADS-B/C - communications, and leading to a slow decompression that left all occupants unconscious.'

ADS-B/C = transponder, I think?
overthewing is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2014, 15:42
  #1793 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 59
Posts: 5,112
phil
Maybe, BUT that doesn't provide a lot of confidence in air defence systems? Gosh that really was a North Korean missile that took out Port Dixon two days ago?
Not sure of your experience in Air Defense Radar, or AAW (Aegis and NTU on USN ships of 80's and 90's is my experience), but a missile heading toward a target gives off a different cue to the radar operator than an aircraft descending and crossing at speeds considerably slower than a missile. That said, I am not up to scratch on Malaysian Air Defense kit, it's been over 20 years since I was at sea in that area and I am sure much has changed.

Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 11th Mar 2014 at 15:55.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2014, 15:45
  #1794 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: London
Posts: 4
Shot Down?

If it was tracked by military radar returning back over the Malay peninsula, but all comms from the aircraft were lost, surely there would have at least been an intercept?

I can't help but wonder if they then shot it down, fearing an attack? That might explain the (until now) quiet search in the Malacca Straights while they let a multinational SAR effort continue in the wrong place.
Winston-Smith is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2014, 15:46
  #1795 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Singapore
Posts: 21
Carjockey

Yes I know. Reuters quote the air force chief Rodzali Daud as saying ………” It was flying about 1,000 meters lower than its previous altitude”

Just a missing punctuation mark after 1000 meters makes all the difference in that sentence. So I am not sure what he actually said.
Thomas Doubting is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2014, 15:47
  #1796 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Age: 55
Posts: 355
This reminds me of the initial AF447 thread. Some of the same members also.

Theories we can (almost) 100% eliminate:
1. Explosion (bomb or otherwise) near last known point (loss of transponder). This would have generated large pieces of debris over a large area, and we would have found this by now.
2. Vertical dive into water (suicide or hijacking) near LKP. This would have caused severe fragmentation at impact, and we would almost certainly have a more compact field of debris. Even if the everything sank and was embedded in mud as some suggest, the fuel tanks would have ruptured. There were tons of Jet A on board, and this would have surfaced even if nothing else did. Oil is still coming up from the Arizona. In addition, there would seem little point turning off the transponder.
3. AF447 type of event near LKP. Loss of control, and pilots too busy to make a call. Again, we would have found debris by now.

So the plane is not near LKP, and so the plane flew on without communication.

4. Failure of pressurisation and unrecognised incapacitation of crew? Does not explain transponder.
5. Fire, loss of all electrics and comms, plane continued to fly, but crashed due to disorientation etc. Hard to believe such an event could be so quick and so complete as to prevent a call (even if just ACARS).

That seems to eliminate the "innocent" causes of the plane flying past LKP. We are then left with less innocent causes.

So someone disabled all comms and transponder, and flew the plane some distance from LKP. Could have landed or crashed, but most likely crashed.

Why fly on only to crash? Well terrorists are now less keen to claim responsibility - if the plane can't be found it is hard to be implicated. Plus not knowing what happened is more effective at inciting terror than knowing - and terror would appear to be the only motive if no hostage, no ransom, and no demand.

If it was the pilots flying, there may have been concern about the reputation of family left behind. Plus suicide may have implications on any insurance payout.
slats11 is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2014, 15:50
  #1797 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: In a hold
Posts: 153
Chill

What about if it came down somewhere central on the Malaysian peninsula? Picking out bits from what's been reported to go from the original search area (last known contact driven) to the west side of the coast implies it was turning back and would cross back over the land. The MSAs are pretty high in the area up to 9000ft, if it went down in the mountainous areas it could be difficult to locate, especially under a canopy of trees (although I'm not familiar with the terrain details of that area). Maybe the crew were doing their best to manage a catastrophic issue caused by whatever event. However I cannot fathom why the ELT has not been detected unless it was an instant catastrophic event that disabled it but then that would put it closer to the area of last known contact. Unless it was a high G impact of course. However I would have thought ATC/military would clearly track the aircraft if it changed course, surely it would look out of place on radar even if it was trying to make land fall somewhere?
Fly26 is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2014, 15:51
  #1798 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 73
Posts: 985
Mobile phones ringing

Please can we put this recurrent theory to bed.

Short version - the ringing tone returned to the caller is bogus.

Why it happens -
Cellular phone systems first try to route a call to the last cell which was in contact with the phone. If this fails the system tries to locate the phone to other cells and then tries to divert to voicemail.
All of this searching takes time, during which a caller hearing silence would probably hang up before the call can be connected so the system returns a ringing tone to the caller. In most cases this is a successful strategy but it does mean that if the phone is not eventually found the caller is misled into believing that it is working OK but not being answered.
The Ancient Geek is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2014, 15:53
  #1799 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 63
Posts: 737
re posts by TheShadow (1795) and Bobman84 (1821)

I linked to the FAD/Cracks on page 73, and read about the wing repair with great interest.

Not speculating, just asking: is there a possibility that either of these two separate issues could have combined on this plane?
joy ride is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2014, 15:54
  #1800 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: North Sea
Posts: 1
Comm failure

Comm failure procedures Malaysia AIP:

http://aip.dca.gov.my/aip%20pdf/ENR/...1.6/Enr1_6.pdf
MOD45 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service