Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost
In the recording at 12:26:21 in response to 'Request Level' I am almost certain that the pilot does not say as written in the transcript, 'Malaysian 370 we are ready requesting flight level...'
It sounds as though he is saying '770 we are ready...'
which makes no sense at all if that's correct. Though it is probably irrelevant.
Listen: Missing Jet MH370 Pilots Talking to Air Traffic Control - NBC News
It sounds as though he is saying '770 we are ready...'
which makes no sense at all if that's correct. Though it is probably irrelevant.
Listen: Missing Jet MH370 Pilots Talking to Air Traffic Control - NBC News
I think it worthwhile recalling that in the first few days, the search began in the South China Sea and the Mallaca Straights.
Whatever inquiries and coordination was done with countries for a northern search hypothesis has been either kept quiet (due to the issues and implications of the northern route on a variety of political fronts) or have been abandoned by a process of elimination.
The search efforts are not cheap. getting another government to search and having it turn into a wild goose chase can have political reprecussions of varying severity. Recall when the folks in Viet Nam packed up their kit and withdrew. Recall that India did likewise in a different area.
Yes, we the public do not know the whole story of the search effort. Do we have a need to?
James: thanks for posting that link. It adds little enlightenment, but does well explore the challenge of using the limited data set to establish a valid search datum.
Whatever inquiries and coordination was done with countries for a northern search hypothesis has been either kept quiet (due to the issues and implications of the northern route on a variety of political fronts) or have been abandoned by a process of elimination.
The search efforts are not cheap. getting another government to search and having it turn into a wild goose chase can have political reprecussions of varying severity. Recall when the folks in Viet Nam packed up their kit and withdrew. Recall that India did likewise in a different area.
Yes, we the public do not know the whole story of the search effort. Do we have a need to?
James: thanks for posting that link. It adds little enlightenment, but does well explore the challenge of using the limited data set to establish a valid search datum.
"using the limited data set to establish a valid search datum."
. . . . . . groping in the dark uncertain
of whether this is the right room or even the right building.
The conclusion of Ari Schulman's aforementioned
article in 'The Atlantic' -
An Inmarsat official told me that to “a high degree of certainty, the proponents of other paths are wrong. The model has been carefully mapped out using all the available data.”
The official cited Inmarsat’s participation in the investigation as preventing it from giving further detail, and did not reply to requests for comments on even basic technical questions about the analysis. Inmarsat has repeatedly claimed that it checked its model against other aircraft that were flying at the time, and peer-reviewed the model with other industry experts. But Inmarsat won’t say who reviewed it, how closely, or what level of detail they were given.
Until officials provide more information, the claim that Flight 370 went south rests not on the weight of mathematics but on faith in authority. Inmarsat officials and search authorities seem to want it both ways: They release charts, graphics, and statements that give the appearance of being backed by maths and science, while refusing to fully explain their methodologies. And over the course of this investigation, those authorities have repeatedly issued confident pronouncements about which they have later quietly given up on or tacitly refuted.
The biggest risk to the investigation now is that authorities will continue to assume they’ve finally found the area where the plane went down, while failing to explore other possibilities simply because they don’t fit with a mathematical analysis that may not even hold up. After all, searchers have not yet found any material evidence—not so much as a shred of debris—to confirm that they are looking in the right ocean.
. . . . . . groping in the dark uncertain
of whether this is the right room or even the right building.
The conclusion of Ari Schulman's aforementioned
article in 'The Atlantic' -
An Inmarsat official told me that to “a high degree of certainty, the proponents of other paths are wrong. The model has been carefully mapped out using all the available data.”
The official cited Inmarsat’s participation in the investigation as preventing it from giving further detail, and did not reply to requests for comments on even basic technical questions about the analysis. Inmarsat has repeatedly claimed that it checked its model against other aircraft that were flying at the time, and peer-reviewed the model with other industry experts. But Inmarsat won’t say who reviewed it, how closely, or what level of detail they were given.
Until officials provide more information, the claim that Flight 370 went south rests not on the weight of mathematics but on faith in authority. Inmarsat officials and search authorities seem to want it both ways: They release charts, graphics, and statements that give the appearance of being backed by maths and science, while refusing to fully explain their methodologies. And over the course of this investigation, those authorities have repeatedly issued confident pronouncements about which they have later quietly given up on or tacitly refuted.
The biggest risk to the investigation now is that authorities will continue to assume they’ve finally found the area where the plane went down, while failing to explore other possibilities simply because they don’t fit with a mathematical analysis that may not even hold up. After all, searchers have not yet found any material evidence—not so much as a shred of debris—to confirm that they are looking in the right ocean.
Last edited by Fantome; 8th May 2014 at 15:52.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Florida
Age: 60
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks James7, interesting article indeed.
Presumably the dotted red line produced by Exner with the newly calculated satellite-to-plane shifts could be used to produce potential flight paths in the same way that Inmarsat used their assessed BFO values to produce the northern and southern ping arcs? Anyone?
The only fly in the ointment is Inmarsat's statement that their interpretation was validated by comparison with data from other flights pinging the same satellite.
Presumably the dotted red line produced by Exner with the newly calculated satellite-to-plane shifts could be used to produce potential flight paths in the same way that Inmarsat used their assessed BFO values to produce the northern and southern ping arcs? Anyone?
The only fly in the ointment is Inmarsat's statement that their interpretation was validated by comparison with data from other flights pinging the same satellite.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly, The Ancient Greek's response does not answer my question, which is about the fact that the satellite is movement is in all three (geometric) axes, not just "vertically".
I agree with the point that if vertical movement is defined as changes in altitude, then at apogee the change is zero along that axis. But this is manifestly untrue for the other two axes - at apogee they are unlikely to be zero - my question is, does the motion in those axes matter at all, and if so, does it affect the assumption in Robin Clark's analysis.
I agree with the point that if vertical movement is defined as changes in altitude, then at apogee the change is zero along that axis. But this is manifestly untrue for the other two axes - at apogee they are unlikely to be zero - my question is, does the motion in those axes matter at all, and if so, does it affect the assumption in Robin Clark's analysis.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC News Southern Flight Corridor
Saw BBC News Channel item last night summarising MH370 disappearance, summing up what we know 2 months after the incident.
Yet again, it claimed the satellite data revealed it flew "along the southern flight corridor", with a map showing the final southern ping arc.
Would somebody please tell them?
Yet again, it claimed the satellite data revealed it flew "along the southern flight corridor", with a map showing the final southern ping arc.
Would somebody please tell them?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks James7, interesting article indeed.
Presumably the dotted red line produced by Exner with the newly calculated satellite-to-plane shifts could be used to produce potential flight paths in the same way that Inmarsat used their assessed BFO values to produce the northern and southern ping arcs? Anyone?
The only fly in the ointment is Inmarsat's statement that their interpretation was validated by comparison with data from other flights pinging the same satellite.
Presumably the dotted red line produced by Exner with the newly calculated satellite-to-plane shifts could be used to produce potential flight paths in the same way that Inmarsat used their assessed BFO values to produce the northern and southern ping arcs? Anyone?
The only fly in the ointment is Inmarsat's statement that their interpretation was validated by comparison with data from other flights pinging the same satellite.
- the reassessment is based on assumptions that appeared to be correct because of one match which could be coincidental.
- the entire discussion justifies the encoding of ULBs so that their identity is known. If the ULB signals that were received had been encoded as MH370 airframe identity this entire discussion would be moot.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Ohio, USA
Age: 78
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Data Validation and error analysis
Simulator flights would not generate handshake data, consequently would not yield any information about the errors associated with the observed data from the satellite.
Any observed data will have an inherent measurement errors that have to be quantified so that subsequent calculations (particularly innovative and untested calculations) will be useful.
Hopefully the Inmarsat guys have done exactly that, established the total error possible for each of their original conclusions. More specifically, what is the error and confidence that surrounds the "40 degree arc".
I'm sure that engineering folks have been frustrated by the legend given in the BFO plots provided by the AAIB. Assume that the green (triangle) plot points are controlled observations derived from actually replicating the MH370 flight through 17:07 UTC (and not as the legend states "predicted"), and the blue plot points ( diamonds) are the actual MH-370 observations.
Making those assumptions, one is left to explain the difference in BFO values at 16:49 and also at 16:55. Is that the potential for error, or is there some other explanation?
I'd agree that the investigation team (at this point) has no obligation to release error analysis, however I'd ask: Is there any reason withhold that information?
Any observed data will have an inherent measurement errors that have to be quantified so that subsequent calculations (particularly innovative and untested calculations) will be useful.
Hopefully the Inmarsat guys have done exactly that, established the total error possible for each of their original conclusions. More specifically, what is the error and confidence that surrounds the "40 degree arc".
I'm sure that engineering folks have been frustrated by the legend given in the BFO plots provided by the AAIB. Assume that the green (triangle) plot points are controlled observations derived from actually replicating the MH370 flight through 17:07 UTC (and not as the legend states "predicted"), and the blue plot points ( diamonds) are the actual MH-370 observations.
Making those assumptions, one is left to explain the difference in BFO values at 16:49 and also at 16:55. Is that the potential for error, or is there some other explanation?
I'd agree that the investigation team (at this point) has no obligation to release error analysis, however I'd ask: Is there any reason withhold that information?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But Inmarsat won’t say who reviewed it, how closely, or what level of detail they were given.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing to take into account - Malaysia has the fourth LOWEST rate of suicide in the world
SUICIDE DEATH RATE BY COUNTRY
Only Antigua, St Kitts, Syria and Kiribati are lower.................
makes hanging the pilot (s) out to dry a little harder IMHO
SUICIDE DEATH RATE BY COUNTRY
Only Antigua, St Kitts, Syria and Kiribati are lower.................
makes hanging the pilot (s) out to dry a little harder IMHO
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Atlantic Story
The problem with this story is that the reporter has gone to Inmarsat for fact-check and got "your story is entirely wrong" yet he has still published. Inmarsat are not the bad-guys here, it was not their plane that crashed, they did not build it, they are not trying to cover themselves. Yet this story implies they are completely incompetent (or worse) and by extension also AAIB who have stood behind this analysis in its presentation to the Malaysian authorities. If the story discussed some subtle extension to the Inmarsat analysis that would be one thing, but it is completely different (I have seen the derivation). Inmarsat have tested their analysis on other flights and that would have revealed gross errors immediately.
If this story were true it would imply conspiracy and cover-up within the UK air accident authorities, and I just don't think the World is like that.
If this story were true it would imply conspiracy and cover-up within the UK air accident authorities, and I just don't think the World is like that.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Age: 63
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Attempting data search
Please extend some leeway to this newbie posting...
Have any ARINC avionics device status data, which is capable of being transmitted as "artifact" within the ACARS and the SSR systems been listed - publicly, or even admitted to, anywhere??
Kudos to those who have taken the time-to, and put forth the effort-to advance trigonometric calculations of the proposed flight path, especially when "x" has been the most elusive of factors to determine.
Probably the only (politically safe) assumption capable of being made/stated within this, or any forum, is the fact that whatever the eventual outcome of the MH370 saga may be, it's resolution will greatly affect the future of commercial aviation, and the lives of those who supply and/or consume these services for a very long time to come.
Have any ARINC avionics device status data, which is capable of being transmitted as "artifact" within the ACARS and the SSR systems been listed - publicly, or even admitted to, anywhere??
Kudos to those who have taken the time-to, and put forth the effort-to advance trigonometric calculations of the proposed flight path, especially when "x" has been the most elusive of factors to determine.
Probably the only (politically safe) assumption capable of being made/stated within this, or any forum, is the fact that whatever the eventual outcome of the MH370 saga may be, it's resolution will greatly affect the future of commercial aviation, and the lives of those who supply and/or consume these services for a very long time to come.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: N. California
Age: 80
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@RichardC10
I agree. The Atlantic has taken a big hit in credibility for me.
Attacking the Inmarsat engineers' integrity is a non-sequitur IMO, and that is what all this questioning of their analysis appears to be based upon.
I agree. The Atlantic has taken a big hit in credibility for me.
Attacking the Inmarsat engineers' integrity is a non-sequitur IMO, and that is what all this questioning of their analysis appears to be based upon.
Last edited by Propduffer; 8th May 2014 at 18:56.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: London
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zebedie
And another place on the MH route network which would have made disappearing into the Southern Ocean even easier - Mauritius.
Malaysia Airlines don't fly to Mauritius. The route is a code share operated by Air Mauritius.
Malaysia Airlines don't fly to Mauritius. The route is a code share operated by Air Mauritius.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: California
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
by law they are prevented to release such information if they are participants in the investigation.
Yet this story implies they are completely incompetent (or worse) and by extension also AAIB who have stood behind this analysis in its presentation to the Malaysian authorities.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Paso Robles
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By now they can't revise their conclusions
I often wonder how much the world is missing of the infinite wisdom coming from this forum. So much insight, so much brilliant deduction.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Clinton WA
Age: 75
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bluefin limitations
The towed search has not found wreckage, but the search PC's seem not to have been unequivocal that wreckage is not in the primary search area, only that they had covered the area. 'None was found' was the wording at the end of each search day. But it was also stated that Bluefin was at its max depth, and that portions of the seafloor in the area remain to be mapped, the latter phrase suggestive. Other than 'sedimented', very few characterizations of the sea floor have been made. It remains possible that wreckage is within the search area, but too deep to be recognized by Bluefin, located in a chasm, or otherwise obscured by seafloor profiles. Again, there has not been enough information given to rule this out. I would be surprised if areas within the primary were not the first place searched when more capable equipment arrives.
And for a very good reason - by law they are prevented to release such information if they are participants in the investigation.
Breaking the 'gag order' during an active investigation can result in serious repercussions (including loosing ones job).
In short, keeping the peanut gallery informed and entertained is not their job.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone wants to spot the one piece of overlooked or misinterpreted information that would finally locate the aircraft, but the investigation isn't being run by the Keystone Kops.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Paso Robles
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're suggesting that Inmarsat employees are so terrified
No one has to be 'terrified'.
No one has to be afraid of police action.
People do it because this is how investigations are handled, by fiat, by historical precedence, by mutual agreement, by common sense.
Investigators rather be left alone than having to reply to a line of outsiders (usually media idiots) knocking on their door asking for 'verifications' or 'explanations'.
Any press releases, etc are totally at their discretion, they are not necessary, they may chose to communicate only through official reports.