Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost
The flight duration is known, the last ACARS message gives the fuel available then and the arc calculations give an indication of where the plane wound up.
The various climbs, doglegs and descents postulated after the last ACARS message are needed primarily to explain why the aircraft was not picked up by the various radars purportedly scanning the area. If there was not enough fuel to fly this route, then clearly there was a surveillance failure which people are reluctant to confirm.
The various climbs, doglegs and descents postulated after the last ACARS message are needed primarily to explain why the aircraft was not picked up by the various radars purportedly scanning the area. If there was not enough fuel to fly this route, then clearly there was a surveillance failure which people are reluctant to confirm.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: melbourne
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can it be made to work to match reported endurance?
Please could somebody guide me, or correct me if I am wrong, but I estimate if MH370 reached FL350 @ 17:07 UTC the fuel remaining was 97,550lb and then given a further 5 minutes cruise to a minute flying beyond IGARI leaves 96,363lb fuel.
Then we are told it descended to 5,000ft and flew west until next seen at 18:02 UTC over Pelau Perak climbing @ 23,000ft. Thus MH370 covered 289nm from IGARI to Pelau Perak making a dog leg around the south of Penang in 40 minutes at full power and performing 433kt TAS?
... At low altitude?
Flying for example at 10,000ft at full power/310 KIAS would equate something like 1,350lb per engine/minute. Therefore in 40 minute segment MH370 burned 54,000lb?
So by the time it reached Pelau Perak at 18:02UTC MH370 had fuel remaining of 43,550lb and then commenced a 20 minute climb back to 29,500ft at MEKAR covering 154nm and burning say 12,000lb?
So by the time it reached SANOB where MH370 is supposed to have made its turn south to intercept the Southern Arc, MH370 had just 31,550lb fuel remaining to cover another 5.5 hours to the Southern Arc flying at 35,000ft with a fuel flow of 9,900lb/hr?
In other words at the time it turned past the tip of Sumatra it had fuel remaining for just 3.2 hours but is supposed to have flown another 5.5 hours?
Last edited by Jonfra; 11th Oct 20
Intriguing Jonfra - If not at full speed, using the 'reported' flight path, can a scenario be created in terms of slower speed for these sectors (before the last turn south), that would allow for the required endurance of 1.3 hours??
Then we are told it descended to 5,000ft and flew west until next seen at 18:02 UTC over Pelau Perak climbing @ 23,000ft. Thus MH370 covered 289nm from IGARI to Pelau Perak making a dog leg around the south of Penang in 40 minutes at full power and performing 433kt TAS?
... At low altitude?
Flying for example at 10,000ft at full power/310 KIAS would equate something like 1,350lb per engine/minute. Therefore in 40 minute segment MH370 burned 54,000lb?
So by the time it reached Pelau Perak at 18:02UTC MH370 had fuel remaining of 43,550lb and then commenced a 20 minute climb back to 29,500ft at MEKAR covering 154nm and burning say 12,000lb?
So by the time it reached SANOB where MH370 is supposed to have made its turn south to intercept the Southern Arc, MH370 had just 31,550lb fuel remaining to cover another 5.5 hours to the Southern Arc flying at 35,000ft with a fuel flow of 9,900lb/hr?
In other words at the time it turned past the tip of Sumatra it had fuel remaining for just 3.2 hours but is supposed to have flown another 5.5 hours?
Last edited by Jonfra; 11th Oct 20
Intriguing Jonfra - If not at full speed, using the 'reported' flight path, can a scenario be created in terms of slower speed for these sectors (before the last turn south), that would allow for the required endurance of 1.3 hours??
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Malta
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see little benefit in Clark's speculation and I think he should not have entered into it. He could have just stopped at saying that he hopes that the case is resolved soon and that there is too little known about what happened. His talk about the plane being under control, maybe not being in the water etc. is just basically pub talk.
That is the type of basic question that needs to be addressed, whether any combination of systems management would allow the aircraft as configured to fly the route that is projected.
Jonfra makes a case that the known onboard fuel would not support the flight path that is assumed, a path incidentally that requires active and skilled crew input. Boeing engineers have the best 777 knowledge, they could tell what endurance is possible given this path, but they have been entirely mute on this thread afaik. The flight remains a mystery which erodes confidence in the integrity of the world civil aviation authorities.
Jonfra makes a case that the known onboard fuel would not support the flight path that is assumed, a path incidentally that requires active and skilled crew input. Boeing engineers have the best 777 knowledge, they could tell what endurance is possible given this path, but they have been entirely mute on this thread afaik. The flight remains a mystery which erodes confidence in the integrity of the world civil aviation authorities.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As with a lot of things on this hamster wheel, they have been discussed before. There were a lot of assumptions made to come up with a flight profile based on claims (unverified) that military radar had seen climbs to 45,000ft and the aircraft was flying low level in radar shadow to avoid alerting the Thai's, etc etc. All this is assumption based on partial reports from military radars that have a vested interest in ensuring that nobody knows the bottom of their cover or their height finding capabilities. Whether these people have been more forthcoming to the various boards of inquiry as long as their reports are kept secure - we do not know. However, what we do know is that the aircraft was airborne until the last 'partial ping'/'SATCOM logon attempt. Therefore, we should discount the 30 minutes of aerobatics and then the flight low level in radar shadow, it is more likely that the aircraft maintained level for the zig zag transit to the Malacca straits and then around Indonesia before flying South. If it _didn't_ fly like that it is not easy to come up with a flight path that would cross the range rings from the INMARSAT satellite at the right times within the error bounds of the tracking methodology. So until there is a better idea, the search is on the ring of the partial ping out to the West of Perth.
news.com.au
Some interesting read.
MH370 search: Contrails could be key to finding missing plane
AN Australian scientist says it is possible to locate missing Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 by identifying cloud changes for evidence of vapour trails caused by burning fuel emissions from the aircraft.
Hydrometeorologist Aron Gingis, head of environmental consultancy firm Australian Management Consolidated, and a former Monash University academic, specialises in cloud microphysics.
Mr Gingis says he has used the technology to locate shipwrecks in the north Pacific Ocean by identifying “ship trails” and the changes in cloud microphysics caused by emissions of floating vessels using archival satellite data.
Hydrometeorologist Aron Gingis, head of environmental consultancy firm Australian Management Consolidated, and a former Monash University academic, specialises in cloud microphysics.
Mr Gingis says he has used the technology to locate shipwrecks in the north Pacific Ocean by identifying “ship trails” and the changes in cloud microphysics caused by emissions of floating vessels using archival satellite data.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From The Guardian, to-day 21 October 2014:
Australian Prime Minister Abbott received no official briefing from his department or special envoy suggesting they were confident early acoustic noises detected in the search for the missing flight MH370 were from the flight’s black box.
In a Senate hearing on Monday night the Greens leader, Christine Milne, asked how the prime minister came to make a statement suggesting the search had been substantially narrowed and questioned whether he had acted recklessly.
In April Abbott said during an official visit to China that the search for the missing plane – which is believed to have crashed in the Indian Ocean killing all passengers on board – “has been very much narrowed down because we’ve now had a series of detections, some for quite a long period of time”. He added that he was “very confident” it was the black box.
But the comments were tempered later on the same day by the joint agency coordination chief, Angus Houston, who said there had been no significant developments in the search. The plane has still not been recovered, and no traces have been found in the Indian Ocean.
The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) confirmed on Monday evening that no briefing had been provided by them to the prime minister to support the assertions made in China.
DPMC assistant secretary Helen McDevitt said: “The prime minister’s statements on each occasion were made on the best advice available to him, and of course the prime minister was in discussions not only with the department of the prime minister and cabinet … but also with his special envoy, Angus Houston, and a range of experts involved in the process.”
Milne questioned how Abbott came to make the announcement, if it appeared that the joint agency coordination centre and DPMC had not provided any evidence to support the assertion.
“I’m asking where it came from since his chief envoy clearly clarified later in the day to say there was no breakthrough, Amsa [the Australian Maritime Safety Authority] said they didn’t provide the information to the prime minister, the bureau of transport and safety says it didn’t provide the advice to the prime minister, so I’m just trying to find out where the prime minister got this from,” she said. “It was pretty reckless, surely, to go and make a statement like that if there’s no detailed analysis at all of the substance.”
Tony Abbott not advised MH370 search had found black box, senators told | World news | theguardian.com
Australian Prime Minister Abbott received no official briefing from his department or special envoy suggesting they were confident early acoustic noises detected in the search for the missing flight MH370 were from the flight’s black box.
In a Senate hearing on Monday night the Greens leader, Christine Milne, asked how the prime minister came to make a statement suggesting the search had been substantially narrowed and questioned whether he had acted recklessly.
In April Abbott said during an official visit to China that the search for the missing plane – which is believed to have crashed in the Indian Ocean killing all passengers on board – “has been very much narrowed down because we’ve now had a series of detections, some for quite a long period of time”. He added that he was “very confident” it was the black box.
But the comments were tempered later on the same day by the joint agency coordination chief, Angus Houston, who said there had been no significant developments in the search. The plane has still not been recovered, and no traces have been found in the Indian Ocean.
The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) confirmed on Monday evening that no briefing had been provided by them to the prime minister to support the assertions made in China.
DPMC assistant secretary Helen McDevitt said: “The prime minister’s statements on each occasion were made on the best advice available to him, and of course the prime minister was in discussions not only with the department of the prime minister and cabinet … but also with his special envoy, Angus Houston, and a range of experts involved in the process.”
Milne questioned how Abbott came to make the announcement, if it appeared that the joint agency coordination centre and DPMC had not provided any evidence to support the assertion.
“I’m asking where it came from since his chief envoy clearly clarified later in the day to say there was no breakthrough, Amsa [the Australian Maritime Safety Authority] said they didn’t provide the information to the prime minister, the bureau of transport and safety says it didn’t provide the advice to the prime minister, so I’m just trying to find out where the prime minister got this from,” she said. “It was pretty reckless, surely, to go and make a statement like that if there’s no detailed analysis at all of the substance.”
Tony Abbott not advised MH370 search had found black box, senators told | World news | theguardian.com
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An article published in Aviation Week on 20 October 2014, contains an interesting look at the continuing saga surrounding the original Inmarsat data. It compares that data with that released by the Malaysian MoT, the continuing reassessments being made by the ATSB on where to search, and the conclusions of the so-called Independent Group who have continued to point out the errors they claim have been made by the ATSB's panel of experts.
Links in the article will show that the movement in the ATSB priority search area has always been in the direction of the location that the IG have been promoting.
The ATSB's MH370 Flight Path Analysis, which is a PDF file.
Links in the article will show that the movement in the ATSB priority search area has always been in the direction of the location that the IG have been promoting.
The ATSB's MH370 Flight Path Analysis, which is a PDF file.
Last edited by mm43; 25th Oct 2014 at 20:13. Reason: Added the ATSB PDF link
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: London
Age: 63
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The nature of the data leads to uncertainty here. I believe the ping arcs can be established with good certainty - many have repeated the calculations - but these only establish the distance from the satellite at the times of the pings. To establish a position on the final arc requires assumptions to be made and in particular, assumptions about the position and timing of the final turn south. The movement of the priority search areas over time thus reflects changing support for the various assumptions which could be made. Sadly, the hard data does not favour one assumption over another and so the range of possible endpoints is very wide indeed. At the moment, the Independent Group clearly has the floor and the search area seems to have moved to match the assumptions which underlie their calculations.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ulric
To establish a position on the final arc requires assumptions to be made and in particular, assumptions about the position and timing of the final turn south.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: London
Age: 63
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It all hinges on the path taken between the 18:29 and 19:40 arcs. One crucial question is which direction the aircraft was travelling in when it crossed the 19:40 arc - E-W or W-E. The data doesn't tell us the answer to that.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: In thin air
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mm43,
Agreed, except that in your last sentence "climbing" should be "descending" (approximately 2500 fpm at the speed and heading at the end of the primary radar trace).
Agreed, except that in your last sentence "climbing" should be "descending" (approximately 2500 fpm at the speed and heading at the end of the primary radar trace).
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gysbreght,
If the aircraft had maintained the assumed PSR track, I accept your RoD. OTOH, think of a heading on which it could have been climbing.
As Ulric has said, we really can't be sure where the aircraft went after 1829 and until it turned up 'somewhere' on the 1940 arc. That 'somewhere' makes all the difference to the outcome.
If the aircraft had maintained the assumed PSR track, I accept your RoD. OTOH, think of a heading on which it could have been climbing.
As Ulric has said, we really can't be sure where the aircraft went after 1829 and until it turned up 'somewhere' on the 1940 arc. That 'somewhere' makes all the difference to the outcome.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: London
Age: 63
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly right. Some views I've seen expressed put the 19:40 arc at the western extremity of the flight path, some have it crossing EW and some WE. The data we have doesn't distinguish one from the other but the assumption you make at that point can cause any plausible course solution to move the endpoint thousands of kms.
I have to admit defeat and hope that the investigation team have followed the right hunch. Hopefully, they do have some information which can be used to favour a particular path.
I have to admit defeat and hope that the investigation team have followed the right hunch. Hopefully, they do have some information which can be used to favour a particular path.
Originally Posted by Ulric
It all hinges on the path taken between the 18:29 and 19:40 arcs. One crucial question is which direction the aircraft was travelling in when it crossed the 19:40 arc - E-W or W-E. The data doesn't tell us the answer to that.
A game of overfitting rapidly ensues if an additional turning point is assumed to have occurred between 1840z and 1941z.
Gysbreght, any azimuth solution very close to due south will be numerically unstable where very small speed changes cause relatively large azimuth changes. Azimuth solutions are essentially symmetric about north/south, with a small latitude-dependent phase shift that depends also on the flight path angle in non-level flight. A prime example of this instability can be seen in the 1827z BFO cluster.
Solutions in general are not due south. For example at 1941z the choices are about 30 degrees either side of south at normal cruising speeds.
See http://www.aqqa.org/MH370/models/aqq...muth_v3-5.xlsx for an analytic azimuth model.
Solutions in general are not due south. For example at 1941z the choices are about 30 degrees either side of south at normal cruising speeds.
See http://www.aqqa.org/MH370/models/aqq...muth_v3-5.xlsx for an analytic azimuth model.
I find it increasingly hard to believe that the plane will be found using the Inmarsat data in the public domain. There are too many unknowns in the publicly released information, and these unknowns create a myriad of potential solutions such that the search area is huge. We had a much better idea where to find AF447 and the Titanic.
I sincerely hope authorities are in possession of more information than has been released to the public.
I had always been struck by the early US government statement that the plane flew for hours and likely crashed in the Indian Ocean.
Have a look at the following:
MH370: US sends ship to Indian Ocean on new ?indication? of crash site | euronews, world news
So by 1051 (CET) on 12/3, the US was stating they had indications the plane flew on for some hours and went down in the Indian Ocean, and were already moving a USN ship. Subsequent reports confirmed these indications were the hourly satellite pings. This report would have been early in the day in the USA. The fact they had already moved a ship means they had this information for at least some hours - possibly even 11/3
http://www.inmarsat.com/news/malaysi...tails-uk-aaib/
Malaysia sates they were told (by Inmarsat) about the satellite pings on 13/3.
Now maybe Malaysia got the date wrong. Or maybe Inmarsat (UK) shared with US before Malaysia - perhaps from a concern that Malaysia was being less than completely transparent. Maybe.
Or maybe there is another explanation.
It is generally accepted satellite tracking of submarines exists. It is also accepted there is satellite monitoring for the heat signatures of ballistic missile launches (although presumably such systems would not be looking in this area). But there is plenty of satellite surveillance of the earths surface.
You also have to wonder what technology has been developed since 9/11. It is presumably possible to track a large plane by its heat signature. You would imagine there has been research into tracking aircraft, and subtracting verified flights in order to identify rogue aircraft. This would seem a sensible area to research in the post 9/11 world. Such technology would have been very useful during the many hours that MH370 kept flying.
Anyway, hopefully there is additional information available even if it is not in the public domain.
I sincerely hope authorities are in possession of more information than has been released to the public.
I had always been struck by the early US government statement that the plane flew for hours and likely crashed in the Indian Ocean.
Have a look at the following:
MH370: US sends ship to Indian Ocean on new ?indication? of crash site | euronews, world news
So by 1051 (CET) on 12/3, the US was stating they had indications the plane flew on for some hours and went down in the Indian Ocean, and were already moving a USN ship. Subsequent reports confirmed these indications were the hourly satellite pings. This report would have been early in the day in the USA. The fact they had already moved a ship means they had this information for at least some hours - possibly even 11/3
http://www.inmarsat.com/news/malaysi...tails-uk-aaib/
Malaysia sates they were told (by Inmarsat) about the satellite pings on 13/3.
Now maybe Malaysia got the date wrong. Or maybe Inmarsat (UK) shared with US before Malaysia - perhaps from a concern that Malaysia was being less than completely transparent. Maybe.
Or maybe there is another explanation.
It is generally accepted satellite tracking of submarines exists. It is also accepted there is satellite monitoring for the heat signatures of ballistic missile launches (although presumably such systems would not be looking in this area). But there is plenty of satellite surveillance of the earths surface.
You also have to wonder what technology has been developed since 9/11. It is presumably possible to track a large plane by its heat signature. You would imagine there has been research into tracking aircraft, and subtracting verified flights in order to identify rogue aircraft. This would seem a sensible area to research in the post 9/11 world. Such technology would have been very useful during the many hours that MH370 kept flying.
Anyway, hopefully there is additional information available even if it is not in the public domain.