Cameras from Space
 

It would probably be the first time that NASA's technology would be tested in Aircrash investigations:

"Activities under way include mining data archives of satellite data acquired earlier and using space-based assets, such as the Earth-Observing-1(EO-1) satellite and the ISERV camera on the International Space Station, to acquire new images of possible crash sites," NASA spokesman Allard Beutel told Space.com.

March 13, 2014 10:42 AM - ibtimes.co.uk

Intelligence Assets
 

Rest assured that American (and presumably Chinese and Russian) intelligence
assets have capabilities far in advance of what they are wiling to publicly advertise.

In the mid 1990s I was involved with a lengthy SAR effort with ground searchers
And Civil Air Patrol assets. We were running up quite a fuel tab with the CAP when it was discretely suggested by the Air Force liaison that we go to such and
Such a position, hundreds of miles away from the last known position and nowhere near what we had brainstormed as a possibility. The airplane and crew were found by us immediately albeit with no chance that the people on board had survived the crash. No information was ever given to us as to how they had ascertained this particular location.

I suspect that something similar is going on with the USN assets steaming to the
scene now.

I tried to make the point that, in the past, it was common practice to select STBY on the transponder before selecting a new code, but my post disappeared into the ether!

So what if, TOC, one pilot goes back for a comfort break (likely time for it), explosive decompression, remaining pilot, stunned by events, starts a descending turn, put transponder to STBY, selects 7700 and then goes hypoxic, having failed to make donning the mask his first action?

Lost in Saigon has been a never ending stream of misinformation and lies. Can someone tell his mom he should stop pretending to be a pilot online?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't find the exact quotes buried several days ago in the thread.

But haven't all of the statements from Malaysia denying ACARS messages been very cautiously worded, and stopped short of complete denials that there was any signal received by ANYONE, ANYWHERE?

The first statement, from several days ago, if I recall correctly, seemed to be "the last message MAS rec'd was at 1:07" and then the next sentence was worded a bit differently--"no distress signals were sent."

The wording the other day was that the US claims were "inaccurate," and that Boeing, RR and MAS did not receive any ACARS messages -- but that does not exclude the possibility that someone else DID receive this (or something).

And I thought Boeing and RR themselves did not directly comment.

I've just thought that these "denials" have stopped short of complete denials, and indeed, have been awkwardly worded in so doing.

What is the maximum recording time for the FDR and/or CVR on a 777? It occurred to me that if MH370 indeed flew on for several more hours after the incident (whatever it was) that the relevant portion of the data stream may have been over written by the later stages of the flight so we may never know precisely what transpired.

transponder
 

The fact of transponder being off - it bothers me - such a simple thing,

-result of the unknown systems failure-all out?
-off accidentally by a disabled(smoke or O2 loss), stumbling, crew without ill intent?
-ill intent? What is the significance of transponder being off, if that is the case?
- coincidental malfunction like on AI127 at the time when a major event leading to the plane loss was occurring or just about to occur?

What do the 777-200 pilots think is most probable- how soon would you know that the transponder malfunctions, what are the remedial steps?

Apologies to mods, but it is not just about speculations- the transponder was off, it is the first known fact and undisputed fact

CVR recording duration
 

@ areobat

I believe the CVR recording duration before over-write is 120 mins. The FDR is 25 hours AFAIK.

Iridium localization
 

OleOle,
I have no idea what satellite assets are used for the aircraft maintenance comms: Iridium, Inmarsat or something else. However, if Iridium is involved, then the satellites locate the terminal (modem) to within about 10km E-W and 1km N-S. The asymmetry has to do with orbits or antenna patterns or something. Iridium was once able to tell us to about this accuracy where to find one of our assets, and, sure enough, it was within or near to those parameters.

FAA AD
 

Forgive me if someone's already covered this, my search revealed nothing.

The FAA have issued an airworthiness directive for 777s regarding fatigue cracks around the SATCOM atenna adaptor which could lead to "rapid decompression and loss of structural integrity"

Effective April 2014

Turning from Where to Why
 

The Decompression theory appears to have a lot of support in this discussion:

Last night it emerged that the US aviation watchdog warned airlines six months ago of a problem with cracks in Boeing 777s that could lead to a mid-air break up and a catastrophic drop in cabin pressure.

The Federal Aviation Administration issued an alert in September last year giving airlines until April 9 to detect and correct cracking in the fuselage skin on Boeing 777s.

The FAA warned that failure to do so would leave the aircraft vulnerable to ‘a rapid decompression and loss of structural integrity’.

The organisation issued a final directive just two days before the Malaysia Airlines plane took off and said one airline had found a 16-in crack in the fuselage skin of a 14-year-old plane.

However, Boeing said that the FAA alert did not apply to the missing jet because it did not have the same antenna as the rest of the Boeing 777s.

And Malaysian Airlines insisted that the missing Boeing was airworthy before taking off, but declined to reveal whether it had been inspected for a known potential problem with the fuselage.

During a sudden drop in cabin pressure, the crew and passengers can become unconscious, leaving nobody in control of the aircraft.

mirror.co.uk - Mar 13, 2014 00:13

Perhaps 777 pilots can shed some light about how true this is.

The question is, if this is true, then, at around TOC is this the prime time for this disaster to happen?

In other words, you can shut down one engine and extend the range by upto 330 minutes?

My points on this statement:

1) My understanding is that this isn't required on the 777 (albeit maybe something from the past).

2) If I was in an emergency situation, my first action would not be to set the transponder. Aviate, Navigate & Communicate and all that good stuff. I would be on 02 and getting the aircraft going down. If I am by myself in the cockpit, then the 'flow' of bits like belts, pax 02, transposer and coms would be secondary to getting the aircraft established in a descent or under control.

3) Isn't the purpose of going to SBY to avoid accidentally setting one of the 'major' squawks. I.E 7700, 7500 or 7600.
If I was in an emergency situation, and I wanted to set 7700 anyway, why would I care about going to SBY first?

This just seems like an explanation which conveniently fits a scenario, but just doesn't come across as realistic.

IF all sorts is hitting the fan, to the extent that I FORGET to put my 02 Mask on as my very first action, then it is probably because I am attempting to control the the aircraft NOT faffing around with setting a squawk.

Lastly, with emergency descent perhaps being the exception, does everyone always set 7700 before talking to ATC? I'd find it more instinctive to be getting out some form of Mayday rather than playing with a squawk as my primary action or at the very least doing it at the same time. Even if it were a "Mayday Mayday Mayday, XXXX, Emergency Descent / Fire / Etc, STANDBY."

Just my thoughts.
I just don't buy it that someone would be playing with a transponder BEFORE descending the aircraft (if needed) as seen by the fact no change of course / altitude was detected and BEFORE going on 02. These are professional crews and I'd suggest 02 is a instinctive action.

Mmm not true at all. One only needs a hole bigger than the outflow valves diameter and they are not usually that big. The alternative would be loss of pressurisation due to loss of incoming air from the ac packs 1&2 (can any 777 drivers confirm if they fail closed with power loss?) which could have conceivably happened when/if everything else failed rendering comms and txponder in-op.

" Apparently it did not affect the A/P."

and there to my mind is the problem with the theory of the crew O2 bottle exploding and causing the accident - you've got to come up with a way of explaining how a fire/explosion can disable significant comms components in the MEC but seemingly leave the A/P and all it's associated systems intact enough to "fly" the aircraft, according to some theories for several hours. Credible? One for our engineering colleagues to answer I think.

And while I'm at it if anyone has to be informed yet again that on the 777 you do not turn the transponder to standby to change the code, you just punch in the code.....and touching the transponder at all, even a teeny bit, is not part of the Boeing Rapid Descent procedure I'll..........cry:{

Check your info
 

Boeing says Malaysia jet not subject to FAA inspection order | Reuters

"Boeing said it worked closely with the FAA to monitor the fleet for potential safety issues and take appropriate actions. But it said the 777-200ER Malaysia Airlines aircraft did not have that antenna installed and was not subject to the FAA order.

An FAA spokesman on Wednesday also cautioned against linking the directive, one of hundreds issued annually by the agency, to the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370."

I fully agree with your points. The cost these days of a simple SATCOM device to ping its GPS position is peanuts even including the cost of certification (some are probably already certified).

Considering the astronomical cost of the current rescue that will almost certainly be borne by the insurance underwriters, it is not unlikely that insurers may withdraw insurance from any aircraft flying out of LOS of land unless it has some kind of standalone self-powered tamper proof SATCOM tracking. It doesn't matter what the beancounters in the airlines say, if their insurers will not cover them unless they are equipped; they will be equipped.

I wouldn't read too much into the lack of response from Boeing or RR. During an accident investigation, the manufactures are effectively under a gag order. All official communications are to come from the investigating agency.
While I've never known an investigating agency to blatantly lie, I have stewed quietly a few times when they couldn't be bothered to officially dismiss speculation or theories that we'd already disproved. All that being said, I think the idea that a US intelligence agency has access to some data that no one else does is plausible, perhaps even likely.

BTW, most modern FDR are capable of recording the max capable flight length, so there is little risk of the relevant data being overwritten unless the plane landed somewhere, refueled, and took off again (at this point I'm not sure I'd rule out much of anything).
The voice recorder is a different story though.

A/P FCS can get power from any buss like the pilots windshield heat.

Lot of other wis bang stuff gets load shed if major busses go off line.

But one does wonder if it was jacked, if they though the plane was fully fueled and would have more range than it did.

ETOPS
 

Someone asked a question about ETOPS.
Here is a short Boeing Video explaining it on the 777

New ETOPS rule extends 777's performance - YouTube

Just FYI ETOPS planning takes into account both failure of an engine and / or decompression along with other criteria such as loss of electrical power.