Seems several people are having a hard time accepting the satellite pings and the associated theory that this plane is no where near the point of last contact. How many more sources need to come out for you to consider there could be something to it? Inmarsat, the White House, the WSJ, Reuters, etc. Granted none of this has been corroborated in full yet and one those sources is owned by Rupert "Faux News" Murdoch but...

That Inmarsat systems ping makes perfect sense. Most all wireless systems ping in one way or another. And just the ping itself in the absence of any other data can still be used for geo-location purposes. Which satellite was being targeted, the round-trip signal time, signal strength and signal quality all can form a basis for figuring out a rough location. What level of precision this provides, I don't know but I'd bet it could get you within 500 square miles and probably a lot less if you look for a track between pings.

Further to that, I'd bet that within one or two hours or so of last contact, US military intelligence would have caught wind of the missing plane. At least very basic steps to make sure satellite based reconnaissance was listening would have been taken. The extent of that capability we will never know. The US could very well have picked up VHF data broadcast packets that DID have telemetry in them.

If the plane ditched in the water near the point of last contact, odds are the Inmarsat ping would not have lasted 5 hours for multiple reasons.

And if your plane was in the South China sea, it would have been found by now.

Lithium Battery theory
 

Now CNN seems to be pushing a 'lithium batteries did this' theory. Any evidence?

@ ianwood:
 

Totally agree and you might add the total lack of any sign of the plane in the South China Sea, in whatever form, really only re-enforces that. Given the relatively shallow depth and the sheer number of SAR assets looking, that seems an incredibly slim shot at this point. It's somewhere else.

That's the problem ian.., once/if this is corroborated then hopefully we will get somewhere near closure and a sensible debate can hopefully take place, but at the moment IMHO apart from the extreme cases (alien abduction, rescue mission for Elvis) I reckon everyone has a valid scenario if that scenario is a technical possibility ...

If highjack, there is always the possibility that those responsible believed it could be flown farther than the fuel actually allowed. In such a situation it may have crashed short of the hijackers' destination.

TME

Pitot Static on the 777 are fed to ADM (3 for pitot and 3 for static) the ADMs feeds 3 separate arinc 629 bus.The 629 bus feeds the ADRIU, SAARU( for standby instruments) and the ACMF cards in the AIMs cabinet. The ACMS collects all data engine data ,air data, navigation data etc. The ACMF send this to the transponder , FDR , EADI, EICAS etc.

Don't think the water depth fits your idea there.*l am not convinced that is a fruitful area for search, but who knows?
*Since my last ASW mission was a few years ago, I may have missed some developments in shallow water uses of various towed arrays.

As to the report from the oil rig ... not sure what to make of that. Not as confident as yourself regarding its fit to the missing aircraft.

Pings
 

Thanks garage. I'll try to find it.
The reason for asking is that if the identity being pinged relates to the engine numbers (say for onward data transmission to Rolls Royce), rather than the airframe number, it would still be be necessary for Inmarsat to link those engines to the plane. As many know, airlines frequently swap engines around.
However, I'm guessing they thought of that or, more likely, that the pings are identifying the airframe itself.

I don't understand
 

We are officially 1 week into one of the most mysterious and devastating aviation disasters ever

Along the trail the scope of the investigation included
- most recent plane inspection
- Planes equipment activity during the flight
- the stolen passports and the background of those individuals
- backgrounds and possible terror connections of all other passengers
- apparently the US is also just finding out about the cargo (CNN is reporting an official indicating Lithium batteries in cargo and the possibilities they could have caused a fire - although the official apparently went out of his way to say that wouldn't explain all the other known aspects)

That is the Plane itself, its Cargo and its Passengers - apparently no one questions people looking into all those aspects in this Search And Rescue situation. So then why is it a few here seem adamantly determined to squash anyone saying the Crew should not be excluded from this checklist of things that must be looked at?

I don't want the Crew to be involved either, but to act as though they should never be quested under any circumstances, and that doing so in any way is just some "wild conjecture" that has no place ever being considered ...well, it's just way beyond illogical.

More and more evidence and confirmation is (finally) coming in in this disappearance, and most of this evidence indicates a human was likely behind both the plane going dark and the planes flightpath after that darkness. All aspects are being investigated in hopes they lead to any possible clues as to what happened and where the plane might be... except, apparently, one group - the last known people to control the plane. How does that make sense?

You don't get my point.
I have nothing against speculations and rumours themselves. I had myself defended speculation some posts ago within this thread as a vital part of any investigation, as long as no solid evidence is found. I only refuse to call such hearsay and unverified reports as the "known flight path" of MAS370.

Maybe "known" to someone who has real information he did not bother to release so far. Not to me and you.

Anyway, I just wanted to point out.

@ianwood

Too right and follows the points I was alluding to some posts back.

The large SAR operation to the West of Malaysia would not be happening unless corroborated by other intel, ie the SATCOMM tracking and other.

Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost
 

Why is it possible on a civil aircraft to turn off the transponder whilst the plane is in the air? If it wasn't we would know where the plane had gone (and this thread) would be considerably shorter.

Totally agree and you might add the total lack of any sign of the plane in the South China Sea, in whatever form, really only re-enforces that. Given the relatively shallow depth and the sheer number of SAR assets looking, that seems an incredibly slim shot at this point. It's somewhere else.

Why are the US heading there then? There must be something there…?

Teachme said
"If highjack, there is always the possibility that those responsible believed it could be flown farther than the fuel actually allowed. In such a situation it may have crashed short of the hijackers' destination."

It it were terrorism, have they not already been successful, regardless of the possibility they had a "destination" at all?

That seems to be lost on many. The first objective of terrorism is terror. We have 1 week of a missing plane, a plane we have just short of 0 info on for most all of that time. We are spending a fortune in both time and assets looking, and have zilch. In fact, we are still trying to figure out if it even is terror, and if it was, what their objective was. If the public was told it was terror tomorrow, think of the reaction that would be seen.

If this was terrorism, they have already been unbelievably successful; regardless if they pulled off their ultimate goal or not.

Pings
 

@Garage, GvonSprout

Well, yes, the protocol was explained. And it would, at least as I understand it require someone to set up the hardware to know where it was built into. Now, as an airline having the stuff installed but not using it (after all my 777 fleet does all the regional flights with VHF coverage losses for never more than 30 minutes), why would I bother to set the boxes up? Why would I know about how to do that it the first place if I do not require the service? How do I know of the detailed technical operation of the stuff if I don't use it?

The protocol does only say there is a space for the aircraft reg, but it does not say that the box may operate on a default setting prior to the effective registration of the box with Inmarsat.

If the whole regional 777 fleet of MAS have the same default setting the information is not valid.

CNN is now going on about a "stash" of batteries on the plane.

The media makes the search area look focused. :sad:

What Inmarsat knows:
 

14 March 2014: Inmarsat has issued the following statement regarding Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.

Now, isn't that helpful! :confused:

kenjaDROP
 

You may well be right but this from a newspaper report tonight (unconfirmed of course :ok:)

Looks like those better informed than us still aren't 100% confident that the aircraft definitely went west.

Because it is a piece of electronic equipment.
Like most electronic equipment, it has on and off switches. One of the reasons to turn one off is for flight safety: if one of its wires shorts out and begets an electrical fire, killing the box can sometimes prevent a mess from turning into a disaster.
If you can't turn it off, you maybe can't isolate the cause of a fire, and fire in an airplane is a serious emergency that can get a whole lot of people killed real fast. (See recent UPS crash due to fire in the Middle East).
Another reason to turn it off is as simple as your PC. Sometimes, a piece of electronic gear needs to be turned off, and then back on, to get it to work right.
Only if the appropriate kind of radar interrogated it and received a reply.

At a minimum, the Inmarsat device itself is uniquely identifiable on the network.

Think of it as having a Sim Card - many do.

As I mentioned above, many Inmarsat antennas contain a GPS, so no additional information from the airframe or the engine is needed to identify and locate the aircraft.

The "handshake" between the sat device and the satellite can contain a unique identifier, and its location.