The main reporter for the NY Times story wrote it from Sepang Malaysia, he was assisted by two reporters in Washington.

The climb to 45,000 ft, the descent to 23,000 ft, are based on Malaysian military radar. The 40,000 foot descent in one minute is based on engine data, and is discounted as unreliable by 'investigators'. (The source for the 40,000 foot descent reference was a Washington official.) The two initial course changes, and flight then stabilizing at a cruise altitude of 29,500 feet are based on Malaysian military radar.

The NY Times article does not reference the VAMPI, GIVAL, IGREX waypoints.
The VAMPI waypoint looks to be near the island of Pulan Perak, where earlier reports said Malaysian military radar lost track of it.

GIVAL is about 54 NM from VAMPI.

multiple sources
 

In reply to Silanda --

Reuters and ABC News both independently have reported that there is data indicating that the plane flew for 4-5 more hours after transponder shutoff. Further, the WSJ has developed the story with additional sources subsequent to their scoop.

You have a right not to like the electronic evidence but frankly your so called "witnesses" can equally easily be dismissed. As per earlier examples of aircraft accidents human witnesses are notoriously unreliable. Find me a piece of a floating debris where those witnesses claim that something happen and then we are talking...

ACARS Pings
 

Exactly. The closest analogy is an email client (think Outlook) checking in with the server every few minutes, even when there are no messages. Note that BA and RR as final recipients would NOT SEE these events - only actual messages are forwarded between the aircraft and BA and RR. Inmarsat's press release disclosed that Inmarsat has provided link data to its client SITA (which runs part of the ACARS service). SITA then forwarded the information to MAS.

Not sure how often ACARS pings occur - would guess somewhere between once every 5 minutes and once every hour.

This flight is from the next day. On FR select playback & choose UTC TIME of 2014-03-08 17:00 hours


The question is though is if this data from another flight be in obvious error, how can we rely on the actual flight data? Does ADS-B have error correction or CRC (Cyclic redundancy check)?

So if we have a given of:
Inmarsat data is good

This seems a huge amount of trouble to go to if the end result was the plane in the sea. Why not just go right in right away?

So this seems to leave us with the plane actually is hidden somewhere or the plan failed for unknown reasons.

The claimed altitude of 45Kft seems highly implausible - balancing a pin on a knife-edge sort of thing. As for the claimed altitude loss of 40Kft in one minute, well, it doesn't seem likely there would be much left after trying that one. Am I wrong? Anyway one of the CNN talking heads (I forget who), but covering the Pentagon I think, basically dismissed this as information derived from the Malaysian radar system at the extreme limit of it's capabilities and likely highly unreliable. Any other supporting evidence?

Aussiepax - it might be relatively easy to notice a turn in daytime when light levels and shadows in the cabin change in response to a turn (or you are sitting near a window) but it might not always be as detectable as many think. There's an excellent article on spatial disorientation in the current issue of Flight Safety Australia called 'Don't believe your ears". It also features Captain de Crespigny in an interesting experiment with a Barany chair and gives the methodology so anyone who's interested can replicate these somatogyral/somatogravic illusionary experiments with their own rotating chair at home. The author states that even the graveyard spiral isn't detectable to the inner ear - a pilot can still sense they are in straight and level flight. From the story... "One telling detail in how the vestibular apparatus functions is that the semi-circular canals have a stimulation threshold of two degrees a second. You will not feel yaws or rotations slower than this. Autopilot software on airliners exploits this fact; so that passengers are unaware an aircraft is zig-zagging to avoid storms or traffic. But the threshold also means pilots can't detect a slow divergence from straight-and-level flight."

Full article here:

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - FSA issue 97 - Don't believe your ears

cynar, DFDR would/will tell plenty. That can not be overridden. Whatever can be retrieved from CVR be a bonus.

Porterhouse:
Indeed & the witnessing doesn't all concur. Australia's Channel 7 stumped up a witness (Australian tourist I think) who said that a plane had flown low along their beach on the Malaysian peninsula in the middle of the night, heading west.

I think the only given is that the Inmarsat data received is good. We don't know the limits of reception for the satellite system, or who its sent on to.

The data is likely used by numerous identities, not just forwarded (on a subscription basis) to MAS, or RR or the NSA etc

At this point in time its not known if the absense of data, equals the last location of the aircraft.

I didn't mean to imply last Inmarsat record = end of the airplane. They could have finally found out how to turn it off. OTOH for the entire time it WAS on the plane had to be intact at least with electrical power.

Interesting...

Re Missing Flight MH370: Smoke from North Sentinel Island « Roy Spencer, PhD

45 to 5 in a minute??
 

"The claimed altitude of 45Kft seems highly implausible - balancing a pin on a knife-edge sort of thing. As for the claimed altitude loss of 40Kft in one minute, well, it doesn't seem likely there would be much left after trying that one. Am I wrong?"
No, for a start why take the aircraft outside its safe operating altitude and to achieve such a rapid decent in one minute would probably cause immeasurable structural damage.
So if the intention was to "confuse" anyone by then flying somewhere else (after taking major steps to disable comms) why take that risk.
Brings this NYT info into serious question.

Inmarsat simply stated that "routine, automated signals were registered on the Inmarsat network from Malaysia Airlines flight MH370" (link to the official Inmarsat webpage).

Maybe I am grossly misunderstanding their official statement, but honestly I can't read there any confirmation of what's being widely speculated on several mainstream sources and here during the last two days.

"#3523 (permalink)Hypoxia as a way to get compliant pax and cabin crew?
I suppose one way to make passengers and cabin crew compliant with any kind of nefarious activity on the flight deck would be to depressurize the aircraft slowly while the flight crew put on O2 masks. If everyone in the back has blacked out from hypoxia then there wouldn't be much resistance emanating from the cabin. Could this work?"

Yes, and as I suggested yesterday an environment of elevated CO2 would also incapacitate the passengers - whether intentional or as an accident. Once the passengers were unconscious O2 masks would be futile as the liter flow is too low.

Just wondering what a pilot would do if their entire passenger manifest were accidentally overcome (dead) by elevated CO2. Land in Beijing with Malaysia Airlines taking blame immediately, or ditch the plane in the deep ocean and leave speculation open for months if not years. My opinion only.

There is nothing in Physics about it.
But we know from statistical analysis of causes of aircraft accidents that what fails even more is pilot's mind.

Since the data is not transmitted continuously this is not a valid conclusion. The ACARS Data is ONLY transmitted in very short bursts that can be up to 30 minutes (suggested normal interval by MAL CEO & others on this forum) apart in cruise. The LAST ACARS DATA transmitted (not ping) was at 1:07....but that doesn't mean the system stopped then, it just means that from then on till actual turn off, there was no issue with the engines i.e. no events & the time period between reporting had not expired so the ACARS did not need to transmit.

Yes. Star navigation wasn't in the ATPL Nav syllabus in 2006 when I did mine. Maybe it was in 1956 when commercial aircraft carried a navigator on board?