Which will accomplish what exactly? If we can't trust two people how can we trust 3?

What this boils down to is that if the flight crew are involved in this, which I refuse to believe until I see unrefutable proof, then the world of the international airline pilot will yet once again change beyond recognition. With todays CYA policy, the scream for action which is certain to follow, with now several publicized cases to stand in such a process, we may see a further erosion of the respect and trust those in power will have for air crew.

It would show to one extent however that the flight deck door rules and the daily beep beep touch touch checks have amounted to just about nothing, but have in opposite possibly caused at least one aircraft to be beyond rescue when that aircrafts captain decided to end it all a few months back. All the horrified FO could do is bang his hands at the door.

Frankly, todays press conference has shook me to the core of my own inner beliefs in whom to trust and whom not. I still am in denial that any crew could do something like that, so in a way I hope there will be ANY other explanation than that one. We can fix planes, we can increase security but to repair trust is something which is as unlikely as the whole mess we find ourselfs in right now.

These FB posts are from nearly a year ago. Nothing political recently that I can see.

Agree.. in short it boils down to:

• Fuel
• Cargo
• Crew

In answer to one of your questions, LHR, the FOB at KUL. Possibly tankering fuel.......for the return trip.

Australia still waiting for a request to review radar?
 

Reported today (15th March):
No Cookies | Perth Now

AMSA says no reliable information about report MH370 tracked to ocean off Australia

THE Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) said it had no reliable information to indicate Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 may have approached Australia.

AMSA was responding to a single report today that the last satellite transmission from the missing jet was traced to the Indian Ocean off Australia.

Quoting an anonymous person familiar with the information, Bloomberg reported a path from Malaysia to waters off Australia would have taken as much as 3000 miles.

This is about the maximum distance the Boeing 777-200 could have flown with its fuel load, the news agency reported.

“MH370 may have flown beyond its last known position, about 1000 miles west of Perth, and that location may not be an indication of where the plane ended up,” the report states.

A search in Australian waters would be in the jurisdiction of AMSA.

A spokesman said: “AMSA has not received reliable information indicating that Malaysian Airlines’ flight MH370 may have approached Australia or entered the Australian search and rescue region.

“Should verified information or request for assistance be passed to AMSA from authorities coordinating the search for flight MH370, it will be assessed on its merits.

“Australia is assisting the search efforts with two Royal Australian Air Force P-3 Orion maritime patrol aircraft deployed to the region.

“The Bloomberg report will be passed to coordinating authorities for their assessment in the context of all of the other information they have available to them.”
---------------------------

interesting quote:
“Should verified information or request for assistance be passed to AMSA from authorities coordinating the search for flight MH370, it will be assessed on its merits.

So... Australia hasn't reviewed its primary radar data etc yet for any sign of MH370... Considering the IMARSAT data now available re the possible location west of Perth, I think this should have already been checked.

• ACARS is data source.
• There are different transports media, which could be used to transport ACARS data. (SATCOM, HF, VHF)
• No ACARS data were received as ACARS was probably switched off.
• Only SATCOM transport protocol 'pings' were received, as SATOM was not switched off, but did not received any data from ACARS to be sent.
• Other ACARS transports systems like HF and VHF were probably switched off.
• HF an VHF transports do not probably send any 'pings' as these are not needed for given transport layer. (I would expect, that these SATCOM ping are mainly to sync TDMA channel slot time and no such action is needed for HF or VHF)

So such correlation as you suggest is probably not useful.

Ages back in the thread, someone posted about the vulnerability of the electronics bay, accessible through the floor outside the cockpit. Does anyone know what can be done from there, ie can the transponder /ACARS be disabled?

And -while we're brainstorming - how big is that bay? Is it big enough for someone to hide in - say, before take-off?

Final words
 

I have seen two sets of "final words" from the flight. From one source:

- “All right, roger that” a pilot replied to a radio message from Malaysian air control.
- One of the pilots also replied, “All right, good night.”

It has been a few years since I was operational in ATC but I would have expected a read back of the frequency they were being transferred to.

ATC, MH370 contact (xxx control ) on (frequency) goodnight
Pilot, Roger (xxx) on (frequency) goodnight

("Roger that" seems to come from American TV, I'm continuously trying to stop trainees using it.)

Strange to get two pilots responding, both appearing to be non standard.

...if it was the pilots replying....

Though just about everyone does it, read back of a frequency is not required.

Ben There,
it certainly is in the U.K.

“All right, roger that”

I never heard such a phrase. Where did he get "All right" from? Bizarre.

In the past 15 years, there have been 3 deadly crashes caused by flight crew suicide. This is about 30% of all deadly accidents happening during cruise flight (not counting 9/11).

Nothing has been done to prevent similar flight crew actions in the future; hardened cockpit doors made it even easier.

So without prejudice towards this specific flight crew, deliberate flight crew actions cannot be dismissed as a possible cause based on past experience.

777 avionics were reported by the US Govt Federal Register as accessable to a hacker. :eek: I'm not going to post the link or any details, because I don't want to help anybody looking for a way in. Supposedly the issue has been fixed, and seems beyond the capability of garden variety hijackers but its something to be wary of.

HeathrowAirport
 

Its obvious you have never operated into China... quite common to have an extra couple of hours fuel for the unexpected behavior of Chinese ATC

I would not judge by phraseo. It si more than normal that on home ATC frequency you are more than relaxed, and you will not repeat frequency you repeated probably hundred times before. You can check on liveATC.net how pilots on home country frequencies almost never do readback correctly, when handed over to new control. Even if this is was handover to Vietnam control, I would not see this strange or suspicious.

And I would say, that if you know how to disable ACARS, you would probably know these ~50 ICAO phrases well enough. As you can get them freely, unlike of T7 detailed system descriptions.

The FUB et el...
 

Many posts will be being deleted because they are plain stupid, or because the subject is security sensitive.

As someone who is well involved on this industry, I am already extremely nervous at the amount of detailed system/procedural information already discussed here. It just doesn't help future airline security...

I am just as keen as anyone else to see this queer mystery unravelled, but I am not about to share my professional knowledge. Others need to think before posting.

And when was the last time an airline pilot hijacked their own aircraft?

Answer, about a month ago:

Co-pilot hijacks Ethiopian Airlines, flies to Geneva for asylum - CNN.com

Tankering fuel to China is not unusual at my outfit. I would imagine fuel is somewhat subsidized at KUL for local carriers.

If that plane indeed zigzagged NORDO eastward staying on the airways to avoid military scrutiny, as others have observed, it probably wasn't the work of an amateur.

Excellent point Goeasy. The procedures we use have been developed over the years to ensure security and now I am watching them openly discussed and displayed for all the world to see. Not saying that it ever could be prevented, but if we are not security conscious 100% of the time then we are not doing our job properly.

Its obvious you have never operated into China... quite common to have an extra couple of hours fuel for the unexpected behavior of Chinese ATC


I agree