@simon001
According to the military chief for India on the Andaman islands they only operate when required to. I have heard that this is during normal working hours and they turn off in the evening.

Visual horizon
 

Assuming the person on the "oil rig" had a viewing platform at an elevation of 30m above sea level, and he was observing a large light source at an elevation of 35,000 ft, then that light would be below the horizon at any distance greater than ~388.5km, that ignoring the effect of atmospheric refraction.
If he was at 40m above sea level then that light would be below the horizon at any distance greater than ~391.5km
He provides no time of the observation, that limits any projection of the aircraft along it's intended flight path.

So perhaps it would be informing to look toward IGARI at 6° 56' 12N 103° 35' 6E
If the observer was on a 40m elevated platform, viewing an aircraft on fire at 35,000ft, from his 40m elevated viewpoint at the cord position of at 08° 22' 30.23 N, 108° 42' 22.26 E as stated in his email, then IGARI is ~584km to the SW on a heading of ~254.7° from the oil rig, and the light would have been below his visible horizon (at ~391.5km).

Con Dao Airport (VCS) on Côn Sơn Island is ~230km to the west on a heading of 280⁰ from the oil rig position, it has a 1830m runway with a wet parking area at both ends.

The email indicates the light was seen high in the sky on a bearing of 265-275⁰ and it was "difficult" to determine distance, "50-70km" distance was approximated by the observer in his email.

Henra
 

The following article says that a 777 has indeed been flown in a re-enactment of the west turn and verified that the same primary radar and satellite data can be reproduced.

MISSING MH370: Re-enactment shows plane veered off course - Latest - New Straits Times

Let's not--it's a rubbish idea posted by an idiot

rigbyrigz
Quote of yours this AM
SLF: " A turn west from/after IGARI was entered into the active flight plan in the FMS; this is known as the last ACARS report indicated this waypoint change event."

IF this is TRUE and corroborated, it is extremely important, since said "last ACARS rpt" is 1:07
Ongoing events timing, including goodnight signoff, would CLEARLY RULE OUT electro-mechanical mishap, hypoxia as major cause, etc. It would make deliberate human action part of the equation for sure!

I am sure this is obvious to even the non-believers. If someone entered this waypoint request into the FMC in the 30 minutes before the 1:07 automatic (when ON) ACARS report (which listed it in event log) then it is what it is.

SO: Can this SLF quote be substantiated by any source other than "XYZ NEWS says unnamed sources tell them that..." and so forth? (or can a journalist viewing this thread ASK this of PM next chance?)

Quote of yours this eve
Well, I wouldn't be so bold as to suggest this forum's questioning is a reason why, but just minutes ago N[Y] Times confirmed the computer pre-programming angle:

Article states "...according to senior U.S. officials..."
Confirmation?

I just tweeted this to Don Lemmon at CNN:
#370QS what is the reason so many facts are coming out as "US officials say" rather than direct from Malaysian govt?

I agree this "US officials say" approach is yuk. And when I found one main reason, the ABC NEWS story, it gave me serious cause for doubt. Now that NY Times and WSJ are both very definitely saying this is what they have also learned from sources and just recently, folks we do know are not allowed to give their names, it seems to ring true. Not a good state of affairs, but true.

Sure, but that is making some assumptions about information we don't really have at this point AFAIK. For example nothing anywhere I've read (so far) says the plane was flying for the whole time. Once they lost it on radar it could have gone anywhere in range. It could have landed and took off again.

With only one ping an hour and only arcs from one satellite there is a lot we don't know, especially since we have only been shown the arcs from the final ping. Too bad the plane was not in range of another satellite, that would narrow things down in a jiffy!

Now I'm not saying I think the plane landed but it could have based on what little information we have. I'm guessing a plane saves a bit of fuel while sitting on the ground...

Just as landing would save fuel the plane might also have been "hypermiling". Low and slow might not give max range but it might increase flight time?

FWIW there is also a video of some of the re-enacted 777 flight here but it provides not much detail. They did try the terrain masking scenario.

MISSING MH370: Re-enactment shows plane veered off course - Latest - New Straits Times

So let me get this straight. They are now saying the 1:07 ACARS report included the current and next waypoint, and that indicated the flight plan had been changed.

It's a text message not many characters longer than a tweet. And it took them 10 DAYS to figure that out.:eek:

Either this is just another red herring, or or or I don't know what.:(

In the know
 

You're right, none of us are entitled to know anything, but as a member of the general public, it would kinda/sorta be nice to know if there's a rogue T7 out there somewhere. There's also a not-small matter of ongoing confidence in the worldwide air transportation system.

That said, the Malaysians have lost all credibility by releasing information and then retracting it or modifying it. Their officials are too afraid of losing their jobs, and they're tripping over each other to obfuscate and save face. Someone with some experience and professionalism needs to take over this investigation and reinstill confidence, and at least set straight several confusing data points. I nominate the NTSB, but it could just as well be the BEA, TSB or whomever has done something like this before.

The only thing about the way the Malaysians are handling things that makes any sense is the adults working behind the scenes like it this way, which may make things more confusing for the Bad Guys, whoever and wherever they are.

This NYT article seems to confirm earlier reports that the plane was detected as a primary radar blip passing over the waypoints west of Peninsular Malaysia, not just going in that direction.

If you're cruising out there with lights and TCAS off, would you do SLOP? Or just stay on the centerline, incorrectly using the Big Sky theory?

Years ago aircraft would be scattered a mile or three off the centerline out over the water due to INS drift and lack of precise long range radio navaids. Nowadays with GPS, the planes will appear to be within 10 meters of each other laterally when they pass at (hopefully) different altitudes. MH 370 staying on airways instead of going random route would sure indicate someone was conscious and driving, at least initially. And trying to blend in with the commercial traffic.

The reversal route back past Penang wouldn't normally be loaded for the KUL-PEK flight. However, would it be part of a canned company flight plan stored in the FMS for, say KUL-DEL or KUL-KHI? These canned flight plans seem to go in and out of favor depending on the carrier. Many planes can uplink the route directly to the box. However, internationally, sometime this doesn't work and a canned flight plan, even with some changes, may be less prone to error than typing in the whole thing from scratch.

The report from the New Straits Times about MH 370 descending to 5000 feet doesn't seem to be corroborated elsewhere so far.

DCRefugee,

Review ICAO Annex 13, then get back to us as to having the NTSB, AAIB, BEA takeover. That ain't happenin' due to international treaty.

rigby, is "yuk" a technical term or do you have something specific to say in that paragraph on "official sources"? You do know the legal relationship the US must abide by? If not, read Annex 13, too.

Takeover
 

Under Annex 13, Malaysia can request/obtain formal assistance or delegate responsibility to anyone they want at any time.

RE: " is "yuk" a technical term or do you have something specific to say in that paragraph on "official sources"? You do know the legal relationship the US must abide by? If not, read Annex 13, too."

Of course the US "helpers" must abide by Annex 13 restrictions. It's YUK that the Malaysians, who obviously have the same info, or could have it from US analysis sharing, aren't bringing it out in a venue where it can be asked about, confirmed, have some semblance of reliable fact. And in a timely fashion.

True, DCRefugee, however care to bet on the Malaysians doing so in a public way, admitting defeat? I didn't think so.

They certainly aren't doing a great, or even fair, job of it and I wouldn't expect much seeing as they are facing an historically difficult task with little capability to work it. But, them's the rules; I'm sure the US and others are assisting in every way possible. This is hideously difficult search using the few tools available, mostly tools being engineered from systems never designed to be used in that manner. The BEA was criticized until they finished the job reasonably well, perhaps excellently.

The thread search function is down now and I am unable to locate the superbly informative post from a satellite expert made here earlier today, but in it he said essentially that there is probably not a log of the earlier hourly Inmarsat pings. They are just written to an overwritable memory buffer and it's probably lucky the last ping had not been overwritten when Inmarsat searched for an MH370 record.

@MountainBear / Fire
 

But, after initiating the left turn, could the flightcrew have been cycling through the XYZ checklists to eliminate the causes and switched it off themselves, and been overcome/forgetting before they were able to switch it back on? Then the fire goes out*.

I've seen very intelligent and well-trained people freak out at the sight of a small fire, and the smoke/smells can become worse after the fire is out. Forgetting to flip a switch or two back into place wouldn't be totally surprising in a high-pressure situation. Just that one action causing all this prolonged agony, and more holes are lined up...


No, I'm not a pilot but I am an ex-investigator, and my work wouldn't have sent people down if I hadn't bottomed out every line of enquiry and spent months going through and double-checking evidence. Despite all the depravities of human nature I've seen firsthand and the lack of evidence here, I'm still of the belief that this event was caused by some kind of malfunction. (I'm rather frustrated that I can't reference the technical work I read earlier which explained the changes of direction, and what systems would have been disabled/enabled as part of XYZ system actions, just so I could link to it for you to critique, but I cleared my cache earlier. Gah.)

So, I ask of any pilots still reading this, if you smell smoke on the flightdeck, (and it's not pax trying to have a crafty fag in the loo), what would your actions be? You have your checklists to go through, you want to get the plane down on the ground ASAP, so you decide and head for your chosen airport; you know where you're going. You suspect you know what's causing the smoke, do you try something a little off the wall (in any way, not necessarily approaching coffin corner** when your plane's fully laden), or stick to procedure? And all the time, the smoke's just getting worse...


*Is there any record of inflight fires burning themselves out, or have they all escalated? Is it possible for the crew to have located the problem, acted correctly, and then been overcome? How fierce/smoke-heavy must the fire have been if flight crew, cabin crew and all pax are incapacitated, yet the plane continues flying? Any precedents?

**many opinions I've read find those FL readings dubious or likely to contain a high error ratio due to the methodology used to calculate, or as the 'US source' says 'may not be wholly reliable'. I'm taking most of the other readings, unless they are tested in the same circumstances and proved to be both reliable and accurate, with a pinch of salt.


Fire > action taken for landing > partial checklist completed > incapacitation of all > fire extinguished > plane wanders undetected.
It almost fits, but not quite. Total incapacitation and the generation of no additional ACARS messages seem a little hard to believe.

Bloxin's exploding oxygen bottle seems a better fit, apart from whether the aircraft would still 'ping', and no additional messages...
I wonder what the maintenance records say, what tyre maintenance was or wasn't done recently, or oxygen bottle servicing (remembering that lack of evidence is sometimes as important as the presence of evidence, as per 'the Curious Incident...') and so on. Was the runway at KL ever checked for debris from MH370?

tankering fuel
 

It is perfectly logical that Malaysian would be tankering fuel running up to China. It is a govt-owned carrier that reportedly is running well into the red. For all we know, the fuel guys up there will not extend credit, or keep a tight leash on the outstanding receivables, or are demanding a prepaid surety account, or have cut the carrier off completely. TWA got into that bind in its last days (actually, the last year). Nobody would sell them fuel on open account. Since Malaysia is a "producer," and the govt has its fingers in that pie, likely some brother-in-law has the supply contract and gets the fuel at say 17 cents a gal. and re-sells it to the Carrier at say $2.20. Meanwhile the Chinese guys are demanding cash up front at (pick your number) $4.00. The solution is driven by the economic realities: they tanker.

I noted that everybody was being very cagey about saying "the normal fuel load was taken on." Normal for what? Normal for the flight parameters, or normal for their not having open-account credit in Beijing? Or, normal for the brother-in-law? Nobody knows. Hey, it's Asia; things are opaque as a matter of course. :O

When your "always on" device shorts and catches on fire, you'd wish it had a breaker to fully disable it...