rigbyrigz,
thank you for mentioning the "fly in the oitment" and delving into this issue.

I read your last posts and all the answers you got. My question is: was there any official confirmation by the Malaysian authorities about the left-turn allegedly programmed into the FMS and reported in the last ACARS at 1:07? I am asking because I confess I could not keep track much of the news during the last 24 hours and I may have overlooked this detail.

In principle, I completely agree with the posters who answered your questions. Changing a flight plan is a matter of few keystrokes, no matter whether you have a secondary flight plan prepared or you change you original flight plan "on the fly" by adding/deleting one or more waypoints.
The key point is whether the pilot and/or the F/O did this before 1:21. Any official confirmation about this?
Thanks.

There are two radars (plus Jindalee, the prototype) about 900 miles apart. Each has a Tx and Rx array about 1/2 mile long separated by about 50 miles. JORN also relies on transponders along the coast to provide real time data on the ionosphere. These are typically 500+ miles from the radar arrays.

Jorn is BIG. The Cocos archipelago is only about 5 miles across.

Very interesting question. Yesterday this was discussed to some length in this thread. Probably computer modelling is the way to go. The shrinking that happened to the search area from yesterday to today is an indication that they are doing constant simulation runs. By doing more runs and feeding in more data and assumptions they can home in a little bit more on the target.

The data would be:
- set of ping arcs
- wind vectors on assumed flight path
- atmospheric parameters(temp,pressure,humidity) and resulting engine performance

Assumptions would be:
- Fuel on board
- TAS which puts restraints on fuel flow
- Altitude which puts restraints on TAS and fuel flow
- assumptions on HDG setting or flightplan in FMC
- assumptions on throttle setting


The model can become quite complex.

Remember an Air Trafficker telling us, quite a long time ago, never go to SBY, they will lose the return and it may not come back immediately, which 'blinds' them, also, an inadvertent emergency squawk can be easily sorted by R/T within seconds.

No the B777 will not reach FL450 through a "slight climb" manoeuvre, climbing to that altitude requires special actions and forced manoeuvres, as explained in details by a fellow 777 pilot a few pages back.

The pilot deleting records from his flight simulator will be a very temporary inconvenience.

Look up forensic data recovery.
Even physically smashing the hard drive leaves data that can be recovered.

STOP Transponders being switched off. Now!!
 

12 Days in and still no commitment from any Transport Authority, Airline or Aircraft producer that Transponders be permanently locked in some way???

Will we learn nothing from this and 9/11 ???

Sorry, I put an exclamation mark in but should have added a smiley, that statement in brackets was definitely tongue in cheek! :)

And another reason for primary radar height finding to be inaccurate is that the size of the aircraft gave a strong radar target that fooled the height finding algorithms.

It is nothing unusual to collect the funds for the Hull Insurance from the relevant insurers. Most policies say something like "when an aircraft has disappeared and not been seen for a period of at least 48 hours" insurers will pay the agreed hull value. In doing so they will take any rights of salvage over the aircraft, thus if it were to be found in one peice it would be insurers property to dispose of how they saw fit.

Remembering the aircraft is not owned by MAS, therefore any funds will be owed to the lessor of this aircraft.

The bigger issue will be the SAR costs, as has already been said, the AF SAR costs were $40m, in this loss searching in so many places the costs could exceeed $40m, most airline insurance policies will cover SAR but with a limit of about $10m leaving the airline to foot bill.

Admissions that the waypoint sent was only the original course.
Refusal to answer whether the plane actually flew to the waypoints zigzaging as previosusly reported. (Saying we have moved past that.)
Before I had some faith in them. I now sense a coverup.
Of course the no new way point activated in message messes up several pages of this topic, and the no waypoints will be a few more if true.

Pont. Nav:
 

I was taught to do the same thing when I flew something small, pointy and fast.

However, on "modern" airliner-type transponders there is no need because one changes the squawk by pressing the Clear button, then simply pressing the four buttons corresponding to the given squawk.

I guess one could accidentally press 77 or 76 or 75, but that would be silly, given that one is sitting in a comfortable seat in shirtsleeves, not pulling "g" and fumbling with a gloved finger in a dark part of the cockpit.




edited to add: I agree with calypso.

Turn towards the nearest suitable runway, run the appropriate checklist. Just as he would have practiced many times in the simulator during his career. The company simulator, not his own.

I would keep well away from undocumented home made procedures. These are complex machines and you can run into pretty severe unintended consequences if in the spirit of the moment you go off piste. Avionics fire, fumes, smoke is a well covered scenario with well defined containment actions planned by boeing engineers and test pilots with far more in depth knowledge and time than I would have if suddenly confronted with the problem.

Said checklist including 7700 on the squawk and a MAYDAY call..

Indeed. Anyone looked into Langkawi airport as the runway he might have been heading to? To me this is the theory that makes sense..
Checklist also involves cutting electrical busses, refer to 1998 crash of Swissair DC-10 off Nova Scotia, where fire was the cause, and transponders and communications were shut off as they pulled the busses.
Climbing to FL450 also appears to me as an attempt to put out fire; hijackers climbing to FL450 do not make sense.

OK here we go again on this issue. A transponder is an electronic component that as such can short out, cause phantom 76 (emergency) codes or in my case a phantom echo 100 feet above me. Without an off switch I would have had to land or vacate the control zone. Any electronic component needs a CB and/or off switch.

All the theories about emergency returns are negated by the fact that the FO made his 'laid back' RTT response after the transponder was disabled and, now we are told, after the left turn.

You. Repeatedly........

Someone who actually flies the 777 was quite clear, earlier today, that this is not how it's done.

Turn towards the nearest suitable runway, run the appropriate checklist. Just as he w
 

Absolutely. 100%.

Last RT Call
 

The last RT call is not a proven fact. Many times call signs are confused and other aircraft reply. One of the most common phrases heard in the cockpit is,"Was that for us?"