Plea for release of data
 

Boeing, Rolls-Royce and Inmarsat have some data which has not been shared with the public. It is possible, perhaps even likely, that the unwashed public will not be able to make any more sense of the data than have the experts who have been analyzing it for more than a week. I agree with the principle that the authorities (governments and their experts) should have initial access to the data and should be given a reasonable time in secret to work with it. But, there comes a time when the public should be given a chance to do their own analysis. I think a week of secrecy is long enough and the time for disclosure has come.

I trust Boeing and Airbus, and the engine manufacturers, too. They are engineers whose integrity I trust. The government of Malaysia, not so much. The next of kin on passengers on flight MH370, in particular, should make a plea directly to Boeing, Rolls-Royce and Inmarsat to release their data or, in the alternative, for a description of the restrictions which have been imposed on their release of the data. In the latter case, the public would have a clearer idea of who is frustrating the data-flow. I see of the website MH370 Malaysian disappeared search rescue such a plea, and I support it.

At the third stroke ...
 

The time will be ... Whatever that particular 'system' is using.

I would expect ACARS, r/t recording, radar recording and indeed the aircraft to all be working to the same time, properly synchronised with an atomic clock somewhere. But then again, when trying to determine a sequence of events by reference to possibly different time-stamps ...

Just a passing thought, as the sequence of events seems to be being regarded as an absolute.

n6330v
 

Spot the difference:

1) "What baffles me the most is the fact that tangible data has not yet been released on dispatched fuel load. I would imagine that such a piece would be absolutely vital to an investigation focusing on range capabilities and potential routing."

2) "What baffles me the most is the fact that tangible data has not yet been investigated on dispatched fuel load. I would imagine that such a piece would be absolutely vital to an investigation focusing on range capabilities and potential routing."

Of course the fuel load and range is being analysed, but the investigation does not take place in public, nor should it.

Hi,

Well .. is not always true
Think about the terrorist Atta (plenty evidences In the trunk of his car)

Expect a fuel load that is good to go to the southwest of Australia. At least that's where they are looking now.

Assuming a "normal" fuel load for this flight was boarded when it departed at 00:41, and assuming the pinging at 8:11 is accurate, the aircraft was most likely flown until it ran out of fuel.

That tells me that whoever was once in control of the aircraft was disabled or dead at 8:11. The aircraft then crashed and could not have landed at an airstrip of any kind.

Thoughts?

In the ICAOs Asia / Pacific regional report dated 2010, I read about the implementation of an ADS-B air-ground surveillance system to facilitate data exchange in boundary areas between neighboring ACCs of States in that area. It appears ADS-B ground stations were under construction (since 2007)for sharing in the SE Asia Sub Region of Malaysia, Thailand, Laois, Cambodia, Vietnam, Indonesia and that operational trials were expected to be conducted by the end of 2010. ADS-B is recognised as being more accurate alternative surveillance solution to radar in areas where radar installations are impractical. Does any one know what happened to this plan? Was it up and running even partially?

@Lost in Saigon: Read the thread. Known (unverified):

* Last two pings came from same location = airframe not moving but operative.

I think we can rule out the fire and crash scenarios. Why steal a plane to then crash it?

"There are no coincidences. Everything has a reason. Your brain may not know the reason. It may never find out."

toffeez,

Although I agree with your outlook, as someone with quite a bit of expertise in public relations, I feel that transparency in crisis communication is fundamentally important in keeping the media flocks away from exactly what they're doing now. Releasing known and easily attainable information is an easy way of achieving transparency.

CPDLC
 

From this source

http://www.icao.int/APAC/Meetings/20...%20Updates.pdf

It was up and running but it's reliability was questionable so it was discontinued.
Supposedly to be up and running again in MAY 2014

Sorry, I missed that part about stationary pings.

Are you saying that is proof the aircraft landed or was ditched intact?

Maybe, maybe not. The location of the crashed aircraft - Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 was not discovered for over two months and then only after a ten days trek through the Andes by two of the survivors.

Media Comms was discussed in the UK press yesterday. Essentially they said neither MAS nor the Malaysian authorities had any experience in crisis communication.

They also noted that the MAS IT Department had activated a 'dark' website which was more transparent with its information.

'Released' to whom, the paparazzi? What are they going to do with it?

They don't even know [expected] what questions to ask.

Don't get me started on the "you have to climb and convert altitude to energy if you lose an engine during cruise" stuff he was spouting. And this guy supposedly flew?

Quite right, Cory Blade.

And in any case the CEO of MAS did answer this question a day or two ago.

waypoints and fixes
 

Having been retired for more time than I care to admit, just a thought....whilst flying on active route 1 , is it not possible to put in the fix page, any 5 letter waypoint ? Then at the desired "moment", a quick Heading Select around towards ones "fix " turns the aircraft towards the fix and then , having made the big turn to new desired route, time enough to build up ones new route, altho' perhaps not enough time as the plane appears to pass the first fix/waypoint and then turn hard back towards the next airway waypoint....assuming the flight paths shown initially are correct! Thus no need to construct Route 2 at all......

Of course not, otherwise we would all be a lot wiser by now. :ugh:

Yancey, as said earlier, real professionals are keeping out of it and only the professional talking heads getting a hansom pay check are on the box.

A question for actual B777 piloten only plz: So is it therefore possible that a B777-200ER could fly on with an incapacitated crew, no LNAV or VNAV, fuel burn GW and trim changes, and stay in the air no doubt with phugoid altitude excursions and heading changes typical of those reported by RMAF AD radar ? And of course, going near but not through the waypoints as alluded to by the latest Malaysian press conference effort.
If you tried it in the sim, what happened ?