To clarify incorrect information that leads to the wrong scenarios and assumptions:
- I have asked pilot friends and between us we have over 100,000 commercial hours. None of us know how to turn the Acars off in the flight deck. Cannot be done.
- the Acars does report events such as off and on blocks but not any flight plan info. CPDLC does but that is different. Singapore has CPDLC connections KL and Vietnam do not so they would not be logged on and so no one can know what was programed into their FMC flight plan. No one has any information as to how the aircraft was operated as the aircraft does not report any to the ground unless through CPDLC or the transponder. Ignore "BBC or CNN has learned" as the only way the conduct of the flight will be understood will be through finding the black box data.

I believe most probable is the theory of smoke and a turn back and all overcome or exploding oxygen bottles (google Qantas exploding oxygen bottles and images). If this occurred then the pilots may have had time to action a return but also become unconscious and the plane flies on.

Nothing ever does.

Jilted said

They have been told by "officials" the WP change was included in the last ACARS transmission.

Other news organizations do not re-report the same afterwards unless they themselves could find an offical to confirm it to them (or the report runs with something like "BBC reports, we can not confirm" thereby eliminating the possibility the re-reporting organization can ever be sued out of existence)

You can only "report" what the experts involved tell you; that is what they are trying to do. Do not confuse "report" and "commentate" though, as those are two drastically different things

@Pontius Navigator

As far as I can tell there is no single airway joining up IGARI and VAMPI. The aircraft would have to fly IGARI-VKB-VPB-GUNIP-VAMPI. 4 separate airways!

Then from VAMPI to GIVAL, you can only fly DCT. If hugging the edge of the FIRs was the aim, it would make much more sense to fly VPB-GIVAL, which are connected by an airway, rather than go via GUNIP and VAMPI which is a dogleg!

Pontius Navigator,

I am not saying these are fir lines, as they do not match said lines from what people can tell.

But they indicate something, obviously, as they are clearly marked on this map. (I will search my history later and see if I can find the article I first grabbed the image from - although, I know for a fact it was in another language so not sure how helpful it will be even if I do manage to locate the article)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BirwabjCIAACtVF.png:large

Try watching CNN, featuring our old friend Scary Mary Schiavo and endless nonsensical speculation. I think they may change their name to the missing airliner channel.

Their latest tidbit is that the turn meant there was a waypoint entered into the FMS because some pilot (Robert Goyer) says so. "The almost certain explanation would be that these waypoints were programmed into the flight management system of the 777-200, a task that would have been beyond the abilities of anyone but a professional pilot."

I guess Mr. Goyer has no respect for the folks who actually build and program the FMS. Does he think the engineers are not smart enough to program a waypoint into an FMS, even if they are not pilots? Or anyone else who works with, simulates, or repairs avionics....

This is what is passing for "news." This is CNN. I don't mean to rag on just CNN, because nearly all of the major outlets worldwide are doing similar.

Why is aviation reporting so challenging for the media?

ROFPML

Despite the (presumably?) unintended irony from the poster, it's sad days for aviation and PPRUNE when this is the "quality" of post that one can and does expect.

Many thanks to the tenacious, informed folk with the patience of Job who keep trying to keep this thread somewhere in the correct universe.

For anyone wishing to explore exactly where the inmarsat "arcs" are located.
This is a detailed description of how to use Google Earth to do it.
No speculation, no hypotheses. Just instructions, and a table I have calculated to take into account the distance of the satellite.
____________________________________________________________ _

Detailed Instructions:

We can't know how accurate the 40 degree ring is. Its probably been rounded, measurement accuracy is uncertain, final position of MH370 may be an uncertain distance away.

But it seems to be the solidest thing we have, and the Aussies seem to believe in it, as their new search area is bang on.
Using Google Earth, you too can explore exactly where such Inmarsat "arcs" go, using the "ruler" in "tools" at the top.

Proceed thus:
Search for the point directly below the IOR satellite, by entering "0N 64E"
Now open the little ruler window. Do this by finding "Tools" at the very top, and clicking "Ruler"'
In the little ruler window, choose "Line" at the top, and set units to "nautical miles"
Go back to the map…you'll see a bigger squarish cursor.
Click on the point 0N 64E, which should be in the middle, this sets the start of the ruler line.
Now zoom out (mouse wheel) to see up to (say) asia. Drag the cursor (say) North, making a line. Make it 2600nm long. This point is on the 40 degree arc.
You can still zoom and scroll the map normally, the ruler line will stick to your cursor.
Now feel free to explore where the line ends, keeping its length about 2600nm long.

And of course you can drag down south to explore the southern arc. Just remember 2600 nautical miles.

Clicking will freeze the line, so you can scroll about etc, but it can still be picked up and moved more by clicking its end point (a hand appears). The "save" button will make the line permanent (and unchangeable). Any other click deletes it. After saving, you can draw another line.

Now you can estimate for yourself how far MH370 might have deviated away from the given final 40deg ping arc, and factor in your own uncertainty, by increasing or decreasing the 2600 value..

You could even explore your theories of likely distance travelled, by doing a similar thing from whatever start point you like, using "path" instead of "line. This will not delete your previous line to the arc.

So why 2600 nautical miles? Not 3000, as another poster suggested?
I have corrected for the distance to the satellite, instead of assuming it infinitely high.
Here is a table of distances for other arcs.

Angle Distance (nm)
10 4284
20 3708
30 3147
35 2871
39 2653
40 2599
41 2545
45 2330
50 2064
60 1539
70 1021
80 509

PM me if you would like to check the formula I have derived. My qualifications to do so include both science and maths degrees - though in fact schoolboy trig is all that is required.

All this does assume that the satellite is truly stationary above the earth. Orbital variations are I think unlikely to introduce an error of more than 60 nautical miles.

Hi Feathered- Indeed, why is accurately reporting about ANYTHING so challenging for the media? In this case it is just more noticeable because actual pilots will immediately pick up on the BS... but I am sure we are served just as many lazy, poorly researched reports about Crimea, the Pistorius trial, or any other issue!

More duff gen
 

[QUOTE][/To clarify incorrect information that leads to the wrong scenarios and assumptions:
- I have asked pilot friends and between us we have over 100,000 commercial hours. None of us know how to turn the Acars off in the flight deck. Cannot be done.
- the Acars does report events such as off and on blocks but not any flight plan info. CPDLC does but that is different. Singapore has CPDLC connections KL and Vietnam do not so they would not be logged on and so no one can know what was programed into their FMC flight plan. No one has any information as to how the aircraft was operated as the aircraft does not report any to the ground unless through CPDLC or the transponder. Ignore "BBC or CNN has learned" as the only way the conduct of the flight will be understood will be through finding the black box data.
[QUOTE]

100,000 hours and you post that?:ugh:

Controller pilot data link communication= CPDLC
That is the way ATC TALKS to aircraft via satellite
AUtomatic Dependent Surveillance = ADS and is the way ATC tracks a plane. Within VHF LOS it is ADC-b as I explained about 300 pages ago
ADS-C is used in conjunction with CPDLC when out of VHF range

Does anyone know what size the 'large metal container', no doubt filled with early mangosteens, is likely to be, in this quote from the Telegraph?

"One of the positions on the plane that would be filled with a large metal cargo container is unaccounted for on the manifest.."

@DS if you get any information about the schedule for loading cargo into the aircraft, would you be so kind as to add it to your timeline of events?

must try harder
 

Careful, you're both on the verge of appearing to selectively filter information in the public domain to suit your own purpose/bias/beliefs. This isn't a witch-hunt or religious gathering. Science only please fellas...

Start here, work backwards: https://www.google.com/#q=MH370+waypoint+fms+acars


Original source = members of the investigation team, corroborated by US officials. The MH presser "walkback" was in response to a journo whom had misunderstood "commanded left turn into FMS before last comms" to mean "commanded left turn before last comms", two VERY different prospects to which the MH rep correctly responded "there was no left turn prior to last comms", which certain clueless journos then reported as a backtrack on original [actual] statement!!!


For those paying attention, from several days ago:
"ACARS report at 01:07 included unplanned course update with more than one new waypoint entered"

Which is precisely why the language from all authorities around the world immediately shifted to include phrases like:

"deliberate act"
"human intervention"
"act of piracy"
"it is conclusive"
"hijacking or terrorism"


It's all out there, man, if you're not wearing blinkers or bright pink sunnies that is...

Link to a simple map showing FIR boundaries in that region, if anyone is interested: http://www.swld.com.au/images/air_asia_FIR.jpg

Not a straight line boundary between Thai and Malaysian airspace.

Link to Suninmyeyes post in this thread:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post8387369

Suninmyeyes is a noteworthy individual. He (she?) has made some of the most insightful, meaningful and professional posts I've seen on this fourm.

Suninmyeyes came up with the most likely and best explanation early in the Asiana thread. Major cudos to Sunimmyeyes once again!

One question, how many pings pings are there? I've seen tell of just a final ping being available but there are also reports that the last 2 pings are essentially similar. I know there was one per hour but did that data persist? How about that noise about the plane must be moving to have a ping? Surely they must mean powered up?

"Why is aviation reporting so challenging for the media?"

At last, a question on the thread I can help with.

Anybody who knows something in depth finds that the media treatment of their specialism usually falls somewhere between incomprehension and incompetence. It's not just aviation, although I suspect the more complex systems that are involved, the more the media are inclined to treat it as witchcraft.

Citation from an official source please.

One "fact" that has not been mentioned much here is the (supposed) radio contact between MH 370 and another aircraft in which an MH 370 pilot (likely the FO) was reported to be "mumbling".

As reported (and the source seems to be MISSING MH370: Pilot: I established contact with plane - General - New Straits Times on 9 March):

- the pilot was ahead of MH370
- they were asked by Vietnamese flight control to contact MH 370 just after 1.30am to ask its position, as the Vietnamese could not locate the aircraft
- they did so and established contact: "We managed to establish contact with MH370 just after 1.30am and asked them if they have transferred into Vietnamese airspace."
- but: "There were a lot of interference ... static ... but I heard mumbling from the other end. That was the last time we heard from them, as we lost the connection."
- "The voice on the other side could have been either Captain Zaharie (Ahmad Shah, 53,) or Fariq (Abdul Hamid, 27), but I was sure it was the copilot"
- "Following the silence, a repeat request was made by the Vietnamese authorities to try establishing contact with them."

Based on the timing, the reported destination (NRT), the statement that the aircraft was a 777 and was "far into Vietnamese airspace when he was asked to relay" and the fact that the pilot knew enough to recognise the voices on MH 370, the relevant flight would appear to be MAS 88, KUL-NRT, a 772, scheduled dep 23:35, which was near Da Nang at that time.

**If** this indeed occurred, it seems to me to be pretty important in working out causation as it would show:

- there was something wrong enough to cause incoherence and, it seems likely, no further subsequent contact;
- radio working, with Fariq speaking; but
- crucially: there is no attempt by MH 370 to hide itself (e.g. by simply not answering) and indeed there is action inconsistent with an attempt at stealth

The latter would be hard to reconcile with a rogue flight deck or intruder bent on stealth, unless it is the aftermath of a scenario similar to FedEx 705 with either: a rogue left able to fly stealthily and who does so, or no-one left able to continue flying.

So it would seem to be a major factor in pruning the probability tree to either (1) an accident with incomplete recovery due to incapacitation or (2) an intentional incident on the flight deck that left Fariq able to make that contact but then (a) left no-one able to aviate or (b) left someone aviate who was unable to or chose not to make contact.

So: what is the source and status of this "fact"? I haven't been able to find anything "official" (for what that's worth), but it seems unlikely that the NST would print something like that if it were complete fiction.

@Tokenbird

Fascinating that the reported flight track appear to follow the FIR boundaries. Would be great to overlay the track on your FIR map. The U turn when a/c touched the Indonesian FIR could be consistent with evasion. This would make sense if pilot thought he might have a tail/intercept/monitored after his crossing of the peninsula. If there was a low altitude over the Peninsula and Straits it would also be consistent with radar evasion. I think we have to give evasion a high probability given the known/likely data points.

@ xcitation

I've created such a picture on my flight planning software but didn't want to put the picture up here because my software provider might not want me posting screenshots of their software on the internet.

D.S. and TB, thank you.