I don't think this one is a problem. Two reasons for a start:

1) To protect the dignity of the family (very important in those cultures)

2) To enable them to get the full life insurance payout

The "clues" are probably fairly obvious, but until you have proof you have nothing at all in legal terms.

That's why I think the search will never end.

A process change could provide immediate risk reduction
 

Don't Hang Up- I understand your concern-

"Every electrical system or circuit breaker removed from the control of the flight crew is an added fire risk.

Let's not be in such a rush to quick fixes for one in ten million risks that make more-likely risks worse."

But as I understand it, if current technology is mandated and processes are updated, we could almost immediately reduce the risk of entirely lost aircraft where no one is aware of a potential problem and the dragnet isn't thrown out until it is too late.

1. All commercial AC of x size/over water routes should be required to use a satellite based acars system that trickles out a small amount of info every 5 minutes- If it stops reporting for more than x minutes- a minor problem is assumed, however the alert processes is started and escalates over time.

2. All commercial AC of x size/over water routes should be required to use a satellite based communication system like Immersat with a minimum of 5 minute handshakes- If it stops reporting for more than x minutes- a minor problem is assumed, however the alert processes is started and escalates with time.

(Note that I am talking about a potential process-- not specific technologies, ie where ACARS stops and Sat com starts-)

Of course, if this leads to a crash, it doesn't give us the crash coordinates- However,
1. We are altered to a potential problem, we know where the AC was at the time and we can escalate as needed.
2. The search area would be greatly reduced
3. Some type of assistance might be possible (a military AC leading an electrically comprised AC to a suitable runway)
3. No one would imagine they could get away with an intentional MH370 like event.

Forget about the transponder for a moment- there are too many reasons it could be turned off and the alerts described above would be easily automated.

Costs would be limited to current technology, process changes aren't drastic, and it's unlikely to set off false alarms- ie 5 minutes after an alert, an aircraft with minor electrical issues may report in and stop the alert.

Or 10 minutes after an alert, if officials can't make a radio connection, it's likely that something's going on. Maybe just electrical, but we're aware and looking at potential to assist?

Other than fear of change, and possible satellite bandwidth, does anyone see major holes in this thinking?

re 10982
 

The post of IanW and the reference contained within, is the most important for everybody.We all live in a world which is virtually shrinking,even my present keystrokes are probably being monitored from afar!
Unwilling taxpayers worldwide are paying for defence systems which generally are useless to most of us and I think the time has come for a better use of people's money.Ruling elites have to mandate better regulations covering air travel.
Like any other human activity,if one type of event has happened,there is no earthly reason to state that it has only been an isolated event,the same type of event can again happen.
Just take a quick peep at the nuclear industry and it's massive spend on safety,bad things do happen.

http://www.pprune.org/engineers-tech...ml#post6913079

^From a guy who lives in Malaysia

@Dont Hang Up: I entirely agree. There are far too many people piling in here with apparently quick fixes, without looking at the wider situation and the probabilities of different occurrences. I'm not at all sure I'd want to fly on aircraft where the crew have no control over some systems, just on the off chance that they might have some homicidal intent. The legal profession has a saying, "hard cases make bad laws", which I think applies to a lot of these ideas.

OTOH, major mishaps are so rare in "1st World operated" big jets that every case you react on is going to be a rare hard case.

This isn't the 1950s when stuff used to crash all the time. When it comes to improving airline safety, one has been scraping out the bottom of the barrel for many years now, reacting to hugely improbable events.

Look at AF447. "Extremely improbable" (though most old timers would say "it was only a matter of time"). Yet probably every airline has changed its training after that.

Even if MH370 is never found, it's obvious that there are gaping holes in the system (the ease with which an airliner can vanish in a remote area) which need to be plugged, and which can be plugged relatively very cheaply.

And that's assuming one assumes this wasn't a criminal act. But if it was, and it happens again, you will have two jets vanishing and you will still be totally clueless.

IFF another aircraft does a similar disappearing act flying out of a busy airport and vanishing, then I can see many people being reluctant to fly. There will be an extreme drop in the public trust in flight crews and aircraft generally. A second disappearance could be an industry killing event.

This is why the airline industry worldwide must get systems in place to ensure that all aircraft are tracked and remain tracked regardless of flight crew actions.

There are existing on-board systems like ADS-C that could do this, but it will require mandates from ICAO and the ANSPs to stop the beancounters insisting they are switched off.

Not a pilot but a historian. There were very few real facts known about this event right from the start and those that were known seemed subject to any number of interpretations. Now it is theories about theories based on speculation. The truth behind most historical events only really comes to light with a significant concrete discovery. When other news gets quiet expect more 'theories' to surface as journalists try to earn their salary for that particular week .....

Response to RichardC10 5/5 post
 

Apologies for being slow to respond and thank you for your further analysis.

For me, with the official release of the Inmarsat data, the roles of BFO and BTO are a bit clearer. I still think that the inferred location for the first point is somewhat problematic, and I am concerned that this casts doubt on the BFO calibration for the remaining points. The BTO seems a lot clearer, in placing the aircraft on the "ping rings". However, there are a lot of assumptions being made about the aircraft's southerly path that could significantly shift the most likely area along the rings.

On a first principles basis, I am still troubled about the role of probability in the analysis. To be honest, in my opinion, a full "Monte-Carlo" simulation would probably be the best way to go. Since we haven't yet seen the Inmarsat "model", we can't yet tell whether this has been done.

Agreed. But then we assume the scenario when pilot on purpose flies such a confusing track (frequent heading changes) to maximally confuse investigators. If you think about it - the same 'rings' could be generated by millions of trajectories, some probably quite spread out in directions, if this is the case, if we are dealing with such conniving person in control of that flight - we have no chance finding this aircraft.

Ex Prime Minister of Malaysia, Martiar Mohammed, never slow to accuse the a West (usually Australia) for every woe befalling his country, has informed the world via his personal blog that the CIA know what happened to MH370 and that the search in the Indian Ocean is a waste of time and money. On the last point, the man may be right.

I did.

If you knew the accurate groundspeed hour by hour you will finish up with a very narrow probable track band.

As you increase the speed range you will get a wider band.

I presume from successive Doppler they have been able to deduce a reasonable accurate speed range hence the track band was determined and the cessation of transmissions determined the track box length.

As there is uncertainty between transmission cessation and aircraft crash they would attempt to refine the box based on estimated fuel exhaustion. Fuel burn is probably the most problematical of the assumptions, next is the descending flight path once transmissions ceased.

The flight path could be near vertical as some have supposed or a shallow glide in any direction.

And lastly there are the pings.

I haven't seen any claims along that line; I think they are delighted just to be able to tell if it was moving towards the satellite or away from it. That's how they knew it went south instead of north.

The speed is calculated from a 777s' performance envelope (they knew how much fuel it had, and when it presumably ran out.)

... if it flew straight, not circling in between, or zig-zagging a bit here and there.

The zigzags would have had to be very consistent otherwise the arc angles would not have been uniformly spaced.

The aircraft vector in relation to the satellite will exhibit a Doppler shift or did I miss something?

You've got it right, but I don't think the doppler shift provides enough precision to determine speed. But I don't know that it doesn't either. I just haven't heard any claims of such.

You have a good point about the linear pattern of the later shifts displayed in the burst chart. That does indicate continous cruise with no turns.

Propduffer, I suspected you referred to Doppler as a speed indicator; I didn't, I referred to it as a direction indicator - Doppler low to mean opening range.

olasek, in theory. In practice at the precise moment of the ping time the aircraft would have had to present the same Doppler as the previous pings.

I feel it likely that the person flying the plane wasn't aware of the ongoing handshakes between the satellite and the aircraft. Everything else was turned off - transponder, ACARS, no response to ATC. Why leave another form of "communication" alive - unless you were unaware of it.

So I think you have to assume a relatively constant velocity once established on the track south. If you believed you were completely "dark", the most important consideration was distance. The further away you got, the less likely you would ever be found.

Anyway assuming a constant velocity is already a difficult enough task. To try and calculate the effects of random changes during this final leg would appear pointless on the grounds of futility.


The recent comment about the inflight entertainment is intriguing. Things started to happen while passengers would still have been awake and some would have been watching flight path (or whatever moving map package was part of the IFE). So is may have been necessary to disable the IFE so passengers were unaware of the turn back. If so, that implies the turn back was very gradual. If on the other hand the plan was a steep climb with the packs off to disable the passengers, the IFE doesn't really matter. Why worry about the IFE if the passengers were about to be aware there was something wrong but would shortly become incapacitated. So something here doesn't quite fit.

The other thing is the passenger phones. I know some hear are sick of discussions about phones. But after 2 months searching I don't think we are in a position to discount any possible information that could aid understanding. A low level flight across Malaysia would have generated calls from any able passengers. And also handset registration with the phone networks from any phones left (on even if all the passengers were disabled at this point). So that doesn't make sense either. Possibly a phone jammer. Even an accomplice in the cabin could not have ensured that all phones were put in flight mode and / or turned off.

The other thing that would concern me as the pilot would be the chance that one passenger (and it would only take one) might have a sat phone on board.

The Inmarsat packets from the A/C contained an identifier code which has been compared to a MAC address. The identity of these packets as being from MH370 has been positivitly confirmed.
As for the radar: the Vietnamese state that they saw it turn around (circa 1:22) Thai radar picked up what could only be the same target approching Kota Bharu at 1:28 and the Malaysians picked up what can only be the same track shortly after that.

There is no doubt that this was MH370.

Looking at the Inmarsat data, the variation in BFO between the contacts is such that I cannot see how a reliably accurate determination of BFO at each of the handshakes can be determined based only on the one value. Way back we heard about some sort of signal 'elevation' determination at the satellite ("40 degree arcs") - was that a false report or was it in fact simply referring to the BTO?

Do I understand that there is NO 'best fit' northerly route based on the BTO/BFOs?