And what lousy maritime assets the Malaysians have. A few King Airs and an occasionally servicable MP configured Herc. Yet they have a responsibility to surveil some of the most important international waterways in the world.

But of course, they seem to have one of every available export fighter aircraft from Russia and the US to help keep the face of their Borat-like military leadership.

New report in Australian newspaper
 

For what it's worth:

Malaysian Airlines plane: Military believes it tracked missing jetliner over Strait of Malacca

I tend to subscribe andrasz' post entirely.
Lonewolf 50 also raises good points. As the amount of leaks and conflicting reports grows, it is becoming obvious that Malaysia Airlines and Malaysian authorithies are being withholding information since day 1. However, this does not necessarily suggest they are deliberately lying or are part of "cover up". Probably, they have themselves conflicting reports and are simply trying to coordinate and verify all information before going public.

That said, if the information from the military source reported earlier today by Reuters will be confirmed, then this changes whe whole picture completely.

Too many ifs, too many unverified reports, too many questions still unanswered. To all those who ask about ACARS: until the logs will be released, if ever, we can only speculate. The information provided by the airline so far are inconclusive, at the very least.

If you read his theory carefully, he says ' It’s plausible that a fuselage section near the SATCOM antenna adapter failed, disabling satellite based - GPS, ACARS, and ADS-B/C - communications, and leading to a slow decompression that left all occupants unconscious.'

ADS-B/C = transponder, I think?

phil
Not sure of your experience in Air Defense Radar, or AAW (Aegis and NTU on USN ships of 80's and 90's is my experience), but a missile heading toward a target gives off a different cue to the radar operator than an aircraft descending and crossing at speeds considerably slower than a missile. ;) That said, I am not up to scratch on Malaysian Air Defense kit, it's been over 20 years since I was at sea in that area and I am sure much has changed.

Shot Down?
 

If it was tracked by military radar returning back over the Malay peninsula, but all comms from the aircraft were lost, surely there would have at least been an intercept?

I can't help but wonder if they then shot it down, fearing an attack? That might explain the (until now) quiet search in the Malacca Straights while they let a multinational SAR effort continue in the wrong place.

Carjockey

Yes I know. Reuters quote the air force chief Rodzali Daud as saying ………” It was flying about 1,000 meters lower than its previous altitude”

Just a missing punctuation mark after 1000 meters makes all the difference in that sentence. So I am not sure what he actually said.

This reminds me of the initial AF447 thread. Some of the same members also.

Theories we can (almost) 100% eliminate:
1. Explosion (bomb or otherwise) near last known point (loss of transponder). This would have generated large pieces of debris over a large area, and we would have found this by now.
2. Vertical dive into water (suicide or hijacking) near LKP. This would have caused severe fragmentation at impact, and we would almost certainly have a more compact field of debris. Even if the everything sank and was embedded in mud as some suggest, the fuel tanks would have ruptured. There were tons of Jet A on board, and this would have surfaced even if nothing else did. Oil is still coming up from the Arizona. In addition, there would seem little point turning off the transponder.
3. AF447 type of event near LKP. Loss of control, and pilots too busy to make a call. Again, we would have found debris by now.

So the plane is not near LKP, and so the plane flew on without communication.

4. Failure of pressurisation and unrecognised incapacitation of crew? Does not explain transponder.
5. Fire, loss of all electrics and comms, plane continued to fly, but crashed due to disorientation etc. Hard to believe such an event could be so quick and so complete as to prevent a call (even if just ACARS).

That seems to eliminate the "innocent" causes of the plane flying past LKP. We are then left with less innocent causes.

So someone disabled all comms and transponder, and flew the plane some distance from LKP. Could have landed or crashed, but most likely crashed.

Why fly on only to crash? Well terrorists are now less keen to claim responsibility - if the plane can't be found it is hard to be implicated. Plus not knowing what happened is more effective at inciting terror than knowing - and terror would appear to be the only motive if no hostage, no ransom, and no demand.

If it was the pilots flying, there may have been concern about the reputation of family left behind. Plus suicide may have implications on any insurance payout.

Chill
 

What about if it came down somewhere central on the Malaysian peninsula? Picking out bits from what's been reported to go from the original search area (last known contact driven) to the west side of the coast implies it was turning back and would cross back over the land. The MSAs are pretty high in the area up to 9000ft, if it went down in the mountainous areas it could be difficult to locate, especially under a canopy of trees (although I'm not familiar with the terrain details of that area). Maybe the crew were doing their best to manage a catastrophic issue caused by whatever event. However I cannot fathom why the ELT has not been detected unless it was an instant catastrophic event that disabled it but then that would put it closer to the area of last known contact. Unless it was a high G impact of course. However I would have thought ATC/military would clearly track the aircraft if it changed course, surely it would look out of place on radar even if it was trying to make land fall somewhere?

Mobile phones ringing
 

Please can we put this recurrent theory to bed.

Short version - the ringing tone returned to the caller is bogus.

Why it happens -
Cellular phone systems first try to route a call to the last cell which was in contact with the phone. If this fails the system tries to locate the phone to other cells and then tries to divert to voicemail.
All of this searching takes time, during which a caller hearing silence would probably hang up before the call can be connected so the system returns a ringing tone to the caller. In most cases this is a successful strategy but it does mean that if the phone is not eventually found the caller is misled into believing that it is working OK but not being answered.

re posts by TheShadow (1795) and Bobman84 (1821)

I linked to the FAD/Cracks on page 73, and read about the wing repair with great interest.

Not speculating, just asking: is there a possibility that either of these two separate issues could have combined on this plane?

Comm failure
 

Comm failure procedures Malaysia AIP:

http://aip.dca.gov.my/aip%20pdf/ENR/...1.6/Enr1_6.pdf

If the plane flew on, I have some doubts about 180 turn and overflying Malaysian peninsula.
1. Although late at night, it was early in the flight. Many passengers would have been awake, and crew may have been doing meal service. People would have noted a 180 turn, even if gradual - although I think the moon had just set.
2. Some people would have been watching flightplan on their TV. Yes the inflght entertainment could have been turned off, but then you heighten suspicion that things are not right.
3. If they crossed the peninsula, I suspect some people would have tried to make a call on their phone. Even if they believed it was a routine turn back for minor tech problem. Especially if they feared something worse. 9/11 changed how people respond to these events - people are less inclined to sit back, do what they are told, and hope for the best.
4. Very difficult to totally subdue 220 uncooperative people, confiscate phones etc


Many passengers don't turn off their phone or even put in flight mode. Just put it on silent so don't get caught. Be interesting to know if any passenger phones tagged a network (ie connected to network even if no call made) - I am sure this has been checked out.


My guess is that someone turned off comms and transponder, flew plane somewhere, and then crashed. More likely a pilot than a hijacker - if only because a hijacking would be more likely to be noted by passengers, things would have become unmanageable, and we would have a crash closer to LKP. And I suspect more likely that the plane never overflew land.

Hopefully some closure for the relatives soon.

fatfish
 

Because it hadn't been confirmed?

I really don't see any big conspiracy over this change of SAR mission from the east of to the west of the peninsula. When the flight first 'went missing', it was positioned east of the peninsula heading NNE so naturally the search was concentrated there.

In the meantime the military has said privately to the government 'hold on we are pretty sure we saw something heading west without identification but need too look at our raw primary data to get a better picture' (and check that nothing classified was being revealed!) On the strength of this some assets were diverted west to the Straits with the caveat "We can't say why" presumably because all the information wasn't in yet, and now the military have come back with confirmation that they did track an unidentified aircraft heading west towards the Straits and today that information was made official.

What's the big deal?

The system pages the mobile in EVERY cell of the Location Area at the outset. When not in a call, the system does NOT know which cell a mobile is in, it only knows the Location Area. Only when the mobile responds to the page should the ring tone be played to the caller (less networks which offer ringback tones). If the mobile does not respond to the page, the network can send the call to VM (if the subscriber has paid for it). When it hits the VM platform, there may be a second or two of ringing before the call is answered by the the system.

About ELTs...
 

There has been a number of posts made recently that mention ELT (Emergency Locator Transmitters). For the benefit of those who are not familiar with aircraft electronics, there are two main types of ELTs: those which are intended for use on land, and those intended for use on (or in) water.

Virtually all civil aircraft are fitted with a fixed ELT that is located towards the aft end of the fuselage (this to minimize damage in the event of a crash). This ELT is connected to a small antenna on the outside of the aircraft. The fixed ELT is typically activated automatically by G force, although it is usually possible to turn it on manually using a switch in the flight compartment. This type of fixed ELT is of little or no value if the aircraft lands (or crashes) in water and then sinks, because the radio signal emitted is attenuated by the water above it.

The second type of ELT is one that is designed for use if the aircraft lands (or crashes) on water. It transmits the same type of signal as the fixed ELT described above, but it is normally stowed in a quick-release bracket within the cabin, the idea being that it will be manually removed from its mount and deployed by the crew in the event of ditching. This type of ELT activates automatically when it comes in contact with water, and like the other type, can also be activated manually. But, if it is not removed from the mounting bracket and deployed manually after a ditching, the signal it emits will likely not be detected. Same as with the fixed ELT, if this maritime ELT sinks with the aircraft, the radio signal that it emits will be attenuated by the water above it.

Below is a photo showing a marine-type ELT as installed in an Air Canada aircraft. It is stowed in one of the overhead baggage bins, close to the forward left cabin door.

Here is a link to a document published by Honeywell (a manufacturer of ELTs) that provides additional information about the various types of ELTs available. Honeywell 406 MHz ELTs

Maritime ELT, as installed in an Air Canada aircraft
http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps218d0102.jpg

phil, I get your drift, :cool::ok: and I think we are drifting off topic as well.

The piece of the puzzle that is making me scratch my head: if the plane flies for about an hour in directions not part of their original route to PEK, why no comms? Pilot incapacitation or equipment failure, or both? :confused: More puzzle pieces needed to bring this picture into focus.

And yet it's been accomplished on a number of occasions.

To add to the enigma, from the New Straits Times:

"MARANG: Eight villagers here lodged police reports today claiming that they had heard a loud noise last Saturday coming from the direction of Pulau Kapas and believed it was linked to the disappearance of a Malaysia Airlines (MAS) flight on that day."

The Transponder(ATC) antennas are separate from SATCOM antennas and would not be effected.


http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17...7.jpg~original

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17...a.jpg~original

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17...b.jpg~original