jetblueguy22
Topic Author
Posts: 2509
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:26 am

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:05 pm

Due to length part 41 was locked for further contributions. Please feel free to continue your discussion in part 42:

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 1 (by Longhornmaniac Mar 7 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 2 (by LipeGIG Mar 7 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 3 (by SA7700 Mar 8 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 4 (by SA7700 Mar 8 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 5 (by SA7700 Mar 8 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 6 (by SA7700 Mar 9 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 7 (by SA7700 Mar 9 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 8 (by jetblueguy22 Mar 9 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 9 (by SA7700 Mar 10 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 10 (by SA7700 Mar 10 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 11 (by jetblueguy22 Mar 10 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 12 (by SA7700 Mar 10 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 13 (by SA7700 Mar 11 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 14 (by SA7700 Mar 11 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 15 (by jetblueguy22 Mar 11 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 16 (by SA7700 Mar 12 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 17 (by 777ER Mar 12 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 18 (by jetblueguy22 Mar 12 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 19 (by SA7700 Mar 13 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 20 (by SA7700 Mar 13 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 21 (by SA7700 Mar 13 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 22 (by SA7700 Mar 13 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 23 (by SA7700 Mar 14 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 24 (by SA7700 Mar 14 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 25 (by SA7700 Mar 14 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 26 (by SA7700 Mar 15 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 27 (by SA7700 Mar 15 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 28 (by jetblueguy22 Mar 15 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 29 (by SA7700 Mar 16 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 30 (by SA7700 Mar 16 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 31 (by jetblueguy22 Mar 16 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 32 (by ManuCH Mar 17 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 33 (by jetblueguy22 Mar 17 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 34 (by SA7700 Mar 18 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 35 (by SA7700 Mar 18 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 36 (by jetblueguy22 Mar 18 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 37 (by SA7700 Mar 19 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 38 (by jetblueguy22 Mar 19 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 39 (by SA7700 Mar 20 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 40 (by SA7700 Mar 20 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41 (by SA7700 Mar 20 2014 in Civil Aviation)

**********************************************************************************************

**** ADDITIONAL NEWS REPORTS ****

MH370: search for missing Malaysia Airlines plane extended to southern Indian Ocean

Najib's full press statement on MH370

Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370: What we know so far

MISSING MH370: Timeline

Flight MH370: Police focus on pilots as search for airliner goes on - live updates

Flight MH370: New timeline casts doubt on pilot deception theory

MISSING MH370: ACARS cannot be disabled

MISSING MH370: Search for missing aircraft above politics: Hishamuddin


***********************************************************************************************


SOME IMPORTANT REMINDERS FOR ALL OUR MEMBERS TO CONSIDER BEFORE POSTING IN THIS THREAD:

**** Out of respect to the crew, passengers and also family members; close to those onboard MH370; please keep science fiction theories and content related to past / current movies or possible future movie rights out of these threads. ****

**** PLEASE DO NOT REPEAT QUESTIONS AND SCENARIOS THAT HAS BEEN COVERED AND DISCUSSED IN PREVIOUS THREADS AND WHICH DO NOT CONTRIBUTE OR APPLY, IN A CONSTRUCTIVE MANNER, TOWARDS THIS CONVERSATION ANY LONGER. ****

**** Please make an effort to read through some of the threads, if possible the latest in the series, before adding your own comments and theories to the current, active thread on this issue. ****

**** PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL TOWARDS OTHER USERS AND KEEP THE FORUM RULES AND REGULATIONS IN MIND WHEN POSTING IN THE FORUMS. SHOULD THERE BE ANY RULE VIOLATIONS, PLEASE BRING THIS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE MODERATORS BY MAKING USE OF THE “SUGGEST DELETION FUNCTION”. ****

**** WHEN STATING FACTS, STATISTICS OR NEWSWORTHY BULLETINS, PLEASE BE SURE TO INCLUDE AN HTML LINK OR REFERENCE TO A PUBLICATION. IF YOU ARE MERELY PROVIDING AN OPINION, PLEASE MENTION THIS IN YOUR POST. ALL MEMBERS ARE RESPONSIBLE TO AVOID ARGUMENTS BASED ON RUMORS OR MISINFORMATION


**** MESSAGES OF AGREEMENT SUCH AS "ME TOO", "I AGREE WITH X", ”YES” OR ”NO” HAVE BEEN FOUND TO WASTE TIME AND SPACE AND ARE THEREFORE T”O BE AVOIDED. A MESSAGE CONSISTING OF ONLY ONE OR TWO LINES OF TEXT IS PROBABLY NOT WORTH POSTING. DO NOT MAKE POSTS THAT CONTAIN ONLY A SMILEY FACE, CHECK MARK, ETC. MAKE SURE THE CONTENT OF YOUR POST IS RELEVANT TO THE TOPIC. ****


Enjoy the forums!

Regards and thanks for your co-operation,

Pat

[Edited 2014-03-22 09:11:36 by SA7700]
All of the opinions stated above are mine and do not represent Airliners.net or my employer unless otherwise stated.
 
tomlee
Posts: 610
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:01 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:11 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 247):
I don't entertain the "hide the airplane in the northwest" theory. What I wanted with the intermediate pings was only to find where along the arc is the most likely position of the last ping because my interest is for the world to find the plane and then we can get on to the next stage. Finding it, in my opinion is important, regardless of the aircraft being intact or in pieces over land or underwater. So please do not slap my reasoning by thinking I am with the "oh it must have been hidden in the desert somewhere" bandwagon. I just want the plane found!

The satcom as in the inmarsat interview would not survive a crash so it would not be stationary after a crash. The only way the modem would work and the plane be stationary is either hide in the desert situation or a freefall for an hour. (unlikely for both) As I've oft repeated and is now in the inmarsat interviews directly the points are all used as part of their estimation and refinement process. We should leave it upto the experts as I never even thought inmarsat being a GEO based sat could even get this type of info from a communications network. (Genuinely surprised when I read they had information about the direction and possible end of the flight)

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 247):
This is what the common ground is and should be. Those who say, "scrap the search, it's landed in Pakistan", is irresponsible, and perhaps immoral too.
However, saying that "if it landed, then this is going to be extremely difficult to find because (insert whatever reason)", is not irresponsible. (mine would be, "because if flown afterwards it would have flown without the satcom active, which is our last link to the aircraft.")... Any credible lead, is a good lead at the moment.

We already know there is no pause or significant anomaly in the ping data to suggest the plane landed intact as the last ping just has it travelling off and past its maximum range shortly after. This gets back to the ELT activation as if the plane crash landed in the extremely rare case of being in basically one piece the automatic g-activated battery powered ELT would have been detected by now.

Which is why I think ELTs should be able to turn on in situations where the transponder is non-functional or other abnormal conditions indicate the plane is gone "dark" and the ELT with its independent power is the perfect solution for accidental and even deliberate gone "dark" situations. In almost all jet crashes there isn't much left and the automatic ELT never goes off. (If it transmitted before impact should other tracking methods fail then SAR response would be much faster and survivors retrieved faster) Using ACARS for SAR requires analysis and subscription to a system which doesn't have battery power and can be disabled manually as well.
 
canoecarrier
Posts: 2569
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2004 1:20 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:11 pm

Reposted from the last thread. These move too fast....

Quoting tomlee (Reply 178):
The images are from DigitalGlobe which is a commercial sat imaging company. If you have the money you can buy the highest quality images they can produce.
Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 184):
Actually DigitalGlobe is allowed to take images above commercial grade resolution, but can sell those only to US Military, 50cm is the cutoff. They have two sats one with 46cm another with 25cm.

I'd think most countries capable of having spy satellites probably assume other countries have satellites capable of providing better resolution than what's commercially available. Personally, I don't think the images that were released yesterday were intentionally blurred. What's more closely held as a state secret is the time that it takes to turn around an image once a satellite has been tasked. DigitalGlobe is a commercial firm, they probably would go out of their way to show what their satellites are capable of.

Some thoughts on a comment posted several "parts" of this thread ago. I believe someone said that the crew has the option of pulling the breaker or in some way turning off the DCVR/DFDR if an event happens that is resolved and they want to save the recording. IIRC this is primarily due to limitations in the recording media (i.e., it records voice for 2 hours).

The last revision the FAA made to the CVR and Digital Flight Data Recorder Regulations resulted because, "The information recorded on cockpit voice recorders (CVRs) and Digital Flight Data Recorders (DFDRs) has not always been sufficient to support the NTSBs investigations."

At that time, the NTSB recommended that for all aircraft manufactured after January 1, 2003, "Both recording systems should be capable of recording all mandatory data parameters covering the previous 25 hours of operation and all cockpit audio and controller pilot datalink communications for the previous two hours of operation."

That should be revisited. If for some reason they find the CVR and DFDR and all we have is dead air, we of course can make some assumptions. But with aircraft capable of flying for well over 10 hours and flash memory capable of recording an order of magnitude more than that, we should at least record the gate to gate time.

[Edited 2014-03-21 10:16:34]
The beatings will continue until morale improves
 
airbazar
Posts: 6807
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:12 pm

Quoting tomlee (Reply 201):
Strange why do we know about the obviously NRO military 10cm resolving cameras which DigitalGlobe doesn't have.

We know what they want us to know, and no more  
Quoting tomlee (Reply 201):
I'm sure there is some super secret stuff but I doubt you want that to fly on a commercial sat

I didn't say that. You made that assumption.

Quoting tomlee (Reply 201):
Although it is true we wouldn't know but I doubt DigitalGlobe would get to use it for their commercial branded side of things.

We don't know that they do.

I was simply responding to the comments that GZed made:

Quoting GZed (Reply 177):
I have spoken with someone who has seen high quality images that show the so called "debris field" much more clearly than the images released. The images he has seen will never be released because the owner of the "equipment" that produced the images do not want to demonstrate their true capabilities - standard national security stuff.

I have no doubt that there is secret satelite technology out there, both private and military, that is way more advanced than what we know. It's even possible that someone has already spotted the debris by now using this secret technology but they can't just tell the World and risk revealing their strategic capabilities.
 
tomlee
Posts: 610
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:01 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:16 pm

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 2):

I'm pretty sure they are just making the CVR/DFDRs to match regulations and that is it for the most part. With flash memory density increases it is easy to get probably a few flights worth of data stored on one crash survivable unit. RIPS or basically backup power for the black boxes would help a lot in deliberate and certain accidental cases as they can keep recording for 10 minutes after losing supplied power.
 
liquidair
Posts: 265
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 2:01 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:17 pm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...s-of-communication-from-MH370.html

apparently, they have a transcript of the last 54 minutes of communication....
trying to stop my gaseous viscosity go liquid
 
theaviator380
Posts: 576
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 8:44 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:19 pm

If it's true it was pilot who committed suicide by doing all sorts of crazy stunts then I won't be surprised if he made pretty decent landing on ocean surface (I know it's difficult at night still..), plane remained intact and sunk to the bottom without leaving any traces, no question of survivors as people were already passed out lack of oxygen.
 
spacecadet
Posts: 2788
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:21 pm

From the previous thread:

"In the first 6 pings, does it actually matter in regards to finding the wreckage?"

It could, because you can at least make probabilistic estimates of its flight path if you know the actual distance between pings vs. the distance from the plane to the satellite. And depending on how much variance you saw, you could make some determination if it was maneuvering or had even landed. (For example, if both the 7th and 8th pings were from the same distance, then theoretically the plane could be traveling along the arc itself - which would indicate a turn had been made - or it also could have landed.)

Many of these questions seem to have been answered by Inmarsat themselves, who have said the distance between each ping was constant. It does not seem to have maneuvered much after losing contact, although again we don't know anything about what happened after the final ping. It could have flown for 59 minutes more after that, and we don't know what the end of this flight looked like - whether a crash in the ocean or something else.

The NTSB should have all the ping data and they did come up with several probable tracks of the flight, presumably based on the distance of those pings to the satellite and the location of the satellite vs. the plane's last known location. That's why there was so much anticipation about this wreckage yesterday, because it was found very close to one of those tracks.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
 
canoecarrier
Posts: 2569
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2004 1:20 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:24 pm

Quoting tomlee (Reply 4):
I'm pretty sure they are just making the CVR/DFDRs to match regulations and that is it for the most part.

Of course they are. That's what FAR 121.344 was created for, to set the requirements for a CVR/DFDR. That's what I was suggesting...to amend that FAR. But, it won't be retroactive and EASA would have to make the same change in their regulations.

Quoting tomlee (Reply 4):
RIPS or basically backup power for the black boxes would help a lot in deliberate and certain accidental cases as they can keep recording for 10 minutes after losing supplied power.

IIRC, they already have independent power that provides 10 additional minutes of operation when normal aircraft power ceases.

[Edited 2014-03-21 10:27:00]
The beatings will continue until morale improves
 
rcair1
Crew
Posts: 1111
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:39 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:28 pm


Sanity Check - 3/21/2014 - 15:00
There is (will be) a link to this post in my profile under "homepage"
Formating notes.
New/changed lines will have this background color. All changes are relative to the previous Sanity Check.
Previous Sanity Check here. MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 39 (by SA7700 Mar 20 2014 in Civil Aviation)
Minor wording/grammar/spelling changes are NOT highlighted.

Introductory comments:
I've been reading the forum regularly for the duration of the event. Before posting these 'Sanity Checks' I read all posts since the prior Sanity Check and note new information that should be added or drives changes. I also review credible (and some not-so-credible) news sources. I consult with experts. I will admit - some posts I read in more detail than others - I tend to ignore the continuous theories that have no basis in fact - but are pure speculation. For theories that have credible basis, they are noted, but not explained.

Unfortunately - as the real data has decrease, the 'noise' in the forum has increased and I'm seeing what I would call bickering and finger pointing. This is natural and will occur in a lack of information - however it is reaching the point where the forum is becoming a sea of argument - the same arguments - back and forth - with little real information.

I also see significant frustration by good hearted people would like to have more access to raw data. I have to state I have mixed opinion on this. As an engineer and scientist (Ph.D. EE), I tend to like raw data. However, as a Fire Chief who has had to provide information to the press and residents through major catastrophes, I have also see where people will take raw data and run wild with it. Fundamentally, it is a tight rope - more can be more, or it can be misleading. Less can be less, or it can be focused.
You will note I'm not defending, or condemning various agencies here, be they Inmarsat, Boeing, NTSB, and so on - just pointing out they are in a hard position.
Frankly - I want their efforts focused on finding MH370, not informing an interested, often biased, but not directly involved public.

When I started these posts - I specifically called them Sanity Checks because the purpose was to inform and, by doing so, keep the forum kind of in the space of factual/data driven discussions. Something I think it is in danger of loosing now.
With this Sanity Check I'm re-doubling that effort and trying to address a few areas that have had much attention (and controversy). While those sections will, by necessity, include some of my own interpretation and bias, I' trying to be as factual as possible.

The areas I've added are related to:
Ability of a 777 to fly on, uncontrolled (by pilots) for 7+ hours. (New Section)
The non-published Inmarsat ping data. (See Satcom Pings Section
A brief run down of credible theories.

First, I'm going to start with a restatement of what we know - right up front.
The aircraft departed KUL normally then secondary radar, voice and ACARS Contact was lost.
The aircraft turned west, then north west and primary radar contact was lost.
The aircraft continued to fly, or operate, for approximately 7 hrs.
We have not found the aircraft or wreckage and have not received any ELT transmissions.

3/19/2014 3/21/2014 - 1500Z changes since last Sanity Check.
The facts have not changed much. The a/c has not been found.
No debris has been found west of Australia. Searching continues.
Added sections listed above.
Various slight updates.

First a synopsis
The ship took off normally and headed on course to Beijing
The last ACARS transmission was 01:07 local.
Reports that ACARS indicated new way-points were programed into the FMS before LOS have not been clarified in last 24-48 hours.
Discussion on this has gone dark. That may indicate the reports were wrong or that further discussion has been limited due to law enforcement investigations (given the 'leak' rate - I find the later unlikely).
The last comms were "All right, good night" transmitted to Malaysia at hand-off to Vietnam control. Vietnam was not contacted. It has been reported it was the First Officer's voice.
NOTE: Saying "good night" or "so long" or "see you" is very common for hand-offs.
The transponder stopped transmitting at 1:21 - loss of secondary radar.
There are reports of a climb to 45K, uneven descent and some changes in altitude. Since this is based on primary radar - altitude data is somewhat uncertain. The last has been reported as 29,500ft but that seems in dispute.
The validity of the 45K reports is being questioned.
There are subsequent primary radar returns west over Malacca Strait and then north west. Since it is primarily radar - a reflection - it does NOT identify the a/c, however it has been correlated with SATCOM pings so confidence is high that the returns are from MH370
SATCOM system pings continued for 7+ (last ping at 08:11 local) hrs after LOS (loss of signal)
SATCOM pings do not locate the aircraft but based on examination of the last signal, 2 corridors have been identified for searching.
These are not paths and I have changed my language to reflect that. They represent a distance from the satellite.
Further reported analysis by the NTSB has reduced the search area. We are not privy to that analysis.
Corridor one is north over Andaman Sea, Bay of Bengal as far as Kazakhstan/Turkmenistan and is consistent with primary radar.
Corridor two is south over the India Ocean west of Australia. We've had no reports of radar signals in that area.
The last SATCOM ping was at 8:11 am Malaysian time. At that time it would be dark on the north radius and light over the south radius.
SATCOM pings are hourly - so the 8:11 ping could be up to 1 hour before the aircraft stopped 'pinging'.
We have no ELT signal detected.
While authorities (Malaysian) have not confirmed this is a hijacking or purposeful event - it is believed that is highly likely by most, however, motivation is unknown.
There have been no reports that a Rolls Royce EH report was sent upon landing.

Time-line
1.07 am - Last ACARS transmission.
1.19 am - Last verbal communication "All right, good night" from the plane; believed to be the co-pilot
1.21 am - Transponder stopped transmitting (turned off or failed)
1.30 am - Civilian (primary) radar lost contact
1.37 am - Expected ACARS transmission; not received
2.15 am - Last military primary radar contact
8.11 am - Last (hourly) satellite handshake


ACARS
ACARS is an automated aircraft communication system that transmits a/c information, including navigation, operations, maintenance, etc to ATC and maintenance facilities.
ACARS is NOT a flight system - it is not needed for safe flight.
ACARS is a subscription service and costs money. All indications are the MH370 was subscribed only to engine health monitoring and data from that is sent to Rolls Royce.
This last fact (only EHM) is somewhat questions because of 3/18 reports of new way-points being programmed. This would require ADS-C
ACARS communicates via VHF, HF or SATCOM. The communications channel depends on availability and is independent of the ACARS.
ACARS can be instructed not to use SATCOM, HF or VHF from the Cockpit. This would effectively stop ACARS from sending data. Access to the EE bay is not required.
The last ACARS transmission was at 1:07. The next was expected at 1:37 and was not received. This means ACARS communication was disabled between those times. This could be action by the flight-deck crew or system failure.

ACARS data from MH370
The ACARS system sent 2 engine health reports to Rolls Royce, both prior to the LOS event.
The Rolls Royce page indicates that a 'snapshot' of engine data would be sent at: takeoff, climb, cruise and landing. We know 2 ACARS Engine Health reports were received, consistent with the 1st two.
The last engine health report was received at 1:07am. The next was expected at 1:37 am and was not received. This indicates that the transmission of ACARS data was disabled between 1:07 and 1:37, but not when during that period.
The Engine Health report received prior to LOS had 'interesting' altitude data/fluctuations including 40K drop in a minute. That data is suspect.
There seems to be some indication that ADS-C data with changed way-point information was included in the last ACARS report.
UPDATE: per the transcript of the latest press conference, I believe they Malaysians are saying:
The flight did not deviate prior to LOS
The flight plan was normal - no usual way-points.
This later is not quite the same as denying ACARS data showed way-points had been added.
There has been no clarification of this issue.

ADS-C Tutorial.
ADS-C stands for Aircraft Dependent Surveillance - Contract.
The "Dependent" is because it "depends" on the aircraft taking action - as opposed to "independent" like radar..
Contract means there must be a "contract" or "agreement" set up by the controllers an/or crew to send information.
ADS-C is not required to be used.
ADS-C can be programed to report periodically, on demand, on event. It can be initiated by the crew in an emergency.
Various data groups can be sent. The one relevant to this discussion is the Predicted Route Group which includes ETA, altitude, lat/long at next way-point and next+1 way-point.
Prior to 3/18 we had no information that ADS-C was being used, however on 3/18 it was reported that we "know" that new way-points were entered in the FMS prior to LOS.
The only way we know of for this information to be available to authorities is if the ACAR's report at 1:07 included the "Predicted Route Group."
ADS-C is transmitted via ACARS which can use SATCOM, VHF or HF.
ADS-C does not transmit via transponder (thanks for that correction)
A good tutorial on ADS-C is available at http://prezi.com/pcuvxhcklsda/ads-c-overview/

Way-point Entry Data.
On 3/18 authorities reported that new way-points had been entered into the a/c FMS BEFORE the last communication at 1:19.
This information could only be provided by ADS-C in the 1:07 ACARS report.
It was also reported that the aircraft had already turned off course prior to 1:19.
That seems inconsistent with secondary radar data which did not show a course change.
Opinion: I believe "experts" are confusing new way-points being programed and executed.
This is consistent with statements by several "experts" who seem to be really "experts"
It was noted that pilots sometimes program way-points but never execute (fly to them).
After take-off way-points are changed in the cockpit. Experts say non-pilots can't do it, but, in fact, it is not hard and many 'simulator' people do it all the time.
Summary:
Reports are that new way-points (off course) were added to the FMS after takeoff (or perhaps just before).
This information would come from ADS-C in the last ACARS report at 1:07.
This requires flight deck access pointing at either the crew or a breech of cockpit security.
All of this data seems to be based on the same NYT report that is being repeated.
We have not heard if the "new" way-points match those reported earlier in the primary radar track.
Discussion on this has gone dark. That may indicate the reports were wrong or that further discussion has been limited due to law enforcement investigations (given the 'leak' rate - I find the later unlikely).

Way-point Tracks
A series of way-points reported that match the primary radar tracks in/near Malacca Strait.
These way-points line up with the direction indicated by the primary radar returns and Inmarsat data to the north.
While many believe the aircraft was under control - we cannot conclude if these way-point were used, or just coincidentally along the path.
A 777 can be programed to follow a series of way-point automatically - this is normal operating procedure and a 777 pilot would need no extra practice/training to do it. (Relevant to pilot flight simulator ownership)

SATCOM
SATCOM is a communications channel - Satellite Communications. It is a radio system that uses satellites to communicate various information.
SATCOM is not ACARS - it is one of the channels ACARS can use.
The Inmarsat Senior VP likened the Inmarsat box on MH370 to a 'handset' and the Satellites to the network. ACARS, Texting, etc are all "applications" that run on the 'handset'
The system pings the aircraft roughly hourly.
The SATCOM system on MH370 is a "Classic Aero" set and connects to Inmarsat 3 satellites. In the area covered, the only satellite with coverage is IOR. (Source Inmarsat)
Since only 1 satellite has coverage, no triangulation is possible. All that can be determined is distance from the satellite. This has been used to define 2 potential loci were the a/c could have been.
North Corridor
.
South Corridor
These corridors were defined by the last SATCOM ping.
We cannot distinguish if the a/c was flying or parked on the ground (powered up) when these pings were sent.
We have not been told how the distance from IOR was estimated - it could be signal strength or time of flight (signal propagation time).Opinion: Time of flight seems more likely.
The satellite is in geosynchronous orbit (~22,000 miles) over the earth. The difference in distance between a flying aircraft and one on the ground is probably not measurable.
NOTE: While these may appear as paths - they are not. They are simply a set of potential locations based upon ping data. The aircraft could have been in a constant standard turn circle somewhere along one of the loci (red lines) and the satellite could not tell. We only know it was somewhere along those lines.

SATCOM Pings
The SATCOM system sends (or responds to) periodic 'pings' to/from the satellites (hourly). These 'pings' are a network communication that says "I am here."
SATCOM pings are not communicating a/c status, they are part of the communications channel. They are akin to registration pings on a cell system.
The last pings were detected at 8:11am Malaysia time. This does not mean the aircraft went down or landed at this time, only that the last ping was 8:11. Source I've seen indicate the pings are hourly - but that is not confirmed.
SATCOM pings provide no aircraft heading, speed or altitude information, however, distance from the Satellite can be estimated, and ONLY distance.
Based on analysis of the SATCOM pings by Inmarsat, two possible corridors have been predicted based upon a radius from the satellite picking up the pings.
SATCOM pings would be sent as long as the system (aircraft) was power up and withing coverage area. So, on the ground, if powered up (thanks to mandala499).
People have asked if SATCOM pings could come from a crashed plane if the right parts survived.
Very unlikely. The system is not self contained, the equipment, power and antennas are separate.

Analysis of SATCOM Pings - A discussion.
The Inmarsat 3 system as used in MH370 is non-directional and not designed to give any a/c location information. Inmarsat 4 could provide some directional information, but was not in use on that aircraft.
All that can be determined is a distance from the satellite to the a/c. Put a drawing compass on the satellite and draw a big circle. The pings come from that circle
No specific radial direction from the satellite to the a/c can be determined - you cannot say the a/c was on a bearing of 'xxx degrees from the satellite'
The two arcs are based on that circle for the last ping with the following modifications:
Locations that would be covered by another Inmarsat 3 satellite are excluded because no other satellite contacted the a/c.
Locations beyond the probable range of the a/c as fueled are excluded.

Discussion of the "other" pings - why are they not published.
Each SATCOM ping can define a radius as described above. They do not provide any course or heading and it cannot be derived.
A widely circulated map appears to show positions for other pings. That map is NOT a map of the other pings! It is a projection of where an aircraft could have been at each ping assuming a particular course and speed and includes projected 'ping' radii for each time. (link provided so people know what map I'm referring to http://www.airliners.net/uf/view.file?id=195008&filename=phpK1fGmY.bmp )
The point is the 'other' pings can provide minimal data if any. You cannot predict the a/c course based upon them. At the most, you could propose a course/speed and see if that course/speed is consistent with the ping loci.
Some examples:
Two pings provide the SAME radius. The aircraft could have:
1) circled in place for 1 hour.
2) Flown toward or away from the satellite for 30 minutes, then reversed course to reach the starting location at the time of the next ping..
3) Flown a curve along the path defined by the radius.
4) Flown a straight course that intersects the curve at the right times - that course could be flown slowly or quickly and you could not tell.
5) Flown a random course that just happened to intersect the curve at the right time.
Two pings provide a radius "1/2 hours flying time apart". The aircraft could have:
1) Flown slowly for 30 minutes toward or away from the satellite.
2) Flown at an angle between the two curves such that they reach the 2nd curve at the right time.
3) Flown any random course that happened to cross the curves at the right time.
For nearly every ping separation, we can define multiple paths, courses, speeds.
The only thing analysis of multiple ping radii can do is invalidate the SATCOM data.
If the circles defined by 2 pings are farther apart than the a/c could possibly have flown in 1 hour(say 1000 miles), we would know the SATCOM data is invalid and we'd ignore it.
In summary
While it would be 'nice' to see the loci piloted for each ping - it would not inform and so many interpretations could be placed on it, it would likely misinform.
I believe the NTSB and other DO have all the loci and have analyzed it for consistency.

Fire Theory (Was Cargo and Lithium Batteries) This section has been dramatically simplified.
One hypothesis that has been presented is that a fire broke out incapacitated the crew/passengers or caused hypoxia that did so.
(See http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/16/opinio...er-malaysia-flight-370/)
The hypothesis is:
A fire broke out causing the crew to disable multiple systems (or disabled them itself)
The crew was successful in containing/extinguishing the fire - but then was disable due to smoke and/or hypoxia.
The a/c, either on autopilot or uncontrolled by stable due to advance FBW systems, remained in stable flight till fuel exhaustion.
The turns exhibited could have been a combination of programmed and random course changes.
It would be very interesting to hear Boeing's take on this - or to experiment with a 777.
Regarding the fire source:
There are reports that the cargo in MH370 did not receive normal X-ray screening (though this has recently been weakly denied)
There are reports of a shipment of lithium batteries on the a/c and that perhaps they caused a fire.
The hold of a passenger a/c like the 777 is protected with Halon and detectors - so a fire in the hold would be detected and suppressed.
Fire in the hold is unlikely to impact flight systems or EE bay. Freight a/c are different (thanks Pihero)
Fire suppression systems in the 777 include: Engines, APU, Cargo Holds, Toilets and portable extinguishers in Cabin/Galleys, Flight Deck, Crew Rest. Unprotected - EE-bay and Wheel wells.

Hypoxia and Pressurization
There has been lots of speculation about loss of pressurization in the aircraft and what that would do to passengers and crew.
IMPORTANT NOTE: all of this applies to cabin pressure - not the pressure outside.Just climbing to 45K would not exposed the passengers to that altitude - the aircraft would have to be depressurized.
In the case of loss of cabin pressure - O2 mask would deploy automatically.
The pilots cannot disable this above 13,500 feet - they can release the masks.
Passengers masks would last 12-20 minutes. Portable crew (FA) bottles ~30minutes. Cockpit crew longer.
Time of useful consciousness (not to loss of consciousness) will range from 1-3 minutes at 30K to 9-15 seconds at 43K. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_useful_consciousness)
above 40,000 ft cabin altitude - positive pressure oxygen is required - passenger masks do not do this and would not be effective.
Because of this the a/c must be certified able to descend and pilots demonstrate an emergency descent to ~10,000 ft in 2 minutes.
The actual regulation is that passengers cannot be exposed to a cabin altitude of more than 25K for more than 2 minutes, or more than 40K for any time. (A380 got an exception to this rule.)

Cabin depressurizing by Pilots (this is not as solid as I would like in terms of facts).
NOTE: Above 40K passenger masks are ineffective - positive pressure O2 is required.
Question: Can the pilots 'depressurize' the plane? Yes.
The FAA regulations state the a/c "must be designed so that occupants will not be exposed to cabin pressure altitudes in excess of 15,000 feet (4,600 m) after any probable failure condition in the pressurization system"
So for normal 'failures' - no, the cabin will remain below 15K.
However, per member mandala499 the pilots could: 1) Open outflow valves, 2) turn off bleed air. The cabin would then depressurize to current altitude.
I have no data on how quickly this would happen - but I think it would take minutes at least.
Let's investigate the sequence required and how that is related to the reported "climb to 45K":
1) Pilots (or whomever is in control) switches to manual pressurization, turns off bleed, opens outflow valves.
2) Cabin altitude climbs above 13,500 and passenger masks deploy - there is no way to prevent that. At that point passengers and cabin crew know.
3) Presuming the pilots do not descent - passengers O2 will last 12-20 minutes. After that, depending on the cabin altitude they will loose effective consciousness (not loose consciousness, but effective consciousness).
4) Cabin crew O2 will run out.
5) During this time, the flight crew O2 will operate (and last longer)
6) At some point - depending on cabin altitude - those not on O2 will die (no other way to say it).

The question becomes - how long would this sequence take?
Below 40K cabin altitude - and once the cabin is depressurized- minimum 12-30 minutes for all passengers and cabin crew to become disabled.
Above 40K cabin altitude - I do not know - w/o positive pressure oxygen people will loose effective consciousness in seconds.
With O2, but not positive pressure - will this be extended?
If you descend below 40K with non positive pressure O2 masks still operating - people may recover depending on duration of hypoxia - or may awake with loss of function (brain damage)
Summary:
It appears flight crew (or knowledgeable hijackers) could depressurize the cabin and disable all.
O2 masks would deploy so passengers and cabin crew would know.
This would not be an instantaneous procedure - the biggest factor is how long would it take to depressurize the a/c.

CRV/FDR Data
The CVR (cockpit voice recorder) and FDR (flight data recorder) do not transmit data in flight.
They do emit sonic pings if immersed. These will last a minimum of 30 days. We can expect sonar is being used to listen for them.
The pinger operates at 37.5KHz 106.5dp re 1μPa. (thanks k83713)
Maximum depth of beacon detection in Normal Conditions: 1-2km
Maximum depth of beacon detection in Good Conditions: 4-5km
Localising a pinger from the surface in shallow water is relatively easy, as described above. In deep water, the detection equipment should be installed on a self-propelled underwater vehicle, presupposing that the position is already known to within the maximum 2-3km detection range.
More Info:http://www.hydro-international.com/i...Deepwater_Black_Box_Retrieval.html
The CVR reportedly is a 120 minute CVR so it would contain only the last 120 minutes of flight (presuming it did not fail or was turned off prior to that).
I don't have data form the recording time of the FDR, but it is typically much longer.

ELT
The ELT, or emergency locater transmitter is mounted in the rear of the aircraft - difficult to access in flight.
The ELT is battery powered - independent built in power source. It is this source that is suspect in causing the 787 fire at Heathrow.
The ELT will be trigged by G forces in a crash. It will not operate under water.
The ELT can be triggered from the cockpit - it is a hardwired switch not dependent on computer systems.
The ELT transmits on the guard frequency (VHF) and on 406MHz to satellites. If it had been triggered (above water), satellites would have heard it and been able to locate the a/c.
Clarification: there are additional manual ELT's in the cabin that can be activated by crew members, but do not include g-force sensing.

Primary versus Secondary Radar (brief tutorial)
Primary radar is based on the original military usage. It sends out a strong (KW to MW) signal and looks for a reflection from something.
Primary radar provides distance and location. Comparing returns speed can be determined. Strength of return can indicate size.
Stealth a/c and ships are designed to absorb or miss-direct the reflection so primary radar cannot see them.
Primary radar does not depend on the transponder, so turning off a transponder will not make an a/c disappear from primary.
Primary radar is less prevalent than secondary - and more typically military tho ATC's do use it.
Secondary Radar is really not Radar in the defined sense. It is directional communication.
In secondary radar a directional signal is sent out (much less powerful than primary). Any a/c with a transponder that receives it will respond (the transponder responds) with information about the aircraft.
Combined with the direction of the outgoing beam, the time of flight information and returned information, the a/c location and identity (and other info depending on the mode) is returned.
Secondary radar is the primary method used by ATC.
If the transponder fails or is turned off - secondary radar will not see the a/c.
In the case of MH370
The transponder was turned off - so the a/c disappeared from secondary (ATC) radar.
A target was tracked west, then northwest using primary radar. That target was correlated with SATCOM pings help determine it was MH370.

Airworthiness Directive
The airworthiness directive about corrosion near the SATCOM antenna does not apply to this ship.
The ship DOES have SATCOM - but uses a different antenna

Aircraft Type and Fuel State
The aircraft was a Boeing 777-200ER. MTOW 656,000 lbs, 301 3 class passengers (standard Boeing Config - does not reflect MH specific config.)
The aircraft could land in 6000 ft, or much less at high risk. As little as 3000ft has been stated, but it could not take off from there.
The aircraft would need a hard surface to land - this is heavier that has been done on steel matts.
It is reported the aircraft 45 to 60 minutes extra fuel. This would amount to about 7-7.5 hrs of fuel. This is a normal amount for this route.
The aircraft should have been able to fly about 30 minutes after the last SATCOM ping at 8:11.
The figure at this link show max range for the 777-200ER. NOTE: MH370 was not fueled for this range. http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/com.../777_range_singapore.pdf

Can a 777 fly 'by itself' for 7+ hours.
There has been much debate on if the 777 could continue to fly without human intervention for 7+ hours.
Fundamentally We pretty much know the aircraft did fly on - so any theory must support a potential for the aircraft to continue in flight. (Yes - there is some small possibility it was parked on the ground, but powered up).
t is notable that if the a/c was stationary, all the SATCOM Pings would have provide the same distance, which would be suspicious, but not proof. I believe we would have heard about that.
Without information on the conditions on the aircraft - we cannot make a determination of what the a/c could or could not do.
We can make some educated statements:
If under human control - obviously it could fly this long.
On full autopilot it could fly on - however, that would assume a course was programmed in. I don't know what happens if a 777 reaches the end of it's programmed course while under autopilot control.
If in heading and speed hold mode - it could fly to fuel fuel exhaustion. There may be some altitude oscillation depending on things like auto-throttle.
If the only control was the inherent FBW protections on the 777 - there seems to be some disagreement on what the aircraft would do.
I would remind you that both the Helios and Payne Stewart a/c continued in stable flight till fuel exhaustion. Yes - they may have had various levels of auto-pilot engaged, but so may have MH370.
In summary - there are multiple scenarios where the a/c would have continued in flight till fuel exhaustion. We have no data or basis to include or exclude any of them.

Search Areas
Along the planed route. I believe searching in this area is ending or decreasing based on new data indicating the a/c is not there
West over the Malacca strait
North west of Malacca strait
Along the two loci predicted by the SATCOM pings which continue north to Kazakhstan/Turkmenistan and south to the India Ocean.
It is reported now that both corridors are equally important..
The search area are shrinking due to improved intelligence.
The USS Kidd has been pulled off, but other US resources are operating.
The latest debris reports is west of Australia - based on Satellite images - nothing has been found, searching continues..
Link to satellite images
AMSA Maps http://www.amsa.gov.au/media/incidents/mh370-search.asp

Mobile phones
We continue to have lots of discussion on "mobile phones" - can the connect in flight, etc.
We don't have any reports or evidence of that any passenger or crew mobile phone has registered with any network.
Until we have that data or reports - I believe the mobile phone discussions are not getting us anywhere.
UPDATE: This subject continues to be discussed. But, we have had no reports of cell phones registering with towers - we are in a loop here.

Most Common Theories. Note - all have problems!
Successful hijacking either with crew complicity or not, followed by controlled flight somewhere. Argument against: most believe we would have found/tracked the aircraft or heard something from the hijackers. Also, actions by passengers.
Unsuccessful hijacking either with crew complicity or not, followed by automatic flight to fuel exhaustion. Argument against: Likely the passengers would know and some action would be taken.
Pilot homicide/suicide followed by controlled or automatic flight till fuel exhaustion. Arguments against: No evidence of motive. Why fly to remote area rather than immediate crash. May require hypoxia to disable cabin crew/passengers.
Mechanical failure that disabled all comms, disabled crew/passengers but left a/c flying in an automatic mode.
Hypoxia is a common quoted issue - but hypoxia alone would not disable comms.
Note: it seems most people believe a human agency is involved, but we really have no evidence of that.

Less Common Theories and Conspiracy Theories (simplified)
Other theories that seem less likely or fully improbable - however most are versions of the above.
A fire broke out that incapacitated passengers and crew - but allowed to aircraft to fly on it's own till starvation. This is a form of the Mechanical failure theory based on fire.
The aircraft "shadowed" either a KLM or SIA aircraft to hide from radar then turned off the track and landed.
Freescale engineers have been hijacked for sensitive US data.
There was something in the Cargo worth stealing - which is why it was not screened.
The plane was full of undeclared gold.Gold is very heavy - what would you declare the cargo as?
The US hijacked the 777 using on board FBW technology to fly it like a drone to Diego Garcia (this one wins the insanity case).
There has been a claim by counter terrorist expert that this could be a "cyber hijack" - a malicious attack of a FBW a/c by somebody in the back with a smart phone.

Pilot Related Conspiracy Theories (some of this is my opinion).
The crew and passengers are a focus of investigation. Particularly the crew, because of the difficulty of managing an external cockpit intrusion.
The pilot has received a lot of attention because: 1) He supports opposition politics, 2) He has a mongo flight simulator, 3) There are rumors of family problems (debunked).
To address the data on a few of these:
1) The pilot supports opposition politics and may have been at a trial of the opposition leader (confirmed 'ordinary' member of opposition party). Opinion: What is the motive for suicide in this case?
2) The pilot has a very fancy flight simulator. People claim he used it to for this. Opinion: A 777 pilot does not need to train for the flying done - he knows how to do that stuff already. What he needs it planning for violent action/takeover. A flight simulator is no help.
Note - there has been some discussion that the pilot used this for training of accomplices.
3) There are rumors of family problems reported from China. This has been reported as untrue.

Dismissed or Confirmed not True
Chinese Satellite Debris - nothing found in area.
Oil worker report - nothing found in area.
Greek shipping debris - nothing found/not related.
Raft with "Boarding" found - not related
Original 'debris' reports (March 8/9) not related/nothing found.
Maldives low flying a/c - not related.
I want to stress this one. The Maldives reports are not consistent with Satellite data. To accept the, we must discount all Inmarsat data which means the search area is suddenly very large again.
Pilot family problems - reported as not true.
Cell phones ringing - artifact of the cellular system.

IN summary what we know is.
The a/c disappeared from secondary radar and stopped communicating. We do not know why or what happened to it.
There is evidence from SATCOM and Radar that the a/c traveled west - then most likely north west.
Hourly SATCOM signals show the a/c was operating till at least 8:11am Malaysia time, over 7 hrs total flight time
We have not found it despite multiple governmental agencies from multiple countries searching hard.

Additional thoughts.
A hijacking or positive intervention by human agency seems likely.
The erratic altitude and course may indicate a struggle on board.
While we would like to believe the a/c landed safely somewhere, that seems unlikely to have happened unobserved.


That is all.
Respectfully Submitted - rcair1


[Edited 2014-03-21 10:31:32]
rcair1
 
65mustang
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:28 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:28 pm

So it has been confirmed that MH370 WAS carrying a shipment of Lithium batteries in its cargo hold.

http://www.straitstimes.com/the-big-...m-ion-batteries-cargo-not-seen-dan
 
tomlee
Posts: 610
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:01 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:28 pm

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 8):
IIRC, they already have independent power that provides 10 additional minutes of operation when normal aircraft power ceases.

Yes I know (the short name is from the same spec I think) but how many planes have RIPS it sounded kinda new according to the documents I was reading. Because if MH370 had RIPS black boxes then even if deliberately disabled we would still have 10 minutes of recordings after.

[Edited 2014-03-21 10:57:59]



[Edited 2014-03-21 10:58:37]
 
spacecadet
Posts: 2788
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:41 pm

rcair: Respectfully, your section on the Satcom data ignores statistical probability, which is what the NTSB is using (I believe by their own explanation) to create the possible flight tracks. If you have the plane's location at any point in time vs. the location of the satellite, and you then have a known distance from the satellite at different points in time in the future, you *can* make a probabilistic determination of its flight path given other constraints of aircraft performance (for example, we know it can't fly at MACH 2, so we know it probably *didn't* fly past one of the ping arcs and then back before the ping occurred).

Statistical probabilities are just that - they are not ironclad. But it's not accurate to say something like this:

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 9):
The point is the 'other' pings can provide minimal data if any. You cannot predict the a/c course based upon them.

You *can* predict the a/c course based upon them. Those predictions may still turn out to be wrong, but you can make a prediction with a certain degree of probability. That is exactly what the NTSB has apparently done and why the search is being concentrated where it is.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
 
mandala499
Posts: 6458
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:44 pm

Quoting tomlee (Reply 1):
Which is why I think ELTs should be able to turn on in situations where the transponder is non-functional or other abnormal conditions indicate the plane is gone "dark" and the ELT with its independent power is the perfect solution for accidental and even deliberate gone "dark" situations. In almost all jet crashes there isn't much left and the automatic ELT never goes off. (If it transmitted before impact should other tracking methods fail then SAR response would be much faster and survivors retrieved faster) Using ACARS for SAR requires analysis and subscription to a system which doesn't have battery power and can be disabled manually as well.

A simpler solution would be to disable "GPS Discreet Mode" in the SatCom. Inmarsat HGA and IGA has the ability to operate in GPS discreet mode, which is, during these "pings", does not transmit their GPS data.
Having GPS discreet mode disabled would narrow down the search area to 1 hr flight's worth... and doesn't cost anything extra using what we have today... and can eliminate one of the two arcs we are presented with today... and they can't disable it.

ACARS for SAR isn't wise on cost and how easy it is to disable it, but you can have automated flight tracking systems that can activate a rapid interval position transmission satcom (you can have 1 per second if you want although more rapid than 1 per 5 seconds isn't recommended) with other stuff such as orientation, speed, altitude, and snapshots like having a QAR at the same interval or at a different intervl, etc... and can have its own battery if you want to (albeit not recommended, as the system is as stable as the satcom that has no easy off switch)... if you want you can even use "transponder off" as a trigger.    The system can be used on current aircraft for less than 25k USD total, and a subscription of 50 USD, and bandwidth (which you can use to send only when the "alarm" is activated).
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
Unflug
Posts: 692
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:25 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:45 pm

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 9):
Respectfully Submitted - rcair1

Thanks for that work, outstanding!
 
65mustang
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:28 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:46 pm

Does the Satcom ping have any length to it at all? EG, is there a length of 1s or 5milliseconds to the ping itself?

KUL is 217 miles above the equator. IGREX is further north. If MH370 started south from IGREX, it was flying to the equator and toward the Inmarsat satellite. Is it possible to measure the length of the 2:11 ping to determine if the plane was flying toward the satellite or away from it(use the Doppler effect)? Immersat has said that the last few pings indicate it was flying away from the sat, but what about the first two?
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1444
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:47 pm

The cabin crew could have used one of the 2 portable ELT's if they were alive and wanted to signal distress.
 
nupogodi
Posts: 933
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:58 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:52 pm

Yikes, rcair, that post completely broke the page with Google Chrome. It works on Safari but I think you have some mismatched tags.

edit: See http://i.imgur.com/eQTeUth.png

The corruption occurs immediately following your post (i.e. if you scroll down, your post is the last thing to show up normally, then everything else gets thrown up top... You probably closed more tags than you intended on.)

[Edited 2014-03-21 10:55:25]
A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
 
hivue
Posts: 1618
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:53 pm

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 9):
I don't know what happens if a 777 reaches the end of it's programmed course while under autopilot control.

When I have left MSFS running and come back later after the "flight" has reached its final "waypoint" the "airplane" is just circling overhead. Don't know what would happen in the real world.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
tomlee
Posts: 610
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:01 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:54 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 13):
A simpler solution would be to disable "GPS Discreet Mode" in the SatCom. Inmarsat HGA and IGA has the ability to operate in GPS discreet mode, which is, during these "pings", does not transmit their GPS data.
Having GPS discreet mode disabled would narrow down the search area to 1 hr flight's worth... and doesn't cost anything extra using what we have today... and can eliminate one of the two arcs we are presented with today... and they can't disable it.

Now the people know how useful inmarsat's modem is in finding the plane they are going to try and disable that too assuming a deliberate action. Even without deliberate action the sat modem has no independent power and if some electrical problem trips the circuit for real then we could be in a loss of tracking situation again. The ELT has advantages in that it has a battery which lasts longer than most flights, it is physically far away from tampering, and it too has GPS+Doppler tracking.

Although I having multiple modes of tracking is good too. As the satcom pings could easily carry GPS location embedded with minimal cost as well and if that fails then the ELT is the final defense which it really is supposed to be. My firmware update idea is more just tripping the test mode to send a GPS packet periodically if all the datalinks and transponder (or basically traditional forms of tracking fail).

For triggered more frequent tracking ELTs are free to use though so it might be a bit easier to airlines to accept a quick swap vs. 25k total+50USD sub for emergency ACARS tracking services. (Although maybe airlines should advertise what kind of safety subscriptions they have).
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:58 pm

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 16):
The cabin crew could have used one of the 2 portable ELT's if they were alive and wanted to signal distress.

...which leads us to believe that the cabin crew and the passengers were incapacitated, for example by an intentional or accidental depressurization, or by some other mechanism.
 
cialome
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 11:46 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 6:05 pm

From the Sanity Check - There has been a claim by counter terrorist expert that this could be a "cyber hijack" - a malicious attack of a FBW a/c by somebody in the back with a smart phone.

(note, thank you for the SC and now the addition of color - this is incredibly helpful)

Ages ago I posited the notion could someone "hide" in the avionics bay, etc. The various answers were yes they could, most likely no one would check but what nixed it for me was the access panel was outside the cockpit. Pffft there went that theory.

Now, in stalking this list and there was the Android 'attack' demonstration - I am now asking a theoretical. Knowing systems (but not any aircraft system) - some level of access would need to be available in the avionics bay for diagnostics, etc. That means there are connections down there.

So my question -

Can the plane be run entirely by computer - that is lock out the pilots 100% no matter what switch they through or lever they push.

I ask because I am thinking a device (let's say linux) is placed into the electronics area and plugged it. It is granted access to the system and then waits. Let's say for 5000 feet of altitude. At 5000 feet it wakes up and talks to the system - enters some way points and turns a few things off (like a transponder.) Then at a programmed time, it turns more things off until it effectively takes over the systems and flies it dry.

The last time I wrote I talked of lots of hand-waving. I am saying this again - someone would have to have intimate knowledge of the aircraft system and operating system. And then have to high level password access to the system to take control (building the device and attaching inside the aircraft would be minimal compared).

Does the computer have this level of control? And could it make the pilots essentially manikins on their own plane?

This would make for an interesting trial run then...
 
namezero111111
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 7:05 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 6:18 pm

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 16):
The cabin crew could have used one of the 2 portable ELT's if they were alive and wanted to signal distress.

Excellent point. I don't think this has been brought up yet in 40 parts. Of course, from the cabin these ELTs may not be able to lock on to a satellite. And if the southern route was indeed taken, probably no one would have picked up on a 121.5/243 mhz signal down there, especially given the limited range of a handheld transmitter...
 
mandala499
Posts: 6458
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 6:19 pm

Quoting tomlee (Reply 19):
As the satcom pings could easily carry GPS location embedded with minimal cost as well

Let me repeat: It's free! It's not minimal cost.

But yes, there are progress in all these modes we're talking about.
There are also newer Inmarsat modem that are smaller, and stable enough to be put even in a place less accessible than the current ones, making it difficult to disable.
Iridium tracking solutions that can operate out of an independent power source should the main power source fail or get disabled (and can go into "alarm mode" when that happens)... with the modem box as big as three 5-inch phones stacked on top of each other. The antenna itself is multimode, therefore the system isn't dependent on the aircraft's main GPS system. This one can be made to be immune from disabling to the same extent as the "advanced ELT activation" idea of yours.

On the ELT, you can use a similar "alarm activation" method as with the satcom tracking... Unfortunately that adds cost to the equipment (you want it to be also reliable enough to prevent erroneous activation outside impact activations), but the best part of that idea is that it's free when it's activated.

The 25k tracking system costs comes with the QAR and QAR alert through SATCOM function... That's not comparable to the ELT idea. The one that's comparable, is actually as low as $1500 for a tamper proof "always on when powered" system unless you want the independent battery, and can still have an "alarm feature" for that price. Smaller aircraft now have more and more of these kinds of system because they simply find ACARS too expensive. Some mainline aircraft have also adopted this.

All this just goes to show, that a lot of the solutions are already here... if only the big airlines know about it (and sadly, no, they don't always know about it)...
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
Lindenwold
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:52 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 6:24 pm

U.S. has spent $2.5 million on the search so far. The budget is $4 million. Budget will obviously be reevaluated when the time comes. -CNN

[Edited 2014-03-21 11:24:29]

[Edited 2014-03-21 11:25:06]
 
Pihero
Posts: 4196
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 6:24 pm

How To Derive The Flight Track With The Loci ?


It's an old nav problem in my days of airline pilot cadet.
First of all, what is a *Locus* ( plural *Loci*) ?
It's the set of all points, lines, or surfaces that satisfy a given requirement
Here, this requirement is *distance to the satellite* and we may as well call it a LOP, or "Line Of Position".
But they are just that.
In order to do some dead-reckoning, one would need first a ground speed, from the basic triangle : Heading/TAS - Track/GS - Wind... But we do not have either a heading or a ground track.
So, how do we solve it ?
We have seven LOPs going away from the satellite and we know that they were taken at intervals of one hour,; which means that between two consecutive LOPs, we should - taken the wind into account - have a succession of vectors of equal lengths., each one equivalent of one hour of ground speed
Here is where it's becoming tricky : What ground speed and hence what TAS ?
- We can eliminate all the low speeds that do not cross the LOPs within one hour
- We can eliminate the high speeds that burn more fuel making it impossible to reach the last LOPs.
- Oh ! Wait ! We have a solid TAS from the last ADS-C transponder, reported by FlightRadar, don't we ?

Now a graphic solution is possible ;
1/- Draw the LOPs on an equidistant map
2/- Take a strip of paper / cardboard... etc... and divide it by seven distances to scale with the map.
3/- Move the strip around on the map until each of its duvisions matches a LOP in succession.
4/- Play about with different ground speeds consistent with the accuracy of the satellite pings and an estimated altitude of the aircraft.
You've then restricted your search area to a good deal, after prolonging the last vector to the estimated max range ( fuel exhaustion )
A way to eliminate all the impossibilities due to different speeds is to find one track that includes the last known position.

The *strip* solution can be replaced by an algorythm, the way the NTSB did, IMHO.

In conclusion : Yes we need all the *loci* in order to determine an accurate track.
BUT :This takes a lot of assumptions : a constant heading or track, a constant speed / Mach, a constant altitude...
These assumptions beg a very serious question : " Are they really indicative of an active aircraw ?"

[Edited 2014-03-21 11:29:35]
Contrail designer
 
AR385
Posts: 6735
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:25 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 6:35 pm

This Brooke Baldwin I´m watching on CNN is a sad, bad joke for a journalist. She is pushing a couple of theories now that would make any of the most ludicrous scenarios posted here on this thread seem logical.

She also cuts off experts (if that is what they are) and keeps pushing her ideas. No wonder people that know jack about aviation get so confused when they watch these programs.

The BBC is much better and professional.
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1444
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 6:39 pm

Quoting namezero111111 (Reply 22):

I suppose it depends on when they realized there was trouble.

I think if the cabin crew remained alive, they would have realized there was a problem within the first two hours, while they were still near Malaysia.

A cockpit fire near IGARI should have had them trying to figure out how to get help.

I was thinking they could hold the ELT antenna near a window and hope it was heard.
 
Gonzalo
Posts: 1526
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:43 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 6:54 pm

Quoting Pihero (Reply 26):
You've then restricted your search area to a good deal, after prolonging the last vector to the estimated max range ( fuel exhaustion )

The problem I see with this is, we are always restricted to an estimated max range, but let's face it, the chances of the plane being on solid terrain are basically zero.... with a certainty of 99%, is on the water, and the currents and dynamics of the ocean bottom could move and segregate the debris day by day.... time is the enemy here....The search area could be 200 miles away from the nearest significant, visible part of the aircraft. On the other hand, is really incredible that a 777 can ditch or crash in the sea and not a single life jacket, not a single seat cushion, not a single bag has been spotted in two weeks....

Quoting AR385 (Reply 29):
The BBC is much better and professional.

Agree 100%.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 9):
That is all.
Respectfully Submitted - rcair1

Thank you rcair1, you are saving a lot of time and useless brainstorms to many people here, including me of course!!

Rgds.
G:
Gear Up!!: DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20-21 / B732 / B763 / B789
 
Lindenwold
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:52 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:06 pm

Quoting AR385 (Reply 27):

She's obviously not an expert in aviation. She is being forced to cover this story during her entire show, 5 days in a row now. Certainty doesn't make her a joke.
 
davidzill
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 1:26 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:08 pm

Fox was airing some baboon the other night claiming to be a retired Lt. Gen. From the USAF, who, while on the air, claimed he was in the "witness protection program". The same guy was also touting his top secret intelligence sources, claiming CIA believes the aircraft was hijacked and flown to Pakistan. When Hannity was trying to pull more info out of him on the air, he then said all of this theory was his own "reasonable assumption". Then you have the "777 simulator instructor" on CNN who I believe isn't even a rated pilot. Funny stuff
 
rcair1
Crew
Posts: 1111
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:39 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:09 pm

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 12):
rcair: Respectfully, your section on the Satcom data ignores statistical probability, which is what the NTSB is using (I believe by their own explanation) to create the possible flight tracks. If you have the plane's location at any point in

No problems spacecadet - can you point me at sources for the NTSB calculation so I can include that data in future posts?

However, I do think 'statistical' is a misnomer for something with 7 or 8 data points. That is not a distribution. However, you can use analysis to eliminate some non-compatible paths and I do believe NTSB did that. I would expect they combined a number of various data sources to create self consistent results.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 12):
(for example, we know it can't fly at MACH 2, so we know it probably *didn't* fly past one of the ping arcs and then back before the ping occurred).

Actually - I noted that exact example except I just say "flew farther than the aircraft could file in an hour" (or words to that effect.
Actually - we (you and I) don't know that it did not fly past a ping arc and back in time for another one. Even if we had the ping arc data - we could not unless the data showed each ping arc was 1 hr flight directly towards or away from the satellite. If each ping arc was equivalent to 1 hr travel at max cruise directly to/from the satellite, we would know that the a/c was traveling to/from the satellite.
If the arcs are less than that distance apart, the the aircraft could be flying: at an angle to the radial to the satellite, directly to/from the satellite slowly, directly along a radial fast, followed by reversal of course, directly along a radial fast, followed by a turn along off the radial.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 12):
You *can* predict the a/c course based upon them. Those predictions may still turn out to be wrong, but you can

That is the point, with the exception of very limited cases - you must make assumptions about speed or course. Those assumptions define the possible options. For most of the time - we have NO basis for assumption - even constant speed or course assumptions.

THe problem with releasing the pings is - in absence of further data, and even in presence of limited further data, you can come up with an almost infinite set of courses. It just is not enough data.

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 17):
Yikes, rcair, that post completely broke the page with Google Chrome. It works on Safari but I think you have some mismatched tags.

Really? I'm using Chrome - I'll go back and check.
Note - you may have caught it during an edit. I did see a funny result temporarily as I was posting and doing a quick edit.

Currently - it looks fine to me (but I will go back and look at the tag structure).

Quoting cialome (Reply 21):
There has been a claim by counter terrorist expert that this could be a "cyber hijack" - a malicious attack of a FBW a/c by somebody in the back with a smart phone.

This is mentioned in the sanity check - I don't think it is believed to be credible.

Quoting namezero111111 (Reply 22):
Excellent point. I don't think this has been brought up yet in 40 parts.

Actually - it has. However, since no ELT signal has been detected, either they did not, or it did not work.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 26):
BUT :This takes a lot of assumptions : a constant heading or track, a constant speed / Mach, a constant altitude...
These assumptions beg a very serious question : " Are they really indicative of an active aircraw ?"

That is the problem - all 'routes' but a few based on the pings alone require assumptions we don't have basis for.
Certainly - routes that require the a/c to fly >> max speed can be eliminated, but taht is about all.

Quoting 65mustang (Reply 15):
was flying toward the satellite or away from it(use the Doppler effect)? Immersat has said that the last few pings indicate it was flying away from the sat, but what about the first two?

I think they base that on distance, not doppler.
While - in theory, you may get a doppler effect off the carrier wave - I doubt the satellite can detect it. That is another way of saying it is designed to ignore/compensate for frequency shifts of the magnitude doppler could provide.

-rcair1
rcair1
 
Pihero
Posts: 4196
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:14 pm

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 28):
The problem I see with this is, we are always restricted to an estimated max range,

No ! Determining the aircraft 's path intersections with the LOPs gives a straight knowledge of the speed, therefore a Mach number.
As the investigators have had an access to the original weight-and-balance loadsheet, (We don't) they have also a very good knowledge of the weight ... So they can infer the autonomy of the plane. The graph could even be in the 777 FCOM.
With all these data, they could predict with great accuracy where the flight ended.
Contrail designer
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1244
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:19 pm

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 9):
The point is the 'other' pings can provide minimal data if any. You cannot predict the a/c course based upon them. At the most, you could propose a course/speed and see if that course/speed is consistent with the ping loci.

I don't agree.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 9):
•Some examples:•Two pings provide the SAME radius. The aircraft could have:•1) circled in place for 1 hour.•2) Flown toward or away from the satellite for 30 minutes, then reversed course to reach the starting location at the time of the next ping..

No, the mathematical function laid through the radius samples alone will reveal a lot:
E.g. if it is the negative peak of a sinus, this means that the flight track has actually been steady and straight, approaching the closest point to the satelite and after that departing again.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 9):
•On full autopilot it could fly on - however, that would assume a course was programmed in. I don't know what happens if a 777 reaches the end of it's programmed course while under autopilot control.

It continues on the last heading.
 
markalot
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:07 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:20 pm

In my mind the end result of what happened is now pretty clear due to the existence of the pings and the steady increase in ping time. It ended up running out of fuel and crashing, and we need to find it.

Besides where the wreckage is the last big unknown is what exactly happened when the plane turned, changed altitude, and then apparently returned to flight level and flew to its demise. I now suspect some kind of incident, perhaps a fire, perhaps a bomb that was enough to destroy some equipment but not bring down the plane. There is still a chance this is some kind of suicide, but it makes less and less sense to me.

I now believe once the recorders are found, and it make take years, the audio recordings will indicate no sounds and further the theory that whatever happened must have killed or incapacitated the crew. Hopefully they will find enough of the wreckage to determine if there was a fire on board.

This is just my current theory posted for no other reason except discussion. It's kind of sad to see the conspiracy theorists presenting more and more outlandish ideas as time goes on, but that's the way these things go down.

 
M a r k
 
AR385
Posts: 6735
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:25 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:23 pm

Quoting Lindenwold (Reply 29):
She's obviously not an expert in aviation. She is being forced to cover this story during her entire show, 5 days in a row now. Certainty doesn't make her a joke.

I would have to see her during her normal show. As of now, she seems pretty bad and pushy when being told delicately she is barking off the wrong tree. That in my book makes her a bad joke of a journalist. I´m ditching CNN for good and sticking with the BBC.
 
nupogodi
Posts: 933
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:58 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:24 pm

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 31):
Really? I'm using Chrome - I'll go back and check.
Note - you may have caught it during an edit. I did see a funny result temporarily as I was posting and doing a quick edit.

Currently - it looks fine to me (but I will go back and look at the tag structure).

It seems to be fixed now. Not sure if it was your fault or the forums software messing up. Only Safari rendered the page in a readable way for me, although the tables were still broken. It must be a lot to keep track of!
A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
 
Pihero
Posts: 4196
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:24 pm

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 31):
That is the problem - all 'routes' but a few based on the pings alone require assumptions we don't have basis for.
Certainly - routes that require the a/c to fly >> max speed can be eliminated, but taht is about all.

I've tried a few assumed speeds, and there are not that many possibilities. I worked that possibilities are within a 20 knots spread.
How they - the NTSB - managed to eliminate some speeds, I don't know... Maybe using the winds aloft can really reduce the number of possible solutions to the problem... But they really seem to be sure of their brainstorm.
In any case, assuming that the last known airspeed was maintained works asttonishingly well with the NTSB chart.

[Edited 2014-03-21 12:26:45]
Contrail designer
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:28 pm

Quoting Pihero (Reply 32):
With all these data, they could predict with great accuracy where the flight ended.

I would say that assuming a constant speed and heading they can predict where the flight ended, barring the uncertainties due to the satellite distance determination. Without these assumptions regarding the constant speed and heading the aircraft could basically be anywhere on the final arc (i.e. there would always be tracks having varying speeds and headings ending on the final arc that would be consistent with all the earlier arcs). This is basically the same thing rcair1 says in his excellent summary.
 
Lindenwold
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:52 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:31 pm

Quoting AR385 (Reply 35):

thanks, i was not aware of this bbc news channel. probably because it is channel 171 locally.
 
akberc
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 9:24 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:34 pm

Quoting davidzill (Reply 30):
Fox was airing some baboon the other night claiming to be a retired Lt. Gen. From the USAF, who, while on the air, claimed he was in the "witness protection program". The same guy was also touting his top secret intelligence sources, claiming CIA believes the aircraft was hijacked and flown to Pakistan.

Thanks for that. Said baboon, when quoted on a-net, made me buy a subscription and write my first post.   It is a pity that he will shape the opinions of many Americans.
 
LFutia
Posts: 3155
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2002 11:04 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:34 pm

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 9):

Thanks for the added information!

Leo/ORD
Leo/ORD -- Groetjes uit de VS! -- Heeft u laatst nog met KLM gevlogen?
 
rcair1
Crew
Posts: 1111
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:39 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:42 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 33):
I don't agree

And that is welcome - I don't confess to have any inside knowledge.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 33):
It continues on the last heading.

Thank you.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 33):
No, the mathematical function laid through the radius samples alone will reveal a lot:
E.g. if it is the negative peak of a sinus, this means that the flight track has actually been steady and straight, approaching the closest point to the satelite and after that departing again.

Can you please elaborate - I would like to understand what you are saying and I do not.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 37):
In any case, assuming that the last known airspeed was maintained works asttonishingly well with the NTSB chart.

I think last known speed is not a bad assumption for an aircraft flying on autopilot or on some level of automation.
Just because you have to assume things does not mean should not try to use reasonable assumptions to direct resources. We do not have infinite resources and time - so we need to be smart about it.

My key point is that I'm quite sure the NTSB used far more data than just the ping data and did so in a very measured and scientific manner. I think to use the ping data in a meaningful way - you would need that, and it is unlikely anybody outside the core investigation would have ready access to it all. Others would choose to ignore it based on some agenda.

What that really means is I think it is reasonable to limit release of that data because if it was released it would fuel the already messy 'public discussion'.

On the other hand- there is always the possibility that 'fresh eyes....." will contribute something new.
rcair1
 
akberc
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 9:24 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:53 pm

Thanks to rcair1 for the excellent summary. Three thoughts emerge from the summary:

  • South arc end - straight/constant zombie flight on auto-pilot or a single suicidal pilot who had successfully killed/neutralized everyone.
  • North arc end - intentional successful hijacking. If it reached the mainland and evaded radar and landed secretly, then senior pilot was at controls and part of the hijacking.

    Now, assuming that the Satcom ping events are 100% reliable but the satellite distance extrapolation is not 100% accurate, and last ping and fuel exhaustion threshold are a co-incidence:
  • North arc partial - mechanical problem / botched hijacking. It did not reach the mainland of South Asia, never evaded radar, airplane control surfaces were not responding, and it was looking for a place to land, hence the turns. Landing was rough or in shallow water and Satcom was active for a while.

    On the balance of probabilities, and as time passes for the "north arc end" scenario and the "south arc end" search does not find anything, the third option is most likely. China requested India for permission to search the Andamans / Bay of Bengal area today, and India denied the request.
  •  
    capri
    Posts: 499
    Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 1:32 am

    RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

    Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:53 pm

    just a thought, who patrols Antarctica? if any debris washed ashore over there with these currents and winds? on CNN it was mentioned that debris could have moved 1000 miles in any direction depending on currents types of course
     
    jox
    Posts: 119
    Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 3:39 am

    RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

    Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:59 pm

    Question to those of you that have access to the waypoints usually available in the FMCs;

    Are there any such waypoint along (regardless where) the NTSB-guestimate-route in such a manner that that one could have been part of the reprogram that (apparently) happened near IGARI. I.e. VAMPI-GIVAL-IGREX-xxxxx and then the plane just continued on straight course from xxxxx, along that path. Unless there is such a point, someone must have been alive to be able to change course after IGREX. If it was already preprogrammed, the plane would just have flown that path by itself and then just continued straight ahead.

    That theory doesn't explain WHY such a path would have been programmed, though.
     
    nupogodi
    Posts: 933
    Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:58 am

    RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

    Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:05 pm

    Quoting jox (Reply 45):

    Question to those of you that have access to the waypoints usually available in the FMCs
    http://skyvector.com/

    Select "World Hi" at the top right (for high level airways) and see for yourself.
    A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
     
    747megatop
    Posts: 1445
    Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 8:22 am

    RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

    Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:07 pm

    If no floating debris is found and the pingers from the black boxes die out then what are the remaining options? Will ships be employed to survey the ocean floor using side scan sonar technology in a section of the ocean based on best guesstimates? This would be a daunting task IMO.

    For example - " However because research vessels travel quite slowly (6m/s = 12 knots) it would take approximately 125 years to chart the ocean basins using the latest swath-mapping tools. To date, only a small fraction of the sea floor has been charted by ships." as per this article - http://topex.ucsd.edu/marine_grav/explore_grav.html
    I don't know how much this "swath-mapping" applies to this scenario of trying to find wreckage on the Ocean floor.

    What i feel is that once the black box pingers die; the chances of finding this wreckage are one in a billion. I think the only hope now is finding some floating debris somewhere and tracking back satellite photos from March 8th, 9th etc. to see if they can spot something.
     
    Pihero
    Posts: 4196
    Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

    RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

    Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:13 pm

    Quoting rcair1 (Reply 42):
    My key point is that I'm quite sure the NTSB used far more data than just the ping data and did so in a very measured and scientific manner.

    I certainly agree with that, starting with the elimination of the Northern loci : you'd need either a course reeversal or getting into range of a second satellite.
    I also think that they took into account the existence of the Australian radar net, thus further reducing the uncertainty of some of the speed/track sets.
    The fact is : the loci are very accurate, their only limit being the uncertainty of the aircraft altitude. That means that the loci are, instead of lines a set of bands some 2 nautical miles wide
    The fact is : an algorythm which works like my paper strip method but includes the winds aloft digital database would determine the various positions on the loci, at the ping times with a very important accuracy. As a matter of fact, the NTSB pic shows not a straight flight path but one curved southwestward, which to me indicates that the winds have been included in the study.
    It would be very difficult for me to assume that the FAA, Boeing and the NTSB, working together hand in hand in this accident cvould be callous enough to send everybody on a wild goose chase without a great deal of confidence in their results.
    Contrail designer
     
    capri
    Posts: 499
    Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 1:32 am

    RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42

    Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:16 pm

    Quoting nupogodi (Reply 46):
    Question to those of you that have access to the waypoints usually available in the FMCs
    http://skyvector.com/

    Select "World Hi" at the top right (for high level airways) and see for yourself.

    I think what he meant and maybe I am wrong, are those part of initial transition or STAR for Langkawi before final vector, or maybe a company arrival route to Langkawi or any other destination that general public unaware of? ?

    [Edited 2014-03-21 13:18:10]

    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: 817Dreamliiner, ASG32Mi, Bing [Bot], BobMUC, changyou, Dutchy, flyingclrs727, GRJGeorge, headlessmike, ikolkyo, KarelXWB, Mani87, Phen, starbucks, steman, tvh, Yahoo [Bot] and 202 guests