MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 14

lazybones · Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:24 am

Quoting TheRocketeer (Reply 285):
Ha! You guys will get a kick out of this: "The plane's transponder and other tracking systems were either shut off or not functioning around the time that communications with air traffic control ended. That would have prevented so-called secondary radar used by civilian authorities from identifying it, but not primary radar used by the military."

This is exactly what I was thinking, the transponder identifies the aircraft and location. Where are the primary radar hits from the civilian ATC. Was their primary radar unserviceable at the time?? Poor equipment?? With PANAM 103, the primary radar picked up multiple hits as the 747 broke up at high altitude. I'm not seeing any information like this with MH370.

My gut feeling on this disaster is more like Swissair 111 (fire in the cockpit) or Qantas QF32 (exploding engine). This is the only thing that makes sense to me now. This would explain the turn back and possibly the various system failures and maybe confusion by the crew and lack of communication.

vnangia · Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:26 am

Quoting OV735 (Reply 73):
Well, you're probably correct that in the middle of the Bay of Bengal there is no radar coverage.

Quoting blrsea (Reply 94):
India has radars in some of the Andaman islands too, so doubt if the aircraft came close to Indian airspace around Andamans

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 107):
China may have some sonar arrays in this area

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 119):

There's actually surprisingly good Indian naval coverage well into the Bay of Bengal using OTH radars in Orissa, Tamil Nadu and Port Blair in the Andamans. There's also a major IAF facility at Car Nicobar that has had coverage of the southern Indian ocean from about 2007. As to underwater - there is a fairly sophisticated tsunami warning system that's been in place post-2004, but as to how useful it is a SOSUS for an airplane crash, I really couldn't say. And my understanding of FR24's coverage in India is volunteer-run ADSB pickups - so it's possible the reason planes disappear there is more because of a lack of volunteers in the middle of the Bay rather than an actual gap in military radar.

777Jet · Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:27 am

Quoting SLVRBLT (Reply 295):
Crazy stuff.

Triple-7's sized- planes aren't going to have accidents and leave no traces. The South China sea/Vietnam Gulf is shallow enough that seat cushions/bodies/something would have floated up by now; you've got military vessels with sophisticated sonar and listening devices doing searches and listening for pinging CVR's. Nothing. Even at 12000 feet down, AF441 began giving up some traces/debris after it went down. Yes, MH370 could have flown on and crashed in a jungle or in a remote area, but if something that big hit the ground, SOMEONE would have known it by now. That flash would have lit up somebody's air-defense radars.
How much gas did MH370 have on board that day?? A fueled-up triple can go a HELL of a long ways. It's almost like a Tom Clancy novel, imagine what one or two bad guys could do if they gained cockpit access.......and knew how to fly a big plane. What do we know about that very young first officer???
I know this sounds crazy, but remember 9-11....who would have thought THAT would happen. I hope I'm just being neurotic, but yes, I'm worried.

I'm worried too. Also, from the point of view as a passenger, I used to think that if I was on a flight that had trouble and went down (even if it ditched in the middle of the ocean), and I survived and was waiting in a lifeboat with others, that our location would be known and rescuers would be on the way. I don't have that same belief anymore. I will always have a doubt now that if I survived a plane crash that I might never be found... With all the technology that is available and used on modern aircraft it makes me sad to see what is unfolding and have such doubts.

PW100 · Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:28 am

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 300):
All the authorities need to do is say "we looked into it; those are false messages. No phones are in contact with cell towers."

They have not done that. So either they're intentionally ignoring it - which only keeps the story going - or they've looked into it and there's something they don't want the families to know

I think they DID just that. It was reported here that one of officials said during a press conference on day two or three, that he himself dialed such a number and got nothing. It was debunked already at a press conference.

But perhaps I'm getting mixed up in all these threads . . .

PW100

DeltaMD90 · Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:31 am

Quoting lucaspithan (Reply 280):
But as I asked before, would be possible to happen with this kind of plane the same with the 733 of Helios Airways (flight 522)?

Sigh... no one is asking anyone to read all 3000+ replies but at least skim the threads and CTRL+F to find similar questions.

As explained multiple times (both in regards to hypoxia in general and specifically flight 522,) this would not account for the transponder going off. I'm sure you can think of an extremely weird/complex scenario where hypoxia is involved, but it would have to be pretty convoluted to involve the transponder going off (and although every checklist differs to some degree, I'm not familiar with any checklist that has the crew turn before putting on the oxygen mask.

If you get into the pilot(s) intentionally making everyone hypoxic, that would differ greatly from flight 522 or accidental hypoxia

Quoting stuyyz (Reply 299):
Don't think its a ship. This is what a ship looks like....

That's like saying every single plane looks like a 777......

[Edited 2014-03-11 17:32:51]

gulfstream650 · Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:32 am

Going with the turn to the Malaca Straights theory, I would like to know what was the rate of descent to 3,000ft was (rate could indicate whether or not there was a depressurization).

PW100 · Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:34 am

Quoting lazybones (Reply 302):
Was their primary radar unserviceable at the time?? Poor equipment

Or outside radar coverage over the Gulf of Thailand midway between the shores of Malaysia and Vietnam/Combodia . . .

Or within radar coverage, but the military don't want to expose just how much radar power they have (or not have), and to which ranges they can detect . . .

Or did the military radars called it a day at Friday evening 19:00 local, and this just too embarrassing for the military . . .

Just some thoughts.
PW100

noflies · Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:36 am

Quoting lazybones (Reply 302):
This is exactly what I was thinking, the transponder identifies the aircraft and location. Where are the primary radar hits from the civilian ATC. Was their primary radar unserviceable at the time??

Long time lurker. Like aviation, don't like flying (go figure).

My similar question is: Why only one reported military radar sighting near some island on the other side of where MH370 should have been, several hundred miles away and some time away. If MH370 indeed flew over land, then where was the military radar over that land, let alone tracking it from the last checkin? Or is there too much air traffic there to distinguish one blip from another, until an aircraft gets to some isolated point?

Edit: Ok, seems already answered above while I was typing.

[Edited 2014-03-11 17:37:54]

acabgd · Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:36 am

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 158):
I recollect that there was a Egyptair T7 cockpit fire on the ground. Could a similar fire have knocked out all electronics in the cockpit?

And left absolutely no debris anywhere? If there was such a fire the plane would be unflyable, crew incapacitated (see SR111) and would most probably plunge into the sea near the point of loss of contact. Sea is so shallow there that you might as well have a wing sticking out of the water surface. There's so much ship traffic it would be almost impossible not to notice anything.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 211):
I wonder if there is a chance that they made a soft landing in the ocean and therefore there isn't much wreckage. The OZ 777 in SFO stayed largely intact and it hit a wall and did a somersault.

Largely intact with a ton of wreckage strewn all over the place...

Thunderboltdrgn · Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:36 am

Quoting stuyyz (Reply 299):

I'm of the opposite opinion. Imo it looks like some sort of ship.
possible with a pilot boat on its port side.

[Edited 2014-03-11 17:39:15]

Starlionblue · Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:36 am

Quoting bobbypsp (Reply 296):
First off keeping up with 14 pages! I have a question in regards to the on purpose depressurization:

While pax O2 running out soon, the crew has acces to additional,portable supplies.

I would think as the event stabilized, the cabin crew would naturally try and contact the flight deck. If they didn't get an answer, and there was no intrusion ( the theory this whole incident was caused by a pilot), would they naturally try and acces the flight deck thinking maybe they were incapacitated?

It would indeed make sense to attempt to contact the flight deck if there was communication from there.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 300):

Quoting Enobar (Reply 290):
I for one think the whole phone thing is a complete dead end.

Then the authorities should say so. I'm confused as to why the fact that they haven't yet isn't raising any flags with some people. This is a story that the media and the passengers' families (the only people that really matter other than the passengers, who we can't speak to) have been all over. All the authorities need to do is say "we looked into it; those are false messages. No phones are in contact with cell towers."

They have not done that. So either they're intentionally ignoring it - which only keeps the story going - or they've looked into it and there's something they don't want the families to know.

There's absolutely nothing to lose for the authorities to simply say they've had people look at this and it's a red herring, if that is in fact the case. If it was the NTSB or even the FBI leading this investigation, they'd have done that the first day. Assuming it is a dead end.

I agree with you but I think that no amount of trying to kill the cell phone angle will help. This story will not die because people want to believe it so badly.

speedbird128 · Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:37 am

Quoting lazybones (Reply 302):

See reply 289. (just 13 back from your post).

tim73 · Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:37 am

Quoting trex8 (Reply 301):
Why not a fuselage crack- someone mentioned in a much earlier thread that MH have 2 side fuselage satcom antennas not the more common one on the roof.

Telegraph is reporting the issue:

"American transport officials warned of a potential weak spot in Boeing 777s which could lead to the "loss of structural integrity of the aircraft" four months before the disappearance of Malaysia airlines Flight MH370.

The Federal Aviation Administration in Washington drew up an Airworthiness Directive in November. It was triggered by reports of cracking in the fuselage skin underneath a Boeing aircraft's satellite antennae. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ngs-over-Boeing-777-weak-spot.html

ukair · Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:42 am

someone mentioned malaysia airlines did not have ACARS like AF 447 because it was a paid service perhaps after this incident the FAA will make it mandatory for all large passenger aircraft to have ACARS?

na · Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:42 am

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 306):
As explained multiple times (both in regards to hypoxia in general and specifically flight 522,) this would not account for the transponder going off.

If the sudden event started with knocking off the transponder and other signal systems (structural failure causing this and THEN leading to hypoxia of the poor people on board, surely a tragedy like the Helios crash could explain this 777 tragedy.

mcoatc · Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:48 am

Quoting na (Reply 316):
If the sudden event started with knocking off the transponder and other signal systems (structural failure causing this and THEN leading to hypoxia of the poor people on board, surely a tragedy like the Helios crash could explain this 777 tragedy.

And how does the plane get turned back? By the now incapacitated crew? The crew would have donned their masks prior to turning back. Sorry, it still doesn't make sense with the info we have.....of course, who knows how accurate half of the info we think we have actually is.

speedbird128 · Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:50 am

Quoting ukair (Reply 315):

It did have acars. If I recall correctly Rolls Royce have advised they received 2 engine parameter reports from it...

trex8 · Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:52 am

Quoting ukair (Reply 315):
someone mentioned malaysia airlines did not have ACARS like AF 447 because it was a paid service perhaps after this incident the FAA will make it mandatory for all large passenger aircraft to have ACARS?

IIRC previous postsMAS have confirmed they have ACARS but there were no abnormal messages. How often it send signals is apparently dependent on how much money you want to pay. Some have suggested MAS may have gone for the cheap plan.

panampaul · Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:52 am

Malaysian officials are contradicting one another. Now the Air Force is saying that the plane did not head over the Strait.

Malaysian Air Force: Plane Did Not Detour Over Strait

Quote:
A Malaysian air force official added to the confusion surrounding the search for the missing Malaysian Airlines flight when he categorically rejected reports that the Malaysian military had tracked the plane by radar over the Strait of Malacca, one of the world’s busiest maritime shipping channels.....

.

MSY-MSP · Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:52 am

Quoting damirc (Reply 273):

Which interestingly corresponds to the early reports of a heading change from 024 to 333. Not saying that that is the plane, but there are very few ships out there that are 200+ feet long and only 25 feet wide.

Also I have been following this for quite a while and I keep coming back to the conclusion that someone did something and this is not a "mechanical failure"

The timing of the events. The transponder goes off at exactly (or close enough) to the change over point from Malay ATC to Vietnamese ATC. This point in time is the best point to do something nefarious. Malay ATC is expecting you to be gone and Vietnam is expecting you, but isn't alerted by a late check-in. So knowing this information gives you a window to do something.

The timing and location of this leads a logical conclusion that it wasn't mechanical. I think looking at reasons why the transponder may have failed are red herrings. It really is A+B (location and event) that makes this look like human intervention.

If this was human involvement then we now need to get to the "for what purpose". This is where I run a blank. The radar echos that the Malays have seem odd in this scenario. Why would you go right back over the country you came from. The KL target doesn't make sense to me as if it went down in the straight someone would have seen something. If it was a suicide, then you would want to get it done and over with as quickly as possible.

I do hope they find something soon as the speculation is going to drive everyone crazy.

airplanedaj · Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:55 am

Quoting ukair (Reply 315):

someone mentioned malaysia airlines did not have ACARS like AF 447 because it was a paid service perhaps after this incident the FAA will make it mandatory for all large passenger aircraft to have ACARS?

From what MH officials have said, 9M-MRO had ACARS, but no messages were received.

Quoting tim73 (Reply 314):
Telegraph is reporting the issue:

"American transport officials warned of a potential weak spot in Boeing 777s which could lead to the "loss of structural integrity of the aircraft" four months before the disappearance of Malaysia airlines Flight MH370.

The Federal Aviation Administration in Washington drew up an Airworthiness Directive in November. It was triggered by reports of cracking in the fuselage skin underneath a Boeing aircraft's satellite antennae. "

This is interesting, and I'm surprised that this isn't being jumped on by A.net. I think its plausible that the scenario the AD warned of played out, and the crew tried to get back to KUL, but ended up crashing into the ocean. This would explain the turnaround over the Gulf of Thailand, as well as the loss of transponder, ACARS, and comms.

777Jet · Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:57 am

Quoting ukair (Reply 315):
someone mentioned malaysia airlines did not have ACARS like AF 447 because it was a paid service perhaps after this incident the FAA will make it mandatory for all large passenger aircraft to have ACARS?

That was suggested in here. However, at a press conference MAS made it sound like ACARS should have transmitted but didn't which makes me think that MAS do use ACARS but it did not transmit.

""All Malaysia Airlines aircraft are equipped with continuous data monitoring system called ACARS which transmits data automatically," says MAS. "Nevertheless, there were no distress calls and no information was relayed."

Gatorman96 · Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:58 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 292):
Transponders can be turned off for basically two reasons.
1. On the ground when you're not moving. Say during maintenance or before taxi.
2. In case of an electrical malfunction, you want to be able to turn off ANY circuit. That's why all the circuit breakers are in the cockpit. If you're getting arcing and a potential fire, you must be able to shut down a transponder.

Makes sense...

3) Terrorist act
4) Total loss of the aircraft

Do we know how often the transponder transmits an aircraft's position? Does it only transmit location and heading ? Or does it include altitude, speed, etc?

I still subscribe to the to simple theories. The transponder failed when the airplane crashed, somewhere in the vicinity of it's last known position. The supposed turn back could've been an attempt to save the aircraft or an un-intended act that was brought on by some sort of malfunction/structural failure.

hivue · Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:58 am

Quoting airplanedaj (Reply 322):
I'm surprised that this isn't being jumped on by A.net

I think an earlier post indicated that this aircraft did not have the SatCom antenna on top of the fuselage.

aljrooney · Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:59 am

HI Guys,

Just as a thought, where are the antennas for the transponder/ACARS/VHF/HF etc positioned on a 777? Could a non catatrophic structural failure have damaged the antenna area thereby reducing all transmissions to zero, which led to aerodynamics issues? (ie an issue with the wing or fuselage skin)
This may explain the lack of data or communications received, but those communication may have been tried by the crew as they fought the system failures, just that they had no knowledge nothing was getting through?
Usually major issues like this are a culmination of a lot of small issues occurring at the same time.
Just a thought as to the possible lack of comms, but possible continuation of flight during a stressful, emergency period without recourse to terrorism, hijack or other possible theories (though all valid at this point).

Occam's razor and all that

Alan

David L · Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:59 am

Quoting PW100 (Reply 305):
I think they DID just that. It was reported here that one of officials said during a press conference on day two or three, that he himself dialed such a number and got nothing. It was debunked already at a press conference.

But perhaps I'm getting mixed up in all these threads . . .

You're not getting mixed up, it is debunked. They reported this a couple of days ago.

hivue · Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:00 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 323):
and no information was relayed

That's a pretty worthless ACARS then.

bradmovie · Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:02 am

I have read every post in this strange and sad saga, and my thoughts go out to the passengers, crew and their families.

I thought it might be worthwhile to try to summarize what people are asking about and suggesting needs to be done. I am not an expert in any of these matters, so bear with me. There are a number of questions that posters keep re-asking, and suggestions that keep getting re-made. In general there seems to be consensus that the following needs to be done (if not being done already) to make the SAR more efficient and find the plane more quickly:

--Create centralized command over the entire SAR effort.

--Start the SAR search at the last known position of the aircraft, accounting for currents, and expand from there logically.

--Examine even single passenger's/crew's phone/messaging accounts to determine no transient signals or connections have occurred.

--Ask all neighboring/possible fly-over countries to examine all their military and civilian radar records for traces of the plane.

--Examine pilot's flight simulator.

--Verify if any personal/family/psychological issues with pilots.

--Verify exactly what ACARS messages were received by Malaysia Air.

--Verify exactly what radar signal was received and what it showed about any turns or descents.

--Verify actual fuel loaded onto the aircraft.

--More/full transparency by Malaysian authorities.

I'm sure there are more (satellite imagery, etc), but these are common sense ideas that keep cropping up, and that seem to me -- if answered -- they could help towards finding the missing plane.

Regards.

hivue · Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:03 am

Quoting aljrooney (Reply 326):
Could a non catatrophic structural failure have damaged the antenna area thereby reducing all transmissions to zero

Airliners have more than one antenna.

acabgd · Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:04 am

Quoting hivue (Reply 328):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 323):
and no information was relayed

That's a pretty worthless ACARS then.

You get what you pay for...

Starlionblue · Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:05 am

Quoting gatorman96 (Reply 324):
o we know how often the transponder transmits an aircraft's position? Does it only transmit location and heading ? Or does it include altitude, speed, etc?

The transponder responds to radar queries. In practical terms it sends out information once a second.

Simplifying here, but there are three basic levels.
- Mode A. Just a response saying "I'm here" with the code, which shows secondary radar where it is.
- Mode C. The above plus pressure altitude reporting.
- Mode S (ADS-B). The above plus speed, heading and lots of other info. Not all is transmitted or received necessarily.

In the case of most modern airliners, they're using Mode S (ADS-B(, so you're getting all of it.

Toiyabe · Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:06 am

Just throwing this out there, but isn't the transponder LOS as well?

speedbird128 · Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:08 am

Quoting acabgd (Reply 331):
Quoting hivue (Reply 328):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 323):
and no information was relayed

That's a pretty worthless ACARS then.

You get what you pay for...

Or.... there was nothing to report via ACARS prior to whatever happened happening...

Mikey711MN · Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:10 am

Quoting hivue (Reply 328):
That's a pretty worthless ACARS then.

Based on a past post, it appears as though MAS does not subscribe to the ACARS service.

The statement being made by the airline, then, is somewhat akin to having a satellite dish on the house that you bought but never having paid the bill.

"The house is equipped with continuous television viewing system called Satellite TV which transmits entertainment automatically," says MAS. "Nevertheless, there was nothing on TV and no shows were on."

Technically accurate, but horribly misleading if they don't subscribe to ACARS.

-Mike

777Jet · Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:10 am

Quoting airplanedaj (Reply 322):
Quoting ukair (Reply 315):

someone mentioned malaysia airlines did not have ACARS like AF 447 because it was a paid service perhaps after this incident the FAA will make it mandatory for all large passenger aircraft to have ACARS?

From what MH officials have said, 9M-MRO had ACARS, but no messages were received.

Quoting tim73 (Reply 314):
Telegraph is reporting the issue:

"American transport officials warned of a potential weak spot in Boeing 777s which could lead to the "loss of structural integrity of the aircraft" four months before the disappearance of Malaysia airlines Flight MH370.

The Federal Aviation Administration in Washington drew up an Airworthiness Directive in November. It was triggered by reports of cracking in the fuselage skin underneath a Boeing aircraft's satellite antennae. "

This is interesting, and I'm surprised that this isn't being jumped on by A.net. I think its plausible that the scenario the AD warned of played out, and the crew tried to get back to KUL, but ended up crashing into the ocean. This would explain the turnaround over the Gulf of Thailand, as well as the loss of transponder, ACARS, and comms.

Possible.

The "weak spot" might have opened, taking out the transponder and other communication equipment. The pilots programed the autopilot to turn back towards land and maintain a lower altitude as a result of the decompression. Then, hypoxia set in... The plane might have maintained its low altitude (being too low to be picked up by radar) and heading until it ran out of fuel if it remained intact as there might have been just a small opening. So, if it flew at 3,000ft on the last known heading until it ran out of fuel, where would that place it? It would consume fuel faster at that low altitude but we would need to know how much fuel it had left when it reached its last known position. Regarding hypoxia, in addition to the Helios flight, there was the golfer Payne Stewart...

hivue · Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:11 am

Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 334):
Or.... there was nothing to report via ACARS prior to whatever happened happening...

From takeoff to the plane disappearing there was nothing for ACARS to report?

flyaas80 · Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:11 am

Believe it or not, I managed to pull myself away from these threads to read what I thought was an unrelated article from the AP on the British shoe-bomb plotter at the trial of bin Laden's son-in-law.

In the article it states, "He said he was left with only one shoe because he gave his other shoe-bomb in early December 2001 to some Malaysian men who wanted to blow open a plane's cockpit door and carry out a Sept. 11-style hijacking of their own."

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268743/con...entdetail.htm?contentguid=EWZ6wWtu

Coincidental, but interesting information. Is this scenario plausible?

acabgd · Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:11 am

Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 334):

Or.... there was nothing to report via ACARS prior to whatever happened happening...

Apparently there were two engine messages reported via ACARS to RR - after takeoff and during climb. That's all.

777Jet · Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:13 am

Quoting hivue (Reply 328):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 323):
and no information was relayed

That's a pretty worthless ACARS then.

I wonder if MAS management know this? J/K

trex8 · Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:13 am

Quoting hivue (Reply 325):

Quoting airplanedaj (Reply 322):
I'm surprised that this isn't being jumped on by A.net

I think an earlier post indicated that this aircraft did not have the SatCom antenna on top of the fuselage.

A zillion posts ago that was said (and repeated maybe a million ago again) , but very early on someone said they have 2 side fuselage ones and not the usual roof one. This could explain why lots of people looking at photos of the plane may not have noticed it had one. Someone also said they were on a MH 777 recently with wifi which would make satcom likely if their entire 777 fleet had wifi. Though I suppose having wifi on board per se does not mean you can get internet or need satcom though they tend to go together.

[Edited 2014-03-11 18:14:42]

hamiltondaniel · Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:14 am

As to the TomNod Crowdsourced "fuselage" image reference multiple times above, speculated to possibly be a 777 or a ship:

http://cmd0.com/images/plane.gif

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1103537

Folks, those are very clearly whales. The one on the left is a calf and the one on the right is likely its mother. Not sure of the species but they are definitely baleen whales. Look at the v-shape indention on the front (towards the top right), corresponding to the long ridge along the top of the skull, and you can clearly see areas of greater contrast around the blowhole on the smaller specimen. The small "cloud" may even be blowhole blast.

See this image for comparison:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/4...56000/jpg/_46556936_mcmes00100.jpg

The scale on the TomNod images is obviously wrong.

[Edited 2014-03-11 18:18:50]

Horstroad · Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:14 am

on CNN I just heard of a theory by a pilot that if the FMC failed (together with the transponder in case of some sort of electrical failure), the autopilot would continue to follow the selected heading.

can someone confirm that the autopilot would stay active if it lost input from the FMC?

what heading would there usually be set during a departure from KUL? could it be south-west? the runways are pretty much perpendicular to the last known course of MH370

[Edited 2014-03-11 18:23:58]

airplanedaj · Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:14 am

Has MH confirmed that there is no ACARS on board, because from what I've read, it just seems like ACARS had nothing to say. Many people here seem to think that the absence of ACARS messages indicates that MH simply doesn't have ACARS.

speedbird128 · Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:14 am

Quoting Toiyabe (Reply 333):
Just throwing this out there, but isn't the transponder LOS as well?

Yes, LOS is a requirement, however given that the aircraft was out to sea, there should be no problem attaining the maximum range with is around ~250nm if the SSR antenna is well positioned...

Given that no other aircraft were lost from radar - I don't think this is a factor.

Starlionblue · Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:16 am

Quoting hivue (Reply 328):

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 323):
and no information was relayed

That's a pretty worthless ACARS then.

Quoting acabgd (Reply 331):
Quoting hivue (Reply 328):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 323):
and no information was relayed

That's a pretty worthless ACARS then.

You get what you pay for...

You have to remember the point of ACARS. It is primarily a maintenance system. It is not an aircraft tracking system or a DFDR. You can't blame ACARS for performing exactly as advertised.

If Malaysia Airlines had thought continuous granular reporting was worth it, they would have paid for it. Would this have made a difference to the lives of the pax? Almost definitely not.

Another thing: While ACARS helped the AF447 investigation, it made no difference to the lives of the pax, and the information was not nearly sufficient to figure out the accident.

Quoting airplanedaj (Reply 344):

Has MH confirmed that there is no ACARS on board, because from what I've read, it just seems like ACARS had nothing to say. Many people here seem to think that the absence of ACARS messages indicates that MH simply doesn't have ACARS.

All 777 have the ACARS hardware. Information at this point says ACARS sent out a couple of engine reports early in the flight.

[Edited 2014-03-11 18:18:20]

speedbird128 · Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:18 am

Quoting acabgd (Reply 339):
Apparently there were two engine messages reported via ACARS to RR - after takeoff and during climb. That's all.

Quoting hivue (Reply 337):
From takeoff to the plane disappearing there was nothing for ACARS to report?

Yes, thank you - I already wrote that in reply 318 .

My point is that ACARS appeared to be functioning based on what Rolls Royce have provided, so that leads me to believe there was nothing for ACARS to report back to ops about prior to it being disabled. If whatever it was caused the systems to fail or be disabled, and ACARS happened to be top of that list of things cut off, how exactly would it transmit those failures if it was inop???

Starlionblue · Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:20 am

Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 347):
My point is that ACARS appeared to be functioning based on what Rolls Royce have provided, so that leads me to believe there was nothing for ACARS to report back to ops about prior to it being disabled. If whatever it was caused the systems to fail or be disabled, and ACARS happened to be top of that list of things cut off, how exactly would it transmit those failures if it was inop???

acabgd · Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:20 am

Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 347):
ACARS happened to be top of that list of things cut off, how exactly would it transmit those failures if it was inop???

Well, it wouldn't...

I don't really see the point in ACARS discussion. It is useless in determining the fate or this airliner with what we know now.

JettTracer · Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:21 am

Someone from the Malaysian authorities involved in the investigations, regardless, are trying to hide something from the very start.
The conflicting information given at times certainly baffled the man in the street.

There was information that two passengers with fake passports boarded the flight and looked like a soccer player.
Photos provided shown a different face of the passengers.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...airlines-flight-passengers-3226330
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-on-flight-MH370-were-Iranian.html

There was information that five passengers did not board the plane which was later denied.
http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel...mh370/story-fnizu68q-1226852311845
There is also confirmation from another party that all passengers board the flight. http://www.todayonline.com/world/asi...-boarded-flight-mh370-police-chief

The claim that the flight veered off course and made a U-turn is certainly puzzling.
How do we validate such information?
Was there a proof that the flight was really making a U-turn?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...lines-flight-idUSBREA2701720140312

I really hope we will be able to have more details once the 10 satellites from China scanned through the South China Sea. Hopefully, we are not in the situation where - if you fail to convince them, confuse them.

Mikey711MN · Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:21 am

Quoting airplanedaj (Reply 322):
This is interesting, and I'm surprised that this isn't being jumped on by A.net.

There are a lot of threads now, so I can't locate the exact post.

But IIRC, the AD refers to models that have a "bump" in the fuselage, and fatigue cracks may radiate from the stress concentration.

This is an example of an AA craft where the sat equipment is installed, e.g. top of fuselage just behind the wings...

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Carsten Sekula

However, the MH craft does not appear to have this same equipment...

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stephan Kruse

...and therefore would not be particularly targeted by this AD.

Others can weigh in on more specifics...I'm just trying to relay what had been discussed earlier.

-Mike

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net