Quoting EnviableOne (Reply 31):

Quoting celestar (Reply 34):

I agree with both you, possible that the Philippines is the key here! There are thousands of islands and keep in mind that many places there are really tricky, somewhat lawless! It seems odd to me that officials are talking about the possibilty that the aircraft flew for another 4-5 hrs disregarding the Philippines as a possible crash/hiding site. To me, thats the real Hot Spot!!!

Reconciling WSJ and Malaysia news briefing by tracing ACARS data path

I posted in the previous thread that I assume MH uses SITA as Service Provider for ACARS.

In that case, data transmission could be:
- via VHF to ground stations, then probably sent encrypted via Internet VPN to a central site where the data is filtered and routed to specific destinations
- through the global beam of the Inmarsat4 satellite that covers the region: that means down to the Inmarsat earth station, processed there, then sent as before to a central site for dispatching
- through an Iriidum LEO satellite, across to neighbouring Iridium satellites and so forth until it reaches an Iridium satellite in view of the main earth station near Washington DC.

No matter what path is used, the raw messages will go to one data center, probably a SITA facility in Switzerland (?).
From there, messages are filtered and routed to their specific destination e.g. Derby in the UK for RR engine data.

Depending upon the over-the-air method used by MH370 we can say that:

- if VHF was used, then SITA knows within at most a 300km radius (much smaller at a low altitude) where the airplane was when it transmitted its report. SITA has many VHF ground stations in Asia and that should always be a first choice before satellite is used.

- if Inmarsat 4 was used, technically some raw messages may have reached the earth station without necessarily being forwarded to SITA and others, including Malaysia

- if Iriidium was used, selective filtering before SITA is then even simpler (under US control), if one would like to intercept extra but undocumented data reports sent by aircraft.

Therefore, it is technically possible that both WSJ and Malaysia are truthful.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 42):

Sarcastic mode on "It probably arrived at destination on time" sarcastic mode off 

Quoting koruman (Reply 21): If this was a hijacking, it took place within a week of the terror attack in Kunming by Chinese Muslim separatists, and on an aircraft to China. We've all seen different countries respond to hijackings differently. But this aircraft was flying to China, and any hijacking by terrorists presumably had the Chinese as the target. I would assume that if the aircraft was hijacked, the Chinese would have got it to land at a remote military airfield and would then have tried to storm it.

Orgainsations that hack a dozen people to death at a train station are unlikely to politely land an aircraft at a military facility when asked to, if they hijacked or were suspected to have hijacked this aircraft the chinese would have brought MH370 down. Why would the Chinese have shot it down? 9/11 thats why.

Quoting Ty134A (Reply 43): I think a thread gathering info about the vanished 777 would make sense

This might be useful:

http://mh370.wikia.com/wiki/Mh370_Wiki

(by FlyingTurtle)

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 49): if I lose my $250 mobile phone it can be found anywhere in the world

Would you mind throwing your phone into an ocean, so we can verify?  

Quote: Angus Walker, ITV’s former correspondent in China, sums up the pattern of speculation and denials over the last five days http://www.theguardian.com/world/blo...tes#block-53219b21e4b0edca9ee78e69

Quote: Angus Walker @anguswalkersaxo http://twitter.com/anguswalkersaxo/status/444048304079638528 MH370 coverage goes like this 1) Europe/ US evenings - latest rumours/breaking lines 2) Asian pm - those rumours denied 3) repeat daily

Spot on!

[Edited 2014-03-13 04:57:53]

Quoting garpd (Reply 44): This was just debunked by RR, MAS and Boeing.

Flying WIth Fish just tweeted

" So who is right? @WSJ or @Boeing / Rolls Royce when it comes to the data being transmitted from #MH370’s engines? My money is on WSJ "

Interesting.

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 51): Therefore, it is technically possible that both WSJ and Malaysia are truthful.

Thank you.

That is a very clear answer to the question I asked in Reply 4 above.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 49): if I lose my $250 mobile phone it can be found anywhere in the world

throw it in the middle of the indian ocean and then try locate it...?

Quoting Luxair (Reply 52): Sarcastic mode on "It probably arrived at destination on time" sarcastic mode off

I am sorry... I don´t get what you are trying to say (or humor for that matter).

Surely the US/China/other countries have good radar coverage of the area... how come they haven´t put forward the info on the path of the plane? I mean.... that´s hardly a zone like the one in which AF447 dissapeared! I am not into conspiracy theories, let´s be clear, but... The area MUST be heavily monitored by non-civil aviation radars... no?

So the Chinese release three images from one of their satellites which purported to show possible debris from flight MH370, where they were very precise about the dimensions of this 'debris'.

Today we learn that these images were released "by mistake" by the Chinese and do not show debris from the missing B777.

The alleged measurements of the three pieces of 'debris' were 13x18, 14x19 and 24x22 metres respectively. When Malaysian SAR crews searched the area for these very large items nothing at all was found!

Three questions - 1) Assuming that these large items have sunk in the time between the images were captured and the SAR crews reaching the area, why is there no mention of submarines being utilised?, 2) Was the mistake actually that these images were meant just for the Chinese authorities and should not have been made public - maybe for potentially sinister reasons (for the conspiracy theorists out there) and finally 3) If this 'debris' isn't the missing B777, what is it - these are huge items, not just flotsam and jetsam that's been tipped overboard by some careless, maritime litterer!!!?

Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 60): So the Chinese release three images from one of their satellites which purported to show possible debris from flight MH370, where they were very precise about the dimensions of this 'debris'. Today we learn that these images were released "by mistake" by the Chinese and do not show debris from the missing B777. The alleged measurements of the three pieces of 'debris' were 13x18, 14x19 and 24x22 metres respectively. When Malaysian SAR crews searched the area for these very large items nothing at all was found!

are the Chinese taking revenge for hauling them around the first few days?!!

This whole search operation seems unbelieveably haphazard, misdirected, and mismanaged (by multiple parties). I am not blaming the Malaysian authorities by any means. But maybe "too many cooks spoil the broth" scenario .... with so many countries and parties (military, civil, etc) involved.

Bottom line, WE ARE STILL AT SQUARE ONE!!!

Quoting Dalavia (Reply 57): Thank you. That is a very clear answer to the question I asked in Reply 4 above.

I don't think it's very clear at all.

Is he saying that there were reports for 4 additional hours that never made it to Rolls-Royce? Or that it took 4 hours for the reports to be received by some parties?

Quoting garpd (Reply 1): Has any other incident ever covered so many threads? Dear Lord, 19 threads and we still only know one thing: A 777-200ER is missing.

I think I said this as the first reply in thread 7 or something.  

I apologise profusely in advance if my question has been answered previously; it is difficult to keep always up to date when these threads are moving so rapidly.

From what I have read, seen, heard and understood, when the subject of fuel is mentioned, the authorities seem to have always responded that there was "sufficient" on board to reach Beijing. From that, people have created maps, charts, range rings and plots from which to guesstimate where MH370 might be.

I can not find a statement anywhere in which the public have been given or told how much fuel was on board the aircraft before prep for MH370, how much the crew decided to uplift and consequently, exactly how much fuel the aircraft had onboard on departure in tonnage or litres.

Whilst the media have focussed on MH370 having enough fuel to reach Beijing, no-one seems to have questioned where the aircraft could have gone if the aircraft had more than necessary fuel on board.

No-one seems to have questioned whether the Captain elected to take on a few extra tonnes. If, and it is of course only an if, he took on a few more hours worth of fuel, it could open up a whole raft of new possibilities as to where the aircraft has gone.

In the complete absence of any other clues or evidence, I can't get away from the possibility MH370 could have flown across the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea, out of primary radar range, and that it could be somewhere like Somalia. It would also explain the ramp up of India's involvement.

Rgds

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 62): Is he saying that there were reports for 4 additional hours that never made it to Rolls-Royce? Or that it took 4 hours for the reports to be received by some parties?

BackSeater can probably speak for himself, but if I understand his post correctly, he is not saying either of these things.

I think he is simply saying that it is technically possible for a message to have been generated without having been received by the normal recipients.

In other words, not receiving a message does not guarantee that a message was never generated.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 49): keeping in mind that if I lose my $250 mobile phone it can be found anywhere in the world

Try throwing your $250 phone into the ocean! (Or any other phone for that matter.)

Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 60):

This investigation et al is starting to go Keystone cops right now.

Someone needs to get it together.

[Edited 2014-03-13 05:19:53]

Let's say that it was a hijack of some sort. IT must have been well planned, maybe even ATC personnel could be connected to it to let it through airspace without telling anyone.

However what I have not yet heard anybody talking about is the dutch Nuclear Summit coming up. Could that be of any risk? I mean you have 52 world leaders there having a meeting.
On the other hand you must the most crazy terrorist to even try flying through Europe in a stolen 777.

Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 22): Maybe Malaysian decided to send the canisters that ruined their A330 back to the Chinese company.

They would have cut an MH awb and decided at last Minute to send it on a Chinese airliner using a Transfer manifest.


Now, manifest is the key word, one can be sure that the cargo manifest, the single awb's and all that can give a clue is turned upside down when a crash has occured.


It is not only for declared DG but also for what could be DG.

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 63): I can not find a statement anywhere in which the public have been given or told how much fuel was on board the aircraft before prep for MH370, how much the crew decided to uplift and consequently, exactly how much fuel the aircraft had onboard on departure in tonnage or litres.

I read in one of the early threads that fuel on board was Beijing plus 2 hours.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 53): Orgainsations that hack a dozen people to death at a train station are unlikely to politely land an aircraft at a military facility when asked to, if they hijacked or were suspected to have hijacked this aircraft the chinese would have brought MH370 down. Why would the Chinese have shot it down? 9/11 thats why.

It's interesting that you say that.

For a start, if the Chinese had shot it down over the ocean, wouldn't they have made no acknowledgment and left us precisely where we are now? (On a similar topic, if the aircraft flew back to Malaysia and was known to be hijacked wouldn't we expect Malaysia to do the same thing, worried about the Petronas Towers, and then make no acknowledgement?)

Secondly, the Uighur connection is a fascinating backdrop to this, especially now that we know that "passenger number 84" is reportedly a 35 year old Uighur who had done flight training in Sweden.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/missing-...ghur-passenger-20140313-hvifh.html

The Uighur connection is fascinating. In effect, most people would agree with the following summary: they were a Turkish race in Central Asia who were the majority population in what is now western China, and the Chinese government has tried for years to ethnically dilute them by transmigration of Han Chinese and imposition of Han Chinese language and culture. Non-violent resistance has proven ineffective, and a minority of them have turned to radical Islam and terrorism. This, in some ways, has enabled the Chinese government both to clamp down harder and to portray themselves as victims of radical Islamic terror.

That paragraph is only intended to provide the political context for those of you unfamiliar with the issue.

But while that is the context, what would happen if Uighur separatists hijacked an aircraft en route for China? Their motive - returning to the post to which I'm replying - would be unlikely to be sheer bloodshed but rather to obtain a platform to air their grievances. They would presumably land wherever they were told to, but expect to be welcomed by the glare of TV cameras.

But would China simply have shot them down to keep their grievances out of the global media's glare? Or would they have simply tried to storm the airplane? I find it difficult to believe that they would have entered into negotiations.

Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 60): 1) Assuming that these large items have sunk in the time between the images were captured and the SAR crews reaching the area, why is there no mention of submarines being utilised?

IMHO using a submarine only makes sense when a pretty exact location is known. It certainly does not make sense to scour the ocean across a large region and at various depths with a fleet of submarines. In this case, even if the reported satellite images show MH370 debris, those pieces likely sank and / or drifted off - possibly in different directions and at different speeds - over several days. I would assume in this case, sonar and a conventional surface search are still the most effective method.

Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 60): 3) If this 'debris' isn't the missing B777, what is it - these are huge items, not just flotsam and jetsam that's been tipped overboard by some careless, maritime litterer!!!?

Somebody previously suggested shipping containers lost from a container ship. For all I understand, this is something that happens fairly regularly. Overall, the oceans have become quite a polluted place full of all sorts of trash. Some of the world's busiest shipping routes are nearby. This is what makes this search so difficult; it's not hard to find something out there, but very difficult to determine whether it could be from MH370.

Semi off-topic but there should be a new ICAO law that mandates basic aircraft location like speed, altitude and coordinates be transmitted continuously to an international monitoring center that cannot be switched off from inside the aircraft.

This cycle of claims and denials, hope and despair, is disheartening.

Quoting PillowTester (Reply 72):

You'd have to have a system that would receive that data anywhere in the world and the airlines would have to pay for the expense of keeping that data link open. Never mind the potential that the signal could be lost anyway on a communications failure.

It's maybe a stupid remark after 6 days, but is there still a possibility that the plane is near the last point of contact with ATC?
Can it be possible that after the 'thank you, roger' remark of the capt., the plane is sucked into whatever emergency, disabling all electronics and comms, and dived into the sea, all or not in such angle that all debris is still on the sea floor?

Or is this scenario complety not possible anymore with all the information we got right now?

Reconciling WSJ and Malaysia briefing (cont'd)

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 62): I don't think it's very clear at all.

Sorry if you think that my message was not clear.
ACARS transmits when it has something to transmit and a comm path is available, usually without delay.

What I was suggesting is that I do not know what ACARS on a particular aircraft really transmits, in total. There are messages that the Service Provider (SITA, ARINC) expect and deliver to their customers. But technically, nothing prevents, other undocumented/system messages to be transmitted via satcom to the ground without those messages being forwarded to the SPs and their clients,

That is why both WSJ and Malaysia could both be truthful (because they do not talk about the same subset of the full raw data reporting).

Obviously that is only a conjecture.

Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 60): 3) If this 'debris' isn't the missing B777, what is it - these are huge items, not just flotsam and jetsam that's been tipped overboard by some careless, maritime litterer!!!?

This might suggest an answer:

Quote: Ten thousand containers lost overboard per year is a widely cited figure, it also turns out to be unsubstantiated. In fact, the Through Transport Club, which insures 15 of the top 20 container lines, estimates the total number of containers lost at sea as less than 2,000 per year. That’s only 0.005 percent of the total number of containers traveling by ship in any given year.

http://www.oceannavigator.com/March-...-2013/A-legendary-offshore-danger/
A shipping container might appear triangular if the buoyancy is at one corner.

Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 71): Somebody previously suggested shipping containers lost from a container ship. For all I understand, this is something that happens fairly regularly.

Yeah thats correct they do,

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/21/wo...d/container-ship-loses-containers/
http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2011/...ocean-of-lost-shipping-containers/

Quoting PillowTester (Reply 72): Semi off-topic but there should be a new ICAO law that mandates basic aircraft location like speed, altitude and coordinates be transmitted continuously to an international monitoring center that cannot be switched off from inside the aircraft.

And when that circuit or device starts smoking and burning because it's defective...?

Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 60): Today we learn that these images were released "by mistake" by the Chinese and do not show debris from the missing B777.

They were not released by Chinese government. One of the satellite data imaging institute released it. It appears there is some tussle between government and Chinese remote sensing community on lack of funding. It appears Chinese remote sensing scientists using this opportunity to show how important Image Intelligence is. Scientists made several statements about this issue. Search South China Morning Post and other Chinese media outlets.

These are relatively shallow waters 200 feet. Ships with sonar would be better option.

Quoting 456 (Reply 75):

That's what I am sticking with from now on. IGARI until proven otherwise.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 80):

You can't seriously think that's a compelling counter argument.

Quoting gr325 (Reply 67): However what I have not yet heard anybody talking about is the dutch Nuclear Summit coming up. Could that be of any risk? I mean you have 52 world leaders there having a meeting.

No, because the aircraft is most likely not flyable anymore, wherever it is.

I think the idea of somebody stealing a commercial jetliner and some time later use it for terrorism is quite ridiculous.

I still think the wreckage is somewhere underwater, either as a result of a hijack or some massive failure. I can't imagine a land area where could have possibly landed without anyone noticing, other than maybe the most remote jungles of Papua, and from those areas you won't find an airfield capable of handling a 777.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 49):

This is absolutely false. You may be able to find your phone if you lose your phone in a city or along a major highway. But venture just a few miles away from a densely populated area, and there is no cellular coverage. You don't have cellular a few miles away from the coast. You don't have cellular coverage in National Parks. It always amazes me how much trust people put in cellular phones. Whenever I take a group of people hiking or sailing I ask them to check their cell phones - just to see their surprise when they realize that none of their phones has coverage as soon as they a couple of miles off shore or inside the forest. People who never leave the city think that cellular phones are omnipotent, just to learn the hard way how useless they are in emergencies when you really need them.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 10): Malaysia and other countries involved may very well want to keep air defense radar capability secret.

My paragraph was more in the context that if it was a crash, and the military located it on their radar, they have nothing to lose by saying "why don't you look there" It does not expose any sensitive equipment or capability.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 11): The daily press conferences get more confussed and depressing everytime.

A lot of that is because they're having to dismiss the encouraging but inaccurate reporting that keeps appearing between the press conferences.

Quoting koruman (Reply 21): On the first day, there were unconfirmed reports of the aircraft landing at Nanning in southern China, which were discounted after someone rang the airport and was told that the aircraft wasn't there. Have any western journalists attempted to visit civilian and especially military airfields in China to see whether there is a 777 on the tarmac?

The Chinese explicitly dismissed the reports so, unless you suspect they might be lying...

Quoting slinky09 (Reply 24): To earlier questions on whether the plane flew on for several hours, the minister said: "I would like to refer to news reports suggesting that the aircraft may have been flying for some time after the last contact. Those reports are inaccurate." He was referring to reports of data receipt by RR / Boeing which he says they confirmed did not happen. But if he can say this, I wonder what information leads him to conclude that, he seems to be indicating loss of the aircraft close to its last known position (then why has nothing been found?).

I'm pretty sure he was saying that the reports that the engine data proved that the aircraft continued to fly for four hours were inaccurate because RR, Boeing and MH did not receive any engine data after confirmed contact was lost.

Quoting koruman (Reply 70): Secondly, the Uighur connection is a fascinating backdrop to this, especially now that we know that "passenger number 84" is reportedly a 35 year old Uighur who had done flight training in Sweden. http://www.smh.com.au/world/missing-....html

There was a radio interview of a friend of the Uighur artist on NPR in the US yesterday. May even have been a BBC feed. The friend says this was the guys first trip out of China so the report of being UK educated, working in Turkey , flight sim trained etc etc may be wrong.

Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 60): If this 'debris' isn't the missing B777, what is it - these are huge items, not just flotsam and jetsam that's been tipped overboard by some careless, maritime litterer!!!?

A quote from wikipedia: "An estimated 10,000 containers at sea each year are lost by container ships, usually during storms.

Full article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_debris

The whole story smells fishy to me. Something did happen to that plane, it didn't fall out of the skies. This region is one of the busiest shipping regions on the globe, i find it hard to believe that no one, until now, found anything related somehow the missing jet.

Viper911.

Quoting gr325 (Reply 56): Flying WIth Fish just tweeted " So who is right? @WSJ or @Boeing / Rolls Royce when it comes to the data being transmitted from #MH370’s engines? My money is on WSJ " Interesting.

I have to say this guy discredited himself to me last night when he was going on and on about MH370 being some sort of Chinese superspy stunt to kidnap a bunch of semiconductor engineers who were on the plane. Now that his "privileged information" is known to be bad, he's claiming higher privilege than almost anyone else involved in the investigation, in Malaysia, the US, or the UK. Delusions of grandeur, it reeks of.

I may be wrong. He may know something very important. If that's true, it would be helpful if he stopped with the Twitter nonsense and went to have a chat with a second major newspaper besides the WSJ.

Quoting David L (Reply 86): I'm pretty sure he was saying that the reports that the engine data proved that the aircraft continued to fly for four hours were inaccurate because RR, Boeing and MH did not receive any engine data after confirmed contact was lost.

I agree that your interpretation is right. The reason I honed in on it was because the language was very specific, and this minister went to an English public school, graduated in law from an English (actually Welsh) university, and studied at post graduate level in London. His command of English is very good and he had a carefully worded statement ...

hmmm...transponder stops and "turn back" is initiated (possibly) RIGHT AFTER ATC HANDOFF (coincidence???). Hmmm...WSJ reports plane continues to fly for 4+ hours after last contact. Hmmm...pilot just happens to have his own little flight simulator neatly tucked into his home. Hmmm...who would clearly be most capable of becoming invisible and flying to the hinterlands relatively undetected??? Hmmm...If this was the work of terrorists (which would entail extraordinary sophistication), why THIS plane, why no claims of responsibility and why does US intelligence show no alarm vis a vis passenger manifest??? Hmmm...who has some very vitriolic commentary towards Malaysian govt. and politicians on you tube channel??? Hmmm...Hmmm...Hmmm...AND, the WSJ ARTICLE WILL BEAR OUT, NO IRRESPONSIBLE, YELLOW BELLIED JOURNALISM GOING ON HERE...ONLY LIES, DECEPTIONS AND DISTORTIONS BEING SPEWED OUT BY MALAY GOVT. Please, everybody, think critically i.e....accept WSJ report as accurate and then apply this scenario to the few facts we know, along with common sense, and you will most certainly turn your focus onto the pilot of MH370, disturbing as it is. This accident conjecture is no longer viable, and a cadre of terrorists or hijackers is just as preposterous. WHO COULD CREATE THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH SURROUND US????

Quoting sipadan (Reply 91): hmmm...transponder stops and "turn back" is initiated (possibly) RIGHT AFTER ATC HANDOFF (coincidence???). Hmmm...WSJ reports plane continues to fly for 4+ hours after last contact. Hmmm...pilot just happens to have his own little flight simulator neatly tucked into his home. Hmmm...who would clearly be most capable of becoming invisible and flying to the hinterlands relatively undetected??? Hmmm...If this was the work of terrorists (which would entail extraordinary sophistication), why THIS plane, why no claims of responsibility and why does US intelligence show no alarm vis a vis passenger manifest??? Hmmm...who has some very vitriolic commentary towards Malaysian govt. and politicians on you tube channel??? Hmmm...Hmmm...Hmmm...AND, the WSJ ARTICLE WILL BEAR OUT, NO IRRESPONSIBLE, YELLOW BELLIED JOURNALISM GOING ON HERE...ONLY LIES, DECEPTIONS AND DISTORTIONS BEING SPEWED OUT BY MALAY GOVT. Please, everybody, think critically i.e....accept WSJ report as accurate and then apply this scenario to the few facts we know, along with common sense, and you will most certainly turn your focus onto the pilot of MH370, disturbing as it is. This accident conjecture is no longer viable, and a cadre of terrorists or hijackers is just as preposterous. WHO COULD CREATE THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH SURROUND US????

I read WSJ every day at work for the last quarter century. But I wouldn't believe anything they say except on business matters, and in the past some of their reports on aviation/military have been ruefully inaccurate on basic facts and I'd take their op eds with the same suspicion I take the NYT as each paper has its own political angle.

Quoting Dalavia (Reply 4): In view of the press conference this evening that denied Rolls-Royce and Boeing had any evidence that MH370 continued to fly for several hours after radio contact, I re-read the WSJ article very closely.

Quoting garpd (Reply 44): This was just debunked by RR, MAS and Boeing.

No, that's not what happened. The WSJ article made claims, and the Malaysian government denied them. RR and Boeing have been notably silent on it publicly. The Malaysian government claims are not the same as official statements from RR or Boeing.

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 76): Sorry if you think that my message was not clear. ACARS transmits when it has something to transmit and a comm path is available, usually without delay. What I was suggesting is that I do not know what ACARS on a particular aircraft really transmits, in total. There are messages that the Service Provider (SITA, ARINC) expect and deliver to their customers. But technically, nothing prevents, other undocumented/system messages to be transmitted via satcom to the ground without those messages being forwarded to the SPs and their clients, That is why both WSJ and Malaysia could both be truthful (because they do not talk about the same subset of the full raw data reporting). Obviously that is only a conjecture.

No, that's okay. The way your post read, there wasn't really a conclusion or thesis statement. You explained a few transmission methods, but there was no conclusion like, "So, based on the foregoing, it is possible that more data was transmitted but was not received by Rolls-Royce. Therefore, what the WSJ reported could be true if their source was not RR, but rather another party that continued to receive transmissions, unlike RR," or something similar. So, I was left with the questions I made in that earlier post.

Quoting PillowTester (Reply 72): Semi off-topic but there should be a new ICAO law that mandates basic aircraft location like speed, altitude and coordinates be transmitted continuously to an international monitoring center that cannot be switched off from inside the aircraft.

As pointed out, there are good reasons why anything electric on a plane has at least a circuit breaker so you can kill it. If you make something impossible to turn off you are adding risk to every single flight just for that once in a few decades two occurrence when you need this tracking. In context, the last airliner that was never found was 35 years ago.

Quoting Viper911 (Reply 88): The whole story smells fishy to me.

I know you didn't mean to make a joke but that cracked me up. 

Quoting sipadan (Reply 91): hmmm...transponder stops and "turn back" is initiated (possibly) RIGHT AFTER ATC HANDOFF (coincidence???). Hmmm...WSJ reports plane continues to fly for 4+ hours after last contact. Hmmm...pilot just happens to have his own little flight simulator neatly tucked into his home. Hmmm...who would clearly be most capable of becoming invisible and flying to the hinterlands relatively undetected??? Hmmm...If this was the work of terrorists (which would entail extraordinary sophistication), why THIS plane, why no claims of responsibility and why does US intelligence show no alarm vis a vis passenger manifest??? Hmmm...who has some very vitriolic commentary towards Malaysian govt. and politicians on you tube channel??? Hmmm...Hmmm...Hmmm...AND, the WSJ ARTICLE WILL BEAR OUT, NO IRRESPONSIBLE, YELLOW BELLIED JOURNALISM GOING ON HERE...ONLY LIES, DECEPTIONS AND DISTORTIONS BEING SPEWED OUT BY MALAY GOVT. Please, everybody, think critically i.e....accept WSJ report as accurate and then apply this scenario to the few facts we know, along with common sense, and you will most certainly turn your focus onto the pilot of MH370, disturbing as it is. This accident conjecture is no longer viable, and a cadre of terrorists or hijackers is just as preposterous. WHO COULD CREATE THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH SURROUND US????

I am trying to think critically. The experts on this board, people whose opinion I value, are definitely thinking critically.

You, on the other hand, are making the wildest of conjectures based on picking those facts and rumors that fit your hypothesis.

I'm all for speculating on "out there" scenarios, as long as we understand that they are exceedingly unlikely.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 93): No, that's not what happened. The WSJ article made claims, and the Malaysian government denied them. RR and Boeing have been notably silent on it publicly. The Malaysian government claims are not the same as official statements from RR or Boeing.

Exactly. This is an important point. Unless we read something directly from Boeing or Rolls Royce, we shouldn't discredit the Wall Street Journal report.

Can anyone enlighten us as to the precise way engine data is usually transmitted to RR? ACARS, satcom? At which point in the flight?

Signals on Radar Puzzle Officials in Hunt for Malaysian Jet

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/13/wo...ysia-airlines-flight-370.html?_r=0

So they tracked a UFO, but didn't investigate and don't know if it was 9M-MRO.

[Edited 2014-03-13 05:57:44]

Quoting N328KF (Reply 93): No, that's not what happened. The WSJ article made claims, and the Malaysian government denied them. RR and Boeing have been notably silent on it publicly. The Malaysian government claims are not the same as official statements from RR or Boeing.

RR have said they cannot make any statements officially

"While the company had been cooperating with the Malaysian authorities since the plane disappeared, Rolls-Royce said, international aviation rules left it to investigators to determine what information was released about their findings."
ss to the airline or other authorities.

Top