MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 24

ComeAndGo · Fri Mar 14, 2014 8:56 pm

Quoting kmot (Reply 43):
These threads are moving so quickly. Can someone give an updated with what we know... what we think... and so on?

Check the thread starter there's a summary

LTC8K6 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 8:58 pm

Quoting Hywel (Reply 49):

But there were 75 non-Chinese on board, and who knows how many people with false ID's?

flyenthu · Fri Mar 14, 2014 8:59 pm

Quoting hivue (Reply 21):

I believe it has not been established that ACARS shut down.

What?!? Unless I missed something, didn't the WSJ report establish the ACARS (data transmission) was shutdown at 1:07am and then 14 mins later the transponder at 1:21am?

davidzill · Fri Mar 14, 2014 8:59 pm

Runway 29, IXC, the aircraft was on a course to intercept a final approach course for the runway. The airport does not have published procedures, and is probably a day/VFR field, and it has refueling capabilities (80, Jet A, 100). I'm sure it has been checked out already.

764 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm

This might be completely insane, but I wanted to throw it out there anyway. As we all know, one reported theory puts the aircraft near Pulau Perak. Is it at all possible that something was lost in reporting/translation and we are not actually talking about an island? I am just wondering because there is another Pulau Perak on the mainland. More intriguingly, had the aircraft attempted a return to Kuala Lumpur (for whatever reason), it would make perfect sense to come near that location. It is a little north of the shortest path, but not by much.

Now I am entirely unfamiliar with the area, but it appears relatively rural and certainly mountainous. Considering they were flying at night and obviously had some issues, undetected controlled flight into terrain might not seem too unlikely. Maybe geography and/or vegetation might conceal wreckage. SATCOM might have remained intact and eventually run out of power or failed.

Again, I don't know the local conditions, so please let me know if I am completely crazy.

z3jj · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:03 pm

One thing I am wondering about. PIC being the airplane enthusiast that he was, what is his username on airliners.net

[Edited 2014-03-14 14:05:09]

hivue · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:04 pm

Quoting flyenthu (Reply 52):
didn't the WSJ report establish the ACARS (data transmission) was shutdown at 1:07am

That was the time of the last transmission. See the summary/sanity check in the OP of this part.

ComeAndGo · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:04 pm

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 45):
What does "Chinese" have to do with anything?

Those girls posing with the FO were good looking Australians, right, not brick layers ?

You're thinking along the line of spotters hitching a ride in the jump seat.

Most of those hijacking terrorists have never been in a plane before. They wouldn't know what's possible and how to manipulate the flight crew to get access to the cockpit.

ADent · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:04 pm

Quoting flyenthu (Reply 52):
What?!? Unless I missed something, didn't the WSJ report establish the ACARS (data transmission) was shutdown at 1:07am and then 14 mins later the transponder at 1:21am?

The WSJ also earlier established they had engine data for hours (later retracted). I have not seen official confirmation from another source that the ACARS was disconnected earlier. It was confirmed the last transmission was sent at 1:07am.

hamiltondaniel · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:05 pm

Breaking @ NYT:

According to Malaysian military radar (presumably now interpreted by the US and China), just after the transponder disappeared the aircraft apparently climbed to 45,000 ft while banking to the west, then lost altitude and crossed the peninsula erratically at 23,000, then regained altitude as it went out over the Indian Ocean.

Whatttttt......

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/wo.../asia/malaysia-military-radar.html

[Edited 2014-03-14 14:06:58]

Thunderboltdrgn · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:06 pm

Quoting davidzill (Reply 53):
Runway 29, IXC, the aircraft was on a course to intercept a final approach course for the runway

I think you mean IXZ (Veer Savarkar International Airport) at the Andamans?

davidzill · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:06 pm

The aircraft is at the bottom of the sea, no one has any idea where to look, black boxes will stop transmitting after a month, and it will take YEARS to find it, if we ever do.

N328KF · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:06 pm

Quoting tomlee (Reply 30):
Technically the spot beams overlap and if you look at the signal strengths of multiple fixed beams you could narrow down the position with just one sat. (Sounds sort of like triangulation but I don't know if that is possible or not)

Given many things I am not intimately familiar with, I cannot speak specifically with respect to the Inmarsat (or other GEO) systems, but in general, if you have two receivers, you can narrow an item down to two locations. Deductive reasoning or just getting out and looking would be required to further ascertain position, but two locations is a hell of a lot better than wild-ass-guessing it, or having a single receiver that could only detect range.

So to sum up:

1 receiver = range circle
2 receivers = narrow down to two points
3 receivers (or preferably more) = triangulate

huxrules · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:08 pm

Looking at that runway at IXC. It's plenty long you could land a 777 there do a hot fuel up and take off again without getting near the terminals. You would need help of course. Of course there is the noise and the impossibility of it all. And if that doesn't sound like a Clancy book you would be right - I think Dan Brown had a B-52 steal kerosene from the Russians in one of his books! Oh and it thought of a way you could tell if a 777 landed there- just measure the width of the skid marks.

flyenthu · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:09 pm

Quoting hivue (Reply 56):

That was the time of the last transmission. See the summary/sanity check in the OP of this part.

I see, it is nuanced. ACARS stopped rather than "shut down." To me "shut down" has a human action aspect for some reason.

N328KF · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:09 pm

Quoting davidzill (Reply 61):

The aircraft is at the bottom of the sea, no one has any idea where to look, black boxes will stop transmitting after a month, and it will take YEARS to find it, if we ever do.

If it's in the Sunda Trench, we may never find it. If we do, pressure may take its toll.

dtw2hyd · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:09 pm

Quoting RJAF (Reply 32):
It would be great to know how much SAR capabilities have advanced (mainly in terms of high tech etc..)since the AF447 loss in 2009?

There are no advancements in deep sea SAR capability. Research vessels have some search capabilities with ROVs. Some navies can search little deeper. After that you are totally dependent on oil drilling companies. They have ROVs and equipment to operate almost at any depth.

Quoting davidzill (Reply 53):
Runway 29, IXC, the aircraft was on a course to intercept a final approach course for the runway. The airport does not have published procedures, and is probably a day/VFR field, and it has refueling capabilities (80, Jet A, 100). I'm sure it has been checked out already.

Couple of minor issues. IXC has Indian Navy, Air Force, Army and Coast Guard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andaman_and_Nicobar_Command

It also has low level target detection capability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Doppler_Radar

[Edited 2014-03-14 14:22:54]

davidzill · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:10 pm

Sorry, IXZ is what I meant.

flyingturtle · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:10 pm

About the stuff that is slated to be published tomorrow by the New Straits Times...

I've read here that both the Straits Times (of SIN) and the New Straits Times (of KUL) are both quite respected newspapers.

And if the NST has any compassion with the relatives of the MH370 passengers I do not expect them to publish cheap stuff. It's also obvious that they can't publish the first images of the wreckage, because these would have surfaced on the WWW much quicker.

Leaks is the word here, IMHO. I believe they're sitting on stuff only an official/investigator can know.

David

EXMEMWIDGET · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:12 pm

Good article to read about how hard it is to find planes lost at sea.

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/s...ng-mh370-flight-conspiracies-aattp

fortunerunnner · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:13 pm

Quoting huxrules (Reply 63):
Looking at that runway at IXC. It's plenty long you could land a 777 there do a hot fuel up and take off again without getting near the terminals. You would need help of course. Of course there is the noise and the impossibility of it all. And if that doesn't sound like a Clancy book you would be right - I think Dan Brown had a B-52 steal kerosene from the Russians in one of his books! Oh and it thought of a way you could tell if a 777 landed there- just measure the width of the skid marks.

But how can it be done without involvement of Indian Military. All of Andaman & Nicobars are constantly under surveillance and controlled by joint command of India's Navel, Air and Cost Guard forces.

LTC8K6 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:13 pm

It's beginning to sound a bit like a wild goose chase...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/wo.../asia/malaysia-military-radar.html

Quote:

SEPANG, Malaysia — Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 experienced significant changes in altitude after it lost contact with ground control, and altered its course more than once as if still under the command of a pilot, American officials and others familiar with the investigation said Friday.

Radar signals recorded by the Malaysian military appear to show the missing airliner climbing to 45,000 feet, above the approved altitude limit for a Boeing 777-200, soon after it disappeared from civilian radar and made a sharp turn to the west, according to a preliminary assessment by a person familiar with the data.

The radar track, which the Malaysian government has not released but says it has provided to the United States and China, then shows the plane descending unevenly to an altitude of 23,000 feet, below normal cruising levels, as it approached the densely populated island of Penang, one of the country’s largest. There, the plane turned from a southwest-bound course, climbed to a higher altitude and flew northwest over the Strait of Malacca toward the Indian Ocean.

Investigators have also examined data transmitted from the plane’s Rolls-Royce engines that shows it descending 40,000 feet in the space of a minute, according to a senior American official briefed on the investigation. But investigators do not believe the readings are accurate because the aircraft would likely haven taken longer to fall such a distance.

“A lot of stock cannot be put in the altitude data” sent from the engines, one official said. “A lot of this doesn’t make sense.”

[Edited 2014-03-14 14:14:45]

flyenthu · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:14 pm

Quoting hamiltondaniel (Reply 59):

According to Malaysian military radar (presumably now interpreted by the US and China), just after the transponder disappeared the aircraft apparently climbed to 45,000 ft while banking to the west, then lost altitude and crossed the peninsula erratically at 23,000, then regained altitude as it went out over the Indian Ocean.

Whatttttt......

OK it is "preliminary assessment of data." We know where some initial analyses usually lead. How can frame integrity be maintained at 45000? The pressure difference between inside and outside will be huge.

norm1153 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:14 pm

While I have skipped some of the posts in this topic, I'd like to mention this thought. Apologies if it's already been covered. The pilot's simulator at his home does not have to have been exclusively used by him; that is, has he had any visitors over the last few months?

k83713 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:14 pm

NYT reports of sharp changes in altitude and heading after lost contact. Was there fight on the deck?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/wo.../asia/malaysia-military-radar.html

PhilV · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:14 pm

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 101):
Primary radar pings west of Malaysia with no transponder response make total sense. The plane is flying like a commercial airliner over standard routes but with a failed transponder. ATC does not see it, military probably think it is a civilian aircraft with a problem and ignore it.

Thats interestesting. Maybe someone brought it up before. But.
There was, as everyday, a big wave of flights towards Europe at this time. Maybe MH370 was flying deliberately those routes/airways. So, it wasn't suspicious for military radar? Thoughts?

Just an idea of what could have happend in this unprecedented speculation.

Cheers..

Sligo · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:15 pm

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 3):
It's not our place to do that. Imagine if there was a plane crash in Iowa and when our investigation stalled, Russia instead just started holding press conferences about it and announcing their findings. How offensive would that be?

Understood, but a sincere question for you. How long does the SAR and the comm have to be off the rails before the US (due to being in the top 5 of countries w/an interest in the invest.) or the int'l community steps in?

LTC8K6 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:16 pm

Quoting flyenthu (Reply 72):
OK it is "preliminary assessment of data." We know where some initial analyses usually lead. How can frame integrity be maintained at 45000? The pressure difference between inside and outside will be huge.

Not too far off it's certified ceiling of 43100, so it's probably fine.

gipperPDX · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:17 pm

Quoting enilria (Reply 44):
Pilot suicide makes no sense to me and he seemed pretty upstanding

1. There were two pilots.
2. Plenty of seemingly normal / upstanding people commit suicide.

Quoting enilria (Reply 44):
To me it has to be terrorist related. It makes no sense to try to kill everybody and hide the crash site. I don't think that makes any sense.

It would make plenty of sense if you want your loved ones to collect on your life insurance, wouldn't it? No evidence of suicide, they get paid. Evidence of suicide via the FDR and CVR, they do not.

I'm certainly not ruling out third party terrorism or really any other possible scenario. Just confused why anyone would rule out suicide.

tomlee · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:17 pm

Quoting flyenthu (Reply 52):
What?!? Unless I missed something, didn't the WSJ report establish the ACARS (data transmission) was shutdown at 1:07am and then 14 mins later the transponder at 1:21am?

Part of the problem is that ACARS doesn't provide a constant data stream and is only expected to transmit on events or periodically. Unless the WSJ has a message that says ACARS was turned off there isn't much to discern from there being no ACARS transmissions. Also based on the fact those same articles have gone from Rolls Royce engine data to an un-subscribed Boeing data saying it is ready to what is likely true and confirmed to be inmarsat network registration pings (literally I think). (What hasn't been confirmed is how long or where they think the modem was).

I don't think the time difference between last ACARS and transponder failure is significant especially that time difference thing unless there is something unpublished to the contrary. (Which makes those article make no sense)

The confirmation of the satcom modem's estimated position and length of operation is far more important.

hamiltondaniel · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:18 pm

Per the NYT article above (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/world/asia/malaysia-military-radar.html)

I won't say the NYT has never been wrong, but they are the most respected newspaper yet to break any info on this story. If they say radar shows 45,000 ft I think we can be almost certain the plane reached 45,000.

Service ceiling is 43,100, so they busted through that. This is getting harder and harder to attribute to mechanical failure. What could happen that simultaneously knocks out ACARS, VHF, transponder, commands or causes to be commanded a climb to 45,000, then a bank to the left, then a resting altitude of 23,000....then another ascent, an hour or so later?

If the plane is changing altitude again after it crosses into the Straits, it HAS to be under command of a pilot, no?

I hate to say it, as I have tried to resist speculation...but if you depress the cabin and then gain altitude just to make sure everyone's hypoxic...drop to a lower altitude to avoid traffic crossing the peninsula...ascend again for range and hypoxia...

[Edited 2014-03-14 14:20:38]

CO953 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:18 pm

Quoting flyenthu (Reply 72):
OK it is "preliminary assessment of data." We know where some initial analyses usually lead. How can frame integrity be maintained at 45000? The pressure difference between inside and outside will be huge.

Depending on the internal pressure.

ADent · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:18 pm

Quoting hamiltondaniel (Reply 59):
According to Malaysian military radar (presumably now interpreted by the US and China), just after the transponder disappeared the aircraft apparently climbed to 45,000 ft while banking to the west, then lost altitude and crossed the peninsula erratically at 23,000, then regained altitude as it went out over the Indian Ocean.

Whatttttt......

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/wo....html

Quite interesting. They claim to have some detail from the radar and they also claim to be matching that data from RR Engine data.

LTC8K6 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:19 pm

Could the 45K be to rapidly kill everyone with a depressurization?

flyingturtle · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:20 pm

Quoting flyenthu (Reply 72):
How can frame integrity be maintained at 45000? The pressure difference between inside and outside will be huge.

No problem. In aviation, the safety margin is always large. If I flew at 45000, I would rather care about engines overheating and flaming out, like in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinnacle_Airlines_Flight_3701 .

David

hamiltondaniel · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:22 pm

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 83):
Could the 45K be to rapidly kill everyone with a depressurization?

The problem I've had with the intentional hypoxia theories is that it might not kill them. If I understand correctly on Helios the passengers were out, but not necessarily dead; the Greek F-16s saw people moving around inside.

And when you drop down to a lower altitude, people start to wake up.

[Edited 2014-03-14 14:22:46]

[Edited 2014-03-14 14:23:02]

blueheronNC · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:23 pm

Quoting enilria (Reply 44):
4) Terrorists want the airplane to use as a weapon later and found somewhere to land it and execute the passengers

Variation on 4 - this hold the passengers until after they've committed a terrorist act with the plane, and then release the passengers no worse for wear. That would show "benevolence" and it not being about people in that region.

iberiadc852 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:23 pm

Quoting hivue (Reply 25):

Well I don't believe an actually hidden/unknown airstrip may serve T7 to land and take off. I meant by that an airport/runway that could be secretly used for that. (i.e: closed airport, local airport not working at night, etc.)
Let's say, the opposite of a standard airport with night schedule whose ATC would ask the T7 when seeing it arriving, "hey boy, are you lost, where do you come from?"

difrano789 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:23 pm

My small meteor theory is fitting better and better this case. And yes the plane is at the bottom of indian ocean and we may never find it..

Shanwick1011Z · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:24 pm

A thought has been running through my head for some time!

Could the captain have been training any one or two passengers on that aircraft on his home flight simulator?

Could they since have been getting hands-on experience?

Too fanciful?

hivue · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:24 pm

Quoting ADent (Reply 82):
They claim to have some detail from the radar and they also claim to be matching that data from RR Engine data.

Which, if true, means ACARS was still operating past 1:07am.

blueheronNC · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:27 pm

Quoting hamiltondaniel (Reply 80):
Per the NYT article above (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/world/asia/malaysia-military-radar.html)

"Malaysian officials have acknowledged that military radar may have picked up the plane, but have said they took no action because it did not appear hostile."

Isn't that exactly when you scramble assets to track an erratic-moving plane to make sure they're ok/don't need assistance and/or follow it to its final demise on the hopes of saving at least someone (like the US did with Payne Stewart's)? Sounds way too passive a response just because something isn't overly "hostile".

ADent · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:27 pm

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 83):
Could the 45K be to rapidly kill everyone with a depressurization?

I guess. But the useful time of consciousness and FL350 is 30-60s and FL430 is 9-15s. So you are just shortening the time by 45s.

If the aircraft maintains some pressure differential even with the outflow valve open - the useful time of consciousness for FL250 is 3 to 6 min, so maybe a climb would help if some pressure remains.

hamiltondaniel · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:27 pm

Quoting Shanwick1011Z (Reply 89):
Could the captain have been training any one or two passengers on that aircraft on his home flight simulator?

It's possible, but frankly the captain's credentials are unvarnished, and even home PC simulators are good enough for a LOT of what you would need to know for something like this, making his lavish setup unnecessary.

KL808 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:28 pm

Just out of curiosity, is it possible for the pilot to disconnect the CVR on the 777?

If foul play did happen, I hope that this did not occur like what had happened to MI 185

hivue · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:28 pm

Quoting ADent (Reply 82):
also claim to be matching that data from RR Engine data.

There's a big disclaimer in the article on the quality of the engine data. A 40,000 fpm decent rate????

LTC8K6 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:29 pm

Quoting hamiltondaniel (Reply 85):
If I understand correctly on Helios the passengers were out, but not necessarily dead; the Greek F-16s saw people moving around inside.

Those were crew members who had portable oxygen bottles, iirc.

And the flight never got anywhere near 45K feet.

[Edited 2014-03-14 14:29:51]

Mitico12 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:29 pm

Just throwin it out there with the whole NYT citing of the 45K FT ascent -

Do you think the Malaysians knew this information all along, yet held it secret because it would strongly indicate that their pilot mass murdered a large amount of Chinese citizens and they would fear the fallout?

adriaticus · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:30 pm

"FIRST ON CNN: A classified analysis of electronic and satellite data conducted by the United States and Malaysian governments shows Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 likely crashed into the Indian Ocean on one of two flight paths, CNN has learned. One flight path suggests the plane crashed into the Bay of Bengal off the coast of India; the other has it traveling southeast and crashing elsewhere in the Indian Ocean, according to the analysis.

The Boeing 777-200ER with 239 passengers and crew members aboard departed Kuala Lumpur at 12:41 a.m. on March 8 in good weather. It was expected to land in Beijing at 6:30 a.m. Air traffic controllers lost contact with the plane about 2:40 a.m."

; By CNN news service via e-mail.

7BOEING7 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:31 pm

Quoting flyenthu (Reply 52):
What?!? Unless I missed something, didn't the WSJ report establish the ACARS (data transmission) was shutdown at 1:07am and then 14 mins later the transponder at 1:21am?

No!!! The ACARS was not shut down at 1:07AM, its last transmission was at 1:07AM. The Malaysians never said it was shutdown.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net