Quoting edmountain (Reply 46): It actually all sounds rather reasonable; thank you. As I mentioned before, I would still like to know if we can use the absence of cellphone network registration as evidence of supporting the southern arc and hence your candidate flight path.

Thanks! As to your question, I kind doubt that the lack of registration helps one way or the other. There was a lot of discussion about it yesterday, and my takeaway was that the consensus is that reception at an altitude of over 3-5 thousand feet is very difficult, if not impossible. I have heard no confirmed evidence that the plane was flying that low.

If you look at a possible northern flight path (through radar coverage) you can see that there are some pretty remote locations, and it is conceivable that the plane could have crashed in the north without cell phones ever linking to the network.

I think that the most likely scenario is the southerly turn, when compared to how complex the northern route is in terms of surveillance, and the fact that it hasn't been found yet.



SoCalGeo

Quoting socalgeo (Reply 45): Lots of assumptions, I know, but not overly outlandish...

Imo this probably is fairly accurate, around 3000nm range or something like that from IGARI.

Quoting edmountain (Reply 46): As I mentioned before, I would still like to know if we can use the absence of cellphone network registration as evidence of supporting the southern arc and hence your candidate flight path.

I don't think the ABSENCE of phone registration can be taken as an indication of anything. For all we know, everyone remembered to switch off their phone and no one got the chance to switch one on again.

But in the event one phone DID connect to a network at some point after other comms ceased, that could be immensely valuable information. And the closer that happened to the end of the potential duration of the flight, the closer we get to its final destination/resting place.

Quoting TheWipp (Reply 50):

Just to answer this specific point, the guy was probably not alone on the rig. But in the middle of the night, there's a chance the colleagues were sleeping. And he said he had been trying to contact Malaysian & Vietnamese authorities days before. Anyway, the South China Sea location doesn't match the route described by military radars

Quoting socalgeo (Reply 52): Thanks! As to your question, I kind doubt that the lack of registration helps one way or the other. There was a lot of discussion about it yesterday, and my takeaway was that the consensus is that reception at an altitude of over 3-5 thousand feet is very difficult, if not impossible. I have heard no confirmed evidence that the plane was flying that low.

Well, unless it is still flying, at some point it must have been at an altitude low enough for registration to take place, assuming the descent happened in an area with coverage. So a theoretically active phone could give away the aircraft location if it descended in a covered area.

Registration usually takes less than a minute even when roaming so even a crash like descent might not rule this out.

Excellent summary, rcair1. I have a few comments / questions.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 4): SATCOM pings do not locate the aircraft but based on correlation to signal strength there are two loci that indication aircraft distance from the Satellite.

Is it confirmed that the distance determination from the satellite is based on the signal strength? More natural means would be to calculate the distance on the round-trip time of the signal (ping and reply) from the satellite to the plane and back?

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 4): The Engine Health report received prior to LOS had 'interesting' altitude data/fluctuations including 40K drop in a minute. That data is suspect.

What Engine Health report does this refer to? Was there a third Engine Health report, as I would suppose this does not refer to either of the first two 'normal' reports.

Edit: remove about exact distance to the satellite, not relevant

[Edited 2014-03-16 13:11:10]

When we were still in thread number 2 I suggested that the plane was hijacked. The mods cut it, I guess because I wasn't toeing the airliners.net officially-sanctioned line of reasoning at the time. The strict insularity of this website can be baffling at times, and frankly seems to stifle free speech.

Quoting socalgeo (Reply 45): Lots of assumptions, I know, but not overly outlandish...

I've thought something like your scenario is probably the most plausible explanation requiring the fewest assumptions. Something along these lines could have been conducted by one of the flight crew without co-conspirators or far fetched involvement from evil governments

I wonder if the investigators have looked into whether the captain or F/O had access to any sedative medications. People seem to be assuming that a violent takeover was involved, however a large dose of a sedative slipped into a beverage would be a much more subtle way to incapacitate your partner. Especially with a two man crew and a locked cockpit door.

[Edited 2014-03-16 13:06:37]

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 41): Allegedly it flew direct to waypoints on an altitude no one else would be flying. Not much navigating skill needed there, same ol' job, different day. Really, MSFS would not help a seasoned pilot hijack the aircraft. The idea is silly.

Presumably, you're referring to the waypoints which were mapped out in one of the earlier threads, and the indication that the deliberate turns made over such suggested a course dialed into the autopilot. This information came from the primary radar traces, which only covered the earliest part of the flight over the Malacca Strait. I don't think it's silly at all to suggest a different tack was needed to overfly land.

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 48): But if the Cap't was the only hijacking pilot he did a number of things that night that he had likely never done before and that extra simulator practice would likely aid: 1) Flying and landing a commercial a/c without a co-pilot. Landing without a co-pilot substantially increases the normal workload. Any commercial pilot can do it, of course, but it is likely something the Cap't never did outside of a simulator. 2) Landing at a unfamiliar airport or airstrip w/o ATC and using ONLY a non-verified visual approach. A home simulator to practice these things would be potentially very useful. Not saying that is the case here, but I think it is wrong to dismiss the simulator as irrelevant simply because it is also a common hobby.

If the goal of commandeering the flight were to fly a non-standard evasive route at night and land it safely at anything but a commercial airstrip, practicing becomes of utmost importance.

[Edited 2014-03-16 13:19:10]

Has the airline released any information regarding the passengers? In particular, if there were any airline employees (pilots) who were riding in the back? If it was a hijacking, maybe it wasn't the flight crew? Maybe it was someone from the cabin that the crew trusted and allowed to enter the cockpit.

Because of the amount of time the plane was in the air, it seems pretty obvious that nothing catastrophic suddenly happened which caused the plane to immediately crash.

Quoting AirCalSNA (Reply 58): When we were still in thread number 2 I suggested that the plane was hijacked.

So, was the plane hijacked ? It looks more like a pilot suicide.

This has probably been answered before, so please pardon me. Is there are warning to alert pilots if the ACARS stops functioning or is shut down? I am curious. That this system was shut down before the last verbal communication from the cockpit, I am wondering if the pilots had that knowledge. Just trying to ascertain an confirm this fact.

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 57): The red arcs indicate the distance from the satellite that corresponds to the measured round-trip time. If the altitude of the aircraft, exact round-trip time, and the latency for a reply to a ping in the SATCOM device would be known exactly, there would be only two points instead of two arcs on either side of the satellite having the same distance from the satellite

No, there would still be a circle.

You cannot derive the aircraft's position with just one geostationary satellite, even down to two points.

What they did is calculate the distance from the satellite (using tx/rx delta, or signal strength, or whatever they felt was accurate) and that creates a sphere where the aircraft could be on the surface of that sphere. Then you intersect that with a sphere representing the earth, and the result is a circle on the earth's surface. You can discount any locations where you have PSR data, and any locations that would be out of flight range, and you are left with two arcs.

Quoting AirCalSNA (Reply 58): When we were still in thread number 2 I suggested that the plane was hijacked. The mods cut it, I guess because I wasn't toeing the airliners.net officially-sanctioned line of reasoning at the time. The strict insularity of this website can be baffling at times, and frankly seems to stifle free speech.

Wow are you serious, the mods deleted your thread suggesting hijack? That's messed up, what is that supposed to be offensive to someone these days? Funny they would delete that scenario which looks damn plausible, but I have seen people say the plane was abducted and is now in space LOL. Awesome a.net!

Quoting ComeAndGo (Reply 63): So, was the plane hijacked ? It looks more like a pilot suicide.

Why fly so many hours for a suicide. Surly he wasn't waiting 5 plus hours for the other pilot to go take a piss  

[Edited 2014-03-16 13:20:39]

Quoting gr325 (Reply 67): Why fly so many hours for a suicide.

To never find the plane. Seems to be working.

Is this already old news?

http://www.pprune.org/8380661-post4551.html

Greek ship found a suitcase Malacca Strait.

Quoting norm1153 (Reply 69): Is this already old news? http://www.pprune.org/8380661-post4551.html Greek ship found a suitcase Malacca Strait.

Old news. They did not find a suitcase. They didn't find anything.

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 65): No, there would still be a circle.

You are correct. I removed that part from my post.

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 57): Is it confirmed that the distance determination from the satellite is based on the signal strength?

No. I don't know how they did it.

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 57):

I believe it was the 2nd engine health report

Sorry if posted before, but in this article Bloomberg claims that last transmission was 1000 miles west of Perth.

"Satellite transmission data analyzed by U.S. investigators showed that the Malaysian Airline (MAS) System Bhd. jetliner’s most likely last-known position was in a zone about 1,000 miles (1,609 kilometers) west of Perth, Australia, said two people in the U.S. government who are familiar with the readings. Najib was told that is the most promising lead on locating the plane, one of the people said."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...-flight-deliberately-diverted.html

Is it new or already discussed and two arcs are still equal possiblity?

Quoting gr325 (Reply 67): Why fly so many hours for a suicide.

Suicide is an inherently irrational action and it seems you're expecting a logical thought process. Looking for a rational reason "why?" is probably an exercise in futility.

Small detail, but I assume the reports of the plane turning at it went off radar are true?

I was wondering how we know the plane turned?
If someone had planned something meticulously to not be found out, surely they make sure to disable the transponder, *then* start the turn.

Quoting k83713 (Reply 73): Sorry if posted before, but in this article Bloomberg claims that last transmission was 1000 miles west of Perth

I don't think I have seen that before but the question then would be how it could get inside
Australias new fancy radar coverage which is supposed to have a range of 2600-4000km?

http://web.archive.org/web/200711160...ence-data.com/features/fpage37.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s3094895.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jindale...l_Radar_Network#Operation_and_uses

Quoting k83713 (Reply 73): Sorry if posted before, but in this article Bloomberg claims that last transmission was 1000 miles west of Perth.

It's within the flight range and it's near the southern arc, if you discount the northern arc because of radar exposure near the coast and over land then it is the "more likely" scenario.

But most likely is the key word. It is probably in the drink to the south, indeed. Now they just have to disprove all other possibilities by proving where it is   A tough problem.

Presumably authorities will be checking to see if the pilot ever attempted water landings on the simulator.

Hopefully airborne searchers have a portable cell phone array on board, and all the passenger and crew phone numbers. No help of course if underwater.

Quoting planesmart (Reply 78): Hopefully airborne searchers have a portable cell phone array on board, and all the passenger and crew phone numbers. No help of course if underwater.

You realize the flight has been missing for over a week, right? If they're in some hotel where they can plug in their phones, I think they're gonna be OK.

Quoting ThunderboltDrgn (Reply 76): but the question then would be how it could get inside Australias new fancy radar coverage which is supposed to have a range of 2600-4000km

Seems like Australian authorities also wonder the same:

"The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) said it had no reliable information to indicate MH370 may have approached Australia.
A spokesman said: “AMSA has not received reliable information indicating that Malaysian Airlines’ flight MH370 may have approached Australia or entered the Australian search and rescue region."

http://www.news.com.au/world/malaysi...ikely/story-fndir2ev-1226855315871

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 74): Suicide is an inherently irrational action and it seems you're expecting a logical thought process. Looking for a rational reason "why?" is probably an exercise in futility.

Suicide can be very rational. Maybe not in this case, but I can think of many scenarios in which suicide is possibly the best option.

Quoting edmountain (Reply 38): For example, suppose there were 200 cell phones on board and 10 of them were left on for whatever reason.

And suppose at least 5 of those were smartphones equipped with GPS chips; couldn't those have been used as a potential source of a signal to trace the last-known location of the aircraft? It's not like a cellular signal would be needed to get a GPS fix.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 4): • ACARS is a subscription service and costs money. All indications are the MH370 was subscribed only to engine health monitoring and data from that is sent to Rolls Royce. • ACARS communicates via VHF or SATCOM (and maybe Wifi at the gate). The communications channel depends on availability and is independent of the ACARS. • ACARS can be instructed not to use SATCOM or VHF from the Cockpit. This would effectively stop ACARS from sending data. Access to the EE bay is not required.

Well said. I think my earlier post a few threads back was taken out of context. To fully disable ACARS requires a trip to the E/E bay. Stopping a transmission despite the system being active, which seems to be the case here, can be done from the flight deck.

Anyhow, thanks for putting together these summaries, rcair1.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 22): How possible would it be for this (or any) aircraft to climb to 70,000 or higher? What would happen to it?

Not only is this not possible in a commercial airliner like 77E (simple answer is that it would result in a stall due to inadequate lift in thinner air) but I have my doubts about MH370 sustaining flight at 45,000 because of its weight. Perhaps it was later/after a fuel dump. Perhaps it was only for a moment, followed by a dive. Or maybe just misinformation.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 82): And suppose at least 5 of those were smartphones equipped with GPS chips; couldn't those have been used as a potential source of a signal to trace the last-known location of the aircraft? It's not like a cellular signal would be needed to get a GPS fix.

Realistically it's probably more like 230 phones on board, 200 of them on, 90% of them smartphones

Not everyone has a GPS app that stores maps locally installed, though some do. Presumably with so many pax *someone* figured it out. You know, if we assume they were awake/alive :/

Quoting k83713 (Reply 73): Satellite transmission data analyzed by U.S. investigators showed that the Malaysian Airline (MAS) System Bhd. jetliner’s most likely last-known position was in a zone about 1,000 miles (1,609 kilometers) west of Perth, Australia, said two people in the U.S. government who are familiar with the readings. Najib was told that is the most promising lead on locating the plane, one of the people said." http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...-flight-deliberately-diverted.html Is it new or already discussed and two arcs are still equal possibility?

Seems to me like the general area is within 100 miles or so our calculations, (2970 statute mile range, and 495 mph for 6 hours...) which I think is well within our margin of error, based on our assumptions for the range, speed, and time in the air.



Live Map:http://sandbox.maps.arcgis.com/apps/OnePane/basicviewer/index.html?appid=95cbede59b3e471eb14b52c362966934

SoCalGeo

[Edited 2014-03-16 13:56:25]

This plane has been at the bottom of the Indian Ocean for the last 8 days. We will likely never find it. Egyptair 990, Silkair 185, LAM 470 and now MH 370. We'll never know for sure, but that is the overall consensus.

Quoting socalgeo (Reply 85):

Thank you very much for visuals, I was about to ask someone to do it... 

I hope they are already on the way to that point. It narrows the search area quite a lot and I hope they find something.

Quoting gr325 (Reply 67): Why fly so many hours for a suicide

The suicide could have happened well away from the crash site. It has been said the aircraft was following some airways / nav points. Once the pilot has control of the aircraft he could have punched in a flight plan to the middle of the Indian Ocean and then offed himself some how. Plane would just follow the nav points until running out of fuel.

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 35): By doing this - perhaps we can stop the repeated questions about stuff over and over again - and focus the discussions on new information - give the mods a break.

one of only 2 handsfull of worthy coments I have read in the past 30 odd threads! thanks guys for providing the platform on a subject we all know very little more about than on day 1! this will be the one to tell the grandchilderen about .. and the one that will sadly probably keep us guessing for months to come....... !

Regarding cell phones, there is interesting link claiming it's allowed in Malaysian Airlines to use cell phones on board

http://www.amta.org.au/newsletters/EME.Update.March.2013?Article=38830

[Edited 2014-03-16 14:05:25]

Quoting socalgeo (Reply 85): Seems to me like the general area is within 100 miles or so our calculations, (2970 statute mile range, and 495 mph for 6 hours...) which I think is well within our margin of error, based on our assumptions for the range, speed, and time in the air.

Interesting ... If true, I wonder if the currents down their head south and east toward Antarctica or that the Marianas Trench was too obviously ....

Quoting k83713 (Reply 90): Regarding cell phones, there is interesting link claiming it's allowed in Malaysia to use cell phones on board

yes, but they are still limited in range and no, that will not go away, even with 4G! Let´s stay on the carpet please, had it landed anywhere "civilized" , the phones would be the easiest to find/detect!

[Edited 2014-03-16 14:10:29]

Quoting socalgeo (Reply 85):

What hypothesis would fit with that diagram?. That once they (the hijackers), could go to where they wanted, (in a straight line, as it seems?), they ran out of fuel?

Quoting cougar15 (Reply 92):

It only gives perspective how many phones would be switched on. If airline doesn't require them off, the number can be much more than just 20 forgotten to be offlined...

[Edited 2014-03-16 14:09:43]

Quoting k83713 (Reply 90): Regarding cell phones, there is interesting link claiming it's allowed in Malaysian Airlines to use cell phones on board

Yes they had a 777 with a Honeywell microcell on board that allowed passengers to talk and text at exorbitant rates. It was a pilot program, not on the accident aircraft, and from what I heard was removed/discontinued.

http://www51.honeywell.com/honeywell...TechnologyEnablesCellPhoneUse.html

Quoting cougar15 (Reply 89): one of only 2 handsfull of worthy coments I have read in the past 30 odd threads! thanks guys for providing the platform on a subject we all know very little more about than on day 1! this will be the one to tell the grandchilderen about .. and the one that will sadly probably keep us guessing for months to come....... !

Thank you for the kind words, but please fix the quote as I did not write the post you attribute to me.

[Edited 2014-03-16 14:12:26]

Quoting btfarrwm (Reply 60): I wonder if the investigators have looked into whether the captain or F/O had access to any sedative medications. People seem to be assuming that a violent takeover was involved, however a large dose of a sedative slipped into a beverage would be a much more subtle way to incapacitate your partner. Especially with a two man crew and a locked cockpit door.

It could also have been due to a suicidal member of the cabin crew who poisoned or drugged the pilots' coffee or other drinks in the galley. That doesn't explain the turn to the west, but perhaps the pilots realized something was wrong when they started falling asleep and initiated a turn to try and return to KUL, and then passed out, and the aircraft kept flying until it ran out of fuel in the middle of the Indian Ocean.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 4): ACARS

>> ACARS is an automated aircraft communication system that transmits a/c information, primarily maintenance information, to maintenance facilities like the airline, Boeing, Engine Manf, etc.

ACARS messages can be used for ATC purposes (Google 'FANS') as a replacement for verbal contact and Airline Operational Control (AOC) purposes. AOC messages can include position reports, maintenance reports, gate assignments, weather uplinks, weather downlinks, and many other purposes. To represent ACARS as a maintenance system would be incorrect. In the part of the world that MH370 was operating, its unlikely it was being used for ATC purposes.

>> ACARS is NOT a flight system - it is not needed for safe flight.

While it is not a flight control system, it certain parts of the world it can be used as a replacement for verbal messages and as a means of reporting position information to ATC over the ocean.

>> ACARS is a subscription service and costs money. All indications are the MH370 was subscribed only to engine health monitoring and data from that is sent to Rolls Royce.

ACARS billing is based on the quantity of data transferred, and the means by which it is transferred (SATCOM messages are more expensive that VHF messages), not by the message content. The 777 has a very configurable maintenance computer. Data reported and frequency of reporting is up to the airline.

>> ACARS communicates via VHF or SATCOM (and maybe Wifi at the gate). The communications channel depends on availability and is independent of the ACARS.

ACARS messages are never transferred over Wifi. Some airlines may use a separate Gatelink Wifi connection to transfer large datasets to/from the aircraft.

>> ACARS can be instructed not to use SATCOM or VHF from the Cockpit. This would effectively stop ACARS from sending data. Access to the EE bay is not required.

True.

>> The Malaysian prime minister said (quote):
>> "We can say with a high degree of certainty that the Aircraft Communication Addressing and Reporting System
>> (ACARS) was disabled just before the reached the East coast of Peninsula Malaysia".
>> No explanation of how that determination could be made has been released.

ACARS can easily be turned off at any time by the flight crew from the cockpit. Note that this does not mean the radios have been powered off and housekeeping messages between the radios and the ground may still occur. So, if MH had programmed their 777s to report engine or maintenance status every 10 minutes and those reports stopped, it would be possible to infer that the system was disabled at a certain time.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 96): and the aircraft kept flying until it ran out of fuel in the middle of the Indian Ocean.

What about others on board then? No attempt to do anything?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 22): How possible would it be for this (or any) aircraft to climb to 70,000 or higher? What would happen to it?

It´s impossible. The plane would simply stop flying and drop. I´m not sure at what level but my guess is the maximum it could reach would be 45,000 to 48,000

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 74): Suicide is an inherently irrational action and it seems you're expecting a logical thought process. Looking for a rational reason "why?" is probably an exercise in futility.

No. Suicide is a very rational decision and the thought process leading to it is too. Wether it´s the wrong decision in general, is up to debate but most people who do it are not psychotic and are oriented in time and space.

http://internacional.elpais.com/inte.../actualidad/1394973097_356370.html

According to the above investigators had been doing experiments all of last week with a 777, including following the flightpath of MH370 after contact was lost. The returns on primary radar observed with these experiments were exactly like the ones observed the night MH370 went missing.

[Edited 2014-03-16 14:51:12]

I posted this yesterday...

One or both pilots are involved.

The passengers probably didn't know anything was amiss and were just settling in for the long red eye flight.

Assuming the aircraft turned and was flying to the NW, they were gaining time (flying into the darkness) which tells us they most likely landed at a military airfield (think Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia) and concealed the aircraft in a hangar before the sun came up...and well before the public was aware of a missing aircraft.

The plane has already been repainted and will soon be repurposed as a weapon of mass destruction. There's a reason they wanted a heavy (+/-7,500 mile range) jumbo jet and I have a news flash...it's not to sell off its parts or fly it to Switzerland to request asylum.

Potential targets include Tel Aviv (make it look like an Iranian op so that the rest of the world can justify another war) and Washington D.C. because the American regime (and I'm an American) is the biggest exporter of war the world has ever seen.

This is a very well planned, financed and rehearsed government sponsored act...think Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen or Iran.

The aircraft with it's new livery and transponder will (sooner than later) be utilized in an attack that will rival a 9/11 or any other act of terrorism we've ever witnessed.

---

Still think this is fantasy?

Keep your eyes on Tel Aviv...

Quoting glbltrvlr (Reply 97): ACARS billing is based on the quantity of data transferred, and the means by which it is transferred (SATCOM messages are more expensive that VHF messages), not by the message content. The 777 has a very configurable maintenance computer. Data reported and frequency of reporting is up to the airline.

I think the intention there was to say that MH subscribed to basic AHM through VHF only, and EHM over SATCOM. I believe these would be "rules" configured into the maintenance computer, right?