Quoting Finn350 (Reply 47): Here is the transcript according to a Finnish news site:

Looks pretty innocuous to me, but then again, the person speaking could have phrased it exactly that way as kind of a sick joke (but that of course, is yet another conspiracy theory).

Quoting majush (Reply 49): But doesnt that bring in a cabin crew to standby inside the cockpit?

I'm not sure about that.

Quoting majush (Reply 49): why try to fly far deep into the the middle of nowhere after going through navigational waypoints?

That, is the $260,000,000 question.

As anyone who lives or has been to South East Asia likely knows, there's plenty of mountains which could turn a fully fuelled 777 into quite a nice fireball, in a location that would be extremely hard to get to even in daylight.
There are plenty of places where they could just sink the plane too. Why head due south rather than to somewhere even more remote (like the direction of Herd&McDonald islands for instance)?
Unless the perpetrator was kind enough to recite his planes clearly and eloquently into the voice recorder, and then kindly cut it off somehow so it wouldn't wipe over itself, it's unlikely we'll know.

[Edited 2014-04-01 04:52:01]

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 47): Here is the transcript according to a Finnish news site: 12:40:38 ATC: 370 32 Right cleared for take-off. Good night. MAS 370: 32 Right Cleared for take-off MAS370. Thank you Bye. LUMPUR APPROACH 12:42:05 MAS 370: Departure Malaysian Three Seven Zero 12:42:10 ATC: Malaysian Three Seven Zero selamat pagi identified. Climb flight level one eight zero cancel SID turn right direct to IGARI 12:42:48 MAS 370: Okay level one eight zero direct IGARI Malaysian one err Three Seven Zero 12:42:52 ATC: Malaysian Three Seven Zero contact Lumpur Radar One Three Two Six good night MAS 370: Night One Three Two Six Malaysian Three Seven Zero LUMPUR RADAR (AREA) 12:46:51 MAS 370: Lumpur Control Malaysian Three Seven Zero 12:46:51 ATC: Malaysian Three Seven Zero Lumpur Radar Good Morning climb flight level two five zero 12:46:54 MAS 370: Morning level two five zero Malaysian Three Seven Zero 12:50:06 ATC: Malaysian Three Seven Zero climb flight level three five zero 12:50:09 MAS 370: Flight level three five zero Malaysian Three Seven Zero 01:01:14 MAS 370: Malaysian Three Seven Zero maintaining level three five zero 01:01:19 ATC: Malaysian Three Seven Zero 01:07:55 MAS 370: Malaysian... Three Seven zero maintaining level three five zero 01:08:00 ATC: Malaysian Three Seven Zero 01:19:24 ATC: Malaysian Three Seven Zero contact Ho Chi Minh 120 decimal 9 Good Night 01:19:29 MAS 370: Good Night Malaysian Three Seven Zero

Looks much more like a real transcript than the early ones we saw.

Quoting majush (Reply 39): I did a back to back Mayday series over couple of weeks and then took a flight from CGK to KUL to see how my brain reacts to it. It was more than terrifying. Wasn't quite meant to be entertaining. I was hoping to get over my fears. I later figured wine works better.

Off topic, but for fear of flying I would recommend a couple of things:
- A fear of flying course run by an airline. These tend to have very high success rate.
- The book "Ask the Pilot" by Patrick Smith. Really helped a friend of mine who was totally panicked on flights.
- Some time in a real aircraft cockpit on a real flight. Hard to do in an airliner nowadays but even time in a light airplane on a "discovery flight" is an eye opener. Caveat: make sure the pilot isn't a grandstander. While this video makes me laugh so hard my stomach hurts it does not illustrate the right approach with a nervous flyer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFrf8vJp5MA 

Quoting LandSweetLand (Reply 51): Quoting majush (Reply 49): why try to fly far deep into the the middle of nowhere after going through navigational waypoints? That, is the $260,000,000 question.

I doubt MH paid list price.  

I believe we will never know what happened....
Best case the SAR will turn up some debris from MH370 eventually to confirm a crash / watering somewhere in the Indian Ocean. Except for the crossover the Malayan peninsula this all looks to deliberately try to vanish from the face of the earth without ever being found....

I think whoever did this didn't consider the pings if no data is actually sent, otherwise it would be the perfect Houdini disappearing act.

Quoting majush (Reply 49): why try to fly far deep into the the middle of nowhere after going through navigational waypoints? why not just fly through? A motive to go into the middle of nowhere bothers me some how.

The reason would be to conceal the aircraft a long way from where it would likely be searched for, and to place it in a very deep part of the ocean where the FDR/CVR would be very hard to locate or recover even if a search was mounted. Motive for that action: striking at the authoritarian one-party state through a perfect crime where one of its aircraft vanishes.

Quoting cbrboy (Reply 54): The reason would be to conceal the aircraft a long way from where it would likely be searched for, and to place it in a very deep part of the ocean where the FDR/CVR would be very hard to locate or recover even if a search was mounted. Motive for that action: striking at the authoritarian one-party state through a perfect crime where one of its aircraft vanishes.

Possible. Any psychologists able to advise how likely it would be for someone used to having many lives entrusted to him to be able to carry through a decision to kill all on board? When I say "carry through", this would be a decision taken several hours before the plane crashed, giving ample time for reversal.

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 47): 12:50:06 ATC: Malaysian Three Seven Zero climb flight level three five zero 12:50:09 MAS 370: Flight level three five zero Malaysian Three Seven Zero 01:01:14 MAS 370: Malaysian Three Seven Zero maintaining level three five zero 01:01:19 ATC: Malaysian Three Seven Zero 01:07:55 MAS 370: Malaysian... Three Seven zero maintaining level three five zero 01:08:00 ATC: Malaysian Three Seven Zero

Why remind the controller? Twice?

Probably nothing though.

reports trickling out from inside investigation i.e. leaks...saying that the last comm from cockpit "Good night
Malaysian 370" was from pilot, not co-pilot as had been previously reported. And, sources saying that transmission at 1:07 :55, for MH370 to ATC may also have been from pilot, not co-pilot.

Interesting...if true. You have an uncalled for transmission at 1:07:55, at least somewhat out of the ordinary, which takes place right after the last ACARS transmission, by the Captain, who had not transmitted prior to this. I realize ACARS only transmits every 30 minutes but,,,and can someone please explain why suddenly you would have the pilot transmitting what is a redundant and unexplained transmission?

And, I'm sure the omission of "Ho Chi Minh 120 decimal 9" on read back was just mere oversight as well...though read back had been consistent in all other comms with ATC.

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 30): Flying With Fish is an internet troll using information in public domain to make his claims.

I was under same impression but actually FWF helped us a lot. Without those leaks US would be involved even more. Thanks to FWF, Malaysia didn't want much US involvement. Now Australia has the lead role and we just support Australia. That is a great position to be when dealing with Malaysia.

Folks from neighboring countries very well know what I am saying.

Quoting InsideMan (Reply 53): I believe we will never know what happened.... Best case the SAR will turn up some debris from MH370 eventually to confirm a crash / watering somewhere in the Indian Ocean. Except for the crossover the Malayan peninsula this all looks to deliberately try to vanish from the face of the earth without ever being found....

Time for Warren Buffet to offer up a reward to anyone who can find this thing (as opposed to his rather silly quest for a billion dollar perfect March Madness bracket). This problem needs to be solved, for the sake of Boeing, Malaysia Airlines, the family, fighting terrorism and the flying public. The respective governmental agencies have given it a go, but now let's get the brains of entrepaneurs and mathematicians on this. I'm not making light of this in any way, and I'm not suggesting a prize; it should be an incentive to drop what you're working on and help find this thing. A far better use of Warren's billion dollars I'd submit.

Some theories suggest it's possible that the aircraft landed intact on the water and sunk intact leaving no floating debris. While this is possible, wouldn't the rafts have been deployed if the aircraft had landed intact? Looking at the video of Asiana at SFO makes it seem as if a 777 had managed to stay largely intact, people onboard would have been able to deploy the rafts which would have remained floating.

Quoting m1m2 (Reply 60): wouldn't the rafts have been deployed if the aircraft had landed intact?

Unless everyone with the exception of the person piloting the aircraft had succumbed to hypoxia.

Quoting rj777 (Reply 33): The Hudson splashdown was made with a much smaller aircraft and they were extremely lucky that they were able to pull that off.

Including that the aircraft stayed somewhat intact after hitting the water at near 12G - over 3 times the recommend limit - and hitting so hard that the rear pressure bulkhead was broken and half of it lost.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 27): we should also consider the possibly that the aircraft did not crash into the ocean, but was watered professionally, which would, even if destroying the plane, reduce the debris considerably.

Even the US Air water landing the Hudson produced considerable floating debris - as the lower rear sections of the fuselage were compromised by the force of impact. Most folks have never seen photos of the major damage to the fuselage integrity caused by the water impact.

Quoting SimonDanger (Reply 59): Time for Warren Buffet to offer up a reward to anyone who can find this thing (as opposed to his rather silly quest for a billion dollar perfect March Madness bracket). This problem needs to be solved, for the sake of Boeing, Malaysia Airlines, the family, fighting terrorism and the flying public. The respective governmental agencies have given it a go, but now let's get the brains of entrepaneurs and mathematicians on this. I'm not making light of this in any way, and I'm not suggesting a prize; it should be an incentive to drop what you're working on and help find this thing. A far better use of Warren's billion dollars I'd submit.

Bounty hunters unite!
While it would be a useful way to invest some of Buffett´s insane fortune in its a bit more difficult than to find the Titanic I would say. And that took long!

Quoting m1m2 (Reply 60): Some theories suggest it's possible that the aircraft landed intact on the water and sunk intact leaving no floating debris. While this is possible, wouldn't the rafts have been deployed if the aircraft had landed intact? Looking at the video of Asiana at SFO makes it seem as if a 777 had managed to stay largely intact, people onboard would have been able to deploy the rafts which would have remained floating.

Its huge engines make the 777 the worst plane to perform a successful ditching.

Quoting sipadan (Reply 57): reports trickling out from inside investigation i.e. leaks...saying that the last comm from cockpit "Good night Malaysian 370" was from pilot, not co-pilot as had been previously reported. And, sources saying that transmission at 1:07 :55, for MH370 to ATC may also have been from pilot, not co-pilot.

Who led that difficult investigation which took more than three weeks to find this out? A cleaning woman from Bangladesh?

Quoting na (Reply 63): Quoting sipadan (Reply 57): reports trickling out from inside investigation i.e. leaks...saying that the last comm from cockpit "Good night Malaysian 370" was from pilot, not co-pilot as had been previously reported. And, sources saying that transmission at 1:07 :55, for MH370 to ATC may also have been from pilot, not co-pilot. Who led that difficult investigation which took more than three weeks to find this out? A cleaning woman from Bangladesh

It's a shame that which pilot was speaking to ATC was presented as a fact in the first place. They should have qualified their announcement by saying something like "It is believed that..."

Quoting art (Reply 64): It's a shame that which pilot was speaking to ATC was presented as a fact in the first place. They should have qualified their announcement by saying something like "It is believed that..."

Actually they did, at least thats what I saw in the press conference. The MAS CEO said something like "we believe it was the copilot". I only wonder how they came to that conclusion (and over that, an incredible two weeks after the disappearance!), it would be utterly dilettantish if they wouldnt have asked the families and friends for identification before.

I just read an interesting article/blog.

http://www.naturalnews.com/044511_Fl..._check_government_involvement.html

What raises concern in my mind is the lack of found debris.
1. If MH370 was flying on autopilot it would have broken up on contact with water. 0% probability that it could have landed itself without some sort of breakup. So why has nothing been spotted with millions of people looking? Most likely answer was that it isn't anywhere near where the SAR is occurring. AF442 left a debris field that was very easily spotted. The B777 is a much larger aircraft making finding debris even more likely if you are looking in the correct spot.

2. The USA has been very reserved and has spend a pittance in comparison to other aircraft losses in the past, why? Boeing is a firm that needs to be protected and the US Gov is always heavily involved. But in this case the FAA/DOT/DOD are only providing token support. Almost looks like smoke in mirrors. Why would the US be so inactive, doesn't meet normal criteria for a country that wants to be front and center for every thing that is newsworthy on the planet, and given the CNN coverage what a great platform to in crease visibility.

3. I do not believe the satellite ping/Doppler theory too much data based on matching tracks. If they are off by 45 minutes on location then we are talking a circle shift of 400 miles. Thats an accuracy that the military calls "Close enough for government work."

4. Go back to the problem. If you can't find it, is it remotely possible that the reason is that it was intended not to be found? Given the release of the new track by the family members yesterday I once again find this peculiar given that they had to get this from a Government agency and that meant that the authorities had this all along and simply weren't prepared to release what they know publicly. Again, why?

5. I believe this is all "Smoke in mirrors" and "nothing is as it appears."


Aren't we all are getting burnt out on military looking and finding dead jellyfish?
And the longer this goes on the more boring it gets to listening to the replays of "Breaking News" on CNN that lead nowhere. The world is getting to the fringe of tuning this out, and is that perhaps what several in the know want?
Perhaps I am wrong, but it sure seams to me that people know a great deal more than they are mentioning, and the world will find no traces until all come clean.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 32): No such thing. The Doppler shift arises from the relative motion of the satellite and aircraft. For a geosynchronous satellite with zero inclination and an aircraft at rest (e.g. on the ground) the Doppler shift is zero, which contradicts what you described.

The method outlined in my post #24 for calculating each aircraft position stands, until disproven

However, I should have added one word "What the earth station will measure is the satellite "induced" Doppler vector projected onto the satellite to aircraft vector".

In an earth frame that rotates with earth:
- pre-compensating the return RF transmission for aircraft motion makes the aircraft stationary in the reference frame
- a perfect geostationary satellite (no such thing in the real world of course!), the satellite is stationary at its nominal position in the reference frame.
NO DOPPLER in that case.
BTW that also covers your counter example with the aircraft at rest on the ground.

With a real world geosynchronous satellite in an inclined orbit, the satellite constantly moves in the reference frame. One of the jobs of the satellite operator is to monitor and predict its position in order to plan corrections when necessary to keep it in its acceptable NS-EW box. From the predictive model of satellite motion, the operator can estimate the sat coordinates and speed components at ping time in the reference frame.

Precompensation will not be perfect because it is calculated using the nominal rather than actual sat position is used but that error should be negligilble. The Doppler measured by the GES is essentially that induced by the satellite motion but measured along the satellite to aircraft vector. The ACOS of the ratio measured Doppler/max possible Doppler (i.e. if sat speed vector happened to be aligned with the sat-aircraft vector) gives you an angle that tells you where to look on the RTD ring.

The rest is as before in my post #24 above.

Quoting billreid (Reply 66): 2. The USA has been very reserved and has spend a pittance in comparison to other aircraft losses in the past, why?

See Reply #58. Malaysia is a tiny peaceful country with enormous ego. US tried to help lot more but got burnt. UK knows it very well and maintained its distance. Australia is deeply involved and will realize soon. I am really surprised to see Vietnam helped so much with their limited resources. For decades Malaysia looked down on its neighbors, now it needs their help. I hope attitude changes after this incident but very unlikely. Wrong time to make such statements but these are facts.

Every country in the world want to solve this riddle and ready to help. So don't make this America's issue and/or Boeing's issue.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 68): See Reply #58. Malaysia is a tiny peaceful country with enormous ego. US tried to help lot more but got burnt. UK knows it very well and maintained its distance. Australia is deeply involved and will realize soon. I am really surprised to see Vietnam helped so much with their limited resources. For decades Malaysia looked down on its neighbors, now it needs their help. I hope attitude changes after this incident but very unlikely. Wrong time to make such statements but these are facts. Every country in the world want to solve this riddle and ready to help. So don't make this America's issue and/or Boeing's issue.

Not sure I agree. If you are looking in Malaysia's territory then fine, But the Indian Ocean is a complete different story international waters. If the US decided to send ten ships then fine and Malaysia has NIL to say until we find debris.

Quoting billreid (Reply 66):

I agree. All the timeline of searching in the wrong places due to gradual discovery of new ways to look at radar and sat data... And it still goes on.

The calculation of delays and doppler effects is known for at least 40 years, it's not "novel". It's called GPS - short description can be found on wikipedia.

There is a place with a long runway (backup landing for the shuttle), within the range of the flight (5-6hours), with sat/gps knowledge and capabilites (one of the 5 gps ground stations plus other undisclosed installations), and doubtful reputation.

Quoting billreid (Reply 69): Not sure I agree. If you are looking in Malaysia's territory then fine, But the Indian Ocean is a complete different story international waters. If the US decided to send ten ships then fine and Malaysia has NIL to say until we find debris.

It doesn't work that way with Malaysia. In their mind they are in-charge and Australia is just working for them (rest of the world may think otherwise). At the first disagreement with Australia, they are going to reiterate who is in-charge of the investigation. This is in international waters, as much as Australia and others working hard legally it is Malaysia's investigation.

So there is no need to appease Malaysia by sending 10 ships. As stated US will help Australia as needed.

Quoting LandSweetLand (Reply 51): Quoting majush (Reply 49): But doesnt that bring in a cabin crew to standby inside the cockpit? I'm not sure about that.

Me too.
Now, I don't normally pay attention to the movements in and out of the cockpit but on a 5J SIN-CRK flight last year, as I was exiting the forward loo, the co-pilot (presumably as he look very young) who was waiting just outside the door got in with a nod and a smile at me. I happened to be sitting at the front row and did observe him later coming out of the loo and entering the cockpit without seeing another soul passing through that cockpit door. I don't know whether 5J mandate it but if they do, then someone obviously did not follow the rule in that instance.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 58): Folks from neighboring countries very well know what I am saying.

I do.

Quoting billreid (Reply 66): If MH370 was flying on autopilot it would have broken up on contact with water. 0% probability that it could have landed itself without some sort of breakup.

While it pains me to agree with anything in your post - I do agree with the result here - if not the method. If MH370 was flying uncommanded (no pilots) and fuel was exhausted it would not land softly. It would crash. It may be a sort of CFIT - or not. It is really hard to say. I would not be flying on autopilot tho - so the premise of your statement is incorrect.

As to why we have not found debris. It is entirely possible we are looking in the wrong place. It is also possible we have just not found it. The area being searched is a best estimate of the probable location where MH370 went down. It is not a "crash site." It is also in a very remote and hostile area.

Quoting billreid (Reply 66): been spotted with millions of people looking?

There are a lot of resources - but 'millions of people' - hardly. Hundreds, maybe a couple thousand involved.

Quoting billreid (Reply 66): 2. The USA has been very reserved and has spend a pittance in comparison to other aircraft losses in the past, why? Boeing is a firm that needs to be protected and the US Gov is always heavily involved.

This is a rather distorted view of how the US government 'protects' industry. Not a surprise. I've traveled to Europe on occasion (including the Netherlands), and the portrayal of what I see on channels like CNN (and others) about the US is often fantasy - at best.

Quoting billreid (Reply 66): FAA/DOT/DOD are only providing token support

The agency probably most likely to help is the NTSB, not the 3 you mentioned. The DOD may be providing data, but it would be very unusual for any military to be overly open on covert resources on the other side of the world.
Officially - the US has a supporting role in the investigation because the a/c is manufactured by a US company. That is the NTSB. Any other agency is just 'lending help' - and it is unclear the mandate. They are doing it because it is of great interest to understand why this a/c went down. That is true for many of the organizations involved.

Quoting billreid (Reply 66): 3. I do not believe the satellite ping/Doppler theory too much data based on matching tracks. If they are off by 45 minutes on location then we are talking a circle shift of 400 miles. Thats an accuracy that the military calls "Close enough for government work."

Given a system that is not designed to provide ANY location information - and is intended to compensate for the items being used to track it - there is no surprise that this data is not accurate. We are basically talking about measuring a result from an error in the system that gave a signal 1 time per hour. It is very inaccurate and there are many assumptions being made. The changes in location have to do with the changes in those assumptions. Those assumptions are assumptions, we have NO data on what the a/c was actually doing. We can only eliminate behaviours that are outside the parameters of what the a/c can do.

Quoting billreid (Reply 66): Again, why?

Good question. You tell me. Why?
This is a classic debating technique - ask a question that cannot be answered and invites fantasy. People can fill in whatever 'blank' they want - and thereby derail the discussion.

Quoting billreid (Reply 66): 5. I believe this is all "Smoke in mirrors" and "nothing is as it appears."

As the author of the "Sanity Checks" I find it a bit insulting that an article from "The Health Ranger (activist turned scientist)" on Natural News - calls his article a "Reality Check". BTW - one of the claims to fame - a video called "Don't touch my junk" that is reported to have 300,000 views on Youtube. The latest video I posted on Youtube - which is neither controversial or aviation related - is at 3.7 million views.

Finally - "billreid" - I don't mean to focus on you in particular. There are more "speculation and my best guess" posts on this forum right now than factual statement by far. I've been reading nearly every post - and not posting because there is little I can add. However, your post was the one that pushed me over the line into responding. It could have been one of many others.

- Time for an update to the sanity check - if I can drag myself away from work (which is an issue right now)....

-rcair1

RE: How heading is determined after passing last waypoint.

I found a flight manual that discusses the 777 navigation system:

http://www.smartcockpit.com/aircraft...ght_Management_and_Navigation.html

On page 175, it says:

Quote: If the airplane passes the last active route waypoint (or offset) or the last waypoint prior to a route discontinuity, LNAV maintains the current heading and a scratchpad message displays.

LNAV in turn is the "Lateral Navigation" system (pg. 56):

Quote: LNAV provides steering commands to the next waypoint or the selected route intercept point. When armed on takeoff, LNAV engages at or above 50 feet, when laterally within 2.5 nautical miles of the active route leg. FMC [Flight Management Computer] LNAV guidance normally provides great circle courses between waypoints. However, when an arrival or approach from the FMC data base is entered into the active route, the FMC commands a heading, track, or a DME arc to comply with the procedure.

The primary air data input to the FMC is the Air Data Inertial Reference Unit (ADIRU): "The ADIRU supplies primary flight data, inertial reference, and air data. The ADIRU is fault–tolerant and fully redundant." (pg. 31) Since it is an inertial system, it provides true heading data.

Then there is the Secondary Attitude and Air Data Reference Unit (SAARU) (pg. 32):

Quote: The SAARU is a secondary source of critical flight data for displays, flight control systems, and other systems. If the ADIRU fails, the SAARU automatically supplies attitude, heading, and air data. SAARU heading must be manually set to the standby compass magnetic heading periodically.

The magnetic compass heading is initially entered on the "POS INIT" page of the FMC during preflight.

So, my reading of the above, is that (1) after passing the last waypoint, the 777 holds the last heading; (2) the primary heading data ordinarily comes from the ADIRU; (3) this would be a true heading; (4) if the fully redundant ADIRU is disabled, then the SAARU comes on line, and that would follow a magnetic heading.

Thus, other things being equal, if MH370 was flying on autopilot, after it passed it's last heading, it would maintain a constant true heading track; this is consistent with the 450 knot Inmarsat flight path that seemed to maintain a constant true heading of about 187° on the last, long leg of that track.

Conversely, it would thus appear unlikely that if the a/c flew into the latest search area, that it would have been flying a constant magnetic heading.



[Edited 2014-04-01 09:10:54]

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 56): Quoting Finn350 (Reply 47): 12:50:06 ATC: Malaysian Three Seven Zero climb flight level three five zero 12:50:09 MAS 370: Flight level three five zero Malaysian Three Seven Zero 01:01:14 MAS 370: Malaysian Three Seven Zero maintaining level three five zero 01:01:19 ATC: Malaysian Three Seven Zero 01:07:55 MAS 370: Malaysian... Three Seven zero maintaining level three five zero 01:08:00 ATC: Malaysian Three Seven Zero Why remind the controller? Twice? Probably nothing though.

This was discussed in a previous thread, but I forget by whom.

The gist of the post was that reporting altitude again to ATC can be used as a discreet* way of reminding a controller he has not yet cleared you for the level filed or earlier requested. Whether ATC has forgotten or is simply unable at this time, it is more polite than just making the same request again.

* or sometimes passive-aggressive.

[Edited 2014-04-01 08:38:49]

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 73): I've been reading nearly every post - and not posting because there is little I can add.

Judging by the views vs. post creation in each thread (with due ribbing to nupogodi  ), that's about where all of us are, and I completely understand why the families are so frustrated. I think we are all used to much more openness and clarity - and information much quicker - and the longer that this drags on, the more anger and frustration.

I'm beginning to agree with InsideMan -

Quoting InsideMan (Reply 53): I believe we will never know what happened....

However, I fear that the SAR will find nothing, and it's only going to be a random find years from now that gives us a clue what ever happened to MH370. For both the families and the wider aviation community, this is going to be a long, painful haul.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 75): at reporting altitude again to ATC can be used as a discreet* way of reminding a controller he has not yet cleared you for the level filed or earlier requested

Only in this case it seems to be the level they report was the one that was requested earlier (from Delivery at 12:26:21)

... and cleared by Lumpur Radar at 12:50:06...

[Edited 2014-04-01 08:52:28]

Quoting sejtam (Reply 77): Only in this case it seems to be the level they report was the one that was requested earlier (from Delivery at 12:26:21)

Could be that they're requesting onward ATC frequency or something else in their filed flight plan. Looks innocuous to me. Honestly, "All right good night" struck me as weirder than the actual transmission.

Quoting billreid (Reply 66): 2. The USA has been very reserved and has spend a pittance in comparison to other aircraft losses in the past, why? Boeing is a firm that needs to be protected and the US Gov is always heavily involved. But in this case the FAA/DOT/DOD are only providing token support.

But if the airline was an American Flagged airline, I'm sure the US government agency would pull out all the stops. Too many times the US gets criticize for being over zealous with their heavy boots. And in times when they only do what is requested, we get blamed for doing too little.

This is a Malaysian flagged aircraft, it would be of great courtesy to let the Malaysian Government run the show . . . mistakes and all.


bt

Quoting billreid (Reply 69): If the US decided to send ten ships then fine and Malaysia has NIL to say until we find debris.

Responsibility for SAR zones is defined by international treaty, and this area of responsibility is Australia's. It doesn't matter that it's in international waters. Malaysia currently would have zero say if we wanted to send ten ships, but Australia is coordinating and they would have say unless we decided to ignore the treaty (which would mean Australia could do the same if a Qantas plane crashed 4 miles off the US coast).

Whether they would turn down extra help, I don't know. At some point, when doing a systematic search it does become too many cooks in the kitchen - I don't know if we're at that point right now. But they certainly would not want us randomly sending ships around without coordinating with them. This has to be a coordinated search and they would be leading it and allocating any ships we send.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 58): Without those leaks US would be involved even more. Thanks to FWF, Malaysia didn't want much US involvement. Now Australia has the lead role and we just support Australia.

Australia are leading the search efforts, yes. Probably because they're closest and have the capability, wouldn't you say? I haven't seen anything to suggest that the US is any less involved in the investigation than would be expected.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 73):

   After 49 threads its frustrating to see so much criticism by people who still don't seem to understand how air accident investigations and SAR work.

Quoting vnangia (Reply 76): I think we are all used to much more openness and clarity - and information much quicker

We're "used to" accidents where the location is generally known, often not far from airports or within radar contact, so the recorders can be recovered very quickly. Although AF447 was lost in the middle of the Atlantic, it came down fairly close to its last known position so the search in "the right area" could begin almost immediately and a considerable amount of information was known from the ACARS messages. And let's not forget that many here perceived a lack of information from that investigation, claiming it to be a deliberate attempt to conceal damning evidence against Airbus.

In the case of MH370, there is the added evidence of some form of deliberate action which has to be treated carefully.

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 67):

There is one thing that is not clear to me. The doppler shift used in the arc calculations, is it of the carrier wave or of the transmission pulse bursts?

Re: American effort: it might be more than we realize. E.g., there could be some submarines diverted to the area that could be poking around. Really, a sub 1,000 feet below the raging surface waters would have the best chance of hearing the pinger. But such efforts would not necessarily be announced to the media.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 75): The gist of the post was that reporting altitude again to ATC can be used as a discreet* way of reminding a controller he has not yet cleared you for the level filed or earlier requested. Whether ATC has forgotten or is simply unable at this time, it is more polite than just making the same request again.

Has anybody seen the flight plan filed? Was the planned cruising altitude higher than FL350? Your comment makes sense and lends credence that the pilots were doing everything as they should and nothing nefarious was going on. I still don't trust the transcript though. Would it normally be in English?

Is there any reason Malaysia should not release the ATC-MH370 voice recording, the Inmarsat pin data, and the flight plan filed? Ongoing investigation into a criminal act is a cop out I beleive.

Quoting 65mustang (Reply 86): Has anybody seen the flight plan filed? Was the planned cruising altitude higher than FL350? Your comment makes sense and lends credence that the pilots were doing everything as they should and nothing nefarious was going on. I still don't trust the transcript though. Would it normally be in English? Is there any reason Malaysia should not release the ATC-MH370 voice recording, the Inmarsat pin data, and the flight plan filed? Ongoing investigation into a criminal act is a cop out I beleive.

They asked clearance delivery for FL350 before contacting ground for a pushback

12:26:21 MAS 370: MAS 370 we are ready requesting flight level three five zero
to Beijing

It would normally be in English. Based on what others have said flying through that area, if you call in Malay then ATC will answer with English (and you are expected to know aviation English)

[Edited 2014-04-01 10:16:08]

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 73): Any other agency is just 'lending help' - and it is unclear the mandate. They are doing it because it is of great interest to understand why this a/c went down.

The FAA and the US Civil Air Patrol have helped Malaysia with understanding primary radar returns. The US Civil Air Patrol is a world recognized leader in analyzing raw primary radar data and find data to create possible tracks for missing aircraft. Because of the size and the various terrain of the US - the CAP is often called to try to find missing small GA aircraft which disappear on VFR flights.

Quoting David L (Reply 81): After 49 threads its frustrating to see so much criticism by people who still don't seem to understand how air accident investigations and SAR work.

When we explain details, folks either don't read, or want to re-invent the wheel.

I certainly understand folks who are not familar with just how hard it is to find something in the ocean are frustrated. We all are.

I used to read a lot of science fiction in the 50s and 60s - and one of the concepts popular was a 'No sparrow shall fall' ATC system. Coverage of travel such that it was impossible to lose an flying aircraft/ car/ spaceship.

Despite what many believe - most of the world is not under positive ATC control. We will never see an ATC system with that level of control during the lifetime on anyone reading this forum.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 88): We will never see an ATC system with that level of control during the lifetime on anyone reading this forum.

I wouldn't be so sure. Space-based ADS receivers could handle traffic updates. We have space-based AIS already; it's not perfect but it's getting better. It would be expensive, but when flying over remote regions (like the ocean) there wouldn't need to be much data exchanged with controllers. We already do this over the Atlantic, don't we?

Now, maybe not in *your* lifetime...  

[Edited 2014-04-01 10:25:58]

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 84): Re: American effort: it might be more than we realize. E.g., there could be some submarines diverted to the area that could be poking around.

I would guess that is almost certainly the case.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 84): But such efforts would not necessarily be announced to the media.

I would say that is a certainty. Even if a USN sub were to actually locate the FDR/CVR pinger(s), that discovery would likely be attributed to another source. In another thirty years or so we will maybe hear the real story.

I imagine other countries may have subs in the area too (Australia, India, China, etc. ?) They are probably going to be secretive about that as well.

Quoting art (Reply 55): Possible. Any psychologists able to advise how likely it would be for someone used to having many lives entrusted to him to be able to carry through a decision to kill all on board? When I say "carry through", this would be a decision taken several hours before the plane crashed, giving ample time for reversal.

Now, if it indeed was a pilot who did it (either captain or FO), the way it was done indicates a HUGE level of anger similar to what is seen among those people who enter a school or some other venue with a gun to kill as many as possible before committing suicide. It is one thing to shoot oneself, hang oneself, eat pills or jump out from a bridge. It is indeed a completely different matter to crash a plane with many people on board. We should, therefore, expect some kind of explanation in the form of a letter or something similar expressing that anger. And I am sure that the person would also have been speaking much about that anger before actually committing the act. In hindsight, most if not all suicide killers have given out many signals before they actually acted. Add to this that if it was indeed the intention of the pilot to go with as many people as he possibly could, I cannot but wonder why he crashed the plane far out at sea and not in a densely populated area.

As time goes by and more background checks on those on board has been done we should have known by now if the disappearance was likely a result of a planned willful act. Remember, that any suspicion relation to passengers in the early days was well known. The people traveling on false passports just to mention one.

Re: the Doppler shift data, it occurred to me you could actually derive some info about the true heading: that is, for a given assumed ground speed and observed radial velocity component, the two vectors when added would form a right triangle, with the ground speed being the hypotenuse. Thus, for every point on the satellite line of position (LOP), given a particular radial velocity and assumed ground speed (and generally southern direction), there is only one possible true heading.

Granted, this still leaves open a lot of possibilities, but it would provide some constraints. E.g., if you had a good idea of the true heading, that would fix unique spot on the LOP, and vice versa.



[Edited 2014-04-01 11:00:11]

Quoting alhena (Reply 83): There is one thing that is not clear to me

The satcom knows that it is supposed to respond to the message (ping) just received on a particular frequency F somewhere around 1640MHz (L-band uplink) as indicated by input from the GES and/or local frequency tables. The transmission will take place at F if the airplane is at rest but at F+/-dFplane if the airplane is in motion, where dFplane is the result of the pre-compensation calculation performed by the aircraft satcom using inertial nav and/or GPS data. A perfect geo sat would receive that signal at F. An inclined orbit sat will receive at F+/-dFsat.

Of course all the above depends on the airborne satcom calculating the pre-compensation dFplane rather than extracting it by comparing the received carrier frequency with the expected one in which case dFsat will be close to 0.

Perhaps Mandala or someone with personal or first-hand knowledge of MAS operations might be able to answer this:

Does MAS have an official (or especially an *unofficial*) "company" radio frequency or other discreet communication link?

We used frequencies like "Shotgun" (303.0 or 300.6) or preprogrammed frequencies ("Button 6") to talk interplane or to someone on the ground, often for personal conversations.

Is there a frequency that someone on board MH370 might have known about and used that would have allowed discreet discussions (negotiations?) between the airplane and some ground authority?

A lone poster, perhaps a dozen threads ago, raised the theory that the Captain, distraught over the jailing of his political icon, could have been in negotiations with Malaysian officials over the return of the airplane and passengers in exchange for releasing the opposition leader from prison. Failed negotiations would have resulted in loss of the airplane, and it would not be in the interest of the Malaysian government to release evidence of these negotiations.

To be clear, I do not seek to advance this particular scenario as a plausible explanation. Rather, I wonder if our focus on ATC transcripts on standard VHF frequencies might not ignore (intentionally or otherwise) other channels or frequencies that could reveal evidence of what transpired.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 92): for a given assumed ground speed and observed radial velocity component, the two vectors when added would form a right triangle

Why have you assumed that the vectors for assumed ground speed are all specific vectors? For all we know currently the course the plane was flying could have been to almost anywhere in a south/south-easterly direction.
[Edited for miss-reading the earlier post.]

[Edited 2014-04-01 11:23:34]

I'm starting to miss rcairs 'sanity checks'.. So many questions and so few answers and keeping track of these threads is a full time job.

I have two questions that I can't seem to find answers for.

1 What happened with the debris washed up in the maldives? Did it get identified? How would a track towards the maldives fair against the one people are taking as gospel at the moment?

2 What happened to the rest of the world, and more precisely the US? Most people know that the US military have satellites that could be well used for this search but there's very little, to not say none, word from the US. And why not deploy some of the KC-135s from Diego Garcia to help in the search? And on the subject of Diego Garcia, I browsed around using google maps and there are some pretty massive communication and radar installations on that island. There are also quite a few buildings that have been seemingly blurred out from google maps (check south of the airport). And finally, how would Diego Garcia fair in terms of the plotted inmarsat track?

That's all for now..

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 47): 01:19:29 MAS 370: Good Night Malaysian Three Seven Zero

So the final transmission suddenly changed from somewhat informal and technically incorrect (however prevalent it may be) to by-the-book aviation radio phraseology. I have some trouble believing that.

While it may not affect the investigation per se, it illustrates the nasty political undertones that permeate the investigation.

And even if it is true, it's just another example of conflicting information that the investigators keep giving out.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 92): Re: the Doppler shift data, it occurred to me you could actually derive some info about the true heading: that is, for a given assumed ground speed and observed radial velocity component, the two vectors when added would form a right triangle, with the ground speed being the hypotenuse

Of course and I proposed a constructive method to explore the space of possible tracks several threads ago.

But more recently MarkAK supported by Mandal499 indicated that the satcom on MH370 removed the aircraft induced Doppler by pre-compensation. That is crucial because if confirmed, then the method I described in post #24 above may give us the approximate aircraft location on the RTD ring at each ping without assuming any speed or heading a priori!

Does anybody know for sure which model of Satcom was on MH370?
And if so, how does that model handle frequency compensation?
Are there any configuration options?

Quoting affirmative (Reply 96): And why not deploy some of the KC-135s from Diego Garcia to help in the search?

As many previous posters have noted, there are a number of airplanes that are ill-suited for SAR. The KC-135 is one of them.

Quoting affirmative (Reply 96): There are also quite a few buildings that have been seemingly blurred out from google maps (check south of the airport).

I am not sure how these might be germane to the disappearance of MH370.

Quoting affirmative (Reply 96): And finally, how would Diego Garcia fair in terms of the plotted inmarsat track?

I believe the range/route to Diego has been dealt with and generally discarded. As you can tell from the image, there were (are?) no hangars other than the 4 B-2 hangars, and these are unsuitable to hide a 777.

Quoting affirmative (Reply 96): How would a track towards the maldives fair against the one people are taking as gospel at the moment?

It would be wholly inconsistent with the Inmarsat data.

Quoting affirmative (Reply 96): Most people know that the US military have satellites that could be well used for this search but there's very little, to not say none, word from the US.

The US government is not in the habit of publically releasing data or images derived from "National Technical Means" This type of information might be shared with the proper SAR authorities, but don't hold your breath waiting to see it in a news conference.

Quoting affirmative (Reply 96): And finally, how would Diego Garcia fair in terms of the plotted inmarsat track?

It would be wholly inconsistent with the Inmarsat data.