Some members may not be aware of the fact that all members have an edit window of 60 minutes, from the time you first make a post in which to add or remove any additional comments or information into/from the post. Please make use of this feature made available to you, for your own convenience, instead of posting one post after another (doubles, triples or more).

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Due to length part 50 was locked for further contributions. Please feel free to continue your discussion in part 51:

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 50 (by wilco737 Apr 2 2014 in Civil Aviation)

**********************************************************************************************

**** ADDITIONAL NEWS REPORTS ****

MH370: search for missing Malaysia Airlines plane extended to southern Indian Ocean

Najib's full press statement on MH370

Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370: What we know so far

MISSING MH370: Timeline

Flight MH370: Police focus on pilots as search for airliner goes on - live updates

Flight MH370: New timeline casts doubt on pilot deception theory

MISSING MH370: ACARS cannot be disabled

MISSING MH370: Search for missing aircraft above politics: Hishamuddin


***********************************************************************************************


SOME IMPORTANT REMINDERS FOR ALL OUR MEMBERS TO CONSIDER BEFORE POSTING IN THIS THREAD:

**** Out of respect to the crew, passengers and also family members; close to those onboard MH370; please keep science fiction theories and content related to past / current movies or possible future movie rights out of these threads. ****

**** PLEASE DO NOT REPEAT QUESTIONS AND SCENARIOS THAT HAS BEEN COVERED AND DISCUSSED IN PREVIOUS THREADS AND WHICH DO NOT CONTRIBUTE OR APPLY, IN A CONSTRUCTIVE MANNER, TOWARDS THIS CONVERSATION ANY LONGER. ****

**** Please make an effort to read through some of the threads, if possible the latest in the series, before adding your own comments and theories to the current, active thread on this issue. ****

**** PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL TOWARDS OTHER USERS AND KEEP THE FORUM RULES AND REGULATIONS IN MIND WHEN POSTING IN THE FORUMS. SHOULD THERE BE ANY RULE VIOLATIONS, PLEASE BRING THIS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE MODERATORS BY MAKING USE OF THE “SUGGEST DELETION FUNCTION”. ****

**** WHEN STATING FACTS, STATISTICS OR NEWSWORTHY BULLETINS, PLEASE BE SURE TO INCLUDE AN HTML LINK OR REFERENCE TO A PUBLICATION. IF YOU ARE MERELY PROVIDING AN OPINION, PLEASE MENTION THIS IN YOUR POST. ALL MEMBERS ARE RESPONSIBLE TO AVOID ARGUMENTS BASED ON RUMORS OR MISINFORMATION

**** Some members may not be aware of the fact that all members have an edit window of 60 minutes, from the time you first make a post in which to add or remove any additional comments or information into/from the post. Please make use of this feature made available to you, for your own convenience, instead of posting one post after another (doubles, triples or more).

**** [b]Also keep in mind that this is a discussion forum and not a chat room. If you would like to chat about this incident, kindly make use of the "Live Chat" option, which is available in the "forum drop-down menu". Messages of agreement such as "ME TOO", "I AGREE WITH X", ”YES” OR ”NO” have been found to waste time and space and are therefore to be avoided. A message consisting of only one or two lines of text is probably not worth posting. Do not make posts that contain only a smiley face, check mark, etc. Make sure the content of your post is relevant to the topic.

Enjoy the forums!

Re-posting from the previous thread, as the thread was closed:

Quote: Quoting NAV30 (Reply 332): On present (recent) evidence it seems increasingly likely that the crew and passengers were unconscious or dead (probably due to a decompression) quite early in the piece, and that the autopilot then flew the aeroplane on a straight course (a bit east of south) until it ran out of fuel?

The communications were turned off or failed at around 1:22 am, and the last confirmed military radar sighting is around 2:22 am over the Strait of Malacca. After that the plane apparently flew north to circumvent Indonesia and then turned south to the southern Indian Ocean. I don't really see how the supposed flight track supports that the pilot (or whoever flew the plane) was unconscious, unless he had intentionally programmed a route to fly to the southern Indian Ocean. On the contrary, to me the pilot suicide theory is much more plausible than terrorism or cascading technical failures.

So, you have no comms for whatever reason. What now? Maybe you know you can be tracked by military radar, but little else. So, you travel with some risk over northern Malaysia, but you go around Indonesia. I'm not a pilot. Can someone please explain how you get back to your home airport with no communications? Could that have been their intention, which somehow failed?

[Edited 2014-04-06 06:07:02]

Quoting noflies (Reply 2): Can someone please explain how you get back to your home airport with no communications?

Squawk 7600 and hope they're not mad when you bust their airspace? Losing all comms and the transponder just shouldn't happen to a 777.

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 3): Squawk 7600 and hope they're not mad when you bust their airspace? Losing all comms and the transponder just shouldn't happen to a 777.

I'm assuming that neither should a 777 disappear for 30 days. I'm also assuming you don't "bust airspace" when you have no means to identify yourself. Yes, an unlikely scenario because something else must have happened after that to make it fly off into nowhere. Nothing seems to explain the first off-course turns, which look like they are going somewhere, then to end up in the middle of nowhere (we are told).

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 1): On the contrary, to me the pilot suicide theory is much more plausible than terrorism or cascading technical failures.

Looks as if we're quite close to agreement, Finn350. We both seem to agree that the pilot(s) may have died, leaving the aeroplane un-controlled, except for the autopilot?

Thing is, though, they'd BOTH have had to die - otherwise the First Officer could and would have taken over and landed safely? Surely a 'double-suicide pact' is utterly improbable?

Quoting noflies (Reply 4): I'm also assuming you don't "bust airspace" when you have no means to identify yourself.

You don't really have a choice if you're a 777 with absolutely no way of communicating. Where are you going to go, an uncontrolled airport? Probably unlit, you have no way of turning on the lighting without comms (if you're lucky that they are so equipped), if their runway is even long enough, not that there will be anyone there to receive you. You gotta go somewhere big.

Now, I'm not an airline pilot. Just private pilot. But if you're in something that big and you have complete control of the aircraft but NO communication and NO transponder, then you tell the autopilot to park the damn thing for a while, while you figure out the comm situation. 777 has redundant radios, redundant transponders, there's the SATCOM, they might have HF.

I don't know. It'd be interesting to hear what an airline pilot would do in that situation. But it's so incredibly unlikely. It's specifically engineered to be practically impossible.

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 6): You don't really have a choice if you're a 777

Thanks for your take on things I was just asking what's in a pilot's training or what would be the most likely instinct for a situation like that.

It still wouldn't explain why they'd end up over the Indian Ocean unless something else happened. Plus that first unscheduled turn - seems like it happened awfully fast after the last transmission.

Every scenario seems to raise more questions that can't be answered, or make the possible scenario more unlikely.

Last time I was in a cockpit was when I was 8 years old (1950s) and I'd earned my Junior Flyer Wings (or something like that). There are far smarter people than I am on here, including very experienced pilots and others. I'm just one of many who've lurked here for years, but have joined because this mystery has gripped me. I do feel like a bit of an intruder because I'm not in the industry, but I hope my questions aren't too stupid. They are asked with the greatest respect.

I find it interesting that the Malaysian government is first now putting some kind of organizational structure behind its search, versus what unrelated third parties such as Australia have already done. This should have happened within days of the start of the search IMO.

Malaysia Reorganizes Flight 370 Investigation, Appoints Independent Investigator

Quote: Malaysian authorities moved to reassert their role in the search for the missing Malaysia Airlines jetliner over the weekend and announced the creation of an investigation team. On Saturday, Hishammuddin Hussein, Malaysia’s defense and acting transport minister, noting that the search for Flight 370 has been “difficult, challenging, and complex,” said that the country will continue to lead the investigation. In accordance with International Civil Aviation Organization standards, the country will appoint “an independent ‘investigator in charge’” to lead the investigation team....

.

Quoting 747megatop: Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 307):
There are two recorders so it is by no means impossible for pings to be detected in different areas.

Agree and i understand. But what about 500 miles apart? That isn't possible. 10 or 50 miles apart; certainly, if the aircraft broke up in mid-air leading to a large debris field. That is the reason i asked the question.

Answer: "isn't possible" is a weird expression when it comes to this incident. I think before MH370 most of the industry would have though this incident was not possible at all. And yet here we are. I will agree that 500 miles apart is unlikely, but still possible. We don't have any data to contradict such a datapoint right not, though again, I agree it is unlikely.

More importantly, sound can travel very far underwater.


Quoting art: Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 307):
Quoting art (Reply 302):If several pings have been registered, how come the ships concerned did not stop in the locations where pings were being detected? I would expect the ship to heave to when pings were being detected then perhaps to move tentatively on different headings until the pings stopped being detected before turning about face to get within detection range again. Doing so would enable the ship to define the limits of detection (theoretically a circular area) from which the source position could be localised within a few hunderd metres.

You're assuming that sound propagates evenly underwater. It does not.

I don't assume a perfect circle. Does it really matter? If the limits of detection form an oblong shape, the source position could be localised within a few hundred metres.

Answer: Yes it does matter. Within hundreds of meters is by no means a given. Sound can propagate underwater in certain directions for miles and miles depending on thermocline patterns. Again, sound does not propagate evenly underwater. Sonar is a complex science for this reason.

Quoting noflies (Reply 7): I do feel like a bit of an intruder because I'm not in the industry, but I hope my questions aren't too stupid.

Few people here have pilot training, fewer still have commercial training, fewer still airline experience. There are no stupid questions. Well, except the guy who wondered whether it could go past FL450 and further into space. That was pretty stupid.

Truth is I don't know what the SOP would be for such a situation. All I know is that if you really truly can't communicate, and without a transponder, you really don't have a choice but to come in unannounced. You'd definitely want to spend your fuel staying aloft and figuring out how to communicate before doing something risky like that. But a big airport will have you on primary and will steer people clear of you, so I doubt it would be the end of the world.

Isn't flying a triangular racetrack pattern (counter-clockwise?) the way to indicate lost with no comm, at least for week-end flyers? Of course you have to fly high enough for a radar to see you.

[Edited 2014-04-06 07:31:05]

Quoting noflies (Reply 2): Can someone please explain how you get back to your home airport with no communications?

In this particular case, given the captain's experience and familiarity with the area, I would suspect that he could do a turnback in the blind, and use visual landmarks to fly the jet back to KL. I don't know if that would be kosher in any circumstance other than a complete comms and transponder failure, but certainly better than the alternative.

One thing that continues to be a real question is the apparent lack of a water surface debris field from MH 370. Perhaps it pretty much stayed intact upon landing on the water, perhaps breaking up into major pieces upon hitting the water and quickly sinking. Since the possible crash sites were in areas with very limited sea traffic and the true site is still not known, much of the debris drifted for a short time and sunk long before it could be seen.
With AF 447, we had a good general idea of where it likely hit the water, some large identifiable pieces were located within days of its fall from flight, made it somewhat easier to locate the remaining wreckage.
Perhaps there was some highly secret satellite information as to this flight and it possible crash site, but security cover could not be blown as well as not realizing data collected could have been MS 370 and ignored it as not seen as important at the time.
I also wonder if the Malaysian government could have said something a lot sooner about the loss of communications of MH 370 and notified other countries to be on the lookout for it but that due to poor command and control structure, incompetence or to save face, failed to do so.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 9): Agree and i understand. But what about 500 miles apart? That isn't possible. 10 or 50 miles apart; certainly, if the aircraft broke up in mid-air leading to a large debris field. That is the reason i asked the question.

You're absolutely right that it's unlikely, but ... if one box is attached to something that sinks almost immediately, and another to something floating that slowly filling with water, it could float for an unexpectedly long time. I don't know enough about the currents there to say if something could float 300ish nm, but ... theoretically? I guess so.

Quoting Pihero: Secondly, our poster has a very different definition of *track* that you and other pilots, and I for that matter, heve. In fact I'm still trying to understand what that definition is. Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 295): The inertial model I first used incorporated a 110 knot crosswind as well--it was able to replicate the 400 knot Inmarsat track exactly. I'd like to see your demonstration because that would be a seminal find !

Uh, sorry, I took another look at my spreadsheet, and saw that I added 110 km/hr cross wind (assumed a westerly wind from 270 blowing to the east)--that's "only" about 60 knots--kicking in starting at 10°S.

But anyway, the model assumes a so-called "inertial" flight path that might be expected if someone was manually flying, crossing the equator due south, and simply trying to keep it wings level and pointed straight ahead, with no other navigational cues. E.g., I'm thinking of a scenario similar to the 2005 Malaysian Airlines flight from Perth to Kuala Lampur that had a software glitch due to a burned out sensor in the ADIRU that caused the plane to pitch up to FL410 and stalled; they turned off the autopilot, and then the thrusters started kicking in on their own, and that had to be shut off--luckily the Air Traffic control could tell them their airspeed via radar, and guided them back to Perth. So maybe it was a case where somehow both the ADIRU, SAARU, autopilot etc. were disabled by the pilots because they were acting haywire, and the pilots had to fly manually.

My first run had the path significantly to the west of the published 400 knot track, so I added the 100 km/hr crosswind starting at 10°S, where the two paths started diverging. I used a time tick of 9 seconds--the time it takes a 400 knot a/c to cover 1 nautical mile.

Results: the 400 knot path crosses the last LOP at about 27.75°S 98.9°E, with a heading 165.5--but with a course of about 157.5. When I plotted that on Google Earth and overlayed the Inmarsat Google Earth infograph, as you can see the greenis/turquoise line overlies the red 400 knot path just about perfectly.

Note: I am not saying this is the only model that can reconstruct the flight path, e.g., following a 180 degree heading with the right crosswinds might have the same effect. And there would still probably be a small Coriolis effect, even if the nose is pointed due south the whole time.

Which leads to another question: If the 777 is in TRACK mode, it will compensate for crosswinds, but is this only for great circle paths between waypoints? Or can it maintain a steady, constant course, with the heading automatically "crabbed" to take into account crosswinds?

WarrenPlatts, while I believe in your experience, you are constantly revising your analysis of what is arguably incomplete data, occasionally getting contradicted quite forcefully by other members. I have to wonder, do you think what you are doing has any utility at all? Do you not think that the investigative agencies involved have more people, more data than you do?

A couple of people, yourself included, have been posting images and detailed calculations of their possible track. All based on incomplete data, most with flaws, and none really helping us to understand what transpired.

I am not criticizing you as a person and I understand the desire to apply your skills, but is what you are doing really helpful to anyone's understanding?

You are free to do as you wish, and the rules of the forum permit you to do the same. But I personally question the utility of your analyses.

As opposed to your comments regarding the Toronto mayor, eating hats, whining about CNN and the Malaysian authorities?   

Yes, the data is incomplete. Blame Inmarsat. All we want is 12 numbers. So we've spent a considerable amount of time trying to reverse engineer the Inmarsat data. It's the best we can do, given the situation. There are plenty of brilliant people out there who are willing to volunteer their time to try and help find Flight 370. The people in charge of selecting search areas, if they're doing their due diligence, are monitoring the internet for new ideas. So, it's possible that something posted here or on duncansteel.com could have an effect. E.g.:



The orange line is the "inertial" path I first computed. See how it perfectly bisects the search area that was hot for awhile. Quite a coincidence, eh? Now, actually, I'd rather not think that they had my path in mind when they selected that search area, because then I would be responsible for sending them on a wild goose chase. But hey, to the extent that it has helped cause a shift to the northeast, the effect has been salutary, if the underwater ping reports are to be believed.

Quoting Pihero: Quoting p51tang (Reply 301): 1/ Is it possible with the 400kt track,that sometime between 23.11 UTC 'but before' 00.11 UTC that one engine was shut down to conserve fuel? That's not a good way : one has to come down to a lower altitude and one has to have power to counter the extra drag of the windmilling engine and the flight controls.

But should we expect both engines to flame out nearly simultaneously? E.g., if the left one burned out first, that could cause it to deflect to the east, and slow it down, causing it to cross the last ping arc more to the northeast than one might initially suppose.

One little question. Maybe someone already answered this, so I hope you won't mind.

Once the plane/pilot said goodbye to their present air controllers, what's happening exactly on the screen of the air controller? Is the 'blip' simply disappearing from the screen, because the pilot changed the comm? If the blip is not disappearing right away (as it's a radar or whatever else not bound to the comm), shouldn't have the air controller find it strange that the airplane seems to make a sharp turn which is not consistent to its travel goal?

Is there an air controller here in the forum which can explain this process, once there is a handover or quit, what happens to the dot on the screen and the attention of the air controller? Is he simply "don't care anymore about you"?

Thank you.

Regards,
Alfons

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 11): Isn't flying a triangular racetrack pattern (counter-clockwise?) the way to indicate lost with no comm, at least for week-end flyers? Of course you have to fly high enough for a radar to see you.

I never learned this as a weekend flyer or a commercial pilot, but then again perhaps I was not the best student.  

Transponder to 7600. Flash your lights. Try to enter pattern at uncontrolled airport.

Quoting alfons (Reply 19): Once the plane/pilot said goodbye to their present air controllers, what's happening exactly on the screen of the air controller? Is the 'blip' simply disappearing from the screen, because the pilot changed the comm? If the blip is not disappearing right away (as it's a radar or whatever else not bound to the comm), shouldn't have the air controller find it strange that the airplane seems to make a sharp turn which is not consistent to its travel goal?

The blip would not disappear. The pilots would change frequency on com radio (one of several such radios), but the secondary radar would still be interrogating the transponder. Different systems.

You have to remember though, that none of this stuff is bulletproof. Planes "disappear from radar" every day. In almost all cases this is just a simple malfunction at some point, and easily verifiable with a simple com radio call.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 18): But should we expect both engines to flame out nearly simultaneously? E.g., if the left one burned out first, that could cause it to deflect to the east, and slow it down, causing it to cross the last ping arc more to the northeast than one might initially suppose.

No, it would not deflect if the autopilot was holding a heading. It would not be typical for them to quit at the same time. Someone tried it in a sim. TAC (thrust asymmetry compensation) would kick the rudder out and keep it on course.

Fuel starvation would kill the other engine soon enough, TAC would give up, autopilot would give up once the altitude can't be held, controls would be in direct mode. APU would fail to start, RAT would deploy, and it'd be a very big and fancy glider. If no one was manipulating the controls it would follow a phugoid pattern into the ocean.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 17): As opposed to your comments regarding the Toronto mayor, eating hats, whining about CNN and the Malaysian authorities?

At least I'm not constantly revising those statements.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 17): The people in charge of selecting search areas, if they're doing their due diligence, are monitoring the internet for new idea

As a metter of fact, does anybody know the composition of the official Malaysian investigative team(before the announced reorganization) ?
- how mamy people in KL, with what specialty?
- how many remote "investigators"? specialty?
- are investigators tasked or free to report on whatever they come up with?
- what is the daily mode of operation? conf call? wait for incoming e-malls in KL? secure internet forum?
- do any investigators scour any possibly relevant blogs?

BTW if anybody belongs to the official team and can answer some of my questions, please share with us or send me a private message and I won't quote the source.

[Edited 2014-04-06 09:34:50]

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 22): As a metter of fact, does anybody know the composition of the official Malaysian investigative team(before the announced reorganization) ?

Why is it that I get the feelings that the Malaysians didn't even know...  

Mmm, I do believe you have attributed a quote to me that you meant to attribute to someone else...

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 20): I never learned this as a weekend flyer or a commercial pilot, but then again perhaps I was not the best student

I sort of remembered that from a long time ago. Now I found a description of radar alert via triangular patterns in this ref document:

http://www.ivao.ca/charts/CFS/CFS_emergency.pdf

Quote: RADAR ALERTING MANOEUVRES: 1. When lost or in distress and unable to make radio contact, attempt to alert all available radar systems as follows: (a) activate IFF/SIF to EMERGENCY; (b) guard emergency frequencies; (c) fly two triangular patterns as depicted, resume course, repeat at 5 minute intervals. 120deg turns a stight as practicable clockwise if only RX working, counter clockwide if TX/RX not working TAS 300 Kts or less - fly TWO minute legs TAS more than 300 Kts - fly ONE minute legs 2. If distressed aircraft is flying at night or in limited visibility, landing lights, navigation lights should be turned on to assist the interceptor. 3. If radar contact is established, a rescue aircraft will be dispatched for intercept. 4. Upon successful interception the interceptor and the distressed aircraft should attempt radio contact. If this is not possible, the following visual signals should be used. NOTE: If flying at a low altitude an attempt should be made to climb, as the greater the altitude of the aircraft, the better chances of its being detected. NOTE: For more detailed information on radar coverage see TC AIM, SAR para 4.5

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 24): Mmm, I do believe you have attributed a quote to me that you meant to attribute to someone else..

Sorry. My mistake. The quote was from WarrenPlatts! Corrected.

[Edited 2014-04-06 09:40:58]

How long has it been since a fully loaded passenger jetliner has gone missing and either never found or there was a significant amount of time before the wreckage was found (excl. AF). I understand that this situation is indeed precedent setting in the airline industry, but god forbid it's not ever located, what lessons could be learned from a disaster of this caliber w/o having any knowledge of how, what, where, when and why (how to prevent such an occurrence from happening again)?

Lastly, I'm certain this has been covered, but I haven't scrolled through every thread, I would take a guess that satellite imagery has been looking at all potential landing sights (big and small) and either they've found nothing, ala continuation of the sea search. If it was on land, they would have found the plane by now, right?

I'm a bit lost as to where the new info of "highest probability" is coming from. Another reanalysis of satellite data?

Quote: “But the area of highest probability we think is now probably in the southern part of the area pretty close to where Haixun 01 is operating"...

above from
Flight 370: Australian Vessel Picks Up Ping in Indian Ocean, Moves to Investigate
- Area of ‘Highest Probability’ Near Chinese Vessel

.

[Edited 2014-04-06 10:04:25]

Quoting PanAmPaul (Reply 28):

Yes, it was announced at the press conference on Sunday that Inmarsat has been working to refine the trajectory and concluded that the plane was traveling slightly faster than they initially thought, and thus got a little bit further along. However, they're saying that it's at the southern edge of the current search zone, rather outside the search zone.

Quoting United727 (Reply 27): How long has it been since a fully loaded passenger jetliner has gone missing and either never found or there was a significant amount of time before the wreckage was found (excl. AF).

There is a list on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aerial_disappearances

Suffice to say it has been a long time for a fully loaded airliner. (Though less long for smaller planes or cargo flights, which just don't get the same resources devoted to finding them.) There was a Twin Otter in 1995 if you want to count that, another Twin Otter in 1986, and then you've got to go back to a TAM DC-4 flight in 1974. Really nothing on this scale, though.

Quoting United727 (Reply 27): god forbid it's not ever located, what lessons could be learned from a disaster of this caliber w/o having any knowledge of how, what, where, when and why (how to prevent such an occurrence from happening again)?

There's a separate thread discussing this: MH370 - Lessons Learned, Changes In Civil Aviation (by tortugamon Mar 9 2014 in Civil Aviation)

Quoting United727 (Reply 27): How long has it been since a fully loaded passenger jetliner has gone missing and either never found or there was a significant amount of time before the wreckage was found (excl. AF). I understand that this situation is indeed precedent setting in the airline industry, but god forbid it's not ever located, what lessons could be learned from a disaster of this caliber w/o having any knowledge of how, what, where, when and why (how to prevent such an occurrence from happening again)?

There was that Boeing 727 that was stolen from an Angolan airstrip in 2003 that vanished without a trace. Granted, there was nobody onboard but the alleged thieves/hijackers, so there wasn't nearly the effort put into finding it compared with MH370 of course.

http://www.airspacemag.com/history-o...-727-that-vanished-2371187/?no-ist

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 11): Isn't flying a triangular racetrack pattern (counter-clockwise?) the way to indicate lost with no comm,

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 20): I never learned this as a weekend flyer or a commercial pilot, but then again perhaps I was not the best student

That was in another era, before secondary radar and transponders...
Unfortunately, I seem to be the only one who could remember it.   

Quoting PanAmPaul (Reply 28): I'm a bit lost as to where the new info of "highest probability" is coming from. Another reanalysis of satellite data?

Most likely narrowed to the general area of the recent ping observations:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2014-04/06/c_133242400.htm

However, these pings may be red herrings, as acoustic beacons are sometimes attached to submerged communications cables to aid in locating them. http://www.submarinecablemap.com/

[Edited 2014-04-06 10:32:21]

Quoting CheezWhiz (Reply 33):

German news report the same. 2 ships have received the signal. But the ocean seems to be rather deep down there. 5000m.

They report something about the routing as well. They avoided the Indonesian airspace and then headed south. But why?

wilco737
  

Here is a compilation of the numbers Duncan Steel and his collaborators have produced so far:


Duncan Steel Database
450 knot 400 knot
satellite satellite satellite Radius of radial Vr HDG-AZ HDG-AZ
TIME latitude longitude altitude LOP nm LOS V kts subsat DIFF DIFF
18:29 1.571 64.531 53.53 1880 39.77 66.9 81.4 80.4
19:40 1.64 64.52 55.8 1760 39.14 69.6 81.1 80.0
20:40 1.576 64.51 54.98 1806 60.8 105.9 76.4 74.6
21:40 1.404 64.50 52.01 1965 79.85 129.7 73.2 71.1
22:40 1.136 64.49 47.54 2206 100.64 149.1 70.7 68.1
24:11 0.589 64.471 39.33 2652 125.35 162.1 68.9 66.1

There are procedures for flight without comms, but usually it means to continue on your originally filed flight plan and / or the currently active clearance (for IFR flights, in VFR you have to l

Quoting Pihero (Reply 32): That was in another era, before secondary radar and transponders... Unfortunately, I seem to be the only one who could remember it.

Frederick Forsyth wrote about this method in his book "The Shepherd", but this was set in the 1950s (a RAF Vampire fighter having a complete electrical fault over the North Sea on Christmas Eve and all of Europe covered with clouds. The pilot flies this pattern as method of last resort and gets intercepted by a WW2 Mosquito bomber, which guides him through the fog to a, as he later discovers, was an old, long closed, wartime airfield. Who the pilot of the Mosquito is and where he came from stays a mystery).

Jan

[Edited 2014-04-06 11:04:55]

Quoting Pihero (Reply 32): That was in another era, before secondary radar and transponders... Unfortunately, I seem to be the only one who could remember it.

   +1

I also had it hammered into me in the SSR era to fly the thing according to the plan before reaching for 7600, but most seem to think that should have been the first thing the crew would/should have done.

Rgds

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 5): Thing is, though, they'd BOTH have had to die - otherwise the First Officer could and would have taken over and landed safely? Surely a 'double-suicide pact' is utterly improbable?

I agree on with you that a double suicide is an extremly unlikely. If the disappearance of the MH370 is a pilot suicide, then the suicidal pilot must have first incapacitated the other pilot in the cockpit or had the other pilot exit the cockpit.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 32): That was in another era, before secondary radar and transponders...

Indeed, I remembered it from the 60's (COA in another life) but it still seems to be on the books.
All I was trying to show by resuscitating that method is that there are many ways to call for help, if you so choose, including some when all the "modern" stuff has failed. Turn your lights on, fly not at tree top level and patiently wait for the fighter to escort you to an appropriate airfield.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 36): Frederick Forsythe wrote about this method in his book "The Shepherd",

A superb novel.

Quoting wilco737 (Reply 34): They report something about the routing as well. They avoided the Indonesian airspace and then headed south. But why?

I think Indonesia's air defense is robust and MH370 skirted it to avoid detection. At least this is the idea that is being floated in the media. However, why is it assumed that whoever was flying the plane was so certain that they would avoid detection when over Malaysian airspace? It seems like a forgone conclusion that the pilot had insight on the quality of Malaysian air defense to have flown through it. However, is this a valid assumption?

Quoting alfons (Reply 19): Once the plane/pilot said goodbye to their present air controllers, what's happening exactly on the screen of the air controller? Is the 'blip' simply disappearing from the screen, because the pilot changed the comm? If the blip is not disappearing right away (as it's a radar or whatever else not bound to the comm), shouldn't have the air controller find it strange that the airplane seems to make a sharp turn which is not consistent to its travel goal?

Once the pilot switched of the present ATC frequency, it can take a couple of minutes before contacting the next ATC, although usually it is within 30 seconds or so. The aircraft will remain on screen of the previous ATC until it leaves that sector. Mind you, an ATC screen does have some overlap, so aircraft entering the sector will show up a couple of minutes in advance. Same when they leave the sector, they'll remain on screen for a couple of minutes.

Do note that the aircraft's transponder (was) shut off after this (but before the turn). When the transponder is shut off, all secondary radar data will disappear from the ATC screen (flight number, aircraft type, altitude heading, etc). However depending on signal strength, signal characteristics, primary radar capabilities and filtering logic in the ATC radar set-up, the primary signal may remain on the screen, but just as a blip, with no further information whatsoever. In this case, as the flight had already left Malaysian ATC, I would expect that the civilian primary radar was not able to follow the plane anymore, at least not on screen. Perhaps on raw data, but that is not what the controller sees; the controller sees a heavily filtered and cleaned up 3-D model of the skies; this weak signal would most likely be filtered out as noise clutter.

Also do note that the controller was expecting this flight to disappear from his screen, as the flight had signed out with Malaysia, and as far as the controller was concerned ATC responsibility had been transferred to Vietnam.
The transponder stopped communicating to the outside world BEFORE the turn (back/west).

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 18): But should we expect both engines to flame out nearly simultaneously

No. Each engine has it's own feed tank, which in turn are being fed by the main tanks. Usually each wing feeds its associated feed tank, but cross feeding can be initiated. Engine fuel consumption can easily vary by upto a couple of percent, so one wing may run dry before the other one. In fact, it would be extremely unlikely for each engine to consume exactly the same amount of fuel within 0.1%. Remember, the aircraft was fueled for an 8 hour flight = around 500 minutes. 1% difference between each engine fuel consumption is 4.8 minutes right there!

I work with a PW100 test cell, and on this engine type we do see fuel flow differences of upto 2% for fully overhauled engines, and over 5% for engines that reached their TBO life (TBO = Time Between Overhaul). An aircraft can have a recently overhauled engine on one wing, and an almost fully worn engine on the other wing.

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 21): No, it would not deflect if the autopilot was holding a heading. It would not be typical for them to quit at the same time. Someone tried it in a sim. TAC (thrust asymmetry compensation) would kick the rudder out and keep it on course.

Is TAC independent of autopilot, or is it an embedded autopilot function? Wouldn't autopilot disconnect in case of engine failure? I believe this is what happened in the Helios accident. Autopilot disconnect after one engine failed. The other engine thrust send the aircraft in an uncontrollable spiral dive. The 777 should be more modern, so may not be the case here.


Rgds,
PW100

Quoting PW100 (Reply 42): Is TAC independent of autopilot, or is it an embedded autopilot function? Wouldn't autopilot disconnect in case of engine failure?

TAC is independent of autopilot but is just an assist, the pilot still needs to input some rudder if necessary.

Quoting PW100 (Reply 42): Is TAC independent of autopilot, or is it an embedded autopilot function? Wouldn't autopilot disconnect in case of engine failure? I believe this is what happened in the Helios accident. Autopilot disconnect after one engine failed. The other engine thrust send the aircraft in an uncontrollable spiral dive. The 777 should be more modern, so may not be the case here.

TAC is separate... but I can only tell you what someone who tried it in a certified sim found out. Single engine out, TAC puts in rudder, autopilot can maintain heading and altitude, stays engaged. Second engine goes out, TAC has nothing to do, autopilot can't maintain and gives up.

Quoting United727 (Reply 27): How long has it been since a fully loaded passenger jetliner has gone missing and either never found or there was a significant amount of time before the wreckage was found (excl. AF)

Examples of large jets lost, cause unknown, no evidence ever discovered:

***RC-135E RIVET AMBER lost 5 June 1969 over the Bering Sea. No trace ever found.
***B-47E lost 10 March 1956 over the Mediterranean. No trace ever found, including on-board nuclear weapons capsules.

Quoting rc135x (Reply 45): Examples of large jets lost, cause unknown, no evidence ever discovered:

Varig 967 is the only commercial airliner to be lost and never found

But the military, yeah, they have some too.

Quoting PW100 (Reply 42): In this case, as the flight had already left Malaysian ATC

I'm a bit confused about which ATC was / should have been involved. As best I can tell, the area where the transponder was disabled and the turn initiated was within the Singapore SSR (i.e. not Malaysia or Vietnam). Did SIN ATC alert their Malaysian counterparts - I've seen no information / discussion? I know that relations between Singapore and Malaysia are not always the most harmonious.

Quoting alfons (Reply 19): Is there an air controller here in the forum which can explain this process, once there is a handover or quit, what happens to the dot on the screen and the attention of the air controller?

Quoting PW100 (Reply 42): Do note that the aircraft's transponder (was) shut off after this (but before the turn). When the transponder is shut off, all secondary radar data will disappear from the ATC screen (flight number, aircraft type, altitude heading, etc). However depending on signal strength, signal characteristics, primary radar capabilities and filtering logic in the ATC radar set-up, the primary signal may remain on the screen,

Hello Alfons- I´ll gladly reply if someone asks a valid question on the field of my profession!!!
In Germany, as well as in neiboughring countries, we have a radar display that is a computer screen. You can display as much as you want, in all the colours that you like - forget a blip- think computer- it is a generated picture with many inputs. The original radar signal (we have up to six at the same time) is mixed with very many other information sources ( Wx Radar, Map Displays, and many other) to produce an nowaday "Radar" Screen we work with.
If we hand off an aircraft (Change frequency), of course you still see it, it is known to your Database. If a given Squawk is known to the Flight Data Computer ( We say correlated)- then it CAN be displayed. It is even then unsignificant if it has actually turned off the Transponder- if once tracked- the computer will "know" who it is and keep displaying the a/c on it´s last known " Name" . We can see that the secondary signal is lost by change of the head Symbol eg. changes from a hollow square to a full triangel. But if there is any Radar return- it will keep track of it.
A B777 in any case will give a nice return- the fathers of the system were thinking more about the lost C152 who lost orientation and needsd assistance.
So- even if you turn off the Transponder- we can still "see" you!!
That goes for the middle european airspace- not Malaysia/ Vietnam who´s airspace I know nothing about.
But that wasn´t your question.

As a hint- I would like to throw into the round- that as last resort to a fire hazard (warning or smoke) that can´t be eliminated, Procedure will be to turn off all electrical buses and land at the nearest aerodrome. That will turn off the ACARS and Xponder when set to Xponder2, and leave you only with a very limited instrument display (Capt. Horizon, Speed, Alt)
Given their last Pos. that implies to turn back towards Langkawi!!??

Quoting peterjohns (Reply 48): Given their last Pos. that implies to turn back towards Langkawi!!??

Both captain and first officer would know that LGK would be closed and unlit. The only approach is from the west due to terrain I believe. It would not be the first place you want to go on a moonless night.

edit: Mixed up east and west, hah

[Edited 2014-04-06 13:20:26]