Quoting nupogodi (Reply 144): Anyone got a link to an Aussie news stream? Gonna wanna watch this one live.

All the previous JACC News Conferencces have been carried by http://www.abc.net.au/news/abcnews24/

Quoting Tapir (Reply 149): Must be world's first, i.e. finding the black box before sighting any debris.

Maybe that's because no plane actually there, it may have move in the currents ????

[Edited 2014-04-10 20:27:36]

Quoting Tapir (Reply 149): Must be world's first, i.e. finding the black box before sighting any debris.

To me the most impressive thing to me (if the boxes or plane is found here) is that it was data, pure data, that found this plane. Intense, detailed, innovative, exhaustive, data review and analysis has brought us to where we are.

.... of course now the plane or at least the boxes need to be found.

Tugg

Update here:-

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-1...r-possible-signal-detected/5382246

I would interpret "found" to mean "located precisely enough to start a deep exploration phase".

Let us assume that the area surveyed by Ocean Shield has been peppered by many sonobuoys whose detection sensitivity is much lower that that of the towed detection platform at depth.

If they observe in real time that within the field of deployed sonobuoys there is a sharp but may be just a soft peak only somewhere in its midst, they could rightfully come to the conclusion that they have "found" at least one of the pingers since they have now triangulated it through time of arrival measurements.

The position accuracy of the source at the bottom would probably depend mostly on the relative spacing of the sonobuoys at measurement time, a sort of inverted constellation like GPS but under water and with its own HDOP.

Quoting tugger (Reply 152): .... of course now the plane or at least the boxes need to be found.

And... will they actually contain any useful date once they are found ?

Australian PM says searchers are confident that the signals are coming from MH 370 black box.

[Edited 2014-04-10 20:35:51]

The signal picked up by the RAAF P-3 not linked to MH370... I suppose those buoys are not sensitive enough.

Quote: But a signal picked up by an Australian plane on Thursday is now thought unlikely to be linked to flight MH370.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26984162

The twitter rumors seem to have been dispelled but the prime minister's comments are making the rounds and to me don't seem particularly ill-advised..

Quote: "We're very confident the signals we're detecting are from the black box from MH370," he said. The prime minister said he was holding off on announcing more information until he had the chance to brief Chinese President Xi Jinxing on the news, out of respect for the families of the more than 150 Chinese passengers who were on board Flight 370....

from

Australian Prime Minister: Location of Black Box ‘Narrowed Down’

http://www.jacc.gov.au/media/releases/2014/april/mr018.aspx

Latest JACC update.

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 161):

They are just telling China they found their sub.

Would the cold water increase or decrease the life of the batteries? I tend to think it would increase the life but don't know.
(And I apologize if it has been discussed previously, i have not been able to read everything in the 50+ threads....)

Quoting zeke (Reply 166): They are just telling China they found their sub.

I like! And suspect you are likely correct!

Tugg

[Edited 2014-04-10 21:27:30]

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 170):

don't be sorry...many of us know this already... but there's no viable alternative at the moment... ALL the 'major' parties in oz are rapidly losing what little respect they have!! .... sorry...a bit off topic...

thank goodness that the majority of the search effort is not politically 'influenced'....let's find this plane!!!!!

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 173): In my view it is entirely appropriate that (even though he is in China to negotiate a trading deal) he should mention the accident and express his sympathy for those who have lost relatives/friends? Indeed, it would be plain crazy (and very rude) for him not even to mention the accident?

Agreed.

I also feel it is appropriate for the leader of a nation to speak about such matters and I think they should. The SAR authorities should be the ones giving the regular press conferences but I would find it very concerning if someone like the PM did not speak at all on such an event. I cannot recall many similar aviation incidents in which the nation's leader remained silent. I remember hearing Bill Clinton speak a lot after both the TWA800 and Egypt Air 990 incidents... Those who say that the PM should not speak regarding MH370 need to come down off of their high horse...

It's frustrating how so much of what constitutes as 'news' to a network is simply siphoning through twitter on air. Like we couldn't do this ourselves.

Quoting undertheradar (Reply 167):

Don't know about grandstanding, there is a lot of pressure on Australia to deliver news to the families of the Chinese families that would appear to have lost relatives on the missing aircraft.

SAR (AMSA) needs to keep on task, the announcement have been moved out of that area into the JACC.

I have been reading the statements carefully over the past few days, they are getting more specific, I would suggest that have have been able to have a high confidence factor that the frequency response spectrum being received matches the factory tests for the specific unit installed in the aircraft. Each underwater locator beacon has a slightly unique transmission, which is kept on record when the leave the factory.

As of an hour ago MarineTraffic.com is now reporting the Echo at a full stop in the middle of the pinger search area and the Ocean Shield is heading towards it at 2.1kts.

tony is stating MORE than the PROFESSIONALS are stating.....tony needs to choose his words more carefully...over optimism doesn't help anyone.....especially the family/loved ones of those on MH370...

[Edited 2014-04-10 22:39:03]

[Edited 2014-04-10 22:46:49]

It looks like the USNS Cesar Chavez (US Navy Cargo and Replenishment) has moved into the western search area where the HMAS Success has been operating with several Chinese ships and some other Australian warships. In the eastern search area, HMS Echo is stationary right in the middle of the search grid while ADV Ocean Shield spent several hours to the NW of the search area and is now returning to the SE toward the Echo.

Sigh...
http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel...uston/story-fnizu68q-1226881056101

This is why announcements need proper collaboration.

Quoting LandSweetLand (Reply 169): This is why announcements need proper collaboration.

The article itself explains the situation...

Quote: But it turns out Mr Abbott was this afternoon referring to separate signals detected by search teams on Saturday and Tuesday, while Mr Houston was ruling out signals detected on Thursday.

It's not that difficult if people don't jump to conclusions.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 170): t's not that difficult if people don't jump to conclusions.

However the media* like being the first with the news, and so with things like this tend to infer things. It doesn't help that with the way different media arrangements work the "misinformation" can spread quickly (you can thank the Packers and the Murdochs for this (in Australia at least)).


*I'm generalising here

Quoting tugger (Reply 152): To me the most impressive thing to me (if the boxes or plane is found here) is that it was data, pure data, that found this plane. Intense, detailed, innovative, exhaustive, data review and analysis has brought us to where we are. .... of course now the plane or at least the boxes need to be found. Tugg

It's always data that finds stuff  

But I agree with your sentiment. I'd put it differently though: it was very clever mathematical and statistical modelling of data that found the plane. The data wasn't nice easy it-went-that-away data.

One reason I've been fascinated by the process (as well as transfixed by the tragedy and mystery) is that it's very reminiscent of how, say, brain imaging works. You start with what seems like an intractable set of signals, and you end up with a remarkably precise location. So precise that people forget that it's all math (and sometimes radically and non-linearly wrong, as could still be the same here).

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 121): Actually, the Richard Dawkins article you linked to really creeped me out: it wasn't just a screed against religious terrorism in general: it was specifically about turning airliners into "guided missiles"--his words--by using pilots as the guidance mechanism. Captain Shaw evidently found the concept to be fascinating--that kind of ups the priors for me.. Maybe he figured what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

That makes no sense at all. Of course Dawkins article was "specifically about turning airliners into "guided missiles"--his words--by using pilots as the guidance mechanism" - which is precisely what Al Qaeda did on 9/11. It was a screed against such a thing. How on earth do you get "that kind of ups the priors for me"? A man admires a guy who condemns turning aeroplanes into suicide bomb, and you think that increases the probability that he will turn an aeroplane into a suicide bomb?

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 126): True. But the copilot was a young guy about to get married. He seemed to be a happy go-lucky sort. He was supposedly related to higher ups in the Malaysian society. Born with a silver spoon. Everything handed to him. Not a pro-democracy activist. No gay friends thrown in jail. Had no reason to be upset with the status quo. He was part of the Malaysian status quo. No motive.

Because young celebs never commit suicide? Your reasoning seems, well, obscure to me.

Not that I think there is compelling reason to think either of them "did it". At this stage, I think a third party is still much more probable, especially given at least some evidence that a remote hack isn't unthinkable. Or, for that matter, some as yet unknown computer failure.

Quote: However, he was a religious Muslim! And young! That makes him a loaded gun according to that brilliant scientist Richard Dawkins!

No. I think you misread Dawkins article. Or at least fundamentally missed its point.

Quoting tugger (Reply 161): Would the cold water increase or decrease the life of the batteries?

My guess is that lower temperature decrease battery life; the colder it gets, the worse it gets.
This holds true at least with car batteries, i.e. lead-acid batteries.

Down at 4,500 metres the temperature would be a constant 4 deg C, I believe.

Maybe someone on the thread has more and/or better information on this.

Cheers.

Last night the guy who found Titanic gave totally different take on these pings. In his view finding pings meant nothing. You need a physical piece of evidence to claim "we found". He gave examples where ULBs didn't work at all. While recovering Titanic artifacts they dropped ULBs in the bucket and couldn't hear a thing from even 1000 ft.

He stated one more interesting thing, apparently SAR ships have few test ULBs, to test their equipment and someone may have accidentally dropped in to ocean, others could be picking up those signals.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 175): Last night the guy who found Titanic gave totally different take on these pings. In his view finding pings meant nothing. You need a physical piece of evidence to claim "we found". He gave examples where ULBs didn't work at all. While recovering Titanic artifacts they dropped ULBs in the bucket and couldn't hear a thing from even 1000 ft. He stated one more interesting thing, apparently SAR ships have few test ULBs, to test their equipment and someone may have accidentally dropped in to ocean, others could be picking up those signals.

This is interesting. One thing that has bugged me about the latest search area at -21, 104 is the question of WHY? If the goal was to disappear without a trace, why steer closer to Australia?

Also, to avoid the radar at Cocos Island, there's really only two ways to get there: steer south far to the west of Cocos, and then change course to the southeast. Interestingly, there is a waypoint IKASA (-20, 103.4861) that is quite close to the search area. Alternatively, one could probably squeak through between Cocos and Christmas Islands (e.g., waypoints EPGUP [-10.6506, 99.5517] and EMVAS [-11.47, 100.495]) and south by southeast to IKASA. Actually, if you draw a line from EMVAS to IKASA and keep going, it goes just about right through the search area.

If MH370 went through waypoint RUNIT (-13.8269, 91.3806), then it would look like it was trying to reach the big airfield in Learmonth, Australia. One could imagine a scenario where a hijacker barricaded himself inside the flight deck, but after a while, the other passengers and crew finally managed to break in and recover control. But if that was the case, why steer for Australia when Cocos Island is so much closer? The airfield there certainly looks big enough (~10,000 ft long, 150 ft wide).

ETA: Robert Ballard himself is pretty confident they are in the "end game", however.

http://outfront.blogs.cnn.com/2014/0...lorer-who-found-the-titanic-mh370/

[Edited 2014-04-11 04:46:20]

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 176): Also, to avoid the radar at Cocos Island, there's really only two ways to get there: steer south far to the west of Cocos, and then change course to the southeast. Interestingly, there is a waypoint IKASA (-20, 103.4861) that is quite close to the search area. Alternatively, one could probably squeak through between Cocos and Christmas Islands (e.g., waypoints EPGUP [-10.6506, 99.5517] and EMVAS [-11.47, 100.495]) and south by southeast to IKASA. Actually, if you draw a line from EMVAS to IKASA and keep going, it goes just about right through the search area.

PLEASE STOP making things up, there is never has been a radar installation on Cocos or Christmas Islands, nor is there any ATC. Both islands have uncontrolled international airports.

The diagram you posted above in reply 121 is so far from what is physically possible in an airliner it is not funny, no agency has come out and said the aircraft followed that track or was following waypoints programmed in the FMC.

There is physically thousands of waypoints around the globe, upper level, lower level, and associated with approaches, it does not matter whatever heading you maintain, you are going to get close to something.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 176): One thing that has bugged me about the latest search area at -21, 104 is the question of WHY? If the goal was to disappear without a trace, why steer closer to Australia?

Must admit that I find it odd, to say the least, that a 'clear majority' on the thread seem to believe that the most likely cause of this accident was suicide/mass murder by the captain and/or the FO? And, moreover, a 'clear intention' to cause the aeroplane to be 'lost without trace?"

My own view is that the cause was much more likely to have been some sort of mechanical problem quite early in the flight, which left the pilots and passengers either dead or incapacitated. After which the autopilot (as it was designed to do) flew the last set course and altitude until the fuel ran out?

Surely that theory is a lot simpler?

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 178): My own view is that the cause was much more likely to have been some sort of mechanical problem quite early in the flight, which left the pilots and passengers either dead or incapacitated. After which the autopilot (as it was designed to do) flew the last set course and altitude until the fuel ran out? Surely that theory is a lot simpler?

Simpler, no.
The whole timing an flightpath fits best to a pilot suicide theory.
But as other than in proven pilot suicide cases no serious personal problems whatsoever have been found with the pilots I tend to think it was an odd technical problem too, a series of events which led to the loss of MH370.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 124): There are way more questions than answers at the moment, but it would not surprise me if some sort of conversation regarding politics took place given what we know about both pilots. Where that might have led to might never be known...

I have had this same opinion for a while now: a cockpit fight that went wrong could have triggered the accident.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 126): No gay friends thrown in jail.

Which gay friends? Leader of the opposition party Anwar Ibrahim is no personal friend of captain Shah, and it's by no means obvious that he is gay. He has been sentenced to jail for "sodomy" on quite clearly trumped up charges.

Quoting LandSweetLand (Reply 169): This is why announcements need proper collaboration.

Would that be "corroboration"?

Quoting zeke (Reply 177): PLEASE STOP making things up, there is never has been a radar installation on Cocos or Christmas Islands, nor is there any ATC. Both islands have uncontrolled international airports.

Huh?

http://defense-studies.blogspot.com/...a-installs-permanent-radar-on.html

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politi...-cocos-islands-20131031-2wma0.html

Quote: The diagram you posted above in reply 121 is so far from what is physically possible in an airliner it is not funny, no agency has come out and said the aircraft followed that track or was following waypoints programmed in the FMC.

Physically--as in literally--impossible? Not at all. It is entirely compatible with the Inmarsat data.

As for vaunted "agencies", in fact they said the aircraft was following waypoints: the waypoints leading toward Vietnam, then VAMPI, then GIVAL, then last evidently pointed toward IGREX....

Quote: There is physically thousands of waypoints around the globe, upper level, lower level, and associated with approaches, it does not matter whatever heading you maintain, you are going to get close to something.

(a) Waypoints are not "physical"--I think you mean literally when you say physical...
(b) There are not "thousands" in the Indian Ocean. In fact they are few and far between. Look them up. I could only find about 40-60 waypoints that are relevant to the problem that I was able to find.


source: http://www.rap.ucar.edu/maps/Station.loc http://www.fallingrain.com/world/index.html

If you have a source for more, please post it here. Thanks in advance.

Also, why is everyone assuming that the aircraft was merely flying in heading mode and not using waypoints? Is it not the case that airliner pilots routinely use waypoints programmed into the Flight Management Computer to navigate? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Quoting na (Reply 179): The whole timing an flightpath fits best to a pilot suicide theory.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 180): a cockpit fight that went wrong

The aeroplane was on course to China for the first hour. Then they were 'handed off.' The FO (who was the 'pilot flying') politely said goodnight to the first controller, but never checked in with the next one. Instead, he turned about due west, and headed back towards Malaysia. But never re-contacted the Malaysian controller.

I suspect that that is when the mechanical problems set in?

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 182):

CNN reported that it was the pilot was in control and his voice was identified by 5 other pilot friends.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 180): Would that be "corroboration"?

Both collaboration and corroboration.
The agencies need to collaborate on the contents of the announcements, which means that it's easier for the difference agencies to corroborate each other's stories rather than having to retract or clarify thing.
As they say in woodwork, measure twice, cut once.

Quoting Tapir (Reply 183): CNN reported that it was the pilot was in control and his voice was identified by 5 other pilot friends.

New information, Tapir - last I heard 'they' had identified the voice saying goodnight as the First Officer? Not important really, though.

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 182): The FO (who was the 'pilot flying')

He was? How would that be known at this stage?

Quoting Tapir (Reply 183): CNN reported that it was the pilot was in control and his voice was identified by 5 other pilot friends.

There were TWO pilots on the aircraft. Which one is THE pilot?

Lars

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 181): http://defense-studies.blogspot.com/....html

For what it's worth, maritime radar meant to catch ships with asylum seekers, probably not looking at the sky.

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 185): New information, Tapir - last I heard 'they' had identified the voice saying goodnight as the First Officer? Not important really, though.

No, according to the latest information, it was the pilot.

Quote: Malaysian sources told CNN that Flight 370's pilot, Capt. Zaharie Ahmad Shah, was the last person on the jet to speak to air traffic controllers, telling them "Good night, Malaysian three-seven-zero." The sources said there was nothing unusual about his voice, which conveyed no indication that he was under stress. One of the sources, an official involved in the investigation, told CNN that police played the recording to five other Malaysia Airlines pilots who knew the pilot and co-pilot. "There were no third-party voices," the source said.

Source: http://us.cnn.com/2014/04/11/world/a...malaysia-airlines-plane/index.html

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 189): No, according to the latest information, it was the pilot.

Fair enough, Finn350 - but it would make things clearer if you said 'captain,' not 'pilot.' As Larshjort says, there were two pilots aboard?

In any case, the aeroplane turned back west, back to Malaysia, and appears to have made no further contact with Air Traffic Control. That suggests either some problem affecting the radio, or some sort of 'evil intent'?

[Edited 2014-04-11 06:22:06]

I would urge fellow nutters to read the excellent NY Times recap. I am doing this as a public service so that we don't recursively regurgitate conjecture (not that there's anything wrong with that):

1. Please read the excellent article first:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/11/wo...laysia-airlines-plane.html?hp&_r=0


2. Then play the embedded video

3. Admire the amazing infographic:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2.../world/asia/flight-370-search.html


Thanks, and I am heading back into my self-imposed posting ban from a.net.

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 188): Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 181): http://defense-studies.blogspot.com/....html For what it's worth, maritime radar meant to catch ships with asylum seekers, probably not looking at the sky.

And a range of 24-48 nm isn't that impressive for looking at aircraft either.

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 178): Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 176):One thing that has bugged me about the latest search area at -21, 104 is the question of WHY? If the goal was to disappear without a trace, why steer closer to Australia? Must admit that I find it odd, to say the least, that a 'clear majority' on the thread seem to believe that the most likely cause of this accident was suicide/mass murder by the captain and/or the FO? And, moreover, a 'clear intention' to cause the aeroplane to be 'lost without trace?" My own view is that the cause was much more likely to have been some sort of mechanical problem quite early in the flight, which left the pilots and passengers either dead or incapacitated. After which the autopilot (as it was designed to do) flew the last set course and altitude until the fuel ran out? Surely that theory is a lot simpler?

I must say I do not like thinking about the malicious intent theory either. I would prefer to think that nobody is capable of such fiendish acts.

The problem with the mechanical theory is that if the plane was pilotless, yet flying on autopilot, one would expect a more or less constant heading and speed. E.g., the red path below is simply a straight line from IGREX to the search area. As you can see, it does not square with the Inmarsat ping rings, except for the final one. The only ones that do it are fast paths: e.g., the green one below (512 knots), and these wind up way west in the roaring forties.

The slower paths all gradually curve to the east--these are not normal looking flight paths. That's why I was fooling around with my "inertial" theory earlier. I don't know, maybe a combination of changing magnetic variation and crosswinds could cause a flight path that could gradually curve left and still be consistent with the ping ring LOPs. Maybe I'll take another look at my simulator.

Or it could be the case the Inmarsat data are completely whacked--but then again, they seem to be putting a lot of faith in the last one, and it looks like it's proving out.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 193): As you can see, it does not square with the Inmarsat ping rings, except for the final one.

As far as I know, only the final ping ring has ever been published by the investigators. Where is the data for the earlier ping rings coming from? If it is some aviation geek doing backtracking, it is not reliable. We need to have the real satellite handshake data as recorded by Inmarsat to make any conclusions on the aircraft track to the final ping ring.

[Edited 2014-04-11 06:41:47]

For all we know, some third party may have tried to hijack the plane.

Perhaps they got control of the cockpit long enough to shut down comms and start their flight plan.

Perhaps later, attempts were made to regain control, that were partially successful.

That is, at one or two points, maybe there was a battle for control of the plane, and the flight path we have is a result of those battles?

Perhaps both parties "won", and the plane was left without pilots, flying towards the south Indian Ocean?

The hijackers didn't get to use the plane as a weapon, and the good guys were not able to save the day, either?

A lot of assumptions, to be sure...but I just wanted to say that a hijack need not have involved the pilots at all. The pilots and flight crew might have made a heroic stand. There's no need to condemn the crew at this point. Security seems to have been somewhat lax at the airport. While they claim to have checked out all the pax, perhaps there is a false passport they missed?

If this was a hijack, with the intent to use the plane as a weapon, then perhaps the crew really won anyway? A pyrrhic victory?

[Edited 2014-04-11 06:47:18]

Quoting MSY-MSP (Reply 112): So in this instance she would be sitting in the water bobbing along, and you hope no one opens the rear doors to try to get out. If this happens it doesn't take very long at all for the center of gravity to move further aft and she slips beneath the waves. This above assumed a perfect water landing with no damage. The 9-10 foot seas aren't a real big deal in terms of her happily bobbing in the sea Now when you consider a less than optimal water landing is where things get interesting.

Thanks for the info and the time you spent posting that. You definitely have more knowledge than I do w/r/t sea ditchings.

I am curious, though, as to the data you did not include in your post. Did you/were you able to program in speed/angle/rate of descent of the aircraft? Wings level/not level? Obviously, the sea conditions are only one part of the equation. The other part is how the aircraft met with them.

Quoting LandSweetLand (Reply 169): This is why announcements need proper collaboration.

It does look like there was a definite shortage of "collaboration" in this instance.  

[Edited 2014-04-11 07:24:23]

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 195): For all we know, some third party may have tried to hijack the plane.

We know that we dont know. At this point I think a third-party highjack is even less likely than pilot suicide or some odd technical event.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 181): Huh? http://defense-studies.blogspot.com/...a-installs-permanent-radar-on.html http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politi....html

SharpEye is a maritime navigation and short range tactical surveillance radar, they are normally installed on naval ship masts. They are designed to look for small high speed craft, and in the case of Christmas Island, designed to look for wooden boats, as far as I understand it was installed after a boat full of people were washed up on rocks.

The specs on the radar are wrong for airborne applications.

I should add, the antenna farm on Cocos Island is no national secret, the are the VHF/HF transmitters that connect to the ATC systems in Brisbane and Melbourne. They have remote transmitters on 8879/5634/3476/17961/13306 located there as well as VHF, and a number of navaids (VOR/DME/NDB and a locator). One of the NDBs there is high power, 200 nm range.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 181): As for vaunted "agencies", in fact they said the aircraft was following waypoints: the waypoints leading toward Vietnam, then VAMPI, then GIVAL, then last evidently pointed toward IGREX....

All that rubbish about following waypoints was retracted a long time ago, there were initial information saying that ATC got the way-points form the FMC, however that was all retracted.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 181): There are not "thousands" in the Indian Ocean. In fact they are few and far between. Look them up. I could only find about 40-60 waypoints that are relevant to the problem that I was able to find.

I have flown in the Indian Ocean and the Strait of Malacca more times than I care to remember, there are heaps of way-points. The Strait of Malacca has a lot of very busy airways. Between Australia and South Africa there is flex tracks, instead of names, Lat/Lon positions are used to make the best advantage of the winds. The combinations available are thousands.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 181): Is it not the case that airliner pilots routinely use waypoints programmed into the Flight Management Computer to navigate? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

No we dont, we use routes, and those routes are programmed pre-departure. When we program a route, the waypoints on the route are automatically inserted into the plan. Then both pilots cross check the FM route/waypoints against the flight plan.

E.g. a route would look like

WMKK PIBOS R208 IGARI M765 BITOD M755 PNH B329 NAH W1 NOB R474 NNG R343 LKO A461 VYK ZBAA

and that would insert

WMKK PIBOS MATSU GUNBO VKR IKUKO IGARI BITOD TUNPO KISAN PNH VIBUN LEKOB PAK VILAO KAMSU KADIM NAH NOB NAKHA TEBAK NL XEREN NNG SARUG LBN ENKUS MAMSI VQ ONEMI LLC GOSMA LKO HOK OBLIK ZHO
AKOMA WXI HG IKENU VYK ZBAA

[Edited 2014-04-11 07:38:11]