Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 191): Quoting Pihero (Reply 187): I particularly miss baroque who has left us and whose insights on sea research have been extraordinarly helpful... I miss him a lot on this forum. Agreed! Along with tdscanuck, who could have provided valuable insight on B772 systems, but was driven to leave the forum by idiots questioning his knowledge.

   Baroque and tdscanuck were legendary for their knowledge and contribution. I miss them, especially at a time like this. It seems like quantity has taken over quality.
I, for one, do not want Pihero to end up like Chief Inspector Dreyfus in 'The Pink Panther'.

Quoting dfambro (Reply 199):

There are big differences between AF447 and MH370.

One of the biggest differences is this: AF447 pretty much went down soon after the problems started - within minutes - it did not fly around for hours. Its last location was pretty well known and the first debris were basically sighted the next day. MH370 flew for another 7+ hours after the problems started (which is safe to say was the loss of the transponder / comms shortly after the ATC hand off which also just happened to be before the plane turned around). Also, the last known location of MH370 had to be worked out using satellite data and it has been over 6 weeks and not one single piece of debris has been found.

I know that you, dfambro, were not comparing the two but rather just comparing the discussions about both incidents in here which I agree with 100%. However, there have been a few people trying to draw similarities and I can't see too many at this stage to be honest...

Quoting bluesky9 (Reply 196): The fact that the cargo was not scanned

I have asked this twice before but got no answers - is this actually established as a fact?

As to the rest of your post, in Canada anyway the regulations are laid out by Transport Canada and here we have a 'known shipper' program whereby any cargo from a shipper who is on the Transport Canada database (and therefore conformed to said requirements to be on it) is deemed secure, and anything else is unsecure and is automatically screened. Vendors in the supply chain (truckers, forwarders & warehouses) also have to have an 'air cargo security plan' in place to be deemed secure, so any cargo handled by a non secure party - even if the shipper is secure - becomes unsecure and goes for screening. In the US they go a step further and any unsecure cargo can not go on a pax flight, freighter only. I would imagine the Malaysian Transport Board equivalent would have their own regulations and my guess is they do not have such a program in place, as it is fairly new here and from my experience in dealing with overseas agents is a fairly foreign concept to them. I think many countries have automatic scanning instead.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 198): It was mentioned in earlier threads at one stage that it was only the MH370 cargo that was not scanned. I'm not sure if that was confirmed as being correct though. Interesting nonetheless if true.

IIRC it was also said that all other flights departed without cargo as it was unable to be scanned and this was the only flight that did depart from KUL that day with cargo. I really cant remember the source and it may have been the Flying With Fish twitter guy, whose credibility has been disproved (though he seemed on the ball at that point).

As a slightly connected aside, last week ICAO proposed legislation proposing the ban of carriage of lithium batteries on pax flights. May or may not have any relevance to unconfirmed rumors of this being part of the MH370 cargo.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 145): This guy was completely discredited in about thread #5. He just makes stuff up.

How has he been discredited? As outlandish as his theories have been since this incident began, nothing he has said has turned out to be false. He received a lot of criticism when he said the plane is not in the South Indian Ocean. Now, several weeks and hundreds of millions of dollars later, there still is no trace of the plane in the South Indian Ocean.

Therefore, while he has shared some pretty wild viewpoints on what happened to the plane, we can't rule it out especially considering this entire investigation has become a comedy of errors.

Quoting bluesky9 (Reply 196): The fact that the cargo was not scanned might be worth looking into a little more closely.

I have no idea where you get this ''fact'' from but it completely ignores the entire cargo process as it exists which already starts from the shipper onwards. Not just anyone gets to send out cargo & unknown or unsecure cargo does not make it out of the warehouse without getting checked out & signed off on.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 198): It was mentioned in earlier threads at one stage that it was only the MH370 cargo that was not scanned.

i can't remember having seen it in the threads but this probably referred to the step up in security procedures immediately after the disappareance of MH370. All passengers were being addtionally screened at the airport & all cargo had to undergo additional scanning. The sudden demand for additional security measures peaked massively resulting in passenger flights being delayed & not all cargo making it onto flights because security couldn't immediately cope with the 100% requirement. I know flights have left cargo behind that day because of this.

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 173): Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 172): The (anonymous) U.S. "officials" who "confirmed" it to CNN were the same ones who "confirmed" that the aircraft had landed at a remote airstrip in China / Pakistan / Afghanistan.

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 173): To my knowledge, CNN has never reported anything like that and I couldn't find any reference with Google search either. Could you please provide a source for your allegation regarding CNN reporting?

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 176): It's gone from their archive. But this will give you an idea of the quality of their reporting on MH370: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2...Report-On-Twitter-As-Totally-False

so maybe we're splitting hairs, but it certainly appears that you imply that CNN reported that the a/c landed at a remote strip in China/Pakistan/ Afghanistan. Either that, or you know with absolute certainty exactly who these US officials are (but I fear they are anonymous)??

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 190): Thank you - I couldn't find it in the CNN archives, but it's apparently there. I look forward to an apology from those who have accused me of fabrication and misinformation.

So I would warmly apologize, and sincerely, if you can reconcile and explain away the above discrepancy.

Quoting EricR (Reply 203): Therefore, while he has shared some pretty wild viewpoints on what happened to the plane, we can't rule it out especially considering this entire investigation has become a comedy of errors.

The northtern arc including landing in Pakistan etc. has been ruled out by Inmarsat analysis that has been peer reviewed by the AAIB and NTSB.

Quoting dfambro (Reply 199): As I already mentioned, the level of discussion from our expert posters was awesome, and I'm very grateful they share with us here. But they didn't get AF447 right.

Not every last detail, no. They couldn't have known about the strained interpersonal relationships and resulting CRM issues but they did home in on a "stabilised stall" from cruise altitude down to impact while significant numbers were insisting there must have been an in-flight break-up or that "the computers" somehow "took over".

Quoting Pihero (Reply 187): Please add yourself to that team, along with dozens of posters among whom DavidL, Zeke, PGNCS,, Bellerophon, Starlionblue.... and so many others.

You give me to much credit! I was merely a passenger while you, Mandala499 and Zeke were developing the stabilised stall scenario. As usual, my involvement was in dealing with the more obvious misinformation and misunderstanding.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 189): As far as I remember, Pihero and Mandala did nail down the root cause of the accident within a week or so of its occurrence.

Not really. In fact Pihero spent months passionately arguing against pilot error being the cause of the crash.

Quoting dfambro (Reply 199): But they didn't get AF447 right.

I didn't go through the whole AF447 thread, but I was quickly able to find this, from one of our most respected posters, in part 11, written 4 (four) days after the crash:

"Let's look at it this way...
Your Pitots get all clogged by ice, ADIRUs trip off... engines remain constant...
Would it be a problem? No it shouldn't...
Then you get a reduction in headwind or increase in tailwind... problem? Could be... at least your nose will drop initially...
Even if you get an increase in headwind or a reduction in tailwind... problem? Could be... your nose will rise given initially the same thrust.
What am I getting to? It's dark, no horizon, no ADI... no speed no altitude info.
How much should you drop your nose? how much should you rise your nose?
And A/T was off too...
They can probably get by using their senses for about 30secs to a minute... then the senses will start to fool them (spatial disorientation)... you might think you're going straight and level but you're not, you're going somewhere else... then, you'd start the progressive loss of orientation leading to (blindly) commanded flight to exit the normal envelope. 4 minutes is possible."

Pretty good insight, I would say.

Quoting David L (Reply 207): . As usual, my involvement was in dealing with the more obvious misinformation and misunderstanding.

And that alone was very important.
But, as usual, you understimate your contributions : At least Mandala499 and I were very impressed by your progress in the knowledge of all things about aviation.

There 's a bit of a misunderstanding here : We"re not the people who issue the final report, if only because we do not - even on a highly public-ised investigation as with AF447 - have every piece of evidence.
That is the investigators' role.

The scenarii this site derrived were, broadly - of two kinds :
-A - The crew never recovered flight instruments, or at least until the final minute
-B- There was some clues as to the PF using the wrong procedure ( low level iso high altitude )
The rest, down to the impact spêed and acceleration was pretty much worked out.
I know from someone close to the investigation that what the DFDR revealed - i.e an unrecovered stall down to the sea surface - was quite a surprise for the investigation team.

The other misunderstanding is about comparing a final finding withj a going-on research.
AF 447 went down with a fairly low speed and during some -basically - calm weather. And the subsequent weather on the site had been rather clement... but even then, see the debris ' spread.

In the case of MH370, the determination of the probable imlpact sites has been quite lengthy, continuously refined in an area that has seen rough seas, already one cyclone and a few rather deep depressions and debris could have been after time widely spread, apparently without big, identifiable pieces.

It would be a small miracle that we found anything ... these debris are now within groups of rubbish that sea currents usually carry over vast distances... They'll eventually wash up on some coast, some time in the future.

Last fact : The zone were they eventually found AF447 had beeen heavily searched with all sorts of equipment, but it needed a deep sea drone -Remus- to *fly* just over the ocean floor with its side scan array to reveal the wreck field : They needed only one dive to find it.
On this subject, patience is required.

Quoting Rara (Reply 208): In fact Pihero spent months passionately arguing against pilot error being the cause of the crash.

... and I still do, my friend, years and years later.   

*Pilot Error* is for the masses who want a simplistic explanation on responsibility, and who don't understand anything about flying, so they'll stick to the most obvious reason : the pilot boobed it up. End of story.

It's certainly not in the vocabulary of an accident investigation in modern times.
We speak of human factors, related to ergonomics, instruments and so on.
And, let's not forget that human factors also involve the designers, the managers... plenty of humans.

To illustrate the above, think about this :
" CRITICAL UNCERTAINTIES :

..This vulnerability has been traditionally summarized by the term Out Of The Loop & Unaware (OOTLU) (Wickens, Hollands 2000). OOTLU is an adaptive behavioral syndrome where a reliable system’s operators progressively become more and more complacent, trust the automation more, monitor its operations less and are as a result:

-1- slower to detect failure or intervene when necessary (vigilance decrement),
-2- less aware of the systems status or raw data processed by the automation (lower situation awareness), and
-3- less proficient in the manual skills required in order to accomplish the failed automation’s duties (deskilled).

Unfortunately the crew of AF447 appear to have been the victims of this syndrome. The released CVR transcript of the third BEA report shows a crew having difficulty in identifying the system failure they were faced with. Their poor situational awareness hampered their ability to correlate data into a coherent model that could in turn tell them that the aircraft was deeply stalled. And all the while this was going on they were also struggling with the challenge of manually controlling an aircraft at high altitude.

All this represents the unstated cost of automation in human terms, that is the more reliable the automation the greater the level of attentional and cognitive ‘tunnelling’ operators exhibit. Human beings are adaptable creatures and they will adapt their monitoring and interaction strategy based on their perception of a systems reliability. Of course the problem with this adaptation is that it also leaves operator’s ill prepared for when the ‘reliable’ system fails."

[Edited 2014-04-22 01:45:09]

[Edited 2014-04-22 01:47:40]

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 152): Someone was asking what a possible waypoint path to the current search area would look like. Here are a couple of possibilities: This one takes a route between Cocos and Christmas Islands.

*raises hand* That would be me    Thanks for the feedback.



I'm thinking the above: In part,because I don't buy the 'flying faster than expected' media release (following on from original search area) excuse.But that's just me   373 knots,seems astute.

Inasmuch as,the person that has instituted this ultimate flight path,has calculated that the 'Big Bird'
will not reach Diamantina Trench with the fuel load of it's original intended flight path.

Thus,it's the next best plan.Keep it deep.Keep it remote.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 201): Also, the last known location of MH370 had to be worked out using satellite data and it has been over 6 weeks and not one single piece of debris has been found.

Quoting EricR (Reply 203): Now, several weeks and hundreds of millions of dollars later, there still is no trace of the plane in the South Indian Ocean.

Quoting EC135 (Reply 186): Why wasting days if not weeks by searching wrong places if pings are logged every 6 seconds???

A few days back, a little old lady told me straight out that “… the air plane is not where they are looking for it!” Just like that. (Mind you, she does not read A.net …)

I thought about it, whether this could be true and, if so, how.
I also thought about it, hard, whether or not I should even pose the following question.
Here goes anyway ….

As I understand it, all that is happening now in the search areas on the Indian Ocean, all that we know and can surmise what might have happened to 9M-RMO after the VAMPI waypoint is, essentially, based only on the information provided by the satellite company. First off it was a series of six or seven hourly pings (handshakes) and then, just recently, we heard that it is more likely these pings happen every 6 seconds.

Is it possible that the information from the satellite company is wrong, a concocted story?
What if the information was invented and provided under extreme duress and persuasion on orders by some …, let’s say agent or agency?

If this were true, it would have been designed to throw the SAR teams completely and plausibly off track, including the real professionals here on AirLiners.Net and others.
And also, perhaps, to keep the public occupied.

The pinger, where they are looking for it right now, could have easily been planted; including even a few pieces of wreckage.

All this would provide a better explanation than a pilot wanting to commit suicide and keeps on flying to no-where until the fuel runs out. Or that there was a fire which destroyed all communications equipment but, miraculously, leaves the aircraft flyable for hours; and again, until the fuel runs out. Or any of the other theories that have been suggested.

Of course, it would be the ‘Mother of all Conspiracies’.

[Edited 2014-04-22 03:20:09]

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 213): we heard that it is more likely these pings happen every 6 seconds.

More and more posters are starting to integrate the "6 second ping" dinner comment into their reasoning.
I believe this is incorrect in Classic Aero packet mode if the a/c was operating on Inmarsat 3F1.
If somebody knows otherwise, please bring forward your technical evidence.
Otherwise, it would be best to forget that possibility and stick to the 7 pings as reported by Inmarsat.

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 206): The northtern arc including landing in Pakistan etc. has been ruled out by Inmarsat analysis that has been peer reviewed by the AAIB and NTSB.

Maybe it's not quite right?

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 215):

What happens if you call the plane via SATCOM to see what's wrong? What sort of ping/data is generated with a successful call and with an unsuccessful call?

In todays times a B777 goes missing and we cant find it yet....makes us feel rather useless........

mysterious.......add to the constant unconfirmed news reports sure confuse things further.

Is there an official site that posts confirmed news on the topic only.....

Another contributor to AF 447's loss was that it was flying thorough a rather severe weather situation and in an area on or near the equator known for turbulent cruise altitude. Other a/c's within 20-30 miles of where AF 447 was flew through the region and altitude with few problems and reached their destinations, so something had to be different with AF 447. I recall the debates and information brought up in those threads on the weather and issues of flying in the equatorial region east of South America. We had reasonable beliefs that pitot tubes could ice up at such altitudes, the ones used on the AF 447 aircraft had a design issue of the tubes could lead to ice or other debris clogging them and along with flight software that if a tube was clogged presented conflicting information for the pilots to use.
As far as we know, weather was not a factor in the loss of MH 370 and about the only factor we can pretty much exclude based on the limited known info. Even with AF 447, we had to assume that the pitot tube became clogged with ice, we could never prove it to 100%, but based on previous lost aircraft where similar data was obtained from the recovered FDR's and from AF 447, it could be determined to a reasonable level of what happened with AF 447. It is imperative that we recover the FDR from MH 370, even at great cost, to find out what happened to find out what happened and use that info to prevent another like event. AF 447's info helped to force changes in the pitot tubes, flight software, training of pilots, CRM at AF and elsewhere to reduce similar situation in the future.

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 217): What happens if you call the plane via SATCOM to see what's wrong? What sort of ping/data is generated with a successful call and with an unsuccessful call?

Several of us have tried to nail down the satcom configuration 9M-MRO but we have been not been successful so far. What we know:
- low gain antenna on top of the fuselage
- a pair of conformal high gain antennas, one on either side of the fuselage at 45deg (possible manufacturer: Ball Aerospace?)
- Classic Aero packet mode to support ACARS and RR Trent reports (probable Aero L using the low gain antenna?)

We do not know whether voice was provided for cockpit and/or pax communications.

To expect precise RTD measurements on other interactions between the ground (GES) and the a/c (AES) is probably wishful thinking. Can you tell me the individial TCP/IP reponse delays in your web interactions performed a week ago? No, it is not done systematically because nobody cares to measure and record such data.

The only chance to have more RTDs IMO is if the a/c had been placed under a special watch process, in real time, while it was flying to its fate. I suggested earlier that would be a good thing for Inmarsat to provide but AFAIK no such mechanism is in place. The timer that controls login verification (from what I am told) is at least 60 minutes.

As for call records (if any) they are apparently time stamped and archived with a resolution of 1 second (typical for a call center)!

[Edited 2014-04-22 05:18:37]

[Edited 2014-04-22 05:33:51]

Quoting Rara (Reply 208): Not really. In fact Pihero spent months passionately arguing against pilot error being the cause of the crash.

But that's hardly the point: I was talking about establishing how the accident happened (pitot tubes freezing up, loss of automation, stall, deep stall, etc.), not about assigning blame for the chain of events.

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 220):

Are you saying 9M-MRO might not have had the cockpit SATPHONE capability?

It seems to be standard? Unless they did not pay for the service?

I'm pretty sure I read that 9M-MRO did not have pax SATPHONES. IIRC only one of MH 777-200ER had those, and it was not 9M-MRO.

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 223): Are you saying 9M-MRO might not have had the cockpit SATPHONE capability?

No. I am just saying I do not know.

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 223): I'm pretty sure I read that 9M-MRO did not have pax SATPHONES. IIRC only one of MH 777-200ER had those, and it was not 9M-MRO.

I think you're confusing satphones with the satellite-backed microcell pilot program which they installed on one 772 which apparently did not go so well (probably too expensive for users).

MAS does advertise satellite phones in business class on their 777s, but no one here has really been able to say for sure whether 9M-MRO had them.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 187): Good of you ! As for all your work on trying to fit a waypoint route to a point close to the search area, it lacks fundamental reasoning : 1/- It has to fit the passage at ALL the *loci* at the times they were set., which you certainly haven't demonstrated as the bases of your argument are for vastly different speeds ( 373 and 486 kt , IIRC ). It's easy to reverse- engineer, though : just plot the positions on your chart at 19:11, 20:11, 21:11... etc... with the changing ground speeds due to wind. I'll be really interested in that work. 2/- It has to fit at these vastly different speeds the endurance of the aircraft : (hint : they can't both fit that requirement.) (hint #2 : There's no such thing as a normal cruising speed for a modern aircraft . We fly Mach numbers which give airspeeds dependent on outside temperature, and the Mach numbers depend on company policy on cost indexes : that aircraft would have flown anywhere between Mach .87 and .82, a spread of 30 kt independent on actual temperature on a continuously decreasing Mach) 3/- If you assume an FMS-based navigation waypoint trajectory, you also have to assume a managed cruise schedule... and most of all, if you want to disappear, why chose a point that near to Australia ? Why not a route that takes you as far as possible into the 'Forties" at Max endurance schedule, making sure that you'll never be found ? (you'll have to discover how to fly at max endurance, though). Why a waypoint route ? Lots easier to just type an impossible target, say... 80°S / 090°E : It requires 5 strokes on your pad... and you disappear into oblivion... well before you reach 80°S. Alas ! some clever people have found a way to reproduce - or come close to - your track....

I like the 1-turn at KALOX onto route M641 flight path, as that is about the simplest, conceivable way to get to the current search area, but as I said before, and as you pointed out as well, it does not square with the Inmarsat "ping ring" LOPs, or loci, as you call them.

Also, I agree that if someone was dead set on disappearing, it doesn't really make sense to turn toward Australia--but then again, maybe we shouldn't make to0 many assumptions about the rationality of crazy, suicidal maniacs...

At any rate, I did another waypoint path that attempts to fit the Inmarsat LOPs. Interesting that you should mention longitude 90E, as that is where it ends up.

It starts out in the Great Channel with a ground speed of 486 knots: SANOB IGEBO POVUS, then a turn to the south: ISBIX MUTMI RUNUT. At the latitude of Cocos Island/RUNUT, the velocity would have to slow down to 422 knots in order to fit the loci data. However, after RUNUT, there are a series of waypoints listed in the SkyVector maps that are simply labeled according to their lat/longs: 2390S 2490S 2990S. After that--oblivion. Which would put the crash site at about 37S 90E--about 1200 nautical miles from the current search area....

Thus, while I certainly am hoping and praying that the searchers find positive evidence soon--I will not be surprised if the search turns up empty handed....



Flight path shown in orange. Red lines are azimuths to the Inmarsat subsatellite ground positions.

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 225):

IIRC someone posted a picture of a notice or sign from MH talking about the biz class satphones. The notice explained that they were only on the one 777. I recall it being a notice inside the one plane that had the phones. The poster had traveled on that 777.

That's my memory of it, but I can't find it now.

It was not the MH web page. It was a posted sticker or sign.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 226): it does not square with the Inmarsat "ping ring" LOPs

For the millionth time, where in the world are you getting these "ping rings"? They were never published. Only the last one was.

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 227): IIRC someone posted a picture of a notice or sign from MH talking about the biz class satphones. The notice explained that they were only on the one 777. I recall it being a notice inside the one plane that had the phones. The poster had traveled on that 777. That's my memory of it, but I can't find it now. It was not the MH web page. It was a posted sticker or sign.

Yes I think you are talking about the Honeywell microcell. That was a pilot program installed on only one 772, not MRO.

But maybe that 772 was the only one with satphones too? Weird that they would advertise satphones as being on their whole 772 fleet though.

[Edited 2014-04-22 09:13:49]

Well, the Honeywell page also says that MH 777's have satcom capability for the crew and passengers. It says how that system was upgraded on the test plane for the microcell test.

So I think it is safe to say that the pilots and the biz class pax on 9M-MRO had satphone capability.

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 214): Of course they could be doing something completely different, like using a bathymetric sonar to build up a 3d picture of the sea bed, in the hope of spotting something (it would have to be big), but primarily to assist in the acoustic modelling. I'd love to know. They've admitted that they're using the Bluefin primarily because of availabilty, which suggests it's sensor payload isn't ideal for the job.

They are using the EdgeTech 2200-M operating at 120kHz mode at about 45 m off the seafloor. They do not need to resurface to get a GPS fix - presumably because of the short duration down, there would not be a large error.

[Edited 2014-04-22 09:55:33]

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 228): Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 226):it does not square with the Inmarsat "ping ring" LOPs. For the millionth time, where in the world are you getting these "ping rings"? They were never published. Only the last one was.

For the nth time, it was reverse engineered from the published potential flight paths originally released by Inmarsat.



So what you do is copy the tracks into Google Earth, and then back track from the last ping ring: e.g., since it's 1.5 hours from 24:11 to 22:40, for the 400 knot flight path, you would track back 600 nm; for the 450 knot track, you back track 675 nm. Since it's only an hour to the next time (21:40), you track back 400 and 450 nm respectively. You mark each of these points, and then you measure the distance to the respective subsatellite positions for the various times, and lo and behold: the measured distances are the same for the same times--just as one would expect.

Granted, it's not perfect, but they should be in the right ballpark. Besides, Pihero asked me to produce a waypoint path consistent with the ping rings, so I obliged him.

ETA: Here are a couple of links that go into much more detail on these derivations:

http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/710

http://www.reddit.com/r/MH370/commen...h370_reverse_engineered_ping_data/

[Edited 2014-04-22 10:17:46]

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 232): For the nth time, it was reverse engineered

Ahhh, so it's garbage. Glad to have you confirm.

You don't know exactly what went into calculating those tracks. "Not perfect" is an understatement.

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 233): Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 232):For the nth time, it was reverse engineered Ahhh, so it's garbage. Glad to have you confirm. You don't know exactly what went into calculating those tracks. "Not perfect" is an understatement.

It's not garbage--at least in principle. We know that Inmarsat calculated those tracks using the latency of the SATCOM handshakes. Therefore, their published 400 and 450 knot flight paths should be consistent with all ping rings. From that it's not hard to deduce what ping rings Inmarsat must have actually used. The math is simple. If you can't understand it, there's nothing I can do to help you.

Now, it is entirely possible that Inmarsat completely garbled its speed of light calculations. On the other hand, they claimed to have performed the same analysis on several other aircraft with known flight paths, and got accurate results. Therefore, we should be cautious about referring to the Inmarsat data as "garbage" IMHO.

At least if you are going to call it garbage, then you should at least provide a good reason. I can think one: the current search area is really hard to square with all the deduced ping rings.

Bottom line: it is what it is--the ping rings deserve to be taken seriously, but they are not necessarily the gospel truth, nor are they necessarily false.



[Edited 2014-04-22 10:37:27]

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 232): ETA: Here are a couple of links that go into much more detail on these derivations: http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/710

Duncan Steel? Seriously? I've been following all of your posts and you're following Duncan Steel?

This Duncan Steel claiming that Arthur C. Clarke named a robot after him?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Steel

Steel's own son says he tells "twisted tales" and "should not be taken seriously".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6828_Elbsteel

[Edited 2014-04-22 11:11:14]

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 234): It's not garbage--at least in principle.

It is garbage, I'm afraid. Only under certain circumstances it isn't.
You take some ASSUMED final positions from lines on a map, and then you do some interpolations.
Garbage in => garbage out.

Quoting abba (Reply 179): .. and I would add a few more like Zeke. They are all aviation professionals and have a stellar record in getting pretty close to what might have happened at a number of cases. Not only AF447. They are gold for this forum - sine qua non.

If I could immodestly add my name to the list:

In Reply 91 to the 15th AF447 thread I noted the following which was largely ignored:

"Some new pictures of the recovered vertical stabilizer.

The last photo is especially interesting. Note the skin panels just below the wide blue stripe. Both the left and right side panels appear to have failed in the same manner which suggests to me, no side loads.

Also from that same image, the VS appears to have seen high vertical loads that pulled secondary structure from the fuselage. Again in a symmetrical manner."

How many years would pass before the black box would be recovered and we would all learn the airplane came down in nearly a stable stall, not far from where the last ACARS msg had it located.

That's why I hesitate to weigh in with any opinions on what may have happened to MH370. But as a former structures and structural test engineer as well as a pilot who has logged several Atlantic and Pacific crossings in a business jet, here goes:

The absence of any floating debris leads me to believe the the airplane was in a stall or near stall condition, gear up, when it contacted the water. Due to the waves and swells, one nacelle probably contacted first which put the airplane into a ground loop or in this case a water loop. The wrenching action would tear the engine free in a second and incapacitate anyone on board still alive. Next, the second engine may suffer a similar fate. These failures will disapate much of the kinetic energy allowing the big strong fuselage to stay intact and eventually sink. Due to the high waves in the Indian Ocean, this would not be a Hudson River Miracle.

If and when the airframe is found, I expect there to be two or three large pieces. One or two engines...the fuselage with wing attached. If floating debris is found tomorrow, I will abandon this theory.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 236): Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 234):It's not garbage--at least in principle. It is garbage, I'm afraid. Only under certain circumstances it isn't. You take some ASSUMED final positions from lines on a map, and then you do some interpolations. Garbage in => garbage out.

It only seems like garbage to you because you evidently don't understand it--as evidenced by your assumption that the deduction was from "assumed final positions from lines on a map". That it most definitely was not. The starting point is what Inmarsat has made public. Is that garbage?

Furthermore, nothing was assumed--not even that the hypothetical Inmarsat flight paths are internally self-consistent. It has been shown by inspection that the flight paths are indeed consistent with a series of ping rings corresponding to the times of the various handshakes. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it is garbage. Glib slogans don't cut it.

Quoting weizenjaeger (Reply 235): Duncan Steel? Seriously? I've been following all of your posts and you're following Duncan Steel? This Duncan Steel claiming that Arthur C. Clark named a robot after him? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_SteelSteel's own son says he tells "twisted tales" and "should not be taken seriously".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6828_Elbsteel

Sure, why not? Duncan is a smart guy, and site has served as a clearing house for a lot of other researchers. They're doing good work over there. As for the robot, Clarke and Steel were friends, so it's not surprising he might name a character in a novel after Steel. As for the "twisted tales", thanks for the link: I was able to add a citation needed tag to that part of the article! 

Quoting abba (Reply 99): And what did the TWA cost Boeing in court damages? Do you really think Boeing really would like to find out what really brought the MH370 down? What the h¤¤¤¤ - it is not common that this happens anyway. The T72s usually stay in the air fine. Why let a Malaysian flight spoil the party? The 772 is more or less out of production by now anyway. I am sure that Boeing and the Malayian government would be happy to use the pilot as a scapegoat. It by far the cheapest solution to most parties involved. The pilot committed suicide. Save the money. Save the day.

Absolutely, if it turns out to be a problem with the plane, Boeing will want to fix it. The 737 rudder issues were a problem that Boeing was happy to have solved, and if something crops up here, they'll want to know about it, because it's better to have one egg on your face than three. I know a bunch of people who work for BCA, and they all take the work of building and improving their aircraft very seriously.

Quoting David L (Reply 143): There are people who seem to be blessed with the ability to determine the cause of an aircraft accident without being hindered by technical details.

Never let facts get in the way of a good story....

One hypothesis I've not seen much discussion about is cabin air contamination by way of partially broken down neurotoxins in engine oil being ingested in the bleed air. I've read some reports, like this one of the AB A330 crew and a report from a BAe 146 crew that experienced difficulty making sound judgments with contaminated air, but have found no references to this happening on a T800. Not being an expert in the systems architecture of the T800/777, I don't know how plausible the cabin air neurotoxin hypothesis is, could someone with knowledge on the architecture chime in?

If it turns out that the neurotoxin hypothesis works and the pilots had degraded capacity, then one could explain an erratic flight path to the northeast, followed by a turn south once the crew was fully out of the loop, and a lack of distress calls by passengers or cabin crew. The weakness of this theory is that one would generally expect the flight crew to radio in a mayday if they were incapacitated.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 238): It has been shown by inspection that the flight paths are indeed consistent with a series of ping rings corresponding to the times of the various handshakes

You can't be serious. You've created a model to fit the data (which itself was based on a model), and then said, "Look! The model fits the data!"

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 217): What happens if you call the plane via SATCOM to see what's wrong? What sort of ping/data is generated with a successful call and with an unsuccessful call?

I asked the following question over three weeks ago:

Quoting 65mustang (Reply 275): Are there any protocols in place for Malaysia airlines or atc to attempt to contact a plane via satellite phone if it goes missing? If a sat call was made and not answered would the attempt look like a ping or something else?

And Mandala politely replied with:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 302): I don't think so. The attempt would actually trigger a spur of data exchange with the GPS coordinates in the packet headers.

I heard yesterday that Malaysia sent technical experts to china to answer some of the questions the families have. Maybe the type of Satcom system and antenna will be answered soon and if it had voice or not. Seems like a pretty simple and straight forward question that should be answered. Such answer should not jeopardize their "criminal" investigation.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 234): It's not garbage--at least in principle. We know that Inmarsat calculated those tracks using the latency of the SATCOM handshakes. Therefore, their published 400 and 450 knot flight paths should be consistent with all ping rings. From that it's not hard to deduce what ping rings Inmarsat must have actually used. The math is simple. If you can't understand it, there's nothing I can do to help you.

It doesn't work due to the uncertainty in the ping angle determination. When Inmarsat tells us that the last ping ring angle was 40 degrees, they mean an angle between 37.5 and 42.5 degrees or something similar, not 40.00 degrees. I think they even told about the uncertainty (+/- 2.5 degrees) when somebody raised a question about it. Due to this uncertainty one cannot calculate the earlier ping rings with any certainty. We don't even know whether all they get is the ping angle at 5 degree intervals or is the ping angle determined by the time of flight.

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 239): The weakness of this theory is that one would generally expect the flight crew to radio in a mayday if they were incapacitated.

Not to mention the transponder turning off 2 minutes after a perfectly normal ATC handover communication,

[Edited 2014-04-22 12:10:24]

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 238): It only seems like garbage to you because you evidently don't understand it--as evidenced by your assumption that the deduction was from "assumed final positions from lines on a map". That it most definitely was not. The starting point is what Inmarsat has made public. Is that garbage?

Even worse! And which starting point was made public, and how ?
And why are you trying to find one, if its already published ?

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 238): Furthermore, nothing was assumed--not even that the hypothetical Inmarsat flight paths are internally self-consistent. It has been shown by inspection that the flight paths are indeed consistent with a series of ping rings corresponding to the times of the various handshakes. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it is garbage. Glib slogans don't cut it.

1. afaik only one ping-ring was ever published officially. All others wildly in circulation are not in any way confirmed by Immarsat.
2. The hypothetical Immarsat paths are just that, hypothetical.

That's what i call garbage.

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 240): You can't be serious. You've created a model to fit the data (which itself was based on a model), and then said, "Look! The model fits the data!"

  

Duncan Steel's work emphasizes the need for more analysis of Inmarsat data. Even if he is an eccentric character, there are other experts throughout the world who can run various models.

So far 5000+ satellites launches across the world and one company with a total of 20 satellites (built and launched by someone else) cannot claim exclusive rights to the knowledge how a communication satellite works.

AAIB and NTSB are experts in investigating aviation accidents, not analyzing satellite communication meta data. So peer review by those two doesn't add much value. Review should have done by NASA or ESA.

Unless Inmarsat is shamed to show what they (don't) have or how they are minting money with a satellite on borrowed life.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 244): AAIB and NTSB are experts in investigating aviation accidents, not analyzing satellite communication meta data. So peer review by those two doesn't add much value.

If you look at any AAIB/NTSB report, you'll see that they invariably engage outside expertise when they do not have it in house. I see no reason to think they wouldn't have done otherwise in this case.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 226): At any rate, I did another waypoint path that attempts to fit the Inmarsat LOPs. Interesting that you should mention longitude 90E, as that is where it ends up.

I really do not know what you're full of, but it's certainly not scientific knowledge and technical honesty.
You're just lauching pretty balloons withouit any serious attempt at solving a problem... You try - very badly - to fit some figures and moronic diagrams into your pet theory ( which one ? btw, you've had so many !).

As you did not provide more infos on your *positions*, I did a small plotting on your map.
We have then , as origin of the trajectory - I presume at 18:40 - a point very near POVUS

Rounding up the coordinates, I have the distances between these *positions* and can compute the respective ground speeds :

18:30 : N 06° E 094°
Distance : 525 Nm / Speed : 450 kt (1hr 10 min of flight )
19:40 : S 02°30 E 093°
Distance : 575 Nm / Speed : 575 kt
20:40 : S 12 E 092°
Distance 395 Nm / Speed : 395 kt
21.40 : S 18°30 E 091°
Distance :455 Nm / Speed : 455 kt
22:40 : S 20° E 090°
Distance : 660 Nm / Speed : 435 kt (1hr 31 min of flight )
00:11 : S 37° E 090°
Does those results look to you as a serious attempt at determining the airplane trajectory ?   

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 226): Flight path shown in orange. Red lines are azimuths to the Inmarsat subsatellite ground positions.

Where your work really got me is that you even give *azimuths* from the sat footprint. We call them "bearings" whether in the air or in the Navy.
Has io occurred to you that a position can be accurately determined with a knowledge of one bearing associated with a distance. (By the way, that is also basic navigation lore .
So my question is : "Where do you get these bearings from ?"

I have to admit, though, that your drawing is pretty. Could even decorate a toilet with those colours.

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 240): Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 238): It has been shown by inspection that the flight paths are indeed consistent with a series of ping rings corresponding to the times of the various handshakes You can't be serious. You've created a model to fit the data (which itself was based on a model), and then said, "Look! The model fits the data!"

I am absolutely serious. You simply don't understand what we tried to do: the two flight paths that Inmarsat published are not random lines drawn on a globe.

Notice how the 400 knot track curves to the left, whereas the 450 knot path is mostly straight. Why do you suppose that is? The answer is that the gradual curve to the left is necessary in order to be consistent with the series of ping rings. If you plotted a more or less straight track with a velocity of 350 knots, it would curve even more to the left.

So, I'll repeat:

1. distance = velocity * time. They told us the assumed velocities (400 & 450 kts) and gave us the position at 24:11. The next ping ring back was at 22:40--1.52 hours in the past. Thus: 450 * 1.52 = 683 nm and 400 * 1.52 = 607 nm.

2. Now we go back and measure back from the 24:11 line of position (LOP) along the respective tracks 683 and 607 nm.

3. Then we measure the distance from those two points to the subsatellite point and compare them.

4. Hmmmm. The distances to the subsatellite point are identical: 2199 nm. So what does that tell us?

5. That the two points 683 and 607 nm back from the 24:11 LOP are in fact lying on the same 22:40 LOP, or as Duncan prefers to call them "ping rings" or as Pihero prefers to call them "loci".

There's a little more to it than that (e.g., taking into account the movement of the satellite), but you should be able to get the general idea.

No one is claiming the ping rings are perfectly accurate. Just the precision of the time measurement (+/- 0.3 ms) causes an error on the order of 50 nm. Also, one refinement that has not been done is taking into account the actual shape of the Earth: we've been assuming a spherical Earth, and so that could cause another 10 or 20 nm error for the southern latitudes.

But still, compared to the whole Indian Ocean, that's quite a constraint. And it also places quite a constraint on what possible flight paths can look like. E.g., a gradually curve to the left is consistent with an a/c flying in heading mode, and getting pushed by crosswinds. A straight path like the 450 knot path is consistent with a constant heading flight in track mode.

The problem is that the current search area is so far to the east: it is hard to draw a normal looking flight path that is consistent with the other ping rings. E.g., see below: I can modify my waypoint track with a sharp left turn at 2490S to reach the search area and still be consistent with all ping ring data, but it looks odd: Why the sharp turn that appears to be going nowhere in particular?

A more plausible, normal-looking path would be to simply follow route P627 to waypoint KALOX, and then route M641 to Perth--but it doesn't fit the ping ring data....

So don't be surprised if the underwater search turns out to be a wild goose chase....



You can download the Duncan Steel ping rings as kml files and load them directly into your Google Earth if you want. This is super easy, and beats the heck out of trying to plot them out by hand as I had done previously. The files are Ping_Ring_00_11.kml thru Ping_Ring_22_40.kml.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ezs6imv367w8xqb/UYnnuySV1O

Quoting aerodog (Reply 237): If I could immodestly add my name to the list: In Reply 91 to the 15th AF447 thread I noted the following which was largely ignored: "Some new pictures of the recovered vertical stabilizer. The last photo is especially interesting. Note the skin panels just below the wide blue stripe. Both the left and right side panels appear to have failed in the same manner which suggests to me, no side loads.

Yes, that was insightful.
And I remember that it was later used , on the forum to confirm a theory that the plane went down on a symmetric flight with a very high impact deceleration... Look further the work done on the galleys and their contents, for instance.
Everything was pointing towards a tail first impact with a lot of vertical velocity..
... so much that I even proposed a possible attempt at recovery, at the bottom of the resource..

[Edited 2014-04-22 13:24:50]

Quoting Pihero (Reply 246): Rounding up the coordinates, I have the distances between these *positions* and can compute the respective ground speeds : 18:30 : N 06° E 094° Distance : 525 Nm / Speed : 450 kt (1hr 10 min of flight ) 19:40 : S 02°30 E 093° Distance : 575 Nm / Speed : 575 kt 20:40 : S 12 E 092° Distance 395 Nm / Speed : 395 kt 21.40 : S 18°30 E 091° Distance :455 Nm / Speed : 455 kt 22:40 : S 20° E 090° Distance : 660 Nm / Speed : 435 kt (1hr 31 min of flight ) 00:11 : S 37° E 090° Does those results look to you as a serious attempt at determining the airplane trajectory ?

Nice try buddy! You "round up" coordinates to the nearest degree, and then wonder why the speeds are all different!!!  

And yes, "azimuth" is the correct term to refer to the horizontal component of the direction to a satellite. Glad to be of service with your continuing education! And I am also happy to know that you think my "moronic" diagrams are pretty! lol!

Cheers,
Warren