Quoting Finn350 (Reply 43): Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 38): I believe they've got their IGARI plotted in the wrong spot In the investigation team map they are plotting the plane's track, not waypoints.

Um, yesterday, I recall you saying that AEC recording that you provided a visual copy of was an undisputable fact (your emphasis). Now you are saying it's false?

Okaaaaaayyyyyy..... Thanks for the help....

Quote: Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 38): I can think of only one good reason: that for some reason they believe that a B777-200ER (ER stands for extended range) at cruising speeds cannot last for 7.5 hours on 49,100 kg of jet fuel. In fact, the graphs imply that the slower you go, the easier it is to make it, and that the probability of making it for 7.5 hours decreases (linearly?) as you increase speed. It is the other way around.

OK, wait a sec. If I understand you, you're saying that cruising speed is the most fuel efficient speed. However, if the analysis of the initial phase that we together put together is correct, then she must have been at cruising speed from before IGARI all the way out the Strait. Riiigghht???

Quote: Initially they thought the final part of the flight had a ground speed of 400...450 knots and the search was far south (compared to the current search area). They later determined that the first part of the flight (1721 Z - 1827 Z) was flown faster than initially thought (based on the radar detections on the speed and altitude) and consumed more fuel. The plane wouldn't have had the endurance to reach that far south with the remaining fuel available. Thus it must have flown further northeast on the arc (to the current search area) and it follows that its ground speed must have been lower (because the distance flown is shorter). Now we know that the predicted average ground speed of the final part of the flight is only 323..350 knots.

Um yeah, I guess you are right that we know what they predicted. The question is whether they are right or way out in left field. I thought the reason they thought so much fuel was burned in the initial phase was because the aircraft was performing all sorts of hijinks, like a "fighter", running up to 45,000 feet, then diving to ground, dodging radar by hiding behind mountains--that sort of stuff. But if the track is what we think it is--and you helped construct it, buddy--then all those acrobatics could not have happened. There simply wasn't enough time. Therefore, evidently, there was enough fuel to fly 7.5 hours at cruising speed. Correct me if I'm wrong.... Please.

Quote: Edit: And average ground speed does not mean constant ground speed (and in practice it cannot be due to the winds etc.)-

Please don't get Pihero started again!  

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 45): And how does that help us find the airliner? That's what we need to be focusing on.

Why do you think it's not in the general area where the underwater search is going on? Or if you do think it's in that general area, why do you think that elaborate calculations off the meager data we have are going to ever give us a lat and long?

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 50): Um, yesterday, I recall you saying that AEC recording that you provided a visual copy of was an undisputable fact (your emphasis). Now you are saying it's false?

The ADS-B recording is definitive regarding the plane's initial track (1641 Z - 1722 Z). If the investigation team map doesn't match that track, they have simplified the very first part of the flight as a straight line from Kuala Lumpur to the last secondary (civil) radar detection at 1722 Z.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 50): OK, wait a sec. If I understand you, you're saying that cruising speed is the most fuel efficient speed. However, if the analysis of the initial phase that we together put together is correct, then she must have been at cruising speed from before IGARI all the way out the Strait. Riiigghht???

Yes, cruising speed is the speed offering the most endurance AFAIK.

The investigation team track for the MH370 for the timeframe 1722 Z - 1822 Z is approximately IGARI - PENANG - VAMPI - MEKAR. That is approximately (53 + 36 + 134) + 154 + 68 = 445 nm, giving an average ground speed of 445 kn for that segment.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 50): thought the reason they thought so much fuel was burned in the initial phase was because the aircraft was performing all sorts of hijinks, like a "fighter", running up to 45,000 feet, then diving to ground, dodging radar by hiding behind mountains--that sort of stuff.

I still believe that CNN was correct in reporting that the plane climbed for 20 minutes to 39,000 feet over the Malaysian Peninsula and later descended below 10,000 feet over the Strait of Malacca. Now that we have a track used by the investigation team this scenario can be either ruled in as consistent with the track or ruled out as inconsistent. I don't have enough expertise to rule the altitude changes in or out.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 50): Therefore, evidently, there was enough fuel to fly 7.5 hours at cruising speed

Beyond any reasonable doubt the plane flew for 7.5 hours (1641 Z - 0019 Z). Regarding the speed used, the investigation team has concluded that the last part of the flight (1827 Z - 0019 Z) was flown at an average ground speed of 323...350 knots. The plane could have flown a higher true airspeed if it didn't fly directly, but the fuel consumption probably severely restricts non-direct tracks (the fuel consumption calculations are probably too complicated for any of us here, but I am sure that the investigation team has been thorough in their analysis).

[Edited 2014-05-01 13:05:03]

Quoting hivue (Reply 51): Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 45): And how does that help us find the airliner? That's what we need to be focusing on. Why do you think it's not in the general area where the underwater search is going on?

There is the fact that the underwater pings were the wrong frequency and ping rate.

Then there is the fact that when they really thought they had it pinned down, extensive searching has found zilch.

But mainly, those 300-something knot tracks are fracking weird. They are not normal. In fact they are consistent with Pihero's weird fire theory, of a B777 thrown randomly like a paper airplane, depending on the mercies of the winds, magnetic declenations (and Mr. Coriolis).

(And keep in mind that the complex mix mechanical theory is just as much a psychological theory as the malicious intent theory: it is unlikely on the face of it, and the only reason to believe it is because you think that pilots are angels that never do anything bad.)

So we have a couple of contradictions going on. First we have the "Malaysian Authorities" telling us their working hypothesis is that the flight officer or someone took over and stole the aircraft. Yet, they are feeding us tracks that look like, well, like [s]zom[/s], er, like pilotless aircraft flying on autopilot in HDG or TRK mode.

Second, we have an initial phase where the aircraft is by all appearances flying normally--except for the fact that it was just stolen. Then we have a majorly non-normal phase, where the aircraft is flying aimlessly, not following waypoints, at abnormally slow speeds. It just doesn't make sense.

And why the drastic change right when it drops off the radar screen? Just a coincidence I guess....

On the other hand, if she continued to behave normally, she would be in RNAV mode, and would be flying waypoints. And she'd be at cruising speed. And she wouldn't be aiming for frackin' Australia of all places!

Yes, there are a couple of hundred waypoints in the Indian Ocean--believe me I know, because I have done the hard work of entering those by hand into Google Earth. There are thousands possibilities of combinations.

But still, think for a moment, about what a wonderful constraint that is.... But compare all the multi-colored "fans" that have been produced spraying off in all directions leading to all points on the globe.

The thing is, you throw in the ping rings, and you assume cruising speed, 99.99% of all those thousands of combinations of waypoints go out the window. In fact, as far as I have been able to tell, there is only one RNAV mode path that is (a) at a normal cruising speed; and (b) consistent with the ping rings. And it ends up at about -39, 87...

I think half the reason nobody has considered this is because of the technology we have readily available. On the one hand we have SkyVector, a wonderful, free program that is great for plotting waypoint paths. On the other hand, we have Google Earth, which is great for drawing ping ring diagrams, plotting tracks--but there's no easy way to enter in hundreds of waypoints as far as I know. However, tonight, I will try to figure out how to make a kml file that has all the waypoints I've entered, so you guys will be able to load them in a matter of seconds.

Two questions :

- Do we have a credible fuel on board at KL ? from whom or where ?

- Do we have a credible map with grid on the search area ? the coordinates are important.

I'll be obliged.

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 52): Beyond any reasonable doubt the plane flew for 7.5 hours (1641 Z - 0019 Z).

It could have done so at long range Mach.... depending on weight, of course.

Could also be an armchair 777 pilot...

A third party who "sort of" knows how to fly a 777...

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 52): Yes, cruising speed is the speed offering the most endurance AFAIK.

Actually, if we are measuring endurance as time aloft, I think the fuel burn numbers 7Boeing7 posted last night suggest that endurance is maximized by flying well below cruise speed (necessitating flying well below cruise altitude). This is the data he found:

LRC (Long Range Cruise) at FL350, weight 240,000 kg you burn about 3,645 kg/eng

Holding speed at 10,000 ft, weight 240,000 kg you burn about 3,295 kg/eng

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 53): First we have the "Malaysian Authorities" telling us their working hypothesis is that the flight officer or someone took over and stole the aircraft.

Do you have a source - I don't recall them ever saying that?

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 53): There is the fact that the underwater pings were the wrong frequency and ping rate.

I recall the contrary. Do you have a source?

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 52): Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 50): Um, yesterday, I recall you saying that AEC recording that you provided a visual copy of was an undisputable fact (your emphasis). Now you are saying it's false? The ADS-B recording is definitive regarding the plane's initial track (1641 Z - 1722 Z). If the investigation team map doesn't match that track, they have simplified the very first part of the flight as a straight line from Kuala Lumpur to the last secondary (civil) radar detection at 1722 Z.

Exactly! What you just said is a polite way of saying that they plotted it in the wrong place. Therefore, any velocities derived from that plot cannot be trusted.

Quote: Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 50): OK, wait a sec. If I understand you, you're saying that cruising speed is the most fuel efficient speed. However, if the analysis of the initial phase that we together put together is correct, then she must have been at cruising speed from before IGARI all the way out the Strait. Riiigghht??? Yes, cruising speed is the speed offering the most endurance AFAIK. The investigation team track for the MH370 for the timeframe 1722 Z - 1822 Z is approximately IGARI - PENANG - VAMPI - MEKAR. That is approximately (53 + 36 + 134) + 154 + 68 = 445 nm, giving an average ground speed of 445 kn for that segment.

My friend, you are simply flat out wrong. Get back to me when you have entered it into Google Earth yourself. Here are my figures again from the non-simplified graphic, that includes a nice loop around IGARI after Pihero's suggestion that has a turn rate of roughly 1 degree per second.

IGARI - Pulau Perak
Distance: 332 nm
Time: 40:13
Velocity: 490.6 kts

Pulau Perak - 18:29 position
Distance: 204 nm
Time: 25:11
Velocity: 489.6 nm

That is cruising speed my friend....

Quote: Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 50): thought the reason they thought so much fuel was burned in the initial phase was because the aircraft was performing all sorts of hijinks, like a "fighter", running up to 45,000 feet, then diving to ground, dodging radar by hiding behind mountains--that sort of stuff. I still believe that CNN was correct in reporting that the plane climbed for 20 minutes to 39,000 feet over the Malaysian Peninsula and later descended below 10,000 feet over the Strait of Malacca. Now that we have a track used by the investigation team this scenario can be either ruled in as consistent with the track or ruled out as inconsistent. I don't have enough expertise to rule the altitude changes in or out.

Well, from what you're telling me, flying at 10,000 feet at 490 knots is impossible. Therefore, she could not have dived to 10,000 feet. There simply wasn't enough time.

Quote: Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 50): Therefore, evidently, there was enough fuel to fly 7.5 hours at cruising speed Beyond any reasonable doubt the plane flew for 7.5 hours (1641 Z - 0019 Z). Regarding the speed used, the investigation team has concluded that the last part of the flight (1827 Z - 0019 Z) was flown at an average ground speed of 323...350 knots.

Yep. That's right. And I'm saying their 323, 324, 326, 327 ... 348, 349, 350 knots is caca del toro. Sorry if that offends anybody...

We've already seen that they are capable of making several small mistakes, like saying the radar track went through R295/200nm, and plotting the turn around IGARI in the wrong place. Thus, is it possible that they are capable of making a big, perhaps VERY BIG mistake?

Quoting Pihero: - Do we have a credible fuel on board at KL ? from whom or where ?

There is the report I've mentioned twice today of 49,100 kg after takeoff.

It comes from Weibo, but it is from the Malaysia Airlines MH370 Families Committee blog, and it purports to be a report of the April 30th, Beijing meeting.

Here is the link for the 3rd time:

http://translate.google.com/translat..._12ece77a00101ep54.html&edit-text=

As for search area coordinates, take your pick man! There are a million possibilities!

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 56): Actually, if we are measuring endurance as time aloft, I think the fuel burn numbers 7Boeing7 posted last night suggest that endurance is maximized by flying well below cruise speed (necessitating flying well below cruise altitude). This is the data he found: LRC (Long Range Cruise) at FL350, weight 240,000 kg you burn about 3,645 kg/eng Holding speed at 10,000 ft, weight 240,000 kg you burn about 3,295 kg/eng

Those 10,000 ft numbers relate to a longer endurance but you're not going anywhere. Ground speed at LRC at FL350 is considerably faster therefore further.

Quoting Karahai: Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 53): First we have the "Malaysian Authorities" telling us their working hypothesis is that the flight officer or someone took over and stole the aircraft. Do you have a source - I don't recall them ever saying that? Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 53): There is the fact that the underwater pings were the wrong frequency and ping rate. I recall the contrary. Do you have a source?

We've been over this a million times. It's in the past threads somewhere.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 44): Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 42): As for assuming a constant ground speed, you gotta start somewhere. Sure, it would be nice to incorporate some wind data, but I haven't seen any. Pihero has provided it to you - twice.

...but honestly it doesn't matter one iota. The only thing that is relevant in any way, shape, or form is the points at which they crossed the ping arcs. How they got between consecutive points may be interesting, but does not impact any outcomes, beyond fuel endurance.

In practical terms, the only thing that the intermediate path between the loss of radar contact and the accident site sheds any light on is the potential for motive.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 53): There is the fact that the underwater pings were the wrong frequency and ping rate.

No, the period was pretty much perfectly within spec. The frequency was out of spec quite a bit, a fact that I brought up, but apparently it's not unheard of. The failed AF447 ULB they brought up was out of spec when they minimally repaired it and powered it up. Only a full repair got the frequency to spec.

I posted a link to the formal report about their work on that ULB previously in the thread, feel free to look it up.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 53): keep in mind that the complex mix mechanical theory is just as much a psychological theory as the malicious intent theory: it is unlikely on the face of it

It is unlikely on its own, but subject to a 777 having disappeared it is no longer quite so unlikely.
Just like winning the lottery is unlikely on its own, but subject to having matched the first five of six numbers it is no longer quite so unlikely.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 53): as far as I have been able to tell, there is only one RNAV mode path that is (a) at a normal cruising speed; and (b) consistent with the ping rings. And it ends up at about -39, 87...

You are making two assumptions: RNAV flight and "normal" cruising speed. If you relax those two assumptions, as the report should lead you towards, then it could end up in a number of places not anywhere near -39, 87.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 58): I'm saying their 323, 324, 326, 327 ... 348, 349, 350 knots is caca del toro.

Feel free, but I don't think anybody will join you-- they know a lot more than you know.

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 56): Actually, if we are measuring endurance as time aloft, I think the fuel burn numbers 7Boeing7 posted last night suggest that endurance is maximized by flying well below cruise speed (necessitating flying well below cruise altitude).

Yes, you are correct how to define endurance. When I wrote 'endurance', I should have written 'range'.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 58): Well, from what you're telling me, flying at 10,000 feet at 490 knots is impossible.

Yes, if we assume a constant ground speed. However, there is no data to require to have a constant ground speed. We are talking only about average ground speed, and the question is it consistent with the data if the ground speed was as low as required in the low-altitude flight and higher than average in the high-altitude flight?

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 59): Thus, is it possible that they are capable of making a big, perhaps VERY BIG mistake?

Well, it would be a $50 million mistake (and counting). I am quite sure the investigation team analysis has been reviewed extensively and triple-checked.

Quoting JHwk (Reply 62): Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 44): Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 42): As for assuming a constant ground speed, you gotta start somewhere. Sure, it would be nice to incorporate some wind data, but I haven't seen any. Pihero has provided it to you - twice. ...but honestly it doesn't matter one iota. The only thing that is relevant in any way, shape, or form is the points at which they crossed the ping arcs. How they got between consecutive points may be interesting, but does not impact any outcomes, beyond fuel endurance. In practical terms, the only thing that the intermediate path between the loss of radar contact and the accident site sheds any light on is the potential for motive.]

That's a good point. If it were following a waypoint path, the head and tail winds won't affect the longitude where it pops out the final ping ring.

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 63): Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 53): There is the fact that the underwater pings were the wrong frequency and ping rate. No, the period was pretty much perfectly within spec. The frequency was out of spec quite a bit, a fact that I brought up, but apparently it's not unheard of. The failed AF447 ULB they brought up was out of spec when they minimally repaired it and powered it up. Only a full repair got the frequency to spec. I posted a link to the formal report about their work on that ULB previously in the thread, feel free to look it up.

The ping rate was off slightly, but not enough to be significantly different, I'll grant you. The frequency was ~33kHz, when it should have been 37.5 kHz. The thing is 33kHz is a common frequency used by echolocators for ships' depth finders, bathymetric surveys, even fish finders. And at those depths, you're supposed to use about a ~1 per second ping rate. So, the pings they heard very easily could have been from another manmade source.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 61): Quoting Karahai: Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 53): First we have the "Malaysian Authorities" telling us their working hypothesis is that the flight officer or someone took over and stole the aircraft. Do you have a source - I don't recall them ever saying that? ... We've been over this a million times. It's in the past threads somewhere.

Are you referring to the press conference where they said something to the effect that they believed there was evidence of deliberate actions but that they were also considering other possibilities? I don't recall them ever saying it was their "working hypothesis" or even implying it.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 58): And I'm saying their 323, 324, 326, 327 ... 348, 349, 350 knots is caca del toro.

Well, they would seem not to be the behavior of a "rational agent" at any rate.  

There's just way too much weirdness in virtually all the data to be trying to locate the plane by calculation.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 64): Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 53):keep in mind that the complex mix mechanical theory is just as much a psychological theory as the malicious intent theory: it is unlikely on the face of it It is unlikely on its own, but subject to a 777 having disappeared it is no longer quite so unlikely. Just like winning the lottery is unlikely on its own, but subject to having matched the first five of six numbers it is no longer quite so unlikely.

You've got it backwards: the initial phase of the flight shows purposeful behavior. In other words, the first 5 numbers do not match. I would think that the working hypothesis should be the most likely hypothesis. Our feelings about the matter should have nothing to do with it.

Quote: Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 53):as far as I have been able to tell, there is only one RNAV mode path that is (a) at a normal cruising speed; and (b) consistent with the ping rings. And it ends up at about -39, 87... [quote]You are making two assumptions: RNAV flight and "normal" cruising speed. If you relax those two assumptions, as the report should lead you towards, then it could end up in a number of places not anywhere near -39, 87.

Give me one solid reason--not a bunch of what ifs, but a solid reason--why those assumptions should be relaxed. It was in RNAV mode in the initial phase, and it was flying at cruising speeds. Those are facts. Therefore, why wouldn't she keep doing the same thing? Give me one reason.

Quote: Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 58): I'm saying their 323, 324, 326, 327 ... 348, 349, 350 knots is caca del toro. Feel free, but I don't think anybody will join you-- they know a lot more than you know.

They do not know a lot more than I know. I've been in this up to my eyeballs for weeks now. They've just coughed up everything they have. The only ace up their sleeve that they could have left is Australian JORN radar. Is that what you are suggesting?

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 63): No, the period was pretty much perfectly within spec. The frequency was out of spec quite a bit, a fact that I brought up, but apparently it's not unheard of. The failed AF447 ULB they brought up was out of spec when they minimally repaired it and powered it up. Only a full repair got the frequency to spec.

33.5Khz is well within valid range of several other underwater beacons including Tuna/Shark tags work at 34Khz +/- 1Khz. Most experienced deep-sea experts always questioned the validity of those pings, particularly when they were 17 miles apart.

For some reason official SAR team never even acknowledged these possibilities.

You have to love the media.... look at this Pearl :

"Audio recordings of the final conversations between pilots of the missing Malaysian jet and teams of air traffic controllers on the ground were "edited" before they were made public, voice experts say.
The tapes also appear to be recorded by at least two different audio sources"


http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/mis...ay-have-been-edited-experts-n94941

So, this "voice experts", *discovered* that the audio released with communications between MH370 and IFR clearance, KL ground, KL Tower, Lumpur Departure and KL-ATC, were "edited".
How on Earth they expect you can build an audio transcript between ONE aircraft and FIVE different center / frequencies without editing??? ( Unless you have the CVR.... but oh wait... !! )


G.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 53): There is the fact that the underwater pings were the wrong frequency and ping rate.

That's certainly not what I read from the Australian authorities.

It is obvious that you're blinded by your initial, prejudiced assumption : Nothing can be explained if there wasn't a criminal intent by the pilot ( whoever he was ).
In a recent previous post, you acknowledged your basic ignorance on aviation, procedures ( and I add : navigation, too )
That simple thought, which is respectable, should have told you that there are probably some theses which would involve technical items that you don't know anything about.

Some members have had a conversation about autopilot characteristics which could help, but instead you chose to ignore it, calling these details : "... Pihero's weird fire theory, of a B777 thrown randomly like a paper airplane, depending on the mercies of the winds, magnetic declenations "

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 53): why the drastic change right when it drops off the radar screen? Just a coincidence I guess....

Just suppose that both could be the result of one only cause ?... One cause that's not criminal, for instance.
One of these causes being a pilot acfton, not necessarily with a criminal intent...

Re-read the prelim report : it can't be more precise and careful in its wording. Without putting a blame on anyone, it says that there are very few facts that are considering :
- The time of takeoff
- The different clearances the flight followed
- The loss of Xponder
- The loss of VHFcontact
- An *air-turn* back to a westerly heading. ( Note: not *easterly,* *southerly* or *south-westerly*
- A crossing of Peninsular Malaysia
- The pings
- Some are associated with a time stamp.
Note that all the radar data are all dismissed except the air-turn event with just a *possibility* that the target could be Flight 370.
That's all the international team of accident investigators were agreed to consider.
It is, very diplomatically, a slap in the face of all those who've intervened publicly since day one... military officers and Defence minister included.

As for the map... quite a few have pointed at some serious inconsistencies
(You could check the validity of the LOPs at H + 41, though ; they could be the *real* original loci... )

What you require is not computers and marvellous kml files : it's a hard, serious look at the data at your disposal and start a thorough session of lateral thinking.

Not forgetting the KISS principle, obviously...

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 69): It was in RNAV mode in the initial phase, and it was flying at cruising speeds. Those are facts. Therefore, why wouldn't she keep doing the same thing? Give me one reason.

If she kept doing the same thing, she would have remained at assigned cruise altitude and following the FMS flight plan route. As a matter of fact that did not happen - no dispute there. Something turned the plane, but your assumption that the only way this could/ would be done is via entering a new set of waypoints is not a fact. Sorry.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 53): On the other hand, if she continued to behave normally, she would be in RNAV mode, and would be flying waypoints. And she'd be at cruising speed. And she wouldn't be aiming for frackin' Australia of all places!

Are you sure that the possible fly paths shown in the maps released today cannot be done via waypoints?
I appreciate the hard work you have put into the plots and calculations.
As to why fly a lower speed and a shorter distance that took it west closer to Australia (though still pretty far!) rather than deeper into the Indian Ocean? I would not rule out a search for daylight, a good condition to have if aiming for a successful ditching.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 69): It was in RNAV mode in the initial phase, and it was flying at cruising speeds. Those are facts. Therefore, why wouldn't she keep doing the same thing? Give me one reason.

But it didn't keep doing "the same thing;" i.e., fly to PEK. And the reason for that is the ultimate reason for everything else. And the reason for that also is currently a total mystery.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 39): c) obtain witness information and suggest areas of questioning; d) have full access to all relevant evidence as soon as possible; e) receive copies of all pertinent documents;

Thank you for the above clarifications.
Associated safety boards can clearly play a significant role, starting by collecting all pertinent data to build an independent assessment of the situation.
But do they? Does anybody know what role they have been playing?

After reading the preliminary report and witnessing the evolution of the thread today, I am not hopeful as to predictions of where the black boxes might be,

IMHO, the best ROI may come from digging deeper into roughly the first hour after the a/c went AWOL.
The radar data exists, given that a sample plot was shown in Beijing. All the radar data must be flushed out before it is somehow misplaced or lost forever. If the Malaysian do not want to release it to the public at large, we should insist that one or more of the Associated safety boards request it in full per d) and e) above in order that it be preserved and available for any future independent analysis.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 69): It was in RNAV mode in the initial phase, and it was flying at cruising speeds. Those are facts. Therefore, why wouldn't she keep doing the same thing?

How do you know it was in RNAV mode? How do you know the IGARI turn was accomplished in RNAV mode and not in HDG mode, or manually? Have you found the FDR and hidden it from the rest of the world? If you haven't, they're NOT "facts".

[Edited 2014-05-01 14:52:15]

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 76): If the Malaysian do not want to release it to the public at large, we should insist that one or more of the Associated safety boards request it in full per d) and e) above in order that it be preserved and available for any future independent analysis.

That would seem a smart thing to do - I agree!

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 59): As for search area coordinates, take your pick man! There are a million possibilities!

I don't build my own demos to suit my theories. I deal with facts.
Btw, I asked for a *credible* source.

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 70): 33.5Khz is well within valid range of several other underwater beacons including Tuna/Shark tags work at 34Khz +/- 1Khz. Most experienced deep-sea experts always questioned the validity of those pings, particularly when they were 17 miles apart.

Weren't they 600km apart at one time? Ocean Shield vs. the Chinese ship with the broomstick microphone.

As soon as that information came in, I said wait just a second, 33KHz is WAY out of spec. You can look back in the threads, I said that. I also said it's impossible that they were heard 600km apart, which thankfully actual scientists have backed me up on. But it's not unheard of.... for ULBs to be out of spec.

Quoting David L (Reply 67): Are you referring to the press conference where they said something to the effect that they believed there was evidence of deliberate actions but that they were also considering other possibilities? I don't recall them ever saying it was their "working hypothesis" or even implying it.

I believe they simply said that the transponder may have been intentionally disabled. And they certainly never said anything remotely resembling:

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 53): First we have the "Malaysian Authorities" telling us their working hypothesis is that the flight officer or someone took over and stole the aircraft.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 54): Do we have a credible map with grid on the search area ? the coordinates are important

No. The best I can find is at https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ at -20.9531, 103.7508 regarding the towed pinger detector underwater search area.

[Edited 2014-05-01 15:10:12]

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 65): Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 58): Well, from what you're telling me, flying at 10,000 feet at 490 knots is impossible. Yes, if we assume a constant ground speed. However, there is no data to require to have a constant ground speed. We are talking only about average ground speed, and the question is it consistent with the data if the ground speed was as low as required in the low-altitude flight and higher than average in the high-altitude flight?

Let's crunch some numbers. The problem is that maximum warp for a B777 (512 knots) is not far from the cruising speed of 490 knots. Therefore, if the a/c slows down significantly, even for a short time, it takes a long time at maximum warp to make that up. And we don't have a lot of time.

Consider the 2nd leg from IGARI to Pulau Perak: we've got to complete 332 nm in about 40.6 minutes. Let's say I dive down to 10,000 feet and slow down to 300 knots. That's 5 nm/min. Meanwhile, at 512 knots, that's 8.533 nm/min, and at 490.6 knots, that's 8.177 nm/min.

4 min @ 5 nm/min = 20 nm
37 min @ 8.533 nm/min = 335.7 nm
Total distance = 335.7 nm

41 min @ 8.18 nm/min = 335.24 nm

So, you see you'd only have about 4 minutes to perform such a maneuver and stay on schedule. Is that plausible?

And what's the point? Avoiding radar? But to stay on schedule, the vast majority of the flight would have to be done at high altitude anyway, defeating the purpose. Sorry, it just doesn't make sense.

The other thing to consider is that the average velocity of both the 2nd and 3rd legs were practically the same: ~490 kts. And it is plausible on the face of it because that is a typical cruising speed. Thus, the question is if speeds are randomly varying, then what are the odds that the average will just so happen to not only be the typical B777 cruise speed, but also match each other. Vanishingly small I'll wager.

Sorry. I just do not buy the jinking like a fighter plane hypothesis. To change my mind, you would have to provide independent, reliable confirmation from an independent source of evidence. CNN said such 'n' such early in the investigation isn't good enough. I see no mention of such acrobatics in the materials released today. In fact, IRRC, such aerial acrobatics have been debunked in earlier threads here. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Quoting Karahai: Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 69): It was in RNAV mode in the initial phase, and it was flying at cruising speeds. Those are facts. Therefore, why wouldn't she keep doing the same thing? How do you know it was in RNAV mode? How do you know the IGARI turn was accomplished in RNAV mode and not in HDG mode, or manually? Have you found the FDR and hidden it from the rest of the world? If you haven't, they're NOT "facts".

Just for once in your life just look at the track man! IT FOLLOWS WAYPOINTS! You cannot deny that. Sure, the guy could have been in HDG mode--maybe he had his laptop pulled up and was looking up the proper headings on SkyVector and entered them into the FMC at each little turn to make the next waypoint, or maybe he was flying manually, and keeping one eye on the GPS and the other on the compass to keep on those waypoints.

But why would he do that? Because that would be STUPID! I think I read somewhere an average B777 pilot actually flies the a/c manually like 45 seconds in a flight. And I think Zeke said that RNAV is pretty much what everybody uses these days as a matter of course.

Indeed under the weird fire hypothesis, the standard version is that the a/c was in RNAV mode, and then passed some last waypoint, and then continued on in HDG mode. But look at the track again. What is the last waypoint? It is NILAM. But is it pointed south at that point? Nope. (Hey Pihero: How's that northern route looking??    )

And yet you seriously suggest that in the initial phase of this odyssey that the a/c was probably being flown manually or in HGD mode?

Dude? Really?

Negative. That 9M-MRO was flying in RNAV mode during the initial phase of that voyage should not be in dispute at this point. This discussion is a waste of keystrokes. Such "what if this", "it is logically possible that that" comments, these are the sort of debating points I expect from philosophy undergraduates. I have had my fill of logical possibilities. I am sick of them. Gimme me some probabilities!

Quoting Pihero: Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 59): As for search area coordinates, take your pick man! There are a million possibilities! I don't build my own demos to suit my theories. I deal with facts. Btw, I asked for a *credible* source.

Whatever! You said you would be "obliged" to anyone who could provide the fuel load. I gave it to you: 49,100 kg!

Still waiting for that pat on the back old man!   

Does WarrenPlatts ever sleep..??

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 86): Does WarrenPlatts ever sleep..??

He doesn't sleep. He waits.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 66): The ping rate was off slightly, but not enough to be significantly different, I'll grant you. The frequency was ~33kHz, when it should have been 37.5 kHz. The thing is 33kHz is a common frequency used by echolocators for ships' depth finders, bathymetric surveys, even fish finders. And at those depths, you're supposed to use about a ~1 per second ping rate. So, the pings they heard very easily could have been from another manmade source.

Yep by "period" I meant what you are calling "ping rate". It's difficult to talk about this stuff because "frequency" can mean two things. The acoustic frequency (i.e. the sound wave) and the temporal frequency (i.e. how often it pings).

As I said, the latter was pretty much dead on. The acoustic frequency was wildly out of spec, but apparently this is not unheard of, because as I said in AF447 when they powered up the ULB they recovered after minimally repairing it, it was out of spec.

http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol....447/cvr.ulb.examination.report.pdf

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 84): And yet you seriously suggest that in the initial phase of this odyssey that the a/c was probably being flown manually or in HGD mode? Dude? Really?

No, I didn't. I just suggested that what you assert as a "fact" is no more than an assumption. You have NO evidence to support it, other than your assumption. You're not a 777 pilot, and you've amply demonstrated your ignorance of 777 systems.

All you've demonstrated so far is your personal fixation on waypoints. There are lots of other ways to fly a plane - particularly if it happens to be in distress.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 84): And yet you seriously suggest that in the initial phase of this odyssey that the a/c was probably being flown manually or in HGD mode?

I don't think anyone is suggesting that in the intial phase it was being flown manually or in HDG mode - we do not know that for a fact but it is a relatively safe (and benign) assumption to make.

Then something (insert theory here) out of the ordinary happens.

You then insist that because the a/c likely approached IGARI under autopilot in RNAV mode that it must have left IGARI under autopilot in RNAV mode. This is an assumption. Importantly, it's no longer a benign assumption, which is probably why you're being called out on it.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 42):

The arcs are determined by the frequency shift (I.e. Doppler).

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 84):

Nothing is shown it followed waypoints, this is something you have fitted up to meet your preconceived expectation.

Quoting fotoflyer71 (Reply 90):

HDG mode would be what is initally selected, normally they would select a lower altitude, change the heading, and select the current speed.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 83): The problem is that maximum warp for a B777 (512 knots)

+1 for the gratuitous Star Trek reference

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 87): Quoting YoungMans (Reply 86): Does WarrenPlatts ever sleep..?? He doesn't sleep. He waits.

Does that make WarrenPlatts Chuck Norris?

Quoting fotoflyer71 (Reply 90): Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 84):And yet you seriously suggest that in the initial phase of this odyssey that the a/c was probably being flown manually or in HGD mode? I don't think anyone is suggesting that in the intial phase it was being flown manually or in HDG mode - we do not know that for a fact but it is a relatively safe (and benign) assumption to make.

Huh? Really? Honestly, WHY DO YOU SAY THAT? Give me a REASON. Just 1.

Dude, she followed a waypoint path. Admit it. Get over it: a geologist figured it out first.

If she was in HDG mode, why was she obviously following a waypoint path?

Classic example of undergraduate philosophizing. I no longer have time for this. I have an airplane to find and I cannot respond to all the swamping.

There is one more thing to do: compare the latest "ping rings" to the ones that have already been released. The Figure 2 from the Weibo briefing report only reduced the average error of my model.

I am about to leave you all behind. There is little else you all can contribute IMHO. I'm sick of the council of despair. Progress can be made, and it has been made. But the sniping for the sake of--I don't even know what--it's a waste of my precious time.

I will see you tomorrow....

Here is a question out of left field a little as I have not flown for over 20 years.

But when programming a flight/or changing would you flick through a list till you hit PEK, then select?

Reason for the question, if said system was damaged then partially came back on line, could whoever was in the flightdeck have to resubmit PEK, if it is possible, could they have made a mistake and selected the next airport below PEK in their 'choice' of destination?

ie PER was selected, which is the general direction the plane was heading.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 93): Admit it. Get over it: a geologist figured it out first.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 93): Classic example of undergraduate philosophizing. I no longer have time for this. I have an airplane to find

Oh my god you're serious. I am always so amazed by humanity's infinite diversity... how someone like you can actually exist...

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 93): I am about to leave you all behind.

Adios!

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 93):

I have a better question for you what is the SOP change of course/level without an ATC clearance ?

Do you go reverse direction on an airway changing level without a clearance ?

What else is on an airway ?

More bullying to try and force people to accept your theory.

Quoting imagoagnitio (Reply 94):

A couple of different ways, but not a scroll through list.

Quoting zeke (Reply 97):

cheers Z

Quoting zeke (Reply 96): Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 93): I have a better question for you what is the SOP change of course/level without an ATC clearance ? Do you go reverse direction on an airway changing level without a clearance ? What else is on an airway ? More bullying to try and force people to accept your theory.

Clearances?

Really?

Dude, he just stole a jumbo jet. He is Honey Badger at this point. He doesn't give a shit about anything, and is willing to eat cobras. He don't need no stinking clearances....