I used my phone (Sony Xperia - various versions) often enough to use Alpine Quest app to track the flight path on planes with no IFE.

Quoting sipadan (Reply 340): So, given the above, and the Inmarsat handshake protocol (every hour, if not heard from) wouldn't one have expected an ACARS transmission to have occurred at 2:07 thereabouts, not the 2:22 when we had our first handshake? The 'handshakes' are ONLY if not 'heard from', and as I understand this, the 1:07:49 transmission would constitute an 'okay, i hear you' transmission even though it was of a different nature. Yet the next transmission was the ground station 'log on/log off' message at 2:22:00, an 1 hour 14min separation. Sure this has been covered and is obvious, but am wondering? Why not a 2:07-2:08 handshake?

You ask valid questions but we have to allow for some slack in the timing of the over-the-air transmissions. Let me propose some educated guesses:

- the over-the-air protocol uses different priority queues. The GES transmits via the P channel messages queued for a number of a/c's, in decreasing order of priority. Logon/logoff acks must be at the lowest priority because they only exist to optimize resources are not time critical.

- for an RTD measurement and/or BFO measurement to occur, the return burst from the AES must reach the GES and be decipherable. But that is not guaranteed. The AES may not receive/decode the packet over the P-channel. Even if it receives and decodes it properly, its response packet will be a burst that begins and end within the time boundaries of an Aloha time slot of the random R-channel. In that time slot, it may collide with a burst sent by another a/c (may be even more than one) with a probability that increases with the load factor of the R-channel. So the GES is waiting for a response but that response does not arrive. When the timeout (n sec?) expires, the logon/logoff ack request must be re-queued at the lowest priority level waiting again for transmission over the P-channel to the AES and so forth. This retry process may be repeated half a dozen times at which point the GES will declare the AES logged off and release its resources.

That "may"explain why the 2:22 event was recorded when it was.

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 297): This is not true. If I buy a brand new AP, straight out of the box, take it on a ship in the middle of the Indian Ocean and plug it in, and assuming I had internet access via satellite, still no one would know where the hell that thing is. But once I get a GPS fix it would get added to the database of whatever mapping app I was using, if they do crowdsourcing. Of course then the ship would move, and the database would be outdated immediately.

On one hand you argue you are hot shot developer, on the other hand you are not able to understand a "concept".

In a land based system WiFi positioning service providers like Google, Infsoft, Navizon, AlterGeo, Skyhook Wireless and Combain Mobile have to depend on a GPS enabled device like a smartphone on that WiFi to get router's location information.

Aircraft has its own GPS system. No need for a "third party" to provide location data in this scenario. Unlike a home router, aircraft's location data is constantly changing while in flight.

As a hot shot developer you should be aware of Service Oriented Architecture, just like Google, Infsoft, Navizon, AlterGeo, Skyhook Wireless and Combain Mobile, Aircraft own GPS system can act as Service Provider. There is no need to contact Google to get its "own" location data.

Take a case of MyFlight option (an app) in IFE. It is getting location data from Aircraft.

If you are not aware most advanced seat back IFEs like TopSeries 8000 IFE works on "Wireless Network".

Also most advanced IFE's like Thales TopSeries AVANT, have "connected apps" which use in-flight broadband service.

Combine these technologies to conceptualize.

This about the future WiFi based Bring-Your-Own-Device IFE systems. All options we now have in seat back including MyFlight will be just an app.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 335): The raw data of the satellite data packets (non-billable packets) won't be released under national security clauses and various non-confidentiality clauses between Inmarsat and various "chief client" government customers.

right. Thanks.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 323): too late ....

for what???

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 345): That would mean that the plan to steal 9M-MRO is already under way by that time in the flight. It is only 26 minutes into the flight that we have the second FL350 report. The previous FL350 report was at 20 minutes.

Quoting sipadan (Reply 340): Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 194): 9M-MRO/MH370 was apparently completely normal in all respects right up until the loss of the transponder data stream.

not at all...you said 'completely normal in all respects right up until the loss of the transponder data stream.' I believe (I mean, I know) that the last transmission (the one by the Captain) was before the transponder was turned off (Angus Houston's terminology). I qualified this as something 'not completely normal.' Then, furthermore, is the redundant FL350. All I said was that this could be considered possibly aberrant as well. To be clear, these two 'anomalies' could very well be entirely irrelevant...but in light of the situation, I don't think they should be overlooked.

And, yes, I personally do believe that the 'theft' began in earnest (physically) right before the redundant FL350 transmission...which I believe was also given by captain Shah. So, lets just say that this is actually in fact what happened. Any one got an idea as to why he would have done this? I do...and it wasn't a mistake...but then again, sleuthing of 'this' sort seems to be frowned upon.

[Edited 2014-05-14 05:05:30]

Here is a quote from an opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal by Mr. Najib, the prime minister of Malaysia.

Quote: Instead of heading to Beijing, the plane made a sharp turn across peninsular Malaysia, traveled north up the Straits of Malacca, made a U-turn south over the coast of Sumatra and ended in the southern Indian Ocean, half way to Antarctica. Little wonder that words commonly used to describe MH370 include "bizarre" and "unprecedented." Also unprecedented are the techniques used to search for the plane. In the absence of contact via normal aircraft communications, the international investigation team—which includes the world's best aviation experts—was forced to turn to satellite "handshakes," mathematics and sophisticated techniques never before used to find a missing aircraft. The team managed to identify where flight MH370 ended, and it has narrowed down a search area off Western Australia. Yet, despite the efforts of the world's brightest minds and best militaries, the search area remains huge. Finding the plane will be neither quick nor easy.

Source: online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303627504579559170123401220

For what it is worth, he appears to confirm the plane travelling north up the Straits of Malacca.

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 352): This about the future WiFi based Bring-Your-Own-Device IFE systems. All options we now have in seat back including MyFlight will be just an app.

... so you just want the aircraft to serve up some data on an internal network for a specific app to consume? Instead of using the seat-back IFEs? That's doable, though I'm not sure why you'd want to do it.

It is, once again, completely different from what you were talking about before, but since this 'hotshot developer' has trouble understanding this ever-changing 'concept' of yours, maybe you should just give it a rest.

Quoting sipadan (Reply 314): Can this be right?

International Convention on Civil Aviation, Annex 13:

"5.12
The State conducting the investigation of an accident or incident shall not make the following records available for purposes other than accident or incident investigation, unless the appropriate authority for the administration of justice in that State determines that their disclosure outweighs the adverse domestic and international impact such action may have on that or any future investigations:
a) all statements taken from persons by the investigation authorities in the course of their investigation [this would include whatever raw data was provide by Inmarsat]
...
e) opinions expressed in the analysis of information"

Under Annex 13, the U.S. (NTSB), as the country of design/manufacture of the airframe, and the U.K. (AAIB), as the country of design/manufacture of the engines, are entitled to full participation in all aspects of the investigation.

Australia, as a country "which on request provides information, facilities" is also entitled to participate, but its participation "may be limited to those matters which entitled such States to participation" (i.e. the conduct of the search and search facilities).

Finally, article 5.26 provides that:

"Accredited representatives and their advisers:
a) shall provide the State conducting the investigation with all relevant information available to them; and
b) shall not divulge information on the progress and the findings of the investigation without the express consent of the State conducting the investigation."

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 354): Instead of heading to Beijing, the plane made a sharp turn across peninsular Malaysia, traveled north up the Straits of Malacca, made a U-turn south over the coast of Sumatra and ended in the southern Indian Ocean, half way to Antarctica. Little wonder that words commonly used to describe MH370 include "bizarre" and "unprecedented."

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 354): For what it is worth, he appears to confirm the plane travelling north up the Straits of Malacca.

It's worth quite a bit. And in short order we will also begin to get more radar info (including high and low paintings), leaked or otherwise...but at least some more confirmation and correspondence data to help buttress other data points (or refute them).

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 351): - for an RTD measurement and/or BFO measurement to occur, the return burst from the AES must reach the GES and be decipherable. But that is not guaranteed. The AES may not receive/decode the packet over the P-channel. Even if it receives and decodes it properly, its response packet will be a burst that begins and end within the time boundaries of an Aloha time slot of the random R-channel. In that time slot, it may collide with a burst sent by another a/c (may be even more than one) with a probability that increases with the load factor of the R-channel. So the GES is waiting for a response but that response does not arrive. When the timeout (n sec?) expires, the logon/logoff ack request must be re-queued at the lowest priority level waiting again for transmission over the P-channel to the AES and so forth. This retry process may be repeated half a dozen times at which point the GES will declare the AES logged off and release its resources.

Sure, sounds plausibe...what about the other 'missing' handshake? I believe it was the 07:11 expected (this could totally be wrong, just going from jumbled memory here), didn't happen, and then we had 08:11 handshake and 08:19 half-ping. I think...sure this has been covered, but don't really remember it.

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 354): he appears to confirm the plane travelling north up the Straits of Malacca.

IMO, when all is said and done, and data points are finally in their right positions, maybe we won't have to force the a/c to beeline to somewhere near the first ring at warp speed. That would certainly make the radar observations (or lack thereof) easier to explain. In that case there would not be much of a technical mystery to speak of.

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 355): It is, once again, completely different from what you were talking about before, but since this 'hotshot developer' has trouble understanding this ever-changing 'concept' of yours, maybe you should just give it a rest.

My concept stayed the same, I used different examples to make you understand. Take it easy.

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 336): I think Pihero's theory is not that it was a controlled ditching but that the plane simply impacted the ocean while traveling at +/- 245 kts and descending at 100 ft / min.

... -100fpm, but not a controlled ditching?

Well, actually trying it, I'd be wrong to speculate on what a 777 might look like after such an impact. I know I wouldn't want to be on it, though.

Quoting sipadan (Reply 357): what about the other 'missing' handshake?

Same kind of explanation. Attempted call? Anything on the GES side that changed the AES state out of idle and reset the log ack timer to its initial value.
Different though for the partial transmission at the end. Probably occurred after a reboot of the avionics after loss of power and RAT deployment. The FMS probably restarts with ACARS enabled by default. The a/c is now trying to communicate without having to be solicited by the GES.

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 359): My concept stayed the same, I used different examples to make you understand. Take it easy.

Ah, yes, apparently all the others that interpreted your posts the same way that I did had the same issue with comprehension. Must be something in the water, or the air. Glad you are not affected, friend. Stay well.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 356): Under Annex 13, the U.S. (NTSB), as the country of design/manufacture of the airframe, and the U.K. (AAIB), as the country of design/manufacture of the engines, are entitled to full participation in all aspects of the investigation.

'all aspects' other than the criminal investigation, right? But how could these two entities co-exist on mutual but separate tracks (assuming an active criminal investigation, which we do have here) with all the overlap? Or, rather, how would the accident investigation team thoroughly examine and investigate all relative matters without all the germane info derived from the criminal investigation (possibly)?

I realize a 'criminal' investigation in the truest sense may uncover nothing. 'Honest' questions. I mean, I know it's been done before, but it just seems rife for proverbial conflict of interests, to a stifle, no? Anyways, thanks for info.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 342): - Normal westward swell , 2 m high

wow...my oh my...how the seas have shrunk. Sorry, but couldn't resist...try to find the humor. I know, I know different area, not the 40's. But how do you KNOW 2 meter seas? And this is still far worse than a piloted night ditching scenario, which you seemed to suggest would be quite the factor in even a piloted gentle ditching.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 342): As Kaiarahi says, the T7 is built like a *sh*t brick* -( witness the 'Frisco accident where it was more or less intact, even after a near cartwheel... and the wings staid attached ) and the whole airplane has a very smooth surface.

wait...weren't you the guys scoffing at 'intact' ditching some threads back...and now, sure, even without a hand to gently guide it down. Kalahari, I thought you practically had the a/c disintegrating...but, maybe my memory fails me. I'll go take a look.

Quoting sipadan (Reply 363): how would the accident investigation team thoroughly examine and investigate all relative matters without all the germane info derived from the criminal investigation (possibly)?

I can't answer specifically, as I don't have the necessary knowledge of Malaysian criminal law and procedure, or how their police services are organized.

In the jurisdictions I do know, the police/judicial authorities provide any germane information to the investigation team - but bear in mind that the sole purpose of an Annex 13 investigation is the prevention of accidents, not to assign blame or liability.

For example, when there were (unfounded) allegations about the behaviour of the AF447 flight crew in the day preceding the flight, it was the local Brazilian police/judicial authorities who investigated and provided information to BEA, because they were in a better position to do so.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 342): ... and it's really a matter of physics and dynamics.

Some thoughts around ditching.

We (obviously) don't know in which direction the aircraft hit the water.

Conventional wisdom for a controlled ditching is to touch down perpendicular to the swell, preferably on the back of a swell. Having practised it in a (real) C130 simulator, it's incredibly difficult to do without catching a wingtip and cartwheeling - and unlike the 777, the Herc is a high wing. Since you need to keep a wing high to stay parallel to the slope of the swell, you're essentially trying to sideslip onto a "runway" that's moving at right angles to the plane. I'm pretty certain the Herc's sideslip capabilty is superior to a 777, and the 777 has a vastly wider wingspan. BTW, a 2 metre swell is outside the normal limits of a Shorts/Sunderland, and they were designed to land on water. In this case, a 2 metre westerly swell was accompanied by a 20kt easterly wind, which would likely result in whitecaps of 3+ metres.

If I had to try it in an aircraft the size of a 777, I would (despite the conventional wisdom) try and touch down in the direction of the swell, wings level, with a low pitch-up attitude to avoid snapping the tail off. As Pihero has noted, the 777 is built like a brick sh*thouse (NZ expression, meaning very sturdy) - in the OZ214 accident at SFO, the wings stayed attached and largely intact, despite a near cartwheel, but the tail was snapped off.

With all that said, we don't know in which direction MH370 hit the water, whether it was a controlled ditching, a slow drift down as a result of "soft" altitude hold as Pihero has postulated, or something more violent.

Hate to miss all the comments. Hopefully not too late with the following thoughts.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 260): Read the report on, the ANA flight after which the aircraft was banned. It was flying and still the fumes from the MEC caused the crew to divert.

That's the trouble with using recirculated air for ECS. You will get smoke coming back. Enough to cause problem? Don't know. 787 I believe uses recirc air. I think 777 may also. Don't know the percentage though.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 342): IMO restricted to the wing-to-body fairing and the tail part, none of which would float

Wing to body fairing would float as they are typically graphite/glass epoxy honeycomb construction (very little metal).
However, for a semi-successful ditching, the wing to body fairing would mostly stay attached as they are held on with many many fasteners.


*************************
One though about a multiple person hi-jacking scenario. One of the first thing they would do is to


COLLECT ALL THE CELL PHONES.

bt

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 367): One though about a multiple person hi-jacking scenario. One of the first thing they would do is to COLLECT ALL THE CELL PHONES.

or just plug into a seat power outlet (on 9M-MRO?) a small mobile phone jammer, the size of a WiFi router.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 367): One though about a multiple person hi-jacking scenario. One of the first thing they would do is to COLLECT ALL THE CELL PHONES.

Good luck searching all 227 pax and their hand luggage to make sure none of them are hiding a cell phone somewhere.

Nah, that wouldn't work too well.

[Edited 2014-05-14 07:26:47]

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 257): I'm still trying to iron out the "via VPG" but using your theory... the timings of the turn is the question...

I went back and did a careful reanalysis of the radar track using both the Beijing screenshot and the Hussein chart. Splitting the difference between the two, I get a ground speed of about 501 kts. Thus, if you believe in the radar track and backtrack it to the turn at Penang, I got it rounding D200J at approximately 17:52:23.

Quoting Mandala: I do suspect that the timing has to be coincidental with those waypoints, but why the turns[?]

Again, we need not reason "why". We are more interested in the "that". The "that" in this case is that "it" was demonstrating avoidance behavior. For what ever reason--which we do not care about--"it" did not "want" to cross over Indonesian air space.

Quote: This also benefits the "takeover" school of thought's theory, in that it should refine the fuel calculations.

If she was at cruising speed, that should leave a lot of fuel left over for a long trip.

Quote: My hunch at the moment is that the path between the last suspected radar contact to the end spot is not as simple as we all think, regardless of whether it was a smoke scenario or a takeover scenario.

If the air speed is constant, there are not a lot of options that are also consistent with the ping rings.

Quoting Mandala: Who first said KUA instead of KUL?

Heh... You got me there I admit. What can I say? We got some pretty good stuff here in the US of A as well! 

Quoting Mandala: Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 171): It gives the final 10 positions recorded by FR24. Last position wasn't exactly at IGARI: it was 2.75 nm beyond that on a steady course of 040. Like it's aiming at BIBAN rather than BITOD. BIBAN (042), or ANHOA (038), and such shortcuts isn't unusual... and yes, some might take the shortcut without ATC clearance if it doesn't deviate by "a lot"...   Now... did it go 040 because they went for a shortcut? (habit)... Or something failed? (Pihero's theory) Or someone just slapped on the HDG SEL? (which is open to Pihero's theory, or a 'deliberate action', but makes 'AP in LNAV mode' unlikely.

My SkyVector says the bearing to ANHOA is 039--that's pretty close to 040--at which point it would link back up with the main airway L637 (BITOD BIBAN ANHOA BITIS TSN) leading to Saigon. This appears to be consistent with the LNAV subsystem being engaged IMO.

Quoting Mandala: How many passengers have GPS that can show the LatLon and then the passenger can figure out what's going on? Very few, if any. And... not all phones' GPS can work (ie, get a fix) from inside the aircraft. I had a few Android phones, and hard to get the GPS to work from inside the aircraft even if you're sitting on the window. I had a blackberry whose GPS would work even if I was away from the window by 1 seat... but, since I didn't have internet connection on the aircraft, no map! It did show the track direction though...

I got an old fashioned handheld GPS I use for hiking that I bring along for the heck of it sometimes. Never had a problem of it working in an airplane (though I was probably sitting at a window at the time). It didn't have a map, but it displayed the lat/long, and also the compass heading (true of course). As I understand it, a lot of smart phones these days can tell you the direction, but I guess that would require GPS reception. So if you noticed you were going south, you would know something was up. There was no Moon, so one wouldn't be able to notice that the Moon was seen through the wrong window. Someone half way familiar with the constellations might notice something odd.

But really, the big giveawy is the turn at IGARI. A 25 degree bank held for 3 minutes is going to be noticed by everybody....

"Instead of heading to Beijing, the plane made a sharp turn across peninsular Malaysia, traveled north up the Straits of Malacca, made a U-turn south over the coast of Sumatra and ended in the southern Indian Ocean, half way to Antarctica. Little wonder that words commonly used to describe MH370 include "bizarre" and "unprecedented.""

So, did this sharp turn cause an unscheduled ping/handshake for the satcom system?

This would be the turn near IGARI. It would have to be a turn from ~40 degrees if we accept FR24 data.

I think this has to be a fairly gentle continuation of the normal right turn, rather than a very sharp turn back to the left.

[Edited 2014-05-14 08:07:04]

Quoting Abba: However, the epidemiological problem with the theory "the pilot did it on purpose" is that it can hardly be disproved ... You are dealing with a theory that can (almost) not be disproved.

The initial phase of the flight shows all the signs of purposeful behavior. The turn at IGARI, followed by the route VKB D200J VAMPI MEKAR NILAM, all at apparently normal velocities, with multiple airports to put down at if desired.

If a pilot did not direct that flight path, that is one hell of a coincidence!

If the flight was not purposeful, one would expect the a/c to fly off in some random direction; any course changes would appear to be random, and not directed at a series of waypoints. Thus, the "a pilot did it" theory is easily falsifiable. E.g., cf. Pihero's smoke theory: a random direction ending up at 8.33 94.2 at 18:27. Only problem is that it doesn't square with the radar track.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 370): As I understand it, a lot of smart phones these days can tell you the direction, but I guess that would require GPS reception.

No. It is a tiny surface-mounted magnetometer. An "electronic compass", if you will.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 370): Again, we need not reason "why". We are more interested in the "that". The "that" in this case is that "it" was demonstrating avoidance behavior. For what ever reason--which we do not care about--"it" did not "want" to cross over Indonesian air space.

Sorry to say but the last sentence is nothing but a contradiction of the first. As it doesn't make any sense for an airplane itself to "want" anything whatsoever - or for that matter to "demonstrate" something like "avoidance behavior" - you are as a matter of fact talking about the intention of the person supposed to be in control of the plane. Hence speaking of "why" rather than "that": someone - as something can't! - don't want to be seen and don't want to cross Indonesian airspace.

Quoting abba (Reply 374): Quoting Mandala: I do suspect that the timing has to be coincidental with those waypoints, but why the turns[?] Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 370):Again, we need not reason "why". We are more interested in the "that". The "that" in this case is that "it" was demonstrating avoidance behavior. For what ever reason--which we do not care about--"it" did not "want" to cross over Indonesian air space. Quoting Abba: Sorry to say but the last sentence is nothing but a contradiction of the first. As it doesn't make any sense for an airplane itself to "want" anything whatsoever - or for that matter to "demonstrate" something like "avoidance behavior" - you are as a matter of fact talking about the intention of the person supposed to be in control of the plane. Hence speaking of "why" rather than "that": someone - as something can't! - don't want to be seen and don't want to cross Indonesian airspace.

Imagine that the 9M-MRO was taken over by supernatural forces as in the Stephen King novel Christine where a 1958 Plymouth Fury becomes possessed by an evil spirit. Could you still make hypotheses regarding the intentions of the a/c? I say yes, you could--but they would have to be very low level: e.g., you could say that it exhibited avoidance behavior, that it "prefered" to fly at cruising speed, that it "liked" certain waypoints, but you would have no idea why it really did that. I find the above exercise to be useful because it explicitly eliminates all speculation about political motives, typical pilot habits, religions versus atheism, family problems, minds, etc. Basically, I am advocating that we take an extreme behavioristic approach to the problem a la B.F. Skinner. It forces one to focus on the very basics--and that's all that's needed to find this airplane.





[Edited 2014-05-14 08:51:07]