I just had a look again at the Inmarsat data logs... My view on the Inmarsat data logs show that:
- There was a good hour of missing satcom link to the aircraft at 17:07 and the system was logged on again at 18:25.
-- Simply put, the aircraft satcom did not respond to queries sent by the ground system.
-- All the communications logged here are from the P channel, and T channel, no R channel (which is the satellite's receiving channel).
-- This indicates that the satcom on the aircraft was not working during this time.
-- Either the aircraft was upside down during this time, or there was a AC
power failure onboard.
-- A simple navigation problem would have resulted in the satcom link not being lost but simply reverting to the back up satcom link antenna. The HGA would lose contact due to the lack of ARINC429 feed, but the LGA
would still be working with no doppler correction.
-- What is difficult to understand is that what happens from 17:07 an 17:21 when the transponers went off. This needs a further look into.
- The final handshake was previously thought as the aircraft suffering from fuel exhaustion given the following:
-- This requires a failure of power supply resulting from the electrical generator on the left engine, and that power was then restored as the system switches to the generator from the right engine.
-- The final handshake process was quickly followed by silence.
-- Putting the time of occurence with the fuel load, it is now more likely than before that this was a result of fuel exhaustion of the aircraft.
-- This would require the log on request to be first detected on the R channel, but in this case it's from the P channel.
-- HOWEVER, the information released shows that the final handshake was initiated by the ground, not by the aircraft, so this makes it unlikely that fuel exhaustion was the trigger for this handshake.
From the data, it does look like there is a possibility that this may not be foul play at all and that it could be a mishap of an electrical sort that resulted in a cascading of failures of the communications system as per Pihero's theory, and that the crew may have been planning to divert to Penang, but was overwhelmed by something that resulted in them not ending up in Penang and ending up going elsewhere, under control or not. This is indicated by the radar plot that they did not go straight towards Penang, but seems towards navigational waypoints normally used in the arrivals into Penang from the north west.
Further, this seems to be backed up by the lack of response from the aircraft's satcom between 17:07 and 18:25 and aircraft initiated log-on at 18:25, which is before the tranponder going offline, until after the aircraft disappeared from military radar,
|Quoting Finn350 (Reply 88):|
As I understand it, BTO is an offset, not the actual travel time. That raises the question of offset from what?
Don't know if this answers it... but from Tim Farrar's site:
The GES transmits to the AES over the P channel & receives over the R channel. The initial response burst on the R channel is the timing datum transmitted by the AES ±300 μs of receiving the incoming frame on the P channel. All very deterministic to give us the range to AES from satellite using the Round Trip Timing.
|Quoting NAV30 (Reply 212):|
But I stand by my view that the aeroplane crashed in the South China Sea, about 40 minutes after taking off. That is when EVERYTHING closed down. That's where the relevant authorities started to search. But they only searched with a couple of ships for a few days; then stopped because Inmarsat came up with their 'flew west-flew south' theory.
Again, the newly released satcom data revealed that the aircraft satcom went dead between 17:07 and 18:25, and was on since, until the last one at 00:19.
|Quoting NAV30 (Reply 212):|
I'm pretty sure that that location (in the open sea, north-east of Malaysia and quite close to Vietnam) is where they'll eventually find MH370. That's where the relevant authorities started to search. But they only searched with a couple of ships for a few days; then stopped because Inmarsat came up with their 'flew west-flew south' theory.
I am pretty sure that you're wrong, and I am pretty sure you did not understand what went on for the first week or two and I am pretty sure that you don't understand why they decided to change the search area to the Indian ocean. I am also sure that you are grossly underestimating the extent of the search that was done over over the first week. I am also certain that you either do not, or you are deliberately ignorant and deliberately refuse to even consider the validity of the Inmarsat data. This is shown by:
|Quoting NAV30 (Reply 215):|
Surely, first of all, Inmarsat has to prove that they were using the right frequency and didn't just pick up the wrong aeroplane (or aeroplanes), WingedMigrator?
, I suggest you look at the first page of: http://www.dca.gov.my/mainpage/MH370%20Data%20Communication%20Logs.pdf
Where it says the message logs include the AES ID
, that is the aircraft earth station identification, that is the satellite terminal identification, such as a USIM
, or IMEI. It's just like the identification of your mobile phone by the network. It's not done by frequency, but done by identification, as the frequency is shared under time division multiple access.
Please understand it, try to understand this, or simply leave the discussion because you are just sabotaging the whole topic by unethical trolling conduct.