jetblueguy22
Topic Author
Posts: 3299
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:26 am

MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 5:34 am

Some members may not be aware of the fact that all members have an edit window of 60 minutes, from the time you first make a post in which to add or remove any additional comments or information into/from the post. Please make use of this feature made available to you, for your own convenience, instead of posting one post after another (doubles, triples or more).

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Due to length part 64 was locked for further contributions. Please feel free to continue your discussion in part 65.

MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64 (by jetblueguy22 May 25 2014 in Civil Aviation)

SOME IMPORTANT REMINDERS FOR ALL OUR MEMBERS TO CONSIDER BEFORE POSTING IN THIS THREAD:

**** Out of respect to the crew, passengers and also family members; close to those onboard MH370; please keep science fiction theories and content related to past / current movies or possible future movie rights out of these threads. ****

**** PLEASE DO NOT REPEAT QUESTIONS AND SCENARIOS THAT HAS BEEN COVERED AND DISCUSSED IN PREVIOUS THREADS AND WHICH DO NOT CONTRIBUTE OR APPLY, IN A CONSTRUCTIVE MANNER, TOWARDS THIS CONVERSATION ANY LONGER. ****

**** Please make an effort to read through some of the threads, if possible the latest in the series, before adding your own comments and theories to the current, active thread on this issue. ****

**** PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL TOWARDS OTHER USERS AND KEEP THE FORUM RULES AND REGULATIONS IN MIND WHEN POSTING IN THE FORUMS. SHOULD THERE BE ANY RULE VIOLATIONS, PLEASE BRING THIS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE MODERATORS BY MAKING USE OF THE SUGGEST DELETION FUNCTION.
****

**** WHEN STATING FACTS, STATISTICS OR NEWSWORTHY BULLETINS, PLEASE BE SURE TO INCLUDE AN HTML LINK OR REFERENCE TO A PUBLICATION. IF YOU ARE MERELY PROVIDING AN OPINION, PLEASE MENTION THIS IN YOUR POST. ALL MEMBERS ARE RESPONSIBLE TO AVOID ARGUMENTS BASED ON RUMORS OR MISINFORMATION

**** Some members may not be aware of the fact that all members have an edit window of 60 minutes, from the time you first make a post in which to add or remove any additional comments or information into/from the post. Please make use of this feature made available to you, for your own convenience, instead of posting one post after another (doubles, triples or more).

**** Also keep in mind that this is a discussion forum and not a chat room. If you would like to chat about this incident, kindly make use of the "Live Chat" option, which is available in the "forum drop-down menu". Messages of agreement such as "ME TOO", "I AGREE WITH X", YES OR NO have been found to waste time and space and are therefore to be avoided. A message consisting of only one or two lines of text is probably not worth posting. Do not make posts that contain only a smiley face, check mark, etc. Make sure the content of your post is relevant to the topic.

Enjoy the forums!

Regards and thanks for your co-operation,
Pat
Look at sweatpants guy. This is a 90 million dollar aircraft, not a Tallahassee strip club
 
sipadan
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:06 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 5:52 am

Quote NAV30 !00% evidence that there was no further radio or other contact - with anyone, sipadan?

This is patently false. You know this how with a 100% certainty??? You have no idea as to what information is possibly being withheld, particularly since we are still in the midst of an ongoing criminal investigation. You have BEEN TOLD that no contact happened post 17:19 (which is incorrect as well, being that at or around 17:40 another aircraft tried calling MH370 and HEARD mumbling), but this is not FACT.

As for what I believe happened, I think you know my thoughts on the matter, as they have not wavered since the early days after the incident.
 
NAV30
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:16 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 5:54 am

couple of posts just before the thread ending may be of interest
.
Quoting NAV30 (Reply 297):
And what is your conclusion as to why the Captain, having 'signed off' from Kuala Lumpur, did not make contact with Vietnam?


Look, LTC8K6 is correct. There is NO evidence to support what you claim. That you do not even allow for a 'foul play' scenario further negates and nullifies your stance...Your myopia is breathtaking in degree.

Quoting sipadan (Reply 299):
There is NO evidence to support what you claim.

!00% evidence that there was no further radio or other contact - with anyone, sipadan?

Quoting sipadan (Reply 299):
That you do not even allow for a 'foul play' scenario further negates and nullifies your stance...

I have at least four theories in my mind as to what MIGHT have happened. A drastic mechanical failure, a bomb, a 'hijack gone wrong,' or (truly regret that I have to mention this, as I think it's highly unlikely) pilot suicide. But pending further evidence/information, there's little point in discussing those in detail yet?

What do YOU think may have happened?

[Edited 2014-05-29 23:17:35]
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 7:17 am

Quoting sipadan (Reply 1):
You have no idea as to what information is possibly being withheld,

I would guess something like more than 90% of known info is being withheld and less than 10% is being released to the public... And, IMO, the higher percentage of info being withheld the more likely MH370 is foul play...
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 7:24 am

YoungMans From Australia, joined Mar 2014, 94 posts, RR: 0
Reply 276, posted Fri May 30 2014 01:22:07 your local time (7 hours 43 minutes 9 secs ago) and read 1693 times:

It may go seriously against the grain here but maybe it is time to consider conspiracy theories on equal terms.
Why..? Because we wouldn't want 'them' to get away with it ....


Elvis lives
Astrology is a science 
Creationism is a good analogy, thanks WP. Some people believe in it. Doesn't make it any better.

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 2):
I have at least four theories in my mind as to what MIGHT have happened. A drastic mechanical failure, a bomb, a 'hijack gone wrong,' or (truly regret that I have to mention this, as I think it's highly unlikely) pilot suicide. But pending further evidence/information, there's little point in discussing those in detail yet?

An enumeration of the usual suspects, that explain each and every crash that has ever happened.
Each day without news from terrorists or about the pilots secret life reduces the chances of intentional wrongdoing.
We will know pretty soon after the wreck will be found.
 
sipadan
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:06 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 7:46 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 3):
I would guess something like more than 90% of known info is being withheld and less than 10% is being released to the public... And, IMO, the higher percentage of info being withheld the more likely MH370 is foul play...

        
[quote=lancelot07,reply=4]An enumeration of the usual suspects, that explain each and every crash that has ever happened.
Each day without news from terrorists or about the pilots secret life reduces the chances of intentional wrongdoing.
We will know pretty soon after the wreck will be found.

How does each passing day reduce the chances??? The chances are what they are, regardless of the passage of time. And do you really want me to start spewing out all of minutiae of the 'secret lives' of the pilots. Every time this avenue of investigation is brought up you pout away. I can deliver to you all the news in the world about potential problematic attitudes exhibited by both pilots, but you refuse to lend an ear...can't have it both ways, sir.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 8:00 am

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 4):
Each day without news from terrorists or about the pilots secret life reduces the chances of intentional wrongdoing.

What the??? How so???

Quoting sipadan (Reply 5):
[quote=lancelot07,reply=4]An enumeration of the usual suspects, that explain each and every crash that has ever happened.
Each day without news from terrorists or about the pilots secret life reduces the chances of intentional wrongdoing.
We will know pretty soon after the wreck will be found.

How does each passing day reduce the chances??? The chances are what they are, regardless of the passage of time. And do you really want me to start spewing out all of minutiae of the 'secret lives' of the pilots.

Correct!

We have gone over this man times.

lancelot07 can you answer this question: If each passing day without news from terrorists or about the pilots reduces the chances of that theory, then does each passing day without news of about the planes maintenance history or potential issues with the T7 also reduce that chances of a mechanical problem?

According to you it does!
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
LovesCoffee
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 4:07 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 9:01 am

This thread has become like a high powered motor under no load - starting to shed pieces and come apart. Because we have so little that is known to work with. Oh, since we have introduced religion in the form of creationism into the discussion, may I be allowed to introduce politics also (maybe later in this thread)?

And as far as not allowing conspiracy theories is concerned, any opinion that evidence is being withheld seems to qualify as a conspiracy theory.

We ridicule the early 40 minute crash scenario (young Earth??), but worship the Inmarsat data as gospel while claiming other data (radar tracks) as suspect only on the word of Malaysian authorities no one trusts.

We just have to wait and maybe, just maybe, be a little more considerate of one another in the process. We all have a common bond - aviation as a career or interest.
Life is too short for cheap coffee.
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 9:02 am

Quoting NAV30:
They'd have recognised it as an emergency situation and landed as soon as they could?

Right. And they had multiple opportunities to land: Kota Bharu, Penang, Butterworth, Langkawi, Phuket, Banda Aceh. And yet they didn't. So what is the implication? ? ?
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 9:04 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 6):
If each passing day without news from terrorists or about the pilots reduces the chances of that theory, then does each passing day without news of about the planes maintenance history or potential issues with the T7 also reduce that chances of a mechanical problem?

Mechanical, electrical and smoke, fire and fumes - problems with the 777 have been reported in the past.
Examples:
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20070226-0
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20110729-0
In both cases, the root cause was NOT DETERMINED.

I do not suggest the 777 is a dangerous plane - statistically it is not. But bad things have happened.

On the other hand, terrorists like the world to know what act of a genius they committed in their heroic fight. They would be proud of it - and talk.

[Edited 2014-05-30 02:06:40]
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 9:09 am

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 2):
!00% evidence that there was no further radio or other contact - with anyone, sipadan?

Fact:
The last radio contact when it was last contacted by radio.
The radar does not make the last contact to be at 18:22, despite the authorities are now certain the aircraft they followed was MH370. so what constitutes as "other contact"?
Other contact includes machine to machine contact.
It is a fact that the aircraft's AC electrical system was powered at least until 00:18:37UTC, because there was machine to machine contact in the form of a satellite communications transmission from the aircraft to the satellite ground earth station (in Perth if I remember correctly). This is confirmed as coming from the aircraft because the transmission includes information on the identity of the satellite data unit onboard of the aircraft (AES ID on the data logs).

Denying this equates to saying that the last radio contact of MH370 was not from the aircraft but from some other radio station claiming to be MH370 because there is no other proof acceptable in your terms other than a verbal claim by that radio station that it was MH370. So NAV30, by your terms and definition, the aircraft's last contact was a visual contact by eye witnesses as it departed. You are entitled to your opinion, but there are ethics in discussion, that is playing by a consistent and objective set of rules on what can be and cannot be constituted as fact, and this sir, is where you refuse to comply and discuss like, sorry, a 5 year old.
If you cannot accept the satellite data as fact of contact after transponders went off for the reason that you refuse to accept that the satellite communications transmission was from MH370 despite the identification process within the communications protocol, you therefore also cannot and must not (unless you want to act like a 5 year old) that the radio communication was from the aircraft because a verbal claim is less valid than a machine-to-machine validation.

Sojo & Warren, if you think this is impolite, then I see no further reason on any of us participating in this discussion other than to have an ego-slagfest of "I'm right, you're wrong, nah nah nah nah nah..."
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 9:19 am

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 8):
Right. And they had multiple opportunities to land: Kota Bharu, Penang, Butterworth, Langkawi, Phuket, Banda Aceh. And yet they didn't. So what is the implication? ? ?

The basic principles of aviate, navigate, communicate.
First and foremost, you fly the aircraft.

Kota Bharu as far as I know is not a suitable airport unless you are under a "Land ASAP" situation.
Penang seems to be the best one over where they flew, and if we follow your suggestion of "they must have flown by waypoints" or used LNAV guidance (regardless whether it was in A/P LNAV or not), the aircraft should follow nicely to ENDOR.

However, back to aviate, navigate, communicate, if you take the communications out, as in this case, then you're left with aviate then navigate.

Now, if you become task saturated in aviate, not landing at places where they could, is a no brainer.
If you have multiple electrical failures that keeps changing, you will be swamped. Slap a bit of smoke in it, and you'd lose the plot very quickly.

If this was a simple hijack/takeover/hostile action, then why would the satcom fail sometime after 17:07 to 18:25 if you cannot switch it off from the cockpit (because it if was switched off, why switch it on again if you're after hostile intentions?).

Quoting LovesCoffee (Reply 7):
This thread has become like a high powered motor under no load - starting to shed pieces and come apart.

Which does look like MH370 if you follow the non-hostile intention school of thought!   
We've pinged 65 times now (if a ping is a part number of the topic series), yet the direction seems to be a clueless one, much like after MH370 flew off the last military radar coverage.   
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
LovesCoffee
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 4:07 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 9:55 am

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 10):
Quoting LovesCoffee (Reply 7):This thread has become like a high powered motor under no load - starting to shed pieces and come apart.
Which does look like MH370 if you follow the non-hostile intention school of thought!
We've pinged 65 times now (if a ping is a part number of the topic series), yet the direction seems to be a clueless one, much like after MH370 flew off the last military radar coverage.

Not bad...   
Life is too short for cheap coffee.
 
sipadan
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:06 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 10:13 am

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 11):
If this was a simple hijack/takeover/hostile action, then why would the satcom fail sometime after 17:07 to 18:25 if you cannot switch it off from the cockpit (because it if was switched off, why switch it on again if you're after hostile intentions?).

good question!!! And I don't have an answer. I do have another question, however. I think you're saying that the 18:25 transmission that originated from the aircraft was a result NOT of, say, a high bank turn, but rather a re-connection or re-booting, coming back online, and then contacting the satellite?

I can't comprehend how an electrical/smoke incident can account for this, either, but let's put that aside for the moment.

If the ACARS 18:25 transmission WAS due to it coming back online (however it may have happened), would it still retain the expected 30 min interval reporting protocol? If so, then it must have gone back off-line post said transmission, no?

Disregard if you believe this to be the turn prompting scenario.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 10:16 am

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 9):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 6):
If each passing day without news from terrorists or about the pilots reduces the chances of that theory, then does each passing day without news of about the planes maintenance history or potential issues with the T7 also reduce that chances of a mechanical problem?

Mechanical, electrical and smoke, fire and fumes - problems with the 777 have been reported in the past.
Examples:
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20070226-0
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20110729-0
In both cases, the root cause was NOT DETERMINED.

I do not suggest the 777 is a dangerous plane - statistically it is not. But bad things have happened.

On the other hand, terrorists like the world to know what act of a genius they committed in their heroic fight. They would be proud of it - and talk.

That did not answer the question:

If each passing day without news from terrorists or about the pilots reduces the chances of that theory, then does each passing day without news of about the planes maintenance history or potential issues with the T7 also reduce that chances of a mechanical problem?

Yes, there has been talk about 777 issues in the past. As there has been talk about terrorists and pilot issues in the past. So, if you suggest not hearing talk about one issue recently makes it less likely then you must stick to your premise that a lack of recent talk about any issue also makes that less likely too? No?

I don't agree with your premise. And, there has equally been a lack of coverage of fire theories and T7 mechanical issues recently as there has been about terrorists and MH370 pilot issues...
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
sipadan
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:06 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 10:24 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 14):
I do not suggest the 777 is a dangerous plane - statistically it is not. But bad things have happened.

And I don't suggest pilots are dangerous individuals-statistically they are not. But flawed pilots have killed many more people than flawed t777's. Your logic is FLAWED.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 11:03 am

Quoting sipadan (Reply 13):
If the ACARS 18:25 transmission WAS due to it coming back online (however it may have happened), would it still retain the expected 30 min interval reporting protocol? If so, then it must have gone back off-line post said transmission, no?

OK, we need to separate the SATCOM from the ACARS.
For the ACARS, the per 30mins data, is an aircraft originated data payload (bill-able payload), coming from the data management unit (forgot what it's called, DFDU or CFCU), which are still inoperative after 18:25.
For the SatCom, there is a ping per roughly 60 mins if there is other transmission or incoming data or call requests...
For the pings to have occured per 60 mins, ACARS with 30mins interval need to be dead, either inop, or switched off.
Remember at 18:25 when the handshake logon occured, no ACARS data (billable) was transmitted, just the satcom data (non-billable).
Note I emphasize the difference between billable and non-billable data to provide additional distinguisher between SatCom and ACARS.

Quoting sipadan (Reply 13):
I think you're saying that the 18:25 transmission that originated from the aircraft was a result NOT of, say, a high bank turn, but rather a re-connection or re-booting, coming back online, and then contacting the satellite?

A momentary loss of signal would not result in a log-on handshake.
The 18:25 handshake is "hey, I'm back" signal. It must have known that it lost the previously open channel session.
This is either by the satcom trying to send stuff and not reach the satcom and realizing it for excessive periods, or it was off.
That is why I said, either it was off, or the aircraft was upside down throughout 18:03 to 18:25. The ground system was trying to communicate with the satcom 72 times between 18:03 and 18:05. Now, would it be upside down for 2 minutes? I think not.

The hourly pings was the ground asking the airplane "are you still here?" and responded with "I'm still here".
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
markak
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 1:14 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 11:26 am

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 16):



For the SatCom, there is a ping per roughly 60 mins if there is other transmission or incoming data or call requests...

Did you mean to say:

For the SatCom, there is a ping per roughly 60 mins if there is NO other transmission or incoming data or call requests...
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 11:31 am

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 2):
What do YOU think may have happened?

Something different. Something unusual.

We don't know what happened, except for the basics. 9M-MRO did not arrive at PEK, and it disappeared from secondary radars near waypoint IGARI. It flew on for many hours, most likely to the southern Indian Ocean.

I think we can definitely rule out a crash anywhere near IGARI. We would have had confirmation long ago.

I think we can definitely rule out a crash on land anywhere in or near Malaysia for the same reason.

Speculation in the absence of hard data rules the day, and that often makes for poor conversation.

I think foul play is at the root. Exactly how, I cannot say for sure.

If I had to decide, I would say that foul play, and possibly attempts to thwart that foul play, are "what happened" to 9M-MRO.

I don't think it was a simple case of terrorism.

I cannot see how any fire or failure results in such a flight.

Whatever happened was something different, imo.

[Edited 2014-05-30 04:45:51]
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 11:38 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 14):
If each passing day without news from terrorists or about the pilots reduces the chances of that theory, then does each passing day without news of about the planes maintenance history or potential issues with the T7 also reduce that chances of a mechanical problem?

oh sorry, i missed that. The answer is no.
The maintenance history of 9M-MRO is unpublished, but certainly known to the investigators. Serious abnormalities would have leaked by now. With known issues, the plane would not have been at the gate.
At the moment we have good reason to assume that the plane was in good order at the gate in KUL - just like most planes that somehow had an accident minutes or hours later.

Quoting sipadan (Reply 15):
And I don't suggest pilots are dangerous individuals-statistically they are not. But flawed pilots have killed many more people than flawed t777's. Your logic is FLAWED.

There are many times more pilots than 777s! You would expect more flawed pilots than flawed 777s, in absolute numbers.
AND: How many 777-pilots crashed or abducted it intentionally ?? Zero ?
 
liquidair
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 2:01 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 11:58 am

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 16):
That is why I said, either it was off, or the aircraft was upside down throughout 18:03 to 18:25. The ground system was trying to communicate with the satcom 72 times between 18:03 and 18:05. Now, would it be upside down for 2 minutes? I think not.

which i can understand- but then, what did cause the break in communication in your opinion? and how would it come back online?

sorry if you've answered this already... i've really tried to read everything
trying to stop my gaseous viscosity go liquid
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1595
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 12:03 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 16):
That is why I said, either it was off, or the aircraft was upside down throughout 18:03 to 18:25.

I thought that every possible scenario what could have happened to MH370 had been brought up in the first 30 parts or so, but this flying upside down for half an hour is a novel idea as far as I can tell.

Looking at the data communications log, I suppose the handshake is different for a logon due to re-powering of the modem and due to the re-orientation of the antenna?

If we assume that the plane was not flying upside down for half an hour, what are the possible reasons for the SATCOM modem losing power? If I recall correctly, the C/B for the SATCOM modem is in the E/E bay, not in the cockpit. And only other way losing the power for half an hour would be powering down the whole bus where the SATCOM modem is connected? Is this correct?
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 12:23 pm

Quoting liquidair (Reply 20):
but then, what did cause the break in communication in your opinion? and how would it come back online?

1. Someone switched it off and on on the associated circuit breaker (which is not in the cockpit but in the avionics bay).
2. ARINC 429 data feed failure, causing the satellite to not able to fix onto the satellite for a long enough period of time that it determines the session as "effectively closed" and when the feed came back it was able to go onto the satellite and log on again.
3. AC Power failure and then restored.
#1 is unlikely, #2 is possible, but it's going to be extremely difficult to analyze that likelihood. #3 is probably the easiest to analyze at the moment given the 3 alternatives.

Quoting liquidair (Reply 20):
sorry if you've answered this already... i've really tried to read everything

Well, no worries  
Quoting Finn350 (Reply 21):
I thought that every possible scenario what could have happened to MH370 had been brought up in the first 30 parts or so, but this flying upside down for half an hour is a novel idea as far as I can tell.

Which I think would be unlikely! At least it would be upside down for 2 minutes... which I think is again... unlikely.

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 21):
Looking at the data communications log, I suppose the handshake is different for a logon due to re-powering of the modem and due to the re-orientation of the antenna?

It would be no different, but the clue is 2 minutes of the ground trying to reach the antenna and getting no results. A momentary loss of orientation would not lose the session and result in a log on... definitely not during the 2minutes.
If the loss of orientation is due to the loss of ARINC429 feed, that I can believe.

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 21):
And only other way losing the power for half an hour would be powering down the whole bus where the SATCOM modem is connected? Is this correct?

For deliberate, yes, you need to lose all AC power generation.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
NAV30
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:16 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 12:24 pm

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 18):
Quoting NAV30 (Reply 2):What do YOU think may have happened?
Something different. Something unusual.
Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 18):
I think we can definitely rule out a crash on land anywhere in or near Malaysia for the same reason.

Thanks, LTC8K6. As you'll recall, I rather feel that the aeroplane crashed into the sea soon after it went off radio/radar - about 40 miles from 'home.'

Against that, this new-fangled Inmarsat thing kept on (allegedly) tracking the aeroplane for hours. I tend somewhat to 'doubt that option' - given that no aeroplane arrived at the end of the process.......

I admit (before anyone TELLS me  ) that I could be wrong..........

'Fair go,' though - so could the Inmarsat fans....?

[Edited 2014-05-30 05:30:44]
 
liquidair
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 2:01 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 12:43 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 22):
3. AC Power failure and then restored.
#1 is unlikely, #2 is possible, but it's going to be extremely difficult to analyze that likelihood. #3 is probably the easiest to analyze at the moment given the 3 alternatives.

thank you for that explanation.

so, in terms of power (and please forgive me for sounding like a donkey on the subject) but could that refer to something like a double engine failure and the restart, say maybe after wind milling them? wouldn't the APU power these systems for a bit?

or could it be more something like a massive electrical event resetting aircraft systems? and would that maybe fit in with Pihero's theory?
trying to stop my gaseous viscosity go liquid
 
Backseater
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:20 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 12:59 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 22):
1. Someone switched it off and on on the associated circuit breaker (which is not in the cockpit but in the avionics bay).
2. ARINC 429 data feed failure, causing the satellite to not able to fix onto the satellite for a long enough period of time that it determines the session as "effectively closed" and when the feed came back it was able to go onto the satellite and log on again.
3. AC Power failure and then restored.

There may be additional events that would cause a new logon request:

4. after it is logged on, the AES monitors the P channel (non-system) to detect degradation or temporary loss of signal.
Degradation is defined as either the bit error rate exceeding a certain threshold or more than "n" short term interruptions over a certain time interval (e.g. 3min)
Loss is defined when the AES loses clock sync for more than 10sec
If either condition occurs, the AES declares itself logged-off and initiates a new logon.

5. near the edge of coverage that probably includes the edge of spot beam coverage, the AES may perform a new logon to make sure it has the correct parameters for the area it is operating in.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 1:00 pm

Quoting liquidair (Reply 24):
so, in terms of power (and please forgive me for sounding like a donkey on the subject) but could that refer to something like a double engine failure and the restart, say maybe after wind milling them? wouldn't the APU power these systems for a bit?

A double engine failure would make the aircraft miss the position it needs to be at at 18:22 where it was last seen by radar... So, a problem with the left AC Bus (not able to be powered), is more likely... or the sub-bus from the left AC bus... *where the heck is my diagram when I need it? grrrr...*
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 1:36 pm

Quote:
Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 8):
Right. And they had multiple opportunities to land: Kota Bharu, Penang, Butterworth, Langkawi, Phuket, Banda Aceh. And yet they didn't. So what is the implication? ? ?

Quoting Mandala: The basic principles of aviate, navigate, communicate.
First and foremost, you fly the aircraft.

Kota Bharu as far as I know is not a suitable airport unless you are under a "Land ASAP" situation.
Penang seems to be the best one over where they flew, and if we follow your suggestion of "they must have flown by waypoints" or used LNAV guidance (regardless whether it was in A/P LNAV or not), the aircraft should follow nicely to ENDOR.

However, back to aviate, navigate, communicate, if you take the communications out, as in this case, then you're left with aviate then navigate.

Now, if you become task saturated in aviate, not landing at places where they could, is a no brainer.
If you have multiple electrical failures that keeps changing, you will be swamped. Slap a bit of smoke in it, and you'd lose the plot very quickly.

If this was a simple hijack/takeover/hostile action, then why would the satcom fail sometime after 17:07 to 18:25 if you cannot switch it off from the cockpit (because it if was switched off, why switch it on again if you're after hostile intentions?).




If they were trying to land at Penang, wouldn't it be better to aim for that 10 nm arc marked out be D155J and D200J? And since it looks like the track was more ENDOR OPOVI, then maybe that indicates an intention merely to pass through?

Also, isn't it the case that the B777 is equipped with an "autoland" feature, that when enabled can land automatically, without human intervention? Although I guess if everything else was FUBAR, then the autoland probably wouldn't work either.

As for turning the satcom back on if it was turned off by the pilot, perhaps someone in the flight crew who was locked out of the cockpit could figure out a way to turn it back on from within the cabin to try to get a message out?
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 1:39 pm

Also, I would like to repeat my earlier request: does anyone know where the raw ADS-B data is? My google fu is not up to the task.
 
NAV30
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:16 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 1:41 pm

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 25):
5. near the edge of coverage that probably includes the edge of spot beam coverage, the AES may perform a new logon to make sure it has the correct parameters for the area it is operating in.

Interesting, BackSeater. Won't pretend to understand the detail (I was just a Chartered Surveyor, very 'ground-bound') but that seems to indicate that if the 'systems' can't find a 'working solution,' they are sort of 'programmed' to find the most probable one? Correct me if I'm wrong?

[Edited 2014-05-30 06:57:43]
 
Backseater
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:20 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 2:06 pm

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 29):
that seems to indicate that if the 'systems' can't find a 'solution,' they are 'sort of'' programmed to find the most probable one?

The satcom transceiver (AES) on the a/c only listens and talks to the earth station (GES) that it has selected through logon (in our case Perth) because that GES can best serve the region of the world where the a/c is flying. The AES is a slave to its current master GES.

The GES has and controls the overall frequency plan for the satellite it handles (e.g. 3F1). When an AES logs in, it is given by its GES the frequencies it can subsequently use if it needs to respond to a request from its GES or issue an unsolicited request to its GES.

The choice of frequencies is totally deterministic. The a/c does not pick the most probable one. It just obeys instructions it received from its GES.

As the a/c keeps flying over long distances, it may reach a point where its stored tables (optionally earlier updated by its GES) indicate that it may be leaving one spot beam region for another. By logging in again, the GES has a chance to send to the a/c the frequencies to be used in that new region.

In the extreme case where the a/c approaches the edge of the global beam for the satellite it is currently using, its GES may actually decide to handover the a/c to another GES that controls another satellite with another coordinated frequency plan e.g. POR over the Pacific if the a/c were to keep flying eastbound.
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 2:45 pm

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 28):
Also, I would like to repeat my earlier request: does anyone know where the raw ADS-B data is? My google fu is not up to the task.

Never mind. Got my mojo back:

MH370 ADS-raw data.xlsx
 
AVLnative
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:58 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 3:51 pm

For the conspiracy theorists,

“Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you”
― Joseph Heller, Catch-22
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 4:13 pm

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 31):

Yeah, someone posted that the loss of altitude data alone at the last, might point to a human turning the transponder switch?

The way the switch turns, and is labeled, I suppose that is a reasonable assumption?

http://www.meriweather.com/flightdeck/777/ped/atc.html#

If that is the accurate data, of course.

[Edited 2014-05-30 09:14:23]
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 4:21 pm

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 30):
As the a/c keeps flying over long distances, it may reach a point where its stored tables (optionally earlier updated by its GES) indicate that it may be leaving one spot beam region for another. By logging in again, the GES has a chance to send to the a/c the frequencies to be used in that new region.

Could this explain the mysterious "lost link" between 17:07 and 18:25?? If you think about it, the first (normal leg) is flying away from the satellite (and Perth). The 2-way distance for Perth==>3F1==>9M-MRO at 17:07 is about 76,635 nm; but by the time it logs back in at 18:25, the distance has been closed to ~76200. Also, there is that other Inmarsat satellite to the east. I'm guessing that maybe at 17:07 it was handed off to this other satellite, different ground station, and they simply haven't released the data on that other satellite?
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 4:24 pm

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 33):
Yeah, someone posted that the loss of altitude data alone at the last, might point to a human turning the transponder switch?

Yeah right!! The altitude suddenly drops from 35,000 to 0! Looks like NAV30 might be right after all ! 
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 4:35 pm

Quoting sipadan (Reply 15):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 14):
I do not suggest the 777 is a dangerous plane - statistically it is not. But bad things have happened.

And I don't suggest pilots are dangerous individuals-statistically they are not. But flawed pilots have killed many more people than flawed t777's. Your logic is FLAWED.

That was not my comment. That comment was made by lancelot07   But I like your response!

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 19):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 14):
If each passing day without news from terrorists or about the pilots reduces the chances of that theory, then does each passing day without news of about the planes maintenance history or potential issues with the T7 also reduce that chances of a mechanical problem?

oh sorry, i missed that. The answer is no.

Why not? If you your premise is that each passing day without news of X makes XX less likely, then each passing day without news of Y must also make YY less likely? That is your original premise, isn't it?

This is your original comment: ""Each day without news from terrorists or about the pilots secret life reduces the chances of intentional wrongdoing."" - from reply 4.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 19):
The maintenance history of 9M-MRO is unpublished

I believe one bit of info we know is that it underwent a maintenance check 12 or so days prior to operating MH370.

Quoting avlnative (Reply 32):
For the conspiracy theorists,

“Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you”
― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

Are 'they' those who couldn't find a piece of candy in a candy store?
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 4:38 pm

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 35):

Yeah right!! The altitude suddenly drops from 35,000 to 0! Looks like NAV30 might be right after all !

NAV30 doesn't need any help...  
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 5:21 pm

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 27):
If they were trying to land at Penang, wouldn't it be better to aim for that 10 nm arc marked out be D155J and D200J? And since it looks like the track was more ENDOR OPOVI, then maybe that indicates an intention merely to pass through?

I thought you said you weren't married to D155J/D200J?   
No it doesn't. As I explained previously that the STAR for PEN from the northwest for runway 04 is BIDMO1A, which goes from BIDMO to PUKAR to ENDOR to MEKAT to KENDI, and from KENDI it would go onto the approach (no holding on the STAR after PUKAR.
D155J and D200J is NOT used for arrivals into PEN runway 04 from the northwest. D155J is used as a pseudowaypoint for arrivals to 04 from the southeast only for inbounds from over Ipoh (VIH VOR), or from TEPUS. This is specified as the DME ARC 04 arrivals. From the southeast there is also another STAR from NURLA, but that goes straight to MEKAT then KENDI and doesn't follow the arc at all.
ENDOR is used for the arrivals only. Same with OPOVI, which is used for the ISMAS1A and LUNTU1A arrivals, (both join at TAMIT then OPOVI then KENDI).
I do not see that OPOVI was intentional, I think the aircraft settled on its northwesterly heading slightly further out from OPOVI.
Again, the use of ENDOR and OPOVI as a pass through, does not make sense. Selecting VPG is more sensible in the pilot's mindset, even if one's trying to make a getaway.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 27):
Also, isn't it the case that the B777 is equipped with an "autoland" feature, that when enabled can land automatically, without human intervention? Although I guess if everything else was FUBAR, then the autoland probably wouldn't work either.

Autoland needs human intervention, that is you need to select the ILS frequency for the approach, and you also have to instruct the autopilot to leave cruise altitude to the initial approach altitude, this includes selecting the lower limit the VNAV can go to prior to ILS glideslope capture, by selecting the altitude on the selector in the autopilot panel.
Autoland "can be used to land automatically without human intervention" is, largely misunderstood outside the crew circles and flightsim geeks.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 27):
As for turning the satcom back on if it was turned off by the pilot, perhaps someone in the flight crew who was locked out of the cockpit could figure out a way to turn it back on from within the cabin to try to get a message out?

Again, the satcom (antenna, and satellite data unit) cannot be turned off on its own from the cockpit. You need to go to the E&E bay and pull the circuit breakers to turn it off.
The only other way to switch it off is to take power away from the left AC Bus. And there's no way to put power back to the left AC Bus from outside the cockpit while the aircraft is flying.
From the cockpit, the crew can switch off the ACARS (ie: tell ACARS to not send or receive anything through the satcom), but not the satcom itself.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 34):
Could this explain the mysterious "lost link" between 17:07 and 18:25?? If you think about it, the first (normal leg) is flying away from the satellite (and Perth). The 2-way distance for Perth==>3F1==>9M-MRO at 17:07 is about 76,635 nm; but by the time it logs back in at 18:25, the distance has been closed to ~76200. Also, there is that other Inmarsat satellite to the east. I'm guessing that maybe at 17:07 it was handed off to this other satellite, different ground station, and they simply haven't released the data on that other satellite?

No. The default ground station for the area is Perth. It covers the whole coverage area for IOR (3F1), except in the zones where IOR overlaps POR or AOR... which is nowhere near where we think the aircraft went.
A hand off from one satellite to another, does not take 5 minutes, it takes mere seconds at most.
For the position at 17:07, IOR 3F1 is the only available Inmarsat-3 satellite for MH370. Even if it went in a straight line from 17:07 to 18:25, it would also stay the same, in that it would still be in the area where IOR 3F1 is the only one available. Therefore, the notion that the logon is "thought to have been handed off" or "should have been handed off", is invalid.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 31):
Never mind. Got my mojo back:

MH370 ADS-raw data.xlsx

I am still a bit peeved that the only ADS-B data available is from FR24, and through the data processed by FR24.
If the ADS-B feeder to FR24 use a box that is not supplied by FR24 (which is still the majority of the feeders), then we would have much better data sets than this so-called "raw data"... because, it isn't raw data.
The feeder would have much finer data time intervals than this "raw data", which would enable us to see how the transponder went from normal, to no altitude, to zero information. This would enable us to guess with factual basis whether it was deliberately switched off, or it degraded from one mode to another in how many seconds.
Currently, the way I see it, it had 11 seconds to go from normal, to off... with a "no ALT" in the middle. This has been a problem challenging the "hostile takeover by a crewmember" scenario from day one.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 5:22 pm

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 36):
If you your premise is that each passing day without news of X makes XX less likely, then each passing day without news of Y must also make YY less likely? That is your original premise, isn't it?
NO, this was certainly not my premise !
If somebody did it with an evil intent (hijack, bomb or suicide, or even stranger alternatives) the person(s) inevitably leaves traces. Relations, friends, neighbors - someone will talk, even when they themselves leave no confessions. Remember, they would be proud! The absence of such news shrinks the probability of intentional wrongdoing.
And there is more to it: If one of the probabilities shrinks, the other (for one or all other possible causes, be it mechanical or UFO-abduction) are automatically increased.
 
Backseater
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:20 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 5:35 pm

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 34):
Also, there is that other Inmarsat satellite to the east. I'm guessing that maybe at 17:07 it was handed off to this other satellite, different ground station, and they simply haven't released the data on that other satellite?

The thought also entered my mind. But that would definitely be bizarre because I believe that Perth handles both IOR and POR and any log files would be (or have been) in their data center.

When leaving KL, 9M-MR0 was squarely in the center of IOR region 7 and just entering POR region 4.
It might be interesting to know the contents of additional fields dealing with signal quality in the Inmarsat log files (Rx power, C/No and estimated BER). Those fields exist as indicated in the Inmarsat document but they were not provided, not to clutter the listing. Besides and I quote "they contain no material information"!
 
65mustang
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:28 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 5:54 pm

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2014/05/19/4005244.htm

Interesting interview with former MAS Chief pilot Nik Huzlan. It is from about two weeks ago. He might be privy to undisclosed information. He is straightforward and answers the questions he is asked. This interview supports the pilot did it hypothesis. If anyone would be able to make a 777 disappear, Capt Shah had the skills, knowledge, and experience to do it. Imagine what the discussion here would be like and where the search would be without the Inmarsat data.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1595
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 6:00 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 38):
Currently, the way I see it, it had 11 seconds to go from normal, to off... with a "no ALT" in the middle. This has been a problem challenging the "hostile takeover by a crewmember" scenario from day one.

I don't see it as a problem. The "hostile crewmember" could have turned the switch first to "no ALT" and then "off" for reasons unknown to us.
 
nupogodi
Posts: 933
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:58 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 6:08 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 38):
Autoland needs human intervention, that is you need to select the ILS frequency for the approach, and you also have to instruct the autopilot to leave cruise altitude to the initial approach altitude, this includes selecting the lower limit the VNAV can go to prior to ILS glideslope capture, by selecting the altitude on the selector in the autopilot panel.

Also doesn't the airport need to pretty much clear everything that might be in the way of the ILS, for a Cat III approach? Basically shutting down most of the airport until your fancy ass lands.

I've always heard it was a huge bother whenever someone wants Cat III on a busy day... Maybe I'm wrong.
A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 6:27 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 38):
it had 11 seconds to go from normal, to off... with a "no ALT" in the middle. This has been a problem challenging the "hostile takeover by a crewmember" scenario from day one.

An inexperienced person might well put the switch in what looks like the "OFF" position, which is actually ALT RPTG OFF...

And then realize the mistake, or have someone else realize the mistake...
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 6:49 pm

Quote:
Quoting Mandala: The default ground station for the area is Perth. It covers the whole coverage area for IOR (3F1), except in the zones where IOR overlaps POR or AOR... which is nowhere near where we think the aircraft went.
A hand off from one satellite to another, does not take 5 minutes, it takes mere seconds at most.
For the position at 17:07, IOR 3F1 is the only available Inmarsat-3 satellite for MH370. Even if it went in a straight line from 17:07 to 18:25, it would also stay the same, in that it would still be in the area where IOR 3F1 is the only one available. Therefore, the notion that the logon is "thought to have been handed off" or "should have been handed off", is invalid.

Quoting backseater: The thought also entered my mind. But that would definitely be bizarre because I believe that Perth handles both IOR and POR and any log files would be (or have been) in their data center.

When leaving KL, 9M-MR0 was squarely in the center of IOR region 7 and just entering POR region 4.

Here is pretty picture for you all:

http://i.imgur.com/O8zN5Bx.png

The coverage map from Inmarsat. It is interesting: look at western Australia: it is squarely within the region of overlap for both IOR and POR--yet POR handles the traffic. Then look at the shape of the IOR zone: (a) it is not as extensive as the POR zone; and (b) it curves up to the POR coverage boundary that cuts due north and cuts off the east coast of Malaysia--not far from where the 9M-MRO would have been at 17:07. Also, keep in mind that the logoff did not have to happen right at 17:07--it could have happened somewhat later; e.g., before the logoff, there were several hiatuses in activity, such as 16:29 to 16:41, 16:43 to 16:55, 16:05 to 17:05. So the logoff very well could have happened within the IOR/POR overlap zone, that I claim is actually covered by POR.

Recall also this early image:



Remember? Instead of drawing full ping rings, they cut it into two arcs with a gap centered on the equator because if the aircraft was on the LOP within the gap, it would have been picked up by POR. Which it was not--then. But earlier in the flight, it would have been within POR's coverage area, and so would have picked up the 9M-MRO's handshake signals.

That the recent release of the "raw" Inmarsat data does not mention the fact that 9M-MRO was communicating with POR should not be surprising, as the "explanations"--such as they are--are very terse, and leave a lot to the imagination.

Quote:
It might be interesting to know the contents of additional fields dealing with signal quality in the Inmarsat log files (Rx power, C/No and estimated BER). Those fields exist as indicated in the Inmarsat document but they were not provided, not to clutter the listing. Besides and I quote "they contain no material information"!

Very good point sir!
 
User avatar
dennypayne
Posts: 268
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:38 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 8:03 pm

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 23):
this new-fangled Inmarsat thing kept on (allegedly) tracking the aeroplane for hours

Someone already told you that the Inmarsat satellites are not "new-fangled" - they have been in use for quite a while. And their purpose is not to track airplanes. Their purpose is to faciliate communications. It just so happens that Inmarsat engineers have found a way to provide a means of locating the aircraft's *possible paths* by analyzing those communication signals. Those possible paths have been able to be further narrowed down by Doppler analysis and knowledge about the aircraft's fuel load and performance parameters. But again, this was explained 2 months ago, and to you over and over again.

Quoting LovesCoffee (Reply 7):
We all have a common bond - aviation as a career or interest.

Actually, judging by the join dates of many posters in this thread, of which a fair number continue to display their ignorance (willful or not) of actual aviation knowledge, I think that population has been diluted a bit...
A300/310/319/320/321/332/333/343/380 AN24/28/38/148 AT7 B190
B717/722/732/3/4/5/7/8/9 742/744/752/753/762/763/764/772/773/788/789
CR2/7/9 D8S D93/4/5 DHC2/3/7/8 D28/38 EMB/EM2/ER3/D/4/E70/75/90
F50/100 J31 L10 L410 M11/80/90 RJ85 SF3 SU9 T134/154 Y42
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 8:11 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 38):
Currently, the way I see it, it had 11 seconds to go from normal, to off... with a "no ALT" in the middle. This has been a problem challenging the "hostile takeover by a crewmember" scenario from day one.

AFAIK and in view of our experience following the A350 test flights, the FR24 sampling rates for GS and position vs altitude are different. Basically some 20 seconds for altitude.

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 42):
The "hostile crewmember" could have turned the switch first to "no ALT" and then "off" for reasons unknown to us.

Therer is no *OFF* position on that selector... Just StBy... You can't turn the xponder off from that box, although StBy achieves the same result : no Xponder data communicated.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 38):
Autoland needs human intervention, that is you need to select the ILS frequency for the approach, and you also have to instruct the autopilot to leave cruise altitude to the initial approach altitude, this includes selecting the lower limit the VNAV can go to prior to ILS glideslope capture, by selecting the altitude on the selector in the autopilot panel.

It goes a lot further than that : One has to program the FMGS to do an autoland, switch both A/Ps on during the approach, select the IAS required for each flap selection (which is very very manual ), lower the landing gear... not even mentioniong the aircraft re-configuration and Checklists...
Autoland is just that .

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 43):
Also doesn't the airport need to pretty much clear everything that might be in the way of the ILS, for a Cat III approach?

That is a common mis-conception : you can autoland without Cat III protections, it's up to you and the ATC won't say anything, as you are still responsible for the airplane safety : visual conditions : if you're not happy with the approach to land geometry, take over manually and complete the landing.

Quoting 65mustang (Reply 41):

Interesting interview with former MAS Chief pilot Nik Huzlan. It is from about two weeks ago.

Already talked about, and a very akward and distasteful performance :
He said " we need three things : a motive, an opportunity and ability..."
On the motive : Nada
On the opportunity : He was in the aircraft, wasn't he ?   , omitting to say that the captain was on standby and had very little time to prepare for the dastardly act.
On the ability : Oh! Yes, he was competent... but he was also invisible... etc...very generous in sharing his experience and expertise with all comers.
Contrail designer
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 8:18 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 38):
Again, the satcom (antenna, and satellite data unit) cannot be turned off on its own from the cockpit. You need to go to the E&E bay and pull the circuit breakers to turn it off.

And if the CB is replaced, a reasonably quick start up procedure will follow automatically ? So the system will be operational again in -say- 1 minute or less ? And it will perform a logon immediately ?

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 38):
The only other way to switch it off is to take power away from the left AC Bus. And there's no way to put power back to the left AC Bus from outside the cockpit while the aircraft is flying.

I wonder if it can be shut off and back on from within the cockpit ? Guess not, but i don't know.

Somehow, i cannot imagine a 777 flying upside down in a level flight at cruise speed for a substantial period of time.
 
markak
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 1:14 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 65

Fri May 30, 2014 9:30 pm

I can add this to the discussion...

I am quite sure that the oscillator in the RFU is an OCXO type (ovenized crystal oscillator).
They maintain frequency stability by keeping the crystal in an oven at a constant temperature.
If the power is removed for a minute or so, and then re-applied, it takes some time (minutes) for the OCXO to warm back up and stabilize again. If there was a power cycle, this should be reflected by a shift in the BFO numbers.

Mark

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos