Why I believe that the radar plot should be considered "official"

In the Kuala Lumpur press briefing on 19 March, the Malaysia's defence minister Hishammuddin Hussein said:

Quote: I can confirm that we have received some radar data, but we are not at liberty to release information from other countries. I appeal to all our partners to continue volunteering any and all information that could help with the investigation and the search for MH370. I would like to announce that in addition to the team that is already on the ground, Malaysia is currently assembling a high-level team that will immediately travel to Beijing. The team will give briefings and updates to the next of kin on the latest situation, and on search and rescue plans. The team will include representatives from the Prime Minister’s Office, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Royal Malaysian Air Force, the Department of Civil Aviation, and Malaysia Airlines. The team will be led by Lieutenant General Dato’ Sri Ackbal bin Haji Abdul Samad RMAF (Air Operation Commander, Royal Malaysia Air Force), assisted by Ahmad Nizar bin Zolfakar (Director, Air Traffic Services, Department of Civil Aviation) and will include a senior 777 pilot.

On 21 March in Beijing at the Lido hotel, I believe that Lt. Gen. Ackbal bin Haji Abdul Samad, air operations commander of the Royal Malaysian Air Force, in full military uniform and as official envoy of the Minister of Defence of Malaysia, presented the infamous radar plot and made additional remarks at a briefing of relatives of Chinese passengers on board the missing flight.
Asked if it was possible that the plane has been shot down by air forces, Samad said it was “highly not possible” , adding that while military radar had captured signs of the jet they did not take any steps as they believed the aircraft to be a “friendly”.



I see no reason not to trust what was presented by the air operations commander of the Royal Malaysian Air Force, a distinguished test pilot.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 45): 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.

IIRC actually they eliminated the section between the two arcs because the airplane couldn't possibly have flown for 6+ hours at the required speed, and if it had flown around in circles over the South China Sea for 6+ hours it would have been very obvious.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 45): Here is pretty picture for you all:

Aaargh! Got the I-4 habits on me... but anyways...

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 45): 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.

1. Inmarsat has not provided information that the aircraft ever logged onto POR.
2. In satcom, hiatuses of activity does not mean it's logged off.
3. 1629 - 1641, if it logged to POR, it would have to log onto IOR again. No logon request on recommencement of communication with IOR.
4. 1643 - 1655, if it logged to POR, it would have to log onto IOR again. No logon request on recommencement of communication with IOR.
5. 1656 - 1705, if it logged to POR, it would have to log onto IOR again. No logon request on recommencement of communication with IOR.
6. The ground will try to keep open the session channel that is idle or missing, for about 20 minutes (unfortunately, any billable payload being sent that is not received, will continue to be resent, and counted as volume upload, we call this the "Inmarsat nasty surprise" when the bill comes).
7. From 18:03:41 to 18:05:59, 72 machine attempts made from the ground to communicate with the aircraft's satcom. If it logged off there, it would have logged on elsewhere (POR) and those attempts would not exist.
8. Don't you think Inmarsat would have known about logon to POR?

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 45): 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.

Again... If it was picked up by POR, Inmarsat who is now trying extremely hard to market this so-called "new" capability of providing free marketing, would have known, and would have revealed that.
The gap in the 40deg elevation LOP provided, does not show a gap centered around the equator. The gap north of the equator is much larger than the gap south of the equator. The arc to the south starts at about 5S latitude, while the north starts at about 20N latitude.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 45): 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.

It does not, unless one wants it to be.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 47): 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.

For FR24 yes. If the data feeder to FR24 was using the FR24 supplied dongle, the data would be about less than that. If the data feeder was using ADS-B receiver that is not the FR24 dongle, the sampling rates would be much higher, and that every position has it's altitude tag. This is what I've questioned from day 1, who is the feeder, what is he/she using, if not the FR24 dongle receiver, does he/she have the log, if yes, is the log set at the maximum resolution (2 per secs, but the log would be about 1 per 2 secs instead) or bare minimum (eg: 1 per minute), and would contain a lot more info.
What we're seeing is the FR24 server logs, not the feeder logs. We need the latter.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 47): 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 .

Agree. So the argument "if they were planning to land, the autoland should take care of it without human intervention once programmed into the box" is nothing but fiction/misconception.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 48): 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 ?

On power up (or power restoration), it would take the ARINC429 feed for position (or its own GPS receive function module, available on some Inmarsat aircraft antennas), determine where it is and where the nose was pointing and the speed, steer the beam to the satellite, pre-adjust the transmission frequency for doppler, and then request a logon. Yes, it should take less than 1 minute.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 48): I wonder if it can be shut off and back on from within the cockpit ? Guess not, but i don't know.

From the cockpit, to shut off the satcom and switch it back on is, turn the power to the left AC bus off, and on.
A LOT of things on the aircraft would be affected if you do this.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 48): Somehow, i cannot imagine a 777 flying upside down in a level flight at cruise speed for a substantial period of time.

Me neither...

Quoting hivue (Reply 51): IIRC actually they eliminated the section between the two arcs because the airplane couldn't possibly have flown for 6+ hours at the required speed, and if it had flown around in circles over the South China Sea for 6+ hours it would have been very obvious.

I think it was never officially reported why the section between the arcs was eliminated, but i remember both versions being mentioned otherwise.
The sector is well within the IOR-Zone and on the fringe of the POR-zone, according to WP's coverage map in #45.

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 50): Why I believe that the radar plot should be considered "official"

I really do not see how you could say that in view of that declaration.
Did he confirm his released plotting ?
No
Did he explain the discrepancy between the plot and the radial / distance from Butterworth ?
No
Did he confirm the airplane alleged trajectory ?
No
We still have the same information fogging we've seen and heard since the beginning of this sad story...
Nothing more ... and nothing less.

Especially two months and ten days later.
Pathetic ass-covering operations that couldn't stand for more than half a second in any air defence briefing.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 47): if you're not happy with the approach to land geometry, take over manually and complete the landing.

Wait, friend, isn't the whole point of a Cat III approach that it's way below minimums? Like 0 vis?? It's impossible to do it manually. That's the point... That's why autoland exists, ya? To land with conditions that are far below any other minimums.

Are we not on the same page here?

All I meant was that I read when someone is doing a Cat III ILS approach, the airport needs to clear everything between the transmitter and the approach path... just in case...

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 39): If one of the probabilities shrinks, the other (for one or all other possible causes, be it mechanical or UFO-abduction) are automatically increased.

Neither of the probabilities we are talking about has 'shrunk' yet...

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 56): All I meant was that I read when someone is doing a Cat III ILS approach, the airport needs to clear everything between the transmitter and the approach path... just in case...

Not just in case, it's to remove any possibility of ILS signal distortion.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 10): 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..."

Frankly, it's starting to remind me a lot of the AF447 threads, where it was just one thing pulled out of a hat after another. Every day or two a new idea that sounded somewhat plausible to us troglodytes had to once again be debunked by those with the knowledge and experience. It gets old quickly.

And despite some dubbing it "healthy debate" or some such, it really instead creates confusion, misunderstandings, and overall false truths to the people - like me - who aren't educated in these areas. I do think that is irresponsible of the folks who choose to ignore facts and evidence and instead continue expounding on their own made-up ideas.

Very frustrating and very irresponsible. I personally resent it.

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 23): 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....?

I frankly don't understand how you can continually brush off the information that has been shared by the people in the know. Not A.net people, but the actual investigators and other folks who are privy to way more than we are.

It_boggles_my_mind.

-Dave

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 56): All I meant was that I read when someone is doing a Cat III ILS approach, the airport needs to clear everything between the transmitter and the approach path... just in case...

For CAT III in weather needing Cat III ILS, yes.... but you can do Autoland in Cat I conditions, provided you know what you're doing, ie: monitor it in case things go awry... which is quite likely if one doesn't tell the airport you're going to shoot an autoland practice.
Not all airports are aware what is required if someone is going to do an autoland, this happens in airports with Cat I ILS as the highest capability.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 59): Frankly, it's starting to remind me a lot of the AF447 threads, where it was just one thing pulled out of a hat after another. Every day or two a new idea that sounded somewhat plausible to us troglodytes had to once again be debunked by those with the knowledge and experience. It gets old quickly.

I recall NAV20 (not NAV30) being right in it a lot of the times.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 59): I do think that is irresponsible of the folks who choose to ignore facts and evidence and instead continue expounding on their own made-up ideas. Very frustrating and very irresponsible. I personally resent it.

Thank you, this beats claims of "I receive emails from lurkers" saying the same or the opposite... as this one is verifiable.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 60): I recall NAV20 (not NAV30) being right in it a lot of the times.

cough***Exactly!***cough

-Dave

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 60): I recall NAV20 (not NAV30) being right in it a lot of the times.

Oh no! Don't encourage him.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 54): I really do not see how you could say that in view of that declaration. Did he confirm his released plotting ? No Did he explain the discrepancy between the plot and the radial / distance from Butterworth ? No Did he confirm the airplane alleged trajectory ? No We still have the same information fogging we've seen and heard since the beginning of this sad story... Nothing more ... and nothing less. Especially two months and ten days later. Pathetic ass-covering operations that couldn't stand for more than half a second in any air defence briefing.

Of course when I prepared my post #50 re. "Why I believe that the radar plot should be considered 'official'", I knew exactly who was going to jump and try to hack every word I wrote!

Over the last couple of months, you have fought the radar plot every time you had a chance and I quote:

Quote: "I don't recall such a slide. Please repost." "To me, if these radar blips were to be credible, they should have shown a continuous track..." "The *green track* could also be a time picture of many flights over one hour or more. If your theory was correct, the blip would be at the end of the track... here, it is in the middle of a clutter, which can't be it's track.'

Of course I cannot prove that the plot is correct (we know the label on the top left is erroneous). I can only say that the data points look genuine. If RMAF or others intended to build a fake plot, they would have proceeded differently. The plot would be simple to explain, thus raising no red flags.

But the plot we have is a technical conundrum. That is why I think it is so interesting. It may eventually reveal more information about what happened. That is why I think it would be more constructive on your part to pretend for the time being that it is genuine and see where that leads, using your intimate knowledge of aircraft systems and behavior to help decipher it rather than just reject it outright.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 61): Quoting mandala499 (Reply 60): I recall NAV20 (not NAV30) being right in it a lot of the times. cough***Exactly!***cough

Yeah. Although, curiously, this time the theories are not so much about the plastic Airbus tails falling off, lack of proper Boeing-like feedback in controls, and so on. I wonder why?

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 63): Of course I cannot prove that the plot is correct (we know the label on the top left is erroneous). I can only say that the data points look genuine.

That's the point : it looks genuine.
But after all this time, has it been confirmed / validated by the oinly people who count in this investigation, i.e; the investighators ?
No.
I really do not understand your fixation on this radar plot and your hi/lo/hi scenarios.
For the time being, it's nothing than a fancy.
You have all the details and all the performance data you'd need to work it out... and then nothing...
And now, you suddenly exhibit as a *proof* a document from ten weeks ago and try and sell it because the officer is a *distinguished pilot*, which is quite surprising because Flight 370 captain has been / was IMO even more distinguished.
These doubled standards comments are quite tiring.

Since the beginning, and on all my participations to these threads, my attitude has always been very consistent : I do not take into account anything from the press nor from the officials : I only deal with infos from the investigation team or - with a lot of crosschecking - aviation circles.
You deal with CNN and China news, I prefer Boeing and specialists.
Youi seem to have a good grasp of Inmarsat technology and I appreciate that... but guess what : you miss onre very important aspect : The aircraft silence for more than one hour.... it needs an aviation specialist, here Mandala, to pick it up.

So, yes :

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 63): ... the plot we have is a technical conundrum.

...but it's mainly because nobody is interested in digging further into the technical aspect.

Another thing : I saw quite a few posters dismissing my theory, because bla bla blah... etc...
Has anyone bothered to check one of my derived trajectories with DS's *loci* ?
No.
So if you want a technical discussion, stay away from conspiracy theories... they might - just might - come back with a technical explanation.
What amuses me is that most of the posters get it backward : they start with a foul play scenario and try to confirm it with the technical facts... introducing very understandable biases and second layer theories, which then need a third layer...
The only approach that guarantees objectivity is to look at what we know, how it could have happened... and then use the divergence on the possibilities to elaborate a set of probabilities.
So far, it hasn't been the case.

Otherwise, you're just wasting your time

Quoting Pihero (Reply 54): We still have the same information fogging we've seen and heard since the beginning of this sad story... Nothing more ... and nothing less.

The thing is, if they want to cover up, let's use it.  
If they want to cover up, then they would have stuck to IGARI-NILAM and try to shift the "lack of action" blame to the Thais.
By them not doing that, they're already stuck between a rock and a hard place.
By them doing what they did, they actually look more asleep than they were, because now not only it went IGARI-KotaBharu-Penang-Nilam, now we know for that to be feasible, it has to be done by the aircraft maintaining cruise altitudes and speeds... more or less... So, that throws out their excuse of "it went to a lower altitude to avoid detection" argument.
Instead of denying its usefulness, I see there's much more benefit in using it to prevent them from covering up!

Just as the previous government allegations of "deliberate action" hinting at "criminal action", were "not open for debate" as far as the government was concerned until there are any evidence of the aircraft being found. They seemed to have tried very hard to taint the captain, but now, seeing the Inmarsat data, and the now published "claimed radar plot", actually makes it look more like that a mishap occured onboard instead of someone simply wanting to fly the 777 into oblivion.

From day 1 I was on the "someone wanted to fly this to oblivion" school of thought, but while everyone pointed at the captain, I pointed at the FO. However, what this has enabled me to do is to see the weaknesses of the "hostile takeout into oblivion" theories, while those who pointed at the captain, are "bound" "gagged" or "trapped" within the "it has to be the captain" mindset.
Your "cascade failure" theory, does require the radar plot via Penang to be valid, otherwise it would be too simple and reduce the possibility of flying for another 6 hours after it disappeared from military radar.

They know they cannot give out false data, but they'll do their best to skew the meaning of the data. This is typical of a Malay/Indo coverup methodology, and (ironically) it is used often in aviation and the military.
Let's just use the data and use the objective meaning as best as we can in order to pressure the cover up to be reduced or exposed or abandoned.   This was the method used to clean up Indo's aviation over the past 10 yrs... It works because it forces those skewing the info to explain the skew... it usually ends up in them abandoning the skew and reveal the truth... eventually.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 66): Your "cascade failure" theory, does require the radar plot via Penang to be valid, otherwise it would be too simple and reduce the possibility of flying for another 6 hours after it disappeared from military radar.

Oh ! No !
It doesn't at all !

The first problem is in the *simplicity* as it involves[b] a technical fault and a human intervention, a very simple one which wasn't followed by the implied SOPs eventual actions... ( see technical fault above for reasons ).

The second problem is in the *simplicity* as it involves a human intervention, a very simple one which caused a very simple trajectory to be followed by a degraded-mode A/P.
Nothing else.

There are two points worth mentioning, though :
1/- The proponents of Mr H's services pretty pictures are in fact shooting their own foot : they have to cope with a longer flight in the Straits part, therefore reducing their chances of proving their theory / trajectory for lack of fuel... and also forcing a much closer final turn.

2/- You've put your finger on one aspect of the flight that cannot be explained by foul play ( com loss between 17:07 Z and 18:25 Z )... and everybody jumps on you ...  ... because it's a major dent in their various scenarios.
(of course, the F/O could have crawled over the wing, open the engine cowl and disconnected the IDG )
  

Apparently, there was an electrical failure of some sort on board that airplane, wasn't it ?

[Edited 2014-05-31 02:31:04]

Quoting Pihero (Reply 67): You've put your finger on one aspect of the flight that cannot be explained by foul play ( com loss between 17:07 Z and 18:25 Z )... and everybody jumps on you ...

You know, am always the party-pooper for the conspiracy theorists...   

Quoting Pihero (Reply 67): The first problem is in the *simplicity* as it involves[b] a technical fault and a human intervention, a very simple one which wasn't followed by the implied SOPs eventual actions... ( see technical fault above for reasons ).

That is well understood, but it does not make the alternative impossible.
I am working under the premise that the over VPG path is valid, in order to seek explanations on how the aircraft can turn to the south later, and how it can last until over 0019Z...
There are too big missing pieces in the "simple turn and doesn't go over VPG" theory, but, it doesn't mean it's impossible. I hope that by working on the VPG path, those missing pieces in the "not over VPG" can also be filled, for the benefit of all the alternative theories (including the compound hostile takeover combined with electrical mishap).

Quoting Pihero (Reply 67): The second problem is in the *simplicity* as it involves a human intervention, a very simple one which caused a very simple trajectory to be followed by a degraded-mode A/P. Nothing else.

A simple disregard (intentional or not) the SOP makes it unlikely to have ended up so mysteriously... like in the AF447, the initial error was the not doing the UAS Proc, which then resulted in consequential errors. For MH370, we need to find the consequential errors or simply consequences on the chain of actions (or lack thereof). I tried to look at it from the "not over VPG" method of yours and so far couldn't get the chain going rightly, but going through the VPG method, has opened up some parts of the chain that's also applicable to your theory.

But, to come up with the mishap and over VPG, does need your "simple mishap and not fly over VPG" theory to surface in the first place!   
Let's hope it can all come together sometime...

Quoting Pihero (Reply 67): 2/- You've put your finger on one aspect of the flight that cannot be explained by foul play ( com loss between 17:07 Z and 18:25 Z )... and everybody jumps on you ...  ... because it's a major dent in their various scenarios.

I discussed this with one of the global newswires yesterday, and we've all come back with the following challenges:
1. How the hell can it be explained concisely for average person to understand?
2. How the heck is the Malaysian government is going to react to this, and what would be the effect to the search effort (I sense a potential threat to the continuity of the search from what they're saying).
If this theory becomes the predominant theory, the implications for the Malaysian government on their handling of this is of epic proportions.

(afteredit)

Quoting Pihero (Reply 67): (of course, the F/O could have crawled over the wing, open the engine cowl and disconnected the IDG )

The answer to that ridiculous idea (in case someone does suggest it!!!!! knowing this topic, someone might!!!!    ), disconnecting the IDG on 1 engine will not cause the Satcom to fail!    The transfer bus from the other engine will power it, and there's also the APU one can call up!...

[Edited 2014-05-31 03:17:17]

*sigh*

So where are we at... Same place we were a few weeks in, basically, yeah?

I've been very studious keeping up with this thread, but I'm afraid we won't know anything for years, if ever ... especially if they're not even actively searching now ...

How many of you will stay here and keep vigil with me? I notice rcair1 is missing...

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 69): Same place we were a few weeks in, basically, yeah?

Well, I would put the possibility of an electrical failure/problem as a new development based on the Inmarsat data logs published. Unfortunately, this has become an inconvenience for a lot of people especially those advocating the foul play scenario.

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 69): *sigh* So where are we at... Same place we were a few weeks in, basically, yeah? I've been very studious keeping up with this thread, but I'm afraid we won't know anything for years, if ever ... especially if they're not even actively searching now ... How many of you will stay here and keep vigil with me? I notice rcair1 is missing...

More like the same place we were a few months ago  

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 70): Quoting nupogodi (Reply 69): Same place we were a few weeks in, basically, yeah? Well, I would put the possibility of an electrical failure/problem as a new development based on the Inmarsat data logs published. Unfortunately, this has become an inconvenience for a lot of people especially those advocating the foul play scenario.

There is no inconvenience. I, just like everybody else, want to know where the plane is and what most likely happened. If there is sound info that points to one scenario becoming more likely then I have no problem to change my opinion on what happened. My first though was the Captain did it. Then I though it was foul play / intentional with 80% to the Captain and 20% to another source, including a government. As soon as I learn of a theory that ticks more of the boxes then that is the theory I will likely be in favor of. There are some people who are stubborn and won't change their position until the plane is found and the final report is released - so they may never change their position. IMO this is foolish and narrow minded. If someone can provide me with a chain of events and how what little we know helps that chain become possible (not just dangle little pieces of info here and there) then I am open to change my position. But, until that happens, I have no reason to change positions as this entire thing seems to have stonewalled apart from the recent release of the supposed Inmarsat data from MH370...

Quote: Quoting mandala499 (Reply 10): 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, nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah..." Quoting PlanesNTrains: I do think that is irresponsible of the folks who choose to ignore facts and evidence and instead continue expounding on their own made-up ideas. Very frustrating and very irresponsible. I personally resent it. Quoting Mandala: Thank you, this beats claims of "I receive emails from lurkers" saying the same or the opposite... as this one is verifiable.

Wow. Just wow... I can't believe you guys won't drop this. You personally resent it... Unbelievable! You guys want to know what is childish? A: not being able to get your point across without calling someone a 5 year old!

My rule of thumb is that if my "opponent" were across from me in a tavern and I wouldn't say it to their face--like calling them 5-year olds, or senile, or dishonest--I do not write it down in an internet forum. A lot of the stuff that is routinely spewed around here by the 99% anonymous avatars, if I were to say that in bar, it would get my face bashed in! Albeit I live in a world filled with beefy oil field workers and where concealed guns are legalized--a circumstance that tends to focus one's mind when having "healthy debate".

Nevertheless, just because you can anonymously insult someone on the other side of the world without personal repercussions, that doesn't mean you should do it--because in fact there are consequences: the literal bottom line is that the boorishness here is costing the forum $$$.

It is possible to always be polite. This forum is as good as you make it. Never post a message in anger. Take the high road, and others will follow.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 65): Has anyone bothered to check one of my derived trajectories with DS's *loci* ? No.

Um, yes I did, sir, and, unfortunately, I must say it doesn't fit at all.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 72): My rule of thumb is that if my "opponent" were across from me in a tavern and I wouldn't say it to their face--like calling them 5-year olds, or senile, or dishonest--I do not write it down in an internet forum.

Well said! Actually a very good thought. More people should take this approach.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 68):

Quoting Pihero (Reply 67):

You guys are disappointing me - how dare you turn this into a serious fact-based discussion? Since Monty Python is no longer, this thread was my nightly comic relief - Ministry of Silly (T)alks ....

Quoting Pihero (Reply 67): You've put your finger on one aspect of the flight that cannot be explained by foul play ( com loss between 17:07 Z and 18:25 Z ).

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 70): Well, I would put the possibility of an electrical failure/problem as a new development based on the Inmarsat data logs published. Unfortunately, this has become an inconvenience for a lot of people especially those advocating the foul play scenario.

Let us try not to jump to conclusions too quickly.
17:07 to 18:03:
- The GES does not receive anything from the AES even though it should have from the ACARS app around 17:37
- The GES has nothing to transmit to the AES
During that period, two possible explanations: AES not operational or ACARS turned off (no VHF, no SATCOM).

18:03 to 18:25
- the GES tries to transmit a message to the AES over a high speed (10,500bps) P channel. Somehow the AES does not receive the message or it does but its acknowledge response is not received by the GES. We cannot know for sure when we observe only one side of the communication protocol.

That 18:03 to 18:25 period is particularly interesting to me because it also corresponds to the yet unexplained radar data plot. For Pihero, the a/c was hightailing at cruise level. Maybe. Another possibility is a non-professional pilot flying the a/c at a much lower altitude at that point.

Real pilots don't fly beyond Vmo (that's what I want to print on a batch of T-shirts for some A.netters) because they know better. But improvised pilots might. The recently released portions of the 9/11 official report via the United States National Archives only mentions the speed profile for AA97 that crashed into the Pentagon because that is the only 9/11 flight the FDR of which was recovered.

Quote: At the end of the turn, the airplane was at about 2000 feet altitude and 4 miles south of the Pentagon. Over the next 30 seconds, power was increased to near maximum and the nose was pitched down in response to control column movements. The airplane accelerated to approximately 460 knots at impact with the Pentagon.

Maybe the radar plot period is when flutter increased the BER on higher speed communications to the point where even the coding rate was not sufficient to make SUs decodable. Maybe that is when the a/c suffered some structural damage from the high speed run beyond Vmo (and Vdf), possibly starting with the cockpit windshield that I hear is only rated for 250kts below 10,000ft. That might explain the 02:40 MayDay received by Utapao (or some asset somehow connected with Utapao) when someone was talking about the cabin disintegrating.

Just another type of scenario of a high jack gone bad that in no way removes in my mind the possibility of almost all other scenarios

Quoting LovesCoffee (Reply 74): Well said! Actually a very good thought. More people should take this approach.

*shrug* I don't say anything here I wouldn't say to someone in a bar. I'm actually quite more offensive IRL to be honest. So far my face has avoided getting bashed in. It's all about tone, which doesn't come across well through text. Mocking someone isn't inherently cruel if you do it playfully.

But that is the way discussions on the Internet go, especially technical ones. Once the low hanging fruit is gone - and gods know we've plucked the whole woods clean by this point - people start to turn on each other. It is the way things go, the way things always have gone, and the way they will always go.

The issue here is, what do you say to someone who won't listen to reason? Making jokes is my approach although may not be everyone's.

You and I are in the same industry, Coffee man. But I will not hesitate to call you senile if the situation warrants it  

Quote: Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 45): 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. Quoting Mandala: 1. Inmarsat has not provided information that the aircraft ever logged onto POR.

That's not exactly true. Here is the picture again:



Notice the gap. Why is it there? I repeat: Why is it there? This has been discussed at length a long time ago. The answer is that the gap represents the region of overlap with POR versus IOR. Note also that this information comes from Inmarsat. Therefore, if it is the case that the aircraft would have been detected by POR had the aircraft be within POR's coverage area at time 24:11, then it stands to reason that it would have been detected by POR at time 18:17 or whatever.

Thus, if the POR could detect the 9M-MRO, then it stands to reason that the POR could communicate with the 9M-MRO. Thus, it further follows that if the 9M-MRO was communicating with the POR, then it stands to reason that the 9M-MRO would not communicate with the IOR.

Again, when within the region of the overlap, which satellite takes over? The Inmarsat coverage map clearly indicates that POR is in charge. For your convenience, here it is again:



Again, I point you to western Australia that is squarely within the region of overlap. Who is in charge there? A: POR. Not IOR. Therefore, within the region of overlap east of Malaysia--where MH370 initially flew--would also be controlled by POR. This explains the satcom logoff.

Quote: 2. In satcom, hiatuses of activity does not mean it's logged off.

I already said that myself: that communication ceased 18:07 does not entail that the logoff happened at 18:07. That is clearly spelled out in the release. There would have been a hiatus, then the aircraft would have flown into POR's coverage area not long after, and then, the IOR logoff would have occured.

Quote: 3. 1629 - 1641, if it logged to POR, it would have to log onto IOR again. No logon request on recommencement of communication with IOR. 4. 1643 - 1655, if it logged to POR, it would have to log onto IOR again. No logon request on recommencement of communication with IOR. 5. 1656 - 1705, if it logged to POR, it would have to log onto IOR again. No logon request on recommencement of communication with IOR.

I never said that these hiatuses were the result of logoffs. I pointed them out specifically as examples of extended breaks in communication that are not the result of logging off. In any case, even if they were logoffs, it could not be because of handing off to POR because at those times the aircraft was not within POR's zone of coverage!

Quote: 6. The ground will try to keep open the session channel that is idle or missing, for about 20 minutes (unfortunately, any billable payload being sent that is not received, will continue to be resent, and counted as volume upload, we call this the "Inmarsat nasty surprise" when the bill comes). 7. From 18:03:41 to 18:05:59, 72 machine attempts made from the ground to communicate with the aircraft's satcom. If it logged off there, it would have logged on elsewhere (POR) and those attempts would not exist.

Well, then great: you just made my point for me: #6 explains #7: the ground made 72 attempts to keep open the session channel because that's what it's supposed to do.

Quote: 8. Don't you think Inmarsat would have known about logon to POR?

I guarantee you they know. You have started a tempest in a teapot, and this will come out in the news soon. Will you give me credit when that happens? 

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 78): Notice the gap. Why is it there? I repeat: Why is it there? This has been discussed at length a long time ago. The answer is that the gap represents the region of overlap with POR versus IOR. Note also that this information comes from Inmarsat.

Er... I always thought that that gap represented where the plane was tracked on radar, disqualifying any positions on that section of the arc.

Also I believe you're referring to the spot beam coverage but the handshakes don't happen on the spot beam (or so we've been told)...

[Edited 2014-05-31 05:25:58]

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 77): So far my face has avoided getting bashed in.

Lemme guess: you live in Toronto and not Alberta.

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 77): The issue here is, what do you say to someone who won't listen to reason?

If you can't say anything nice, then don't say anything at all is my advice...

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 80): Lemme guess: you live in Toronto and not Alberta.

I've spent time in Alberta... Friendlier folks than they're given credit for! Though I didn't go to Fort McDirty.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 80): If you can't say anything nice, then don't say anything at all is my advice...

Yeeeees, motheeeeer....

Quote: Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 78): Notice the gap. Why is it there? I repeat: Why is it there? This has been discussed at length a long time ago. The answer is that the gap represents the region of overlap with POR versus IOR. Note also that this information comes from Inmarsat. Quoting Nupogodi: Er... I always thought that that gap represented where the plane was tracked on radar, disqualifying any positions on that section of the arc.

Huh? I take it you that had the aircraft been on the 24:11 LOP within the gap it would have been detected by radar. But really? Recall the cut across Malaysia after the turn at IGARI. We only have unconfirmed reports of spotty contacts by Thai and Vietnamese radar, and one, partial confirmed track by Malaysian radar in the main channel of the Malacca Strait. What makes you think that the boondocks of Indonesia or Laos would be any better?

Maybe I'm missing something here, but, as I understand it, the captain failed to check in with ATC, and the aeroplane 'went dead,' and went off radar, only about forty minutes after they took off?

The ATC guys 'posited' a couple of left turns, but that was only 'military radar,' and the quoted altitudes and speeds didn't match up at all with the likely performance of a 777 (too fast, too high, then too low).

Again as I understand it, Inmarsat only 'pings' a given aeroplane once an hour?

It seems entirely possible (even probable) that MH370 'went in' straight after it lost all contact? So surely Inmarsat, on this occasion, would likely not have got round to sending its very first 'ping'?

[Edited 2014-05-31 05:56:31]

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 81): Friendlier folks than they're given credit for!

My point exactly. Violent societies tend to be polite societies. I was in Calgary once and the place where I was at this guy told me a story about someone who rudely went back into the kitchen to complain about the state of his fried eggs: the cook just stabbed him in the heart. Point being, if someone takes the trouble to cook some food for you, complain about it at your own risk. On the internet where the violence is only virtual, people think they have carte blanche to be extremely rude. But this should not be the case. People have feelings, and these can be hurt by words on the internet. You read stories about girls committing suicide because of facebook bullies. So there are real world consequences to unkind words even on the internet. Also, for the sake of the lurkers--they really do not enjoy the "repartee"--that is not why they come here. Plus, I just read that cynical people are 3 times more likely to develop dementia later in their lives. Thus, for the sake of your own health, it is better to have faith in your fellow man and treat them with respect.

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 83): Again as I understand it, Inmarsat only 'pings' a given aeroplane once an hour?

The handshake (keep-alive, or 'ping' as we've been calling it) is initiated by the ground station approximately once an hour, but that is not the only communication that occurs, nor is the timeout the only scenario that could trigger a handshake.

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 83): It seems entirely possible (even probable) that MH370 'went in' straight after it lost all contact?

Exactly the opposite. It is impossible.

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 83): So surely Inmarsat, on this occasion, would likely not have got round to sending its very first 'ping'?

I have no idea what you mean by this. First ping? We are talking about low-level networking handshakes, on the ground we call them 'keep-alives', for satelitte purposes the point of them is to keep a channel open I imagine just like on the ground keep-alive packets are sent to verify that the communication channel is open even when neither party is communicating. It's just a piece of data that says "I'm here, don't forget about me, even though I haven't been feeling particularly chatty lately." 9M-MRO's terminal signed on with Inmarsat when it was powered up, likely, but we know it also sent a bit of ACARS during the 'normal' portion of flight, so I really don't know what you mean by 'first ping'.

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 76): Real pilots don't fly beyond Vmo (that's what I want to print on a batch of T-shirts for some A.netters) because they know better. But improvised pilots might.

After a dozen posts on this subject, this is a ridiculous statement which forgets the FBW characteristics of the T7 : it's called high speed protection anbd you'd find it useful to look it up on the net ( Smartcockpit is one really great site for that ).
None of the September 2001 planes was FBW.

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 76): Maybe the radar plot period is when flutter increased the BER on higher speed communications to the point where even the coding rate was not sufficient to make SUs decodable.

Yeah ! And while you're at it, a couple of slow rolls for fun would help buggering the sat communications.

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 79): Also I believe you're referring to the spot beam coverage but the handshakes don't happen on the spot beam (or so we've been told)..

Has he even bothered with facts ?

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 83): Maybe I'm missing something here, but, as I understand it, the captain failed to check in with ATC, and the aeroplane 'went dead,' and went off radar, only about forty minutes after they took off?

Sir, you may be on to something! After all, the ADS-B data says altitude = 0 at 17:21!  

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 84): I was in Calgary once and the place where I was at this guy told me a story about someone who rudely went back into the kitchen to complain about the state of his fried eggs: the cook just stabbed him in the heart.

Yes and if you board a Greyhound in Edmonton you're liable to be beheaded somewhere in Manitoba, apparently.

Anecdotes are fun, but realistically no one's going to stab you over eggs, in Calgary or otherwise. Nor would you stab me if I made fun of your 'analyses' over a round of beers. One would hope, at least, but I try not to live in fear.  

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 85): Exactly the opposite. It is impossible.

What explanation do you have for the (very experienced) Captain not 'checking in,' and the aeroplane going off radar, and off nav. aids - and, of course, never being heard from again, nupogodi?

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 89): What explanation do you have for the (very experienced) Captain not 'checking in,' and the aeroplane going off radar, and off nav. aids - and, of course, never being heard from again, nupogodi?

I have made no secret of the fact I believe there was some sort of malicious interference on board, likely by the flight crew, because of that fact that the transponder was turned off, ACARS was disabled, and the plane turned off-course at an *incredibly* convenient time.

Some choose to believe some sort of fire or electrical mishap theory, and more power to them. But those are the only two probable scenarios that have been brought forth.

Having worked in aerospace, I know better than to distrust the boffins. When you sit with people who design satellites it quickly becomes apparent that you should not argue with them about satellites. Unless you put on a tinfoil hat and claim government conspiracy/coverup, then if Inmarsat says the plane was chatty for hours and hours, I'll take that as fact.

So, however you explain the loss of comms, the turn, etc - we know for a fact that the flight did not end 40 minutes in.

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 77): You and I are in the same industry, Coffee man. But I will not hesitate to call you senile if the situation warrants it

True. The software design meetings I attended sometimes were very, shall we say, heated at times. The meetings were all in person and we all (developers) really enjoyed the intensity of the discussions. No one that had a brain was offended when we left the room and went back to our individual tasks. A very few people (they usually didn't last very long) would be (and remain) offended. It was usually those who didn't understand the technology. The more removed we are from face to face discussions, the more we lose all the little nuances of expression and tone. As has been noted, humor can be difficult to comprehend in a text-only environment. No offence taken.   

Wake me when it's time for my pills....

[Edited 2014-05-31 06:25:46]

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 78): Notice the gap. Why is it there? I repeat: Why is it there?

I guess that gap represents the set of possibilities being zero (0) for the flight's final resting place. The possibilities being calculated given the correlation of all pings' locations and minimum speeds.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 72): Nevertheless, just because you can anonymously insult someone on the other side of the world without personal repercussions, that doesn't mean you should do it

What really matters is letting yourself being insulted or not Mama Teresa.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 68): I discussed this with one of the global newswires yesterday, and we've all come back with the following challenges: 1. How the hell can it be explained concisely for average person to understand?

Excuse me but as an average person I can recall that Satcoms power supply can be cut off from the electronics bay, why then can't it manually be reconnected?

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 70): Well, I would put the possibility of an electrical failure/problem as a new development based on the Inmarsat data logs published. Unfortunately, this has become an inconvenience for a lot of people especially those advocating the foul play scenario.

I believe Pihero's scenario is worth being more favorable and should be the first scenario to confirm or reject as it is based on logic plus more work.

Whereas, captain/FO/other highjack scenario has been a lazier way out...

... and even if you foolishly decide to distrust Inmarsat, realize that the area along the flight path is shallow water and was searched extensively in the weeks following the incident. No wreck or debris was found in the Gulf of Thailand.

No plane there, and no legitimate evidence saying it could have been there anyway.

Do you really still feel like putting your hands over your ears and shouting, or will you listen to reason?

[Edited 2014-05-31 06:46:17]

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 90): and the plane turned off-course at an *incredibly* convenient time.

That's probably where I 'draw the line,' nupogodi.

IMO there's no way in the world that a pilot as experienced as this one would have 'turned blind' across a busy traffic area without telling anyone - especially at night.

As far as I'm concerned, the aeroplane almost certainly 'went in' forty minutes out, flying north-east - and if the authorities bring in some of the ships and aeroplanes they've poured into the South seas and do a search, they'll find what's left of MH370 within days (if not hours)......

[Edited 2014-05-31 06:44:57]

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 94): That's probably where I 'draw the line,' nupogodi. IMO there's no way in the world that a pilot as experienced as this one would have 'turned blind' across a busy traffic area without telling anyone - especially at night.

Have you ever flown an airplane? It's a big fucking sky, man. You have to try *really* hard to hit something up there.

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 94): As far as I'm concerned, the aeroplane almost certainly 'went in' forty minutes out,

As far as I'm concerned you decide to ignore absolutely every piece of verifiable evidence that completely invalidates your 'concern', which makes me think that you're not half as clever as you think you are.

I don't know why I bother.

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 94): and if the authorities bring in some of the ships and aeroplanes they've poured into the South Atlantic and do a search, they'll find what's left of MH370 within days (if not hours)......

Can't believe I missed this. Senile old man, what is this Atlantic you speak of? I wasn't aware the Atlantic is off the west coast of Perth. They *DID* pour all of their 'ships and aeroplanes' into the Gulf of Thailand. They found nothing!

Gods help me I need a drink. Are we still talking about how this conversation would go down in a bar? Because I'm down if you are.

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 83): Maybe I'm missing something here, but, as I understand it, the captain failed to check in with ATC, and the aeroplane 'went dead,' and went off radar, only about forty minutes after they took off?

Personally I reckon that your theory has just as much merit as some of the others that have been mentioned here.

But I can also see that it just doesn't suit the current paradigm.

I must also say, though, judging by some of the highly technical discussions, there is indeed much more to airliners and this incident than meets the casual eye.

I can see where they are coming from and I can see where you are coming from, because I'm thinking on similar lines like you, only more drastic. However, right now, their discussion carries substantially more weight than my own ideas.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 97): Personally I reckon that your theory has just as much merit as some of the others that have been mentioned here.

Is this what it comes to when we take the idea of equality and friendliness to the extreme? Sometimes it's time to call a spade a spade.

No, friend, his theory has no merit. If you close your eyes to absolutely every piece of data we have about this incident, it's a possibility. Knowing what we know now, though? What a fool's errand to try to claim that "it actually IS where we already looked, and everyone in the world is lying about it".

I said it before and I'll say it again, I'll sooner believe they made it to orbit than believing they're anywhere near the Gulf of Thailand.

Quote: Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 78): Notice the gap. Why is it there? I repeat: Why is it there? Quoting giopan: I guess that gap represents the set of possibilities being zero (0) for the flight's final resting place. The possibilities being calculated given the correlation of all pings' locations and minimum speeds.

It's not hard to concoct a path. E.g., it could have flown to RUNUT, then cut back to the northeast at 500 knots (there probably would have been a tailwind) maybe via the EPGUP AKUKO corridor towards Jakarta or waypoint FERET or something and wound up within the gap. Whatever the reason for the gap is, it's not because the aircraft physically couldn't get there IMHO.