giopan1975
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:55 pm

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

Sat May 31, 2014 1:50 pm

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 94):
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 Atlantic and do a search, they'll find what's left of MH370 within days (if not hours)......

Your opinion has been noted, can you please leave some space for other people to elaborate their theories?

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 96):
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.

You can remain in front of your screen and in the comfort of your room and try relieve your mental disorder with the help of some easily accessible on the net adult material Junior.
 
nupogodi
Posts: 933
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:58 am

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

Sat May 31, 2014 1:52 pm

Quoting giopan1975 (Reply 100):
You can remain in front of your screen and in the comfort of your room and try relieve your mental disorder with the help of some easily accessible on the net adult material Junior.

Oh, I can't do *that*, the cat will see...
A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

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

Sat May 31, 2014 2:03 pm

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 96):
what is this Atlantic you speak of?

I think you got that wrong..!!

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 94):
some of the ships and aeroplanes they've poured into the South seas and do a search

It clearly says South seas.., not Atlantic.
You must have deliberately changed that .. !?!

We've all got to stay on the carpet.

[Edited 2014-05-31 07:19:03]
 
nupogodi
Posts: 933
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:58 am

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

Sat May 31, 2014 2:07 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 102):
It clearly says South seas.., not Atlantic.

We've all got to stay on the carpet.

He edited his post after I made mine. No big deal, the mistake was just the setup for what I really wanted to say. I fear my patience is running thin this morning, I should bow out before I say something that would compromise my standing here.
A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

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

Sat May 31, 2014 2:20 pm

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 73):
Um, yes I did, sir, and, unfortunately, I must say it doesn't fit at all.

It doesn't fit based on where it was at 18:25 or thereafter or none whatsoever?
I think for the lower speed, it fits if we do not take the "straight line from 1825 to 0019" assumption.
Given the now possibility of an electrical problem of some sort, I'm going to give more weight to the slower speed (and curved) model more credit than before.
On Pihero's slower model to go to the 1825 position from IGARI, would also yield the same outcome.

Quoting MarkAK (Reply 49):
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.

Wouldn't this throw the BFOs post 1825 into the dumpster then because it would actually reset the BFO datum for the transmissions thereafter?
*concerned... really concerned*
---
On other things...
I find it interesting that DS' site commentators include some very familiar names in addition to Warren  
I find it also interesting that I was quoted as "An aviation safety Indonesian government official thought it%u2019s a problem with Chinese law. Usually SITA and ARINC have a mutual VHF roaming agreement but Chinese law have special requirements concerning data routing and SITA just didn%u2019t do it. Since ARINC is the official provider in China MAS was left with no VHF coverage there."
I am not a government official, but I do head the flight operations and engineering committee for the air carriers association here, and I do work under the flight safety department on my main 9-5 job. Perhaps you could relay that to Ron.   
And yes, if the aircraft's AES-ID is 35200217, then 9M-MRO is a SITA customer as the Inmarsat Distribution Partner (SITADP 3047 in the raw data) and not an ARINC customer, as shown in the example of the raw data in the data log published.

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 76):
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).

For the no ACARS, it's either ACARS off, or AES not operational. This is billable payload.
The data logs also include non-billable transmissions.
As far as I know if AES was working, the various SSUs should have had T channel RX SSU logs too... it wasn't there.
The P TX RQAs are probably the ACARS data. Those with billable payloads are (likely) the ones with "user data".

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 76):
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.

We cannot know for sure, but from what you say, the lack of response for the P TX SSUs, seems to be one or more of the following:
1. AES receives the non-billable transmissions, responds, but cannot transmit to the Satellite because beam is not correctly steered. This would be an ARINC429 error, but then don't they have quadruple 429 feeds? (unless it's the 429 receiver on the SDU that's broken and a reset restored it (hence the logon?))
2. AES broken/not on.
Yes, we don't know, just like we don't know where the aircraft went... we can only theorize what's going on...

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 76):
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.

Much lower altitude... this can't be much lower than FL270 in order to maintain the speed and be where it needs at 18:22 where it disappeared off radar... and the fuel consumption difference would be quite horrendous... but then, need to look at the tables again.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 78):
That's not exactly true. Here is the picture again:

1. Did the aircraft ever contacted POR? No data logs have been released.
2. I am further east than KUL, aircraft going to I-3 here, log on to IOR with Perth
3. An overlap does not mean it would automatically switch to the other.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 78):
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.

24:11? You mean 00:11?
At 18:17 or whatever, if it logged on to POR, the AES Call & Data Log kept by Inmarsat (different from the Call & Data Record given to the customer) would have shown that it logged on to POR. Being detected by POR or not is irrelevant unless it logs on to POR.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 78):
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, POR could, but if POR communicated with 9M-MRO, it would save shown in the logs as it is saved per terminal ID (per AES ID) as well as per satellite.
If it was communicated with POR and not IOR during that time, where's the logon to POR in the logs?
The notion of "it might have communicated with POR instead of IOR" in this instance lacks evidence which should have been available along with the 9M-MRO AES-ID logs published.
Had the 9M-MRO AES-ID (in this case AES-ID 35200217 if we go by the example of raw data in the beginning of the published log file pdf), then the network would stop trying to communicate with it from Perth GES, and talk to it from the Hawaii GES.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 78):
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, sorry, POR is not in charge. I'm further into the overlap zone than KUL, airplanes here connect to IOR, unless IOR rejects it and tells the AES to go and look elsewhere (which from the database table, it would then pick POR).

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 78):
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.

If we are to follow your logic, if it signed off from IOR to go to POR, then where is the log-on to POR?
And then, clearly, anywhere west of its position at 17:07 would be IOR in charge then? So, why only logon to IOR at 18:25 when it's already MUCH FURTHER WEST than the position at 17:07?

In that case then, it would also be impossible for airplanes sitting in Jakarta to log on to IOR as, following your logic, POR is in charge... but the fact is, default choice of Jakarta, is... IOR... and we are further east than KUL, therefore we are nearer to POR than KUL is to POR. We are even further east than 9M-MRO's position at 17:07, so why am I having planes still connected to IOR?

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 78):
the ground made 72 attempts to keep open the session channel because that's what it's supposed to do.

If it had logged on to POR, it would have not tried to make these 72 attempts through PER GES via IOR would it?

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 78):
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?

If they come out saying 9M-MRO logged on to POR, go ahead and claim all the credit you want. At least I can then dismiss the Left AC Electric Bus problem theory.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

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

Sat May 31, 2014 2:27 pm

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 99):
it could have flown to RUNUT

Add the letter 'S' to the end of that waypoint and that's the question that needs to be asked to some of the posters recently  
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
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

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

Sat May 31, 2014 2:44 pm

Quoting Pihero (Reply 86):
it's called high speed protection

Assuming it is not in direct law.  Or am I stuck in my Airbus FBW philosophy too much here?   

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 90):
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.

I was in a business and technical requirements committee for a satellite design, does that put me up there?   
Anyway, yes, although I don't see myself as "up there" with the satellite designers, I know from personal experience not to "discredit their arguments without strong merit/data/facts"...
And if you're a tinfoil hat wearer that believe insists in conspiracy theories, they're either throw you out of the room, or shut up and make you feel more paranoid about the conspiracy in one way or another.   

Quoting giopan1975 (Reply 92):
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?

If you switch it off because you want to disappear, why switch it back on again?
If you want to switch it off because of a problem, why switch it back on again and not wait until you're on the ground, as this isn't a crucial/essential system.

Quoting giopan1975 (Reply 92):
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.

Pihero's scenario is amongst the lead contenders for the non-hostile theories, there are similar ones but includes flying over Penang area due to the "released data"... Either way, this new information does open the way for them.

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 94):
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.

Ever been in an emergency and you need to land quickly and all your comms dead? Who you gonna tell? If you gotta do it due to an emergency, you gotta do it.
Remember... Aviate, Navigate, Communicate... If you can only 2 one, you aviate first... if you can only do 2... you aviate and navigate first...

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 96):
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.

Thanks to you calling him a senile old man, he is no longer senile and has corrected the mistake of putting Atlantic, replacing it with South Seas , 11 minutes after your post.  
Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 99):
Whatever the reason for the gap is, it's not because the aircraft physically couldn't get there IMHO.

It's not "because over there, you'd automatically log on to POR because POR is in charge there".
Oh yeah, east of that southern arc one can also find Surabaya, Where do the planes log on there? IOR or POR? Answer: IOR.
Friends flying over those the areas where the "gap" is, which satellite do they log on to? Not POR.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
giopan1975
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:55 pm

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

Sat May 31, 2014 2:54 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 106):
If you want to switch it off because of a problem, why switch it back on again and not wait until you're on the ground, as this isn't a crucial/essential system.

Because you are aware this is your last resort for communicating with the world? Like unsuccessfully trying Morse code?
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

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

Sat May 31, 2014 3:05 pm

Quoting giopan1975 (Reply 107):
Because you are aware this is your last resort for communicating with the world? Like unsuccessfully trying Morse code?

For the "Captain did it" school of thought: Why switch if off to disappear, then switch it on again coz you won't disappear when you switch it on. To switch it off, you need to leave the cockpit in the first place.

For the "FUBAR mishap" school of thought: If you're in a FUBAR situation, you don't leave the cockpit to go to the E&E bay to switch off the satcom... you land ASAP if it's that bad! No comms? So what... approach fly over with lights and gears to state your intention to the tower.... if it's that urgent... just land the damn thing! Why risk losing qualified resources by sending that resource to the E&E bay ?
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 7541
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

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

Sat May 31, 2014 3:15 pm

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 90):
When you sit with people who design satellites it quickly becomes apparent that you should not argue with them about satellites.

Very true. But not applicable in this case. Inmarsat neither can design nor launch satellites. They are bean counters with brilliant business model. They will ask others to design cheapest satellite and negotiate best launch deal. Agencies in US and Russia have experience in building and launching 2000-3000 satellites including some deep space vehicles.

So I wouldn't call someone milking(or) billing 5 good satellites + 4 almost dead satellite experts.

BTW none of the Blue-Water Navies in the world use Inmarsat for mission critical applications. They give Inmarsat terminals to feel-good suits though.
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

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

Sat May 31, 2014 3:18 pm

Quote:
Quoting Mandala: 1. Did the aircraft ever contacted POR? No data logs have been released.

Doesn't mean they don't exist. Look how long we had to wait for the IOR logs.

Quote:
24:11? You mean 00:11?

You mean 00:11 March 7? No. I was referring to March 8! 
Quote:
If it was communicated with POR and not IOR during that time, where's the logon to POR in the logs?

I'm guessing it would be in a separate log for POR that hasn't been released.

Quote:
Had the 9M-MRO AES-ID (in this case AES-ID 35200217 if we go by the example of raw data in the beginning of the published log file pdf), then the network would stop trying to communicate with it from Perth GES, and talk to it from the Hawaii GES.

Well, then that would explain why there's no record of it in the Perth/IOR logs.

Quote:
And then, clearly, anywhere west of its position at 17:07 would be IOR in charge then? So, why only logon to IOR at 18:25 when it's already MUCH FURTHER WEST than the position at 17:07?

That's a good point. The answer is there must have been another hiatus after logging on to POR. Probably it would have been back out of range from POR at around 17:43 or so, if there was a communication hiatus at that point, then there may not have been a need to communicate until 18:25, 42 minutes later. After the ACARS was turned off at 17:21, we shouldn't expect pings until approximately once an hour anyways. 18:25 is about an hour after 17:21.

Quote:
Again, sorry, POR is not in charge. I'm further into the overlap zone than KUL, airplanes here connect to IOR, unless IOR rejects it and tells the AES to go and look elsewhere (which from the database table, it would then pick POR).
OK, so you admit that logging on to POR within the overlap is at least a possibility.

Quote:
If it had logged on to POR, it would have not tried to make these 72 attempts through PER GES via IOR would it?

Why wouldn't it? Left hands to do not always talk to right hands.

 alert  Also what about the GAP in the 00:11, March 8, LOP? You haven't addressed that. Why is it there?

A. It cannot be because the aircraft physically could not get there; it was well within the range.

B. It cannot be because of there is radar in Indonesia and Vietnam that would have detected it. Because the rest of the LOP cuts through half China and through one of the most militarized regions on the planet. Are we to believe that Indonesian and Vietnamese radar installations are vastly superior to Chinese radar? I don't think so.

C. So where does that leave us? There is only one other explanation: that the gap represents the overlap zone with POR. If you look at the two pictures, the overlap zone in the coverage map pretty much coincides with the LOP gap map. It's not perfect, but then again, as they say, these "are not to be used for navigation".

[Edited 2014-05-31 08:19:32]
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1595
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

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

Sat May 31, 2014 3:21 pm

Quoting Pihero (Reply 67):
Apparently, there was an electrical failure of some sort on board that airplane, wasn't it ?

What we know for a fact based on the satellite communications log:
- 1707 Z last ACARS message from the plane to the satellite
- 1803 Z ... 1805 Z no response from the plane to an ACARS message from the satellite
- 1825 Z log-on request from the plane to the satellite

Any feasible theory has to explain why the SATCOM modem went off-line (or could not communicate with the satellite) at 1803 Z at the latest and returned on-line at 1825 Z.

As I understand it, the following explanations are possible:

1. the plane flew up-side down - highly unlikely
2. somebody pulled the SATCOM modem C/B in the avionics bay - highly unlikely and doesn't explain why the SATCOM modem returned on-line
3. the SATCOM modem lost its ARINC feed for orienting the antenna at 1803 Z at the latest and got the feed back at 1825 Z
4. the left AC bus was powered off at 1803 Z at the latest and the bus was powered back at 1825 Z

Regarding #3, there has not been enough information in this thread how the ARINC feed could be lost and re-established and what implications it would have for the flyability of the plane.

Regarding #4, if it can be shown that powering down the left AC bus makes the plane unflyable, then it is not a possible explanation.

If there are any other possible explanations, they are more than welcome.

To me it seems #4 is the most likely explanation. It can fit both the "malicious crewmember" and "technical malfunction" scenario. If it is correct, it would mean that somebody was conciously controlling the plane at 1825 Z when the bus was powered back.
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

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

Sat May 31, 2014 3:49 pm

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 110):
A. It cannot be because the aircraft physically could not get there; it was well within the range.

No, it was: A. The aircraft could not get there without flying circles because minimum speeds give a certain minimum distance.
B. is not a valid option.
C. is possible.
And I add D.: The very shallow water was searched for days, the land is populated. No trace was found.
 
nupogodi
Posts: 933
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:58 am

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

Sat May 31, 2014 3:57 pm

Ugh, do I have to chime in again...

Look at the coverage map. The IOR/POR global beam coverage overlaps far more than the small chunk that was taken out of the 'ping arc'. If that was a factor, far more of the arc could have been eliminated. WP is mixing up the coverage areas and what they represent.

As far as whether the AC could have registered with the other satellite to the east, I haven't a goddamn clue, but that's not how they eliminated that part of the arc.
A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

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

Sat May 31, 2014 4:37 pm

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 110):
Doesn't mean they don't exist. Look how long we had to wait for the IOR logs.

Until they come out or it is officially admitted, we can assume that they don't exist.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 110):
You mean 00:11 March 7? No. I was referring to March 8! 

I meant 00:11 March 8, which timezone?

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 110):
I'm guessing it would be in a separate log for POR that hasn't been released.

The logs released are for the aircraft, not for IOR only.
It says "notes for signalling unit log for (9M-MRO) flight MH370", therefore it is an AES-ID based log. If it's IOR based, then it would have said "notes for signalling unit log for (9M-MRO) flight MH370 on IOR"

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 110):
Well, then that would explain why there's no record of it in the Perth/IOR logs.

You misunderstood. The 72 attempts would not be 72 attempts if the AES logged on to POR. The network would have known it logged on to POR and stop the attempts via IOR and routed it through POR immediately.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 110):
Why wouldn't it? Left hands to do not always talk to right hands.

Sorry, the Inmarsat ground infrastructure and the SITA ground infrastructure, would not make that possible for this to go on for more than a few seconds. A log-on to POR, would have resulted in POR telling IOR "he's with me now, send all outstanding data to him via me now". And Btw, PER GES covers both IOR and POR. Sorry, the left hand do not always talk to the right hand in this case shows your lack of familiarity with the infrastructure.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 110):
Also what about the GAP in the 00:11, March 8, LOP? You haven't addressed that. Why is it there?

You can continue to skew things to fit your theory/ideas/ego/whatever...
I did address that... But...

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 110):
B. It cannot be because of there is radar in Indonesia and Vietnam that would have detected it. Because the rest of the LOP cuts through half China and through one of the most militarized regions on the planet. Are we to believe that Indonesian and Vietnamese radar installations are vastly superior to Chinese radar? I don't think so.

So, it cannot be there because radar would have picked it up, and then China which is "more militarized" would catch it too but have the possible point along the arc to run through that too?
Dude, just because 1+1 does not equal 3 does not mean it has to be equal 4.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 110):
C. So where does that leave us? There is only one other explanation: that the gap represents the overlap zone with POR. If you look at the two pictures, the overlap zone in the coverage map pretty much coincides with the LOP gap map. It's not perfect, but then again, as they say, these "are not to be used for navigation".

You missed my answer then:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 52):
The arc to the south starts at about 5S latitude, while the north starts at about 20N latitude.

The overlap zone would be identical north and south of the equator. In this case, it is not.
The longitude equidistant would be 121E... the coverage radius of POR and IOR are the same.
The aircraft never made it anywhere near 121E.
On what basis do you make for your comment of:

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 78):
The Inmarsat coverage map clearly indicates that POR is in charge.

How do you determine "POR is in charge", when in the overlap zone? What's the basis?

If you're wondering where the equidistant overlap, it should be near the 25deg elevation at the equator.
Oh wait... Do you use the spot beams as the basis?  
OK... then...
Your notes on the coverage map that says "Note how IOR zone cuts off" blablablabla... I see you use the spot beam of IOR and the boundary of spotbeam for POR. Unfortunately, that does NOT match the gap in the loci. That spot beam on IOR cuts the coverage limit of POR too far south from Java to match the Loci Gap. That, already invalidates your reasoning for the gap.
And that "Australia is under POR" using the spot beams ? OK... Genius...!!!!
OH HANG ON!!!!!!! You missed some things... that is what services are using those spot beams? The spot beams you drew are not for aero services such as Swift64 or Aero I which use the I3 spot beams... not entirely. I-3 aero services outside Swift64 and Aero I will not use those spot beams. The current spot beams for Swift64 and Aero I don't cover much southwest of Cocos Islands... It is not as extensive as the spot beams on the one you showed on http://i.imgur.com/O8zN5Bx.png
That is for the maritime services by the way...

For aerospace... This is from the migration of I-3 to I-4 aero classic services, which Aero I and Aero H+ now can migrate to I-4 (and a totally different satellite footprint and different GES), but when on I-3 will use the following spot beam footprint:
http://i62.tinypic.com/j5cwv6.jpg

Now... that means the last few pings are invalid then... Seriously!
It was using the global beam because it did not need the high data service requiring the spot beam!

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 110):
OK, so you admit that logging on to POR within the overlap is at least a possibility.

I can log on to POR and not IOR within the overlap zone if I manually chose to!
Under automatic handover, it would be based on who's nearer, and also the following logic:
- Default to nearer to current satellite, but traffic load of the satellite is high, it will tell the AES to go to the next satellite.
- Moving beyond the equidistant line, but network tells AES to not switch due to high traffic load in the nearer satellite.

Under automatic selection and logon, it will select the nearest satellite. Between 17:07 and 18:25, IOR is closer than POR.

Again, no logs of the AES-ID showing communications with POR, the logon to POR didn't happen as far as we're concerned. If you want to wear your tin foil hat, you are free to do so.  
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

Sat May 31, 2014 4:52 pm

OK, then what is your theory for the gap? If it's not because the plane couldn't get there, and it's not because of superior radar coverage relative China, and it's not because it is where POR would detect the plane, then WHY?!? Yes, 1+1+1 does not equal 3 it seems.

[Edited 2014-05-31 10:05:47]
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

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

Sat May 31, 2014 5:07 pm

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 112):
And I add D.: The very shallow water was searched for days, the land is populated. No trace was found.

The jungles along the Thai/Laos border?!?
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

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

Sat May 31, 2014 5:34 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 111):
4. the left AC bus was powered off at 1803 Z at the latest and the bus was powered back at 1825 Z

If you're saying this as most likely...
Switching the left AC bus off means... the left utility bus is also switched off...
and... that means,the following are affected... Left engine EEC, primary flaps trailing edge, Window heaters, onboard brouters, pitot heaters, TAT probe heaters, Left AOA sensor heater, Cabin System Management Unit (and downstream users of it), Cabin overhead electrical units, pre-recorded cabin messages, Passenger Systems Services, IFE (audio and video), Satcom, Voice Recorder (CVR?), some of the left fuel boost pumps, Right AC Hyd Pump, Center 1 AC Hyd Pump, Some flight controls affected...

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 115):
OK, then what is your theory for the gap?

That gap, has nothing to do with POR. Just because there's no definitive answer, does not mean it has to be because of POR. I'm quite sure the gap has nothing to do with POR as it would make no sense based on the explanations in my previous reply.

You must also remember what they knew when they released the ping arc, they were still in the process of getting those countries along the arc to confirm they saw or did not see MH370 on their primary radar. Thailand and Vietnam's primary radar would cover Cambodia and Laos. As time went by, the gap in the arc would widen as more reports from other countries came in with "No we did not see it".

And on a lighter note...
Looks like I have to prepare buying someone lunch, a member of our (not Malaysia's) accident investigators had a bet that it's either hiding somewhere or it was having problems (he didn't buy the simple hijack/take over to the middle of the ocean)... damn...  biggrin 

[Edited 2014-05-31 10:37:09]
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
nupogodi
Posts: 933
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:58 am

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

Sat May 31, 2014 5:45 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 117):
Looks like I have to prepare buying someone lunch, a member of our (not Malaysia's) accident investigators had a bet that it's either hiding somewhere or it was having problems (he didn't buy the simple hijack/take over to the middle of the ocean)... damn...

Certainly the most expensive consequence of this event...  
A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1595
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

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

Sat May 31, 2014 6:04 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 117):
If you're saying this as most likely...
Switching the left AC bus off means... the left utility bus is also switched off...
and... that means,the following are affected... Left engine EEC, primary flaps trailing edge, Window heaters, onboard brouters, pitot heaters, TAT probe heaters, Left AOA sensor heater, Cabin System Management Unit (and downstream users of it), Cabin overhead electrical units, pre-recorded cabin messages, Passenger Systems Services, IFE (audio and video), Satcom, Voice Recorder (CVR?), some of the left fuel boost pumps, Right AC Hyd Pump, Center 1 AC Hyd Pump, Some flight controls affected...

Thanks for the very detailed info! Based on the information you supplied, powering down the left AC bus is not just highly unlikely but can be safely ruled out, as the aircraft could not have flown at or near its maximum speed between 1803 Z and 1825 Z in such a degraded state as far as I understand.

That leaves only two highly unlikely scenarios and ARINC feed failure... I suppose we are missing something, as the investigators have had the satellite communications log since first week and they have not ruled out malicious interventions based on the numerous leaks... Hmmm
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

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

Sat May 31, 2014 6:23 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 119):
Based on the information you supplied,

I am still looking at what would be affected... the list above are just what are directly powered by the Left AC bus, and Left AC Utility Bus... It is still not impossible for them to have switched that off, I think Left AC Bus fault/warning on EICAS would prompt you reset the power supply to the bus... and then some other stuff, but that's on the QRH anyway.... just trying to see what it could be that prompted it switched off, or make the comms fail... and then restore satcom only...
And other possibilities worth looking into related to this.

The ARINC feed failure probably going to be less likely... We need to remember that the radios and transponder seems to have failed too...

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 119):
I suppose we are missing something, as the investigators have had the satellite communications log since first week and they have not ruled out malicious interventions based on the numerous leaks.

The conspiracy theorists would love what I just got from the phone call I got from Malaysia this evening.  
Seems that the government may be hell bent at trying to get this blamed on the captain no matter what... to cover up for a lot of embarrassment such as MH' seemingly impending bankruptcy, etc, etc, etc, and also to have an excuse to paint Anwar supporters with whatever the govt can throw at them. Seems that evidence of the Captain's schedule and roster has been "taken away" now, and is not accessible, and no one in MH seems to want to talk.

It would be a shame if this was an accident but they get away with blaming the captain for "suicide".

And if they want this to look like it's the captain's fault, they haven't tried well enough... *looks like they're screwing it up instead*
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
danvs
Posts: 205
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2009 3:34 am

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

Sat May 31, 2014 6:31 pm

I've just read some interesting info on Avherald.

As we all know, Kuala Lumpur ATC lost contact with MH370 at IGARI.

"At 01:21:04 MYT, MH370 was observed on the radar screen at KLATCC as it passed over waypoint IGARI. At 01:21:13 MYT the radar label for MH 370 disappeared from the radar screen at LUMPUR RADAR KLATCC."

However, it seems Ho Chi Minh ATC had radar contact with MH370 until waypoint BITOD, which lies 36 NM into Vietnamese airspace.

"01:38:19 Ho Chi Minh first enquired about MH370, informed KL-ATCC that verbal contact was not established with MH370 and radar target was last seen at BITOD."

"01:46:46 HCM queried about MH370 again, stating that radar contact was established over IGARI but there was no verbal contact. Ho Chi Minh advised that the observed radar blip disappeared at waypoint BITOD."

"02:18:53 KL-ATCC queried if flight planned routing of MH370 was supposed to enter Cambodian airspace. HCM confirmed that planned route was only through Vietnamese airspace. HCM had checked and Cambodia advised that it had no information or contact with MH370. HCM confirmed earlier information that radar contact was lost after BITOD and radio contact was never established."


If Ho Chi Minh's info is correct, then MH370 would not have turned left over IGARI, but turned right on track on airway M765 until BITOD.

Did the authorities discredit this info?
 
Backseater
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:20 pm

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

Sat May 31, 2014 6:41 pm

Quoting Pihero (Reply 86):
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.

Press PFC Disc on the OH panel (2 seconds for even an improvised pilot)
Would that help?
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1595
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

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

Sat May 31, 2014 6:43 pm

Quoting danvs (Reply 121):
Did the authorities discredit this info?

Here is the most accurate MH370 track relased so far by official sources (posted first time in part #64):

http://oi59.tinypic.com/2z3yw3l.jpg

Source: http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5205507...ions%20on%20defining_FactSheet.pdf

I haven't looked how the waypoints align, but yes, it turned first right and then left.
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

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

Sat May 31, 2014 6:48 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 120):
Seems that the government may be hell bent at trying to get this blamed on the captain no matter what..

Now we have a CONFIRMED accident !

Quoting danvs (Reply 121):
If Ho Chi Minh's info is correct, then MH370 would not have turned left over IGARI, but turned right on track on airway M765 until BITOD.

Did the authorities discredit this info?

No, the turn towards BITOD is not news. But " radar contact was lost after BITOD " might be, at least to me it is.
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

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

Sat May 31, 2014 7:13 pm

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 109):
Very true. But not applicable in this case. Inmarsat neither can design nor launch satellites. They are bean counters with brilliant business model. They will ask others to design cheapest satellite and negotiate best launch deal. Agencies in US and Russia have experience in building and launching 2000-3000 satellites including some deep space vehicles.

So I wouldn't call someone milking(or) billing 5 good satellites + 4 almost dead satellite experts.

BTW none of the Blue-Water Navies in the world use Inmarsat for mission critical applications. They give Inmarsat terminals to feel-good suits though.

You might want to let anyone applying for this job that they'll be wasting their time:
http://www.inmarsat.com/career/flight-dynamicist-london-70dh/
Not sure what relevance the lack of use of civilian comms systems by military users is either. Not sure it's true anyway:
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/com/inmarsat.htm
Down with that sort of thing!
 
danvs
Posts: 205
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2009 3:34 am

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

Sat May 31, 2014 7:20 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 123):
Here is the most accurate MH370 track relased so far by official sources (posted first time in part #64):

In this map it is written "last secondary data 1722" before the turn to the right, implying that the last radar contact was over IGARI.
But according to Ho Chi Minh ATC, the last secondary radar data was over BITOD.
May be this map is based on Kuala Lumpur radar tracks only.

[Edited 2014-05-31 12:22:43]
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

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

Sat May 31, 2014 7:51 pm

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 64):
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?

Ours is not to reason why.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 72):

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!

Yes, I personally resent paying money for the privilege of listening to someone disregard known facts just to confuse or put forth false information. Wouldn't you?

And I don't recall calling anyone names, but maybe I'm blocking it out.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 72):
the literal bottom line is that the boorishness here is costing the forum $$$.

Let's let A.net worry about A.net's money. Frankly, we've seen numerous new members come onboard during this investigation.

And honestly, would someone looking to be educated and informed join a forum that encourages and entertains the whim's and agenda's of it's forumites?

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 72):
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.

Sage advice I'd say. I'd imagine telling people that we are a waste of your time would be representative of the opposite approach.

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 88):
Yes and if you board a Greyhound in Edmonton you're liable to be beheaded somewhere in Manitoba, apparently.

That was a chilling incident. I still think about that from time to time.

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 89):
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?

It's one thing to hypothesize about why someone did or didn't do something. It's another to completely dismiss the known data because you simply don't want to believe it.

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 98):

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.

I like a civil forum. This is far and away the least civil forum of any that I participate in. Having said that, it's clear that if respected posters didn't stand up and call out these inaccuracies and misdirections, we'd end up with a worthless venue that turns away the respected and knowledgeable in favor of the type that can yell the loudest.

-Dave
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

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

Sat May 31, 2014 8:11 pm

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 122):
Press PFC Disc on the OH panel (2 seconds for even an improvised pilot)
Would that help?

Have you flown the T7 at high speed on direct mode ?
... That's what I thought...  

[Edited 2014-05-31 13:11:45]
Contrail designer
 
abba
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

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

Sat May 31, 2014 8:15 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 120):
It would be a shame if this was an accident but they get away with blaming the captain for "suicide".

To quite many people in MH it would be very convenient of it could be blamed on the captain. If a problem emerged that had to do with maintenance or with training or with something else that someone would be responsible for and could be blamed for, then.....

I remember that during my time in Asia I had to work with a group of institutes including a Malaysian one. The Malaysian institute didn't want to contribute anything and never answered my mails no matter how often I wrote them. For "political" reasons they did not want to leave the network - and for political reasons no one wanted to throw them out. But someone MUST be blamed for them doing nothing. So it became an annual ritual at the general meeting of the network's participants that the Malaysian partner stood up and gave a speech where I - as secretary for the formal coordinator of the network (the president of our institution who didn't do much of the daily work) - was formally blamed for them doing nothing. The wording developed only little over the years. It was always about them getting no information and no invitations to participate in concrete programs. It was understood that I should just accept to take the blame as the (almost) only Westerner in the group. As my president (a very clever man and a fine academic) once said - you as a Westerner don't care so much about that blame as we do....

To me it comes as absolutely no surprise at all that people within HM want to have the blame put on the pilot - hence having the spotlight turned away from themselves. If we didn't see quite a bit of institutional resilience against accepting other explanations withing MH, I would have been surprised.
 
markak
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 1:14 am

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

Sat May 31, 2014 9:08 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 111):

Here is some info i read on another forum that may be relevant here re the gap in contact with 3F1.

The antennas on the AES have dead zones known as key holes.

If the A/C orientation relative to the satellite, falls in one of these zones, the signal is attenuated.

This is a possible reason for the AES to loose contact with the IOR and possibly connect to the POR.

Mark
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

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

Sat May 31, 2014 9:15 pm

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 76):
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

Don't know if this has been covered but there is no 250kt limitation on the windows below 10,000 ft -- you can go as fast as you want.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 128):
Quoting BackSeater (Reply 122):Press PFC Disc on the OH panel (2 seconds for even an improvised pilot)
Would that help?
Have you flown the T7 at high speed on direct mode ?
... That's what I thought...

Flying in Direct mode is no big deal you just need to be careful at high speeds because the rudder and elevator are more sensitive -- an "improvised" pilot wouldn't care. From past experience a normal pilot would be a bit timid going into the red bars but pulling the Aural Warning breakers would relieve some of that anxiety.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

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

Sat May 31, 2014 10:00 pm

Quoting abba (Reply 129):

To me it comes as absolutely no surprise at all that people within HM want to have the blame put on the pilot - hence having the spotlight turned away from themselves. If we didn't see quite a bit of institutional resilience against accepting other explanations withing MH, I would have been surprised.

To be fair, I think that's probably true for most "companies". The desired blame would be something like:

1 Outside influence (weather, other organization, airport authority, bird strike, etc).
2. Manufacturer (Boeing or a subcontractor).
3. The cockpit crew
4. The organization itself, such as training procedures, maintenance procedures, hiring, etc.

That may not be an exact order, and I'm omitting a number of things I'm sure, but certainly were most airlines to suffer such a high-profile, high-casualty event, they'd likely prefer that the cockpit crew be incompetent before they'd ever admit it of themselves.

-Dave
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

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

Sun Jun 01, 2014 1:02 am

Wow, here's some confirmation of NAV30's theory!

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...08/i-think-i-saw-mh370-127132.html
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

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

Sun Jun 01, 2014 2:55 am

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 116):
Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 112):
And I add D.: The very shallow water was searched for days, the land is populated. No trace was found.

The jungles along the Thai/Laos border?!?

Given the amount of drugs in that area it wouldn't surprise me it nobody heard it go down there, or in a jungle somewhere else which could explain the lack of debris  
Quoting Pihero (Reply 128):
Quoting BackSeater (Reply 122):
Press PFC Disc on the OH panel (2 seconds for even an improvised pilot)
Would that help?

Have you flown the T7 at high speed on direct mode ?
... That's what I thought...

Maybe on Flight Sim  
Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 133):
Wow, here's some confirmation of NAV30's theory!

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/....html

That doesn't look like the Gulf of Thailand to me...

BTW an issue obviously happened when it went missing over the Gulf, but the plane is still on fire and flying in the area of that cruise ship? Must have been some kind of unique fire!

[Edited 2014-05-31 19:56:30]
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
 
ComeAndGo
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 5:58 pm

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

Sun Jun 01, 2014 4:38 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 134):
BTW an issue obviously happened when it went missing over the Gulf, but the plane is still on fire and flying in the area of that cruise ship? Must have been some kind of unique fire!

You can't even read a map. The sail boat in question was transitioning from the Indian Ocean to the straight of Mallaca. If you continue reading the posts on that forum he claims to be close to Bandar Aceh and the plane flying a southerly direction 10 to 20 thousand feet above them, so at half normal cruising altitude.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

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

Sun Jun 01, 2014 4:52 am

Quoting ComeAndGo (Reply 135):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 134):
BTW an issue obviously happened when it went missing over the Gulf, but the plane is still on fire and flying in the area of that cruise ship? Must have been some kind of unique fire!

You can't even read a map. The sail boat in question was transitioning from the Indian Ocean to the straight of Mallaca. If you continue reading the posts on that forum he claims to be close to Bandar Aceh and the plane flying a southerly direction 10 to 20 thousand feet above them, so at half normal cruising altitude.

You can't even read? MH370 went missing over the Gulf of Thailand - which is what I said - and, that is obviously when something happened. The 'sail boat', like you said, was " transitioning from the Indian Ocean to the straight of Mallaca" - which is not in the Gulf of Thailand - the area where something happened. Do you think if a fire started over the Gulf of Thailand when it when and where it wen missing it could still be flying for long enough to still be on fire and flying over the area where the cruise ship was? I don't. Do you also believe in the tooth fairy?

The "That doesn't look like the Gulf of Thailand to me" was made in reference to WP's comment about the NAV30 theory being possible based on that article. NAV30 believes it crashed as soon as it went missing - over the Gulf of Thailand. So, I don't know how that article can support NAV30's theory about it being in the Gulf of Thailand when, like you comprehended correctly, point out that the sail boat or whatever you want to call i was NOT in the Gulf of Thailand but rather transiting from the Indian Ocean to the Straight of Mallaca... Far away from where NAV30 thinks it is  Yeah sure

[Edited 2014-05-31 21:55:38]
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
 
NAV30
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:16 am

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

Sun Jun 01, 2014 4:55 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 134):
BTW an issue obviously happened when it went missing over the Gulf, but the plane is still on fire and flying in the area of that cruise ship? Must have been some kind of unique fire!

777Jet, as it happens, contact with civilian radar was lost straight away. Military radar picked up an echo in the vicinity, but initially classified it as 'unidentified.'

Later on, it seems to have been 'assumed' that MH370 turned west and went on flying for quite a while. But that remains 'conjecture,' not established fact (for a start, I saw some press stories that credited the aeroplane with having flown very fast for a 777, and also come down as low as 1,000 feet)?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-twisting-path-Strait-Malacca.html

If you 'enlarge' the radar track shown in some of the published 'diagrams,' you'll see a 'twisty' grey area (meaning 'contact lost') - at the point where the first of the two westerly turns is believed to have occurred?

My money (based on the sudden and complete loss of radio and radar communication) is on MH370 having had a sudden emergency, and crashed straight away, out over the ocean? And that the military guys were tracking a different aeroplane from the start?

[Edited 2014-05-31 22:15:40]
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

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

Sun Jun 01, 2014 5:11 am

Quoting MarkAK (Reply 130):
The antennas on the AES have dead zones known as key holes.
If the A/C orientation relative to the satellite, falls in one of these zones, the signal is attenuated.
This is a possible reason for the AES to loose contact with the IOR and possibly connect to the POR.

Good point on the dead zones.
This would be true for low antenna elevation angles to the rear as the tailplane would obstruct. This is true for the standard high gain antenna. For the dual panel HGA, the problem is if the aircraft is going straight to or from the satellite at low elevation angle. At elevations above 30degs this should be no problem for heading towards the satellite, although I think Inmarsat requiring ability to cover 15deg elevation throughout except for when obstructed by the tailplane (the newer ones can cover down to -5).

Aside for the tailplane, turns "don't really matter" if the elevation angle from the position to the satellite is above 30degs. For dual side mounted antennas, steeper turns can still have the beam on the satellite, this is the selling point for the dual side mounted antennas. So at lower elevation angles, only the nose position to the satellite be the remaining problem.

The aircraft never got to a lower elevation angle to 3F1 than 40 degrees, so this should be no problem. But if it still is (a big IF! coz if true, this dual side mounted antenna is totally useless!) there is a chance that the leg from IGARI to Penang area may be blanked out because the aircraft would be more or less headed to 3F1... BUT, this would mean that the subsequent log on should have come much earlier than 18:25. If one argues that at that orientation, even the Penang to the position at 18:25 would have the 3F1 IOR blanked, well, POR would be blanked out too due to similar offset bearing from the aircraft's longitudinal axis, and POR would be at much lower elevation angle (which the antenna would have larger swath of unavailable azimuth at lower elevation angles).

If the aircraft went from IGARI to the position at 1825 without overflying PEN area, if IOR is blanked out, POR would be too.

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 137):
My money (based on the sudden and complete loss of radio and radar communication) is on MH370 having had a sudden emergency, and crashed straight away, out over the ocean? And that the military guys were tracking a different aeroplane from the start?

Yes yes, we know that's what you think... Perhaps you need to remind Warren that as he was saying someone seeing an aircraft on fire over the strait of Malacca as "confirmation" of your theory... which puzzles me... coz I see that as an insult to your theory, while he was telling everyone off for being rude to you...  
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
ComeAndGo
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 5:58 pm

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

Sun Jun 01, 2014 5:12 am

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 137):
My money (based on the sudden and complete loss of radio and radar communication) is on MH370 having had a sudden emergency, and crashed straight away,

That's right ! Two planes collide, one crashes immediately while the other ends up with the satcom receiver of the first one and continues to fly on to the South Pole. You know, when two cars collide and one ends up with the wheels of the other one. Yeah, like that.
 
NAV30
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:16 am

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

Sun Jun 01, 2014 5:18 am

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 138):
coz I see that as an insult to your theory

Nothing 'insulting' about it, we're ALL trading ideas and possibilities?

Quoting ComeAndGo (Reply 139):
That's right ! Two planes collide

I'm not suggesting any kind of 'collision,' ComeAndGo?
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1535
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

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

Sun Jun 01, 2014 6:20 am

One would think that the last secondary radar contact would be very close to FR24's last position data. Close to IGARI, I think?
 
NAV30
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:16 am

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

Sun Jun 01, 2014 6:27 am

Yes, as far as I can tell, LTC8K6? Pretty well 'dead on' IGARI, on about the 40-minute mark?

[Edited 2014-06-01 00:02:27]
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

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

Sun Jun 01, 2014 6:29 am

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 142):
Yes, as far as I can tell, LTC8K6? Pretty well 'dead on' the 40-minute mark?

So In 65 parts we conclude that we know nothing other than what we know that 1st day? Because everything else, is.... bogus?
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1535
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

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

Sun Jun 01, 2014 6:30 am

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 133):
Wow, here's some confirmation of NAV30's theory!

It would then also be confirmation of the possibility that the primary radar contacts might not have been 9M-MRO, since she claims to have seen several planes flying at normal altitudes.
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1535
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

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

Sun Jun 01, 2014 6:32 am

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 142):
Yes, as far as I can tell, LTC8K6? Pretty well 'dead on' the 40-minute mark?

But you go all the way to "crash" at that point, throwing out the baby with the bath water...

[Edited 2014-05-31 23:32:23]
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

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

Sun Jun 01, 2014 6:33 am

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 133):
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...08/i-think-i-saw-mh370-127132.html

Quoting the purported eyewitness sailing near Banda Aceh:

Quote:
And I thought I saw a burning plane cross behind our stern from port to starboard; which would have been approximately North to South. It was about half the height of other flights which I had been gazing at during that part of the passage.

Since that's not something you see every day, I questioned my mind. I was looking at what appeared to be an elongated plane glowing bright orange, with a trail of black smoke behind it.

Several things strike me as odd about this...
(1) how did this person observe black smoke on a moonless night
(2) how does a visibly burning plane keep flying for another 5 hours
(3) even if the plane burns in a way that doesn't cause catastrophic structural or functional failure, how can the satcom unit (in the fuselage crown where hot gasses end up) stay operational for another 5 hours

Eyewitness reports are notoriously unreliable, especially when they emerge nearly three months after the event. I remain skeptical, to put it mildly.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

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

Sun Jun 01, 2014 6:37 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 146):
(2) how does a visibly burning plane keep flying for another 5 hours

This isn't impossible...

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 146):
(3) even if the plane burns in a way that doesn't cause catastrophic structural or functional failure, how can the satcom unit (in the fuselage crown where hot gasses end up) stay operational for another 5 hours

Neither would this..

BUT....

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 146):
(1) how did this person observe black smoke on a moonless night

This is the killer!   
If it's that bad that it was trailing black smoke on a moonless night to the extent that it is visible, it has to be pretty bad, then we go back to... "for 5 hours?" and "with satcom working?"
If he saw a plane seemingly on fire, I can believe him... but the smoke? Yeah, I agree with you in this one WM!
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

Sun Jun 01, 2014 7:00 am

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 145):
But you go all the way to "crash" at that point, throwing out the baby with the bath water...

That's when the aeroplane went off radio and radar (for good), LTC8K6? Very quickly - according to the accounts, within a couple of minutes?

'Bomb' comes first in my book. 'Hijack' or 'Pilot suicide' come next, in that order - less likely, because of the VERY short timescale, 'Mechanical Problem' currently comes last.

We have to bear in mind that the captain was a member of an active 'opposition' family?

[Edited 2014-06-01 00:16:45]
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

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

Sun Jun 01, 2014 7:03 am

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 148):
That's when the aeroplane went off radio and radar (for good), LTC8K6? Very quickly - according to the accounts, within a couple of minutes?

'Bomb' comes first in my book. 'Hijack' or 'Pilot suicide' come next, in that order - less likely because of the VERY short timescale. 'Mechanical Problem' currently comes last.

We have to bear in mind that the captain was a member of an active 'opposition' family?

and Elvis is alive and kicking 

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