• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Fri Jun 06, 2014 2:35 pm

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 88):
One thing about this. 7BOEING7 has told us that if the southward turn were executed by hand then the person flying would have had to roll the wings level before incapacitation otherwise the plane would have remained banked and turning.

Actually what I said was that if the pilot was manually flying the airplane and became incapacitated, even if the wings were level the airplane would eventually go into a turn. To fly the southernly (into oblivion ) leg you need a pilot or an engaged autopilot.
 
Backseater
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:20 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Fri Jun 06, 2014 4:07 pm

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 98):
And what would be the motive for reckless flying ?

To avoid being intercepted as much as possible.
But don't worry about my "improbable" scenarios.
I think you have plenty to work on not just looking for the source of smokes and fumes but more importantly building a credible explanation for the track of the a/c afterwards, nicely in the middle of the Malaysian FIR, or maybe dashing through at cruise level but stealthy enough not to be seen by any radar in the region.
 
aftgaffe
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:18 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Fri Jun 06, 2014 4:15 pm

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 100):
Actually what I said was that if the pilot was manually flying the airplane and became incapacitated, even if the wings were level the airplane would eventually go into a turn. To fly the southernly (into oblivion ) leg you need a pilot or an engaged autopilot.

I may have misunderstood but I thought you also said that if during a manual turn the pilot (or person flying) let go of the yoke (due to incapacitation), the plane would not just straighten out. It would remain banked although the bank angle would vary over time.

If that's correct, we can be more precise when we theorize that the last act was the turn southward. It would be more accurate to say that the last act was to come out of a turn with the nose pointed south, which of course begs the question of why.

If that's correct....
 
LH707330
Posts: 2262
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Fri Jun 06, 2014 4:37 pm

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 100):
Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 88):
One thing about this. 7BOEING7 has told us that if the southward turn were executed by hand then the person flying would have had to roll the wings level before incapacitation otherwise the plane would have remained banked and turning.

Actually what I said was that if the pilot was manually flying the airplane and became incapacitated, even if the wings were level the airplane would eventually go into a turn. To fly the southernly (into oblivion ) leg you need a pilot or an engaged autopilot.

If this is the case, you could have an FA who sees the pilots incapacitated, assumes they're near their normal course, and tries to turn south to KUL but messes up and gets incapacitated.

I need to go look up the 777 control laws to become more knowledgeable on which conditions would create the turn and which wouldn't.
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Fri Jun 06, 2014 4:41 pm

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 78):
Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 71):
There is reasonable evidence that rules out a much lower altitude.

And what is that evidence? Pihero's flight time computation from Igari to 18:29?
That is not evidence! That is one interpretation of only a few pieces of data, ignoring many others and assuming that the a/c was being flown by the book, whether piloted or proceeding autonomously under FMS control.

A combination of high and low level flying remains very well alive IMHO. But that scenario certainly won't qualify as a "by the book" flight. Either someone with great flying experience was willing to take calculated risks or an improvised pilot got lucky, not even aware that there were limits to be respected.

I am still waiting to nsee you prove it.
After months of talking about it, you're still short of any proof.
...and 7Boieing 7 is certainly not a reliable source on T7 piloting... a bit too simplistic and too sure of the qualities of the systems.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 83):
You open the cockpit door and throw it out -- let the FA's handle it, they're trained.

Have you seen it done ?
Contrail designer
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Fri Jun 06, 2014 4:51 pm

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 97):
Oh dear, LTC8K6 - the (radio) record shows "01:19:29 MAS370 Good Night Malaysian Three Seven Zero"

The trouble is, it DOESN'T show anything else - especially, no check-in with Ho-Chi-Minh, which (as I've been doing my best to point out) would normally have been immediate?

Sure but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the CVR.

You could have simply said you made an error...
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Fri Jun 06, 2014 5:08 pm

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 102):
I may have misunderstood but I thought you also said that if during a manual turn the pilot (or person flying) let go of the yoke (due to incapacitation), the plane would not just straighten out. It would remain banked although the bank angle would vary over time.

  
That's correct and I was also pointing out that if he leveled the wings and then let go it would still eventually start turning.

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 102):
If that's correct, we can be more precise when we theorize that the last act was the turn southward. It would be more accurate to say that the last act was to come out of a turn with the nose pointed south, which of course begs the question of why.

But again for the airplane to continue south the pilot/autopilot would have to be in control.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 104):
Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 83): You open the cockpit door and throw it out -- let the FA's handle it, they're trained.
Have you seen it done ?

No, but it seems the smartest thing to do -- nothing you can do about it in the cockpit and the cabin crew are supposed to be trained to handle it. Burning up part of the cabin is preferable to burning up part of the cockpit don't you think?

Quoting Pihero (Reply 104):
...and 7Boieing 7 is certainly not a reliable source on T7 piloting... a bit too simplistic and too sure of the qualities of the systems.

I guess if my answers don't fit your scenario that makes them unreliable -- fine. Are you rated on the T7?
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Fri Jun 06, 2014 5:27 pm

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 101):
To avoid being intercepted as much as possible.
But don't worry about my "improbable" scenarios.
I think you have plenty to work on not just looking for the source of smokes and fumes but more importantly building a credible explanation for the track of the a/c afterwards, nicely in the middle of the Malaysian FIR, or maybe dashing through at cruise level but stealthy enough not to be seen by any radar in the region.

He was not intercepted. And he was on EVERY country's radar in the region, except Indonesia.
He didn't need to avoid radar, and if he tried nonetheless, he failed quite badly. Let alone the off and on of the satcom modem.

And then, he was beyond interception by anybody outside the plane as soon as he was in the air. Any interception short of shooting down an airliner, without confirmation from higher up, in the middle of the night when high ranks are asleep.
 
aftgaffe
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:18 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Fri Jun 06, 2014 5:54 pm

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 106):
But again for the airplane to continue south the pilot/autopilot would have to be in control.

Ah, my mistake, so if the southbound turn were flown manually, the last act really would have been connecting the A/P (assuming a pilot was not in control until the end).

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 88):
Based on the satellite communications logs released by Inmarsat, the 1825 Z event is a SATCOM modem reboot only. Before the logs were released it was believed to be a turn based on the BFO chart, but that is old information now.

Thanks. Is it fair to say, then, that the the bulk of the change in direction toward the south occurred before 18:25 Z? We would see a significant change in the offsets if the turn happened after 18:25, right?

If so, and if the primary radar data released at the time the prelim report was released can be trusted (which ATSB seems to suggest is the case), then the turn occurred in the *gap* between the reported loss of primary radar and the rebooting of satcom. Strange.

Also strange, if the turn did occur before 18:25 Z, you'd think the powers that be would have known that when the prelim report came out and the pretty pictures were indicating the turn happened at 18:27 Z.

*Edited to say ATSB, not AAIB. See here - http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...efining-the-search-area-mh370.aspx

[Edited 2014-06-06 10:56:01]
 
nupogodi
Posts: 933
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:58 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Fri Jun 06, 2014 6:04 pm

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 97):
Oh dear, LTC8K6 - the (radio) record shows "01:19:29 MAS370 Good Night Malaysian Three Seven Zero"

That's the radio record as you said, not the CV - cockpit voice - recording at you previously said it was.

We'd be a lot further if we had the cockpit voice recording of the incident, no doubt, at least in terms of playing the blame game.

[Edited 2014-06-06 11:04:19]
A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
 
Backseater
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:20 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Fri Jun 06, 2014 6:17 pm

Quoting Pihero (Reply 104):
I am still waiting to nsee you prove it.
After months of talking about it, you're still short of any proof.

Hi,PIhero.
You are right! I still cannot "prove" anything although I am still working on it.

All scenarios put forward so far cannot begin to be "proven" because we do not have enough firm data points.
So, rather than describe in detail a half baked scenario that you will of course use as an easy target for shooting practice, I would rather wait while I attempt to build a more solid foundation.

I admit I may be totally wrong and that's fine with me. But as you can see I do not try to destroy other scenarios. All need to be explored and discussed as we still do not know where the truth may lie.

And if you would be kind enough to help, could you look at the following question that I asked in the previous part but that went unanswered:

Is there a way to fly a T7 at cruise (say FL350, Mach .82) and reverse course in less time that it would take to fly a standard 180 degree turn? No constraints on fuel economy, altitude gain/loss and track offset, but the speed at the end of the maneuver must be approximately the same (or as fast as permitted by Mmo/Vmo at the end of maneuver altitude) after course reversal.
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Fri Jun 06, 2014 6:51 pm

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 48):
Happy 5th a.net Birthday!

Thanks!

It went by fast...
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1595
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Fri Jun 06, 2014 8:03 pm

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 108):
Thanks. Is it fair to say, then, that the the bulk of the change in direction toward the south occurred before 18:25 Z? We would see a significant change in the offsets if the turn happened after 18:25, right?

My understanding that the turn south happened after 1825 Z, maybe around 1830 Z - 1840 Z. The time of the turn cannot be read from the BFO chart, as the SATCOM device pre-compensates the transmit frequency based on the aircraft heading and speed. It was earlier thought that the turn south was so sharp that the signal was lost and that was the reason for the re-calibration. Based on the Inmarsat logs, the re-calibration (i.e. sudden changes in the BFO) are due to the power-up process of the SATCOM device at 1825 Z.

If Indonesian radars didn't detect the aircraft (and the radars were recording), then the turn south must have occurred beyond the Indonesian radar coverage.
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Fri Jun 06, 2014 9:27 pm

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 84):
Have you confirmed that you'd have enough fuel to descend+climb and still stay aloft long enough?

Yes I believe that can be confirmed.

Assuming 9MMRO could have reached Kota Bharu by 1:33 local time (which appears to be possible), and from there flew a heading of about 246 to approximately 5°39'12.74"N 101° 7'2.61"E (about 45nm ENE of Penang), and from there turned towards MEKAR (about 280 degrees true) the plane could have made it to the point just past MEKAR that the Malaysians state that 9MMRO was at 2:22 local time. It could have flown that path with a portion over Malaysia at much reduced altitude and made it within the time available.

The first leg (IGARI to Kota Bharu) would have to have been flown at a very high groundspeed as we can assume it was; If it could have held even an average GS of 490kts it could have made it to Kota Bharo by 1:33.

The second leg, over the eastern part of the landmass, (mostly over Thai territory but below the Hat Yai radar horizon) would have to have needed a 340kt average groundspeed; that seems very doable.

The third leg, out to Mekar, would have had a reduced GS early, and higher GS later (helped by a 20 kt tailwind) and would have had to average out to 470kts including the climb back up to cruise altitude.

This all is completely within the capabilities of a 777, so I think the possibility of backseater's proposal is confirmed.

[Edited 2014-06-06 14:28:57]
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Fri Jun 06, 2014 9:50 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 112):
If Indonesian radars didn't detect the aircraft

That isn't really a given. The Indonesians have said that they didn't track MH370 "over their territory" note that they never said unequivocally that they hadn't tracked (what they would only later know as) MH370.

If they did track it, it would have (mostly) been on an often used airway that doesn't cross Indonesian territory. So they would have not given it any attention.

BTW
I would have to assume, due to their "we didn't track it in our territory" statement, that it passed at least 12nm north of Pulau We Island on its way to the southern track.
 
hivue
Posts: 2016
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Fri Jun 06, 2014 9:54 pm

Quoting awthompson (Reply 77):
remember the Qantas A380 that had the engine explosion event after departing Singapore.

Demonstrating that simple failures can cause strange things to happen. That single primary failure caused a whole zoo of secondary failures, some of them bizarre. The little engine that wouldn't quit was just the most bizarre of the lot.

BTW, I am assuming that the Inmarsat data, fuel, altitude, time etc. totally rule out engine failure in 9M-MRO's case?
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
aftgaffe
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:18 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Fri Jun 06, 2014 10:36 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 112):
The time of the turn cannot be read from the BFO chart, as the SATCOM device pre-compensates the transmit frequency based on the aircraft heading and speed.

Sorry, I was sloppy there. I didn't mean we'd see it in the Inmarsat data release (though maybe those comparing the data with the satellite position data will, would, or did). I mean wouldn't it be visible in the offsets from the satellite doppler?

Apart from that, why do you think the turn was between 18:30 and 18:40?

[Edited 2014-06-06 15:38:52]
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Sat Jun 07, 2014 1:45 am

Quoting tailskid (Reply 113):
If it could have held even an average GS of 490kts it could have made it to Kota Bharo by 1:33.

With an urgent need to land, would it be standard procedure to fly as fast as possible towards Penang? As of 07 March 18Z there was supposedly a 20 kt tail wind at FL 350 from IGARI to Penang.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 113):
The third leg, out to Mekar, would have had a reduced GS early, and higher GS later (helped by a 20 kt tailwind) and would have had to average out to 470kts including the climb back up to cruise altitude.

The tail wind you describe was only at FL 390. 07 March 18Z winds from FL 050 - 340 were roughly a 10 kt crosswind. Seems a bit optimistic to me.
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:25 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 117):
With an urgent need to land, would it be standard procedure to fly as fast as possible towards Penang? .

An urgent need to land wasn't a scenario that I was presenting, that would require a discussion of its own. In any event, I have so far seen nothing convincing along that line.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 117):
As of 07 March 18Z there was supposedly a 20 kt tail wind at FL 350 from IGARI to Penang.

Do you have access to winds aloft data at various altitudes for that evening? I would be interested to know what exactly 9MMRO encountered.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 117):
The tail wind you describe was only at FL 390. 07 March 18Z winds from FL 050 - 340 were roughly a 10 kt crosswind. Seems a bit optimistic to me.

I thought I had calculated that leg conservatively. In the scenario I proposed, the plane would probably have been above 10,000 feet and flying at least at 400kts GS as it crossed the Malaysian coastline. At later points of that leg, 9MMRO may have been well above VMO. Also, while the winds may not have been dead on the tail, the flight had quite a few miles to make westerly. So it had favorable winds all the way.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1595
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Sat Jun 07, 2014 5:21 am

Quoting tailskid (Reply 114):
That isn't really a given. The Indonesians have said that they didn't track MH370 "over their territory" note that they never said unequivocally that they hadn't tracked (what they would only later know as) MH370.

Welcome to the forum!

If we are to take the ATSB publication (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2014/considerations-on-defining-the-search-area-mh370.aspx) literally, the last military radar detection was at 1822 Z. That would exclude Indonesian radar detection later.

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 116):
I mean wouldn't it be visible in the offsets from the satellite doppler?

I am not quite sure if I get what you mean but turns are not visible in the Burst Frequency Offsets (BFOs), and that is only Doppler shift measurement available. The generic detection between the southern and northern arc can be achieved through BFO considerations.
 
NAV30
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:16 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Sat Jun 07, 2014 6:06 am

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 105):
Sure but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the CVR.

You could have simply said you made an error...

Apologies for the misunderstanding, LTC8k6. Entirely my fault.

Fact is though, as far as I can tell, nothing more was heard from MH370 after that point? Except for Inmarsat 'pings'? Is that correct?
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Sat Jun 07, 2014 6:13 am

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 120):
Fact is though, as far as I can tell, nothing more was heard from MH370 after that point? Except for Inmarsat 'pings'? Is that correct?

There is the report of another airliner being asked to try to contact 9M-MRO, requested by Vietnam ATC, and hearing "mumbling and static".

~17:30UTC or 49 minutes into the flight.
 
NAV30
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:16 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Sat Jun 07, 2014 6:19 am

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 121):
hearing "mumbling and static".

Agreed - but nothing AT ALL after that?
 
aftgaffe
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:18 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Sat Jun 07, 2014 6:40 am

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 119):
I am not quite sure if I get what you mean but turns are not visible in the Burst Frequency Offsets (BFOs), and that is only Doppler shift measurement available.

Not turns per se, but changes in the rate of speed toward or away from the satellite. I guess you would have to assume a constant groundspeed and altitude, but if we also assume pre-turn westward flight on a relatively fixed heading and then southbound flight on a relatively fixed heading, with only one turn in between them, I would have thought the change in speed relative to the satellite caused by, or eventually resulting from, the turn would be detectable in the BFOs.
 
sipadan
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:06 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Sat Jun 07, 2014 6:46 am

[/quote]

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 120):
Fact is though, as far as I can tell, nothing more was heard from MH370 after that point? Except for Inmarsat 'pings'? Is that correct?

No, NAV 30. We heard FROM THE AIRCRAFT at 18:25-18:27. You know, the SATCOM 'reboot'. So your theory of catastrophic failure must also take these transmissions into account. Remember, these are contacts originating FROM THE AIRCRAFT, not the GES/SAT saying "are you there 9MMMRO". How would you then care to explain this all the while accepting that the pings (handshakes) did in fact occur? These take place 64 minutes after the last contact.
 
User avatar
p51tang
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 10:51 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Sat Jun 07, 2014 6:51 am

Quote:

Here are the last 8 transmissions:

ATC (16:50:06): Malaysia 370 climb FL350.

COCKPIT (16:50:09): FL350 Malaysia 370.

COCKPIT (17:01:14): Malaysia 370 maintaining level 350.

ATC (17:01:19): Malaysia 370.

COCKPIT (17:07:55): Malaysia 370 maintaining level 350.

ATC (17:08:00): Malaysia 370.

ATC (17:19:24): Malaysia 370 contact HO Chi Min 120 decimal 9 good night.

COCKPIT (17:19:29): Good night Malaysia 370.

So, we have a 6 min 41 sec chunk of time in between the two 'maintaining level 350' transmissions

Agreed.But why?.And thanks for the post.I was not aware of the double read-back.

I would assume it's similar to visiting your Doctor.


Doctor (16:50:06) Take two tablets daily,unless symptoms persist.

Patient (16:50:09) Taking two tablets daily, unless symptoms persist.



Patient (17:01:14) Taking two tablets daily,unless symptoms persist.

Doctor (17:01:19) Taking two tablets daily as prescribed.


6 min 41 sec would seem banal in the Doctors Surgery.

So,what was going on in the Cockpit here?.

Why would there be a requirement for a double read-back?. http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/nav/ifr_radio.htm

Quote:
Moderators- I think it is time to retire this thread until some concrete evidence of the aircraft's location is found. This has deteriorated to the point of being ludicrous. Too much name-calling, "I said, you said" and sheer absurd speculation.

Out of respect for the passengers, crew and the good people of MAS and their loved ones let it rest for now.

The fact that this is the 65th thread on the same subject should say it all.

Freedom of Expression is ensconced in law.Unless it becomes libelous.If it's just a simple case of 'never the twain shall meet' and/or 'water balloon fight' then hit the
red ignore button.It works.
 
NAV30
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:16 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Sat Jun 07, 2014 7:01 am

Quoting sipadan (Reply 124):
How would you then care to explain this all the while accepting that the pings (handshakes) did in fact occur?

Just a case of 'dunno,' sipidan.  

What I DO know, however, is that it is virtually impossible for a scheduled airliner with a very experienced captain and a competent F/O suddenly to go miles off course, without telling anyone - and then fly varied courses and altitudes, ending up flying pretty well due south for hours on end, while STILL maintaining absolute 'radio silence'? These guys were professionals - you tell ME how (excluding some sort of 'suicide pact') anything LIKE that could possibly have happened?

[Edited 2014-06-07 00:19:47]
 
LovesCoffee
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 4:07 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Sat Jun 07, 2014 7:09 am

Quoting tailskid (Reply 113):
Yes I believe that can be confirmed.

Assuming 9MMRO could have reached Kota Bharu by 1:33 local time (which appears to be possible), and from there flew a heading of about 246 to approximately 5°39'12.74"N 101° 7'2.61"E (about 45nm ENE of Penang), and from there turned towards MEKAR (about 280 degrees true) the plane could have made it to the point just past MEKAR that the Malaysians state that 9MMRO was at 2:22 local time. It could have flown that path with a portion over Malaysia at much reduced altitude and made it within the time available.

The first leg (IGARI to Kota Bharu) would have to have been flown at a very high groundspeed as we can assume it was; If it could have held even an average GS of 490kts it could have made it to Kota Bharo by 1:33.

The second leg, over the eastern part of the landmass, (mostly over Thai territory but below the Hat Yai radar horizon) would have to have needed a 340kt average groundspeed; that seems very doable.

The third leg, out to Mekar, would have had a reduced GS early, and higher GS later (helped by a 20 kt tailwind) and would have had to average out to 470kts including the climb back up to cruise altitude.

This all is completely within the capabilities of a 777, so I think the possibility of backseater's proposal is confirmed.

Given that the above is within the physical capabilities of a T7, do you have any figures for the fuel burn this would require? You would need to make sure that enough fuel was left to allow for the flight to the last ping ring. I think that was one of the problems for the high/low/high flight scenario.
Life is too short for cheap coffee.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1595
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Sat Jun 07, 2014 7:15 am

Quoting LovesCoffee (Reply 127):
Given that the above is within the physical capabilities of a T7, do you have any figures for the fuel burn this would require? You would need to make sure that enough fuel was left to allow for the flight to the last ping ring. I think that was one of the problems for the high/low/high flight scenario.

Remaining fuel is not a constraint for altitude changes in the first part of the flight, as the northern part of the southern arc is very close to Malaysia.

I think Pihero showed that the aircraft was too heavy in the first part of the flight to reach 41,000 ft and then to descend and climb fast enough along the military radar track, at least when using nominal 777 performance parameters and time constraints (1721 Z near IGARI, 1822 Z last military radar defence detection).
 
jox
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 3:39 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Sat Jun 07, 2014 7:27 am

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 126):
What I DO know, however, is that it is virtually impossible for a scheduled airliner with a very experienced captain and a competent F/O suddenly to go miles off course, without telling anyone

NAV30 - you keep coming back to this over and over. But what if the pilots LOST their means of "telling anyone". Then they have procedures to follow, see for example section 1.8.3 here: http://www.caas.gov.sg/caasWeb2010/e...mation/AIP/enroute/enr1/ENR1.6.pdf where it is said "leave or avoid controlled airspace". Then there are several options (either continue according to plan, or head for an alternative). My point is that your argument does not hold - if they lost comms, what we think we know about the first path after IGARI isn't that surprising if the event also caused them to decide to turn back.
 
LovesCoffee
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 4:07 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Sat Jun 07, 2014 7:34 am

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 128):
Remaining fuel is not a constraint for altitude changes in the first part of the flight, as the northern part of the southern arc is very close to Malaysia.

This is true, but the 'experts' at Inmarsat pretty much ruled that area out. To be more specific, let me change 'last ping ring' to 'the most probable area on the last ping ring'. Agreed that fuel is not an issue in the first part of the flight (except for the weight it adds), but you would need to have enough left after any climb/descend maneuvers to get close to the search area.

Having said that, the current search area may very well be grossly inaccurate, which makes fuel calculations difficult. It's just that, for the sake of proving a scenario possible, doing fuel calculations is just one more part of an individual's proof.

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 128):
I think Pihero showed that the aircraft was too heavy in the first part of the flight to reach 41,000 ft and then to descend and climb fast enough along the military radar track, at least when using nominal 777 performance parameters and time constraints (1721 Z near IGARI, 1822 Z last military radar defence detection).

Yes, I remember this too, but tailskid's post did not contain any figure for altitude, so I assumed altitude would be within what ever range is possible. 41,000 ft was proven (to my satisfaction) to be impossible too.
Life is too short for cheap coffee.
 
sipadan
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:06 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Sat Jun 07, 2014 8:07 am

Quoting p51tang (Reply 125):
Agreed.But why?.And thanks for the post.I was not aware of the double read-back.
Quoting p51tang (Reply 125):
Why would there be a requirement for a double read-back?. http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/nav/ifr_radio.htm

Thanks for that link. So of course there is no requirement. The question then becomes, as you pointed out, why? And now we are once again into the realm of assumption and speculation.

The most stated reason by members here is that he (Zaharie or Fariq) was just reminding ATC that "we're still here", as if this wasn't known. It is also possible that the flight plan had called for a different altitude, and that this was an attempt to remind ATC that "hey, were here and waiting not so patiently for that altitude adjustment/correction".

The other reasons I've heard put forth are: they simply forgot or were unsure as to whether they had communicated to ATC the 'maintaining' instruction. Why this doubt would only creep in after nearly 7 minutes later is beyond me.

Yet another reason could be that the cockpit had been infiltrated ,and, for whatever reason, the hostiles had demanded this particular transmission (this makes NO sense, but has been offered as a possibility). On the flip side, it has been surmised that perhaps it was a sort of latent communication by the crew so as to let ATC know that something wasn't quite right (to believe this, you would have to believe that the crew was under siege and couldn't speak freely, but was somehow able to communicate only this). Remember, 'someone' sounded perfectly fine on the partial read back at handoff.

Of course, these are just some of the non-nefarious scenarios (I'm sure there are many more).

I have my own theory as to why this occurred.

Quoting p51tang (Reply 125):
Freedom of Expression is ensconced in law.Unless it becomes libelous.If it's just a simple case of 'never the twain shall meet' and/or 'water balloon fight' then hit the
red ignore button.It works.

        

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 126):
What I DO know, however, is that it is virtually impossible for a scheduled airliner with a very experienced captain and a competent F/O suddenly to go miles off course, without telling anyone - and then fly varied courses, ending up flying pretty well due south for hours on end, while STILL maintaining absolute 'radio silence'? These guys were professionals - you tell ME how (excluding some sort of 'suicide pact') anything LIKE that could possibly have happened?

I wholeheartedly agree that it is 'virtually impossible'. How could anything like this happen, you ask? Well, perhaps that very experienced pilot you refer to wanted it this way?
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Sat Jun 07, 2014 8:31 am

Quoting jox (Reply 129):

Yes, there is a procedure to follow for total loss of comms and there's no indication of any attempt to follow it, iirc.

[Edited 2014-06-07 01:32:56]
 
NAV30
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:16 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:32 am

Quoting sipadan (Reply 131):
How could anything like this happen, you ask?

We have to bear in mind, sipadan, that the captain did not check in with the next destination, Ho Chi Minh. Instead, the aeroplane 'went off radar' and all communication - except for Inmarsat - ceased.

I think that there is a definite possibility that the aeroplane 'went in' (i.e. crashed) immediately after that? Indeed, I'll go so far as to say that that is just about the ONLY thing that would explain the failure to check in with Ho Chi Minh?

[Edited 2014-06-07 05:22:11]
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:43 am

People are starting to get impatient over how this whole issue has been handled - it looks like.

Came across the following:

http://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2014/0...fund-this-story-just-wont-go-away/
$3 million whistle blower fund

And I am quoting here:
After three months of failed search efforts, families have become convinced the authorities are concealing the truth about the disappearance of the Boeing 777 and will launch the crowd-funding campaign Indiegogo in a bid to get answers.
“I’m convinced that somebody is concealing something”
“We are taking matters into our own hands,” Sarah Bajc told The USA Today, whose partner Philip Wood, 50, was on the flight.
“There is no credible evidence that the plane is in the southern Indian Ocean, where planes, boats and a mini-sub have searched in vain for week.
“I’m convinced that somebody is concealing something.”
Called “Reward MH370: The Search for the Truth,” the campaign will launch Monday on Indiegogo, starting with minimum donations of $5.
A $2 million fund for private investigators is also being raised to follow up leads, which Bajc acknowledges “won’t go very far”.
“Clearly, they’ve already spent $100 million dollars and they’ve gotten nothing,” she said. “But we’re not going to approach it with boats in the ocean, we’re going to approach it with human intelligence.”
End of quote.
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Sat Jun 07, 2014 4:13 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 119):
If we are to take the ATSB publication (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2014/considerations-on-defining-the-search-area-mh370.aspx) literally, the last military radar detection was at 1822 Z. That would exclude Indonesian radar detection later.

I'm sure that the ATSB included all information known to them in their report, but I have no specific knowledge that the Indonesian military provided any of that information.

Quoting LovesCoffee (Reply 127):
do you have any figures for the fuel burn this would require?

No, I don't. The fuel on board figures were only recently made public; if there have been any analysis along that line here or anywhere else I must have missed it.

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 128):
Pihero showed that the aircraft was too heavy in the first part of the flight to reach 41,000 ft

Other knowledgeable people have stated that it was good for FL409 by the book, and that a reconstructed flight made it to FL430 in a simulator with room to go.

Here is a snippet of a post made by a person making and unchallenged claim to be an airline captain in a different forum.

Can a 777 get to FL450? In true mythbuster spirit we put this to the test in a 777-2 simulator.
A 777 with a full load of passengers has a zero fuel weight of between 170 and 180 tonnes, say 175 tonnes. 8 hours of fuel is approximately 52 tonnes. So a takeoff weight of approx 227 tonnes minus a bit of taxi fuel. At that weight the FMS says Max Alt FL409. The plane will climb easily to FL410.

Now it gets interesting.
At FL410 There is a very small gap on the airspeed tape between the VMO and the yellow which is minimum manoeuvring speed. If you disconnect the autothrottle and firewall the thrust levers, then wait until the speed is about to trigger the VMO warning and then disconnect the autopilot and raise the nose you can do a zoom climb. Although into the yellow pretty quickly there is still a long way before you get to the red digits on the airspeed which is the point at which the stick shaker activates. The elevator gets incredibly heavy as it is made artificially heavier as the Boeing 777 really doesn't want you to do this. With P2 pulling with all his might he still could not raise the nose to anywhere near 10 degrees.

Putting the flight controls into direct mode made it easier. We got it to FL 443 at which point the stick shaker activated and P2 gratefully reduced the back pressure. This sim had GE engines. RR are a bit more powerful and if they had used an hour more fuel than our simulation I think it would have been feasible. Interestingly at FL440 the cabin alt was still at 8000 feet as per normal, so it must have used a higher diff than normal but still had not reached the max diff where the relief valve opens.


This post was made on March 19th on that rumors and news website.
I don't know if I'm permitted to post that URL here.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Sat Jun 07, 2014 5:21 pm

Quoting tailskid (Reply 118):
Do you have access to winds aloft data at various altitudes for that evening? I would be interested to know what exactly 9MMRO encountered.

I got data from http://aviationwxchartsarchive.com/page/home
The spatial resolution (5 degrees lat/lon) and temporal resolution (6 hours) do leave something to be desired, but it's a pretty good start from which to build a wind model to interpolate over latitude, longitude, altitude and time.

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 133):
I think that there is a definite possibility that the aeroplane 'went in' (i.e. crashed) immediately after that?

You'll have to explain how it 'went in' (what tedious terminology!) without destroying the satcom unit, which later initiated contact with the satellite at 18:25 - 18:27 Z. This isn't a fact you can simply dismiss or ignore.
 
Backseater
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:20 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Sat Jun 07, 2014 6:53 pm

Quoting tailskid (Reply 135):
claim to be an airline captain

Thank you for that interesting post about a 777 pilot not flying by the book in a flight simulator. He also has other comments well worth reading.

The zoom climb he performed may be part of the answer I have been looking for when I asked my question about how to do a quicker course reversal in post #110 above. The IGARI "turn" has always been described in a roundabout way. The preliminary report says : "A playback of a recording from military primary radar revealed that an aircraft with a possibility of MH 370 had made an air-turn back onto a Westerly heading crossing Peninsular Malay". If they had indeed captured it, why not say for instance "the a/c made a left/right turn to a true/mag heading of 240deg".

Unless the turn did not look like a turn. IMO:
- the Malaysian radars did not capture the "turn". Foreign radars did (e.g. Thailand Hat Yai) but that data took many days to reach the investigators.
- the Malaysian investigators let SAR operate east of Malaysia for several days, a strategy that could not be conscioned if they had their own primary radar data around IGARI
- the "turn" may not have been a standard turn but an unusual maneuver causing a quick course reversal, possibly using a zoom climb and turn followed by a drop in altitude, thus leading investigators to posit a crash around that point. That would only make sense in the case of a deliberate action by some party trying to obfuscate the real time tracking of the a/c.
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Sat Jun 07, 2014 7:31 pm

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 137):
e zoom climb he performed may be part of the answer I have been looking for

The maneuver you are describing is a hammerhead turn.

That stretches my brain to even consider such a thing in an airliner, but I don't see why it wouldn't be within the realm of the possible (there is that Boeing test pilot who did a loop in a 747 as a predecessor for this kind of stuff.)

But I doubt this scenario, if for no other reason than my assumption that the person at the controls probably would have wanted to hold the A/C at very high altitude for as long as possible (if inducing hypoxia was the goal of the altitude excursion.)

Most probably, the wings stayed level during any altitude excursion. You are only talking about shaving a minute or two off the turn anyway, there would have been no reason for executing aerobatic maneuvers to accomplish that.
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 30050
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Sat Jun 07, 2014 7:33 pm

Quoting tailskid (Reply 138):
there is that Boeing test pilot who did a loop in a 747

you mean B707
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Sat Jun 07, 2014 7:47 pm

Quoting hawk21m (Reply 139):
you mean B707

..... and it was a barrel roll, not a looping. Nothing close to an Immelmann.
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Sat Jun 07, 2014 7:47 pm

Quoting hawk21m (Reply 139):
you mean B707

How time flys!
You're right it was a 707.
And I also had the maneuver wrong, it was a roll, which is a much more drastic maneuver.
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 30050
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Sat Jun 07, 2014 7:50 pm

Quoting tailskid (Reply 141):
And I also had the maneuver wrong, it was a roll, which is a much more drastic maneuver.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaA7kPfC5Hk
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Sat Jun 07, 2014 8:09 pm

Thank you hawk, I didn't know that video existed.
 
Backseater
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:20 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Sat Jun 07, 2014 8:12 pm

Quoting tailskid (Reply 138):
That stretches my brain to even consider such a thing in an airliner, but I don't see why it wouldn't be within the realm of the possible

I was not suggesting a hammerhead but maybe something like a wingover avoiding a stall.
I have of course seen many rumors about an excursion at high altitude but I don't recall that the time/location or duration were ever indicated.
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Sat Jun 07, 2014 8:48 pm

Backseater.

Here's something along the lines you're looking for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandelle

That would shave a minute or so off the turn and it wouldn't involve descent.
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Sat Jun 07, 2014 8:49 pm

The highest the bank indicator goes is 25 degrees. Might be able to hand fly it a little steeper, but the overbank protection kicks in at 35 degrees, that then will restore the bank angle to 30 degrees. Doesn't make a huge difference either way: it's the difference between a 15 nm diameter turn versus 12 nm. For a 180, it's 19 nm versus 24 nm--a 5 nm difference, that won't even shave 1 whole minute of time...

[Edited 2014-06-07 13:52:25]
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Sat Jun 07, 2014 9:08 pm

There are indications that the left main AC bus was de-powered which would have removed FMC inputs from the left seat controls, (this would also account for the satellite blackout and provide a reason for the Inmarsat login at 18:25 .)
 
Backseater
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:20 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Sat Jun 07, 2014 9:09 pm

I agree that only a small amount of time might be saved with a creative maneuver after IGARI to achieve a reciprocal heading.
But there are other reasons for digging into the style of flying used in the one hour or so after IGARI.
With the best possible outcome, enough details on the style of flying might help discriminate between accident vs. deliberate action and in the case of deliberate action, help discriminate between seasoned vs. improvised pilot.

Of course, with the amount of raw data released so far, we are left with conjectures rather than conclusions.
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66

Sun Jun 08, 2014 1:05 am

The winds seemed to be about ~20 knot headwinds on the track to IGARI that translated into ~20 knot tail winds afterwards, for a TAS of around 490 knots (Mach 0.84 at FL350). To get from IGARI to the radar track, you need a ground speed of at least 500 knots. Tough to square that with low altitude flight. The fact that it was picked up by radar only sporadically for most of the track doesn't mean much IMHO. Also, radar is no good at picking altitudes. It's worse than bearings. With the possible exception of when it drops off the radar at the absolute limit of detectability. At 260 nm or whatever it was, she had to be at high altitude. As for incident vs accident, why didn't they put down at Kota Bharu or Penang? And sure, maybe they were task saturated, and "lost the plot". Then why did she head straight up the middle of the Strait? Why not circle around and try again. Why the OBVIOUS aiming for VAMPI MEKAR? Where does that lead? The Andamans? Hmmmm. No airports there. It's pretty clear. It was under intelligent control, and there was no obvious intention to land anywhere. The turn around Penang is a desire to avoid both Thai and Indonesian airspace. That's all.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

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