NAV30
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:16 am

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 4:24 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 136):
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.

There is a rapidly-growing body of press comment saying that Inmarsat 'improvised' its data on the 'theory' that MH370 flew south for about six hours, WingedMigrator:-

This is a typical comment:-

"There remains only one publically available piece of evidence linking the plane to the southern Indian Ocean: a report issued by the Malaysian government on March 25 that described a new analysis carried out by the U.K.-based satellite operator Inmarsat. The report said that Inmarsat had developed an “innovative technique” to establish that the plane had most likely taken a southerly heading after vanishing. Yet independent experts who have analyzed the report say that it is riddled with inconsistencies and that the data it presents to justify its conclusion appears to have been fudged."

http://jeffwise.net/2014/04/18/slate...ats-mh370-report-is-a-smokescreen/

Plenty of other such stories if you google - here's a page of them......

https://www.google.com.au/#q=Inmarsat+pings+mh370+fudged
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 4:37 am

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 150):

It hardly matters where the airplane went... there you go again, trying to change the subject when confronted with facts that immediately contradict your theory that it crashed in the South China Sea.

Let's try again: the airplane's satcom system initiated a series of messages to the satellite from wherever it may have been (location irrelevant) at 18:25 Z and again at 0:19 Z. Again, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHERE THE AIRPLANE WAS at those times... only that the satcom system was operational.
 
NAV30
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:16 am

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 4:54 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 151):
Again, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHERE THE AIRPLANE WAS at those times...

No need to shout...........  

1. The Captain didn't check in with Ho Chi Minh.

2. The aeroplane went off radar, and all other forms of communication ended at the same time. For good. Except, in your view, the pings to the satellite.

3. I think there's a good chance that it went into the sea right at that time.

Which brings us back to a possible major mechanical failure, or a bomb, or a hijack, or (highly unlikely) pilot suicide?
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 5:20 am

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 52):
First the left engine running out of fuel and the left main AC bus unpowered. Is it the right engine or APU after both engines have died that will power the left main AC bus briefly to provide the power to SATCOM modem to initiate the final logon?

If someone in the cockpit was awake, the left engine dead, and put in the bus tie, would repower the left ac main bus if the other engine and generator was online.
If engines out due to no fuel, APU might still be able to be started by then why waste the battery?
Another possibility is the left engine not having a consistent fuel flow in the last seconds, that can cause the left generator to go off, on, and off.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 83):
It doesn't happen immediately, there is some warning. You open the cockpit door and throw it out -- let the FA's handle it, they're trained.

And they'd scream at you at the thought of "throw it out", which could mean ending up inducing it to explode in their faces, while they're there to fight the battery fire. There's a big difference between "Let the FAs handle it" and "throw it out".

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 84):
Realizing that they're off course, the revived pilot or FA tries to turn back towards land and reboot the satphone, but succumbs to the fumes again, and the plane continues until it runs out of fuel.

Rebooting the satcom needs restoring power to it... If it went quiet due to unpowering the Left Main AC Bus, then repower it, if by pulling the CBs on P110 in the E&E bay, then push them back in...

This isn't the switch we're talking about on top of the captain on the overhead.

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 84):
The theory is relatively simple,

Yet, even the simple ones need a lot of work and care to make it work with all the data available (or lack of).

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.

Ironically, currently we don't even know if it went in a straight line or not.

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

Not if it didn't go on a straight line.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 106):
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?

You want to sacrifice that part of the cabin or make it explode and still burn up your cockpit? That's why you don't simply "throw it out"... you might aswell open the bloody window and throw the damn thing out... at least it'll be outside the aircraft! (not much of a choice above 10,000, I know...)

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 106):
Are you rated on the T7?

Maybe not, but at least he has about 500 people he can call on to ask!   

Quoting sipadan (Reply 131):
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".

We call it... "Hinting"... more like, "hello, we're here... let's see if you notice what's on our flightplan"... Failing that, then ask for the higher flight level. :p
But, from several of the recordings I heard, some parts of the conversation, seems to be simple copied repeats...

Quoting sipadan (Reply 131):
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?

The key to the word he needs to note is... "Virtually" in the "virtually impossible"... because it's not absolutely impossible, therefore it can still happen. (biggrin)
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 5:45 am

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 149):
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 way I plot it, the distance is 457nm, so the average GS need only be 457kts. (1hr and 1min)

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 149):
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.

I agree with most of that analysis, but it seems to me that once a person agrees with the premise of an intentional flight path, the route south of Penang sticks out as an anomaly in an otherwise coherent plan. South of Penang would be a time wasting detour on the way to MEKAR, and it would have brought the plane over populated areas which is not so good for stealth. The only possible reason for such a "detour" would have been to make it look (from an Indonesian radar's POV) like this was a flight originating from Butterworth and headed to Australia. This would explain the need for low altitude, to simulate a takeoff. The problem with this route is that it is too long; a 777 could not fly IGARI - Penang - MEKAR with a descent to 5,000 feet or so and make it to MEKAR by 2:22. You have quite correctly pointed that out already.

The route I proposed in post #113 was based upon the premise that the reason for the low altitude excursion, was to avoid Thai radar. This version of routing provides a shorter route which could be done in the time available.

Here we differ:
Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 149):
The fact that it was picked up by radar only sporadically for most of the track doesn't mean much IMHO.
Of the three and probably four radars (Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia) that tracked the flight, it was only the Thai radar which reported having "sporadic" contact. With a 777 having a radar cross section as big as it is, how could that be?

That result would come about if a plane used the high ground between the Hat Yai radar antenna and the Malaysian border to mask radar returns - by flying at low altitude. If the person flying the plane wasn't concerned about Malaysian primary radar (as seems to be the case), but was concerned about raising alarm in Thailand this would be expected.

The Thai's have said that they never tracked the flight over their territory and I predict that 9MMRO took a shortcut across Thai territory; the low level flight path can explain both how that was done, and why the Thai's had only "sporadic" tracking of the target.

I have broken the flight from IGARI to the point past MEKAR into three segments; each can be analyzed separately.

The first leg is : IGARI to Koto Bharu, 93nm @ 510kts = 11 min: Arrival at Kota Bharu = 1:33

The second leg: Kota Bharu to a point where a turn would have been made toward MEKAR (approx 5°39'16.74"N 101° 6'43.61"E) 74nm @ 340 = 13 min: arrival at this point is 1:46

From 1:46 point to MEKAR 290nm @ 471 kts = 36 min

457nm total nm / average speed = 457 kts

AFIK, this includes all the known data.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 6:04 am

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 133):
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?

So a equipment issue would be an impossible explanation for them not checking in?
Being overcome by smoke/fumes would be an impossible explanation for them not checking in?
Having someone nefariously enter the cockpit and take control of the plane would be an impossible explanation for them not checking in?
One of the cockpit crew taking control of the plane for personal reasons would be an impossible explanation for them not checking in?

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 136):
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

On the contrary, it IS a fact he seems content to dismiss or ignore.

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 152):
2. The aeroplane went off radar, and all other forms of communication ended at the same time. For good. Except, in your view, the pings to the satellite.

Sigh.

-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.
 
NAV30
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:16 am

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 6:09 am

tailskid, I take it you're including the two westward turns?

It's very possible, IMO, that these just didn't happen?

As far as I know, MH370's radar track first of all went blank? The track published by the investigators shows a 'white line' - meaning 'no contact' - and then shows two westward turns?

As I understand the published accounts, MH370 first of all went off civilian radar. The radar guys contacted the military and, after a while, they found tracks 'suggesting' that MH370 had turned west. But I also seem to recall reading that the heights, speeds, etc. from then on seemed 'all wrong' for a 777? So they were very possibly following military aircraft, not MH370 at all?

To me, the simpler explanation - that MH370 had a problem right at the beginning, (two minutes after being 'handed off'), lost all contact, and crashed right then and there - has the advantage of simplicity?

I really think that if the authorities bring back a couple of the aeroplanes and ships they've sent half across the world, close to Australia, and search around the place where MH370 'lost contact,' they'll find the wreckage in next to no time........

[Edited 2014-06-07 23:19:11]
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 6:33 am

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 153):
If engines out due to no fuel, APU might still be able to be started by then why waste the battery?

You don't have any choice -- it autostarts. The drain on the main battery is minimal as the APU starter has it's own battery and the RAT would be up and running before the APU ever started.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 153):
Ironically, currently we don't even know if it went in a straight line or not.
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 153):
Not if it didn't go on a straight line.

True, but if it wasn't being controlled by a pilot or autopilot it would have basically gone in circles wherever the pilot let go of the control wheel until fuel exhaustion.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 153):
And they'd scream at you at the thought of "throw it out", which could mean ending up inducing it to explode in their faces, while they're there to fight the battery fire. There's a big difference between "Let the FAs handle it" and "throw it out".
Quoting NAV30 (Reply 152):
You want to sacrifice that part of the cabin or make it explode and still burn up your cockpit? That's why you don't simply "throw it out"... you might aswell open the bloody window and throw the damn thing out... at least it'll be outside the aircraft! (not much of a choice above 10,000, I know...)

OK, I'd have the copilot put on the "gloves" and take it to the forward galley so the FA's could handle it, not as much to burn there -- anything to get it out of the cockpit.
 
LovesCoffee
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 4:07 am

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 6:36 am

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 153):
Quoting Finn350 (Reply 52):First the left engine running out of fuel and the left main AC bus unpowered. Is it the right engine or APU after both engines have died that will power the left main AC bus briefly to provide the power to SATCOM modem to initiate the final logon?
If someone in the cockpit was awake, the left engine dead, and put in the bus tie, would repower the left ac main bus if the other engine and generator was online.
If engines out due to no fuel, APU might still be able to be started by then why waste the battery?
Another possibility is the left engine not having a consistent fuel flow in the last seconds, that can cause the left generator to go off, on, and off.

Has anyone considered the possibility that, if the accident was due to mechanical malfunction, that part of the malfunction was the loss and possible restart of the left engine? Or if a restart failed, after some time, put in the bus tie to power the left main AC bus and flew on the right engine?
Life is too short for cheap coffee.
 
NAV30
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:16 am

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 6:37 am

Please edit if you can, 7BOEING7 - the bit about 'sacrifice' in 157 is from mandala499, not from me?  

[Edited 2014-06-07 23:40:32]
 
User avatar
p51tang
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 10:51 am

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 6:47 am

Quote:
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.

Thanks for the link.


Quote:
Chandelles

You may have done the aerobatic maneuver called a chandelle. Depending on how "aerobatic" you were willing to get you might have flown close to 90 degrees of bank while doing a chandelle. And you are thinking - "I don't remember a high-g force." Your memory is correct.http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/training/aerodynamics/turns.htm

Seems like the Chandelle would limit the g-force component.


But then again there are options:

1: This is the Captain,were going to avoid some bad weather and turbulence heading back West.

2: Chandelle maneuver.

3: Turning at cruise at minimal bank angle, and burn tons of extra fuel by covering more ground.Fly over Thailand and out into the Indian Ocean.


For me, option 3 would not be a smart bet.Option 1 would allude flight crew to the fact that avoiding turbulence means doing a 180 degree turn in the opposite direction.(I have visions of Flight 93 here).Which leaves Option 2 still on the table.Much better to keep everything 'low key'.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 6:53 am

Quoting tailskid (Reply 154):
The way I plot it, the distance is 457nm, so the average GS need only be 457kts. (1hr and 1min)

If you look at the map released by the Malaysian Ministry of Transport, the plane has flown already 811 nm at 1822 Z. As KUL to IGARI is around 275 nm, that leaves around 811 - 275 = 536 nm from IGARI to last military radar defense point. That equals to a ground speed of around 528 kn between 1721 Z and 1822 Z.

http://i.imgur.com/1TKY3OF.jpg

For a cross-check, I plotted the tracj from the ATSB publication into Skyvector.

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

Source: http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...efining-the-search-area-mh370.aspx - MH370 Flight path derived from Primary and Secondary radar data

The track from KUA to last military radar detection is indeed around 811 nm.

This is approximately the track the investigation team believes MH370 took plotted in Skyvector:

http://oi60.tinypic.com/332b0c7.jpg

http://skyvector.com/?ll=5.322163787....640600378548512,96.36474609753563
 
jox
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 3:39 am

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 7:24 am

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 152):
1. The Captain didn't check in with Ho Chi Minh.

NAV30 - I fail to understand your obsession for this; Let's just assume that he had checked in with the next controller and then went offline [i.e just forward the current scenario a minute or so]. How would that change your story about the plane crashing there and then? Something happened that prevented the communication to happen (radio, ACARS etc) at some point in time - I just don't see the significance of just the particular Ho Ch Minh check in you are referring to all the time.
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 7:43 am

Finn I am aware of those plots and I don't accept them as fact.
There is no data released to support that flight path. The Malaysians have refused so far to give us actual radar data. So we have the Ministry of Transport map which is in conflict with data we do have: the Indonesians have released a statement that they did not track the flight over their territory, but if you look at that Ministry of Transport map it clearly has the flight path over Pulau WE island, which is Indonesian sovereign territory. In fact Indonesian territory extends at least for another 12 miles north of Pulau We.

The Malaysians have been releasing inaccurate information all along, I happen to believe that the information released in the first couple of days has a greater chance of being accurate than anything else they have given out. So I put some weight on the low altitude over the landmass, because that was given out in what I see as a period of innocence - the first 36 hours.

IMO the ATSB mapmakers just accepted the Malaysian Ministry of Transport map as fact. The Australians have no reason to question the Malaysians, it would be foolish for them to question or contradict their "partner" in the search. The Australians have little interest in the earlier part of the flight, they don't even care about fuel burn calcs, they have the 8:19 partial ping to guide them as to what time it ran out of fuel.

Both of those maps show the flight crossing Thai territory, which is quite interesting. Both of those maps also show the flight then passing south of Pulau Pinang Island. Routing the flight around south of Pulau Pinang Island makes no sense to me. Whoever flew 9MMRO did it with great skill and the route south of the island just makes an unnecessary zig zag on the way to MEKAR.

The Thai's couldn't keep a constant track on the target they were following, for me, an ex radar operator, that says that either the Thai radar was malfunctioning or the flight was hiding behind terrain. When I looked at the geography of southern Thailand, sure enough there was high country between the radar and the flight path.

Please re-read my earlier post, and plot the route I predicted into Sky Vector, then you'll understand why I'm taking the position that I am.
 
CBRboy
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:03 pm

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 8:57 am

I've been thinking about the 'aircraft on fire' sighting by the woman on the yacht. There are two things about her report that don't make sense.

First, Katherine Tee says "I was looking at what appeared to be an elongated plane glowing bright orange, with a trail of black smoke behind it." How do you see black smoke trailing a plane on fire at FL150+ (she says it was at half the height of other aircraft she saw that night: "Now I reflect on it, I also think it was at approx the same height that short haul planes cruise down the Arabian Gulf.") on a moonless night? I can believe that if you were really close to an object on fire at night, there would be enough light from the fire to see smoke, but from a burning aircraft in the dark sky at a distance of some kilometers?

Second, the route of the yacht retrieved from its GPS log is reproduced in two charts. This one clearly shows (orange part of track) that at the time in question (I should note here that there is doubt about which time zone the GPS log was using), the SV Aaza Dana was headed roughly ENE, and about 80% of the distance from Sumatra to Great Nicobar Island. The sailor says the burning aircraft crossed the sky "behind our stern from port to starboard; which would have been approximately North to South". Someone has mapped this on Google Earth and provided a screenshot linked from her blog. It seems to me that this track from north to south is too far west for it to have been MH370. Hasn't the work on fitting the possible aircraft track to the Inmarsat ping rings shown that it must have turned south prior to this?
 
NAV30
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:16 am

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 10:21 am

Quoting jox (Reply 162):
NAV30 - I fail to understand your obsession for this; Let's just assume that he had checked in with the next controller and then went offline

Hi jox - thanks for your interest.

Simple thing really - If you check out in controlled airspace, you immediately check back in with the next station. It usually only takes a couple of minutes, most times, to check in with the new lot?

The fact that a crew this experienced DIDN'T check in straight away in this case strongly suggests - to me, anyway - that they had some sort of problem. An urgent/serious one, in all probability?

That's more or less confirmed, anyway, by the fact that they dropped off radar AND radio AND everything else within a couple of minutes?

[Edited 2014-06-08 03:24:01]
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9230
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 10:31 am

Quoting jox (Reply 162):
NAV30 - I fail to understand your obsession for this; Let's just assume that he had checked in with the next controller and then went offline [i.e just forward the current scenario a minute or so]. How would that change your story about the plane crashing there and then? Something happened that prevented the communication to happen (radio, ACARS etc) at some point in time - I just don't see the significance of just the particular Ho Ch Minh check in you are referring to all the time.

Well, if you want to do something strange, you would try to do it, when ATC is not following you and that was the best place. One ATC thinking that the plane switched to the next, the other thinking it turned away, and remained under control of the old ATC. In any case it would increase response times, should one ATC decided to check out what is going on and inform the Air Force about what is going on. If you are safely under ATC control, turning of the transponder, not responding to radio contact and making unscheduled course changes will most likely result in a scramble.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 11:45 am

Quoting tailskid (Reply 163):
Finn I am aware of those plots and I don't accept them as fact.
There is no data released to support that flight path. The Malaysians have refused so far to give us actual radar data. So we have the Ministry of Transport map which is in conflict with data we do have: the Indonesians have released a statement that they did not track the flight over their territory, but if you look at that Ministry of Transport map it clearly has the flight path over Pulau WE island, which is Indonesian sovereign territory. In fact Indonesian territory extends at least for another 12 miles north of Pulau We.

We disagree here. IMO, the ATSB publication is the best map regarding the flight track until 1822 Z and that map is attributed to the NTSB. I believe that the times and distances in the Malaysin Ministry of Transport map are correct, but the flight path is only schematic and appoximate. That explains the discrepancy of the depicted flight paths in the two maps.
 
jox
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 3:39 am

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 12:10 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 166):

Quoting jox (Reply 162):
NAV30 - I fail to understand your obsession for this; Let's just assume that he had checked in with the next controller and then went offline [i.e just forward the current scenario a minute or so]. How would that change your story about the plane crashing there and then? Something happened that prevented the communication to happen (radio, ACARS etc) at some point in time - I just don't see the significance of just the particular Ho Ch Minh check in you are referring to all the time.

Well, if you want to do something strange, you would try to do it, when ATC is not following you and that was the best place. One ATC thinking that the plane switched to the next, the other thinking it turned away, and remained under control of the old ATC. In any case it would increase response times, should one ATC decided to check out what is going on and inform the Air Force about what is going on. If you are safely under ATC control, turning of the transponder, not responding to radio contact and making unscheduled course changes will most likely result in a scramble.

seahawk, I understand that - but that is quite different from NAV30s crash-there-and-then theory.
 
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 1:53 pm

Quote:
Quoting tailskid: The way I plot it, the distance is 457nm, so the average GS need only be 457kts....

I have broken the flight from IGARI to the point past MEKAR into three segments; each can be analyzed separately.

The first leg is : IGARI to Koto Bharu, 93nm @ 510kts = 11 min: Arrival at Kota Bharu = 1:33

The second leg: Kota Bharu to a point where a turn would have been made toward MEKAR (approx 5°39'16.74"N 101° 6'43.61"E) 74nm @ 340 = 13 min: arrival at this point is 1:46

From 1:46 point to MEKAR 290nm @ 471 kts = 36 min

457nm total nm / average speed = 457 kts

Dude, the only way you're going to get a distance of 457 nm is if you do a direct flight from IGARI to MEKAR, straight over Thailand.

http://i.imgur.com/l3MSElk.png

Quote:
Quoting tailskid: AFIK, this includes all the known data.

Yeah right... Except for the known radar track that extends from before Pulau Perak, goes right through VAMPI and then on to MEKAR. Have you asked yourself why you would accept the very last radar contact, but not the 40 or 50 radar contacts that happened before it?

Quote:
Quoting tailskid: I agree with most of that analysis, but it seems to me that once a person agrees with the premise of an intentional flight path, the route south of Penang sticks out as an anomaly in an otherwise coherent plan.
1. South of Penang would be a time wasting detour on the way to MEKAR, and

2. it would have brought the plane over populated areas which is not so good for stealth.

3. The only possible reason for such a "detour" would have been to make it look (from an Indonesian radar's POV) like this was a flight originating from Butterworth and headed to Australia. This would explain the need for low altitude, to simulate a takeoff.

4. The problem with this route is that it is too long; a 777 could not fly IGARI - Penang - MEKAR with a descent to 5,000 feet or so and make it to MEKAR by 2:22. You have quite correctly pointed that out already.

5. The route I proposed in post #113 was based upon the premise that the reason for the low altitude excursion, was to avoid Thai radar. This version of routing provides a shorter route which could be done in the time available.

Sorry, but this a bizarre line of reasoning...

1. There is no evidence that there was a race to MEKAR. But if there was, then the last thing you want to do is fly at a low altitude.

2. No, it apparently flew over the ocean several nm to the south of Penang, and thus avoided heavily populated areas. As for stealth, a B777 is not a stealth aircraft. The only way to hide is in plain sight. Thus, it is best to maintain normal cruising speed and altitude and follow well-known air routes and waypoints. This is exactly what it looks like the 9M-MRO did.

3. No, the obvious reason for the "detour" was to avoid both Thai and Indonesian airspace. The pilot rightly gambled that the Maylasians, knowing that the flight originated in Malaysia, would recognize the aircraft as "friendly", and not do anything about it. That is exactly what happened.

4. You are assuming what you set out to prove. You can only maintain this position if you ignore the radar track. Also, it is not possible for a B777 to fly at 450 knots at 5,000 feet. That is still very fast.

5. It doesn't matter if Thai radar sees you as long as you don't overfly Thailand!
 
markak
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 1:14 am

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 2:04 pm

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 157):

True, but if it wasn't being controlled by a pilot or autopilot it would have basically gone in circles wherever the pilot let go of the control wheel until fuel exhaustion.



How big would those circles be?

The INMARSAT ping rings do not rule out the A/C flying in circles.
 
Backseater
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:20 pm

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 2:22 pm

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 149):
To get from IGARI to the radar track, you need a ground speed of at least 500 knots.

Very pessimistic estimate

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 149):
Tough to square that with low altitude flight

Tough indeed. Somebody wanted to escape fast. Maybe with some bravado a la Tex Johnston.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 149):
At 260 nm or whatever it was, she had to be at high altitude

Actually only higher than 21,000ft (see below)

Quoting tailskid (Reply 154):
a 777 could not fly IGARI - Penang - MEKAR with a descent to 5,000 feet or so and make it to MEKAR by 2:22

Could not but in the following revised scenario flying down to 5,000ft may not be necessary.

To explore the piloted scenario, I keep the portion of the track around Penang as shown in the Prelim. Flying IGARI to Penang and descending was probably part of the plan to simulate a commercial flight with a transponder problem. In case anyone was watching, that target would be classified as friendly. In my original 4 step scenario, I had assumed 5,000ft or below to use terrain masking but that would burden the time budget too much as pointed out by Pihero.

In the Penang area, I now assume that two radars were involved rather than only one in my original scenario:
- one radar on Butterworth AB, essentially at sea level (20m?). I could not find the type and model of that radar. I assume that this radar is used for approach control and has a limited range.
- one radar on Pulau Pinang. It is a Selex Sistemi Integrati RAT-31 DL/FADR (installed as a Fixed Air Defence Radar). It is a modern(NATO) phased array radar with an 11x7m antenna operating in L-band. Located on the highest point of Pulau Pinang at an elevation of approx.2,700ft it has a 250nm range and potentially 360 deg coverage. GE shows that it is protected by an 18m dome and that is exactly the advertised value for its radome size. It can be controlled remotely as the SOC is installed at Butterworth AB.

My current hypothesis is that the Butterworth radar is responsible for the portion of the radar plot, east of the white circle. I estimate that the a/c emerged from the projected shadow of Pulau Pinang at an approx altitude of 13,000ft. It is not clear why the a/c radar returns became infrequent before the white circle. Most likely the a/c fell below the radar horizon i.e. flew below 11,000ft but the Butterworth radar may also have a range limitation (maybe due to power limits and a higher PRF). Anyway, at 02:07:16 Butterworth radar loses contact.

When the Butterworth radar started detecting the unidentified track on radial 275, I think that the more powerful Pinang radar was off. If it had been on, it should have detected the a/c earlier, unless its coverage sector in azimuth was restricted for some operational reason (normally the antenna rotates at 6 to 10 rpm). At some point the Butterworth operators decided to start the Pinang radar. A few seconds after 02:13, the Pinang radar became operational and picked up the a/c. We do not the a/c altitude at that point (although the investigators should since RAT-31DL is a 3D radar). All we know is that the a/c must have been flying at or above 7,000ft.

At 02:22, the last primary radar contact occurred 240nm from Butterworth AB, the a/c altitude must have been at least 21,000ft.

As we can see, the two radar hypothesis allows the climb west of Penang to have been performed at a high CAS/GS because the climb angle may have been very shallow (e.g. 0.6deg) and the T7 weighed at only about 74% of its max weight. There is plenty of power left in those engines and since ACARS had been stopped from transmitting, RR will never know how long max continuous thrust may have been used. Of course in such a scenario, fuel economy is totally disregarded in that phase of the flight .
 
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 2:37 pm

Quote:
Quoting 7BOEING7: True, but if it wasn't being controlled by a pilot or autopilot it would have basically gone in circles wherever the pilot let go of the control wheel until fuel exhaustion.

Quoting MarkAK: How big would those circles be?

The INMARSAT ping rings do not rule out the A/C flying in circles.

7BOEING7 has already been over this multiple times. What would happen is that once the roll started, it would continue until the overbank protection kicked in at 35 degrees bank: the overbank protection would then reduce the bank to about 30 degrees and keep it there. At cruising speeds and altitudes, this would result in circles on the order of 12 to 15 nm diameter. Thus, all pilotless/autopilot-off scenarios are ruled out because of the ping rings.
 
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 3:01 pm

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 171):
Could not but in the following revised scenario flying down to 5,000ft may not be necessary.

To explore the piloted scenario, I keep the portion of the track around Penang as shown in the Prelim. Flying IGARI to Penang and descending was probably part of the plan to simulate a commercial flight with a transponder problem. In case anyone was watching, that target would be classified as friendly. In my original 4 step scenario, I had assumed 5,000ft or below to use terrain masking but that would burden the time budget too much as pointed out by Pihero.

In the Penang area, I now assume that two radars were involved rather than only one in my original scenario:
- one radar on Butterworth AB, essentially at sea level (20m?). I could not find the type and model of that radar. I assume that this radar is used for approach control and has a limited range.
- one radar on Pulau Pinang. It is a Selex Sistemi Integrati RAT-31 DL/FADR (installed as a Fixed Air Defence Radar). It is a modern(NATO) phased array radar with an 11x7m antenna operating in L-band. Located on the highest point of Pulau Pinang at an elevation of approx.2,700ft it has a 250nm range and potentially 360 deg coverage. GE shows that it is protected by an 18m dome and that is exactly the advertised value for its radome size. It can be controlled remotely as the SOC is installed at Butterworth AB.

My current hypothesis is that the Butterworth radar is responsible for the portion of the radar plot, east of the white circle. I estimate that the a/c emerged from the projected shadow of Pulau Pinang at an approx altitude of 13,000ft. It is not clear why the a/c radar returns became infrequent before the white circle. Most likely the a/c fell below the radar horizon i.e. flew below 11,000ft but the Butterworth radar may also have a range limitation (maybe due to power limits and a higher PRF). Anyway, at 02:07:16 Butterworth radar loses contact.

When the Butterworth radar started detecting the unidentified track on radial 275, I think that the more powerful Pinang radar was off. If it had been on, it should have detected the a/c earlier, unless its coverage sector in azimuth was restricted for some operational reason (normally the antenna rotates at 6 to 10 rpm). At some point the Butterworth operators decided to start the Pinang radar. A few seconds after 02:13, the Pinang radar became operational and picked up the a/c. We do not the a/c altitude at that point (although the investigators should since RAT-31DL is a 3D radar). All we know is that the a/c must have been flying at or above 7,000ft.

At 02:22, the last primary radar contact occurred 240nm from Butterworth AB, the a/c altitude must have been at least 21,000ft.

As we can see, the two radar hypothesis allows the climb west of Penang to have been performed at a high CAS/GS because the climb angle may have been very shallow (e.g. 0.6deg) and the T7 weighed at only about 74% of its max weight. There is plenty of power left in those engines and since ACARS had been stopped from transmitting, RR will never know how long max continuous thrust may have been used. Of course in such a scenario, fuel economy is totally disregarded in that phase of the flight .

You're importing way too much psychology IMO. We must adopt an intentional stance, but we should keep ascriptions of beliefs and desires to the most low-level as possible. E.g., Why should we think that he was trying to avoid radar in the first place? Just because that's what you would do? Not good enough. In fact, the evidence--the radar track up the Strait--indicates that he didn't care about dodging radar. And if he was intentionally dodging radar, then why fly up the Strait in the 1st place? If he was below the radar horizon, he could have overflown Indonesia with impunity. No, he was not avoiding radar, and he avoided any Indonesian attempts at interception simply by avoiding Indonesian airspace. In short: what we see are ground speeds consistent with cruising airspeeds, avoidance behavior of both Thai and Indonesian airspace, and lack of regard for radar in the flight up the Strait. All these are not consistent with the low altitude scenario.

As for faking a landing at Penang: Why should we think that? Just because you think it would be a clever move? Not good enough. Well, I will grant that approaching Penang via ENDOR looks like he could have been lining up for a landing, but is lowering altitude necessary to fake a landing? He would know that primary radar is notoriously inaccurate at determining altitude, and therefore that the track itself would be enough to fake a landing if that indeed was what he wanted to do.

Finally, is not the low-altitude scenario exactly what led to the wild goose chase with the Bluefin-21 search area in the 1st place?!? The fact that nobody believes in it anymore ought to give you pause. Is that what you are suggesting: That they keep on searching the last search area? I respectfully disagree. The slow plane to nowhere hypothesis has had it's turn. Keeping up the same behavior and expecting different results is throwing good money after bad. Not smart IMO. The fact that an intensive search effort proved to be utterly fruitless seemingly falsifies such hypotheses.

Again, think about it from the pilot's viewpoint: Why go at maximum warp, only to slow way down, and then head for frackin' Australia if the goal is oblivion? Why not continue the same behavior and proceed at maximum warp until fuel runs out? Well, who can read the mind of a madman? Nevertheless, if the goal is oblivion--to disappear without a trace--then he's going to go for maximum range, and as far away from civilization as possible. That means cruising speed and altitude.
 
Starglider
Posts: 659
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:19 am

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 3:37 pm

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 171):
At 02:22, the last primary radar contact occurred 240nm from Butterworth AB, the a/c altitude must have been at least 21,000ft.

As we can see, the two radar hypothesis allows the climb west of Penang to have been performed at a high CAS/GS because the climb angle may have been very shallow (e.g. 0.6deg) and the T7 weighed at only about 74% of its max weight. There is plenty of power left in those engines and since ACARS had been stopped from transmitting, RR will never know how long max continuous thrust may have been used. Of course in such a scenario, fuel economy is totally disregarded in that phase of the flight .

Indonesia claims that the airplane, perceived to be 9M-MRO by the Malaysians, did not show on their radar crossing Indonesian territory.

If this is correct, it would not have made the turn at or near Banda Aceh / Pulau We as depicted by the Interim Report but at a greater distance from the Indonesian coast.

What if the heading continued northwesterly beyond 02.22 (18.22 UTC) and 02.27 (18.27 UTC) a bit longer and turned south closer to Great Nicobar Island? This would place the airplane in the area where the apparent nautic sighting took place at a relatively lower altitude (if the time frame matches). It most likely would still be able to arrive at the coordinates shown in the Interim Report at 03.41 (19.41 UTC) with a high CAS/GS during a very shallow climb back to whatever the final altitude may have been.

[Edited 2014-06-08 08:40:35]
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4065
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 3:51 pm

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 133):
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?
Quoting NAV30 (Reply 150):
There is a rapidly-growing body of press comment saying that Inmarsat 'improvised' its data on the 'theory' that MH370 flew south for about six hours, WingedMigrator:-
Quoting NAV30 (Reply 156):
To me, the simpler explanation - that MH370 had a problem right at the beginning, (two minutes after being 'handed off'), lost all contact, and crashed right then and there - has the advantage of simplicity?

Simplicity?? Not really. First off all that sea area had been extensively searched for days immediately following the event. And remember, to SAR this sea, planes have to fly less than 30 minutes to reach the search sera, staying On-Station for up to 10 hours per plane. So floating debris could not have drifted far away - unlike on the Indian Ocean search which only got going 10 -14 days after the loss. And remember, to SAR this ocean, planes have to fly over 4 hours (jets, 737, G-V), or 6-7 hours (props P3C), staying On-Station for max 2 -4 hours per plane.

Secondly, and more importantly, for 6 - 7 hours after your suggested crash, MH370 satcom module was active and communicating with a satellite. That's a FACT hard to ignore.
And no, no Inmarsat-fancy about that, no rocket science about that. The pings themselves are pretty much undisputed; it seems you are the only one putting that up for de-bate. Disappointingly, you are unable to provide any meaningful explanation whatsoever for that, other than listing a sequence of undisputed events, and throwing in a line of "lost all communications except for sitcom . . . ". Its the "except" part that you need to address, but failed to do so in your last 30 posts or so.

What is fancy about the Inmarsat data though, is not the very pings themselves - that is very basic sat-knowledge (commercial, not military) since the seventies of the previous century. Now what IS fancy about this data, is that Inmarsat tried to retrieve POSITIONAL data out of the pings. The dataformat was never set-up nor intended to provide positional data. So that was a bit of whiz-kid, nerd engineering going on. That is what's new here, positional information from pings.

FACT is that the aircraft satcom unit was active until about 7 hours after your supposed crash. Theories of how that can be after a crash/waterlanding, IMHO does not pass the smell test, and are MUCH more unlikely and debatable, than a hijacked/ghost plane flying for hours until running out of fuel.

Rgds,
PW100
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 3:56 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 153):
If someone in the cockpit was awake, the left engine dead, and put in the bus tie, would repower the left ac main bus if the other engine and generator was online.
Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 157):
You don't have any choice -- it autostarts. The drain on the main battery is minimal as the APU starter has it's own battery and the RAT would be up and running before the APU ever started.

Thanks for this info. That is APU starts when both engines have failed automatically?

Quoting LovesCoffee (Reply 158):
Has anyone considered the possibility that, if the accident was due to mechanical malfunction, that part of the malfunction was the loss and possible restart of the left engine? Or if a restart failed, after some time, put in the bus tie to power the left main AC bus and flew on the right engine?

The left main AC bus was powered off at least between 1803 Z and 1825 Z, if we assume that was the reason for the SATCOM modem being disabled. At the same time the aircraft was flying at or near its maximum speed, so one of the engines could not have been disabled.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 173):
Finally, is not the low-altitude scenario exactly what led to the wild goose chase with the Bluefin-21 search area in the 1st place?!? The fact that nobody believes in it anymore ought to give you pause.

Bluefin-21 searched only around 600 sq.km. The whole 'high probability impact zone' based on 323...350 kt average ground speeds since 1822 Z is 60.000 sq.km. I don't think the investigation team has discarded that search area, on the contrary.
 
Backseater
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:20 pm

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 4:01 pm

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 173):
importing way too much psychology

I did not believe I was but maybe you read too much in what I sugested

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 173):
Why should we think that he was trying to avoid radar in the first place?

Where did I say in the post above that he was trying to avoid radar? Indonesian and Thai, yes.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 173):
if he was intentionally dodging radar, then why fly up the Strait in the 1st place?

Flying up the Strait is to remain within the Malaysian FIR and not provoke the neighbors.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 173):
As for faking a landing at Penang: Why should we think that?

Just descending towards Penang would do the job as the a/c would disappear from some radars, if they happened to be watching. Flying over Penang at FL350 would not.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 173):
primary radar is notoriously inaccurate at determining altitude

At long range, indeed.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 173):
is not the low-altitude scenario exactly what led to the wild goose chase with the Bluefin-21 search area in the 1st place?

I have no idea. Unlike you, I have never paid much attention to what is going on in the Indian ocean. The odds are so low and depend on such artificial assumptions about the flight that I think there is more to learn in the first part of the flight.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 173):
nobody believes in it anymore ought to give you pause

And who might that be?

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 173):
Why go at maximum warp, only to slow way down,

If somebody wanted to escape out of Malaysia, it was critical not to be met by a jet fighter that rocks its wings and says follow me. All I can see is that if the entity controlling the a/c wanted to escape quickly without triggering an intercept, they succeeded. An unidentified target at FL350 visible for one hour by every radar within a radius of 240nm may not be such a great idea, IMO.

After exiting from the Strait, going for max endurance (CI=0) would of course be fine, even flying through your waypoints, assuming somebody knew how to use the FMC.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 4:03 pm

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 156):
To me, the simpler explanation - that MH370 had a problem right at the beginning, (two minutes after being 'handed off'), lost all contact, and crashed right then and there - has the advantage of simplicity?

The lack of one shred of debris from this area, that was searched in the initial days, undermines the 'simplicity' of your explanation... It would be simpler if you proposed that a UFO was waiting near IGARI to intercept and take 9M-MRO because that would explain why no debris were found there almost 3 months ago when they first searched for it there...  
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
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 4:39 pm

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 172):
7BOEING7 has already been over this multiple times. What would happen is that once the roll started, it would continue until the overbank protection kicked in at 35 degrees bank: the overbank protection would then reduce the bank to about 30 degrees and keep it there.

If it hit 35 degrees at a very low rate it would bounce back to 30 degrees -- the higher the rate the farther the bounce. After initially stabilizing it would then continue turning, most likely in the same direction it did in the beginning -- meandering around the sky, not really going anywhere.
 
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 4:44 pm

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 177):
Unlike you, I have never paid much attention to what is going on in the Indian ocean.

That's too bad, because an unfortunate requirement of your Indonesian/Thai radar dodging theory--even though he didn't fly through Thai or Indonesian airspace--is that he is required by the Inmarsat "ping rings", to suddenly slow down after exiting the strait, and fly at a very strange speed, turn to the southeast, and wind up in the so-called "current" search area that has been abandoned for a while now. By propounding your radar-dodging theory, you are implicitly endorsing the "current" search area. Is that your intention?
 
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 5:13 pm

Quote:
Quoting Backseater: An unidentified target at FL350 visible for one hour by every radar within a radius of 240nm may not be such a great idea, IMO.

This seems to be the crux of your argument--and your fundamental mistake IMHO. You are importing your own psychology, rather than simply observing only observable behavior:

Number one: we do not know for a fact that an aircraft at FL350 would be painted by every single radar within 240 nm. I cannot explain why there is not a continuous primary radar track from IGARI to out past MEKAR. However, there are a number of possible explanations: e.g., mountains get in the way, they are only pointed out to sea, rather than in their own back yards, the radar is turned off, the tapes got overwritten, sheer incompentence. Who's to say? The mere fact that there is not a continuous radar track does not entail that the aircraft was intentionally dodging radars.

Number two: given that there is no solid evidence that the aircraft was dodging radar--and the circumstantial evidence that it had a long way to go and a short time to get there, requiring high air speeds that would seem to preclude low altitude flight, and the fact that he allowed himself to be painted by radar during the flight up the Strait--then the only motivation for presuming that the aircraft did indulge in radar dodging behavior is psychological: the reasoning is: if I stole the airplane, then I would attempt to dodge radar. But you did not steal the airplane. The person who stole it--if it was in fact stolen--may not be at all like you.

That is why I find it helpful to adopt as a working hypothesis that the aircraft was stolen by the evil tiger spirit. Who knows what goes on in the mind of the evil tiger spirit? Nobody has any idea, because he is beyond our ken. Therefore, it is useless to bring any preconceived ideas about what he might be like. Thus, in order to understand the evil tiger spirit, the only thing we should rightly go on is his observed behavior. He demonstrated avoidance behavior of both Indonesian and Thai airspace, to be sure, but there is little direct evidence that he demonstrated avoidance behavior of radar (other than flying out into the middle of the Indian Ocean), and at least two lines of evidence that he did not demonstrate such avoidance behavior: the Butterworth radar track, and the timing requirements. Then again, you've got to ask yourself, if he's avoiding radar, then why avoid Indonesian and Thai airspace; or vice versa: if he's avoiding Thai and Indonesian airspace, then why bother to avoid their radar?

Bottom line: keep the psychology to the bare minimum required to find the aircraft.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 5:17 pm

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 152):
all other forms of communication ended at the same time. For good. Except, in your view, the pings to the satellite.

In my view?!? I think we've hit the crux of the matter, which is that you have misconstrued an established fact as being opinion or conjecture. Nobody except you doubts that the pings actually occurred when they occurred. What these communications imply about the location of the aircraft is indeed up for interpretation and debate, but the mere fact that they occurred at the stated times is not!
 
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 5:19 pm

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 179):
Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 172):7BOEING7 has already been over this multiple times. What would happen is that once the roll started, it would continue until the overbank protection kicked in at 35 degrees bank: the overbank protection would then reduce the bank to about 30 degrees and keep it there.

Quoting 7BOEING7: If it hit 35 degrees at a very low rate it would bounce back to 30 degrees -- the higher the rate the farther the bounce. After initially stabilizing it would then continue turning, most likely in the same direction it did in the beginning -- meandering around the sky, not really going anywhere.


Thanks for the clarification.

Also, sir, as long as you are here, perhaps you could answer a question or two for us: What happens when if following a waypoint path, and the aircraft flies past the last waypoint: Does it continue to follow the last great circle path it was on, or does it follow the last heading, or the last course?

And: Is it completely unheard of for B777 pilots to set the HDG REF button on the inboard display to TRUE when not in polar regions?
 
Backseater
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:20 pm

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 5:33 pm

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 180):
By propounding your radar-dodging theory, you are implicitly endorsing the "current" search area. Is that your intention?

I certainly did not know that I was implicitly endorsing something happening 7 hours later! Actually how could I since I don't even believe in the turn clipping Northern Sumatra since it would be totally incoherent with what preceded in the foregoing scenario.

I said and I repeat. I have never made a guess as to where to search in the Indian Ocean. If we cannot agree on deliberate act by some entity vs. accidental event or some combination thereof, that means that we do not know who, if anyone, incapacitated to some degree or not, was in the cockpit after 18:30 and what a/c systems were operational at that point. And based on those nebulous premises you claim to know where to search?

Well, I certainly don't and for now I'll patiently wait for other clues, for instance if one debris could be found somewhere, anywhere.
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 6:45 pm

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 169):
Dude, the only way you're going to get a distance of 457 nm is if you do a direct flight from IGARI to MEKAR, straight over Thailand.

IGARI to Koto Bharu 93nm
Kota Bharu to (5°39'16.74"N 101° 6'43.61"E) 74nm
(5°39'16.74"N 101° 6'43.61"E) to MEKAR 290nm
93
74
290
=457

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 169):
Yeah right... . Have you asked yourself why you would accept the very last radar contact, but not the 40 or 50 radar contacts that happened before it?

The 2:22 time fits with the projected location arc at the 18:25 login time. Also, it's one of the few things solid and tangible from the Malaysians (after they decided that last radar contact was not at 2:40.) As for the "radar plot" it is clearly a composite of separate graphics - and has a few impossibilities in its data. I go with Finn who describes it as being "schematic and approximate", aka eye candy.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 169):
As for stealth, a B777 is not a stealth aircraft. The only way to hide is in plain sight.

On a moonless night a 777 is pretty stealthy to the human eye unless it wandered into the glow of terrestrial lighting or it came close to other air traffic. These events would have been possible around Penang. A 777 cannot hide itself from primary radar unless it manages to fly under a radar's horizon. In the view of any primary radar within 240 miles or so a 777 over Penang at FL350 would appear as a big fat blip - a neon advertisement: "here I am."

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 169):
No, the obvious reason for the "detour" was to avoid both Thai and Indonesian airspace.
I don't understand the need to avoid Indonesian airspace at this point in the flight.
Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 180):
primary radar is notoriously inaccurate at determining altitude

Not the phased array variety (as at Pulau Penang.)

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 169):
You can only maintain this position if you ignore the radar track.

I have discussed why I disregard the specifics of the "radar track" above.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 169):
It doesn't matter if Thai radar sees you as long as you don't overfly Thailand!

Yet the radar track that you hold in such high esteem shows MH370 over Thai territory.

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 171):
My current hypothesis is that the Butterworth radar is responsible for the portion of the radar plot

According to the Malaysians there are two radars at Butterworth, the short range tower radar and a long range SSR radar. The only primary radar is on the Island.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...jlYsXeUU0Y4Q&bvm=bv.68445247,d.b2k

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 171):
Selex Sistemi Integrati RAT-31 DL/FADR (installed as a Fixed Air Defence Radar)

Thanks very much for that, the fact that this was phased array is a game changer for me.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 180):
even though he didn't fly through Thai or Indonesian airspace-

You can only maintain this position if you ignore the radar track

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 181):
the circumstantial evidence that it had a long way to go and a short time to get there

That's not quite accurate, it appears that the person flying was in a hurry to get out of Malaysian / Thai airspace. But the flight south was no rushed thing.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 181):
That is why I find it helpful to adopt as a working hypothesis that the aircraft was stolen by the evil tiger spirit.

If you say things like this, how can you accuse backseater of too much psychological analysis? (unless you were just joking about "tiger spirit.")

[Edited 2014-06-08 11:47:21]

[Edited 2014-06-08 12:02:40]
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 7:19 pm

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 180):

That's too bad, because an unfortunate requirement of your Indonesian/Thai radar dodging theory--even though he didn't fly through Thai or Indonesian airspace--is that he is required by the Inmarsat "ping rings", to suddenly slow down after exiting the strait, and fly at a very strange speed

Could you expand on the "very strange speed?" I haven't so far seen anybody developing any theories about the short leg across POVUS to M641. Maybe I missed something.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 180):
and wind up in the so-called "current" search area that has been abandoned for a while now. By propounding your radar-dodging theory, you are implicitly endorsing the "current" search area. Is that your intention?

The current search area hasn't been abandoned. The search is halted while the Australian Government presents its tender offer soliciting bids for the continued search effort with something a little more capable than Bluefin.
 
ACT
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 7:02 am

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 8:30 pm

Mystery Solvers Sought: Several families of Flight MH370 passengers have launched a campaign to collect $5 million to reward any person who comes forward and resolves the mystery of the Malaysian plane's disappearance three months ago.

LINK: http://america.aljazeera.com/article...014/6/8/mh370-reward-malaysia.html

To what extent do you believe this croud-sourced effort will help or hinder the investigation into the loss of MH370?

Clearly some of the passengers' families and friends want to hire private investigators and whistle-blowers because they are frustrated by the lack of information (and/or vague or retracted information) put out by the investigating bodies and governments. What, if any, A.net members are qualified or motivated to help with this investigation?

-- Cheers,
Act
"Who is wise? One who learns from every man."
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 8:34 pm

Quoting act (Reply 187):
Clearly some of the passengers' families and friends want to hire private investigators and whistle-blowers because they are frustrated by the lack of information (and/or vague or retracted information) put out by the investigating bodies and governments.

Can't say that I blame them...

Quoting act (Reply 187):
What, if any, A.net members are qualified or motivated to help with this investigation?

Perhaps NAV30...  
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
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 8:37 pm

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 183):
Does it continue to follow the last great circle path it was on, or does it follow the last heading, or the last course?

FCOM says "maintain current heading" -- whoever engineered it may have more information.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 183):
And: Is it completely unheard of for B777 pilots to set the HDG REF button on the inboard display to TRUE when not in polar regions?

We selected it to make sure it functioned properly but I don't see any reason during normal ops (non polar) to play with it.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 8:39 pm

Quoting act (Reply 187):
Clearly some of the passengers' families and friends want to hire private investigators and whistle-blowers because they are frustrated by the lack of information (and/or vague or retracted information) put out by the investigating bodies and governments. What, if any, A.net members are qualified or motivated to help with this investigation?

To find the plane, you need the expertise of Inmarsat, Boeing and the NTSB (and a few other agencies), and then at least $50 million cash and one year time to carry out the search in the highest probability area. There is no way that we or anyone else can solve the mystery without that expertise and $50 million.
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

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

Sun Jun 08, 2014 9:24 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 190):
To find the plane, you need the expertise of Inmarsat, Boeing.......

They didn't say that their end goal was to find the plane, they said that they were offering a reward for information that:

Quoting act (Reply 187):
resolves the mystery

Resolving the mystery would more than likely mean to find out exactly who diverted and took control of the plane and what the motivation behind that action was. Along the way, it would be a fair guess that the reason for the Malaysian obfuscation of events would become clear.

Five million may be enough to encourage a mid level bureaucrat to come forward with the information to sew this up.
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

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

Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:41 am

Quoting tailskid (Reply 185):
The 2:22 time fits with the projected location arc at the 18:25 login time. Also, it's one of the few things solid and tangible from the Malaysians (after they decided that last radar contact was not at 2:40.) As for the "radar plot" it is clearly a composite of separate graphics - and has a few impossibilities in its data. I go with Finn who describes it as being "schematic and approximate", aka eye candy.

In other words, you are a cherry picker....

ETA: also your math is wrong...

[Edited 2014-06-08 18:42:43]
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

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

Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:46 am

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 190):

To find the plane, you need the expertise of Inmarsat, Boeing and the NTSB (and a few other agencies), and then at least $50 million cash and one year time to carry out the search in the highest probability area. There is no way that we or anyone else can solve the mystery without that expertise and $50 million.

And this is a crock... If their expertise was so great, they would have found at least one tiny shred of evidence. Nope. Nada. We don't need $50M. We can figure out what the high probability area is: Hint: it's where they first started to look before they got distracted by off-the-wall radar-dodging theories...  
 
 
jcxroberts
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 3:41 pm

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

Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:47 am

---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). --


Someone needs to listen to previous flight recordings (do they exist ?) and see if the pilot ever did this. If not, it seems likely this was some type of discrete message. Interview co-pilots if there are no recordings, see what his pattern was.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

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

Mon Jun 09, 2014 2:14 am

Oh God! We're back to the slagfest mood again?

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 172):
Thus, all pilotless/autopilot-off scenarios are ruled out because of the ping rings.

Pilotless does not necessarily mean autopilot-off, and vice-versa.
If you rule out pilotless, does that mean you rule out pilotless with autopilot on?
If you rule out autopilot-off, does that mean you rule out piloted with autopilot off?

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 173):
You're importing way too much psychology IMO. We must adopt an intentional stance,
Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 181):
Bottom line: keep the psychology to the bare minimum required to find the aircraft.

I suggest you follow your own rule then. If you do not want to import psychology, then you should stop saying that it was trying to fake a landing in PEN by choosing ENDOR... sorry, that is importing psychology.

We're back to this again huh? Get some consistency in your assertions will you... especially in what you accept and what you don't accept. Pffft...

Quoting Starglider (Reply 174):
If this is correct, it would not have made the turn at or near Banda Aceh / Pulau We as depicted by the Interim Report but at a greater distance from the Indonesian coast.

All it needs to qualify for that statement is for the aircraft to never come within 12NM of our coastlines.

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 176):
The left main AC bus was powered off at least between 1803 Z and 1825 Z, if we assume that was the reason for the SATCOM modem being disabled. At the same time the aircraft was flying at or near its maximum speed, so one of the engines could not have been disabled.

Engine failure on the "run to the west" can be dismissed through calculations.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 183):
And: Is it completely unheard of for B777 pilots to set the HDG REF button on the inboard display to TRUE when not in polar regions?

It gets the pilot to be asked to have "tea and biscuits" at the office.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 183):
What happens when if following a waypoint path, and the aircraft flies past the last waypoint: Does it continue to follow the last great circle path it was on, or does it follow the last heading, or the last course?

7BOEING7 may disagree with me on a lot of things, but on this one, he says what's clearly said in the manual, it will maintain the heading. Not last course, not last great circle path. And if going by your rules of not importing psychology, it means that HDG REF would stay at MAG, and therefore maintain magnetic heading.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

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

Mon Jun 09, 2014 2:17 am

Quoting jcxroberts (Reply 194):
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

There are other and more effective ways to do this.
(post 9-11)
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1538
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

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

Mon Jun 09, 2014 3:02 am

Quoting act (Reply 187):

To what extent do you believe this croud-sourced effort will help or hinder the investigation into the loss of MH370?

I think it may generate a lot of garbage to wade through.
 
bluesky9
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 1:26 pm

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

Mon Jun 09, 2014 4:42 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

Quoting p51tang (Reply 125):
Agreed.But why?.And thanks for the post.I was not aware of the double read-back.

I also drew attention to the radio calls a while ago.
There are actually two things that are non-standard in these radio transmissions.
1. The double read back of FL350 (like he forgot whether he had read back the altitude, loss of shot term memory typical of hypoxia)
2. Did not read back the frequency on hand off. (Yes sure they have flown these routes plenty of times and maybe know the freqs inside out, but strictly speaking should have read back the new freq.)

I agree well worth checking whether this was normal for these pilots.
So it could be the first signs of hypoxia (after which all could follow, e.g. forgot the new freq so never made the change) or they might have been trying to signal that something was wrong or it was quite normal for them to depart from normal radio procedures.

[Edited 2014-06-08 21:44:04]
 
bluesky9
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 1:26 pm

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

Mon Jun 09, 2014 5:05 am

Assuming ping rings are accurate, but forget the doppler calculations for the time being.

The A/C must be near the final ring. The search authorities no doubt have an area of possible locations of the A/C based on performance (the locations could be probability weighted). Next take the typical drift characteristics under different wind conditions of likely debris e.g. (i) a seat cushion, (ii) and a partially inflated life vest etc. Then for all the possible points along the ping ring run a simulation of the drift for the average wind & current in that location day by day to the present day to see if the drifting objects hit land at any point.
Now go walk along the beaches where it shows the objects hitting land and look for A/C debris.

Seems obvious but a simulation like this requires fewer assumptions and in my experience the ocean currents and winds sometimes seem to concentrate flotsam and jetsam along particular beaches and not others.

Probably they have already done this, but might be good to publish the results, so interested people could search those beaches. If they find something they might just get that reward.

[Edited 2014-06-08 22:33:48]

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