User avatar
EK413
Topic Author
Posts: 5330
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:11 pm

Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:14 am

Due to the length, Part 66 was locked for further contributions. Please feel free to continue your discussion in Part 67.

MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 66 (by wilco737 Jun 3 2014 in Civil Aviation)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EK413
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Wed Jun 11, 2014 12:09 pm

Quoting sipadan #66/297
Yes or No? Therefore, it is beyond ANY dispute that the Inmarsat satellite and M9MRO 'spoke' to each other on numerous occasions post 18:25. The answer is...YES. Unless you believe it possible that another a/c was mimicking M9MRO, which is certainly not in your hypothesis.

Quoting CabSauv #66/298
NAV30 - to add to what sipadan said:
1) Are you saying there were no Inmarsat pings ? i.e. that the pings are a fabrication ?
If you state the pings did not exist, then who is telling the lie ? The ATSB ? The NSTB ? The AAIB ?

"The answer is...YES." - Not necessarily; ... it is maybe!
There probably is no question that there were satellite pings.
But they don't necessarily needed to have come from 9M-RMO.
They could have been mimicked by a well-equipped and capable electronics lab. The only thing that anyone (whoever is behind this) would have had to be sure of is that 9M-RMO is not also transmitting signals to the satellite; in other words, doubling up signals.
Such a lab could, electronically, insert the right time delays and dopplershifts to fool everyone into believing the aircraft tracked into the never-never of the Indian Ocean.

"... then who is telling the lie ?"
No one has actually lied in that regard, at least not in the early stages.

I can well imagine that there were satellite pings, but... It is highly likely that even Inmarsat didn't know themselves that those signals were doctored.
To them, signals are signals are signals. Whether they are from an aircraft or whether they are 'made believe' by a secret and sophisticated electronics lab.
(I can imagine WP tearing his hair out at the thought of this...)

Someone mentioned that 26 (plus) governments would have to be in on this; and the investigating agencies.
Would that be so unbelievable? That's beside the point ....

It seems pretty clear, somehow, that the aircraft is not meant to be found, although, the governments involved may well have been told exactly what has happened. So why don't they react, ...do something?
Maybe it is because they have been told not to, they are being held to severe ransom. The loss of flight MH370 is one thing. If the agency behind this, whoever it is, is capable to make just one aircraft disappear, they are probably also capable of a lot more; and the governments know this.

Of course, if any of this were to be true, it would open one almighty can of worms.
Unfortunately, we cannot discard that possibility; there are precedents for this level of evil and foul play.


In all of this there are probably two aspects ....
One is, whatever happened was wholly and solely from on board the aircraft; i.e. without outside help.
That the authorities did not react as they should have is coincidence; and that made it all worse.
The possibilities under this aspect have been discussed, ad nauseam, on theses threads and so far that didn't get us very far.

Another aspect is much less palatable, there could be much more to this incident than meets the eye; there were outside agencies involved.
This would explain a lot of the statements, retractions and behaviour by the authorities.
The world is no longer an innocent place..!

[Edited 2014-06-11 05:11:44]
 
nupogodi
Posts: 933
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:58 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Wed Jun 11, 2014 12:55 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 1):
Such a lab could, electronically, insert the right time delays and dopplershifts to fool everyone into believing the aircraft tracked into the never-never of the Indian Ocean.

Theoretically. If you suppose a conspiracy - someone who not only is skilled enough to pull that off (and knows the intimate details of how Inmarsat communications work on the bit level - pretty much has to be a former employee who is also a skilled electrical engineer), and someone who is aware of 9M-MRO's network identifier (not a secret in theory, but still difficult to get that information - Inmarsat employee or MH employee).

It's really fantastical. Just like the "pax hacking the plane" scenario, although that one's worse because it assumes the pilots never thought to disconnect the autopilot.

The amount of info you'd need to pull that off, you'd have to be one of a handful of people in the world, none of whom would risk their careers and their lives for ... what? Embarrassing Malaysia?

Let's not give any credence to that theory. The mental leaps you have to make to think something like that is possible are quite extreme.

Yes, technically, theoretically, a malicious actor COULD impersonate 9M-MRO, knowing the handshakes would be the only lead in the investigation. But that is a massive conspiracy between a lot of very 'high-end' people. Better to just discount it unless there is evidence otherwise.

"Pilot didn't know SATCOM would stay connected" is a much more reasonable theory.
A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Wed Jun 11, 2014 1:15 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 287):
I think the chances for a technical fault are very low now, considering that we can now say that the plane was most likely flown to the edge of the performance envelope.

We cannot say that any more than 3 months ago. Without invention of some up and down zig zagging nothing extraordinary is there.
Btw, 3 months, and still no trace of a conspiracy ? No bragging by a terrorist group ? Nobody talking ? No suspect died because of a strange accident ?
 
65mustang
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:28 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Wed Jun 11, 2014 2:39 pm

Quoting FLY744 (Reply 289):
The AD only applied to airplanes with a top mounted High Gain Antenna.

I was referring to this AD(FAA-2007-27736):

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007-04-03/html/E7-5897.htm

http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/US-2007-07-05R1


I think you are referring to this AD (FAA-2013-0830):

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...57c920050edf7/$FILE/2014-05-03.pdf


If your answer is the reason why FAA-2007-27736 did not apply to 9M-MRO, then does that mean all 422 of the 777-200ERs produced are without a top mounted high gain antenna?

[Edited 2014-06-11 08:22:38]
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Wed Jun 11, 2014 2:53 pm

@NAV30: I'm not sure if we're really on the same wavelength here... we sure haven't been for several threads now.

The Inmarsat "pings" are well and truly radio communications. Nowadays most radio communications are digital, and more often than not are from machine to machine. That no warm-blooded human is involved in these radio communications does not make them any less legitimate of a radio communication than old-fashioned push-to-talk analog radio that you seem to associate with the concept. Technology has moved on!

We have positive proof that radio communications occurred with 9M-MRO until 08 March 0:19 Z. Don't call them "pings" if that confuses you; they are unequivocally radio communications.
 
User avatar
gennadius
Posts: 447
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:38 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Wed Jun 11, 2014 5:55 pm

Quote:


Quoting NAV30:

Fair enough, sipadan - please post details of the Inmarsat pings (NOT a spray of white lines) proving that MH370 flew a couple of thousand nms. south before crashing? Without communicating with ANYONE in the process?


You keep asking for details about communications and the pings, however when people present you with detailed descriptions of what you are looking for, and then others further enhance those descriptions, you simply ignore them.

As many have said, the pings that are being discussed are actual communications between the satellite network and the aircraft itself. The fact is that data exists for these communications until 00:19 and that these communications occur using the aircraft's systems in order to ensure that the antenna is aligned such that traffic is not disrupted.

The best breakdown so far was mandala's, which WingedMigrator later enhanced. I will repost it here for you:

Quote:

Quoting mandala499 and WingedMigrator:

18:25, the aircraft satellite system, (via radio message) logs on to the Inmarsat network, the identification of the aircraft has been positively identified. Aircraft sends radio signal, (via radio message) and was received by the satellite.
18:39, someone from MH called the aircraft's satellite communications (just like a phone) (via radio message), Aircraft satcom system told the ground (via radio message) "OK, I'm putting the call through to the cockpit", but no one picked up. The aircraft received the call (via radio message) , but no human picked up the call.
19:41, the satellite network asked the aircraft satcom (via radio message), "Are you there?" Aircraft responded (via radio message), "Yes I am"... hence, message received.
20:41, the satellite network asked the aircraft satcom (via radio message), "Are you there?" Aircraft responded (via radio message), "Yes I am"... hence, message received.
21:41, the satellite network asked the aircraft satcom (via radio message), "Are you there?" Aircraft responded (via radio message), "Yes I am"... hence, message received.
22:41, the satellite network asked the aircraft satcom (via radio message), "Are you there?" Aircraft responded (via radio message), "Yes I am"... hence, message received.
23:13, someone from MH called the aircraft's satellite communications (just like a phone) (via radio message), Aircraft satcom system told the ground (via radio message) "OK, I'm putting the call through to the cockpit", but no one picked up. The aircraft received the call (via radio message), but no human picked up the call.
00:10, the satellite network asked the aircraft satcom (via radio message), "Are you there?" Aircraft responded (via radio message), "Yes I am"... hence, message received.
00:19, the aircraft satellite system, logs on again (via radio message) to the inmarsat network, the identification of the aircraft has been positively identified. Aircraft sends radio signal (via radio message), and was received by the satellite.
Per ardua, ad astra
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:16 pm

Quoting Finn;:
So you think that the Australian ATSB and the US NTSB are part of the same plot when ATSB released this image:

I think that diplomacy requires them to publicly accept Malaysian data at face value.

I have already covered this, there is no need to postulate my thoughts.
Just ask and I'll tell you, even if I have to repeat myself.
 
sipadan
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:06 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:48 pm

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 2):
"Pilot didn't know SATCOM would stay connected" is a much more reasonable theory.

Agreed, of course. But I wouldn't be so sure that he didn't know. I'm quite convinced that he did.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 1):
In all of this there are probably two aspects ....
One is, whatever happened was wholly and solely from on board the aircraft; i.e. without outside help.
That the authorities did not react as they should have is coincidence; and that made it all worse.
The possibilities under this aspect have been discussed, ad nauseam, on theses threads and so far that didn't get us very far.

No, these possibilities have not been discussed ad nauseam. They've only been dealt with very superficially on this thread. That the "authorities did not react as they should have" you say is COINCIDENCE. I belive we have no clue as to how they truly reacted. What do we know? Only what we've been told. Nothing. How do you know fighters weren't scrambled? Oh, yeah, because they told us so. LOL. THANK HEAVENS FOR INMARSAT. Can you imagine where we would be w/out the SATCOM connection????? I think there is ample evidence to suggest that the Malaysian govt. is engaged in a massive cover-up. What else explains the lack of transparency. If this was an accident, we would know every nitty-griity detail and data point discovered. Instead, we know VIRTUALLY NOTHING.

I believe that Malaysian govt. knows virtually EVERYTHING. That is quite a discrepancy. To think that they don't is foolhardy.

Clearly, this IS a criminal matter. Clearly, this criminal matter is one inherently internal to Malaysia, with broader repercussions (like some 130-140 Chinese citizens vanishing), And, clearly, Malaysia has ZERO interest in revealing the truth. That includes blaming Zharie...for there is perhaps a much more sordid tale to be revealed as to the nature of his, AND THIER'S, complicity. Hmmm.
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:03 pm

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 2):
Let's not give any credence to that theory. The mental leaps you have to make to think something like that is possible are quite extreme.

Thank you for properly considering this and then, afterwards, come to your own conclusions.

The only thing I can add there is, that I sincerely hope that you are right.
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:32 pm

Quoting sipadan (Reply 8):
They've only been dealt with very superficially on this thread.

I wouldn't call it superficially .... Not at all ...
In fact, some of the contributions I have seen here were in depth, focused and genuine.
Just think of Pihero's and WP efforts, to quote just two examples, and yourself; that was hours of real work.
Why would they do it ..?

The problem is that all this work could only be done with the few facts we know and a few more questionable ones released by the authorities, that look like facts.

Let me pose this question then...
If the disappearance is more or less straight forward, i.g. mechanical failure, fire etc or even suicide, and the ....
".... Malaysian govt. knows virtually EVERYTHING.", as you say ....
.... why wouldn't the Malaysian Govt. not release as much information as they can, within the constraints of an official investigation? It would certainly save them a lot of embarrassment and accusations.

If this is a criminal matter, as you say, was the offence only from within the aircraft or could it possibly be more than that?
That dreaded word - Conspiracy ....

[Edited 2014-06-11 15:35:54]
 
FLY744
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 12:36 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:44 pm

Quoting 65mustang (Reply 4):
If your answer is the reason why FAA-2007-27736 did not apply to 9M-MRO

My apologies, I was referring to AD FAA-2013-0830 that relates to top mounted HGA.
Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:55 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 10):
Just think of Pihero's and WP efforts, to quote just two examples, and yourself; that was hours of real work.
Why would they do it ..?

I can understand why somebody who works for an aircraft manufacturer would advocate a pilot did it theory.
I can understand why a pilot would advocate a problem with the plane theory.
Etc.

Some people have an interest in advocating a particular theory. However, many don't. Nonetheless, everybody has their own beliefs about MH370 and some people just put in more time and effort to explain their theory in order to make it seem more convincing / credible.
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
 
ACT
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 7:02 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:57 pm

This is a good summary of what satellite technology experts have gleaned (and cannot compute) from the Inmarset ping data. The article, "MH370: What does Inmarsat ping data reveal?" was published today in airtrafficmanagement.net.

http://www.airtrafficmanagement.net/...at-does-inmarsat-ping-data-reveal/
"Who is wise? One who learns from every man."
 
JHwk
Posts: 575
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:11 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:10 am

In fairness,

Quote:
Quoting NAV30:
Fair enough, sipadan - please post details of the Inmarsat pings (NOT a spray of white lines) proving that MH370 flew a couple of thousand nms. south before crashing? Without communicating with ANYONE in the process?

1. Details of Inmarsat pings are available a thread or two back; the scrubbed data of responses and delay times.
2. The Pings do not prove the distance, direction, or speed flown.
3. The Pings indicate that the plane was at different locations (beyond the published margin of error) over the course of nearly 6 hours.
4. The Pings do not indicate that the plane crashed, although combining the ping data with the fuel data, the plane would not have been able to fly much longer than the last ping time.
5. The SATCOM communicated with the ground station, indicating that some external communications mechanism was available to the aircraft, but not used by the occupants. It also indicates that there were attempts from the ground to communicate with the humans on board, but we are told that those efforts were fruitless.
6. The SATCOM pings do not indicate WHY the humans on board the aircraft did not, could not, or chose not to communicate with the outside world.
 
Backseater
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:20 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Thu Jun 12, 2014 2:47 am

On the risk of false negatives when SAR teams are searching for debris

The absence of any debris from 9M-MRO after searching for three months has been surprising, leading some to even suggest that the a/c must therefore have landed somewhere.

But may be we should not be surprised after all. Finding 9M-MRO debris at sea may be rendered very difficult by the widely reported fact that the Indian Ocean like all other oceans and seas is full of floating garbage. The important word in "floating garbage" is floating. If the mass of visible garbage on the surface is so large, it is because it consists primarily of that garbage capable of floating for a long time and that has accumulated over a long period of time. It is essentially in a steady state.

If the a/c crashed at sea, the question becomes how many pieces of debris would be produced and how many would still be floating at time t after the crash epoch. Unlike the general garbage population, the specific debris population is in a transient state. As t increases, clearly the number of still floating debris will decrease and the dilution of the debris population within the general floating garbage population will increase due to waves, winds and currents.

The question then becomes how to estimate the probability that a piece of floating garbage picked up from the ocean at time t in a region of interest (as the precise location of the crash site is unknown) will be a debris from the a/c. This could be a straightforward sampling problem if we assume that the SAR teams pick their sample at random over the region of interest. But in practice, if a ship is dispatched, she may just steam into the region of interest, pick up some samples along the way and decide whether any a/c debris were found or not. In picking up items from the water, visual cues may also bias the sample.

I do not know yet how to offer some quantitative modeling of the debris dynamic dilution process (maybe some PhD candidate has already performed such research). But I think that the search strategy by different SAR teams e.g. Australians with large resources in the Indian Ocean or Vietnamese MRCC with more limited means in the South China Sea may be quite different. Consequently it may be worth further exploring the risk that false negatives may have caused the search in certain areas to be abandoned too quickly.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Thu Jun 12, 2014 3:00 am

Quoting JHwk (Reply 14):
The Pings do not indicate that the plane crashed

I think you could rephrase that one a bit: the pings indicate that the plane had not yet crashed. This is what NAV30 still can't seem to understand; I now believe the airplane will be found before he comes around to this inescapable reality.
 
NAV30
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:16 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Thu Jun 12, 2014 4:02 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 16):
the pings indicate that the plane had not yet crashed. This is what NAV30 still can't seem to understand

WingedMigrator, the pings only indicate that pings were detected?

All the OTHER evidence suggests that the aeroplane lost all other contact, and in all probability crashed, about 50 minutes after take-off, on course to Peking?

So any question of turns to the west, and later south, rests just about100% on the Inmarsat 'pings,' with a small contribution from military radar (which appears to have detected two turns west)?

Found quite a good BBC site which covers the whole picture (including radio contact and Inmarsat's 'pings') better than anything else I've seen:-

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26503141

Personally I think that it would be a wise move to search the seabed around the 50-minute mark? I make that suggestion because, otherwise, the only thing any investigators can conclude (on the basis of Inmarsat data only) is that two capable pilots deliberately turned the aeroplane west, and then about due south, and flew it to the limit of its endurance, killing everyone on board?

[Edited 2014-06-11 21:05:14]
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Thu Jun 12, 2014 4:27 am

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 17):
...................... because, otherwise, the only thing any investigators can conclude (on the basis of Inmarsat data only) is that two capable pilots deliberately turned the aeroplane west, and then about due south, and flew it to the limit of its endurance, killing everyone on board?

There's much more than Inmarsat data pointing in this direction. And there only needed to be one pilot doing the deed.
 
JHwk
Posts: 575
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:11 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Thu Jun 12, 2014 4:29 am

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 17):
All the OTHER evidence suggests that the aeroplane lost all other contact, and in all probability crashed, about 50 minutes after take-off, on course to Peking?

Lost all contact, yes. There is no more proof though that it would have crashed in the GoT/SCS than the Indian Ocean.

For 50 minutes after takeoff, it is a pretty tough sell, even if you ignore the radar and the Ping location altogether as suspect. What is hard to dismiss is the basic fact that Inmarsat got ping returns after the 50-minute mark for several hours; how do you write that off?

And, for writing off the radar data, you have to ask yourself why Malaysia was searching the SoM the same day, even though the focus of search was still in GoT?

It is possible that the plane did crash after 50 minutes, and the Ping returns are a result of some programming bug in the logging software, but to say there is more than a 10% probability is a long shot; something should have been found in the first two or three days in the confined waters.
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Thu Jun 12, 2014 5:38 am

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 15):
The important word in "floating garbage" is floating. If the mass of visible garbage on the surface is so large, it is because it consists primarily of that garbage capable of floating for a long time and that has accumulated over a long period of time. It is essentially in a steady state.
Quoting BackSeater (Reply 15):
The question then becomes how to estimate the probability that a piece of floating garbage picked up from the ocean at time t in a region of interest (as the precise location of the crash site is unknown) will be a debris from the a/c.

Your thoughts on this are very good and valid, especially that the distribution of any possible debris should be seriously studied and looked at; kind of to reverse-track where the debris might have come from.

Having done about 40 trips in the Southern Ocean and one from Sydney to near Vladivostok, I must tell you, though, that there are no 'carpets of floating garbage' or any kind of flotsam or jetsam.
In that sense the satellite photos that were bandied around are quite misleading.
Or it was debris off 9M-RMO and that wasn't made public; which would be hard to believe.

Not being a crew, I was able to spend many hours on end watching the 'ocean sail by'. If there had been carpets of garbage, especially big pieces, I would have taken photos of it, shitloads of them. It would have been such a novelty!

Although, I do believe there are ocean gyres, specific locations, where flotsam & jetsam does tend to concentrate. But even there it wouldn't be truckloads of stuff in relative small araes.

In any case, they dropped heaps of those floating markers.
That would have told them a lot already about currents, winds and so forth.

And you are correct that many things will float for a long time. Having seen what sometimes washes up on Macquarie Island, it is surprising how much some of the items are grown over with weeds and shells, i.e. how long they must have been at sea already; and yet, some things are hardly affected at all. Probably the vast majority of flotsam is wood in all forms and shapes and even whole tree trunks.
And those are not white ....

Edit:
Coming to think of it ... Macquarie Island would be one of the most likely places where debris off 9M-RMO will wash up, if the plane went down in the Indian Ocean.
Lots of the stuff they find there is in fact from South America.
You work that one out ....

[Edited 2014-06-11 22:44:40]
 
bluesky9
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 1:26 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:15 am

Quoting tailskid (Reply 292):

Quoting tailskid from Thread 66 Reply 292:
Now we have a "radar plot" for the flight up the Malacca Strait that is just as mysterious as the March 11th turnaround. It has nonconforming dot patterns that would appear to be sweeps of a radar, and the only possible radar that could have produced this track is the late model NATO approved phased array system on Pulau Penang Island. Yet the track the graphic depicts shows dropouts, as if the radar lost the track.

The radar on Pulau Penang could probably track a sea gull carrying a fish with a hook in it's mouth at 100 miles. NATO considers this radar capable of tracking incoming ballistic missiles in an ECM environment. There would be no lost tracks of a 777. Yet that's what the Malaysian "radar track" tries to tell us.

Not only could this radar track a fish hook, but at 219nm it could report the altitude of a 777 accurately to within a few hundred feet, and that's the distance from Pulau Penang to IGARI, where MH370 was reported at 45,000 feet on March 8th.

Why the smoke screen? What is the radar data they trying to hide with their "radar plot"?
My guess is that 9M-MRO flew straight up the FIR boundary, and not where they show it traveling.



I think this is a very interesting line of inquiry.

I don't think we have resolved yet whether the civilian ATC had a radar screen in front of them and if so which radar station they were using. It is not unusual for military and civilian ATC to share the same radar installation. Seems a waste of resources to have a state of the art radar station like Pulau Penang and not make full use of it. Of course, if ATC didn't have a radar screen then that might explain why they didn't follow the standard no-comms procedures, e.g. asking the A/C to turn on heading XYZ to see if they are receiving but cannot transmit.

Not so sure about why Malaysia might want to cover up a flight along or even outside the FIR boundary? But I agree it is really odd that Malaysia said one thing and then retracted it. What might they want to cover up? There are numerous possibilities e.g. (i) no one was actually monitoring the radar at the time of the disappearance (hence no-comms procs not followed by ATC) and/or (ii) they don't want to release the capabilities of this radar (despite that anyone serious about radar could probably work it out for themselves). Other maybe less likely possibilities; (iii) radar was tracking different A/C with a smaller RCS, or (iv) there is second A/C in the picture, or (v) the radar shows that the A/C was hit by a SAM and for some reason Malaysia has decided to cover it up [but there would be debris], or (vi) the A/C was hijacked headed towards (or back towards) KL and Malaysia shot it down or tried to [but there would be debris], or (vii) the Pulau Penang ECM resistant radar was successfully or partially jammed, or (viii) they wanted to give themselves wiggle room by not revealing too much about what actually happened...etc... others might be able to think of better reasons?

You would think it has to be something pretty significant to warrant a "cover up" in a situation like this. If so, the ping data as ephemeral and as unverifiable as it is, might be a gift to the Malaysians by the UK. That might give the west leverage over Malaysia for a long time. Of course if someone who actually knows what happened takes up the $5M offer, that (hypothetical) leverage would be lost. So a cover up like this is probably too fragile to survive. So it would be a miscalculation, making it less likely. Be interesting to see who if anyone tries to stop this reward for information idea.

Satellite Pings
A lot has been said about the Inmarsat pings and in particular how sophisticated and subtle the doppler calculations placing the A/C in the South were. However, it looks like they did not account for the satellite being in shadow (eclipse) for part of the possible flight [big change in temp & operating on battery vs solar], and that all comparison calculations were done with other A/C flying at cruise speed only (which may or may not be correct), and it also appears that it was not a turn that caused the series of exchanges at around 1825Z but a reboot. In addition the information released is not sufficient to cross check the North/South doppler calculations. There has also been little discussion of the error margin on the doppler calculations. You might conclude from these errors and omissions that they wanted to push the search in a certain direction, but that does not mean the A/C is in the GoT/SCS, it could just be in a different part of the IO, closer to Diego Garcia for example. If the A/C is not near one of the ping rings you could search for a very long time and never prove that it is not there, unless of course some part of the A/C is found somewhere else.

Either the Inmarsat pings are genuine or the UK is pretty confident debris from the A/C will not be found in a different sea/ocean. All up, I would much prefer to believe the Inmarsat pings (they seem believably messy), but have to admit a doubt remains, particularly since the entire Iraq war (more than 1 million killed more than 800K orphans) was sold on the basis of a lie (nonexistent WMDs). Forcing Inmarsat to make up (or modify) some data would be small fry in comparison.

[Edited 2014-06-11 23:22:19]

[Edited 2014-06-11 23:36:46]

[Edited 2014-06-11 23:43:35]

[Edited 2014-06-12 00:07:15]
 
sipadan
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:06 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Thu Jun 12, 2014 7:25 am

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 10):
I wouldn't call it superficially .... Not at all ...
In fact, some of the contributions I have seen here were in depth, focused and genuine.
Just think of Pihero's and WP efforts, to quote just two examples, and yourself; that was hours of real work.

I agree completely. I think you misconstrued what I was trying to say. Many on here have put in tons of work and spare time, doubtless (including you, no so much me).

The point I was trying to make was in regards ONLY to 'foul play" scenarios. I don't believe these have been as fully explored and vetted. However, doing so leads to too much dissent and vitriol on this forum, perhaps rightly so. For example, take your sophisticated electronics lab mimic theory. It's certainly within a VAST range of foul play possibilities. I mean, I think it's quite far-fetched and unlikely, but so will be whatever the truth is. There are certainly variants of your idea that have not been discussed here. I can think of quite a few. That was my only point. And, by the way, I DO believe Zaharie knew about the SATCOM 'pings', which could indeed cause one to cast a bit more suspicion on their 'accuracy'.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 18):
And there only needed to be one pilot doing the deed.

Clearly they weren't BOTH complicit

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 16):
I think you could rephrase that one a bit: the pings indicate that the plane had not yet crashed. This is what NAV30 still can't seem to understand; I now believe the airplane will be found before he comes around to this inescapable reality.

And I now believe we are in solid agreement.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 20):
Coming to think of it ... Macquarie Island would be one of the most likely places where debris off 9M-RMO will wash up, if the plane went down in the Indian Ocean.

I'll google it, but where is Macquarie Island? I've traveled throughout WA (to Albany) but don't ever recall hearing about it.

Quoting bluesky9 (Reply 21):
You would think it has to be something pretty significant to warrant a "cover up" in a situation like this. If so, the ping data as ephemeral and as unverifiable as it is, might be a gift to the Malaysians by the UK. That might give the west leverage over Malaysia for a long time. Of course if someone who actually knows what happened takes up the $5M offer, that (hypothetical) leverage would be lost. So a cover up like this is probably too fragile to survive. So it would be a miscalculation, making it less likely. Be interesting to see who if anyone tries to stop this reward for information idea.
Quoting bluesky9 (Reply 21):
I think this is a very interesting line of inquiry.

I would just add that if the Malaysian govt. had failed to prevent the deaths of 239 persons when they had every opportunity to have done so...this would qualify as something pretty significant.

[Edited 2014-06-12 01:12:49]
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:08 am

Quoting bluesky9 (Reply 21):
if ATC didn't have a radar screen then that might explain why they didn't follow the standard no-comms procedures, e.g. asking the A/C to turn on heading XYZ to see if they are receiving but cannot transmit.

At 1:19:24 KL ATC Radioed "Malaysian Three Seven Zero contact Ho Chi Minh 120 decimal 9 Good Night."
Once this message was acknowledged, which it was, KL (Malaysian) ATC had no further responsibility for MH370. In fact it would have been against Air Traffic Protocols for them to involve themselves any further with that track - it was handed off and was now Hanoi ATC's responsibility. There were no "standard no-comms procedures" for Malaysian ATC to follow in this case.

Quoting bluesky9 (Reply 21):
Not so sure about why Malaysia might want to cover up a flight along or even outside the FIR boundary?

Because showing that 9M-MRO flew along the FIR boundary would have been the "smoking gun" it would have proven that the A/C was being flown under the control of a pilot and that the pilot was intentionally evading ATC notice and guidance. Flying on the boundary would leave each ATC to assume that the other was handling the flight.

Quoting bluesky9 (Reply 21):
the ping data as ephemeral and as unverifiable as it is,

There is nothing ephemeral about the Inmarsat data, The Inmarsat data is as tangible as video surveillance footage. It just takes someone living in the 21st century to understand that and I guess that others can't be helped. The Inmarsat data is verifiable, it exists. I suppose that someone can imagine that a gaggle of engineers from several companies could be induced to help cover up the disappearance of an airliner and the probable murder of 239 people, but I can't imagine such a thing. These are engineers we are talking about, not police cadets. If someone was foolish enough to try to enlist them in a coverup it is guaranteed that there would be leaks.

Quoting bluesky9 (Reply 21):
it looks like they did not account for the satellite being in shadow (eclipse) for part of the possible flight

Please expand on this - I have heard no such thing.

Quoting bluesky9 (Reply 21):
it also appears that it was not a turn that caused the series of exchanges at around 1825Z but a reboot

Yes it was a re-boot which was almost certainly the result of powering the modem/transmitter up again.
 
User avatar
gennadius
Posts: 447
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:38 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:15 am

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 17):
All the OTHER evidence suggests that the aeroplane lost all other contact, and in all probability crashed, about 50 minutes after take-off, on course to Peking?

Once again, you have refused to address the points that *many* others have made, that the plane was indeed *IN CONTACT* for many hours after your "50 minutes"... Or are you simply choosing to not digest anything that disagrees with your supposition?

If the contact was maintained between the satellite network and the plane for multiple hours after your 50 minute mark, then the plane was, in all probability, still flying for that time.

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 17):
Found quite a good BBC site which covers the whole picture (including radio contact and Inmarsat's 'pings') better than anything else I've seen:-

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-2...03141

This site of yours goes into quite good detail about how the plane was in contact with the satellite network for many more hours past the 50 minutes.
Per ardua, ad astra
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:15 am

Quoting sipadan (Reply 22):
I'll google it, but where is Macquarie Island?

Roughly half way between New Zealand and Antarctica; it is part of the State of Tasmania, i.e. Australia.

The cleanest air in the world is at those latitudes.

Cheers ....
 
abba
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:26 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 12):
I can understand why somebody who works for an aircraft manufacturer would advocate a pilot did it theory.

I can also understand why an airline - or rather: quite a few people within an airline organization and around it (as it is government owned and controlled) - would very much like to advocate a pilot did it theory. A lot of people might get blamed if it will be proved that maintenance or training (or what have you) was not up to scratch. That includes people within the airline itself and way down deeply into the Malaysian government.

Quoting bluesky9 (Reply 21):
(viii) they wanted to give themselves wiggle room by not revealing too much about what actually happened...etc... others might be able to think of better reasons?

Many Asian governments have a tradition of not revealing too much. More so the less democratic they are - and Malaysia can be said to be only partly democratic at best.

And again - if it is not a case of "the pilot did it" there will be a lot of people on the ground - and in good positions with good salaries and other benefits that they will like to keep also in the future - who will run the risk of getting into troubles. And as Malaysian Airlines is government owned this also includes people in government. So if there are strong evidence showing a non malicious intent (including also a hijack situation in which case a number of people in security and intelligence will receive the very unwanted spotlight of the public eye) don't expect it to be revealed unless forced to.

The theory "the pilot did it" is the one that suits most of the establishment best!

Remember in this context also that governments that are not democratic are much more dependent on public popularity than truly democratic ones!
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:52 am

Quoting abba (Reply 26):
I can also understand why an airline - or rather: quite a few people within an airline organization and around it (as it is government owned and controlled) - would very much like to advocate a pilot did it theory. A lot of people might get blamed if it will be proved that maintenance or training (or what have you) was not up to scratch. That includes people within the airline itself and way down deeply into the Malaysian government.

Likewise.

The blame game coming from the airline is more complex because the airline is in a unique situation:

a- If the airline blames the aircraft, it is in a sense casting doubt over a aircraft it operates and could damage the relationship with the manufacturer so there are several risks when an airline chooses to blame an aircraft until the aircraft has been determined to be at fault.

b- If the airline blames the pilots, it is in a sense undermining the credibility of its own employees which could damage its image in the public: "Our pilots messed up but don't worry it won't happen again" or "The pilot must have been suicidal or just lost it and snapped but don't worry I guess the bad egg is now gone". Blaming one of their own employees will decrease public confidence in the safety of the airline.

c- The airline might be at fault too - poor training, cost cutting, poor maintenance, etc. - but is the airline going to blame itself? I doubt it, unless there is a final report and they have no choice. It might wear some of the blame but ultimately it will look for another scapegoat and if that happens to be the aircraft or the pilots or another employee then it will still come back to haunt the airline.

No matter what the airline does, it will suffer... The question is, how will it suffer more / less? Will it suffer less if it blames one of its own employees? Or, will it suffer less if it blames the manufacturer and protects its employees?

Hopefully MH370 is found one day sooner rather than later and hopefully there will be enough evidence to know what happened and why because until then MH is the one with the most to lose IMO...
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
 
abba
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:46 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 27):
No matter what the airline does, it will suffer... The question is, how will it suffer more / less? Will it suffer less if it blames one of its own employees? Or, will it suffer less if it blames the manufacturer and protects its employees?

I agree with this analysis and just want to add that the situation with Malaysian Airlines as it is government owned is even more complex as government - and hence the regulator - is not independent and will be even stronger included in whatever mess that might be found.

We also have to understand that the Airline's overall interest and the interest of major stakeholders' might not be the same.

And then there also is a certain cultural element to it all. In many Asian cultures there is a tendency to look for some specific person to put the blame on. It is certainly not unknown in other cultures but it is perhaps a little stronger in Asia. To me it would be rather unsurprising if the consensus quickly developed inside Malaysian Airlines and among its employees - at least for the time being - to blame one of the pilot. It will make life easier - and the nights much more comfortable - for most of them....
 
NAV30
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:16 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Thu Jun 12, 2014 11:11 am

Quoting gennadius (Reply 24):
Once again, you have refused to address the points that *many* others have made, that the plane was indeed *IN CONTACT* for many hours after your "50 minutes"... Or are you simply choosing to not digest anything that disagrees with your supposition?

I guess I'm trying to stick to the 'KISS' ('Keep It Stupidly Simple') principle, gennadius. Which would cause anyone who's ever flown anything to think that the problem very possibly arose - and perhaps reached its climax - when the highly-experienced captain signed off from Kuala Lumpur and then failed to check in with Ho Chi Minh? Flying across the ocean, with 238 other people aboard, that's just about 'unthinkable.' And it would be 'second nature' anyway; it's very hard to believe not only that that's when the trouble started, but that it's also very possibly when it finished, as well.

As to the Inmarsat stuff, it appears to be collecting an increasing amount of 'flak.' Remains to be seen how that works out.

"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://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/in...smokescreen&Itemid=2#axzz34Q5duTc6

[Edited 2014-06-12 04:23:06]
 
weizenjaeger
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:59 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:08 pm

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 31):
As to the Inmarsat stuff, it appears to be collecting an increasing amount of 'flak.'
It is true that some people are questioning what the Inmarsat data means.

However, the very fact that the data exists means that the plane flew for over 7 hours.

You are the only person questioning that fact.
 
boacvc10
Posts: 502
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 2:31 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:58 pm

Quoting weizenjaeger (Reply 30):
However, the very fact that the data exists means that the plane flew for over 7 hours.

Well, not exactly. I do think INMARSAT has legitimacy, and is an above the board company. The implication is that their investigation on the satellite downlink records should be taken very seriously. However the "records" would have to be independently verified first (and, I am sure some authority has taken the time to do that) that it was not corrupted, or falsified by any manner - and also matches the information available from spacecraft telemetry, if at all. A "record" can be generated by someone familiar with the documentation and format of the database, but it is absolutely necessary to have multiple checks of whether this sort of information (from other aircraft) were detected, and were corroborated with actual flight observations. I do think, and I hope I am correct, that lengthy investigation/analysis/proof-of-concept flight was done, and I hope they will release the flight test data/records to quell doubters - within the scope of a peer reviewed journal.

Also, NAV30 is over simplifying, "INMARSAT" pings are actually packets received at the ground station, and the ground station responding to those packets with digital information - and some of those information include antenna and signal parameters (e.g., could be elevation/signal or azimuth/elevation/time etc.) ..
Up, up and Away!
 
NAV30
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:16 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Thu Jun 12, 2014 1:20 pm

Quoting boacvc10 (Reply 31):
Also, NAV30 is over simplifying, "INMARSAT" pings are actually packets received at the ground station,

Maybe I AM over-simplifying, boacvc10. I try to keep my posts short!  

But, as a matter of interest, how much 'ground station' coverage does Inmarsat actually have, down here in the far South Pacific?

[Edited 2014-06-12 06:23:36]
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Thu Jun 12, 2014 5:10 pm

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 17):
WingedMigrator, the pings only indicate that pings were detected?

Pings were detected means the aircraft satcom responded with the ground earth station, which means the satcom was working, which means the satcom was powered by electricity, which means on the 777, that the Left Main AC Bus was running, which means that the aircraft had an AC generator running, which means that either the APU or a least one of the engines, were running in order to generate the AC electric power, until 00:19Z.

If as you say, it crashed 50mins after take off, how would the satcom be in communication for over 6 hours... surely if it crashed, it would mean engines and APU were not powered... if they weren't powered then the satcom wouldn't be powered and hence would not be able to communicate.

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 17):
All the OTHER evidence suggests that the aeroplane lost all other contact, and in all probability crashed, about 50 minutes after take-off, on course to Peking?

If there were no satcom data, then yes. But the presence of the satcom data, rules out the possibility of the aircraft suffering a fatal/terminal impact at about 50mins after take off.

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 17):
Personally I think that it would be a wise move to search the seabed around the 50-minute mark? I make that suggestion because, otherwise, the only thing any investigators can conclude (on the basis of Inmarsat data only) is that two capable pilots deliberately turned the aeroplane west, and then about due south, and flew it to the limit of its endurance, killing everyone on board?

It would be foolish. Searching the seabed around the 8:19Z+8 (00:18Z) ping circle line, makes more sense.
If the 50min mark is near the 8:19LT position, it is coincidental.

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 29):
I guess I'm trying to stick to the 'KISS' ('Keep It Stupidly Simple') principle, gennadius. Which would cause anyone who's ever flown anything to think that the problem very possibly arose - and perhaps reached its climax - when the highly-experienced captain signed off from Kuala Lumpur and then failed to check in with Ho Chi Minh? Flying across the ocean, with 238 other people aboard, that's just about 'unthinkable.' And it would be 'second nature' anyway; it's very hard to believe not only that that's when the trouble started, but that it's also very possibly when it finished, as well.

Keep it simple... so, to keep it simple... the airplane was flying up to 00:19Z (08:19LT)...
Unthinkable? Facts are facts.
If you have someone wanting to steal the plane, or just fly it to oblivion, not contacting anyone regardless of where they flew, isn't "unthinkable".
If you have an airplane with a total comms fail an turning back and not tell anyone about it, it's not unthinkable...

Let me ask you a question... you're in an aircraft, having problems, and you feel that you cannot continue the planned journey, but your radio is broken and cannot communicate or hear anyone calling you... what would you do? Would you simply just dive into the ground because "going somewhere without telling anyone" is unthinkable ?

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 29):
As to the Inmarsat stuff, it appears to be collecting an increasing amount of 'flak.' Remains to be seen how that works out.

The flak is on how it was determined the aircraft flew south. There is no flak on the fact that the aircraft was communicating through these pings until 00:19Z.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
dave1234
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 5:35 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Thu Jun 12, 2014 5:46 pm

Thank you everyone!

I found this website because I'm fascinated by mysteries and I wanted to read all about the MH370 flight. Just to say thank you to all the contributors to the MH370 threads - it's been very interesting reading.

Dave
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Thu Jun 12, 2014 7:08 pm

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 32):
But, as a matter of interest, how much 'ground station' coverage does Inmarsat actually have, down here in the far South Pacific?

I'm not sure where the Inmarsat ground stations are, but it doesn't really matter. They'll have a small number of fixed stations somewhere in the coverage area of each satellite. These are fixed, and usually exactly one will be the primary active one for a given satellite. The bird in questions is basically of the "bent-pipe". When it receives a signal from a terminal, it just reflects it back down to the active ground station. Vice-versa for a signal from the ground station, the bird just reflects it back down to the terminal in question. The satellite will do some antenna steering stuff to improve reception and transmission to a particular terminal (and of course, with the ground station).

If a message is to be passed from one terminal to another, it gets routed through the ground station. If the terminals are on different satellites, the message goes from the first terminal to its ground station, that ground station relays it to the second satellite's ground station, and that ground station bounces it off the second satellite to the second terminal.

But the ground station can be anywhere convenient, preferably somewhere in the rough central area of the satellite's coverage area (although it's a pretty broad area). And in the middle of the southern Indian or Pacific Ocean is *not* convenient. For example, if you had a bird of this type over the Americas, Houston might be a convenient place to put the primary ground station, and then all messages would route through Houston. Then you might put a back up station in San Francisco and a second in Lima (Peru), and if Houston went down, all communications would start going through LA or Lima, probably after the satellite reoriented its high gain antenna towards one of those locations.

This is not nearly as mysterious as you're making it. A "ping" is just the ground station sending a message up to the satellite, the satellite reflecting it back down to the terminal, the terminal responding be sending a message back up to the bird, the bird reflecting it back down to the ground station, and the response being received by the ground station. If you know the position of the ground station, the position of the satellite, processing delays in the ground station, satellite, and terminal (and the first four of those things *have* to be well understood, and the terminal's processing time has apparently been well understood as well), you can trivially compute the distance the terminal is from the satellite. Those are the "ping rings".

Some more modern satellites have rather more switching capability on board, and can route many message without sending them through their ground station.
 
canoecarrier
Posts: 2573
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2004 1:20 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Thu Jun 12, 2014 7:15 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 33):
If as you say, it crashed 50mins after take off, how would the satcom be in communication for over 6 hours... surely if it crashed, it would mean engines and APU were not powered... if they weren't powered then the satcom wouldn't be powered and hence would not be able to communicate.

Oh Mandala, you know it had to be sitting on the ground somewhere for 6 hours at a hidden airfield with either the APU or one of the engines running generating AC electric power so the SatCom system could be powered. All in order to send everyone off on a wild expedition to find a plane in the Indian Ocean somewhere. /sarc
The beatings will continue until morale improves
 
jox
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 3:39 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Thu Jun 12, 2014 7:51 pm

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 29):
As to the Inmarsat stuff, it appears to be collecting an increasing amount of 'flak.' Remains to be seen how that works out.

I'll go for one more try to explain to NAV30 what these pings are. This time with an analogy, using Internet pings (using a communication called ICMP).

NAV30- Pretend that you are Inmarsat. You want to know if the terminals (ships, planes etc) you are providing communication services for are functioning, at least to some basic extent.

Now let's use a program that you already have in your computer. It's called "ping" (surprise….). Assuming you are running Windows, click "Start", and "Run…". Type "cmd" (without the quotes", and press Enter). Then you get a terminal window. In that window, type "ping airliners.net" (again - without the quotes, and press Enter). What you get is some basic information about the round-trip-time (the time it took a data packet to go from your computer to the server in the other end and back again) to the A.net server. If you type "ping google.com" you will get similar information to some google server instead.

Analogy - your computer is the Inmarsat station - whatever you are ping:ing is aircraft or ships (MH370 in this case). Since you are getting *something* back, this means that the device in the other end is alive and kicking and that the communications channel is working.

* Does this tell you if the airliners.net/google/... database and software [analogy - flight crew] is working? NO, just that the basic communication is working. From this there is no way of telling that "two qualified pilots" (your words) was at the controls. It could have been the autopilot, a hijacker, Elvis or E.T. But we know the plane answered the signals.

* Does this tell you where the servers [analogy - airplane] is located? NO, just HOW FAR from you they are (in milliseconds, which can be translated to kilometers, as you know the propagation speed). In the MH370 case, they showed that this distance was changing with a substantial rate, so the plane must have been flying (having a significant speed).

* Does this tell you that the network interfaces in the servers [analogy - satellite terminal on the airplane] is powered up and working? YES!! So it couldn't have crashed, as there wouldn't (as mandala told you) have been any power, and that the antennas would have been under water.

The "flak" you are referring to is the trick Inmarsat applied to the data they got in return [analogy, the data your computer got back as result of the ping request] to determine if the plane flew towards or from the satellite. Since the airliners.net/google/... servers aren't moving around that much, the analogy is harder to construct. But this "flak" is of less importance for understanding the basic fact that the plane was actually powered and flying. Even if that method is completely wrong (I am not saying that it is, I believe in it), it doesn't matter for the proof of "up-and-flying".

Get it now?
 
nupogodi
Posts: 933
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:58 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:35 pm

KISS actually means "Keep it simple, stupid!"

And is entirely not applicable in this case... since nothing about this is simple ...
A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
 
nupogodi
Posts: 933
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:58 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:36 pm

Quoting rwessel (Reply 35):
I'm not sure where the Inmarsat ground stations are, but it doesn't really matter

Perth, apparently, for the one in question, Inmarsat 3F-1
A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
 
PlaneInsomniac
Posts: 418
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:34 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:50 pm

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 29):
I guess I'm trying to stick to the 'KISS' ('Keep It Stupidly Simple') principle, gennadius.

NAV30, you are trying to stick to the 'ignoring established facts' principle.

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 32):
Maybe I AM over-simplifying, boacvc10. I try to keep my posts short!

And yet you keep claiming ad nauseam that people who have infinitely more to say than yourself are wrong "just because".

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 32):
But, as a matter of interest, how much 'ground station' coverage does Inmarsat actually have, down here in the far South Pacific?

NAV30, why can't you finally admit that you do not (and will not ever) possess the faintest trace of understanding how digital satellite communications - or any sort of digital data broadcast - work? Rather than trying repeat that people who do are wrong "just because".
Am I cured? Slept 5 hours on last long-haul flight...
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:43 pm

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 32):
But, as a matter of interest, how much 'ground station' coverage does Inmarsat actually have, down here in the far South Pacific?

The coverage is dependent on the satellite, not the ground station... You can change the ground station (although it does take time... like a few months)... For the coverage of the satellite network, please visit the Inmarsat website 
Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 36):
Oh Mandala, you know it had to be sitting on the ground somewhere for 6 hours at a hidden airfield with either the APU or one of the engines running generating AC electric power so the SatCom system could be powered. All in order to send everyone off on a wild expedition to find a plane in the Indian Ocean somewhere. /sarc

There is an airfield on the southern coast of Java, which is actually quite remote (no cellular coverage there either)... called Pamengpeuk... it's small, and is of grass, but you can always make a one-way trip there. It is ironically, on the final ping circle.
I've also seen evidence that steel plates (used for flooring, and also for emergency airstrips) being shipped to that area a few days before MH370 disappeared.
I've also been made aware of the large amounts of catering that gets sent to the area since MH370 disappeared, it seems that the statistics has shown a large jump in food and basic supplies to that area.
One of our aircraft involved in aerial remote sensing does have a project to map the area, since MH370 disappeared, we've been unable to obtain the necessary security permits to map that area.
I'm not kidding... I am serious...

Am I seeing evidence of an actual conspiracy? Cover-up? Or, even something more sinister?


Unfortunately to those who want it to be true, no, the steel mats are used a construction site near the airstrip, it's to put the heavy equipment on it and park it when it rains so that you eliminate the chance of the soft soil eating it up..

The extra catering shipments sent to that area, well, the jump in the volume was not for stuff sent to the airfield, but to hotels in the area, and there are new hotels/low-end resorts there that has opened up over recent months.

  
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Fri Jun 13, 2014 2:43 am

Cab Sauv

Here's a timeline I've been accumulating.

11:56:08 As the engines were started, 9MMRO initiated an ACARS login.
0:40:38 * Tower * 370 32 Right Cleared for take-off. Good night.
0:41:43 MH370 began takeoff roll (16:41 UTC) Logged-On to Ground Earth Station (GES) 305/301, via the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) Inmarsat I-3 satellite
0:42:48 MAS 370 --> Okay level one eight zero direct IGARI Malaysian one err Three Seven Zero (Fariq)
0:46:51 * ATC * Malaysian Three Seven Zero Lumpur radar Good Morning climb flight level two five zero
0:46:54 MAS370 --> Morning level two five zero Malaysian Three Seven Zero (Fariq)
0:50:06 * ATC * Malaysian Three Seven Zero climb flight level three five zero
0:50:09 MAS370 --> Flight level three five zero Malaysia Three Seven Zero (Fariq)
1:01:14 MAS370 --> Malaysian Three Seven Zero maintaining level three five zero (TOC) (Fariq)
1:01:19 * ATC * Malaysia Three Seven Zero
1:07:48 ACARS last transmission (VHF) which apparently included the notation of a WP change having been entered since last scheduled report at 12:37. ACARS information included fuel remaining. com loss between 17:07 Z and 18:25 Z
1:07:55 MAS370 --> Malaysian...Three Seven Zero maintaining level three five zero (Fariq)
1:08:00 * ATC * Malaysian Three Seven Zero
1:19:24 * ATC * Malaysian Three Seven Zero contact Ho Chi Minh 120 decimal 9 Good Night on radio frequency 120.9 MHz.
1:19:29 MH 370 --> “good night Malaysian Three Seven Zero” (handover to Vietnamese ATC complete by Capt. Zaharie)
1:21:04 MH370 was observed on the radar screen at KLATCC as it passed over waypoint IGARI.
1:21:13 The radar label for MH 370 disappeared from the radar screen at LUMPUR RADAR KLATCC. (Last secondary radar contact) Note: There was no ACARS message for transponder-off therefore, ACARS was off by 1:21:13.
1:22 - Thai ATC Radar reported as losing the MH370 track at this time.
1:28 - Thai military radar tracked a plane flying in the direction opposite from the MH370 plane," back toward Kuala Lumpur. This track was intermittant but they did see the plane eventually turning right, (toward Butterworth)
1:30 - (estimated) Vietnam begins "frantically" trying to contact the plane - Vietnam sees plane turn around
1:33 - (estimated) 9MMRO passes over Kota Bharu (approximatly) nine witness reports from around Kota Bharu, (The first, and most dependable, described the plane descending as fast.
1:37 - ACARS misses scheduled transmission (every half hour)
1:38 - HCMATCC made a query to KLATCC on the whereabouts of MH 370 and stated that they had not yet made contact. (HCMATCC = HO CHI MINH Air Traffic Control Center)
1:46 - HCM queried about MH370 again, stating that radar contact was established over IGARI but there was no verbal contact. Ho Chi Minh advised that the observed radar blip disappeared at waypoint BITOD.
1:46 - (estimated) Plane passes southernmost point of Thai airspace; at this point it can be expected to have turned toward waypoint MEKAR (groundspeed plots indicate as direct a route as possible to MEKAR)
2:03 (1803 to 1805Z) no response from MH370 to communications attempts by the satellite (ACARS related)
2.22 – Last Malaysian military primary radar contact, exact location remains unstated, but probably a few miles past MEKAR
2:25 - (18:25-28) Log-On Request to satellite by A/C. (A spike recorded in the Burst Freq offset chart reflects this event) This logon would have been caused by the flight computer being powered back up (left AC bus.)
2:39 - Ground Initiated to Air Telephony Call - Zero Duration (Not Answered) (This reset the Inmarsat one hour timer but created no data to make a ping ring for this time)
2:40 - This is the time that Malaysia originally stated as the time radar contact was lost. Later (on 3-11) they re-stated time of lost contact as 2:22 and said the this was (actually) the time MAS was notified of the event.
3:41 - (19:40) Handshake Request, with response (INMARSAT ping)
4:41 - (20:41) Handshake Request, with response (INMARSAT ping)
5.41 - (21:41) Handshake Request, with response (INMARSAT ping)
6:41 - (22:41) Handshake Request, with response (INMARSAT ping)
7:13 - (23:13) Ground Initiated to Air Telephony Call - Zero Duration (Not Answered)
7:24 - Statement released by Malaysian Officials saying contact lost at 2:40 and SAR efforts are underway
8:10:58 - (01:10) Handshake Request, with response (INMARSAT ping) (the 40 Degree position line) (00:19 UTC)
8:19:29 - (20:19) Log-On Request (reported as a Partial Handshake), initiated from the aircraft
8:19:37 - An "R-Channel burst" - the last transmission received from the aircraft.
9:15:56 - Handshake Request - No Response from Aircraft



If anybody finds any errors in it, I'd appreciate it if you let me know.
 
bluesky9
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 1:26 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:11 am

Quoting tailskid (Reply 46):
If anybody finds any errors in it, I'd appreciate it if you let me know.

That is a good summary, with new information. How would you explain these flight paths.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 23):
Because showing that 9M-MRO flew along the FIR boundary would have been the "smoking gun" it would have proven that the A/C was being flown under the control of a pilot and that the pilot was intentionally evading ATC notice and guidance. Flying on the boundary would leave each ATC to assume that the other was handling the flight.

Now I see why the FIR boundary hypothesis appeals, because it sort of explains the "cover up" or at least obfuscation and may also explain why ATC ("Lumpa Radar" yes they have radar) did not react. It is a little to contrived for my liking. If it was right on the boundary and the handover was not successful then part of the A/C must still be in Malaysian airspace. Also normal procedure would be for ATC Lumpa Radar to check via the land line to Vietnam ATC to see whether the handover was successful, but as you say Vietnam called before they had a chance. But I don't think these quibbles are important, common sense says if the A/C has lost radio contact and you were the last in contact and it is now in your FIR (as everything in your summary points to) then, at least try the no-comms procedures. It could be that in the heat of the moment that ATC forgot to try this procedure, then no big deal. (Maybe a handheld VHF in the cockpit might be a good idea.) I cannot see any detail as to what "guidance" was given by ATC to the A/C?

Quoting tailskid (Reply 23):
These are engineers we are talking about, not police cadets. If someone was foolish enough to try to enlist them in a coverup it is guaranteed that there would be leaks.

Sure, that is a pretty good argument, I tend to agree with you.

[Edited 2014-06-12 20:24:02]
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:52 am

Quoting bluesky9 (Reply 47):
Now I see why the FIR boundary hypothesis appeals, because it sort of explains the "cover up" or at least obfuscation and may also explain why ATC ("Lumpa Radar" yes they have radar) did not react.

I'm not sure if I've posted this link here before but it lists all the Malaysian civilian (Tower and ATC) radars.
http://aip.dca.gov.my/aip%20pdf/ENR/ENR%201/ENR%201.6/Enr1_6.pdf
It does not list the Pulau Penang Island military radar.

Quoting bluesky9 (Reply 47):
I cannot see any detail as to what "guidance" was given by ATC to the A/C?

They assign altitude in order to maintain separation. In an emergency they will advise where the nearest airport is.

Quoting bluesky9 (Reply 47):
common sense says if the A/C has lost radio contact and you were the last in contact and it is now in your FIR (as everything in your summary points to) then, at least try the no-comms procedures. It could be that in the heat of the moment that ATC forgot to try this procedure, then no big deal. (Maybe a handheld VHF in the cockpit might be a good idea.) I cannot see any detail as to what "guidance" was given by ATC to the A/C?

We are apparently approaching this from different perspectives. My assumption is that the person at the controls of 9M-MRO knew exactly what he was doing and was aware that once he turned the transponder off, he no longer had to concern himself with Malaysian ATC - or military primary radar.

We know that Butterworth and Kubantan Air Force Bases were shut down for the night, I assume that the person flying 9M-MRO knew that too. He probably knew that ATC had no primary radar available. We still aren't 100% sure of that.

The flying along FIR boundary (if this was done) would have been to ward off interest by the Thai and Indonesian military.
 
sipadan
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:06 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Fri Jun 13, 2014 4:31 am

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 25):
The cleanest air in the world is at those latitudes.

Wish I was there. Your saying that stirred in me a jealousy I cannot describe. Cheers.   

Quoting tailskid (Reply 46):
1:07:48 ACARS last transmission (VHF) which apparently included the notation of a WP change having been entered since last scheduled report at 12:37. ACARS information included fuel remaining. com loss between 17:07 Z and 18:25 Z

Tailskid...thanks for that post. It is a wonderful, comprehensive reference that was much needed!!! This is the first i have heard of the WP change. Is this verified? Thanks again.
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Fri Jun 13, 2014 4:46 am

Quoting sipadan (Reply 49):
This is the first i have heard of the WP change. Is this verified? Thanks again.

This is one of those things that the news services picked up on and for about a week it was accepted as a game changer by many knowledgeable people. Then came the denial by the Malaysians. I still keep it in my timeline because I think that there had to be substance to it when all the journalists bit on it. But no, as it stands now it remains unverified and denied. If I run across the old news stories I'll try to track it down to find out who carried it first.

A conservative person would delete it I guess.
 
bluesky9
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 1:26 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Fri Jun 13, 2014 5:15 am

Quoting tailskid (Reply 48):
It does not list the Pulau Penang Island military radar.

So it looks like Lumpur Radar might only use SSR, its not clear whether they have access to primary radar. So more than likely ATC Lumpur Radar were unable to communicate/coordinate in realtime with the Pulau Penang radar observers, even if they were on watch. (What a waste of resources.)

Quoting tailskid (Reply 48):
They assign altitude in order to maintain separation. In an emergency they will advise where the nearest airport is.

So procedural separation only. Ship based AIS (transponders), plot other boats equipped with AIS by using the GPS coordinates transmitted by the AIS transponder on the ship being tracked. It is a while since I looked at the details of A/C SSR, but do they include the GPS position now. If it is the same they might have a screen that shows the position of an A/C according to GPS? So that might be the extent of Lumpur Radar ATC capabilities.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 48):
We are apparently approaching this from different perspectives. My assumption is that the person at the controls of 9M-MRO knew exactly what he was doing and was aware that once he turned the transponder off, he no longer had to concern himself with Malaysian ATC - or military primary radar.

I am not making any assumptions. I am just trying to work out why at no time did anyone try the no-comms procedures. Perhaps ATC made the same assumption that you have or perhaps ATC don't have adequate primary radar facilities.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 48):
We know that Butterworth and Kubantan Air Force Bases were shut down for the night, I assume that the person flying 9M-MRO knew that too. He probably knew that ATC had no primary radar available. We still aren't 100% sure of that.

The flying along FIR boundary (if this was done) would have been to ward off interest by the Thai and Indonesian military.

If so, from your summary it looks like it didn't work, since Thai radar were interested.

Anyway quite interesting.
 
sipadan
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:06 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Fri Jun 13, 2014 5:27 am

Quoting tailskid (Reply 50):
A conservative person would delete it I guess.

Not I, in this instance. It makes complete sense, from my POV. Also, that ACARS can now be nailed down to 1:07-1:21 is a substantial deduction that I had not been aware of. Thought it had to be between 1:07-1:37.

FWIW, I would only add that we do not know who made the the 1:01 and 1:07 'maintaining FL350' transmissions. It is assumed that they were made by Fariq (because we have heard nothing to the contrary). However, knowing that Zaharie made the the handoff transmission does not mean that this was the ONLY transmission he made. It is only what we have been told by the Malaysians (hint). Maybe the Malaysians wanted us to think that Zaharie ONLY made the LAST transmission for a reason (hint).

I've listened to the tapes a million times (sorry for repeating this point of emphasis) and believe that it was Zaharie on coms for both of these transmission. Both the ACARS information and WP info that you have provided bolster my assertion. There's no reason to believe this is not entirely possible. If true, that effectively places the pivotal moment of the flight between 16:50-17:01. This give a 'comfy' 20-29 minutes (16:50-17:20/21) of smooth cruise, theoretically. Quite a chunk of time to be doing something "else".

If you listen to the tapes and care to wonder why I think this is so, feel free to ask. It's not obvious, obviously.

[Edited 2014-06-12 22:31:40]

[Edited 2014-06-12 22:34:23]
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 67

Fri Jun 13, 2014 5:42 am

Quoting sipadan (Reply 52):
Maybe the Malaysians wanted us to think that Zaharie ONLY made the LAST transmission for a reason (hint).

I haven't really spent much time on this point, but you obviously have.

Where did the story about the five people who knew them both and claimed that all but one was from Fariq come from?

Quoting sipadan (Reply 52):
If you listen to the tapes and care to wonder why I think this is so, feel free to ask. It's not obvious.

I'll bite: explain your reasons. You can PM me or put it here in the forum.

My hearing skills (discrimination of sounds) are lousy. Whatever i do, I'll have to take other people's word on this, unless there is something obvious.

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