Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
American 767
Topic Author
Posts: 4534
Joined: Wed May 19, 1999 7:27 am

Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Sun Nov 30, 2014 1:18 am

Part 73 getting too long with over 200 replies, I archived it and made a new thread to continue the discussion:

Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 73 (by American 767 Nov 18 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.

American 767
Ben Soriano
 
User avatar
Pohakuloa
Posts: 219
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:28 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Sun Nov 30, 2014 8:13 am

Quote:
777Jet
That is how a flight with an expected duration of about 5hrs 30mins turned into a flight lasting 7hrs 38mins - to answer Pohakuloa's question in reply # 197.

I understand all of this, but my question is would the duration still last this long with decent and climbs as is suspected by some when it came back across the Malay/Thai peninsula? If it indeed descended and either stayed at a lower/less efficient altitude, or climbed again and likely using a bunch more of it's fuel than intended would this amount of fuel still last the 7.5+ hours? even if it stayed at a hold altitude for the 2 hours reserve can it still last for that duration. I know normal circumstances are what the fuel and reserves are for, but it's likely (though there's nothing to fully confirm nor deny it) the flight as far as power/altitude, etc., was far from "normal."

This is why I ask because as such I am wondering if that amount of fuel in time (I'm not a pilot or familiar with 777 consumption/performance numbers) under these likely abnormal conditions would still allow for the amount of time predicted for the tanks to run dry?

IF the decent and climb is a possibility, wouldn't there likely need to be more fuel on board than was or has been disclosed?

I'm not making accusations one way or another, I simply wish to gain insight and knowledge from the people on these boards hopefully without being passed off to research myself. That's one reason some get involved on these boards is to gain knowledge firsthand from those here as a form of research.

Regards,
Pohakuloa
Fast cars and 'Jet A' - such a sweet smell!
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1810
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Sun Nov 30, 2014 2:16 pm

Quoting Pohakuloa (Reply 1):

Pihero has plotted all this in detail, but he's been bullied off the thread (along with other knowledgeable professionals).   
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Sun Nov 30, 2014 3:37 pm

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 2):
Pihero has plotted all this in detail, but he's been bullied off the thread (along with other knowledgeable professionals)

No, Pihero never went so far as to make estimates of fuel used vs distance traveled counting winds aloft and altitude excursions etc. He just tried to make an estimate based on 49,100 kilos vs time aloft. Back then I believe they were still estimating the speed as being in the order of 350 kts. It's all still there if anybody wants to look at it. I did look at it recently but I didn't find much that was useful. Knowledge has progressed since then.

We need an experienced 777 officer to work out fuel usage estimates taking into consideration winds aloft and estimated distance traveled. So far the projections made by the Australians, the Independent group (and even my KML file) make what we know tight, but in the ball park. But that's what would be expected from a flight to fuel exhaustion.

So you also had trouble with Warren Platt eh? That's too bad.
 
Flightsimboy
Posts: 1777
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 12:49 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Sun Nov 30, 2014 4:51 pm

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 2):
Pihero has plotted all this in detail, but he's been bullied off the thread (along with other knowledgeable professionals).

Ah so this is how this reached thread 74. Interesting. (I know this post will be deleted)
LAX772LR - "Answer to goofy question:" in response to my question about the B737-MAX8 being grounded. 48 hours later all B737-MAX8 grounded worldwide. Go figure!!
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Sun Nov 30, 2014 11:27 pm

I'll make a very rough guestimate. Using this fuel flow chart:
https://www.airliners.net/uf/view.file?id=85080&filename=phpOzst4f.png
indicates to me that the fuel flow average for 9M-MRO should have been around 6,000 kilos per hour.
(This chart came from mercure1 in Reply 15, part 48 posted on Mar 29. He said it was for "the 777-200" but he didn't specifically say it was for RR engines, maybe someone here can verify this. )

From the known data:
It took off at 00:41 and is assumed to have stopped flying at 8:19 so that's 7:38 total flight time. MAS says it loaded 49,100 kg of fuel. Thus the possible time flown for 9M-MRO calculates as eight hours and about 13 minutes. This leaves about 35 minutes extra which translates back into about 3,400 kilos of fuel, to have been expended on climbs. I do not know how to factor in extra fuel needed during climb, but so far we do have fuel available for climbing.

From table napkin type of calculations, the winds aloft don't appear to have been much of a factor in total, and most likely averaged out to be a bit of a tail wind (I provided some winds data for the southern leg in my KML file), the flight from Kola Lumpur to MEKAR had head winds going out and the same as tailwinds on the way back, so for the the first two hours winds were a very small factor.

Would 3,400 kilos of fuel allowed the climbs attributed to 9M-MRO? I don't know.

Perhaps someone can come along and tighten up my numbers, expecially the average fuel flow that I guestimated at 6,000 kilos per hour.
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1810
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Mon Dec 01, 2014 12:19 am

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 2):
No, Pihero never went so far as to make estimates of fuel used vs distance traveled counting winds aloft and altitude excursions etc.

He did actually. I've seen it. But he was bullied off here before posting it.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
User avatar
alberchico
Posts: 3242
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 5:52 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Mon Dec 01, 2014 4:03 am

Shouldn't some debris have washed up on shore by now ? When that aircraft hit the water it must have been a violent impact that would have generated a large debris field..
short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Mon Dec 01, 2014 4:15 am

Quoting alberchico (Reply 7):
Shouldn't some debris have washed up on shore by now ?

Not necessarily. The supposed impact location is within the Indian Ocean Gyre, a system of currents that forms a closed loop. It contains an enormous "garbage patch" of floating detritus that can drift for years without making landfall.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Mon Dec 01, 2014 7:11 am

Quoting Pohakuloa (Reply 1):
my question is would the duration still last this long with decent and climbs as is suspected by some when it came back across the Malay/Thai peninsula? If it indeed descended and either stayed at a lower/less efficient altitude, or climbed again and likely using a bunch more of it's fuel than intended would this amount of fuel still last the 7.5+ hours? even if it stayed at a hold altitude for the 2 hours reserve can it still last for that duration. I know normal circumstances are what the fuel and reserves are for, but it's likely (though there's nothing to fully confirm nor deny it) the flight as far as power/altitude, etc., was far from "normal."

It is not yet established what exactly 9M-MRO did during its flight regarding altitude excursions among other things. Like you said, it is just 'suspected' what 9M-MRO might have done. If a total of roughly 7hrs 30mins -(5hrs 30mins estimated flight duration + 2hrs additional flying time)- in flying time worth of fuel was loaded onto 9M-MRO and it flew for 7hrs 38mins then I suspect the plane did not do any erratic climbs, dives or maneuvers that would have resulted in fuel being exhausted quicker than usual. I really doubt there was any altitude excursion or 'zoom' to FL450 given the flight duration regardless of what any radar data might suggest.
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
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Mon Dec 01, 2014 7:56 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 9):
I suspect the plane did not do any erratic climbs, dives or maneuvers that would have resulted in fuel being exhausted quicker than usual. I really doubt there was any altitude excursion or 'zoom' to FL450 given the flight duration regardless of what any radar data might suggest.

How do you know this (or why do you suspect this?) Where have you gotten your information from?
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Mon Dec 01, 2014 8:20 am

Quoting tailskid (Reply 10):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 9):
I suspect the plane did not do any erratic climbs, dives or maneuvers that would have resulted in fuel being exhausted quicker than usual. I really doubt there was any altitude excursion or 'zoom' to FL450 given the flight duration regardless of what any radar data might suggest.

How do you know this (or why do you suspect this?) Where have you gotten your information from?

The beginning of my sentence that you selectively did not quote answers why I suspect there were no erratic maneuvers such as a 'zoom' to FL450...

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 9):
If a total of roughly 7hrs 30mins -(5hrs 30mins estimated flight duration + 2hrs additional flying time)- in flying time worth of fuel was loaded onto 9M-MRO and it flew for 7hrs 38mins then I suspect the plane did not do any erratic climbs, dives or maneuvers that would have resulted in fuel being exhausted quicker than usual.

Such erratic maneuvers would burn fuel quicker than usual, which is what Pohakuloa was getting at. Given a plane loaded with roughly 7:30 in flying time worth of fuel flew for 7:38 it suggests to me that the plane was not behaving erratically. The plane pretty much flew for the ammount of time it had the fuel to fly for under normal conditions.
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
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Mon Dec 01, 2014 8:30 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 11):
7hrs 30mins -(5hrs 30mins estimated flight duration + 2hrs additional flying time)

Using 5hrs 30mins estimated flight duration + 2hrs additional flying time is imprecise in the extreme. Zaharie (or MAS) may have decided that the flight should carry above the minimums.

Why do you reject using the actual amount of fuel loaded onto the plane to derive possible flight time from a published fuel flow chart for a 777?
 
User avatar
Pohakuloa
Posts: 219
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:28 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Mon Dec 01, 2014 10:18 am

Quoting tailskid (Reply 5):
MAS says it loaded 49,100 kg of fuel. Thus the possible time flown for 9M-MRO calculates as eight hours and about 13 minutes. This leaves about 35 minutes extra which translates back into about 3,400 kilos of fuel

quick follow up on fuel amount, I remember seeing this number before so I am not questioning this and I quoted your text to put a visual to this next question:

MAS says it loaded 49,100kg of fuel aboard 9M-MRO, this I acknowledge as I have seen this number floated about the threads here and there. Now was this, in MAS' translation, what was on board the plane when it left the gate? Or was this what was added at the gate in addition to what was also remaining in the tanks from a previous flight? One way or another, can anyone outside of MAS (and presumably the investigation team) say for sure one way or another? Surely the tanks weren't drip dry before loading up. IF this number was purely what was loaded at the gate and not what was remaining in the tanks, do we as a community know how much would have been left in the planes tanks from it's previous leg and would we as a community be able to find such information readily - or could this be something not disclosed due to not thinking it is relevant or for other reasons?

These may seem like insignificant details but it has been my experience that the devil is in the details in things like this. As mentioned by 777Jet, the amount of time may not have accounted for irregular flight, but if and what amount of fuel remaining from a previous leg in the tanks was not accounted for in addition to the fuel stated as loaded and the value of all said fuel, this could change this thinking some. Will it change the search area based on last transmitted data being used to find the potential location of this aircraft? I don't think so, but it could provide some extra insight on what could or could not have happened with the aircraft itself (climbs, descent, other abnormal aircraft operation, etc.) between last contact and wherever the final resting place of the aircraft may be.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 11):
Given a plane loaded with roughly 7:30 in flying time worth of fuel flew for 7:38 it suggests to me that the plane was not behaving erratically. The plane pretty much flew for the ammount of time it had the fuel to fly for under normal conditions.

Could you or anyone else here have insight to this inquiry:
If the aircraft went along the presumed course to it's presumed resting place, would the aircraft operating under normal conditions put it at this approximate location whereabouts the engine shutdown was detected in the appropriate time frame? Would it be further along the presumed route? shorter? I ask because this also could shed light on my previous questions above.

Respectfully,
Pohakuloa
Fast cars and 'Jet A' - such a sweet smell!
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Mon Dec 01, 2014 10:45 am

Replying to Pohakuloa (Reply 13):

MAS says that the plane left the gate with 49,100 kilos of fuel. This is the standard airline (and military I suppose) way of stating fuel aboard at takeoff. There is a paper trail supporting this number, the calculations of how much the plane arrived at the gate with and how much was added are all available (to MAS) but the 49,100 figure is all that matters to flight MH-370. (There have been cases of deception on record, KAL 007 took on an extra 10,000 lbs of fuel that wasn't shown on the flight manifest.)

There are many other loose ends that need to be dealt with before we get anything like an accurate picture picture of how much flight time was available to 9M-MRO. One biggie that pops up is the takepff weight. With only 227 passengers and ten tons of freight we know that this 777 was not heavily loaded - nowhere the max for a 777.

My estimate is:
B777-200ER empty weight = about 140T
227 pax and bags approx 25T
9947 kilos of cargo = 10T
49,100 kilos fuel = 49 T

So my gustimate is a 225 ton takeoff weight, but I have seen it estimated at 215 T.
Maybe there is someone here who can offer a more experienced estimate.
Then we need an educated guess as to how much extra fuel is burned to get up to FL 350.

This is not as simple as some seem to think.

[Edited 2014-12-01 03:03:03]
 
sipadan
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:06 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Tue Dec 02, 2014 4:47 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 8):
Not necessarily. The supposed impact location is within the Indian Ocean Gyre, a system of currents that forms a closed loop. It contains an enormous "garbage patch" of floating detritus that can drift for years without making landfall.

OR, what with the BFO data being subject to wide interpretation, the t7 was set down largely intact (as Pihero and others made a stunning accommodation for, EVEN on an AP uncontrolled gradual descent in seas of ____pick your meters).

The MOST likely scenario is control inputs until the end, effectively entombing the aircraft. We also know that it was daylight in that part of the SIO at the time.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Tue Dec 02, 2014 7:30 am

Quoting sipadan (Reply 16):
the t7 was set down largely intact

There is zero evidence for this, although it clearly continues to be a popular conspiracy theory. The fact that no floating debris were ever observed or recovered does not imply that floating debris were not generated, in large quantity, hundreds of miles from shore and unobserved for weeks, by now absorbed into the vast churn of the Indian Ocean garbage patch.

Quoting sipadan (Reply 16):
The MOST likely scenario

...must follow Occam's razor.
 
sipadan
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:06 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Tue Dec 02, 2014 7:48 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 17):
although it clearly continues to be a popular conspiracy theory.

What continues to be popular (on a.net, by the likes of you and your ilk) is to conveniently employ the word 'conspiracy' and the connotation that invariably accompanies it in an effort to discredit certain posters.

The irony, here, is this...
[

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 17):
Quoting sipadan (Reply 16):
The MOST likely scenario

...must follow Occam's razor.

That in the case of MH370, the pilot engaging in a criminal and deliberate act far and away BEST satisfies the onus required by Occam's razor. It's not even debatable, really.

To suggest that an individual who looks objectively at the known data, facts and evidence (including circumstantial) and then concludes that the most probable scenario is that Zaharie commandeered the a/c, to suggest that this poster is embracing 'conspiracy' is truly laughable...and has all the hallmarks of someone only interested in something other than the truth.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Tue Dec 02, 2014 9:17 pm

Quoting sipadan (Reply 15):
On Jeff Wise's blog, a Ukrainian SCUBA deep water diver and his two buddies have now come under the gaze of suspicion.

'Ukranian' and 'SCUBA deep water diver'. Interesting. Well, we know where MH17 went down. We know where the authoroties suspect MH370 is. If they can't find MH370 in the SIO where they are looking I would not put it past people to place just a small ammount of select MH777 wreckage, which they now have from MH17, somewhere in the SIO so they can get underwater footage of some wreckage at a later date and then say something like: 'We found some MH370 wreckage, here it is, but it will be too hard to recover it as the ocean in 6,000m deep here. So, we know where it is, and we'll just have to leave it at that...'

Quoting sipadan (Reply 15):
As for Jeff Wise, despicable.

His latest blog, 'Occam’s Razor is Overrated', is a very interesting read nonetheless - specifically the Scenario links at the bottom under 'The Spoof' links. His commentary on the BFO and BTO data is quite interesting.

Quoting sipadan (Reply 16):
We also know that it was daylight in that part of the SIO at the time.

  

I have no doubt that with a bit of luck, an experienced pilot could ditch a 777 in the open ocean well / gentle enough to at least keep the bulk of it in several large pieces that would mostly sink - leaving the other, smaller bits to float away or eventually sink in the time it took for the search in that area to commence. I have no doubt that somebody could have put it down onto the back of a wave or 'just got the ditching right' - there would have been enough daylight to attempt a ditching at the least.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 20):
Quoting UALWN (Reply 19):
And please don't bring up yet again his Facebook posts. Laughable.

What kind of logic leads you to dismiss the Facebook posts as evidence of mental instability for Zaharie? His kind of stuff doesn't come from a well adjusted person.

In addition to the Anwar Verdict, facebook posts, etc., IIRC the Captain was the only crew member on that flight with no future plans...
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
 
groundbird
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2014 12:15 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:03 pm

In considering or developing the theoretical concept that Captain Z worked alone:


as to means: one can regard Captain Zhariere's training, knowledge and experience

as to method: one can regard (within it's boundaries) the expert illumation provided by the a.net high Respect rating posters

as to motive: one would best regard forensic psychology/psychiatry - against the dearth of it here: the naive, the closed minded, and the unrealistic imagineers have no credibility on this despite ratings, knowledge etc.

as to opportunity: one can regard the obvious, Z had opportunity in spades



Motive would be the key ingredient here. Puffed up in denial, roiling in outrage, pretending to laugh/ridiculing etc. - these are all blockers, distractors from and outright denial of an issue that looms large, that calls for rational, experienced, professional illumination to guide discussion as part of thread topic: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK
 
wilco737
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 12:21 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Thu Dec 04, 2014 6:30 am

ladies and Gentlemen,

This is to address all postes in here. Please stay on topic, do not start name calling, trolling, being disrespectful or being harsh!

We want this discussion to stay open! If this continues like the way it is now, we have to close the thread and don't allow another one on this topic. We want to avoid that.

Thanks.

wilco737
  
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Thu Dec 04, 2014 6:42 am

Latest ATSB search update: 8000 km2 of sea floor searched, 185000 km2 surveyed. Survey (but not search) wrapping up by mid-December.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Thu Dec 04, 2014 10:48 am

Quoting wilco737 (Reply 20):
We want this discussion to stay open!

Thank you for allowing this very important topic to remain open.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 21):
Latest ATSB search update: 8000 km2 of sea floor searched, 185000 km2 surveyed. Survey (but not search) wrapping up by mid-December.

Thank you for the update.
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
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:39 pm

Byron Bailey returns in the media, this time with a new headline:
"Former Boeing pilot claims MH370 sabotaged"

And this time he's in a Malaysian paper:
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/cat...eing-pilot-claims-mh370-sabotaged/

The new story turns out to be a story about the old story Quote: "Writing in Australia’s Daily Telegraph, Bailey made the explosive remarks...................."

The last time around was in the (Australian) Daily Telegraph:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...appen/story-fni0cx12-1227138294356
But it wasn't really a news story, it was an essay written by Byron Bailey himself, he even got the byline.

But somehow the new story (about the old story) has come up with new stuff that wasn't in the old story.
"Former Boeing 777 pilot Byron Bailey claims that missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 could only have veered off course due to sabotage."

And in the new story he (or the Malaysian FMT) slips in some disinformation:
"He questions how no one else but Malaysia’s military seemed to capture the tracking of the aircraft deviating south to the southern Indian Ocean. Is it a coincidence that this track managed to avoid Indonesian, Thai and then Indian military radar?” he asked."

That was some slippery wording, he wonders why "one else but Malaysia’s military seemed to capture the tracking of the aircraft deviating south to the southern Indian Ocean" when in reality nobody's radar (has been publicly revealed to have) tracked the plane on its southbound leg.

But he neglects to mention, that the Vietnamese radar tracked the plane turning around and have publicly said so. And the Thai government has also stated that they tracked a target at 1:28 "flying in the direction opposite from the MH370 plane," back toward Kota Bharu. And he fails to acknowledge that the Indonesians haven't said they didn't track the target - what they said was that they didn't track any target "over their territory." This is the kind of qualifier we would expect a journalist to pick up on.


The story repeats the three transponders error.
“The B777 has 80 computers and, except for two engines, nearly every system on board is triplicated to ensure a practically fail safe operation,” he said.

For example, there are three radios, three radar transponders (linked to Air Traffic Control), three autopilots, three flight management computers and a failure of one will result in transfer, usually automatically, to another, he added. “This means for ATC to lose secondary radar contact with MH370 someone had to deactivate all three by manually selecting them to go off.”


This story is smelling worser and worser.

[Edited 2014-12-04 04:58:20]
 
mandala499
Posts: 6593
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Thu Dec 04, 2014 2:36 pm

Quoting tailskid (Reply 23):
nd he fails to acknowledge that the Indonesians haven't said they didn't track the target - what they said was that they didn't track any target "over their territory."

Either we weren't looking, or we're telling the truth... And yeah, the of "over our territory" simply means we don't want to reveal how far we can look (or how short   

Quoting tailskid (Reply 23):
Is it a coincidence that this track managed to avoid Indonesian, Thai and then Indian military radar?” he asked."

Avoiding Indonesian primary radar is dirt easy... any Indonesian and Malaysian with a slight interest in it won't have to dig hard to find out. Now, why the Indian military didn't pick it up on Andaman/Nicobar radar, well, their presence is not exactly a calm issue for the countries around there...

Quoting tailskid (Reply 23):
he wonders why "one else but Malaysia’s military seemed to capture the tracking of the aircraft deviating south to the southern Indian Ocean"

That really is a no brainer... coz the plane flew over Malaysia   

Quoting tailskid (Reply 23):
“This means for ATC to lose secondary radar contact with MH370 someone had to deactivate all three by manually selecting them to go off.”

There are only 2 transponders onboard... not 3 (but then, it's probably the editorial).
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Thu Dec 04, 2014 4:05 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 24):
Quoting tailskid (Reply 23):“This means for ATC to lose secondary radar contact with MH370 someone had to deactivate all three by manually selecting them to go off.”
There are only 2 transponders onboard... not 3 (but then, it's probably the editorial).

And to deactivate whichever transponder was selected you only have to position the Transponder Mode Selector to Standby -- you're off the radar -- not a difficult task.

[Edited 2014-12-04 08:06:45]
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Thu Dec 04, 2014 8:10 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 24):
Either we weren't looking, or we're telling the truth... And yeah, the of "over our territory" simply means we don't want to reveal how far we can look (or how short

I take them at their word. They said that they didn't see it over their territory: nothing more - nothing less.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 24):
Avoiding Indonesian primary radar is dirt easy

Indonesia has a modern and very effective radar network including:

Radar Unit 231 Lhokseumawe, Aceh, Northern Sumatera
Radar Unit 232 Dumai, Aceh, Northern Sumatera
Radar Unit 233 Sabang, Aceh, Northern Sumatera
Radar Unit 234 Sibolga, North Sumatera
http://www.timawa.net/forum/index.php?topic=36721.0

They would have tracked 9M-MRO from the time it crossed the western shoreline of the Malaysian peninsula, through the areas in the vicinity of; VAMPI, MEKAR, IGEBO,POVUS and on south of the tip of Aceh until it was far out over the open ocean.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 24):
There are only 2 transponders onboard... not 3 (but then, it's probably the editorial).

7BOEING7 has already pointed out the fact that there are only two (and I mentioned it in my post.) It's difficult to attribute this to an editing screw up when it happens in two different sources. Not impossible, but then....

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 25):
And to deactivate whichever transponder was selected you only have to position the Transponder Mode Selector to Standby -- you're off the radar -- not a difficult task.

Agreed. (that quote was from the Malaysian paper.)
 
Kevil
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 9:02 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Fri Dec 05, 2014 6:53 am

Interesting article NTSB blames bad battery design—and bad management—in Boeing 787 fires. I think this or lithium batteries in cargo area is the main cause of MH370 crash.
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Fri Dec 05, 2014 7:22 am

Quoting Kevil (Reply 30):
I think this or lithium batteries in cargo area is the main cause of MH370 crash.

A 777 is equipped with extensive cargo fire detection, aka smoke detection. Smoke would be detected long before any fire could interfere with aircraft operations. A fire warning will strike an impossible to ignore fear in a flight crew. Such a warning will not be ignored.

A fire warning would be cause for an immediate mayday and asking for ATC assistance in selecting the nearest available runway. The PF would immediately point the aircraft at a runway and start descending; an airline pilot who has had a fire warning has stated that "this will be done in whichever order is appropriate, or all at once." Fire warning drillsare regularly practiced in the simulator.

MH370 would have had ATC radar assistance available, a choice of runways within the fire suppression time available and all this would have been supported by the crew's familiarity of the area they were flying in. There is no way a cargo fire to have caused the loss of MH370, with no Mayday call, plenty of assistance available and time in hand to land.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6593
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Fri Dec 05, 2014 7:38 am

Quoting tailskid (Reply 26):
Indonesia has a modern and very effective radar network including:

Radar Unit 231 Lhokseumawe, Aceh, Northern Sumatera
Radar Unit 232 Dumai, Aceh, Northern Sumatera
Radar Unit 233 Sabang, Aceh, Northern Sumatera
Radar Unit 234 Sibolga, North Sumatera

Good that you believe that...   
The serviceability and when they're on and off, is not subject to public disclosure other than, "they're not all on 24hrs a day 7 days a week."
But then, you believing Unit 234 would have been useful, shows why you believe that.
232 and 233 isn't really useful with regards to MH370... Penang is right on the end of 232's coverage... 234 needs technology that can go through mountains to make it useful with regards to MH370 prior to to 1825UTC...
We are now down to 231 and 233... and they have power supply problems.

As I said, anyone with a bit more knowledge than believing photos and diagrams shown in that link, knows the reality...

The above comments are valid for the time period near MH370's occurence. There has been a lot of work since.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 26):
It's difficult to attribute this to an editing screw up when it happens in two different sources. Not impossible, but then....

Well, do you think it has 2 or 3 transponders then?   

Quoting tailskid (Reply 28):
Smoke would be detected long before any fire could interfere with aircraft operations.

Cargo smoke,yes. Lavatory smoke, yes. Cabin smoke, yes.
Does that make all possible fires be able to be detected early enough? No. Just the riskiest and most likely...
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 KUL-PEK Part 74

Fri Dec 05, 2014 8:56 am

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 29):
Good that you believe that...
Please explain what you mean with this sentence. I hope that you're not flamebaiting. It does look like you're still trying to push it as far as you think you can get away with.

I would like to have an honest technical discussion on MH-370. In my engineering career I have had many technical discussions none of which included petty snipping. I would like to see this forum take on a more professional manner. Can you agree with that?

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 29):
The serviceability and when they're on and off, is not subject to public disclosure other than, "they're not all on 24hrs a day 7 days a week."
These are all very expensive phased array radars, meant to provide coverage for the nation of Indonesia. They have to be manned anyway to provide security. They do not sit up on those mountaintops idle I assure you. The Vietnamese manned theirs that night, the Thai manned theirs and the Malaysians manned theirs, the Indonesians are no exception.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 29):
But then, you believing Unit 234 would have been useful, shows why you believe that.

Radar Unit 234 Sibolga, North Sumatera is located in the high country about 20 miles east of the town (approximately 1°52'45.43"N 99° 1'18.15"E) it is the radar assigned to provide coverage for western Sumatera south of the coverage provided by the Sebang radar on Pulau We Island. 234's radar coverage reaches out beyond Bandar Udara Lasikin airport on Simalur Island and overlaps with Sebang in the north.

While plotting this on Google Earth I discovered that the easternmost projected flight path for 9M-MRO passes just a few (about 20) miles beyond what 234's effective range would be for a target at FL 350.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 29):
232 and 233 isn't really useful with regards to MH370... Penang is right on the end of 232's coverage... 234 needs technology that can go through mountains to make it useful with regards to MH370 prior to to 1825UTC...
We are now down to 231 and 233... and they have power supply problems.
232 and 233 radars cover the southern part of the Strait
234 looks west not east, it does not need to see through mountains.

These radars all have their own motor generators, (Military radars are always self powered) there is no reason to claim that their power is shaky. That argument falls flat on its face.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 29):
As I said, anyone with a bit more knowledge than believing photos and diagrams shown in that link, knows the reality...

I know quite a bit about military radar beyond what is "shown in that link" Your assertion about my knowledge is unprofessional and has no basis.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 29):
The above comments are valid for the time period near MH370's occurence. There has been a lot of work since.
You have no citations for any claims you have made. Then or now. I'll disregard this dubious assertion out of hand.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6593
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Fri Dec 05, 2014 9:42 am

Quoting tailskid (Reply 30):
Please explain what you mean with this sentence.

Good that you believe the national PR...

Quoting tailskid (Reply 30):
While plotting this on Google Earth I discovered that the easternmost projected flight path for 9M-MRO passes just a few (about 20) miles beyond what 234's effective range would be for a target at FL 350.

The position of the Sibolga radar is not that far east as far as I know. But I do know it goes further than Lasikin Airport in Simeuleu... but at what minimum altitude for Simeuleu, I don't know.

And for God's sake, spell the names of these places correctly... (although the mispelling seems identical to another engineer who used to peruse the forum)...

Quoting tailskid (Reply 30):
232 and 233 radars cover the southern part of the Strait
234 looks west not east, it does not need to see through mountains.

What? 233 (Sabang) covers the mouth of the strait. This is amongst if not the most important radar station we have. This one, should have been the one on all the time (not so for the others) as it is near the favourite route for smugglers and black flights in the past... but, stories of the power supply problems are rife locally here.
232 would only be able to cover Penang at high altitude... this covers the southern portion of the strait, yes.

And regarding needing to go through mountains for 234, re-read what I said please...

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 29):
234 needs technology that can go through mountains to make it useful with regards to MH370 prior to to 1825UTC...

For post 1825... well, the eastern most projected final path of MH370 would make it remain outside our territory? If so, well, the military wouldn't be interested even if they saw it... and if they saw it, there's no way to reconcile whether or not it's MH370 or not, unless Sabang had tracked it from 1825 till it went to Sibolga's effective range.

As far as I know, poking into contacts with the air force, no one has indicated that anyone in our military knew where MH370 went, nor are there any indications that targets suspected to be MH370 was detected. Our prejudices aside, this is frustrating for everyone that all we said was "we never saw it overfly our territory"... Unfortunately it's normal for us to "wash our hands" that way...

Quoting tailskid (Reply 30):
These radars all have their own motor generators, (Military radars are always self powered) there is no reason to claim that their power is shaky. That argument falls flat on its face.

Seriously, you need to know how things are run over here... your lack of experience in that, falls flat on its face too.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 30):
I know quite a bit about military radar beyond what is "shown in that link" Your assertion about my knowledge is unprofessional and has no basis.

As per:

Quoting tailskid (Reply 30):
You have no citations for any claims you have made. Then or now. I'll disregard this dubious assertion out of hand.

All I can say is ditto with regards to your assertion. Now... If you can guarantee me immunity from treason, I may talk... otherwise... feel free to believe the brochures my friend, it is within your right to believe so.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 30):
They do not sit up on those mountaintops idle I assure you. The Vietnamese manned theirs that night, the Thai manned theirs and the Malaysians manned theirs, the Indonesians are no exception.

You know that as a fact right? Have you been to those radar sites? Monitored it day and night?
You have no citations for the claim of these not sitting idle and are no exception, therefore, as far as I am concerned, no basis to assume that we should have been detecting it that night.
Since we didn't detect it... are we part of a cover up then?
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
mandala499
Posts: 6593
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Fri Dec 05, 2014 9:54 am

Quoting tailskid (Reply 30):
I would like to have an honest technical discussion on MH-370.

Excellent...

Can we have a technical discussion then on why the SatCom went off and on?
We haven't finished on that one... am still not happy with the reasoning why it happened if it was deliberate...
We can cross out flight envelope protection, FMC, and autopilot... are there any other alternative theories out there as to why (on the deliberate theories) ?
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Fri Dec 05, 2014 12:27 pm

Quoting tailskid (Reply 28):
There is no way a cargo fire to have caused the loss of MH370

I am not prepared to rule out some kind of fire early on, if not at the very beginning, in the chain of events. A type of fire that could have gone out after eventually being starved of oxygen before doing too much damage as the plane obviously flew on for some time. It is possible.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 29):
Quoting tailskid (Reply 26):
Indonesia has a modern and very effective radar network including:

Radar Unit 231 Lhokseumawe, Aceh, Northern Sumatera
Radar Unit 232 Dumai, Aceh, Northern Sumatera
Radar Unit 233 Sabang, Aceh, Northern Sumatera
Radar Unit 234 Sibolga, North Sumatera

Good that you believe that...
Quoting tailskid (Reply 30):
Radar Unit 234 Sibolga, North Sumatera is located in the high country about 20 miles east of the town (approximately 1°52'45.43"N 99° 1'18.15"E) it is the radar assigned to provide coverage for western Sumatera south of the coverage provided by the Sebang radar on Pulau We Island. 234's radar coverage reaches out beyond Bandar Udara Lasikin airport on Simalur Island and overlaps with Sebang in the north.

While plotting this on Google Earth I discovered that the easternmost projected flight path for 9M-MRO passes just a few (about 20) miles beyond what 234's effective range would be for a target at FL 350.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 29):
232 and 233 isn't really useful with regards to MH370... Penang is right on the end of 232's coverage... 234 needs technology that can go through mountains to make it useful with regards to MH370 prior to to 1825UTC...
We are now down to 231 and 233... and they have power supply problems.
232 and 233 radars cover the southern part of the Strait
234 looks west not east, it does not need to see through mountains.

These radars all have their own motor generators, (Military radars are always self powered) there is no reason to claim that their power is shaky. That argument falls flat on its face.
Quoting tailskid (Reply 30):
I would like to have an honest technical discussion on MH-370.

Given that radar coverage / capability is currently being discussed it would be good if WarrenPlatts returned to the conversation as he seemed quite knowledgeable in that topic area.
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
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Fri Dec 05, 2014 12:55 pm

Whatever the discussions we’ve had so far, virtually all of them have their foundation on one single, major, seemingly unshakable assumption:
Flight MH-370 ended in the Indian Ocean!
How do we know it did? The Inmarsat data tells us so – that’s it.
More than that, the data is considered fact, conclusive evidence.

And yet, elsewhere and even here on A.net, there are voices, some stronger than others, who question the assumption that the flight ended there at all.

This would mean, then, that there is either one of two possibilities:
Possibility 1.
This assumes that the Inmarsat data is correct; flight MH-370 ended up somewhere over the Indian Ocean, as it is generally assumed, until it ran out of fuel.
In very, very broad terms, the question is not, therefore, where the aircraft is; (we assume) we know as a fact that it ended in the Indian Ocean.
The challenge is only to pin-point the spot and then actually find it.
In this scenario there would still be further questions, of course, and these would all revolve around how exactly the plane got where it is supposed to be, what exactly led to its demise and are there lessons to be learned.

No matter what the final answer may be one good day in the future; in the absence of further public information we can, right now, only make assumptions and consider various possibilities and plausible scenarios. No more and no less ....

But what if 9M-MRO is not at the bottom of the Indian Ocean?

Possibility 2.
This assumes that the Inmarsat data is incorrect, false, not counting just a few minor errors.
This would assume that the satellite data was deliberately falsified, for whatever reason and by an unknown perpetrator.
In this scenario it is still a possibility that flight MH-370 did end up over the Indian Ocean (IO); however, the satellite data having been falsified, this would seem unlikely.
Falsifying the satellite data would, almost certainly, have served as a cover to fly the aircraft undetected to an unknown destination, for reasons and by identities we can only guess.

As indicated elsewhere already, falsifying the satellite data could have been done by unknown identities or agencies, without Inmarsat’s knowledge, or, indeed, it could have been in-house by Inmarsat.

If any of this is a possibility, however unlikely or far-fetched it may be, we cannot accept the satellite data as fact or conclusive evidence; it is then only circumstantial evidence.

If that is or could be so, then parallel investigations should be done to verify the veracity of the satellite data; this is both, in addition to the search efforts out there on the high seas of the Indian Ocean and for the benefit of the public.

In reply #206 (thread 73) I posed a question to this effect.
Kaiarahi chose not to reply to that; who knows, maybe he would have had to agree with it but wouldn’t have liked the thought of it.

David L did reply, reply #208 (thread 73), and was probably a bit miffed about it, from what I could read between the lines. David didn’t like the idea that I dared questioning the integrity of a British corporation.

Well, I’m sorry, I wouldn’t put it past them. The operating licences for Inmarsat are issued by various governments, probably right around the world. Those governments, collectively, are also one of Inmarsat’s most important customers.
It would be commercial suicide for them NOT to do, occasionally, what they might be asked.

But please, that’s beside the point. Imarsat (the corporation) may indeed be quite innocent in all of this and is genuinely trying to help as best as they can. That still leaves open other possibilities. There could be one or a few rogue individuals operating within Inmarsat or it could have been some outsider (agency) who has inserted falsified data into the system – to distract from the real track of 9M-MRO.

If there is the slightest doubt or possibility that 9M-MRO is not where they say it is, there is, I reckon, an obligation on the authorities to investigate other possibilities as well, at the same time as the search goes on.
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Fri Dec 05, 2014 12:58 pm

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 33):
Given that radar coverage / capability is currently being discussed it would be good if WarrenPlatts returned to the conversation as he seemed quite knowledgeable in that topic area.

He also used to do good maps!
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Fri Dec 05, 2014 1:49 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 34):
Possibility 2.
This assumes that the Inmarsat data is incorrect, false, not counting just a few minor errors.
This would assume that the satellite data was deliberately falsified, for whatever reason and by an unknown perpetrator.

It doesn't assume the data was deliberately falsified at all. Once again, there are two separate issues concerning the Inmarsat data. One is whether or nor communication took place for the times claimed and is a no-brainer if the data is genuine. The other issue is the interpretation of the data in order to determine where MH370 went. It's perfectly possible for the data to be genuine but for the interpretation to be flawed due to limitations in the process. I'm not going to sit here and declare that the interpretation is easy, let alone the manufacture of bogus but convincing data.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 34):
David didn’t like the idea that I dared questioning the integrity of a British corporation.

This is why things get heated. You're inventing something that isn't there. I'd have said the same if it had been a French, German, Australian company, etc. The point is that Inmarsat is not a branch of the Malaysian government, nor are they run by Iran or North Korea.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 34):
It would be commercial suicide for them NOT to do, occasionally, what they might be asked.

I simply don't agree. If the methods used by Inmarsat to find MH370 were already accepted as routine then I'd say you might have a point. In this case Inmarsat could have kept out of it and no-one would have asked why. I ask again, if the "authorities" didn't want us to know where MH370 went, why didn't they just say there are no clues? Much simpler, much less risky and achieves the same result.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 34):
If any of this is a possibility, however unlikely or far-fetched it may be, we cannot accept the satellite data as fact or conclusive evidence; it is then only circumstantial evidence.

I think you need to take a look at what constitutes circumstantial evidence. Whether or not evidence is considered circumstantial is not determined by whether or not it's true, otherwise pretty much all evidence would be circumstantial. It's determined by what it proves. If it's genuine, the Inmarsat data is direct evidence that MH370 continued to communicate via Satcom for several hours. If it's not genuine then it's, well, a lie.
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Fri Dec 05, 2014 2:24 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 31):
The position of the Sibolga radar is not that far east as far as I know. But I do know it goes further than Lasikin Airport in Simeuleu... but at what minimum altitude for Simeuleu, I don't know.

The salient point here is that this radar looks west, not towards the Strait. We both agree on that. We both agree that it "goes further than Lasikin Airport in Simeuleu" so I see no point in discussing this minor point any further.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 31):
And regarding needing to go through mountains for 234, re-read what I said please...

What you said earlier was:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 29):
234 needs technology that can go through mountains to make it useful with regards to MH370 prior to to 1825UTC...

The "prior to to 1825UTC" is a non sequitur, 234 is positioned on the west coast of Sumatra. 9M-MRO would not have been anywhere near this radar's coverage area until after 19:00. I don't know why you are raising this non-issue and I see no point in discussing this minor point any further.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 31):
And for God's sake, spell the names of these places correctly... (although the mispelling seems identical to another engineer who used to peruse the forum)...

I got the spelling I used from Google. Pihero also used to sidetrack the MH-370 conversation with meaningless quibbling about spelling - can we eschew a repeat of that, and leave minor spelling issues behind us for the future?

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 31):
What? 233 (Sabang) covers the mouth of the strait. This is amongst if not the most important radar station we have. This one, should have been the one on all the time (not so for the others) as it is near the favourite route for smugglers and black flights in the past... but, stories of the power supply problems are rife locally here.

We have occasional power outages in this hemisphere too, but most of us don't have backup generators like these radar sites.........................

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 31):
232 would only be able to cover Penang at high altitude... this covers the southern portion of the strait, yes

I posted this above:
Quoting tailskid (Reply 26):
Indonesia has a modern and very effective radar network including:

Radar Unit 231 Lhokseumawe, Aceh, Northern Sumatera
Radar Unit 232 Dumai, Aceh, Northern Sumatera
Radar Unit 233 Sabang, Aceh, Northern Sumatera
Radar Unit 234 Sibolga, North Sumatera
http://www.timawa.net/forum/index.ph...721.0

From this, one can see that the entire Strait, the area north of Pulau We Island and the ocean side south of the Pulau We coverage (Sebang) has radar coverage. I don't understand your point in claiming confusion about this or that radar's coverage. The entire flight path of 9M-MRO was covered from the time it entered the Strait until it passed out of range of Subang after it had turned south.

Mandala, if you want to think that after Indonesia spent tens or hundreds of millions of $ on its radar then just let the sites sit idle, that's your prerogative. I continue to contend that Indonesia managed their surveillance radar in the same manner that Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia are known to have done. I see no need to keep discussing this anymore either.
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Fri Dec 05, 2014 2:29 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 34):
Whatever the discussions we’ve had so far, virtually all of them have their foundation on one single, major, seemingly unshakable assumption: Flight MH-370 ended in the Indian Ocean!

You have raised this issue here dozens of times and you have never once offered any technical reason to question the Inmarsat data or the entire aviation community's interpretations of that data. When is enough enough?
 
mandala499
Posts: 6593
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Fri Dec 05, 2014 3:59 pm

Quoting David L (Reply 36):
It doesn't assume the data was deliberately falsified at all.

I agree... if it was falsified, what's the point of making the false data give logons, etc, which would raise interest in getting to the bottom of the mystery, especially by finding out whether this was an accident or a criminal act...
Falsifying it, it would be easier to just kill the damn satcom, and people would buy the criminal theory, and there would be less drive to find the plane.

Quoting David L (Reply 36):
If the methods used by Inmarsat to find MH370 were already accepted as routine then I'd say you might have a point. In this case Inmarsat could have kept out of it and no-one would have asked why. I ask again, if the "authorities" didn't want us to know where MH370 went, why didn't they just say there are no clues? Much simpler, much less risky and achieves the same result.

The method isn't routine. Many in the satcom industry think that such a method was picked in order to cover another conspiracy, in that inmarsat vehicle earth stations transmit their position data, even if you (selected "no position" option in the satellite data unit control software. I understand why they wouldn't admit the capability (just look at their biggest governmental clients), but under the Global Maritime Distress Satellite Service convention, Inmarsat-3 is required to be able to locate mobile earth stations if a distress is transmitted with no position... hey, they even know when I switch on a maritime unit over land, and a land unit over water (thanks to the different billing rates)... they called the office and asked why...

Quoting tailskid (Reply 37):
We have occasional power outages in this hemisphere too, but most of us don't have backup generators like these radar sites.

In northern Sumatra, outside the large cities of Medan and Banda Aceh, power outages are quite frequent... the backup generators serviceability were questionable, and fuel is often rationed in the military (80% of our navy & maritime police fleets were in port until last month due to fuel rationing for the military, including the nice snazzy expensive new corvette/frigates).
Given the hard operating circumstances that can prevail over some Indonesian military units, including vital asset units, does open the possibility that Indonesia may have been totally honest in not detecting MH370... To say definitively that the radar systems were active or inactive that night, needs evidence either way.
The problem for both you and me is that, we only have the Malaysian data to go by to date...

For the guys in Malaysia, these problems in Indonesian military, is well known amongst military enthusiasts... and there is little need to avoid Indonesian radar, just stay out of Indonesian territory and no one would bother MH370. To boost your theory of "the captain did it", the problems that Indonesian military face, is well known amongst some circles of the MH 777 crew, whether Zaharie belonged to that group that knows or not, well, we don't know. Feel free to assume either way.

By the way, are we going to have a technical discussion or discussion of circumstances?
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Fri Dec 05, 2014 11:23 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 34):
Whatever the discussions we’ve had so far, virtually all of them have their foundation on one single, major, seemingly unshakable assumption:
Flight MH-370 ended in the Indian Ocean!

Until a shred of 9M-MRO is found that assumption is far from unshakable IMO.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 39):
Quoting David L (Reply 36):
It doesn't assume the data was deliberately falsified at all.

I agree... if it was falsified, what's the point of making the false data give logons, etc, which would raise interest in getting to the bottom of the mystery, especially by finding out whether this was an accident or a criminal act...
Falsifying it, it would be easier to just kill the damn satcom, and people would buy the criminal theory, and there would be less drive to find the plane.

However, by leaving the SatCom off with the other systems that went off around the same time (eg: ACARS & transponder) it allows the 'accident' scenarios to make more sense because then all of the systems that went offline would have stayed offline - they were all destroyed by whatever happened. IMO just the SatCom comming back online is one of the key points that makes me believe that MH370 was most likely the result of an intentional act. Why & how did only the SatCom come back online when the other systems that went offline around the same time stayed off? All I am saying is that by leaving the SatCom off it would add more weight to the accident scenarios, not make more people buy the 'criminal theory'.   
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
 
liquidair
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 2:01 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Sat Dec 06, 2014 12:18 am

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 32):
Can we have a technical discussion then on why the SatCom went off and on?
We haven't finished on that one... am still not happy with the reasoning why it happened if it was deliberate...

This is perhaps the most interesting part that needs to be explained...

I asked before if it could have been switched on from the ground, and that seems impossible.

Apologies if this has been answered before- But, do we know the satcom actually was switched off? Or do we only know no handshake was in fact successful between those times?

The plane couldn't fly inverted... What else could possibly prevent the handshake from working?

Again, sorry if indeed we do know if it was switched off and on again, must've missed it... 74 threads are a lot!
trying to stop my gaseous viscosity go liquid
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Sat Dec 06, 2014 1:00 am

Quoting liquidair (Reply 41):
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 32):
Can we have a technical discussion then on why the SatCom went off and on?
We haven't finished on that one... am still not happy with the reasoning why it happened if it was deliberate...

This is perhaps the most interesting part that needs to be explained...

It is an interesting part, a very interesting part in the chain of events.

Quoting liquidair (Reply 41):
I asked before if it could have been switched on from the ground, and that seems impossible.

Another important question is could the SatCom have come back online by itself without being 'switched on' by a human? I mean, It went offline. It later came back online. Does that mean that a person had to have switched it on? Or, could a circumstance occur that would somehow cause the SatCom to come back online by itself, without human intervention? If it could be possible for the SatCom to come back online by itself under certain circumstances then it was not necessarily re-powered by human intervention. However, if what I am asking is not possible, then it means that the SatCom re-powering had to have been by way of human intervention and then we ask why...???



Meanwhile, I just came across this article:

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel...odies/story-fnizu68q-1227146057303

"FAMILIES of passengers and crew on board flight MH370 have been told to prepare for DNA samples to be collected even though the plane is yet to be found. "

"Those at the briefing said they were told the DNA samples were needed for “safe keeping” in case they found wreckage or remains."
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
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Sat Dec 06, 2014 2:44 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 40):
Why & how did only the SatCom come back online when the other systems that went offline around the same time stayed off?

I don't know, but I think it's important to note that the other systems that went offline are located inside the cockpit, while the satcom is located overhead in the rear of the passenger cabin.

Quoting liquidair (Reply 41):
do we know the satcom actually was switched off?

We do not. We know that it failed to respond to a ping from the ground, and later logged back on.

Quoting liquidair (Reply 41):
What else could possibly prevent the handshake from working?

The satcom unit requires a data feed containing aircraft state information in order to point its phased array antenna to the satellite. Remove the data feed (which originates from the AIMS cabinets in the EE bay) and the satcom link will fail. Restore the data feed and it will re-establish the link.
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Sat Dec 06, 2014 3:44 am

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 39):
Many in the satcom industry think that such a method was picked in order to cover another conspiracy
That statement is patently false and unsupportable.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 39):
the backup generators serviceability were questionable

Typical MTBF numbers.
Diesel Engine Generator (Packaged) 7,000 - 14,000
Gas Turbine Generator 5,000 - 30,000
Motor Generator Set 71,000 - 145,000

https://src.alionscience.com/pdf/TypicalEquipmentMTBFValues.pdf

The reliability of MGs is equal to or greater than that of long haul diesel trucks. And the idea that Indonesia couldn't keep 20 motor generators for radar sites fueled is very hard to believe. After all this is about like keeping 20 ice cream trucks in fuel, the difference being that these ice cream trucks are multi million dollar items with a staff of about 20 per site.

Quoting liquidair (Reply 41):
do we know the satcom actually was switched off?

Yes we do. There was not only a loss of service for that hour but service was restored with an aircraft initiated login sequence which would be the result of a power on. There is one other obscure possibility to explain a login sequence, as 7BOEING7 has pointed out, an AES login can be commanded from the flight deck along with a sat com frequency change, but a sequence of this type defies explanation.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 43):
The satcom unit requires a data feed containing aircraft state information in order to point its phased array antenna to the satellite. Remove the data feed (which originates from the AIMS cabinets in the EE bay) and the satcom link will fail. Restore the data feed and it will re-establish the link.

If I'm not mistaken, you're the only person to have brought this to the attention of this thread. Good find.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Sat Dec 06, 2014 4:15 am

Quoting tailskid (Reply 44):
If I'm not mistaken, you're the only person to have brought this to the attention of this thread. Good find.

I am far from the only person to have observed this. There are people whose knowledge of satcom runs rings around my own meager understanding, such as mandala499. He has mentioned this possibility as early as thread 65 reply 22 and probably even earlier, so credit to him!
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Sat Dec 06, 2014 4:36 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 43):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 40):
Why & how did only the SatCom come back online when the other systems that went offline around the same time stayed off?

I don't know, but I think it's important to note that the other systems that went offline are located inside the cockpit, while the satcom is located overhead in the rear of the passenger cabin.

Is there a hint in your reply that some kind of damaging event, such as a fire, could have totally destryoed the systems in the cockpit that stopped at roughly the same time as the SatCom but the SatCom was able to come back online later as it is located in an area that would not have been damaged by the event in the cockpit?

We know about the EgyptAir 777 cockpit fire, but there is no way 9M-MRO could have continued on for as long as it did with damage like that. If it was a fire it must have been a much smaller fire that eventually went out. Also, the timing of everything and the flight path don't fit in very well with an accident scenario such as a fire - when you have smoke / fire, you declare 'Mayday' and land ASAP - you don't fly the kind of path MH370 flew.

Here is an old article from March with pics of the EgyptAir 777 fire damage for those interested in the pics. The article discusses that something similar could have happened to MH370 but I only linked the article for the pics - make what you like of the old content:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ng-jet-claims-London-law-firm.html

MH370 was at cruise though and had been flying for 40mins, so what is the liklihood of a cockpit fire breaking out then? Having said that, I can think of something happening in the cockpit that would destroy some systems in the cockpit but allow the plane to fly on perfectly for a long time - bullet damage... Yes, bullet damage from a gun shot...

[Edited 2014-12-05 20:55:00]
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
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Sat Dec 06, 2014 5:46 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 46):
when you have smoke / fire, you declare 'Mayday' and land ASAP - you don't fly the kind of path MH370 flew.

No, that's not how it works. You aviate, navigate, and only then communicate. Add to that fighting your way through the smoke fire fumes checklist, which is probably right up there with "aviate" and does not place a high priority on notifying ATC. Think about it for a moment-- when you're in a life-threatening situation where every second counts, and you're over the sea in the middle of the night, how on earth would it help anybody to call ATC? You have far more important things to take care of.

As for the flight path, it looks very much like trying to get to the closest airport, first Kota Bharu (closed) and then Penang.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 46):
MH370 was at cruise though and had been flying for 40mins, so what is the liklihood of a cockpit fire breaking out then?
Extraordinarily remote. I would estimate it to be roughly as remote as a 777 disappearing into the Indian Ocean.
 
Kevil
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 9:02 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Sat Dec 06, 2014 10:38 am

What could have happened to the MH370? After passing IGARI point the aircraft turned to 40°. A few minutes later major accident happened, probably the cockpit fire caused by main Li-Ion batteries. The crew was unable to communicate with ATC and pilots were busy trying to safe the aircraft. Maybe there was even decompression as a result of some structural damage to the aircraft. Some time later the crippled aircraft systems restarted the power supply to SATCOM transmitter from another power source as a result of main power buss shutdown or when the aircraft hits the water. The loss of transponder signal could be caused by flying the aircraft at low altitude. Sometimes it happened to other aircraft flying past the IGARI point - known area where the transponder signal is temporary lost. See flightradar24.com and erratic movement of some aircraft flying there today! There aircraft was flying almost the original route to Beijing seen burning by the only eyewitness Mike McKay. He judged the distance to about 30-70 km from the oil rig flying along the compass bearing 260°-277°.

The Inmarsat data seems not to be credible. Doppler shifts are very small and can be explained by the oscillator stability of the receiver, transmitter and by satellite and airplane movement.The BTO was changing while the aircraft was stationary at the gate before departure. Note the calculated and measured BTO chart deviations since the departure of the aircraft too. It is not possible to calculate the MH370 flight coordinates (longitude and latitude) based on Burst Frequency Offset (airplane speed) and Burst Timing Offset (airplane distance) with just one reference point – Inmarsat satellite. Pings reception does not exclude the MH370 crashed in the South China Sea in the area of seventh ring (the same area mentioned by Mike McKay) where part of the wreckage with SATCOM transmitter and backup battery could remain floating for some time and drifted there from the original crash site.
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 74

Sat Dec 06, 2014 10:42 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 47):
"aviate" and does not place a high priority on notifying ATC.

One of the highest priority actions to be taken in the case of fire is to divert to the nearest airport. This of course means leaving the assigned altitude and heading which requires notification to ATC, I think this notification is implied in the checklist action.

There is potentially a great benefit in notifying ATC as they can assist in finding the closest available emergency landing place. It is not beyond possibility that on any given evening there is unscheduled activity on runways that are scheduled to be closed. While the person flying the aircraft, or the person executing the checklist wouldn't be expected to have time to call other (closed) airports to see if there is anyone available to switch on the runway lights, the ATC controller is already expected to do this and the ATC controller would be the person to know if there had been any recent takeoffs or landings from runways which would normally be closed.

If it turned out that Sultan Iamail or Gong Kedak were available, that would save MH-370 about 140 miles in the case of a diversion to Butterworth and over 200 miles flying if the return was to have been to Kuala Lumpur.

On fire checklists:
http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/I...ht_Fire:_Guidance_for_Flight_Crews

I think ATC would be notified immediately upon a decision to turnback.

I also think that the fire scenario has been beaten to death here and convincingly discounted as a possibility. Discussing it further seems a waste of time.

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