Wickerman

I don't see the name Duncan Steel in the forum search, has anyone read this before?

The Inmarsat-3F1 Doppler Data Do Not Exclude a Northerly Flight Path for MH370
http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/507

"I assert here that the assertion by Inmarsat is wrong. I do not assert that the aircraft definitely took a northerly route. However, I present evidence hereunder that a northerly route cannot be excluded on the basis of the satellite data, and that a northerly track remains viable in terms of what the satellite data can tell us."
Prof. Duncan Steel.

bimmerdriver

I questioned the shift as well. The explanation was that if the aircraft was flying faster, it would have run out of fuel earlier. However, they know how long it was airborne, at least as long as the last handshaking messages were exchanged with Inmarsat. Distance = speed x time. If time is constant (known from the timing of the handshaking messages) and speed is increased, distance is increased, not decreased. There must be more to it that's not being released, because I can't believe Boeing and others haven't reviewed the analysis.

polarbreeze

Flew faster in the first leg, therefore used more fuel, therefore ran out of fuel sooner in the second leg, therefore further north.

Whatever mysteries there may be about this whole thing, the search management isn't one of them. It's safe to say that the search area is being directed by experts who have way more information about currents and winds and drift and all that than anyone on here has, and way more knowledge about how to use that information - so it's useless to try to second-guess them.

M@rcoPolo

The map is showing prevailing ocean currents, however floating objects will be also affected by wind and ocean swell... prevailing winds in the area blow from West to East. One thing for sure, even if they find something it would be a hell of a job trying to work out where the aircraft entered the ocean based on the location of any floating parts...

JDiver

Well, Inmarsat and the AAIB have the authentic data and developed the analyses, and in the latest shift of the search area iirc Boeing had further processed the data. As well, the nations on the northern track have asserted their air defence radars provided no data showing such an aircraft had overflown, etc.

They haven't released more data because they are not crowdsourcing (though I do suspect they had rather more people / agencies involved than those claimed).

If they could narrow down the search area, they would certainly love to deploy SAR resources more effectively. M@rco Polo's currents map (with its misspellings - BBC needs an editor) is illustrative and gives a pretty good indication every day any debris is scattering more widely and will present more challenges (if found) to backtrack to a possible impact location. Inject much of it into the Indian Ocean Gyre and who knows when and where a piece or bit of flotsam might come ashore.

trailboss99

Sorry mate but IIRC according to our resident 777 Jet Jockey it may well not have had one. They were only fitted after a certain date and this airframe was on the cusp. Yes I know, madness not to be required on all heavies, just madness.

Malmsey

Sorry if I missed this - I have read/scanned the whole thread but don't remember this being mentioned before.

Much has been made about the loss of communication at the exact point of handoff and while it could seem suspicious to some, it is not without precedent.

In April 2013:
http://www.aeroinside.com/item/2330/...ss-commhttp://

JeffPP

Malmsey pointed out an interesting loss of communications incident in AF-562, April 15, 2013. But it's not quite the same - the transponder was working, "squawking loss comm", and an anonymous source in the following web page says that, whatever passengers were told, only two of the three VHF radios had failed:

http://avherald.com/h?article=460cef66

Malmsey

That’s true, it wasn’t exactly the same kind of incident; I just wanted to highlight that even though it seems a large coincidence that something could go wrong at exactly the handoff point, it has happened before.

Additionally, there were 6 incidents in 2013 and 1 in 2014 wherein crews of 777-200s reported the smell of smoke, 3 in the cockpit, and one of which was so bad that the commander instructed the FO (active pilot) to don the O2 mask while he himself did not, so as not to hamper radio transmissions. In 3 of those cases, emergency services found no trace of fire, heat or smoke. In another, crew requested emergency services to carefully inspect the nose wheels, but nothing abnormal was found.

In August 2012, a 777-200 (UA-861) returned to the departure airport after suffering a partial loss of communication equipment at FL350.

On Apr 13 2013, KL-809 (another 777-200) reported failure of their navigation systems at FL240, and returned to KL.

On Feb 17, 2013, AA-907 “received a multitude of system failure messages including intermittent failure messages regarding the left hand electrical DC bus and the forward outflow valve” at FL350. They descended to FL280, then FL200, then back to FL220. The aircraft did not depressurize on arrival until the systems were reset.

On Feb. 3, 2013, the FO of BA-67 was incapacitated due to fumes on the flight deck at FL380. Both he and the captain donned O2 masks. 25 minutes later, the FO became nauseated.

On Jan 28, 2013, UA-935, climbing out of London, produced a loud bang from one of the forward doors. A pax reported obvious problem with cabin pressurization but the captain announced initially they’d continue the flight, deciding after about 3 hours to return to London due to said cabin pressurization trouble.

Perhaps most interestingly, on Dec 31, 2013, PK-351 from Peshawar to Karachi diverted to Sialkot, “completely off track and after overflying Islamabad, for unknown reasons.” Pakistani media reported problems with the fuel supply. Radar data showed the aircraft set course towards Sialkot immediately after departure from Peshawar. (One wonders why they didn’t just return to Peshawar…)

This list doesn’t even include incidents such as engine failures or confirmed cargo fires.

The list of 777-200 incidents can be found at http://www.aeroinside.com/incidents/...boeing-777-200.

The point is, stuff happens, and sometimes more than one problem happens at or around the same time. I dislike thinking the Captain or FO might have intentionally caused the loss of MH370. That may turn out to be the case, but it's very low on my list of possibilities.

Boraxo

This has no relevance. Even major fire or smoke significant to require O2 masks would not magically burn up transponder and tracking but avoid burning other systems such that plane could fly another 5-6 hour on its own (a hypothesis that is now scientifically supported by satellite data).

If there was an emergency then in all likelihood the plane would have diverted to the nearest airport or at least radio'd the issue - there was plenty of time given the altitude. If the emergency was so massive then the plane would have gone down near the area where communication was lost.

The simplest solution is also the one that makes the most sense and is supported by facts and logic - intentional human action diverted the plane, not some theoretical mechanical event that as of today has no evidence to support.

venk

Until the exact reason is found, no one can definitively make such a statement. Not even the Boeing designers would know all possible failure scenarios to rule out something except in public statements to avoid liability. Aircraft do have some separation between avionics and aircraft control to allow the plane to fly without avionics. You are probably right that if there was visible smoke/fire in the cabin, the likelihood of it continuing to fly without the pilots trying to put it down somewhere is small. However, the premise is not necessarily correct. In one of those incidents, one of the pilots put on a mask due to burning smell just in case.

Anyone who has tinkered with electrical/electronic equipment as a hobby would have encountered more than a few failure scenarios of burnt electronics without visible smoke or fire. It is not a binary between no failure of electronics and cabin filling with smoke or fire and making it unflyable. Overheating, sparking, shorting, chaffing can all partially disable avionics without necessarily disabling manual flight controls. There is redundancy built into a lot of this to prevent it but if you follow the FAA ADs, you will see that it is never that perfect, maintenance practices can compromise the design. Luckily most of them are caught before it results in something catastrophic.

There are many hypotheses in this case, none of them can be accepted as definitive until there is some evidence. One can have an opinion or a favorite hypothesis but hardly has a monopoly on sense, facts or logic. All these hypotheses without evidence are prone to fallacy of false dilemma, If A had happened, X would have been the result. X did not happen, therefore B must have happened.

The above will be Boeing's default position but what may happen in court with presented evidence may be something quite different. We just have to wait and see.

Wickerman

And on the subject of denial, I have to wonder if the Malaysian authorities have been quite open to the investigators on why & how they just happened to let an unidentified aircraft fly back over the Malaysian peninsula unhindered.
And, what does Indonesia know?


Amen to that!

***
Just reported in the media that the device to detect the 'ping' is being towed at a depth of 3000ft.
Isn't the average depth about 13,000ft?

***
HMS Tireless operates at a depth of 400m, to a maximum depth of 600m.
http://ondastreet.wordpress.com/2014...-locate-mh370/
http://www.armedforces.co.uk/navy/listings/l0011.html

mike1968

I'm not sure about how many experts are on the case given the massive ineptitude from the get go...I'd second guess everything about this mystery until something turns up. Too many things don't add up...from failure to scramble a search plane to insistence of spending a week searching South China Sea knowing where the plane exited Malaysian airspace.

Sigwx

The farce of ELT requirements was finally put to bed in 2008. July 1st was the important date in respect of an aircraft's CoA or Certificate of Airworthiness.

This article explains.

Wickerman

Chinese News Agency reports a 37.5KHZ 'ping' located by their ship.
The world holds its breath...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...h-for-airliner