Mar 17, 2014, 3:08 pm
Last edit by: JDiver
PLEASE READ FIRST: WELCOME and MODERATOR NOTE
Welcome to the MH370 Discussion and Speculation Thread
Welcome to the MH370 Discussion and Speculation Thread
If you are new to us, welcome to FlyerTalk!
Who we are: FlyerTalk features discussions and chat boards that covers the most up-to-date traveler information; an interactive community dedicated to the topic of travel.
All travelers are welcome in the community. Just choose a forum: conversing about airlines and their programs, airports, destinations, dining and how to make the most of your miles and points, or visit our Information Desk to start.
All travelers are welcome in the community. Just choose a forum: conversing about airlines and their programs, airports, destinations, dining and how to make the most of your miles and points, or visit our Information Desk to start.
Respect our Diversity - link to this guideline
FlyerTalk members come from all walks of life and all parts of the world. We are as diverse in our makeup as we are alike in our passion for frequent flyer programs. Because we all bring a unique perspective to the forum, our collective experience is broadened, and we gain new insights.
Our diversity demands that we respect each other. Due to the inherent constraints of the Internet, humor, sarcasm, language and slang can be easily misinterpreted - especially when crossing cultural boundaries.
When posting a message, pay extra care to how it might be interpreted. And when you come across a post that offends you, read it with an eye toward giving the poster the benefit of the doubt.
If you have an issue with a post, please contact the member privately or contact a moderator (click on the
button). Do not make a situation worse by publicly responding.
FlyerTalk members come from all walks of life and all parts of the world. We are as diverse in our makeup as we are alike in our passion for frequent flyer programs. Because we all bring a unique perspective to the forum, our collective experience is broadened, and we gain new insights.
Our diversity demands that we respect each other. Due to the inherent constraints of the Internet, humor, sarcasm, language and slang can be easily misinterpreted - especially when crossing cultural boundaries.
When posting a message, pay extra care to how it might be interpreted. And when you come across a post that offends you, read it with an eye toward giving the poster the benefit of the doubt.
If you have an issue with a post, please contact the member privately or contact a moderator (click on the
button). Do not make a situation worse by publicly responding.
In order to a) keep the original thread focused on confirmed news and known facts, and b) allow folks a place to discuss their ideas about what might have happened, the MH370 moderators and Community Director have decided to open this thread.
Here are the expectations:
1. The normal FT TOS apply. (Including not discussing moderation actions on-thread). And please be particularly attentive to "discussing the idea and not the poster" when you have a disagreement. Civility and mutual respect are still expected and are what we owe each other as a community.
2. You are expected respect our diversity , and therefore refrain from posting inflammatory comments about race, religion, culture, politics, ethnicity, orientation, etc." Do not cite, copy, or report on such.
3. Please do continue to be attentive to the sensibilities of the families of those on the flight. Think about if you were them what you would and would not want to see posted. Speculation about what happened is permissible; please, though, do not indulge in inflammatory or overly-lurid descriptions that could well be hurtful.
4. Overly / extravagantly exaggerative posts such as conspiracy theories, posts beyond the realm of science and known facts, etc. as well as posts with information that has been posted several times previously, information that has been posted in the News thread wiki or FAQ, may be deleted. E.g. the aircraft was vaporized.
In terms of housekeeping, posts may get moved from the "news" thread if and as needed, and posts that do not conform to these simple expectations, above, will be deleted.
Also note: this wiki is locked; changes can only be made by moderators.
Thank you.
Your MH370 Moderation Team
aBroadAbroad; cblaisd; JDiver; l'etoile; NewbieRunner; oliver2002; Prospero
and Community Director
SanDiego1K
MH370 Discussion and Speculation Thread
Mar 31, 2014, 8:13 am
#1472
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: SW London
Programs: BAEC Silver; Hilton Diamond;a miscellany of other hotel non-statuses
Posts: 3,607
If they did want to get something similar then various routes into PER would give an approximation.
Mar 31, 2014, 8:18 am
#1473
Moderator: American AAdvantage
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NorCal - SMF area
Programs: AA LT Plat; HH LT Diamond, Maître-plongeur des Muccis
Posts: 62,948
Okay - so ignore the need for a SATCOM initiation for the Doppler calculations - but we're going with the Authority's statement that the satellite initiates the pings.
Inmarsat replied to my email with:
'Inmarsat is working with Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) on this live investigation and is therefore unable to discuss the circumstances surrounding Air Malaysia. All available information and statements can be found on our website www.inmarsat.com'
That would mean, then, that there were only 6 *complete* handshakes. The one reported at 8:19, therefore, is only *another* incomplete one amongst others.
Inmarsat replied to my email with:
'Inmarsat is working with Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) on this live investigation and is therefore unable to discuss the circumstances surrounding Air Malaysia. All available information and statements can be found on our website www.inmarsat.com'
That would mean, then, that there were only 6 *complete* handshakes. The one reported at 8:19, therefore, is only *another* incomplete one amongst others.
I'm also frankly astounded someone would email Inmarsat if they had no substantive role in the investigation.
Why not let the investigation professionals do their job and opt for a bit more detachment? Nothing's going to be helped by our meddling or becoming stressed over something we have absolutely no control over.
Mar 31, 2014, 8:54 am
#1474
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: BNE
Posts: 87
There was discussion of this in the PPRuNe thread linked above. I think the view (too much to read and digest all of it) was that the SATCOM wasn't on the equipment served by the RAT, but during a 777 out-of-fuel scenario in an 'official' simulator the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) tried to restart after failure and SATCOM would get power from that.
Mar 31, 2014, 10:02 am
#1475
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: YVR
Programs: AC E50K, NEXUS
Posts: 645
Flights from the Asia Pacific region to and from Perth Australia would be comparable.
Mar 31, 2014, 12:11 pm
#1476
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 80
What would also be consistent with what we know would be that the airplane actually did not run out of fuel but was being flown into the ocean, an emergency condition which caused ACARS to try to "phone home".
Mar 31, 2014, 12:58 pm
#1477
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: HPN
Programs: not anymore! I'm FREE!
Posts: 3,459
Recall the Ethiopian Airlines flight 961 767 that ditched into the water. One wing touched first and then the aircraft spun out of control and broke apart. In this case, the pilots at least were trying to perform a controlled landing. This landing was in open ocean, so the outcome isn't a surprise.
I wonder if there are any examples of an aircraft ditching in the open ocean and not breaking up.
I wonder if there are any examples of an aircraft ditching in the open ocean and not breaking up.
Seconds prior to contacting the water the aircraft was banked left some ten degrees; the left engine and wingtip struck the water first. The engine acted as a scoop and struck a coral reef, slowing that side of the aircraft quickly, causing the Boeing 767 to violently spin left and break apart. Except for the rear part of the airframe, the broken portions of the fuselage sank rapidly.
1. The last minute left bank (I'm guessing this wasn't intentional)
2. The engine struck a coral reef, causing the plane to spin and break up
3. The water was shallow
Had it not been for those three (and maybe just the first two) factors, the outcome might have been a lot more like Sullenberger's.
Maybe MH370 was floating on the ocean somewhere? And then sank all at once, without breaking apart?
Mar 31, 2014, 1:18 pm
#1478
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: YVR
Programs: AC E50K, NEXUS
Posts: 645
Surely, that would make no sense in being able to use the Doppler calculations - that is, if the satellite didn't initiate the ping.
And also it gives no way for Inmarsat to work out the distance of the plane from the satellite. You have to have a time of transmission and return to work out distance.
All of the people I've seen with working knowledge of SATCOM have spoken of the ping being initiated by the satellite. You are the first person *ever* to have insisted otherwise.
Can you provide a source, please?
In addition, the Inmarsat article previously cited above states (and they state this not to disagree with it but to use it alongside an explanation of what they did):
And also it gives no way for Inmarsat to work out the distance of the plane from the satellite. You have to have a time of transmission and return to work out distance.
All of the people I've seen with working knowledge of SATCOM have spoken of the ping being initiated by the satellite. You are the first person *ever* to have insisted otherwise.
Can you provide a source, please?
In addition, the Inmarsat article previously cited above states (and they state this not to disagree with it but to use it alongside an explanation of what they did):
Once every hour the system sends out a “ping” to satellites operated by Inmarsat. The pings play no part in ACARS, and merely serve to synchronise timing information and keep the connection to the satellite network alive.
Mar 31, 2014, 1:19 pm
#1479
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: BDL/HPN/JFK/FLL
Programs: DL Diamond Ham Sandwich
Posts: 1,051
No, I think we've established that it would be consistent with neither, but would be with a loss of fuel followed by the APU starting up for a moment before it ran out of fuel.
Mar 31, 2014, 1:44 pm
#1480
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: SW London
Programs: BAEC Silver; Hilton Diamond;a miscellany of other hotel non-statuses
Posts: 3,607
AIUI ACARS itself would not transmit a signal except for the create / maintain connection pieces - just like the ADSL / cable router in your home. It is that low-level capability (with nothing sending 'real' information) that apparently lead to the reported handshakes.
So in the same way that the ADSL / cable router allows your PC, TV, etc to connect to the internet the role of ACARS is to allow equipment like engines, ailerons, etc to send info back to base from the plane rather than being there to send information itself about the flight status.
All the equipment that would normally have been sending something apparently was not doing so. If something did decide to try then it presumably fits one of two cases:
- It was a piece of equipment where all roiutine messages were disabled, but emergency ones could be sent;
- It was a piece of equipment that hadn't been disabled but only ever sends emergency ones rather than routine ones.
I don't know what piece of equipment that could be, and without their being any it reduces (to me) the likelihood of what you propose. Could it be (others will need to contribute):
- Vertical accelerometer (presumably not if the plane was still doing what it thought it should)
- Ground proximity warning (the thing that says 'Pull up!' on simulators?)
- 'In the drink' detector (Would it have long enough to start but not finish? Does it exist?)
- Structural failure detector (ditto)
Mar 31, 2014, 1:49 pm
#1481
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: YVR
Programs: AC E50K, NEXUS
Posts: 645
This is what happened to ET961:
So, three differences from an ideal open ocean controlled landing:
1. The last minute left bank (I'm guessing this wasn't intentional)
2. The engine struck a coral reef, causing the plane to spin and break up
3. The water was shallow
Had it not been for those three (and maybe just the first two) factors, the outcome might have been a lot more like Sullenberger's.
Maybe MH370 was floating on the ocean somewhere? And then sank all at once, without breaking apart?
So, three differences from an ideal open ocean controlled landing:
1. The last minute left bank (I'm guessing this wasn't intentional)
2. The engine struck a coral reef, causing the plane to spin and break up
3. The water was shallow
Had it not been for those three (and maybe just the first two) factors, the outcome might have been a lot more like Sullenberger's.
Maybe MH370 was floating on the ocean somewhere? And then sank all at once, without breaking apart?
Mar 31, 2014, 1:49 pm
#1482
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 80
Except it has been stated here that systems powered by the APU would not experience that power interruption because they are all maintained by a battery.
Mar 31, 2014, 1:56 pm
#1483
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: SW London
Programs: BAEC Silver; Hilton Diamond;a miscellany of other hotel non-statuses
Posts: 3,607
AIUI in normal flight as long as the engines are running they provide power to lights, TVs, SATCOM, etc. If the engines stop in flight then the APU would try to fire up - I'm not sure if this is because the APU has a role in restarting the engines, or simply to help the cabin crew figure which way is up. So those 'non-essential' services would see power again as long as there is fuel for the APU and until the engines hopefully restart to provide normal power. If there is no fuel left of course then the APU will quickly stop again with no engine restart.
Last edited by EsherFlyer; Mar 31, 2014 at 2:34 pm Reason: Added 2nd paragraph
Mar 31, 2014, 3:12 pm
#1484
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: sheffield
Posts: 51
for any of you in the UK there's another 'special' on channel 5 now... started at 10pm
Probably just repeating what we know already but I'm addicted to this mystery for some reason, which is really annoying those I live with!
Probably just repeating what we know already but I'm addicted to this mystery for some reason, which is really annoying those I live with!