Malaysia Airlines Flight Goes Missing En Route to China - Flight MH370

[Exadios]

Something new? Report surfaced 5 days ago. If I was the administrator of this forum, I probably would have shot myself listening to the rubbish people are posting.

BTW, you didn't answer my questions. I wonder why?

And another question. If they ran out of time, as he says, where is the wreck? It should be obvious by now.

The most probable location has been determined to be south and west of Australia. That is the most likely scenario is considered by both the Australians and the US is that the aircraft continued to fly on.

[cretanrunner]

If you draw a line from the last transponder position to WMKN and extend it you will see that it passes through the search area south and west of Australia.

If you measure the length of the line you will see it is equal to the approximate endurance of the plane. Plainly the plane did not land at WMKN.

Exadios, I didn't mean that the plane landed at WMKN. I was just pointing out the stupidity of a theory that says the pilot would have headed for Pulao Langkawi when WMKN was so much closer. I don't believe he headed for either.

[Exadios]

Exadios, I didn't mean that the plane landed at WMKN. I was just pointing out the stupidity of a theory that says the pilot would have headed for Pulao Langkawi when WMKN was so much closer. I don't believe he headed for either.

Irrespective of what you believe the Australians and the US do believe it. They have access to the evidence, you do not. Therefore they can form a reasoned belief and you cannot.

[cretanrunner]

We seem to be living in two parallel universes. I have never suggested any theory, so I'm not sure why you are trying to knock me down. Maybe there is a misunderstanding somewhere. What is it you think I "believe"?

[Exadios]

We seem to be living in two parallel universes. I have never suggested any theory, so I'm not sure why you are trying to knock me down. Maybe there is a misunderstanding somewhere. What is it you think I "believe"?

You have just stated that the aircraft did not head for WMKN. If you have forgotten already see here.

[smay69]

It's fairly common for passengers to forget (or "forget") to turn off their mobile devices on a flight. Even if the passengers (or even pilots) were incapacitated and unable to operate their devices, we would still have devices trying to connect to mobile networks whenever possible (flying low enough over, or landing in areas with mobile coverage). These devices would have their own batteries and be independent from any event that disabled the plane's communication devices.

Assuming that no such connection events have been registered, would this limit the areas the plane could have (reasonably) been flying low or landed? Of course, if this was a well planned event where this was considered, somebody might have brought jamming equipment aboard the aircraft making my question moot.

I agree, if a place like the Maldives has cell service (I'm sure it must) and that 777 was indeed flying as low as the residents would lead you to believe then at least one phone must have pinged a cell tower. This should be easy enough for them to investigate....

[cretanrunner]

You have just stated that the aircraft did not head for WMKN. If you have forgotten already see here.

Thanks for reminding me what I said. Let's just forget this conversation shall we? Maybe you are a troll, maybe not. I was having a conversation with someone else about Goodfellow's theory, and you dived in on one specific detail. Troll-like behaviour possibly, but never mind.

Now, why don't you elaborate on what you believe?

You seem to be saying that because the Yanks and Aussies seem to be concentrating on a particular area, that must be where the plane went. You may well be right, and I don't have any info that says either way. But what about the claim, (maybe rubbish again), that the plane headed west to the Malacca Strait and was logged there by radar?

What is the latest consensus about an actual flight path? Do we know, or are we all just speculating? If it did go west to the Malacca Strait, the Aus/US search area looks wrong. If the westerly flight path never happened, then do we have info, (rather than assumptions), about a flight path towards WMKN, then onward to west of Australia?

I'm not pretending I know any of these answers. But if someone does it would be helpful to know. Hopefully the authorities have better data than what is being thrown around here.

Presumably, you are thinking that they had a problem, (fire), that knocked out comms. They tried to get to WMKN, but having set that course on autopilot, were overcome by fumes or whatever, and the plane just flew on till it ran out of fuel. Could well be.

The other thing that is so vague is whether or not the comms were switched off deliberately or not.

[MIT EE]

C'mon guys knock it off. There is a plane missing and many probably dead.

In any event, for what its worth, the most likely explanation, is the plane went South and crashed into the Ocean when it ran out of fuel. I agree with Longpig..yum. The technology to stream the FDR and even the CVR data exists (and the cost is trivial when spread over the number of passengers that fly) and should be done ASAP.

[speedbird1960]

Can all members please respect each other, we do not want to see arguments escalating out of control.

For now i will leave things as they are, if this thread turns into a slanging match i will have no option but to close it temporarily for a cooling off period.

Thank you.

[julian]

Hi,
as far as i can get, the Boing has flown for a much longer time than it was supposed according to the Kuala Lumpur-Beijing route, therefore it consumed much more fuel compared to required capacity. So is it normal practice for a pilot to load so much more fuel than required? Shouldn't it have raised suspicions to begin with? Sorry, if the question sounds stupid, I am a frequent a passenger, not a professional aviator.

[peterhr]

Hi,
as far as i can get, the Boing has flown for a much longer time than it was supposed according to the Kuala Lumpur-Beijing route, therefore it consumed much more fuel compared to required capacity. So is it normal practice for a pilot to load so much more fuel than required? Shouldn't it have raised suspicions to begin with? Sorry, if the question sounds stupid, I am a frequent a passenger, not a professional aviator.

Yes, just in case they get to the destination then have to divert, or have a problem in the flight that causes more fuel to be used then expected (I don't know what this could be, maybe having to fly on one engine)

One airport diversion last year was when the Dreamliner at London Heathrow had a fire, and something else happened at the same time - both fire crews were busy and there was no additional cover for a third incident - so the airport was closed for takeoffs and landings for a while.

[xlynx]

I have some (mostly technical) questions I hope those knowledgeable could answer:

1) How can they be certain ACARS was switched off and did not fail (systematic failures of various systems indicative of a fire for example)? Does ACARS send a disconnect signal to indicate a graceful shutdown?

2) Does the ADS-B system rely on ACARS, or has ADS-B been disabled separately?

3) Can anyone explain why official sources seem to be ignoring ADS-B data? Is it because it can't be verified as authentic and originating from the aircraft?
They're saying ACARS was switched off between 1:07 and 1:37 Malaysia, and that they don't know the exact time because the transmission intervals are 30 minutes. For ADS-B data, there's a better than 1 minute interval in the Flightradar24 database (and possibly other databases), which ended at 17:21:03. There is investigative value in narrowing down when systems first went offline, since they were in voice contact at 1:19 at everything seemed fine.

4) How would they have calculated the two flight corridors from the ACARS keep-alive data? Would it be measuring the latency from the aircraft to Inmarsat satellite based on a time stamp? Has this method of positioning been tested before? I wonder about inaccuracy due to tiny differences in clock setting, and latency introduced during signal processing at each end.

[cretanrunner]

Can anyone explain what info is derived from the satellite pings? How accurate is location info? Can altitude be deduced?

EDIT: Sorry, simultaneous post with xlynx

[julian]

Yes, just in case they get to the destination then have to divert, or have a problem in the flight that causes more fuel to be used then expected (I don't know what this could be, maybe having to fly on one engine)

One airport diversion last year was when the Dreamliner at London Heathrow had a fire, and something else happened at the same time - both fire crews were busy and there was no additional cover for a third incident - so the airport was closed for takeoffs and landings for a while.

Sure thing, thanx, Peterhr)

[Speed Daemon]

Hi,
as far as i can get, the Boing has flown for a much longer time than it was supposed according to the Kuala Lumpur-Beijing route, therefore it consumed much more fuel compared to required capacity. So is it normal practice for a pilot to load so much more fuel than required? Shouldn't it have raised suspicions to begin with? Sorry, if the question sounds stupid, I am a frequent a passenger, not a professional aviator.

It's normal for enough extra fuel to be provided in case of headwinds, or to divert to another airport. But the amount of extra is typically very small. Carrying extra fuel is costly, and airlines simply can't afford to load more fuel than is absolutely necessary.

Is someone reporting that the plane had an unusually large fuel load? If so, could you provide a link? I haven't heard any news like that so far. If the story checks out, that would be big! As it stands, the only possible way that the plane could have maintained satcom as long as it did was to land safely.