News and theories about the missing Malaysian plane

The details were talking about an internal short, not via the poles.

" ... puncture the separator and cause a short circuit"

 

Why would a pilot wander around over an ocean running out of fuel ? If he wanted to hijack the cargo the plane or the persons, he would fly to another landing place, and it wouldn't be in the the middle of the ocean.

Likewise, if he had wanted to make a statement, he could crash into a city.

Pilot motivation doesnt make any sense. Irrational hijackers are much more likely.

But, a catastrophic fire can do strange things. This incident stands out as the most similar scenario in my mind.


"So another theory: Something went wrong with the cabin air inside the
plane. Either it lost pressurization (slowly) or recirculation wasn't
working - causing buidup of carbon monoxide.

---------------
On October 25, 1999, a chartered Learjet 35 was scheduled to fly from
Orlando, Florida to Dallas, Texas. Early in the flight the aircraft,
which was cruising at altitude on autopilot, quickly lost cabin
pressure. All on board were incapacitated due to hypoxia — a lack of
oxygen. The aircraft failed to make the westward turn toward Dallas over
north Florida. It continued flying over the southern and midwestern
United States for almost four hours and 1,500 miles (2,400 km). The
plane ran out of fuel and crashed into a field near Aberdeen, South
Dakota after an uncontrolled descent. "

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.home.repair/kocIOeYhnok[1-25-false]

 

Who says it flew round the ocean when they've admitted 'it flew' such a course to avoid Indonesian radar? In reality they have NO IDEA where it is, it is unprecedented that there has been no wreckage, flotsam nor pollutants spotted over the course of the last 8 weeks. Hence in a complete about face they've now started looking in the Bay of Bengal.

Your carbon monoxide theory assumes the plane was hijacked first then the batteries caused oxygen loss? 2x billion-1 one events happening in a single flight??!!

Easier to blame the mangos.

 

Mangosteens are not mangoes !

 

From what I understand after the plane turned sharply and went back across the Malaysian peninsula it didn't show up on anyone's radar. The idea the pilot must therefore have deliberately avoided Indonesian radar would be tenable only if the plane had been on some kind of military mission, so he would have the necessary information. I doubt the Indonesians hand out pamphlets to commercial pilots showing how to avoid their radar coverage and without the necessary detection equipment onboard it would not be posible to know you were outside radar range.

So after clearing Malaysian radar detection the route is speculation based on some arcane satellite computations never done before that show it could have headed North as likely as South with a whole series of possible tracks depending on the unknown altitude. That is supported by a general absence of more information and putative blips in widely-spaced parts of the ocean most of which disagree with each other and the other evidence.

The first step in the sequence - the turning off of the transducer - is just the sort of thing to trigger off wild suspicions, but the whole thing could be a result of a dangerous cargo accident disabling electrical systems followed by a desperate attempt to reach an airfield gradually losing control including altitude, loss of cabin pressure, running out of oxygen, the observed altitude variations over Malaysia, and the plane with its dead crew and passengers fly off until fuel runs out.

This is a likely scenario given what we have been told so far, which based on past experience is likely to be incomplete and misleading anyway. It doesn't have the 007 sound of pilot suicide or plane theft or international conspiracy or terrorism. My bet has always been on something mundane being the cause.

 

Good question Mr E.

The Jindilee system, so called Over the Horizon, or sometimes Tropospheric Forward Scatter, radar, is a brilliant system. The Australians persisted with this long after the Americans ditched it, for various reasons which it is unreasonable to discuss here. The Australians benefited greatly from having several brilliant young scientists, and their students, who had participated in the development of the original CH system of Battle of Britain fame. Like the Russian “woodpecker” system, these systems rely on using the ‘gap’ between the earths surface and the ionosphere as a kind of ‘wave guide’ to channel radio waves most of the way around the world. By ignoring all returns except those showing a Doppler shift, they can ‘see’ anything that moves, and determine its speed. Assuming a lower speed ‘cut off’ (say 100kt) they screen cars etc from the system, though when they look for ships, the system must be flooded with traffic. By indulging in some fairly fancy math, the absolute range of any object can also be ascertained, and if one has several linked receivers, one can make a pretty good guess as to position as well. The limitation is automation. As one is using classic analogue signals, it is quite difficult to automate the interpretation of the received data, which then becomes a rather labor intensive job for highly trained individuals.

As the condition of the ionosphere changes from minute to minute, the wavelength of the radar needs to be changed constantly too, which further complicates the system. Auxiliary radars ‘map’ the height and characteristics of the ionosphere constantly to provide this information.

Those of you counting, no stealth does NOT work on these radars, and they can ‘see’ any current stealth vehicle with ease. How do i know all this, in my youth i worked on systems using vaguely similar principles for the Brits.

Though Flight MH-370 only entered the official ‘coverage’ of Jindilee toward the end of its flight, i can state fairly confidently its ‘real’ range is far higher. Actual range for this type of equipment is based on PRR, Pulse Repetition Rate, not power, and the ability to assess multiple returns from a single target. Hence the reliance on human analysis.

I can guess that a target flying at this speed (remember full climb thrust, hence the short flight path), and relatively low altitude, 20,000ft, not the typical 36,000ft, and the direction, vaguely toward Perth, might have caused quite a stir. Equally, national security, let alone regional security would have curtailed release of this information. Even more so, the Australians do not have a current, or future, plane that could check contacts so far out, at least not in the flight time available.

I prefer the theory that had the batteries revolt, climb up through the floor from the cargo hold, and take over the pane. I believe RHP’s buddies in the bar saw this too, but have been silenced due to a government coverup.

 

smoke and mirrors?

I think it is a cover up search, the plane maybe hijacked up north . the data recorders jettisoned? I hope this is the case and passengers and crew are still with us!!!

 

Mh-370

As far as i can tell, the actual flight path has been established from multiple sources, some possibly not public, but they are not telling. Clearly the abrupt left turn and switching off the transducer was the action of a planed attempt at something. The next event was a climb to 45,000ft at full climb power. Pilots among you might be able to suggest something, but i know of no procedure which suggests this, let alone trying to put a fire out. The 777 has a very sophisticated fire suppression system, and its systems runs are deliberately separated 12+’ apart for just this reason.
Those batteries are carried with 40% charge only so their energy density is not sufficient to cause a ‘fire’. We all know unusual circumstances do happen, but at some stage 40% charge was decided as a compromise between battery stability for transport, and safety.
Please note; batteries might make up 50% of the weight of a phone, but 10% of its volume, so IF the batteries were installed already (still at 40% charge) the cargo weight vs battery weight would have sounded weird.
Please note; When you charge these batteries, they get warm depending on the charge rate. The higher the rate, the more the fluid moves around (convection) and the greater chance of of these ‘metal particulates’ left over from manufacture has of penetrating the internal membrane. This destroys the battery, and the consequent mixing of the internal chemicals will dump all the latent energy as light (a bit), noise (not much), and heat. There is a slight chance this ‘light’ excited the Mangos to riot.

Ancient Kayaker, those arcane calculations you mention are directly related to astronomical navigation techniques. Now as a kayaker, i don't expect you to be familiar with sextants and tables, or the Loran radios that came later, but they could be argued as part of our shared marine heritage And yes i know you know how to navigate.

This first turn, and flight back over malaya was completely contrary to ‘avoiding radar’ and should have shown up on Malaysia's radar, civil and/or military.

If you want real professional speculation, have lunch with the guys that designed the 777, and built the first 15 of them. These included the people who wrote the FMS (FMC? Flight Management System), autopilot, systems, etc. Their questions centered around how the plane got from full power climb to 45,000ft (easy to program), down to cruising at 20,000ft presumably under altitude hold, still at full climb power. The change of course North of Indonesia is easy enough to explain, even on complete FMS/autopilot, with everybody expired, but that change of altitude had the designers stumped. I was impressed at how much these guys knew from the engine and airframe satellite phone calls. Apparently it took a long time for the satellite people to share all their data with Boeing and the engine company.

 

Alan sounds like you know something about the satellite calculations so perhaps you can help me understand what was done - the media haven't given out any details that I can find. I assume from the tracks the technique depends on the doppler caused by aircraft motion, with an estimated height factored in to refine the tracking. There is only the one satellite I understand . . .

I don't see the connection with astronomical navigation though.

I navigate by sun, wind and sometimes smell unless I'm driving the car in which case I just do what it tells me to . . .

 

Apparently, checks of the methodology used to "guess" the lost plane's track from the technical report signals have been subsequently made using scheduled air services flying over known and confirmed routes, and the results are said to be confirmatory of the accuracy of those calculations.

 

Why don't the authorities make up a team from the Boat Design Forum to find the plane.

Only take them a couple of hours.

Poida

 

"them" ? don't you mean "us" ?

 

Nah Mr E

I'm too busy this weekend, and I have trouble finding my car keys.

Poida

 

Don't understand why the authorities haven't asked my wife, she knows where everything is.

 

Satilites

Satellite communications.

This first explanation gives a fairly good overall explanation of how the satellite communication system, specifically Inmarsat’s system works. He gets a few details wrong, but we will cover those.

http://tmfassociates.com/blog/2014/03/15/understanding-satellite-pings/

ACARS is a system on board the airplane that collects engine and airframe system information, and transmits it to the ground so RR (in this case), or Malaysian Air, could be pre-prepared with spares etc when the plane lands at its destination, if necessary.

I discovered Caterpillar using this system to collect data on the use and abuse of their earth moving machines around the world, and took a small part in implementing it on boeings commercial fleet.

Even when ACARS is switched off, and pilots routinely switch this off on the ground to avoid data overloading the airport VHF etc, the handshake is still active. When the ACARS system is switched off, the transmitter still checks in with the satellite occasionally to ensure the satellite is available if needed. This ‘handshake’ called a ‘ping’ by the press for some reason (everything is a ‘ping’, expect a ‘ping’ ice-cream any day, unless its blocked by a golfball lawsuit) but its just the airplane and satellite exchanging identification signals.

These signals take an exact transit time, and so therefor an exact distance from the satellite to the transceiver can be established. This is effectively a cone of equal surface length, centered on the satellite, touching the earths surface. This is the curve shown on many cartoons and is just an old fashioned ‘position’ line.
Ancient Kayaker, this is substantially identical to the sight cone established from a star sight on the earths surface in astronomical navigation.
The method of counting relative time between receiving these identification signals (handshakes), (i cannot bring myself to call them ‘pings’) is substantially identical to the method used in LORAN. LORAN used distance only, (easy to measure with radio) and received signals from several transmitter beacons, triangulated for position.

Now everyone in Inmarsat knew their signals showed a Doppler shift, basically generated by the angular velocity of the transceiver compared to the satellite, because this was a pain, requiring far greater receive bandwidth as a result. As usual with these things, these differences were ignored when re-transmitted down to earth, but the ‘audio’ or information imbedded in the original signal was not, so the audio part still contained the original Doppler shift.
Now the Inmarsat people are supplied with the absolute distance from the satellite, and angular velocity (no angle, no height, no direction, only relative velocity) from 5-8 separate ‘handshakes’. Public data differs on how many there were.

Given only the above released information, this is the result. By using “best fit’ mathematics, and checking the results against known aircraft flying known tracks, a very good ‘estimate’ of the actual track can be made. The software used here is “Monti-Carlo” from gambling, and now financial advice soft ware, but engineering/physics has used it for a long time for this kind of multi input complex problems.

The ‘last’ handshake gave two possible positions, one way north in Burma, the other south by Australia. As Burma has rather good radar coverage, it swiftly became fairly obvious it wasn't there, though the possibility of its ‘hiding’ still existed. Toward the end of this analysis, he drifts off accuracy, but that is because he didn't know how autopilots work. So ignore the latter half, and his speculation about possible tracks.

http://www.fastcolabs.com/3028265/h...of-malaysia-air-using-monte-carlo-data-models

Now comes the tricky part. according to various sources (and they are very annoyed at this), the data released by Inmarsat cannot be ‘reverse engineered’ into the signals as received by Inmarsat. The above is fairly good example. I understand this, Inmarsat has very large military contracts, with the MoD, DoD, Australians, and probably nearly every other western nations military, not to mention the CIA’s of this world.

Now Inmarsat becomes the perfect vehicle for other information to be discussed/released. For instance, we know the low flight altitude, and high speed, from Indonesian military radar, this took a long time to emerge, and they needed assurance their data would not become public. We probably also know the high speed from Jindilee system, which measures this very well.

Some comment has been made to the effect that inferences could be made by adding factors from the ‘wobble’ of the satellite. This may be true, but is more probably an excuse for introducing less public information.

Those of you who did astro navigation will remember getting two position lines, mine crossed just SW of Fiji, and somewhere in india. Now i knew at the time i was not in India, so i had to be SW of Fiji. This is the first time i have heard of where the vehicle could quite possibly be at either crossing point, hence the issue of whether it went north or south.

The Boeing people i had lunch with talked extensively about inferring data from various individual sources, so they could calculate fuel burn, flight time, factoring in the low level, and high thrust, and hence producing the ‘short’ flight path that suddenly and dramatically moved the search north a few hundred miles.

Its no coincidence that Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston chose the short, southern route, and he was right, those acoustic signals from the ‘black boxes’ were unique, and found just in time. There is hope yet. Few of you will believe me, but an Australian ex RAAF engineering officer, and a classmate of Angus Houston, is a crew-mate on the sailboat i crew on every second weekend.