Malaysia Airlines plane missing

And would not being subscribed for the satellite version of ACARS (as is the case of Malaysia Airlines) change the way data is transmitted to and from satellites ?

It probably won't help but as soon as a Flybe flight lands the flight data is remotely sent to a computer at Exeter for crew monitoring purposes. BA had a similar system and I was told our aircraft could be watched in real time which I assumed was through ACARS presumably BA was the same.

I think you are ignoring his contact who I would bet is with Inmarsat.

If his source were someone at Inmarsat that would mean Inmarsat have the route and current location of the plane through GPS on their 1996 satellite and they put out the famous arcs and deliberately vague information in order to mislead multi governments and agencies to search in the wrong place? Commercial suicide then.

Its the exact opposite of what would happen if governments wanted to conceal intelligence capability - they would pretend the plane was found by commercial satellites rather than by secret assets.

No he's not.

No he's not.

He isn't Dave?

No he's not.

Really? Please explain what other interpretations there are to this then:

"I have used Inmarsat satellite telephones on many occasions from all over the world and as you know we were recently in the Far East and used the Inmarsat satellite to call the UK. From what I am being told our telephone used the same system and procedure, and from the Far East the same satellite as received the 'pings', to communicate. On switch on the first message on the screen is 'getting GPS fix'. Until this fix is obtained the telephone is useless. When the fix is obtained it tells you that it is connecting to the network, one can then make a call because the satellite knows where you are in the world.I am also being told that the technology and procedure used by ACARS to transmit is similar to that of my satellite telephone, ergo that satellite must have had a GPS fix from the aeroplane associated with each 'ping' received. "

Anyone else lost with who Dave is?

I'm a Dave, but I prefer David.

Really? Please explain what other interpretations there are to this then:

 

I have used Inmarsat satellite telephones on many occasions from all over the world and as you know we were recently in the Far East and used the Inmarsat satellite to call the UK. From what I am being told our telephone used the same system and procedure, and from the Far East the same satellite as received the 'pings', to communicate. On switch on the first message on the screen is 'getting GPS fix'. Until this fix is obtained the telephone is useless. When the fix is obtained it tells you that it is connecting to the network, one can then make a call because the satellite knows where you are in the world.I am also being told that the technology and procedure used by ACARS to transmit is similar to that of my satellite telephone, ergo that satellite must have had a GPS fix from the aeroplane associated with each 'ping' received.

As you first said and then edited, he didn't say he was told by somebody at Inmarsat. He wouldn't name his contact. It was me who said that I would bet it was somebody from Inmarsat. Otherwise connected to.

The post is self explanatory. The Malaysian minister did admit they were given information they couldn't divulge for security reasons and that some information was not made available for the same reasons.

I'm a Dave, but I prefer David.

So are they talking about you David? Or someone else who is called Dave?

Never ceases to amaze me how many people on here are called Dave.

As you first said and then edited, he didn't say he was told by somebody at Inmarsat. He wouldn't name his contact. It was me who said that I would bet it was somebody from Inmarsat. Otherwise connected to.

Sure, but it doesn't actually make a difference whether the 'contact' works for Inmarsat or some other agency. We are expected to believe that the contact is informed and irreproachable and that the contact says the Inmarsat satellite received an exact GPS fix every hour - but all Inmarsat release is "everybody go search in this huge vague arc". Why would they do that? Why would the security services want them to do that?

Not only is what West Stand saying highly technically dubious, its a logical non sequiteur.

It probably won't help but as soon as a Flybe flight lands the flight data is remotely sent to a computer at Exeter for crew monitoring purposes. BA had a similar system and I was told our aircraft could be watched in real time which I assumed was through ACARS presumably BA was the same.

ACARS information would normally be sent on VHS over land because it's cheaper. It's possible to build your own monitoring equipment if you're an enthusiastic amateur:

http://www.universal-radio.com/catalog/decoders/acars.pdf

The FMS info was apparently sent via ACARS just before it and the transponder were switched off/stopped working. It was this info that alerted the Malaysian authorities to the fact that the change of course had been programmed in.

ACARS information would normally be sent on VHS over land because it's cheaper. It's possible to build your own monitoring equipment if you're an enthusiastic amateur:

 

http://www.universal-radio.com/catalog/decoders/acars.pdf

 

The FMS info was apparently sent via ACARS just before it and the transponder were switched off/stopped working. It was this info that alerted the Malaysian authorities to the fact that the change of course had been programmed in.

The boundary would be in the route, the next point would be the new waypoint followed by a discontinuity until the next waypoint is connected. Which waypoint was it, Langkawi? After that either another route would need to be built up or the aircraft flown on headings. A lot about the reported flight path and altitudes just don't stack up.

ACARS information would normally be sent on VHS over land.

In this day and age, wouldn't they at least use a DVD?

So are they talking about you David? Or someone else who is called Dave?

 

Never ceases to amaze me how many people on here are called Dave.

Nope, not me.

Nope, not me.

The mystery goes on. Would be easier for everyone if people called people by the username rather than Dave, Ron etc.

ACARS information would normally be sent on VHS over land because it's cheaper. It's possible to build your own monitoring equipment if you're an enthusiastic amateur:

 

http://www.universal-radio.com/catalog/decoders/acars.pdf

 

The FMS info was apparently sent via ACARS just before it and the transponder were switched off/stopped working. It was this info that alerted the Malaysian authorities to the fact that the change of course had been programmed in.

We used ARINC to make radio phone calls on VHF or HF.

Google vs pilots.

Fascinating.

The boundary would be in the route, the next point would be the new waypoint followed by a discontinuity until the next waypoint is connected. Which waypoint was it, Langkawi? After that either another route would need to be built up or the aircraft flown on headings. A lot about the reported flight path and altitudes just don't stack up.

Is it possible to infer from the way in which the aircraft was flown whether it was being flown manually or on autopilot?

In this day and age, wouldn't they at least use a DVD?

Blu-Ray, surely?

(VHF of course, 131.55 MHz and others)

We used ARINC to make radio phone calls on VHF or HF.

Yes indeed, the first A in ACARS originally stood for ARINC. We made some speed indicators for Concorde that took information off the ARINC data bus and showed the passengers the Mach number. The data information can be carried over alternative media depending on location.

Google vs pilots.

 

Fascinating.

Now, now young Pap. There is a whole range of experience on this forum and each has his own knowledge to contribute, all of it worth respecting.

Now, now young Pap. There is a whole range of experience on this forum and each has his own knowledge to contribute, all of it worth respecting.

That is true, Whitey G. Consider me suitably admonished and skulking under my rock forthwith. Before I depart though, it's probably worth pointing out that anything beginning with "I doubt that" or one of its derivatives is unlikely to impart knowledge thereafter.

Could the turret of a submarine like the one in this photo be what the Satellite picked up in the sea off Australia. As the sea was kind of choppy, the waves breaking across the top could have disguised what it actually was. Anyone know what size we would expect such a turret to be?

Sarcasm seems to be your strength. When you can turn that into a skill to save lives you might have some merit like West Stand.

I'm sorry but I'm not going to just take your word that this anonymous "West Stand" is some sort of superhero. Considering your fondness for being seen as some sort of high and mighty on here, it wouldn't surprise me if you were greatly exaggerating the skills of this random individual to make yourself look better. The idea that he knows something that the rest of the world do not is clearly nonsense.

No he didn't. He said that the location was known through GPS but was being suppressed, implying the whole search was charade. The 'proof' of that was that his satellite phone call from a totally different location using totally different technology needed a GPS fix to work. He may be an expert on something, but it isn't this.

Lol. Nail on the head Tim.

No he didn't. He said that the location was known through GPS but was being suppressed, implying the whole search was charade. The 'proof' of that was that his satellite phone call from a totally different location using totally different technology needed a GPS fix to work. He may be an expert on something, but it isn't this.

Exactly, the idea that they have an exact GPS position of where this plane crashed and they are suppressing it is just too far fetched IMO.

The capabilities of the technology used in the engines would be common knowledge within the industry, it is not information that could or would be kept secret.

The internet is awash with "look at me Im a pilot" type people talking sh!te. It's just a vehicle for their attention seeking alot of the time.

West Stand and myself have over 40000 hours flying between us and very many years on Boeings. We don't have a clue what happened but the current management of the search isn't even approaching competent and hasn't helped, as for the military radar, what military radar? Any half competent radar operator would know exactly what direction MH370 went. No surprise though. The major powers have unbelievable surveillance capability, my concern is what have they seen.

Flying a plane doesn't qualify you to talk with such certainty on all plane related matters, just as managing a Sunday league team doesn't make you a managerial expert.

Flying a plane doesn't qualify you to talk with such certainty on all plane related matters, just as managing a Sunday league team doesn't make you a managerial expert.

That comparison is a bit silly though, he wasn't flying on a computer it was an actual plane!

That comparison is a bit silly though, he wasn't flying on a computer it was an actual plane!

The comparison was specific to derry.

The pilots clearly know f**k loads more than the rest of us but the idea that one of their number knows something iffy that the rest of the world doesn't strikes me as class 1 bol**xs.

I still find it impossible to believe that a modern airliner of a flag carrier simply disappears without a trace.

Pilots obviously know more about his stuff, that why I've been following this site; http://www.pprune.org

They all seem pretty happy with the ping information, here's a few posts:

"Sadly, I think all Inmarsat has to work with is the time of flight of radio waves between their satellite and the aircraft on the hour, plus the uncertain time lag required for the aircraft's satcom box to reply. My understanding is that for a few dollars more, Inmarsat would have an hourly GPS position transmitted from the aircraft in their archives."

"The pings are time distances from the satellite and translated to an arc subtended from the point immediately below the satellite.

By definition these lines do not provide positions from which to drive a strait (sic) line. The lines will be a measurable distance apart. Let us assume they are at one hour intervals and are 200 miles apart; this gives a velocity vector of 200 mile/hr towards the statellite sub-point. You can then use a ruler marked off with the max ground speed, say 450 kts, and use this to fit the 450 mile marks to the arc. If you subtend this from the last know position it will give to a track at a given angle to the North with a similar mirror image to the South.

If you now mark the rule with either the minimum speed you can get another track which will be closer to the direct line to the satellite ground position.

You now have two sectors, one to the north and one to the south. The line joining the two points at the end of the sector arcs will give a possible line of position. These lines can then be plotted further on if it is assumed that the aircraft flew one for a time after the last ping. Only if you assume the correct groundspeed would you have a discrete pair of tracks.

The closer together the ping arcs the greater the track angle would be to the north and south.

The logic only holds good if the aircraft made no course changes between pings and flew at a constant ground speed."

"Given a number of recent posts on the methods of interpreting the INMARSAT ‘ping’ data, here is my understanding of how this will have been done by the NTSB.

Each ping specifies a distance from the INMARSAT F1 sub-satellite point at 64degrees East on the equator. On the Earth’s surface this is a circle (but not a great circle). A model track can be specified from the last reported position of the aeroplane off the West coast of Malaysia to any point on the circle described by the last ping. The length of that track specifies the speed of the aeroplane (since the times are known) and hence where it would be when the intermediate (every hour) pings were exchanged. The distances of these ping positions from the sub-satellite point can be compared to the actual data (held by NTSB but not us). The point on the final ping circle (the arcs) can be moved until the model track matches the data. If there is no good match, change parameters like the final turning point, smooth changes in speed along the track etc. to get a good match to the data (there is a limit to how many things can be changed before the model can fit any data). Unless the aeroplane was performing extreme and random manoeuvres during its flight (in which case it would have crashed earlier) a course and speed of quite high accuracy can be obtained, I think."

For what it's worth this site is full of professional pilots, none can say with much degree of certainty what what happened to the plane.

I just cannot believe the utter rubbish being spouted on here by amateur people thinking

that they know more than professionals.

I am surprised that these amateurs don't tell the neurosurgeons treating Mr Schumacher where

these experts are going wrong.

On second thoughts I suppose I should be more surprised with myself for thinking that people

would have more sense.

Nonsense aintforever. We have our own lifesaving pilot friend of Derry and weston right here to tell us how wrong that is. Right?

Just as I was having nightmares that this thread could last longer & become bigger than the PTS thread, Ilios appeared on Sky News and made an interesting point(subtly waving an Emirates Check List)

IF there had been a Decompression issue, then the book says turn left towards nearest airport. That would have put them on a heading towards Penang or Langkawi around 210 degrees. In such events the cockpit can fill up with fog/condensation and they have around 30 to 45 seconds to act as well as get onto Oxygen. That heading showed up on the Sky News chart table as being pretty much a direct line to the general area the wreckage was found. Which still leaves the Payne Stewart scenario as most likely.

Considering how much rubbish has been spouted - wasn't there stories of a turn at a second pair of Way Points a week or so ago? Yet they aren't shown again now....

I'm no professional pilot, but I do know how to "get one up" so to speak (And down again safely). Too much conjecture and too little info = Super Spy Satellites knew what went on knew it was downed knew nothing would swim away and did not want anyone to know they existed. Think that's the most likely scenario here - drip feed and let a puddle jumper Turbo-Prop do the Donkey work

Oh and did I not mention this a few days ago?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2586308/Missing-jet-WAS-carrying-highly-flammable-lithium-batteries-CEO-Malaysian-Airlines-finally-admits-dangerous-cargo.html

I mean COME ON guys. You can even find You Tube videos of the bloody things exploding these days

The confirmation by Ahmad Jauhari (above) comes days after he denied the aircraft was carrying any dangerous items and nearly two weeks after MH370 went missing. His admission at a press conference in Kuala Lumpur has re-ignited speculation that a fire may be behind its disappearance. Billie Vincent, the former head of security for the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, said it re-affirmed his belief that flames started in the cargo hold, destroying the aircraft's communication systems then filling the cabin with toxic fumes. Lithium-ion batteries like the one pictured (which is not connected to the MH370 flight) have caused dozens of mid-air incidents over the last 20 years and fires ignited by them have even brought planes down.

Can I at least post an ORLY even if I don't qualify for an I Told You So? (Yet)

This scenario begins with the eruption of hazardous materials within the cargo hold – either improperly packaged or illegally shipped – or both.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2586308/Missing-jet-WAS-carrying-highly-flammable-lithium-batteries-CEO-Malaysian-Airlines-finally-admits-dangerous-cargo.html#ixzz2wdj0LShX

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Pilots obviously know more about his stuff, that why I've been following this site; http://www.pprune.org

 

They all seem pretty happy with the ping information, here's a few posts:

 

"Sadly, I think all Inmarsat has to work with is the time of flight of radio waves between their satellite and the aircraft on the hour, plus the uncertain time lag required for the aircraft's satcom box to reply. My understanding is that for a few dollars more, Inmarsat would have an hourly GPS position transmitted from the aircraft in their archives."

So what West Stand is claiming was technically possible.

So what West Stand is claiming was technically possible.

Technically possible if Malaysian had paid the $10 per flight charge for the service and the pliot hadn't switched the system off

So what West Stand is claiming was technically possible.

I don't doubt that it is possible. I just don't subscribe to the theory that the information is being withheld whilst China, Austraila and co search half the southern hemisphere looking for the missing people.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2586013/Malaysian-woman-claims-seen-missing-MH370-water-near-Andaman-Islands-day-disappeared.html

hmmmmmm

I don't doubt that it is possible. I just don't subscribe to the theory that the information is being withheld whilst China, Austraila and co search half the southern hemisphere looking for the missing people.

That's the point.

I think you are ignoring his contact who I would bet is with Inmarsat.

Interestingly it's reported that British satellite communications company Inmarsat informed the Malysian authorities of the 7 hours suspected flight time and possible southern arc flight path, 3 days before the Malaysian authorities widened their search. They felt it was more likely to be the southern arc due to the restricted airspace in the northern. Inmarsat have also stated if the Malaysian Airline invested £6 into the correct configuration of the box then the flight would already have been found.

I don't doubt that it is possible. I just don't subscribe to the theory that the information is being withheld whilst China, Austraila and co search half the southern hemisphere looking for the missing people.

The root of this theory is that information might be being withheld, possibly because one or more nations are complicit in its disappearance.

Now to your point. If one or more nations were complicit in its disappearance, do you think they would:-

a) assist in the search efforts

b) shrug their shoulders in the midst of a multi-national effort to find the survivors

?

I don't endorse any particular theory, but b) would make any nation withholding information look a bit dodgy. Appearances, dear boy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2586013/Malaysian-woman-claims-seen-missing-MH370-water-near-Andaman-Islands-day-disappeared.html

 

hmmmmmm

Highly unlikely she saw a plane on the water. I often fly right over Heathrow at cruising altitudes and even looking directly down on the airport it is hard to see individual aircraft clearly and that's despite knowing exactly I am looking. The likelihood of an aircraft landing intact on the ocean and this woman seeing it from 37000ft is almost impossible.

I'd say it is much more likely she saw another aircraft cruising at a lower altitude, or is completely making it up.

Highly unlikely she saw a plane on the water. I often fly right over Heathrow at cruising altitudes and even looking directly down on the airport it is hard to see individual aircraft clearly and that's despite knowing exactly I am looking. The likelihood of an aircraft landing intact on the ocean and this woman seeing it from 37000ft is almost impossible.

 

I'd say it is much more likely she saw another aircraft cruising at a lower altitude, or is completely making it up.

Hence why I only said hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

I'd agree with Heathrow fly over comment obviously, but occassionally flying home you can see old or smaller airfields and make out the shapes on the ground. Depends on air quality humidity and of course any actual contrast in the image to pull the eye to.

I think in my mind the article made me think of one thing however. In the early days it had been "decided" the plane had "Crashed" to the East of Malaysia.

We had all the original loss of contact reports and the searches. When the review of this is done, how many other pieces of possible "leads" were ignored in those early days?

Early Assumptions & Speculation and everybody ran in the wrong direction as currents and time lost meant possible "It's BEHIND YOU!" clues disappeared below the depths of the sea

So what West Stand is claiming was technically possible.

This has got a rather childish thread.

Yes I do know someone at a high position in Inmarsat and he confirmed what I wrote, but it appears that some of you know better. I accept this as fact.

As for my assertion that I think that some government/body knows something that they are reluctant to disclose is based on personal experience. I was involved in an incident in 1982 out over the South Eastern Indian Ocean just off Java when something happened which I didn’t understand. At that time we commercial pilots were unaware that the US had satellites monitoring that part of the world. It appeared that not many governments, if any, in that part of the world knew those satellites were there, let alone what they were monitoring. I found out some 11 years later, when the information became declassified, that we were monitored throughout the incident. This area is not at war but governments don’t want to let others know their capabilities so we don’t know what is being ‘watched’. It would seem more likely than not that somewhere evidence is not being disclosed to the general public and communication between governments will not be open. If I was being monitored in 1982 it would be a fair bet that MH370 was being monitored too by someone in 2014. On this basis I wrote that I think that somebody somewhere knows something that we are unaware off yet. It is my opinion to which I am entitled, others may disagree but sarcasm and rudeness gets us nowhere.

This has got a rather childish thread.

 

Yes I do know someone at a high position in Inmarsat and he confirmed what I wrote, but it appears that some of you know better. I accept this as fact.

 

As for my assertion that I think that some government/body knows something that they are reluctant to disclose is based on personal experience. I was involved in an incident in 1982 out over the South Eastern Indian Ocean just off Java when something happened which I didn’t understand. At that time we commercial pilots were unaware that the US had satellites monitoring that part of the world. It appeared that not many governments, if any, in that part of the world knew those satellites were there, let alone what they were monitoring. I found out some 11 years later, when the information became declassified, that we were monitored throughout the incident. This area is not at war but governments don’t want to let others know their capabilities so we don’t know what is being ‘watched’. It would seem more likely than not that somewhere evidence is not being disclosed to the general public and communication between governments will not be open. If I was being monitored in 1982 it would be a fair bet that MH370 was being monitored too by someone in 2014. On this basis I wrote that I think that somebody somewhere knows something that we are unaware off yet. It is my opinion to which I am entitled, others may disagree but sarcasm and rudeness gets us nowhere.

Please tell me that you're the chap who came out with this immortal line:

"Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress"

If so, then

If I was being monitored in 1982 it would be a fair bet that MH370 was being monitored too by someone in 2014. On this basis I wrote that I think that somebody somewhere knows something that we are unaware off yet. It is my opinion to which I am entitled, others may disagree but sarcasm and rudeness gets us nowhere.

As for this part, while I would hope it would be wrong I wouldn't be at all surprised if it were true. I simply don't believe a plane can just disappear and no-one has the slightest inkling where it is. There's certainly more than meets the eye to this as far as I'm concerned.

I heard they have found the Wings, and they are confident they will also find the Wongs.

This has got a rather childish thread.

 

Yes I do know someone at a high position in Inmarsat and he confirmed what I wrote, but it appears that some of you know better. I accept this as fact.

 

As for my assertion that I think that some government/body knows something that they are reluctant to disclose is based on personal experience. I was involved in an incident in 1982 out over the South Eastern Indian Ocean just off Java when something happened which I didn’t understand. At that time we commercial pilots were unaware that the US had satellites monitoring that part of the world. It appeared that not many governments, if any, in that part of the world knew those satellites were there, let alone what they were monitoring. I found out some 11 years later, when the information became declassified, that we were monitored throughout the incident. This area is not at war but governments don’t want to let others know their capabilities so we don’t know what is being ‘watched’. It would seem more likely than not that somewhere evidence is not being disclosed to the general public and communication between governments will not be open. If I was being monitored in 1982 it would be a fair bet that MH370 was being monitored too by someone in 2014. On this basis I wrote that I think that somebody somewhere knows something that we are unaware off yet. It is my opinion to which I am entitled, others may disagree but sarcasm and rudeness gets us nowhere.

Can't speak for everybody, but I've enjoyed your contributions and FWIW, you've handled yourself with much more restraint than I have when the wolves have been circling.

To this wolves, I ask this. Given the situation - no-one knows sh!t and no physical evidence to support any theory, what is the basis of your aggressive doubt?

Please tell me that you're the chap who came out with this immortal line:

"Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress"

If so, then

I am!!

I heard they have found the Wings, and they are confident they will also find the Wongs.

.

As for this part, while I would hope it would be wrong I wouldn't be at all surprised if it were true. I simply don't believe a plane can just disappear and no-one has the slightest inkling where it is. There's certainly more than meets the eye to this as far as I'm concerned.

That's about where I stand on the matter.