I had fairly well concluded that the most likely cause was a fire disrupting the electrical and control systems, when CNN now say the sharp left turn was pre-programmed 12 minutes before sign off from Malaysian Air Traffic control, which was followed fairly quickly by that left turn.
CNN claim to have this from an US official, from data sent back before the reporting systems went off. It is hard to know what to make of it: obviously there are large economic interests that much prefer blame to lie with the pilots rather than the aircraft. But if it is true then the move was not a response to an emergency. (CNN went on to say the pilot could have programmed in the course change as a contingency in case of an emergency. That made no sense to me at all – does it to anyone else?)
I still find it extremely unlikely that the plane landed or crashed on land I cannot believe it could evade military detection as it flew over a highly militarized region. Somewhere there is debris on the ocean. There have been previous pilot suicides that took the plane with them; but the long detour first seems very strange and I do not believe is precedented. However if the CNN information on pre-programming is correct, and given it was the co-pilot who signed off to air traffic control, it is hard to look beyond the pilots as those responsible for whatever did happen. In fact, on consideration, the most improbable thing is that information CNN are reporting from the US official.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/malaysia-receives-first-2-su30mkms-03336/
“Whether those discussions go anywhere is anyone’s guess, depending on the economic situation and on Chinese behavior. A new Air Defense Identification Zone in the South China Sea ought to do it, especially if it covers a disputed border. Sources: Reuters, “BAE Systems says Malaysia seeking fighter jet leasing bids”.”
I have not found a boundary map for this proposed zone. China has been warned against such a declation, but there is one on wiki for the East China Sea:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Defense_Identification_Zone_%28East_China_Sea%29
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/adiz.htm
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1418342/air-defence-zone-south-china-sea-unlikely-say-chinese-experts
A new terminal building has opened today for international and domestic flights from Kuala Lumpur. There will be possible disruptions to service. I do not know if the changes could have been a distraction to air traffic control or maintenance at the airport back in March, but wanted to register this a possibility.
http://www.bangaloreaviation.com/2014/04/airasia-gets-ready-move-new-klia2-terminal-hub-airport.html
http://www.news24.com/Travel/International/25-known-facts-about-missing-Malaysian-Ailrines-flight-MH370-20140310
“6. However, there is a news report that just a day before the crash the aircraft had been on A-Check on KLIA hangar.”
From: http://www.news24.com/Travel/International/25-known-facts-about-missing-Malaysian-Ailrines-flight-MH370-20140310
This article gives no sources, and seems to be the only one making this claim. Elsewhere, widely reported, is this information:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/mas-777-underwent-maintenance-in-feb-396801/
It’s hard to say whether or not the investigators from the international search team have bothered to verify this information independently, or whether that kind of information would be part of whatever burned in the fire reported by a blogger and posted here.
With all the talk elsewhere of tags for tracking marine species, here’s a link that explains:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop-up_satellite_archival_tag
“A PSAT is generally constructed of several components: a data-logging section, a release section, a float, and an antenna. The release sections includes an energetically popped off release section or a pin that is actively corroded on a preset date or after a specified period of time. Some disadvantages of using PSAT are their depth limitations (2000m)…However, newer tag technologies employed in the SeaTag product line (SeaTag-MOD, etc.) use Earth’s magnetic field to replacement light measurements for latitude estimations. Therefore, depth is no longer a cause for location uncertainty.
“PSATs record data in non-volatile memory so that data are retained even if battery or solar power runs out.
“When the PSAT releases from the animal on which it was attached, it floats to the surface, and begins to transmit data to one of the manufacturer’s satellites at a frequency of about 400 MHz. Therefore, the PSAT does not have to be physically recovered for the data to be obtained. Depending on the number and coverage of the satellites, it can take 7 to 10 days or longer for the data to be completely transmitted.”
Galvanic release is also explained.
Activated only at depth, releases and continues to transmit data, solar powered to extend transmission of location, recovery of PSAT not necessary to obtain the data it contains…There must be better ways to find an aircraft than trying to track black box pings with limited battery life.
And a notation: some marine species, like the marlin, are highly migratory. Little was known about marlin migration before satellite tracking technology, but it is known that the marlin frequent the shores off Perth.
Marlin tracking seems more advanced than commercial airline tracking in 2014.
Not sure if you have collected this one but its interesting.
http://keithledgerwood.com/post/79838944823/did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using-sia68-sq68
http://keithledgerwood.com/post/80154688823/questions-answers-follow-up-1-how-did-malaysian
This was a comment on pprune that is worth a look .
read 8th Mar 2014, 11:33 #221 (permalink)
dartman748
Well I will throw this out there. Thursday we were flying from HKG to Hano late morningi. While in HK airspace a ANA cargo flight reported a TCAS contact 3 miles, at 8 o clock, 1,000 feet below. HK atc called in the blind to the “unidentified” a/c, whih was squawking 1400 to initially identify itself, and when that did not work, to press ident, to which she got a “reply”. She was able to verify their level. This went on till we transfered to Sanya, but the ANA guys were able to see the a/c and it was clearly “shadowing” them. I know the Chinese and Americans have being shadow boxing in the region of late, but this is the first time I have heard of a civilian a/c being caught up… At the time it was unnerving. Now,…. Just saying…
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-12.html#post8359398
The blogger who reported the mysterious fire at the maintenance facility has also been covering this incident:
http://weechookeong.com/2014/04/21/azhari-should-be-suspended-pending-investigation-into-mh-192-air-turn-back/
AirAsia and the share swap is mentioned again. AirAsia is one of the airlines that has moved to the new terminal building today. They had expressed concerns about air safety with the new terminal:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/business/airasia-flags-fears-over/1056788.html
http://airasia-booking.com/airasia-wants-no-more-delays-in-klia2/
Distraction?
Depressions on the runway and unstable ground were two of AirAsia’s concerns:
https://my.news.yahoo.com/airasia-agrees-move-troubled-malaysia-airport-153529753–finance.html
I read somewhere that MA buys retread tires from Thailand. Wo bist der regulations?
@ James
Can you check in at deadzone Lars wants to speak to you .
Cheers Pink.
Just popped over and left him a message.
Not bad that is it
Get your biggest rival (AirAsia)…
….to move to an airport that is touted as “unsafe” (KLIA2).
““GeoResonance remains quietly confident on our reported finding in the Bay of Bengal.
“We are considering verifying the location ourselves. Two words to all the sceptics: ‘Test us!’”
http://www.therakyatpost.com/news/2014/05/10/georesonance-adamant-mh370-bay-bengal/
“But the graph defies these expectations. Taken at face value, the graph shows the plane moving at a significant speed before it even took off, then moving toward the satellite every time it was pinged. This interpretation is completely at odds with the official conclusion, and flatly contradicted by other evidence.
The first problem seems rather straightforward to resolve: the reason the frequency shifts aren’t negative is probably that Inmarsat just graphed them as positive. Plotting absolute values is a common practice among engineers, like stating the distance to the ocean floor as a positive depth value rather than a negative elevation value.
But the problem of the large frequency shift before takeoff is more vexing. Exactly how fast does the graph show the plane and satellite moving away from each other prior to takeoff?”
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/05/why-the-official-explanation-of-mh370s-demise-doesnt-hold-up/361826/
Does anyone think this is relevant, this is the female who has had all the CNN interviews, did someone want to shut her up t ?
‘The girlfriend of an American passenger on board the Malaysia Airlines plane that disappeared on March 8 has received a death threat.
Sarah Bajc, the girlfriend of passenger Philip Wood, received a instant message saying ‘I’m going to come and kill you next’ several weeks after Flight 370, a Boeing 777 jetliner, vanished from radar, NBC News reported.
Several pornographic images and unsettling phone calls were also received from the same China-based number.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2624754/Girlfriend-man-missing-Malaysia-Airlines-flight-gets-death-threats.html#ixzz31KS5QMsN
@Ben: Anything is possible with the imagination, and an imaginary plane. Perhaps it was modeled on a flight simulator game.
@Ben 4:46 pm: Does anyone have faith in the integrity of the official search teams any more?
Ben.
It’s that “pre take off” / “post take off” oddity again (the article below)
To me the transcript show that there are two different people talking over the radio. The speech patterns when repeating the same phrase are different.
That phrase being the “call sign”.
That means either one of two possibilities apply…
1. Two different pilots are speaking from the flight deck of that aircraft.
2. Two different pilots….on two different aircraft.
The “other” possibility is that it is “the same pilot” and after he takes off, he changes his Speech Pattern due to “stress”. After 18000 hours, I doubt that is the case, hence not included (just noted).
“The first ping on the graph was sent at 16:30 UTC, eleven minutes prior to takeoff. The graphed frequency shift for this ping is about -85 Hz. Public records show that the signal from the plane to the satellite uses a frequency of 1626 to 1660 MHz. STK calculations show the satellite’s relative motion was just 2 miles per hour toward the airport at this time. Factoring in the satellite’s angle above the horizon, the plane would need to have been moving at least 50 miles per hour on the ground to produce this frequency shift—implausibly high eleven minutes prior to takeoff, when flight transcripts show the plane had just pushed back from the gate and not yet begun to taxi”.
Posted on Pprunes (but likely to get “the edit” treatment).
At 1701 (UTC 07MAR) it has reached 35,000 feet.
Which is 1801 (CET 07MAR) and 0101 (MYT 08MAR)
as per link
http://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/MAS370/history/20140307/1635Z/WMKK/ZBAA/tracklog
At 1750 (UTC 07MAR) it is still at 35,000 (and on that heading).
Which is 1850 (CET 07MAR) and 0150 (MYT 08MAR) ?
*Note. There is some confusion as to the “timings” FlightAware are using AND the accuracy of their data. But a T/O time of 0041 MYT 08MAR would show it flying at 0043 MYT 08MAR (which is 1743 07MAR). The time on the “link” shows that at “1743 CET” it is at 2,400 feet.
So what is the data shown at 0150 08MAR ???
The aircraft still at 35,000 feet.
And still on it’s previous (correct) heading ???
Nearly half an hour later….and it looks to be heading for Beijing ???
The bear scratches his big head !
The news coverage of MH370 has dried up. No more prying eyes.
@ Q 11 May, 2014 – 6:20 pm
“The news coverage of MH370 has dried up. No more prying eyes.”
The WH conveniently discovered some number (72, 200, 300 ?) of girl children gone missing in Nigeria weeks previously. Totally replaced coverage of the messed up search for MH370.
US National Public Radio, ordinarily part of the propaganda apparatus, let slip that the pictures of the missing girls used to illustrate the story are in fact pictures of girls from a very different African story. They did speculate on what the girls in the photos must think about this. If the hostages are found, dead or alive, the illustrative girls are tagged with this event for life. Though as all Africans look alike it won’t make any difference to the Western world.
In a few days the UK and US will announce a triumph over the terrorists and many girls rescued. Doesn’t matter if they’re the same ones originally kidnapped.
A good number of Boko Harams will be expeditiously dispatched, ID’d by DNA in a few hours, and buried in accordance with Muslim ceremony at the bottom of the Indian Ocean.
http://dinmerican.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/mh370-exposes-hall-of-shame/
“Shambolic” is one of the words used to describe the MH370 affair. Here’s a small part of the article:
“The MH370 investigation has lacked transparency and is mired in intrigue. This incident has reminded us of the question, by the Opposition MP Nurul Izzah Anwar in June 2012, about the roles of the DCA and the Transport Ministry in the award of the contract for the supply of the RM128.4 million air traffic control system to a Minister’s family through “closed tender”.”
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/Nurul-Izzah-Faulty-radar-supplier-awarded-KLIA2-contract
“PKR has revealed another Putrajaya contract issued to a company that was not recommended for the job, adding today that purported recipient is also controlled by a son of Umno MP Datuk Seri Jamaluddin Jarjis.
“Citing documents in her possession, PKR vice president Nurul Izzah Anwar alleged today that Advanced Air Traffic Systems (M) Sdn Bhd (AAT), the firm involved in the faulty air traffic control system in Subang, has now been awarded a similar project for KLIA2.
“After Malaysians were shocked over the problems of the radar system developed by Selex Sistemi Integrati (SELEX) and AAT at the National Air Traffic Control Centre (NATCC) in Subang, PKR now understands that one of these firms was awarded a project for KLIA2 even though they were the losing bid,” said the Lembah Pantai MP told a press conference here.”
Was the faulty radar system for air control system, procedures and equipment fixed before MH370 went missing?
More:
“Nurul Izzah said that the system installed at the NATCC by AAT and Selex was “so flawed controllers revert to the old system of not using radar,” putting the lives of millions of passengers at risk.”
I’d be very curious to know what was happening with air traffic control at KLIA, as the long-delayed KLIA2 was being readied. At any point prior to the opening, was the new radar system, which is said to be faulty, being used to control traffic at KLIA? This transition period may hold some clues to MH370 going missing and unnoticed.
James, if you are around today, do you have any thoughts on the switchover of air traffic control operations at KLIA2? I’m wondering if this could explain the doctoring of the “last communications” with 9M-MRO/MH370?
We’d previously discussed the “nine to five” operations of military radar in the region where MH370 went missing. This article asks if the Malaysian military were literally sleeping on the job:
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2014/04/04/justify-the-need-for-new-radar-system/
However, until this link (http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/Nurul-Izzah-Faulty-radar-supplier-awarded-KLIA2-contract), I was not aware that civilian air traffic controllers had (allegedly?) made the decision not to use radar at all in Subang.
Were KLIA’s air traffic controllers asleep on the job, did they use radar from nine to five, or had they shut down the radar because it was unreliable? The article does not say that the radar at KLIA2 was faulty, but did anything happen when KLIA2 was being readied? It opened for business three days ago, on May 9, 2014.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/13/world/asia/missing-malaysia-airlines-flight-370.html?_r=0
“Malaysia Airlines said authorities were “looking at a possibility” that the plane was headed to Subang, an airport that handles mainly domestic flights.”
That’s the airport that allegedly stopped using radar at one point, because it was faulty. And the international community is asked to believe that we must believe in the information provided from radar, when the people controlling the flow of information must know that contracts for air traffic control in Malaysia have been awarded on the basis of cronyism/nepotism, and radar systems have been faulty. Malaysia’s air traffic control operations and systems appear to use Swiss cheese as a model.
What a coincidence: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/13/world/asia/missing-malaysia-airlines-flight-370.html?_r=0
I’ve noticed that the “expanded search area” map of the search area at the link shows a water depth of 5000 ft. just off Banda Aceh. This is precisely the depth at which GeoResonance’s technology would cease to be useful. Deep water is an essential part of the strategy, IMO. I believe little to no effort, or appearance of effort, will ever be made to search for MH370 in water at a depth where it might actually be found.
http://article.wn.com/view/2014/03/08/Malaysia_Airlines_issues_4th_media_statement/
“We regret to announce that Subang Traffic Control lost contact with flight MH370 at 2:40am today.”
https://my.news.yahoo.com/questions-now-over-subang-atc-response-mh370-went-005605759.html
“What did the Subang air traffic control do when it found out that flight MH370 did not check in with Vietnamese air traffic controllers in the early morning of March 8?
“Apart from getting a pilot to contact the missing aircraft, nothing much is known about what else the air traffic control (ATC) did that a deputy minister presumed that military radar operators ignored the plane because a turn back was ordered.
“Deputy Defence Minister Datuk Abdul Rahim Bakri has now said his presumption was “not accurate” but questions remain whether the ATC did anything about the lost aircraft.”
Would that be the “allegedly” faulty radar at Subang, upon which most of the blips and arcs that have determined the search area are based?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subang_International_Airport
18 December 1983 – Malaysian Airline System Flight 684, an Airbus A300 from Singapore crashed 2 km short of the runway while approaching Runway 15 in bad weather. There were no fatalities, but the aircraft was written off. Ironically, the aircraft was operating its last scheduled flight for Malaysian Airline System, before being returned to its original operator, Scandinavian Airlines System.
19 February 1989 – Flying Tiger Line Flight 66, a Boeing 747-200F from Singapore crashed 12 kilometres from the airport while on approach to Runway 33. The pilots misinterpreted the controller’s instructions to descend, causing the aircraft to fly below minimum attitude and crashing into a hillside on the outskirts of Puchong. All four flight crew were killed.
The 1983 incident appears to have involved a leased plane, or a plane being operated by another company on behalf of MAS.
The 1989 incident was blamed on the pilots, who flew too low. Wiki says they “misinterpreted” air traffic controllers at Subang. That is interesting, given reports of MH370 flying below Subang’s (faulty?) radar.
James, please tell us who has final authority in a case where a pilot questions or disagrees with instructions from air traffic control. What if the pilot told air traffic control that they were dead wrong? Would a pilot dare to say so, and would any pilot follow instructions that he thought could be fatal?