1. MH370 speculation has become excessive recently. Metabunk is not a forum for creating theories by speculation. It's a forum for examining claims, and seeing if they hold up. Please respect this and keep threads on-topic. There are many other forums where speculation is welcome.
  1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    This update from the Malaysian Ministry of Transport gives a good overview of how the (very) rough location of MH370 final position was determined.

    https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=740971779281171&id=178566888854999&stream_ref=10




    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2014
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. Ray Robertson

    Ray Robertson Member

    Where can I find the planned route for MH370?
     
  3. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It was basically direct from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing. In orange here:
    [​IMG]
     
  4. Ray Robertson

    Ray Robertson Member

    Thanks, is the detailed route available somewhere on the internet? I'm having a hard time finding it.
     
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Just draw a line between the two cities on a globe. It's pretty much a direct flight other than the arrival and departure.

    What exactly do you want to know, and why?
     
  6. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    You can see actual radar tracks of the same scheduled flight here
    http://flightaware.com/live/flight/MAS318/history/20140316/1635Z/WMKK/ZBAA
    [​IMG]
    For some reason the track over China is not shown, but the first half is there, and the remainder will be pretty much direct.

    EDIT: Though I take back about it being direct, looks like the route is direct to Hong Kong, and then direct to Beijing
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2014
  7. Ray Robertson

    Ray Robertson Member

    Morning. Oh, the trajectory plotted by the guys from Inmarsat looks like a simple inversion(you know, just rotating it 180 degrees) of the flight path that I would expect to Beijing(but not exactly). Maybe just coincidence.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2014
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Probably a coincidence, it's not really that close.
     
  9. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    [​IMG]
    Good morning, Why does this chart show an overlap at 22:30 hours for the predicted north & south track, and what was measured. That is nearly an hour before the plane went ran out of fuel. You would expect those lines to cross when the plane turned around and when it turned south or north, but not 5hrs into the flight. Why is it so? In fact wouldn't you expect both the north and south "predicted" lines to move away from each other while moving outward. They should never cross unless the plane was turning, right?
     
  10. DjjA

    DjjA New Member

    If Malaysia is +8 UTC, and take off is known to be 00.41 Local, then surely the time of take-off according to the graph reproduced above should be 16.41 UTC, not 17.30. If that time is suspect then how can we be certain of the remaining time points?
     
  11. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    You seem to have misread it. The first point is a 16:30, the second seems to be at around 16:41. Take off was 16:41. Presumably the 16:30 blip as when it was switched on. There's nothing at 17:30.
     
  12. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member


    What is measured is essentially a function of the angle between the heading of the plane, and a line drawn from the plane to the satellite. (or more technically the component of the plane's velocity along the plane->satellite vector). The geometry involved is a little hard to get your head around unless you do a lot of that sort of thing.
     
  13. DjjA

    DjjA New Member

    Who has prepared these charts? Have they been prepared in-house by Metabunk administrators? Are they based on solid data released by Inmarsat, or are they selective visualisations of what has thought to have occurred? I wonder why in particular the Offset frequency falls so rapidly at the 18.20-1825 time point, where it is thought a change in direction is likely to have occurred. The change in D2 distance from the plane to satellite can not have altered so such an extreme extent.

    Why does that make such an obvious off-set frequency change?
     
  14. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    They were prepared by the UK's Air Accident Investigation Branch based on actual data.
    http://www.aaib.gov.uk/home/index.cfm

    The fall at 18:00 is labeled "possible turn", and that's what would cause such a dramatic change. The graph represents direction (velocity) relative to the satellite, not distance.
     
  15. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    • Informative Informative x 1
  16. Ray Robertson

    Ray Robertson Member

    Well. Anyway, the plane flew towards where Beijing would be had North and South changed around.
     
  17. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    Great article, and I love the basketball analogy, but I wish someone could explain how a ping would sound differently from any other ping. I don't understand that part. I understand doppler shift, and how sound can be used to identify if its moving towards your or away from you, but with respect to a ping, I just don't get it. Maybe its me, but if someone could help explain I would appreciate it. Especially since this is their "major" break through in terms of identifying its approx location
     
  18. Balance

    Balance Senior Member

    Radio frequencies are like sound waves - the have peaks and troughs over distance.
     
  19. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    I get that Balance. But how does a ping's peak or trough relate to distance and direction. Its a ping or better yet a blip. Do they count the number of peaks and troughs in between the satellite and the ping?
     
  20. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    Actually, I found a great article that better explains how they determined its location using the doppler shift and the wobble of the F41 satellite.

     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  21. Jeff

    Jeff New Member

    Before war in Irak, there were evidence from satellite images that there were massive destruction weapons... UK and USA were very convincing. Now we know they lied.

    Some people in Maldive saw a plane, possibly from Malaysian Airlines... Authorities don't tell it was another plan. They tell they are the liars (and if you think Maldives authorities are really independant from UK or USA, that is a joke). Of course, big governmental organisations necessarily tell the truth.

    I would like to know what really happened in Maldive... Especially as the pilot trained for landing in Male (Maldives) and Diego Garcia (US military base).

    Satellite data but ... who's satellites ? Which UK organisation do they belong to ? Which organisation processes the data ?

    Can we trust them more than real people ?

    But, may be something will be found near australia. Just a few pieces of the plane, to make an evidence. I will be convinced that the plane is found when the bodies will be found.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2014
  22. Jeff

    Jeff New Member

    Before war in Irak, there was evidence from satellite images that there were massive destruction weapons... UK and USA were very convincing. No we know they lied.

    Some people in Maldives saw a plane... Of course they are the liars. And big governmental organisations necessarily tell the truth.

    I would like to know what really happened in Maldive... Especially as the pilot trained for landing in Male (Maldives) and Diego Garcia (US military base).

    Satellite data but ... who's satellites ? Which UK organisation do they belong to ? Which organisation treats the data ?

    Can we trust them more than real people ?
     
  23. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    They count:
    A) The time taken for the plane to respond to a signal (i.e. related to the distance to the plane)
    B) The frequency, which is essentially the number of peaks per second, which relates to the direction the plane is moving in.
     
  24. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    Don't fall down the rabbit hole to far because once your in it to deep, its so hard to climb back out.
     
  25. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    This has been verified?

    And point of order: There is no need to "train for a landing" at an airport. (Only exception are certain designated "Special Airports", so named because of particularly difficult or challenging terrain, or unusual procedures associated with the arrival and go-around contingencies).
     
  26. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    So what is the simulator for? Is it more for learning how to navigate from location to location, or how to land in different locations, or even how to avoid thunderstorms or how to deal with turbulence.
     
  27. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    And don't forget basic nerdy enjoyment.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  28. Ray Robertson

    Ray Robertson Member

  29. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Landing, although certainly an important part of a successful flight ( :D ) isn't the primary purpose of a simulator (and the one being discussed RE: MH370 was a home set-up anyway --- no motion, no control feedback feel, etc).

    A typical simulator training session (full blown full motion, the whole shebang) is about standard procedures and orientation and repetition, and Emergency and Abnormal drills. (Engine failures before V1 and an RTO, engine failure after V1 and the profile and procedures to follow, etc).

    Also, a modern Level-D simulator is "Landing Certified", but this pertains to the regulatory requirement for currency --- at least three landings every 90 days is the minimum. What this means is a pilot transitioning to new equipment can accomplish all training and landing currency requirements without ever having to fly the real thing. In the past we would go out (usually late at night) on what we called Airplane Trainer flights, just to do the landings and complete the requirement. Expensive for the airline, in terms of fuel and added maintenance and airframe "cycles".
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  30. Ray Robertson

    Ray Robertson Member

    What is the procedure after a "Total Electric Failure"?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  31. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    So basically the flight simulator he had in his house, is no more sophisticated than a Playstation 4 flight simulator game or even a PC flight simulator game at home. It seems like based on what you said above, only the full blown motion simulators actually simulate emergencies, and abnormal drills.
     
  32. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    There usually is not a "total" failure, there is so much redundancy built in.

    Here is an example of one page in a B767 QRH (the B777 will be similar):

    Gen767.

    If you had two "Gen Off" simultaneously, then you would do this procedure for each. Meanwhile, you have the Standby Power from the airplane batteries, for essential controls and instruments and lighting.

    Edit: I found the B767 QRH at the link below. It's a big file, over 4 1/2 mb:
    http://fly.shanghai-air.com/flyiis/handbook/B767/767_QRH.pdf
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2014
  33. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    That's right. Not certain what all he had, but there are many hobbyists who get very sophisticated (except for motion, and control feel I suppose).



    You can buy all of those components --- instrument panels, control wheels and columns, center pedestal, the MFD (Multi-Function Display) screens (they're LCD panels), the FMC, the CDU, etc. Not cheap, though!!

    Or, this might seem off topic, but I found it and thought it was interesting:
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2014
  34. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    What is the procedure in a hijacking? Are the pilots supposed to let the hijackers take control of the plane, as in sitting in the pilot's seat, or are they supposed to talk the hijackers into letting them fly them to where ever they want to go? Or are they supposed to fight them fist and hand..
     
  35. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    Wow, that really sums things up nicely. So the media went way over board with this simulator business, and it wasn't necessary...
     
  36. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Rather than write an answer here, I'll just say that what used to be (prior to 9/11) kept confidential within the industry is now actually public, and can be found online. Better course of action is to not blurt out things like that.

    And also, I forgot which thread I was in, I thought it was the MH370 "speculation" thread (until I looked up top again) which is probably where this line of posts better belong (?)
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 1
  37. Ray Robertson

    Ray Robertson Member

    If these 'handshakes' were recorded by another device anywhere a much more accurate trajectory can of course be plotted.
     
  38. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    I agree. Was this satellite the only satellite to receive these handshakes is a major question. Now they are saying the location of the downed plane might be north east by as much as 1100 miles due to the "newer" interpretation of the data. I think its a monumental task looking for this plane in the Indian ocean but there needs to be a better and more cost effective way of doing this. Especially if they are not totally sure about the data they are interpreting.
     
  39. Ray Robertson

    Ray Robertson Member

    I wonder, if two computers on the west coast of Australia was running this program for example, but I cannot determine whether it "listens" on that frequency.
    There is quite a few of these types of apps available, but I suppose someone would have reported something by now.

    http://www.coaa.co.uk/planeplotter.htm
     
  40. Bernard Montalvo

    Bernard Montalvo New Member

    I'm curious about the way Inmarsat drew the Northern and the Southern corridors.

    For each handshake, Inmarsat must have recorded the time it took the signal to be sent and received, via the satellite, to the ground station. Then, the distance from the satellite is known. Which allows us to draw those arcs.

    But, if we look at the map, neither the Northern nor the Southern corridor match the period when the plane suposedly flew west.

    Moreover, when we add the Burst Frequency Offset analysis and plot it over the map, shouldn't it fit exactly over one of the two corridors?