I Think I Saw MH370

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Gclark8

I would suggest your Simulator Video, done by a Perth Journalist, not a pilot, is so far from the truth it should be deleted as misleading and scaremongering.

The Moderators need to keep an eye out for the deliberately misleading opinions posted here.

There are enough facts and reports from Government Agencies and Scientists to keep us all busy for a long time without having to wade through this journalistic trash.

Hmm... I have to disagree; this flight simulator re-creation is actually very believable in my opinion. While it may not represent what actually happened, it does give a credible account of what could have happened. There is nothing in it that contradicts the very few known facts that we the public already have.

The technical details are correct as far as I can tell (as an avionics engineer and ex-pilot) and it does provide for a simple explanation rather than a complex explanation.

The only question unanswered is why one of the flight crew would want to take such action.

This unanswered question must be considered in light of other possible explanations each of which have their own unanswered questions.

For instance, if it was a technical fault with the aircraft, how could such an advanced design have so many simultaneous multiple failures and incapacitate the flight crew?

or

If it was a malicious take over by someone external to the flight crew; how could they gain access to the flight deck and what was their motive?

While there are possible explanations for all of these scenarios, they are all improbable (and I include the single rogue pilot as one of these possibilities).

At the risk of repeating myself, all we can be certain of is that whatever did happen, it will be improbable (but actual)

[Coops]

Originally Posted by Gclark8

I would suggest your Simulator Video, done by a Perth Journalist, not a pilot, is so far from the truth it should be deleted as misleading and scaremongering.

The Moderators need to keep an eye out for the deliberately misleading opinions posted here.

There are enough facts and reports from Government Agencies and Scientists to keep us all busy for a long time without having to wade through this journalistic trash.

It is not the moderator's duty to decide who is giving misleading information. Your opinion maybe as misleading as other people's as far as we know. You give us much more credit than we deserve if you think we can somehow divine the truth from all the folk's opinions. If we could do that we could tell you where the plane is I would imagine. Now let's keep it civil please.

Coops.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Ann T. Cate

I'm wondering how the aircraft could be found at this point in time. From an aviation fuel slick still bubbling up from the bottom? Wouldn't floating debris, if any, have been stirred up and blown around and dissipated on the ocean currents? How long would the transmitters continue to function as locators?

Ann

The locators (Underwater Locator Beacons - ULB) are certainly flat by now!

Originally Posted by Gclark8

I am surprised by the lack of mention of Ley Lines in the Indian Ocean, they are just as credible as Ping Rings.....

Again I disagree, the Ping Rings as a fact of life. Unless you consider that the Inmarsat technical bods are pulling one giant hoax, then you have to accept that the Inmarsat system on board did reply to each and every polling request from the Inmarsat system until power was removed from the system.

In a off-shoot way, the fact that the Inmarsat terminal on board was the only thing active (from a communications point of view), does give some weight to the the sabotage theory. In is hardly likely that the anyone on board (flight crew, cabin crew or passengers) would have known that the Inmarsat terminal would poll (or handshake) every hour if it was otherwise in-active. This is just not common knowledge to any one but real comms geeks or, of course, Inmarsat technical engineers. So the "bad guy" would have considered he/she had made the aircraft dark (comms wise) when in fact, the Inmarsat terminal was alive and transmitting a handshake every hour.

The fact that the "ping rings" could be used as a location device has never been considered ever before anywhere as far as I know. So this is new territory and a very much cutting edge technology that is still in it's infancy. Therefore errors may be made but it certainly has a credible science behind it unlike ley lines.

[Jess928]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Hmm... I have to disagree; this flight simulator re-creation is actually very believable in my opinion. While it may not represent what actually happened, it does give a credible account of what could have happened. There is nothing in it that contradicts the very few known facts that we the public already have.

The technical details are correct as far as I can tell (as an avionics engineer and ex-pilot) and it does provide for a simple explanation rather than a complex explanation.

The only question unanswered is why one of the flight crew would want to take such action.

This unanswered question must be considered in light of other possible explanations each of which have their own unanswered questions.

For instance, if it was a technical fault with the aircraft, how could such an advanced design have so many simultaneous multiple failures and incapacitate the flight crew?

or

If it was a malicious take over by someone external to the flight crew; how could they gain access to the flight deck and what was their motive?

While there are possible explanations for all of these scenarios, they are all improbable (and I include the single rogue pilot as one of these possibilities).

At the risk of repeating myself, all we can be certain of is that whatever did happen, it will be improbable (but actual)

I was wondering whether the E&E bay could be infiltrated by someone from the outside during loading procedures or likewise from the forward loading area to the E&E bay. It's a short step from there to the cockpit although no hijack demands have been promulgated. I still think the Pilot acting alone. Take a look at the known timings I published earlier and imagine in your head going through the scenario with a stop watch alarm.....it fits. As a fellow airman and avionics guy you appreciate where I'm coming from!

[Jess928]

Originally Posted by MAP Waves

In this line what I find difficult is actually are there ANY FACTS after 17:19, because from what I can see all the rest is speculation! If there is to be any hope in finding MH370 then it needs to be looked at based on facts as far as possible, and I have a few questions which the helpful invistigative press, or any one else for that matter can hopefully answer.

People behave in a rational predictable manner, which generally is out of self interest. Irrational behaviour results from coercion or panic.

There must be over a thousand people directly related to those that disappeared on flight MH370 and as any reasonable person would expect hopes go up and down as new knowledge becomes available, but what appears is that there are actually very few facts with the disappearance of flight MH370, and by fact I mean something that is believable beyond a shadow of doubt. Beyond that it is all speculation and just about everything I have seen is speculation as there are too many simple unanswered questions resulting from conflicting "facts".

As it is not known what happened to this flight I look for a rational reason as to establish what is plausible and what is not.

To start with just a few obvious questions which I am sure have a simple answer in regards ATSB Fact sheet's most probable flight path that I have not been able to find?

16:41 Flight takes off normally and then at
17:01 radio confirmation of altitude etc. which at a guess is normal Rational
17:07 ACAS transmission send data normally. Automatic
It is stated in ATSB that this transmission included fuel data -
Question 1- Is this the data that people are using for their estimates of range??
17:19 ATC last radio contact.
17;22 Last ATC (secondary) radar fix
Question 2: At a guess is flightradar24 as report says civilian radar confirmation. Is this correct?
IF this is the source;
Question 3- There are 2 versions in regards timing the last contact on flightradar24. I downloaded a video of the flighttrader24.com video that was on you tube and posted this anomaly of the time difference which said 17:51 vs the ATSB 17:22 and as is on Flightradar24 MH370 link.
Question 4 - Can anyone verify which time is correct?

Question5 : Why would someone go to all the effort of changing the time stamp?
The person that uploaded it?? - no reason except for self interest.
Question 6: How difficult would this be to change the time stamp?
Question 7: Have any demands / threats been made based on this version?
Question 8 Are there any conspiracy theories out there based on this timing?

Question 9: Who else had an interest in changing it?
To change it there needs to be a reason, a motive! Rational
Question 10: What possible motives are there?
Self Interest Rational
Crisis Management or Coercion! Irrational

Question 11: Is flightradar24 data available for public scrutiny?

17:25 Aircraft deviated from flight route
Question 12: Is this from primary radar track? If so see list of questions next.

18:22 Final primary radar fix.
Question 13: Is this source the Malaysian Military Radar?
Question 14: When did this become public information because it appears that in the early days this was not known?
Question 15: Is this data publically available for scrutiny, as there was confusion and denial and confirmation regarding the Malaysian Military Radar?

The rest of the speculated route is based on Inmarsat "ping rings" .
Question 16: Is this data available for public scrutiny?
Question 17: Has the same formula been applied and tested to the previous successful handshake - i.e. does the Inmarsat data stand up to scrutiny?
Question 18: Is there a constant speed and heading that hits all the ping rings?

Both Boeing and Rolls Royce received data.
Question 19: Is this transmitted via the ACAS or is it a seperate system?
Question 20: If a separate system is the data publically available and if not why not?

I have no doubt Kate saw flight MH370. However as there appear to be so few facts regarding MH370 I sincerely do not believe those who lost loved ones will ever get satisfactory closure!

I also fail to find any motive - no one does anything for no reason!

If MH370 was indeed in trouble and without communications - there must be procedures for landing an aircraft - I cannot believe that this is not covered in any airlines risk assessment!

There certainly have been no demands made, so I cannot believe it it in any way terrorist related! Who would hijack a plane - tell nobody - and commit suicide in the Southern Indian Ocean?

16:41 Flight takes off normally and then at
17:01 radio confirmation of altitude etc. which at a guess is normal Rational
17:07 ACAS transmission send data normally. Automatic
It is stated in ATSB that this transmission included fuel data -
Question 1- Is this the data that people are using for their estimates of range??
(Only the aircraft refueller and the Captains signature will be accurate enough to establish a range of the aircraft).
17:19 ATC last radio contact.
17;22 Last ATC (secondary) radar fix
Question 2: At a guess is flightradar24 as report says civilian radar confirmation. Is this correct?
(Flightradar24 monitors civilian aircraft usually the 'heavies' but not military ones for obvious reasons).
IF this is the source;
Question 3- There are 2 versions in regards timing the last contact on flightradar24. I downloaded a video of the flighttrader24.com video that was on you tube and posted this anomaly of the time difference which said 17:51 vs the ATSB 17:22 and as is on Flightradar24 MH370 link.
(Unsure. Maybe a time delay in actual flight times to publication times for security reasons?)
Question 4 - Can anyone verify which time is correct?
(I would suggest ATSB. If a terrorist used Flightradar24 there would be aircraft falling out of the sky all over the place).
Question5 : Why would someone go to all the effort of changing the time stamp?
The person that uploaded it?? - no reason except for self interest.
(Publication delay?-see earlier)
Question 6: How difficult would this be to change the time stamp?
(Publication delay?-see earlier)
Question 7: Have any demands / threats been made based on this version?
(After an extensive trawl, none that I know of. Which is why my theory is IMHO very valid).
Question 8 Are there any conspiracy theories out there based on this timing?
(After an extensive trawl, none that I know of. Which is why my theory is IMHO very valid).
Question 9: Who else had an interest in changing it?
To change it there needs to be a reason, a motive! Rational
(No one? Publication delay?- see earlier).
Question 10: What possible motives are there?
Self Interest Rational
Crisis Management or Coercion! Irrational
(Publication delay?- see earlier)
Question 11: Is flightradar24 data available for public scrutiny?

(Unsure. Quite possibly under Freedom of Information Act if applicable?).
17:25 Aircraft deviated from flight route
Question 12: Is this from primary radar track? If so see list of questions next.
18:22 Final primary radar fix.
Question 13: Is this source the Malaysian Military Radar?
(Primary radar gives off a high frequency pulse that reflects off targets mainly for military purposes. I believe it was a final Malaysian primary radar fix.
Question 14: When did this become public information because it appears that in the early days this was not known?
(It probably was speculative as governments and military don't like to give sensitive information out such as primary radar limitations).
Question 15: Is this data publically available for scrutiny, as there was confusion and denial and confirmation regarding the Malaysian Military Radar?
(I would suggest it is not for public scrutiny).
The rest of the speculated route is based on Inmarsat "ping rings" .
Question 16: Is this data available for public scrutiny?
(See Duncan's web forum. It's very technical but worth a look if you have a Doctorate in advanced physics).
Question 17: Has the same formula been applied and tested to the previous successful handshake - i.e. does the Inmarsat data stand up to scrutiny?
(Unsure. See Duncan's web forum)
Question 18: Is there a constant speed and heading that hits all the ping rings?
(Although possible, I would suggest not due to the aircraft flying itself. Too many variables to nail down such as BFO, BTO, a/c weight, air density, parasitic drag (engine failure?) incorrect manual input etc).

Both Boeing and Rolls Royce received data.
Question 19: Is this transmitted via the ACAS or is it a seperate system?
(Unsure).
Question 20: If a separate system is the data publically available and if not why not?
(A quick trawl through the 'tinterweb' should show if this data is public ally available or not).

I have no doubt Kate saw flight MH370. However as there appear to be so few facts regarding MH370 I sincerely do not believe those who lost loved ones will ever get satisfactory closure!

I also fail to find any motive - no one does anything for no reason!
(No declared motive. No claim of responsibility by outside group. Pilot or co pilot acting alone is enough. If either is caught failing suicide and taking 239 souls with them, they'd be tried and imprisoned for life on their return).

If MH370 was indeed in trouble and without communications - there must be procedures for landing an aircraft - I cannot believe that this is not covered in any airlines risk assessment!
(There are procedures for everything on an aircraft).

There certainly have been no demands made, so I cannot believe it it in any way terrorist related! Who would hijack a plane - tell nobody - and commit suicide in the Southern Indian Ocean?
(I have to agree about it not being terrorist related. You wouldn't necessarily tell anyone if you we're going to commit suicide either even if youd been thinking about it for awhile especially if you we're a pilot. It just isn't a knee jerk reaction).[/QUOTE]

[Jess928]

Originally Posted by Gclark8

I am surprised by the lack of mention of Ley Lines in the Indian Ocean, they are just as credible as Ping Rings.

I too share your admirable zest for sarcasm and was wondering if the alien question had come up yet? lol

[MAP Waves]

Originally Posted by Jess928

I too share your admirable zest for sarcasm and was wondering if the alien question had come up yet? lol

I have been reading loads and I too would suggest lay lines within the fuel range are as good an assumption as ping rings because of the assumptions of the current ping rings - maybe search the intersects!

The "ground track of the ping ring is totally dependent on altitude - it must be as it is estimating the distance to the plane from the supposed known satellite position which is approximately geostationary.

As such really you need to make a "ping ring range" rather than assumptions as I am sure calculating backwards with the plane performance from the time believed to be in the air - what is the lowest slowest mathematical solution.
Hence that would give the extreme limits of the ground track of the ping ring.

So I would say somewhere between Stewart's track and the extreme of ideal flight possible - plus add a few more kilometers to that width so really from that you only got like half the Indian ocean to search and hence use random lay line intersections - they just as good as anywhere else for a starting point!!

Kate's sighting has the following impact:-

1- If it was not MH370 then the Northern option is still viable as there is no data other than Inmarsat's claim that they have further radar data showing it headed to Andaman's and then South -
This data also appeared on the press conference, however is missing from the new ATSB report released the day before!

So as it is not been disclosed to the public and appears very "suspect" I do not believe the data exists until I see it, so in this scenario the Northern route is still viable, and hence the above search area need to include the Northern parameter as described - so add say half of Asia and start searching maybe at cross section of ping rings and rivers, or the median altitude along the ping rings!!

2- If what Kate saw was MH370 then the Northern route is out as the plane was flying South, irrespective of Inmarsats claims about further radar data.

From this
3) The ping rings would need to be adjusted in this scenario to what I have said above regarding ping rings and the minimum possible flight path needs to be established whether she saw MH370 or not if we want to be scientific about it!

So this appears very negative I am sure - the point is that there appears to be no useful information which I personally believe is the case with one highly suspect source!

The only thing that will help narrow the search is if indeed there is some substance to Inmarsats claimed radar data. WHY?
1 - It is critical to eliminate the Northern route because I think most of us already know that Inmarsats calculations were wrong and hence the huge PR effort to define the new search area (thanks Duncan and his helpers for pointing this out before Inmarsat worked it out mysteriously on their own - but funny how that has not been in the press)
2 - To even be able to estimate a straight path of any sort you need a starting point - which is the reason the Northern route cannot scientifically be less likely than the Southern route.
3 -It would help unbelievably if you have a speed and heading! Radar data will have that, just as the Malaysian Radar did!

The fix, heading and speed will probably reduce the potential search area by 80%, and if it shows that Kates sighting was indeed MH370 then probably by another 80% of the remaining 20% - Hence scientifically the search area could be reduced somewhere in the region of 96%.

WHY IS THERE NO PRESSURE ON THE AUTHORITIES TO PROVIDE THIS DATA?? WHERE IS THE FREE PRESS DOING ITS INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM? EITHER THEY HAVE MORE RADAR OR THEY DON''T.

IF THEY DON'T THEN THEY NEED TO JUSTIFY THE LOGIC BEHIND THIS PIE IN THE SKY SCIENTIFIC WORK THEY ARE TRYING TO SELL TO THE VICTIMS.

I HAVE STRONG SUSPICION THE BRIGHT LIGHTS AND MYSTERIOUS BUOY WILL LEAD TO A SIMPLE ANSWER!!!!!

[stewball5]

I have posted a simulated MH-370 takeoff on YouTube at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOce...ature=youtu.be

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Jess928

I was wondering whether the E&E bay could be infiltrated by someone from the outside during loading procedures or likewise from the forward loading area to the E&E bay. It's a short step from there to the cockpit although no hijack demands have been promulgated. I still think the Pilot acting alone. Take a look at the known timings I published earlier and imagine in your head going through the scenario with a stop watch alarm.....it fits. As a fellow airman and avionics guy you appreciate where I'm coming from!

Like you, I wonder if this is possible - I have no first hand experience with the 777 to know one way or the other. One would like to think that all possible ways into the cockpit are hardened and the cockpit be kept sterile by flight crew action alone but errors of design occasionally exist It is surprising easy to access many aircraft once one manages to get to the tarmac side of "airport security"
Still a third party scenario is a more complex solution and "Ockham's razor" suggests we should consider the simplest solution as the primary focus.

On one hand, this suggests "single pilot suicide with a side serve of mass murder" as this is technically the easiest solution. However historically, it is also the rarest cause of aviation disasters which counts against this theory "Ockham-ise".

Thinking of the future, a purely technical failure of equipment would be the "best" answer as technical issues can always be addressed and resolved by better engineering. Sadly human factors are more difficult to fix.

Originally Posted by MAP Waves

I have been reading loads and I too would suggest lay lines within the fuel range are as good an assumption as ping rings because of the assumptions of the current ping rings - maybe search the intersects!

The "ground track of the ping ring is totally dependent on altitude - it must be as it is estimating the distance to the plane from the supposed known satellite position which is approximately geostationary.

As such really you need to make a "ping ring range" rather than assumptions as I am sure calculating backwards with the plane performance from the time believed to be in the air - what is the lowest slowest mathematical solution.
Hence that would give the extreme limits of the ground track of the ping ring.

So I would say somewhere between Stewart's track and the extreme of ideal flight possible - plus add a few more kilometers to that width so really from that you only got like half the Indian ocean to search and hence use random lay line intersections - they just as good as anywhere else for a starting point!!

Kate's sighting has the following impact:-

1- If it was not MH370 then the Northern option is still viable as there is no data other than Inmarsat's claim that they have further radar data showing it headed to Andaman's and then South -
This data also appeared on the press conference, however is missing from the new ATSB report released the day before!

So as it is not been disclosed to the public and appears very "suspect" I do not believe the data exists until I see it, so in this scenario the Northern route is still viable, and hence the above search area need to include the Northern parameter as described - so add say half of Asia and start searching maybe at cross section of ping rings and rivers, or the median altitude along the ping rings!!

2- If what Kate saw was MH370 then the Northern route is out as the plane was flying South, irrespective of Inmarsats claims about further radar data.

From this
3) The ping rings would need to be adjusted in this scenario to what I have said above regarding ping rings and the minimum possible flight path needs to be established whether she saw MH370 or not if we want to be scientific about it!

So this appears very negative I am sure - the point is that there appears to be no useful information which I personally believe is the case with one highly suspect source!

The only thing that will help narrow the search is if indeed there is some substance to Inmarsats claimed radar data. WHY?
1 - It is critical to eliminate the Northern route because I think most of us already know that Inmarsats calculations were wrong and hence the huge PR effort to define the new search area (thanks Duncan and his helpers for pointing this out before Inmarsat worked it out mysteriously on their own - but funny how that has not been in the press)
2 - To even be able to estimate a straight path of any sort you need a starting point - which is the reason the Northern route cannot scientifically be less likely than the Southern route.
3 -It would help unbelievably if you have a speed and heading! Radar data will have that, just as the Malaysian Radar did!

The fix, heading and speed will probably reduce the potential search area by 80%, and if it shows that Kates sighting was indeed MH370 then probably by another 80% of the remaining 20% - Hence scientifically the search area could be reduced somewhere in the region of 96%.

WHY IS THERE NO PRESSURE ON THE AUTHORITIES TO PROVIDE THIS DATA?? WHERE IS THE FREE PRESS DOING ITS INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM? EITHER THEY HAVE MORE RADAR OR THEY DON''T.

IF THEY DON'T THEN THEY NEED TO JUSTIFY THE LOGIC BEHIND THIS PIE IN THE SKY SCIENTIFIC WORK THEY ARE TRYING TO SELL TO THE VICTIMS.

I HAVE STRONG SUSPICION THE BRIGHT LIGHTS AND MYSTERIOUS BUOY WILL LEAD TO A SIMPLE ANSWER!!!!!

I think the northern route theory is difficult to sustain as it crosses many land masses and there are always people somewhere seeing something on land. There are also many more "opportunities" to appear on someone's radar somewhere.

I agree that the accuracy of the "ping rings" are very subjective but please remember this is an "infant science". AFAIK, this is the first time anyone has ever considered this way of analysing the "handshake data". It was never intended to be used thus and so mistakes should be expected.

The single biggest "gift" of the Inmarsat data has been the proof that the aircraft remained airborne with electrical power for several hours after it disappeared off the radar screen.

[SaucySailoress]

Originally Posted by Wotname

I agree that the accuracy of the "ping rings" are very subjective but please remember this is an "infant science". AFAIK, this is the first time anyone has ever considered this way of analysing the "handshake data". It was never intended to be used thus and so mistakes should be expected.
.

I am sure I read on several sites that the Inmarsat 'ping ring' technology was identified when Air France went down. Since then they have had it in mind as a tool for helping to locate missing aircraft, and have been keeping records of these ping rings as a result.

In fact, I found it, it was in a previous ATSB report:

“The satellite’s normal function is essentially communication and it was never initially intended to have the capability to track an aircraft. Following the Air France 447 accident, Inmarsat engineers began recording the BTO in order to provide another potential means of geo-locating aircraft in the event of a similar accident.”
Discussion here: Updated KML Files for Ping Rings | Duncan Steel

[MAP Waves]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Thinking of the future, a purely technical failure of equipment would be the "best" answer as technical issues can always be addressed and resolved by better engineering.

There has been far superior inexpensive technology available for a long time.
It is not a matter of engineering.

It is a matter of airlines not fulfilling their responsibility to stakeholders specifically in this case the passengers and relatives (the victims) and the public (who is paying for their failure of having suitable tracking equipment)
All airlines that do not have live alternative independent self sustaining tamper proof tracking systems;
- we can all make mistakes - 911 was that amongst others before I am sure!,
- we faced the same problem since - AirFrance amongst a number of others since 911,
Failure to act knowing there is a problem and knowing there are solutions but not acting IMO is gross negligence on the part of airlines and in respect of governments and the regulators they have failed in their duty of care - WE NAIVELY ASSUME we pay taxes and our representatives are looking after our interest.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Albert Einstein

Originally Posted by Wotname

Sadly human factors are more difficult to fix.

They would be much easier if people / companies / politicians were held liable for their actions!

Originally Posted by Wotname

I think the northern route theory is difficult to sustain as it crosses many land masses and there are always people somewhere seeing something on land. There are also many more "opportunities" to appear on someone's radar somewhere.

I agree it is marginally less likely as more potential witnesses ONLY IF IT WAS UNUSUAL - Bear in mind the Malaysian military deemed it not hostile as they thought it was under air traffic control so they correctly had no reason for suspicion as it was showing no signs of aggressive behaviour (remember that concept of innocent until proven guilty?), but the people at air traffic control should have informed the Military that they had problem!)
However scientifically it is just as valid.

Originally Posted by Wotname

I agree that the accuracy of the "ping rings" are very subjective but please remember this is an "infant science". AFAIK, this is the first time anyone has ever considered this way of analysing the "handshake data". It was never intended to be used thus and so mistakes should be expected.

I would disagree it is an infant science or subjective - it actually is an operating principle of satellite technology - what is different is it's application.
The subjectiveness comes from assumptions i.e. what altitude do we think it was flying at.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by SaucySailoress

I am sure I read on several sites that the Inmarsat 'ping ring' technology was identified when Air France went down. Since then they have had it in mind as a tool for helping to locate missing aircraft, and have been keeping records of these ping rings as a result.

In fact, I found it, it was in a previous ATSB report:

Hmm... well I not so sure there has been any real time use of this technology until now. My reading of the comments in the Duncan Steel link seems to support this view but I concede the matter is somewhat subjective.

Keeping records is one thing, actually using the data is quite another. I just don't see a private company (Inmarsat) spending the man hours needed to support the analysis doing so for no immediate financial reward and no (or little) potential market - until now that is.

MH370 is a gamechanger

[Wotname]

I guess I haven't been very good at explaining my argument here on this thread so I will just make a couple of comments below as I think we are pretty much on the same page otherwise.

Originally Posted by MAP Waves

There has been far superior inexpensive technology available for a long time.
It is not a matter of engineering.

I wasn't really referring to tracking the aircraft, I was meaning more that if some technical fault was found that caused the aircraft to loose comms, incapacitate the flightcrew and fly the aircraft off into the Southern Ocean, then an engineering solution could be found to prevent this happening again

It is a matter of airlines not fulfilling their responsibility to stakeholders specifically in this case the passengers and relatives (the victims) and the public (who is paying for their failure of having suitable tracking equipment)
All airlines that do not have live alternative independent self sustaining tamper proof tracking systems;
- we can all make mistakes - 911 was that amongst others before I am sure!,
- we faced the same problem since - AirFrance amongst a number of others since 911,
Failure to act knowing there is a problem and knowing there are solutions but not acting IMO is gross negligence on the part of airlines and in respect of governments and the regulators they have failed in their duty of care - WE NAIVELY ASSUME we pay taxes and our representatives are looking after our interest.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Albert Einstein

While I agree with you, it isn't how the world is working presently. Right now, it always comes back to the money v the risk. Even taking into account every aviation disaster over the last say 20 years, the risk in flying with a first world airline is incredibly low. There are simply many billions of safe passenger miles on record.

However the people problem I was referring to was more to do with hostile actions or suicide. It seems these things are hard to fix; we have been warring and so forth for thousands of years it seems

They would be much easier if people / companies / politicians were held liable for their actions!
I'm not sure I get this point; it seems to me that everyone is usually fixing blame well before fixing the fault however YMMV

I agree it is marginally less likely as more potential witnesses ONLY IF IT WAS UNUSUAL - Bear in mind the Malaysian military deemed it not hostile as they thought it was under air traffic control so they correctly had no reason for suspicion as it was showing no signs of aggressive behaviour (remember that concept of innocent until proven guilty?), but the people at air traffic control should have informed the Military that they had problem!)
However scientifically it is just as valid.
True

I would disagree it is an infant science or subjective - it actually is an operating principle of satellite technology - what is different is it's application.
The subjectiveness comes from assumptions i.e. what altitude do we think it was flying at.
I guess I was referring to this particular application

[MAP Waves]

Originally Posted by Wotname

I just don't see a private company (Inmarsat) spending the man hours needed to support the analysis doing so for no immediate financial reward

I think Duncan's site has far more expertise - after all they found the errors in the calculations before Inmarsat - and they do do it for nothing.
However if they are not given information then where are the checks and balances - certainly not in the free investigative press we have nowadays!

I do not believe Inmarsat is doing this for nothing. - Worst case it is a marketing expense to save face from the inadequacy of live gps location technology.
Just bear in mind like many things - they are designed for certain things, and live gps tracking was NOT one of the requirements when black boxes were developed. The only issue is that their technology has not kept up with the times which will cost them dearly if there is enough public pressure for updated technology - we all know it is needed but the invisible hand is at play!

Originally Posted by Wotname

and no (or little) potential market - until now that is.

And here is the crux - there are competitors who have more advanced technology

Originally Posted by Wotname

MH370 is a gamechanger

but it will not necessarily be in those who make decisions best interest!
911 was meant to change all this and nothing has changed except that the security business has mushroomed!

[Gclark8]

Mid-air drama on Air NZ flight - National - NZ Herald News

Mid-air drama on Air NZ flight 5:00 AM Sunday Jul 6, 2014
Two Air New Zealand pilots were stood down and their cabin crew offered counselling after a frightening mid-air incident on a packed transtasman flight.
The drama unfolded on flight NZ176 between Perth and Auckland on May 21, when the first officer was locked out of the cockpit for two minutes.
The captain did not respond to requests to open the locked door, alarming crew. The pair had apparently fallen out over a take-off delay.
One expert says two minutes is "an eternity" on a flight — and the incident, on a Boeing 777-200 carrying 303 people, has sparked calls for a third crew member to be added to flight decks so no one is ever alone in the cockpit.
Air NZ spokeswoman Marie Hosking said the first officer and crew became concerned after the captain did not respond to three requests over two minutes from a cabin crew member to open the cockpit door.
The first officer eventually used an alternative method to access the cockpit.