Slashdot Mirror


Engine Data Reveals That Flight 370 Flew On For Hours After It "Disappeared"

Advocatus Diaboli writes "Aviation investigators and national security officials believe the plane flew for a total of five hours based on data automatically downloaded and sent to the ground from the Boeing Co. 777's engines as part of a routine maintenance and monitoring program. As part of its maintenance agreements, Malaysia Airlines transmits its engine data live to Rolls-Royce for analysis. The system compiles data from inside the 777's two Trent 800 engines and transmits snapshots of performance, as well as the altitude and speed of the jet. Those snippets are compiled and transmitted in 30-minute increments, said one person familiar with the system." Update: 03/14 11:41 GMT by S : The WSJ has since updated its report to say the data was from the plane's satellite-communication system. However, Malaysian authorities have denied both scenarios, saying neither Boeing nor Rolls-Royce received data past 1:07am (the flight initially disappeared off radar at 1:30am).

85 of 382 comments (clear)

  1. Already denied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... by malaysian officials: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/13/malaysian-officials-deny-flight-mh370-missing-plane-flew-hours

    1. Re:Already denied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      And the story has since been updated. There were no new ACARS messages with engine data, so that is consistent with the malaysian officials.

      However, what the article now says it that the airplanes satellite link was trying to connect to the satellite, it just wasn't sending any data.

    2. Re:Already denied by Cimexus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Frankly, with the amount of conflicting and inaccurate information/speculation coming from all corners about this matter, I'm just tuning out for a week or two until something more concrete is discovered.

    3. Re:Already denied by nojayuk · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Malaysian Airlines 777 in question didn't have satellite ACARS capability, only VHF (and maybe HF too) radios carrying ACARS data. I'm not even sure it had any SATCOM equipment fitted at all. There was a recent airworthiness directive for 777-series aircraft about hull skin problems where SATCOM antennas are mounted on the top of the fuselage but it didn't apply to the Malaysian Airlines 777s since apparently they didn't have those antennas fitted.

      If the HF and VHF radios on board were shut down for any reason then there would be no more ACARS data received by ground stations.

    4. Re:Already denied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, apparently the source of this information was credible enough that the United States Navy, on its own initiative, is sending a ship to the Indian Ocean.

      There's clearly a ton of misinformation out there. But which is more likely--you're misinformed, or the U.S. Navy is misinformed?

    5. Re:Already denied by nobuddy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Having dealt with the Navy for a decade..... I'd say it's 50-50

    6. Re:Already denied by dale.furno · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm with you on the 60-40

    7. Re:Already denied by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      You can't make a triangle out of a single point.

      Back to Intro Geometry with you!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    8. Re:Already denied by icebike · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, I'd like to know where you got the information on the exact equipment on board this plane?

      What is being denied is that Malaysian Airlines subscribed to this monitoring program, not that it was not so equipped (*).
      The latest reports is that the radios are there and ping the satellites even when they are not going to transmit data.

      U.S. officials said earlier that they have an "indication" the missing Malaysia Airlines jetliner may have crashed in the Indian Ocean and is moving the USS Kidd to the area to begin searching.
      It's not clear what the indication was, but senior administration officials told ABC News the missing Malaysian flight continued to "ping" a satellite on an hourly basis after it lost contact with radar. The Boeing 777 jetliners are equipped with what is called the Airplane Health Management system in which they ping a satellite every hour. The number of pings would indicate how long the plane stayed aloft.

      (Sort of like a cell phone with an expired sim still talks to the towers).

      This is coming from the white house.
      You will remember YEARS AGO when the Russians shot down a commercial airliner, that the NSA pulled recorded conversations between the Russian pilots and their base, WEEKS after the incident, embarrassing the Russians.
      The US probably has more data on this indecent than they are willing to reveal at this time.

      *This makes sense, because the airlines can turn the feature on by simple writing a check.
      Boeing builds it into the fleet on the hopes of selling the service.

       

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    9. Re:Already denied by MouseR · · Score: 4, Funny

      Speaking of which, Malaysia simply needs to request #NSA for the black box backup.

    10. Re:Already denied by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      I'd be more worried about a bio-bomb as that would be the perfect carrier, hell you could infect the passengers and use them as the "payload" and then fly it over a large heavily populated city and blow it up at 10,000 feet, voila! the diseased body parts would be spread over a large area and cause maximum damage. To hamper cleanup you could always mix enough uranium to make the whole thing "dirty" enough to cause a panic and slow the responders to a crawl.

      To be honest, all you really need is to put a sick person on a plane. Have them walk up and down to the bathroom coughing and hacking and you'll spread it to other passengers. When the plane lanes, those sick passengers then spread out - infecting local populations, and other flights as connections.

      No need to crash a plane, just put a sick person on the plane. "Plane flu" is actually a real thing and is the result of putting a bunch of people together in a confined space.

    11. Re:Already denied by cyn1c77 · · Score: 2

      Actually, I'd like to know where you got the information on the exact equipment on board this plane?

      Uh, duh!

      He is obviously the one who has the plane hidden somewhere!

    12. Re:Already denied by sexconker · · Score: 2

      Hint: The satellites are the other points.

    13. Re:Already denied by icebike · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Damn you auto-correct!

      Note, it occurred to me later that the one country that has had airplanes flown into buildings might very well develop means of tracking planes that intentionally go off the grid, either by additional transmitters hidden in diagnostic gear, or other means.

      Since the SAR beacons haven't gone off or haven't been heard, they too might have been disabled.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    14. Re:Already denied by flyingsquid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The big question is, how the HELL is it possible to lose an entire commercial aircraft in 2014? I've seen some articles to the effect that it's difficult to cover the entire earth with enough radars to track planes over the ocean. OK, sure, but that's the obsolete ACARS system. That's why we have satellite communications. For $150 you can buy a portable GPS beacon from Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Spot-Sat... and then there's a subscription fee which is maybe $100/year. Basically, for $250 your kayak trip sends GPS updates every 5 minutes so it can't be lost at sea, it just seems bizarre that a commercial aircraft carrying 200 people wouldn't have even that minimal sort of tracking ability. And there are companies building similar technology for aircraft- basically, streaming the black-box data in real time over satellite networks. It would be expensive to implement, but how many millions of dollars have been spent on ships and helicopters for the rescue effort?

    15. Re:Already denied by RoboJ1M · · Score: 2

      IMO It's not done because unless you legislate this stuff private companies are not going to something that doesn't have a reasonable return on investment.

      Basically there's no money in it.
      And I bet the airline isn't paying for squat when it comes to search & rescue fees, that'll all be coming out of the taxpayer's pocket I bet.

      woo capitalism. .

      I bet if you enforced a €10,000,000 daily file for every day the plane's not found, then you'd see so many tracking equipment blisters and antenna spikes on a get it would look like a flying hedgehog.

    16. Re:Already denied by Soulskill · · Score: 2

      I've updated the summary to reflect this.

    17. Re:Already denied by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 2

      [1] All the talk about the ocean being huge is true, but I bet if you have high res pictures of the areas for that period, it's not going to be that hard to figure out where it crashed. Start from a known position and time, find out which pic and where, then follow it. It's only a few trillion square metres after all, those billions of dollars should be able to buy some decent terapixel imaging systems ;).

      Problem is that spy satellites, are expensive and as such probably weren't over the Indian Ocean taking pictures of the water when the plane was supposedly flying in that area. That could be moved and take pictures now, but if the plane crashed or landed in the water, it would have sunk by now. So, even if a spy satellite could read a newspaper from orbit, it would take a lot of newspaper sized images to cover the search area and a lot of manpower to look at them all.

  2. Napkin time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ~500 mph * 5 hours = 2500 mile radius = 19.6 million square miles.

    That's about 10% of the surface of the planet. They're going to need some sort of heading information; you can permanently hide a 777 in that much ocean/mountain/jungle/etc.

    Anyone know if the radar hits were meaningful yet?

    1. Re:Napkin time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you need a new napkin. It's fair to think they flew in a reasonably straight line, so you don't have a circle of area, you have a donut. The width of the donut is the % deviation from "straight line" that you think is fair.

    2. Re:Napkin time by zippthorne · · Score: 2

      The straighter the line the bigger the circle....

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    3. Re:Napkin time by camperdave · · Score: 2

      The straighter the line the bigger the circle....

      Yes, and no. If the engines ran for 4-5 hours and they flew in a straight line, then you can rule out anything inside the 4 hour circle. It will be in the ring between 5 hours out, and 4 hours out.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    4. Re:Napkin time by scsirob · · Score: 2

      Not true. If they circled around, or flew 2 hours one direction and 2 hours back again, they'd be right where they started. Strait line seems logical, but if they planned it through knowing that telemetry data would still be sent then that would make it harder to find them.

      --
      To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
    5. Re:Napkin time by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 2

      If the engines ran for 4-5 hours and they flew in a straight line

      I think you missed that bit.

      Assume there exists a spherical cow in a vacuum...

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
  3. In five hours... by ackthpt · · Score: 2

    You could fly from San Francisco (SFO) to Orlando (MCO) That's a pretty big search radius, if this story is true.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  4. Correction: Signal NOT from the engine monitors by gnunick · · Score: 4, Informative
    (From TFA):

    Corrections & Amplifications

    U.S. investigators suspect Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 flew for hours past the time it reached its last confirmed location, based on an analysis of signals sent through the plane's satellite-communication link designed to automatically transmit the status of onboard systems, according to people familiar with the matter. An earlier version of this article and an accompanying graphic incorrectly said investigators based their suspicions on signals from monitoring systems embedded in the plane's Rolls-Royce PLC engines and described that process.

    --
    I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious. --Albert Einstein
  5. It wasn't the engines sending data by JoeyRox · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It was the SATCOM system of the plane itself, which has the capability of transmitting health and positional data of the entire plane's system for analysis by third-party service and maintenance providers. Airliners have the option to purchase service plans for that but Malaysia Airlines chose to only purchase a separate plane related to data the engine's themselves can transmit (from Rolls Royce, the engine's manufacturer).

    Even though Malaysian Airlines didn't have an online service monitoring plan for this specific plane, the plane still performs periodic searches/connections to satellite data communication providers - akin to an unregistered cell phone searching and connecting to a cell tower but without licensed service. This periodic connection occurs approx once every hour on the plane, and by counting the number of attempts (4), authorities believe the plane was either flying or in-tact for at least 4 hours from the last secondary radar ping.

    1. Re:It wasn't the engines sending data by InvalidError · · Score: 5, Informative

      I would be a little surprised if the engine monitoring and satellite link circuitry would be on battery backup since it is unlikely engines and passengers would have much use for satellite link after the plane hits water. For the satellite link to work, the antenna would also need to remain above water since submersion adds horrible attenuation to radio signals. Additionally, cabin electronics aren't water-tight so submersion in ocean water would ruin them in fairly short order.

    2. Re:It wasn't the engines sending data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The 777's two NiCad batteries have enough juice to power the essentials for about a maximum of 5 minutes in a complete electrical failure, which is simply unheard of on the 777. If you need the ship's batteries, you are far beyond being well and truly fucked. The airplane has 7 sources of electrical power. These include two engine driven 120KVA alternators, one 90KVA APU alternator, two 20KVA engine driven backup generators, an pnuematically driven generator, and a ram air turbine. There are also a permanent magnet alternator on each engine to power the FADECs. In addition, each flight control actuator has its own battery pack.

    3. Re:It wasn't the engines sending data by Above · · Score: 4, Informative

      OP has it right, but we can add more information. I've been following the discussion over at www.airliners.net where some people know more about this plane's electronics.

      First some back story. The SATCOM system is sort of like your cable modem, or more accurately a cell data stick for a laptop. It's a sort of modem that knows how to connect to the satellites. Like a unprovisioned cell phone it still reaches out and says "can I have service", and then gets no answer. ACARS is an application that runs on another computer in the plane. It's sort of like a "twitter feed" for a plane. Short messages can be placed on it and routed off to other places. Boeing offers a service where the plane reports its health back to boeing using this application. Rolls Royce offers a service where the engines report back to them using this service. Pilots can even send short text messages over the service back to their HQ. The GPS system can send a message with its position. ACARS knows how to transmit over HF, VHF, and SATCOM. It also goes through a cleaning house (think twitter again) who routes the individual messages to the right party.

      Mayalsia Airlines apparently bought the "limited" package of monitoring. As such ACARS was programmed to send no information to Boeing, and only limited information to Rolls Royce. Compare with the Air France crash in the Atlantic where they subscribed to the "full" suite of monitoring and 29 messages were generated. Further, Mayalsia apparently didn't pay for SATCOM airtime, instead letting it report over HF and VHF. If it was far enough out over water these methods would not be within reach of the radios.

      However, the plane still had a SATCOM system on it (comes standard), and it was still like an unprovisioned cell phone saying "can I have service", apparently once per hour. Further the satellites in orbit have directional antennas that cover a particular section of the ground. It appears in this case ACARS was disabled (either intentionally, a small switch in the cockpit) or via failure (fire, or whatever).

      The key detail is that while ACARS and many other functions can be turned off from the cockpit, the only circuit breaker for the SATCOM systems are NOT in the cockpit according to experts. It would require going to the electronics room on the plane which is not easy to reach in flight, and more importantly would not be possible to reach if a individual had taken over the plane.

      So the stories line up. Boeing received no messages as the plane was not programmed to send them any. Rolls Royce received two during the normal part of flight, and then nothing as the system was turned off or disabled. However that SATCOM modem apparently continued, once per hour, to look for service. I guess the US authorities were able to talk to the satellite provider and get logs of it making those requests, and perhaps even narrowing it down to a specific antenna on the satellite.

      On power; the experts say the plane has ~30 minutes of battery in the case of total electrical failure. In flight it also has a ram air turbine (think mini-windmill) that can generate enough power. If it did a "miracle on the hudson" style landing in water and it somehow stayed afloat (being under water even 1' makes the sat signal too week) batteries would only last ~30 minutes.

      One of the most bizarre incidents ever recorded. The outcome of this is going to be very interesting.

    4. Re:It wasn't the engines sending data by InvalidError · · Score: 2

      How often have pilots successfully landed large aircrafts on water? AFAIK, the Hudson landing is the only time pilots have managed to pull off a perfect landing where the plane stayed in one piece and everyone survived - they did not call it the "Miracle on the Hudson" for nothing and the only reason they managed to pull that off is because the river was perfectly still at the time. All other water landings I remember seeing footage or reconstructions of had various degrees of severe disintegration either on impact or soon after - hitting water at over 200km/h is almost like hitting a brick wall; anything that sticks out (like engines, wings, instrument tubes, antennas, landing gear and doors if deployed, etc.) gets ripped out and creates more areas where drag will rip even more stuff off. I do not remember any other water landing where the plane still had both wings attached.

      BTW, the cabin is only designed to keep 100kPa inside the cabin. Keeping the 100MPa from crashing into a wave outside would require something drastically different.

  6. The plane was pinging hours after it disappeared by Advocatus+Diaboli · · Score: 2

    A satellite transmitter on the plane was active for about five hours, indicating the plane was operational after its transponder shut down less than an hour after takeoff, said three U.S. government officials. The 777 can cruise at 500 miles (805 kilometers) an hour or more, meaning it may have flown for as far as 2,500 miles beyond its last point of contact if it was intact and had enough fuel. Link (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-13/missing-malaysian-jet-said-to-have-flown-with-beacon-off.html)

  7. Re:Here's What Will Happen by Le+Marteau · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The United States was founded on a conspiracy. Literally.

    That the people are being conditioned to automatically consider anything labeled a "conspiracy" automatically laughable says a lot about the degeneration of the U.S.

    --
    Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
  8. Re:Here's What Will Happen by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ah, the Important Person has spoken. The rest of us are the wackos this time!

  9. Re:Combined with the ringing phones ? by blackiner · · Score: 4, Funny

    Was this actually Oceanic flight 815?

  10. Maybe it's just Little Country Syndrome? by rmdingler · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Say they are doing their best to reassure the domestic population that they are in competent control of the disaster, but they're in over their heads...

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Maybe it's just Little Country Syndrome? by mjwx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Say they are doing their best to reassure the domestic population that they are in competent control of the disaster, but they're in over their heads...

      Not quite.

      MAS is owned by the Malaysian Government holdings company (either wholly or majority, I cant remember which) and the airline has recently had another period of unprofitably. This is less about assuring the Malaysian people of anything and more about trying to do damage control to the rest of the world. Sadly they're doing it in SE Asian style which is more about maintaining face than fixing issues.

      In addition to this, MAS is getting a lot of competition from Malaysia's low cost airline Air Asia and anything else that could eat into the MAS's revenue is detrimental to the Malaysian Govt so they're dialling the damage control up to 11.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  11. Re:Turns out, no. by multi+io · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Authorities quickly debunked this story this AM.

    Denied, not debunked. Big difference.

  12. Re:Here's What Will Happen by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nope.
    It's a "conspiracy theory." when you have no actual data to back up a statement. Usually note be the ever expanding circle the conspiracy must encompass when you raise questions about the person uttering the conspiracy theory.

    I'm sorry* reality doesn't coincide with your pet narrative. Doubly sorry* you seem to be aware of critical thinking, yet have no idea how to use it or what it actually is.

    *I'm no really sorry.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  13. Re:Here's What Will Happen by Goody · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's when a theory is implausible and the "critical thinkers" spend years obsessed with beating a dead horse they get labeled conspiracy nut tinfoil hat wearing wackos, like the 911 truthers, the we-didn't-go-to-the-moon people, or the nutbags who are still asking for Obama's birth certificate. Critical thinking is fine and welcome in this country. Obsessing about implausible made up scenarios driven by agendas or outrage isn't.

    --
    Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
  14. What about radar? by Brainguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Something I don't understand is how the plane disappeared from radar yet kept flying. Switching off a transponder does not make a plane disappear from radar, it just means there is a blip on the radar without the data a transponder provides. The fact that no one is bringing this up leads me to believe I'm missing something big here, because as far as I know the only way that plane could have disappeared completely from radar was if it disintegrated.

    1. Re:What about radar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Something I don't understand is how the plane disappeared from radar yet kept flying. Switching off a transponder does not make a plane disappear from radar, it just means there is a blip on the radar without the data a transponder provides. The fact that no one is bringing this up leads me to believe I'm missing something big here, because as far as I know the only way that plane could have disappeared completely from radar was if it disintegrated.

      A blip is just a blip among presumably hundreds of other blips. Without a transponder, you're going to have a hell of a time identifying a particular blip as the aircarft that you're searching for.

    2. Re:What about radar? by Dolphinzilla · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually air traffic control radars ARE radars, the transponder merely fills in the ID data (as a beacon as you said). Aircraft without transponders show up as unidentified targets with a heading, range, and speed. Transponders work are farther ranges because there is only a one way free space loss to the aircraft, when relying only on a radar "echo" the loss is both directions

    3. Re:What about radar? by LDAPMAN · · Score: 2

      ATC radars are very short range. Once the plane was 50 miles form the airport it would not be seen.

    4. Re:What about radar? by Rich0 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not quite correct. The situation is quite a bit more complex than that.

      ATC obtains information about aircraft in the area in a number of ways.

      One is primary radar - which is in fact radar. It generally has a limited range - maybe 50 miles or so. Usually civilian equipment cannot detect altitude either, and of course it picks up noise from birds and weather and such.

      The more useful source of data is secondary radar, which relies on transponders. The transponders generate a pulse when they are interrogated - the aircraft doesn't need to know its own location for this to work - the ground station works it out from the time to receive the reply. The transponder can encode a code to identify the aircraft, and it can also encode the altitude (or at least what the plane thinks its altitude is).

      The more recent development is ADS-B via UAT and ES. These involve the aircraft broadcasting its position as determined by GPS. It can be sent out as part of the transponder reply, or it can be sent out without any need for secondary radar at all, potentially even being picked up by satellite.

      So, radar is used to track aircraft, but with its limited range civilian radar would not detect an airliner out at sea unless it had a cooperative transponder. Even with a transponder range is only 100 miles or so. You can get much longer ranges with military radar, especially if it is airborne. However, stumbling on one of those would require luck, and a military aircraft probably wouldn't be on the lookout for rogue airliners.

    5. Re:What about radar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      There are a lot of reasons. Air traffic control is about 90% reliant on transponders. Without a transponder, an aircraft is just a "primary target" or blip on the scope. In most cases there is no computerized synthetic track associated with a primary target. Remember, air traffic control radars are designed to track cooperative targets, not like a military radar designed to track non-transponding, uncooperative targets. Yea, if they had an AEGIS it would be able to track the airplane exactly, but they didnt.

      There is virtually no non-transponding traffic at high altitude. ATC controllers can turn the gain on the skin paint (primary target) up/down to clean up the scope, and usually its down. Sometimes the RADAR may not even be operating (other than the transponder). Actual radar coverage to allow skin paint is not that great. You might be surprised at the places in the US that do not have 100% coverage. If you fly across the gulf of mexico from Houston to Key West, you will be out of radar coverage for some of the trip. If you are out in the big open west USA (Airzona, Nevada, eastern CA), and drop below high altitude you will go out of radar coverage rapidly.

      I find it interesting that the last communications with this aircraft was when handing off from one control facility to another. If I wanted to "disappear" an airliner, that is exactly the right time to do it. You check out with one controller, then just never check in with the next. Normally an automated "strip" would go across with the handoff, but If the controllers are in different countries, you can bet on significant delay in the land-line communications between the two to figure out what happened.

      I'm a pilot

    6. Re:What about radar? by mbeckman · · Score: 5, Informative

      AK Marc: I'm a licensed pilot, aircraft mechanic, and avionics technician, and have worked on FAA radar systems. What you say is completely untrue. Aviation surveillance radar worldwide is RADAR with capital letters. There is no WiFi involved, no AP, nothing like you describe. The system was designed in the 1960s and, except for some incremental enhancements, has been largely unchanged since then.

      It consists of a ground based antenna system that transmits sweeping RF energy beams that bounce off metal objects such as aircraft (and occasionally flocks of birds) and reflect back to the antenna. The radar electronics complex processes digitized radar data streams from multiple antennas and generates a synthesized image, which appears on controller screens. Controllers can see this basic radar "blip" if they choose, although generally it's displayed as a faint background trace to keep the screen uncluttered.

      The transponder system works by sending a coded signal that rides on the radar energy beam. When the beam paints an aircraft, the on-board transponder receiver decodes this as an "interrogation".

      In its most basic form, called Mode C, the aircraft answers the interrogation with a data packet containing the a four-digit code assigned by a controller to the aircraft (which the pilot typically sets manually after receiving the "squawk" code verbally from the controller), and the aircraft pressure altitude. In the more recent Mode S, this packet contains additional data, such as the GPS location, airspeed, etc. Aircraft can overhear each others' Mode S replies and use that information to build an internal model of occupied airspace; this process is the foundation of the Terminal Collision Avoidance System (TCAS).

      The transponder data gets painted on the controller's integrated radar display to make it easier to track targets. This is called "narrowband" mode because a this system can filter out a lot of clutter, leaving the controller with only verified targets to track. But if the narrowband system fails, which happens on occasion, controllers are all trained to revert to an old manual system using paper markers that they stick to their screens to track aircraft.

      All commercial aircraft and many general aviation aircraft use Mode S today, and thus we collect quite a lot of data about flights in progress. In the Malaysian case, the aircraft was in radar coverage, receiving interrogations and responding, when they lost contact with it. Although the actual radar data hasn't been revealed, the sense of what has been shown so far is that the raw radar return, or echo, as well as the transponder Mode C, stopped simultaneously. It's possible that the controllers were not displaying non-transponder returns on their screens, so it may turn out that there was a raw signal for some time. That's the big question that, once answered, will indicate whether there was a deliberate action to turn off the transponder or a cataclysm turned it off. People can turn off transponders, but they cannot turn off raw radar signatures.

    7. Re:What about radar? by mbeckman · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm a network engineer and know 802.11 well. Your analogy fails, because the radar signal is the main function of the system, which generates aircraft position information from which the system derives track and velocity. You completely dismissed this component and actually said it's rarely used in civilian aviation.

      There is no parallel with WiFi. WiFi broadcasts are just data packets; radar interrogations are directional energy beams that locate aircraft in distance and azimuth. WiFi broadcasts are no different from the packets the client sends back to the AP: the framing, timing, and encoding is identical. But radar interrogations are tri-pulse trains on a common global frequency, with unique timing to identify the type of interrogation. Transponder replies are at a different common global frequency transmitted in as TDM-encoded data frames. Replies are omnidirectional and only pass data generated by cockpit instrumentation back to the radar station.

      Thus transponder data is only used by controllers for identification and altitude, and some ancillary data. Mode S GPS content in transponder replies is used by other aircraft for TCAS, not by controllers for position information. If the aircraft is outside reflection range, it won't transpond. By definition if the transponder replies to an interrogation, it was because the aircraft was being painted by a radar's "skin" beam, which at microwave frequencies means there is line of sight between the aircraft and ground antenna. The radar echo is guaranteed to make it back to the station because of this line of sight. On an aircraft the size of a 777, very little energy needs to be reflected to generate position data, and I've never seen a situation where transponders don't have a corresponding primary radar blip.

      All these differences between reality and your analogy lead to radically incorrect conclusions about system capabilities and behavior. I can say the earth is like and egg, because they're both round, but that doesn't make it a good analogy.

    8. Re:What about radar? by mbeckman · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, the transponder can't do that. Its signal is completely independent of the radar echo, on a different wavelength, and provides no independent position information. The radar echo arrives before the transponder reply, since both travel at the speed of light in air and the transponder response takes time to generate, while the echo is just an instantaneous reflection of microwave pulses. The signals are correlated by a ground computer to generate the controller display, which draws a symbol in place of the radar blip with the altitude data nearby, but that's just a presentation function. The computer also computes the aircraft ground speed and direction of travel and displays those numerically as well. The blips are all on screen, but deliberately dimmed to keep down screen clutter.

      But BOTH raw radar data and transponder replies are recorded at the controller's station (actually by he computer, of course). This way aviation authorities can reconstruct exactly what the controllers saw on their screen. I worked on software for the original version of this system, which was written in the Jovial programming language and IBM basic assembly language (BAL). The software and computers have changed, but amazingly the radar system itself has evolved very little, other than wth the addition of more stations and better data collection networks.

      The movie "Pushing Tin" (Angelina Jolie, John Cusack, Billy Bob Thornton) is actually a pretty accurate depiction of how it all works. Not a lot has changed since that movie was made. The movie's title comes from slang for what controllers still do today when they lose their computer capability and have to deal with just primary radar returns. They push little paper markers around on the screen and keep track of flight information with paper data strips, and that serves as the emergency backup mechanism in the event of a computer failure.

    9. Re:What about radar? by mbeckman · · Score: 3, Informative

      The ATC system would flag any transponder code change. That's been a security measure for decades, ever since the first hijackings back in the 1970s. In fact, there are special codes to indicate various emergencies that a pilot can dial in as a rudimentary alternate communications channel. Also, in addition to the code, all modern aircraft using Mode S also transmit a unique hard-coded aircraft serial number. That is difficult to change in flight, by design. Keep in mind that the airspace they were flying through was largely empty, so there is not a large chance of a controller mixing up flights. However, there is some chance, and there is always the possibility of conspiracy. But now you're talking tinfoil hat theories.

  15. The real puzzle by Advocatus+Diaboli · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Evidently the aircraft had enough power to run the pinging transmitter for over 4 hours after the transponder went dead (or was turned off). This implies that the aircraft also had enough power and structural integrity for at least some of its communication systems to work. But the experienced pilots did not make even one distress call or issue a single distress code. Why not? What prevented them from doing it?

    1. Re:The real puzzle by jmichaelg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The obvious implication is they were hijacked. The not so obvious explanation is hypoxia-induced dementia in the pilots.

      I've yet to see anything that eliminates either possibility.

    2. Re:The real puzzle by wordsnyc · · Score: 2

      2005: Greek 737 crew succumbed to cabin de-pressurization, plane flew on until out of gas & crashed. Helios Airways Flight 522: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

      Story of multiple pilot errors on top of ground mechanic's stunning mistake. I suspect something similar happened in this case.

      --
      Sent from the iPad I found in your car.
  16. No alien abduction theories?! by panda2005 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Come on guys, it's been DAYS already! How come aliens still not in the picture???

    1. Re:No alien abduction theories?! by jeffasselin · · Score: 2

      It's not a real conspiracy theory if you can't bring the Knights Templar into it in some way.

      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
  17. Re:Here's What Will Happen by geekoid · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ah yes, the spelling ad hom and no actual refutation.
    Brilliant!

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  18. Don't know what to believe anymore by Thanosius · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As someone else has already mentioned, this has been denied by Malaysian officials. Just like China has now said that those satellite images which were supposed to show plane debris did in fact not show debris, but indeed, said satellite images were "released by mistake". Just like that admiral of the Vietnamese Navy saying they had lost radar contact with the plain just over the Gulf of Thailand, but apparently it was just incorrect information (another mistake).

    It seems clear that no-one knows where the fuck that plane is, but due to the pressure to find something, ANYTHING to satisfy the media as well as political pressure (not to mention relatives of those missing), anything that could be seen as a clue is pushed out as something important before it's even checked or verified.

    At least it can be assumed that those on the flight must be well and truly dead by now, if only because the alternative would be more horrifying...

    --
    Account abandoned. I can't fucking spell for shit and Slashdot doesn't even allow time-limited edits of posts. Plus you'
  19. Satcom by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The satcom device does not have to have been on the aircraft.

  20. Re:Combined with the ringing phones ? by Cimexus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yes that is interesting. Although we are just going on hearsay to an extent. Is there PROOF that passengers' phones were ringing (i.e. those phones were definitely on the plane, and definitely rang)? Or is it just a case of some relatives believing what they want to believe (which I don't blame them for, in the traumatic situation they are in).

    Furthermore there are other potential explanations for that, including phones auto-forwarded to other numbers or diverted to a malfunctioning voicemail or answering machine system when not in range of a tower. This is especially possible for internationally routed calls (which sometimes do some pretty weird things).

    If it is true, it certainly does suggest that the plane remained flying (and at a low altitude) for some time after 'disappearing', or at least that the plane crashed somewhere within range of a cell tower and some phones survived the crash.

  21. Some overlooked facts suggest a new theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ignoring all the speculation for a bit, let me present a few completely irrefutable facts that point to a different theory of what happened to the plane.

    Fact 1: There are many active volcanoes in this region of the world.

    Fact 2: There were virgins on the airplane.

    Fact 3: The Great Old Ones have not arisen to destroy us all.

    We should thank them for ensuring the continued existence of the human race.

    1. Re:Some overlooked facts suggest a new theory by queazocotal · · Score: 2

      It's been revealed that there were several electrical engineers on the plane.
      Case closed on the virgin front, I fear.

  22. Re:Combined with the ringing phones ? by mschuyler · · Score: 5, Informative

    The phones weren't "ringing." the ring tone the relatives heard was supplied by Central Office Equipment to give the illusion that the phones were "ringing." That's what happens when someone picks up the phone and you say, "But it hadn't started ringing yet." Yes, it had. It's just that your simulation-ring hadn't reached you yet--two different tones. Think about it. There is only a single cable pair that hooks up a typical phone. How could you possibly "hear it ring"?

    The cell network mimics the POTS network. It's just part of the "aural interface" phones have used for over a hundred years.

    --
    How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
  23. ABC News: Comm systems shut down separately by Beeftopia · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Two U.S. officials tell ABC News the U.S. believes that the shutdown of two communication systems happened separately on Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. One source said this indicates the plane did not come out of the sky because of a catastrophic failure.

    The data reporting system, they believe, was shut down at 1:07 a.m. The transponder -- which transmits location and altitude -- shut down at 1:21 a.m."

    -- ABC News, Thursday March 13, 2014

    Curiouser and curiouser.

  24. Why is everybody so hung up on terrorist? by hamster_nz · · Score: 4, Informative

    My money is on something like what heppend to flght ZU 522 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

  25. Re:Here's What Will Happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Such people are a distinct minority. There are people who believe in anything you can imagine. The fact that they are not ignored by the mainstream media but are in fact paraded in front of society for the purposes of mockery and as an example to all is telling.

    The fact is, these imbeciles are used as material to condition people to automatically reject ANY possibility of ANY conspiracies, by their idiocy, when in fact most of history is the history of conspiracies.

  26. Monitoring module only functions when engine is on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The on board engine monitoring module is only *ON* when the engine is turned on.

    When the engine is off, the transmission module goes to sleeping mode, relies on it's tiny battery backup on keeping the date/time current.

    Saying that the module keeps on transmitting AFTER the plane has broken up is not only inaccurate, it's downright irresponsible !

  27. Re: Combined with the ringing phones ? by Miamicanes · · Score: 4, Informative

    One bit of info that *might* be of interest... cell phone towers beacon to announce their presence to phones, but individual phones actually *poll* towers every few seconds. The reply from the tower lets them know when there's an incoming call, deliver SMS & voicemail notifications, etc. In theory, at least, if the mobile phone of any passenger came within range of a cell tower it was allowed to poll, there's probably a log of it somewhere.

    That said, if the jet was at cruising altitude, the likelihood of a phone on board *doing* that is almost nil, because tower antennas are generally aimed downwards... partly, to minimize interference from airborne mobile phones that could otherwise splatter noise over a 40-100 mile radius (the line of sight when your transmitter is 5+ miles up in the air).

  28. Re:Combined with the ringing phones ? by aphelion_rock · · Score: 5, Funny

    The aircraft is currently parked on a remote jungle runway in Sumatra taking Grand Theft Auto to a whole new level..

  29. Re: Combined with the ringing phones ? by Nethead · · Score: 4, Informative

    On original POTS circuits the ring tone was actually the 25Hz signal sent to the phone with the phone's bell coils supplying some of the ringback harmonics along with a ring generator. With a good ear you could estimate how many phone sets were ringing. The audio path was already set-up while the phone rang. If the called party was too near an AM broadcast transmitter you might even hers some of the program between rings. The off-hook condition on the called party just disconnected the ring generator at the CO and started any billing equipment.

    Of course this all ended with the last of the Stroger and crossbar offices.

    --
    -- I have a private email server in my basement.
  30. Re:Turns out, no. by colinnwn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "some illegal military operation" Why does it have to be illegal? It could be a simple as we don't want to disclose our full worldwide surveillance capabilities. We've also been told that the transponders were turned off or quit working. But I haven't read anyone claim the same of the radios. Possibly the circuit breakers on the VHF/HF transceivers weren't pulled and the plane did to continue sending ACARS engine performance data on VHF/HF and for whatever reason MAS didn't receive or is denying receiving it, and US signal intelligence did pick it up.

  31. Re:Turns out, no. by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

    Picking up signals transmitted over the open ocean by military vessels in international waters isn't illegal.

  32. What we know so far ... by kbahey · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is what we know so far, a good summary ...

  33. Re:Combined with the ringing phones ? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

    Really small. I'll bet the number of floating cell towers in the middle of the South China sea is an integer that approaches zero.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  34. Nonsense by LanceUppercut · · Score: 2

    "What happened to Helios 522" would not turn off transponders.

  35. NSA Knows All by iocane4me · · Score: 2

    US Dispatches USS Kid to Indian Ocean. Yes the Russians scared Turkey with jets near them, but US has unconfirmed info that the jet went way into Indian Ocean. I think the US was monitoring Facebook traffic from the pilots. Facebook released info under subpoena because pilots bought hard drive space from Google. Conspiracy??????

  36. Re:Malaysia - a country which is filled with lies by Chrisq · · Score: 2

    Malaysia is a country which is filled with lies.

    Really what do you expect from an Islamic state? Name one that isn't!

  37. Re:Here's What Will Happen by bingoUV · · Score: 2

    More importantly, when something is very important it is impossible for general people to know of its truths through the traditional investigation and media mechanism.

    At every stage of the fact copying process between persons, there is a huge incentive to distort facts. Distortion could be in any direction.

    Given this, it is a waste of the time by the "critical" thinkers to worry too much about learning the truth. There can be no hope of the truth in really important matters. That is why such people are nutjobs - like people believing in fairies.

    --
    Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  38. Re: Combined with the ringing phones ? by hankwang · · Score: 2

    "individual phones actually *poll* towers every few seconds"

    I highly doubt that. A 2G gsm phone left next to an audio cable will only generate the familiar "bidibip" noise once an hour or so. I assume it does that in response to an "are you still there" request from the tower.

    The radio transmitter in a cellphone is about one watt. For battery lifetime, you really don't want the transmitter to activate every few seconds.

  39. Possibly diverted to the Nicobar / Andaman islands by bre_dnd · · Score: 3, Informative
  40. Re:Technically illiterate nonsense by queazocotal · · Score: 3

    Completely correct - for 1930.
    Getting progressively wronger over time till it's now brimming over with wrongness.

  41. Re: Combined with the ringing phones ? by tree_frog · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not completely correct, but on the right lines...

    GSM and 3G phones listen to the cell tower's Pilot carrier, which contains a whole bunch of data (which network, neighbouring cells etc). thenetwork will broadcast a request for a particular phone to contact it when there is incoming traffic (eg call or SMS) for that phone.

    To reduce the volume of traffic, it only broadcasts this request over a small(ish) no of cells, called a Location Area (LA). And how does it know which LA to poll - because part of the broadcast data on the pilot channel is the LA identifier - so when a phone switches from listening on one cell to listening on another (which it doesn't inform the network about unless it is mid call) it checks the LA number, and then updates the network with it's new LA when the LA identification changes.

    So if anyone on the plane left their mobile switched on (and with a couple of hundred people on the plane this is a racing certainty), then by checking the operater records for all the phones, LA updates will be there (and yes, operators are required to keep this meta-data for the intelligence services).

    In consequence, I would be extremely surprised if the NSA / GCHQ / KGB and Chinese Military Intelligence did not already have a good indication off where the plane was (or was not).

  42. Re:ELINT tinfoil hat by digitalchinky · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You don't need a tinfoil hat to know the theory is entirely within the realms of possibility. VHF ACARS could certainly be received by a LEO bird. It could also be received by a passive ground source just as easily. You can even build your own receiver for a few hundred $USD.

  43. Re:Critical Thinking = Bullshit by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

    Wait, so you're saying that critical thinking isn't important, except that it is and people should simply stop calling "critical thinking" the thing that has nothing to do with critical thinking? If so, then you've done so in an extremely convoluted way.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  44. Already confirmed by satellite by sgt_doom · · Score: 2

    Naturally, this has already been confirmed by one satellite (that 370 flew for 4 to 5 more hours and then landed, but it would take two more satellites receiving the aircraft's transmissions, at the same time, to triangulate where it landed at). Obviously, by this time even the dumbest of the dumb (that would be the typical American) should realize this was a sky heist or air heist not a hijacking, most likely involving the AC (aircraft commander) and perhaps both pilots. There was something mighty valuable aboard that bird, and since the cargo manifest included special handling instructions for a container of highly sensitive digital electronics, the rumor that a radically new chip was aboard might be true. If such a chip prototype were being transported on a passenger flight, instead of a private jet, it begs the question whether the Freescale Semiconductor engineers were taking it to China for manufacturing purposes, or to hand off to the Chinese government. We do know that Freescale Semiconductor is owned by the Blackstone Group and Carlyle Group (with investments by AIG) and whenever you have the Carlyle Group, murky things happen, and times one thousand when the Blackstone Group is involved, because, really, the Carlyle Group is simply a subset of the Blackstone Group, as anyone familiar with the two private equity/leveraged buyout firms will attest.

  45. Re:Why have the ability to turn off the transponde by mbeckman · · Score: 2

    Everything electrical in the aircraft has to be under the control of the pilots in order to respond to emergencies. For example, an electrical fire might require shutting down the two busses carrying he redundant transponders. Or a generator failure might mean powering down non-critical equipment, which could easily be the transponder if the pilot is already near an airport and in radar contact. There is simply no practical way to protect most equipment from malicious onboard actors.