In the latest in series of aggressive maneuvers by Russian military planes in European airspace, the Financial Times is reporting today that a Russian intelligence plane nearly caused a mid-air collision with a Swedish passenger jet on Friday while flying along a Flight Information Region (FIR) boundary with its transponder turned off.
An SAS jet taking off from Copenhagen on Friday was warned by Swedish air traffic control to change course to avoid a Russian military intelligence flight, said Swedish authorities.
Peter Hultqvist, Sweden’s defence minister, said it was “serious, inappropriate and downright dangerous” that the Russian aircraft was flying with its transponder — used to identify its position — switched off. He told Swedish reporters: “It is remarkable and very serious. There is a risk of accidents that could ultimately lead to deaths.”
The incident is the latest in a series involving Russian military aircraft over the Baltic Sea this year. In March, an SAS airliner came within 100 metres of a Russian military aircraft shortly after take-off from Copenhagen, Swedish television reported.
In the most recent incident, the Swedish and Danish military detected the Russian aircraft in international airspace on radar and warned the SAS flight, said to have been bound for Poznan, Poland.
A story about the incident in WAtoday links to a YouTube clip of ATC audio combined with speeded-up playback the commercial flight from Flightradar24.com, which indicates that the incident took place near the boundary between two FIR zones, Sweden and Rhein-UIR, with the Russian plane flying west to east along the boundary.
As I wrote in an earlier post, military pilots have been known to fly along FIR boundaries with their transponders turned off as a means of escaping detection. In what may or may not have been a coincidence, after it deviated from its planned course to Beijing, MH370 flew along the FIR boundary between Malaysia and Thailand with its transponder turned off. The pilot in Friday’s incident may have been testing NATO air defense systems to see how well the technique might work over busy Europeans airspace.
What’s slightly intractable about the Maldivian sighting is that these folks are entirely accustomed to seeing planes. The Island chain is dotted with airstrips and that is how it links itself much of the time. Most of them are unaccustomed to seeing anything as big as 777’s though which is what got them hopping off to the police station.
@Victor: well, after pausing only to note that…
– I can’t independently connect Fairbairn to Inmarsat (or anything, save the church that buried him)
– if this IS the key Inmarsat satellite guy, age 50-54 (per UK Electoral Rolls) is pretty young for a HA
– tin hatters will have a FIELD day with the timing
…I’ll retract that bullet from my list, until such time as Dickinson is given the chance to help clarify the context.
Why did he even stir that pot?
Dumped this into a twitlonger because article will be locked after first 100 clicks
(Some nuggets not previously reported)
Will we ever find Malaysia Airlines flight 370?
BY Jonathan Barrett
The Australian Financial Review
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sjaubo?new_post=true
@Brock
VP Dickinson is a professional in respect of PR . He knows that people would dig into the Fairbairn case anyway and so he tells his side of the story first, to have the initiative. He doesn t stir anything up because other players have drawn their conclusions from the event anyway. In the world of secret service , where INMARSAT seems to be very close to, people do not ask questions very long, they need not to prove their thesis. Everybody in that community will connect that death to something going on in a wrong way. Maybe this operator found reason to doubt the data because he found traces of spoofing and told it the wrong person … I dont really want to know what happened, because i dont want to wake up in a coffin next morning.
If a pilot entered a final waypoint and engaged the autopilot to fly to it, then in my opinion I think it it most likely that after that waypoint is passed with no additional entries, the autopilot will then switch from the great circle route (to get to the waypoint) to a constant true track mode where the track bearing is set equal to the final bearing going into the last waypoint
I believe that the MH370 End Game Flight Path was with LNAV, VNAV, Autopilot and Autothrottle engaged. I do not believe that there was a change made to these settings during the MH370 End Game.
I have attempted to summarise below with 3 key functional statements, 2 important display functions and a table of the relevant Flight Management Computer System (FMCS), Thrust Management Computer System (TMCS), Autopilot (A/P) and Autothrottle (A/T) modes all controlled from the Main Control Panel (MCP).
There are 3 key functional statements:
1. Most of the FMCS internal computations are performed in a true course reference frame.
2. Magnetic compass heading reference is normally used for cockpit displays and are converted from true to magnetic just before display.
3. The Worldwide Magnetic Variation Model in the FMCS is just for cockpit displays because of historic reasons.
In addition there are 2 important display functions:
1. The “Heading Reference (HDG REF) Switch” on the Captains Display Switching Panel selects NORM or TRUE and controls the compass heading reference on cockpit displays as either MAG or TRU.
2. The “Heading/Track (HDG/TRK) Reference Switch” on the MCP selects HDG or TRK and controls the reference for the MCP Heading/Track window and cockpit displays as either HDG or TRK.
In the linked table below, LNAV and VNAV are FMCS modes that may be selected together or separately. The A/P and A/T may also be engaged together or separately.
The 5 Autopilot Flight Director System (AFDS) modes (LNAV source selection, HDG HOLD, TRK HOLD, HDG SEL and TRK SEL) are mutually exclusive. Selecting one mode cancels any other mode previously selected.
Please note that LNAV is both a FMCS optional mode selection as well as an AFDS mutually exclusive data source selection.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vhqxeprncrugtia/Boeing%20777%20FMCS%20and%20TMCS%20Modes.pdf?dl=0
@Richard Godfrey:
Instead of ‘believing’, why not trust the specific explanations and instructions in the Boeing Operations Manual?
RE heading vs track (posted recently): it’s HEADING
RE Norm vs True, note the first sentence below (page 10.10.31):
“Heading Reference (HDG REF) Switch
Pushing alternately selects the heading reference for the PFDs, NDs, AFDS, and
FMCs.
NORM –
• normally references magnetic north
• automatically references true north when north of 82°N or south of 82°S
latitude or within the vicinity of the magnetic poles (PFDs, NDs, and
FMCs)
• provides no reference for AFDS roll modes other than LNAV when north
of 82°N or south of 82°S latitude or in the vicinity of the magnetic poles.
TRUE – references true north regardless of latitude.”
What is the source of your table?
Hello Richard,
Do you know what the autopilot and FMS would do after a prolonged in-flight power off event? In other words, if nothing is entered after boot up. Do they keep previous settings (set prior to a shut down event)? Does the system search for the nearest waypoint or does it change heading to the next waypoint in the “flight program”?
Thanks,
Oleksandr.
Oleksandr:
Following the second engine flameout (~8 March 00:15 UTC), the autopilot disengages immediately and is never reengaged after the RAT and APU restore electrical power. At that point, the airplane descends in uncontrolled mode (no LNAV, no VNAV). A turn starts to develop within seconds. Some Phugoid oscillations are also likely. The turn radius varies, but the bank angle can become quite extreme (90 degrees). This was observed by me in the B777 simulator, and confirmed by ATSB in a private email.
Oleksandr:
WRT what the “… autopilot and FMS would do after a prolonged in-flight power off event…”, the AP/ATs will be disengaged upon resoration of power. However, it is very unlikely that all the redundant autopilot and FMS electrical power sources would have been lost prior to dual flameout.
Simulation Case1 photos:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhhbotuzs7zys8v/MH370_Sim_CaseStudy1.pdf?dl=0
Oleksandr,
It’s also important to understand that what is generically described as the “Flight Management Computer”, the source of the LNAV input to the AFDS, is not a discrete system or, if you will, a ‘black box’.
The Flight Management Compute Function is hosted on the B777’s AIMS integrated modular avionics platform. A number of other critical avionic systems functions are also hosted on AIMS.
If one wishes to consider loss of FMCF due to a power event then one needs to consider how all the other AIMS hosted functions would be impacted.
:Don
@Gysbreght
The source of my posting and table are the manuals.
The following manuals are my sources:
1. Boeing 777 Flight Management System Pilot’s Guide revision no. 1 dated October 2001 and produced by Honeywell.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/k3oczek4kcf1rt6/Boeing%20777%20Honeywell%20FMS%20Pilots%20Guide.pdf?dl=0
2. Boeing B-777: Fly-By-Wire Flight Controls by Greg Bartley dated 2001 and produced by Boeing and published by CRC Press.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0m8lgiojvy0cbak/Boeing%20777%20Fly-by-Wire%20Flight%20Controls.pdf?dl=0
3. Continental Airlines Boeing 777 Flight Training Manual Rev. 9 dated 1st November 2002 and produced by Boeing.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/btwwem06ckdizqr/Boeing%20777%20Continental%20Airlines%20Training%20Manual.pdf?dl=0
4. Continental Airlines Boeing 777-224 Flight Manual Rev. 9 dated 1st November 2002 and produced by Boeing.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/a50entmsxvobfjd/Boeing%20777-200%20Continental%20Airlines%20Flight%20Manual.pdf?dl=0
5. Boeing 777-200ER/GE90-94B Flight Planning and Performance Manual Rev. 2 dated 10th December 2010 and produced by Boeing.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m7yomu794jbdq0g/Boeing%20777-200ER%20GE90-94B%20Flight%20Performance%20and%20Planning%20Manual.pdf?dl=0
6. Statistical Loads Data for the Boeing 777-200ER Aircraft in Commercial Operations Final Report dated November 2006 and produced by the FAA.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uf0sdwkld4pt9uw/Boeing%20777-200ER%20Statistics.pdf?dl=0
7. Fuel Conservation Strategies: Cruise Flight by William Roberson, Robert Root and Dell Adams dated 2007 and produced by Boeing Commercial Aeromagazine.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3gj6sym6ov29gnm/Boeing%20Fuel%20Conservation%20Strategies%20Cruise%20Flight.pdf?dl=0
8. Flight Management Systems by Randy Walter dated 2001 and produced by Smiths Industries and published by CRC Press.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yjhiol0rxhvkq8s/Flight%20Management%20Systems.pdf?dl=0
airlandseaman,
Thanks for sharing your photos. The airspeed is 30 kts?
@CosmicAcademy:
“VP Dickinson is a professional in respect of PR . He knows that people would dig into the Fairbairn case anyway and so he tells his side of the story first, to have the initiative. He doesn t stir anything up because other players have drawn their conclusions from the event anyway.”
You totally get it.
@ Matty – Perth
For the sake of completeness, it’s worth noting there was a cause/target for unusual aircraft activity in the Maldives that week: the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were vacationing there.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/10681993/Duke-and-Duchess-of-Cambridge-in-Maldives-but-no-sign-of-George.html
Of course, the royal visit doesn’t prove anything one way or another. It was the same timeframe.
@Gsybregth
Here is the Bibliography:
1. Boeing 777 Flight Management System Pilot’s Guide revision no. 1 dated October 2001 and produced by
Honeywell.
2. Boeing B-777: Fly-By-Wire Flight Controls by Greg Bartley dated 2001 and produced by Boeing and published by CRC Press.
3. Continental Airlines Boeing 777 Flight Training Manual Rev. 9 dated 1st November 2002 and produced by Boeing.
4. Continental Airlines Boeing 777-224 Flight Manual Rev. 9 dated 1st November 2002 and produced by Boeing.
5. Boeing 777-200ER/GE90-94B Flight Planning and Performance Manual Rev. 2 dated 10th December 2010 and produced by Boeing.
6. Statistical Loads Data for the Boeing 777-200ER Aircraft in Commercial Operations Final Report dated November 2006 and produced by the FAA.
7. Fuel Conservation Strategies: Cruise Flight by William Roberson, Robert Root and Dell Adams dated 2007 and produced by Boeing Commercial Aeromagazine.
8. Flight Management Systems by Randy Walter dated 2001 and produced by Smiths Industries and published by CRC Press.
I tried to post DropBox links to them all but it did not work as more than one link requires Jeff’s approval.
It might be VP Dickinson used that as deflection to take some heat off his back if the data was made up and injected into their database… But of course the operator might have discovered something or knew something that stressed him out so much to have the heart attack.
I think the royal visit to the Maldives must be part of the plot. The odds of it being coincidental with the disappearance of MH370 must be less than 1 in 1000.
@gysbreght.
Interesting about the royal couple. But they flew BA first to NZ or Australia so could have been a mil aircraft from one of these countries they flew to Maldives.
@Gybreght: Another possibility is the Maldives sighting was associated with the royal visit but had nothing to do with MH370. Why is there a greater than 999/1000 chance that the three are related?
@Richard Godfrey:
Thanks for your bibliography. I don’t suppose all items are relevant to our discussion. Of those that are, do they always agree 100% ? If there is a difference between a Honeywell document and one from Boeing, which do you believe?
Too bad about the links, without access to the documents the list isn’t really helpful. Perhaps we should put an end to this discussion. It’s not my hobbyhorse anyway.
@Gysbreght
Glad to hear that you want to end your one way complaint.
Maybe next time you will do me the courtesy of reading my post first before criticising.
By the way all the manuals are relevant and what I posted was based on the facts.
When will you publish your findings on what happened?
@Richard Godfrey:
“When will you publish your findings on what happened?”
If you mean what I believe could have happened, I think I did. Didn’t you read it?
Hello airlandseaman, Don.
airlandseaman: The power-up event 18:25 is of my current interest. Sorry if I did not mention this explicitly in the last post; it is in line with the previous ones. Specifically, could SDU boot up and a potential turn at 18:25 (if Bobby is right) be a consequence of the power up of several sub-systems?
Don: “If one wishes to consider loss of FMCF due to a power event then one needs to consider how all the other AIMS hosted functions would be impacted”. That is what I would like to know. Loss at ~17:25 and power-up at ~18:25.
It is hard to believe in the coincidental boot-up of SDU and turn southward at the same time. It could likely be either a part of the strategy (but what strategy?), as Bobby said, or a result of powering up multiple systems, as I lean to suspect recently.
Do I understand airlandseaman correctly that autopilot would not be automatically re-engaged after power is back even if it was engaged before? Does the same apply to FMC: would it stay idle?
Regards,
Oleksandr.
Oleksandr:
Re “Do I understand airlandseaman correctly that autopilot would not be automatically re-engaged after power is back even if it was engaged before? Does the same apply to FMC: would it stay idle?”
Yes. The AP will not be engaged upon power up no matter what happened before the power was lost.
Oleksandr:
It should also be noted that Don’s overlay of the Beijing radar image and the navigation map is pretty compelling evidence that MH370 was following N571 WPs from 1802 to 1822, so it is very unlikely that the AP and FMC were NOT controlling LNAV before the AES rebooted at 1825. And remember, we don’t know for sure if the logon at 1825 had anything to do with a power on reboot. That may be the most likely explanation, but not the only explanation. So, I conclude that the loos of radar at 1822, the FMT whenever it happened between 1828-1838ish and the AES Logon sequence at 1825 are all coincidental. I do not see any evidence proving any of these events are connected, although it is possible, and we just don’t see the connection yet.
Phil/Victor/Gysbrecht – Maldives is a popular tourist destination and commercial jets go there all the time. There are 2km strips visible with a google, but most of them are much smaller. Kuda Huvadhoo is a prretty remote island where low flying jets are never seen, according to locals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibrahim_Nasir_International_Airport
The main airport is 3200 metres and handles all kinds of aircraft regularly with a couple slightly smaller, and heaps of minor ones. The archipelago is remarkably sparse and Kuda Huvadhoo is well out of the way so not surprising that people noticed. It sounds totally irregular either way so wouldn’t the Maldive authorities want a please explain from someone? An investigation?? Like look at the flight list from Male’ and do some deduction? Anyone else would, even Indonesia. Officially the line seems to be – you never saw that.
While the nuances of what the AP does or does not do are interesting, I think they have little bearing on our problem. If you believe the aircraft was deliberately diverted, as anyone with a brain would conclude, the AP modes relative to crew incapacitation are not relevant. I believe the aircraft was under pilot control to the very end. There is no plausible scenario for any other conclusion.
The mystery logon request has puzzled me for some time. My current belief is that if/when Shah locked the copilot out of the flight deck, that he (the copilot) accessed the electronics bay and started flipping a few breakers to annoy Shah. That is as good a guess as anything else I have heard.
I think the analytics have gone about as far as they can go. As I have argued before, it is time to start looking at old fashioned, but less interesting things, like motive and intent. This was not, IMO, a suicide mission.
Hi airlandseaman.
Thanks for your comments.
Frankly I am not very convinced that MH370 was following N571 route. If I am not mistaken MH370 was at VAMPI only by 18:13, and prior that it did not follow any WPs / any routes. The next WP along N571 is MEKAR, which is the closest to MEKAR, but that is all. As far as I know MH370 was moving towards NILAM when the radar contact was lost. I never understood why IGOGU was chosen as the next WP. Why not ANOKO, for example? Or why not SANOB if a turn at NILAM really took place?
Generally, after the turn at IGARI-BITOD, MH370 passed quite closely to ABTOK, GOLUD, KADAX at the Malaysian east coast, and ~7 km away from PUKAR, but the trajectory does not appear to be consistent with the “great circle” or “constant rhumb” mode, and it is quite ‘jerky’. Also there are no WPs south of Penang. This makes me thinking the aircraft was flown manually from 17:25 to ~18:00. Based on your comment, the most likely (and probably only) possibility for the aircraft to start following WPs in autopilot mode seems to be a human input/intervention/action at the time, when MH370 was around Penang. Do you agree?
Regards,
Oleksandr.
@DennisW:
Note journalist Alberto Riva’s comment. I think he put his finger on it months ago:
“But the fire plus emergency diversion theory, as compelling as it is and similar to other known incidents, leaves one question unanswered. If the pilots tried for a landing at Langkawi and missed because they became incapacitated, the autopilot would have kept them flying straight and level on the last compass heading. (Which would have taken MH370 more or less over Kuda Huvadhoo, by the way.)
So, either someone was entering those waypoints in the flight management computers, or the computers had been programmed earlier to send the plane there. The former option is not consistent with an unconscious or dead crew. The latter makes no sense for a crew in a dire emergency, looking for the closest place to land — unless one wants to believe the improbable and now-debunked scenario that hackers were steering the plane.”
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sf4ubu
Nihonmama,
Exactly. In retrospect, which is always 20/20, it was foolish to look only at the analytics as politically correct and “feel good” as that notion may be.
The reality is, the BFO data is deeply flawed, and one can with minimal effort construct any desired route that satisfies BFO and BTO if one ignores fixed AP modes (which I have always asserted were adopted by the analysts for convenience). While unpopular, the anywhere on the 7th arc hypothesis is true.
My take on Maldives:
1) until proven otherwise, I assume that plane was NOT MH370. Not only is the timing off (6:15 local = 0115 UTC = 8.5 hours after takeoff – and still a half hour from DG – how did it stay aloft so long, yet cover so short a distance?), but the bearing didn’t add up, either – the only map I ever saw (link below) shows it heading SSE – coming FROM the Arabian Sea. Until fuel on board comes into question, this scenario has Bambi-on-ice legs.
2) until proven otherwise, I assume this plane WAS somehow RELATED to the MH370 tragedy. The “debris to Indonesia” announcement piqued my interest in the Curtin U acoustic event. Perhaps the plane locals saw was headed to where MH370 already was. Don’t know why, but that’s not the point: the point is that, within a scant few hours of the most stunning jumbo jet disappearance in history, we have a credible, multiple eye-witness account of a large plane within range – and no ACTUAL (I’m with Matty: these PRESUMPTIONS won’t cut it) explanation for what it was they saw.
(I’ve exchanged cordial e-mails with Alec Duncan: I don’t want to reveal details of these private communications, but I myself am satisfied that the signal data incongruity remains the PRIMARY reason his data is not getting more attention. The IG may want to explore scenarios that fit THAT data point.)
Just like a faked search at s21, the ROLE of a 2nd plane covers a broad spectrum of nefarity (I know it isn’t a word; it should be), from “what happened? let’s go look” to a pre-planned rendezvous with a twin 777.
Re: Will & Kate: I’ve toyed with that factoid for months, unwilling to let it go. If the signal data was faked as part of a cover-up, this scenario resonates. And like DG, it fits “debris drifted to Indonesia”. Finally, like “DG as TARGET”, it explains Malaysia suffering the slings and arrows of an opaque investigation (perhaps atoning for being asleep at the switch, denying the UK/US any time to take more surgical counter-measures).
http://www.maldivesfinest.com/seen-mh370-in-maldives
@Brock
The DG hypothesis will not fit the ping arc data (nor does it fit BFO which is a weaker argument).
I have little doubt the aircraft is located near the last ping arc. That data is robust and reliable.
Question for maritime crash investigation experts: at what pace does the ocean claim forensic evidence?
E.g.: how long before FDR data recovery becomes imperiled?
Assume the IG location (and thus ocean depth) in your deliberation. Thanks in advance!
@Dennis: Agree 100% DG/Maldives conflicts with signal data. Disagree 100% signal data is “robust and reliable”.
Because it is 100% incompatible with zero surface debris. And because it was provided by sources whose lies* (should) have cost them our trust.
* [see my earlier posts]
@Brock
The speed of light has been relatively constant for the last century or so.
Can anybody answer definitively whether or not the U.S. military, or Boeing, or some other entity currently has technology at their disposal that would allow them to render control of the cockpit remotely? I know that Honeywall patent has been brought up as nauseam, but in the specific case of a ghost flight with an incapacitated crew, whereby the plane may be heading in the general vicinity of civilization, it seems like it would be of great benefit to have the ability to re-direct the plane to minimize damage.
The thought had entered my mind a couple times as it related to MH370, although it obviously holds no merit if this technology definitively does not exist . However, in light of the early statement made by the Pentagon, essentially confirming that MH370 ended in the SIO, even before Inmarsat had undergone detailed analysis of the data, and even before Inmarsat had deemed South more probable than North, combined with the fact that the U.S. has been almost suspiciously mum on the whole thing, suggests to me that they had some means of information regarding this flight, independent from Inmarsat.
Ask yourself: If MH370 was a foiled hijacked attempt, or even an unlikely depressurization leading to incapacitation, exactly where would be the absolute safest place to redirect that plane, assuming it’s even possible.
@Dennis: what do we have – other than the word of a prime suspect, and its quasi-military “satellite” subsidiary – that the published pdf document was what the satellite actually recorded?
(This question may help you understand why news of the Inmarsat employee’s Mar.17 death was an attention-grabber.)
@Dennis: could not resist the metaphor:
http://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html
Yes Brock,
The data could be fabricated. I have not gotten that far down the rabbit hole. Yet.
@Brock
I am a big fan of Rupert Sheldrake who has pointed out the fact that light speed measurements have varied beyond the experimental error limits in the last century. Still, the variations, if true, would not have a significant impact on the BTO data.
Oleksandr,
I’d suggest some further research to understand the B777‘s integrated modular avionics and FMC operation.
For example, an FMC isn’t constrained to fly only to nav database defined waypoints.
:Don
@Dennis: Come on then Dennis, we are waiting with baited breath. Put the BFO to one side. It is then possible to create sample tracks using the BTO alone. Just need to use the ATSB bias, and a plausible speed. Plausible, not some wild a** guess which was typical of many of the early ATSB tracks.
I seems maybe the Inmarsat data needs to be relooked from a different perspective but not the way everyone may have been told to … Ie not in SIO
@ Brock
The CVR and FDR for Air France 447 were recovered from the bottom of the Atlantic about 23 months after the plane went down. Data were successfully retrieved, but it seems this was considered fortuitous as the boxes were not designed to last that long at significant depths.
@Dennis: link wasn’t literal; just a “light-hearted” lesson in the dangers of never testing “bedrock” assumptions.
@DennisW
Have you tried to create a flight path going north that satisfies both bto and bfo data? Can you give an example how you would do that?
Btw I agree with you that one should also look at motive/opportunity/means. It should be done as part of criminal investigations. I really wondering anyone is doing that. We don’t hear anything from Malaysia in that respect, also not on meta level. I remember also France considered to open such investigation. Only silence…
@niels – I think there is a good match from near the big last turn but head north towards Almaty. But this hasn’t been exhaustively analyzed ….