Cheers Re. bats!
His comment right at the beginning and end was very interesting about the SatComs attena getting info directly from the engines and not having to go via ACARS. So depending on how well that worked on this flight does this mean when the plane first made that left turn there was no emergency as such!
And why didn't SatComs send a last full update when the Engines ran out of fuel!
That to me could mean it was under pilot control with no emergency message from the engines could that mean it was flown into the ocean just before running out of fuel!
Of course that's all guesswork. Hopefully they'll get some hands on evidence soon.
Not really on the emergency turn, it's a bit of sensationalizing.
ACARS is supposed to send data periodically and with any major altitude change - takeoff and landing were the intended uses.
If the altitude change is associated with an emergency, then you'll get a slice of that, but it's not the intended purpose so even an emergency course change won't trigger an ACARS broadcast update.
Why was there no "out of fuel" broadcast? Rather than zero in on that, I think that it's really more part of - why were there no proper transmissions from this plane, pilot or automated? That's the $64 question really.
I think that the problem I have with interviews like this and others is the venue.
Don't have David Soucie talk to a reporter. Have a reporter manage to put him with an Inmarsat representative and someone from Rolls Royce and from Boeing. Then we could have heard either, "Great idea, Dave," or, "Doesn't work that way, Dave."
As it is, I don't know how to tell if what he's said is baloney or the real deal.
How does he know if the last partial ping was used by Inmarsat or not? I haven't seen the exact details released to anyone outside the investigators except to China.
And I get suspicious when he goes along with a talking head despite non-realities being said. That happened in the video that disappeared.
And SatCom is just satellite communications, meaning, power subsystem, SatCom antenna and message fusion from any number of systems.
You could say on a flight with passenger internet access that SatCom gets messages directly from your phone's wifi - and while no one would argue, it wouldn't be true. Other subsystems would be involved.
So, I don't know what "SatCom gets data directly from the engines" even means. Because it's missing details, that statement could have meant different things.
[/FONT]
