Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That said, GSM jammers are quite cheap and easy to come by in parts of Asia...
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can a laptop track accurately enough to allow an intercept? I doubt it as TCAS isn't that accurate and it does NOT show you direction of travel in any case.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cargo
okay so the airline CEO is now saying that the plane's cargo contained mostly 3-4 tonnes of mangosteens that it was carrying to China. He also added, "no hazardous cargo" on board.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: wales
Age: 81
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The arc's showing north and south 'routes' potential locations for the final SATCOM 'ping' are only very approximate guides. Added to this, in the most extreme scenario the final 'ping' could have been sent up to 59 mins before the aircraft had actually landed or its engines were shutdown or had flamed out. (I.E. final event could potentially occur only 1 minute before the next ping was due to be transmitted)
This being the case we need to add that extra 59mins potential range, so at 480kts add another 480nm!
Also if still at altitude and the engines flamed out on this 59th minute then at FL390 you could easily add an additional glide distance of a further 150nm. (still air) Therefore, in this extreme scenario there is (very roughly) a potential further 630nm of omni directional error. Effectively you can redraw these arcs, giving them a 630nm radius (or put another way 1260nm wide!) Perhaps someone could apply these distance and post the revised arc's.
This being the case we need to add that extra 59mins potential range, so at 480kts add another 480nm!
Also if still at altitude and the engines flamed out on this 59th minute then at FL390 you could easily add an additional glide distance of a further 150nm. (still air) Therefore, in this extreme scenario there is (very roughly) a potential further 630nm of omni directional error. Effectively you can redraw these arcs, giving them a 630nm radius (or put another way 1260nm wide!) Perhaps someone could apply these distance and post the revised arc's.
Just looked back it is post#4521 on page 227 posted by PJM.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HazelNuts39
I am just an occasional visitor of this thread looking for any substantial development in this mysterious disappearance.
Can someone please explain to me the origin of the 'corridors'?
I understand that the red circle represents the distance between the airplane and the satellite at the time of the last 'ping'. I suppose there is another circle centered on the position of the aircraft at the last radar contact, and a radius equal to the distance flown in the time between the last radar contact and the last ping. So the last possible positions of the aircraft are the two intersections of these two circles or somewhere in between. Why would the airplane proceed from these points along the red circle?
I am just an occasional visitor of this thread looking for any substantial development in this mysterious disappearance.
Can someone please explain to me the origin of the 'corridors'?
I understand that the red circle represents the distance between the airplane and the satellite at the time of the last 'ping'. I suppose there is another circle centered on the position of the aircraft at the last radar contact, and a radius equal to the distance flown in the time between the last radar contact and the last ping. So the last possible positions of the aircraft are the two intersections of these two circles or somewhere in between. Why would the airplane proceed from these points along the red circle?
However,
The there is no inference that the aircraft proceeded along the red line. The red line simply plots all the possible positions at the time of last ping.
The extremes of the line are based on range from last known position and I assume they are now wind corrected and take into account possible fuel remaining at time of last ping.
There is some confusion now over the gap in the middle as the explanation given at todays press briefing is what we would call "bobbins" in my part of the world.
Last edited by FE Hoppy; 17th Mar 2014 at 12:00.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Antipodes Islands
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can a laptop track accurately enough to allow an intercept?
I don't know if the same location data (GPS? and/or INS?) is used in TACAS.
I would guess the location and elevation data is at least as good as GPS data - i.e. a couple of tens of metres laterally and twice that vertically.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Berks
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had the waypoint been inserted on the ground, before activating the flight plan, admittedly a check of the whole route would be visible to the crew, but would an ACARS report be triggered then ?
As I posted earlier, I have little doubt that after AF 447 and now MH370 there is a need for a complete re-think on Flight Data Recorders for long range aircraft, with ETOPS sectors, becoming ever longer.
My thoughts on real time FDR transmission through ACARS or other SATCOM is not entirely new but I see the major consideration seems to be cost even though the technology exists. Whilst that cost issue MAY be the case if there was continuous data streaming can any electronics or satcom engineers explain if the technology exists to make a burst of compressed data, lasting only a fraction of a second , say every 30 seconds. Data to include basic flight data, alt. airspeed, hdg, and GPS position. A 30 second interval could at least fix the aircraft to within 5 miles or so at Mach.8. AND even with basic data give an idea of the problem and greatly assist in the recovery of the full FDR and CVR.
A number of unsolved accidents led to the introoduction of FDRs and CVRs (and eventually, I guess, cockpit video recorders) so I have little doubt that, after the AF and MH problems, we WILL get this live data sooner or later.
My thoughts on real time FDR transmission through ACARS or other SATCOM is not entirely new but I see the major consideration seems to be cost even though the technology exists. Whilst that cost issue MAY be the case if there was continuous data streaming can any electronics or satcom engineers explain if the technology exists to make a burst of compressed data, lasting only a fraction of a second , say every 30 seconds. Data to include basic flight data, alt. airspeed, hdg, and GPS position. A 30 second interval could at least fix the aircraft to within 5 miles or so at Mach.8. AND even with basic data give an idea of the problem and greatly assist in the recovery of the full FDR and CVR.
A number of unsolved accidents led to the introoduction of FDRs and CVRs (and eventually, I guess, cockpit video recorders) so I have little doubt that, after the AF and MH problems, we WILL get this live data sooner or later.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://overlookci.com/files/Download...n%206-0%20.pdf
6.2.2 The event contract
An event contract specifies a request for reports to be transmitted by the aircraft whenever a defined “event”
occurs. Only one event contract can be established between a ground system and a particular aircraft at any one
time, however the event contract can contain multiple event types.
Note that multiple ATSUs with ADS-C connections can each establish their own event contracts with an
aircraft.
Once an event contract has been established, it remains in effect until the specific event requests are fulfilled, or
it is cancelled by the ground system.
The Vertical Rate Change Event is triggered when the aircraft’s vertical rate is either less than or greater than
a parameter defined in the contract.
The Lateral Deviation Change Event is triggered when the aircraft’s actual position exceeds a lateral distance
parameter from the aircraft’s expected position on the active flight plan.
The Altitude Range Change Event is triggered when the aircraft’s altitude exceeds the altitude ceiling or floor
defined in the contract by the ground system.
Once a vertical rate change, lateral deviation change, or altitude range event trigger has occurred, a recurrence
of this event no longer triggers an event report. The ground system must initiate a new event contract every time
that one of these specific events occurs.
The Waypoint Change Event is triggered by a change to the next or the next-plus-one waypoints. Such a
change normally occurs due to routine waypoint sequencing. However, it will also be triggered by occurrences
such as a change to a non-ATS waypoint entered by the pilot for operational reasons, or execution of a new
route affecting the next or next-plus-one waypoints. Unlike the other event contracts, the waypoint change
event
trigger remains in effect for all waypoint changes.
An event contract specifies a request for reports to be transmitted by the aircraft whenever a defined “event”
occurs. Only one event contract can be established between a ground system and a particular aircraft at any one
time, however the event contract can contain multiple event types.
Note that multiple ATSUs with ADS-C connections can each establish their own event contracts with an
aircraft.
Once an event contract has been established, it remains in effect until the specific event requests are fulfilled, or
it is cancelled by the ground system.
The Vertical Rate Change Event is triggered when the aircraft’s vertical rate is either less than or greater than
a parameter defined in the contract.
The Lateral Deviation Change Event is triggered when the aircraft’s actual position exceeds a lateral distance
parameter from the aircraft’s expected position on the active flight plan.
The Altitude Range Change Event is triggered when the aircraft’s altitude exceeds the altitude ceiling or floor
defined in the contract by the ground system.
Once a vertical rate change, lateral deviation change, or altitude range event trigger has occurred, a recurrence
of this event no longer triggers an event report. The ground system must initiate a new event contract every time
that one of these specific events occurs.
The Waypoint Change Event is triggered by a change to the next or the next-plus-one waypoints. Such a
change normally occurs due to routine waypoint sequencing. However, it will also be triggered by occurrences
such as a change to a non-ATS waypoint entered by the pilot for operational reasons, or execution of a new
route affecting the next or next-plus-one waypoints. Unlike the other event contracts, the waypoint change
event
trigger remains in effect for all waypoint changes.
6.3.3 Flight crew modification of active route
The flight crew will often insert non-ATS waypoints into the active flight plan in the FMS for flight system monitoring, or will modify the active route for planning purposes. Once the change is activated, a Waypoint Change Event report may be triggered. If so, non-ATS waypoints included in the active flight plan will be reflected in the Predicted Route Group, as well as the Intermediate and Fixed Projected Intent Groups, which may result in the next, or the next-plus-one waypoints from the report not being waypoints expected in the ATS flight plan or flight data record.
The flight crew will often insert non-ATS waypoints into the active flight plan in the FMS for flight system monitoring, or will modify the active route for planning purposes. Once the change is activated, a Waypoint Change Event report may be triggered. If so, non-ATS waypoints included in the active flight plan will be reflected in the Predicted Route Group, as well as the Intermediate and Fixed Projected Intent Groups, which may result in the next, or the next-plus-one waypoints from the report not being waypoints expected in the ATS flight plan or flight data record.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Västerås
Age: 44
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before too much time passes, the best way to find MH370 (if it hasn't crashed) is to take advantage of passengers' cellphones. If you place a cellphone base station on a flight, and beam the signal down to earth, as the plane flies over, passenger's cellphones will connect to the "network" giving away their location. Can be done quickly.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From todays press conference, the estimated fuel after the last ping was 30 minutes....
They did not explain how they came to that number considering they do not known the altitude or speed of the track it took to get to the last ping point.
I believe it is an estimate & it could also be an average since the shortest time after the last ping to flight end would be 1 minute & the longest 59 minutes.*
* assuming 1hr pings (has this been confirmed?)
They did not explain how they came to that number considering they do not known the altitude or speed of the track it took to get to the last ping point.
I believe it is an estimate & it could also be an average since the shortest time after the last ping to flight end would be 1 minute & the longest 59 minutes.*
* assuming 1hr pings (has this been confirmed?)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Berks
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought it had already been reported here a while back that he was doing some work for the flight sim software development company (PMDG?)
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
There have been many statements that the two pilots did not ask to be on the same flight.
There have also been musing as to why the aircraft turned back to the west if the intention was to go west why not take an aircraft that we routed to the west.
Is it possible that the two pilots took the opportunity presented when chance scheduled them on the same flight? That the flight was scheduled for the wrong direction would account for the turn back.
Against this is the appearance of evasive routing to avoid or confuse detection.
So, had the two pilots flown together before? Had they flown this sector before? When were they scheduled for this flight?
We know the Captain was probably fatigued following his activities before the flight; what about the FO? Was he properly rested and might he have been the PIC?
This appears to suggest one or other pilot was to blame but I don't think these questions have been posed or answered, especially given that initial positive statement that they didn't ask to fly that sector.
There have also been musing as to why the aircraft turned back to the west if the intention was to go west why not take an aircraft that we routed to the west.
Is it possible that the two pilots took the opportunity presented when chance scheduled them on the same flight? That the flight was scheduled for the wrong direction would account for the turn back.
Against this is the appearance of evasive routing to avoid or confuse detection.
So, had the two pilots flown together before? Had they flown this sector before? When were they scheduled for this flight?
We know the Captain was probably fatigued following his activities before the flight; what about the FO? Was he properly rested and might he have been the PIC?
This appears to suggest one or other pilot was to blame but I don't think these questions have been posed or answered, especially given that initial positive statement that they didn't ask to fly that sector.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Warks
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is indeed frustrating that they haven't published the arcs generated by any pings except for the final one.
I notice that now they consider the primary contact that was picked up by Malaysian military radar to have definitely have been MH370. It is now being labelled on maps in the media as 'last radar contact'.
What led them to believe that this contact was definitely MH370 and not just probably MH370? Are we to assume that the arcs from the intermediate pings confirm this?
Curious as is it not possible that the aircraft went straight from its last known secondary radar position direct to a point on one of the two arcs generated by the final ping?
I notice that now they consider the primary contact that was picked up by Malaysian military radar to have definitely have been MH370. It is now being labelled on maps in the media as 'last radar contact'.
What led them to believe that this contact was definitely MH370 and not just probably MH370? Are we to assume that the arcs from the intermediate pings confirm this?
Curious as is it not possible that the aircraft went straight from its last known secondary radar position direct to a point on one of the two arcs generated by the final ping?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I the only one who thinks that if the 'pilot suicide' line currently in favour by many commentators turns out to false (as I suspect it is), we may well see all airlines forced to adopt what I think is already the El Al system where the pilots are totally isolated from the cabin for the whole flight? (Does El Al allow a small servery hatch for meals, or is everything the pilots require, including food, put in with them before the flight?)
If I'm right, you can see why the airlines are so keen to accept the pilot suicide line, for any such moves will cost a fortune to implement, with precious First Class revenue space lost as the security door is moved aft to incorporate a toilet, a mini galley, and for some airlines - (many of you will know the one I'm talking about) - a pilot rest area.
Can you imagine what that would be like on ultra long haul, with two crews cooped up together for fifteen hours in what I know will be the smallest area the companies can get away with providing?
If I'm right, you can see why the airlines are so keen to accept the pilot suicide line, for any such moves will cost a fortune to implement, with precious First Class revenue space lost as the security door is moved aft to incorporate a toilet, a mini galley, and for some airlines - (many of you will know the one I'm talking about) - a pilot rest area.
Can you imagine what that would be like on ultra long haul, with two crews cooped up together for fifteen hours in what I know will be the smallest area the companies can get away with providing?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I the only one who thinks that if the 'pilot suicide' line currently in favour by many commentators turns out to false (as I suspect it is), we may well see all airlines forced to adopt what I think is already the El Al system where the pilots are totally isolated from the cabin for the whole flight?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
lexoncd
"It was also several minutes after the ACARS was switched off"
Yes and no!
It's a ACARS send
About 10 minutes later it's the last voice com
As you know the gap between each ACARS sending is 30 minutes so .. you can't know precisely if the last voice com was made after or before ACARS switch off
lexoncd
The last words to atc apparently from the co pilot were "All right, good night" some say this was rather casual. It was also several minutes after scars was switched off. Was this an attempt by the pilot to draw attention to something going on in the cockpit? Then major altitude changes 43,000 ft to 25,000.
Yes and no!
It's a ACARS send
About 10 minutes later it's the last voice com
As you know the gap between each ACARS sending is 30 minutes so .. you can't know precisely if the last voice com was made after or before ACARS switch off
