Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Lemain, if you read back through the thread you will find an instance where the pilot did exactly that which is why suicide is a discussion item.
Then the question of minimum runway length for take-off obviously depends AUW of which fuel load is the major variable. To assume it needs a full fuel load to reach a distant target assumes that the target is indeed distant. It might also be conceivable that any plan could be for a short field, light load take-off followed by a brief stop at a compliant larger airfield for refuelling.
Personally I think that is a nonsense and I suspect the aircraft crashed or ditched.
Then the question of minimum runway length for take-off obviously depends AUW of which fuel load is the major variable. To assume it needs a full fuel load to reach a distant target assumes that the target is indeed distant. It might also be conceivable that any plan could be for a short field, light load take-off followed by a brief stop at a compliant larger airfield for refuelling.
Personally I think that is a nonsense and I suspect the aircraft crashed or ditched.
ELTs
This jumped out at me, is that confirmed by the airline or another reliable source? Just doesn't sound right to me, to have something like that easily accessible to pax. The number of times I've caught them fiddling with a halon or o2 bottle... On the flip side, it seems counter-productive to have them inside the slideraft pack/door bustle (if that is what was meant) because of maintenance/checking issues. (Assume poster was referring to portable ADT406 or similar)
That model (I'm assuming in most) airlines requires a check by the CC prior to departure. I don't see the beancounters allowing one on every door (would be 8 on a 772) when one or two would do the job... The idea being of course that after successfully exiting the aircraft into the rafts the CC would join them up and operate the existing 406s as a group
Anyway, carry on....
Someone has already posted on this aircraft there was one on one of the pax doors (may have been all pax doors), BUT you have to manually release them from their stowage,
That model (I'm assuming in most) airlines requires a check by the CC prior to departure. I don't see the beancounters allowing one on every door (would be 8 on a 772) when one or two would do the job... The idea being of course that after successfully exiting the aircraft into the rafts the CC would join them up and operate the existing 406s as a group
Anyway, carry on....
This handy calculator will allow everyone to experiment with the likely visual horizon for two points of any altitude:
Horizon calculator - radar and visual
If you use 35K for the aircraft and say 150ft for the rig worker then the horizon is at 244 miles...
Unfortunately, even allowing for some distance covered, at 370 miles away there's just NO WAY this rig worker saw the aircraft... it was something else. My bet is on a meteorite. Just another case of putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5.
Horizon calculator - radar and visual
If you use 35K for the aircraft and say 150ft for the rig worker then the horizon is at 244 miles...
Unfortunately, even allowing for some distance covered, at 370 miles away there's just NO WAY this rig worker saw the aircraft... it was something else. My bet is on a meteorite. Just another case of putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5.
I'm struggling with idea - seen in previous posts - that you can use TCAS with your transponder off.
The rotary selector on the 777 transponder control has these settings..
Stby
Xpdr
TA only
RA/TA
As you rotate the selector from Stby the first setting is "Transponder on" followed by the TCAS selections - thus there is no way to see other aircraft on your ND without showing you own ...
The rotary selector on the 777 transponder control has these settings..
Stby
Xpdr
TA only
RA/TA
As you rotate the selector from Stby the first setting is "Transponder on" followed by the TCAS selections - thus there is no way to see other aircraft on your ND without showing you own ...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bristol UK
Age: 65
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those who seem to be struggling with the SATCOM/INMARSAT operation the following gives a very good overview:
TMF Associates MSS blog » Understanding ?satellite pings??
Hopefully this will put-to-bed the repeated questions regarding this!
TMF Associates MSS blog » Understanding ?satellite pings??
Hopefully this will put-to-bed the repeated questions regarding this!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
1.14*sqrt Ha + 1.14*sqrt Ho would for 37k and 250 feet give 219 + 18 = 237 nm.
Now there is a phenomenon of analogous propagation where the light waves are bent by atmospheric ducting. However at night I believe such ducting is unlikely. One would conclude that an observer at 370 miles (nm or statute) would be unsighted. Now if that distance was kilometres
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, UK
Age: 46
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luke SkyToddler / HCM ATC
Posts http://www.pprune.org/8371899-post2745.html & http://www.pprune.org/8380914-post4609.html
I really wouldn't read too much into that one. I was on frequency at the time, I heard the other MH aircraft transmitting on 121.5 trying to contact the MH370 (along with many transmissions from HCM control) and never heard anything resembling a reply, mumbled garbled or otherwise.
There's a fairly common interference phenomena around SGN that seems to cause short 5-10 second bursts of buzzing static on VHF. He might have heard that, there was plenty of that going on that night but nothing out of the ordinary.
To locate posts by a specific person, click on Search then Advanced Search then start typing the person's name in the search box on the right. And search.
Still confusion about this so let's put it to bed, I was flying and on the same frequency at the time, Ho Chi Minh ATC started going mad trying to contact the MH370 on 121.5 at around 00.30 local Vietnam time. That is 01.30 Malaysia time, 1730 Z.
Quote:
The alleged radio contact with MAS370 made by the anonymous captain of a Japan-bound airliner makes me smell rats. Why should a real pilot with a verifiable record refuse to give his own name and his flight number in such a situation? What's the problem with it? Wouldn't this help the investigation? His alleged statement is also highly suspicious. He heard nothing, all he says is that "there were a lot of interference… static… but I heard mumbling". In short, he is unable to refer the content of the transmission, he is unable to say whether he spoke with the captain or the F/O, the alleged time of the radio transmission is after the time the datalink had been turned off and the transponder had been turned off. Sorry, but to me this smells like a typical piece of disinformation. Someone planted this interview just to "prove" that the captain and the F/O were still at the controls of the aircraft at that time. I will believe this captain as soon as he will come out with a real name and the exact position of his aircraft, which should not be so difficult to verify with a map and radar data.
The alleged radio contact with MAS370 made by the anonymous captain of a Japan-bound airliner makes me smell rats. Why should a real pilot with a verifiable record refuse to give his own name and his flight number in such a situation? What's the problem with it? Wouldn't this help the investigation? His alleged statement is also highly suspicious. He heard nothing, all he says is that "there were a lot of interference… static… but I heard mumbling". In short, he is unable to refer the content of the transmission, he is unable to say whether he spoke with the captain or the F/O, the alleged time of the radio transmission is after the time the datalink had been turned off and the transponder had been turned off. Sorry, but to me this smells like a typical piece of disinformation. Someone planted this interview just to "prove" that the captain and the F/O were still at the controls of the aircraft at that time. I will believe this captain as soon as he will come out with a real name and the exact position of his aircraft, which should not be so difficult to verify with a map and radar data.
There's a fairly common interference phenomena around SGN that seems to cause short 5-10 second bursts of buzzing static on VHF. He might have heard that, there was plenty of that going on that night but nothing out of the ordinary.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: North of Antartica
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last Satcom 'ping' error radius
The arc's showing north and south 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 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 arc points, giving them a 630nm error 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 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 arc points, giving them a 630nm error radius (or put another way 1260nm wide!) Perhaps someone could apply these distance and post the revised arc's.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: In a Pineapple Under the Sea
Age: 61
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DT, no, the results are additive - we used 1.14 for nautical miles so:
1.14*sqrt Ha + 1.14*sqrt Ho would for 37k and 250 feet give 219 + 18 = 237 nm.
Now there is a phenomenon of analogous propagation where the light waves are bent by atmospheric ducting. However at night I believe such ducting is unlikely. One would conclude that an observer at 370 miles (nm or statute) would be unsighted. Now if that distance was kilometres
1.14*sqrt Ha + 1.14*sqrt Ho would for 37k and 250 feet give 219 + 18 = 237 nm.
Now there is a phenomenon of analogous propagation where the light waves are bent by atmospheric ducting. However at night I believe such ducting is unlikely. One would conclude that an observer at 370 miles (nm or statute) would be unsighted. Now if that distance was kilometres
Why does everyone miss that part of his email? Even if he could see that far - the object would appear on the horizon! It would not appear to be a "high altitude!!!!"
great article
@ Geneman
great article you linked to, as was the Global Operational Data Link Document it linked to.
It suggests (to me at least) that the a/c reg is sent in the various messages
great article you linked to, as was the Global Operational Data Link Document it linked to.
It suggests (to me at least) that the a/c reg is sent in the various messages
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
givemewings
The adt406 is the fix elt. We are talking about the water triggered elt that are carried on the aircraft
406AS Aeronautical Survival Beacon (406 MHz) S1823502-03 Features, Specs, Price, and Availability
The adt406 is the fix elt. We are talking about the water triggered elt that are carried on the aircraft
406AS Aeronautical Survival Beacon (406 MHz) S1823502-03 Features, Specs, Price, and Availability
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the Pings allow the radius of a circle centred on the Inmarsat Satellite to be calculated to approximately 100 miles
Visual horizon Pontius Navigator
This question came up about 3000 posts ago. 1.23 X square root of height was posted. I always used 1.25 since that was easier to do mentally ( only had whiz wheels for math back in the 60s!) and we needed to know PDQ when we were looking for the odd Bear D or Badger inbound to the carrier.
Actually Pontius I started this to remind you that the correct term is"Anomalous Propagation"
AND it's real. I've been flying in the North Malacca Straits between an upper and lower inversion acting like an enormous wave guide and seen returns from way outside my normal radar range
Actually Pontius I started this to remind you that the correct term is"Anomalous Propagation"
AND it's real. I've been flying in the North Malacca Straits between an upper and lower inversion acting like an enormous wave guide and seen returns from way outside my normal radar range
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Lord Spandex Masher
TCAS and Transponder are two totally separate pieces of equipment.
TCAS receives the transponder signal of other aircraft and then displays them on its own display or an integrated display. It does not show the height (altitude) of an aircraft but rather the relative altitude difference between the TCAS receiver and the other aircraft.
The transponder operates on a generally ATC allocated code. It is totally independent of the TCAS. Without a transponder you are invisible to the TCAS hence the need for transponder mandatory airspace.
So yes the one can operate without the other.
If you were going to piggy-back you wouldn't need more than the relative altitude difference between yourself and the other aircraft. To identify the other aircraft you could monitor the ATC frequency being used.
As an aside, if a transponder is only operating in mode A there will never be a TCAS RA only a TA as the TCAS receiver has no altitude information to work with.
TCAS and Transponder are two totally separate pieces of equipment.
TCAS receives the transponder signal of other aircraft and then displays them on its own display or an integrated display. It does not show the height (altitude) of an aircraft but rather the relative altitude difference between the TCAS receiver and the other aircraft.
The transponder operates on a generally ATC allocated code. It is totally independent of the TCAS. Without a transponder you are invisible to the TCAS hence the need for transponder mandatory airspace.
So yes the one can operate without the other.
If you were going to piggy-back you wouldn't need more than the relative altitude difference between yourself and the other aircraft. To identify the other aircraft you could monitor the ATC frequency being used.
As an aside, if a transponder is only operating in mode A there will never be a TCAS RA only a TA as the TCAS receiver has no altitude information to work with.
The semantics of height versus altitude in the case of TCAS are irrelevant, but it is height above or below you and it will also display absolute height of a target aircraft.
One cannot operate without the other. Even if you select 'transponder' only, TCAS still operates normally except you will not have a TCAS display.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
enough with the Flight Sim talk
The Captain did not "build" a flight sim, that is Microsoft flight simulator 10 and is a very popular software. He probably used it to hone his skills. The add on software is quite good at replicating the systems of a t7 or many other aircraft
Freight God
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: LS-R54A
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Return to Stand
you could probably fly a 777 in formation with another one, but not at the required distance as to become one single target. That distance is dependent of the resolution of the radar used. However the early 1960 Radars were capable of resolutions of less than 600 ft, modern are down to 300 ft of resolution. As shadow formation you would have to fit within the resolution of the radar.
Nope, not with an airliner...
you could probably fly a 777 in formation with another one, but not at the required distance as to become one single target. That distance is dependent of the resolution of the radar used. However the early 1960 Radars were capable of resolutions of less than 600 ft, modern are down to 300 ft of resolution. As shadow formation you would have to fit within the resolution of the radar.
Nope, not with an airliner...
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sand ATC
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Lord Spandex Masher
You are correct. I have done a bit more delving into the issue and TCAS II using S mode transponder would appear to be an integrated unit and fitted in the B777. I have deleted my post accordingly.
You are correct. I have done a bit more delving into the issue and TCAS II using S mode transponder would appear to be an integrated unit and fitted in the B777. I have deleted my post accordingly.
Redmin, the one pictured is the one I am asking about. Not fixed, but it was said they were carried on all the doors. I find that difficult to believe because as CC having flown onmore than 10 aircraft types all ELTs accessible by people without tools have never been in public view... it just sounded odd to me but of course is probably not important.
Unless of course they were taken out of the equation by someone not wishing the location of the aircraft to be found. It seems unusual to have more than 2 on a widebodied aircraft. Or are MAS particularly keen on spending lots of money on them.? Why?
Unless of course they were taken out of the equation by someone not wishing the location of the aircraft to be found. It seems unusual to have more than 2 on a widebodied aircraft. Or are MAS particularly keen on spending lots of money on them.? Why?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
BBC News just had a reasonably adult summary ... With reservations, of course.
Just for info for those who can access IPlayer.
Just for info for those who can access IPlayer.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's been a lot of talk about the northern track going through various nations which enforce their airspace security tightly.
Is anyone familiar with the air defense quality/enforcement of Myanmar?
It would appear that there is a 7,000'x100' runway at Puta-O in northern Myanmar in the Himalayan foothills, that also happens to meet with the intersecting arc of the Inmarsat over the Indian ocean that is being circulated. It would also seem to be within fuel range, especially if flying below 5000' as speculated. It's also very remote and possibly not 'connected' readily to the outside world?
Just found it to be an intriguing possible search location, but have little familiarity with Myanmar's air defense capabilities or enforcement.
Is anyone familiar with the air defense quality/enforcement of Myanmar?
It would appear that there is a 7,000'x100' runway at Puta-O in northern Myanmar in the Himalayan foothills, that also happens to meet with the intersecting arc of the Inmarsat over the Indian ocean that is being circulated. It would also seem to be within fuel range, especially if flying below 5000' as speculated. It's also very remote and possibly not 'connected' readily to the outside world?
Just found it to be an intriguing possible search location, but have little familiarity with Myanmar's air defense capabilities or enforcement.