Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost

[RichManJoe]

New search area

Unless they are trying to obfuscate because they have data from another source they don't want to talk about.

[JamesGV]

olasek

No I get "energy" (work).
But to be fair, "time" is the only part of the equation we have (08.11).

Then again, that is an assumption !

What the Malaysian minister for chaos should have said is...
We believe the distance to be shorter AND THEREFORE he was flying faster.

What he said was "He was flying faster (an unknown) and so likely the distance is shorter"

[oldoberon]

There is a pressing need to try to find the wreckage before the sonar pingers run out of power, but that goal is surely not served by doing lots of MPA flying in the wrong place.

so how much closer to finding MAH370 would they be if there were no pings, compare the area they could have had to search with no pings to the current general area, ( with the north now excluded|).

[Mesoman]

Pinger detection

Having watched films and read books on the cold war antics of the submarines of various navy`s, they lead you to believe that they can pick up and identify the sound of another Sub from hundreds if not thousands of miles away whilst submerged. Would this not be the same with the black box locator or is that a different situation all together? Just curious.

Submarines listen to low audio frequencies, which can travel very long distances underwater.

The pinger is at a much higher audio frequency (37Khz) which is attenuated (reduced in strength as it travels) much more quickly. It might not even be detected from the surface in a deep ocean, much less at distances of many miles.

Also, as far as is publicly known, submarines are not equipped to even listen at the high audio frequency. Of course, actual sonar capabilities are highly classified.

[GunpowderPlod]

FD Security

I posted this long ago.

There should preferably be a second FD access door to prevent follow-through.

I found a reference to IATA considering this but now I can only find this article on the proposal:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/bu...-security.html )

There should also be a third person on the FD so that there can always be two on the FD at all times. This 3rd person could be security instead of FC if necessary.

[sflaperons]

Partial Ping and Fuel Starvation

He was out of fuel sooner. The last ping really doesn't define when exactly flight ended, we don't have this data, not yet.

I know we don't have anything concrete yet but I thought there was a relative, rough consensus that the partial ping occurred at the time of fuel exhaustion as what else but an engine shutting down could have triggered it?

The only thing that sort of explains the "flew faster in the same amount of time, ergo, flew a shorter distance," that I can think of at least, is that the westbound leg was flown faster than previously believed, leaving less fuel for the southbound leg, which meant the southbound leg would have had to have been flown at a lower thrust setting for the a/c to stay aloft until the partial ping.

???

[porterhouse]

What he said was "He was flying faster (an unknown) and so likely the distance is shorter

What he said is correct, they FIRST computed he was flying faster (say based on radar returns, I don't think they explained how) therefore distance had to be shorter. You got it backwards.

rough consensus that the partial ping occurred at the time of fuel exhaustion

I don't know about any consensus (I don't live on this forum) but such consensus would have absolutely no solid facts behind it, just guesswork.

[jugofpropwash]

What you are suggesting creates security problems for legitimate pilots in the flight deck. We will just have to accept the small risk of "Rogue Pilots" in order to protect the integrity of the flight deck.

It does if you look at the SLF as prospective terrorists. It might be wiser to look at them as the last line of security. Keep in mind that it wasn't the TSA gropers that stopped the shoe bomber - or the underwear bomber - it was the passengers. It was also the passengers who kept the 4th 9/11 plane from reaching its target.

Things changed on 9/11. Before that, hijacking pretty much meant sit down, shut up and go for a joyride to some third world country. Now, even the SLF realizes the rules have changed, and they are ultimately responsible for their own survival - and that of the people who know how to fly the plane. Pilots need to remember that the passengers aren't the enemy.

[sflaperons]

Guesswork

I don't know about any consensus (I don't live on this forum) but such consensus would have absolutely no solid facts behind it, just guesswork.

Fair and important point, it is complete guesswork.

I guess a better way to come at this is that I haven't seen any explanation for the partial ping other than that it was triggered by the engines shutting down. So if this whole "flew faster and not as far" business means authorities are recalculating the distance flown after the partial ping, then we don't seem to have even a theory as to what caused the partial ping (as it would not, it stands to reason, have been the engines shutting down). That is certainly possible. It is also weird.

Maybe others can shed some light on what could cause a partial ping?

[LongTimeInCX]

MickJoeBil -

Finally the auto pilot or other contols........
..... have restricted function when only one seat is occupied (except if master caution has activated)

Seriously, that has to be one of the dumbest proposals ever from a flight simulator expert on this topic.
If you ever get around to operating multi-crew aircraft you'll understand why from a common sense point of view very quickly.

[JamesGV]

Porterhouse...

"(say based on radar returns, I don't think they explained how)"

You put an edit in there !
Because that is the "bit" I couldn't work out.

Increased work (eg) increased speed (or lower altitude) equals shorter distance travelled.

They would have had to model various scenarios to move the whole SAR effort....or it was "other" information.

Well I hope they are right.
And from early indications (the latest P3 reports) they maybe correct.

[Oro-o]

Originally Posted by Lemain

suninmyeyes: That is without doubt the most interesting post I've read. Why the oscillation?

The aircraft trades potential energy (altitude) for speed as it noses down and accelerates. This eventually creates additional lift, reversing the descent. The process repeats. But a glider can't do this forever and eventually comes down.

This clear illustrated example from Aerospaceweb can help explain it more fully:

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Lift, Wind & Porpoising

[500N]

Very interesting development re possible investigation !

Push to take control: Australia to lead the probe into MH370

The air crash investigation into the ill-fated Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 is likely to be based in Australia, amid a push for the wreckage and the black box to be scrutinised here.

In a day of significant developments in the search for the lost flight, the Malaysian government announced it won't establish an inquiry until the black box - or flight recorder - is found, something that could take years, if it is even discovered at all.

The decision created uproar in Malaysia's parliament amid lingering concerns about the nation's investigative effort thus far, which has been characterised by mistakes and miscommunication and enraged some families.

Read more: Push to take control: Australia to lead the probe into MH370

[TerryB]

Call me stupid but:
They think it flew faster for the same amount of time, but didn't travel as far!!

Does that sound right, or have they got something the wrong way round?

Previous answers to this question do not make sense either!

Do they mean flew with a higher Fuel flow????

Ok Stupid (sorry - only joking)

I am sure someone will correct me (or just delete this post) if I am wrong but I think the way this was presented was very confusing. It is my understanding that what was said was that the examination of the data they have from the early part of the flight (radar tracks from various sources I think) has suggested that the plane flew faster FOR THAT PART OF THE FLIGHT which used more fuel in the initial stages. By working with what fuel was on board at take-off and then estimating fuel usage for the initial flight that was tracked they have come up with an estimate of the fuel onboard when radar contact was lost.

They know (or are pretty sure) that the plane was still airborne at the time of the last full ping so they can work out what the endurance was (but not exactly because the plane could have run out of fuel right after the last ping or up to 59 minutes later). Based on the fuel available and endurance you can work out what airspeed would give the correct timing. If the plane had less fuel when it started the track south then in order to still be airborne at the last ping they have now deduced it must have been flying slower than initially thought FOR THAT SOUTHWARD part of the journey - hence the plane has not travelled as far south as their initial estimate.

Also I assume from the pings they have they know what the distance from the satellite was at each ping time so if the plane was travelling slower it was also on a more easterly path to put it on the right distance from the satellite at each point.

Hence why the search area has moved north and east due to the plane flying faster at the start, using more fuel and having to fly slower at the end to make the duration correct.

As an aside can any 777 people give a rough idea of what speed does give you maximum range at cruising altitude? It would seem to me that IF it was intentional and they wanted the plane as far south as possible then they would have gone for max range speed rather than anything else. Although the more easterly track doesn't seem to tie in with that as you would assume you would want to be further away from Australia if possible (unless of course you were aiming for a particular seabed location for the wreckage).

[jmjdriver1995]

Posted by suninmyeyes:

As a 777 pilot I, like many others, have wondered how the 777 would perform in the scenario where the pilots were incapacitated and the aircraft ran out of fuel. I had my ideas but there is nothing like seeing it for "real" so we tried this in a 777-2 full motion zero flight time approved simulator. .......

Thank you sir for a very informative post based on real evidence from simulator ops instead of conflicting "opinions".

[FGD135]

They think it flew faster for the same amount of time, but didn't travel as far!!

Does that sound right, or have they got something the wrong way round?

Previous answers to this question do not make sense either!

Do they mean flew with a higher Fuel flow????

Generally speaking, the faster an aircraft flies, the shorter will be its range.

To achieve the maximum range, there is an optimum speed an aircraft (any aircraft) must fly. If the aircraft is flown at a speed greater than the optimum, the range will be less than maximum. If flown at a speed slower than optimum, the range will again be less than maximum.

There is ONE optimum speed for maximum range. That speed tends to be quite a bit slower than normal cruising speed however, so it is only used when maximum range (or maximum fuel conservation) is required.

It makes perfect sense for the authorities to say "the plane travelled less distance because it was travelling faster".

The same is true for your car. There is one speed for maximum distance. Drive faster than that and you won't be able to go as far. Drive slower than it, and again you won't go as far. It is all to do with the magnitude of the drag forces (and engine efficiency), which vary enormously with speed.

[etudiant]

Low frequency sound requires a larger and more powerful source, plus it is more difficult to localize. ELTs have severe size and power limits, so a high frequency noise to pinpoint the source makes sense.
The ELT design requirements may now get another look, as very long range trans oceanic flights have become much more frequent and the ELT is becoming more critical. However, given the unhappy experience recently with a runaway ELT damaging a 787 at Heathrow, people are unlikely to embrace bigger, more powerful ELTs. The insurance industry will work with the aircraft makers to come up with a better system, something that leaves a reliable breadcrumb trail for every flight.

[rh200]

I take the calculations of those "bureaucrats" than yours any time.

I would be fairly confident to say no bureaucrats are involved in any calculations.

Common sense will tell you this, to much of a political football and its easier to point the figure at a boffin if its wrong.

There is a huge amount of extremely talented people putting their all into trying to solve this. A lot will be going way beyond what they are paid for and its very insulting to them to imply they are bumbling fools.

[Mises]

@FDG135: To achieve the greatest range, there is an optimum speed an aircraft (any aircraft) must fly. If the aircraft is flown at a speed greater than the optimum, the range will be reduced. If flown at a speed slower than optimum, the range will again be reduced.

There is ONE optimum speed for maximum range. That speed tends to be quite a bit slower than normal cruising speed however, so it is only used when maximum range (or maximum fuel conservation) is required.

It makes perfect sense for the authorities to say "the plane travelled less distance because it was travelling faster".

Everyone knows that there is an optimum speed for distance of travel for a given amount of fuel and hence, that any vehicle traveling faster than the optimum speed will travel a shorter distance in a shorter time. Using the faster = shorter explanation hence provides some specious credibility to what really is an admission of previous mistakes.

The current location is shorter than the previously estimated position for a KNOWN TIME 8.11, which was based on a slower speed. That's impossible. Perhaps they know something knew, which they are not sharing. Perhaps the 8.11 ping is a myth.

[BrookeEngineer]

141 Battery Incidents 20 March 1991 to 17 Feb 2014

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...dent_chart.pdf

I remember reading about the 12-Apr-1999 case where two pallets of CR2 batteries. One pallet was damaged by a fork lift and it was some hours later that to caught fire and there was difficulty in putting it out.

This was after a pax flight from Japan and happened at the airport, but it just as well could have happen in the cargo bay.

What type of fire detection system was used on MH370, Ionization smoke, optical smoke, flame, high temperature, etc?