Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost

[DriverAirframeOneOf]

Really...?
I thought the SAA Helderberg Combi crew fought the fire on the cargo deck for hours.
Some of the crew went in there and did not return...
The Captain was told by SAA Ops via HF not use Diego but to press on for Mauritius.
Story was they had rocket fuel on board from the Orient in the arms embargo days of Apartheid...
Did not want the world to know this, of course.
Somewhere short of Mauritius the aircraft went into a nosedive and the tail broke off.
Not sucking this out of my thumb.
It was common local knowledge at the time.
Just Google SAA Helderberg.
The Wikipedia report says it all.
Also YouTube search SAA Helderberg.

[Chronus]

500N `s post is informative on costs to date. In legal circles talk is that Litigation is inevitable. The question is who will ultimately bear the costs.
Current search and recovery efforts are focused on a remote area of the Indian Ocean that is seemingly not within the territory of any nation. According to Annex 13 Chapter 5.3, “when the location of the accident or the serious incident cannot definitely be established as being in the territory of any State, the State of Registry shall institute and conduct any necessary investigation of the accident or serious incident.” The “state of registry” refers to the “State on whose register the aircraft is entered.” Presumably, Flight MH370’s state of registry is Malaysia. Chapter 5.3 also permits a state of registry to delegate its investigative responsibility to another state. INMARSAT would appear to have dropped the hot potato in the right place to also create a bit of a dillema for the legal boys.
According to the Montreal Convention the burden is placed on the airline carrier in damages claims exceeding 113,100 SDRs to prove that it did not cause the damages or that a third party is at fault (see Article 21(2)). Absent such a showing, the airline carrier will be liable for all of the claimant’s damages. Regardless of fault, the airline will still be liable up to 113,100 SDRs. The scenario changes dramatically in the event evidence comes to light of mechanical failure for cause. Claims may then be brought in the US against the manufacturer.
But should it be established that cause was intentional act on the part of the crew,then wrongful death claims could significatly higher in value depending on the nation in which a claim is filed. Especially if the claim is brought in the U.S. courts, it’s of significantly more value than if it’s brought in any other. It is said that, “survivors of passengers who were U.S. residents could get as much as $10 million, while families of individuals who lived in other countries would get less than $1 million.”
At a conservative estimate the sums involved may well be in excess of $200m. I fear this could have similar effects on the beleaguered carrier, as was the case with PANAM in the aftermath of Lockerbie.
In all and every aspect the vanishing of MH370 is an unprecedented event in the annals of aviation history.
The excellent post by Low Flier 04/04 @ 17:16, does indeed give us some food for thought on the purpose and prospect of the current search effort.

[Low Flier]

You refer to side-scan sonar. ... what sort of lateral coverage are we talking about?

With the lower frequency of around 100 kHz which is used for initial area search work, the range is around half a kilometre on each side. Call it a kilometre wide swath width. For contact investigation, a higher frequency such as 500 kHz is used to give higher resolution. Then the max range is reduced and you would plan to run the towfish within a hundred metres or so from the target of interest.

There are other systems, called swathe bathymetry, which operate rather like a phased array radar head. Some of those things have slightly longer ranges, at the expense of lower resolution, but the basic physics of the inverse relationship of frequency and range still apply.

There really is no getting away from the limitations of sidescan sonar. With a survey ground of this magnitude it's pretty much like peering at the ground through a straw from the belly of an aircraft or trying to paint a prairie with a road crew's whitelining machine.

Pusser's T-boat has some intriguing possibilities though. Normally those guys never say where they are or where they are going or even where they've been. It is extremely exceptional for one of those boats to operate more or less openly like this, but they've been ordered by their lordships of the Admiralty to chip in and do their bit for the effort. This may perhaps not be limited to passively listening for the Dukane pinger. They may choose to use their quite powerful active sonar (submariners' equivalent of aviation's primary radar), which can send out a hell of a bark if it needs to and has very sensitive 'ears', to scan the seabed deep beneath its cruising level for any unusually metallic-sounding returns.

You certainly won't be seeing any sonar imagery from that boat being shown on the Dirty Digger's tv networks. For one thing, their form of sonar isn't much good at that sort of thing. More importantly for them, they really do have very good reasons for keeping their perf data to themselves.

I can only imagine the heated 'debate' in the RN's bit of (MoD) Main Building in Whitehall when they considered the implications of using that gear openly and actively within 'earshot' of a couple of Chinese oceanographic research ships! I think there'd have been much tossing of rattles out of prams and quivering lower lips and tears before bedtime for the Admirals who wear dolphins on their jackets.

[IcePack]

valkyrie
Sorry just pointing out the tripping of circuit breakers. Maybe fire extinguished

[500N]

"and actively within 'earshot' of a couple of Chinese oceanographic research ships!"


Within earshot of straight out Chinese warships

[lomapaseo]

Until the Australian government executive arm became directly involved in the PR issues, and removed AMSA and ATSB from providing media releases, we were provided with factual information and graphics showing what was going on.

Now that the new agency (JACC) has taken overall control operationally and in releasing information to the media, the public are being treated to "sound bites", "photo opportunities", and political "back-slapping". Little of anything "factual" is now available. The show goes on, but the well oiled veil of a secret military controlled operation has now quietly been put in place. When did they last find a plastic shopping bag?

Am I being cynical?

"Am I being cynical? "

I suspect more like narrow minded

I prefer to judge on the ratio of truth vs BS and ignore the PR as befitting of politicians.

I trust the working investigators and await any facts of progress rather than intent. With that said I expect those governments that are funding this progress will naturally want to convince their supporters that progress of any sort is being made.

Let's track this for investigative findings as progress and ignore the surface clutter

[MPN11]

"and actively within 'earshot' of a couple of Chinese oceanographic research ships!
Within earshot of straight out Chinese warships

Yup, it's a bugger, isn't it!

You can fuzz the hi-res overhead imagery for public consumption, but when you can actually find something you reveal capabilities.

Everyone know that everyone has 'something' ... what 'they' really want to know is how good it is. And when someone finds something, there will be a great deal of obfuscation to demonstrate that it was pure luck, and that "Pedro's magnifying glass and PPRuNe gave them the clue where to look."

Sorry ... worked in that sort of environment for a while.

[ramble on]

Aircraft Inertial Units

With respect to satellite data transfer with the aircraft, the aircraft IRS or IRU equipment would have to be working.

[JoeBloggs2]

Technology has moved on a little bit in the last 20+ years...

A fleet of AUV's might be a faster and cheaper way of doing the sea floor search. I guess it depends on how quickly someone can build and deploy them. I think 100 would be a reasonable number to start with and you might even get the unit price below the current 2M USD.

[Ian W]

Low Flyer

I can only imagine the heated 'debate' in the RN's bit of (MoD) Main Building in Whitehall when they considered the implications of using that gear openly and actively within 'earshot' of a couple of Chinese oceanographic research ships! I think there'd have been much tossing of rattles out of prams and quivering lower lips and tears before bedtime for the Admirals who wear dolphins on their jackets.

Which explains why this particular boat was chosen. It is the sole member of its class that has not been retrofitted with the new sonar systems. So the 'ears' of those listening will be listening to history - and the only information is that whatever they hear, the new kit is better.

[Ornis]

It's perfectly reasonable to try to find some debris, logical to listen for the recorders' pingers while they work, but why search further, exactly, with hardly a clue to location?

I don't believe for one moment the wrong kind of fire in the wrong place at the wrong time caused this aircraft to "disappear". Therefore I will step aboard certain B777s as usual. Rightly or wrongly.

I don't mind paying tax for RNZAF Orions, usually searching for lost yachties, but if we're going to be paying more for airline tickets the money would be better spent on safety, not satisfying curiosity, however nice that feels.

[etudiant]

JoeBloggs2 Technology has moved on a little bit in the last 20+ years...


True for signal processing and batteries, but AUVs that can run a long distance (greater than 100km at a stretch) side scan sonar profiling run don't exist currently, at least afaik.
Constructing and then co-ordinating the fleet, keeping them on course to ensure gapless coverage, recovering them reliably to recharge/refuel them in challenging weather and then integrating the results is a novel task, one that would take years to do.
It would be quicker and cheaper to use chartered oil survey vessels, they exist in quantity, their operating costs are well known and they have the needed skills.

[Blake777]

I have not seen posted here the fact that whilst the JACC has only minimal search information available on the media page, you can still access the search maps for the day from AMSA. Today's area is approx 1,000km WNW of Exmouth - one does wonder what the "further refinements of calculations" are revealing!

https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws....ch_handout.pdf

[Irish21]

Aviation aircraft Hull & Liability insurance policies have an exclusion in their policies called "War, Hi Jacking and other Perils"....meaning the policy does not cover any of these acts.

Prior to 9/11 if the insurance market was soft insurance companies threw "War coverage" in for free but if the market was hard they charged for it...I am guessing after 9/11 you can not buy back "War coverage" it's just automatically not covered due to the catastrophic loss of 4 airlines/countless buildings in NYC.

Meaning "hi jacking" (criminal act) would now fall under this Montreal convention act that yyzjim is talking about limiting the liability of payouts to the families. Also the pay outs would be deflected back to the Malaysian airport security which if its like the US and most countries is run by the govt and here you can not sue the govt. It's possible that Malaysian airlines does have "war coverage" in their aviation hull & liability policy and this is the direction they are going in to get the insurance companies to pay all liability suits.

I think the malaysian govt/airline have had their lawyers manipulating the public/media purposely from day on for financial reasons.

[Fairsky]

After communications were lost, the only certainty I've seen is the radar data from just off Butterworth heading WNW at FL295 until it reaches waypoint MEKAR - the time over MEKAR is depicted as being 2.22 Malaysia time.

Where did FL295 come from?
I've only seen one image of the radar information and that showed not a waypoint at O2.22 but a RADIAL295 200nms from Butterworth[

[Propduffer]

1. The pings tell us that almost without a doubt the plane flew until fuel exhaustion.
2. The only possible way for a ditching to occur with the plane remaining intact is if it was under the control of a pilot. Without flaps the speed would be too high to allow the plane to stay intact.

Getting the plane ditched intact would also require luck, lots of it, in an open ocean ditching. The planning behind this episode appears to be methodical - leaving the final chapter up to luck seems out of place in this episode.

I can't imagine anyone sitting around for 5 to seven hours just to dead stick a plane into ocean swells in the hopes of a repeat of the Hudson river landing, and if a person were to attach importance to trying to keep the plane in one piece, they would want to have the engines running when he or she tried the ditching. So this argues against flying to fuel exhaustion.

I believe the plane broke up and there are floating debris. I also believe that without floating debris, there is no place to even begin a seafloor search.

[Ian W]

Originally Posted by Blake777

I have not seen posted here the fact that whilst the JACC has only minimal search information available on the media page, you can still access the search maps for the day from AMSA. Today's area is approx 1,000km WNW of Exmouth - one does wonder what the "further refinements of calculations" are revealing!

https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws....ch_handout.pdf

You can expect the search area to move as the surface search is looking for debris that is drifting in ocean currents and with the wind. It looks like they have settled on a crash 'point' or area, but not so much on debris drift and will be making very careful overlapping but not conincident searches

[JoeBloggs2]

One gets the impression from the jumping search areas that they are targeting areas based on satellite photos of possible surface debris again.

Presumably there have been enough clear days now to have captured the entire region in high res.

[India Four Two]

Low Flier,

A very refreshing breath of fresh air after wading through pages and pages of unmitigated rubbish.

I am involved with marine seismic operations and had done some back-of-the-envelope calculations about likely search times, but refrained from posting because of my lack of knowledge of deep-tow operations. It's nice to see someone with professional experience (and a sense of humour) posting some useful information.

It's an ironic coincidence that we in the SOL fleet have just sailed though the search area.

etudiant,

Oil companies might even be willing to help underwrite part of the search, as the data might help guide the search for hydrocarbons in the area.

Sorry. Not in a million years. There ain't no oil under them there abyssal plains!

[RetiredF4]

One thing that had always irritated with this datum is that all known primary radar facilities in the area have a range of 60 or even 50 NM only, which is normal for their purpose. The 200 NM offshore position must have been detected by something that was not land based or can a primary radar range be stretched beyond its nominal range when analysing raw data?

You are talking about the known ranges of the ATC radars. The track was created from a military radar, the ranges and capabilities are not public. And if we take a close look on the shown radar plot we will see no other traffic on it, which means it is an edited picture showing the assumed track of MH370 over a period of time, not one sweep, but multiple antenna sweeps put together.

A military PSR radar with a radar coverage of 60 NM would be useless, as incoming hostiles tend to fly with the transponder in off position. 60NM are covered in less than 7 Minutes at 540 groundspeed and would not allow for appropriate action.

Edit: Found this article:

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/s...-kua-kia-soong