|
@Token Bird Quote: If we assume that it has not become stationary, but has continued to fly but has been present on the same arc at both 07:11 and 08:11, can we make the maths work if we know the changing direction of the southern arc if we follow it south and we assume that the aircraft is flying on a constant track? IE. Where would they have converged, as it were? Or would that not have occurred at all? Really you need to start from a known position - last radar plot, for example - and then work out a tree of possible locations each hour from knowing which "arcs" it was on each hour, what airspeed it might have maintained and factoring in winds aloft etc. Horribly complicated and error-prone, but I imagine that there have been clever, well-informed, people doing that for days. It may be how the NTSB tracks on the Aussie search area maps were derived, I suppose. |
Originally Posted by smiling monkey
(Post 8388113)
The Avherald did report that the flight had the standard amount of fuel on board with the normal contingencies and reserves.
No Hijacker or suicidal pilot would let the fuel run down that low because it means you were no longer able to control the outcome. |
bono:
British Airways Flight 9, sometimes referred to by its callsign Speedbird 9 or as the Jakarta incident,[1] was a scheduled British Airways flight from London Heathrow to Auckland, with stops in Bombay, Madras, Kuala Lumpur, Perth, and Melbourne. On 24 June 1982, the route was flown by the City of Edinburgh, a 747-236B. The aircraft flew into a cloud of volcanic ash thrown up by the eruption of Mount Galunggung (approximately 180 kilometres (110 mi) south-east of Jakarta, Indonesia), resulting in the failure of all four engines. The reason for the failure was not immediately apparent to the crew or ground control. The aircraft was diverted to Jakarta in the hope that enough engines could be restarted to allow it to land there. The aircraft was able to glide far enough to exit the ash cloud, and all engines were restarted (although one failed again soon after), allowing the aircraft to land safely at the Halim Perdanakusuma Airport in Jakarta. Are you saying that a 777 at cruise altitude climbs on the 1 remaining engine like the talking head on CNN? |
Why no ELT? Because no one took it out of the airplane and put it in the water.
Re the Guardian: 101 different tracking systems do nothing when they are turned off :ugh: |
No Hijacker or suicidal pilot would let the fuel run down that low because it means you were no longer able to control the outcome. Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
route 2
he might have activated route 2, more likely he wanted to go to a particular
waypoint, having entered the name, if there was more than one in the world it would have shown the lat/long of each one, or if it was a navaid, he may have just chosen the wrong one. another possibility is that he wanted to descend to fl270 and put it in the heading window by mistake, all possibly under the influence of hypoxia. if the aircraft was in vnav path it would keep its altitude until the engines failed, speed would reduce to 10 ten knots above min clean speed and then default to speed priority and commence a descent, all stable. |
Originally Posted by mike757007
(Post 8388141)
Question ? Assuming the aircraft flew on without human input until it ran out of fuel. When it hit the sea, would the aircraft fuselage stay intact, or would it disintegrate creating lots of surface wreckage ?
Even if “Sully” Sullenberger tried to land a B777 at night on ocean swells I would expect lots of surface wreckage. |
engine out
it certainly wouldnt climb on one engine, the engine out altitude would be around 22,000 ft, so if on one engine it would have to go down.
|
No Hijacker or suicidal pilot would let the fuel run down that low because it means you were no longer able to control the outcome.
Originally Posted by Sqwak7700
(Post 8388144)
You should take a look at Ethiopian 961:
Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Let me rephrase that.... No INTELLIGENT Hijacker or suicidal pilot would let the fuel run down that low because it means you were no longer able to control the outcome. The hijackers demanded the plane to be flown to Australia;[4][11] as they had been reading the in-flight magazine stating that the 767 could make the trip on a full tank and the plane had been refueled at its last stopover as well as the maximum flying time of the airplane. Leul tried to explain they had only taken on the fuel needed for the scheduled flight and thus could not even make a quarter of the journey, but the hijackers did not believe him.[10] |
Originally Posted by Evanelpus
(Post 8388037)
Anyone else seen this yet?
Pieces of aircraft found floating on Andhra coast? : South, News - India Today Bay of Bengal http://www.ipcbee.com/vol32/008-ICESE2012-D026.pdf I could have sworn that tvasquez had posted some surface current info previously in this thread, but I can't find it. :confused: |
it certainly wouldnt climb on one engine, the engine out altitude would be around 22,000 ft, so if on one engine it would have to go down. |
Having read all the posts on this thread and followed this incident closely since it happened, I conclude that the Malaysian authorities and others have been transparent in releasing information. The problem is that every snippet of information has been challenged, twisted and analysed to death on this forum. The fuel load of the aircraft, Inmarsat pings, acars inoperative, flight crew and pilots, everything that has been issued has been challenged and more information demanded.
This incident started with the authorities completely in the dark, just like the rest of us. As the investigation has progressed quite a lot of information has been released or established from other sources. Can we just try an accept that the information supplied to date is the best that the authorities have, or are prepared to share at this stage of the investigation. It is pointless being supplied with the most accurate data available and then speculating what would have happened if the data was different. I know from working in the Far East that when pushed people tend to give you the answer they think you want to hear, rather than admit they don't know, but in these unprecedented circumstances I think that the authorities are doing their best to conform to Western expectations of transparency and accuracy. So can we give them a break and confine the speculation to what is officially known and just accept that some information is not going to be made available. |
No Hijacker or suicidal pilot would let the fuel run down that low because it means you were no longer able to control the outcome. I don't think any pilot suicide has been planned technically in this manner or been extended to a 'no fuel' situation - more a take control, point the nose down and go scenario. |
Originally Posted by mike757007
(Post 8388141)
Question ? Assuming the aircraft flew on without human input until it ran out of fuel. When it hit the sea, would the aircraft fuselage stay intact, or would it disintegrate creating lots of surface wreckage ?
There have been several recorded instances of aircraft making soft landings without human intervention. Admittedly the ones I know of were military jets where the crew had banged out, but there is no reason to suppose that the aircraft may have made a very shallow descent, alighted and remained intact. Had this been the case, and passengers were not previously incapacitated, then there would be no reason why life rafts and slides were not deployed. |
777 Fire
In addition to looking at all aspects, lets not forget 777s have had fires breaking out in wiring due to unexplained reasons!!
One very fine example was Egyptair 777-200, luckily it happened on ground Accident: Egyptair B772 at Cairo on Jul 29th 2011, cockpit fire and if something similar happened to MH370, we all know how limited options crew had??? |
Nonsens ?
Today I learned three new things:
1) Thai primary radar painted MH370 heading SW (new information, previously it was W) minutes after transponder loss => could mean MH370 wanted to return to KUL, with heading roughly 200°. 2) The NTSB seems to be convinced MH370 went "southward" to antartica with heading roughly 200° (as of routes depicted in search areas of AMSA charts). 3) If in track mode the FMC runs out of way points, i.e it reaches the last way point and no further way point is programmed the a/c falls back into HDG mode with heading previously set. So if MH370 went to IGREX in track mode (why?), and that was the only/last waypoint programmed, it would then fall into HDG mode. Maybe HDG was still set to 200° from the previous attempt to return to KUL. That would be consistent with MH370 ending up where AMSA is looking for it. |
@Don't Hang Up
However as a general rule, the chances of being the same range from the satellite after one hour of flying... Well it's possible but one heck of a coincidence. And certainly calculations of likely positions from the ping history will be messy and fraught - but it sounds as though they have little else to go on at the moment, unfortunately. |
Not Much Help From The Press
Is there a respectable summary anywhere out there on the technical details? Anyone less familiar with modern avionics than contributors to this forum is not being helped a lot by the press reports on this case. There is loose talk by the yard from journos, who clearly know even less than I do, about comms systems, satellite tracking and the like; the ones I've read clearly have only the vaguest idea as to what they are talking about. To be fair, that's just the newspapers (and the idiot box, of course), where it's naive to expect much informed comment.
My question is whether there has appeared anywhere a respectable itemisation of the onboard and external systems and what is available from them - or at least what the authorities have chosen to release along those lines? |
If they tried to return to the closest airport it does not make any sense to see these waypoints in the FMC. The 777 FMC has an Alternate airport function which at any time shows min 4 of the closest suitable airports. It takes 2 button pushes then to navigate directly to the selected airport via FMC which any B777 pilot would have used if on fire or any other emergency which warranted immediate landing.
ELT has an Off switch in cockpit. |
IOR Orbital elements
My experience, working with orbit analysts on many satellites, some geostationary, some geosync, some other, these are the most incredible analysts there are. They, by discipline, leave no stone unturned. So I am sure they have analyzed IOR's orbit to the n'th degree and have taken all this into account, along with error bars.
One question I have is how accurate they know the turn-around time for the ACARs TNC on the aircraft, as this device was not designed for ranging. My experience of TNCs are that they are software driven, not hardware, and there could be some uncertainty, on the order of maybe microseconds, depending upon the microprocessor clock speed. A microsecond is ~1000 feet, so I expect the uncertainty = uncertainty time / cos(sat elev), so maybe the uncertainty due to the TNC is on the order of a quarter mile or so, which, again is in the noise? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:56. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.