Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost [Archive] - Page 34

Communicator

26th Mar 2014, 21:56

The Chinese-language news item linked below refers to reports by the Hong Kong based Oriental Daily. The gist of that report is that after disabling other communications, Captain Zaharie Shah negotiated with the Malaysian government for the release of opposition politician Anwar Ibrahim over several hours. The negotiations failed, and the plane ultimately crashed when its fuel ran out.

COMMENT: It is important to be aware of and to consider this theory. However, one also needs to be EXTREMELY CAUTIOUS - the theory conveniently tars Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim with connection to a spectacular act of terrorism. More importantly, this theory disposes of ongoing concerns that MH370 might have been brought down by jihadist terrorists.

The current U.S. administration along with Malaysia and China are all very keen NOT to have the incident linked with international jihadist terrorism.

This "kidnap/confer/crash" theory would explain the Malaysian government's apparent attempts to mislead SAR efforts and to hide its own radar information during the first few days following the disappearance of MH370.

?????-??????????? - %E5%82%B3%E6%A9%9F%E9%95%B7%E5%8A%AB%E6%A9%9F%E6%8C%BA%E5%AE %89%E8%8F%AF %E8%AB%87%E5%88%A4%E7%A0%B4%E8%A3%82%E6%B2%B9%E7%9B%A1%E5%A2 %9C%E6%B5%B7 (http://www.worldjournal.com/view/full_van/24816796/article-%E5%82%B3%E6%A9%9F%E9%95%B7%E5%8A%AB%E6%A9%9F%E6%8C%BA%E5%AE %89%E8%8F%AF-%E8%AB%87%E5%88%A4%E7%A0%B4%E8%A3%82%E6%B2%B9%E7%9B%A1%E5%A2 %9C%E6%B5%B7?instance=bc_bull_left1)

auraflyer

26th Mar 2014, 22:00

CowgirlInAlaska:

One candidate could be a driftnet.

It's hard to get aerial pics of them, but see eg Marine Debris UAS Survey - Photos (http://trekme.com/oceandebris/photos) under "Net Fragment"

Ka-2b Pilot

26th Mar 2014, 22:21

Many years ago I witnessed a Buccaneer do a vertical dive into the Johore Strait following loss of control and the crew ejecting. All I saw was a huge fountain of water from each wing. It was later recovered basically intact having slowed very rapidly and settled on the bottom in shallow water. If a 777 did the same it would likely do serious damage to the front end and the wings/engines would break off but the cabin may remain more or less intact and the whole lot would sink to the bottom, any air having been expelled through the damaged areas.

MartinM

26th Mar 2014, 22:26

I tagged something here in this map 242381 which looks to me like being a aircraft tail floating semisubmerged

Mudman

26th Mar 2014, 22:34

Another angle....

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bjq2RnaCQAATE4W.jpg:large

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bjq4G4tCYAACySF.jpg:large

DCrefugee

26th Mar 2014, 22:40

Another angle....

Looks like it's been in the water a lot longer than just since March 8.

Flightmech

26th Mar 2014, 22:41

Fire bottle. I'm not sure even if it was in salt water for two weeks it would have corroded that quickly and if it was the real deal it could be traced by part and serial numbers if it actually was off MH 370.

BRAKES OFF

26th Mar 2014, 22:57

If the 'reports' are true, i and i'd assume YOU too would find it hard to believe MH370 was allowed to carry on on its merry way.

All purely speculative, but just as possible as all the other 'wild' theories being thrown about, until evidence suggests otherwise.

tlbrown350

26th Mar 2014, 22:57

Yes you have to go with the evidence that Immarsat provided which points to the south Indian Ocean. But these particular aircraft parts don't wash up on shore everyday. Also it looks to me to have been in the water about the right amount of time.

DocRohan

26th Mar 2014, 23:01

Have just enlarged and compared those 2 images of the object....I dont even think they are pics of the same object. in the first one, there is corrosion around the "screws" on the 2nd, there is none. Also, i cant find evidence of the wire attached at the top of the object in the 2nd image on the object in the first image. also, the level of surface corrosion seems to have changed between images!

InfrequentFlier511

26th Mar 2014, 23:12

If the Maldives object really is a fire bottle, the question must be asked: if a B777 is so completely smashed that a fire bottle floats free, how is it that not one other item has floated ashore nearby?

currawong

26th Mar 2014, 23:25

A photo of the part # and serial # needs to be posted for this to have any meaning.

It would be good to know where it came from regardless.

fatdeeman

26th Mar 2014, 23:32

@DocRohan I think you're right, either different objects or they have given it a hell of a clean up!

Coagie

26th Mar 2014, 23:42

Don't know if MH370 even had fire bottles such as the one pictured, because of the phasing out of Halon systems. The Maldives are quite far from the present search area. I'd be surprised if the Inmarsat calculations were that far off. I think the engineers have done a great job helping to narrow down a search area. Plus, wouldn't other things have washed up around the same area if this bottle was from a recent crash?
Replacing Halon in Fire Protection Systems: A Progress Report (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/2011_q4/3/)

F_one

26th Mar 2014, 23:45

For any 777 drivers out there-would the fly by wire system and associated protections keep the plane in the flight envelope after fuel starvation and flameout (with a/p engaged and both pilots incapacitated)?Could this have led to an impact with a low vertical speed component and an airspeed just above stall speed?
I'm not a T7 driver, but logic says both engines out. Loss of hydraulics and electrical systems. It's unlikely the autopilot will stay connected in this scenario. Can a 777 pilot please confirm.

Raptor Systems TT

26th Mar 2014, 23:49

Yep those two bottles look different,one more rusted than the other..Also no evidence of damaged mounts or screws,surely an impact strong enough to expose such a part would also damage it.

areobat

26th Mar 2014, 23:59

If you assume for the moment that the suspect fire bottle is indeed from MH370, is there a possible scenario wherein the fire bottle was ejected by some some sort of explosion/fire on board yet the aircraft continued to fly on for some distance?

Given the current hypothetical flight path for MH370 it appears to have turned south almost due east from the point where the bottle was found. Perhaps such an "event" (if such an event is possible) caused M370 to unexpectedly alter course and turn south. Prior to the tun south, MH370 appeared to be following known way points, yet it suddenly turned south and flew in a straight line along no established route. This might explain both the presence of the bottle (again, only if it is from MH370) and account for the satellite pings. Just a thought . . .

buttmonkey1

27th Mar 2014, 00:00

that bottle pictured is definitely NOT from a b777.
unless they have been shopping at home depot for hardware, lol.

this is a b777 engine fire bottle, cargo and apu bottles are similar
http://i1175.photobucket.com/albums/r633/Adrian_Dessaix/bottle_zpsbb194df6.jpg

Raptor Systems TT

27th Mar 2014, 00:05

Areobat.

In such a scenario at least the mounts or screws would've been damaged,with severed heads or broken metal between intact screws from mounting provisions/frame (like a jagged washer)..

clark y

27th Mar 2014, 00:26

WRT the object, I'd think flat blade screws haven't been used in a while in an aviation application. (Could be wrong). If it is not a fire bottle, what is it?

fatdeeman

27th Mar 2014, 00:34

It may well be off an aircraft just not a 777 by the looks of it.

Another possibility is that it was part of a rocket stage that reentered the atmosphere or never fully left. You see a lot of pressure vessels make their way back down. I suppose their shape helps them to avoid being burnt to a cinder. I would say it looks a bit too clean for that though.

Looking at the images of the washed up object and the schematic my guess would be yes it's a fire bottle but no it isn't from a 777

Minimbah

27th Mar 2014, 00:34

It looks like a miniature WW2 mine?

RichManJoe

27th Mar 2014, 01:19

Not an expert in this stuff, but I find it strange that the bottles would rip from their mounting structure without some of the mounting structure being attached to the mounting screws. Looks too clean to me.

JRBarrett

27th Mar 2014, 01:20

WRT the object, I'd think flat blade screws haven't been used in a while in an aviation application. (Could be wrong). If it is not a fire bottle, what is it?

I have removed and replaced many aircraft fire bottles in my career as an AME, and though the item in the photograph bears a superficial resemblance to one, I really don't think that is what it is.

Every fire bottle I have ever seen has a pressure gauge built into the side to indicate that the unit does indeed contain a full charge of extinguishing agent. No sign of such.

More importantly, an engine or APU bottle will have at least one, (and more often two), threaded female couplers for the large-diameter piping that conducts the agent to the appropriate location when the bottle is discharged - either to a dispersal nozzle within the engine cowl, or within the APU enclosure as the case may be. There is no sign of anything like that on the item in the photograph.

Also, the item in the photos appears to be made if a thicker gauge metal than is typical of aircraft fire bottles. The flush-mounted threaded plug in one side is also unusual.

The silver cylindrical device mounted to the side of the sphere bears a superficial resemblance to the electrical firing squib used on an aircraft extinguisher, but again, there is no sign of the threaded female coupling for the discharge line, which normally connects right below the squib.

And, as you point out, the use of slotted mounting screws is not often seen in aircraft. The fire bottles I am familiar with are all mounted to the aircraft structure with bolts.

Having said this, I have to point out that my experience with aircraft extinguishers is specifically on small to mid-size business jet aircraft. I have never seen or worked with the type of extinguishers that would typically be used on an airliner or cargo aircraft for cargo bay fire suppression. Perhaps that kind of extinguisher would look more like what is displayed in the photo.

Two things in the photos that DO suggest this item is from an aircraft, are the inked manufacturer's inspection stamps on the cylindrical device on the side, and the use of twisted lockwire to secure the end cap on the cylinder. There appear to be two wires protruding from the end of the cylinder, and firing squibs usually use a two-wire connection.

glenbrook

27th Mar 2014, 02:10

Albatros

Do you really think that two very old aircraft are a more valid comparison than Sully in the river?

The 777 is a tank as has been proved by various recent accidents.

The airframe does not have to be immaculate to sink with little trace, merely hold onto its larger parts (wings/tail) and the pressure hull must be sufficiently intact to retain all the poor buggers inside plus cushions. That is not outwith the bounds of possibility.

p.s. Can the people who keep saying that water is as hard as concrete at speed please stop being silly. It gets no harder at any speed. It is still water. If you fire a pistol into water the bullets penetrate a couple of feet. Try that with concrete.:rolleyes:

Of course water is not concrete, but this is just basic physics. A Boeing 777 ditching like this will be twice the weight and twice the speed of Flight 1549, giving 8 times the energy of impact, at least.
Then remember that Sully ditched on a flat calm river dissipating the energy considerably. MH370 must have ditched into ocean swell perhaps worse. Flight 1549 was not in one piece either. Both engines were ripped off instantly and the cabin was full of holes. There was debris.
In this case I would be very surprised if the wing and empennage did not break off. Furthermore, even if the main cabin is intact, it would sink quickly and the rupture due to water pressure. You say B777 is a tank but it is not a submarine. In reality it is just an aluminum and composite tube, filled with all kinds of floatable stuff. There will be a debris field, however hard it is to find.

No doubt debris will be found one day, but I grow ever more doubtful about the main wreckage.

WhipperJoe

27th Mar 2014, 02:17

Well no, obviously water doesn't get any 'harder' the faster you hit it, but the faster an object hits something, the more force is imparted back onto the object. Obviously will increase with object velocity and weight.

Pace

27th Mar 2014, 02:25

There was an interesting discussion with Cousteau the son of the famous Jaques Cousteau and an expert in the suspect area.
Firstly millions of tons of waste are tipped into the Oceans.
second point he made is that the wreckage could be in 25000 feet of water.
The bottom is not flat but made up of mountains and valleys.
The currents are some of the strongest in the world not just horizontal but vertical currents.
After this length of time any floating parts could be hundreds of miles from the impact point!

It is exceptionally unlikely that there will ever be a definitive answer to this mystery and that this tragic event will be discussed for years with theories that it and its PAX are being held on some remote reef to a disturbed member of the crew doing something crazy.Probably even that some Galactic visitor took the aircraft away and its PAX for scientific study :ugh:

With the huge insurance claims come vested interest??? probably that this was some sort of hijack of a serviceable aircraft to the aircraft faulty to the operator at fault.
So keep guessing guys as we will never get an answer

Contact Approach

27th Mar 2014, 02:33

It is well documented that the southern Indian Ocean is littered with waste, so it is more than likely these satellite images are just that.

Is perhaps likely that this is a reoccurrence of something similar to the Adam air crash in Indonesia? Flight crew distracted by inflight-non-serious failure of a particular system and they simply forgot to fly the plane? In the case of the Adam Air crash the aircraft wasn't found for sometime!

oldoberon

27th Mar 2014, 02:40

CNBC news, sources say some files have been recovered from the pilot hard drive but nothing suspicious was found.

A sea expert? stated the french debris could even be from the Bandar Aceh Tsunami

Contact Approach

27th Mar 2014, 02:47

Adam Air Flight 782
On February 11, 2006, Flight 782, registration number PK-KKE (c/n 23773), lost navigational and communications systems twenty minutes into a flight from Jakarta to Makassar, Sulawesi. The plane was subsequently flown into a radar "black spot" and was lost for several hours, eventually making an emergency landing at Tambolaka Airport, Sumba (on a different island 481 km away from their intended destination, and southeast from their origin, instead of northeast).

Adam Air - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Air#Flight_782)

CaptainEmad

27th Mar 2014, 02:52

Thanks for your gloomy predictions Pace,

second point he made is that the wreckage could be in 25000 feet of water.

Probably not, that is the approximate depth of the Java trench, not the relatively flat plain beneath the search area (2500m-3500m deep) of the Indo-Australian plate.

Wiki image of the Indian Ocean sea floor...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Indian_Ocean_surface.jpg

So keep guessing guys as we will never get an answer

OK, we will keep guessing. :ok:

onetrack

27th Mar 2014, 03:11

UPDATE - The ADV Ocean Shield is on its way to Fremantle where it will be fitted with the U.S. Navys Towed Pinger Locator 25 System, which has already arrived in Perth.
It appears it will take a couple of days to fit up the Ocean Shield with the towed Pinger Locator.
Then there will be another couple of days travel to the search area, as the Ocean Shield only does 16kts maximum.
On its way West from Sydney, it was only making 13.2kts headway through the Gt Australian Bight, running against fairly constant prevailing Westerly winds.
It really is a race against time, before the FDR battery fails. :(

ADV Ocean Shield - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADV_Ocean_Shield)

If the FDR is found, the acoustic signal of the FDR pinger is transmitted up the Pinger Locator cable and can be output to either an oscilloscope or a signal processing computer (I didn't know oscilloscopes were still in use, in the U.S. Navy!).
The operator monitors the greatest signal strength and records the navigation coordinates, and then the ship repeats the procedure on multiple track lines until the final position is triangulated.

The Pinger Locator has a capability of 20,000' (over 6,000M). The sea bed in the region of the search zone is up to 4,500M deep.

What would be of concern, is the width of coverage of the Pinger Locators. If the width of coverage is only around the maximum operational depth quoted, that means a lot of track lines to be done!

Those "bright, reflective, possible debris objects" in the sat pics could also be remnant ice floes, too!

Another cold front with increased rain, cloud and wind is going to pass through the search zone this (Thurs 27th) afternoon, and will hamper search efforts until the weather clears again, possibly Friday afternoon.

hamster3null

27th Mar 2014, 04:06

Interesting, hamster3null. One question - how does it look at lower or higher speeds? Do you get the same profile but just at a different heading? Or does the plot actually differ?

(As I understand it, and I may be wrong or missing something, they don't know the actual speed of the aircraft, or even that that speed was constant over the 7 hrs. Rather, they only know the difference in relative velocities at points in time. As a result, while the velocity and position for the satellite are known, one has to posit assumed heading/assumed speed pairs for the aircraft, each of which give the same difference in relative velocity, but correspond to a different track in real life.)

The plot differs somewhat depending on the speed. An agreement is good at 450 kts and heading 185, it could have gone a bit faster, but on a slightly more westerly heading, or, conversely, slower but further east. In either case the difference in course can't be large. I only get semi-decent fits for headings between ~182 and 188.

CaptainEmad

27th Mar 2014, 04:07

Jbr76:
If the aircraft crashed into sea, why hasn't there been an activation of the ELT?

The ELT antenna was broken off in an impact
The aircraft went in inverted
The ELT was not working
The touchdown was not violent enough to activate it
The ELT was destroyed by impact forces
The ELT is like all other ELTs and does not work underwater

This list could be only 1% of the many reasons you could use to explain why there was no signal detected.

Hedge36

27th Mar 2014, 04:14

Correct me if I am wrong but a u/s ELT is not MEL-able. There must be a serviceable ELT for the aircraft.

The ELTs are designed to survive a pretty harsh impact and have g-sensors which activate upon imact.

ELT's are very much water resistant.

Some of your responses are flawed.

You appear to put a lot of faith in your equipment.

onetrack

27th Mar 2014, 04:20

ZAZ - "Oscilloscope" was precisely the word, the U.S. Navy officer used in the interview.

Towhee

27th Mar 2014, 04:24

MH370 search zone: rough seas and strong currents pose string of problems | World news | theguardian.com (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/26/mh370-wreckage-search-zone-indian-ocean-problems)

Coagie

27th Mar 2014, 04:37

"ZAZ - "Oscilloscope" was precisely the word, the U.S. Navy officer used in the interview."

Nothing wrong with using an oscilloscope to look for a voltage (amplitude) at a particular frequency. If they were looking at a range of frequencies, they'd use a spectrum analyzer. They'd need to look at the 37.5khz, since it's beyond human hearing range, unless they down convert it to human hearing range.

Tokyo Geoff

27th Mar 2014, 04:53

All SAR activity cancelled for the rest of the day due to the weather. :(

500N

27th Mar 2014, 05:02

Here is a photo you won't see very often (not everyone is in the picture)
but Aust, NZ, US, Chinese, South Korean and Japanese military personnel all
in the same room and working together.

The guy speaking is Australia's defense minister, the Chinese are in Blueish Camo
and the guy in the suit.

http://i61.tinypic.com/df9kk5.jpg

Frequent SLF

27th Mar 2014, 05:06

500N - thank you for posting that. A nice image and a touch of sanity among the madness and posturing. That is what international aviation ir actually about.

Machinbird

27th Mar 2014, 06:01

During the search for AF447, France's BEA commissioned a working group (The Drift Group) to evaluate all the methods of backtracking wreckage floating on the surface.

This did not produce sufficient accuracy for a viable search and actually seems to have delayed the location of the wreckage.

The Drift Group report can be found here:
http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flight.af.447/phase3.search.zone.determination.working.group.report.pdf

There was one useful jewel in the report, but it didn't fit the group think concept and so was ignored. Appendix 7 of the report contained an anomalous "pollution spot" detected by the Cosmo-skymed synthetic aperture radar satellite. The shape of the spot was unusual and it was very close to the LKP.
http://i37.tinypic.com/1h7ytg.jpg

MH370 was likely flown to fuel exhaustion however there would still be some fuel retained in the tanks which would have spread out on the surface and changed its radar reflectivity slightly. Jet fuel would evaporate fairly quickly with the rate likely dependent on temperature and surface turbulence and wind velocity. In the case of AF447, the slick was predicted to evaporate within 30 hours. MH370 would undoubtedly be a shorter period.

There is some chance of a detectable slick. The Cosmo Skymed is a small constellation of satellites designed to revisit areas relatively quickly, and there may be a fair chance of detection of a fuel slick from the crash of MH370.

Here is a link to the Cosmo Skymed information and tasking site:
https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/c-missions/cosmo-skymed

To improve the odds of detection it would really be useful to narrow down the area of interest by finding actual floating wreckage and backtracking it using whatever means possible.

The collected data from the Cosmo skymed satellites appears to be stored in bulk and is extracted as needed based on tasking requests.

mickjoebill

27th Mar 2014, 06:36

ABC news live radio interview with the skipper of HMAS Success, Captain Allison Norris.

HMAS Success is a supply and support vessel of Australian navy.
1400NM SW of Perth
Despite news reports to the contrary they are continuing to search despite the poor weather.
Sometimes 30-40 crew on lookout
8-12 crew on lookout as a minimum 24/7
Has a crane that can lift debris.
Connectivity with crew and their families is limited due to being "far out"
Their task is continue to search until asked to stop by authorities.
Highly trained and professional crew who are up to the task.
Previous task was to the North of oz mainland in support of operations.

The skipper has an impressive cv with an interest in aviation.
https://www.navy.gov.au/biography/captain-allison-norris

AU-501

27th Mar 2014, 06:54

G,day Earl,

I am not B773 rated. However and if any triple types can say otherwise, I do believe that the A/C has conventional PWRs assisted controls not FBW the exception being a spoiler on each wing and T/E flaps.

Not trying to be a smart arse, just like a bit of clarity.

Comments anyone without departing fm the subject of the thread

wiggy

27th Mar 2014, 07:11

The T7 is fully FBW, with three different modes, from full blown "normal" mode with the likes of envelope protection through the more basic "secondary" down to "direct" where you get rid of the computers and are signalling the actuators directly but still electronically from the flight deck controls. There is also a very limited manual "backup" capability to some of it's control surfaces.

Wannabe Flyer

27th Mar 2014, 07:13

Is there any website that would be able to give water and weather conditions between the partial handshake (8:19) to no Handshake (9:15) am in the area under investigation on the date of the incident?

This would show the probability of a largely intact set down with a smaller initial scattering of debris field (if water were calmer) or a much larger surface break up accounting for multiple spotting of large pieces of debris as is now showing up on various Satellites.

Any attempt to keep the aircraft as intact as possible to hide it as seems the case would have taken this into account......:\

Any experts out there to advise if 2005 Tsunami Debris could still be around in that part of the world? :sad:

Neogen

27th Mar 2014, 07:35

HMAS Success is a supply and support vessel of Australian navy.
1400NM SW of Perth
Despite news reports to the contrary they are continuing to search despite the poor weather.
Sometimes 30-40 crew on lookout
8-12 crew on lookout as a minimum 24/7
Has a crane that can lift debris.
Connectivity with crew and their families is limited due to being "far out"
Their task is continue to search until asked to stop by authorities.
Highly trained and professional crew who are up to the task.
Previous task was to the North of oz mainland in support of operations.

The skipper has an impressive cv with an interest in aviation.
https://www.navy.gov.au/biography/ca...allison-norris

And they do have a copter on board:

http://i.imgur.com/ukWtp5h.jpg

Erwin Schroedinger

27th Mar 2014, 07:42

Wikipedia:

Most FDRs record approximately 17–25 hours worth of data in a continuous loop.

They are designed to emit an underwater locator beacon for up to 30 days and can operate immersed to a depth of up to 6,000 meters (20,000 ft).

An underwater locator beacon (ULB) or underwater acoustic beacon is a device fitted to aviation flight recorders such as the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and flight data recorder (FDR).

A 37.5 kHz (160.5 dB re 1 μPa) pinger can be detectable 1–2 kilometres (0.62–1.24 mi) from the surface in normal conditions and 4–5 kilometres (2.5–3.1 mi) in good conditions. A 37.5 kHz (180 dB re 1 μPa) transponder pinger can be detected 4–5 kilometres (2.5–3.1 mi) in normal conditions and 6–7 kilometres (3.7–4.3 mi) in good conditions. Transponder 10 kHz (180 dB re 1 μPa) range is 7–9 kilometres (4.3–5.6 mi) in normal conditions and 17–22 kilometres (11–14 mi) in good conditions.

Some posts on this thread contradict the above.

So which part(s), if any, of the above quotes are incorrect to the extent that on-or-above sea surface searches with appropriate equipment won't locate the FDR when within the ranges stated?

wiggy

27th Mar 2014, 07:45

Basically the hydraulic actuators for the primary flight control surfaces are signalled electronically from the flight deck controls, with the degree of computer input/ moderating that takes place dependant on the level at which the FBW is operating at ( normal >secondary>direct). However just in case of a total electrical failure Boeing did indeed provide a manual back up in the form of good old fashioned cables to the stab and selected spoilers...according to the FCOM:

"Mechanical Backup
In the unlikely event of a complete electrical system shut–down, cables from the flight deck to the stabilizer and selected spoilers allow the pilot to fly straight and level until the electrical system is restarted."

cawky

27th Mar 2014, 08:22

Hi , I have read every post on here and I am wondering if there could be a lot of debris still floating about from the hurricane that hit the Philipines not long ago?

glenbrook

27th Mar 2014, 08:39

Apart, of course, from empirical testing they did against actual aircraft on actual flights ... which confirmed the results of the "algorithm" [sic] ... which was actually an analysis of hard data received by the satellite operator from the plane and some very clever work by some exceptionally good and quite under-appreciated engineers.

And the fact it wasn't detected on radar to the east

Or to the north

Or to the west

Oh I think everyone appreciates their work. What is frustrating is that the details of their analysis has not been made public. I don't blame Inmarsat for this, it is down to the Malaysia transport authorities to produce a report with all the details which are known, but not released.

I fully understand the anger and frustrations of the family members. At this stage in the AF447 investigation the BEA issued an interim report with everything known, including full details of the ACARS messages, crew bios, cargo manifest, the works.

It is not enough to have the big man say "The plane is lost, some clever people in England have worked it out, trust us." Show us the work. Show us the ping details, show us the cargo manifest, show us the radar track, give us the ATC transcript, even!

Pontius Navigator

27th Mar 2014, 08:40

Some posts on this thread contradict the above.

So which part(s), if any, of the above quotes are incorrect to the extent that on-or-above sea surface searches with appropriate equipment won't locate the FDR when within the ranges stated?

Not sure exactly to what contradiction you refer. Is it range propagation? You mention 'above sea surface'.

Are you inferring that a 'microphone' or hydrophone not in the water can detect the ULB? Looking at the cross media transmission first, the speed of sound in a dense medium (water) is around 4800 feet per second and around 1100 feet per second in air. A wave or sound beam will refract at the media boundary. At certain angles it will be reflected rather than pass through. The physics example is a light beam striking a prism and 'total internal refraction.' IIRC, a beam of light passing from a dense medium to a less dense medium will be refracted away from the normal.

However the sea is not an homogenous mass of water. Temperature and salinity vary with depth. The water body has well defined layers; it is possible to even see and feel these layers when scuba diving. The speed of sound will vary with salinity (hence density) and temperature. Sound waves on striking these layers will either reflect or pass through depending upon the vertical angle between the emitter and the hydrophone.

It follows that a hydrophone directly above the emitter might hear the ULB but in most of the figures you have quoted the signal strength may decline too much for surface capture.

The first thing then is to determine the bathythermal layers and place the hydrophone in the same layer as the emitter. Next is to lower the hydrophone so that it would be as close as possible in the vertical to the emitter to maximise its horizontal range.

You would then have a sweep width of between 4 km and 44 km depending upon water conditions and the figures you quoted being applicable.

Pontius Navigator

27th Mar 2014, 08:42

Hi , I have read every post on here and I am wondering if there could be a lot of debris still floating about from the hurricane that hit the Philipines not long ago?

The Indonesian archipelago is a 3000 mile barrier from the Malaysian coast to the north of Australia. Such debris would have had to travel counter current through narrow straits, passed Australia, to the Indian Ocean.

mm43

27th Mar 2014, 08:43

A 37.5 kHz (160.5 dB re 1 μPa) pinger can be detectable 1–2 kilometres (0.62–1.24 mi) from the surface in normal conditions and 4–5 kilometres (2.5–3.1 mi) in good conditions. A 37.5 kHz (180 dB re 1 μPa) transponder pinger can be detected 4–5 kilometres (2.5–3.1 mi) in normal conditions and 6–7 kilometres (3.7–4.3 mi) in good conditions. Transponder 10 kHz (180 dB re 1 μPa) range is 7–9 kilometres (4.3–5.6 mi) in normal conditions and 17–22 kilometres (11–14 mi) in good conditions.

Some posts on this thread contradict the above.
The following link to an early AF447 thread post by auv-ee explains the basic facts of pinger location by someone who knows and has been actively involved in this work.

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/395105-af-447-search-resume-48.html#post5683946

It wont take you long to work out that there is a relatively narrow range either side of the towed path which is dependent on th TPL being positioned around 1600 meters above the seabed profile.

zhishengji751

27th Mar 2014, 08:49

And they do have a copter on board:

Do you know that it actually departed with that on board, there has been many delays getting those operational..

Fairsky

27th Mar 2014, 08:53

@Pontius Navigator
I postulated in earlier post that because the Maldives have 2 767's and a 757 that maybe they're not too careful with garbage disposal and that this was an old part chucked away.

Blake777

27th Mar 2014, 08:57

A Thai satellite has picked up 300 items of what appears to be debris about 200 km from the French debris patch. Just so frustrating the weather is bad for the next 24 hours.

MFC_Fly

27th Mar 2014, 09:10

In discussion about that supposed mine or fire bottle in the Maldives, does anyone seriously believe that the authorities would not have looked into the alleged finding by now? If they have and it was significant then does anyone seriously believe that so many governments would still be wasting so much money and resources searching 5000 miles away? :ugh:

Neogen

27th Mar 2014, 09:18

Do you know that it actually departed with that on board, there has been many delays getting those operational..

Yes, it departed Fremantle with that MRH90 on board. :ok:

Pontius Navigator

27th Mar 2014, 09:19

Are they looking for a 37 kHz radio signal or audio signal? Big difference. And yes u can still buy crt Cro,s. And LCD oscilloscopes, so are they listening for sound waves in which case u use a transducer or radio waves which travel under water?? To subs at 65 kHz,

As mentioned earlier, a 37kHz radio signal is in the LF range and needs a very large antennae and considerable power to radiate any significant range.

37kHz audio, is in the VHF audio range capable of being detected with a transducer and then displayed on the appropriate equipment.

monarols

27th Mar 2014, 09:45

Some larger pix here:

Thai satellite spots possible wreckage | Bangkok Post: breakingnews (http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/402047/thai-satellite-spots-possible-wreckage)

pilot.india

27th Mar 2014, 09:53

its been close to a week now that the australian authorities had said that a few possible aircraft debris been seen on satellite images. since then so many aircrafts and ships been doing rounds of the suspected area and still its so surprising that not even a single piece of debris is visually identified and checked hands on just so to make 100% sure that the aircraft has crashed there.

Sober Lark

27th Mar 2014, 09:56

Satellites seem to spot whatever you want them to spot. If you want them to find evidence of chemical and nuclear facilities they'll oblige. If you want them to spot dinner plate sizes of aircraft wreckage they'll oblige. Anyone who has a satellite wants to be able to say they have spotted something. At this stage its all one-upmanship. All this manpower searching, nothing found, too many false positives.

RichardC10

27th Mar 2014, 09:56

BANGKOK (AP) - A Thai satellite has detected about 300 objects floating in the Indian Ocean near the search area for the missing Malaysia Airlines jetliner.

Anond Snidvongs, director of Thailand's space technology development agency, said Thursday the images showed "300 objects of various sizes" in the southern Indian Ocean about 2,700 kilometers (1,675 miles) southwest of Perth.

He says the images were taken by the Thaichote satellite on Monday, took two days to process and were relayed to Malaysian authorities on Wednesday.

Images here. It would be useful to get some background from analysts on the rarity of seeing this type of flotsam on satellite images.

https://twitter.com/RodrigoEBR/statu...495424/photo/1 (https://twitter.com/RodrigoEBR/status/449107475883495424/photo/1) Without trying to be too negative these images and the French images of yesterday look like ice. I took the picture below over seas to the South of Greenland a couple of years ago; height around 30000ft.

http://i59.tinypic.com/qysiaa.jpg

OleOle

27th Mar 2014, 10:03

This is a drift pattern of a buoy (http://sailwx.info/shiptrack/shipposition.phtml?call=71611). It starts

2013-Aug-01 S 41°04' E 085°01

and ends

2014-Mar-27 S 34°57' E 110°12'

http://s4.postimg.org/y4d9wf54t/5333f421_6255_0.png

tmac21

27th Mar 2014, 10:04

Wouldn't you though assume that these experts viewing the satellite images would be able to tell the difference between ice and a non ice object?

Andrewgr2

27th Mar 2014, 10:06

RichardC10

'South of Greenland' would be about 60 degrees North. The search area is 40 degrees South. I wouldn't expect to see ice at 40 degrees North - would you expect to see it at 40 degrees South?

buttrick

27th Mar 2014, 10:09

MFC_Fly

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Right here, right now
Posts: 169
In discussion about that supposed mine or fire bottle in the Maldives, does anyone seriously believe that the authorities would not have looked into the alleged finding by now? If they have and it was significant then does anyone seriously believe that so many governments would still be wasting so much money and resources searching 5000 miles away?

The" fire bottle " is more likely to be part of a scuba rebreather apparatus. See previous posts!!

Msunduzi

27th Mar 2014, 10:12

In reply to the post that suggested the debris could be from Yolanda, it doesn't look likely. Most of the debris still around from Yolanda would be bare wood.

Very little is painted in the Philippines, most of the people in the affected areas would spend what little they have on rice and fish rather than paint.

Most of the debris in the pictures looks white.

mmurray

27th Mar 2014, 10:43

Can anyone read the co-ords on these pictures ? I was wondering how close they are to the French debris.

Orestes

27th Mar 2014, 10:50

Unless I'm mistaken, water temperature there is in the mid 50's F, 14 C, so it's probably not ice.

rubberband2

27th Mar 2014, 10:51

1 This very interesting pprune blog has informed us many times that all forms of communications from the missing B777 were shut down at about the time that the aircraft left the airways leading to China.

2 But several pprune posts have also told us that there were hourly pings from the B777 until shortly before the time that it was estimated to have run out of fuel (7 hours or so).

3 This same pprune blog has sometimes told us that the 2 Rolls-Royce Trent engines throughout the flight sent coded performance data back to R-R – as this system cannot readily be disabled or was overlooked. (Most comments about R-R maintenance monitoring have been quickly deleted by the Mods. Watch this space!)

pprune blog quote:
Using the data from just eight satellite "pings" after the plane's other onboard Acars automatic tracking system went off at 1.07am, the team at Inmarsat was initially able to calculate that it had either headed north towards the Asian land mass or south, towards the emptiest stretches of the India Ocean.

So here are 3 simple questions:

1 What system & antenna aboard MH370 continued to send the pings?

2 What system & antenna aboard MH370 sent the R-R data engine monitoring data?

3 When did these two data streams cease?

Msunduzi

27th Mar 2014, 10:51

500N

27th Mar 2014, 10:53

"Can anyone read the co-ords on these pictures ?"

Blow them up, the co ords are just visible.

Walnut

27th Mar 2014, 11:05

The a/c was fitted I believe with Satcom which can be used in real time to send back engine data etc or used as a Satphone. The data stream costs money and was not subscribed to by the airline however the Satphone was still available for use in an emergency & only cost the airline money if used.
The pings I believe were just the handshake, similar to your mobile phone, & were produced to establish a connection if needed. I have been wondering if the final "partial" ping was in fact generated when the power went down on the Satcom & was re established by the RAT say. ie maybe the system was trying to re establish contact after a power outage.

Andy_S

27th Mar 2014, 11:11

Mahatma Kote

27th Mar 2014, 11:11

the French images of yesterday look like ice

There is no ice within a 1000 km of the search area. At least not ice fragments.

The furthest north Ice I know of was a fairly recent solitary iceberg off the coast of New Zealand in an extremely rare event.

slats11

27th Mar 2014, 11:18

Don't imagine you would find ice that far north at this time of year (end summer). Sea temperature in this region likely to be 14 degrees.

South Western Australia (http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/forecasts/idyoc10.shtml?region=10&forecast=1)

The fairly high density of the debris suggests it is from a common source and recent. Stuff from Banda Aceh tsunami (in 2004) wouldn't still be floating around in close formation.

I wonder if drift analysis is going to be much use at this stage. They had debris within a few days with AF447, and even that didn't really help find the wreckage. After a couple of weeks? - and particularly when the search has been cancelled due to poor weather (mainly due to low cloud base, but there was also a high sea state).

Perhaps the main use of finding wreckage will be to confirm the plane is somewhere in the South Indian ocean. The nature of debris will perhaps help experts determine the nature of crash - controlled ditching or high speed entry.

Finding a body with a phone containing a message or video would be very helpful. I suspect this is very unlikely however.

Searching for the pingers seems a long shot given the area involved, the difficult location, and the time remaining. And thats assuming the damn things are working. I have the feeling they would have to be very lucky.

If this was a deliberate act, someone would have done a fair bit of research. Hypoxia, human physiology, altitude medicine, depth of Indian ocean, current information for this area, Australian SAR capabilities, shipping routes etc.

It would certainly be worth checking peoples computers for evidence of such searches. This would be easy for crew, but would obviously be difficult for the passengers.

Does anyone know if it is possible to search back in the reverse direction? Can you search Google for someone who has searched what would be an unusual collection of unrelated things? I guess this would be looking for a different needle in a different haystack. However everything is looking like a long shot right now.

captains_log

27th Mar 2014, 11:21

It doesn't matter how much 'debris' has been spotted if it's not MH370 its just debris.

25 days into AF447 SAR recovered 50 bodies and 640 items of actual debris.

Air France Flight 447 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447)

Even the ethiopian hijack proves some debris should be prevalent on low impact or hi impact (AF447/Swiss 111)

20 days so far with Zero results. And this is in no way detriment to the brave expert men and women involved in this search.

I hope they have their coordinates right.

UnreliableSource

27th Mar 2014, 11:25

Most of the debris in the pictures looks white.

That sometimes happens in b&w images...

ChickenHouse

27th Mar 2014, 11:27

Does anyone know if it is possible to search back in the reverse direction? Can you search Google for someone who has searched what would be an unusual collection of unrelated things?

Yes, it is and it is rumored that all intelligence organizations do it permanently. You can also buy individually optimized placed ads on the market, based on traced behavior on the net. Just look at the marketing slides of Google Analytics and you get a first guess what is possible.

500N

27th Mar 2014, 11:40

But the North Atlantic is not the South.

As someone pointed out, the last iceberg anywhere further north than normal
was a huge one off Christchurch, NZ a couple of years back.

Walnut

27th Mar 2014, 11:47

Andy_S

27th Mar 2014, 11:49

25 days into AF447 SAR recovered 50 bodies and 640 items of actual debris.

Even the ethiopian hijack proves some debris should be prevalent on low impact or hi impact (AF447/Swiss 111)

20 days so far with Zero results.

I hope they have their coordinates right.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Ethiopian Airlines ditched close to a beach in broad daylight; it's exact position was known.
SR111 crashed a few miles offshore. It was heard by local residents and had been in contact with Halifax ATC until a few minutes previously. It's location was known with reasonable accuracy.
Even with AF447, the authorities knew what direction it was heading and the time of it's final ACARS communication; they had a pretty good idea where to start looking.

MH370 is quite different; it's route deviated from the flightplan, there were no communications with the aircraft and it's eventual routing can only be inferred. The search for it's remains is simply not comparable with the examples you quoted.

Speed of Sound

27th Mar 2014, 11:52

So here are 3 simple questions:

1 What system & antenna aboard MH370 continued to send the pings?

2 What system & antenna aboard MH370 sent the R-R data engine monitoring data?

3 When did these two data streams cease?

Answers:

1. The onboard SATCOM terminal

2. ACARS via one of the VHF transmitters.

3. The Rolls Royce data engine monitoring transmissions ceased when ACARS was disabled.

The SATCOM pings ceased at 08.11 with a partial 'handshake' shortly after.

Squawk_ident

27th Mar 2014, 12:14

It is written here Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370: Thai satellite spots 300 objects - World - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-thai-satellite-spots-300-objects-1.2588158)

objects found at about 200km from the French Sat. pictures

On the Bangkok Post published pictures here
Thai satellite has detected about 300 objects floating in the Indian Ocean near search area | Bangkok Post: breakingnews (http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/402047/thai-satellite-spots-possible-wreckage)

I would say from what I can read 46.20 S//89 21 and 89 27 and /29E on three different pictures. Hard to read even when zooming.

rh200

27th Mar 2014, 12:20

Two main types of location hardware, one acoustic, the other electromagnetic. Another words one puts out a sound and the other a electromagnetic wave.

Electromagnetic waves for practical purposes do not travel under water. Sound goes really well under water. The pinger is attached to a "black box" (read the one that makes the noise).

Nozzer

27th Mar 2014, 12:51

Interesting analysis of current surface flow in the SAR area. Seems to be mainly gyre-type.

earth :: an animated map of global wind and weather (http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/orthographic=95.77,-31.72,571)

2dPilot

27th Mar 2014, 12:51

Isn't it time to think about starting anew with current technology rather than upgrading old equipment? I read lots of talk about improving ELTs, extending CVR time and other shortcommings.
With todays technology, all the flight information, airframe performance, position, speed, CVR, etc, could simply be uploaded in (almost) real-time via satellite then to ground stations/ATC. Such an change could easily be piggy-backed onto the existing recorders & flight systems and not really require much more than (another) computer and a satellite 'phone. In deed, as many aircraft now have WiFi internet access, all the data could be carried over that link.
There would never arise where the condition & position of any aircraft was not known or traceable to a few miles anywhere in the planet.

zzuf

27th Mar 2014, 12:53

Andy_S

27th Mar 2014, 13:06

Could a 777 pilot tell me what flight path behaviours could be expected if the aircraft was left in the cruise with controls free, no autopilot modes engaged:
1. In normal control law, and
2. In the next level down degraded control law (alternate??).

A 777 pilot (of which I am NOT one) would probably tell you that the flight control modes you have mentioned are specific to Airbus aircraft........

fg32

27th Mar 2014, 13:22

McLauchlin is the official Inmarsat spokesman.
I'll just leave these here without comment:

McLauchlin (to Bloomberg):
The plane flew steadily away from the satellite over the equator while pinging, McLaughlin said.

Hunt for Jet Switches to Visual Search as Radar Empty - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-21/missing-plane-flew-steady-speed-over-ocean-inmarsat-estimates.html)

McLauchlin(to IBTimes):
"We couldn't say what direction it had gone in, but the plane wasn't standing still because the signals were getting longer, i.e. further in distance from our satellite."
Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 Would Have Been Found If Communications Box Had $10 Upgrade (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-would-have-been-found-if-communications-box-had-10-upgrade-1441174)

Speed of Sound

27th Mar 2014, 13:51

I, like many others, didn't realise that the ACARS did this.

It doesn't! :ugh:

Ian W

27th Mar 2014, 14:12

Further to what I wrote a few postings ago, I realise if the Satphone was still available, ie it was "pinging" then the flight crew IF alive and wanting to establish contact would have known how to use it. As it was not used then it seems to indicate that this a/c was flying "a la Helios" Probably in Hdg mode, which was the last selection made by the flt crew. So did the crew turn the a/c initially towards Langawi a/f then South towards the r/w?. What I find perplexing is if the a/c went this way WHY? did Malaysian radar not pick it up, it was after all flying back towards central Malaysia and in fact passing abeam of KL. Very odd!! I believe the press should be asking for the complete primary radar trace.

No - not in heading mode.

As has been pointed out the aircraft would have deviated quite a long way in heading mode due to the extreme magnetic variation in the South Indian Ocean. For the track flown it is more likely it was to an intended input of a waypoint or a change to fly South in Track mode - both of which would have required deliberate action from someone who understood the FMS/FMC. There were a limited number of people on board MH370 with that knowledge.

Airclues

27th Mar 2014, 14:20

I would imagine that it may have been known, "by person or persons unknown", that Primary radar would still be able to track the a/c.

Or perhaps the "person or persons unknown" descended to 5000ft on a westbound heading until they knew that they were clear of military primary radar and then turned south and climbed to cruise altitude. From what I understand, the military radar didn't notice them at the time but the replay showed the flight heading west when they lost contact.

Ian W

27th Mar 2014, 14:20

This will not help MH370, sadly, but...

As Nimrod aircrew, Search and Rescue was part of our business. As aircrew, we were required to undergo survival training of our own, including, not surprisingly, dinghy drills. At least one per year had to be in the sea (as opposed to the RAF Station swimming pool).

We had a variety of "goodies" to play with, including day and night flares. The Night end had a gNurled knob! The day end, when you set it off, produced copious amounts of red smoke. Bl***y annoying when someone pointed it into the dinghy!! No names, no pack drill but his last three was Perks!!!

But dip it on the water, it spread like a dye.

Could Messrs Boeing and Airbus incorporate a big one of these into the fuselage of all commercial aircraft? It could be situated beneath a frangible panel and possibly seawater activated, like McMurdo lights on lifejackets and dinghies, or g-activated. Of course, the thing would have to be subject to regular inspections and servicing. Just picture Heathrow and the surrounding suburbs when Button C gets pressed out of sequence! With Easy Jet, you wouldn't know!!!

Anyway, just a thought.

Cons: Ten days on, is it still visible? 20? 30? The environmental lobby?

How about a detachable, floatable package containing a dye marker and a modified transponder. Transponder only becomes active on receipt of a pre-determined interrogation from a search aircraft, vessel or satellite. Military search aircraft have I band IFF interrogators so this would be easy. Stick such an interrogator on SAR ships and satellites that would/could be used in SAR.

Dai lad - I believe that is nominative determinism

Looks like the engineers are already on the task of bolting the stable door now that MH370 cannot be found...

From the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/22/business/international/outside-the-us-steps-to-track-planes-better.html?_r=0

"Outside the U.S., Steps to Track Planes Better"

"PARIS — Some foreign regulators and airlines have moved much faster than their American counterparts to adopt more advanced airplane tracking technology."

Lonewolf_50

27th Mar 2014, 14:25

Has anybody heard wether one or more of the US strategic submarines are deployed? They would be of great help finding the black box etc.
I've been out of the Navy for a few years.

IF a ballistic missile submarine were deployed in the Indian Ocean, and
IF the US Navy were tasked by the DoD to move it to a position to do some underwater assistance,
the US Government would for sure not tell anyone.
Furthermore, as soon as anyone with acoustic sensing equipment arrived in the area, I'll suggest to you that any submarine of that sort in the area would be ordered to another location.

The whole point of that kind of submarines being on patrol is that Nobody Knows Where They Are outside of a very few folks. Their mission as a nuclear deterrent is serious business, and unlike the rest of naval forces, does not typically do PR and Show the Flag stuff.

Plenty of other assets can be assigned to such assistance missions.

phiggsbroadband

27th Mar 2014, 14:47

Just looking at the marine AIS track of the search vessel 'XUE LONG' shows that she is doing 3 hour E-W tracks then side-stepping 3nm and doing W-E passes. All this at 12kts in seas chopped up by 26kt winds.

So to fully search an area of 600x600nm would take 10,000 hours or 417 days.

The underwater search will also be a slow process, as any underwater towed device will travel even slower.

A faster method would surely be a U2 type spy plane with high definition digital cameras... Do the Orions carry these cameras?

RichManJoe

27th Mar 2014, 15:32

U2 has a synthetic aperature radar (SAR) payload which sees through the clouds. I have wondered why this has not been deployed. I don't know if NASA has this capability, but I know DOD has this capability. The government could collect and view this data in real time, either overflying the search vehicles, or going out the night before, to help and narrow the search area.

BTW, Tomnod is using satellite SAR data on some of their images.

YYZjim

27th Mar 2014, 15:54

Over the past week, four satellites have reported sighting a debris field:
1. Photos taken on March 16th by an Australian satellite and released by an American company showed two large objects about 2,500 km (1,550 mi) southwest of Perth, Australia.
2. Photos taken on March 18th by a Chinese satellite showed one large object (22.5m x 13m) about 120 km (75 mi) from the Australian debris.
3. Photos taken on March 23rd by a French satellite showed 122 objects up to 75 feet long at a place about 120 km from the Australian debris.
4. Photos taken on March 24th by a Thai satellite showed up to 300 objects up to 52 feet long at a site about 200 km (125 mi) south of the French debris.

During a search like this, there will be a tendency for each satellite control team to try to confirm the other teams' observations first, before looking at new patches of the ocean. One hopes that all these teams are not simply chasing down the debris field that was sighted first, but are looking elsewhere, too. Many commentators have said that debris tends to collect here in the south Indian Ocean. Perhaps we should be asking why there have not been more satellite reports of debris.

In due course, some of this debris will be picked up. Assuming it is from MH370, the underwater recovery phase will begin. Even if some pieces were picked up and positively identified today, time has run out for the ELTs (Emergency Location Transmitters). It has been more than 20 days since they were activated; 15 or fewer days remain before the batteries die. There is no prospect that an underwater listening device will pick up the signal. The current location(s) of the debris field(s) are now so far from their locations when the satellite images were made, and they in turn are so far from the original ditching site, that a lengthy search pattern will have to be used.

The reality is that the ocean floor is going to have to be searched visually or, at the very least, with underwater radar. The travel speed of these devices is miniscule compared to the size of the search area. By way of comparison, consider the length of time it took to find the remains of the "Titanic" and remember that she sank only ten miles from the ship "Carpathia", whose position was known with much greater precision than the point of impact of MH370.

The cost in time and money of finding MH370 on the ocean floor may be too much to pay. It may be that the authorities will have to make a tough decision: not to search for the wreckage.

glenbrook

27th Mar 2014, 16:04

Is it just me, or do people here seem to overestimate the capabilities of modern technology, satellites, submarines and vastly underestimate the size of the Indian Ocean?

Even if MH370 left 10000 pieces of floating debris in a 5kmsq area, it is not surprising in the least that nothing been found yet. The search area has only been narrowed to an area the size of Texas, in a region which gets the some of the worst weather on the planet. With no landmasses to check the waves the swell is huge. Satellites can only pick out large contrasting pieces, and radar has difficulty seeing anything that doesn't break the surface, especially in large ocean swell.

And suggestions that submarines should just listen at random for the pinger are hopeless. The pings will only travel 2km and with a 500,000sqkm search area (at best) it would take years to search it all. In any case submarines tend not to hang around in this region of the world, because there is nothing there. Any submarines on there way will take some time to arrive.

It's remarkable we know as much as we do, but it's still not enough. Perhaps if we get a break in the weather and something is found soon, then maybe there is a chance to work backwards to the impact site. As the RAAF guy said, maybe then we will know which haystack to search.

snowfalcon2

27th Mar 2014, 16:08

At this stage in the AF447 investigation the BEA issued an interim report with everything known, including full details of the ACARS messages, crew bios, cargo manifest, the works.

Not quite true. The AF447 accident happened on 1 June 2009 and a preliminary report was issued on 2 July 2009.

ICAO Annex 13 prescribes that a preliminary report shall be issued within thirty days of the event. This is what BEA did, give or take one day. Despite the agony surely felt by all those affected by the MH370 disappearance, the Malaysian authorities still have 12 days to comply with the Annex 13 requirement.

fg32

27th Mar 2014, 16:09

RichManJoe
U2 has a synthetic aperature radar (SAR) payload which sees through the clouds.

Synthetic Aperture Radar is wonderful. I worked on it in early days.
The problem with radar is that a very narrow beam requires a very large antenna.
Too large for an aircraft.
So a large aperture is "synthesised" by processing. This combines the returns from successive positions along track, to build a mathematically equivalent antenna hugely extended in the along track direction. This gives effectively an intensely narrow beam pointing out sideways, painting the entire surface below with across-track scan lines in very fine detail.
Works equally well for satellites.

It just so happens I was in the Nasa's JPL control room in 1978, and watched the very first image arrive from Seasat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasat
Everyone present was gobsmacked by the quality of the images, with every individual ship (and even its wake, if I remember correctly) outstandingly clear.
This was much better than had been expected. This non-military satellite clearly had crushing military significance.
Three months later its catastrophic failure was announced. Those of us in the business had our doubts.

CowgirlInAlaska

27th Mar 2014, 16:19

Thank you GarageYears.
LoboTX, here is the image, and the map # is on it.

et al,

I made this from it to compare. Could it be a cockpit window?

http://t.co/doYdB0ryCG

It doesn't seem to want to insert the image... here is the link to it: http://t.co/doYdB0ryCG

paultr

27th Mar 2014, 16:21

fg32

27th Mar 2014, 16:26

CowgirlInAlaska
I found something…
Best I've seen, by miles
Tomnod (http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/mh370_indian_ocean/map/835894)
Two windows indeed. About 8m square?
It appears to be at lat -43.78731 lon 95.335332

PriFly

27th Mar 2014, 16:30

No submarine can do anywhere close to that depth. If the ocean is as deep as they say it is the onlt way to go down thee is via ROVs or speciliazed submersibles.

CowgirlInAlaska

27th Mar 2014, 16:35

I tweeted it to @tomnod, I don't know if there is anyone else I should tell?
You gotta see this on a bigger screen. Really looks like cockpit windows and MAS stripes underneath.

paultr Cowgirl - "I found something"
Quote:
I found something on tomnod in the S Indian Ocean that really looks like two windows (one full one partial) with bad marks/damage on the white underneath. I need to know what the size are of the windows in feet and meters please, so I can compare. If anyone wants to see, click here:
Tomnod Bottom left area... See it?
Hard to see what you mean as the image moves around as I am on a tablet and the image is too big to be presented whole but there appears to be quite a few suspicious looking objects. Have you told Tomnod ?

Coagie

27th Mar 2014, 16:39

"Surely there must be submarines there - anyone have an educated answer/guess ? "

There very well could be, but experience from the search for AF447 seems to say that submarines get in the way of towed pinger locaters, and vice versa, because of noise and cables. So even though it sounds impressive, that submarines, especially "Nuclear" submarines, are deployed, it seems that deploying purpose built equipment is preferable. Also, the subs would have to have sonar equipped to hear a 37.5khz ping from the ULB, which most submarines do not have. Of course, before any pinger locaters are deployed, I don't guess it would hurt to have submarines, or anything else, such as yachts, fishing boats, & etc, out there looking.

paultr

27th Mar 2014, 16:40

@pn Seriously, a submarine is not best suited as a radar search platform, pretty useless, and very uncomfortable, as a visual platform, and exactly what is it expected to detect on sonar?
I did not really mean radar as I envisaged having the sub just submerged so it is safe from shipping above and then searching the surface above and ahead of it. Surely they must have some kind of echo based technology that could detect objects awash ?

787FOCAL

27th Mar 2014, 16:47

Unfortunately, that section of an aircraft including the flight deck windows would not float without significant help. i.e. some kind of floatation device.

787FOCAL

27th Mar 2014, 16:52

It's highly likely that all that stuff floating is garbage from a Tsunami. Not to rain on your parade or anything.

GarageYears

27th Mar 2014, 17:01

"Surely they must have some kind of echo based technology that could detect objects awash ?"

It's a new fangled thing called "Sonar". But don't tell anyone. It's top secret! Why would a submarine care about relatively small pieces of <something> floating on or close to the surface?

I think some here have been watching too many WWII sub movies or something. The use of active sonar (i.e. the issuance of a sonar "ping") is a bit like suddenly standing up in the middle of a battlefield in a fire-glo orange suit and yelling "I'M HERE!", which is pretty much the last thing a modern submarine wants to do.

Vastly more effort has gone into passive listening sonar, which is certainly not going to help.

The French sub that tried to find AF447 had to have a special software update from Thales to allow it to listen to the 37.5kHz pinger frequency, so any sub that happened to be within cruising distance of the suspected crash zone is unlikely to be of any use at all...

Sober Lark

27th Mar 2014, 17:18

How helpful were satellite images of the sea in the search for debris from AF447?

For MH370, these constant reports of satellite photos can only serve to diminish SAR morale when in reality we know they are doing a great job.

777fly

27th Mar 2014, 17:34

Going back just a bit:

SupplierSam #8157
Onetrack. #8161

I think it is too soon to dismiss fire/smoke as the primary cause of this aircraft disappearance. Have a look at this link:

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/2-2009%20N786UA%20Section%201.pdf

This fire in a B777 MEC burnt for little more than 15 minutes but the damage is considerable. The P200 and P300 panels ( containing ELMS, the power managment and distribution centre) were badly damaged and there was fire damage to the actual aircraft structure and wiring. During the incident, flight instrument displays were disrupted and there were no EICAS Warning or Caution aurals tones. Boeings opinion was that if this had occured in the air the crew could have received fire warnings for both engines.
Note that there is no smoke detection in the MEC that is visible to the flightcrew on EICAS, just a EQUIP COOLING OVBD advisory. There is no MEC fire detection or suppression.
There were similar incidents prior to, and after, this one. The cause was molten metal at up to 1000 deg C being released from BTB and GB contactors. The reasons why this happens is still not fully understood.
An airborne failure of this kind could have left the crew with an unmanageable situation due to multiple systems failure: VHF disabled, ACARS fail, dual FMS failure, flightdeck smoke, alternate nav diversion, loss of situational awareness, oxygen depletion, unconciousness, a/c nav to incorrect lat/long entry....

PlainSailing1

27th Mar 2014, 17:39

Re 'I found something'

Whatever it is, if it is anything, I would'nt like to be sailing through that sea with those waves. Don't see how it could float with all that churning going on.:yuk:

CowgirlInAlaska

27th Mar 2014, 17:47

PlainSailing1 Whatever it is, if it is anything, I would'nt like to be sailing through that sea with those waves. Don't see how it could float with all that churning going on.

If it's one section of it, sure.. as someone else has said, it could be afloat with objects or an air pocket, and this sat img was from the 16th.

MELT

27th Mar 2014, 17:53

YYZJim

I think you are confusing ELT transmissions and the ULBs on the CVR on FDR.

Cheers

Mudman

27th Mar 2014, 17:57

Unless the scale indicator on Tomnod is off, this is probably not a window section, probably something else.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-bTIveF70cI8/UzRWenwbVYI/AAAAAAAAKMw/fm-_rdh3JNg/s536/tomnod_ac_windows.jpg

A 10m section based on the 3 view plan below spans about 19 windows

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-35qB3netyIA/UzRka9u681I/AAAAAAAAKNU/r0ahRAPYs2M/s640/777_scale.jpg

in the Tomnod image, the object relative to the scale marker is approximately 10m in length and I count 4 dark spots in the row. Not enough detail to determine what it is, based on the scales I am doubtful it is a row of windows. That, and a piece of fueslage wreckage that size floating is questionable, I'd think.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-wdTOxUkr5DE/UzRka2kCbeI/AAAAAAAAKNY/-ULn1JWI1Ug/s557/To_scale_77_windows.jpg

dmba

27th Mar 2014, 17:58

It's clear that the worsening of the weather has resulted in many more "hey look at this" comments related to tomnod...

From any map if you look around on other maps, for miles and miles, you can see very similar shading and white areas which can only really be the white of the crest of a wave.

Pontius Navigator

27th Mar 2014, 18:13

CIGA, visually that looks very likely. The question then arises is it possible.

Cockpit windows, unlike passenger windows, will be glass. The nose section contains the radar and the instrument panels.

Could that part of the nose section separate from those heavy components and remain buoyant? The nose dielectric might have integral buoyancy. Really one for Boeing.

vapilot2004

27th Mar 2014, 18:27

Are they looking for a 37 kHz radio signal or audio signal?

Radio is an electromagnetic vibration and is highly attenuated by water. Sound waves are acoustic and propagate very well under water. The DFDR and CVR are equipped with an acoustic device radiating a signal in the ultrasonic region of the audio spectrum.

An oscilloscope connected to a hydrophone through an amplified bandpass filter would be able to detect and display the pings of the ULB.

vapilot2004

27th Mar 2014, 18:47

So here are 3 simple questions:

1 What system & antenna aboard MH370 continued to send the pings?

2 What system & antenna aboard MH370 sent the R-R data engine monitoring data?

3 When did these two data streams cease?

1. SATCOM

2. None. The early media reports regarding a British company having sussed out the flight's existence post-comms blackout assumed it was Rolls Royce rather than Inmarsat.

3. 00:11 GMT for a complete ground-initiated hourly handshake while at 00:19 GMT there was an unscheduled handshake (assumed to be aircraft initiated) that was incomplete. This last partial ping suggests the possibility of the Left Main AC bus having been lost and reenergized momentarily.

phil94028

27th Mar 2014, 18:49

This guy really seems to know what he is doing.

Some Comments on the Final Ping of MH370 by the Inmarsat-3F1 Satellite | Duncan Steel (http://www.duncansteel.com/some-comments-on-the-final-ping-of-mh370-by-the-inmarsat-3f1-satellite)

Interesting that that GeoSync orbits can be so far off!

bono

27th Mar 2014, 18:54

This is a great, 5 part, almost 5 hours long series on conceptualizing, designing, and building B777 by Boeing in early 90s. Interestingly, tail is made of composites so it should float.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oyWZjdXxlw

vapilot2004

27th Mar 2014, 19:14

More or less what I said back on page 420.

Outstanding! While not technically true, we are on the same page sir! :ok:

37kHz audio, is in the VHF audio range capable of being detected with a transducer and then displayed on the appropriate equipment.

I had read your response, however, the bit regarding audio range, while technically correct, may have confused others due to the usage of "VHF" in describing audio signals so I thought a revisit was useful.

Any "residual power" left in "the system" initiates the " failed log on" ...and the RAT is deployed (but not to power SATCOM) ?
As in an "interruption/surge" ?

James, this was covered by myself and others a while back. The RAT does not power the AC bus directly and the inverter that does power the AC standby bus is rather small and limited to powering critical flight instruments and not the SATCOM radio pack.

Coagie

27th Mar 2014, 19:15

"comms going awol at ATC handover point is too much of a coincidence"

I think this "coincidence" is why many think whatever led to the disappearance was on purpose. Whether it was or not, it seems the cause modern airliner crashes is often a series of unfortunate coincidences. Otherwise, they'd be no crash. Mechanical, human, and/or weather, coincidences are the holes in the proverbial Swiss cheese.

RichManJoe

27th Mar 2014, 19:17

Yes, there is a difference between geosynchronous and geostationary satellites. As stated, geostationary satellites are not "stationary" with respect to their designated longitude over the equator, they wander around a bit. There are defined international standards which define how far a satellite can wander - for example, this is needed so as to maintain proper separation between satellite TV services on the same frequencies. Even though satellites on the same frequency in adjacent orbital slots have orthogonal polarizations to reduce interference, a strong enough signal from a wandering satellite would cause cross-polarization interference. So, typically, a geostationary satellite is one which stays within its prescribed box. Depending upon the mission, other satellites are geosynchronous - are intentionally flown in an elliptic orbit, but cross the equator at the same longitude at the same time every day.

The people who work the orbital mechanics for these satellites are no slouches - in fact, they are some of the best mathematicians and near earth physicists I know. I have heard stories of them flying a geosynchronous satellite for years after its gas supply ran out by surfing the solar wind and taking into account the earth and moon gravitational effects. True, they didn't have to keep it in a box, but they did maintain mission. They are truly amazing people, and very dedicated. So I believe Duncan Steel can sleep soundly knowing they have taken into account all of the issues he has raised about the satellite's orbit and the earth being an oblate spheroid.

MFC_Fly

27th Mar 2014, 19:23

Just IMHO, but looking at both the French and Thai satellite images I lean towards them just being white horses and not debris of any sort. The images were taken around the time there was bad weather in the search area with very rough seas - in fact it was so bad the day after the Thai images were taken that all air and sea searches were allegedly called off for the day.

Leightman 957

27th Mar 2014, 19:27

RE
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...ection%201.pdf (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/2-2009%20N786UA%20Section%201.pdf)

the report also states that the event is far less likely in the air than on the ground. Sec 1.18.3

VinRouge

27th Mar 2014, 20:01

Fairly sure our cutting edge of nuclear deterrent would have a pretty advanced acoustics setup on board. Whether it's useful detecting a ULB at 20,000' is another matter.

gina2012

27th Mar 2014, 20:13

Why arnt anyone speaking about the cabin crews? I havnt read much about them in any news website or anywhere. Does anyone have a link where we can read about the cabin crews? Who were they? We keep hearing about the pilot and co-pilot and the passengers but what about the cabin crews? :bored:

Coagie

27th Mar 2014, 20:15

"Fairly sure our cutting edge of nuclear deterrent would have a pretty advanced acoustics setup on board. Whether it's useful detecting a ULB at 20,000' is another matter. "

"pretty advanced acoustics setup" is true, but sensitive to a 37.5khz ULB? No, not usually, although it might not be a bad or expensive upgrade to the world submarine fleet. I'm amazed how much people assume is or is not. The devil's in the details. Can't go assuming. Things don't just take care of themselves. Focus and follow up are two GOOD "F" words!

fg32

27th Mar 2014, 20:16

Perhaps I should have pointed out the implications for MH370 more clearly in my previous reference to my involvement with Seasat in 1978.

If the military had that in 1978 (and it was built for civilian purposes), what satellite side scan synthetic aperture radar capability over the world's oceans must the big powers have by now?

The only possible reason I can see that military data hasn't put an end to this search long ago is that the area must be swarming with far too many equally likely targets.

Look how many the French satellite came up with through three well-space tiny holes through a cloud sheet.

Sober Lark

27th Mar 2014, 21:01

Satellite one-upmanship?

Thailand - 300 objects (2-15 metres)
Japan - 10 objects (up to 8m in size)
China - 2 objects (5 to 24 metres)
France 122 objects (1 to 23 metres)

The only 'real' evidence we may have is naked eye SAR by the Australians who sighted two elusive objects.

Lonewolf_50

27th Mar 2014, 21:03

I understand the point made by Lonewolf about the US not wanting the positions known of any of its tactical nuclear submarines but there are many types of submarines and I am surprised that considering all the assets deployed there has been no mention of any other types.
1. Paultr, words have meanings. I was referring to strategic missile subs. They do not carry "tactical nukes." ;) End of comment on that.

2. BEA report on AF 447 made specific mention of how a submarine searching for underwater beacon and wreckage in deep water was hampered by some technological factors.

For example, Malaysia itself has 2 French built submarines, the Australians have 6 Collins Class subs based in Western Australia, Japan has 16 and heaven knows how many the Chinese have.
If you consider sea state, and speed of the asset, as well as transit time, the diesel sub as search asset may not have the bang for the buck that you imagine. Radar scan better done by aircraft. Sonar near the surface can run into some noise problems when looking for small things, and some things may not reflect sonar waves very well.
Taking the 6 Australian ones as an example, it does not seem to make sense that the positions of all have to remain secret as presumably some have to come back to base for resupply and then they would be visible by satellite.
How much time did you spend in the Navy, Paul. ;)

If I were running this SAR Op, I'd not be asking for submarines in that particular area, for some of the reasons stated above. There are better assets available.

albatross

27th Mar 2014, 21:10

Sea State Definition Table (http://www.syqwestinc.com/support/Sea%20State%20Table.htm)

https://www.ec.gc.ca/meteo-weather/default.asp?lang=En&n=80C039A3-1

Someone a couple of hundred posts back was asking about Sea States re SAR
Perhaps these will help to visualize conditions in the search area.

777fly

27th Mar 2014, 22:06

Leightman 957:

Less likely=still possible, in my book. An MEC fire may have started as the last generator came on line or there may have been non normal BTB or GB operation after takeoff, we may never know.

We are considering all possibilities here. An MEC fire could progress undetected for some time as any smoke, until excessive, would be vented overboard. The EQUIP COOLING OVBD is not significant, according to the NNC. If there were multiple wiring failures just after the handover, almost any systems would be vulnerable to failure. My interpretation is:

MEC fire damage
Loss of comms/acars
Dual FMC failure
Mulitiple system fail indications
Diversion initiated using Alternate Nav.
Flightdeck smoke-crew on 100% Oxygen
Possible slow depressurisation MEC structure fail- EICAS cabin altitude warning not observed, hidden amongst many others
Oxygen depletion or disruption in MEC
Unconciousness,
MEC fire out due FL350 ambient pressure.
Aircraft follows Alt Nav manually entered lat/long waypoints
Final waypoint is erroneously in S hemisphere. (Penang as S5 or S50?)
Aircraft flies until fuel depletion.

jcjeant

27th Mar 2014, 22:51

MEC fire damageBut .. what about the route (ways points) taken by the aircraft after the end of transponder/radio communication
That is for me a human action (s) not the result of a fire in MEC

Charles Sweeney QC

27th Mar 2014, 23:26

The co-ordinates of the large 24m and small 5m objects identified by satellite appear to be on the same great circle as both Kuala Lumpur and Beijing.

Either he was searching for the deepest ocean depths he could reach without detection or he was making a statement by flying the aircraft to (and then past) the location on the same great circle south west from KL as Beijing is north east.

Tankengine

28th Mar 2014, 00:04

Or: the aircraft was turned in heading select and simply followed that heading till the end.:rolleyes:

James7

28th Mar 2014, 00:06

Emergency Procedures.

Just checking our Emergency Descent Checklist A340. No where does it state to activate the ELT.
The ELT switch it just above the Capts Head, maybe different on other aircraft and type. There is no switch in the cabin.

The switch can be reset due to accidental use, happened to me in JFK a few months back. You have to hold the switch to reset for a couple of seconds.

If I was over some remote place then this should be one of the first things to activate. I am sure if AF had done so then the aircraft would have been found much sooner.

There should also be a switch in the cabin for the cabin crew to activate. There should be a procedure in place that anytime the O2 masks are deployed then the switch should be turned on.

Also there should be some logics in the system so that whichever switch activates the system then only that switch can reset it.

If this had happened on MH370 then it should have been located within a few minutes and then tracked.

I do not suppose it works under water so maybe a more robust ELT should be fitted to all aircraft.

Suffolk Lad

28th Mar 2014, 00:12

One thing concerning the track, from my understanding which may well be at fault, is that depending on the speed the track can vary by a huge margin so at best the search area is the a most likely. It is even possible that it was flown to say Christmas Island where the casino is or to any patch of ocean in between that and the current search area from the evidence we know about. The ping data just about supports this if the speed is adjusted.

That suggests to me that there is other information that has not been released but rather "suggested" by other sources to the SAR teams that solidifies the best guess to a highly / only probable search area. I am keeping my fingers crossed that this is the case for all concerned.

777fly

28th Mar 2014, 00:16

Jcjeant:
Of course they would be a crew action, as a result of an MEC fire. The new waypoints were programmed into a (possibly alternate nav) diversion. This is a tricky thing to do as the waypoints have to be entered by lat/long. Easy to make an entry error under stress and unfamiliarity with the procedure. Difficult to maintain positional awareness.

GunpowderPlod

28th Mar 2014, 00:20

Are they able to determine the position of the possible debris photographed by the various satellites over several days now?

If so, can they not link them up to determine the general direction of movement of the possible debris and then predict more or less where it might be in real search time?

Uncle Fred

28th Mar 2014, 00:22

That was me who asked about the sea states Albatross. Thanks for the links.

Good replies overall to my inquiry as it gives many of us at least a context as to what the crews on scene are working through. Not only those on scene, but those who are scurrying full apace to get to the coal face.

Evey_Hammond

28th Mar 2014, 00:24

that map number you quoted has me wondering whether it is the same area referred to as other official "debris sightings" - I can't believe all of the "bits" in it are wave-tops, it looks like what I would expect a debris field to look like. No doubt I'm wrong though :suspect:

Bleve

28th Mar 2014, 00:32

777fly:
Aircraft follows Alt Nav manually entered lat/long waypoints

We wouldn't enter waypoints for know places using manually entered lat/long (difficult to remember), we would enter their codes. eg for Penang we would enter 'wmkp' or 'vpg'. Once the aircraft reached that waypoint if no other waypoints were entered into the FMC, the aircraft would continue on the current inbound heading. ie approx SW towards Madagascar.

Tankengine:
Or: the aircraft was turned in heading select and simply followed that heading till the end

Once again if a heading was selected for Penang / Langkawi the aircraft would continue SW/W towards Africa.

The available tracking data for MH370 does not support either scenario.

777fly

28th Mar 2014, 00:55

Bleve:

In alternate nav the CDUs do not have a navigation database. All new waypoints have to be entered by lat/long.

mm43

28th Mar 2014, 01:05

All times Australian Eastern Daylight Time (UTC+11)

Today’s search and recovery operation in the Australian Search and Rescue Region for Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 is now underway.
Search activities today will involve a total of 10 aircraft.
Nine military aircraft will join today’s search. They include two Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) P3 Orions, a Republic of Korea P3 Orion, a Republic of Korea C130 Hercules, a Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF) P3 Orion, a Chinese military Ilyushin IL-76, a United States Navy P8 Poseidon aircraft, a Japanese coast guard jet, and a Japanese P3 Orion.
One civil aircraft will act as a communications relay in the search area today.
The first aircraft to leave Perth for the search area was the Chinese Ilyushin IL-76 aircraft about 9am.
The Republic of Korea Hercules C130 departed for the search area about 10am.
The RNZAF P3 Orion is scheduled to depart after 11am, followed by the civil jet acting as communications relay.
The Japan Coast Guard jet is scheduled to depart about 1pm.
The Republic of Korea P3 Orion is scheduled to depart about 2pm.
The two RAAF P3 Orion aircraft are scheduled to depart between 1pm and 3pm.
The United States Navy P8 Poseidon and the Japanese P3 Orion are scheduled to depart about 5pm.
A total of five ships have also been tasked to today’s search.

http://amsa.gov.au/media/documents/28032014_MediaRelease_Update22_MH370_Aircraftdepartures.pdf

olasek

28th Mar 2014, 01:11

Which is precisely why entries made that way under stressful circumstances you don't get it, the very premise that a pilot would be punching numerous numbers into FMC in such situation is simply ludicrous.

flash8

28th Mar 2014, 01:15

It is pure supposition that the FMS was flying the a/c however.

Blake777

28th Mar 2014, 01:27

A Japanese satellite has photographed about ten pieces of likely debris in the general area, overlapping previous search areas.

The convergence of sightings does give hope that if we can get a full day of searching in, we may pick up some definitive evidence of the aircraft's demise, giving closure to the families.

MH370 Lost in Indian Ocean: Japan satellite images show floating objects - Latest - New Straits Times (http://www.nst.com.my/latest/font-color-red-mh370-lost-in-indian-ocean-font-japan-satellite-images-show-floating-objects-1.536384)

porterhouse

28th Mar 2014, 01:27

It is pure supposition that the FMS was flying the a/c however. If FMC wasn't flying than even worse - only a human hand (or autopilot in say hdg mode) could guide this flight through such ground track. Every turn would require dialing in a new heading. Someone would have to be awake and concious.

Fris B. Fairing

28th Mar 2014, 01:36

One civil aircraft will act as a communications relay in the search area today.

Has this been the case all along or is this something new?

500N

28th Mar 2014, 01:39

It's the first time I have seen it specifically mentioned but that doesn't say it hasn't occurred before.

Sensible with all the different nationalities involved.

island_airphoto

28th Mar 2014, 01:46

The Frequency is 37.5 KHz which is on the Low Frequency LF band 30khz -300khz

NO.

This is SOUND, not radio. This is ultrasonic, i.e. you can't hear it. Your dog can though. This is a SOUND on the low end of what boats use for depth-finding and sonar.

Species Approximate Range (Hz) human 64-23,000 dog 67-45,000 cat 45-64,000

Ian W

28th Mar 2014, 01:48

Much discussion has centred around heading changes and the complications of entering these into the FMS.

I am not familiar with Boeing practice (777 pilots please comment) but many aircraft have a large 4 position knob on the centre console which simply changes the current heading in 90 degree steps. This is used when flying a holding pattern.

In the event of a depressurisation or other serious event it would make sense to simply turn the knob 90deg right, wait a short time to clear the airway then right again to head for home. No complicated FMS entries required.

Is the heading flown to the Indian Ocean 180deg to a heading which the aircraft would be expected to be flying during its normal route ?.

If the aircraft was flown in any 'heading' mode then it would deviate by a large amount from a straight track due to the large change in magnetic variation. The aircraft was not in heading mode.

To fly a different mode requires specific inputs either track mode or to a specified waypoint. Someone needed to be there to make those inputs after Malaysian radar had lost contact on the westward flying aircraft.

Scissorlink

28th Mar 2014, 01:53

Why are the sateliite photo's

A. in Black and white
B. So bad (definition)

Coagie

28th Mar 2014, 01:55

Sheep Guts: The Frequency is 37.5 KHz which is on the Low Frequency LF band 30khz -300khz Sheep Guts, that in the RADIO SPECTRUM. A ULB's 37.5 KHz is in the AUDIO SPECTRUM. Basically, it's high AUDIO frequency buzzer. Submarines that can tow a mile long antenna and supply thousands of watts of power can use the low frequency radio waves to communicate under water, but the antenna and power requirement isn't practical for an Underwater Locator Beacon in a sunken aircraft.

rh200

28th Mar 2014, 01:58

Perhaps the SAR world needs some sort of clearing house, a bit like Chatham House, where information from credible and classified sources can be pooled without disclosing where or how it was obtained. Maybe if this had existed on March 8th we could have saved lives, if there were lives still to be saved.

No SAR goes rather well, they are proffesionel and deal with information given to them authoritys, not media and speculators like on this forum.

It is the only way to go, and yes some of that information will be wrong and will need to change there pattern as more information arises.

The Frequency is 37.5 KHz which is on the Low Frequency LF band 30khz -300khz

Frequency Spectrum definitions and description here

:{:ugh: How many times, audio, versus electromagnetic

Bleve

28th Mar 2014, 02:08

Bleve:

In alternate nav the CDUs do not have a navigation database. All new waypoints have to be entered by lat/long.

OK I'm with you now. I misread that as 'Alternate Route' ie what some of the ill-informed are calling Route 2. My apologies.

iskyfly

28th Mar 2014, 02:13

Just heard on the ABC that the PM has announced a shift of search assets based on credible evidence.

(for what its worth).

imaynotbeperfect

28th Mar 2014, 02:13

Scissorlink

The photos are partially bad because nations don't want others to know just how good their cameras are ...

RifRaf3

28th Mar 2014, 02:16

I've said this before. The FMC is not required (and Boeing does not have 90 degree options). In a premeditated event the whole scenario can be done on a mobile phone or ipad using an FMC app, then HDG SEL used to navigate by. It does not need pilot training to do that. Just follow the yellow brick (magenta) road. VNAV is the difficult bit.

ChrisJ800

28th Mar 2014, 02:22

I happened to be listening to Oz marine HF frequencies yesterday and seems around every 3 hours there is a pan pan broadcast re MH370 to remind ships entering the area to keep a lookout. Im on the east coast of Oz but the broadcasts were fairly clear.

500N

28th Mar 2014, 02:23

The Media (newspapers in Aus) are saying a major shift in the search area has occurred.

The search area for missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 has been updated after a new credible lead was provided to the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA).
As a result today’s search will shift to an area 1,100 kilometres to the north east based on updated advice provided by the international investigation team in Malaysia.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), Australia’s investigation agency, has examined this advice and determined that this is the most credible lead to where debris may be located.
The new search area is approximately 319,000 square kilometres and around 1,850 kilometres west of Perth.
The new information is based on continuing analysis of radar data between the South China Sea and the Strait of Malacca before radar contact was lost.
It indicated that the aircraft was travelling faster than previously estimated, resulting in increased fuel usage and reducing the possible distance the aircraft travelled south into the Indian Ocean.
ATSB advises the potential flight path may be the subject of further refinement as the international investigative team supporting the search continues their analysis.
The Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation is re-tasking satellites to image the new area. Weather conditions have improved in the area and ten aircraft are tasked for today’s search.
They include two Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) P3 Orions, a Japanese Coast Guard jet, a Japanese P3 Orion, a Republic of Korea P3 Orion, a Republic of Korea C130 Hercules, a Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF) P3 Orion, a Chinese military Ilyushin IL-76, a United States Navy P8 Poseidon aircraft, and one civil jet acting as a communications relay.
A further RAAF P3 Orion has been placed on standby at Pearce to investigate any reported sightings.
There are now six vessels relocating to the new search area including HMAS Success and five Chinese ships.
AMSA and the ATSB will hold a press conference at 1430 (AEDT) to provide more details on the new search area.

mmurray

28th Mar 2014, 02:24

Just heard on the ABC that the PM has announced a shift of search assets based on credible evidence.

Yes more here (http://www.abc.net.au/news/#state=sa).

Wantion

28th Mar 2014, 02:28

The shift to a new search area...is this anything to do with the Thai Satellite of the 300+ objects ? or not ?

etudiant

28th Mar 2014, 02:33

Wantion

28th Mar 2014, 02:39

Moving the search area is a big call ! have they then concluded that objects thus far seen by many satellites are not likely wreckage.?!

RichManJoe

28th Mar 2014, 02:41

There seems to be some confusion on the black box pinger.

The pinger on the black boxes use sound waves at 37.5 kHz, and require sonar detectors, which are essentially sophisticated microphones. Even though this falls in the LF band of 30kHz to 300kHz, the LF designation is for radio, or rf, signals, not sound. 37.5 kHz is ultrasound to us humans.

Sound signals are compression waves - they vibrate the molecules back and forth in the direction they are traveling. Radio, or light, waves are called transverse waves. They consist of an electric, or E field, and a magnetic, or H field, which are both at right angles to each other and to the direction they are traveling.

As they propagate out from a sound source, both sound and radio waves are attenuated by 1/(4*pi*r^2), which is the surface area of a sphere - this is the main reason why sounds or the brightness of lights get weaker the further one moves away from the source. In addition, in water, it appears that sound at 37.5 kHz is attenuated by an additional 0.1 dB/kilometer due to absorption, meaning that sound waves are barely affected by the water. Radio waves at 35 kHz are attenuated by about 6000 dB / kilometer due to the conductivity of salt water, which says the radio wave are essentially totally absorbed.(Underwater Radio Communication by Lloyd Butler VK5BR). This is why they use sound waves instead of radio waves.

However, this does not take into account thermoclines, which, from what I understand, can cause almost total reflection of a sound wave.

Hope this helps.

mseyfang

28th Mar 2014, 02:43

AMSA: Due to a "credible lead", the search area is being shifted 1100 km to the northeast. Press conference at 1430 AEDT to discuss.

http://www.amsa.gov.au/media/documents/28032014MH370Update23.pdf

RichManJoe

28th Mar 2014, 02:50

Moving search area 1100km to the northeast should give longer dwell times over the search area for the aircraft.

500N

28th Mar 2014, 02:52

Easier all round, less transit, easier / better comms, more time over target,
maybe less tiring on the crews.

glenbrook

28th Mar 2014, 02:54

Satellites are just as bound by optics constraints as earthbound photographers, so the resolution of an image 20+ miles square is not at the centimeter level. High resolution zooms can be had, but cover a very small field, so the problem becomes telling the satellite where to look exactly.
Drifting debris beneath partial clouds need to be pinpointed by human interpreters, but will have moved by the time that is done. Consequently the searchers cannot direct the higher resolution images a satellite could take fast enough to do any good.
A real time satellite image analysis with immediate high resolution targeting might be available to the military, but none of the commercial earth observation satellites have that. Hence the 2-3 day lag between the taking of the satellite pictures and the public finding of possible debris.

True, but it is not just a question of camera resolution and knowing where to look. Satellites have to peer through the atmosphere and as any amateur astronomer will tell you, this is often like looking through ripples on a pond. Occasionally you get clear still air and then a good satellite picture show clear details like people and vehicles. But this tends to happen in sunny places and high mountains. In the Southern Indian ocean, the waves are rough, the air is turbulent and full of moisture. No matter how fancy your camera or lens system, you won't resolve much better than half a meter.

JoeBloggs2

28th Mar 2014, 03:02

Moving search area 1100km to the northeast basically puts it in the Diamantina Deep.

Hard to believe that is a random destination...

etudiant

28th Mar 2014, 03:07

We have a reasonable indication when the plane ran out of fuel from the satellite pings. Now the belief is that the plane had less endurance than initially expected because its early diversions consumed more fuel than thought. At any possible cruise speed, the 1100 km shift represents more than an hours lower flight time. How does that square with the satellite data?

slats11

28th Mar 2014, 03:08

Anyone else struck by how slowly information is being incorporated into the official search. 2 weeks in and they now have new speed information!

It is almost as if unofficial sources are reluctantly drip feeding information.

I am also thinking about how far the Aust PM went out into a limb announcing the first images of debris. This announcement was based on relatively early images of debris that now seem to be a long way from the now estimated crash point. Based on estimated position now, I can't see how these images could have represented debris.

This latest twist has me even more certain there is a great deal of information not in the public domain. I hope so anyway.

ChrisJ800

28th Mar 2014, 03:12

Next AMSA press conference on ABC TV at 0330z today.

onetrack

28th Mar 2014, 03:15

One major advantage with the revised search zone position is it means reduced transit time to the zone, and more search time available for each aircraft.

The ADV Ocean Shield (which is tasked to tow the U.S. Navy pinger locator) is expected in Albany, W.A. (not Fremantle, as previously advised by the media), at an ETA of 1300UTZ (2100HRS WST) tonight.

I'm guessing it will take a day or two to set up the pinger locator on the Ocean Shield and then another couple of days to travel to the search zone - so they won't be starting to look for the FDR pings until around Monday 31st, I'd say.

That's only a week approximately before the FDR battery runs out. That's not much time, when they only have a rough idea of where the aircraft might have splashed down. :(

currawong

28th Mar 2014, 03:17

Would not the ground speed have been apparent on the ping/time/arc formula used already?

Looks like there are plenty more twists and turns left in this yet.

MG23

28th Mar 2014, 03:39

Would not the ground speed have been apparent on the ping/time/arc formula used already?

Only a minimum speed set by the distance between the ping arcs, and a maximum set by the aircraft performance so it can reach the final arc before it runs out of fuel.

If less fuel was available, the crash point will have to move further North around the arc to reduce the distance the aircraft travelled.

rampstriker

28th Mar 2014, 04:15

O ye of little faith...

It wouldn't surprise me if they are finally incorporating classified US satellite data to refine the Inmarsat estimates.

They'll eventually find it--the Chinese are highly motivated and have very deep pockets.

olasek

28th Mar 2014, 04:17

the Chinese are highly motivated and have very deep pockets. They are neither motivated nor they have deep pockets (for this task). But they are enough motivated to score some political points.

500N

28th Mar 2014, 04:20

They score the points just by being here with two aircraft and 5 ships
and Malaysia isn't.

They are motivated and do have deep pockets and they will find it.

They are playing to the National political game as well as the international
but the National would be a higher priority.

Do a google search and pick the Chinese media results, photos,
they are making a big thing out of it in the Chinese National media.

grayton

28th Mar 2014, 04:22

Smoke and mirrors.
Something is definitely off here, and I wonder if the Malaysians are more than a little paranoid re the unsolved hijacking and crash of the Malaysian Air flight in 1977 . Both pilots shot, all px lost but no reason or claim from any group ever made.

slats11

28th Mar 2014, 04:40

Boeing want it found. Boeing is pretty important to US military and also export earnings. And therefore USA most likely want it found.

ptulkens

28th Mar 2014, 04:44

Hi,
To come back to the very origin of the disappearance of MH370, I saw no real discussion as to why the change of direction, noticed by the military radar, did not trigger fighters scramble. Eventually, MH370 flew for at least 1 h westward, which was totally against its flight plan. Fighters could have helped identifying what was the problem (like they did in the Helios incident).

olasek

28th Mar 2014, 04:47

as to why the change of direction, noticed by the military radar, did not trigger fighters scrambleSimple. Not everyone is so preoccupied with the post 9/11 hysteria that sees fit to send fighters after a wayward aircraft (Frankly I don't think they even tracked it in real time). Only later when reviewing tapes they probably spotted it.

geemul

28th Mar 2014, 04:49

Boeing want it found. Boeing is pretty important to US military and also export earnings. And therefore USA most likely want it found.

As do Malaysian Airlines and their insurers.

Each of these two parties want the answer for opposite reasons, they want any potential future lawsuits directed at the other party.

Boeing also just plain wants to know if there is a failure mode in the 777 and by inference other models they don't know about.

Capt Kremin

28th Mar 2014, 05:02

If the new search area is correct, we are about 10-14 days from debris washing up on the WA coast.

tartare

28th Mar 2014, 05:04

I assume the new search area is still outside the southern boundary of JORN radar 2... and that it might struggle to see anything with a low profile floating on the surface anyway.

Minimbah

28th Mar 2014, 05:54

CSIRO* ‏@CSIROnews 16m (https://twitter.com/CSIROnews/status/449419380448063489)
Watch: An animation demonstrating how marine debris can move, and be tracked, in the ocean http://ow.ly/v6jiO (http://t.co/jRntqoK4ti) #MH370 (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23MH370&src=hash) ^CS

*Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (Australia)

What?s our role in the search for missing flight MH370? | News @ CSIRO (http://csironewsblog.com/2014/03/28/whats-our-role-in-the-search-for-missing-flight-mh370/)

Gunnadothat

28th Mar 2014, 06:06

Just saw the P-8 go overhead on its way out to the revised search area - visibly different track to previous days....
Good luck lads... Let's hope it pays dividends.

jmjdriver1995

28th Mar 2014, 06:17

The new information says that the missing plane flew at a faster speed, thus using more fuel and had shorter max range. Higher speed requires more fuel per unit of time, but also produces further travel per unit of time. Don't the two pretty much offset each other?

AR1

28th Mar 2014, 06:20

Drive faster in your car and find out!

rh200

28th Mar 2014, 06:29

Can any body do a map, or know where theres one, plot the last ping and its uncertinity radius. I think from the analysis we where sure where that was. Then the old search areas versus the new ones. Some data points with suppodsley sightings from the sattelittes would be good as well.

Wantion

28th Mar 2014, 06:43

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2014/03/28/1226867/840506-55117b2e-b63b-11e3-993f-a57163efdfb6.jpg

Data Guy

28th Mar 2014, 06:46

Regarding Post # 8461 on Page 424, Leightman 957 says to 777fly - “the report also states that the event is far less likely in the air than on the ground. (in Sec 1.18.3).” The AAIB report in play is AAIB Report # 2/2009.
Link > http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2010/hs-l...l100318.en.pdf.

And Leightman 957 adds in post # 8445 on page 423, “There were similar incidents prior to, and after, this one. The cause was molten metal at up to 1000 deg C being released from BTB and GB contactors. The reasons why this happens is still not fully understood. An airborne failure of this kind could have left the crew with an unmanageable situation due to multiple systems failure: VHF disabled, ACARS fail, dual FMS failure, flightdeck smoke, alternate nav diversion, loss of situational awareness, oxygen depletion, unconciousness, a/c nav to incorrect lat/long entry.... “
Leightman 957 is correct about the in-flight probability and the danger of a growing fire again at post 8470.

My concerns aren’t the matches (electrical malfunctions), but rather the fuel for a fire.
From page 9 of this same report (Sec 1.6.3, Insulation blanket specification and maintenance) it also said; “The insulation blankets fitted to the fuselage structure adjacent to the P200 power panel were determined to be the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) blankets, fitted in 1997. These blankets consisted of fibreglass batting ….. covered with a polyethylene terephthalate film.”

“In 2008 the US FAA issued an Airworthiness Directive (2008-23-09) requiring the replacement of certain insulation blankets manufactured with some types of polyethylene teraphthalate film. The insulation blankets installed in N786UA were not among those whose replacement was required.”

“Contamination on insulation blankets can affect the blanket’s fire retardant capabilities. The aircraft manufacturer published a Service Letter (777‑SL‑25‑018) on 23 March 1998 which informed operators of: ‘the potential fire hazard if combustible materials (contamination) such as overspray of corrosion inhibiting compound (CIC), hydraulic fluids, oil, pesticides with flammable ‘carrier’ fluids, grease or dust buildup are allowed to accumulate on the insulation blankets outboard of the passenger/cargo compartment linings. Some types of contaminates have been found to support propagation of flame.”
This incident is among 10 other E & E bay fires at my post # 8220 on Page 411 - “Past E & E Bay Fires, FACTUAL DATA.” – as “2/26/07. United 777” , the United incident on February 26, 2007. It was posted because any arc event anywhere in any of the Boeing models is a “identified safety risk” because the installed acoustic/thermal insulation (“polyethylene teraphthalate film” or PET is flammable as seen in AD 2008-23-09 calling for removal of PET (aka Mylar-AN-26) by December 2016 in all Boeing models --------- except the 777s.

The AAIB report said “The insulation blankets installed in N786UA were not among those whose replacement was required.” was because the 777s were excluded from the 737s, 747s, 757s and 767s in this AD. I do not know why T7s were excluded but “polyethylene terephthalate” known as PET was the installed insulation.

Two other 777 E & E bay fire incidents at Post 8220 mentioned the flammability of insulation blankets when exposed to electrical arcs. Both came from NTSB Safety Recommendation Letter A-07-113-116. NTSB Letter Link > http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/recletters/2007/a07_113_116.pdf There, electrical arcing set adjacent insulation blankets afire.

Regarding the first, British Airways 777 on 11/15/2004 the Letter said; (Ref page 1) “Following the incident, British Airways conducted a fleetwide visual inspection on its model 777 airplanes (43 total aircraft). Fifty-five percent of the receptacles that were inspected contained contact pins that exhibited signs of overheating; 12 percent contained contact pins that were loose and had evidence of melting at the base of the pins. A secondary external power receptacle that showed signs of electrical arcing and extensive thermal damage to its protective cover was sent to Boeing for analysis.” And that; (Ref page 3) “Alternately, molten splatter could result in ignition of nearby materials such as dust, lint, or insulation blankets. Such damage could potentially compromise critical aircraft functions.”

Regarding the second, a United 777 on 7/6/2004, the Letter said; (Ref page 2) “The second reported event occurred on July 6, 2004. According to the operator, a post incident inspection performed by a maintenance technician revealed evidence of overheating on the secondary external power receptacle and thermal damage to an adjacent insulation blanket.”

My 10 incidents of E & E bay fires came from across all models mentioned in the AD.

Another 9 insulation fires in cockpit or fuselage areas were not listed because they were outside of this most critical area. All are of great concern.
In the AD discussion - a chilling read - it is made clear that any fire in any hidden or unprotected area is a most serious concern. The 777s should have been included.

See this AD at Link > http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...2008-23-09.pdf

(http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...2008-23-09.pdf)
My thanks to Leightman 957 and others for recognizing this possibility.

currawong

28th Mar 2014, 07:07

Travelling at a higher speed therefore burned fuel faster?

It was still in the air for 7 + hours from last SSR contact to last ping.

Fuel burn for 7 hours endurance from that point should indicate a particular set of profiles given the fuel load was known.

Surely this would not be the "new credible information"?

Mahatma Kote

28th Mar 2014, 07:11

onetrack

28th Mar 2014, 07:16

There seems to be some discrepancies in what vessel is going to tow the U.S. Navy pinger locator.
Both the TPL-25 Towed Pinger Locator System and a Bluefin-21 underwater drone have been sent to Perth from the U.S. along with 10 personnel to operate the systems.
The Bluefin-21 sports a Multibeam Echosounder, Side-Scan Sonar, and a Sub-bottom Profiler. It's capable of depths of 14,700' (4500M approx).

Initially it was stated the ADV Ocean Shield was going to tow the pinger locator - however, in recent days, it's been advised that the commercially-owned DMS Maritime Seahorse Standard would be utilising both search devices.
The Seahorse Standard is on long-term charter to the RAN and operates from HMAS Stirling naval base at Garden Island, just offshore from Perth.
However, I can't see where both systems would be operated from the one ship?
I guess it's possible both devices will be taken out to the search zone by the Seahorse Standard, and one of them will transferred to the Ocean Shield upon arrival at the search zone.
It's also been stated that neither ship will leave port until there's a report of confirmed wreckage.

The Seahorse Standard is a Canadian-built vessel of 2090 gross tons, and it's pretty slow, with a 12kt maximum speed and a cruise speed of 8kts.
The much larger Ocean Shield looks like a more capable vessel to me.
It appears the Seahorse Standard carries side-scan sonar as standard equipment, and it also has ROV capabilities.

Seahorse Standard specs - http://www.dmsmaritime.com/docs/dms_standard_spec%20sheet.pdf

Bluefin-21 specs - http://www.phnx-international.com/specs/AUV_Bluefin21_Specsheet.pdf

onetrack

28th Mar 2014, 07:19

The new, revised crash position is related to new calculations that revised the amount of fuel burnt during the manouevres around Malaysia, to an increased amount - thus leaving less fuel for the flight path heading South.

I think the 400kt speed path is being searched because it corresponds with the new Japanese satellite pics that are being touted as the most credible, because these pics show coloured wreckage that definitely resembles MAS colours.

The CSIRO "simulated drift" graphic shows debris travelling on more of a Northerly path and circulating in the area, rather than being driven rapidly onto the W.A. coast, as I expected it would be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oVVWrKn9Gg8

Buster Hyman

28th Mar 2014, 07:26

I'm sorry, I really can't keep up with the pace of this thread so, I'm sorry if I'm covering old ground but...

Are the Chinese whipping their media into a frenzy to gain information on the capabilities of the satellites, rather than genuinely wanting to know? Why, if this isn't the case, would you commit a fair amount of military hardware to a search area, when you are dubious about the validity of the data?

SteinarN

28th Mar 2014, 07:29

That don't make no sense!

The new track (400 kts) is closer to Western Australia - as announced

The higher speed tracks terminate in the initial search area according to the map.

The new announcement says the aircraft was travelling faster than normal so why is the slower speed track being searched?

I think the logic is that since the aircraft initially went faster and consumed more fuel than previously thought, it had to go slower later on toward the Indian ocean in order to be able to be airborne for as many hours as it obviously did.

Edit: The faster travel was from point of deviation from intended route until contact lost on primary radar over the Malacca strait.

SteinarN

28th Mar 2014, 07:37

onetrack

28th Mar 2014, 07:40

@SteinarN - I don't believe the Japanese sat pics have been publically released. They were handed over to the Malaysians, who then handed them on to AMSA, as they proved quite credible.

Airbubba

28th Mar 2014, 07:52

On the human factors side, the MH 370 flight deck crew is portrayed in a Wall Street Journal article as having that low profile that so many of us in the business crave:

Extensive interviews with friends, colleagues and family offer a more complete picture of the two pilots. What stands out most about Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah and First Officer Fariq Abdul Hamid is just how ordinary their lives appeared until Flight 370 took off.

To many colleagues and classmates who knew Mr. Zaharie, he was noteworthy precisely because he didn't stand out.

"The guys who are too smart get the airplane into trouble. That's also the case for those who are dumb," said Nik Huzlan, a former Boeing 777 pilot and colleague of 30 years at the airline. Mr. Zaharie "wasn't bad and he wasn't outstanding. That's what you look for in a pilot."

...Mr. Huzlan eventually became chief pilot, a job that involved handling discipline problems. Most pilots, including Mr. Zaharie, were never a cause for concern, he said. "Zaharie is the ideal pilot, an invisible pilot," he said.

Portraits of the Lives of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370's Pilots - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702304418404579465593089293898-lMyQjAxMTA0MDIwODEyNDgyWj)

2dPilot

28th Mar 2014, 07:53

This is becoming rediculous. Now the search area has moved 1000Km based on a re-evalued piece of information that was taken as 'fact' - the speed, position and timing of the flight while it was under radar observation. It calls every 'fact' we've been given into question IMO.

As for satellite photography, not only have none of the 100+ significant objects been identified as from MH370, none have been eliminated either - as AFIK, none have actually been found/seen from air or sea to be eliminated.

The position of these 'objects' when photoed must have been 'exact' and the sea currents and winds in the area must have been under unparallelled monitoring. Yet they are not found. Photo interpretation must be called into question.

If MH370 changed direction after leaving Malasian radar, it could change speed too. Therefore the 'search area' must remain totally undefined. We seem no nearer finding MH370 than 3 weeks ago.

win_faa

28th Mar 2014, 07:55

with all the technology having been put on this aircraft...radio vhf/hf, locator beacons, satcom, gps, transponder...even satellite in space dont give much info... all of these designed to locate an aircraft in flight ...not a single one of these technology is able to help pinpoint the exact location of the final resting place of this aircraft on the ground :(

this tragic event has only proven one thing....aircraft technology haven't really improved much in terms of locating a lost aircraft

Ka-2b Pilot

28th Mar 2014, 07:56

Just a word on CVR (and FDR) locator pinger batteries. They do not have a fixed life as such and they do not shut down after 30 days. They are designed to provide optimum performance for 30 days (90 days in the case of newer style batteries which I understand this aircraft may not have had). During this time the batteries will slowly discharge and the voltage will reduce but the pinger is designed to operate normally on a reduced voltage so is initially not affected, hence the "guideline" figure of 30 (90) days. When the battery has reduced to this voltage level, where the pinger works at optimum performance, the pinger performance will start to reduce and this could take days or weeks before it dies completely. Another factor is the age of the pinger and battery, which should be replaced at regular scheduled intervals (cannot recall what it is now).
The bottom line is that when the towed array finally arrives on site they may still have several weeks rather than days to listen for it. Chance of picking it up will reduce with time but it will not just suddenly switch off at 30 days. Just like the average torch it will slowly get dimmer and dimmer until it fades to nothing.
PS: I worked on CVRs until 25 years ago and continued to sign them off until about 10 years ago. Pingers (as we called them) were not repaired but replaced with new items, complete with battery, as I recall.

slats11

28th Mar 2014, 07:59

We probably can't make sense of the ping derived solutions as the complete data set has not been made available. Even the full data set produces multiple possible solutions (or if you prefer, wide confidence intervals around the average solution).

You have to admit this incident was well planned. Lots of things we do know about were too well timed to be coincidence eg the plan started at FIR boundary, late at night when military unlikely to respond in time, no moon ....

No reason to expect the bits we don't know we're not also well planned.

What sort of solution do you get if you make the flowing assumptions
1. High speed lowish level until across peninsula and out of primary radar. This is the highest risk part, so speed and low level make sense. You would not loiter while within primary radar coverage.
2. Ditch or crash at fuel exhaustion (minimal slick).
3. Assume flight ended close to TIME of last complete ping, and final incomplete ping was related to crash itself.
4. Crash WHERE it was dark or perhaps first light at time of final ping. Need some light if plan to ditch (minimal debris??), although this constraint isn't relevant for a high speed crash.
5. Close to 40 degree arc - although I don't think we don't know the rounding error associated with 40.

Does this produce any sort of coherent solution?

777fly

28th Mar 2014, 08:03

Data Guy:

I note that you share my opinion that an MEC fire is possible and might explain what happened. Boeing recommended fitment of upgraded insulation in the MEC after the ground incidents but also suggested better procedures for keeping them free of contaminants such as oil, hydraulic or deicer fluids, which degrade the protection level of the fabric. One wonders how diligently Malaysian were doing this and also if they incorporated the recommended improvements to the MEC cooling for hot region operation.

Olasek. Flash8. Porterhouse.Ian W.:

I am simply suggesting that if the crew were faced with a dual fmc failure it might explain the rather perplexing routeings after contact was lost. Since some of you seem to have no idea how alternate nav works:
A dual fmc failure followed by a 90 degree left turn to start a diversion would leave a completely black ND with no nav aids tuned or nav aids/station data etc available to display. Since nothing would be coming from the FMCs all new waypoints would have to be loaded by lat/long. Until that was done there would be NOTHING to navigate by and situational awareness could be rapidly lost. So, yes, they would have been punching in lats & longs IF there was a dual fmc failure. The quickest way to find a lat/long is to look at the chart and pick a waypoint near where you want to go, AGARI for instance. Then add a few more followed by lat/long of Penang. You are then back in LNAV with a track displayed. My supposition is that the lat/long of Penang might have been entered incorrectly as a South latitude and that after a crew incapacitation the aircraft simply navigated south to that point.
A possible flaw in this argument was that the longitude of Penang is too far east of where the search was being conducted, but the news that they are now switching the search 1000km further east tends to support my theory.

dartmoorman

28th Mar 2014, 08:06

I mentioned the Breguet range equation in an earlier post but it got deleted .
If the flight path is known ( pings etc ) and the fuel load is known and all the other factors ( ie a/c TOW ) it could be useful . I also cannot understand satellite images of 100 , 200 , 300 objects yet no SAR aircraft or ship sightings/confirmation ?

hamster3null

28th Mar 2014, 08:20

I have covered this twice and others too although The Malaysians have not.

The flight in Malaysian airspace after the turn back was about one hour. After a decision to scramble and the interceptor getting airborne it would have been in a tail chase. The interceptors are not long range and could not have remained there for long anyway.

Malaysian Air Force has a bunch of Su-30's with top speed of Mach 1.9 and range of 1600 NM. They could have been scrambled at the last possible moment (with MH370 going out of range of their radars), and they still would catch up and be able to follow it for at least half an hour before returning to base. Though they are not technically interceptors, the distinction in this case is completely academical.

Heli-phile

28th Mar 2014, 08:24

I cannot believe the surface craft have not found any of the flotsam spotted by satellite. What must be happening is objects are found but are just the usual crap bobbing around in the roaring 40's. If satellite imagery actually spotted a logo or such on objects (I.E. a vertical stabiliser) would they actually tell us? or wait until it were recovered?

NiclasB

28th Mar 2014, 08:24

Quote:
Until that was done there would be NOTHING to navigate by and situational awareness could be rapidly lost.

Wrong. They weren't far from KL, they didn't need any FMC to turn back and return to their origination. No situational awareness would be lost, they were in VFR conditions, excellent visibility. It is simply preposterous to suggest that under the alleged dire emergencies they would even care about FMCs at all. We are talking (assuming) of course competent pilots.

olasek: To make such a strong statement about a theory from a current T7 driver I would assume you have experience with a multiple instrument failure, possibly including fire/smoke, at night, at altitude. Please provide your story in that case. Re return to KL, some T7 drivers have previously suggested that they might not want to return to KL due to terrain. In the meantime I find the plausibility of 777fly's theory way above average in this thread.

porterhouse

28th Mar 2014, 08:24

with a multiple instrument failure, possibly including fire/smoke, at night, at altitude.Yes, it makes it even less likely pilots would try to program things into FMC in such circumstances. Why rely on equipment which is failing around you, makes little sense.

TessCoe

28th Mar 2014, 08:31

@hamster3null

SU-30's DON'T have Supercruise, therefore they have to switch on their burners to go Mach 1+......range of a SU-30 with burners on would be well under 600nm and would decrease substantially proportional to how fast over Mach 1 it was going.

Supercruise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise)

Blake777

28th Mar 2014, 08:34

"My supposition is that the lat/long of Penang might have been entered incorrectly as a South latitude and that after a crew incapacitation the aircraft simply navigated south to that point."

How does this fit with the military primary radar data showing MH370 heading steadily WNW 200nm from Penang at FL295? They were long past Penang by the time the turn south was made.

martynemh

28th Mar 2014, 08:55

(I cannot read #8541 to #8560, or p428, so if this has been covered already, pls delete...)

The new search zone is closer to Malaysia. BBC and others report that this is because the a/c flew 'faster' than previously thought, and therefore ran out of fuel earlier.

But are we to ignore the Inmarsat 'pings'? The last one was at 0011UTC (or 0019..) You don't stay in the air for that same length of time by flying at a faster speed.

I have to say, I trust the Inmarsat evidence (for what it is) best.

Until we see a verified radar plot (if such a thing exists) I still think it more likely that the crew hit trouble near the FIR boundary, turned for home, and initiated an emergency descent to a safe level on autopilot. Overcome later, the a/c boodled along on that heading, unnoticed by any radar units, and ran out of fuel sometime after midnight UTC. Windmilling Trents kept the gennies going for a few more minutes, last chattering gasp of 240v ac at about 0019.

Blake777

28th Mar 2014, 09:05

It's difficult to work out exactly the reasoning for the vast change to the search area. However, they have publicly stated it is because of new analysis of the radar data between the South China Sea and the limits of where it was tracked to.

I've only seen a portion of that data - obviously there's more, and whilst other nations have confirmed or denied that their radars also did or did not pick up MH370, we can only surmise that possibly they have been able to define more precisely some creative flying in terms of altitude excursions and turns, and possibly speed, which has resulted in less fuel available for the flight south.

A previous contributor commented that perhaps the initial phases of the deviation were more rapid but later the aircraft slowed a little to extend range. It had seemed that Inmarsat were inferring a regular flight level for the southward journey - perhaps that may have been revised also which may have affected the ultimate range.

I think if the final position is ever determined, there will be food for thought for months on this one!

hamster3null

28th Mar 2014, 09:13

Here's proof that I have too much time on my hands:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AivpyP95UrcBdHdfU0c3ZEVXMzVxSkZ4SjJiNWZrNVE#gid=0

I don't have a clear explanation for the mismatch in scales, and I don't know how to reproduce "their" point at ~17:07 (there is no apparent reason why Doppler shift would have decreased from 16:55 to 17:07). And I can't be sure that I didn't make some basic mistake in the formulas. But other than that, I think the results look pretty good. You can make your own copy if you have a Google account, type in any numbers in green fields and try to match the lines in the plot.

glenbrook

28th Mar 2014, 09:18

It's difficult to work out exactly the reasoning for the vast change to the search area. However, they have publicly stated it is because of new analysis of the radar data between the South China Sea and the limits of where it was tracked to.

It's not difficult, it is impossible. We haven't been given the data.
That said, my understanding is that the analysis of the satellite pings requires an assumption of constant speed and heading. This does not give unique solution, because you need to know where the start point is (i.e. the point at which the a/c started flying south). If the a/c speed west over the Malay peninsula was higher than assumed up until now then the start point of the southerly track was farther westwards and the mathematical solutions to the satellite ping data have the a/c flying more easterly, ending up closer to Western Australia.

RichardC10

28th Mar 2014, 09:20

I have looked at the potential ping modelling techniques in previous posts, and also the recently released INMARSAT Doppler data/model which I think I have understood.

The new AMSA map shows the aircraft speed to the new search area as 400kt, down from 472kt (average). A couples of points follow:

1. The new search area is directly on the published last ping arc so it is being assumed that the aircraft crashed directly after the last ping, the new range being only just enough to get to the arc.

2. If (if) the interim ping signals had been used, this constrains the heading and speed quite closely, if a Great Circle route is assumed. Capt Kremin proposed the constant magnetic heading idea some days ago which causes the aircraft to turn to the East late in the track. As I stated at the time, this would remain consistent with the ping data for a GC route, but reduces the modelled speed. The diagram I generated at the time is below, the yellow line is the constant magnetic heading, the red line the last ping arc. The penultimate point on the grey GC route (on the final ping arc) was chosen to roughly match the original search area – of course the interim ping signals/arcs have not been released.

3. Changing the assumed speed would cause problems for the Doppler model that INMARSAT used. This is very sensitive to the aircraft speed which has to be removed to reveal the spacecraft Doppler signal used to decide it was on the Southern route.

If (if) the interim ping arcs are being used and are still constraining the choice of route and hence search area, I would guess that the constant magnetic heading option is now being used, which allows a shorter required range.

I don’t know what the INMARSAT Doppler model will have to do to match the new modelled speed.

http://i60.tinypic.com/2lwobo3.jpg

Yellow line is the constant magnetic heading, grey line the GC route with matching modelled ping arcs, the red line the published last ping arc.

p.j.m

28th Mar 2014, 09:28

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2014/03/28/1226867/840506-55117b2e-b63b-11e3-993f-a57163efdfb6.jpg

Still appears to be on the 40° last ping arc from the satellite, however it brings up the often asked but never answered question about the PREVIOUS ping data.

If we knew the possible arcs/postions from the previous pings we, and they co-relate to the current search area, we could have been looking here a week or more ago!

BRAKES OFF

28th Mar 2014, 09:49

'New credible evidence'

It's starting to feel like there's actually NO credible evidence in this case. Just pure speculation. Or is that just me that feels like that?

Golf-Mike-Mike

28th Mar 2014, 09:51

If we knew the possible arcs/postions from the previous pings we, and they co-relate to the current search area, we could have been looking here a week or more ago!

OK looking at the chart I'm now confused, not that I wasn't before, the Malaysians said the team's latest modelling (incl INMARSAT, AAIB, NTSB, RR, Boeing) led them to use a higher speed and the resulting search is now closer to PERTH. But today's search zone is arrived at from the slowest speed line (yellow plot, 400kts). What am I missing ?

NigelOnDraft

28th Mar 2014, 09:54

the resulting search is now closer to PERTH. But today's search zone is arrived at from the slowest speed line (yellow plot, 400kts). What am I missing ? NB they are not searching where they think it crashed. They will search taking where they think it crashed, plus 20 days of appropriate drift. No idea of the details, but 1K of drift would now be ~500NM.

p.j.m

28th Mar 2014, 10:01

OK looking at the chart I'm now confused, not that I wasn't before, the Malaysians said the team's latest modelling (incl INMARSAT, AAIB, NTSB, RR, Boeing) led them to use a higher speed and the resulting search is now closer to PERTH. But today's search zone is arrived at from the slowest speed line (yellow plot, 400kts). What am I missing ?

This was published a week ago, and the current search location is well within the "reasonable" final probability position. Without previous ping data though we really aren't in a position to guess where on the 40° arc the aircraft actually went down. The authorities seem to be doing a very poor job disseminating information.

http://i.imgur.com/Oz1jOmJ.jpg

Golf-Mike-Mike

28th Mar 2014, 10:09

This was published a week ago, and the current search location is well within the "reasonable" final probability position. Without previous ping data though we really aren't in a position to guess where on the 40° arc the aircraft actually went down. The authorities seem to be doing a very poor job disseminating information.

@ P.J.M & NigelonDraft
Thanks for the clarifications. On top of all this, while the P3s can re-locate as of their next flight, the ships are always lagging behind and travelling maybe 10-15kts (?) if they're lucky, and only they are going to verify anything seen from satellite or search aircraft.

DespairingTraveller

28th Mar 2014, 10:39

Posted by 777fly: Yes, the initial wanderings are hard to explain but if one pilot (under stress) loaded a handful of waypoints, some correct (AGARI), some with errors, and then the crew were overcome before they could be crossed checked the aircraft could fly to some strange places. It only takes one wrong keystroke to produce hundred mile errors.It's probably worth pointing out again that, at a press conference fairly early on, one of the Malaysian officials (their CAA CEO, I think) steadfastly and explicitly refused to confirm that the aircraft flew to the various waypoints on the zigzag track that has become so much a "given" in these discussions. He would only confirm that it flew back over the peninsula.

And today we learn that reanalysis of primary radar data has resulted in a re-evaluation of the aircraft's speed. Since one thing you can be positive about in respect of a radar return is it's timing, that very possibly means there has been a re-interpretation of one or more of the positions attributed to MH370.

Taking these things together, it wouldn't be the greatest surprise in the world to me if we learn at some point that MH370 didn't actually fly the wandering zigzag path that is so persuasive of criminal intent to many people.

p.j.m

28th Mar 2014, 10:42

And today we learn that reanalysis of primary radar data has resulted in a revaluation of the aircraft's speed. Since one thing you can be positive about in respect of a radar return is it's timing, that is very possibly means there has been a re-evaluation of one or more of the positions attributed to MH370..

It would be interesting to know which primary radar this is. Presumably it must be some Australian radar, that we have been told previously was turned off at night?

airsound

28th Mar 2014, 10:49

I don't think anyone has posted what the ATSB actually said this morning. If they have, apologies.

Australian Transport Safety Bureau Chief Commissioner Martin Dolan:
The ATSB, as Australia’s transport investigation agency, is working with a range of other international expert organisations to analyse available data and determine the best area to search.
The key pieces of information being analysed relate to early positional information from the aircraft and later polling of a satellite by an aircraft system.
The new information is based on continuing analysis of radar data between the South China Sea and the Strait of Malacca before radar contact was lost.
It indicated the plane was travelling faster than previously estimated, resulting in increased fuel usage and reducing the possible distance it travelled south into the Indian Ocean.
The international investigative team supporting the search continues their analysis, which could still result in further refinement of the potential flight path.
This has been combined with information about the likely performance of the aircraft—such as speed and fuel consumption for example—to arrive at the best assessment of the area in which the aircraft is likely to have entered the water.
The information provided by the international investigative team is the most credible lead we currently have in the search of aircraft wreckage.
However, this information needs to be continually adjusted for the length of time elapsed since the aircraft went missing and the likely drift of any wreckage floating on the ocean surface.

http://www.amsa.gov.au/media/documents/28032014MH370AMSA_ATSB_Media_Release_000.pdf

skytrax

28th Mar 2014, 10:57

NZ plane spoted objects which can be related to MAS plane BBC reports. Its in the new search area. Details to follow.

The plane is now on is way back to Perth where the images would be analysed.

martynemh

28th Mar 2014, 11:08

Quote:
Australian Transport Safety Bureau Chief Commissioner Martin Dolan:
The ATSB, as Australia’s transport investigation agency, is working with a range of other international expert organisations to analyse available data and determine the best area to search.
The key pieces of information being analysed relate to early positional information from the aircraft and later polling of a satellite by an aircraft system.
The new information is based on continuing analysis of radar data between the South China Sea and the Strait of Malacca before radar contact was lost.
It indicated the plane was travelling faster than previously estimated, resulting in increased fuel usage and reducing the possible distance it travelled south into the Indian Ocean.
The international investigative team supporting the search continues their analysis, which could still result in further refinement of the potential flight path.
This has been combined with information about the likely performance of the aircraft—such as speed and fuel consumption for example—to arrive at the best assessment of the area in which the aircraft is likely to have entered the water.
The information provided by the international investigative team is the most credible lead we currently have in the search of aircraft wreckage.
However, this information needs to be continually adjusted for the length of time elapsed since the aircraft went missing and the likely drift of any wreckage floating on the ocean surface.

If you burn up the fuel faster, how do you remain in the air for the same length of time?
(Unless you disregard the Inmarsat data timed at 0011 UTC and 0019 UTC.)