Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost [Archive] - Page 40

orbitjet

11th Apr 2014, 13:17

THE Prime Minister has given the most detailed information about where the crucial black box flight recorders from missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 are expected to be.

Tony Abbott gave Chinese President Xi Jinping a private and detailed briefing in Beijing about the latest on the search for the missing Boeing 777-200ER aircraft which had 154 Chinese people on board.

The MP told the President before a State dinner with the Australian premiers at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing — an unprecedented audience — that search teams led by the Australian ship Ocean Shield had narrowed down the area in the Indian Ocean where pings from the flight recorders are being received to a grid of around 10km by 10km.

He told President Xi that there is now a high degree of confidence that the signals were the black boxes.

No Cookies | Perth Now (http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-black-box-in-an-area-10km-by-10km/story-fniztvnf-1226880483186)

formationdriver

11th Apr 2014, 14:39

Just a hunch: if the boxes are ever recovered they will show that the pilots were overcome by some sort of toxic fumes, that the origin and nature of these fumes will remain a mystery. Malaysian Airlines and the way whatever cargo aboard was handled will be blameless. Ditto for Boeing. Ditto fort the pilots, who will be remembered as professionals who attempted to save their jet, and the passengers, in impossible circumstances.

Will this be the truth? Perhaps. But, given the various reputations and commercial interests at stake, the question merits asking.

Remember Habsheim. http://www.crashdehabsheim.net/CRenglish%20phot.pdf

orbitjet

11th Apr 2014, 14:41

@CUTiger78

The now-reflagged & renamed Glomar Explorer has been reported to be enroute to the current search area.

Your source is??

According marine traffic this drill rig is currently in Bay of Bengal stationary and has not moved since 4/4/14

Live Ships Map - AIS - Vessel Traffic and Positions - AIS Marine Traffic (http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:82.23502/centery:16.08348/zoom:8/oldmmsi:576830000/olddate:lastknown)

Alloyboobtube

11th Apr 2014, 14:42

I wouldn't expect many changes considering what a rare occurrence this is , the recorders do there job well .
If they end up being switched off then it was a deliberate act , case closed.
Nobody will spend money on Satellite bandwidth for storing what would mostly be useless information.

postrophe

11th Apr 2014, 15:03

As of 14:17(UTC) AIS (via Orbcomm) is showing HMS Echo on the move at 0.9kn / 16°, somewhat to the East of the Eastern search area.

Lightning Mate

11th Apr 2014, 15:26

"If they end up being switched off then it was a deliberate act , case closed."

They cannot be switched off.

They run automatically from the point at which the aeroplane is capable of moving under its' own power to the moment it cannot.

Speed of Sound

11th Apr 2014, 15:44

Just a hunch: if the boxes are ever recovered they will show that the pilots were overcome by some sort of toxic fumes,

I'm not entirely sure how they will show anything of the sort.

Even if the CVR recording from the initial phase of the flight could be recovered, short of lots of coughing or someone within range of a microphone actually mentioning toxic fumes I can't see there being any definitive evidence of this at all.

VinRouge

11th Apr 2014, 15:47

Smoke detector should be a FDR parameter. Certainly if it appears on ecam.

GlueBall

11th Apr 2014, 16:00

I keep saying we cannot and must not blame the crew or the aircraft without 150% proof of the events that took the aircraft to where it is.

...But it's hard to conceptualize any credible combination of mechanical failures which would produce such a deceptive, cunning, bizarre flight profile.

PaleBlueDot

11th Apr 2014, 16:32

Originally Posted by flightradar

1. sending live data from a/c to satellite is certainly possible with today's technology, thus eliminating the need for a (name your colour)box. However, the cost is likely to be an issue, upgrading the satcom bandwidth, storing the data, all this will be added on to the cost of flying to the general public. The main problem I can see is that such a system can fail or be turned off.

Cost would not be an issue. With current state of the art compression and quite simple adaptive technology that problem can easily be solved. Amount of bandwidth and storage consumed will depend on various status indicators. It would not be too difficult for software to recognize some basic ones: "normal", "fault", "serious fault", "possibility of imminent disaster". For at least 99% of the time only the very basic flight parameters will be transmitted in the form of single, highly compressed and very short packet. If there is something unusual to report, it would go immediately, and amount of transmitted data will grow. In a highly dangerous situations separate high capacity link would automatically open, and every scrap of available data would be uploaded, together with all available compressed voice recordings. That way both the average cost and additional satellite bandwidth requirement would be quite modest.

YRP

11th Apr 2014, 16:44

1. sending live data from a/c to satellite is certainly possible with today's technology, thus eliminating the need for a (name your colour)box. However, the cost is likely to be an issue, upgrading the satcom bandwidth, storing the data, all this will be added on to the cost of flying to the general public. The main problem I can see is that such a system can fail or be turned off.

Many people were suggesting this after the AF447 accident, but I wonder whether the cost of data storage is really prohibitive in this day and age. We seem to be able to provide free data storage for useless things such as personal Facebook accounts, Instagram accounts, Flikr etc, surely we're able provide affordable data storage for the millions of flights that occur every day through out the world.

The cost is not the data storage, it is the satellite bandwidth required.

I did a very rough calculation on the AF447 thread (here, but didn't not post the numbers: http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/376433-af447-34.html#post4993622).

Back of the envelope, to transmit the FDR and CVR data it would take the equivalent bandwidth of several continuous satcom voice calls (continuous for the flight). The cost of this is roughly comparable to the pilot's salaries for a flight (order of magnitude anyway).

If broadly deployed, there might be quantity discounts. And you could undersample the data _somewhat_. But it would still be expensive.

So then... no price too high for safety, right... but look at it from a different perspective. If you have that amount of extra money to spend on enhancing safety, does live downloading the blackbox data give you the best safety improvement for the money?

Airbubba

11th Apr 2014, 16:53

They run automatically from the point at which the aeroplane is capable of moving under its' own power to the moment it cannot.

Not with the Boeings I fly. The CVR now runs anytime there is power on the aircraft and for ten minutes after power is removed. :eek:

At least that is what we are now told.

Until quite recently the aircraft manuals had the customary boilerplate language about a 30 minute recording. Now it is at least two hours and there is definitely still a circuit breaker in the cockpit to disable the CVR. In fact, if the crew is involved in a reportable event, we are required to pull the CVR breaker and notify maintenance so that the recording can be harvested.

Hmmm. Wonder if the CVR still runs for ten minutes after you pull the breaker? In a commuter plane overrun into the EVAS they did the shutdown checklist down to the CVR breaker, got interrupted and the cell phone calls to ops and the union were both in the NTSB transcript.

Discussions here and elsewhere leave doubt in my mind whether the legally mandated erase function is any more effective than in the analog CVR days. 'Erased' or overwritten CVR conversations in the past were sometimes 'recovered' using some closely held forensic techniques.

I agree that there might not be much on the MH 370 CVR if it is recovered. However the idea that non-volatile memory chips in cameras, tablets and phones of the pax and crew could yield clues certainly has recent precedents in accident investigations.

See for example:

http://dms.ntsb.gov/public%2F55000-55499%2F55307%2F550800.pdf

MG23

11th Apr 2014, 17:18

The cost is not the data storage, it is the satellite bandwidth required.

Yes. A 10TB RAID6 with a hot spare (so three of eight disks have to fail before you lose data) costs about $5,000. That should hold all the data from all an airline's aircraft for multiple flights before you have to overwrite them.

10TB of satellite data bandwidth costs $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

And a bad guy could still turn it off.

The simple solution would be to add a simple location transmitter like the ones used for cargo containers, which could report position to the airline every few minutes from its own GPS. But a bad guy could still turn it off.

tdracer

11th Apr 2014, 17:56

Carborundum

11th Apr 2014, 17:58

I recall years ago thinking the skies were so full of aircraft we could swap data packages. I have no idea how to calculate the percentage of time another aircraft would be available, given the long straight-line distances, but I bet a lot of the time it could be a cheap alternative.

Rescue3

11th Apr 2014, 18:06

HMS Echo drifting?, i would imagine she is hunting/surveying at low speed - maybe on active rudders.....

toaddy

11th Apr 2014, 18:07

Latest Echo and OC tracks.

http://i1155.photobucket.com/albums/p548/teabone9999/tplPath4_zps2a9d7ab7.jpg

postrophe

11th Apr 2014, 18:12

One hour ago(18:10 UTC) she was steaming at 5.5kn / 226°

hamster3null

11th Apr 2014, 18:38

Just so you know how much data we're talking about, I did a quick check of a DFDR file I have from a six hour flight (I was investigating a strange engine anomaly on the flight). Six hour flight is a 150 meg file, or roughly 25 meg per hour (and that was an older DFDR, new models record even more). Multiply that by the thousands of airplanes in the air at any time and you're going to quickly overwhelm the available satellite resources. So $billion$ of new capability would be needed for the downlink.

25 meg per hour is 7 kilobytes per second (56 Kbps) per aircraft. Existing satellite internet networks can absorb that without breaking a sweat.

Also, most of this stuff is highly optional and it's stored mainly because it can be. 20 years ago standard FDRs on aircraft like the 777 had the capacity to record 64 or 128 words per second (0.77 or 1.54 Kbps). After the expansion of the list of required parameter groups in 2002, Boeing started installing FDRs capable of 3 Kbps.

Uncle Fred

11th Apr 2014, 18:44

Lots of discussion on the thread about the CVR and the FDR. Naturally we all wish to learn what was recorded.

Yet should not the EICAS and the AIMS have their own memories? My flight manual does not go into that level of detail, but I would imagine that at the very minimum status messages and above are logged--we know that maintenance always looks at AIMS after every flight. Even the most cursory look-through reveals a ton of monitored items.

I am not sure how many parameters are recorded by the FDR although I had once read it is in the hundreds now. Just thinking that AIMS might have something that the FDR does not.

Any Boeing engineers on the thread who can give us a bit more granularity on this?

It might very well be that these systems could be more revealing that the CVR and possibly the FDR.

Hamster, I saw your post after I posted mine. Do you know the size of the parameter list?

After the expansion of the list of required parameter groups in 2002, Boeing started installing FDRs capable of 3 Kbps.

TessCoe

11th Apr 2014, 18:44

For all the talk of data dumps and CVR's uploading in real time a LOT of people seem to be missing certainly 3 issues I can immediately think of....

1. Who stores all these data dumps? I'm 100% certain that CN (to name but one) aircraft will not want their data uploaded to some data centre in Washington State or Virginia.....So you now have the issue of non centralised storage under local jurisdiction and associated variances in collection/storage rules and procedures.

2. Given 1 above how long before certain nations start to insist their data is encrypted prior to uplink and the jurisdiction issues with key release.

3. If anyone doesn't believe that all that data wouldn't be a prime target for some smart/malicious hackers you've not been following what's actually going on in the real world much. I can just imagine some inflight conversation between Captain and FO about a fault on engine 3 being released onto the web and the impact it has on Somenamelessnations National Flag Carrier business.

Location data uploads make sense, some technical data uploaded makes sense, little else is really needed in 99.99999% of the time.

Facelookbovvered

11th Apr 2014, 18:45

Down loading real time data is just adding another layer of complexity to the systems already in place, if the DFDR/CVR batteries lasted longer then that would be a good and cheap place to start. A simple GPS tracking system installed in a location that it is not possible to locate in flight would cost no more than $1000, i have a system on my car that allows me to track its location from anywhere in the world on a simple app.

If we know where to look we can 99.9% of time find the FDR, this case is unique and unlikely to be repeated, a classic case of the holes lining up in the cheese, it could not happen over central Europe or the US

This will come down to either a bizarre failure that very quickly overcame the crew, yet allowed the aircraft to keep flying for hours on a number of different headings at different levels and disabled the ACARS & transponder, or more likely in my view a deliberate act of an individual who knew how to disable these systems and program a random (non straight line/heading) into a functioning FMC, yet make no demands or leave any trail of prior intent.

If the aircraft was indeed flown deliberately to what is increasing likely its final resting place then the whole event was a suicide mission, with reports of the aircraft having flown as high as FL450 i can only speculate that the intent was to overcome using hypoxia any attempt at someone eventually battering the flight deck door down with an Atlas trolley.

If ? it was a member of the crew, then the loss of face had he come to his senses would probably drive the mission forward, so you climb as high as you can get the aircraft to go at max con thrust, put on your flight deck oxygen, drop the masks, after 15 minutes most are unconscious, after an hour their dead, you then re program the FMC to fly West to a waypoint then turn South with a pre programmed descent to 5000 or lower? select VNAV and set the MCP to altitude to your lower level, the aircraft will stay at the preprogrammed level until reaching your TOD point then descend until it hits the altitude restraint in the MCP and maintain that level until it runs out of fuel.

In the mind of someone acting in what we would see as an illogical manner, they may well see the other passengers and crew as unfortunate collateral damage ( wrong place wrong time), but at the same time may wish to avoid avoidable casualties on the ground (this is not a terrorist act) by ensuring the aircraft would run out of fuel at sea. The culprit then takes off his oxygen mask and joins the rest of the pax and crew on this ghost ship.

He may well figure that the chances of not been spotted are remote, so the they send up the fighters? so what everyone is dead the only change would be the location of the crash should they shoot it down, they fly along side, no one at home, it flying along not towards any centre of population, who will order a shoot down of a T7 with 229 people on board?

In the event the Indonesian military radar controller is too busy watching match of the day or porn, even if he get a radar spot its on a civilian airway no mode C/S doing what aircraft do and assumes the civi people have it in hand?

The whole thing is too deliberate to be random IMHO but guess we will know sooner or later, bizarre :ugh:

Ian W

11th Apr 2014, 19:01

Yes. A 10TB RAID6 with a hot spare (so three of eight disks have to fail before you lose data) costs about $5,000. That should hold all the data from all an airline's aircraft for multiple flights before you have to overwrite them.

10TB of satellite data bandwidth costs $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

And a bad guy could still turn it off.

The simple solution would be to add a simple location transmitter like the ones used for cargo containers, which could report position to the airline every few minutes from its own GPS. But a bad guy could still turn it off.

Soon all aircraft will be required to transmit Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Extended Projected Profile (ADS-C EPP) which is the standard ADS-C position/altitude report plus "a report containing the sequence of 1 to 128 waypoints or pseudo waypoints with associated contraints or estimates (altitude, time, speed, etc.), gross mass and estimate at Top of Descent, speed schedule, etc. " If ADS-C EPP were to be transmitted every 60 seconds that would probably be all that is needed to locate the aircraft.

VinRouge

11th Apr 2014, 19:22

Remains from af447 were pretty well preserved by all accounts due to the depth and the temperature of the ocean.

VinRouge

11th Apr 2014, 19:28

One lightbulb moment regarding this incident surrounds the cvr and FDR pingers.

It's a shame the pinger does not work for say 10 days, then switch off until it receives an activation ping from a search asset, say submersible. The activation ping could be coded and limited to a set frequency range.

Increased complexity, yes, but problems with pinger battery life would be resolved.

Chronus

11th Apr 2014, 19:42

Yes INFLIMBO it is possible and I suppose some consideration will now be given to equipping aircraft with auto G release ELT or EPIRB systems. The CORPAS- SARSAT system is a world wide programme which interfaces with these to offer an international SAR service not only to shipping, aviation but even to mountain climbers and desert walkers. But there again we need to remind ourselves that this "incident" ( as we do not yet know whether it was accidental ) is unprecedented and as such cause and circumstance needs to be established before contemplating action to prevent future recurrence. At the moment the whole thing is looking like the Mary Celeste.

MPN11

11th Apr 2014, 19:48

As there is an undercurrent of discussion about "Future Enhanced FDR/CVR Location Capability", I am moved to ask if there is a credible, cost-effective, solution that could be globally imposed as a requirement?

Operating an airline is difficult enough. Is it reasonable, on the basis of this incident (OK, and a very few others) to demand that cost, and technical issues, be introduced?

PAXboy

11th Apr 2014, 19:51

MPN11
Is it reasonable, on the basis of this incident (OK, and a very few others) to demand that cost, and technical issues, be introduced? No, it's not reasonable. But the chances are that it will be demanded.

Politicians are like that and the modern world wants everything to be managed and available and without doubt. This is (probably) a one-off case - but it will change the future - irrespective of whatever may eventually be found out about the flight.

Fareastdriver

11th Apr 2014, 19:55

inflimbo wouldn't it be possible to mount few floatable transmitters.
perhaps even relaying last known position.

Offshore helicopters in the British North Sea have had them for years. The ADELT (Automatically Deployable Emergency Locator Beacon) is mounted externally and can be activated by the crew or it will deploy on immersion in salt water. It's signal can be picked up by any satellite.

Unfortunately it can to be armed or disarmed by the crew; neccessary to avoid accidental discharges on the ground where people are.

Finn47

11th Apr 2014, 20:10

One thing which will be changed is the 30-day battery life of the ULBs:

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration has ordered that all underwater locator beacons manufactured from March 2015 have the ability to transmit for 90 days. By 2020, all 30-day beacons must be replaced, the U.S. regulator said in an e-mail.
“What drove that requirement was Air France 447,” Patel said. While surface debris was found within days of the accident, locating the wreckage required robot submarines and months of searching because the black-box pingers had long since gone dead.
“Malaysia Air 370 makes the second compelling case in recent memory that these 30-day batteries should have been replaced years ago and should be replaced in a more expedited basis,” said former NTSB official Goelz, who is now a senior vice president at Washington-based lobbying and consulting firm O’Neill & Associates.
Beacons Tripling Battery Life Too Late for Plane Search - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-26/longer-life-jet-beacons-too-late-for-flight-370-search.html)

jugofpropwash

11th Apr 2014, 20:16

Seems to me that having a simple GPS unit that transmitted the aircraft's position every 10 minutes would go a long way toward finding a missing plane. It would certainly narrow the area in the event of a search.

If you want to improve on that, allow ATC the ability to send a signal to the GPS unit that would cause it immediately to respond with its current location. In the event of a mayday/hijack code/9-11 type incident, the ground would know exactly where the plane was.

PersonFromPorlock

11th Apr 2014, 20:18

But above 40k they would need pressure breathing and I don't believe that is available. Above 34K, IIRC. Max altitude with pressure breathing depends on somewhat flexible physiological constraints, but B-52 pressure breathing was limited in the Dash-1 to 42K.

And don't overlook the non-hypoxic effects of decompression: having your internal gases suddenly try to triple in volume, for instance, could prove... distracting.

ve7pnl

11th Apr 2014, 20:27

Despite the sometimes zealous intervention of our esteemed moderators (which I applaud) we the denizens of this clearinghouse of rumour, fact and opinion have collectively provided a roadmap for improved airline safety.

Many of the most novel ideas have been deleted. So someone needs to summarize because I am sure AAIB are looking for ideas.

Pilots, Cabin Crew and Mechanics and others with access to aircraft
= Full dossier from all police and security agency files including NSA taps
= Complete review of all social media used by these suspicious people
= Analysis of all purchases in the last year with focus on flight simulation
= Excessive web usage viewing pages like PPRUNE
= Excessive perusal of NTSB, AAIB and other agency accident reports
= Records of those who have experience marital discord or divorce
= Records of any mortgage defaults or other financial blemishes
= Set up hot line for anonymous reports on any of these scary people
= Better checking in security for any weirdo maps
= Check for reading habits, particularly Dummy's Guides to Big Jet Ditching
= Watch for warning signs such as library checkout of DeMille's "MAYDAY"
= Carefully check crew carry-on for suspicious item such as
Wilderness Survival items: tents, energy blankets, energy bars
Complete set of LOST and DVD player
Parachute Waypoint lists in crayon with jerky penmanship
Gold bullion or large amounts of currency.... strange currency

Preflight Procedures
= Preflight psychological exam and counseling for all flight and cabin crew
= Check cargo for potential rotting fruit that could emit toxic fumes
= Remove Lithium batteries from all carry-on goods
= Send any late arriving passengers back to the start of the line
= Arrest any crew member who looks at the closed circuit cameras
= End waiting area announcements that creep me out such as:
"We hope you will take XYZ airways to your final destination"
= Bar any passengers that look funny or have strange accents
= Bar any passengers that have religious symbols - might be fanatics
= Carefully review any passenger carry on reading material
How to Fly Big Jets by Davies... and no CPL - kick them off
Stick and Rudder by Langewiesche - enhanced security interrogation
Survival at Sea... kick them off

Flight Documentation and SAR Features
= Full time secure data link to satellites with all relevant data
= Direct feed of all data to servers accessible by PPRUNE members
= At least 4 external indestructible ULBs with 2 year battery life
= At least 6 internal indestructible ULBs inside the cabin
= At least 2 ULBs in cabin to be in custody of trusted vetted travelers
= Link and support systems in titanium pilot / crew resistant case
No circuit breaker, carefully filtered AC source, battery to last 20 hrs
Explosion proof, maybe get the weight under 100 kg!
= Star Trek Captain's log, >10 of them. Cabin crew can eject in fright
= At least 20 sealable canisters in cabin with check off notes... floating
= All insulating and floating materials to have orange day glow coating
= Large ferrous strips in fuselage to allow effective magnetometer search
= ULB with acoustic controlled release to float to service upon call
= Large parachutes to save - or stop the aircraft if something fishy occurs

Cabin Monitoring
= For smaller aircraft one skilled monitor with flying and psych experience
= Larger: 2 monitors on flight deck, one tie breaker in the cabin
= Separate GPS and monitor for passengers (each with Alert Pinger to Sat)

Pilot Performance Monitoring and Approval Link
= Basic inflight EEG monitoring with real-time analysis
On detection of subversive thoughts, instant zap, and call for alternate
= Two way link to the UN Flight Input Monitoring and Control Centre
= All waypoint entries review by UNFIMCC before engine start
= Any waypoint changes get a similar review and carbon tax recalculation
= Any sudden thrust lever movement by prior approval of ground monitor
= Same for extension of flaps, slats etc

Flight Deck Security
= Total seal from cabin air - ditto on cargo flights
But only fair to have at least 16 hour cabin oxygen for all
And of course, must provide for pressure breathing above FL250
= Improve access security - at all times
= Flight deck occupants food and drink tested and certified
= Before takeoff: Flight deck sealed, to be opened at destination airport
= Improved DVDR with separate implanted mics for all including cabin crew
= Increase record time of DFDR to one year and have 3 per aircraft

Improved Back Up Systems
= At least 40 gallon reserve tank for the APU that cabin crew can turn on
= Three RATs for any long range flights
= Replace at least 20% of the wing fuel tanks with flotation material

I am sorry if I missed some of the best ideas. PM me if I need to add some.

And my sincere apologies if I have offended anyone with this bit of levity related to a situation that is very serious and has brought a lot of sorrow.

Moderators: Thanks for the great job on a huge pile of submissions. Your call on this one...

glad rag

11th Apr 2014, 21:31

25 meg per hour is 7 kilobytes per second (56 Kbps) per aircraft. Existing satellite internet networks can absorb that without breaking a sweat.

Also, most of this stuff is highly optional and it's stored mainly because it can be. 20 years ago standard FDRs on aircraft like the 777 had the capacity to record 64 or 128 words per second (0.77 or 1.54 Kbps). After the expansion of the list of required parameter groups in 2002, Boeing started installing FDRs capable of 3 Kbps.

Perhaps, but will it be Robust and Sustainable to be Fit For Purpose?

underfire

11th Apr 2014, 21:41

IF the GSF Explorer is enroute, it is what is underneath that counts...

http://i60.tinypic.com/kq8t0.jpg

Jilted

11th Apr 2014, 22:22

IF the GSF Explorer is enroute, it is what is underneath that counts...What is your source? All the tracking sites show her in India as of 4/4.

toaddy

11th Apr 2014, 23:02

Looks like the Ocean Shield just made a pass over one of the older ping-heard locations.

http://i1155.photobucket.com/albums/p548/teabone9999/tplPath5_zpsc88ddda7.jpg

InfrequentFlier511

11th Apr 2014, 23:03

Real-time data streaming for all flights seems a bit ott. The question, then, is when to stream? High priority ecam messages, distress squawks and manual triggers (stand-alone and linked to actions such as arming fire bottles) would be possible trigger points. Probably as good as any, really. Like any other system, it has to be possible to power down the satcom in case of fire or fault, and a well-read hijacker would know to do this, but it would be potentially life-saving if engineering people at home or at Boeing could see just what was happening.

nigf

11th Apr 2014, 23:05

IF the GSF Explorer is enroute, it is what is underneath that counts...

http://i60.tinypic.com/kq8t0.jpg

It may not have the original equipment for the task since it got refitted for drilling in 1997 according to wikipedia

PaleBlueDot

11th Apr 2014, 23:43

Perhaps I was not clear enough. There is no need to transmit all this data all the time. The idea is not to replace black box, but to regularly transmit only very small subset of its data, so that the plane can at least be found. Basically, it should transmit only what is necessary, and only when it become necessary. Intelligent device must periodically send just GPS position and basic flight information in small and highly compressed single packet, using cheap, low bandwidth link. Having all relevant data at its input, it would always be aware of severity of any fault status or warning, and it would only then transmit more data, if necessary opening more expensive higher capacity link. In most dangerous situations, it would open emergency, reserved, highest capacity satellite link, and in a very short time upload every single bit of highly compressed data at its disposal. That could be much more than any current black box could hold. On average it would require, for example, just 1 KB of data by lowest capacity link every 10 minutes, so extra price would be very small, and we would still immediately have all the content of black boxes in all detectable emergencies. Traditional black boxes would still be there in case of communication problems.

orbitjet

11th Apr 2014, 23:55

On demand would be better, an aircraft goes missing dial into the box via satcom and retrieve the data or listen/watch live.

Of course this wont work if all systems are disabled.

p.j.m

12th Apr 2014, 00:01

Looks like the Ocean Shield just made a pass over one of the older ping-heard locations.

http://i1155.photobucket.com/albums/p548/teabone9999/tplPath5_zpsc88ddda7.jpg

that central area where OS is in the diagram & north, and HMAS Echo ran a parallel sweep, must be the area of greatest interest. That was where the strongest signals were detected.

md80fanatic

12th Apr 2014, 00:46

It seems like a system that mirrors Amateur radio's packet networks might be beneficial in transmitting airliner's positional information without the need for satellites. Over most of the globe an airliner in flight is at least line of sight with another airliner that can act as a digital repeater of sorts, transmitting positional data to another airliner, or to a ground station if nearby.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packet_radio

Although its not the fastest way to go about this task, it is dependable. If installed in every airliner the system would be nearly flawless, as each plane's position would be present on several other aircraft's memories, local to it.

There is no logical reason why this task must be relegated to the mainframe/dumb terminal way of thinking.

Double07

12th Apr 2014, 01:19

The Malaysian authorities have finally determined that the final words from MH370 were spoken by the pilot. Has it been determined whether all the communications between MH370 and ATC were spoken by the pilot? If so, then there’s nothing new. But if some of the earlier communications were spoken by the co-pilot, then it would be interesting to find out which ones, and when the change occurred.

YRP

12th Apr 2014, 02:06

Quote:
25 meg per hour is 7 kilobytes per second (56 Kbps) per aircraft. Existing satellite internet networks can absorb that without breaking a sweat.

Also, most of this stuff is highly optional and it's stored mainly because it can be. 20 years ago standard FDRs on aircraft like the 777 had the capacity to record 64 or 128 words per second (0.77 or 1.54 Kbps). After the expansion of the list of required parameter groups in 2002, Boeing started installing FDRs capable of 3 Kbps.

I'm not so sure about the networks absorbing the bandwidth system wide for all aircraft in the air. Maybe it can.

I did look up some numbers. Data charges are in the $7 to $25 range. So assume 25MB per hour, looking at $175/hr. Maybe you can undersample, can limit the parameters. So call it $50 to $100/hr. That is just FDR; CVR is going to be a couple of voice channels at say $30/hour each.

Maybe that is enough said on this topic, but all in all, how much extra sim time per year could you give each pilot for that money?

polarbreeze

12th Apr 2014, 02:11

Seems to me that having a simple GPS unit that transmitted the aircraft's position every 10 minutes would go a long way toward finding a missing plane.Transmitted to where, that is the question. Over the sea, it would have to be satellite and bandwidth on satellites is a scarce resource and is costly.

cribbagepeg

12th Apr 2014, 02:33

Frequent SLF

12th Apr 2014, 03:18

Several recent posts have raised questions regarding satcom capacity and the possibility of packet data relay systems between aircraft to carry aircraft position information. These are valid technical questions but seem to be putting the cart before horse.

The real questions do not at this stage cover "how" but should concentrate on what it is that we are trying to achieve. Currently aircraft position information is available either on a schedule or on request by ATC using ADS and CPDLC. This information uses ACARS and is carried on VHF or satcom as is appropriate. ACARS is used primarily because the only global data network on the ground throughout much of the world is the airline data communications networks operated by ARINC and SITA and ATC units are connected to these.

This system could be extended to carry FDR data but to whom? Where would it be stored? Once these questions are answered then it will be time to start looking at the airground links to be used.

As a former colleague with a military background used to say, "Strategy is about what needs to happen; when the word 'HOW' crops up you are getting into tactics."

Let's get the big picture right before we drop down to the bit level.

Kubarque

12th Apr 2014, 03:55

rampstriker

12th Apr 2014, 04:01

There was a stretch yesterday (within the past 16 hours) when neither Ocean Shield nor Echo were in the "box". Perhaps they were standing off while one of those which do not say where they are going nor where they have been was having a listen.

More likely standing off while they dropped the sonobuoys. Wouldn't want to get tangled up in the 1000 foot cables suspending the hydrophones.

Hogger60

12th Apr 2014, 04:59

Airbubba - Things are a bit different on the 777

Not with the Boeings I fly. The CVR now runs anytime there is power on the aircraft and for ten minutes after power is removedVOICE RECORDER Switch

AUTO – The cockpit voice recorder runs from first engine start until 5 minutes after last engine shutdown (spring–loaded).

ON – The cockpit voice recorder runs until first engine start, then spring–loaded to AUTO.

there is definitely still a circuit breaker in the cockpit to disable the CVRNo CVR circuit breaker in the 777 cockpit. The circuit breaker is in the E/E compartment.

Blake777

12th Apr 2014, 05:04

I'm not a supporter of the Malaysian govt. However, I cannot think of a similar precedent involving Malaysia where the eyes of the international community have been focused to such an extent on them.

There are powerful people here demanding and needing answers, from Boeing and Rolls Royce onwards. An enormous number of nations have become involved in the SAR and in checking and supplying other data towards the investigation. We don't know exactly who knows what but we do know there are numerous undisclosed assets operated by various nations and parties who already know more than we do about what is going on.

I'm believing it will not be in their interests to come up with a complete whitewash. Many epithets may be thrown around such as bumbling, inept, slow-on-the-uptake etc.

But if I'm wrong, I'll be happy to come back here and apologise, and will throw my hat into the cynics ring of all things Asian.

toaddy

12th Apr 2014, 05:24

It seems the marinetraffic web site has removed the Ocean Shield and Echo track and position histories. The "current" position and speed is still there but I can't get the tracks or histories to show up for the last 3 or 4 hours. I'd been saving them for the last several days.

Hopefully it's some kind of weekend maintenance and not a move to keep the public from seeing the action.

thommo101

12th Apr 2014, 05:25

@VinRogue

It's a shame the pinger does not work for say 10 days, then switch off until it receives an activation ping from a search asset, say submersible. The activation ping could be coded and limited to a set frequency range.
Increased complexity, yes, but problems with pinger battery life would be resolved.

Unfortunately this won't help a whole lot. The ULB is a very simple, low power piece of equipment. The key to the low power consumption is due to its simplicity. To incorporate a transpond functionality requires a detector to run on the ULB. So lets crunch some theoretical numbers.

The ULB pingers output at a level of 160 dB re 1uPa. That is equivalent acoustic energy of 0.075W, or 75mW. Assuming inefficiencies in amplification require a 10x amount of electrical power to produce that amount of acoustic power that gives us 0.75W.

The ping is 10ms long, thus the ENERGY per ping is 0.75*0.01 = 0.0075joules or 7.5mJ.

At a rate of 1 per second, gives an effective average power requirement (ignoring circuitry – which should be pretty simple for a dumb pinger) of 7.5mW.

Now, the company I work for makes underwater acoustic communications equipment. An example of a simple, high efficiency FSK detector uses approximately 77 milliwatts when running in continuous detect mode. That is 10x my estimated consumption for the simple pinger. An that is without the power requirement to generate an acoustic signal in response.

So not a practical option with the current ULB form factor.

sSquares

12th Apr 2014, 08:56

Maybe someone can post the tracks but it looks if HMS Echo is doing a side-scan sonar run each time ADV Ocean Shield does a slow turn.

Northern Hawk

12th Apr 2014, 09:41

I wonder if it really makes sense to continue committing so much manpower, and materiel, to the visual search that's taking place >500 km to the West of the underwater search area. The chances of finding debris on the open ocean after almost 40 days must be tiny. Moreover, even on the off-chance that some debris is found, it would now be much too far from its point of origin to help narrow the underwater search area any further.

Joles

12th Apr 2014, 09:48

their summary of the search in a slide show

Flight MH370: Search teams receive signals again - Flight MH370: Search teams receive signals again | The Economic Times (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/slideshows/nation-world/flight-mh370-search-teams-receive-signals-again/slideshow/33488345.cms)

DX Wombat

12th Apr 2014, 09:50

Finding some debris may help those still clinging to a desperate hope that their loved ones are still alive, to come to accept that this is not the case.

BritPax

12th Apr 2014, 09:54

Airline Safety Solutions from PPRUNE

ve7pnl's list of recommendations (11 April 21:27) gave me absolutely the biggest laugh I've had for months. :ok:

Through the streaming tears of laughter I'm sure many of us would see the truth of his serious underlying point.

BillS

12th Apr 2014, 10:16

Maybe someone can post the tracks but it looks if HMS Echo is doing a side-scan sonar run each time ADV Ocean Shield does a slow turn.
The AIS data is quite sparse - sometimes 7 hours between individual tracking points:
Ocean Shield (http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/index/positions/all/mmsi:503728000/shipname:OCEAN%20SHIELD)
Echo (http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/index/positions/all/mmsi:232002894/shipname:HMS%20ECHO)
Even the highest cost AIS membership only gives 12 hour tracking interval.
You can click on the vessel icon (http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/) then "Show vessel track" to see last 9 locations mapped.

So a lot of the true track is hidden - one has to infer from speed & course.
Also the TPL is well separated from Ocean Shield. Echo is staying well back from the TPL when it is running.

The current interest seems to be near depths of 5,000m - 5,500m between -20.95 to -20.85 lat. and 103.9 to 104 lon.. That may account for suggestions this may be a very long process - it could be out of range of the Bluefin.

The seabed is sloping in that area so loss of reception may be due to that slope as well as battery levels decreasing.

Wader2

12th Apr 2014, 10:28

More likely standing off while they dropped the modified sonobuoys. Wouldn't want to get tangled up in the 1000 foot cables suspending the hydrophones.

Standard sonobuoys, modified processors in the aircraft.

mm43

12th Apr 2014, 10:42

The graphic below shows the most current tracks for Ocean Shield in Yellow, while those of HMS Echo are in White. The earliest TPL towing tracks for Ocean Shield are Red. The stars shown represent the approximate positions of received pings, as the data provided by AMSA wasn't specific.

http://oi60.tinypic.com/23mi5j.jpg

NOTE: The positions are obtained via a sun synchronous satellite which is in sight of the vessels for 3 or 4 south going passes and the same for north going passes each day.

VinRouge

12th Apr 2014, 10:53

Unfortunately this won't help a whole lot. The ULB is a very simple, low power piece of equipment. The key to the low power consumption is due to its simplicity. To incorporate a transpond functionality requires a detector to run on the ULB. So lets crunch some theoretical numbers.

Utter blonde moment on my part! good point, forgot any receiver would require a power source too and probably in excess of that used up by the ULB.

Mascot PPL

12th Apr 2014, 11:02

Been purposefully not posting on this thread given the volumes etc but had an "interesting thought" last night.

Question: Is it possible to go back in time on AIS and look at what ships (if any) were in the current search area at the "best guess" time MH370 would have run out of fuel on that track?

Same would apply for early AIS paths crossing the track MH370 is suspected of taking.

Ian W

12th Apr 2014, 11:04

Would a satcom person please step in? The raw bandwidth of a sat link is misleading. Individual A/C must either be polled (asked to transmit) or must speak up in the hope that data can be communicated. Simultaneous asychronous speakups - "collisions" - jam things up and the various originators must be separated in time, so they all get their data packets through. Because of transit time to/from the satellite(s), there is considerable latency involved, and at peak traffic times, actual throughput can be reduced to a fraction of the raw capacity of the sat channel. A small fraction.

This was covered extensively in the AF447 saga, and should be summarized here and "stickified" to reduce misconceptions. At least for the few that will read it before posing novice questions or "solutions".

Since the AF447 incident SATCOM capabilities have hugely improved. INMARSAT is providing far higher bandwidths from its new geostationary satellites as they have different antennas with smaller footprints within the overall geostationary footprint some of then steerable. INMARSAT is now offering 'mobile ISDN' at speeds from 64 to 128Kbit

Iridium is launching a new series of low earth orbit satellites (Iridium Next). Iridium satellites are rather like orbiting cell phone base stations and users have a 'connection oriented' datalink to the satellites. Again the data rates have been increased by orders of magnitude. Iridium already sells a system called SkyTrac that does much of the flight following task being discussed here.

With communications things are changing extremely fast.

syseng68k

12th Apr 2014, 11:10

thommo101, #9906:

There various schemes that could be used to mitigate that. For example, the beacon receiver could be switched on for just a short period, much as the transmitter is, to minimise the duty cycle. If the surface ship sends continuous pings at a sufficiently high rate, the receiver only has to catch one of those during it’s short on period. That then wakes up a microprocessor, enabling power to the transmitter, which starts sending back replies.

Also, 77mW sounds a bit high to me. A simple listening receiver should be doable for much less than that if low power operation is a design requirement…

BillS

12th Apr 2014, 11:34

We are still being subjected to posts about cell phones from MH370
The mods have done a great job removing most but there are still over 180 posts remaining on this thread.

Please, is it too much to ask that you read them (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=phone+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Frumours-news%2F535538) - and also the many replies to them - before posting more?

JohnH23

12th Apr 2014, 11:47

The ping is 10ms long, thus the ENERGY per ping is 0.75*0.01 = 0.0075joules or 7.5mJ. ... At a rate of 1 per second, gives an effective average power requirement (ignoring circuitry – which should be pretty simple for a dumb pinger) of 7.5mW.

So, why not maybe change the ULB specs to slow the pinging down after the first week by halving the rate for each succeeding week.

Wader2

12th Apr 2014, 12:11

So, why not maybe change the ULB specs to slow the pinging down after the first week by halving the rate for each succeeding week.
Or conversely have the longer silent for at least 48hrs, maybe even a week or more.

In the first 48 hours we have the ELB, then there is the inevitable transit time for suitably equipped surface vessels to arrive on the scene. Had it been the South China Sea 48 hours would have been fine.

skadi

12th Apr 2014, 12:45

Alloyboobtube

12th Apr 2014, 13:34

There is no added safety with new recorders or continuous transmission , the only difference being that it may be found by now and a story about what happened, although nice to know still resulted in the deaths of 239 people.
If you picked up a live hijacking and shot down the aircraft then the result is the same as the ocean crash.
All aircraft boxes need CIrcuit breakers to protect wiring and prevent fires , they can all be turned off and that cannot change.

snowfalcon2

12th Apr 2014, 14:06

There is no added safety with new recorders or continuous transmission , the only difference being that it may be found by now and a story about what happened, although nice to know still resulted in the deaths of 239 people.

Disagree. With new tech we can help prevent the next airplane go missing and save its occupants. If we just shrug, we'll eventually get more of the same type of accident as this.

All aircraft boxes need CIrcuit breakers to protect wiring and prevent fires , they can all be turned off and that cannot change.

However, by making a circuit breaker smart it can report if it was manually tripped ( = tampered with, unless there was a good reason) or by overcurrent.

Blake777

12th Apr 2014, 16:08

As a matter of interest, Hishamuddin has tonight denied the FO phone call story.

MH370 Tragedy: Hishammuddin refutes newspaper report co-pilot made phone call - Latest - New Straits Times (http://www.nst.com.my/latest/font-color-red-mh370-tragedy-font-hishammuddin-refutes-newspaper-report-co-pilot-made-phone-call-1.563728)

Ian W

12th Apr 2014, 16:19

I dont think that just position reports via satellite should be a problem. For example, in Germany all EMS-helicopters are fitted with a sat-datalink via Iridium and position/status reports ( incl. speed, course and height ) are transmitted every 2 minutes. And you dont need big antennas too, they are as small as GPS antennas. AFAIK Iridium covers almost the whole earth?

skadi

Yes, Iridium low earth orbit satellites have global coverage including the poles.

Helicopters in the Gulf of Mexico have been using a similar SATCOM service from Outerlink ( www.outerlink.com (http://www.outerlink.com) ) for flight following for some years.

susier

12th Apr 2014, 16:51

'Zenith Plateau as the final resting place for MH370 Wednesday, 09 April 2014 22:14

The underwater search for the missing Malaysia Airlines MH370 has become focused on the Zenith Plateau in the eastern Indian Ocean, lying about 1000 km to its nearest point on the Western Australia coast, or 1680 km north-west of Perth. The plateau is surrounded by the extensive Wharton Basin to the west and north, joins to the Quokka Rise and Wallaby (or Cuvier) Plateau in the east, and to the south by the Perth Abyssal Plain. The origin of this plateau is proposed to be a fragment of continental crust that started rifting from the north-west Australian margin during the break-up of Gondwana in the Late Jurassic. The continued north-westerly migration of the India plate away from Australia resulted in extinct spreading ridges and volcanoes that blanketed the region in basaltic rocks during the Cretaceous. Subsequent drowning of the plateau in the Eocene has resulted in a thick build-up of calcareous ooze that now forms the present day seafloor.

The Zenith Plateau has a dimension of about 300 km wide in the east-west direction and about 220 km in the north-south direction. The plateau is relatively deep with its shallowest point at 1671 m and gently deepening towards the Wharton Basin in north at around 5000 m. The Wallaby-Zenith Fracture Zone forms an escarpment along the southern margin with a steep drop of between 2000 to 3000 m into a narrow trough with depths close to 6000 m. This narrow trough separates the Zenith Plateau from the adjacent Perth Abyssal Plain to the south.

The plateau is very poorly mapped with no modern multibeam surveys anywhere over this feature. Our current understanding of the bathymetry (depth) of the plateau are therefore based on older singlebeam echosounder data and coarse satellite gravity data. Within the present MH370 search zone on the northern flank of the plateau, seafloor depths range from about 3500 to 4500 m. The finer-scale seafloor topography in the search zone appears to vary by up to 300 m in height over distances of approximately15 km, but cannot be confirmed with the coarse data available.

Despite the deep depths on the plateau, the gentle sloping seafloor, (apparently) limited finer-scale topographic relief and the soft sediment nature of the seafloor, could provide a helpful background environment during the seabed search for the MH370 using the Bluefin-21 (http://www.bluefinrobotics.com/products/bluefin-21/) AUV's sidescan sonar and optical imagery.'

From Deepreef Explorer - Zenith Plateau as the final resting place for MH370 (http://www.deepreef.org/biography/robs-blog/155-zenith.html)

Passenger 389

12th Apr 2014, 18:57

On 5th Apr 2014, 14:49, Green-Dot posted:

Just on CNN:

The MAS CEO declared during a press conference that the FDR / CVR - ULB maintenance records indicate that the ULB battery due date is June 2014.

At what intervals are the batteries usually changed? In general, how substantial (or how minimal) is the likely dropoff between the projected pinging duration (beyond 30 days) of a newly installed battery versus one due to be replaced soon? (I realize 30 days is the minimum requirement and that individual batteries may differ).

robdean

12th Apr 2014, 19:46

Deep-water Black Box Retrieval - November 2009, Volume 13, Number 09 - Archive - Hydro International (http://www.hydro-international.com/issues/articles/id1130-Deepwater_Black_Box_Retrieval.html)

lomapaseo

12th Apr 2014, 20:49

Might as well prepare yourselves for the next 10,000 posts on this subject.

If they don't find any part of the airplane how many reasonable theories will be left ?

If they find only surface debris how many reasonable theories will be left?

If they do-not or can-not recover the black boxes but do find the aircraft on the bottom, how many reasonable theories will be left?

When considering what is a theory also give a thought to a possible viable corrective action, else the theory is worthless to even set forth inside our aviation community.

p.j.m

12th Apr 2014, 22:38

It might be possible, but I'd be surprised if anything was there - I've seen shipping lane data which shows that this part of the ocean stands out as being like the back of beyond when it comes to regular vessel traffic.

I'd be interested to know where the current AIS information is coming from. Prior to the SAR operation, there was never any details of shipping in that region, the best range you got was a few kilometres off the WA coastline.

Two to Tango

13th Apr 2014, 00:36

Is a 30-day interim report expected from Malaysian air safety authorities?

paulmoscow

13th Apr 2014, 07:31

In general, how substantial (or how minimal) is the likely dropoff between the projected pinging duration (beyond 30 days) of a newly installed battery versus one due to be replaced soon?
ULB batteries are lithium (don't confuse them with rechargeable Li-ions.) They have a shelf life measured in years with very low self-discharge.

glenbrook

13th Apr 2014, 07:51

I expect that, for aviation related transmission, despite all the arguments about satellite bandwidth and the cost of transmitting continuous data from hundreds of thousands of flights every day, we will see affordable cost levels very soon.

Yes, there is a general trend towards continual data monitoring. We are increasingly being monitored everywhere now and there is no reason to suppose aviation to be any different. This is not driven for safety reasons but for cost and maintenance and revenue from data mining. General Electric, for instance is exploring a new revenue model for its engines. The falling cost of sensors, storage and bandwidth will allow them to charge airlines for thrust instead of selling engines. To do this will require precise and continuous monitoring of the engines with much greater detail than is currently done. In this case it does not have to be entirely real-time, of course, but there are other examples. The data from flights is rising quickly with the demand for on board wifi etc.

People will of course be demanding extra checks after the dust has settled on this tragedy, but that's because they forget just how strange this incident is. Aircraft failures in cruise are so rare that they hardly warrant a particular (probably expensive) fix, just because of a bizarre incident, which may be unique in the history of aviation.

The only thing I would like to see is some alarm to go off when a transponder is switched off. This should not be possible without alerting ATC or satellite message. I am very surprised something was not done about this after 9/11/01.

deptrai

13th Apr 2014, 08:08

edit: aireps you beat me there, re satellite ads-b ( like http://www.aireon.com/Home )

the main driver probably isn't safety (rather reduced separation minima, fuel savings, and eg weather avoidance on North Atlantic tracks), but it can help improve safety as well.

VinRouge

13th Apr 2014, 09:39

In the highly unlikely event of of this ever happening again what's to stop someone simply powering down the satcom unit? I suggest regulatory work will be focused on the root cause rather than the disease... no point knowing that a crew member has gone UDI after the event. Regulatory barriers need to be placed pre-event, not after the fact.

Does the civilian world utilize a pre brief risk matrix including health and personal stress factors? I know it sounds silly, but the guys we have picked up at work (Mil) with ilness type issues only emerged when prompted at the risk matrix assessment stage done during crew in. They wouldn't have raised the issue unless prompted.

I have seen risk matricies for things like CFIT Risk for Ops assessment
here (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CGUQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nat.tur.br%2Fdocs%2FFSF%2520CFIT%2520Ch ecklist%2520Worksheet.xlt&ei=4VpKU4KzG-3b7AaGloDICg&usg=AFQjCNEuHHMYlQNxVfUviAki6lCyII9jTg&sig2=uT6nYVB3qRRMOUS-uSMt4A&bvm=bv.64542518,d.bGQ)

but am not aware if the civilian world has equivalents for fatigue and mental/physical health factors.

VinRouge

13th Apr 2014, 11:07

Its one of the benefits of working for a smaller outfit and regularly flying with the same characters, you can spot if someone has a shift in personality, its usually either work stress, family or relationship based.

The military for obvious reasons, have trauma risk management trained individuals embedded in our staff as a secondary role. Interesting that most individuals taking absence do so as a result of family issues or other home life issues other than exposure to the stuff that goes with the military. They are not trained healthcare professionals but line pilots , copilots and crew who have been given training to identify subtle changes in individual.

Two things need to change:

The attitude of aircrew to aviation medics and in particular reticence to admit mental health issues needs to change.

There also needs to be regulatory protection to allow individuals time off if they need it. Harsh rosters believe are a key cause of mental health issues due to numerous circadian rhythm changes and day/night shift, particularly on long night sectors without augment.

All said from outside the civilian sphere granted. How you manage this in the civilian market will be much more difficult due to the size of organizations. Being taken off the line for mental health should be viewed no differently to blocked ears; very often the time off required is comparable. Until a change in culture and attitude occurs, we will be carrying the same risk with no effective barriers in place.

Good luck explaining that to the Daily Mail/Express and other hack toilet paper rags.

HotDog

13th Apr 2014, 12:12

During my 40 years of aviation career, I had contact with a number of individuals suffering from different degrees of mental behavior problems that the six monthly mandatory medicals could not detect.

Alloyboobtube

13th Apr 2014, 14:22

The pings heard last week , could they have come from anything else ? by going quiet it equates to the useful battery life of mh370 or is this just a coincidence.
Without the recorder pings now is it still worth looking?

GroundedSpanner

13th Apr 2014, 17:15

Just on CNN:

The MAS CEO declared during a press conference that the FDR / CVR - ULB maintenance records indicate that the ULB battery due date is June 2014.

At what intervals are the batteries usually changed? In general, how substantial (or how minimal) is the likely dropoff between the projected pinging duration (beyond 30 days) of a newly installed battery versus one due to be replaced soon? (I realize 30 days is the minimum requirement and that individual batteries may differ).

The Batteries have up to 8 years from new until replacement. Dukane allow for some storage though, and so the minimum you will get at point-of-sale is 6 years.
Unfortunaltely for the SAR effort for MAS370, it looks like these batteries (if the June 2014 expiry is correct) are end of life units, meaning that they will not last long beyond their certified 30 Day life.

Finn47

13th Apr 2014, 19:14

I think claiming that an ULB with a standard 30-day battery would still send out signals after 90 days is a mistake. Sure, Teledyne Benthos has a 90-day ULB model ELP362D available, but it only works for 90 days if an optional lithium battery is used. Standard battery life is the same, 30 days only.

http://www.benthos.com/_doc/main/Brochures_Datasheets/elp362D__001815__rev_L.pdf (see page 8)

aerobat77

13th Apr 2014, 21:33

Unfortunaltely for the SAR effort for MAS370, it looks like these batteries (if the June 2014 expiry is correct) are end of life units, meaning that they will not last long beyond their certified 30 Day life.

but we have to read the good news out of it ! if they heard pings with the correct frequency in the current area which started to fade away just after the 30 days limit and are now silent it would be to´much concidence to be something else than really the mh370 blackbox. due to the very limited range of such pings they have now the correct search area to nail down where the wreckage is.

imagine the disaster when they would be some days late here and never hear a ping - they would not know if they are close now or if they are still searchin for the haystack in the whole indian ocean to finally find the needle in it.

auraflyer

13th Apr 2014, 22:23

mm43 - great work (as usual). Thanks for putting the time in to keep updating the plot.

Mesoman

13th Apr 2014, 22:41

I'd be interested to know where the current AIS information is coming from.

I have noticed that Echo and Ocean Shield report at the same time. This suggests that a proxy is providing the reports - perhaps AMSA.

InfrequentFlier511

13th Apr 2014, 22:50

I think we'er all frustrated by the lack of concrete evidence in this case. Obviously so are the journalists who keep coming up with sensational claims, unconfirmed rumours and technical impossibilities to keep their reports fresh. The FL450 story persists, even though it would appear to be outside the capabilities of a heavily loaded B777. (Was anything ever said about the climb rate or how long it spent up there?) A phone call made by the captain before take-off (already done to death) and now a phone call from the FO - or was it his girlfriend or a family member for whom he bought a phone? Passengers alive and well in Kandahar, or dead over the South China Sea? Claims that the aircraft was flown like a fighter - or was it a Cessna? The fact is, we don't know what the facts are, and journalists are still milking the story in the hope of getting a scoop - if somehow their stories can still fit the data when the wreckage is eventually found, then so much the better for them. As for Capt Zaharie: hero, villain or victim? All we can say for sure is that he was the ranking officer on the flight deck when the flight left KUL. The rest is just hypothesis based on the facts at hand and, increasingly, journalists are cherry-picking the facts at hand to spin a coulourful tale that brings sales, but gets us no closer to the truth. Even worse, they're reporting what other reporters wrote as if it absolves them of responsibility for verifying the source.

500N

13th Apr 2014, 22:56

As long as the media has fresh pretty pictures and video, fresh maps, some fact from JACC and a sensationalist slant they can run as a headline grabber that sells that day's newspapers, they are happy :O

Australia is providing plenty of fresh pretty pictures / video with plenty of aircraft, ships and people and fresh maps daily looking at what the media is running with.

PAXboy

13th Apr 2014, 22:56

VinRougeBeing taken off the line for mental health should be viewed no differently to blocked ears; very often the time off required is comparable. Until a change in culture and attitude occurs, we will be carrying the same risk with no effective barriers in place.
This is correct, reading Andrew Weir, The Tombstone Imperative - The Truth About Air Safety will tell you all you need to know about saving money in the airline biz.

Propduffer

13th Apr 2014, 23:11

The FL450 story persists, even though it would appear to be outside the capabilities of a heavily loaded B777Perhaps you are taking the 45k figure too literally. The slant range capabilities of radar, particulary at or close to max range aren't accurate to any great degree of precision. To be off a few thousand feet would not be unusual.

A 777 pilot posted in this thread that he had attempted the manovure in a simulator and had gotten to 43,000 and he may have still had some room to go. So the claim seems perfectly valid if you take the information to mean that MH370 soared to max altitude and apparently was at least above 40,000 feet at some time between IGARI and Koto Bharu.

Sheep Guts

14th Apr 2014, 00:49

Media Release
14 April 2014—am

Up to 11 military aircraft, one civil aircraft and 15 ships will assist in today's search for missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.

Today the Australian Maritime Safety Authority has planned a visual search area totalling approximately 47,644 square kilometres. The centre of the search areas lies approximately 2,200 kilometres north west of Perth.

Today, Australian Defence Vessel Ocean Shield continues more focused sweeps with the Towed Pinger Locator to try and locate further signals related to aircraft black boxes. The AP-3C Orions continue their acoustic search, working in conjunction with Ocean Shield. The oceanographic ship HMS Echo is also working in the area with Ocean Shield.

There have been no confirmed acoustic detections over the past 24 hours.

The weather forecast for today is south easterly winds with possible showers, sea swells up to 1.5 metres and visibility of three to five kilometres.

I Suppose there will be a news conference today or tomorrow. Is it worth mobilizing the people to start searching the WA coastline yet? Maybe Scout groups or Cadets or similar?

WillowRun 6-3

14th Apr 2014, 02:43

@ Two to Tango
In the April 5 and April 7 statements (press briefings) by the pertinent Malaysian authority - in which the organization and scope of the investigation were outlined, including the designations of three committees as well as other nations as Accredited Representatives - no reference was made to the requirement of an interim report at the 30-day mark, nor to any plans regarding such report. Link to press briefings:
MH370 Flight Incident | Malaysia Airlines (http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/my/en/site/dark-site.html)

Most likely, the ICAO authorities will have determined that, procedurally, the 30-day clock has been deferred or suspended, given the known facts of the incident - and given also the many unknowns. Moreover, the statements make reference, in a general way admittedly, to the one-month marker. A good and sensible ruling here would be that, by announcing the detailed structure of the investigation effort at the one-month juncture, Malaysia has substantially complied, on the facts (again, some known, many more unknown). E.g., both press briefings do make reference to ICAO standards relative to other aspects of the organization of the investigation, thus suggesting that ICAO tacitly endorses Malaysia's approach.

If anything official has been issued relative to the 30-day interim report, I plead missing it.

Vinnie Boombatz

14th Apr 2014, 02:49

The sonobuoy portion of today's search, roughly a square 25 km on a side, is centered at roughly 26 S, 101.5 E:

http://www.jacc.gov.au/media/releases/2014/april/mr_021-4.jpg

That appears to fall on the blue arc representing the 0011 UTC "last ping" in the first set of charts published by AAIB:

http://www.inmarsat.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/MH370-Southern-Tracks.jpg

But it's well to the East of the other two arcs representing the 400 and 450 kt loci on the AAIB chart.

So does that mean they're de-emphasizing the inferences from Doppler?

Pom Pax

14th Apr 2014, 02:50

Is it worth mobilizing the people to start searching the WA coastline yet? Maybe Scout groups or Cadets or similar?
The only way to search this coast is by choper. A foot search would be nice to clean up all the junk from the last 300 years of pollution.
North of Perth 1250km of coast line, no access, no people, no water.
A map will show 4 centres of habitation.
Geraldton pop. 35,500 because it is port but then
Kalbarri pop. 1,500 a holiday resort,
Carnarvon pop. 4,500 they grow bananas and tomatoes,
Exmouth pop 2,500 tourism.

Sheep Guts

14th Apr 2014, 03:45

This link is not geo blocked

Live TV | Astro Awani (http://www.astroawani.com/videos/live)

500N

14th Apr 2014, 04:09

Going to stop using pinger locator and start using Bluefin 21 AUV.

He certainly laid out the time frame it takes from surface to bottom to surface and the download of data (4 hours alone !).

Oil slick sounds promising in terms of where it is. Be interesting when the results come back.

WingNut60

14th Apr 2014, 04:11

Though mentioned several times, is it actually confirmed that the frequency will drift as the battery condition fades (voltage drop?)?

Or does the oscillator circuit simply stop working below a certain minimum voltage level?

sardak

14th Apr 2014, 04:17

Vinnie Boombatz
The sonobuoy portion of today's search, roughly a square 25 km on a side, is centered at roughly 26 S, 101.5 E:

http://www.jacc.gov.au/media/release...l/mr_021-4.jpg (http://apicdn.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Frumours-news%2F535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost.html&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jacc.gov.au%2Fmedia%2Freleases%2F2014%2 Fapril%2Fmr_021-4.jpg&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Frumours-news%2F535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-499.html)

That appears to fall on the blue arc representing the 0011 UTC "last ping" in the first set of charts published by AAIB:

http://www.inmarsat.com/wp-content/u...ern-Tracks.jpg (http://apicdn.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Frumours-news%2F535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost.html&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.inmarsat.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F03%2FMH370-Southern-Tracks.jpg&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Frumours-news%2F535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-499.html)

But it's well to the East of the other two arcs representing the 400 and 450 kt loci on the AAIB chart. Today's sonobuoy search area is at/near where the Hai Xun 01 heard the pings on 05 April, and it's basically on the #7 arc.
The aerial search areas are on/near the Inmarsat 400 kt path (red) and one of the NTSB suggested paths. Overlay comparing the search areas: http://i.imgur.com/peWnXpJ.png

500N

14th Apr 2014, 04:23

Interesting comment re the bottom of the sea where they are.

They have obviously looked at previous data collected years ago
and his comment about a lot of silt on the bottom.

mm43

14th Apr 2014, 05:07

The TPL towing is complete and the Bluefin AUV is being prepared for launching.

An updated graphic is at Post #9950 (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-post8433240.html)

appster

14th Apr 2014, 05:13

Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston says it Day 38, 'we have not had a detection in six days. It is time to go underwater.' This is 40 m old @ 1:10 am US EST from Breaking news, latest news, and current events - breakingnews.com (http://www.breakingnews.com).

The Old Fat One

14th Apr 2014, 05:15

IF the plane was anywhere near the search area there would be FLOATING debris near the area
Not a sealed unit on the seabed emitting nothing No flotsam has been spotted

Actually, you can confidently state that there will be no floating debris anywhere near the datum.

Anything that came of the wreck and floated will by now be hundreds of miles away due to ocean drift.

mm43

14th Apr 2014, 05:21

Anything that came of the wreck and floated will by now be hundreds of miles away due to ocean drift.Any engine Lube Oil slowly leaking could well be still appearing on the surface relatively close to the aircraft's position.

500N

14th Apr 2014, 05:24

How far did Angus Houston say the oil slick was found from the Ping location ?

Was it 5 1/2 kms ?'

rh200

14th Apr 2014, 05:46

Pretty sure he said the oil slick was 5500 metres away.

That would be extremely close if coming up from around the 4000 meter mark at a slow but steady rate I would think!

500N

14th Apr 2014, 05:47

Thanks for confirming.

Pity it will take 3 or so days to get it (the 2 litres of oil) back to port.

It will be good if it is from MH370.

Pontius Navigator

14th Apr 2014, 09:05

While the plateau is up to 6000m deep, #9930 says it is more likely 3500-4500

Sheep Guts

14th Apr 2014, 10:06

I suppose we are looking at Engine oil or Hydraulic Fluid and or maybe fuel? Just looking at Marine Traffic, and HMAS Toowoomba is heading towards Ocean Shields position at 23knots 5 hours ago. She must be only 3 hours away by now and I am guessing off to Exmouth again maybe to drop the Oil sample and pick up supplies. Definitely a few days before analysis of the oil.

oldoberon

14th Apr 2014, 10:26

Bluefin will cover 40 sq km today and the total area size is 47000sq km, potential a very long search then, puts the 6 days ping searching with no result into context, a desperate atempt to reduce the search area size.

has to be hoped that the starting area of the few pings detected yields some clues

aerobat77

14th Apr 2014, 10:44

Not sure why that is as Angus Houston said in the press conference;

"Data from Chinese ship Haixum 01 has been analysed & discounted"

well, it sounded from first minute very odd and almost impossible that the chinese picked up a signal from +4000 meters depth with a simple cheap and small handheld locator . and its also very unprobable that the chinese patrol boat is equipped with a top secret state of the art underwater locator which outperforms the systems on hms echo or the towed locator on the ocean shield. no way.

i guess ocean shield and hms echo are the main force in underwater search, the other ships act as a support in visual search .

not sure ( because its classified ) what role the trafalgar class sub plays. little is known what real performance and what limitations its passive and active sonar has and if there is a theoretical chance it can pick up the wreck by active sonar now.

also not sure how much politics play a role. when the trafalgar class british sub searches in a known area i guess the chinese destroyer will make beyond the search also trials ans tests in locating and tracking the submarine for military reasons.

i guess the royal navy may not be amused to present the capability and limits of their nuclear powered subs.

paultr

14th Apr 2014, 12:30

Suggest that aerial reconnaissance will be of limited use for identifying debris on beaches unless the planes are equipped with very high resolution cameras and huge amounts of time are spent analysing the photos. Any coves and beaches which face the prevailing wind will be full of fishing debris and general rubbish - maybe a case for a crowd sourced effort.

Blake777

14th Apr 2014, 13:30

"Any coves and beaches which face the prevailing wind will be full of fishing debris and general rubbish..."

As this is my backyard, I have to comment here despite every other comment about WA coast being deleted.

Think extemely isolated, tiny population. There will be some rubbish, but this is not Asia or Europe. The biggest challenge is the isolation combined with the fact that the coast from Geraldton to Exmouth has many challenging areas of cliffs etc.

SAR operations need support services and there are some real practical obstacles to deal with in this region. That is why if someone who has SAR experience in this state has a professional viewpoint on this, I'd be interested to hear more.

It is obviously possible to conduct a search in littoral areas but as with every other aspect of the search for MH370 so far, it would be a tough assignment, depending on how narrowed down the focus area could be. Ideally if some debris were carried to a populated/serviced/accessible area, the job would be easier.

TOMNOD? If we are down to looking for seat coverings and life jackets, I'm not sure this would help from what I've seen of crowd-sourcing up till now. But why not if it gives people the chance to feel involved?

iamajoat

14th Apr 2014, 14:11

While that is proof the battery still is holding 3+ volts, once it is loaded there may be another story. I have tested many batteries over the years that tested good with a meter but were unable to function when placed into the circuit.

Downwind Lander

14th Apr 2014, 14:50

no-hoper says in #9998:

"Original 3V lithium battery from ULB.18 month overdue..."

lamajoat is right. My "O" level Physics tells me that just because the battery, on open circuit, shows a voltage, it does not mean that it will deliver a current when asked to do so.

It is a disgrace that CVR and FDRs are not equipped with batteries that will perform for a year. Designed for "transponder mode", even the existing battery would give a phenomenal life.

underfire

14th Apr 2014, 15:00

when blufin is deployed does ocean shield

a)remain stationary
b) sail along the intended bluefin course
c) sail to the expected surfacing posion

BF is autonoumous. You can input whatever programmed course you want, and let it go.
It has an IRU, and once underwater, GPS will not work. You may drop pingers bounding a larger area, this way, the fish will communicate and triangulate its exact position underwater.
You program it to surface at intervals, 1. to charge the batteries, and 2 to download information thru sat uplink, 3 to receive/change instructions.

You can also program it to surface if a pre-determined event happens, such as a significant anomoly on the mag.

There is a pre-programmed destination, so if all else fails, it will go there for pickup.
Typically, the batteries will last about 24 hours, depending on depth and currents.

I would try to have a mag, sidescan, and PL on the fish...

For the surface support vessel, it should just keep mowing the lawn. You would save time by meeting it at the surface location and swapping out batteries/data pack, rather than wait for the solar charge/uplink.

EDIT: Its only gonna go about 3-4kts, so you dont have to go too far in 12/24 hours

Nemrytter

14th Apr 2014, 15:30

So does that mean they're de-emphasizing the inferences from Doppler?These were not inferences from doppler - the tracks used estimated (read: guessed) speeds. The actual g.s could be quite different - particularly when winds etc are accounted for. Constant airspeed != constant groundspeed.

susier

14th Apr 2014, 15:34

'i guess the royal navy may not be amused to present the capability and limits of their nuclear powered subs.'

That's why they're sending that particular sub. It's not the top spec apparently.

mixture

14th Apr 2014, 15:37

maybe a case for a crowd sourced effort.

Please NO ! Not another nonsense PR marketing exercise trendy buzz-word crowd sourced effort.

Surely it couldn't have escaped your vision the sort of absolute codswallop that arose out of the crowed source effort looking at satellite images of an area that is not even being searched anymore ! People were convincing themselves they were seeing what they wanted to see etc. etc.

The only people who should be analysing aerial photographs are those who have been trained in the art and whose job it is to do so, or retired experts, or computer programs that have already been extensively field-tested on other live projects.

Asking Joe Bloggs the armchair investigator to look at satellite imagery is about as useful as asking your pet dog to go shopping for you. Tomnod and other crowd sourcing MH370 endeavours have proven this beyond doubt with their 100% false positive ratio.

jugofpropwash

14th Apr 2014, 16:51

Asking Joe Bloggs the armchair investigator to look at satellite imagery is about as useful as asking your pet dog to go shopping for you. Tomnod and other crowd sourcing MH370 endeavours have proven this beyond doubt with their 100% false positive ratio.

In other words, the "crowd" has done just as well as the "experts" with their fancy government satellites and the SAR guys doing visual searches via planes. Everybody has come up with false positives - at least partly because they were searching in the wrong areas to begin with.

susier

14th Apr 2014, 17:13

I agree with Alchad there, that's correct. Multiple hits on 'items' would indicate it was worth taking a closer look at them.

However I believe in order to make best use of crowdsourcing it has to be pretty transparent (as in Oldoberon's example) and this Tomnod effort felt anything but.

People were increasingly frustrated with the fact that apart from there being really minimal feedback on the efforts of those trying to help, there were significant delays in providing relevant data to be searched, and a lot of folk considered that the images being released did not tell the whole story - in other words, there was a feeling that they were being used in a social experiment for some purpose rather than actually providing a helpful service to the rescue endeavour.

I suspect that there is far greater intelligence available to those searching IRL and that Tomnod's images - though fascinating - did not really scratch the surface of that.

It was interesting to look at some of the images though and probably fairly educational in a broader, kind of lowbrow way.

PersonFromPorlock

14th Apr 2014, 18:35

GroundedSpanner

14th Apr 2014, 18:43

About a week ago Australian TV News Channel 24 had an interview with the Black box CEO. In that interview the CEO stated that the Black box in MH370 was a 2006 model which had a 6 year replacement cycle. He stated to his records they had not replaced the batteries or serviced that equipment. Maybe the battery life as stated by Malaysia was the absolute last usable date not the manufacture's recommended maintenance schedule.

Just because the manufacturer has not seen the ULB, does not mean the battery has not been changed. Dukane will change batteries, but the also sell spares kits, and a suitably qualified component workshop (which most global airlines will have at their disposal) is more than capable of replacing the battery using those spares kits.
The MAS CEO stated that according to the maintenance records, the battery was due for replacement in June 2014. That record will have been closely scrutinised already by the Malaysian CAA. At this time I have no reason to doubt it.

rampstriker

14th Apr 2014, 19:06

In the April 14 PC Angus Houston kept referring to the "shelf life" of the ULB batteries as 30 days. The shelf life is 6 years. The nominal operating life is 30 days. Just a nitpick. He's clearly doing a very good job.

GroundedSpanner

14th Apr 2014, 19:07

Do airlines change out the ELB batteries before the recommended date?
Yes. If the CVR / FDR goes to the workshop with the ULB still attached, the workshop is unlikely (depending on the financial situation of the airline)to release the unit with less than half life remaining.

e.g. the unit goes to W/Shop at 4 years, battery has 2 yrs remaining, battery replaced.
Replacement battery has been on the shelf for a while, only has 4 yrs remaining, more than half-life, within the w/shop release requirements. That gives 8 Yrs.

Perfectly reasonable situation.

GroundedSpanner

14th Apr 2014, 19:11

Also to add, that the above is for a situation where the ULB "ends up" in the workshop.
On the aircraft, things will be different. There the ULB will only be pulled just before the expiry date

underfire

14th Apr 2014, 20:31

As far as finding MH370 debris cast ashore, how about publicizing what likely (best guesses) debris would look like and offering a cash reward for the first confirmed find? Offering to pay for things often works a treat.

International "Law of Finds" covers this very well.
Looking at the taphonomy, the Ocean surface currents will keep any debris very near to the source, small movements towards the East, but wind driven lighter material is a different matter.

500N

14th Apr 2014, 20:34

"International "Law of Finds" covers this very well."

Might do, but out in the back blocks of Aus as a fair bit of this coast is,
rule of "if it's interesting and useful" tends to apply to those who don't
have much contact with civilization ;)

That is of course if they actually realize what it is from !

Pontius Navigator

14th Apr 2014, 20:52

On the aircraft, things will be different. There the ULB will only be pulled just before the expiry date

I would expect it to be part of a scheduled maintenance period, ie picked up at the last maintenance period before the component expiry date.

GroundedSpanner

14th Apr 2014, 21:10

Pontius, that's how it is at an airline I am familiar with, the ULB's are physically checked at the smallest routine hangar visit, and replaced if they will not make to the next check. Other airlines may track each one in their computer system and could in theory replace it on the last overnight stop prior to expiry.

iamajoat

14th Apr 2014, 22:55

Here's a good link to the technical capabilities of the Bluefin 21.
Technology » Bluefin Robotics (http://www.bluefinrobotics.com/technology/)

JohnPerth

14th Apr 2014, 23:00

I've spent considerable time on the beaches all the way to the far north, and they are pretty clean. Strikingly so by European standards. If something evidently from an aircraft washed up on a beach there'd be a good chance of spotting it from the air, I reckon. First BUT: from Kalbarri to Shark Bay is largely tall cliffs, not beach. Second BUT: the ocean currents don't appear generally to move stuff to the WA coast from out there, so the whole question is probably moot.

There is a lot of holidaying that happens along the coast, people 4wding up the beaches, camping there for weeks at a time, etc. It would be worthwhile, I suggest, releasing official images of the most likely buoyant items that might wash up somewhere, whether that's Christmas Island or Madagascar – e.g. seat cushions, life jackets, escape slides, whatever. How many members of the public would even know what colour these items would be on an MAS 777?

mmurray

14th Apr 2014, 23:52

Media Release
15 April 2014—am

Up to nine military aircraft, two civil aircraft and 11 ships will assist in today's search for missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.

Today the Australian Maritime Safety Authority has planned a visual search area totalling approximately 62,063 square kilometres. The centre of the search areas lies approximately 2,170 kilometres north west of Perth.

The Autonomous Underwater Vehicle deployed last night from ADV Ocean Shield.

After completing around six hours of its mission, Bluefin-21 exceeded its operating depth limit of 4,500 metres and its built in safety feature returned it to the surface.

The six hours of data gathered by the Autonomous Underwater Vehicle is currently being extracted and analysed.

Bluefin-21 is planned to redeploy later today when weather conditions permit.

The weather forecast for today is south easterly winds with scattered showers and isolated thunderstorms, sea swells up to two metres and visibility of five kilometres.

The Chief Coordinator of the Joint Agency Coordination Centre, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston (Ret'd), will provide further updates if, and when, more information becomes available.

Media (http://www.jacc.gov.au/media/)

Toruk Macto

14th Apr 2014, 23:58

Any idea if a new AUVD that can go deeper is on its way ?

oldoberon

15th Apr 2014, 00:08

Any idea if a new AUVD that can go deeper is on its way ?

I think they have contracted a USA or identical german one that has a limit of 6000mtrs. Apparently there are three in the world 2 usa and one bought by German oceanographic body.

rh200

15th Apr 2014, 00:15

How does it exceed its maximum operating depth, its automonous?

Is it in some bottom following mode for mapping purposes? Another words keep a constant height off the bottom? I would have thought if thats the case it would flag those areas and continue its mission at a constant height until it gets rising ground then go back to the original mode?

Undertow

15th Apr 2014, 00:21

rh200, yes it was in bottom following mode according to CNN.

underfire

15th Apr 2014, 00:50

okay, the fish has a max depth, but the array onboard has a different depth for the scanforom the sidescan, as well as the mag or sub-bottom profiler.

the fish can auto fly above the bottom surface to maintain the proper overlap of the sidescan..

to be clear, the ss sensors are on either side of the fish and radiate downward.

the fish is programmed to be at the optimum depth above floor to cover th floor.

if the fish gets above the optimum depth, the area covered below the fish gets overlap and redundant, conversely, below, there will be gaps.

500N

15th Apr 2014, 01:14

Angus Houston said in the press conf yesterday that plans were a foot in regards to other options / vehicles. That was in response to a journos question.

He - and others - have been in the game long enough that they would have been looking at these types of things way out ahead as part of contingency planning, which isn't surprising considering his and others military backgrounds.

They won't we resting and waiting until they need it.

Propduffer

15th Apr 2014, 01:31

China’s Efforts in Hunt for Plane Are Seen as Hurting More Than Helping

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/15/world/asia/chinas-efforts-in-hunt-for-plane-are-seen-as-hurting-more-than-helping.html?_r=0

Sheep Guts

15th Apr 2014, 02:07

Redlands
Echo

Why was 'She' not deployed in the area of ping's detected by Ocean, until after the CVR/FDR batteries presumably expired?

Apparently to search the now discounted Hua Xian 01 audio contacts over a week ago. Which in hindsight is now unfortunate. But it had to be investigated! SAR is not a precise Science.

500N

15th Apr 2014, 02:28

That is a big swipe from the NY Times, a big swipe.

Even if it is true, sometimes you wonder whether things are better left unsaid, at least until it is all over.

Putting egg all over the Chinese faces is not going to help, just like the
Chinese might have not helped.

Angus is much more diplomatic in his press conferences, even if behind the scenes he has had a few words.

Just my HO.

WillowRun 6-3

15th Apr 2014, 02:53

Thought the NYT piece was fairly well-tempered. And the fact is that the PRC cannot have it both ways - that is, the country cannot launch a significant effort within the overall SAR activity, but then claim immunity from being held accountable for its efforts. Or to claim any impropriety in those accounts being taken by responsible members of the SAR activity (or of the larger world civil aeronautics establishment).

Notice the careful structure of the Annex 13 (ICAO) investigatory effort detailed by the Malaysians on April 5 and 7....with proper assignations of Accredited Representatives (among other things). One wonders to what extent China's efforts in the SAR activity were likewise aligned with ICAO terms and procedures? Were its satellite imagery releases more like free-lancing or were they consistent with its later-designated Accredited Representative role? Same question, relative to its acoustic searches (or the 'reasonable facsimile thereof' depicted photographically in the small boat).

The team effort of the SAR activity perhaps is a highly Westernized undertaking. Viewed from that perspective, the NYT article is mild stuff.

rh200

15th Apr 2014, 03:18

Diplomacy and the way the interact with various agency across multiple nationalities is a fact of life. The same with releasing various facts and not others, whilst there is investigations going on.

Regardless of what we like to think as individuals of what our rights actually are or morally should be, in the real world its usually far different.

At the end of the day the Authority's running the SAR will be doing the best that they can under what constraints they have.

500N

15th Apr 2014, 03:21

"Might be quite a show to see Angus Houston deliver crisp, and crisply appropriate, responses to the questions of Members of Congress, regarding the challenges of the SAR mission...."

Based on his previous testimony before committees, it would be very interesting :O

I doubt he would pull any punches.

Methersgate

15th Apr 2014, 03:36

FWIW, I am posting this from Shanghai. The NYT article is "not available" i.e. the Great Firewall of China is blocking it. The PLA Navy has acquired a good reputation for efficient co-operation with NATO Navies in anti-piracy operations.

Blake777

15th Apr 2014, 04:15

FWIW Hai Xun 01 has slipped around to Albany on South Coast - due in port later this afternoon.

spinex

15th Apr 2014, 07:23

The PLA Navy has acquired a good reputation for efficient co-operation with NATO Navies in anti-piracy operations.

The PLA Navy have acquired a reputation for decisive and effective action, unencumbered by the hand wringing, legalistic BS that has hamstrung Western responses to piracy. Co-operation however, remains an elusive concept and that is amply illustrated by their various gaffes in the current search.

Zorin_75

15th Apr 2014, 07:48

GEOMAR in Germany have been readying their Abyss AUV which is good for 6000m, but I haven't heard any report yet about them being requested...

Blake777

15th Apr 2014, 08:51

Data from first foray of Bluefin analysed but no objects of interest found.

Search for MH370: first Bluefin-21 underwater search finds nothing (http://www.theage.com.au/comment/search-for-mh370-first-bluefin21-underwater-search-finds-nothing-20140415-zqv3f.html)

jimster99

15th Apr 2014, 09:24

I am surprised the Australians are deploying only a single Bluefin21 submarine for the first part of the underwater search. Is it really too expensive or logistically difficult to have two running simultaneously for double the coverage?

mmurray

15th Apr 2014, 09:53

Australia doesn't own the Bluefin. Neither it seems does the US Navy. They lease it from these guys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_International_Holdings) according to this document (http://www.navsea.navy.mil/SitePages/TPL25_bluefin21_faq.aspx). Info from the Bluefin website here (http://www.bluefinrobotics.com/products/bluefin-21/).

Interesting how they do the navigation. GPS until they go under the water then an inertial navigation system. I was wondering how they would cope with no GPS underwater.

roninmission

15th Apr 2014, 10:47

I assume the sample has to be taken ashore to be analysed?

How will this be achieved? I don't think any vessel other than Exho has been close to OS, unless any other of the ships close enough has a helo aboard.

Saga Noren

15th Apr 2014, 11:09

>I assume the sample has to be taken ashore to be analysed?

How will this be achieved<

HMAS Toowoomba has been close to the search area and is now making 23 knots towards Perth. I imagine its change of course and hanging about the area was to await transfer of the oil sample by a tender from HMS Echo.

>23 knots towards Perth.<

Exmouth now, it seems. Has slowed down now. Is the weather cutting up rough?

Tfor2

15th Apr 2014, 12:11

Is it to find the wreck? No. It is to show the families of the victims, and the rest of the world, that they are trying. This will go on until the money runs out, or time fades the will. There's no real proof yet that the thing is even there. And walking speed is unlikely to complete the desired course.

joy ride

15th Apr 2014, 12:32

@ Tfor2 : Certainly the SAR is partly for the sake of the relatives, but the real importance of finding the wreck and/or bodies is to do a thorough investigation of anything and everything recovered and try to decide the most likely causes of this awful incident. If they do ever learn what happened and how they will be better able to prevent it from happening again, and that benefits everyone.

Shadoko

15th Apr 2014, 12:59

From Houston Press Conf with Chinese medias ( Transcript of Press Conference with Chinese Media, 14 April 2014 (http://www.jacc.gov.au/media/interviews/2014/april/tr010.aspx) ):
[If nothing is found in the area of detected pings] And that probably involves, if we take the Air France circumstances—that probably involves a very long, very painstaking sonar search of the floor of the ocean along the arc of the seventh ping. So that would take an extraordinary amount of time, would be very expensive but eventually, I would hope, it would yield information about what might have happened.Would it imply that the last (partial) handshake with Inmarsat is now considered as the "in water" point? Has something been published about that?

toaddy

15th Apr 2014, 13:12

Blake777

15th Apr 2014, 13:32

This is an interesting viewpoint from David Mearns, Bluewater Recoveries, finder of the the HMAS Sydney and adviser on recovery of Air France 447. Yes, it's an opinion but a lot of experience there, and reasonably upbeat.

Malaysia Airlines MH370: Wreck hunter confident plane will be found - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-15/mh370-wreckage-site-located-david-mearns/5392440)

Ian W

15th Apr 2014, 13:48

Did they establish just 'what' the partial ping consisted of ? I was under the impression that the 'normal' scheduled pings were the satellite sending out a query to the plane and measuring the time it took to get the response; that time corresponds to a distance (the circles). If the partial ping was initiated by the plane, did the satellite respond and get a further response from the plane? If it did that would seem to be MORE than a 'normal' ping (3 transmissions instead of 2); certainly not a 'partial' ping. What gives ?

From what has been said the last transmission from the aircraft SATCOM was not a standard hourly 'Are You Still Here' transmission but the initiation of a logon sequence. The 'partial' presumably means the full logon transaction was not completed - there may be more transmissions involved than just 3 and presumably this would need to include the hardware ID of the aircraft.

Innaflap

15th Apr 2014, 14:09

Just to emphasise a matter of physics with the flying fraternity, the restriction on the sub is one of pressure and not depth.

GlueBall

15th Apr 2014, 14:12

but the real importance of finding the wreck and/or bodies is to do a thorough investigation of anything and everything recovered and try to decide the most likely causes of this awful incident. If they do ever learn what happened and how they will be better able to prevent it from happening again, and that benefits everyone.

It would involve forensic psychology, the art of getting into people's minds, because no mechanical failures could produce such a bizarre flight profile.

olasek

15th Apr 2014, 21:34

how do we know that what they are saying about the radar track/waypoints/alt is true? No, we don't know 100% but for now it is considered a "fact", other agencies (NTSB, AAIB, etc) do not question this yet, Malaysian seem sure they got it right. So if you want to come up with a theory better use what today is considered a "fact" and do not bend facts to your theory... Malaysians did contradict themselves but in rather minor details.

Not one other govt (Thai, Vietnam, Indonesia, Singapore) have confirmed this radar info. it would rather be impossible for those other govt to confirm what Malaysian radar saw, not to mention their radars were probably much farther from the target. And who knows if Thai radar capabilities are even half as good as Malaysian radars.

porterhouse

15th Apr 2014, 21:55

a year or two to come up with all of the answers to an aircraft accident, , you guys = No one has any answers, at this point there are only questions, it seems to me your are supplying your own answers conveniently skipping all the hard questions.

WillowRun 6-3

16th Apr 2014, 02:41

Would it be an accurate statement to say that the forthcoming investigation will be the first in which ACARS datalink transmissions to and from satellites are used to determine (or, to provide major inputs for determining) an airliner's flight path and location? My understanding is that the BEA looked at ACARS indications of inconsistencies in airspeed in AF447 but not with respect to flight path or ultimate location.

ironbutt57

16th Apr 2014, 04:05

one atmosphere per 10 metres depth..

MrPeabody

16th Apr 2014, 04:32

There has been a lot of discussion around ACARS and SATCOM. Some info below on the Data Communications Module function.

"The DCMF supplies the airplane part of ACARS. The ACARS sub-function controls air/ground file transfers and onboard message routing. The message routing process supplies uplink message routing to onboard systems. It downlinks message routing to the ACARS ground service providers (GSP) through a VHF transceiver (Post SB) or through VHF or SATCOM (Pre SB). The ACARS datalink sub-function uses information within each uplink to send the message to the applicable system. The ACARS datalink sub-function also routes downlinks to the path set by the flight deck crew and airplane systems.
The flight crew sets the datalink path through the MANAGER menu of the AIMS flight deck communications function (FDCF). The path preferences are:
VHF
SATCOM (Pre SB)
Auto."

As you may not be aware a lot of operators do not have ACARS through SATCOM and have modified it out of this vintage of B777's; I believe MAS is one of them.

The satellite handshakes were produced through Classic Aero connections for voice communication and satellite telephone.

My guess is that every time there was a major course correction the beam steering unit in the SATCOM was trying to retune the RF signal to keep track with the satellite. This would explain all the pings under 1 hour; = change in course.

Tfor2

16th Apr 2014, 05:29

Certainly the SAR is partly for the sake of the relatives, but the real importance of finding the wreck and/or bodies is to do a thorough investigation of anything and everything recovered and try to decide the most likely causes of this awful incident. If they do ever learn what happened and how they will be better able to prevent it from happening again, and that benefits everyone.
The task will go on for ages. Wiser heads will want to give up, but they need to show that they are continuing, despite the futility. But we have learned lessons. This will never happen again. There will be new rules and regulations. That's the plus side to come out of it.

mmurray

16th Apr 2014, 06:53

Media Release
16 April 2014—pm

The Autonomous Underwater Vehicle, Bluefin-21, was forced to resurface this morning to rectify a technical issue. While on deck, its data was downloaded.

Bluefin-21 was then redeployed and it is currently continuing its underwater search.

Initial analysis of the data downloaded this morning indicates no significant detections.

oldoberon

16th Apr 2014, 07:13

Just a question of interest.

In order to scan equidistance each side of the fish it is obviously essential the vertical axis remains vertical. I haven't seen any stabilisers on the pictures of it , so how does it do that? Gyros and mini thrusters?

sunday driver

16th Apr 2014, 07:29

so how does it do that? Gyros and mini thrusters

For Heavens' sake!

Bluefin-21 » Bluefin Robotics (http://www.bluefinrobotics.com/products/bluefin-21/)

"Specs"

There, there. That wasn't difficult, now was it?

micis

16th Apr 2014, 07:37

It has a vertical stabilizer that can be seen on the photos
Search for MH370: Underwater vehicle Bluefin-21 deployed to find plane's wreckage (http://www.smh.com.au/national/search-for-mh370-underwater-vehicle-bluefin21-deployed-to-find-planes-wreckage-20140414-36n2k.html)
To me it looks like a swimmer on top of the "fin". Technically it make more sense to have a flat bottom an a swimmer on top than a keel.

Ornis

16th Apr 2014, 07:46

WillowRun the first in which ACARS datalink transmissions to and from satellites are used to determine ... an airliner's flight path and location? My understanding is that the BEA looked at ACARS indications of inconsistencies in airspeed in AF447 but not with respect to flight path or ultimate location.

AF447 transmitted Acars - including position - to the satellite, MH370 didn't, its Acars were VHF only and that function was disabled. It's probably the first time possible positions have been calculated using the timings of the handshake - which were for the satellite telephone only.

lakedude

16th Apr 2014, 07:55

The Autonomous Underwater Vehicle, Bluefin-21, was forced to resurface this morning to rectify a technical issue.I understand that the "technical issue" was an over depth or over pressure situation. Evidently the Bluefin follows the bottom at a specific height above the ocean floor and if in so doing it gets too deep it aborts the mission and returns to the surface.

Frankly I'm shocked at how limited the programming is on the Bluefin. Returning to the surface is a huge waste of time and near as I can tell the 2nd worst possible outcome. The worst would be self destruction from over pressure, at least that didn't happen.

I would think that just maintaining a safe depth and skipping over the sections that are too deep would be preferable. Turning around to avoid the deep sections would work as well. This silly thing is kinda like a Roomba that shuts off if it hits a wall...

Putting on my McKayla "not impressed" face...

Profit Max

16th Apr 2014, 08:51

I understand that the "technical issue" was an over depth or over pressure situation.Source?

The "overdepth" situation occurred when the vessel re-surfaced early during the first deployment. It was then re-programmed (presumably to avoid this situation from happening again) and re-deployed. It then re-surfaced early again during the second deployment due to a technical issue that was not specified in more detail.

underfire

16th Apr 2014, 15:10

Looks like the mission was aborted a 3rd time...

They should be simply flying the fish at its working depth, and forget skimming the bottom.

The sidescan can fly quite a bit higher and still have great res.

Leightman 957

16th Apr 2014, 15:45

>Looks like the mission was aborted a 3rd time...

I have found mention of two attempts but not three. This and many other posts include bits of information but no source. The slow pace of new information is resulting in a lot of invented stories prompted by reporters' deadlines, old news, patently false news, and theories disguised as news. Major news organizations are as apt to do this as sensationalist news organizations. Excepting press conferences from the search authority, claims of 'new' information do not mean that information is accurate. New 'news' must wait for corroboration to become accurate.

It would be very helpful to me and I imagine many thousands of others if posters here would include links to the stories they cite.

Even better would be for posters to report information sources they have found to be consistently accurate, timely, and resistant to inventive journalism.

Red Plum

16th Apr 2014, 15:58

underfire

They should be simply flying the fish at its working depth, and forget skimming the bottom.

The sidescan can fly quite a bit higher and still have great res.

Had you thought of giving AVM Houston a call and offering your nuggets of wisdom?
Those operating this sophisticated equipment obviously fall short of your level of expertise:ugh:

roninmission

16th Apr 2014, 16:05

The most obvious one is JACC

Media (http://www.jacc.gov.au/media/)

underfire

16th Apr 2014, 17:47

Had you thought of giving AVM Houston a call and offering your nuggets of wisdom?

I designed part of the Bluefin 21 guidance system.

I also designed one for telecommunication cable mapping with a sidescan, mag, and sub-bottom profiler.

We do this stuff everyday, not once a decade when they lose an aircraft.

Lonewolf_50

16th Apr 2014, 19:26

AF447 transmitted Acars - including position - to the satellite, MH370 didn't, its Acars were VHF only and that function was disabled.

It's probably the first time possible positions have been calculated using the timings of the handshake - which were for the satellite telephone only.
Concisely put. I hope your post survives.
This will never happen again.
Uh, right. :uhoh: "Never happen again" is nice bloviation, not so much on reality.
Granted, this is a novel occurrence, albeit tragic.

Considering the size of the search area, I think some folks are getting impatient, without good reason, over the search and its results.

Chronus

16th Apr 2014, 19:28

Here is the news extract from Bluefins operators.

"In Quincy, Mass., near the city's historic shipyard, one of the world's most innovative deep-sea explorers is being but to the test. Called the Bluefin-21, the submersible vehicle can descend two-and-a-half miles below the ocean's surface to some of the most inhospitable places on the planet.
David Kelly, chief executive officer of Bluefin Robotics - a company that specializes in deep sea exploration - said, "The temperature's about slightly above freezing; it's pitch black. The pressure there is the equivalent of having a Cadillac Escalade balanced on your thumbnail."
One of the Bluefin's submersibles, owned by a U.S. Navy defense contractor, is now aboard the Australian vessel Ocean Shield in the southern Indian Ocean.
Now that a signal has been received, the torpedo-like craft will be soon be put to work. It will scour an area the size of Texas at a rate of 40 square miles each day.
Kelly explained, "Down there, it'll run what's called a lawnmower pattern. It's just like mowing the lawn at your house."
On each "mission," the craft uses sonar technology to scan the ocean floor. Those sounds create images that researchers analyze when the craft resurfaces once every 24 hours."

And here is my simple arithmetic.

Texas has a surface area of 268,820 sq.m , divide this with 40 and the result is 6720 days, give or take a few, how many years is that? All assuming it is beavering away around the clock every day and no down time for maintenance, technical hitch or weather, of course. Now that to me sounds just a touch too much "lawnmowing".

rampstriker

16th Apr 2014, 19:34

We do this stuff everyday, not once a decade when they lose an aircraft.

Being in the business, you would certainly know of Phoenix International (http://www.phnx-international.com), the civilian contractor for the USN. Any comments on their capabilities?

YULRTR

16th Apr 2014, 20:04

The second Bluefin 21 snag was due to low oil in one of the batteries - I believe this is to prevent collapse under the extreme pressure b ut that's conjecture on my part.

underfire

16th Apr 2014, 20:19

The BF 21 is the civilian version, which is why PHI is involved.

The capabilites of PHI speak for themselves.

EDIT: Due to the depth, all of the systems on the fish are oil filled, replacing any air.

InfrequentFlier511

16th Apr 2014, 22:24

According to wreck hunter David Mearns, Searchers have pinpointed Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 crash site.
(http://www.smh.com.au/national/searchers-have-pinpointed-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-crash-site-wreck-hunter-20140416-36qnu.html#ixzz2z5fuDd4N)
Not official, of course, but at least a view from someone with some experience in the field. It is, perhaps, some cause for optimism - to the extent that you can be optimistic about finding 239 dead people and a wrecked aircraft.

olasek

16th Apr 2014, 22:30

According to wreck hunter David Mearns, Searchers have pinpointed Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 crash site.
(http://www.smh.com.au/national/searchers-have-pinpointed-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-crash-site-wreck-hunter-20140416-36qnu.html#ixzz2z5fuDd4N) I don't think there is anything new here except of the boastful title, the guy is making a fairly stretched claim that since they had 4 strong "transmissions" they "pinpointed" the crash site. Even if such claim is warranted, we knew this over a week ago. Frankly at this point - only a solid sonar (or other) picture would justify such loft claims.

500N

16th Apr 2014, 23:31

Not sure if this has been posted before.

"Authorities in Perth are testing an oil sample collected from the search zone of the missing Malaysia Airlines plane."

So we are likely to know by the end of Easter if it is from the aircraft.

nigf

16th Apr 2014, 23:42

Search and recovery continues for Malaysian flight MH370 (http://jacc.gov.au/media/releases/2014/april/mr025.aspx)

Media Release
17 April 2014—am
Up to ten military aircraft, two civil aircraft and 11 ships will assist in today's search for missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.
Today the Australian Maritime Safety Authority has planned a visual search area totalling approximately 40,349 square kilometres. The centre of the search areas lies approximately 2,170 kilometres north west of Perth.
Overnight Bluefin-21 AUV completed a full mission in the search area and is currently planning for its next mission. Bluefin-21 has searched approximately 90 square kilometres to date and the data from its latest mission is being analysed.
The oil sample collected by Ocean Shield has now arrived in Perth and will be subject to detailed testing and analysis. We will provide details of the results when they become available.
The weather forecast for today is isolated showers and south easterly winds.

mm43

17th Apr 2014, 01:17

As pointed out above, it is linear.The density of seawater is a nonlinear function of salinity, temperature, and pressure.

Mesoman

17th Apr 2014, 02:09

The density of seawater is a nonlinear function of salinity, temperature, and pressure.

For the purposes of estimating safe pressures, the density of sea water is virtually constant (variation ~1%), and thus the pressure is mostly linear with depth.

The small variations in density in the ocean are significant in ocean mass flows (such as thermo-haline circulations) and in sound propagation.

500N

17th Apr 2014, 02:58

Our PM says we have a week and then it will be pull back, re group
and have a think about what to do next.

Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 search rethink within a week, says Prime Minister Tony Abbott | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-search-rethink-within-a-week-says-prime-minister-tony-abbott/story-fnizu68q-1226887262467)

onetrack

17th Apr 2014, 05:31

According to the founder of IGHAR, the Bluefin-21 is an unreliable item of equipment and the Aussies are better advised to find something more reliable and more capable, to use in the search.
The simple fact that it's being used in waters that could be 6000M deep, when its effective safe operating depth is 4500M, seems to indicate to me that it's a no-brainer to go find some other ROV with much better depth capabilities.

Plane search rethink 'within a week' | Sky News Australia (http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=968416)

JamesGV

17th Apr 2014, 07:28

After the two previous failures, the third search mission by Bluefin 21 was successfully completed.

No results as yet.

Robot submarine makes first complete search for MH370 - The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/Robot-submarine-makes-first-complete-search-for-MH370/articleshow/33841130.cms)

imaynotbeperfect

17th Apr 2014, 09:00

Whether Bluefin-21 is reliable, unreliable or whether there are better assets out there ...

I'm sure JACC has been talking to anyone and everyone with an ROV capable of going south of 4500m but these things cost lots of money and have to earn their keep and aren't just sitting around waiting for an interesting looking task to get stuck into.

nigf

17th Apr 2014, 11:00

Update on search for flight MH370 (http://jacc.gov.au/media/releases/2014/april/mr026.aspx)

Media Release
17 April 2014—pm
At the recent media conference conducted by the Chief Coordinator of the Joint Agency Coordination Centre, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston (Ret'd), said that the Australian Defence Vessel Ocean Shield had detected an oil slick on Sunday evening in her current search area.
Preliminary analysis of the sample collected by ADV Ocean Shield has confirmed that it is not aircraft engine oil or hydraulic fluid.
Additionally, Phoenix International, with the assistance of Bluefin, have assessed that there is a small but acceptable level of risk in operating the vehicle in depths in excess of 4,500 metres. This expansion of the operating parameters allows the Bluefin-21 to search the sea floor within the predicted limits of the current search area.
Some media reports today state that it would take Bluefin-21 anywhere from six weeks to two months to scan the entire underwater search area. This is incorrect.
Since the US Navy provided comment some days ago, the underwater search has been significantly narrowed through detailed acoustic analysis conducted on the four signal detections made by the Towed Pinger Locator on ADV Ocean Shield.
This analysis has allowed the definition of a reduced and more focused underwater search area. This represents the best lead we have in relation to missing flight MH370 and where the current underwater search efforts are being pursued to their completion so we can either confirm or discount the area as the final resting place of MH370.

I spy

17th Apr 2014, 12:22

Sorry if this has been addressed before, but I have followed these pages hourly and I haven't been able to find more details regarding this recently made statement.

"Since the US Navy provided comment some days ago, the underwater search has been significantly narrowed through detailed acoustic analysis conducted on the four signal detections made by the Towed Pinger Locator on ADV Ocean Shield.
This analysis has allowed the definition of a reduced and more focused underwater search area. This represents the best lead we have in relation to missing flight MH370 and where the current underwater search efforts are being pursued to their completion so we can either confirm or discount the area as the final resting place of MH370."

I just want to understand what new analysis has led to the statement released and now why has the underwater search been "significantly narrowed" and has resulted in a "reduced and more focused underwater search area".

Is this confirmation that "this detailed acoustic analysis" indicates a more sophisticated method has managed to triangulate to a more accurate position to be searched?

I certainly hope so....

No doubt this post will be deleted, judging by history :{

GlueBall

17th Apr 2014, 13:03

Thirty days have passed, no preliminary report yet. The AF447 preliminary report was available after 31 days. Does anybody know if the investigators are free to discard this requirement for a preliminary report ?

ICAO only promulgates international standards and recommended practices; can neither make nor enforce "laws." Compliance rests with individual states.

Ian W

17th Apr 2014, 13:25

like many, I stopped reading every post on every page once the hamster wheel started feeding nebulous press coverage back into the forum, however, one line of interest was what was on the cargo manifest, specifically the lithium batteries dismissed as "not usually considered as dangerous goods" by the airline CEO.
Obviously, some information will not leave the core of the investigation until the appropriate time by the appropriate means, but has this information been released as of now ?

The information has not been made public.

Lithium Ion batteries packed and handled correctly are not a hazard.

ilvaporista

17th Apr 2014, 15:05

Ian W

17th Apr 2014, 15:25

"Lithium Ion batteries packed and handled correctly are not a hazard"

I would add that 'Non defective' Lithium Ion batteries packed and handled correctly are not a hazard. Experience in other applications has show that manufacturing problems can cause issues. Another unknown to add to the list.

The point of correct packing and handling is that defective batteries with cells short circuiting and going rogue (not normally possible when not in a circuit) are isolated and do not cause any other batteries to fail.

underfire

17th Apr 2014, 16:30

From the news today...
"In an interview with the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, Mr Abbott said if the Bluefin-21 underwater drone scanning the Indian Ocean's seabed in the search area fails to locate wreckage, a rethink would have to take place.

"We believe that search will be completed within a week or so," Mr Abbott said.

further on...

"We were very hopeful the Bluefin-21 would be the answer - the way to search for this very hard to find wreckage.
"What we found was the Bluefin-21 couldn't perform reliably.
"We had extremely frustrating aborted missions, just as we have seen in the Indian Ocean.
"We saw malfunctions."
Mike Dean, the US Navy's deputy director for salvage and diving, told CNN one of its Orion-towed search systems was available in Maryland for use in the search if Australia requested it.

The Orion can send back real-time data to searchers.

Other search experts say a REMUS 6000 autonomous underwater vehicle, used to find Air France flight 447 after it went down in 2009, would be more suitable."

They have a REMUS 6000 on board the OS. It has a working depth of 6000m.
Not sure of the way it is equipped, but this fish can also carry the sidescan, multi-beam, sub-bottom, and video array. Same sort of programming.

Both fish are around $2.5 million each.

Given the realtively narrow search path of these fish, it would seem a towed array would be better, not sure why they decided to switch.

DespairingTraveller

17th Apr 2014, 16:51

OleOle . . .

Thirty days have passed, no preliminary report yet. The AF447 preliminary report was available after 31 days. Does anybody know if the investigators are free to discard this requirement for a preliminary report ?

I know this is going to sound strange, but anyway:

ICAO Annex 13 requires a Preliminary Report be produced within 30 days after the date of an accident. Annex 13 defines an "accident" as an occurrence in which there has been either a) fatality or serious injury, b) serious structural failure or damage to an aircraft or c) the aircraft is missing or completely inaccessible. (The full definition is longer, but that's the sense.)

The Notes to the Definitions in Annex 13 state that "an aircraft is considered to be missing when the official search has been terminated and the wreckage has not been located".

Clearly the search has not been terminated, and there is no actual physical evidence as yet of death, serious injury, or serious structural failure or damage. So it seems to me that, for the purposes of Annex 13, there is at the moment no "accident". The AF447 situation was different in that, although the search for the recorders went on for 2 years, bodies and wreckage were found within days, hence establishing beyond doubt that an accident had occurred under both options (a) & (b) above.

I know that seems odd, and "common sense" argues that an accident (in the general use of the term) has occurred to MH370, but the drafters of Annex 13 clearly saw fit not to define an overdue aircraft as "missing" and thus an "accident" for the purposes of investigation and reporting until the search for it is abandoned.

It therefore looks to me as though a report is not yet required, so the investigators have not discarded any requirement.

underfire

17th Apr 2014, 19:50

In regards to David Mearns comments:

In a typical search situation, you would be mapping the bottom with towed arrays. You get a wide area of coverage, with decent resolution. Hopefully, they were towing multi-beam sidescan and magnetometer.
The results are then analyzied and 'targets' of value are determined.

The next step would be to send down the AUV or the ROV to look at each target.

At this depth, it would take the ROV about 8 hours to descend to each target. The surface ship would have to stay stationary above the target when using the ROV.

With the AUV, they can program the different target locations, and the fish will fly to each and map it. As noted the descent time is about 3 hours, but once at depth, it can cover multiple sites, then surface.

I believe Mearns optimism is based on the simple fact that they were mowing the lawn, then switched to the AUV, signalling a change in search methodology. Since the AUV is not meant to cover a large search area, it would be assumed that they have found some specific targets to look at.
If you hear about them deploying the ROV, you can be assured they have located the aircraft.

About searching: Depending on the minerology, and depth of sediment, these can provide all sorts of false readings on a sidescan and/or the mag.
I see quite a bit of marine traffic crossing the search path, with a lot of shipping containers. In rough seas, these vessels drop containers all the time, another way to acquire false positives while scanning.

Vinnie Boombatz

17th Apr 2014, 21:10

Malaysia airliner search points up China's technology gap - latimes.com (http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-china-malaysia-plane-20140417,0,883028.story)

"Chinese officials might be worried about getting the submersible to the search area. Its mother ship, the Facing the Red Sun No. 9, built in 1978, has had engine problems and is unreliable."

Probably a trait shared with other nations' deep divers -- not part of a rapid deployment force.

auv-ee

18th Apr 2014, 01:01

underfire:

They have a REMUS 6000 on board the OS. Is that a typo? I've not seen that information anywhere. Do you have a source?

It seems that if they had a REMUS-6000, they would be using it, given what they now know about the water depth.

DaveReidUK

18th Apr 2014, 06:42

So it seems to me that, for the purposes of Annex 13, there is at the moment no "accident".In fact Annex 13 would not apply anyway (cf 9/11), if the wreckage and recorders were to be found and if it transpired that the fate of MH370 was the result of a deliberate act by a person or persons on board.

sSquares

18th Apr 2014, 07:24

From the marinetraffic.com data it appears that HMS Echo is conducting a survey as they are travelling in a pattern around, as well as in, the search area. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Echo_(H87)

Anyone here knows what, and what the resolution of the survey might be?

onetrack

18th Apr 2014, 08:47

Pace - "Throwing in the towel" is NOT what has been stated, by either PM Tony Abbott or by Angus Houston.

The actual statement from Houston, and repeated by Abbott, was - "If we don't find wreckage, we stop, we regroup, we reconsider".

This is not, "throwing in the towel".

In other media statements, Houston is reported as outlining that, "much larger", and deeper-diving, equipment may be needed.

"They are being looked at as we speak," he said, adding that partners in the international search will need to discuss "who has the capabilities to do this work" at such depths.

In other words, a re-assessment will be carried out within days, on how best to approach the finding of the wreckage, now that the pinger has ceased and the Bluefin-21 is proving to be incapable of operating at the required depths.

What is going to be discussed, no doubt, is that the only people with the ability and equipment to carry out a successful search for MH370 wreckage, are private contractors such as Woods Hole and Bluewater Recoveries.

These people cost serious amounts of money, and I think the only thing that is really going to be discussed at length, is just which countries are going to fund the hiring of WH and BR - and what percentages each country is going to contribute to the bill for the hiring in of WH and BR.

Pace

18th Apr 2014, 09:09

Profit Max

18th Apr 2014, 09:11

I see the Australian prime minister stated yesterday that this will be the last week of searching before they consider throwing in the towel!Are you sure that he did not only refer to the search for wreckage on the surface? I highly doubt that they would stop the underwater search this quickly, when they continued for almost two years in the case of AF447.

aerobat77

18th Apr 2014, 09:50

Frankly a politician saying we need to regroup, reconsider or whatever is a pre warning that they have run out of reasonable options and a withdrawal is likely

i,m unfortunetly with pace here. we have to remember the ships cannot stay at the search area forever - they need fuel, supllies and a change in the crews which work 24/7 and surely start to get fatigued. so when they find nothing in the next days i guess all ships will return to harbour and then it will be a political decision what to do next.

i do not think they will officially stop "searching" , but this search may be reduced to satellite tracking, further calculations on the handshakes and waiting if somebody finds somekind of debris somewhere. i guess the enormous effort in keeping ships at sea and conducting a 24/7 underwater search as well sending aircraft every day will stop .

we have to rember that the australians have a life beyond this aircraft and somebody might ask if its not better in long term to spend this amount of tax money in schools than in keeping up the search when its obvious no lifes can be saved anymore.

whatever happens - i have deepest respect for this just 23millions citizens country since it prooved it is willing and able to conduct and lead an extremly difficult task no man performed ever before , and everything which can be done was and is done .

Passagiata

18th Apr 2014, 10:55

aerobat:

somebody might ask if its not better in long term to spend this amount of tax money in schools than in keeping up the search when its obvious no lifes can be saved anymore. Aerobat, this isn't a domestic expenditure matter. And it won't be Australia's decision whether to continue with the search. Add to that several very important diplomatic relationships involved. Any who were to "ask" that question would be comprehensively (and rightly) ignored.

spinex

18th Apr 2014, 11:19

Not entirely sure what is meant by "domestic expenditure matter". What is certain is that Australia has contributed well beyond its SAR obligations here and the time will most certainly come when those who do have a direct interest, ie Malaysia, US and China, will have to decide on what comes next and more importantly who pays the bills.

Aus has done well out of this diplomatically, but the law of diminishing returns applies and I'd say that the Aus contribution will be substantially scaled back come "time to regroup, reconsider" or whatever.

glenbrook

18th Apr 2014, 11:32

One track

I appreciate what you are saying above with one caveat!! For any search to be carried out at such considerable depth the searchers have to be pretty confident that the wreckage is in the confines of quite a small area.
Even with that certainty it will be like finding a needle in a haystack.

There is still no evidence that this relatively small area holds the wreckage.

If this is a clutching at straws location which looks more and more likely then the game is over.

Frankly a politician saying we need to regroup, reconsider or whatever is a pre warning that they have run out of reasonable options and a withdrawal is likely

No, it is not nearly as bad as that.
A definite ULB signal was received. This means the search area can be narrowed very considerably within the radius of ULB audibility. No, it's not the size of Texas, more like a few hundred km2 at most. The Bluefin is supposed to be able to scan 40km2/day so if it Bluefin can't find it within a few weeks, then this probably means that it is beyond the capabilities of the AUV. A rethink of how to scan the search area, and maybe using bigger and better hardware is appropriate.

The only fear I have is that something else was mistaken for the ULB signal. This seems very unlikely, but given that it has stopped, it still a worry.

Ian W

18th Apr 2014, 13:19

With all this doubt on whether the ULB pings were from the MH370 ULB. would it be an idea to modulate the ping with an aircraft/equipment ID? This would be extremely simple circuitry which would take little power but would stop these guessing games. The ping would then be indisputably from a particular aircraft and definitely not a 'natural' source.

Zorin_75

18th Apr 2014, 13:46

With all this doubt on whether the ULB pings were from the MH370 ULB
While there's been some serious doubt about the equipment the chinese have been showing to be of much use in this situation at all, I don't think there's much debate about what the TPL has been detecting. Not many natural 37.5 kHz sources out there (short of being trolled by a dolphin :rolleyes:).

sooty655

18th Apr 2014, 13:58

No, it is not nearly as bad as that.
A definite ULB signal was received. This means the search area can be narrowed very considerably within the radius of ULB audibility. No, it's not the size of Texas, more like a few hundred km2 at most. The Bluefin is supposed to be able to scan 40km2/day so if it Bluefin can't find it within a few weeks, then this probably means that it is beyond the capabilities of the AUV. A rethink of how to scan the search area, and maybe using bigger and better hardware is appropriate.

The only fear I have is that something else was mistaken for the ULB signal. This seems very unlikely, but given that it has stopped, it still a worry.
In a BBC Radio 4 interview a couple of days ago, the commanding officer of HMS Echo said the search area had been localised to 10 miles by 5 miles. Assuming nautical miles, that is about 172km2.

WillowRun 6-3

18th Apr 2014, 14:28

In the law, typically there are mandatory processes, as well as processes undertaken for prudential reasons. I note this in the context of posts and discussion about whether the ICAO Annex 13 30-day interim report process is applicable, and more broadly whether Annex 13 even applies in the first place.

To suggest a different perspective: the unprecedented scope and means of the still on-going SAR appears certain to result in an examination of existing Annex 12 terms, conditions and implementation agreements. At least it is reasonable to state this result is likely if not certain (only ICAO speaks for ICAO).

But with Annex 12-related proceedings (reasonably) assumed to take place, suggest it would be very prudential for Malaysia to continue with the Annex 13 enquiry it has commenced - EVEN IF facts emerge which take the incident outside the narrowly-read ambit of Annex 13. That is, keep going with the Annex 13 panel of Accredited Representatives and committees designated by the Malaysian authorities. Though many facts remain unknown, do we not, in truth, know that this incident not only is unprecedented but also that it ultimately will hold large significance for civil aeronautics globally? Does not an Annex 13 proceeding - precisely as Malaysia has commenced - approach, or perhaps constitute, an optimum process for finding facts and articulating lessons to be learned?

Whiskey Mike Romeo

18th Apr 2014, 15:27

In a BBC Radio 4 interview a couple of days ago, the commanding officer of HMS Echo said the search area had been localised to 10 miles by 5 miles. Assuming nautical miles, that is about 172km2.

In other words about the same size as the island of Jersey.

Quite a big area to lose a ULB on its own but small enough not to lose an entire aircraft, or most of its wreckage.

cura

18th Apr 2014, 16:41

My thoughts are that OS & Echo have pretty much localised the search area.
The 21 fish could not originally access the area due to depth constraints [ie <4500m].
They have over come this not through 'certification' but by trialing the fish deeper.

The best way of describing marine salvage is as -

"A science of vague assumptions based on debatable figures taken from inconclusive experiments and performed with instruments of problematic accuracy by persons of doubtful reliability and questionable mentality".

Let the experts do what they know best.

Propduffer

18th Apr 2014, 17:39

From the Sydney Morning Herald: "A survey by Malaysia's leading independent polling firm released earlier this week found that only 26 per cent of Malaysians believed the government was being transparent about MH370"

It would be reasonable to assume that those 26% don't actually believe that the Malaysian government is, or has been, forthcoming about events concerning MH370, but represent the hard core supporters of the government who also support the obfucation of MH370 information.

I hope the agreement between Australia and Malaysia regarding responsability for any recovered items would leave Austrailia as the recipiant of the FDR. Otherwise this whole SAR effort would be seen as pointless by 74% of Malaysians and many others (including the Chinese family members and myself.)

roulishollandais

18th Apr 2014, 18:14

@willowRun 6-3
Annex 12 applies in case of emergency and immédiate threat against a person.

Two to Tango

18th Apr 2014, 22:40

"A science of vague assumptions based on debatable figures taken from inconclusive experiments and performed with instruments of problematic accuracy by persons of doubtful reliability and questionable mentality".

Love the Quote! glad clinical trials are not run on those assumptions!:8

JohnPerth

18th Apr 2014, 22:44

It would be reasonable to assume that those 26% don't actually believe that the Malaysian government is, or has been, forthcoming about events concerning MH370, but represent the hard core supporters of the government who also support the obfucation of MH370 information.Not being forthcoming with everything that curious people want to know is not the same thing as "obfuscation".

A classic example occurred in the past few days. A report emerged that the co-pilot's phone had connected to a tower in Malaysia. The journalist concerned characterised this as an attempt by the co-pilot to make a call, which is a different thing again. The Malaysia Transport Minister was asked if the report were true, and replied to the effect that he didn't know, but that in any case it would be a matter for the police, and that they would release such information if and when they saw fit. People on this forum then characterised that as a "denial" of the original report by the Malaysia Transport Minister, which it manifestly wasn't.

So, was there witholding of information here? Yes, by the Malaysia Police it seems, and there seems no reasonable grounds for criticising them for it. Was there obfuscation here? No. Was there confusion, speculation, general silliness? Yes, by a journalist and members of this forum...

Glacier pilot

19th Apr 2014, 00:59

CNN reports Malaysia states now aircraft climbed to 39000 over Malaysia after initial turn. That means the aircraft had to then descend to altitude close enough that tower could read an 'on' phone and then to 5000' (lost radar contact point) as previously stated by Malaysia. An unusual turn, an unusual climb, and an unusual descent is not exactly trying to stay off the radar (if someone had been looking).

YYZjim

19th Apr 2014, 02:19

In 2005, a Malaysian Airlines B777-200 (9M-MRG) was on a flight from Perth to Kuala Lumpur when it experienced a failure of its navigation system. The airplane suddenly climbed to FL410, then dropped 4000 feet, then climbed 2000 feet. The pilots flew the airplane manually back to Perth. Australian authorities investigated the incident. They determined that the failure was in the "operating software of the air data inertial reference unit (ADIRU), a device that supplies acceleration figures to the aircraft's flight computer." The device was manufactured by Honeywell and contained the fourth version of the operating system. A review of the software showed that the error did exist on the first three versions of the software, but had been suppressed by other features of the software. These other features were removed during the transition from the third version to the fourth version.

The problem was serious enough for the FAA to issue an emergency airworthiness directive in August 2005 to all B777 operators to revert to version three of the operating system.

Note that the airplane lost on March 8, 2014, was 9M-MRO, apparently a sister ship.

theAP

19th Apr 2014, 04:33

YYZjim wrote,

Note that the airplane lost on March 8, 2014, was 9M-MRO, apparently a sister ship.
One of the most relevant post I've seen after a long time and most probably you have hit the nail imho.

ampclamp

19th Apr 2014, 05:11

YYZjim, re the sister ship ADIRU mishap. Investigation: 200503722 - In-flight upset; Boeing 777-200, 9M-MRG, 240 km NW Perth, WA (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2005/aair/aair200503722.aspx)

kayej1188

19th Apr 2014, 05:51

First off, terrific post. I'm struggling to fathom how this is the first time this incident has been mentioned. Maybe it isn't. It seems a number of parallels can be already drawn between the 2 flights. Could someone with more knowledge than me provide an answer as to whether or not a faulty ADIRU could correspond to ACARS + transponder being disabled?

albatross

19th Apr 2014, 06:09

Well considering it took place in 2005:
One would hope, being as there was an AD, that the present day software version would preclude a repeat, especially as the has not been another event in 9 years.

harrryw

19th Apr 2014, 07:33

@ampclamp
wxcept posibly as another comment on how useless the CVR is as it only had 5 minutes of relevent information because it had not been switched off on the ground.

Lookleft

19th Apr 2014, 07:48

The problem was serious enough for the FAA to issue an emergency airworthiness directive in August 2005 to all B777 operators to revert to version three of the operating system.

If Boeing thought that this incident was similar in nature and they had no answers then the 777 fleet would be grounded ( a situation which very nearly occurred after the 2005 incident). The fact that Boeing have not issued any AD's to operators (to my knowledge) suggests that they are not concerned that the aircraft has an inherent fault that could cause another 777 to disappear. The crew in the 2005 incident were able to override the automatics and recover the aircraft. For something similar to have occurred there would have to be another undetected software failure followed by a double incapacitation. Something which IMHO would be an order of magnitude beyond 10-9.

Rightbase

19th Apr 2014, 08:56

It would be a very long bow to draw to link the 2 incidents in any way whatsoever.

Logic errors can remain undetected in programmed systems for a long time.

The protocol of flying on with 'redundant' units defective is such a 'program' that by definition does not create an accident but equally obviously does erode safety margins.

When it is the integrity of the 'intelligence' between pilot and aircraft that is jeopardised by such a program it then puts at risk the strategy of having a human in ultimate control.

Programmer humility deficiency might be a common root cause.

mmurray

19th Apr 2014, 09:33

A report here that the current search will take 5-7 days to complete if the weather and the bluefin 21 holds up.

Malaysia Airlines MH370: Underwater search at 'very critical juncture', could be completed this week - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-19/mh370-search-at-critical-juncture-as-drone-mission-continues/5400094)

Ian W

19th Apr 2014, 09:49

Logic errors can remain undetected in programmed systems for a long time.

The protocol of flying on with 'redundant' units defective is such a 'program' that by definition does not create an accident but equally obviously does erode safety margins.

When it is the integrity of the 'intelligence' between pilot and aircraft that is jeopardised by such a program it then puts at risk the strategy of having a human in ultimate control.

Programmer humility deficiency might be a common root cause.

I know that there is a wish to find an answer but this is not it.

Logic errors can remain undetected - but this one was detected the quotes are from an investigation into an event that was caused and an AD was very publicly issued to return to the previous version of the software.

So now are you really suggesting that Honeywell, having been told of the fault in their software in unequivocal terms, forgot about it? Then over the 9 years since the incident that they have not updated the ADIRU software to fix the fault? To use a quote from tennis - You cannot be serious.

And of course this ADIRU software fault would need to also disconnect ACARS and switch off all three redundant VHF radios incapacitate the crew and then recover itself and fly the aircraft in uneventful cruise to the southern Indian Ocean.

Perhaps you would like to revisit your logic?

Rightbase

19th Apr 2014, 10:28

Logic errors can remain undetected - but this one was detected

Your post kindly emphasised 'was' making the point that the logic error has been detected,

My point is the logic error of flying on with a tolerated defect in a system with the danger that a second defect could mislead the pilot is a critical vulnerability.

The vulnerability does not go away now that this one has been detected.

mseyfang

19th Apr 2014, 14:00

If Boeing thought that this incident was similar in nature and they had no answers then the 777 fleet would be grounded ( a situation which very nearly occurred after the 2005 incident). The fact that Boeing have not issued any AD's to operators (to my knowledge) suggests that they are not concerned that the aircraft has an inherent fault that could cause another 777 to disappear. The crew in the 2005 incident were able to override the automatics and recover the aircraft. For something similar to have occurred there would have to be another undetected software failure followed by a double incapacitation. Something which IMHO would be an order of magnitude beyond 10-9.

I tend to agree with this, but I have to admit that my first thought upon learning of this incident was ADIRU failure and/or an EE bay fire. The latter still explains everything known about the incident except for one important issue -- how the plane wound up headed in the general direction of Perth and the supposed track around Indonesia (still not entirely convinced of that as established fact given the source).

As for Boeing, in the absence of evidence that there is a fault in the aircraft (and theories aren't evidence), there are ample economic and liability/legal reasons to do nothing unless/until concrete evidence of a fault is discovered. Grounding the 777 fleet would be an enormous hardship for a number of carriers for which this aircraft type is the backbone of their long-haul intercontinental fleets, a group that includes the three legacy US carriers.

You don't ground a fleet of aircraft in the absence of specific evidence of a design problem. Prior groundings such as the Comet I (c. 1952), Lockheed Electra (c. 1959), the DC-10 (1979) and 787 were based on physical evidence of a potentially catastrophic problem with the aircraft. In this case, such physical evidence is, to date, completely lacking.

Ian W

19th Apr 2014, 14:14

Your post kindly emphasised 'was' making the point that the logic error has been detected,

My point is the logic error of flying on with a tolerated defect in a system with the danger that a second defect could mislead the pilot is a critical vulnerability.

The vulnerability does not go away now that this one has been detected.

You have obviously not worked developing safety critical software.

The software in the ADIRU is not developed as if it were a video game or a university project: it is developed in line with RTCA DO-178 and ARINC 653. These are very strict standards with a lot of testing. However, despite all the testing some faults may/will be found and in most cases the system is designed that a fault in one module will be contained as part of a Failure Mode Effects Analysis. It would appear that a fault was successfully contained and then unmasked when another module was updated.

Now at that stage with safety critical software the FAA and Honeywell reverted back to the previous version - which had worked without a problem using an AD. Honeywell would then have had a 'MUST FIX' top emergency software fix to carry out. In many organizations that means NO new software version can be delivered unless that fault is fixed.

Your attitude that they would have left it on the old version as that was 'good enough' is just not the way the industry works.

I would expect that the fault was fixed within days and then after recertification testing with the FAA and Boeing, Honeywell would have delivered a new ADIRU software build with all known bugs including this one fixed. The longest part of that effort will have been testing, and the particular issue that caused the ADIRU to fail would be included in the new acceptance test suite. Almost certainly there would also have been some effort to defend against ADIRU faults in the FMC software as part of the FMEA work.

High availability safety critical software development demands getting things right, designing systems to be resilient to subsystem faults, and rapid resolution of any faults found.