The utter dishonesty of the Canberra system – MH370
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
Crew O2 Bottle goes bang, takes out xpndr, comms and leaves a large hole in the fuselage
Incredibly the accident left enough nav gear serviceable as it seems to have navigated by way points that would not be in the initial flight plan so someone very likely put that into the FMS afterwards. If someone did that why not descend or land? Operate the completely independent ELT?
Incredibly the accident left enough nav gear serviceable as it seems to have navigated by way points that would not be in the initial flight plan so someone very likely put that into the FMS afterwards. If someone did that why not descend or land? Operate the completely independent ELT?
Of course, accounting for the lack of any attempt to descend makes for a lousy conspiracy theory...
I have just watched the 60minutes on TV. Utter garbage! The whole episode was concentrated in insinuating it was a suicidal mass murder. Please show me his motive! Reporters do not care about the story or the victims next of kin. Politically active or disgrunted doesn’t mean one needs to commit mass murder. The Australian MPs were dropping like flies due to duo citizenship, has anyone of them commited mass murder?
There is no evidence that those waypoints created on the captain’s home computer were meant to linked up to form a route. So why suggest he plotted a route to the South Indian Ocean? Infact, most waypoints were coincide with atypical route to Europe from Kuala Lumpur. Pilots creates waypoints routingly for many-many reasons, e.g. EDTO, High terrain avoidance, ERA ETP...........There were only 2 waypoints almost on the same spot in the far south. There is no evidence to suggest it is the destination!
If the crew O2 bottle blew, what make you think it didn’t kill the captain at that very instant and left the inexperience copilot to deal with the emergency, possibly with very limited resources like lack of O2, system displays that has gone dead or even a big hole in the cockpit? Lets not forget those bottles are mounted on the port side of the nose wheel well wall and not too far aft of the captain’s right butt cheek.
The matter of fact is, no matter how credible a piece of information being presented on this MH370 case, there will be someon across the other side of the world who claimed as an aviation expert coming forward and shoot this information to pieces, discrediting it with all the unimaginable doubts.
Is it fair to the captain and his family that he is being labelled as mass murderer while he could be the very one tried his very best to his last breath to save everyone onboard?
There is no evidence that those waypoints created on the captain’s home computer were meant to linked up to form a route. So why suggest he plotted a route to the South Indian Ocean? Infact, most waypoints were coincide with atypical route to Europe from Kuala Lumpur. Pilots creates waypoints routingly for many-many reasons, e.g. EDTO, High terrain avoidance, ERA ETP...........There were only 2 waypoints almost on the same spot in the far south. There is no evidence to suggest it is the destination!
If the crew O2 bottle blew, what make you think it didn’t kill the captain at that very instant and left the inexperience copilot to deal with the emergency, possibly with very limited resources like lack of O2, system displays that has gone dead or even a big hole in the cockpit? Lets not forget those bottles are mounted on the port side of the nose wheel well wall and not too far aft of the captain’s right butt cheek.
The matter of fact is, no matter how credible a piece of information being presented on this MH370 case, there will be someon across the other side of the world who claimed as an aviation expert coming forward and shoot this information to pieces, discrediting it with all the unimaginable doubts.
Is it fair to the captain and his family that he is being labelled as mass murderer while he could be the very one tried his very best to his last breath to save everyone onboard?
Last edited by flightleader; 3rd Mar 2019 at 12:45. Reason: typo
If the crew O2 bottle blew, what make you think it didn’t kill the captain at that very instant and left the inexperience copilot to deal with the emergency, possibly with very limited resources like lack of O2, system displays that has gone dead or even a big hole in the cockpit? Lets not forget those bottles are mounted on the port side of the nose wheel well wall and not too far aft of the captain’s right butt cheek.
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: South Pole
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beer Baron. My position is that I want the CASA act to tell the truth. Despite the fact that it states that safety must be the most important consideration there are many times that CASA clearly considers that cost is clearly more important than the safety improvement that can be made.
The Deputy Prime Minister is going down a risky path supporting “ the lie”
The Deputy Prime Minister is going down a risky path supporting “ the lie”
Safety is important, and should be the most important aspect, but it’s not the only factor. ALARP - as low as reasonably practical - is a concept that makes a lot of sense, IMHO.
Lets take MH370 as an example. Suppose the location was found. Isn’t there a chance the location could be ambiguous about whether a crew member was flying at the point of impact or not? For example, let’s say the location did not show a long glide had occurred from the last “ping”. That doesn’t mean a pilot wasn’t conscious. It just means, there was no human input. So, it would be ambiguous. Or, maybe the location is half way between the maximum gliding distance, and a “death spiral” impact point. What then? Location would mean nothing.
So, it’s possible, that as well as locating the point of impact, you also have to salvage the wreckage. Finding the CVR for the Lion Air Boeing 737 Max was a difficult activity, and they new exactly where that impacted, and it wasn’t in deep water.
But, even if you pay enough to locate the impact site, and then pay to find and recover the FDR, that still may not show anything. Won’t it just show the transponder lost power? It still will not indicate if it was turned off, or an open circuit occurred (say due to an exploding O2 bottle). So, you still will not know...?
So, we get back to the ALARP principal. Which, while usually applied for risk management prior to an event, can also be applied after the fact. Is it worth spending $X for a possible increase in safety of Y?. Since $’s are finite, they should be spent on the lowest hanging fruit. And, given the Swiss cheers model, do we really need to know exactly the cause? If there are a few possible causes, wouldn’t it be prudent to try and reduce or eliminate them all? I assume potential failures are not only eliminated retrospectively.
As a travelling member of the public, I’d much much rather pay $1 per ticket to help monitor pilot mental health, than $1 per ticket to fund looking for MH370.
Cheers....
Last edited by Jetthrust; 7th Mar 2019 at 18:42.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
But, even if you pay enough to locate the impact site, and then pay to find and recover the FDR, that still may not show anything. Won’t it just show the transponder lost power? It still will not indicate if it was turned off, or an open circuit occurred (say due to an exploding O2 bottle). So, you still will not know...?
The CVR area mic could well have recorded someones last moments, all the alarms chimes and assorted aural warnings as events unfolded over the last 2 hours.
My concern is that if it lies 20,000 ft or or more under water the integrity of the memory capsule could well be compromised especially after all this time. Supposedly guaranteed to -20,000 ft but 5 plus years under 8000psi in salt water is a severe test.
The wreckage may offer clues even if the recorders are useless. Cockpit door manual lock bolts in place, certain CB's found tripped, oxy bottle(s) condition ie are all the portables cylinder taps turned on etc. Clearly, it hit the water hard, so any of those possible clues maybe completely obscured by the impact.
Worth looking? I think so. Ocean Infinity have said they would like to return. They have great tech and it is improving all the time.
Certainly mental health is very likely an issue here. There have been several incidents related to mental health over the years. I dont know what is currently in place or what can be done though.
Lets take MH370 as an example.
Suppose the location was found. Isn’t there a chance the location could be ambiguous about whether a crew member was flying at the point of impact or not? For example, let’s say the location did not show a long glide had occurred from the last “ping”. That doesn’t mean a pilot wasn’t conscious. It just means, there was no human input. So, it would be ambiguous. Or, maybe the location is half way between the maximum gliding distance, and a “death spiral” impact point. What then? Location would mean nothing.
* Location can tell lots of things. Comparing it to last known flight data and know data such as fuel load. This alone could prove if human inputs were made after a point that all oxygen on the aircraft would have been depleted.
So, it’s possible, that as well as locating the point of impact, you also have to salvage the wreckage. Finding the CVR for the Lion Air Boeing 737 Max was a difficult activity, and they new exactly where that impacted, and it wasn’t in deep water.
* While it would be good to salvage the wreckage it might not need to be, to determine what happened or what did not happen. Certain parts would want to be salvaged other pieces imagery might be enough. The Lion Air 737 did a dive into mud, the MH370 CVR would have lost some velocity before hitting the ocean floor.
But, even if you pay enough to locate the impact site, and then pay to find and recover the FDR, that still may not show anything. Won’t it just show the transponder lost power? It still will not indicate if it was turned off, or an open circuit occurred (say due to an exploding O2 bottle). So, you still will not know...?
* FDR may not show anything or it might show lots - an exploding O2 bottle would send a number of inputs to the FDR (if able to get the data extracted). It could also have been turned off before the transponder. Now if you have the wreckage you could inspect the O2 bottle and include or exclude the exploding bottle theory. The CVR and FDR may or may not still contain data, but they are not required to know some simple answers.
So, we get back to the ALARP principal. Which, while usually applied for risk management prior to an event, can also be applied after the fact. Is it worth spending $X for a possible increase in safety of Y?. Since $’s are finite, they should be spent on the lowest hanging fruit. And, given the Swiss cheers model, do we really need to know exactly the cause? If there are a few possible causes, wouldn’t it be prudent to try and reduce or eliminate them all? I assume potential failures are not only eliminated retrospectively.
As a travelling member of the public, I’d much much rather pay $1 per ticket to help monitor pilot mental health, than $1 per ticket to fund looking for MH370
* The pilots do not want Big Brother in the cockpit monitoring them. Certain groups think removing the pilots from the cockpit is the best way forward, and save the $1.
Suppose the location was found. Isn’t there a chance the location could be ambiguous about whether a crew member was flying at the point of impact or not? For example, let’s say the location did not show a long glide had occurred from the last “ping”. That doesn’t mean a pilot wasn’t conscious. It just means, there was no human input. So, it would be ambiguous. Or, maybe the location is half way between the maximum gliding distance, and a “death spiral” impact point. What then? Location would mean nothing.
* Location can tell lots of things. Comparing it to last known flight data and know data such as fuel load. This alone could prove if human inputs were made after a point that all oxygen on the aircraft would have been depleted.
So, it’s possible, that as well as locating the point of impact, you also have to salvage the wreckage. Finding the CVR for the Lion Air Boeing 737 Max was a difficult activity, and they new exactly where that impacted, and it wasn’t in deep water.
* While it would be good to salvage the wreckage it might not need to be, to determine what happened or what did not happen. Certain parts would want to be salvaged other pieces imagery might be enough. The Lion Air 737 did a dive into mud, the MH370 CVR would have lost some velocity before hitting the ocean floor.
But, even if you pay enough to locate the impact site, and then pay to find and recover the FDR, that still may not show anything. Won’t it just show the transponder lost power? It still will not indicate if it was turned off, or an open circuit occurred (say due to an exploding O2 bottle). So, you still will not know...?
* FDR may not show anything or it might show lots - an exploding O2 bottle would send a number of inputs to the FDR (if able to get the data extracted). It could also have been turned off before the transponder. Now if you have the wreckage you could inspect the O2 bottle and include or exclude the exploding bottle theory. The CVR and FDR may or may not still contain data, but they are not required to know some simple answers.
So, we get back to the ALARP principal. Which, while usually applied for risk management prior to an event, can also be applied after the fact. Is it worth spending $X for a possible increase in safety of Y?. Since $’s are finite, they should be spent on the lowest hanging fruit. And, given the Swiss cheers model, do we really need to know exactly the cause? If there are a few possible causes, wouldn’t it be prudent to try and reduce or eliminate them all? I assume potential failures are not only eliminated retrospectively.
As a travelling member of the public, I’d much much rather pay $1 per ticket to help monitor pilot mental health, than $1 per ticket to fund looking for MH370
* The pilots do not want Big Brother in the cockpit monitoring them. Certain groups think removing the pilots from the cockpit is the best way forward, and save the $1.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crew O2 Bottle goes bang, takes out xpndr, comms and leaves a large hole in the fuselage.
Crew dons masks, starts the process of running through checklists, calling ATC etc.
PF could have easily selected a southerly HDG mode during these initial moments. Nearest runway?
I have experienced hypoxia in a pressure chamber and can understand how it could have caused unexpected and illogical handling as the mental processing power of the crew degraded toward unconsciousness and death.
I am not an investigator, but it certainly seems a reasonable possibility among others.
Crew dons masks, starts the process of running through checklists, calling ATC etc.
PF could have easily selected a southerly HDG mode during these initial moments. Nearest runway?
I have experienced hypoxia in a pressure chamber and can understand how it could have caused unexpected and illogical handling as the mental processing power of the crew degraded toward unconsciousness and death.
I am not an investigator, but it certainly seems a reasonable possibility among others.
FIVE YEARS ON...………TODAY!
I wonder just what will happen next re this 'mystery'....??
Another search? More 'conspiracy' theories? The endless supply of armchair experts continues...…..??
I wonder just what will happen next re this 'mystery'....??
Another search? More 'conspiracy' theories? The endless supply of armchair experts continues...…..??
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: United States
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fdr and tdracer, Thanks for the common sense. The ping information and cell phone tower ping plus the radar , the height and track
information makes it clear that an O2 bottle failure is an improbable and does not add up.
While Dick has a point that its only 10 cents a fare its fails to deal with root cause of CASA's madness and corrupt structure.
The problem is a culture of stupidity and economic madness that makes
CASA one of the most hated Aviation Authorities in the world.
First they are political animals, hell bent on promoting and complicating their ever expanding extortion. The word Safety is a political statement not a reality.
They refer to themselves as "officers" when they are public servants.
One only has to read their documents to see how they have copied overseas documents, removed all the nouns, added many times the original number of words, destroyed the clear message of the original document and created a an unnecessarily complex set of rules that is designed to make aviation increasingly more expensive.
The cost of training in Australia is now about double the cost in the USA or Canada and that price difference is largely the result of CASA madness.
At the end of the day, its CASA who over burden the industry with
their propaganda that results in what must be one of the poorest value
for money from an Australian government department.
Scrapping CASA and copying the FAA would cut the cost of aviation dramatically.
information makes it clear that an O2 bottle failure is an improbable and does not add up.
While Dick has a point that its only 10 cents a fare its fails to deal with root cause of CASA's madness and corrupt structure.
The problem is a culture of stupidity and economic madness that makes
CASA one of the most hated Aviation Authorities in the world.
First they are political animals, hell bent on promoting and complicating their ever expanding extortion. The word Safety is a political statement not a reality.
They refer to themselves as "officers" when they are public servants.
One only has to read their documents to see how they have copied overseas documents, removed all the nouns, added many times the original number of words, destroyed the clear message of the original document and created a an unnecessarily complex set of rules that is designed to make aviation increasingly more expensive.
The cost of training in Australia is now about double the cost in the USA or Canada and that price difference is largely the result of CASA madness.
At the end of the day, its CASA who over burden the industry with
their propaganda that results in what must be one of the poorest value
for money from an Australian government department.
Scrapping CASA and copying the FAA would cut the cost of aviation dramatically.
Lets take MH370 as an example.
Suppose the location was found. Isn’t there a chance the location could be ambiguous about whether a crew member was flying at the point of impact or not? For example, let’s say the location did not show a long glide had occurred from the last “ping”. That doesn’t mean a pilot wasn’t conscious. It just means, there was no human input. So, it would be ambiguous. Or, maybe the location is half way between the maximum gliding distance, and a “death spiral” impact point. What then? Location would mean nothing.
* Location can tell lots of things. Comparing it to last known flight data and know data such as fuel load. This alone could prove if human inputs were made after a point that all oxygen on the aircraft would have been depleted.
So, it’s possible, that as well as locating the point of impact, you also have to salvage the wreckage. Finding the CVR for the Lion Air Boeing 737 Max was a difficult activity, and they new exactly where that impacted, and it wasn’t in deep water.
* While it would be good to salvage the wreckage it might not need to be, to determine what happened or what did not happen. Certain parts would want to be salvaged other pieces imagery might be enough. The Lion Air 737 did a dive into mud, the MH370 CVR would have lost some velocity before hitting the ocean floor.
But, even if you pay enough to locate the impact site, and then pay to find and recover the FDR, that still may not show anything. Won’t it just show the transponder lost power? It still will not indicate if it was turned off, or an open circuit occurred (say due to an exploding O2 bottle). So, you still will not know...?
* FDR may not show anything or it might show lots - an exploding O2 bottle would send a number of inputs to the FDR (if able to get the data extracted). It could also have been turned off before the transponder. Now if you have the wreckage you could inspect the O2 bottle and include or exclude the exploding bottle theory. The CVR and FDR may or may not still contain data, but they are not required to know some simple answers.
So, we get back to the ALARP principal. Which, while usually applied for risk management prior to an event, can also be applied after the fact. Is it worth spending $X for a possible increase in safety of Y?. Since $’s are finite, they should be spent on the lowest hanging fruit. And, given the Swiss cheers model, do we really need to know exactly the cause? If there are a few possible causes, wouldn’t it be prudent to try and reduce or eliminate them all? I assume potential failures are not only eliminated retrospectively.
As a travelling member of the public, I’d much much rather pay $1 per ticket to help monitor pilot mental health, than $1 per ticket to fund looking for MH370
* The pilots do not want Big Brother in the cockpit monitoring them. Certain groups think removing the pilots from the cockpit is the best way forward, and save the $1.
Suppose the location was found. Isn’t there a chance the location could be ambiguous about whether a crew member was flying at the point of impact or not? For example, let’s say the location did not show a long glide had occurred from the last “ping”. That doesn’t mean a pilot wasn’t conscious. It just means, there was no human input. So, it would be ambiguous. Or, maybe the location is half way between the maximum gliding distance, and a “death spiral” impact point. What then? Location would mean nothing.
* Location can tell lots of things. Comparing it to last known flight data and know data such as fuel load. This alone could prove if human inputs were made after a point that all oxygen on the aircraft would have been depleted.
So, it’s possible, that as well as locating the point of impact, you also have to salvage the wreckage. Finding the CVR for the Lion Air Boeing 737 Max was a difficult activity, and they new exactly where that impacted, and it wasn’t in deep water.
* While it would be good to salvage the wreckage it might not need to be, to determine what happened or what did not happen. Certain parts would want to be salvaged other pieces imagery might be enough. The Lion Air 737 did a dive into mud, the MH370 CVR would have lost some velocity before hitting the ocean floor.
But, even if you pay enough to locate the impact site, and then pay to find and recover the FDR, that still may not show anything. Won’t it just show the transponder lost power? It still will not indicate if it was turned off, or an open circuit occurred (say due to an exploding O2 bottle). So, you still will not know...?
* FDR may not show anything or it might show lots - an exploding O2 bottle would send a number of inputs to the FDR (if able to get the data extracted). It could also have been turned off before the transponder. Now if you have the wreckage you could inspect the O2 bottle and include or exclude the exploding bottle theory. The CVR and FDR may or may not still contain data, but they are not required to know some simple answers.
So, we get back to the ALARP principal. Which, while usually applied for risk management prior to an event, can also be applied after the fact. Is it worth spending $X for a possible increase in safety of Y?. Since $’s are finite, they should be spent on the lowest hanging fruit. And, given the Swiss cheers model, do we really need to know exactly the cause? If there are a few possible causes, wouldn’t it be prudent to try and reduce or eliminate them all? I assume potential failures are not only eliminated retrospectively.
As a travelling member of the public, I’d much much rather pay $1 per ticket to help monitor pilot mental health, than $1 per ticket to fund looking for MH370
* The pilots do not want Big Brother in the cockpit monitoring them. Certain groups think removing the pilots from the cockpit is the best way forward, and save the $1.
The available information already tells whether the aircraft was open loop of closed loop for the flight path. Finding the aircraft crash site will not alter those facts. The wreckage that washed up also tells the same story, of the energy state of the aircraft at impact, whether it was open or closed loop control. The possible parties that could provide closed loop control are quite limited, and were apparently refined by the police investigation. A successful search will give some closure to the relatives, primarily from a final report, but will not alter what had to have occurred to put the aircraft onto the flightpath that it conducted. MH370 is the paradoxical risk that came about from the heightened security measures following 9/11. It is not the first, and unfortunately it is unlikely to be the last. When first introduced, for the airline that I was with at that time, the risks of such events was considered, and precautions were incorporated into the procedures. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, those procedures were less than perfectly implemented.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don’t know if these details are elsewhere on the thread but here goes :
ICAO Annex 13 sets out a hierarchy for the State responsible for investigations
1. State of Occurrance (unknown in this case)
2. State of Registration - Malaysia.
There are others listed but in this case we need not go any further. Malaysia is therefor the responsible State, Australia’s role is therefor to provide assistance when requested, I can only assume that Australia led the search after a formal request.
ATSB is the investigation agency, AMSA Is the search and rescue agency. As far as I know ATSB would have had little search expertise (especially search management) when the search began.
Australia’s level of involvement is and has been I suspect a political decision.
Australia’s further involvement ? Political decision again ? What are ATSB’s priorities given their finite resources, their Act is specific (as is Annex 13), re improving aviation safety. Where are our $s best spent ?
ICAO Annex 13 sets out a hierarchy for the State responsible for investigations
1. State of Occurrance (unknown in this case)
2. State of Registration - Malaysia.
There are others listed but in this case we need not go any further. Malaysia is therefor the responsible State, Australia’s role is therefor to provide assistance when requested, I can only assume that Australia led the search after a formal request.
ATSB is the investigation agency, AMSA Is the search and rescue agency. As far as I know ATSB would have had little search expertise (especially search management) when the search began.
Australia’s level of involvement is and has been I suspect a political decision.
Australia’s further involvement ? Political decision again ? What are ATSB’s priorities given their finite resources, their Act is specific (as is Annex 13), re improving aviation safety. Where are our $s best spent ?
Last edited by hamble701; 12th Mar 2019 at 02:39. Reason: Typo
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used to work for the original search contractor, however in a different division. We saw the internal presentations/documents/raw data highlighting system performance and results obtained. As the contractor, we were searching within the location instructed by the client, unfortunately with no success. The data obtained is superb, there's just no indication of aircraft remains within the search box.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Amongst the Gum Tree's
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
