Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost

Old 12th Mar 2014, 21:36
  #2421 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 300
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
First thing I thought was "sitting on the bottom of the ocean" when I saw picture 2
scoobys is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2014, 21:39
  #2422 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by MartinM
Looks like, yes. I would have said the same. Tail section with elevators


Not entirely similar...
drdino is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2014, 21:41
  #2423 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Chicago, IL, US
Age: 73
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by mabuhay_2000
It seems utter madness to have the aircraft's flight computers on the same network was the PAX WiFi.


Aircraft don't use the internet for navigation or communication. Some aircraft have internet capability for passenger entertainment only.
I believe the point being made is that connecting non-flight critical systems to the same common communications network is a bad idea. Once such a system is connected to an aircraft data bus, it becomes possible to jam the bus with traffic that disrupts flight critical communications. This can be done in any number of ways and has been an issue in telecomms (we called it "the babbling bus problem" back in the 1960s), RF comms ("being stepped on", jamming, interference), and the internet (DOS (Denial of Service) attacks, SYN flooding, etc.). One can design ways to address these issues but it adds complexity and is difficult to test, as you must prove nothing bad can possible happen.

Reduced to the absurd, it is the same as connecting the highways at an airport to the runways with paved roads and trusting the planes and cars to play nicely - what could go wrong?
jmmilner is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2014, 21:41
  #2424 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Forgive me if this has already been posted, but when the server is not melted down anyone can help search for MH370 with current satellite photos at:

Tomnod
JimNtexas is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2014, 21:42
  #2425 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: atl
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My guess is that this is 370. Chinese imagery is much sharper
resolution than what they're showing for obvious reasons so they
must be confident. Image is from Sunday so backtracking water and wind currents will lead to underwater material. But, the way this mess has gone
it could be another false lead.
learjet45 is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2014, 21:43
  #2426 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,167
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
A poster asked about CPDLC.

Yes SINGAPORE AND HOCHIMINH both have and use CPDLC ADS-C

However on the flight plan MH370 used they would have gone straight from Lumpur Control to Hochiminh and NOT spoken or logged on to WSSS.

They may have logged on to VVTS....? VVTS ATC haven't said.

But yes VVTS CPDLC does work and I use it all the time.
nitpicker330 is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2014, 21:46
  #2427 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Guess the Gmail from the rig worker could have been correct based on the position of the chinese images.

Well, just measured it on google maps and it's not that close after all. over 20 error. The distance is a moot point as he didn't really know.

Last edited by FE Hoppy; 12th Mar 2014 at 21:58. Reason: spoke too soon.
FE Hoppy is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2014, 21:52
  #2428 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Germany
Age: 70
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm quite curious about the very time of the obviously (and clearly documented) first incident (all other data are speculative/non-confirmed, as of right now):

that was right after the pilot said 'good night' (verbally) to KL/Subang via VHF and before saying 'hello' to Saigon/HCMC, which obviously never happened.

What would be a reasonable time gap between such messages on a 'normal' flight on this route? 2 minutes? Is that a fair number?

Instead of this, the flight disappeared at the (almost) very same time on secondary radar.

Coincidence?

Given the standard route from Lumpur to Beijing, that point in time / position would make a perfect time stamp to make the flight 'vanish' to primary and secondary radar for whatever reason.

Any 'takes'?

Last edited by NicholasB; 14th Mar 2014 at 15:48.
NicholasB is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2014, 21:54
  #2429 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: South Alabama
Age: 74
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Rig Worker

I hope this is a find.

I wonder why, with all the other eyes on land, air, and sea, that he was the only one to come forward.

Not saying he isn't truthful, but there are thousand of other eyes that saw nothing.
Old Boeing Driver is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2014, 21:57
  #2430 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It may not disrupt the avionics bay as I well know; it may have however created an environment in which the capacity of both crew members was heavily overloaded. After all, aviate - navigate - communicate.
Contact Approach is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2014, 21:57
  #2431 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: directly below the zenith
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
China reveals location

We've had lots of geopolitical pussyfooting from the authorities up to this point, no state willing to reveal the extent or accuracy of their radar/tracking capabilities and/or the range of operation. Of course we've also had the yes/no/maybe/confirmed/denied mystery track to the west.


Enter China with a long-awaited solid lead.


It is virtually inconceivable that China would risk embarrassment on the world stage by releasing these satellite images without being absolutely certain they are highly relevant to the search for MH370. That alone ought to tell us this is the approx. location of the missing aircraft.
deadheader is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2014, 21:58
  #2432 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
According to various news sources (CNN & Daily Mail) - the debris and oil slick is in the area initially searched after the crash and is floating.

If that's the case, why wasn't it noticed before?
PlymouthPixie is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2014, 22:02
  #2433 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Can't make out too much of these images.

Pieces seem pretty big.

However China would probably not release this information unless they were certain. They certainly would have the means to have a much more detailed look before releasing these low res photos.

Direction is right. Unlikely plane turned around and overflew land. Cell phones are often left on, and do work just fine at cruise levels. Certainly good enough to be tagged by network. Certainly good enough for SMS or data. And sometimes good enough for voice. If it had reversed course and pax concerned, someone would have got a message out.

All the stuff to the west is confusion, random "noise" and some rumors.
slats11 is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2014, 22:03
  #2434 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: LTN
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
sat coords to tomnod map reference?

@jimNtexas et al

Can anyone convert the coordinates [N6.7 E105.63 ] of these Chinese sat images into tomnod map number(s)?
Biggles1957 is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2014, 22:03
  #2435 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
According to various news sources (CNN & Daily Mail) - the debris and oil slick is in the area initially searched after the crash and is floating.

If that's the case, why wasn't it noticed before?
Who did the search?
FE Hoppy is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2014, 22:04
  #2436 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Royaume-Uni
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Out of interest: there seems to be plenty of precedent to suggest that if an aircraft hits the water hard and fast it breaks up a lot and leaves smaller fragments of floating debris. Does anyone know what the situation would be likely to be if you managed to successfully ditch - or almost successfully ditch - a T7 at low speed? If it remained in one or two pieces, how long could you reasonably expect it to float? I know the safety cards in the seat pocket tend to show a lovely, stable floating aircraft buoyed by the escape slides with pax disembarking in an orderly fashion, but is that plausible?
Montgolfier is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2014, 22:05
  #2437 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ventura, California
Age: 65
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why did it take China 48 hours to release those pictures??
Because they don't want to reveal their full capabilities, and second, as mentioned above, they would not risk embarrassing themselves unless they were virtually certain. I imagine if they had thought there was any chance of survivors, they would have somehow directed SAR assets to the area much sooner, and become international heros.
thcrozier is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2014, 22:08
  #2438 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: london england
Age: 66
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I am also wondering, surely they already searched that area? Seems quite large to miss, if what we are seeing is the wreckage. And are we now being told the oil rig worker actually exists? i thought this was disputed earlier?
Nightingale14 is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2014, 22:09
  #2439 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Apologies if this has already been raised, but... is there any practical reason why manufacturers don't fit EPIRB devices to airliners ? I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult to engineer an impact-triggered release system that, in the event of a mid-air explosion or impact with water, would release a floating radio locator beacon (epirb). The cost of these devices are pennies in the grand scheme of things and would have been invaluable in this case, as well as AF447.

Does anyone know ?
anengineer is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2014, 22:10
  #2440 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Durham
Age: 62
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Chinese are not stupid and have a vested interest in finding the aircraft. It would suit their political purposes to release satellite imagery if they thought there was a high probability that it was the downed aircraft, not only to show the Malaysians that they arent doing a good job of SAR but to reassure their own citizens that they are on top of things.

As for the Chinese being reticent to release images showing their satellite capability - anyone who doubts that if the Chinese can soft land something on the moon, and start off a space station and dont have high res imaging on a satellite are not being realistic.
mercurydancer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.