Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Central Italy
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's an AD published last November. It "fits" this situation - loss of pressure + loss of SATCOM.
Boeing said it worked closely with the FAA to monitor the fleet for potential safety issues and take appropriate actions. But it said the 777-200ER Malaysia Airlines aircraft did not have that antenna installed and was not subject to the FAA order.
Whilst it is highly unlikely something sitting on top if the water would have been missed, the image could also depict a circular life raft tied to one or two escape slides.
A previous false alarm raised by aerial SAR was discovered to be logs tied together to form a pontoon.
A previous false alarm raised by aerial SAR was discovered to be logs tied together to form a pontoon.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Below glidepath
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Observations about images
I am not an aviation person, although I am a retired aerospace engineer having wored in satellite design many years.
I find it interesting that the dimensions of the three objects observed in the PRC images are approximately equal to the fuselage circumference. Just an observation as I have no idea how this could physically happen.
When enlarged, the object on the basically black and white image is quite interesting. On one end there is what appears to be four or five short pieces sticking out of the object which could be an indication it was torn from somehthing else. The other end of this object could be a distorted cockpit, the black areas being the windows.
Probably just more wild speculation, but it seems like it will fit right in with other comments on this thread. NOTE: There are some very intelligent and knowledgeable comments here, which I appreciate.
I find it interesting that the dimensions of the three objects observed in the PRC images are approximately equal to the fuselage circumference. Just an observation as I have no idea how this could physically happen.
When enlarged, the object on the basically black and white image is quite interesting. On one end there is what appears to be four or five short pieces sticking out of the object which could be an indication it was torn from somehthing else. The other end of this object could be a distorted cockpit, the black areas being the windows.
Probably just more wild speculation, but it seems like it will fit right in with other comments on this thread. NOTE: There are some very intelligent and knowledgeable comments here, which I appreciate.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, UK
Age: 46
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@SierraTango1 - Sea depth
Chart 93010
cross ref with:
View image: photo
looks like 35-50m, but that's not necessarily where the plane went down, just to where debris may have drifted.
cross ref with:
View image: photo
looks like 35-50m, but that's not necessarily where the plane went down, just to where debris may have drifted.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.airforce.gov.au/Technolo...j38sG4oMWiAMtQ
Almost, but not quite as far as Malaysia.
Jindalee Operational Radar Network - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Almost, but not quite as far as Malaysia.
Jindalee Operational Radar Network - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could we not keep hearing about the Chinese 'sitting back & taking... Oh! So long, 3 days to publish these Sat Images'
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: North America
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New York Times notes in an article: Online and Onscreen, Disappeared Malaysian Flight Draws Intense Speculation
"Some of the most technically informed comments were posted on Professional Pilots Rumour Network, a Britain-based chat room that, despite its name, is widely read in the aviation world and is one of the few 'pilot chat room' sites that is not actually a matchmaking service."
If these are "some of the most technically informed comments," I'd hate to see those that are not... but at least the moderators are recognized for keeping the matchmakers out!
"Some of the most technically informed comments were posted on Professional Pilots Rumour Network, a Britain-based chat room that, despite its name, is widely read in the aviation world and is one of the few 'pilot chat room' sites that is not actually a matchmaking service."
If these are "some of the most technically informed comments," I'd hate to see those that are not... but at least the moderators are recognized for keeping the matchmakers out!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Airport
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
chinese satellite capability
So i guess the chinese where just merely waiting for the malaysians to come up with the answer. China does not want the whole world to know their technological capability. But pressure broke their silence... 
I wonder what uncle sam is thinking now that they know that the chinese have these kinds of imaging capabilities.
I wonder what uncle sam is thinking now that they know that the chinese have these kinds of imaging capabilities.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But pressure broke their silence...
I wonder what uncle sam is thinking now that they know that the chinese have these kinds of imaging capabilities."
I wonder what uncle sam is thinking now that they know that the chinese have these kinds of imaging capabilities."
Re Pressure, China getting pissed off with Malaysia and so releasing images to show how inept they are ?
Capabilities ? I think the US knows what they have !
Join Date: May 2002
Location: MA
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is my question... if the Chinese are so fearful of disclosing their satellite resolution capabilities, why didn't they just go out and find the crash site on their own without ever disclosing how they happened to find it? They end up looking competent and besides, aside China has a huge stake in this with so many of the pax being Chinese citizens.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Debris field size Explanations
There'd appear to be a lot of CNN and "expert" agonizing over the apparent size of the objects constituting the satellite imagery of the possible debris field SE of the MAS370 track. Apart from it conceivably being a partially deflated/inflated escape slide, it could also be a concoction of wreckage linked by wiring looms. You only need a few wiring looms to remain partly intact and interweaved to keep a debris field together in one clump.
The flotation could be explained by the characteristics of the new insulation that replaced metallized mylar (MPET). There's quite a lot of it and it'd be capable of keeping lighter debris on the surface. And of course there'd be a lot of water white-foaming around any such debris and thus enhancing its apparent size in an image.
The flotation could be explained by the characteristics of the new insulation that replaced metallized mylar (MPET). There's quite a lot of it and it'd be capable of keeping lighter debris on the surface. And of course there'd be a lot of water white-foaming around any such debris and thus enhancing its apparent size in an image.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Airport
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
accident investigation jurisdiction
ICAO Annex 13 tells us that the State of Occurrence has primary jurisdiction of accident investigation, second would be State of Registry and final is State of Design. I think one reason behind this chaos might be is up until now nobody knows who has jurisdiction of the accident because the wreckage hasn't been found yet.
There is an ongoing territorial dispute among Asian and Chinese right now about who owns the south china sea so this might also complicate the matter... just my two cents
There is an ongoing territorial dispute among Asian and Chinese right now about who owns the south china sea so this might also complicate the matter... just my two cents
Paxing All Over The World
NamelessWonder commented about FR24
Not for FR24!! Bear in mind that the data may be aggregated from more than one source and the processing, with time delays can give variable output.
When watching friends aircraft leaving/arriving, I have often seen the track suddenly jump ahead of the a/c and make it look as if the a/c has done a complete circle and come back to the identical position. Also, when an aircraft does circle. the tracks recorded by FR24 is jagged. Looking at at short time periods of FR24 data may not be helpful.
Perhaps anomalies are to be expected, given that this is unofficial data, but to see 2 reciprocal tracks in the surrounding area of the event under question, AND within a few minutes of the disappearance seems somewhat . . . . odd.
When watching friends aircraft leaving/arriving, I have often seen the track suddenly jump ahead of the a/c and make it look as if the a/c has done a complete circle and come back to the identical position. Also, when an aircraft does circle. the tracks recorded by FR24 is jagged. Looking at at short time periods of FR24 data may not be helpful.
Thread Starter
Willow - move the birds?
Assume you're joking - a re-task is a big call.
This region is covered by all sorts of IMINT and ELINT assets in highly eliptical orbits.
Some are Lacrosse/Onyx type radar birds as well, so night or bad weather presents no problem.
Assume you're joking - a re-task is a big call.
This region is covered by all sorts of IMINT and ELINT assets in highly eliptical orbits.
Some are Lacrosse/Onyx type radar birds as well, so night or bad weather presents no problem.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know when a boat will get to the locations of the debris in the photos?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: bahamas
Age: 72
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder, how large do weather balloons get, how high would they rise if they broke their tethers and did any agencies have any deployed near the aircraft's last known position?
If you were correct there would be no need for this FAA special directive
220mph - the Special Condition is issued as a pre-requisite to certifying a new system (generally Special Conditions are issued when the FAA believes that the existing FARs are not adequate for certification of new or novel technologies - the 787 had a boatload). The 777 system that the FAA issued SC against is still in development and won't enter service for some time.
The current 777 does not yet have an "Onboard Network System" (ONS), and the flight deck avionics are not linked to the passenger accessible systems in any way. There is simply no way for someone sitting in the back to access the flight deck avionics - there is no link they could use.
There is a terminal for doing s/w updates - but it's in the flight deck. If a hacker has made it onto the flight deck, I think there would be easier ways to take over the aircraft than to download something into the avionics.
220mph - the Special Condition is issued as a pre-requisite to certifying a new system (generally Special Conditions are issued when the FAA believes that the existing FARs are not adequate for certification of new or novel technologies - the 787 had a boatload). The 777 system that the FAA issued SC against is still in development and won't enter service for some time.
The current 777 does not yet have an "Onboard Network System" (ONS), and the flight deck avionics are not linked to the passenger accessible systems in any way. There is simply no way for someone sitting in the back to access the flight deck avionics - there is no link they could use.
There is a terminal for doing s/w updates - but it's in the flight deck. If a hacker has made it onto the flight deck, I think there would be easier ways to take over the aircraft than to download something into the avionics.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: ex Ice Station Kilo
Age: 66
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hypoxia
Just back on here after several hours. My sincere apologies if this is yet another repetition!! Before going to bed I read someone asking for something on hypoxia. From my own experience, here goes...
Hypoxia means low oxygen, a gas we all need in order to live. Whereas all pilots are required to know about hypoxia, all aircrew in the RAF and, I expect, most western-aligned armed forces, are subjected to it in a barochamber.
There is a world of difference between learning something from a book and experiencing it. Sure, civvies will react as well as military-trained colleagues in a given situation. It is in not detecting hypoxia where there is a potential for major error. Experience must trump anecdote.
An explosive decompression gets your attention, make no mistake! The first reaction, instilled many, many times in every pilot's life, is to get on oxygen. By far the most dangerous situation derives from a slow leak of cabin pressure because all the clues can be rendered subtle enough as to pass the detection threshold unnoticed.
Aircraft are designed to fly high but humans are not. Unpressurised flight would require so much oxygen for everyone to breathe that it would be impractical. Plus, the pressure changes, particularly in the descent would deliver so many nose bleeds, ear drum ruptures and blown sinuses in a sufficient number of the population that the experience would render the prospect of air travel too unpleasant.
Aircraft designed for high altitude flight are designed to operate with a cabin pressure as close as practicable to mean sea level pressure. Were they designed to operate AT mean sea level pressure, the extra strengthening would render them too heavy. And so, as with most things in aviation, we have a compromise. Airliner cabins operate at a pressure differential that the structure can cope with, while keeping the air inside at a pressure which most people can cope with.
Aircraft pressurisation systems work, not by shutting the air in, but by controlling the flow of cabin air out to atmosphere. Were something to create an extra hole where the outflow defeats the pressure regulator, the net result must be a reduction in cabin pressure.
At all altitudes where current airliners fly, the atmosphere is a gas whose composition is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 1% other gases. Air pressure reduces with altitude. In your lungs, whilst alveolar gas still contains 21% oxygen, the number of molecules decrease as the pressure decreases. Fewer molecules of oxygen deprive the brain from functioning correctly - including the ability to process information and act on it!! Yes, including the ability to recognise the symtoms of hypoxia!! Well from here it gets messy!
In a slow leak, if you're busy, there will be too many distractions for you to notice the symptoms, either in yourself or in the pilot in the seat next to you. You might grumble at the First Officer for missing a radio call. Or for fumbling a simple calculation or (and don't jump on this one because it needs to be looked at in the round) mis-setting some equipment. You feel tired. But it is 1am! You have a headache. But ATC have been a pain, the ordinarily switched on First Officer is still making mistakes!! Was that radio call for us? Where's that glass of water you asked for AGES ago?
If you were alerted to the possibility of hypoxia, you might, given adequate cockpit lighting, wonder why your First Officer's lips were blue - not that you ordinarily look at them! Or that your finger tips had a blueish tinge!
I just think that it would be useful for all airline pilots to experience hypoxia, as we did in the RAF. There IS a difference between experiencing it and reading about it. Some will argue it is a small difference. But what if the "feelings" a pilot were feeling triggered a memory? It's busy. There are distractions. It is easy to pass tiredness, making basic mistakes that everyone makes from time to time and having a headache, to perfectly reasonable causes. But hypoxia is a perfectly natural cause, too. Of course it is money!! In the end, you only get the safety you're prepared to pay for.
Hypoxia means low oxygen, a gas we all need in order to live. Whereas all pilots are required to know about hypoxia, all aircrew in the RAF and, I expect, most western-aligned armed forces, are subjected to it in a barochamber.
There is a world of difference between learning something from a book and experiencing it. Sure, civvies will react as well as military-trained colleagues in a given situation. It is in not detecting hypoxia where there is a potential for major error. Experience must trump anecdote.
An explosive decompression gets your attention, make no mistake! The first reaction, instilled many, many times in every pilot's life, is to get on oxygen. By far the most dangerous situation derives from a slow leak of cabin pressure because all the clues can be rendered subtle enough as to pass the detection threshold unnoticed.
Aircraft are designed to fly high but humans are not. Unpressurised flight would require so much oxygen for everyone to breathe that it would be impractical. Plus, the pressure changes, particularly in the descent would deliver so many nose bleeds, ear drum ruptures and blown sinuses in a sufficient number of the population that the experience would render the prospect of air travel too unpleasant.
Aircraft designed for high altitude flight are designed to operate with a cabin pressure as close as practicable to mean sea level pressure. Were they designed to operate AT mean sea level pressure, the extra strengthening would render them too heavy. And so, as with most things in aviation, we have a compromise. Airliner cabins operate at a pressure differential that the structure can cope with, while keeping the air inside at a pressure which most people can cope with.
Aircraft pressurisation systems work, not by shutting the air in, but by controlling the flow of cabin air out to atmosphere. Were something to create an extra hole where the outflow defeats the pressure regulator, the net result must be a reduction in cabin pressure.
At all altitudes where current airliners fly, the atmosphere is a gas whose composition is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 1% other gases. Air pressure reduces with altitude. In your lungs, whilst alveolar gas still contains 21% oxygen, the number of molecules decrease as the pressure decreases. Fewer molecules of oxygen deprive the brain from functioning correctly - including the ability to process information and act on it!! Yes, including the ability to recognise the symtoms of hypoxia!! Well from here it gets messy!
In a slow leak, if you're busy, there will be too many distractions for you to notice the symptoms, either in yourself or in the pilot in the seat next to you. You might grumble at the First Officer for missing a radio call. Or for fumbling a simple calculation or (and don't jump on this one because it needs to be looked at in the round) mis-setting some equipment. You feel tired. But it is 1am! You have a headache. But ATC have been a pain, the ordinarily switched on First Officer is still making mistakes!! Was that radio call for us? Where's that glass of water you asked for AGES ago?
If you were alerted to the possibility of hypoxia, you might, given adequate cockpit lighting, wonder why your First Officer's lips were blue - not that you ordinarily look at them! Or that your finger tips had a blueish tinge!
I just think that it would be useful for all airline pilots to experience hypoxia, as we did in the RAF. There IS a difference between experiencing it and reading about it. Some will argue it is a small difference. But what if the "feelings" a pilot were feeling triggered a memory? It's busy. There are distractions. It is easy to pass tiredness, making basic mistakes that everyone makes from time to time and having a headache, to perfectly reasonable causes. But hypoxia is a perfectly natural cause, too. Of course it is money!! In the end, you only get the safety you're prepared to pay for.