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 13th Mar 2014, 03:42
  #2541 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
HEDGE 36

why the heading change?


if you are on an airway the presumption is that there might be traffic below you and if you descended while on course you might collide.

a 45 degree or 90 degree turn takes you off the airway and away from potential traffic.

HOWEVER

in many places where radar is quite good, like in the good old USA, a descent on the airway will be noticed by ATC and they will radio conflicting traffic and have them turn.

leaving an airway means leaving the safety of an MEA etc.

some airlines teach it, others don't. depends.


I hope this answers your intelligent question. one of the few I've seen here.
glendalegoon is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2014, 03:47
  #2542 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fife, Scotland
Age: 78
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"Post 2548 makes an excellent point... at 35000 feet, the distance to the horizon is ~229 miles, or 368 km."

But the deck of an oil rig is well above the sea so you would have to add the sight distance from the rig to the horizon.

Add in refraction then it might well be possible to see at that distance.

And if currents took the debris away from the rig it could well have been closer than where it was found.

Not saying he did see it (could have been a meteorite) but that it does not appear to be completely impossible.
A A Gruntpuddock is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2014, 03:51
  #2543 (permalink)  
jetsy
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: US for now
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Neogen,

The plane will not go missing if the transponder fails. There are other means of communications as you might be aware of. This one is highly suspicious since it traveled additional milage..Or so we are told.
jet_noseover is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2014, 03:59
  #2544 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Internet
Age: 47
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The plane will not go missing if the transponder fails. There are other means of communications as you might be aware of. This one is highly suspicious since it traveled additional milage..Or so we are told.
So is it possible that the transponder failed due to some reason ?? Then crew was busy in addressing that issue and in that process they failed to notice other emerging problems. May be just a simple case of poor resource management.

Then the question would be why didnt they communicate back ?
Neogen is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2014, 04:07
  #2545 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Quote:
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.
Aterpster (#2533)
unlike ABs, the 777 has one wiring loom from fore to aft.
If that's the case (one singular and very robust loom running the length of the 777), then that would tend to support the theory. There would of course be a number of subsidiary looms running off that central wire bundle..... and they would tend to clump the wreckage in an apparent cohesive "whole" - as far as satellite imagery could discriminate. (see my post #2516).
TheShadow is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2014, 04:13
  #2546 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: s wales
Age: 80
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
#2548 Australopithicus and gruntpuddock #2566

At 387 km from Chinese satellite image to oil rig a problem arises:

An object at 35,000' would be below the horizon of the observer on the rig.
but as I said in my post #2546 the wreckage was not at that point on the day of the crash, it was probably about "km" of 387km, and if you look at that it is about 70 miles from the rig, ( the distance estimated in the email was 50-70).

Look back and find the post with the prevailing currents and you will see they sweep down from G/Tonkin around tip of Vietnam and SW (in my original post I did say SE but meant SW)which is virtually the track from rig to wreckage.

If this is wreckage the guy on the rig saw the crash and it was on fire and had probably been out of control for a while before descending.

Last edited by isca; 13th Mar 2014 at 04:27. Reason: added my original post number in
isca is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2014, 04:19
  #2547 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kowloon
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dai_Farr

Forgive me if I you mistook "A,N,C" as the required processes, that must be followed every time there is an emergency.

That's not the case, and it is not what I was stating. The military-style "chant" is an easy way for younger minds to be taught what is important, and the order of importance. The more the sky gets filled with young pilots who have known nothing other than following the green/magenta line, the more important it becomes to remind them that they must fly the aircraft - when needed - to the exclusion of everything else, until it becomes safe to do other stuff.

In an emergency, the pilot must prioritise. If ATC can help you navigate whilst you aviate, that's fine: use them. But don't crash because you think you need to make a radio call..
China Flyer is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2014, 04:27
  #2548 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Perth, Australia
Age: 44
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Anyone know where to find the Malaysian press conference videos online?

Cheers
BubbaMc is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2014, 04:28
  #2549 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Weltschmerz-By-The-Sea, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,358
Received 74 Likes on 33 Posts
Isca...

It was my post saying that line of sight was impossible to the rig. Let me rephrase with elaboration: the formula for distance to the horizon is sq root of altitude x 1.23 for Statute miles.

Elevation is additive, so the extra 12.3 SM the observer gains from deck elevation is added to the aircraft to horizon distance

Can you explain again, in English, what your coordinates mean? "Km of 387" is cryptic to me.

llne of sight from the rig, assuming a deck height of 100' and a target of 35,000' is 392 km, but the aeroplane would be observed to be ON THE HORIZON. And that would need to be a spectacular fire to be seen from almost 400km away.

Factoring the reports of the aircraft descending from 35,000' it becomes impossible due to the earth's curvature

The Chinese images are from the day after the event, hence within a few km of actual impact, assuming drift.

In any event, I did not read any emphasis in the purported email about the sighting to be so low as to be on the horizon.
Australopithecus is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2014, 04:28
  #2550 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Shahidan to fly to undisclosed location to verify possible sightings.

KUALA LUMPUR: Minister in the Prime Ministerís Department Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim confirmed that he will be flying to an undisclosed location late Thursday morning to verify possible sightings of the missing Malaysia Airlines (MAS) flight MH370.

Missing MH370: Shahidan to fly to undisclosed location to verify possible sightings - Nation | The Star Online
StormyKnight is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2014, 04:29
  #2551 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cover up

I previously posted that I believed the Malaysians were hiding something. I assumed something so crazy happened that they think they can't tell but pressure from China would force them to communicate all they know.

Noticing the latest developments, I now believe, the only thing the Malaysians are trying to cover up is their own complete incompetence about what happened and that they have neither proper equipment, nor people, to do something as simple as tracking their own aircraft and speak more than 2 straight sentences in a press conference, without contradicting themselves. The truth would simply disclose that they are completely defenseless and clueless, about what is going on at their borders and in their airspace. Living in Malaysia, that is a scary thought, particularly that they have sighted that "UFO" north west of Penang.

As far as the missing flight is concerned, I truly hope the crash site is soon being confirmed, black boxes recovered and the reasons for all the tragic riddles being solved.
humbleppl is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2014, 04:29
  #2552 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bali, Indonesia
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question for 772 Drivers

If the 777 has only a single wiring loom, how does it provide Redundnacy? Is the loom encased in carbon composite shields with "Sub-bundles" within??
philipat is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2014, 04:30
  #2553 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: btw SAMAR and TOSPA
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
1) A 777 has at least two transponders, if not three. One transponder inop does not make the plane disappear or fall out of the sky. The Air India 777 return after departure makes sense, because if the second transponder would have failed on a 15 hours flight it may have needed to land somewhere, where it would not like to be. Most FIRs over land do not allow to fly without transponder anymore, think of TCAS.

2) The primary radar of Malaysia is far from covering the whole area and peninsula. There are big gaps. This is the biggest problem for the Air Force chiefs to admit. It is even doubtful if the last position spot is under primary surveilance.

3) The suspect plane at 02.15 LT 200 km Northwest of Penang was likely SIA68 at FL300. It is standard for SIN departure traffic to Europe to fly through that area that low for the first three hours due to weight.

4) The Chinese crash site is not in any territorial waters. Territorial waters do not extend beyond 12 NM.

5) The Kiwi sighting was west and probably at a spot well above the horizon. The Chinese site would be SouthSouthWest and well below the horizon.
threemiles is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2014, 04:32
  #2554 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: s wales
Age: 80
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
on the map posted below mine original post there a map the same as the one I am commenting on.On this map is a line from the wreckage to the rig, that line is annotated 387km, i believe the km part (of that annotation) is about 70 km from the rig which is the distance the observer thought he was looking at.
isca is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2014, 04:34
  #2555 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC, USA
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Oil rig worker reported watching MH370 going down

on Twitter. Estimated distance 50-75 km. Gave his name & NZ passport No as well as Lat & Long. said he had told the authorities but received no response:

https://twitter.com/guywalters/statu...338496/photo/1

Last edited by INTEL101; 13th Mar 2014 at 04:48.
INTEL101 is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2014, 04:35
  #2556 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bali, Indonesia
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@humbleppl

I posted a similar matter earlier regarding the competence of Malaysian air defences but it was deleted. Enjoy it while you can

But yes, I agree that this shambolic performance is designed to cover-up the total incompetence of the Malaysian Government team. I opined that neither a hijacked commercial airliner nor a subsonic military aircraft would likely have transponders active when entering peninsular Malaysia with "The twin towers" as the target. But the Malaysians would be able to confirm what happened after two days, then change their minds.

I now share the view that believing they were covering something else up was giving them too much credit.

Last edited by philipat; 13th Mar 2014 at 04:54.
philipat is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2014, 04:37
  #2557 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Cincinnati, KY USA
Age: 46
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wink Supposed wreckage found and ambiguous turn back stmts

Missing Malaysia Airlines jet: Chinese satellite photographs possible wreckage | smh.com.au

My first post got dropped or was not evaluated.

The path from the origin to the point of lost com/transponder in the map shown is familiar to us all. The dis-ambiguous turn that would have had to led to the anomalous primary radar return off the west side of Malaysia is not depicted. But the supposed wreckage that China promotes as potential is perfectly in line with the original statement made a few days ago that referred to the fact that the a/c "may have turned back." They did not come out and state that it may have been spotted on radar temporarily off the west coast for another day or so. As a result. It is reasonable to conceive from the location of the supposed wreckage, in relation to the original known flight path and last known position, that it executed a roughly 170-180 degree turn to head back.

This isn't typical of what I have heard of a hijacker. They usually do not ask to return to where they came from. Not like they left their wallet and need to go home and get it.

If the turn is roughly a 180, it would place in my head, the idea that the plane had suffered a mechanical failure and was attempting a return.

Or is that just what they want us to believe?! Lol
bem411s is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2014, 04:41
  #2558 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Southern Maryland
Age: 56
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
But the deck of an oil rig is well above the sea so you would have to add the sight distance from the rig to the horizon.
Excellent point. But the math doesn't help the oil worker's case.

Running the computations for an oil rig platform 100 m above the ocean, and an object 348 Km away at 38,000 ft MSL, the line of sight would be 0.33 deg above the horizontal line of sight. At 100 m elevation, the horizon is 0.32 deg below horizontal. So the object would appear to be approximately 0.65 deg above the visible horizon - slightly more than the width of a full moon.

Certainly on a perfectly clear night you can see the moon rising, so it's obvious that you might be able to see that far. But it requires perfectly clear conditions nearly down to the horizon for 348 km - not common. And the airplane clearly wouldn't appear so high in the sky as to be obviously an airplane - not on a dark nearly moonless night in the middle of the ocean with no visible horizon and thus no clear reference for where the water ended and sky began.

(According to some atmospherics pages, refraction will affect these numbers, but it's hard to predict and may actually be either a positive or negative effect, meaning the farthest visible horizon can appear closer or farther, depending on the temperature gradients in the atmosphere.)

I also must question the oil rig worker's assertion that he could tell the plane was in one piece, and that it wasn't changing aspect and thus going towards or away from him. The best human eye can resolve a 30cm object at 1km; at 348 km this translates to about 100 m. The airplane would thus be slightly below the resolvable size to the human eye with perfect vision - possibly visible but only as an unresolved dot. Any aspect change would be far to slow to be detectable, and any debris cloud or fireball would appear as a single object no matter how segmented.

It would be far more likely that this oil rig worker saw a light flaring from a fairly close ship at that low elevation, than an airplane at 38,000 ft 348 miles away. Both would be at approximately the same location in his field of view. On the other hand, if he saw anything high enough in the sky to be certain it was an airplane instead of a ship, it was far closer than this flight would have been, based on other "known" data.

I'm sure he's not misleading anyone intentionally, but it doesn't pass the math sniff test.

Dip of the Horizon
Visual acuity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BrandonSoMD is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2014, 04:42
  #2559 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
best comment ive seen here

best summary yet threemiles..more pls
false_horizon is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2014, 04:46
  #2560 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Under Class C
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The comments re being able (or not able) to see the plane burning from the oil rig, you are assuming he saw it at point of impact re the satellite photos. As he described it, it was still flying, though moving towards or away form him. We just don't know how long it may have remained in the air after this time.

I am not saying I buy into the credibility of the photos, we need more information, but don't discount things just because the oil rig is too far away from the purported crash site. He never claimed to see it crash from memory.
gchriste 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.