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 24th Mar 2014, 08:32
  #7681 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Arizona
Age: 71
Posts: 62
EMP, EM - Not in this case.

EMP or EM has been mooted a couple of times as a possible cause of electronics failure in this incident.

That didn't happen. Aircraft operate in nasty EM environments as a matter of course. On the ground, they are exposed to nearby in-band transmitters (aviation frequencies). They are also exposed to high power microwave from ATC and ground control radars, and various other radio transmitters from ATC to cell phones to public safety and ground handling radios. In the air, they fly through thunderstorms and are hit by lightning quite frequently. Lightning is an extremely high power EMP source, with characteristics similar to a couple of components of nuclear HEMP (the "EMP" threat one reads about).

This means that aircraft electronics are well protected against EM and EMP threats (although nuclear-generated HEMP *might* damage some systems). Short of nuclear weapons or lightning, getting high powered damaging EM or EMP into an aircraft in cruise altitude flight is virtually impossible. I don't believe there were thunderstorms on the known flight path, and even if they were present, it would be very unlikely they could have caused this particular set of events.

EM/EMP/ESD did not take down this aircraft.
Mesoman is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2014, 09:17
  #7682 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gatwick
Age: 55
Posts: 7
I'm wondering how long it will be before it is announced that the South China sea is to be revisited.
dillboy is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2014, 09:30
  #7683 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 633
Dillboy,

Only when Inmarsat's senior people appear wandering round London in sackcloth and ashes. They've been very clear.

Before the Inmarsat statement, there was no reason to look anywhere else but the South China Sea. Now there's no reason to look there.

Yesterday's French radar note was interesting, but it's gone quiet since. It might be that it took France two weeks to extract the information, and so it'll take everyone else with similar tools another two weeks to confirm it.
awblain is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2014, 09:35
  #7684 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,274
Originally Posted by averow View Post
You do realize that Li Ion batteries are the MAIN backup batteries on the Boeing 787 ?
And you do realize that those batteries are now better designed and in armoured battery boxes that have been tested in FAA certification tests to show that they contain a battery failure by inducing a battery fire inside them?
Ian W is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2014, 09:39
  #7685 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: California
Posts: 154
Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator View Post
See my previous answer, even 25k does not correlate with the last radar position.

Then there was a suggestion to increase range but flying more slowly and reducing fuel burn. It does not work that way. There are 3 speed ranges:

Maximum - gets there fastest but uses lots of fuel.

Range - goes furthest for the fuel burn.

Endurance - flies for longest time but not as far.

To fly the farthest is follows it would need to fly at best speed which is Range speed and cruise climb.
Right. What makes me curious is the hole in the Malaysian radar track. They somehow lost the aircraft about 100NM out, just past Pulau Perak, and then reacquired it later as it was moving away. This is very strange for an aircraft at constant altitude, but it could be explained if it descended low to cross Malaysia and started to climb back out to FL350(?) when it was out into the sea.

Line-of-sight distance for an aircraft at FL120 is just above 100 NM.

The question then becomes, how much range would it lose by dropping to FL120 for ~1 hour and then climbing back?
hamster3null is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2014, 09:39
  #7686 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 55
KL Live

Australian search a/c locates 2 objects

2 orange objects spotted by searchers

10 a/c being used for search. Additional planes dispatched to search area.

Nothing concrete though. These are just leads.

HMAS Success could retrieve objects "within hours"
brika is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2014, 09:42
  #7687 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,507
Originally Posted by mm43 View Post
In this particular case and others that went before it, the FR24 range of this station was at its limit. Corrupt data due to that alone is more likely the case.
No. Read up on altitude encoding/decoding.

No matter how many bits of the AC may have been corrupted, if any, it will still only resolve to an altitude that's a multiple of 25' or 100', depending on which encoding schema is used. There simply aren't enough bits in the ADS-B packet to encode altitudes to the nearest foot, despite what the FR24 data implies.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2014, 09:55
  #7688 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: planet earth
Posts: 414
so ma rep just said there was 200kg of lithium batteries in the hold ...
desmotronic is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2014, 09:57
  #7689 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,570
Originally Posted by hamster3null View Post
Right. What makes me curious is the hole in the Malaysian radar track. They somehow lost the aircraft about 100NM out, just past Pulau Perak, and then reacquired it later as it was moving away. This is very strange for an aircraft at constant altitude, but it could be explained if it descended low to cross Malaysia and started to climb back out to FL350(?) when it was out into the sea.
It was certainly postulated that the aircraft flew lower over the peninsular (it was heard?) or did it?

Going dark to the radar could have been the result of entering the overhead but I don't know just how bigger hole that creates. In a proper air defence system an adjacent site will cover its neighbour's overhead. We have no idea of how integrated their radar system is or if there were adjacent radars active. We have been told that the military radar saw the turn back and we have seen a picture of the last contact point. We have been shown no evidence of tracking between the turn back and the last position.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2014, 10:06
  #7690 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 61
Opposition leader in Australian Parliament also speaking about the find - one orange object and one "circular green" object. This bipartisan approach - and the opposition leader sounds very grave, and spoke sorrowfully and in specifics about tragic results for humans - makes me think it's a much more definite find, given that over the last couple of days there's been a bit of sniping about whether the PM was premature in his earlier announcement.
Passagiata is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2014, 10:06
  #7691 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: France
Posts: 161
Press Conference today

The Minister of Transport indicated that there was wooden pallets o/b the MAS370 but it could not be confirmed to be the same as the ones spotted.
He also said that some debris were located (one orange and one white) by an airplane and that they might be retrieved this evening (Malaysian time) or tomorrow morning. Next PC tomorrow 0930z

Editing: Mr Hishammuddin Tun Hussein is the Minister of defence and acting Minister of Transport

Last edited by Squawk_ident; 24th Mar 2014 at 10:12. Reason: Added informations about Mr Hishammuddin Tun Hussein
Squawk_ident is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2014, 10:19
  #7692 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Welsh Marches
Posts: 58
Fuel Load and Passengers Numbers

From what I have read, the only "source" of how much fuel was loaded is attributed to Bloomberg as being 54 MT. The Malaysian authorities if I'm correct have only said something along the lines of "sufficient for Beijing plus some reserves"


There were 227 passengers on board which included 4 or 5 (don't have the exact number) of standby passengers because of "no shows".


As the aircraft was not fully loaded with passengers - I think I've read there were 50 plus spare seats - I'm curious as to why the standby passengers were presumably only allowed on because of the "no shows".


Does this mean the fuel capacity vs payload was the governing factor?


Point of my question is to do with the possible range of MH370. One of the early posts in this thread suggested that the plane could have been tankering fuel and carrying way over the amount needed for "Beijing plus reserve". If it was carrying a large amount of extra fuel then the maximum range would be affected. The standby passenger issue seems to contradict this theory though.
Alchad is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2014, 10:24
  #7693 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Airstrip One
Posts: 12
I know it was asked, didn't see an answer yet - FO was on 6th 777 flight according to press conf, first 5 were examined flights and he 'passed'.
Gridl0k is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2014, 10:36
  #7694 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,274
Originally Posted by mm43 View Post
In this particular case and others that went before it, the FR24 range of this station was at its limit. Corrupt data due to that alone is more likely the case.
I would suspect that FR24 may be 'averaging' several responses. The actual outputs from the aircraft are in multiples usually of 100 ft but some 25ft.
Ian W is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2014, 10:41
  #7695 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: On the fast lane
Posts: 18
A bit slack, but what the CEO of Malaysian Airlines had failed to add was how many hours of sim time the F/O had clocked, to lend credence to his T7 'experience'.
Kooljack is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2014, 10:43
  #7696 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,274
Originally Posted by Tfor2 View Post
Cockpit Voice Recorders: The output from vastly updated technology is now available and ready to record hours of audio and video activity on the flight deck. However, it appears that concerns of pilot privacy still forbid their full use. 30 minutes max and no video. Is there a conflict here?

We bereft pax are left to wonder what the point is of spending millions to retrieve this piece of evidence from the bottom of the ocean, only to find there's nothing on it.

Let's hear from some of you pros out there.
Repeated inquiries like the recent BEA inquiry into AF447 have suggested better recordings and recordings of just the instrument panel(s) by video. But despite better recordings now being simple and cheap there is considerable back pressure from crews who do not trust their management not to attempt to misuse the recordings. This shows how managers and management attitudes can directly affect flight safety. But the kind of manager that would dig around in FOQA data to get at a crew is the kind that is too short-sighted to understand the flight safety impact of doing that.
Ian W is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2014, 10:44
  #7697 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA USA
Age: 55
Posts: 183
These latest sightings by the Australians and Chinese make me optimistic, that they're narrowing it down. If the plane did drop to 12,000 ft as reported last night, someone must have still been around to bring it back up to cruising altitude. I'm still confident in Inmarsat, Captain Kremlin's analysis overlaid by the weather satellite's contrail photos, so I can't see it staying at 12,000 for long, if that's actually true. A few days ago, I would have been surprised if they found the FDR and CVR before the pinger batteries ran out. Now, I think they'll do it.
Coagie is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2014, 10:46
  #7698 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 502
One of the early posts in this thread suggested that the plane could have been tankering fuel and carrying way over the amount needed for "Beijing plus reserve".
Many thousands of posts ago, someone published the price per litre at PEK vs the price at KUL. This along with the assumption that Malaysian receives a 'significant' discount as a state owned* flag carrier suggested tankering fuel on this route was the norm.

(*Malaysian government has a 52% stake in the company)
Speed of Sound is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2014, 10:56
  #7699 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Montreal
Posts: 9
What It Is

One of the most fascinating and gruesome mysteries since the JFK assassination, MH370's disappearance has engaged the world's collective imagination.

Yet a view of posts to PPRuNe and Twitter shows we still react with knee jerk enthusiasm to every tantalizing satellite sighting of flotsam, although our oceans, like space around us, is filled with junk.

Let's go back to square one for a moment:

1. Whether cell calls were or were not possible, at least 80 (30%) phones should have been on and attempting to register with cell towers. The 9-11 Shanksville aircraft was at 40,000' and several air-to-ground calls were successfully placed. But again, the question is not calls, but registration (pings). Why no analysis of cell phone registration attempts from take-off and along any possible flight path?

2. Why would radar be off in Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, India, Indonesia, as well as long-range radar in China and Australia?

3. Wouldn't civil/military radar have tracked MH370 as it overflew Indonesian space (which it would have had to do assuming it was headed to the Indian ocean)? Why no discussion of the need for this data?

4. How can INMARSAT pings all be at 40 degrees from the satellite? I realize this has been covered here on the basis of aircraft altitude, but it makes no sense to me. I understand that the 40 degrees is the angle from the satellite to the aircraft. No aircraft would fly a 40-degree curve from a satellite. Constant 40 degree pings would suggest the aircraft had landed and its engines were still running.
comcomtech is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2014, 10:59
  #7700 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,613
MotCap....

"I never saw anything that would LNAV us to the S Pole."
It's because you haven't wanted to snuff yourself out, cover your tracks into the middle of nowhere and keep people guessing.
GlueBall is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.