Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost
AFAIK MAS do not allow non crew to be in the FD but just like anything else there are rules written on paper and then there is real life. I'll leave it at that.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where Is debris?
Ian W
First some debris has been spotted by aircraft but ship recovery has not yet happened.
First some debris has been spotted by aircraft but ship recovery has not yet happened.
The two arguments go against each other:
1. Big fully loaded aircraft "crashes" and breaks apart
2. Practically no debris located
One of them CANNOT be right if Inmarsat data is correct.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Ipswich UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Opportunity
I am considering setting up an "E@Humble-Pie" store, with discount for registered site posters.
I suspect there will be quite a demand when we do find out what happened, hopefully sooner rather than later.
I suspect there will be quite a demand when we do find out what happened, hopefully sooner rather than later.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is nothing that can be tied to MH370 that has been spotted visually by any ship. South Indian ocean has plenty of debris otherwise (Google Indian Ocean Garbage Patch).
The two arguments go against each other:
1. Big fully loaded aircraft "crashes" and breaks apart
2. Practically no debris located
One of them CANNOT be right if Inmarsat data is correct.
The two arguments go against each other:
1. Big fully loaded aircraft "crashes" and breaks apart
2. Practically no debris located
One of them CANNOT be right if Inmarsat data is correct.
You really have no sense of scale - in a post way back at the beginning of the thread the problem was described as looking for a green grain of sugar in Central Park.
Now some debris has been sighted and marker buoys dropped - and even then ships cannot get to that area easily to check out what has been found.
If someone had wanted to find somewhere to 'lose' a widebody aircraft so it could not be found they would have chosen the South Indian Ocean in the 'roaring forties'.
Had it not been for the maintenance of low level SATCOM connectivity, and, the capability of communications scientists to calculate from simple handshakes where an aircraft could be - the location of the aircraft would be completely unknown and the assumption would have been a crash close to Malaysia.
SAR info
For BONO and the others who keep on about debris, bear in mind what the Australian military have said. " We have to find the haystack"
As I said in a post several days ago, I've been there, in the haystack, and still couldn't find what we were looking for. Even with modern radars, sea clutter is a major problem, particularly when looking into the swell. If the object in the water is moving relative to the swell you may be able to electronically isolate it. If on the other hand it is drifting with the swell I don't see how you can reduce the sea return without killing the return from the object.
So back to Mk 1 eyeball!
Info from current SAR types would be helpful.
Post# 8267
As I said in a post several days ago, I've been there, in the haystack, and still couldn't find what we were looking for. Even with modern radars, sea clutter is a major problem, particularly when looking into the swell. If the object in the water is moving relative to the swell you may be able to electronically isolate it. If on the other hand it is drifting with the swell I don't see how you can reduce the sea return without killing the return from the object.
So back to Mk 1 eyeball!
Info from current SAR types would be helpful.
Post# 8267
Last edited by flown-it; 26th Mar 2014 at 15:31. Reason: Found the post!
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where is Debris
U.S. hardware designed to help with that task arrived Wednesday in Perth, the western Australian city that is the base for the search efforts.
The United States sent a Bluefin-21 autonomous underwater vehicle, which can search for submerged objects at depths as low as 14,700 feet (about 4,500 meters), and a TPL-25, a giant listening device that can help pinpoint the location of pings from the flight data recorder. Towed behind a ship, the TPL-25 can detect pings at a maximum depth of 20,000 feet (about 6,100 meters).
-From Above CNN Article
Great!, looks like NTSB is as baffled as I am regarding no worthwhile debris from crash of a fully loaded giant aircraft.
The search area has not ballooned it has simply moved around based on drifting models as mentioned by AMSA briefings. The area if anything has become narrower, a fact you can verify by looking at daily search maps published by AMSA on its media site. From the initial area given to them by NTSB, AMSA has essentially factored in only drifting models and satellite sightings. None of these searches have been fruitful. In any case it defies logic that while search area is become narrower, yet there have been zero debris sightings.
The United States sent a Bluefin-21 autonomous underwater vehicle, which can search for submerged objects at depths as low as 14,700 feet (about 4,500 meters), and a TPL-25, a giant listening device that can help pinpoint the location of pings from the flight data recorder. Towed behind a ship, the TPL-25 can detect pings at a maximum depth of 20,000 feet (about 6,100 meters).
-From Above CNN Article
Great!, looks like NTSB is as baffled as I am regarding no worthwhile debris from crash of a fully loaded giant aircraft.
Ian W
You really have no sense of scale - in a post way back at the beginning of the thread the problem was described as looking for a green grain of sugar in Central Park.
You really have no sense of scale - in a post way back at the beginning of the thread the problem was described as looking for a green grain of sugar in Central Park.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CNN certainly is NOT the source to reference for anything to do with this Aircraft Disappearance. They being of the every conspiracy and lunatic theory there is.
Please give one example of a wide body attempting to land and breaking up!
EA 401 landed in the Glades at a gentle descent rate in smooth surface and most were killed. The 'Miracle on the Hudson' was 99% about still surface conditions and landing at a controlled rate. IF MH 370 flamed at fuel exhaustion, as seems most likely, it hit either barely controlled (pilots still alive, which then begs why were they there) or uncontrolled after the A/P tripped off following loss of AC power.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Berks
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where is the Debris
While the Australian effort has been focused on an area of 36,000 sq km, the area seen by French satellites that showed 122 objects is 400,000 sq km - that's pretty big, about the size of California.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: 50'11N 004' 16W
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't hold much hope for radar being used to search for debris in that environment. Surface borne India-band would be the only real option and that would need to be within say ten miles at the most to detect small pieces of debris. Sea clutter can be managed to a certain degree by adjusting gain / pin attenuation but that comes with the expense of loss of range.
Radar IMO would only be of any use once the debris range location has been already identified.
Radar IMO would only be of any use once the debris range location has been already identified.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Clinton WA
Age: 75
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Causes and explanations
IanW: Actually they did mention the turbulence and told the rear crew that the pax should be strapped in. However, it is always like that flying through the ITCZ. The CVR and DFDR showed the LOC was almost certainly due to lack of experience/practice in limited panel manual flight at altitude with unreliable speed indications when in Alternate Law.
Yes yes but a passenger advisory is routine and not a notable comment of concern between pilots. Subsequent focusing on inadequate pilot experience/practice is too often an expediency by event reconstructors with competing agendas, and as an explanation misleads from or ignores possible airline system (et al) inadequacy and the other workload increases you mention which are all cumulative inside a time crunch. You are suggesting that 100 or 1000 other airliners, crews, instrumentation, and identical conditions (which we don't really know) would result in 99 or 999 flight completions with only AF447 failing because of the pilot inadequacy. My point regards the other 99, or 9999. Most accidents wouldn't occur if the aircraft remained completely intact and there was adequate time, altitude, and information to figure things out. AF447, and perhaps MH370 may not have had either. So were those two outcomes singular or more systemic in nature? If the latter, we should all be interested in understanding the situation as much as is possible and promoting necessary changes to prevent repetition. If in the future major loss of flight instrumentation with the most up to date systems were to occur again in the same weather situations, would it again be the pilots fault?
Yes yes but a passenger advisory is routine and not a notable comment of concern between pilots. Subsequent focusing on inadequate pilot experience/practice is too often an expediency by event reconstructors with competing agendas, and as an explanation misleads from or ignores possible airline system (et al) inadequacy and the other workload increases you mention which are all cumulative inside a time crunch. You are suggesting that 100 or 1000 other airliners, crews, instrumentation, and identical conditions (which we don't really know) would result in 99 or 999 flight completions with only AF447 failing because of the pilot inadequacy. My point regards the other 99, or 9999. Most accidents wouldn't occur if the aircraft remained completely intact and there was adequate time, altitude, and information to figure things out. AF447, and perhaps MH370 may not have had either. So were those two outcomes singular or more systemic in nature? If the latter, we should all be interested in understanding the situation as much as is possible and promoting necessary changes to prevent repetition. If in the future major loss of flight instrumentation with the most up to date systems were to occur again in the same weather situations, would it again be the pilots fault?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: France
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
French Satellite pictures
This picture is visible on this site here:
Boeing disparu : 122 débris flottants repérés par satellite - France Info
The pictures were taken by a Satellite owned by Airbus Defence and Space.
As we know these debris are not positively identified as MAS370 ones yet.
The pictures were published today Wednesday.
Boeing disparu : 122 débris flottants repérés par satellite - France Info
The pictures were taken by a Satellite owned by Airbus Defence and Space.
As we know these debris are not positively identified as MAS370 ones yet.
The pictures were published today Wednesday.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Gemini House
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before the FDR/CVR stop calling us?
How do you 'confirm' a primary radar return (possibly 200nm WNW of Penang VOR) being that of flight MH370?
Together with all the cavorting about (FL45, FL295, 45,000 feet, FL120, etc etc), was that confirmed as being MH370?
If you take the left turn at the FIR boundary as its Last Known Position; if you believe that a crew in trouble is most likely to turn off the airway and head for 'home' if only 40 mins out from KUL; and if you use the data from all Inmarsat 'ping' arcs (do we have them yet?); and using all Capt Kremin's good works with isogonals etc, do we not then get as likely an impact point as they are hoping to obtain by backtracking 18-day old debris?
Especially if the 'final' arc is used as the impact arc - the partial ping at 0019hrs UTC (was it?)
It would be a good place to start trailing your TPL-25 towed array, whilst waiting for a better spot...
Together with all the cavorting about (FL45, FL295, 45,000 feet, FL120, etc etc), was that confirmed as being MH370?
If you take the left turn at the FIR boundary as its Last Known Position; if you believe that a crew in trouble is most likely to turn off the airway and head for 'home' if only 40 mins out from KUL; and if you use the data from all Inmarsat 'ping' arcs (do we have them yet?); and using all Capt Kremin's good works with isogonals etc, do we not then get as likely an impact point as they are hoping to obtain by backtracking 18-day old debris?
Especially if the 'final' arc is used as the impact arc - the partial ping at 0019hrs UTC (was it?)
It would be a good place to start trailing your TPL-25 towed array, whilst waiting for a better spot...
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Where the aircraft goes dark the tracker may have to re-associate the track. Admittedly it is possible to re-associate to the wrong track but, assuming other aircraft and track labels remain associated and only MH370 lost tracking then re-association should not be questioned.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Cape Town
Age: 60
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Dutch navy aircraft had the following damage though during the ditching (in rough sea):
Lost one wing, other wing snapped off near engine, tail section and part of the rear fuselage detached. All 12 crew got out though but 3 didn't make it to the life rafts and drowned.
Source: Flight International
Re comms precautions: maybe time to consider a battery backup satellite phone in the cabin for cases where the flight deck is for some reason closed off to the crew etc. You'd need to have safeguards against sabotage of course.
Lost one wing, other wing snapped off near engine, tail section and part of the rear fuselage detached. All 12 crew got out though but 3 didn't make it to the life rafts and drowned.
Source: Flight International
Re comms precautions: maybe time to consider a battery backup satellite phone in the cabin for cases where the flight deck is for some reason closed off to the crew etc. You'd need to have safeguards against sabotage of course.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How Inmarsat Hacked Their Data to Find Flight MH370
Detailed scientific explanation of the complex mathematical puzzle solved by Inmarsat engineers surviving on pizza for 6 days/nights while working on the problem.
Physics Buzz: How Inmarsat Hacked Their Data to Find Flight MH370
Physics Buzz: How Inmarsat Hacked Their Data to Find Flight MH370
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Wistaston, Cheshire
Age: 64
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Visual/Radar Search
A question for any ex-Nimrod guys on this thread, and forgive me if this has already come up but I'm not going to go through 8300 replies to find out!
Watching the TV reports of the P-3's and others flying the search, some of the pictures seemed to show the aircraft flying pretty low, maybe 500' ish. This struck me a little odd in that unless you flew almost directly over an object you were cutting down everybody's field of vision and that a search from a higher altitude would let you see more area. This, I presume, would also limit a radar search. If the initial objects they were looking for were about 75' in length and possibly semi-submerged I would have thought a search from a higher level looking vertically down rather than horizontally would have made life easier and given more time for the searchers.
What were the recommended procedures when the UK had aircraft that could actually do this kind of thing.
Watching the TV reports of the P-3's and others flying the search, some of the pictures seemed to show the aircraft flying pretty low, maybe 500' ish. This struck me a little odd in that unless you flew almost directly over an object you were cutting down everybody's field of vision and that a search from a higher altitude would let you see more area. This, I presume, would also limit a radar search. If the initial objects they were looking for were about 75' in length and possibly semi-submerged I would have thought a search from a higher level looking vertically down rather than horizontally would have made life easier and given more time for the searchers.
What were the recommended procedures when the UK had aircraft that could actually do this kind of thing.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Watching the TV reports of the P-3's and others flying the search, some of the pictures seemed to show the aircraft flying pretty low, maybe 500' ish. This struck me a little odd in that unless you flew almost directly over an object you were cutting down everybody's field of vision and that a search from a higher altitude would let you see more area. This, I presume, would also limit a radar search. If the initial objects they were looking for were about 75' in length and possibly semi-submerged I would have thought a search from a higher level looking vertically down rather than horizontally would have made life easier and given more time for the searchers.
What were the recommended procedures when the UK had aircraft that could actually do this kind of thing.
What were the recommended procedures when the UK had aircraft that could actually do this kind of thing.
A low radar look angle might be better at a longer range.
The media show the aircraft flying low - this makes good video. The aircraft may already have made faster passes at greater heights looking for the larger object - doesn't make good video.
For the small objects Dai Farr explained how they establish best range for a visual and radar detection and the height to fly.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontius Navigator
Long endurance not long range
True, however a Predator Sea Avenger of a ship with approx 20 hours endurance could be useful with the right sensor equipment fitted.
Long endurance not long range
True, however a Predator Sea Avenger of a ship with approx 20 hours endurance could be useful with the right sensor equipment fitted.