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 27th Mar 2014, 00:05
  #8281 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Trinidad And Tobago
Age: 49
Posts: 16
Areobat.

In such a scenario at least the mounts or screws would've been damaged,with severed heads or broken metal between intact screws from mounting provisions/frame (like a jagged washer)..
Raptor Systems TT is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2014, 00:26
  #8282 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 259
WRT the object, I'd think flat blade screws haven't been used in a while in an aviation application. (Could be wrong). If it is not a fire bottle, what is it?
clark y is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2014, 00:34
  #8283 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: wales
Age: 37
Posts: 3
It may well be off an aircraft just not a 777 by the looks of it.

Another possibility is that it was part of a rocket stage that reentered the atmosphere or never fully left. You see a lot of pressure vessels make their way back down. I suppose their shape helps them to avoid being burnt to a cinder. I would say it looks a bit too clean for that though.

Looking at the images of the washed up object and the schematic my guess would be yes it's a fire bottle but no it isn't from a 777
fatdeeman is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2014, 00:34
  #8284 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Age: 70
Posts: 64
It looks like a miniature WW2 mine?
Minimbah is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2014, 01:19
  #8285 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Below glidepath
Posts: 15
WRT Pressure vessels

Not an expert in this stuff, but I find it strange that the bottles would rip from their mounting structure without some of the mounting structure being attached to the mounting screws. Looks too clean to me.
RichManJoe is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2014, 01:20
  #8286 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: NY - USA
Age: 64
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by clark y View Post
WRT the object, I'd think flat blade screws haven't been used in a while in an aviation application. (Could be wrong). If it is not a fire bottle, what is it?
I have removed and replaced many aircraft fire bottles in my career as an AME, and though the item in the photograph bears a superficial resemblance to one, I really don't think that is what it is.

Every fire bottle I have ever seen has a pressure gauge built into the side to indicate that the unit does indeed contain a full charge of extinguishing agent. No sign of such.

More importantly, an engine or APU bottle will have at least one, (and more often two), threaded female couplers for the large-diameter piping that conducts the agent to the appropriate location when the bottle is discharged - either to a dispersal nozzle within the engine cowl, or within the APU enclosure as the case may be. There is no sign of anything like that on the item in the photograph.

Also, the item in the photos appears to be made if a thicker gauge metal than is typical of aircraft fire bottles. The flush-mounted threaded plug in one side is also unusual.

The silver cylindrical device mounted to the side of the sphere bears a superficial resemblance to the electrical firing squib used on an aircraft extinguisher, but again, there is no sign of the threaded female coupling for the discharge line, which normally connects right below the squib.

And, as you point out, the use of slotted mounting screws is not often seen in aircraft. The fire bottles I am familiar with are all mounted to the aircraft structure with bolts.

Having said this, I have to point out that my experience with aircraft extinguishers is specifically on small to mid-size business jet aircraft. I have never seen or worked with the type of extinguishers that would typically be used on an airliner or cargo aircraft for cargo bay fire suppression. Perhaps that kind of extinguisher would look more like what is displayed in the photo.

Two things in the photos that DO suggest this item is from an aircraft, are the inked manufacturer's inspection stamps on the cylindrical device on the side, and the use of twisted lockwire to secure the end cap on the cylinder. There appear to be two wires protruding from the end of the cylinder, and firing squibs usually use a two-wire connection.
JRBarrett is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2014, 02:10
  #8287 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Cork, Ireland
Age: 51
Posts: 54
Originally Posted by Tourist View Post
Albatros

Do you really think that two very old aircraft are a more valid comparison than Sully in the river?

The 777 is a tank as has been proved by various recent accidents.

The airframe does not have to be immaculate to sink with little trace, merely hold onto its larger parts (wings/tail) and the pressure hull must be sufficiently intact to retain all the poor buggers inside plus cushions. That is not outwith the bounds of possibility.

p.s. Can the people who keep saying that water is as hard as concrete at speed please stop being silly. It gets no harder at any speed. It is still water. If you fire a pistol into water the bullets penetrate a couple of feet. Try that with concrete.
Of course water is not concrete, but this is just basic physics. A Boeing 777 ditching like this will be twice the weight and twice the speed of Flight 1549, giving 8 times the energy of impact, at least.
Then remember that Sully ditched on a flat calm river dissipating the energy considerably. MH370 must have ditched into ocean swell perhaps worse. Flight 1549 was not in one piece either. Both engines were ripped off instantly and the cabin was full of holes. There was debris.
In this case I would be very surprised if the wing and empennage did not break off. Furthermore, even if the main cabin is intact, it would sink quickly and the rupture due to water pressure. You say B777 is a tank but it is not a submarine. In reality it is just an aluminum and composite tube, filled with all kinds of floatable stuff. There will be a debris field, however hard it is to find.

No doubt debris will be found one day, but I grow ever more doubtful about the main wreckage.
glenbrook is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2014, 02:17
  #8288 (permalink)  
WhipperJoe
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Well no, obviously water doesn't get any 'harder' the faster you hit it, but the faster an object hits something, the more force is imparted back onto the object. Obviously will increase with object velocity and weight.
 
Old 27th Mar 2014, 02:25
  #8289 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,999
There was an interesting discussion with Cousteau the son of the famous Jaques Cousteau and an expert in the suspect area.
Firstly millions of tons of waste are tipped into the Oceans.
second point he made is that the wreckage could be in 25000 feet of water.
The bottom is not flat but made up of mountains and valleys.
The currents are some of the strongest in the world not just horizontal but vertical currents.
After this length of time any floating parts could be hundreds of miles from the impact point!

It is exceptionally unlikely that there will ever be a definitive answer to this mystery and that this tragic event will be discussed for years with theories that it and its PAX are being held on some remote reef to a disturbed member of the crew doing something crazy.Probably even that some Galactic visitor took the aircraft away and its PAX for scientific study

With the huge insurance claims come vested interest??? probably that this was some sort of hijack of a serviceable aircraft to the aircraft faulty to the operator at fault.
So keep guessing guys as we will never get an answer
Pace is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2014, 02:33
  #8290 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 616
Southern Ocean is littered with rubbish

It is well documented that the southern Indian Ocean is littered with waste, so it is more than likely these satellite images are just that.

Is perhaps likely that this is a reoccurrence of something similar to the Adam air crash in Indonesia? Flight crew distracted by inflight-non-serious failure of a particular system and they simply forgot to fly the plane? In the case of the Adam Air crash the aircraft wasn't found for sometime!
Contact Approach is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2014, 02:40
  #8291 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: wales
Age: 77
Posts: 316
CNBC news, sources say some files have been recovered from the pilot hard drive but nothing suspicious was found.

A sea expert? stated the french debris could even be from the Bandar Aceh Tsunami
oldoberon is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2014, 02:47
  #8292 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 616
MH370 similar to Adam Air 782?

Adam Air Flight 782
On February 11, 2006, Flight 782, registration number PK-KKE (c/n 23773), lost navigational and communications systems twenty minutes into a flight from Jakarta to Makassar, Sulawesi. The plane was subsequently flown into a radar "black spot" and was lost for several hours, eventually making an emergency landing at Tambolaka Airport, Sumba (on a different island 481 km away from their intended destination, and southeast from their origin, instead of northeast).
Adam Air - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contact Approach is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2014, 02:52
  #8293 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: In the room next to the lift
Posts: 48
Thanks for your gloomy predictions Pace,

second point he made is that the wreckage could be in 25000 feet of water.
Probably not, that is the approximate depth of the Java trench, not the relatively flat plain beneath the search area (2500m-3500m deep) of the Indo-Australian plate.

Wiki image of the Indian Ocean sea floor...



So keep guessing guys as we will never get an answer
OK, we will keep guessing.
CaptainEmad is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2014, 03:11
  #8294 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,809
UPDATE - The ADV Ocean Shield is on its way to Fremantle where it will be fitted with the U.S. Navys Towed Pinger Locator 25 System, which has already arrived in Perth.
It appears it will take a couple of days to fit up the Ocean Shield with the towed Pinger Locator.
Then there will be another couple of days travel to the search area, as the Ocean Shield only does 16kts maximum.
On its way West from Sydney, it was only making 13.2kts headway through the Gt Australian Bight, running against fairly constant prevailing Westerly winds.
It really is a race against time, before the FDR battery fails.

ADV Ocean Shield - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If the FDR is found, the acoustic signal of the FDR pinger is transmitted up the Pinger Locator cable and can be output to either an oscilloscope or a signal processing computer (I didn't know oscilloscopes were still in use, in the U.S. Navy!).
The operator monitors the greatest signal strength and records the navigation coordinates, and then the ship repeats the procedure on multiple track lines until the final position is triangulated.

The Pinger Locator has a capability of 20,000' (over 6,000M). The sea bed in the region of the search zone is up to 4,500M deep.

What would be of concern, is the width of coverage of the Pinger Locators. If the width of coverage is only around the maximum operational depth quoted, that means a lot of track lines to be done!

Those "bright, reflective, possible debris objects" in the sat pics could also be remnant ice floes, too!

Another cold front with increased rain, cloud and wind is going to pass through the search zone this (Thurs 27th) afternoon, and will hamper search efforts until the weather clears again, possibly Friday afternoon.

Last edited by onetrack; 27th Mar 2014 at 03:38. Reason: addendum ..
onetrack is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2014, 04:06
  #8295 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: California
Posts: 154
Originally Posted by auraflyer View Post
Interesting, hamster3null. One question - how does it look at lower or higher speeds? Do you get the same profile but just at a different heading? Or does the plot actually differ?

(As I understand it, and I may be wrong or missing something, they don't know the actual speed of the aircraft, or even that that speed was constant over the 7 hrs. Rather, they only know the difference in relative velocities at points in time. As a result, while the velocity and position for the satellite are known, one has to posit assumed heading/assumed speed pairs for the aircraft, each of which give the same difference in relative velocity, but correspond to a different track in real life.)
The plot differs somewhat depending on the speed. An agreement is good at 450 kts and heading 185, it could have gone a bit faster, but on a slightly more westerly heading, or, conversely, slower but further east. In either case the difference in course can't be large. I only get semi-decent fits for headings between ~182 and 188.
hamster3null is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2014, 04:07
  #8296 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: In the room next to the lift
Posts: 48
Jbr76:
If the aircraft crashed into sea, why hasn't there been an activation of the ELT?
  • The ELT antenna was broken off in an impact
  • The aircraft went in inverted
  • The ELT was not working
  • The touchdown was not violent enough to activate it
  • The ELT was destroyed by impact forces
  • The ELT is like all other ELTs and does not work underwater

This list could be only 1% of the many reasons you could use to explain why there was no signal detected.
CaptainEmad is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2014, 04:14
  #8297 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: KOLM and KBVS
Age: 48
Posts: 265
Originally Posted by jbr76
Correct me if I am wrong but a u/s ELT is not MEL-able. There must be a serviceable ELT for the aircraft.

The ELTs are designed to survive a pretty harsh impact and have g-sensors which activate upon imact.

ELT's are very much water resistant.

Some of your responses are flawed.
You appear to put a lot of faith in your equipment.
Hedge36 is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2014, 04:20
  #8298 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,809
ZAZ - "Oscilloscope" was precisely the word, the U.S. Navy officer used in the interview.
onetrack is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2014, 04:24
  #8299 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Posts: 30
attesting to the difficulty of obtaining any evidence:

MH370 search zone: rough seas and strong currents pose string of problems | World news | theguardian.com
Towhee is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2014, 04:37
  #8300 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA USA
Age: 56
Posts: 183
"ZAZ - "Oscilloscope" was precisely the word, the U.S. Navy officer used in the interview."

Nothing wrong with using an oscilloscope to look for a voltage (amplitude) at a particular frequency. If they were looking at a range of frequencies, they'd use a spectrum analyzer. They'd need to look at the 37.5khz, since it's beyond human hearing range, unless they down convert it to human hearing range.

Last edited by Coagie; 27th Mar 2014 at 05:01. Reason: Adding a space.
Coagie is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

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