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 9th Mar 2014, 12:57
  #821 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: london england
Age: 61
Posts: 15
Re; reports of Chinese man on false passport, this report in the Sunday Mirror today: " Questions are now being raised about a Chinese passenger who was on the flight. Chinese authorities say the passport number of missing passenger Zhao Qiwei - in fact, matches the passport of a man whose surname is Yu. He is said to be alive and well in the Fujian Province.According to Yu, he has never lost his passport, nor has he ever used it since it was issued in 2007."


Missing Malaysia Airlines flight live: Passengers who boarded plane with stolen passports 'bought tickets together' - Mirror Online
Nightingale14 is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2014, 12:58
  #822 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 52
Posts: 809
It looks like the ELTs failed miserably on both this and the AF447.
Anybody with a more specific knowledge dare to comment?
If by ELT you mean the one putting out an electromagnetic signal, then they most likely haven't failed. Electromagnetic waves don't go so well under water, thats why they have a pinger.
rh200 is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2014, 13:07
  #823 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 65
Posts: 1,183
Military radar range for something that big would be something like to the radar horizon with a 10 degree mask. 160nm plus I would hazard.
Mr Optimistic is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2014, 13:08
  #824 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PLanet Earth
Posts: 778
Originally Posted by snowfalcon2 View Post
This is a picture from Dantri of the "window liner" object that was sighted just before nightfall today.
Although I'm not so sure about the oil colurs, I have the distinct feeling: We are getting closer. That looks indeed suspiciously like a window liner of an airliner. You don't see that floating in the water on your regular Sunday.

Edit: If the CNN message is true we are indeed back to zero.
/Edit

That said it is a fairly light part and wind will play a significant role in where and how far it will drift. Might be quite some miles away from the crash site itself.
henra is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2014, 13:11
  #825 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 36
At 18:30 local time, Dantri reports the debris at this position:

SkyVector Chart (center crosshair)
Aireps is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2014, 13:12
  #826 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Posts: 689
hasnt the debris been denied to have came from a 777 already ?
LiamNCL is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2014, 13:17
  #827 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA USA
Age: 55
Posts: 183
Remember, the Ping is 40khz. Beyond Human Hearing Range.

I hope the vessels "listening" for the ping from the black boxes, realize it's at 40khz, so is out of the range of human hearing. It will need to be down converted in order to hear it. As silly as it sounds, the French nuclear sub that went around listening for the ping from AF447, literally listened for it, through their headphones, without alteration, so it's no wonder they never heard it. It needs to be seen on a spectrum analyzer or down converted to human hearing range, unless, of course, you have a dog on board to listen for it.

Last edited by Coagie; 9th Mar 2014 at 13:58. Reason: Correcting "in" to "is" in title
Coagie is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2014, 13:25
  #828 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Finland
Posts: 283
interpol just confirmed no one could be bothered to check its database. N2014-038 / 2014 / News / News and media / Internet / Home - INTERPOL
luoto is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2014, 13:27
  #829 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Valencia
Posts: 167
Agree with several contributions (including a couple whose postings have disappeared). A lot of questions remain unanswered by both the airline and the authorites in Malaysia elsewhere.

Nobody seems to have addressed the question of how did those with the stolen passports enter Malayasia – if in transit at KUL from Thailand, how come that Thai exit immigration did not pick up on the stolen passports? Thailand issues entry visas, which should have expired in both the stolen passports. If they were already in Malaysia, where are their photos and fingerprints that Malaysian Immigration take for all arrivals?

Could it be corruption, incompetence or something more sinister?

I also find it more than a little puzzling that Malaysian ATC did not tell the airline that its plane was missing much sooner, and why MH’s own systems did not alert them sooner. Why, if it now appears, there are radar indications that the flight turned around has it taken 36 hours for this info to come to light?

Also, I am surprised that there seems to have been little mention of the FAA Airworthiness Directive for Boeing 777’s issued as recently as Wednesday 5th March 2014 which refers to “cracking and corrosion in the fuselage skin, which could lead to rapid decompression and loss of structural integrity of the airplane.”
(http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/d91639a24674ca8f86257c920050edf7/$FILE/2014-05-03.pdf).

One lesson that surely needs to be learned from this event is that immigration and airline security systems world-wide need to be linked to the Interpol database for missing passports and those travelling with such documents detained. Had that been the case in this instance, closer attention might now being paid to the question of the structural integrity of the Boeing 777 aircraft in this instance.
FFHKG is online now  
Old 9th Mar 2014, 13:27
  #830 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Asia/Pacific
Posts: 7
Signals detected - NO

@Yankee Whisky --- that Vietnamese report first came up way back at post #54 --- and was later discredited/retracted. So it is stale (not) news.
Silver Shadow is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2014, 13:28
  #831 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Interloper
Posts: 108
If it is only 720 kms from KL to the coast of Vietnam why do they say the plane was airborne for 2 hours ? I'm guessing time zone change to Vietnam adds one hour ?

edit: Flight MH370 departed from Kuala Lumpur International Airport at 00:41 on Saturday (16:41 GMT Friday), and was due to arrive in Beijing at 06:30. Air traffic controllers lost contact at 01:30.

Looks like 49 mins in flight total.
TylerMonkey is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2014, 13:28
  #832 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 164
If the 2 'unknown' passengers were ticketed all the way to AMS, it makes more sense as to why they were holding stolen passports.

A LOT of people are trying to illegally migrate to EU.

And a lot fail only when reaching their final destination, where checks are better carried out.
fly123456 is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2014, 13:31
  #833 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: ---------->
Posts: 146
privacy is an issue personally i wouldn't want a camera linked to a live feed to my ops watching my every move in the cockpit every time i was at work, also cabin cameras look at the privacy breach for 200+ passengers
I'll try to be polite, because I have the upmost respect for those in your profession, but your privacy concerns should not be influencing the decision to have live video being recorded and sent back to HQ in the case of the safety of an airliner, likewise the passengers have no right to privacy in such an environment, I would argue (much like any privately owned space that's actually a public space e.g. pub, train, bus)

frankly, it would clearly be beneficial to have this data being recorded and transmitted for the safety of millions of travellers every year, and if you or your passengers object to being recorded on the basis of personal privacy being put ahead of safety, one would suggest you find another job/airline

no-one is suggesting these videos be monitored all day long for discrepancies in how you work, they can be deleted at the conclusion of an uneventful flight

would it be more or less intrusive than the x-ray body scans passengers already have to endure??

anyway, one can only imagine the horror of the families of the people aboard this 777

I was struck by how the first shots we saw in the UK were of people who had just seconds earlier been told of the news, and had a scrum of reporters and cameramen sticking cameras in their faces and shoving them around

showing the absolute worst side of human rubber necking behaviour during a horrifying experience for those involved

one other thing while I'm on a roll

worse than the conspira-loons on threads like this, are the forum police trying to shut down speculation and others posting in a way they are not happy with. you aren't moderators, let the mods decide what's appropriate and what isn't

like this post no doubt
EGLD is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2014, 13:32
  #834 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 503
There's specialzed hydrophones to locate the pingers. http://www.phnx-international.com/sp..._SpecSheet.pdf

If they're not already in the area - with all the assets already available - I sure they're on their way. As for the talk about a singaporean submarine joining the search, I think some media misreported the Submarine Rescue Vessel, which is a surface vessel equipped for underwater search and rescue, as a "submarine". It will be far more useful than a submarine.

Edit: Cody Blade - exactly
deptrai is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2014, 13:35
  #835 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: somehere sandy!
Posts: 245
ELT

For those critical or curious about ELT performance.... Any radio transmitter needs an external aerial to propagate the signal. Here lies the problem in ELT design.... How to have an aerial attached that won't break off or disconnect in a serious collision or explosion. And none are designed to work under water, as far as I know.

Most modern airliners have one or two installed, that are triggered by a collision, or switched on manually. Each slide/raft also has one in the case of ditching.
goeasy is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2014, 13:37
  #836 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,169
Mr. Opti:

Military radar range for something that big would be something like to the radar horizon with a 10 degree mask. 160nm plus I would hazard.
I can only speak for US ATC en route radar, which are the same as USAF radar. They paint out to 200 n.m. Would an airplane at FL 350 be over the horizon at 200 miles?
aterpster is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2014, 13:38
  #837 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Finland
Posts: 283
But which ELT is used in Boeing 777s? This isn't my area but reading about them is interesting and it seems one can still elect to use a cheaper model that is up to 97% prone for false alarms.

Different types of ELTs are currently in use. There are approximately 170,000 of the older generation 121.5 MHz ELTs in service. Unfortunately, these have proven to be highly ineffective. They have a 97% false alarm rate, activate properly in only 12% of crashes, and provide no identification data. In order to fix this problem 406 MHz ELTs were developed to work specifically with the Cospas-Sarsat system. These ELTs dramatically reduce the false alert impact on SAR resources, have a higher accident survivability success rate, and decrease the time required to reach accident victims by an average of 6 hours.

Presently, most aircraft operators are mandated to carry an ELT and have the option to choose between either a 121.5 MHz ELT or a 406 MHz ELT. The Federal Aviation Administration has studied the issue of mandating carriage of 406 MHz ELTs. The study indicates that 134 extra lives and millions of dollars in SAR resources could be saved per year. The only problem is that 406 MHz ELTs currently cost about $1,500 and 121.5 MHz ELTs cost around $500. It's easy to see one reason for the cost differential when you look at the numbers. However, no one can argue the importance of 406 MHz ELTs and the significant advantages they hold.
NOAA - Search and Rescue Satellite Aided Tracking - Emergency Beacons

Some explanation about beacon searching:
Anatomy of a 406 MHz Rescue using an EPIRB ELT or Personal Locator Beacon | ACR ARTEX
http://www.cap-es.net/NESA%20MAS/Air...c%20Search.ppt

Interesting also:

Artex B406 Boeing Emergency Locator Transmitter | ACR ARTEX
luoto is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2014, 13:40
  #838 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK. East Mids.
Posts: 435
goeasy,

Most modern airliners have one or two installed, that are triggered by a collision, or switched on manually. Each slide/raft also has one in the case of ditching.
I fly on the 747, 777, 767 and 787, of which none have an ELT per slide/raft in case of ditching. It is part of the equipment removal to be performed by the cabin crew, to remove the one, or two, portable ELT devices and re-locate them to the slide/raft in the case of a survived and evacuated ditching.
Tray Surfer is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2014, 13:40
  #839 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 39
>interpol just confirmed no one could be bothered to check its database.

Actually stunned in this day and age there isn't electronic communication back to the issuing organisation to confirm and validate the passport. Particularly for a flight where you've got an hour or so from check in to departure.


Interpol might be helpful but the issuing organisation is the best source of information. Could probably also pick up differences in photos in the passport quickly as well.
David75 is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2014, 13:43
  #840 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Right here, right now
Posts: 234
Originally Posted by aterpster View Post
Mr. Opti:



I can only speak for US ATC en route radar, which are the same as USAF radar. They paint out to 200 n.m. Would an airplane at FL 350 be over the horizon at 200 miles?
No

The rule of thumb we used was radar horizon = 1.23 x (sq rt of the height) [for sea level to aircraft height]

Last edited by MFC_Fly; 9th Mar 2014 at 13:45. Reason: Clarify heights
MFC_Fly 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.