Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not buy crew and without solid evidence think they deserve some respect media rubbish or no media rubbish.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, a new day, is it today that we will get some recovered "something" ?
IF something is recovered from the aircraft, we will get another media storm.
If they don't find something by Sunday evening AEST, I question if they will.
IF something is recovered from the aircraft, we will get another media storm.
If they don't find something by Sunday evening AEST, I question if they will.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it surprising that the US Navy has not tasked an aircraft carrier to assist. The avialbility of such vessels would greatly assist by substantially increasing time over the search area conducted by carrier based aircraft.
Perhaps some on this forum with better knowledge of US Naval fleet ops could enlighten us.
Perhaps some on this forum with better knowledge of US Naval fleet ops could enlighten us.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: California
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tried to recalculate the northern route as well using lower speeds (400-420 kts).
At all speeds, it slices off a bit of Eastern India, goes above Himalayas between Nepal and China, and terminates in Tajikistan or Kyrgyzstan.
Below 420 kts it may never even get out of the mountains: there's a pretty formidable and desolate mountain range with peaks up to 23000' across the route along Tajikistan/Kyrgyzstan border, right in the area where the "partial ping" could have come from at 400 kts.
I know, I know, "how come no one saw it on the radars?" Suppose that Indians missed it for whatever reason. Nepal has no radars and even no air force. The rest of the way is over pretty rugged terrain, mostly above 15000'. My routes even pass in the vicinity of K2. We already heard that the aircraft flew lower than normal (FL295) in the Straits of Malacca. Flying FL295 in the Himalayas could significantly limit its exposure to radars.
The biggest thing I don't like about this is that slower routes take it into the southwestern corner of the Tibetan Plateau. It's still pretty desolate, but it's flat and the aircraft could be visible to Chinese military radars if there are any in the vicinity.
P.S. If you think that Tajiks would have reported a big aircraft crashing into one of their mountain ranges or at least would have gone to look for it, then a) the area we're talking about looks roughly like so http://www.panoramio.com/photo/49758018, and b) Tajiks have bigger problems than looking for other people's lost aircraft: http://en.itar-tass.com/world/725561
At all speeds, it slices off a bit of Eastern India, goes above Himalayas between Nepal and China, and terminates in Tajikistan or Kyrgyzstan.
Below 420 kts it may never even get out of the mountains: there's a pretty formidable and desolate mountain range with peaks up to 23000' across the route along Tajikistan/Kyrgyzstan border, right in the area where the "partial ping" could have come from at 400 kts.
I know, I know, "how come no one saw it on the radars?" Suppose that Indians missed it for whatever reason. Nepal has no radars and even no air force. The rest of the way is over pretty rugged terrain, mostly above 15000'. My routes even pass in the vicinity of K2. We already heard that the aircraft flew lower than normal (FL295) in the Straits of Malacca. Flying FL295 in the Himalayas could significantly limit its exposure to radars.
The biggest thing I don't like about this is that slower routes take it into the southwestern corner of the Tibetan Plateau. It's still pretty desolate, but it's flat and the aircraft could be visible to Chinese military radars if there are any in the vicinity.
P.S. If you think that Tajiks would have reported a big aircraft crashing into one of their mountain ranges or at least would have gone to look for it, then a) the area we're talking about looks roughly like so http://www.panoramio.com/photo/49758018, and b) Tajiks have bigger problems than looking for other people's lost aircraft: http://en.itar-tass.com/world/725561
Last edited by hamster3null; 28th Mar 2014 at 19:43.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Pacific based US 7th Fleet has despatched a second P8 Poseidon Patrol aircraft to join the search today.
In terms of mission effectiveness and reliability, the P-8A represents a leap forward for the Navy's maritime patrol and reconnaissance community. The aircraft has a maximum speed of 490 knots, a ceiling of 41,000 feet, and provides a range of more than 1,200 nautical miles with four hours on station. For a mission such as the MH370 search, the P-8 will typically fly at 5,000 feet at 350 knots, dropping to 1,000 feet to get a visual identification of any radar returns. It may also fly at 1,000 feet for an extended period of the flight, depending on the environment and mission for the flight. It has a search time of approximately eight, nine hours depending on distance to search area, though during this mission the search time on station is greatly reduced due to the distance of the search area from Perth.
The emphasis is "search time on station is greatly reduced due to the distance of the search area from Perth."
In terms of mission effectiveness and reliability, the P-8A represents a leap forward for the Navy's maritime patrol and reconnaissance community. The aircraft has a maximum speed of 490 knots, a ceiling of 41,000 feet, and provides a range of more than 1,200 nautical miles with four hours on station. For a mission such as the MH370 search, the P-8 will typically fly at 5,000 feet at 350 knots, dropping to 1,000 feet to get a visual identification of any radar returns. It may also fly at 1,000 feet for an extended period of the flight, depending on the environment and mission for the flight. It has a search time of approximately eight, nine hours depending on distance to search area, though during this mission the search time on station is greatly reduced due to the distance of the search area from Perth.
The emphasis is "search time on station is greatly reduced due to the distance of the search area from Perth."
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Kent
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel consumption
I'm confused by the announcement about the new search area and would appreciate it if anyone could explain it to me (fascinated by aviation but not a pilot).
So, we have been told that:
- MH370 sent a series of pings that have helped us understand how long it flew for
- It was originally reported that it had flown at high altitude and thus flown a certain distance (high altitude flight being more efficient)
- it is now reported that it flew faster and therefore used more fuel
- the primary search area has been moved Northwards and somewhat Westwards
It is this part that I'm battling to understand. If we know how long it was flying, and it is now reported that it flew faster, why has the search area been moved closer to the origin? Surely if it flew for the same length of time at a higher speed it would have flown further?
I'm sure I'm missing something but I can't see what
Thanks!
So, we have been told that:
- MH370 sent a series of pings that have helped us understand how long it flew for
- It was originally reported that it had flown at high altitude and thus flown a certain distance (high altitude flight being more efficient)
- it is now reported that it flew faster and therefore used more fuel
- the primary search area has been moved Northwards and somewhat Westwards
It is this part that I'm battling to understand. If we know how long it was flying, and it is now reported that it flew faster, why has the search area been moved closer to the origin? Surely if it flew for the same length of time at a higher speed it would have flown further?
I'm sure I'm missing something but I can't see what
Thanks!
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Dubai
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1,100 km N/E
Still can't grasp this.
Given new analysis, it is believed that MH370 was travelling at (quote) "a higher speed than previously thought".
This information was supplied by the chaps at the NTSB.
Leg 1 calculated via Secondary radar. Leg 2 estimated via Primary.
Leg 3, how do you work out the "speed" (K ?) for this leg ?
You could use the data collected from leg 2 ...and assume it was then a constant ?
Thus assuming speed and alt you'd get burn and therefore a lesser distance ?
Any ideas how this was arrived at ?
Given new analysis, it is believed that MH370 was travelling at (quote) "a higher speed than previously thought".
This information was supplied by the chaps at the NTSB.
Leg 1 calculated via Secondary radar. Leg 2 estimated via Primary.
Leg 3, how do you work out the "speed" (K ?) for this leg ?
You could use the data collected from leg 2 ...and assume it was then a constant ?
Thus assuming speed and alt you'd get burn and therefore a lesser distance ?
Any ideas how this was arrived at ?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm confused by the announcement about the new search area and would appreciate it if anyone could explain it to me (fascinated by aviation but not a pilot).
So, we have been told that:
- MH370 sent a series of pings that have helped us understand how long it flew for
- It was originally reported that it had flown at high altitude and thus flown a certain distance (high altitude flight being more efficient)
- it is now reported that it flew faster and therefore used more fuel
- the primary search area has been moved Northwards and somewhat Westwards
It is this part that I'm battling to understand. If we know how long it was flying, and it is now reported that it flew faster, why has the search area been moved closer to the origin? Surely if it flew for the same length of time at a higher speed it would have flown further?
I'm sure I'm missing something but I can't see what
Thanks!
So, we have been told that:
- MH370 sent a series of pings that have helped us understand how long it flew for
- It was originally reported that it had flown at high altitude and thus flown a certain distance (high altitude flight being more efficient)
- it is now reported that it flew faster and therefore used more fuel
- the primary search area has been moved Northwards and somewhat Westwards
It is this part that I'm battling to understand. If we know how long it was flying, and it is now reported that it flew faster, why has the search area been moved closer to the origin? Surely if it flew for the same length of time at a higher speed it would have flown further?
I'm sure I'm missing something but I can't see what
Thanks!
Range speed of an aircraft (where it gets the most range) is not normally at particularly high Mach No. for the aircraft. Endurance speed of an aircraft (where it stays airborne longest) is slower and less range than range speed.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE NAVY P8
P8 was designed/built to be aerial refueled with long boom typical of Air Force- whereas normal navy is probe and drouge.
It is still in early deployment- some issues with electronic suite still remain
It takes many months of training and certification to do such refueling
Probably not scheduled till 2015-2016 for such training and certification
Only a few have been put into operational use so far.
It is still in early deployment- some issues with electronic suite still remain
It takes many months of training and certification to do such refueling
Probably not scheduled till 2015-2016 for such training and certification
Only a few have been put into operational use so far.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me repeat something. Where the plane crashed and where the current search zone is are two interrelated, but different things. The search zone is where 20 days of ocean currents and winds are believed to have moved things after the crash occurred. The fact that the search zone has now been moved to a location that is northeast of the previous zone does not mean that the crash site has also been presumed to have moved by an equivalent displacement. Ocean winds and currents different in direction and intensity at different locations. Furthermore, the previous search zone was based on two weeks of drift, while presumably the current zone is based on three weeks of drift.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said a few days ago, I thought they'd fly in a helo on a C-17.
A specialist Seahawk
Here is some video and photos.
Missing Malaysia Airlines plane: Seahawk helicopter arrives at RAAF Pearce
A specialist Seahawk
Here is some video and photos.
Missing Malaysia Airlines plane: Seahawk helicopter arrives at RAAF Pearce
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a 777 pilot I, like many others, have wondered how the 777 would perform in the scenario where the pilots were incapacitated and the aircraft ran out of fuel. I had my ideas but there is nothing like seeing it for "real" so we tried this in a 777-2 full motion zero flight time approved simulator.
We used a zero fuel weight of 175 tonnes. We let it run out of fuel at FL 250 in track hold and alt capture. However it would not make any difference what mode it was in as everything would drop out. In real life one engine uses fractionally more fuel per hour than the other and there is typically a difference between main tanks of a few hundred kilos, so we had a 300 kg difference between the contents of the left and right tank.
When the first engine failed TAC (Thrust asymmetry compensation) automatically applied rudder. The speed reduced from 320 knots indicated to 245 knots indicated. It was able to maintain 245 knots and FL250. When the second engine failed the rudder trim applied by TAC was taken out and the trim went to zero. The autopilot dropped out and the flight controls reverted to direct mode. The speed initially came back to 230 knots but then the nose started to lower. The nose continued to lower and the rate of descent increased to 4,000 feet per minute, the nose kept lowering and the descent rate increased to 7,500 feet per minute with a bank angle that increased to 25 degrees. The speed at this point had increased to 340 knots indicated, above VMO but there was no horn as it was on limited electrics. About this point the RAT (Ram air turbine) chipped in and the CDUs and copilot's PFD (Primary flight display) came alive. The flight controls stayed in direct mode.The eicas screen was full of messages like pitot heat, flight controls, APU fault (The APU had tried to autostart due double engine failure but failed due no fuel to start it) low fuel pressure etc.
Then with a max descent rate of almost 8,000 feet per minute the nose started to slowly rise and keep rising. We had dropped to about FL170 but the nose slowly rose up to 6 degrees pitch up and we started climbing at about 3000 feet per minute and the bank angle reduced to only 5 degrees. It climbed back up to FL210 at which point the speed had come back to 220 knots and then the nose dropped down again and we were soon back to descending at 8000 feet per minute. So basically a series of phugoid oscillations with bank angle between 5 and 25 degrees and pitch attitude between about 9 degrees nose down and 6 degrees pitch up. It was losing about 8000 feet and then gaining about 3 or 4000 feet with airspeed fluctuating between 220 and 340 knots.
We didn't watch it all the way down due time constraints and stopped the experiment at 10,000 feet but it was consistent all the way down. Having watched it I can say with certainty that if the pilots were incapacitated and it ran out of fuel there is no way it could have landed on the water with anything like a survivable impact. Just passing on the info.
We used a zero fuel weight of 175 tonnes. We let it run out of fuel at FL 250 in track hold and alt capture. However it would not make any difference what mode it was in as everything would drop out. In real life one engine uses fractionally more fuel per hour than the other and there is typically a difference between main tanks of a few hundred kilos, so we had a 300 kg difference between the contents of the left and right tank.
When the first engine failed TAC (Thrust asymmetry compensation) automatically applied rudder. The speed reduced from 320 knots indicated to 245 knots indicated. It was able to maintain 245 knots and FL250. When the second engine failed the rudder trim applied by TAC was taken out and the trim went to zero. The autopilot dropped out and the flight controls reverted to direct mode. The speed initially came back to 230 knots but then the nose started to lower. The nose continued to lower and the rate of descent increased to 4,000 feet per minute, the nose kept lowering and the descent rate increased to 7,500 feet per minute with a bank angle that increased to 25 degrees. The speed at this point had increased to 340 knots indicated, above VMO but there was no horn as it was on limited electrics. About this point the RAT (Ram air turbine) chipped in and the CDUs and copilot's PFD (Primary flight display) came alive. The flight controls stayed in direct mode.The eicas screen was full of messages like pitot heat, flight controls, APU fault (The APU had tried to autostart due double engine failure but failed due no fuel to start it) low fuel pressure etc.
Then with a max descent rate of almost 8,000 feet per minute the nose started to slowly rise and keep rising. We had dropped to about FL170 but the nose slowly rose up to 6 degrees pitch up and we started climbing at about 3000 feet per minute and the bank angle reduced to only 5 degrees. It climbed back up to FL210 at which point the speed had come back to 220 knots and then the nose dropped down again and we were soon back to descending at 8000 feet per minute. So basically a series of phugoid oscillations with bank angle between 5 and 25 degrees and pitch attitude between about 9 degrees nose down and 6 degrees pitch up. It was losing about 8000 feet and then gaining about 3 or 4000 feet with airspeed fluctuating between 220 and 340 knots.
We didn't watch it all the way down due time constraints and stopped the experiment at 10,000 feet but it was consistent all the way down. Having watched it I can say with certainty that if the pilots were incapacitated and it ran out of fuel there is no way it could have landed on the water with anything like a survivable impact. Just passing on the info.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Age: 61
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
winds aloft
hamster3null - have you tried to factor in the winds aloft into your calculations? They seem to be considerable that night (and would of course affect the ground speed at each point). The problem with "crowd computing" is not having all the best information published.
This link was mentioned a while back and is the only place I've seen that attempts to show winds aloft at that time:
Investigation of a possible "southern arc" contrail from Malaysia Flight 370 - 8 March 2014 - Weather Graphics
If needed, I bet Tim Vasquez at Weather Graphics could get them for the altitudes and locations of interest.
This link was mentioned a while back and is the only place I've seen that attempts to show winds aloft at that time:
Investigation of a possible "southern arc" contrail from Malaysia Flight 370 - 8 March 2014 - Weather Graphics
If needed, I bet Tim Vasquez at Weather Graphics could get them for the altitudes and locations of interest.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Berks
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a 777 pilot I, like many others, have wondered how the 777 would perform in the scenario where the pilots were incapacitated and the aircraft ran out of fuel. I had my ideas but there is nothing like seeing it for "real" so we tried this in a 777-2 full motion zero flight time approved simulator.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Chicago
Age: 42
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Climb
We had dropped to about FL170 but the nose slowly rose up to 6 degrees pitch up and we started climbing at about 3000 feet per minute and the bank angle reduced to only 5 degrees.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: U.S.
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The actual source of the confusion in the post you're responding to is that the "faster" referred to the first part of the plane's flight, which means less fuel was available for the final constant-speed portion of the flight, which in turn means that that portion was actually *slower* than initially assumed.
This is explained well in this older post:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post8405815
The new assumed speed for the final leg is 400kts, revised down from 460-480kts.