Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: California
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MH370 is _probably_ not in the Himalayas, but that "one day" may still be pretty far away.
Mesoman.
I'm not doubting the Inmarsat ping reception for a minute. What I'm asking is if there is any way the transmitted signal could be altered to give the impression of movement away from the satellite. One example would be slow immersion in a shallow liquid. The doppler shift of the last broken ping could be due to any number of things, so I'm not considering that one.
I forgot to mention the sonic pings. I'm afraid that I'm classing them as too spurious along with the radar sightings. From what I've read here it seems unlikely that the ULBs expired completely more-or-less on their expiry date, a decaying signal was the prognosis so surely those would still be being heard?
I'm not doubting the Inmarsat ping reception for a minute. What I'm asking is if there is any way the transmitted signal could be altered to give the impression of movement away from the satellite. One example would be slow immersion in a shallow liquid. The doppler shift of the last broken ping could be due to any number of things, so I'm not considering that one.
I forgot to mention the sonic pings. I'm afraid that I'm classing them as too spurious along with the radar sightings. From what I've read here it seems unlikely that the ULBs expired completely more-or-less on their expiry date, a decaying signal was the prognosis so surely those would still be being heard?
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: California
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In order for the signal to be transmitted, at least one engine has to be running, which would, needless to say, be pretty hard to square with slow immersion in a shallow liquid. (Or with a land crash in Malaysia.)
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 838
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Olasek
Two separate reasons, at least.
First, yes, we know ICAO standards are not governmental and are not enforceable in the way that a sovereign nation's (or State's ) actual laws would be enforceable. But the investigatory process set forth in Annex 13 is quite likely to be held relevant in the context of other ICAO procedures. Specifically, at some point this search effort will likely lead to examination of whether Annex 12 terms, and bilateral as well as multilateral agreements on SAR, need to be improved. In that examination I can see relevance in the extent to which the Malaysian government followed An. 13.
Second, again knowing An. 13 has not the force and effect of sovereign law, as and when the US Congress again takes up legislation changing and expanding the requirements for flight recorders (previously introduced as the SAFE Act), I can see the oft-times inexpert, or even misguided, Congressional process locking onto tangential factors. Knowing whether the Malaysian government followed An.13 timelines would be only a background fact, and not directly relevant to the hardware, SAR, and type certification questions presented by such a legislative proposal. Yet knowing those background facts nevertheless would be very relevant because such facts would help keep a side-issue from distracting consideration of the central facts. It's an open-and-shut case of "what you don't know can hurt you" when meritorious legislation is run aground on tangentially related points.
Perhaps you would state some of the prior instances to which you have referred, if this is requested very politely, please?
Two separate reasons, at least.
First, yes, we know ICAO standards are not governmental and are not enforceable in the way that a sovereign nation's (or State's ) actual laws would be enforceable. But the investigatory process set forth in Annex 13 is quite likely to be held relevant in the context of other ICAO procedures. Specifically, at some point this search effort will likely lead to examination of whether Annex 12 terms, and bilateral as well as multilateral agreements on SAR, need to be improved. In that examination I can see relevance in the extent to which the Malaysian government followed An. 13.
Second, again knowing An. 13 has not the force and effect of sovereign law, as and when the US Congress again takes up legislation changing and expanding the requirements for flight recorders (previously introduced as the SAFE Act), I can see the oft-times inexpert, or even misguided, Congressional process locking onto tangential factors. Knowing whether the Malaysian government followed An.13 timelines would be only a background fact, and not directly relevant to the hardware, SAR, and type certification questions presented by such a legislative proposal. Yet knowing those background facts nevertheless would be very relevant because such facts would help keep a side-issue from distracting consideration of the central facts. It's an open-and-shut case of "what you don't know can hurt you" when meritorious legislation is run aground on tangentially related points.
Perhaps you would state some of the prior instances to which you have referred, if this is requested very politely, please?
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: SW USA
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US Department of Defense Update
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=122122
"WASHINGTON, April 24, 2014 – The Defense Department is continuing to support the international search mission for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, Pentagon spokesman Army Col. Steve Warren said today.
The total cost of the search to date is $11.4 million, Warren said. This figure includes $4,200 per flight hour for the two P-8 Poseidon aircraft involved in the search, he added. The plane and its 239 passengers disappeared March 8 on a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.
The costs break down as follows, Warren said:
-- $4.6 million in operations and maintenance funds;
-- $3.2 million in overseas humanitarian disaster and civic aid funds; and
-- $3.6 million for underwater search equipment and support.
The P-8s continue conducting aerial search operations, and the Bluefin-21 autonomous underwater vehicle completed its twelfth search mission, the colonel said.
'Bluefin-21 has now completed more than 90 percent of a focused underwater search ... . Unfortunately, no contacts of interest have been found,' he said.
The department has received no requests for additional underwater search assets, Warren said."
The last sentence probably means that the US DOD doesn't have any other underwater search assets that would be useful in this search.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, which provided such assets for AF 447 search, has US Navy affiliations, but is not formally part of the defense establishment.
Some WHOI comments on this search:
FAQ: Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
WHOI assets:
Underwater Vehicles : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
"WASHINGTON, April 24, 2014 – The Defense Department is continuing to support the international search mission for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, Pentagon spokesman Army Col. Steve Warren said today.
The total cost of the search to date is $11.4 million, Warren said. This figure includes $4,200 per flight hour for the two P-8 Poseidon aircraft involved in the search, he added. The plane and its 239 passengers disappeared March 8 on a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.
The costs break down as follows, Warren said:
-- $4.6 million in operations and maintenance funds;
-- $3.2 million in overseas humanitarian disaster and civic aid funds; and
-- $3.6 million for underwater search equipment and support.
The P-8s continue conducting aerial search operations, and the Bluefin-21 autonomous underwater vehicle completed its twelfth search mission, the colonel said.
'Bluefin-21 has now completed more than 90 percent of a focused underwater search ... . Unfortunately, no contacts of interest have been found,' he said.
The department has received no requests for additional underwater search assets, Warren said."
The last sentence probably means that the US DOD doesn't have any other underwater search assets that would be useful in this search.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, which provided such assets for AF 447 search, has US Navy affiliations, but is not formally part of the defense establishment.
Some WHOI comments on this search:
FAQ: Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
WHOI assets:
Underwater Vehicles : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Arizona
Age: 77
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In 1950 NW2501 went down in Lake Michigan with 55 passengers and three crew. The airplane was on radar, only 18 miles from the shoreline. To this day, it has never been found. Clive Cussler, the author, funds an annual search for the missing airplane in the lake with underwater gear. No CVR/FDR, No pinger.
So maybe we will never find MH370.....
So maybe we will never find MH370.....
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: N. California
Age: 80
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bill Macgillivray
Did it turn "South" after almost reversing course and crossing back over Malaysia, or did it turn "North"?
The total lack of evidence found so far............
The total lack of evidence found so far............
Insat engineers see the Equatorial turn represented in the data they have recovered and analysed.
If you have an argument against that, I'd like to hear it.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: West Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
search area
Looking at the JACC search map from yesterday, showing planned search and areas already searched....I wonder why they are searching back over what seems to be areas already searched??? http://www.jacc.gov.au/media/release...ril/mr036.aspx
Wouldnt it make more sense to search closer to shore and also further out to sea??? Or, do they search on the way out to the search area??
Hopefully they are not flying out over debris without seeing it!
Wouldnt it make more sense to search closer to shore and also further out to sea??? Or, do they search on the way out to the search area??
Hopefully they are not flying out over debris without seeing it!
Last edited by DocRohan; 25th Apr 2014 at 02:20. Reason: added link
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: N. California
Age: 80
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@DocRohan
The area where the pings are are close to the southern extent of a westerly current, so debris may have travelled west instead of east.
The plane entrance to the water came on one side or the other of where the westerly current flowed on March 10th and this would have made a drastic effect on which direction the debris may have travelled. The mathamatics of prediction for drift have received sophisticated analaysis from the tiome of WW2 until present. So we can expect the search direction to at least have thoughtful input.
Lately I'm beginning to question one of my assumptions about the flight of MH370. The pilot may have pulled off a successful ditching and kept the plane intact after impact.
Will a 777 pilot comment on the idea that when the plane came down, it may just have been at sunrise; the timing seems to say so. Could a pilot bring the plane in with full flaps just above stall speed and at that point add power from the two healthy engines and execute a manouver that in a super cub is called "hanging on the prop" (just keep raising the nose until the plane settles and then cutting power)?
This has certainly never been done before by a jetliner, but if your goal didn't include saving the airframe would it be possible for a pilot to get a 777 down to about a hunderd knots forward airspeed before falling (hopefully onto the top of a swell) into the water? Maybe this airframe is intact intact on the bottom. In deep silt.
The area where the pings are are close to the southern extent of a westerly current, so debris may have travelled west instead of east.
The plane entrance to the water came on one side or the other of where the westerly current flowed on March 10th and this would have made a drastic effect on which direction the debris may have travelled. The mathamatics of prediction for drift have received sophisticated analaysis from the tiome of WW2 until present. So we can expect the search direction to at least have thoughtful input.
Lately I'm beginning to question one of my assumptions about the flight of MH370. The pilot may have pulled off a successful ditching and kept the plane intact after impact.
Will a 777 pilot comment on the idea that when the plane came down, it may just have been at sunrise; the timing seems to say so. Could a pilot bring the plane in with full flaps just above stall speed and at that point add power from the two healthy engines and execute a manouver that in a super cub is called "hanging on the prop" (just keep raising the nose until the plane settles and then cutting power)?
This has certainly never been done before by a jetliner, but if your goal didn't include saving the airframe would it be possible for a pilot to get a 777 down to about a hunderd knots forward airspeed before falling (hopefully onto the top of a swell) into the water? Maybe this airframe is intact intact on the bottom. In deep silt.
Last edited by Propduffer; 25th Apr 2014 at 03:04.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a number of airplanes have been ditched largely intact.
I can think of a DC9 that sunk intact in the ocean and has never been recovered (5000' of water)
Other planes too.
I would say that an intact ditching is quite possible of this type of plane.
It is also possible that in a few minutes the plane sank, filled with water of course and not really crushed as both sides of the metal were equal pressure.
I think it is also possible the engines remained attached to the wings.
Just look up some historical ditchings. You have the internet to do it with.
I can think of a DC9 that sunk intact in the ocean and has never been recovered (5000' of water)
Other planes too.
I would say that an intact ditching is quite possible of this type of plane.
It is also possible that in a few minutes the plane sank, filled with water of course and not really crushed as both sides of the metal were equal pressure.
I think it is also possible the engines remained attached to the wings.
Just look up some historical ditchings. You have the internet to do it with.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: N. California
Age: 80
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
100-105 with the engines shut down.
Now how about going very nose high at full thrust.
In this attitude a possible half the thrust is used to support the weight of the plane. In this attitude the plane would have more drag than any 777 has ever had before, even with wheels up.
Could a pilot drop it into the brine with almost no forward airspeed?
Forgive me but I'm processing this myself as I post. My prior thinking had it coming into heavy seas at night.
Now how about going very nose high at full thrust.
In this attitude a possible half the thrust is used to support the weight of the plane. In this attitude the plane would have more drag than any 777 has ever had before, even with wheels up.
Could a pilot drop it into the brine with almost no forward airspeed?
Forgive me but I'm processing this myself as I post. My prior thinking had it coming into heavy seas at night.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Power doesn't matter that much. Stall would be close to 100-105 KIAS.
Turn into the wind and ground speed (GS) would be 90-95 kts or less. Very survivable(see Ethiopian 767 hijack/ditching video which was at a much higher speed)
IMO if the plane had ditched, with empty tanks, it might have floated for hours. USAIR Hudson landing as an example.
But this is for a controlled ditching. There is no indication that this occurred.
Turn into the wind and ground speed (GS) would be 90-95 kts or less. Very survivable(see Ethiopian 767 hijack/ditching video which was at a much higher speed)
IMO if the plane had ditched, with empty tanks, it might have floated for hours. USAIR Hudson landing as an example.
But this is for a controlled ditching. There is no indication that this occurred.
Last edited by misd-agin; 25th Apr 2014 at 03:42. Reason: ground speed (GS)
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
misdagain
the USAIRways plane in the hudson had taken off less than 10 minutes prior to ditching. The tanks were far from empty. Although for a flight to KCLT they might not have been full either.
the USAIRways plane in the hudson had taken off less than 10 minutes prior to ditching. The tanks were far from empty. Although for a flight to KCLT they might not have been full either.
We have precious little data on controlled ditching of a jet airliner with high bypass wing mounted engines. Basically, the only 'good' data point is Sully's A320 on the Hudson. Ethiopian is not a good data point as the hijackers were reportedly fighting with the aircrew, trying to crash the airplane as they attempted to ditch. It's basically an unknown if it's possible to pull off what Sully did in a 777 in the open ocean.
Assuming a controlled ditching is possible with minimal airframe damage, the airframe could float a long time (after all, it's a lightweight structure that's designed to be airtight - Sully's A320 started sinking relatively quickly because they didn't have time to do the checklist which would have had them close the outflow valve). To sink, it would have been basically full of water and so it wouldn't implode as it sank.
That's all a long way of saying, assuming someone managed to pull off a 777 ditching with minimal damage, there would be minimal floating debris left behind.
Assuming a controlled ditching is possible with minimal airframe damage, the airframe could float a long time (after all, it's a lightweight structure that's designed to be airtight - Sully's A320 started sinking relatively quickly because they didn't have time to do the checklist which would have had them close the outflow valve). To sink, it would have been basically full of water and so it wouldn't implode as it sank.
That's all a long way of saying, assuming someone managed to pull off a 777 ditching with minimal damage, there would be minimal floating debris left behind.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: N. California
Age: 80
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is why I have been trying to determine what the lower end speed when it made contact with the water was (or might have been.)
With a plane empty of fuel we are told by 777 pilots that the stall speed would be 100-105 (IAS I assume.) Factor in a 20 knot headwind, that brings the speed on contact to 80-85.
Skully hit the Hudson at 137 and the plane stayed mostly intact.
Now factor in that MH370 may have been under control and with two functioning engines. Vectoring the thrust 45 degrees downward is certainly possible in a terminal touchdown. The power on stall speed must be at least 20 knots below power off stall speed.
I think that airframe engineer was figuring something closer to 200 knots at touchdown.
That airframe may be intact on the bottom, with little or no debris release. It is not at all unlikely that this is the case IMO.
With a plane empty of fuel we are told by 777 pilots that the stall speed would be 100-105 (IAS I assume.) Factor in a 20 knot headwind, that brings the speed on contact to 80-85.
Skully hit the Hudson at 137 and the plane stayed mostly intact.
Now factor in that MH370 may have been under control and with two functioning engines. Vectoring the thrust 45 degrees downward is certainly possible in a terminal touchdown. The power on stall speed must be at least 20 knots below power off stall speed.
I think that airframe engineer was figuring something closer to 200 knots at touchdown.
That airframe may be intact on the bottom, with little or no debris release. It is not at all unlikely that this is the case IMO.
Last edited by Propduffer; 25th Apr 2014 at 07:11. Reason: or might have been
Vectoring the thrust 45 degrees downward is certainly possible in a terminal touchdown.
This ain't no Sukhoi SU30 or F-22 or Harrier with vectored thrust. We're talking about a big commercial airliner here. It doesn't have thrust vectoring and it sure as heck won't be controllable at 45 degrees angle of attack.
You don't happen to be a technical expert working for CNN, do you?
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: N. California
Age: 80
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Mozella
You can vector thrust by increasing the angle of attack from level flight. There is a power off stall speed and there is a power on stall speed, with power on, the stall speed is lower because a portion of the thrust is being vectored down.
You claim to be a pilot, you should know that.
You can vector thrust by increasing the angle of attack from level flight. There is a power off stall speed and there is a power on stall speed, with power on, the stall speed is lower because a portion of the thrust is being vectored down.
You claim to be a pilot, you should know that.
re: Thrust vectoring:
Strange term to use for a power on stall
Yeah but you do not want to impact with an extreme nose up attitude as you will smack the tail into the water which will probably break off the tail while slamming the nose into the water.
Slow as possible with a relatively level but nose up would be best methinks.
Strange term to use for a power on stall
Yeah but you do not want to impact with an extreme nose up attitude as you will smack the tail into the water which will probably break off the tail while slamming the nose into the water.
Slow as possible with a relatively level but nose up would be best methinks.
