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 30th Apr 2014, 05:04
  #10301 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: wurtulla
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just joined to say Georesonance has a CEO who lives in Sevastapol.
The technigues they use have not been able to find a ship sunk in the Black sea in WW2.So what chance MH370.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/dub...nd-mh370.3558/
drron9 is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2014, 06:15
  #10302 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: France
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
On their page "georesonance.com/georesonance-geophysical-survey-projects.html", they pretend having found the wreck of the ship Armenia in 2005 (press the "button" SUNKEN SHIP UKRAIN 2005).
But in 2008 the University of Texas was looking for the same ship:
Archaeologists unearth a graveyard of ancient shipwrecks in the Black Sea | Feature Stories :
"This fall, the team returned to the Black Sea on a mission to locate the Armenia, a Soviet hospital ship sunk by German aircraft in 1941. The President of Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko, is eager to locate the wreck to honor those who died, Davis says."
They didn't find it (the article title is for another ship) and there is not a single word about the geothing company researches on the page...

One of their patents here: UA2011000033 SYSTEM FOR REMOTELY PROSPECTING MINERAL RESOURCE DEPOSITS (AHMA, it is absolute crap)
Another there: Patents : Its reading will be a good abdominals exercise for any scientific...
Shadoko is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2014, 06:28
  #10303 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Try googling Georesonance

I did a google search on Georesonance and could only find links relating to MH370 - they seem to have not existed before MH370 disappeared
krysnkaz is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2014, 06:58
  #10304 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,745
Received 178 Likes on 85 Posts
they seem to have not existed before MH370 disappeared
You are mistaken. Their website appears to date back to June of last year:

http://web.archive.org/web/201306041...resonance.com/
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2014, 07:11
  #10305 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Their company was registered in January last year according to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission. Link
hack404 is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2014, 07:28
  #10306 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Oceania
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hmm. Looked at Georesonance's images and based on the scale that plane looks like it's almost twice the size of a T7.
If these images are of anything real, I'd bet these could turn out to be images from an entirely different site and plane: the prototype for the experimental Ekranoplan (aka Caspian Sea Monster) which lies at the bottom of the Caspian sea.
Any other bets?
Soursop is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2014, 07:35
  #10307 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The folks at Metabunk have serious doubts about GeoResonance:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/dub...nd-mh370.3558/
cmyounger is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2014, 08:25
  #10308 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: BRU
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
They seem a reputable experienced company who do not need to make extravagent claims.
Not extravagant? Maybe to put a suitable analogy here, their claims are equivalent to "We built a prototype airliner for 500 passengers that can travel at Mach 8, does not create any sonic boom and needs 100 kg of fuel for a transatlantic flight. We are not saying how we are doing it, but we have 23 or 47 people working it, 12 of which have a PhD and 5 of which are professors. The plane was built using secret Soviet military technology. We sent a presentation to both Boeing and Airbus and are very surprised not to have heard back from them. We are not saying that this is the aeroplane of the future. But they should at least follow up as a potential lead for future airline technology!". Why? It is for three reasons of physics, military technology and economics:

(1) No electromagnetic wave can travel through water very far before being absorbed. Only ELF waves with a frequency of less than 100 Hz used for communication with nuclear submarines can penetrate a few hundred metres. The transmitters and antennas used for these waves are huge, expensive and power hungry so that there are only two or them in the US and Russia. Nothing on a plane wreck sitting on the ground of the ocean can create such waves so no electromagnetic detector on a aeroplane or satellite can detect any electromagnetic waves originating from the wreck.

(2) This technology could be used to spot submarines. If such technology exists, why do the nuclear powers still build hunter-killer attack submarines that try to sniff out the location of the enemy nuclear ballistic missile submarines? And why bother having nuclear ballistic missile submarines, the threat of which relies on being stealthy, if they can simply be detected from space?

(3) This technology would instantly reveal all mineral and oil deposits of the whole world. Why do the oil and mining companies then rely on other expensive, unreliable, methods to find valuable resources?
Profit Max is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2014, 08:30
  #10309 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The JACC are refusing to give any weight to GeoResonance's claim, and insist that the search area they have been looking at is correct, and the search will continue in that region as it enters its next phase - using deep-sea specialist contractors such as Woods Hole.

The only thing to be agreed on now, is who picks up the contractors tab for their efforts.
Obviously, the nations with pax on board the ill-fated flight will be asked to foot a portion of the new, expanded, underwater search bill.
Up to now, the expenditure has largely been military expenditure that would have been spent, anyway (with some of that expenditure brought forward).

The air search winds up today without a single item relating to MH370 being found - so the search effort from now on will be purely underwater, with an expanded search area that is estimated to be around 700km long and 40km wide.
The JACC estimates that the new search phase will possibly take up 8 or 9 months.

Search for missing MH370 to enter new phase: JACC - Xinhua | English.news.cn
onetrack is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2014, 08:39
  #10310 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: High Wycombe UK
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pingology.........

The more I look at the Inmarsat BFO chart the more it seems to be wrong...........almost as if the function is inverted , and the higher values towards the top of the chart are when the satellite and aircraft are approaching each other , and the pings nearer the bottom line are when they are moving apart...........e.g.........
.forgoing the maths for a moment , the aircraft was supposed to takeoff on a heading of 341 degrees for 11 nautical miles , before turning right to proceed on their planned route (latest/current departure chart), so the ping at 16.43UTC is about right for the turn at the end of climbout . So the takeoff represents initially , close to a radial arc from the satellite base position , ie , neither flying toward or away from the satellite , but the BFO value increases , so this has to mainly be from the aircaft motion vertically , climbing at an average of 2000 feet per minute .The satellite vertical motion is a much smaller proportion of this and is decreasing as it approaches its high point . So the aircraft is ascending faster than the satellite and the net effect is the distance is closing .....ie.doppler increase . After the turn the BFO increases at close to the same rate (the next ping at 16.55UTC)..... although the aircraft is now flying 032/025 degrees which includes a large component away from the satellite base position., this can only be from the vertical motion still , as the aircraft is increasing speed and continuing to climb......
Then at 17.07UTC the BFO value reduces and the only thing that has happened then , is that the aircraft has reached the top of its climb to the assigned cruising level and leveled off , ie. the vertical motion towards the satellite has stopped , and so the BFO correction value is reduced to suit.........
Then we have the large gap which looks wrong , I suspect that some part of the Satphone system has been powered off here at the same time the radios and transponder went off......
Then when the pings re-appear at 18.25UTC , we have several in quick sequence , which suggest to me that perhaps the satellite has assigned an idle transponder , or at least one where the 'default' value of max. BFO has been set , and so there is a fairly rapid adjustment in order to sync and lock on to the signal from MH370 , which it may regard as a new contact now.......this seems more likely than extreme aircraft motion ....
So now the last five pings would appear to be from motion towards the satellite instead of away from it , so it suggests moving in from outside the final ping arc............until you consider the satellite motion.........
.......... there is the unlikely symmetry in the three pings 18.29UTC , 19.40UTC , and 20.40UTC , and now this matches the relative motion of the satellite too closely to be co-incidence for me........From the data provided by STK , the satellite reaches its highest point close to 19.40UTC , then starts to descend again , so one might almost expect the chart of pings to have the same slope even if the aircraft were stationary and the BFO values were changing purely from the satellite position.....????????........ hmmmmmmmm????.......
Robin Clark is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2014, 08:48
  #10311 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: BRU
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Robin Clark, I think you are misinterpreting the Doppler effect. The numbers show a frequency offset. So when the satellite and the aeroplane are moving towards each other, the frequency is shifted up. If they move away from each other, the frequency is shifted down. However, the vertical component of the relative aircraft-satellite movement will be negligible compared to horizontal component. Just think about the relative magnitudes of descent rate and ground speed.

Mind you, it might still be possible to detect an ascent or descent in the data - after all, frequency can be measured quite accurately.
Profit Max is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2014, 09:04
  #10312 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Armenia

According to everyone but GeoResonance, the Armenia has not been located.

Some good discussion about GeoResonance can be found here, the strongest point being the impossibility of detecting fuel - still in the wings - through an aluminum skin that far underwater.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/dub...nd-mh370.3558/

Very strange indeed.

Last edited by Rus_s13; 1st May 2014 at 04:47.
Rus_s13 is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2014, 09:18
  #10313 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not strange at all, think of all the free publicity they have gotten.
rh200 is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2014, 09:29
  #10314 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Relocating at present.
Age: 62
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think that you are being rather unfair. In 2005 they found the wreck of the WW2 Russian ship "Armenia" off the coast of Crimea.
Just had a look.

You've got to give these clowns 10 out of 10 for shear front. Slick web site, clever technology phraseology. The fact that anyone with O level physics can see at a glance it's utter b******s just proves there are a lot of gullible folks out there.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
OPENDOOR is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2014, 09:45
  #10315 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PLanet Earth
Posts: 1,315
Received 89 Likes on 44 Posts
Originally Posted by Profit Max
Robin Clark, I think you are misinterpreting the Doppler effect. The numbers show a frequency offset. So when the satellite and the aeroplane are moving towards each other, the frequency is shifted up. If they move away from each other, the frequency is shifted down.
Indeed.
Altitude variation will have negligeable effect compared to direction variation.
What strikes me is the spike around 18:25 in the actual values which is missing in the simulations. Did they not try to re- model and re-fly the actual track based also on the Radar data they have?
To me it seems not, which would have been a mistake IMHO.
Because due to the resulting positional variance this course change will have consequences on the relation of course flown and Doppler reading during the subsequent phases of the flight. By flying the same path/positions in the first stage, the direction of the flight could be more exactly derived in the latter stage by comparing the steepness of the Doppler change. This steepness will correspond to a combination of speed and course. At the same time speed and course are related to each other via the time distance between crossing the arcs.
Due to this double relationship you could theoretically narrow down the possible combinations significantly.
That would have given an important further data point for narrowing the search Location.
Would it be thus worth to do another re-fly of the whole flight path based on all the data they have now and then let the boffins re-calculate based on this?
henra is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2014, 10:11
  #10316 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Subterranea
Age: 70
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Aluminum and Titanium.

Looking at the GeoResonance "presentations", I wonder, how can a scan for titanium have a larger area and be more intense than that for aluminum? A B772 is 70% Al and only 7% Ti by weight. While aluminum covers most of the aircraft structure, titanium is located at strategic locations such as engines, landing gear, ducting, and is used as shimming material to prevent "potential" between aluminum and CFRP (e.g. prevent the risk of galvanic corrosion of aluminum).

https://au.news.yahoo.com/sa/a/23036...e-found-mh370/

http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~jps7/A...0materials.pdf

Last edited by Green-dot; 30th Apr 2014 at 10:52. Reason: refinement of text
Green-dot is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2014, 10:37
  #10317 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Perth
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If that does not sound pseudoscientific to you yet, the second stage involves shooting a narrow beam of terahertz waves into the earth and using it to scan for the precise location and shape of the deposit.
OK, this story now has everything.

JohnPerth is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2014, 15:17
  #10318 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ping arc data modelling update

Following the post yesterday on the new satellite elevation graph, I have modelled a course with constant rate of turn that ends at the final search box, and which fits the elevation graph. As stated yesterday, a great circle course at constant speed leads to the original search area.

In this work I fitted the start point (lat, long), original heading, change of heading per hour and the (constant) speed, and of course the satellite elevation data. I have fitted the 19:41 to 00:11UT elevation data. The fit is shown below.

Best Fit To The Satellite Elevations Released 29-Apr-14 And The Final Search Box Photo by RichardC10 | Photobucket

Some notes:
1. The best fit was a change of -10degrees/hour, from a start heading of 194.3, speed of 327kt.
2. The yellow point is the fitted course extended back to 18.27UT (the time of the pings previous to 19.41) so this point is not a fit to any data. The green box is the last reported radar position at 18:22UT. The model interpretation only requires that MH370 was established on the white arc of the track before the 19.41UT ping time. The exact route from the green box to the interception point on the white arc is not determined but I have plotted a small sector of the 18:27UT ping arc to show this is consistent.
3. The fit to the elevation data is excellent, r.m.s. error of 0.1degree, which is as good as the data can be read from the published fuzzy image (this may be a sign that the data has been over-fitted – the number of fitted parameters is large).
4. The plotted course is not consistent with an interpretation of the published BFO/Doppler data developed by myself and others. However, Inmarsat have said that their BFO model was ‘fine-tuned’ so it is quite possible (indeed almost certain) that the BFO data changed from the published set.
5. Constant magnetic heading courses to the final search box do not give enough heading change to fit the elevation data.

This graph does not prove that MH370 went to the area of the final search box. Presumably, the authorities used the results of modelling later generations of the BFO and elevation data, and perhaps other data sources. I think the graph does indicate that there is at least one such course (there will be others) that is consistent with the elevation data and hints at the route taken.
RichardC10 is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2014, 16:49
  #10319 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,895
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Very interesting RichardC10.
How might this path be followed - perhaps by an aircraft in attitude hold with the left wing slightly down?
Fox3WheresMyBanana is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2014, 17:14
  #10320 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: btw SAMAR and TOSPA
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks, Richard, great work, expected result.
At 327 kts ground speed the aircraft must have flown low.
At FL350 it needs flaps and slats to fly that slow I would guess.
At FL100 could be IAS 300 kts around, depending on wind and OAT.
Or it was circling.

Still unanswered: what had led JACC to assume this the correct route. Is it the doppler data?

Last edited by threemiles; 30th Apr 2014 at 19:37.
threemiles is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.