Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
From: us
The radar returns suggesting a turn back may be artifacts of large parts of the plane coming apart on different trajectories.
If I remember correctly, on TW800, after the center fuel tank blew, the fuselage was severed forward of the wingbox, the engines briefly continued to deliver thrust, the rear fuselage pitched up and forward in a parabola before arcing over.
If I remember correctly, on TW800, after the center fuel tank blew, the fuselage was severed forward of the wingbox, the engines briefly continued to deliver thrust, the rear fuselage pitched up and forward in a parabola before arcing over.
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 1,388
Likes: 675
From: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Question about use by pax of false (stolen, apparently, in this case) passports
A fairly significant proportion of this thread comments upon the aspect of the incident that involves use (evidently) of stolen passports. These subject-matter posts have been very largely factual. So I ask this question:
Is there a relationship between how passports are handled under the current ICAO civ av int'l legal and regulatory scheme, and the legal and juridical structures in place for the PIC to subdue, restrain, otherwise deal with "unruly pax"? Asking this because - as many posters know I suppose - ICAO soon convenes its Air Law conference to consider amendments of the Tokyo Convention to update or clarify juridical and jurisdictional provisions pertaining to PIC authorizations to control (& etc) unruly pax.
If a hard look at tightening up passport handling (broadly defined, as the facts of this incident still are being revealed) is in order, do you think it can legitimately be fit into the upcoming ICAO gab-fest on "unruly pax"? My legal mind senses a link between reforms on the conference agenda - about juridical structures and jurisdictional limitations and assignations of PIC authority to control bad-acting pax- and the emerging passport issues. Thank you for your attention to this inquiry.
Is there a relationship between how passports are handled under the current ICAO civ av int'l legal and regulatory scheme, and the legal and juridical structures in place for the PIC to subdue, restrain, otherwise deal with "unruly pax"? Asking this because - as many posters know I suppose - ICAO soon convenes its Air Law conference to consider amendments of the Tokyo Convention to update or clarify juridical and jurisdictional provisions pertaining to PIC authorizations to control (& etc) unruly pax.
If a hard look at tightening up passport handling (broadly defined, as the facts of this incident still are being revealed) is in order, do you think it can legitimately be fit into the upcoming ICAO gab-fest on "unruly pax"? My legal mind senses a link between reforms on the conference agenda - about juridical structures and jurisdictional limitations and assignations of PIC authority to control bad-acting pax- and the emerging passport issues. Thank you for your attention to this inquiry.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
From: Noosa QLD
TIME reports SAR spotted floating debris
Vietnamese Officials Say Airplane Debris Found in South China Sea - TIME
Vietnamese officials claim to have found fragments of an inner door and part of the tail from what might be a missing Malaysia Airlines jet
Vietnamese officials claim to have found fragments of an inner door and part of the tail from what might be a missing Malaysia Airlines jet
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 17,687
Likes: 2,030
From: Reading, UK
French accident board offers help recovering missing flight MH370
https://www.ntsb.gov/news/2014/140308.html
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 34
Likes: 34
From: the lake!
On the freefall time, the 3+ minute estimate is a bit off.
s=ut + 0.5at^2, assuming an initial vertical velocity of 0, and initial height s=8000m (I can't be bothered to convert 35,000' to m), t would be around 40s.
s=ut + 0.5at^2, assuming an initial vertical velocity of 0, and initial height s=8000m (I can't be bothered to convert 35,000' to m), t would be around 40s.
I don't see any provision for air resistance in that equation...
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
From: Brazil
@golfyankeesierra
I am afraid you misinterpreted my post or deliberately tried to show your self-proclaimed ACARS "knowledge" to this community disqualifying my statement.
Where did I suggest in my post that I have hopes in ACARS?
Where did I suggest in my post that "downlink" is synonym of manual transmission? I simply didn't.
The aircraft is constantly in contact with the CPS through a bi-directional automatic transmission (uplinks/downlinks) based on "tech acks". The downlinks from the aircraft contain, among the others, positional data. This has nothing to do with manual messages and nothing in my post suggested this.
Yes I can. If the CPS does not receive downlinks from the aircraft for a certain period of time, a failure report is automatically originated and sent to dispatchers (among others). What I tried to explain in my post is that, unlike the case of AF447, we do not have the logs here, only the word of the Malaysian Civil Aviation General stating that "no malfunction ACARS" were received. It would be interesting to analyze such logs, but they were not released so far.
Again, where did I suggest a conspiracy theory?
To all those people placing high hopes on ACARS, you probably don't know what it is..
It is only the datalink itself, just the system 447delivering a message, it doesn't make the message.
Messages can be directed (amongst others) at ATC, the airlines operations control or the technical department and it can be used to access external providers, for instance to get wx reports.
It can be uplinked or downlinked an can be automatically or manually.
Now the messages from AF447 originated from the ACMS (look it up) that reacted on several active faults that it sensed. ACMS downlinked those faults automatically to AF's tech department as it is apparently programmed to do.
That works in my airline the same but these are usually customer options, so who knows how Malaysian has set that up or what system they have in place.
It is only the datalink itself, just the system 447delivering a message, it doesn't make the message.
Messages can be directed (amongst others) at ATC, the airlines operations control or the technical department and it can be used to access external providers, for instance to get wx reports.
It can be uplinked or downlinked an can be automatically or manually.
Now the messages from AF447 originated from the ACMS (look it up) that reacted on several active faults that it sensed. ACMS downlinked those faults automatically to AF's tech department as it is apparently programmed to do.
That works in my airline the same but these are usually customer options, so who knows how Malaysian has set that up or what system they have in place.
Where did I suggest in my post that I have hopes in ACARS?
Where did I suggest in my post that "downlink" is synonym of manual transmission? I simply didn't.
The aircraft is constantly in contact with the CPS through a bi-directional automatic transmission (uplinks/downlinks) based on "tech acks". The downlinks from the aircraft contain, among the others, positional data. This has nothing to do with manual messages and nothing in my post suggested this.
Anyway you cannot conclude anything from the absence of downlink reports.
And for the conspiracy theorists, in my company it is not allowed to sent any sensitive information (like Creditcard numbers of customers) because it is easily intercepted (Get your free ACARS decoder on the 'net).
Would be something if it turns out afterwards that MAS withholds information.
Don't think so!
Would be something if it turns out afterwards that MAS withholds information.
Don't think so!
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
From: Fife, Scotland
Yes, 40s is about right for an object released with no initial velocity.
If an aircraft pitches down, however, some part of the horizontal velocity becomes the initial velocity (100% if it goes vertical) so it will take less time even if it breaks up.
If an aircraft pitches down, however, some part of the horizontal velocity becomes the initial velocity (100% if it goes vertical) so it will take less time even if it breaks up.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 17,687
Likes: 2,030
From: Reading, UK
I don't see any provision for air resistance in that equation...
For comparison, it took just under 50 seconds between the PA103 explosion (at FL310) and the wing impacting the ground at Lockerbie.
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
From: Melbourne
On the freefall time, the 3+ minute estimate is a bit off.
s=ut + 0.5at^2, assuming an initial vertical velocity of 0, and initial height s=8000m (I can't be bothered to convert 35,000' to m), t would be around 40s.
s=ut + 0.5at^2, assuming an initial vertical velocity of 0, and initial height s=8000m (I can't be bothered to convert 35,000' to m), t would be around 40s.
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
From: london
"Yes, 40s is about right for an object released with no initial velocity.
If an aircraft pitches down, however, some part of the horizontal velocity becomes the initial velocity (100% if it goes vertical) so it will take less time even if it breaks up."
Please stop using a formula for motion under gravity in a vacuum in relation to the descent of aircraft falling through the air.
Air resistance is the dominant factor, downward velocity will stop increasing once air resistance equals weight. Erratic of course if tumbling, but far far slower than in a vacuum, where speed keeps increasing until impact.
If an aircraft pitches down, however, some part of the horizontal velocity becomes the initial velocity (100% if it goes vertical) so it will take less time even if it breaks up."
Please stop using a formula for motion under gravity in a vacuum in relation to the descent of aircraft falling through the air.
Air resistance is the dominant factor, downward velocity will stop increasing once air resistance equals weight. Erratic of course if tumbling, but far far slower than in a vacuum, where speed keeps increasing until impact.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 694
Likes: 1
From: In my head
Originally Posted by surfcat
On the freefall time, the 3+ minute estimate is a bit off.
s=ut + 0.5at^2, assuming an initial vertical velocity of 0, and initial height s=8000m (I can't be bothered to convert 35,000' to m), t would be around 40s.
s=ut + 0.5at^2, assuming an initial vertical velocity of 0, and initial height s=8000m (I can't be bothered to convert 35,000' to m), t would be around 40s.
Yes that logic you've used (with a=g=10m/s/s) also requires that the falling object hits the deck at 400m/s which ... er ... I fancy is a bit off for the reasons Messrs Gruntpuddock, dude, Cheer Up and 32 have gently reminded!Terminal velocity.
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
From: Melbourne
Yes, 40s is about right for an object released with no initial velocity.
If an aircraft pitches down, however, some part of the horizontal velocity becomes the initial velocity (100% if it goes vertical) so it will take less time even if it breaks up.
If an aircraft pitches down, however, some part of the horizontal velocity becomes the initial velocity (100% if it goes vertical) so it will take less time even if it breaks up.
What's the terminal velocity of a 777 pointed towards the centre of gravitational attraction?
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
From: LAX
On the freefall time, the 3+ minute estimate is a bit off.
s=ut + 0.5at^2, assuming an initial vertical velocity of 0, and initial height s=8000m (I can't be bothered to convert 35,000' to m), t would be around 40s.
s=ut + 0.5at^2, assuming an initial vertical velocity of 0, and initial height s=8000m (I can't be bothered to convert 35,000' to m), t would be around 40s.
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 177
From: Where it is comfortable...
@WillowRun6-3
ICAO/civil aviation des not deal with passports of passengers excepting that all international passengers must comply with immigration requirements of destination state to be permitted to board. The PIC has authority over all souls on board, irrespective of nationality. What is currently under some review is how to handle any possible conflicts between the law under which the PIC exercises authority (the law of the state of registry) and the law of the destination where anyone ordered to be restrained by the PIC is taken over by local law enforcement.
ICAO/civil aviation des not deal with passports of passengers excepting that all international passengers must comply with immigration requirements of destination state to be permitted to board. The PIC has authority over all souls on board, irrespective of nationality. What is currently under some review is how to handle any possible conflicts between the law under which the PIC exercises authority (the law of the state of registry) and the law of the destination where anyone ordered to be restrained by the PIC is taken over by local law enforcement.
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 316
Likes: 1
Searchers Report Spotting Plane Debris - WSJ.com
Report by Wall Street Journal, includes vid showing locations of last known position, reported oil slick and parts discovered.
Report by Wall Street Journal, includes vid showing locations of last known position, reported oil slick and parts discovered.
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
From: Melbourne
447 hit the water at 10.912 ft/min = 124 mph. It went in almost flat pitched up about 16 degrees. The discussion here was about a nose-first trajectory to come up with a time of 40 seconds and a final speed in excess of 800 kt
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
From: The Isle of Avalon
This is all desperately sad for everyone involved. It just seems so very similar to BOAC Flight 781 - the De Havilland Comet 1 crash off Elba. In that instance there was no apparent surface wreckage from the airframe but unfortunately the bodies of some of the passengers did stay on the surface. I don't envy the SAR teams their job one little bit.