Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
'The final cruising of the MAS370 was FL350 and ADS-B was lost at 17h21z'
The Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Wiki page has MH370 reporting FL350 at 17:01 and again at 17:07.
According to the link from Flightaware, it was still climbing through 21,000 to 31,000 feet at these times.
So no, it doesn't make any sense presuming we are agreed that this is indeed data from the correct flight.
Is this just down to the more general inaccuracy of Flightaware's data? Or does it indicate inaccuracy on the part of the press releases?
ETA I think there is confusion over the correct date; FlightAware seems to use MYT for the date (8th March), and GMT for the times.
So this is the correct log:
http://uk.flightaware.com/live/fligh.../ZBAA/tracklog
The Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Wiki page has MH370 reporting FL350 at 17:01 and again at 17:07.
According to the link from Flightaware, it was still climbing through 21,000 to 31,000 feet at these times.
So no, it doesn't make any sense presuming we are agreed that this is indeed data from the correct flight.
Is this just down to the more general inaccuracy of Flightaware's data? Or does it indicate inaccuracy on the part of the press releases?
ETA I think there is confusion over the correct date; FlightAware seems to use MYT for the date (8th March), and GMT for the times.
So this is the correct log:
http://uk.flightaware.com/live/fligh.../ZBAA/tracklog
Last edited by susier; 10th May 2014 at 20:08. Reason: ThreeMiles suggestion, thank you
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Dubai
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@susier
At 1701 (UTC 07MAR) it has reached 35,000 feet.
Which is 1801 (CET 07MAR) and 0101 (MYT 08MAR)
as per link
Flight Track Log ? MAS370 ? 08-Mar-2014 ? WMKK / KUL - ZBAA / PEK ? FlightAware
At 1750 (UTC 07MAR) it is still at 35,000 (and on that heading).
Which is 1850 (CET 07MAR) and 0150 (MYT 08MAR) ?
At 1701 (UTC 07MAR) it has reached 35,000 feet.
Which is 1801 (CET 07MAR) and 0101 (MYT 08MAR)
as per link
Flight Track Log ? MAS370 ? 08-Mar-2014 ? WMKK / KUL - ZBAA / PEK ? FlightAware
At 1750 (UTC 07MAR) it is still at 35,000 (and on that heading).
Which is 1850 (CET 07MAR) and 0150 (MYT 08MAR) ?
James,
I was going to edit my post to ask about the 17:50 entry but was afraid I had got it wrong and the answer was obvious.
ETA: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post8359089
This explains it. Apparently FlightAware doesn't have sufficient coverage over the sea.
I was going to edit my post to ask about the 17:50 entry but was afraid I had got it wrong and the answer was obvious.
ETA: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post8359089
This explains it. Apparently FlightAware doesn't have sufficient coverage over the sea.
Rotate on this!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 64
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What amazes me is how this entire search effort has been run and has fallen apart.
Some common sense, and easily determined processes have been completely ignored.
As an example, with a pinger search, reverse the thought process using simple GPS navigation concepts.
The search vessel is a satellite, and the pinger is the aircraft that wants to know its location.
For GPS navigation, if you only see one sat, what do you get...nothing. with 2 sats, what do you get...distance. It takes at least 3 sats to get your position, correct?
So, with one search vessel listening to a pinger, what do you get...nothing
If you had 2 search vessels, they could coordinate their locations with the exact time they rec'd the ping. you would get distance, but along an infinite line.
If you had 3 search vessels collaborated, you would get the horizontal location. It is really that intuative.
One vessel, one UAV, whatever...seems relatively hopeless.
too bad the exact time of all of the different signals between all of the vessels could not be compared, if they happened all at the same time.
(it should be noted that transponder batteries can last a long time, beacause it responds to a signal. There are many biologics, such as dolphins and whales that it will respond to. Especially with dolphins, they will try to have a conversation with a transponder, wearing down the batteries pretty quickly)
Some common sense, and easily determined processes have been completely ignored.
As an example, with a pinger search, reverse the thought process using simple GPS navigation concepts.
The search vessel is a satellite, and the pinger is the aircraft that wants to know its location.
For GPS navigation, if you only see one sat, what do you get...nothing. with 2 sats, what do you get...distance. It takes at least 3 sats to get your position, correct?
So, with one search vessel listening to a pinger, what do you get...nothing
If you had 2 search vessels, they could coordinate their locations with the exact time they rec'd the ping. you would get distance, but along an infinite line.
If you had 3 search vessels collaborated, you would get the horizontal location. It is really that intuative.
One vessel, one UAV, whatever...seems relatively hopeless.
too bad the exact time of all of the different signals between all of the vessels could not be compared, if they happened all at the same time.
(it should be noted that transponder batteries can last a long time, beacause it responds to a signal. There are many biologics, such as dolphins and whales that it will respond to. Especially with dolphins, they will try to have a conversation with a transponder, wearing down the batteries pretty quickly)
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
Underfire
Angus Houston is probably one of the better heads, leaders or whatever you want to call him to lead this effort.
Apart from personal SAR experience as a pilot - and awarded a medal for one dangerous rescue, head of the ADF, well known internationally especially with the countries involved (and all the inherent issues), doesn't play politics or suffer fools gladly, cuts through any crap, has no problems telling bosses or pollies they are wrong and knows how to pull the required team together from across the world. He also would have the highest security clearance level.
And best of all, doesn't pander to the media or the medias agenda as shown from day 1.
You really think he isn't pulling everything together that he can ?
Angus Houston is probably one of the better heads, leaders or whatever you want to call him to lead this effort.
Apart from personal SAR experience as a pilot - and awarded a medal for one dangerous rescue, head of the ADF, well known internationally especially with the countries involved (and all the inherent issues), doesn't play politics or suffer fools gladly, cuts through any crap, has no problems telling bosses or pollies they are wrong and knows how to pull the required team together from across the world. He also would have the highest security clearance level.
And best of all, doesn't pander to the media or the medias agenda as shown from day 1.
You really think he isn't pulling everything together that he can ?
Last edited by 500N; 11th May 2014 at 20:57.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: N. California
Age: 80
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will add that the earlier assertion that the searchers were incompetent because they made 3 hour turnarounds instead of a "racetrack" pattern was quite off base.
They were using a racetrack pattern, one that kept bringing them back to the target area where they wanted to focus the search. The way they did it gave them maximum time over target; they varied the depth of the UAV as they turned so that they could get back to the target area sooner with the UAV at the correct depth.
If they would have just kept running in a circle or oblong search pattern they would have searched a greater area, but would not have spent much time over the target area.
This whole business of armchair admirals questioning the technical expertise of the kinds of people who have designed and built vehicles such as Ocean Shield and the ULV (as well as the Inmarsat systems) seems a bit daft to me.
They were using a racetrack pattern, one that kept bringing them back to the target area where they wanted to focus the search. The way they did it gave them maximum time over target; they varied the depth of the UAV as they turned so that they could get back to the target area sooner with the UAV at the correct depth.
If they would have just kept running in a circle or oblong search pattern they would have searched a greater area, but would not have spent much time over the target area.
This whole business of armchair admirals questioning the technical expertise of the kinds of people who have designed and built vehicles such as Ocean Shield and the ULV (as well as the Inmarsat systems) seems a bit daft to me.
Paxing All Over The World
Reported on BBC website: 12 May 2014 Last updated at 01:49 (BST)
BBC News - Inmarsat offers free airline tracking
My emphasis
BBC News - Inmarsat offers free airline tracking
UK satellite operator Inmarsat is to offer a free, basic tracking service to all the world's passenger airliners.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bath, UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the BBC story:
Inmarsat says the free service it is offering would carry definitive positional information.
It would see a plane determine its location using GPS and then transmit that data - together with a heading, speed and altitude - over Inmarsat's global network of satellites every 15 minutes.
So not that basic, and much more than we have to go on in the case of MH370.
It would see a plane determine its location using GPS and then transmit that data - together with a heading, speed and altitude - over Inmarsat's global network of satellites every 15 minutes.
A very good move by Inmarsat.
The satellite operator would carry the cost, anticipated to be about $3m a year.
It already does something similar in the maritime sector. All distress calls from ships are relayed over its network free of charge.
The company would hope to recoup costs as airlines moved to take up some of its premium services. "But we would keep that basic tracking service free of charge," said Mr McLaughlin.
It already does something similar in the maritime sector. All distress calls from ships are relayed over its network free of charge.
The company would hope to recoup costs as airlines moved to take up some of its premium services. "But we would keep that basic tracking service free of charge," said Mr McLaughlin.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Florida
Age: 60
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ventus45
Kind of old news that now, given that the CVR/FDR signals can assume to have stopped and even now we're not 100% sure whether they really were picking up signals from the aircraft. Having said that, the picking up of two signals simultaneously does seem to make the stories of coincidental, similar frequency, marine beastie transponder tags seem unlikely.
As for the side scan sonar capabilities of the AUVs, that's not really a source of speculation or research in this instance. Either they find the airframe or they don't, their capabilities only limit their swath on each pass and how long it takes to cover the search area.
Kind of old news that now, given that the CVR/FDR signals can assume to have stopped and even now we're not 100% sure whether they really were picking up signals from the aircraft. Having said that, the picking up of two signals simultaneously does seem to make the stories of coincidental, similar frequency, marine beastie transponder tags seem unlikely.
As for the side scan sonar capabilities of the AUVs, that's not really a source of speculation or research in this instance. Either they find the airframe or they don't, their capabilities only limit their swath on each pass and how long it takes to cover the search area.
.So not that basic, and much more than we have to go on in the case of MH370
MH370 was real time tracked.
If the equipment is turned off or not activated you get nothing.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Florida
Age: 60
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed a good move by Inmarsat and hopefully a fruitful business decision. They deserve credit for having technically put their balls on the line in the case of MH370. God knows if the aircraft is finally found elsewhere they and their engineers will have serious egg on their faces......
Which it was right up to the point it was turned off.
It was also equipped with ADS and ACARS /CPDLC
It also has an ELT which can be activated any time.
Even real time tracking envisioned by all and sundry is useless when in the OFF position.
Even with the known position of AF entering the water it took 2 years to find the black box.
Resources would be better spent on the design of the Black Box locating devices.
It was also equipped with ADS and ACARS /CPDLC
It also has an ELT which can be activated any time.
Even real time tracking envisioned by all and sundry is useless when in the OFF position.
Even with the known position of AF entering the water it took 2 years to find the black box.
Resources would be better spent on the design of the Black Box locating devices.
Dumb question re WX radar.
I know some military equipment on ships and planes picks up radar signals to ascertain if they being tracked by a radar.
Would any Air Defence Radar Installations have similar equipment?
We fly with our WX radar on most of the time.
Therefore a target picked up on Primary Radar with no Transponder and also was not emitting a radar signal from it's Weather Radar (WX Radar) would be suspect.
Of course since no Primary search radar detection caused any alarm on the night of the disappearance no one checked if any target was emitting a WX radar signal.
As I stated I do not even know if the capability even exists at the ground radar stations concerned.
Very late in the day to ask the question but I was just wondering.
Would any Air Defence Radar Installations have similar equipment?
We fly with our WX radar on most of the time.
Therefore a target picked up on Primary Radar with no Transponder and also was not emitting a radar signal from it's Weather Radar (WX Radar) would be suspect.
Of course since no Primary search radar detection caused any alarm on the night of the disappearance no one checked if any target was emitting a WX radar signal.
As I stated I do not even know if the capability even exists at the ground radar stations concerned.
Very late in the day to ask the question but I was just wondering.
Last edited by albatross; 12th May 2014 at 07:48.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Västerås
Age: 44
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course civilian radar equipment on the ground is unable to detect someones wx radar, for several reasons, but mostly "why would they?". It takes some egineering for something that is totally useless 99,9999% of the time. Fighter aircraft have systems to detect other radars and jammers, for obvious reasons. But figher aircrafts are also very expensive!
I was refering to Military Air Defence Radar ground installations.
The radar detector would be a seperate piece of equipment.
I would not expect Civil SSR installations to be so equipped.
I was just curious.
The radar detector would be a seperate piece of equipment.
I would not expect Civil SSR installations to be so equipped.
I was just curious.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DRUK
Regardless of what was or wasn't functioning on board, it would only have been trackable while within range of SSR.
Radar is designed to work by bouncing off a reflective surface and does NOT require SSR.