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 14th May 2014, 13:57
  #10621 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: vancouver
Posts: 30
Ocean Shield

OS appears to be nack in the search area and actively searching. ECHO was headed in that direction and is probably there too, altho' no recent position updates from AIS
roninmission is offline  
Old 14th May 2014, 14:22
  #10622 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,294
Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator View Post
Portmaneau, what I said was to explain why arearadar essentially kept repeating the question - certain or probable.

I agree with your definition, the various facts, and lack of facts, all add up to create the picture.

For an air traffic controller however they need to be 100%. In the absence of SSR they will ask for a position check or request an ident turn etc,

Even that has on occasion been less than 100% where another aircraft has inadvertently performed a similar manoeuvre and been mis-identified.
This is all correct but the case of a controller identifying an aircraft in real time and the forensic technicians gathering data from recorded tapes are significantly different.

The controller has to take on the aircraft with no appreciable delay and be (in their own mind) certain that they have identified the correct aircraft. The technicians and controllers studying the recorded tapes of radar returns have as much time as they need, can access better or amplified / cleaned data, can work out the speeds of aircraft and attempt to account for every return on a screen in order to rule out other aircraft.

I would think that the airspace over Malaysia at 1am is relatively quiet and most aircraft are the expected routine flights that anyone who works in an area for a time expects to see. I doubt very much that it is like the fabled Midland Radar overhead on a busy day. That being the case there would have been few if any primary responses that could be confused with MH370. Then the inquiry would have access to recordings from the various militaries that provided information and this information would be overlaid on the civil radar pictures. We in the peanut gallery will not be shown this.

If the inquiry team then believe that they have followed MH370 in the left turn back across the peninsula then a right up the Malacca straits followed by two left turns to go around Indonesia - then we can't disagree with them we do not have their information.

The important issue here is that if the aircraft did fly that very indirect route, it is unlikely that it was doing so after the flight deck was abandoned as some capable human inputs would be required. Then the following 6 hours of cruise flight also show that the aircraft was airworthy and not badly damaged.

Last edited by Ian W; 14th May 2014 at 14:28. Reason: grammar
Ian W is offline  
Old 14th May 2014, 14:38
  #10623 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 80
if the aircraft did fly that very indirect route, it is unlikely that it was doing so after the flight deck was abandoned as some capable human inputs would be required.
The condition 'unlikely' is significant. Not impossible, then.

A "few" pages ago, I abandoned my attempts to investigate the possibilities thoroughly and logically and explain the conclusions in a careful sequence of posts.
Val d'Isere is offline  
Old 14th May 2014, 19:05
  #10624 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
Logic test?

Surely after all these posts we should look a little at old Lady Logic?

Scenario 1) Drastic emergency on board: As said, who as time to re-programme the FMC to follow a bizarre route? Will the a/c systems then allow this to be 'flown'?

Scenario 2) Suicide/political protest: I'm going to crash this aircraft out of desperation/frustration over something. Why drag it out for 7 or more hours and then crash it? What is wrong with a political/emotional R/T message and a high-speed dive into the nearest water?


Anyone got an answer? I don't have - I have absolutely NO idea what happened or where the bits are.
BOAC is offline  
Old 14th May 2014, 20:33
  #10625 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Heswall,Merseyside
Posts: 30
If it has taken a dive into water would'nt bodies be a poppin to the surface due to decompostion by now ?
oopspff7 is offline  
Old 14th May 2014, 20:49
  #10626 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,593
oops, in shallow waters like the Dee, maybe. In deep water at just 4 degrees I imagine decomposition would be slower. Then the huge pressures would have a huge difference. Then if they were strapped in as we are encouraged to do.

Many reasons why there is no debris now.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 15th May 2014, 02:54
  #10627 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 70
Posts: 1,803
The only embarrassment here is that a 250 tonne aircraft can disappear off the face of the Earth, despite vast amounts of incredibly-potent surveillance and tracking technology, in the form of radar, satellites, submarines, and ships - by a sizeable number of nations.

We can put men on the moon multiple times, send rovers to Mars - yet we can't find an aircraft that disappears from the control of the most tightly-controlled transport system ever devised. There are a lot of people who must wonder where things are going seriously wrong.

Nations spend hundreds of billions on equipment for defence, and border control, and against aerial intrusions - yet employ so few skilled people in its actual use outside "normal working hours".
Asian nations invest billions in high-tech equipment, yet appear to have very few people capable of utilising it, to its fullest capacity.

Australia spends billions on JORN that is supposed to be able to pick up a Cessna 172 taxiing on the ground in East Timor, yet its áppears to be turned off, more often than it's turned on. It beggars belief.
onetrack is offline  
Old 15th May 2014, 03:32
  #10628 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 52
Posts: 809
It beggars belief.
Cost benifet analysis, no perceived threat at the moment, hence not needed. Sounds like good sense me.
rh200 is offline  
Old 15th May 2014, 05:30
  #10629 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: England
Posts: 8
Cost benifet analysis, no perceived threat at the moment, hence not needed. Sounds like good sense me.
I'm sure that is the reason. Although I'm not convinced that terrorist attacks are flagged up in advance. So perhaps calculated risk rather than anything.
McRotor96 is offline  
Old 15th May 2014, 08:51
  #10630 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 52
Posts: 809
I
'm sure that is the reason. Although I'm not convinced that terrorist attacks are flagged up in advance. So perhaps calculated risk rather than anything.
Your correct about the terrorist attacks of course, but the primary purposes of those assets are generally for threats from states. Hence rely on intelligence to determine the operational status of such.

Terrorist attacks utilising aircraft are supposed to be nipped in the butt at the departure point, or sorted out in flight. Hence those facillities and their operating hours should not be of any use in most cases.
rh200 is offline  
Old 15th May 2014, 10:15
  #10631 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 87
Press release from JACC:

As advised yesterday, the Autonomous Underwater Vehicle, Bluefin-21, was recovered about two hours into its first mission since returning to the search area so a communications problem could be investigated.

During the recovery, Bluefin-21 was damaged but was able to be repaired expeditiously with spare parts on board the ADV Ocean Shield.

Examination of the communications problem has established that a hardware defect exists in the transponder mounted on the Ocean Shield and that a defect may also exist in the transponder mounted on the Bluefin-21. This inhibits the ability of the two devices to communicate with each other.

As a consequence, spare parts for both defects will be dispatched from the United Kingdom. The parts are expected to arrive in Western Australia on Sunday.

Ocean Shield is currently en route to Dampier, Western Australia, to receive the transponder parts. The journey is anticipated to take a number of days. At this stage, Ocean Shield is expected go alongside so engineers can make a full assessment of the transponder repairs.

The Joint Agency Coordination Centre will provide further information regarding the serviceability of Bluefin-21 and the movements of Ocean Shield as it becomes available.
Update on MH370 Search
mmurray is offline  
Old 15th May 2014, 10:46
  #10632 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,294
Originally Posted by onetrack View Post
The only embarrassment here is that a 250 tonne aircraft can disappear off the face of the Earth, despite vast amounts of incredibly-potent surveillance and tracking technology, in the form of radar, satellites, submarines, and ships - by a sizeable number of nations.
This is likely to happen more often. Systems that are being developed now rely (depend) on the aircraft being able to automatically tell the ground systems whey are it is either by SATCOM link or by VHF link. If those aircraft systems fail or are turned off then the aircraft in the 'brave new space based world' will become invisible. Everyone seems to expect someone else to pick up the tab of surveillance systems to follow what are called 'non-cooperating' targets. But primary surveillance costs money especially the long range primary surveillance and it doesn't work out of line of sight of land - nobody wants to pay for it.
Ian W is offline  
Old 15th May 2014, 12:08
  #10633 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 42
Posts: 394
"Pardon me if this has been discussed - I gave up reading this thread midway due to so much uninformed speculation - but iirc from the AF447 threads an acoustic wave can be bent as it passes through the interface between media of different density (e.g. layers of different temperature) and thus peak detection would occur when the receiver was not directly overhead the source. "


thats deflection is correct, but nevertheless the range of this device is only few kilometers at all. 10 kilometers radius ( so more than the pinger range ) have been scanned by bluefin and nothing - not even some sunk debries beyond the main wreckage - was found.


that due to my understanding cannot be and one statement ( pings are from an ulb ) excludes the other . ( bluefind scanned the bottom around the ping and nothing was found )


so like said either the origin of the pings was something else or bluefin did not scanned every piece of the bottom in the 10 km radius , maybe due to depth limitation .
aerobat77 is offline  
Old 15th May 2014, 22:37
  #10634 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 76
Posts: 1,331
Jindalee Over the horizon Radar Network (JORN)

Bear in mind that Australia has never confirmed or denied that JORN was working at 0011z on 8 March 2014.

When you look at all the possible track "fits" that have been developed from the Inmarsat/AAIB Doppler handshake arcs, the skeptics would most likely ask, "How is it that a small 700km long sector of the final partial handshake arc suddenly became an area to focus on?" Furthermore, the northern end of that arc became the area of high probability.

Ignore the fact that a Chinese Coastguard vessel was deployed to the southern end of the arc, and immediately created a stir when it mysteriously heard pings while using some "makeshift" gear. Then consider that the Ocean Shield proceeded directly to the northern end of the arc and detected ULB pings on its first deployment of the Towed Ping Locator equipment.

The question of a target being detected that was traveling tangentially to the JORN arc has been raised. This would not be the case if that target was on the YPCC (Cocos Keeling Is.) to YPPH (Perth) track when you check the location of the JORN Laverton, W.A. site.

Overall, the published tracks based on guesstimates of fuel burn versus altitude and speed helped, but something else was involved for the Ocean Shield to be where it was as the ULB pings announced themselves to the world, then faded into oblivion shortly afterwards.
mm43 is offline  
Old 16th May 2014, 01:47
  #10635 (permalink)  
YRP
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 130
Originally Posted by boac

Surely after all these posts we should look a little at old Lady Logic?

Scenario 1) Drastic emergency on board: As said, who as time to re-programme the FMC to follow a bizarre route? Will the a/c systems then allow this to be 'flown'?

Scenario 2) Suicide/political protest: I'm going to crash this aircraft out of desperation/frustration over something. Why drag it out for 7 or more hours and then crash it? What is wrong with a political/emotional R/T message and a high-speed dive into the nearest water?
BOAC, I'm not making a judgement about 1 vs 2, but if it were #2 and intentional, I think disappearing the airplane had a much more powerful effect from a terrorism point of view, got much more media attention and aroused more popular curiousity than simply crashing the plane would have done.

Now if only the person had let one what it was they wanted attention for...

Part of me wonders if it wasn't someone who simply wanted to out-clever the rest of the world, to see if they could do it, i.e. disappear the plane without a trace. Problem is that that behaviour seems quite contradictory with someone depressed or otherwise distraught enough to want to end their own life.
YRP is offline  
Old 16th May 2014, 01:50
  #10636 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Perth
Age: 37
Posts: 7
@aerobat77:
that due to my understanding cannot be and one statement ( pings are from an ulb ) excludes the other . ( bluefind scanned the bottom around the ping and nothing was found )
Yes but the area searched was centred around the 4th ping detection location to the south east. It appears that the pings detected on April 8th were intermittent and at an even lower frequency of 27kHz and have been recently disregarded as potentially coming from a ULB.

The area of the first, consistent 2h 20m long detection to the north west on April 5th has NOT been searched via Bluefin-21. Potentially because the depth there approaches 5000m, beyond the depth rating of the submersible.
thommo101 is offline  
Old 16th May 2014, 02:06
  #10637 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Iver
Posts: 3
Please excuse my ignorence but I have a question (I'm not a flyer)
As aircraft fly a lot over sea, why do they not have an EPIRB that operates completely seperate and independent of any other system on board ?
They are cheap, reliable and seem to save a lot of lives.
BOAC_Silver_Surfer is offline  
Old 16th May 2014, 02:10
  #10638 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 76
Posts: 1,331
@thommo101
The focused underwater search area is defined as a circle of 10km radius around the second Towed Pinger Locator detection which occurred on 8 April.
Source:- http://jacc.gov.au/...

Contrary to what JACC has said (and repeated), the Bluefin-21 search area was centered on the #2 Ping detection of 05 April, i.e. 21°04'S 104°00'E.

As you have rightly pointed out, the #1 Ping detection was outside the 10km radius and in 4600m of water.
mm43 is offline  
Old 16th May 2014, 16:20
  #10639 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,358
Originally Posted by BOAC_Silver_Surfer View Post
Please excuse my ignorence but I have a question (I'm not a flyer)
As aircraft fly a lot over sea, why do they not have an EPIRB that operates completely seperate and independent of any other system on board ?
They are cheap, reliable and seem to save a lot of lives.
Would you care to explain how you think an EPIRB would have saved lives in this case? The aircraft is equipped with an ELT, it has radios galore, and the life rafts also have survival gear. For locating the aircraft once it is underwater, the acoustic beacons are already fitted. What would the EPIRB do that installed equipment cannot already?
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 17th May 2014, 01:12
  #10640 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,294
You have just described ADS-C (Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Contract) part of the FANS 1/A suite of capabilities. ADS-C allows airline ops, ATC or any other agency in the ADS-C list to request GPS position and time, flight level, speed, climb rate, turn rate and often an abbreviated future trajectory from the FMC. This is done either as a one off request or as a 'contract' for reports at intervals, at waypoints, or changes in flight level or all of the above.

See section 2.2.6 in Global Operational Data Link Document (GOLD) ( http://www.icao.int/APAC/Documents/e...D_2Edition.pdf )

Around 50% of widebodies have this fitted already and it will be mandated in the near future for oceanic flight. This is what INMARSAT is now saying it will provide 'free' as a tracking service.
Ian W is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.