Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Poor Design Validation DFDR CVR
The ULB, is at a frequency where its range is less than the ocean depths over which aircraft routinely fly
The ULB battery life is insufficient for a search and recovery operation in remote areas - such as over the ocean
The ULB is not encoded so a ping has to be assumed to come from a ULB based on its frequency and recurrence frequency
The CVR with the voice data is shorter than the oceanic flights routinely made and only records sounds not what is happening in the cockpit
The DFDR does not record the output to the pilots on the assumption that both sets of instruments are receiving and displaying the same data
etc etc
This discussion of pings by subject matter experts reminds me of similar discussions by other subject matter experts on 'what that noise was' on CVR recordings. Or the discussion on the data actually shown to the PF rather than the PNF
This is poor systems analysis. These 'black boxes' are literally not fit for their purpose in multiple ways. Not only have recording and data communication capabilities vastly increased but also the type of flying has changed with aircraft commonly flying 'thin routes' over sparsely populated areas including all oceans and the poles. Rather than a piecemeal approach to fixing shortcomings (or demanding that they are not fixed), it is time that the industry started a complete reappraisal of the areas such as recordings, emergency location, aircraft tracking, survivable recording devices; and generated a formal functional requirement that included all of these issues in one overarching specification. This is a job that ICAO, RTCA, EUROCAE and other standards bodies should take on urgently.
Ian W
well said - good study
beggars belief with the latest technology now (and its cheap) that ETOPS is given out for 3 hours or more (5.5 hours max) with major safety recording instruments that record just for 30 mins and batteries that give up in 30 days plus the signal given off is poorly identifiable it seems.
its nonsense now...
considering these ETOPS aircraft now have been given that sanction which no doubt takes them further over very remote seas and land masses that technology has been not applied retrospectively -
well said - good study
beggars belief with the latest technology now (and its cheap) that ETOPS is given out for 3 hours or more (5.5 hours max) with major safety recording instruments that record just for 30 mins and batteries that give up in 30 days plus the signal given off is poorly identifiable it seems.
its nonsense now...
considering these ETOPS aircraft now have been given that sanction which no doubt takes them further over very remote seas and land masses that technology has been not applied retrospectively -
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOING View Post
In my experience aircraft can only fly TO an FMC fix. Now, as a pilot in an aircraft west of Indonesia who wishes to fly the aircraft on an unlikely track for a long enough period of time to ensure it runs out of fuel what fix position would you enter into the FMC to meet these needs, a fix position that requires no great imagination. Obviously the geographic South Pole.
Or to an airfield near the south pole on the antarctic continent? You'd still flame out before you got there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOING View Post
If anyone is taking bets I would locate the aircraft on a track from its last known position to the geographic South Pole and a distance along track to a little beyond the last Inmarsat ping.
Looks like a decent bet.
Originally Posted by BOING View Post
In my experience aircraft can only fly TO an FMC fix. Now, as a pilot in an aircraft west of Indonesia who wishes to fly the aircraft on an unlikely track for a long enough period of time to ensure it runs out of fuel what fix position would you enter into the FMC to meet these needs, a fix position that requires no great imagination. Obviously the geographic South Pole.
Or to an airfield near the south pole on the antarctic continent? You'd still flame out before you got there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOING View Post
If anyone is taking bets I would locate the aircraft on a track from its last known position to the geographic South Pole and a distance along track to a little beyond the last Inmarsat ping.
Looks like a decent bet.
I do wonder whether the aircraft flew from close to MEKAR to SPOLE (South Pole) or to YWKS (Wilkins Runway) using LNAV thereby independent of further input.
Jeppesen should be able to provide a more accurate calculation of GS for the period rather than the 450kts GS estimate for the whole route south.
Jeppesen should be able to provide a more accurate calculation of GS for the period rather than the 450kts GS estimate for the whole route south.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To MM43 @00:59 today,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, but any explanation of why the false positives occurred surely has to extend to why they stopped, given that the towing operations continued for some time. I remain puzzled. Though if the TPL results are indeed entirely false, it partly solves the problem of how the search area was successfully narrowed down so dramatically... it shouldn't have been.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, but any explanation of why the false positives occurred surely has to extend to why they stopped, given that the towing operations continued for some time. I remain puzzled. Though if the TPL results are indeed entirely false, it partly solves the problem of how the search area was successfully narrowed down so dramatically... it shouldn't have been.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading between the lines, the govts and other authorities seem convinced this was a criminal act, so IMHO we can definitely expect some changes to the satellite tracking systems so they (a) transmit the position (i.e. the airlines will have to pay up the fairly trivial amounts involved) and (b) cannot be disabled from the cockpit or cabin.
None of that is technically hard. Maybe relocating some circuit breakers.
If this pilot really did what many think he did, it was a clear "go out in style" job, which some may want to copy. Let's face it, it is amazingly easy to do. Either pilot can do it if the other leaves the cockpit.
None of that is technically hard. Maybe relocating some circuit breakers.
If this pilot really did what many think he did, it was a clear "go out in style" job, which some may want to copy. Let's face it, it is amazingly easy to do. Either pilot can do it if the other leaves the cockpit.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Sydney
Age: 67
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ULB range
My understanding, I think was from one of Angus Houston's briefings, is that the ULB is not intended to be detectable at such depths. It is for finding the flight recorders once you have already found the debris field.
Having said that it does lead one to the conclusion that when it was introduced possibly there was no expectation that debris would be recoverable from somewhere as deep and remote as the southern Indian ocean.
Having said that it does lead one to the conclusion that when it was introduced possibly there was no expectation that debris would be recoverable from somewhere as deep and remote as the southern Indian ocean.
Reading between the lines, the govts and other authorities seem convinced this was a criminal act, so IMHO we can definitely expect some changes to the satellite tracking systems so they (a) transmit the position (i.e. the airlines will have to pay up the fairly trivial amounts involved) and (b) cannot be disabled from the cockpit or cabin.
None of that is technically hard. Maybe relocating some circuit breakers.
None of that is technically hard. Maybe relocating some circuit breakers.
Let's not be in such a rush to quick fixes for one in ten million risks that make more-likely risks worse.
If this pilot really did what many think he did, it was a clear "go out in style" job, which some may want to copy. Let's face it, it is amazingly easy to do. Either pilot can do it if the other leaves the cockpit.
If there is someone like that up-front who has decided that today is the day then basically we are pretty much stuffed. New tricks for finding the wreckage afterwards are not that much of a comfort.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding, I think was from one of Angus Houston's briefings, is that the ULB is not intended to be detectable at such depths. It is for finding the flight recorders once you have already found the debris field.
Having said that it does lead one to the conclusion that when it was introduced possibly there was no expectation that debris would be recoverable from somewhere as deep and remote as the southern Indian ocean.
Having said that it does lead one to the conclusion that when it was introduced possibly there was no expectation that debris would be recoverable from somewhere as deep and remote as the southern Indian ocean.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If its a criminal act...
....do the authorities/countries involved have to report what they know. How much information are they obliged to release?
....if it was a criminal act by a radical group - they would have let us know within hours that they were responsible to bask in their infamy.
....if it was the sad act of an individual who had the extensive knowledge and cunning to perpetrate this - surely that person would want the world to know that they were that clever/sick! They would have left some note, tweet, Facebook clue. I feel they could not have the self-control to leave no clue at all - unless the authorities have that clue and want to keep it to themselves.
....or it was an insurance job and had to be scrupulously covered up.
....if it was a criminal act by a radical group - they would have let us know within hours that they were responsible to bask in their infamy.
....if it was the sad act of an individual who had the extensive knowledge and cunning to perpetrate this - surely that person would want the world to know that they were that clever/sick! They would have left some note, tweet, Facebook clue. I feel they could not have the self-control to leave no clue at all - unless the authorities have that clue and want to keep it to themselves.
....or it was an insurance job and had to be scrupulously covered up.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if it was the sad act of an individual who had the extensive knowledge and cunning to perpetrate this - surely that person would want the world to know that they were that clever/sick! They would have left some note, tweet, Facebook clue.
1) To protect the dignity of the family (very important in those cultures)
2) To enable them to get the full life insurance payout
I feel they could not have the self-control to leave no clue at all - unless the authorities have that clue and want to keep it to themselves.
I cling to the the perhaps naive view that there are not that many commercial pilots out there waiting to take out their aircraft and passengers - waiting only for suitable "inspiration".
If there is someone like that up-front who has decided that today is the day then basically we are pretty much stuffed. New tricks for finding the wreckage afterwards are not that much of a comfort.
If there is someone like that up-front who has decided that today is the day then basically we are pretty much stuffed. New tricks for finding the wreckage afterwards are not that much of a comfort.
A process change could provide immediate risk reduction
Don't Hang Up- I understand your concern-
"Every electrical system or circuit breaker removed from the control of the flight crew is an added fire risk.
Let's not be in such a rush to quick fixes for one in ten million risks that make more-likely risks worse."
But as I understand it, if current technology is mandated and processes are updated, we could almost immediately reduce the risk of entirely lost aircraft where no one is aware of a potential problem and the dragnet isn't thrown out until it is too late.
1. All commercial AC of x size/over water routes should be required to use a satellite based acars system that trickles out a small amount of info every 5 minutes- If it stops reporting for more than x minutes- a minor problem is assumed, however the alert processes is started and escalates over time.
2. All commercial AC of x size/over water routes should be required to use a satellite based communication system like Immersat with a minimum of 5 minute handshakes- If it stops reporting for more than x minutes- a minor problem is assumed, however the alert processes is started and escalates with time.
(Note that I am talking about a potential process-- not specific technologies, ie where ACARS stops and Sat com starts-)
Of course, if this leads to a crash, it doesn't give us the crash coordinates- However,
1. We are altered to a potential problem, we know where the AC was at the time and we can escalate as needed.
2. The search area would be greatly reduced
3. Some type of assistance might be possible (a military AC leading an electrically comprised AC to a suitable runway)
3. No one would imagine they could get away with an intentional MH370 like event.
Forget about the transponder for a moment- there are too many reasons it could be turned off and the alerts described above would be easily automated.
Costs would be limited to current technology, process changes aren't drastic, and it's unlikely to set off false alarms- ie 5 minutes after an alert, an aircraft with minor electrical issues may report in and stop the alert.
Or 10 minutes after an alert, if officials can't make a radio connection, it's likely that something's going on. Maybe just electrical, but we're aware and looking at potential to assist?
Other than fear of change, and possible satellite bandwidth, does anyone see major holes in this thinking?
"Every electrical system or circuit breaker removed from the control of the flight crew is an added fire risk.
Let's not be in such a rush to quick fixes for one in ten million risks that make more-likely risks worse."
But as I understand it, if current technology is mandated and processes are updated, we could almost immediately reduce the risk of entirely lost aircraft where no one is aware of a potential problem and the dragnet isn't thrown out until it is too late.
1. All commercial AC of x size/over water routes should be required to use a satellite based acars system that trickles out a small amount of info every 5 minutes- If it stops reporting for more than x minutes- a minor problem is assumed, however the alert processes is started and escalates over time.
2. All commercial AC of x size/over water routes should be required to use a satellite based communication system like Immersat with a minimum of 5 minute handshakes- If it stops reporting for more than x minutes- a minor problem is assumed, however the alert processes is started and escalates with time.
(Note that I am talking about a potential process-- not specific technologies, ie where ACARS stops and Sat com starts-)
Of course, if this leads to a crash, it doesn't give us the crash coordinates- However,
1. We are altered to a potential problem, we know where the AC was at the time and we can escalate as needed.
2. The search area would be greatly reduced
3. Some type of assistance might be possible (a military AC leading an electrically comprised AC to a suitable runway)
3. No one would imagine they could get away with an intentional MH370 like event.
Forget about the transponder for a moment- there are too many reasons it could be turned off and the alerts described above would be easily automated.
Costs would be limited to current technology, process changes aren't drastic, and it's unlikely to set off false alarms- ie 5 minutes after an alert, an aircraft with minor electrical issues may report in and stop the alert.
Or 10 minutes after an alert, if officials can't make a radio connection, it's likely that something's going on. Maybe just electrical, but we're aware and looking at potential to assist?
Other than fear of change, and possible satellite bandwidth, does anyone see major holes in this thinking?
Last edited by Zionstrat2; 30th May 2014 at 18:03.
re 10982
The post of IanW and the reference contained within, is the most important for everybody.We all live in a world which is virtually shrinking,even my present keystrokes are probably being monitored from afar!
Unwilling taxpayers worldwide are paying for defence systems which generally are useless to most of us and I think the time has come for a better use of people's money.Ruling elites have to mandate better regulations covering air travel.
Like any other human activity,if one type of event has happened,there is no earthly reason to state that it has only been an isolated event,the same type of event can again happen.
Just take a quick peep at the nuclear industry and it's massive spend on safety,bad things do happen.
Unwilling taxpayers worldwide are paying for defence systems which generally are useless to most of us and I think the time has come for a better use of people's money.Ruling elites have to mandate better regulations covering air travel.
Like any other human activity,if one type of event has happened,there is no earthly reason to state that it has only been an isolated event,the same type of event can again happen.
Just take a quick peep at the nuclear industry and it's massive spend on safety,bad things do happen.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: US
Age: 36
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2011
Location: UK
Age: 61
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every electrical system or circuit breaker removed from the control of the flight crew is an added fire risk.
Let's not be in such a rush to quick fixes for one in ten million risks that make more-likely risks worse.
Let's not be in such a rush to quick fixes for one in ten million risks that make more-likely risks worse.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OTOH, major mishaps are so rare in "1st World operated" big jets that every case you react on is going to be a rare hard case.
This isn't the 1950s when stuff used to crash all the time. When it comes to improving airline safety, one has been scraping out the bottom of the barrel for many years now, reacting to hugely improbable events.
Look at AF447. "Extremely improbable" (though most old timers would say "it was only a matter of time"). Yet probably every airline has changed its training after that.
Even if MH370 is never found, it's obvious that there are gaping holes in the system (the ease with which an airliner can vanish in a remote area) which need to be plugged, and which can be plugged relatively very cheaply.
And that's assuming one assumes this wasn't a criminal act. But if it was, and it happens again, you will have two jets vanishing and you will still be totally clueless.
This isn't the 1950s when stuff used to crash all the time. When it comes to improving airline safety, one has been scraping out the bottom of the barrel for many years now, reacting to hugely improbable events.
Look at AF447. "Extremely improbable" (though most old timers would say "it was only a matter of time"). Yet probably every airline has changed its training after that.
Even if MH370 is never found, it's obvious that there are gaping holes in the system (the ease with which an airliner can vanish in a remote area) which need to be plugged, and which can be plugged relatively very cheaply.
And that's assuming one assumes this wasn't a criminal act. But if it was, and it happens again, you will have two jets vanishing and you will still be totally clueless.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IFF another aircraft does a similar disappearing act flying out of a busy airport and vanishing, then I can see many people being reluctant to fly. There will be an extreme drop in the public trust in flight crews and aircraft generally. A second disappearance could be an industry killing event.
This is why the airline industry worldwide must get systems in place to ensure that all aircraft are tracked and remain tracked regardless of flight crew actions.
There are existing on-board systems like ADS-C that could do this, but it will require mandates from ICAO and the ANSPs to stop the beancounters insisting they are switched off.
This is why the airline industry worldwide must get systems in place to ensure that all aircraft are tracked and remain tracked regardless of flight crew actions.
There are existing on-board systems like ADS-C that could do this, but it will require mandates from ICAO and the ANSPs to stop the beancounters insisting they are switched off.
Last edited by Ian W; 31st May 2014 at 10:19. Reason: grammar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Doncaster
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a pilot but a historian. There were very few real facts known about this event right from the start and those that were known seemed subject to any number of interpretations. Now it is theories about theories based on speculation. The truth behind most historical events only really comes to light with a significant concrete discovery. When other news gets quiet expect more 'theories' to surface as journalists try to earn their salary for that particular week .....
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Response to RichardC10 5/5 post
Apologies for being slow to respond and thank you for your further analysis.
For me, with the official release of the Inmarsat data, the roles of BFO and BTO are a bit clearer. I still think that the inferred location for the first point is somewhat problematic, and I am concerned that this casts doubt on the BFO calibration for the remaining points. The BTO seems a lot clearer, in placing the aircraft on the "ping rings". However, there are a lot of assumptions being made about the aircraft's southerly path that could significantly shift the most likely area along the rings.
On a first principles basis, I am still troubled about the role of probability in the analysis. To be honest, in my opinion, a full "Monte-Carlo" simulation would probably be the best way to go. Since we haven't yet seen the Inmarsat "model", we can't yet tell whether this has been done.
For me, with the official release of the Inmarsat data, the roles of BFO and BTO are a bit clearer. I still think that the inferred location for the first point is somewhat problematic, and I am concerned that this casts doubt on the BFO calibration for the remaining points. The BTO seems a lot clearer, in placing the aircraft on the "ping rings". However, there are a lot of assumptions being made about the aircraft's southerly path that could significantly shift the most likely area along the rings.
On a first principles basis, I am still troubled about the role of probability in the analysis. To be honest, in my opinion, a full "Monte-Carlo" simulation would probably be the best way to go. Since we haven't yet seen the Inmarsat "model", we can't yet tell whether this has been done.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Paso Robles
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be honest, in my opinion, a full "Monte-Carlo" be the best way to go
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ex Prime Minister of Malaysia, Martiar Mohammed, never slow to accuse the a West (usually Australia) for every woe befalling his country, has informed the world via his personal blog that the CIA know what happened to MH370 and that the search in the Indian Ocean is a waste of time and money. On the last point, the man may be right.
