Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
teams of spectacularly astute independent experts are working very hard trying to help find the plane; but they are working blind because
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: London
Age: 63
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I HOPE it's "only" 2) - and that the March 28 shift was for LEGITIMATE reasons. But if so, they should have told us what those legitimate reasons WERE; teams of spectacularly astute independent experts are working very hard trying to help find the plane; but they are working blind because of 2).
HIGHLY relevant, I'm afraid.
HIGHLY relevant, I'm afraid.
There are two bodies of information here which are qualitatively different. One is the set of public announcements made by various bodies which may be coloured by perceptions and motives that are not transparent. The other is the data. If one treats these two sets of information as separate, it becomes clear that there are differences in the implied track of the aircraft depending on how much weight one gives to each set. It also becomes clear why the investigators may be making assumptions which look inconsistent and are unable to be forthright about why they have done this.
I don't think this implies any impropriety on the part of the investigation team since I believe that the decisions they have made are sensible based on the data alone.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wales
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just one question for those on this forum with technical knowledge....
If the auto-pilot was set to a heading of 180 degrees, would the plane fly to the Magnetic, or Geological, South Pole? And would the flight path be a straight line, or deviated by the differing winds aloft?
If the auto-pilot was set to a heading of 180 degrees, would the plane fly to the Magnetic, or Geological, South Pole? And would the flight path be a straight line, or deviated by the differing winds aloft?
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Paso Robles
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the auto-pilot was set to a heading of 180 degrees, would the plane fly to the Magnetic, or Geological, South Pole?
And would the flight path be a straight line, or deviated by the differing winds aloft?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heading is always magnetic unless your are very close to the Poles.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: London
Age: 63
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a constant magnetic heading the course flown is a Rhumb line.
Rhumb line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rhumb line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wales
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the replies.... So if any Southerly heading was set, the plane would eventually reach the South Pole (Mag or Geo, dependant upon setting), flying a not particularly straight line.
Only if 180 degrees was set would the plane fly a great circle route, other times it would be the Rhumb Lines.... Thanks again...
Only if 180 degrees was set would the plane fly a great circle route, other times it would be the Rhumb Lines.... Thanks again...
Down the plug hole
Shooting from the hip here, and practically speaking I think that you would be correct.
But I suspect that, the rhumb line projection will never, in theory, end exactly at the pole.
Come on you mathemeticians, shoot me down, if you will.
But I suspect that, the rhumb line projection will never, in theory, end exactly at the pole.
Come on you mathemeticians, shoot me down, if you will.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: California
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the Wikipedia link says, the rhumb line reaches the pole in a finite distance. It is relatively intuitive. When you are moving along the rhumb line, you have to travel fixed distance for every degree of latitude (60 nautical miles if you're going due north or due south, 60/|cos(bearing)| nm for other bearings). Therefore, to go from the equator to the end of the line, you go 60*90/|cos(bearing)| nm.
Down the plug hole
Right. I think that my tired old brain can visualise that now.
I'm not sure how much relevance there is in this to MH370, but an excellent reference can be found at Calculate distance and bearing between two Latitude/Longitude points using haversine formula in JavaScript
I'm not sure how much relevance there is in this to MH370, but an excellent reference can be found at Calculate distance and bearing between two Latitude/Longitude points using haversine formula in JavaScript
Search Update
http://www.jacc.gov.au/media/release...uly/mr054.aspx
Two ships, Zhu Kezhen and Fugro Equator, continue to work in the southern Indian Ocean, surveying the sea floor in preparation for the deep-sea search for missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.
In June, an expert satellite working group identified a search zone of up to 60,000 square kilometres, which represents the highest priority for future search efforts. As with previous search areas, it is located along the seventh arc—a thin but long line that includes all the possible points where the last known communication between the aircraft and a communications satellite could have taken place.
Before the deep-sea search can commence however, it is necessary to map the sea floor in this remote region of the Indian Ocean, which until now has been poorly charted. The aim is to identify significant features on the sea floor, which may present a hazard for the deep water vehicles that will be used for the search.
Since 24 May 2014, the Zhu Kezhen, a Chinese PLA-Navy vessel has been conducting survey operations. The bathymetric data it is collecting will assist in characterising the sea floor topography. As of 30 July 2014, it has sounded over 25,000 square kilometres along the seventh arc.
Fugro Equator, an Australian-contracted specialised survey vessel, has also been conducting bathymetric survey work. As of 30 July 2014, over 43,000 square kilometres have been sounded by Fugro Equator.
Analysis and mapping of this data is continuing.
On 6 July, the Government of Malaysia announced that its hydrographic survey vessel, the KD MUTIARA, would join the Zhu Kezhen and the Fugro Equator in August to continue the bathymetric survey work.
It is expected that the bathymetric survey work will be completed by September. The deep-water search is expected to commence in September following the appointment of a prime contractor through a request for tender process.
The JACC will provide updates on the activities of the bathymetric survey, which can be found at www.jacc.gov.au/media/maps/index.aspx
Two ships, Zhu Kezhen and Fugro Equator, continue to work in the southern Indian Ocean, surveying the sea floor in preparation for the deep-sea search for missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.
In June, an expert satellite working group identified a search zone of up to 60,000 square kilometres, which represents the highest priority for future search efforts. As with previous search areas, it is located along the seventh arc—a thin but long line that includes all the possible points where the last known communication between the aircraft and a communications satellite could have taken place.
Before the deep-sea search can commence however, it is necessary to map the sea floor in this remote region of the Indian Ocean, which until now has been poorly charted. The aim is to identify significant features on the sea floor, which may present a hazard for the deep water vehicles that will be used for the search.
Since 24 May 2014, the Zhu Kezhen, a Chinese PLA-Navy vessel has been conducting survey operations. The bathymetric data it is collecting will assist in characterising the sea floor topography. As of 30 July 2014, it has sounded over 25,000 square kilometres along the seventh arc.
Fugro Equator, an Australian-contracted specialised survey vessel, has also been conducting bathymetric survey work. As of 30 July 2014, over 43,000 square kilometres have been sounded by Fugro Equator.
Analysis and mapping of this data is continuing.
On 6 July, the Government of Malaysia announced that its hydrographic survey vessel, the KD MUTIARA, would join the Zhu Kezhen and the Fugro Equator in August to continue the bathymetric survey work.
It is expected that the bathymetric survey work will be completed by September. The deep-water search is expected to commence in September following the appointment of a prime contractor through a request for tender process.
The JACC will provide updates on the activities of the bathymetric survey, which can be found at www.jacc.gov.au/media/maps/index.aspx
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: London
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
During the search for MH370, there was something sad about sailors on aboard RN ships, with binoculars, searching for wreckage by looking out to sea. How far can they see with any reliability? Is this next to futile?
A UK Freedom of Information request asked if the Royal Navy have any towed observation platforms, a device a bit like a parascender/hang glider, which, apparently, can reach almost to 1000 feet, and towed behind the ship. This seems gloriously low tech, very cheap and potentially useful. Having said that they did not, this is what they went on to say:
"UK Armed Forces rely on advanced sensors that provide a highly effective detection capability. For example, surveillance radar systems, such as the SCANTER 4100, which are currently in service with the Royal Navy, offer a combined surface and air surveillance capability to a range of 110 nautical miles from the ship. The radar is capable of detecting small objects in all weather conditions which gives it a clear advantage over the approach you propose. In addition, highly capable sonar systems, such as the 2087 used by the Royal Navy's Type 23 frigates provide an effective means of acoustically detecting submerged objects".
Can anyone comment on this, bearing in mind that nobody is talking of "either or", but rather of "all" useful ideas. Who knows when the world will be on another similar search?
A UK Freedom of Information request asked if the Royal Navy have any towed observation platforms, a device a bit like a parascender/hang glider, which, apparently, can reach almost to 1000 feet, and towed behind the ship. This seems gloriously low tech, very cheap and potentially useful. Having said that they did not, this is what they went on to say:
"UK Armed Forces rely on advanced sensors that provide a highly effective detection capability. For example, surveillance radar systems, such as the SCANTER 4100, which are currently in service with the Royal Navy, offer a combined surface and air surveillance capability to a range of 110 nautical miles from the ship. The radar is capable of detecting small objects in all weather conditions which gives it a clear advantage over the approach you propose. In addition, highly capable sonar systems, such as the 2087 used by the Royal Navy's Type 23 frigates provide an effective means of acoustically detecting submerged objects".
Can anyone comment on this, bearing in mind that nobody is talking of "either or", but rather of "all" useful ideas. Who knows when the world will be on another similar search?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bavaria
Age: 76
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dutch firm to conduct MH370 underwater search
A Dutch firm will conduct a deep-water search in the Indian Ocean for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 from September, Australia said on Wednesday, expressing "cautious optimism" that the plane will be found.
Fugro Survey will use its state-of-the-art vessel MV Fugro Equator and the Fugro Discovery to search a 60,000 square-kilometre (23,000 square-mile) zone in the southern Indian Ocean.
"The underwater search will aim to locate the aircraft and any evidence, such as debris and flight recorders, to assist the Malaysian investigation team on the disappearance of MH370," Australian Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss said.
"The Malaysian government have also offered equipment which will participate in that search and of course, there's a Chinese vessel already operating in that area in relation to the survey."
A huge air and sea surface search has failed to find any sign of MH370, which went missing on March 8 with 239 people on board. Authorities believe the doomed airliner veered mysteriously from its Kuala Lumpur-Beijing route before crashing in the remote Indian Ocean.
The Fugro Equator is currently working with Chinese PLA-Navy ship Zhu Kezhen to map the seabed in the search area, based on the missing plane's last satellite communication around 1,800 kilometres (1,100 miles) west of Perth.
The Fugro Discovery is en route to Perth from Britain, with the deep-water search expected to take up to a year to complete.
Both vessels have towed deep-water vehicles and crew with search expertise, Australia's Joint Agency Coordination Centre said. The sea floor search will use sonar equipment and video cameras to locate and identify any debris.
Truss said he remained "cautiously optimistic that we will locate the missing aircraft within the priority search area". He added that the search "will obviously be a challenging one".
Martin Dolan, commissioner of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, the agency leading the search, said the underwater mapping survey due to end in mid-September was discovering "some surprises".
"We haven't completed the mapping, so we are still discovering detailed features that we had no knowledge of -- underwater volcanos and various other things," Dolan said.
Truss said the discoveries "demonstrated why this mapping was so necessary".
"The ocean is not just simply flat and featureless," he said of the underwater terrain in the search zone, which is about half the size of peninsular Malaysia. About 60 percent of the area has been mapped so far.
"There's quite a lot of geological features there that will be a challenge in the search, that we needed to be identified to make it actually possible to undertake the sonar work that is going to occur from now on," Truss added.
The underwater search contract could cost Aus$52 million (US$48 million) if it stretches up to a year, he said.
by Usman SHARIFI © 2014 AFP
A Dutch firm will conduct a deep-water search in the Indian Ocean for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 from September, Australia said on Wednesday, expressing "cautious optimism" that the plane will be found.
Fugro Survey will use its state-of-the-art vessel MV Fugro Equator and the Fugro Discovery to search a 60,000 square-kilometre (23,000 square-mile) zone in the southern Indian Ocean.
"The underwater search will aim to locate the aircraft and any evidence, such as debris and flight recorders, to assist the Malaysian investigation team on the disappearance of MH370," Australian Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss said.
"The Malaysian government have also offered equipment which will participate in that search and of course, there's a Chinese vessel already operating in that area in relation to the survey."
A huge air and sea surface search has failed to find any sign of MH370, which went missing on March 8 with 239 people on board. Authorities believe the doomed airliner veered mysteriously from its Kuala Lumpur-Beijing route before crashing in the remote Indian Ocean.
The Fugro Equator is currently working with Chinese PLA-Navy ship Zhu Kezhen to map the seabed in the search area, based on the missing plane's last satellite communication around 1,800 kilometres (1,100 miles) west of Perth.
The Fugro Discovery is en route to Perth from Britain, with the deep-water search expected to take up to a year to complete.
Both vessels have towed deep-water vehicles and crew with search expertise, Australia's Joint Agency Coordination Centre said. The sea floor search will use sonar equipment and video cameras to locate and identify any debris.
Truss said he remained "cautiously optimistic that we will locate the missing aircraft within the priority search area". He added that the search "will obviously be a challenging one".
Martin Dolan, commissioner of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, the agency leading the search, said the underwater mapping survey due to end in mid-September was discovering "some surprises".
"We haven't completed the mapping, so we are still discovering detailed features that we had no knowledge of -- underwater volcanos and various other things," Dolan said.
Truss said the discoveries "demonstrated why this mapping was so necessary".
"The ocean is not just simply flat and featureless," he said of the underwater terrain in the search zone, which is about half the size of peninsular Malaysia. About 60 percent of the area has been mapped so far.
"There's quite a lot of geological features there that will be a challenge in the search, that we needed to be identified to make it actually possible to undertake the sonar work that is going to occur from now on," Truss added.
The underwater search contract could cost Aus$52 million (US$48 million) if it stretches up to a year, he said.
by Usman SHARIFI © 2014 AFP
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
During the search for MH370, there was something sad about sailors on aboard RN ships, with binoculars, searching for wreckage by looking out to sea. How far can they see with any reliability? Is this next to futile?
Radio homers are useless if nothing is emitting. Radar is useless unless something detectable is sticking out the ocean.
Further problems abound (in all oceans and scenarios)...
The sea is full (and I mean full) of junk. All of which will have to be investigated if it is detected within the search area.
In deep ocean, range is massive issue (in terms of fuel and time on task for aircraft and reaction time for ships)
Surface wreckage drifts (50 miles plus a day), expanding the datum.
Sea state has a huge and very variable effect on the efficacy of visual search.
the list goes on but you get my point.
In the case of MH370 the deck was stacked against a quick find from the get go...no datum whatosever, long way from land, no sign of detectable sized wreckage or high visibility survival equipment, very short range and short life acoustic beacon...
So yeah, futile sums it up completely. Still have to try though, don't they?
Better sensors are not the answer (the sensors do what the taxpayer pays them to). The answer is better tracking in the sky and better beacons on the boxes.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just documenting latitudes and distances for two key flight paths from the fan I generated last month in replicating & validating the ATSB’s original endurance line (SE border of S1/S2/S3, Fig.3, p.5, June 26 ATSB report):
(wide map: http://bit.ly/WIb2Ng close-up of search zone: http://bit.ly/1nI3V0Q)
Start point (NW tip of Sumatra):
18:36:03 5°59′ N
A 460 knot path would hit Inmarsat arcs 2-thru-6 at these SOUTH latitudes:
19:41:03 2°14′
20:41:05 9°50′
21:41:27 17°32′
22:41:22 25°11′
0:11:00 36°35′
…and end in the middle of the March 17-27 search zone
…with (according to the width of S2 at that point and heading) 329 nmi to spare
…for a total flight distance of 5.58hrs x 460 kts = 2,568 + 330 = 2,897 nmi
if new fuel analysis shortens range 11% = 319 nmi:
…still feasible (by March ATSB standards), with 10 nmi to spare
A 390 knot path would hit Inmarsat arcs 2-thru-6 at these SOUTH latitudes:
19:41:03 0°59′
20:41:05 7°30′
21:41:27 14°3′
22:41:22 20°27′
0:11:00 29°48′
…and end in the middle of the Mar.28-Apr.1 search zone
…with (according to the width of S3 at that point and heading) 248 nmi to spare
…for a total flight distance of 5.58hrs x 390 kts = 2,177 + 248 = 2,425 nmi
if new fuel analysis shortens range 11% = 267 nmi:
…NOT feasible (by March ATSB standards) by 19 nmi
If you drop fuel by less: original search location still feasible
If you drop fuel by more: new search location still infeasible
This simple, transparent demonstration proves mathematically – without a single parameter that does not come from the ATSB’s own reports – that their “drop in starting fuel” argument could not POSSIBLY have been a good reason to move the search 1,100km NE on March 28.
So why did they?
(wide map: http://bit.ly/WIb2Ng close-up of search zone: http://bit.ly/1nI3V0Q)
Start point (NW tip of Sumatra):
18:36:03 5°59′ N
A 460 knot path would hit Inmarsat arcs 2-thru-6 at these SOUTH latitudes:
19:41:03 2°14′
20:41:05 9°50′
21:41:27 17°32′
22:41:22 25°11′
0:11:00 36°35′
…and end in the middle of the March 17-27 search zone
…with (according to the width of S2 at that point and heading) 329 nmi to spare
…for a total flight distance of 5.58hrs x 460 kts = 2,568 + 330 = 2,897 nmi
if new fuel analysis shortens range 11% = 319 nmi:
…still feasible (by March ATSB standards), with 10 nmi to spare
A 390 knot path would hit Inmarsat arcs 2-thru-6 at these SOUTH latitudes:
19:41:03 0°59′
20:41:05 7°30′
21:41:27 14°3′
22:41:22 20°27′
0:11:00 29°48′
…and end in the middle of the Mar.28-Apr.1 search zone
…with (according to the width of S3 at that point and heading) 248 nmi to spare
…for a total flight distance of 5.58hrs x 390 kts = 2,177 + 248 = 2,425 nmi
if new fuel analysis shortens range 11% = 267 nmi:
…NOT feasible (by March ATSB standards) by 19 nmi
If you drop fuel by less: original search location still feasible
If you drop fuel by more: new search location still infeasible
This simple, transparent demonstration proves mathematically – without a single parameter that does not come from the ATSB’s own reports – that their “drop in starting fuel” argument could not POSSIBLY have been a good reason to move the search 1,100km NE on March 28.
So why did they?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: France
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So why did they?
IMHO, an erroneous detection by the HMS Tireless (remember the "self satisfied" statement when she returned to England?) and then, using the pinger locator of the Navy towed by Ocean Shield at the limits of its capabilities, a "false" signal from the black box pingers.
Anyway, it was (IMHO) the right thing to do if there was the smallest chance to find the plane there.
Perhaps this can't be told for "military" reasons (Tireless capacities) and thus the Australian can't tell that, nor show the "signal" acquisition charts (Navy capacities). Nothing abnormal from my point of view this is not made public. And they don't lie: the search zone was moved after "more study".
IMHO, an erroneous detection by the HMS Tireless (remember the "self satisfied" statement when she returned to England?) and then, using the pinger locator of the Navy towed by Ocean Shield at the limits of its capabilities, a "false" signal from the black box pingers.
Anyway, it was (IMHO) the right thing to do if there was the smallest chance to find the plane there.
Perhaps this can't be told for "military" reasons (Tireless capacities) and thus the Australian can't tell that, nor show the "signal" acquisition charts (Navy capacities). Nothing abnormal from my point of view this is not made public. And they don't lie: the search zone was moved after "more study".
Last edited by Shadoko; 8th Aug 2014 at 23:52. Reason: Typo