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 25th Sep 2014, 19:15
  #11541 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,293
ELT's were discussed way back in the thread. The C5 I think had a jettisonable ELT on the tail fin. The ones in current commercial aircraft tend to be fixed in the fuselage, or on life rafts or even as separate manually initiated buoys that the flight attendants can access. Given the thoughts on what happened with MH370 only a detachable external ELT would have given any location of crash as the cabin crew are thought to have been disabled by depressurization. ELTs do not run all the time as they are on an HF emergency frequency so they would only allow easy finding of the crash site.
Ian W is online now  
Old 25th Sep 2014, 21:49
  #11542 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,643
ELT's were discussed way back in the thread. The C5 I think had a jettisonable ELT on the tail fin.
I can't speak for the C-5, but the P-3 certainly has.

Either way, you're right in that the subject of ejectable ELTs has been done to death.

While it might seem unreasonable to suggest that posters making suggestions like that should read the previous 11,000 posts first, they might pause to consider that in a thread that's been running for more than 6 months, almost every conceivable angle has already been explored extensively.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2014, 12:54
  #11543 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Detroit
Posts: 2
MH370 Operational Search Update 24 September 2014


MH370



Three-dimensional models of the seafloor terrain


Three-dimensional models of the seafloor terrain
LabratSR is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2014, 00:55
  #11544 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In the Air
Age: 73
Posts: 14
ICAO Annex 12

Ian W

Recommend you look at my post No. 8089 that was written way back on March 25, 2014. There is not much wrong or lacking with the ICAO procedures (i.e. Annex 12) for locating missing aircraft - they just need to be followed in a timely manner. My post described the various steps and actions to be taken once an aircraft appears to be missing. This was clearly not done by several involved parties - in particular, the various Malaysian authorities. The Annex certainly does not intend for S & R organizations to wait for the aircraft to reach its endurance before initiating a search. Those in commercial aviation with responsibilities associated with S & R need to gen up on Annex 12 and keep a copy handy at their work stations.
lincman is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2014, 06:28
  #11545 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,643
The Annex certainly does not intend for S & R organizations to wait for the aircraft to reach its endurance before initiating a search.
How would that have made any difference?

The aircraft was off-track, not transmitting, and the only data that was subsequently able to give clues as to its possible whereabouts didn't emerge until weeks later.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2014, 08:56
  #11546 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: FL410
Posts: 837
What difference?
Maybe that areas which are now discarded could then have been searched and excluded as possible locations.
We still don't know for sure the aircraft flew the track it is said to have done.
We assume...
Skyjob is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2014, 12:50
  #11547 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 642
Today's Times (behind a paywall) says the following (in a story about the new sonar search about to start):
Australian air accident investigation authorities co-ordinating the search have assumed it likely that an event on the aircraft, either a malfunction or a small explosion, caused the two pilots and probably the 237 passengers and cabin crew to black out and die because of oxygen starvation hours before it crashed.
I've seen nothing to suggest that anyone (particularly not the AAIB) any longer believes this to be a plausible theory. Have I missed something, or have The Times journos been at the sherry a bit early?
Pax Vobiscum is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2014, 10:38
  #11548 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Detroit
Posts: 2
Underwater Search Now Set to Begin Oct. 5th or 6th

First MH370 deep search ship now due to be on site 5 October | Plane Talking


This is the tow fish that GO Phoenix will be equiped with.

SLH PS-60 Specs

Whitepaper

http://www.slhydrospheric.com/PS60_whitepaper.pdf


Fugro Discovery is nearing Fremantle where it will be paired with its own tow fish. This is the equipment it will be pulling.

2400: Deep Towed ? EdgeTech




EDIT: Video of Fugro Edgetech DT-1


http://media.watoday.com.au/news/wa-...0-5839201.html

Last edited by LabratSR; 3rd Oct 2014 at 01:10. Reason: Adding video of tow fish
LabratSR is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2014, 19:22
  #11549 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: France
Age: 69
Posts: 136
It seems the underwater search has begun:
On Monday, 6 October 2014,GO Phoenix arrived in the vicinity of the search area and, following system checks and vehicle deployment, underwater search operations commenced on the 7th Arc. ( MH370 Operational Search Update?<br>08*October*2014 )

There is also an update about the search area: http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5163181...ysisUpdate.pdf with some new (from my memory!) infos:
At 1707, the last ACARS transmission from the aircraft provided the total weight of the fuel remaining on board at 43,800 kg.
And discussion about the south turn (p.10) and BTO/BFO errors optimisation.

And a map of the first areas which will be searched: http://www.jacc.gov.au/media/maps/fi...earchAreas.jpg
Shadoko is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2014, 22:58
  #11550 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 2,802
Satellite communications company Inmarsat has written a "clear language" analysis in the Royal Institute of Navigation's peer-reviewed journal on the high-tech detective work that went into establishing the current search area for Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370. The download available at http://journals.cambridge.org/downlo...32fec41a70bb64
megan is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2014, 11:02
  #11551 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bavaria
Age: 71
Posts: 25
Missing Plane: Emirates Head Critical of MH 370 Investigation

"Tim Clark has been a senior manager at the airline Emirates since 1985 and has been instrumental in developing it into one of the world's largest airlines."

His views from an interview with Der Spiegel, German news magazine, at this link in English.

MH370 Emirates Head Has Doubts about Investigation - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Last edited by Bare Plane; 10th Oct 2014 at 04:04.
Bare Plane is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2014, 16:18
  #11552 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 35
Sir Clark raises some interesting points from a layman's POV, although by his own admission, he is an airline manager, not a technician. This interview, and those missing Libyan jets, will have the conspiracy theorists talking to themselves. Is there any wisdom in Clark's proposition that xponders not be turned off in the cockpit?
GHOTI is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2014, 16:56
  #11553 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 10
Shadoko the figure of 43,800kg fuel remaining was embodied in the last ACARS message at 17:07 UTC from the on board computer.

Fuel weight at departure was 49,100kg and reported gross T/O weight of 223.5 tons.

Expected FF/engine @ 490,000lb @ 35,000ft was 7,403lb/engine (3361kg)

IIRC MH370 reached 35,000ft @ 17:17. It was overhead Kenyir Lake, Malaysia at 17:07 UTC passing 27,675ft.

First engine flame out at 00:11 UTC and second engine flame out @ 00:19 UTC, therefore first flame out 7 hours 4min after this fuel figure.

I question how is it plausible that this aircraft could descend fly west through the Straits of Malacca make all sorts of bizarre manouveres and then climb again to 35,000ft before turning around the tip of Sumatra to fly to intercept the southern arc within the fuel burn parameters?

Last edited by Jonfra; 11th Oct 2014 at 00:49. Reason: Corrected info about altitude @ 17:07 UTC
Jonfra is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2014, 19:56
  #11554 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: SW USA
Posts: 67
Inmarsat Paper

@megan - 8 Oct 2014 15:58 -- Thanks for the link to the Inmarsat paper! A very detailed explanation of their processing, and the evolution.

Some observations made in the paper:

"While the validation demonstrates the general accuracy of the BFO technique, it is important to note that agreement is only achieved with 7 Hz accuracy during this flight, and to assume better accuracy for the measurements taken on MH370 would be unrealistic."

"Combining the sensitivity data with the measurement accuracy of 7 Hz indicates that inaccuracy in each individual BFO measurement would correspond to 28 heading uncertainty and 9 of latitude uncertainty."

Which helps to explain the size of the potential solution area.

At or above the tropopause in a standard atmosphere, the speed of sound is about 1062 km/hr. The speeds shown in their Table 9 range from about 0.75 M to 0.82 M for a standard day above the tropopause, a reasonable range for max distance cruise. Granted the table shows groundspeed, not airspeed, but the headwind or tailwind component would probably be small on a southerly track.

The latest charts from ATSB show that they have done the bathymetric survey on a fairly narrow swath about the 7th arc, and plan to search initially along that narrow swath. The bathymetric survey covered a broader cross-arc distance for regions more to the NE.

Will they need to conduct additional bathymetric surveys prior to expanding the search area on either side of the arc?
Vinnie Boombatz is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2014, 02:17
  #11555 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 10
Please could somebody guide me, or correct me if I am wrong, but I estimate if MH370 reached FL350 @ 17:07 UTC the fuel remaining was 97,550lb and then given a further 5 minutes cruise to a minute flying beyond IGARI leaves 96,363lb fuel.

Then we are told it descended to 5,000ft and flew west until next seen at 18:02 UTC over Pelau Perak climbing @ 23,000ft. Thus MH370 covered 289nm from IGARI to Pelau Perak making a dog leg around the south of Penang in 40 minutes at full power and performing 433kt TAS?
... At low altitude?

Flying for example at 10,000ft at full power/310 KIAS would equate something like 1,350lb per engine/minute. Therefore in 40 minute segment MH370 burned 54,000lb?

So by the time it reached Pelau Perak at 18:02UTC MH370 had fuel remaining of 43,550lb and then commenced a 20 minute climb back to 29,500ft at MEKAR covering 154nm and burning say 12,000lb?

So by the time it reached SANOB where MH370 is supposed to have made its turn south to intercept the Southern Arc, MH370 had just 31,550lb fuel remaining to cover another 5.5 hours to the Southern Arc flying at 35,000ft with a fuel flow of 9,900lb/hr?

In other words at the time it turned past the tip of Sumatra it had fuel remaining for just 3.2 hours but is supposed to have flown another 5.5 hours?

Last edited by Jonfra; 11th Oct 2014 at 02:20. Reason: correcting fuel at 17:07UTC
Jonfra is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2014, 02:45
  #11556 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 533
The flight duration is known, the last ACARS message gives the fuel available then and the arc calculations give an indication of where the plane wound up.
The various climbs, doglegs and descents postulated after the last ACARS message are needed primarily to explain why the aircraft was not picked up by the various radars purportedly scanning the area. If there was not enough fuel to fly this route, then clearly there was a surveillance failure which people are reluctant to confirm.
etudiant is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2014, 13:41
  #11557 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: melbourne
Posts: 24
Can it be made to work to match reported endurance?

Please could somebody guide me, or correct me if I am wrong, but I estimate if MH370 reached FL350 @ 17:07 UTC the fuel remaining was 97,550lb and then given a further 5 minutes cruise to a minute flying beyond IGARI leaves 96,363lb fuel.

Then we are told it descended to 5,000ft and flew west until next seen at 18:02 UTC over Pelau Perak climbing @ 23,000ft. Thus MH370 covered 289nm from IGARI to Pelau Perak making a dog leg around the south of Penang in 40 minutes at full power and performing 433kt TAS?
... At low altitude?

Flying for example at 10,000ft at full power/310 KIAS would equate something like 1,350lb per engine/minute. Therefore in 40 minute segment MH370 burned 54,000lb?

So by the time it reached Pelau Perak at 18:02UTC MH370 had fuel remaining of 43,550lb and then commenced a 20 minute climb back to 29,500ft at MEKAR covering 154nm and burning say 12,000lb?

So by the time it reached SANOB where MH370 is supposed to have made its turn south to intercept the Southern Arc, MH370 had just 31,550lb fuel remaining to cover another 5.5 hours to the Southern Arc flying at 35,000ft with a fuel flow of 9,900lb/hr?

In other words at the time it turned past the tip of Sumatra it had fuel remaining for just 3.2 hours but is supposed to have flown another 5.5 hours?
Last edited by Jonfra; 11th Oct 20




Intriguing Jonfra - If not at full speed, using the 'reported' flight path, can a scenario be created in terms of slower speed for these sectors (before the last turn south), that would allow for the required endurance of 1.3 hours??
mrbigbird is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2014, 15:42
  #11558 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Malta
Posts: 115
I see little benefit in Clark's speculation and I think he should not have entered into it. He could have just stopped at saying that he hopes that the case is resolved soon and that there is too little known about what happened. His talk about the plane being under control, maybe not being in the water etc. is just basically pub talk.
Nerik is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2014, 16:15
  #11559 (permalink)  

Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,264
Packs off or bleed air off?
sky9 is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2014, 17:55
  #11560 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 533
That is the type of basic question that needs to be addressed, whether any combination of systems management would allow the aircraft as configured to fly the route that is projected.
Jonfra makes a case that the known onboard fuel would not support the flight path that is assumed, a path incidentally that requires active and skilled crew input. Boeing engineers have the best 777 knowledge, they could tell what endurance is possible given this path, but they have been entirely mute on this thread afaik. The flight remains a mystery which erodes confidence in the integrity of the world civil aviation authorities.
etudiant 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.