Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost

[PrivtPilotRadarTech]

Quotes:
"The two Mode S transponders on a typical commercial airliner have a 500W plus transmit power!"

"There are already means of satellite tracking aircraft. It is just that on this one occasion that means was disabled - possibly deliberately"

"We have to assess risks and mitigation properly before we add our quick fixes."

I believe the most powerful transponders put out 250 watts, so you could claim that a pair of them have "500W plus transmit power". However, they transmit brief pulses, so they only consume about 10 watts. They are low power devices. Yes, there are already means of tracking planes via satellite. My point is if hand held devices like satellite phones and SPOT beacons have enough power to communicate with satellites, it obviously doesn't take much power and therefore poses little risk of causing a fire. I have no objection to assessing the risks and mitigating them, smarter people than me can figure out the details. More than a decade after 9/11 I don't see much risk of "quick fixes".

[Dont Hang Up]

I believe the most powerful transponders put out 250 watts

The most powerful transponders are around 600W. And it is the peak power rather than the average which is the risk if the transponder goes faulty - not just to the aircraft but potentially also the local radar environment. It is really important that transponders can be switched off. This is all simple stuff but not really the point.

More than a decade after 9/11 I don't see much risk of "quick fixes".

More than 13 years on and the paranoia does not abate. An endless series of sticking-plaster quick fixes. When it comes to the "war on terror" there is a bizarre lack of perspective. So let's put another piece of kit on board, drill yet another hole in the aircraft skin and create yet another certification procedure (nothing on a modern airliner costs "only $150"). And without any clear idea on whether this would improve aircraft safety or by how much. Because let us be clear, what is proposed here is not a safety feature. This is a "something must be done" and "how hard can it be?" feature.

[mixture]

When it comes to the "war on terror" there is a bizarre lack of perspective. So let's put another piece of kit on board, drill yet another hole in the aircraft skin and create yet another certification procedure (nothing on a modern airliner costs "only $150"). And without any clear idea on whether this would improve aircraft safety or by how much. Because let us be clear, what is proposed here is not a safety feature. This is a "something must be done" and "how hard can it be?" feature.

I agree.... ever since 9/11 politicians and companies selling security products have used the "terrorist" word to validate the introduction of knee-jerk archaic legal powers and obtain finances to fund vast technology purchases.

Its time for the world to act less Daily Mail and more Financial Times when it comes to implementing measures to combat terrorism....

[Ian W]

The main problem with the MH370 disappearance was that the response to a missing aircraft has not altered for years. Aircraft overdue action is only legitimate once the aircraft is overdue at destination. In the current systems where aircraft are already continually tracked - despite the avionics and comms salesmen claims - an aircraft ceasing to report its position and respond to RT/CPDLC should immediately be treated as an emergency. Even with the loss of secondary being on handoff, the systems could have flagged a possible problem. The Malaysian and Vietnamese controllers should then both have treated the missing aircraft as an emergency and alerted all agencies including the military. The military would almost certainly have responded that they could still 'see' the aircraft. The event could then have had an entirely different outcome.

There is no need for new equipment to track aircraft they all have it. The beancounters try to limit the use of ADS-C as the SATCOM providers charge for each transmission. However, that is no longer the case as both INMARSAT and AIREON (Iridium Next) are offering free tracking services. With AIREON also proposing to track ADS-B (although the capability is yet to be proven). What is needed is procedures to use when the tracking suddenly fails because the aircraft has 'gone dark'.

I would propose that someone at the ICAO level start's looking at the old procedures for missing/overdue aircraft. A start would be an immediate response to aircraft that stop communicating/transponding rather than we wait for the end of the aircraft endurance before we can start anything official.

[Green Guard]

Why not use ELT "the way sea ships" are using them. No need for any el power nor radio relay. They are designed to detach from ship in case of disaster and NOT to be pulled down together with the rest of tail or cockpit. Voila !

[Ian W]

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.

[DaveReidUK]

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.

[LabratSR]

MH370 Operational Search Update 24 September 2014


MH370



Three-dimensional models of the seafloor terrain


Three-dimensional models of the seafloor terrain

[lincman]

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.

[DaveReidUK]

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.

[Skyjob]

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...

[Pax Vobiscum]

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?

[LabratSR]

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

[Shadoko]

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

[megan]

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

[Bare Plane]

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

[GHOTI]

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?

[Jonfra]

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?

[Vinnie Boombatz]

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?

[Jonfra]

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?