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 9th Mar 2015, 11:00
  #11701 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 35
Posts: 73
Just for those who comment on "no debris", these closer-to-land incidents never washed up any debris either and were large jet aircraft:

1969 Boeing RC-135 jet. Never found, last known position over ocean.
1979 Boeing 707 jet. Never found, last known position over ocean.
2003 Boeing 727 jet. Never found, last seen over ocean.
Bobman84 is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2015, 11:12
  #11702 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Swansea
Posts: 61
Interesting site where you can input crash location and see where and when debris is most likely to wash up. It obviously depends exactly which position you nominate, but the densest flow of material is generally towards south and then SE coast of Australia (relatively densely populated).
Worth noting though that, from the example crash location you linked to, whatever type of plastic it is that they are modelling takes around a year to reach significant portions of the Australian coast.

So, given all the uncertainties, we are still relatively early in that process.
DespairingTraveller is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2015, 11:45
  #11703 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 18
DFDR Battery

For info - the DFDR is only a memory stick with a lot of protection and doesn't have a battery. Normally over rear galley and is accessible in flight.

The battery referred to is the DFDR ULB ("pinger") and it was the 'shelf life' that had expired; may still have worked anyway for 30 days when activated. The problem is that the 30 days had expired by the time they got to anywhere near the current search area.
Air Snoop is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2015, 12:27
  #11704 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Age: 56
Posts: 356
A few people have privately asked about my recently deleted post.

Rather than attempt to repost it here, it is available at the link below

MH370 - time to think of it as a criminal act

Presumably the mods won't object to this.
slats11 is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2015, 12:50
  #11705 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 18
Interim Report

Most interesting event to me is 'controlled' flt from IGARI to join N571 at VAMPI to fly to N of MEKAR before disappearing.

Why do that if intention was to fly South eventually. Loads of theories but that's all they can be
Air Snoop is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2015, 14:08
  #11706 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: africa
Age: 34
Posts: 137
one thing seems a little strange to me .. the Captain on the radio to ATC..he seems to be having some kind of trouble with virtually all the read backs ..lots of aa..ahh ..err.. ehhh..malaysia ONE ...7370 ... etc

small things maybe and yes its the middle of the night and he had flown a lot of hours in the previous 28/90 days..

the only read back without any prefix of err ahh aa etc is the very last one .

very precise ( although with no new frequency mentioned)

probably means nothing at all ,just made me think a bit .
camel is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2015, 14:08
  #11707 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,314
Originally Posted by Scubascooby View Post
Is there ever a requirement for a proper handover rather than a simple hand-off ?

Like a courier delivering a parcel that has to be signed for, the current ATC must hear contact with the next ATC before the handover can be confirmed.
In a standard hand over the releasing controller contacts the assuming controller says that there is an aircraft to be handed over then identifies the aircraft to the assuming controller
The assuming controller has normally been prewarned by the system and has usually been watching the aircraft track approach the boundary in the 'area of common interest' and will accept the handoff and provide the frequency for the aircraft to call.

These handoff's become extremely routine and both the controllers and often the flight crews know the frequencies and know each other by voice in most cases.

Some systems internally have made the handoff even simpler into what they call a 'silent handoff'. In those the assuming controller will see the aircraft track approaching his boundary become a 'full data block' instead of a simple limited data block. When the releasing controller is ready to hand the aircraft over then the data block starts flashing, the receiving controller 'clicks on' the flashing data block and it stops flashing for him and starts flashing for the transferring controller indicating the acceptance of handoff. The transferring controller then sends the aircraft to the frequency for the next controller.

There are multiple variants between those types of handoff.
For example another common method is to ask the aircraft to contact the next center on 'their second box' when the next controller is ready to accept them they will cancel service from the current sector. This is common on transfers to oceanic where the contact may be by HF or by CPDLC rather than by voice.
Ian W is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2015, 14:30
  #11708 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 179
ian w. there are rules for controllers covering handovers which " people who might get a little restive with emergency actions etc" ignore at their peril. malaysian dca lists them in their Interim Report and it is likely all atcc's have similar versions. it seems some were not followed in this case according to the report.
portmanteau is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2015, 15:48
  #11709 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 936
http://mh370.mot.gov.my/download/InterimStatement.pdf


In the Interim Statement they state the aim is the prevention of future accidents or incidents. They list seven organisations and details of factual information and evidence gathered. As part of this process they don't mention having gathered the medical records of the crew members. However, in 8.4 they mention they are now going to gather information on crew. Seems a bit strange they have waited so long.
Sober Lark is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2015, 16:33
  #11710 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Swansea
Posts: 61
As part of this process they don't mention having gathered the medical records of the crew members. However, in 8.4 they mention they are now going to gather information on crew. Seems a bit strange they have waited so long
Sect 1.5 of the Factual Information report makes it perfectly clear that they have already gathered a great deal of information about the crew, including their medical records.

S8.4 of the Interim Statement is merely listing the various headings under which they are conducting analysis of said factual information.
DespairingTraveller is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2015, 17:05
  #11711 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 936
My reading of the factual information is it relates to the medical records that MAS themselves hold and not necessarily medical information gathered from any Doctor the crew may have attended and which may not have made it into their medical files at MAS.
Sober Lark is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2015, 18:35
  #11712 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,886
Originally Posted by slats11 View Post
A few people have privately asked about my recently deleted post.

Rather than attempt to repost it here, it is available at the link below
Thanks for the link.

But I'm afraid I stopped reading at

the probability it lies within a relatively small search area may be less than the probability it lies in one of an enormous number of individually less likely locations
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2015, 22:00
  #11713 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: In thin air
Posts: 186
Since the definition of underwater search areas in the ATSB's report of 26 June 2014, it has always been clear that the "Priority Search Area" of 60,000 square km's, as the name implies, is only a fraction of the area of possible locations of the airplane that are compatible with INMARSAT's data log and the fuel-limited "performance boundary":

(Bolding mine)

This suggested that, for MH370, it was possible that after a long period of flight under autopilot control, fuel exhaustion would occur followed by a loss of control without any control inputs.
Note: (...)
Also allowing for the fact that a maximum glide distance of 100+ NM would result in an impractically large search area, the search team considered that it was reasonable to assume that there were no control inputs following the flame-out of the second engine. Accordingly the aircraft would descend and, as there would be some asymmetry due to uneven engine thrust/drag or external forces e.g. wind, the descent would develop into a spiral.
As the BEA found in their study, in the case of an upset followed by a loss of control, all the impact points occurred within 20 NM from the point at which the emergency began and, in the majority of cases, within 10 NM.
Gysbreght is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2015, 01:20
  #11714 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 70
Posts: 1,806
There has been an interesting discovery with regard to MH370 wreckage, on a West Australian beach.
An unopened towelette in its packaging, with the Malaysia Airlines symbol in it, has been discovered by beachcombers.
The item has been sent to the National Capital, Canberra, for further examination to see if its origin can be more precisely indentified.
It's a long shot, but it does focus attention to this area of the coastline, which could possibly lead to a more concrete find, such as a readily-identifiable MH370 component.

Towelette washed up on W.A. beach being tested for connection to MH370
onetrack is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2015, 01:36
  #11715 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,065
It's a long shot, but it does focus attention to this area of the coastline, which could possibly lead to a more concrete find, such as a readily-identifiable MH370 component.
According to the article, the towelette was discovered over seven months ago in July. I wouldn't hold my breath on this one.
Airbubba is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2015, 04:55
  #11716 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: africa
Age: 34
Posts: 137
and they decide to hand it in 8 months later? they really dont know about the massive search going on down there? ermm...
camel is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2015, 05:37
  #11717 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 70
Posts: 1,806
As with many innocent finds, the finders possibly dismissed the towelette as of no importance for 7 months - then they were urged by others to hand it in, on the basis it may have come from MH370.
It's certainly a very tenuous link, and the towelete may have origins totally unrelated to MH370.

It is possible the towelette was kept unopened from a flight by a passenger, and carried to the area and then dropped, unopened, by that same passenger.
That would all hinge on how many people who have been on a Malaysia flight, and who have a habit of keeping airline towelettes, travel that section of coastline. I'd expect that chance would be extremely low.
Coming from a frugal upbringing, I have a tendency to keep items such as towelettes from flights, but I doubt if very many airline travellers do.
The chances of the towelette floating down from around Malaysia are extremely low. The general current drift is towards the W.A. coastline from the Southern Indian Ocean.

I do not know what the likelihood is of even being able to verify if it came from MH370. It would seem to me to be very difficult to ID it as such.
However, there is a real chance now, that people will step up their beachcombing for MH370 aircraft wreckage along the coastline in the region, so hopefully this may lead to a verifiable find.

Last edited by onetrack; 10th Mar 2015 at 05:48.
onetrack is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2015, 06:09
  #11718 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Nottinghamshire
Posts: 15
I find it hard to believe (of course... Some news no matter how small can be good news for closure etc...) that of all things on board an aircraft. A Small paper towelette in a wrapper be the first/only piece of MH370 to surface.

There are far more buoyant things on board than a paper towelette. Such as life vests/rafts and seat cushions.
MatrixMan is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2015, 09:07
  #11719 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 18
Flotsam

However, that is only a drift of 700 metres per hour (0.4 Kt) from the search area, well within the scope of tide and wind! No evidence is ever wasted, even negative evidence.
Air Snoop is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2015, 17:51
  #11720 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,362
This suggested that, for MH370, it was possible that after a long period of flight under autopilot control, fuel exhaustion would occur
followed by a loss of control without any control inputs
.
Note: (...) Also allowing for the fact that a maximum glide distance of 100+ NM would result in an impractically large search area, the search team considered that it was reasonable to assume that there were no control inputs following the flame-out of the second engine. Accordingly the aircraft would descend and, as there would be some asymmetry due to uneven engine thrust/drag or external forces e.g. wind, the descent would develop into a spiral. As the BEA found in their study, in the case of an upset followed by a loss of control, all the impact points occurred within 20 NM from the point at which the emergency began and, in the majority of cases, within 10 NM.
And if there were a hand on the controls all the way down? 777 glide ratio would expand that entry point by quite a bit more than 20 nm.
Lonewolf_50 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.