Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting article in the UK Guardian:
"What the air traffic controllers knew about how to stop 'flying blind'
No matter where it is, the Malaysia Airlines jet suffered from outdated technology. Eyes in the tower saw this coming"
"It has come as a shock to the general public to learn that commercial flights aren’t monitored constantly by the high-tech GPS tracking systems we’ve come to expect in our cars and smartphones."
MH370: what the air traffic controllers knew about how to stop 'flying blind' | Barbara S Peterson | Comment is free | theguardian.com
"What the air traffic controllers knew about how to stop 'flying blind'
No matter where it is, the Malaysia Airlines jet suffered from outdated technology. Eyes in the tower saw this coming"
"It has come as a shock to the general public to learn that commercial flights aren’t monitored constantly by the high-tech GPS tracking systems we’ve come to expect in our cars and smartphones."
MH370: what the air traffic controllers knew about how to stop 'flying blind' | Barbara S Peterson | Comment is free | theguardian.com
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Burrow, N53:48:02 W1:48:57, The Tin Tent - EGBS, EGBO
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone else seen this yet?
there was no confirmation from any official if the objects seen floating were indeed pieces of an aircraft.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SLF, living somewhere East in the West
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FBI involved
From the NYT: The Malaysian authorities have asked the Federal Bureau of Investigation for help in recovering data that was deleted from a home flight simulator belonging to one of the pilots of the missing Malaysia Airlines jet, in the hope that it will provide some clue to what happened to the plane.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/20/wo...ref=world&_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/20/wo...ref=world&_r=0
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Brazil
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AndyJS
What if something happened just when the Captain was taking a break, with the First Officer in charge of the aircraft?
What I mean is: something the Captain could have dealt with himself but where the FO with limited flying experience wasn't able to react quickly enough in the few vital seconds when it could have been sorted out. The Captain got back to the flight deck a few seconds later but by then it was too late.
What I mean is: something the Captain could have dealt with himself but where the FO with limited flying experience wasn't able to react quickly enough in the few vital seconds when it could have been sorted out. The Captain got back to the flight deck a few seconds later but by then it was too late.
Interesting article in the UK Guardian:
"What the air traffic controllers knew about how to stop 'flying blind'
No matter where it is, the Malaysia Airlines jet suffered from outdated technology. Eyes in the tower saw this coming"
"It has come as a shock to the general public to learn that commercial flights aren’t monitored constantly by the high-tech GPS tracking systems we’ve come to expect in our cars and smartphones."
MH370: what the air traffic controllers knew about how to stop 'flying blind' | Barbara S Peterson | Comment is free | theguardian.com
"What the air traffic controllers knew about how to stop 'flying blind'
No matter where it is, the Malaysia Airlines jet suffered from outdated technology. Eyes in the tower saw this coming"
"It has come as a shock to the general public to learn that commercial flights aren’t monitored constantly by the high-tech GPS tracking systems we’ve come to expect in our cars and smartphones."
MH370: what the air traffic controllers knew about how to stop 'flying blind' | Barbara S Peterson | Comment is free | theguardian.com
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Swansea
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Token Bird
You'd have to make an assumption about its speed - strictly its ground speed, since the arcs are defined relative to a point in space fixed relative to the Earth's surface (the IOR satellite's geostationary position) . If you did that, then there'd only be one heading that could link any two points on the arc. But since you don't know where the first point is, it doesn't help find the second.
Really you need to start from a known position - last radar plot, for example - and then work out a tree of possible locations each hour from knowing which "arcs" it was on each hour, what airspeed it might have maintained and factoring in winds aloft etc. Horribly complicated and error-prone, but I imagine that there have been clever, well-informed, people doing that for days. It may be how the NTSB tracks on the Aussie search area maps were derived, I suppose.
If we assume that it has not become stationary, but has continued to fly but has been present on the same arc at both 07:11 and 08:11, can we make the maths work if we know the changing direction of the southern arc if we follow it south and we assume that the aircraft is flying on a constant track? IE. Where would they have converged, as it were? Or would that not have occurred at all?
Really you need to start from a known position - last radar plot, for example - and then work out a tree of possible locations each hour from knowing which "arcs" it was on each hour, what airspeed it might have maintained and factoring in winds aloft etc. Horribly complicated and error-prone, but I imagine that there have been clever, well-informed, people doing that for days. It may be how the NTSB tracks on the Aussie search area maps were derived, I suppose.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontius Navigator
Understood!
That Post by a 777 Captain was interesting ... and he ended with it being a mystery!
It's now 1650Z on 19 March 2014 - where are those people and (hopefully) what are they doing as I Post this?!
That's the important issue!
Understood!
That Post by a 777 Captain was interesting ... and he ended with it being a mystery!
It's now 1650Z on 19 March 2014 - where are those people and (hopefully) what are they doing as I Post this?!
That's the important issue!
Quote:
What baffles me the most is the fact that tangible data has not yet been released on dispatched fuel load. I would imagine that such a piece would be absolutely vital to an investigation focusing on range capabilities and potential routing.
'Released' to whom, the paparazzi? What are they going to do with it?
They don't even know [expected] what questions to ask.
What baffles me the most is the fact that tangible data has not yet been released on dispatched fuel load. I would imagine that such a piece would be absolutely vital to an investigation focusing on range capabilities and potential routing.
'Released' to whom, the paparazzi? What are they going to do with it?
They don't even know [expected] what questions to ask.
And in any case the CEO of MAS did answer this question a day or two ago.
@Token Bird
Quote:
If we assume that it has not become stationary, but has continued to fly but has been present on the same arc at both 07:11 and 08:11, can we make the maths work if we know the changing direction of the southern arc if we follow it south and we assume that the aircraft is flying on a constant track? IE. Where would they have converged, as it were? Or would that not have occurred at all?
Quote:
If we assume that it has not become stationary, but has continued to fly but has been present on the same arc at both 07:11 and 08:11, can we make the maths work if we know the changing direction of the southern arc if we follow it south and we assume that the aircraft is flying on a constant track? IE. Where would they have converged, as it were? Or would that not have occurred at all?
Really you need to start from a known position - last radar plot, for example - and then work out a tree of possible locations each hour from knowing which "arcs" it was on each hour, what airspeed it might have maintained and factoring in winds aloft etc. Horribly complicated and error-prone, but I imagine that there have been clever, well-informed, people doing that for days. It may be how the NTSB tracks on the Aussie search area maps were derived, I suppose.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Avherald did report that the flight had the standard amount of fuel on board with the normal contingencies and reserves.
No Hijacker or suicidal pilot would let the fuel run down that low because it means you were no longer able to control the outcome.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MA, USA
Age: 54
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bono:
Are you saying that they climbed on 0 engines to gain altitude and energy?
Are you saying that a 777 at cruise altitude climbs on the 1 remaining engine like the talking head on CNN?
British Airways Flight 9, sometimes referred to by its callsign Speedbird 9 or as the Jakarta incident,[1] was a scheduled British Airways flight from London Heathrow to Auckland, with stops in Bombay, Madras, Kuala Lumpur, Perth, and Melbourne.
On 24 June 1982, the route was flown by the City of Edinburgh, a 747-236B. The aircraft flew into a cloud of volcanic ash thrown up by the eruption of Mount Galunggung (approximately 180 kilometres (110 mi) south-east of Jakarta, Indonesia), resulting in the failure of all four engines. The reason for the failure was not immediately apparent to the crew or ground control. The aircraft was diverted to Jakarta in the hope that enough engines could be restarted to allow it to land there. The aircraft was able to glide far enough to exit the ash cloud, and all engines were restarted (although one failed again soon after), allowing the aircraft to land safely at the Halim Perdanakusuma Airport in Jakarta.
On 24 June 1982, the route was flown by the City of Edinburgh, a 747-236B. The aircraft flew into a cloud of volcanic ash thrown up by the eruption of Mount Galunggung (approximately 180 kilometres (110 mi) south-east of Jakarta, Indonesia), resulting in the failure of all four engines. The reason for the failure was not immediately apparent to the crew or ground control. The aircraft was diverted to Jakarta in the hope that enough engines could be restarted to allow it to land there. The aircraft was able to glide far enough to exit the ash cloud, and all engines were restarted (although one failed again soon after), allowing the aircraft to land safely at the Halim Perdanakusuma Airport in Jakarta.
Are you saying that a 777 at cruise altitude climbs on the 1 remaining engine like the talking head on CNN?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Hijacker or suicidal pilot would let the fuel run down that low because it means you were no longer able to control the outcome.
Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
route 2
he might have activated route 2, more likely he wanted to go to a particular
waypoint, having entered the name, if there was more than one in the world it would have shown the lat/long of each one, or if it was a navaid, he may have just chosen the wrong one. another possibility is that he wanted to descend to fl270 and put it in the heading window by mistake, all possibly under the influence of hypoxia.
if the aircraft was in vnav path it would keep its altitude until the engines failed, speed would reduce to 10 ten knots above min clean speed and then default to speed priority and commence a descent, all stable.
waypoint, having entered the name, if there was more than one in the world it would have shown the lat/long of each one, or if it was a navaid, he may have just chosen the wrong one. another possibility is that he wanted to descend to fl270 and put it in the heading window by mistake, all possibly under the influence of hypoxia.
if the aircraft was in vnav path it would keep its altitude until the engines failed, speed would reduce to 10 ten knots above min clean speed and then default to speed priority and commence a descent, all stable.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if “Sully” Sullenberger tried to land a B777 at night on ocean swells I would expect lots of surface wreckage.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Hijacker or suicidal pilot would let the fuel run down that low because it means you were no longer able to control the outcome.
You should take a look at Ethiopian 961:
Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Let me rephrase that....
No INTELLIGENT Hijacker or suicidal pilot would let the fuel run down that low because it means you were no longer able to control the outcome.
The hijackers demanded the plane to be flown to Australia;[4][11] as they had been reading the in-flight magazine stating that the 767 could make the trip on a full tank and the plane had been refueled at its last stopover as well as the maximum flying time of the airplane. Leul tried to explain they had only taken on the fuel needed for the scheduled flight and thus could not even make a quarter of the journey, but the hijackers did not believe him.[10]
Anyone else seen this yet?
Pieces of aircraft found floating on Andhra coast? : South, News - India Today
Pieces of aircraft found floating on Andhra coast? : South, News - India Today
Bay of Bengal
http://www.ipcbee.com/vol32/008-ICESE2012-D026.pdf
I could have sworn that tvasquez had posted some surface current info previously in this thread, but I can't find it.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MA, USA
Age: 54
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it certainly wouldnt climb on one engine, the engine out altitude would be around 22,000 ft, so if on one engine it would have to go down.