Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MotCap....
"I never saw anything that would LNAV us to the S Pole."
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
As the aircraft was not fully loaded with passengers - I think I've read there were 50 plus spare seats - I'm curious as to why the standby passengers were presumably only allowed on because of the "no shows".
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Cork, Ireland
Age: 55
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This particular aircraft was built in 2002 and Flash technology was not nearly so advanced then as it is now. Furthermore, there is always a several year lag between the advances in consumer electronics and the components that are suitable, reliable enough and certified for use in airplanes.
Airplane technology needs to be simple and completely reliable. Boeing's experience with batteries on the 787 shows the risks of getting too fancy and high tech.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prime Minister Tony Abbott says Australian authorities have located new "objects" during the search for missing Malaysian Airlines flight MH370.
He has told Parliament the objects were located 2,500 kilometres south-west of Perth by a Royal Australian Air Force P-3 Orion about 2:45pm (AEDT).
Mr Abbott says the first object was grey or green and circular and the second was orange and rectangular.
He says HMAS Success is on the scene and is attempting to locate and recover the objects.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/....
He has told Parliament the objects were located 2,500 kilometres south-west of Perth by a Royal Australian Air Force P-3 Orion about 2:45pm (AEDT).
Mr Abbott says the first object was grey or green and circular and the second was orange and rectangular.
He says HMAS Success is on the scene and is attempting to locate and recover the objects.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/....
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Around the World
Age: 74
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ comcomtech
What's the problem?
Several explanations have been posted here: for instance
4. How can INMARSAT pings all be at 40 degrees from the satellite?
Several explanations have been posted here: for instance
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cats
"I see HMAS Success has a helipad. Is she carrying a helicopter at present?"
I don't think so.
From my understanding, she doesn't normally carry a helicopter but can have one embarked if needed.
"I see HMAS Success has a helipad. Is she carrying a helicopter at present?"
I don't think so.
From my understanding, she doesn't normally carry a helicopter but can have one embarked if needed.
Alchad
The questions you ask are all easily answered by some simple research, even if you are unfamiliar with the a/c and have no flying experience.
The 777-200ER can hold approx 120MT +/- of avgas.
The 54MT on board was sufficient for the mission + alternate with a bit to spare.
The 777 burns approx 6.5-6.7MT an hour in the cruise.
Empty weight is approx 140MT
Max T/O weight is approx 295-298MT
300 pax and bags approx 30MT
I have no idea how much freight was uplifted but simple math tells you they could have loaded a lot of lead ingots and still been under MTOW.
On ultra long haul there is obviously a trade-off between pax/frt and fuel but for a flight of this duration there is none.
The standby pax argument is a red herring.
From what I have read, the only "source" of how much fuel was loaded is attributed to Bloomberg as being 54 MT. The Malaysian authorities if I'm correct have only said something along the lines of "sufficient for Beijing plus some reserves"
There were 227 passengers on board which included 4 or 5 (don't have the exact number) of standby passengers because of "no shows".
As the aircraft was not fully loaded with passengers - I think I've read there were 50 plus spare seats - I'm curious as to why the standby passengers were presumably only allowed on because of the "no shows".
Does this mean the fuel capacity vs payload was the governing factor?
Point of my question is to do with the possible range of MH370. One of the early posts in this thread suggested that the plane could have been tankering fuel and carrying way over the amount needed for "Beijing plus reserve". If it was carrying a large amount of extra fuel then the maximum range would be affected. The standby passenger issue seems to contradict this theory though.
There were 227 passengers on board which included 4 or 5 (don't have the exact number) of standby passengers because of "no shows".
As the aircraft was not fully loaded with passengers - I think I've read there were 50 plus spare seats - I'm curious as to why the standby passengers were presumably only allowed on because of the "no shows".
Does this mean the fuel capacity vs payload was the governing factor?
Point of my question is to do with the possible range of MH370. One of the early posts in this thread suggested that the plane could have been tankering fuel and carrying way over the amount needed for "Beijing plus reserve". If it was carrying a large amount of extra fuel then the maximum range would be affected. The standby passenger issue seems to contradict this theory though.
The 777-200ER can hold approx 120MT +/- of avgas.
The 54MT on board was sufficient for the mission + alternate with a bit to spare.
The 777 burns approx 6.5-6.7MT an hour in the cruise.
Empty weight is approx 140MT
Max T/O weight is approx 295-298MT
300 pax and bags approx 30MT
I have no idea how much freight was uplifted but simple math tells you they could have loaded a lot of lead ingots and still been under MTOW.
On ultra long haul there is obviously a trade-off between pax/frt and fuel but for a flight of this duration there is none.
The standby pax argument is a red herring.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The huge Chinese diaspora in Perth are reported as preparing to possibly host the relatives, planning to host them in their homes if necessary, and identifying spaces for briefings, worship and counselling. I think the relatives will have a better experience in Australia if that comes about - partly of course because Malaysia is a much poorer country and Perth has of course had time to prepare, and Australia has a well organised disaster relief infrastructure and has planned for this sort of thing (not specific to an overseas disaster, but much of the planning would apply).
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the aircraft was at FL350 that early in the flight, I would assume they were not at Max Takeoff Weight: B777-200ER 656,000 lb(297,550 kg)?
I don't have the exact numbers but max takeoff weight could also mean landing overweight on that length of flight so it is possible that they were weight restricted by the Max Landing Weight: B777-200ER 470,000 lb(213,180 kg) ?
So here is my question: did the missing Malaysia 777 keep sending 'telemetry' data to R-R until the engines stopped?
Or did this data stream stop after the first hour or so – and if so why?
Side note about the "debris" sighting - I am of the firm belief that if nothing else this unfortunate incident will probably rise the awareness of the general public abut the amount of junk floating in the ocean...
Latest AMSA release. Looks like they are trying to locate these latest objects tonight before last light (which is pretty much right now).
http://www.amsa.gov.au/media/documen...MH370FINAL.pdf
If the aircraft does turn up in this location, I think many (most) of us accept it can only have been a deliberate act. It is very hard to conceive of an accident where:
1. all the pax became incapacitated
2. there was no distress call of any sort
3. all comms were either disabled or switched off
4. the aircraft then turned back over Malaysia, then flew NW, and then turned south after flying far enough west to avoid Indonesia
5. and then flew for another 6 hours using the autopilot (which survived whatever it was which disabled lots of other systems)
The pax must have been incapacitated. GSM phones work just fine at altitude. I made a call from my iPhone at FL280 over remote Australia a few weeks back. Couldn't get out on the aircraft phone, but my iPhone worked just fine. In this day and age, 200 odd pax and crew are just not going to sit ad do nothing when they believe they are caught up in some act of presumed terrorism.
Hypoxia & hypothermia would be the only feasible way to quickly incapacitate a large number of people. The flight deck would have greater reserves of oxygen. The perpetrator may also have packed some warm clothing.
I wonder if anyone has looked at the computers of all those on board. Someone may have done some research on human physiology and altitude and hypoxia and hypothermia.
http://www.amsa.gov.au/media/documen...MH370FINAL.pdf
If the aircraft does turn up in this location, I think many (most) of us accept it can only have been a deliberate act. It is very hard to conceive of an accident where:
1. all the pax became incapacitated
2. there was no distress call of any sort
3. all comms were either disabled or switched off
4. the aircraft then turned back over Malaysia, then flew NW, and then turned south after flying far enough west to avoid Indonesia
5. and then flew for another 6 hours using the autopilot (which survived whatever it was which disabled lots of other systems)
The pax must have been incapacitated. GSM phones work just fine at altitude. I made a call from my iPhone at FL280 over remote Australia a few weeks back. Couldn't get out on the aircraft phone, but my iPhone worked just fine. In this day and age, 200 odd pax and crew are just not going to sit ad do nothing when they believe they are caught up in some act of presumed terrorism.
Hypoxia & hypothermia would be the only feasible way to quickly incapacitate a large number of people. The flight deck would have greater reserves of oxygen. The perpetrator may also have packed some warm clothing.
I wonder if anyone has looked at the computers of all those on board. Someone may have done some research on human physiology and altitude and hypoxia and hypothermia.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Toulouse
Age: 74
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P&I Underwriters vs Cargo Manifest - valuables ?
We may ask MAS to disclose the cargo Manifest ... but from their mitigated response, we may deduct some unwillingness to provide full details thereof ? Whatever the reasons for holding back on this info, there is a SECOND SOURCE (who also are an "Interested Party" in this affair) : the Underwriters !
If the Cargo Manifest ever itemized any "Valuable Goods" (whichever) the correct procedure is to take out special P&I provisions for coverage of Valuables.
The P&I (Protection & Indemnity) Underwriting document could be contracted 'ad hoc' or could simply be mentioned as a routine addendum to some frame coverage, but "prudence" or correct procedure calls for such 'valuables' if any to have been explicitly brought to the attention of Underwriters.
If Malaysian management are unwilling to provide the relevant Cargo Manifest, the same info may be obtained from the aforementioned 2nd source ?
If the Cargo Manifest ever itemized any "Valuable Goods" (whichever) the correct procedure is to take out special P&I provisions for coverage of Valuables.
The P&I (Protection & Indemnity) Underwriting document could be contracted 'ad hoc' or could simply be mentioned as a routine addendum to some frame coverage, but "prudence" or correct procedure calls for such 'valuables' if any to have been explicitly brought to the attention of Underwriters.
If Malaysian management are unwilling to provide the relevant Cargo Manifest, the same info may be obtained from the aforementioned 2nd source ?
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: On the fast lane
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This little snippet from new.com.au:-
Malaysia’s unwillingness to release the full cargo manifest from missing Flight MH370 will hamper the search effort
By Julian Swallow
News Corp Australia
March 24, 2014 5:47PM
MALAYSIA’S continuing refusal to share the cargo manifest for Flight MH370 with an Australian-led search and rescue operation will hamper the effort to find the missing aircraft, an aviation expert says.
It is part of mounting concerns about the way in which Malaysian authorities have handled the search for the missing aircraft as it enters its third week.
Strategic Aviation Solutions chairman Neil Hansford said it also suggests Malaysian authorities are not being fully transparent about what the Boeing 777-200ER, which disappeared on March 8 an hour into a journey from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, was carrying.
“To me, there is no reason why they wouldn’t declare the cargo manifest unless you’ve got something to hide,” he said.
“There is no reason you wouldn’t have given it to AMSA (the Australian Maritime Safety Authority) on the first day of the search.”
AMSA has requested a cargo manifest for Flight M370 from Malaysia Airlines.
The manifest is expected to give the search operation a better idea in identifying objects they spot in the Indian Ocean if they indeed came from the missing plane.
However, the Malaysian authorities to date have refused to release it, insisting the document is with the police who are conducting their own investigation into the cause of the plane’s disappearance.
“There is certainly no reason why they shouldn’t share a cargo manifest with a legitimate search agency because it will only contribute to the search effort,” Professor Jason Middleton, the head of the school of aviation at the University of New South Wales, said.
“I would have viewed that (not sharing the information) as unusual.”
Professor Middleton said the only reason he could think of for not sharing the information was that something of “Malaysian national interest” was being carried on the aircraft.
“But in that case you could just redact that bit,” he said.
He said the whole investigation had been “totally characterised by innuendo and false data”.
“One of the possibilities is that someone put something on board that wasn’t supposed to be there,” he said.
Australian, Chinese and French satellite images have picked up what might be large pieces of debris from the missing aircraft, which was carrying 239 passengers and crew, while aircraft scanning the area on Saturday spotted what might be pallets and cargo straps.
Mr Hansford said Australia was spending tens of millions of dollars looking for the plane in a remote section of the Indian Ocean, 2,500km southwest of Perth.
“Here we are, Australia at great cost looking for the aircraft, and Malaysia won’t even cooperate and tell us what was on the aircraft,” he said.
Malaysia Airlines chief executive officer Ahmad Jauhari Yahya on March 18 revealed the aircraft was carrying “three to four tonnes” of mangosteen.
Four days after that, he also confirmed press reports that the plane was carrying some small lithium-ion batteries but stressed they were transported according to International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) rules.
Professor Middleton said a severe fire caused by lithium-ion batteries would require “gallons of fluid to put it out”, but said if this was the cause of the aircraft’s disappearance it would be unlikely it could have flown all the way to the southern Indian Ocean.
Malaysia?s unwillingness to release the full cargo manifest from missing Flight MH370 will hamper the search effort | News.com.au
Malaysia’s unwillingness to release the full cargo manifest from missing Flight MH370 will hamper the search effort
By Julian Swallow
News Corp Australia
March 24, 2014 5:47PM
MALAYSIA’S continuing refusal to share the cargo manifest for Flight MH370 with an Australian-led search and rescue operation will hamper the effort to find the missing aircraft, an aviation expert says.
It is part of mounting concerns about the way in which Malaysian authorities have handled the search for the missing aircraft as it enters its third week.
Strategic Aviation Solutions chairman Neil Hansford said it also suggests Malaysian authorities are not being fully transparent about what the Boeing 777-200ER, which disappeared on March 8 an hour into a journey from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, was carrying.
“To me, there is no reason why they wouldn’t declare the cargo manifest unless you’ve got something to hide,” he said.
“There is no reason you wouldn’t have given it to AMSA (the Australian Maritime Safety Authority) on the first day of the search.”
AMSA has requested a cargo manifest for Flight M370 from Malaysia Airlines.
The manifest is expected to give the search operation a better idea in identifying objects they spot in the Indian Ocean if they indeed came from the missing plane.
However, the Malaysian authorities to date have refused to release it, insisting the document is with the police who are conducting their own investigation into the cause of the plane’s disappearance.
“There is certainly no reason why they shouldn’t share a cargo manifest with a legitimate search agency because it will only contribute to the search effort,” Professor Jason Middleton, the head of the school of aviation at the University of New South Wales, said.
“I would have viewed that (not sharing the information) as unusual.”
Professor Middleton said the only reason he could think of for not sharing the information was that something of “Malaysian national interest” was being carried on the aircraft.
“But in that case you could just redact that bit,” he said.
He said the whole investigation had been “totally characterised by innuendo and false data”.
“One of the possibilities is that someone put something on board that wasn’t supposed to be there,” he said.
Australian, Chinese and French satellite images have picked up what might be large pieces of debris from the missing aircraft, which was carrying 239 passengers and crew, while aircraft scanning the area on Saturday spotted what might be pallets and cargo straps.
Mr Hansford said Australia was spending tens of millions of dollars looking for the plane in a remote section of the Indian Ocean, 2,500km southwest of Perth.
“Here we are, Australia at great cost looking for the aircraft, and Malaysia won’t even cooperate and tell us what was on the aircraft,” he said.
Malaysia Airlines chief executive officer Ahmad Jauhari Yahya on March 18 revealed the aircraft was carrying “three to four tonnes” of mangosteen.
Four days after that, he also confirmed press reports that the plane was carrying some small lithium-ion batteries but stressed they were transported according to International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) rules.
Professor Middleton said a severe fire caused by lithium-ion batteries would require “gallons of fluid to put it out”, but said if this was the cause of the aircraft’s disappearance it would be unlikely it could have flown all the way to the southern Indian Ocean.
Malaysia?s unwillingness to release the full cargo manifest from missing Flight MH370 will hamper the search effort | News.com.au