Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost
What, (if anything) could go down to +4500m besides the submersible they have.
Alvin Upgrade : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Thread Starter
R/e the suggestiion about Exmouth - is topcliffe kid saying this could be an reflection of the VLF sub communication signal, and not the pingers at all?
I hope not...
I hope not...
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
In answer to how deep:
That is pretty deep.
However in 2012 the Chinese reported
In 1960 Don Walsh and Jacques Piccard went to the bottom of the Marianas Trench (35,800 Ft).
However in 2012 the Chinese reported
The submersible broke the 7000-meter barrier to reach a depth of 7020 . . . Before the Jiaolong was built, there were only four countries, the United States, Japan, France and Russia, that had deep manned submersibles. The maximum work depth of those countries’ deep submersibles is 6,500 meters; while the maximum designed work depth of the Jiaolong is 7,000 meters.
The whole press conference here.
Does anyone know if there is a link to the whole press conference?
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: australia
Age: 81
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.isasi.org/documents/isasi...ix-whoi-a4.pdf
has some ineresting detailsn the search for AF447 and its costs.
surface search June 2009 26 days
€80 million
(estimated for
information)
Phase 1 June/July 2009 30 days
Phase 2 August 2009 22 days 10 M €
Phase 3 April/May 2010 52 days 11.6 M €
Phase 4 March/April
2011
15 days 7 M €
Phase 5 April-May 2011 31 days 6 M €
TOTAL phases 1-5 (on site) 176 days
€ 34.6 million
(estimate)
has some ineresting detailsn the search for AF447 and its costs.
surface search June 2009 26 days
€80 million
(estimated for
information)
Phase 1 June/July 2009 30 days
Phase 2 August 2009 22 days 10 M €
Phase 3 April/May 2010 52 days 11.6 M €
Phase 4 March/April
2011
15 days 7 M €
Phase 5 April-May 2011 31 days 6 M €
TOTAL phases 1-5 (on site) 176 days
€ 34.6 million
(estimate)
...if the aircraft did end up relatively intact on the sea-bed & still containing the boxes, how might they be retrieved?
[1] Can any of the deep-submersible AUV/ROVs perform any kind of hull cutting activity?
[2] Can hoisting gear be remotely attached to any fuselage structure?
[1] Can any of the deep-submersible AUV/ROVs perform any kind of hull cutting activity?
[2] Can hoisting gear be remotely attached to any fuselage structure?
It was a very simple process. The remote underwater vehicle operators are provided with an engineering drawing that shows where the recorder is mounted within the aircraft fuselage. They then navigate the ROV to that location. It is quite easy for the ROV to punch through the aluminum skin of the fuselage. Once that is done, the recorder can be fetched.
In the case of a very large fuselage such as a 777, if the recorder is not mounted proximate to the exterior skin, a hole can be cut in the fuselage by tools affixed to the ROV, and then one arm of the ROV can be inserted into the hole to fetch the recorder.
I was quite surprised to see the ROV operator on this particular mission simply grab onto the bulkhead that the recorder was attached to, and pull on it until a good size chunk of the bulkhead (including the recorder, attached to its mounting bracket) came free. The ROV operator then brought the chunk of bulkhead with the recorder mounted to it to a basket under the ROV, and then the whole ROV was brought to the surface.
I suppose the ROV operator could have just grabbed onto the cylindrical case of the recorder and ripped it off the bulkhead, but that would have run the risk of damaging the case.
As for bringing a portion of the aircraft to the surface, that is certainly possible. The bigger the portion, the more difficult the task, but in the case of the investigation I was part of, we brought the empennage and the flight compartment of the aircraft to the surface for inspection. Special tools on the ROV were used to detach these sections of the aircraft from the rest of the fuselage.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chronus . . .
The question must be, on what basis of factual or circumstantial evidence or a combination of both, did the Malaysian authorities decide to pursue this as a criminal investigation.
Required viewing
The whole press conference here.
Thank you. I've just viewed the whole video. That should be required viewing for anyone considering posting on this thread.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: .za
Age: 61
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
short flights long nights
Press conference on right now.
Malaysian Transport Minister saying that miracles happen, we still hope to find survivors.
That could be very wishful thinking.
Malaysian Transport Minister saying that miracles happen, we still hope to find survivors.
That could be very wishful thinking.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Criminal Investigation
The question of why a criminal investigation has come up again. Quoting here some words from Andrasz much earlier in the thread. He made a number of salient remarks on possible lines of investigation soon after the loss of the aircraft, too many to repeat all but the most relevant.
I think we can simply say Malaysia has made a call based on the fact that there are reasonable grounds to believe a crime may have occurred. They are the only ones who can, and this then gives an extra judicial layer to the gathering of evidence and determination of cause. If the disappearance is not found to have been caused criminally, then there is no loss having the judiciary involved as an extra layer. If a crime was committed, then it is important that evidence be gathered as promptly as the circumstances allow.
Andrasz - quote:
But at some point the Malaysian authorities will have to make a tough call, if the aircraft or wreckage is not found soon. As they are the state of registry, at present they (and ONLY they) have the right to launch an official investigation, which may later be ceded if the plane is to be found in some other territory. Similarly, if there were any criminal act it would have been committed on board an aircraft of Malaysian registry, so until that aircraft is found to have landed elsewhere, they are only ones who may launch a criminal investigation. In the case of the former I'm sure all evidence had been secured, so the SAR effort takes full precedence (as it should) and there would be no benefit derived from launching a parallel investigative process. On the other hand in the latter case time is of essence, just someone needs to make the call.
I think we can simply say Malaysia has made a call based on the fact that there are reasonable grounds to believe a crime may have occurred. They are the only ones who can, and this then gives an extra judicial layer to the gathering of evidence and determination of cause. If the disappearance is not found to have been caused criminally, then there is no loss having the judiciary involved as an extra layer. If a crime was committed, then it is important that evidence be gathered as promptly as the circumstances allow.
Andrasz - quote:
But at some point the Malaysian authorities will have to make a tough call, if the aircraft or wreckage is not found soon. As they are the state of registry, at present they (and ONLY they) have the right to launch an official investigation, which may later be ceded if the plane is to be found in some other territory. Similarly, if there were any criminal act it would have been committed on board an aircraft of Malaysian registry, so until that aircraft is found to have landed elsewhere, they are only ones who may launch a criminal investigation. In the case of the former I'm sure all evidence had been secured, so the SAR effort takes full precedence (as it should) and there would be no benefit derived from launching a parallel investigative process. On the other hand in the latter case time is of essence, just someone needs to make the call.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ABC release picture of the Ping data
Can anybody comment on what we are seeing in this picture that the australian broadcasting corp, what are the x and y and z axis
Malaysia Airlines MH370: Ocean Shield detects signal 'consistent' with black box recorder - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Malaysia Airlines MH370: Ocean Shield detects signal 'consistent' with black box recorder - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gatwick
Age: 60
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at the approximate location shown where the 2 separate pings have been recorded by the Aus ship, it looks to be on on almost direct 180 degree bearing from the point of loss of contact (when transponder shut down). Is that just a coincidence?
This is a question to one of you who have spent the last 4 weeks studying arcs and sat pings which I know absolutely zilch about.
This is a question to one of you who have spent the last 4 weeks studying arcs and sat pings which I know absolutely zilch about.
Last edited by dillboy; 7th Apr 2014 at 10:25. Reason: Clarification
R/e the suggestiion about Exmouth - is topcliffe kid saying this could be an reflection of the VLF sub communication signal, and not the pingers at all?
I hope not...
Definitely not...but suspect the previous poster may have been alluding to that! I was just making the distinction between e-m waves and pressure waves, which seems to have been confusing some
I hope not...
Definitely not...but suspect the previous poster may have been alluding to that! I was just making the distinction between e-m waves and pressure waves, which seems to have been confusing some
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Now if the two detections could be time synched and identified as the same source you could construct a hyperbolic line and match this with the ping arc . . .
argh!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be useful to know the rough depth of the australian sensor.
First contact lasted for over 2 hours but at a shallow depth.
Given 3.5kn, that suggests a detection range of between 4 and 5nm and a subtended angle to the seabed of around 90 if the sensors pass immediately overhead.
It is the second pass where depth is interesting.
Detection of both pingers suggests closer range so much greater depth.
Shorter time (and perhaps a track of less than 1nm) could be largely due to depth. If the detector depth is ~2000m, that would be consistent with a range of 1nm at a similar angle. Close!
We have a much smaller area of search - also indicated by stated possibility of remote vehicle deployment in the near future (if not already out).
First contact lasted for over 2 hours but at a shallow depth.
Given 3.5kn, that suggests a detection range of between 4 and 5nm and a subtended angle to the seabed of around 90 if the sensors pass immediately overhead.
It is the second pass where depth is interesting.
Detection of both pingers suggests closer range so much greater depth.
Shorter time (and perhaps a track of less than 1nm) could be largely due to depth. If the detector depth is ~2000m, that would be consistent with a range of 1nm at a similar angle. Close!
We have a much smaller area of search - also indicated by stated possibility of remote vehicle deployment in the near future (if not already out).
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The authorities have made public that the aircraft operated outside radar coverage.
The last known waypoint is IGREX.
Routing then to PIBED (5 20' 12" S 90 43' 60"E) in the NAV database then YPPH Perth takes the route though the current search area and very close (30 NMs) to the Ocean Shield ping and outside the radar coverage of Indonesia.
The last known waypoint is IGREX.
Routing then to PIBED (5 20' 12" S 90 43' 60"E) in the NAV database then YPPH Perth takes the route though the current search area and very close (30 NMs) to the Ocean Shield ping and outside the radar coverage of Indonesia.