Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost
short flights long nights
Putting a new altitude into the MCP does not open the V/S window on the 777.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
again, to remind people, NOWHERE in the preliminary report is there any verification of altitudes except during ATC radio recordings of assignments and readbacks/reports of altitudes.
there are guesses at the end of the track to the search area.
so why are we talking about modes of autopilot to change altitudes?
in other words, alot of BS has come down the pike and its time to dismiss altitudes like FL390, FL450, 12,000' etc.
Unless of course someone out there has any real info!??
there are guesses at the end of the track to the search area.
so why are we talking about modes of autopilot to change altitudes?
in other words, alot of BS has come down the pike and its time to dismiss altitudes like FL390, FL450, 12,000' etc.
Unless of course someone out there has any real info!??
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why are we talking about modes of autopilot to change altitudes?
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/...-interference/
The disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 could have only involved human input, according to two aviation experts.
A senior Boeing 777 captain and a former crash investigator agreed that given the information outlined in the preliminary report issued late last week, "human input was essential" for the MH370 to end its flight in the Indian Ocean.
A senior Boeing 777 captain and a former crash investigator agreed that given the information outlined in the preliminary report issued late last week, "human input was essential" for the MH370 to end its flight in the Indian Ocean.
Other possibilities might then follow, but, if so, we should leave those until later, to avoid confused logic (sadly, all too easily generated on PPRuNe).
short flights long nights
If you knew the person that wrote that article, you would probably totally disregard it. I think most of us in Australia have.
Val ..
Absolutely correct.
The authorities media etc. are obviously leaning towards one of the pilots (expert knowledge etc.) and the skipper seems to be favourite. Remarks about family life, flight sim, political etc..
However, what you have to remember is that they are talking about the murder of 227pax and 11 crew. Plus the destruction of well over a thousand lives associated with the deceased.
The immediate family will always be remembered for having a murderer amongst them. Your father, grandfather, great grandfather ancestor etc, was responsible for the loss of MH370 and 238 number of people.
Could HE really be responsible for such actions.
Having reached the top in his career would he really want to leave such a legacy for his family to bear.
If he was and this is a big IF then for sure he will do everything possible to make sure MH370 will never be found. Drawing on his considerable experience and expertise. So far he has done an excellent job of it.
This action would have been well planned and researched. There would be a paper, electronic, or oral trail somewhere. There usually is.
I believe some radical thinking has to be done to find the plane. Maybe a new team in place to generate some other ideas.
All the cards should be on the table.
The objective is to prove or disprove that human intervention was only essential for a short period after the first loss of contact. If proven, the vast majority of the flight, including any decreasing level changes, could have been entirely automatically flown, despite all souls on board being dead.
The authorities media etc. are obviously leaning towards one of the pilots (expert knowledge etc.) and the skipper seems to be favourite. Remarks about family life, flight sim, political etc..
However, what you have to remember is that they are talking about the murder of 227pax and 11 crew. Plus the destruction of well over a thousand lives associated with the deceased.
The immediate family will always be remembered for having a murderer amongst them. Your father, grandfather, great grandfather ancestor etc, was responsible for the loss of MH370 and 238 number of people.
Could HE really be responsible for such actions.
Having reached the top in his career would he really want to leave such a legacy for his family to bear.
If he was and this is a big IF then for sure he will do everything possible to make sure MH370 will never be found. Drawing on his considerable experience and expertise. So far he has done an excellent job of it.
This action would have been well planned and researched. There would be a paper, electronic, or oral trail somewhere. There usually is.
I believe some radical thinking has to be done to find the plane. Maybe a new team in place to generate some other ideas.
All the cards should be on the table.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the aircraft's actual GPS position appears not to be one of the required parameters for the FDR
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: wales
Age: 81
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are missing the point, they would have known WHERE TO SEARCH.
Last edited by oldoberon; 6th May 2014 at 16:40. Reason: correct sticky space bar
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Denmark
Age: 56
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA publishes new proposals for flight recorders and locating devices
As SLF I don't know if this is off-limits in this thread? If so feel free to delete.
EASA publishes new proposals for flight recorders and locating devices | EASA
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) today announced new proposals for flight recorders and underwater locating devices which aim at facilitating the recovery of an aircraft and of its flight recorders in the unfortunate eventuality of an accident.
The new EASA requirements include the extension of the transmission time of underwater locating devices (ULD) fitted on flight recorders from 30 days to 90 days. EASA also proposes to equip large aeroplanes overflying oceans with a new type of ULD that have longer locating range than the current flight recorders ULDs. Alternatively, aircraft may be equipped with a means to determine the location of an accident within 6 Nautical Miles accuracy. In addition, the minimum recording duration of Cockpit Voice Recorders installed on new large aeroplanes should be increased to 20 hours from two 2 hours today.
Patrick Ky, EASA Executive Director said: “The tragic flight of Malaysia Airlines MH370 demonstrates that safety can never be taken for granted. The proposed changes are expected to increase safety by facilitating the recovery of information by safety investigation authorities”.
These new requirements are included in an EASA Opinion and, when adopted by the European Commission, will apply to the operation of aeroplanes and helicopters registered in an EASA Member State.
The new EASA requirements include the extension of the transmission time of underwater locating devices (ULD) fitted on flight recorders from 30 days to 90 days. EASA also proposes to equip large aeroplanes overflying oceans with a new type of ULD that have longer locating range than the current flight recorders ULDs. Alternatively, aircraft may be equipped with a means to determine the location of an accident within 6 Nautical Miles accuracy. In addition, the minimum recording duration of Cockpit Voice Recorders installed on new large aeroplanes should be increased to 20 hours from two 2 hours today.
Patrick Ky, EASA Executive Director said: “The tragic flight of Malaysia Airlines MH370 demonstrates that safety can never be taken for granted. The proposed changes are expected to increase safety by facilitating the recovery of information by safety investigation authorities”.
These new requirements are included in an EASA Opinion and, when adopted by the European Commission, will apply to the operation of aeroplanes and helicopters registered in an EASA Member State.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Transmit the data and we don't have to search for the recorder. Saves a lot of money
Why isn't it being done?
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Frankfurt
Age: 74
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IRPilot2006: Nav Data must be recorded in the FDR where "available and used". It is not "required" per se.
One presumes that any GPS and WAAS systems would also be included here.
One presumes that any GPS and WAAS systems would also be included here.
Operation Parameters ... Primary navigation system reference*: GNSS, INS, VOR/DME, MLS, Loran C, ILS
Those parameters designated by an (*) are to be recorded if an information source for the parameter is used by aeroplane systems and/or flight crew to operate the aeroplane.
Those parameters designated by an (*) are to be recorded if an information source for the parameter is used by aeroplane systems and/or flight crew to operate the aeroplane.
Last edited by DrPhillipa; 6th May 2014 at 17:32.
The hijack to Perth theory makes a lot of sense to me.
If it was the captain trying to disappear the aircraft, wouldn't it have been a whole lot easier to do it on a flight across the Pacific to LA?
If it was the captain trying to disappear the aircraft, wouldn't it have been a whole lot easier to do it on a flight across the Pacific to LA?
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: wales
Age: 81
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought that when I 1st saw the revised track, but decided no way.
If the pilot voluntarily or under coercion was heading for Perth, he could have flow across Indonesia, if detected they would not have shot MAH370 down
We don't know whether if need be he could have used the radio and spun them a mulfunction story, then continued to Perth.
To me the only plausible reason for the diversion around Indonesia was to hide the track/destination.
If the pilot voluntarily or under coercion was heading for Perth, he could have flow across Indonesia, if detected they would not have shot MAH370 down
We don't know whether if need be he could have used the radio and spun them a mulfunction story, then continued to Perth.
To me the only plausible reason for the diversion around Indonesia was to hide the track/destination.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Ohio, USA
Age: 78
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trying to avoid Indonesian Radar?
Tell me how flying directly towards (and overflying) Banda Aceh and the International Airport was a Indonesian Radar avoidance attempt.
Possible that "human control of the aircraft" changed hands????
Possible that "human control of the aircraft" changed hands????
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Frankfurt
Age: 74
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see no clear unequivocal evidence for any "diversion around Indonesia". Subsequent to the loss of transponder signals there are only a couple of Malaysian military radar points over the Malaccan Straights reported, one of which has been subsequently moved, original height data has also been modified (negated). It is also unclear if these are points logged, or a track between them was logged.
No contact was reported on the presumed flight from IGARI across the entire Malay Peninsula.
A ping position (arc?) has been posited for 18:27 broadly consistent with the limited radar data followed by a posited southerly path which only just misses the Indonesian land mass.
Thai and Indonesian radar has not publically reported any contact, they have also not publically confirmed which radar were manned, active or logged - or their range. It is strange that neither saw the plane. If its path was as proposed it would have flown well within 200Nm of both Thai and Indonesian airspace. No word from JORN either.
If there is only confidential (military) information available, its existence (or confirmed absence of contact) should have been reported even if no details were.
No contact was reported on the presumed flight from IGARI across the entire Malay Peninsula.
A ping position (arc?) has been posited for 18:27 broadly consistent with the limited radar data followed by a posited southerly path which only just misses the Indonesian land mass.
Thai and Indonesian radar has not publically reported any contact, they have also not publically confirmed which radar were manned, active or logged - or their range. It is strange that neither saw the plane. If its path was as proposed it would have flown well within 200Nm of both Thai and Indonesian airspace. No word from JORN either.
If there is only confidential (military) information available, its existence (or confirmed absence of contact) should have been reported even if no details were.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the Malaysian radar was corroborated by the Thai military (who were excoriated for not coming forward sooner). There is absolutely no requirement for these military authorities to satisfy you or anyone in the peanut gallery by publicly publishing their data. The people that need to know have the information. The lack of information would apply if it were an NTSB or BEA or other investigation; only limited information is made available to the public until the final report.
JORN was almost certainly switched off as it was a peacetime weekend.
JORN was almost certainly switched off as it was a peacetime weekend.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: in a plasma cocoon
Age: 53
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, that is not the end of the story, as it is the aircraft that senses the Doppler shift between it and the satellite and shifts its Tx frequency to compensate. If flying toward the satellite it would shift its Tx frequency downward so that any transmission from the aircraft would arrive at the satellite at the assigned and expected Rx frequency. Likewise when flying away from the Satellite, the Doppler shift would be deceasing and the aircraft would adjust its Tx frequency in the opposite direction, i.e. upwards.
The satellite has nothing to do with the Doppler correction; that is assigned to each individual aircraft, otherwise the satellite would have a very large job on its hands when communicating with many aircraft. What the Satellite does do, is transmit a constant carrier on the P Channel which the aircraft uses to sense the received frequency offset from the assigned channel and then adjusts its Tx channel(s) in the opposite direct to compensate.
Any Doppler shift between the the Ground Station (GES) and the satellite is corrected at the earth side, which allows the separate isolation of Doppler between the Sat and the aircraft (AES).
Now start thinking about where this "burst frequency offset" info is coming from.
The satellite has nothing to do with the Doppler correction; that is assigned to each individual aircraft, otherwise the satellite would have a very large job on its hands when communicating with many aircraft. What the Satellite does do, is transmit a constant carrier on the P Channel which the aircraft uses to sense the received frequency offset from the assigned channel and then adjusts its Tx channel(s) in the opposite direct to compensate.
Any Doppler shift between the the Ground Station (GES) and the satellite is corrected at the earth side, which allows the separate isolation of Doppler between the Sat and the aircraft (AES).
Now start thinking about where this "burst frequency offset" info is coming from.
I ask because the Inmarsat annex 1 clearly states (red circling D2) that "D2 is not corrected by system" (meaning both GES and AES) hence it is "the observed frequency offset". Furthermore, if the BFO were only residuals of such a correction, it would be a poor correction (not that we can expect from the P-channel monitoring) of the relative A/C to sat doppler. D3 is easily predictible via the 3F1 ephemeris so I guess that it is compensed at GES level to reduce the doppler shifts (and it is not red circled).
The meaning of D1 which is an A/C induced doppler is not so clear, D1 could either be the A/C contribution to the relative A/C to 3F1 doppler (but the annex 1 also states that D2 combines the satellite & A/C motion so that this comtribution should be encompassed by D2), or it could be the AES correction to D2 (the opposite of the P-channel doppler shifts, or estimated via the IRS data and satellite ephemeris, but Imarsat says that D2 is not corrected).
Can you make sense of this ?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Hyperveloce
The Inmarsat graphic is essentially a media release designed to smooth over technical details that would "complicate" matters.
If you refer to SATCOM manufacturer's data, they have very little to say about what goes on in the Satellite Data Unit or the Satellite Beam Steering Unit, and Inmarsat are also very quiet on the subject. The best way to find what is going on is to go through Patent applications for alternatives to the methods in use. For the Patent application to succeed, it must show why it needs to use the methods that it is promoting. So this is where are a lot of the detail can be found.
US Patent #6008758 will provide an insight into the mysterious "D1/D2".
The ADIRU also supplies data to the SBSU/SDU, and if certain parameters are exceeded, say momentary loss of the P Channel occurs, the AES may initiate an "I am here" handshake with the SAT.
The Inmarsat graphic is essentially a media release designed to smooth over technical details that would "complicate" matters.
If you refer to SATCOM manufacturer's data, they have very little to say about what goes on in the Satellite Data Unit or the Satellite Beam Steering Unit, and Inmarsat are also very quiet on the subject. The best way to find what is going on is to go through Patent applications for alternatives to the methods in use. For the Patent application to succeed, it must show why it needs to use the methods that it is promoting. So this is where are a lot of the detail can be found.
US Patent #6008758 will provide an insight into the mysterious "D1/D2".
The ADIRU also supplies data to the SBSU/SDU, and if certain parameters are exceeded, say momentary loss of the P Channel occurs, the AES may initiate an "I am here" handshake with the SAT.
Last edited by mm43; 6th May 2014 at 19:57. Reason: added D1
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: California
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mm43, are you sure that this P-channel continuous monitoring of the doppler shift between the A/C and the 3F1 satellite was implemented by the MH370 AES ?
I ask because the Inmarsat annex 1 clearly states (red circling D2) that "D2 is not corrected by system" (meaning both GES and AES) hence it is "the observed frequency offset".
I ask because the Inmarsat annex 1 clearly states (red circling D2) that "D2 is not corrected by system" (meaning both GES and AES) hence it is "the observed frequency offset".
Annex 1 could be interpreted to say that D2 is the real Doppler, D1 is the correction, and "measured frequency offset" is the part of D2 that is not subtracted by D1. It's a stretch but it is consistent with my first paragraph.