Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shadoko: thanks for replying. If you agree with me that reduced available fuel could not possibly have been the reason the ATSB moved the search 1,100km NE on March 28, then wouldn't you also agree with me that the statement...
"On 27 March (D20), the JIT advised they now had more confidence in the increased speeds provided by primary radar near Malaysia. This increased the aircraft fuel burn and the most probable track moved north to the S3 area." (source: "MH370 - Definition of Underwater Search Areas", June 26, page 6)
...is deceitful?
P.S. I'm only pointing out the logical flaw in the FIRST humongous shift NE that occurred that week. Four days later, on April 1, they moved the search a FURTHER 1,500km (from yellow to red, on the chart I provided above) - up into 20s latitude - where the acoustic pings then pinned the search for eight weeks. Your quote may be referring to the rationale for that SECOND move (which is unrelated to my argument).
"On 27 March (D20), the JIT advised they now had more confidence in the increased speeds provided by primary radar near Malaysia. This increased the aircraft fuel burn and the most probable track moved north to the S3 area." (source: "MH370 - Definition of Underwater Search Areas", June 26, page 6)
...is deceitful?
P.S. I'm only pointing out the logical flaw in the FIRST humongous shift NE that occurred that week. Four days later, on April 1, they moved the search a FURTHER 1,500km (from yellow to red, on the chart I provided above) - up into 20s latitude - where the acoustic pings then pinned the search for eight weeks. Your quote may be referring to the rationale for that SECOND move (which is unrelated to my argument).
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: France
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your quote may be referring to the rationale for that SECOND move (which is unrelated to my argument).
You are absolutly right, I may have read you with poor attention: sorry for that.
You are absolutly right, I may have read you with poor attention: sorry for that.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Queensland
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
heading vs track
I expect T7, like FBW airbus, can be in heading or track. Assumptions about heading, but then describe track of the aircraft seems to indicate carelessness of a few posters.
In late April I commented it was rather odd that no identifiable wreckage had been found on shore. That the a/c could have found its way to the ocean floor completely intact, even in the unlikely event of a relatively successful ditching, seemed implausible. We're not talking about the Hudson River.
At risk of being a nuisance, did anyone come up with an explanation for that?
At risk of being a nuisance, did anyone come up with an explanation for that?
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: London
Age: 63
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris Scott
There have been discussions about this elsewhere. The questions are about things like how rough the sea might have been - weather reports say calm. There are also questions about how much control the automatic flight envelope protection systems might have had over the final trajectory.
It is one thing to say that it is unlikely that the aircraft remained substantially intact but quite another to say it is impossible.
Subsequent to the touchdown there are questions about ocean winds and currents and locations where debris might eventually wash ashore. I have read suggestions by people who know more than I do that wreckage may drift for many months - even years - before washing up. The possible locations are affected by the range of possible impact points but may be as far apart as South Africa and Tasmania. Since the impact point is unknown and all of the searches to date may have been distant from it, I don't find it surprising that no wreckage has been identified. The Ocean is vast and the possibility remains that very little floating wreckage might be present.
There have been discussions about this elsewhere. The questions are about things like how rough the sea might have been - weather reports say calm. There are also questions about how much control the automatic flight envelope protection systems might have had over the final trajectory.
It is one thing to say that it is unlikely that the aircraft remained substantially intact but quite another to say it is impossible.
Subsequent to the touchdown there are questions about ocean winds and currents and locations where debris might eventually wash ashore. I have read suggestions by people who know more than I do that wreckage may drift for many months - even years - before washing up. The possible locations are affected by the range of possible impact points but may be as far apart as South Africa and Tasmania. Since the impact point is unknown and all of the searches to date may have been distant from it, I don't find it surprising that no wreckage has been identified. The Ocean is vast and the possibility remains that very little floating wreckage might be present.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are thus left with only unlikely - possibly highly unlikely - potential explanations.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just spent 3 weeks on Cocos-Keeling Islands and I was stunned at the absolutely vast amounts of flotsam and jetsam littering the shores of the islands.
I was always under the impression (now sadly corrected) that the Indian Ocean was one of the worlds cleanest oceans, and I was very pleased to live on the Eastern edge of it, and revel in its cleanliness.
The truth is, the Indian Ocean is a watery garbage pit, on a par with every other world ocean.
Much of the flotsam and jetsam has Asian origins, and much of it is reputed to be remnants of the Aceh and Fukushima tsunamis.
I believe a lot of it is even more recent and is a result of purely a lazy disposal attitude, on a large percentage of the population of the above nations.
Surviving MH370 wreckage (and there is bound to be some) would be buried in the overwhelming volume of general rubbish that populates the Indian Ocean.
AFAIC, the greatest failure on the authorities part is not immediately issuing a reward notice to the populace of every nation and every island and continent bordering the Indian Ocean, for a monetary reward for any possible aviation-related flotsam or jetsam found in these areas.
Even just one small wreckage item from MH370 would add to the tiny levels of available information and enable researchers to try and calculate the track of the wreckage.
I was always under the impression (now sadly corrected) that the Indian Ocean was one of the worlds cleanest oceans, and I was very pleased to live on the Eastern edge of it, and revel in its cleanliness.
The truth is, the Indian Ocean is a watery garbage pit, on a par with every other world ocean.
Much of the flotsam and jetsam has Asian origins, and much of it is reputed to be remnants of the Aceh and Fukushima tsunamis.
I believe a lot of it is even more recent and is a result of purely a lazy disposal attitude, on a large percentage of the population of the above nations.
Surviving MH370 wreckage (and there is bound to be some) would be buried in the overwhelming volume of general rubbish that populates the Indian Ocean.
AFAIC, the greatest failure on the authorities part is not immediately issuing a reward notice to the populace of every nation and every island and continent bordering the Indian Ocean, for a monetary reward for any possible aviation-related flotsam or jetsam found in these areas.
Even just one small wreckage item from MH370 would add to the tiny levels of available information and enable researchers to try and calculate the track of the wreckage.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: London
Age: 63
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember spending a day driving around Grand Cayman many years ago exploring all the little beaches and coves. One thing that struck me at the time was the extent to which the waves seem to sort the rubbish into objects of approximately equal size and density.
One small beach we found was obviously the place where lost shoes wash up. Large amounts of rubbish but almost all shoes. That leads me to believe that different components of any wreckage are likely to wash ashore eventually at different places or times depending on size.
One small beach we found was obviously the place where lost shoes wash up. Large amounts of rubbish but almost all shoes. That leads me to believe that different components of any wreckage are likely to wash ashore eventually at different places or times depending on size.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was invited to speculate. Here's where logic takes us (not very far, I'm afraid, but it's a start):
The idea that a debris field was created in the SIO - and yet the world's collective search efforts have yet to identify a single ounce of it - is well beyond the bounds of common sense.
I concede that the search area is vast and inaccessible, and that, over time, debris sinks, degrades, and comingles with other junk. But all of those things take time; and many items (lifejackets, eg.) retain their visibility, flotation, and evidenciary value for years, so all that would have been needed to positively identify something was a sufficiently vast and hi-def satellite search.
I distinctly remember watching a televised news item about new technology that allowed satellites to read the headline on a newspaper held by someone on the ground. They used "newspaper" instead of "iPad", because the item I watched was broadcast in the 1970's. So I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that current satellite technology is sufficient to scan quickly for possibilities, and zoom in to identify.
So here are the 3 possible avenues taken by the investigation leadership over the past 5 months:
#1 they decided to withhold this search technology (i.e. chose not to find anything)
#2 they applied the technology, found debris, kept it secret, yet still haven't found MH370
#3 they fully applied the technology, but didn't find debris
#1 requires either irrational search leadership, or the known non-existence of debris.
#2 requires irrational search leadership.
#3 requires the non-existence of debris.
Result: if the search leadership is rational, then there is no debris.
The southern-track-until-fuel-exhaustion hypothesis requires debris (a powerless 777 cannot magically "self-Sully" onto a rolling, roiling ocean).
Result: if the search leadership is rational, then the southern-track-until-fuel-exhaustion hypothesis is invalid.
The idea that a debris field was created in the SIO - and yet the world's collective search efforts have yet to identify a single ounce of it - is well beyond the bounds of common sense.
I concede that the search area is vast and inaccessible, and that, over time, debris sinks, degrades, and comingles with other junk. But all of those things take time; and many items (lifejackets, eg.) retain their visibility, flotation, and evidenciary value for years, so all that would have been needed to positively identify something was a sufficiently vast and hi-def satellite search.
I distinctly remember watching a televised news item about new technology that allowed satellites to read the headline on a newspaper held by someone on the ground. They used "newspaper" instead of "iPad", because the item I watched was broadcast in the 1970's. So I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that current satellite technology is sufficient to scan quickly for possibilities, and zoom in to identify.
So here are the 3 possible avenues taken by the investigation leadership over the past 5 months:
#1 they decided to withhold this search technology (i.e. chose not to find anything)
#2 they applied the technology, found debris, kept it secret, yet still haven't found MH370
#3 they fully applied the technology, but didn't find debris
#1 requires either irrational search leadership, or the known non-existence of debris.
#2 requires irrational search leadership.
#3 requires the non-existence of debris.
Result: if the search leadership is rational, then there is no debris.
The southern-track-until-fuel-exhaustion hypothesis requires debris (a powerless 777 cannot magically "self-Sully" onto a rolling, roiling ocean).
Result: if the search leadership is rational, then the southern-track-until-fuel-exhaustion hypothesis is invalid.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wind Tunnel
I don't know why I bother writing anything in this thread as no matter how rational or polite it gets deleted! I must be on auto delete
( That includes the MH17 thread 
but finding any floating fragments whether life jackets or otherwise from the wreckage will not after all this time give an indication of the crash location.
You are not dealing with just currents and tides but also varying winds over a considerable period of time.
if the Ocean was relatively shallow there might be some small chance of finding static wreckage on the Ocean bed but with the considerable depth and pressure that chance is negligible bar an absolute miracle
I don't know why I bother writing anything in this thread as no matter how rational or polite it gets deleted! I must be on auto delete
( That includes the MH17 thread but finding any floating fragments whether life jackets or otherwise from the wreckage will not after all this time give an indication of the crash location.You are not dealing with just currents and tides but also varying winds over a considerable period of time.
if the Ocean was relatively shallow there might be some small chance of finding static wreckage on the Ocean bed but with the considerable depth and pressure that chance is negligible bar an absolute miracle
Last edited by Pace; 11th Aug 2014 at 16:38.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Invited to speculate - that's got to be 50% of this thread... 
However, look at what happened to the Asiana 777 which hit a sea wall then pirouetted on its nose down the runway then belly flopped back onto the ground. What bits fell off that? The tail cone due to the impact on the sea wall, some undercarriage parts and the engines. The fuselage stayed intact.
So what would happen with a relatively slow and level impact with the water, perhaps following an invented RNAV STAR to an imaginary airport 50 feet above the ocean? I would say the same - the tail may have remained in place without a hard strike but engines may have been lost. But the fuselage could have stayed intact. Engines would have sunk immediately, followed by the fuselage after a few hours. Given 2 - 3 weeks delay what would be still floating? Even if the wings and tail had broken away they may well have sunk. But after floating for 2 weeks or so would be nowhere near the fuselage which itself would not be near the engines which would have sunk close on vertically.
Beach-combing for debris may not be very productive.
However, look at what happened to the Asiana 777 which hit a sea wall then pirouetted on its nose down the runway then belly flopped back onto the ground. What bits fell off that? The tail cone due to the impact on the sea wall, some undercarriage parts and the engines. The fuselage stayed intact.
So what would happen with a relatively slow and level impact with the water, perhaps following an invented RNAV STAR to an imaginary airport 50 feet above the ocean? I would say the same - the tail may have remained in place without a hard strike but engines may have been lost. But the fuselage could have stayed intact. Engines would have sunk immediately, followed by the fuselage after a few hours. Given 2 - 3 weeks delay what would be still floating? Even if the wings and tail had broken away they may well have sunk. But after floating for 2 weeks or so would be nowhere near the fuselage which itself would not be near the engines which would have sunk close on vertically.
Beach-combing for debris may not be very productive.
Pace,
You and I both...
Quote:
"...finding any floating fragments whether life jackets or otherwise from the wreckage will not after all this time give an indication of the crash location."
No, except that if authentic they would indicate the a/c came down in the ocean.
You and I both...
Quote:
"...finding any floating fragments whether life jackets or otherwise from the wreckage will not after all this time give an indication of the crash location."
No, except that if authentic they would indicate the a/c came down in the ocean.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The idea that a debris field was created in the SIO - and yet the world's collective search efforts have yet to identify a single ounce of it - is well beyond the bounds of common sense.
Hey ho, there are none so blind as those that cannot see.
Its not easy to spot wreckage from the air. Hours of staring at white waves wondering if one of them is something more than a wave. Grey clouds, grey seas, and grey aluminium.
If you want to find wreckage at sea, paint the planes fluoro yellow. White and grey are almost camouflage in poor conditions.
And thats before you consider how large the search area is, and the delay before the search started in the Indian ocean.
Its not always easy to even spot ships from the air. There are numerous WW2 examples of planes missing ships (and even convoys) when they must have passed almost overhead. Pilots from the Ark Royal launched torpedoes at the Sheffield when they believed they were attacking the Bismarck.
Im not at all surprised at the lack of wreckage. Maybe if the fuselage had been breached and lots of bright things spilled out. But a few control surfaces or even a couple of wings would be hard to find, even if still afloat at the time people started looking.
If you want to find wreckage at sea, paint the planes fluoro yellow. White and grey are almost camouflage in poor conditions.
And thats before you consider how large the search area is, and the delay before the search started in the Indian ocean.
Its not always easy to even spot ships from the air. There are numerous WW2 examples of planes missing ships (and even convoys) when they must have passed almost overhead. Pilots from the Ark Royal launched torpedoes at the Sheffield when they believed they were attacking the Bismarck.
Im not at all surprised at the lack of wreckage. Maybe if the fuselage had been breached and lots of bright things spilled out. But a few control surfaces or even a couple of wings would be hard to find, even if still afloat at the time people started looking.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please correct me if its wrong, but my understanding is the FOV of a satellite camera will decrease in proportion to its resolution.
Another words you can see a big area but not small things. Or you can read a headline, but only on a small area (for those that can read headlines). Hence to see the small stuff you would have to know where to look.
The ocean and search area is
huge, combined with the fact they didn't get to the "most likely spot until significant time had past means dispersal was even worse.
Another words you can see a big area but not small things. Or you can read a headline, but only on a small area (for those that can read headlines). Hence to see the small stuff you would have to know where to look.
The ocean and search area is
huge, combined with the fact they didn't get to the "most likely spot until significant time had past means dispersal was even worse.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: LSZG
Age: 52
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Swissair 111 had an undetected fire on board which was initially underestimated. When the fire was detected, by following the checklist, and the pilots did exactly follow the procedure, they were finally unable to control the aircraft and died.
I strongly suggest to listen to the ATC/Cockpit voice recordings. They pilots decided, due to the smell of smoke which was not found, to head to Halifax. But they had to dump fuel. By that time, they did not know how catastrophic the fire was under the hood.
Remember that the MD11 was not having all the sophisticated systems as a B777.
MH370 had a small little SATCOM antenna on the side of the aircraft. The ACARS system is connected to two redundant SafetyBuses systems which have a 28V battery powered, aircraft independant power source. Generators, Bat or RAT are not needed to have the system alive.
There is no CB in the cockpit, like in a Boeing 737. You cannot pull it out just like this.
So, for me ot logical what event would stop ACARS to send information, except a big booom, like with TWA800.
I strongly suggest to listen to the ATC/Cockpit voice recordings. They pilots decided, due to the smell of smoke which was not found, to head to Halifax. But they had to dump fuel. By that time, they did not know how catastrophic the fire was under the hood.
Remember that the MD11 was not having all the sophisticated systems as a B777.
MH370 had a small little SATCOM antenna on the side of the aircraft. The ACARS system is connected to two redundant SafetyBuses systems which have a 28V battery powered, aircraft independant power source. Generators, Bat or RAT are not needed to have the system alive.
There is no CB in the cockpit, like in a Boeing 737. You cannot pull it out just like this.
So, for me ot logical what event would stop ACARS to send information, except a big booom, like with TWA800.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: France
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A new Bathymetric Progress Map of the search area just released:
Progress report
And also a revised version of the report about the search area, with new info:
MH370 - Definition of Underwater Search Areas :
Some of the "queries" are in the comments of this page: Blog - Cautious optimism in search for MH370
Progress report
And also a revised version of the report about the search area, with new info:
MH370 - Definition of Underwater Search Areas :
Originally Posted by Update 13 August 2014
Since the public release of the report 'MH370 – Definition of Underwater Search Areas' on 26 June 2014, the ATSB has received a number of queries about some of the technical details contained in the report. The queries have been made directly to the ATSB or through the Chief Commissioner’s blog, InFocus, on the ATSB website.
As a result of the queries, the ATSB is today releasing an updated version of the report to clarify a number of technical aspects. The changes to the report are detailed in the Addendum on the inside cover.
As a result of the queries, the ATSB is today releasing an updated version of the report to clarify a number of technical aspects. The changes to the report are detailed in the Addendum on the inside cover.
Last edited by Shadoko; 14th Aug 2014 at 21:31. Reason: Revised report infos
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: France
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Differences viewed in the "revised version of the report" after a quick look (Old >>> New):
p.02: Jaworkski >>> Jaworski
p.20: Note 16: Complete table of handshake satellite data values provided at appendix X >>> Nothing (there was no appendix X... and it is not in this revised version!). So all subsequent notes are numbered minus 1.
p.32: reference to figure 31 >>> reference to figure 32. It was a typo.
p.56: Table 4 >>> Table 3. There was a mis-numbering.
p.57: Four paragraphes added. From "The reason for the partial compensation..." to "This
combined factor was used to determine the ‘Satellite and EAFC Effect’ in the BFO calculations." Have to be read!
p.58: Tables 5 and 6 modified with one line added which explains why the "Downlink Doppler" was changing with a/c latitude (Table 6):
"Uplink Doppler" and "Downlink Doppler" >>> "Aircraft Doppler (uplink)", "Satellite Doppler (uplink)" and "Satellite Doppler (downlink)"
It appears from this revised version that the "Downlink Doppler" was the sum of the "pure" downlink Doppler (which have to be the same for different position of the a/c) and the Doppler from the velocity of the sat to the a/c (the Doppler from the velocity of the a/c to the sat being computed separately). This answers the question of "many"!
p.02: Jaworkski >>> Jaworski
p.20: Note 16: Complete table of handshake satellite data values provided at appendix X >>> Nothing (there was no appendix X... and it is not in this revised version!). So all subsequent notes are numbered minus 1.
p.32: reference to figure 31 >>> reference to figure 32. It was a typo.
p.56: Table 4 >>> Table 3. There was a mis-numbering.
p.57: Four paragraphes added. From "The reason for the partial compensation..." to "This
combined factor was used to determine the ‘Satellite and EAFC Effect’ in the BFO calculations." Have to be read!
p.58: Tables 5 and 6 modified with one line added which explains why the "Downlink Doppler" was changing with a/c latitude (Table 6):
"Uplink Doppler" and "Downlink Doppler" >>> "Aircraft Doppler (uplink)", "Satellite Doppler (uplink)" and "Satellite Doppler (downlink)"
It appears from this revised version that the "Downlink Doppler" was the sum of the "pure" downlink Doppler (which have to be the same for different position of the a/c) and the Doppler from the velocity of the sat to the a/c (the Doppler from the velocity of the a/c to the sat being computed separately). This answers the question of "many"!
End of flight scenario
Note: Given the imprecise nature of the SATCOM data, it was necessary to make some assumptions regarding pilot control inputs in order to define a search area of a practical size. These assumptions were only made for the purposes of defining a search area and there is no suggestion that the investigation authority will make similar assumptions.
The limited evidence available for MH370 was compared with the accident classes listed previously.
In the case of MH370, there were multiple redundant communications systems fitted to the aircraft (3 x VHF radios, 2 x HF radios, SATCOM system, 2 x ATC transponders). However, no radio communications were received from the aircraft after 1719.29, 7 hours prior to the last SATCOM handshake at 00:19. Analysis of the SATCOM data also showed that there were probably no large changes to the aircraft’s track after approximately 1915, about 5 hours prior to the last SATCOM handshake.
Given these observations, the final stages of the unresponsive crew/ hypoxia event type appeared to best fit the available evidence for the final period of MH370’s flight when it was heading in a generally southerly direction:
Note: Given the imprecise nature of the SATCOM data, it was necessary to make some assumptions regarding pilot control inputs in order to define a search area of a practical size. These assumptions were only made for the purposes of defining a search area and there is no suggestion that the investigation authority will make similar assumptions.
The limited evidence available for MH370 was compared with the accident classes listed previously.
In the case of MH370, there were multiple redundant communications systems fitted to the aircraft (3 x VHF radios, 2 x HF radios, SATCOM system, 2 x ATC transponders). However, no radio communications were received from the aircraft after 1719.29, 7 hours prior to the last SATCOM handshake at 00:19. Analysis of the SATCOM data also showed that there were probably no large changes to the aircraft’s track after approximately 1915, about 5 hours prior to the last SATCOM handshake.
Given these observations, the final stages of the unresponsive crew/ hypoxia event type appeared to best fit the available evidence for the final period of MH370’s flight when it was heading in a generally southerly direction:
Interesting turn of phrase in first paragraph. Obviously it is not the role of ATSB to speculate on possible earlier events. The role of ATSB is locating the plane if possible. The Malaysians are responsible for investigating the psssinlr cause.
Diplomatic protocol would also preclude ATSB from speculating along lines that could embarrass Malaysia.
So ATSB is appropriately not speculating on cause. Yet they had to make some assumptions in order to define the area. Hence the most "neutral" possible hypothesis.
Hopefully the model is not too constrained such that it does not encompass alternative explanations. In particular, the document makes some comments about possible gliding distance if there were control inputs. At 90 odd km, the search areaay not be "wide" enough to cover a controlled glide.
