Flaperon washes up on Reunion Island
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ELTs have a close on 100% failure record which the industry seems to have willingly accepted
In any case, there was a major study a few years ago that found ELT had a 75% activation success rate (not submerged).
And per SAR data the average search time for GPS equipped ELTs was something like 2 hours.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: UK
Age: 61
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"someone who had been doing regular practice at landings at sea level in the Indian Ocean on his home 777 sim? "
What is the difference between landings at sea level in the Indian Ocean and landings anywhere else? Landing with both engines flamed out may make difference. Did he practice those?
What is the difference between landings at sea level in the Indian Ocean and landings anywhere else? Landing with both engines flamed out may make difference. Did he practice those?
Not necessarily, French may never confirm nor deny it, if they are looking for serial numbers, etc. and there are none then what remains is just a conjecture or best guess. Actually Australians stated very carefully "in all probability this flapperon .... ", they may never be any 100% positive proof. Unless you believe that someone on purpose put this piece there on the beach 99.99% is good enough and this is exactly what Australians (and Malaysian PM) are saying.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have thought this particular type of item is not regarded as a consumable in the logistic chain.
As such even without serial numbers they should be able to tie down all the ones manufactured, and hence where they are in the logistics chain. Whether they be in stock somewhere, or flying around.
Another words Boeing has manufactured x and we have accounted for Y. If they are short the number on the aircraft only, then clearly its what we are looking for. Collating that data may take a bit hence its possible to be a bit coy until that has been done.
As such even without serial numbers they should be able to tie down all the ones manufactured, and hence where they are in the logistics chain. Whether they be in stock somewhere, or flying around.
Another words Boeing has manufactured x and we have accounted for Y. If they are short the number on the aircraft only, then clearly its what we are looking for. Collating that data may take a bit hence its possible to be a bit coy until that has been done.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Near St Lawrence River
Age: 53
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontius N
Sorry for late answer, I login only several minutes in the evenings. I read your deleted post and I agree with you about sound imagine shadow. But, if you look closely to the darken tones, especially at ``the engine`` on the left side of the imagine below, you can say that the projector was scanning from N-W of the imagine. If all darken areas are only shadow, then it seems that there are 2 shadows. However, if it`s an engine, the nozzle is in the shadow of the larger diameter anyway. I saw the most darken area as the nozzle and the bottom side as the nozzle shadow, but of course these are just personal suppositions.
thcrozier,
See scale in imagine below
http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/...ane-330856.jpg
Curious that Phoenix can postulate that the images, based on colour, is acceptable but two posts pointing out that these are SOUND images from which you cannot deduce color, and that the dark patches are SOUND shadows were both deleted.
thcrozier,
See scale in imagine below
http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/...ane-330856.jpg
Last edited by _Phoenix; 14th Aug 2015 at 01:03.
rh200: Agreed. Having worked in aerospace and defense/defence manufacturing for over 18 years, I can certainly see how things can be difficult to track down and verify. Data mining in these industries is always a "joy". We'll see how all pans out in the long run.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
crHedBngr
I worked in the UK defence electronics sector as a design engineer for many years in the '70s and the documentation was excellent. After one failure in service it was my job to find out what happened to the fully-encapsulated module that had failed and try to get the data out. QA gave me the history card and provided documentation for all components used. I found that a batch of components supplied had been incorrectly marked by the manufacturer. Maybe standards are lower today?
Having worked in aerospace and defense/defence manufacturing for over 18 years, I can certainly see how things can be difficult to track down and verify. Data mining in these industries is always a "joy". We'll see how all pans out in the long run.
I would have thought this particular type of item is not regarded as a consumable in the logistic chain.
As such even without serial numbers they should be able to tie down all the ones manufactured, and hence where they are in the logistics chain. Whether they be in stock somewhere, or flying around.
Another words Boeing has manufactured x and we have accounted for Y. If they are short the number on the aircraft only, then clearly its what we are looking for. Collating that data may take a bit hence its possible to be a bit coy until that has been done.
As such even without serial numbers they should be able to tie down all the ones manufactured, and hence where they are in the logistics chain. Whether they be in stock somewhere, or flying around.
Another words Boeing has manufactured x and we have accounted for Y. If they are short the number on the aircraft only, then clearly its what we are looking for. Collating that data may take a bit hence its possible to be a bit coy until that has been done.
I do find it somewhat surprising that there are not serial numbers on the constituent parts of the found flaperon; although from my own experience, I'm aware that not every aerospace company's traceability is as good as a quality controller (or accident investigator) may wish. Often traceability to a specific batch is deemed sufficient.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/corr...he-record.aspx
Incorrect media reporting of MH370 sonar contacts
13 August 2015
Recent articles suggesting that sonar images gathered during the underwater search for MH370 could be aircraft debris are incorrect.
The sonar contacts mentioned in the articles are old ones that were already assessed and discounted months ago.
As well, the articles incorrectly describe ‘Category 3’ sonar contacts as being the most likely to be aircraft debris. In fact, they are the least likely to be aircraft debris. Category 3 is assigned to sonar contacts that are of some interest as they stand out from their surroundings but have low probability of being significant to the search. The underwater search so far has identified more than 400 seabed features that have been classified as Category 3.
Read more about the classification of sonar contacts.
Last edited by training wheels; 14th Aug 2015 at 14:16.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Accounting for the flaperons which are currently fitted to aircraft currently is the easy bit. There will no doubt be many test specimens, manufacturing rejects, flown but replaced components, exhibition display components, the list goes on. Accounting for the current wherebouts or full destruction of each will be a painstaking task.
We hard last week from the Malaysians (as supported by the Australian JACC) that a maintenance seal on the flaperon matches MAS records.
Is that irrefutable, 100% proof that the flaperon came from MH370? No.
However, other explanations are now very unlikely and mostly in the realm of conspiracy theories. E.g., some Chinese family members have accused Malaysia of perhaps faking / manufacturing evidence related to the flaperon in some sort of bizarre bid to avoid responsibility.
I agree with the Australians that at this point "in all probability" the flaperon came from MH370.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ian W
"It only takes one person to 'ditch' a 777 - perhaps someone who had been doing regular practice at landings at sea level in the Indian Ocean on his home 777 sim?
If that one person wanted to 'go down with the ship' there would be no life rafts etc.
ELTs have a close on 100% failure record which the industry seems to have willingly accepted."
Why would someone train themselves to kill all their pax, carry out a survivable ditching and then "go down with the ship"? That hypothesis makes no sense at all.
"It only takes one person to 'ditch' a 777 - perhaps someone who had been doing regular practice at landings at sea level in the Indian Ocean on his home 777 sim?
If that one person wanted to 'go down with the ship' there would be no life rafts etc.
ELTs have a close on 100% failure record which the industry seems to have willingly accepted."
Why would someone train themselves to kill all their pax, carry out a survivable ditching and then "go down with the ship"? That hypothesis makes no sense at all.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I twice visited a Rescue Coordination Centre, and there is no doubt that ELTs, PLBs, and EPIRBs work, luckily 90% are false alarms. Yet they've saved many lives. Late at night, after a few cold ones , I wonder if they could be improved, I'm imagining an ELT that gets "armed" in cruise, autonomously detects unusual bank angles, AOA, ground speed, sink rates, or combinations thereof (can be done with cheap gyros and GPS), and that can separate itself from an airframe and parachute to the surface of the earth, preferably with a copy of voice and flight recorder data. And then I think, it's not going to happen because it's a solution for a very rare problem, and certification costs would be prohibitive
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ELTs have a close on 100% failure record which the industry seems to have willingly accepted."
For starters they will only be successful when activated above a non conductive medium (not submerged in water).
And what about some examples? Are the cases that they supposedly didn't work, accidents where they met the technical requirements for the ELT to activate? Another words did the ELT perform to the technical standards, its just that the standards trigger points aren't correct?
If the ELT perform to the standards, then its not their fault.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@deptrai
Those systems already exist and certified, for decades!
They are known by various names such as Crash Position Indicators (CPI), Deployable Flight Incident Recorder Set (DFIRS) or Automatically Deployable ELT (ADELT).
Modern versions do combine CVR and FDR data along with locating capability. They are primarily used on military aircraft but are also common on civilian helicopters operating long distances over water or at remote locations.
Older designs did use parachutes although most nowadays rely on the ability to withstand impact at terminal speed.
They usually have multiple crash sensors and will automatically release when detecting large g-forces, deformation of frangible sensors, submersion in water, etc. Most can also deployed manually.
Here's a version from the 1970s:
IEEE Canada - The Crash Position Indicator
Story about a recovered F-18 DFIRS:
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/s...e-home”/
I'm imagining an ELT that gets "armed" in cruise, autonomously detects unusual bank angles, AOA, ground speed, sink rates, or combinations thereof (can be done with cheap gyros and GPS), and that can separate itself from an airframe and parachute to the surface of the earth, preferably with a copy of voice and flight recorder data.
They are known by various names such as Crash Position Indicators (CPI), Deployable Flight Incident Recorder Set (DFIRS) or Automatically Deployable ELT (ADELT).
Modern versions do combine CVR and FDR data along with locating capability. They are primarily used on military aircraft but are also common on civilian helicopters operating long distances over water or at remote locations.
Older designs did use parachutes although most nowadays rely on the ability to withstand impact at terminal speed.
They usually have multiple crash sensors and will automatically release when detecting large g-forces, deformation of frangible sensors, submersion in water, etc. Most can also deployed manually.
Here's a version from the 1970s:
IEEE Canada - The Crash Position Indicator
Story about a recovered F-18 DFIRS:
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/s...e-home”/
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a lot of room to improve the ELT. The Frugal Flier link Pontius provided is quite interesting- $559 for a modern 406 MHz ACK Technologies E-04 with GPS input. It's an amazing value, compared to the past. However, compare it with a SPOT beacon, which is about $150, has a built-in GPS and also leaves a breadcrumb trail, in addition to being able to send a distress signal, and other messages. If there is an accident, and the SPOT doesn't send a distress signal, say because it crashed into the S. Indian Ocean, the breadcrumbs would provide a speed, heading, and last known position to search from. Sounds like a transponder, doesn't it? Only it's not limited to areas with secondary radar coverage. Adapting the Personal Locator Beacon technology to avionics could solve a lot of problems.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@deptrai
Part of the reason: Boeing, Airbus square off over ejectable black boxes that float | The Seattle Times
@PrivtPilotRadarTech
I like the SPOT (used it on a year-long motorcycle trip across the Americas). But many airliners already have systems much more sophisticated than the SPOT. That's not really the issue.
The real question is: should the pilot or others onboard be able to disable such equipment? What if the system is malfunctioning, short circuits / catches on fire, etc?
If the pilot can disable the equipment, for possible safety reasons -- e.g., by pulling a circuit breaker -- then it might not help with cases like MH370 anyhow.
Part of the reason: Boeing, Airbus square off over ejectable black boxes that float | The Seattle Times
@PrivtPilotRadarTech
I like the SPOT (used it on a year-long motorcycle trip across the Americas). But many airliners already have systems much more sophisticated than the SPOT. That's not really the issue.
The real question is: should the pilot or others onboard be able to disable such equipment? What if the system is malfunctioning, short circuits / catches on fire, etc?
If the pilot can disable the equipment, for possible safety reasons -- e.g., by pulling a circuit breaker -- then it might not help with cases like MH370 anyhow.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Arizona
Age: 76
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ELT's are not good, and not the solution for Air Transport
I've been involved in tracking down ELT's for 30 years. In my opinion, they are mostly junk. All but one that I found was a false alarm - usually triggered by a mechanic, or by being thrown in a drawer at home by a careless aircraft owner (the latter leads to some interesting 3AM visits, BTW). In the past week here in Arizona, there have been 5 false ELT alerts that I am aware of, and every one was in an aircraft junk yard. There have been saves due to ELT's, and the ELT's are more likely to work in an event where there are survivors.
In many SAR events for missing aircraft, we find the aircraft but the ELT did not go off or was destroyed. Often the coax from the antenna to the ELT is cut.
In the vast majority of these events, this doesn't result in a failed rescue, as the passengers are deceased due to the same forces that destroyed the ELT or coax. But, it does result in hundreds to thousands of man hours and aircraft hours, many of the hazardous due to mountainous terrain. As we have seen with MH-370, a missing aircraft can cost a lot of money and time, and puts searchers at risk, not to mention the heartbreak for the families.
ELT's could be better, and suggestions here have addressed a number of the issues. For air transport, though, I think the best solution is near-real-time tracking. That avoids the ELT issue and solves the problem. It should not be too expensive, these days - the technology is just not that hard (I speak as an engineer).
In many SAR events for missing aircraft, we find the aircraft but the ELT did not go off or was destroyed. Often the coax from the antenna to the ELT is cut.
In the vast majority of these events, this doesn't result in a failed rescue, as the passengers are deceased due to the same forces that destroyed the ELT or coax. But, it does result in hundreds to thousands of man hours and aircraft hours, many of the hazardous due to mountainous terrain. As we have seen with MH-370, a missing aircraft can cost a lot of money and time, and puts searchers at risk, not to mention the heartbreak for the families.
ELT's could be better, and suggestions here have addressed a number of the issues. For air transport, though, I think the best solution is near-real-time tracking. That avoids the ELT issue and solves the problem. It should not be too expensive, these days - the technology is just not that hard (I speak as an engineer).
We hard last week from the Malaysians (as supported by the Australian JACC) that a maintenance seal on the flaperon matches MAS records.
Do they mean the lead seals sometimes used on locking wire or perhaps the red tell tale paint mark on a stiffnut? Just curious.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peekay4, I believe that the issue of someone disabling these devices can be addressed in a way that satisfies legitimate concerns. Something like the SPOT is so small and low power that backpackers carry them. They are like a cell phone, or a hand held GPS. Aircraft have hundreds of those aboard, none of which can be turned off from the cockpit. So I don't see any need to be able to disable them.
However, for the lunatic fringe, sure, you can turn any EPIRB off- but it will trigger the backups to report an emergency. That's a very simple concept. It should be possible to do whatever is legitimately necessary, but commercial aircraft should never disappear. That's crazy.
However, for the lunatic fringe, sure, you can turn any EPIRB off- but it will trigger the backups to report an emergency. That's a very simple concept. It should be possible to do whatever is legitimately necessary, but commercial aircraft should never disappear. That's crazy.