|
Pax
Quote:
something about a Flight Engineer as a PAX on board the aircraft? any one else heard about this? -early article in WSJ indicated a Malaysian aircraft engineer aboard -did not indicate whether Pax or crew |
It was clarified at the press conference today, that they do not know when the ACARS was turn off/stopped. They only know that the last transmission was at 17.07 and that the next transmission expected 17.37 never happened. |
It was clarified at the press conference today, that they do not know when the ACARS was turn off/stopped. They only know that the last transmission was at 17.07 and that the next transmission expected 17.37 never happened.
We have three phases of the flight: 1) The known part which took MH370 to IGARI. Around 17.20 we had the last voice comm and transponder stopped. Last ACARS was 17.07 and next expected ACARS was 17.37. So all three types of transmission could have stooped/been disabled at the same time due to human action or technical malfunction. 2) The primary radar part where the flight is seen tracking towards VAMPI/GILVA/IGREX. We know little about that track. Important is if the aircraft could be seen to be manoeuvring in a way indicating humans controlling the flight path. 3) The 'dark' part where MH370 is travelling to its faith on the 40 dgr arc north or south. This could either have been under control of humans as intended by pilots/hijackers OR just a continuation of whatever was programmed at some stage before loss of control (HELIOS style). Remember that what happened may not be what hijackers intended or the pilots tried to accomplish in an attempt to save the aircraft. |
I think since every second post is about the pings, we need to put that into perspective.
Firstly its very clever and definitely a line of enquiring worth persuing, however it must still be treated with caution, there are some assumptions made just the same as in any other theory. Firstly the ping is literally just that a ping, it has no identifiable data with it. Its purpose is purely to check a devices readiness it is not limited to just aircraft satcom systems. The assumptions that have been made in this particular case is that MH370 satcom unit has pinged one hour after its last transmission or acars shutdown and that MH370 was in fact the unidentified military radar target in the malacca strait at the time of the ping. If the assumptions are correct then we listen out for each hourly ping. If on the other hand the assumptions are not for example the ping came from another source say SQ68 bound for Barcelona, then that line of enquiry ends right there. The 0811 ping is the last one received at the expected time, not necessarily the only ping received that could be from MH370 because the next expected time would be beyond the time that the satcom could possibly be powered. (fuel) The difficulty is that as the hours tick by the probability of a ping at the expected time becomes more likely that it could be from a different source, particularly towards Europe on the northern arc as aircraft and satcom units start powering up for their days work. I hope this puts the satcom ping back into perspective. |
Can Pings give more accurate data ie a constant Track
Originally Posted by oldoberon
(Post 8381788)
About 8 pages back EPPo posted today's update and says they had 6 pings that is basically 1 an hour after falling of milrad.
Please follow me through this. If you look at the map by Volcanicash page 203 #4043 ( http://s8.postimg.org/ye87yekz9/isat.jpg ) Counting back that is 40, 45,50,55,60 65. He clearly could not have gotten that close to the centre of the elevation rings ,and still get to those final arcs, so he must have flown at tangent to them, My best guess is 1st ping 45 - west bound from final radar loss point 2nd ping 50 still west ish bound 3rd ping 55 still west ish bound he then turns NW or SW 4th ping 50 5th ping 45 6th ping 40 and ended up on the north or south arc. But there was a rush to the north (Andam sea) why? Finally if you look at this link from Vinnie_boombatz p201 #4011 http://telecom.esa.int/telecom/media...-Obj4-hres.jpg It shows the beaming arrangement of the I-4 series inmarsats (3 cover the world), there is wide beam (the whole area), a number of regional beams and finally the narrow beams. ( used I-3 diag for explanation purpose only) To my knowledge the signals were picked up by the old I-3 sats which use 4 to cover the world and only have wide and regional beams. As I understand the workings of the system the sat send a "hello anyone there" signal using the wide beam and if a reply is received it calculates the best regional beam to use transmits back to the response using the regional beam. Sat engineers pls confirm/correct. The point of this post is to ask an expert if it can do that why don't we know a more accurate position ie a shorter arc based on the regional beam. CAN PINGS GIVE CONFIRMATION OD A CONSTANT HDG ( not the actual hdg) The following assumes the rings shown are just the five degree rings for clarity ie they not fixed aerials on the satellite but dependent on aircraft position and all others are possible ie 51,52,53,53 etc If you used this speed and assumed at any previous ping the aircraft crossed 1st ring at 90 deg, then you can calculate at which ring the next ping should occur at, if it is less than this radius , you should be able to using this difference calculate the angle at which he crossed the second ring to give this reduced distance ( ie actual distance traveled is the same but not at 90 deg to 2nd ring. If following pings show the same ring spacing he is on a constant track. You will not know where on the arc he crossed it or the hdg. If plane on a constant track I would suspect heading south because north would certainly end up with a contact on radar unless evasive action taken. Any maths folk out there who can confirm this is a valid idea. |
FE Hoppy
I've re-read your posts. How big a circle are you talking about? Enough to 'lose' a bit of time until MH370 could get close enough to another airliner, for example SIA68, to 'shadow'? To use this unsuspecting 'host' to mask MH370's transit through SSR, Primary & Procedural airspace? It's feasible but isn't it all a bit too 'James Bond'? |
As an IT professional I have been wondering about the following the last few days. We all have seen tomnod publishing DigitalGlobe maps where users can search for the plane. Wouldn't it be possible for someone smarter than me to come up with an algorithm to scan all the satellite imagery from DigitalGlobe to eliminate big parts of the ocean in the search operation. Water has a characteristic pattern / color and I'm sure an algorithm could be developed to search for patterns out of the ordinary (floating debris). Then these hits could be checked by specialists or even through crowdsourcing. The best you can hope for in that area is that, seeing as they are in the business of analysing satellite images for people trying to hide stuff, the intelligence agencies already have such an algorithm already in-use and that their masters may permit them to use it for this purpose to see what they can come up with (obviously findings would never be publicly released for obvious reasons, but would be passed in some obfuscated form to the nations taking part in the SAR). But I suspect satellite resources in that part of the world may be busy elsewhere... and they'd need a lot of fresh imagery becasue of the vast search area of seas + some landmass. As for "crowdsourcing" don't make me laugh. Tomnod is no more than marketing PR excercise for its owners. Have you seen the sort of nonsense the "crowdsourcing" community have been highlighting on the images ? People with no SAR and no satellite imagery analysis experience are not going to come up with anything of remote use. |
"Flight Engineer"
The police have been looking into the background of this so-called flight engineer travelling as pax and it seems he has been employed as an engineer by a business jet outfit, for what itīs worth.
As an engineer specialising in executive jets, Khairul would not necessarily have all the knowledge needed to divert and fly a large jetliner. Khairul had said he worked for a Swiss-based jet charter firm called Execujet Aviation Group, but the company declined to say whether it still employed him. In a picture posted on Khairul's Facebook account in 2011, he identified himself as an employee of Execujet's Malaysian operations. |
My first post and sorry I haven't read all previous.
I was wondering is it possible the signals from MH370 could be replicated by another party on another aircraft while 370 diverts to wherever it is now. I remember getting a Tcas RA ONCE due to a person on the ground calibrating a transponder, to us it looked like an aircraft was coming up from beneath at a very fast pace and we got an RA but there was nothing there. Equipment could be used to show it went to 45,000 when it actually didn't or that the signal was a decoy. |
Xeptu I understood even a basic ping containing the embedded code for the aircraft frame number.
Also if SQ68 (and assuming SIA use satconm for acars) that would definitely identify it as SQ68 |
Originally Posted by overthewing
(Post 8383080)
I believe what he's saying is that MH370, with transponder off, is invisible to any other TCAS system switched on nearby. However, MH370 could still have TCAS switched on, and detect any a/c nearby with its transponder working. His TCAS theory holds water, it seems to me.
|
I think since every second post is about the pings, we need to put that into perspective. Firstly its very clever and definitely a line of enquiring worth persuing, however it must still be treated with caution, there are some assumptions made just the same as in any other theory. Firstly the ping is literally just that a ping, it has no identifiable data with it. Its purpose is purely to check a devices readiness it is not limited to just aircraft satcom systems. The assumptions that have been made in this particular case is that MH370 satcom unit has pinged one hour after its last transmission or acars shutdown and that MH370 was in fact the unidentified military radar target in the malacca strait at the time of the ping. If the assumptions are correct then we listen out for each hourly ping. If on the other hand the assumptions are not for example the ping came from another source say SQ68 bound for Barcelona, then that line of enquiry ends right there. Help from above: Satellite signals can confirm a plane's identity - CNN.com |
@ ALL THE PRESS
There is a distinction between an aircraft engineer and a Flight Engineer. Please use the correct term. Regards FE |
Originally Posted by Yancey Slide
(Post 8383028)
PMDG has said this is not correct.
PMDG Simulations Comments on the loss of MH 370 - PMDG General Forum - The AVSIM Community |
overthewing,
It's an interesting theory. It may have already been covered, but if MH370 was at FL295, behind another heavy at FL300, how would that work in respect of wake vortex, which descends and spreads laterally behind the leading aircraft? |
4. If this was a case of cabin depressurization, and resulting hypoxia, then the aircraft would not have been able to be turned around to another flight path? With complete unconsciousness and death following some time later for everyone on board, the aircraft just flew on this southerly track until it's fuel ran out, shortly after it gave its last ping, at which point it was positioned on the southern arc. In other words, could this still possibly be just a terrible accident? No suicides, no hijackers, no nefarious goings on of any kind? |
As an "IT Professional" you should know better ! Exactly how long do you think its going to take someone (or rather, as you well know, a number of someones... known as developers !) to (a) come up with a viable algorithm (b) code it (c) test and debug it ........ seriously man ! Its a non-starter of a hairbrained idea to think someone would expend so much resource ! There are some simple algorithms as a simple sysadmin that I can think of off the top of my head, that no doubt the sorts of people who work in image analysis and geo-mapping software could probably easily do: 1. Simple divide and conquer - take large areas of ocean, divide into uniform sections. In a parallel process apply a simple averaging of each section to reject any that are all ocean or all cloud. Feed the remaining images up for crowd sourcing in the manner tomnod are. I would not be surprised if they are not doing this already. 2. Same process, but use edge detection (as mentioned above) to find interesting sections and feed them up for more analysis. There are probably more advanced methods that could be used to identify shapes or eliminate other noise, but the above could certainly cut down the workload and its hardly a difficult thing to do with an elastic platform like Amazon or the sorts of environments Google and Facebook have at their disposal. I think its a bit naive to outright reject something that is quite technically feasible and hardly difficult for someone used to working with this sorts of technology. Especially at the sorts of places that deal with satellite imagery day in day out. |
Apparently the last r/t, the "good night", was made by the FO.
Not that that piece of information will help a lot, but it's more interesting than knowing an alleged bizjet mechanic was on board. Obviously every pax is getting thoroughly scrutinized, and the media will jump on everyone with an aviation background, in the absence of other news. No need to discuss that here... |
FE Hoppy said:
There is some confusion now over the gap in the middle as the explanation given at todays press briefing is what we would call "bobbins" in my part of the world. http://s28.postimg.org/bjjshx7q5/MH370_Mar17.jpg As others have suggested, clearly there are circular/zig-zag paths that could leave you on the red line inside the minimum range circle - but there may be other data (including earlier "pings") that allow this possibility to be discounted. Perhaps one of the watching media reps will ask about this at (or before) tomorrow's press briefing. |
The current 'official' operational theory is this plane was, for lack of a better word, 'stolen' by person or persons unknown who knew what they were doing (disable transponder, ACARS, etc., took flight path to avoid radar detection) and who had meticulously planned the operation in advance. A turn west from/after IGARI was entered into the active flight plan in the FMS; this is known as the last ACARS report indicated this waypoint change event.
So, how come the highly knowledgeable careful planning 'perp(s)' left this big fat clue? -yes, perhaps the were unaware ACARS would report a waypoint change event however if one has carefully planned this type of operation one would certainly not do anything out of the ordinary before disabling ACARS. So, again the Q |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:07. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.