PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rumours & News (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news-13/)
-   -   Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost.html)

 Dont Hang Up 19th Mar 2014 17:46

Quote:
 Interesting article in the UK Guardian: "What the air traffic controllers knew about how to stop 'flying blind' No matter where it is, the Malaysia Airlines jet suffered from outdated technology. Eyes in the tower saw this coming" "It has come as a shock to the general public to learn that commercial flights aren’t monitored constantly by the high-tech GPS tracking systems we’ve come to expect in our cars and smartphones." MH370: what the air traffic controllers knew about how to stop 'flying blind' | Barbara S Peterson | Comment is free | theguardian.com
Only interesting in its lack of understanding of the distinction between surveillance and navigation.

 DespairingTraveller 19th Mar 2014 17:47

@Token Bird
Quote:
 If we assume that it has not become stationary, but has continued to fly but has been present on the same arc at both 07:11 and 08:11, can we make the maths work if we know the changing direction of the southern arc if we follow it south and we assume that the aircraft is flying on a constant track? IE. Where would they have converged, as it were? Or would that not have occurred at all?
You'd have to make an assumption about its speed - strictly its ground speed, since the arcs are defined relative to a point in space fixed relative to the Earth's surface (the IOR satellite's geostationary position) . If you did that, then there'd only be one heading that could link any two points on the arc. But since you don't know where the first point is, it doesn't help find the second.

Really you need to start from a known position - last radar plot, for example - and then work out a tree of possible locations each hour from knowing which "arcs" it was on each hour, what airspeed it might have maintained and factoring in winds aloft etc. Horribly complicated and error-prone, but I imagine that there have been clever, well-informed, people doing that for days. It may be how the NTSB tracks on the Aussie search area maps were derived, I suppose.

 philip2412 19th Mar 2014 17:48

DX Wombat

That`s right,but yo can`t compare the ressources used then with MH 370.They always searched in the wrong place.

 FlyingOfficerKite 19th Mar 2014 17:50

Pontius Navigator

Understood!

That Post by a 777 Captain was interesting ... and he ended with it being a mystery!

It's now 1650Z on 19 March 2014 - where are those people and (hopefully) what are they doing as I Post this?!

That's the important issue!

 smiling monkey 19th Mar 2014 17:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornbill88 (Post 8387986)
Quote:
 Quote: What baffles me the most is the fact that tangible data has not yet been released on dispatched fuel load. I would imagine that such a piece would be absolutely vital to an investigation focusing on range capabilities and potential routing. 'Released' to whom, the paparazzi? What are they going to do with it? They don't even know [expected] what questions to ask.
Quite right, Cory Blade.

And in any case the CEO of MAS did answer this question a day or two ago.

The Avherald did report that the flight had the standard amount of fuel on board with the normal contingencies and reserves.

 Dont Hang Up 19th Mar 2014 17:57

Quote:

Quote:
 @Token Bird Quote: If we assume that it has not become stationary, but has continued to fly but has been present on the same arc at both 07:11 and 08:11, can we make the maths work if we know the changing direction of the southern arc if we follow it south and we assume that the aircraft is flying on a constant track? IE. Where would they have converged, as it were? Or would that not have occurred at all?
You'd have to make an assumption about its speed - strictly its ground speed, since the arcs are defined relative to a point in space fixed relative to the Earth's surface (the IOR satellite's geostationary position) . If you did that, then there'd only be one heading that could link any two points on the arc. But since you don't know where the first point is, it doesn't help find the second.

Really you need to start from a known position - last radar plot, for example - and then work out a tree of possible locations each hour from knowing which "arcs" it was on each hour, what airspeed it might have maintained and factoring in winds aloft etc. Horribly complicated and error-prone, but I imagine that there have been clever, well-informed, people doing that for days. It may be how the NTSB tracks on the Aussie search area maps were derived, I suppose.
Any attempt at calculating movement is meaningless unless you know the tolerance of the ping-ranging in the first place. The maths just doesn't work. However as a general rule, the chances of being the same range from the satellite after one hour of flying... Well it's possible but one heck of a coincidence.

 Lost in Saigon 19th Mar 2014 17:58

Quote:
 Originally Posted by smiling monkey (Post 8388113) The Avherald did report that the flight had the standard amount of fuel on board with the normal contingencies and reserves.
Normal fuel at departure means at 08:11 the fuel was nearly exhausted. Therefore anything that happened after 08:11 was totally unplanned.

No Hijacker or suicidal pilot would let the fuel run down that low because it means you were no longer able to control the outcome.

 Yancey Slide 19th Mar 2014 18:03

bono:
Quote:
 British Airways Flight 9, sometimes referred to by its callsign Speedbird 9 or as the Jakarta incident,[1] was a scheduled British Airways flight from London Heathrow to Auckland, with stops in Bombay, Madras, Kuala Lumpur, Perth, and Melbourne. On 24 June 1982, the route was flown by the City of Edinburgh, a 747-236B. The aircraft flew into a cloud of volcanic ash thrown up by the eruption of Mount Galunggung (approximately 180 kilometres (110 mi) south-east of Jakarta, Indonesia), resulting in the failure of all four engines. The reason for the failure was not immediately apparent to the crew or ground control. The aircraft was diverted to Jakarta in the hope that enough engines could be restarted to allow it to land there. The aircraft was able to glide far enough to exit the ash cloud, and all engines were restarted (although one failed again soon after), allowing the aircraft to land safely at the Halim Perdanakusuma Airport in Jakarta.
Are you saying that they climbed on 0 engines to gain altitude and energy?
Are you saying that a 777 at cruise altitude climbs on the 1 remaining engine like the talking head on CNN?

 island_airphoto 19th Mar 2014 18:07

Why no ELT? Because no one took it out of the airplane and put it in the water.

Re the Guardian: 101 different tracking systems do nothing when they are turned off :ugh:

 Sqwak7700 19th Mar 2014 18:08

Quote:
 No Hijacker or suicidal pilot would let the fuel run down that low because it means you were no longer able to control the outcome.
You should take a look at Ethiopian 961:

Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 memories of px 19th Mar 2014 18:10

route 2

he might have activated route 2, more likely he wanted to go to a particular
waypoint, having entered the name, if there was more than one in the world it would have shown the lat/long of each one, or if it was a navaid, he may have just chosen the wrong one. another possibility is that he wanted to descend to fl270 and put it in the heading window by mistake, all possibly under the influence of hypoxia.
if the aircraft was in vnav path it would keep its altitude until the engines failed, speed would reduce to 10 ten knots above min clean speed and then default to speed priority and commence a descent, all stable.

 Lost in Saigon 19th Mar 2014 18:10

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mike757007 (Post 8388141) Question ? Assuming the aircraft flew on without human input until it ran out of fuel. When it hit the sea, would the aircraft fuselage stay intact, or would it disintegrate creating lots of surface wreckage ?
I would expect lots of surface wreckage.

Even if “Sully” Sullenberger tried to land a B777 at night on ocean swells I would expect lots of surface wreckage.

 memories of px 19th Mar 2014 18:13

engine out

it certainly wouldnt climb on one engine, the engine out altitude would be around 22,000 ft, so if on one engine it would have to go down.

 Lost in Saigon 19th Mar 2014 18:14

Quote:
 No Hijacker or suicidal pilot would let the fuel run down that low because it means you were no longer able to control the outcome.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Sqwak7700 (Post 8388144) You should take a look at Ethiopian 961: Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Okay, you got me there....

Let me rephrase that....

No INTELLIGENT Hijacker or suicidal pilot would let the fuel run down that low because it means you were no longer able to control the outcome.

Quote:
 The hijackers demanded the plane to be flown to Australia;[4][11] as they had been reading the in-flight magazine stating that the 767 could make the trip on a full tank and the plane had been refueled at its last stopover as well as the maximum flying time of the airplane. Leul tried to explain they had only taken on the fuel needed for the scheduled flight and thus could not even make a quarter of the journey, but the hijackers did not believe him.[10]

 Lonewolf_50 19th Mar 2014 18:17

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Evanelpus (Post 8388037) Anyone else seen this yet? Pieces of aircraft found floating on Andhra coast? : South, News - India Today
FWIW, currents in the Bay of Bengal are mostly clockwise this time of year. The two links below have info for those interested as it may relate to a search, either by the Indian Navy or others, should this report bear fruit.

Bay of Bengal
http://www.ipcbee.com/vol32/008-ICESE2012-D026.pdf

I could have sworn that tvasquez had posted some surface current info previously in this thread, but I can't find it. :confused:

 Yancey Slide 19th Mar 2014 18:18

Quote:
 it certainly wouldnt climb on one engine, the engine out altitude would be around 22,000 ft, so if on one engine it would have to go down.
I know that, you know that.....

 G0ULI 19th Mar 2014 18:18

Having read all the posts on this thread and followed this incident closely since it happened, I conclude that the Malaysian authorities and others have been transparent in releasing information. The problem is that every snippet of information has been challenged, twisted and analysed to death on this forum. The fuel load of the aircraft, Inmarsat pings, acars inoperative, flight crew and pilots, everything that has been issued has been challenged and more information demanded.

This incident started with the authorities completely in the dark, just like the rest of us. As the investigation has progressed quite a lot of information has been released or established from other sources. Can we just try an accept that the information supplied to date is the best that the authorities have, or are prepared to share at this stage of the investigation.

It is pointless being supplied with the most accurate data available and then speculating what would have happened if the data was different.

I know from working in the Far East that when pushed people tend to give you the answer they think you want to hear, rather than admit they don't know, but in these unprecedented circumstances I think that the authorities are doing their best to conform to Western expectations of transparency and accuracy.

So can we give them a break and confine the speculation to what is officially known and just accept that some information is not going to be made available.

 FlyingOfficerKite 19th Mar 2014 18:18

Quote:
 No Hijacker or suicidal pilot would let the fuel run down that low because it means you were no longer able to control the outcome.
Yes, it's all about control on your terms.

I don't think any pilot suicide has been planned technically in this manner or been extended to a 'no fuel' situation - more a take control, point the nose down and go scenario.

 Pontius Navigator 19th Mar 2014 18:22

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mike757007 (Post 8388141) Question ? Assuming the aircraft flew on without human input until it ran out of fuel. When it hit the sea, would the aircraft fuselage stay intact, or would it disintegrate creating lots of surface wreckage ?
As with everything else here, it depends.

There have been several recorded instances of aircraft making soft landings without human intervention. Admittedly the ones I know of were military jets where the crew had banged out, but there is no reason to suppose that the aircraft may have made a very shallow descent, alighted and remained intact.

Had this been the case, and passengers were not previously incapacitated, then there would be no reason why life rafts and slides were not deployed.

 MrFixer!!! 19th Mar 2014 18:27

777 Fire

In addition to looking at all aspects, lets not forget 777s have had fires breaking out in wiring due to unexplained reasons!!

One very fine example was Egyptair 777-200, luckily it happened on ground Accident: Egyptair B772 at Cairo on Jul 29th 2011, cockpit fire

and if something similar happened to MH370, we all know how limited options crew had???

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:23.

© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1