"comms going awol at ATC handover point is too much of a coincidence"



I think this "coincidence" is why many think whatever led to the disappearance was on purpose. Whether it was or not, it seems the cause modern airliner crashes is often a series of unfortunate coincidences. Otherwise, they'd be no crash. Mechanical, human, and/or weather, coincidences are the holes in the proverbial Swiss cheese.

re: Interesting Sat Orbit Analysis
 

Yes, there is a difference between geosynchronous and geostationary satellites. As stated, geostationary satellites are not "stationary" with respect to their designated longitude over the equator, they wander around a bit. There are defined international standards which define how far a satellite can wander - for example, this is needed so as to maintain proper separation between satellite TV services on the same frequencies. Even though satellites on the same frequency in adjacent orbital slots have orthogonal polarizations to reduce interference, a strong enough signal from a wandering satellite would cause cross-polarization interference. So, typically, a geostationary satellite is one which stays within its prescribed box. Depending upon the mission, other satellites are geosynchronous - are intentionally flown in an elliptic orbit, but cross the equator at the same longitude at the same time every day.

The people who work the orbital mechanics for these satellites are no slouches - in fact, they are some of the best mathematicians and near earth physicists I know. I have heard stories of them flying a geosynchronous satellite for years after its gas supply ran out by surfing the solar wind and taking into account the earth and moon gravitational effects. True, they didn't have to keep it in a box, but they did maintain mission. They are truly amazing people, and very dedicated. So I believe Duncan Steel can sleep soundly knowing they have taken into account all of the issues he has raised about the satellite's orbit and the earth being an oblate spheroid.

Just IMHO, but looking at both the French and Thai satellite images I lean towards them just being white horses and not debris of any sort. The images were taken around the time there was bad weather in the search area with very rough seas - in fact it was so bad the day after the Thai images were taken that all air and sea searches were allegedly called off for the day.

RE777fly
 

RE
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...ection%201.pdf

the report also states that the event is far less likely in the air than on the ground. Sec 1.18.3

Fairly sure our cutting edge of nuclear deterrent would have a pretty advanced acoustics setup on board. Whether it's useful detecting a ULB at 20,000' is another matter.

Why arnt anyone speaking about the cabin crews? I havnt read much about them in any news website or anywhere. Does anyone have a link where we can read about the cabin crews? Who were they? We keep hearing about the pilot and co-pilot and the passengers but what about the cabin crews? :bored:

"Fairly sure our cutting edge of nuclear deterrent would have a pretty advanced acoustics setup on board. Whether it's useful detecting a ULB at 20,000' is another matter. "


"pretty advanced acoustics setup" is true, but sensitive to a 37.5khz ULB? No, not usually, although it might not be a bad or expensive upgrade to the world submarine fleet. I'm amazed how much people assume is or is not. The devil's in the details. Can't go assuming. Things don't just take care of themselves. Focus and follow up are two GOOD "F" words!

Seasat
 

Perhaps I should have pointed out the implications for MH370 more clearly in my previous reference to my involvement with Seasat in 1978.

If the military had that in 1978 (and it was built for civilian purposes), what satellite side scan synthetic aperture radar capability over the world's oceans must the big powers have by now?

The only possible reason I can see that military data hasn't put an end to this search long ago is that the area must be swarming with far too many equally likely targets.

Look how many the French satellite came up with through three well-space tiny holes through a cloud sheet.

Satellite one-upmanship?


Thailand - 300 objects (2-15 metres)
Japan - 10 objects (up to 8m in size)
China - 2 objects (5 to 24 metres)
France 122 objects (1 to 23 metres)


The only 'real' evidence we may have is naked eye SAR by the Australians who sighted two elusive objects.

1. Paultr, words have meanings. I was referring to strategic missile subs. They do not carry "tactical nukes." ;) End of comment on that.

2. BEA report on AF 447 made specific mention of how a submarine searching for underwater beacon and wreckage in deep water was hampered by some technological factors.

If you consider sea state, and speed of the asset, as well as transit time, the diesel sub as search asset may not have the bang for the buck that you imagine. Radar scan better done by aircraft. Sonar near the surface can run into some noise problems when looking for small things, and some things may not reflect sonar waves very well.
How much time did you spend in the Navy, Paul. ;)

If I were running this SAR Op, I'd not be asking for submarines in that particular area, for some of the reasons stated above. There are better assets available.

Sea State.
 

Sea State Definition Table

https://www.ec.gc.ca/meteo-weather/d...n&n=80C039A3-1

Someone a couple of hundred posts back was asking about Sea States re SAR
Perhaps these will help to visualize conditions in the search area.

Leightman 957:

Less likely=still possible, in my book. An MEC fire may have started as the last generator came on line or there may have been non normal BTB or GB operation after takeoff, we may never know.

We are considering all possibilities here. An MEC fire could progress undetected for some time as any smoke, until excessive, would be vented overboard. The EQUIP COOLING OVBD is not significant, according to the NNC. If there were multiple wiring failures just after the handover, almost any systems would be vulnerable to failure. My interpretation is:

MEC fire damage
Loss of comms/acars
Dual FMC failure
Mulitiple system fail indications
Diversion initiated using Alternate Nav.
Flightdeck smoke-crew on 100% Oxygen
Possible slow depressurisation MEC structure fail- EICAS cabin altitude warning not observed, hidden amongst many others
Oxygen depletion or disruption in MEC
Unconciousness,
MEC fire out due FL350 ambient pressure.
Aircraft follows Alt Nav manually entered lat/long waypoints
Final waypoint is erroneously in S hemisphere. (Penang as S5 or S50?)
Aircraft flies until fuel depletion.

But .. what about the route (ways points) taken by the aircraft after the end of transponder/radio communication
That is for me a human action (s) not the result of a fire in MEC

The co-ordinates of the large 24m and small 5m objects identified by satellite appear to be on the same great circle as both Kuala Lumpur and Beijing.

Either he was searching for the deepest ocean depths he could reach without detection or he was making a statement by flying the aircraft to (and then past) the location on the same great circle south west from KL as Beijing is north east.

Or: the aircraft was turned in heading select and simply followed that heading till the end.:rolleyes:

Emergency Procedures
 

Emergency Procedures.

Just checking our Emergency Descent Checklist A340. No where does it state to activate the ELT.
The ELT switch it just above the Capts Head, maybe different on other aircraft and type. There is no switch in the cabin.

The switch can be reset due to accidental use, happened to me in JFK a few months back. You have to hold the switch to reset for a couple of seconds.

If I was over some remote place then this should be one of the first things to activate. I am sure if AF had done so then the aircraft would have been found much sooner.

There should also be a switch in the cabin for the cabin crew to activate. There should be a procedure in place that anytime the O2 masks are deployed then the switch should be turned on.

Also there should be some logics in the system so that whichever switch activates the system then only that switch can reset it.

If this had happened on MH370 then it should have been located within a few minutes and then tracked.

I do not suppose it works under water so maybe a more robust ELT should be fitted to all aircraft.

One thing concerning the track, from my understanding which may well be at fault, is that depending on the speed the track can vary by a huge margin so at best the search area is the a most likely. It is even possible that it was flown to say Christmas Island where the casino is or to any patch of ocean in between that and the current search area from the evidence we know about. The ping data just about supports this if the speed is adjusted.

That suggests to me that there is other information that has not been released but rather "suggested" by other sources to the SAR teams that solidifies the best guess to a highly / only probable search area. I am keeping my fingers crossed that this is the case for all concerned.

Jcjeant:
Of course they would be a crew action, as a result of an MEC fire. The new waypoints were programmed into a (possibly alternate nav) diversion. This is a tricky thing to do as the waypoints have to be entered by lat/long. Easy to make an entry error under stress and unfamiliarity with the procedure. Difficult to maintain positional awareness.

Satellite Imagery
 

Are they able to determine the position of the possible debris photographed by the various satellites over several days now?

If so, can they not link them up to determine the general direction of movement of the possible debris and then predict more or less where it might be in real search time?

That was me who asked about the sea states Albatross. Thanks for the links.

Good replies overall to my inquiry as it gives many of us at least a context as to what the crews on scene are working through. Not only those on scene, but those who are scurrying full apace to get to the coal face.