So how many FAs know enough about the workings of the plane to know if the pilot is doing something fishy - much less know how to fly the plane in an emergency? For that matter, how many are burly enough to fight off an intruder?

Ping timing...
 

Excerpts from AF 447 Report by BEA
 

From a volume of the BEA reports on AF 447:

http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol....11.2012.en.pdf

"As a rule, acoustic searches should always be preferred during the transmission time of the beacons. They are more effective than searches using sonar, magnetometers or video cameras.

The maximum range of these beacons is of the order of 2,000 to 3,000 m. However, in the search area the average depth was 3,000 m. It was therefore necessary to bring the hydrophones closer to the source of transmission, by towing specialized equipment nearer to the seabed."

"The TPL20 and TPL40 systems are deep-towed devices belonging to the family of the “Towed Pinger Locators” manufactured by Phoenix International for the US Navy. The United States government made both the equipment and the associated operators freely available to the French government (17 people distributed on the two ships). In June 2009 the TPLs were the only systems capable of carrying out passive acoustic searches over large areas at significant depths.

The two TPLs are towed devices each equipped with an omni-directional hydrophone which can operate down to depths of six thousand metres with towing speeds ranging from 1.5 to 5 knots. They can be installed on all types of appropriate vessels capable of carrying a load weighing around 25 tonnes. A mapping software application uses GPS positioning information to follow the ship’s movements and the position of the towed device. The latter is equipped with a pressure sensor that permanently transmits the immersed device’s approximate depth of submersion. Management of the deployed cable length and ship towing speed is used to place the acoustic sensor at the required average submersion depth For example, an average submersion depth of 2,300 m for the TPL is achieved by deploying approximately 6,000 m of cable at a towing speed of 3 knots. "

"The immersion depth of the acoustic sensor induces high mechanical constraints on the self-supporting electro-cable; limiting these constraints restricts the manoeuvring capabilities of the ship. The speed is limited to 4 kt maximum, and bearing changes are restricted to a few degrees
As an indication, under these conditions an area 30 NM long and 10 nm wide was covered in a little less than 5 days. Within this area a longitudinal pass was carried out in 9 hours, followed by a reverse phase lasting approximately 5 hours. One branch was therefore completed in 14 hours. Long passes were preferred to avoid the multiplication of reversal operations. "

"The searches took place in a particularly unfavourable environment due to the great variations in depth in the area and the extremely uneven topography of the sea bed. The bathymetric data available to the search teams in June 2009 (see the figure below) was of limited accuracy, since the seabed in the area was little known.

Each flight data recorder was equipped with an underwater locator beacon transmitting on 37.5 kHz (± 1 kHz). In this type of search, priority should be initially given to acoustic searches by passive devices (hydrophones), taking into account an average range of between 2,000 and 3,000 m.

Given their limited range and the average depth in the area (3,000 m), listening from the surface was not possible. It was therefore necessary to bring the hydrophones closer to the source of transmission, by towing specialized TPLs near the seabed. "


"A report(24) details the examination of the CVR ULB. The damage to the body of the ULB was due to the impact. The characterization of the acoustic signal from the ULB made on the day of the examination was not nominal, despite the renewal of the power source (new battery).
This examination more than two years after the accident is not conclusive because it is impossible to decide on the level of damage to the ULBs that equipped the aeroplane and their ability to nominally transmit a signal in the aftermath of the accident.

24) http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol....ion.report.pdf "


Others have posted this link, which includes specs on the TPL:

Phoenix International Holdings Inc, Marine Services and Subsea Technology: ROV | DIVING | SHIPS HUSBANDRY

CNN is finally displaying a map that shows the 25 degree right turn correction reported (here!) as by FR24, but ignored by CNN (many tweets to them) and almost everyone else.

I expect this new diagram, which of course adds some new meaning to the piloting aspect, may finally become the official track before long. (the right turn was of course before the left turn already depicted).

(p.s. to those suggesting a US Naval aircraft carrier should be tasked to Australia to help. --unfortunately in today's troubled world, ALL the carriers are suitably employed elsewhere for considered good cause.)

I traveled internationally from KLIA at least once a week for more than a year. There has been a two pass metal detector system in place for at least 3 years, but the first stop, after immigration and before the airline concourses, has always been a bit weak... no separate removal of laptops, etc, and I've walked through with bottles of water in my backpack.

But at the second screening at the gate, the inspections have been much more thorough... I've seen plenty of bottles, containers, and other paraphernalia confiscated. It has also been mandatory over the total of more than 6 years that I flew out of KLIA to remove laptops and electronics, and remove coats for separate scanning. Bottled water, a cup of coffee or a canned soda has never been allowed through the boarding gate in all the time that I've flown through KLIA.

Edited to add: If one failed to pass the scanner at the gate, then a "body search" did ensue, consisting of a hand scan and sometimes a pat down. But like virtually every other body search I've undergone, they are relatively ineffective because to find well hidden contraband, the search must be much more intrusive.

This nonsense of removing belts and shoes is unfortunate... I've seen it only in the US and in the Philippines, and I don't see the point in this implementation.

My airline required an fa in the flight deck if a pilot left it for any reason in flight. This was for several reasons : So we could respond to and signal for help if the pilot became incapacitated for any reason, so we could defend the flight deck, or at least slow down the person in case some one actually got through the door, so we could assist the pilot if directed in the case of a critical emergency, keep the pilot alert , especially in overnight and long haul flights with little communication from ATC. We do know where emergency equipment and extra firefighting equipment is in the flight deck. We also knew how to make pa's, interphone calls and how to use the pilots oxygen system. In the light of pilot/ crew suicide or hijacking scenerios I think that new communication signalling procedures need to be created even if it means separate briefings between The captain, first officer and purser. As it stands the current policy is less about preventing suspicious behaviour in the other pilot though it might discourage them or distract them.

As to Fa's not being able to fight someone off, you might be surprised, I could throw a 6 foot man over my back when I was 7 and I am a women. It's true that most cabin crew are not trained pilots, but there are actually quite a few of them who have commercial and private liscences, who work as cabin crew while also building up there hours in other jobs. I've worked flights where I've had two of them on board.

SSN wouldn't help
 

Due to changes in temperature at different depths, it's unlikely that the sound of a beacon a few thousand meters deep would be detected by a submarine at a couple of hundred meters depth. The sound tends to radiate at about the same depth, which is good in that it doesn't decay as fast horizontally, but in this case would keep the sub from hearing it. Nice idea, but it just wouldn't work.

Tony Abbott says that the best minds are at work on this. Given that a pilot suicide is one scenario that fits, wouldn't it be sensible to get a savvy psychologist or two on the job? It's obvious by now that if this was an intentional act, then hiding the evidence was part of that intention. What SAR and technical people keep honing in on is finding physical evidence based on physical data. How about bringing some decent psychological evidence into play? If a person is responsible for this tragedy and he/she wanted to hide the evidence, I'm guessing that causing the minimal damage possible in ditching is one factor. But where would such a mind choose to do it? Away from shipping and flight routes I guess, but where in that ocean is the best hiding place?

I doubt it would do you any good.
First of all psychologists know nothing about flying, secondly they are notoriously wrong about many things that involve human mind. Third, they typically deal in generalities.

Eclectic .. This has been banded about on Twitter, It is of course a complete fake. The GPS co-ordinates can be manually inserted to the Exif data. Also the raw data indicated the photo has been modified.

This was the original post
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/27839190/

Well, the aviation and search professionals have assuredly milked all the available data but have narrowed the search to a huge version of "narrow" with no result. A wise psychological insight could well reduce that narrow and save a lot of time and money.

Right. A psychological insight like ...

The plane hasn't been found because it doesn't want to be found.
:p

If the Captain or First Officer had been regularly consulting with, or under the care of, a psychologist, then perhaps there might be some psychological insight available. Otherwise ... not so much.

I beg to differ. I'd bet money that there are at least a few forensic psychologists in mix, looking at everything from the crews to radar crews, to passengers and ground crews, trying to assess the probability of action (or inaction) on the parts of any of these people. I'd sure want their best guess as part of my data stream.

bes

I don't have a problem with any of that, but at the risk of sounding like a stuck record I fly with folks who, like myself in a previous life have been vetted to a very high level ( as in their reliability to release a "bucket of sunshine" or something similar). Suddenly it seems those same individuals who are now a bit older but the same individuals can't be trusted to be alone on the flight deck - so do we really think the answer to the loo break "problem" is to park someone with no flying knowledge and perhaps someone who perhaps couldn't have passed any serious vetting process right behind the only pilot. Ever heard of a cabin crew member or a fellow employee who didn't like pilots/have personal problems?

Federal Express Flight 705 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The search for surface debris seems to be getting nowhere. Maybe the majority of the resources should be directed towards finding the FDR and CVR. Battery time is running out.

You will never find FDR or CVR without first finding the debris that could narrow the underwater search.

What a great idea. Why don't you post exactly where to begin this resource towards finding the FDR and CVR. If you find the airplane, battery time is no longer all that important.

Wiggy,

I could understand how that feels. We all go through security clearances, and most airlines I know do psychological screening on their pilots, not necessarily their fa's, so if the policy is put in place as a security measure against a rogue pilot, I too would feel a little insulted. As I noted most places I've worked its not been about baby sitting the pilots, but rather as an added safety measure. Most pilots at my airline welcome a new face in the flight deck anyways, since the locked flight deck door policy, and it's actually great for building trust and rapport among the whole crew ( is. Cc feel more confident in expressing their concerns to a pilot who has taken some opportunity to speak with them a little).

What a great idea. Why don't you post exactly where to begin this resource towards finding the FDR and CVR. If you find the airplane, battery time is no longer all that important.

A few posts back, I suggested the following. And this could have been started days ago, or longer, once they got the pinger detector here.

Start with the detector on the 40 degree line and tow it on a path along that line, the offset to one side in mile or so wide increments (depending on the range of the detector) and make another pass the other way...keep doing it offset to each side.

It's a longshot but it's SOMETHING and it only requires one boat to do this. It must be equally as worthy as chasing garbage around the SIO trash gyres.

What JetHutek said...
 

I like this idea!
The only risk I see is that the pinger detector might be damaged.