|
Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost
Somewhat off topic but do we have robotic technology to perform that mapping task? Or is it a tedious manned operation?
|
@atakacs
The following link will give you a good insight into how the mapping operation has been undertaken. 'Mapping the deep ocean: Geoscience Australia and the search for MH370' |
DrPhillipa
Is the point of the excercise that they will make ADSC subscription compulsory in the relevant airspaces? Nothing to do with MH370, and , as said previously , it would not have changed anything if the rate had been 15 min at the time. |
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
(Post 8888082)
No the point of this perticular trial is to assess the load on the ATC system if the interrogation rate is increased to every 15 min instead of 20-30.
Nothing to do with MH370, and , as said previously , it would not have changed anything if the rate had been 15 min at the time. BEA after AFR447 asked for reports as often as once every 1 minute. Most carriers are now paying a fixed annual rate for ADS-C unlike the old days of pay per transmission. So there is no benefit by not using ADS-C. If the Air Traffic Service Provider in the airspace you are flying in does not use ADS-C you have up to 5 connections that can be made so contract with your FOC/Dispatch and they can track you. Once you have a secure internet link to SITA/ARINC displaying and storing ADS-C positions is extremely simple. Of course while this means that the regulators can say that they are "doing something" ADS-C update rate change would have no effect on a future MH370 scenario where the 'cooperative' / Active tracking devices are switched off. |
Originally Posted by thf
(Post 8885837)
Who would fund the continuing effort beyond point in time "X" is a pertinent question. |
Ian W
I don't see that there is any "load on the ATC system" If you want to fly one of the more popular tracks on the North Atlantic [....] you will be reporting on ADS-C every 4 minutes. Of course while this means that the regulators can say that they are "doing something" ADS-C update rate change would have no effect on a future MH370 scenario where the 'cooperative' / Active tracking devices are switched off. |
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
(Post 8888727)
My comment was not a speculation but a fact. The South Indian Ocean airpace is not the North Atlantic , and data link processing load is an issue for the Australian system, hence the trial.
|
After almost a year of highly professional & concentrated searching of the ocean to the west of Perth, so far without any sign at all, or any indication no matter how minor, that the 777 may be there. Can I suggest a couple of things please.
- Despite the vast majority of genuine experts, saying, this is where the aircraft is almost certainly to be found. Perhaps in fact this is not the case at all & before the search is scaled down or terminated, all other areas of interest should at least be checked. - Are we absolutely sure the 777, once having recrossed Malaysia from east to west, did in fact fly south west & not anywhere to the north. - Surely if the 777 is where most of the search agencies think it is, west of Perth, some even small part of the aircraft would have come to the ocean surface by now. - I am still of the opinion, that certain people & or agencies from the missing aircraft's home country, may well have information that for whatever reason continues to be with held & so far not made public. My thoughts only, but someone knows something out there & is so far not letting on. |
The Doppler tracing and tracking carried out by INMARSAT on the SATCOM signals plus validation testing against other aircraft would put the aircraft in the area being searched. It is not possible for the aircraft to have gone North and still provided the same Doppler signals. These calculations have also been checked by a considerable number of mathematicians.
There _is_ some discussion on the actual fuel burn that the aircraft could have made as it is thought to have made at least one low pass before flying South this could lead to an along track error that would have the aircraft crash/ditching site further North. |
- Surely if the 777 is where most of the search agencies think it is, west of Perth, some even small part of the aircraft would have come to the ocean surface by now As for bits, awful big ocean and planet out there. |
Ian W The Doppler tracing and tracking carried out by INMARSAT on the SATCOM signals plus validation testing against other aircraft would put the aircraft in the area being searched. It is not possible for the aircraft to have gone North and still provided the same Doppler signals. These calculations have also been checked by a considerable number of mathematicians. An aircraft maneuvering in altitude, speed and track could be anywhere on a position close to the south arc and to the north arc. Under the above assumptions they search at the most probable positions, but those are not exclusive and might be off by thousands of miles. |
Hello. I have a request for more Inmarsat data.
I want to give my own calculations based on the BTO and BFO datapoints posted by Inmarsat a shot. As we know, some of the individual values make little sense. And the diagrams of how the data is collected contain some black boxes just saying "compensation", which could really mean anything. What kind of "compensation" has been done to the data before making a record? Is that reliable? Is that compensation that is predictable enough to undo to maybe correct errors? I imagine whoever programmed that system didn't have in mind that it would later be used to locate a plane based on less than a dozen datapoints and no other information. What I would like to have is the same set of data for BTO and BFO as we have for MH370, but for a flight that proceeded normally (and hence we know where it actually was for any given value pair). Is that available anywhere? Any random flight would do, but obviously it would be nice to have something that proceeded at about the same distance from the recording satellite. |
Originally Posted by RetiredF4
An aircraft maneuvering in altitude, speed and track could be anywhere on a position close to the south arc and to the north arc.
|
Quote: Originally Posted by RetiredF4 An aircraft maneuvering in altitude, speed and track could be anywhere on a position close to the south arc and to the north arc. Please explain how a position close to the north arc can be compatible with the logged values of BFO (Burst Frequency Offset or doppler compensation error). As I understood it from discussions, a rapid descent or a rapid climb while over the data point would alter the data more than cruising north or south, as climbs would give closure to the satellite and descents would give opening to the satellite. If the aircraft was turning north and descending at the same time, the turn to south at the relevant data point would no longer be the only option, but to the north it would be possible too. Speed and track changes from one data point to the next would alter the present interpretation as well. There would be millions of pathes possible if all maneuvering options would be considered, as long as those pathes ended somewhere close to the northern or southern arc. The present "only south it is" path is founded on a lot of assumptions and few facts, as would be a north path too. I'm not saying it was the wrong decision to search south, but it might have been flown to the north as well. |
There are not that many permutations with the aircraft out of fuel when it was. From my understanding the INMARSAT team did do comparison/validation with other aircraft flying in the area and that confirmed their view of what happened. The 'North' story doesn't fit the Doppler changes that were recorded. It is extremely unlikely that the person(s) flying MH370 were aware of the SATCOM tracking that could be done, therefore it is also extremely unlikely that they were spoofing the tracking.
|
interim statement 8/3
|
A good summary of what has been used to choose the southern arc can be found here.
http://www.rin.org.uk/Uploadedpdfs/s...at%20Paper.pdf Note please, that the following initial basics did not change throughout the whole process. Every refinement and the final conclusion are based on the asumptions of this initial reconstruction attempt. (bolding by me) Initial flight path reconstruction attempts were based on the aircraft flying at a steady speed on a relatively constant track consistent with an aircraft operating without human control. It was initially thought that for the fuel to have lasted until 00:19 UTC the aircraft would have needed to be flying at high altitude, where the air is thinner and drag is reduced, which would have resulted in its flying at close to its maximum speed of just over 500 knots (926 kph). This gave two solutions, one in a northerly and the other in a southerly direction, as illustrated in Figure 6, where thered lines indicate the flight paths prior to 00:19 UTC and the green lines indicate the potential additional flight paths between the last signal at 00:19 UTC and the failure to respond to the LOI message sent by the GES at 01:15 UTC. It is important to remember that these initial flight paths, while consistent with the BTO timing data and the aircraft performance, were based on a number of assumptions: that the aircraft travelled at a steady and high speed and did not make any manoeuvres beyond a turn to the north or south shortly after its last radar detection. The changing BFO data caused by the wobbling of the Sattelite and the above assumptions led to the southern path. The sattelite moves north south with a maximum of 2,412 km per day which results in a comparable low BFO change opposed to a climb, descent or a speed change. Read also on the Blog of Duncan Steel. The Bottom Line: A northerly route for MH370 deep into central Asia cannot be excluded on the basis of the publicly-available Inmarsat-3F1 satellite data. |
The battery powering the underwater locator beacon on missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370's data recorder expired in 2012 "]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-08/mh370-report-says-black-box-locator-beacon-expired/6289462"] |
RetiredF4:
I suppose mr. Duncan Steel doesn't like to be reminded of that blunder he published on 2014 April 02, when he did not understand the interpretation of the logged BFO's. That was explained in the ATSB report "MH370 - Definition of Underwater Search Areas" dated 26 June 2014. Your first quote doesn't have a date and does not mention BFO. The BFO's for a northern route would be about 78 Hz greater than the logged BFO's in level flight. To obtain the logged BFO's on the northern route the aircraft would have had to climb at 3360 feet per minute during the 343 minutes of flight remaining after the first 'ping' at 18:25 UTC. That is 1,152,480 feet. |
Missing page #93
Does everyone else see page 93 (as numbered on the pages) is missing from the Factual information report?
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 13:58. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.