Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 47  
User currently offlineSA7700 From South Africa, joined Dec 2003, 3431 posts, RR: 26
Posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 71699 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Some members may not be aware of the fact that all members have an edit window of 60 minutes, from the time you first make a post in which to add or remove any additional comments or information into/from the post. Please make use of this feature made available to you, for your own convenience, instead of posting one post after another (doubles, triples or more).

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Due to length part 46 was locked for further contributions. Please feel free to continue your discussion in part 47:

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 1 (by Longhornmaniac Mar 7 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 2 (by LipeGIG Mar 7 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 3 (by SA7700 Mar 8 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 4 (by SA7700 Mar 8 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 5 (by SA7700 Mar 8 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 6 (by SA7700 Mar 9 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 7 (by SA7700 Mar 9 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 8 (by jetblueguy22 Mar 9 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 9 (by SA7700 Mar 10 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 10 (by SA7700 Mar 10 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 11 (by jetblueguy22 Mar 10 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 12 (by SA7700 Mar 10 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 13 (by SA7700 Mar 11 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 14 (by SA7700 Mar 11 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 15 (by jetblueguy22 Mar 11 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 16 (by SA7700 Mar 12 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 17 (by 777ER Mar 12 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 18 (by jetblueguy22 Mar 12 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 19 (by SA7700 Mar 13 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 20 (by SA7700 Mar 13 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 21 (by SA7700 Mar 13 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 22 (by SA7700 Mar 13 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 23 (by SA7700 Mar 14 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 24 (by SA7700 Mar 14 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 25 (by SA7700 Mar 14 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 26 (by SA7700 Mar 15 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 27 (by SA7700 Mar 15 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 28 (by jetblueguy22 Mar 15 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 29 (by SA7700 Mar 16 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 30 (by SA7700 Mar 16 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 31 (by jetblueguy22 Mar 16 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 32 (by ManuCH Mar 17 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 33 (by jetblueguy22 Mar 17 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 34 (by SA7700 Mar 18 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 35 (by SA7700 Mar 18 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 36 (by jetblueguy22 Mar 18 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 37 (by SA7700 Mar 19 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 38 (by jetblueguy22 Mar 19 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 39 (by SA7700 Mar 20 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 40 (by SA7700 Mar 20 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41 (by SA7700 Mar 20 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 42 (by jetblueguy22 Mar 21 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 43 (by SA7700 Mar 22 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 44 (by SA7700 Mar 23 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 45 (by SA7700 Mar 25 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 46 (by SA7700 Mar 25 2014 in Civil Aviation)


**********************************************************************************************

**** ADDITIONAL NEWS REPORTS ****

MH370: search for missing Malaysia Airlines plane extended to southern Indian Ocean

Najib's full press statement on MH370

Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370: What we know so far

MISSING MH370: Timeline

Flight MH370: Police focus on pilots as search for airliner goes on - live updates

Flight MH370: New timeline casts doubt on pilot deception theory

MISSING MH370: ACARS cannot be disabled

MISSING MH370: Search for missing aircraft above politics: Hishamuddin


***********************************************************************************************


SOME IMPORTANT REMINDERS FOR ALL OUR MEMBERS TO CONSIDER BEFORE POSTING IN THIS THREAD:

**** Out of respect to the crew, passengers and also family members; close to those onboard MH370; please keep science fiction theories and content related to past / current movies or possible future movie rights out of these threads. ****

**** PLEASE DO NOT REPEAT QUESTIONS AND SCENARIOS THAT HAS BEEN COVERED AND DISCUSSED IN PREVIOUS THREADS AND WHICH DO NOT CONTRIBUTE OR APPLY, IN A CONSTRUCTIVE MANNER, TOWARDS THIS CONVERSATION ANY LONGER. ****

**** Please make an effort to read through some of the threads, if possible the latest in the series, before adding your own comments and theories to the current, active thread on this issue. ****

**** PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL TOWARDS OTHER USERS AND KEEP THE FORUM RULES AND REGULATIONS IN MIND WHEN POSTING IN THE FORUMS. SHOULD THERE BE ANY RULE VIOLATIONS, PLEASE BRING THIS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE MODERATORS BY MAKING USE OF THE “SUGGEST DELETION FUNCTION”. ****

**** WHEN STATING FACTS, STATISTICS OR NEWSWORTHY BULLETINS, PLEASE BE SURE TO INCLUDE AN HTML LINK OR REFERENCE TO A PUBLICATION. IF YOU ARE MERELY PROVIDING AN OPINION, PLEASE MENTION THIS IN YOUR POST. ALL MEMBERS ARE RESPONSIBLE TO AVOID ARGUMENTS BASED ON RUMORS OR MISINFORMATION


**** Some members may not be aware of the fact that all members have an edit window of 60 minutes, from the time you first make a post in which to add or remove any additional comments or information into/from the post. Please make use of this feature made available to you, for your own convenience, instead of posting one post after another (doubles, triples or more).

**** [b]Also keep in mind that this is a discussion forum and not a chat room. If you would like to chat about this incident, kindly make use of the "Live Chat" option, which is available in the "forum drop-down menu".
Messages of agreement such as "ME TOO", "I AGREE WITH X", ”YES” OR ”NO” have been found to waste time and space and are therefore to be avoided. A message consisting of only one or two lines of text is probably not worth posting. Do not make posts that contain only a smiley face, check mark, etc. Make sure the content of your post is relevant to the topic.

Enjoy the forums!

Regards and thanks for your co-operation,

SA7700


When you are doing stuff that nobody has done before, there is no manual – Kevin McCloud (Grand Designs)
380 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinenupogodi From Canada, joined Mar 2014, 908 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 71550 times:

Quote:
The Boeing 777 the Boeing 777 is equipped with an inertial guidance system (IGS), in addition to its gyros and GPSs. Presumably, the IGU plays a role in the FBW flight controls, including when in manual steering mode. The IGU could tell if a yaw was induced by a wind gust, and could thus compensate for that, at least in principle.

The INS *is* the gyros you speak of. I don't know what role the INS plays in terms of influencing the aircraft's behaviour when being flown fully manually.



A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
User currently offline65mustang From United States of America, joined Mar 2014, 84 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 71448 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

A nice radar map:

Edit: I am not sure this is a radar map. The title says "STRATEGIC AIR DEFENCE ENVIRONMNENT". So what it is, I don't know.



[Edited 2014-03-27 11:13:17]

User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
Reply 3, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 71243 times:

From Part 46:

Quote:
Malaysian Government holding sealed evidence?

It's not unusual for some evidence to be withheld while an investigation is in progress. As has been pointed out many times, the job of the investigators is to determine probable cause with a view to improving air safety. Their job is not to provide fuel for speculation by the public. Similarly, since there is the possibility of criminal activity, it's not surprising that some evidence would be withheld during an investigation.

FBW: Some people seem to assume that all Fly-by-wire aircraft are the same. FBW simply means that control inputs are transmitted to the actuators electrically rather than mechanically. What else is inserted between the controls and the actuators, e.g. "flight laws" and envelope protection, is up to each manufacturer. There are quite a lot of differences between how the FBW flight laws are implemented on an A320 versus a 777.

[Edited 2014-03-27 10:33:25]

User currently offlinenupogodi From Canada, joined Mar 2014, 908 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 70991 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 3):
There are quite a lot of differences between how the FBW flight laws are implemented on an A320 versus a 777.

Indeed. All it means is that there is a computer interpreting the inputs to create the corresponding outputs.

There are some FBW aircraft, experimental at least, that can repurpose control surfaces to maintain authority/stability/etc when other control surfaces are not responding (after being shot off, for example). I saw an example of an RC aircraft that was able to maintain a stable circular flight pattern with 3/4 of one wing blown clean off (on purpose).

It is a good thing. This kind of technology makes flying safer.



A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2366 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 70982 times:

Quoting mandala499,reply=294 previous thread:
I don't think we need to go back to what it was like before 9/11, but I think we need to look at solutions on how to make the fortress cockpit not a suicide-weapon heaven.

At least I'm not proposing floating blackboxes, or streaming blackboxes, or installing systems that can't be switched off, or cargo jettison system, or parachutes for passengers...

OK. Now I see where you're coming from. Glad to see that we're on the same page then. Sorry for misreading.

Rgds,
PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offline65mustang From United States of America, joined Mar 2014, 84 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 70955 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Does the SatCom on 9M-MRO run off DC power? I found several antenna for the 777 that do run off DC power but could not find specific info on 9M-MRO. I am wondering if maybe the systems that were "shut down" run of AC and the SatCom remained on because it was DC. While searching for the answer I found this site with lots of info.

http://www.smartcockpit.com/plane/BOEING/B777.html

Interestingly enough when I clicked on the "B777 Communications" it downloaded a very thorough pdf document that had a picture of a Malaysia air 777 on the cover.

http://www.smartcockpit.com/aircraft...essources/B777-Communications.html

^^^^^lots of info and pictures of the comms^^^^^^^^^^^^


User currently offlineWarrenPlatts From United States of America, joined Mar 2014, 386 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 70849 times:

Quoting 65mustang (Reply 2):
A nice radar map:

That's interesting, since both Inmarsat flight paths were well within the Cocos Island radar zone....



There is a rebel in each and everyone of us--let it out! Don't waste your life on mundane lifestyles. When is it enough?
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
Reply 8, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 70677 times:

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 4):
All it means is that there is a computer interpreting the inputs to create the corresponding outputs.

In practice, yes, but there doesn't need to be a computer involved. The addition of computers allows added functionality.


User currently offlineteme82 From Finland, joined Mar 2007, 1481 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 70501 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 7):
That's interesting, since both Inmarsat flight paths were well within the Cocos Island radar zone....

Now does the RAAF have some radar data or not. Or did they have some issues with the radar's....



Flying high and low
User currently offlineB777fan From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 171 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 70446 times:

added after previous thread was locked.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 272):
I may be missing an important point... but who builds a plane that does not revert back into a stable wings level attitude? And who certifies such an aircraft?

Actually me.

Slight diversion before back to this thread.

******

The airplane I built for myself is mostly neutrally stable - meaning - if you induce a pitch oscillation - longitudinal stability - it will not dampen out over time. It will not get worse - negative stability - but it will not get better by itself from positive stability. My aircraft requires that it be flown all the time or it will respond to all the uneven aerodynamic effects of even slight turbulence. Very soon it will not be straight and level and will not work its way back to that like a 172 should.

Why? Maneuverability. A 'perfectly' stable aircraft would not be maneuverable at all. Compromises are reached in all axises for stability. My aircraft has just slightly positive lateral stability from some dihedral in the wing. It has mostly positive directional stability.

The 172 is like a family sedan and my aircraft has a more sports car feel. It is not demanding to fly but you or an autopilot must be flying it all the time.

******

I think we are all wondering what would happen to the 777 after fuel exhaustion because we know that before that, the autopilot can keep the plane flying fine, whatever mode it is in.

Nobody seems to have a good handle on exactly what would happen depending on what mode it was in at fuel exhaustion. If it was holding altitude, when would the autopilot say, over to you Bob, I give up. Would the flight envelope protection make for a graceful descent?

I haven't seen much definitive here as to what would happen other than at some point the autopilot will give up. The envelope protection will only go so far in the 777 because it is presuming someone is actually flying the plane.


User currently offlineWarrenPlatts From United States of America, joined Mar 2014, 386 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 70499 times:

Quote:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 272):
I may be missing an important point... but who builds a plane that does not revert back into a stable wings level attitude? And who certifies such an aircraft?

Does the unstable bank angle of the 777 serve any purpose, actually?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_dynamic_modes

The geometric and aerodynamic parameters driving these dynamic modes can have opposing effects on these modes (in particular roll and spiral). So if you design the aircraft to be fully stable in one mode, it will probably be unstable in another. It's very difficult, if not impossible, to design a machine which will be fully stable in all circumstances.
The trick to solve this is what made the Wright bros enter posterity : they understood that instead of looking at the stability of the machine only, the should study the stability of the complete system made of the machine & pilot (human, and eventually auto). It's no coincidence they made bicycles.
With this in mind, it is possible to design an unstable machine, as long as the instability has slow enough dynamics for the pilot to correct it. In effect, the pilot is actively stabilizing the aircraft system to compensae for the lack of "passive" stabilization.

Always keep in mind that pilot and machine are two inseparable components of the wider "aircraft system" ; take one out of the picture and nothing will work properly


Quoting WarrenPlatts:


As a human being, you are naturally thinking in a geocentric referential - vertical & horizontal as related to the Earth's surface. An airplane behaves in relation not to the Earth, but to the air mass around it, which is itself moving and has varying temperatures and pressures. So the 777 is indeed "steady as a rock", but within the air surrounding it, not in relation to Earth. An Airbus FBW on the other hand, will compensate and be roughly stable compared to the Earth referential.
It's the same as a ship kept steady on a same patch of water, but which may move in relation to fixed references on shors becuase of the current (supposing no wind)


YES!!
That's exactly what I'm trying to get across! If the 777 is pointed straight ahead, wings level, no hands on the controls, it becomes it's own inertial reference framework. The autotrim or whatever you want to call it will compensate for any instabilities, and thus follow a "ballistic" trajectory--not in the sense it that it's describing a parabola, but in the sense that the Earth will rotate underneath it; thus, because of this Coriolis effect, it will gradually bear to the left defining a gradual curve that will look A LOT like the 400 knot Inmarsat flight path....



There is a rebel in each and everyone of us--let it out! Don't waste your life on mundane lifestyles. When is it enough?
User currently offlinebond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5397 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 70440 times:

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 4):
Quoting David L (Reply 3):
There are quite a lot of differences between how the FBW flight laws are implemented on an A320 versus a 777.

Indeed. All it means is that there is a computer interpreting the inputs to create the corresponding outputs.

... and needing a computer is also unnecessary, although is always the case of course. In theory a simple FBW aircraft could just have basic electronics to convert the position of a control column to a position of an elevator/aileron etc.

Any envelope protection, or computer processing of the signals, is a separate function than just the FBW system.

Also, the opposite is true to a certain extent. You do not necessarily need FBW in order to have envelope protection. The stick shaker is a example.

Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
Reply 13, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 70267 times:

Quoting bond007 (Reply 12):
You do not necessarily need FBW in order to have envelope protection. The stick shaker is a example.

A stick-pusher, perhaps? A stick-shaker is more like a "Hoi... sort this out!".

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 11):
If the 777 is pointed straight ahead, wings level, no hands on the controls, it becomes it's own inertial reference framework. The autotrim or whatever you want to call it will compensate for any instabilities

But I think 7BOEING7 is saying that it's not the case on the 777. I was under the impression that the 777's autotrim is specifically a pitch mode.

[Edited 2014-03-27 11:04:51]

User currently offlinePanAmPaul From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 69687 times:

While anet was apparently down (?), I saw this and don't think it's been covered yet.

Every day we get a similar report, but hopefully one will pan out. The amount of debris being spotted on satellite images is increasing, I assume this is a good sign but who knows.

Thai Satellite Shows New Debris Field from Malaysia Flight 370 - Weather Conditions Once Again Cut Search Short

Quote:
As the search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 continued Thursday, officials reported that new satellite images showed more objects in the southern Indian Ocean, but weather conditions forced the curtailment of the search.
Thailand’s space technology agency reported that images from one of its satellites showed 300 objects in the area.  The debris was located 124 miles (200 kilometers) from where a French satellite had spotted numerous objects.


User currently offlineTheRedBAron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2191 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 69234 times:

I talked to a Pilot fiend of mine yesterday and we draw some conclusions out of these "semi facts" and the Sanity Checks posts.

We spoke on how on AF 447 they knew what happened until they saw the input on the sidestick while going on stall and the CMR confusion that lead to the crash... until then all we had were conjetures...

In this case we are in a similar situation and all the possible scenarios have big holes on them because we haven located FOR SURE the wreckage of the Aircraft. He told me intul we have positive identification of parts, we might as week send somebody to Diego Island just to be sure, heck even the Kergelens, Maldives, Cocos and such. We were talking about radar coverage, and told me, something fishy is going on since its almost imposible to fathom how a place with so many radar (military and civilian) coverage lost a BIG airliner with no trace or at least partial data.

As me he think the Captain did not do it, way too complicated, way to uncertain and to top it off as he told me : We all have troubles, if a nasty divorce would make somebody do this, we would have a crash each week...

One question because I don't know at all about this: do the mangosteens produce explosive gases?

TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offline65mustang From United States of America, joined Mar 2014, 84 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 69328 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

There is a Tomnod image that has real possibilities of being of the wreckage.

http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/mh370_indian_ocean/map/835894

Looks like a cockpit with windows and you can make out the Malaysia Air stripes under the window. There is a twitter post comparing the two and they are similar.

https://twitter.com/FoxieNews/status/449217851157520385/photo/1

[Edited 2014-03-27 11:36:07]

User currently offlineapfpilot From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 289 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 69139 times:

Quoting bond007 (Reply 12):
... and needing a computer is also unnecessary, although is always the case of course. In theory a simple FBW aircraft could just have basic electronics to convert the position of a control column to a position of an elevator/aileron etc.

You pretty much just described Concordes FBW system



Opinions are my own and do not reflect an endorsement or position of my employer.
User currently offlinegulfstream650 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2008, 537 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 68913 times:

Quoting 65mustang (Reply 16):

That's stupid. She has been desperate for attention since this all started. Pay any attention to the scale?


It is a wave.



I don't proclaim to be the best pilot in the world but I'm safe
User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1501 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 68741 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 13):
But I think 7BOEING7 is saying that it's not the case on the 777. I was under the impression that the 777's autotrim is specifically a pitch mode

  

No matter how well you have the 777 trimmed up (aileron trim) in cruise, when you take your hands off it will maintain altitude but eventually gently roll left or right, the 787 with a different FBW system will just stay there pointed straight ahead like I'm getting the idea AB does.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 11):
YES!! That's exactly what I'm trying to get across! If the 777 is pointed straight ahead, wings level, no hands on the controls, it becomes it's own inertial reference framework. The autotrim or whatever you want to call it will compensate for any instabilities, and thus follow a "ballistic" trajectory--not in the sense it that it's describing a parabola, but in the sense that the Earth will rotate underneath it; thus, because of this Coriolis effect, it will gradually bear to the left defining a gradual curve that will look A LOT like the 400 knot Inmarsat flight path....

No, doesn't work that way in real life on a 777.

Quoting B777fan (Reply 10):
I haven't seen much definitive here as to what would happen other than at some point the autopilot will give up. The envelope protection will only go so far in the 777 because it is presuming someone is actually flying the plane.

With the engines and APU inoperable due to lack of fuel, the battery and then the RAT are the only things providing electric power. At this point the airplane will go from primary to secondary flight control mode and you will lose your envelope protection (overbank, overspeed and stall). With nobody in control it will not be a gentle ditching.


User currently offlinegatorman96 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 870 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 68564 times:

Quoting 65mustang (Reply 16):
There is a Tomnod image that has real possibilities of being of the wreckage.

Says who? Foxie News? Geez...

Those are whitecaps. If you search around the rest of the imagery provided, you will find similar looking "objects".

While I appreciate Tomnods efforts here, it makes a mockery out of the imagery analysis business. I was an IA for 6 years and you wouldn't believe the amount of training we went through, most of it on a reoccurring basis. Should people perform surgery since they were avid followers of the show ER? Or attempt to operate an aircraft because they've racked up thousands of hours in MS Flightsim? Leave the SAR effort to the professionals...

[Edited 2014-03-27 11:53:56]


Cha brro
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13967 posts, RR: 63
Reply 21, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 68503 times:

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 7):
That's interesting, since both Inmarsat flight paths were well within the Cocos Island radar zone....

Well, imagine you are a military radar operator in peacetime, at dark o'clock, in an area, which might be strategically important, but usually has little or no air traffic. Imagine you have to do your shift staring for hours at a dark radar display.

You might just have gone for a coffee or to use the bathroom. And I doubt that the operators, not expecting a surprise attack from Indonesia, were very alert.

Jan


User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1501 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 68209 times:

Quoting TheRedBAron (Reply 15):
We were talking about radar coverage, and told me, something fishy is going on since its almost imposible to fathom how a place with so many radar (military and civilian) coverage lost a BIG airliner with no trace or at least partial data.

The circles on the map above are not radar coverage -- if this was planned the airplane probably flew 200+ miles (out of radar range) west of the Cocos Island radar which probably wasn't even manned at that hour and similarly just skirted the Australian super radar.


User currently offlineflyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 804 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 68186 times:

Hi, I searched through all the replies after it had been mentioned, but discussion regarding the (suspected) fire bottle found in the Maldives has suddenly ceased. Has this been discounted?

User currently offlineWarrenPlatts From United States of America, joined Mar 2014, 386 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 68171 times:

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 19):
Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 19):
Quoting David L (Reply 13):But I think 7BOEING7 is saying that it's not the case on the 777. I was under the impression that the 777's autotrim is specifically a pitch mode


No matter how well you have the 777 trimmed up (aileron trim) in cruise, when you take your hands off it will maintain altitude but eventually gently roll left or right, the 787 with a different FBW system will just stay there pointed straight ahead like I'm getting the idea AB does.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 11):YES!! That's exactly what I'm trying to get across! If the 777 is pointed straight ahead, wings level, no hands on the controls, it becomes it's own inertial reference framework. The autotrim or whatever you want to call it will compensate for any instabilities, and thus follow a "ballistic" trajectory--not in the sense it that it's describing a parabola, but in the sense that the Earth will rotate underneath it; thus, because of this Coriolis effect, it will gradually bear to the left defining a gradual curve that will look A LOT like the 400 knot Inmarsat flight path....

No, doesn't work that way in real life on a 777.

But Captain, are you absolutely sure? Last time you said you had never actually tried letting go of the controls when in manual flight mode. (Maybe next time you fly, you can give it a try!   ) Bill Palmer who's been writing for CNN is an (albeit AB) pilot seems to think the 777 could fly a more or less straight line with the autopilot off. There is an inertial guidance system isn't there? Couldn't that keep the plane flying straight ahead in principle, even if not in practice?



There is a rebel in each and everyone of us--let it out! Don't waste your life on mundane lifestyles. When is it enough?
User currently offlinebranoco From Slovakia, joined Aug 2011, 3 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 69401 times:

http://humansarefree.com/2014/03/wit...sAreFree+%28Humans+Are+Free%29&m=0

User currently offlinenupogodi From Canada, joined Mar 2014, 908 posts, RR: 4
Reply 26, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 69094 times:

Quoting SA7700 (Thread starter):
There is an inertial guidance system isn't there? Couldn't that keep the plane flying straight ahead in principle, even if not in practice?

You misunderstand the purpose of an INS. I suggest you look it up.



A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
User currently offlineB777fan From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 171 posts, RR: 2
Reply 27, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 70823 times:

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 19):
With the engines and APU inoperable due to lack of fuel, the battery and then the RAT are the only things providing electric power. At this point the airplane will go from primary to secondary flight control mode and you will lose your envelope protection (overbank, overspeed and stall). With nobody in control it will not be a gentle ditching.

Thanks, If you posted that before I must have missed it. That is how I presumed it operated. Your posts have been very informative.


User currently offlineSimonDanger From United States of America, joined Mar 2014, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 70716 times:

From previous thread: (B777fan):

Quote:
Nobody seems to have a good handle on exactly what would happen depending on what mode it was in at fuel exhaustion. If it was holding altitude, when would the autopilot say, over to you Bob, I give up. Would the flight envelope protection make for a graceful descent?

It would be interesting to know what the shut-down triage sequence would be in the event that the flight flew until fuel exhaustion. If the APU is not on during flight normally (?), and electrical and hydraulic power is derived from the engines, once the engines shut down, I assume there would be some limited battery power left. (Big assumption since I have no idea of the power configuration of this thing). Is there someone who has ever experienced a run-to-dead electrical experiment - without human intervention - that knows how the systems prioritize limited power? My guess is that it's not in a controlled fashion, and that once all systems experience voltage drops they move into a safety shut down or just quit, likely in order of high-powered systems going first, and then a cascade of lesser powered systems from there. Or they could all go simultaneously. The last half-ping via the satcom link has been speculated to be an ACARS attempt based upon an engine-out condition, so what power was it likely using when it failed? (It would be odd - in addition to everything else on this flight - if the ram air turbine had been deployed, but then that adds another layer of what-ifs too.) Thanks.


User currently offlinenorthstardc4m From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2990 posts, RR: 37
Reply 29, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 70775 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

I have yet to see an answer to this...

Is there anything entered into the FMC that would put the plane on a direct course for the south pole, that is simple like 9999 or something?

I'm really having a hard time reconciling the facts with the plane being in the southern ocean... no theory really makes sense for me with someone in control? So I'm thinking zombiejet with the FMC flying a heading until it gets on course for 90S0E, but i don't see any EASY way someone could of entered that... so that's why im wondering if it would accept something like all 9s for that location? OR is there a mode that when the entered flightplan ends the aircraft switches to heading mode automatically (HDG 180)?

Plotting the flightpath it would seem to be that sometime after passing north of Banda Aceh the plane needs to make a turn due south to end up where the search areas are...

I've probably been playing with mapping too much... but if you plot the last "known" course, it heads approximately to N5E90, and then plot to S90E0...

http://goo.gl/tHLHWy

Assuming 4000-4500nm range, the dots where the range and path meet are coordiates of the various wreckage reports.

granted it's full of guesses...



Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
User currently offlineB777fan From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 171 posts, RR: 2
Reply 30, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 70405 times:

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 24):
There is an inertial guidance system isn't there? Couldn't that keep the plane flying straight ahead in principle, even if not in practice?

In principle, your GPS could keep your car on the road if you let go of the wheel - does it?

With autopilot off, the INS is just going to give you your location - just like that is all the GPS in your car does. The INS doesn't fly the plane, the autopilot or the pilot do - with assistance from the INS or any other navigation source the pilot chooses to use.


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
Reply 31, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 69978 times:

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 26):
Quoting SA7700 (Thread starter):
There is an inertial guidance system isn't there? Couldn't that keep the plane flying straight ahead in principle, even if not in practice?

You misunderstand the purpose of an INS. I suggest you look it up.
Quoting B777fan (Reply 30):
The INS doesn't fly the plane, the autopilot or the pilot do - with assistance from the INS or any other navigation source the pilot chooses to use.

Agreed. The INS provides information about location, flightpath, ground speed, etc. The autopilot can use that information to fly in a particular direction if the crew wants it to, e.g. by programming a destination (or, as Zeke mentioned, selecting Track instead of Heading) and engaging the autopilot. With the autopilot off, all the INS/GPS will do is indicate how accurately you're navigating towards that point.


User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1501 posts, RR: 8
Reply 32, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 69405 times:

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 24):
But Captain, are you absolutely sure? Last time you said you had never actually tried letting go of the controls when in manual flight mode. (Maybe next time you fly, you can give it a try! )

What I meant was I had never let it roll to overbank protection on its own, I've let go and watched it roll several times (not to overbank) which one customer required prior to accepting the airplane.

Quoting SimonDanger (Reply 28):
It would be interesting to know what the shut-down triage sequence would be in the event that the flight flew until fuel exhaustion. If the APU is not on during flight normally (?), and electrical and hydraulic power is derived from the engines, once the engines shut down, I assume there would be some limited battery power left.

On the 777 when all the engine driven generators (4) are shutdown the battery takes over, the RAT drops to take over from the battery and the APU automatically starts (unless you're out of fuel).


User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3607 posts, RR: 12
Reply 33, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 68717 times:

Quoting TheRedBAron (Reply 15):
We all have troubles, if a nasty divorce would make somebody do this, we would have a crash each week...

No, because as I pointed out earlier, this relies on an assumption that the world is ordered and humans react predictably to any given situation. They don't. Some guys shrug off a divorce and just keep going on about their daily lives; it's more of an inconvenience than anything. Some see it as an opportunity to go have that affair with their secretary that they've been wanting to have. Some mope around the house for months or even years, not showering or shaving the entire time. Still others get violent.

We program computers to do certain things and to react a certain way to certain inputs, and they do that, every single time. Humans do not work that way. That may be uncomfortable to realize, but you must realize it.

It could very well be that there's some other explanation nobody's thought of yet, and we'll all be surprised when we finally find the recorders. But you cannot rule out pilot suicide just because other people haven't committed this act in a similar situation before. (Though this would hardly be the first pilot suicide.)

Lastly, a lot of people keep bringing up AF447 and saying things like "no one" predicted the cause of that accident, I guess to imply that any theory you read here for MH370 must be wrong - this being some sort of roundabout proof that it couldn't be pilot suicide.

But I read through those early AF447 threads as well and lots of people predicted it mostly as it really happened. Nobody got every single detail right, of course, but it's wrong to say it was a complete surprise to everyone. It was only a surprise to people who believed the cause to be something else! But predictions of a stall mixed with some sort of pilot error were rampant through those threads, along with many other theories of course. I'm quite confident we've already hit on whatever the cause of MH370 was too - there are a limited number of possible theories that fit the facts. It's very likely to be one of the things we (and more importantly, the investigators) have been talking about.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 34, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 68935 times:

It appears that the Malaysia 370 mess has resulted in a new product for INMARSAT:

http://www.runwaygirlnetwork.com/201...eyes-global-aero-distress-service/



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlinepoolkeeper From Panama, joined Nov 2013, 51 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 68513 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 31):

The INS boxes I have played with contains accelerometers and fiber gyros (or similar). These can give you a position for a while before the drift start to make an impact.
It can give output to help to keep the aircraft in fixed angle, but for altitude, speed and heading you will need more sensors (compass, altimeter, GPS etc) and then use filters with feedback to the INS.

In military you combine an INS with terrain radar but for civil aircraft you really want to have a GPS as reference (if no GPS then radio beacon)


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
Reply 36, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 68141 times:

Quoting poolkeeper (Reply 35):

I think you've missed my point: I.e. INS provides information about the aircraft to the FM(G)S and does not "fly" the aircraft.

[Edited 2014-03-27 13:21:25]

User currently offlineWarrenPlatts From United States of America, joined Mar 2014, 386 posts, RR: 2
Reply 37, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 68206 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 31):
Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 26):
There is an inertial guidance system isn't there? Couldn't that keep the plane flying straight ahead in principle, even if not in practice?

Quoting B777fan (Reply 30):The INS doesn't fly the plane, the autopilot or the pilot do - with assistance from the INS or any other navigation source the pilot chooses to use.

Agreed. The INS provides information about location, flightpath, ground speed, etc. The autopilot can use that information to fly in a particular direction if the crew wants it to, e.g. by programming a destination (or, as Zeke mentioned, selecting Track instead of Heading) and engaging the autopilot. With the autopilot off, all the INS/GPS will do is indicate how accurately you're navigating towards that point.


Well, 7BOEING7 said that the 787 and AB (possibly) will stay pointed straight ahead if you let go of the wheel, so it's possible in principle. Presumably the inertial guidance system has something to do with the ability of a 787 to stay pointed straight ahead. However, due to a peculiarity in the 777 FBW design, when one lets go of the wheel, a 777 will roll toward one side or the other until the bank controller comes into play, and then the a/c will do nothing but fly tight 30 degree bank circles until the a/c runs out of fuel, at which point it will augur over and nosedive into the drink from 30,000 feet. IOW, autopilot-off-zombie theories are not consistent with the Inmarsat data, and are thus falsified.

[Edited 2014-03-27 13:22:20]


There is a rebel in each and everyone of us--let it out! Don't waste your life on mundane lifestyles. When is it enough?
User currently offlineWarrenPlatts From United States of America, joined Mar 2014, 386 posts, RR: 2
Reply 38, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 68080 times:

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 32):
Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 24):But Captain, are you absolutely sure? Last time you said you had never actually tried letting go of the controls when in manual flight mode. (Maybe next time you fly, you can give it a try! )

What I meant was I had never let it roll to overbank protection on its own, I've let go and watched it roll several times (not to overbank) which one customer required prior to accepting the airplane.

Well, then that settles it....

That means that the 400 knot Inmarsat flight path can be excluded (as indeed all autopilot off zombie theories) because it describes an inertial flight path of an aircraft that can fly straight ahead in manual mode with no one at the controls. A 787 could do it, but not a 777 evidently.

Thank you for your input 7BOEING7!!  

[Edited 2014-03-27 13:38:17]


There is a rebel in each and everyone of us--let it out! Don't waste your life on mundane lifestyles. When is it enough?
User currently offlinepoolkeeper From Panama, joined Nov 2013, 51 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 67525 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 36):

That is fine I just commented about:
"The INS provides information about location, flightpath, ground speed, etc".
Those are normally processed outside the INS. The INS just provide angle and acceleration data.


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
Reply 40, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 67583 times:

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 37):
However, due to a peculiarity in the 777 FBW design, when one lets go of the wheel, a 777 will roll toward one side or the other

It's not a peculiarity of the 777, it's a peculiarity of aircraft that don't have a system that actively keeps the aircraft on a flightpath with no (auto)pilot input, i.e. most airliners until recently.


User currently offline65mustang From United States of America, joined Mar 2014, 84 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 67680 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting gulfstream650 (Reply 18):
Pay any attention to the scale?

Yes I did! Using the scale for the picture it looks about 25ft wide. What I see in this picture is what resembles a windshield, painted stripes, and a right angle corner where the door would be. The scale of where the opening for the windshield might be does seem off.

This if the first Tomnod post I have put on here and I have seen a lot of waves and a lot of ships in other tomnod images. I am not trying to make a mockery out of the image analysis business. I am trying to provide information for thoughtful and constructive discussion. Yes, it could be a wave. It could be flotsam. I don't know what it is. I did not post this based on her interpretation, I posted it based on my thoughts and my interpretation. As many pictures as Digital globe is taking, if there is debris, maybe eventually they will capture an image of it. This image is dated 3/25 so it would be more recent. It seems it doesn't matter what is seen from satellite pictures or from even planes if the SAR doesn't get more ships in the area.


User currently offlinerolfen From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 1803 posts, RR: 2
Reply 42, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 67343 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 34):

It appears that the Malaysia 370 mess has resulted in a new product for INMARSAT:

http://www.runwaygirlnetwork.com/201...vice/

Never a bad time to make new business... I have even seen the CEO of Inmarsat (if my memory serves me well) pushing for changes and adoption of new technology, which he says was already there and ready to be rolled out - he even gave a price figure! That and praising his team for their technological feat for the doppler trick... all that during an interview which was supposed to be about MH370.

Heck I even wondered if they did not cause the whole thing to create a new market. I know it sounds terrible and far fetched, but it is worth noting that this is the only motive I can come up with at this time for flight 370, if it was the result of a deliberate action... not that I pretend to know what happened, nor am I trying to spread conspiracy theories, just sharing my thoughts.

From what we know, It seems like MH370 took every possible action to disappear without a trace ever since it's transpoder went off. Definitely not a normal situation.

[Edited 2014-03-27 13:54:56]


rolf
User currently offlineWarrenPlatts From United States of America, joined Mar 2014, 386 posts, RR: 2
Reply 43, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 67125 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 40):
Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 37):However, due to a peculiarity in the 777 FBW design, when one lets go of the wheel, a 777 will roll toward one side or the other

It's not a peculiarity of the 777, it's a peculiarity of aircraft that don't have a system that actively keeps the aircraft on a flightpath with no (auto)pilot input, i.e. most airliners until recently.


OK fine. But how about a little credit for helping to prove that the 400 knot Inmarsat flight path almost certainly cannot be correct despite the fact that it is consistent with the Inmarsat pings!   That's been my main concern all along--not peculiarities of aircraft design.

The 400 knot path looked to me like an inertial flight path under the influence of the Coriolis effect. I constructed a numerical simulation that showed that the 400 knot flight path is indeed consistent with an autopilot off, zombie aircraft flying inertially--but only if the aircraft could stay pointed straight ahead. Since 777s cannot stay pointed straight ahead (even though 787s can), then we know that MH370 did not follow the 400 knot Inmarsat flight path.



There is a rebel in each and everyone of us--let it out! Don't waste your life on mundane lifestyles. When is it enough?
User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 1053 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 66712 times:

Quoting bond007 (Reply 12):
Quoting nupogodi (Reply 4):Quoting David L (Reply 3):There are quite a lot of differences between how the FBW flight laws are implemented on an A320 versus a 777.Indeed. All it means is that there is a computer interpreting the inputs to create the corresponding outputs. ... and needing a computer is also unnecessary,

I believe we're talking digital FBW here not analog as in:

Quoting apfpilot (Reply 17):
You pretty much just described Concordes FBW system

I don't think a digital FBW is worth much minus a (digital) computer.

Quoting David L (Reply 40):
It's not a peculiarity of the 777, it's a peculiarity of aircraft that don't have a system that actively keeps the aircraft on a flightpath with no (auto)pilot input, i.e. most airliners until recently.

It's related to whether the FBW is designed to hold the last attitude, I think. I believe all Airbi since the A320 do this. The Space Shuttle had a digital FBW system that used this "rate control attitude hold" logic.


User currently offlineWarrenPlatts From United States of America, joined Mar 2014, 386 posts, RR: 2
Reply 45, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 66829 times:

Quoting 65mustang (Reply 41):
Yes I did! Using the scale for the picture it looks about 25ft wide. What I see in this picture is what resembles a windshield, painted stripes, and a right angle corner where the door would be. The scale of where the opening for the windshield might be does seem off.

Could you post a copy of the picture inline here? I'd be interested in looking at it, but I couldn't follow the link you provided.



There is a rebel in each and everyone of us--let it out! Don't waste your life on mundane lifestyles. When is it enough?
User currently offlinetheaviator380 From UK - England, joined Feb 2013, 385 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 67190 times:

Goodness me, have a look. Thank god it wasn't a plane.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ED-PLANE-ultimate-false-alarm.html

Sorry I know it's not MH370 related as such, couldn't restrain myself posting it here.

[Edited 2014-03-27 13:58:41]

User currently offlinenupogodi From Canada, joined Mar 2014, 908 posts, RR: 4
Reply 47, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 65923 times:

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 43):
OK fine. But how about a little credit for helping to prove that the 400 knot Inmarsat flight path almost certainly cannot be correct despite the fact that it is consistent with the Inmarsat pings!

Wow, maybe you should share your findings with the investigators!

If you didn't note the sarcasm, then interpret this very literally: You have not proven anything and you're talking nonsense and you should stop.



A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
Reply 48, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 65421 times:

Quoting poolkeeper (Reply 39):

Well, strictly speaking, shouldn't we be talking about IRS rather than INS?   


User currently offline65mustang From United States of America, joined Mar 2014, 84 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 65105 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Some items from the link I have in Reply 6 above.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 19):
With the engines and APU inoperable due to lack of fuel, the battery and then the RAT are the only things providing electric power.

The standby electrical system can supply AC and DC power to selected flight
instruments, communications and navigation systems, and the flight control
system, if there are primary electrical power system failures.
The standby electrical system consists of:
• the main battery
• the standby inverter
• the RAT generator and its associated generator control unit
• the C1 and C2 TRUs.

Quoting SimonDanger (Reply 28):
It would be interesting to know what the shut-down triage sequence would be in the event that the flight flew until fuel exhaustion.

The ELMS provides load management and protection to ensure power is available
to critical and essential equipment.
If the electrical loads exceed the power available (airplane or external), ELMS
automatically sheds AC loads by priority until the loads are within the capacity of
the airplane or ground power generators. The load shedding is galleys first, then
utility busses. Utility busses are followed by individual equipment items powered
by the main AC busses. When an additional power source becomes available or
the loads decrease, ELMS restores power to shed systems (in the reverse order).
The message LOAD SHED displays on the electrical synoptic when load shed
conditions exist.

If both IDGs and the APU generator are inoperative, a backup generator powers
essential airplane equipment. To reduce electrical loading on the backup
generator, the following systems are inoperative:
• TCAS
• SATCOM
• Right HF radio
[HF Datalink installed]
• Right HF radio and associated datalink
• Center tank override/jettison pumps (center tank fuel is unusable and
cannot be jettisoned)
[777-200LR]
• Center tank override/jettison pumps (center tank and auxiliary fuel is
unusable and cannot be jettisoned)
• Position and other exterior lights (except nose gear landing lights)
• All non-essential cabin equipment (galleys, entertainment systems, etc.)
• Passenger cabin lighting (except night, galley and cross-aisle lights)
• Cabin temperature control (remains operative, but in degraded mode

Quoting SimonDanger (Reply 28):
If the APU is not on during flight normally (?), and electrical and hydraulic power is derived from the engines, once the engines shut down, I assume there would be some limited battery power left.

The APU generator is electrically identical to the IDG generators. The APU
generator can power either or both main busses, and may be used in flight as a
replacement to an IDG source.

In flight, when both transfer busses are unpowered, the APU starts automatically,
regardless of APU selector position.

The right IDG normally powers the right main bus and the left IDG normally
powers the left main bus. The APU normally powers both main busses when they
are not powered by any other source.

The source order for powering left and right main busses in flight is the:
• respective IDG
• APU generator
• opposite IDG.

I hope this helps with the above discussion.


User currently offlineB777fan From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 171 posts, RR: 2
Reply 50, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 64886 times:

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 43):
The 400 knot path looked to me like an inertial flight path under the influence of the Coriolis effect. I constructed a numerical simulation that showed that the 400 knot flight path is indeed consistent with an autopilot off, zombie aircraft flying inertially--but only if the aircraft could stay pointed straight ahead. Since 777s cannot stay pointed straight ahead (even though 787s can), then we know that MH370 did not follow the 400 knot Inmarsat flight path.

Ok, I give up, I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at.

If the plane was turned to the south and the autopilot turned off and no pilot took control, it would have crashed shortly after. But we have the pings, so we know that didn't happen.

However, the reconstructed paths by the NTSB and Inmarsat are consistent with zombie plane scenarios - which - usually take place guided by the autopilot.

If the 777 was started south in heading hold mode of 180° - true for simplicity - its ground path would be an arc that doesn't track the longitude line it started out on. This is because of winds aloft. There is no reason to doubt that the Inmarset flight path is not achievable via some autopilot control. We don't know what happened but it doesn't have to mean it wasn't a Zombie flight.

Apologies if this doesn't represent what you are driving at.


User currently offlinepoolkeeper From Panama, joined Nov 2013, 51 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 64563 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 49):

Not a bad idea  

Hopefully they find the plane soon so families don´t have to live in uncertainty


User currently offlineWarrenPlatts From United States of America, joined Mar 2014, 386 posts, RR: 2
Reply 52, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 64281 times:

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 48):
Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 43):OK fine. But how about a little credit for helping to prove that the 400 knot Inmarsat flight path almost certainly cannot be correct despite the fact that it is consistent with the Inmarsat pings!
Wow, maybe you should share your findings with the investigators!

If you didn't note the sarcasm, then interpret this very literally: You have not proven anything and you're talking nonsense and you should stop.

Huh? Have you even looked at the flight paths?

1. The 450 knot flight path is not a great circle flight path.

2. The 450 knot flight path is consistent with a constant heading flight path of about 187° true.

3. The 400 knot flight path is not a great circle flight path

4. The 400 knot flight path is not a constant compass heading flight path.

5. The 400 knot flight path is not a constant magnetic heading flight path.

6. The 400 knot flight path is consistent with an inertial flight path affected by westerlies

7. An aircraft that could actively stay pointed straight ahead in manual flight mode with no one at the controls--such as a 787 per 7BOEING7--would follow an inertial flight path if the aircraft was in manual flight mode and the pilot was incapacitated, committed suicide, or otherwise dropped the controls.

8. However, a Boeing 777 cannot stay pointed straight ahead if the pilot lets go of the controls.

Now, all eight of the above premises are true. Yes, it is possible for MH370 to have followed the 400 knot Inmarsat flight path: but only if the pilot actively calculated what an inertial flight path would look like, and then actively piloted or programmed such a course into the autopilot. Are you suggesting that is what happened? Perhaps as a trick to throw off the investigators?

Absolutely brilliant! Maybe you should share that theory with the investigators....



There is a rebel in each and everyone of us--let it out! Don't waste your life on mundane lifestyles. When is it enough?
User currently offlineMSY-MSP From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 151 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 64181 times:

Quoting B777fan (Reply 51):
Ok, I give up, I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at.

I think what he is getting at is that the 400 Knot track doesn't fit with what we know. The track generated by the pings for 400 Knots shows evidence of impact from the Coriolis effect. This is what is causing the curve of the track towards Australia. If we consider that the aircraft cannot maintain a constant heading without the autopilot engaged or an actual pilot at the helm, it appears that the 400Knot track is simply no longer a plausible track. If on autopilot the aircraft would fly a true heading and we would not see the curve in the track.

Conversely the 450Knot track is almost dead straight. This would be indicative of an aircraft under the control of the autopilot. Again given the facts on how the 777 performs with and without direct input, the logical conclusion is that the 450knot track is the more likely of the two.

From the search approach it appears as though the investigators also believe that the 450knot track is more probable than the other track as well.


User currently offlineawthompson From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 466 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 63423 times:

I have not yet seen a single satellite (or other) photo from the southern Indian Ocean that looks like floating debris. All I have seen is white breaking wave tops. That's why the ships and aircraft that have been searching have not yet turned up anything positive.

I'm surprised at the naivety of whichever organisation posted the supposed French satellite images of sea visible between clouds with hundreds of white tops all over the area suggesting they could be debris!


User currently offlinep51tang From New Zealand, joined Mar 2014, 64 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 63331 times:

Quoting p51tang (Reply 245):
Why not implement a compulsory reporting system?.It could be housed in a very small boom which extends from the tail section and carries antenna and a Inmarsat Swift Broadband located just inside the Tail Section.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 34):
It appears that the Malaysia 370 mess has resulted in a new product for INMARSAT:

http://www.runwaygirlnetwork.com/2014/03/27/inmarsat-eyes-global-aero-distress-service/
Quote:
Crucially, however, this service could not be simply switched off in the cockpit.
Quote:
“You could have a tracker built into the tail frame, for example, doing a one-off job,” says McLaughlin. “This would be separate from ACARS, just streaming GPS.”

TaaDaa!!...Is Inmarsat reading these threads?.  



BTW: I support the Zombie theory.With 777 on Auto-Pilot heading South @ 180 degrees from it's last left hand turn pre-loaded into FMS prior to De-pressuratization at 43,000ft.777 spirals down from 35,000ft and hits water nose first,which may be why so much debris is scattered out over such a vast area?.


[Edited 2014-03-27 15:40:10]


[Edited 2014-03-27 16:06:25]

User currently offlineWarrenPlatts From United States of America, joined Mar 2014, 386 posts, RR: 2
Reply 56, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 63364 times:

Quoting B777fan (Reply 51):
Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 43):The 400 knot path looked to me like an inertial flight path under the influence of the Coriolis effect. I constructed a numerical simulation that showed that the 400 knot flight path is indeed consistent with an autopilot off, zombie aircraft flying inertially--but only if the aircraft could stay pointed straight ahead. Since 777s cannot stay pointed straight ahead (even though 787s can), then we know that MH370 did not follow the 400 knot Inmarsat flight path.
Ok, I give up, I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at.

If the plane was turned to the south and the autopilot turned off and no pilot took control, it would have crashed shortly after. But we have the pings, so we know that didn't happen.

However, the reconstructed paths by the NTSB and Inmarsat are consistent with zombie plane scenarios - which - usually take place guided by the autopilot.

If the 777 was started south in heading hold mode of 180° - true for simplicity - its ground path would be an arc that doesn't track the longitude line it started out on. This is because of winds aloft. There is no reason to doubt that the Inmarset flight path is not achievable via some autopilot control. We don't know what happened but it doesn't have to mean it wasn't a Zombie flight.

Apologies if this doesn't represent what you are driving at.

No problem! Yes, both paths are consistent with zombie plane scenarios: however, the 450 knot flight path would require that the autopilot was turned on. Presumably, it passed it's last way point with a heading of ~187° and then simply continued on its way.

The 400 knot flight path is consistent with an autopilot off zombie plane--IF the aircraft is capable staying pointed straight ahead. In that case, it would be affected by Coriolis forces and crosswinds. An autopilot off zombified 787 would follow such a path, but a 777 cannot. Therefore, for the 400 knot flight path zombie scenario would require that the pilot actively programmed the plane to follow a path that looked like the inertial flight path that an autopilot-off zombie plane would fly.

The question is why would the pilot do that? My understanding is that autopilots will take into account crosswinds--correct me if I'm wrong. The standard procedure is to program in either way points or to simply stay on a single heading. The pilot could have programmed in a series of maybe 30 way points that gradually curved to the left. But why would he do that?

Perhaps there's a way to program the autopilot to simply fly a perfectly straight, inertial flight path? Is this even possible?!? Even if so, I highly doubt that's standard procedure. Pilots, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Maybe if a hijacker who wasn't a qualified pilot simply aimed the aircraft south and without being able to understand any compass headings, simply clutched the wheel with sweaty hands and tried to keep the aircraft pointed straight no matter what might not realize he was getting pushed off course by the Coriolis effect and westerly crosswinds. Who knows?

In this crazy situation, practically anything is possible, but other things being equal, the 400 knot flight path is more consistent with an autopilot-on zombie flight, whereas the 400 knot flight path is what one would expect with an autopilot-off zombie plane. Since we know an autopilot-off zombie plane is impossible, then 400 knot hypothesis becomes highly improbable IMHO.

YMMV



There is a rebel in each and everyone of us--let it out! Don't waste your life on mundane lifestyles. When is it enough?
User currently offlineSimonDanger From United States of America, joined Mar 2014, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 63007 times:

Quoting 65mustang (Reply 50):

Thanks Mustang! Very cool link, which I'm afraid will now cause me to be even more unproductive in my normal life, just as this site has   I happened to notice this little blurbe about video that I don't recall seeing mentioned in all the future-of-FDR/CVR/video discussions:

ON – powers IFE, passenger seat, ground maneuver camera, and flight deck entry video surveillance systems when AC power is available.

Hmmm...does this stuff wind up on a small flash drive somewhere?


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16993 posts, RR: 67
Reply 58, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 61579 times:

Quoting p51tang (Reply 55):

Quoting p51tang (Reply 245):
Why not implement a compulsory reporting system?.It could be housed in a very small boom which extends from the tail section and carries antenna and a Inmarsat Swift Broadband located just inside the Tail Section.

There is already such a system, ADS-B. Just like all electrical gadgets on the plane, it can be turned off for safety reasons. Being able to turn it off is a good thing. In any case there is really no need to put such a system in the tail section.

mandala499 did talk about making it very hard to turn off. But it needs to have a breaker of something. Making it impossible to turn off adds not inconsiderable risk to every flight.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineKDTWflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 828 posts, RR: 1
Reply 59, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 61466 times:

I tried searching in the forums and didn't see any mention of this Global Express, VH-TGG, but it seems to be actively involved in the searching process. Check out the link below..

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/VHTGG

It is operated by the 'Gandel Group' - product of John Gandel, the Australian property developer so I am interested to know why / how it would be part of the search effort.

[Edited 2014-03-27 16:36:28]


NW B744 B742 B753 B752 A333 A332 A320 A319 DC10 DC9 ARJ CRJ S340
User currently offlinenupogodi From Canada, joined Mar 2014, 908 posts, RR: 4
Reply 60, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 61625 times:

Quoting KDTWflyer (Reply 59):
It is operated by the 'Gandel Group' - product of John Gandel, the australian property developer so I am interested to know why / how it would be part of the search effort.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26677056

BBC says a civilian Bombardier Global Express is involved. There have been other civilian aircraft and commercial ships involved. Perhaps it is a donation of time/fuel by the owners, perhaps they are being compensated for their efforts. All eyes are needed, why not loan out your plane if you're not using it?



A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
User currently offlinecapri From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 447 posts, RR: 1
Reply 61, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 61396 times:

Quoting KDTWflyer (Reply 59):

from what i heard on the news, this type of aircraft is a long range which stays in the air longer and doesn't have to refuel hence the duration of flight hours mentioned in your link, some days 11hrs weather permitting of course


User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3379 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 60877 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 58):
mandala499 did talk about making it very hard to turn off. But it needs to have a breaker of something. Making it impossible to turn off adds not inconsiderable risk to every flight.

There is more than one easy way of making it more or less impossible for one person to switch a system off:

(1) issue each pilot with a password or PIN, both of which would need to be entered to switch the system off

(2) position 2 buttons in places where one pilot could not reach both and require both to be depressed simultaneously to switch the system off


User currently offline777Jet From Australia, joined Mar 2014, 1407 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 60952 times:

A new article: "Captain 'deliberately' flew MH370 off course"

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/201...deliberately-flew-mh370-off-course

I wonder how much theories posted on this website contribute to media speculation? After all, this was discussed in here a week ago.

Let's hope that the search can continue and that something is found soon. However, if a single piece of debris has not been found within another two weeks, and given all the new satellite images showing hundreds of things in this area and hundreds of things in that area only 200km away, then, given the sheer size of the 777 and the fact that some of its materials would still be floating, if not one thing is found in another two weeks I will start to favor theories that took the plane in a different direction, possibly North.



DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90,717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788,306,320,321,332/3,346,388
User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1737 posts, RR: 2
Reply 64, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 60155 times:

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 63):
A new article: "Captain 'deliberately' flew MH370 off course"

Though it is a definite possibility I don't understand why Malaysian government kind of supports this theory. My suspicion they may be using this incident to discredit opposition. May be it will cost $2Billion-$3Billion (~$10 Mil per soul) for the government but guarantees one more term for the party. I know it is kind of "out there" theory but, no government in the world would jump ahead and say it is a deliberate action by a pilot of national carrier. Even today Egypt contradicts with NTSB about their pilot's suicide.


User currently offlineCX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6582 posts, RR: 55
Reply 65, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 59665 times:

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 60):
Quoting KDTWflyer (Reply 59):
It is operated by the 'Gandel Group' - product of John Gandel, the australian property developer so I am interested to know why / how it would be part of the search effort.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26677056

BBC says a civilian Bombardier Global Express is involved. There have been other civilian aircraft and commercial ships involved. Perhaps it is a donation of time/fuel by the owners, perhaps they are being compensated for their efforts. All eyes are needed, why not loan out your plane if you're not using it?

It is always in the best interests of a big businessman to help out his government where he can. Its as close to corruption as you can get without it being called such. Not saying thats the case here...just that it happens.


User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4389 posts, RR: 76
Reply 66, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 59611 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting poolkeeper (Reply 35):

The INS boxes I have played with contains accelerometers and fiber gyros (or similar). These can give you a position for a while before the drift start to make an impact.

Modern IRSs are a lot more precise than your INS.
When combined with another two boxes, the precision is further augmented, the position estimated at the center of thr triangle then obtained.
The IRS drift is perfectly known, for each box, then taken into account by the navigation system. ( Even before one introduces corrections obtained by radionav (VORs and DME4s) or the GPS )

Quoting poolkeeper (Reply 35):
It can give output to help to keep the aircraft in fixed angle, but for altitude, speed and heading you will need more sensors (compass, altimeter, GPS etc) and then use filters with feedback to the INS.

No. Piloting instruments do not use the entire IRS, just the attitude part of it. When you lose the navfigation data from the IRS, you can switch to "ATTITUDE" which doesn't care whether your Nav is accurate or not.
Altitude and speed data come from the pitot / static system.
Heading is a bit more complicated as it depends on the initial Inertial reference, both in *direction* and corrections ( via the magnetic variation database)... There is no compass info ( flux gate style )

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 37):
. Presumably the inertial guidance system has something to do with the ability of a 787 to stay pointed straight ahead.

NO; The 787's is just another philosophy on electric flight controls, more akin to the 'Bus as I read 7Boeing7's posts.
It has nothing to do with *guidance*

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 37):
in the 777 FBW design, when one lets go of the wheel, a 777 will roll toward one side or the other until the bank controller comes into play, and then the a/c will do nothing but fly tight 30 degree bank circles until the a/c runs out of fuel, at which point it will augur over and nosedive into the drink from 30,000 feet. IOW, autopilot-off-zombie theories are not consistent with the Inmarsat data, and are thus falsified.

Please try not to splatter your demonstrations with sensationalist words like " zombie", the "drink", "auger" ( not *augur*, btw ).
What is funny is that you don't seem like having a good grasp on what you're trying to convince us with : You could, for instance add numerical data on the influence of the Coriolis force on an 250 T airplane flying at 450 kt and a heading ( magnetic or true, you chose ),of 180°, starting from 06° North and ending some place at Latitude 45° South... In other words, what would be the final drift ?
I'm curious.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 43):

OK fine. But how about a little credit for helping to prove that the 400 knot Inmarsat flight path almost certainly cannot be correct despite the fact that it is consistent with the Inmarsat pings!

Please do prove it... And give the people who thought that trajectory out their dues : Boeing, the NTSB, the FAA.
So what you're talking about should be called "The BOEINGNTSBFAAINMARSATPINGDERIVATIONTRAJECTORY
I have that strange feeling that they could, just could, mind you, know more about aviation than you do.

And by the way,in all my aviation career, the only times I had to deal with Mr Coriolis were when doing high altitude star sights for celestial navigation close to the pole as he can affect the bubble.

Quoting MSY-MSP (Reply 53):
. If on autopilot the aircraft would fly a true heading and we would not see the curve in the track.

1/-Any autopilot can fly either Magnetic or True heading, depending on pilot's choice.
2/-A great circle is not defined by a heading... far from it.
3/-Be very careful with maps. Always consider the projection and its effects on courses (lines that could be curved or straight... you can't know until you know.



Contrail designer
User currently offlineDalavia From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 543 posts, RR: 1
Reply 67, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 59479 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 64):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 63):
A new article: "Captain 'deliberately' flew MH370 off course"

Though it is a definite possibility I don't understand why Malaysian government kind of supports this theory. My suspicion they may be using this incident to discredit opposition.

Could it be to deflect attention from the First Officer, who I understand had better connections to those with influence?


User currently offlineMark2fly1034 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 59353 times:

I think the best thing to do at this point and what the media seems to be doing is using occam's razor, which will point back to the simplest thing and that is the crew. Now what I would like to know is how long it took them to go from FL370 ( or whatever it was) to FL450 and down to FL230. If it was a short time then we are looking at a stall if it was a long period of time it could be something more deliberate. Have they released this information yet?

Heard most of this from a guest speaker in class today.


User currently offlinenupogodi From Canada, joined Mar 2014, 908 posts, RR: 4
Reply 69, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 59302 times:

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 65):
It is always in the best interests of a big businessman to help out his government where he can. Its as close to corruption as you can get without it being called such. Not saying thats the case here...just that it happens.

Eh, you know what, if donating time on expensive equipment towards a SAR effort is corruption, then I say let the corruption flow free.

I think what would be corruption is if he got treated more favourably by politicians as a result. You know, making campaign donations isn't illegal, but getting kickbacks is.



A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
User currently offlinenupogodi From Canada, joined Mar 2014, 908 posts, RR: 4
Reply 70, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 59211 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 66):
What is funny is that you don't seem like having a good grasp on what you're trying to convince us with

This is basically what I was trying to say, but I'm not quite eloquent enough to do it properly. The fact that the guy doesn't really know what an inertial navigation/reference system really is... It's really weird to say you've "proven" something is impossible when organizations like Inmarsat and NTSB full of more people with PhDs than you've ever met are saying the opposite.



A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
User currently offlinerolfen From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 1803 posts, RR: 2
Reply 71, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 59130 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 58):
mandala499 did talk about making it very hard to turn off. But it needs to have a breaker of something. Making it impossible to turn off adds not inconsiderable risk to every flight.

Not if it is an external unit, mounted to the outside of the fuselage, in a way that a fire would not damage or penetrate the fuselage in any way. It could be self-powered, using an enclosed battery, which would power the units for hours after it stops receiving power.

I think it's possible.

Similar ideas have been discussed in more details in the following thread, by the way:
MH370 - Lessons Learned, Changes In Civil Aviation

Yes, many persons were of the opinion that there are no lessons to be learned before we find out exactly what happened, so if you are of this opinion, make sure you read the thread before posting, because it has been voiced before!



rolf
User currently offlineNAV30 From Australia, joined Mar 2014, 269 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 58955 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 63):
A new article: "Captain 'deliberately' flew MH370 off course"

It's interesting that Channel Nine, which you quote, only quoted 29 seconds of Geoffrey Thomas's commentary. In fact the full video runs for over 2 minutes, during which, although Thomas didn't rule out 'pilot error,' he also said that 'a deranged passenger' or hijackers or whatever couldn't be ruled out either. Here's the full version:-

http://media.smh.com.au/featured/mas...rly-aircraft-wreckage-5299195.html

I wonder why Nine 'censored' his comments so that they seemed only to refer to 'pilot error' (or worse)?


User currently offlinenupogodi From Canada, joined Mar 2014, 908 posts, RR: 4
Reply 73, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 58628 times:

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 72):

I wonder why Nine 'censored' his comments so that they seemed only to refer to 'pilot error' (or worse)?

To support their narrative, clearly. The Daily Mail for example, which keeps getting linked here for some reason, is notorious for this. Sensationalism sells newspapers/ad views/etc.

That being said, the 'deliberate act by crew' theory seems to be favoured among onlookers like us and investigators alike. :-/



A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
User currently offlineWarrenPlatts From United States of America, joined Mar 2014, 386 posts, RR: 2
Reply 74, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 58335 times:

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 70):
Quoting Pihero (Reply 66):What is funny is that you don't seem like having a good grasp on what you're trying to convince us with
This is basically what I was trying to say, but I'm not quite eloquent enough to do it properly. The fact that the guy doesn't really know what an inertial navigation/reference system really is... It's really weird to say you've "proven" something is impossible when organizations like Inmarsat and NTSB full of more people with PhDs than you've ever met are saying the opposite.


Hey nupogod, it should be clear from multiple posts that I never said I "proved" in the logical, mathematical, philosophical sense as in 2 + 2 = 4. It's all probabilities. You think the pilot was crafty enough to enter in 30 way points to make his flight look like an autopilot off zombie plane, well then, feel free. The rest of us are normal.

[Edited 2014-03-27 18:25:46]


There is a rebel in each and everyone of us--let it out! Don't waste your life on mundane lifestyles. When is it enough?
User currently offlinenupogodi From Canada, joined Mar 2014, 908 posts, RR: 4
Reply 75, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 58102 times:

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 74):
Hey nupogod, it should be clear from multiple posts that I never said I "proved" in the logical, mathematical, philosophical sense as in 2 + 2 = 4. It's all probabilities. You think the pilot was crafty enough to enter in 30 way points to make his flight look like an autopilot off zombie plane, well then, feel free. The rest of us are normal.

You are making a lot of assumptions, and haven't refuted anything that Pihero said.

Your biggest mistake is assuming that the published INMARSAT possible tracks are actual tracks. Remember, this is a predictive model created based on analysis of similar T7 flights on similar routes. You are pretending like the map is showing two exact possibilities for their routing when that could not be further from the truth. They know approximately where they went based on the Doppler shift analysis (but definitely south), and making some assumptions could calculate possible tracks. Not all of the Doppler and RTT analysis in the world will turn a 1996 communications satellite into a precise geolocator.

You have failed to define what you mean by an "inertial track". And yet you make very definitive, finite statements. It's disingenuous analysis.



A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
User currently offlinefotoflyer71 From Malawi, joined May 2011, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 76, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 58268 times:

Just off CNN - search area revised based on updated analysis of radar data - aircraft was flying faster than originally thought thereby decreasing it's maximum range...


Try to learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself.
User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6130 posts, RR: 30
Reply 77, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 58535 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Breaking

According to Piers Morgan on CNN, they are moving the search area some 685 miles to the North East.

[Edited 2014-03-27 18:41:25]

[Edited 2014-03-27 18:41:51]


MGGS
User currently offlineNAV30 From Australia, joined Mar 2014, 269 posts, RR: 0
Reply 78, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 58177 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fotoflyer71 (Reply 76):
aircraft was flying faster than originally thought thereby decreasing it's maximum range...
Quoting AR385 (Reply 77):
According to Piers Morgan on CNN, they are moving the search area some 650 miles to the North East.

Which appears to indicate that all the recently-found 'debris' is irrelevant to the case?

Can't help feeling that it's increasingly likely that we will never find out much more about what happened to MH370?


User currently offline777Jet From Australia, joined Mar 2014, 1407 posts, RR: 0
Reply 79, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 57881 times:

Quoting Dalavia (Reply 67):
Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 64):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 63):
A new article: "Captain 'deliberately' flew MH370 off course"

Though it is a definite possibility I don't understand why Malaysian government kind of supports this theory. My suspicion they may be using this incident to discredit opposition.

Could it be to deflect attention from the First Officer, who I understand had better connections to those with influence?

The idea about the Government trying to discredit the opposition is interesting. I had not thought of that but I also would not put it past a Government to do something like that. I would have thought that in the best interest of Malaysia as a whole and especially in the interest of MH that the Government there would rather be downplaying the idea that one of their own would do something like this. MH was already facing financial problems, and the last thing that they would need is one of their employees being found intentionally responsible. I guess the difference here is that the Captain might have had a political motive which the government could use to its advantage even if it meant that MH would suffer unlike the Egypt Air 990 incident in which it was supposedly the last international flight of Gameel Al-Batouti because of his own actions so the Government in Egypt had no reason to play politics and would do all in its power to protect the image of Egypt.

[Edited 2014-03-27 18:53:12]


DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90,717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788,306,320,321,332/3,346,388
User currently offlinefotoflyer71 From Malawi, joined May 2011, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 80, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 57704 times:

They are re-tasking satellites to search this new area.

[Edited 2014-03-27 19:02:15]


Try to learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself.
User currently offlinewjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5105 posts, RR: 22
Reply 81, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 57686 times:

Very interesting. Kathleen Bangs was saying on Megan Kelly that she sees significance in the report (the next day) from the Malaysian Airlines crew that was asked by Ho Chi Min ATC to try to contact 370. We are all aware of this information, and have been for weeks, but she has renewed interest in it.

What was reported was that one 777 crew that was on the way to NRT was about 30 minutes ahead of 370 and tried to raise it on Guard at ATC's request. They reported that they heard a carrier frequency, i.e. a keyed mic, and heard mumbling, voices and some other noise in the background, this about 8 minutes after the last voice transmission. It has further been reported that the crew believed that what they were hearing was the copilot's voice. Bangs said she thought about how they could think that, and assumed that it was because the crew might have flown with the CPT and might have known what his voice sounded like.

I am thinking that it is interesting to revisit this information in light of what we now "know". I don't necessarily agree that it points in any particular direction, however. For example, if a hijacker penetrated the cockpit, keying the mic and not saying anything INTO the mic might be a way that someone was attempting to let others know that something was wrong or what was wrong. Kind of like dialing 911 while the burglar is breaking down your door and then leaving the phone loose so that 911 can hear what's happening without the burglar knowing.

It could also be an attempt to communicate with a smoke hood or oxygen on. You're trying to respond to an emergency and are working with the CPT to address the ermergency but at least key the mic and let someone hear what''s happening. Why you would do that on Guard isn't clear to me, however. And you would think you would do it longer.

Or it could be another aircraft where someone inadvertently keyed the mic on guard.

The tape of the Guard frequency during that time in that area has to be widely-available. I'm surprised that it hasn't been released, and that there is no indication that it is being subjected to forensic analysis out the butt. Hope I'm wrong about that, as it might yield some very interesting information.


User currently offlinenupogodi From Canada, joined Mar 2014, 908 posts, RR: 4
Reply 82, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 57496 times:

This is speed detected near the relative beginning of the flight, over the South China Sea and the Strait... It could have changed later. I'm unimpressed that it took this long for them to calculate that from primary radar analysis, what the heck?

Anyhow, it's just a new lead - as usual, based on incomplete information. We don't know their precise speed throughout the entire flight.

Unfortunately my confidence that anything will be found diminishes with every passing day. I understand that the data is incomplete and it is not their fault for it being this way, but the haphazard nature of the search does not inspire confidence. It is great that they quickly mobilize on any new leads, but the potential final resting spot of the aircraft is so large now that the search seems almost hopeless.

I really want to believe in modern technology and the will (and wallets) of the interested parties, but I'm beginning to seriously consider that it may never be found. I hope I'm wrong.



A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
User currently offlineaftgaffe From United States of America, joined Mar 2014, 174 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 57619 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Miles O'Brien just said on CNN that the search effort is under-resourced and the U.S. needs to get an aircraft carrier out there. I know he's not the first to say so, but I'm surprised we're not hearing more calls for the same. Anyone have a sense of why the U.S. hasn't sent an aircraft carrier? Seems like a tremendous training / goodwill building opportunity.

User currently offlineNAV30 From Australia, joined Mar 2014, 269 posts, RR: 0
Reply 84, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 57269 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fotoflyer71 (Reply 80):
I wonder if that means all the current satellite image leads are red herrings????

I suppose that, over a long life, fotoflyer71, I've developed into a bit of a pessimist.  

For the last couple of days the 'authorities' have presumably been directing the (few) available ships to the newly-found 'debris field.' They now appear to be directing them to a new one, 685 miles (presumably nautical miles?) away.

685 nautical miles, as far as I know, amounts to about two days steaming for 'yer av'rage ship'?

So it's arguable that there'll be no more 'hard information' of any kind for quite a while - 'some days,' at least?

Really can't work out, though, how there were so many reports of 'debris' etc.? Personally I was totally convinced that, at long last, they'd succeeded in establishing at least the general location of the tragedy. On present evidence that STILL hasn't happened?


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7803 posts, RR: 52
Reply 85, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 57187 times:

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 83):
Miles O'Brien just said on CNN that the search effort is under-resourced and the U.S. needs to get an aircraft carrier out there. I know he's not the first to say so, but I'm surprised we're not hearing more calls for the same. Anyone have a sense of why the U.S. hasn't sent an aircraft carrier? Seems like a tremendous training / goodwill building opportunity.

What good would a carrier do? I mean it would add to the search but it really isn't a giant SAR asset. It would be a big waste to send one there I would think.

Another P-8, on the other hand, would be great, and I think the USN just announced they're sending another one down to Perth...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinenupogodi From Canada, joined Mar 2014, 908 posts, RR: 4
Reply 86, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 57127 times:

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 83):
Miles O'Brien just said on CNN that the search effort is under-resourced and the U.S. needs to get an aircraft carrier out there. I know he's not the first to say so, but I'm surprised we're not hearing more calls for the same. Anyone have a sense of why the U.S. hasn't sent an aircraft carrier? Seems like a tremendous training / goodwill building opportunity.


It has been talked about before, but basically the type of aircraft on an aircraft carrier are not well-suited to SAR. They don't have the right equipment and they move too fast.

Helicopters - many of them - would help, but their range is limited and they're not well-suited to searching large areas.



A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
User currently offlinesolarflyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 978 posts, RR: 3
Reply 87, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 57073 times:

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 83):
Miles O'Brien just said on CNN that the search effort is under-resourced and the U.S. needs to get an aircraft carrier out there. I know he's not the first to say so, but I'm surprised we're not hearing more calls for the same. Anyone have a sense of why the U.S. hasn't sent an aircraft carrier? Seems like a tremendous training / goodwill building opportunity.

I mean this is so much harder and more expensive than I think anyone realizes. If you're talking about deploying a full scale task force of a Nimitz class carrier, you're talking like hundreds of millions of dollars to deploy. If there were one nearby its a different story but there are no US interests to protect in the remotest part of the Oceanic world so no one is down there. Usually, there are some US forces near Perth and Thailand but I don't know what is there now.

Worse yet, the weather is just abysmal so carrier operations will be hard. You need a sub-surface and surface task force with some search planes that can refuel in air along with some KC-10s. Unfortunately moving all that will cost you probably $150 million. From Perth its not that hard.


User currently offline777Jet From Australia, joined Mar 2014, 1407 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 57009 times:

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 83):
Anyone have a sense of why the U.S. hasn't sent an aircraft carrier? Seems like a tremendous training / goodwill building opportunity.

I often thought that.

Point 1) The 777 is a US manufactured aircraft and since the NTSB gets involved in incidents involving US manufactured aircraft I have been wondering why the US has not put more resources into the SAR - especially given the lifetime of the black box pingers. I think as much effort as possible needs to happen during those first 30 days when those pingers are still active at full strength. No need to send more resources a month later when the SAR will be more difficult...

Point 2) This is a good opportunity for nations (particularly the US and China) to work together and build some goodwill. Who knows where that will lead, but I see this as a good chance for a lot of nations, some who are not on the best of relations at the moment, to work together and strengthen their relationships.



DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90,717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788,306,320,321,332/3,346,388
User currently offlinenupogodi From Canada, joined Mar 2014, 908 posts, RR: 4
Reply 89, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 56836 times:

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 88):
I have been wondering why the US has not put more resources into the SAR

What more could you want? They sent a P8, a 130, two destroyers, helicopters and other assets... This may be outdated since apparently they withdrew the Kidd, but that's pretty serious equipment.



A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 90, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 56654 times:

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 89):
What more could you want? They sent a P8, a 130, two destroyers, helicopters and other assets... This may be outdated since apparently they withdrew the Kidd, but that's pretty serious equipment.

Not only that, but I would put money on the US providing some rather unique assets (satellites). In addition, by the sounds of it, US intel assets are working on this behind the scenes.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlinefotoflyer71 From Malawi, joined May 2011, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 91, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 56654 times:

I'm not a huge fan of this whole UAV drone movement but wouldn't these be awesome for SAR in this case (well at least the search part)? Great endurance, surveillance etc... Adverse weather make this a no no?

[Edited 2014-03-27 19:33:07]


Try to learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself.
User currently offlineWarrenPlatts From United States of America, joined Mar 2014, 386 posts, RR: 2
Reply 92, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 56663 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 66):
Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 37):. What is funny is that you don't seem like having a good grasp on what you're trying to convince us with : You could, for instance add numerical data on the influence of the Coriolis force on an 250 T airplane flying at 450 kt and a heading ( magnetic or true, you chose ),of 180°, starting from 06° North and ending some place at Latitude 45° South... In other words, what would be the final drift ?
I'm curious.

The mass of the airplane would have nothing to do with it for starters.

I'd upload my spreadsheet if this site allowed it, but the math is simple.

The 400 knot flight path crosses the equator at a heading of pretty much 180°--due south in other words. However, its absolute velocity is not 400 knots: at the equator, it also has an eastward velocity component of 900 knots. This eastward velocity component does not go away when you proceed south. However, the radius of the Earth as measured by the distance from the surface parallel to the equatorial plane to the geometric axis decreases. Therefore, for example, the circumference of the 30th parallel (34,700 km) is a lot less than the equator (~40,000 km).

Do you follow me so far?

OK, due to Newton's law of conservation of everything, when an airplane proceeds due south to the 30th parallel, it still retains the eastward velocity component of 900 knots. Unfortunately, the Earth's radius is much less at this point: only 34700 km are moved per 24 hours. The resultant ground velocity is only 780 knots. That means the aircraft at this point--relative to the ground--is moving to the east at a rate of 120 knots.

Still follow?

OK, so at 30°--relative to the ground--it has a southward component of 400 knots, and a RELATIVE eastward component of 120 knots. So now we invoke geometry. If you'll recall tan(θ) = SO/SA, where SO is the side opposite of θ, and SA is the side adjacent to θ (the other side of the triangle being the hypotenuse, course). We are interested in the angle θ, because this will tell us the effect of the Coriolis effect. Thus, tan(θ) = (120 / 400) = 0.3; atan(0.3) = ~17°.

Thus, the expected heading of an aircraft proceeding south on an inertial path (given a starting heading of 180° at the equator) is 163° (180° - 17°).

Excellent! You've made it this far!

Now, you can apply the same reasoning to arbitrarily small distances. So that's what I did. I made a model that recalculates the angle θ for every minute of every degree latitude (about 1 nautical mile). From that, I calculate the eastward distance traveled because of the heading θ (relative to Planet Earth), add that vectorially to the southward distance traveled due to the initial velocity, and then integrate over 30 degrees.

My initial run assuming no crosswind had the aircraft crossing the 30th parallel at 97°E, whereas the 400 knot flight path had it crossing 30°S at 100°E. However, when I added a westerly crosswind of 110 km/hr starting at 10°S (that is not too unrealistic IMHO), it matched the 400 knot flight path just about perfectly.

All right. So there you have it. Coriolis effects happen, and they are of concern to long distance airliners. If you have more questions, feel free...

cf. http://www.classzone.com/books/earth...alizations/es1904/es1904page01.cfm

Whew....

[Edited 2014-03-27 19:38:24]

[Edited 2014-03-27 19:39:46]

[Edited 2014-03-27 19:41:34]


There is a rebel in each and everyone of us--let it out! Don't waste your life on mundane lifestyles. When is it enough?
User currently offlineLTC8K6 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 1201 posts, RR: 0
Reply 93, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 56794 times:

PERTH, Australia (AP) — Australian authorities say the search area for the missing Malaysian airliner has shifted because of a "new credible lead." The revised search area comes as the weather cleared Friday in the southern Indian Ocean to allow planes to hunt for fresh clues to the fate of the plane that went missing March 8. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority said it shifted the search 1,100 kilometers (680 miles) to the north after receiving a lead based on updated advice provided by an international investigation team in Malaysia. The new area is 319,000 square kilometers (123,200 square miles) and about 1,850 kilometers (1,250 miles) west of Perth. Australian officials have "examined this advice and determined that this is the most credible lead to where debris may be located," the AMSA said.

User currently offlineLindenwold From United States of America, joined Mar 2014, 58 posts, RR: 0
Reply 94, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 56597 times:

Quoting fotoflyer71 (Reply 91):

i heard the united states doesn't want to use drones for security/intel reasons.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 95, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 56550 times:

Quoting fotoflyer71 (Reply 91):
I'm not a huge fan of this whole UAV drone movement but wouldn't these be awesome for SAR in this case (well at least the search part)? Great endurance, surveillance etc... Adverse weather make this a no no?

The US (and probably Australia too) is acquiring the MQ-4C Triton, which is a modified version of the Global Hawk. It would be tailor-made for this situation, and can loiter for 30 hours. However, no human eyeballs, and it can't drop sonobuoys.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineLTC8K6 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 1201 posts, RR: 0
Reply 96, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 56541 times:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...d-based-on-planes-fuel-consumption

Malaysia Airlines plane was going faster than previously thought, meaning it would have run out of fuel sooner, say authorities


User currently offlinegatorman96 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 870 posts, RR: 0
Reply 97, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 56251 times:

Quoting Lindenwold (Reply 94):
Quoting fotoflyer71 (Reply 91):

i heard the united states doesn't want to use drones for security/intel reasons.

Our UAV's are pretty tied up at the moment...

[Edited 2014-03-27 19:45:28]


Cha brro
User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6130 posts, RR: 30
Reply 98, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 56262 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 93):
Australian authorities say the search area for the missing Malaysian airliner has shifted because of a "new credible lead."

Anybody have an idea what the "new credible lead" is?



MGGS
User currently offlineLindenwold From United States of America, joined Mar 2014, 58 posts, RR: 0
Reply 99, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 56125 times:

Are they still investigating those 2 debris fields?

User currently offlineLTC8K6 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 1201 posts, RR: 0
Reply 100, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 56435 times:

Quoting AR385 (Reply 98):
Anybody have an idea what the "new credible lead" is?

The plane was cruising at a higher speed than originally thought, thus it ran out of fuel earlier?

Somehow that doesn't make sense at first reading...


User currently offlinelazybones From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 168 posts, RR: 0
Reply 101, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 56384 times:

Quoting TheRedBAron (Reply 15):
As me he think the Captain did not do it, way too complicated, way to uncertain and to top it off as he told me : We all have troubles, if a nasty divorce would make somebody do this, we would have a crash each week...

As a divorcee... that's just too funny .. gold 


User currently offline777Jet From Australia, joined Mar 2014, 1407 posts, RR: 0
Reply 102, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 56145 times:

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 89):
What more could you want? They sent a P8, a 130, two destroyers, helicopters and other assets... This may be outdated since apparently they withdrew the Kidd, but that's pretty serious equipment.

"a P8" as in one?



DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90,717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788,306,320,321,332/3,346,388
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7803 posts, RR: 52
Reply 103, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 55910 times:

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 102):
"a P8" as in one?

There is one and I believe they are sending another. Not too shabby since there are only 6 that deployed to Japan, I believe. That's 1/3 of them right there



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16993 posts, RR: 67
Reply 104, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 55839 times:

Quoting rolfen (Reply 71):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 58):
mandala499 did talk about making it very hard to turn off. But it needs to have a breaker of something. Making it impossible to turn off adds not inconsiderable risk to every flight.

Not if it is an external unit, mounted to the outside of the fuselage, in a way that a fire would not damage or penetrate the fuselage in any way. It could be self-powered, using an enclosed battery, which would power the units for hours after it stops receiving power.

I think it's possible.

Possible, certainly, but you're talking a huge expense for every single aircraft. More weight, a change in aerodynamics. If you add a tail boom, say, you have to reconfigure the APU exchaust, the taill lights, the tailstrike logic, and probably some other stuff.

Add to this that a unit attached to the outside could potentially drift very far from the actual wreckage.

1. There are simpler ways of implementing better tracking.
2. There is no way to make an aircraft pilot-proof. A sufficiently motivated pilot can and will find a way to crash any aircraft. This is a risk we take every time we get on a plane. And I'm fine with it. After all, pilots who try to kill me are so rare the risk is well within what most people find acceptable.

Spending significant money on every single flight in order to more easily find the one that disappears every two or three decades should be done in a way that makes more sense.

Quoting fotoflyer71 (Reply 91):

I'm not a huge fan of this whole UAV drone movement but wouldn't these be awesome for SAR in this case (well at least the search part)? Great endurance, surveillance etc... Adverse weather make this a no no?

Global Hawk and similar platforms have this capability, but there aren't exactly dozens of them lying about that can be tasked for this. A Global Hawk costs more than a 777. With R&D it is actually much more. Cheaper, more common drones like Predator don't have the range for this kind of operation.

[Edited 2014-03-27 20:07:37]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offline777Jet From Australia, joined Mar 2014, 1407 posts, RR: 0
Reply 105, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 55671 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 103):
Not too shabby since there are only 6 that deployed to Japan, I believe. That's 1/3 of them right there

I read an article about that a while ago: http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2...nger-range-plane-to-search-effort/

"the U.S. has deployed six of the new aircraft to Okinawa in southern Japan since December as part of its “rebalancing” strategy to shift more military assets to Asia."

I would have though that finding MH370 would be more important at the moment compared to whatever else these planes are doing if they are doing anything at all other that beefing up US military assets in Asia.

Is it wrong to expect a bit more given the nature of the search and size of the search area? I'm sure if those who think that enough is being done had a relative on that flight they would be singing a different tune...  



DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90,717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788,306,320,321,332/3,346,388
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7803 posts, RR: 52
Reply 106, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 55378 times:

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 105):
I would have though that finding MH370 would be more important at the moment compared to whatever else these planes are doing if they are doing anything at all other that beefing up US military assets in Asia.

Is it wrong to expect a bit more given the nature of the search and size of the search area? I'm sure if those who think that enough is being done had a relative on that flight they would be singing a different tune...  

What, should we all drop everything we are doing and search for MH370? Agree or disagree with the US in Asia, but they have a job to do over there and sending 1/3 of their P-8s down there shows commitment IMO.

How many P-3s Australia NOT send? What 'good' are they doing not looking for MH370?



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineWarrenPlatts From United States of America, joined Mar 2014, 386 posts, RR: 2
Reply 107, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 55408 times:

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 75):
You are making a lot of assumptions, and haven't refuted anything that Pihero said.Your biggest mistake is assuming that the published INMARSAT possible tracks are actual tracks. Remember, this is a predictive model created based on analysis of similar T7 flights on similar routes. You are pretending like the map is showing two exact possibilities for their routing when that could not be further from the truth. They know approximately where they went based on the Doppler shift analysis (but definitely south), and making some assumptions could calculate possible tracks. Not all of the Doppler and RTT analysis in the world will turn a 1996 communications satellite into a precise geolocator. You have failed to define what you mean by an "inertial track". And yet you make very definitive, finite statements. It's disingenuous analysis.

No, no, no....

Dude, I totally recognize that the published Inmarsat tracks are mere models. Given a series of circular LOPs and a given speed, assuming a relatively straightforward trajectory--i.e., no curlicues allowed--there is only one (southern) track that is consistent with the LOPs. They could do more tracks with different speeds. Thus, by fooling around with the assumed speed, you can form practically any track you could imagine. Well, perhaps I shouldn't say that. But it would be nice to see for ourselves all LOPs, then we could fool around with different speeds, and see what kinds of tracks result.

And BTW, an "inertial track" is a Newtonian track, where when something starts rolling in one direction, it does not stop or deviate its course unless something else affects it.



There is a rebel in each and everyone of us--let it out! Don't waste your life on mundane lifestyles. When is it enough?
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16993 posts, RR: 67
Reply 108, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 55353 times:

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 105):
Is it wrong to expect a bit more given the nature of the search and size of the search area? I'm sure if those who think that enough is being done had a relative on that flight they would be singing a different tune.

I hope that if I had a relative on the plane, I could be rational about such things. I probably couldn't, and that's the problem. The last people to decide on these things should be those directly affected, simply because their ability to make rational decisions at this time is severely compromised.

If I were rational, I would know that everyone was dead. In the end, a few more weeks or months does not change that. But of course you can't ask every relative to will themselves to feel that way.

I have a hard time believing that US and Aussie SAR organizations are incompetent. They are probably doing what they can. If there were lives to be saved, then by all means send in every asset. But at this point we're talking salvage and investigation. A few more days won't make much difference.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinefotoflyer71 From Malawi, joined May 2011, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 109, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 55208 times:

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 105):
Global Hawk and similar platforms have this capability, but there aren't exactly dozens of them lying about that can be tasked for this. A Global Hawk costs more than a 777. With R&D it is actually much more. Cheaper, more common drones like Predator don't have the range for this kind of operation.

Had no idea they were that pricey! Thanks.



Try to learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself.
User currently offlinewjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5105 posts, RR: 22
Reply 110, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 54876 times:

One of the more annoying things about this is the glacial pace at which our military rolls things out...which means that our P8s "don't have" aerial refueling capability "yet".

The P8 is great for this kind of mission because of its ability to get on station faster, and the fact that it has a slightly-higher loiter time once there. Still, as you start to get farther and farther from Perth, the loiter time drops dramatically. It is apparent that there are going to be potential locations that you can't search with the P8.

Which is probably why the military equipped the P8 with aerial refueling capability. It has it right now. It's just that they haven't developed procedures and trained the crews to use it. Which, to the military, means that it doesn't have that capability right now, and isn't scheduled to get it until 2015. Really?

If you had the refueling ability, you could depart before first light, get on station a daybreak, and stay there until sunset. Yes, it would require the a/c to carry two crews, but you would really maximize the use of the asset, giving it 11 or 12 hours on station each day instead of 3-4. And you could go as deep into the Indian Ocean as you care to.

What a shame that they haven't gotten that capability up and running faster, and don't plan to.


User currently offlineflyenthu From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 312 posts, RR: 0
Reply 111, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 54906 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Maybe this has been discussed, but why are so many satellite leads just turning up empty? Have ships reached the areas? What are those objects in the satellite pics anyway?

User currently offlineB777fan From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 171 posts, RR: 2
Reply 112, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 54825 times:

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 92):
All right. So there you have it. Coriolis effects happen, and they are of concern to long distance airliners. If you have more questions, feel free...

Ok, I am starting to see your argument and you are just flat wrong.

Here is a thought experiment. Assume no wind conditions over the earth for a single day. During that day you fly a jet due south from the equator with the inertial nav system keeping you pointing 'straight and level inertially' as you say. As you move south, your course will not drift left or right over the surface of the earth from the Coriolis effect. You will fly a constant 180 heading right along your starting line of longitude.

This is because the Coriolis effect has almost nothing to do with flight, particularly sub sonic flight. The ocean of air above us is moving along with the surface of the earth just as the oceans of water do. For airliner navigation, local wind - which is the non zero speed of the air over the ground at any location - overwhelms the Coriolis effect. Essentially the same as a ship on the surface of the ocean.

The Coriolis effect is part of what drives prevailing winds all over the globe, but for aircraft navigation you first plot a zero wind course using any method - constant heading, great circle, etc - and then correct for local winds at your altitude. Or better yet plot a course to use favorable winds or avoid unfavorable ones. No Coriolis effect input is required because zero wind conditions imply the air is moving with the surface.

Your math was great, just not applicable in non vacuum conditions at these speeds.

Edited to change thought experiment from helicopter one that misstated your assumptions to a better one using your conditions.


[Edited 2014-03-27 20:41:11]

[Edited 2014-03-27 21:14:37]

[Edited 2014-03-27 21:16:24]

User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2311 posts, RR: 2
Reply 113, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 54319 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 92):
The mass of the airplane would have nothing to do with it for starters.

I'd upload my spreadsheet if this site allowed it, but the math is simple.

The 400 knot flight path crosses the equator at a heading of pretty much 180°--due south in other words. However, its absolute velocity is not 400 knots: at the equator, it also has an eastward velocity component of 900 knots. This eastward velocity component does not go away when you proceed south. However, the radius of the Earth as measured by the distance from the surface parallel to the equatorial plane to the geometric axis decreases. Therefore, for example, the circumference of the 30th parallel (34,700 km) is a lot less than the equator (~40,000 km).

Do you follow me so far?

SA Czech Airlines">OK, due to Newton's law of conservation of everything, when an airplane proceeds due south to the 30th parallel, it still retains the eastward velocity component of 900 knots. Unfortunately, the Earth's radius is much less at this point: only 34700 km are moved per 24 hours. The resultant ground velocity is only 780 knots. That means the aircraft at this point--relative to the ground--is moving to the east at a rate of 120 knots.

Still follow?

SA Czech Airlines">OK, so at 30°--relative to the ground--it has a southward component of 400 knots, and a RELATIVE eastward component of 120 knots. So now we invoke geometry. If you'll recall tan(θ) = SO/SA, where SO is the side opposite of θ, and SA is the side adjacent to θ (the other side of the triangle being the hypotenuse, course). We are interested in the angle θ, because this will tell us the effect of the Coriolis effect. Thus, tan(θ) = (120 / 400) = 0.3; atan(0.3) = ~17°.

Thus, the expected heading of an aircraft proceeding south on an inertial path (given a starting heading of 180° at the equator) is 163° (180° - 17°).

Excellent! You've made it this far!

All of that is drowned out by the fact that the airplane moves in the air mass, not around the center of earth, and the air mass, is largely glued to the surface. So the air mass drags the airplane along with it. Consider a hot air balloon floating over the equator, in a gentle 10 knot wind to the south, now lets say it drifts south to the 30th parallel - (where, in our thought experiment, the wind is still 10kts due south). At the equator the balloon had a 900kt eastward component relative to the center of the earth. But it would be absurd to expect that at 30S it's going to have a sideways velocity through the air of 120kts!

The animations in the link you provided are simply wrong. Now those would more or less apply to a ballistic path *outside* the atmosphere, and for things like ballistic missiles that absolutely must me taken into account.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16993 posts, RR: 67
Reply 114, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 54266 times:

Quoting fotoflyer71 (Reply 109):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 105):
Global Hawk and similar platforms have this capability, but there aren't exactly dozens of them lying about that can be tasked for this. A Global Hawk costs more than a 777. With R&D it is actually much more. Cheaper, more common drones like Predator don't have the range for this kind of operation.

Had no idea they were that pricey! Thanks.

Hey, I said that!  
Quoting wjcandee (Reply 110):
One of the more annoying things about this is the glacial pace at which our military rolls things out...which means that our P8s "don't have" aerial refueling capability "yet".

The P8 is great for this kind of mission because of its ability to get on station faster, and the fact that it has a slightly-higher loiter time once there. Still, as you start to get farther and farther from Perth, the loiter time drops dramatically. It is apparent that there are going to be potential locations that you can't search with the P8.

Which is probably why the military equipped the P8 with aerial refueling capability. It has it right now. It's just that they haven't developed procedures and trained the crews to use it. Which, to the military, means that it doesn't have that capability right now, and isn't scheduled to get it until 2015. Really?

If you had the refueling ability, you could depart before first light, get on station a daybreak, and stay there until sunset. Yes, it would require the a/c to carry two crews, but you would really maximize the use of the asset, giving it 11 or 12 hours on station each day instead of 3-4. And you could go as deep into the Indian Ocean as you care to.

What a shame that they haven't gotten that capability up and running faster, and don't plan to.

Aerial refueling is risky, complex and very very expensive. Training takes time, and it's one thing to refuel a plane that's close to the airport where you've based your tanker. It's another to fly out to sea and do it three hours from shore.

I get the impression that even if they had the capability, they might not use it because it raises the cost astronomically.

Quoting flyenthu (Reply 111):
Maybe this has been discussed, but why are so many satellite leads just turning up empty? Have ships reached the areas? What are those objects in the satellite pics anyway?

Satellite leads are just that, leads. Most don't pan out because they might just be things like waves or clouds or whatever. Also, debris that floated when the pic was taken might have sunk a few hours later.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7575 posts, RR: 32
Reply 115, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 54191 times:

Some of you need to read a factual list of assets committed to the search efforts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysi...ht_370#International_participation

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 72):
I wonder why Nine 'censored' his comments so that they seemed only to refer to 'pilot error' (or worse)?

That is known as editorial discretion. A reporter or his editor is focused the story on the point they wish to mention. Other data / information is edited out which does not support that point. Every news organization in the world does it, just sometimes not as blatantly, sometimes even more so.

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 78):
Which appears to indicate that all the recently-found 'debris' is irrelevant to the case?

All the recently found 'debris' is in a broad area, and none of it has been linked to MH370. Frankly, I think a lot of the 'debris' has been the optical effects of atmosphere and a rough ocean. Even though the search area is some of the least traveled ocean waters in the world - there is still a lot of junk floating around.

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 83):
Anyone have a sense of why the U.S. hasn't sent an aircraft carrier?

The US doesn't have any available. The budget games last year forced the US Navy to basically take two ships out of service for months. Even now, there are really only three deployable aircraft carriers, and two in a workup cycle. Frankly, the US Navy has more important tasks for their carriers than using them as a poor search platform with very bad aircraft for SAR work.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 102):
a P8" as in one?

The US only has about two dozen of them - and is committing a second. That will be a substantial portion of their active aircraft fleet.


User currently offlineflyenthu From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 312 posts, RR: 0
Reply 116, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 53914 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 114):

I get that, but somehow finding it hard to buy that debris numbering in the 100s would all play hide and seek.


User currently offlinePanAmPaul From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 117, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 54120 times:

Once again, there's a new 'credible lead' and the entire search is moving 700 miles north.

Malaysia Flight 370: Latest Radar Data Sends Searchers 700 Miles North - ‘Most Credible Lead Yet’ Based on Faster Airspeed

Quote:
The Australian government announced that the search for the missing Malaysia Airlines jet shifted hundreds of miles north Friday morning

In a statement released midday Friday, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority said that the Boeing 777 is likely not to have traveled as far south into the Indian Ocean as had previously been estimated.

The agency said that the new information was gleaned from an ongoing analysis of radar data...

.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16993 posts, RR: 67
Reply 118, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 53887 times:

Quoting flyenthu (Reply 116):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 114):

I get that, but somehow finding it hard to buy that debris numbering in the 100s would all play hide and seek.

Fair point, but conditions have a lot to do with it. We're talking big waves and low cloud so a ship could pass by a piece of wreckage 500 meters away without anyone on board spotting it.

There's also a lot of crap in the ocean. A lot.

[Edited 2014-03-27 21:38:36]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinefotoflyer71 From Malawi, joined May 2011, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 119, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 53595 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 114):
Hey, I said that!

So you did!!! Apologies - don't know how I screwed that up...!



Try to learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself.
User currently offlineflyenthu From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 312 posts, RR: 0
Reply 120, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 53493 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PanAmPaul (Reply 117):

Something tells me that things are not quite "adding up" with their math if they are now focusing in an area hundreds of miles away. This is truly a puzzle of epic proportions unlike any other.


User currently offlineBackSeater From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 121, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 53323 times:

Search area should probably be adjusted because it was determined before Doppler data became available

There has been a lot of discussion about 400kts vs. 450kts tracks but I think it is hopeless without the proper data to decide what is a plausible track.

Now that we know that Inmarsat recorded the Doppler (probably from their burst demod), it is clear that they have a very powerful Litmus test to examine various possible tracks. Doppler measurements can be very precise and provide clues as to the relation between aircraft speed and heading at each ping.

Actually we could all do the same evaluation if we had access to a few pieces of additional data:
- estimates of wind aloft to bound the range of possible ground speeds (but we already have them thanks to Pihero/Tim Gonzales)
- the RTD values at each ping (or distance to satellite) with an estimate of their margins of error
- the 3 coordinates and 3 components of the speed vector of 3F1 at the time of each ping (in some frame of reference on earth).

Such data is needed to remove the satellite Doppler contribution from the published Doppler graph so that we would then obtain the measured airplane Doppler to determine if it is compatible with any potential track.

With that we should be able to compute the Doppler at ping time when we place the aircraft at a certain location and choose a speed and true heading for the aircraft. Of course the same Doppler at a given ping can be obtained by different triplets location+speed+heading but many should be quickly eliminated if we cannot rendez-vous in time with the next RTD circle. The assumption we have to make is that the aircraft remains steady from one ping to the next. If someone flew erratically the whole time then we are back to relying only on RTDs. Note that the smaller the margin of error on RTDs, the fewer solutions will have to be explored.

The algorithm outlined here would do a tree search of candidate trajectories starting with the first ping (location, speed, heading) and continuing in the same manner until the last ping.

By tallying where the aircraft ends up with each feasible scenario through the 7 pings, we could build a statistical map of the areas worth exploring,

I am guessing that some investigators are probably doing something along those lines right now. So, with a little bit more patience we should soon learn what the result is.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7803 posts, RR: 52
Reply 122, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 53109 times:

I don't see what is so surprising... they are finding more and more evidence out and are refining the search. It's not like it's the Indian Ocean one day, the Straits the next day, China the next day, and the Indian Ocean again. People seem to be getting really impatient because it's frustrating but seriously, we can't always expect instantaneous answers


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineundertheradar From Australia, joined Mar 2014, 72 posts, RR: 0
Reply 123, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 53021 times:

please feel free to have my post deleted....but I just need to 'vent'.... I fully realize that this event is ever changing..not an exact science...as an Australian living in Australia...PLEASE TONY ABBOTT STOP GRANDSTANDING AND MAKING STATEMENTS ABOUT MH370...if I see him hold a press conference and hear him use the word 'credible' one more time!!!!!!! argggghhhh.... leave it up to the professionals to make statements and hold press conferences

User currently offlinenupogodi From Canada, joined Mar 2014, 908 posts, RR: 4
Reply 124, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 52866 times:

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 121):
Such data is needed to remove the satellite Doppler contribution from the published Doppler graph

Not exactly. You can do that, but you need to know the speed of the aircraft away/towards the sat... Well, we know it's away. But we don't really know how fast, unless you assume a straight track DIRECTLY away from the sat - which is unlikely. Without that, you can know the sat movement as precisely as you care to, but you wouldn't know what part of the shift is caused by a/c movement and what part is caused by sat movement.

That is why they published the data that they did: they built a predictive model based on other aircraft movements, and then compared the measured data to the model. Since the satellite is mostly moving north-south, they would get differences between the two tracks. But gosh you can't get heading from that, there's just not enough data. That's why the predicted tracks are based on assumptions like their speed. We know they went south, and within their range there's nowhere they could be other than the ocean, so you have to sort-of work from that knowledge to find tracks that fit the model and agree with what you know.

[Edited 2014-03-27 21:45:43]


A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
User currently offline777Jet From Australia, joined Mar 2014, 1407 posts, RR: 0
Reply 125, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 52967 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 106):
What, should we all drop everything we are doing and search for MH370? Agree or disagree with the US in Asia, but they have a job to do over there and sending 1/3 of their P-8s down there shows commitment IMO.

How many P-3s Australia NOT send? What 'good' are they doing not looking for MH370?

I actually agree with the US in Asia (to bite at your semantic game). And what job are the ones not searching for MH370 actually doing? That is all I'm curious to know. If they are doing other things then they are doing other things. But if they are just sitting in a hanger collecting dust then I am saying that it would be more appropriate to send them to help the other planes (all of which are probably less capable than the P8) look for MH370. I don't know how many P3s Australia did not send but I know that the P8 is more capable and since Australia does not have any it would be up to those with them to send them.

"Amid improving weather conditions, 10 aircraft and six ships were being sent to the new search area.

They include two Royal Australian Air Force P3 Orions, a Japanese Coast Guard jet, a Japanese P3 Orion, a Republic of Korea P3 Orion, a Republic of Korea C130 Hercules, a Royal New Zealand Air Force P3 Orion, a Chinese military Ilyushin IL-76, a United States Navy P8 Poseidon aircraft, and one civil jet acting as a communications relay.

A further RAAF P3 Orion has been placed on standby at Pearce to investigate any reported sightings."

http://www.smh.com.au/national/missi...-20140328-35nco.html#ixzz2xEExjKQW

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 115):
The US only has about two dozen of them - and is committing a second. That will be a substantial portion of their active aircraft fleet.

Substantial? 2 out of about 24?


@ DeltaMD90 - " It's not like it's the Indian Ocean one day, the Straits the next day, China the next day, and the Indian Ocean again." - Maybe not anymore, but that is exactly how it was during week one...

[Edited 2014-03-27 21:53:48]


DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90,717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788,306,320,321,332/3,346,388
User currently offlineFinn350 From Finland, joined Jul 2013, 668 posts, RR: 1
Reply 126, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 52558 times:

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 121):
Such data is needed to remove the satellite Doppler contribution from the published Doppler graph so that we would then obtain the measured airplane Doppler to determine if it is compatible with any potential track.

As explained in the previous thread, they know the satellite's track accurately and can remove the Doppler shift induced by the satellite's movement. After that they basically get the plane's radial velocity component (towards or away from the satellite) and once they assume a ground speed they can calculate the tangential velocity component by simple trigonometry. After that it is integrating the track from the last known radar position to the last ping assuming a constand speed and taking winds into account. The only question is what is the assumed speed. Previously they have used 450 knots, but they have now apparently upgraded the speed based on the last radar data.

[Edited 2014-03-27 21:56:47]

User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16993 posts, RR: 67
Reply 127, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 52766 times:

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 125):
I actually agree with the US in Asia (to bite at your semantic game). And what job are the ones not searching for MH370 actually doing? That is all I'm curious to know. If they are doing other things then they are doing other things. But if they are just sitting in a hanger collecting dust then I am saying that it would be more appropriate to send them to help the other planes (all of which are probably less capable than the P8) look for MH370. I don't know how many P3s Australia did not send but I know Australia sent 2 planes for every 1 US plane if you want to talk small numbers..

They might be training for their primary mission or undergoing maintenance.

Also, Australia is right there. Sorta. Japan is a long way from Australia.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineaftgaffe From United States of America, joined Mar 2014, 174 posts, RR: 0
Reply 128, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 53057 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/vi...ey-thomas-on-plane-debris.cnn.html

According to an expert on CNN, the debris has "absolutely" been found. And as Piers Morgan points out, the expert is an Aussie, so he has special knowledge of the Indian ocean.

Sigh....

[Edited 2014-03-27 21:56:40]

User currently offlineaftgaffe From United States of America, joined Mar 2014, 174 posts, RR: 0
Reply 129, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 52761 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 128):
According to an expert on CNN, the debris has "absolutely" been found. And as Piers Morgan points out, the expert is an Aussie, so he has special knowledge of the Indian ocean.

Before anyone gets on me about how laughable that is, I was being sarcastic. Though someone on CNN really did just say the debris has absolutely been spotted.


User currently offlineundertheradar From Australia, joined Mar 2014, 72 posts, RR: 0
Reply 130, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 52672 times:

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 128):

piers morgan...trying to 'salvage' his career...lol.


User currently offline777Jet From Australia, joined Mar 2014, 1407 posts, RR: 0
Reply 131, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 52769 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 127):

They might be training for their primary mission or undergoing maintenance.

Also, Australia is right there. Sorta. Japan is a long way from Australia.

Only about 10.5 hours from Perth  



DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90,717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788,306,320,321,332/3,346,388
User currently offlinenupogodi From Canada, joined Mar 2014, 908 posts, RR: 4
Reply 132, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 52716 times:

Quoting undertheradar (Reply 130):
piers morgan...trying to 'salvage' his career...lol.

He doesn't quite get as much hate here in North America as he does from the Brits, but I totally see where they're coming from. The man is a waste of oxygen in the best of times.

I don't know how you people watch CNN, I honestly don't. Everything that has been reported on that network that hasn't come directly from press releases has been incorrect. Why even bother?



A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
User currently offlineBackSeater From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 133, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 52496 times:

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 124):
But we don't really know how fast, unless you assume a straight track DIRECTLY away from the sat - which is unlikely. Without that, you can know the sat movement as precisely as you care to, but you wouldn't know what part of the shift is caused by a/c movement and what part is caused by sat movement.

Please allow me to disagree. I assume that Inmarsat models the motion of its satellite very well, as all operators do, the only uncertainty possible being right after a correction.

So when I have a measured composite Doppler at ping time:
- I pick a candidate location for the aircraft.
- that gives me the vector: satellite - candidate location
- I project (vector product) the sat speed vector onto the sat-location vector. That is the radial speed of the satellite in that direction. I remove it from the measured Doppler.
- the left-over Doppler is only valid for that candidate aircraft location but it gives me the projection of the unknown aircraft speed vector onto the sat-location vector
- at that point I still have many choices (aircraft ground speed within permitted range after adding the estimated wind component, aircraft true heading) that have the same projection onto the sat-location vector. That's the purpose of doing a tree search keeping at each ping only the choices that rendez-vous correctly on the next RTD ring.

Actually I built the core of that algorithm while flying over Greenland today. Except that I don't have any data to plug-in.


User currently offlineaftgaffe From United States of America, joined Mar 2014, 174 posts, RR: 0
Reply 134, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 52433 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 132):
I don't know how you people watch CNN, I honestly don't. Everything that has been reported on that network that hasn't come directly from press releases has been incorrect. Why even bother?

You can't honestly say that when they started talking about black holes and supernatural intervention that it wasn't among the more entertaining things on TV.  

[Edited 2014-03-27 22:11:53]

User currently offline777Jet From Australia, joined Mar 2014, 1407 posts, RR: 0
Reply 135, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 52420 times:

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 132):
Quoting undertheradar (Reply 130):
piers morgan...trying to 'salvage' his career...lol.

He doesn't quite get as much hate here in North America as he does from the Brits, but I totally see where they're coming from. The man is a waste of oxygen in the best of times.

He has earned a tiny little bit more respect in Australia after facing Brett Lee in the nets during the Ashes Cricket. However, he received damage that most likely has clouded his judgement even more...  



DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90,717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788,306,320,321,332/3,346,388
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16993 posts, RR: 67
Reply 136, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 52536 times:

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 134):
Quoting nupogodi (Reply 132):
I don't know how you people watch CNN, I honestly don't. Everything that has been reported on that network that hasn't come directly from press releases has been incorrect. Why even bother?

You can't honestly say that when they started talking about black holes and supernatural intervention that it wasn't among the more entertaining things on TV

This is worth reposting. Again and again. It is The Daily Show's "critique" of CNN and Fox coverage. Warning: The following short videos contain vicious satire of news organizations which richly deserve it.

- Making fun of CNN's coverage: http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/6l...tfn/the-curious-case-of-flight-370
- Making fun of FOX's coverage: http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/olkrde/american-idle-speculation
- But wait, don't forget MSNBC, who explicitly stated that they would not make news out of non-news. And yet...: http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/vd...ation---high-tech-jungle-hijacking



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinenupogodi From Canada, joined Mar 2014, 908 posts, RR: 4
Reply 137, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 52279 times:

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 133):
Please allow me to disagree. I assume that Inmarsat models the motion of its satellite very well, as all operators do, the only uncertainty possible being right after a correction.

I get what you're saying, and I'll disagree with you too. Assume for a moment that the aircraft is circling the satellite perfectly. I know, I know, not our situation. But I mean just think for a second that it is moving identically with the satellite, following its orbit. You can know the sat movement to insane precision, but then what will you subtract to remove the influence of its movement? 0, right? But you only know that it's 0 because you know that fact, that the aircraft is perfectly mirroring the satellites movement.

Now, move away from our contrived example. How in the world would you know, without knowing the aircraft's speed and heading, what component of the doppler shift is contributed by the sat or the a/c? You simply can't.

That's why they modelled it the way they did and looked to see what was a good fit. It doesn't give you any kind of precise heading, it can't help you calculate aircraft speed, and it can't determine the contribution of the shift from a/c movement and sat movement (although you can make reasonable assumptions to an extent).

That's why their analysis allowed them to say one thing definitively: it went south. The potential tracks are based on that data, combined with radar data, combined with assumed speed/altitude and by extension range.

It is novel what they have done, but no amount of analysis is going to turn this satellite into a geolocator.



A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
User currently offlineBackSeater From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 138, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 52142 times:

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 126):
As explained in the previous thread, they know the satellite's track accurately and can remove the Doppler shift induced by the satellite's movement. After that they basically get the plane's radial velocity component (towards or away from the satellite) and once they assume a ground speed they can calculate the tangential velocity component by simple trigonometry. After that it is integrating the track from the last known radar position to the last ping assuming a constand speed and taking winds into account. The only question is what is the assumed speed. Previously they have used 450 knots, but they have now apparently upgraded the speed based on the last radar data.

Exactly.

In addition, the algorithm I propose does not force a speed for the whole flight a priori. Between any pair of pings you have to explore possibly several ground speeds within the permitted range provided they natch the RTD and Doppler constraints.


User currently offline65mustang From United States of America, joined Mar 2014, 84 posts, RR: 0
Reply 139, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 52119 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Mandala gave these numbers in part 46.

There's another problem to the speed... the part from Penang to the last point of radar contact, the aircraft only went 110NM in 20 mins... giving it 330kts only.

Why is the new info saying that known radar data indicates a much higher speed?


User currently offlineBackSeater From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 140, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 52008 times:

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 138):
It is novel what they have done, but no amount of analysis is going to turn this satellite into a geolocator.

Of course.
Their graph was instrumental in eliminating from speculation the northern arc once and for all. Great!
What I described is a straightforward search through the space of trajectories keeping only those that match the known constraints, assuming only that the aircraft is on a steady course form one ping to the next.


User currently offlinenupogodi From Canada, joined Mar 2014, 908 posts, RR: 4
Reply 141, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 51955 times:

Quoting undertheradar (Reply 136):
AAAAARRRRGGGGHHHH....I'M AUSTRALIAN BORN (DUTCH HERITAGE)...LIVE IN AUSTRALIA....PLEASE DONT ASSOCIATE ME WITH THE 'BRITS'... LOL

Calm down buddy, I said "the Brits" not "you Brits".



A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2064 posts, RR: 4
Reply 142, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 51924 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 115):

"Anyone have a sense of why the U.S. hasn't sent an aircraft carrier?

The US doesn't have any available. The budget games last year forced the US Navy to basically take two ships out of service for months. Even now, there are really only three deployable aircraft carriers, and two in a workup cycle. Frankly, the US Navy has more important tasks for their carriers than using them as a poor search platform with very bad aircraft for SAR work."

Add to that, we do have the Ukranian Crissis. Having the carriers ready just in case would seem to be a more prudent move.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineFinn350 From Finland, joined Jul 2013, 668 posts, RR: 1
Reply 143, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 51255 times:

Quoting 65mustang (Reply 140):
There's another problem to the speed... the part from Penang to the last point of radar contact, the aircraft only went 110NM in 20 mins... giving it 330kts only.

That is actually a good question... upgrading the speed increases the westward component of the velocity and downgrading the speed increases the eastward component in the analysis. Moving the search area to northeast is consistent with downgrading the speed, unless they have made some other changes in the initial conditions assumptions.


User currently offlineundertheradar From Australia, joined Mar 2014, 72 posts, RR: 0
Reply 144, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 51290 times:

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 142):
[/
[quote=nupogodi,reply=142]

LOL...im calm...I forget that typing capitals nowadays means SHOUTING lol..... im oldschool...where capitals meant highlighting/emphasizing words..lol


User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3607 posts, RR: 12
Reply 145, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 51108 times:

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 144):
That is actually a good question... upgrading the speed increases the westward component of the velocity and downgrading the speed increases the eastward component in the analysis. Moving the search area to northeast is consistent with downgrading the speed, unless they have made some other changes in the initial conditions assumptions.

Some people seem to be having a hard time grasping this. Someone should make a new graph that explains it.

If the plane was traveling faster than previously thought before radar contact was lost, then it would fly a shorter distance once radar contact was lost before running out of fuel. Yet it still would end up on the last satellite arc. For it to travel a shorter distance but still end up on that same arc, it *has* to be to the northeast of where they were searching before.

It's actually very simple and totally consistent. The speed once it turned south is pretty much immaterial; what matters at that point is where those pings came from. But if the speed while it was still on radar traveling west is higher than thought, then the total distance it traveled would have to indicate it would be on a more north-easterly point on that last satellite ping arc.

Essentially they're saying the final heading of the airplane once it disappeared from radar was different than they first thought, because the heading they had calculated was based on traveling a certain distance to that last arc.

Quoting flyenthu (Reply 120):
Something tells me that things are not quite "adding up" with their math if they are now focusing in an area hundreds of miles away.

It adds up fine. The numbers being added up have changed, based on new analysis of the radar data while it was overflying Malaysia and such.

Quoting flyenthu (Reply 116):
I get that, but somehow finding it hard to buy that debris numbering in the 100s would all play hide and seek.

Because it probably wasn't even debris. I'm not an "imaging expert" per se, but I've seen plenty of satellite shots of the ocean over the years and been on it in rough weather, and pretty much *all* of what I've seen in the last couple of days looked like plain old whitecaps to me. If you're not seeing it in motion, a whitecap can easily look like a solid object. And water "shines" in the light, so I never understood the fact that these objects were shining somehow made them more likely to be airplane debris.

[Edited 2014-03-27 23:14:39]


I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineFinn350 From Finland, joined Jul 2013, 668 posts, RR: 1
Reply 146, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 50883 times:

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 146):
If the plane was traveling faster than previously thought before radar contact was lost, then it would fly a shorter distance once radar contact was lost before running out of fuel. Yet it still would end up on the last satellite arc. For it to travel a shorter distance but still end up on that same arc, it *has* to be to the northeast of where they were searching before.

Yes, based on the last ping arc only, if the plane was travelling faster or slower than the optimum cruise speed of 450 knots it would have ended northeast because it would have run out fuel earlier. If we take into account the speed induced from the Doppler shift, we have an additional constraint. Assuming the Doppler shift data is correct only a lower speed would indicate moving the search area north east, if not any other changes to the initial conditions.


User currently offlineimagoagnitio From Australia, joined Mar 2014, 24 posts, RR: 0
Reply 147, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 51018 times:

Just picked up a Royal Australian Air Force KC-30A landing at Perth Int'l, just wondering if they are able to refuel any of the foreign SAR aircraft, are the refueling apparatus the same for all?

That's if it is over there to join in with the search operation.


User currently offlinebluesky9 From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2014, 75 posts, RR: 0
Reply 148, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 50621 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I have read most of the threads but just like to throw in a couple of ideas into the mix which hopefully have not been mentioned before. Some of the ideas are more speculative than others.

Assumptions about the aircraft speed have now been modified based on radar data. Seems likely that these assumptions are correct, but might also worth considering max endurance speed for various altitudes?
Seems that the two dominant theories, do not include sabotage. e.g. ricin gas bombs in cockpit placed to take out coms, pilots and everyone on board. Could explain path away from land, i.e. setting waypoints for autopilot, i.e. to avoid crashing into populated area.
Not scanning the cargo is odd, if there was something strange about the cargo then that would color the interpretation of the facts.
Seems unlikely that captain was involved, the fact that he was put on the flight at the last minute points away from him and maybe even towards others. i.e. what if it was known there was some risk associated with this flight and that is why he was assigned to this particular flight. Similarly, it is unlikely the copilot was involved.
I find it hard to believe that the aircraft tracked back over Penang would not have raised an alarm on the ground and not been investigated in realtime.

I have noticed in many airports there is no rigorous check to ensure the person boarding with the boarding pass is the same one that had their passport and boarding passed checked at passport control. I think we need biometric and image matching at both these points to ensure it is the same person.

The copilots final sign off was normal, so could it have been recorded from a previous flight, might be worth checking that it does not exactly match a previous call on another flight.

If any passengers were alive for the flight, an emergency Inmarsat sat phone in the crew compartment would have been able to track the aircraft and know what is going on. They also have options for boats where there is a big red emergency button that transmits GPS information with an emergency identification. These can all operate independently of the aircraft electrical system. (Though I know there were also EPIRBs in the passenger compartment, that were not used.)

The new debris sighting, looks more promising. Be interesting to see satellite images of this area from before the dates on the latest images.

Time is running out to find the pinger. I don't see any submarines in the assets looking in the search area. If a submarine that could detect the pinger over say a 20nm band cruising at 30kts could cover 14,400 square nautical miles a day in any weather. Ten subs could cover 144,000 sq nm per day. However, there is likely a security issue with using the subs in joint operation with lots of different anti submarine aircraft in the area. In any case pinger finders sitting on the ground will not find anything, but could at least eliminate locations if actually being used while also having a chance however small of picking up something.

Whatever the case it seems obvious the black box and its pinger needs to be easier to find. Many boats have EPIRBs that automatically deploy and float on the water transmitting GPS data. They are small light and relatively inexpensive, so might need something like this on aircraft so the impact point can be found more quickly.

It would be very suspicious and worrying if the debris and black box is not found for this aircraft.

[Edited 2014-03-28 00:25:08]

User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3607 posts, RR: 12
Reply 149, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 50569 times:

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 147):
Assuming the Doppler shift data is correct only a lower speed would indicate moving the search area north east, if not any other changes to the initial conditions.

I feel like from your earlier posts that you're interpreting this new info as saying the speed *after* radar contact was lost was higher. I watched the news conference and they never talked about the post-radar speed once. All they said was the speed on radar was higher than thought previously, meaning they had less fuel when contact was lost, meaning they traveled a shorter distance once contact was lost. That can only mean the plane is northeast of where they thought it was, because we know it's on that arc.

[Edited 2014-03-27 23:27:10]


I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineEC135 From Germany, joined Dec 2000, 38 posts, RR: 0
Reply 150, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 50246 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 66):
Please do prove it... And give the people who thought that trajectory out their dues : Boeing, the NTSB, the FAA.
So what you're talking about should be called "The BOEINGNTSBFAAINMARSATPINGDERIVATIONTRAJECTORY
I have that strange feeling that they could, just could, mind you, know more about aviation than you do.

I just heard on news radio that the search area has shifted about 1000kms to the northeast... In my opinion they absolutely have no clue where the plane or wreckage might be. I agree with the Malaysian authorities, that most likely all lives are lost, but without having identifyed a single piece yet, the SMS message to the relatives is the worst thing happened in this case besides the matter of fact that a 777 can disappear in the 21st century for now at least 3 weeks without any trace...


User currently offline777Jet From Australia, joined Mar 2014, 1407 posts, RR: 0
Reply 151, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 49932 times:

Quoting bluesky9 (Reply 149):

The new debris sighting, looks more promising.

The frustrating thing, I guess, about this is that each new sighting 'looks more promising' than the last. Then, nothing is found after a few days, weather sets in and the search gets halted. Then, another 'more promising' lead emerges. The cycle continues.



DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90,717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788,306,320,321,332/3,346,388
User currently offlineslinky09 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2009, 822 posts, RR: 0
Reply 152, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 50778 times:

Quoting EC135 (Reply 151):
I just heard on news radio that the search area has shifted about 1000kms to the northeast... In my opinion they absolutely have no clue where the plane or wreckage might be.

Now confirmed by AMSA, the new search area can be seen here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26780897.

So all those Thai, French, Chinese and American satellites finding 24m long 'debris' 1,500 km south west of there observed what I wonder? Just normal sea trash?


User currently offlineFinn350 From Finland, joined Jul 2013, 668 posts, RR: 1
Reply 153, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 50578 times:

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 150):
I feel like from your earlier posts that you're interpreting this new info as saying the speed *after* radar contact was lost was higher.

Yes, I misinterpreted what LTC8K6 said. Thanks for correcting my assumption.

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 100):
The plane was cruising at a higher speed than originally thought, thus it ran out of fuel earlier?


EDIT: Now BBC has posted a graphics were there is a new track at 400 knots. I take the speeds to indicate the cruise speed after the radar contact was lost. So the speed is actually LESS than the previously postulated cruise speed (due to the speed being higher in the radar coverage over Malaysia and consuming more fuel in the first part of the flight).

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26780897

[Edited 2014-03-28 00:10:42]

[Edited 2014-03-28 00:14:48]

User currently offlinedesh From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 232 posts, RR: 0
Reply 154, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 50492 times:

So - given all the discussions around math and sat pings. Would it be possible to fire up another 777 send it along the expected path , with enough fuel to break pattern and go to say Perth and see if that plane replicates MH370' s signals ? They would have take on more fuel but would not have passengers and cargo thus gross weight could be maintained. If the sats are positioned as they were on that fateful night, would it be possible to reverse engineer a path based on all the satellite signals ?

Thoughts ?



"History is merely a list of surprises. It can only prepare us to be surprised yet again." - Kurt Vonnegut
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1558 posts, RR: 3
Reply 155, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 50775 times:

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 128):
According to an expert on CNN, the debris has "absolutely" been found. And as Piers Morgan points out, the expert is an Aussie, so he has special knowledge of the Indian ocean.

Sigh....

Hey, I'm Australian and I have special knowledge of the Indian Ocean, to paraphrase Sarah Palin, I can see it from my house.. 



BV
User currently offlineAirbus747 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2014, 9 posts, RR: 0
Reply 156, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 50191 times:

Another question that might have not been discussed yet:

Could it simply be that the crew not only lost all communication electronics but also satellite, compass, etc and therefore lost their bearings?

What would an experienced pilot do if they had no way to asses what was down there, where they were flying, and simultaneously not be able to communicate with anyone?

Would they visually try to avoid civil airspace to prevent collisions etc?

How would a plane in such situation be able to send a distress signal and make it to an airport?


User currently offlineSkydrol From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 964 posts, RR: 10
Reply 157, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 50151 times:

Quoting EC135 (Reply 151):
I just heard on news radio that the search area has shifted about 1000kms to the northeast... In my opinion they absolutely have no clue where the plane or wreckage might be. I agree with the Malaysian authorities, that most likely all lives are lost, but without having identifyed a single piece yet, the SMS message to the relatives is the worst thing happened in this case besides the matter of fact that a 777 can disappear in the 21st century for now at least 3 weeks without any trace...