Quoting Lizzie (Reply 33): apparent admiration for Richard Dawkins doesn't fit with ... planned murderous suicide....

This is not to suggest that the Captain committed mass murder--I still would like to give him the benefit of the doubt--however, it should be noted that professed atheists have killed more than their fair share of millions in the past. Cf. Mao, Stalin, etc.

Quoting art (Reply 37): I have a question, should anyone know the answer, please. Do ULB's suddely stop functioning if the battery voltage drops below a certain cut off threshold ie do they cease to ping at all or does a weaker/altered ping continue being emitted until it fades away to nothing as the battery is totally discharged?

The latter - it fades away gradually as the battery runs out of power. That said, I don't know whether it changes from, say, a 1 second pulse to a 3 second pulse, or whether it still keeps transmitting at 1 second, but at a lower db, or both. From a maximization of finding perspective, I would hope that it gracefully degrades the time, rather than the alternative.

Quoting Rara (Reply 49): Do we have a reconstruction of the most likely flightpath and altitude profile, based on the best available information? The Malaysians haven't released anything like a radar-tracked flightpath so far, have they?

No; frankly the Malaysians have quite epically botched this and I mentioned several threads ago that I completely understand the frustration from the families who think they are hiding something. I find rcair1's sanity checks the most useful reference guide.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 50): This is not to suggest that the Captain committed mass murder--I still would like to give him the benefit of the doubt--however, it should be noted that professed atheists have killed more than their fair share of millions in the past. Cf. Mao, Stalin, etc.

And plenty of us atheists haven't committed mass murder, and plenty of religionists have. Your point, if not to smear us atheists with, is what exactly? It's literally like my saying that because the two guys who rear-ended me are named Warren, all people named Warren are bad drivers, but as far as I know, that's not a generalizable comment.

Like you, I give benefit of doubt to the tech crew, but I don't think their choice of religion or lack thereof says anything about them. Mass-murdering assholes are mass-murdering assholes, regardless of what they believe.

Quoting Rara (Reply 49):

Everything is uncertain. There was another news that fighter jets tried to intercept MH370 but it was not told to higher authority till a few days after. The minister incharge of defense is no other than the same man appeared on the many press conference. At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised if more details were to edge including of any communication with the person incharge of the disappearance of MH370. Why was this kept as a secret or CNN simply trying to sell unworthy but juicy stuff for ratings?

Quoting Tapir (Reply 52): Why was this kept as a secret or CNN simply trying to sell unworthy but juicy stuff for ratings?

Never underestimate the power of ratings to drive news. That said, I think most of us are glad to be dealing with the JACC for our information, since the Malaysian authorities appear to have botched this quite thoroughly. I do hope when the final report is written, it includes a complete timeline of the events, as best they find out, because so far I've not seen an authoritative document.

Quoting p51tang (Reply 32): Angus Houston just announced that two signals were 'held' for about 5 minutes and 7 minutes respectively. As a result, he provided some 'good' news - that the area to be searched is now reduced to 75,000 sq. kilometres.........

Pardon me, but 'just announced'? This was news more than 24 hours before - see Reply 100 of Part 52.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 50): This is not to suggest that the Captain committed mass murder

  

Assuming one of the pilots took actions leading to the loss of the airplane and its passengers, that does not necessarily mean he committed mass murder.

If he intended to commit suicide in this fashion the deaths of others on board--mass murder--were incidental to the suicide and not the intention of the pilot.

I appreciate that this is a subtle distinction, but we should not confuse correlated effect with cause, an example of the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Quoting rc135x (Reply 55): but we should not confuse correlated effect with cause

Not correct. Confusing correlation with causation is indeed a common mistake but does not apply in this (at this point very hypothetical) situation. If one of the crew (or someone else) purposely crashed a plane full of passengers in an act of suicide that person most definitely caused the deaths (i.e., murders) of the passengers. Murder by suicide is not uncommon.

[Edited 2014-04-10 07:13:38]

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 50): This is not to suggest that the Captain committed mass murder--I still would like to give him the benefit of the doubt--however, it should be noted that professed atheists have killed more than their fair share of millions in the past. Cf. Mao, Stalin, etc.

That is utterly irrelevant. Idealogues are certainly prone to mass murder (religious and secular alike). People who reject explicitly murderous ideologies (e.g Dawkins), and who are admirers of others who reject explicitly murderous ideologies are, I suggest, not.

Quoting Tapir (Reply 52): There was another news that fighter jets tried to intercept MH370 but it was not told to higher authority till a few days after.

They were trying to "intercept" 8:00AM next morning. I think it is too late to intercept anything.

Quoting rc135x (Reply 55): I appreciate that this is a subtle distinction, but we should not confuse correlated effect with cause, an example of the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

I suggest that you have the wrong fallacy, and may be instead thinking of the ethical "law of double effect" whereby a good act that inevitably brings about a bad end can nonetheless be justified. Abortion to save the life of a woman would be a classic example.

But does not ethically apply in this case - killing 200 odd additional people to bring about a "good" end (i.e. the end of your own life) isn't justifiable by any "law of double effect" even a utilitarian double law.

And it has nothing to do with correlation not implying causation (which, actually, it often does, anyway). If you do something that will inevitably (not just possibly) bring about the death of another person, and you do it intentionally, whether or not it is in order to kill yourself (or stop yourself being found out, or in order to steal their iPhone, or whatever) you are murdering that person, legally, logically, and ethically.

If one of the pilots deliberately crashed the plane to end his own life, he murdered the passengers as surely if he'd murdered them to get their life insurance. If he planned to do so (as it seemed he must have done, under this scenario), it's not even a "crime of passion", but premeditated murder.

Which is why my gut (not a terribly reliable organ) says it didn't happen. Right now, I'm thinking malevolent hack of the FMS, seeing as no-one on board seems to be suspicious, and the video I posted earlier suggests it is all too possible.

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 31): Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 30): This is why for the deliberate decompression scenario I think very slow decompression would be much more logical. No loud bangs and mist, just a slow decrease and eventually everyone is asleep (and every toiletry bottle on the plane is leaking.) Passenger oxygen masks will automatically deploy when the cabin altitude reaches 14,000 ft. That cannot be circumvented by any means.

Yes they will. However if the pax are a bit slow at 14000 feet cabin altitude many may not go for the masks. And 15 minutes later they'll run out of O2. Very different from a fast decompression with noise and mist where the pax will have adrenaline flowing and be able to react more readily.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 50): This is not to suggest that the Captain committed mass murder--I still would like to give him the benefit of the doubt--however, it should be noted that professed atheists have killed more than their fair share of millions in the past. Cf. Mao, Stalin, etc.

Quoting vnangia (Reply 51): And plenty of us atheists haven't committed mass murder, and plenty of religionists have. Your point, if not to smear us atheists with, is what exactly? It's literally like my saying that because the two guys who rear-ended me are named Warren, all people named Warren are bad drivers, but as far as I know, that's not a generalizable comment. Like you, I give benefit of doubt to the tech crew, but I don't think their choice of religion or lack thereof says anything about them. Mass-murdering assholes are mass-murdering assholes, regardless of what they believe.

I don't think that's fair. I didn't read WarrenPlatts as smearing atheists or anyone else. He was simply making the narrow and benign point that professed atheism does not preclude being or becoming a mass murderer. Which is difficult to argue with. Of course, the same is true of those professing religious faith. But he didn't say anything to the contrary.

That aside, if WarrenPlatts was taking a jab at atheism, I don't think he would have used the qualifier "professed." The principal distinction between atheists and professed atheists its that the latter might secretly be religious or agnostic. So if you're trying to smear atheism, all other things begin equal it's self-defeating to draw a connection between professed atheism and murder as opposed to atheism and murder.

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 61): I didn't read WarrenPlatts as smearing atheists or anyone else

The point isn't whether WarrenPlatts smeared anyone, but whether his remark was relevant to my point. In this case seems to have completely missed it, which was that Dawkins (whom Shah apparently admired) was a vocal opponent of terrorism, specifically, of the kind of terrorism Captain Shah is hypothesised to have committed, namely crashing a plane full of passengers on purpose to make some political point.

That makes my priors for Shah, or any Dawkins fan, committing an act of terrorism low, whatever any other atheists, or non-atheists, may have done in some other place or time. Or, for that matter, crashing a plane full of passengers on purpose in order to kill himself.

Quoting hivue (Reply 56): If one of the crew (or someone else) purposely crashed a plane full of passengers in an act of suicide that person most definitely caused the deaths (i.e., murders) of the passengers.

I am not suggesting that the pilot (in a hypothetical scenario) did not cause the deaths of the passengers. My point is that his intent was suicide, not mass murder. The deaths of the passengers were incidental to the suicide. Sadly, they are just as dead, but it was not the *intention* of the pilot to cause their deaths. Rather, their deaths were a by-product of the pilot's suicide, a calculation that a suicidal person might not consider in their planning.

To reiterate, I do not suggest this is what happened, only that the effects may have been unintended.

Quoting Lizzie (Reply 59): I suggest that you have the wrong fallacy, and may be instead thinking of the ethical "law of double effect" whereby a good act that inevitably brings about a bad end can nonetheless be justified. Abortion to save the life of a woman would be a classic example.

Thank you for this example, but it is not what I had in mind.

In this purely hypothetical case let's presume the pilot intended to commit suicide in this fashion, even knowing full well that his actions would cause the death of everyone else on the plane.

Consider these two alternatives:

1) I am going to commit suicide, and in so doing will commit mass murder.

2) I am going to commit mass murder, and in so doing I will commit suicide.

Both are sequential statements and cannot be simultaneously true.

Thinking as an epidemiologist I appreciate the legal and ethical boundaries this raises. I agree with you fully that the pilot (again, speaking hypothetically of course) committed mass murder. My point was the mass murder was not the purpose but was instead the result.

Quoting Lizzie (Reply 62): The point isn't whether WarrenPlatts smeared anyone, but whether his remark was relevant to my point.

The point for you wasn't whether WarrenPlatts smeared anyone, agree.

But the point for me, in responding to the suggestion that WarrenPlatts had indeed smeared someone, was in fact that he had not smeared anyone.

 

Your point on Dawkins is well taken. Though I have heard stories of a disciple once betraying all he claimed to have believed in....

[Edited 2014-04-10 08:24:08]

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 67): Though I have heard stories of a disciple once betraying all he claimed he to believe in....

Yes, indeed.

Quoting rc135x (Reply 66): In this purely hypothetical case let's presume the pilot intended to commit suicide in this fashion, even knowing full well that his actions would cause the death of everyone else on the plane. Consider these two alternatives: 1) I am going to commit suicide, and in so doing will commit mass murder. 2) I am going to commit mass murder, and in so doing I will commit suicide. Both are sequential statements and cannot be simultaneously true. Thinking as an epidemiologist I appreciate the legal and ethical boundaries this raises. I agree with you fully that the pilot (again, speaking hypothetically of course) committed mass murder. My point was the mass murder was not the purpose but was instead the result.

I think those two statements are perfectly capable of being simultaneously true, and would be so in the case that the chosen method of suicide involves piloting a plane full of passengers into the oceans, as is hypothesised here.

Unless a lawyer or psychiatrist could argue that he somehow (perhaps because in a delusional state) didn't realise that if he crashed the plane he would necessarily not only kill himself but also his passengers, then he is guilty of intentionally bringing about those deaths, even if his primary purpose was to kill himself. And intentionally bringing about the deaths of other people, except in very special circumstances (e.g. in war) is called, legally, murder.

[Edited 2014-04-10 08:32:03]

Edited to fix attribution of second quote - weird how the software automatically seems to attribute quoted posts to the first poster quoted!

[Edited 2014-04-10 08:33:53]

Quoting flood (Reply 9): A nice recent one:

I saw this ship last October in Sydney Harbour for the Australian Navy International Fleet Review. Not the best photo but the only one I got from that day.

Quoting rc135x (Reply 55): Assuming one of the pilots took actions leading to the loss of the airplane and its passengers, that does not necessarily mean he committed mass murder. If he intended to commit suicide in this fashion the deaths of others on board--mass murder--were incidental to the suicide and not the intention of the pilot.

So passengers, cabin crew and the other pilot are just collateral damage!!!

Could we not wait until the plane is found, before we discuss who did what for whatever reason?

Quoting Lizzie (Reply 69): I think those two statements are perfectly capable of being simultaneously true,

A precedes B

B precedes A

These two propositions cannot be simultaneously true. Only one must obtain. Any other conclusion is tautological.

To reiterate, my point was not to judge the hypothetical actions in a speculative scenario, nor was it to absolve anyone through terminological sleight-of-hand.

*IF the pilot death scenario is true, then the pilot committed mass murder* AGREED.

I regret distracting this forum with esoteric matters not germane to the facts known about this tragedy, especially as they seem to have been the source of some offense.

My apologies.

rc135x

EDIT: correct typographical error

[Edited 2014-04-10 08:52:05]

Quoting rc135x (Reply 63): The deaths of the passengers were incidental to the suicide.

OK. But that's still not

Quoting rc135x (Reply 55): the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 61):

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 65):

I didn't read it that way, nor did at least one other person on the forum - that's the problem with reading text on the internet without other contextual clues. I read it along the lines of "no offense, but [insert extremely offensive statement here]" and not as you interpreted it, because of the specific use of "more than their fair share" in his comment.

At any rate, as we've both acknowledged neither atheists nor religionists have a monopoly on evil, I fail to see what relevance the tech crew's religious beliefs have to this already terrible situation.

Handheld satphones will only work under open sky, and defintely not in an aluminium tube.
Those using moving low orbit satellites need to "see" the whole sky, while those using geostationary satellites
need to see the satellite to log on. Aircraft satcom systems use phase array antennas with an attitude and position input
to aim the beam at the satellite. Shipmounted units often use dish antennas under a golf ball radome.

Jan

Quoting rc135x (Reply 69): A precedes B B precedes A These two propositions cannot be simultaneously true. Only one must obtain. Any other conclusion is tautological.

But your original two can:

Quote: 1) I am going to commit suicide, and in so doing will commit mass murder. 2) I am going to commit mass murder, and in so doing I will commit suicide.

If I commit suicide by a method that necessarily involves the death of 250 other people, whether beforehand or at the same time, or even afterwardsk, it as true to say that by doing A you will achieve B as it is to say that by doing B you will achieve A. There is nothing tautological about it - they are both necessarily true. That means that any pilot or hijacker who intentionally crashes a plane that will necessarily kill both themselves and their passengers, and knows that these are the necessary consequences, is committing both murder and suicide.

And planning such a thing in advance, as seems the only way of fitting suicide to the facts in evidence here, means that the pilot concerned must have understood that mass murder was part of that plan.

Which is, as far as I know, without precedent.

Which makes me think that the scenario in my post at #42 is possibly more likely, unlikely as any scenario seems to be at this point.

Quote: 7BOEING Those CB's are not in the cockpit so they're a little harder to pull

A couple of days ago I posted about my concern that both recorders may contain less than what investigators would hope for. But now knowing that CBs are somewhat hard to get to (neither in the cockpit, nor in the galley, nor under seat 21F I assume) that would imply that powering off the recorders could probably not have been done before some party had already taken command of the a/c (unless one of the perpetrators was already positioned close to the CBs which I do not believe).

Therefore the most important events from a forensic standpoint must already have been recorded at that point in the flight. And of course, powering off a device that uses flash memory will essentially preserve anything already written.

If the party in command let the CVR run until the end of the flight and did not make any sound for the last 2 hours, we are out of luck. But if that party made the effort to turn it off, we night actually learn a lot more about the onset of that tragic flight.

As for the DFDR, if it was powered down too early, then we shall miss our chance to run a reality check on Inmarsat RTD and a/c(?) Doppler measurements and I won't get the evidence I was waiting for of the second climb west of Penang.

Can we go back to something reported last night (eastern US time)?

CNN's Richard Quest said he'd learned from "sources" and "experts" the aircraft was in large intact pieces on the seabed. How could he have learned that? Was he guessing? There's no indication the seabed's been mapped.

I would like it very much if they'd quit reporting guesses and their own speculation. The fascinating thing is how much distrust the news media has garnered over the last few years but people still repeat what's reported as fact amongst their friends.

You can see details and a large number of photos of Ocean Shield on MarineTraffic. If you click on the Show on Live Map button, you can see the current(ish) position and the search track it has been following.

http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/..._:33cf5fa5f61909bd8c39c7f940f73b77

Is it even possible to depressurize a 777 cabin from the cockpit or would automatic safety systems prevent it?

[Edited 2014-04-10 10:12:17]

First:
I enjoyed reading valuable insights and viewing wonderful pictures of jets for several years on a.net as an observer. Finally decided to join. Thanks for keeping the shop open and the lights on until lazy "foot draggers" like me act and join  

Second:
a) True, rapid decompression gives more observable signs (sudden drop in temp, fog/mist suddely filling the cabin, could be preceded or accompanied with loud noises). However, untrained individuals are not likely to recognize that these signs indicate "Rapid Decompression". This is why above a certain flight level one of the two pilots HAS TO go on Oxygen above that flight level (period), even with both pilots at the controls.

b) Slow cabin depressurization to cruise level altitudes is practically impossible to detect by a single individual without instrumented alarms. When both pilots are at the controls and the flight level is not that high, it is supposed that if one of them passes out or become sluggish (usually silly with sheepish smile and unresponsive to verbal ques), then the other (well trained professional) pilot would figure out it is hypoxia before he passes out to and dons his oxygen mask. If one pilot leaves his position for any reason the second pilot should be thinking (if I start to feel silly or light headed - I am going on Oxygen right away) that hypoxia may become a factor and watch out for that. With one pilot out of the cockpit some pilots [at least some pilots I flew with] just go on Oxygen even if it is not dictated by the regs (period). Sometimes the cockpit would have a third relief pilot and they may not go on Oxygen if it was NOT in the regs.

Third:
No one knows what happened on MH370. But bear with me here as I go out of my way to show that not all possibilities are entertained yet. Easy on the Captain, not everything in life is fully sinister you know   :
1. MH370 levels off at initial cursing altitude following a good take of by FO under the supervision of the Captain. Captain tells FO "Well done I have the airplane". FO says "Thanks, I will go get us Coffe". Captain goes on the radio and says the "good night" phrase to ATC. FO gets out of his seat and opens the door to the Cabin.
2. Someone waiting outside (pretending to be waiting for the bathroom) pushes the door all the way in, enters the flight deck and points a gun to the Captain's head. "Turn off the transponder and the radios!" and locks the door behind him. The captain does what he is told.
2a. FO wanting to be a hero fights with the intruder who shoots at the center console (now radios are inop!). He shoots the captain in the head once or twice and then shoots at the FO. FO continues to fight and manages to get the intruder shot too (either with the intruder's gun or with a weapon that MH security procedure could have called for that "one of the two pilots on deck will carry a weapon on international flights" (anyone heard about the US "Armed Pilot" Program?"
2b. Intruder tells the FO to go back to his right seat and locks the cockpit door. Intruder starts shooting them both from behind. One of the two pilots although shot manages to get the intruder shot too (source of weapon same as 2a).
3. With one pilot dead and the other pilot unconscious MH370 does the climb, 270 degree turn, and descend unexplained maneuvers.
4. The unconscious pilot partly recovers and tries his best (aviate, navigate, communicate). His first priority is to avoid terrain. He sets MSA as the minimum alt in the AP. Shot in the head and thought to be dead by the intruder the Captain with compromised vision and other injuries while passing in and out of consciousness due to bleeding tried his best. He puts the way-point to the north followed by a vector to the south then passes out one last time and dies. This or a similar scenario can happen.

Fourth:
A.netters, are you sorry I joined a.net or what?  

[Edited correcting typos 2014-04-10 10:41:37]

[Edited 2014-04-10 10:42:56]

Quoting Lizzie (Reply 42): This is absolutely terrifying, especially given that it predates MH370: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk1jIKQvMx8

Thank you for that video link to Hugo Teso's presentation at the HITB conference in Amsterdam last year. Absolutely fascinating. I think that everyone involved in avionics should invest the 60 minutes or so it takes to understand how and why a modern airliner could be taken over remotely by savvy hackers. Aviation has spent so much effort to achieve safety that can totally collapse due to a total lack of network safety (e.g. ACARS)..

Quoting Lizzie (Reply 59): Right now, I'm thinking malevolent hack of the FMS, seeing as no-one on board seems to be suspicious, and the video I posted earlier suggests it is all too possible

Unfortunately all too possible today, but I do not believe that is what happened in the MH370 case. Someone at the end of the video asked the question I also wanted to ask: "If your FMS is hacked by the uploaded Trojan (called Simon), what can you do?". Hugo responded that the hardest thing for the pilot may be to realize that his/her airplane modern systems have been hacked and that somebody else may have changed waypoints and is actually flying the a/c at will . But once aware of that possibility, the pilot should turn off autopilot and FMS and fly the plane manually, diverting to the nearest airport using old style instruments.

Another fascinating coincidence for those who like coincidences. In October 2014, Hugo, who is Spanish, gave an updated presentation looking deeper into commercial aviation hacking. That presentation was in Kuala Lumpur!.

Quoting ryu2 (Reply 77): Is it even possible to depressurize a 777 cabin from the cockpit or would automatic safety systems prevent it?

Yes

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 30): This is why for the deliberate decompression scenario I think very slow decompression would be much more logical. No loud bangs and mist, just a slow decrease and eventually everyone is asleep (and every toiletry bottle on the plane is leaking.)

O2 masks would deploy so everybody would know.

Quoting BruceSmith (Reply 76): If you click on the Show on Live Map button, you can see the current(ish) position and the search track it has been following.

That is a very nice website. Thanks. I notice that only Ocean Shield and HMS Echo are in the area of the reported FDR/CVR pings. The larger search area to the west has eight ships. I wonder what they're looking for in that search area. Strange. Maybe a staging area so as not to interfere with the ping locator on Ocean Shield?

[Edited 2014-04-10 10:53:08]

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 79): But once aware of that possibility, the pilot should turn off autopilot and FMS and fly the plane manually, diverting to the nearest airport using old style instruments.

Yes indeed. But it was interesting that the speaker was aware of that, and made it clear that somehow the hack would have to include discouragement to the pilots to turn off the autopilot!

Could one do that by, say, faking an emergency? Making some warning lights come on? Somehow making the actual problem seem like something different from the real one? I'd have to listen to it again. I was so jaw-dropped I missed some bits. But I thought his point that the very fact of systematic procedures could itself be exploitable - if the hacker knows what a pilot will do, given certain events, then if you want the pilot to do (or not do) something, then you make whatever it is that will trigger that response, happen.

If you see what I mean.

[Edited 2014-04-10 10:46:46]

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 60): a fast decompression with noise and mist where the pax will have adrenaline flowing and be able to react more readily.

... Not forgetting that their first reaction will be to put their hands against their ears as a large group will have painful burst eardrums.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 83): ... Not forgetting that their first reaction will be to put their hands against their ears as a large group will have painful burst eardrums.

And all the babies will start screaming at once! As I know all too well....

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 81): That is a very nice website. Thanks. I notice that only Ocean Shield and HMS Echo are in the area of the reported FDR/CVR pings. The larger search area to the west has eight ships. I wonder what they're looking for in that search area. Strange.

Floating debris.

Also wouldn't help to have lots of noise in the pinger search area.

Not sure if it's been posted, but the Washington Post made a pretty impressive infographic showing the scale of the depths that MH370 may be at.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/pag...epth-of-the-problem/931/?tid=sm_fb

I know this was answered before, but I could not readily find it.

Regarding the last "half-handshake" assumed to happen at fuel starvation....

1. Do the engines and APU shut down at the same time - approximately? Are they both powered from the same tanks?

2. Is the communication system with Inmarsat powered by a generator on the engines or APU?

3. Once fuel was gone and there was no more power, what would then kick on to power the communications? Would it be a battery backup?

Thanks for the help.

Quoting laddb (Reply 87): 1. Do the engines and APU shut down at the same time - approximately? Are they both powered from the same tanks?

No and Yes
One engine would flame out, then the other which would cause the APU to start which may have had enough fuel in the line to come up to speed then flame out.

Quoting laddb (Reply 87): 3. Once fuel was gone and there was no more power, what would then kick on to power the communications? Would it be a battery backup?

Battery initially then RAT

Quoting seahawk (Reply 68): Could we not wait until the plane is found, before we discuss who did what for whatever reason?

I am just doing that, the day I see parts recovered..the Il post in the mean time for me is all mumbo jumbo....too many speculation, very little data.

TRB

Quoting laddb (Reply 87): 1. Do the engines and APU shut down at the same time - approximately? Are they both powered from the same tanks? 2. Is the communication system with Inmarsat powered by a generator on the engines or APU? 3. Once fuel was gone and there was no more power, what would then kick on to power the communications? Would it be a battery backup?

1. The APU attempts to start after engine failure. There wouldn't be fuel left to start it. Or maybe enough fuel to start and then fail. The engines don't shut down at the same time, not usually, there would be slightly more fuel in one tank than the other. Source: 777 pilots

2. Would be powered by the generators when the engines are running...

3. Battery and RAT. Don't know if SATCOM would be powered by the RAT, but fairly sure it wouldn't be powered by the battery. If you've got no engines and no RAT, extra loads that aren't critical flight systems aren't really a priority. Apparently the copilot PFD even shuts off when you're just on battery power.

[Edited 2014-04-10 12:00:39]

Quoting shortstack81 (Reply 75): CNN's Richard Quest said he'd learned from "sources" and "experts" the aircraft was in large intact pieces on the seabed. How could he have learned that? Was he guessing? There's no indication the seabed's been mapped.

I guess that is just based on the fact that no debris have been found. As you say, without mapping, there is no way of knowing.

Quoting FltDoc (Reply 78): Easy on the Captain, not everything in life is fully sinister you know   :

Welcome A.net!
Your own scenario is sinister enough! A deadly kidnapper vs a deadly pilot.
In recent history there have been cases of both.

From the previous part:

Quoting WarrenPlatts: Pihero (Reply 220): Ask Warren to compute a sunrise time there... It's basic AstroNav. WarenPlatts Answer: Thanks for the complement sir! Unless they crashed near the French Southern and Antarctic Lands/Kerguelen Islands, it would have been early morning.

Than you Warren for this answer. Perhaps Pihero might like to comment?

Quoting David L: admit I may have been swayed by its looks.

The website is perfectly reasonable. It was Pihero that was trying to pass some unclear images as good or totally wrongly interpretating them. It was daylight in the presumed area of impact.

[Edited 2014-04-10 12:13:21]

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 74):

If we find the DFDR breaker pulled early, and the CVR left running, that is what a knowledgeable hijacker would likely have done.

Quoting BruceSmith (Reply 76): You can see details and a large number of photos of Ocean Shield on MarineTraffic. If you click on the Show on Live Map button, you can see the current(ish) position and the search track it has been following. http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/...73b77

That's particularly interesting because it shows the coordinates of the sonobuoy search area on the Wallaby Plateau. (And to reconfirm that the coordinates are accurate, I measured the area as 134 square miles, matching media reports, and not to be confused with the much larger surface search area for floating debris.)

Hence, we can now figure depths from Google Earth:

* North corner: 5,499 meters (18,041 feet)
* East corner: 4,634 meters (15,205 feet)
* South corner: 3,900 meters (12,798 feet)
* West corner: 4,323 meters (14,182 feet)
* Midpoint of search area: 4,431 meters (14,538 feet)

* Average depth: 4,558 metres (14,953 feet)

By way of comparison to the one depth most people are aware of as a concept (if not the actual figure), the Titanic rests at around 3,800 meters (12,500 feet).

Assuming there are no jagged undersea mounts Google isn't aware of, and assuming Google's depth figures are even accurate in the first place, this would be a huge job, salvage-wise. It's significantly deeper than the Titanic, and you're talking around two hours just to get a submersible from the surface to any wreckage.

The deepest corner of this search area is beyond the range of many submersibles, leaving a fairly limited selection that could participate. Personally, if this turns out to be the final resting place I don't expect them to bring up much beyond the recorders (if they can be located), as the cost would be high, and the difficulty significant

Quoting rc135x (Reply 63): Consider these two alternatives: 1) I am going to commit suicide, and in so doing will commit mass murder. 2) I am going to commit mass murder, and in so doing I will commit suicide. Both are sequential statements and cannot be simultaneously true.

Apologies to those who don't like this line of discussion (Please disregard - as with rc135x, no offense intended to anyone)


I agree that both statements above cannot be simultaneously true. But isn't there a third option under which mass murder and suicide are simultaneous goals (let me clear, I am not suggesting that was the case here - I'm just engaging the philosophical discussion).

They might not be equally important goals but they can still both be critical to the decision to move forward.

For example, 9/11. Not sure if it's correct, but isn't it widely believed that the hijackers' goals were both mass murder and suicide, with each sort of in service of the other? Put differently, suicide was not, so the theory goes, incidental to or a collateral consequence of, the hijackers' mass murder designs. It was a design objective, if you will. Don't ask me to source this, it doesn't even matter if it's true for purposes of this discussion. It only matters if it could be true.

Quoting Summa767 (Reply 91): It was daylight in the presumed area of impact.

Please present clearly YOUR evidence / calculation establishing this, instead of

Quoting Summa767 (Reply 91): It was Pihero that was trying to pass some unclear images as good or totally wrongly interpretating them.

insulting a professional and very highly respected contributor to this thread, and denigrating professional images that you don't understand.

In the last thread, you asked for proof of the sea conditions (after describing my information as "spurious") and when Pihero provided a detailed professional marine conditions map, you asked what it meant.

Quoting vr-hkg (Reply 93): I don't expect them to bring up much beyond the recorders (if they can be located), as the cost would be high, and the difficulty significant

Give some Engineers a challenge and they may surprise you with their ingenuity  .

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 96): Quoting vr-hkg (Reply 93): I don't expect them to bring up much beyond the recorders (if they can be located), as the cost would be high, and the difficulty significant Give some Engineers a challenge and they may surprise you with their ingenuity  .

What of AF447 did they bring to the surface?

Quoting vr-hkg (Reply 93): Personally, if this turns out to be the final resting place I don't expect them to bring up much beyond the recorders (if they can be located), as the cost would be high, and the difficulty significant

It will probably depend on what the recorders reveal.

If they do not reveal an obvious cause, it may be necessary to bring up the plane.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 95): Please present clearly YOUR evidence / calculation establishing this, instead of

I gave my link in the previous part. Moreover, another 2 members have given their own contributions. One of them is WarrenPlatts,w ho Pihero asked as a referee. Please see quote above or in previous part.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 95): nsulting a professional and very highly respected contributor to this thread,

To put the record straight should in no way be insulting. What is insulting is to mislead on basic facts.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 95): In the last thread, you asked for proof of the sea conditions (after describing my information as "spurious") and when Pihero provided a detailed professional marine conditions map, you asked what it meant.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 95): In the last thread, you asked for proof of the sea conditions (after describing my information as "spurious") and when Pihero provided a detailed professional marine conditions map, you asked what it meant.

It was a wide area map. Nothing specific and certainly not a point to the estimated area of impact -which has moved significantly over the last 12 days.
Pihero used the same area map to estimate sunrise time and got it wrong by 2 hours.