Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9851
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 11:19 am

I used my phone (Sony Xperia - various versions) often enough to use Alpine Quest app to track the flight path on planes with no IFE.
 
Backseater
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:20 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 11:30 am

Quoting sipadan (Reply 340):
So, given the above, and the Inmarsat handshake protocol (every hour, if not heard from) wouldn't one have expected an ACARS transmission to have occurred at 2:07 thereabouts, not the 2:22 when we had our first handshake? The 'handshakes' are ONLY if not 'heard from', and as I understand this, the 1:07:49 transmission would constitute an 'okay, i hear you' transmission even though it was of a different nature. Yet the next transmission was the ground station 'log on/log off' message at 2:22:00, an 1 hour 14min separation. Sure this has been covered and is obvious, but am wondering? Why not a 2:07-2:08 handshake?

You ask valid questions but we have to allow for some slack in the timing of the over-the-air transmissions. Let me propose some educated guesses:

- the over-the-air protocol uses different priority queues. The GES transmits via the P channel messages queued for a number of a/c's, in decreasing order of priority. Logon/logoff acks must be at the lowest priority because they only exist to optimize resources are not time critical.

- for an RTD measurement and/or BFO measurement to occur, the return burst from the AES must reach the GES and be decipherable. But that is not guaranteed. The AES may not receive/decode the packet over the P-channel. Even if it receives and decodes it properly, its response packet will be a burst that begins and end within the time boundaries of an Aloha time slot of the random R-channel. In that time slot, it may collide with a burst sent by another a/c (may be even more than one) with a probability that increases with the load factor of the R-channel. So the GES is waiting for a response but that response does not arrive. When the timeout (n sec?) expires, the logon/logoff ack request must be re-queued at the lowest priority level waiting again for transmission over the P-channel to the AES and so forth. This retry process may be repeated half a dozen times at which point the GES will declare the AES logged off and release its resources.

That "may"explain why the 2:22 event was recorded when it was.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8591
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 11:55 am

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 297):
This is not true. If I buy a brand new AP, straight out of the box, take it on a ship in the middle of the Indian Ocean and plug it in, and assuming I had internet access via satellite, still no one would know where the hell that thing is. But once I get a GPS fix it would get added to the database of whatever mapping app I was using, if they do crowdsourcing. Of course then the ship would move, and the database would be outdated immediately.

On one hand you argue you are hot shot developer, on the other hand you are not able to understand a "concept".

In a land based system WiFi positioning service providers like Google, Infsoft, Navizon, AlterGeo, Skyhook Wireless and Combain Mobile have to depend on a GPS enabled device like a smartphone on that WiFi to get router's location information.

Aircraft has its own GPS system. No need for a "third party" to provide location data in this scenario. Unlike a home router, aircraft's location data is constantly changing while in flight.

As a hot shot developer you should be aware of Service Oriented Architecture, just like Google, Infsoft, Navizon, AlterGeo, Skyhook Wireless and Combain Mobile, Aircraft own GPS system can act as Service Provider. There is no need to contact Google to get its "own" location data.

Take a case of MyFlight option (an app) in IFE. It is getting location data from Aircraft.

If you are not aware most advanced seat back IFEs like TopSeries 8000 IFE works on "Wireless Network".

Also most advanced IFE's like Thales TopSeries AVANT, have "connected apps" which use in-flight broadband service.

Combine these technologies to conceptualize.

This about the future WiFi based Bring-Your-Own-Device IFE systems. All options we now have in seat back including MyFlight will be just an app.
All posts are just opinions.
 
sipadan
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:06 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 12:00 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 335):
The raw data of the satellite data packets (non-billable packets) won't be released under national security clauses and various non-confidentiality clauses between Inmarsat and various "chief client" government customers.

right. Thanks.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 323):
too late ....

for what???

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 345):
That would mean that the plan to steal 9M-MRO is already under way by that time in the flight. It is only 26 minutes into the flight that we have the second FL350 report. The previous FL350 report was at 20 minutes.
Quoting sipadan (Reply 340):
Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 194):
9M-MRO/MH370 was apparently completely normal in all respects right up until the loss of the transponder data stream.

not at all...you said 'completely normal in all respects right up until the loss of the transponder data stream.' I believe (I mean, I know) that the last transmission (the one by the Captain) was before the transponder was turned off (Angus Houston's terminology). I qualified this as something 'not completely normal.' Then, furthermore, is the redundant FL350. All I said was that this could be considered possibly aberrant as well. To be clear, these two 'anomalies' could very well be entirely irrelevant...but in light of the situation, I don't think they should be overlooked.

And, yes, I personally do believe that the 'theft' began in earnest (physically) right before the redundant FL350 transmission...which I believe was also given by captain Shah. So, lets just say that this is actually in fact what happened. Any one got an idea as to why he would have done this? I do...and it wasn't a mistake...but then again, sleuthing of 'this' sort seems to be frowned upon.

[Edited 2014-05-14 05:05:30]
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 12:01 pm

Here is a quote from an opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal by Mr. Najib, the prime minister of Malaysia.

Quote:
Instead of heading to Beijing, the plane made a sharp turn across peninsular Malaysia, traveled north up the Straits of Malacca, made a U-turn south over the coast of Sumatra and ended in the southern Indian Ocean, half way to Antarctica. Little wonder that words commonly used to describe MH370 include "bizarre" and "unprecedented."

Also unprecedented are the techniques used to search for the plane. In the absence of contact via normal aircraft communications, the international investigation team—which includes the world's best aviation experts—was forced to turn to satellite "handshakes," mathematics and sophisticated techniques never before used to find a missing aircraft. The team managed to identify where flight MH370 ended, and it has narrowed down a search area off Western Australia. Yet, despite the efforts of the world's brightest minds and best militaries, the search area remains huge. Finding the plane will be neither quick nor easy.

Source: online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303627504579559170123401220

For what it is worth, he appears to confirm the plane travelling north up the Straits of Malacca.
 
nupogodi
Posts: 933
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:58 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 12:13 pm

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 352):
This about the future WiFi based Bring-Your-Own-Device IFE systems. All options we now have in seat back including MyFlight will be just an app.

... so you just want the aircraft to serve up some data on an internal network for a specific app to consume? Instead of using the seat-back IFEs? That's doable, though I'm not sure why you'd want to do it.

It is, once again, completely different from what you were talking about before, but since this 'hotshot developer' has trouble understanding this ever-changing 'concept' of yours, maybe you should just give it a rest.
A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1810
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 12:23 pm

Quoting sipadan (Reply 314):
Can this be right?
International Convention on Civil Aviation, Annex 13:

"5.12
The State conducting the investigation of an accident or incident shall not make the following records available for purposes other than accident or incident investigation, unless the appropriate authority for the administration of justice in that State determines that their disclosure outweighs the adverse domestic and international impact such action may have on that or any future investigations:
a) all statements taken from persons by the investigation authorities in the course of their investigation [this would include whatever raw data was provide by Inmarsat]
...
e) opinions expressed in the analysis of information"

Under Annex 13, the U.S. (NTSB), as the country of design/manufacture of the airframe, and the U.K. (AAIB), as the country of design/manufacture of the engines, are entitled to full participation in all aspects of the investigation.

Australia, as a country "which on request provides information, facilities" is also entitled to participate, but its participation "may be limited to those matters which entitled such States to participation" (i.e. the conduct of the search and search facilities).

Finally, article 5.26 provides that:

"Accredited representatives and their advisers:
a) shall provide the State conducting the investigation with all relevant information available to them; and
b) shall not divulge information on the progress and the findings of the investigation without the express consent of the State conducting the investigation."
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
sipadan
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:06 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 12:24 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 354):
Instead of heading to Beijing, the plane made a sharp turn across peninsular Malaysia, traveled north up the Straits of Malacca, made a U-turn south over the coast of Sumatra and ended in the southern Indian Ocean, half way to Antarctica. Little wonder that words commonly used to describe MH370 include "bizarre" and "unprecedented."
Quoting Finn350 (Reply 354):
For what it is worth, he appears to confirm the plane travelling north up the Straits of Malacca.

It's worth quite a bit. And in short order we will also begin to get more radar info (including high and low paintings), leaked or otherwise...but at least some more confirmation and correspondence data to help buttress other data points (or refute them).

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 351):
- for an RTD measurement and/or BFO measurement to occur, the return burst from the AES must reach the GES and be decipherable. But that is not guaranteed. The AES may not receive/decode the packet over the P-channel. Even if it receives and decodes it properly, its response packet will be a burst that begins and end within the time boundaries of an Aloha time slot of the random R-channel. In that time slot, it may collide with a burst sent by another a/c (may be even more than one) with a probability that increases with the load factor of the R-channel. So the GES is waiting for a response but that response does not arrive. When the timeout (n sec?) expires, the logon/logoff ack request must be re-queued at the lowest priority level waiting again for transmission over the P-channel to the AES and so forth. This retry process may be repeated half a dozen times at which point the GES will declare the AES logged off and release its resources.

Sure, sounds plausibe...what about the other 'missing' handshake? I believe it was the 07:11 expected (this could totally be wrong, just going from jumbled memory here), didn't happen, and then we had 08:11 handshake and 08:19 half-ping. I think...sure this has been covered, but don't really remember it.
 
Backseater
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:20 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 12:27 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 354):
he appears to confirm the plane travelling north up the Straits of Malacca.

IMO, when all is said and done, and data points are finally in their right positions, maybe we won't have to force the a/c to beeline to somewhere near the first ring at warp speed. That would certainly make the radar observations (or lack thereof) easier to explain. In that case there would not be much of a technical mystery to speak of.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8591
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 12:34 pm

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 355):
It is, once again, completely different from what you were talking about before, but since this 'hotshot developer' has trouble understanding this ever-changing 'concept' of yours, maybe you should just give it a rest.

My concept stayed the same, I used different examples to make you understand. Take it easy.
All posts are just opinions.
 
nupogodi
Posts: 933
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:58 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 12:34 pm

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 336):
I think Pihero's theory is not that it was a controlled ditching but that the plane simply impacted the ocean while traveling at +/- 245 kts and descending at 100 ft / min.

... -100fpm, but not a controlled ditching?

Well, actually trying it, I'd be wrong to speculate on what a 777 might look like after such an impact. I know I wouldn't want to be on it, though.
A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
 
Backseater
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:20 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 12:38 pm

Quoting sipadan (Reply 357):
what about the other 'missing' handshake?

Same kind of explanation. Attempted call? Anything on the GES side that changed the AES state out of idle and reset the log ack timer to its initial value.
Different though for the partial transmission at the end. Probably occurred after a reboot of the avionics after loss of power and RAT deployment. The FMS probably restarts with ACARS enabled by default. The a/c is now trying to communicate without having to be solicited by the GES.
 
nupogodi
Posts: 933
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:58 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 12:39 pm

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 359):
My concept stayed the same, I used different examples to make you understand. Take it easy.

Ah, yes, apparently all the others that interpreted your posts the same way that I did had the same issue with comprehension. Must be something in the water, or the air. Glad you are not affected, friend. Stay well.
A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
 
sipadan
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:06 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 12:46 pm

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 356):
Under Annex 13, the U.S. (NTSB), as the country of design/manufacture of the airframe, and the U.K. (AAIB), as the country of design/manufacture of the engines, are entitled to full participation in all aspects of the investigation.

'all aspects' other than the criminal investigation, right? But how could these two entities co-exist on mutual but separate tracks (assuming an active criminal investigation, which we do have here) with all the overlap? Or, rather, how would the accident investigation team thoroughly examine and investigate all relative matters without all the germane info derived from the criminal investigation (possibly)?

I realize a 'criminal' investigation in the truest sense may uncover nothing. 'Honest' questions. I mean, I know it's been done before, but it just seems rife for proverbial conflict of interests, to a stifle, no? Anyways, thanks for info.
 
sipadan
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:06 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 1:13 pm

Quoting Pihero (Reply 342):
- Normal westward swell , 2 m high

wow...my oh my...how the seas have shrunk. Sorry, but couldn't resist...try to find the humor. I know, I know different area, not the 40's. But how do you KNOW 2 meter seas? And this is still far worse than a piloted night ditching scenario, which you seemed to suggest would be quite the factor in even a piloted gentle ditching.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 342):
As Kaiarahi says, the T7 is built like a *sh*t brick* -( witness the 'Frisco accident where it was more or less intact, even after a near cartwheel... and the wings staid attached ) and the whole airplane has a very smooth surface.

wait...weren't you the guys scoffing at 'intact' ditching some threads back...and now, sure, even without a hand to gently guide it down. Kalahari, I thought you practically had the a/c disintegrating...but, maybe my memory fails me. I'll go take a look.
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1810
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 1:17 pm

Quoting sipadan (Reply 363):
how would the accident investigation team thoroughly examine and investigate all relative matters without all the germane info derived from the criminal investigation (possibly)?

I can't answer specifically, as I don't have the necessary knowledge of Malaysian criminal law and procedure, or how their police services are organized.

In the jurisdictions I do know, the police/judicial authorities provide any germane information to the investigation team - but bear in mind that the sole purpose of an Annex 13 investigation is the prevention of accidents, not to assign blame or liability.

For example, when there were (unfounded) allegations about the behaviour of the AF447 flight crew in the day preceding the flight, it was the local Brazilian police/judicial authorities who investigated and provided information to BEA, because they were in a better position to do so.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1810
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 1:52 pm

Quoting Pihero (Reply 342):
... and it's really a matter of physics and dynamics.

Some thoughts around ditching.

We (obviously) don't know in which direction the aircraft hit the water.

Conventional wisdom for a controlled ditching is to touch down perpendicular to the swell, preferably on the back of a swell. Having practised it in a (real) C130 simulator, it's incredibly difficult to do without catching a wingtip and cartwheeling - and unlike the 777, the Herc is a high wing. Since you need to keep a wing high to stay parallel to the slope of the swell, you're essentially trying to sideslip onto a "runway" that's moving at right angles to the plane. I'm pretty certain the Herc's sideslip capabilty is superior to a 777, and the 777 has a vastly wider wingspan. BTW, a 2 metre swell is outside the normal limits of a Shorts/Sunderland, and they were designed to land on water. In this case, a 2 metre westerly swell was accompanied by a 20kt easterly wind, which would likely result in whitecaps of 3+ metres.

If I had to try it in an aircraft the size of a 777, I would (despite the conventional wisdom) try and touch down in the direction of the swell, wings level, with a low pitch-up attitude to avoid snapping the tail off. As Pihero has noted, the 777 is built like a brick sh*thouse (NZ expression, meaning very sturdy) - in the OZ214 accident at SFO, the wings stayed attached and largely intact, despite a near cartwheel, but the tail was snapped off.

With all that said, we don't know in which direction MH370 hit the water, whether it was a controlled ditching, a slow drift down as a result of "soft" altitude hold as Pihero has postulated, or something more violent.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3559
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 1:59 pm

Hate to miss all the comments. Hopefully not too late with the following thoughts.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 260):

Read the report on, the ANA flight after which the aircraft was banned. It was flying and still the fumes from the MEC caused the crew to divert.

That's the trouble with using recirculated air for ECS. You will get smoke coming back. Enough to cause problem? Don't know. 787 I believe uses recirc air. I think 777 may also. Don't know the percentage though.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 342):
IMO restricted to the wing-to-body fairing and the tail part, none of which would float

Wing to body fairing would float as they are typically graphite/glass epoxy honeycomb construction (very little metal).
However, for a semi-successful ditching, the wing to body fairing would mostly stay attached as they are held on with many many fasteners.


*************************
One though about a multiple person hi-jacking scenario. One of the first thing they would do is to


COLLECT ALL THE CELL PHONES.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
Backseater
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:20 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 2:08 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 367):
One though about a multiple person hi-jacking scenario. One of the first thing they would do is to

COLLECT ALL THE CELL PHONES.

or just plug into a seat power outlet (on 9M-MRO?) a small mobile phone jammer, the size of a WiFi router.
 
User avatar
pvjin
Posts: 3586
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:52 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 2:26 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 367):
One though about a multiple person hi-jacking scenario. One of the first thing they would do is to


COLLECT ALL THE CELL PHONES.

Good luck searching all 227 pax and their hand luggage to make sure none of them are hiding a cell phone somewhere.

Nah, that wouldn't work too well.

[Edited 2014-05-14 07:26:47]
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Martin Luther King Jr
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 2:55 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 257):
I'm still trying to iron out the "via VPG" but using your theory... the timings of the turn is the question...

I went back and did a careful reanalysis of the radar track using both the Beijing screenshot and the Hussein chart. Splitting the difference between the two, I get a ground speed of about 501 kts. Thus, if you believe in the radar track and backtrack it to the turn at Penang, I got it rounding D200J at approximately 17:52:23.

Quoting Mandala:
I do suspect that the timing has to be coincidental with those waypoints, but why the turns[?]

Again, we need not reason "why". We are more interested in the "that". The "that" in this case is that "it" was demonstrating avoidance behavior. For what ever reason--which we do not care about--"it" did not "want" to cross over Indonesian air space.

Quote:
This also benefits the "takeover" school of thought's theory, in that it should refine the fuel calculations.

If she was at cruising speed, that should leave a lot of fuel left over for a long trip.

Quote:
My hunch at the moment is that the path between the last suspected radar contact to the end spot is not as simple as we all think, regardless of whether it was a smoke scenario or a takeover scenario.

If the air speed is constant, there are not a lot of options that are also consistent with the ping rings.

Quoting Mandala:
Who first said KUA instead of KUL

Heh... You got me there I admit. What can I say? We got some pretty good stuff here in the US of A as well! 
Quoting Mandala:
Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 171):
It gives the final 10 positions recorded by FR24. Last position wasn't exactly at IGARI: it was 2.75 nm beyond that on a steady course of 040. Like it's aiming at BIBAN rather than BITOD.

BIBAN (042), or ANHOA (038), and such shortcuts isn't unusual... and yes, some might take the shortcut without ATC clearance if it doesn't deviate by "a lot"...  

Now... did it go 040 because they went for a shortcut? (habit)...

Or something failed? (Pihero's theory)

Or someone just slapped on the HDG SEL? (which is open to Pihero's theory, or a 'deliberate action', but makes 'AP in LNAV mode' unlikely.

My SkyVector says the bearing to ANHOA is 039--that's pretty close to 040--at which point it would link back up with the main airway L637 (BITOD BIBAN ANHOA BITIS TSN) leading to Saigon. This appears to be consistent with the LNAV subsystem being engaged IMO.

Quoting Mandala:
How many passengers have GPS that can show the LatLon and then the passenger can figure out what's going on? Very few, if any.
And... not all phones' GPS can work (ie, get a fix) from inside the aircraft.
I had a few Android phones, and hard to get the GPS to work from inside the aircraft even if you're sitting on the window. I had a blackberry whose GPS would work even if I was away from the window by 1 seat... but, since I didn't have internet connection on the aircraft, no map! It did show the track direction though...

I got an old fashioned handheld GPS I use for hiking that I bring along for the heck of it sometimes. Never had a problem of it working in an airplane (though I was probably sitting at a window at the time). It didn't have a map, but it displayed the lat/long, and also the compass heading (true of course). As I understand it, a lot of smart phones these days can tell you the direction, but I guess that would require GPS reception. So if you noticed you were going south, you would know something was up. There was no Moon, so one wouldn't be able to notice that the Moon was seen through the wrong window. Someone half way familiar with the constellations might notice something odd.

But really, the big giveawy is the turn at IGARI. A 25 degree bank held for 3 minutes is going to be noticed by everybody....
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1587
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 3:06 pm

"Instead of heading to Beijing, the plane made a sharp turn across peninsular Malaysia, traveled north up the Straits of Malacca, made a U-turn south over the coast of Sumatra and ended in the southern Indian Ocean, half way to Antarctica. Little wonder that words commonly used to describe MH370 include "bizarre" and "unprecedented.""

So, did this sharp turn cause an unscheduled ping/handshake for the satcom system?

This would be the turn near IGARI. It would have to be a turn from ~40 degrees if we accept FR24 data.

I think this has to be a fairly gentle continuation of the normal right turn, rather than a very sharp turn back to the left.

[Edited 2014-05-14 08:07:04]
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 3:12 pm

Quoting Abba:
However, the epidemiological problem with the theory "the pilot did it on purpose" is that it can hardly be disproved ... You are dealing with a theory that can (almost) not be disproved.

The initial phase of the flight shows all the signs of purposeful behavior. The turn at IGARI, followed by the route VKB D200J VAMPI MEKAR NILAM, all at apparently normal velocities, with multiple airports to put down at if desired.

If a pilot did not direct that flight path, that is one hell of a coincidence!

If the flight was not purposeful, one would expect the a/c to fly off in some random direction; any course changes would appear to be random, and not directed at a series of waypoints. Thus, the "a pilot did it" theory is easily falsifiable. E.g., cf. Pihero's smoke theory: a random direction ending up at 8.33 94.2 at 18:27. Only problem is that it doesn't square with the radar track.
 
nupogodi
Posts: 933
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:58 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 3:15 pm

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 370):
As I understand it, a lot of smart phones these days can tell you the direction, but I guess that would require GPS reception.

No. It is a tiny surface-mounted magnetometer. An "electronic compass", if you will.
A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
 
abba
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 3:23 pm

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 370):
Again, we need not reason "why". We are more interested in the "that". The "that" in this case is that "it" was demonstrating avoidance behavior. For what ever reason--which we do not care about--"it" did not "want" to cross over Indonesian air space.

Sorry to say but the last sentence is nothing but a contradiction of the first. As it doesn't make any sense for an airplane itself to "want" anything whatsoever - or for that matter to "demonstrate" something like "avoidance behavior" - you are as a matter of fact talking about the intention of the person supposed to be in control of the plane. Hence speaking of "why" rather than "that": someone - as something can't! - don't want to be seen and don't want to cross Indonesian airspace.
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 3:44 pm

Quoting abba (Reply 374):
Quoting Mandala:
I do suspect that the timing has to be coincidental with those waypoints, but why the turns[?]

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 370):Again, we need not reason "why". We are more interested in the "that". The "that" in this case is that "it" was demonstrating avoidance behavior. For what ever reason--which we do not care about--"it" did not "want" to cross over Indonesian air space.

Quoting Abba: Sorry to say but the last sentence is nothing but a contradiction of the first. As it doesn't make any sense for an airplane itself to "want" anything whatsoever - or for that matter to "demonstrate" something like "avoidance behavior" - you are as a matter of fact talking about the intention of the person supposed to be in control of the plane. Hence speaking of "why" rather than "that": someone - as something can't! - don't want to be seen and don't want to cross Indonesian airspace.

Imagine that the 9M-MRO was taken over by supernatural forces as in the Stephen King novel Christine where a 1958 Plymouth Fury becomes possessed by an evil spirit. Could you still make hypotheses regarding the intentions of the a/c? I say yes, you could--but they would have to be very low level: e.g., you could say that it exhibited avoidance behavior, that it "prefered" to fly at cruising speed, that it "liked" certain waypoints, but you would have no idea why it really did that. I find the above exercise to be useful because it explicitly eliminates all speculation about political motives, typical pilot habits, religions versus atheism, family problems, minds, etc. Basically, I am advocating that we take an extreme behavioristic approach to the problem a la B.F. Skinner. It forces one to focus on the very basics--and that's all that's needed to find this airplane.





[Edited 2014-05-14 08:51:07]
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 3:47 pm

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 373):
ng WarrenPlatts (Reply 370):As I understand it, a lot of smart phones these days can tell you the direction, but I guess that would require GPS reception.


No. It is a tiny surface-mounted magnetometer. An "electronic compass", if you will.

OK fine. So I take it that the consensus here is that it is pretty hard to hide from passengers these days the fact that an airplane is traveling in the opposite direction that it is supposed to, even on dark, moonless nights.
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1078
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 3:55 pm

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 375):
Imagine that the 9M-MRO was taken over by supernatural forces as in the Stephen King novel Christine where a 1958 Plymouth Fury becomes possessed by an evil spirit.

This is not a novel, and real planes are not possessed by evil spirits !
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 3204
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 4:01 pm

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 375):
Imagine that the 9M-MRO was taken over by supernatural forces as in the Stephen King novel Christine where a 1958 Plymouth Fury becomes possessed by an evil spirit.

Please leave that part out of the white paper you intend to delivery to the victims' families...
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1587
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 4:04 pm

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 376):
OK fine. So I take it that the consensus here is that it is pretty hard to hide from passengers these days the fact that an airplane is traveling in the opposite direction that it is supposed to, even on dark, moonless nights.

Well, the question kind of boils down to the turn near IGARI.

Exactly what sort of turn was it? Sharp left or gradual right loop back?

Would seasoned flyers notice the sharp left or the gradual right loop?

Would veteran F/As notice?

You are ~40 minutes into a flight to Peking and here you are making a sharp turn or a big loop.

There isn't supposed to be anything but a mild heading change in that area, and that had already been made according to FR24.

Could the pilot temporarily erase all concerns about maneuvers by simply making an announcement about avoiding turbulence or such?

[Edited 2014-05-14 09:06:07]
 
comorin
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 5:52 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 4:10 pm

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 304):

I can push myself to understand 37.5 KHz +- 1 but the 33 KHz puzzles me.

DTW2HYD: Thank you for your entertaining posts. They bring much merriment to an otherwise serious thread.  
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3559
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 4:16 pm

Quoting pvjin (Reply 369):

Good luck searching all 227 pax and their hand luggage to make sure none of them are hiding a cell phone somewhere.

Nah, that wouldn't work too well.

Like the way they collect passports during hi-jacking. No need to get the cell phone in the overhead bins. People will readily give up cell phones when stressed.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
aftgaffe
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:18 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 4:25 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 344):
Wouldn't the 'Air-Cushion-Effect' come into this as well?

That's an interesting point. So owing to ground effect we have increased lift and reduced drag as the plane nears the water. But we have an authothrottle and autopilot that wants to maintain 245 kias and a 100 ft / min sink rate. So what changes?

I suspect the answer is a reduction in thrust. I'm not sure a significant pitch adjustment is necessary but if it were, I would guess it to be relatively minor.

The takeaway then seems to be that ground effect, by requiring the engines to power back somewhat, may marginally reduce the violence that occurs when the engines meet water even though speed remains constant. ??

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 351):
That "may"explain why the 2:22 event was recorded when it was.

Another possibility, perhaps one that even combines with what you suggested, might be that the IGARI turn triggered pings in the same way the +/- 18:27 Z turn did?

Quoting sipadan (Reply 357):
Sure, sounds plausibe...what about the other 'missing' handshake? I believe it was the 07:11 expected (this could totally be wrong, just going from jumbled memory here), didn't happen, and then we had 08:11 handshake and 08:19 half-ping. I think...sure this has been covered, but don't really remember it.

I think it's actually that a 7:40 MYT ping was expected but did not occur and instead we got one at 8:11 MYT. The explanation I've seen is that the airline sent the plane a message (through satcom?) around 7:11, thus restarting the (supposed?) 1-hour check in clock.

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 360):
... -100fpm, but not a controlled ditching?

Uncontrolled in the sense of not being piloted (nor on autoland).
 
User avatar
fotoflyer71
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 6:22 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 4:26 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 381):
People will readily give up cell phones when stressed.

Like someone mentioned above, a cellphone jammer would be a more effective option.
Try to learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself.
 
nupogodi
Posts: 933
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:58 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 4:48 pm

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 376):
OK fine. So I take it that the consensus here is that it is pretty hard to hide from passengers these days the fact that an airplane is traveling in the opposite direction that it is supposed to, even on dark, moonless nights.

I believe the consensus is that if anyone was interested and informed, they could use a smartphone to determine things weren't going according to plan, yes. I think the chance of such an interested and informed person being on board is high.

I'm not really sure whether this knowledge changes anything. They weren't in control.
A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
 
nupogodi
Posts: 933
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:58 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 4:52 pm

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 382):
Uncontrolled in the sense of not being piloted (nor on autoland).

No way in hell an autopilot set to a slow descent would produce anything but a big ugly debris field.

Would the autopilot even fly it into the water? There's a radio altimeter. If I were designing it, any kind of ground proximity warning would immediately disconnect the autopilot... This isn't a drone, this is a piloted aircraft. The computer isn't going to fly the damn thing into terrain.

Or is it?

(also, LOL at autoland. Lots of ILS CAT III out in the ocean?)

[Edited 2014-05-14 10:03:00]

[Edited 2014-05-14 10:03:44]
A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 5:09 pm

Quoting LTC8K6:
Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 376):
OK fine. So I take it that the consensus here is that it is pretty hard to hide from passengers these days the fact that an airplane is traveling in the opposite direction that it is supposed to, even on dark, moonless nights.

Well, the question kind of boils down to the turn near IGARI.

Exactly what sort of turn was it? Sharp left or gradual right loop back?

Would seasoned flyers notice the sharp left or the gradual right loop?

Would veteran F/As notice?

You are ~40 minutes into a flight to Peking and here you are making a sharp turn or a big loop.

There isn't supposed to be anything but a mild heading change in that area, and that had already been made according to FR24.

Could the pilot temporarily erase all concerns about maneuvers by simply making an announcement about avoiding turbulence or such?

The problem is that superbig loops are contrained by the time budget. E.g., if you have to be D200J at 17:52:23, leaving IGARI at 040 at 17:21:03, you have 0.522 hours. Even assuming maximum warp 512 kts + 10 kt tailwind = 522 GS, the track can only be 272.6 nm maximum. Cf. the chart below, where I drew a wide, 25 nm diameter loop to the right--it's almost too big. For a 25 nm diameter loop, you're looking at about a 15 degree bank at cruising speed, according to this aircraft bank calculator. The loop itself would be about 40 nm, and at 8 nm/min, it would have to be held at a 15 degree bank for 5 minutes.

http://i.imgur.com/baKB6u2.png
 
smallRED
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2014 3:16 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 5:09 pm

Quoting Pihero (Reply 342):
... and it's really a matter of physics and dynamics.
Here is one interpretation :

1/-Initial conditions :
- Normal westward swell , 2 m high
- Wind : Easterly at 20 kt
- Aircraft descending at 100 ft/min TAS = 245 kt ---> ground speed 225 kt.
- Aircraft attitude 1° or 2° nose up.

Hi Pi,

I did my first and only parachute jump from 3000 ft (solo, static line)...and in the landing, we were taught to flare the chute to slow the forward momentum, then when within tiptoe range of the ground, to flare fully so that the chute effectively stalled to zero forward speed, and we dropped down under gravity into a walk....quite fun...

I'd imagine that in a controlled crash/ditching, it would be better to fly low and steady (ie zero vertical speed) at say 10m above the waves, then execute a sharp nose up (?? or other appropriate aircraft flight action) to enter into a dynamic stall (is that the right term?) to check the forward speed to zero (possible?), and then let gravity pull you down...from 10m, the vertical speed at impact comes from gravity acting on the mass over the 10m...probably low enough to keep the plane in one piece...
Difficult to keep afloat due to waves nonetheless, but physical impact between plane and water would be better minimized?

We can try to compare to the impact analysis from AF447? It was in a stall (what was forward speed?) and fell from a great height (achieving terminal velocity?) at impact with the water... it did not smash into a million pieces right?

Just my 2 cents...

   
 
aftgaffe
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:18 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 5:15 pm

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 385):
Would the AP. This isn't a drone, this is a piloted aircraft. The computer isn't going to fly the damn thing into terrain.

Or is it?

Pihero's theory is that A/P reverted to basic mode for the southbound leg - heading, vertical speed, and speed.

I don't really know how that works (there does not seem to be much written [that I can find at least] on degraded A/P for Boeing similar to Airbus alternate law [in which A/P can stay connected under some circumstances]). But yeah, under the theory, the impact (I think) is simply the meeting of the descent profile with the ocean.

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 385):
(also, LOL at autoland. Lots of ILS CAT III out in the ocean?)

It's with the wifi...  
 
nupogodi
Posts: 933
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:58 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 5:19 pm

smallRED - what you are describing, nearly stalling right above the ground, is basically how you land an airplane.

The dynamics change greatly when you attempt to land one of the biggest passenger airliners in rough waters though... I remain very skeptical of the controlled ditching theory...
A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
 
nupogodi
Posts: 933
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:58 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 5:23 pm

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 388):
I don't really know how that works (there does not seem to be much written [that I can find at least] on degraded A/P for Boeing similar to Airbus alternate law [in which A/P can stay connected under some circumstances]). But yeah, under the theory, the impact (I think) is simply the meeting of the descent profile with the ocean.

Based on what that guy on PPRuNe who tried the fuel-out scenario in a certified 772 sim said, when the A/P gives up, controls revert to 'direct' mode... I would HOPE the A/P would give up when impact with terrain is imminent but I don't know. Need someone to try *that* in a sim...
A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1078
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 5:32 pm

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 389):
The dynamics change greatly when you attempt to land one of the biggest passenger airliners in rough waters though... I remain very skeptical of the controlled ditching theory...

I think so, too. And the plane here will be quite fast. I don't think it will stay in one piece, but 3-5 large pieces and a few smaller ones would be my guess. Remember that the search only started 3 week and 1 hurricane after the accident.
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 5:55 pm

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 382):
But we have an authothrottle and autopilot that wants to maintain 245 kias and a 100 ft / min sink rate. So what changes?

Once the engines are torn off, no more autopilot... not enough time to swich over.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 366):

We (obviously) don't know in which direction the aircraft hit the water.

Yes we do : in the scenario I am proposing, it was maintaining a constan heading of around 165°.
What is most interesting is that achieves close to the most ideal set up for ditching : parallel to the swell and basically into the wind.

Quoting sipadan (Reply 364):
But how do you KNOW 2 meter seas?

That's the value of the swell in this ocean. Just look at the videos of the search... they all show it.

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 382):
t. So owing to ground effect we have increased lift and reduced drag as the plane nears the water.

The sea is not flat. The ground effect will not be constant .

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 385):
Would the AP. This isn't a drone, this is a piloted aircraft. The computer isn't going to fly the damn thing into terrain.

Where are you looking at ? straight flight at 100 ft/min... That's all. And there is no automatic terrain avoidance... EGPWS would be blaring, but would there be anyone to listen to it ?

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 367):
However, for a semi-successful ditching, the wing to body fairing would mostly stay attached as they are held on with many many fasteners.

Could be, too... but it doesn't change a lot, does it ? Still a fairly intact fuselage and not many debris.

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 379):

Exactly what sort of turn was it? Sharp left or gradual right loop back?

This *sharp* turn idea is not realistic... and first, how do you people define a sharp turn ?
On Autopilot, the bank is limited to 25° in cruise : that's the maximum.
On manual flying, anything azbove 30° and the bank protection will kick in, making life very heavy and complicated to the one wanting to go beyond.
The flight was observed making a right turn at IARI, consistent to proceeding toward BITOD., with an eventual course of 059°.
...And by the way, ATCCs will not regard very kindly pilots who, on their own, would take shortcuts and fly direct segments. That's certainly not on, without proper clearance.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 372):
The initial phase of the flight shows all the signs of purposeful behavior. The turn at IGARI, followed by the route VKB D200J VAMPI MEKAR NILAM, all at apparently normal velocities, with multiple airports to put down at if desired.

... and all that is waiting for you to confirm that it is still flyable up to your 39,87 point... which you certainly have not.
Contrail designer
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 6:05 pm

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 389):
smallRED - what you are describing, nearly stalling right above the ground, is basically how you land an airplane.

Not on an airliner. At touch-down, we'll still be at around 1.1 Vs, some ten to fifteen knots above stall.

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 389):
I remain very skeptical of the controlled ditching theory...

Who used that word, very recently ?

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 390):

Based on what that guy on PPRuNe who tried the fuel-out scenario in a certified 772 sim said, when the A/P gives up, controls revert to 'direct' mode...

Who said fuel out scenario, recently ?

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 390):
. I would HOPE the A/P would give up when impact with terrain is imminent but I don't know.

There is absolutely no reason for it to *give up*.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 391):
And the plane here will be quite fast

Do you people really read others'posts, because I'm beginning to doubt it .
Contrail designer
 
LH707330
Posts: 2402
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 6:19 pm

Quoting Pihero (Reply 342):
2/- Initial Impact :
- The engines will hit first as they are 2 meters below the fuselage (see 777 ACAPS page 23
The first second, with 50 cm in the wwater, we'd see deceleration and flaming out
- seconds later, (IMO 2 sec) the engines will be ripped off, bleedin further energy, causing a pitch up as the CoG will translate aft, in the opposed direction of the pitch-down moment on the forces against the engines.

I'd imagine that with a 2 meter swell, one would hit before the other, imparting a significant yaw moment on the plane before shearing off. Also, there's a pitch couple when the engines start inhaling water and adding drag down low (the plane "trips" over its engines). I also think the engines would roll forward, shear off front bolts first, and depart under the wing before the entirety of the fan is immersed, but I'm no structures expert, so that's speculative. How long the engines stay attached is crucial to determining whether the plane bounces or noses in.

Does anybody have data on the bolt strength and how much force needs to be applied to lose the engines?

Quoting smallRED (Reply 387):
We can try to compare to the impact analysis from AF447? It was in a stall (what was forward speed?) and fell from a great height (achieving terminal velocity?) at impact with the water... it did not smash into a million pieces right?

Forward speed was 107 knots and v/s was something like -10800 fpm, and the fuselage broke into a number of segments. I don't think the two can be compared easily. AF447 basically pancaked in, whereas (we hypothesize) MH370 had more forward than downward speed, meaning we need to consider the longitudinal drag and torsional effects of the engines, etc. along the X and Z axes.

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 389):
smallRED - what you are describing, nearly stalling right above the ground, is basically how you land an airplane.

Certain taildraggers are landed like this, but the majority of tricycle-gear planes (including a T7) are not stalled onto the runway (deliberately, that is).
 
nupogodi
Posts: 933
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:58 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 6:42 pm

Quoting Pihero (Reply 393):
Not on an airliner. At touch-down, we'll still be at around 1.1 Vs, some ten to fifteen knots above stall.

I did say NEARLY stall...   Which leaves room for interpretation. The idea is to be as slow as practicable right? Might want to go faster in winds, weather, or for whatever reason... But that's for a nice runway. What would you do if you had to go in the water?

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 394):
Certain taildraggers are landed like this, but the majority of tricycle-gear planes (including a T7) are not stalled onto the runway (deliberately, that is).

No... but they'd get close...

[Edited 2014-05-14 11:58:16]
A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
 
smallRED
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2014 3:16 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 6:43 pm

Thanks guys,
What i intended was not to "land" a T7 (no landing strip, no ground against rubber friction, no reverse thrust...), but to kill the forward speed...essentially stop dead it in mid air and let it fall from 20m height... just like the para-sail situation....can a T7 be stopped dead in mid air? reverse thrust and nose up?
If can be achieved, the engines may not even rip off since there is no forward momentum..
Anyways, i'm no pilot....
Thanks again...
 
nupogodi
Posts: 933
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:58 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 6:49 pm

Quoting Pihero (Reply 393):
Who used that word, very recently ?

What word, controlled?? Well it sure as heck wasn't automated.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 393):
Who said fuel out scenario, recently ?

No one. Just me, I guess. But I think that's likely what happened, so let's run with it.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 393):
There is absolutely no reason for it to *give up*.

Why not? I don't know, that's why I'm asking. You talked about GPWS. That would only sound alarms, would not disconnect A/P? I guess that would make sense ... planes have automated themselves into terrain before, and you can't expect the A/P to avoid terrain.
A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
 
nupogodi
Posts: 933
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:58 am

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 6:50 pm

Quoting smallRED (Reply 396):
can a T7 be stopped dead in mid air?

Not without rockets. Big, big, big rockets.

[Edited 2014-05-14 11:51:23]
A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 61

Wed May 14, 2014 6:57 pm

Quoting Pihero (Reply 392):
Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 372):The initial phase of the flight shows all the signs of purposeful behavior. The turn at IGARI, followed by the route VKB D200J VAMPI MEKAR NILAM, all at apparently normal velocities, with multiple airports to put down at if desired.

... and all that is waiting for you to confirm that it is still flyable up to your 39,87 point... which you certainly have not.

I would like to respond to your constructive criticism, but I am afraid I do not know what it is. I thought a couple of days ago, you said it would have too much fuel--now you're saying there wouldn't be enough? Or is there something else the matter?
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos