Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

Jack1985

I'd be making recommendations for changes to come about as a result of this tragedy.

Thankfully they make them after they complete the investigation in to what actually happened.

Simon Gruber Says

I assume it's a visual marker for an area for the ships to search, dropped from a search plane

microsim

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Do sky news need to show the families reaction ? We know what it was going to be.

Perhaps sky news wouldn't show it if people didn't watch it.

kstand

Sky News try to do drama overkill and get it so wrong at times.
This was Charlie Brookers take on the Raoul Moat coverage from a few years back:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Muz6QvLWfQQ

vicwatson

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicwatson
AFAIK, every plane part has a serial number, it can be checked with Boeing

Every component that can be removed, repaired and refitted has a serial number. But most (95%??) of the 1,000's of expendable parts such as nuts, bolts, frames, skins, fittings, wiring and all other expendables do not have serial numbers - although some may have batch numbers.

AFAIK stands for As Far As I Know....in case you didn't know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicwatson
To the best of my knowledge they have not picked up any debris as of yet. All sightings at present

In fairness they are not going to tell you before the families. I'll take a stab that some debris has now been collected, pictures sent back from the ship, experts say "yeah that looks conclusive but we better get it here to be 100%"

To The Best Of My Knowledge.......

Happyman42

Jack1985 wrote: »

Thankfully they make them after they complete the investigation in to what actually happened.

I think we could safely make one recommendation...that a way be found to keep track of aircraft independently of pilots.

relaxed

vicwatson wrote: »

To The Best Of My Knowledge.......

I actually replied originally to your post #4398 which was written more matter of fact that no wreckage has been found.

Dr. Bre

why cant there be cameras in the cockpit? they would only be needed to check when something goes wrong. so the pilots privacy would still be respected

pfurey101

Dr. Bre wrote: »

why cant there be cameras in the cockpit? they would only be needed to check when something goes wrong. so the pilots privacy would still be respected

Tricky one this, I know we do not have the lives of 200 or 300 people behind us while we work, but I'm not sure I would like to be on continuos video as I work. And I think this was attempted before a fw years back.

And there is no doubt that some manager somewhere would use this video to get at a crew member somewhere - so it could also be considered a management as well a cockpit crew issue?

As I said - tricky!

andy_g

Dr. Bre wrote: »

why cant there be cameras in the cockpit? they would only be needed to check when something goes wrong. so the pilots privacy would still be respected

I know i personally in work when flying would not want a camera watching my every move.

Things like this can get exploited.

lb1

We were told that there was 4 passengers on false passports but we only got details about the 2 Iranians. What happened to the guy that looked like Balotelli???

pfurey101

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think we could safely make one recommendation...that a way be found to keep track of aircraft independently of pilots.

Another tricky one.

Airlines invest in, employ and entrust men and women to get their passengers, crew and multi million dollar assets safely from A to B. They are highly trained to handle all known situations and are the people that will handle the emergencies - should they happen!

Oh and by the way - we don't really trust you.

I dont know what the answer is but there must have been millions over the last 50 years where maybe only less than 10 incidents where the pilot or co pilot possibly went rogue.

fr336

What a load of crap. From the sounds of it they're no clearer now than they've ever been; sounds like an excuse to end the search to me!

"Assume" Yes that's what everyone has been doing since the start.

ProfessorPlum

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think we could safely make one recommendation...that a way be found to keep track of aircraft independently of pilots.

Devils Advocate - You're basing your safety recommendation on what - the fact that pilots 'disappear' their aircraft? Do we have any evidence that this is what happened? Do we have any evidence that this has ever happened? Let's wait for the full report, and the recommendations that will be made.

Happyman42

pfurey101 wrote: »

Another tricky one.

Airlines invest in, employ and entrust men and women to get their passengers, crew and multi million dollar assets safely from A to B. They are highly trained to handle all known situations and are the people that will handle the emergencies - should they happen!

Oh and by the way - we don't really trust you.

I dont know what the answer is but there must have been millions over the last 50 years where maybe only less than 10 incidents where the pilot or co pilot possibly went rogue.

For the life of me I can't see a scenario where a professional would have a problem with it.
Would be interested to hear the problems.

Given what happened here and the vast expanse of ocean we are talking about I think they have done well to find out that it ended in this part of the ocean but there is an element of luck to it that is not acceptable in today's technological environment.

murphaph

pfurey101 wrote: »

Tricky one this, I know we do not have the lives of 200 or 300 people behind us while we work, but I'm not sure I would like to be on continuos video as I work. And I think this was attempted before a fw years back.

And there is no doubt that some manager somewhere would use this video to get at a crew member somewhere - so it could also be considered a management as well a cockpit crew issue?

As I said - tricky!

Some airlines already have cameras in the cockpit. If it's OK for a bus it's OK for a plane IMO. Kind of surprising CCTV isn't more common on aircraft given the low cost.

ProfessorPlum

Happyman42 wrote: »

For the life of me I can't see a scenario where a professional would have a problem with it.
Would be interested to hear the problems.

Given what happened here and the vast expanse of ocean we are talking about I think they have done well to find out that it ended in this part of the ocean but there is an element of luck to it that is not acceptable in today's technological environment.

The technology is there to transmit position reports and much technical data already. The problem is the 'making it independent of the pilot' bit. From a professional and a technical point of view this could be problematic.

pfurey101

fr336 wrote: »

What a load of crap. From the sounds of it they're no clearer now than they've ever been; sounds like an excuse to end the search to me!

"Assume" Yes that's what everyone has been doing since the start.

They are actually increasing the number of assets involved in the search, including a specialist sonar USN ship thats on it way.

The reports (from multiple agencies) of more wreckage in zone calculated by Inmarset and the probable ferrying of all the relatives to Perth along with other incidents already discussed could indicate that they have found something.

ProfessorPlum

murphaph wrote: »

Some airlines already have cameras in the cockpit. If it's OK for a bus it's OK for a plane IMO. Kind of surprising CCTV isn't more common on aircraft given the low cost.

How much does it cost to retro fit an entire fleet of aircraft with a manufacturer and industry approved camera?
And more importantly, what more is it going to tell us?

Edit: What airlines have cockpit cameras? And what buses film their drivers at work? Genuine question

lb1

lb1 wrote: »

We were told that there was 4 passengers on false passports but we only got details about the 2 Iranians. What happened to the guy that looked like Balotelli???

Can someone clarify this?

sopretty

lb1 wrote: »

Can someone clarify this?

I had forgotten about Balotelli!
Were there definitely 4 false passports? Or was that later debunked and clarified as being 2? Can't remember after all the twists and turns!

billie1b

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

How much does it cost to retro fit an entire fleet of aircraft with a manufacturer and industry approved camera?
And more importantly, what more is it going to tell us?

Edit: What airlines have cockpit cameras? And what buses film their drivers at work? Genuine question

Dublin Bus have 3 CCTV cameras on the front of their buses, one facing the driver in his cab, one looking out his side window and dash board / steering wheel and one facing the pax as the get on/off the bus. And yes it has been used to discipline drivers upto and including dismissal

Happyman42

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

The technology is there to transmit position reports and much technical data already. The problem is the 'making it independent of the pilot' bit. From a professional and a technical point of view this could be problematic.

Would it really be that difficult to have a system that kicks in on battery once the primary transponder goes off? To be honest, it doesn't sound like a huge technological challenge.

sopretty

Happyman42 wrote: »

Would it really be that difficult to have a system that kicks in on battery once the primary transponder goes off? To be honest, it doesn't sound like a huge technological challenge.

Maybe I misinterpreted the Inmarsat SVP speaking today, but according to him, the traceability technology (a step-up from the very basic Pings detected from this plane), which would give altitude, speed, co-ordinates & direction, is already available and in use. Since MH370 continued to 'ping' even after the other comms systems were disabled, one would assume, the upgraded version with more detailed info, would also transmit and not be able to be manually disabled?
He said it would cost about $1 per hour (presumably per hour flight time!).

ProfessorPlum

Happyman42 wrote: »

Would it really be that difficult to have a system that kicks in on battery once the primary transponder goes off? To be honest, it doesn't sound like a huge technological challenge.

Which is why I said, the technology is already there and used.

Tea 1000

Jack1985 wrote: »

Thankfully they make them after they complete the investigation in to what actually happened.

All that's missing from this post is a set of roll-eyes. In fairness, there's more than a hint of sarcasm about this and plenty of posts in this forum, let alone thread, that we could all do without.
He was just pointing out what he thinks should happen in order to more quickly find a missing aircraft, or track it when all other communication is lost. No matter what they find out later, assuming that at some stage in the future they find the FDR's, one fact is abundently clear. No one knows where a 777 went since the 8th March. Surely trying to implement something to reduce the chances of this happening again is worth less moeny than the amount of money and time put into the search from all the involved nations combined?

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Devils Advocate - You're basing your safety recommendation on what - the fact that pilots 'disappear' their aircraft? Do we have any evidence that this is what happened? Do we have any evidence that this has ever happened? Let's wait for the full report, and the recommendations that will be made.

We can wait, but don't shoot the guy for opening a discussion on it. No one can deny that a modern, large commercial airliner went missing for 2 and a half weeks.
How long do we search for FDR's for before we conclude that we can learn no more than that?

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

The technology is there to transmit position reports and much technical data already. The problem is the 'making it independent of the pilot' bit. From a professional and a technical point of view this could be problematic.

I'd say the prefessional point of view should be easy to overcome. You're in a commercial jet, you're going to be tracked no matter what you do. That's a message that no one should have a problem with. If you do, get a job with the millatary.
Technical is the big hurdle, but how much money was spend searching for and recovering the Air France FDR's, and on this so far and who knows for how much longer, versus how much to implement some system that might significantly improve searching for a wreck?
Again, maybe the FDR's beacon is almost as good as it can be, or maybe there's room for further improvement. I think that's something that could be looked into without waiting for any more data from this incident.

cosanostra

Would the black box be capable of recording the entire flight time or if they find it will all they get be the final hour or so of the flight which wouldn't really give them the critical info they need?

Red Pepper

cosanostra wrote: »

Would the black box be capable of recording the entire flight time or if they find it will all they get be the final hour or so of the flight which wouldn't really give them the critical info they need?

It should record the whole flight

Duiske

fr336 wrote: »

What a load of crap. From the sounds of it they're no clearer now than they've ever been; sounds like an excuse to end the search to me!

One reason why this search will continue is that there are over 400 Boeing 777-200ER's in service, operated by 36 airlines. They need to know what caused this incident.

homerjay2005

if as reported the comms and transponder were turned off, its quite possible that who ever did this, will have thought of the CVR and FDR and at least taken measures to reduce impact of the FDR.

but why kill another 238 people without any actual motive? this is very very strange. of course sabotage could just be a means of deflecting attention away from the Airline.