Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

Happyman42

Mountainsandh wrote: »

But I bet the technology is there, should it be needed, to enable 2 way communication.

Oh ... Look ! That was 2011, and a 2 second search.
http://gearjunkie.com/delorme-inreach-satellite-gps-communicator

It's so dainty and tiny...

The above debate over technical problems, fire risk, etc... They're all excuses because professionals are reluctant to have their work scrutinised. Which is natural and fair enough, except the value of all the passengers' lives outweighs their concerns. IMO.

I know ProfessorPlum has said the pilot can turn off Satcom in the event of a fire, but wasn't it said from early on that the only way to do that fully was via a hatch into the hold of the plane?
Now if safety was the priority why would you be opening a door into an area that is potentially on fire?

Doesn't make any sense to me. I fear it is a cost thing, not a safety one.
Unless somebody can explain the above.

AngryHippie

Mountainsandh wrote: »

But I bet the technology is there, should it be needed, to enable 2 way communication.

Oh ... Look ! That was 2011, and a 2 second search.
http://gearjunkie.com/delorme-inreach-satellite-gps-communicator

It's so dainty and tiny...

The above debate over technical problems, fire risk, etc... They're all excuses because professionals are reluctant to have their work scrutinised. Which is natural and fair enough, except the value of all the passengers' lives outweighs their concerns. IMO.

Thats a bit drastic. The level of scrutiny and testing to alter the design of a modern jet is a lengthy and costly process. Yes its worth the money if it saves lives, but if the risk was assessed to be negligible way back at finalizing aircraft design stage, then it would have been deemed unnecessary.

2011 is pretty recent considering the 777 has been in service in its primary form since 1995.

As for the end result, we still don't know exactly where the plane ended up, and until the data recorders are recovered + 12-18months to decipher and simulate, we won't know how it ended up there.

Everything else is speculation, from accusing engineers/designers of being egotists and otherwise.

Statistically, it is probably down to a human interaction/error, but that is all that we can say about it until there is more information.

I just hope for everyone's sake that the FDR and CVR can be recovered intact and that they explain the final hours of the flight.

sully2010

A potential and frightening scenario of what could have happened. To think they could have all been alive until it ran out of fuel.

Can any commercial pilots confirm if this is possible?

From Airliners.net

wil

Mountainsandh wrote: »

But I bet the technology is there, should it be needed, to enable 2 way communication.

Oh ... Look ! That was 2011, and a 2 second search.
http://gearjunkie.com/delorme-inreach-satellite-gps-communicator

It's so dainty and tiny...

The above debate over technical problems, fire risk, etc... They're all excuses because professionals are reluctant to have their work scrutinised. Which is natural and fair enough, except the value of all the passengers' lives outweighs their concerns. IMO.

agreed, it really is not beyond the bounds of engineering to mount an independently powered transponder, gps receiver/transmitter, sat link or whatever technology suits best to a point remote from the current units.
For the sake of a 100m€ plus aircraft or a multi €m search mission it's a no brainer.
Arguments against do construed with little logic to them other than demarcation

Happyman42

sully2010 wrote: »

A potential and frightening scenario of what could have happened. To think they could have all been alive until it ran out of fuel.

Can any commercial pilots confirm if this is possible?

From Airliners.net

I wish I had waited until morning before reading that. What a scenario, what would you be thinking if you where a family member reading that...terrible thoughts.

Growler!!!

Mountainsandh wrote: »

But I bet the technology is there, should it be needed, to enable 2 way communication.

Oh ... Look ! That was 2011, and a 2 second search.
http://gearjunkie.com/delorme-inreach-satellite-gps-communicator

It's so dainty and tiny...

The above debate over technical problems, fire risk, etc... They're all excuses because professionals are reluctant to have their work scrutinised. Which is natural and fair enough, except the value of all the passengers' lives outweighs their concerns. IMO.

I love when people think they have one over on you:rolleyes:

That system uses the Iridium sat phone satellite system ie a communications satellite. Which just so happens to not be in any way the same as GPS.

Oh well nice try:D

Tenger

Weathercheck wrote: »

I think they should really have waited until they have a physical piece of the jet or its contents before releasing such a definitive statement.

I think that they have already figured out that the debris is aircraft related, perhaps the aircraft managed to get a good photo of it. Coupled with the new Doppler based data analysis it gives them the certainty to make an announcement to the families.

Remember that the authorities and families will know before info is released to the media pack. Not having the debris on hand doesn't mean they can't prove the aircraft went down in the Southern Ocean.

kona wrote: »

Believe it or not it's happend before and caught on video , Ethiopian 767.

In actual fact that was a hijacking where the hijackers would not believe the captain when he stated they did not have the fuel for Australia. The captain deliberately kept them close to land so he could ditch in shallow water when the fuel ran out.

wil wrote: »

So a runaway plane. Surely that is a scenario tested and trained for...................even throwing out a breadcrumb trail of lithium batteries, seems like there could be any number of real or outlandish possibilities.........

I think we found the outlandish possibility. (My emphasis)

wil

sully2010 wrote: »

A potential and frightening scenario of what could have happened. To think they could have all been alive until it ran out of fuel.

Can any commercial pilots confirm if this is possible?

From Airliners.net

So a runaway plane. Surely that is a scenario tested and trained for.
The panel switching on and off at different times seems odd, but not impossible.
What, if any manual control is possible in the event of all the fly-by-wiring failing?
I cant see them going several hours in to the depths of the Indian Ocean waiting to ditch if there was any way to do it closer to land. Dump fuel, kill an engine, attempt cellphone contact over land, reroute power to a transponder (Roddenberry quote not intended) and SOS, even throwing out a breadcrumb trail of lithium batteries, seems like there could be any number of real or outlandish possibilities.

Obviously needs a pilots perspective.

BTW excellent clairvoyance, quoting me before I even posted it:D

BorneTobyWilde

Piers Morgan saying he is going to talk about passengers in present time, that there are no many unanswered questions to come to conclusions .
http://livetvchannelsfree.com/cnn.html

wil

Growler!!! wrote: »

I love when people think they have one over on you:rolleyes:

That system uses the Iridium sat phone satellite system ie a communications satellite. Which just so happens to not be in any way the same as GPS.

Oh well nice try:D

slightly unbecoming, and I seriously doubt getting one over was the intention. The discussion is the possibility, not the type of tech used. Simply not understanding or being familiar with the tech doesn't render the argument invalid.

So far there is little case against having some form of independent location thingamajigmebobdoodah on the flying machine:)
not at €1 per hour

Growler!!!

Growler!!! wrote: »

Sat nav is a GPS receiver. It receives signals from a number of satellites. The unit works it's mathematical magic to determine its position. No signals are sent from the receiver. It's like your car radio. You can receive and listen but cannot transmit.

Above was my understanding of a GPS system.

Then this reply

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Oh ... Look ! That was 2011, and a 2 second search.
http://gearjunkie.com/delorme-inreach-satellite-gps-communicator

It's so dainty and tiny...

To me, there was intention and tone used to show that my understanding was incorrect.

wil wrote: »

slightly unbecoming, and I seriously doubt getting one over was the intention. The discussion is the possibility, not the type of tech used.

I believe it was the intent. Who knows, it's the internet. I'll see what the response is.

Dublin Red Devil

We will likely never know what really happens. If the debris is the plane, It's black box is likely over 8 thousand meters down in one of the deepest parts of the ocean,

wil

Tenger wrote: »

...


I think we found the outlandish possibility. (no My emphasis)

Why do you think I put it there;)
What crazy things might you consider when facing the Indian Ocean :eek:
And no possibility of help.
If conscious, would they be ripping apart panels, looking for control circuits, access to any manual control, what would be the SOP (no pun) for a dead control panel?

Don't know if it was coincidental or intentional, but there was an air disaster film Rough Air on 2 weeks ago, shortly after it happened. Rubbish film, bit like Airplane with all the clichés but without the jokes, and despite all that I was able to appreciate it as it had a half decent attempt at simulating the cockpit etc. in a "new fangled fly by wire plane", and the most wojous Oirish accent from Shanwick ATC. Ended up steering the plane by differential engine power and landing in Iceland. Spolier sry.
Now, that was just a long winded way of repeating myself and wondering what would/could they do in the dead cockpit scenario.

liddypool

This was no accident.that plane was deliberately diverted and then ditched in one of the remotest oceans in the world by someone in the cockpit who knew exactly what they were doing.suspicion has to lie with the pilot or co-pilot or both being involved with some deluded suicidal terrorist organisation like Al Quaeda.

K.Flyer

If it was a total and absolute s#!tfest of an electrical outage that caused the plane to have a mind of its own and head south over the sea. (Which I find hard to believe).
Surely then, from an early stage, there would have been some attempts by cell or sat phone to communicate and these attempts could have been picked up by something or someone.
I still think its was a high-jack that appears to have gone very wrong.

AngryHippie

Dublin Red Devil wrote: »

We will likely never know what really happens. If the debris is the plane, It's black box is likely over 8 thousand meters down in one of the deepest parts of the ocean,

3000-4000, and not even close to being one of the deepest parts.

They've got another 10 days before the acoustic pinger has hit it's 30 day design life, then it is needle in a hay-stack time.

I dare say they'll have a few subs there listening out soon.

It is recoverable.

Mountainsandh

Growler!!! wrote: »

I love when people think they have one over on you:rolleyes:

That system uses the Iridium sat phone satellite system ie a communications satellite. Which just so happens to not be in any way the same as GPS.

Oh well nice try:D

What the hell does it matter to me what satellite it uses ?

People are pretty much getting quagmired into technicalities.

I'm not criticizing current engineering, but finding it surprising that such a device is not yet fitted, and arguing that professionals' reluctance has possibly been the issue.

Problem : pilots can disable all devices on the plane, making it invisible if they so wish.

Solution : modified blackbox, connected to sat, completely independent, fitted on planes to enable tracing if necessary.

ProfessorPlum

Mountainsandh wrote: »

.....but finding it surprising that such a device is not yet fitted, and arguing that professionals' reluctance has possibly been the issue.

Problem : pilots can disable all devices on the plane, making it invisible if they so wish.

Solution : modified blackbox, connected to sat, completely independent, fitted on planes to enable tracing if necessary.

"Professionals reluctance"?? Really? Because pilots really feel strongly that they should be able to run off with their aircraft undetected? Do you no see how nonsence that statement is.

And I do think you underestimate the complexity of the tech required to implement your solution to this 'problem'.

eatmyshorts

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

"Professionals reluctance"?? Really? Because pilots really feel strongly that they should be able to run off with their aircraft undetected? Do you no see how nonsence that statement is.

And I do think you underestimate the complexity of the tech required to implement your solution to this 'problem'.

There's no point in arguing with these idiots, one of the reasons I just stopped posting.

A previous posters suggestion that all aircraft should have a "deadmans handle" that if released would make the aircraft automatically fly to and land at the nearest airport. Myself and the FO had a good laugh over that one last night.

Reading this thread is like watching a deaf man lead a blind man up a pitch dark alley.

Red Pepper

eatmyshorts wrote: »

There's no point in arguing with these idiots, one of the reasons I just stopped posting.
Reading this thread is like watching a deaf man lead a blind man up a pitch dark alley.

:pac: so true!

relaxed

Mountainsandh wrote: »

.


Problem : pilots can disable all devices on the plane, making it invisible if they so wish.

I'd be surprised if they can make the plane invisible over, or near, dry land, as it would be detected by ground radar, and could be shot down if identified that is was to be used as a weapon.

Apart from that whats the difference in making the plan visible or not, apart from this extremely rare incident that a plane can't be found.

Even if the plane is visible at all times it won't change the outcome.

If a pilot wants to crash the plane in the sea he is going to do it, visible or not.

ProfessorPlum

eatmyshorts wrote: »

There's no point in arguing with these idiots, one of the reasons I just stopped posting.

A previous posters suggestion that all aircraft should have a "deadmans handle" that if released would make the aircraft automatically fly to and land at the nearest airport. Myself and the FO had a good laugh over that one last night.

Reading this thread is like watching a deaf man lead a blind man up a pitch dark alley.

Ya know, you're right! The posts about pilots being unwilling to be scrutinised are the most enlightening though. Picked the wrong feckin' job didn't I

Happyman42

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

"Professionals reluctance"?? Really? Because pilots really feel strongly that they should be able to run off with their aircraft undetected? Do you no see how nonsence that statement is.

And I do think you underestimate the complexity of the tech required to implement your solution to this 'problem'.

eatmyshorts wrote: »

There's no point in arguing with these idiots, one of the reasons I just stopped posting.

A previous posters suggestion that all aircraft should have a "deadmans handle" that if released would make the aircraft automatically fly to and land at the nearest airport. Myself and the FO had a good laugh over that one last night.

Reading this thread is like watching a deaf man lead a blind man up a pitch dark alley.

The guy that headed up the satellite investigation (AN INDUSTRY PROFESSIONAL) has clearly said that the tech exists for an aircraft (If mandated to do it) to send all the info via SATCOM to satellites, which would allow them to know instantly where any given aircraft was.

If the SATCOM can only be turned off fully by a pilot or FO leaving the flight deck (in an emergency) and having to go into the bowels of the aircraft to switch off SATCOM, then the pilot having to have control over every system is not really an issue and never has been.

As a dumb amateur, I would say, get ready for some simple changes in the way you do your jobs. i.e. sending data so that authorities know where you are exactly at any given time.

ProfessorPlum

Happyman42 wrote: »

The guy that headed up the satellite investigation (AN INDUSTRY PROFESSIONAL) has clearly said that the tech exists for an aircraft (If mandated to do it) to send all the info via SATCOM to satellites, which would allow them to know instantly where any given aircraft was.

If the SATCOM can only be turned off fully by a pilot or FO leaving the flight deck (in an emergency) and having to go into the bowels of the aircraft to switch off SATCOM, then the pilot having to have control over every system is not really an issue and never has been.

As a dumb amateur, I would say, get ready for some simple changes in the way you do your jobs. i.e. sending data so that authorities know where you are exactly at any given time.

Seriously? Everyday I go flying I send (automatically and otherwise) continuos updates of my position. The tech is there and used every day - as I tried to tell you before. I can pull CBs for SATCOM from the cockpit. I've never felt the need, not can I see how I ever might, to climb down into the 'bowels of the aircraft'

I won't be changing the way I do my job anytime soon.

Mountainsandh

The jeering just proves my point that there is a reluctance. I am working in a sector where outsiders also tend to bring about change with solutions that first seem oversimplistic and impossible.
Some are failures. Others actually come to pass (nature of the job that although we are the professionals, we have less control than some), and turn out to indeed be workable, simple solutions to a problem.

On a personal note, Mr M is currently crossing the Pacific, and later today will also cross the Atlantic.

I very much see the use of a locating device right now.

Happyman42

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Seriously? Everyday I go flying I send (automatically and otherwise) continuos updates of my position. The tech is there and used every day - as I tried to tell you before. I can put CBs for SATCOM from the overhead panel. I've never felt the need, not can I see how I ever might, to climb down into the 'bowels of the aircraft'

I won't be changing the way I do my job anytime soon.

You have told me that the pilot can turn off everything on the plane. But he can't easily do that and didn't on this flight, because the part of SATCOM that answers the pings can only* be turned fully off by lifting a hatch and going into the hold of the aircraft.

*Is that correct or not?

Where is the hatch on this model of plane?

ProfessorPlum

Mountainsandh wrote: »

The jeering just proves my point that there is a reluctance. I am working in a sector where outsiders also tend to bring about change with solutions that first seem oversimplistic and impossible.
Some are failures. Others actually come to pass (nature of the job that although we are the professionals, we have less control than some), and turn out to indeed be workable, simple solutions to a problem.

On a personal note, Mr M is currently crossing the Pacific, and later today will also cross the Atlantic.

I very much see the use of a locating device right now.

It's like talking to a brick wall. You clearly have no idea of the industry if you think there is a huge resistance / reluctance to change! Change is by the nature of the industry, very common place, and implemented with usually no resistance on pilots parts unless there is a safety issue!

Growler!!!

Happyman42 wrote: »

The guy that headed up the satellite investigation (AN INDUSTRY PROFESSIONAL) has clearly said that the tech exists for an aircraft (If mandated to do it) to send all the info via SATCOM to satellites, which would allow them to know instantly where any given aircraft was.

Good sales pitch from Inmarsat. Get in there before the hysteria dies down and the truth comes out after the investigation.

There is always a knee jerk reaction after an event, at the moment we don't know what caused the current sequence of events to occur. What we do know is that the Malaysian authorities dropped the ball on this search and it took an independent company to step in with a never before used solution to narrow down the search area.

ProfessorPlum

Happyman42 wrote: »

You have told me that the pilot can turn off everything on the plane. But he can't easily do that and didn't on this flight, because the part of SATCOM that answers the pings can only* be turned fully off by lifting a hatch and going into the hold of the aircraft.

*Is that correct or not?

Where is the hatch on this model of plane?

I don't recall anybody saying that SATCOM couldn't be disabled from the cockpit - where did you hear that?
Also, I'm rated on a different model wide body, so I'm not going to definitively tell you about a 777. Maybe you could ask either the 777 rated skipper or the avionics engineer we used to have posting on this forum.

Happyman42

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

It's like talking to a brick wall. You clearly have no idea of the industry if you think there is a huge resistance / reluctance to change! !

ProfessorPlum wrote:

I won't be changing the way I do my job anytime soon.