Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

eatmyshorts

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.

.

AN INDUSTRY PROFESSIONAL in the satellite comms industry (not airline ops) and with a vested interest in the sales of his product. Hardly an unbiased view.

SpaceTime

Since the Swiss Air Flight 111 incident, I think a lot of aviation industry people are very nervous of adding any superfluous electrical systems that cannot be easily shut down.

There was a very serious fire on board which took down the aircraft.

That flight, an MD-11 had evidence of arcing wires found in the crash. These wires were associated with a retrofitted entertainment system.

The point really is that these incidents are incredibly rare. So, whether it's necessary to fit tracking systems to every aircraft is questionable.

We still don't know what caused this incident. It may have been anything from some kind of systems failure that we as yet do not understand, hijacking by a 3rd party or hijacking by crew.

If they don't find the recorders, we may never know.

If tracking is going to be phased in, I would prefer it to be fitted to new aircraft than hacked onto older ones.

Happyman42

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I don't recall anybody saying that SATCOM couldn't be disabled from the cockpit - where did you hear that?
.

Are you saying that it can be fully turned off from the flight deck?

ProfessorPlum

Happyman42 wrote: »

Have you got a point there anywhere?? If there's a good reason to change practices, and a safe way to do it, bring it on.

homerjay2005

that spokesman is only the ACTING transport Minister, god bless the poor man thrown into what is probably the biggest thing an official in their party has ever had to face.

latest update.

"Last handshake was not completed and it is being investigated."

"the last successful hand shake was at 00.11 UTC. Between 00.11 UTC and 01.15 UTC there were no further pings after this time and this matches with the fact that the aircraft was no longer able to communicate with the ground station, at this point the aircraft was no longer able to fly."

so it ran out of fuel pretty much.

Happyman42

eatmyshorts wrote: »

AN INDUSTRY PROFESSIONAL in the satellite comms industry (not airline ops) and with a vested interest in the sales of his product. Hardly an unbiased view.

And?
Sat Tech is an integral part of the airline industry, just as Engine building is.

ACARS has always been a paid for service. Malaysian Airlines only paid for part of it. Pilots are a paid service too. Not sure what your point is.

eatmyshorts

Happyman42 wrote: »

Are you saying that it can be fully turned off from the flight deck?

SATCOM downlink data ability can be disabled from the cockpit. However, uplink messages will still be received (as was the case with MH370)
Complete disabling of SATCOM data in both directions requires maintenance action in the forward avionics bay.

homerjay2005

wow, the first journalist in the press conference has started the Q and A session, by asking about money, compensation and insurance.

she should be f8cked out of the room and not allowed in again, its not the time to be thinking about compensation.

Calina

Mountainsandh wrote: »

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

Possibly to the person charged with implementing a solution put forward by someone who hasn't much domain knowledge cares a lot. It impacts on implementation

Mountainsandh wrote: »

People are pretty much getting quagmired into technicalities.

Because when it comes to technical solutions, technicalities matter.

Mountainsandh wrote: »

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.

Possibly based on the fact that you don't have that much domain knowledge, nor practical knowledge regarding the limitations of certain environments. Also, you're engaging in kneejerk analysis. This is never good for effective change.

Mountainsandh wrote: »

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

Pilots cannot render the plane invisible to primary radar. One of the key issues with this, and also with AF447 are the practical considerations in retaining visibility in isolated areas.

Each of the oceans is large. Tracking stuff on it is dependent on a lot of technical and environmental variables. There is a cruise ship called the Lyubov Orlana or something like that which had plenty of tracking stuff on it but we still don't know where or if it sank when it got shot of its tow line.

Ultimately, the pilots have a lot of autonomy to fly and run planes as they see fit given the circumstances. Avionics systems are complex and they run on things which can cause inflight problems. So if you're proposing to reduce the ability of pilots to respond to unexpected, then I don't think you're in the right zone.

Things can disappear when we are not watching. This is true for an awful lot of the planet because more of it is water than land.

Mountainsandh wrote: »

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

Solution - let the professionals who know what they are talking about address the problem. They tend to have a better view on what's technically possible, what is practically possible and what the environmental considerations are.

I am not an avionics expert. But I have spent some time listening to people saying stuff should be done when they have no idea why stuff isn't currently done, what are the current reasons for its current lack of implementation, and more to the point, what is actually being developed in the background which will probably have more of an impact on the problems they've been trying to solve longer than you've known about one missing plane.

Tea 1000

Happyman42 wrote: »

Very odd that a pilot would switch one part of a system off in the event of a fire and not the other. If that is what he was doing.
And very lucky in this case because as we can now see, only for the satellite pings this plane may have disappeared for all time. At least now they have narrowed the search massively.

As I understand it, he didn't turn off one part of a system. The ping was happening from the older system on board (can't remember it's name), the ACARS was the one that was turned off (or failed).

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'.

Well to be fair, he might be referring to a previous post from someone who said there would be both professional and technical challenges to overcome.

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

If there's a good reason to change practices, and a safe way to do it, bring it on.

I agree. However, some are trying to discuss or thrash out a crude idea for a potential solution, but are being branded idiots by "professionals". That's hardly fair discussion on a discussion forum.
I would have thought an avionics engineer worth his salt would be able to counter propose a potential solution with an outline description if that's the way the industry decided to go down rather than sit behind a keyboard calling anyone who tries to come up with a suggestion an idiot and goes to the bother of asking why he bothers typing here anymore, which ironically is a more wasteful use of a keyboard.

Bill G

Happyman42 wrote: »

Are you saying that it can be fully turned off from the flight deck?

Yes, the pilots can reset the SATCOM circuit breaker.

eatmyshorts

Bill G wrote: »

Yes, the pilots can reset the SATCOM circuit breaker.

There's no SATCOM circuit breaker in the flight deck of any 777 that I've flown.

Tea 1000

Calina wrote: »

Possibly to the person charged with implementing a solution put forward by someone who hasn't much domain knowledge cares a lot. It impacts on implementation



Because when it comes to technical solutions, technicalities matter.



Possibly based on the fact that you don't have that much domain knowledge, nor practical knowledge regarding the limitations of certain environments. Also, you're engaging in kneejerk analysis. This is never good for effective change.



Pilots cannot render the plane invisible to primary radar. One of the key issues with this, and also with AF447 are the practical considerations in retaining visibility in isolated areas.

Each of the oceans is large. Tracking stuff on it is dependent on a lot of technical and environmental variables. There is a cruise ship called the Lyubov Orlana or something like that which had plenty of tracking stuff on it but we still don't know where or if it sank when it got shot of its tow line.

Ultimately, the pilots have a lot of autonomy to fly and run planes as they see fit given the circumstances. Avionics systems are complex and they run on things which can cause inflight problems. So if you're proposing to reduce the ability of pilots to respond to unexpected, then I don't think you're in the right zone.

Things can disappear when we are not watching. This is true for an awful lot of the planet because more of it is water than land.



Solution - let the professionals who know what they are talking about address the problem. They tend to have a better view on what's technically possible, what is practically possible and what the environmental considerations are.

I am not an avionics expert. But I have spent some time listening to people saying stuff should be done when they have no idea why stuff isn't currently done, what are the current reasons for its current lack of implementation, and more to the point, what is actually being developed in the background which will probably have more of an impact on the problems they've been trying to solve longer than you've known about one missing plane.

To be fair, that's the kind of balanced and ridicule free reply that some have been waiting for. Thank you.
As an aside, I do know that the aviation industry is not exempt from making cost cutting decisions in the past with disasterous results, however I know that's not today or yesterday! Also, I know that on balance, you can't start adding things to an aircraft on the basis of tiny risk.
But in light of two of the most modern aircraft in most airlines fleet, the 777 and A330, we've had two cases now where the FDR's were in one case and are going to be in the other extremely difficult to find. After a long gap previously to an incident like this, are two incidents enough to kickstart an investigation into how to make FDR's less difficult to find? Or is it a pointless task as there's f**k all can be done to improve them?

ProfessorPlum

Tea 1000 wrote: »

As I understand it, he didn't turn off one part of a system. The ping was happening from the older system on board (can't remember it's name), the ACARS was the one that was turned off (or failed).


Well to be fair, he might be referring to a previous post from someone who said there would be both professional and technical challenges to overcome.

Professional and technical challenges do not equal reluctance.

Tea 1000 wrote: »

I agree. However, some are trying to discuss or thrash out a crude idea for a potential solution, but are being branded idiots by "professionals". That's hardly fair discussion on a discussion forum.
I would have thought an avionics engineer worth his salt would be able to counter propose a potential solution with an outline description if that's the way the industry decided to go down rather than sit behind a keyboard calling anyone who tries to come up with a suggestion an idiot and goes to the bother of asking why he bothers typing here anymore, which ironically is a more wasteful use of a keyboard.

To be fair, I don't think a 'solution' solution is going to be found on boards, with people who clearly don't understand what they're talking about doing the discussions. That, by the way, doesn't make them idiots, it just makes them not knowledgable in this area. And to be fair, it was you who had your disgraceful remark regarding the engineer you're referring to removed, and I don't recall him calling anyone an idiot (although, I could be wrong, and I'm not hauling through the posts to find out)[/QUOTE]

Happyman42

Calina wrote: »

Pilots cannot render the plane invisible to primary radar. One of the key issues with this, and also with AF447 are the practical considerations in retaining visibility in isolated areas.

Here's the thing...how can you introduce and sell cloaking technology (which is undoubtedly being developed) without making sure that commercial aircraft (that are potential and proven weapons) are visible and trackable at all times?
You need those aircraft transmitting positional information at all times independently of anyone on board.
Primary radar may be becoming obsolete as reliable tech?

Just a thought, no conspiracy theory.

Tea 1000

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Professional and technical challenges do not equal reluctance.

I know that, but it might be the bases for the assumption that it did.

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

To be fair, I don't think a 'solution' solution is going to be found on boards, with people who clearly don't understand what they're talking about doing the discussions. That, by the way, doesn't make them idiots, it just makes them not knowledgable in this area. And to be fair, it was you who had your disgraceful remark regarding the engineer you're referring to removed, and I don't recall him calling anyone an idiot (although, I could be wrong, and I'm not hauling through the posts to find out)

I know a solution won't be found here, but I can't see the harm in discussing it. Just like we're discussing the possibilities of what happened to it, and informing folk that what they say might be plausible or might be implausible, despite the fact that it's at the end of the day useless banter. But that's part of being human, isn't it? Discussing things. Otherwise boards.ie is almost completely useless.

And you're right, it was me who insulted the engineer, the reason I did was because I found his replies to be rude and dismissive rather than informative, however I'll take this opportunity to apologise to Bill, it was uncalled for, being annoyed at someone's reply isn't cause to insult.

Tea 1000

Happyman42 wrote: »

Here's the thing...how can you introduce and sell cloaking technology (which is undoubtedly being developed) without making sure that commercial aircraft (that are potential and proven weapons) are visible and trackable at all times?
You need those aircraft transmitting positional information at all times independently of anyone on board.
Primary radar may be becoming obsolete as reliable tech?

Just a thought, no conspiracy theory.

Cloaking technology isn't really going to apply to commercial aircraft though. You can't just make a 777 invisible to radar. The problem is the lack of radar coverage over the ocean or over some less equipped countries.
The solution to now is the Transponder and ACARS.
What we are discussing is the possibility or usefulness of a backup system which can be used as a fail-safe when the above two are turned off or break.

ProfessorPlum

Tea 1000 wrote: »

I know that, but it might be the bases for the assumption that it did.


I know a solution won't be found here, but I can't see the harm in discussing it. Just like we're discussing the possibilities of what happened to it, and informing folk that what they say might be plausible or might be implausible, despite the fact that it's at the end of the day useless banter. But that's part of being human, isn't it? Discussing things. Otherwise boards.ie is almost completely useless.

And you're right, it was me who insulted the engineer, the reason I did was because I found his replies to be rude and dismissive rather than informative, however I'll take this opportunity to apologise to Bill, it was uncalled for, being annoyed at someone's reply isn't cause to insult.

I think the first question should be do we need new technology, over and above that which is already available and used, and do we need to take the pilots out of the loop and potentially introduce a bigger risk than the one we're engineering for. Personally I think the answer to both those questions is no. But if those in the industry show me a safe way of doing it, fine by me. I'm more than happy to go with it.

Bill G

eatmyshorts wrote: »

There's no SATCOM circuit breaker in the flight deck of any 777 that I've flown.

Sorry, yes I guess the implication was that it is on the flight deck, which it is not, iirc. See the ASRS database for ACN 871582.

eatmyshorts

Tea 1000 wrote: »

The solution to now is the Transponder and ACARS.

The solution involves ADS, not ACARS.
There's too much talk about ACARS without actually understanding what it is and what it does.

eatmyshorts

Bill G wrote: »

See the ASRS database for ACN 871582.

That's conehead stuff,.... Sure I don't even know what an ASRS thingy is!

Happyman42

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Cloaking technology isn't really going to apply to commercial aircraft though. You can't just make a 777 invisible to radar. The problem is the lack of radar coverage over the ocean or over some less equipped countries.
The solution to now is the Transponder and ACARS.
What we are discussing is the possibility or usefulness of a backup system which can be used as a fail-safe when the above two are turned off or break.

Effectively, this aircraft was cloaked though, (by switching off it's own systems) for long enough to do huge damage somewhere. For instance, it has been said that India turns off primary radar during the night to save money, if it had been the target here, then you don't have to imagine to hard to see what damage could have been done.
The lack of reaction to an aircraft this size making an unscheduled turn by those monitoring military radars in the region leads me to think that those radars where not being monitored all that intently.
Is that going to be acceptable going forward to our security conscious super powers?...I don't think so.


Where are you getting the info that a 777 can't or won't be able to be cloaked? Interested in seeing that info.

Tea 1000

eatmyshorts wrote: »

The solution involves ADS, not ACARS.
There's too much talk about ACARS without actually understanding what it is and what it does.

Any chance of a brief explaination of each?

Bill G

Tea 1000 wrote: »

I know that, but it might be the bases for the assumption that it did.


I know a solution won't be found here, but I can't see the harm in discussing it. Just like we're discussing the possibilities of what happened to it, and informing folk that what they say might be plausible or might be implausible, despite the fact that it's at the end of the day useless banter. But that's part of being human, isn't it? Discussing things. Otherwise boards.ie is almost completely useless.

And you're right, it was me who insulted the engineer, the reason I did was because I found his replies to be rude and dismissive rather than informative, however I'll take this opportunity to apologise to Bill, it was uncalled for, being annoyed at someone's reply isn't cause to insult.

And I apologise if my posts were arrogant. We are all here to learn and discuss freely, I'll try to keep it more professional from now on.

sopretty

eatmyshorts wrote: »

The solution involves ADS, not ACARS.
There's too much talk about ACARS without actually understanding what it is and what it does.

I see we're back to playing nicely.

What is ADS? Yes, I know, questions irritate you greatly, but think of it as your contribution to educating the ignorant masses...

I would google, but I'd probably come up with 10 different things that ADS stands for.

Thanks in advance for your help. :cool:

ProfessorPlum

sopretty wrote: »

I see we're back to playing nicely.

What is ADS? Yes, I know, questions irritate you greatly, but think of it as your contribution to educating the ignorant masses...

I would google, but I'd probably come up with 10 different things that ADS stands for.

Thanks in advance for your help. :cool:

You can try this for starters. Sorry, don't have time to give a summary. Pesky job
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_dependent_surveillance-broadcast

eatmyshorts

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_dependent_surveillance-broadcast

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Communications_Addressing_and_Reporting_System

It's wikipedia, but it gives the basics.

Bill G

eatmyshorts wrote: »

That's conehead stuff,.... Sure I don't even know what an ASRS thingy is!

ASRS is NASA's anonoymous reporting system for pilots. Here's the narrative for ACN 871582

Received a SATCOM EICAS. Called Dispatch and Maintenance. After consultation I decided to use my emergency authority and try to reset the SATCOM circuit breaker prior to entering the polar section of our flight. The reset did not work so we asked if Dispatch could talk with the B-777 Fleet Captain to see if we could legally press on. The Fleet Captain said we were not legal to continue. After consultation with Dispatch we dumped 60,000lbs of fuel and returned to departure airport. The ability to communicate with the company was almost non-existent without SATCOM. We went 30 minutes without being able to talk to them. HF was very poor at best. VHF with ATC was good.

sopretty

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

You can try this for starters. Sorry, don't have time to give a summary. Pesky job
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_dependent_surveillance-broadcast

Ok, thanks for that.

I note however the following (acknowledging it is WIKI and citation is stated as being needed re the black box)

More accurate search and rescue response[12] – although ADS-B can transmit "aircraft down" data, the FAA has stated that there is no intention to perform even a study of ADS-B's effectiveness in an "aircraft down" situation simply based on the fact that ADS-B equipment has no requirement to be crash worthy, as compared to the current "black box" recorder.[citation needed] ADS-B was demonstrated to the Civil Air Patrol (CAP) in March 2003 by AOPA via flight demonstrations for possible integration of the technology in CAP activities.[13]

I've no doubt there is some sort of technology out there (Inmarsat guy chomping at the bit yesterday to let everyone know haha) which might be useful. I still think though, that you're always going to have to have some degree of human involvement, no matter what systems you develop. Be that on the part of pilots or ATC etc.

Wetbench4

I think this has made the general public aware that in this day and age it is still possible to make a 777 vanish. This may have been known in the industry but i doubt most general public( like myself) would have known this. Does this increase the risk, however small, of this knowledge being used in a future hijack??