Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

Maximus Alexander

Wetbench4 wrote: »

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??

Probably not, to be honest, unless the intent were to hijack the plane for the purposes of crashing it into the ocean - in which case knowing where the aircraft is would make no difference.

As it stands, you could never make a 777 disappear over land.

fits

Well some of the information which is now in public domain certainly makes me nervous. And I never would have thought it possible that a passenger jet could just disappear like that. I flew through that part of the world less than a month ago.

sopretty

Wetbench4 wrote: »

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??

I think it might, which is why I think action will be taken. At the very least to lead us to believe every inch of the world is now under constant monitoring! Then of course, we'll be giving out about that.
Interestingly I saw some guy (one of these 'experts') on Sky about a week ago, stating that Google are currently working on some sort of balloon type things which will be suspended over that ocean (they'll allow some sort of additional comms systems to operate in that blackout zone). He said it was in fact that particular area of the world that they were concentrating on for this new technology. He wasn't from Google though, so I don't know how believable that is.

SpaceTime

I think we should be phasing into an area where satellite navigation is the primary method by which airliners are tracked and radar systems are a backup and used locally only.

The risk with satellites however is that if (when) there's a major solar storm, the systems could fail entirely where as ground-based radar is very reliable. So relying exclusively on GPS, Galileo and GLONASS satellite-based location systems wouldn't be a great idea.

Maximus Alexander

sopretty wrote: »

I think it might, which is why I think action will be taken. At the very least to lead us to believe every inch of the world is now under constant monitoring! Then of course, we'll be giving out about that.
Interestingly I saw some guy (one of these 'experts') on Sky about a week ago, stating that Google are currently working on some sort of balloon type things which will be suspended over that ocean (they'll allow some sort of additional comms systems to operate in that blackout zone). He said it was in fact that particular area of the world that they were concentrating on for this new technology. He wasn't from Google though, so I don't know how believable that is.

He was probably talking about this. The idea is to use high altitude balloons to provide internet access in remote areas that are not covered by existing infrastructure.

The purpose is mainly to cover the gaps for sparsely populated areas and make basic internet connections available following disasters, rather than to cover the empty oceans - though if this is ever rolled out on a large scale the oceans might be covered as a byproduct.

Happyman42

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Probably not, to be honest, unless the intent were to hijack the plane for the purposes of crashing it into the ocean - in which case knowing where the aircraft is would make no difference.

As it stands, you could never make a 777 disappear over land.

What was to stop this plane from aiming for a target when it turned back over land though?
Reports (not sure if confirmed) say that it also descended to 12,000 feet.
Although seen by military radar, no action was taken, that I am aware of.
Must be hugely disconcerting to some in the region.

Bill G

SpaceTime wrote: »

I think we should be phasing into an area where satellite navigation is the primary method by which airliners are tracked and radar systems are a backup and used locally only.

The risk with satellites however is that if (when) there's a major solar storm, the systems could fail entirely where as ground-based radar is very reliable. So relying exclusively on GPS, Galileo and GLONASS satellite-based location systems wouldn't be a great idea.

This has already been on the cards for a long time (in the US at least). It'll be a fair amount of time before countries outside the US are able to afford and adopt it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Generation_Air_Transportation_System

Maximus Alexander

Happyman42 wrote: »

What was to stop this plane from aiming for a target when it turned back over land though?
Reports (not sure if confirmed) say that it also descended to 12,000 feet.
Although seen by military radar, no action was taken, that I am aware of.
Must be hugely disconcerting to some in the region.

Nothing would have stopped that, apart from any jets that might have been scrambled to shoot it down. The point is, once it approached land it would have been picked up on primary radar - it would no longer be 'disappeared'.

The only valid argument I can think of in favour of some sort of mandatory satellite tracking is to aid SAR in the event that a plane crash has survivors - but that is so vanishingly rare that I doubt it will lead to legislation, and is also entirely unrelated to this incident.

Tea 1000

Based on the brief description on Wiki, these two sentences are of note to me:
The Aeronautical Telecommunications Network (ATN) protocol and Internet Protocol are both planned to supersede ACARS, for ATC communications and airline communications respectively.

and :
In the wake of the crash of Air France Flight 447 in 2009, there was discussion about making ACARS an "online-black-box"[9] to reduce the effects of the loss of a flight recorder. However no changes were made to the ACARS system.

If they start using IP anyway, like seems to be planned, then surely the latter sentence there will be less difficult to implement? If a solution like this is within the bounds of possibility it would be the ideal solution.
As an aside, who pays for all the searching until something is found? It must cost a fortune.

SpaceTime

Bill G wrote: »

This has already been on the cards for a long time (in the US at least). It'll be a fair amount of time before countries outside the US are able to afford and adopt it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Generation_Air_Transportation_System

It (or similar technology) is being planned and will be rolled out in Europe too. You can even use enhanced satellite navigation to do landing and approach where ILS isn't available.
For example, it could mean an end to the fog/low cloud issues in Cork where CAT III is proving an issue to install for either topology reasons (steep incline at end of runway) or costs (not sure which is the pressure but both are an issue)

Only issue is that it looks like only North America, Europe, Japan and India will have it anytime soon.

Aircraft should have access to a global communications network at a relatively reasonable cost though. Inmar sat is very expensive from what I hear.

SpaceTime

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Based on the brief description on Wiki, these two sentences are of note to me:
The Aeronautical Telecommunications Network (ATN) protocol and Internet Protocol are both planned to supersede ACARS, for ATC communications and airline communications respectively.

and :
In the wake of the crash of Air France Flight 447 in 2009, there was discussion about making ACARS an "online-black-box"[9] to reduce the effects of the loss of a flight recorder. However no changes were made to the ACARS system.

If they start using IP anyway, like seems to be planned, then surely the latter sentence there will be less difficult to implement? If a solution like this is within the bounds of possibility it would be the ideal solution.
As an aside, who pays for all the searching until something is found? It must cost a fortune.

ACARS is using a communications protocol rolled out in 1978. Even by the standards of that time, it's quite 'old school'. Essentially it's using Telex! A communication network that relied on typed, text messages being sent through a switched system using pretty archaic technology.

When you consider that eircom closed down its telex network in 2002, and it was pretty much completely unused by then anyway, you can see how ancient a technology we're talking about.

Telecommunications technology went through several complete revolutions since that era. There is so much more could be done with present-day technology, particularly in terms of how much data can be transmitted over relatively small amounts of bandwidth.

It should be possible to dump the entire contents of a blackbox periodically to a satellite network. This could be encrypted if necessary too.

Happyman42

SpaceTime wrote: »

It should be possible to dump the entire contents of a blackbox periodically to a satellite network. This could be encrypted if necessary too.

Indeed, I remember asking why it wasn't possible at the time of the Air France event.

SpaceTime

Happyman42 wrote: »

Indeed, I remember asking why it wasn't possible at the time of the Air France event.

With modern IP-based telecommunication networks and modern radio protocols it is absolutely technically possible.

Basically, the radio protocols and data networks being used by your mobile phone are light years ahead of what's used in aviation systems. (Although your mobile phone would have a very limited range in comparison to the transmission systems on an aircraft).

This stuff was high tech in 1978 (36 years ago). An era when we were still using telephones with dials on them, electromechanical switching systems were processing calls and data by moving relays around and mobile voice communications was still only in its infancy and mobile data wasn't even on the cards at all.

pfurey101

More good gen from the AAIB on how the flight was tracked. It also explains how the aircraft was pinged with the "Hello Ping". The aircraft itself does not initiate the ping via Sat while not in contact with ground stations.

"25/03/14

On 13 march we received information from uk satellite company inmarsat indicating that routine automatic communications between one of its satellites and the aircraft could be used to determine several possible flight paths.

Inmarsat uk has continued to refine this analysis and yesterday the aaib presented its most recent findings, which indicate that the aircraft flew along the southern corridor.

As you have heard, an aircraft is able to communicate with ground stations via satellite.

If the ground station has not heard from an aircraft for an hour it will transmit a 'log on / log off' message, sometimes referred to as a ‘ping’, using the aircraft’s unique identifier. If the aircraft receives its unique identifier it returns a short message indicating that it is still logged on. This process has been described as a “handshake” and takes place automatically.

From the ground station log it was established that after acars stopped sending messages, 6 complete handshakes took place.

The position of the satellite is known, and the time that it takes the signal to be sent and received, via the satellite, to the ground station can be used to establish the range of the aircraft from the satellite. This information was used to generate arcs of possible positions from which the northern and southern corridors were established.

Refined analysis from inmarsat
in recent days inmarsat developed a second innovative technique which considers the velocity of the aircraft relative to the satellite. Depending on this relative movement, the frequency received and transmitted will differ from its normal value, in much the same way that the sound of a passing car changes as it approaches and passes by. This is called the doppler effect. The inmarsat technique analyses the difference between the frequency that the ground station expects to receive and that actually measured. This difference is the result of the doppler effect and is known as the burst frequency offset.

The burst frequency offset changes depending on the location of the aircraft on an arc of possible positions, its direction of travel, and its speed. In order to establish confidence in its theory, inmarsat checked its predictions using information obtained from six other b777 aircraft flying on the same day in various directions. There was good agreement.

While on the ground at kuala lumpur airport, and during the early stage of the flight, mh370 transmitted several messages. At this stage the location of the aircraft and the satellite were known, so it was possible to calculate system characteristics for the aircraft, satellite, and ground station.

During the flight the ground station logged the transmitted and received pulse frequencies at each handshake. Knowing the system characteristics and position of the satellite it was possible, considering aircraft performance, to determine where on each arc the calculated burst frequency offset fit best.

The analysis showed poor correlation with the northern corridor, but good correlation with the southern corridor, and depending on the ground speed of the aircraft it was then possible to estimate positions at 0011 utc, at which the last complete handshake took place. I must emphasise that this is not the final position of the aircraft.

There is evidence of a partial handshake between the aircraft and ground station at 0019 utc. At this time this transmission is not understood and is subject to further ongoing work.

No response was received from the aircraft at 0115 utc, when the ground earth station sent the next log on / log off message. This indicates that the aircraft was no longer logged on to the network.

Therefore, some time between 0011 utc and 0115 utc the aircraft was no longer able to communicate with the ground station. This is consistent with the maximum endurance of the aircraft.

This analysis by inmarsat forms the basis for further study to attempt to determine the final position of the aircraft. Accordingly, the malaysian investigation has set up an international working group, comprising agencies with expertise in satellite communications and aircraft performance, to take this work forward"

Bill G

Happyman42 wrote: »

Indeed, I remember asking why it wasn't possible at the time of the Air France event.

The technology already exists and is available to airlines (AFIRS). So the question is not whether it is possbile, but whether it is economical. I think an airline company would have great difficulty convincing its shareholders to invest in a multi-million dollar system for a 1 in 50 million event, which realistically will probably never happen in the lifetime of their airline.

Of course, AFIRS has other benefits (maintenance), but it should be left to the airlines to invest in it or not.

Tea 1000

Bill G wrote: »

The technology already exists and is available to airlines (AFIRS). So the question is not whether it is possbile, but whether it is economical. I think an airline company would have great difficulty convincing its shareholders to invest in a multi-million dollar system for a 1 in 50 million event, which realistically will probably never happen in the lifetime of their airline.

Of course, AFIRS has other benefits (maintenance), but it should be left to the airlines to invest in it or not.

The case might be there now for Malaysia Airlines to sell the idea to the shareholders! Share price is all about confidence in a company, might be a cheap way to gain some of that back, even if it does cost them millions.

Happyman42

pfurey101 wrote: »

More good gen from the AAIB on how the flight was tracked. It also explains how the aircraft was pinged with the "Hello Ping". The aircraft itself does not initiate the ping via Sat while not in contact with ground stations.

"25/03/14

On 13 march we received information from uk satellite company inmarsat indicating that routine automatic communications between one of its satellites and the aircraft could be used to determine several possible flight paths.

Inmarsat uk has continued to refine this analysis and yesterday the aaib presented its most recent findings, which indicate that the aircraft flew along the southern corridor.

As you have heard, an aircraft is able to communicate with ground stations via satellite.

If the ground station has not heard from an aircraft for an hour it will transmit a 'log on / log off' message, sometimes referred to as a ‘ping’, using the aircraft’s unique identifier. If the aircraft receives its unique identifier it returns a short message indicating that it is still logged on. This process has been described as a “handshake” and takes place automatically.

From the ground station log it was established that after acars stopped sending messages, 6 complete handshakes took place.

The position of the satellite is known, and the time that it takes the signal to be sent and received, via the satellite, to the ground station can be used to establish the range of the aircraft from the satellite. This information was used to generate arcs of possible positions from which the northern and southern corridors were established.

Refined analysis from inmarsat
in recent days inmarsat developed a second innovative technique which considers the velocity of the aircraft relative to the satellite. Depending on this relative movement, the frequency received and transmitted will differ from its normal value, in much the same way that the sound of a passing car changes as it approaches and passes by. This is called the doppler effect. The inmarsat technique analyses the difference between the frequency that the ground station expects to receive and that actually measured. This difference is the result of the doppler effect and is known as the burst frequency offset.

The burst frequency offset changes depending on the location of the aircraft on an arc of possible positions, its direction of travel, and its speed. In order to establish confidence in its theory, inmarsat checked its predictions using information obtained from six other b777 aircraft flying on the same day in various directions. There was good agreement.

While on the ground at kuala lumpur airport, and during the early stage of the flight, mh370 transmitted several messages. At this stage the location of the aircraft and the satellite were known, so it was possible to calculate system characteristics for the aircraft, satellite, and ground station.

During the flight the ground station logged the transmitted and received pulse frequencies at each handshake. Knowing the system characteristics and position of the satellite it was possible, considering aircraft performance, to determine where on each arc the calculated burst frequency offset fit best.

The analysis showed poor correlation with the northern corridor, but good correlation with the southern corridor, and depending on the ground speed of the aircraft it was then possible to estimate positions at 0011 utc, at which the last complete handshake took place. I must emphasise that this is not the final position of the aircraft.

There is evidence of a partial handshake between the aircraft and ground station at 0019 utc. At this time this transmission is not understood and is subject to further ongoing work.

No response was received from the aircraft at 0115 utc, when the ground earth station sent the next log on / log off message. This indicates that the aircraft was no longer logged on to the network.

Therefore, some time between 0011 utc and 0115 utc the aircraft was no longer able to communicate with the ground station. This is consistent with the maximum endurance of the aircraft.

This analysis by inmarsat forms the basis for further study to attempt to determine the final position of the aircraft. Accordingly, the malaysian investigation has set up an international working group, comprising agencies with expertise in satellite communications and aircraft performance, to take this work forward"

Is the implication here that this is the moment the plane shut down? The fact that it only partially shook hands?

There is evidence of a partial handshake between the aircraft and ground station at 0019 utc. At this time this transmission is not understood and is subject to further ongoing work.

Happyman42

Tea 1000 wrote: »

The case might be there now for Malaysia Airlines to sell the idea to the shareholders! Share price is all about confidence in a company, might be a cheap way to gain some of that back, even if it does cost them millions.

It might also be the case that they don't get to choose, just like airlines and airports didn't get to choose about costly security measures after 9/11.

fits

Happyman42 wrote: »

Is the implication here that this is the moment the plane shut down? The fact that it only partially shook hands?

that is the meaning I would take from it.

sawfish

Really eerie thinking about that flight flying for 7 or 8 hours either on autopilot or otherwise, with the passengers likely incapacitated

boeingboy

Most likely Ghost plane with Crew Alert Siren screaming away

Sala

sawfish wrote: »

Really eerie thinking about that flight flying for 7 or 8 hours either on autopilot or otherwise, with the passengers likely incapacitated

Is that what they think happened? If someone took control and just flew until it ran out of fuel they wouldn't be incapacitated? Sorry if I missed a link on this

sawfish

Sala wrote: »

Is that what they think happened? If someone took control and just flew until it ran out of fuel they wouldn't be incapacitated? Sorry if I missed a link on this

Possible I suppose. Seems unlikely though.

Savman

"Transponder in the cloud" - whatever cause is determined, this will probably be the next step for aviation.

It would obviously have to be mandatory upon aircraft purchase rather than an optional extra, I'd imagine most low cost airlines simply wouldn't pay for it.

Calina

Tea 1000 wrote: »

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.

I have found this thread hard to follow, not because of the ridicule that various people here are complaining about, but because of a lack of self-awareness on the part of a lot of posters regarding their complete lack of domain knowledge.

Tea 1000 wrote: »

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?

I operate on the assumption that there are always people looking at these questions. However, there are a couple of issues in that people from the outside often do not see development leadtimes and are looking for instant gratification if you like.

I'm pretty certain, for example, that people are looking very hard at options in terms of locatability of the flight recorders - and we would not even be considering this question, I think, if work hadn't already been done to implement black boxes and then extend their capabilities.

However, there is an attitude in the technology industry which is deliver early and often - for all of you talking about what your iphone can do now, you really need to remember that there was a lot of basic functionality left off the first few iterations of the product in the way of multitasking and, in particular, copy and paste.

This model of innovation does not work in the aviation sector, or, in fact, any other sector which involves people's lives. Airbus don't put up a plane safe in the knowledge that basic functionality is missing and expecting to be able to deal with that in subsequent releases if you like.

So I operate on the following assumption: people who are domain experts are already working on this, they are working on how to make it happen in the shortest space of time within the constraints of environmental issues - frankly don't believe any iPhone would be functional without serious protection from the outside environment at 30,000 feet for example - and they are working on ways to make it palatable from a cost point of view.

It seems to me that because it's not already delivered, a lot of people assume that it's just being ignored. I'm not a domain expert but I do take the view that if it seems obvious to do something, then a lot of people who are domain experts are almost certainly clever enough to be looking at it. Blindingly obvious ideas are not the preserve of people who are non-experts.

We would not have A330s and B777s if people were not working on progressing things and I think it's a mistake to assume that nothing will change. The point is it won't change immediately because it cannot because change and progression takes time.

We appear to have forgotten that an element of work goes into these things.

sopretty

Calina wrote: »

I have found this thread hard to follow, not because of the ridicule that various people here are complaining about, but because of a lack of self-awareness on the part of a lot of posters regarding their complete lack of domain knowledge.



I operate on the assumption that there are always people looking at these questions. However, there are a couple of issues in that people from the outside often do not see development leadtimes and are looking for instant gratification if you like.

I'm pretty certain, for example, that people are looking very hard at options in terms of locatability of the flight recorders - and we would not even be considering this question, I think, if work hadn't already been done to implement black boxes and then extend their capabilities.

However, there is an attitude in the technology industry which is deliver early and often - for all of you talking about what your iphone can do now, you really need to remember that there was a lot of basic functionality left off the first few iterations of the product in the way of multitasking and, in particular, copy and paste.

This model of innovation does not work in the aviation sector, or, in fact, any other sector which involves people's lives. Airbus don't put up a plane safe in the knowledge that basic functionality is missing and expecting to be able to deal with that in subsequent releases if you like.

So I operate on the following assumption: people who are domain experts are already working on this, they are working on how to make it happen in the shortest space of time within the constraints of environmental issues - frankly don't believe any iPhone would be functional without serious protection from the outside environment at 30,000 feet for example - and they are working on ways to make it palatable from a cost point of view.

It seems to me that because it's not already delivered, a lot of people assume that it's just being ignored. I'm not a domain expert but I do take the view that if it seems obvious to do something, then a lot of people who are domain experts are almost certainly clever enough to be looking at it. Blindingly obvious ideas are not the preserve of people who are non-experts.

We would not have A330s and B777s if people were not working on progressing things and I think it's a mistake to assume that nothing will change. The point is it won't change immediately because it cannot because change and progression takes time.

We appear to have forgotten that an element of work goes into these things.

Great post. I think some of us have incorrectly assumed, that the ability for remote tracking of an aircraft at all times was already incorporated into all aircraft. Therefore, it has been a real eye-opener.
The reason for the multitude of seemingly silly questions from myself for e.g. to those who could instantly dismiss certain ideas as implausible is as a result of a certain amount of incredulity I suppose.
I have been wondering from the start, was there some OBVIOUS reason, this technology is not being widely employed.
As the discussion has evolved, I have finally come to comprehend the complexities of the issues involved.
I am very grateful to people who responded patiently and informatively. I suppose you may have been able to have a more informed discussion between yourselves.
That said, it can be hard to be ridiculed and dismissed as being ignorant and stupid sometimes for simply trying to comprehend something.

wil

pfurey101 wrote: »

There is evidence of a partial handshake between the aircraft and ground station at 0019 utc. At this time this transmission is not understood and is subject to further ongoing work.

No response was received from the aircraft at 0115 utc, when the ground earth station sent the next log on / log off message. This indicates that the aircraft was no longer logged on to the network.

Therefore, some time between 0011 utc and 0115 utc the aircraft was no longer able to communicate with the ground station. This is consistent with the maximum endurance of the aircraft.

While this thread was starting, MH370 was likely still in its last minutes.:(

If only they had that information then, they wouldn't be still looking for confirmation of a crash site.

BBC showed an updated flight path earlier (sorry didnt screengrab) showing 2 (similar) possible routes.
Appeared logical. Looked from my POV to be following basic navigation by sight.

Plane turned back from Gulf of Thailand to return to base or Langkawi,
Crossed back over Malaysia mainland towards Malacca straits, turned west following coastline of Sumatra/Indonesia.
Then last turn South around the end of Sumatra.
It's possible it was no longer able to turn to follow coastline and simply flew on as ghost plane.

Tea 1000

Calina wrote: »

I operate on the assumption that there are always people looking at these questions. However, there are a couple of issues in that people from the outside often do not see development leadtimes and are looking for instant gratification if you like.

I'm pretty certain, for example, that people are looking very hard at options in terms of locatability of the flight recorders - and we would not even be considering this question, I think, if work hadn't already been done to implement black boxes and then extend their capabilities.

However, there is an attitude in the technology industry which is deliver early and often - for all of you talking about what your iphone can do now, you really need to remember that there was a lot of basic functionality left off the first few iterations of the product in the way of multitasking and, in particular, copy and paste.

This model of innovation does not work in the aviation sector, or, in fact, any other sector which involves people's lives. Airbus don't put up a plane safe in the knowledge that basic functionality is missing and expecting to be able to deal with that in subsequent releases if you like.

So I operate on the following assumption: people who are domain experts are already working on this, they are working on how to make it happen in the shortest space of time within the constraints of environmental issues - frankly don't believe any iPhone would be functional without serious protection from the outside environment at 30,000 feet for example - and they are working on ways to make it palatable from a cost point of view.

It seems to me that because it's not already delivered, a lot of people assume that it's just being ignored. I'm not a domain expert but I do take the view that if it seems obvious to do something, then a lot of people who are domain experts are almost certainly clever enough to be looking at it. Blindingly obvious ideas are not the preserve of people who are non-experts.

We would not have A330s and B777s if people were not working on progressing things and I think it's a mistake to assume that nothing will change. The point is it won't change immediately because it cannot because change and progression takes time.

We appear to have forgotten that an element of work goes into these things.

Good post alright. On one hand we do expect that when you look at your iPhone or Android that it can tell you how far you are from work even though you never told it where you work, that everything around us should be the same, yet on the other there's a completely different mindset used in Aviation that you have to stop and think about for a while, or be reminded about from the folk in the know.
I know systems have to be tried and tested beyond typical applications when they're going to be used in aircraft, and even then there's the economies of scale involved. Is it around 400 B777's in use since launch in 1995? Anything you develop for one of these not only must be robust and totally trustworthy, but the cost of developing it when it'll take 20 years to sell over 400 aircraft means that you're not going to balance out the costs of development any time soon either.
I guess there's the bits of information that the uninformed get like the telex protocol still being used and IP probably coming and we see an event like this and the AF one and start to wonder why can't they just hurry it up? Hurrying it up isn't a case of having a meeting tomorrow and saying it'll be done by June!
On a similar note though, even though it's rare, what sort of timeframe or what kind of uptake speed is there when a system is deemed necessary from some point forward? Anyone remember the approximate situation with TCAS for example? That was "rushed" in (tentatively used term!) following some mid-air collision if I recall correctly, but was it in the pipeline for long before hand? And who or what made it mandatory? And how long before all airlines had retrofitted it or was it from new planes onwards or what?

sopretty wrote: »

That said, it can be hard to be ridiculed and dismissed as being ignorant and stupid sometimes for simply trying to comprehend something.

Look on the bright side... you resisted stooping to my tactics!

Duiske

pfurey101 wrote: »

More good gen from the AAIB on how the flight was tracked. It also explains how the aircraft was pinged with the "Hello Ping". The aircraft itself does not initiate the ping via Sat while not in contact with ground stations.

"25/03/14

A question for anyone who understands this better than me. By averaging all the distances of plane from sat during the 6 previous pings it seems they have worked out speed/direction/altitude of the aircraft. Is it now the assumption that the time window of last "ping", between 0011 utc and 0115 utc, is not the time the aircraft came down, but is the time it lost all power and began to glide ? Are they now looking at glide ratios and weather/wind patterns to determine where the plane may have come down ? They will know most of the variables, aircraft weight etc, so would it possible to work out with a fair degree of accuracy where the aircraft came down ?

Mad4simmental

They do not know %100 that the plain is where these images wer. Have they looked in airports for this plain?

Osama was in front of them all that time!!