Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

Options
1…154155157159160…219

Comments

  • Options
    #4682
    wil
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭wil


    BBC News have mapped the up to date information (copy in updates thread)
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26503141
    It seems to be a compilation of UK AAIB, AMSA and Malaysian radar info
    The yellow line shows an estimated flight path.
    It is not clear exactly where the direction change details are from, perhaps military radar, or inferred from the other details, but it does seem to follow a logical path. approximately following parallel to the islands, then turning at end of Sumatra, perhaps with intention to continue following coastline.
    Maybe they were no longer able to turn the aircraft after that point.

    What are the chances of corresponding waypoints being entered early on and aircraft simply following without any intervention. Is that possible, or even make sense?


  • Options
    #4683
    Wanderer2010
    Registered Users Posts: 6,740 ✭✭✭Wanderer2010


    Two questions:

    1. Where exactly does the info about the plane altering altitude come from? Im talking about claims the plane went up to over 40k feet and then down to 12k feet shortly after the sharp left turn. I have heard this being discussed many times but where is the concrete evidence for this? Link?

    2. The fire theory- doesnt the fact that the ACRAS system was turned off BEFORE the last contact with the co pilot completely rule out a sudden and drastic fire which caused the crew to panic and go way off course. Whoever switched off that knew what they were doing and knew the plan ahead (hijack etc) so there wouldnt have been a fire that broke out and caused mayhem.


  • Options
    #4684
    Mad4simmental
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,580 ✭✭✭Mad4simmental


    The plane was probably 1000 miles from there at its closest.

    1000 miles is not that big of a distance in the most isolated place in the world.


  • Options
    #4685
    Sala
    Registered Users Posts: 1,494 ✭✭✭Sala


    Tenger wrote: »
    Deliberately? I think we can state yes on that.
    Maliciously? Not enough data to prove or disprove.

    Sorry to sound like a broken record... but if it was deliberate but not malicious, you mean it's possible something went wrong, they turned back, and tried to land... but were overcome (by smoke etc?)?
    If that was the case would the plane not have continued to fly in the same direction on autopilot? But according to the locations, it turned again.

    Sorry I just can't see how a malfunction would lead to them turning, flying over land they could have landed on, and then turning in the direction they ended up going.


  • Options
    #4686
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Wanderer2010 wrote: »
    Two questions:

    1. Where exactly does the info about the plane altering altitude come from? Im talking about claims the plane went up to over 40k feet and then down to 12k feet shortly after the sharp left turn. I have heard this being discussed many times but where is the concrete evidence for this? Link?

    Malaysian authorities haven't released where they got the info from as far as I am aware. But it came from them originally.

    Here is a good piece refuting the Chris Goodfellow theory of the possibility of fire (google to read original article)
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/03/18/mh370_disappearance_chris_goodfellow_s_theory_about_a_fire_and_langkawi.html


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4687
    sawfish
    Closed Accounts Posts: 376 ✭✭sawfish


    Wanderer2010 wrote: »
    2. The fire theory- doesnt the fact that the ACRAS system was turned off BEFORE the last contact with the co pilot completely rule out a sudden and drastic fire which caused the crew to panic and go way off course. Whoever switched off that knew what they were doing and knew the plan ahead (hijack etc) so there wouldnt have been a fire that broke out and caused mayhem.

    As far as I remember they don't know exactly when the ACAS turned off. They just didn't get the next scheduled transmission. Could have before or after the last contact with copilot (sorry, I mean first officer, not co-pilot! What's a co pilot!?)


  • Options
    #4688
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    sawfish wrote: »
    What's a co pilot!?)

    Needs more 'officer'. :D


  • Options
    #4689
    Tenger
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 9,884 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tenger


    Sala wrote: »
    Sorry to sound like a broken record... but if it was deliberate but not malicious, you mean it's possible something went wrong, they turned back, and tried to land... but were overcome (by smoke etc?)?
    If that was the case would the plane not have continued to fly in the same direction on autopilot? But according to the locations, it turned again.

    Sorry I just can't see how a malfunction would lead to them turning, flying over land they could have landed on, and then turning in the direction they ended up going.
    "Land" doesn't mean "ability to land."
    No-one stated that the crew were overcome after the first turn.
    The second turn could have been an attempt to reach an airfield on the western side of the peninsula. Perhaps they were not in full control.

    However the northern then western turn over the Andaman Sea is very odd. Almost as if they were unsure of their location.

    Until the FDR is recovered we will not know if either turn was commanded or due to loss of control.

    The malicious theory doesn't seem to fit in my own opinion. No messages, too long in the air, diversion to nowhere,


  • Options
    #4690
    amkin25
    Closed Accounts Posts: 428 ✭✭amkin25


    Considering the us has a naval base in the area on the island of diego garcia its hard to believe they didnt track an unidentified plane wandering off on its own.

    Its all bluff and double bluff i think with the military powers afraid to show how powerful their radars and stuff is, but its hard to fathom that it wasnt tracked from the diego garcia by the us who knows whats going on .


  • Options
    #4691
    Mad4simmental
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,580 ✭✭✭Mad4simmental


    amkin25 wrote: »
    Considering the us has a naval base in the area on the island of diego garcia its hard to believe they didnt track an unidentified plane wandering off on its own.

    Its all bluff and double bluff i think with the military powers afraid to show how powerful their radars and stuff is, but its hard to fathom that it wasnt tracked from the diego garcia by the us who knows whats going on .

    +1


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4692
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    amkin25 wrote: »
    Considering the us has a naval base in the area on the island of diego garcia its hard to believe they didnt track an unidentified plane wandering off on its own.

    Its all bluff and double bluff i think with the military powers afraid to show how powerful their radars and stuff is, but its hard to fathom that it wasnt tracked from the diego garcia by the us who knows whats going on .

    Diego Garcia is really, really far from where the plane is thought to have gone. It's a very long way outside of radar range, unless Diego Garcia has Over The Horizon Radar which, from aerial images, it doesn't appear to.


  • Options
    #4693
    fits
    Registered Users Posts: 13,522 ✭✭✭✭fits


    Large area of debris, ranging from 1m to 23 m in length spotted by French satellite. Over 100 objects identified. Malaysians call it ' best lead yet'. I would tend to agree.


  • Options
    #4694
    PropJoe10
    Registered Users Posts: 5,309 ✭✭✭PropJoe10


    fits wrote: »
    Large area of debris, ranging from 1m to 23 m in length spotted by French satellite. Over 100 objects identified. Malaysians call it ' best lead yet'. I would tend to agree.

    Lets hope its a positive lead. They only have another couple of weeks before the black box transmitter battery goes dead. If they dont find something soon, we'll never know what happened.

    I read that the cockpit recorder only records two hours, so even if they find the black box, its likely it wont be of much use for conversations between the pilot and co-pilot. It overwrites every two hours so whatever conversations they were having over the South China sea will be long gone.


  • Options
    #4695
    sawfish
    Closed Accounts Posts: 376 ✭✭sawfish


    PropJoe10 wrote: »
    Lets hope its a positive lead. They only have another couple of weeks before the black box transmitter battery goes dead. If they dont find something soon, we'll never know what happened.

    I read that the cockpit recorder only records two hours, so even if they find the black box, its likely it wont be of much use for conversations between the pilot and co-pilot. It overwrites every two hours so whatever conversations they were having over the South China sea will be long gone.

    2 hours? My word, that seems ridiculous, given the cheapness of memory these days! I guess these things were manufactured a long long time ago!


  • Options
    #4696
    Tenger
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 9,884 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tenger


    sawfish wrote: »
    2 hours? My word, that seems ridiculous, given the cheapness of memory these days! I guess these things were manufactured a long long time ago!
    In the vast majority of aircraft crashes the final 2 hours is enough to provide cockpit voice recording of the incident.

    In addition these units are extremely tough, I'm not sure what they use for memory but its hugely more expensive than the memory you buy for your PC. These units are buillt to be standalone and maintenance free. SO you want reliable and trusted equipment over fancy high end stuff. Just look at the ISS or the retired Space Shuttle.....they still use Pentium chip PC onboard....why? Because the work and are reliable.


  • Options
    #4697
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    PropJoe10 wrote: »
    Lets hope its a positive lead. They only have another couple of weeks before the black box transmitter battery goes dead. If they dont find something soon, we'll never know what happened.

    I read that the cockpit recorder only records two hours, so even if they find the black box, its likely it wont be of much use for conversations between the pilot and co-pilot. It overwrites every two hours so whatever conversations they were having over the South China sea will be long gone.

    They will hear the last few conversations.


  • Options
    #4698
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    slimjimmc wrote: »
    I won't rule out that possibility (although imo it's unlikely) but I would say he should have landed, if that was possible at the time. Don't rule out the possibility that a landing was not possible at the time.

    I also wouldn't assume the aircraft was in stable flight all the time either. Although the media maps show nice straight lines and neat turns I don't assume the aircraft was flying exactly as depicted and I don't assume the crew had full control all the time, too many unknowns to make that assumption. For all we know it could have been weaving in and out, with a crew struggling for control and eventually losing that battle.

    For seven hours!REALLY!

    Could they not have landed??? I really don't see any reason not to land.


  • Options
    #4699
    theKillerBite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 195 ✭✭theKillerBite


    sawfish wrote: »
    2 hours? My word, that seems ridiculous, given the cheapness of memory these days! I guess these things were manufactured a long long time ago!

    I think it's due to a privacy issue. The pilots don't want to be recorded all time.


  • Options
    #4700
    Mountainsandh
    Registered Users Posts: 6,700 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    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.

    Well I have taken this on board, and made it my business to educate myself, since my earlier comments seem to have been perceived as pretty incendiary.
    I read pages and pages of reports, including very technical ones, a lot of it of course going over my head, but gaining a good insight I think into FDR regulations and design.

    I'm afraid I have still come to the same conclusion though, that to achieve a black box upgrade for ground based monitoring is quite simple, and pretty much achievable relatively "quickly", allowing for retrofit, and regulations to be passed. I am pretty much convinced by pages such as these (and links in the comments from a very annoying and pushy man who insists he had patented this years earlier) :
    http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/beyond-the-black-box/0
    or this
    http://www.runwaygirlnetwork.com/2014/03/09/uk-on-black-box-streaming-money-drives-delay/

    I do realize now that to make the black box completely independent from pilots is practically hard to achieve, since the battery system fitted generally supplies 10 minutes of power according to regulations. A power supply is basically what seems to be the connection to pilots, and since this would have to be shared with other systems, pilots would have the option of switching it off.

    I must say though, that in all the links I have read, I have not once come across the issue of safety of that equipment. I suppose it is a given that all equipment would be checked for airworthiness, and an upgrade being similar to other upgrades recently implemented would make no difference in safety matters. As a matter of fact I read more about how to ensure power would not be discontinued to FDR when other systems malfunctioned, than how to disconnect FDR in case it caused a fire.

    I suppose if it were to be completely powered by battery, the battery aspect might cause the safety concerns alluded to here.

    Can I just mention though, that "professional challenges" are imo, and correct me if I'm wrong, another way to say that professionals might have a problem with implementing the changes.
    And yet, pilots have no involvement whatsoever in the functioning of the black box, other than a start/stop system I have seen mentioned in a few documents. So really what challenge is there ? Other than switching the thing on/off, or disconnecting power supply.

    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.
    But like you say it is an assumption. In this case it seems that yes indeed, some people have researched this, but no, it is not being developed. Sometimes pressure from other sources is what's needed to achieve change.


  • Options
    #4701
    Wetbench4
    Registered Users Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭Wetbench4


    slimjimmc wrote: »
    I also wouldn't assume the aircraft was in stable flight all the time either. Although the media maps show nice straight lines and neat turns I don't assume the aircraft was flying exactly as depicted and I don't assume the crew had full control all the time, too many unknowns to make that assumption. For all we know it could have been weaving in and out, with a crew struggling for control and eventually losing that battle.

    The thing is, if it wasn't flying in straight lines wouldn't it have run out of fuel a few hours earlier and not made it to the supposed debris feild. Where the debris field is situated, to me, says that it must have flown in straight lines. Layman here so correct me if i'm wrong.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4702
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,729 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Tenger wrote: »
    In the vast majority of aircraft crashes the final 2 hours is enough to provide cockpit voice recording of the incident.

    In addition these units are extremely tough, I'm not sure what they use for memory but its hugely more expensive than the memory you buy for your PC. These units are buillt to be standalone and maintenance free. SO you want reliable and trusted equipment over fancy high end stuff. Just look at the ISS or the retired Space Shuttle.....they still use Pentium chip PC onboard....why? Because the work and are reliable.

    I assume they use magnetic wire because it can withstand a lot of abuse without losing the data. However, they could include (as well) a memory chip that may not be as tough but would be able to hold a lot more data if it survived the crash.


  • Options
    #4703
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    Just to note:

    The 'thing' that needs to be towed out to sea to search underwater is not to arrive in Perth until today, but I think the boat/ship that has the capacity to tow it out to the search site, doesn't arrive in Perth for another 3 or 4 days. Then of course, you have the time it takes both of them to get to the search site! An awful lot of time gone between plane sightings and ships actually arriving on the scene. It is so unfortunate it is in such a remote area.


  • Options
    #4704
    Mountainsandh
    Registered Users Posts: 6,700 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    The drift from the debris must have been such, anyway, that it will be another challenge to find the point of impact. I really feel for the families, the anger and heartache must be soul destroying right now.


  • Options
    #4705
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    sopretty wrote: »
    Just to note:

    The 'thing' that needs to be towed out to sea to search underwater is not to arrive in Perth until today, but I think the boat/ship that has the capacity to tow it out to the search site, doesn't arrive in Perth for another 3 or 4 days. Then of course, you have the time it takes both of them to get to the search site! An awful lot of time gone between plane sightings and ships actually arriving on the scene. It is so unfortunate it is in such a remote area.

    It won't be deployed until a debris field is found anyway, so it is not required yet.


  • Options
    #4706
    wil
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭wil


    From what I've read, some people are confusing the debris shown on satellite and the AMSA search sightings, thinking they contradict each other.
    Seeing on a few day old sat image, still means they have to find it.

    And, so now the sueing starts.
    I wonder does this in any way affect the way information is updated and distributed or as I assume, everything would have to go past legal from day one.


  • Options
    #4707
    wil
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭wil


    Wetbench4 wrote: »
    The thing is, if it wasn't flying in straight lines wouldn't it have run out of fuel a few hours earlier and not made it to the supposed debris feild. Where the debris field is situated, to me, says that it must have flown in straight lines. Layman here so correct me if i'm wrong.
    I wonder what the longest controlled glide from that altitude is possible after fuel runs out, heard mention of 100km or more
    If just natural glide (no pilot input) what might be expected, would it likely stall?


  • Options
    #4708
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    wil wrote: »
    I wonder what the longest controlled glide from that altitude is possible after fuel runs out, heard mention of 100km or more
    If just natural glide (no pilot input) what might be expected, would it likely stall?

    There was some discussion earlier in the thread...everything depends on whether both engines shut down at the same time or not. If nobody was controlling the plane and one engine went down then a roll would be the most likely outcome.


  • Options
    #4709
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,729 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    I have not seen any answer to my earlier question.

    Where did the information regarding the altitude of MH370 between the 'Good night' message and its last sighting by Malay military radar? Is that radar equipped with altitude reading radar? Normally, altitude is given by the plane using secondary radar (which was turned off), so where did that info come from?

    If the readings were obtained live, why did the ground operator not react?


  • Options
    #4710
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    I have not seen any answer to my earlier question.

    Where did the information regarding the altitude of MH370 between the 'Good night' message and its last sighting by Malay military radar? Is that radar equipped with altitude reading radar? Normally, altitude is given by the plane using secondary radar (which was turned off), so where did that info come from?

    If the readings were obtained live, why did the ground operator not react?

    I think I answered that or a similar question earlier. AFAIK the Malaysian authorities released that info but declined to say where it came from.
    I am not aware that they have said anymore since, maybe somebody else will know.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4711
    wil
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭wil


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    I have not seen any answer to my earlier question.

    Where did the information regarding the altitude of MH370 between the 'Good night' message and its last sighting by Malay military radar? Is that radar equipped with altitude reading radar? Normally, altitude is given by the plane using secondary radar (which was turned off), so where did that info come from?

    If the readings were obtained live, why did the ground operator not react?
    I think initially it was suggested to have come from Rolls Royce engine management info, via WSJ, then that all went quiet or was discounted and then enter Inmarsat analysis.
    Early on most info that was leaked out was subsequently discounted by M'sia so became more confused.

    Notable in their absence/deafening in their silence is any mention of Indonesian radar/anything.


Advertisement