Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

eatmyshorts

Meglamonia wrote: »

No,the battery isn't dead.

I posted, a page or so back, info from the manufacturers saying they'd expect the signal to last up to 90 days. But then that doesn't fit with the deadline hype.

eatmyshorts

have2flushtwice wrote: »

good god this thread is unbelievable. can some people with experience answer my questions with fact, not opinion.

See my post above.

have2flushtwice wrote: »

if two pings are being emitted:
- are they the frequency of the missing plane?
- what is the second ping?

2 pings, one from the FDR and one from the CVR.

Meglamonia

eatmyshorts wrote: »

I posted, a page or so back, info from the manufacturers saying they'd expect the signal to last up to 90 days. But then that doesn't fit with the deadline hype.

I'm no expert but I think it's supposed to last "at least" 30 days.I could be wrong.

sopretty

have2flushtwice wrote: »

good god this thread is unbelievable. can some people with experience answer my questions with fact, not opinion.

What plane flew low over the Maldives area? The answer to this will define facts.

if two pings are being emitted:
- are they the frequency of the missing plane?
- what is the second ping?

Can the plane actually fly at 45,000 feet? And how is it controlled remotely or externally - if this is even possible.

Malaysia deny the rumour of a plane flying over the Maldives as false. (Take from that what you will).

The pings being emitted are from the two black boxes that every plane contains. One is a voice recorder and the other is a technical information recorder. This would explain why two different pings would be heard.
All of these black boxes emit their signal at 37.5 khz (or some such frequency measurement), so yes, it would appear, they came from an aircraft black box.

Meglamonia

sopretty wrote: »

Malaysia deny the rumour of a plane flying over the Maldives as false. (Take from that what you will).

The pings being emitted are from the two black boxes that every plane contains. One is a voice recorder and the other is a technical information recorder. This would explain why two different pings would be heard.
All of these black boxes emit their signal at 37.5 khz (or some such frequency measurement), so yes, it would appear, they came from an aircraft black box.

One of the pings came from 355 miles away from the other one,you'd think the two boxes with be in close proximity?

sopretty

Meglamonia wrote: »

One of the pings came from 355 miles away from the other one,you'd think the two boxes with be in close proximity?

From my interpretation there were 3 pings heard.

2, in close proximity (the area identified by the Chinese). These pings were picked up by the ship, after the Chinese had heard one ping here.

1 a few hundred miles away (the area identified by the Australians).

2 stroke

eatmyshorts wrote: »

I posted, a page or so back, info from the manufacturers saying they'd expect the signal to last up to 90 days. But then that doesn't fit with the deadline hype.

My understanding is full signal for 30 days, then signal decays as batteries run down. The problem with the deadline hype is that many journalists can only see in black and white.

Meglamonia

sopretty wrote: »

From my interpretation there were 3 pings heard.

2, in close proximity (the area identified by the Chinese). These pings were picked up by the ship, after the Chinese had heard one ping here.

1 a few hundred miles away (the area identified by the Australians).

Yeah it's the Australian one I don't understand,how is it so far away?

sopretty

Meglamonia wrote: »

Yeah it's the Australian one I don't understand,how is it so far away?

Now, that is something I can't tell you! The media tend not to ask relevant questions sometimes!!

urajoke

sopretty wrote: »

From my interpretation there were 3 pings heard.

2, in close proximity (the area identified by the Chinese). These pings were picked up by the ship, after the Chinese had heard one ping here.

1 a few hundred miles away (the area identified by the Australians).

Yes it's entirely possible. Acoustics under water are a strange science in themselves, differing water temps and salt densities within water can block sound waves and shield them. We get similar effects (not salt related) on warm nights sometimes aircraft can hear other airfields using the same frequency hundreds of miles away.

Yes most posters with specific knowledge have been run out of this thread long ago, as posting knowledgable answers doesn't seem to fit the Conspiracy theorists thoughts. Even when the official report is produced many will still see this like a "the never landed on the moon" theory and "they" are covering it all up.

sopretty

urajoke wrote: »

Yes it's entirely possible. Acoustics under water are a strange science in themselves, differing water temps and salt densities within water can block sound waves and shield them. We get similar effects (not salt related) on warm nights sometimes aircraft can hear other airfields using the same frequency hundreds of miles away.

What are you saying here? That the ping picked up initially by the Australians, might actually be coming from the location of the ping initially picked up by the Chinese?

fits

The Chinese pings were picked up by extremely basic equipment. Basically a few lads sitting in a rib with a handheld device designed for shallow water. While it should not be discounted it cannot be regarded as reliable.

The pings picked up by ocean shield were detected with highly sophisticated equipment and there were two distinct pings the second time they were heard.

sopretty

fits wrote: »

The Chinese pings were picked up by extremely basic equipment. Basically a few lads sitting in a rib with a handheld device designed for shallow water. While it should not be discounted it cannot be regarded as reliable.

The pings picked up by ocean shield were detected with highly sophisticated equipment and there were two distinct pings the second time they were heard.

I think you are incorrect there?

The initial ping, was picked up by the Chinese.

Subsequently, a ping was picked up by the Australians.

The Ocean Shield ship, went first to confirm the Australian ping, but picked up nothing. It then advanced to the location of the Chinese ping, and picked up two pings at this location.

fits

sopretty wrote: »

I think you are incorrect there?

The initial ping, was picked up by the Chinese.

Subsequently, a ping was picked up by the Australians.

The Ocean Shield ship, went first to confirm the Australian ping, but picked up nothing. It then advanced to the location of the Chinese ping, and picked up two pings at this location.

No. You are wildly incorrect.

sopretty

fits wrote: »

No. You are wildly incorrect.

Ok, have found an article:

"The Australian defence vessel Ocean Shield picked up signals twice, around 370 miles north of where two signals were detected by a Chinese ship on Saturday.

Crucially, there were two distinct pinger returns - suggesting transmissions from a flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder on a Boeing 777 jet."

You'd have to look at the media articles from Saturday or so, to figure out what's going on.

http://news.sky.com/story/1238154/missing-plane-mh370-team-detect-two-signals

Prior to this, Australian 'relatively' primitive technology, had picked up a ping. Ocean Shield investigated this location and ping, but could not find anything. That's my story and I'm sticking to it!!!

urajoke

sopretty wrote: »

What are you saying here? That the ping picked up initially by the Australians, might actually be coming from the location of the ping initially picked up by the Chinese?

Have a read of this http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/winter-2012/the-underwater-propagation-of-sound-and-its-applications#.U0PWDO29LCQ it's long but it explains it well.

The problem is that both the Australians and Chinese MIGHT have been listening to the same sound source from two separate areas. I wouldn't be 100% certain they are as the range of the pings are apparently quite short. But whales can communicate over hundreds if not thousands of miles given the right conditions.

Even though the pings are meant to be on 37.5 water can change that freq so one source probably the Chinese due to the cheap quality equipment they are using is listening to something else.

fits

sopretty wrote: »

Ok, have found an article:

"The Australian defence vessel Ocean Shield picked up signals twice, around 370 miles north of where two signals were detected by a Chinese ship on Saturday.

Crucially, there were two distinct pinger returns - suggesting transmissions from a flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder on a Boeing 777 jet."

You'd have to look at the media articles from Saturday or so, to figure out what's going on.

http://news.sky.com/story/1238154/missing-plane-mh370-team-detect-two-signals

Prior to this, Australian 'relatively' primitive technology, had picked up a ping. Ocean Shield investigated this location and ping, but could not find anything. That's my story and I'm sticking to it!!!

ocean shield is 300 miles away from Chinese ship. Hms echo has joined Chinese ship now but found nothing yet.

relaxed

eatmyshorts wrote: »

I posted, a page or so back, info from the manufacturers saying they'd expect the signal to last up to 90 days. But then that doesn't fit with the deadline hype.

Indeed, this race to get the box before 30 days crap from the idiots just shows them up for what they are.

If it needs to be 30 days by law then a factor of safety by the manufacturer of 2 or 3 would put it at 60 or 90 days and be quite normal.

Spring Onion

relaxed wrote: »

Indeed, this race to get the box before 30 days crap from the idiots just shows them up for what they are.

If it needs to be 30 days by law then a factor of safety by the manufacturer of 2 or 3 would put it at 60 or 90 days and be quite normal.

I am in manufacturing and I have never worked in a manufacturing process where you "factor in a safety" or over-specify by 100%-200%. That would be inefficient and wasteful. I am not saying the black boxes have a 30 day or 60 day or 90 day battery life, I dont know, what I am saying is; do not assume all manufacturers over specify by 100-200% beyond legal limits. It is not normal.

sopretty

I heard that the battery life would depend on the conditions the battery was in also. I.e. the temperature of the environment etc.

eatmyshorts

Spring Onion wrote: »

I am in manufacturing and I have never worked in a manufacturing process where you "factor in a safety" or over-specify by 100%-200%. That would be inefficient and wasteful. I am not saying the black boxes have a 30 day or 60 day or 90 day battery life, I dont know, what I am saying is; do not assume all manufacturers over specify by 100-200% beyond legal limits. It is not normal.

I'll repost my previous. Taken from The Aviation Herald, which is probably the best source of relevant info available.

.............

The manufacturer of the underwater locator beacons (ULB), that were mounted to the flight data and cockpit voice recorders of MH-370, specified their ULB would transmit ultrasonic pulsed sounds at 37.5kHz +/- 1kHz at 160dB (re 1µPa). After a period of 30 days the ULB would still transmit at that frequency at 157 dB. The manufacturer did not publish any data beyond 30 days (certification criteria). Other manufacturers specifying their ULBs also at 160dB initially and 157dB after 30 days state the ULB would still transmit after 90 days though at around 150dB, the frequency drift may exceed 1kHz.
...............

Spring Onion

eatmyshorts wrote: »

I'll repost my previous. Taken from The Aviation Herald, which is probably the best source of relevant info available.

.............

The manufacturer of the underwater locator beacons (ULB), that were mounted to the flight data and cockpit voice recorders of MH-370, specified their ULB would transmit ultrasonic pulsed sounds at 37.5kHz +/- 1kHz at 160dB (re 1µPa). After a period of 30 days the ULB would still transmit at that frequency at 157 dB. The manufacturer did not publish any data beyond 30 days (certification criteria). Other manufacturers specifying their ULBs also at 160dB initially and 157dB after 30 days state the ULB would still transmit after 90 days though at around 150dB, the frequency drift may exceed 1kHz.
...............

I am not disputing the black box battery life. I was disputing with "relaxed" on his generality that it is normal for all manufacturers over-specify by 100%-200%.

stuar

Could MH370 be something completely different?


U.S. Marines infiltrate the beach head as part of an amphibious demonstration at Hat Yao Beach, Kingdom of Thailand, during Cobra Gold 2014, Feb. 14
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_Gold#Cobra_Gold_2014


About


Cobra Gold is an annual Thai-U.S. co-sponsored joint and multinational exercise. Particpating nations include: Kingdom of Thailand, United States, Singapore, Japan, Indonesia, Republic of Korea and Malaysia.
https://www.facebook.com/ExerciseCobraGold[/URL]

Cope Tiger begins in Thailand
Release Number: 010314
11th March 2014
3/11/2014 - KORAT ROYAL THAI AIR FORCE BASE, Thailand -- Aviation and ground units from the U.S. Air Force, the Royal Thai Air Force, Navy and Army, and the Republic of Singapore Air Force is participating in the Cope Tiger 2014 Field Training Exercise (FTX) in Thailand March 10-21.
CT14 is an annual, multilateral, aerial large force exercise conducted in the Asia-Pacific region. It takes place at Korat Royal Thai Air Force base in Thailand.
More than 760 personnel will participate in the exercise, including approximately 160 U.S. service members and 600 service members from Thailand and Singapore.
The FTX will involve a combined total of 76 aircraft and 42 air defense units, including 10 U.S. F-15C/D aircraft, and 15 F-16s, six JAS-39s, six F-5s, five ALPHA JETs, six L-39s, one C-130, one BELL 412, and one UH-1H from the Royal Thai Air Force. The Republic of Singapore Air Force will deploy eight F-16s, six F-15SGs, six F-5s, one G550, one KC-135, and two AS332 to the exercise.
The exercise enhances combined readiness and interoperability, reinforces the U.S. commitment to the Asia-Pacific region, and demonstrates U.S. capability to project combined and joint forces strategically in a multilateral environment.
http://www.pacaf.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123403175[/URL]


A Royal Thai Air Force F-16 conducts tactical flight operations during last year's Cope Tiger at Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base, Thailand, March 12, 2013. Approximately 160 U.S. service members are participating in CT14 March 10-12, 2014, which offers an unparalleled opportunity to conduct a wide spectrum of large force employment air operations and strengthen military-to-military ties with two key partner nations, Thailand and Singapore. (U.S. Air Force photo/Capt. Joshua Gunderson


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdoUFDUh1vI




[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

SpaceTime

I don't think so as it flew for a long time and was way off course.

I'm beginning to suspect that it's not going to be located for years and years.

eatmyshorts

Spring Onion wrote: »

I am not disputing the black box battery life. I was disputing with "relaxed" on his generality that it is normal for all manufacturers over-specify by 100%-200%.

He didn't say all manufacturers. He was specifically referencing manufacturers of aviation standard ULB's.
And this would most probably hold true to most aspects of aviation manufacturing processes.

fits

The depth of the problem

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/world/the-depth-of-the-problem/931

sopretty

eatmyshorts wrote: »

He didn't say all manufacturers. He was specifically referencing manufacturers of aviation standard ULB's.
And this would most probably hold true to most aspects of aviation manufacturing processes.

Eatmyshorts - you seem to be under some delusion that the only precise manufacturing process in the world, is aviation.

I can tell you, that the engineering involved in oil production and drilling for e.g. is HEAVILY REGULATED. The potential implications of a disaster in such processes, is even worse than an aviation disaster - both in terms of ecology, the environment and the human cost.

Pharmaceutical industries? Medical paraphernalia?

The aviation industry seems to have an arrogance which is not justified.

eatmyshorts

sopretty wrote: »

Eatmyshorts - you seem to be under some delusion that the only precise manufacturing process in the world, is aviation.

I can tell you, that the engineering involved in oil production and drilling for e.g. is HEAVILY REGULATED. The potential implications of a disaster in such processes, is even worse than an aviation disaster - both in terms of ecology, the environment and the human cost.

Pharmaceutical industries? Medical paraphernalia?

The aviation industry seems to have an arrogance which is not justified.

I'm not under any delusion at all.
I freely admit that I have absolutely no knowledge of the oil, pharmaceutical or medical industries.
Hence, I don't go on those forums posting as if I do.

Jack1985

The aviation industry seems to have an arrogance which is not justified.

*Correction some people who work in it (Holier-than-thou type), as you're responding to.

sopretty

eatmyshorts wrote: »

I'm not under any delusion at all.
I freely admit that I have absolutely no knowledge of the oil, pharmaceutical or medical industries.
Hence, I don't go on those forums posting as if I do.

No, but you go on this forum, claiming that anyone commenting on the practices of precise manufacturing processes knows nothing, nor has no right to comment on this forum, since they've no aviation specific knowledge.