Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

keith16

sopretty wrote: »

So would you suggest that any incidents of aircraft or pilot inadequacies or failures should not be reported on to the general public?

It's not a question of not reporting it, it's a question of doing so in context which ignores hyperbole and deals in reality.

sopretty

keith16 wrote: »

It's not a question of not reporting it, it's a question of doing so in context which ignores hyperbole and deals in reality.

This breeds suspicion and discontent. Transparency is vital in that industry.

RiseToMe

sopretty wrote: »

So would you suggest that any incidents of aircraft or pilot inadequacies or failures should not be reported on to the general public?

No I think the point is that if it was another airline carrier that this happened to today it wouldn't be reported as sensationalised as this was

Growler!!!

sopretty wrote: »

So would you suggest that any incidents of aircraft or pilot inadequacies or failures should not be reported on to the general public?

All incidences are reported to the relevant authorities. That's how we learn as an industry.

These reports are available to the public once you know where to look.

The problem is sensationalism by the press. Something Joe public would find extraordinary is entirely ordinary to those in an industry. I'm refereeing to both my past career in the oil industry and my current career.

RiseToMe

RiseToMe wrote: »

No I think the point is that if it was another airline carrier that this happened to today it wouldn't be reported as sensationalised as this was

Actually it wouldn't be reported at all for a different airline,it would be just another normal day in the skies.
I know some companies that have banned all business travel on MA.

sopretty

RiseToMe wrote: »

No I think the point is that if it was another airline carrier that this happened to today it wouldn't be reported as sensationalised as this was

If it was an EI flight to New York with my daughter on the flight, which ended up by all accounts, off the coast of Mexico, with no evidence as to how, why, if, or even whether, BYJAYSIS I'd be sensationalising it. I'd be believing nothing I'd hear that didn't make sense either! SHOW ME THE RADAR IMAGES, THESE PINGS, THE INFO YOU HAVE, EXPLAIN TO ME WHERE MY DAUGHTER IS.

I don't think I would be capable of restraining my language as well as I have above. Basically, punctuate my post above, with a whole load of expletives.

RiseToMe

sopretty wrote: »

If it was an EI flight to New York with my daughter on the flight, which ended up by all accounts, off the coast of Mexico, with no evidence as to how, why, if, or even whether, BYJAYSIS I'd be sensationalising it. I'd be believing nothing I'd hear that didn't make sense either! SHOW ME THE RADAR IMAGES, THESE PINGS, THE INFO YOU HAVE, EXPLAIN TO ME WHERE MY DAUGHTER IS.

I don't think I would be capable of restraining my language as well as I have above. Basically, punctuate my post above, with a whole load of expletives.

But what is being discussed is a landing gear malfunction, not a missing flight.

The issue is the media jumping on anything MA related and blowing it out of the water, thereby Pulling MA further down.

Things like what were reported this evening happen daily in aviation, if it had of been another airline it wouldn't have been reported with such gusto and with the sensationalised headlines.

galwayjohn89

sopretty wrote: »

So would you suggest that any incidents of aircraft or pilot inadequacies or failures should not be reported on to the general public?

The problem is flights get diverted have emergencies most days. A lot of people hear emergency and immediately think they were close to dying when in fact emergency in aviation terms can be something minor enough. If this was another airline it wouldn't have made the news. So its about consistency. It's like the channel 4 dispatches 'investigating' Ryanair due to low fuel diverts and then completely ignoring when BA had the same amount of diverts in a day.

Every little thing that goes on ah MH now will be scrutinised when there is no evidence that the disappearance of MH370 was due to their mistakes/error.

GekkePrutser

warren44 wrote: »

Also if someone hijacked the plane chose to do so, they could have just used a cheap, easily acquired hand held jammer to block all types of Mobile phone, satellite, microwave and RF transmissions from leaving or entering the aircraft, so they wouldnt need to know how to disable the transponders if they didnt have the aircraft technical knowledge. So either someone with the aircraft experience knew how to disable all onboard transponders or just outright jammed the signals.

Just replying to an older post (3 days) sorry but I only just found this thread.

Just wanted to point out that a jammer is only effective in blocking incoming transmissions. It won't prevent any signal leaving the aircraft.

Also, a wideband jammer with limited power inside the aircraft, which is essentially a Faraday cage, wouldn't be too effective against antennas on the outside. And I'd expect the transceivers themselves to be pretty well shielded.

The Dagda

GekkePrutser wrote: »

Just replying to an older post (3 days) sorry but I only just found this thread.

Just wanted to point out that a jammer is only effective in blocking incoming transmissions. It won't prevent any signal leaving the aircraft.

Also, a wideband jammer with limited power inside the aircraft, which is essentially a Faraday cage, wouldn't be too effective against antennas on the outside. And I'd expect the transceivers themselves to be pretty well shielded.

Can you say categorically that it's not possible to block all transmissions in AND out of a plane?

To be able to say it categorically you would have to be able to provide links to back up your assertions. I don't believe you will be able to provide links to prove your statement and it's naive to claim that something is impossible with providing supporting evidence. I'm going to call you a spoofer.

I don't believe that jammers were used but I hate when people try to claim they know more than they do...

Calina

sopretty wrote: »

If it was an EI flight to New York with my daughter on the flight, which ended up by all accounts, off the coast of Mexico, with no evidence as to how, why, if, or even whether, BYJAYSIS I'd be sensationalising it. I'd be believing nothing I'd hear that didn't make sense either! SHOW ME THE RADAR IMAGES, THESE PINGS, THE INFO YOU HAVE, EXPLAIN TO ME WHERE MY DAUGHTER IS.

I don't think I would be capable of restraining my language as well as I have above. Basically, punctuate my post above, with a whole load of expletives.

And here in lies the problem.

You would achieve absolutely nothing positive for the purposes of finding your daughter any faster. Because you'd be emotionally involved in trying to push the direction of a process you know absolutely nothing about. You would probably feel even more frustrated because all you are doing is coming across as someone completely hysterical whose demands are hampering the search.

Sensationalising stuff doesn't fix it. It only sells newspapers. That is ALL it does that could even remotely be considered positive. It protects the jobs of journalists. Whether all of those jobs need to be protected is debatable. Pull your hysterical swearing act in front of a journalist and you are part of the product, and definitely not part of the solution.

On the other hand, it can hamper and interfere with a properly structured investigation. You might want to look into the Leveson inquiry in the UK for an understanding of the damage which the commercialisation of sensationalism can do.

The media has been completely irresponsible with this story and continue to be, not because they care - they don't - but because it makes them money.

Air incident reports are made available to the public. BEA made the Air France one available. The IAA has a directory of them as regards Irish incidents on their sites. The issue is they actually aren't in the business of selling newspapers; they are in the business of finding out what happened aircraft.

KoolKid

sopretty wrote: »

So would you suggest that any incidents of aircraft or pilot inadequacies or failures should not be reported on to the general public?

If every aviation incident was to be reported in the fashion that this one was the general public would be deprived of more relevant and important news stories. Every headline would be plane diverted, plane almost crashes due to lack of fuel, plane makes emergency landing due to blah blah blah.
I'm sure there were other aviation incidences yesterday. Probably some more serious, but you didn't see them across the sky news banner for hours and non stop.
Breaking news indeed.!!

GekkePrutser

The Dagda wrote: »

Can you say categorically that it's not possible to block all transmissions in AND out of a plane?

To be able to say it categorically you would have to be able to provide links to back up your assertions. I don't believe you will be able to provide links to prove your statement and it's naive to claim that something is impossible with providing supporting evidence. I'm going to call you a spoofer.

I don't believe that jammers were used but I hate when people try to claim they know more than they do...

A jammer is nothing but a transmitter transmitting a signal that causes interference. A hand-held wideband one implies low power, both because of the handheld nature and because the RF energy is spread over a wider spectrum. A targeted single frequency jammer would be much more effective but those are not what you'd buy on Chinese sites (and what the poster I replied to mentioned)

Because a receiver is meant to receive weak remote signals, it is easily overwhelmed by a much closer source, even one that has lower power. That's what a jammer does. But a transmitter is not listening to anything nearby, it just does its job. It's not affected by local noise. And on the receiving end the jammer won't even be heard as it's so weak, so why wouldn't a transmitter work? As a ham operator I've often operated in noisy conditions. Transmitting works fine but hearing the reply is the problem.

Some radio terminals such as mobile phones rely on seeing the network before they'll transmit, but most of the aircraft radios won't. The VHF comms radio for one is keyed manually by the pilot. So 'all' transmissions is not the case.

I'm sure links can be found to support this but I'm not going to bother if you resort to name calling. You could have just asked for some links instead of assuming I'm making it all up. What kind of discussion is that? I'll leave this thread due to the nasty atmosphere.

seal57

Officials say a 16-year-old boy is “lucky to be alive” and unharmed after flying from California to Hawaii stowed away in a plane’s wheel well, surviving cold temperatures at 38,000 feet and a lack of oxygen.

all the talk of MH370 passengers being knocked/killed out at high altitude, this 16yr old boys story shows what is possible. There is not a shred of reliable data that shows the MH370 plane flew at any high altitude. There is no way the plane flew for hours to the Indian Ocean without some or most of those passengers at least making an attempt to take back plane, unless, there were hijackers with weapons/ guns. Multiple hijackers with weapons could very well keep all passengers in their seats throughout a flight.

Plane is on Land. Hijackers were Stowaways, or weapons were planted on plane prior to flight by baggage worker, Food worker, plane cleaner....

pfurey101

seal57 wrote: »

.................Plane is on Land. Hijackers were Stowaways, or weapons were planted on plane prior to flight by baggage worker, Food worker, plane cleaner....

.........or more than likely it's flight ended in the vicinity of where the experts and professionals are looking now.

pfurey101

seal57 wrote: »

Officials say a 16-year-old boy is “lucky to be alive” and unharmed after flying from California to Hawaii stowed away in a plane’s wheel well, surviving cold temperatures at 38,000 feet and a lack of oxygen.

There is already speculation that he stowed away in the pressurized (and heated) cargo compartment.

bodhi085

seal57 wrote: »

Officials say a 16-year-old boy is “lucky to be alive” and unharmed after flying from California to Hawaii stowed away in a plane’s wheel well, surviving cold temperatures at 38,000 feet and a lack of oxygen.

all the talk of MH370 passengers being knocked/killed out at high altitude, this 16yr old boys story shows what is possible. There is not a shred of reliable data that shows the MH370 plane flew at any high altitude. There is no way the plane flew for hours to the Indian Ocean without some or most of those passengers at least making an attempt to take back plane, unless, there were hijackers with weapons/ guns. Multiple hijackers with weapons could very well keep all passengers in their seats throughout a flight.

Plane is on Land. Hijackers were Stowaways, or weapons were planted on plane prior to flight by baggage worker, Food worker, plane cleaner....

There is not a shred of reliable data that shows the MH370 plane flew at any high altitude but yet it's on land?? I like to beleive anything in this case is possible but anyone beyond the people directly involved in investigating this missing plane knows absolutely nothing.
We can all speculate and come up with countless conspiracies but we are still on day 1 of March 8th 2014.

seal57

bodhi085 wrote: »

There is not a shred of reliable data that shows the MH370 plane flew at any high altitude but yet it's on land?? I like to beleive anything in this case is possible but anyone beyond the people directly involved in investigating this missing plane knows absolutely nothing.
We can all speculate and come up with countless conspiracies but we are still on day 1 of March 8th 2014.

If its not in the water, than its on land. None of it is conspiracy theories, as you say no one knows, other than its missing, so I agree that all scenarios are on the table. The possibility does exist that some authorities/investigators somewhere know more than has been told to the world public.

galwayjohn89

seal57 wrote: »

If its not in the water, than its on land. None of it is conspiracy theories, as you say no one knows, other than its missing, so I agree that all scenarios are on the table. The possibility does exist that some authorities/investigators somewhere know more than has been told to the world public.

I personally believe that the aircraft is in the Indian Ocean but I am open to the possibility that it may be on land although to me that seems far more unlikely, although I am not involved in the investigation and therefore only know what the media have reported. However, you previous post stated that the plane was on land when you could not know that unless you are far more involved in the investigation or event that one would believe.

LordSutch

So there's just one or two days left to search the area where the pingers were last detected, but what happens if they finish scouring the seabed with the bluefin 21 and still find nothing? What do they do next? and why cant they find the plane in the 'pinger' zone?

PS; anyone know what the topography of the seabed is down there west of Perth? is it flat, or is it a bit hilly, or is the seabed full of peaks, mountains and troughs?

ninebeanrows

It is looking like a mystery that will never be solved. Must be horrendous for the family.

Hard to believe not one small piece of the plane cannot be recovered if they have homed in on the correct crash zone.

So it is more than possible the plane is not in this location at all.

Grandeeod

I started out believing what I was being told by the media etc. But now I am open to anything. The evidence of how the plane ended up in the current location is IMHO flakey. Its hard to believe that in 2014 a plane can be lost like this. Amelia, at least had the excuse of a very small plane and feck all technology.

Mountainsandh

LordSutch wrote: »

So there's just one or two days left to search the area where the pingers were last detected, but what happens if they finish scouring the seabed with the bluefin 21 and still find nothing? What do they do next? and why cant they find the plane in the 'pinger' zone?

PS; anyone know what the topography of the seabed is down there west of Perth? is it flat, or is it a bit hilly, or is the seabed full of peaks, mountains and troughs?

I think I read at the start of the searches there that the sea floor was quite flat, better than the previous spot that was being searched, but they expected silt could be a problem.

edit : in this vid the man seems to say "is it just flat bottom, is there rubble" as if it was a given the area was thought to be flat. And it is said images are sharp and clear. http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/tech/2014/04/19/newday-intv-paul-blackwell-gurley-younis-flight-370-search.cnn.html

the_monkey

Extremely frsutrating all right, 2/3 of the area scoured and nothing ... as someone just posted what will they do if (when) they find nothing ?

They can't let it rest ... too much at stake here for Boeing and NTSB, FAA .. etc ...

Mountainsandh

Some posters with aviation knowledge seem to be still keeping an eye on here, could I please ask about the ELTs ? Do all planes have them ? Would this plane have had them for sure ? Would they still transmit if the plane was blown to smithereens ? Say, for example, if one was located on the wing, and the wing was blown to pieces (not fire damage), might it still have some time to switch on and emit something ? Would it withstand such a shock (it is designed for shock, isn't it ?) ?

The quote is from CNN, so of course doubtful of the veracity of info :

Malaysia Airlines has declined to answer CNN's questions on various matters -- including the fact that, according to the source, the missing jet was equipped with four emergency locator transmitters. When triggered by a crash, ELTs are designed to transmit their location to a satellite.

seal57

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Some posters with aviation knowledge seem to be still keeping an eye on here, could I please ask about the ELTs ? Do all planes have them ? Would this plane have had them for sure ? Would they still transmit if the plane was blown to smithereens ? Say, for example, if one was located on the wing, and the wing was blown to pieces (not fire damage), might it still have some time to switch on and emit something ? Would it withstand such a shock (it is designed for shock, isn't it ?) ?

The quote is from CNN, so of course doubtful of the veracity of info :

It was supposedly officially stated last week this plane had 4 ELT's. They would be triggered by a crash or a plane going into the water. A Normal landing should not set them off. Experts say they can fail 30% of the time, but only one would need to work to transmit a fairly exact location to the satellite. These are not black boxes, Basically advanced GPS. but similar to how a service like OnStar would work. the families also have been all over this issue demanding answers on the ELT's, and some have said, their understanding is that none fo the ones on this plane were ever triggered and that is why they have so much doubt as to the plane being in the ocean.

Colser

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Some posters with aviation knowledge seem to be still keeping an eye on here, could I please ask about the ELTs ? Do all planes have them ? Would this plane have had them for sure ? Would they still transmit if the plane was blown to smithereens ? Say, for example, if one was located on the wing, and the wing was blown to pieces (not fire damage), might it still have some time to switch on and emit something ? Would it withstand such a shock (it is designed for shock, isn't it ?) ?

The quote is from CNN, so of course doubtful of the veracity of info :

This is what I think happened but what about the pings? Though I have major doubts about them tbh

Mountainsandh

I let myself be convinced when they started searching in the sea, but my original gut feeling was that it had landed somewhere, so I'm sort of going back to that now.

It's just too suspicious if they don't find any bit of it by the end of this search.

... and I'm of the firm opinion that various countries' statements that they haven't spotted anything in the North arc are not necessarily reliable.

Myanmar (Burma), Bangladesh, Bhutan... how much radar coverage is there in these countries, is it 24 hours coverage, and more to the point, would they be willing to admit that an aircraft may have crossed their airspace without being spotted ?
I'm thinking Myanmar in particular would probably feel very vulnerable admitting something like that.

relaxed

the_monkey wrote: »

Extremely frsutrating all right, 2/3 of the area scoured and nothing ... as someone just posted what will they do if (when) they find nothing ?

They can't let it rest ... too much at stake here for Boeing and NTSB, FAA .. etc ...

I think the Australians are more or less saying that once this ocean floor search is finished that's it for us, we have other things to do with our ships and planes.

Not sure what's at stake either for everybody else, just come out and say the plane is gone, blame the pilot, better put better tracking systems in place in future, and nobody takes the blame.

Everybody will get bored of searching given there is no certainty as to where it crashed, the debris has now floated possibly thousands of miles, probably as well off just waiting and hoping a few pieces get washed up on a beach or pulled up in fishing nets somewhere.

warren44

GekkePrutser wrote: »

Just replying to an older post (3 days) sorry but I only just found this thread.

Just wanted to point out that a jammer is only effective in blocking incoming transmissions. It won't prevent any signal leaving the aircraft.

Also, a wideband jammer with limited power inside the aircraft, which is essentially a Faraday cage, wouldn't be too effective against antennas on the outside. And I'd expect the transceivers themselves to be pretty well shielded.

You are incorrect. Jammers block incoming as well as outgoing signals. It doesnt matter if the antenna is inside or outside, it will disrupt the signals to the point of them being all garbled and become unusable. Even the wires leading to and from the transceivers will act as an antenna and absorb the signal from the frequency jammers even if they are well shielded. Also the aircraft wont act as a faraday cage.

I dont know where you get your information from but I have been an electronics engineer for 20+ years professionally.

The sad fact is no one is going to know what really happened to this plane because the powers that be wont let the public know. Just like the attacks on sept 11, no one will really ever know who was responsible and who was really controlling the planes as well as the military grade thermite that was installed in the twin towers.