Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

CaptainSkidmark

You cant locate a iphone if its on flight mode.

LuckyLloyd

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

I like this quote from a professor of Media at the LSE

"This is an horrific but fascinating story and a massive challenge to the intelligence of contemporary journalism."

Rings very true given what we are seeing in the press

We don't live in an era of subject matter specialist reporters on the ground with a well developed network of sources working to produce a couple of features a week and detailed daily reporting for a key event as it happens.

The WSJ, Mirror, New York Times, Sun, etc (i.e. everyone from rag to highly respected broadsheet) is pulling their basic information from the AP and Reuters wires. This means the bulk of blow by blow reporting regurgitated on Sky and in the dailies is a mixture of official press conference / statement transcripts; minimal quickfire reporting from wire agency reporters on the ground providing copy for this amongst 10 other things on a daily basis; cheap speculation and rumour from 'experts' available for a cheap quote or TV appearance.

The WSJ guy was obviously sold the ACARs rumour from a source but probably has lost the ability to verify a tip; put the squeeze on key officials to smell out the veracity of it due to the nature of his weekly expectations and work schedule. The stylised movie version of what a journalist should be as expressed in the likes of All the President's Men or The Insider doesn't exist anymore. And it's a shame, because if there was a freelance investigative journalist with the time to get over there and do his own digging and check what he finds against a well developed network of inside sources we could start getting some good periodic copy on how competent the investigation has been and what the hard facts are.

Instead we have 24hours of useless dribbling speculation and repackaged official statements...on the hour.

Mumha

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

- Mobile devices are supposed to be either off / in aeroplane mode during flight. Passengers probably aren't in a hurry to switch them on in the middle of a disaster.

- They're probably not going to survive impact, and certainly won't survive being submerged in water.

- They are very unlikely to have a network connection.

Even if you put the mobile device to one side, surely an airplane could have a standalone device, perhaps independently powered or with battery backup, which does nothing else than send back location information to the airline. And this device cannot be switched off when in the air. 8 years ago, when flying back from Singapore to London, I was listening to Irish Radio on my laptop, through the aircraft's wifi, while we were flying over India & Pakistan etc.

Jack1985

Wouldn't most phones in Asia be Samsung, have read Apple have a lot of difficult especially China with upholding patents.

Mumha

Jack1985 wrote: »

Wouldn't most phones in Asia be Samsung, have read Apple have a lot of difficult especially China with upholding patents.

But what if all the passengers were unconscious (at least I hope they were) as the plane hurtled towards the sea ?

I can understand the need for a transponder to be switched off by the pilot, but if RR engines can independently send back data, then another basic system to always send back location info, should be a mandatory requirement in all passenger airplanes.

Jack1985

should be a mandatory requirement in all passenger airplanes.

Indeed as pointed out way back in the thread, its probably down to cost.

donalh087

Of course you are right Mumha, they can send back photographs from Mars ffs. I'd imagine one of the outcomes of this disaster will be a 'live' tracking of all passenger aircraft.

wil

Seems we've bypassed "unknown unknowns" and moved in to an all new category "misknowns"

All 3 varieties - known:eek:, unknown and misknown misknowns:o

brandon_flowers wrote: »

....
Back on topic... I can't see anything concrete in this RR engine data story yet. And for some of the other stuff it just seems like people are making stuff up and then fitting it around the story.

kona wrote: »

I wouldn't believe a thing until the NTSB make a statement or release new info. Just like this thread and no disrespect to anybody but the people with the relative qualifications are keeping quiet.
Everything else is descending into a circuis. its already a very embarrassing incident for aviation from all angles.

Don't forget that there could be a unknown fault that brought down this 777, there could be a major issue that could affect the entire fleet.

pfurey101 wrote: »

And the reason why the people with the relative qualifications are keeping quite is because we all learn from day 1 on the job, that an incident speculation is irrelevant and in most cases harmful to those relatives left behind and to those work colleagues associated with the incident.

No one ever knows what happens until determined by the relevant authorities.

FWIW I worked 31 years in aviation maintenance.

Jack1985 wrote: »

Have to say after the press conf today, the transport minster came across definitely at his best, even though we are absolutely none the wiser as to what has taken place, both WSJ reporters are no where to be seen, one of them signed off, "night all signing off for some wrest" - I get the impression he might not enjoy waking up to the sh*t storm they created. There source, I'd love to know who it was - first time I've come across the WSJ being sucked into (and quite deeply!!) the realm of speculation.

It's basically nearly night fall in Malaysia now, so it'll be a seventh day now tomorrow with probably no information, I will agree with one thing, unprecedented is an understatement to describe this.

At this level of perceived farce, it's not even possible to know who may or may not be in control of the situation or information.
It is almost a cold war situation where at this point we are not even sure who the stakeholders are. It may not be the usual respects.

There may be huge political, cultural, territorial, economic, business and personal (to name just a few) issues all conflicting to create a huge mess, or some of it may be construed. Who is to know that there isn't some hostage situation ongoing, a cover up of a military incident/ internal corruption, any manner of wild yet still possible scenarios.
Simple incompetence can't even be ruled out, but this is becoming a perfect storm.

I suspect this is already becoming a game-changing moment in aviation and regardless if ever anything becomes clear, there is much to learn from it.

GEO147

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

- Mobile devices are supposed to be either off / in aeroplane mode during flight. Passengers probably aren't in a hurry to switch them on in the middle of a disaster.

- They're probably not going to survive impact, and certainly won't survive being submerged in water.

- They are very unlikely to have a network connection.

Phones don't need to be powered on to be tracked. I thought that was common knowledge.

basill

A number of posters seem to be jumping on the ACARS and engine data transmittal bandwagon. You need to realise that most of these products are customer options. They are generally produced by third party suppliers. Even within the same fleet it is not uncommon to find aircraft that have different kit and software standards.

Even if you take up the option to install the kit it is configurable to your own airlines standards and requirements. You get to specify what, when and how much data will be transmitted. I havent seen anything specific from Malaysian Airlines which says what they have on that particular 777. Hence the conspiracy theories surrounding cover ups and withholding of vital information could all be poppy cock if the data wasnt able to be sent in the first place.

Maximus Alexander

Jack1985 wrote: »

Wouldn't most phones in Asia be Samsung, have read Apple have a lot of difficult especially China with upholding patents.

Samsung, HTC and most other major manufacturers also offer a "find my smartphone" service. Though, as I'm sure you're aware, it wouldn't make much difference. The device needs to be intact, powered on and have a network connection.

sopretty

GEO147 wrote: »

Phones don't need to be powered on to be tracked. I thought that was common knowledge.

I downloaded that app onto my iphone but then it garbled on about how I needed to go here there or anywhere to somehow register it, with another device, so I went back to Candy Crush.
It might be common knowledge, but a few of us, eh, missed the day common sense and an attention span - beyond that of a goldfish was being handed out. :pac:

Maximus Alexander

GEO147 wrote: »

Phones don't need to be powered on to be tracked. I thought that was common knowledge.

They require a network connection, which means certainly means being intact, functioning and powered, though not necessarily "powered on" in the sense of the OS being booted and the UI being available.

ectoraige

Mumha wrote: »

But what if all the passengers were unconscious (at least I hope they were) as the plane hurtled towards the sea ?

I can understand the need for a transponder to be switched off by the pilot, but if RR engines can independently send back data, then another basic system to always send back location info, should be a mandatory requirement in all passenger airplanes.

I've always wondered why the option to turn off the transponder mid-flight existed. I understand the need once they are on the ground, but is there any valid reason to allow the pilot to turn them off in the air?

Assuming that the cost is the main reason not to have another always-on transmitter, surely reconfiguring the controls to prevent them being turned off mid-air would be a palatable compromise.

Of course, this still won't cover when airlines are out of radar coverage, but at least it can give the ATC a better grasp of what is going on. At present the transponder signal disappearing is an indicator of either foul-play, electrical fault, or loss of craft. By removing the ability to turn it off mid-air it would at least narrow it down to electrical/loss.

Gator

I flew with Emirates last month and they allowed us to turn on our phones and ipads once were in flight, not just flight mode but the actual phone itself.

Anybody know if MA do the same?

Maximus Alexander

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

They require a network connection, which means certainly means being intact, functioning and powered, though not necessarily "powered on" in the sense of the OS being booted and the UI being available.

would any body here know if, being in the first class or business class section of the aircraft, would make any difference to these phones ringing or not?


the following is Malaysia Airs blurb for Business Class facilties. I just wondered would they have more capabilites than those in Cattle Class?


'Communicate with loved ones or workmates via calls or text messages using your seat entertainment controller that also works as an air-to-ground phone. You can even send and receive emails mid-flight.'

http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/my/en/mh-experience/business-class.html

Maximus Alexander

Jake1 wrote: »

would any body here know if, being in the first class or business class section of the aircraft, would make any difference to these phones ringing or not?


the following is Malaysia Airs blurb for Business Class facilties. I just wondered would they have more capabilites than those in Cattle Class?


'Communicate with loved ones or workmates via calls or text messages using your seat entertainment controller that also works as an air-to-ground phone. You can even send and receive emails mid-flight.'

http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/my/en/mh-experience/business-class.html

Some airlines offer WiFi now, so I am guessing (I'm sure someone who knows better will confirm) that's what they're alluding to. That still won't be much help if the plane crashed though, and people underestimate how much of the Earth is not covered by mobile networks. I think the 'track their phones' angle is a total dead end.

Maximus Alexander

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Some airlines offer WiFi now, so I am guessing (I'm sure someone who knows better will confirm) that's what they're alluding to. That still won't be much help if the plane crashed though, and people underestimate how much of the Earth is not covered by mobile networks. I think the 'track their phones' angle is a total dead end.

Thanks for that, I wasnt sure if they would have had an advantage in that regard or not. Cheers

Maximus Alexander

Actually here is a fantastic visualization of cell coverage in the area.

Basically, it shows the plane would have to have come down on or near land in a populated area for any surviving mobile device to be traceable. If that were the case, you'd expect the plane to have been found at this stage regardless.

jasonb

I've been following this since Day 1 and have even managed to keep up with and read all 54 pages of this thread...

Obviously, due to a lack of information, we're all really just guessing, though some guesses are more educated than others. What really strikes me as unique about this incident, compared to others (like AF447 for example), isn't what actually happened to the aircraft (though obviously that might turn out to be unique when we finally learn its fate). What strikes me as unique is the level of confusion / incompetence during the aftermath of the incident.

Obviously, some of it is probably down to the fact that the incident happened close to several countries, so that will lead to confusion. And some of it is down to an unusual (to us) culture where things are 'done differently'. But, from what I've seen / heard of the press conferences etc., there really does seem to be a lot of incompetence going around as well. The sheer number of 'unconfirmed' reports that then eventually get 'kinda' refuted by officials is staggering. Nearly everything we've heard, apart from the very basic facts, has been unconfirmed, and a lot of it has either been made up, or misunderstood by some 'low level official', who talks to the press, and then days later they finally officially get around to saying 'no, that's not true'.

The Airline Industry has a great track record of learning from incidents, and of improving aircraft and flight systems to ensure it doesn't happen again. Hopefully they, and perhaps more importantly the Governments / Regulatory bodies, can also learn from this incident in terms of how *not* to handle an event like this. It's not completely unusual for it to take this long to find wreckage at sea. It is unusual for the supposed people in charge of the investigation to fill that time with rumours, conjecture, claim and counter-claim etc. The stress and pain all of this is putting on the families must be terrible. But imagine a scenario where there was actually some survivors somehow (though I do doubt it). Imagine what would happen to the survivors over the last week while the investigation flounders from one farce to another, instead of actually doing its best to find them.

J.

kona

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Some airlines offer WiFi now, so I am guessing (I'm sure someone who knows better will confirm) that's what they're alluding to. That still won't be much help if the plane crashed though, and people underestimate how much of the Earth is not covered by mobile networks. I think the 'track their phones' angle is a total dead end.

Well if it has wifi it would have to communicate with a satellite. It's controlled by the Ife and needs the inertial reference system to be on. You could probably tell the location the satellite last had communication with it.

dodzy

Mumha wrote: »

I can understand the need for a transponder to be switched off by the pilot

Not being a smart arse here Mumha, but what situation would warrant this for a plane in flight ? Just curious.

GEO147 wrote: »

Phones don't need to be powered on to be tracked. I thought that was common knowledge.

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

They require a network connection, which means certainly means being intact, functioning and powered, though not necessarily "powered on" in the sense of the OS being booted and the UI being available.

A phone is either powered on or its not, irrespective of standby / screen off for power conservation( which would be classed as on )

If its off, then it cannot be traced. If its on and in FLIGHT mode, then it cannot be traced.

Maximus Alexander

kona wrote: »

Well if it has wifi it would have to communicate with a satellite. It's controlled by the Ife and needs the inertial reference system to be on. You could probably tell the location the satellite last had communication with it.

I don't really know anything about communications satellites, but based on the complexity of the GPS system which requires 4 satellites to give an accurate location, and can tell you next to nothing with one satellite, would a communications satellite really be able to provide any worthwhile location information? I would have thought it would only narrow it down to about a third of the earth's surface.

Maximus Alexander

dodzy wrote: »

A phone is either powered on or its not, irrespective of standby / screen off for power conservation( which would be classed as on )

If its off, then it cannot be traced. If its on and in FLIGHT mode, then it cannot be traced.

Yes I know, I basically said exactly that and certainly didn't contradict it. I don't really know what the confusion is about.

dodzy

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Yes I know, I basically said exactly that and certainly didn't contradict it. I don't really know what the confusion is about.

Apologies Max, yeah, your post reads right. Maybe the other one had me flumuxed:o

L1011

GEO147 wrote: »

Phones don't need to be powered on to be tracked. I thought that was common knowledge.

Common ignorance on your part more like - they do need to have power and a network connection.

kona

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I don't really know anything about communications satellites, but based on the complexity of the GPS system which requires 4 satellites to give an accurate location, and can tell you next to nothing with one satellite, would a communications satellite really be able to provide any worthwhile location information? I would have thought it would only narrow it down to about a third of the earth's surface.

Well I'd say they could tell when it disconnected from the system you could cross check this with the secondary radar info. A few simple calculations could tell them if it adds up with where they are searching.

I'd say that the strength of the signal would be known and some other data , you could probably extrapolate the direction and time spent connected at least. May help narrow the search area at least of point them in the right direction.

Thrill

dodzy wrote: »

Not being a smart arse here Mumha, but what situation would warrant this for a plane in flight ? Just curious.

Here's a reason

All electronic equipment on an airplane can be turned off by pilots, including the transponder. This is a safety feature, so a device that short-circuits or overheats or otherwise malfunctions can be shut down before it does further harm.

sopretty

Can anyone clarify, from the most recent press conference, whether they confirmed that the rumour of sightings of the aircraft to the west of the land mass, reportedly picked up by basic sonar radar was completely untrue?

Tzardine

We were talking in the office about this today. I was wondering how long it would take to find the plane if the cargo hold was full of gold bars. I bet it would have been found and recovered by now.

Not wishing to make light of the situation though, it is of course a tragedy whatever has happened.