Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

kona

sopretty wrote: »

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?

All basic radar does is give a blip, for all they know the blip they are on about is et. The only 100% confirmed position is the secondary radar just off the Vietnam coast.

MadYaker

Tzardine wrote: »

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.

The plane wouldn't be full of gold bars. It broke up when it hit the sea so the gold bars would be spread all over the sea floor. Might get a few more people out looking though.

kona

MadYaker wrote: »

The plane wouldn't be full of gold bars. It broke up when it hit the sea so the gold bars would be spread all over the sea floor. Might get a few more people out looking though.

I doubt it would get off the ground!

Maximus Alexander

kona wrote: »

I doubt it would get off the ground!

What's the maximum takeoff weight? A cargo hold full of gold would weigh about 1200 tons.

Edit: Gross miscalculation.

sopretty

kona wrote: »

All basic radar does is give a blip, for all they know the blip they are on about is et. The only 100% confirmed position is the secondary radar just off the Vietnam coast.

I understand. But have they completely ruled out the notion that the 'blip' detected (apparently by military) was this aircraft? I missed the first part of the press conference. I know they were adamant about the last autonomous transmission from the aircraft, but I missed the beginning of it, so I'm just wondering whether they stated that they had completely ruled out the notion that it may be off the west coast, if you get me?
I don't know did they state, that allegations were proven to be false, or whether the question was indeed asked of them, or whether they said that it was still an issue under investigating?

Tzardine

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

What's the maximum takeoff weight? A cargo hold full of gold would weigh about 10,000 tons.

Of course I was being hypothetical. My point was how fast would the plane be found if there was something of great commercial value within it.

Peppa Pig

Tzardine wrote: »

Of course I was being hypothetical. My point was how fast would the plane be found if there was something of great commercial value within it.

Are you actually being serious? Do you believe for even one second that a rescue operation would be conducted vastly better for cargo than people?

Maximus Alexander

Tzardine wrote: »

Of course I was being hypothetical. My point was how fast would the plane be found if there was something of great commercial value within it.

I just think that's pretty cynical. I honestly think the people involved will be doing everything possible to find it as is.

Think of the financial cost involved in diverting the amount of ships and aircraft that are involved in the search at present, yet it doesn't seem to be an issue.

mariebeth

http://globalnews.ca/news/1202910/oil-rig-worker-saw-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-go-down-report/

Sorry to jump into the

thread but just found this link to a news article claiming that a person working on an oil rig witnessed the plane going down

kona

sopretty wrote: »

I understand. But have they completely ruled out the notion that the 'blip' detected (apparently by military) was this aircraft? I missed the first part of the press conference. I know they were adamant about the last autonomous transmission from the aircraft, but I missed the beginning of it, so I'm just wondering whether they stated that they had completely ruled out the notion that it may be off the west coast, if you get me?
I don't know did they state, that allegations were proven to be false, or whether the question was indeed asked of them, or whether they said that it was still an issue under investigating?

They Havnt ruled it out but, it's not a 100% fact. It's comical they saw a blip on their radar they reckon is big enough to be 777 sized and they don't know what it is 100%. You'd wonder what they do be doing down there.

Tzardine

Peppa Pig wrote: »

Are you actually being serious? Do you believe for even one second that a rescue operation would be conducted vastly better for cargo than people?

No. I guess I should clarify.

I meant there would be a load of private interest in finding the plane. I dont believe any of the conspiracy theories about the plane and the government. I am sure they are doing all they can.

kona

Peppa Pig wrote: »

Are you actually being serious? Do you believe for even one second that a rescue operation would be conducted vastly better for cargo than people?

Well it couldn't be much worse could it!?

A Primal Nut

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.

You did say the OS didn't need to be booted which I found confusing as you won't get a network signal without the OS being up and running.

I read two Malaysian Airlines staff were reduced to tears following questions from relatives about the phones. I know the relatives aren't exactly thinking rationally about the situation but surely they would realise the phones would be out of charge by now which proves they are not really ringing. Would be nice if the authorities clarified why they hear the tone once and for all though.

Feel sorry for the frontline staff. Not knowing anything themselves and yet expected to give answers to grieving families.

Calina

sopretty wrote: »

I understand. But have they completely ruled out the notion that the 'blip' detected (apparently by military) was this aircraft? I missed the first part of the press conference. I know they were adamant about the last autonomous transmission from the aircraft, but I missed the beginning of it, so I'm just wondering whether they stated that they had completely ruled out the notion that it may be off the west coast, if you get me?
I don't know did they state, that allegations were proven to be false, or whether the question was indeed asked of them, or whether they said that it was still an issue under investigating?

As far as I am aware, they are still searching in the Malaccas Straits and in the Andaman Sea. They have not announced that they have stopped searching there.

It has never been 100% clear on what grounds they decided to do so as far as I can see apart from the comments about possible turn backs over the peninsula.

________________

For those of you with a conviction that they should have found the plane by now this may be illustrative regarding the scale of the search problem.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/world/malaysian-air-scale/

_________________

Maximus Alexander

A Primal Nut wrote: »

You did say the OS didn't need to be booted which I found confusing as you won't get a network signal without the OS being up and running.

Apologies, you're absolutely right. There is software that will keep the radio active and allow remote power up when the device is "off", but these usually require the device to be rooted. I'm not aware of any smartphones that allow this out of the box.

andy_g

Right lads with the amount of reported posts alone today over 40 of them in total anymore.

Personal abuse or off topic gets banned and the thread will be closed.

GEO147

Jack1985 wrote: »

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

Yeah that's why I said only 20 of 230 phones. The point I am making is that it is rubbish to suggest or for anyone to believe that there is no 100% certain last known position, that there should be numerous devises on the plane itself and passengers that are locatable, tractable up to last few moments.

I like another poster believe the last known point of contact to be essential in the matter but find it hard to believe there is any confusion regarding same.

GEO147

Gator wrote: »

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?

Yeah it normal now. But even if you weren't allowed there is always a few on a flight that have their phones fully powered on and contented regardless.

I'm certain the mobile phone networks would be able to pin point last known location by cross referencing passengers. I could be wrong. Just the lack of any mention of such an idea felt strange to me.

GEO147

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.

Good point.

Gator

taken from the telegraph...

ABC News are claiming that the US believes the plane crashed into the Indian Ocean.

A senior Pentagon official told ABC News:

We have an indication the plane went down in the Indian Ocean.

The official said there were indications that the plane flew four or five hours after disappearing from radar and that they believe it went into the water.

GEO147

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.

So are our iphone connecting to 4 satellites simultaneously when we use google maps to find a location? I doubt it! But if that tech exists for handsets over cellular network then it will surely work via wifi connection on a plane which would be similar.

Maximus Alexander

GEO147 wrote: »

So are our iphone connecting to 4 satellites simultaneously when we use google maps to find a location? I doubt it! But if that tech exists for handsets over cellular network then it will surely work via wifi connection on a plane which would be similar.

Doubt it all you like, but yes, that is how GPS works.

If the GPS receiver is only able to get signals from 3 satellites, you can still get your position, but it will be less accurate. As we noted above, the GPS receiver needs 4 satellites to work out your position in 3-dimensions. If only 3 satellites are available, the GPS receiver can get an approximate position by making the assumption that you are at mean sea level.

Alternatively, your smartphone may use triangulation from the network cell towers to get your location if GPS is disabled.

GPS, WiFi and cellular networks are all entirely different technologies and conflating them to make wild assumptions does not make any sense.

GEO147

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Doubt it all you like, but yes, that is how GPS works.



Alternatively, your smartphone may use triangulation from the network cell towers to get your location if GPS is disabled.

GPS, WiFi and cellular networks are all entirely different technologies and conflating them to make wild assumptions does not make any sense.

Yeah id say its the network towers when on land. Anyway like I said just hadn't seen it discussed and felt it worth mentioning. And by the way what I am saying isn't half as wild as some of the crap being discussed in here.

Iwannahurl

Gator wrote: »

taken from the telegraph...

ABC News are claiming that the US believes the plane crashed into the Indian Ocean.

A senior Pentagon official told ABC News:

We have an indication the plane went down in the Indian Ocean.

The official said there were indications that the plane flew four or five hours after disappearing from radar and that they believe it went into the water.

The USS Kidd (DDG-100) is being sent somewhere in the Indian Ocean to start a search there: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/13/us-orders-uss-kidd-indian-ocean-search-malaysia-pl/

Presumably they would commit that level of resources only if they had a reasonable lead.

Mumha

ectoraige wrote: »

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.

Yes on the ground appears to be the biggest reason, and it's most unusual to switch it off in the air according to the experts. I came across this on CNN,

One reason could be when airplanes get close to each other (perhaps they are approaching an airport). Air traffic controllers may then request pilots to turn the transponders off or to standby. Also, if the transponder is sending faulty information, the pilot might want to turn it off. Planes are still visible on primary radar until they get below the radar's coverage ability.

So that's fair enough, but if I can listen to my local radio station in Ireland while 30,000 feet in an airplane over Pakistan, it is simply insane to suggest that they can't come up with a relatively cheap, simple device that does nothing more than send a signal containing aircraft serial number, date timestamp and location, back to base, every few minutes, when in the air. And for that to be completely separate from the rest of the aircraft system.

Mec-a-nic

GEO147 wrote: »

So are our iphone connecting to 4 satellites simultaneously when we use google maps to find a location? I doubt it!

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Doubt it all you like, but yes, that is how GPS works.

Hmmm... some technical clarification required here: GPS devices only listen for time-signals sent from from GPS satellites, there is no 'connection' i.e two-way communication, between phone and space that would allow 3rd party logging or tracking. Local data networks are used in tandem with this info to increase speed/accuracy (see aGPS) of the location calculations and of course to pull the map data from Google's servers.

Getting back to the missing plane - whatever the conflicting stories, the complete silence from the hundreds of mobile phones is telling, this plane did not come down on inhabited land. Even 9/11 passengers were able to make calls (and I know they used analogue cell phones and were over US territory, but still).

sopretty

Facebook could locate me quicker than this craic! Baffling!

Woofstuff

Mumha wrote: »

So that's fair enough, but if I can listen to my local radio station in Ireland while 30,000 feet in an airplane over Pakistan, it is simply insane to suggest that they can't come up with a relatively cheap, simple device that does nothing more than send a signal containing aircraft serial number, date timestamp and location, back to base, every few minutes, when in the air. And for that to be completely separate from the rest of the aircraft system.

Sounds like a simple idea. What airline was this you were listening to Irish radio over Pakistan? Using the TuneInRadio App was it?

Not all airlines have onboard wifi? And does it work all the time even so?

testicle

http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/malaysiaairsar2014/map/62724

I assume that's a boat or something?

expectationlost

is there a map how far could hte plane have in any direction, with times



U.S. Pentagon tells Sky News that navy ship U.S.S. Kidd is on its way to Straits of Malacca