Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

Bussywussy

what was never switched off was the IFE Cell modem which was transmitting data back to panasonic HQ every so often.

rrpc

Bussywussy wrote: »

what was never switched off was the IFE Cell modem which was transmitting data back to panasonic HQ every so often.

Is that in any way significant? In other words, was it just 'handshaking' with the mother ship or was it transmitting any flight data?

Bussywussy

their system was Off-loading bite data but whats significant is that it was powered for hours after last official contact

rrpc

Bussywussy wrote: »

their system was Off-loading bite data but whats significant is that it was powered for hours after last official contact

It seems that the IFE connects through the same SATCOM that was handshaking with the satellites and provided INMARSAT with the data to detect the possible flight path.

From the safety investigation report:

0019:29
- SATCOM Log-On, initiated from the aircraft terminal. This is the seventh ‘handshake’.
0019:37
- SATCOM Log-On, successfully completed
a. The SATCOM link becomes available (for voice and data – Class 3) once more and normal SATCOM operation resumes.
b. No Flight ID was sent to the GES during the Log-On.
c. The GES recorded an abnormal frequency offset for the SATCOM Log-On Request and Acknowledge transmissions.
d. The IFE did not subsequently establish the two Data-3 X.25 connections over the SATCOM.
e. Note that this is the last transmission received from the aircraft terminal.

weisses

Confirmed Debris is from MH370

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-31/part-number-confirms-debris-is-from-boeing-777-official-says/6664696

JCX BXC

I can't think of a possibility where this isn't MH370's part. Only 1 777 has not been accounted for, therefore providing its a 777 part (which is likely is), then we have confirmation that the plane crashed?

If by some minuscule chance the plane landed in some remote and unchartered island, could this part have been thrown into the sea as bait and the serial number ripped off?

Also, how does this suitcase found by the same man fit into the equation? How do they both end up exactly beside eachother?

mickmackey1

It does seem surprising that the only piece of wreckage just happens to have a handy identification number

SteelyDanJalapeno

weisses wrote: »

Confirmed Debris is from MH370

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-31/part-number-confirms-debris-is-from-boeing-777-official-says/6664696

That article doesn't say confirmed anywhere?

nonsense post

h3000

mickmackey1 wrote: »

It does seem surprising that the only piece of wreckage just happens to have a handy identification number

Every structural part of the plane will have an identifying serial number.

weisses

TiltedBrain wrote: »

That article doesn't say confirmed anywhere?

nonsense post

A part number on a piece of aircraft wreckage found in the Indian Ocean confirms the object is from a Boeing 777, a Malaysian transport official has said.

"From the part number, it is confirmed that it is from a Boeing 777 aircraft. This information is from MAS (Malaysia Airlines). They have informed me," deputy transport minister Abdul Aziz Kaprawi said.

Is there anything you don't understand from what is quoted ?

rrpc

mickmackey1 wrote: »

It does seem surprising that the only piece of wreckage just happens to have a handy identification number

Strangely you'll find that your car is also festooned with part numbers. Right down to the light bulbs.

I can imagine the conversation between the maintenance guy and the Boeing factory as he tries to get a new flaperon for his 777:

MG: "Hi there, I'm looking for a part for a 777"
B: "What year is she?"
MG: "She's late 2007, September I think"
B: "Have you the reg number for it"
MG: "Hold on a sec and I'll just run around the side and see"
B: "Don't worry about that, have you the part number?"
MG: "Well I've got the bit on the bench in front of me, where's the part number?"
B: "We don't put part numbers on stuff like that, can you describe it?"
MG: Well it's quite big, about 3 metres by 1 metre and about 200mm thick at the thickest part"
etc. etc.

pfurey101

mickmackey1 wrote: »

It does seem surprising that the only piece of wreckage just happens to have a handy identification number

I worked in aircraft maintenance for 30 years. The parts catalogues are volumes/tapes/CDs long. Every part has a part number and most of the larger parts that need to tracked, including all components that can be removed/repaired/refitted have serial numbers.

Even most standard aviation bolts have partial part numbers identifying material spec/width/diameter/thread size.

I'd even say there were part numbers on the various bits and pieces that made up this structure. So plenty of part numbers to choose from.

It is even possible that the part numbers were applicable to a small range of B777's rather than all B777's.

ElNino

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltedBrain View Post
That article doesn't say confirmed anywhere?

nonsense post

Quote:
A part number on a piece of aircraft wreckage found in the Indian Ocean confirms the object is from a Boeing 777, a Malaysian transport official has said.

"From the part number, it is confirmed that it is from a Boeing 777 aircraft. This information is from MAS (Malaysia Airlines). They have informed me," deputy transport minister Abdul Aziz Kaprawi said.
Is there anything you don't understand from what is quoted ?

Nowhere in that article does is say that the part is from MH370 as your post stated. The article merely states that the part is from a Boeing 777. In all likelihood the tests in France tomorrow will confirm the part as being from MH370 but you are being premature.

Cookiemunster

ElNino wrote: »

Nowhere in that article does is say that the part is from MH370 as your post stated. The article merely states that the part is from a Boeing 777. In all likelihood the tests in France tomorrow will confirm the part as being from MH370 but you are being premature.

If the part is confirmed from a 777 could you point out what other 777 it could possibly be from other than MH370?

weisses

ElNino wrote: »

Nowhere in that article does is say that the part is from MH370 as your post stated. The article merely states that the part is from a Boeing 777. In all likelihood the tests in France tomorrow will confirm the part as being from MH370 but you are being premature.

But it is also known that no 777's are missing in that area so it could only be from that plane right ?

As cookie said

knucklehead6

The part is confirmed as from A Boeing 777 but not confirmed as from MH370

Admitedly, on the balance of evidence it is 99.9999999999999999% from MH370, but it's still possible that it's not

knucklehead6

weisses wrote: »

Confirmed Debris is from MH370

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-31/part-number-confirms-debris-is-from-boeing-777-official-says/6664696

TiltedBrain wrote: »

That article doesn't say confirmed anywhere?

nonsense post

weisses wrote: »

Is there anything you don't understand from what is quoted ?

Cookiemunster wrote: »

If the part is confirmed from a 777 could you point out what other 777 it could possibly be from other than MH370?

Just because something appears plausible doesn't make it fact


http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/us-navy-jet-tail-fin-washes-up-on-irish-shores-2683.html


edit Personally speaking i thing it IS from 370, but until it's confirmed, we can't say.

ectoraige

weisses wrote: »

But it is also known that no 777's are missing in that area so it could only be from that plane right ?

As cookie said

When MH17 was shot down, a flock of migrating European swallows could have grabbed hold of the flaperon and brought it as far as the Indian ocean before dropping it.

Or is MH17 still MH370, I'm a bit behind on my conspiracy theories?

Reoil

Since it's intact, you'd have to rule out a certain degree of high-speed vertical impact?

martinsvi

Cookiemunster wrote: »

If the part is confirmed from a 777 could you point out what other 777 it could possibly be from other than MH370?

some people say that boeing 777 flaperons are made in India - they transport them by air, but Boeing quality team ship back faulty or damaged ones back to India by sea.. so although all other 777 hull-losses have been accounted for, a remote possibility exists that at some point a faulty flaperon on it's way back from Seattle has gone overboard a ship..

not that I believe this version, it's just one of those things to keep in mind - you never know till you know

rrpc

weisses wrote: »

But it is also known that no 777's are missing in that area so it could only be from that plane right ?

As cookie said

Not even in that area, in the whole world! (Try saying that in a Jeremy Clarkson voice)

I think I posted earlier in this thread about there being only five ever hull losses from Boeing 777s. They are:

MH17 9M-MRD: Shot down over the Ukraine, 298 fatalities
BA G-YMMM: Heathrow airport - crash landed, no fatalities
EgyptAir SU-GBP: Cairo International - cockpit fire, no fatalities
Asiana HL7742: San Francisco - crash landed, 3 fatalities
MH370 9M-MRO: Indian Ocean - presumed lost, 239 fatalities

The only one unaccounted for is MH370.

SteelyDanJalapeno

weisses wrote: »

Is there anything you don't understand from what is quoted ?

Nope everything quoted looks good.

You said it's confirmed to be from MH370, have you got that quote?

weisses

ectoraige wrote: »

When MH17 was shot down, a flock of migrating European swallows could have grabbed hold of the flaperon and brought it as far as the Indian ocean before dropping it.

Or is MH17 still MH370, I'm a bit behind on my conspiracy theories?

It was the african coockoo

Keep up

weisses

TiltedBrain wrote: »

Nope everything quoted looks good.

You said it's confirmed to be from MH370, have you got that quote?

It can only be from MH370 if its from a 777

Unless you want to be utterly pedantic then of-course not

SteelyDanJalapeno

weisses wrote: »

It can only be from MH370 if its from a 777

Unless you want to be utterly pedantic then of-course not

Shock horror, imagine being pedantic about facts

Edit, I am just being pedantic, just dont like jumping to conclusions.

martinsvi

weisses wrote: »

It can only be from MH370 if its from a 777

you can't make that kind of assumption, it might as well come from a cargo ship or flooded warehouse... you see a part and you instantly assume it's from a plane, forgetting that parts might live lives on their own before or after they've been a part of a plane

skallywag

Cookiemunster wrote: »

If the part is confirmed from a 777 could you point out what other 777 it could possibly be from other than MH370?

Easy. Putin dropped a 777 Flaperon over the side of his yacht during his last Indian Ocean cruise in order to deflect from the fact that the plane is currently sitting on a landing strip in Siberia :rolleyes:

_Tombstone_

It doesn't arrive iin France till tomorrow, probably next week before we'll know if its off MH.

rrpc

martinsvi wrote: »

you can't make that kind of assumption, it might as well come from a cargo ship or flooded warehouse... you see a part and you instantly assume it's from a plane, forgetting that parts might live lives on their own before or after they've been a part of a plane

And if parts were lost, there would be a record of it. So far we haven't heard a peep from Boeing about this being a possibility. It's not as though they don't know that the part has been found and that National government representatives are saying it's off MH370.

I can see another telephone conversation ensuing:

B: "Hello, could I speak to the Malaysian official who said that the part found was off MH370"
MO: "Hello, is that Boeing?"
B: "Yes, about that statement you made about the part that was found..."
MO: "Yes, what about it?"
B: "Ehh, well... y'see... We might have lost a few of them flaperon thingummies out there in the Indian Ocean..."
MO: "WTF!"
B: "Well y'know how it is, we've bits going backwards and forwards all the time to India and sometimes, y'know, they fall off the back of the ship/aeroplane/truck and get a bit wet y'see"
MO: "Why didn't you say anything?"
B: "Well it's a bit embarrassing, to admit that we can't keep track of our stuff, but you know these courier chappies, they're a bit careless like..."

etc. etc.

_Tombstone_

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/31/world/mh370-debris-investigation/

Good link, except for the usual 10 seconds of Fame experts that are experts in F...not alot.