Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

Kavs8

Good image of the so far tracked information of the believed crash site location

EI-DOR

There is a good discussion about this over on PPRUNE,

Yea and about 200 posts deleted already!

Tigerandahalf

If the Vietnamese navy are saying that the plane's emergency responder (when plane makes impact with water) made contact 153 miles out to sea, surely it can't be too hard to find. 153 miles is not far off the mainland.

knucklehead6

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

If the Vietnamese navy are saying that the plane's emergency responder (when plane makes impact with water) made contact 153 miles out to sea, surely it can't be too hard to find. 153 miles is not far off the mainland.

It's not floating on the surface. Maybe the Vietnemese Navy doesn't have any ROV's capable of retrieving it.

Kavs8

New information that apparently there is a rusty rig leaking oil into the ocean in this area for over two weeks now, if this is correct they could be searching the totally wrong area.

brandon_flowers

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

If the Vietnamese navy are saying that the plane's emergency responder (when plane makes impact with water) made contact 153 miles out to sea, surely it can't be too hard to find. 153 miles is not far off the mainland.

You would be surprised how hard it is to find stuff a mile offshore.

Tigerandahalf

This is becoming a bit of a farce. Over 24 hours since the plane disappeared and they can't even pinpoint its crash location. There seems to be a lot of confusion out there what with different air territories and whose responsibility it was to track the plane.

BorneTobyWilde

If it was a 6 hour flight to Beijing how come it traveled so little. Two hours into flight it was barely out of Malaysia. If it did indeed fly for two hours I'd put it much further along it's route .

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/AI-CH154C_MALFL_G_20140308010006.jpg

owenc

It didn't fly for two hours...

fr336

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

If it was a 6 hour flight to Beijing how come it traveled so little. Two hours into flight it was barely out of Malaysia. If it did indeed fly for two hours I'd put it much further along it's route .

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/AI-CH154C_MALFL_G_20140308010006.jpg

What are you thinking?

BorneTobyWilde

Surely it should be a third of the way there, not 1-20th of the way?
What am I missing/

MadYaker

Does the black box not emit some sort of signal that can be tracked?

Bsal

If it was in the air for around 2hrs it should be 900-1000nm NE of Kuala Lumpur.

Kavs8

The flight was airborne for less than 40 minutes.

BorneTobyWilde

Kavs8 wrote: »

The flight was airborne for less than 40 minutes.

That I did not know, why is everyone reporting lost contact 2 hours into flight.

knucklehead6

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

This is becoming a bit of a farce. Over 24 hours since the plane disappeared and they can't even pinpoint its crash location. There seems to be a lot of confusion out there what with different air territories and whose responsibility it was to track the plane.

I'm glad you weren't here during the AF447 incident.

Kavs8

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

That I did not know, why is everyone reporting lost contact 2 hours into flight.

Initial wrong information the media continues to broadcast for some reason

Does the black box not emit some sort of signal that can be tracked?

All aircraft carry an ELT (Emergency Locator Transmitter) for some reason we have had little information to say it has broadcast, if it had and as the aircraft is in shallow waters it should have been pretty quickly identified but without confirmation we are clueless to its status really.

Tigerandahalf

It seems the authorities are not giving a lot of information out, perhaps because they simply don't know. What we do seem to know is that the plane crashed and its emergency locator transmitter gave a signal that it was 150 miles off the coast of Vietnam.
Where is this emergency locator transmitter (ELT) in the body of the plane?
Could it have become detached from the plane if a part of the plane broke off. This could then give a false location reading on the plane's crash site position.

Tigerandahalf

knucklehead6 wrote: »

I'm glad you weren't here during the AF447 incident.

Don't be so smug. That plane crashed in very deep water and it was understandable that it took some time to retrieve the wreckage.

Kavs8

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Don't be so smug. That plane crashed in very deep water and it was understandable that it took some time to retrieve the wreckage.

Ah now, I fail to see how he was being smug, he correctly refers to the weeks of no information from AF447.

lomb

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

It seems the authorities are not giving a lot of information out, perhaps because they simply don't know. What we do seem to know is that the plane crashed and its emergency locator transmitter gave a signal that it was 150 miles off the coast of Vietnam.
Where is this emergency locator transmitter (ELT) in the body of the plane?
Could it have become detached from the plane if a part of the plane broke off. This could then give a false location reading on the plane's crash site position.

ELT is in the tail as its the last to sink and usually survives best in the event of a crash. If they have the ELT beacon transmitting locating the aircraft wont be a problem but it may have just beeped for a while before it sunk with the tail.

Reoil

Look, we can speculate, but please don't let this thread descend into a situation where it needs to be closed by a mod.

Tigerandahalf

lomb wrote: »

ELT is in the tail as its the last to sink and usually survives best in the event of a crash. If they have the ELT beacon transmitting locating the aircraft wont be a problem but it may have just beeped for a while before it sunk with the tail.

So if the tail of the plane broke off it is possible that an incorrect crash location could have been given. Would the plane fly for long in that situation?

Kavs8

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

So if the tail of the plane broke off it is possible that an incorrect crash location could have been given. Would the plane fly for long in that situation?

No, take a look at AAL587 which suffered a tail break-off circa '01.

Peregrine

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

So if the tail of the plane broke off it is possible that an incorrect crash location could have been given. Would the plane fly for long in that situation?

I don't understand. Are you asking if a plane would fly without a tail?

sopretty

If a tail broke off a plane, surely a pilot would receive some sort of warning and send a may day call out?

lomb

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

So if the tail of the plane broke off it is possible that an incorrect crash location could have been given. Would the plane fly for long in that situation?

I wouldn't say so probably plunge nose down as the tail provides a force directed downwards and without that the plane would pitch nose down, speed would increase past structural speed then it would come apart.

Grandeeod

Kavs8 wrote: »

Ah now, I fail to see how he was being smug, he correctly refers to the weeks of no information from AF447.

Its not a like with like comparison. AF447 crashed in an area with no radar coverage and the search area was 17,000 sq km.

Kavs8

sopretty wrote: »

If a tail broke off a plane, surely a pilot would receive some sort of warning and send a may day call out?

Absolutely not, the only warning is the plane would spiral out of all control and a crash would be inevitable, think about it if say that had happened the aircraft would suddenly go from a cruise situation at 35,000ft to spiraling towards the ocean, it would have been over very quickly and any pilot would to the very end focus on trying to recover the aircraft. ATC although useful could do nothing in that situation but distract your attention away from recovery.

Its not a like with like comparison. AF447 crashed in an area with no radar coverage and the search area was 17,000 sq km.

Yes but alike AF447 we have no concrete information and an aircraft missing at sea, even with radar coverage there is no information.

Tigerandahalf

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

I don't understand. Are you asking if a plane would fly without a tail?

Could it not glide for a certain period with its main wings intact as long as the fuselage wasn't pierced?