Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

Bill G · 24-03-2014 06:42PM

Happyman42 wrote: »

No it isn't. I'm talking about technology that is independent of the pilot and can't be simply switched off.

So it can malfunction and cause a fire and the pilot can't remove power to it? Great idea.

sopretty · 24-03-2014 06:50PM

Bill G wrote: »

So it can malfunction and cause a fire and the pilot can't remove power to it? Great idea.

Bill, can you comment on my earlier post and let me know if I've gotten things assways? :P:

"Maybe I misinterpreted the Inmarsat SVP speaking today, but according to him, the traceability technology (a step-up from the very basic Pings detected from this plane), which would give altitude, speed, co-ordinates & direction, is already available and in use. Since MH370 continued to 'ping' even after the other comms systems were disabled, one would assume, the upgraded version with more detailed info, would also transmit and not be able to be manually disabled?
He said it would cost about $1 per hour (presumably per hour flight time!)."

Bill G · 24-03-2014 06:52PM

I don't know, sopretty, I didn't see the interview with the Inmarsat person.

Jack1985 · 24-03-2014 06:55PM

I'm talking about technology that is independent of the pilot and can't be simply switched off.

Who in their right mind would want that?

Happyman42 · 24-03-2014 06:58PM

Bill G wrote: »

So it can malfunction and cause a fire and the pilot can't remove power to it? Great idea.

That is the challenge.
We wouldn't fly at all without calculated risks, this would just be another one.
Is a fire in the cargo area waiting for a pilot's intervention or will systems kick in to put it out?
Would having 3 or 4 systems on separate power feeds work?
I don't know what the solution is, all I know is that the status quo isn't really acceptable, above and beyond what caused this flight to go down.

sopretty · 24-03-2014 07:02PM

Bill G wrote: »

I don't know, sopretty, I didn't see the interview with the Inmarsat person.

Here's a link to one of the interviews with him, but there was more from him today (maybe the full length of that interview), where he explained to the journalist about the more advanced type of satellite tracking and what info that could contain.

As, from my understanding, it's just a ping from a satellite, it wouldn't necessarily need to be controlled at all by a pilot. Assuming, it's literally just an upgrade of this simple pinging satellite system!

http://news.sky.com/story/1231155/inmarsat-how-missing-flight-mh370-was-tracked

kona · 24-03-2014 07:04PM

cosanostra wrote: »

Would the black box be capable of recording the entire flight time or if they find it will all they get be the final hour or so of the flight which wouldn't really give them the critical info they need?

There will be nothing on the black box IF somebody purposely disabled the systems.

sopretty · 24-03-2014 07:06PM

Actually, the written article contains some of what he was saying
I'm not sure why they haven't included the specific bits I heard, maybe because it was a bit of a plug on his part to get the contract for the new upgrades! He was on about the fact that ships have a similar system now, under international agreement.

Mr McLoughlin believes all commercial planes should now be fitted with existing technology provided by Inmarsat and other satellite companies that would prevent prolonged searches like this unfolding in future.

"Every commercial aircraft could be tracked, if not tomorrow then by the end of next week," he said.

"Just imagine if the data had been coming off the plane for a couple of hours while it was missing.

"There is even an outside possibility, if it had been realised quickly enough, that interceptor jets could have been sent up to see what was going on.

"Many airlines choose to do it already; over the north Atlantic it's mandated. It needs to be mandated everywhere and it could be delivered tomorrow.

"It would be a quick win that would at least make some sense of this. It sometimes takes a major tragedy to move things."

ProfessorPlum · 24-03-2014 07:09PM

Happyman42 wrote: »

That is the challenge.
We wouldn't fly at all without calculated risks, this would just be another one.
Is a fire in the cargo area waiting for a pilot's intervention or will systems kick in to put it out?
Would having 3 or 4 systems on separate power feeds work?
I don't know what the solution is, all I know is that the status quo isn't really acceptable, above and beyond what caused this flight to go down.

You are specifically calculating the risk to be the pilot purposely turning off all tracking devices / communications devices already installed, and replacing that risk with the risk of the pilot being unable to isolate a piece of faulty equipment.
Anyone like to do a risk analysis on that for us?

doriansmith · 24-03-2014 07:19PM

lb1 wrote: »

We were told that there was 4 passengers on false passports but we only got details about the 2 Iranians. What happened to the guy that looked like Balotelli???

Apparently this is something that was misconstrued by the press. The spokesman never said that anyone looked like Balotelli. He just used him as an example of someone who is an Italian national but doesn't look like a stereotypical Italian.

Panda_Turtle · 24-03-2014 07:33PM

cosanostra wrote: »

Would the black box be capable of recording the entire flight time or if they find it will all they get be the final hour or so of the flight which wouldn't really give them the critical info they need?

From Wiki

Most FDRs record approximately 17–25 hours worth of data in a continuous loop

pfurey101 · 24-03-2014 07:37PM

More good gen from a pilots forum re the methodology used by Inmarsat:

Member Golf-Mike-Mike

"Because INMARSAT have also reviewed the pings from other Malaysian 777s that flew northerly routes and their doppler signature was different to that received from MH370. As that rules out a northerly track it places the missing aircraft in the southern Indian Ocean, without a landing site anywhere near, and hence the need to tell the families that there is now no hope of survival.

[ edit to add this, from BBC]

Engineers spent all weekend looking back at previous Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 flights, going back several weeks. They compared the satellite data from those flights with flight MH370 and were able to work out it went south.

This is cutting-edge modelling, never tried before. It uses the Doppler effect - which is what makes a police siren sound different from different points.

They had it reviewed by other scientists before handing it over.
As far as they can tell, the plane was flying at cruising height, above 30,000ft. They found no evidence of fluctuating heights being reported.

This is it now - they cannot pinpoint the position any further. They handed this data over on Sunday morning"

GTE · 24-03-2014 07:51PM

Panda_Turtle wrote: »

From Wiki

Can a pilot confirm this? I was told by one that the voice recorder does a 2 hour loop with the data recording a bit more.

Jack1985 · 24-03-2014 07:54PM

CVR records for two hours, there used to be a requirement of 30 minutes - Regards the FDR it records about 25hrs of data.

Happyman42 · 24-03-2014 08:10PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

You are specifically calculating the risk to be the pilot purposely turning off all tracking devices / communications devices already installed, and replacing that risk with the risk of the pilot being unable to isolate a piece of faulty equipment.
Anyone like to do a risk analysis on that for us?

I am simply saying that an aircraft shouldn't be able to disappear like this.
I think you will find that big moves will be made to make sure it won't happen again, it is too big a risk in the modern world.
As I say, the risk will be calculated.

Can a plane hide from a satellite btw, I'd imagine that is where the solution will lie.

fits · 24-03-2014 08:11PM

pfurey101 wrote: »

More good gen from a pilots forum re the methodology used by Inmarsat:

Member Golf-Mike-Mike

"Because INMARSAT have also reviewed the pings from other Malaysian 777s that flew northerly routes and their doppler signature was different to that received from MH370. As that rules out a northerly track it places the missing aircraft in the southern Indian Ocean, without a landing site anywhere near, and hence the need to tell the families that there is now no hope of survival.

[ edit to add this, from BBC]

Engineers spent all weekend looking back at previous Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 flights, going back several weeks. They compared the satellite data from those flights with flight MH370 and were able to work out it went south.

This is cutting-edge modelling, never tried before. It uses the Doppler effect - which is what makes a police siren sound different from different points.

They had it reviewed by other scientists before handing it over.
As far as they can tell, the plane was flying at cruising height, above 30,000ft. They found no evidence of fluctuating heights being reported.

This is it now - they cannot pinpoint the position any further. They handed this data over on Sunday morning"

Science rocks! that is brilliant work in fairness.

sopretty · 24-03-2014 08:19PM

Inmarsat guy speaking on Sky now.

Only info coming from classic aero terminal built into the aircraft, to the network, were these hourly pings. Similar to a sonar signal. No position data coming with ping, as its not mandated in that area of the world.

That's the gist of what he's saying. In layman's terms!

relaxed · 24-03-2014 08:22PM

Happyman42 wrote: »

I am simply saying that an aircraft shouldn't be able to disappear like this.
I think you will find that big moves will be made to make sure it won't happen again, it is too big a risk in the modern world.
As I say, the risk will be calculated.

Can a plane hide from a satellite btw, I'd imagine that is where the solution will lie.

In fairness given the number of commercial flights 365 days a year around the world I think the risk is quite low.

And what difference will it make, either pilots . hijackers are capable of crashing a plane or they are not.

The alternative is some sort of land based system where ground staff can override the pilots and take control of the plane.

Can't see that one working as you could have a hacker take control of loads of planes and crash them all.

So its back to trusting the pilots to fly the plane.

lb1 · 24-03-2014 08:23PM

sopretty wrote: »

I had forgotten about Balotelli!
Were there definitely 4 false passports? Or was that later debunked and clarified as being 2? Can't remember after all the twists and turns!

I never heard anyone say there was not 4 false passport holders on the plane. And the Balotelli lookalike was mentioned once and never again, very strange.

Also whats this people are saying about the two Iranians having their images photoshopped?

sopretty · 24-03-2014 08:26PM

lb1 wrote: »

I never heard anyone say there was not 4 false passport holders on the plane. And the Balotelli lookalike was mentioned once and never again, very strange.

Also whats this people are saying about the two Iranians having their images photoshopped?

Dorian, in post 4485, clarified this ^^^ for us.

I think the images of the Iranians were literally just a case of placing one image on top of the other on a photocopier or something!

lb1 · 24-03-2014 08:30PM

sopretty wrote: »

Dorian, in post 4485, clarified this ^^^ for us.

I think the images of the Iranians were literally just a case of placing one image on top of the other on a photocopier or something!

Another example of the monumental ineptitude of the Malaysians.

fits · 24-03-2014 08:33PM

Has this video link been posted yet? really interesting stuff.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26723980#TWEET1081180

Sala · 24-03-2014 08:33PM

The location looks as if they weren't heading anywhere specific. Would it be the case that after flying for that long they ran out of fuel?

Happyman42 · 24-03-2014 08:36PM

relaxed wrote: »

In fairness given the number of commercial flights 365 days a year around the world I think the risk is quite low.

And what difference will it make, either pilots . hijackers are capable of crashing a plane or they are not.

The alternative is some sort of land based system where ground staff can override the pilots and take control of the plane.

Can't see that one working as you could have a hacker take control of loads of planes and crash them all.

So its back to trusting the pilots to fly the plane.

Well, they certainly didn't take that attitude after 9-11...'what difference will extra security make?'

I think there will be a lot of people surprised and alarmed that a plane can go missing like this and be airborne for so long.
Something will be done, whether with an in plane system or the act of turning the transponders off creating an instant alarm somewhere on the ground.
As has been said, each crash teaches us something about safety, and the safety of people on the ground is important too, even if the flight is doomed.

fits · 24-03-2014 08:36PM

lb1 wrote: »

I never heard anyone say there was not 4 false passport holders on the plane. And the Balotelli lookalike was mentioned once and never again, very strange.

Also whats this people are saying about the two Iranians having their images photoshopped?

There was never a balotelli lookalike! his point was that balotelli doesn't look Italian so these passengers don't have to look Austrian etc to be Austrian. (and they would have passed as European). They were found to be no more suspicious than any other passenger after investigation.

Mountainsandh · 24-03-2014 08:40PM

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well, they certainly didn't take that attitude after 9-11...'what difference will extra security make?'

I think there will be a lot of people surprised and alarmed that a plane can go missing like this and be airborne for so long.
Something will be done, whether with an in plane system or the act of turning the transponders off creating an instant alarm somewhere on the ground.
As has been said, each crash teaches us something about safety, and the safety of people on the ground is important too, even if the flight is doomed.

I tend to agree, and don't understand the outrage of others here.
When you have the responsibility of taking so many lives from A to B up in the air, you should accept a certain level of scrutiny.

Now, my question is : can the pilots disable the black box ?

If the answer is no, then there's a piece of equipment that cannot currently be disabled.

Happyman42 · 24-03-2014 08:42PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I tend to agree, and don't understand the outrage of others here.
When you have the responsibility of taking so many lives from A to B up in the air, you should accept a certain level of scrutiny.

Now, my question is : can the pilots disable the black box ?

If the answer is no, then there's a piece of equipment that cannot currently be disabled.

I've also asked, can the pilot disable the contact with the satellite? As the British scientists are saying that if the info sent had been mandated to include height and position they'd have found it in an instant.

relaxed · 24-03-2014 08:51PM

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well, they certainly didn't take that attitude after 9-11...'what difference will extra security make?'

I think there will be a lot of people surprised and alarmed that a plane can go missing like this and be airborne for so long.
Something will be done, whether with an in plane system or the act of turning the transponders off creating an instant alarm somewhere on the ground.
As has been said, each crash teaches us something about safety, and the safety of people on the ground is important too, even if the flight is doomed.

I am not sure that you get my point, suppose the pilot can't switch the transponder off, suppose they introduce extra GPS tracking to know where the plane is - its not going to change the outcome, if the person flying the plane wants to crash it knowing where the plane is won't change the outcome.

9/11 solutions were different, locking the cockpit for example prevented terrorists storming it.

I just don't see how knowing where the plane is will change the outcome if the person in control wants to crash it.

wil · 24-03-2014 09:02PM

pfurey101 wrote: »

Every component that can be removed, repaired and refitted has a serial number. .....

Are all incidental items eg pallets, crates, plastic trays, plastic parts readily identifiable?

SpaceTime wrote: »

...
There were 200kg of Lithium Ion batteries in the hold!...

Is it the norm to carry commercial cargo on passenger jets?
I presume that is a commercial decision, but what, if any industry specific regulations are there restricting the carrying of certain, potentially hazardous cargo on passenger airliners?

homerjay2005 wrote: »

considering the plane ended up 1000's of miles off course, i think we can safely say there was no fire on it.
this is either decompression or sabotage.

I doubt you could rule out fire. Carbon monoxide from a small fire could have quickly incapacitated crew and passengers
Are there CO alarms fitted.

Jack1985 wrote: »

Thankfully they make them after they complete the investigation in to what actually happened.

I don't know how to take that sort of comment.
Who knows how many years it will take to discover the cause.
Without even knowing that, this has highlighted issues that many might consider sensible to be addressed, today.

pfurey101 wrote: »

Another tricky one.
Airlines invest in, employ and entrust men and women to get their passengers, crew and multi million dollar assets safely from A to B. They are highly trained to handle all known situations and are the people that will handle the emergencies - should they happen!

Oh and by the way - we don't really trust you.

I dont know what the answer is but there must have been millions over the last 50 years where maybe only less than 10 incidents where the pilot or co pilot possibly went rogue.

I doubt most professionals would have that as their first impression. Of course they are trusted, they ask them to carry hundreds of people, thousands of miles out over an ocean in a metal box and still deliver them safely the other end. Cant think of how much more trust you could give.
However they are humans, not gods, and gravity NEVER takes a break, so you have to consider the unexpected and unknown (all varieties)
Even known situations such as a stroke, food poisoning, CO poisoning don't necessarily have an emergency solution at 30,000 feet

billie1b wrote: »

Dublin Bus have 3 CCTV cameras on the front of their buses, one facing the driver in his cab, one looking out his side window and dash board / steering wheel and one facing the pax as the get on/off the bus. And yes it has been used to discipline drivers upto and including dismissal

AFAIK they have up to 7, some watching passengers, and traffic and can be used for traffic incidents as well as driver safety,

Bill G wrote: »

So it can malfunction and cause a fire and the pilot can't remove power to it? Great idea.

Why does everything have to catch fire:eek:
Should be possible to design it with aircraft safety in mind.

kona wrote: »

There will be nothing on the black box IF somebody purposely disabled the systems.

So exactly the time you would hope to have this record this data might be the time you have to pull it.
Hmm, needs a rethink.

Jack1985 wrote: »

CVR records for two hours, there used to be a requirement of 30 minutes - Regards the FDR it records about 25hrs of data.

Bit surprised it's so short, digital/ mp3 recording should be far longer.
If they fell unconscious early in this flight, all this early info is possibly lost.

24-03-2014 09:11PM

Just read the families statement. Heart goes out to them

http://www.businessinsider.com/plane-victim-families-blast-malaysian-government-2014-3

Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

Comments