Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

lintdrummer · 24-03-2014 11:24PM

Any chance Tea 1000 and Bill G could leave the handbags out of the thread. I for one would prefer not to have to read through that rubbish.

owenc · 24-03-2014 11:36PM

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Every commercial pilot I met and know are all sound lads, so I suppose on average I'm bound to come across the exception sooner or later!!

So woman are "lads".

Tea 1000 · 24-03-2014 11:38PM

owenc wrote: »

So woman are "lads".

In some parts of the country it's a genderless casual title. But in other shocking news, I may only have met and know male pilots... Gasp!

owenc · 24-03-2014 11:39PM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

How new satellite data confirmed Malaysia Airlines plane was lost[/

Brilliant detective work. Sounds like MH370 was a 'ghost' plane flying for several hours...

What have the movements of other planes got to do with it?

L1011 · 24-03-2014 11:42PM

owenc wrote: »

What have the movements of other planes got to do with it?

By comparing their assumptions from what data they had to the same data from planes where they could verify the path allowed them to decide which of their assumed arcs was correct.

All of which is explained in the video if you'd bothered watching it.

Happyman42 · 24-03-2014 11:51PM

relaxed wrote: »

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.

As has been said, I think what will bring a change to the status quo will be the need to know where an off course plane is going, not so much it's fate.

I'll ask again as nobody seems to have answered it; can the pilot control the fact that the satellite can see the plane without switching everything off?

sopretty · 25-03-2014 12:10AM

Happyman42 wrote: »

As has been said, I think what will bring a change to the status quo will be the need to know where an off course plane is going, not so much it's fate.

I'll ask again as nobody seems to have answered it; can the pilot control the fact that the satellite can see the plane without switching everything off?

I'd say you'd have to ask someone familiar with satellite systems and how exactly they work.
I can't figure out whether the higher spec Inmarsat system which would transmit time/location/altitude/speed etc. data, would transmit in the same way as these simple pings did, or whether it would need to route through an ACARS system if you get me?
Which would then leave you back to the same problem of having the ability to disable the ACARS.
The extent of my knowledge of satellite systems though is what I have picked up this week from news broadcasts though.....

Red Pepper · 25-03-2014 12:37AM

lintdrummer wrote: »

Any chance Tea 1000 and Bill G could leave the handbags out of the thread. I for one would prefer not to have to read through that rubbish.

Be very very careful. Tea 1000 is a terminator sent back from the future. He is a shapeshifter made entirely of liquid metal. Do not f*ck with him.

In contrast, I am a cultivar group of the fruit species 'capsicum annuum'. Cultivars of the bell pepper plant produce fruits in different colors, including red, yellow, orange, green, chocolate/brown, vanilla/white, and purple.

Mountainsandh · 25-03-2014 12:41AM

Same here. (As so pretty)
We are being told it needs lots of wiring so it can be relayed to the ground, did I get this right ?

Yet, at the risk of sounding like numerous others when they first came on this thread, we constantly communicate with satellite with a tiny wireless device, from the ground, gps in particular.

The transmission to the ground would be the satellite's job, since the data we are talking about is not needed for the normal function of the aircraft (talking about black box data here), the feed to ground via sat would be a bonus, same data still being recorded in the box.

We know the plane is already pinging to satellite.

It just does not make sense that a little portable, not wiry firy device, in a fireproof, autonomous setting, simply with a tad more capabilities than just the handshake, could not be carried on board, and be pilot/crew/passenger proof.

In fact, it's taking the proverbial IMO. I for one expect recommendations and changes to that effect in light of this disaster.

Tea 1000 · 25-03-2014 12:42AM

Red Pepper wrote: »

Be very very careful. Tea 1000 is a terminator sent back from the future. He is a shapeshifter made entirely of liquid metal. Do not f*ck with him.

In contrast, I am a cultivar group of the fruit species 'capsicum annuum'. Cultivars of the bell pepper plant produce fruits in different colors, including red, yellow, orange, green, chocolate/brown, vanilla/white, and purple.

It's true. I can't turn in to a giant gun and chase you, that comprises of complex moving parts, I don't work like that. But I can form knives and stabbing weapons.

ProfessorPlum · 25-03-2014 12:42AM

Happyman42 wrote: »

As has been said, I think what will bring a change to the status quo will be the need to know where an off course plane is going, not so much it's fate.

I'll ask again as nobody seems to have answered it; can the pilot control the fact that the satellite can see the plane without switching everything off?

How can a pilot control what a satellite can see?
Now a pilot can certainly turn off their own radios and on board satellite communications. Is that the question you're asking??

BorneTobyWilde · 25-03-2014 12:45AM

We found a pallet, everyone's dead/ Now go home.
I guess someone must have proof the plane went down where it did, or it's a big cover up.

Happyman42 · 25-03-2014 12:47AM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

How can a pilot control what a satellite can see?
Now a pilot can certainly turn off their own radios and on board satellite communications. Is that the question you're asking??

What on the plane was the satellite communicating with when it said 'hello', and does the pilot have the ability to switch it off?

pfurey101 · 25-03-2014 12:48AM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

We found a pallet, everyone's dead/ Now go home.
I guess someone must have proof the plane went down where it did, or it's a big cover up.

Or they have learned not to divulge everything as it happens in real time - look what that did the last 2 weeks.

Mountainsandh · 25-03-2014 12:51AM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

How can a pilot control what a satellite can see?
Now a pilot can certainly turn off their own radios and on board satellite communications. Is that the question you're asking??

Although the transponder was turned off, the plane emitted the handshake ping. What emits the ping ?

Red Pepper · 25-03-2014 12:53AM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

What emits the ping ?

I think this may help

sopretty · 25-03-2014 12:54AM

sopretty wrote: »

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!

This is the only bit of info I've been able to glean from the Inmarsat guy.

wil · 25-03-2014 12:55AM

pfurey101 wrote: »

It is also slightly possible that a sequence of events occured that were never considered in any probability model or in the millions of hour B777 hours flying..

.

That is a very valid statement and echoes what I thought was a fairly insightful analysis by a CNN current affairs presenter, cant recall the name.
The premise being that despite all the various theories, maybe, like AF and some other recent ones, it is something nobody has really thought of.
And that makes considerable sense, because most of the known things have been thought of and designed for.

Speaking of engine fires, it appears there has been 2 or 3 on MAS Boeings in the last few years.

An interesting comment from a blogger familiar with MAS relating to an incident on MH194 777-200

"However, it is not the case for Boeing 777 with two engines. If one of the engine is suspected to go wrong, it is standard safety procedure to return and not take chances. There is no engine to spare. More so, when it involves flying over large distance of water."

A search on various fire incidents brought me to this bizarre one 5 weeks ago.

Etihad B773 over Indian Ocean on Feb 17th 2014 Melbourne to Abu Dhabi :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

sopretty · 25-03-2014 12:55AM

Red Pepper wrote: »

I think this may help

Lol, I've visions of some mysterious pinging radar thing bouncing off the plane and back to the satellite. My brain is about to ping at this stage!

pfurey101 · 25-03-2014 12:58AM

A good infographic from news.com.au

ProfessorPlum · 25-03-2014 12:59AM

Happyman42 wrote: »

What on the plane was the satellite communicating with when it said 'hello', and does the pilot have the ability to switch it off?

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Although the transponder was turned off, the plane emitted the handshake ping. What emits the ping ?

I presume it was the aircraft SATCOM, and yes the pilot would have the ability to turn it off. The satellite ping has nothing to do with transponder. The transponder is a radar function.

ProfessorPlum · 25-03-2014 01:07AM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Same here. (As so pretty)
We are being told it needs lots of wiring so it can be relayed to the ground, did I get this right ?

Yet, at the risk of sounding like numerous others when they first came on this thread, we constantly communicate with satellite with a tiny wireless device, from the ground, gps in particular.

The transmission to the ground would be the satellite's job, since the data we are talking about is not needed for the normal function of the aircraft (talking about black box data here), the feed to ground via sat would be a bonus, same data still being recorded in the box.

We know the plane is already pinging to satellite.

It just does not make sense that a little portable, not wiry firy device, in a fireproof, autonomous setting, simply with a tad more capabilities than just the handshake, could not be carried on board, and be pilot/crew/passenger proof.

In fact, it's taking the proverbial IMO. I for one expect recommendations and changes to that effect in light of this disaster.

Just a point - unless you have a stand alone satellite phone, you're not really 'communicating' with /by satellite. If you have GPS in your phone, it's a GPS receiver. You don't communicate your position back to the satellite. Any communication of your position is done through the mobile phone network. That's how I understand it.

Happyman42 · 25-03-2014 01:24AM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I presume it was the aircraft SATCOM, and yes the pilot would have the ability to turn it off. The satellite ping has nothing to do with transponder. The transponder is a radar function.

Very odd that a pilot would switch one part of a system off in the event of a fire and not the other. If that is what he was doing.
And very lucky in this case because as we can now see, only for the satellite pings this plane may have disappeared for all time. At least now they have narrowed the search massively.

Mountainsandh · 25-03-2014 01:28AM

Not sure of that, possible for phones, but sat nav systems do not use phone networks, do they ?

I think it is making a lot of excuses, for something that is surely quite simple and feasible.

And I still can't figure why on earth pilots would be so so reluctant to be traceable at all times, without the ability to disable that. Don't some companies keep track of their travelling (sales, delivery...) staff with gps ? And there's not even lives involved, just productivity.

Growler!!! · 25-03-2014 01:33AM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Not sure of that, possible for phones, but sat nav systems do not use phone networks, do they ?

I think it is making a lot of excuses, for something that is surely quite simple and feasible.

And I still can't figure why on earth pilots would be so so reluctant to be traceable at all times, without the ability to disable that. Don't some companies keep track of their travelling (sales, delivery...) staff with gps ? And there's not even lives involved, just productivity.

Sat nav is a GPS receiver. It receives signals from a number of satellites. The unit works it's mathematical magic to determine its position. No signals are sent from the receiver. It's like your car radio. You can receive and listen but cannot transmit.

andy_g · 25-03-2014 01:33AM

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Previous job? <Snip>

Tea 1000.

If you cannot attack the post and not the poster please dont post.

ninebeanrows · 25-03-2014 01:36AM

I don't mean to be a conspiracy theorist but we have no confirmed debris from the plane, just vague images of objects and speculation.

Then we have Immersat which has modelled the track with experimental methods.

I think they should really have waited until they have a physical piece of the jet or its contents before releasing such a definitive statement.

Mountainsandh · 25-03-2014 01:45AM

Growler!!! wrote: »

Sat nav is a GPS receiver. It receives signals from a number of satellites. The unit works it's mathematical magic to determine its position. No signals are sent from the receiver. It's like your car radio. You can receive and listen but cannot transmit.

But I bet the technology is there, should it be needed, to enable 2 way communication.

Oh ... Look ! That was 2011, and a 2 second search.
http://gearjunkie.com/delorme-inreach-satellite-gps-communicator

It's so dainty and tiny...

The above debate over technical problems, fire risk, etc... They're all excuses because professionals are reluctant to have their work scrutinised. Which is natural and fair enough, except the value of all the passengers' lives outweighs their concerns. IMO.

Happyman42 · 25-03-2014 01:54AM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

But I bet the technology is there, should it be needed, to enable 2 way communication.

Oh ... Look ! That was 2011, and a 2 second search.
http://gearjunkie.com/delorme-inreach-satellite-gps-communicator

It's so dainty and tiny...

The above debate over technical problems, fire risk, etc... They're all excuses because professionals are reluctant to have their work scrutinised. Which is natural and fair enough, except the value of all the passengers' lives outweighs their concerns. IMO.

I know ProfessorPlum has said the pilot can turn off Satcom in the event of a fire, but wasn't it said from early on that the only way to do that fully was via a hatch into the hold of the plane?
Now if safety was the priority why would you be opening a door into an area that is potentially on fire?

Doesn't make any sense to me. I fear it is a cost thing, not a safety one.
Unless somebody can explain the above.

AngryHippie · 25-03-2014 01:59AM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

But I bet the technology is there, should it be needed, to enable 2 way communication.

Oh ... Look ! That was 2011, and a 2 second search.
http://gearjunkie.com/delorme-inreach-satellite-gps-communicator

It's so dainty and tiny...

The above debate over technical problems, fire risk, etc... They're all excuses because professionals are reluctant to have their work scrutinised. Which is natural and fair enough, except the value of all the passengers' lives outweighs their concerns. IMO.

Thats a bit drastic. The level of scrutiny and testing to alter the design of a modern jet is a lengthy and costly process. Yes its worth the money if it saves lives, but if the risk was assessed to be negligible way back at finalizing aircraft design stage, then it would have been deemed unnecessary.

2011 is pretty recent considering the 777 has been in service in its primary form since 1995.

As for the end result, we still don't know exactly where the plane ended up, and until the data recorders are recovered + 12-18months to decipher and simulate, we won't know how it ended up there.

Everything else is speculation, from accusing engineers/designers of being egotists and otherwise.

Statistically, it is probably down to a human interaction/error, but that is all that we can say about it until there is more information.

I just hope for everyone's sake that the FDR and CVR can be recovered intact and that they explain the final hours of the flight.

Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

Comments