-
like these guys who landed with no flight controls
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232
I can highly recommend the book QF32 written by the pilot about the in-flight explosion of a Qantas A380
http://qf32.aero/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32
Lots of technical details about the massive computer system onboard and the hundreds of thousands of sensor, and how they landed basically a flying wreck with not even one fully working engine out of 4
-
And for anyone to lazy to read.
-
A nice article on wired:
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/
Pretty straight forward, basically says they were aiming for Palau Langkawi.
Says all of the evidence so far pretty much can fit within normal SOP in a fire.
Yep, smart money has to be on that. Occams' razor and all. -
And for anyone to lazy to read.
I can assure you that's not even close to covering the extent of stuff that happened on that plane.
Definitely read the book. -
Here is an article that may be of intrest
http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/se-asia/story/missing-mh370-how-satellites-communicate-plane-malaysia-airlines
It certainly sounds as if they have a method but it may have been simplified for the media. Certainly would be interesting to find out what was done.
Thanks for the link. Extra interesting in that even an article purporting to explain, still contains massive internal contradictions. Quote from the text:
"4. Through the hourly "handshakes", the satellite can determine the approximate location of the plane so that it can relay messages efficiently. A plane that is flying directly under a satellite would be at a 90-degree angle to the satellite. An aircraft flying at the poles would be at 0 degrees, the CNN report said. The last message sent by MH370 was at 40 degrees.
5. A satellite can “see” in an arc that stretches north and south of its fixed position, but without global positioning system (GPS) on the plane, the satellite can say only how far away the electronic "ping" from the aircraft is, not where it is coming from, a source told The New York Times."
You see that these two points directly contradict each other? #4 is the version supporting the 'arcs chart', while #5 is what I'd expect to be true. Except that there's a difference between 'ping' and 'handshake', and it's important since you can't get ranging time-of-flight from a one-way ping from the plane. If the satellite pings the plane and the plane responds, that's a handshake, and gives you some ranging info, albeit with an uncertainty due to the potentially variable response lag at the plane.
The media are using the terms as if synonymous.
Then there's a reader comment:
"RocketRob
The initial handshake is established when the plane powers up (on the ground) -- perhaps around 12:11 am based on the approximate one hour ping cadence. Flight took off at 12:41 am so first in-air ping would have occurred around 1:11 am -- about 10 minutes after the plane reached its cruising altitude of 35,000 feet, and only 4 minutes after the final ACARS transmission was sent. (As a reminder, we don't know when the ACARS was disabled, other than it happened sometime after 1:07 but before 1:37.)
So there should be a total of 8 in-flight pings from MH370 -- from 1:11 am to 8:11 am. The Inmarsat-5 F1 satellite (located at 63 degrees east longitude in geosynchronous orbit) cannot determine the azimuth from which it receives pings from the aircraft, only the range (which can be calculated from speed-of-light roundtrip time between the satellite and the plane, assuming you know the response latency by the plane). For the final ping, the roundtrip speed-of-light time appears to have been around 252 milliseconds, implying a range to the plane of about 37,800 km. That works out to a circle on the ground, centered on 0N, 63E, of radius 4850 km, or a little over 3000 miles.
Of course, much of that circle can be ruled out based on the impossibility of the plane reaching it from its last known position. This is why NTSB and other authorities have plotted an arc (actually a pair of them) where the plane could have been at 8:11 am. I'm assuming the gap between the two arcs must be based on information gleaned from the prior pings which would provide a series of hourly range-rates. I would rather have *all* the arcs so that I could draw my own conclusions. I'd also like to know the measurement uncertainties in the computed ranges, which are a function of satellite clock accuracy (presumably excellent) and aircraft response latency (probably the main source of uncertainty)."
Emphasis is mine. Notice he calls it 'Inmarsat-5 F1'. My satellite almanac is old (1997) which is where I got 'Inmarsat-3' from. But it would have reached EOL by now.
So, we still have the awkward situation where the assumptions of that official 'arcs' chart may be invalid - and all that means.
Really need to find some accurate, definitely have not been fiddled with, technical information on the capabilities of the Inmarsat-5 F1. Anyone have anything that's in physical print form, or files they've had in their possession since at least a year ago? -
@TerraHertz
The rocketbob comment seemed really plausible. I can see the polling having timestamps but would they be that accurate. The satellite would have an accurate enough clock but would you record that kind of accuracy? I have no clue. Interesting though, I could also see how that could confuse the media, basically saying that they worked out the "angle" but not how. -
As for a fire, if there was one big enough to take out, or cause a pilot to disable part of the planes electronics you'd think the plane would have crashed quickly. But that's just speculation and I prefer facts.
Reading the QF32 book made me realise that engines are incredibly robust and hard to shut down, and they have their own local fuel tanks that will keep them feed for many hours, even if the rest of the plane is completely dead and all but a burnt out shell. But of course to keep the thing in the air for those hours requires the autopilot to still have at least partial control of enough control surfaces.
I can picture a scenario where the fire forced a calamity, with the pilots being knocked out as described, and then the plane continuing to fly for many hours as the fire just smoulders or is unable to spread etc. Still quite plausible I think. -
@dave
It seems jet engines can run on anything once they get going, it was a big problem when they where first being developed (shutting them down).
There was a flight where a slow decompression knocked out everyone on board. Some military jets checked it out and found one person walking up an isle. In the end it crashed, I'll see if I can remember the flight info.
I could see the scenario you posed happening very easily.
It will be very interesting to see where it ends up.
-
The decompression crash I was thinking of was Helios 522
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522
Looks like there may have been a sighting while it was still n flight. The page is translated so read with caution.
http://www.haveeru.com.mv/news/54062 -
Looks like there may have been a sighting while it was still n flight. The page is translated so read with caution.
http://www.haveeru.com.mv/news/54062
If that's the case then it couldn't have been more than maybe a few thousand feet, and in the middle of nowhere like that, it probably didn't have much further to go...
I haven' confirmed, but one commenter pointed out:QuoteIf you fly from the last know position IGARI towards the waypoint VAMPI, which primary radar data suggests and maintain the same magnetic heading / track from that point on - you will end up over that island!
-
Same area and an interesting sat image.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/22048564/missing-plane-spotted-over-maldives/
Sorry ignore this, the plane is in the air. -
@dave
It seems jet engines can run on anything once they get going, it was a big problem when they where first being developed (shutting them down).
Any non-spark ignited engine will have that problem. As long as it has something to eat (in some cases its own lubrication), it will run. -
The sighting in the Maldives, if it ties up with the rest of the data, is a significant development and will narrow the search area to a zone more easily accessible from the Seychelles and the Maldives.
It could also mean to the aircraft was still under some control, either from a pilot or (partial) autopilot. If it flew at a low altitude all the way from the Malaysian peninsula, its range and ground speed would have been severely reduced.
Scratch that. False report investigated by Maldives police. Assuming the report about the police investigation is true.
Don't know what to believe anymore.
Would be amazing if anything is ever found of this aeroplane! -
I just read this about the possibility of hacking planes controls with mobile phones.
w.hwwuffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/17/malaysia-mh370-hacked_n_4977688.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular -
The CBC has done a pretty good job describing the situation. I wonder what the reasoning is behind Australia choosing to focus on that particular search area.
http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/malaysia-airlines-mh370-dashboard/ -
This fellow has a very well researched explanation for how it traveled back over Malaysia without appearing on radar systems. He's found another flight that was in the right place and time, to allow MH370 to 'merge' with it on radar.
20140321
http://mh370shadow.com/post/79838944823/did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using-sia68-sq68
Did Malaysian Airlines 370 disappear using SIA68/SQ68 (another 777)?
http://mh370shadow.com/post/80154688823/questions-answers-follow-up-1-how-did-malaysian
Questions/Answers Follow-Up #1 - How Did Malaysian Airlines 370 disappear using SIA68/SQ68?
He assumes MH370 would have followed SQ68 all the way up into Europe. But that's an assumption.
I'm still maintaining the links collection: http://everist.org/archives/links/_Flight_MH370_disappearance_links.txt
Incidentally, I'd never heard of the Kerguelen Islands - French Southern & Antarctic Lands.
Interesting place to look at in google maps. Pretty much the calibration standard of barren, rugged, windblown, cold and remote.
Link is zoomed to the major settlement - Port Aux-Francais:
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=-49.351296,70.214996&spn=0.045512,0.050468&z=14
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerguelen_Islands
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port-aux-Français
Also here's a youtube video on the history of Diego Garcia.
Published on Oct 28, 2013
Producer Andrew Tkach and correspondent Christian Amanpour report on the hushed up eviction of the indigenous people of Diego Garcia to make way for one of America's most strategic air and navy bases. The full story aired on CBS News 60 Minutes.
-
Here is a map showing the sat image hits. Apparently 1 meter per second currents, that sounds fast but I'm just going by what was in a news story. Regardless the sat images have a good grouping. Of course it means nothing until they can actually verify.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-J9Voi5giBqw/Uy2aTO0JLeI/AAAAAAAAEi8/-LZBrQM11D0/s1600/indian_ocean_map.png -
Apparently 1 meter per second currents, that sounds fast but I'm just going by what was in a news story.
Its like 2 knots. When your top speed is 15 knots, its a non-trivial current. -
2 knots is pretty common here (Juan De Fuca Straight), I really should have looked that up.
-
MH370 was carry a cargo of lithium ion batteries:
http://www.smh.com.au/world/malaysia-airlines-defends-battery-cargo-on-missing-mh370-20140323-35b41.html
-
According to the wiki
"Malaysian Insider noted that Lithium ion batteries are considered dangerous by the ICAO, and their transportation on passenger planes as cargo was prohibited as of February 2013"
-
Unbelievable! They are quite happy to accuse the crew of foul play from day one, but hide the fact that the plane was carrying dangerous goods among its cargo for a fortnight. Wankers...
-
I thought planes had fire detection/suppression systems?
The question everyone probably most wants to know the answer to now is not what events specifically occured, but where the bloody hell is the plane!?!? (Or whatever is left of it.) -
The question everyone probably most wants to know the answer to now is not what events specifically occured, but where the bloody hell is the plane!?!? (Or whatever is left of it.)
Wherever it is, they'd better find it quick smart, the black box transmitter only has a week or two of power left. The Indian ocean ain't shallow either. -
The probabilities of finding that plane are not encouraging.
With the lack of concrete evidence, it is important to reconstruct a scenario that fits with what clues are available, without invoking extreme possibilities, so that it doesn't happen again. The presence of lithium ion cells in the cargo should have raised some red flags a long time ago.
http://biz.maxell.com/en/product_rechargeable/?pci=6&pn=rb0013