Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Malaysia Airlines Loses Contact With 777 en Route to Beijing

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Evan View Post
    What's a 'flight engineer"?
    Given the average quality of journalism displayed, he may just be a mechanic, deadheading to Peking to fix some trouble they had up there.. I am not sure all reporters know the difference, but I may be totally wrong on that.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Passion for flying View Post
      Given the average quality of journalism displayed, he may just be a mechanic, deadheading to Peking to fix some trouble they had up there.. I am not sure all reporters know the difference, but I may be totally wrong on that.
      You might very well be right on that... Doesn't change much, though. Chances of a mechanic or a flight engineer or even a pilot as a passenger pulling off what happened to MH370 are VERY close to non-existent.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by mpe View Post
        If it was that low it couldn't have flown for anything like the distance and time previously estimated. Even without pressurisation nobody would typically fly a jet at that altitude, because of the fuel consumption.
        Which may be good news if it means the "pings" from the engine monitoring system occured after could not possibily have still been flying.
        This report of the plane altitude changes, including low altitude, don't state the entire flight was at this flight level, which would of course used up the fuel. They state that initial parts of the flight deviation flew at altitudes that the intent seems to be to evade radar. In any event it was very well planned flight profile.

        Just heard live interview with Captain of USS Kidd and they are stopping their search of Indian Ocean. US leaving modified B-737, the P8 Orion as part of the search team.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by tsv View Post
          Can you imagine the Conspiracy Theories if this had been a Dreamliner?
          There would be none because it would be assumed it had spontaneously combusted.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Passion for flying View Post
            Given the average quality of journalism displayed, he may just be a mechanic, deadheading to Peking to fix some trouble they had up there.. I am not sure all reporters know the difference, but I may be totally wrong on that.
            I suspect so. A later news report had changed the wording to 'aircraft engineer', but still not seen anything in the mainstream news. But the journalists do seem to just grasp on details and blow them up.

            For instance, they're making a lot about the fact that the captain had his own flight simulator at home (i.e., a PC with multiple monitors running MS Flight Sim). Personally I'd think quite a few pilots might have a PC and a copy of MS Flight Sim, either because it's a hobby or just to help visualize unfamiliar approaches or something. Not perfect, but I'm guessing it all helps.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by sjwk View Post
              For instance, they're making a lot about the fact that the captain had his own flight simulator at home (i.e., a PC with multiple monitors running MS Flight Sim). Personally I'd think quite a few pilots might have a PC and a copy of MS Flight Sim, either because it's a hobby or just to help visualize unfamiliar approaches or something. Not perfect, but I'm guessing it all helps.
              For what it's worth, I knew one Austral MD-80 captain (when Austral had MD-80s) who used MSFS and a good add-on of the MD-80 (FlyTheMadDog) to prepare for his sim sessions (recurrent training and checkrides) practicing the abnormal and emergency procedures.

              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

              Comment


              • Satelite range

                Originally posted by Evan View Post
                Yes, assuming that the satellite can in fact determine distance from the transmitter and that this is what the arcs are drawn from. And what I'm saying is that, with the multiple arcs plotted, PLUS arcs drawn from the LKP based on known weather and performance data for the 777 we should not be looking at arcs but intersections of arcs, i.e. points, with a circular range of margin for unknown factors. At least that much could show us a trend that might make either general direction (north vs south) more plausible.

                Also, if subsequent pings were received at varying distances, the we KNOW that the signals were sent in flight and not from the ground.

                The omission of both these other 'ping' arcs and the lack of questioning about them in the press is glaring.
                Assuming geostationary satellite ...
                If it is only one Satellite receiving then either the target is stationary in which case you get the same arc. Or it is moving in which case you would get concentric arc segments centered over the point on the earths surface on a line between the Satellite and the centre of the earth.
                This does not give you enough knowns to solve for position.

                If the system uses multiple LEO satellites then yes it should be easy to obtain a precise position. So I assume this is not the case.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Quench View Post
                  Assuming geostationary satellite ...
                  If it is only one Satellite receiving then either the target is stationary in which case you get the same arc. Or it is moving in which case you would get concentric arc segments centered over the point on the earths surface on a line between the Satellite and the centre of the earth.
                  This does not give you enough knowns to solve for position.

                  If the system uses multiple LEO satellites then yes it should be easy to obtain a precise position. So I assume this is not the case.
                  Hopefully the interim report released months from now will shed more clarity on this. I know Iridium makes ACARS tranceivers for the B777, although we can't know if this one had their service. Iridium uses 66 LEO satellites. They are moving pretty fast, typically overhead for about 10 minutes to any one user. Inmarsat uses geostationary satellites. Argos uses polar orbits. There's a handful of other operators but I don't know if they are in the ACARS business.

                  Anyway, with all these operators up there (IsatM2m, DCP, Orbcomm, Globalstar...) I am hoping one of their birds might have detected the signal as well and a record might exist. If so, perhaps they can triangulate the location of each signal and plot a real flight path.

                  I wonder if this is being explored.

                  Comment


                  • Here's my theory

                    Here's my theory. co-Pilot Fariq took a gorgeous blond into the cock-pit during the flight, but he forgot to take Viagra, so she laughed at his small penis size. And then he said, "I'll show you!" She said, "I've leaving you wimp!" He said, "All right, good night", and the rest is history.

                    Comment


                    • Breaking News from NYT:

                      Computer sent plane off flight path
                      AirDisaster.com Forum Member 2004-2008

                      Originally posted by orangehuggy
                      the most dangerous part of a flight is not the take off or landing anymore, its when a flight crew member goes to the toilet

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Quench View Post
                        Assuming geostationary satellite ...
                        If it is only one Satellite receiving then either the target is stationary in which case you get the same arc. Or it is moving in which case you would get concentric arc segments centered over the point on the earths surface on a line between the Satellite and the centre of the earth.
                        This does not give you enough knowns to solve for position.

                        If the system uses multiple LEO satellites then yes it should be easy to obtain a precise position. So I assume this is not the case.
                        I believe all Inmarsat satellites are in geosynchronous orbit. I don't know if the antennae are omnidirectional or not.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                          For what it's worth, I knew one Austral MD-80 captain (when Austral had MD-80s) who used MSFS and a good add-on of the MD-80 (FlyTheMadDog) to prepare for his sim sessions (recurrent training and checkrides) practicing the abnormal and emergency procedures.
                          Lookie here
                          http://www.precisionmanuals.com/

                          I didn't look well enough to see the release date..but these guys have some pretty detailed sim programs.

                          Comment


                          • The BBC reported that the last satellite transmissions were received by "a satellite company based in London" That would most likely be London-based Immarsat. Irridium is based in Virginia. AFAIK, that means it was received by a geostationary satellite. Prior contacts should have plotted on a different arc and some sort of trend should be apparent.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                              The BBC reported that the last satellite transmissions were received by "a satellite company based in London" That would most likely be London-based Immarsat. Irridium is based in Virginia. AFAIK, that means it was received by a geostationary satellite. Prior contacts should have plotted on a different arc and some sort of trend should be apparent.
                              It had already been reported that the company was Inmarsat indeed.

                              And someone a couple of pages ago explained that maybe the lack of other arcs is because the AT (advance time, something that apparently helps define the distance) might be kept only for the last ping, while the record of the previous pings may contain only the time when they occurred (for billing information) but not that AT part of information because, except for the last connection, it's useless information communication-wise (the system was not designed to keep track of lost planes).

                              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View Post
                                ... Beyond that, I'd prefer to keep this thread to the aviation aspects of this affair. Anybody interested in discussing the morals or psychology involved will probably find plenty of forums concerned with that out there in the world-wide web...
                                Considering the fact that the pilot's psychological state might well have been the main factor leading to this tragedy, I think it has every place being discussed here. The fact of the matter is, we can talk about the technical aspects of aviation safety all we like, but if at any moment any pilot in the world can go off his nut and lawn dart his jet into a hundred million paper clip sized pieces, it won't make much difference what technical safeguards are in place.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X