Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Malaysia Airlines Loses Contact With 777 en Route to Beijing

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

  • Ha. You right, that post a disaster of itself. My point is that it seems to me only sensible to begin searching around an arc if TWO pings came from the same arc. In my thinking that has only two causes: pilot flying the arc or aircraft stationary on the arc. Is there any info about the ping prior to the 8:11 ping? Thx all.

    Comment


    • The arc is not a path of the plane. It is a set of points from where the plane might have transmitted the ping (from ONE of those points).

      --- 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 Gabriel View Post
        The arc is not a path of the plane. It is a set of points from where the plane might have transmitted the ping (from ONE of those points).
        And there were multiple 'pings' so where are they other arcs?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Evan View Post
          And there were multiple 'pings' so where are they other arcs?
          Exactly! That's the point. I feel we are going in circles here.

          Post 737:

          One intersting thing, where I thing that the article is misleading, is to note is that, AFIK, these "corridors" are NOT possible paths the plane might have taken, but just possible locations of the airplane when it sent the last ping to Inmarsat.

          That was reportedly the 4th or 5th ping after the plane lost contact with the primary radar.

          It would be very interesting to see the same "corridors" of all the previous pings.

          --- 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


          • Is possible that they collided with something? just like the GOL aircraft in Brazil?, incapacitating both pilots?, destroying the avionics too?
            A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....

            Comment


            • Originally posted by AVION1 View Post
              Is possible that they collided with something? just like the GOL aircraft in Brazil?, incapacitating both pilots?, destroying the avionics too?

              Do you read what you write before you post?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by AVION1 View Post
                Is possible that they collided with something? just like the GOL aircraft in Brazil?, incapacitating both pilots?, destroying the avionics too?
                Please, in the following timeline, where would you place such colission?

                Take-off.
                Cruise level.
                ACARS off.
                Pilot's last radio transmission ("Good night", after being handed by ATC to the next sector)
                Transponder off.
                Turn left back to Malaysia.
                Turn right along the Strait of Malacca.
                Several pings, the last of which happened 5 hours after the previous line.

                --- 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 Gabriel View Post
                  Exactly! That's the point. I feel we are going in circles here.

                  Post 737:
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                    Do you read anything before you post?
                    Fixed.

                    --- 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


                    • This took me less than 2 minutes to look up:


                      The Sunda Trench, earlier known as, and sometimes still indicated as the Java Trench,[1] is located in the northeastern Indian Ocean, with a length of 2,600 kilometres (8,500,000 ft). The maximum depth of 7,725 metres (25,344 ft)[citation needed] (at 10°19'S, 109°58'E, about 320 km south of Yogyakarta), is the deepest point in the Indian Ocean. The trench stretches from the Lesser Sunda Islands past Java, around the southern coast of Sumatra on to the Andaman islands, and forms the boundary between Indo-Australian Plate and Eurasian plate (more specifically, Sunda Plate). The trench is considered to be part of the Pacific Ring of Fire as well as one of a ring of oceanic trenches around the northern edges of the Australian Plate.

                      Lets see, this is very difficult, legs page 1 10°19'S, 109°58'E execute, LNAV. And away we go.

                      Comment


                      • 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.
                        You are assuming that whomever was flying the aircraft stayed at a constant speed. They may very well have varied the speed purposely, gone to LRC, or went balls to the wall. Only the scumbag that did this knows.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by EconomyClass View Post
                          What possible use is it to anybody to have the pilot able to turn off any of this stuff? I assume they engineered it that way for some specific purpose, but I'm baffled what it could be. I definitely think there should be locator stuff that no one has access to.
                          Might need to shut stuff down if it starts smoking and burning! Ya think?
                          Does not take a brain surgeon to figure this one out!!

                          What is the matter with some of you?

                          MYNDEE, where the hell are you?

                          Comment


                          • 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.
                            Apparently (and I am extrapolating from the partial info that I could find) not exactly distance but elevation angle to align the antenna.
                            But in practice it's the same. The elevation angle, with an unknown azimuth, describes a solid angle (the walls of a cone) with origin in the satellite and an axis that is a vertical line that pass through the satellite. The intersection of that solid angle and the surface of the Earth is a circle, the same circle than the intersection between the surface of the Earth and a sphere with center in the satellite that would be a fixed distance from the satellite. In practice, it's the same.

                            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.
                            Exactly. That's why it's interesting to have the other arcs.

                            At least that much could show us a trend that might make either general direction (north vs south) more plausible.
                            How so?
                            Even if you knew the exact airspeed and wind, you'd have two intersection points between each arc and the "speed x time" circle (distorted by wind).

                            If you draw a line (in 3D, a vertical plane indeed) between the last known position and the geo-steady position of the satellite, you'd have two symmetrical possible paths, one North of the line and the other one South of it.

                            Also, if subsequent pings were received at varying distances, the we KNOW that the signals were sent in flight and not from the ground.
                            Yes. At least all but the last of them.

                            The omission of both these other 'ping' arcs and the lack of questioning about them in the press is glaring.
                            They are not that smart to make this reasoning?

                            --- 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 BoeingBobby View Post
                              This took me less than 2 minutes to look up:

                              The Sunda Trench, earlier known as, and sometimes still indicated as the Java Trench,[1] is located in the northeastern Indian Ocean, with a length of 2,600 kilometres (8,500,000 ft). The maximum depth of 7,725 metres (25,344 ft)[citation needed] (at 10°19'S, 109°58'E, about 320 km south of Yogyakarta), is the deepest point in the Indian Ocean. The trench stretches from the Lesser Sunda Islands past Java, around the southern coast of Sumatra on to the Andaman islands, and forms the boundary between Indo-Australian Plate and Eurasian plate (more specifically, Sunda Plate). The trench is considered to be part of the Pacific Ring of Fire as well as one of a ring of oceanic trenches around the northern edges of the Australian Plate.

                              Lets see, this is very difficult, legs page 1 10°19'S, 109°58'E execute, LNAV. And away we go.
                              Except that the Sunda Trench was out of reach with the fuel remaining from the last satellite ping, wherever that last ping happened among the possible points where it could have happened (the North and South corridor, see map in post #737)

                              EDIT: I rectify the above. The Sunda Tench is almost exactly below the South Corridor!!!!

                              --- 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 Gabriel View Post
                                Except that the Sunda Trench was out of reach with the fuel remaining from the last satellite ping, wherever that last ping happened among the possible points where it could have happened (the North and South corridor, see map in post #737)

                                EDIT: I rectify the above. The Sunda Tench is almost exactly below the South Corridor!!!!
                                Gabriel, Even if they are kinda close it is going to be very deep water.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X