Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Malaysia Airlines Loses Contact With 777 en Route to Beijing

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

  • I think that satellites are not that important in case of this MH-B772ER.

    I was already a jp member when AF447 was discussed. And, in both cases, it is VERY important to recover the black box.

    And this is what makes me say, I'd like to be the one who finds this triple7. Wild ocean weather conditions don't make it easy to find the jet.

    But, and this is what I've already mentioned,
    a longhaul jet has so many pax on board, so that it is not able to disappear without that one of x professional pilots worldwide
    has a clue where to search the jet.
    The German long haul is alive, 65 years and still kicking.
    The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
    And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
    This is Lohausen International airport speaking, echo delta delta lima.

    Comment


    • Quotes from Today's AIAA Newsletter:
      FAA, Boeing Already Addressing 777 Data Vulnerabilities.

      Aviation Week (3/20, Norris) reported that while Boeing has not commented on the investigation into what happened to Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, which involves a 777, it has begun work with the FAA to “prevent the hostile takeover of any 777 model by unauthorized access to critical systems and data networks.” The agency released “special conditions” to address any issues. The FAA said these “are being issued to ensure that the security (i.e., confidentiality, integrity, and availability) of airplane systems is not compromised by unauthorized wired or wireless electronic connections between the airplane information services domain, aircraft control domain, and the passenger entertainment services.” It added that exploiting any weaknesses could “result in intentional or unintentional destruction, disruption, degradation, or exploitation of data and systems critical to the safety and maintenance of the airplane.”

      Airbus Calls For Deployable Black Boxes, Increased Ground Communications. The AP (3/20) reported that, in light of the disappearance of Malaysian Airlines Flight 370, Airbus “is working to develop deployable black boxes or other systems that could help investigators find the recorders following an accident or disappearance.” The article noted that Airbus was integrally involved in the nearly two-year search for an A330 over the mid-Atlantic in 2009. Airbus executive Fabrice Bregier also recently advocated for “increasing the frequency of automated messaging between aircraft and the ground.”

      In a more general piece, the New York Times (3/20, Mouawad, Drew, Clark, Subscription Publication) reported that the technology for deployable black boxes has been available for “many years,” but never adopted for airline flights. The situation with Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 could give “new impetus” to utilize satellite technology more.

      Satellite Searches For Missing Plane Has Limitations. MSNBC’s Ronan Farrow Daily (3/20, 1:19 p.m. ET) continued the interviews with former ISS commander Chris Hadfield about how small satellites like the ones recently launched from the ISS could help find missing planes that go down in the ocean. Hadfield said that when he was at the ISS, he could see that the “vagueries of weather and wind and the reflections off the water” would make spotting anything there hard.

      The AP (3/20) also reported on the “limitations” of using satellites to search for debris from a downed plane like from the missing Malaysia Airlines flight. These limitations include the loss of quality if not looking in a particular direction, the limited time to search an area, and the inability to distinguish subtle contrasts of color in the ocean. The article also noted that an “experienced eye” is needed to find objects at times in images, because important objects may not seem important to laymen.

      Comment


      • Search suspended due to weather
        Originally posted by AMSA
        Due to rough seas, HMAS Success departed the search area early this morning and is now in transit south of the search area until seas abate. A sea state ranging between 7 to 8 is forecast today with waves up to two metres and an associated swell of up to four metres.

        The area is also forecast to experience strong gale force winds of up to 80km/h, periods of heavy rain, and low cloud with a ceiling between 200 and 500 feet.

        AMSA has undertaken a risk assessment and determined that the current weather conditions would make any air and sea search activities hazardous and pose a risk to crew. Therefore, AMSA has suspended all sea and air search operations for today due to these weather conditions.

        AMSA has consulted with the Bureau of Meteorology and weather conditions are expected to improve in the search area in the evening and over the next few days. Search operations are expected to resume tomorrow, if weather conditions permit.

        HMAS Success will return to the search area once weather conditions improve.
        source: http://www.amsa.gov.au/media/documen...te16_MH370.pdf

        Comment


        • Also, I saw mention of this earlier. The US is only now bringing a towed black box locator to the region (currently en-route from New York) to search for the ping.

          I'm surprised they've waited so long to bring that along to help locate?

          Comment


          • Is it a fuel issue?

            Originally posted by Theoddkiwi View Post
            The process is like typically like this.
            Pilot requests a total fuel figure.
            [...]
            Afaik, the PF (ask your teacher about the abbreviation) is responsible for the FOB (ask your ...).

            This issue is not necessarily determined by the (military) rank... I know cases, where the cockpit is filled with two pilots of the same rank...
            Thus, there is the distinction between PF and PNF.

            In Germany, there is a position that is called "Verantwortlicher Flugkapitän". Afaik, he says how much fuel is needed.

            But he's not left alone. For each LH route, there is a certain amount of fuel documented ("minimum FOB").
            This is what makes me say, they didn't have enough fuel on board?

            Almost unbelievable.
            The German long haul is alive, 65 years and still kicking.
            The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
            And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
            This is Lohausen International airport speaking, echo delta delta lima.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
              That would be hard. Someone ...
              i.e. in professional pilot terms "one of the two pilots",
              ...would've noticed that there is not enough fuel on board.

              As my avatar shows, I don't know much about the triple7. But I know something about fuel on board a B744...

              Your assumption makes us believe that the MH-B772ER didn't take enough fuel on board in WMKK to reach Beijing.

              This is really hard to believe!
              On the contrary. The plane flew for about 7 hours, more than enough to reach Beijing. What I'm saying is that it's hard to believe that the plane had much more fuel that needed for the Beijing trip and no-one on the ground noticed, so it's unlikely that it had enough fuel to reach some landing spot after the last ping.

              --- 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 LH-B744 View Post
                I think that satellites are not that important in case of this MH-B772ER.
                Are you kidding?

                The satellites are EXTREMELY important to narrow the possible location where the plane went down to something smaller than 1/4th of the globe.

                They won't tell you what happened, sure. But you can't find the "black boxes" (CVR and FDR) if you don't know where to look for them.

                --- 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 Theoddkiwi View Post
                  Just to answer the fuel question. ACARS reports typically include Fuel On Board.
                  When it left the gate the ACARS would have reported push back or OUT, then on take off ACARS would have reported OFF.
                  The is is called the OOOI reports, Out, Off, On, In. Each of these reports typically include a time and Fuel on board. Additionally the routine enroute reports will include position, time to arrival and Fuel on board. So given that the aircraft disappeared twenty do minutes after it's last routine ACARS enroute report, they would have a pretty clear idea of the remaining fuel. This is read from the fuel quantity system, thus the pilot cannot fool it.
                  Not entirely true, you can go into the ACARS and change the fuel remaining number if you care to do so. All the rest is absolutely correct.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
                    Afaik, the PF (ask your teacher about the abbreviation) is responsible for the FOB (ask your ...).

                    This issue is not necessarily determined by the (military) rank... I know cases, where the cockpit is filled with two pilots of the same rank...
                    Thus, there is the distinction between PF and PNF.

                    In Germany, there is a position that is called "Verantwortlicher Flugkapitän". Afaik, he says how much fuel is needed.

                    But he's not left alone. For each LH route, there is a certain amount of fuel documented ("minimum FOB").
                    This is what makes me say, they didn't have enough fuel on board?

                    Almost unbelievable.

                    The only problem (Well actually not the only one) but the biggie is, wait for it.... The FMS would have a big INSUFFICIENT FUEL message on it when the route was entered.

                    And actually it is the PIC that requests the fuel for the flight even if he is the PNF.

                    And if you really want to play the acronym game.... It is no longer PNF but PM.

                    Comment


                    • The search has been called off for today due to bad weather

                      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 BoeingBobby View Post
                        Not entirely true, you can go into the ACARS and change the fuel remaining number if you care to do so. All the rest is absolutely correct.
                        Thanks for the clarification, that seems odd that you can do that. Not quite sure why you'd need to.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
                          Afaik, the PF (ask your teacher about the abbreviation) is responsible for the FOB (ask your ...).

                          This issue is not necessarily determined by the (military) rank... I know cases, where the cockpit is filled with two pilots of the same rank...
                          Thus, there is the distinction between PF and PNF.

                          In Germany, there is a position that is called "Verantwortlicher Flugkapitän". Afaik, he says how much fuel is needed.

                          But he's not left alone. For each LH route, there is a certain amount of fuel documented ("minimum FOB").
                          This is what makes me say, they didn't have enough fuel on board?

                          Almost unbelievable.
                          Well at my airline, the company issue the flight plan with a recommended fuel figure. The Captain, Pilot Flying or not will review the Flight Plan and asses if the company figure is sufficient after looking at weather and weight variables etc then request the final fuel figure for the flight. My observations in the flight deck while I have been carrying out repairs or doing paperwork is the review is done with the First Officer as a team decision. The designated Captain, the guy sitting in the right hand seat would have the final say in normal circumstances.

                          For what it's worth, I think my decade of fixing jets as a LAME means I don't need to ask my teacher too often.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                            That would be hard. Someone would have noted that the fuel truck had less fuel than it should.

                            And, if nothing else, at the last ping they were 1 hour away of nowhere, and the next ping one hour later never came. That, with a high probability, means that the plane was already down within 1 hour of the last ping, which in any direction would still be nowhere.
                            The highest probability is that the flight went down where they claim it did. I realize that.

                            - Essentially there are two possible scenarios: Either no one was flying the plane and it simple flew on heading until fuel exhaustion OR it was being flown intentionally on that heading.

                            - If no one was flying it, there may have been a catastrophic mechanical issue like decompression or massive electrical failure (FBW engines, if electrically isolated from the cockpit, will continue at their present thrust) or perhaps a botched hijacking.

                            - If it was being flown intentionally on that heading it was either a suicide mission or a destination was intended. The only destination that I can resolve from that last ping is YWKS (Wilkins Runway, Upper Peterson Glacier, Antarctica), a 10,499ft blue ice runway with PAPI and approach lighting. The approx. distance from waypoint IGREX to YWKS is 5359 mi. A B777 can easily fly this route if fueled for it. A B777 fueled only for Beijing cannot.

                            - MH-370 was not a full flight. The airline claims they were not tankering fuel. Thus far I have seen no figures for GTOW. If this was an organized plot of some kind and there was a way to surreptitiously take on more fuel than the trip required, they could have reached YWKS undetected, which is 70km from anything at all. As of March 8th, all scheduled flights there were finished for the season and the staff would have been gone. Some of the facitilites may still have been there however. The airstrip services an A319 from Hobart during the season, which ended in late February. They are plenty of problems with this theory, including the fact that personnel have been closing down YWKS for the season over the past two weeks, so if they landed there, they must have found a way to refuel and take off again. There's nowhere to hide a 777 out there.

                            I feel 99% certain that the flight crashed into the Indian Ocean as they claim it did. I just won't be convinced until I see some wreckage. Maybe tomorrow...

                            BTW - can someone tell me why a P-3 Orion cannot determine the nature of spotted debris or descend to take a clear zoom lens photo of it?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Theoddkiwi View Post
                              The designated Captain, the guy sitting in the right hand seat would have the final say in normal circumstances.

                              You flying in a helicopter? I usually fly from the left seat when I am the Captain!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                                BTW - can someone tell me why a P-3 Orion cannot determine the nature of spotted debris or descend to take a clear zoom lens photo of it?
                                It can. P-3s, at least some models, used to carry torpedoes for use against enemy submarines and you don't drop those from 10,000 feet. I'm sure they have taken pictures, but perhaps the photos taken just do not show anything definitive yet.

                                Unless they see a piece of debris that says something like "Boeing 777" or "Malaysia Airlines" on the side, what they're seeing may be too generic looking to be conclusive.

                                Until they get the parts hauled onto a ship for a visual inspection, the theory that it crashed into the southern Indian Ocean is still a theory, albeit a likely one. If it did, the main thing now is to find the data recorders. At this point, they are the only things that might give any clue as to what happened.

                                Edit: Grammar Fix.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X