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 EconomyClass View Post
    This is the most bizarre airliner incident in my memory.
    I definitely agree.

    Originally posted by EconomyClass View Post
    But there's hardly anything solid to chew on here.
    'fraid I have to agree here, too. Quite frustrating. Not even enough to get into some good theorizing, if you ask me.

    Originally posted by EconomyClass View Post
    Maybe small comfort it isn't a U.S. airline.
    What makes you think that what happened to MH370 couldn't happen to a U.S. airline?

    Originally posted by EconomyClass View Post
    And this after the equally strange landing at SFO in what seemed good conditions.
    Why do you think the Asiana accident in San Francisco was equally strange? They got too slow and too low and didn't quite make the runway.

    Originally posted by EconomyClass View Post
    Are these incidents even more bizarre given the nationality of the carrier and pilots?
    Why would an incident be more bizarre if it happens to a Malaysian and a South Korean airline/pilot? Both countries are highly developped and the carriers have had excellent saftey records so far.
    As for MH370, if it really was a "murdercide", then neither the airline nor the manufacturer nor the home nation of carrier and pilot are at fault.

    Comment


    • Interesting recap of 370 on discovery channel right now (UK)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View Post
        As for MH370, if it really was a "murdercide", then neither the airline nor the manufacturer nor the home nation of carrier and pilot are at fault.
        The question would not be (and should never be) whose fault it was but how we can prevent this from happening again. And I think that the airline, the manufacturer and the nations have homework to do on that.

        --- 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 EconomyClass View Post
          This is the most bizarre airliner incident in my memory. Granted, those 737's that plummeted into the ground were confusing, till they accidentally found the explanation. But there's hardly anything solid to chew on here. Maybe small comfort it isn't a U.S. airline. Maybe we can count on our planes doing more humdrum things. And this after the equally strange landing at SFO in what seemed good conditions. Are these incidents even more bizarre given the nationality of the carrier and pilots?
          Regarding the 737s - presumably you mean the rudder hardovers - in what way was the explanation that was found accidental ?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by HalcyonDays View Post
            Regarding the 737s - presumably you mean the rudder hardovers - in what way was the explanation that was found accidental ?
            In that in one case the accident didn't happen? That enabled the investigators to interview the flight crew and learn that they were fighting against the rudder.

            --- 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 question would not be (and should never be) whose fault it was but how we can prevent this from happening again. And I think that the airline, the manufacturer and the nations have homework to do on that.
              Good point, Gabriel. I missed that one Though I think it will be tricky to safeguard against the crazy guy not being in the cabin, but already in the cockpit and at the controls.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                3WE, The FNG is beating up on you!
                Indeed...these snot-nosed children and their attitudes can be irritating.
                Les rčgles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View Post
                  Good point, Gabriel. I missed that one Though I think it will be tricky to safeguard against the crazy guy not being in the cabin, but already in the cockpit and at the controls.
                  I didn't say it wouldn't be tricky, and I agree it will. But there are several fronts for this. Some ideas:
                  • - Advance radar technology so that the radars form a network and the airplane track is integrated by the many data collected (primary and secondary). The system would automatically recognize that this this airplane that appeared in this radar is the same one than this other radar is also tracking, or that blip corresponds to this airplane that has just lost its transponder. This already exist but needs more implementation and maybe refinement.
                  • - Investigate the possibility of an autonomous unentirruptible transponder.
                  • - Develop the technology and infrastructure for tamper-proof satellite tracking with an associated tamper-proof GPS that, every X minutes, will broadcast its position.
                  • - Boeing already has a patent for an uniterruptible autopilot that can be activated by the crew, by authorities in the ground, or automatically when a given criteria is met, and that will take all control away from the pilots (or criminals aboard) and automatically fly and land at some predetermined or uploaded location.
                  • - Investigate ways to override the capability to negate the access to the cockpit when the correct code is entered. Of course it needs layers of safety, and anything that is done in this direction means some risk in the other side: the irruption of unauthorized persons in the cockpit. An example might be the code as it is now with the negation capability plus some personal secret code (or the fingerprint) for each crew member with different levels of authorization (Ex: Pilots = 3 points, cabin crew = 1 point). If the correct "normal" code is entered plus 4 points are achieved, then the access cannot be negated. Whatever they do, it must be kept as secret as possible.
                  • - Analyze how pilot's psychology, personality and personal situation can be taken into account, monitored and acted upon.
                  • - Improve the measures to enable the location of a downed plane, especially in water (floating locators, sound pingers with more power and more life...). For example, today pingers send one 10ms ping every 1 second. I think that, with equal battery life, it would be better to send one 10ms ping, 10 times as powerful, every ten second. And then put 3 as many batteries.


                  This is just out of my head. Probably some of these things are stupid, and probably there are smart things that I didn't thought.

                  --- 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


                  • Additionally:
                    • Extend the CVR from the current 2 hours to 10. I don't care if the additional 8 hours are stored all channels together in a single mp3 file. I fear that, when this CVR is found, it will contain nothing else than background engines, air conditioning and wind noise, plus something else in the last minutes. But will have nothing of the crucial part.
                    • Add 10 hours of video recording. 10 hours too. I know that some are concerned by the memory capacity needed. But one SD card can store 250 GB (15 dvds of the highest capacity), and you don't need 25 frames per second like in Hollywood films. With 5 I'm happy. And sorry pilots if you are worried for your privacy. We are being videoed everywhere everytime, including many times in our workplace. So why not you?

                    --- 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
                      This pilot was not usefully conscious. The best corrective action he could take was declare an emergency, but then couldn't communicate efficiently the nature of it. Instead, he blamed inexistant control problems.
                      http://avherald.com/h?article=428a428b:
                      the unconscious first officer's arm was moving violently and uncontrolled all the time kicking the controls and thus disengaging the autopilot
                      To me it could cause some control problems, especially with the captain also struggling to catch breath while speaking to ATC.
                      He didn't recognize the high altitude problem nor take any action to correct it.
                      Maybe, the video doesn't show this. I have to agree he didn't say he's descending so maybe he wasn't. On the other hand he was "unable to maintain altitude", we would have to check radar or FDR data.
                      His intention was to keep flying to Ypsilanti (its destination) what clearly shows that his judgement was impaired.
                      They have finally landed there after all. Sure, I don't say he was in perfect condition.

                      Had the ATC not identified the hypoxia condition and request the pilot to descend, the pilot performance would not have been useful
                      This may be true, but I simply don't know for sure.

                      It was most likely the first contact with hypoxia for this pilot, not exactly an advantage.

                      Comment


                      • Gabriel
                        “Boeing already has a patent for an uninterruptible autopilot that can be activated by the crew, by authorities in the ground, or automatically when a given criteria is met, and that will take all control away from the pilots (or criminals aboard) and automatically fly and land at some predetermined or uploaded location.”

                        Let us assume (and I hate to do that) that this device (which I have never seen any traces of) is installed. Scenario, the aircraft has been taken over by the ground controller and is heading for 1 of the 108 airport in the database. How are they going to configure the aircraft for landing????? Gear, flaps, spoilers and auto-brakes?????

                        Comment


                        • Assuming a hypothesis that the pilot(s) is/are responsible.

                          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                          [*]- Advance radar technology so that the radars form a network and the airplane track is integrated by the many data collected (primary and secondary).
                          But... let's hope, they have already found the plane (or what's remaining). So the biggest problem wasn't lack of their position, the problem was the pilots were not aware they will be visible (otherwise, they would probably jump from some cliff or something).
                          [*]- Boeing already has a patent for an uniterruptible autopilot that can be activated by the crew, by authorities in the ground, or automatically when a given criteria is met, and that will take all control away from the pilots (or criminals aboard) and automatically fly and land at some predetermined or uploaded location.
                          Careful. In wrong hands it would be an apocalypse. How are you going to protect this? It would end up in the wrong hands, sooner or later (guess sooner).
                          An example might be the code as it is now with the negation capability plus some personal secret code (or the fingerprint) for each crew member with different levels of authorization (Ex: Pilots = 3 points, cabin crew = 1 point). If the correct "normal" code is entered plus 4 points are achieved, then the access cannot be negated.
                          Fingerprints aren't secure enough. Codes, maybe.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                            Gabriel
                            “Boeing already has a patent for an uninterruptible autopilot that can be activated by the crew, by authorities in the ground, or automatically when a given criteria is met, and that will take all control away from the pilots (or criminals aboard) and automatically fly and land at some predetermined or uploaded location.”

                            Let us assume (and I hate to do that) that this device (which I have never seen any traces of) is installed. Scenario, the aircraft has been taken over by the ground controller and is heading for 1 of the 108 airport in the database. How are they going to configure the aircraft for landing????? Gear, flaps, spoilers and auto-brakes?????
                            what makes you think those functions aren't built into the system? seems kinda strange that boeing, of all folks, would design and patent a system that couldn't do the whole job. but hey, what do i know?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                              Gabriel
                              “Boeing already has a patent for an uninterruptible autopilot that can be activated by the crew, by authorities in the ground, or automatically when a given criteria is met, and that will take all control away from the pilots (or criminals aboard) and automatically fly and land at some predetermined or uploaded location.”

                              Let us assume (and I hate to do that) that this device (which I have never seen any traces of) is installed. Scenario, the aircraft has been taken over by the ground controller and is heading for 1 of the 108 airport in the database. How are they going to configure the aircraft for landing????? Gear, flaps, spoilers and auto-brakes?????
                              Nobody said that this technology can be installed in existing airplanes. I thought of this before, and the only solution that I could think is that every switch, circuit beaker, lever, knob and button (except maybe the seatbelt sing switch) is just a "remote control" of the real thing and can be disabled and such control transferred to the new uninterruptible boss. It would not make a lot of sense, for example, to have an uninterruptible autopilot but leave "real" circuit beakers, fuel shutoff levers, or pressurization controls at the reach of the bad guys.

                              For the record, I don't like the idea either. Boeing would have to work hard to convince me (but why would they want to do it?)

                              --- 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 kris View Post
                                But... let's hope, they have already found the plane (or what's remaining). So the biggest problem wasn't lack of their position, the problem was the pilots were not aware they will be visible (otherwise, they would probably jump from some cliff or something).
                                Oh, but pilots would know that this exists. This is not something to keep secret. If this was a pilot murdercide (which I think it was), then the pilot evidently wanted to conceal his actions even beyond his death. Making that impossible would hopefully have made the pilot think in other ways to terminate with his life.

                                Careful. In wrong hands it would be an apocalypse. How are you going to protect this? It would end up in the wrong hands, sooner or later (guess sooner).
                                The same was said of the nuclear ICBMs. Give a code to Boeing (not preciselly the wrench guy), one to the airline (not preciselly the girl in the counter), and one to the FAA (not preciselly to the controller). All three codes are needed.

                                I don't know, just inventing. I think there must be smart guys somewhere that can figure out a secure protocol.

                                Fingerprints aren't secure enough. Codes, maybe.
                                The same. Just being too creative here. Someone must figure out a secure protocol. In this case I think that perfection will not be possible and anything done to reduce the risk of the rogue pilot will increase the risk of the rogue passenger. But I think that somehow it's possible to reduce the first one quite a bunch while increasing the second just a little bit.

                                Anyway, the intention of my post was not to say "do this", but to show that, tricky or not, there was room for improvement from the lessons learned from MH 370.

                                --- 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

                                Working...
                                X