Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Malaysia Airlines Loses Contact With 777 en Route to Beijing

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

  • it's not apples and oranges. it's an endemic problem that no one give a shit to put an end to. let the free market rule... yada yada yada. i'm all for that shit, but when safety takes a back seat because a bunch of screwball wall street boys want a 200 foot yacht cuz the 100 footer aint good enough; cuz a 1,000,000,000 annual profit is not good enough. they can kiss my ass.

    electronics in jets are expensive because we allow them to be. if boeing told "x manufacturer" of the cockpit glass that it was refusing to pay $200,000 for a 13" screen, they would listen. boeing doesn't give a shit cuz they pass the cost on to the airlines, who in turn pass it on to me.

    do you think the systems in jets are any better than those used on the ground? i doubt it.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
      total cost? probably a few thousand dollars per plane.
      We're talking about an industry that thinks in terms of how many bags of chips they hand out. If they aren't required to do something like this, they won't spend a dime on it.

      And as far as requiring it, remember, it is extraordinary to lose an aircraft to a scenario like this. The philosophy behind aviation safety is primarily to prevent failures or errors from leading to crashes, not to provide for exceedingly rare scenarios. How many times has a plane disappeared with the ACARS and ADS-B tracking disabled? What is the predicted rate of recurrance?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
        it's not apples and oranges. it's an endemic problem that no one give a shit to put an end to. let the free market rule... yada yada yada. i'm all for that shit, but when safety takes a back seat because a bunch of screwball wall street boys want a 200 foot yacht cuz the 100 footer aint good enough; cuz a 1,000,000,000 annual profit is not good enough. they can kiss my ass.

        electronics in jets are expensive because we allow them to be. if boeing told "x manufacturer" of the cockpit glass that it was refusing to pay $200,000 for a 13" screen, they would listen. boeing doesn't give a shit cuz they pass the cost on to the airlines, who in turn pass it on to me.

        do you think the systems in jets are any better than those used on the ground? i doubt it.
        Well, in fact, that's not exactly what happens.

        You can have a standard retail microwave and get the product certified for aviation, then the process certified for aviation, then the process will be more expensive because of more stringent quality controls but, more importantly, the cost of the certifications will be divided not by the total number of microwaves of that model, but only by those that go to aviation, which is a low volume. The pro-rate of the certification costs is a big part of the cost of aviation items.

        And believe me, you don't want to allow a retail microwave to be approved for a 777 without certain product and process certification requirements.

        --- 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 Evan View Post
          We're talking about an industry that thinks in terms of how many bags of chips they hand out. If they aren't required to do something like this, they won't spend a dime on it.

          And as far as requiring it, remember, it is extraordinary to lose an aircraft to a scenario like this. The philosophy behind aviation safety is primarily to prevent failures or errors from leading to crashes, not to provide for exceedingly rare scenarios. How many times has a plane disappeared with the ACARS and ADS-B tracking disabled? What is the predicted rate of recurrance?
          are you the same evan that was proposing that all countries with airports near large bodies of water be mandated to have sea SAR teams and equipment? what is the rate of water crashes?

          and since the main/controlling philosophy is to prevent crashes, let's do away with seat belts and lifejackets and rafts--all weighting hundreds of ponds and costing millions of dollars--since they don't work in crashes and our goal is to prevent crashes anyway.

          Comment


          • I'm really curious to know what excellent reasons should have the aviation industry to don't add a device that avoid the time and the huge expenses needed to find this plane, or the AF447 or whatever other in a similar case. I have some friends working for Airbus and companies related with it, engineers, mechanics and pilots, but I really don't know anybody that works in the departments that take this kind of decisions.

            And I'm really curious because one thing is absolutely clear for me and it's that planes are made by thousands of extremely professional people. So they should be really good reasons to don't implement such an apparently basic device like the one we are talking about here.

            We can guess that the reason is the cost, which I humbly doubt, or the few cases in which this device can be useful, which I doubt as well, but does anyone know a real technician who can tell us the real reasons?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by pacoperez View Post
              .............................................
              .................but does anyone know a real technician who can tell us the real reasons?
              Find a copy of Aviation Week & Space Technology dated august 4, 2014 (Pages 39 - 4. there are several articles on how aircraft tracking can be accomplished including various proposals.

              As I've mentioned before I've worked on deployable data recorders (some with beacons) for aircraft and submarines.
              I've also worked on spacecraft, high altitude probes, and ejection seats that required various location devices.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Highkeas View Post
                Find a copy of Aviation Week & Space Technology dated august 4, 2014 (Pages 39 - 4. there are several articles on how aircraft tracking can be accomplished including various proposals.

                As I've mentioned before I've worked on deployable data recorders (some with beacons) for aircraft and submarines.
                I've also worked on spacecraft, high altitude probes, and ejection seats that required various location devices.
                Thanks Highkeas! I will.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by pacoperez View Post
                  I'm really curious to know what excellent reasons should have the aviation industry to don't add a device that avoid the time and the huge expenses needed to find this plane, or the AF447 or whatever other in a similar case. I have some friends working for Airbus and companies related with it, engineers, mechanics and pilots, but I really don't know anybody that works in the departments that take this kind of decisions.

                  And I'm really curious because one thing is absolutely clear for me and it's that planes are made by thousands of extremely professional people. So they should be really good reasons to don't implement such an apparently basic device like the one we are talking about here.

                  We can guess that the reason is the cost, which I humbly doubt, or the few cases in which this device can be useful, which I doubt as well, but does anyone know a real technician who can tell us the real reasons?
                  The airline doesn't pay for the search operation. The public does. Malaysian and Australian taxpayers. 50/50. Airlines today are highly cynical profit-squeezing enterprises, if you haven't noticed by the constantly insulting fees thay impose on just about anything they can imagine. They will not consider voluntarily investing in the technology discussed here. If the CAA's didn't mandate lifejackets and oxygen masks they would be offering them for sale.

                  Malaysia has little to gain if the wreckage is ever found. This won't mitigate the damage to their reputation they have suffered. If they find the wreckage, it won't absolve them of responsibiility. It will bring closure and put things in the past, for what that's worth.

                  The CAA's on the other hand are now largely in the pocket of the industry as we have learned from recent whistleblowers. To get the FAA, for instance, to require a fleetwide upgrade like we are discussing, they would have to take an adversarial stand against an entanglement of embedded interests. They would take such a stand on an obviously dangerous issue but not on something as rare and unlikely as this.

                  The only losers in this scenario, aside from the victims and their families, are the insurers (who actually win in the larger scheme of things) and the taxpayers who would never notice the expense (they pay the same taxes, regardless of where those tax dollars are spent). The winners are the salvage contractors and the media.

                  Comment


                  • Anybody have an explanation why Australia is letting a $50 million contract for a search? How is any of this the responsibility of Australia? Is there any proof the crash happened anywhere near Australian territorial waters? Seems to me the whole load should come out of the Malaysian treasury. Or are they so dirt poor they can't cough up? I just read in Wikipedia that international law calls for $175,000 per lost passenger. Have they given anything close to that? Or is the Malaysian government stalling it by saying "They aren't lost just because we can't find them?" This incident is a gift that just keeps on giving.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by EconomyClass View Post
                      Anybody have an explanation why Australia is letting a $50 million contract for a search? How is any of this the responsibility of Australia? Is there any proof the crash happened anywhere near Australian territorial waters? Seems to me the whole load should come out of the Malaysian treasury. Or are they so dirt poor they can't cough up? I just read in Wikipedia that international law calls for $175,000 per lost passenger. Have they given anything close to that? Or is the Malaysian government stalling it by saying "They aren't lost just because we can't find them?" This incident is a gift that just keeps on giving.
                      Well - I assume since there are strong indications that the flight disappeared in the southeastern Indian Ocean, Australia would be the logical choice to conduct the search. They are closest to the presumed location.

                      Comment


                      • Just read a totally worthless news article (Dated 10-2-2014) that "the plane could be found in days" using some new sonar thing with an 8-mile cable...

                        Ok...I guess...I kind of doubt it's the 8-mile cable that's gonna make this happen so fast...so much for some hard facts.

                        Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 could be found in just days — if it is actually in the Indian Ocean. Researchers have a good idea on where the Boeing 777 went down back in March and, with new vessels and equipment expected to arrive in the remote area by Sunday evening, experts say that the plane […]
                        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                        Comment


                        • New report.

                          Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 probably was descending and spiraled into the southern Indian Ocean in March after its engines ran out of fuel while on autopilot, according to the latest simulations.

                          The updated flight-path analysis, released by the Australian Transportation Safety Bureau, presents an "end-of-flight scenario" in which the right engine quit first, then the left, "with no control inputs."

                          "This scenario resulted in the aircraft entering a descending spiraling low bank angle left turn and the aircraft entering the water in a relatively short distance after the last engine flameout," the report states.

                          That indicates the wreckage of the Boeing 777, which vanished March 8 with 239 people aboard, "may be located within relatively close proximity" to the "7th arc," which is the focus of the search.

                          The Beijing-bound jetliner stopped communicating with traffic controllers not long after taking off from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The plane made a 180-degree turn and flew for several hours before apparently crashing into the ocean hundreds of miles west of Australia.

                          The updated scenario is based on satellite communications and an unanswered ground-to-air phone call 17 minutes after the plane's last radar information.

                          To estimate and have confidence in a reasonable search area width, it is important to understand
                          the aircraft system status at the time of the SATCOM transmission from the aircraft at 0019.29
                          (log-on request), and the variations in aircraft behaviour and trajectory that were possible from that
                          time.

                          The log-on request recorded at the final arc occurred very near the estimated time of fuel
                          exhaustion. The recorded BFO values indicated that the aircraft could have been descending at
                          that time. Aircraft systems analysis, in particular the electrical system and autoflight system, has
                          been ongoing. In support of the systems analysis, the aircraft manufacturer and the operator have
                          observed and documented various end-of-flight scenarios in their B777 simulators.

                          The simulator activities involved fuel exhaustion of the right engine followed by flameout of the left
                          engine with no control inputs. This scenario resulted in the aircraft entering a descending spiralling
                          low bank angle left turn and the aircraft entering the water in a relatively short distance after the
                          last engine flameout. However when consideration of the arc tolerances, log on messages and
                          simulator activities are combined, it indicates that the aircraft may be located within relatively close
                          proximity to the arc. Whilst the systems analysis and simulation activities are ongoing, based on
                          the analysis to date, the search area width described in the June report remains reasonable with
                          the underwater search to commence at the 7th arc and progress outwards both easterly and
                          westerly.

                          Comment


                          • The Malaysian government has officially declared the disappearance of Malaysian Airline flight MH370 an accident and has said that there were no survivors.

                            No trace of the Beijing-bound aircraft has been found since it disappeared on 8 March 2014.

                            Officials said that the recovery operation is ongoing but that the 239 people onboard are now presumed dead.

                            The plane's whereabouts are still unknown despite a massive international search in the southern Indian Ocean.

                            The declaration on Thursday should allow compensation payments to relatives of the victims.

                            Malaysian officials added that the recovery of the missing aircraft remained a priority and that they have pursued "every credible lead".

                            Department of Civil Aviation (DCA) Director-General Azharuddin Abdul Rahman said that it was "with the heaviest heart and deepest sorrow that we officially declare Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 an accident.''

                            "All 239 of the passengers and crew onboard MH370 are presumed to have lost their lives," he said.
                            Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-31039460

                            Comment


                            • Phew! Glad the exhaustive analysis has allowed them to come to this well-researched conclusion. [/sarcasm]

                              Arrow

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Arrow View Post
                                Phew! Glad the exhaustive analysis has allowed them to come to this well-researched conclusion. [/sarcasm]

                                Arrow
                                Even in a best-case scenario they would have run out of fuel by now.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X