OT: Anyone following the Malaysian 777 missing/crashed?

Page 3 of 5  


He is saying that the explosion itself wouldn't disintegrate the airplane. However, what happens on the way down and on impact is another story altogether.
--
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Agreed. It's all in what the phrase "Completely disintegrates" means. Since he qualified that by saying it wouldn't "immediately" fragment I think that also implies that it's possible for eventual fragmentation to occur. Read the details of the Lockerbie crash. They pretty much know where all the large pieces fell after the explosion severed the nose of the plane. That, to me, means "partial" and not "complete" disintegration.
PanAm 103 came down in some pretty large and discrete chunks and the fuselage, because of its shape, came down vertically. A fall from 35K feet would drive that MH370 fuselage into the sea bottom as if it were pushed in by a huge pile driver. The wings would have likely remained more or less intact (at Lockerbie they burned up in the crash crater fire - there presence was only know by the steel hydraulic jack screws that survived the inferno.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:13:52 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:

No one is making any claims as to when the crew died or if they died. But with regard to the transponder and all contact, that's exactly what we know happened in previous bomb events. The plane was flying normally, then all contact was lost, no mayday, no more transponder, etc. And if he's not saying that a bomb is inconsistent with what we know, the WTF is he talking about when he is dismissing a bomb? That is what the focus of that article is about, what happened to the plane.
We know

The speed with which contact was lost, no mayday, no further transponder data, ie that all that stopped suddenly,is consistent with previous bombings, ie PanAm, Air India, TWA800, even though TWA was a fuel tank explosion it's similar to what could happen from a cargo hold explosion.

Of course it would. It's exactly what happened with the above examples.
In fairness, I think that's what happened to PanAm 103 because the

OK, so again, a boom box device has been used to quickly bring down a plane where the dissappearance is no different from the known facts so far on this one. So, what's your point? A boom box isn't a plane full of explosives, which the nut is talking about.

Irrelevent as demonstrated by your own example.
And

Irrelevant and an engine isn't critical, the plane can continue to fly with one engine. They are actually designed to fall off is something catastrophic enough happens to them.

BS. Again, who's saying that anyone "stopped the plane dead in it's tracks"? All people are saying is that what we've seen, everything normal, then sudden loss of contact, like you had here, is consistent with a bomb. Excep this loon.

It didn't in PanAm and AirIndia, TWA800. Isn't that enough to suggest that this idiot should not be ruling it out?
But it doesn't

It's a lot closer to instantaneously unairworthy than it is to "eventually", again as shown by the above incidents. And none of that has anything to do with it being consistent with what we have on record from this flight, so far.

Ridiculous. What makes you think they are even looking for that? Unless the plane became a fireball, you might not even seen the flash of the blast, since that's inside the cabin, yet it destroys the cabin. Hell, we had planes that quickly disappeared just from cargo hold door coming off that were not secured. It lead to a near instantaneous buckling of the cabin floor, severing power to the plane. Good bye transponder and no mayday call. Sure they might see something, but to say that because the USA hasn't come forward and said they saw the explosion does nothing to vidicate this guy, his a loon.
Since the skies

The middle of every ocean area or jungle area that the plane might have gone into is watched for signs of combat and terrorism? And even if it is, that satellite is appropriate for detecting an explosion inside a plane at 35,000 feet? Really?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

No, it's just common sense to assume when he talks about total disintegration, which could only come about by a 777 packed with HE that EVERYONE and EVERYTHING is destroyed. Short of that kind of destruction the transponder, crew and radios can have have survived explosions aboard airliners. He was making that comment *knowing* that the transponder and radio contact ended about the same time for MH370 - which could cause someone to think it was a bomb. He says that's unlikely and I agree - particularly with a 777 and all the design work they've done to insure something like Lockerbie doesn't happen again.

You left out an important qualifier: *SOME* previous bombing events. You certainly can't claim they all went that way, especially in light of the citation I posted previously (that surprised even me):
<<Current aircraft designs are, however, already fairly resistant to internal explosions-as evidenced by the 57 percent survival rate of aircraft for all in-flight bombing incidents (35 events) in the past 25 years (Schwartz et al., 1995).>>
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id —26&page(
The Lockerbie bombers had no control over where the bomb got stuffed into the baggage compartment. They happened to get very "lucky" (I hate using that word in this context) that their very large bomb (one that probably would never get on board today's planes) was placed in the baggage compartment right behind the pilot's cabin. Anywhere else and the tragedy might have played out very differently.

That happens even without bombs because the mantra is "aviate, navigate, communicate." There's not much point in calling the tower if they're not going to help you keep the plane aloft so it's last on the list with good reason.

He is dismissing it in THIS particular case. Comparing it to a "lucky" bomb on a plane three generations older than the 777 is not necessarily valid. Planes have been redesigned with the lessons of events like Lockerbie fresh in the designer's mind. Baggage compartments have been redesigned to try to insure that blasts in the hold do as little damage to the structural elements as possible. Bomb dogs are trained to sniff out explosives like Semtex and PETN that apparently were used on PanAm 103. Cabling has been re-routed so that critical system wires aren't near the baggage compartment, the most likely place for a powerful bomb to be planted.
To me, he's saying given modern security measures and the redesigns of the 7X7 series have made, it is less and less likely that a single bomb would achieve the results of Lockerbie.

And he gave his opinion, with which I concur, that it's impossible to "completely disintegrate" an airline like the 777 with a single explosive device. Obviously you believe differently, but you're citing two examples of some very bad circumstances that all happened at once. More than half the attempts to bomb airlines in the last 25 years have been unsuccessful.

*Some* previous bombings. You're taking three cases, all of older aircraft designs, and generalizing from those outliers. Not kosher. TWA800 was NOT similar to what would occur in a cargo hold explosion, BTW, but that's another story.
There have been plenty of bombings that don't break radio contact or crash the airplane and there are likely to be many more as security and aircraft design improve:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0283.shtml
<<The following list describes 88 cases related to airliner bombings, 56 of them resulting in deaths.>>
It's pretty clear to me that bombs aren't a "sure thing" in terms of taking down airplanes and lot has to do with random chance - where the bomb is placed and on what aircraft. The more modern (and larger) the aircraft, the less likely it is that a single "carry-on" or baggage hold bomb could crash the plane.
Here's *my* cherry-picked list of bomb attempts that did not bring the plane down.
19 November 1968 - Continental Airlines A Boeing 707 carrying 70 people was preparing to land at Denver when an explosion occurred in one of the lavatories. Though the blast started a small fire, the pilots were able to make an emergency landing with no injuries. A passenger seen leaving the lavatory just before the explosion was arrested by the FBI.
22 December 1969 - Air Vietnam During final approach at Nha Trang, Vietnam, a bomb exploded aboard a Douglas DC-6B blasting a 5 ft (1.5 m) hole in the fuselage near the port cabin washroom. The plane's hydraulic system failed so the landing gear had to be lowered manually and the flaps would not deploy. As the stricken plane touched down, it overran the end of the runway striking several houses and a school. The impact killed 10 of the 77 people aboard as well as 24 victims on the ground.
21 February 1970 - Austrian Airlines On the same day as the Swissair attack, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine detonated a second bomb aboard an Austrian Airlines Caravelle airliner traveling from Frankfurt, Germany, to Vienna. The bomb, located inside a mailbag due to be carried to Israel on a later flight, exploded about 20 minutes after takeoff. Though a 6 ft (0.6 m) hole was torn in the bottom of the fuselage, the aircraft landed safely at Frankfurt and none of the 38 people (33 passengers, 5 crew) aboard were injured.
25 May 1972 - LAN Chile A LAN Chile flight from Panama City, Panama, to Miami suffered an explosion about one hour and 18 minutes after takeoff. The Boeing 727 was carrying 50 people (40 passengers, 10 crew). The blast was caused by a crude pipe bomb planted in the ice water fountain service compartment. Though the plane experienced a rapid decompression, no one was harmed and the pilots made an emergency landing at Montego Bay, Jamaica.
16 August 1972 - El Al Israel Airlines A Boeing 707 of Israel's El Al had just taken off from Rome bound for Tel Aviv when a bomb hidden in a portable record player exploded in the aft baggage compartment. The airline had adopted reinforced cargo containers that reduced the bomb's effectiveness. Though the 200 grams of explosive blew a hole through the baggage hold, the aircraft landed safely at Rome and none of the 148 people aboard were injured.
8 December 1972 - Ethiopian Airlines Flight 708 Ethiopian Flight 708 was a Boeing 720 carrying 94 passengers and crew. About 13 minutes after takoff from Addis Ababa, seven hijackers from the Eritrean Liberation Front pulled out guns and tried to take control of the plane. The attempt was thwarted by six armed security guards. As the two sides traded gun fire, one of the terrorists activated a gand grenade. A passenger grabbed the live explosive and lobbed it into the aft fuselage since this portion of the cabin was unoccupied. The grenade detonated, damaged both the inboard engine and rudder controls, and filled the cabin with smoke. Nevertheless, the pilots were able to return to the airport for an emergency landing. Six of the terrorists were killed aboard the plane and the seventh died later in a hospital. The other 87 aboard survived, and the plane was repaired and returned to service.
3 June 1975 - Philippine Air Lines A BAC One-Eleven departed Legaspi carrying 64 people (59 passengers, 5 crew) bound for Manila. As the plane descended for landing, a bomb detonated in the right lavatory in the aft passenger cabin. The blast created a large hole 4.3 x 13 ft (1.3 x 4 m) across and killed one passenger, but the plane landed safely.
17 August 1978 - Philippine Air Lines With 84 aboard (78 passengers, 6 crew), a BAC One-Eleven left Cebu for Manilla. One passenger was killed when a bomb blast in the left rear lavatory blew a hole in the fuselage. The aircraft landed safely with no additional injuries. Like a cat with nine lives, the plane involved was the same PAL airliner that survived a bombing in June 1975.
26 April 1979 - Indian Airlines An Indian Airlines flight from Trivandrum was descending to land at Madras (now Chennai) when an explosion went off in the forward lavatory. The detonation caused a complete instrument and electrical failure aboard the Boeing 737. The plane was forced to make a high speed landing because the flaps could not be extended. With thrust reversers and anti-skid systems also disabled, the aircraft overran the end of the runway. Though the right side of the plane caught fire, all 67 occupants (61 passengers, 6 crew) evacuated safely. All survived but the 737 was written off due to the damage.
18 January 1984 - Air France An Air France Boeing 747 was carrying 261 passengers and crew when an explosion rocked the aircraft shortly after leaving Karachi, Pakistan. The blast created a hole in the right aft cargo compartment causing rapid decompression. The pilots made an emergency descent and landed at the airport with no injuries.
23 January 1985 - Lloyd Areo Boliviano The LAB flight left La Paz, Mexico, for Santa Cruz, Bolivia. While en route with 127 occupants (120 passengers, 7 crew), a passenger entered the forward lavatory carrying a suitcase. Inside the suitcase was dynamite that exploded, killing the passenger. The Boeing 727 landed safely at Santa Cruz with no additional fatalities.
2 April 1986 - Trans World Airlines Flight 840 A Boeing 727 preparing to land at Athens, Greece, was badly damaged by a bomb explosion. The device consisted of 1 lb of plastic explosive placed under a seat cushion. The detonation blew a 24 ft (2.25 m) hole in the fuselage resulting in a rapid decompression of the cabin that sucked four people out to their deaths, including an infant. Another five people suffered injuries but 110 passengers and crew survived when the plane landed safely. A Lebanese woman was suspected of planting the bomb during a previous flight. She was arrested and believed to work for the Abu Nidal organization, but the woman was not convicted for lack of evidence. A group called the Arab Revolutionary Cells claimed responsibility for the attack in retaliation for America's involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and skirmishes between the US and Libya the previous week.
26 October 1986 - Thai Airways International Flight 620 Flight 620 left Bangkok, Thailand, for Manila, Philippines, where it continued on to Osaka, Japan. The Airbus A300 carried 239 people (223 passengers, 16 crew) on the second leg of the trip. While cruising at 33,000 ft (10,060 m) over Tosa Bay off the coast of Japan, an explosion occurred in the aft lavatory on the left of the cabin. The blast caused a rapid decompression and damaged two of the plane's hydraulic systems. The captain and co-pilot initiated an emergency descent but fought to keep the plane under control. Though exceeding the plane's maximum descent rate by nearly 20%, the pilots managed to recover after pulling off a +2.6g maneuver. The heavily damaged aircraft managed to land safely at Osaka with no fatalities. The cause of the blast was a hand grenade a passenger was attempting to smuggle into Japan that exploded in the lavatory.
11 December 1994 - Philippine Air Lines Flight 434 PAL434 was a multi-stage flight that first left Manila, Philippines, for Cebu aboard a Boeing 747. After takeoff, a Middle Eastern passenger disappeared into the lavatory where he assembled the components of a small bomb. The device was placed in the life vest under his seat 26K before the man disembarked the aircraft. The second leg of the flight departed for Narita, Japan, carrying 293 people (273 passengers, 20 crew) and a Japanese businessman named Haruki Ikegami occupied seat 26K. The device detonated four hours after it was planted, killing Ikegami and injuring ten others. The blast blew a hole through the floor to the cargo compartment below and also severed cables to the plane's control surfaces. Though steering was crippled, the pilots made an emergency landing in Okinawa and no further lives were lost. Had the bomb been placed two rows further back over the center fuel tank or turned to the side so its blast wave struck the fuselage walls, the aircraft most likely would not have survived.
9 July 1997 - TAM Flight 283 A Fokker 100 operated by the Brazilian airline TAM was en route from Sao Jos dos Campos to Congonhas carrying 60 people (55 passengers, 5 crew). The plane was climbing through 7,875 ft (2,400 m) after takeoff when a bomb exploded underneath seat 18D. The small device contained just seven ounces of explosive but the blast and decompression blew a 6.5 ft (2 m) hole in the fuselage. The passenger in seat 18E was pulled from the plane and died, but the remainder of the occupants survived after an emergency landing at So Paulo. A suicide attempt was blamed as the motive.
**************************************************************************** ******* So it's clear not every bombing brings a plane down. What's less clear is the improvements that have been made to baggage compartment designs to make it far less likely that a bomb would do catastrophic damage. It's not impossible, but it gets less and less likely every year with enhanced security measures like x-rays, bomb sniffing dogs, close inspection of carry on luggage, limitations on materials that can be carried on board, etc. All of those factors make it Prof. Wei's comments accurate.
If you could point to a case where a modern 777 was brought down by an explosive device, I might buy into your argument with his comments. However I don't see that he's wrong in saying that a bomb that could get through screening (implied, not stated) could not "completely disintegrate" a 777 jetliner and would be unlikely to cause the plane to crash unless the bombers got very, very lucky.
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Green wrote:

There are four things that are definitively known about flight MH370:
- the transponder beacon became abruptly and permanently undetectable at a time and location that it should not have.
- the plane did not land at it's destination.
- the plane was not detected by any civillian radar after loss of transpoder beacon.
- no radio contact was made with the crew after loss of beacon.
There are two facts that are either unconfirmed or sketchy:
- the pilot of another plane had some brief contact with the crew of MH370 after loss of the beacon
- Vietnamese military radar did detect the plane between one and two hours after loss of beacon.
With the above in mind ...
If the plane broke up while flying on it's intended path (speculatively because of a critical failure cause by earlier damage to wingtip or because of terrorist bomb) with the pilots at the controls, and said pilots were not undertaking any malicious acts or plans, then the plane would have been found at the location where it's transponder beacon was lost.
So a catastrophic failure being the primary and only cause of the crash can't be what happened.
The only explanation for the plane not being found at the location where it's transponder beacon was last detected is that the beacon either failed (without a corresponding structural failure of the aircraft) or it was intentionally turned off (and the plane flew some distance away from that point).
Is it possible that a sequence of minor aircraft failures happened - starting with (or at least including) loss of the beacon, then failure of radio communications, and ending with a loss of air worthiness and thus a crash? Yes, but again how far could the plane have travelled during the time-course of that sequence?
Could the beacon failure have been part of a progressive loss of aircraft functionality that wouldn't have been noticable to the crew until the later stages of the sequence? Could this include a malfunction in navigation and/or location and altitude awareness?
Could the beacon failure have happened in conjunction with a loss of cabin pressure - either through a connection between these systems or through human error?
Could the primary cause be slow depressurization resulting in hypoxia (caused by a fault in the airframe) or a sudden depressurization (caused by airframe fault or terrorist act), with the disoriented crew throwing the wrong switch (turn off beacon) in an effort to correct the situation? With the crew subsequently becoming incapacitated and the plane flying some random course until it crashed into either the water or land?
-> The beacon was turned off, or failed. -> The plane continued to fly some considerable distance in an unknown direction without being detected and without radio contact
What sequence of events can explain this?
One more item needs to be added to the above points:
-> The plane had fuel for 7 or 8 hours of flight time after loss of beacon signal. During this time, the plane either crashed on land or water, or it landed somewhere.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 1:02:54 PM UTC-4, Home Guy wrote:

In addition to a transponder for ATC radar there is also an ADS-B as well. IDK if they are in one and the same unit or separate, but AFAIK both stoppe d at that same point.

The Malaysian AF said a couple of days ago, when they made their initial claim that they had evidence that the plane might have turned back immediately after that point, that it seemed to be confirmed by civilian radar. That would imply that there is something showing up on ATC radar. But we don't know what is really on either radar.

SEPANG: A BOEING 777 pilot, who was flying 30 minutes ahead of the missing Malaysia Airlines aircraft, said he established contact with MH370 minutes after he was asked to do so by Vietnamese air traffic contr ol. The captain, who asked to not be named, said his plane, which was bound for Narita, Japan, was far into Vietnamese airspace when he was asked to relay , using his plane's emergency frequency, to MH370 for the latter to establi sh its position, as the authorities could not contact the aircraft. "We managed to establish contact with MH370 just after 1.30am and asked the m if they have transferred into Vietnamese airspace. "The voice on the other side could have been either Captain Zaharie (Ahmad Shah, 53,) or Fariq (Abdul Hamid, 27), but I was sure it was the co-pilot. "There were a lot of interference... static... but I heard mumbling from th e other end. "That was the last time we heard from them, as we lost the connection," he told the New Sunday Times. He said those on the same frequency at the time would have heard the exchan ge. This, he said, would include vessels on the waters below. He said he thought nothing of it, as the occurrence (of losing contact) was normal, until it was established that MH370 never landed. "If the plane was in trouble, we would have heard the pilot making the Mayd ay distress call. But I am sure that, like me, no one else up there heard i t. "Following the silence, a repeat request was made by the Vietnamese authori ties to try establishing contact with them."
Read more: MISSING MH370: Pilot: I established contact with plane - General - New Straits Times http://www.nst.com.my/nation/general/font-color-red-mi ssing-mh370-font-pilot-i-established-contact-with-plane-1.503464#ixzz2vloI3 bNQ
I haven't seen anything more than that.

That I have not heard. Do you have a cite? If that's true, then it would be a long way and in a totally different area from those areas that are being searched. Where was it claimed to be?

I agree you would think you would have found some debris by now. But it did take 5 days in the case of Air France off Brazil to find anything and what they found was huge, a large piece of the tail. I guess if it takes that long to find something that big, if what was left here was just small stuff, could take longer. The difference here I guess is that if it went down where they lost data, that spot is more specific I believe than what they were working with in the AF case.

The hypoxia, incapacitation would explain the "mumbled" communication with JAL. But hypoxia and sudden loss of transponder? Seems unlikely. At that point, if the plane continued flying for hour+, foul play seems more likely to me.

I think it had a little less fuel than that, but the point is the same. Could be anywhere, but it would have to go unnoticed by civilian and military radar wherever it went. But there are large areas of ocean with no coverage.
What would be interesting to know is what would the radar signature of a 777 with no transponder look like if it headed back across Malaysia like they think it might have. Or continued on into Vietnam on it's usual course? You would think someone would know, or at least run an experiment with another 777 to see. It's obviously going to depend on altitude, if you were deliberately trying to avoid radar by flying low, etc.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 1:32:17 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Here's some more new info:
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/radar-tracks-compound-mystery-of-missing-mala ysian-airlines-flight-370-20140312-00817
Azharuddin Abdul Rahman, director general of the Department of Civil Aviati on, told a news briefing that air- traffic control lost contact with Flight 370 on its secondary radar system at 1:21 a.m. Saturday, before losing con tact on the primary radar at 1:30 a.m. At that point, the plane was cruisin g at 35,000 feet above the South China Sea, he said.
Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/radar-tracks-compound-mystery-of-m issing-malaysian-airlines-flight-370-20140312-00817#ixzz2vlxdkUIm
Malaysia also operates a military air-defense radar system, as well as a ci vilian air-traffic control system. This system also tracked the aircraft, t hough the military didn't examine its data until after Flight 370 vanished. The " possibility of a turn back" was revealed on the primary radar, said Malaysia's armed forces chief, Gen. Zulkifeli Zin. The plane then vanished from the primary system too. Confusion has arisen, though, whether it later turned up over the Strait of Malacca, hundreds of miles off course to the west. Air Force Chief Gen. Rodzali Daud said data analysis showed an intermittent plot to the west of the country, which was spotted at 2:15 a.m., about 45 minutes after Flight 370 was lost from all radar over the South China Sea. The object was some 200 miles northwest of Penang at an altitude of 29,500 feet. "I'm not saying it's MH370, we're still corroborating" with civilians and experts to identify the aircraft, Gen. Rodzali told the briefing. The military radar operators would have assumed that the unidentified aircr aft was a civilian flight and so wouldn't have sounded the alarm to scrambl e jets, Gen. Rodzali said. Mr. Maclean said it would have been possible for the aircraft to have reach ed that point undetected. If the secondary system had been disabled, the plane could have descended t o an altitude of around 10,000 feet and remained below primary coverage, on ly to re-enter coverage west of Malaysia after having regained altitude.
Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/radar-tracks-compound-mystery-of-m issing-malaysian-airlines-flight-370-20140312-00817#ixzz2vlxuYAC1
So, now what? Again there is so much info missing, questions unanswered. Like they saw something west of Malaysia at 29,500 ft. But for how long? What track did it have? Consistent altitude? When it disappeared again, wo uld that be normal due to it moving beyond radar range?
AFAIK flights are normally assigned odd flight levels heading one way, even the other. It's unusual for a commercial flight to be at 29.5, isn't it?
I don't see why the leadership in Malaysia doesn't get control of this and put a single voice in charge, get out all the facts, etc. How hard is it to say exactly what showed up on radar, start to finish? Hell, just put it on a map on the internet that everyone can see instead of having each media making maps of their own based on limited BS from various sources.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>
<I agree you would think you would have found some debris by now. But it did take 5 days in the case of Air France off Brazil to find anything and what they found was huge, a large piece of the tail. I guess if it takes that long to find something that big, if what was left here was just small stuff, could take longer. The difference here I guess is that if it went down where they lost data, that spot is more specific I believe than what they were working with in the AF case.>
I think they found wreckage the first day (the door) and then lost it. My rating of their search competence would be a 2 out of 10. It's there, they just missed it. We're used to a much better standard of air/sea rescue with the USCG constantly training for such missions with the military to back them up on the big searches. If you examined the training these MH370 searchers have, it would probably shock you - and not in a good way.
<The hypoxia, incapacitation would explain the "mumbled" communication with JAL. But hypoxia and sudden loss of transponder? Seems unlikely. At that point, if the plane continued flying for hour+, foul play seems more likely to me.>
A mumbled response doesn't even confirm he was talking to the right pilot. I didn't read that they actually established it was MH370, just someone on that frequency.
<I think it had a little less fuel than that, but the point is the same. Could be anywhere, but it would have to go unnoticed by civilian and military radar wherever it went. But there are large areas of ocean with no coverage.>
The fact the Malaysians seem to have already lied about its position and that no one else picked it up, including Radar24 seem to confirm it left the sky just where its transponder said it was. If the Chinese are right about their satellite images, there's plenty of debris right on the flight path that was missed. Not surprising. My ex-Army (actually always Army) wife has gone on joint training exercises with some of our less competent allies and some of them were so poorly trained and equipped it shocked her. I am certain the Vietnamese and Malaysian searchers are undertrained, underequipped and overwhelmed by the job but, as they say, even a blind pig finds a truffle every now and then.
I suspect the Chinese have been reluctant to release those photos (and perhaps deliberately smeared them) because it shows their aerial surveillance resolution capabilities. We jealously guard our own capabilities, why not them? It's only when the dumb searchers failed time and time again to spot the huge pieces of wreckage that the Chinese felt compelled to give them a big clue.
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

That's probably right where it still is. Have you *seen* some of the "search and rescue" vessels they are using? Fishing boats. This is Ted Mack's Amateur Hour. They found what looked like a door and then *lost* it. What makes you think they are competent air/rescue searchers? Doesn't seem that way to me when they can't even say where the plane might or might not have been. Twelve countries are involved and who knows how many languages and dialects. Bound to be some "iffy" coordination by searchers.
The Chinese have kicked into high gear and I just saw on the news they have satellite images of what look to be large pieces of wreckage. IIRC, it's right on the 370's flight path.
< http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-malaysia-plane-china-satellite-images-
20140312,0,4357295.story >
<<The news from the military agency didn't make clear why Beijing failed to report the images captured three days earlier, although the communist nation's secretive armed forces may have been reluctant to immediately reveal technological capabilities to other nations involved in the intensive search for the missing Boeing 777.>>
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't know now they do it in the Great White North, but the cruise ships boarding in FL swipe your passport before you board and then take your picture for the ship's card immediately. At the end of the cruise you have to check out and they at least glance at the picture. You are more or less precleared. Of course in this type of instance, what happens at the end of the trip is sorta beside the point and you want to find the bad PPs before the get on.
--
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

That's why modern black boxes use ultrasonic transponders that carry for a long distance underwater.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_locator_beacon
<<An underwater locator beacon (ULB) or underwater acoustic beacon is a device fitted to aviation flight recorders such as the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder. ULBs are also sometimes required to be attached directly to an aircraft fuselage. When triggered by water immersion, the ULB emits an ultrasonic pulse of 37.5 kHz at an interval of once per second.>>
They'll find MH370 within thirty days, I'm sure. It's a huge amount of ocean to search and that takes time. They found the Air France plane in a much larger search area of the Atlantic Ocean:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447
<<The Air France flight recorders were fitted with water-activated acoustic underwater locator beacons or "pingers", which should have remained active for at least 30 days, giving searchers that much time to locate the origin of the signals.
In July 2010, the US-based search consultancy Metron had been engaged to draw up a probability map of where to focus the search, based on prior probabilities from flight data and local condition reports, combined with the results from the previous searches. The Metron team used what it described as "classic" Bayesian search methods, an approach that had previously been successful in the search for the submarine USS Scorpion.
Phase 4 of the search operation started in the area identified by the Metron study as being the most likely resting place of flight 447. On 3 April 2011, a team led by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution operating full ocean depth autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) owned by the Waitt Institute discovered, by means of sidescan sonar, a large portion of debris field from flight AF447 . . .
The debris field was described as "quite compact", measuring some 200 by 600 metres (660 by 1,970 ft) and located a short distance to the north of where pieces of wreckage had been recovered previously, suggesting that the aircraft hit the water largely intact.>>
--

Bobby G.





Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Don't they ping for sonar? I keep hearing about how submarines, for instance, can't use their sonar because it annoys whales. Shouldn't they be able to hear a ping? Don't know just askin'?
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, March 10, 2014 5:41:52 PM UTC-4, Kurt Ullman wrote:

Not according to the morons looking for them:
Commander William Marks from the US Seventh Fleet, which is taking part in the search, says he expects the plane's flight recorders to be floating in the water. "In calm seas, if there were a soccer ball [football] or a basketball float ing in the water, the radar could pick it up. They [flight recorders] typic ally have a radio beacon and so for example our P3 [radar] - if they are fl ying within a certain range of that - will pick up that radio beacon. We ha ve not yet picked up anything, but that's typically what those black boxes contain."
Unbelievable. You won't find them if you don't even understand WTF you're looking for.
I understand the Iranians have a video of one of their large drones that they flew over a US carrier in the Gulf. Seems the carrier didn't know it was there until it was practically on top of them. They scrambled jets, but Iran says the drone made it home.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<I understand the Iranians have a video of one of their large drones that they flew over a US carrier in the Gulf. Seems the carrier didn't know it was there until it was practically on top of them. They scrambled jets, but Iran says the drone made it home.>
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html
Still my favorite.
Sadly, the drone story only goes to show that US carriers are leviathans left over from the last WW. I am pretty sure they'll be some of the first assets lost in WWIII. Both the Chinese and the Russians, unable to afford their own carrier groups, have made neutralizing them the priority of a lot of their top weapons designers.
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

I think the tests have been proven to kill them, not just annoy them. Didn't you see "Star Trek IV?" If all the whales die a giant tube will come and erase all life on earth. Is that what you want, earth-hater? To erase all life? (-:
FWIW, I believe those deaths are attributed to explosives used in conjunction with tests of sonar equipment. The Navy wants to make sure hydrophone operators aren't deafened and that sonar detection still works reliably in the presence of explosive detonations.
I believe those MH370 black boxes are pinging away right where they landed, right where the radar trace ends but that no search ship had the tools to listen for them.
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

(grin).

You would think they could find the pinging if it was there.
--
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped throughout>

I thought they got to the game pretty late. Those ultrasonic pings don't carry very far and with that sized initial search area, *all* the search ships needed ultrasonic hydrophones. It may eventually come out how many were actually in service, but it wouldn't surprise me if the number was in single digits. The run for 30 days in part to make sure searchers get serious about looking for them. The worst mistake you can make searching is to clear an area that's not really been thoroughly cleared.
It took a *lot* of ships, submarines and very high tech (and cost) deep diving submersible robots to find the AirFrance boxes after 2 years. If MH370's fuselage rammed into the seabed vertically the same way PanAm 103 rammed into the ground, the black boxes and their pingers could easily be under 100 feet or more of sand or silt. The sound-based "pingers" don't propagate very well unless they're in open water. Or if no one's equipped to hear their signal. Trader, if you're reading, there's q question a good journo should ask: "How many search vessels had electronic search gear and what kind?"
I'm pretty certain the earliest responders were very poorly equipped to do anything since they never even got back to the very "door like" looking object seen floating in sea shortly after the crash. The Chinese were late in getting the satellites pictures into the mix, the Viet-Malay search teams were *woefully* under-equipped and under-trained, the VMs turned down extensive outside help* and there are language, political and jurisdictional issues complicating matters.
The problem with MH370 is that so many alternate scenarios don't make sense. If, as the RollsRoyce data suggests, the plane flew on for hours without radio contact, how do you explain the loss of contact and transponder information? Why didn't it show on any radar operating in the area.
It's a fascinating mystery because most people think that this sort of thing can't happen in the modern world. I guess we all have to guess again.
The question now is whether this loss and the AirFrance crash will end up instituting changes in the way things are done. The search for the Airbus boxes was financed in part by the "deepest pockets" trying to prove the other guys did it. Airbus wanted the pilots to be at fault and AirFrance wanted Airbus to shoulder the blame. And all the settlement costs.
If I were on a jury in one of the wrongful deaths suits, I'd put a larger percentage of the blame on Airbus. They knew the pitot tubes froze over and they didn't want to bear the expense of grounding the fleet until all tubes could be upgraded. Then, in true disaster "form" the crew of the doomed airliner made everything that followed even worse. So they get at least partial credit for crashing the plane although I've argued with some people that say they should get full credit. I don't see it. Ever see the movie "Dark Star?" The Airbus autopilot aborting and dumping control back to the pilots reminds me of when the nuclear self-destruct on the Dark Star has an existential crisis and decides to self-destruct on its own. Just before it explodes, it says "Have a nice day!" Oh, wait, I think that was "Spaceballs."
What's often sad is that many of these tragedies have clearly identifiable causes (eventually) but often nothing changes in the way things are done going forward.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/missing-jet/faa-warned-cracking-corrosion-problem-boeing-777s-n50591
It's sort of like "yeah, sure, so you found some nearly 2 foot long cracks and corrosion on the fuselages of some older 777's - just keep an eye peeled for future ones." Not the warm and fuzzy feeling I want from a regulatory agency accused of being "captured" on more than one occasion. How can you both "promote" and "regulate" air travel without acquiring the organizational equivalent of multiple personality disorder?
--
Bobby G.

* This is now the norm. Whereas many countries once opened up willingly to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

whatever they thought they saw later on?
--
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

OK if you believe the turn to the South West and the plane flying for at least 4 hours.
Here is a theory for you Somali pirates took the plane and believed the Wikipedia page that says it can go for over 6000 miles, not understanding that is only if all the fuel tanks are full. It may have just run out of gas a couple thousand miles short of Somalia.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

How did they get their little pirate boats up that high? (-"
It's possible it was Somalians, but it's more likely to be the Uighurs that have been giving China quite a bit of trouble. It's a Malaysian plane, but with mostly Chinese passengers. I saw an article that said the pilots of that particular plane had previously allowed women into the cockpit. Perhaps they stormed the cabin, killed the pilots, disabled the comms and then discovered their flight training wasn't as good as they thought and the plane crashed. If they wanted to attack China's capital, the best place to do it from might be a flight heading to China where gate security is lax.
All this speculation is beginning to make me wonder whether finding the wreckage and the black boxes is going to really shed a lot of light on what went on.
All in all, a pretty intense mystery that challenges a lot of assumptions most people had. I remember how, as a kid, I was spooked by the story of the "Lady Be Good" that disappeared in the Libyan desert after overflying the airfield and going deep into the desert.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Be_Good_(aircraft)
Lost in 1943, it took until 1960 for the last body to be found.
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.