Wreckage of MH370 washing up on Reunion Island? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: aargee
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 11:05:48 pm
content: Looks like it might be. The wing section is from a Boeing 777. More evidence and tests will follow I guess.http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-30/plane-wreckage-sparks-malaysia-airlines-mh370-speculation/6658600

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 12:28:22 am
content: If it is the flap, it doesn't look deformed in any way as you'd expect if the plane hit vertically at speed as most suspect due to the lack of debris.So points toward a softer landing.But perhaps they were just looking in the completely wrong area all this time?To take all this time for wreckage to wash up seems a bit far fetched, but it is one big arse ocean.I wonder if they can trace currents back to an approximate lattitude?

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 12:32:53 am
content: Good."No part of the wreckage has ever been found" - This is not true. A halon fire extinguisher spherical tank washed up on a Maldives beach, Mar 26, 2014. Closely matches photos of the same tank in a Boeing 777.Seehttp://www.haveeru.com.mv/news/54178And several other reports around that time, seehttp://everist.org/archives/links/__Flight_MH370_disappearance_links.txttime sequence.But it doesn't fit the official story. The tank disappeared, and was never mentioned in the MSM.I wonder what the French will say about this wing part?Ocean currents, indian ocean:http://www.wikipedy.com/ocean_currents_northern_hemisphere_world_map_ocean_currents.htmhttp://www.wikipedy.com/images_o/ocean_current.jpgAnother article:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3178978/Debris-floating-Indian-Ocean-missing-Malaysia-Airlines-flight-370.htmlQuoteEdit: pic from that article:

author: ElectroIrradiator
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 12:36:37 am
content: Chunks of that size cannot be dropping off 777 wings too frequently. Even then Boeing ought to have the incident in their records if it has happened to another airplane.

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 12:46:41 am
content: QuoteNBC just broadcast this and showed that the currents could carry it across the Indian ocean (counterclockwise currents). They also said this is consistent with a "soft" crash landing. Seehttp://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/missing-jet/french-investigators-check-plane-debris-remote-french-island-clues-mh370-n400586?cid=eml_nnn_20150729

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 12:57:54 am
content: Wow.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 01:01:32 am
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on July 30, 2015, 12:32:53 amJust a warning - don't go off on your conspiracy rants again, we don't want that here. Ok?

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 01:02:11 am
content: I wonder how long there will be until the obvious conclusion is reached, that the 777 is just not a flight worthy plane yet, no matter how long they failed at getting it built to begin with?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 01:05:26 am
content: QuoteSounds like we have a winner then. If so, they should start diverting what boats are left and back searching the currents to look for other wreckage.Gotta be a soft-ish landing.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 01:07:37 am
content: Quote from: Mechanical Menace on July 30, 2015, 01:02:11 amHow so?http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/b777.htmNot many major incidents since 1993

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 01:08:18 am
content: Here is a bit of ocean current information. Seems to be roughly on track with the estimated crash location. Of course everything waaay to preliminary.http://5newsonline.com/2015/07/29/garretts-blog-gyres-mh370-debris/

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 01:11:40 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 30, 2015, 01:07:37 amBrain fade, was thinking of the wrong plane. Self

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 01:12:54 am
content: Quote from: pickle9000 on July 30, 2015, 01:08:18 amWow, that's almost bang-on:

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 04:03:58 am
content: I'm not sure why so many people are looking at this and saying "Proves it must have been a soft ditching".It's been ripped off the wing, it has lots of damage around the rear edge, the actuator mount that should be present in that pic I posted above isn't there (ie ripped out.)At the rear edge of the wing, close to the wing root, I can imaging it surviving a high speed water impact and ending up like that. Quite a few large pieces of Air France 447 survived as intact as this one. Including at least one flap I can recall. So it's condition doesn't really say much about the impact.I wonder what the flotation volume is? Just hollow sealed cavities, or some kind of closed-cell foam?Because the question is, did it break off on impact (and then why wasn't it seen?)Or did it go to the bottom with most of the wreckage and then work loose and pop up later?Hollow sealed cavities would have been pressure-crushed at depth. So would flexible closed cell foam, removing buoyancy. But a hard foam might have held up. It's just that this is big and light-colored, so WHY WASN'T IT SPOTTED?I wonder if it might have been floating end-up, rather than flat? Someone should put it back in the water, and see.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 04:47:03 am
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on July 30, 2015, 04:03:58 amIf you have experience in testing stuff hitting water vertically you'll know why.I've done a lot of such testing, and hitting water can be like hitting concrete.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 04:50:28 am
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on July 30, 2015, 04:03:58 amLikely because it's a big arse ocean. And ask anyone who does search and rescue and they will tell you how hard it is to spot stuff.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 05:05:31 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 30, 2015, 04:50:28 amBeen there and done that. Concur.Every time even a little wave breaks you think you spotted something - and then it vanishes.In this case a white (or light grey) object lying just below the surface would be very hard to actually detect visually - because that is the colour of a breaking wave.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 05:18:25 am
content: AF 447 hit the water in a full vertical stall (belly down), definitely not a 'soft ditching', yet bits like these survived. Last one is a wing flap.Anyway, doesn't tell us anything useful, probably.Why have no other pieces turned up? Let's hope they find some more now.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 06:03:33 am
content: This is pretty interesting. The flight as reported in a simulator. Military radar altitudes don't fit but otherwise fits.https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/latest/a/22235213/flight-recreated-in-777-simulator/

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 06:24:00 am
content: It won't take long to know what it is, parts of planes - especially ones this big - have serial numbers on them.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 08:17:44 am
content: They confirmed today that it was part of MH370.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 09:12:33 am
content: AF447 was easily found. Perhaps sheer luck but it probably helped that tracking radar was available until the crash and it crashed (~relatively) close to the coast of Brazil. Plus, the impact was relatively gentle, all considered.MH370 hasn't been found yet and is suspected to have crashed in a large area due to the lack of data available.I suspect more debris may appear as it was predicted that ocean currents would take approximately 1 year to 18 months to reach the coast of Africa going on the estimation of crashing somewhere in the Indian Ocean.

author: B.B.Bubby
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 11:06:50 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 30, 2015, 01:12:54 amWould there be a dirty big eddy in the middle of that zone, may be there's a whole heap more wreckage floating around in the centre?

author: MikeW
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 12:46:13 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on July 30, 2015, 12:37:46 pmQuite the understatement. It's still a couple million square miles or so of ocean to search.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 01:50:06 pm
content: Quote from: MikeW on July 30, 2015, 12:46:13 pmThe only way they'll find the black boxes is if they find huge parts of the fuselage on the ocean floor. If the whole thing was scattered to kingdom come then they have buckleys chance.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 06:07:45 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on July 30, 2015, 12:37:46 pmSince the sea floor there ranges from 2-6km deep, and is pretty rough and rugged ( think the Himalayas writ large, and covered with a snow cover of sediment as well), you would really have to be lucky.Seeing as they found a wreck that was unknown, right in a well surveyed nature preserve off the USA, and they had been doing research only 200m away from it for a few years totally unknowing of it till happenchance with a missing anchor point led them right over it.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2015, 01:43:32 am
content: No matter what, no aliens, not hidden in the desert and so on, I hated that crap.I would think that even finding one bit is a great relief to the families, better to know than not.I wonder if there are search crews out looking for stuff on the surface?

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2015, 04:24:19 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 30, 2015, 01:50:06 pmEven an intact 777 fuselag on the ocean floor looks really really really tiny. Its a damned big floor.

author: ccs46
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2015, 05:49:15 am
content: There are barnacles on that piece, they can look how much cement those things have put down and see how long its been,where it's been, and many other things. The way that things looks, it was sheared off. That plane is the only 777 to have gone down over that ocean. It's a damn fine plane.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2015, 06:21:28 am
content: Quote from: ccs46 on July 31, 2015, 05:49:15 amA fine plane might not have picked up the nickname cripple seven.

author: ccs46
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2015, 07:54:53 am
content: Quote from: coppice on July 31, 2015, 06:21:28 amThat kind of plane has only crashed 4 times in it's history. Considering there is hundreds of that type of plane and that small of a number of them crashed it is 'a damn fine plane." It is probably one of the safest planes Boeing has ever, built. In Asiana Airline Flight 214 crash 3 people died, but not from the crash itself. The British Airways Flight 38 no one died and there was one serious injury. Malaysian airlines flight 17 only crashed because it was shot down by Russian Separatists, and then MH 370, which is the only 777 that has crashed over the ocean and the transponder was turned off, no pilot in his right mind would turn that off, it was done maliciously. Even the 747, and 767 have more fatal crashes than this plane does. If you think about it flying today is the safest means of travel, your more likely to get in a car accident than be in a plane crash.

author: McBryce
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2015, 10:45:34 am
content: Quote from: pickle9000 on July 31, 2015, 01:43:32 amNo, but a whole new set of conspiracy theories are being dreamt up as we speak.I very much doubt that they'll ever find the actual crash spot. I can't find that tiny spring that just shot out of the phone I dismantled and that's in a 4sqm room and I went over the floor with a magnet!McBryce.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2015, 09:22:18 pm
content: Quote from: McBryce on July 31, 2015, 10:45:34 amYou will find that tiny spring when it sticks in your foot!As for the mh370. They have the first bit of evidence. If it came off at depth it will shows signs. If it was snapped off on the surface should also show. If on the surface then a debris field is probable and may be spotted on satellite (from the time of the crash).

author: codeboy2k
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2015, 09:47:59 pm
content: oh noes.... cue the conspiracy theorists... someone (or some state with the technology to do so) clearly just set off a volcanic eruption on Reunion Island in order to cover up any remaining debris that might be found on the island.Just two days after finding the debris and now there's an eruption? Some mighty powerful state doesn't want this plane to be found !/end sarcasm

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 31, 2015, 10:52:28 pm
content: Quote from: ccs46 on July 31, 2015, 07:54:53 amWell that's the million dollar question.The current top theory is the lithium batteries on board started a fire, once that happens, all bets are off as to what technical issues happened with the plane.

author: AG6QR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2015, 11:24:21 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 31, 2015, 10:52:28 pmYes, there was a cockpit fire near the pilot's oxygen system in a different 777 (on the ground). It seems plausible that a cockpit fire could have disabled much of the electronics, could have motivated the pilots to turn toward the nearest airfield, and could have incapacitated the pilots. When the fire penetrated the hull, it would have caused decompression that could have starved the fire for oxygen, leaving the people incapacitated and letting the plane continue on autopilot until it ran out of fuel.It also seems plausible that the pilot could have deliberately disabled systems, depressurized the plane, pointed the plane out toward the middle of the ocean, and committed suicide, taking the passengers with him. He may have killed himself by depressurization, leaving the plane to continue on its course until running out of fuel.Either way, after the fuel ran out, the plane would have glided down to the ocean surface, in cruise configuration. So far, it seems like the flaperon piece is consistent with that, though I'll wait for the authorities to fully investigate.Both main scenarios have legitimate criticisms, and I haven't seen a convincing argument to rule out either idea completely. People try to invoke Occam's razor, but in this case, the "simplest" explanation depends on whether you find it easier to accept the human or the machine failing in a particular way. Whether it was man or machine that failed, it wasn't a common everyday failure.If the wreckage of the main portion of the fuselage and/or the black boxes are found, it will almost certainly rule out one or the other of those scenarios. There will be a burned hole in the cockpit or there won't.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2015, 01:29:19 am
content: Quote from: ccs46 on July 31, 2015, 07:54:53 amPlease refrain from bold accusations and leave making conclusions to the investigators, which they have not done yet.

author: wasyoungonce
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2015, 01:47:27 am
content: Aircraft fire.....Nah....Aircraft would have crashed/disintegrated way long before it got too far. The Aircraft did a wing over Penang...the Pilots home. Typical Pilots trick, last gawk at home.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2974685/Is-emotional-farewell-fly-past-Penang-island-key-clue-mystery-missing-Malaysia-flight-MH370-British-pilot-s-theory.html

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2015, 02:13:22 am
content: Does anyone know how long the black boxes can survive in salt water while still having some hope of recovering data?Is it already too late, or could they recover some data after many years in the ocean?Assuming they are intact and not ripped apart of course.

author: ccs46
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2015, 02:37:45 am
content: Quote from: Bud on August 01, 2015, 01:29:19 amIf you actually look Flight 17 WAS shot down by Pro Russian Insurgents. It happened 4 months after MH370. They had the audio from the Insurgents talking about "How beautiful" it was. Don't believe me? Google it. Please refrain from telling someone they're incorrect without having the evidence to back it up.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2015, 02:54:01 am
content: Quote from: Psi on August 01, 2015, 02:13:22 amAir France May 2009 - May 2011 recovery of last black box, both survived. So 2 years is possible, I remember hearing that 3 years or earlier is desirable but not sure where I heard that or what it relates to.One thing that has bugged me for a while is that reports say the transponder was turned off. They do not say lost contact. I expect that's a direct reading from the acars but would a loss of power generate the same message? It would also be interesting to know if shutting off the transponder is recommended or detailed on any of the onboard emergency checklists. This is the first event so you'd think it would be covered in more detail.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2015, 03:18:16 am
content: Quote from: pickle9000 on August 01, 2015, 02:54:01 amShutting it OFF (or standby)? No, not in flight. That switch is only deliberately used on the ground.But the selection of an emergency code IS mandated in all checklists for serious events.It is possible that during this code selection, the on-off switch was inadvertently operated, but personally I find that highly unlikely.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2015, 03:30:25 am
content: Quote from: cimmo on August 01, 2015, 03:18:16 amThe term used is "shutting off the transponder" but that is in flight so does that mean putting it into standby? Would that generate a message? What I'm curious about is if there is one or more acars messages that say the standby switch was hit, power shut off, or simply a signal lost issue and the same message is used for all so the crew can be notified (or whatever action taken).So I guess the followup would be that if the power was shut off, would that be shutting down other items as well and do they report over the acars?I find news reports so watered down it's hard to know if the reporters have asked any relevant questions.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2015, 05:21:18 am
content: Quote from: pickle9000 on August 01, 2015, 03:30:25 amFrom the perspective of the ATC secondary radars, either standby, off or some actual failure* would disable the active return of the radar signal (amplification and encoding) and the aircraft would basically disappear from the radar display (although if modern enough, the display probably indicates last known position with an error flag on it).The particular radars in use by the ATC facilities in this incident only had a low power primary radar (a primary radar works by simple skin reflection) that had a range of about 40-60 miles. The location of the aircraft when the transponder return was lost was outside of that range. The high power primary military radars were able to track the aircraft (but without accurate altitude information), but this track information wasn't available to anyone with flight following responsibilites for that flight at the time.*Failure is mitigated against by having at least two transponders on the aircraft.And an actual "off" switch position is useful in flight as being a digital device, transponders sometimes stop working correctly. And like any similar device, the solution is to turn it off and on. In aviation speak - "Please recycle your transponder".Quote from: pickle9000 on August 01, 2015, 03:30:25 amI cannot speak with any authority on the subject of ACARS system interaction with the transponder - I don't have that specific information. Perhaps there is a tie from the built in test equipment of a transponder to the ACARS system that would report a discrete failure of that unit, but there would be no need for the physical "off/standby" switch to be so coupled.But the ACARS system was not working properly that day either - the last normal ACARS uplink happened prior to the loss of transponder returns, whether this was due to a deliberate act or some part of the wider system failure, that is not really known.

author: kosmonooit
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2015, 07:39:20 pm
content: Assuming the one possibility of the ghost plane scenario (humans and some electronics knocked out for some reason just after the last comms), surely they should be able to model what happens to the aircraft when flying on autopilot and the fuel runs out, in terms of the type of impact with the water. So the flaperon survived the wing break up, surely there must be clues in there.As has been shown with other accidents, you really have to have a lot of luck and skill to ditch successfully, more often that not its going to end with a break up of the aircraft. Its going to be smashes to tiny bits if it hits the water with terminal velocity.At least something has been found! The rest must be out there, luckily we have the Aussies with deep pockets and lots of toys on the case.

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2015, 09:22:24 pm
content: An expert on a news story said that the found piece did not have leading edge damage indicating it did not suffer a head on collision. Watch the wing in this video from an out of gas plane trying to land on the water. It was ripped off by centripetal force when the other wing hit the water.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2015, 09:34:23 pm
content: Quote from: kosmonooit on August 01, 2015, 07:39:20 pmI think that unless the apu was running (not sure if that has it's own tank or not) that the autopilot would not be able to move any of the control surfaces. Even if it did have fuel it may not have been powered up (a pilots duty). In that case the plane could glide but outside forces could cause it to dive, spin or stall.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2015, 10:02:09 pm
content: As regards flight recorder data lifetime, if it is a recent enough model to use solid-state storage, it ought to be possible to recover data from the flash chips for decades - seawater might corrode away the pins of the chips but it still ought to be possible to access the dice.Tape may be less robust and more dependent on how well sealed it is against water getting to it.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2015, 12:00:59 am
content: Quote from: pickle9000 on August 01, 2015, 09:34:23 pmThere is a "Ram Air Turbine" (a small wind driven generator/pump) that automatically deploys into the airflow to provide last ditch electrical and hydraulic power.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2015, 12:09:37 am
content: Quote from: cimmo on August 02, 2015, 12:00:59 amYou are so right, sorry. One of the last pings was interrupted and they figure that was when the fuel was actually running out and the turbine was deployed.

author: AG6QR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2015, 04:31:23 am
content: Quote from: ez24 on August 01, 2015, 09:22:24 pmThe piece that was found was a flaperon, not a wing. The flaperon's leading edge is normally protected by the wing during cruise flight, because it's nested in back of the wing. The fact that there was no leading edge damage to the flaperon seems to indicate that the flaps were not lowered at the time the plane hit the water, but that's not a surprising thing. In fact, if the flaps HAD been lowered at the time the plane hit the water, that would have been quite puzzling.

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2015, 05:09:07 am
content: I meant the flaperon's leading edge lack of damage that would have occurred if it had smashed against the wing, like in a frontal collision. It had extensive damage to the inboard end like it was ripped off sideways like the wing in the video.I just wonder why Australia is paying for the search?

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2015, 05:20:49 am
content: Quote from: ez24 on August 02, 2015, 05:09:07 amIt went down next to Australia, they pay. That's a general rule but not always correct. Most countries are also willing to have help. This aspect of plane travel is pretty amazing when you think about the cost. There are side benefits as well and it need not be a losing proposition. Having a surface scan of an ocean could be very handy in many cases, brownie points with other govts, having the countries name in the news and so on.

author: kosmonooit
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2015, 06:00:22 am
content: Quote from: AG6QR on August 02, 2015, 04:31:23 amBut the Flaperon does not get lowered entirely like a flap, although it tilts down to act like a flap when needed, still the leading edge would not get exposed even when its 'lowered', unlike the the flaps proper. Even when down it will still act like an aileron, that is move up and down to maintain roll angle required, or straight & level flight.

author: johansen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2015, 06:12:26 am
content: Quote from: Bud on August 01, 2015, 01:29:19 amplease refrain from believing the official story when there is no evidence to suggest its plausibility.knowing that particular plane was loaded with dead bodies... would Dave believe it if there was a few undamaged passports hidden inside this piece of wreakage?regardless if its from the plane or not, it doesn't change a damn thing.. how the hell is it still floating in the ocean after x years?

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2015, 06:31:32 am
content: So here is a comparison of the flaperon to a page from the 777 service manual. I think there is one floating around showing the other end as well.I guess the troubleshooting nature of air crashes is what I am drawn to, very interesting.Sounds like some other debris may have been found in May, it was destroyed (burnt as trash)

author: ccs46
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2015, 10:59:08 am
content: Quote from: johansen on August 02, 2015, 06:12:26 amI think we are talking about two different plane crashes,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17was the one shot down, MH370, is the one that went into the ocean,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2015, 11:02:28 am
content: Maybe another piece?http://news.sky.com/story/1529113/mh370-search-metal-object-found-on-beachhttp://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33750811

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 02, 2015, 11:08:22 am
content: Quote from: ez24 on August 02, 2015, 05:09:07 amEvery country is responsible for search and rescue in it's allotted surrounding ocean, and we have more area than most.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 02, 2015, 11:12:04 am
content: Quote from: johansen on August 02, 2015, 06:12:26 ama) It is from the plane. There is no other missing 777.b) The flaperon obviously has welded sealed compartments (or some other such bouyancy and/or low density materials) inside that allows it to float. Not rocket science.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2015, 11:18:22 am
content: I smell a pilot's suicide club. They found more small pieces of wreckage so maybe they didn't find the plane yet because it is in millions of small pieces scattered on the ocean floor. Just like the German wings pilot the pilot of MH370 could have driven the plane into the ocean at full speed tearing the plane into small bits and pieces. That would also explain why they never found any escape slides/life rafts; a controlled emergency landing on water would at least have the escape slides/life rafts deployed.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2015, 11:43:43 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 02, 2015, 11:18:22 amEscape slides do not deploy unless you first MANUALLY break a wire locked handle, then only will operate one the door is opened again MANUALLY. If the passengers and crew are all either anoxic, dead or overcome with fumes from a fire in the lithium batteries carried in pressurised cargo, there would be nobody competent enough to open the door, break the wire lock and then trigger the deployment charges. Even if there were people awake, the doors would have resisted opening until impact, and after that you would not need them in any case as the plane would be in pieces from impact ( that South Atlantic is never going to be a still millpond ever), so they went down either unfired or shredded into smaller pieces, which would float for a while or just sink anyway as they are denser than water when not inflated.

author: kosmonooit
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2015, 01:24:15 pm
content: Certainly one of the biggest mysteries in the history of aviation, but how could the aircraft fly due south to the middle of nowhere for so long without anyone compos mentis is something that I cant get over, with other pilot suicides it over quite quickly, either plunging into the ground / sea or mountain, and the aircraft is smashed to smithereens. Although the pilot (or someone else ) releasing some toxic gas can not be eliminated, although this would not explain some of the nav/comms equipment failure. And no one on board who had any background that would suggest this action.Surely the waypoints keyed into the Autopilot that caused it to track that erratic track then route that great circle south is some clue? Perhaps done in a panic or on the brink of conciousness.Until they find more pieces and figure it all, its all just speculation.

author: MadTux
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2015, 09:24:33 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 02, 2015, 11:18:22 amWouldn't it be smarter to do a controlled ditch, like Hudson bay bird strike ditch, and wait for the plane to sink in one piece, if you want to make a plane disappear? That way, there wouldn't be any suspicious parts floating on the surface. I'd expect to be lots of floating parts after a high speed high decent rate crash into the ocean, since the plane is ripped in many floating and non floating pieces. (load bearing structure will most likely sink but seats,bits from honeycomb panels etc will float and generate a big debris field)I don't know how long a plane stays afloat with air in fuel tanks. But since all dead spaces and fuel tanks (probably also the inside flap that was just found, but the honeycomb structure still generated enough lift) must be vented because of the differential pressure between sea level and flight altitude (e.g. pressure differential of 750 mbar/75000Pa or 7.5 tons per m², enough to cause dents/rips in non-vented parts), I think it's only a matter of time until these spaces are flooded and the plane sinks completely intact and without any traces on the surface. So if I were a suicidal pilot and wanted to make a plane disappear completely, I'd go that way. But of course it would be a much more agonizing death for the pilot, if you survive the ditch. Floating without food or water in the ocean 1000s of miles from any land/shipping routes is probably one of the shittiest deaths I can imagine.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2015, 10:36:58 pm
content: Besides that the people inside the plane would open the doors and inflate the escape slides/life rafts before the airplane sinks (if the pilot manages to land the plane in one piece on water). The wreckage only suggests the plane isn't in one piece at this moment. There is a lot of mystery to solve. I hope they can use wind and current patterns to guestimate the location the flap could come from.

author: MadTux
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2015, 10:54:08 pm
content: AFAIK the pilot probably killed the passengers by cabin depressurization. Since the pilot has oxygen for a far longer time (4h I read somewhere) than the passengers (a few minutes), he just have open pressure valves for an hour or so at high altitude, before he is alone up there.It's the trailing edge damage which makes me somewhat suspicious that the pilot deployed flaps for maximum lift to make a slow ditch with minimal damage. Compare the damaged flap with the damage on the hudson bay A320http://charlottemagazine-images.dashdigital.com/images/cache/cache_b/cache_9/cache_9/15721-0114_FEA_5Years05-dd6e199b.jpeg?ver=1434645054&aspectratio=1.5

author: Alexei.Polkhanov
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2015, 11:03:14 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 02, 2015, 11:12:04 amI think these compartments used as a fuel tank. That is another reason why they are very well sealed. They probably were already empty at the time of a crash.

author: wasyoungonce
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2015, 12:51:25 am
content: No the Flaperon is not used as a fuel tank, its a moving control surface. The new parts on reunion island do not really look like aircraft parts (looks like an alloy case handle) but it does have a Chinese looking stamp on it

author: kosmonooit
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2015, 07:05:25 am
content: Reminds me of the Monty Python & the Holy GrailSo why do witches burn?- 'Cause they're made of wood? - Good!- How do we tell if she is made of wood? - Build a bridge out of her.- But can you not also make bridges out of stone?- Oh, yeah.- Does wood sink in water?- No, it floats. - Throw her into the pond!- What also floats in water?- Bread. - Apples.- Very small rocks. - Cider! Great gravy.- Cherries. Mud. - Churches.- Lead. - A duck!- Exactly.- So, logically--- If she weighs the same as a duck...- she's made of wood.- And therefore?- A witch!However this here flaperon has a honey comb structure inside (for strength I guess) that is why it has floated to Reunion.http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-31/mh370-what-is-washed-up-plane-debris-flaperon/6663434"The flaperons on the 777 are made from a combination of lightweight materials, including aluminium, a glass fibre-reinforced plastic laminate skin, and a honeycomb internal structure. A lightweight part of this type could potentially stay afloat for a long time. "

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2015, 07:12:28 am
content: Quote from: kosmonooit on August 02, 2015, 01:24:15 pmThere are many different autopilot modes. Some will maintain level flight indefinitely.It's entirely possible that everyone was dead for many many hours and it flew on in complete silence until the final few minutes when the computer would have said "Too low, terrain" a few hundred times before impact.</eerie>Usually a water landing rips a wing off, the wing that contacts first gets extreme forces from the engine digging in.So finding a flaperon makes sense, it's right where the wing joins the plane

author: aargee
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2015, 07:16:31 am
content: I think more wreckage is required (yeah, really?) and if there is evidence of fire, especially if there are fuselage remnants, that will start to mount up a case for a hot burning fire that killed off the avionics.I reckon there would have been lots and lots of simulator runs with scenarios for this disappearance and it's all still conjecture.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2015, 07:20:22 am
content: Yes, finding some parts that show signs of fire damage would make the lithium battery fire theory pretty much proven.But its also possible that the lithium batteries just smoldered producing lots of fumes but no actual fire. In that case there would be no fire damage to find.Finding the batteries themselves would be the only way, and they would have reacted to the salt water anyway so proving what happened when would be very difficult.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2015, 07:32:19 am
content: Was that other fire that burnt on ground figured out? That was a 777 as well.

author: kosmonooit
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2015, 07:38:36 am
content: I think a fire on board can be ruled out, there is no way it would have continued to fly for such a long time with a Fire on Board, although perhaps there was a localised fire that produced toxic fumes and then petered out or was extinguished. Also control and power circuits would go in a big fire, and Al melts real easy as anyone who has tried to weld it knows, so the fuselage would be compromised.The range is consistent with the fuel load, what I want to know is are/were the relevant tanks auto-selected as required? Back in my piloting days, I had to manually select wing and center tanks to keep the aircraft balanced (single engine)But in aircraft fires, its the fumes that kill long before the heat.

author: wasyoungonce
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2015, 08:19:43 am
content: Exactly...the Helderberg, a SA 747 airliner & cargo plane, crashed ~ 1987 from an onboard fire (from cargo area). Once fire detected....it didn't stay flying for long. There have been a few Aircraft fires, suffice to say, they burn pretty rapidly.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Airways_Flight_295

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2015, 08:30:41 am
content: Define fire, and ruling it out without seeing it?Cockpit fire same aircraft. Same masks? Possible fire on mh370, of course. Need not be the same cause.http://avherald.com/h?article=44078aa7

author: wasyoungonce
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2015, 09:03:23 am
content: True...I've seen Aircraft fires (or the aftermath)...the Aircraft do not fly for long, short minutes at best if not seconds, to be true they were not civil aircraft. Suffice to say, there is no way if they had a fire MH370 battery or other, that the Aircraft would return to Penang do a wing over then fly off do a couple of more course changes and then fly to southern ocean. These are known's not circumstantial.A fire is a possibility, circumstantial, but there is no way an airliner could have stayed aloft do these course changes and fly on for hrs and hrs from a fire that incapacitated all on board. It would engulf the rest of the airframe, rapidly causing catastrophic break-up. Just like the Helderberg.Oh I should have also said...MH370 flew pretty much over the old RAAF Butterworth Penang Radar station (Primary) which was real odd then did course changes that appeared to be avoiding radar, this is known but the intent is speculation.

author: kosmonooit
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2015, 01:48:07 pm
content: Butterworth has an air navigation waypoint (VBT) that would explain why they routed overhead, and I am suggesting that keypoints were being keyed into the Autopilot (just a case of selecting or entering the letter codes and then GOTO) by a pilots who were perhaps loosing conciousness (that's how these aircraft are flown nowadays) the final one was perhaps on the other side of the earth that why it flew the track it did.http://ourairports.com/navaids/VBT/Butterworth_VORTAC_MY/#lat=5.476309776306152,lon=100.39399719238281,zoom=10,type=SatelliteIn terms of defining 'fire' that would suggest an open flame, which is ignited from combustible (and toxic) fumes, once that starts it spreads rapidly but it this case it could have started in some way, maybe it was contained or extinguished, but continued to out gas toxic fumes, maybe the skin on the fuselage was compromised causing decompression, whether that Li Ion cargo had anything to do with that, who knows. As far as I know they only really start misbehaving when over loaded and not cooled (let's get Elon Musk's opinion on this) not just spontaneous combusting with no load. There could have been an electrical fault that caused wiring to start burning. Lots of maybes here.About the Helderburg, there was a lot of speculation about its cargo, at that time there was a lot of covert shipping of arms and ammo (and rockets fuel) to SA which was under sanctions, some of the manifest was dodgy and unaccounted for if I remember correctly. It was a Cargo Combo 747, the pax all rushed forward to escape the fumes, some were found three up on the seats.

author: AG6QR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2015, 05:08:21 pm
content: Quote from: wasyoungonce on August 03, 2015, 08:19:43 amYes, but there are also numerous documented instances of pilot suicides. Once the pilot took action to commit suicide, the plane didn't stay flying for long.Whatever happened to MH370, it was significantly different from any previous event.It's not impossible to imagine a pilot pointing the plane out into the middle of the ocean. But it's also not impossible to imagine a fire that extinguished itself once it breached the pressure vessel and caused decompression, which would cool things, "blow out" a small fire, and/or starve it for oxygen.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2015, 06:05:58 pm
content: Helios Airways Flight 522 is similar enough (loss of cabin pressure) that could account for the course change and extended flight.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522Excessive smoke in the cockpit could easily cause the same issue and flight path. It's not like you can open the windows and the system can only handle so much volume. Not to mention the toxicity.An electrical fire need not have spread through the plane and could have self extinguished after the crew and passenger where incapacitated.Could it have been some sort of a hijacking or suicide. An Egyptair flight was certainly suspect when you consider suicide and hijacking happens. Can't rule it out, a weapon fired on board is also a possibility and that would also cause a similar issue with loss of pressurization.Basically I like to let the evidence lead the way and there is little there at this point.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2015, 06:12:26 pm
content: Cargo of used lithium cells, and one in the middle is almost at failure. At take off it is fine, but as the hold depressurises to cabin cruise pressure it expends slightly, then this triggers the cell to short internally. It heats up from the stored energy, and heats up the other used cells in the same pack. The cell protection will not prevent this, as the cell is failing internally. The failing cell eventually bursts and the vapour released catches fire, fuelled by the heat and the ambient air and the hot cells around it. This then triggers the other cells, and they also start to vent and burn the plastic housings. The smoke released, along with the CO and other toxic chemicals in the smoke are circulated by the plane's AC system, and as the first vents are the cockpit the CO starts to build up. The pilots might then notice smoke in the cockpit, and start to initiate a RTO immediately, programming in the waypoints in reverse order to get there. By now the smoke probably has triggered a loud cargo hold smoke alarm, a fire warning alarm and a few caution warnings as the smouldering fire starts to burn cargo hold wiring. The pilots, thoroughly confused, wearing possibly masks, are trying to contain and triage this sudden unexpected pattern of events, not covered fully in the simulator, where an engine fire is the most common simulation. Thus one or the other mistypes a waypoint, and confirms without checking, setting the autopilot on a track to some far off waypoint via a great circle. Fire by now has burnt through control wiring for the cabin entertainment, and trips breakers, taking out at the same time one AC bus and one DC bus. Aircraft systems reconfigure to a failed state but keep running in degraded mode, and there are suddenly a whole load of new warnings on an already overloaded crew. fire burns through control wiring and half the cabin instrumentation goes dead, and kills the comms systems and radios. Fire burns through bottom of cargo hold, and vents cabin pressure at a rapid rate, dumping the smoke, but the crew have already lost consciousness from the sudden pressure loss popping the masks off them, and they fall down unconscious.Plane flies to waypoint on autopilot, then turns and attempts to follow to the other waypoints programmed in by the pilots by error. In all this fuel management and trim keeps the aircraft in balance, transferring fuel as needed from tanks to keep the aircraft balanced at the optimum flight attitude for the altitude and speed. Plane flies till autopilot detects low fuel, and it gives strident warnings to the cabin, then eventually degrades to attitude hold as the engines run dry. Last engine runs out, and suddenly the AC busses disappear, and the DC battery is called on to supply all power. RAT is deployed automatically by the failed AC bus and DC bus monitor, and provides emergency power and hydraulics, and autopilot stops attitude hold and does minimum airspeed management in a long glide. No ground warning, no power for the radio altimeter, though the air data system would be triggering warnings about level.Impact.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2015, 06:22:57 pm
content: I would love to hear what was in the successfully transmitted data packets. They say normal, but what items where recorded and what are capable of being recorded.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2015, 06:24:27 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on August 03, 2015, 06:12:26 pmFits perfectly.

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2015, 07:49:53 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on August 03, 2015, 06:12:26 pmThis is something like my best guess scenario too. There have certainly been lithium fires, and also depressurization events where the plane continues to fly (e.g. Helios). Although it is unlikely the two combine in such a way, MH370 is also a rare event.However, professional pilots suggest a cargo fire or depress should cause the pilots to descend immediately, either to land ASAP or increase cabin pressure. But pilots do not always follow the book, and in the case where they were already hypoxic, may not have been able to think normally.The potential search area is huge though, I am not sure they will ever find it to resolve the mystery.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2015, 07:55:29 pm
content: SeanB's scenario seems quite plausible. An example of cockpit confusion due to fire is the case of Swissair 111. The pilots are confounded by systems failing one by one as the fire destroys wiring and system avionics. The autopilot fails and they have to take control, but the fire begins destroying the mechanical control cables and control of the aircraft is lost. If the fire began near the aft electronics bay, it's quite possible that the only initially noticeable symptom would be gradual loss of key systems. I'm not sure where the transponder system is, but perhaps if this is located in the aft electronics bay this could be one of the first systems to fail.One question - is there any fire suppression system for the cargo hold or aft electronics bay, and if so is this sufficient to extinguish a lithium battery fuelled fire?

author: kosmonooit
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2015, 08:01:42 pm
content: But aren't the hold and the cabin pressures linked always? I think generally set to 6000' equiv at altitude, so how could there be a big differential in cargo - cabin pressures & temps?Aren't most Li Ion cells protected with a small circuit board ? I've seen 'em smoking / exploding on YouTube but only once the protection is removed, and after a serious 'battering'.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2015, 08:18:14 pm
content: Electrical /chemical fires need to have the sources removed. Turn off the power or remove the fuel. Breakers and fusible links are there for a reason.

author: kosmonooit
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2015, 08:21:42 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 03, 2015, 07:55:29 pmThere are also many other instances with pilot confusion in the midst of a panic and wrong waypoints entered (like in Columbia where the aircraft flew into a mountain) - there must be clues in what worked and what didn't in terms of circuits failure, I think there is triple redundancy on the 777?In terms of fire suppression I think there is lots in the cargo hold, but not much you can do about the toxic smoke. Also that was the problem the Helderburg 747 Combi, inadequate fire suppression in the cargo section of the main cabin.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2015, 08:43:55 pm
content: You have pressurised and unpressurised cargo areas, the pressurised cargo shares the cabin air and ventilation, as it is often used for transporting livestock, fish and pets.. Thus a fire there will lead to smoke in the cabin, followed by equipment failures as it typically is just behind the avionics bays, or even between them for certain things like gyro's, which have to be mounted at the mass centre of the aircraft. The cargo holds also have the main wiring and hydraulic lines running through them, in bundles either under the floor in a cable tray or in loops of wiring bundled up and laced hanging from the support structure of the floor above.Fire protection used to be a remote discharge halon unit, but they have had to change them out, so now it is only possible to have a dry powder or a CO2 canister, and the main fire suppression method is to depressurise the cabin and close of the air input, to starve it of O2 while aiming for the nearest runway at speed. seeing as the Lithium cells are capable of burning even in low oxygen conditions and they will continue to generate toxic gas so long as they have charge, and thus will fill the interior with toxic or irritating gas for a long time, even if you stop the fresh air inlet, which will prevent the gas from being removed by the cabin purge valves.Triple redundancy does not protect against physical damage, only that the software, firmware is not all going to fail at the same time. Note as well the tiny matter of the firmware counter being found to have a time dependant bug which caused it to fail had after being powered for a few months when an internal counter would overflow and crash. Reboot fixes it till next time, but you really do not want to reboot on approach or take off.The protection circuit may protect against overcharge, but it doers nothing about internal cell failure. Sony and others had massive recalls of battery packs that had a ferrous contaminant in them from the sealing process, which led to some rather spectacular battery fires in laptops. A cell in the pack may short to another if the casing is damaged, and this would be enough to trigger a fire in the pack, just from the connector tabs getting red hot within seconds.

author: AG6QR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2015, 08:47:51 pm
content: Quote from: kosmonooit on August 03, 2015, 08:01:42 pmYes, the fuselage of the aircraft is one big pressure vessel, and that's why it's roughly cylindrical in shape with rounded ends. Pressure vessels require significant reinforcement (meaning significant weight) to make sharp corners, or even flat surfaces.The floor of the cabin is not capable of sustaining a significant pressure differential between the cabin above and the hold below. There is enough ventilation to insure that no big pressure differences build up. Temperature differences aren't always so well controlled.Quote from: SeanB on August 03, 2015, 08:43:55 pmThere is NO unpressurized cargo area in a modern airliner. There are areas that lack forced-air ventilation, with no temperature control, and these areas are unsuitable for pets and other live animals. But they are at the same pressure as the cabin.

author: wasyoungonce
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2015, 09:24:55 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on August 03, 2015, 06:12:26 pmGood points...but any fire that takes out comms and NAV would have disable all Inmarsat systems (no handshake pings), avionics and flight controls. Swiss AIR 111 is a typical example, though fire was near cockpit.

author: kosmonooit
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2015, 09:57:06 pm
content: Like I suggested earlier it could be partial avionics and power circuits failure due to thermal stresses - cutting out the comms, leaving some instruments on line, source could be a dodgy connection, chaffed live, whatever, has happened before, electrical fires are hectic. Details can only be pure speculation, but have 'they' been looking at possible scenarios? But its this vs the suicide plane, that I have difficulty with. As any student of aviation safety will know, expect the unexpected, in terms of things going wrong, how humans react, most of the accidents are not due to one single cause, but a number of smaller things, that in themselves would not be significant or fatal.Li Ion cargo sounds more like a conspiracy theory, yes there have been issues in the past, but surely aviations authorities would not be complacent about that if there were indeed tangible dangers for them as cargo? Beside the overheating due to over charging, which is well know, and also temp problems with high/ long current drain like Solar Impulse recently experienced (Tesla has a liquid cooling system in their battery pack) Remember the Dreamliner Li Ion problems? they just did workarounds "The causes of the battery failures are still unknown"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner_battery_problemsBut batteries in the hold, out of any circuit ...? hmmmm (as Dave would say)

author: Wytnucls
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2015, 11:32:07 pm
content: Lithium ion batteries are not allowed in the cargo holds of airliners anymore.The 777 has class C cargo holds with smoke detection and halon fire suppression.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2015, 02:39:15 am
content: Quote from: AG6QR on August 03, 2015, 08:47:51 pmExactly. In point of fact, there were a few accidents involving cargo door failures (DC10s mostly) that depressurised the cargo area so quickly that the cabin floor failed due to the differential pressure. In one case the failing floor cut (or jammed) flight surface control cables and the aircraft was lost (Turkish DC10).That is why in newer designs (and retrofitted to older aircraft) there are now weakened blow out panels or vents in the floor that allow the pressure differential to quickly equalise to avoid further structural damage.BTW, typical pressure differentials are around 8-9PSI (~0.6Bar) - I'll leave it as an exercise to calculate the total forces involved for a large airliner fuselage.

author: wxm145
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2015, 02:44:30 am
content: feel very sad for mh 370

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2015, 08:17:36 am
content: Quote from: wasyoungonce on August 03, 2015, 09:24:55 pmDepends where the fire begins. Could a slow burning fire take out the radio/comms systems without the crew noticing? Perhaps inmarsat stuff is located nearer the cockpit? Or could the aircraft remain flying with all flight controls at neutral, say if key avionics systems were lost? I have a feeling the fire would compromise the airframe before this would happen.

author: John_ITIC
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2015, 09:51:45 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on July 31, 2015, 06:21:28 amI just came back from vacation in Europe on a 777-200. Flew from London on Friday morning but had to turn back due to short circuits in (two separate) entertainment centers that caused smoke in the cabin. We dumped fuel and made an uneventful emergency landing. The airline paid for hotel, dinner, breakfast etc so not too bad. But the next morning, we boarded another 777-200 for another attempt just to find out that the co-pilot's instruments didn't match the pilot's. This wasn't detected until pre-flight check. The mechanics were called in and a bunch of things were replaced including the co-pilot's seat (apparently electronics built-in) before we could get on our way. Then we were told that the pilots' maximum wake/work time would be exceeded if we went all the way back to Los Angeles. This was "solved" by making an extra stop in Washington DC for crew change. I think the total trip took some 18 hours...Not sure if we were double-unlucky but I'll remember Boing 777-200 and United Airlines for a while...

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2015, 10:24:10 pm
content: Quote from: John_ITIC on August 09, 2015, 09:51:45 pmDouble unlucky would be not finding the problem. Funny how stuff like that doesn't even rate a mention on the news. You'd think the reporters would be looking for every little incident and making a big deal out of it.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2015, 01:13:34 am
content: Quote from: pickle9000 on August 09, 2015, 10:24:10 pmIt does get mentioned on the aviation news; he was probably talking about this one:http://avherald.com/h?article=48a78266&opt=0(MH370 is there too.)

author: ccs46
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2015, 02:12:46 am
content: Quote from: cimmo on August 04, 2015, 02:39:15 amIts a marvel of engineering that the 777 can stay together at those forces!

author: kosmonooit
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2015, 06:53:30 am
content: I've flown many long distance miles on SIA with the venerable 777 - no problems, but think of all the systems there, electronics, contacts etc just a matter of time before some problem arises, its really how the problem is dealt with: redundancy, preventative maintenance and, most importantly, skills of the crew. That is where we are loosing our way imho, increased automation is decreasing pilot skills, one only has to look at some of the last few air disasters for signs of that. But sh!t does happen. In the most unpredicted and unanticipated ways.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2015, 07:31:51 am
content: Parts have washing up at the Maldives apparently.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3191134/Has-MH370-debris-washed-Maldives-Investigators-examine-items-isles-locals-saw-low-flying-jet-day-plane-vanished.html

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2015, 08:22:45 am
content: Quote from: Psi on August 10, 2015, 07:31:51 amThat would be outside the expected area, could be helpful.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2015, 02:47:14 am
content: Well I don't know what to make of this but it will be checked. Looks really interesting.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3186523/Sonar-images-deep-Indian-Ocean-led-Australian-search-team-believe-wreckage-Malaysia-Airlines-MH370-t-NOVEMBER-bad-weather.html

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2015, 03:08:28 am
content: Here is one image. I'd like to see the group. I wonder if the shadow indicates a curved surface?

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2015, 07:28:25 am
content: Quote from: pickle9000 on August 13, 2015, 03:08:28 amOK, so it's a computer generated image from sonar echo data, thus not safe to interpret as if it was a light-illuminated scene. But that sure looks like a small cliff with some big rectangular blocks of stone fallen off and sitting near the cliff base. Anyone else see it differently?Can anyone explain how those blocks could possibly be man-made? But then maybe the apparent level of detail is an artifact, and they could be any shape of around that size. And how come there seem to be 'shadows' to the right of each? From a towed sonar imager, surely there wouldn't be any such effect? Or is it a computer-generated effect to convey height information, which the sonar data would include?Quote from: Psi on August 10, 2015, 07:31:51 amVery interesting, thanks for the link. That'd be *more* aircraft parts washed ashore in the Maldives in March 2014 soon after MH370 went missing, since there was also the halon fire extinguisher sphere.Seehttp://www.haveeru.com.mv/news/54178and pics below.Then there's the many eyewitness accounts of a large white plane with red stripe flying low and slow over the Maldives to the southwest early the morning after MH370 went missing. Within the possible flight time. Also I take their description "white plane with red stripe" as a reinforcement of veracity, since that's what one would notice from a brief surprised glimpse. While someone making shit up for publicity attention, would have said "white with red and blue stripes", having looked at photos and seeing both color stripes. I've listened to phone interviews with some of those witnesses, and they sound genuine.Or the Maldives fisherman who was way out to sea to the south that morning, and reported seeing smoke and flames on the ocean far to his south. Too far for him to go investigate, but he reported it.None of this ever got into the MSM at the time. Fascinating to see some mention now.Anyway, good luck trying to discuss such details here. Contradicts the official narrative, and so must be crazy conspiracy stuff, disrespectful to the relatives, and will get deleted and you threatened with banning. Never mind the relatives are the loudest voices insisting there's some kind of coverup.There's a lot of other 'doesn't fit the narrative' solid details I could mention. Stuff about the passenger list, the cargo manifest, a particular item of cargo on the manifest and what it probably was, the semi-technical data Inmarsat _finally_ released (which cries out for a solid technical analysis), and so on. But in a truth-chilled forum it isn't worth the effort (and getting banned.) Even though the Inmarsat data and evaluation of what the stated Doppler shifts really mean, could hardly be more on-topic here.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2015, 04:51:08 am
content: Update on that wing part:http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/08/strange-saga-of-the-mh370-plane-part.htmlQuoteSummary: It isn't from MH370. Serial # plate is removed, but crucially modifications don't exactly match those made by Malaysian Airlines. (An interesting thing in itself.)Also:QuoteAnd goes on to say it could not have 'floated underwater a few meters deep' for any length of time by itself:QuotePeople paying attention and with inquiring minds capable of inference were wondering from soon after seeing the pics how the part managed to have barnacles on every surface, but no algae at all. Since barnacles only grow underwater, and anything in the ocean near the surface for months definitely will get covered in algae. Also how it managed to 'wash ashore' (on a pebbly beach) without getting the barnacles all or mostly ground off. Not to mention staying afloat for so long despite all compartments in such aircraft metal structures having drain holes for pressure equalization during ascent/descent, and to ensure condensation drains out rather than building up and causing corrosion. All these points were raised in forums where free debate of important issues is allowed.Anyway, now at least some of those questions are in the mainstream media. The part is apparently not from MH370, and that'squite curious. Thought you should know.Incidentally, it also returns the status of washed-up parts to 'only known candidates were in the Maldives, shortly after the plane was lost.' Except those parts seem to have been vanished, so far as official investigation goes.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2015, 05:42:17 am
content: If it's not from MH370, where could it have come from?

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2015, 10:12:45 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on August 30, 2015, 05:42:17 amThat's the key question, isn't it?I'm eagerly awaiting some more formal announcement about this, and seeing how it's spun.Maybe there'll be some explanation for how it remained deep enough for barnacles to grow on all surfaces, but somehow too deep (or in shade) for algae to colonize the surfaces too. Algae needs light. And I doubt airplane paint includes marine algae inhibitors like TBT.Or how such a part got in the ocean at all, if it's officially confirmed it doesn't match the Malaysian Airlines maintenance records. Yet no other airframe of that type has ever crashed in any ocean.Would be nice to get a photo of where the identification plate was supposed to be. I suppose it's possible the rivets just electrolyzed away in seawater, and it fell off.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2015, 10:27:13 am
content: They rarely rivet those plates on, to save mass on the thousands of parts they generally use a laser etched self adhesive label, which has a 3M adhesive that bonds very well and which is almost totally chemical and solvent proof once cured. your car also has a few of these now, as it is both faster in assembly, the sheet of labels is made in a single process and follows the body shell through the assembly line where they peel off as needed) and you save time in not drilling 4 holes, placing 4 rivets and sealing the assembly to prevent corrosion. They place one on each body panel after the paint shop ( or before with a peel off cover strip on some interior panels for hidden identifying marks) so there is no issue with having a different spec version down the line.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2015, 10:57:05 am
content: 1) It is proven to be from a 7772) No other 777 is missing3) The oceanstreams match with date and locationsThe rest is all a bit of sensation journalism if you ask me.Algae dissapear in a few sunny days here in one of my statues that sit in the shadow 3/4 of the year, the statue is all green, put it a couple of days in hot sunlight and they are gone, statue is bright white.99% of conspiracy theories are BS. If it was a conspiracy you know some govt. should have pulled this off since no small organisation can aquire this part unnoticed and grow shells on it for some months and the fly it to south africa unnoticed to lay on the beach.So if so what would there be to gain you can ask?The only thing a piece of evidence from this plain would bring is assurance that it lies on the bottom of the ocean. So the only thing that would make sense for this to be a conspiracy fake evidence would be that the plane never crashed and it has landed somewhere. Now if you believe that then there should have been some very wanted people aboard of that plane think of nobel price winner people, which there were not. There were no highly important people on board. So skip the BS that plane has just crashed, lies on the bottom of the ocean somewhere and this is very likely a piece of it.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2015, 12:07:53 pm
content: there has to be more than one part with a S/N in that flaperon

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2015, 01:17:58 pm
content: If the piece is from the MH370 then the plane is probably lying somewhere south of Java according to German oceanologists (no idea if this is a valid english word but scientists that study the ocean). However they feel not sure enough to advise the australian government to change the search zone.Dutch only:http://www.nu.nl/buitenland/4117300/wrak-vlucht-mh370-ligt-volgens-duitse-oceanologen-bij-java.html

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2015, 03:38:10 pm
content: (Sep 3, 2015)"French prosecutor says serial numbers found on wing part confirm it is from Flight 370""...PARIS — A French prosecutor says the piece of wing discovered in July on a remote Indian Ocean island has been formally identified as having come from the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370...."http://www.startribune.com/french-investigators-confirm-wing-part-is-from-flight-370/324102121/

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2016, 09:22:14 pm
content: Necroposting somewhat, but this popped up as info.http://www.atsb.gov.au/mh370-pages/updates/reports.aspxMight be worth a read,

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 02, 2016, 12:45:02 am
content: Dammit, how long is it going to take me to learn to type 2016 instead of 2015 in filenames when saving?

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 02, 2016, 09:22:48 am
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on January 02, 2016, 12:45:02 amAbout a year............

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 02, 2016, 10:33:05 am
content: ... I was going to say 111/2months.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 15, 2016, 12:05:27 pm
content: More pieces being found, perhaps:http://jeffwise.net/2016/03/10/mh370-debris-storm/

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 20, 2020, 05:01:30 am
content: Necro-post!Former PM Tony Abbot now says they suspected all along it was the pilot that did it. Not Shit Sherlock!https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/mh370-mystery-almost-certainly-murdersuicide-plot-former-pm-tony-abbott-says/news-story/e9671f5dce21b5ee28d0bca3533628c6

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2020, 01:50:44 pm
content: Initially I though maybe there was some weird combination of technical problems that led to the plane flying off-course, probably with pilots dead or unconscious, something like Helios Airways Flight 522. However, it became obvious that it would have to be an incredible set of circumstances to reproduce the data recorded by radar and satellite.The idea that a pilot could deliberately and calmly kill himself and all on board is obviously possible but seemed hard to accept, but Germanwings Flight 9525 showed exactly that (almost a year later). The pattern of debris washed up is consistent with the location predicted by analysis of satellite data, so there is no need to believe any other theory.Eventually I guess we will have ADSB with global coverage, so planes could be tracked continuously in real time, however a malevolent actor will always be able to turn the equipment off, and it can otherwise fail. There is no practical method of screening pilots for mental health issues, and a pilot with bad intent can simply conceal or lie about their intentions.It is probable that this type of incident will happen again, and there is little that can be done to prevent it.

author: MadTux
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2020, 04:10:22 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 20, 2020, 05:01:30 amWhat else do you expect from a retard with IQ even lower than GW Bush?

author: eugenenine
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2020, 03:29:48 pm
content: Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on February 20, 2020, 01:50:44 pmredundant on switch in the back of the plane that must be turned off by other members of the crew so it takes more than one person to turn it off

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2020, 04:34:50 pm
content: Quote from: eugenenine on February 21, 2020, 03:29:48 pmAFAIK the rules have already been changed so that there is never a single person in the cockpit or an airplane. The German Wings crash where a pilot flew a plane into a mountain on purpose has lead to that rule.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2020, 04:48:15 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on February 21, 2020, 04:34:50 pmHow does that work? You have 2 pilots, and they need to visit the washroom from time to time.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2020, 04:56:56 pm
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on July 30, 2015, 05:18:25 amSoft is comparative. Landing speed or less instead of cruising speed or more. It's a most of a magnitude speed difference which ads up to a lot of energy.Sorry, much older thread than I realized.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2020, 05:00:59 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on February 21, 2020, 04:48:15 pmA flight attendant temporarily takes place in the cockpit. I feel that introduces other risks but that's how it's done.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2020, 05:11:30 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on February 21, 2020, 05:00:59 pmUnless they are required to have at least one unusually robust flight attendant on each flight, I can't see that providing any improvement in safety.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2020, 05:18:05 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on February 21, 2020, 05:00:59 pmYeah.Issue there is that cockpits now have to be locked, and pretty much impossible to unlock (AFAIK) from the outside (for security reasons). So basically pilots can trap themselves in the cockpit. Any extra person in there may only marginally help mitigating the associated risk.I still have a very mixed opinion on that door locking thing.

author: eugenenine
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2020, 06:12:12 pm
content: Last time I flew there was a small restroom right behind the cockpit and the door between that restroom and the rest of the plane and then the cockpit door could be opened to allow access to the restroom.Thats why I say put the second off switch back somewhere else that another member of the crew has to turn it off.Or put it inside the cargo door and the last person to close the cargo door turns it on and the first person to open it after landing turns it off so there isn't access to turn it off from inside the airplane.

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2020, 01:47:31 pm
content: Quote from: eugenenine on February 21, 2020, 06:12:12 pmA big risk in an airplane is a fire, so every piece of electrical kit has a circuit breaker to isolate it, which the pilots can access. That applies to satellite kit, transponders etc.Having two pilots or pilot + flight attendant always in the cockpit doesn't necessarily help. Pilots can obtain weapons onboard (there is a fire ax) or smuggle weapons in. In one flight, a pilot attacked the others with the axe. Once you have a crew member hostage, they can be used to persuade other crew ("turn that switch off or I kill the captain!").Elaborate security procedures to address a relatively tiny risk are impractical, and as we saw with Germanwings may have unintended consequences. Really you have to proceed on the basis that flight crew are trustworthy. Since a pilot has direct control of a plane, he/she can crash a plane at will really, just enter roll and dive...The only foolproof method might be to have complete autonomous control with no access to the computer by those onboard, even then, it seems everything can get hacked.

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2020, 01:51:38 pm
content: Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on February 22, 2020, 01:47:31 pmIt has been suggested in the industry but the pilots pushed back as you'd expect and the airlines have the cost of training pilots so it's a bit of sticking point.

author: Theboel
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2020, 02:21:26 pm
content: Hi,Sorry if its sound stupid.Any body have any idea how long black box and cockpit voice recorder can survive in sea water ?

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2020, 02:22:53 pm
content: Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on February 22, 2020, 01:47:31 pmAgree with all that. By deciding to lock cockpit doors (for anti-terrorism reasons I think?), sure that mitigated a risk: any passenger entering the cockpit and getting control of the plane, but introduced a whole range of new risks that didn't exist before.The Germanwings affair was "interesting" in that regard, because not only did it show how this could go bad, but it also showed that choosing to fully trust the fight crew - which is the whole idea behind locking cockpits - is also flawed. AFAIR, the pilot had had mental health problems for a long time, and it didn't seem to have affected his position much. You may say that it was an isolated case - I'm not sure at all. Even if it's not for obvious health problems, almost anyone - no matter how good your psychological tests are - can be corrupted.As you said, even autonomous control could be hacked, and it's impossible to automate it as far as having absolutely NO way of disabling it, even from outside, in case anything goes wrong. And as long as there is a way to circumvent it - this way will be used.If an entire plane with hundreds of passengers is taken hostage in an autonomous plane, obviously first thing the bad guys would do is ask control towers to disable the autonomous mode (as I said above, there ought to be a procedure for that IMO.) Even if control towers themselves become fully autonomous without any human control - will we, as a society, accept the possibility that the machines will favor potential death of all passengers of a flight rather than giving them at least a small chance of surviving? That's actually a question that is raised with any form of fully autonomous systems - how they will/should handle safety when human lives are involved. This is such a can of worms that just beginning to think of this is scary, and anyone thinking they have found an easy solution to this has usually just not thought very much.

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2020, 02:35:38 pm
content: Quote from: Theboel on February 22, 2020, 02:21:26 pmWhen this story broke, I remember the news hounds saying that the black box needs to be recovered in 2 - 3 weeks. There are a few youtube vids where people teardown flight recorders of various vintages. Watch some of those. Your guess is as good as mine.

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2020, 03:05:31 pm
content: Quote from: Ed.Kloonk on February 22, 2020, 01:51:38 pmThat's nonsense. If airlines could get rid of the pilots they would do it faster than you can blink an eye, because pilots are extremely expensive - both in terms of salaries and in terms of training. Even worse, there is a world-wide shortage of them because it takes years to train an airline pilot and the license is very easy to lose, e.g. on medical grounds as you age.The regulations don't specify that planes above 19 passengers must always have two pilots on board because the regulators want to ensure jobs for pilots but because it is necessary for safety. The pilot is the last level of redundancy should anything go wrong, regardless of how much automation you have.There is no computer system in the world today that can fly the plane from point A to point B fully autonomously, in adverse weather and with a bunch of malfunctions, either on board or on the ground (e.g. ILS out of service). At best it can do some parts of it (e.g. auto landing or following waypoints) when nothing goes wrong. The moment something is out of whack, the automation disconnects and drops the mess in the lap of the human that is hopefully still awake and sitting there in front.Even remote control won't help you if there is e.g. an electrical or radio problem on board. That is way more likely than someone hacking something (there are multiple fighter jet scrambles because of lost comms every day), even though it would be a juicy target for attackers - who needs missiles when you can make a plane blow up by remote control ...This isn't a military drone where should anything go wrong the thing just makes a smoking crater somewhere and you write it off, at taxpayer's expense. E.g. look at how well are the US military drones performing:https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/aaaa/2018/04/25/these-two-drones-are-leaders-in-accident-rates-how-is-the-us-army-responding/If a passenger plane had such abysmal reliability and crash statistics (one crash every ~1500 flight hours), it would be banned from the skies and the manufacturer bankrupted by lawsuits ... Oh and the drones were apparently jammed and hacked too already:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/17/skygrabber-american-drones-hackedAnd all that ignores the fact that passengers may have a big problem with getting stuffed and locked up in a metal tube with no pilot on board.

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2020, 03:10:55 pm
content: Quote from: janoc on February 22, 2020, 03:05:31 pmI'm with you. I was alluding to the threat of another pilots strike here. I agree. Try as they might, pilots aren't going anywhere.

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2020, 04:06:13 pm
content: Quote from: Ed.Kloonk on February 22, 2020, 03:10:55 pmBut the trouble isn't them striking - if the tech was there they could strike as much as they wanted and they would be still out of work. Companies like Ryanair would be all over the idea because it would save them a huge chunk of money (btw, Ryanair runs their own flight school/training program).Here is an actual airline captain explaining the level where these systems are today and what the issues are:On Boeing single-pilot system for airliners:Garmin Autoland for general aviation planes:Automatic takeoff on A350:Pilots vs robots:He has probably a few more touching on this subject but you can easily find them yourself on his channel.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2020, 04:59:05 pm
content: Quote from: Ed.Kloonk on February 22, 2020, 02:35:38 pmThose three weeks stem from the signal battery running out making it much harder and probably nearly impossible to find the black box after. If it initially survives the dept it's at it can likely survive for a fairly long time.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2020, 05:01:19 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on February 21, 2020, 05:11:30 pmHaving a "robust" flight attendant in the sealed cockpit with a pilot focused on flying an aircraft doesn't sound like a risk in itself at all.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2020, 05:05:30 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on February 22, 2020, 05:01:19 pmThat's the thing with security. Its never binary.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2020, 05:07:06 pm
content: Quote from: Ed.Kloonk on February 22, 2020, 01:51:38 pmWhile pilots pose a risk their presence is also a huge improvement to safety. They're trained to the level they are not because they need to fly an airplane but because they need the skills and aptitude to quickly and effectively identify and mitigate potentially catastrophic issues. That's how they earn their keep and why they're not just bus drivers. Flying an aircraft can reliably be done by computers but the human flexibility is beyond computers for now and the foreseeable future.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2020, 05:11:19 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on February 22, 2020, 05:05:30 pmPart of the issue is wanting to eliminate every risk there is. You need to make choices and guard against the likely or catastrophic scenarios while accepting the exceptions. That's why aircraft aren't fitted with some systems that may save lives. They would very rarely be used and the added complexity from both a technological and training point of view would introduce other risks.

author: McBryce
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2020, 05:54:13 pm
content: Quote from: Theboel on February 22, 2020, 02:21:26 pmThe time limits often referred to are only the time that the becon signal is being transmitted. So as soon as the transmission stops they are more or less impossible to find in a situation like this. The box itself could survive years, even in deep saltwater.McBryce.

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2020, 06:22:06 pm
content: Quote from: janoc on February 22, 2020, 04:06:13 pmAirline pilot says we still need pilots... he would say that, wouldn't he?But yes, we still need pilots. Someone has to feed the dog

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2020, 07:07:54 pm
content: Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on February 22, 2020, 06:22:06 pmYou didn't watch the videos, did you? But feel free to make dumb comments.I wonder who else do you want to hear about this from except the people who are actually trained and required to know both the regulations and how those machines operate.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2020, 08:17:51 pm
content: Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on February 22, 2020, 06:22:06 pmAerospace engineers or regulation specialists should have valuable opinions.

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2020, 10:38:02 am
content: Quote from: janoc on February 22, 2020, 07:07:54 pmYou don't have to be a pilot to know the regulations and how the machines operate, but you will only ever get one answer from the pilots.You would have to be pretty dumb to think a professional pilot will ever say "yeah, we don't really need pilots".But hey, if a guy on TV/youtube says something, then it must be true, right? We don't need to think about it further.In the real world, manufacturers are automating as much as possible, and airlines are eager to buy planes which requires less training, and cheaper pilots.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 23, 2020, 10:47:24 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on February 22, 2020, 05:07:06 pmAdd in the fact that people simply will not accept flying in a plane without a pilot at the controls.Heck, even astronauts and the space agencies won't fly in an automated rocket and space ship without a trained pilot on board.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2020, 03:47:13 pm
content: Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on February 23, 2020, 10:38:02 amGiven the typical cost of a flight (except maybe for the very short connections?), the cost of the pilots themselves per flight seems pretty negligible to me, even when they are very well paid, so I don't know what it brings to the table, except for the obsession of cutting costs even when that doesn't matter (And I know some companies do obsess over that, but I'm not sure I get the point). To illustrate this, please just take a look at the average full operating cost of a given flight, and estimate how much of this is to pay two pilots. Uh huh. Compare it to even just the cost of the kerosene.Cost considerations aside, two main points are making this problematic: first, acceptance, as several have said above. Second, responsibility. Human pilots take full responsibility (at least the main pilot in the cockpit) for the whole flight and its safety. If there is no human involved, who is going to be responsible? That's the same issue with autonomous vehicles, this is a very basic problem and is IMO completely unanswered to this day. Machines can't be held responsible for anything strictly speaking, and then the chain of responsibility becomes MUCH more complex and diluted than it seems. Almost intractable.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2022, 04:24:56 pm
content: Has this man really located the remains of MH370.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10532455/MH370-missing-Malaysian-Airlines-plane-Experts-bombshell-theory.html?fbclid=IwAR0Xis0fZoWXBP88ZKFFP83--j3DxGfG_mCpGQABnijeSo7I2tBPCr8172o

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2022, 07:43:04 pm
content: I'd be more inclined to believe it if it wasn't sensationalised in the Fail.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2022, 07:54:37 pm
content: QuoteThey do not explain this part from engineering perspective, so i am unable to comment. The other article mentioned "ham radio frequencies", whatever that means, also clear as mud. Are they talking about analysis of some "recordings" of amareur beacon transmissions?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2022, 10:25:00 pm
content: The scattered locations make me think of weather buoys. Perhaps the signal strength data for that day shows that some buoys were having fractionally lower RSSI than others, indicating more local interference (e.g. a plane transmitting on nearby frequencies.)Just speculation though.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 22, 2022, 12:26:56 am
content: Quote from: Bud on February 21, 2022, 07:54:37 pmThis.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2022, 01:59:52 am
content: I like to watch treasure hunting'TV' shows. What they all have in common are people with wild theories that make some kind of sense. Only very, very few of such theories are correct when put to the test.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2022, 02:25:38 am
content: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/ham-radio-opperator-locating-missing-flight-mh370/msg4021702/#msg4021702

author: msuffidy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2022, 05:37:35 am
content: I bet all aircraft over seas need satellite link up because WE SPEND TOO MUCH TRYING TO FIND THEM. but MH370 was more exciting as a terrorist capture to Yemen. The fact the transponders were deactivated sort of suggests pilot hijack or attempted 3rd party hijack. Pretty close of the Antipode of Ottawa, Canada.

author: m k
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2022, 11:45:01 am
content: First time is always difficult.I'm quite sure that now every jetliner has that "passive" satellite positioning active.Why it is so difficult to accept that it was the pilot?Even that first time is difficult it's almost more difficult to accept that nobody knows.Malaysians have their reasons and so have NATO spooks.

author: McBryce
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2022, 06:12:22 pm
content: Quote from: m k on February 22, 2022, 11:45:01 amBecause it's not a fact until it has been proven. You can only accept facts, not theories.McBryce.

author: m k
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2022, 06:50:08 pm
content: Yes, wrong question.Why it is so easy to accept that it wasn't the pilot?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2022, 09:32:50 pm
content: Quote from: McBryce on February 22, 2022, 06:12:22 pmProven to what extent? There are very few things you can prove 100%. So in the real world you have to accept the theory that has the most evidence to support it.Pilots taking planes filled with passengers with them as they commit suicide has happened.

author: ve7xen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2022, 10:58:51 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on February 21, 2022, 07:54:37 pmThe principle seems to be based on WSPRnet (weak signal propagation monitoring network) transmissions where an aircraft is on the great-circle path between Tx and Rx being disturbed from nominal SNR by the presence of the plane. Find such disturbances in the WSPR logs from that day, correlate those hits with known information about the flight path, extrapolate etc. It sounds...kind of plausible...at first pass.The 'guy' published a how it works document here:https://www.dropbox.com/s/wif8oqzgm74sdqv/GDTAAA%20V4%20MH370%2007MAR2014%201716%20UTC%20Paper.pdf?dl=0and the 'final report' is herehttps://www.dropbox.com/s/k4fn8eec4z9np0z/GDTAAA%20WSPRnet%20MH370%20Analysis%20Flight%20Path%20Report.pdf?dl=0.The folks on hackernews didn't think it was very credible:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27044995