***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 4 *****
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 8 Apr 14 at 01:39
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26786549
Scuse me gov, if you look carefully enough at ANY part of the ocean, anywhere on the planet you are going to spot objects
|
Give them a break Z, they do say it has to be fished out and identified.
It is true that there is a lot of debris in the ocean, it is a good job that they don't have to search near the big area of debris from the Japanese tsunami which is heading for the American west coast.
|
>> Give them a break Z, they do say it has to be fished out and
>> identified.
Its just endemic of this need to keep saying "something - anything"
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26786549
>>
>>
>> Scuse me gov, if you look carefully enough at ANY part of the ocean, anywhere
>> on the planet you are going to spot objects
>>
Precisely, is the level of junk they're finding now significantly higher than any other part of any ocean?
|
Shirley the floating debris search area will be moving towards Oz anyway, as the prevailing wind and currents are from the WSW? Couldn't they concentrate their looking on a narrower strip and wait for the objects to come by?
It's bad enough searching an area the size of the UK (now it's been narrowed down) but hopeless when the debris that wasn't there is now where you looked a few hours ago? Presumably the search algorithms are designed to cope with this.
|
>>Presumably the search algorithms are designed to cope with this.
>>
And they drop markers which transmit a locator signal and drifts with the debris of interest.
|
|
Maybe the Malaysians are getting tip-offs from military satellite images but the source of information is being disguised before being published.
|
>> Maybe the Malaysians are getting tip-offs from military satellite images but the source of information
>> is being disguised before being published.
>>
More likely to be the Aussies.
|
Was briefly in the company earlier tonight of an old friend and dedicated conspiracy theorist, much given to frequenting subversive unknown websites and a mine of alarming and frankly sometimes incredible information.
There's a positive typhoon of rumour and worse out there concerning this flight, whose fate is still apparently unknown despite the bad feeling everyone has about it. Among it, the beeb managed an affecting interview with an intelligent, rational and obviously devastated Chinese relative-of-passenger.
Has anyone else noticed that a frequently-seen clip of 'debris' photographed from space in the Indian Ocean seems to be a giant iPhone floating face down? Doesn't look like a bit of aircraft to me.
|
|
My conspiracy theory is that it is on the bottom of the Indian ocean. How and why it got there is anyones guess.
Last edited by: Uncle Albert on Sat 29 Mar 14 at 10:05
|
|
I've no doubt the more looney elements of the left are blaming the Americans.
|
|
Ah, the first bit of confirmed information has been released.
|
>> My conspiracy theory is that it is on the bottom of the Indian ocean. How
>> and why it got there is anyones guess.
>>
Lots of bits of aircraft float though so could be spotted
|
|
I don't doubt that it will eventually be found, but the floating bits have been drifting about for three weeks. As has already been said, first find the haystack.
Last edited by: Uncle Albert on Sat 29 Mar 14 at 14:26
|
Further to debate in previous volume it was reported over weekend that Airbus are developing system which will, in event of abnormal indications, dump data to satellite.
Appeared though to be limited to attitude (pitch/roll) indications out of limits rather than monitoring ALL systems.
|
Earlier this evening, heading for the sticks, we passed over a canal bridge in Camden Town. Herself pointed to a large number of polystyrene chunks and other objects floating in the murky waters of Camden Lock.
I am ashamed to say that I made her giggle by suggesting the debris might be something to do with the missing aircraft.
Disgraceful of both of us I know. But the coverage has been a bit crap, too much and not enough content.
|
>> I am ashamed to say that I made her giggle by suggesting the debris might
>> be something to do with the missing aircraft.
>>
That's 24 hour must say something media for you. At this stage if they find floating debris I suspect it will be a one day wonder.
Until they find a chunk of debris that hasn't been on the move for weeks don't hold your breath waiting for any meaningful news.
|
|
What are the Chinese relatives getting to riled about - marching on the Malaysian Embassy in London, hunger strikes - they claim information is being withheld - the fact is there IS NO INFORMATION!
|
>> What are the Chinese relatives getting to riled about - marching on the Malaysian Embassy
>> in London, hunger strikes - they claim information is being withheld - the fact is
>> there IS NO INFORMATION!
Cultural thing so they say. Their own government would lie and conceal and there's a pavlovian reaction that all governments do the same.
|
Its a mystery, even we in the west, with no skin in this game and (relatively) open government think its a mystery, so imagine what they think.
|
>> Cultural thing so they say. Their own government would lie and conceal and there's a pavlovian reaction that all governments do the same.
More displaced pain and grief, like siblings quarrelling at their parents' funerals.
No one is in much doubt that the plane is in the ocean and its passengers are dead.
But I sympathise with the passengers' relations who, while clearly having that view, insist that without some definitive information a small amount of hope is possible. They aren't the angry ones though, chanting impromptu slogans as they or their parents did during the insanity of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. It's poor behaviour really, bullying towards the Malaysians who are in a terrible position. The last thing they want is to antagonise China.
|
Whatever happened to the inscrutable oriental?
Gone the same way as the stiffed-lipped Englishman, I suspect - covered in a mountain of touchy-feely, new-age, relationship guff.
|
|
The concept/word 'closure' has been translated?
|
>> Gone the same way as the stiffed-lipped Englishman, I suspect -
Too busy whining loudly about the EU and immigration to be stiff upper lipped.
|
>> What are the Chinese relatives getting to riled about - marching on the Malaysian Embassy
>> in London, hunger strikes - they claim information is being withheld - the fact is
>> there IS NO INFORMATION!
They are getting riled by stuff like this
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26825184
Apparently its now reported that the last spoken words by the pilot(co) were not those originally reported
As the article says
It is not clear why it has changed or why it has taken the authorities this long to determine this
If you had a dead relative on this flight - you would start to get peed off, no?
|
|
Not really, actually. I would be realistic enough to accept that the aircraft is lost and everybody on it is dead. The how, where, when, who is not going to change anything. Clearly it would be very useful to know why - fire, structural failure etc but nothing we find or are told is going to bring anyone back from the dead.
|
>Further to debate in previous volume it was reported over weekend that Airbus are developing system
>which will, in event of abnormal indications, dump data to satellite.
They can't do that!
That was my idea! I'm gonna sue!
|
>> >Further to debate in previous volume it was reported over weekend that Airbus are developing
>> system
>> >which will, in event of abnormal indications, dump data to satellite.
>>
>> They can't do that!
>>
>> That was my idea! I'm gonna sue!
If it's airframe attitudes that are, or on margins of, 'out of envelope' that is do-able and of piratical use.
I remain sceptical about practicality or utility of firing off alarm conditions for any 'abnormality' detected by the aircraft's on board systems.
|
>If it's airframe attitudes that are, or on margins of, 'out of envelope' that is do-able and of piratical use.
I'll use encryption to prevent piratical use.
|
piratical = practical.
Stuff bloomin predictive/auto correct!!
|
>> If it's airframe attitudes that are, or on margins of, 'out of envelope' that
>> is do-able and of piratical use.
>>
Actually, I think it's exceptionally difficult. How do you maintain a satellite fix while in an unusual attitude (given the Airbus fly by wire, that's greater than 30 degrees nose up, more than 15 degrees nose down, or greater than 67 degrees roll) when it's a PITA trying to achieve a decent satellite lock in level flight?
|
>Actually, I think it's exceptionally difficult. How do you maintain a satellite fix while in an unusual attitude..
Punt it out the back enclosed in a surface drift buoy attached to a parachute?
|
>> >Actually, I think it's exceptionally difficult. How do you maintain a satellite fix while in
>> an unusual attitude..
>>
>> Punt it out the back enclosed in a surface drift buoy attached to a parachute?
>>
Good chance that with my landings there's going to be a collection of little satellite buoys scattered around every major runway in Europe... ;-)
|
>> Actually, I think it's exceptionally difficult. How do you maintain a satellite fix while in
>> an unusual attitude (given the Airbus fly by wire, that's greater than 30 degrees nose
>> up, more than 15 degrees nose down, or greater than 67 degrees roll) when it's
>> a PITA trying to achieve a decent satellite lock in level flight?
I was thinking do able in terms of an exceptional circumstance that is of itself sufficient to sound an alarm on the ground. If transmitting the data is technically problematic then that's another complication.
MH370, a modern airliner lost without any trace after 21 days,, is something that's not happened before in my 40 years of following civil aviation. ICAO/IATA need to think long/hard before closing this stable door at vast but unproductive cost to airline industry asa whole.
|
>ICAO/IATA need to think long/hard before closing this stable door at vast but unproductive cost to airline
>industry asa whole.
Vast? Unproductive?
Care to justify that?
Oh no, you're not in the business of justifying statements, just explaining.
Last edited by: Kevin on Mon 31 Mar 14 at 23:28
|
I'm with Bromptonaut on this. I don't think the cost/benefit analysis weighs true, given we've lost one major aircraft in 40 years without knowing why.
It'd take 20 years to implement, would be out-of-date by the time it was installed, and would cost airlines every time the plane flies, both through satellite subscription and additional weight. Not to mention the nightmare certification costs. What if one of these things catches fire, or falls off accidentally?
A decent safety management system is likely to prove far more useful in preventing future accidents. You might think that black box data doesn't do anything, but at most major airlines the info is wirelessly downloaded at the end of every flight and automatically analysed for trends and dangerous practices.
I can log on to a computer at work and watch the entire replay, including sidestick / rudder movement, autopilot modes, and a mock-up of the primary flight display. Seeing how I made a mistake stops it happening again, and that doesn't happen if I have a black box piggy-backed to the plane to explain what happened while fish nibble at my bones.
|
>> Vast? Unproductive?
>>
>> Care to justify that?
>>
>> Oh no, you're not in the business of justifying statements, just explaining.
Fursty has done most of the explaining for me both on cost and lack of real need. Gratifying that support comes from somebody with a professional insight into the issues.
It might be more straightforward if the system you envisage were incorporated at the design stage.
In practice though airliners have a service life of 25+ years. BA is still flying 767 aircraft dating from 1989 and it flew the 757 from 83 to 2010. Noise regulation rather than age/operating cost has seen off jet airliners built before the mid eighties, particularly the ubiquitous 737 200 series. British International Helicopters have a couple of Sikorsky S61 machines first delivered to BEA in 1965.
Designing something to retro fit the legacy fleet is another magnitude of cost.
As a comparator TCAS (collision avoidance) kit or a business turboprop costs around $25,000 before installation. That's mature technology. Start with something new with costs for development and certification and add in the level of duplication and redundancy required for full public transport operation and you'd soon get to $100k per airframe installed. Then of course there's downtime for the installation.
Whatever cause is finally determined for MH340, going down thousands of miles from its flight planned route, is a one off. Only the AF accident and a cluster involving helicopters in off shore drilling support have required hulls to be recovered from deep water. Getting the requisite transnational agreements for that sort of spend is going to need a lot more justification.
On another practical point where are the satellites to which these messages will be sent? If they're geostationary over the equator then there's a serious issue with coverage at high latitudes. Inmarsat claim coverage to around 80 degrees N & S, not much use for transpolar routes. Would a large antenna be required above of 60/65 - as is case for satellite TV?
Finally, why do you need to add snide comments or insults (last one was that I was being ridiculous) to contributions to this thread?
|
I think that knowing what happened is important. Perhaps not financially so, but emotionally so. And for as long as it remains reasonably possibly to find out, then they should keep going.
Whether or not any of this event, or future understanding of this event, should result in any kind of retrofit is absolutely a cost/benefit decision.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 1 Apr 14 at 12:40
|
>It might be more straightforward if the system you envisage were incorporated at the design stage.
Of course it would, that's always a given.
>As a comparator TCAS (collision avoidance) kit or a business turboprop costs around $25,000 before installation.
TCAS is a bit more complex and a bit more important to the safety of the aircraft than a simple device to record and transmit aircraft parameters. I've already shown you that such a device could be built with off the shelf components for less than $1000. Custom build would be significantly cheaper because of reduced functionality/complexity.
>Start with something new with costs for development and certification and add in the level of
>duplication and redundancy required for full public transport operation and you'd soon get to $100k
>per airframe installed.
I have no idea how you get to that figure. Development and certification costs are one-offs, shared across the number of units sold. You don't have to certify each individual unit, just provide evidence that all units are manufactured to the same standard. Considering that it would fit in a shoe box and be totally isolated electrically from the rest of the aircraft, certification should be a doddle. We now have seatback entertainment systems hidden under seats where they can get soaked in G&T. USB and laptop power supplies in armrests where passengers can connect anything they like. Have all those tablets, laptops and phones been certified at supposedly great expense?
>Then of course there's downtime for the installation.
You do it during a scheduled maintenance window or when the plane is refitted/repainted. Negligible real cost.
>Getting the requisite transnational agreements for that sort of spend is going to need a lot more justification.
What sort of spend? You're using a figure you picked out of the air!
>On another practical point where are the satellites to which these messages will be sent? If they're
>geostationary over the equator then there's a serious issue with coverage at high latitudes.
>Inmarsat claim coverage to around 80 degrees N & S, not much use for transpolar routes.
What percentage of airline routes transit above or below the 80th parallel's? Why not use a combination of Inmarsat, Globalstar, Iridium or Thuraya depending on coverage?
>Finally, why do you need to add snide comments or insults (last one was that I was being ridiculous)
>to contributions to this thread?
Rejecting your claim that sensor inputs on an aircraft are somehow different to sensor inputs in a refinery wasn't a snide comment or insult Bromp. Certainly not intended that way.
IATA are now saying that something must be done to improve in-flight tracking of aircraft:
www.news24.com/Travel/International/MH370-shows-need-for-better-aircraft-tracking-IATA-20140401
|
Kevin, when all done, he'll be closer to the mark with 100k than yours with 1k. I've no doubt you can DIY something in that ball park. As soon as you mention aircraft in relation to any product, the old 'double it and add a nought on' comes to mind. I work with aircraft every day, nothing is remotely 'cheap'
tinyurl.com/qzxvr9d
These will run into the hundreds and thousands no problem across all sorts of aircraft types.
|
>Kevin, when all done, he'll be closer to the mark with 100k than yours with 1k...
> As soon as you mention aircraft in relation to any product, the old 'double it and add a nought on' ..
Does an entertainment system cost tens of thousands per seat in an aircraft - because that's what you're saying?
|
|
Just a short hand way of saying that equipment onboard aircraft is more expensive than you think.
|
RTCA DO-160 is a good starting point in defining the evironmental requirements which equipment fitted to large civil aircraft have to meet.
Not the document itself, but gives an idea of the scope of analysis and testing required to demonstrate compliance - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DO-160
The document doesn't cover any device specific requirements, like the elecrical interface to the aircraft, or the performance of the device itself.
|
>> Does an entertainment system cost tens of thousands per seat in an aircraft - because
>> that's what you're saying?
A seat back entertainment system for a plane has complications around eliminating RF or other interference that would not be an issue with similar systems on a train.
IFE kit can be isolated it it's remotely suspected of interfering with other systems but probability of such an incident has to be reduced to a minimum and that has a cost.
For that reason, albeit more complicated than on ground, IFE is in a different ballpark to safety critical stuff.
|
>>
>> Does an entertainment system cost tens of thousands per seat in an aircraft - because
>> that's what you're saying?
>>
You'd be surprised just how much they cost...
|
|
I'm rarely surprised when they don't work.
|
|
Did I see a feedback on the Screwfix site from you the other day FF?
|
Glad we've got this back to a discussion of principles.
I used TCAS as a comparator as it's relatively recent and at least superficially similar. Earlier retrofit examples such as CVR or GPWS to aircraft like the Viscount or 748 invites criticism of being old tech and old news.
My figures are not entirely plucked from the air. A device that will automatically maintain a data link at 99.9999% reliability to a permutation of satellites is probably of similar complexity to TCAS. I don't buy your $1k I-phone adaptation figure for something meeting those criteria. The phrase 'Sirri does not understand this yaw/trim combination' will not help an accident investigation!!
Seat back entertainment systems are not safety critical and will quickly have their circuit breakers pulled if spilled G&T or whatever create an alarm on the flight deck. Same goes for lappy charge systems. Entertainment/work devices are allowed in cruise but are supposed to be turned off for take off and approach/landing - that's the basis on which kit not certificated to aviation standards is tolerated.
If you're going to install something in the aircraft with leads to a complex moving(?) satellite antenna outside the pressure hull it's not just an extra activity during a hangar check/repaint. It needs to be done at full strip down time and even then involves extra techs and extra time.
Remote routes, whether over the poles or the Southern Ocean, are the whole reason there's a suggested need to upload black box data in an emergency. Recognising that only a tiny minority of flights transit those areas, all in cruise phase where problems are last likely, reinforces the argument that there is little gain from mandating such a facility.
I maintain the view that, because an aircraft is moving in three dimensions with a wide range of control inputs, determining when to treat sensor messages as serious enough, singularly or in combination, to trigger an external response and alarms on the ground is more complex than monitoring an oil refinery.
Tracking, as IATA/ICAO are now proposing, is a different issue. Data from ADS-B transmitted via radio at regular intervals, even if only half hourly, would meet that need. In Oceanic sectors it could use HF radio; choosing best frequencies for propagation at a given point is much simpler software than working out if cheese holes are about to align.
|
|
Surely one only needs location? With that one can find the black box which can be engineered to hold all other required data.
|
>> Surely one only needs location? With that one can find the black box which can
>> be engineered to hold all other required data.
That's my starting point and since the vast majority of accidents happen in landing or take off phase need to deal with MH370 type scenario needs to be solved without huge expense to world's fleet.
|
Glad we've got this back to a discussion of principles.
But you haven't been discussing principles. All you've done so far is try to invent spurious reasons why in-flight transmission of FDR data is unnecessary, too-costly or technically infeasible.
You start off claiming that it will cost $100k because it's as complicated as TCAS. It plainly isn't. You then try to justify that cost because it will need certification. When I point out that certification is not per unit but per design you drop that idea and invent functionality it was never designed to have.
Anyway, I've solved that problem. Iridium coverage is 'truly global' and that includes both poles.
>I don't buy your $1k I-phone adaptation figure for something meeting those criteria. The
>phrase 'Sirri does not understand this yaw/trim combination' will not help an accident
>investigation!!
Instead of flippant nonsense, tell me why the hardware I have described and costed to below $1k will not work.
On second thoughts, don't bother. Problem solved.
tinyurl.com/lewqwn8
An already certified to DO-160G satellite broadband router capable of >10Mbps for installation in aircraft. Compatible with ultra small and phased array antennas on aircraft, automatic beam switching and true global roaming. Integrated ARINC 429 input for aircraft position information. i7 processor for applications and USB interface for storage.
Much more powerful and sophisticated than my design I'll admit. Available for slightly less than your claimed $100k though, the 19" rackmount military version costs $12,500.
What's the betting that airlines will be installing them and selling bandwidth so that passengers can work/browse and they will pay for themselves.
A proposal for more intelligent FDR systems from before MH370 and AF447.
Glass Box Intelligent Flight Data Recorder.
tinyurl.com/lbq56j4
|
>What's the betting that airlines will be installing them and selling bandwidth..
Just chosen seats and meals for our next holiday.
Emirates A380s already have onboard satellite internet for passengers.
www.onair.aero/
|
>> >What's the betting that airlines will be installing them and selling bandwidth..
>>
>> Just chosen seats and meals for our next holiday.
>>
>> Emirates A380s already have onboard satellite internet for passengers.
>>
>> www.onair.aero/
That answers a different question to that posed which was along lines of of 'if an aircraft's on board systems detect a serious problem can it dump FDR/CVR data via a satellite link' for later analysis. The context was an a/c going down in a place where the recorders are difficult or impossible to access.
I fully accept (and never denied) that machines now in service can host links to satellite. As well as passenger internet these likely allow the machine to 'phone home' and report defects for immediate or deferred attention. If reliability is equal to or better than a GSM mobile connection on a moving train then then it's fit or purpose. It it drops out for reasons of altitude, attitude or location the connection resumes minutes/seconds, or maybe hours, later.
That's a very different requirement from being able to dump data in real time from a machine in difficulty and possibly imminently crashing. Such a function needs a connection that works 99.999% irrespective of attitude, altitude or latitude. It involves, as you say contact with moving as well as geostationary satellites I've no real idea of the volume of data in a modern multi parameter DFDR or in a CVR. Gigabytes/Terrabytes not Kb I suspect - will take more than a few seconds to transfer. It's a piece of new design/new install kit that needs to be separately certificated for each a/c type to which it's fitted. Cost $$$$$
If it was cheap and simple it would be in service now. It's not and mandating it to deal with a situation that occurs very rarely indeed is a tall order.
Dangerous Dogs Act anybody?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 5 Apr 14 at 20:23
|
>That's a very different requirement from being able to dump data in real time from a machine in
>difficulty and possibly imminently crashing. Such a function needs a connection that works 99.999%
>irrespective of attitude, altitude or latitude.
The requirement was to monitor FDR data, decide if there was sufficient cause for concern and if so, dump a subset of that data via satellite. It is not a replacement for the FDR but to supplement it by providing immediate location and fault data. There is still the need to find and interrogate the FDR/CVR whether it works or not. You also fail to provide any valid technical reason why five nines is not possible.
>Gigabytes/Terrabytes not Kb I suspect - will take more than a few seconds to transfer. It's a piece
>of new design/new install kit that needs to be separately certificated for each a/c type to which it's
>fitted. Cost $$$$$
You are inventing new requirements again! As I have already said, it is NOT dumping all the FDR data simply a recent subset to assist in locating the FDR and providing some indication of the fault! Also, unless you can point me to official documentation, I contend that testing to ensure it complies to the relevant standards is all that is required and there are independent labs certified to do that. It should not need certification for each aircraft type.
Bromp, it puzzled me why you are being so negative, and then I thought - Have you spent half of your career being asked to justify why things can't be done? You're retired now, time to shrug off the shackles of Civil Service and say "Yeah, we can do that."
Anyway, this discussion is probably moot. The UN's ITU are looking at Uncle Albert's suggestion of continuous realtime monitoring.
tinyurl.com/qdfnt8a
That should please FF.
|
>> The requirement was to monitor FDR data, decide if there was sufficient cause for concern
>> and if so, dump a subset of that data via satellite. It is not a
>> replacement for the FDR but to supplement it by providing immediate location and fault data.
Right now I need a bit more time to think this through. I've wasted a day trying to get a recalcitrant PC to behave and I'm all in. Re-intall W7 is next stage.
On MH370 and other remote crashes ocation data is one thing, 'squirting' meaningful fault information is another. I still think original question was around a complete 'dump' of FDR/CVR data.
At end of day though difference between you and I is you from your (IT?) perspective think this is straightforward and I, from perspective of a long term observer of aviation scene think it problematic and a dodgy cost/benefit proposition
Why don't we stick to germane facts/opinions?
I hope I've done that but you keep going for man rather than ball with use of words like ridiculous, spurious and now a pejorative reference to my career background. If you need to do that I suspect you know you're on shaky ground.
Either we look at reality or it's pointless.
|
>I still think original question was around a complete 'dump' of FDR/CVR data.
From Volume 2:
>>Bandwidth is too costly today, even with compression.
>>A less expensive stopgap measure would be to squirt the most recent blackbox data only when an
>>anomaly is seen. It would give rescue/recovery and investigators a starting point.
>Why don't we stick to germane facts/opinions?
But you've never provided any evidence to support your claims Bromp. How can we seperate facts from opinions here?
>I hope I've done that but you keep going for man rather than ball with use of words like ridiculous,
>spurious and now a pejorative reference to my career background. If you need to do that I suspect you
>know you're on shaky ground.
It wasn't a pejorative reference, it was a sincere question and it probably applies to most of us Brits, me included. We can always find half a dozen reasons why something can't be done because it's easier than knuckling down and getting it done.
>Either we look at reality or it's pointless.
And the reality is looking increasingly likely that realtime transmission of FDR data is possible never mind my amateur efforts.
|
>> They can't do that!
>>
>> That was my idea! I'm gonna sue!
>>
I thought is was my idea and you lot started discussing the feasibility of it. :-)
|
>I thought is was my idea and you lot started discussing the feasibility of it. :-)
I was going to give you 10% UA.
|
>Oh thanks a bunch. :-)
You ungrateful old git.
This time next year you'd have been a millionaire.
Last edited by: Kevin on Mon 31 Mar 14 at 20:35
|
I did think there was a few quid in it after the discussion on plane parts prices. I think I will sue you for 50%.
And a few million for defamation, ungrateful old git indeed! :-)
Last edited by: Uncle Albert on Mon 31 Mar 14 at 20:41
|
>>ungrateful old git indeed! :-)
Yes, you're not that old, are you?
|
As they will have to get within a (very) few miles of the black box pinger to hear it, I hope they know where to start looking or it will be a long job.
news.sky.com/story/1235477/royal-navy-submarine-joins-mh370-search
Last edited by: Uncle Albert on Tue 1 Apr 14 at 21:05
|
>> As they will have to get within a (very) few miles of the black box
>> pinger to hear it, I hope they know where to start looking or it will
>> be a long job.
And there was you telling us you could hear a whale burp 3k miles away.
|
|
You don't need my help to make yourself look a pratt.
Last edited by: Uncle Albert on Tue 1 Apr 14 at 22:11
|
|
think you need that mirror.
|
You'll both go to bed without your tea if you don't stop squabbling.
Kids!
|
|
Wasn't me who said " you underestimate the ability of RN sonar" and now claims they need to get within a few miles to hear an active sonar pinger.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 1 Apr 14 at 22:30
|
|
You are out of your depth and talking crap. Different technologies.
|
Oh I see, so a sub making minimum noise is easier to hear than an object designed to emit one.
Of course. How foolish I am.
|
>> Oh I see, so a sub making minimum noise is easier to hear than an
>> object designed to emit one.
>>
>> Of course. How foolish I am.
>>
Correct on both.
|
|
Oh wow PMF, your cogs turn very slowly.
|
>> China ship 'picks up signal'
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26902127
>>
Probably from the microwave oven in the galley.
|
|
Unlikely, being a chinese rip off it died two days after leaving port.
|
|
It would be interesting to see all the reasons why 37.5kHz was chosen as the best compromise frequency for locator beacons.
|
weeeeeeeel low frequency waves travel further through water (thats why vlf is used for base to comms in subs) but harder to localise because they are more easily affected by temperature layers.
Executive Summary - A compromise.
(of course one radiation addled sardine will say its all a load of ball cocks but will be unable to say why because he would have to kill us if he did)
|
|
Surprised that the black box doesn't have a receiver in it to detect pings from the search ship which it can then respond to with a far higher power. Better, IMHO, to have the thing sat dormant on the sea floor for a year and then expend its remaining battery in a full power all out effort to be discovered, instead of feebly tapping out SOS for just 30 days.
|
|
Apologies if this point has been covered earlier, but how come this vast, international expenditure over just one aircraft? Australia alone has said it will spend as much as the task demands.
|
>> Apologies if this point has been covered earlier, but how come this vast, international expenditure
>> over just one aircraft? Australia alone has said it will spend as much as the
>> task demands.
>>
I was beginning to wonder about that as well.
|
>> >> Apologies if this point has been covered earlier, but how come this vast, international
>> expenditure
>> >> over just one aircraft? Australia alone has said it will spend as much as
>> the
>> >> task demands.
>> >>
Well, finding out why 200+ people died is a starting point. A modern airliner crashing in deep water thousands of miles off its planned route is unprecedented.
If it turns out to be terrorism or pilot madness that's one thing. If it turns out to be some latent weakness in the 767, of which hundreds are in service, we need to know. Failure to fully investigate the loss of DH Comet G ALYP in 1954 meant it took a second identical accident, G ALYY before the real issue, metal fatigue, was discovered. Neither the aircraft industry or governments can afford the possibility of a repeat.
Geopolitically, given the majority of victims were Chinese, China would likely carry on searching alone. In the absence of a western presence their would be scope for mischief of one form or another.
And from an empathy point of view I wonder if UK attitudes would be same if it was a BA plane and 200 Brits dead?
|
>> >> >> Apologies if this point has been covered earlier, but how come this vast,
>> international
>> >> expenditure
>> >> >> over just one aircraft? Australia alone has said it will spend as much
>> as
>> >> the
>> >> >> task demands.
>> >> >>
>>
>> Well, finding out why 200+ people died is a starting point. A modern airliner crashing
>> in deep water thousands of miles off its planned route is unprecedented.
>>
>> If it turns out to be terrorism or pilot madness that's one thing.
We know thats the reason. We know the plane was flown there - didn't fly there on its own. (ok to be precise we know it was told to fly there, not as the result of a failure)
>>If it
>> turns out to be some latent weakness in the 767, of which hundreds are in
>> service, we need to know.
We know thats not the reason. The only reason to find the wreckage is to find the CVR and find out, if possible why the pilot/co pilot went mad. (or indeed if it was a non authorised pilot.)
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 6 Apr 14 at 15:29
|
Zero,
Not saying you're wrong but there's so much speculation and supposition about this flight that finding what's feasible as opposed to speculation is needle/haystack territory.
I spent some time the other day looking for a map/diagram that showed the route up to and after the sign off to KL and failure to contact Hanoi and links to the Inmarsat derived arc to supposed impact point. Can you point me to something that shows that information and supports theory that a/c was under control after loss of contact?
Even if best available evidence supports hijack/mad pilot theory we still, as you say, need FDR/CVR to prove that conclusively.
|
>> I spent some time the other day looking for a map/diagram that showed the route
>> up to and after the sign off to KL and failure to contact Hanoi and
>> links to the Inmarsat derived arc to supposed impact point. Can you point me to
>> something that shows that information and supports theory that a/c was under control after loss
>> of contact?
Bet map I know is here
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26503141
As you see there is 4 distinct changes of course after the last voice contact. The plane can't make those 4 changes on its own, they have to have been ordered. At what point that was done in that entire course however is open to debate as the entire flight profile could have been dialled in very early int he mystery.
|
|
Many of the news report seem to imply that they can't be 100% that this is going to be the recorder from MH370 and that the signal could be from another black-box, so has there been another plane go down that hasn't been reported???
|
>> Many of the news report seem to imply that they can't be 100% that this
>> is going to be the recorder from MH370 and that the signal could be from
>> another black-box, so has there been another plane go down that hasn't been reported???
Any airliner loss would have been reported but smaller business type planes may also be fitted with FDR boxes. If one of those were lost it'd be unlikely to have made more than third fourth item for more than a day even in its home state never mind the Northern Hemisphere. Would also need to be recent enough for box to be still pinging.
Helluva long way off any shore for such a machine though. A few small French islands (Amsterdam/St Paul) mid way between Oz and Madgascar but waterbased GAFA otherwise.
|
Missed edit.
Do other devices, perhaps used in maritime applications, ping on same frequency as FDR.
|
One assumes the different categories - passenger commercial, freight, military, private - would have distinct pings on different frequencies or channels. I know little of this stuff but don't transponders etc. have multiple channels that may be selected by accident or for one of any number of reasons?
I would think that's why they won't say it's the aircraft in question until one of these robot submarines has photographed it on the seabed. Just in case it isn't, or just in case they can't find the bits down there.
|
|
CVR records in such a way that only the latest 120 minutes are available. Depending what happened this may turn out to be blank as it flew on for 5 hours after leaving its planned route to Beijing.
|
If the CVR was working, you would still have the automatic announcements and background noise even if the pilots were unconscious?
The Chris Goodfellow theory has been rejected it seems, owing mainly to some course changes that could not be accounted for by it. Still, foul play seems no more or less likely than some sort of malfunction with so little to go on.
|
>> If the CVR was working, you would still have the automatic announcements and background noise
>> even if the pilots were unconscious?
>>
Correct.
Even if the recorder is brand new it'll only record for two hours but I've been told that forensic techniques can recover some of the overwritten data.
|
|
Thanfs for the clarification FF, I must have been thinking of the advance from 30m duration to 2hrs.
|
>> CVR records in such a way that only the latest 120 minutes are available. Depending
>> what happened this may turn out to be blank as it flew on for 5
>> hours after leaving its planned route to Beijing.
IIRC modern solid state CVRs hold much more time but whether this 767 was so equipped is another question.
|
It was 777,not that the difference changes anything. 777 is around 20 years old, might CVR have had a retrofit of a better system? This happened to a 777 on the ground and apart from the obvious structural damage, which would have caused hull pressure loss, it also destroyed the pilots' emergency O2 system. However, could the aircraft have continued on autopilot for 5 hours with that damage dtinyurl.com/o5t43z9
Last edited by: Meldrew on Sun 6 Apr 14 at 17:32
|
Link doesn't work. Do you mean the EgyptAir cockpit fire?
goo.gl/JOxURJ
|
|
Yes, I think it has been the only one, to date
|
Link doesn't work. This does - check second picture from the left in the top row
tinyurl.com/os35lxb
|
>Executive Summary - A compromise.
Yeah, but why 37.5, and not 35 or 40kHz?
Or why not a combination of long range and short range frequencies?
|
Because its probably not used by anything else. It has to be something, it has to be physically appropriate for use, and its has to be internationally recognised, so it was set to 37.5. Not 35 not 40.
Or is this going to be another pointless pedantic tirade?
|
>Or is this going to be another pointless pedantic tirade?
Only if you want it to be.
|
>no
Good.
Apparently there is a proposal to change it to 8.8kHz for aircraft with MTOW greater than 27,000kg.
tinyurl.com/o6pqknw
|
>> Apparently there is a proposal to change it to 8.8kHz
That's a slightly out-of-tune C#; should have gone for an A.
|
Ocean Shield has best lead - BBC News
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26917934
|
>That's a slightly out-of-tune C#; should have gone for an A.
Probably stands out much sharper and easier to see in the sea. Especially if the sea is never flat ;-)
|
Flight MH370: 'Objects spotted' in new search area - Zero
