After 3hrs of searching they can't find the 'debris' in the satellite photo's.
I'm going to take this a good thing because, unless I'm very much mistaken, if the plane had come down in that area with enough force to break up there would be a load of smaller floating bits that should be fairly easy to spot.
The pictures are 4 days old, the debris will have drifted or maybe sunk, and they're trying to search a large area in bad weather - I think it's too early to say anything about whether this is the aircraft or not.
the whole debris sighting thing is bollocks.
Eg look at this image on tomnod http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/mh370_indian_ocean/map/86212
there is a thing about 20odd metres, if you look around there are bloody millions like this.
Airbus tail fins use carbon fibre structural elements but Boeing ones don't (especially the 777 of the Malaysian airlines vintage) so are less likely to float (I am assuming that carbon fibre is buoyant). Wings won't float, they're pretty sturdily built with a lot of heavy mechanisms, hydraulic actuators and gearboxes for the flaps and other moving surfaces attached. Fuel is stored in tail fins on large aircraft, mainly for trimming purposes rather than extra range.
I am assuming that carbon fibre is buoyant
What isn't bouyant if it's full of air 🙄
Depends on the volume of water displaced by the object vs. it's weight. My dive cylinders didn't float too well 😉
All those high tech knowledge etc from all over the world and they cannot even find the plane flown by two pilots from a developing country.
Needle, say hello to haystack...
[img] 
[/img]
There's an enormous amount of absolutely bugger-all down there
misinformer - Member
I am assuming that carbon fibre is buoyant
What isn't bouyant if it's full of air
Carbonfibre isn't full of air, as that would compromise the structural integrity. However, the overall structure will have voids in, just like an aluminium airframe, but they won't be airtight, there may well be cables and ducting passing through.
There's an enormous amount of absolutely bugger-all down there
Assuming for a moment that it is the plane and it was intentionally flown to the limit of its fuel then ditched/crashed, someone went to a lot of effort to ensure that it would be as difficult as possible to ever find...
Really strange case, I'd be fascinated to know the full story behind it.
The Malaysian authorities have come in for an awful lot of criticism, but what strikes me is the relative lack of support from the countries with huge intelligence gathering capabilities....
Obama was able to watch a live feed of the Abbotabad raid, and even back in the 80s military satellites were reckoned to be capable of identifying a golf ball on a green...
... Yet, with the exception of the Chinese data, everything has been "attributable" to civvy systems. Now, I understand the need to protect "capability", but if there was military intel at play in the background, why weren't the Aussie Orions prowling the Southern Ocean a week ago ???
(Like the 'wegian freighter....)
why weren't the Aussie Orions prowling the Southern Ocean a week ago ???
A week ago they were looking in the wrong place. And a much smaller area.
I do find the lack of tracking from the big countries very odd. But maybe they are worried that they should have been able to track it but havent.
I think part of the problem is that the billions of dollars worth of satellites buzzing around the world are focussed on places like Korea, Ukraine, Syria, Afgahnistan even Cuba etc
I cant think of many places less likely to be covered than the arse end of the indian ocean
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/5007183?utm_hp_ref=uk
Seems Australia's Prime Moron was trying to bury corrupt ministers in the news, rather than adding anything useful with his "we've found it" statement of the other day.
As one of the posters from the mostly unreported 100,000-strong protest against this government said on their banner: "resign, dickhead"
Depends on the volume of water displaced by the object vs. it's weight. My dive cylinders didn't float too well
The cylinders will float just fine with air at atmospheric pressure in them rather that much greater volume pressurised air.
Aluminium rather than steel I should clarify.
Aircraft pieces have sometimes been found floating for days after a sea crash. Peter Marosszeky, an aviation expert at the University of New South Wales, said the wing could remain buoyant for weeks if fuel tanks inside it were empty and had not filled with water.Other experts said that if the aircraft breaks into pieces, normally only items such as seats and luggage would remain floating.
Needle, say hello to haystack...
I've not kept up with this fully during the past few days, but in that map, is that where the plane is currently estimated to be?
I know it was said to have turned off and headed on a new trajectory (possibly heading for somewhere to attempt to land..?), but thousands of miles in the complete opposite direction, in the middle of the ocean??
the location is at the end of its fuel range,(and the direction was indicated by an automated satelite signal that couldve put it there or on the same trajectory but northward) in theory it couldve been left on autopilot.....
This really put the scale of the search into perspective for me
[img] http://im.ft-static.com/content/images/ef1a2c54-a03d-45d9-a5c8-a39b0a7e2072.img [/img]
or this
[img] 
?w=402[/img]
I really doubt they'll find it in the States, unless it's down the back of someone's fridge.
I think part of the problem is that the billions of dollars worth of satellites buzzing around the world are focussed on places like Korea, Ukraine, Syria, Afgahnistan even Cuba etc
I cant think of many places less likely to be covered than the arse end of the indian ocean
Military sats don't work that way - their orbits are arranged so that they sweep the entire globe. With enough of them, you get the full time coverage of the targets / sensitive areas you want to look at.
Comms sats are totally different - they sit in a geostationary orbit above the equator, always in the same place. That's how the northern and southern search arcs have been defined - radii from the geostationary satellite that was receiving the aircraft's data comms
Less of this fact based opinion.
Military sats don't work that way - their orbits are arranged so that they sweep the entire globe. With enough of them, you get the full time coverage of the targets / sensitive areas you want to look at.
I'm not an expert on military satellite orbits, but I doubt many of them are in high polar orbits - there's not much for them to look at that way and their time over more interesting targets would be limited. Most of them are in less inclined lower orbits, or even in eccentric orbits that allow a low pass over one area of interest.
Admittedly, when I was studying this sort of stuff the north polar region was the front line in the Cold War... !
Obama was able to watch a live feed of the Abbotabad raid.
Obama was able to choose the time and place of the event he wanted to watch! If it were publicly known in advance where and when the plane was going to crash, it would have been easy to arrange for satellite/drone coverage.
Admittedly, when I was studying this sort of stuff the north polar region was the front line in the Cold War... !
You'd probably still want to have an inclined orbit - the problem with polar orbits is they pass over the poles every orbit, but they only pass over a particular point on the earth once every 10, 20, 30 orbits. You end up with lots of pictures of ice for every one picture of something interesting, and it takes ages to get around to a particular place you want to photograph.
Great for longer-term surveying, not so good for keeping an eye on specific things.
families told via text?
nice touch from the malaysians
refined? satelite data says it flew south
nice touch from the malaysians
been involved in serious/fatal incidents and given death messages much? I assume they tried to balance telling each of the families "personally" with getting the news out in a press conference before it leaked. One of the reports mentions phone calls, but if someone doesnt answer what do they do? Theyve been criticised for not sharing information so are in a lose-lose situation; if they'd not managed to reach some of the families before the conference there would be cries of "we only found out on the news, nice touch".
& TBH this news is not much of a surprise, shocking though it must be for the families.
Have they actually found anything yet or have they just gone "we've no idea where it is = everyones dead".
More detailed analysis of the Intelsat pings, apparently, allowed them to rule out the northern arc.
Sky News are running that the plane has been confirmed to have crashed into the sea by Australia.
I reckon it was shotdown and they spent the last 2 weeks cleaning up wreckage and sailing all the bits down to the southern Indian Ocean so they can be 'found'
I think you'll agree that its the only logical solution.
theyve used a new technique to analyse the inmarsat satelite data
Based on their new analysis, Inmarsat and the AAIB have concluded that MH370 flew along the southern corridor, and that its last position was in the middle of the Indian Ocean, west of Perth.
I reckon it was shotdown and they spent the last 2 weeks cleaning up wreckage and sailing all the bits down to the southern Indian Ocean so they can be 'found'
It was probably shot down over the ocean by something from the American base down there.
theyve used a new technique to analyse the inmarsat satelite data
Sounds interesting. Any links to new info?
Sounds interesting. Any links to new info?
brief description on bbc news. They used doppler shift in the satellite signals to locate origin. Sounds pretty next level
So my comment above remains. They've no idea where it is/have no evidence of where it is = everyone dead.
I believe the everyone dead bit but I'm interested to see where this great big airplane actually went and where the flotsam etc is if it fell out the sky over the sea.
I believe the everyone dead bit but I'm interested to see where this great big airplane actually went and where the flotsam etc is if it fell out the sky over the sea.
The great big airplane went into a much bigger sea. Amazing they've found it at all TBH. As someone posted above, it's a proper needle/haystack scenario. There's an awful lot of nothing down there...
Bear in mind it took nearly 2 years to find the black box from Air France 447 and they knew where to look for that!
somouk - MemberIt was probably shot down over the ocean by something from the American base down there.
Do you mean the antenna in Exmouth - pretty sure it's now run by contractors not the military (at least it was when I was down that way last year)
I still don't understand how it was so far south of it's starting point, surely such an experience pilot knows where the nearest land is should they need to land. Still, sad for the families
Do you mean the antenna in Exmouth - pretty sure it's now run by contractors not the military (at least it was when I was down that way last year)
I thought that was for talking to/from submarines? It looks quite impressive but I don't think it shoots down airliners.
So now the Malaysians are confirming that the plane def crashed in the Indian Ocean. Why do I find them hard to believe? Oh yeah, becuase no-one's actually found anything yet and the larger pieces of 'stuff' are to far apart to be related.
If I were cynical I'd suggest that the Malaysians just want this episode to go away.
The only scenario I can think off that made them fly to OzLand is the fact someone(s) wants to seek asylum there so hijacked the plane. Then fuel ran out ...
And so the simplest explanation which is usually correct comes into play, really an aircraft has crashed into the sea.
The only scenario I can think off that made them fly to OzLand is the fact someone(s) wants to seek asylum there so hijack the plane. Then fuel ran out ...
No, they could easily have reached Australia.
The only two plausible explanations now are:
Suicidal pilot / co pilot taking everyone with them
Attempted hijacking and the pilot steered the aircraft away from civilisation while telling hijackers that yes, they'd be in [insert destination] very soon.
I suppose a third option is some kind of daredevil mid air transfer of whatever wildly expensive cargo the plane was carrying (as per the film Cliffhanger) or an air drop to a waiting ship with the pilots/hijackers parachuting to safety like in Mission Impossible 2.
/conspiracy theory mode
crazy-legs - MemberNo, they could easily have reached Australia.
The only two plausible explanations now are:
Suicidal pilot / co pilot taking everyone with them
Highly unlikely for Malaysians even though they do have extremists in their country the notion of suicide by taking others with them is not part of their culture.
Attempted hijacking and the pilot steered the aircraft away from civilisation while telling hijackers that yes, they'd be in [insert destination] very soon.
Yes, this is highly likely as OzLand is seen part of the Western alliance while crashing into China is like throwing bunch of needles into haystack. The impact on China is practically non-existence. Chinese will simply multiply.
[quote=Rosss ]I still don't understand how it was so far south of it's starting point, surely such an experience pilot knows where the nearest land is should they need to land. Still, sad for the families
I don't believe the pilot wanted to land - whatever the reason for that might be (and I expect the answer is we'll never know, not even if they do find the black boxes - voice recorder will have only got the last 2 hours, and the chances are that's 2 hours of silence).
My theory:
Pilot wanted to top himself but his life insurance won't pay out for suicide so to look after his families interests he's flown a long range jet to the most inaccessible place where it's virtually impossible to recover the plane/flight recorder.
No flight recorder=no proof of suicide=Insurance payout for wife and kids.
flatfish - MemberMy theory:
No flight recorder=no proof of suicide=Insurance payout for wife and kids
Don't be silly. Nobody buys insurance that way there and insurance company will certainly not pay out regardless of how a person died.
You have to remember that you are referring to a developing country.
I'm surprised the data held on the black box is still only held on the black box and not on a remote server as well. If Rolls Royce can receive real time data about their engines from planes in the sky, why isn't the data normally held on a black box periodically uploaded to a remote server? Sure there are going to times when the aircraft can't transmit the data but storing and sending it later is far better than not sending it at all.
I presume because the black boxes are very rarely used, and when they are it's extremely unusual that they're not found right away. They also need to keep recording right up until the end, which a transmitter system might not do.
If Rolls Royce can receive real time data about their engines from planes in the sky, why isn't the data normally held on a black box periodically uploaded to a remote server?
Because there are tens of thousands of flights worldwide every single day and the cost of implementing it outweighs the one case every decade where it might conceivably be of any use.
The 2 hr limit is because of pilots privacy concerns.
Of course, if it is deliberate then chances are the CBs for the cockpit voice recorder and DFDR were pulled at the same time.
Can't be done, can it?
The cvr and dfdr run on an independent power supply. Even if the pilot can pull cb's they will still run on via an independent power supply. It's the whole point of these devices that they continue to operate right upto the point the plane crashes and cannot be turned off.
Have they changed the cvr and fdr since 1997? As this guy switched them off. [url= http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SilkAir_Flight_185 ]SilkAir185[/url]
After hours of discussions at work (still winter schedules so quiet), the most plausible scenario we've came up with is this;
The A/C has experience an electrical fire. As per the aviate/navigate/communicate rule, the pilots immediate reaction would be to isolate the cause and set course for the nearest diversion airfield, which for the pilot, would be a known airfield in Malaysia. In the confusion of dealing with the scenario and because communicate is last on the check list, power was shut down before the a May Day, or squawk change could be given to alert ATC to the problem. The pilots have been overcome with smoke on the flight has continued until it's ran out if fuel.
Being devils advocate I can pick holes in the scenario but balancing everything up this seems the most plausible. As for the hijack or unlawful interference scenario, we think it's a lot of media hype and fantasy.
My supervisor is ex-raf and through ex workmates still serving, he has been told that all the nations in the area have been very guarded with their radar information as they don't want capabilities known. The Thais and the Vietnamese being the worst. This is why there was a lot if confusion early on and why instead of the Malaysian aviation authority taking the lead, it was very quickly given to ICAO to deal with as they have more authority.
That scenario doesn't fit at all with several known facts though, such as ACARS being turned off before the last radio comms and several changes of course being made after last contact.
Why is the hijack or unlawful interference scenario fantasy when that does actually fit the known facts? Why the reluctance to accept that scenario?
such as ACARS being turned off before the last radio comms and several changes of course being made after last contact.
This has been clarified and is not proven.
The cvr and dfdr run on an independent power supply. Even if the pilot can pull cb's they will still run on via an independent power supply. It's the whole point of these devices that they continue to operate right upto the point the plane crashes and cannot be turned off.
They can still be isolated - though a quick look at the AMM suggests that for the 777 that requires access to the E&E bay, making it a far more challenging job than switching off the ACARS or transponder.
Certainly it's an option to get a battery-backed CVR, but since it's not mandated IFAIK I can't imagine any airline paying extra for it.
If that scenario was true, i.e. they turned west upon having an electrical fire, why then did they turn south and end up in the middle of the indian ocean. If they were overcome, they would have ended up somewhere in the Arabian sea.
Hey, I didn't say this is what happened, but by deduction we found that this was a likely scenario, albeit with holes in it. As for the hijack scenario, there is a list of things such as cockpit access, ability to aviate, no demands etc which made us disregard this scenario quite quickly. Plus, the media have a track record of creating hysteria that turns out to be false.
aracer - MemberWhy is the hijack or unlawful interference scenario fantasy when that does actually fit the known facts?
Does it? Who's claimed responsibility, who's gained from it? Why hijack a plane then fly it off somewhere to crash where nobody can see it happen?
most planes (74%?) crash because of mechanical failure and in the absence of any hijack demands etc it would seem the most likely
I suppose it could be a passenger who wanted to get to australia?
either that or the Malaysian government are suppressing something really embarrassing - like the pilot protesting over the sodomy charges against the malaysian opposition leader the day before?
whatever happened mustve been terrible for those on board and for their families
The impact (of crashing a plane) on China is practically non-existence. Chinese will simply multiply.
That's actually left me almost speechless. Have a word with yourself.
Surely...most planes (74%?) THAT crash DO SO because of mechanical failure and in the absence of any hijack demands etc it would seem the most likely
Does it? Who's claimed responsibility, who's gained from it? Why hijack a plane then fly it off somewhere to crash where nobody can see it happen?
I think the scenario goes something along the lines of the plane being hijacked with the desire of the hijackers to fly to Austraila for some reason. The pilots prevent this by saying, "nearly there" as they fly past and run out of fuel over the sea.
Again full of holes though. Why would a pilot ditch in the sea if the hijackers wanted them to land safely in a Western country. Sure it's a still a bad situation but better off maybe dead than definately dead. If the hijackers had control of the plane why did they not crash somewhere visibile.
The only scenario that seems to hold water is the robbery scenario, something valuable in the hold so make the plane dissapear while half inching it. The issue with this is its very difficult to imagine anything valuable enough to go to this much trouble and it would be very very difficult to pull off. Any would something that valuable just be transported in the hold of a comercial jet?
But one thing is for certain. If it was deliberate they picked a good area but made one mistake, the engine pinging the satelite and the plane being located using dopler shift!
most planes (74%?) crash because of mechanical failure
Citation needed. I thought most crashes were due to pilot error.
most planes (74%?) crash because of mechanical failure
Could not be further from the truth.
Most planes crash due to pilot error.
i dont know a great deal at all about aviation, althought ive followed this from day with interest
something that gets me and i cant understand at all is :
if there was a fire/electrical problem, sure it couldnt have possibly flown for 8 hours plus? a burning plane would surely not last 8 hours? also that piece of equipment was proven to be turned off that stops giving readings of where abouts?
but as above even if there was a problem with a fire etc surely they/somebody on board would have attempted to make contact via mobile or other wise? especially the flight crew???? the transponder thing was deliberately turned off according to the info we have read
but more to the point above, how could a malfunction/fire on a plane keep flying for 8 hours to then suddenly crash?
not buying that at all, even if they were gassed out, somebody especially cabin/flight crew could have alerted somebody! especially given it did a u turn on its usual flight path back over malaysia?
i seriously think it was either hijacked or the pilot had issues, if it was hijacked then maybe they tried to force the pilot to fly it into somewhere else and he thought best to send it into the middle of nowhere to let it run out of fuel
but seriously some form of fire/electrical malfunction/ how would a plane fly for 8 hours? i would have thought a fire would burn a plane in minutes and electrical fault would surely cause the plane to not be able to fly for a further 8 hours
something definitely fishy about it
my bad according to this
http://www.statisticbrain.com/airplane-crash-statistics/
50% pilot error
22% mechanical failure
I have to admit, as a 777 Longhaul pilot I am completely baffled as to how the a/c got from its last known position and track, to where it seems to have ended up.
I'll say it again, there is holes in my fire scenario but a small fire wouldn't effect structural integrity but the fumes created could incapacitate. The Swiss flight over the North Atlantic was a case study at college (6 years ago so rusty on the detail) about team resource management. There was a fire above the cockpit. If you look at the search area it's a nearly a reciprocal track of the outbound route to Beijing so IMO it's been a conscious decision to about turn. This gives me the impression the captain took the decision as it was a left turn. If the pilot had been trying to isolate the root of the fire he will have systematically turned off the systems and may have not been able to turn them back on. This is the biggest flaw in our theory. I can't believe the crew had no ability to communicate.
Dan, did it not just turn around after the last radar contact? (I personally am very sniffy about the whole thing, whilst I am not into conspiracy theories, my spidey sense is tingling. I am not at all convinced that it did go down to the southern indian ocean)
re the mobile phones
apparently once out over the ocean there wouldve been no reception
and especially so at cruising height, even over land
still does seem odd that there was no way to send any message??
I just cant see how thats possible a malfunction/fire could allow the plane to continue for the length of journey (8 hours ish), logically somebody on that plane could have made a distress call at some point, unless the passengers and rest of crew were totally unaware?? and it raises the point if it was a fire etc the passengers surely would have been told to buckle up or similar, and at this point one of them would have text somebody they love just incase worse case scenario? but no, it just flew and flew until the fuel ran out!?!
the transponder thing was turned off deliberately according to facts we've been given, had this been on im assuming even over the remote parts of the indian ocean, they could have still made contact??? (can anyone verify that?)
and if it was indeed turned off by malfunction etc etc, surely the pilot or crew given it was turned off over land area in malaysia, at some point a mobile phone would have had a signal to make a distress call worst case?!
i guess if something dodgy with the pilot happened, then the crew (other than co-pilot), and passengers would have been totally unaware they were going off course? maybe then he flew it over the ocean knowing contact was not possible (even with mobiles at that point)
very very very very strange
Where do you fly from dan?
jfletch - MemberThe only scenario that seems to hold water is the robbery scenario, something valuable in the hold so make the plane dissapear while half inching it.
So we're agreed that it was definitely Bane?
