Malaysia Airlines 777 loses contact...not found

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Turk
US Spy Satellites can zero in on stuff much smaller that pieces of Aircraft, so why hasn't this been spotted yet?



Big planet. Tiny airplane.
 
Was there something in the cargo being carried on the aircraft that somebody somewhere wanted? I think they maybe need to check out the cargo manifest really carefully.

It has been reported that the Boeing 777 is so computerized it might literally be possible to hijack the aircraft using a computer, or maybe even a smart phone.
 
Originally Posted By: Turk
Here:

"Aviation investigators and national security officials believe the plane flew for a total of five hours, based on data automatically downloaded and sent to the ground from the Boeing Co. 777's engines as part of a routine maintenance and monitoring program."

http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304914904579434653903086282?mobile=y


Quote:
From above:
The engines' onboard monitoring system is provided by their manufacturer, Rolls-Royce PLC, and it periodically sends bursts of data about engine health, operations and aircraft movements to facilities on the ground.
.
.
As part of its maintenance agreements, Malaysia Airlines transmits its engine data live to Rolls-Royce for analysis. The system compiles data from inside the 777's two Trent 800 engines and transmits snapshots of performance, as well as the altitude and speed of the jet. Those snippets are compiled and transmitted in 30-minute increments, said one person familiar with the system.
.
.
The challenge, said Lt. David Levy, a spokesman for the U.S. Navy's Seventh Fleet, isn't so much coordination as the sheer size of the area involved. The search grids are up to 20 miles by 120 miles, and ships and aircraft employ an exhaustive methodical pattern "like mowing your lawn" in their search for the plane, he said.


Further, the article mentioned a distance of 2,200 nautical miles from all directions from Malaysia. Since the area of a circle is pi x the radius squared, this is 15,205,308 nm^2. Assuming the plane didn't go S,SW,SE,E or W, we can take half of that, or 7,602,654 nm^2. Now assuming they flew between NW,N & NE, we can take half of that, leaving 3,801,327 nm^2.

That's HUGE. From above, the search grids are "20 miles x 120" or 2,400 nm^2. Divide this into the above and you have 1,584 of these search grids to search.

Hopefully, RR has good data and after some crunching, will be able to narrow the above significantly.
 
I think we can eliminate some directions. There surely is a lot of military radar along the Chinese coast so the airliner would have been picked up if it went that direction. There is a lot of radar in some other areas as well. And if we can believe any reports at all people in a village reported what sounded like an airliner flying over their village and a fisherman reported an airplane flying very low. But on the other hand the oil rig guy claimed that he saw a aircraft on fire headed down for the ocean.

I think all of those people need to be interviewed. At this point I would believe an ordinary person in a village before I would believe anything said by a big shot at a news conference.
 
"IF" this is true, it looks more and more to me like it might be terrorist related. The chance for all that happened to the plane (transponder turned off, no communication, no wreckage, etc.) on top of the plane aimed toward the middle east, as opposed to Australia, the Pacific Ocean, or Asia Mainland, is too much of a coincidence. "IF" that plane still exists, I hope authorities track it down before a group does something with it.
 
Originally Posted By: Win
Astro:

How much fuel would typically be loaded on a commercial airliner? Only Enough to reach its first destination plus reserves, or did this flight include additional destinations beyond Beijing, and could have had fuel on board for those additional legs?

What is the fuel burn rate at cruising speed and altitude?


When overwater, how often are position reports made on HF radio (if they still are), and is there any way to cross check those reports or is it just up to the crew to accurately report a position?

I assume they do the compass / timepiece / speed thing to dead reckon and cross check position and not just rely totally on the other nav systems?


Win - For international flights, there are several methods of calculating the fuel required. They typically load burn + fuel burn to alternate (if required) + reserves + taxi fuel. Reserves vary, depending on the destination. For example, in LA, it's 10% of burn + 30 minutes endurance + Alternate fuel. In Auckland, or Hawaii, it's burn + 2 hours...but overall, you typically land on an international flight with about 90 - 120 minutes of fuel remaining in the tanks.

Pilots can't just "fill 'er up". Airplanes have a maximum takeoff weight (in the 747-400, it's 875,000#.) and a maximum landing weight (in the 747-400, it's 635,000#.) So, for our 747, you have to burn at least 240,000# of fuel to get down to landing weight...clearly, then, over any flight segment that's much less than the airplane's max range, it won't be completely full of fuel for takeoff... There's also this consideration: climb performance (on takeoff, over terrain, with an engine failure) is reduced if the airplane is heavy, so a lighter airplane is often safer, even if it has less airborne endurance.

I'm not a 777 guy, though many of its characteristics are similar to the -400, and 757/767 on which I am type rated. I've got access to 777 information, though...

A 777's cruise altitude for best range performance varies from 30,000 at max weight, to about 43,000 at low weight...Fuel burn at cruise altitude is far less than at low altitude, and again, taking a moderately heavy weight airplane at normal cruise, a 777 burns about 8,000#/hr per engine, but that number drops to about 5,000#/hr per engine at low weights and optimum altitude.

In terms of nautical miles per pound of fuel, being at 5,000 feet gets you less than half the range of being at cruise. (this is a bit of an oversimplification, it depends on the airplane's weight, the temperature, and the airspeed flown, but it's close enough for our purposes here)...so, a 777 loaded with fuel for 4,000 miles likely can't go farther than 2,000 miles if flown at low altitude. Less if it was being flown at a high airspeed (which burns more fuel per mile).

There are so many variables, that I can only speak in generalities...but jet airplanes guzzle fuel when flown at low altitude. In fact, at idle, on the ground, they're often burning about half the fuel per minute that they burn when going 540 MPH in cruise...

Position reports over water (outside of radar range) are done either via HF or via Satcom datalink known as CPDLC (for pilot initiated communication) or ADS-B (in which the aircraft just keeps broadcasting its position). Which method is used depends on what the controlling agency has for equipment. The 777 has all the capabilities. In fact, it has dual SATCOMs, 2 HF radios, and 3 VHF radios. The position reports are given at reporting points (compulsory) designated on the navigation charts. In some parts of the world, it's every 45 minutes to an hour...in some parts, it's much more frequently. Again, depends on the controlling agency.

There really is no way for the controlling agency to independently verify the airplane's position once you're over water (way over water, outside 100 NM). Whether CPDLC, ADS-B, or HF position reports are received, the controlling agency has only the report for information. The airplane is outside radar range.

Position in the 777 is managed by dual Flight Management Computers. They take inputs from 2 GPS receivers, air data computers, two VOR receivers (using both DME and azimuth) and 3 ring-laser gyros (called ADIRUs) and then calculate the airplane's position. When close to an airport, ILS position is added to the mix, but you get the idea: lots of inputs and, in fact, very precise results. The FMCs themselves perform DR navigation, using those air data inputs as a cross-check to the GPS and ADIRU-inertial derived data.

Pilots will cross check instruments, inertial (ADIRU) and FMC positions at each reporting point...but in all honesty, on the 777 (like the 747-400), the airplane is within 0.1 NM of where it's supposed to be all the time. The only time that it gets off is when the FMCs have been programmed with an error in the route of flight, and that's a big reason that pilots keep checking the airplane, to make certain that the route is still being flown as filed/cleared.

The days of compass/DR or even using a sextant are long gone. Airplanes that fly internationally have to have this precision in navigation to allow for closer spacing on crowded overwater routes. The North Atlantic, for example, has many, many routes that are close together. If airplanes weren't able to ensure that degree of navigation (and altimetry) accuracy, then they would not be allowed on those routes because they would risk blundering into each other. Some airplanes don't have the modern navigation equipment, so they're stuck at lower altitudes or offset hundreds of miles to keep them out of the flow of dense oceanic traffic patterns that rely on precision for safe separation.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Was there something in the cargo being carried on the aircraft that somebody somewhere wanted? I think they maybe need to check out the cargo manifest really carefully.

It has been reported that the Boeing 777 is so computerized it might literally be possible to hijack the aircraft using a computer, or maybe even a smart phone.


Sigh...

That's being reported by someone who knows nothing about airplanes...Yeah, it's computerized, but those computers can't be accessed or connected without getting to the data loading equipment in the cockpit...at which point, you've overcome the cockpit crew and can just fly the airplane.

Further, those FMCs are running their own software architecture...so modifying it requires more than a hacker can come up with...unless they work for Honeywell...and even then, the only access point is in the cockpit.
 
Originally Posted By: Turk
Latest:

"US Officials Have 'Indication' Malaysia Airline Crashed into Indian Ocean"

http://gma.yahoo.com/us-officials-indica...topstories.html



Bunch of garbage and conflicting info:

Quote:
The official initially said there were indications that the plane flew four or five hours after disappearing from radar and that they believe it went into the water. Officials later said the plane likely did not fly four or five hours,


Quote:
The Malaysians spent much of today's news conference dismissing earlier leads.


Quote:
"A Malaysian maritime enforcement agency surveillance plane was dispatched this morning to investigate potential debris shown on Chinese satellite images. We deployed assets, but found nothing. We have contacted the Chinese Embassy who notified us this afternoon the images were released by mistake and did not show any debris from MH370," he said.


Quote:
Earlier in the search, two oil slicks were determined to not be from the plane and an orange object thought to be part of the plane's door was investigated and found to be unrelated.


Almost sounds like a coverup. Perfect growing ground for conspiracy theories.

In reality it could be anything, like meteor strike, windshield bursting, or skin cracking:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/missing...ing-777s-n50591
 
Astro14,

Why does the Pilot have the ability to turn off the Transponder, anyway?

Thank you.
 
Originally Posted By: Turk
I hope there's no cover-up...



Just from all the conflicting information the public is receiving you can be sure that they are NOT telling the truth about this incident.

If this is terrorist angle I believe that it is group being facilitated by major players, with possibly Israel (Mossad), the USA (DIA, CIA), and their facilitators involved.

Why is it that almost NO ONE in the general public knows that
Osama Bin Laden (aka Tim Osmond) was an agent working for the CIA?

It smells like a 9/11 set up.
Air Force response to supposedly hi jacked jets in NYC and DC

Remember the Five Dancing Israelis on 9/11? Israeli Mossad agents arrested on 9/11 in NYC area.





I'd almost say this entire incident is a distraction from some other debacle that these New World Order Globalists are interested in perpetrating. Slight of hand is their speciality after all.

There is a drive to a New World Order. Proof.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Turk
Astro14,

Why does the Pilot have the ability to turn off the Transponder, anyway?

Thank you.



Pilots have the ability to turn off lots of equipment. You don't want everything running all the time, especially on the ground or at the gate.

The transponder goes to on when the plane is ready to push back from the gate so that ATC ground radar can better see the airplane, it goes to transmitting altitude when taking off, so that other airplanes, and ATC can see the airplane's altitude (for safety) and then it goes back to on when landed and off when at the gate again.

Having extra transponder signals simply clutters up everyone's radar and TCAS picture and would reduce safety.

Pilots can shut everything off, and they should be able to take control of systems by turning them on/off - not to be pedantic about this, but we can shut off the engines in flight too...there are many good reasons for this: engine fire, failure, low oil pressure (there was a thread on this in the aviation section)...

When overwater, outside radar range, the transponder is pointless anyway, since there is no radar to receive it. So, in those cases, the Air Traffic Control agency is relying on the pilots to report their position (see above). So, the transponder itself becomes useless.

In those cases, the airplane is using other methods to report its position, but again, those methods are under the control of the pilots.
 
Astro, do you believe the report that the engines continued to send data to Rolls Royce for 4 hours? So far almost everything we read is later contradicted, which makes me skeptical of any fresh news.

If there was no electrical power on the plane, as some speculate, then is it even possible for the data to be transmitted?
 
It seems that the rolls royce engines communicate with service about operational status. I'm hearing that the engines communicated for 4 hours after the transponders were shut off.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: spasm3
It seems that the rolls royce engines communicate with service about operational status. I'm hearing that the engines communicated for 4 hours after the transponders were shut off.


Here is the detailed info (not sure if correct):

Quote:
The New Scientist reported that prior to the aircraft's disappearance, two ACARS reports had been automatically issued to engine manufacturer Rolls-Royce's monitoring center in the United Kingdom;[19] and a Wall Street Journal story, citing sources in the US government, said that Rolls-Royce had received an aircraft health report every thirty minutes for five hours, implying that the aircraft had remained in the air for four hours after its transponder went offline.[20] The Malaysian transport minister said details of the Wall Street Journal report were inaccurate during the next day's daily press briefing, stating that the final engine transmission was received at 01:07, prior to the flight's disappearance from secondary radar.[20] Follow-up reporting by Reuters suggested that a cession of engine reports did not necessarily mean there was no evidence of continued flight as the evidence may have taken the form of "pings" sent by the aircraft's maintenance troubleshooting systems that indicated to satellites it was merely ready to communicate as opposed to sending reports.[21] The Wall Street Journal then corrected its story to drop references to Rolls-Royce and say that the belief of continued flight was "based on analysis of signals sent by the Boeing 777's satellite-communication link... the link operated in a kind of standby mode and sought to establish contact with a satellite or satellites. These transmissions did not include data...


I'm afraid this could be true:

Quote:
One aviation expert told AFP that several countries may have detected the aircraft by means of their military radar but are reluctant to share their data because it would reveal their defence capabilities.[48]


A lot of countries in that southeast Asia spot.
 
Originally Posted By: xfactor9
Astro, do you believe the report that the engines continued to send data to Rolls Royce for 4 hours? So far almost everything we read is later contradicted, which makes me skeptical of any fresh news.

If there was no electrical power on the plane, as some speculate, then is it even possible for the data to be transmitted?


Belief is an interesting thing...and it's driving this discussion...

Technically, the engines transmit data to the maintenance computer, that regularly updates the company. This is common. Faults in other systems are also recorded and are sent immediately. This is common and happened with AF 447...that's how we knew that pitot-static issues were involved in that crash long before the wreckage was found.

"No electrical power" can take many forms...there are literally dozens of electrical busses on the 777...some can be unpowered by the crew, others shut off automatically with faults or failures. If electrical power was failing on some busses, then some, including the radios and maintenance computer, may have stayed on to transmit the data.

I don't believe that there was "No electrical power" because we simply have no evidence to support that. We really have no evidence of anything at this point.

I am certain that the airplane is no longer in the air. I am reasonably certain that it is no longer in the air because of a deliberate human act. Maintenance/mechanical faults would have been reported, so a cascading set of mechanical failures that would bring down a 777 would have had a whole series of reported messages...

So, where does that leave us? Crew action, ala Egyptair 990? Terrorist action? Nothing can be stated with certainty at this point...except that the airplane isn't in the air...

I believe the engine reports at this point because the source is credible. It simply adds to the mystery of what happened here.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek

I'm afraid this could be true:

Quote:
One aviation expert told AFP that several countries may have detected the aircraft by means of their military radar but are reluctant to share their data because it would reveal their defence capabilities.[48]


A lot of countries in that southeast Asia spot.



this seems the most plausible so far
 
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Has anyone participated in the satellite search here: http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/malaysiaairsar2014

I have, but the images are from yesterday. A bit too late. Also no map to orient or chose the images

I wanted to -- I nerd out on sat data stuff (used to work in the field), but that site's down every time I go to it. DOS'd by people eager to help, which is a shame but does show that it's a very popular idea. Kinda reminds me of how NASA divided up the work of looking at dust specks in the aerogel returned from the comet satellite.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top