Malaysia Airlines Plane "Loses Contact"

[XJ Flyer]

RYH64E said:

In your example the shell doesn't stay in the air longer, it travels further in the same time because it's going faster.

It's also on a shallower trajectory IE the distance over which it travels horizontally is further than that of the slower moving object.

I'd guess that the confusion is probably because most people would think that it's the trajectory,as opposed to rate of descent,that would be the defining factor on a radar screen to differentiate something that's falling as opposed to still flying.

[Asterix]

Mr Happy said:

Asterix said:

XJ Flyer said:

Maybe changing the idea of onboard flight data recorders to real time in flight telemetry to ground based stations,as in the case of F1,might help in making sense of such incidents easier and faster.

Excuse my ignorance but I suspect that would require huge amounts of data storage/processing to log everything the aircraft is doing given how busy airspace can get in certain areas.

Would be great though - could even be set to flag up possible issues to advise the flight crew.

Isn't that what ACARS does?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACARS

From reading that - it's short and relatively simple data - I'm assuming the flight recorders detail absolutely everything that's going on with the aircraft.

[Mojocvh]

Any more on the two pax with false passports report??

[furtive]

Mojocvh said:

Any more on the two pax with false passports report??

Some info here:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/03/0...

[dvs_dave]

Mojocvh said:

Do you know what the fuel tank "problem" was? The root cause of the explosion was put down to an ignition source, that source being caused by the use of electrical connector plug sealing "potting" that was not fuel resistant in components inside the fuel tank[s].

But it was alright, it was exactly the spec demanded by Boeing.

And since TWA800, pretty much all airliners have, or have been retrofitted with a fuel tank inerting system which fills the emptying tanks with nitrogen instead of air. That way even if a spark does occur there is no possibility of combustion.

[Steve vRS]

I'm sure they haven't.

[Steve vRS]

I stand corrected. It looks as though the FAA are requiring it of new aircraft and retrofitting older planes who have a centre fuel rank.

Steve

[Crafty_]

Asterix said:

Excuse my ignorance but I suspect that would require huge amounts of data storage/processing to log everything the aircraft is doing given how busy airspace can get in certain areas.

Would be great though - could even be set to flag up possible issues to advise the flight crew.

You wouldn't believe the amount of stuff that can be logged. I forget the exact numbers but someone told me the number of inputs and required bandwidth for A380s and it was pretty eye opening.

Even stuff like high end bizjets record thousands of pieces of information a second.

It will happen eventually I guess, but one barrier is the comms - whilst high speed connectivity covers much of the world, there are still dead spots, I know of one (non commercial) aircraft that has a low speed ( like 2400 baud! ) line/modem for "worst case scenario" on that front.

Mr Happy said:

Isn't that what ACARS does?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACARS

Sort of. ACARS deals with the structure of data coming from aircraft to a downstation and from the downstation to subscribers (it also deals with the communication protocol between aircraft & down station).

Some ACARS messages are standardised (for example: out/off/on/in that denote movements of aircraft) but it does also have some customisable stuff where the payload (content) can be whatever is required - this could be used to send a snapshot of the aircraft operation, for example min/max of some parameters for a flight phase (e.g. take off) or a small portion (lets say 60-90 seconds worth) of some parameters - maybe six or eight of them ?

Data coming via ACARS is always fairly small & lightweight, certainly not full flight data. At least thats what I've seen so far. If you can get your hands on a copy look at the ARINC 620 spec.

One way this whole game will change is "intelligent machines" where an engine (or any other component) will have a data recorder and onboard analysis capability - if it finds something wrong it can send a concise report of the problem without having to send a huge lump of data.
There are lots of other things an "intelligent machine" might do - I know one idea that was touted is the use of RFID to authenticate personnel - if someone approached an engine without a valid tag it'd lock its covers and prevent access for example.

This analysis may not be for safety stuff - maintenance and schedule changes are a huge problem to airlines, if maintenance issues/faults can be detected earlier the work can be planned and schedule changes (and their financial impact) reduced or removed. Airlines like cutting costs so this is a pretty big area of interest right now.

[mr_tony]

Coincidentally there is this feature on Wired at present.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/06/ff_blackboxe...

Without data, all we have is speculation. A lot of lives lost, my thoughts are with the families. And as a frequent flyer myself, I'm just glad to be home with my family tonight.

[sunoco69]

2 stolen passports on board, no mayday? My money is on terrorism. Knife attacks last week, plane bombs this week?

[skyrover]

sunoco69 said:

2 stolen passports on board, no mayday? My money is on terrorism. Knife attacks last week, plane bombs this week?

Yes this was my initial thoughts... I was speculating earlier in the thread about the political situation in Malaysia right now.

Lets not forget the trouble China is having with Uighur separatists as well.

[NelsonR32]

Just an oil slick so far. Would seem to suggest the plane went down fairly intact?

[NelsonR32]

Just an oil slick so far. Would seem to suggest the plane went down fairly intact?

[Thankyou4calling]

sunoco69 said:

2 stolen passports on board, no mayday? My money is on terrorism. Knife attacks last week, plane bombs this week?

I'll take your bet.

[skyrover]

NelsonR32 said:

Just an oil slick so far. Would seem to suggest the plane went down fairly intact?

We don't even know what the slick is from yet

[dvs_dave]

skyrover said:

Yes this was my initial thoughts... I was speculating earlier in the thread about the political situation in Malaysia right now.

Lets not forget the trouble China is having with Uighur separatists as well.

Such organizations are usually quick to claim responsibility otherwise what would be the point in their actions?

[Mojocvh]

Steve vRS said:

I stand corrected. It looks as though the FAA are requiring it of new aircraft and retrofitting older planes who have a centre fuel rank.

Steve

Yes center tank equipped, now isn't that a coincidence??

[skyrover]

dvs_dave said:

skyrover said:

Yes this was my initial thoughts... I was speculating earlier in the thread about the political situation in Malaysia right now.

Lets not forget the trouble China is having with Uighur separatists as well.

Such organizations are usually quick to claim responsibility otherwise what would be the point in their actions?

It's early days yet

[Ozzie Osmond]

Dr Jekyll said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

777s don't usually fall out of the sky without even a chance for the crew to say there's something wrong.

If the crew experienced a severe control problem they might well have time to tell people on the ground about it, but would be concentrating on trying to fly the aircraft. Talking on the radio is something you only do when you don't have anything more useful to do.

I'm reminded that Captain Sullenberger, who landed his plane on the water in New York, had time to tell people what was happening even though his co-pilot didn't have time to shut the ditching cocks (or whatever they're called) because he was fully committed trying to start the engines.

[Chilli]

Ozzie Osmond said:

I'm reminded that Captain Sullenberger, who landed his plane on the water in New York, had time to tell people what was happening even though his co-pilot didn't have time to shut the ditching cocks (or whatever they're called) because he was fully committed trying to start the engines.

And he was only 3,000 ft in the air.