Malaysia Airlines Plane "Loses Contact"
Discussion
AreOut said:
TheSnitch said:
What are you on about?
The search area has been calculated using the available data.
Your claim that the disappearance of the plane is in any way connected to the jailing of a politician is speculation
yes, calculated using the available data ASSUMING the plane flew at constant speed/altitude/headingThe search area has been calculated using the available data.
Your claim that the disappearance of the plane is in any way connected to the jailing of a politician is speculation
while it IS the most logical assumption to make, it is still only an assumption and there are thousands of other flight paths that would fit that same data
The search area has been calculated using data. Clearly assumptions have to be made too, else we would get nowhere, but it is data driven.
Whereas your claim that the disappearance of the plane is linked to the jailing of a politician is not based on any evidence at all, it is complete speculation on your part.
TheSnitch said:
AreOut said:
TheSnitch said:
What are you on about?
The search area has been calculated using the available data.
Your claim that the disappearance of the plane is in any way connected to the jailing of a politician is speculation
yes, calculated using the available data ASSUMING the plane flew at constant speed/altitude/headingThe search area has been calculated using the available data.
Your claim that the disappearance of the plane is in any way connected to the jailing of a politician is speculation
while it IS the most logical assumption to make, it is still only an assumption and there are thousands of other flight paths that would fit that same data
The search area has been calculated using data. Clearly assumptions have to be made too, else we would get nowhere, but it is data driven.
Whereas your claim that the disappearance of the plane is linked to the jailing of a politician is not based on any evidence at all, it is complete speculation on your part.
TheSnitch said:
I don't think you are quite getting what I mean.
The search area has been calculated using data. Clearly assumptions have to be made too, else we would get nowhere, but it is data driven.
Whereas your claim that the disappearance of the plane is linked to the jailing of a politician is not based on any evidence at all, it is complete speculation on your part.
failed approach on Christmas Island is also data driven (if you allow for altitude changes) AND it has valid motivationThe search area has been calculated using data. Clearly assumptions have to be made too, else we would get nowhere, but it is data driven.
Whereas your claim that the disappearance of the plane is linked to the jailing of a politician is not based on any evidence at all, it is complete speculation on your part.
southern SIO theory has no valid motivation at all
AdeTuono said:
Along with 99% of his other theories. He's our gold standard tin-foil hatter, dontchaknow?
because it's tinfoily to think that pilot wanted to land somewhere(actually what pilots do on a daily basis) but it's not tinfoily to think that he wanted to perform suicide in a completely illogical location?twisted logic
The Reunion Island news paper through Google Translate.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl...
Seem like the flapron might have been on the Beach since May and that quite a lot of other 'strange' items have been washed up and burnt by beach treasure hunters (presumable Beachcombers), including more suitcases, a blue plastic seat and other unnamed objects.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl...
Seem like the flapron might have been on the Beach since May and that quite a lot of other 'strange' items have been washed up and burnt by beach treasure hunters (presumable Beachcombers), including more suitcases, a blue plastic seat and other unnamed objects.
Edited by Martin4x4 on Sunday 2nd August 09:05
red_slr said:
I guess the search using scanners is going to have a really tough job now as it looks like the aircraft is in many small bits. Chances of finding the black box now must be almost zero?
I would think so, but anything can happen.It does make me think that black boxes should have a flotation device attached to them that inflates on contact with water. Then they could drift on to the coast.
RenOHH said:
I would think so, but anything can happen.
It does make me think that black boxes should have a flotation device attached to them that inflates on contact with water. Then they could drift on to the coast.
I thought the same but then you have a new problem of somehow ensuring it is released from what it is bolted to so it can float to the surface.It does make me think that black boxes should have a flotation device attached to them that inflates on contact with water. Then they could drift on to the coast.
RenOHH said:
I would think so, but anything can happen.
It does make me think that black boxes should have a flotation device attached to them that inflates on contact with water. Then they could drift on to the coast.
Not wanting to change the topic of the thread, but if anything this case shows how antiquated 'black boxes' seem to be. I can't understand how we can have data beamed back from Jupiter but planes can't have a real time feed network. Surely the cost of the system would pale in significance to the cost of many of the systems on these planes.It does make me think that black boxes should have a flotation device attached to them that inflates on contact with water. Then they could drift on to the coast.
How many space probes are currently at Jupiter?
Answer - none.
How many space probes are in the outer Solar System at the moment - answer, about four - with full time teams monitoring them.
How many airliners are there in the air at any one time?
Around 5,000.
The cost to re-equip the current airkine fleet with such devices would cost billions spread over the entire airline industry.
Answer - none.
How many space probes are in the outer Solar System at the moment - answer, about four - with full time teams monitoring them.
How many airliners are there in the air at any one time?
Around 5,000.
The cost to re-equip the current airkine fleet with such devices would cost billions spread over the entire airline industry.
longshot said:
I thought the same but then you have a new problem of somehow ensuring it is released from what it is bolted to so it can float to the surface.
But in cases like this where the plane seems to have been smashed into thousands of pieces, it might have been released. Or the part it's still attached to is light enough to allow the buoyancy aid to lift it. Or if it's still attached to a large piece then maybe that piece can be found some day. But if the black boxes have come away from the large bits they are attached to they will have sunk and be almost impossible to find.Petrus1983 said:
Not wanting to change the topic of the thread, but if anything this case shows how antiquated 'black boxes' seem to be. I can't understand how we can have data beamed back from Jupiter but planes can't have a real time feed network. Surely the cost of the system would pale in significance to the cost of many of the systems on these planes.
It's the cost of implementing, testing, etc on creating such a thing versus the likeleyhood that it will actually be needed/used.A real time data stream using sat comm isn't going to be cheap plus you would need the gear on the aircraft (weight and all the testing that will go with it)' somewhere to store the data, something to process it, etc.
Then do you say it has to be retrofitted (if so where does it go) or is it on new builds only (retrofitted to current production as they go down the line or do you wait until the design of the next gen).
Then when you have the data and can see that a pilot has gone rogue in real time, what do you do? Send someone up to reason with him, shoot it down or just watch it hit the deck?
What if the rogue pilot just pulls the breaker on the uplink system or do you prevent that - if do what happens if it catches fire mid flight.
Edited by KTF on Sunday 2nd August 11:50
Eric Mc said:
How many space probes are currently at Jupiter?
Answer - none.
How many space probes are in the outer Solar System at the moment - answer, about four - with full time teams monitoring them.
How many airliners are there in the air at any one time?
Around 5,000.
The cost to re-equip the current airkine fleet with such devices would cost billions spread over the entire airline industry.
Plus this aircraft was deliberately made hard to find by the switching off the ACARS etc, most other crashes result in the data being recovered and the causes discovered reasonably quickly. Answer - none.
How many space probes are in the outer Solar System at the moment - answer, about four - with full time teams monitoring them.
How many airliners are there in the air at any one time?
Around 5,000.
The cost to re-equip the current airkine fleet with such devices would cost billions spread over the entire airline industry.
Mid ocean is always going to be difficult though. Even the AF Airbus that crashed in the mid Atlantic took ages to find and that had all the position reporting etc you could ask for functioning.
Petrus1983 said:
Not wanting to change the topic of the thread, but if anything this case shows how antiquated 'black boxes' seem to be. I can't understand how we can have data beamed back from Jupiter but planes can't have a real time feed network. Surely the cost of the system would pale in significance to the cost of many of the systems on these planes.
Money, it really is that simple I expect.RenOHH said:
longshot said:
I thought the same but then you have a new problem of somehow ensuring it is released from what it is bolted to so it can float to the surface.
But in cases like this where the plane seems to have been smashed into thousands of pieces, it might have been released. Or the part it's still attached to is light enough to allow the buoyancy aid to lift it. Or if it's still attached to a large piece then maybe that piece can be found some day. But if the black boxes have come away from the large bits they are attached to they will have sunk and be almost impossible to find.I imagine a black box is quite heavy so you would either need it to be attached to a fairly sizeable piece of buoyant material (which you then have to find room for in the fuselage) or something that perhaps inflates when it hits water.
That itself then brings a new set of problems as in where do you fit it to give it the best chance of escaping the fuselage but is still 'buried' enough to survive the impact. etc etc.
It just goes on.
You could have them positioned in the fuselage so that a system can eject them let's say 10 seconds before any impact that the aeroplane's systems deem is going to happen but then you have the problem of if they deploy by accident etc.
Solving problems like this can be a minefield.
Floating/detaching black boxes is a solution that's from the dark ages.
The Air France crash shows that the technology is already there to transmit adequate data whilst an aircraft is in flight many miles from land. he French already knew the root cause of the accident before it was confirmed that the pilots failed to react properly to the problem. The root cause was the icing of the pitot tubes and the loss of flight speed information. Te black boxes eventually confirmed this and the pilots lack of proper corrective actions. The French were replacing pitot tubes within hours of the crash.
Lack of finding for live data transmission on new major aircraft is also an unacceptable excuse. Yes older planes will be hard and expensive to retro fit. However, not using data transmission due to costs incurred is also an unacceptable position. If this technology is already fitted to an aircraft I must be mandatory that its used and not turned off by some bean counters. If it eventually affects flight costs then so be it, too many rubbish airline companies are already guilty of cutting costs and corners to offer cheaper fairs. It must stop. If that means some people can't afford to travel or that they have to pay more than that's the cost and it should be accepted.
Additionally, the ability of the aircrew to turn off some of these systems must be reigned in. The ability to turn off transponders when the aircraft is in the air is a pointless idea. The risk of a transponder system actually causing a fire type emergency is so low as to not relevant. When a chivvy aircraft is in the air it should and must be transmitting its location, without any interference from a single individual. The authorities should change the law on this immediately....
The Air France crash shows that the technology is already there to transmit adequate data whilst an aircraft is in flight many miles from land. he French already knew the root cause of the accident before it was confirmed that the pilots failed to react properly to the problem. The root cause was the icing of the pitot tubes and the loss of flight speed information. Te black boxes eventually confirmed this and the pilots lack of proper corrective actions. The French were replacing pitot tubes within hours of the crash.
Lack of finding for live data transmission on new major aircraft is also an unacceptable excuse. Yes older planes will be hard and expensive to retro fit. However, not using data transmission due to costs incurred is also an unacceptable position. If this technology is already fitted to an aircraft I must be mandatory that its used and not turned off by some bean counters. If it eventually affects flight costs then so be it, too many rubbish airline companies are already guilty of cutting costs and corners to offer cheaper fairs. It must stop. If that means some people can't afford to travel or that they have to pay more than that's the cost and it should be accepted.
Additionally, the ability of the aircrew to turn off some of these systems must be reigned in. The ability to turn off transponders when the aircraft is in the air is a pointless idea. The risk of a transponder system actually causing a fire type emergency is so low as to not relevant. When a chivvy aircraft is in the air it should and must be transmitting its location, without any interference from a single individual. The authorities should change the law on this immediately....
TTmonkey said:
Floating/detaching black boxes is a solution that's from the dark ages.
The Air France crash shows that the technology is already there to transmit adequate data whilst an aircraft is in flight many miles from land. he French already knew the root cause of the accident before it was confirmed that the pilots failed to react properly to the problem. The root cause was the icing of the pitot tubes and the loss of flight speed information. Te black boxes eventually confirmed this and the pilots lack of proper corrective actions. The French were replacing pitot tubes within hours of the crash.
Lack of finding for live data transmission on new major aircraft is also an unacceptable excuse. Yes older planes will be hard and expensive to retro fit. However, not using data transmission due to costs incurred is also an unacceptable position. If this technology is already fitted to an aircraft I must be mandatory that its used and not turned off by some bean counters. If it eventually affects flight costs then so be it, too many rubbish airline companies are already guilty of cutting costs and corners to offer cheaper fairs. It must stop. If that means some people can't afford to travel or that they have to pay more than that's the cost and it should be accepted.
Additionally, the ability of the aircrew to turn off some of these systems must be reigned in. The ability to turn off transponders when the aircraft is in the air is a pointless idea. The risk of a transponder system actually causing a fire type emergency is so low as to not relevant. When a chivvy aircraft is in the air it should and must be transmitting its location, without any interference from a single individual. The authorities should change the law on this immediately....
I think you're confusing some of the systems, the transponder isn't much use over the sea, except to tell the pilots where other nearby aircraft are, to help avoid collisions. It's well beyond ground station range. The Air France crash shows that the technology is already there to transmit adequate data whilst an aircraft is in flight many miles from land. he French already knew the root cause of the accident before it was confirmed that the pilots failed to react properly to the problem. The root cause was the icing of the pitot tubes and the loss of flight speed information. Te black boxes eventually confirmed this and the pilots lack of proper corrective actions. The French were replacing pitot tubes within hours of the crash.
Lack of finding for live data transmission on new major aircraft is also an unacceptable excuse. Yes older planes will be hard and expensive to retro fit. However, not using data transmission due to costs incurred is also an unacceptable position. If this technology is already fitted to an aircraft I must be mandatory that its used and not turned off by some bean counters. If it eventually affects flight costs then so be it, too many rubbish airline companies are already guilty of cutting costs and corners to offer cheaper fairs. It must stop. If that means some people can't afford to travel or that they have to pay more than that's the cost and it should be accepted.
Additionally, the ability of the aircrew to turn off some of these systems must be reigned in. The ability to turn off transponders when the aircraft is in the air is a pointless idea. The risk of a transponder system actually causing a fire type emergency is so low as to not relevant. When a chivvy aircraft is in the air it should and must be transmitting its location, without any interference from a single individual. The authorities should change the law on this immediately....
The risk of electrical fire is much higher than pilots switching stuff off to commit suicide. I'd much rather be on an aircraft where electrical systems can be isolated and switched off. If you prohibit a suicidal pilot from switching off (any) monitoring equipment, it won't stop them committing suicide, it will just make it quicker to find the aircraft when it eventually crashes. The end result is the same, you haven't improved safety. If this aircraft had crashed due to an electrical fire in the flight deck, you'd be saying that you couldn't believe pilots can't switch off or isolate electrical systems and how the chances of someone doing that to conceal his a suicide crash site are so low as to be irrelevant.
You can't legislate the risk out of everything, there are plenty of people that could kill lots of other people if they were intent on murder suicide. Thankfully, It's not a common event.
Edited by el stovey on Sunday 2nd August 12:47
Why can't planes just have a long retractable washing line on a spool in the cargo area? When they take off the line will start paying out and when they land they can phone their originating airport and ask them to unhook the line and it will retract back onto the spool. If the plane crashes en route then the rescuers/investigators can just follow the washing line to the crashed aeroplane.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff