Malaysia airlines plane may have crashed 239 people on board #20

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joint Agency Coordination Centre

Media Release
5 April 2014—am

Up to 10 military planes, three civil jets and 11 ships will assist in today's search for missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370. Today ADV Ocean Shield and HMS Echo continue underwater search operations.

The Australian Maritime Safety Authority has determined a search area of about 217,000 square kilometres, 1700 kilometres north west of Perth.

Today's search area will focus on three areas within the same vicinity.

The weather forecast for today's search is fair, with possible showers in the search area.

http://www.jacc.gov.au/media/releases/2014/april/mr009.aspx
 
SouthAussie said:
Does it seem a little weird that Diego Garcia, with its apparent high-powered long-range radar and capabilities, can't track exactly where MH370 fell off the radar?

Maybe these theories hold some weight?
:dunno:

...
Click to expand...

yeah, it seems a little weird to me. The biggest surprise to me is that planes are not tracked everywhere, all the time. And maybe they are and people just aren't talking.
 
JerseyGirl said:
Sarah Bajc, partner of American passenger Philip Wood, noted that officials have concluded that the jetliner flew over Malaysia "for quite a long time."

"It is impossible that this relatively sophisticated military power didn't see it," she said. "They are clearly hiding something. We just don't know what."

Malaysia refuses to let families hear the plane's radio communications
The Malaysian Department of Civil Aviation denied a request by Malaysian families to release the audio recording of radio communications among the pilot, co-pilot and air traffic control

"This is an event that is so unprecedented and I think that is so significant that it can never be allowed to get off the screens, get off the radar," K.S. Narendran told CNN's Erin Burnett.

Sarah Bajc, partner of American passenger Philip Wood video from CNN believes the plane is still intact: http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/v...-intv-bajc-partner-philip-wood-mh370.cnn.html

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/04/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-plane/.
Click to expand...

My sympathies go out to the families. They deserve to know what happened to their loved ones. However, what possible benefit would it be to them to listen to the plane's radio communications? This is still an ongoing investigation, and possibly a criminal one.

:(

MOO
 
SouthAussie said:
This just made me wonder.

How does a 'public' airport know if an unidentified plane on their radar is or is not a clandestine military plane (from their own country)?

And how does a military airport know if an unidentified plane on their radar is or is not a 'public' plane with transponder problems? Surely some planes must have transponder issues sometimes.

And do very small (2 or 4 seater) private planes have transponders too? Though I realise they couldn't fly at MH370 altitudes, but it is just a general question.

It would be interesting to know how many unidentified (for one reason or another) planes fly around each day, without being questioned and without crashing or disappearing. Maybe there are far more than we realise? :dunno:
Click to expand...

They need to adopt my color-coding system that I talked about in a post upthread.

"Funny" thing would be if they already have such a system, and it still didn't work.

Basically what I said was whoever ATC is monitoring a plane, they tag the plane and it comes up color RED or GREEN, let's say....GREEN for someone monitoring the plane. Then the blip shows up color GREEN in all countries' radars who can see the plane. Just means - someone is watching it (whoever tags it has responsibility for it until they untag it).

Then when it switches ATC, the original ATC untags it. The next ATC has to tag it after communicating with the plane. So it went RED, then it went GREEN again.

In this case, Ho Chi Minh never got any communication from the plane and would have never tagged the plane GREEN. So it would have stayed RED color blip.

The plane would have thus shown up RED blip on each country's radar. RED means no one is watching it. Easy to spot the REDS from the GREENS. RED means untagged plane - no one'a ATC is watching it.

JMO.
 
The thing is, I don't think it is easy to figure out what planes are supposed to be there. I could be wrong, but I don't really get the sense there's a global ATC system - countries handle that themselves because tracking planes for security is usually a military thing. If a plane is coming in to land, it notifies them and has a transponder set up to give its location. Radar is there to track sudden military attacks, but that type of war is kind of old-fashioned. 9/11 changed everyone's thoughts about air travel, but the system wasn't really designed for that. And it's not like it has become a regular thing for people to do that. We addressed it through preemptive measures like screening. Radar isn't made for tracking a bunch of commercial flights and seeing if anything looks suspicious - it's there to look at anything heading our way and shoot it down from back when a bunch of jets would stage an attack.

ETA: I agree that the searchers know better than anyone here where to go - they aren't just making this stuff up. I'm sure they've considered all possibilities. And it also would not surprise me at all if the plane did get shot down by accident, although I would wonder what caused them to see it as a threat, and I thought missiles launches were fairly easy to spot elsewhere.
 
Fluffy Puppy said:
Great explanation, and good thinking, but you guys lose me when folks think they haven't thought of this. I am pretty sure they have thought of and done or calcualted things like this. There are a LOT of big physics and aeronautics brains working on this. How else do you think they came up with the current search area?
Click to expand...

Eh, they have not found the plane yet?

IMO they came up with the search area by using complex math and by PLUGGING in ESTIMATION of how much fuel the plane would have had in it at the turn South.

What I'm saying is, use an actual plane with same cargo weight and same amount of fuel, set it off on whatever route they think the plane took up until the South turn, and see how much fuel is left in that plane.

I can tell you it will probably be A LOT closer to the amount 370 actually had in it at the turn then by just estimation and equations.

Once they have as good of a guess as they could possibly get to the amount of fuel 370 had in it beginning at that South turn, they can IMO get to a much closer estimation of where the plane ran out of fuel, and thus crashed.

Yes, all this big brains must have thought about complex math and such-and-such, but have they taken an actual plane up there? I don't think so, no reporters have mentioned it, Malaysia hasn't mentioned it, and so no, I do not think they have tried this.

JMO.
 
aa9511 said:
Eh, they have not found the plane yet?

IMO they came up with the search area by using complex math and by PLUGGING in ESTIMATION of how much fuel the plane would have had in it at the turn South.

What I'm saying is, use an actual plane with same cargo weight and same amount of fuel, set it off on whatever route they think the plane took up until the South turn, and see how much fuel is left in that plane.

I can tell you it will probably be A LOT closer to the amount 370 actually had in it at the turn then by just estimation and equations.

Once they have as good of a guess as they could possibly get to the amount of fuel 370 had in it beginning at that South turn, they can IMO get to a much closer estimation of where the plane ran out of fuel, and thus crashed.

Yes, all this big brains must have thought about complex math and such-and-such, but have they taken an actual plane up there? I don't think so, no reporters have mentioned it, Malaysia hasn't mentioned it, and so no, I do not think they have tried this.

JMO.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it's not that hard to calculate fuel usage - they've worked this stuff out so they don't have to restage everything. The issue is what direction it went, not how far it could have gone.
 
Supernovae said:
Regardless of all that, and whether or not this was planned by terrorists, now that knowledge of these weaknesses are out there they need to plug these holes, because if terrorists didn't know before, they do now, and there's a high chance they'll actively seek to exploit this in the future.

PS. I'm not convinced by the "trial run" suggestion that someone else made. If the "trial run" is so successful, why not just carry through with the plan the first time? A "trial run" also runs the risk that your target will learn and plug that security gap before you can carry out your plan.
Click to expand...


bbm

That was me. Yes, you are right. Good points.

Every lead seems to end at a dead end. No single theory really makes sense all the way down the line in this.
 
Wow, 9 members and 23 guests viewing this thread. Come join us, guests!
 
lawstudent said:
I'm sure it's not that hard to calculate fuel usage - they've worked this stuff out so they don't have to restage everything. The issue is what direction it went, not how far it could have gone.
Click to expand...

No, IMO, the issue is precisely how far it could have gone.

Also, it is hard to calculate fuel usage, IMO, when you have a plane with a certain weight of cargo in it, you have sharp turns (at least two), you have take-off, and you have possible alitude changes. IMO, they need to try to re-create the plane and route (up until South turn) of that night, and then test out fuel usage on exactly that plane.

So now back to my first point - the issue is precisely how far it could have gone:

****For all of this, I am beginning at the South turn, where I think it was set on auto-pilot.

-they know how long the plane was flying for
-they know it had to be somewhere on the arc at 8:11
-I am fairly certain they know that the 8:19 ping is when the plane signalled that engines ran out of fuel. So plane ran out of fuel 8 minutes after passing the arc.
-What they need is as close of an estimation as possible to the real amount of fuel 370 had beginning at the South turn.

The point is that they need to find out where on that arc the plane passed over. And to do that, they need to know how much fuel the plane was working with (to narrow down the possibilities on the arc).

*****I am doing all of this for South arc, b/c I do believe they are certain the plane went on the South arc path.

JMO.
 
aa9511 said:
No, IMO, the issue is precisely how far it could have gone.

Also, it is hard to calculate fuel usage, IMO, when you have a plane with a certain weight of cargo in it, you have sharp turns (at least two), you have take-off, and you have possible alitude changes. IMO, they need to try to re-create the plane and route (up until South turn) of that night, and then test out fuel usage on exactly that plane.

So now back to my first point - the issue is precisely how far it could have gone:

****For all of this, I am beginning at the South turn, where I think it was set on auto-pilot.

-they know how long the plane was flying for
-they know it had to be somewhere on the arc at 8:11
-I am fairly certain they know that the 8:19 ping is when the plane signalled that engines ran out of fuel. So plane ran out of fuel 8 minutes after passing the arc.
-What they need is as close of an estimation as possible to the real amount of fuel 370 had beginning at the South turn.

The point is that they need to find out where on that arc the plane passed over. And to do that, they need to know how much fuel the plane was working with (to narrow down the possibilities on the arc).

*****I am doing all of this for South arc, b/c I do believe they are certain the plane went on the South arc path.

JMO.
Click to expand...

Figuring out the fuel usage for the plane would be difficult because like you said, you'd have to take into account the cargo weight. Plus, passenger weight and their carry-ons. Then there's the altitude changed (that may or not have happened).

It would be quite a difficult test...
 
ilovepierre said:
Figuring out the fuel usage for the plane would be difficult because like you said, you'd have to take into account the cargo weight. Plus, passenger weight and their carry-ons. Then there's the altitude changed (that may or not have happened).

It would be quite a difficult test...
Click to expand...

They must have recorded somewhere the cargo weight that was loaded onto 370. That is a must, I think, b/c the pilot needs to know that critical information for the plane, and to help him determine fuel needs. So that is recorded, I am sure.

It would not be hard to replicate the cargo weight. They already know what that weight was. Just load stuff onto it that equals about the same total weight.

Then just estimate the combined weight of the 239 passengers - that should not be hard. Just an estimation. Certain average weight for male and certain average weight for female, and they already know how many of the passengers were children. :(

So just load some more stuff on to equal the estimated combined weight of the passengers.

Load the exact fuel which was loaded into 370.

Set it on the course all these big brains have come up with - the course they think the plane took up until the South turn. Included any varified altitude changes at the points where those changes occured.

As I said in a previous post, IMO, this is not hard to do and a lot easier in fact then searching a giant ocean.

So there should not be any issue with complication of it.

After all, they are doing very complicated analysis right now to try to determine where it crashed.

Surely they can put together this test-run very quickly.

JMO.
 
Also, my whole point with this Test Run, is that it would help them to narrow down the possible areas of the arc through which 370 could have passed. Because they would have a closer estimation to the amount of fuel 370 had beginning at the South turn.

The end of the equation is going to be much more accurate if the numbers you plug into it are more accurate.

There is not much more that they can get to be accurate. For example, they don't know the speed or the altitude the plane was set for after the South turn. But whatever they can get to be more accurate, they should try, IMO. That would include the calculation of the fuel in the plane beginning at the South turn.

That is my whole point with this Test Plane idea. Plug in more accurate numbers, to get more accurate answers (estimation of where plane crashed).

Then, there is also the issue of the middle pings. As poster Hatfield noted, they can compare the pings of the Test Plane with the pings of 370 in those middle hours.

They can use this comparison of pings Test vs. 370, to narrow down and refine the search area.

By the calculation of fuel 370 would have, the 8:11 arc ping, the number of hours flying, etc., they have already eliminated parts of the arc which don't fit. For example, the plane could not have passed in the upper portion of the South arc, b/c it would have made it way past that point by 8:11. It could not have gone more South than a certain point on the arc, b/c it would have already run out of fuel.

So what we get is a shaded area of possiblity on the South arc, where the plane could have possibly crossed the arc, given all the known variables.

So what they can do is first calculate the fuel, using Test Plane. Next, set the plane on a flight path which would make it cross the northern-most point on that shaded area of possibility. Have plane go a couple of hours to register 2 satelite pings. Compare pings- Test vs. 370. Then set the Test plane on the Southern-most point of possibility on the arc (of shaded area). Compare the pings (Test vs. 370). Keep refining and narrowing the possible arc areas, and thus the search area.

JMO.
 
aa9511 said:
As I said in a previous post, IMO, this is not hard to do and a lot easier in fact then searching a giant ocean.

So there should not be any issue with complication of it.

After all, they are doing very complicated analysis right now to try to determine where it crashed.

Surely they can put together this test-run very quickly.

JMO.
Click to expand...


But do you really think if they could put this together so quickly, they'd have chosen to look for a needle in a haystack by searching the ocean? I mean, all the investigators from these countries would have to be too dumb to have thought this before you. There's clearly more to it. No one wants to search an ocean for weeks.
 
aa9511 said:
Also, my whole point with this Test Run, is that it would help them to narrow down the possible areas of the arc through which 370 could have passed. Because they would have a closer estimation to the amount of fuel 370 had beginning at the South turn.

The end of the equation is going to be much more accurate if the numbers you plug into it are more accurate.

There is not much more that they can get to be accurate. For example, they don't know the speed or the altitude the plane was set for after the South turn. But whatever they can get to be more accurate, they should try, IMO. That would include the calculation of the fuel in the plane beginning at the South turn.

That is my whole point with this Test Plane idea. Plug in more accurate numbers, to get more accurate answers (estimation of where plane crashed).

Then, there is also the issue of the middle pings. As poster Hatfield noted, they can compare the pings of the Test Plane with the pings of 370 in those middle hours.

They can use this comparison of pings Test vs. 370, to narrow down and refine the search area.

By the calculation of fuel 370 would have, the 8:11 arc ping, the number of hours flying, etc., they have already eliminated parts of the arc which don't fit. For example, the plane could not have passed in the upper portion of the South arc, b/c it would have made it way past that point by 8:11. It could not have gone more South than a certain point on the arc, b/c it would have already run out of fuel.

So what we get is a shaded area of possiblity on the South arc, where the plane could have possibly crossed the arc, given all the known variables.

So what they can do is first calculate the fuel, using Test Plane. Next, set the plane on a flight path which would make it cross the northern-most point on that shaded area of possibility. Have plane go a couple of hours to register 2 satelite pings. Compare pings- Test vs. 370. Then set the Test plane on the Southern-most point of possibility on the arc (of shaded area). Compare the pings (Test vs. 370). Keep refining and narrowing the possible arc areas, and thus the search area.

JMO.
Click to expand...

But wasn't this the whole point of having flight simulations done on CNN in the early weeks? Testing the plane's flight path with different control groups?
 
There are a few problems with your plan as I see it:

1: Figuring out the fuel consumed up until the turn won’t tell them the fuel used for the rest of the flight, which is the greatest unknown and would be a huge determining factor in how long the plane could have remained in the air. We only assume that the plane flew at a constant altitude (what was that altitude?) and on a constant heading after it was lost from radar.

2: In order to figure out the fuel consumed on the rest of the flight, they would have to exactly recreate the conditions of that flight, which would mean it would crash somewhere in the Indian Ocean as well. Sure, they might have a better idea where MH370 ended up, but now they’d have two planes to recover…


I think you are both underestimating the ability to closely estimate the fuel consumption based on the factors they do know, AND you are overestimating the ability to gain more useful insight from recreating the flight up until the turn. There are too many pieces of information missing to make an attempt at actual recreation of the event an efficient use of time or resources.

I am almost certain that they can use a digital simulation to have the same effect and learn the same things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 120 more.
Total: 1,989 (members: 121, guests: 1,868)

Online statistics

Members online
121
Guests online
1,868
Total visitors
1,989
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,004
Messages
18,117,067
Members
230,995
Latest member
truelove
Back
Top