MH 777 missing - MH370 media statement

[DaveB]

The link to the Bloomberg article is a pretty good summation and covers the limitations of our over the horizon radar system.

Sorry - have been unable to provide link to the full article.

Found the edited report - 2nd link the more detailed article and now covers our JORN radar system.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-17/australia-to-lead-hunt-for-jet-in-southern-indian-ocean.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...nations-to-aid-in-wider-search-for-plane.html

 

[JohnK]

So they still have no idea where the aircraft went or where it could be located? So sad.

 

[erkpod]

(quote deleted)


I agree with QF WP. To rehash them here erkpod is in poor taste I believe.

And that's why I didn't post them...

 

[Boris spatsky]

Interesting possibility of the aircraft shadowing another airliner through India and further. Entirely plausible.

http://keithledgerwood.tumblr.com/post/79838944823/did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using-sia68

 

[legroom]

Interesting possibility of the aircraft shadowing another airliner through India and further. Entirely plausible.

http://keithledgerwood.tumblr.com/post/79838944823/did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using-sia68

Would primary radars show one or two blips ?

What would be the minimal separation distance for two 777s to appear as one radar blip ?

Is that a safe flying distance ?

Thanks

 

[whatmeworry]

Ok I have a couple of scenario's that have been lingering in my mind.

One is someone deliberately disabled instrumentation on purpose or there could have been a fire (or bomb). There could have been pilot suicide, could have been terrorism, could have been piracy, or things just went haywire.

At the moment the media is focusing on the pilots. One possibility I think that has not been put out there, is the Captain/FO were trying to prevent a hijacking.

But as a result, they ended up sacrificing themselves, the passengers and the plane to deny the terrorism plot but ended up running out of o2.

 

[JohnPhelan]

Would primary radars show one or two blips ?

What would be the minimal separation distance for two 777s to appear as one radar blip ?

Is that a safe flying distance ?

Thanks

If it was flying a few thousand feet below - almost directly below ?

 

[Boris spatsky]

If the aircraft flew in line astern (much like a large military aircraft would do to refuel airborne from a tanker aircraft - behind and just below) primary radar could potentially only give one return, that may be the same size return as one aircraft on the screen depending on a number of variables such as range and azimuth from the station etc). The closer the aircraft, the greater chance of the technique working if that is indeed what they were trying to do.

One would require significant training to do this well. Yes, obviously two large aircraft in close proximity is much higher risk than normal flying, especially at night which makes it infinitely harder.

 

[whatmeworry]

One would require significant training to do this well. Yes, obviously two large aircraft in close proximity is much higher risk than normal flying, especially at night which makes it infinitely harder.

One could say the Captain possibly did enough simulations by himself to try to reproduce this in the field.

 

[Rox]

Would the other aircraft not be able to detect it there?

 

[Boris spatsky]

No, not at all. With the transponder off, TCAS is disabled, so there is no traffic display of the aircraft.

And you can't visually see behind and below you in a normal airliner.

 

[SeatBackForward]

The Wall Street journal have published some more info on how the search areas were derived as I suspected they were, using the angle data in the ping from the satcomm tranmitter. This is a separate unit to ACARS but does interface with it.




The Immarsat pings are a "heartbeat" built into the system so that phone calls can be received, marine units typically have a daily heartbeat, portable telephones 8 hours and aviation 1 hour, however this can be changed by the transceiver manufacturer.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304017604579443603302188102?mod=e2tw

Which is pretty much what id trying to establish in my earlier posts. If you can receive a signal you can also follow the path it was sent to and from.

 

[RooFlyer]

Which is pretty much what id trying to establish in my earlier posts. If you can receive a signal you can also follow the path it was sent to and from.

But isn't the 'ping' we are talking about here non-directional? The aircraft, like your mobile phone, sends out a ping 'hello'. With a mobile phone, there are usually multiple receiver antennaes, so a 2D triangulation can be done and location computed (something many baddies still haven't figured out ). If you only have one receiver, then the ping could have come from any direction.

I believe there was only 1 satellite capable of receiving the ping (personally I reckon there would be others, eg military, but we are told just one), so it receives the signal and knows time, but would not be able to compute direction. Not sure what's been shown on the news in Oz, but here in Canada the news has made great store out of the time it took what I understand to be a very regularly timed out-ping to be received by the satellite. Knowing that the aircraft could only be in a certain area at the time (ie not off the coast of Africa, not off Antarctica etc, but heading off from SA Asian archipelago), then the time in ms gave distance to aircraft and that defined the 2 red arcs that have been prominent - one heading south, one heading north/west.



The image is a little off I believe as the possible route of the plane after the ping isn't just on the arcs, but the entire area in between as well.

 

[SeatBackForward]

But isn't the 'ping' we are talking about here non-directional? The aircraft, like your mobile phone, sends out a ping 'hello'. With a mobile phone, there are usually multiple receiver antennaes, so a 2D triangulation can be done and location computed (something many baddies still haven't figured out ). If you only have one receiver, then the ping could have come from any direction.

Perhaps, but a heck of a lot better than having no information whatsoever. And aside from the (broad) area they were able to determine, more importantly was the timestamp.

 

[Sprucegoose]

This is getting bigger than Ben Hur! They could all conceivably be living it up somewhere

 

[legroom]

If the aircraft flew in line astern (much like a large military aircraft would do to refuel airborne from a tanker aircraft - behind and just below) primary radar could potentially only give one return, that may be the same size return as one aircraft on the screen depending on a number of variables such as range and azimuth from the station etc). The closer the aircraft, the greater chance of the technique working if that is indeed what they were trying to do.

One would require significant training to do this well. Yes, obviously two large aircraft in close proximity is much higher risk than normal flying, especially at night which makes it infinitely harder.

Would some real pilots comment on the level of 'significant training' required to be able to fly close to another plane in the dark with no transponder in a commercial big jet to avoid radar detection ?

As a layman, this is getting unreal.

I doubt if you could do this just from the simulator.

 

[Princess Fiona]

This is getting bigger than Ben Hur! They could all conceivably be living it up somewhere

I wish. I simply cannot believe that anyone on that aircraft is still alive. I hope for the sake of the families that confirmation of their whereabouts is forthcoming soon.
I also hope for a return to sensible reporting where having a home flight simulator does not make you an obvious terrorist

 

[scaredeycat]

If the plane has landed I cannot believe that a government somewhere doesn't know. Surely the military must be involved?
I still think it more likely it's in the ocean,but I hope I'm wrong.

 

[markis10]

Which is pretty much what id trying to establish in my earlier posts. If you can receive a signal you can also follow the path it was sent to and from.

You posted how it would help narrow down the search area:

Well there's a possible chain of communication that may assist in narrowing down the area, even without Geo codes.

I was explaining how I fact it would enlarge the search areas which of course is exactly what has happened. If it wasn't for the angle data which I wasn't aware was in the handshake, it would be a huge area. Had MH been using more recent Immarsat transceivers, full geotagging would have been in the handshake, or as previously mentioned if they updates the satcom to Irridium, a far more accurate locale could have been established.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

So no more info on the reported "luggage" in the Malacca Strait?

Another red herring?