Malaysian Boeing 777 crash

[mac83]

I am sure most of you have seen it in the news. Terrible tradegy and my thoughts are with the families of the passengers.

Every time there is a aircraft crash, be it commercial, military etc I wonder why its often such a mystery? I mean its XXI century so why airplanes do not stream real time data and alerts to ground control centres? This way emergency services would have been alerted immediately. Or even make planes talk to each other. We have distributed computing so why couldnt planes collectively track each other.

Any people in the know on the forum know why current systems are so unreliable?

[Argee1977]

Not sure what you mean by mystery?

Aircraft already 'talk' to each other with Traffic Collision Avoidance Systems (TCAS), ADS-B is also starting to be rolled out across the world, and is being mandated by the FAA.

As for the current aircraft, the second it went off radar it would have become an emergency, so unsure of what you mean by saying it wouldn't alert immediately?

[Kingstepper]

Not sure what you mean by mystery?

Aircraft already 'talk' to each other with Traffic Collision Avoidance Systems (TCAS), ADS-B is also starting to be rolled out across the world, and is being mandated by the FAA.

As for the current aircraft, the second it went off radar it would have become an emergency, so unsure of what you mean by saying it wouldn't alert immediately?

Would it be on the radar?

From the reports I've seen it went missing over the sea about half way between Malaysia and Vietnam (looks to be about 300 miles). Would the radar have such a range?

[Argee1977]

Would it be on the radar?

From the reports I've seen it went missing over the sea about half way between Malaysia and Vietnam (looks to be about 300 miles). Would the radar have such a range?

I haven't read into this one yet, but if it's over a large body of water then it might not have been on radar, although it should still be tracked.

[VDG]

Not by any civi radar. Terrible news, thoughts an prayers with all concerned and their close ones.

[P9CLY]

Their is always huge media attention around a "flying" vehicle crash than any other vehicle!.

[Kingstepper]

Their is always huge media attention around a "flying" vehicle crash than any other vehicle!.

Not surprising - the potential for loss of life is obviously much greater.

[Harry Tuttle]

Would it be on the radar?

From the reports I've seen it went missing over the sea about half way between Malaysia and Vietnam (looks to be about 300 miles). Would the radar have such a range?

I don't know about this area of the world but unlike UK, European and American domestic airspace it is probable that most air traffic flying over large bodies of water (and land too) is not under radar surveillance as it isn't in the North Atlantic or Pacific. Radar is line of sight technology and due to the curvature of the earth aircraft will disappear over a radar horizon at some point depending upon their height. Regardless of this aircraft mostly remain under air traffic control and will follow a pre-agreed routeing. If an aircraft has an incident over UK airspace then non-compliance with its clearance will either be noticed by the controller on his or her screen, or alerted to them. In the event of an aircraft crashing it's position will be triangulated and notified to a distress and diversion cell who will supervise the appropriate response. If however the aircraft is outside radar controlled airspace then this type of facility will be unavailable and ATC, rescue and emergency services will be most likely reliant on the aircraft or pilot reporting its position. If the aircraft suffers catastrophic failure or crashes as a result of human error then it is unlikely that such a report will be sent. As a result it may be difficult to pinpoint the crash site with more accuracy than retracing the planned route of the aircraft. This is why it took so long to find the Air France aircraft that crashed into the Atlantic en route from Brazil recently.

Future systems that are being pioneered in the North Atlantic are using satellite communications to allow aircraft to report their position to ATC and these will become more and more common in a very near future. Once these are generally available they will replace much of the need for radar surveillance although I predict that this will be retained for redundancy in domestic airspace where separation is closer.

TCAS is a collision avoidance system. Unless there was a second aircraft involved then TCAS would not be a factor in this case.

This is a broad outline and any ATC experts might be able to provide more accuracy and detail.

When any tragedy of this kind happens it affects those involved in the aviation industry deeply. Aviation takes great care to learn from it's disasters and those who work in aviation in human sciences, safety and engineering are regarded as being amongst the world leaders in their disciplines which means that aviation remains by far the safest way to travel. When I first started working in air traffic control in 1988, the Lockerbie and Kegworth disasters both happened in short succession. They had a deep impact in the aviation community and are still talked about today, the Kegworth disaster is still taught as an example in safety courses.

My sympathy and condolences are also with those lost and their families.

[Tokyo Tokei]

I believe it is considered protocol to save condolences and use of the word crash until and unless that status is confirmed. At the time of this post I believe it is still "lost contact". Respectfully,

Paul

[Harry Tuttle]

I believe it is considered protocol to save condolences and use of the word crash until and unless that status is confirmed. At the time of this post I believe it is still "lost contact". Respectfully,

Paul

That is quite correct, point well made and taken.

[P9CLY]

I believe it is considered protocol to save condolences and use of the word crash until and unless that status is confirmed. At the time of this post I believe it is still "lost contact". Respectfully,

Paul

I would think considering the time passed with no contact or confirmation of it " landing" then crashed is the only plausible thing to accept tbh.

[mac83]

I don't know about this area of the world but unlike UK, European and American domestic airspace it is probable that most air traffic flying over large bodies of water (and land too) is not under radar surveillance as it isn't in the North Atlantic or Pacific. Radar is line of sight technology and due to the curvature of the earth aircraft will disappear over a radar horizon at some point depending upon their height. Regardless of this aircraft mostly remain under air traffic control and will follow a pre-agreed routeing. If an aircraft has an incident over UK airspace then non-compliance with its clearance will either be noticed by the controller on his or her screen, or alerted to them. In the event of an aircraft crashing it's position will be triangulated and notified to a distress and diversion cell who will supervise the appropriate response. If however the aircraft is outside radar controlled airspace then this type of facility will be unavailable and ATC, rescue and emergency services will be most likely reliant on the aircraft or pilot reporting its position. If the aircraft suffers catastrophic failure or crashes as a result of human error then it is unlikely that such a report will be sent. As a result it may be difficult to pinpoint the crash site with more accuracy than retracing the planned route of the aircraft. This is why it took so long to find the Air France aircraft that crashed into the Atlantic en route from Brazil recently.

Future systems that are being pioneered in the North Atlantic are using satellite communications to allow aircraft to report their position to ATC and these will become more and more common in a very near future. Once these are generally available they will replace much of the need for radar surveillance although I predict that this will be retained for redundancy in domestic airspace where separation is closer.

TCAS is a collision avoidance system. Unless there was a second aircraft involved then TCAS would not be a factor in this case.

This is a broad outline and any ATC experts might be able to provide more accuracy and detail.

When any tragedy of this kind happens it affects those involved in the aviation industry deeply. Aviation takes great care to learn from it's disasters and those who work in aviation in human sciences, safety and engineering are regarded as being amongst the world leaders in their disciplines which means that aviation remains by far the safest way to travel. When I first started working in air traffic control in 1988, the Lockerbie and Kegworth disasters both happened in short succession. They had a deep impact in the aviation community and are still talked about today, the Kegworth disaster is still taught as an example in safety courses.

My sympathy and condolences are also with those lost and their families.

thanks - very helpful post.

Regarding the failure of the systems mid flight or explosion - in my view there should be a real time notification issued by an independent system the moment something goes wrong (temperature peak, loss of pressure, loss of electricity, sudden change of altitude). I'm sure its not difficult to gather this information and issue a SOS with exact coordinates using satellite connectivity.

[Argee1977]

thanks - very helpful post.

Regarding the failure of the systems mid flight or explosion - in my view there should be a real time notification issued by an independent system the moment something goes wrong (temperature peak, loss of pressure, loss of electricity, sudden change of altitude). I'm sure its not difficult to gather this information and issue a SOS with exact coordinates using satellite connectivity.

You mean like a Health and Usage Monitoring System, already done on aircraft like the 777 i believe.

[Kingstepper]

Would a signal from a Breitling Emergency be picked up in this area?

If it would, why is this more capable than a modern aircraft?

[tz-uk73]

Would a signal from a Breitling Emergency be picked up in this area?

I think it would yes, and with mine on today i'm certainly feeling a little bit safer at my desk.

[markrlondon]

Would a signal from a Breitling Emergency be picked up in this area?

If someone was in range and listening on that frequency, probably. Range depends on where the transmitter is. If it's at the bottom of the ocean, for example, then no one's going to detect it even if they're right on top of it.

If it would, why is this more capable than a modern aircraft?

It is not more capable than a modern aircraft. It has the same characteristics as other radio transmitters on an aircraft. Indeed, it probably has considerably less transmitting power available to it than the aircraft's own systems (assuming they have power at all, of course).

[NenoS]

Would it be on the radar?

From the reports I've seen it went missing over the sea about half way between Malaysia and Vietnam (looks to be about 300 miles). Would the radar have such a range?

SSR (Secondary Surveillance Radar) operates at 1030 MHz (interrogators) and 1090 MHz (transpoders) which means the range of radar ''line of sight''. But it also depends on atmospheric condition, Maximum Theoretical Range (MTR) of specific radar, flight level of the target, and of course, the funcionality of transponder of the target. If the transponder in the target is shut down the target is not visible on civil radar screen.
For example MTR for primary Radar with Pulse interval of 2500 microSeconds is 202 nautic miles.
So the a. for your q. is that a radar can have such range (PI of 3700 MicroSeconds) , but considering upper variables the answer, if the plane could be noticed on the radar is : Good only knows.

[Yoda]

Very sad news indeed. I have a number of Malaysian friends and am due out there in the summer to visit them. I wish there was some prospect of good news but looks very unlikely.

[markrlondon]

why airplanes do not stream real time data and alerts to ground control centres?

An increasing number of aircraft models do exactly this, as far as I know. They stream data via satellite direct to the operator's or even the manufacturer's support services.

I don't know whether or not the 777 involved in this incident had this capability or was using it or even if there would be any kind of instant alert if it stopped. I'd expect that gaps in the data are quite common (and it wouldn't need to stream constantly), so it wouldn't necessarily be sensible to trigger an instant alert anyway.

[AndyMilts]

Seams strange there is no wreckage been spotted any where, if it crashes or was the result of terrorist activity. Interesting reading the radar coverage discussion. Is it possible for the aircraft to have it transponder disabled so it can fly undected?

[Harry Tuttle]

Seams strange there is no wreckage been spotted any where, if it crashes or was the result of terrorist activity. Interesting reading the radar coverage discussion. Is it possible for the aircraft to have it transponder disabled so it can fly undected?

I woud guess that is possible but if your line of reasoning is that it was diverted somewhere else then if the destination had radar coverage it would turn up as a primary radar return, unless flown under radar cover, which might take some doing. If the aircraft were already outside radar cover I don't see that turning the transponder off would achieve much because I think that SSR relies on the aircraft being interrogated by primary radar. Others may know better of course.

If the pilot had attempted to ditch in the sea and had been successful in that the aircraft had landed more or less in one piece then I suppose that the aircraft might have sunk rather like a boat leaving little or no trace. The oil slicks reported by Vietnamese pilots maybe a trace of such an event, but would not mark the location of it as they'd be subject to tide and current.

Unfortunately, all of this is sad supposition in absence of hard information. It is almost always better to wait for any facts to become apparent before resorting to this type of reasoning. I suspect that those involved in search, rescue and investigation will be very aware of the broad possibilities from hijack and diversion, through catastrophic mechanical or electrical failure, through human error to terrorism etc. Not all of these will be fatal and not all will involve a crash. But at the moment most or all of these may be possible but nothing can be substantiated. I suspect that any video, photographic or documentary evidence relating to the passengers will be being explored in lieu of other information, this may in time be successful, but it wasn't much use in identifying the perpetrators in the Lockerbie incident from what I know. Another line of research might be to examine the current Boeing Fleet to see if there are any previously undetected faults.

Again we should really be thinking of those lost and waiting patiently for those in the area who know what they are doing to establish the facts as best they can. I guess my reason for posting was to answer the point that others found it difficult to understand how an aircraft might disappear undetected even with today's technology. It's still possible, but as in the case of the Air France 447 the wreckage was eventually found, the reason for the crash established and lessons learnt. I'm pretty confident that the same will be the case here, not withstanding the fact that the aircraft is at the moment considered to be missing rather than lost and other hopefully happier information may become apparent in due course.

[NenoS]

I woud guess that is possible but if your line of reasoning is that it was diverted somewhere else then if the destination had radar coverage it would turn up as a primary radar return, unless flown under radar cover, which might take some doing. If the aircraft were already outside radar cover I don't see that turning the transponder off would achieve much because I think that SSR relies on the aircraft being interrogated by primary radar. Others may know better of course.
......

Civil radars can,t "see" primary radar return, only transponder.
Is it possible that the plane was hijacked, and with transponder switched off, landed somewhere ??? Big plane, I know, where to land incognito, who knows how much fuel?
Very low possibility, but ...?
What the others think about that?

[scarto]

I know it sounds unlikely but is it possible they glided to a small island and either crashed there or somehow landed without a catastrophic end?

[Cirrus]

I know it sounds unlikely but is it possible they glided to a small island and either crashed there or somehow landed without a catastrophic end?

Stranger things have happened, and these aircraft are designed to glide under control even without main power systems... but in all likelihood they suffered something catastrophic - either mechanically or at the instigation of the pilot or a hijacker - and the aircraft was lost in a relatively short period of time.

It is still possible there may be survivors though, and that is to be hoped for.

[Cirrus]

Civil radars can,t "see" primary radar return, only transponder.
Is it possible that the plane was hijacked, and with transponder switched off, landed somewhere ??? Big plane, I know, where to land incognito, who knows how much fuel?
Very low possibility, but ...?
What the others think about that?

That is true in modern areas of the world - I don't know if this area of the world still uses active radar or not for civil control, but it does seem it was being tracked (if not actively) by military radar systems in the area which noted it attempted to turn about. Not sure what to make of that...

[Kingstepper]

Why would these supposed 2 terrorists using stolen passports both book an onward flight from Peking.

To arouse less suspicion? Would be less suspicious if they had booked different onward flights.

[Dazzler]

Why would these supposed 2 terrorists using stolen passports both book an onward flight from Peking.

To arouse less suspicion? Would be less suspicious if they had booked different onward flights.

Because if they got off in China their passports would have had to have a Chinese visa which would have meant a passport check in a Chinese Embassy beforehand. If it was a transit flight why would you take that route back to Europe...

[Kingstepper]

Because if they got off in China their passports would have had to have a Chinese visa which would have meant a passport check in a Chinese Embassy beforehand. If it was a transit flight why would you take that route back to Europe...

Thanks, hadn't thought of that.

[Seamaster73]

Needless to say, the conspiracy theorists are having a field day.

http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-...y-2460452.html

[fiddler69]

Because if they got off in China their passports would have had to have a Chinese visa which would have meant a passport check in a Chinese Embassy beforehand. If it was a transit flight why would you take that route back to Europe...

According to someone on the radio this morning Malaysia to Amsterdam via China is a known route for people using stolen passports to seek entry into the EU. Apparently it means that close checks of entitlement to enter the EU are less likely until after landing in Amsterdam, although they pick quite a few up on landing.

[Kingstepper]

According to someone on the radio this morning Malaysia to Amsterdam via China is a known route for people using stolen passports to seek entry into the EU. Apparently it means that close checks of entitlement to enter the EU are less likely until after landing in Amsterdam, although they pick quite a few up on landing.

Reports are saying the 2 weren't of Asian appearance which suggests illegal entry to EU seems unlikely.

[Bozza]

U.S. investigators suspect missing airplane flew on for hours

http://m.europe.wsj.com/articles/SB1...86282?mobile=y

[Bravo73]

Are you reading this, Boeingdriver?

Don't you fly 777s? If so, I'd be interested in your take on things...

[KurtKlaus]

Are you reading this, Boeingdriver?

Don't you fly 777s? If so, I'd be interested in your take on things...

Has he posted since the plane has disappeared? Just saying'...

[Glamdring]

I can't, despite the tragic nature of events, be the only one thinking 'Lost'...

[Bravo73]

Has he posted since the plane has disappeared? Just saying'...

Erm, yes. But I know where you're going with that...

- - - Updated - - -

I can't, despite the tragic nature of events, be the only one thinking 'Lost'...

Nope, you're not. I've been waiting for the Beeb to mention a polar bear in one of their reports...

[markrlondon]

U.S. investigators suspect missing airplane flew on for hours

http://m.europe.wsj.com/articles/SB1...86282?mobile=y

Earlier in this thread there was this brief discussion: #13. It is now clear that the 777 was streaming data to its engine manufacturer's support service.

From the WSJ article:

U.S. investigators suspect that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 stayed in the air for about four hours past the time it reached its last confirmed location, according to two people familiar with the details, raising the possibility that the plane could have flown on for hundreds of additional miles under conditions that remain murky.

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.
[...]
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.

It would appear that the aircraft definitely did continue flying. But where did it end up? I still think, on the balance of probabilities, that it crashed (maybe even just ran out of fuel) after being diverted (who knows by whom) and everyone is dead.

[RABbit]

I'm sure this is not a straightforward crash. It seems more than coincidental to me that the plane disappeared very soon after leaving Malaysian airspace and before making contact with Vietnamese controllers (I assume that any contact with them would have been reported). The transponder has been turned off. No wreckage found on the expected flight path (and it would have been found by now). An unidentified plane flying through someone's airspace would have been investigated. I wonder if this is a hijacking by one of the pilots who has then flown out to sea. Who knows why...the 1999 Egypt Air crash was suicide by a pilot.

[stooo]

In some remote airfield.....cramming it with radioactive material ready to unleash hell.

I find this distinctly sinister now.

[Cirrus]

Cell phones can be detected by cell towers - and can even appear to have a signal - at a far greater range than they can actually be relied upon to work... it is a side effect of the Time To Live value of the data packets involved.

From an aircraft at operational altitude - and assuming the actual RF energy reaches a tower - they could easily leave a trace of their existence out to a new hundred miles, but good luck getting a call through.

Could they be detected by a communications satellite? No, they aren't designed to do that. A spy satellite? Almost certainly not and for the same reasons, but it is possible someone has a bird up with that capability.

Can phones that are off be tracked or activated? No, check the dictionary definition of "off". Can phones - especially modern computer devices that pretend to be phones - appear to be off when they are not? It's possible, but on most devices the power circuitry is distinct from the logic, so if you power off from the power button that is exactly the state you end up in.

Oh, and as a point of interest, I believe I am the only person in the world to have ever read - from cover to cover - the actual GSM specification. 5 phone-book thick volumes in English AND French... and I didn't actually find what I was looking for :)

[ralphy]

I believe wearing a tin-foil hat will help the spy satellites find one’s mobile phone in a plane.

R

[Josh B]

Make sure to fashion the tin foil into a stylish fedora. The shape helps prevent radium poisoning and the side effects of taking drugs as it harnesses the mystic cosmic powers of the pyramid in its shape.

and if you don't agree with me you need professional help.

[ralphy]

Make sure to fashion the tin foil into a stylish fedora. The shape helps prevent radium poisoning and the side effects of taking drugs as it harnesses the mystic cosmic powers of the pyramid in its shape.

and if you don't agree with me you need professional help.

Well I do agree with you but I need professional help anyway.

R

[Cirrus]

Putting "bollocks" in to windings is more interesting, and just as significant.

[Chicken Pox]

Putting "bollocks" in to windings is more interesting, and just as significant.

Is "wingdings" the name of a ladyboy?

[Cirrus]

Is "wingdings" the name of a ladyboy?

I am sure I wouldn't know ;)

[swanbourne]

The news this morning stated that it was reportedly seen over The Maldives shortly after it was reported missing.

Eddie

[ingenioren]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...efence-company

20 high flying staff - are they experimenting with their own developments ...??

[stooo]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...efence-company

20 high flying staff - are they experimenting with their own developments ...??

Anyone remember the film 'The Philadelphia Experiment'?

[RJK35]

The news this morning stated that it was reportedly seen over The Maldives shortly after it was reported missing.

Eddie

Oh dear Somalia? Get those satellites on station U. S. of A. !!