• February 23, 2018, 07:36:08 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Admin

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
1
We know this was done, and extensive tests conducted, from the leaked RMP report, https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxovjdGbD3OHSTM3TWMyV2xFdGM/view. The FO's phone did connect to ground stations in Malaysia but determining anything with that data was difficult and not reproducible experimentally. Additionally, as the major hardware manufacturers don't operate the cellular networks, Google, Apple, Samsung, Huawei, etc. would not be able to provide raw location data. The radar data we have over Peninsular Malaysia is good and determination of cellular signals for triangulation would likely not enhance that data. Most importantly though, there are no cell towers in the Southern Indian Ocean, therefore there is no data to be found that would help locate MH370.

It's remarkable to me that today so many people struggle with the simple notion that cell phones rely on cell towers, without which they wouldn't function. No cell towers mean no service, means no data transmitted.

The current search area is roughly 1,000 sm from the nearest cell tower.

2
Source: Victor Iannello

3
General Discussion / Re: Are we looking in the right place?
« on: August 22, 2016, 11:34:56 AM »
No problem, welcome  :)! I'd suggest reading some of the other posts and documents on this site to get some more background information.

FI is the Factual Information that is part of the Malaysian Ministry of Transport's First Interim Report on MH370 (http://mh370forum.com/index.php?topic=41.0). You can find the ACARS data here.

TOTFW is total remaining fuel weight.

There is no evidence to suggest that the Captain "flew around his home of Penang"—despite what some tabloids may have reported at the time. The radar data in the FI shows that a target believed to be MH370 was tracked by primary radar just south of and abeam the Penang VOR (VPG) heading west-northwest. For radar plots, see http://mh370forum.com/index.php?topic=124.0.

You are referring to great circle paths, you can use Great Circle Mapper to plot rough courses here, http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=JFK-HKG. This tool and Google Earth are useful for plotting simple paths, if you want to calculate things like magnetic drift correction, I would use a more sophisticated instrument.

4
General Discussion / Re: Are we looking in the right place?
« on: August 19, 2016, 10:22:07 AM »
There was no fuel in or loaded into the center tank (see the  ACARS traffic log in the FI for TOTFW).

Quote
I did note in Duncan Steel didn't allude to this maneuver in his radar analysis

For good reason. Primary radar is notoriously terrible at determining target altitude and cannot be used for such with any accuracy. This is why no altitudes derived (calculated) from the primary radar returns are reported in the FI. Also, calling that drawing an analysis would be like calling a tabloid a PhD thesis—it's is a non-technical inaccurate cartoon designed for easy mass consumption.

Many serious observers believe that after the initial turn back, the aircraft descended to and maintained an even altitude (FL340) for traffic avoidance. This would not preclude flight deck mediated depressurization, as no further climb would be required to induce hypoxia if the cabin altitude were increased.

5
General Discussion / Re: Are we looking in the right place?
« on: August 15, 2016, 10:21:56 AM »
Would somebody please answer a question for me, according to Wikipedia's MH 370, the plane had 49,100 Kg of fuel aboard at take off, and at the last ACARS report 26 minutes later and 292 Km away at Kuala Terengganu there was 43,800 Kg's, that makes a difference of 5300 Kg's. My question is this, radar tracked the plane doing 435 Kn at this point, and average speed would have been 362.8 Kn up till then, is that Fuel Burn Rate right, 5.3Tons in 26 minutes? If it's not, is the take off amount wrong or the ACARS report.

Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a source. According to the FI,

Quote
1.6.5 Fuel
The aircraft used Jet A-1 fuel. Following the previous flight, as per records in the Transit Check and Fuel Log, the total remaining fuel before refuelling as per the flight deck indication was 8,200 kg (Left Tank was 3,700 kg and Right Tank was 4,500 kg). Total departure fuel after refuelling was 49,700 kg (Left Tank was 24,900 kg and Right Tank was 24,800 kg) as indicated in the flight deck. The fuel weight on board corresponded to a planned trip-fuel of 37,200 kg. Based on MH370 ATC flight plan dated 07 March 2014, the take-off fuel recorded was 49,100 kg.

The investigation estimated that the aircraft would have had 41,500 kg fuel remaining after 41 minutes flying from KLIA to IGARI.

Fuel burn and endurance will be discussed in the Final Report.

The last position report transmitted via ACARS at 1707:29 UTC, 07 March 2014 [0107:29 MYT, 08 March 2014] recorded remaining fuel of 43,800 kg at 35,004 ft. altitude.

ATC flight plan forecast recorded remaining fuel of 11,900 kg at landing, including 7,700 kg of diversion fuel. The first alternate airport, Jinan Yaoqiang International Airport (China), was estimated to be 46 minutes from the diversion point with 4,800 kg fuel required and the second alternate airport, Hangzhou Xiaoshan International Airport (China) was estimated to be 1 hour 45 minutes with 10,700 kg fuel required.

Also, the military radar returns wherein speed was provided were from 1721 to 1739 (41-59 minutes after departure). These speeds range from 496-529 knots. Analysis has shown that an average speed of 498 kn (Mach 0.84) would achieve the time and distance relationship after accounting for wind.

For an in-depth analysis of the radar data, see http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/1969.

6
General Discussion / Re: Are we looking in the right place?
« on: June 22, 2016, 10:13:41 AM »
Statement from the ATSB on the Kangaroo Island debris:

Quote
On 9 June 2016, the ATSB was advised of possible aircraft debris located on Kangaroo Island in South Australia.  The ATSB recovered the part and examined it, in conjunction with Malaysian authorities and the aircraft manufacturer, Boeing. Information received from the manufacturer indicates that the item is not consistent with the manufacturing specifications of a Boeing commercial aircraft.  As such, the ATSB has assessed that the item is not related to the safety investigation or on-going search for MH370.

7
General Discussion / Re: Are we looking in the right place?
« on: April 29, 2016, 12:08:16 PM »
Try and stick to primary sources. Major media tends to water down or outright misinterpret, especially in aviation and science. Additionally, especially in regards to the simulator comments, those allegations in the media have never been officially substantiated. The FI doesn't mention anything about this and the FBI hasn't released any data, so we have no idea if there is any truth to that report. Reports sourced from anonymous officials are historically inaccurate and shouldn't been given much weight here in a scientific forum.

I could find any article supporting a range of positions, it doesn't make it true. Primary sources or original analyses are more than welcome.

9
General Discussion / Re: Are we looking in the right place?
« on: February 03, 2016, 09:44:40 AM »
While I appreciate you taking your time to share your theory, I refer you to:

Quote
Rules of Conduct:
1. These forums are for discussing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (“MH370” and/or “MAS370”), aviation accidents, and aviation related topics. Conspiracy theories or theories defying reason, logic, or current understanding will not be entertained.

It's clear from your post that you are not in the industry and do not have a working understanding of cockpit automation. While it may be an interesting read, it is most certainly within the realm of defying reason, logic, and understanding of aircraft and aircraft systems. You do have a talent for storytelling though :)

10
Source: Geoff Hyman via Duncan Steel

11
Source: Geoff Hyman via Duncan Steel

12
General Discussion / Richard Godfrey: MH370 Flight Path Model v13.5
« on: May 14, 2015, 11:15:18 AM »
Source: Richard Godfrey

Update: http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/1594

13
Source: Richard Cole

14
Source: Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union

15
General Discussion / Re: MH370 Radar Track Plots
« on: May 07, 2015, 09:29:51 AM »
Reconciling the primary radar speed data has been a significant challenge. Based on what my radar friends tell me, the primary radar altitudes are a decent ballpark but nothing more.

The source posted his speed and plotting raw data, which I attached. He also posted a depiction of the descent near VKB which can be found here.

I suspect that we are looking at a radar calibration or interpretation error on the part of the Malaysian Military – which cannot be confirmed until they release the raw primary radar data. A very cursory and rough look at the route shows that it could have been accomplished within the time frame published in the factual information document (IGARI turn back at about 1730 and last radar contact ~10 nm W of MEKAR at 1822) at a fairly normal speed, here's a quick plot.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6