MH370: Reunion debris is from missing plane
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
It also discounts some of the nuttier theories such as the plane landing in Russia or Afghanistan.
A bit far fetched if you ask me.
Does it though? I'm not saying the analysis is incorrect, just wondering how predictable these ocean currents are. I understand that the debris surfacing at Reunion doesn't rule out the current search location, but that's different than confirming or proving it. I mean, can they just 'play back' the ocean currents and arrive at a specific spot? I wouldn't be surprised if there's so much uncertainty that all they can say with certainty is that it must have crashed somewhere in the Indian Ocean. Which isn't exactly new information.
(In case anyone is unfamiliar with just what the data showed, here's a quick summary image: http://ogleearth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/MH370_Mar17....)
http://www.airtrafficmanagement.net/2014/06/mh370-what-does-...
"the Doppler shift due to the satellite’s motion is not removed by the plane’s terminal when it pre-corrects the frequency of transmission, and thus there is an asymmetry between the BFO which would be produced by a plane flying north of the equator (and thus situated to the north of the satellite) compared to one flying south on a similar track."
case 3. The plane did not go south at all.
If this is the case, then the satellite
communications system must have been compromised
by hijackers who either flew the plane north to
Kazakhstan or China (if only the BFO values were
spoofed) or somewhere else within a huge circle
encompassed by the 7th ping ring (if both BTO
and BFO values were spoofed).
Normal inference: the plane may have gone north, satellite signals indicate it went south, therefore the plane didn't go north.
Crazy inference: the plane went north, satellite signals indicate it went south, therefore the signals were tampered with.
Of course, even then the search was subsequently done in the Andaman Sea area under the assumption that the plane crashed near the position of its last radar contact, as the Inmarsat data wasn't announced until several days later.
If my hypothesis is that all swans are white, finding a black swan would disprove it. Instead this is another white swan. It supports the hypothesis, but it doesn't prove it.
Note by the way that I have no reason to doubt the Inmarsat analysis. I think that was truly groundbreaking use of the data. All I'm saying is that this find doesn't really prove the analysis, nor help with narrowing down the search.
One thing that keeps resurfacing is that the whole affair is unlike anything before. Suicidal pilots have crashed quickly in all other cases, various things have involved extraordinary good luck or extraordinary knowledge (eg avoiding various radar coverage), explanations for satellite systems going offline/online require precise fiddling with various electrical busses, there aren't any credible explanations for deliberate act or accident, the Malaysian government has either covered things up or is very incompetent (or both), and it goes on.
Air France 440 was also shrouded in mystery (but nowhere near this degree), and turned out to be very poor airmanship by one pilot.
For anyone curious about more of the technical aspects behind the scenes then Jeff Wise writes about it frequently. http://jeffwise.net/
It was poor airmanship by two pilots (and other factors, including the feedback mechanisms and the lack of training for this particular high altitude scenario).
I think it ultimately comes down to engaging with the primary sense you're already using. If you're doing something visual, then a visual warning (on whatever you're looking at) can be effective, while an aural warning won't. If you're listening to something then interrupting it with an audio warning will work great. Hand flying is a tactile experience, so that's the sense you want to work with.
Also,
> Hand flying is a tactile experience, so that's the sense you want to work with.
is the primary reason why Boeing still uses yokes instead of sidesticks.
Yes. You give an example of someone ignoring a single aural warning. The case of AF447 was much worse.
There was a cacophony of different sounds and noises in the cockpit of AF447. All the various alarms are deliberately made to sound different. But when someone knows he's a minute from death, there's no way his reptilian brain can make sense of a plethora of simultaneous alarms. It will, instead, strive to tune them all out.
I remember a documentary where Duke Cunningham discussed his experiences as a fighter ace in Vietnam. In high stress situations he would switch his intercom to allow him to speak to his RIO, but not be able to hear his RIO. He didn't want the distraction. (Note: sadly, Cunningham disgraced himself in later life).
I've seen it advised to turn off the aircraft radio when it's not useful and you're in the middle of something tricky, like climbing out from a low altitude, or landing in a field.
Makes sense. "Aviate, navigate, communicate".
Also is there a chance they will be able to detect smoke debris on it (to confirm or deny chemical battery fire theory)?
It was flight 447. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447
IMO The mystery of MH370 is partially due to some incorrect assumptions, which can't be proven or disproven until the main wreckage is found, and/or the blackboxes recovered.
Where the wreckage ended up could depend several factors. eg. glide ratio of a 777 (~18:1), or how the 777 Fly-by-wire control system works under certain failure modes. There hasn't been a crew incapacitation crash in a fly-by-wire airliner before.
A small fire in the electrical bay could disable aircraft systems in unexpected ways, and possibly even burn out on its own, and the damage doesn't actually cause the jet to crash immediately. If the cockpit crew were incapacitated at cruise altitude, the jet could still end up 100 miles away from the point the engines flamed out.
But for some reason, the plane was turned around, and flew towards the Indian Ocean instead of China for at least an hour: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/MH370_fl...
Merely incompetent crew or a technical failure would not cause that - it has to either be a hijacking or an unstable pilot doing it on purpose.
"A person involved in the investigation said, however, that experts from Boeing and the National Transportation Safety Board who have seen the object — a piece of what is known as a flaperon — were not yet fully satisfied, and called for further analysis.
Their doubts were based on a modification to the flaperon part that did not appear to exactly match what they would expect from airline maintenance records, according to the person, who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and requested anonymity."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/world/asia/mh370-wing-reun...
Still, hopefully it turns out to be officially and conclusively confirmed so that the process of closure can begin for the families.
Still, I understand them wanting to be extremely cautious.
But this is not an argument against further investigation. For a tragedy such as this, any discrepancies should be investigated to their fullest extent, as you never know what tiny piece of evidence may reveal what happened.
Something as large as a flaperon would definitely have a part number (which would tell you if it was part of a larger assembly), and might be serialized and directly trackable.
Disclosure: I don't work on commercial aircraft, but I do work on military aircraft.
Container ships lose something like 10000 containers at sea annually. Some of those break open and spill their contents. I'd guess that most major airlines stock repair parts in their maintenance centers, and so such parts are shipped across the oceans, and so could get lost at sea.
If, say, Air New Zealand ordered some 777 flaperons to stock their maintenance center, and those got lost in the Indian Ocean, would Air New Zealand just file an insurance claim and order more flaperons from Boeing, and everyone would generally forget about the lost flaperons drifting about in the area?
Or is there some registry or database or some such that tracks these things so that people looking for lost aircraft can check it and find what kind of lost parts they need to be careful to watch out for so that those parts won't mislead their search?
There have been 5 777 hull loss instances (all since 2008) Two crashed just before the runway (Heathrow and San Francisco) one was destroyed by fire while sitting at the gate (Cairo) one was shot down over Ukraine and one disappeared somewhere over the Indian ocean.
But that's very very farfetched.
The first use of carbon composites for commercial aircraft structures was the A310/A320 vertical tail. The A320's horizontal tails also used carbon composites. The A320 Neo uses carbon composites to an even higher degree to try to reduce weight and improve fuel economy.
Different parts will have had different starting positions (even a few meters can make a huge difference. The part found made it to Reunion, but if it had floated a few meters further, it might have missed the Island and, over time, float hundreds of more miles, or it might have landed on an island that it now completely missed)
Also, the shape, weight, etc. of pieces affects where they float; a mostly submerged part will not see much impact from wind, a sailboat-like part will see lots of impact from it. Even identical pieces may float in different directions if they end up in the water at different orientations.
http://oceanmotion.org/html/research/ebbesmeyer.htm:
"Knowing the paths of the currents, though, is not enough. Other factors such as shape, size, and buoyancy may also determine an object’s course. Curt has observed with fascination that different beaches specialize in different types of debris. One beach may collect light bulbs while another collects tennis balls. Even right and left sneakers end up in different places"
(This is a sarcastic comment on the quality of thee Malaysian leadership and how they handled the situation.)