It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Best Flight 370 Scenario So Far - Theory of an actual pilot

page: 16
70
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 08:09 AM
link   
I am also still wondering about the ELT's on the aircraft. From what I have heard from some very credible sources online and the talking heads on the news, there would have been multiple ELT's on this craft and not a single one was picked up by satellite which should have happened within minutes of this plane hitting anything, land or sea. They have said there would be one in the nose of the craft that transmits when a high-G impact has occurred and multiple others when saltwater touches them. How were none of these picked up if a crash anywhere actually occurred? It was said that they could not be turned off and I can't believe they were all burned up prior to crashing....that would mean the entire plane was burning from the inside without going down for the 7 hours they say it continued to fly.




posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Vasa Croe
I am also still wondering about the ELT's on the aircraft. From what I have heard from some very credible sources online and the talking heads on the news, there would have been multiple ELT's on this craft and not a single one was picked up by satellite which should have happened within minutes of this plane hitting anything, land or sea. They have said there would be one in the nose of the craft that transmits when a high-G impact has occurred and multiple others when saltwater touches them. How were none of these picked up if a crash anywhere actually occurred? It was said that they could not be turned off and I can't believe they were all burned up prior to crashing....that would mean the entire plane was burning from the inside without going down for the 7 hours they say it continued to fly.


If it were a pilot suicide, or some similar circumstance, they could have easily disabled the ELTs along with every other component on the aircraft that was shut down. They basically could have made it extremely difficult to locate the aircraft when it eventually came down.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Vasa Croe
 


There are two automatic ELTs on the aircraft, one fore, one aft. Both are controlled by the aircraft bus and can be disabled by pulling breakers.

The other units are handheld units. They are attached to life rafts and jackets. If they don't deploy then they don't activate.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 08:20 AM
link   

AugustusMasonicus

Vasa Croe
I am also still wondering about the ELT's on the aircraft. From what I have heard from some very credible sources online and the talking heads on the news, there would have been multiple ELT's on this craft and not a single one was picked up by satellite which should have happened within minutes of this plane hitting anything, land or sea. They have said there would be one in the nose of the craft that transmits when a high-G impact has occurred and multiple others when saltwater touches them. How were none of these picked up if a crash anywhere actually occurred? It was said that they could not be turned off and I can't believe they were all burned up prior to crashing....that would mean the entire plane was burning from the inside without going down for the 7 hours they say it continued to fly.


If it were a pilot suicide, or some similar circumstance, they could have easily disabled the ELTs along with every other component on the aircraft that was shut down. They basically could have made it extremely difficult to locate the aircraft when it eventually came down.


Even the ones in the rafts and on the slides? Wouldn't those be a bit hard to get to? From what the airline experts have said, and yes these are the ones on CNN and whatnot, they can't have disabled them all. Maybe a couple, but this plane would have had multiples with some being VERY hard to access without deploying the rafts or slides. And they would have been picked up in minutes by satellite. To me, everything is still pointing to this aircraft being landed somewhere...that just seems to be way too much for a pilot to do by himself just to crash a plane and unless there were multiple others on the flight looking to just crash the plane and never be found, how is this even an option?



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by Vasa Croe
 


There are two automatic ELTs on the aircraft, one fore, one aft. Both are controlled by the aircraft bus and can be disabled by pulling breakers.

The other units are handheld units. They are attached to life rafts and jackets. If they don't deploy then they don't activate.


Ok..that makes sense. I had heard that there would be more than that on this aircraft though. So the simple act of pulling the breakers on a plane essentially disables everything...talk about an odd single point of failure. Guess redundancies are needed here.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Vasa Croe
 


Those only activate if the raft inflates. It is rare for a raft to automatically inflate in a high speed impact with the water.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Vasa Croe
 


I forgot which expert said this but the blackbox pings for 30 days and any other device like the ELT only 48 hours.
I might be wrong..........but I don't think so.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Vasa Croe
 


There HAS to be a single point of failure. You have to be able to kill power in case of electrical fire. Fire on a plane is the most dangerous thing you can imagine. Just about everything emits toxic smoke, you have roughly two minutes in the event of a cabin fire before flashover, and only a few minutes of oxygen to fight it.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Vasa Croe
Even the ones in the rafts and on the slides? Wouldn't those be a bit hard to get to? From what the airline experts have said, and yes these are the ones on CNN and whatnot, they can't have disabled them all. Maybe a couple, but this plane would have had multiples with some being VERY hard to access without deploying the rafts or slides.


The fore and aft are circuit breaker driven and can be disconnected at any time. The others, as Zaphod pointed out, may not even deploy and a high speed impact. If I recall the Air France crash in the Atlantic did not have any ELTs activate due to how it impacted the water.


To me, everything is still pointing to this aircraft being landed somewhere...that just seems to be way too much for a pilot to do by himself just to crash a plane and unless there were multiple others on the flight looking to just crash the plane and never be found, how is this even an option?


I have not really given my opinion on where the aircraft could have been but at this point I think it is in the southern Indian Ocean as all other options require some rather long odds and do not seem probable.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by Vasa Croe
 


Those only activate if the raft inflates. It is rare for a raft to automatically inflate in a high speed impact with the water.


My guess would be, if this plane is indeed found in the water, that this will change.

Now for another question, feasibly, from the timeline we have of when the last transmission occurred until the plane went dark, could a single person have done this? I am having a hard time believing that multiple people on a craft, both pilots included, would do something like this just to crash a plane and not want to be found. Wouldn't it be more likely that they did this to land the plane and not be found? I mean that is a LOT of trouble to go to just to kill yourself with a lot of preparation involved and a highly efficient knowledge of internal systems. I just can't see it all happening while the co-pilot is saying "alright, goodnight" and being in on the killing of all these people. And if he wasn't in on it, that would make it only the pilot correct? I don't think anyone else could have accessed the area to pull the breakers within that short of a time frame without some emergency warning being issues by one of the flight crew.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Vasa Croe
Now for another question, feasibly, from the timeline we have of when the last transmission occurred until the plane went dark, could a single person have done this?


Why not? Wait until one person leaves the flight deck, lock the door, decompress the plane, apply oxygen mask, wait until all are incapacitated, disconnect all other devices that were not done initially and then set course for southern Indian Ocean. They could have then decided to ride it out or take off their mask/not recompress the aircraft and slip into unconsciousness.





edit on 21-3-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by Vasa Croe
 


There HAS to be a single point of failure. You have to be able to kill power in case of electrical fire. Fire on a plane is the most dangerous thing you can imagine. Just about everything emits toxic smoke, you have roughly two minutes in the event of a cabin fire before flashover, and only a few minutes of oxygen to fight it.


Single point of failure on the ELT's is what I meant. Does not seem like a smart decision. That or make them so they are on an internal power source of some type and checked after each flight for operational status. Seems like a bad idea to be able to disable the only devices with the ability to find a craft if downed.

So basically if power to them is cut they can't go off? How do they work in the first place as I would think a plane crashing would cut power to them as well.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Vasa Croe
Seems like a bad idea to be able to disable the only devices with the ability to find a craft if downed.


What happens if one/both are the source of fire? You need to be able to disconnect each and every device in case of fire.


So basically if power to them is cut they can't go off? How do they work in the first place as I would think a plane crashing would cut power to them as well.


they automatically deploy on impact. There are instances of pilots shutting of the aft ELT due to concerns that they may go off in a hard runway landing.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 08:50 AM
link   

AugustusMasonicus

Vasa Croe
Seems like a bad idea to be able to disable the only devices with the ability to find a craft if downed.


What happens if one/both are the source of fire? You need to be able to disconnect each and every device in case of fire.


So basically if power to them is cut they can't go off? How do they work in the first place as I would think a plane crashing would cut power to them as well.


they automatically deploy on impact. There are instances of pilots shutting of the aft ELT due to concerns that they may go off in a hard runway landing.


If they are already on fire, cutting the power isn't going to keep that fire from burning, you would still have to put the flame out. Same would apply to an internally powered ELT I would think, or at least having a backup internal battery installed.

I know some of them are made for impact and others for saltwater, but on the ones that are made to sense impact, how exactly are they "deployed"? From what I have read, they are made to sense a high-G impact of some type, which would not seem to require deploying of any sort, just a gyro type of device internally that accounts for high impact movement. If power is cut at the time of a crash, which I would assume it is, then how do they continue working? Is there an internal battery that continues to emit the signal?



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Vasa Croe
 


en.wikipedia.org...




Activation There are two ways to activate a beacon: manually, or automatically Automatic EPIRBs are water activated, while automatic ELTs are G-force (impact) activated. Some EPIRBs also deploy; this means that they physically depart from their mounting bracket on the exterior of the vessel (usually by going into the water.) For a marine EPIRB to begin transmitting a signal (or "activate") it first needs to come out of its bracket (or "deploy"). Deployment can happen either manually – where someone must physically remove it from its bracket – or automatically – where water pressure will cause a hydrostatic release unit to release the EPIRB from its bracket. If it does not come out of the bracket it will not activate. There is a magnet in the bracket which operates a reed safety switch in the EPIRB. This is to prevent accidental activation when the unit gets wet from rain or shipped seas. Once deployed, EPIRBs can be activated, depending on the circumstances, either manually (crewman flicks a switch) or automatically (when water contacts the unit's "sea-switch".) All modern EPIRBs provide both methods of activation and deployment, and thus are labelled "Manual and Automatic Deployment and Activation."



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Vasa Croe
If they are already on fire, cutting the power isn't going to keep that fire from burning, you would still have to put the flame out. Same would apply to an internally powered ELT I would think, or at least having a backup internal battery installed.


It absolutely would help. If the current is cut it could stop the wiring from overheating and having that thermal influence removed from impacting the harnesses. You may still have to manually extinguish the fire but an electrical fire's source is the current and it needs to be isolated and disconnected.


I know some of them are made for impact and others for saltwater, but on the ones that are made to sense impact, how exactly are they "deployed"? From what I have read, they are made to sense a high-G impact of some type, which would not seem to require deploying of any sort, just a gyro type of device internally that accounts for high impact movement. If power is cut at the time of a crash, which I would assume it is, then how do they continue working? Is there an internal battery that continues to emit the signal?


Yes, that is correct for the most part. They do not exactly 'deploy', they activate in the manner in which you outlined and function off a battery back up system. If however they were disconnected prior to impact then they would be useless.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 09:05 AM
link   

AugustusMasonicus

Vasa Croe
If they are already on fire, cutting the power isn't going to keep that fire from burning, you would still have to put the flame out. Same would apply to an internally powered ELT I would think, or at least having a backup internal battery installed.


It absolutely would help. If the current is cut it could stop the wiring from overheating and having that thermal influence removed from impacting the harnesses. You may still have to manually extinguish the fire but an electrical fire's source is the current and it needs to be isolated and disconnected.


I know some of them are made for impact and others for saltwater, but on the ones that are made to sense impact, how exactly are they "deployed"? From what I have read, they are made to sense a high-G impact of some type, which would not seem to require deploying of any sort, just a gyro type of device internally that accounts for high impact movement. If power is cut at the time of a crash, which I would assume it is, then how do they continue working? Is there an internal battery that continues to emit the signal?


Yes, that is correct for the most part. They do not exactly 'deploy', they activate in the manner in which you outlined and function off a battery back up system. If however they were disconnected prior to impact then they would be useless.


Hmm...well that just doesn't seem like a smart way to build the only device able to locate a downed aircraft. How is it they can't deploy if power is cut yet they still have a battery backup? If they are impact deployed and the battery does not activate until impact then why are they even hooked to a power supply at all? If the unit does not activate nor send signal until deployment, I fail to see any reason to be able to deactivate the unit nor have that deactivation affect the deployment of the unit....just doesn't make sense to me.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Vasa Croe
Hmm...well that just doesn't seem like a smart way to build the only device able to locate a downed aircraft.


How else would you make it electrically isolatable?


How is it they can't deploy if power is cut yet they still have a battery backup?


Analog activation, similar to when the lights go out in a building and the back up/emergency lighting comes on.


If they are impact deployed and the battery does not activate until impact then why are they even hooked to a power supply at all?


Similar to a emergency light they are on rechargeable batteries.


If the unit does not activate nor send signal until deployment, I fail to see any reason to be able to deactivate the unit nor have that deactivation affect the deployment of the unit....just doesn't make sense to me.


See above. They are hard hired to prevent battery depletion but need to be isolated in case of fire.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   

AugustusMasonicus

Vasa Croe
Hmm...well that just doesn't seem like a smart way to build the only device able to locate a downed aircraft.


How else would you make it electrically isolatable?


How is it they can't deploy if power is cut yet they still have a battery backup?


Analog activation, similar to when the lights go out in a building and the back up/emergency lighting comes on.


If they are impact deployed and the battery does not activate until impact then why are they even hooked to a power supply at all?


Similar to a emergency light they are on rechargeable batteries.


If the unit does not activate nor send signal until deployment, I fail to see any reason to be able to deactivate the unit nor have that deactivation affect the deployment of the unit....just doesn't make sense to me.


See above. They are hard hired to prevent battery depletion but need to be isolated in case of fire.


So if the pilot or someone pulls the breaker this kills the battery in the unit as well, not allowing it to deploy if a crash happens? I guess I am just not understanding how, if there is a backup battery inside this unit, that it would not activate on impact.

The batteries would have to allow for at least a 24 hour depletion and the flight from what we know was not long enough for depletion to occur.

Does killing the power also lock whatever mechanism is inside the unit in place so that a high-G impact would not allow it to travel forward and make contact and begin signal transmission?



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Vasa Croe
 


You need to be able to cut power because they fail sometimes, and start going off for no reason.

We used to use an ejectable unit that was in the base of the tail. There were shock sensors in the wheel wells. Hit them too hard and a mechanical ejector launched it.

We had a bird sit there and fire three of them while sitting parked because of a bad sensor.




top topics



 
70
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join