MH370 missing (Part 2)

originally posted by: roadgravel
What about bugs in Boeing software.

What bug?
Do you serously think that the Boeing engineers left a hole in their software for years, i dont't, and i flew the B777 one week short of 4 years.

a reply to: roadgravel

Sorry,, was alluding too the "ethereal" , powers that be or experts.

respectfully,
Me.

a reply to: Mikeultra

H2O is a product of combustion,,always has been, always will be.

I found it! For the scrutiny of all to see and ponder. I consider it a smoking gun.

The Special Conditions A Rule by the Federal Aviation Administration on 11/18/2013

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Boeing Model 777-200, -300, -300ER series airplanes modified by The Boeing Company.Show citation box 1. The applicant must ensure that the design provides isolation from, or airplane electronic system security protection against, access by unauthorized sources internal to the airplane. The design must prevent inadvertent and malicious changes to, and all adverse impacts upon, airplane equipment, systems, networks, or other assets required for safe flight and operations. 2. The applicant must establish appropriate procedures to enable the operator to ensure that continued airworthiness of the aircraft is maintained, including all post STC modifications that may have an impact on the approved electronic system security safeguards.

www.federalregister.gov... ronic-system



Notice the date of 11/18/2013? Not too far back in time from the incident.

originally posted by: BobAthome
a reply to: Mikeultra

H2O is a product of combustion,,always has been, always will be.

Is that why water drips from my tail pipe and a small hole in my muffler? That's condensation isn't it?

originally posted by: Ivar_Karlsen

originally posted by: roadgravel
What about bugs in Boeing software.

What bug?
Do you serously think that the Boeing engineers left a hole in their software for years, i dont't, and i flew the B777 one week short of 4 years.

In this post

a reply to: Mikeultra

And here

www.gpo.gov...
www.gpo.gov...

Warning of connection to internal systems. Hopefully it stayed or will stay isolated.

Then there is this company, Novariant Inc. which built something called the Integrity Beacon Landing System allowing them to land a Boeing 737 completely by remote control. What's good for one Boeing is good for them all. Remote control is a reality.

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: Ivar_Karlsen

originally posted by: roadgravel
What about bugs in Boeing software.

What bug?
Do you serously think that the Boeing engineers left a hole in their software for years, i dont't, and i flew the B777 one week short of 4 years.

In this post

Dual ADIRU faults within a safety crtical enviroment.
I've never thaught at it as a possible failure mode, gonna run it through ta sim.

a reply to: roadgravel

Thank you! They have both been added to my huge list of bookmarks for further evidence review and back-up. Boeing is not immune from making mistakes in their designs. Like I said earlier when comparing the Ford Motor Company and their piece of junk Pinto and General Motors knowing as far back as 2004 that they had faulty ignition switches that have resulted in deaths. Corporations are not of the highest ethical character, and will not admit their blunders until many people die. That's just the way it is. I believe this MH370 deal is related to their over complicated, computerized, flying death traps.

a reply to: Mikeultra

I searched 'boeing vulnerabilities' in the register and there were 92 entries. Not all different topics.

a reply to: roadgravel
That was a good idea. I didn't see that search box until you mentioned it. So I did the same search, "Boeing Vulnerabilities" and got pages and pages of issues with all their aircraft. See the info here. Boeing junkers!
www.federalregister.gov...[term]=Boeing+Vulnerabilities&commit=Go

a reply to: Mikeultra

Most are issues that should have been addressed.

This warning was for the Boeing 787-8 and concerned HIRF (High Intensity Radiated Fields). That sounds like flying too close to military radar installations will cause problems. Like the problem the Quantas flight 72 Airbus near Exmouth, Australia had.

High-power radio frequency transmitters for radio, radar, television, and satellite communications can adversely affect operations of airplane electrical and electronic systems. Therefore, immunity of critical avionics/electronics and electrical systems to HIRF must be established. Based on surveys and analysis of existing HIRF emitters, adequate protection from HIRF exists if airplane system immunity is demonstrated when exposed to the HIRF environments in either paragraph (a) OR (b) below:

www.federalregister.gov... ectronic

The U.S. Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) and industry EMC leaders have periodically met to define the adequacy of protection requirements for civil avionics from outside interference since 1980. In 1986 The FAA Technical Center contracted for a definition of the electromagnetic environment for civil aviation. This study was performed by the Electromagnetic Compatibility Analysis Center (ECAC). The study has shown levels of exposure to this threat as high as 4 orders of magnitude (10000 times) higher than the then current civil aircraft EMC susceptibility test certification standards of 1 volt/meter (DO-160). This environment was also 2 orders of magnitude higher (100 times) than the then prevailing military avionics systems test standards (MIL-STD 461/462).

en.wikipedia.org...

At 1st they tried blaming it on turbulence.
www.watoday.com.au...

Then the Australian Transport Safety Bureau discovered it was really the overly computerized fly by wire and ADIRU system.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigation found fault with one of the aircraft's three Air Data Inertial Reference Units and a previously unknown software design limitation of the Airbus A330's fly by wire flight control primary computer (FCPC).

en.wikipedia.org...

The ATSB's continuing accident investigation will include assessment of speculation that possible interference from Naval Communication Station Harold E. Holt or passenger personal electronic devices could have been involved, although based on initial analysis, the Bureau believes these are unlikely to have been of any impact.

en.wikipedia.org...

Exmouth, Australia base possibly causing electronics problems with aircraft.

Oct. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Australian air safety investigators will examine whether radio transmissions from a naval base interfered with a Qantas Airways Ltd. jet's computers and caused the aircraft to nosedive last week.

www.bloomberg.com...

A cockpit alert said there was a problem with the plane's navigation system near Carnarvon. The incident has raised fresh questions about whether electrical interference from signals is to blame. In October, a Qantas Airbus A330-300 from Singapore to Perth dropped twice from a height of 37,000 feet, injuring 74 passengers. Read more: www.smh.com.au...

www.theage.com.au...

I thought it would be a good thing to have this on our thread. It comes from pprune again as they have found some very valid points.

It concerns the pinger (I assume the ELT is the 'pinger' in the BB) in the Black Boxes which it appears DO have the identification of the aircraft within their 'ping' so the search and rescue authorities SHOULD be able to tell if the ping they heard is from the missing MH370. (If they recorded the received signal, of course)

Regarding the fixed ELT, which according to the CNN article was the same type as was fitted incorrectly to the 737 which crashed in Resolute Bay in 2011. (Honeywell RESCU 406 AF-type)


From the accident investigation report:

'1.15.2. Emergency locator transmitter
There was no record of any agency detecting an emergency locator transmitter (ELT) signal from the aircraft. The investigation determined that the ELT had been installed with the activation switch in the OFF position and therefore could not automatically transmit upon impact. The cable leading from the ELT to its antenna was severed on impact, which would have significantly reduced the transmission signal had the ELT been armed. It was also determined that the aircraft interface module (dongle) contained the identifier code from the previous aircraft on which it was installed. Having the incorrect identifier programmed in the ELT would not have prevented it from performing as designed, but it would have indicated to Search and Rescue that a different aircraft was transmitting an emergency signal.'

Here's an example of what happens when an aircraft is made too complicated with computers. It was called the X-31. It's not hard to imagine a similar demise to a Boeing 777. Computers fighting with the pilots. The problem is the Boeing pilots and passengers can't bail out. Parachutes should be issued with the boarding pass. Give people a chance to survive!
www.military.com...

Back to the startingpoint, when the aircraft flew above the Gulf of Thailand something happened which triggered a steep and sudden descent, that is what China reportedly had seen on radar, also that the direction changed from 026 to 343 while it happened.
Vietnam told it had crashed 246km south of the island Phú Quốc, i thought that they would have seen it on radar, but now i know why they said it had crashed at that spot, now i read that they have picked up an emergency locator transmitter (ELT) signal about 20 nautical miles south of the coast of Ca Mau, Vietnam.

Article

Is it a coincidence that this is the same area in which the seismic tremor was being registred?



It is not that deep in that area, about 140ft to my knowledge.
A plane hitting the water with a high velocity would be destroyed completely, smashed into tiny pieces.

And we have seen enough debris in the Gulf of Thailand.



But why the steep and sudden descent, shot out of the sky? would that be what the people in the Marang area have heared at 17:20?

I must admit that after so much bogus and contradictory stories i do not believe one bit of the official story, not even the pings from Inmarsat.
But we as ordinairy people have to rely on their honesty, they can say whatever they want, for us it is impossible to proof otherwise.
Or they find nothing, or they pick up a black box with some false images of debris from another plane and spin it as they are doing presently, pilot suicide.

IMO the plane disappeared on its intended flight path. There was no turn to the west
and all the alleged scenario after that. This will be another marathon 400 page thread, if you keep debating the lies spewed out. But more the merrier I guess. Good luck

a reply to: qmantoo

The "pinger" type of acoustic locator beacon we've all been talking about on here uses ultra sonic sound waves and NOT radio waves.They refer to the "cable leading from the ELT to the antenna was severed on impact",when an acoustic device would not have an aerial as an RF device would,but would use an audio transducer,or in other words a waterproof loudspeaker.
The spec for all these acoustic devices I've read about only allows for a generic repeating sequence of pulses that can be programmed to identify the type of device they're attached to.I have seen no mention of anything in that signal
that can identify specifically which vessel they belong to.Without doing any research,I can only guess that a surface or floating VHF beacon would transmit this information on the international emergency frequency of 121.5 MHz,and would include more specific information and data such as when it was activated.