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.

 

MH370 missing (Part 2)

page: 17
39
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Imagewerx
Yes you're right about the acoustic locators for the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder "black boxes", that they're acoustic only and don't identify the aircraft as far as I can tell.

But I was hoping some aviation expert would chime in about the emergency locators which are not acoustic but as you suggest electromagnetic. I think the US has regulations that the life raft has to be equipped with such a device, (which may be capable of identifying which aircraft the raft is from, I don't know), but I really haven't found much about them outside of that requirement.




posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Imagewerx
Yes you're right about the acoustic locators for the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder "black boxes", that they're acoustic only and don't identify the aircraft as far as I can tell.

But I was hoping some aviation expert would chime in about the emergency locators which are not acoustic but as you suggest electromagnetic. I think the US has regulations that the life raft has to be equipped with such a device, (which may be capable of identifying which aircraft the raft is from, I don't know), but I really haven't found much about them outside of that requirement.

Yes the elt (is em wave) sends out id of the aircraft.
This signal is picked up by search and rescue sats, which determine its co ordinates
and alert search and rescue stations on the ground



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei
I guess what I'm wondering is how many ELTs were on MH370, and where?
One on the raft?
Is there another one besides that one and if so where is it located and how is it deployed?



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur
The VHF EPIRB beacons on 121.5 MHz only transmit a sound like a a police car siren and no other data,and as far as I'm aware all civil airliners have to have a radio constantly monitoring 121.5 MHz.They're also low power at just 0.5 watts.

The UHF EPIRBs on 406 MHz are registered to the user and do transmit a unique data string to identify the registered owner of the beacon,and some even include GPS data in that data stream that tells to within a metre or so where the beacon can be found.These are higher power at 5 watts,but are shorter range than the VHF beacons are,so both VHF and UHF are pretty well line of sight.Only a guess,but at that sort of power and that close to the surface of the sea,I'd say a range of about 20 miles at the absolute most under "normal" atmospheric conditions.Also again purely out of my head,but I'm not aware of civil airliners having to monitor the UHF emergency frequency.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Nochzwei
I guess what I'm wondering is how many ELTs were on MH370, and where?
One on the raft?
Is there another one besides that one and if so where is it located and how is it deployed?

I think ive read that, 777 have 6 elts located in the tail section, can be triggered from cockpit
or they automatically fire on g forces in the event of a crash.
Each life raft has to have one at least according to regs
Life raft elts can be triggered manually after the life raft is in the water and inflated



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Pilot suicide would look like this.



It changes direction and dives.

We have the Chinese autorities reporting that the aircraft suddenly went into a steep descent while it changes direction.
RR reported a plunge of 40.000ft within a minute according to the engine data.
Vietnam reported that they picked up a signal from the ELT.
Oil slicks, debris, and a tremor on the seabed.

But they won't be trying to hide the possibility that the pilot could have commited suicide, in fact that is what the suspicion is.
But why would he be going through all this trouble, he knows that he is not invisible, even without the transponder the aircraft is visible on radar, the difference is that there is no indication of identity, position, speed and altitude, only a blip on the screen which means that it can be qualified as a threat.
But the transponder also provides the pilot with information, namely a collision warning if another aircraft gets too close, and they can use it to send a distress signal (squawk)
According to authorities the transponder was switched off when it entered into Vietnamese airspace.

This is not what we see on FR24.
At 17:21 the altitude changes and the indication is 0ft, the speed indication seems to stop too, but there is still an indication of identity, heading and position untill 17:23.



Now i am not a pilot, but to me it seems that it wasn't switched off, there was no indication of altitude and speed in the last minutes, how can this happen?

Would they be taking more risk with maintenance of the aircrafts to cut costs in order to be able to compete with other companies?



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: earthling42
The transponder does not give any collision warning inside the cockpit



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

The new transponders are part of the TCAS system, which is one of the big reasons they're switching to them.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 02:57 AM
link   
This pprune.org post by Nina Lima Charlie reports

There are two approved ELT providers for the B-777, Honeywell and ACR, both of which have cockpit control panels and interface with the master caution system. The ELT transmitter, with internal battery, is mounted inside the fuselage skin, above the aft cabin doors and is connected to an external antenna mounted very close above the ELT.

Second item, an earlier (deleted) post mentioned MAS avionics shop. To my knowledge their shop in KL does not have the knowledge, skills or approvals to do any work on the Honeywell AIMS cabinet modules nor the ADIRU.

Third item, The CVR/FDR are mounted in hard trays, attached to major airframe structure in the tail of the aircraft. Not accessible in flight, and not likely to be dislodged from the structure during a crash. Also please remember that there is a QAR module in the avionics package that might be readable when found.


Yes, it seems that the ELT is a radio beacon which goes off when an aircraft ditches in water and not the underwater acoustic beacon which attracts rescuers to the data and voice recorders.

What kind of recorder is a QAR ? From Wikipedia

A quick access recorder (QAR) is an airborne flight data recorder designed to provide quick and easy access to raw flight data,[1] through means such as USB[2] or cellular network[3] connections and/or the use of standard flash memory cards.[2] QARs are typically used by airlines to improve flight safety and operational efficiency, usually in the scope of an their flight operational quality assurance plans.[4] Like the aircraft's flight data recorder (FDR), a QAR receives its inputs from the Flight Data Acquisition Unit (FDAU), recording over 2000 flight parameters.[1] The QAR is also able to sample data at much higher rates than the FDR and, in some cases, for longer periods of time. Unlike the FDR, the QAR usually is not required by a national Civil Aviation Authority on commercial flights and is not designed to survive an accident. Despite this, some QARs have survived accidents and provided valuable information beyond that was recorded by the FDR.


I think my previous post in which I mixed up the radio and acoustic beacons, says that the ELT has an identiifier in it as the crash report mentions that the identifier was for the previous aircraft and not for the aircraft which was the subject of the report.

So what happened about the ELT picked up by Vietnam - if indeed it was picked up by them?

An interesting snippit of info

Given that the Nuclear test ban treaty people said that their hydrophones at Cape Leeuwin did not detect MH370 impacting the ocean, it may place more weight on a controlled ditching.
This can detect icebergs falling in Antarctica, so if the plane struck the ocean with high force, it should have being able to detect the acoustic waves.



edit on 28 Apr 2014 by qmantoo because: typo

edit on 28 Apr 2014 by qmantoo because: Cape Leeuwin acoustic hydrophones



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 03:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: qmantoo
So what happened about the ELT picked up by Vietnam - if indeed it was picked up by them?
I think that's a big "if" with only one source so far I've seen mentioned it which also seemed to have other less than reliable information so I'm not sure I trust the source, plus it certainly would seem to conflict with Inmarsat's assessment of the plane continuing to fly for a long time and distance from where Vietnam would have picked up on that ELT signal.

However then you couple this with Malaysia's implication that they do not release all the data they have due to it being a criminal investigation etc so it makes you wonder what they aren't releasing. On the other hand, they provided a likely crash location off the west coast of Australia and if they had reason to believe Vietnam had a valid ELT signal in a vastly different location, would they do that? I would like to think not, but I've not seen Malaysia make any official statements about the Vietnam ELT detection. If they made a statement that they were informed of the signal but investigated and found a problem with the claim, or whatever, that would be nice to know.
edit on 28-4-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


it certainly would seem to conflict with Inmarsat's assessment of the plane continuing to fly for a long time


Yes indeed, that is why i wonder if the Satcom terminal which was manufactured by Honywell had its own powersource, a battery and thus was able to perform handshakes.

The whole search west of Perth Australia is based on the assumption that the aircraft was flying until 08:11 Malaysian time.
To be honest, if Malaysia had indeed tracked the aircraft until the last point above the Malacca Strait, time and money would not have been wasted by searching for 4 to 5 days in the Gulf of Thailand.
Also there are conflicting reports, one picture shows the aircraft above Butterworth at 02:08, another picture shows a time of 02:02 above Penang and 02:22 near MEKAR and at first it was said that an unidentified aircraft was spotted above Pulau Perak at 02:40.
The plot that has been shown to the chinese must have been made to fit the story because other aircrafts nearby did not show up in the plot from the military radar.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Pat Dollard

VN Express, Vietnam’s largest news site, reports that Vietnam Emergency Rescue Center just announced it has found signal of the missing plane at 9.50am 120 miles South West of Ca Mau cape, the Southern-most point of Vietnam.

The signal is believed to be the ELT (Emergency Locator Transmittor) , which can be activated manually by the flight crew or automatically upon impact.


CNN article with lots of info on the ELTs

Assuming that the device was working correctly, the crash could have broken the antenna or cut the connection with the ELT, rendering it useless.

Another possibility, experts say, is that the aircraft could have sunk before the ELT began transmitting. It takes 50 seconds for the ELT to establish the necessary connection. It only takes one half-second data "burst" to indicate there is an emergency. But it can take a half-dozen bursts -- at the rate of one every 50 seconds -- to provide information that will allow Cospas-Sarsat to triangulate the beacon's position.

"In this case, there wasn't even one burst, according to the reports that we received," Lett said.


and more about the 3 frequencies they operate on.

But the ELT of greatest interest is the remaining "fixed" ELT, mounted to the aircraft frame. The fixed ELT -- a Honeywell RESCU 406 AFN -- was positioned near the rear door and connected to an antenna on top of the aircraft. It could be activated, either manually by a pilot in the cockpit, or automatically upon impact, by an inertial "G-switch."

The RESCU 406 AFN was designed "to provide emergency transmission for aircraft flying over land," according to Honeywell's published specifications.

"They are not mandated or designed to work under water," a Honeywell spokesman told CNN. But experts say any impact -- whether on land or at sea -- likely would have activated the transmitter.

Once activated, the device simultaneously transmits "bursts" -- short, digitally coded signals -- on three frequencies. Two of the frequencies -- 243 MHz and 121.5 MHz -- are VHF frequencies and can help search planes hone in on a target. The third frequency is 406 MHz.


More on the ELT


and just one more factoid in case we need it later... I dont remember seeing the split between Malaysian/China employees, but I may have missed it.

Twenty of the passengers aboard the flight work with Freescale Semiconductor, a company based in Austin, Texas. The company said that 12 of the employees are from Malaysia and eight are from China.


More on the underwater ULB pingers from Honeywell spkesperson

“Echolocation signals in all toothed whales is generated in sequences of multiple clicks, and the time interval between these clicks is highly variable," Castellote said. "A sequence of pings at 37.5 kHz with a constant interval of one second would be extremely easy to distinguish from echolocation by just looking at the temporal distribution of the ping,” Castellote said.

Brecken, of Honeywell, said it is not known whether the acoustic beacons would change their frequency characteristics as their batteries run out after end of the federally-mandated 30-day period. As of Monday, the plane has been missing for 31 days, which means the batteries could run out at any time now.


I feel that Honeywell would know for absolute certain if the frequency changed as the batteries ran out, so I dont know why they say this.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: qmantoo

I just came across this piece from the Daily Mail (UK) about a pilot (Non commercial) who has found what he believes to be MH370 off the north east coast of Malaysia. He's reported his finding to the FBI and NTSB. Having looked at his pictures, the third one down with the pen by the screen looks like a cloud formation to me but it is in a south west direction from the southern tip of Vietnam.


A pilot from New York believes he has found the wreckage of the missing Malaysia Airline Flight 370 off the coast of Thailand after searching thousands of satellite images online. Michael Hoebel, 60, spent hours trawling through the images made available to the public on a crowd-sourcing website, TomNod.com, before coming across what he believes is the doomed plane. The recreational pilot from Tonawanda said he was shocked to discover that the aircraft, which vanished two months ago, appeared to be in one piece beneath the water off the northeast coast of Malaysia, just west of Songkhla in Thailand. The image was taken days after the crash.


Daily Mail



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 07:42 PM
link   
above beat me to it, does kind of look plane-ish!
edit on 28-4-2014 by dslayer because: to slow


also an Australian company thinks the may have found the wreckage in the Bay of Bengal, finding elements consistent with material from the plane on the ocean floor.

www.stuff.co.nz...
edit on 28-4-2014 by dslayer because: stuff



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Gutman

I thought it was just me thinking it was a cloud formation!

How deep is the water in that part of the Gulf of Thailand?



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: auroraaus

gutman,. I just saw that posted in another thread....that's 3000 miles from the official search site....we will see what comes of this....



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: auroraaus


The Gulf of Thailand is relatively shallow: its mean depth is 45 m (148 ft) and the maximum depth is only 80 m (260 ft).


Gulf Of Thailand Wiki

Well this is a surprise to me, it's a lot shallower than the Indian Ocean.
I wonder how far this position is from the oil rig where the worker said he saw a plane on fire.
There's nothing being said about it on UK news.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 10:08 AM
link   

CANBERRA, April 28 (Xinhua) -- The new technology of towed side- sonar device will be deployed in four weeks, Angus Houston, chief coordinator of the Joint Agency Coordination Center (JACC) for the search of Malaysian Airline flight MH370, said here Monday.

At a press conference held in the Chinese Embassy in Australia, Houston said the towed side-sonar search would be conducted by possible private underwater search and recovery companies.

The device will work just above ocean floor, exactly as the Bluefin-21 Autonomous Underwater Vehicle does, to get maximum value from side-looking sonar.

Xinhua Source!!!

Which as well as this, says they don't expect to find MH370 within the next month!!!

Absolute joke this whole scenario has been...
If this is 50years of advancement in technology ahead of the public then good luck to missing planes in 5 decades cos this has been atrocious all round!!!

400 pages and it reads the same a 100 pages ago, I'll be in and out, sharing links, but won't be sharing an opinion I don't think!!!


Peace MH370 xxx



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 10:30 AM
link   
The unfunny joke continues...


KUALA LUMPUR, April 29 (Xinhua) -- Malaysian acting Transport Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said here Tuesday in a statement that the credibility of a report citing the detection of potential aircraft wreckage in the Bay of Bengal would be assessed.

A marine exploration company based in Australia had said it might have found the wreckage site of the missing Malaysian flight MH370 in the Bay of Bengal, some 5,000 km north of the current search area for the plane, which vanished on March 8 with 239 aboard.


Xinhua Source!!!

So although it was "confirmed" that the "flight ended in the SIO"...
They think it could be credible that the plane is now above the North Indian Ocean???

Despite all the so called brand new & ever so intricate data we were force fed that was definitive proof, it could now be in the complete opposite direction???


Not.
Buying.
A.
Single.
Word.
Of.
The.
Authorities.
Nonsense!!!


Peace MH370 xxx



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs
Inmarsat did say the technique that led to the South Indian Ocean conclusion had never been used before, so I guess we won't know for sure how good this new technique really is until the wreckage is found to confirm it (or not, as the case may be).

We already know that relatively small changes in the speed of the plane can throw the estimated crash site way off, and we don't really know how fast the plane was going, so there's already that huge issue with Inmarsat's analysis, but, speed variance shouldn't be able to throw it off by 5000 km.

I thought they would have found it after about a month, but it's taking longer than I expected.

edit on 29-4-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join