hawker9000 Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 If flight MH370 did indeed follow the path suggested by Imarat's Satellite data. Then just as Malaysian Military monitored the flight making U-Turn and its flight Back Across the Malaysian peninsula... Why has there been no comment from Singapore or Indonesian Military... Remember this was an unknown object entering their Airspace... MH370 was monitored by Malaysian Military Radar after it officially went silent to other sources. So it was 100% Detectable here (If it was indeed on this path...) Same with Thailand, was first an object being Monitored reported then dismissed. There has been complete silence by all Military involved in War Games in Thailand that were being conducted at this very time. Ships, Air Bases and Aircraft would have 100% Visibility at this time. Why the Silence? For one, I believe Aircraft was never in Singapore's or Indonesian Air Space, or if contacted... no answer it would have been shot down. It was referenced in Thai Air Space... Then Hushed up, only reported when firmly questioned. By that time it would have exited and continued its flight. North... Close but no prize, it went west to Diego Garcia, only the "exceptional" ones could pull this off! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KunMatt Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 If flight MH370 did indeed follow the path suggested by Imarat's Satellite data. Then just as Malaysian Military monitored the flight making U-Turn and its flight Back Across the Malaysian peninsula... Why has there been no comment from Singapore or Indonesian Military... Remember this was an unknown object entering their Airspace... MH370 was monitored by Malaysian Military Radar after it officially went silent to other sources. So it was 100% Detectable here (If it was indeed on this path...) Same with Thailand, was first an object being Monitored reported then dismissed. There has been complete silence by all Military involved in War Games in Thailand that were being conducted at this very time. Ships, Air Bases and Aircraft would have 100% Visibility at this time. Why the Silence? For one, I believe Aircraft was never in Singapore's or Indonesian Air Space, or if contacted... no answer it would have been shot down. It was referenced in Thai Air Space... Then Hushed up, only reported when firmly questioned. By that time it would have exited and continued its flight. North... Close but no prize, it went west to Diego Garcia, only the "exceptional" ones could pull this off! You sound very sure on that. Would you mind sharing your own personal research that led you to that conclusion? And by research I don't mean other people's YouTube vids or theories copy and pasted from conspiracy websites. I want actual facts that you have uncovered by yourself to draw this conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fasteddie Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 If flight MH370 did indeed follow the path suggested by Imarat's Satellite data. Then just as Malaysian Military monitored the flight making U-Turn and its flight Back Across the Malaysian peninsula... Why has there been no comment from Singapore or Indonesian Military... Remember this was an unknown object entering their Airspace... MH370 was monitored by Malaysian Military Radar after it officially went silent to other sources. So it was 100% Detectable here (If it was indeed on this path...) Same with Thailand, was first an object being Monitored reported then dismissed. There has been complete silence by all Military involved in War Games in Thailand that were being conducted at this very time. Ships, Air Bases and Aircraft would have 100% Visibility at this time. Why the Silence? For one, I believe Aircraft was never in Singapore's or Indonesian Air Space, or if contacted... no answer it would have been shot down. It was referenced in Thai Air Space... Then Hushed up, only reported when firmly questioned. By that time it would have exited and continued its flight. North... Close but no prize, it went west to Diego Garcia, only the "exceptional" ones could pull this off! You sound very sure on that. Would you mind sharing your own personal research that led you to that conclusion? And by research I don't mean other people's YouTube vids or theories copy and pasted from conspiracy websites. I want actual facts that you have uncovered by yourself to draw this conclusion. Who stands to gain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawker9000 Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 If flight MH370 did indeed follow the path suggested by Imarat's Satellite data. Then just as Malaysian Military monitored the flight making U-Turn and its flight Back Across the Malaysian peninsula... Why has there been no comment from Singapore or Indonesian Military... Remember this was an unknown object entering their Airspace... MH370 was monitored by Malaysian Military Radar after it officially went silent to other sources. So it was 100% Detectable here (If it was indeed on this path...) Same with Thailand, was first an object being Monitored reported then dismissed. There has been complete silence by all Military involved in War Games in Thailand that were being conducted at this very time. Ships, Air Bases and Aircraft would have 100% Visibility at this time. Why the Silence? For one, I believe Aircraft was never in Singapore's or Indonesian Air Space, or if contacted... no answer it would have been shot down. It was referenced in Thai Air Space... Then Hushed up, only reported when firmly questioned. By that time it would have exited and continued its flight. North... Close but no prize, it went west to Diego Garcia, only the "exceptional" ones could pull this off! You sound very sure on that. Would you mind sharing your own personal research that led you to that conclusion? And by research I don't mean other people's YouTube vids or theories copy and pasted from conspiracy websites. I want actual facts that you have uncovered by yourself to draw this conclusion. Who stands to gain? That's it? That's all you got? Somebody, the way you see it, "stands to gain"? Sheesh. ROFL. Now there's scientific method for ya'! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fasteddie Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 If flight MH370 did indeed follow the path suggested by Imarat's Satellite data. Then just as Malaysian Military monitored the flight making U-Turn and its flight Back Across the Malaysian peninsula... Why has there been no comment from Singapore or Indonesian Military... Remember this was an unknown object entering their Airspace... MH370 was monitored by Malaysian Military Radar after it officially went silent to other sources. So it was 100% Detectable here (If it was indeed on this path...) Same with Thailand, was first an object being Monitored reported then dismissed. There has been complete silence by all Military involved in War Games in Thailand that were being conducted at this very time. Ships, Air Bases and Aircraft would have 100% Visibility at this time. Why the Silence?For one, I believe Aircraft was never in Singapore's or Indonesian Air Space, or if contacted... no answer it would have been shot down. It was referenced in Thai Air Space... Then Hushed up, only reported when firmly questioned. By that time it would have exited and continued its flight. North... Close but no prize, it went west to Diego Garcia, only the "exceptional" ones could pull this off! You sound very sure on that. Would you mind sharing your own personal research that led you to that conclusion?And by research I don't mean other people's YouTube vids or theories copy and pasted from conspiracy websites. I want actual facts that you have uncovered by yourself to draw this conclusion. Who stands to gain? That's it? That's all you got? Somebody, the way you see it, "stands to gain"? Sheesh. ROFL. Now there's scientific method for ya'! There's lot's more on the web, if you're too lazy to look up to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawker9000 Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 If flight MH370 did indeed follow the path suggested by Imarat's Satellite data. Then just as Malaysian Military monitored the flight making U-Turn and its flight Back Across the Malaysian peninsula... Why has there been no comment from Singapore or Indonesian Military... Remember this was an unknown object entering their Airspace... MH370 was monitored by Malaysian Military Radar after it officially went silent to other sources. So it was 100% Detectable here (If it was indeed on this path...) Same with Thailand, was first an object being Monitored reported then dismissed. There has been complete silence by all Military involved in War Games in Thailand that were being conducted at this very time. Ships, Air Bases and Aircraft would have 100% Visibility at this time. Why the Silence? For one, I believe Aircraft was never in Singapore's or Indonesian Air Space, or if contacted... no answer it would have been shot down. It was referenced in Thai Air Space... Then Hushed up, only reported when firmly questioned. By that time it would have exited and continued its flight. North... Close but no prize, it went west to Diego Garcia, only the "exceptional" ones could pull this off! You sound very sure on that. Would you mind sharing your own personal research that led you to that conclusion? And by research I don't mean other people's YouTube vids or theories copy and pasted from conspiracy websites. I want actual facts that you have uncovered by yourself to draw this conclusion. Who stands to gain? That's it? That's all you got? Somebody, the way you see it, "stands to gain"? Sheesh. ROFL. Now there's scientific method for ya'! There's lot's more on the web, if you're too lazy to look up to you. You mean like this: http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/9-weirdest-conspiracy-theory-websites-planet-si-title/ I'm particularly entertained by this one: http://www.nibiruancouncil.com/ (It's great! Check it out.) STILL ROFL... Yeap. Plenty of entertainment on the Internet. That's for sure. Plenty of misinformation, too. You know. There's "laziness", and then there's "laziness of intellect". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KunMatt Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 If flight MH370 did indeed follow the path suggested by Imarat's Satellite data. Then just as Malaysian Military monitored the flight making U-Turn and its flight Back Across the Malaysian peninsula... Why has there been no comment from Singapore or Indonesian Military... Remember this was an unknown object entering their Airspace... MH370 was monitored by Malaysian Military Radar after it officially went silent to other sources. So it was 100% Detectable here (If it was indeed on this path...) Same with Thailand, was first an object being Monitored reported then dismissed. There has been complete silence by all Military involved in War Games in Thailand that were being conducted at this very time. Ships, Air Bases and Aircraft would have 100% Visibility at this time. Why the Silence? For one, I believe Aircraft was never in Singapore's or Indonesian Air Space, or if contacted... no answer it would have been shot down. It was referenced in Thai Air Space... Then Hushed up, only reported when firmly questioned. By that time it would have exited and continued its flight. North... Close but no prize, it went west to Diego Garcia, only the "exceptional" ones could pull this off! You sound very sure on that. Would you mind sharing your own personal research that led you to that conclusion? And by research I don't mean other people's YouTube vids or theories copy and pasted from conspiracy websites. I want actual facts that you have uncovered by yourself to draw this conclusion. Who stands to gain? LOL!! You did exactly what I asked you not to do. I asked you not to just regurgitate silly guesses that internet conspiracy theorists already made up. I asked you for your own original interpretation and all you have is a YouTube video that somebody else made. You are just proving the the level of individual thought that conspiracy theorists have and, as such, exactly why they are so popular and gain so much momentum. What I am saying is that you are just a bland sheep in a huge herd of sheep which cannot think for themselves so all you do is follow the popular opinions of others. And I cannot say for sure that the plane isn't at Diego Garcia, that's why conspiracy theories work, but what I can say for sure is that you definitely cannot state for a fact what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeOboe57 Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 http://mh370.mot.gov.my/download/InterimStatement.pdff http://mh370.mot.gov.my/download/FactualInformation.pdf The handling of MH370 by KL ATC is interesting to say the least. INCERFA, which should have been initiated 3 min after an unsuccessful attempt at radio contact had been made (ALERFA 30 mins after that and DETRESFA a further 30 mins later) was never initiated, neither was ALERFA. DETRESFA was initiated a whopping 4 hours and 13 mins after the last radio contact with MH370, and it took a further 1 hr and 2 mins until it was properly disseminated. This means that until that time no ATC unit, apart from those directly involved in handling of MH370, were aware of this incident and consequently did not look for any suspicious primary radar echoes on their scopes. During those long hours KL ATC was happily accepting nonsense messages from MAS (Malaysian Airlines) OPS that the aircraft was "somewhere over Cambodia", or "east of Vietnam", until MAS OPS finally (two hrs after MH370 went off radar) admitted that their "flight tracker" was not giving out actual position information but merely estimates based on "flight projection". Even then nothing happened apart from phone calls to the ATC units further down the flight route of MH370, Hainan, Hongkong and Beijing, as the correct statement by MAS OPS that the plane was still airborne, lead ATC to believe that MH370 was somehow flying silently and undetected to its filed destination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinx Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 http://mh370.mot.gov.my/download/InterimStatement.pdff http://mh370.mot.gov.my/download/FactualInformation.pdf The handling of MH370 by KL ATC is interesting to say the least. INCERFA, which should have been initiated 3 min after an unsuccessful attempt at radio contact had been made (ALERFA 30 mins after that and DETRESFA a further 30 mins later) was never initiated, neither was ALERFA. DETRESFA was initiated a whopping 4 hours and 13 mins after the last radio contact with MH370, and it took a further 1 hr and 2 mins until it was properly disseminated. This means that until that time no ATC unit, apart from those directly involved in handling of MH370, were aware of this incident and consequently did not look for any suspicious primary radar echoes on their scopes. During those long hours KL ATC was happily accepting nonsense messages from MAS (Malaysian Airlines) OPS that the aircraft was "somewhere over Cambodia", or "east of Vietnam", until MAS OPS finally (two hrs after MH370 went off radar) admitted that their "flight tracker" was not giving out actual position information but merely estimates based on "flight projection". Even then nothing happened apart from phone calls to the ATC units further down the flight route of MH370, Hainan, Hongkong and Beijing, as the correct statement by MAS OPS that the plane was still airborne, lead ATC to believe that MH370 was somehow flying silently and undetected to its filed destination. This was discussed at length shortly after the event, but no reports have surfaced regarding an in-depth analysis of ATC's performance. One is tempted to think that if the pilots are squeaking into a drivers seat with minimum qualifications and experience, the same possibly applies to ATC controllers, thereby creating a situation which could best be described as chaos in the playground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidstipek Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) You sound very sure on that. Would you mind sharing your own personal research that led you to that conclusion? And by research I don't mean other people's YouTube vids or theories copy and pasted from conspiracy websites. I want actual facts that you have uncovered by yourself to draw this conclusion. ANSWER! Hawker9000 What are you talking about? Answer? I have yet to answer you until now! What I have suggested is same as we did in 1967 and 1968 from Thailand. We had 2 aircraft confirmed down. Had beacon reading coralating a point in Gulf of Thailand. Yet when search and rescue where at point of so called radio signal... There was nothing! Period... Nothing to show us anything that an F100D in both cases had impacked the water. The first time it happened we took a long time to figure out an answer. But Senior Airmen in both Ground Control and Radio Opts drew a graph, imbedded it on a Map of the entire area. Starting with a Horizontal line of first and last signature of aircafts last know position and where beacon signal was showing us on our Monitors. We measured distance from both to Ground stations east and west of signal and drew an arc. Also lined up beacon location and last know radar signature. Knowing we were possibly dealing with both North and South Magnetic fields, possibly reversed our reception, took a chance and went north of where last signature was.... We had Pilot on Tarmak within the hour! Don't know why or how... but it happened! The second time we sent choppers to both areas! Same result! Aircraft was located North of actual beacon reading on Monitor. This time Pioplot was returned to Base within 1 hr and 55 minutes after being shot down, but this time pilot was injured, not life threating. This is all I can disclose as actual physical proof is in Tac Squadrons (27th fighter wings) sealed records. I can tell you personally what happened... I was there! This is the best proof I can submit, this is the only answer I have provided you with so whatever in previous Email you are referring to... your wrong! Wasn't me! This is why I suggested using same data and look North, we have both arc's but at the moment there seems to be an air of.... Either scared to or a Mindset that it cannot be! After a year with no results... Can it hurt anything? Only prove we are doing everything possible to solve and bring an end to this issue. No one is saying Right or Wrong, but can you say after this that it's not possible? You asked for proof, which I submitted after checking how much disclosure I could produce. Did so as asked! Edited March 9, 2015 by davidstipek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinx Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 IIRC the satellite plots had arcs showing areas of possible location in south indian ocean and somewhere north of kashmir. You'll find it in here somewhere or maybe in pprune's threads on the same topic. It's very normal to have mirrored areas indicated when interpolating signal reception, it's the nature of the beast and known to old hands. Maybe there were compelling reasons to not look in central Asia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Christmas13 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 In to days news http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/mh370-disappearance-towelette-that-washed-up-on-wa-beach-being-tested-for-connection-to-missing-malaysia-airlines-plane/story-fnizu68q-1227256227487 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawker9000 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) You sound very sure on that. Would you mind sharing your own personal research that led you to that conclusion? And by research I don't mean other people's YouTube vids or theories copy and pasted from conspiracy websites. I want actual facts that you have uncovered by yourself to draw this conclusion. ANSWER! Hawker9000 What are you talking about? Answer? I have yet to answer you until now! What I have suggested is same as we did in 1967 and 1968 from Thailand. We had 2 aircraft confirmed down. Had beacon reading coralating a point in Gulf of Thailand. Yet when search and rescue where at point of so called radio signal... There was nothing! Period... Nothing to show us anything that an F100D in both cases had impacked the water. The first time it happened we took a long time to figure out an answer. But Senior Airmen in both Ground Control and Radio Opts drew a graph, imbedded it on a Map of the entire area. Starting with a Horizontal line of first and last signature of aircafts last know position and where beacon signal was showing us on our Monitors. We measured distance from both to Ground stations east and west of signal and drew an arc. Also lined up beacon location and last know radar signature. Knowing we were possibly dealing with both North and South Magnetic fields, possibly reversed our reception, took a chance and went north of where last signature was.... We had Pilot on Tarmak within the hour! Don't know why or how... but it happened! The second time we sent choppers to both areas! Same result! Aircraft was located North of actual beacon reading on Monitor. This time Pioplot was returned to Base within 1 hr and 55 minutes after being shot down, but this time pilot was injured, not life threating. This is all I can disclose as actual physical proof is in Tac Squadrons (27th fighter wings) sealed records. I can tell you personally what happened... I was there! This is the best proof I can submit, this is the only answer I have provided you with so whatever in previous Email you are referring to... your wrong! Wasn't me! This is why I suggested using same data and look North, we have both arc's but at the moment there seems to be an air of.... Either scared to or a Mindset that it cannot be! After a year with no results... Can it hurt anything? Only prove we are doing everything possible to solve and bring an end to this issue. No one is saying Right or Wrong, but can you say after this that it's not possible? You asked for proof, which I submitted after checking how much disclosure I could produce. Did so as asked! What the HECK are you jabbering about? 'Got me mixed up with somebody else ? Fasteddie KunMatt perhaps? Edited March 10, 2015 by hawker9000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinx Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 For anyone with serious interest in the search parameters ... Focussed on the southern tracks,,, http://www.airtrafficmanagement.net/2014/06/mh370-what-does-inmarsat-ping-data-reveal/ Full circle plots... http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/350 This map shows both arcs with intersects north and south http://i.stack.imgur.com/rzLFT.jpg from this article... http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/2472/computer-model-yields-two-possible-flight-paths-of-mh370-in-south-indian-ocean So there is plenty of information out there without wild speculation -- which only adds to the general confusion and weighs heavily on the bereaved families. I'd be happy if the mods closed this thread. If some new information comes up a new thread can easily be started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I'd be happy if the mods closed this thread. If some new information comes up a new thread can easily be started. Have you considered just not opening it if there are no new posts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinx Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I'd be happy if the mods closed this thread. If some new information comes up a new thread can easily be started. Have you considered just not opening it if there are no new posts? I take your point, yes - but there were, so I looked. By default I log in to my version of ... http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=user_activity&mid=98759 and the daily news digest, so I only see what's new -- otherwise I'd be reading the screen all day I'd see a new thread started about MH370 in the news digest. I think of the families googling for news and coming across some of what can at best be described as wild rumours, at worst mischevious speculation. Anyone who has first hand experience of losing a loved one in mysterious circumstances will understand the anguish of not knowing and the temptation to hope. The ocean search seems to have gleaned a lot of colateral information, but nothing definitive of any objects looking like a fuselage. Look at how difficult is was for them to find the Air Asia aircraft when they had a much smaller area of relatively shallow sea. As an aside, the powers-that-be need to pull their socks up regarding the tracking of longhaul aircraft, and at the same time improve the technology that will aid a quick outcome to surface or undersea searches. If technology can put a robot on Mars one is left wondering about the human values placed on the normal people going about their lives. It seems to take significant damage for humanity to learn anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawker9000 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Yeah, I guess if they can read everyone's email (and that's a lot of email...), and are getting ready to keep track of everyone's car, refrigerator and toaster, then doing the same for commercial air shouldn't be too much to ask. The thing is though, such a system would have to be hardened against the possibility of it being intentionally disabled, even by possibly knowledgeable hijackers (which seems pretty much the reason for needing it in the first place). So it's a little more than just a new black box... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinx Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Yeah, I guess if they can read everyone's email (and that's a lot of email...), and are getting ready to keep track of everyone's car, refrigerator and toaster, then doing the same for commercial air shouldn't be too much to ask. The thing is though, such a system would have to be hardened against the possibility of it being intentionally disabled, even by possibly knowledgeable hijackers (which seems pretty much the reason for needing it in the first place). So it's a little more than just a new black box... Whilst it's desirable, it is unrealistic to expect one little black box to fix everything. For the avoidance of spoofing, multiple sources of data are needed. For the avoidance of sabotage, at least one of the transponders should be fitted to the outer skin of the aircraft and charged through the skin by induction. If they glued a battery-powered gps to the tail ran it on replaceable batteries it'd work, it wouldn't be very elegant, but it'd be a whole lot better than what we have now ----- nothing!!! Needless to say the safety beaurocrats will load up the hardware with a pile of unnecessary requirements and make sure they all get a bonus for being clever and another paragraph on their CV. You only get this cynical after 25 years in public transport of *any* kind......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Yeah, I guess if they can read everyone's email (and that's a lot of email...), and are getting ready to keep track of everyone's car, refrigerator and toaster, then doing the same for commercial air shouldn't be too much to ask. The thing is though, such a system would have to be hardened against the possibility of it being intentionally disabled, even by possibly knowledgeable hijackers (which seems pretty much the reason for needing it in the first place). So it's a little more than just a new black box... I don't think it needs that much reengineering. You only need something that squawks an ident and a GPS location every 15 seconds - And an emergency call before it can switch off so that civilian and military aircraft and ATC can be alerted if an aircraft goes unintentionally dark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinx Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Yeah, I guess if they can read everyone's email (and that's a lot of email...), and are getting ready to keep track of everyone's car, refrigerator and toaster, then doing the same for commercial air shouldn't be too much to ask. The thing is though, such a system would have to be hardened against the possibility of it being intentionally disabled, even by possibly knowledgeable hijackers (which seems pretty much the reason for needing it in the first place). So it's a little more than just a new black box... I don't think it needs that much reengineering. You only need something that squawks an ident and a GPS location every 15 seconds - And an emergency call before it can switch off so that civilian and military aircraft and ATC can be alerted if an aircraft goes unintentionally dark. 150 euros to buy, same again per years service, probably a thousand times that to get the beaurocrats to issue a meaningless bit of paper to "legalise" it. http://www.findmespot.eu/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=5&products_id=31&zenid=onm4pcjgo72d10p3o0e39vivi0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grouse Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 I understand that the CVR and the FDR can not be "switched off" by flight crew in any straight forward manner. However, they can easily erase the last 30 mins recording! Extraordinary! Therefore, I no longer subscribe to my previously held view that captain should be able to turnoff anything! Some kind of device emitting just ID and GPS with battery backup in a hard enclosure should be no problem. I recall Inmarsat offered a solution at the time for peanuts. ( comments relate to Airbus A321/20/19 only) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinx Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 I understand that the CVR and the FDR can not be "switched off" by flight crew in any straight forward manner. However, they can easily erase the last 30 mins recording! Extraordinary! Therefore, I no longer subscribe to my previously held view that captain should be able to turnoff anything! Some kind of device emitting just ID and GPS with battery backup in a hard enclosure should be no problem. I recall Inmarsat offered a solution at the time for peanuts. ( comments relate to Airbus A321/20/19 only) They did - but the airlines didn't want it for various vague reasons -- like cost, commercial confidentiality, etc.... No thought that the costs of the current one year search would have fitted every aircraft with a gold-plated sooper-dooper version, transmitting the CVR live maybe -- that'd tune up the crews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawker9000 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I understand that the CVR and the FDR can not be "switched off" by flight crew in any straight forward manner. However, they can easily erase the last 30 mins recording! Extraordinary! Therefore, I no longer subscribe to my previously held view that captain should be able to turnoff anything! Some kind of device emitting just ID and GPS with battery backup in a hard enclosure should be no problem. I recall Inmarsat offered a solution at the time for peanuts. ( comments relate to Airbus A321/20/19 only) They did - but the airlines didn't want it for various vague reasons -- like cost, commercial confidentiality, etc.... No thought that the costs of the current one year search would have fitted every aircraft with a gold-plated sooper-dooper version, transmitting the CVR live maybe -- that'd tune up the crews 'Can't imagine the pilots' unions would be too crazy about CVRs fitted out to transmit live cockpit voice continuously. Encode or encrypt it however you will: sooner or later the whole world will be listening in. It might "tune up" the crews; then again, it might tend to stifle useful and desirable crew intercommunications. Something that simply continuously records aircraft position (along with a few other parameters perhaps) somewhere OFFboard, that can't be secured or easily jammed and isn't tied to the aircraft electrical systems, sounds more like what the doctor ordered. But I agree with others that by the time government bureaucracies and corporate wiz kids get done with the concept, it (regardless of how simple & inexpensive it could be) will add significantly to the cost of a ticket. WRT the big picture, I'm really not sure that some new gadget like this is a robust answer to malicious intent in the air, hijacking, and intentional destruction of an aircraft. It's going to be extremely difficult to keep the technical details of a system deployed on every commercial aircraft away from those in today's underworld with the determination & resources to defeat it. But if you're among those who maintain this incident was the result of pure system failure, then I guess it might be though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinx Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Indeed the changes will be resisted for all the wrong reasons, but it'll happen eventually - just as every passanger on a bus can hear what he's saying on his mobile phone while driving !!!! Malicious intent from within the passenger decks has not been a "success" story, nearly all the incidents of malicious damage have been in the baggage compartment, so that's an area to focus on. Screening certainly slows down the processing of bags, but it doesn't seem to actually be very efficient. Dogs appear to do very well. There's not been conclusive evidence of malicious intent in any of the crew as yet. That would be a job for better screening f employees. Nothing is fool-proof .. more people die crossing the road each year than in aircraft crashes, but the publicity machine glamorises the carnage rather than the mundane. We already have online tracking of flights available to the public and it is not inconceivable that a gradual upgrade of that system would go a long way to helping. The concept of a battery powered, external transponder is the way forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawker9000 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Indeed the changes will be resisted for all the wrong reasons, but it'll happen eventually - just as every passanger on a bus can hear what he's saying on his mobile phone while driving !!!! Malicious intent from within the passenger decks has not been a "success" story, nearly all the incidents of malicious damage have been in the baggage compartment, so that's an area to focus on. Screening certainly slows down the processing of bags, but it doesn't seem to actually be very efficient. Dogs appear to do very well. There's not been conclusive evidence of malicious intent in any of the crew as yet. That would be a job for better screening f employees. Nothing is fool-proof .. more people die crossing the road each year than in aircraft crashes, but the publicity machine glamorises the carnage rather than the mundane. We already have online tracking of flights available to the public and it is not inconceivable that a gradual upgrade of that system would go a long way to helping. The concept of a battery powered, external transponder is the way forward. Not sure, but don't think the "online tracking" is actually based on position reporting or observations, or anything really besides takeoff times and computed dead reckoning. (Just guessing about that; correct me if I'm wrong.) Transponders respond to an external trigger or interrogation of some sort. So the idea of an external transponder consists of more than just a bolt-on black box. There has to be a global ground-based infrastructure to interrogate it and record the response, from every commercial flight, 24-7, including (especially including) over remote areas & open-ocean (where HF and verbal comms are used for position reporting, instead of the onboard transponder and ground-based surveillance now). I realize satellite technology could be used, but satellites have coverage "footprints", so you'd actually need several of them performing the interrogations and relaying the replies continuously to ground stations, at least where the air routes are outside ground-based coverage. 'Doesn't sound undoable by any means, but does sound potentially expensive, esp. if hardened against "malicious actors with resources". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinx Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Indeed the changes will be resisted for all the wrong reasons, but it'll happen eventually - just as every passanger on a bus can hear what he's saying on his mobile phone while driving !!!! Malicious intent from within the passenger decks has not been a "success" story, nearly all the incidents of malicious damage have been in the baggage compartment, so that's an area to focus on. Screening certainly slows down the processing of bags, but it doesn't seem to actually be very efficient. Dogs appear to do very well. There's not been conclusive evidence of malicious intent in any of the crew as yet. That would be a job for better screening f employees. Nothing is fool-proof .. more people die crossing the road each year than in aircraft crashes, but the publicity machine glamorises the carnage rather than the mundane. We already have online tracking of flights available to the public and it is not inconceivable that a gradual upgrade of that system would go a long way to helping. The concept of a battery powered, external transponder is the way forward. Not sure, but don't think the "online tracking" is actually based on position reporting or observations, or anything really besides takeoff times and computed dead reckoning. (Just guessing about that; correct me if I'm wrong.) Transponders respond to an external trigger or interrogation of some sort. So the idea of an external transponder consists of more than just a bolt-on black box. There has to be a global ground-based infrastructure to interrogate it and record the response, from every commercial flight, 24-7, including (especially including) over remote areas & open-ocean (where HF and verbal comms are used for position reporting, instead of the onboard transponder and ground-based surveillance now). I realize satellite technology could be used, but satellites have coverage "footprints", so you'd actually need several of them performing the interrogations and relaying the replies continuously to ground stations, at least where the air routes are outside ground-based coverage. 'Doesn't sound undoable by any means, but does sound potentially expensive, esp. if hardened against "malicious actors with resources". You need to read how that in-flight tracking systems work -- not guess. Transponders are not the only spanner in the box .. I posted earlier about spot tracking devices based on Globestar satellites. Also - inmarsat have already got engine reporting working, so it's not a huge leap for that to be extended -- as Inmarsat have already offered to do at a minimum cost. There's lots of other factors at play here - safety is not always the priority in commercial organisations run by bean-counters. It's up to a body like ICAO to force the changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawker9000 Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Indeed the changes will be resisted for all the wrong reasons, but it'll happen eventually - just as every passanger on a bus can hear what he's saying on his mobile phone while driving !!!! Malicious intent from within the passenger decks has not been a "success" story, nearly all the incidents of malicious damage have been in the baggage compartment, so that's an area to focus on. Screening certainly slows down the processing of bags, but it doesn't seem to actually be very efficient. Dogs appear to do very well. There's not been conclusive evidence of malicious intent in any of the crew as yet. That would be a job for better screening f employees. Nothing is fool-proof .. more people die crossing the road each year than in aircraft crashes, but the publicity machine glamorises the carnage rather than the mundane. We already have online tracking of flights available to the public and it is not inconceivable that a gradual upgrade of that system would go a long way to helping. The concept of a battery powered, external transponder is the way forward. Not sure, but don't think the "online tracking" is actually based on position reporting or observations, or anything really besides takeoff times and computed dead reckoning. (Just guessing about that; correct me if I'm wrong.) Transponders respond to an external trigger or interrogation of some sort. So the idea of an external transponder consists of more than just a bolt-on black box. There has to be a global ground-based infrastructure to interrogate it and record the response, from every commercial flight, 24-7, including (especially including) over remote areas & open-ocean (where HF and verbal comms are used for position reporting, instead of the onboard transponder and ground-based surveillance now). I realize satellite technology could be used, but satellites have coverage "footprints", so you'd actually need several of them performing the interrogations and relaying the replies continuously to ground stations, at least where the air routes are outside ground-based coverage. 'Doesn't sound undoable by any means, but does sound potentially expensive, esp. if hardened against "malicious actors with resources". You need to read how that in-flight tracking systems work -- not guess. Transponders are not the only spanner in the box .. I posted earlier about spot tracking devices based on Globestar satellites. Also - inmarsat have already got engine reporting working, so it's not a huge leap for that to be extended -- as Inmarsat have already offered to do at a minimum cost. There's lots of other factors at play here - safety is not always the priority in commercial organisations run by bean-counters. It's up to a body like ICAO to force the changes. YOU need to know I tried but couldn't find the info (talking here about the tracking available to the public (your words, not mine), such as anyone can see at online websites - not tracking services available via Inmarsat & such). And so I admitted I didn't know. OK? Yes, I can spell ICAO, too, and know about engine reporting, etc. Can't you just post what you have to say without the condescending manner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinx Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Indeed the changes will be resisted for all the wrong reasons, but it'll happen eventually - just as every passanger on a bus can hear what he's saying on his mobile phone while driving !!!! Malicious intent from within the passenger decks has not been a "success" story, nearly all the incidents of malicious damage have been in the baggage compartment, so that's an area to focus on. Screening certainly slows down the processing of bags, but it doesn't seem to actually be very efficient. Dogs appear to do very well. There's not been conclusive evidence of malicious intent in any of the crew as yet. That would be a job for better screening f employees. Nothing is fool-proof .. more people die crossing the road each year than in aircraft crashes, but the publicity machine glamorises the carnage rather than the mundane. We already have online tracking of flights available to the public and it is not inconceivable that a gradual upgrade of that system would go a long way to helping. The concept of a battery powered, external transponder is the way forward. Not sure, but don't think the "online tracking" is actually based on position reporting or observations, or anything really besides takeoff times and computed dead reckoning. (Just guessing about that; correct me if I'm wrong.) Transponders respond to an external trigger or interrogation of some sort. So the idea of an external transponder consists of more than just a bolt-on black box. There has to be a global ground-based infrastructure to interrogate it and record the response, from every commercial flight, 24-7, including (especially including) over remote areas & open-ocean (where HF and verbal comms are used for position reporting, instead of the onboard transponder and ground-based surveillance now). I realize satellite technology could be used, but satellites have coverage "footprints", so you'd actually need several of them performing the interrogations and relaying the replies continuously to ground stations, at least where the air routes are outside ground-based coverage. 'Doesn't sound undoable by any means, but does sound potentially expensive, esp. if hardened against "malicious actors with resources". You need to read how that in-flight tracking systems work -- not guess. Transponders are not the only spanner in the box .. I posted earlier about spot tracking devices based on Globestar satellites. Also - inmarsat have already got engine reporting working, so it's not a huge leap for that to be extended -- as Inmarsat have already offered to do at a minimum cost. There's lots of other factors at play here - safety is not always the priority in commercial organisations run by bean-counters. It's up to a body like ICAO to force the changes. YOU need to know I tried but couldn't find the info (talking here about the tracking available to the public (your words, not mine), such as anyone can see at online websites - not tracking services available via Inmarsat & such). And so I admitted I didn't know. OK? Yes, I can spell ICAO, too, and know about engine reporting, etc. Can't you just post what you have to say without the condescending manner? Apologies for the percieved tone of my posting -- not meant to offend - just slightly amuse. Without diving back in just now to read the details of things like flighttracker, I don't think it does it all by mere projections, because you can actually see the different tracks used by the same flights on different days. After the Ukranian disaster I followed KLM's flight BKK-AMS because I was due to use it, and there were some significant changes. Indeed transponders are only as good a the ground station, but now there are satellite available to ping and relay replies to base. The Spot system bears reading up - I am seriously thinking of buying one just for me, but it'll not work inside a crashed fuselage underwater. Quite a few long-distance sailors use it all over the world. Inmasat made a very public announcement about their offer of tracking about a year ago -- just after MH370 dissappeared, but as far as I know, no airline has taken them up on it, which speaks volumes about airlines priorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawker9000 Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 (edited) Not sure, but don't think the "online tracking" is actually based on position reporting or observations, or anything really besides takeoff times and computed dead reckoning. (Just guessing about that; correct me if I'm wrong.) Transponders respond to an external trigger or interrogation of some sort. So the idea of an external transponder consists of more than just a bolt-on black box. There has to be a global ground-based infrastructure to interrogate it and record the response, from every commercial flight, 24-7, including (especially including) over remote areas & open-ocean (where HF and verbal comms are used for position reporting, instead of the onboard transponder and ground-based surveillance now). I realize satellite technology could be used, but satellites have coverage "footprints", so you'd actually need several of them performing the interrogations and relaying the replies continuously to ground stations, at least where the air routes are outside ground-based coverage. 'Doesn't sound undoable by any means, but does sound potentially expensive, esp. if hardened against "malicious actors with resources". You need to read how that in-flight tracking systems work -- not guess. Transponders are not the only spanner in the box .. I posted earlier about spot tracking devices based on Globestar satellites. Also - inmarsat have already got engine reporting working, so it's not a huge leap for that to be extended -- as Inmarsat have already offered to do at a minimum cost. There's lots of other factors at play here - safety is not always the priority in commercial organisations run by bean-counters. It's up to a body like ICAO to force the changes. YOU need to know I tried but couldn't find the info (talking here about the tracking available to the public (your words, not mine), such as anyone can see at online websites - not tracking services available via Inmarsat & such). And so I admitted I didn't know. OK? Yes, I can spell ICAO, too, and know about engine reporting, etc. Can't you just post what you have to say without the condescending manner? Apologies for the percieved tone of my posting -- not meant to offend - just slightly amuse. Without diving back in just now to read the details of things like flighttracker, I don't think it does it all by mere projections, because you can actually see the different tracks used by the same flights on different days. After the Ukranian disaster I followed KLM's flight BKK-AMS because I was due to use it, and there were some significant changes. Indeed transponders are only as good a the ground station, but now there are satellite available to ping and relay replies to base. The Spot system bears reading up - I am seriously thinking of buying one just for me, but it'll not work inside a crashed fuselage underwater. Quite a few long-distance sailors use it all over the world. Inmasat made a very public announcement about their offer of tracking about a year ago -- just after MH370 dissappeared, but as far as I know, no airline has taken them up on it, which speaks volumes about airlines priorities. I think it's important to differentiate between flight tracking in controlled & radar surveyed airspace (for which services & databases do exist providing accurate and near real-time position reporting that can be accessed by the public via the internet), and over open ocean. I did a check on FlightAware just as an example - and noted that every mid-ocean flight report indicates 'Estimated', which I would presume means the position is extrapolated from the aircraft's last known or reported position in accordance with its filed & cleared route of flight. And, of course, MH370 is presumed to have been lost over open ocean in the IO or southern IO where there was/is no radar surveillance capability. I don't know what percentage of long-haul commercial aircraft are currently equipped with ADS C & B, but aircraft so equipped are essentially datalinked to the applicable oceanic control center, and provided the system doesn't fail for some reason, replaces the old procedure of making position reports via HF voice. I also looked up the Inmarsat offer announcement (http://www.inmarsat.com/news/inmarsat-provide-free-global-airline-tracking-service/). It states that the tracking service would be free AND that "virtually 100 per cent of the world's long-haul commercial fleet" are already "equipped with an Inmarsat satellite connection". So I don't really know what the missing link is here. Why would ICAO, or the airlines for that matter, turn down or oppose implementation of such a service if it's really free and not even requiring anything other than perhaps some programming or configuring of already installed equipment (but see below)? Where are you getting the information that this is a question of "airline priorities" rather than some devil in the details that we're just not seeing? I can tell you that new boxes aren't just bolted into aircraft, nor their functionality and configuration modified if already installed, on a simply ad hoc basis, at least not within the U.S. FAA's jurisdiction. Perhaps there's some functional overlap with planned ADS implementations (ADS becomes a reqt for some aircraft - I presume including all commercial operators - in the U.S. by 2020, in Europe by 2017. And many aren't waiting for the deadline. There were almost 5000 U.S. civil acft already equipped as of late last year, and almost half the U.S. ATCs were using it.) Or perhaps there are certification (i.e., bureaucratic) issues with national aviation agencies, such as the FAA. As usual, I think a large percentage of TV members are spun up to trash & thrash evil corporations generally, when it appears the capability in question is actually already on some sort of bureaucratic track, however nebulous that track might be when it comes to airlines like Malaysian Air and governments like Malaysia's. Edited March 15, 2015 by hawker9000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinx Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 (edited) YOU need to know I tried but couldn't find the info (talking here about the tracking available to the public (your words, not mine), such as anyone can see at online websites - not tracking services available via Inmarsat & such). And so I admitted I didn't know. OK? Yes, I can spell ICAO, too, and know about engine reporting, etc. Can't you just post what you have to say without the condescending manner? Apologies for the percieved tone of my posting -- not meant to offend - just slightly amuse. Without diving back in just now to read the details of things like flighttracker, I don't think it does it all by mere projections, because you can actually see the different tracks used by the same flights on different days. After the Ukranian disaster I followed KLM's flight BKK-AMS because I was due to use it, and there were some significant changes. Indeed transponders are only as good a the ground station, but now there are satellite available to ping and relay replies to base. The Spot system bears reading up - I am seriously thinking of buying one just for me, but it'll not work inside a crashed fuselage underwater. Quite a few long-distance sailors use it all over the world. Inmasat made a very public announcement about their offer of tracking about a year ago -- just after MH370 dissappeared, but as far as I know, no airline has taken them up on it, which speaks volumes about airlines priorities. I think it's important to differentiate between flight tracking in controlled & radar surveyed airspace (for which services & databases do exist providing accurate and near real-time position reporting that can be accessed by the public via the internet), and over open ocean. I did a check on FlightAware just as an example - and noted that every mid-ocean flight report indicates 'Estimated', which I would presume means the position is extrapolated from the aircraft's last known or reported position in accordance with its filed & cleared route of flight. And, of course, MH370 is presumed to have been lost over open ocean in the IO or southern IO where there was/is no radar surveillance capability. I don't know what percentage of long-haul commercial aircraft are currently equipped with ADS C & B, but aircraft so equipped are essentially datalinked to the applicable oceanic control center, and provided the system doesn't fail for some reason, replaces the old procedure of making position reports via HF voice. I also looked up the Inmarsat offer announcement (http://www.inmarsat.com/news/inmarsat-provide-free-global-airline-tracking-service/). It states that the tracking service would be free AND that "virtually 100 per cent of the world's long-haul commercial fleet" are already "equipped with an Inmarsat satellite connection". So I don't really know what the missing link is here. Why would ICAO, or the airlines for that matter, turn down or oppose implementation of such a service if it's really free and not even requiring anything other than perhaps some programming or configuring of already installed equipment (but see below)? Where are you getting the information that this is a question of "airline priorities" rather than some devil in the details that we're just not seeing? I can tell you that new boxes aren't just bolted into aircraft, nor their functionality and configuration modified if already installed, on a simply ad hoc basis, at least not within the U.S. FAA's jurisdiction. Perhaps there's some functional overlap with planned ADS implementations (ADS becomes a reqt for some aircraft - I presume including all commercial operators - in the U.S. by 2020, in Europe by 2017. And many aren't waiting for the deadline. There were almost 5000 U.S. civil acft already equipped as of late last year, and almost half the U.S. ATCs were using it.) Or perhaps there are certification (i.e., bureaucratic) issues with national aviation agencies, such as the FAA. As usual, I think a large percentage of TV members are spun up to trash & thrash evil corporations generally, when it appears the capability in question is actually already on some sort of bureaucratic track, however nebulous that track might be when it comes to airlines like Malaysian Air and governments like Malaysia's. From my own experience of compulsory fitment of kit for the sake of safety, I can only comment that the engineers take ten minutes to do the job that the technocrats and beaurocrats take ten days to write up. That was for a simple need to fit radio altimeters on helicopters operating off-shore. They left gaping loopholes in the specification of basics such as the meaning of "offshore" --- meaning that one could parallel the coast all day within 3 miles without the radio altimeter. I know this was fixed later, but it is a good example of the collective ineptitude of the "suits". From 25 years in commercial aviation the resulting cynicism clouds my thinking somewhat. The inmarsat offer has not been taken up by anyone afaik, and no airline or international aviation body or national regulatory body has made any noises that indicate the service will be implemented. My posit is simply this -- Why not? Adjusting a box which is already installed on an aircraft is not a major modification unless inmarsat are blowing smoke, but no-one has come out and said that - afaik. I revert to blaming the "suits" on a basis of elimination. No-one stands to lose by using taking up Inmarsat's offer other than the suits who might be protecting the market for up-coming technical improvements -- but those are years away. How many more MH370/AirAsia/Ukrainan disasters will we have in the meantime? I'm not scare-mongering - just stating fact. I want to know who's blocking this so the the families of the victims can sue the asses off them for past and future losses and damages. I have first hand experience of the beaurocrats who defer an immediate solution to some safety requirement to protect their pet projected "solution". There's a lot of lobbying by the various companies supplying the kit and the rewards are not just an invitation to the Christmas Party Having the solution on "some sort of nebulous track" will not cut it as defence in a court when the class action is heard. Edited March 15, 2015 by jpinx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts