Missing Malaysia Airlines jet carrying 239 triggers Southeast Asia search

[F430murci]

"Typical, make it personal and completey ignore the current technological limitations and pratical application issues which was the gravaman of what I was discussing. Some are so close minded and entrenched in "theories" or a desire to be angry and cast asperssions that they are imcapable of viewing anything objectively.

That a technology is in the works does not mean it is ready for implementation. By all means, don't fly if you believe flying is not safe because of current black box technology.

Airline travel is safe, but there are always people that find reasons to complain no matter what . . ."

Inmarsat said pinging a GPS location would cost $10 a flight. That is peanuts frankly, and if you think that would put any airline out of business, then they probably shouldn't be in it.

The airline industry always has to be forced to spend money on safety, they do not care about humans, just $$$$$$$$

Sent from my Lenovo S960 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Talking about black box data recording. Go back and read what I wrote several pages back. The bandwidth for up linking is not there for black box telemntary so a pilot would have to engage the system when an emergency arises for data uplinking. Fat chance when something happened suddenly. Air France and researcher I believe we're looking into have certain in fliggt events switch on system. Hardware costs is at least $100k. Not sure about $10 a flight for data uplink. I am sure someone would charge as much as they could.

Edited March 29, 2014 by F430murci

[Chicog]

A GPS location would have saved three weeks of fruitless searching.

Sent from my Lenovo S960 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[GentlemanJim]

A GPS location would have saved three weeks of fruitless searching.

Sent from my Lenovo S960 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Agreed, but you cannot legislate for everything, and if you try to, you do run out of money. Lets say that we had your GPS location device/tracker installed in MH370. IF (and that is in capitals) some of the wilder theories out there hold any ground, (and at the moment to be honest the espionage/inter-government/little green men carry equal weight as anything else because in truth we are stumped and know very little), then your GPS device would have been disabled, the satellite would suddenly have had a 'malfunction' or something. You get the idea.

Aviation is incredibly safe and despite the countless millions of flights each year we try and account for everything and then suddenly something leaps out that we have not seen before. I like you have a PhD in Hindsight, but it really does not help at the moment. In order to prevent this happening again we truly need to understand what happened in the first place. When we understand it, I guarantee protocols will be put in place and mandatory requirements stipulated to reduce the chance of this farce we are now observing ever happening again.

[ExpatOilWorker]

I have said it before, and will say it again. No floating wreckage will be found in the massive Indian Ocean search....

Ohhh and so wrong you will be.

[Chicog]

It's not hindsight we are supposed to learn from incidents and take steps to prevent their recurrence. Why does a GPS have to be switched off at all?

Sent from my Lenovo S960 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Bonno1971]

Okay I am no expert here but would an unidentified aircraft flying in this area appear on Australian civilian or military radar? It is hard to believe an aircraft of this size could have been undetected.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[Bonno1971]

Surely the Australian military would know of something as big as a 777 flying 1700 - 1800 km off of the coast of Australia with over the horizon radar and such.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[GentlemanJim]

It's not hindsight we are supposed to learn from incidents and take steps to prevent their recurrence. Why does a GPS have to be switched off at all?

Sent from my Lenovo S960 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

That's hindsight

The GPS does not need to be switched off, what I am saying is that if this incident is an elaborate plot of espionage/theft/or any other wild conspiracy type scenario, then the perpetrators would have switched off or disabled any GPS or tracking device, so legislating just for that is no good to the aviation industry. We need to KNOW what happened. When we do procedures and / or changes will be brought in to help prevent a recurrence.

[F430murci]

It's not hindsight we are supposed to learn from incidents and take steps to prevent their recurrence. Why does a GPS have to be switched off at all?

Sent from my Lenovo S960 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Your mixing concepts. I waa speaking of black box data tracking and that is what you responded to.

Regarding aircraft tracking, GPS are already used for navigation. GPS are subject to jamming or spoofing if fails when trying to use for external tracking. Better technology would perhaps be ADSB.

Problem is you are mixing concepts and don't really have a complete grasp on any single concept so perhaps not fair to criticize that which you don't fully understand.

[Tywais]

Surely the Australian military would know of something as big as a 777 flying 1700 - 1800 km off of the coast of Australia with over the horizon radar and such.

These are some reports regarding the JORN over the horizon radar.

Asked whether Australia had picked up any signals consistent with the aircraft on its Jindalee Operational Radar Network, which covers large swathes of the southern Indian Ocean, Leonie Kolmar, a spokeswoman for the Australian Defence Department, said the department “won’t be providing comment” on the military surveillance system.

Even if the aircraft flew within the range of Australia’s JORN radar system, it’s possible that it wouldn’t have been picked up, according to Andrew Davies, a senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, a government-funded think tank.

The range the radar reaches “depends on the state of the ionosphere,” the atmospheric layer that long-range radar systems use to help detect objects beyond the horizon, he said. The early morning hours when the aircraft may have passed within range “is a difficult time” for such systems, he said. “The atmosphere is starting to warm up and the ionosphere is a bit turbulent.”

In addition, the technology is designed to detect objects moving towards Australia. “Things that are moving towards or away from the radar are much easier to detect than things that are moving sideways” as the Malaysian Air plane appears to have traveled, he said.

Source - Bloomberg

And another article:

Australia has a military over-the-horizon radar (OTHR) network, which allows it to observe all air and sea activity north and northwest of Australia for up to 3,000 km (1,860 miles).

However, the Jindalee Operational Radar Network (JORN), which has radar capability extending into the Indian Ocean, does not operate on a 24-hour basis, according to Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) documents.

JORN is used primarily to provide defence surveillance of Australia's northern approaches but does not continually "sweep" an area like conventional radars. Instead, it "dwells" on a selected area.

Reuters

[Bonno1971]

Tywais thanks for that. As I said I'm no expert and your post helps to explain that for me. Thanks again. Kind regards, Chris

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[Bonno1971]

Obviously if you want to do something a little bit naughty that is the trick, fly parallel with Australia in the early hours of the morning and you won't be detected. A little bit of a worry.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[Chicog]

It's not hindsight we are supposed to learn from incidents and take steps to prevent their recurrence. Why does a GPS have to be switched off at all?

Sent from my Lenovo S960 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Your mixing concepts. I waa speaking of black box data tracking and that is what you responded to.

Regarding aircraft tracking, GPS are already used for navigation. GPS are subject to jamming or spoofing if fails when trying to use for external tracking. Better technology would perhaps be ADSB.

Problem is you are mixing concepts and don't really have a complete grasp on any single concept so perhaps not fair to criticize that which you don't fully understand.

Don't be so full of yourself. I agree that streaming FDR data is probably too pricey and I have not talked about it if you read properly.

GPS tracking (that can't be turned off) was a sensible idea after AF447, and it's a sensible idea now. Why are you so opposed to it other than you portraying yourself as the forum know-all?

Sent from my Lenovo S960 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[GentlemanJim]

Chicog

You are being very aggressive and there is no call for it. If you want dialogue with others how about a bit of courtesy at least if you can't manage respect.

[Chicog]

Chicog

You are being very aggressive and there is no call for it. If you want dialogue with others how about a bit of courtesy at least if you can't manage respect.

Oh you poor dear.

Sent from my Lenovo S960 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[GentlemanJim]

Haha, I see what they are saying and whoa is that expensive. It would costs about $10 per flight to set up the infrastructure.

37.5 mil flights in 2012 = $ 375,000,000 gor one year, but they don't say how many years of 375 mil it would take to pay for infrastructure or facility. Would it take 10 years, 20 years or how long to recoup costs for infrastructure.

No wonder they are lobbying for it and I am sure they are going to tack on other charges for use of the system as the $10 per flight only covered costs of the infrastructure.

This was just a misleading way of making it sound cheap so some guillable folks would buy into.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/02/28/2012-was-the-safest-year-ever-to-travel-by-plane/

That sounds ever so slightly different doesn't it !! Sounds easy at $10 per flight. Even if you count AF as well as MH370. Tracking would not have prevented the crash but it would have cost $1 billion in the last 3 years just to provide the service to aviation. $3.7-6 Billion over the next decade I guess. Nice business opportunity for Immarsat.

[F430murci]

think you bought into something silly off the net if you think ATC could use standard GPS to externally track all commercial flights for $10 a flight.

Cars and trucks are rarely out of range of cellphone towers, which is the system they use to transmit that data to their company headquarters.

Most commercial aircraft transmit their (GPS based) position for navigational purposes real time, it's called ADS-B. The problem is not on the transmission site, but on the receiver side. The signal travels line of sight so beyond the horizon you won't receive it. Over large bodies of water there is no coverage. It would require a network of many buoys to cover all seas, this is far too expensive.

Another possibility is to put ADS-B receivers on satellites. This concept is being developed by Thales Alenia Space and Iridium (Aireon) at the moment. The first satellites will launch next year, the system is expected to be operational in 2018.

The main problem with this is that it is somewhat easy to know where the device is, it's a lot harder for the device to tell someone else where it is. Satellites are really the only option for this sort of thing, and a lot of the polar routes have pretty poor satellite coverage anyways. Also, satellite bandwidth is quite expensive.

I think Inmarsat know more than you.

Sent from my Lenovo S960 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Haha, I see what they are saying and whoa is that expensive. It would costs about $10 per flight to just to set up the infrastructure.

37.5 mil flights in 2012 = $ 375,000,000 gor one year, but they don't say how many years of 375 mil it would take to pay for infrastructure or facility. Would it take 10 years, 20 years or how long to recoup costs for infrastructure.

No wonder they are lobbying for it and I am sure they are going to tack on other charges for use of the system as the $10 per flight only covered costs of the infrastructure.

This was just a misleading way of making it sound cheap so some guillable folks would buy into.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/02/28/2012-was-the-safest-year-ever-to-travel-by-plane/

I don't think you know what you are talking about.

http://mashable.com/2014/03/19/system-found-missing-plane/

Sent from my Lenovo S960 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Jeez, your article is spin and Enquirer like reporting designed to get public worked up.

Here is what communications officer from Inmarsat said:

(BTW, "would cost" means NOT there yet so how can yo"u bash MAS for not having like your article does)

---------

Sinnatt said on Monday that such a facility would cost about $10 per flight. "It is something we have been pushing the industry to do because it significantly adds to safety," he said. Other satellite providers are also developing tracking systems.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL5N0ML4GT20140324?irpc=932

Edited March 29, 2014 by F430murci

[F430murci]

Haha, I see what they are saying and whoa is that expensive. It would costs about $10 per flight to set up the infrastructure.

37.5 mil flights in 2012 = $ 375,000,000 gor one year, but they don't say how many years of 375 mil it would take to pay for infrastructure or facility. Would it take 10 years, 20 years or how long to recoup costs for infrastructure.

No wonder they are lobbying for it and I am sure they are going to tack on other charges for use of the system as the $10 per flight only covered costs of the infrastructure.

This was just a misleading way of making it sound cheap so some guillable folks would buy into.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/02/28/2012-was-the-safest-year-ever-to-travel-by-plane/

That sounds ever so slightly different doesn't it !! Sounds easy at $10 per flight. Even if you count AF as well as MH370. Tracking would not have prevented the crash but it would have cost $1 billion in the last 3 years just to provide the service to aviation. $3.7-6 Billion over the next decade I guess. Nice business opportunity for Immarsat.

Hello, costs also does not equate what we would charge you and I am so sure all this satellite technology being launched into space would remain right on budget.

[Richard W]

Cost of one Boeing 777: $250 - $300 million

It's second hand value (asking price, at least) is somewhere between $50 and $110 million. The value may well depend on its maintenance history.

Indonesia, Malaysia and even Singapore should have radar, as basic parts of their respective national defenses. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we've heard nothing at all from those countries re; radar showing an errant flight in their vicinity. We did hear, belatedly, from Thai defense radar tracking - why not from Malaysia, Indonesia (?) where the plane is suspected of flying over, or near.

Malaysian military radar did pick it up or maintain track on it. It's not thought to have gone anywhere near Singapore after deviating from the flight plan. It is by no means certain that it flew over Sumatra.

[Carmine6]

Is this anoher day without fnding anything ? Except poor satellite images telling them to search in another place.

Sent from my SM-P601 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

No, no,

You have to look beyond that.... its not just a day of not findng anything, its another day of total silence on issues such as the fire supression canister on the Maldives beach and the "missing" cargo manifest...

In fact you could say that they're doing a great job with releasing new satelite images and Dopple / Radar calculations to keep up the public image of performing a dilligent search.

The fire bottle that washed ashore in the Maldives was quickly discarded by the folks at pprune as being from a 777. Some even thought it wasn't from an aircraft given that it has slot headed screws rather than bolts.

The spiky ball that washed up:

http://www.haveeru.com.mv/news/54178

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-417.html#post8403270

Diagram of 777 fire bottle. Note instead of 5 or 6 spikes with a mounting points at the tips, it is 4 brackets that mount to a horizontal surface.

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-418.html#post8403406

Also these comments about the use of slot headed screws versus bolts on aircraft, and other inconsistencies with what he has seen on aircraft fire bottles:

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-418.html#post8403428

WRT the object, I'd think flat blade screws haven't been used in a while in an aviation application. (Could be wrong). If it is not a fire bottle, what is it?

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-418.html#post8403464

.... More importantly, an engine or APU bottle will have at least one, (and more often two), threaded female couplers for the large-diameter piping that conducts the agent to the appropriate location when the bottle is discharged - either to a dispersal nozzle within the engine cowl, or within the APU enclosure as the case may be. There is no sign of anything like that on the item in the photograph.

Also, the item in the photos appears to be made if a thicker gauge metal than is typical of aircraft fire bottles. The flush-mounted threaded plug in one side is also unusual.

The silver cylindrical device mounted to the side of the sphere bears a superficial resemblance to the electrical firing squib used on an aircraft extinguisher, but again, there is no sign of the threaded female coupling for the discharge line, which normally connects right below the squib.

And, as you point out, the use of slotted mounting screws is not often seen in aircraft. The fire bottles I am familiar with are all mounted to the aircraft structure with bolts. ...

Then this comment which is one of the things I was thinking. How does this thing get ripped out without either some or all of the screws being ripped out or some piece of sheet metal or whatever remaining?:

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-418.html#post8403463

[Skint]

Did the plane have the capability at the passenger seat to make calls or txts? Is this a service the captain has control over?

[khaosai]

All very odd, and does it make any sense ? If the plane crashed... until yesterday we have been led to believe they got Pings for x amount of hours, now is stated the plane was going faster and may have crashed 1,100 km before.... so if it had crashed ? why were the engines still running/sending a ping ? = must have still been running at least 1 hours after possible crash

each report get more confusing...... 20 days and no one knows if the plane did crash into the sea or not.

I believe the times of the pings are not disputed - however I would like to see the details behind the past (incomplete) ping.

The arcs themselves are based on the latency (time between ping send and receive) to the actual satellite visible to the plane's antenna.

The same calculation enabled the engineers at Inmarsat to determine that the plane had crossed the equator - hence the southern arc

Boeing have looked at the available data from ACARS and other systems until the handover to Vietnamese ATC and have determined that the plane was burning fuel at a high rate during its initial flight - probably due to head wind.

Using that information to calculate the remaining fuel coupled with the remaining flight time based on the pings it has determined a shorter range.

I would say that all this is based on minimal data........

Hi,

The aircraft would have been burning more fuel during the initial part of the flight whilst it was climbing to altitude. That would be more likely than the headwind case. The winds are not that strong, even at altitude in this region at this time of the year. Another reason for higher fuel burn is due to the heavier aircraft weight during the initial part of the flight.

Today I worked out some more approximate calculations and assume the aircraft did indeed travel over Penang then head north west bound.

Fuel on board at push back 54 tons. 20 minutes of taxi fuel is 600kg. Climb to 35000ft will use approx 5 tons.

Distance from Kuala Lumpur to last know position of Igari is approx 275 miles. Fuel used from take off to position Igari approx 7 tons and time taken approx 35 mins.

So over last known position, which is waypoint Igari, the aircraft would have onboard approx 46 tons of fuel. I used 1 ton for taxi fuel.

From Igari to overhead Penang then heading West North West to a waypoint where I assumed it could then turn south bound to avoid Indonesian radar I worked out it would have travelled approx 750 nautical miles. Fuel used would be approx 12 tons and time taken approx 95 mins.

Fuel on board now 34 tons and total time airborne 130 minutes.

Now the aircraft is heading due south with 34 tons of fuel on board burning approx 120 kg of fuel per minute. Let's call it another 300 minutes airborne and a further 2400 nautical miles traveled.

Total time since departure of just over 7 hours. How does this match up with the satellite pings ?

This is based on a true airspeed of 480 knots. The winds in the region of the equator are fairly light at altitude, however they do increase the further south you travel. I would need to check the wind charts further south but I think there may be some beneficial tail winds thus increasing the distance travelled.

[RubbaJohnny]

"Typical, make it personal and completey ignore the current technological limitations and pratical application issues which was the gravaman of what I was discussing. Some are so close minded and entrenched in "theories" or a desire to be angry and cast asperssions that they are imcapable of viewing anything objectively.

That a technology is in the works does not mean it is ready for implementation. By all means, don't fly if you believe flying is not safe because of current black box technology.

Airline travel is safe, but there are always people that find reasons to complain no matter what . . ."

Inmarsat said pinging a GPS location would cost $10 a flight. That is peanuts frankly, and if you think that would put any airline out of business, then they probably shouldn't be in it.

The airline industry always has to be forced to spend money on safety, they do not care about humans, just $$$$$$$$

Sent from my Lenovo S960 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The Airline industry has internally created the safest mode of transport for Humans. Please name me any industry or corporation that is in business that runs on a profit model that is interested in Humans. Name any that put humans before the bottom line when it comes to decision making and profits. Providing a business is adhering to the law and any legal requirements of a supervisory organization, which business or industry will spend their money on the Human if law and requirement says they do not have to. Every single business shares the same mission statement - Our mission is to make money for shareholders. name me one business in particular transport that does not adhere to that principle.

I think its fair to say SRT and Thai work on special levels with pitti to make the rails so safe they show train was derailed.

Of course your substantial points are correct and Thai is more of a perk for the hisos who too tight to pay for 50 suitcases on a real airline where the wouldn't be ale to insult the staff.

In the long run cannot be good business to lose too much cargo or passengers and if it were not for freeloaders,fake governemnt and sultans of bling Malaysian would join Pan=Am TWA and Brittania down the gurgler.

I have a bad feeling about this one and while it may be an accident the handling has been appalling.While I can belive Malay air defence uselss,Thais saw it but didn't care as it was not entering/attacking their buffet space.

Hard to belive the 5 eyes didn't track it only 600 miles from OZ,while it was not a fighter jet,this surely ,correct me if I'm wrong be well under an hours flying time from Gerladton or Exmouth for a stealth bomber etc,and in easy reconnaiassance range from base Pearse.

I'm not blaming RAAF for incompetence or a cover up and would believe their proffesionalism and training to be world standard.

However they could not spot something that was never there?

Have I got all this wrong was Dago garcia unaware of sky movements in any part of the Indian Ocean,while they were unlikelt anticipating attack at Tomcat Mach 2,6 even conventional craft from rogue states ,Iran.Yemen,Somalia and Pukistan would have eede moitoring,If the range of AWCS and sigint includes those it would cover all of the MH370.

The old F16 could fly almost 1000km at low level under radar so surely RAAF would need to sweep way out towards French Island territories,McDonad,Kergeulen St Paul,Amsterdam Island to be effective?

Wiki says

For example at sea level, it can fly a little over 900 mph. At a higher ... An F-16's maximum speed "at sea level" (Flying low) is Mach 1.2 (915 mph - 1.470

Now if one of ancestors from Getaria can get all the way there by sailboat from Spain ! 5 centuries ago it seems stretching credibilty in 2014 cang yet?

The Tomcat retired in 2006 could fly their from Kl in a couple of hours and from Geraldton W Australia in 20 mins?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._4_Service_Flying_Training_School_RAAF

If they can monitor Merkels phone,The Russian Army and my emaila a jumbo don't seem ike rocket science.

If however Australia really cannot monitor potentially threatening objects 20mins offshore what a wonderful reason for amilitary boost.

The B2 Stealth Bomber flies at a maximum speedof Mach 0.95. Mach .095 translates to a speed of 604 mph.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Scott

[Carmine6]

Did the plane have the capability at the passenger seat to make calls or txts? Is this a service the captain has control over?

Here's an article on that. Basically, claims they were available in business class, and that the system was possibly shut down along with the in flight entertainment system. Gives the scenario of ill intentions, though that could also include the attempt to control an electrical fire. The Swiss Air flight that went down off the US after smoke was reported in the cabin, was believed to be due to the in flight entertainment system. No doubt any fire fighting checklists will include consideration of this.

Seemingly, if there was some catastrophic event that took out the transponder and ACARS, it may have shut down the transmission system for the phones as well. I do not think they would use the same system for the passenger phones and the engine data transmission system.

Many aircraft carry air phones using radio or satellite technology, and the Malaysia Airlines jet was equipped with them in business class. The plane continued to send satellite pings for nearly seven hours after it was apparently diverted.

But air phones these days tend to be part of an aircraft’s in-flight entertainment system. If someone deliberately diverted a plane and turned off its transponder and other communications equipment, that person is likely to have disabled the in-flight entertainment system so that passengers could not figure out from the map that they were flying in the wrong direction, said a telecommunications expert who insisted on anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the news media.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/world/asia/questions-over-absence-of-cellphone-calls-from-missing-passengers.html?_r=0

[canuckamuck]

GJ, we understand and appreciate your defense of the Captain's innocence until proven otherwise. But at the same our brains are capable of some predictive thought. If he is innocent perhaps he will be vindicated. But it is also possible, and this is becoming the primary theory, that in an act of monumental selfishness; This man who was responsible for the safety of all passengers; took judgement on planeload of paying customers, whose only choice in this was selecting the flight, and he stole everything they had and everything they would ever be. A pain multiplied upon the thousands who now mourn. and inflicted massive costs to so many affected agencies and countries.

Yes we should have restraint with accusation, but you can not stop speculation. Not when we are looking one of the worst crimes of the century. Forums are for discussion and it is through discussion and speculation that mysteries get solved. If this was an accident, very few will hold it against him.

We may never know

However the pilot may have been sick ,incapicitated by crime,illness or assailants,on-board or remote (poisoned ala Georgey Markov or radioactive drink inLondon)

While out of the cockpit the second pilot may have suffered same fate or been a aprticipant accomplice,I have no insight but feel it is premature to blame anyone yet.

As for the crime of the centrury it is egregious but 9/11 and the daily suffering inMyamanmar,and if you have been to Thailand you may recall the Tsunami with 5,000 Times more destrucution.

I understand the mystery invites speculation and theory but seems unjust to blacken anybody yet.

You just didn't read my post very well. I was saying it is possible. and looking more likely that the pilot has done this. I did not say it was fact. We can not accuse anyone at this point, although it is possible that he has done an unthinkable thing.

As for crime of the century. I said one of the worst crimes of the century, and I was not considering the daily activities of oppressive governments in that category, or natural disasters. A tsunami is not a crime, last time I checked.

The main point was that we should be free to discuss all possibilities. We have evidence enough for suspicion, but not enough to accuse.

[Scott]

A post without a link to the source has been deleted. Please follow Fair Use policy when quoting outside sources.

Please be civil to other posters.

[boomerangutang]

I have said it before, and will say it again. No floating wreckage will be found in the massive Indian Ocean search....

I don't agree. Edited March 30, 2014 by boomerangutang

[Asiantravel]

"Typical, make it personal and completey ignore the current technological limitations and pratical application issues which was the gravaman of what I was discussing. Some are so close minded and entrenched in "theories" or a desire to be angry and cast asperssions that they are imcapable of viewing anything objectively.

That a technology is in the works does not mean it is ready for implementation. By all means, don't fly if you believe flying is not safe because of current black box technology.

Airline travel is safe, but there are always people that find reasons to complain no matter what . . ."

Inmarsat said pinging a GPS location would cost $10 a flight. That is peanuts frankly, and if you think that would put any airline out of business, then they probably shouldn't be in it.

The airline industry always has to be forced to spend money on safety, they do not care about humans, just $$$$$$$$

Sent from my Lenovo S960 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The Airline industry has internally created the safest mode of transport for Humans. Please name me any industry or corporation that is in business that runs on a profit model that is interested in Humans. Name any that put humans before the bottom line when it comes to decision making and profits. Providing a business is adhering to the law and any legal requirements of a supervisory organization, which business or industry will spend their money on the Human if law and requirement says they do not have to. Every single business shares the same mission statement - Our mission is to make money for shareholders. name me one business in particular transport that does not adhere to that principle.

But it doesn't mean this kind of approach is correct or that you are correct? So is that your standard doing business? I won't do it unless I have to.

There are many businesses reconsidering their priorities. And I would have thought that any business that owns a $250 million piece of equipment would want to know all the time when it is out of sight what it is doing and where it is the welfare of the 239 customers on board.

The problem with organizations that adopt a bottom line orientation toward sustainability is that they only do those things that are visible and have a quick financial payoff. They do not go beyond them to search for practices and policies that make sustainable performance a core issue in everything the organization does. They look for cost savings and try to avoid fines, public criticism and other negative outcomes. They spread a good veneer over the organization, but they do not change the essential nature of the organization.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/edwardlawler/2012/03/15/sustainability-it-should-be-about-more-than-the-bottom-line/

[Asiantravel]

Your comments are out of order. You seem to have no idea how any business works. The aviation industry is very safe, very responsible and in some ways over regulated. Making modifications to any high tech piece of equipment like an aircraft is a VERY expensive business. This is not a case of going down to Radio Shack, getting a few components and making a new CVR or data recorder with a flash drive as the memory. All companies have to make risk management decisions and when there is no need for expenditure then they do not do it.

After the Piper Alpha oil platform disaster in which 165+ men died, people started doing risk analysis on the requirement for blast proof fire proof walls near the accommodation areas. I know one company that did this on some of their platforms and calculated that it would cost $12 Million to build these 'walls', but over a 20 year period the likely hood was that they would suffer accidents or injury resulting in personal claims against them for $7M as a result of fire or blast injury, so did they build the fire proof blast proof walls...NO. The bean counters save $5M by not building them. That is the way industry works.

Aviation is well regulated and after this incident then maybe EASA/FAA etc will recommend the development of solid state memory devices, but for you to slag off F430murci because his family did not spend money on something that is not a requirement is out of order. Why don't you mortgage yourself to the hilt and risk house, home, car, kids education etc and when all your money is on the line start spending money on your business that you do not need to, that the regulatory authority says you don't have to. But from your comments you are not the type of person that will take the burden of risk or know how to make risk orientated decisions so you will never be in that position so will never reap the rewards it brings to those bold enough to risk all to provide a service (in accordance with regulations) that you and everyone else wants to use.

Aviation is always improving and designing aircraft is no easy task. The technical design of the A380 or B787 will have commenced 20 years ago. It is not something done a few years back. Technical specs will have been drawn up using the best available technology....20 years ago and changing that stuff for the super dupa computers we have today will be a slow old process, and the owners of aircraft will do it when the regulatory authorities say that they have to.

So Gentleman Jim, we are only about 10 days away from when the pingers in the black box will start to fade and about 16 days from when they go silent

After the Air France accident , the investigation bureau recommended the airline industry

“make mandatory as quickly as possible, for aeroplanes making public transport flights with passengers over maritime or remote areas, triggering of data transmission to facilitate localisation as soon as an emergency situation is detected on board.”

But the airlines balked at the expense of installation (which one manufacturer put at less than $100,000 per aircraft) and the cost of transmitting and storing huge amounts of data.

This is $100,000 modification on a piece of equipment that cost over $200 million and the aircraft industry balked at it

So by now I've got just a one word comment in response to your little rant and rave on Wednesday 26th about not appreciating how to run a business- and that is bo**ocks ‘ !

And that includes the likes of your friend " F430murci " the airline tycoon who proclaims continued reliance on black box technology by the airline industry is perfectly fine.

You Gentleman Jim assert “ all companies have to make risk management decisions and when there is no need for expenditure then they do not do it” Please tell me, how do you determine when there is “ no need for expenditure “, when there are human emotions involved as with the relatives of those who suffer in these kinds of circumstances?

And in circumstances like MH370 how do you even begin to measure the monetary value of the damage to the reputation of the airline industry now that it shows they are so stingy and more concerned with protecting their cash flow than adhering even to the specific recommendations of safety bureaus following earlier crashes?

This is even more ironic considering CNN recently reported USA alone has budgeted $4 million for this search.

http://www.bristolpress.com/articles/2014/03/13/opinion/doc5320fac471a4f393920890.txt

How unnecessarily rude!

Ok, where do we start, how about some age old advice for you, sometimes it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

"After the Air France accident , the investigation bureau recommended the airline industry"

That little word that you really forgot to look at "recommended". Note that the accident investigation team 'recommended', they did not 'mandate'. Only the CAA's can mandate. If they would have 'mandated', it would have been done, no questions. Recommended means you don't have to, just as I would recommend you take your old car and pay to fit side impact and front air bags, 5 point harnesses and a carbon fibre roll cage. You don't have to, but I absolutely guarantee you that in the event of a crash with that most precious of cargo, your wife and children, it is extremely likely that you will all be safe and walk away from it. $20K will do it. Will you go out and do it? You don't have to, but come on there is not a more precious cargo in the world, why not?

Risk management, you will probably wait until the new car you save up for comes with that equipment fitted as standard.

In 1985 , a BA aircraft burned to the ground at Manchester Airport killing 54 passengers and crew. After the lengthy and rigorous investigation the CAA "recommended' that all aircraft are fitted with tail mounted camera's (as this would have shown the pilots instantly what their problem was, and would have saved many lives). So it was a recommendation! BA and many many other airlines did a cost analysis concerning the recommendation, as they always do. Now this, as some of you may think is not as simple as taping a webcam to the tail unit of an aircraft, it required extreme modification and had to be done in accordance with the multitude of safety regulations that are already in place to keep you the passenger safe. The consequence of an ill-conceived modification perhaps causing cracks in the tail plane would be catastrophic. BA discovered that it would cost around 100 million GBP to fit tail cameras to all their aircraft in the fleet, but they would probably only lose one every 20-30 years due to fire at a cost of maybe 30 million (a lot of money 30 years ago). SO the well predicted business decision was made, why bother fitting them? It doesnt make sense! I hear you all screaming as much as I screamed at the time, but THAT is business. Airlines are not there to do you favours, you do none for them after all. Airlines just like any other business in the world all share the same single mission statement. Nothing to do with 'provide the best air travel blah blah', simple - Our mission is to make money for share holders. They (almost every airline) do EVERYTHING in accordance with regulations. Why should they do something if it is not mandated, why do it if only recommended? I designed a training product for airlines and it was really difficult selling it to them even though it was proven to make airlines safer and more profitable. The regulatory bodies then made it mandatory, bam, thank you it made me a millionaire! If anything is mandatory it is done and paid for regardless of cost. With BA, they, like all airlines, simply waited until new aircraft they purchased came with tail mounted camera's as standard fit, a totaly business orientated decision.

Why did the Air France investigation team only 'recommend'? Well that is all they can do, and only ICAO, IATA and all the CAA's can mandate. Just like any CAA or regulatory body in the world of aviation, they are normally funded and paid for by the airlines themselves. The UK CAA is paid for by British Airways and the like NOT the Government, and they cannot simply INSIST that BA must pay 100 Million for a tail plane upgrade when it is only recommended, simple. A bit of a catch 22 really, the people you think are looking after your interests also have to look after the commercial interests of their sponsors - the airlines.

So back to YOUR rant. There is as you put it 'no need for expenditure', despite any amount of 'human emotions' attached UNLESS the expenditure is mandated. That is why I still maintain you have no idea how businesses function as you are completely naive in what you say. Now on a personal note, I agree with you totally from a personal moral and ethical viewpoint, that is why I could never run an airline, as it would go bankrupt very quickly.

Unless someone mandates the fitting of new equipment and memory drives etc etc after MH370 why should an airline pay 75 Million across it's fleet to install it? In the event of a disaster the insurance company will pay. The airline industry will take note and implement and in 5 years all new aircraft will have the equipment as standard fit. And remember, the airline industry is THE safest transport industry in the world, because of its meticulous standard of engineering, predictive component life-ing and it's incredibly professional employees in flight operations and engineering.

So to sum up, this is not ME asiantravel, it is the industry. I am not stingy, far from it, I am very generous and I am sure F430murci is also. When it comes to money NO airline in the world spends it on recommendations, they spend it on things that are under mandatory instruction, on legal compliance. And before you put fingers to keys and spout off another rude and ill-considered rant, read my post again carefully and really digest what I am saying.

MAS will survive whatever is coming it's way. The insurers will pay and the loyal customer base will remain. People who have never flown with them or maybe only once or twice economy will say "i'm never going to fly with them again', ah well. People like me who have flown first class with them and with almost every other airline know that their service at the front and in business is amongst the very best in the world and I will continue to fly with them. Whoever/whatever is responsible for this could have happened to any airline, the management and handling has been very poor, but that is not the people that matter in aviation, the ones that matter when you fly are the engineers, the cabin crew, the ops staff and the pilots.

So if in your rather rude words you still maintain I am speaking bo****ks that is fine, but I still maintain you do not appreciate how to run a business.

A guy who is a businessman and owns his own Citation jet should in theory be very good at business so how come he says what people like you are saying is wrong? I posted the link to his article earlier

[retell]

Your comments are out of order. You seem to have no idea how any business works. The aviation industry is very safe, very responsible and in some ways over regulated. Making modifications to any high tech piece of equipment like an aircraft is a VERY expensive business. This is not a case of going down to Radio Shack, getting a few components and making a new CVR or data recorder with a flash drive as the memory. All companies have to make risk management decisions and when there is no need for expenditure then they do not do it.

After the Piper Alpha oil platform disaster in which 165+ men died, people started doing risk analysis on the requirement for blast proof fire proof walls near the accommodation areas. I know one company that did this on some of their platforms and calculated that it would cost $12 Million to build these 'walls', but over a 20 year period the likely hood was that they would suffer accidents or injury resulting in personal claims against them for $7M as a result of fire or blast injury, so did they build the fire proof blast proof walls...NO. The bean counters save $5M by not building them. That is the way industry works.

Aviation is well regulated and after this incident then maybe EASA/FAA etc will recommend the development of solid state memory devices, but for you to slag off F430murci because his family did not spend money on something that is not a requirement is out of order. Why don't you mortgage yourself to the hilt and risk house, home, car, kids education etc and when all your money is on the line start spending money on your business that you do not need to, that the regulatory authority says you don't have to. But from your comments you are not the type of person that will take the burden of risk or know how to make risk orientated decisions so you will never be in that position so will never reap the rewards it brings to those bold enough to risk all to provide a service (in accordance with regulations) that you and everyone else wants to use.

Aviation is always improving and designing aircraft is no easy task. The technical design of the A380 or B787 will have commenced 20 years ago. It is not something done a few years back. Technical specs will have been drawn up using the best available technology....20 years ago and changing that stuff for the super dupa computers we have today will be a slow old process, and the owners of aircraft will do it when the regulatory authorities say that they have to.

So Gentleman Jim, we are only about 10 days away from when the pingers in the black box will start to fade and about 16 days from when they go silent

After the Air France accident , the investigation bureau recommended the airline industry

“make mandatory as quickly as possible, for aeroplanes making public transport flights with passengers over maritime or remote areas, triggering of data transmission to facilitate localisation as soon as an emergency situation is detected on board.”

But the airlines balked at the expense of installation (which one manufacturer put at less than $100,000 per aircraft) and the cost of transmitting and storing huge amounts of data.

This is $100,000 modification on a piece of equipment that cost over $200 million and the aircraft industry balked at it

So by now I've got just a one word comment in response to your little rant and rave on Wednesday 26th about not appreciating how to run a business- and that is bo**ocks ‘ !

And that includes the likes of your friend " F430murci " the airline tycoon who proclaims continued reliance on black box technology by the airline industry is perfectly fine.

You Gentleman Jim assert “ all companies have to make risk management decisions and when there is no need for expenditure then they do not do it” Please tell me, how do you determine when there is “ no need for expenditure “, when there are human emotions involved as with the relatives of those who suffer in these kinds of circumstances?

And in circumstances like MH370 how do you even begin to measure the monetary value of the damage to the reputation of the airline industry now that it shows they are so stingy and more concerned with protecting their cash flow than adhering even to the specific recommendations of safety bureaus following earlier crashes?

This is even more ironic considering CNN recently reported USA alone has budgeted $4 million for this search.

http://www.bristolpress.com/articles/2014/03/13/opinion/doc5320fac471a4f393920890.txt

How unnecessarily rude!

Ok, where do we start, how about some age old advice for you, sometimes it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

"After the Air France accident , the investigation bureau recommended the airline industry"

That little word that you really forgot to look at "recommended". Note that the accident investigation team 'recommended', they did not 'mandate'. Only the CAA's can mandate. If they would have 'mandated', it would have been done, no questions. Recommended means you don't have to, just as I would recommend you take your old car and pay to fit side impact and front air bags, 5 point harnesses and a carbon fibre roll cage. You don't have to, but I absolutely guarantee you that in the event of a crash with that most precious of cargo, your wife and children, it is extremely likely that you will all be safe and walk away from it. $20K will do it. Will you go out and do it? You don't have to, but come on there is not a more precious cargo in the world, why not?

Risk management, you will probably wait until the new car you save up for comes with that equipment fitted as standard.

In 1985 , a BA aircraft burned to the ground at Manchester Airport killing 54 passengers and crew. After the lengthy and rigorous investigation the CAA "recommended' that all aircraft are fitted with tail mounted camera's (as this would have shown the pilots instantly what their problem was, and would have saved many lives). So it was a recommendation! BA and many many other airlines did a cost analysis concerning the recommendation, as they always do. Now this, as some of you may think is not as simple as taping a webcam to the tail unit of an aircraft, it required extreme modification and had to be done in accordance with the multitude of safety regulations that are already in place to keep you the passenger safe. The consequence of an ill-conceived modification perhaps causing cracks in the tail plane would be catastrophic. BA discovered that it would cost around 100 million GBP to fit tail cameras to all their aircraft in the fleet, but they would probably only lose one every 20-30 years due to fire at a cost of maybe 30 million (a lot of money 30 years ago). SO the well predicted business decision was made, why bother fitting them? It doesnt make sense! I hear you all screaming as much as I screamed at the time, but THAT is business. Airlines are not there to do you favours, you do none for them after all. Airlines just like any other business in the world all share the same single mission statement. Nothing to do with 'provide the best air travel blah blah', simple - Our mission is to make money for share holders. They (almost every airline) do EVERYTHING in accordance with regulations. Why should they do something if it is not mandated, why do it if only recommended? I designed a training product for airlines and it was really difficult selling it to them even though it was proven to make airlines safer and more profitable. The regulatory bodies then made it mandatory, bam, thank you it made me a millionaire! If anything is mandatory it is done and paid for regardless of cost. With BA, they, like all airlines, simply waited until new aircraft they purchased came with tail mounted camera's as standard fit, a totaly business orientated decision.

Why did the Air France investigation team only 'recommend'? Well that is all they can do, and only ICAO, IATA and all the CAA's can mandate. Just like any CAA or regulatory body in the world of aviation, they are normally funded and paid for by the airlines themselves. The UK CAA is paid for by British Airways and the like NOT the Government, and they cannot simply INSIST that BA must pay 100 Million for a tail plane upgrade when it is only recommended, simple. A bit of a catch 22 really, the people you think are looking after your interests also have to look after the commercial interests of their sponsors - the airlines.

So back to YOUR rant. There is as you put it 'no need for expenditure', despite any amount of 'human emotions' attached UNLESS the expenditure is mandated. That is why I still maintain you have no idea how businesses function as you are completely naive in what you say. Now on a personal note, I agree with you totally from a personal moral and ethical viewpoint, that is why I could never run an airline, as it would go bankrupt very quickly.

Unless someone mandates the fitting of new equipment and memory drives etc etc after MH370 why should an airline pay 75 Million across it's fleet to install it? In the event of a disaster the insurance company will pay. The airline industry will take note and implement and in 5 years all new aircraft will have the equipment as standard fit. And remember, the airline industry is THE safest transport industry in the world, because of its meticulous standard of engineering, predictive component life-ing and it's incredibly professional employees in flight operations and engineering.

So to sum up, this is not ME asiantravel, it is the industry. I am not stingy, far from it, I am very generous and I am sure F430murci is also. When it comes to money NO airline in the world spends it on recommendations, they spend it on things that are under mandatory instruction, on legal compliance. And before you put fingers to keys and spout off another rude and ill-considered rant, read my post again carefully and really digest what I am saying.

MAS will survive whatever is coming it's way. The insurers will pay and the loyal customer base will remain. People who have never flown with them or maybe only once or twice economy will say "i'm never going to fly with them again', ah well. People like me who have flown first class with them and with almost every other airline know that their service at the front and in business is amongst the very best in the world and I will continue to fly with them. Whoever/whatever is responsible for this could have happened to any airline, the management and handling has been very poor, but that is not the people that matter in aviation, the ones that matter when you fly are the engineers, the cabin crew, the ops staff and the pilots.

So if in your rather rude words you still maintain I am speaking bo****ks that is fine, but I still maintain you do not appreciate how to run a business.

A guy who is a businessman and owns his own Citation jet should in theory be very good at business so how come he says what people like you are saying is wrong? I posted the link to his article earlier

Looking on my tablet this post , cannot read , either white text on grey background , and after select still unreadable

Send with Commodore 64