“Alright, Goodnight” – Does Malaysia Want To Know What Happened To Flight MH-370?

SOFREP ^ | March 22, 2014 | Sean Spoonts

[B4Ranch]

Found it. That’s the one that has been written off.

Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-2H6-ER, tail number 9M-MRO, operating as Flight MH370 from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia to Beijing, China on Saturday, March 8, 2014 is missing and has apparently crashed. http://www.examiner.com/article/malaysia-airlines-boeing-777-missing-and-apparently-down-over-vietnam

[Yosemitest]

Thanks. 9M-MRO Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-2H6(ER) - cn 28420 / ln 404 Link has several photos.

[logi_cal869]

I believe I had made a prior comment wondering about the ‘margin of error’ for their data, as their data is not public. There are additional factors as well, but your point is apt.

Back to the credibility thing again (lack thereof). However, the Malay government went all-in on the basis of these reports, nobody is questioning it (publicly) and, consequently, no one else seems to care about the data that led to the conclusions. Faith?

Zoom climb animation, anyone? /s

(sorry...just can’t help the sarcasm, as the deja vu for me is overwhelming. I’m seriously expecting an animation of how they came to their conclusion to be released rather than the data. If that happens I’ll be ROFLMAO. If the plane’s where they said it should be, well...you can’t deny the unusual combination of factors at play here that would prompt so much speculation...added to that the fact that at least one government seems to be obfuscating the full story)

[FatherofFive]

Then there's electrical problems that might develop a fire, so the pilot would need to shut down, and MUST shut down the power to the transponder.

Thanks. But, does the pilot know there is a fire with the transponder, or electrical in general? If there is a fire in the electrical system, they need to shut down the electrical system. If they know there is a fire in the transponder, it should be shut down automatically.

It just seems to me that shutting down the transponder is a terrorist tool.

[Yosemitest]

It is.
But that's why there is a redundancy of them.

But facts are facts.
In the event of an electrical short that might cause a fire, the "Bus Tie Breaker" or the Circuit Breaker would pop out or throw itself out, and that would tell them what portion of the electronics was giving trouble.

[Yosemitest]

No Emergency Locator Transmitor (ELT) transmission, chances are ~ it DID NOT crash, or go into the water.

[FatherofFive]

But facts are facts. In the event of an electrical short that might cause a fire, the "Bus Tie Breaker" or the Circuit Breaker would pop out or throw itself out, and that would tell them what portion of the electronics was giving trouble.

Thanks. I think I get it now. I still think they should not be able to shut off the transponder. It should automatically shut off within x miles of the airport, turn back on if they don't land. A fire should automatically shut it down.

[Yosemitest]

" It should automatically shut off within x miles of the airport, turn back on if they don't land. "

That wouldn't work.
Some controllers would rather have the ring around than lose the computer tracking of the call sign, altitude, etc.
It must be the way it is.

[Yosemitest]

Check out

Wesson International - ATC Simulation * 10:26 )


ATC Simulator 2 - Demonstration ( 19:33 )

Herte's the link to an Air Traffic Control Simulator game for home computers.

ATCsimulator®2

[logi_cal869]

For what it's worth, the Artex B406-4 ELT Manual

Oddly, the interface for the FMC Nav data is rated 100G for Crash Worthiness and 500G Shock Test, but I can't find data on the ELT itself. Maybe it's in this manual somewhere. (little time on my part to deal with this right now, save for finding this manual)

[logi_cal869]

I went ahead and downloaded it and, before hitting the sack, browsed a bit and found it:

Vibration 10 g Sinusoidal
6.1 GRMS Random
Shock 500 g for 4 ms
Crashworthiness 100 g for 23 ms
Humidity 95% for 240 hours
Penetration 55 lbs from 6 in. (25 kg from 15 cm)
Crush 1,000 lbs (454 kg)
Altitude 55,000 ft (16,764 m)

As the manual stipulates,

To maximize the probability of the ELT transmitting a detectable signal after a crash, all ELT system components, which must survive a crash intact, e.g., transmitter and external antenna, should be attached to the airframe in such a manner that the attachment system can support a 100 g load, (ELT weight x 100, ELT antenna weight x 100, etc.) applied through the center of gravity of the component (ELT, antenna, etc.) in the plus and minus directions of the three principal axes of the aircraft.

I don't believe it is designed to transmit in an intentional catastrophic impact; I see no evidence it will. (catastrophic = high angle of impact with water @ +400 knots)

[Yosemitest]

Check pages 31 through 50, and pay special attention to pages 33 through 35.

Reference "catastrophic impact" : that would have to do with G force loads and antenna drag specifications (tested limitations), so check page 35.
"Catastrophic Impact" is the main reason it was designed.

[Yosemitest]

One other thing you might consider is,

IF the Boeing 777 was on autopilot and ran out of fuel, the autopilot would probably increase the angle of attack on the wings as the airspeed decreased, in order to maintain altitude.
Finally it would probably go into a stall, then nose over, and go into a spin.
IF this continued and developed into a flat spin, it would decrease the speed of impact into the water.

That would have a dramatic affect on the G forces at impact, and the antenna speed load.

[logi_cal869]

I'll have to look at the manual later when I have time.

It was late and I mistyped 'angle of attack', but I think you got my point. You're right about a 'run out of fuel' scenario with no pilot control.

However, that would have resulted in a signal.

Was this the signal?

(oh, and go figure that the Malay government is using graphics to explain the plane's pings. "Where's the beef???")

[Yosemitest]

There's several problems with that article.

First, notice that the person's hand is covering the "Sector number" (my guess is 179) and the "Number of 'Handshakes' or 'Pings' received" at that time, in the photo at the top.



Second, authors Jonathan Pearlman, in Kuala Lumpur and Malcolm Moore in Beijingstate:
" ... Malaysian authorities said
that the plane appeared to make a final satellite contact after the last of its routine electronic “handshakes” was emitted.

That series of seven routine hourly “pings” had been used to pinpoint what is thought to be the plane’s final location over the Indian Ocean.

There is evidence of a partial handshake between the aircraft and ground station at 00:19 GMT,” said Hishammuddin Hussein, the acting transport minister.
“This transmission is not understood and is subject to further ongoing work.”

Thomas Withington, a defence electronics analyst, told The Telegraph:
“It sounds like the aircraft began to squawk a message and for some reason this was curtailed. "

Now the term "SQUAWK" has a defined meaning to air traffic controllers and pilots, and I'm not sure that they know that meaning , and, ~ are referring to the same equipment that the term "SQUAWK" implys.

SQUAWK (Mode, Code, Function)- Activate specific modes/codes/functions on the aircraft transponder; e.g., "Squawk three/alpha, two one zero five, low."

(See TRANSPONDER.)

The Transponder is a different piece of equipment than the ACARS equipment, the equipment that makes satellite contact with Inmarsat's communication equipment.

"Squawk" to an air traffic controller or a pilot would be the equipment that identifies connects the primary radar target of the aircraft with the secondary radar target (computer generated target) and it displays the aircraft idenity and other data on the controller's radar scope.

"Squawk" to air traffic controllers and pilots, does NOT refer to the EMERGENCY LOCATOR TRANSMITTER (ELT), which is a different piece of equipment than the ACARS and the Transponder.

Also, they give the time of the event in GMT as "00:19 GMT",
and you need to convert that to the local time of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
So add +8:00 hours to it, and you get 08:11 am local time of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

They really need to define their terms,
because they're confusing the issues, and making this tragedy worse.

[logi_cal869]

They really need to define their terms, because they're confusing the issues, and making this tragedy worse.

Preaching to the choir; point well made. Plus the fact they claim '7 hourly pings' but I've never seen a plot of the pings (other than a cleanly-drawn 'arc'), let alone 'margin of error'...

[Yosemitest]

The exact plot of those "SEVEN PINGS" ~ would be some of the most useful information we could get,
and not just that 40 degree arc that they've put out.

[logi_cal869]

LOL. I’ve been saying ‘let’s see the data!’ since the day-of.

Again, deja vu for me.

[Yosemitest]

Look at this and you know that MH370 had the newer, updated ELTs because you gave me that link.

Beacon Operation

GPS-based, registered

The most modern 406 MHz beacons with GPS (US$ $300+ in 2010) track with a precision of 100 meters in the 70% of the world closest to the equator, and send a serial number so the responsible authority can look up phone numbers to notify the registrator (e.g. next-of-kin) in four minutes.

The GPS system permits stationary, wide-view geosynchronous communications satellites to enhance the doppler position received by low Earth orbit satellites. EPIRB beacons with built-in GPS are usually called GPIRBs, for GPS Position-Indicating Radio Beacon or Global Position-Indicating Radio Beacon.

However, rescue cannot begin until a doppler track is available. The COSPAS-SARSAT specifications say [7] that a beacon location is not considered "resolved" unless at least two doppler tracks match or a doppler track confirms an encoded (GPS) track. One or more GPS tracks are not sufficient.

High-precision registered

An intermediate technology 406 MHz beacon (now mostly obsolete in favor of GPS enabled units) has worldwide coverage, locates within 2 km (12.5 km² search area), notifies kin and rescuers in 2 hours maximum (46 min average), and has a serial number to look up phone numbers, etc. This can take up to two hours because it has to use moving weather satellites to locate the beacon. To help locate the beacon, the beacon's frequency is controlled to 2 parts per billion, and its power is a hefty five watts.

Both of the above types of beacons usually include an auxiliary 25 milliwatt beacon at 121.5 MHz to guide rescue aircraft.

So the ELT would have been heard and after 3 seconds, a satellite would have generated an automated report on its location, that it would have send an immediate and urgent notice on.

Someone would have responded to that location immediately.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks yldstrk — from four years ago:

“Alright, Goodnight” — Does Malaysia Want To Know What Happened To Flight MH-370?
By Sean Spoonts
03.22.2014
https://sofrep.com/34084/alright-goodnight-malaysia-want-know-happened-flight-mh-370/