***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 3 *****
New thread.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 29 Mar 14 at 18:44
|
|
I'm still going with my first thought one or both of the pilots went a bit 'wibble'.
|
|
A difficult one, I think it was on autopilot once it was on its final southerly course, whether there was anyone alive at this point or for long after it is any ones guess.
|
>> A difficult one, I think it was on autopilot once it was on its final
>> southerly course, whether there was anyone alive at this point or for long after it
>> is any ones guess.
I doubt we are ever going to know what went on on board.
|
|
With all the data harvesting done these days it cannot be beyond the wit of man to download the black box data continuously. Also video of the flight deck and cabin, I am told that our local buses have several video cameras, probably not downloaded anywhere though.
|
The guy from Inmarsat on the news last night said it is possible to monitor the whereabouts of all aircraft at all times, just like they do with ships. Unfortunately someone would have to pay them to do this, and as it isn't compulsory the airlines don't want to pay.
|
>> The guy from Inmarsat on the news last night said it is possible to monitor
>> the whereabouts of all aircraft at all times, just like they do with ships. Unfortunately
>> someone would have to pay them to do this, and as it isn't compulsory the
>> airlines don't want to pay.
It needs to be compulsory then, doesn't it. If certain key countries said 'no compliance, find another route around our airspace' then it would be sorted.
|
|
I think they are, but only limited information and not before 2020 and I think only the USA.
|
>The guy from Inmarsat on the news last night said..
He was quite good wasn't he, no jargon and wouldn't be drawn into speculation?
He explained what they had done to narrow down the plane's position at it's last ping.
They had taken the signal characteristics of the pings received from MH370 and compared those characteristics to pings received from other Malaysian Airlines aircraft flying in the Northern and Southern arcs. Those other aircraft were transmitting flight data so when they found pings with similar characteristics they could calculate/extrapolate some of MH370's flight details such as approximate location and speed.
The data and methods were shared with scientists at the European Space Agency and Boeing for peer review before releasing their findings. MH370 was apparently flying along the Southern arc at a steady 450kts, a normal cruising speed for a 777 on auto.
|
They had a lot of other input into that tho. For example it could have been on the northern arc, but that would have been over radar coverage, and with nothing there forthcoming that cut the effort down by 50%.
Its also funny that the stated crashed area is on that arc, is precisely at the limit of the planes fuel load.
|
>They had a lot of other input into that tho. For example it could have been on the northern arc,..
I can't remember everything he said but I think he mentioned that they'd determined from the signals themselves that the last few pings could not have come from the Northern arc. He didn't say how.
|
>> I can't remember everything he said but I think he mentioned that they'd determined from
>> the signals themselves that the last few pings could not have come from the Northern
>> arc. He didn't say how.
>>
I suspect that they had info from another satellite(s). has anyone noticed that only civil satellites and companies have been mentioned in the media?
|
>..it cannot be beyond the wit of man to download the black box data continuously.
Bandwidth is too costly today, even with compression.
A less expensive stopgap measure would be to squirt the most recent blackbox data only when an anomaly is seen. It would give rescue/recovery and investigators a starting point.
|
|
It always comes back to cost. It will be interesting to see how rapidly the search is scaled down after the first chunk of floating wreckage is recovered, if it ever is. It may have all sunk by now.
|
>> It always comes back to cost. It will be interesting to see how rapidly the
>> search is scaled down after the first chunk of floating wreckage is recovered, if it
>> ever is. It may have all sunk by now.
Of course it always comes back to cost. If cost is too high, passengers don't fly, if passengers don't fly there are no flights and no data to collect!
Its pretty clear from the information we do know that its a "human factor" at work and the cause of this anomaly. Therefore a plane failure of some kind has been more or less ruled out, and that means there is less pressure to find out what failed.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 25 Mar 14 at 20:20
|
>> Its pretty clear from the information we do know that its a "human factor" at
>> work and the cause of this anomaly. Therefore a plane failure of some kind has
>> been more or less ruled out, and that means there is less pressure to find
>> out what failed.
Not saying you're wrong but what leads you to that conclusion? How/why are you eliminating structural damage by fatigue, non compliant maintenance (like US DC 10 crash in 79), fire or or bomb leading to decompression and failure of process to cope with such eventuality.
Anoxia then kills all on board and aircraft continues on last heading selected by crew or auto pilot until fuel starvation.
Almost whatever the cost they're going to have to try to find/recover the FDR/CVR and film and/or raise the hull.
|
>> Not saying you're wrong but what leads you to that conclusion? How/why are you eliminating
>> structural damage by fatigue, non compliant maintenance (like US DC 10 crash in 79), fire
>> or or bomb leading to decompression and failure of process to cope with such eventuality.
>>
>> Anoxia then kills all on board and aircraft continues on last heading selected by crew
>> or auto pilot until fuel starvation.
Yup exactly - so why has the plane changed direction at least three times away from the course it was set to if everyone had died?
Thats the key - human factors were at work to guide this plane to this area - it was'nt an accident or the result of dead crew from decompression.
>> Almost whatever the cost they're going to have to try to find/recover the FDR/CVR and
>> film and/or raise the hull.
Nope. Not if they are convinced human factors were at work.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 25 Mar 14 at 20:40
|
>> >> Almost whatever the cost they're going to have to try to find/recover the FDR/CVR
>> and
>> >> film and/or raise the hull.
>>
>> Nope. Not if they are convinced human factors were at work.
>>
In all aircraft accidents human factors are an element in the various factors that lead to an accident. They will still try to get any data from onboard.
|
>> In all aircraft accidents human factors are an element in the various factors that lead
>> to an accident.
In this case its not the human factors you are talking about. - Suicide or terrorism is not an accident.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 26 Mar 14 at 01:23
|
>> In this case its not the human factors you are talking about. - Suicide or
>> terrorism is not an accident.
>>
I use the word accident as a catch-all for crash/incidents/accidents etc. Human factors will still be present in them all.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 26 Mar 14 at 01:23
|
>> A less expensive stopgap measure would be to squirt the most recent blackbox data only
>> when an anomaly is seen. It would give rescue/recovery and investigators a starting point.
>>
Even that can be difficult to define. Best way would be to record everything on to a crash survivable store. Everything of any importance is recorded anyway on other devices on nearly all modern aircraft. The difference is storing it on something to survive an accident.
|
>> >> A less expensive stopgap measure would be to squirt the most recent blackbox data
>> only
>> >> when an anomaly is seen. It would give rescue/recovery and investigators a starting point.
>> >>
>>
>> Even that can be difficult to define. Best way would be to record everything on
>> to a crash survivable store. Everything of any importance is recorded anyway on other devices
>> on nearly all modern aircraft. The difference is storing it on something to survive an
>> accident.
Used to be recorded on magnetic wire. Funnily enough a humble SD card can easily and cheaply be made "impact survivable"
|
>> Used to be recorded on magnetic wire. Funnily enough a humble SD card can easily
>> and cheaply be made "impact survivable"
>>
If it is in the aircraft it has to be easily found and recovered. That was the problem with AF447 and will be the problem with this one. It has to be "back at base".
|
>> >..it cannot be beyond the wit of man to download the black box data continuously.
>>
>> Bandwidth is too costly today, even with compression.
>>
>> A less expensive stopgap measure would be to squirt the most recent blackbox data only
>> when an anomaly is seen. It would give rescue/recovery and investigators a starting point.
>>
But realistically, how often does this happen? Once in 50 years? Do we really need to know what happened? Even if we do know, we don't learn from it (especially w/regard to lithium batteries) - see AAR 991, UPS 6 etc.
The Air France crash into the Atlantic? How many years and millions of pounds did it take to find the FDR? What did it tell us? That the bleedin' copilot couldn't fly.
|
>> The Air France crash into the Atlantic? How many years and millions of pounds did it take to find the FDR? What did it tell us? That the bleedin' copilot couldn't fly.
>>
I saw a figure of £50M quoted somewhere.
From what I understand your comments re the co pilot are correct.
IIRC basically if you are getting duff readings from the air speed indicators then set the basics to the normal settings and things will correct themselves.
I suspect IF the MH370 recorders ever get recovered they will be blank. Then what ?
>>we don't learn from it (especially w/regard to lithium batteries) - see AAR 991, UPS 6 etc.
Having seen what happens ( US FAA demo) with a laptop on an aircraft seat back shelf and how not to deal with it. Frightening!
Last edited by: henry k on Tue 25 Mar 14 at 21:47
|
>>Having seen what happens ( US FAA demo) with a laptop on an aircraft seat back shelf and how not to deal with it. Frightening!
>>
The video clip ...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS6KA_Si-m8
Only 45,784 views in four years.
There would be a lot more attention if it went viral.
Havva nice flight!
|
|
Interesting Vid! - If one of the most common times these fire begin is during charging, that usually means that there are "live" electrics nearby, is it safe to use water extinguishers???
|
>What did it tell us? That the bleedin' copilot couldn't fly.
Maybe there should be anal probes fitted to pilot and copilot seats?
Bottom-clenching moments could be monitored and used to determine crew competence. They could also monitor alcohol and drug levels.
I think I'm onto a patent idea here.
|
>> >What did it tell us? That the bleedin' copilot couldn't fly.
>>
>> Maybe there should be anal probes fitted to pilot and copilot seats?
>>
>> Bottom-clenching moments could be monitored and used to determine crew competence. They could also monitor
>> alcohol and drug levels.
>>
>> I think I'm onto a patent idea here.
Nah, the air stewards would steal them all.
|
>>Bandwidth is too costly today, even with compression.
To an extent; but all you'd really need to do is ping the black box position every 10 minutes or so. And you'd be using satellites to do even that.
That'd give you speed and heading and after a crash would give you quite a small area in which to search for the black box.
And whilst I've no idea what that would cost since an airplane is so mobile, I do know what it costs to monitor fixed sites by satellite, and its piddly.
|
>To an extent; but all you'd really need to do is ping the black box position every 10 minutes or so.
No need to even do that.
What I was suggesting was that it shouldn't be too hard to modify modern aircraft to include a short term data recorder that holds a 2nd copy of the last few minutes of FDR and cockpit data. In the event of an anomaly it automatically squirts the contents up to satellite. No need to be seriously ruggedised, just inaccessible from within the aircraft and tamperproof.
Relatively cheap to install and little running cost.
|
>> >To an extent; but all you'd really need to do is ping the black box
>> position every 10 minutes or so.
>>
>> No need to even do that.
>>
>> What I was suggesting was that it shouldn't be too hard to modify modern aircraft
>> to include a short term data recorder that holds a 2nd copy of the last
>> few minutes of FDR and cockpit data. In the event of an anomaly it automatically
>> squirts the contents up to satellite. No need to be seriously ruggedised, just inaccessible from
>> within the aircraft and tamperproof.
>>
>> Relatively cheap to install and little running cost.
What anomaly do you use to trigger the squirt? In this case, there probably isn't one.
|
>What anomaly do you use to trigger the squirt?
I'll leave that to the aircraft designers.
>In this case, there probably isn't one.
1500 miles from land and low on fuel isn't a squirt?
|
>> >What anomaly do you use to trigger the squirt?
>>
>> I'll leave that to the aircraft designers.
>>
>> >In this case, there probably isn't one.
>>
>> 1500 miles from land and low on fuel isn't a squirt?
You can't keep aircraft to within 1500 miles of land! but yes low fuel would be. However all the other stuff that had gone on between last contact and running out of fuel was normal in aircraft terms.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 25 Mar 14 at 22:54
|
>You can't keep aircraft to within 1500 miles of land! but yes low fuel would be.
1500 miles from land and low/insufficient fuel.
>However all the other stuff that had gone on between last contact and running out of
>fuel was normal in aircraft terms.
I doubt that switching off the transponders and the extent of course deviation would be considered as normal.
"Hello MH370, we've just had a blackbox download because the transponders have failed. That's cost us $10! Do you have a problem?"
"Hello MH370?"
|
>> "Hello MH370, we've just had a blackbox download because the transponders have failed. That's cost
>> us $10! Do you have a problem?"
>>
>> "Hello MH370?"
>>
>>
Where do you draw the line? Generally in aviation accidents it's not one big fault; it's a series of smaller ones coupled with poor decision making from the flight crew. In this situation, it's probably not beneficial. Besides, by the time you're in a death spiral towards the ocean you can't transmit to a satellite.
Would it be reliable? The newest ACARS software on the A320 is fiendishly unstable, falling over at the slightest sign of anything unusual and severing our datalink connection with the ground for the rest of the flight, as well as sounding a string of crossword-interrupting master cautions as various subsystems go offline at the same time.
Think about how much info came via ACARS from AF447, and they still required more detailed information from the CVR and DFDR to identify the cause.
|
>> Would it be reliable? The newest ACARS software on the A320 is fiendishly unstable, falling
>> over at the slightest sign of anything unusual and severing our datalink connection with the
>> ground for the rest of the flight, as well as sounding a string of crossword-interrupting
>> master cautions as various subsystems go offline at the same time.
And therein lies the problem with 'squirting' fault condition data automatically to a satellite, the sheer volume of alarms that are minor, quickly resolved by crew or are spurious.
|
With the number of planes in the air at any given time running into many thousands, I would think this is not a trivial requirement for using a set of satellites. Probably needs dedicated satellites?
Just opened FlightRadar24 website and it shows 8500+ planes being tracked at the moment.
Perhaps not surprising.... no planes shown over the Indian Ocean. FlightRadar24 relies on computers receiving the transponder data and sending it into the database. And if nothing is there to listen nearby a plane would not be tracked. Which means the 8500+ figure is the ones FlightRadar24 has picked up on. There will be some planes out of range of volunteer computers running the software.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Wed 26 Mar 14 at 14:08
|
ADS - B is already in service in vast majority of commercial aircraft. It's the ADS-B data that is picked up by users of 'radar box' software and shared by services such as FR24 and radarbox 24.com. It also provides the means by which collision avoidance systems (ACAS) function.
The wiki article also makes point that latency in satellite coms is such that where it is used outside VHF radio coverage it implies greater separation between flights. Good old fashioned HF position reporting may live on for a while yet!
|
|
All of it is spurious when a pilot goes rogue.
|
>>ADS - B is already in service in vast majority of commercial aircraft.
So MH370 had the system and it didn't give the aircraft's position, course and speed or otherwise help? Or the flight didn't have it, and if it had been installed then it could have provided the necessary information?
Although, as Zero says, none of it is any help if a pilot or similar is taking deliberate action.
>>where it is used outside VHF radio coverage it implies greater separation between flights
Outside VHF radio coverage? Like way out to sea for example? Where they are out of radar coverage?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 26 Mar 14 at 15:46
|
Mark,
AIUI ADS B works with radar and is 'line of sight'. Part of the same set up as the much discussed transponder. Were it working it would disclose the aircraft's position while in vicinity of KL or, on it's planned route Hanoi. Once it's overr the radar horizon it's of no use.
|
I don't think so, he says cautiously.
It uses a GPS signal, combines with information from the plane and then broadcasts a radio signal.
It can be used in conjunction with radio, but AFAIK they are different technologies.
|
So if there are 10,000 planes airborne at any one moment, that makes what, between 60,000 and 100,000 flights per day? So say 80,000. That's 30m a year. The last plane lost in such circumstances was the AF plane about 5 years ago.
That's perhaps a 1 in 150m chance of a plane lost under mysterious circumstances. Who cares. You're far more likely to die on the way to the airport.
|
It doesn't matter 'till it matters.
If my wife/sister/daughter/mother was lost and potentially not dead, but they couldn't find her because they hadn't thought the risk/benefit worthwhile, I might be a little distressed.
You are quoting odds of 1,500,000:1 in a world that spends billions *per week* on lotteries at far worse odds.
Like so many things, its worth doing just in case.
|
|
Although it's insignificant in the general big scheme of things, there are enormous commercial and litigation factors brewing for all parties involved, so it makes sense to find root cause as far as can be. Notwithstanding a moral /ethical duty to find out what happened.
|
>> Although it's insignificant in the general big scheme of things, there are enormous commercial and
>> litigation factors brewing for all parties involved, so it makes sense to find root cause
>> as far as can be.
I would suspect, from a litigation viewpoint, they would be happy not to find out the real cause.
|
>> It doesn't matter 'till it matters.
>>
>> If my wife/sister/daughter/mother was lost and potentially not dead, but they couldn't find her because
>> they hadn't thought the risk/benefit worthwhile, I might be a little distressed.
I would suspect, being a rational kind of guy, you know they are not potentially not dead. You would know they are dead, despite the fact they haven't been found. You would be obviously be upset you don't know where, and doubly upset at the way they died, but you wouldn't be hoping they could still be alive somewhere.
|
>> I don't think so, he says cautiously.
>>
>> It uses a GPS signal, combines with information from the plane and then broadcasts a
>> radio signal.
>>
>> It can be used in conjunction with radio, but AFAIK they are different technologies.
The aircraft's position is GPS derived but with height from the barometric altimeter. There is considerable overlap between ADS-B, Mode S transponders and Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR) in current usage, but perhaps not as close as I thought.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_transponder_interrogation_modes
Not got time now to read further into it.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 26 Mar 14 at 19:24
|
Repeat with an edit... (radar dammit, not radio)
I don't think so, he says cautiously.
It uses a GPS signal, combines with information from the plane and then broadcasts a radio signal.
It can be used in conjunction with radio radar, but AFAIK they are different technologies.
|
>> I don't think so, he says cautiously.
>> It uses a GPS signal, combines with information from the plane and then broadcasts a radio signal.
And what would pick up this radio signal over the Indian Ocean? I know from tracking flights out of interest on holiday that they can vanish from FlightRadar24 even when close to land. That's because there is nobody listening for the signals and sending them to FR24 servers. So what would listen and use this signal so far from land?
I know it will have been picked up initially etc. But in this case it would have been turned off anyway.
|
>And therein lies the problem with 'squirting' fault condition data automatically to a satellite, the
>sheer volume of alarms that are minor, quickly resolved by crew or are spurious.
You are taking too simplistic an approach Bromp.
The criteria for triggering transmission would have to be decided by folks like the aircraft manufacturer and accident investigators. Minor or spurious alarms should not trigger transmission.
There is also the argument that if minor or spurious alarms were costing the airline and manufacturers money there would be more incentive to fix the cause.
|
|
He's not too far out, trying to pin down what needs to be sent and what doesn't would be quite hard, although not impossible. This incident is a bit of one off, not sure how much effort will be spent trying to resolve 'lost aircraft'. Solutions will no doubt come think and fast, uptake will be somewhat slower.
|
>He's not too far out, trying to pin down what needs to be sent and what doesn't would be quite hard,
It isn't what needs to be sent, you send everything on the storage media. It's deciding what condition or combination of conditions triggers the transmission. Even if you get it wrong and send data when there isn't an immediate threat to the aircraft you've only lost a few dollars in transmission costs.
>This incident is a bit of one off, not sure how much effort will be spent trying to resolve 'lost aircraft'.
Agree absolutely sooty. Even if the root cause of MH370's disappearance is never established I doubt that anything will be done. I'm simply intrigued that it's taken so long to get a reasonable idea of where it went down and the possibility that the FDR and CVR will never be found.
A bit of mental exercise for me and it provokes some discussion.
|
But what goes on the storage device? That was what I was getting at, that's the key for me.
I'm not sure it would be cheap at all. I can't say I know all about the satellites and the technology behind it, but one thing I do know that aircraft and cheap aren't two words that go together. I see the costs of aircraft parts all the time. Even the smallest non moving lump of plastic is expensive.
|
>But what goes on the storage device? That was what I was getting at, that's the key for me.
Everything.
Every bit of data recorded by the FDR and CVR. When the device is full it begins overwriting the oldest data, like a loop of tape.
>I'm not sure it would be cheap at all... I see the costs of aircraft parts all the time. Even
>the smallest non moving lump of plastic is expensive.
The required hardware would be somewhere between a smartphone and a sat-phone, plus installation cost of course, so probably £Millions.
|
|
I'd agree on your ballpark figure. Will airlines/customers be happy paying extra on to the price of each aircraft? If this were to be realistic it would need to be mandated. Personally I'm not sure whether it would be worth it.
|
>I'd agree on your ballpark figure.
I was a bit flippant in that post sooty, sorry.
The extra hardware needed to do the job would be about the cost of an iPhone (per aircraft).
>Will airlines/customers be happy paying extra on to the price of each aircraft? If this were
>to be realistic it would need to be mandated. Personally I'm not sure whether it would be worth it.
Neither am I.
My original suggestion was a possible solution to Uncle Albert's question about realtime transmission of FDR data. I'm sure there are flaws in it, but I'm prepared to defend it until someone suggests something better.
I enjoy a good debate.
|
>> My original suggestion was a possible solution to Uncle Albert's question about realtime transmission of
>> FDR data. I'm sure there are flaws in it, but I'm prepared to defend it
>> until someone suggests something better.
>>
>> I enjoy a good debat
Clearly the data can be harvested. though I seriously doubt your 'price of an i-phone' quote for something built to aviation standards of reliability/redundancy. There's no point in doing so though unless what's there is good enough to add value to an accident investigation or to sound alarms and prevent an accident. Alarm/prevent implies ground intervention with the flight deck which would be another can of worms, not least CRM related.
If you read official accident reports it's quite common for FDR data to be anomalous. Investigators have to do intensive further work using the Quick Access Recorders installed for maintenance etc purposes at various points around the aircraft. On other occasions there's a need to forensically examine the senders providing FDR data so as to produce a true account. The weight attached to downloaded raw data will therefore be quite light until the other sources/components have been examined.
CVRs are prone to errors on one or another of their tracks (at least three, one for each pilot's mike plus an area mike for the whole flight deck). This too requires lengthy analysis using electronics and /or liguistics experts.
I cannot think of any recent incident/accident where the FDR/CVR has not been recovered, even if like in AF447, it took time. MH370 is a complete outlier and we need to be very careful about prescribing solutions based upon it.
If it had been squirting positional data to a satellite then the wreckage search would be better, provided of course whatever removed transponder/acars etc data didn't kill that as well. But again that commits the industry to spend millions chasing an event with miniscule chance of repetition.
|
>>
>> I was a bit flippant in that post sooty, sorry.
>>
>> The extra hardware needed to do the job would be about the cost of an
>> iPhone (per aircraft).
I think the chances of that are remote. The cost of anything even vaguely important on an aircraft and you are talking well beyond the cost of a mobile. A couple of hundred quid in the aircraft world will get you a toilet roll holder.
|
Bromp said:
>Clearly the data can be harvested. though I seriously doubt your 'price of an i-phone' quote..
Sooty said:
>I think the chances of that are remote. The cost of anything even vaguely important on an aircraft..
Well, I may have exaggerated slightly ;-)
My shopping list would be:-
One of these www.mini-box.com/mini2440v2 to run the software created with the Amplicon IDE. $109
One of these www.gtc-usa.com/satphone/Globalstar-STX3-Simplex-Modem-378.html for the satellite link. $100
A handful of these uk.rs-online.com/web/p/digital-isolators/7698617/ to isolate it electrically.
An enclosure, maybe a fan. A few bits and bobs like SD card, connectors, cable etc.
So let's call it $250 for the hardware, before quantity discounts. Which is probably what they pay for a couple of seatback entertainment systems. For reliability and redundancy I could couple two or even three together and use a heartbeat or voting system to protect against failure or misbehaviour of one system.
So we're now at $750 or £450 at today's rate. How much is an iPhone 5s? £549 for the cheapest 16GB version?
But there's one fatal flaw in my idea that I should have checked first.
Data transmission speed to a satellite from a mobile device is much slower than from a fixed site uplink. Maximum data rate is typically less than 20kbps and more commonly 9600bps depending on satellite operator. Being generous and allowing 10% for error-correction/protocol overhead I'd be lucky to get 1KB/s.
So we're back to lack of bandwidth.
|
>> How much is an iPhone 5s? £549 for the cheapest 16GB version?
Probably closer to $200 for the actual BoM. Some more for assembly. The rest is profit.
>> So we're back to lack of bandwidth.
And there are maybe 10,000 aircraft to get data from at any point in time...
Last edited by: rtj70 on Fri 28 Mar 14 at 21:30
|
>Probably closer to $200 for the actual BoM. Some more for assembly. The rest is profit.
True, but I used retail prices because they are the only ones freely available for comparison. I did specify "before quantity discounts" though.
I thought that it was a reasonable idea, unfortunately thwarted by me making an assumption about true bandwidth availability.
I'm now going to concentrate on my patent for anal probes in cockpit seats :-)
|
>> He's not too far out, trying to pin down what needs to be sent and
>> what doesn't would be quite hard, although not impossible. This incident is a bit of
>> one off, not sure how much effort will be spent trying to resolve 'lost aircraft'.
>> Solutions will no doubt come think and fast, uptake will be somewhat slower.
That's my point Sooty. As Fursty points out most crashes arise not from a single cause but from a sequence of actions that allow the holes in the cheese to line up. Trying to separate, on the fly, those messages that are routine/spurious/solvable by the crew is a pretty big challenge for the software.
Look at the Air Canada 767 that ran out of fuel over the Great Lakes in 1983 flying Montreal to Edmonton via Ottawa. Various mistakes/misunderstandings led to the aircraft being dispatched with both fuel level gauge systems inoperative.
In fact only one was faulty, the other would have worked if circuit breakers had been set correctly. While it was acceptable to fly with one system inoperative both down should have grounded the aircraft but being new in service the minimum equipment list was constantly being amended and the Captain believed he was OK. A misunderstood conversation with the crew who'd brought the aircraft into Montreal re-in forced his view.
Even without fuel gauges flight can be conducted safely provided the fuel quantity on board at start is known and the consumption is correctly monitored. Fuel was pumped on at Montreal and the tank level checked with dipsticks. Errors were made however in (a) converting the fuel load needed between litres from the bowser and pounds/kg for weight and trim purposes and (b) converting the dipstick readings to actual quantity.
Result was that after short sector to Ottawa the aircraft took off with insufficient fuel for the longer Edmonton sector and both engines flamed out over the Great Lakes.
At this point luck veered the other way and with a pilot who knew the area well and was a skilled glider flyer they successfully landed dead stick at a disused airfield on the shore of Lake Winnipeg.
|
|
Just read up on that one. Very interesting - thanks!
|
>Trying to separate, on the fly, those messages that are routine/spurious/solvable by the crew
>is a pretty big challenge for the software.
Would you like to justify that statement?
In the simplest scenario you assign a severity to every possible message. Not as simple as that, but nowhere near the difficulty you are implying.
>Look at the Air Canada 767 that ran out of fuel over the Great Lakes in 1983
It's 2014 Bromp, technology and regulation has improved to try and avoid the mistakes that were made by the Air Canada flight.
Do we sit on our butt and accept the status quo or do we continue that improvement?
|
Kevin,
I'm not in business of justifying, just explaining. My interest and knowledge in these matters is based on 40yrs interest in aviation watching planes, eavesdropping on ATC, reading professional accounts and AAIB reports.
In simple terms the ratio of wheat to chaff in the data we're talking about is very low. Identifying those bits that matter enough (and in a realistic impending accident they'll happen in combination) to raise an alarm without crying wolf will be challenging. I suspect making stuff envisaged here work is more difficult than IT guys might think.
The B767 is still in service today and used by several UK airlines including BA & Thomson. Examples are still being delivered although the replacement 787 is now in service.
Regulation won't stop people making mistakes and acting on misapprehensions.
Within last 24 months there was in incident at Manchester where aircraft's weight entered into the machine's computer was several tonnes less than it really was. Power required for t/o was therefore calculated lower than it should have been.
Fortunately Manchester has a long runway with few obstructions in normal direction of take off and crew managed scenario. If it happened at Leeds where runway is short, at nearly 700feet AMSL and with surrounding hills 300 feet above threshold it might have been a real buttock clencher - or worse.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 27 Mar 14 at 08:16
|
>I'm not in business of justifying, just explaining.
But you are claiming that it is "a pretty big challenge for the software" when in reality it is not. How do you think the alarms and events in something like a refinery with thousands of sensors are managed. The software to do this job has been in existence since at least the late 70's and has obviously matured since I last worked on it in the 80's.
Here ya go Bromp, no programming skills required, virtually drag and drop and it has it's own scripting language so you can build your own decision trees. Off the shelf IDE for Windows.
www.amplicon.com/MandC/product/Software-SCADA-Indusoft-4619.cfm
www.amplicon.com/manuals/iws-v70-quick-start-guide.pdf
The only difficult task is deciding what combination of events warrants action and I'm pretty sure that the aircraft manufacturer knows that already.
|
>> The only difficult task is deciding what combination of events warrants action and I'm pretty
>> sure that the aircraft manufacturer knows that already.
That's my point Kevin.
The combination of events for an aircraft, operating in three dimensions with variables of FL/altitude/height, load, availability of navaids, fuel, engine parameters, attitude, relationship of pitch/speed/yaw/bank weather etc are a different case from a refinery or other factory.
|
|
I bet you could pass an awful lot of data in 140 character bursts, people manage it in Twitter.
|
>The combination of events for an aircraft, operating in three dimensions..
They are all sensor inputs. That's all they are - measurements. Dimensions and availability of this or that is blowing smoke and has absolutely nothing to do with it.
If it was as difficult as you are trying to make out, fly-by-wire and the digital cockpit would never have got off the ground. Simply monitoring FDR data and deciding whether to send a $10 transmission is child's play compared to monitoring the same data and using it to control the aircraft.
You are being ridiculous Bromp.
|
>> You are being ridiculous Bromp.
Whatever. I have my view and you yours.
|
most crashes arise not from a single
>> cause but from a sequence of actions that allow the holes in the cheese to
>> line up.
Arrrggh you've giving me powerpoint flashbacks
;-)
|
>Where do you draw the line?
Good question FF and one I don't have an answer for. My suggestion was just a quick off-the-cuff possible solution to the problem with UA's desire for realtime transmission of FDR & CVR data.
>Would it be reliable? The newest ACARS software on the A320 is fiendishly unstable,
It would be basically just writing data to a storage medium waiting for some pre-defined conditions to trigger a switch to reading the storage and transmitting the contents. Pretty simple stuff. Bugs will always slip through of-course.
I've no doubt there are problems, otherwise it would probably have been done by now.
|
www.marinetraffic.com/en/p/satellite-ais
If it can be done for ships, I cannot see that the problems can be insurmountable, even allowing for the different speeds.
|
|
How many ships and how many planes? Technically it is doable. Without more satellites I'm not sure.
|
A wild guess tempered by a Google says that it is not dissimilar.
10-15,000 ships and 10,000 airplanes was the guess I found. I highly doubt those are accurate, but as orders of magnitude they're probably ok.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 19 May 14 at 01:21
|
Presumably any country could if it wanted monitor all air traffic and immediately pick up anything flying where it shouldn't be? I had always understood that if a Russian bomber crossed the North Sea heading our way it would be noticed, or a highjacked airliner turned towards the Olympic stadium it would be intercepted.
Does the recent incident mean the Malaysians don't consider it worth monitoring their nearby air space for such events?
|
>> Presumably any country could if it wanted monitor all air traffic and immediately pick up
>> anything flying where it shouldn't be? I had always understood that if a Russian bomber
>> crossed the North Sea heading our way it would be noticed, or a highjacked airliner
>> turned towards the Olympic stadium it would be intercepted.
>>
>> Does the recent incident mean the Malaysians don't consider it worth monitoring their nearby air
>> space for such events?
I think the Malaysian air defence chief would rather you stopped asking the question. I suspect a jail cell may well be his next abode.
|
>> I think the Malaysian air defence chief would rather you stopped asking the question. I
>> suspect a jail cell may well be his next abode.
>>
There could be a dramatic job change for him but remember not all countries have, want, or can afford the level of defence or surveillance that the USA and their cronies have.
Last edited by: Uncle Albert on Thu 27 Mar 14 at 09:43
|
They tracked it, noted it had no IFF, and ignored it.
Doesn't look good on your CV!
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 27 Mar 14 at 09:54
|
>> They tracked it, noted it had no IFF, and ignored it.
>>
>> Doesn't look good on your CV!
>>
But we don't know what their response policy or time scale is. It might be report it during office hours for all we know. We also don't know if it was live tracking or the data was checked when they realised it had gone pear shaped, or when people turned up for work in the morning etc. Just because we have jet fighters on standby to be airborne in XX minutes not every one has.
Last edited by: Uncle Albert on Thu 27 Mar 14 at 10:19
|
|
They have 24 hour military radar watch, and they have a reasonable little airforce., and they have sufficient terrorist risk to maintain some watching brief.
|
|
I assure you that means nothing, remember I have a little knowledge of military procedures. It is all down to priorities, even some of ours may not be all you think.
Last edited by: Uncle Albert on Thu 27 Mar 14 at 10:40
|
Missed the edit:-
You may be right Z, however you also need to factor in the Image projected. No one would believe that they have an instant reaction nuclear deterrent but instant reaction 100% radar cover?
|
>> www.bbc.com/sport/0/formula1/26766623
Oh how much do I hate all this type of stuff. Really, messages on their helmets and a minutes silence?
Why?
|
Oh come on FMR. It was obvious to me that they would do something like this. A gesture of courtesy to a very upset host country, not faffing sentimentality.
|
|
Crocodile tears. $$$
Last edited by: Pigs-Might-Fly on Thu 27 Mar 14 at 15:08
|
>> >> www.bbc.com/sport/0/formula1/26766623
>>
>> Oh how much do I hate all this type of stuff. Really, messages on their
>> helmets and a minutes silence?
>>
>> Why?
Because its its good PR. There need be no other reason.
|
That must be only the second time I've agreed with Zero.
All for show.
|
What a selfish world we live in these days.
To those who object, wherever in the world they may be....IT ISN'T ALL ABOUT YOU.
It may well be PR, or whatever, but if it makes the relatives of the dead, of which there are many, feel a little better then put up with it.
They haven't had a whole lot of fun this last couple of weeks, remember?
Pat
|
>> but if it makes the relatives of the
>> dead, of which there are many, feel a little better then put up with it.
I can assure you, it doesn't, not the teeniest weeniest little bit, it does not help them feel even the tiniest bit better in any way. IN fact it probably makes them feel worse, assuming the Malaysian authorities are orchestrating this to take the pressure off themselves.
|
Of course, you have first hand experience of how they feel, will feel and what effect it may have on them?
If your judgement is anything like your last views on someone's death I suggest you are in dire need of doing some homework.
Pat
|
|
You don't read the news much do you Pat.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 27 Mar 14 at 16:35
|
I don't have to Zero, I look into my heart and find a bit of compassion.
I'm happy to put up with something that doesn't directly affect me if it may ease someone else's pain. I can remember when everyone felt that way, can't you?
People only think of themselves now and their dislike/disapproval of something.
Never mind those who are affected, it's all about ME these days.
Pat
|
Pity, because if you were aware of what was going on, you would have known that the relatives of the missing passengers are convinced that the Malaysian authorities are complicit in some way with what went on, or at the very least hiding the truth deliberately.
Now given that Its fair to say, they are going to be incensed by what is seen as a deliberate attempt to deflect their ire.
Now had you let your head work for a tick, rather than let your mouth instantly spout its dislike of me you may have realised what I was talking about.
|
I fully realised what you were talking about, that is exactly my point.
Surely I don't have to explain it will be seen as a mark of respect by non Malaysian people and conveyed to a worldwide audience.
Some will gain comfort from that.
.....and don't patronise me, I didn't come up the river on a banana boat, you know.
Pat
|
|
oh whatever.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 27 Mar 14 at 17:53
|
|
I would have been surprised if at the Malaysian grand prix they didn't do something to show respect.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 27 Mar 14 at 16:06
|
|
I would've thought the relatives were a little irked at being evicted from their hotel for the F1 circus. This may just be rubbing their noses in it.
|
............and later in the year, at the American Grand Prix to show respect to the victims of the mudslide in Washington State?
Where to draw the line?
|
>>Where to draw the line?<<
You don't, why would you want to?
How does it affect you?
It's a small matter of respect for the dead, and their families, to most of us.
Pat
|
>> >>Where to draw the line?<<
>>
>> You don't, why would you want to?
>>
>> How does it affect you?
>>
>> It's a small matter of respect for the dead, and their families, to most of
>> us.
>>
>> Pat
Loss of this a/c is a major tragedy for Malaysia and entirely natural that it should be marked at their GP
While I understand frustrations of (Chinese) victim's relatives this incident, assuming the identification of crash site is correct, is unprecedented. Is their any other jet age crash where the site is not just hundreds but thousands of miles off the flight planned route.?
I think EU/US etc countries would be struggling with the 'PR' too if it happened to an a/c out of JFK/IAH/LHR/CDG/AMS etc.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 27 Mar 14 at 21:23
|
Members of the F1 circus will have their different views, like Lewis Hamilton who seems to have got religion in some way. But it's a safe bet they will be concentrating on the job in hand.
However all those involved, the teams and the whole shebang under Bernie, have very expensive PR people to make sure they seem to be doing the decent thing even in fraught circumstances like these. You can say it's all for show if you like, but F1 itself is all for show.
I knew they would do this and I think it's the right thing to do. They don't pay those PR people for nothing.
|
I thought with those satellite images of 100s of bits of debris they knew where to look. But 'there is no evidence that they are related to the plane', and the search area has just shifted by ~700 miles:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26780897
which actually makes things a bit easier as it's closer to land and the weather is better.
I heard one of the Australian air force guys on the news a couple of days ago saying they weren't looking for a needle in a haystack, they were still trying to find the haystack.
Last edited by: Focusless on Fri 28 Mar 14 at 08:30
|
>> I thought with those satellite images of 100s of bits of debris they knew where
>> to look. But 'there is no evidence that they are related to the plane', and
>> the search area has just shifted by ~700 miles:
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26780897
>> which actually makes things a bit easier as it's closer to land and the weather
>> is better.
>>
>> I heard one of the Australian air force guys on the news a couple of
>> days ago saying they weren't looking for a needle in a haystack, they were still
>> trying to find the haystack.
Its really weird isn't it. There we are, at one point being told they were trying to found large bits of debris they knew were there because of the satellite images, then the search area is shifted, without anyone saying what the debris was. We have everyone praising inmarsat because they had pinpointed the probable area due to major advances in signal science, then we have people saying oh no thats rubbish it was flying at much different speed, so we need to look 1,100km away.
Its a classic case of politicians saying stuff to look good (or more likely the need to say something - anything) without knowing what the hell they are talking about. That much was clear when the Aussie PM instantly spouted up days ago "we the Aussies can find it"
|
>> Its a classic case of politicians saying stuff to look good (or more likely the
>> need to say something - anything) without knowing what the hell they are talking about.
>> That much was clear when the Aussie PM instantly spouted up days ago "we the
>> Aussies can find it"
>>
>>
Don't forget that it is not only politicians that spin the truth or employ spin doctors. Call me an old cynic if you like but I am wary of taking anything that governments or their agencies, and that includes the military, say at face value. I agree that politicians often haven't a clue about the things they talk about. As I said earlier "projected image".
As for the shifted search area, I expect that a lot of information is still being analysed. One thing I picked up on was a statement that new radar information was involved. This may not be terrestrial radar, The people who put up surveillance satellites pack them with as many sensors as possible covering the full spectrum of detectable emissions. Post event analysis can be a lengthy process and disclosing sources is sensitive info.
I do not know their capabilities, but assume that they are sophisticated bits of kit.
|
|
Another thought, that happened on the ground and received lengthy fire fighting effort. I am no expert but I would think that damage would bring the aircraft down before it went too far.
|
MH370 - sooty123
