Malaysia Airlines 777 loses contact...not found

[Mystic]

Hard to tell about the Chinese saying that they picked up that signal. But they need to check it out. I hope it does not turn out like the wreckage they supposedly saw with their satellite. But it would be nice if the airliner has finally been found.

Otherwise, if they don't find that airliner until after the batteries go dead in the black box, it will probably be a long time, if ever, before they find that airliner.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Well, airline policy does not trump the Malaysian courts. I've looked at international law vis a vis airlines, and haven't found any regulation that says they *have* to release it. But that doesn't mean it isn't there.

No, of course airline policy doesn't trump legislation or courts. But, other countries don't always share our philosophy on media releases. What would it really give us, other than another tidbit for CNN to report?

 

[Merkava_4]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
BTW, a 777-200ER has a nautical mile range of 7,725. Directly from Boeing.


I was looking at these specs:

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/777family/pf/pf_lrproduct.page

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Then it landed nowhere except the sea.


9,395.0001 nautical miles = 10,811.573 land miles

Kuala Lumper to Tehran Iran = 3,907.38 land miles

Kuala Lumpur to Islamabad Pakistan = 2,852.24 land miles


So what? It could not fly over Indian airspace, Pakistani airspace, or Iranian airspace with out being detected.

I have to buy Reynolds Consumer Products stock.

BTW, a 777-200ER has a nautical mile range of 7,725. Directly from Boeing.



As I explained a while ago, you don't just fill up airplanes. You fuel only enough for that flight (burnout plus required reserves).

So, the specs, the max range are completely meaningless in this discussion; the airplane was only fueled for Beijing.

 

[Astro14]

Take a look here for my previous fuel explanation: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3326496/14

 

[Vikas]

One of the funny thing with fueling with big jet is that if you fill it too much, it can take off but will NOT be able to land at the destination.

 

[Mystic]

The Chinese now say that they have two detections of a possible signal from the black box and another ship has detected one possible signal. A british ship is on the way to check.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: Trajan
BTW, a 777-200ER has a nautical mile range of 7,725. Directly from Boeing.


I was looking at these specs:

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/777family/pf/pf_lrproduct.page


And you looked at the wrong ones. Which one of those is a 777-200ER?

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Then it landed nowhere except the sea.


9,395.0001 nautical miles = 10,811.573 land miles

Kuala Lumper to Tehran Iran = 3,907.38 land miles

Kuala Lumpur to Islamabad Pakistan = 2,852.24 land miles


So what? It could not fly over Indian airspace, Pakistani airspace, or Iranian airspace with out being detected.

I have to buy Reynolds Consumer Products stock.

BTW, a 777-200ER has a nautical mile range of 7,725. Directly from Boeing.



As I explained a while ago, you don't just fill up airplanes. You fuel only enough for that flight (burnout plus required reserves).

So, the specs, the max range are completely meaningless in this discussion; the airplane was only fueled for Beijing.


I know that. But he can't claim it has a max range of x when it is y.

From point to point it's about 2,692 miles. With that plus the reserve, no way it's going to land in Tehran or Islamabad

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: Vikas
One of the funny thing with fueling with big jet is that if you fill it too much, it can take off but will NOT be able to land at the destination.


Yes it can.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0245b.shtml

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Well, airline policy does not trump the Malaysian courts. I've looked at international law vis a vis airlines, and haven't found any regulation that says they *have* to release it. But that doesn't mean it isn't there.

No, of course airline policy doesn't trump legislation or courts. But, other countries don't always share our philosophy on media releases. What would it really give us, other than another tidbit for CNN to report?

 

[friendly_jacek]

There is something wrong with the 37.5 kHz ping discoveries.

Quote:
Australian search authorities said on Sunday a Chinese patrol vessel, the Haixun 01, had picked up a fleeting "ping" signal twice in recent days in waters west of Perth, near where investigators believe Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 went down on March 8.

More planes and ships were being sent to assist in that area, but meanwhile, Australia's HMAS Ocean Shield had reported a separate "acoustic event" some 300 nautical miles away.


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/sh...ticle-1.1747367

Here is a potential explanation:

Quote:
The 37.5 kHz frequency is outside the audible spectrum for the human ear.
Acoustic hydrophones ‘translate’ the signal into the audible spectrum, a
process which does not exactly reproduce the original emission, which can be
‘polluted’ by the water environment and thus misprocessed.
[...]
With such faint signals, difficulties may also be experienced when sounds emitted by
the biological environment (eg whales)confuse the acoustic devices. Cetacean sound emissions typically take the form of swift ‘chirps’ over a wide spectrum of frequencies, which could at times be perceived as a short regular pinger signal, after being sampled and processed by acoustic devices.


http://www.azi.hr/docs/ACC_GuidelinesWeb%5B1%5D.pdf

 

[Mystic]

They still need to check it out. Bt I have a lot of doubt myself. It would be nice if the Chinese were right but I don't know if the equipment they are using would actually be able to detect the black box signal from the ocean floor.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: Vikas
One of the funny thing with fueling with big jet is that if you fill it too much, it can take off but will NOT be able to land at the destination.


Yes it can.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0245b.shtml


True, they can dump, but I think that Vikas' point was that you can overfill the jet for the route/profile that it is flying....

If you have to dump, you're pouring $$$ out the back. No airline ever plans a flight on which the crew would have to dump to land at destination.

Fuel dump is an emergency procedure in the airline industry.

So, this jet was fueled for Beijing, limiting its maximum range and the area/airports that would have been possible for it to reach.

Which means that I completely agree with your assessment: "From point to point it's about 2,692 miles. With that plus the reserve, no way it's going to land in Tehran or Islamabad"

Don't forget prevailing winds at the time which curtail the range in that direction...

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: Vikas
One of the funny thing with fueling with big jet is that if you fill it too much, it can take off but will NOT be able to land at the destination.


Yes it can.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0245b.shtml


True, they can dump, but I think that Vikas' point was that you can overfill the jet for the route/profile that it is flying....

If you have to dump, you're pouring $$$ out the back. No airline ever plans a flight on which the crew would have to dump to land at destination.

Fuel dump is an emergency procedure in the airline industry.

So, this jet was fueled for Beijing, limiting its maximum range and the area/airports that would have been possible for it to reach.

Which means that I completely agree with your assessment: "From point to point it's about 2,692 miles. With that plus the reserve, no way it's going to land in Tehran or Islamabad"

Don't forget prevailing winds at the time which curtail the range in that direction...




Ah, now I see what Vikas was getting at.

Yeah, prevailing winds would factor into it. (Wasn't taking head/tailwinds into consideration. Don't think any of us non pilots were.)

 

[antiqueshell]

....and still not one spec of debris from this plane spotted
ANYWHERE.

Black boxes have supposedly exhausted their battery power just about now as well. ULF pings will be done.

 

[CourierDriver]

It fell into another one of those triangles,,,,lol

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
The Chinese now say that they have two detections of a possible signal from the black box and another ship has detected one possible signal. A british ship is on the way to check.

Maybe this might be something. But, there have been lots of false leads. Needle in a haystack times a million, really.

Trajan, that's much my point, I guess. We have an awful lot of coverage in North America. I'm sure China and Malaysia are inundated with coverage, at least by their standards. But, I really wonder what the coverage is like elsewhere in the world. I don't get to pay as much attention to BBC as I'd like, and CBC is getting a wee bit bored of the story, it would seem. We want information, but that's more of us desiring to be entertained.

Unless this incident happened because of some fatal, hidden flaw in this aircraft or a giant security lapse that could be exploited elsewhere, what happened in this case really doesn't affect us much.

 

[Mystic]

The Australian ship with the American equipment detected a signal from what is probably one of the black boxes for over two hours. And then we they turned around to try to pick up the signal again they picked up a slightly different signal from what may be the second black box in a somewhat different location. They picked up that signal for fifteen minutes. This is incredible luck-with no wreckage found on the surface and at the near end of the battery life for the black boxes.

It will take days to try to get a better location and then they will send the Blue Fin device down to try to get side scan sonar images and also take photographs of wreckage.

Unless all of this is somehow a false lead it looks like the probable location of the aircraft wreckage has been found. But it will take days to confirm all of this and a long time to recover the wreckage. But maybe the black boxes can be recovered fairly quickly.

It is deep down-they said 4500 meters. Almost three miles down. And depending on exactly where the wreckage is located it could be even deeper. Because that deep the signal can be distorted by ocean currents and so forth.

 

[Merkava_4]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
And you looked at the wrong ones. Which one of those is a 777-200ER?


All I did is search under '777'.

If I was prepaing for a college exam, then I might've tried to get the exact model number.