• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Malaysia Airlines tragedies

5 thanks says they can keep this story going with "breaking news" for at least another month without finding out anything new just by regurgitating, spinning, and twisting existing information... I remember the days when news was actually...well....news
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/11/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-plane.html

5th set of signals (from the P3's sonobuoys) - not from MH370 recorders.


Meanwhile -

http://www.news.com.au/travel/trave...x-has-been-found/story-fnizu68q-1226880483186

Australian PM declared that the 5th set of signals were from the plane.

And - an expert with inside info says that the wreckage has been found on the ocean floor. Who needs science when you can wish for magic?

Dear experts with inside information - sit down and shut up.
 
Fading signals add urgency to search for missing Malaysian jet

The search for a missing Malaysia Airlines jetliner resumed on Saturday, five weeks after the plane disappeared from radar screens, amid fears that batteries powering signals from the black box recorder on board may have died.


... all that effort and expense for nothing, it seems.
Not necessarily. You don't need the pings to find the recorders, they just make it a lot easier.

If they've got the right area to look in that will be something.
 
Not necessarily. You don't need the pings to find the recorders, they just make it a lot easier.

If they've got the right area to look in that will be something.

Yeh they found the Air France flight recorders without the pings, and took over two years, but they did find them.

Assuming they're in the right area, they should eventually find the wreckage. Once found that, the recorders should be there as well.
 
Assuming they're in the right area, they should eventually find the wreckage.

That's why they're trying to narrow the search area down as much as possible; they know the locator beacons will die soon, so the race is to reduce the required area to something that UAVs/AUVs can manage with reasonable chances of success.
 
That's why they're trying to narrow the search area down as much as possible; they know the locator beacons will die soon, so the race is to reduce the required area to something that UAVs/AUVs can manage with reasonable chances of success.

Terrain will be a big part of the equation.

One expert mentioned that the wreckage will present sharp edges and stand out easily with sidescan sonar because the floor is all soft silt. Fortunately for experts, that meme is spinning up, gaining traction and is now getting quoted without attribution as if it were an actual fact about that area.

Ok for most of Lake Erie but just rubbish for the area in question.

Regardless of the area size and the buzzwords, in the end this is going to be a brute force search.

Expect lots of false alarms after they start.

Sidescan sonar can accurately produce an image of a sunken ship in great detail. And often does. Visual inspections typically reveal no ship at all and no easy way to wrap your head around why the sonar images didn't match reality.

Expect more of that with rough terrain.

Bottom line, lots of cross checks required.

And vehicles like the Bluefin are modular. It can carry cameras or sidescan sonar but not both at the same time.

So all sidescan sonar is really going to do is help reduce the search area.

None of the phases are going to be skipped, at least I don't see how in this case -

Surface surveys (pretty much done), pinger detection (pretty much done), sidescan sonar of the floor (not started), followed by camera surveys of *candidate* areas as indicated by sidescan sonar, followed by retrieval of *candidate* objects, followed by identification and then verification - followed by detailed wreckage retrieval after all of that pans out. And aircraft aluminum, broken into pieces, is not going to sink a few miles in a turbulent ocean and end up in one spot. Aircraft does not equal heavy ship, so that process is going to be working over a number of candidate spots.

In my opinion.

Sounds travel and hide in layers in the ocean.

There was never a realistic possibility of ping, ping, ping, ping until X marks the spot, just a hope for that.

The ping location part influences success because resources for the rest of the process are limited.

Btw - not knocking any of the skills but the pinger locator hitting as well as it did right out of the gate not only says a lot about the team and the technology - but I think it says a lot about good luck as well.
 
Next up - press jackals claim that the co-pilot tried to make a phone call.

Our top story - press jackals not swayed by their own ignorance, clueless what a cell phone check in looks like on a network, make up a story, present as fact, and then quote each other despite the stupidity.

Conspiracy hamsters achieve bedwetting of tidal proportions, convinced that innuendo and magical thinking are superior to facts and rationality, and redefine important words like logic to prop up their pompous existence.

And no - no signals have actually been uncovered that would indicate that the co-pilot made any calls at all.
 
vehicles like the Bluefin are modular. It can carry cameras or sidescan sonar but not both at the same time.

Also, from what I remember, the sidescan is exactly that - two scans, one each side of the line of travel. It takes more work than a simple zig-zag search pattern... plus the targets aren't much larger than showboxes.
 
Next up - press jackals claim that the co-pilot tried to make a phone call.

Our top story - press jackals not swayed by their own ignorance, clueless what a cell phone check in looks like on a network, make up a story, present as fact, and then quote each other despite the stupidity.

Conspiracy hamsters achieve bedwetting of tidal proportions, convinced that innuendo and magical thinking are superior to facts and rationality, and redefine important words like logic to prop up their pompous existence.

And no - no signals have actually been uncovered that would indicate that the co-pilot made any calls at all.

I saw some of these stories. One has a poll asking people if they think terrorists were responsible.
 
One has a poll asking people if they think terrorists were responsible.

When this news first cracked, suspicions of terrorism were perfectly understandable, especially knowing their fascination with crashing airplanes. But as days turned into weeks with not a peep from terrorists, that suspicion has to be abandoned. What would be the point of doing this and not loudly proclaiming responsibility?
 
When this news first cracked, suspicions of terrorism were perfectly understandable, especially knowing their fascination with crashing airplanes. But as days turned into weeks with not a peep from terrorists, that suspicion has to be abandoned. What would be the point of doing this and not loudly proclaiming responsibility?

On the other hand, if it was terrorism, it would have to go down as one of the greatest blunders possible. :p
 
Might not have been terrorism, but that doesn't rule out that it was intentional.

Yep, it could have been a criminal act.

Hopefully, they'll find the truth and that will help to prevent a similar occurrence in the future, whether intentional or freak accident or accident + human error.
 
And I remember all kinds of pilot-suicide theories at first, although that would actually be a twisted form of terrorism.
 
Back
Top Bottom