On March 13 2014 12:39 icystorage wrote: do they disintegrate hitting the water? (serious question because i really dont know) i thought they somehow float intact
Would imagine that depends on how they hit the water, no? If they hit it at a glide speed, then they could probably float. If they hit it at a hard crash angle, the plane would surely break up. Water can be less forgiving than land.
Of course, sometimes pilots can ditch the plane successfully like in the Hudson River Emergency Landing.
However, larger aircraft are hard to control and even at glide speeds such as is the case when the aircraft runs out of fuel so more often than not they break up.
And that was a good landing where 50 out of 175 survived (most of the passengers survived but died because they couldn't get out of their seats or inflated their life jackets inside and were trapped as the aircraft sank). Most cases there are either no survivors or no fatalities because the plane cannot be landed under control or the plane diverts over land for a runway.
U.S. investigators suspect that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 stayed in the air for about four hours past the time it reached its last confirmed location, according to two people familiar with the details, raising the possibility that the plane could have flown on for hundreds of additional miles under conditions that remain murky.
Aviation investigators and national security officials believe the plane flew for a total of five hours based on data automatically downloaded and sent to the ground from the Boeing Co. 777's engines as part of a routine maintenance and monitoring program.
[. . .]
But the huge uncertainty about where the plane was headed, and why it apparently continued flying so long without working transponders, has raised theories among investigators that the aircraft may have been commandeered for a reason that appears unclear to U.S. authorities. Some of those theories have been laid out to national security officials and senior personnel from various U.S. agencies, according to one person familiar with the matter.
At one briefing, according to this person, officials were told investigators are actively pursuing the notion that the plane was diverted "with the intention of using it later for another purpose."
[. . .]
A total flight time of five hours after departing Kuala Lumpur means the Boeing 777 could have continued for an additional distance of about 2,200 nautical miles, reaching points as far as the Indian Ocean, the border of Pakistan or even the Arabian Sea, based on the jet's cruising speed.
[. . .]
Also on Wednesday, a Chinese government website posted images from Chinese satellites showing what it said were three large objects floating in an 8-square-mile area off the southern tip of Vietnam. The objects were discovered on Sunday , according to the website, which didn't say whether the objects had been recovered or examined.
On March 13 2014 12:39 icystorage wrote: do they disintegrate hitting the water? (serious question because i really dont know) i thought they somehow float intact
Would imagine that depends on how they hit the water, no? If they hit it at a glide speed, then they could probably float. If they hit it at a hard crash angle, the plane would surely break up. Water can be less forgiving than land.
Of course, sometimes pilots can ditch the plane successfully like in the Hudson River Emergency Landing.
However, larger aircraft are hard to control and even at glide speeds such as is the case when the aircraft runs out of fuel so more often than not they break up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE2Yn0cipTY
And that was a good landing where 50 out of 175 survived (most of the passengers survived but died because they couldn't get out of their seats or inflated their life jackets inside and were trapped as the aircraft sank). Most cases there are either no survivors or no fatalities because the plane cannot be landed under control or the plane diverts over land for a runway.
good landing is the one in the hudson. that one was imo a bad landing, since the aircraft had a bank angle which caused it to disintegrate.
On March 13 2014 12:39 icystorage wrote: do they disintegrate hitting the water? (serious question because i really dont know) i thought they somehow float intact
Would imagine that depends on how they hit the water, no? If they hit it at a glide speed, then they could probably float. If they hit it at a hard crash angle, the plane would surely break up. Water can be less forgiving than land.
Of course, sometimes pilots can ditch the plane successfully like in the Hudson River Emergency Landing.
However, larger aircraft are hard to control and even at glide speeds such as is the case when the aircraft runs out of fuel so more often than not they break up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE2Yn0cipTY
And that was a good landing where 50 out of 175 survived (most of the passengers survived but died because they couldn't get out of their seats or inflated their life jackets inside and were trapped as the aircraft sank). Most cases there are either no survivors or no fatalities because the plane cannot be landed under control or the plane diverts over land for a runway.
good landing is the one in the hudson. that one was imo a bad landing, since the aircraft had a bank angle which caused it to disintegrate.
The circumstances for the pilot were much worse though. He had a crazy hijacker on board.
On March 13 2014 12:39 icystorage wrote: do they disintegrate hitting the water? (serious question because i really dont know) i thought they somehow float intact
Would imagine that depends on how they hit the water, no? If they hit it at a glide speed, then they could probably float. If they hit it at a hard crash angle, the plane would surely break up. Water can be less forgiving than land.
Of course, sometimes pilots can ditch the plane successfully like in the Hudson River Emergency Landing.
However, larger aircraft are hard to control and even at glide speeds such as is the case when the aircraft runs out of fuel so more often than not they break up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE2Yn0cipTY
And that was a good landing where 50 out of 175 survived (most of the passengers survived but died because they couldn't get out of their seats or inflated their life jackets inside and were trapped as the aircraft sank). Most cases there are either no survivors or no fatalities because the plane cannot be landed under control or the plane diverts over land for a runway.
good landing is the one in the hudson. that one was imo a bad landing, since the aircraft had a bank angle which caused it to disintegrate.
The circumstances for the pilot were much worse though. He had a crazy hijacker on board.
I know. I'm not saying the pilot was bad or anything, I'm saying that the landing wasn't "good", it was bad because the aircraft had a bank angle which caused one engine to hit the water before the other, resulting in the aircraft not withstanding the impact. He was trying to turns closer towards land.
A good ditch is possible; that video was not a good ditch, all I'm saying.
And the latest two speculations have been addressed. The chinese pictures were not authorized or endorsed. At the same time, it covers water that has been searched thoroughly even after another look at the site.
The Rolls Royce information of a 5 hour flight from the flight data has been addressed as 'inaccurate' after the investigators talked to Boeng and Rolls Royce. The last ACARS data were from 1:07 (11 minutes before last tower contact and 23 minutes before plane another plane called and heard "mumbling"). These data were showing a plane working perfectly. source
On March 13 2014 14:15 Antisocialmunky wrote: The search area suddenly goes from the size of Texas to a radius twice that of the moon or 5 times the size of Australia.
It is going to be nearly impossible to find...
But we can be almost certain it's somewhere in that area.
On March 13 2014 19:48 radiatoren wrote: And the latest two speculations have been addressed. The chinese pictures were not authorized or endorsed. At the same time, it covers water that has been searched thoroughly even after another look at the site.
The Rolls Royce information of a 5 hour flight from the flight data has been addressed as 'inaccurate' after the investigators talked to Boeng and Rolls Royce. The last ACARS data were from 1:07 (11 minutes before last tower contact and 23 minutes before plane another plane called and heard "mumbling"). These data were showing a plane working perfectly. source
I don't know, that report is from a transport minister, not from Rolls Royce, Boeing, or an American official, of which all three were a subject of the Wall Street Journal article.
Here's a visual of the potential range of that craft if the report is true:
PlanePlotter receives and decodes live digital position reports from aircraft and plots them on a chart.
Using PlanePlotter, you can see a radar-like display of all those aircraft around you that are transmitting the appropriate digital messages including ACARS, ADS-B and HFDL.
If the ACARS data is there (idk) then they should be able to do something similar. Maybe it depends on the airlines.
PlanePlotter - Features The animated screen grab from PlanePlotter (left) was kindly provided by John Locker.
Message display PlanePlotter shows a table display of messages received and decoded from live aircraft transmissions.
Data saving PlanePlotter archives all the digital data that it receives and decodes to a log file.
Chart display PlanePlotter plots aircraft positions, altitudes and times decoded from the message traffic that it receives. These include embedded position reports, AMDAR reports and ADS reports contained in ACARS messages, ADS-B position reports received by the Kinetic SBS1(tm) or AirNav System RadarBox(tm) Mode-S receivers, and position reports on HF using Charles Brain's PC-HFDL software. The plot can be superimposed on a suitable aeronatical chart that you have prepared, or PlanePlotter can download satellite imagery and plot the aircraft symbols on that. Where altitude information is available (eg Mode-S messages), you can select the data by altitude band to distinguish low level and high level traffic.
Google Earth server If you are receiving Mode-S ADS-B position reports, PlanePlotter can interface to Google Earth to display aircraft positions over the Google Earth base map. It can even give you a dynamic real-time view from the flight deck of an aircraft that you designate.
Direction finding PlanePlotter can determine and display the direction of any transmission using a simple passive antenna switch. This allows aircraft to be located even if they are not equipped with ACARS or Mode-S/ADS-B.
"PlanePlotter can can determine the registration letters algorithmically, from the 24-bit hex address, for most aircraft registered in France, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, Portugal, Greece, Turkey, Romania, Yugoslavia, Russia, South Africa, Australia, Canada and United States. "
On March 13 2014 12:39 icystorage wrote: do they disintegrate hitting the water? (serious question because i really dont know) i thought they somehow float intact
Would imagine that depends on how they hit the water, no? If they hit it at a glide speed, then they could probably float. If they hit it at a hard crash angle, the plane would surely break up. Water can be less forgiving than land.
Of course, sometimes pilots can ditch the plane successfully like in the Hudson River Emergency Landing.
However, larger aircraft are hard to control and even at glide speeds such as is the case when the aircraft runs out of fuel so more often than not they break up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE2Yn0cipTY
And that was a good landing where 50 out of 175 survived (most of the passengers survived but died because they couldn't get out of their seats or inflated their life jackets inside and were trapped as the aircraft sank). Most cases there are either no survivors or no fatalities because the plane cannot be landed under control or the plane diverts over land for a runway.
good landing is the one in the hudson. that one was imo a bad landing, since the aircraft had a bank angle which caused it to disintegrate.
The circumstances for the pilot were much worse though. He had a crazy hijacker on board.
I know. I'm not saying the pilot was bad or anything, I'm saying that the landing wasn't "good", it was bad because the aircraft had a bank angle which caused one engine to hit the water before the other, resulting in the aircraft not withstanding the impact. He was trying to turns closer towards land.
A good ditch is possible; that video was not a good ditch, all I'm saying.
The wing thing wasn't actually the main problem, the water was shallow and the left engine snagged a coral reef.which would have happened either way. That and the copilot was fighting off 3 guys. This can be considered a good landing because its the only wide bodied jet (one with 2 aisles) to ditch in the water with survivors. Only 40 people died from the actual impact so this can be considered as the high bar of water landings of a jet that size.
EDIT: As someone pointed out on twitter about how the debris field would look like in satellite
But it would probably be smaller and harder to spot.
Edit: Okay apparently that link doesnt work anymore, but suddenly my newsfeed is filled with images and 'news stories' of the plane being found and the passengers being rescued.
They say a phone number that seems to be able to get through is located in America. And some chinese netizens would like to know the brand of the phone that can stand by for that long time so they will buy it.
Edit: Okay apparently that link doesnt work anymore, but suddenly my newsfeed is filled with images and 'news stories' of the plane being found and the passengers being rescued.
Edit: Okay apparently that link doesnt work anymore, but suddenly my newsfeed is filled with images and 'news stories' of the plane being found and the passengers being rescued.
U.S. investigators suspect that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 stayed in the air for about four hours past the time it reached its last confirmed location, according to two people familiar with the details, raising the possibility that the plane could have flown on for hundreds of additional miles under conditions that remain murky.
Aviation investigators and national security officials believe the plane flew for a total of five hours based on data automatically downloaded and sent to the ground from the Boeing Co. 777's engines as part of a routine maintenance and monitoring program.
[. . .]
But the huge uncertainty about where the plane was headed, and why it apparently continued flying so long without working transponders, has raised theories among investigators that the aircraft may have been commandeered for a reason that appears unclear to U.S. authorities. Some of those theories have been laid out to national security officials and senior personnel from various U.S. agencies, according to one person familiar with the matter.
At one briefing, according to this person, officials were told investigators are actively pursuing the notion that the plane was diverted "with the intention of using it later for another purpose."
[. . .]
A total flight time of five hours after departing Kuala Lumpur means the Boeing 777 could have continued for an additional distance of about 2,200 nautical miles, reaching points as far as the Indian Ocean, the border of Pakistan or even the Arabian Sea, based on the jet's cruising speed.
[. . .]
Also on Wednesday, a Chinese government website posted images from Chinese satellites showing what it said were three large objects floating in an 8-square-mile area off the southern tip of Vietnam. The objects were discovered on Sunday , according to the website, which didn't say whether the objects had been recovered or examined.
On March 13 2014 19:48 radiatoren wrote: And the latest two speculations have been addressed. The chinese pictures were not authorized or endorsed. At the same time, it covers water that has been searched thoroughly even after another look at the site.
The Rolls Royce information of a 5 hour flight from the flight data has been addressed as 'inaccurate' after the investigators talked to Boeng and Rolls Royce. The last ACARS data were from 1:07 (11 minutes before last tower contact and 23 minutes before plane another plane called and heard "mumbling"). These data were showing a plane working perfectly. source
I don't know, that report is from a transport minister, not from Rolls Royce, Boeing, or an American official, of which all three were a subject of the Wall Street Journal article.
Here's a visual of the potential range of that craft if the report is true:
Just to clarify, the first article you linked has been updated. It now says that the reference to Rolls Royce's ACARS was incorrect, but that some other system was functioning instead. They say it was actually a "satellite-communication link designed to automatically transmit the status of certain onboard systems to the ground."
Essentially they say that some system on the plane continued pinging satellites for about four hours after the plane's disappearance. It sent no actual data, just checked connection.
If that's true (which is a large "if"), I wonder if it's possible that the transponder could be doing that while floating in a pile of wreckage? Do all these things all require power from the engines to function?
If it crashed, it wouldn't have power so unlikely. The idea that this some sort of catastrophic depressurization occurred and disabled the crew seems to get more and more likely (still quite unlikely). Of course this theory doesn't explain how the crew of such a large aircraft were rendered unconscious (unless there was a failure in the O2 system) or how the transponder was disabled or why there was such a sudden turn with no distress call.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/AI-CH295_MALMAP_NS_20140313035406.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.starfiretor.com/FEP/pix/EgyptAirFlt990_OceanCrashScene.jpg)
