On March 21 2014 13:21 Aveng3r wrote: You really aren't making a lot of sense, ignorance implies that one should know the truth given the information at hand, or that they have turned a blind eye to what others have seen. Are you some kind of aviation expert who is more qualified to offer an opinion on what might have happened in that cockpit than the fox news correspondent?
I have no idea how you think that news broadcast could be "harmful". its just some guy suggesting what might have happened.
Also nice jab at America, glad you had the time to throw that in there
. Granted, the US media are not the only ones to capitalize on that MH370 flight, but they certainly are the worst.
wait what? I watch Canadian news, there was a lot of it. And even the better British papers pushed the missing plane on top of other stories that globally matter more.
Newspapers and News shows love a good mystery and this one is as weird as it gets.
Oh totally. I just dont get the random anti-Americanism in this one...
It's not "anti-americanism", we're not all after you... From my perspective, CNN has been worse than BBC and everybody else. I don't watch Fox News so I don't know if they've exploited this. CBC in Canada has been horrible too but not CNN-level bad.
Regardless of that, I don't know how criticizing US news is "anti-americanism". You're not your news.
How useful would submarines actually be? I have no knowledge of their capabilities. I would have thought they would not be much use, as they cannot "see" anything. They rely on sonar? But then, would that part of the ocean be detailed in its geometry? If you were to use sonar, could it be possible to compare existing geometry with the sonar search and look for anomalies, ie plane wreckage? How big an area could it scan etc?
What I guess I am getting at is, what technology is there that allows us to see the bottom of the ocean, and search wide areas, if the plane had sank? I am guessing there isnt any? And we may never find this plane for a very long time?
I'm still not convinced the debris they saw was from MH370, unless the Aussie govt knows something the rest of us don't, which is very possible of course.
Also I think Chewits is right, that ocean is so deep if its at the bottom it may never come back up
On March 21 2014 22:44 Chewits wrote: How useful would submarines actually be? I have no knowledge of their capabilities. I would have thought they would not be much use, as they cannot "see" anything. They rely on sonar? But then, would that part of the ocean be detailed in its geometry? If you were to use sonar, could it be possible to compare existing geometry with the sonar search and look for anomalies, ie plane wreckage? How big an area could it scan etc?
What I guess I am getting at is, what technology is there that allows us to see the bottom of the ocean, and search wide areas, if the plane had sank? I am guessing there isnt any? And we may never find this plane for a very long time?
Well from what i gather, subs are always used to search for blackboxes using sonar or something like it. You will NEED an underwater vehicule if blackboxes sunk more than 3km (i think it's 3) underwater.
For the debris i'm not sure. I'm not expert. Just a "crash enthousiast" (i know it's creepy)
On March 21 2014 22:44 Chewits wrote: How useful would submarines actually be? I have no knowledge of their capabilities. I would have thought they would not be much use, as they cannot "see" anything. They rely on sonar? But then, would that part of the ocean be detailed in its geometry? If you were to use sonar, could it be possible to compare existing geometry with the sonar search and look for anomalies, ie plane wreckage? How big an area could it scan etc?
What I guess I am getting at is, what technology is there that allows us to see the bottom of the ocean, and search wide areas, if the plane had sank? I am guessing there isnt any? And we may never find this plane for a very long time?
Given if it is true the plane crashed into the sea, the black box on the plane gives out sonar signals for roughly a month. If the plane is in a very deep part in the ocean, then the signal is weak and only a military sonar can really detect it reliably. Military Sonars and some little mini subs have been used in the past to find wreckage of planes and detect the pings from black boxes that ships can't get to.
They are basically hoping that they can find the black box ping and then the plane itself. As it has been 2 weeks now, the ping on the black box has roughly 3 more weeks give or take before it'll be nearly impossible to locate unless they find the plane. Like what happened with Air France 447.
The main problem isn't recovery, the main problem is figuring out where it likely is. AFAIK, there is no Emergency Locator Transponder signal. The thing is designed to break off in water impacts and start screaming its location. In addition, the black box only has a 3 km radius in ideal conditions anyway.
They can recover what they need to from the aircraft given enough time and money. The United States did try to raise a whole Russian sub (they got half) during the cold war after all.
The problem really is knowing where the plane actually is.No one knows, they still don't know.
The news I keep seeing points that they believe the wreckage they found sunk into the ocean. If it is true then, where the plane actually crashed, most of the pieces already sank into the ocean. I guess that's where the sub comes in.
If the sub is equipped well, it can sonar ping the ocean floor to find the pieces of the plane if it is really and truly where they believe it is at. Other wise, it's back to square one.
On March 21 2014 23:06 Antisocialmunky wrote: The main problem isn't recovery, the main problem is figuring out where it likely is. AFAIK, there is no Emergency Locator Transponder signal. The thing is designed to break off in water impacts and start screaming its location. In addition, the black box only has a 3 km radius in ideal conditions anyway.
They can recover what they need to from the aircraft given enough time and money. The United States did try to raise a whole Russian sub (they got half) during the cold war after all.
Yup that is right. I think black box is 3km radius under a certain deepness and 5 if it's above that certain deepness. Can't remember the numbers though
On March 21 2014 23:06 Antisocialmunky wrote: The main problem isn't recovery, the main problem is figuring out where it likely is. AFAIK, there is no Emergency Locator Transponder signal. The thing is designed to break off in water impacts and start screaming its location. In addition, the black box only has a 3 km radius in ideal conditions anyway.
They can recover what they need to from the aircraft given enough time and money. The United States did try to raise a whole Russian sub (they got half) during the cold war after all.
Yup that is right. I think black box is 3km radius under a certain deepness and 5 if it's above that certain deepness. Can't remember the numbers though
It's 5 km at "ideal conditions" and 3km at normal conditions.
I have no idea what conditions really means. Maybe water turbulence or surrounding geometry or something.
If it did sink, it's probably close-ish to the sat location, since it won't have been moved by currents while sitting on the ocean bed. I haven't heard anything about subs en route, but it doesn't sound like a terrible idea.
Basically, they need a rough idea of where it went down, then they'll run a set of listening patterns over the area. Look at the data and attempt to get closer.
In the Air France situation, it was around 4 km below the surface and on really craggy ocean, so the ping was reflecting everywhere. They actually had to collect all of the data, run high level analysis on it, and then go back and attempt to find the wreckage again. (Why it took almost 2 years) And they knew roughly where it impacted the Ocean.
With Malaysia 370, we don't even know it crashed there yet. Even getting a Sub or two in the region (thousands of square KM) by next week, it's really likely to be lost completely. Then it switches to Bob Ballard's domain for searching.
On March 21 2014 05:47 WOPR wrote: something is really fishy here and im just starting to think that 911 is an inside job edit ** just a min ago it was all russia.. is this a smoke screen?
In point of fact, if it was an 'inside job', it would indeed be ongoing, as part of a larger plan involving the implementation of a massive 'security state' apparatus. + Show Spoiler +
On March 22 2014 13:17 Antisocialmunky wrote: I wonder if the autopilot glided the airplane down in one piece and it sank in one piece, trapping most of the debris?
Autopilots that are able to land civilian airplanes on water don't exist.
On March 22 2014 13:17 Antisocialmunky wrote: I wonder if the autopilot glided the airplane down in one piece and it sank in one piece, trapping most of the debris?
Autopilots that are able to land civilian airplanes on water don't exist.
No, but what happens if you keep the auto pilot on and it runs out of fuel? Does it try to keep it in a level glide or does it disengage and crash? AFAIK, with regards to depressurization -> auto pilot -> fuel starvation accidents, Helios remained in level flight until it crashed into some hills while smaller private aircraft tended to spiral out of control when they they run out of fuel. It seems like large airliners are perfectly capable of gliding under pilot control, what about auto pilot?
On March 21 2014 13:21 Aveng3r wrote: You really aren't making a lot of sense, ignorance implies that one should know the truth given the information at hand, or that they have turned a blind eye to what others have seen. Are you some kind of aviation expert who is more qualified to offer an opinion on what might have happened in that cockpit than the fox news correspondent?
I have no idea how you think that news broadcast could be "harmful". its just some guy suggesting what might have happened.
Also nice jab at America, glad you had the time to throw that in there
. Granted, the US media are not the only ones to capitalize on that MH370 flight, but they certainly are the worst.
wait what? I watch Canadian news, there was a lot of it. And even the better British papers pushed the missing plane on top of other stories that globally matter more.
Newspapers and News shows love a good mystery and this one is as weird as it gets.
Oh totally. I just dont get the random anti-Americanism in this one...
It's not "anti-americanism", we're not all after you... From my perspective, CNN has been worse than BBC and everybody else. I don't watch Fox News so I don't know if they've exploited this. CBC in Canada has been horrible too but not CNN-level bad.
Regardless of that, I don't know how criticizing US news is "anti-americanism". You're not your news.
I am Canadian...and as far as I can see the only thing CBC/CTV hasnt done yet is suggest the black hole thing...otherwise its the same sensationalism.
On March 22 2014 13:17 Antisocialmunky wrote: I wonder if the autopilot glided the airplane down in one piece and it sank in one piece, trapping most of the debris?
Autopilots that are able to land civilian airplanes on water don't exist.
No, but what happens if you keep the auto pilot on and it runs out of fuel? Does it try to keep it in a level glide or does it disengage and crash? AFAIK, with regards to depressurization -> auto pilot -> fuel starvation accidents, Helios remained in level flight until it crashed into some hills while smaller private aircraft tended to spiral out of control when they they run out of fuel. It seems like large airliners are perfectly capable of gliding under pilot control, what about auto pilot?
On March 22 2014 13:17 Antisocialmunky wrote: I wonder if the autopilot glided the airplane down in one piece and it sank in one piece, trapping most of the debris?
Autopilots that are able to land civilian airplanes on water don't exist.
No, but what happens if you keep the auto pilot on and it runs out of fuel? Does it try to keep it in a level glide or does it disengage and crash? AFAIK, with regards to depressurization -> auto pilot -> fuel starvation accidents, Helios remained in level flight until it crashed into some hills while smaller private aircraft tended to spiral out of control when they they run out of fuel. It seems like large airliners are perfectly capable of gliding under pilot control, what about auto pilot?
Also i think autopilot disable when your altitude isn't at a certain level.
EPT
. 
