777 down

[sc_rufctr]

Originally Posted by M.D. Holloway

or the splash would have set off the bouys that are used for rouge wave detection...

It would have to crash very close to a rouge wave buoy... I would guess less than 200 meters to set it off.

[cashflyer]

Even if they pulled breakers, the ELT is self contained with it's own power supply (batteries).
Any significant impact would trigger it.

On land, OK. But if it sank, the water would block the signal, and not all ELTs are water proof. It would have to transmit before sinking.

406mhz ELTs (required on all US* transport planes) update their GPS data every 15 seconds and upon being triggered send a "burst transmission" to the satellite with GPS position data and the identification code of the aircraft it is installed on. So if it did not send the transmission, my guess is that it was never triggered by an impact, or that it was destroyed in a way that kept it from sending data (like a massive explosion), or that it plunged into the water and sank immediately (ie, within seconds).

Or, maybe it did send the data.



*yes, this is a Malaysian plane and I don't know if they play by the same rules as our planes

[widgeon13]

This seems to be turning into a Chinese fire drill.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by Aurel

Did you guys see the plane had a load of Li-ion cells in cargo? I could have caused a fire, although I sure hope it did not...

Malaysiakini

According to the US-based Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), a total of 141 air incidents involving batteries carried as cargo or baggage were recorded between March 20, 1991 until Feb 17 this year.

Make that 142?

Thanks for posting this.

It should also be noted once again that 20 employees from the largest microprocessor company in the world based out of Texas could have had some interesting carry-on's and luggage.

[widgeon13]

Black Boxes 'Crucial' in Malaysia Plane Mystery - ABC News

[ossiblue]

Originally Posted by kach22i

"According to the US-based Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), a total of 141 air incidents involving batteries carried as cargo or baggage were recorded between March 20, 1991 until Feb 17 this year."

Make that 142?

Thanks for posting this.

It should also be noted once again that 20 employees from the largest microprocessor company in the world based out of Texas could have had some interesting carry-on's and luggage.

A little closer look.

Those 141 incidents involved batteries of all kinds, not just Li-ion, and Li-ion made up less than half of the incidents. There was only one incident that caused a plane to return and that was from a battery in a passenger's digital camera. In nearly every case where the batteries were cargo, the incident was caused by improperly "packaged" batteries--in backpacks, in devices, in boxes--where the terminals made contact and overheated the battery. Nearly every cargo incident was discovered by baggage handlers before or after the flight landed. There were no cargo incidents that affected the normal flight of an aircraft, and only one incident where a passenger flight had to delay take-off due to smoke in the cargo area from batteries. Many of the incidents were with passenger devices, and in every case, the incident was resolved with no danger to the plane.

What this says is that transporting of any battery carries some risk. The fact that many were Li-ion is a function of their wide spread use in devices in recent years. It also shows that packaging for transport is crucial so the battery terminal cannot come in contact with anything that can cause a short. It means that Li-ion batteries are not inherently dangerous.

This is not to refute any posts, because all it takes is one time. I post this just to put the data into context and reduce the hysteria generated by the press about the "danger of Lithium-ion batteries." All batteries are potentially dangerous cargo. The only thing I would challenge is that a fire in the cargo hold from batteries would have a very, very low likelihood of disabling the crew and passengers and allow the plane to fly for seven hours.

Read the data for yourselves, and draw your own conclusions: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ash/ash_programs/hazmat/aircarrier_info/media/battery_incident_chart.pdf

[911_Dude]

In all the modern jets Ive seen there is no "bus pulling". Thats pretty old school. Most electrical systems will automatically isolate a shorted bus. In addition, smart guys designed a lot of redundancy into the system. It would be almost impossible to loose all forms of communication or navigation.

[silverc4s]

Originally Posted by kach22i

Make that 142?

Thanks for posting this.

It should also be noted once again that 20 employees from the largest microprocessor company in the world based out of Texas could have had some interesting carry-on's and luggage.

I would hardly call Freescale (formerly the Motorola Semiconductor Division) the largest microprocessor company in the world. Those engineers, all Malaysain or Chinese, were probably pretty benign, IMO.

[porwolf]

Originally Posted by ossiblue

A little closer look.

Those 141 incidents involved batteries of all kinds, not just Li-ion, and Li-ion made up less than half of the incidents. There was only one incident that caused a plane to return and that was from a battery in a passenger's digital camera. In nearly every case where the batteries were cargo, the incident was caused by improperly "packaged" batteries--in backpacks, in devices, in boxes--where the terminals made contact and overheated the battery. Nearly every cargo incident was discovered by baggage handlers before or after the flight landed. There were no cargo incidents that affected the normal flight of an aircraft, and only one incident where a passenger flight had to delay take-off due to smoke in the cargo area from batteries. Many of the incidents were with passenger devices, and in every case, the incident was resolved with no danger to the plane.

What this says is that transporting of any battery carries some risk. The fact that many were Li-ion is a function of their wide spread use in devices in recent years. It also shows that packaging for transport is crucial so the battery terminal cannot come in contact with anything that can cause a short. It means that Li-ion batteries are not inherently dangerous.

This is not to refute any posts, because all it takes is one time. I post this just to put the data into context and reduce the hysteria generated by the press about the "danger of Lithium-ion batteries." All batteries are potentially dangerous cargo. The only thing I would challenge is that a fire in the cargo hold from batteries would have a very, very low likelihood of disabling the crew and passengers and allow the plane to fly for seven hours.

Read the data for yourselves, and draw your own conclusions: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ash/ash_programs/hazmat/aircarrier_info/media/battery_incident_chart.pdf

Also, wouldn't batteries, that were cargo, not charged up but empty? That would pose a very low fire risk? Passenger batteries , of course, are usulally all charged up.

[sc_rufctr]

9.32PM (Adelaide time) ... More bits found by the Chinese in the Southern Corridor.

[widgeon13]

Originally Posted by sc_rufctr

9.32PM (Adelaide time) ... More bits found by the Chinese in the Southern Corridor.

Yes but, bits of what. Unfortunately, it takes four hours to get a plane out to find this stuff and now it's dark so will have to wait until tomorrow. Was it found by satellite or a vessel?

This has got to be the most godforsaken part of the world. Let's hope they have actually found something.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Can't believe this hasn't been brought up yet, but maybe the plane just ran out of fuel. Most large airplanes don't just top off and go. It's very inefficient to lug around a lot of extra fuel (weight) that won't be needed. Typically the rule is that you're required to carry enough to go from your starting point to your intended destination plus one hour of reserve, or from starting point to your intended destination, then to your alternate plus one hour of reserve (if an alternate is required, and there are specific weather requirements at the destination that determine this). Long story short is this plane was going from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, which is (IIRC) about a four hour flight. They were about an hour in when all this happened. Assuming they had taken off with five, maybe six hours (max.) fuel on board, doesn't that limit the possible destinations somewhat? I have seen some maps / projections saying they could have been headed for Iraq, Kuwait, Georgia, etc. Nonsense unless the plane was carrying a LOT more fuel than it ordinarily would have been. Also if it were flying at 5,000' as has been alleged, the fuel burn rate would be a lot higher than at normal cruise altitude (FL360, thereabouts), reducing range more.

If it were intentional, past a certain point heading out in the no-man's-land of the southern Indian Ocean it was a one-way ticket. There's no place they could have made it to fuel-wise. Was it a suicide mission hoping to disappear into a part of the world they'd never be found? This whole thing is simply crazy and makes no sense unless (as I said before) the captain had an emotional meltdown over whatever was going on at home and decided to go out in a blaze of glory, or (more likely) something went horribly wrong (fire, mechanical). We may never know... I'm not convinced these bits of trash floating around in the ocean have anything to do with the missing aircraft. There's a staggering amount of junk floating around in the world's oceans nowadays.

[ossiblue]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

Can't believe this hasn't been brought up yet, but maybe the plane just ran out of fuel...

Actually, that has been brought up several times, usually as an aside to a theory of the reason why the plane was diverted, and is the main concept surrounding the current search locations. The current search areas are at or near the intersection of the southern arc created by the last satellite ping and a circle created by the range of the plane given a four to six hour flying time from the last known position. As you point out, none of this really helps with determining the cause of the disappearance.

[intakexhaust]

theories
or....
or....
or....
or it could be a cover-up and the rogue pilot(s) are the scapegoat

Yes, there is a lot of barge garbage floating everywhere.
Latest on the line - French satellite discovery.

[kach22i]

ossiblue, thank you for all of the battery information - very educational.

Originally Posted by silverc4s

I would hardly call Freescale (formerly the Motorola Semiconductor Division) the largest microprocessor company in the world. Those engineers, all Malaysain or Chinese, were probably pretty benign, IMO.

I thought I read that off their website, but cannot find that exact wordage.

I did find this..................

Articles about Freescale Semiconductor - Economic Times

Freescale Semiconductor, the world's biggest supplier of computer chips to the auto industry.................

And this........................
Freescale Semiconductor Launches IPO::Brought to you by TechWeb

Freescale, which was a spin-off from Motorola in 2004, provides embedded processing semiconductors and systems, including microcontrollers, single- and multi-core microprocessors, applications processors, and digital signal processors. Freescale is the largest supplier of engine system microcontrollers in the world.

[ossiblue]

Originally Posted by intakexhaust

theories
or....
or....
or....
or it could be a cover-up and the rogue pilot(s) are the scapegoat

Yes, there is a lot of barge garbage floating everywhere.
Latest on the line - French satellite discovery.

Yes, lots of theories and for good reason. There is scant credible data for a decent investigation.

Let's start with the basics of any investigation, six questions which need to be answered: Who?; What?; Where?; When?; How?; and Why? What is the credible, verifiable data to answer each of those questions?

Who? There is no data available to eliminate any person or organization for responsibility of the disappearance. There's data that points toward human intervention, but exactly which human is speculation.

What? What happened to the plane? There is solid data to show what the plane did up to transponder loss, strong evidence immediately after transponder loss (make a left turn, e.g.), corroborative evidence after the left turn, and interpretive data up to radar loss. Strong data for approximate duration of the flight.

Where? There is no concrete, verifiable data that can eliminate a 180* arc of the earth where the plane could have flown. There is only interpretive data to indicate where the plane is, which is based on extrapolations from satellite pings. There is no solid data as to how much fuel the plane had, its speed, altitude or flight path. There is only speculation to eliminate any area of arc.

When? After some initial questions, solid verifiable evidence sets a timeline for the flight up to the disappearance. There is no solid verifiable evidence as to exactly when the flight ended. Interpretive data gives an approximate time, within one hour.

How? Solid verifiable data shows the transponder, ACARS, and voice communications ceased to function, causing the disappearance. There is no data to indicate how that communication was lost.

Why? Absolutely no evidence as to why. Every reason for motive is speculative. No solid evidence as to if communications were lost through purposeful actions or failure.

So, after sixteen days, what is known for certain? Only that the plane went dark, the time the plane went dark, that it changed course through human intervention, and continued to fly. That's it. Not much more than what was known within the first forty-eight hours.

[afterburn 549]

Was in Pakistan now moved
to Iran i think .......
You guys owe me a LOT of ALE

[KNS]

A coworker of mine believes it's one of two possibilities: the CIA is behind it or it was aliens - he's not joking either...

[ossiblue]

Update

CNN is reporting that Malaysian military radar recorded a "sharp left turn and a descent to 12000 feet" just as the plane reached the black out point. The new data is the descent information.

Unfortunately, like all the information in this case, it raises more questions than it answers and it is tantalizingly incomplete. It does not say what a "sharp" turn means--does it mean a significant number of degrees or does it mean a highly banked turn? The radar tracked the plane for nearly an hour and forty minutes, how long did it take to make the turn? How long did it take to make the decent? That information has not been disclosed. Answers to those questions will drive the scenarios that are most likely.

One thing for certain, if the new information is accurate, flying at 12,000 feet changes everything. It is not low enough to avoid detection by radar, but it is low enough to avoid all other air traffic in the area. Also, if it continued at that altitude, it significantly reduces the range the plane would be able to fly, thus changing the likely area to be searched along the infamous arc.

Stay tuned...

[Sunroof]

I don't know! Several satellite fixes on debris and those fixes would direct aircraft and surface vessels to their location taking into account drift and sea conditions and nothing yet??!! Come on!

A 777 held in a hangar or remote airfield in Pakistan? You know US satellites were re-directed to that part of the world first. CIA silence?

Whats the NO-DEBRIS scenario these days?

Time warp, alien craft capture, subsurface ocean alien habitat, Coriolis spin out?

I give up.