• Ahoy there! Why not join the UK’s largest cruising forum? The Cruise.co.uk forum is the perfect place to meet and interact with likeminded cruisers to have invaluable conversations. Whether you're a veteran cruiser or looking to set sail on the sea for the first time, everyone is welcome on our forum to participate in the hottest conversations in the cruising world. So, what are you waiting for? Join the forum today by clicking here to register!

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

missing plane.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    missing plane.

    It seems incredible that Malaysian Airlines sent people texts to let them know that they believe the flight was lost forever. I dont think i can remember such a farce over a tragic accident (if indeed it was an accident) Can you imagine what it must have been like for those poor relatives? Jan.

    #2
    It is very tragic Jan, and yes indeed if it were an accident at all. I think the relatives may have to wait some time for any information to be forthcoming so I feel for them. My thoughts and prayers go to them all. I have a few friends who are cabin crew all for different airlines and they taken aback by it. very sad
    Hi, I'm Sally & I am a specialist cruise consultant for cruise.co.uk which I thoroughly enjoy. I have been selling cruise holidays for 20 years and I love to send people away on their dream holidays.

    Please feel free to contact me should you require any information on cruising and for the latest deals, I would be delighted to assist.

    DIRECT TELEPHONE : 0800 408 6134

    EMAIL: sallyw@cruise.co.uk

    Please also like my Facebook/twitter/google plus pages for daily updates. Thank you.

    Comment


      #3
      I don't think the Malaysians have always shown much 'tact' when it comes to delivering the news to relatives but also I don't think they have deserved the amount of criticism levelled at them by the Chinese relatives and media.

      Considering the circumstances in fact I believe they have done quite well in keeping everyone briefed. No doubt there are lessons to be learned in handling such disasters in future and in this day and age there is no excuse for a civil aircraft to be able to simply vanish off the radar screens and there should be no manual disconnect available for pilots.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by trevor432990, East Sussex View Post
        I don't think the Malaysians have always shown much 'tact' when it comes to delivering the news to relatives but also I don't think they have deserved the amount of criticism levelled at them by the Chinese relatives and media.

        Considering the circumstances in fact I believe they have done quite well in keeping everyone briefed. No doubt there are lessons to be learned in handling such disasters in future and in this day and age there is no excuse for a civil aircraft to be able to simply vanish off the radar screens and there should be no manual disconnect available for pilots.
        As someone who was involved in aviation for many years I disagree.

        They took about four days to come up with the fact the aircraft turned off course. That info is readily accessible from the radar recordings. As was the fact the transponder (secondary radar device) was turned off minutes after the pilots last radio call.

        This kind of info is immediately available, so why the four day delay. It was blatantly obvious they were not telling the full story from day one.

        As for the suggestion that pilots should not be able to turn off the secondary radar, it is just not technically feasible.
        Last edited by Wilba; 25th March 2014, 05:05 PM.
        Wilba

        Comment


          #5
          This is a very bizarre air incident and I wonder if we will ever find out the whole story as to why this plane changed direction and cut out all communication. Has anything ever been said about the passengers communicating? I would suppose most would have had a mobile phone on board, with some perhaps not switched off. Though they seem to have ended up in a very remote area, mobile phone companies can track phones to a certain extent, can't they?

          I think there's a lot the general public haven't been told.....

          Comment


            #6
            Wilba I agree the early stages could have been more transparent but I think they learned their lesson after that fact had been exposed later. Of course it is possible to take away the pilots ability to turn off the aircraft tracking system if it is 'designed' by the manufacturers to be inaccessible and with its own power supply.

            A few years back I had a tracking system fitted to my car which I did not know where the black box was located and could not be turned off and if it was stolen the police could've pinpointed it's location in minutes so an aircraft can surely be protected in a similar way.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by trevor432990, East Sussex View Post
              Wilba I agree the early stages could have been more transparent but I think they learned their lesson after that fact had been exposed later. Of course it is possible to take away the pilots ability to turn off the aircraft tracking system if it is 'designed' by the manufacturers to be inaccessible and with its own power supply.

              A few years back I had a tracking system fitted to my car which I did not know where the black box was located and could not be turned off and if it was stolen the police could've pinpointed it's location in minutes so an aircraft can surely be protected in a similar way.
              Trevor I am sorry it really is not as simple as that. I am not going to bore everyone on the forum on the workings of aircraft transponders, just accept that to implement a system that would give every aircraft in the world a unique code would take so much time and money it makes it a non starter.

              If someone is going to deliberately hijack and crash an aeroplane, the fact they can turn off the secondary radar is immaterial. It just means it will take longer to find it, but find it they will...........Wilba
              Wilba

              Comment


                #8
                Since I am not very computer savvy - does anyone know this.... we hear so much about hackers being able to get into what was
                thought to be very secure sites, is there anyway a determined hacker could get into the computer system onboard, in particular
                the autopilot? I'm not big on the conspiracy theories out there, but this keeps nagging at my brain......

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Cruise Fairy, Indiana USA (2) View Post
                  Since I am not very computer savvy - does anyone know this.... we hear so much about hackers being able to get into what was
                  thought to be very secure sites, is there anyway a determined hacker could get into the computer system onboard, in particular
                  the autopilot? I'm not big on the conspiracy theories out there, but this keeps nagging at my brain......
                  I wouldn't rule out any computer hacking possibilities, but the autopilot, can and is, cancelled with the nudge of an index finger on the control column. If push comes to shove he can pull the circuit breaker and it would then be as dead as a dodo.

                  I'm not sure whether the newer fly by wire aircraft couldn't be hacked into though and control taken away from the pilot. Scary thought........Wilba
                  Last edited by Wilba; 25th March 2014, 06:00 PM.
                  Wilba

                  Comment


                    #10
                    It is a good question Cruise Fairy and given that most computer systems have so called 'back doors' in them to allow for easy access and maintenance by software engineers during testing who's to say that they have not all been removed before they go live. I'd say it is feasible given enough knowledge to view data being sent from the plane to the ground but as far as I know none of the essential equipment onboard such as engines, navigation or cockpit controls can be re-programmed from the ground but as Wilba seems to be the expert on this I'll let him answer.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Wilba View Post
                      Trevor I am sorry it really is not as simple as that. I am not going to bore everyone on the forum on the workings of aircraft transponders, just accept that to implement a system that would give every aircraft in the world a unique code would take so much time and money it makes it a non starter.

                      If someone is going to deliberately hijack and crash an aeroplane, the fact they can turn off the secondary radar is immaterial. It just means it will take longer to find it, but find it they will...........Wilba

                      Cargo vessels over 300GT engaged in international voyages and all cargo ships over 500GT not engaged in international voyages, together with all Passenger ships operated in each type of trade, are required
                      to have a AIS system fitted and operational. Each ships has a unique code. The system can not be simply switched off on the unit or locally to it. A similar system exists in the aviation world. Also ships have onboard one or often more EPRIBs Emergency Position-Indicating Radio Beacons these are unique to each ship these can be activated manually or automatically given the right conditions. aircraft have similar.
                      Therefore time and money has already been spent in that direction imo.
                      I feel that there is confusion in the thread re Transponders and Radars. each are very different from one another. Wilba please feel free to enlighten us on the subject, personally I would not be bored.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by cruisers, London (2) View Post
                        I feel that there is confusion in the thread re Transponders and Radars. each are very different from one another. Wilba please feel free to enlighten us on the subject, personally I would not be bored.
                        I will try and be brief. Secondary Radar (Transponders) are different to Emergency Locator Beacons and serve a different purpose. The transponders fitted to aircraft worldwide have 4096 codes available to them, remove 3 or 4 codes to be used in emergencies (a set code for a specific emergency) and we are left with 4092 available codes to the air traffic network. These are not locator beacons, but a system to identify one aircraft from another to an air traffic controller and this is the equipment that was switched off in the Malaysian triple seven.

                        It matters not that hundreds of aircraft could all be transmitting the same code at any one time providing they are in different parts of the world, but sending a unique code only into an air traffic control unit in any one given area.

                        This is the worldwide system we have be it in an Airbus 380 or a puddle jumping Cessna operating from a farm strip............Wilba
                        Wilba

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Oh my .... who dreamt up the 4096 limitation then? Surely that can be phased out even it is only a gradual process and may take several years.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by trevor432990, East Sussex View Post
                            Oh my .... who dreamt up the 4096 limitation then? Surely that can be phased out even it is only a gradual process and may take several years.
                            Trevor I was about to add a footnote, so here goes.

                            Don't get bamboozled by media reporting. The transponders fitted to aircraft are a part of the aircraft's avionics system and just like the communication and navigation radios, the need to switch frequencies as they move from one air traffic service to another en route, the transponder is given a new 4 figure code as it enters new airspace.

                            This is not an Emergency Locator, it serves a different purpose.

                            Now if we are saying that all passenger aircraft should be fitted with a new separate device (Emergency Locator call it what you like), non interrupted by the pilot, then that is a different argument, but the transponder as we know it would remain a pilot operated part of the avionics............Wilba
                            Last edited by Wilba; 25th March 2014, 08:38 PM.
                            Wilba

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Wilba View Post
                              I will try and be brief. Secondary Radar (Transponders) are different to Emergency Locator Beacons and serve a different purpose. The transponders fitted to aircraft worldwide have 4096 codes available to them, remove 3 or 4 codes to be used in emergencies (a set code for a specific emergency) and we are left with 4092 available codes to the air traffic network. These are not locator beacons, but a system to identify one aircraft from another to an air traffic controller and this is the equipment that was switched off in the Malaysian triple seven.

                              It matters not that hundreds of aircraft could all be transmitting the same code at any one time providing they are in different parts of the world, but sending a unique code only into an air traffic control unit in any one given area.

                              This is the worldwide system we have be it in an Airbus 380 or a puddle jumping Cessna operating from a farm strip............Wilba


                              Wiba, Thanks for the above. There is a very interesting article on this mystery written by Les Abend is a 777 captain for a major airline with 29 years of flying experience. He is a senior contributor to Flying magazine, a worldwide publication in print for more than 75 years. It can be found on the CNN Opinion sitehttp://www.cnn.com/2014/03/24/opinion/abend-explaining-flight-370/index.html?iid=article_sidebar.
                              I found it to be most interesting and could contain what possibly maybe more in line with what may have happened. With your aviation background hopefully the article will interest yourself also

                              Rgds
                              J

                              Comment


                              We use cookies to give you the
                              best experience possible.


                              By continuing to use our website you
                              agree to our cookie policy

                              Working...
                              X