• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 ended in the Southern Indian Ocean

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Ty4on

Member
aeroslash said:
?? Yeah, the RAT is what gives you power in case of an EEC. So?
Click to expand...

Sorry. I don't know all the terms so I thought you meant battery power.
Dryk said:
I'm well aware of the odds. I'm just trying to point out that it is a possibility however report, because if we forget that then we might fall into the trap of deciding that none of the likely explanations make sense, therefore the situation makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Just pointing out that there are much more likely scenarios that could give the same outcome as two sequential failures.
 
Thaedolus

Thaedolus

Member
Tugatrix said:
because they are heavy and such device would be wreck on a crash, the alternative of putting such device on the box would create a fragility point on the box, endangering the data security
Click to expand...

Not only that but would you really want something so small adrift in the ocean? Seems like currents would take them thousands of miles from the debris field, given some time.
 
Fjolle

Fjolle

Member
Pazuzu9 said:
If the plane is in the sea, even if some phones are floating on the surface as part of a mess of debris, they wouldn't get any signal, right?

Can someone explain how it is possible to get a ringing tone in that situation?
Click to expand...

I think this is how it works:
Basically the operator thinks that the phone is still connected to a cellphone network in Malaysia, and routes the call to whatever operator they have a roaming agreement with there. The operator in Malaysia doesn't know where the phone is, so the call gets lost.
 
B

Betta Lines

Member
Fjolle said:
I think this is how it works:
Basically the operator thinks that the phone is still connected to a cellphone network in Malaysia, and routes the call to whatever operator they have a roaming agreement with there. The operator in Malaysia doesn't know where the phone is, so the call gets lost.
Click to expand...
Hmm. Do you really get a ringing tone before the other end of the connection is found?
 
T

teruterubozu

Member
Thaedolus said:
Not only that but would you really want something so small adrift in the ocean? Seems like currents would take them thousands of miles from the debris field, given some time.
Click to expand...

Yup. The black boxes are obviously designed for maximum integrity and not for ease of location. It has to withstand tremendous impact and stay put.
 
K

Kinky John

Member
In that press conference, 90 minutes ago, Malaysia’s civil aviation chief, Azharuddin Abdul Rahman, confirmed that the search area has been widened.

The news site 501 Awani shows an image of a map he used to show the location of two new search areas.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/bl...ines-flight-370-search-continues-live-updates
Click to expand...


[IMAGE] This is the image shown by DCA chief in explaining the search area of the missing flight #MH370 pic.twitter.com/fveDT2lYvy

BiXhKYFCAAI19bJ.png


https://twitter.com/501Awani/status/443007706735968257/photo/1
Click to expand...
.
 
T

TOP SHOTTA

Member
Sarobi said:
This is incredibly strange. I thought with the technology we have today, that we'd know if the plane exploded/failed the moment it happened.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly. I figured we'd all but have video footage from a sattelite of the plane exploding. Instead, they can't even find it. Would a sattelite search not help in a situation like this.

It is probably easily explained away by someone smarter than I, but the ringing cell phones is errie. I am just going to assume that there is all sorts of weird stuff thjat could happen when someone is not only out of range but THAT FAR out of range.
 
D

daw840

Member
Dryk said:
It'll be mandatory in the EU by 2017 and the US by 2020. Even then that's mostly for efficiency reasons. You'd never be able to rush it for accident investigation reasons because the week of mystery every few years is cheaper, and people rarely survive this sort of incident anyway.


It's certainly technically possible. At a guess I'd say it's not done due to concerns about the device being carried too far away from the wreckage.

EDIT: Also you'd need a mechanism to eject it from the wreckage. Which is a massive problem if it ever malfunctions in flight.
Click to expand...

Yeah. They just briefed us last week that they're starting to roll out ADS-B for testing at 180 and above. Should be fun to watch. ERAM isn't even nationwide yet so I don't know if that's just for ZKC or not.
 
S

skybaby

Member
Pazuzu9 said:
Hmm. Do you really get a ringing tone before the other end of the connection is found?
Click to expand...

Sometimes you do. But at most one or two tones. This happens because when you're not in your carrier's area, it has to search for your elsewhere, which might take a while, and since if the person calling you gets a silent tone for too long the chances of they hanging up are high, they send fake tones to keep people waiting for a little longer. But anything over 3-4 tones means it's very likely actually ringing somewhere.
 
G

Goodlife

Member
skybaby said:
Sometimes you do. But at most one or two tones. This happens because when you're not in your carrier's area, it has to search for your elsewhere, which might take a while, and since if the person calling you gets a silent tone for too long the chances of they hanging up are high, they send fake tones to keep people waiting for a little longer. But anything over 3-4 tones means it's very likely actually ringing somewhere.
Click to expand...

How does it know the difference between "off" and "not in the area"?
 
V

Valkyr Junkie

Member
aeroslash said:
Are you really sure of that?? Then why do you have to switch off al the personal electronic devices?
Click to expand...

Switching off personal electronic devices has zero to do with impact to the flight electronics. Do you seriously think they would leave something that important up to the voluntary discretion of the passengers?
 
T

The_Inquisitor

Member
aeroslash said:
Are you really sure of that?? Then why do you have to switch off al the personal electronic devices?
Click to expand...

Overkill. Long wiring basically acts like an antenna in the plane. The idea is that a cellphone may induce a false voltage on one of these lines due to faraday's law. However, as the poster implied there is shielding on the cables already to protect against something called "crosstalk" (ie erroneous electrical signals on nearby lines due to coupling induced voltages).

Older phones were worse. But today's more digital oriented phones shouldn't be much of an issue.
 
Y

yyzjohn

Banned
Sarobi said:
This is incredibly strange. I thought with the technology we have today, that we'd know if the plane exploded/failed the moment it happened.
Click to expand...

That's what I don't understand, wouldn't they have known exactly the last location the plane was at on radar? Once it goes off radar I thought they would have an approximate location, and it wouldn't be this difficult to locate the plane.
 
T

TOP SHOTTA

Member
Valkyr Junkie said:
Switching off personal electronic devices has zero to do with impact to the flight electronics. Do you seriously think they would leave something that important up to the voluntary discretion of the passengers?
Click to expand...
Pilots report hearing clicking and hissing over their comm systems when cell phones are active nearby. I know the law is changing but cell phone use on a plane is still an active debate and for good reason.
 
W

Wind's Howling

Member
yyzjohn said:
That's what I don't understand, wouldn't they have known exactly the last location the plane was at on radar? Once it goes off radar I thought they would have an approximate location, and it wouldn't be this difficult to locate the plane.
Click to expand...

The debri never stays in one place so even if they know the crash location, the debri itself can be hundreds of miles away.
 
A

Amentallica

Unconfirmed Member
I always really disliked statistics of say car accidents vs aircraft accidents, particularly with regard to how much safer it is to fly. Whether this is statistically correct, the more I think about it, the more I disagree with it, solely because the likelihood of surviving a car crash is much greater than a plane crash, so while there may be fewer plane crashes to car crashes, what is the ratio of car fatalities to car accidents to plane fatalities to plane accidents? I imagine much lower for cars.

Then again, I could be completely misinformed, but this is how I think about it.

Also, on topic, this is a terrible incident and I cannot imagine how the families feel. My mother traveled back home to Europe on Saturday and I was really paranoid. I really wonder what might have happened to this plane.
 
K

KHarvey16

Member
Valkyr Junkie said:
Switching off personal electronic devices has zero to do with impact to the flight electronics. Do you seriously think they would leave something that important up to the voluntary discretion of the passengers?
Click to expand...

This is just not true. The reason cell phones and other electronic devices are turned off has everything to do with ensuring the safety of passengers. Electronics can and in the past have interfered with important systems.

Now, this is not likely to happen and in 99% of cases even if it did it wouldn't impact flight safety, but things on airplanes are generally assumed unsafe until proven otherwise. Airlines went through expensive testing to allow two iPads in their cockpits but consumer electronics device manufacturers can't justify doing this for every device and every iteration of said devices.
 
D

Dryk

Member
The_Inquisitor said:
Overkill. Long wiring basically acts like an antenna in the plane. The idea is that a cellphone may induce a false voltage on one of these lines due to faraday's law. However, as the poster implied there is shielding on the cables already to protect against something called "crosstalk" (ie erroneous electrical signals on nearby lines due to coupling induced voltages).

Older phones were worse. But today's more digital oriented phones shouldn't be much of an issue.
Click to expand...
Any amount of interference can be a dangerous distraction during take-off and landing and shielding can degrade. As unlikely as it is people shouldn't be taking that risk.

Also consumer electronics are a lot more diverse and rapidly changing than avionics equipment so it would be hard to keep everything certified.
 
E

elty

Member
Well...

If the plane disintegrated mid air then the debris should be everywhere.
If the plane suffered mechanical failure then there should be signals sent.

Very mysterious....
 
M

MThanded

I Was There! Official L Receiver 2/12/2016
Amentallica said:
I always really disliked statistics of say car accidents vs aircraft accidents, particularly with regard to how much safer it is to fly. Whether this is statistically correct, the more I think about it, the more I disagree with it, solely because the likelihood of surviving a car crash is much greater than a plane crash, so while there may be fewer plane crashes to car crashes, what is the ratio of car fatalities to car accidents to plane fatalities to plane accidents? I imagine much lower for cars.

Then again, I could be completely misinformed, but this is how I think about it.

Also, on topic, this is a terrible incident and I cannot imagine how the families feel. My mother traveled back home to Europe on Saturday and I was really paranoid. I really wonder what might have happened to this plane.
Click to expand...


The National Safety Council compiled an odds-of-dying table for 2008, which further illustrates the relative risks of flying and driving safety. It calculated the odds of dying in a motor vehicle accident to be 1 in 98 for a lifetime. For air and space transport (including air taxis and private flights), the odds were 1 in 7,178 for a lifetime, according to the table.
Click to expand...

http://traveltips.usatoday.com/air-travel-safer-car-travel-1581.html
 
aeroslash

aeroslash

Member
Valkyr Junkie said:
Switching off personal electronic devices has zero to do with impact to the flight electronics. Do you seriously think they would leave something that important up to the voluntary discretion of the passengers?
Click to expand...

Yes, and they do.

The_Inquisitor said:
Overkill. Long wiring basically acts like an antenna in the plane. The idea is that a cellphone may induce a false voltage on one of these lines due to faraday's law. However, as the poster implied there is shielding on the cables already to protect against something called "crosstalk" (ie erroneous electrical signals on nearby lines due to coupling induced voltages).

Older phones were worse. But today's more digital oriented phones shouldn't be much of an issue.
Click to expand...

Thx.
 
T

The_Inquisitor

Member
Dryk said:
Any amount of interference can be a dangerous distraction during take-off and landing and shielding can degrade. As unlikely as it is people shouldn't be taking that risk.

Also consumer electronics are a lot more diverse and rapidly changing than avionics equipment so it would be hard to keep everything certified.
Click to expand...

I think you are overblowing the issue still. We are likely looking in the range of uV-nV's of induced voltage. This is effectively "noise" on the signal at this point, where the magnitude of signal carrying across the wire is orders larger.

It's a concern, but probably not one worth worrying about versus other issues. I'd be far more worried about a pilot being distracted by texting someone while flying rather than the effect of that "text" on the electrical system.
 
D

Deleted member 20920

Unconfirmed Member
Amentallica said:
I always really disliked statistics of say car accidents vs aircraft accidents, particularly with regard to how much safer it is to fly. Whether this is statistically correct, the more I think about it, the more I disagree with it, solely because the likelihood of surviving a car crash is much greater than a plane crash, so while there may be fewer plane crashes to car crashes, what is the ratio of car fatalities to car accidents to plane fatalities to plane accidents? I imagine much lower for cars.

Then again, I could be completely misinformed, but this is how I think about it.

Also, on topic, this is a terrible incident and I cannot imagine how the families feel. My mother traveled back home to Europe on Saturday and I was really paranoid. I really wonder what might have happened to this plane.
Click to expand...

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/c...on-what-are-odds-of-surviving-plane-crash.htm

But what if you're onboard that 1 in 1.2 million flights that ends up in an accident? Surprisingly, you're much more likely to walk away from an airline accident than you are to perish. In fact, a staggering 95.7 percent of people involved in plane crashes survive. Even in the most serious class of crashes, more than 76 percent survive
Click to expand...
 
M

MThanded

I Was There! Official L Receiver 2/12/2016
BowieZ said:
What does it mean by "lifetime"? If you drove non stop for 80 years you have a 1% chance of dying in a crash?
Click to expand...
It means one in 98 people will die by a car accident through normal every day driving. This is normal driving not driving in a car 24 hours a day for 80 years.
 
H

HoosTrax

Member
MThanded said:
It means one in 98 people will die by a car accident through normal every day driving. This is normal driving not driving in a car 24 hours a day for 80 years.
Click to expand...
Well it's a feeling-of-control issue. You could be a idiot who talks on the cell phone while putting on makeup and going 70mph down the interstate. Which would raise your risk of being among that 1 in 98. Or you could be a safe and attentive driver going down that same interstate (obviously there are unavoidable accidents, but take the avoidable ones out of the equation).

Once you get on that plane, your risk of dying is about the same as the person sitting next to you, no matter what you do.

I suppose it's a psychological thing, and why I feel much safer driving myself than sitting in the car while my mother is driving.
 
E

ElFly

Member
Well fuck if the cellphones are ringing through.

Maybe they are alive, or maybe it's just a glitch on the cellphone networks.

Must be horrible for the families to ring phones that are never answered, and then be told that the people actually died.

Many of them will cling to the cellphone ringing to assume the passengers are still alive.
 
M

marrec

Banned
HoosTrax said:
Well it's a feeling-of-control issue. You could be a idiot who talks on the cell phone while putting on makeup and going 70mph down the interstate. Which would raise your risk of being among that 1 in 98. Or you could be a safe and attentive driver going down that same interstate (obviously there are unavoidable accidents, but take the avoidable ones out of the equation).

Once you get on that plane, your risk of dying is about the same as the person sitting next to you, no matter what you do.

I suppose it's a psychological thing, and why I feel much safer driving myself than sitting in the car while my mother is driving.
Click to expand...

All a bit off topic, but this is exactly my issue with flying. I'd feel better if I were flying the plane myself.

It just means we're control freaks.
 
G

.GqueB.

Banned
HoosTrax said:
Well it's a feeling-of-control issue. You could be a idiot who talks on the cell phone while putting on makeup and going 70mph down the interstate. Which would raise your risk of being among that 1 in 98. Or you could be a safe and attentive driver going down that same interstate (obviously there are unavoidable accidents, but take the avoidable ones out of the equation).

Once you get on that plane, your risk of dying is about the same as the person sitting next to you, no matter what you do.

I suppose it's a psychological thing, and why I feel much safer driving myself than sitting in the car while my mother is driving.
Click to expand...

I have the opposite feeling personally. Simply put, I can't fly that plane so knowing that there's someone up there that is trained to do so puts me at ease.
 
H

HoosTrax

Member
.GqueB. said:
I have the opposite feeling personally. Simply put, I can't fly that plane so knowing that there's someone up there that is trained to do so puts me at ease.
Click to expand...
I guess I don't place 100% confidence in the mental state or alertness of the pilot. There have been cases of airline pilots having mental breakdowns while at the controls, flying into hills due to fatigue/lack of sleep, or deciding to take the plane on a detour to request asylum in another country.

In the second case -- it's your life on the line, but it's their career on the line if they don't complete their route.
 
M

marrec

Banned
.GqueB. said:
I have the opposite feeling personally. Simply put, I can't fly that plane so knowing that there's someone up there that is trained to do so puts me at ease.
Click to expand...

My problem is that I feel like I could fly a plane better than anyone else even though:

A) I'm not actually trained to fly a plane

and

B) Rationally I know I can't fly a plane

Brains sure are fucking dumb sometimes.
 
C

clockpunk

Member
I might have expected too much from the tech as it currently exists, but surely satellite imagery covering the region could be used to provide info... assuming of course (at least) one had eyes on the area. Even though such imagery is not real-time, *surely* it would offer something...?
 
E

ElFly

Member
marrec said:
My problem is that I feel like I could fly a plane better than anyone else even though:

A) I'm not actually trained to fly a plane

and

B) Rationally I know I can't fly a plane

Brains sure are fucking dumb sometimes.
Click to expand...

My experience with Kerbal Space Program and a bunch of flight simulators tell me that flying planes is freaking hard, and to be left in the hands of experimented pilots.

Lach said:
According to google image search its "Airport '77"
Click to expand...

I think I saw it listed in Netflix the other day, thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MH370: When does the time come to say "enough is enough"?
2
99
16K
Chiggs replied
  • Locked
After 3 years, search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 officially ends
34
5K
crackhead_bob replied
  • Locked
Mask Efficacy |OT| Wuhan!! Got You All In Check
763 764 765 766 767
38K
2M
EviLore replied
The shit refuses to end for Malaysia Airlines
0
2K
Machina replied
  • Locked
Part found on Reunion Island is from missing flight MH370
38
4K
dluu13 replied
Top Bottom