[QUOTE=Sindri335;44315426]Well i did a lot of research on this ( i'm very good at statistics and learning it in uni) and using complex formulas i was almost 90% sure where the plane was and i sent the U.S. gov. my research and they never responded or maybe didnt even read it. pretty disrespectful to ignore the advice of an expert but im not gonna get bothered about it i dont care anymore . i hope everyone on this plane is ok but im not gonna help them find it anymore and i will be very upset if they use my research secretely.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Semi-autistic trolling at this point, last chance." - Craptasket))[/highlight][/QUOTE]
I'm a little bit sad that I won't see anymore posts from you for another month.
[QUOTE=Sindri335;44316246]I did hypothesis test and i used a [B]99% confidence interval[/B] which means its 1% chance that i accepted something wrong and the hypothesis turned out true. whatever man lets just hope they find the plane and the people are okay[/QUOTE]
What the fuck does this even means?
:v: Lol, I see you mastered the force of trolling, Sithtrolling lord
His last thread was hilarious.
This might turn into a matter of politics...I think.
[QUOTE]here is an axiom in Malaysian politics: Eventually everything comes back to Anwar Ibrahim. So, the longer that the fumbling and inept investigation into the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 has gone on, the more certain it became that it would somehow boomerang to the leader of the country’s democratic opposition.
On Saturday, Prime Minister Najib Razak went before the cameras to declare that officials believe the plane was deliberately diverted and flown in an unknown direction somewhere along a wide arc from Kazakhstan to deep into the Indian Ocean. Now that the search for the Boeing 777 has turned into a criminal investigation, the authorities are taking a close look at the flight’s chief pilot, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, and its first officer, Fariq Abdul Hamid.
They quickly learned—as no doubt all of Shah’s friends knew—that the pilot was a strong supporter of Anwar Ibrahim’s People’s Justice Party. Indeed, Shah is believed to have attended Anwar’s court hearing on March 7 that overturned his 2012 acquittal on sodomy charges, a politically motivated case that the Malaysian government typically dusts off around election time. On Sunday, the U.K. and Malaysian press treated the revelation with the shock you might reserve for damning evidence. Shah was described—by an unnamed source—as a “fanatical supporter of the country’s opposition leader.” Elsewhere, he is described (apparently by unnamed police sources) as “fervent” and “strident” in his political convictions. More than a week after the Boeing 777 disappeared, we lack a motive, a clear suspect, or even a crime scene, but we have our “Anwar Ibrahim connection.” That is Malaysian politics.[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/03/pilot_zaharie_ahmad_shah_supported_anwar_ibrahim_was_he_a_terrorist.html"]Read the full article here.[/URL]
I feel like the flight was a coordinated hijack by the Malaysian government and the US government. My theory goes that the Malaysian government needed to find a way to ruin the opposition leader's (Anwar Ibrahim) reputation with the people by making him seem like a extremist (since the pilot, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, is a supporter of him. Some even say that the pilot went to Anwar Ibrahim's court trial. Which was a day before the indecent happened). In the other hand, the US government needs something to cover up the Ukraine "invasion" so then people and pay less attention to that situation. So in theory, the MH370 flight serves as a smokescreen for weeks or even months on end before people start paying attention to other news. Meaning they could always start a small war against Russia and right after that happens, the plane mysteriously comes back on the runways of Kuala Lumpur or Beijing. And they will try their best to make Russia look like the enemy.
Well there goes my theory :v:
Couldnt they use computer programs to search through ALL the fucking satellite imagery for anything that deviates from water? those "help search for mh370" sites seem pretty useless
[QUOTE=TNOMCat;44318259]Couldnt they use computer programs to search through ALL the fucking satellite imagery for anything that deviates from water? those "help search for mh370" sites seem pretty useless[/QUOTE]
what good will this do if the black box has sunk?
[QUOTE=AK'z;44318287]what good will this do if the black box has sunk?[/QUOTE]
Searching through satellite imagery has nothing to do with the black box. I think he's wondering why automated computer programs have not been written to analyze satellite imagery instead of people going through each area by hand.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/qdFvSDI.jpg[/t]
New Satellite image
Why don't planes have GPS trackers that cannot be turned off?
[QUOTE=007JamesBond007;44318896]Why don't planes have GPS trackers that cannot be turned off?[/QUOTE]
This gets answered every few pages
[QUOTE=Four20;44318927]This gets answered every few pages[/QUOTE]
Sometimes I think people refuse to acknowledge the page count and the hyperlinks at the bottom of the thread..
[QUOTE=Four20;44318927]This gets answered every few pages[/QUOTE]
I've read the answer but I'm curious of this:
Since the reason is because of a possible electrical fire or other situation where every non-essential piece of hardware has to be shut down, would be it possible to supplement it with a GPS locator that isn't attached to the plane? Essentially just a (relatively) cheap box that the pilot or an attendant carries on with a high battery life? Or would that potentially interfere with the plane's systems? Would that even be economically feasible if it didn't?
[QUOTE=Lijitsu;44319707]I've read the answer but I'm curious of this:
Since the reason is because of a possible electrical fire or other situation where every non-essential piece of hardware has to be shut down, would be it possible to supplement it with a GPS locator that isn't attached to the plane? Essentially just a (relatively) cheap box that the pilot or an attendant carries on with a high battery life? Or would that potentially interfere with the plane's systems? Would that even be economically feasible if it didn't?[/QUOTE]
If a portable unit like that were implemented, what were to stop the pilot not taking the unit and leaving it in his hotel room/sabotaging the unit prior to takeoff? You need to remember that the members of society who would have the technical know-how and ability to disable these systems are people that are very likely to be employed by the airline itself. An aircraft is entrusted completely to the flight crew on that flight - every single system is completely and absolutely available to them. This cannot be changed. The nature of flight crew means that they must be able to have that level of access. To change this would be to put flight safety at risk.
[QUOTE=runtime;44319731]If a portable unit like that were implemented, what were to stop the pilot not taking the unit and leaving it in his hotel room/sabotaging the unit prior to takeoff? You need to remember that the members of society who would have the technical know-how and ability to disable these systems are people that are very likely to be employed by the airline itself. An aircraft is entrusted completely to the flight crew on that flight - every single system is completely and absolutely available to them. This cannot be changed. The nature of flight crew means that they must be able to have that level of access. To change this would be to put flight safety at risk.[/QUOTE]
This is true, and it obviously wouldn't stop a hijack from the captain or anyone with access to the box and the ability to fly, but wouldn't it help in search and rescue situations like this, where the location of the plane is virtually completely unknown? I mean the point of it is to essentially have a backup in case of a catastrophe like the electrical fire; the box wouldn't have to be switched off as it's part of a different system. The box wouldn't have to be on the pilot or attendant's person the whole time, just on the plane somewhere where passengers wouldn't likely happen by it; out of the way in the cockpit or attendant's area, for example.
I admit my aeronautical knowledge consists largely of 'jets go fast,' but I'm really curious if something like that would be feasible as a worthwhile device to help in search and rescues.
[QUOTE=Sindri335;44315426]ignore the advice of an expert[/QUOTE]
:v:
[QUOTE=Lijitsu;44319804]This is true, and it obviously wouldn't stop a hijack from the captain or anyone with access to the box and the ability to fly, but wouldn't it help in search and rescue situations like this, where the location of the plane is virtually completely unknown? I mean the point of it is to essentially have a backup in case of a catastrophe like the electrical fire; the box wouldn't have to be switched off as it's part of a different system. The box wouldn't have to be on the pilot or attendant's person the whole time, just on the plane somewhere where passengers wouldn't likely happen by it; out of the way in the cockpit or attendant's area, for example.
I admit my aeronautical knowledge consists largely of 'jets go fast,' but I'm really curious if something like that would be feasible as a worthwhile device to help in search and rescues.[/QUOTE]
In theory, what you describe could work. There are several issues involved but it really boils down to "is it practical to have this external from the aircraft systems whilst being a self sufficient unit?".
The FDR (or "black box") is in the tail of the airplane and it weighs a fair bit (about 10kg if I recall). It's weight isn't due to it's technical capability - the weight is comprised mainly of the materials used to ensure it can withstand crashes, underwater exposure, etc etc.. A lot of misconceptions come from it's battery being heavy. It's battery life is for the sonar/"ping" unit which activates when submerged in water. The battery lasts ~30 days and that battery isn't very big. That sonar ping doesn't take a lot of battery power to operate because it's an entirely automatic, non-intelligent function of the FDR.
But the unit your propose would have to have the battery power to constantly communicate GPS satellites. That is a taxing operation which would require a lot of battery power.. You are looking at a 12 hour minimum battery life (the duration of some of the longer commercial flights) but then what would you extend that battery life to? 1 month like the FDR? That is then a very big battery and that would also increase it's weight exponentially compared to the FDR..
So the issues "in a nutshell" - can a unit be constructed a) of an alloy that is portable b) that is self-sufficient (in that it doesn't take power from the aircraft and c) that it can withstand a lot of punishment.
It's a good idea in theory but in practice it would be a technical nightmare.. Aircrew carry a lot of weight onboard with them. Their own personal belongings as well as airway/procedure charts, aircraft manuals, the works.. They would not be able to carry an additional - very heavy - unit with them I feel. The technical requirements of such a unit would make it heavy by nature. Flight crew carrying this unit on would not be a solution. Having it fitted before each flight to the tail with the FDR? Okay - that's a possibility - but it needs to be recharged inbetween flights and then that opens a whole new era of "if's" and "but's"..
My dad works for Boeing and he said that it most likely crashed in the water intact hopefully leaving some parts of the plane still together but nothing too large. But he's not very optimistic that things would still be floating by this point. Hope for the best but things aren't getting better
[QUOTE=runtime;44319938]It's a good idea in theory but in practice it would be a technical nightmare.. Aircrew carry a lot of weight onboard with them. Their own personal belongings as well as airway/procedure charts, aircraft manuals, the works.. They would not be able to carry an additional - very heavy - unit with them I feel. The technical requirements of such a unit would make it heavy by nature. Flight crew carrying this unit on would not be a solution. Having it fitted before each flight to the tail with the FDR? Okay - that's a possibility - but it needs to be recharged inbetween flights and then that opens a whole new era of "if's" and "but's"..[/QUOTE]
Ah. I was hoping it would be a little more feasible weight wise, I kinda figured that'd be the killer overall. Crash materials plus a sufficient battery pack I knew would be the deciding factor. It's really unfortunate we don't have a cost-effective way to efficiently add something like that though, it would help out tremendously in a lot of situations like this.
[QUOTE=Del91;44317647]His last thread was hilarious.[/QUOTE]
What the hell happened there :v:
Could they not just add a case or 2 of Fluorescein
[t]http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2013/04/05/reef041-73af515cb9b920e3e884f42f0f3b3c9b9ed5f82a.jpg[/t]
They use it to help find downed military pilots, don't they?
I'm sure that would help in cases like this.
[QUOTE=Four20;44320435]Could they not just add a case or 2 of Fluorescein
[t]http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2013/04/05/reef041-73af515cb9b920e3e884f42f0f3b3c9b9ed5f82a.jpg[/t]
They use it to help find downed military pilots, don't they?
I'm sure that would help in cases like this.[/QUOTE]
Seeing as how large the search area is I doubt it would help unless they knew within a small area where they were.
By the way isn't it possible to shut down the flight data and voice recorders manually? So even if the black boxes were found they wouldn't help
[QUOTE=TNOMCat;44321856]By the way isn't it possible to shut down the flight data and voice recorders manually? So even if the black boxes were found they wouldn't help[/QUOTE]
Short of severing the cables that run the length of the aircraft, no there isn't any surefire way.
More info (because I wasn't 100% on this myself): [url]http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/2382/like-transponders-can-flight-data-recorders-be-turned-off[/url]
[QUOTE=runtime;44319938]In theory, what you describe could work. There are several issues involved but it really boils down to "is it practical to have this external from the aircraft systems whilst being a self sufficient unit?".
The FDR (or "black box") is in the tail of the airplane and it weighs a fair bit (about 10kg if I recall). It's weight isn't due to it's technical capability - the weight is comprised mainly of the materials used to ensure it can withstand crashes, underwater exposure, etc etc.. A lot of misconceptions come from it's battery being heavy. It's battery life is for the sonar/"ping" unit which activates when submerged in water. The battery lasts ~30 days and that battery isn't very big. That sonar ping doesn't take a lot of battery power to operate because it's an entirely automatic, non-intelligent function of the FDR.
But the unit your propose would have to have the battery power to constantly communicate GPS satellites. That is a taxing operation which would require a lot of battery power.. You are looking at a 12 hour minimum battery life (the duration of some of the longer commercial flights) but then what would you extend that battery life to? 1 month like the FDR? That is then a very big battery and that would also increase it's weight exponentially compared to the FDR..
So the issues "in a nutshell" - can a unit be constructed a) of an alloy that is portable b) that is self-sufficient (in that it doesn't take power from the aircraft and c) that it can withstand a lot of punishment.
It's a good idea in theory but in practice it would be a technical nightmare.. Aircrew carry a lot of weight onboard with them. Their own personal belongings as well as airway/procedure charts, aircraft manuals, the works.. They would not be able to carry an additional - very heavy - unit with them I feel. The technical requirements of such a unit would make it heavy by nature. Flight crew carrying this unit on would not be a solution. Having it fitted before each flight to the tail with the FDR? Okay - that's a possibility - but it needs to be recharged inbetween flights and then that opens a whole new era of "if's" and "but's"..[/QUOTE]
The issues you describe really don't exist. A Gps black box doesn't need to have a large battery seeing as it would only need to transmit its position data to satellites once after a crash. It could also be constantly charged via the plane's main battery and only have its own battery kick in if it were somehow disconnected (likely due to a crash). I see no reason why it would need to be portable. It could be implemented just like a black box.
[QUOTE=TNOMCat;44321856]By the way isn't it possible to shut down the flight data and voice recorders manually? So even if the black boxes were found they wouldn't help[/QUOTE]
You can pull the circuit breaker on them. One man did so when he attempted to hijack a plane and crash it to make it look like an accident.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Express_Flight_705[/url]
[QUOTE=darunner;44325939]You can pull the circuit breaker on them. One man did so when he attempted to hijack a plane and crash it to make it look like an accident.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Express_Flight_705[/url][/QUOTE]
Yeah but that plane requires a flight engineer to operate the controls, so it was easy to pull the circuit breakers in that sense
[QUOTE=darunner;44325939]You can pull the circuit breaker on them. One man did so when he attempted to hijack a plane and crash it to make it look like an accident.
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Express_Flight_705[/URL][/QUOTE]
I remember watching that in Air crash investigation
The DC-10 did aileron rolls in over speed while list fully loaded down with cargo and fuel. That was hella an airplane I tell you
[QUOTE=Saxon;44326180]I remember watching that in Air crash investigation
The DC-10 did aileron rolls in over speed while list fully loaded down with cargo and fuel. That was hella an airplane I tell you[/QUOTE]
have no clue how he managed to land it after a huge blow to the head..
they were all physically impaired after that too..
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft[/url]
Why is this case getting so much attention?
[QUOTE=godfatherk;44328100][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft[/url]
Why is this case getting so much attention?[/QUOTE]
Because a huge Boeing dissapeared with no one knowing where it is.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
