How in the hell does a plane just go missing?

radioguy6

TCG Elite Member
TCG Premium
May 23, 2008
11,968
24,447
Schaumburg
Real Name
Greg
Going to take a while to find it, but they will. If its in the ocean, those underwater beacons on the black boxes will ping for years.

CNN reported the two passengers using stolen passports bought the tickets together. They also have footage of the men at the airport, and reportedly were not Asian. Coincidence or not, they need to figure out who those two men were.
 

rocket5979

Gearhead
Nov 15, 2005
6,576
18
Round Lake, IL
They are saying it may have just disintegrated in the air. How???


Shoulda used Great Planes!
lgpmr6004.jpg




You are correct but he's referring to ground speed. Indicated air speed and ground speed are two very different things. It all depends on if you're flying into a headwind or if you have a hell of a tail wind.

For instance in his scenario his plane was probably FLYING at lets say 550 mph with a tail wind of 150 mph (to make numbers easy). Technically aircraft fly in relative to the air around them, not in reference to the ground. Current commercial aircraft are not safe nor could most overcome the aerodynamics to break the speed of sound at that altitude.


This. I knew that, obviously, my plane wasn't actually going to break the sound barrier, and wasn't even close to it in reality, but it was still neat to think that I was flying pretty darned close to the speed required to break it in static circumstances.

If the plane disintegrated, it would have sent debris everywhere and in 3 days something would have shown up

The reason why they couldnt find that Air france flight a few years ago is cause the plane went down whole... granted it was in the middle of the atlantic, but still

I am somewhat torn on this. I agree that they should see debris floating on the water, but at the same time, if we can miss entire Russian cruise ships floating around on the Atlantic for months at a time, then perhaps our searching skills aren't as up to snuff as we assume them to be. After all, it is a damned big ocean out there! While it seems counter-intuitive, perhaps that's the case here?
 

Jean Ralphio

beautiful, clean coal
May 28, 2008
16,781
68
Malaysia's police chief was quoted by local media as saying that one of the men had been identified.
Civil aviation chief Azharuddin Abdul Rahman declined to confirm this, but said they were of "non-Asian" appearance, adding that authorities were looking at the possibility the men were connected to a stolen passport syndicate.
Asked by a reporter what they looked like "roughly," he said: "Do you know of a footballer by the name of [Mario] Balotelli? He is an Italian. Do you know how he looks like?"
A reporter then asked, "Is he black?" and the aviation chief replied, "Yes."

Malaysia Airlines jet search widens as stolen passports probed - World - CBC News
 

Mr_Roboto

Doing the jobs nobody wants to
TCG Premium
Feb 4, 2012
25,922
31,106
Nashotah, Wisconsin (AKA not Illinois)
WARNING!!! Boring physics content below!!!


I had a somewhat challenging time understanding part of your post, but I think it alludes to the potential for the debris to be spread across a large area. That assumes that the plane was breaking up in mid-air. Your physics math is pretty far off though. I can see where you were going, but you made an error with the unit of measure of your 32fps gravitational free-fall figure. Remember that earth's gravity accelerates objects falling at a rate of 9.8 meters per second squared (-9.8m/s^2) or 32 feet per second squared. So, in the initial second of falling towards earth, assuming zero drag, it would fall roughly 32 feet. However, that's just the first second of falling, it will continue to accelerate to a velocity beyond what the initial first second exhibited, and so on until it reaches terminal velocity due to aerodynamics. Remember that there is a large difference between acceleration and velocity. This also doesn't take into account that the plane's direction of natural aerodynamic travel will point from the tail and towards the nose (aka, the plane would fly like a dart). Because of this tendency for it to fly like this, you would also have to take into account the plane's starting forward X axis velocity of somewhere around 600-700mph (international flights usually travel that fast in my experience). So, this initial velocity would propel the plane even faster towards the ocean if the engines suddenly lost power and the pilot could not pull out of a dive.

So, physics math below!

V^2 = Vo^2+2ay, when V=final y axis velocity, Vo=initial y axis velocity, a=gravity, and y=total fall height

The final velocity right when an object that falls from 36,000'(10,972m) is actually right at 464m/s (1,522fps), assuming zero drag, which is obviously not the case in the real world, but we will keep this simple for the sake of argument.

The total fall time would be computed using:

V = Vo+at, when V=final y axis velocity, Vo=initial y axis velocity a=gravity, and t=elapsed time.

Using that formula, the total fall time for an object free-falling from 36,000feet, assuming no drag, would be only 47.3 seconds. That's a lot quicker than your estimation of 1,125 seconds. Yes, this doesn't factor in drag coefficients, which would be immense, but it also doesn't factor in the "dart flight" tendencies of the plane coupled with its initial forward velocity either. So, for simplicity sake, we will call that a wash between the two.







In short, if a plane lost power, and somehow could not glide for a while/otherwise just sort of plunged in a parabolic downward dive, theoretically it could fall to Earth within less than a minute. That means that there may not be a large area across which debris could be initially spread. Still, since junk likes to float, I would think there should be all sort of cushions, plastics, etc floating in the ocean afterwards.


Been more than a few years for me, be gentle. Even assuming 360mph (which I'm finding out is probably actually low, it appears cruise is nearer 500-600mph) and the 528 f/s figure, 47 seconds still leaves 24,816 feet or slightly under 5 miles of wreckage area neglecting drag. I'm just saying that's a LOT of area to search in something as vast as the ocean, and yet something that's not totally easy to locate either.

My point is sure technology has improved but at the same time it's not fool proof by any means and credit needs to be lent to that. I would also believe that on some level any land based RADAR monitoring would likely have some kind of recording device.
 

Jean Ralphio

beautiful, clean coal
May 28, 2008
16,781
68
well that clears everything up

[UPDATE 10.22PM] Raja Bomoh Arrives To Help Find Missing Plane

SEPANG - A shaman, claiming to be able to locate the missing MH370 jetliner, offered his expertise to help the authorities in their search.

Datuk Mahaguru Ibrahim Mat Zin, known as Raja Bomoh Sedunia Nujum VIP and 1Malaysia Corporate Bomoh said he suspects the missing aircraft was hijacked by elves (buniyan)

"According to my vision,a large black figure believed to be an eagle was seen flying over the plane after which the plane plunged.

"I have been using my bubu (traditional fishing tool) and bamboo scopes to see the situation there, and I saw that the aircraft is currently suspended in mid air," he said.

Ibrahim who claimed to have solved cases like the highland towers, mystery of villa Nabila, Mona Fandy and others, attracted a large crowd during his 'seeing' demonstration at the international arrival hall in Kuala Lumpur International Airport.

- New Straits Times
 

Eagle

Nemo me impune lacessit
Moderator
TCG Premium
Mar 1, 2008
63,909
4,744
Woodsticks, IL
Another opinion article on aviation tech:

Aviation is stuck in the 60s, a reflection on MH 370 | Martin Varsavsky | English

When I trained as a pilot I was appalled at how 1960s aviation is. This will be hard for you to believe, but even when you have WiFi on the plane, commercial pilots in most cases do not have Internet in their cockpit, nor do they have satellite phones, nor GPS trackers. All they have to connect with ground is old style radios. And radios that sound awful. Radios are not safe, anyone for any reason can interfere with them. Indeed any person can buy an aviation radio without any kind of permit and start pretending he or she is a controller and aircraft have no way of verifying that they are indeed speaking to a real controller. Plus there is the confusion factor. When you train as a pilot, a lot of what you have to learn is how to understand controllers over a radio, a radio which has poor sound quality and leads to frequent mix ups because of the different accents and languages that are spoken around the world by controllers and pilots. While in theory all controllers should speak English, Spanish traffic controllers for example speak in Spanish to aircraft that have Spanish identifiers, or address them in Spanish, sometimes depriving other aircraft flown by non Spanish speaking pilots of information that could be useful to them. Moreover, radio frequencies forces pilots to listen to everything that is said to other aircraft until you are called, something that I find extremely distracting when piloting. Imagine if you had a telephone system in which you had to listen to everyone else’s conversations until somebody finally spoke to you. Well that is what is happening in the air right now all over the world. Primitive. In my view it is indefensible that we send planes loaded with passengers over the oceans without Internet, real time voice communications nor GPS trackers. And even over land and near the coasts we use radars to know where aircraft are, but radars don’t know really exactly where a plane is because radars are so slow at locating fast moving objects that by the time a controller sees you, you are somewhere else. And radars have very short range so we can’t have radar coverage over oceans. The radar/transponder system is just obsolete. But still the norm.That Malaysian MH370 can disappear over the ocean and nobody knows exactly where, or the Air France 447 flight over the Atlantic went down and it took months to find the black box, is just irresponsible on the part of aviation authorities. My own Citation, a private jet, has a GPS tracker so we always know where it is. It cost less than $1000. We also have a satellite phone that allows the pilots to call for help anywhere in the world on concrete problems they may face that the radio operator may not be able to solve. Those also cost around $1000. And there is now Internet available to planes around in the world. But commercial planes, even when they have it for passengers, do not have it for pilots. And it is illegal to install equipment that is not approved by flying authorities around the world. Think of a product like the Dropcam and imagine it on all commercial aircraft showing ground personnel in real time everything that is happening in the cabin, cockpit and recording in real time, that combined with good communication with the pilots would make aviation much less of the black hole it is today.

In some cases a passenger with WiFi on a commercial plane can have more vital information than the pilot in the cockpit. For example, weather information. A pilot has a weather radar but the passenger can have real time weather information along the route, and that is as useful and sometimes more useful. But pilots in many jurisdictions are not allowed to use iPads with real time weather information. Private aviation has incorporated iPads and real time weather info much faster than commercial aviation. A commercial plane radar sees the next dangerous clouds (CBs clouds that can bring an airliner down) and that is all they show. But the passenger with Internet can have information about dangerous weather activity all the way to the destination. The passenger sees beyond what the pilot sees. Why can’t airlines have those tools if private jets already do? They cost very little more. Think of all the money we are spending on TSA and its equivalents to make aviation safe — can’t we spend a little more and have truly connected planes? If all commercial aircraft had GPS trackers, at least we would known exactly where AF 477 or MH 370 went missing. We should have every commercial airliner install a GPS tracker. Secondly we should connect all flights to the Internet and provide pilots with real time weather information anywhere in the world to supplement their weather radars as most private jets already have. What I find especially dangerous are flights that cross the Equator, where there are the most high altitude CBs during the night when you can’t see them. Thirdly, we should connect all FDRs (black boxes) to the Internet in real time so airlines know exactly what is happening to planes and alert pilots via the Internet and or satellite phones of unexpected dangers. Lastly we should give pilots a way to speak both over radio and over the internet/satellite connection so they can obtain help from their airlines or anyone else and not just that controller which has the radio that they can talk to. In many cases the communication could be via messaging that is directly sent to flying instruments and all the pilot has to do is hit OK. Right now the way things work is incredibly dated, is the best we had, in the 60s. A controller for example gives a certain aircraft a flying level while all the other pilots are listening in (in case the instruction is for them), then the pilots of the target aircraft have to acknowledge that they received the instructions, then the pilots of that aircraft have to remember what the instructions were (they are not sent in writing in any way and believe it or not, many pilots carry notepads tied to their legs not to forget and write them down while flying), then they have to go to their instruments, say the autopilot, then they have to input the new flight level in the autopilot, then they have to go to that flight level. Wouldn’t it be much easier to get an instruction over the Internet, hit OK, and have that instruction go to the autopilot and the plane to that level?
Or here is another example, ice detection. Right now the way pilots fight ice, and let’s remember that ice brings down planes, is by guessing when ice forming conditions could be happening and activating anti icing. In many cases they have to look at their own wings to see if there is ice building up. Again here night and day are very different, as at night it is harder to see that you are going through ice forming clouds. Some pilots have to turn on lights that shine on the wings. All this activity should be improved with sensors and real time weather information. Sometimes pilots have to navigate, be on the radio, fight ice and fight CBs all at the same time. This is just not fair to pilots. And all this could be happening without radar coverage and radio coverage. It is a great workload, a lot of which could be automated and improved.
Now the good news here is that we now have pilotless aircraft, drones, flying more and more frequently. It is my view that as driverless cars will show how to make driving safer, drones will show how to make flying safer.
- See more at: Aviation is stuck in the 60s, a reflection on MH 370 | Martin Varsavsky | English

Not sure I agree on the "controller" controlled auto-pilot talk this author writes about... but the GPS and blackbox enhancements seem pretty obvious.
 

Gone_2022

TCG Elite Member
Sep 4, 2013
13,094
7,525
So why cant the 'black boxes' upload its recorded data periodically to a satellite connected land based server, in addition to its onboard storage? In-flight internet access has been around for years now.

I thought the airplane... esp the newer ones send data periodically about airspeed, altitude and current status's for the flight computers..... Like what a check engine light would be for us. Kinda what I said in an earlier post about what happened with the air france flight. They lost communication however they could track the position of the aircraft when they opened the case on it due to the flight computers signal. Everytime a new fault code was triggered (air speed fault, main bus fault.... anything) It was sent to airtraffic controls computers and they could review it. That is how they recreated the senario in the flight simulator for testing on what happened.

So did this not happen on this flight? Or is it just to early to tell
 

Yaj Yak

Gladys
TCG Premium
May 24, 2007
122,894
89,633
Niche score of 2,363
Oh hell... this was a 777? I wonder if it'd had its lithium battery issues fixed. I know the FAA grounded these things, but I don't know if that applies to jets operating in this area. :dunno:

This thread needs moar [MENTION=510]Vogz[/MENTION]

too bad our aviation expert sools is gone for this thread. he could have provided valuable hearsay from his extended family of people who have been in planes.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 90 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant. Consider starting a new thread to get fresh replies.

Thread Info