Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Aviation
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-19-2014, 01:38 PM
 
542 posts, read 690,250 times
Reputation: 756

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabchuck View Post
I would have thought that was one of the first things they would have done. Figure out how much fuel the plane had, then altitude it flew and from that I'm guessing they have a decent idea of how far it could have flown. Couple that with the known trajectories and that would be a good starting point for the search. Maybe they did that but it just seems like the search is sort of disjointed.
I thought that was why that satellite "handshake" around 8am was turned into an arc and not a circle, because they had taken into account the fuel range of the plane. (Although at the time they were saying no new extra fuel had been added to the plane than needed for the Beijing flight - I'm guessing there would be good records of this?). Would that 1:07 ACARS transmission have sent fuel info?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-19-2014, 01:43 PM
 
7,280 posts, read 10,919,174 times
Reputation: 11491
Please, before the next Diego Garcia landing comes up, at least search for what Diego Garcia is and then think about it for 2 seconds. Geesh.

Maximum range for the 777 doesn't get it close to flying around the world. Not even close.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2014, 01:52 PM
 
1,661 posts, read 2,526,449 times
Reputation: 2163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
Please, before the next Diego Garcia landing comes up, at least search for what Diego Garcia is and then think about it for 2 seconds. Geesh.

Maximum range for the 777 doesn't get it close to flying around the world. Not even close.
What? You mean you don't think a giant jet could land at a US Navy and Air base without being noticed? Surely you jest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2014, 01:52 PM
 
29,200 posts, read 14,474,917 times
Reputation: 14328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatooine View Post
I thought that was why that satellite "handshake" around 8am was turned into an arc and not a circle, because they had taken into account the fuel range of the plane. (Although at the time they were saying no new extra fuel had been added to the plane than needed for the Beijing flight - I'm guessing there would be good records of this?). Would that 1:07 ACARS transmission have sent fuel info?
Good question. Those seem to be the key factors, fuel, and altitute to figure out range, then course heading.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2014, 02:05 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,132 posts, read 107,402,364 times
Reputation: 115947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatooine View Post
I thought that was why that satellite "handshake" around 8am was turned into an arc and not a circle, because they had taken into account the fuel range of the plane. (Although at the time they were saying no new extra fuel had been added to the plane than needed for the Beijing flight - I'm guessing there would be good records of this?). Would that 1:07 ACARS transmission have sent fuel info?
Yes, that's what they said. They calculated the range of the fuel. That's how they arrived at Kazakhstan and Xinjiang as suspected destinations. But they didn't take into consideration the possibility that the plane could head straight across the Bay of Bengal to the Maldives, then possibly onward.

Also, when they calculated how far the plane could go per fuel range, it may be that they calculated that on the basis of the standard amount of fuel in planes flying from Malaysia to Beijing. They may not have interviewed whoever actually fueled the plane, to see if there was an anomaly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2014, 02:08 PM
 
29,200 posts, read 14,474,917 times
Reputation: 14328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
Yes, that's what they said. They calculated the range of the fuel. That's how they arrived at Kazakhstan and Xinjiang as suspected destinations. But they didn't take into consideration the possibility that the plane could head straight across the Bay of Bengal to the Maldives, then possibly onward.

Also, when they calculated how far the plane could go per fuel range, it may be that they calculated that on the basis of the standard amount of fuel in planes flying from Malaysia to Beijing. They may not have interviewed whoever actually fueled the plane, to see if there was an anomaly.
For something this serious it just seems like a lot of things that should have been done right away weren't. At least as far as us , the public know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2014, 02:10 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,975 posts, read 16,430,439 times
Reputation: 4586
Malaysia plane: Some data deleted from pilot's flight simulator - latimes.com

The captain HAS to have been involved. Some data was deleted from his home flight simulator.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2014, 02:15 PM
 
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
10,931 posts, read 11,692,733 times
Reputation: 13170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frihed89 View Post
A single malfunction on a modern commercial airliner, especially if it is rare, can unleash many other malfunctions to which on board computers and pilots will respond. Each response by man or machine then has consequences to which both man and machine must further adjust. All of these adjustments interact. What you can end up with any number of series of responses that return the aircraft systems to some sort of stable state, perhaps not optimal, but stable enough to avoid disaster. You also can end up with a large number of series of responses that deviate away from stability into chaos. The possibilities can be very large.

This plane is at the bottom of an ocean, somewhere, the victim of a chaotic adjustment path.
The main point of my comment is that the scenario which actually happened may have a very, very small probability, as do all the others, and that what we observe on the ground, based on the information we have available, may not explain a large number of equally likely scenarios, even if it makes (made) more far more sense compared to what actually is found out to have happened.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2014, 02:20 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,132 posts, read 107,402,364 times
Reputation: 115947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
Please, before the next Diego Garcia landing comes up, at least search for what Diego Garcia is and then think about it for 2 seconds. Geesh.

Maximum range for the 777 doesn't get it close to flying around the world. Not even close.
A plane headed to Diego Garcia wouldn't have flown first to the Maldives, unless it stopped there to refuel. It would have flown directly to DG after it got past Indonesian airspace, if it had only the expected fuel capacity for a flight from Malaysia to Beijing. If it were somehow carrying extra fuel (a possibility someone raised just now), or if it refueled in Male, then all bets are off.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2014, 02:23 PM
 
Location: Surprise, AZ
8,580 posts, read 10,103,658 times
Reputation: 7927
Quote:
Originally Posted by waviking24 View Post
What? You mean you don't think a giant jet could land at a US Navy and Air base without being noticed? Surely you jest.
Regarding any Diego Garcia theories out there. I appreciate that many people don't buy into conspiracy theories and such, but keep in mind that many of those same people (especially in the media) are the ones who are quick to point out that other countries ARE capable of doing nefarious things while we are exempt. Do I believe or want to believe that our country would purposely try to fly a plane full of passengers and "suspicious cargo" to a place like Diego Garcia or any place else to get rid of it? No. Do I think our country is capable of it? Yes. I believe there is a lot of technology and information that everyday citizens are not and will not ever be privy to. I find it very hard to believe that the United States got to where it is today simply by always doing the right thing at all times while ignoring its own special interests.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Aviation

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:48 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top