News Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 crash

  • Thread starter Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Crash Flight
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the mysterious disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, raising concerns about airport security and the effectiveness of passport checks against stolen documents. Reports indicate that tickets linked to stolen passports were purchased by an Iranian man, leading to speculation about potential terrorism, though some argue that the absence of a clear motive or message suggests otherwise. Participants express outrage over security protocols, emphasizing that current measures appear inadequate and allow criminals to exploit stolen passports easily. Interpol has stated that they do not believe the incident was a terrorist attack, as the individuals involved may have been seeking asylum rather than engaging in malicious activities. The conversation highlights the broader implications for aviation security and the need for improved systems to prevent similar incidents in the future.
  • #201
masara said:
Most types of batteries develop dendrites over time, this doesn't mean they will explode.Too many dendrites will simply not allow the battery to get charged, and even if it gets some charge it will lose it quickly.

However, there have always been concerns over their fire safety – as after several charge and discharge cycles, potentially dangerous tiny lithium fibres, known as dendrites, can form on the carbon anodes. These fibres can short circuit the battery, causing it to overheat and catch fire.
-- Elsevier Materials Today
http://www.materialstoday.com/energy/news/improved-lithium-batteries/

We disagree. When one is dealing with the possibility of a fire occurring in one battery, the chances are admittedly slim. But the odds increase as the number of batteries goes up. Just like a bad apple in a barrel of good apples, one dendrite short can set off all the batteries in a shipment. Thus you have a maximum number of batteries allowed in a shipment. But even with this limit, the NTSB has predicted a number of future catastrophic events (airline crashes) based on this.

The MH370 had a lot of lithium batteries in its cargo. Over 400 pounds on a passenger airliner - or perhaps a lot more... There is also the possibility that many of these may have been counterfeit; manufactured with defects. With overwhelming empirical evidence such as UPS Flight 6, making light of the problem seems at odds with finding a solution. To me, the only real solution to stop passenger airlines from going down because of lithium battery fires is an outright ban on shipments in the cargo hold.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #202
jtbell said:
Ping!
Sometimes you have to wonder if anybody here actually knows what they are doing...
China's Liberation Daily reported that three people on board had heard the signals, which were not recorded as they came suddenly.
from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26902127
 
  • #203
@Ptero
Please concentrate on the meaning of the sentence "after several charge and discharge cycles". a) The presumable Lithium cargo batteries on MH370 were supposedly new hence never passed through those several cycles. b) Faulty ones among them would not even have a charge, hence they were simply inert cells.

That's why I previously said that those batteries are dangerous only when they are good (meaning they are either new or old that hold a good charge)

The forming of Dendrites is a gradual process.It is impossible to get so many Dendrites from one charge to another that would form an internal short circuit. Dendrites are in fact measurable as Internal Resistence.(Rint).
A new Li-ion with 2000mah capacity should have Rint<0.1 ohms. At Rint of about 0.8 Ohms you just throw it away ( in a recycle bin) because it wouldn't hold charge any more. And at short circuit state Rint= infinite your charger would refuse to charge it, because it's voltage would be below 3V/cell. Chargers for Li-ions are clever you know, and they know the risks :-)

NB. Dendrites are more of an issue on Ni-Cad and Ni-Mh batteries rather than on Li-ions.
Imo the risk from the li-ions arises from their high current discharge in short circuit instances, and the chemicals they employ. Not from their forming Dendrites after several cycles..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #204
Ptero said:
To me, the only real solution to stop passenger airlines from going down because of lithium battery fires is an outright ban on shipments in the cargo hold.

You are entitled to your opinion, but
1. There are already regulations in place over this.
2. "Creating more regulations about something" is not the same as "ensuring that something is not done."
3. The number of serious passenger aircraft incidents known to be caused by this is zero.
4. Risk assessment in aviation is (or at least tries to be) an objective science. Decisions are not made on the basis of which lobby group shouts loudest.

Of course there are fire risks from batteries, but how to you propose to regulate against such things as
Last month [Novenber 2011] a mobile phone caught fire on a Boeing 747 inbound to London Heathrow after being crushed by a seat as a passenger reclined. Cabin crew were able to extinguish the fire before any serious damage occurred.
(from http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&mode=detail&nid=2069)
 
Last edited:
  • #205
@masara
So all the research done with optical and electron microscopes, nuclear magnetic resonance, and magnetic resonance imaging was wasted because they could just have used an ohm meter? I don't think so. Dendrite growth in electrolyte has recently been discovered to be a later stage of the root problem which occurs inside the anode. Only when the dendrite growth has matured can it sometimes be measured by an ohm meter.

It is incorrect to assume that because failure rates due to dendrite growth increase with cycle life, that new batteries do not have this problem. They do.

@AlephZero
There is a difference between battery fires in the passenger compartment vs. the cargo hold.

The FAA in AC120-80 made the following statement:
“For aircraft with hidden fires, an approximate assessment is that only one
third will reach an airfield before the fire becomes uncontrollable.”
SMOKE, FIRE AND FUMES IN TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT
PAST HISTORY, CURRENT RISK AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATIONS
Royal Aeronautical Society --Second Edition 2013

The difference is, in the passenger compartment, people can put it out or put it in the oven. In the cargo compartment, people can't put it out.

How many passenger airliners need to go down from lithium battery fires in the cargo hold before you would think something needs to be done?

The lobbying group for the pilot and first officer of UPS Flight 6 is calling for a ban of lithium batteries on cargo aircraft. Does this bother you?
 
  • #206
  • #207
Ptero said:
The lobbying group for the pilot and first officer of UPS Flight 6 is calling for a ban of lithium batteries on cargo aircraft. Does this bother you?

Considering that I'm more likely to get killed in a road accident driving to the airport than while I'm on the plane, it doesn't bother me at all.

On the other hand, if the aviation industry starts making decisions on the basis of which lobby group shouts loudest or can raise the most money, I'm never going to fly again.
 
  • #209
Diving equipment

http://uncw.edu/nurc/systems/toolmanual/beacon.pdf

NURC-UNCW has a variety of acoustic pinger beacons available for use. Helle
27XX pingers are available in 27 or 37 kHz frequencies for deployment of equipment to 6,000 feet seawater and have a battery life of one month.
 
  • #210
The planes current location box is about 2.8 miles down. We're trying to find a suitcase while looking from the top of a mountain while listening to an ultrasonic bell. It might take a while even if we have a good ping location.
http://www.bluefinrobotics.com/products/bluefin-21/

We are at the Depth Rating limit of the Bluefin 21.
http://www.bluefinrobotics.com/news-and-downloads/press/cbs-news-one-of-the-navy-s-best-tools-deployed-in-flight-370-search/
 
Last edited:
  • #212
for want of a nail a shoe was lost...

that acars engine reporting handshake might oughta be lengthened slightly to include lat/lon

looks like it'd be substantial return for minimal effort - all software, no new hardware
radar altimeter could trigger a report upon approach to ground..
 
  • #213
jim hardy said:
for want of a nail a shoe was lost...

that acars engine reporting handshake might oughta be lengthened slightly to include lat/lon

looks like it'd be substantial return for minimal effort - all software, no new hardware
radar altimeter could trigger a report upon approach to ground..

The primary reason it was only pinging instead of transferring location data was because the airline didn't have a paid subscription for acars data via 'Classic Aero' satcom (only VHF/HF) on that plane. The airline choose not to use it due to cost and the normal route of the plane being near land and airports with the needed VHF/HF equipment. In this case the primary acars was turned off (by something or someone) so even if new software was installed on the acars controller it still would have been useless. This type of modification needs to be done at the transceiver physical data link protocol level by an OEM so I don't think it's software only or low cost.

Companies like Inmarsat/Iridium should get paid for providing that service when needed. (This crash is a very rare event so the data usage cost of a 911 emergency event call to them is almost zero) So a fixed fee for general emergency location satcom services from all airlines would seem reasonable if the money spent would actually increase safety by locating the recorders from these rare types of crashes quicker. (unlikely because they are so rare)

There are no specialized space-based systems designed just for tracking 100,000 commercial aircraft flights on a global basis. Maybe there should be but who will pay for it other than the people who buy the tickets.
 
Last edited:
  • #214
nsaspook said:
There are no specialized space-based systems designed just for tracking 100,000 commercial aircraft flights on a global basis. Maybe there should be but who will pay for it other than the people who buy the tickets.

Designing a system with today's technology is only the tip of the iceberg, considering that planes have a working life of maybe 40 or 50 years (by the time they have filtered down the food chain to third world airlines) and many new ones coming off the production line today have only minor changes from 40 or 50 year old designs. Plus, there is the issue of small manufacturers making high-tech-looking executive jets on a very tight budget and with limited technical resources, etc.

The airworthiness regulations are often a balancing act between what is desirable and what is practically and economically possible - just like any other engineering activity.
 
  • #215
This is a business opportunity for someone: Use a simple cell phone app that periodically dials up a website or service and transmits gps coordinates and other related info to it for tracking. The only thing needed by the pilots is to start the app and provide flight number. Even then the initial flight path and time of departure might be enough to identify the flight.
 
  • #216
jedishrfu said:
This is a business opportunity for someone: Use a simple cell phone app that periodically dials up a website or service and transmits gps coordinates and other related info to it for tracking. The only thing needed by the pilots is to start the app and provide flight number. Even then the initial flight path and time of departure might be enough to identify the flight.

That happens today with ground based acars equipped planes up to maybe 200 miles from industrially modern locations. The problem with the current system is remote locations far away from cell towers, ground based communication systems and even transponder based microwave tracking radars. The two main options are 'over the horizon' long range tracking systems like Jindalee or dedicated space-based data-streams. Either option is high cost for the nominal amount of extra safety it might deliver in an incident like this (mainly useful as an aid to recover).
For the tracking system to be fault-tolerant (from disconnection from any cause) it must be isolated from human control and powered directly from the FADEC bus like the current satcom status transponders were on the plane that were pinging until the engines stopped.
http://semiengineering.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/extra.png
 
Last edited:
  • #218
jedishrfu said:
How about a system akin to firechat app where the planes themselves become hubs and one plane can transmit its coordinates to other planes or ships to relay it to a collecting station (eg website)? I'm not sure how far out of range a plane maybe from other planes and ships during its flight.

Sounds ok as a concept but I don't see it as helping in this case where they were thousands of miles from normal flight lanes at the crash site.
Mandates to use satcom would be far easier to implement as the base equipment is already onboard and could be integrated into a global FANS type system.
http://www.honeywell.com/sites/servlet/com.merx.npoint.servlets.DocumentServlet?docid=D60671A93-51BD-1C36-20CF-446F85B0FD6C
 
  • #219
yet the information put out to public is the engine monitoring system periodically shook hands with a satellite for six hours.

so at least an identifying bitstring was sent to the satellite and records of that communication were accessible to the satellite operator. But it contained no location information.
that's what i propose lengthening just enough to include whereabouts.

We get over-expectant of our technology. There were amateur radio operators in California picking up Amelia Earhart's "i'm lost" calls. I suggest that a low-tech approach would do this job inexpensively.

But who'll pay for it is a good question. If there's not a big profit nobody will be interested.
That's why i suggested tweaking what's already there.

What a PR bonanza for the satellite operator if he'd offer to do his half at cost.
 
  • #220
nsaspook said:
Sounds ok as a concept but I don't see it as helping in this case where they were thousands of miles from normal flight lanes at the crash site.
Mandates to use satcom would be far easier to implement as the base equipment is already onboard and could be integrated into a global FANS type system.
http://www.honeywell.com/sites/servlet/com.merx.npoint.servlets.DocumentServlet?docid=D60671A93-51BD-1C36-20CF-446F85B0FD6C

The question is how far away from commercial or naval ships too.
 
  • #221
jedishrfu said:
The question is how far away from commercial or naval ships too.

I have no idea but as a radio operator on a ship talking to helos we were lucky to get >40 mile range on VHF/UHF and maybe 150 miles to high flying aircraft with X-MODE digital devices. I'm sure modern equipment could extend the range some but that's pretty close to the reliable limit in a single voice band FM channel with digital modulation at about a 19k baud rate.
 
Last edited:
  • #222
jim hardy said:
yet the information put out to public is the engine monitoring system periodically shook hands with a satellite for six hours.

so at least an identifying bitstring was sent to the satellite and records of that communication were accessible to the satellite operator. But it contained no location information.

But it did contain location information that we decoded directly from the physics of EM waves like we do in radar. So maybe another way to track aircraft would be a constellation of small simple satellites dedicated to tracking ping/round-trip timing worldwide that would require no changes to most planes with standard systems and could be as accurate as GPS in providing locations.
 
  • #224
jedishrfu said:
There's a recent article on wifi usage on planes getting faster so that says it could be done rather cheaply piggybacking on the service.

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/travel/wi-fi-sky-taking-n80101

That's great for areas that will have advanced coverage due to traffic (and don't really need remote area location services for a plane going down near those routes) but there's a reason the bird in the IO is several years over it's expected lifetime , in a wobbly orbit (that helps in the process to narrow down the flight path in this case) to conserve fuel and is last on the list for upgrades. It' not a big money maker because of the coverage area and nobody (who has to answer to stock holders) is going to invest in the transponder capability need to provide high speed wi-fi type services to a vast amount of nothing when that same transponder can be spot beamed to China, India or Australia for a premium.
 
  • #225
The first dive to find the plane.
http://news.yahoo.com/mini-sub-tries-again-first-search-mh370-aborted-015845573.html
But the dive by the Bluefin-21 detected nothing of interest before it automatically aborted the mission after breaching its maximum operating depth, the US Navy said in a statement.

The Australian agency coordinating the search said the Bluefin-21 "exceeded its operating depth limit of 4,500 metres (15,000 feet) and its built-in safety feature returned it to the surface".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #226
It can be programmed to go deeper.
 
  • #227
Two questions:

1) Why all the speculation that batteries took the plane down? The plane was off course. Can the battery cargo cause such
a long (in terms of time and physical space) deviation?

2) Can the pingers that have been heard in the past couple of weeks associated with the missing aircraft to a high level
of certainty? Do we know the plane is in that general area, or not?

Thank you
 
  • #228
People who are blinded or in respiratory shock and are in a situation such as piloting an airplane would attempt to contact someone. Everyone on the plane would know, and be trying to contact someone. Cell phone signals would be plentiful if they were in range of towers. They were off course long before they ended up in the middle of the ocean, right?

Oh, I see your second answer involves conspiracy theory stuff. :(
 
  • #229
Thread is re-opened for discussion of finding the plane, no more battery conspiracies please.

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
  • #230
Evo said:
Thread is re-opened for discussion of finding the plane, no more battery conspiracies please.

Thank you.

Um... huh?
 
  • #231
Ptero said:
It can be programmed to go deeper.

It looks like they are pushing past the limits to get to the bottom.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...arine-reprogrammed-to-reach-record-depth.html

"The [autonomous underwater vehicle] reached a record depth of 4,695 metres [15,404 feet] during mission four," the US Navy said. "This is the first time the Bluefin-21 has descended to this depth. Diving to such depths does carry with it some residual risk to the equipment and this is being carefully monitored."
 
  • #232
oneamp said:
Um... huh?

There was a conspiracy theory posted about China or Korea trying to cover up battery issues. Nuff said.
 
  • #233
Ptero said:
It can be programmed to go deeper.

That's the easy part. The hard part is knowing if it will come up again still in one piece.

As the guy who jumped from the top of the Empire State Building said as he passed the second floor on the way down, "everything is going to plan so far..." :biggrin:
 
  • #234
The search for missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 may be forced to re-investigate the possibility that the passenger jet with 239 on board landed, according to new reports.
https://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/22875886/mh370-may-have-landed-not-crashed-sources/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #235
StevieTNZ said:
https://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/22875886/mh370-may-have-landed-not-crashed-sources/

giorgiotsoukalos.jpg


The New Strait Times has quoted sources close to the probe that the investigation teams are considering revisiting the possibility that the plane did not crash into the ocean and had landed safely at an unknown location.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #236
Landed where? Atlantis?? :bugeye:
 
  • #237
DevilsAvocado said:
Landed where? Atlantis?? :bugeye:

Nope, all clear here.
 
  • #238
Enigman said:
Nope, all clear here.

:smile: Did you check Lemuria?
 
  • #239
Enigman said:
Nope, all clear here.

Phew, that's a BIG relief! I was deeply troubled by the possibility of MH370 clashing* into a horde of Invisible Pink Unicorns on the gold plated runway...

*IPU's are real tricky to spot this time of the year.

:biggrin:
 
  • #240
DevilsAvocado said:
Phew, that's a BIG relief! I was deeply troubled by the possibility of MH370 clashing* into a horde of Invisible Pink Unicorns on the gold plated runway...

:confused:
Use of gold ended with the golden age ; we have used orichalcum since then.
 
  • #241
Lets not forget that this is an epic tragedy and many people are still grieving the loss of family and friends.
 
  • #242
jedishrfu said:
Lets not forget that this is an epic tragedy and many people are still grieving the loss of family and friends.

I agree but giving them false hope doesn't help. There is a point where you need to accept the reality of death of a loved one and move on with your life for the sake of the living. Some idiot (within the crash investigation) hinting at 'Wonderland' airfields deserves ridicule.
 
Last edited:
  • #245
New search in the works.

With huge search area mapped, MH370 hunt resuming
http://news.yahoo.com/huge-search-area-mapped-mh370-hunt-resuming-055544313.html

SYDNEY (AP) — After a four-month hiatus, the hunt for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 is about to resume in a desolate stretch of the Indian Ocean, with searchers lowering new equipment deep beneath the waves in a bid to finally solve one of the world's most perplexing aviation mysteries.

The GO Phoenix, the first of three ships that will spend up to a year hunting for the wreckage far off Australia's west coast, is expected to arrive in the search zone Sunday, though weather could delay its progress. Crews will use sonar, video cameras and jet fuel sensors to scour the water for any trace of the Boeing 777, . . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #246
Unfortunately, we have heard nothing about this. My sympathy is with the affected families who still have questions that will be left unanswered.
 
  • #248
Eight months to conspiracy theory --- I was predicting four to six.
 
  • #249
Evo said:
Now this.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...-former-airline-ceo-marc-dugain-30858077.html
That's unfortunate and unhelpful.

Looking at maps of the search area, Diego Garcia is no where near there.

DG is about 4,723 km (2,550.22 nmi) west-northwest of the west coast of Australia (at Cape Range National Park, Western Australia). The search was looking about 2300 km WSW of Perth. Not exactly a threat.

http://www.abc15.com/news/national/how-groundbreaking-number-crunching-found-path-of-malaysia-airlines-flight-370
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/malaysi...ock-winding-down-on-black-box-beacon-battery/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #250
As the search zone for MH-370 continues to yield no answers, an investigative reporter from the West Australian newspaper has interviewed people in The Maldives who at the time reported an off-course passenger airliner that passed low overhead, banked gently, and was shortly followed by a loud boom. The Maldives are a group of islands located on the Equator to the south of India. This aircraft was described as large, very noisy, flying so low they could count multiple doors, and carried red and blue markings, and it brought people out of their homes because the islanders say the only planes they ever see there are small local seaplanes.

At around this time, an array of sensitive underwater microphones off the west coast of Australia picked up a loud sound (not a bang, more like a groan) which triangulates to distant ocean NW of Australia and could be of geological origin, but could also be an aircraft crashing or an intact plane imploding at depth. The Maldives does have a defence radar station, so those who witnessed the aircraft pass overhead are puzzled by a press release from their Defence department denying any aircraft were in the air that morning. It is speculated to be a face-saving measure to cover-up the department's operational deficiencies, and likely explains why reports at the time that the flight may have been MH370 were hastily dismissed.

The reporter said that a flight path west of Indonesia was not inconsistent with the satellite data.

I heard this on a radio interview with the reporter after he returned from The Maldives, but here's a published report from a source that doesn't demand subscription: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...ssing-malaysia-airlines-flight_n_7003406.html

There are no reports of traceable wreckage being washed ashore.
 

Similar threads

News Malaysia Airlines flight crashes in Ukraine
3
Replies
108
Views
18K
News Ethiopian Airlines 737 crash discussion
2
Replies
80
Views
10K
News Fox News: Who Used Journalists as Human Shields in Libya?
2
Replies
64
Views
8K
News Suicide bombers crash van into mosque
Replies
3
Views
2K
News How Are Drug Traffickers Using Submarines for Cocaine Transport?
Replies
6
Views
3K
News Troubling Coverage of the Fort Hood Shootings
3
Replies
144
Views
18K
News Overt Liberal Media Bias: Journalistic Fraud
Replies
37
Views
9K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
2
Replies
65
Views
10K
News The Roots of Terrorism and US Foreign Policy
Replies
31
Views
5K
News Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence
3
Replies
133
Views
27K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top