Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #161   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,515
Default OT - Pennies on the rail tracks.

bob haller posted for all of us...

And I know how to SNIP


On Thursday, March 27, 2014 8:21:49 AM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 3/26/2014 8:19 PM, nestork wrote:

When I was a kid, me and my friends would put coins on the railway


tracks and let the trains run over them. I learned that nickel was much


harder than copper.



Now, pennies are zinc. I'm not sure how zinc

rates, on hardness. Harder than copper, I'd

guess.



--

.

Christopher A. Young

Learn about Jesus

www.lds.org

.



zinc is farly hard, melts a way lower temperature and corrodes easily. te copper plating may help money last longer


Not in my wallet...

--
Tekkie
  #162   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,074
Default OT - Pennies on the rail tracks.

RobertMacy wrote:

Although handy to walk along the tracks, I quickly learned to walk along
the OUTSIDE of the tracks! as in yeccchhh!!!


If you look at the typical power unit (locomotive), theres the long hood
where the diesel-electric generator and resistor bank for dynamic braking
live, and the short hood in front of the cab. The short hood contains two
things; a major connection panel for the control circuitry and the crapper.
They may be better now, but the latter used to be a straight drop. It wasn't
a real pleasant place to have to work. In fact, being an electrician working
on old power units wasn't too pleasant in general. Changing traction motors
was a real ball.

  #163   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,279
Default Flight MH370 disaster - new theory (asphyxia - air problems)

On Thursday, March 27, 2014 7:51:11 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message

news:19ce2cf9-1e57-471e-addb-



stuff snipped



The crazy thing here is that if the ocean is chock full of garbage,


they can't even find that. For about a week now it's been a satellite


or plane spots some big object, but later when someone finally gets


there or the plane returns, they can't find it again. I haven't heard


about them finding a single thing in the search area that they thought


could have been from the plane, but isn't. It's just that they can't


find anything and poor weather isn't helping.




The original search area was equal to the size of the US. Now it's only 3

times the size of France. People just don't realize the incredible amount

of area that has to be searched, often just by bored people with binoculars

looking through the glare of an airplane cabin window. A lot of the

surrounding detritus that marks the typical ocean crash site was dispersed

by winds and waves for almost a week before they got the area right.



This wreckage might not ever get found because there's so much unrelated

junk in the water and because the Indian Ocean is so remote. The planes

spend most of their time and fuel getting to the search area and then have

to turn back after a few hours.



--

Bobby G.


And if you think this search area uncertainty, conditions, etc to locate
even one piece of debris is tough, what does that say about what comes
next, ie finding where the plane actually went down is? With 2+ weeks
having gone by, the uncertainty is going to lead to another large possible
area. One that can't be searched by airplanes going 200 mph. It took
2 years in the AirFrance case and that was with a much better idea of
where the plane went in. I don't hold out any hope of the pingers doing
any good. Even if they are working and last 2 months instead of one,
they just aren't going to be able to cover much of the possible area,
and they haven't even figured out where the possible area is.

One possibility would be that they could get luck and backtrack from
the debris field, if they find it, using sat pics going back in time.
If you found the debris today, you know the currents, wind, etc and
would know where to look in all the sat pics going back to the day
it crashed. Even if they only find pics of where that same debris
field was a week ago, it would narrow down the possibilities of where
to search. But then it's going to still be a huge area and those
remote control drones only go so fast, it could take many years.
A related question, who is going to pay for it? In the case of AF,
the French paid for it, heard numbers like $50mil. In this case,
since the Malaysians are in charge of it, what's the chance they will
pony up for what it takes, versus just calling it quits after a few
months? And if that happens, then what? I doubt Boeing or
anyone else will pay for it.

On the issue of the pingers, one wonders why they are limited to just
a month? They have shown them on TV and they are just small gizmos.
I don't see why by now they don't have ones that last many months.
Also, they've said they emmit a ping every second. Wonder who came
up with that and what it's based on. You would think that if it
emitted a ping say once every 5 secs, a sub, drone, whatever would
still be likely to detect it and then even with the current size,
batteries, etc it would last 5 months, instead of one. Seems to me
I'd rather have on ping every 5 secs for 5 months instead of what
we have now.
  #164   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,321
Default Flight MH370 disaster - Some thoughts about telemetry, hijacking

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
"Robert Green" wrote:


some sort of standard that indicates that they don't put out a real
anything that happens to float past and looks like a couple extra
minutes are filled.


By all means, let's have the government license them and publish
journalistic standards . . . no, wait, that's not such a good idea
afterall.


Gee, it was really nice of you to succinctly make my point about
taking whatever floats by and mangling it until it fits what you want it
to. Never was there any mention of government intrusion (especially from
me of all people).


I just cut to the chase for you. In the final analysis, externally imposed
standards are the only ones that are effective. The desire to see
journalists act "professionally" means that there's a) a standard defined
and b) there's a way to enforce or cause journalists to adhere to that
standard. That's how we insure professional behavior from doctors, lawyers
and even massage therapists.

The competitive pressure of a free market dissolves away those standards in
the face of the reality that day old news has no value. So, to get the
"scoop" news organization now are willing to pay for interviews and accept
statements from interviewees without attempting to vet them in any way.

There used to be internal standards that you had to
meet that were imposed by your bosses, their bosses, or just plain old
peer pressure to get it right instead of merely filling up time with
whatever weirdness happens to pass by or calls looking for air time.


I'm not sure there ever were the "standards" you're talking about. The kind
of speculation you're talking about has always been with us, and it
typically gets worse when there aren't any "real" facts to be had, as in the
MH370 case. Read the new archives about Amelia Earhart. Different time but
same sort of speculative coverage in the absence of verifiable facts.

It's important to remember this isn't a "top down" process. Now, more than
ever, news organizations have a very good grasp on what their readers want
to read - you see it with almost every news site's "most emailed" or "most
read" feature. Newspapers before the internet very rarely knew what stories
people read or passed on. Now they know with excruciating detail what
interests people and what they want more of. You're just mad because it's
not representative of what you want more of. (-:

There used to be rotary phones, men used to wear hats and there was a time
when the web wasn't even a dream. Internal standards are still practiced by
some, but not many, news organizations. They're the ones that have enough
revenue to be able to afford that luxury. Not many can anymore.

Look at all the supposition that came about after the
Challenger disaster, the OK city bombing, etc. When people have
incomplete information on a newsworthy subject they resort to "what

if"
scenarios.


Pretty much makes my point. I have no problem with people doing
that, but journalists should not just pass along the latest rumor.


Oh yeah, think of the competitive advantage of saying nothing when your
competitors provide stuff that people are interested in reading, even if
it's supposition in the absence of hard facts (he says, sarcastically).

Since I first read this post I've been reading MH370 stories with an eye to
whether news organizations make it clear that what they are reporting are
not necessarily facts, but the best "guesses" we have available from the
people in a position to know something about the situation. That's why I
give reports like Chris Goodfellow's (that there was a fire) much greater
creedence than some turkey in the Malaysian government. Goodfellow's a
pilot who's "been there, done that" whereas a defense minister hasn't and
worse, yet, probably has some pretty good reasons *not* to tell the whole
truth.

In most cases, they properly indicate that it's conjecture and not fact.

I
think a greater problem is how many news sites co-mingle opinion with
reporting and deliberately "mark up" the former so it looks like the

latter.

Sometimes, although I have noticed that CNN tends to get somewhat
inconsistent on that, especially after the first iteration. I'd have to
agree with the other part, and it is indicative of how the mighty have
fallen.


There's still a long, long way to go before we hit bottom, but we're getting
there.

In an age where Bill O'Reilly considers Darryl Hannah an "expert" on

solar
energy and Katie Couric gives ex-Playmate Jenny McCarthy a forum for her
anti-vaccination views, anything goes. You are indeed Don Quixote,

tilting
at windmills. The Golden Age of journalism has come and gone.


And that is the direct result of the journalists themselves. And I
have mentioned earlier and numerous times, that don't make it right...


No, it's not the journalists, it's the competitive pressures forced on them
by external forces. It's a number of those, too. It's businessmen who have
bought up newspapers, saddled them with debt and then bled them dry and left
them to rot on the vine. It's the Internet, too, providing stiff
competition for advertising and lowering the bar spreading rumors.
Other factors have played a large role in the dissolution of large media
organizations, too, but if you look at any of the major newspapers, the path
to extinction has been a pretty standard one for all of them. As they all
cut back on editorial staff, the product suffers. The right questions (is
this news source credible?) don't get asked and the beat goes on.

But that is acknowledged as out of the box and not some actual
occurrance UNTIL the actual facts back it up. I get a chuckle out of
the next line fixing a cause and then bending facts. Isn't that

exactly
what you are doing with the supposition that it the thing was hijacked
and then either flown into the sea or landed somewhere?


But I am not a news organization or even a journalist. I am allowed to
posit possibilities. (-:

How Jenney-esque of you (grin)\


http://www.google.com/search?q=jenney

You'll have to be more specific. I'm sorry, I don't get the reference and
Google didn't help either.

--
Bobby G.


  #165   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,279
Default Flight MH370 disaster - Some thoughts about telemetry, hijacking

On Sunday, March 30, 2014 6:59:41 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

"Robert Green" wrote:




some sort of standard that indicates that they don't put out a real


anything that happens to float past and looks like a couple extra


minutes are filled.




By all means, let's have the government license them and publish


journalistic standards . . . no, wait, that's not such a good idea


afterall.




Gee, it was really nice of you to succinctly make my point about


taking whatever floats by and mangling it until it fits what you want it


to. Never was there any mention of government intrusion (especially from


me of all people).




I just cut to the chase for you. In the final analysis, externally imposed

standards are the only ones that are effective. The desire to see

journalists act "professionally" means that there's a) a standard defined

and b) there's a way to enforce or cause journalists to adhere to that

standard. That's how we insure professional behavior from doctors, lawyers

and even massage therapists.



The competitive pressure of a free market dissolves away those standards in

the face of the reality that day old news has no value. So, to get the

"scoop" news organization now are willing to pay for interviews and accept

statements from interviewees without attempting to vet them in any way.



There used to be internal standards that you had to


meet that were imposed by your bosses, their bosses, or just plain old


peer pressure to get it right instead of merely filling up time with


whatever weirdness happens to pass by or calls looking for air time.




I'm not sure there ever were the "standards" you're talking about. The kind

of speculation you're talking about has always been with us, and it

typically gets worse when there aren't any "real" facts to be had, as in the

MH370 case. Read the new archives about Amelia Earhart. Different time but

same sort of speculative coverage in the absence of verifiable facts.



It's important to remember this isn't a "top down" process. Now, more than

ever, news organizations have a very good grasp on what their readers want

to read - you see it with almost every news site's "most emailed" or "most

read" feature. Newspapers before the internet very rarely knew what stories

people read or passed on. Now they know with excruciating detail what

interests people and what they want more of. You're just mad because it's

not representative of what you want more of. (-:



There used to be rotary phones, men used to wear hats and there was a time

when the web wasn't even a dream. Internal standards are still practiced by

some, but not many, news organizations. They're the ones that have enough

revenue to be able to afford that luxury. Not many can anymore.



Look at all the supposition that came about after the


Challenger disaster, the OK city bombing, etc. When people have


incomplete information on a newsworthy subject they resort to "what


if"

scenarios.




Pretty much makes my point. I have no problem with people doing


that, but journalists should not just pass along the latest rumor.




Oh yeah, think of the competitive advantage of saying nothing when your

competitors provide stuff that people are interested in reading, even if

it's supposition in the absence of hard facts (he says, sarcastically).



I agree with your general argument here. It's kind of a paradox
in a way. I think the media has given this story far more attention
than it deserves. CNN in particular. Some almost insignificant thing
comes out like someone says a week into this that the plane made a
"sharp turn to the left" when it first went off course, and they blow
it into major breaking news. Then they finally admit that it's unclear
if that means that it was a sudden, extreme bank turn, or just that it
was a sharp change from it's original course. We knew the latter from
day one, and even if was a steep bank turn, it's hardly major knews.
Yet they had pilots demonstrating both in a flight simulator and they
talked about if for hours.

I especially enjoyed that British buffoon they have in Australia, who's
their aviation expert. About a week ago, when the Australian Prime Minister
made an announcement while he was before pariament, he was so excited
he must have wet his pants. He was saying that for anyone who understands
Australian politics, there has to be major significance, that they've
really found something that they know must be from the plane, or the
PM wouldn't be saying that. Well, now as I suspected at the time, he
was full of BS. It's just the PM should have known better to talk about
finding something while he was before Parliament because it would be
misinterpreted by buffoons like the CNN clown.

The paradox is that if you're interested in the latest on any of this,
even I put on CNN to watch for 20 mins to see what's going on, because
they've been covering it pretty much 24/7. You just have to be able
to filter the BS from the facts, and sadly a lot of people can't do
that.



Since I first read this post I've been reading MH370 stories with an eye to

whether news organizations make it clear that what they are reporting are

not necessarily facts, but the best "guesses" we have available from the

people in a position to know something about the situation. That's why I

give reports like Chris Goodfellow's (that there was a fire) much greater

creedence than some turkey in the Malaysian government. Goodfellow's a

pilot who's "been there, done that" whereas a defense minister hasn't and

worse, yet, probably has some pretty good reasons *not* to tell the whole

truth.


The problem with Goodfellow's fire theory is that it doesn't conform
at all to most of the facts we have. I don't just take someone's conclusion
because they are a pilot. We'll get to his pilot credentials later,
but there are more commercial pilots in fact who are saying
they too believe deliberate criminal human action was the likely cause.
I've asked you these points before and I'll ask them again regarding
what Goodfellow is claiming:

"When I saw that left turn with a direct heading, I instinctively knew he was heading for an airport. He was taking a direct route to Palau Langkawi, a 13,000-foot airstrip with an approach over water and no obstacles. The captain did not turn back to Kuala Lampur because he knew he had 8,000-foot ridges to cross. He knew the terrain was friendlier toward Langkawi, which also was closer."


When they made that left turn, the airport at Kota Bahru, with an 8000ft
runway, perectly capable of landing a 777, was about 140 miles away. It's
right on the coast. Yet they chose to fly a burning plane 175 miles farther,
all the way across Malaysia to the other coast? He just picks that
Palau Langkawi airport because
it happens to be near where the plane went by, on the other side of Malaysia.
Oh, and note that the plane didn't land there, or pass close to it,
instead it made a precise zig-zag to waypoints that left in perfectly
aligned with the flight path to
India/Middle East at 29,500 ft. It was on radar contact hundreds of miles
past the airport he claims it was going to land at.


"When I heard this I immediately brought up Google Earth and searched for airports in proximity to the track toward the southwest."

The question isn't to find airports 350 miles away from where the
fire was detected that just happen to be along whatever flightpath
it took. The question is where is the closest airport that can
land the plane. That's Kota Bahru, about 150 miles. They could
have landed there in 25 mins.


"What I think happened is the flight crew was overcome by smoke and the plane continued on the heading, probably on George (autopilot), until it ran out of fuel or the fire destroyed the control surfaces and it crashed. You will find it along that route-looking elsewhere is pointless."

If it was on autopilot, then either it would maintain it's current
heading and speed indefinitely or it would be following waypoints.
We know it wasn't just on one heading, it made that precise zig-zag
over the Straits, *after* it had passed the closest point it ever
got to the airport he claims it was trying to land at. That left
it aligned with the flight paths to India/ME.
And unless Inmarsat is full of baloney, it made at least one major
heading change again to get to the South Indian Ocean. So again,
that is consistent with someone either flying it at the controls or
else having entered those waypoints in the autopilot. How are
either of those consistent with his fire theory?

"There was a well known accident in Nigeria of a DC8 that had a landing gear fire on takeoff. Once going, a tire fire would produce horrific, incapacitating smoke."

Tires are instrumented to flag pressure out of range, the brakes
are instrumented to measure temperature, etc. It's hard to conceive
that a properly inflated tire is going to catch fire or that even
if it does, that they are not going to start seeing alarms go off
indicating brakes over temp, tire deflating, etc. Along with this
theory, I've heard "experts" claiming that the 777 was fully loaded
with fuel, heavy on takeoff, etc. That is pure BS, it had less than
half it's max fuel and was nowhere near max takeoff weight. But it
feeds the "hot tire" theory, so let's just throw that BS in.

The plane is also outfitted
with smoke/fire detection systems, halon fire systems to put out fires.
The probability of a smoldering tire going unnoticed for 40 mins and then
the first indication of that isn't a fire alarm, it's the sudden loss of
transponders, all electrical systems, no mayday, whatever is about .000001%
And the probability of said fire just happening to occur within a
couple mins of being handed off from Malaysian ATC and never contacting
Vietnam ATC, ie exactly at the poing where it's ideal to deliberatly
make the plane disappear is about .0000000001%.




"Yes, pilots have access to oxygen masks, but this is a no-no with fire."

Says who? He's the first one I've heard ever say anything like that.
Unless the cockpit itself is on fire, it's hard to imagine that the
tiny amount of oxygen in those masks is going to make a difference to
the alleged flaming tire. But, better to go unconscious I guess.


And who exactly is this Chris Goodfellow?

"Chris Goodfellow has 20 years experience as a Canadian Class-1 instrumented-rated pilot for multi-engine planes. "

From that it appears that he is just a private pilot with a multi-engine
IFR rating. Is he even jet rated? A commercial pilot? It's very possible
that all he's flown is a small twin engine plane and he's never flown
a commercial airliner.





  #166   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,321
Default Flight MH370 disaster - Some thoughts about telemetry, hijacking

"trader_4" wrote in message
news:81baa3d6-c7c4-4e1e-964a-

I agree with your general argument here. It's kind of a paradox
in a way. I think the media has given this story far more attention
than it deserves. CNN in particular. Some almost insignificant thing
comes out like someone says a week into this that the plane made a
"sharp turn to the left" when it first went off course, and they blow
it into major breaking news. Then they finally admit that it's unclear
if that means that it was a sudden, extreme bank turn, or just that it
was a sharp change from it's original course. We knew the latter from
day one, and even if was a steep bank turn, it's hardly major knews.
Yet they had pilots demonstrating both in a flight simulator and they
talked about if for hours.

Editors love it when they can cover a story cheaply from afar by assembling
talking heads and doing "gee whiz" stuff like showing people what a trainer
does. Hopefully they're not giving would-be hijackers quick flying lessons
or ideas. You've just illustrated why I am so suspicious of anything other
than actual radar images, recorded transmission, passenger logs and the few
other things like cargo manifests that aren't subject to "reinterpretation."
I thought it was clear from the beginning that the MGov was concealing
information, probably to keep their terrible air defense practices a secret.
A contact that big that wasn't scheduled should have been investigated by
jets. The MGov failed to do so many important things that I am now hard
over in DIS-believing anything they say. I simply assume there's an
ass-cover going on somewhere.

I especially enjoyed that British buffoon they have in Australia, who's
their aviation expert. About a week ago, when the Australian Prime Minister
made an announcement while he was before pariament, he was so excited
he must have wet his pants. He was saying that for anyone who understands
Australian politics, there has to be major significance, that they've
really found something that they know must be from the plane, or the
PM wouldn't be saying that. Well, now as I suspected at the time, he
was full of BS. It's just the PM should have known better to talk about
finding something while he was before Parliament because it would be
misinterpreted by buffoons like the CNN clown.

You'll find that getting intelligent people to serve as talking heads,
especially ones affiliated with professional organizations or companies is
very difficult. There are always buffoons looking for their moment in the
sun and many, many times the outcomes are laughable. I've seen Fox, PBS,
ABC, CNN and more get skewered by the "expert" that really wasn't. Redskins
owner Dan Snyder got foxed by someone claiming to be an Indian chief who was
telling reporters he didn't find the team name offensive. Turns out he
wasn't a real chief - that was just his nickname. Real expert witnesses get
a *lot* of $ for their services in court. AFAIK, most news orgs don't pay
for the occasional expert and they get what they pay for. (-:

The paradox is that if you're interested in the latest on any of this,
even I put on CNN to watch for 20 mins to see what's going on, because
they've been covering it pretty much 24/7. You just have to be able
to filter the BS from the facts, and sadly a lot of people can't do
that.

I check Google News under the "Malaysia airline" topic heading every day and
the coverage really waxes and wanes. Some days, nothing, other days, reams
of stuff. It's almost always triggered by some new discovery that turns out
to be nothing. Enough people are reading the stories to make the "most
emailed list" and that generates even MORE coverage and the cycle feeds on
itself.

People generally read/watch the news not so much to learn new things, but to
reinforce whatever ideas they currently hold. If they hate Joe Schmoe, the
first story they will pick to read in a newspaper will be anything that
mentions Joe Schmoe in a negative light. Confirmation bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

We're both doing it now. You're selecting information which favors the
hijack theory and I am selecting information that confirms to the fire
theory. It's no surprise we're at an impasse. There's nothing that can be
proved further without the wreckage and the cockpit recorders. If the wreck
is deep enough, there might be bodies that reveal smoke inhalation,
explosion damage, asphyxia and more. There might be enough of the cabin to
be salvageable and that could tell us very quickly if there was a fire.
Nothing short of that can. Even worse for the hijack theory is that the
crucial moments when the plane turned are very likely to be written over
*unless* a fire interrupted power to those devices as well. We're basically
arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of pin. It's all blue
sky hypothecation so we get to choose which theory we like the best.

Since I first read this post I've been reading MH370 stories with an eye

to
whether news organizations make it clear that what they are reporting are
not necessarily facts, but the best "guesses" we have available from the
people in a position to know something about the situation. That's why I
give reports like Chris Goodfellow's (that there was a fire) much greater
credence than some turkey in the Malaysian government. Goodfellow's a
pilot who's "been there, done that" whereas a defense minister hasn't and
worse, yet, probably has some pretty good reasons *not* to tell the whole
truth.


The problem with Goodfellow's fire theory is that it doesn't conform
at all to most of the facts we have.

I contend we don't have many *real* facts but a lot of theories and
suppositions masquerading as facts.

I don't just take someone's conclusion because they are a pilot. We'll
get to his pilot credentials later,
but there are more commercial pilots in fact who are saying they too believe
deliberate criminal human action was the likely cause.

If I have to choose between a Malaysian Defense Minister's opinion about
what happened v. a guy who's actually flown a plane, I'm going with the
latter. Especially since the MDM has backtracked on so many things. That's
my courtroom background. I consider him impeached and his testimony to be
worthless. That makes it easy for me to dismiss any facts he proffers. Our
difference lies in your willingness to accept some of his statements as
factual, and they well may be. For me, he's in the realm of "if you say it,
something ELSE has to back your claims."

I've asked you these points before and I'll ask them again regarding
what Goodfellow is claiming:

"When I saw that left turn with a direct heading, I instinctively knew he
was heading for an airport. He was taking a direct route to Palau Langkawi,
a 13,000-foot airstrip with an approach over water and no obstacles. The
captain did not turn back to Kuala Lampur because he knew he had 8,000-foot
ridges to cross. He knew the terrain was friendlier toward Langkawi, which
also was closer."

When they made that left turn, the airport at Kota Bahru, with an 8000ft
runway, perectly capable of landing a 777, was about 140 miles away. It's
right on the coast. Yet they chose to fly a burning plane 175 miles
farther,
all the way across Malaysia to the other coast? He just picks that
Palau Langkawi airport because it happens to be near where the plane went
by,
on the other side of Malaysia.

I think it was all over very quickly in that plane. That's especially if,
as the EgyptAir fire suggests, they had an oxygen fed fire, perhaps started
by the lithium battery cargo. It might have been an explosion in the cargo
hold or it could have been an electrical fire. It wasn't until the Valuejet
cockpit recorder was recovered that they could read the distinctive signs of
an on-board explosion (a "bup" on the CVR and a sharp rise in internal air
pressure).

We don't have any of that information but we do know an oxygen-fed fire can
destroy a cabin within 17 seconds. My theory, which explains even your
facts, is that the plane caught fire, the pilots tried to pull busses to
kill the fire and to get it to safety but it was all over (for them, not the
plane) in seconds. Once the on-board fire suppression system kicked, the
people were already dead, and the plane stabilized and flew on auto-pilot
until it ran out of gas and crashed.

Oh, and note that the plane didn't land there, or pass close to it,
instead it made a precise zig-zag to waypoints that left in perfectly
aligned with the flight path to India/Middle East at 29,500 ft. It was
on radar contact hundreds of miles

This is all based on data from the Malaysian government, isn't it? Ptui!
It's not worth anything because they've not been straight with the public on
so many things. If that's what happened, who can say whether the auto-pilot
did it? Didn't we see the same segment on CNN that explains how the AP
would "fill in" way points if nothing was entered in time? The pilots could
have mis-entered course data as the cabin filled with smoke or they behaved
erratically as the oxygen ran out. Somewhere on YouTube there must be
videos of people passing out from anoxia. They get *very* punchy before
they pass out.

Maybe you can point me to way-point and radar data I find credible, but my
last recollection was that the MGov recanted their claims about way points
and the times of radio and transponder transmissions.

The MGov got enough stuff wrong enough times to be deemed very
untrustworthy. The Inmarsat Doppler analysis, however, I find much more
credible but I am not aware that it could discriminate motion finely enough
to determine if the plane was "hitting standard waypoints." So my position
is that the way point data is inconclusive at best. If someone *was* at the
controls, why did it eventually just fly in a straight line into the middle
of the Indian Ocean? That's big damn hole in the human intervention theory.

Those recorders are going to stop pinging soon - they're running out of time
to find them. If they don't get them soon, it could easily take more than
the two years it took to find AirFrance's BB's. At least they knew where
that plane went down.

--
Bobby G.


  #167   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,515
Default OT - Pennies on the rail tracks.

rbowman posted for all of us...

And I know how to SNIP

the crapper may be better now, but the latter used to be a straight drop.


We should get Al Gores lazer sharp focus on the waste here.
Whatever happened to the "Sanitized for YOUR protection" labels for terlet
seats?

--
Tekkie
  #168   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,279
Default Flight MH370 disaster - Some thoughts about telemetry, hijacking

On Sunday, March 30, 2014 4:19:56 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:


We're both doing it now. You're selecting information which favors the

hijack theory and I am selecting information that confirms to the fire

theory.


I don't believe I'm selecting data. I'm using the data that's out there,
that has remained pretty much unchanged for the last 10 days or so.
It all fits with either the pilots or a knowledgable hijacker being in
control of the airplane. Pilot being the more likely of those, I'd say.

It's you who's ignoring very key and established pieces of information
that don't fit with the fire theory. Examples:

They did not head to the nearest airport, Kota Bahru, which was just
25 mins away. Instead the plane flies across Malaysia to the Straits,
does a zig-zag there and winds up on a heading consistent with the
air routes of that area to India/Mid East.

The biggest "hole" I've heard in the nut pilot theory is that the
plane didn't just crash in a sudden dive on it's usual flight path,
but instead went off to the middle of nowhere. That can be accounted
for by the fact that if you're nuts enough to commit suicide and
take 240 people with you, then who knows what reasoning that person
would have. Maybe they wanted it to remain a Amelia Earhart mystery
to be talked about for 100 years. That's perfectly plausible in
ny world.



It's no surprise we're at an impasse. There's nothing that can be

proved further without the wreckage and the cockpit recorders.


I disagree. We know very little about the dynamics in the pilots
lives. There are reports that Shah's family moved out of his house
just the day before. Another interview with someone who is supposed
to know him, says that in the days before the flight he thought he
was unfit to fly. There is another report out that he was related to
the former deputy PM that was just convicted/sentenced hours before
the flight. IDK where all that will bottom out, but the point
is we don't know much about any of that at this point.

Same thing with the two mysterious Iranians. Soon as it looked like
they were using stolen passports to get into Europe, everyone just lost
interest, like they are just some Mexicans crossing the border into the
USA. Have you heard anything from any of their friends, families, who
the hell they and that guy Ali who disappeared are? That could lead
somewhere. There are lots of avenues that could still provide useful
information. Just because they were not in anyone's terrorist database
doesn't mean they couldn't be that.





If the wreck

is deep enough, there might be bodies that reveal smoke inhalation,

explosion damage, asphyxia and more. There might be enough of the cabin to

be salvageable and that could tell us very quickly if there was a fire.

Nothing short of that can. Even worse for the hijack theory is that the

crucial moments when the plane turned are very likely to be written over

*unless* a fire interrupted power to those devices as well.


True for the CVR, the FDR will have data for the entire flight.
I'm still waiting for an explanation of how the fire theory fits
with the behavior we already know the plane took. It made many
turns, obviously flying in a controlled fashion, not a damaged,
uncontrollable plane, an hour and a half after the alleged fire
and then flew apparently perfectly fine to Australia.



We're basically

arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of pin. It's all blue

sky hypothecation so we get to choose which theory we like the best.



No, it's that I can fit a nut pilot or a hijact to the data that's
available. The fire theory, almost nothing fits.




Since I first read this post I've been reading MH370 stories with an eye


to

whether news organizations make it clear that what they are reporting are


not necessarily facts, but the best "guesses" we have available from the


people in a position to know something about the situation. That's why I


give reports like Chris Goodfellow's (that there was a fire) much greater


credence than some turkey in the Malaysian government. Goodfellow's a


pilot who's "been there, done that" whereas a defense minister hasn't and


worse, yet, probably has some pretty good reasons *not* to tell the whole


truth.




The problem with Goodfellow's fire theory is that it doesn't conform

at all to most of the facts we have.



I contend we don't have many *real* facts but a lot of theories and

suppositions masquerading as facts.


If you're going to discard the basic facts, eg, that if made a left
turn, flew at various altitudes, wound up aligned perfectly with the
flight paths to India over the Straits, etc, then what's better? Just
make up stuff and chuck out what's out there and call it a fire?
Good grief.






I don't just take someone's conclusion because they are a pilot. We'll

get to his pilot credentials later,

but there are more commercial pilots in fact who are saying they too believe

deliberate criminal human action was the likely cause.



If I have to choose between a Malaysian Defense Minister's opinion about

what happened v. a guy who's actually flown a plane, I'm going with the

latter.


Sure, a guy who apparently is only a private pilot with an IFR rating.
Apparently no jet experience, no commercial flying experience. Use him
as an authority on a 777 commericial flight. I've already seen commercial
pilots debunk his nonsense, starting with his claim that the crew would not
put on oxygen masks if they had a fire.


Especially since the MDM has backtracked on so many things. That's

my courtroom background. I consider him impeached and his testimony to be

worthless.
That makes it easy for me to dismiss any facts he proffers.


Fine, so then you don't have any facts to base anything on,
so why all the fire nonsense, if it's not based on anything based
in fact?



Our

difference lies in your willingness to accept some of his statements as

factual, and they well may be. For me, he's in the realm of "if you say it,

something ELSE has to back your claims."



In the case of the left turn, flying not to the nearest airport,
but to the Straits and last seen on the flight paths to India, that
has been seen by NTSB and the US manufacturer of the radar eqpt.
Thailand also reported seeing the plane on it's radar. You would
surely think that if it was bogus, someone would be saying it by
now. So, no what? Just chuck that and stick to the fire theory
because some guy with private pilots license says so? I don't
think that guy even bothered to follow the facts as they've
emerged. He just ignored what we know and went with almost
pure speculation.





I've asked you these points before and I'll ask them again regarding

what Goodfellow is claiming:



"When I saw that left turn with a direct heading, I instinctively knew he

was heading for an airport. He was taking a direct route to Palau Langkawi,

a 13,000-foot airstrip with an approach over water and no obstacles. The

captain did not turn back to Kuala Lampur because he knew he had 8,000-foot

ridges to cross. He knew the terrain was friendlier toward Langkawi, which

also was closer."



When they made that left turn, the airport at Kota Bahru, with an 8000ft

runway, perectly capable of landing a 777, was about 140 miles away. It's

right on the coast. Yet they chose to fly a burning plane 175 miles

farther,

all the way across Malaysia to the other coast? He just picks that

Palau Langkawi airport because it happens to be near where the plane went

by,

on the other side of Malaysia.


No response that your "fire" source is so dumb that he didn't
even know that the nearest airport was Kota Bahru? Instead, he
looks where the plane winded up, the Straits, finds an airport that's
somewhat near there, and says "I instantly knew they were headed to
that airport" Sure, fly the flamning plane, 175 miles farther.
And then no indication at all that they even where headed exactly
to that airport, it's just in that general area. What an idiot that guy is.






I think it was all over very quickly in that plane. That's especially if,

as the EgyptAir fire suggests, they had an oxygen fed fire, perhaps started

by the lithium battery cargo. It might have been an explosion in the cargo

hold or it could have been an electrical fire.


Then the plane would be off Kota Bahru. It would not be flying, making
precision turns, over the straits, and then yet at least another left
turn to get to Australia. Good grief. There are only two ways for that
to happen. Either someone was flying it by hand or those waypoints were
in the autopilot. Either one points to a nut pilot or hijack, not a
fire. Unless it was a magical fire that managed to result not only
in loss of VHF radio, ACARS, transponder, etc, just at the point in
flight where it would be idea to go missing, but also so magical
that it somehow made the plane fly 8 more hours, making precise turns.





It wasn't until the Valuejet

cockpit recorder was recovered that they could read the distinctive signs of

an on-board explosion (a "bup" on the CVR and a sharp rise in internal air

pressure).



They knew it was a fire because the pilots made a mayday call,
like any sane pilots would do in that situation. SwissAir did the
same thing. There's probably one a week somewhere in the world,
where they smell smoke, think they see smoke and make a call to
ATC to head to the nearest airport. And if it was the sudden raging
inferno in the cockpit, which you've also advanced, that killed
everyone, then the plane would be in the ocean off Kota Bahru, not
Australia.

Most bizarre of all is your attempt to blame the ValuJEt crash
on them making a mayday call. Read the NTSB report. The fire
resulted in destruction of the flight control systems and left
the plane uncontrollable. Those pilots did everything right,
starting with the mayday call.




We don't have any of that information but we do know an oxygen-fed fire can

destroy a cabin within 17 seconds.


There we have it, the inferno theory again, that leaves the plane
making precise manuvers, aligning with the flight paths, etc an hour
and a half later and flying to Australia. Good grief.




My theory, which explains even your

facts, is that the plane caught fire, the pilots tried to pull busses to

kill the fire and to get it to safety but it was all over (for them, not the

plane) in seconds. Once the on-board fire suppression system kicked, the

people were already dead, and the plane stabilized and flew on auto-pilot

until it ran out of gas and crashed.


And how the hell is it that the autopilot took it to the Straits,
made a precise zig=zag there, aligning with paths to India? And
how did the autopilot make the reported altitude changes along
the way? And then how did the autopilot take it to Australia?
Answer: No way, unless someone put those waypoints into it.
Is that what you'd do in a fire? Enter bizarre waypoints instead
of doing the simple, obvious thing, which is declare an emergency
and ask for immediate vectors to the nearest airport? You
could do the latter with a 15 sec push of the mike button on
the controls. It's what every other pilot does. You don't
have to screw with the autopilot and enter a route to Australia.






Oh, and note that the plane didn't land there, or pass close to it,

instead it made a precise zig-zag to waypoints that left in perfectly

aligned with the flight path to India/Middle East at 29,500 ft. It was

on radar contact hundreds of miles



This is all based on data from the Malaysian government, isn't it? Ptui!


Sure, better to make up the fire theory and then make up whatever
you need to go with it. If you're not going to use what data there
is then you can just make up any crap, which is what your pilot
reference guy apparently did too. The flight radar data referenced
above has been seen by NTSB, the radar manufacturer. IDK who all
else. It's also consistent with Inmarsat. Are they lying?
Good grief. Either use what's available and reasonably vetted
at this point, or else you have *nothing* but wild conjecture.




It's not worth anything because they've not been straight with the public on

so many things. If that's what happened, who can say whether the auto-pilot

did it?


It doesn't matter if the autopilot did it or the pilots hand flew
it. It didn't go to the nearest airport. It didn't go near the
nearest airport. Even if the autopilot was flying it, who put
the flight waypoints to the Straits, to Australia into the autopilot?
Martians? Magical fire that rages throught the plane, taking out
radios, transponders, ACARS, and just damaging the autopilot so
that it now has some bizarre route and flies it? That's probable,
more probable than one of the pilots did it? Good grief, you're
making less sense every post.



Didn't we see the same segment on CNN that explains how the AP

would "fill in" way points if nothing was entered in time?


IDK what you saw. I never saw any such thing or anyone ever talk
about an autopilot putting in waypoints to the straits, to Australia,
etc on it's own. That's pretty nutty.



The pilots could

have mis-entered course data as the cabin filled with smoke or they behaved

erratically as the oxygen ran out.


If they had just contacted ATC with the radio that was working
perfectly fine 2 mins before, they could have just dialed the
autopilot knob to a heading, which is far simpler than entering
waypoints to Australia. And it does have the benefit of clearing
out the airspace ahead of you so you don't run into a 747 at night.
About now it's time for the old:

aviate
navigate
communicate

Except in your world, you just apparently go back and forth
between 1 and 2, totally ignoring 3. And in #1, I guess aviating
doesn't include making sure you don't fly into a 747 on your
course choice of your own. And even #2, they wouldn't
have to navigate if they issued a mayday call and request for
vectoring to Kota Bahru. In 15 secs they'd have a response
to turn left, heading 275, any flight level, your discretion. Then they
turn the autopilot knob to 275. Seems a lot simpler, safer, and
easier than entering coordinates to the straits and then onto
australia.




Somewhere on YouTube there must be

videos of people passing out from anoxia. They get *very* punchy before

they pass out.



It's probably a video of the pilot with the fire theory while
he was writing that nonsense.




Maybe you can point me to way-point and radar data I find credible, but my

last recollection was that the MGov recanted their claims about way points

and the times of radio and transponder transmissions.


AFAIK, they only recanted that they knew the waypoints had been
entered into the autopilot a considerable time before the plane
first made it's left turn and went missing. There is no excuse for
that confusion, they should have known one way of the other.

What more radar data do you need or want? The plane could have
landed at Kota Bahru. It flew to the Straits. It was headed toward
India. It wound up at Australia. How does a fire, everyone dead,
the autopilot did it explain even that? Of course it doesn't.
But the nut pilot theory fits just fine.

Here's a good description of some of what came out:

http://www.straitstimes.com/the-big-...370-flown-deli

http://www.thewire.com/global/2014/0...so-far/359355/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A2D0DG20140314



The MGov got enough stuff wrong enough times to be deemed very

untrustworthy. The Inmarsat Doppler analysis, however, I find much more

credible but I am not aware that it could discriminate motion finely enough

to determine if the plane was "hitting standard waypoints." So my position

is that the way point data is inconclusive at best. If someone *was* at the

controls, why did it eventually just fly in a straight line into the middle

of the Indian Ocean? That's big damn hole in the human intervention theory.


Why in the world is that a big hole? A nutty pilot has taken at least
two similar planes and put them into the ocean, committing suicide,
killing everyone aboard.
Who says another one couldn't choose to put it into the hardest spot
to ever figure out, to leave the world with a mystery? As far
as flying a straight line, AFAIK, no one has said what route they
think it flew after last radar contact was lost over the Straits.
They only have circles of where it could be once an hour. It's
probably pretty much a straight line, but so what? Nut pilot could
be sitting there, getting loaded on scotch, popping pills, praying
to Allah or jerking off, or have killed himself already with the
plane on autopilotwhat. What difference does a straight line make?






Those recorders are going to stop pinging soon - they're running out of time

to find them. If they don't get them soon, it could easily take more than

the two years it took to find AirFrance's BB's. At least they knew where

that plane went down.



--

Bobby G.


They aren't going to find them via pinging. More likely you'd win
the Mega millions jackpot, because as you point out, the potential
area to search is huge and the process is slow.
  #169   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,321
Default Flight MH370 disaster - Some thoughts about telemetry, hijacking

"trader_4" wrote in message news:e4aa3ac2-

stuff snipped

I think there is still a reasonable probability that they will
find debris doing the search. But I agree it's also possible that
someone will just come across something floating or washed up on
a beach somewhere. Even that, if it happend months from now, would
be a major step. We'd at least know for sure which general area
it went down in and that it's not being outfitted with bombs in
Pakistan.


There was a news item in the NY Times today that had some interesting things
to say, some of which both of us had already noted (fair use excerpt below):

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/24...arch-plan-for-
malaysia-airlines-flight-370-is-based-on-farther-controlled-flying.html

Investigators have concluded that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, which
veered off course and disappeared on March 8, was probably not seriously
damaged in the air and remained in controlled flight for hours after contact
with it was lost, until it ran out of fuel over the southern Indian Ocean .
.. . The altitude readings from the radar now appear to have been inaccurate,
officials said . . . Initial reports about the radar readings suggested that
along the way, the plane soared as high as 45,000 feet . . . But a
comprehensive international review has found that the Malaysian radar
equipment had not been calibrated with enough precision to draw any
conclusions about the aircraft's true altitude. "The primary radar data
pertaining to altitude is regarded as unreliable," said Angus Houston, the
retired head of the Australian military who is now coordinating the search .
.. . he said he doubted whether anyone could prove that the plane had soared
and swooped the way the initial reports suggested . . . Martin Dolan, the
chief commissioner of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, agreed with
Mr. Houston. "There's nothing reliable about height," . . .
Other officials involved in the crash investigation have suggested that
either of the plane's pilots might have commandeered the aircraft in order
to commit suicide, or that smoke from a fire in the fuselage might have
overcome the pilots and passengers but left the engines and autopilot
working normally . . . Some investigators are convinced that one of the
pilots was involved . . . But others say that the evidence suggesting pilot
involvement is inconclusive and contradictory . . . the dismissal of the
radar altitude data prompted a change in the focus of the search . . .The
specifics are still being finalized, but the new search zone is likely to be
a band roughly 400 miles long and about 60 miles wide, straddling the arc .
.. . The width of the band is based on a crucial assumption: that when it ran
out of fuel, the plane was being flown by its autopilot.

Another article I read dismissed "pilot suicide" as being seriously out of
character with suicidal behavior (as in taking 5 hours to commit it) and
with previous incidents of pilot suicide. Meanwhile, "soft" forensic
evidence is probably being nibbled away by crabs and other undersea
scavengers. If they find the craft, there's still no guarantee the wreck
will tell us much more than we already know. At least it will settle our
disagreement about a fire in the cabin, but the remaining evidence may never
tell us, if there was no fire, precisely what *did* happen.

--

Bobby G.




  #170   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,279
Default Flight MH370 disaster - Some thoughts about telemetry, hijacking

On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 12:47:20 PM UTC-4, Guv Bob wrote:
"Robert Green" wrote in message ...

"trader_4" wrote in message news:e4aa3ac2-




stuff snipped




I think there is still a reasonable probability that they will


find debris doing the search. But I agree it's also possible that...




Just one more reason to go back to "training" and put primary control back in the hands of people and use automation and computer control as backup.


Not sure what that means. Primary control always has been
and continues to be in the hands of the pilots. And no evidence
from anything I've seen related to 370 that indicates that has anything
to do with whatever happened.


  #171   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 575
Default Flight MH370 disaster - Some thoughts about telemetry, hijacking

"Robert Green" wrote in message ...
"trader_4" wrote in message news:e4aa3ac2-

stuff snipped

I think there is still a reasonable probability that they will
find debris doing the search. But I agree it's also possible that...


Just one more reason to go back to "training" and put primary control back in the hands of people and use automation and computer control as backup.

  #172   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,640
Default Flight MH370 disaster - Some thoughts about telemetry, hijacking

On 6/25/2014 12:55 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 12:47:20 PM UTC-4, Guv Bob wrote:
"Robert Green" wrote in message ...

"trader_4" wrote in message news:e4aa3ac2-




stuff snipped




I think there is still a reasonable probability that they will


find debris doing the search. But I agree it's also possible that...




Just one more reason to go back to "training" and put primary control back in the hands of people and use automation and computer control as backup.


Not sure what that means. Primary control always has been
and continues to be in the hands of the pilots. And no evidence
from anything I've seen related to 370 that indicates that has anything
to do with whatever happened.


Not sure what you mean either. This is a quote from the NTSB report:
The Asiana flight crew "over-relied on automated systems that they did
not fully understand," he said.

The South Korea-based airline said the pilot and co-pilot reasonably
believed the automatic throttle would keep the plane flying fast enough
to land safely,

They assumed the throttle would be adjusted by automation, but that did
not happen. It the automation was not there to begin with, they would
have known to adjust as required. I was taught to keep the speed up on
approach on my first ever landing. These guys knew that too, but relied
on automation.
  #173   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 158
Default Flight MH370 disaster - Some thoughts about telemetry, hijacking

On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 13:49:05 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"trader_4" wrote in message news:e4aa3ac2-

stuff snipped

I think there is still a reasonable probability that they will
find debris doing the search. But I agree it's also possible that
someone will just come across something floating or washed up on
a beach somewhere. Even that, if it happend months from now, would
be a major step. We'd at least know for sure which general area
it went down in and that it's not being outfitted with bombs in
Pakistan.


There was a news item in the NY Times today that had some interesting things
to say, some of which both of us had already noted (fair use excerpt below):

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/24...arch-plan-for-
malaysia-airlines-flight-370-is-based-on-farther-controlled-flying.html

Investigators have concluded that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, which
veered off course and disappeared on March 8, was probably not seriously
damaged in the air and remained in controlled flight for hours after contact
with it was lost, until it ran out of fuel over the southern Indian Ocean .
. . The altitude readings from the radar now appear to have been inaccurate,
officials said . . . Initial reports about the radar readings suggested that
along the way, the plane soared as high as 45,000 feet . . . But a
comprehensive international review has found that the Malaysian radar
equipment had not been calibrated with enough precision to draw any
conclusions about the aircraft's true altitude. "The primary radar data
pertaining to altitude is regarded as unreliable," said Angus Houston, the
retired head of the Australian military who is now coordinating the search .
. . he said he doubted whether anyone could prove that the plane had soared
and swooped the way the initial reports suggested . . . Martin Dolan, the
chief commissioner of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, agreed with
Mr. Houston. "There's nothing reliable about height," . . .
Other officials involved in the crash investigation have suggested that
either of the plane's pilots might have commandeered the aircraft in order
to commit suicide, or that smoke from a fire in the fuselage might have
overcome the pilots and passengers but left the engines and autopilot
working normally . . . Some investigators are convinced that one of the
pilots was involved . . . But others say that the evidence suggesting pilot
involvement is inconclusive and contradictory . . . the dismissal of the
radar altitude data prompted a change in the focus of the search . . .The
specifics are still being finalized, but the new search zone is likely to be
a band roughly 400 miles long and about 60 miles wide, straddling the arc .
. . The width of the band is based on a crucial assumption: that when it ran
out of fuel, the plane was being flown by its autopilot.

The width of the band is based on a crucial assumption: that when it
ran out of fuel, the plane was being flown by its autopilot, which was
unable to control the plane when the engines stopped. In that case,
the plane would have stalled and fallen quickly into the ocean. If a
skilled pilot was conscious and still at the controls, however, the
plane could have glided more than 100 miles before it hit the water.



Another article I read dismissed "pilot suicide" as being seriously out of
character with suicidal behavior (as in taking 5 hours to commit it) and
with previous incidents of pilot suicide. Meanwhile, "soft" forensic
evidence is probably being nibbled away by crabs and other undersea
scavengers. If they find the craft, there's still no guarantee the wreck
will tell us much more than we already know. At least it will settle our
disagreement about a fire in the cabin, but the remaining evidence may never
tell us, if there was no fire, precisely what *did* happen.

  #174   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,279
Default Flight MH370 disaster - Some thoughts about telemetry, hijacking

On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 2:50:43 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 6/25/2014 12:55 PM, trader_4 wrote:

On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 12:47:20 PM UTC-4, Guv Bob wrote:


"Robert Green" wrote in message ...




"trader_4" wrote in message news:e4aa3ac2-








stuff snipped








I think there is still a reasonable probability that they will




find debris doing the search. But I agree it's also possible that...








Just one more reason to go back to "training" and put primary control back in the hands of people and use automation and computer control as backup.




Not sure what that means. Primary control always has been


and continues to be in the hands of the pilots. And no evidence


from anything I've seen related to 370 that indicates that has anything


to do with whatever happened.






Not sure what you mean either. This is a quote from the NTSB report:

The Asiana flight crew "over-relied on automated systems that they did

not fully understand," he said.



What I'm saying is that the thread is about Malaysian Air 370, which went missing not the Asiana flight that crashed at SFO. The post GuvBob replied
to was about MH370. If Asiana is what he's talking about, which he did
not say, it has nothing to do with 370 and I'm not a mind reader.





The South Korea-based airline said the pilot and co-pilot reasonably

believed the automatic throttle would keep the plane flying fast enough

to land safely,



They assumed the throttle would be adjusted by automation, but that did

not happen. It the automation was not there to begin with, they would

have known to adjust as required.


Maybe, or they could have just as well have still flown it
into the ditch. When there is confusion in the cockpit
and no one is paying proper attention, that has happened
plenty of times too.



I was taught to keep the speed up on

approach on my first ever landing. These guys knew that too, but relied

on automation.


The fundamental mistake would seem to be not paying attention to
the most basic flight rules, ie no one watching airspeed on approach.
Maybe it's more likely to happen if you set the autothrottle, but it's
no excuse. And I can find you wrecks where if the plane was just
put on autopilot, or had the autothrottle engaged instead of the pilot
flying it into the ground, everything would have been fine too.

  #175   Report Post  
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,498
Default

Last I've heard is that after 14 weeks of searching, not a single piece of debris from the plane has been found. Now, Australian authorities are changing the search area yet again.

I think this one is going to turn into an Amilia Earhart, where what actually happened isn't going to be known for decades. At this point, we don't even know for certain that the plane crashed.

The only evidence of foul play so far is that the hard drive in the flight simulator that the pilot had at home shows that he was practicing landing on an island. And, that's the full extent of the evidence against him.

Last edited by nestork : June 26th 14 at 01:36 AM


  #176   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,640
Default Flight MH370 disaster - Some thoughts about telemetry, hijacking

On 6/25/2014 3:06 PM, trader_4 wrote:




Not sure what you mean either. This is a quote from the NTSB report:

The Asiana flight crew "over-relied on automated systems that they did

not fully understand," he said.



What I'm saying is that the thread is about Malaysian Air 370, which went missing not the Asiana flight that crashed at SFO. The post GuvBob replied
to was about MH370. If Asiana is what he's talking about, which he did
not say, it has nothing to do with 370 and I'm not a mind reader.

Crap, you may be right. I was reading about the Asiana flight and may
have added to the confusion.




The fundamental mistake would seem to be not paying attention to
the most basic flight rules, ie no one watching airspeed on approach.
Maybe it's more likely to happen if you set the autothrottle, but it's
no excuse.


Yes



  #177   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,279
Default Flight MH370 disaster - new theory (asphyxia - air problems)

On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 8:41:07 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message news:b1fe4aaf-

stuff snipped

http://blog-peuravion.fr/2015/07/a-t...370/#more-1453

Claim to be photos of the debris which looks a lot more like a plane part
than anything they've yanked out of the ocean to date.

--
Bobby G.


And now apparently they have a piece of luggage too. It's just
one and could just be other ocean rubbish. But I would not be surprised
that before long they have some other stuff that can be directly tied to MH370.
The only bad part of course is that it won't shed any real light
on where to look for the wreckage. And it won't stop the conspiracy
theorists from continuing to believe it's in Afghanistan or Diego Garcia.
  #178   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,157
Default Flight MH370 disaster - new theory (asphyxia - air problems)

On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 2:56:40 AM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 12:06:26 AM UTC-4, Uncle Monster wrote:

Bobby G.


I heard about the discovery of the part of a wing and there must be serial numbers on something that could indicate which plane it came from but how many 777 have crashed in that area? I just heard on the radio that a French team is headed there to examine the piece. 8-)

[8~{} Uncle Crash Monster


Only MH370. They've only lost about six 777 in the two decades
they've been built. The first fatal crash was just last year,
when that Asian airline ran one into the ditch in San Francisco.
One was lost in landing short in London, all survived. Couple
others had fires on the ground I think. Then you had the one
deliberately shot down over Ukraine. None of them could have
been the source.

One very interesting additional possibility will be what they
can learn from the damage to this flap. It's likely that they
can determine something about the likely speed of the impact at
least. A more intriguing possibility is that they might also
be able to determine if the flap was retracted or deployed at
the time of the crash. If it was deployed, that will raise
all kinds of new questions, theories, etc.

Another focus will be on whether that flap could have floated
all the way from where they think the plane went down to where
they found it. You wouldn't think it would be that watertight,
but most likely it did.

Another thing I don't understand why they don't do with searches
like this is to use long term buoys to aid with the search.
I think they actually do, to some limited extent, but I
don't think they track them for long. But with
MH370, if they had released some buoys near the likely crash
area, even a couple weeks after the crash, and track them by
satellite, then they'd know where to look for stuff washing up
a month or a year later. If you knew the buoys showed up in
the area of this island, then we'd have further supporting
evidence and more importantly, people there could have been
alerted to look for stuff. Could be other stuff, passenger
items, etc are there too, but in small amounts, look like
just other random things you find washed up, etc. You can
bet there is a lot of focus now on what else they've picked
up there.


Same thing with those missing 14 year olds.
I think in some of those cases they do release tracking buoys
of some kind. Didn't hear what they did in that case.

PS: Why didn't RG just start a new thread instead of revive
this ancient and long one?


Drain Bamage always strikes unexpectedly but the disappearance of the jetliner is a topic of current interest. There was a story on TV this morning about the improvements to ELT's, Emergency Locator Transmitters for small private planes going on a NASA. It seems to me that commercial jets that fly over the oceans should be equipped with a buoy that ejects upon the crash of the aircraft which contains a record of the GPS position of the plane when it goes down. It could use off the shelf technology and also contain an ELT beacon. One thing that really bothers me about the inability of naval vessels from several countries to locate the crash is the capability of government agencies like the NRO which has satellite eyes on everything all over the world including aircraft traversing the world's oceans. Perhaps some intelligence agency knows damn well where that plane went down but is keeping quiet about it in order to conceal their top secret capabilities. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Secret Monster
  #179   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,279
Default Flight MH370 disaster - new theory (asphyxia - air problems)

On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 12:09:04 PM UTC-4, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 2:56:40 AM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 12:06:26 AM UTC-4, Uncle Monster wrote:

Bobby G.

I heard about the discovery of the part of a wing and there must be serial numbers on something that could indicate which plane it came from but how many 777 have crashed in that area? I just heard on the radio that a French team is headed there to examine the piece. 8-)

[8~{} Uncle Crash Monster


Only MH370. They've only lost about six 777 in the two decades
they've been built. The first fatal crash was just last year,
when that Asian airline ran one into the ditch in San Francisco.
One was lost in landing short in London, all survived. Couple
others had fires on the ground I think. Then you had the one
deliberately shot down over Ukraine. None of them could have
been the source.

One very interesting additional possibility will be what they
can learn from the damage to this flap. It's likely that they
can determine something about the likely speed of the impact at
least. A more intriguing possibility is that they might also
be able to determine if the flap was retracted or deployed at
the time of the crash. If it was deployed, that will raise
all kinds of new questions, theories, etc.

Another focus will be on whether that flap could have floated
all the way from where they think the plane went down to where
they found it. You wouldn't think it would be that watertight,
but most likely it did.

Another thing I don't understand why they don't do with searches
like this is to use long term buoys to aid with the search.
I think they actually do, to some limited extent, but I
don't think they track them for long. But with
MH370, if they had released some buoys near the likely crash
area, even a couple weeks after the crash, and track them by
satellite, then they'd know where to look for stuff washing up
a month or a year later. If you knew the buoys showed up in
the area of this island, then we'd have further supporting
evidence and more importantly, people there could have been
alerted to look for stuff. Could be other stuff, passenger
items, etc are there too, but in small amounts, look like
just other random things you find washed up, etc. You can
bet there is a lot of focus now on what else they've picked
up there.


Same thing with those missing 14 year olds.
I think in some of those cases they do release tracking buoys
of some kind. Didn't hear what they did in that case.

PS: Why didn't RG just start a new thread instead of revive
this ancient and long one?


Drain Bamage always strikes unexpectedly but the disappearance of the jetliner is a topic of current interest. There was a story on TV this morning about the improvements to ELT's, Emergency Locator Transmitters for small private planes going on a NASA. It seems to me that commercial jets that fly over the oceans should be equipped with a buoy that ejects upon the crash of the aircraft which contains a record of the GPS position of the plane when it goes down. It could use off the shelf technology and also contain an ELT beacon.


They have that for some military aircraft. For commercial, it seems
more likely that we'll have some version of constant streaming data
in the future.



One thing that really bothers me about the inability of naval vessels from several countries to locate the crash is the capability of government agencies like the NRO which has satellite eyes on everything all over the world including aircraft traversing the world's oceans. Perhaps some intelligence agency knows damn well where that plane went down but is keeping quiet about it in order to conceal their top secret capabilities. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Secret Monster


I doubt they have assets focused on planes traveling in the South Indian Ocean,
or even most places for that matter. There are certain high value targets
that are of the most interest at any given moment.
  #180   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,321
Default Flight MH370 disaster - new theory (asphyxia - air problems)

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 8:41:07 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message news:b1fe4aaf-

stuff snipped


http://blog-peuravion.fr/2015/07/a-t...370/#more-1453

Claim to be photos of the debris which looks a lot more like a plane

part
than anything they've yanked out of the ocean to date.

--
Bobby G.


And now apparently they have a piece of luggage too. It's just
one and could just be other ocean rubbish. But I would not be surprised
that before long they have some other stuff that can be directly tied to

MH370.
The only bad part of course is that it won't shed any real light
on where to look for the wreckage. And it won't stop the conspiracy
theorists from continuing to believe it's in Afghanistan or Diego Garcia.


I suspect we'll see a lot of stuff now because this in an indication that a
very diffuse debris cloud is hitting or has hit the island. I also don't
thinking anyone was really looking in that area but now they will be looking
very much harder.

I suspect passenger compartment contents might still contain traces of
explosives or products of combustion (if there are any) but any other
details may be lost forever. Both recorders overwrote their media after two
hours IIRC, and they may not have even been powered during the flight.
Human forensics won't yield much after this time although if they find
people trapped in the fuselage, they might get some surprising information.
One this is su this is an expensive mystery story that's probably now
going to go into overdrive.

The folks with the most valuable inputs are probably going to come from
people who track the great patches of garbage that float in the ocean. A
cloud of floating debris apparently doesn't dissipate the way one would
expect but clumps together. Hopefully the MH370 debris did, too, and more
pieces will be arriving shortly.

I recall one case where a cell phone video retrieved from the passenger
compartment of a downed plane gave investigators invaluable data regarding
the crash. I wonder who tests cell phones/laptops for recoverable data in
such conditions and what the success rate is?

It is comforting to know this plane didn't just fly off into nowhere like
Amelia Earhart. A while back they claimed to have found a piece of her
plane but after this story I never read anything else:

http://news.discovery.com/history/us...ane-141028.htm

An aluminum plate is far less convincing than a flaperon.

--
Bobby G.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
20 employees of Freescale Semiconductor were on flight MH370 Home Guy[_3_] Home Repair 6 March 16th 14 06:42 AM
How the MH370 website ended up on eBay (was: Anyone following theMalaysian 777 missing/crashed?) Home Guy[_3_] Home Ownership 0 March 11th 14 12:34 AM
OT New UK flight record. harry Home Repair 2 July 26th 10 09:49 PM
flight syoung Metalworking 0 April 23rd 10 05:14 AM
Flight of the Phoenix redux Boris Beizer Metalworking 29 December 28th 04 09:59 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:21 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"