(This post was last modified: 07-10-2016, 06:35 AM by Kharon.)
For the sake of friendly discussion.
V – It’s not a bad theory as far as it goes and the possibility of incorrect waypoint selection is there; but, IMO only as an incidental factor. To fully support the Smithson argument one needs to ignore several very real, important ‘operational’ factors; or, at very least, provide a credible explanation for the holes in the construct.
“V” – “Assume that there was some emergency between IGARI and BITOD.”
OK – lets sit in the flight deck jump seat for a while – top of climb, ATC hand over, all routine – time for a coffee; then the warnings or flames (take your pick) start. Wide range of choices there – from both engines quitting to a toilet roll fire in the aft dunny. So, lets say there is a problem, one of sufficient magnitude to require a return; or even one severe enough to demand landing at the nearest acceptable airport.
“V” – “For the sake of argument, assume that due to the emergency, Z takes back the aircraft as pilot flying,
There are some potential flaws in that statement – depending on the nature of the ‘problem’ it may well be that ‘Z’ elected to let the AP do the flying while he and ‘H’ attempted to deal with whatever was occurring. Lets take the view that it was a serious event – serious enough to warrant an immediate return to the nearest suitable aerodrome – even to the nearest emergency landing area – one of the first things that would be done is communication with ATC. The aircraft needs a course reversal, perhaps a change of level, perhaps a block clearance to operate in, an emergency descent, direct clearance to a straight in, fire and ambulance services – but no one knows WTF was occurring.
Not one single indication of any form of ‘emergency’ was broadcast. If the aircraft was in that much trouble, cockpit aflame, engines dead, covered in ice and headed for the ocean – someone would have got on the radio, had they been able. The other side of that coin is had this been a severe enough problem and the crew were ‘overcome’; the wreckage would be pretty much in the area where the ‘event’ occurred. But it ain’t; it’s supposed to be a further seven hours of flight time away from the ‘scene of the event’. So we are at the junction where we must discern what, if anything, ‘killed’ a crew but allowed the aircraft to fly on for several more hours.
The latest event in the Mediterranean demonstrates that anything severe enough to ‘kill’ the aircraft, takes the crew with it. I find it hard to accept that the crew were ‘lost’, without any form of communication with ATC, but the aircraft survived several hours.
‘V” – “[and] H reverts to being PM. Z commences the turn, and during the troubleshooting the aircraft gets to a point at or near waypoint IPRIX.
A stretch of the ‘operational mind’ could accept this – but it’s unlikely. The situation above would, perhaps, be acceptable in a ‘routine’ emergency. But the statement implies the crew were ‘functioning’, running check lists and deciding to return. Habit, training and experience would have provided a clear, routine line of communication with ATC. We have a problem, we are returning; we are turning back etc. Even then the Skipper would be calling the tunes, the FO playing the piano; these situations are rehearsed often and beaten into the wooden heads of professional aircrew until they become ‘reflex’, taking the crew from reaction to action in a heartbeat.
I can live with the notion that an incorrect waypoint entry could be made; but cannot come to agree with the notion that ATC would not have picked up the track deviation and questioned the intentions of an off track aircraft, returning to base, with a problem – had they known there was, indeed, a problem. Aviate, navigate, communicate. M’tas all.
Someone, somewhere knows exactly what happened; find that person, you find your aircraft. Anything else is a bit like doing the crossword puzzle; it’s interesting but utterly pointless.
(This post was last modified: 07-13-2016, 09:05 AM by Peetwo.)
Amongst peers??
"K" - "..Anything else is a bit like doing the crossword puzzle; it’s interesting but utterly pointless.."
To chuck into the 'friendly discussion' mix, here is a Sky God & wannabe Tinkicker with a slightly different interpretation of the Malaysian bollocks that is the MH370 Annex 13 investigation...
WELCOME ---
To: Mr. John Delisi, Director Office of Aviation Safety. NTSB
From: Captain Dirck Hecking, Air Accident Investigator. MH 370
Cc: Mr. Liow Tiong Lai, Malaysian Transport Minister.
Memorandum of Causality & Fraud - Regarding the Loss of Malaysia Flight 370
By Captain Dirck Hecking
Introduction. Contrary to the position of Malaysian officials I present: 1.) this June 05, 2004 “concerned” photo, as my offer in proof Malaysian officials are directly responsible for the loss; and 2.) Malaysian officials have acted with unlawful intent and contemplated harm in furtherance of a scheme to defraud and cover-up that crime, by omitting material facts from, the state’s own ICAO annex 13 safety investigation, ‘factual information; to wit. a.) Withholding Boeing’s ALERT Service Bulletin 777-53A0068 issued June 12, 2013, ~ eight months prior to the loss. Topically addressed to decompression and loss of cabin integrity; b.) Withholding the United States of America’s rulemaking follow-on Airworthiness Directive, wherein the legislative body adopts and makes law backing up Boeing, materially all the way; c.) Withholding the spot on comments from the United States Embassy of the timely reception of radio transmissions from Captain Zaharie Shah from the cockpit, which translates in any language, as a fulfillment of Boeings ASB prophecy… “This is Malaysia 370 Cabin Disintegrating Landing Sought”
Boeing delivered the new plane in Everett, Washington, on June 5, 2002. Our “concerned” photo of September 5, 2004, in Zurich Switzerland, shows the plane had been provisioned like others on the line, with Boeing’s defective adaptor plate. The red circle in the expanded view shows a glimmering feature, which had been abandoned and covered in place. The more connective, Ball Aerospace SATCOM system is also visible here, as a vertical glimmer above the portside door. It’s fair to believe, all of this work was done to the specifications of the times; Although, no one knew the original Boeing centerline mounting adaptor, was chaffing its way to disaster (SATCOM antenna or not). How fortunate that mere glimmers and shadows like these, would finally lead me in.
Boeing ALERTED operators of 1,206 aircraft, on June 12, 2013, (and simply stated) …One operator showed us cracks … Stop flying your planes immediately… Climb onto the cabin roof … Measure 1,601 inches aft of the nose and find your skin crack, beneath our defective adaptor plate … We have approved mitigation programs in place, to help you efficiently handle damages … if you don’t get it, call us for more… Don’t fly your planes before completing crack mitigation! … Because, “Your cracks that are not found and repaired, can propagate to the point, where the fuselage skin structure cannot sustain load limit! This can result in possible decompression and loss of structural integrity.” – Malaysian officials got notice to inspect, find and repair to Boeing standards, nearly eight months before the loss.
Malaysian officials blew off my documents, leading up to the presentation of this well vetted photo. This is prima fascie evidence, never before introduced by anyone, as the cause of the loss… In my view it presents as probable cause / definitive proof, Malaysian officials are squarely responsible for the disaster. Rather than have a look and comply with the urgent safety notice, officials’ institutionalized, wanton indifference, towards Boeing’s June 12, 2013, fleet grounding, ALERT Service Bulletin, 777-53A0068. –None of this had to happen. There is only one missing plane. There is only one photo like that.
Lukas Kinneswenger, in Zurich, on Sept. 5, 2004 (airliners.net), had the good fortune of taking this keystone photograph. I’d stepped up to the challenge alone, on day five of the crisis. Now more than 800 days on my quest the world has an answer, despite the cover and indifference by Malaysian officials, before I found it. Lukas, where are you. I have been trying to contact you, just Google me.
Matters like this have a regular idiom association …”It’s like trying to find a needle in a haystack;” whilst here, if I may add...We find Malaysian officials know where the needles are… and busy themselves stacking hay around them.’ There is an ugly legal term for the insufferable, mind blowing behavior, “prolix.”
P2 edit: After reading the above please keep in mind the following quote from aussie500...
"..MH370 vanished still using a pair of HG antennas, side mounted above the L3/R3 doors, same as she always had. She never at any time had a top mounted dome antenna like MRQ who was made 2 years later had installed. MRO was never affected by the antenna problem, since she never had that antenna adapter installed that the safety directives were concerned with. Dirck was shown that on one of the facebook groups multiple times, images from every year she flew, right up to just before she vanished..."
(This post was last modified: 07-11-2016, 05:52 PM by ventus45.)
K, I think "the last thing" any "modern two man crew" does, in a crisis, regardless of "training" is get on the radio.
When it all goes to hell, they try to troubleshoot first.
You DO NOT "communicate" to "the outside world" until you know what you want, what you need, and who from.
You do not transmit until you know what you are going to say.
If the crisis continues, they become "discombobulated", and they never "communicate".
The evidence of AF447, QZ8501 and MS804 proves that.
“V” agreed – during a ‘routine’ anything awkward, that’s what multi crew operations have always done. But in the scenario you presented it is not ‘routine’. Like the old saw “Confirm operations normal” asked by ATC during a single engine approach – OEI approach is not ‘normal’, but the situation is under control and all will be well is the broad implication.
So what we are presented with in the above scenario specific version is a flight crew with a problem. Was the ‘problem’ so severe that both died in harness trying to solve the puzzle? The scenario indicates not; it assumes that they could and did sort it out then make a decision – return to land. Fine so far, they could even manage to program the wrong way point (which is a curious enough action); all this done ‘as per’ but then they fail to let ATC – or the company - know what they were doing. Why?
The scenario we are discussing is presented as a ‘return to land’. This means a course reversal – in control airspace, with a ‘problem’ of some sort, serious enough to warrant the action. This means communication and provided the crew were still effective; I cannot see where a trained crew would just throw in a major course change without saying a word. Even in a emergency descent after a 90 ˚off airway course change, eventually ‘communication’ occurs. The sequence of events in ‘routine’ emergency is as you describe it; identify the ‘problem’; run the checks; make a decision and then notify ATC of your intentions. The last bit never, as far as we know, happened. Why?
All I’m saying is that scenario specific discussion must remain within the parameters defined; it’s a problem of the genre. So when the proposition that a crew was alive and alert enough to (i) initiate a return to landing (ii) program the FMS for that return, it begs the question – why after all that did they not mention it? The other scenario specific question is why were they supposedly manually ‘programing’ in return waypoints?
This is why I like and stick to my ET theory. Anything else descends into making specific, scenario based assumptions which cannot be verified.
IF they were turning back to land, don't they have to ask for permission to land at an airport at anytime??? The fact that they never did weighs on my mind. How would they possibly try and land without permission and colliding with other planes.
I still think something was going on that night in that airspace that they don't want the world to know about. I still believe those ATC tapes were edited, I've listened to them time and again and the sounds are different. IMO if it was a hijack or some kind of event (military) or a collision or perhaps diversion by someone.
The fact that there was an Orion on Cocos Island on March 8th, 2014 is a little suspicious to me.
this video on you tube shows a plane landing on cocos, and you can't hear it until it's almost on the ground. It's not a real large jet, bt still has 4 engines and would be loud.
So IMO if 370 crashed off sumatra or in that area, or near cocos, an Orion sitting on that tarmac wouldn't have been there too long, so if they are flying they have their radar on. Maybe I'm wrong, any thoughts on that anyone.
All that is true enough, but the fact remains, a crisis forces action first - tell last - if you can.
Moreover, they may have lost consciousness very early in the "return".
Consider this.
The thing that plays on my mind, more than any other possibility, is "shoddy maintenance".
I refer specifically, to the crew oxygen bottle in the MEC.
The fact that it had required a "top up" in a relatively short time / number of flights since it's previous "top up" leads me to think that there may have been a "latent defect", a "pre existing leak - a slow leak" in the system somewhere. It could be a "chaffed hose", or a "incorrectly tightened fitting", anything is possible.
The "refilling" of the cylinder, at high pressure, only a short time prior to take-off, could have "aggravated" that small leak, into a bigger one.
The aircraft takes off, climbs, and the leak is filling the MEC with extra O2.
Something happens in the MEC, an electrical short circuit, which causes a small fire, which in an O2 enriched environment in a "closed space" (the MEC) becomes essentially a short lived flash fire, the heat from which damages a lot of "other equipment" in the MEC (other than the ORIGINAL FAULTY ITEM).
Up on the flight deck, warnings start going off, Z and H are startled, and begin to "work the problem".
Meanwhile, the fire, though small, is now being fed by a now ruptured hose from the O2 bottle, which is rapidly doing much more damage, but worst of all, has cut off the supply of 02 to the cockpit.
Z and H decide to return, (as per my scenario above) but very soon, the fire (which they may not realise is the real problem yet) causes a breach in the skin, and the aircraft suffers rapid decompression.
The O2 masks drop for the pax and Z and H go for their masks, but alas, there is nothing there.
(This post was last modified: 07-12-2016, 04:09 PM by ventus45.)
"Bugsy"
That is another possibility that no one would want to own up to.
Early on, I and others considered the possibility of a collision with a drone.
If that were the case, what happened, in terms of damage to each aircraft, would depend on "the geometry" of the collision.
As the collision between the Legacy and GOL737 in Brazil clearly attests, damage may be fatal to one, minor to the other.
It is possible the drone flew on, the same as MH370 did.
In that regard, a damaged drone, initially heading west, but now with it's on board autopilot trying to control it, is more likely to have suffered "flight path excursions" that produced the alleged radar hits, than an airliner would.
Meanwhile, what happened to MH370 ? I still think it went via Medan / Uprob.
The Orion on Cocos (on a Saturday mind) is even more suspicious.
I would be willing to bet it had jut landed, ie, just flown in, from either RAAF Pearce near Perth, or RAAF Edinburgh near Adelaide, when that sat photo was taken.
Judging by the minimal building shadows, it was around late morning to near mid-day, local time, so about 6 hours after MH370 would have crashed.
If the RAAF controlled IADS in Malaysia had have tracked the flight, and had known early that it went to the SIO, there was plenty of time (at least 10 hours) for them to scramble an Orion out of either Pearce or Edinburgh and get it to Cocos for the sat photo.
(This post was last modified: 07-13-2016, 09:06 AM by Peetwo.)
(11-03-2015, 03:46 PM)ventus45 Wrote: With the ATSB search ongoing, with their highest priority zones done, with the equipment apparently suitable and sufficiently capable and gathering data of the expected quality, and up to now, with no hint of anything found, only one conclusion can be drawn.
The ATSB are looking in the wrong place.
The arc must be wrong.
What we have is a waste of over a year and heading for $100 million, for what ?
QUESTION:-
Why have the ATSB never validated the arcs (all of them) at sea ?
It is easy to do, relatively cheap, and would only entail the use of Ocean Shield for a few weeks.
"K" - "..Anything else is a bit like doing the crossword puzzle; it’s interesting but utterly pointless.."
To chuck into the 'friendly discussion' mix, here is a Sky God & wannabe Tinkicker with a slightly different interpretation of the Malaysian bollocks that is the MH370 Annex 13 investigation...
WELCOME ---
To: Mr. John Delisi, Director Office of Aviation Safety. NTSB
From: Captain Dirck Hecking, Air Accident Investigator. MH 370
Cc: Mr. Liow Tiong Lai, Malaysian Transport Minister.
Memorandum of Causality & Fraud - Regarding the Loss of Malaysia Flight 370
By Captain Dirck Hecking
Introduction. Contrary to the position of Malaysian officials I present: 1.) this June 05, 2004 “concerned” photo, as my offer in proof Malaysian officials are directly responsible for the loss; and 2.) Malaysian officials have acted with unlawful intent and contemplated harm in furtherance of a scheme to defraud and cover-up that crime, by omitting material facts from, the state’s own ICAO annex 13 safety investigation, ‘factual information; to wit. a.) Withholding Boeing’s ALERT Service Bulletin 777-53A0068 issued June 12, 2013, ~ eight months prior to the loss. Topically addressed to decompression and loss of cabin integrity; b.) Withholding the United States of America’s rulemaking follow-on Airworthiness Directive, wherein the legislative body adopts and makes law backing up Boeing, materially all the way; c.) Withholding the spot on comments from the United States Embassy of the timely reception of radio transmissions from Captain Zaharie Shah from the cockpit, which translates in any language, as a fulfillment of Boeings ASB prophecy… “This is Malaysia 370 Cabin Disintegrating Landing Sought”
Boeing delivered the new plane in Everett, Washington, on June 5, 2002. Our “concerned” photo of September 5, 2004, in Zurich Switzerland, shows the plane had been provisioned like others on the line, with Boeing’s defective adaptor plate. The red circle in the expanded view shows a glimmering feature, which had been abandoned and covered in place. The more connective, Ball Aerospace SATCOM system is also visible here, as a vertical glimmer above the portside door. It’s fair to believe, all of this work was done to the specifications of the times; Although, no one knew the original Boeing centerline mounting adaptor, was chaffing its way to disaster (SATCOM antenna or not). How fortunate that mere glimmers and shadows like these, would finally lead me in.
Boeing ALERTED operators of 1,206 aircraft, on June 12, 2013, (and simply stated) …One operator showed us cracks … Stop flying your planes immediately… Climb onto the cabin roof … Measure 1,601 inches aft of the nose and find your skin crack, beneath our defective adaptor plate … We have approved mitigation programs in place, to help you efficiently handle damages … if you don’t get it, call us for more… Don’t fly your planes before completing crack mitigation! … Because, “Your cracks that are not found and repaired, can propagate to the point, where the fuselage skin structure cannot sustain load limit! This can result in possible decompression and loss of structural integrity.” – Malaysian officials got notice to inspect, find and repair to Boeing standards, nearly eight months before the loss.
Malaysian officials blew off my documents, leading up to the presentation of this well vetted photo. This is prima fascie evidence, never before introduced by anyone, as the cause of the loss… In my view it presents as probable cause / definitive proof, Malaysian officials are squarely responsible for the disaster. Rather than have a look and comply with the urgent safety notice, officials’ institutionalized, wanton indifference, towards Boeing’s June 12, 2013, fleet grounding, ALERT Service Bulletin, 777-53A0068. –None of this had to happen. There is only one missing plane. There is only one photo like that.
Lukas Kinneswenger, in Zurich, on Sept. 5, 2004 (airliners.net), had the good fortune of taking this keystone photograph. I’d stepped up to the challenge alone, on day five of the crisis. Now more than 800 days on my quest the world has an answer, despite the cover and indifference by Malaysian officials, before I found it. Lukas, where are you. I have been trying to contact you, just Google me.
Matters like this have a regular idiom association …”It’s like trying to find a needle in a haystack;” whilst here, if I may add...We find Malaysian officials know where the needles are… and busy themselves stacking hay around them.’ There is an ugly legal term for the insufferable, mind blowing behavior, “prolix.”
Please do not refer to Dirck as any sort of professional. MH370 vanished still using a pair of HG antennas, side mounted above the L3/R3 doors, same as she always had. She never at any time had a top mounted dome antenna like MRQ who was made 2 years later had installed. MRO was never affected by the antenna problem, since she never had that antenna adapter installed that the safety directives were concerned with. Dirck was shown that on one of the facebook groups multiple times, images from every year she flew, right up to just before she vanished.
aussie500 - "..Please do not refer to Dirck as any sort of professional.."
My apologies aussie500 it was very much a 'tongue in cheek' comment for the sake of discussion. That's the trouble with the whole MH370 information vacuum, the social & mainstream media is littered with so called 'professionals' & 'experts' that, due to the huge lack of any factual evidence, cannot be effectively challenged and shutdown. Unfortunately, much like the Pprune Forum is rampant with trolls & tossers hell bent on shutting down threads that generate worthy industry discussion, so too does the MH370 human interest phenomenon attract parasites & trolls...
(This post was last modified: 07-14-2016, 08:30 PM by Kharon.)
Warning: pointless ramble. i.e. a Twiddle.
Just sat here, reading Aussie 500 posts and feeling the pain of it all. Which set me on my way down Ramble Lane. Honest, well intentioned folk, such as Aussie, Chillit, Brock, the IG etc. part of a list too long to name, battling the system in an attempt to help find out what, precisely, caused the ‘disappearance’ of a passenger aircraft and 200 odd lives. The effort and cost the gain access to information which ‘we’ the public, not only paid for, but pay for the folk who ‘run’ these operations. It is a bloody disgrace. FDS we pay for every paper clip the military throw at each other; we pay for AMSA; we pay for ATSB; hells bells we even paid for the boats out searching. So why should Aussie shell out more hard earned bucks for what is – arguably – publically paid for data. It’s a bollocks. A bollocks of the first water. IF the ‘tax-payer’ ultimately funds the MH 370 operation; then, that information – full and complete – belongs to those as paid for it. Is it not so? Then why is that information not fully, freely and completely available to those who wish to study it? At no additional charge?
I have an old friend who had been to a function in the city- went on a bit late and he was searching for a taxi. I may add, the guy was completely sober (medical reasons) and is in full possession of his considerable faculties. At the crossing – the light was indeed red; no argument. Even so – as there was no traffic and the light was taking for ever, having looked left, then right, then left again – with no visible traffic in sight - he crossed the road, against the red. Gottcha.
Two full hours later old mate hits his front door; 24 minutes travelling home the rest spent with the ‘law’. You can imagine the conversation – “No, I’m not colour blind”. "I resent being called a ‘Ducking idiot”. “ Yes I realise that safety is important”. “ I know you guys have a job to do”. “Yes, I understand that delivering death messages at Dark O’clock causes you stress”. “BUT: for FFS – there was not any sort of vehicle in sight for two city blocks”. No matter. Booked, fined and eventually allowed to leave for home.
Perhaps it’s just me as I live (survive) through this modern world – but it seems to me that crossing the road – safely; and, asking for what should be publically available documents, without penalty or more than a minimal cost – is an inalienable right of ‘free’ people; those as paid for it all: the folk that support this pony-pooh thing called democracy.
In short what, in the seven hells happened to ‘freedom’?
Told ya – pointless twiddle; writ to clear the mind and soothe the beast – until the next time.
Right then; my knitting awaits – Heigh Ho & Toot toot.
I have no objecting to shelling out some money to pay for their costs of sorting editing and sticking them on a few discs and posting them out. I just object that they edited too much info out removing the GPS metadata. Failed to read the dates properly, apparently deliberately removed the 100 photo's in between the 2 they managed to give me from the 24th March and packed it up in a format designed to hide the metadata and foil any close examination of the photos. I just want what I paid for, does not seem likely the Department of Defence is going to release the photo's they say they have.
That and I was surprised it would take them over three months to do such a simple thing, let alone all the stalling they are currently up to.
And on the radar sightings in the article ventus45 posted. You will notice in that Factual Information Report a completely different story is told about what the Thai saw. If you look at the crafty wording used, it is the same as the Malaysian story, might have been, could have been, they were not interested in where it was going. Would not surprise me if that plane landed at RMAF Butterworth and they all knew it was not MH370.
DAY 30 (April 6)5.10pm
After crossing the Malaysian peninsula, MH370 made another turn, skirting around Indonesian airspace according to a report by an international news agency.
Quoting a senior Malaysian government official, CNN senior international correspondent Nick Robertson claimed the move appeared to be intentional.
Robertson’s unnamed source said this claim was based on radar information gleaned from other countries.
When contacted, DCA director-general Datuk Azharuddin Addul Rahman simply told The Rakyat Post that CNN’s report was not verified, corroborated and not from an official source.
The twirling moves like a jet fighter were attributed to Malaysian radar, Australia sent people over there and apparently discounted it because their radar was not properly calibrated to judge altitude. And yet if you look at the next days exact same flight, made by 9M-MRQ she made the same jump in altitude, at the same place, and that was not dependent on primary radar. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toRr_9dfbyA
Just ignore everything dabhoo77 says, he got the date wrong, the plane wrong as well as making a few other mistakes. But he did manage to record the same strange behavior in the next flight, that Malaysia apparently saw on their primary radar the night before. MRQ never jumped in altitude like that, probably MRO did not either.
(This post was last modified: 07-17-2016, 11:22 AM by Peetwo.)
(07-17-2016, 10:44 AM)aussie500 Wrote: More on radar misinformation...
The twirling moves like a jet fighter were attributed to Malaysian radar, Australia sent people over there and apparently discounted it because their radar was not properly calibrated to judge altitude. And yet if you look at the next days exact same flight, made by 9M-MRQ she made the same jump in altitude, at the same place, and that was not dependent on primary radar.
Just ignore everything dabhoo77 says, he got the date wrong, the plane wrong as well as making a few other mistakes. But he did manage to record the same strange behavior in the next flight, that Malaysia apparently saw on their primary radar the night before. MRQ never jumped in altitude like that, probably MRO did not either.
Aussie as a passing point of interest from your last, I note that Flight Radar 24 uses as its primary source information gleaned off ADS-B/C or Mode S transponder equipped aircraft.
Please note the following from the 'Here we go around the Mulberry bush' thread:
(12-25-2015, 08:02 PM)Peetwo Wrote: ASA - She'll be right mate??
A passing strange and somewhat contradictory Jetstar incident in one of their 'plastic, fantastic' B787 jets will be investigated by the ATSB:
So what has this got to do with ASA? Well probably not much, except one of Ben's regular blog contributors provided an interesting link to a Flight Global article on other recorded passing strange anomalies with the B787 & ADSB State ATC systems:
Most of the Boeing 787s delivered to date contain a software defect that, in at least five identified aircraft, have erroneously reported their location to controllers, prompting two air traffic management agencies to put the Dreamliner on a “blacklist” for certain services.
Although it denies the software defect creates a safety hazard, Boeing says a service bulletin with instructions for operators to correct the position reporting error will be released “imminently”.
The retrofits are expected to be installed across the fleet through 2016, but Boeing has no control over if or when an operator chooses to implement a voluntary service bulletin, the company says. New 787s delivered from Boeing’s assembly lines are already equipped with software that corrects the original defect.
The issue came to light last December at an ICAO working group focused on automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) transponders.
ICAO has since chronicled the problem in a series of reports from last February to late November, which are posted online but have so far been unreported.
The 787 software problem drove Canada’s air traffic control organisation Nav Canada last year to “blacklist” all 71 787s that were then using the country’s airspace. The blacklisting means the 787s are not allowed to use reduced separation procedures offered to other aircraft equipped with ADS-B.
Airservices Australia considered a similar limitation for the 787 fleet last year because of the same software problem, but the consequences would have been more severe. Unlike Canada, Australia mandates that all aircraft above 29,000ft must have ADS-B transponders.
A blacklisted aircraft would be treated the same as one that is not equipped with ADS-B, forcing 787 operators such as Jetstar to remain below 29,000ft while in Australian airspace.
Ultimately, Airservices Australia decided to accept the “risk” of allowing 787s to operate in ADS-B-mandated airspace with standard separation distances, ICAO’s reports show.
Airservices Australia also notified controllers about the existence of the software problem.
Finally, the agency blacklisted the 787 on surface management systems at three airports – Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney. But the airport restriction was only intended to raise awareness about the issue, as other airport position monitoring systems can pinpoint the 787’s location on the surface.
Nav Canada first detected a problem on 1 July 2014 when controllers noticed a 787 appearing to deviate up to 38nm (70km) from its planned track. The controllers alerted the crew by radio, but the pilots insisted their instruments showed they were still on course. Suddenly, however, the 787 “was observed jumping back to the flight plan route” on the controller’s screens, according to ICAO documents.
Around four months later, Airservices Australia noticed a similar problem when a Jetstar 787 appeared to deviate “significantly” off-track, then suddenly “jump” back to the planned route on a controller’s screen, the ICAO documents say.
Both agencies launched separate investigations before discovering they had witnessed the same problem while attending a December 2014 meeting of the ICAO ADS-B working group. They would later learn the same problem had been recorded in other airspace jurisdictions, including in Singapore.
At that point, Boeing was contacted to join the investigation. The company eventually traced the root cause back to the 787’s packet-based data transfer system, which was passing the aircraft’s position information from the integrated surveillance system to the ADS-B transponder, according to ICAO documents.
In rare cases, after passing a planned turn upon crossing a waypoint, the data packets that arrived at the transponder would contain either the aircraft’s latitude or longitude, but not both. In those cases, the ADS-B transponder’s software would extrapolate the 787’s position based on the previous flight track before it made a planned turn at a waypoint. It would continue reporting the aircraft erroneously on the incorrect track until it received a data packet containing both the latitude and the longitude of the aircraft.
“It is important to understand that this is not a safety concern,” Boeing says. “Existing systems such as radar provide the necessary positional data to [air traffic control] that allow the continued safe operation of the fleet.”
Airservices Australia reported to ICAO in November that it could still consider imposing a blacklist label on the 787, meaning the agency could restrict the aircraft to operate below 29,000ft. Airservices Australia said it would base its decision on how quickly 787 operators to implement Boeing’s service bulletin to retrofit the in-service fleet.
Boeing says the software update will "restore full ADS-B functionality". In the meantime, it says, the fleet "continues to operate safely with standard separations”.
Hmm...this generalisation from Boeing is somewhat of a concern when you consider our situation in Australia:
Quote:“It is important to understand that this is not a safety concern,” Boeing says. “Existing systems such as radar provide the necessary positional data to [air traffic control] that allow the continued safe operation of the fleet.”
It is also a concern when you consider the highlighted 'bad press' the ASA ADSB stand alone system had been receiving from Dick Smith & the Oz until recent times.
This potentially creates a huge conflict of interest between all directly interested parties i.e. ASA, CASA, the ATSB & all B787 operators operating in and out of Australia.
Now there may or may not be a connection between the anomalies experienced on the Jetstar incident and the multiple incidents tracked to a Boeing/ADSB software glitch, but if there was it would not be a good look for ASA not to have instigated a blacklist at the same time as their counterparts Nav Canada.
In some similar reports from other agencies there was also reports of ADS-B monitored aircraft jumping back & forth in altitude - might, I stress might, be another piece of the puzzle that is the disappearance of MH370?
Quote:Aussie - "..I have no objecting to shelling out some money to pay for their costs of sorting editing and sticking them on a few discs and posting them out. I just object that they edited too much info out removing the GPS metadata..."
Another observation i.e. the FLIR turret: Much like a HUD (head up display) the FLIR image depicted on the AMC/FLIR operator console computer, has information transposed on the screen like for example the GPS location of the target being viewed and the distance/range from the aircraft. Now I am not sure if this info is automatically transposed to recorded (FLIR footage) information but it would definitely be on the hard drive of the console computer.
(This post was last modified: 07-17-2016, 11:15 AM by ventus45.)
Aussie, when you combine raw primary radar returns from multiple different radar stations into "one situation display" there will be some degree of "disjointed plots" for a whole host of reasons.
First, in the 2D map, or "flat earth" if like, display, there will be minor position differences due to the co-ordinates system used, the curvature of the earth between the radar stations, their different site altitudes etc.
That is frustrating enough, but when you add the third dimension, and try to get a 3D plot with altitude, the results are problematic.
Each individual primary radar head is operating in a different bit of atmosphere.
Refraction and ducting effects make altitude determination for any "one head", from only "a few returns", difficult.
You need to "track it for a while" so that the computers can generate a 3D track file that "makes sense". And that is just for "one head".
Now try to combine the plots from "multiple heads".
Now, depending on the "coverage" of each head, there may be some "overlaps", where the target is seen by two or more heads "at the same time".
Combining them to produce one definitive x y z position (lat lon alt) is not a simple matter, and not likely to be very accurate "in the third dimension - altitude".
So I think we can "discount" the "altitude jumps" as a "red herring".
What matters is "the track" the aircraft took, ie, the x y (lat lon) at time "t" plots.
The saga of the RAAF aerial photo's is on its third round now, third time lucky hopefully. Might get those photo's from the 24th yet. I got the second lot of discs today, same dates but now I have them all as jpgs. I uploaded some of the individual Item 5 images. But I am running out of space and would prefer having the southern images up rather than 2 days of northern ones, which are not that interesting. Still no GPS data embedded in the images though. I get some decent images of anything it seems I will have to ask AMSA for the actual co-ordinates of the objects.
![[Image: photo.jpg]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-evfMspJG_3M/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAABOM/zKb-a0tF5Us/s46-c-k-no/photo.jpg){kind=small}
![[Image: 02b%2BSept.%2B5%252C%2B2004%252C%2BZuric...Bcover.jpg]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-bTjCpCDkNn0/V1BvLRwCHdI/AAAAAAAAE4E/VHorokr4QtgO3d48yKMRlMTxfTKATNsGg/w506-h380/02b%2BSept.%2B5%252C%2B2004%252C%2BZurich%252C%2BHead-on%2Bview%2Bof%2Badaptor%2Bplate%2Bwith%2Bcover.jpg)
