• Re: MH370 update on my March 17th message

    From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Alexander Koryagin on Thu Mar 27 01:47:04 2014

    Hi Alexander,

    There is a main reason why it was not a terror attack -- nobody
    claimed anything. A terror attack always implies publicity and some claiming.

    Such a claim is usually made "after" the deed, not during or prior.

    The most strange is the fact that when the plane was crossing
    Malaysia nobody from its passengers tried to use their cell phones. When you are at high altitude, the distance at which a cell phone can connect with its ground base is increased significantly. If a passenger looks at his phone he can tell that communication is available and he can send at least SMS.

    That is nonsense.

    I fly a lot, I really mean "a lot" and until my retirement worked for a company which among other things provides cellular service.

    Cellular antennas do not point upwards and their signal is a beam, not a general domed broadcast. as a result it is impossible to make unassisted cellular calls from an airplane above certain altitudes. I've lost the exact figures but it's like 1000-feet or something, maybe 1500. I've tried it numerous times while flying and after years and years I finally managed to send an SMS last February 28 from about 400-500ft just before landing.

    Also, the speed of such an aircraft is so high that the switching equipment on the ground goes crazy as there will be a tower/antenna switch every couple of seconds.

    Several in the industry have claimed that the alleged cellphone calls from airplanes during 9-11 did not happen for that matter. Probably they were credit card calls from onboard satellite phones which at the times were pretty successful... and expensive.

    Plus, for about an hour the plane went northbound, eventually over sea which was the normal flight path. Nothing wrong. Plus of course no cellphone antennas in the middle of a big sea.

    When the plane turned west, that was a deliberate action. Suppose something went wrone with the cabin presure and there 'was' decompression, then the plane would have continued on autopilot to its intended destination and lacking pilot-input would go on a standard ICAO holding pattern once it approached Beijing until it ran out of fuel, the engines flamed-out and it stalled.

    That didn't happen, the westward course was deliberate. Theoretically it would have come across cellphone antennas again when crossing the Malaysian peninsula, but it did so at a place which was fairly uninhabited and with barely any military radar-vectoring, nothing civilian.

    Its eventual final heading of approximately 180 south was also deliberate, it turned to a destination with no known landing-strip which screams "suicide".

    There was something like a blow, the plane lost electric
    power and airtightness.

    The power in-flight comes from the engines and the plane kept pinging for up to 4 hrs after turning south. No electrical power was lost.

    I also assume the cabin occupants died of asfyxation, and quick. But not at least one person in the cockpit who survived to input those heading changes.

    Finding the black boxes would really be interesting and remembering what effort and cost went into finding the black boxes of Air France 427, I hope they'll go through the same effort in this particular case.

    \%/@rd

    BTW, I'm crossposting this to the AVIATION-echo.

    --- D'Bridge 3.99
    * Origin: Many Glacier / Protect - Preserve - Conserve (2:292/854)
  • From Mike Luther@1:117/100 to Ward Dossche on Thu Mar 27 09:17:06 2014
    Hi Ward ..

    Finding the black boxes would really be interesting
    and remembering what effort and cost went into finding
    the black boxes of Air France 427, I hope they'll go
    through the same effort in this particular case.

    \%/@rd

    Could be. As we know I'm a high time long ago pilot, plus very experienced telecommunications engineer amoung other things. When I make the comment below, I do *NOT* claim any personal knowledge or advice about what one should believe about this incident. Nor the accuracy about anything. It's only about a vector toward claimed information about this incident.

    Tahe a close look at the Web Site "beforeitsnews.com" right up at the top of the main page in the '50 most popular' items at the several vectors toward information about this. Note you can go to side vectors on clicking on the 'highlighted' comment words here and there.

    Again, I have no personal information about this, nor do I advocate anything about actions or what to do about this and that. Just that the pointers from the site might be worth looking at.


    Mike Luther N117 at 1:117/100

    ---
    * Origin: BV HUB CLL(979)696-3600 (1:117/100)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Alexander Koryagin on Fri Mar 28 21:20:38 2014

    I didn't read much on this account. I can only imagine what an
    auto-pilot can do when the fuel ends.

    As I stated before, you seem not to know much about aviation.

    When the above situation occurs, the autopilot automatically disconnects and the plane is in manual control. No electricity from the generators in the engines and the majority of the instruments including the hydraulic control of the wing-surfaces as well as the vertical stabiliser is lost. Even the wheels cannot be lowered as usual.

    At that time a RAM-turbine drops from the belly of the plane which essentially is a small power generator with a propeller which provides enough power for some instruments ... the radio for example ... but not all of the control surfaces.

    The plane was controllable. So,
    after the fuel ended the plane started to glade down. The auto-pilot controlled it until "landing" in the ocean.

    Bollocks.

    When the engines stop and there's no-one in the cockpit to manually fly (glide!) the plane there will be a dramatic loss in forward momentum with no slats nor flaps extended. The rule in aviation is that "speed is life". With no speed, no slats, no flaps, no pilot the plane will stall and come tumbling down from high altitude, not gentle but dramatic steep. The stresses on the surfaces will be so bad that there will be an in-air break-up of several portions which will cause several debris fields later on the ocean floor which in itself, if and when they will ever be found, will tell part of the story.

    But many things depend on the
    auto-pilot itself. How much was it accurate, who knows....

    The autopilot will disconnect and the plane will go down ... nose first ... gain momentum ... approach the speed of sound and break up.

    Take care,

    \%/@rd

    --- D'Bridge 3.99
    * Origin: Many Glacier / Protect - Preserve - Conserve (2:292/854)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Alexander Koryagin on Sun Mar 30 21:39:48 2014

    Alexander,

    I think that a plane hydraulic system doesn't demand much power if
    it is in operation. So all flaps could work. The auto-pilot also does
    not consume much power.

    You really are impossible ...

    Please research the reallife examples of Air Canada 143 and Air Transat 236. Both cases are extremely well documented. In both cases when the engines flamed-out there was a catastrophic loss of power due to generator loss. The same happened with the US Airways Airbus that landed in the Hudson. No hydraulic power ... no flaps, no spoilers, no secondary braking, only manually released slats to the first position falling into place by gravity.

    So when the plane glides down the RAM turbines of four engines could
    work out some energy. It can be enough for the auto-pilot and hydraulic system. So, the auto-pilot could work until the touch-down.

    You are very stubborn.

    1) An airplane such as the 777 only has one ("1") RAM airturbine in the belly
    of the aircraft. It basically is a small propeller which provides some
    electricity but not that much. Cabin lights will be switched-off for
    example and only hydraulics to flaps but not all positions
    2) A 777 has 2 engines, not 4
    3) Hydraulics can not be powered by the battery
    4) The battery of a 777 is a nickel-cadmium 20 cell 24V 16A battery. You
    cannot fly such an airplane on such a small battery. It only delivers
    power for starting-up the aircraft after it was parked, meaning powering
    some of the instruments and supporting certain ground-operations such as
    taxiing and refueling prior to APU-start, engine-start or hook-up to
    ground-power. In a 777 batteries are useless to even try and start an
    engine, as I said before this is done with compressed air.
    A 777's battery weighs 48kg, it's barely bigger that a regular
    car-battery, maybe x3 at v-best.

    A compass alone is not enough for flying in the complete darkness.
    If the Malaysia peninsula was covered by night clouds the plane could
    fly over the land.

    Even with visibility "zero" a compass will still tell a pilot in which direction it is flying. When the compass points "south", the pilot "knows" he/she is going south and not "think" he is going east as you previously suggested.

    Let's just see what other nonsense you will be able to come up with.

    \%/@rd

    --- D'Bridge 3.99
    * Origin: Many Glacier / Protect - Preserve - Conserve (2:292/854)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Mark Lewis on Sun Mar 30 21:39:52 2014

    Mark,

    there may not have been much chance of gliding... my understanding is
    that at some point it would possibly have entered "phugoid mode" wherein
    as it dove and picked up speed, it would then generate lift and climb
    until it ran out of speed... then it would fall again and pick up speed over and over until it finally was not able to sustain this (aka) "porpoise" mode and then came down... it could have travelled quite far doing this...

    If it had been a purpose-built glider then "yes".

    Aircraft of this type and size have only one direction to go without a functioning engine and that is "down".

    There is a tremendous drag which does not allow for such an airplane to lift its nose because the loss of forward momentum will be instant and dramatic. The result is a stall that is not recoverable because there is no forward momentum anymore provided by engines.

    In order to maintain the forward momentum and create lift, the plane has to be in a constant nose-down attitude.

    \%/@rd

    --- D'Bridge 3.99
    * Origin: Many Glacier / Protect - Preserve - Conserve (2:292/854)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Alexander Koryagin on Sun Mar 30 21:39:54 2014

    Alexander,

    I think, the process of gliding down (without fuel) was not too long.
    The hydraulic system of the plane must keep the oil pressure for quite a time -- it is hermetic after all. The auto-pilot itself could work for
    some time from the plane reserve batteries. So, all the flaps, rudders
    and aileron could be controlled by auto-pilot. Or, at least, they did
    not dangle.

    What you think or come-up with in your dreams is of no consequence.

    When engines flame-out and all electrical power from the generators is lost then the auto-pilot disconnects, this is just how those systems are designed. What you think is irrelevant, reality is different.

    At the same time all hydraulics are gone. In your dreams you have other thoughts but, I'm sorry, that's how it is in reality and how it has been designed. The RAM-turbine will provide some power for some basic hydraulics, but when on final for landing with reduced speed, that turbine will also run slower thereby proving less power and hydraulics is lost again. It happened to both Air Canada and Air Transat.

    The autopilot is not something magical that will recover an airplane when all is lost. No, it will fly an airplane when everything is functioning and there are no abnormalities.

    If a stick-shaker occurs, it disconnets.
    If a pitot-tube freezes-over, it disconnects.
    If the fuse of the toilet-pumps blows, it disconnects.
    ...

    Without engines, there is no auto-pilot and there are no hydraulics. It cannot fly itself under those conditions.

    \%/@rd

    --- D'Bridge 3.99
    * Origin: Many Glacier / Protect - Preserve - Conserve (2:292/854)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Alexander Koryagin on Mon Mar 31 14:58:10 2014

    Alexander,

    So you mean, that the famous US Airways Airbus had not been landed
    smoothly into the Hudson by the skillful pilot, but it flopped into the river incidentally, completely uncontrollable?

    What I am saying is that in the case of that USAirways flight there was no deployment of flaps, slats nor spoilers. The APU was still on immediately after departure and the RAM-turbine had deployed.

    As explained previous, such a RAM-turbine becomes very ineffective during the final phase of descent as forward momentum is reduced by lifting the nose and power-production drops real fast.

    What I am equally saying is that the "Miracle on the Hudson" really was this particular pilot at the controls, an ace glider-pilot (same as with the Air Canada and Air Transat no-power landings which also had captains who were glider instructors) who had a feel for the concept of keeping the nose down in order to maintain momentum and airspeed.

    Anything else you read in my words are in your imagination only.

    Well, I don't make you to answer me. ;=) Take my agruments easier. We
    just talk.

    Good 'nough. How 'bout a beer? :-)

    \%/@rd

    --- D'Bridge 3.99
    * Origin: Many Glacier / Protect - Preserve - Conserve (2:292/854)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Alexander Koryagin on Mon Mar 31 15:04:03 2014

    Alexander,

    So, if a pilot, has control on his plane ailerons, it can lower the
    plane nose to make the plane fly (glide) fast.

    The nose-attitude of a 777 is not controled by the ailerons, but by the horizontal stabilizer in the tail.

    Near the ground the pilot
    makes the nose up, the plane loses its (vertical) speed. IMHO, we see
    such a picture when a space shuttle lands without engines, with its nose up, not down.

    Correct, of course. You also need to understand the landing speed of a Space shuttle and the length of runway it needed to brake to a standstill. There were only a few runways worldwide that could take it. Kennedy Space Center has a 15,000ft runway with 1,000ft RESA (Runway End Safety Area) on either side. The runways at Edwards AFB are between 4 and 7.5 miles. Kennedy 31L was certified, Amsterdam 18R as well. The wing surface of the Shuttle also allowed it to flare-out, meaning because of the air-mass under its wings the landing is greatly facilitated.

    A stall can be if an _unskillful_ pilot lifts the plane nose too steep
    in upper direction.

    AF427 stalled at high altitude with 3 skillful pilots ... a lot of accidents occur because certain conditions were never encountered. Sometimes there is recovery by extreme skillful pilots, sometimes not.

    An airplane running out of fuel while holding without declaring a fuel-emergency for example is shear stupidity.

    But near the ground the plane can lift its nose and diminish its
    vertical speed.

    Yes, but then "very" near to the ground.

    \%/@rd

    --- D'Bridge 3.99
    * Origin: Many Glacier / Protect - Preserve - Conserve (2:292/854)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Alexander Koryagin on Mon Mar 31 15:04:09 2014

    Without engines, there is no auto-pilot and there are no
    hydraulics. It cannot fly itself under those conditions.

    Let's talk a little about Auxiliary power unit. They say that it can
    power the plane hydrolic system perfectly well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_power_unit

    Oh yes ... but that means there must be fuel in the tanks as it is a regular jetfuel-combustion engine.

    No fuel --> no APU.

    \%/@rd

    --- D'Bridge 3.99
    * Origin: Many Glacier / Protect - Preserve - Conserve (2:292/854)