It seems part of their psyche. The South Korean Ferry disaster relatives acted in a similar manner assaulting Police or anyone else in authority.
We can't really comprehend their actions at all.
It is ridiculous, as for the SK relatives, a terrible situation but them hiring a boat and going out to the ferry was actually hindering operations at the time.
No one likes to wait for bad news but you have to let people get on with their jobs .
CNN are reporting that sources say Bluefin will soon commence a new search pattern a few miles north of the current one that's about to finish.
The current search area surrounds the strongest set of pings, the next search area surrounds the longest set of pings - but may be much deeper (Echo seems to have surveyed that area so they will know).
The official announcement will be interesting as CNN do not say when the new search will commence (there could be a gap to let Ocean Shield visit port).
It is ridiculous, as for the SK relatives, a terrible situation but them hiring a boat and going out to the ferry was actually hindering operations at the time.
No one likes to wait for bad news but you have to let people get on with their jobs .
Well it's looking more and more like MH370 relatives are going to be in for an even longer wait than the South Koreans.......unless a miracle happens meantime.
The US official, who declined to be identified because he was not authorised to comment on the search effort, told Reuters: "We went all in on this small area and didn't find anything. Now you've got to go back to the big area. And now you're talking years."
Well it's looking more and more like MH370 relatives are going to be in for an even longer wait than the South Koreans.......unless a miracle happens meantime.
Well as they appear to have only searched one of the 4 ping areas so far, maybe not! (see above).
Well as they appear to have only searched one of the 4 ping areas so far, maybe not! (see above).
Well Ocean Shield is miles away from the rest of them and Echo for some reason isn't sending out its signals....or MT is being damn slow in updating. It's last location was sent on 23rd at 0359hrs and you can only find it from this link here;
If you open up MT as a fresh page.....Echo isn't anywhere to be seen!
If the search is definitely heading further down south then my concern is just how close are they to the vicinity of the Diamantina Deep? I suspect not so far off.
If the search is definitely heading further down south then my concern is just how close are they to the vicinity of the Diamantina Deep? I suspect not so far off.
Isn't the Diamantina Deep (the deepest part of the Diamantina Trench) off the south-west corner of Australia ... almost due west of Albany? That's the best part of a thousand miles south of the current underwater search area.
Well Ocean Shield is miles away from the rest of them and Echo for some reason isn't sending out its signals....or MT is being damn slow in updating. It's last location was sent on 23rd at 0359hrs and you can only find it from this link here;
If you open up MT as a fresh page.....Echo isn't anywhere to be seen!
If the search is definitely heading further down south then my concern is just how close are they to the vicinity of the Diamantina Deep? I suspect not so far off.
Sorry but I wasn't clear. The four ping areas I (and CNN) mentioned are spread over a 30Km broad area near where Ocean Shield is now, they aren't talking about heading down south towards the Chinese pings, yet. It's only a 20Km diameter circle they've been searching with Bluefin-21, centred on the 2nd ping IIRC, which is somewhere in the middle of the four. Here are the 4 pings: http://www.jacc.gov.au/media/releases/2014/april/mr_014-2.jpg
CNN were saying that the 2nd ping was chosen probably because it was the strongest of the four sets of pings, though not the longest set. It is also not in the deepest area but that may be where they are headed next, a few miles further north where the longest pings were heard. Whether or not Bluefin-21 can go deep enough to do that remains to be seen but they were speculating that in any case, Ocean Shield may be overdue for a visit to port by now anyway.
In an update, they say 95% of the current search area is now complete and the job will be finished this weekend. They will have to do another 2 or 3 similar sets of searches to fully cover all the area of the four pings. My money is on the northern pings, judging by the direction the ship was headed (south) when the pings #1 faded but it may be very deep around there.
Hey, one of the CNN experts just mentioned HMS Echo and his hope that Echo made a good map of the area which would help them to decide where to search next and what to use for their search!
Some people should know when to shut up, talk about trying to shift the blame.
Actually to some degree he does have a point. Its very easy to disable those systems by the looks of it and its also amazing that in this day there is no way to track a plane that's lost these systems.
Also someone on here commented a while back that the 777's coms systems/computers are located in a single place - what if it was damaged or a fire broke out in those systems- everything would go out.
Actually to some degree he does have a point. Its very easy to disable those systems by the looks of it and its also amazing that in this day there is no way to track a plane that's lost these systems.
Also someone on here commented a while back that the 777's coms systems/computers are located in a single place - what if it was damaged or a fire broke out in those systems- everything would go out.
It's one thing to question how the entire system could fail or be disabled, but the ex-prime minister is blaming Boeing for what happened.
"Who is responsible? Not MAS but certainly the makers of the plane – Boeing Aircraft Corporation"
Does he know it was a systems failure?
If the systems were disabled, someone had to do it. That would suggest one of the flight crew (Malaysian Airlines employees) or someone else gaining entry to the flight deck (Malaysian Airlines being responsible for in-flight security). Of course, the crew might have disabled the whole system as a result of a failure (such a as a fire), but we don't know that. Does he?
I can understand him defending MAS against people claiming that it must have been Malaysian Airlines fault, but to put the blame on Boeing is no better.
Isn't the Diamantina Deep (the deepest part of the Diamantina Trench) off the south-west corner of Australia ... almost due west of Albany? That's the best part of a thousand miles south of the current underwater search area.
Damage limitation. Perfectly normal given that this is going to cost MA's insurance serious money....and possibly Boeing.
Though i think some of his statements were somewhat OTT and extreme, i certainly agree with this;
"......the company should explain how it could have produced a plane with communications and tracking systems that were so easily disabled."
I think we will see some changes in avionics post MH370.
Not sure about "damage limitation" as he's pretty much opening up the Malaysian authorities to even more criticism, and he's going to look like one almighty dick if it turns out it was lax security, or if Maylasian Airlines employees were directly involved!
The prudent thing to do is avoid finger-pointing if you can't be 100% sure the finger won't finally point at you!
As for the ease of disabling the system, isn't it the case that the crew need to be able to pull the plug on any system in case of fire etc.?
Being a bit of a cynic, I can't help but wonder who will be most likely to baulk at the idea of incorporating more sophisticated (and expensive!) tracking systems on aircraft ... the manufacturers or the airlines?
Not sure about "damage limitation" as he's pretty much opening up the Malaysian authorities to even more criticism, and he's going to look like one almighty dick if it turns out it was lax security, or if Maylasian Airlines employees were directly involved!
What i meant is it's inevitable there will be a fair deal of blame shifting over the coming months....or years (:(). It's what any large corporate business would do.
Talking of possible lax security, you only have to look at how America reacted post 9/11 to criticism about their airport security.
As for the ease of disabling the system, isn't it the case that the crew need to be able to pull the plug on any system in case of fire etc.?
That has been mentioned but i'd like to think in that kind of scenario there would be some communication sent out to inform whoever it concerned so they would know the reason for disabling.
Being a bit of a cynic, I can't help but wonder who will be most likely to baulk at the idea of incorporating more sophisticated (and expensive!) tracking systems on aircraft ... the manufacturers or the airlines?
I've already placed my bet! ;-)
Inmarsat said they already have the technology available and the cost would be minimal.....a few dollars. I can't remember the exact detail now.
And yes, they have said that communications throughout all flights could be provided for a few dollars per flight (either $1 or $5 I forget which); it wouldn't even add to fare costs and is already done across the North Atlantic. Also, "Inmarsat equipment is now standard fit on most current-production airliners"
There would of course remain the matter of how to stop it being disabled or what to do if it is. I would suggest that as flight paths are filed in advance, an automatic alarm should sound at the current and next en-route air traffic control centres monitoring a flight, if location information stops being received during a flight. There should then be a procedure for what to do next in various situations, usually requiring an immediate response.
What i meant is it's inevitable there will be a fair deal of blame shifting over the coming months....or years (:(). It's what any large corporate business would do.
Talking of possible lax security, you only have to look at how America reacted post 9/11 to criticism about their airport security.
That has been mentioned but i'd like to think in that kind of scenario there would be some communication sent out to inform whoever it concerned so they would know the reason for disabling.
Inmarsat said they already have the technology available and the cost would be minimal.....a few dollars. I can't remember the exact detail now.
There's almost bound to be finger-pointing, but until we know what happened, it's not exactly a smart thing to do! Things have a nasty habit of coming back and biting people on the nether regions!
There are going to be lessons learned from this event, even if we never know what actually happened. I don't think anyone outside the aviation industry (and a fair few inside!) can understand why, when the technology is available, tracking systems aren't already fitted to aircraft. However, have the airlines been lobbying for it? Have any approached INMARSAT to find out if it could be fitted to their aircraft? Obviously I don't know, but I somehow doubt it! (There I am, being cynical again! )
The point is (and I'm playing devil's advocate; not just blindly defending Boeing), Malaysia Airlines chose to fly 777's. They would have had all the specs, they could have asked as many questions as they wanted, they could have done a full hazard analysis involving worst case scenarios, and I'm pretty sure they could have chosen to upgrade or have higher spec components fitted. I wonder if they did ... or if they perhaps went for the most "financially beneficial" package?
It may be Boeing's fault, but we don't know.
The ex PM said ... "MAS is not at fault, lax security or not."
However, have the airlines been lobbying for it? Have any approached INMARSAT to find out if it could be fitted to their aircraft? Obviously I don't know, but I somehow doubt it! (There I am, being cynical again! )
It's already fitted as standard to most current-production airliners (see my previous post) and is in use by some airlines. It's well-known technology in the passenger airline business, they all know about it. But until it's made compulsory by ICAO or some similar International body, some Countries and airlines just won't be arsed to bother.
It's already fitted as standard to most current-production airliners (see my previous post) and is in use by some airlines. It's well-known technology in the passenger airline business, they all know about it. But until it's made compulsary by IATA or some similar International body, some airlines just won't be arsed to bother.
Sorry d'@ve ... missed your post, but cheers for the info! :cool:
If it's available and in use by other airlines, but Malaysia Airlines didn't upgrade their fleet, it makes even less sense for the PM to slip into finger-pointing mode!
It's already fitted as standard to most current-production airliners (see my previous post) and is in use by some airlines. It's well-known technology in the passenger airline business, they all know about it. But until it's made compulsory by ICAO or some similar International body, some Countries and airlines just won't be arsed to bother.
BIB is the key answer. Unfortunately typical throughout industry as a whole (not only the aircraft industry and airline business). All too often it's legislation which forces these changes and until then, they don't bother. In certain cases of course it ends up costing silly money because a company has dallied around and delayed upgrading until the final hour.
As an example, where i used to work we had our own on-site Foundry for Brass and Gilding metal. The furnaces were open and on each pour the smoke just billowed out up a huge extractor vent in the roof. Great for the environment as you can imagine! Even people who lived in the town a few miles away would grumble about the 'white powdery dust' on their freshly cleaned car! (It was from the zinc).
The Factory knew eventually they would have to install a "scrub" system which filtered all the crap from the smoke, but delayed having it installed literally until the final hour when they were forced to.
It ended up costing almost £1 million to have a Filtration plant fitted.
BIB is the key answer. Unfortunately typical throughout industry as a whole (not only the aircraft industry and airline business). All too often it's legislation which forces these changes and until then, they don't bother. In certain cases of course it ends up costing silly money because a company has dallied around and delayed upgrading until the final hour.
The biggest problem is that all this dilly-dallying at International, National and Company levels costs lives. Not to mention problems arising from feeble or absent enforcement, something that may or may not apply to MH 370.
But it does seem to apply to the Korean ferry tragedy from what's being reported about its sister ship - owned by the same company (a failure to apply or enforce International, National and even its own safety standards).
The biggest problem is that all this dilly-dallying at International, National and Company levels costs lives. Not to mention problems arising from feeble or absent enforcement, something that may or may not apply to MH 370.
But it does seem to apply to the Korean ferry tragedy from what's being reported about its sister ship - owned by the same company (a failure to apply or enforce International, National and even its own safety standards).
Very true. What price does an airline put on someones head for the sake of a few measly dollars? Not checked out the latest on the Korean ferry business but if what you say is the case then that's not looking good for the owners.
Comments
It is ridiculous, as for the SK relatives, a terrible situation but them hiring a boat and going out to the ferry was actually hindering operations at the time.
No one likes to wait for bad news but you have to let people get on with their jobs .
The current search area surrounds the strongest set of pings, the next search area surrounds the longest set of pings - but may be much deeper (Echo seems to have surveyed that area so they will know).
The official announcement will be interesting as CNN do not say when the new search will commence (there could be a gap to let Ocean Shield visit port).
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/25/missing-malaysia-airline-flight-mh370-take-years-warning
Well as they appear to have only searched one of the 4 ping areas so far, maybe not! (see above).
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:109.0938/centery:-26.51685/zoom:8/oldmmsi:232002894/olddate:lastknown
If you open up MT as a fresh page.....Echo isn't anywhere to be seen!
If the search is definitely heading further down south then my concern is just how close are they to the vicinity of the Diamantina Deep? I suspect not so far off.
Isn't the Diamantina Deep (the deepest part of the Diamantina Trench) off the south-west corner of Australia ... almost due west of Albany? That's the best part of a thousand miles south of the current underwater search area.
Sorry but I wasn't clear. The four ping areas I (and CNN) mentioned are spread over a 30Km broad area near where Ocean Shield is now, they aren't talking about heading down south towards the Chinese pings, yet. It's only a 20Km diameter circle they've been searching with Bluefin-21, centred on the 2nd ping IIRC, which is somewhere in the middle of the four. Here are the 4 pings: http://www.jacc.gov.au/media/releases/2014/april/mr_014-2.jpg
CNN were saying that the 2nd ping was chosen probably because it was the strongest of the four sets of pings, though not the longest set. It is also not in the deepest area but that may be where they are headed next, a few miles further north where the longest pings were heard. Whether or not Bluefin-21 can go deep enough to do that remains to be seen but they were speculating that in any case, Ocean Shield may be overdue for a visit to port by now anyway.
In an update, they say 95% of the current search area is now complete and the job will be finished this weekend. They will have to do another 2 or 3 similar sets of searches to fully cover all the area of the four pings. My money is on the northern pings, judging by the direction the ship was headed (south) when the pings #1 faded but it may be very deep around there.
Hey, one of the CNN experts just mentioned HMS Echo and his hope that Echo made a good map of the area which would help them to decide where to search next and what to use for their search!
Some people should know when to shut up, talk about trying to shift the blame.
This sums it up for me ... "MAS is not at fault, lax security or not."
So, if there was lax security, it was Boeing's fault?
I wonder if he thinks the JFK assassination was the Lincoln Motor Company's fault?
Just another in an ever-growing list of list of people who claim they "know" the cause of the disappearance. <rolls eyes>
Actually to some degree he does have a point. Its very easy to disable those systems by the looks of it and its also amazing that in this day there is no way to track a plane that's lost these systems.
Also someone on here commented a while back that the 777's coms systems/computers are located in a single place - what if it was damaged or a fire broke out in those systems- everything would go out.
It's one thing to question how the entire system could fail or be disabled, but the ex-prime minister is blaming Boeing for what happened.
"Who is responsible? Not MAS but certainly the makers of the plane – Boeing Aircraft Corporation"
Does he know it was a systems failure?
If the systems were disabled, someone had to do it. That would suggest one of the flight crew (Malaysian Airlines employees) or someone else gaining entry to the flight deck (Malaysian Airlines being responsible for in-flight security). Of course, the crew might have disabled the whole system as a result of a failure (such a as a fire), but we don't know that. Does he?
I can understand him defending MAS against people claiming that it must have been Malaysian Airlines fault, but to put the blame on Boeing is no better.
Though i think some of his statements were somewhat OTT and extreme, i certainly agree with this;
I think we will see some changes in avionics post MH370.
Not sure about "damage limitation" as he's pretty much opening up the Malaysian authorities to even more criticism, and he's going to look like one almighty dick if it turns out it was lax security, or if Maylasian Airlines employees were directly involved!
The prudent thing to do is avoid finger-pointing if you can't be 100% sure the finger won't finally point at you!
As for the ease of disabling the system, isn't it the case that the crew need to be able to pull the plug on any system in case of fire etc.?
Being a bit of a cynic, I can't help but wonder who will be most likely to baulk at the idea of incorporating more sophisticated (and expensive!) tracking systems on aircraft ... the manufacturers or the airlines?
I've already placed my bet! ;-)
Woohoo! :cool:
I have a sneaking suspicion this might be her ...
http://www.fremantleports.com.au/Operations/Harbourcams/Pages/Harbourcam10.aspx
Can anyone confirm ... or do we need to wait for daylight?
P.S. "View 11: Ferry Terminal" towards the bottom of the menu on the left-hand side of the page gives another view from slightly farther away.
P.P.S. List of cams in the area ...
http://www.fremantleports.com.au/Operations/Harbourcams/Pages/default.aspx
Oh........hang on a minute. Planes do that as well.
What i meant is it's inevitable there will be a fair deal of blame shifting over the coming months....or years (:(). It's what any large corporate business would do.
Talking of possible lax security, you only have to look at how America reacted post 9/11 to criticism about their airport security.
That has been mentioned but i'd like to think in that kind of scenario there would be some communication sent out to inform whoever it concerned so they would know the reason for disabling.
Inmarsat said they already have the technology available and the cost would be minimal.....a few dollars. I can't remember the exact detail now.
Inmarsat Passenger communications
Inmarsat Operational communications
Inmarsat Safety communications
And yes, they have said that communications throughout all flights could be provided for a few dollars per flight (either $1 or $5 I forget which); it wouldn't even add to fare costs and is already done across the North Atlantic. Also, "Inmarsat equipment is now standard fit on most current-production airliners"
There would of course remain the matter of how to stop it being disabled or what to do if it is. I would suggest that as flight paths are filed in advance, an automatic alarm should sound at the current and next en-route air traffic control centres monitoring a flight, if location information stops being received during a flight. There should then be a procedure for what to do next in various situations, usually requiring an immediate response.
There's almost bound to be finger-pointing, but until we know what happened, it's not exactly a smart thing to do! Things have a nasty habit of coming back and biting people on the nether regions!
There are going to be lessons learned from this event, even if we never know what actually happened. I don't think anyone outside the aviation industry (and a fair few inside!) can understand why, when the technology is available, tracking systems aren't already fitted to aircraft. However, have the airlines been lobbying for it? Have any approached INMARSAT to find out if it could be fitted to their aircraft? Obviously I don't know, but I somehow doubt it! (There I am, being cynical again!
The point is (and I'm playing devil's advocate; not just blindly defending Boeing), Malaysia Airlines chose to fly 777's. They would have had all the specs, they could have asked as many questions as they wanted, they could have done a full hazard analysis involving worst case scenarios, and I'm pretty sure they could have chosen to upgrade or have higher spec components fitted. I wonder if they did ... or if they perhaps went for the most "financially beneficial" package?
It may be Boeing's fault, but we don't know.
The ex PM said ... "MAS is not at fault, lax security or not."
if Boeing came out now and said ...
"Boeing is not at fault, design flaws or not."
... I'd be equally critical. ;-)
It's already fitted as standard to most current-production airliners (see my previous post) and is in use by some airlines. It's well-known technology in the passenger airline business, they all know about it. But until it's made compulsory by ICAO or some similar International body, some Countries and airlines just won't be arsed to bother.
Sorry d'@ve ... missed your post, but cheers for the info! :cool:
If it's available and in use by other airlines, but Malaysia Airlines didn't upgrade their fleet, it makes even less sense for the PM to slip into finger-pointing mode!
As an example, where i used to work we had our own on-site Foundry for Brass and Gilding metal. The furnaces were open and on each pour the smoke just billowed out up a huge extractor vent in the roof. Great for the environment as you can imagine! Even people who lived in the town a few miles away would grumble about the 'white powdery dust' on their freshly cleaned car! (It was from the zinc).
The Factory knew eventually they would have to install a "scrub" system which filtered all the crap from the smoke, but delayed having it installed literally until the final hour when they were forced to.
It ended up costing almost £1 million to have a Filtration plant fitted.
The biggest problem is that all this dilly-dallying at International, National and Company levels costs lives. Not to mention problems arising from feeble or absent enforcement, something that may or may not apply to MH 370.
But it does seem to apply to the Korean ferry tragedy from what's being reported about its sister ship - owned by the same company (a failure to apply or enforce International, National and even its own safety standards).
As well as losing track of Echo, I also lost Cesar Chavez for a couple of days. Just found her hiding in Albany!