Don't know how, they ran out of space on their rock, I mean calendar, a long time ago. I guess it's easier for us today, just call Franklin Covey for a refill and BOOM, another year appears.
I don't know where you camp in you urban back yard or something? I've seen meteor showers first hand and they do happen, often when the astronomers predict them. But I also go to places which are far from urban lights to see them and you have to understand what a meteor shower looks like. It's not hundreds of shooting stars like a fireworks display but one every so often. Sometimes it takes a bit of trying to see them because you have to wait for your night vision to return, and then it can take time to actually observe much.
Ah, the memories of my childhood out on the farm. We would go out in the field, lay on our back and watch such events sometimes. Good times..
Who would really want a plane anyhow. Unless it's among some of the concepts like "repaint and fly into building", I think that the passengers might be more useful as hostages for ransom or some other such thing.
I think we've seen proof that this "Fly into Building" idea really doesn't require the "Repaint" trouble. Who can tell what the paint job is at 10 miles and how would you park it someplace where the paint mattered? Just load them up with fuel and they will do plenty of damage. So I agree, steeling a large commercial airplane is pretty much a non-starter as far as reasonable plans go, it's just way too much trouble.
My point again. There was at least one person alive that knew how to fly the airplane that made the course corrections to avoid radar.
You don't avoid radar if you are under duress of a hijacking or looking for an airport to land at because of fire. You are avoiding radar because you don't want to be found. Then again, (as the parent states and the grandparent see differently) maybe the pilot was taking the plane to Africa to sell for parts, and the two people aboard had nothing to do with it.
It will still be found off the coast of Africa because it ran out of fuel.
I don't think so. The change of heading could have been planned. The south heading would be similar to both the emergency destination runway's heading and their departing runway heading. Landing large aircraft takes advanced planning and a pilot who was planning to make an emergency landing would be planning for it. You want to land on a long runway, into the wind, and in an emergency you don't want to waste time, so you are going to be planning your flight path, so it's not unusual to get all that punched into the flight director. It could have been that they where planning two way-points or that they knew that from their last way-point the airport/runway would be on a south heading so that's what they set up.
Remember, these guys where professionals. These guys do this stuff in their sleep, the Captain apparently did it for fun when off duty. They knew that their best chance was to get on the ground ASAP and that as they approached their intended destination, things would get very busy. To do this safely it requires a plan and then when things get busy you follow the plan by loading it into the automation as far in advance as you can.
Not to mention that there is zero chance that they'd make it more than halfway from their last known comms point to Africa on the fuel they had left. They might have made southern India... But I measured the distances, the tanks run dry almost exactly halfway to your destination. No knowledgeable person would have attempted that if they intended to snatch the aircraft. But, SURPRISE, the search area North West of Perth is almost exactly the distance where I figure the fuel runs out on the southern heading....
I think that is the more likely scenario, but in that case the plane flies on its last known heading from radar and doesn't turn south.
The south turn is explained by the pilots entering 2 way-points, one that sends them towards their intended destination but not directly there, but to an approach fix to the north of their destination. The second point was designed to to send them closer to the airport on a heading similar to the runway's heading. This is standard pilot stuff that most people don't immediately think about, but you don't want to just head to the airport, you need to get yourself positioned so that you can approach the runway, headed into the wind, on a heading that is similar to the runway's at an altitude that allows you a controlled descent at a reasonable rate. This is easy for light aircraft because they don't go very fast, but it still takes planning. For large heavy aircraft it takes a lot more advance planning.
So that explains the turn to the south... But it could be simpler than that. I'm not exactly sure how the flight director in this aircraft works, but it may be that it has a heading hold option. When they departed, they left to the south on runway heading so I'd bet they had used the heading hold. Then when they get the "Cleared to fix then proceed as filed" instruction, they just call up their flight plan and hit go. When the director runs out of way-points, it might just revert to the heading hold, which would be set to the departure runway heading. I think this heading puts them squarely in the current search area NW of Perth when they run out of fuel.
Citation please? There IS fraud in US elections, no question about that, but not enough to call them "rigged". (And I'm a right wing type who's side has been loosing elections a lot lately.)
Interesting theory, but Occum's razor says (and I paraphrase) "The simple answer is preferred until the more complex one is proven."
An in flight fire in the forward avionics bay makes a lot less assumptions than your theory.
IMHO, the most likely, less complex scenario is as follows...
1. In flight fire, forward avionics bay (under the pilot's seats), Forward galley, forward cargo bay, started for some reason (tire fire, electrical fault, etc) Such events are not unheard of.
2. Emergency procedures are "Fly the plane, Navigate, Communicate" (in that order). So the pilots did the following tasks, in this order:
a. Pull all the breakers they could in hopes of stopping the fire, disabling the radios and transponder.
b. Turn towards the nearest suitable landing location by punching in two way-points in to the flight director.
c. Gain altitude if the fire is not going out, to try and starve it of O2.
3. At this point, I assume they lost control of the cabin altitude or where driven from their seats by smoke/flames or where disabled by fumes. There is only about 20 min of supplemental O2 for passengers, slightly more for crew. Everybody was unconscious in about half an hour and dead within two if the cabin altitude went too high, or everybody died from smoke inhalation as the fire/smoke spread.
4. The plane files on the flight director's last instructions, passes though/over the two way-points then just flies on unguided until the fuel was exhausted,
5. When the engines stop, the plane descends into the water and sinks relatively in tact.
This is simple, straight forward, and matches what we know. The only assumption being made is the in flight fire and the damage it caused leading to the disabling of the passengers/crew. Everything else is either standard procedure, or based on how the aircraft's systems function.
Can you blame people for seeking alternative answers? Keep in mind, the agencies discrediting this company were the same agencies that didn't think it necessary to put a simple satellite GPS transponder on jets to keep track of where their quarter of a billion dollar plane is or put about $100 worth of batteries in their blackbox so it would ping for more than a few weeks. This entire mystery wouldn't exist if they'd spent an extra $1000 on a $261 million dollar piece of equipment. It's hard to discredit an idiot when you yourself are an idiot.
It's actually worse than that. ALL the stuff you need (except for the extra batteries for the black boxes) was already on the aircraft. The only thing they needed was to pay the $15K/year subscription fees so they could get the maintenance data from the aircraft in flight, anywhere in the world.
Not always...If the transmission isn't under torque, like when the clutch is disengaged or the engine isn't pushing or puling, it will easily shift if the gears are spinning. I used to drive my VW Bug w/o having to use the clutch except when starting out from a full stop. Once you are rolling, shifting w/o a clutch is easy, albeit a bit rough on the transmission if your technique isn't pretty good. Under acceleration you just take your foot off the gas, gently pull it out of gear as the torque reaches zero, then gently push it towards the next gear until the engine RPM drops to match your speed and it just slips in. If you shift at the wrong time, or force it, bad things happen, but for the most part the clutch is optional. You are just trading clutch wear for a bit of more wear of the syncros.
That is only true for some makes/models. Yes, I've owned cars that where easy to program if you had two keys it already knew. But I currently own two cars that require the manufacturer tool to program any new keys, regardless of how many working keys you have. (08 Honda Accord, 08 Nissan Quest).
Some Nissans have the parking brake foot operated. The mid 90-s Cefiro did. Makes for easy hand brake turns, you just hold the release lever up with your hand and then you have full control over the rear-wheel-only parking brake with your foot.
Well, If it takes a hand and a foot, I think I'll stick with the hand brake arrangement because it frees up that foot... Unless you can only steer with your right hand (in the US). Now, if you could free up the hand by disabling the emergency brake lock.......
I never claimed the automation didn't help safety or should be omitted. I said people should be trained a bit more about how a car works as part of driver training.
One way to do that is to break out the manual transmission and learn how to stop on hills. They should be taken out to skid tracks and learn how a car handles on slick surfaces too. A few induced skids and recoveries would go far, as would knowing how ABS feels when it's working. Why? Because the drivers that know how to recognize the performance limits of what they are driving and what to do when they exceeded these limits are the safest. All the automation in the world can't help you once you have the wheels skidding, but there just MIGHT be lots of options left that could avoid an accident.
Personally, I learned how to drive in a 56 Chevy Pickup truck in the fields and learned what sliding sideways was and how to control it when out feeding the cows in the snowy winter fields. This experience has saved me from accidents more than once and gave me the skills to be out safely driving when the other loonies where stuck in their driveways.
They are not investigating Bitcoin as a threat.They are investigating how crypto-currencies can be used to finance terrorism. The editors need to be fired.
How about we just dock their pay... Oh, right... On Slashdot these things are contributed by people who don't get paid...
Slashdot Mirror
LOL
Yea, I think you really cleaned up on that.....
Just remember Jo, "Nothing can hold a can to Comet!"
Don't know how, they ran out of space on their rock, I mean calendar, a long time ago. I guess it's easier for us today, just call Franklin Covey for a refill and BOOM, another year appears.
I don't know where you camp in you urban back yard or something? I've seen meteor showers first hand and they do happen, often when the astronomers predict them. But I also go to places which are far from urban lights to see them and you have to understand what a meteor shower looks like. It's not hundreds of shooting stars like a fireworks display but one every so often. Sometimes it takes a bit of trying to see them because you have to wait for your night vision to return, and then it can take time to actually observe much.
Ah, the memories of my childhood out on the farm. We would go out in the field, lay on our back and watch such events sometimes. Good times..
Who would really want a plane anyhow. Unless it's among some of the concepts like "repaint and fly into building", I think that the passengers might be more useful as hostages for ransom or some other such thing.
I think we've seen proof that this "Fly into Building" idea really doesn't require the "Repaint" trouble. Who can tell what the paint job is at 10 miles and how would you park it someplace where the paint mattered? Just load them up with fuel and they will do plenty of damage. So I agree, steeling a large commercial airplane is pretty much a non-starter as far as reasonable plans go, it's just way too much trouble.
My point again. There was at least one person alive that knew how to fly the airplane that made the course corrections to avoid radar. You don't avoid radar if you are under duress of a hijacking or looking for an airport to land at because of fire. You are avoiding radar because you don't want to be found. Then again, (as the parent states and the grandparent see differently) maybe the pilot was taking the plane to Africa to sell for parts, and the two people aboard had nothing to do with it. It will still be found off the coast of Africa because it ran out of fuel.
I don't think so. The change of heading could have been planned. The south heading would be similar to both the emergency destination runway's heading and their departing runway heading. Landing large aircraft takes advanced planning and a pilot who was planning to make an emergency landing would be planning for it. You want to land on a long runway, into the wind, and in an emergency you don't want to waste time, so you are going to be planning your flight path, so it's not unusual to get all that punched into the flight director. It could have been that they where planning two way-points or that they knew that from their last way-point the airport/runway would be on a south heading so that's what they set up.
Remember, these guys where professionals. These guys do this stuff in their sleep, the Captain apparently did it for fun when off duty. They knew that their best chance was to get on the ground ASAP and that as they approached their intended destination, things would get very busy. To do this safely it requires a plan and then when things get busy you follow the plan by loading it into the automation as far in advance as you can.
Not to mention that there is zero chance that they'd make it more than halfway from their last known comms point to Africa on the fuel they had left. They might have made southern India... But I measured the distances, the tanks run dry almost exactly halfway to your destination. No knowledgeable person would have attempted that if they intended to snatch the aircraft. But, SURPRISE, the search area North West of Perth is almost exactly the distance where I figure the fuel runs out on the southern heading....
I think that is the more likely scenario, but in that case the plane flies on its last known heading from radar and doesn't turn south.
The south turn is explained by the pilots entering 2 way-points, one that sends them towards their intended destination but not directly there, but to an approach fix to the north of their destination. The second point was designed to to send them closer to the airport on a heading similar to the runway's heading. This is standard pilot stuff that most people don't immediately think about, but you don't want to just head to the airport, you need to get yourself positioned so that you can approach the runway, headed into the wind, on a heading that is similar to the runway's at an altitude that allows you a controlled descent at a reasonable rate. This is easy for light aircraft because they don't go very fast, but it still takes planning. For large heavy aircraft it takes a lot more advance planning.
So that explains the turn to the south... But it could be simpler than that. I'm not exactly sure how the flight director in this aircraft works, but it may be that it has a heading hold option. When they departed, they left to the south on runway heading so I'd bet they had used the heading hold. Then when they get the "Cleared to fix then proceed as filed" instruction, they just call up their flight plan and hit go. When the director runs out of way-points, it might just revert to the heading hold, which would be set to the departure runway heading. I think this heading puts them squarely in the current search area NW of Perth when they run out of fuel.
Or, one that I just came up with..... Wait for it....
Wait...
"Attack of the killer tomato.... "
I know you liked that one... I saw you simile...
Well, let's hope it doesn't crash and burn on launch...
Come to think of it.. Gives a whole new meaning to "Open Office" and "Blow the Doors off" of things.
I'm telling you it's that danged metro interface.... Even drones hate it.
Slapware? GenToBoom? Puppy - Attack Dogfight version?
Just init.tab entries.. RunLevel 1 = take off, 2 is cruse, 3 is crash (not that kind...)
Android is NEXT!!!! Buhaahaaa.....
Citation please? There IS fraud in US elections, no question about that, but not enough to call them "rigged". (And I'm a right wing type who's side has been loosing elections a lot lately.)
Figures never lie, but lairs figure..
Given how many lies and half-truths have been circulated by the press
Ahh... Just stop there and you got it...
Interesting theory, but Occum's razor says (and I paraphrase) "The simple answer is preferred until the more complex one is proven."
An in flight fire in the forward avionics bay makes a lot less assumptions than your theory.
IMHO, the most likely, less complex scenario is as follows...
1. In flight fire, forward avionics bay (under the pilot's seats), Forward galley, forward cargo bay, started for some reason (tire fire, electrical fault, etc) Such events are not unheard of.
2. Emergency procedures are "Fly the plane, Navigate, Communicate" (in that order). So the pilots did the following tasks, in this order:
a. Pull all the breakers they could in hopes of stopping the fire, disabling the radios and transponder.
b. Turn towards the nearest suitable landing location by punching in two way-points in to the flight director.
c. Gain altitude if the fire is not going out, to try and starve it of O2.
3. At this point, I assume they lost control of the cabin altitude or where driven from their seats by smoke/flames or where disabled by fumes. There is only about 20 min of supplemental O2 for passengers, slightly more for crew. Everybody was unconscious in about half an hour and dead within two if the cabin altitude went too high, or everybody died from smoke inhalation as the fire/smoke spread.
4. The plane files on the flight director's last instructions, passes though/over the two way-points then just flies on unguided until the fuel was exhausted,
5. When the engines stop, the plane descends into the water and sinks relatively in tact.
This is simple, straight forward, and matches what we know. The only assumption being made is the in flight fire and the damage it caused leading to the disabling of the passengers/crew. Everything else is either standard procedure, or based on how the aircraft's systems function.
Can you blame people for seeking alternative answers? Keep in mind, the agencies discrediting this company were the same agencies that didn't think it necessary to put a simple satellite GPS transponder on jets to keep track of where their quarter of a billion dollar plane is or put about $100 worth of batteries in their blackbox so it would ping for more than a few weeks. This entire mystery wouldn't exist if they'd spent an extra $1000 on a $261 million dollar piece of equipment. It's hard to discredit an idiot when you yourself are an idiot.
It's actually worse than that. ALL the stuff you need (except for the extra batteries for the black boxes) was already on the aircraft. The only thing they needed was to pay the $15K/year subscription fees so they could get the maintenance data from the aircraft in flight, anywhere in the world.
Where is WALDO?
Strapped into his seat.... The question is really "Where is Waldo's seat?"
Not always...If the transmission isn't under torque, like when the clutch is disengaged or the engine isn't pushing or puling, it will easily shift if the gears are spinning. I used to drive my VW Bug w/o having to use the clutch except when starting out from a full stop. Once you are rolling, shifting w/o a clutch is easy, albeit a bit rough on the transmission if your technique isn't pretty good. Under acceleration you just take your foot off the gas, gently pull it out of gear as the torque reaches zero, then gently push it towards the next gear until the engine RPM drops to match your speed and it just slips in. If you shift at the wrong time, or force it, bad things happen, but for the most part the clutch is optional. You are just trading clutch wear for a bit of more wear of the syncros.
That is only true for some makes/models. Yes, I've owned cars that where easy to program if you had two keys it already knew. But I currently own two cars that require the manufacturer tool to program any new keys, regardless of how many working keys you have. (08 Honda Accord, 08 Nissan Quest).
You forgot the floor mounted high beam switch, junior.
Did you read the post there Senior?
5? Gas, Brakes, clutch, headlights and then what? Starter?
Some Nissans have the parking brake foot operated. The mid 90-s Cefiro did. Makes for easy hand brake turns, you just hold the release lever up with your hand and then you have full control over the rear-wheel-only parking brake with your foot.
Well, If it takes a hand and a foot, I think I'll stick with the hand brake arrangement because it frees up that foot... Unless you can only steer with your right hand (in the US). Now, if you could free up the hand by disabling the emergency brake lock.......
On Slashdot these things are contributed by people who don't get paid...
i think you meant "can't get paid".
LOL.. I like that one.. Thanks I needed the laugh.
I never claimed the automation didn't help safety or should be omitted. I said people should be trained a bit more about how a car works as part of driver training.
One way to do that is to break out the manual transmission and learn how to stop on hills. They should be taken out to skid tracks and learn how a car handles on slick surfaces too. A few induced skids and recoveries would go far, as would knowing how ABS feels when it's working. Why? Because the drivers that know how to recognize the performance limits of what they are driving and what to do when they exceeded these limits are the safest. All the automation in the world can't help you once you have the wheels skidding, but there just MIGHT be lots of options left that could avoid an accident.
Personally, I learned how to drive in a 56 Chevy Pickup truck in the fields and learned what sliding sideways was and how to control it when out feeding the cows in the snowy winter fields. This experience has saved me from accidents more than once and gave me the skills to be out safely driving when the other loonies where stuck in their driveways.
They are not investigating Bitcoin as a threat.They are investigating how crypto-currencies can be used to finance terrorism. The editors need to be fired.
How about we just dock their pay... Oh, right... On Slashdot these things are contributed by people who don't get paid...