'Contact lost' with Malaysia Airlines plane

Ok, so reading that post and googling the 'T3212' setting.. The summary is that there is a small timeframe, almost a buffer, between a phone going offline, and when you would receive the no dial tone/voicemail/phone off.

So for instance if this is set to 30 secs. Then 10secs after the phone is off, and a phone call is placed to it, it will still ring.

However, just to test this, I just phoned my mobile from a landline and mid ringing i pulled the sim card out, almost instantly the landline stopped ringing and hung up.

I then, phoned the mobile to make sure it was 'active' as per the T3212. Hung up. Then pulled the sim card and instantly phoned it from the landline. With less than 5 seconds delay, it still did not ring and gave me the tone that the phone was off/voicemail.

So, although I accept this may be different for different networks, theres facts here that make me find it hard to believe still.
 
Suarez7 said:
Well that really wouldn't give a good location at sea would it as the masts are on land?
Click to expand...

But it would tell you if the phone was actually on in the right location. That would rule out network problems or the simple fact someone left their phone at home.

Just pointing out how it actually works! :p

Actually they can be more accurate if the phone jumps between masts, then they can start triangulating where the phone is.
 
Suarez7 said:
Well that really wouldn't give a good location at sea would it as the masts are on land?
Click to expand...

But it would narrow down the search... you find the mast that is connecting to the phone, look at the longest range that it has and look within that area
 
If it went down in the sea then max distance from land would be about 2-3 miles off coast, underwater and out to sea anything more than that wouldn't get reception. It is entirely feasible that the plane went down either land or water and some phones survived atleast for awhile. I'd find it odd if there wasn't atleast one phone on the flight that was leaving a GPS trail also.

As to the "went into space" lol (assuming people aren't trolling)... theres some small issues there with lift and escape velocity that make that impossible.
 
shadow_boxer said:
Quote:

Originally Posted by neodude

Oh dear.... right back at ya.

Sorry, but that's just incorrect. Like I said, the vast majority of landings are carried out manually. In fact Autoland is rarely used outside minimal visibility conditions except for pilot training and currency.

There are a number of conditions on the airfield that must be met in order for an Autoland to be carried out including protection of the ILS signal and having backup generators running. Obviously having these procedures in place slows the operation down and makes it more complicated. Hence the reason why autoland isn't used unless it is required (Low Vis Procedures)

Correct.
Click to expand...

I second that.
Only in very low vis is auto land used, most pilots prefer to just divert to another airport if possible than use it


Posted from Overclockers.co.uk App for Android
 
ThundyCat said:
If the plane lost allot of altitude in a short amount of time would that cause it to disappear of radar?
Click to expand...

No, not unless it descended below radar cover. The further you travel from the radar head, the higher the base of cover is. Radar cover out at sea (>100nm off shore) is practically non existent anyway. Some ANSPs rely on ADS-B for surveillance in areas of sparse radar cover but I'm not sure if they use it in that part of the world.
 
Scuzi said:
No, not unless it descended below radar cover. The further you travel from the radar head, the higher the base of cover is. Radar cover out at sea (>100nm off shore) is practically non existent anyway. Some ANSPs rely on ADS-B for surveillance in areas of sparse radar cover but I'm not sure if they use it in that part of the world.
Click to expand...

What altitude would you need to be at to be below radar cover?
 
ThundyCat said:
What altitude would you need to be at to be below radar cover?
Click to expand...

Depends entirely on the radar configuration and distance from the head. At 20miles from the head, the base of reliable cover might be something like 500ft. At 100miles it could be anything from 5,000 to 10,000ft if the range even extends that far. There are so many variables and those numbers are based on a lot of assumptions!

Either way, for a B777 in the cruise, base of radar coverage should never be a problem.
 
Scuzi said:
Depends entirely on the radar configuration and distance from the head. At 20miles from the head, the base of reliable cover might be something like 500ft. At 100miles it could be anything from 5,000 to 10,000ft if the range even extends that far. There are so many variables and those numbers are based on a lot of assumptions!
Click to expand...

I find it strange that they've still not discovered any debris.

Say the plane had been hijacked....and this is purely speculation......would it be possible to fly a passenger plane below radar and land at a secret location.

Or have I watched too many films.:o
 
I don't find it that strange its a huge area, they travel fast, they have a long glide slope(in other words it could be 100s of miles from where they think). And its a small amount of debris in a huge ocean, especially if lots of it has sunk.
 
ThundyCat said:
I find it strange that they've still not discovered any debris.

Say the plane had been hijacked....and this is purely speculation......would it be possible to fly a passenger plane below radar and land at a secret location.

Or have I watched too many films.:o
Click to expand...

Entirely possible to do so out at sea, however there aren't many runways out at sea or on remote islands capable of taking a B777. I'm sure there are some possibilities but they'd likely have some associated radar cover unless it was an offshore abandoned military strip on a remote island.
 
Glaucus said:
I don't find it that strange its a huge area, they travel fast, they have a long glide slope(in other words it could be 100s of miles from where they think). And its a small amount of debris in a huge ocean, especially if lots of it has sunk.
Click to expand...

Some people seem to think that finding the debris should be as easy as finding your car in Tesco's car park.
 
rubberduck said:
Some people seem to think that finding the debris should be as easy as finding your car in Tesco's car park.
Click to expand...


i think that's down to the fact that there are boats / planes along with satellite imaging involved with the search and still not a sniff...
 
neodude said:
That's just crap tbh. The vast majority of landings are carried out manually.
Click to expand...

A little anecdote from about 3 years ago coming back from Egypt.
The Co-Pilot had been taken ill and they couldn't depart until there was a substitute and eventually we took off two hours later.
On arrival at Manchester the Pilot apologised about the delay and then said "After all that waiting the plane took off itself, flew itself and landed itself".
He could have been fibbing though.
 
Glaucus said:
I don't find it that strange its a huge area, they travel fast, they have a long glide slope(in other words it could be 100s of miles from where they think). And its a small amount of debris in a huge ocean, especially if lots of it has sunk.
Click to expand...

And nobody has mentioned how long it took to find The Titanic yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom