Malaysia Airlines Says It Lost Contact With Plane Carrying Over 200(mobile.nytimes.com)
mobile.nytimes.com
Malaysia Airlines Says It Lost Contact With Plane Carrying Over 200
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-says-plane-with-over-200-aboard-is-missing.html?referrer=
23 comments
Well that is good to know, the Air France jet took a long time to find because there was no radar information about where it went down. Large jets actually crashing feels very jarring these days to me, whereas 20 years ago it seemed much more common of an occurrence. Could just be a form of survivor bias though.
You realize a bunch of people died in this right?
Yes I do, and I lost a good friend to a plane accident. We knew they were likely gone and that was painful and sad, but the lack of closure until we knew what had happened was even worse. I hope you never have to experience that lack of knowing, wondering if there was anything could have been done, wondering who to be mad at, wondering how something so tragic could happen to someone for no reason.
Having any information about their last minutes, where they might be, is a "good thing" relative to the over all "bad thing" that happened.
Having any information about their last minutes, where they might be, is a "good thing" relative to the over all "bad thing" that happened.
[deleted]
Maybe it's late, but ChuckMcM didn't say anything that strikes me as degrading or otherwise disregarding the plight of those who died in today's accident. I suspect you may have misread; if so, that's perfectly fine--events like this strike at the very heart of our society in this connected world, and it's reasonable to express emotions to such an effect.
I just want to remind you that the observation he made was simply a matter of pointing out that, as aircraft safety records have improved, the accidents that do happen seem so startling because of their rarity. And really, it's quite true. Modern aircraft are technological marvels, and it's difficult to think of one simply falling out of the sky. Granted, structural failure, controlled flight into terrain, loss of instruments or instrumentation (as in AF447 where instruments were deprived of important information due to icing), disoriented pilots, and any number of other things conspiring against what is otherwise a very safe method of travel. Hence the shock.
The reality of the situation is well captured by kunai's comment. We can only learn to further improve the airline industry through such accidents. It's a tragedy of limitation and of our inability to see into the future.
But, when you stop to think about it, what better way to honor the dead than to make sure whatever accident claimed their lives never happens again? That's why this is important.
I just want to remind you that the observation he made was simply a matter of pointing out that, as aircraft safety records have improved, the accidents that do happen seem so startling because of their rarity. And really, it's quite true. Modern aircraft are technological marvels, and it's difficult to think of one simply falling out of the sky. Granted, structural failure, controlled flight into terrain, loss of instruments or instrumentation (as in AF447 where instruments were deprived of important information due to icing), disoriented pilots, and any number of other things conspiring against what is otherwise a very safe method of travel. Hence the shock.
The reality of the situation is well captured by kunai's comment. We can only learn to further improve the airline industry through such accidents. It's a tragedy of limitation and of our inability to see into the future.
But, when you stop to think about it, what better way to honor the dead than to make sure whatever accident claimed their lives never happens again? That's why this is important.
That's one sad thing about aircraft. It's very complex. Thousands of screws and if one goes missing the aircraft could fall apart at critical moment. I know someone who works as aircraft technician and he describes his job extremely challenging. For example, a pilot said he believed the airplane was hit by lightning but the engineers couldn't locate any lightning mark. Could they risk the chance? Spent an extra 15 minutes and they still couldn't find any. Till this day neither the pilot nor any engineer could confirm that a lightning hit the aircraft that day.
Every time I go on an airplane I would pray to get back on the ground safely. Everyone feels the fear when the airplane starts shaking or descending rapidly. Despite all the safety and escape plans, if an aircraft is doomed to crash/break apart/blow up, the chance of staying alive is so slim. And people on the airplane know they are about to die and that fear could last from a few seconds to a whole minute. That's a horrible way to die! I mean if you were on a bus and crashed on the high way, that's probably a few seconds. If you are lucky you could jump off the bus before the impact.
This might be off topic, but this is also the exact reason why terrorists like to hijack airplane (I don't want to raise a holy war on airport security here, just let me finish my thoughts here, please!). And you are right, we have to learn through accidents and that's unfortunate. We do that all the time. I count myself a lucky one because I am still alive. I hope I don't become the next victim. I hope this will not happen again.
Every time I go on an airplane I would pray to get back on the ground safely. Everyone feels the fear when the airplane starts shaking or descending rapidly. Despite all the safety and escape plans, if an aircraft is doomed to crash/break apart/blow up, the chance of staying alive is so slim. And people on the airplane know they are about to die and that fear could last from a few seconds to a whole minute. That's a horrible way to die! I mean if you were on a bus and crashed on the high way, that's probably a few seconds. If you are lucky you could jump off the bus before the impact.
This might be off topic, but this is also the exact reason why terrorists like to hijack airplane (I don't want to raise a holy war on airport security here, just let me finish my thoughts here, please!). And you are right, we have to learn through accidents and that's unfortunate. We do that all the time. I count myself a lucky one because I am still alive. I hope I don't become the next victim. I hope this will not happen again.
> Thousands of screws and if one goes missing the aircraft could fall apart at critical moment
This is not true. Sometimes aircraft have mechanical problems - pitot tubes icing over, for example. There
An aircraft is severely over engineered for its job. Commercial aircraft have landed with gaping holes in the fuselages, engines on fire, landing gear stuck shut. There are very, very few parts of the plane that are single points of failure.
Some people are understandably nervous flyers. People do get scared when an aircraft starts shaking, and that's natural, but what you should remember is that the aircraft is designed to shake. Pilot error is a far more common cause of accidents than mechanical failure.
Remember, you're far, far more likely to be injured or killed driving a car than taking a plane. It's one of - if not the - safest form of transport out there.
This is not true. Sometimes aircraft have mechanical problems - pitot tubes icing over, for example. There
An aircraft is severely over engineered for its job. Commercial aircraft have landed with gaping holes in the fuselages, engines on fire, landing gear stuck shut. There are very, very few parts of the plane that are single points of failure.
Some people are understandably nervous flyers. People do get scared when an aircraft starts shaking, and that's natural, but what you should remember is that the aircraft is designed to shake. Pilot error is a far more common cause of accidents than mechanical failure.
Remember, you're far, far more likely to be injured or killed driving a car than taking a plane. It's one of - if not the - safest form of transport out there.
I have to be clear that one screw could lead to a fatal crash. Mechanical failure and pilot errors are more common and I agree with you on that.
http://www.thelocal.fr/20111125/1869
This plane took off with 30 screws missing. But if it was under critical moment (extreme weather or mechanical failure), going with 30 screws could have a chain impact and eventually lead to a fatal crash.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/13/door-falls-off-plan...
This is another lucky incident at 1000 feet. Imagine this at critical moment and at 20k, 30k altitude! I would suppose some passengers would die if that happened.
Remember, you're far, far more likely to be injured or killed driving a car than taking a plane. It's one of - if not the - safest form of transport out there.
I think that's up to argument and depends on how one look at the issue. Is plan safer? There are more corners, more cars, more trains than aircraft combined at any given time. And the most important thing to consider is getting help. I have to press hard on this: if you are in the air, the chance of you surviving is low. Even on the ground after a serious car accident at a reasonable location, most patients could receive proper medical treatment within minutes. But when you are in the air? In the case of gunman I could try to escape on the ground but not really in the air.
http://www.thelocal.fr/20111125/1869
This plane took off with 30 screws missing. But if it was under critical moment (extreme weather or mechanical failure), going with 30 screws could have a chain impact and eventually lead to a fatal crash.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/13/door-falls-off-plan...
This is another lucky incident at 1000 feet. Imagine this at critical moment and at 20k, 30k altitude! I would suppose some passengers would die if that happened.
Remember, you're far, far more likely to be injured or killed driving a car than taking a plane. It's one of - if not the - safest form of transport out there.
I think that's up to argument and depends on how one look at the issue. Is plan safer? There are more corners, more cars, more trains than aircraft combined at any given time. And the most important thing to consider is getting help. I have to press hard on this: if you are in the air, the chance of you surviving is low. Even on the ground after a serious car accident at a reasonable location, most patients could receive proper medical treatment within minutes. But when you are in the air? In the case of gunman I could try to escape on the ground but not really in the air.
>There are more corners, more cars, more trains than aircraft combined at any given time. And the most important thing to consider is getting help. I have to press hard on this: if you are in the air, the chance of you surviving is low. Even on the ground after a serious car accident at a reasonable location, most patients could receive proper medical treatment within minutes.
You get it man. I've always found that statistical comparison with car accidents very lame and misguided. The sheer feeling of helplessness when you are in a plane, and think something is seriously wrong.
Read both your comments. My thoughts are very similar to yours in this matter. I am very afraid to fly. But of course its not always avoidable.
Due respect to the "technological marvels", but some times I wonder, why can't planes be designed in a way, that they are safe even if they fall. I have no freaking idea, how this can be done. Just a wish.
You get it man. I've always found that statistical comparison with car accidents very lame and misguided. The sheer feeling of helplessness when you are in a plane, and think something is seriously wrong.
Read both your comments. My thoughts are very similar to yours in this matter. I am very afraid to fly. But of course its not always avoidable.
Due respect to the "technological marvels", but some times I wonder, why can't planes be designed in a way, that they are safe even if they fall. I have no freaking idea, how this can be done. Just a wish.
> You get it man. I've always found that statistical comparison with car accidents very lame and misguided. The sheer feeling of helplessness when you are in a plane, and think something is seriously wrong.
No, you both don't get it. It's not debatable.
Lets start with the numbers in [1]. There is says that ~25% of the plane crashes are fatal. Also, since 1997 there's been no more than "1 [death] for every 2,000,000,000 person-miles". So let's (incorrectly) assume that all accidents were fatal, so the rate would be no more than 4 deaths for every 2billion miles/person, or 2 deaths per 1billion miles/person.
Now we look at [2] for car fatalities. Let's use the USA numbers: 8.5 deaths per 1 billion vehicle kms. This works out to 5.2 deaths per billion vehicle kms. A quick google search indicates that the average vehicle occupancy in the US is ~1.6 [3]. This turns our figure to 3.25 deaths per billion miles/person.
That is, even if we assume that all airplane accidents are fatal and we only count casualties from road accidents (completely disregarding the much higher number of injuries), it is roughly 50% riskier to use a car than a plane.
What do you find misguiding here?
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-re...
[3] http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2010_fotw...
No, you both don't get it. It's not debatable.
Lets start with the numbers in [1]. There is says that ~25% of the plane crashes are fatal. Also, since 1997 there's been no more than "1 [death] for every 2,000,000,000 person-miles". So let's (incorrectly) assume that all accidents were fatal, so the rate would be no more than 4 deaths for every 2billion miles/person, or 2 deaths per 1billion miles/person.
Now we look at [2] for car fatalities. Let's use the USA numbers: 8.5 deaths per 1 billion vehicle kms. This works out to 5.2 deaths per billion vehicle kms. A quick google search indicates that the average vehicle occupancy in the US is ~1.6 [3]. This turns our figure to 3.25 deaths per billion miles/person.
That is, even if we assume that all airplane accidents are fatal and we only count casualties from road accidents (completely disregarding the much higher number of injuries), it is roughly 50% riskier to use a car than a plane.
What do you find misguiding here?
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-re...
[3] http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2010_fotw...
You are not getting the actual point.
The point is not the number of death or likelihood of getting into an accident. We are not comparing the 300k airplanes (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/584144.html) with "254,212,610 registered passenger vehicles" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_Unite...) in the U.S. back in 2009. And yes, I know airplane now is equipped with auto-pilot which increases the safety of flying.
What we have been arguing is the likelihood to survive when an accident has occurred.
Compare the followings:
1. Heart attack during flying vs during walking/on a bus/on a train
2. Airplane crashes into ocean vs drunk drive crashed into another car on highway
3. Gunman hijack airplane vs gunman hijack a Starbuck
In every case, ground accidents are more likely to receive assistance than flying accidents, logically.
If we equip vehicles with auto-pilot system, will that make driving safer?
Living in the space is quite safe as long as nothing goes wrong. But in a zero-gravity environment, middle of nowhere, far away from Earth, living in the space is still more dangerous than living next to the most active volcano today. Why? Because you could relocate (if it's a sudden eruption, fine...). Yet given enough time and with a warning, one could escape from the island on their own or with helps before the eruption.
The point is not the number of death or likelihood of getting into an accident. We are not comparing the 300k airplanes (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/584144.html) with "254,212,610 registered passenger vehicles" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_Unite...) in the U.S. back in 2009. And yes, I know airplane now is equipped with auto-pilot which increases the safety of flying.
What we have been arguing is the likelihood to survive when an accident has occurred.
Compare the followings:
1. Heart attack during flying vs during walking/on a bus/on a train
2. Airplane crashes into ocean vs drunk drive crashed into another car on highway
3. Gunman hijack airplane vs gunman hijack a Starbuck
In every case, ground accidents are more likely to receive assistance than flying accidents, logically.
If we equip vehicles with auto-pilot system, will that make driving safer?
Living in the space is quite safe as long as nothing goes wrong. But in a zero-gravity environment, middle of nowhere, far away from Earth, living in the space is still more dangerous than living next to the most active volcano today. Why? Because you could relocate (if it's a sudden eruption, fine...). Yet given enough time and with a warning, one could escape from the island on their own or with helps before the eruption.
In my previous post's numbers, I counted all airplane accidents as fatal. That is, I set the likelihood of surviving a plane accident to 0. I only used the death numbers from car accidents though, so the likelihood of dying in a car accident is the actual likelihood as observed in the past.
The number of cars and number of planes does not matter in the above calculation, because the numbers are normalized to miles/person. More planes in the air is not likely to increase those normalized numbers by any significant measure.
Now, (1) is a fair point and I must concede on that. (2) is already accounted within the numbers above. (3)'s casualties are also counted in the plane case, but not in the Starbucks case, so this actually detracts from your point.
Auto-piloted vehicles would be a huge safety measure in a not-so-distant future. However, there are lots of ethical/political issues that we need to overcome to require people to use their autopilots (e.g. who is liable when the autopilot screws up?)
The living-in-space comparison is way out of line. On the one hand, you don't fly to work: you fly occasionally when you need to do long distance travels. If you foresee any problems (you are sick, have heart problems, whatever) you just don't fly. On the other hand, your safest bet would be to not travel at all, yet you take the risk because you gain something from it. Now, if you decide that you do want to travel from the west to the east coast, the risk is simply lower if you do it by plane than by car. At least that's what the numbers say...
The number of cars and number of planes does not matter in the above calculation, because the numbers are normalized to miles/person. More planes in the air is not likely to increase those normalized numbers by any significant measure.
Now, (1) is a fair point and I must concede on that. (2) is already accounted within the numbers above. (3)'s casualties are also counted in the plane case, but not in the Starbucks case, so this actually detracts from your point.
Auto-piloted vehicles would be a huge safety measure in a not-so-distant future. However, there are lots of ethical/political issues that we need to overcome to require people to use their autopilots (e.g. who is liable when the autopilot screws up?)
The living-in-space comparison is way out of line. On the one hand, you don't fly to work: you fly occasionally when you need to do long distance travels. If you foresee any problems (you are sick, have heart problems, whatever) you just don't fly. On the other hand, your safest bet would be to not travel at all, yet you take the risk because you gain something from it. Now, if you decide that you do want to travel from the west to the east coast, the risk is simply lower if you do it by plane than by car. At least that's what the numbers say...
You are keeping on arguing and deviating. That guy just wanted to compare the feelings in two situations:
- Car is running at 80kmph on empty road and the engine stops working - the drivers waits for it to slow down and parks on the side somewhere and calls 911 (or some other number)
- Plane is flying at 10K feet level and engines stop working. Pilot takes his son's photo from his front pocket and has a close (probably last) look and then maybe starts praying if he is a believer.
Numbers, numbers, facts, facts. If these were to tell us how we should feel in a certain scenario there wouldn't be any branch of philosophy, psychology and all those shit.
It's a simple what-if: What if a plain stops working at high altitude and what if a car stops working at high speed. In case of a plane you brake, turn, up, down, stop - you are done.
- Car is running at 80kmph on empty road and the engine stops working - the drivers waits for it to slow down and parks on the side somewhere and calls 911 (or some other number)
- Plane is flying at 10K feet level and engines stop working. Pilot takes his son's photo from his front pocket and has a close (probably last) look and then maybe starts praying if he is a believer.
Numbers, numbers, facts, facts. If these were to tell us how we should feel in a certain scenario there wouldn't be any branch of philosophy, psychology and all those shit.
It's a simple what-if: What if a plain stops working at high altitude and what if a car stops working at high speed. In case of a plane you brake, turn, up, down, stop - you are done.
Dude, planes can explode in the air because their windows are the wrong shape. That lesson got learned the hard way. Engines can fall off because of damaged mountings. Engine turbine disks can explode and take all control systems with them. Gears can jam and elevators stuck causing planes to nosedive.
You are talking about a highly pressurized canister of air travelling at the better part of the speed of sound way up in the sky, and it must be made as light as possible. It's a marvel they are as safe as they are.
> Remember, you're far, far more likely to be injured or killed driving a car than taking a plane. It's one of - if not the - safest form of transport out there.
Right, and this is an indication of how safe one can make things even given inherent risks in the technology. It's worth remembering how much we devote to this task. And there are plenty of near-misses that are just mind-boggling, like BA-9, for example, where the 747 flew through the ash cloud of a volcano and lost all four engines as well as rendered its windshield more or less opaque. And yet they still landed safely.
Aircraft are amazingly safe as they currently are. However structurally, there isn't a lot of room for redundency.
You are talking about a highly pressurized canister of air travelling at the better part of the speed of sound way up in the sky, and it must be made as light as possible. It's a marvel they are as safe as they are.
> Remember, you're far, far more likely to be injured or killed driving a car than taking a plane. It's one of - if not the - safest form of transport out there.
Right, and this is an indication of how safe one can make things even given inherent risks in the technology. It's worth remembering how much we devote to this task. And there are plenty of near-misses that are just mind-boggling, like BA-9, for example, where the 747 flew through the ash cloud of a volcano and lost all four engines as well as rendered its windshield more or less opaque. And yet they still landed safely.
Aircraft are amazingly safe as they currently are. However structurally, there isn't a lot of room for redundency.
I think you're absolutely right on the emotional front. And it's curious in a sense, because I think it's partially our "technology bias." We see aircraft as these complex machines, almost like black boxes in a sense: People in, plane up, plane down, people out. In spite of the aircraft having existed in parallel with much of modern society, we still see them as a pinnacle of human achievement (ignoring international space programs for a moment). Which is probably why the disaster of such a beast crashing seems so jarring, in spite of it happening so infrequently.
Of course, if you're lucky enough to survive the impact when one does crash, the smoke and fire from burning fuel is usually what kills...
Of course, if you're lucky enough to survive the impact when one does crash, the smoke and fire from burning fuel is usually what kills...
Don't be silly. Airplanes are the safest form of travel with the lowest fatality rate. Safer than cars, buses, trains, or walking.
Airplane does have redundant parts, you know?
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/15/us/screws-missing-on-tail-...
Sure a missing screw on a passenger seat is unlikely to cause the airplane to crash. Any redundancy can fail at critical moment.
Sure a missing screw on a passenger seat is unlikely to cause the airplane to crash. Any redundancy can fail at critical moment.
It appears no less than 43 screws went missing in your link.
Yes, but there's not a lot of structural redundency, nor can there be.
I'm sure he does, but knowing what happened and where it went down (for the main purpose of locating the CVR and FDR) is critical to help prevent things like this from happening in the future.
It sounds very grim, but we learn from our mistakes. Although blunders in mission-critical situations like aviations can cause loss of life, we save many more by learning about what happens in scenarios which we aren't prepared for. With AF447, we had to wait years for the investigation. It's likely this one will start faster.
My condolences to the families of everyone involved. It's a sad day for aviation – the first fatalites of the 777's spotless record – and a much, much more solemn one for everyone onboard. May they rest in peace.
It sounds very grim, but we learn from our mistakes. Although blunders in mission-critical situations like aviations can cause loss of life, we save many more by learning about what happens in scenarios which we aren't prepared for. With AF447, we had to wait years for the investigation. It's likely this one will start faster.
My condolences to the families of everyone involved. It's a sad day for aviation – the first fatalites of the 777's spotless record – and a much, much more solemn one for everyone onboard. May they rest in peace.
Nit picking, but the first fatalities on a 777 happened last summer in San Francisco in the Asiana 214 crash.
For the record, I also found the tone of your post inappropriate.
Does anyone know if there's a possibility for survivors? Could a highly skilled pilot glide the plane to a safe crash landing on the water given ideal conditions for an engine failure (assuming thats what happened)? Or does a crash landing over the ocean basically mean the worst? My thoughts and prayers go out to those involved.
It's a very different scenario, I know, but when Ethiopian Airlines flight 961 crashed into the ocean because it ran out of fuel during a hijacking, 50 out of a total of 163 people survived.
Of course that crashed happened close to shore and rescues started quite quickly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_961
Of course that crashed happened close to shore and rescues started quite quickly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_961
> Does anyone know if there's a possibility for survivors?
I doubt it. No emergency transponder recorded. No mayday heard. It was at night. This suggests one of two things to my mind:
1. catastrophic failure with no real time to adjust, like an inflight breakup, or
2. A lack of knowledge that the flight was flying into the ocean (AF447 comes to mind there but there are other cases).
Ditching a commercial aircraft in the ocean is not easy. It's going to be rediculously difficult at night, and right now there is no indication that the pilot was even trying to go for an emergency landing.
I wish I could be hopeful, but it really doesn't look good.
I doubt it. No emergency transponder recorded. No mayday heard. It was at night. This suggests one of two things to my mind:
1. catastrophic failure with no real time to adjust, like an inflight breakup, or
2. A lack of knowledge that the flight was flying into the ocean (AF447 comes to mind there but there are other cases).
Ditching a commercial aircraft in the ocean is not easy. It's going to be rediculously difficult at night, and right now there is no indication that the pilot was even trying to go for an emergency landing.
I wish I could be hopeful, but it really doesn't look good.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Possibly so, but it's unlikely. I have some notion that emergency transponders would have been activated if the plane was brought down safely.
The aviation website Leeham news has posted a list of the standard possible causes that will be investigated in an incident of this nature. They stress that these are not specific to this case, but include:
• Catastrophic structural failure
• Dual engine flame-out
• Clear air turbulence
• Human intervention, such as penetration of the cockpit or a bomb
• Accidental shooting-down
• Suicide of the pilot
• Catastrophic structural failure
• Dual engine flame-out
• Clear air turbulence
• Human intervention, such as penetration of the cockpit or a bomb
• Accidental shooting-down
• Suicide of the pilot
[deleted]
Tuoitre's news link: http://tuoitrenews.vn/society/18157/missing-malaysia-airline...
FlightAware track of the flight: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/MAS370
EDIT: And track log: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/MAS370/history/20140307/1...
EDIT: And track log: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/MAS370/history/20140307/1...
The flightaware track for flights in the area doesn't tell much because apparently ground radar is relatively limited, unfortunately.
[deleted]
Philip Wood, an IBM Technical Storage Executive, was one of 3 Americans on the flight manifest.
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/philip-wood/3/a46/4a9
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/philip-wood/3/a46/4a9
What bothers me aren't so much the adults on the flight. They've more or less lived full lives, especially the ones from the US. What eats me is thinking that there were two babies on that flight =(
>What bothers me aren't so much the adults on the flight.
Why? The first years of life aren't disproportionately more valuable than the last.
>especially the ones from the US.
Does that really imply that they've lived "more" than everyone else on the aircraft?
Why? The first years of life aren't disproportionately more valuable than the last.
>especially the ones from the US.
Does that really imply that they've lived "more" than everyone else on the aircraft?
After re-reading my comment, let me elaborate. I do feel bad for the adults but maybe after reading world news regularly I just feel numb. If I didn't, I'd be constantly depressed. Yet I just feel horrible for the two babies.
>Why? The first years of life aren't disproportionately more valuable than the last.
Adults have a few decades of experiencing life over babies. Infants have just started. I'm personally not very sure of the existence of an afterlife to make up for it.
> Does that really imply that they've lived "more" than everyone else on the aircraft?
It implies that they've had a better standard of living, a fuller life than most people in the world. You know 40-60 hour work weeks, clean air, cleaner water, hot water... stuff like that. I've lived outside of the US in 3rd world countries in South East Asia as well as other parts. The standards of living in the US is way better than China, Malaysia, and Vietnam. So yes (except for other people from developed countries)
>Why? The first years of life aren't disproportionately more valuable than the last.
Adults have a few decades of experiencing life over babies. Infants have just started. I'm personally not very sure of the existence of an afterlife to make up for it.
> Does that really imply that they've lived "more" than everyone else on the aircraft?
It implies that they've had a better standard of living, a fuller life than most people in the world. You know 40-60 hour work weeks, clean air, cleaner water, hot water... stuff like that. I've lived outside of the US in 3rd world countries in South East Asia as well as other parts. The standards of living in the US is way better than China, Malaysia, and Vietnam. So yes (except for other people from developed countries)
The ones from the US, as opposed to Canada, France or New Zealand? What a bizarre thing to say.
ok I meant "especially from the US (or any other industrialized Western county like Canada, France, or NZ)." See my other comments for more context.
You realize that once you are dead it makes no difference how long you were alive right? When you are dead there is no inherent regret that you didn't live longer. Whether you were 67 or 3, you're still dead--the end result is the same. No one life is more valuable than the next. Think about that before you make any more short sighted comments.
> No one life is more valuable than the next.
I know you're speaking philosophically, but that's not true in every context like a wrongful death lawsuit. The younger you are, the more your life is worth. The higher your earnings bracket, the more your life is worth.
I know you're speaking philosophically, but that's not true in every context like a wrongful death lawsuit. The younger you are, the more your life is worth. The higher your earnings bracket, the more your life is worth.
Yeah, the unfortunate thing is after one dies it's "nothing", not even a black hole or vacuum. It's just nothing.
That's a horribly insensitive comment. If Mr. Wood were your husband, son, or sibling I seriously doubt you'd feel that way. Also, why is an American adult's life any less valuable than any other age or nationality? You should think before you post next time.
That is not what I meant especially since I'm an American myself. I meant that there's a much higher probability that he probably lived a great, full life since he's from the US (like France, NZ, or Canada). That's all most people would hope for before they die. I was trying to be optimistic. Thoughts like that are a mental defense for me against spiraling into never ending sadness. Unfortunately, it doesn't work for babies.
I will try to be more careful next time and better elaborate my thoughts. When you're sad, you tend not to think as straight. Also, at least I don't use throwaway accounts.
I will try to be more careful next time and better elaborate my thoughts. When you're sad, you tend not to think as straight. Also, at least I don't use throwaway accounts.
Hey, I understand what you are saying. I loose my nerve beyond control when I see someone hitting a helpless kid or an orphan urchin. In comparison my anger is substantially when I see some douche-bag passing comments or harassing a grown up girl. Blame me for being partial but that's how my emotions work.
Without disrespecting victims (RIP), can someone briefly explain how and why people die during plane crash? Is it lack of oxygen, or cold temperature or actually a hard landing on the water surface? AFAIK most studies conclude there is no good place on the plane to be safer than other, whether its front, back, left side or right. Any ideas how to expand ones survival chances? Will TSA let you in with parachute -- is it even worth carrying one??
> parachute
That would mean an opening if there's an opening in the plane, while still above the ground, the plane is done anyway.
I think it's the fire or suffocation (the plane is sealed) if it falls in the water. I really don't know. Go over to reddit, there people there are better chances of an answer.
That would mean an opening if there's an opening in the plane, while still above the ground, the plane is done anyway.
I think it's the fire or suffocation (the plane is sealed) if it falls in the water. I really don't know. Go over to reddit, there people there are better chances of an answer.
This is sad, but kind of strange with all the fear and media publicity of an airplane crash. For example, 1.2million people lost their life in road traffic in 2010 alone... We rarely read or fear about this fact.
Yeah. Every day, more than ten times as many people die in traffic accidents than in this single plane crash.
I'm sure we would read about a single road accident claiming a few hundred lives as well.
Edit: the top reply made me realise what has probably happened. Awful :(
Generally the tracking doesn't work so well after the plane has crashed into the ocean.
Saying that you've lost contact with a jet is another way of saying that "it's probably crashed, but we don't have any solid proof yet."
Saying that you've lost contact with a jet is another way of saying that "it's probably crashed, but we don't have any solid proof yet."
GPS just means the plane knows where it is. The equipment necessary for the plane to inform the airline ops about its location is still vulnerable to all sorts of problems, even with the kind of anal development practices required by FAA and equivalent agencies. Airports usually have have radars that track nearby airspace, but otherwise, I think most planes are tracked by the ADS-B signals that they actively transmit (insecurely).
Does that mean that they pretty much know where the plane is likely to be? I recall from previous accidents that sometimes they can't find the plane very quickly. I don't know much about this subject, but what stops them from locating the plane within just a few hours?
Over water or in other remote locations, there is no radar coverage thus there is absolutely no information about the plane location except position reports from the pilot. Airliners have "ping home" systems that regularly send various info (including GPS location) back to the central company servers using satellites. However, the reports frequency varies from 15 to 90+ minutes and even 5 minutes is A LOT for a plane traveling at MACH 0.7. But even if the position reports will be timely and accurate, during the descend (after a catastrophic event onboard), the plane might travel tens of miles from the last reported position. Then, ocean currents can move the pieces even further from the last reported position (as it have happened with Air France plane pieces).
Lastly, ADS-B is not a solution for over the ocean position reports - the radio is not powerful enough to transmit data over the long distance (this is why we need to build so many ground stations in the US to actually use it). Not to mention, that ADS-B is not fully operational even in US.
Lastly, ADS-B is not a solution for over the ocean position reports - the radio is not powerful enough to transmit data over the long distance (this is why we need to build so many ground stations in the US to actually use it). Not to mention, that ADS-B is not fully operational even in US.
I think they could look at satellites looking at that region at the time. There are satellites just taking photos and they probably have captured something.
...there really aren't satellites 'just taking photos' of the ocean. You might have a spy satellite taking pictures of a naval exercise. I think you are underestimating a) how vastly big the ocean is, and b) satellite capacity (most intelligence satellites are over land).
71% of the world is ocean. The ocean is vast, and most of it has very little going on. Last month someone washed up having been lost at sea for over a year, having only seen two or three ships (which didn't stop). A few ships in 13 months.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jose-salvador-alvarenga-healthy-...
71% of the world is ocean. The ocean is vast, and most of it has very little going on. Last month someone washed up having been lost at sea for over a year, having only seen two or three ships (which didn't stop). A few ships in 13 months.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jose-salvador-alvarenga-healthy-...
I was wondering the same thing. I'm guessing as much as the media and Hollywood want us to believe that the government / military is tracking everything in the air, in reality that isn't really the case.
Normally, you are right.
'Lost contact' therefore suggests something very wrong has happened.
'Lost contact' therefore suggests something very wrong has happened.
GPS position must be calculated on the plane and transmitted off the plane. You can't see how that connection might be interrupted?
[deleted]
3:30am update:
At Beijing airport authorities have provided buses for relatives to go to a hotel about 15 kilometres away for further briefings. Associated Press reported one woman on the bus was weeping while saying on a mobile phone, “They want us to go to the hotel. It can’t be good!”
At Beijing airport authorities have provided buses for relatives to go to a hotel about 15 kilometres away for further briefings. Associated Press reported one woman on the bus was weeping while saying on a mobile phone, “They want us to go to the hotel. It can’t be good!”
That seems to be a very sensible thing to do though. Consider that there are 153 Chinese nationals, the number of relatives waiting at the airport is probably at least couple hundreds. Since the event is ongoing and they have no idea how long it will take to have new updates, moving them to a place where they can be better accommodated while freeing up resources at the airport for its normal duties is probably a good thing.
Malaysia Airlines has a reasonable safety record. The 777 has a very good safety record. This specific plane apparently had damage to the wingtip from a previous on-ground incident/collision. It's a big mystery.
After a few days of interesting aviation related stories here, this happens.
It's not clear from the article: what happened to the flight?
It isn't known or at least not yet announced. If it crashes into the ocean (or somewhere remote) this isn't surprising. As for the cause, that will likely take months for a comprehensive report.
Yeah, it does seem to be the assumed case. Hope not. Thanks.
[deleted]
Last transponder position of #MH370 was Lat: 6.90 Lon: 103.57
http://pic.twitter.com/PVsNuYtbtS
http://pic.twitter.com/PVsNuYtbtS
Looks like they just located it, and are sending emergency teams now: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=vi&tl=en&js=n&prev=...
those reports were already confirmed false (insane, less than a minute later)
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/08/malaysian-airli...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/08/malaysian-airli...
Why is black box data only stored locally, thus requiring investigators to recover the box in order to figure out what happened?
Because transmissions are unreliable. If you're over the ocean there is no ground to send your transmission to. Black boxes store considerable amounts of data - telemetrics, voice recordings for the past two hours...stuff that to be useful you really have to stream.
So the only viable option for streaming that kind of data is over a satellite link, except it should come as no surprise that when you most need the data the uplink won't work (maybe something ripped the fuselage and damaged the transmitter, power was lost, you no longer had line of site to the satellite because the plane rolled, etc).
There's no benefit. You are going to be sending people out to the plane anyway. If the plane is under the ocean you're going to investigate regardless. Flight recorders are designed to last - the Air France 447 recorders were finally found two years later, 4000 meters under water. Data links are unreliable, not there when you most need them, and not worth the trouble.
So the only viable option for streaming that kind of data is over a satellite link, except it should come as no surprise that when you most need the data the uplink won't work (maybe something ripped the fuselage and damaged the transmitter, power was lost, you no longer had line of site to the satellite because the plane rolled, etc).
There's no benefit. You are going to be sending people out to the plane anyway. If the plane is under the ocean you're going to investigate regardless. Flight recorders are designed to last - the Air France 447 recorders were finally found two years later, 4000 meters under water. Data links are unreliable, not there when you most need them, and not worth the trouble.
> There's no benefit. You are going to be sending people out to the plane anyway.
This is a fantastic point. I can't think of many accidents that were resolved by the FDR alone. The FDR tells a substantial part of the story, obviously (flight control positions, instrumentation data, etc), but the wreckage suggests where potential points of failure occurred. The importance of this cannot be understated, and I'd highly recommend watching (albeit rather dramatized) Crash of the Comet [1] and related videos for how important wreckage and metallurgical analysis has been in resolving otherwise difficult accidents.
To add to your comment, the FDR and CVR have demonstrated that they can function up to the point of impact (with some exceptions, such as a few accidents caused by severe in flight fires), which yields some very important telemetry as to the attitude of the aircraft, state of the engines, etc.
So really, if it's not broke...
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws-GAiQKsBs
This is a fantastic point. I can't think of many accidents that were resolved by the FDR alone. The FDR tells a substantial part of the story, obviously (flight control positions, instrumentation data, etc), but the wreckage suggests where potential points of failure occurred. The importance of this cannot be understated, and I'd highly recommend watching (albeit rather dramatized) Crash of the Comet [1] and related videos for how important wreckage and metallurgical analysis has been in resolving otherwise difficult accidents.
To add to your comment, the FDR and CVR have demonstrated that they can function up to the point of impact (with some exceptions, such as a few accidents caused by severe in flight fires), which yields some very important telemetry as to the attitude of the aircraft, state of the engines, etc.
So really, if it's not broke...
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws-GAiQKsBs
Telemetry isn't as easy as one might think. Airbus, AFAIK, is one of the pioneering manufacturers in this regard, as we witness in the crash of AF447, but given the amount of data that FDRs record, I'd imagine it wouldn't be a simple feat.
And in part, the reliability of FDRs and CVRs has been such that a comparatively small number of those recovered were void of retrievable information. So my guess is that replacing them would require satellite links (which obviously exist) but 1) have complete coverage of the globe (remember, aircraft like the 777 have a huge range) and 2) would be recording real time flight data for every single aircraft in the air. Then you have the issues of costs, approval from the various industry regulators (FAA, etc), and probably no less than 5-10 years before acceptance. And that's being hugely optimistic. In many ways, there's a point where carting around your telemetry-recording device is actually the cheapest and most effective method. It's counter-intuitive to some, but again: Telemetry isn't easy. Or cheap. And it needs to be reliable.
It does appear that Iridium Satellite is proposing something of the sort [1]. And trawling the Interwebs yields some [2] interesting [3] discussions [4].
But chiefly, I think the limitation is mostly cost, and as objclxt points out, reliability is another issue that would need to be addressed. There are a lot of planes in the sky. [5]
[1] http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=6174
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/business/global/22blackbox...
[3] http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110620151102AA...
[4] http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/58733-Why-plane-...
[5] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NFGD9cglb4&t=43s
And in part, the reliability of FDRs and CVRs has been such that a comparatively small number of those recovered were void of retrievable information. So my guess is that replacing them would require satellite links (which obviously exist) but 1) have complete coverage of the globe (remember, aircraft like the 777 have a huge range) and 2) would be recording real time flight data for every single aircraft in the air. Then you have the issues of costs, approval from the various industry regulators (FAA, etc), and probably no less than 5-10 years before acceptance. And that's being hugely optimistic. In many ways, there's a point where carting around your telemetry-recording device is actually the cheapest and most effective method. It's counter-intuitive to some, but again: Telemetry isn't easy. Or cheap. And it needs to be reliable.
It does appear that Iridium Satellite is proposing something of the sort [1]. And trawling the Interwebs yields some [2] interesting [3] discussions [4].
But chiefly, I think the limitation is mostly cost, and as objclxt points out, reliability is another issue that would need to be addressed. There are a lot of planes in the sky. [5]
[1] http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=6174
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/business/global/22blackbox...
[3] http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110620151102AA...
[4] http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/58733-Why-plane-...
[5] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NFGD9cglb4&t=43s
The critical data for accident investigation is acquired during and after an incident of some kind, which by definition precipitated or was precipitated by system failures. The failsafe data store in a failure condition is by necessity local.
I don't have a ton of information to back it up, but I imagine they record a ton of data and it would require a pretty constant and huge data transmission from the airplane to get it all to the ground in near-real-time.
Is intercontinental wireless communication reliable?
This is one of the scariest thing i read on the internet in a while... I feel so sorry.
Well this is very bad news that plane lost its contact with control rum, and its taking over 200 passengers.
Hope for the best that they can contact soon with them.
This is very sad. My thoughts with all those involved and those related. :(
So, they made an announcement after 5 hours?
Lost contact: 2:40 AM
Announcement: 7:30 AM
Lost contact: 2:40 AM
Announcement: 7:30 AM
Well it could have been so that they just lost their radio due to malfunction.
And after 5 hours i imagine the fuel would be about out so after that one can with a very high accuracy say that it was worse that just a radio glitch.
It would not look good to say that the plane crashed and then one hour or so later it lands on some remote runway.
And after 5 hours i imagine the fuel would be about out so after that one can with a very high accuracy say that it was worse that just a radio glitch.
It would not look good to say that the plane crashed and then one hour or so later it lands on some remote runway.
But they could say after 30 minutes or 45 or hell, 60 minutes, "guys, we lost contact with our plane and that happened sixty minutes ago".
This is very unfortunate, but why is it on Hacker News?
Because a lot of hackers care.
[deleted]
Why is stuff like this on HN?
[deleted]
http://my.news.yahoo.com/mas-aircraft-goes-missing--says-air...