Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MH370 flew as low as 1,500m to avoid detection, says paper

my.news.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 118 posts

Re: MH370 flew as low as 1,500m to avoid detection, says paper

#41

Post by meepmorp »

001sky wrote: post #21
storborg wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and they do. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_dependent_surveillan... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Communications_Addres... These systems were manually disabled.

Point is a $100 spot device could be added (powered by Li AA's) as a backup system. This would have independent power supply and obviate the "need for cicuit breakers" being accessed. Or something like a lo-jack or whatever. Its completely embarassing to Boeing. Almost as bad as the pilot has a 64mb i phone and the [edit: voice recorders] holds only 2hrs? WTF. An Iphone might not itself survive, but the media allocat…

Where do you get the 2 hour FDR capacity from? I've found references for 17-25 hours.

Re: MH370 flew as low as 1,500m to avoid detection, says paper

#43

Post by TylerE »

Aloha wrote: post #37
001sky wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point is a $100 spot device could be added (powered by Li AA's) as a backup system. This would have independent power supply and obviate the "need for cicuit breakers" being accessed. Or something like a lo-jack or whatever. Its completely embarassing to Boeing. Almost as bad as the pilot has a 64mb i phone and the [edit: voice recorders] holds only 2hrs? WTF. An Iphone might not itself survive, but the media allocat…

Yes, but the FDR is designed to survive multi-g impacts - how well would that smart phone survive?

Solid state storage is pretty resilient.

Re: MH370 flew as low as 1,500m to avoid detection, says paper

#44

Post by lutusp »

gklitt wrote: post #31

What a poorly written article. It twice says that the plane "dropped/descended 1500m," when it should be written "dropped TO [an altitude of] 1500m." (assuming I'm understanding the article correctly). A newspaper should at least have sufficient grammar standards to clearly convey the main point of a story.

> What a poorly written article. It twice says that the plane "dropped/descended 1500m," when it should be written "dropped TO [an altitude of] 1500m."

As it turns out, only the headline suggests that the plane descended to an altitude of 1500m, not the article body, which always says the aircraft descended 1500m. The headline includes the words "MH370 flew as low as 1,500m to avoid detection" [emphasis added], but this language is never repeated in the article itself.

It's important also to say this article may have been translated from Malay, which could affect its readability.

> A newspaper should at least have sufficient grammar standards to clearly convey the main point of a story.

Fair enough, but I think the headline didn't originate with the source of the article.

Re: MH370 flew as low as 1,500m to avoid detection, says paper

#45

Post by jonah »

pinkskip wrote: post #40
jonah wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

India claims to not have their military radar on all the time. "Too costly."

Source?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/15/us-malaysia-airlin...

via

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/1070...

Re: MH370 flew as low as 1,500m to avoid detection, says paper

#46

Post by trhway »

JacobAldridge wrote: post #5
trhway wrote: post #3

people install satellite security systems on $200K cars. Couldn't airlines do the same on a $100M plane.

people fit 239 passengers in a plane. Couldn't manufacturers do the same with cars? Fallacy by analogy. It's a fair question (off hand), but it falls down when other factors are considered (cars don't normally drive for hours over water, for example).

>Fallacy by analogy.

or may be you just saw in my post an analogy to the fallacy by analogy

>cars don't normally drive for hours over water, for example

how that would affect the satellite communication?

Re: MH370 flew as low as 1,500m to avoid detection, says paper

#48

Post by pinkskip »

jonah wrote: post #30
confluence wrote: post #15

I'd still bet on ocean crash. Flying low or not, heading across the Bay of Bengal towards land, and you're going to get pinged with military radar.

India claims to not have their military radar on all the time. "Too costly."

Thanks.

Re: MH370 flew as low as 1,500m to avoid detection, says paper

#49

Post by zaroth »

DigitalSea wrote: post #10
trhway wrote: post #3

people install satellite security systems on $200K cars. Couldn't airlines do the same on a $100M plane.

You make it sound so simple, when in reality it is anything but simple. Every component in a plane is tested extensively before it can be installed and used. When it comes to electronic components in a plane, things like interference to other aircraft, other components on the plane, power usage and interference to ground devices (radio stations, emergency frequencies, etc) are all tested and considered. Planes are ma…

So are you saying there's a huge market opportunity for someone who could help deploy this?

Re: MH370 flew as low as 1,500m to avoid detection, says paper

#50

Post by jmspring »

bsamuels wrote: post #14
BadassFractal wrote: post #4

Ignoring for the sake of argument the tragedy of hundreds of people getting murdered / kidnapped, this is the most captivating news event we've had in a while.

Russia invading Ukraine wasn't captivating?

Russia stomping on neighbors to protect it's interests has been a common theme for years. Not right, and I expect some interesting outcomes of the whole Ukraine thing, but really not unexpected.

For me, the Malaysian 777 story is an interesting potential seque into the future of terrorism. Personally, if the airliner is in tact and ever is identified in the air again, I think it will be shot down. That said, the story has been one of mystery and mismanagement.

Post reply on HN