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

Final two communications from MH370 support controlled descent scenario (2021)

researchgate.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 126 posts

Re: Final two communications from MH370 support controlled descent scenario (2021)

#51

Post by Loughla »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #46
Zealotux wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible for the pilot to depressurise the plane and use their dedicated oxygen system to breathe while everyone else on board will pass out after using their individual masks. Doing so will give them 60-90 minutes of extra air, the passengers' masks don't last that long.

What legitimate reason would a pilot have to depressurize a plane at altitude, incapacitating or killing the passengers? Just wondering if and if so why that system / function is available.

I have that same question. Why is there a "kill everyone on board" setting?

Re: Final two communications from MH370 support controlled descent scenario (2021)

#52

Post by throw310822 »

lupusreal wrote: post #23

The more certain it seems that MH370 was a murder-suicide scenario, the less comfortable I am with the media's preoccupation with it. News reports about such events may contribute to copycats: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17750236/ > Airplane accident fatalities increase just after newspaper stories about murder and suicide D P Phillips. Science. 1978. > Abstract: Fatal crashes of private, business, and corporate-…

The most effective publicity ever for a form of murder-suicide must be the "active shooter" training in US schools.

Re: Final two communications from MH370 support controlled descent scenario (2021)

#53

Post by closewith »

Kon-Peki wrote: post #49
Ringz wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you get a sailing license, you learn that if a man goes overboard, it's best to be (at east) three. One goes overboard, one orders the other never to let the overboard man out of sight and to point with his arm outstretched in his direction, and the boatman uses the outstretched arm to the man overboard. It is impressive how quickly you lose sight of someone even in light waves.

This is absolutely correct, but is in part due to the complicated nature of getting a sailing vessel to a fixed location in the sea behind the current location of the boat and in such a manner that allows for the boat to be put directly into the wind at the right time to kill forward motion.

That's the drill for all vessels, powered or not.

Re: Final two communications from MH370 support controlled descent scenario (2021)

#54

Post by carlmr »

grotorea wrote: post #34
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Malaysia Airlines operations…were tracking the plane on the Flight Explorer website, which, as they would only realize hours later, simply continued to display an aircraft’s projected path if its transponder stopped broadcasting position information.” What in the actual fuck. “…the supposed signals from the black boxes must have been false. Only much later was it discovered that the signals had probably come from th…

After a lot of aircraft accident youtube videos, I can think of a couple where people misunderstanding where their computers get their information from and how they work. * This one where the operations team apparently doesn't understand how their flight tracker works, and/or it fails to inform their users that last contact was X hours ago. * One where the aircraft has a broken altimeter, and the suspicious pilots de…

You could of course blame the individuals for not knowing where which information comes from, but that wouldn't help in avoiding such problems in the future.

I think it's a UX failure in some sense. It's important information to know which number comes from what source.

So it should be clearly visible if a trajectory is prediction without up to date positional data.

It should be clearly visible which values are from the aircraft and which are from the ground.

It should be clearly visible that a range estimate is derived only from fuel sensors.

I hope that the 5Y process or whatever they used came to this conclusion as well, and not human error.

Human error is constant, design issues can be fixed.

Sometimes I think UX design should be mandatory for software developers and engineers. Even only reading The Design of Everyday Things would probably prevent a lot of catastrophes.

Re: Final two communications from MH370 support controlled descent scenario (2021)

#55

Post by stephen_g »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #46
Zealotux wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible for the pilot to depressurise the plane and use their dedicated oxygen system to breathe while everyone else on board will pass out after using their individual masks. Doing so will give them 60-90 minutes of extra air, the passengers' masks don't last that long.

What legitimate reason would a pilot have to depressurize a plane at altitude, incapacitating or killing the passengers? Just wondering if and if so why that system / function is available.

If some part of that system was on fire or an engine was damaged and it was pumping smoke into the cabin. Basically every system can be switched off, sometimes it’s necessary to be able to switch them off completely (normally for pressurisation they would already be on the way to a breathable altitude), or to be able to power cycle something to try and fix an issue.

At the end of the day, there are so many other ways for the pilots to down an airliner and kill everyone, they are ultimately the only people you can’t practically have the system distrust. The only thing you can do is the rule to always have two people in the cockpit but it doesn’t always help.

Re: Final two communications from MH370 support controlled descent scenario (2021)

#56

Post by andrecarini »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #46
Zealotux wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible for the pilot to depressurise the plane and use their dedicated oxygen system to breathe while everyone else on board will pass out after using their individual masks. Doing so will give them 60-90 minutes of extra air, the passengers' masks don't last that long.

What legitimate reason would a pilot have to depressurize a plane at altitude, incapacitating or killing the passengers? Just wondering if and if so why that system / function is available.

Extinguishing a fire is one that comes to mind.

Re: Final two communications from MH370 support controlled descent scenario (2021)

#57

Post by stephen_g »

foldr wrote: post #27
sinuhe69 wrote: post #2

If the descent was controlled gliding, the passengers (at least some of them) should be alive upon landing, shouldn’t they? Where are they now? Which theory could explain the absolute silence?

You can't really "land" in the Indian Ocean in an airliner. There has (famously) been a successful ditching of an airliner in a river, but I don't think there has ever been a successful ditching in the open ocean. Here's the kind of thing you can expect to happen even in much more favorable sea conditions close to the shore: https://www.reddit.com/r/CatastrophicFailure/comments/3f7fkk... (There were a number of survi…

The video there seems to indicate that the hijackers flew that plane into the ocean (unless the commentary is inaccurate) so that is probably not as good a ditching as it could have been if the pilots had been flying… But yes it’s going to be a lot worse than the ditching on the Hudson in any case.

Re: Final two communications from MH370 support controlled descent scenario (2021)

#58

Post by krisoft »

carlmr wrote: post #54
grotorea wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After a lot of aircraft accident youtube videos, I can think of a couple where people misunderstanding where their computers get their information from and how they work. * This one where the operations team apparently doesn't understand how their flight tracker works, and/or it fails to inform their users that last contact was X hours ago. * One where the aircraft has a broken altimeter, and the suspicious pilots de…

You could of course blame the individuals for not knowing where which information comes from, but that wouldn't help in avoiding such problems in the future. I think it's a UX failure in some sense. It's important information to know which number comes from what source. So it should be clearly visible if a trajectory is prediction without up to date positional data. It should be clearly visible which values are from…

> Sometimes I think UX design should be mandatory for software developers and engineers.

Human Factors is very much part of every airplane's design. From the ground up, and it involves all roles and every subsystems.

> Even only reading The Design of Everyday Things would probably prevent a lot of catastrophes.

I think you have a twisted assumption about how much care goes into aviation UX. The people who do these designs did much more than read a single book.

> It should be clearly visible that a range estimate is derived only from fuel sensors.

Good plan! Now tell us how you will do it. (Also clearly you are misunderstanding even the problem. The problem was that the range estimate was NOT derived from fuel sensors.)

Re: Final two communications from MH370 support controlled descent scenario (2021)

#59

Post by GJim »

l33tman wrote: post #13

What happened to that other research team who used amateur radio network packet metadata that had been saved, to track airplanes including MH370 and showed tracks that also matched the satellite pings? Can't remember the name of that group though...

If they could track MH370 using WSPR (amateur radio), then they could logically track other (similar) aircraft.

When asked to prove the above and publish a peer reviewed paper, they were unable to do so.

The reader is thus invited to draw their own conclusion.

Re: Final two communications from MH370 support controlled descent scenario (2021)

#60

Post by ceejayoz »

Loughla wrote: post #51
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What legitimate reason would a pilot have to depressurize a plane at altitude, incapacitating or killing the passengers? Just wondering if and if so why that system / function is available.

I have that same question. Why is there a "kill everyone on board" setting?

Because sometimes that setting is also the “save everyone on board” setting.
Post reply on HN