Malaysia 777 Missing

[Moon The Loon]

The Air Canada'S thing is weird. I used to say it for a while after I became an FO. Recently, I had a short talk with an ATC from LHR who was on my flight and he asked why some of our pilots say it. Even though I had done it at one time, I couldn't give him an answer. It must bug them, too, for him to bring that one thing up in a short conversation.

PLUS - the name "Air Canada" replaced Trans Canada Airlines, or TCA. It was chosen because the phrase is identical in English and French. I can't remember if the name change was Pearson or Trudeau driven, but it in those years.

When ya adds an 'S, all of a sudden, it's not a bilingual expression but an English-only expression.

Somebody, somewhere, sometime is gonna sue the person or persons for use of an English-only expression!!!

Now where's that guy who wanted a 7UP in French????

[blues deville]

PLUS - the name "Air Canada" replaced Trans Canada Airlines, or TCA. It was chosen because the phrase is identical in English and French. I can't remember if the name change was Pearson or Trudeau driven, but it in those years??

1965. Lester B.

[Kip Powick]

In 1964, an Act of Parliament proposed by Jean Chrétien changed the name of Trans-Canada Air Lines to "Air Canada", which was already in use as the airline's French-language name, effective 1 January 1965. Lester B was the PM

[Seeker]

Wow !!! just MO but I think you are grasping at straws......."stops the air flow" ...c'mon now........where are the emoticons !!!!!!

Geeze I can say Air Canada 301 in one breath...and I'm really old !!!! you be very funny :Grin-Nod:

I didn't say that you need two breaths to say it. I said that if you try to clearly enunciate the "Air Canada" part your breath is chopped while if you slur the whole thing together with an "s" in the middle that isn't necessary. I really don't know what the cause is cause I don't say that myself anyway - just trying to guess why some guys do it. I just tried saying it both ways and that's what I come up with.

Emoticons for Kip.........

[Guest longtimer]

Of course we always thought of TCA as being "Tin Can Airlines" until they modernized and changed to
"Aluminum Cans"

[blues deville]

Malaysian government officials now say they believe the unusual path flown by MH370 was done to avoid radar detection.

Look for "MH370 flight path skirted Indonesia" on the CNN page.

http://edition.cnn.com/video/standard.html?/video/international/2014/03/17/new-flight-370-boeing-explainer-orig-jg.cnn&video_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2FSPECIALS%2Fasia%2Fmalaysia-airlines%2F%3Fhpt%3Dhp_inthenews%26hpt%3Dhp_c2%22%5Dhttp://edition.cnn.com/video/standard.html?/video/international/2014/03/17/new-flight-370-boeing-explainer-orig-jg.cnn&video_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2FSPECIALS%2Fasia%2Fmalaysia-airlines%2F%3Fhpt%3Dhp_inthenews%252

[Don Hudson]

Nothing further yet on the Chinese-detected 37.5KHz ping possibly from one of the recorders. Apparently a ship is arriving in the area today where a ping was reportedly picked up.

The cat-and-mouse game continues as the background theme to this search as countries remain circumspect regarding their surveillance capabilities.

[Seeker]

The cat-and-mouse game continues as the background theme to this search as countries remain circumspect regarding their surveillance capabilities.

I think that's a key aspect to this aircraft disappearance. None of the countries involved want to give away what they can see with their radar and what they can't - if they either divulge capability or lack of capability it opens the door to some future vulnerability. As a pilot/non-citizen of the countries involved I would say just tell us what you know and help to find the aircraft but if I was a general in the armed forces or government minister of one of those countries I could understand holding back on information about defence capabilities - the aircraft is lost and the passengers/crew deceased, in all likelihood, so perhaps the security of the citizens of the country should trump the desire to find the aircraft? I'm not saying I would decide that way but I can see how someone tasked with the responsibility for defence might.

[Don Hudson]

Hi seeker;

Yes, in the context of national defence and security it is quite easy to understand a country's reluctance to have its capabilities known. The decision has clearly been made. While academic papers can be written concerning the ethics of these decisions, that world carries on oblivious to such impediments. I think the "receiver on a stick poked into the water from a RIB" while searching out of the normal/established search areas is as good a cover story from the Chinese as ever, if it finds the wreck. As we'd expect, in such affairs there is no meaningful "world vote" or OpEd from the world's media. Should this prove successful the ethics of secrecy would be instantly forgotten and China and Malasia would continue their established "relationship" although the former would happily take credit for the find.

With a month's drifting, I think it will be a challenge to back-trace any discovered floating debris although finding such would confirm at least MH370s fate.

[W5]

Both China and Australia employ OTH (over the horizon ) radar. The Australian Jindalee (or JORN) system has an official range of 3000 km.

[Don Hudson]

W5, thanks for that.

A 3000km range from Australia essentially includes MH370's entire route from takeoff. Would that be for primary returns from targets or secondary (xponder) returns?

[inchman]

I would think that no country would be concerned with exposing an extraordinary capability... it's only lack of capability that they would hesitate to expose.

If someone had a global radar system why would they not want everyone to know it? ... "Be warned, I can see you coming from anywhere". Certainly you wouldn't want to give away the specifics of the technology, to avoid jamming or other interference, but I have long range radar capability .... WhoGAS? It's not like it's offensive like an atomic bomb, or even a submarine.

[Say Again, Over!]

inchman,

If the other country doesn't know you'll see them coming then they will not try to find new ways to come at you. Best they don't know and happen to meet a "random" patrol.

[W5]

@Don: as it is a defence radar my guess is that the range would be for primary returns. It is also used to monitor maritime operations, wave heights and wind direction.

There is some stuff at Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jindalee_Operational_Radar_Network

The map is interesting

So is the section on "Operation and Uses":

Officially the system allows the Australian Defence Force to observe all air and sea activity north of Australia to distances of 3000 km. This encompasses all of Java, Irian Jaya, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, and halfway across the Indian Ocean. Other sources put the range at 4000 km from the Australian coastline,^[23] as far away as Singapore.^[24]

The JORN is so sensitive it is able to track planes as small as a Cessna 172 taking off and landing in East Timor 2600 km away. Current research is anticipated to increase its sensitivity by a factor of ten beyond this level. It is also reportedly able to detect stealth aircraft, as typically these are designed only to avoid detection by microwave radar.^[6]Project DUNDEE^[25] was a cooperative research project, with American missile defence research, into using JORN to detect missiles.^[26] The JORN is anticipated to play a role in future Missile Defense Agency initiatives, detecting and tracking missile launches in Asia.^[

[inchman]

HI SA,O,

I have absolutely no military training, so I could be wrong, but, if I have a defense system that can see 5000 miles, I would rather let everybody know it so they don't even try to beat it. Not that I should sit on my laurels with a "perfect" system...someone will beat it sooner or later. And it only takes one intrusion to expose the capability, which enemies will test long before they attempt to actually penetrate.

• The Patriot missile system and the Iron Dome system were well publicised before their first official use.
• The best defense in the middle ages was a big castle. The bigger, the lower the chance that the opposition would even try to attack.
• Same as a great defensive line in football.... it is not a disadvantage that the other team knows you have it. If anything, it helps them make mistakes as they try to circumvent it.
• The Jindalee system in Australia has very long distance capability and is clearly well known... even publicly documented. I don't understand why Australia would allow their system to be known, but China or Thailand, not?
• The DEW Line was well known and considered a strong and valuable deterrent in the Cold War Era.

Some military capability is best kept hidden, especially offensive equipment. But I still can't come up with a good reason (no offense, but I don't agree with your explanation) why a country would want to hide something like detection capability.

[Guest longtimer]

If my enemy doesn't know my capability then he would likely underestimate the degree of any attack. If he knew my "real ability" then he could plan and equip to overwhelm it.

To put is simply, defense is just like poker, you never expose your hole card to your opponent.

[blues deville]

All I know is that if Australia is going to increase their already powerful radar strength by a "factor of ten", I won't be flying in that airspace anytime soon. Getting my daily dose of radiation from the sun is enough for me.

[Don Hudson]

W5, inchman, thank you for your informative and thoughtful posts.

inchman, re, "I don't understand why Australia would allow their system to be known, but China or Thailand, not?"

I agree with your views on letting everyone know. I think the equally-powerful approach is the opposite: remain quiet to keep'em guessing. The curious can then as you describe - test their system for response.

I think there isn't much that isn't known about the other guys' capabilities and the absence of data is partly posturing for the 2nd notion above and partly real lack of capability.

[IFG]

If my enemy doesn't know my capability then he would likely underestimate the degree of any attack. If he knew my "real ability" then he could plan and equip to overwhelm it.

To put is simply, defense is just like poker, you never expose your hole card to your opponent.

'evening longtimer - Not sure that poker analogy holds. With hidden strength 'in the hole', one usually is hoping for an 'attack'

Cheers, IFG

[Guest longtimer]

'evening longtimer - Not sure that poker analogy holds. With hidden strength 'in the hole', one usually is hoping for an 'attack'

Cheers, IFG

In this case, based on human history, the expression would be "anticipating"

[IFG]

In human history, perhaps, but poker's a bit different - with hole cards, you actually want an antagonist to go all in, that's all, not a good analogy ...

Cheers, IFG

[mo32a]

Well if their radar is half as good as they say it is we would be hauling up pieces of airplane from the bottom by now.

This was no stealth aircraft, it would be a huge primary target. Do you really think on a world stage that Australia would purposely obfuscate where the aircraft went. Not a chance, they would be crowing their achievement.

Unless, of course, the guys watching the radar did lookout duty at Pearl Harbour, and the data isn't taped.

[Guest longtimer]

In human history, perhaps, but poker's a bit different - with hole cards, you actually want an antagonist to go all in, that's all, not a good analogy ...

Cheers, IFG

As do you in war with out full knowledge of what they would be facing.... so the analogy fits.

[IFG]

So ... 'Ozzies would be reticent about defence capability and actually want an attack for the opportunity to shock and awe the clueless invaders - got it!

Cheers, IFG

[Don Hudson]

Progress or false alarm? - in the next few days should know.

MH370: black box-type signals picked up twice by Australia's Ocean Shield

Search chief says vessel's discovery is most promising lead, though not yet confirmation of the location of the plane
Paul Farrell
theguardian.com, Monday 7 April 2014 05.49 BST

Ocean shield Australian Defence vessel Ocean Shield is towing a pinger locator in the search for the missing flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder in the southern Indian Ocean. Photograph: Lt. Kelly Lunt/AP

A signal consistent with transmissions from the black box flight recorder and cockpit voice recorder of the missing Malaysia Airlines flight was picked up for more than two hours in the Indian Ocean, according to the head of Australia’s joint agency co-ordination centre.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/07/mh370-black-box-type-signals-picked-up-twice-by-australias-ocean-shield

Alvin is the world’s longest-operating deep-sea submersible. It was launched in 1964 and has made more than 4,600 dives, along the way participating in some of the most iconic discoveries in the deep ocean. Throughout 2011, 2012 and into 2013, Alvin received a comprehensive overhaul and upgrade funded by the National Science Foundation that greatly expanded its capabilities and will eventually put almost the entire ocean floor within its reach.

The upgrade is taking place in two stages. After Stage 1 was completed in 2013, Alvin boasted several new improvements, including:

• A new, larger personnel sphere with an ergonomic interior designed to improve comfort on long dives
• Five viewports (instead of three) to improve visibility and provide overlapping fields of view for the pilot and two observers
• New lighting and high-definition imaging systems
• New syntactic foam providing buoyancy
• Improved command and control system

Several of these and other improvements to the sub have been designed to withstand descents to 6,500 meters—the remainder will be upgraded later. As a result, Alvin will initially maintain its current diving capability of 4,500 meters. In Stage 2, the entire sub will be upgraded to 6,500 meters depth. In addition, new batteries will be added to enable the submersible to stay at depth longer, giving scientists more time to work in unexplored parts of the ocean and putting 98 percent of the seafloor within their reach.

http://www.whoi.edu/main/alvin/upgrade

Remora, which brought up AF447's recorders

General Data:
Weight in Air 900 kgs dry
Weight in Water Neutral
Dimensions Length: 1.7 m
Width: 1.0 m
Height: 1.2 m
Maximum Operating Depth 6,000 m

http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.af.447/remora6000.pdf

The Phoenix Towed Pinger Locator 25 (TPL-25) System provides the capability to detect and locate emergency relocation pingers on downed aircraft to a maximum depth of 6,000 msw anywhere in the world. Commercial aircraft pingers are mounted directly on the flight recorder, the recovery of which is critical to an accident investigation.

The system consists of the tow fish, tow cable, winch, hydraulic power unit, generator, and topside control console, although not all of these components are required on every mission. The tow fish carries a passive listening device for detecting pingers that automatically transmit an acoustic pulse. Most pingers transmit every second at 37.5 kHz, although the TPL can detect any pinger transmitting between 3.5 kHz and 50 kHz at any repetition rate.

http://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/tpl-25_specsheet.pdf

x-axis is frequency, (here, 37.5KHz), y-axis is time, z-axis is signal strength: