Re: [SystemSafety] MH370

From: Mike Ellims < >
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:07:33 -0000


Wouldn't it be simpler/easier to change the in-flight tracking (i.e. positional information) so that it couldn't be turned off while the aircraft is in the air and perhaps provide some separate electric backup?

Off the cuff I can't see a good reason why the pilot should be allowed to make an aircraft disappear and several good ones why they should not.  

Cheers.  

From: systemsafety-bounces_at_xxxxxx [mailto:systemsafety-bounces_at_xxxxxx Matthew Squair
Sent: 11 March 2014 09:50
To: safetyyork_at_xxxxxx
Cc: systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] MH370  

Yep, like an EPIRB. But if you're going to do that, well memory is cheap.

Matthew Squair  

MIEAust, CPEng

Mob: +61 488770655

Email; Mattsquair_at_xxxxxx

Web: http://criticaluncertainties.com

On 11 Mar 2014, at 8:13 pm, Chris Hills <safetyyork_at_xxxxxx

Actually you don't need a detachable FDR or CVR. All you need is a detachable simple distress beacon with a life of 48 hours. If you can find that it would narrow the search field to say, a 10 mile radius, rather than thousands of square miles. Then you can find the wreckage and the black boxes far faster.  

A small distress beacon would be smaller in size, mass and complexity, very cheap (comparatively) and easier to mount.  

Regards

   Chris    

From: systemsafety-bounces_at_xxxxxx [mailto:systemsafety-bounces_at_xxxxxx Matthew Squair
Sent: 10 March 2014 23:28
To: Peter Bernard Ladkin
Cc: systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] MH370  

Sure, but over the years there have also been a number of lost at sea accidents where either the FDR or CVR were not recovered or were recovered damaged. Dave Warren's original proposal was aimed squarely at that problem and was for a foam cored blister pack with a simple wire spool recorder and die pack, the concept being that it would be mounted on the external fuselage (around the tail) and popped off in an explosion or impact induced hull over-pressure.  

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Peter Bernard Ladkin <ladkin_at_xxxxxx

> On 10 Mar 2014, at 22:17, Matthew Squair <mattsquair_at_xxxxxx >
> Absolutely, nothing is perfect. But would I prefer an alternate to months
of trawling the abyssal plain with a side scanning sonar? You betcha. Especially if it's a very, very cheap alternative.

In the last twenty years, there are just two cases of lost-at-sea I can think of in which evidence from the hull was *not* required in addition to FDR data to determine cause. There are five cases in which in-air disintegration or burning, which are not identifiable from FDR data, initiated the hull loss, and there is one further case in which physical evidence was required to show there was no anomaly (that it was, in effect, murder/suicide). Two against six isn't a persuasive ratio.

I can go through the records to make this definitive rather than "I can think of", if necessary.

The result of a cost-benefit analysis, even for the past, let alone for conceivable future cases, is not at all evident to me.

PBL Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, University of Bielefeld and Causalis Limited  

-- 

Matthew Squair

MIEAust CPEng

 

Mob: +61 488770655

Email: MattSquair_at_xxxxxx

Website: www.criticaluncertainties.com <http://criticaluncertainties.com/> 

 

_______________________________________________
The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com




_______________________________________________ The System Safety Mailing List systemsafety_at_xxxxxx
Received on Tue Mar 11 2014 - 11:07:48 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Apr 25 2019 - 14:17:06 CEST