Passenger Drones in Dubai?

Posted on by

So, an IMechE article popped into my email account today – link here

Dubai’s Roads and Transport Agency have announced that drones are going to be transporting passengers by July – the aim is to assist in reducing traffic congestion.

The vehicle in question is the Chinese-developed EHang 184 – revealed at CES in Las Vegas last year – Wired reported widespread belief, at the time, that the company were overconfident and that the idea could be mainly promotion for a more straightforward drone. However, the craft has recently been approved by the Civil Aviation Authority in Dubai.

The Specs of the EHang 184 as shown on their website. http://www.ehang.com/ehang184/specs/

The Specs of the EHang 184 as shown on their website.
http://www.ehang.com/ehang184/specs/

It bears close resemblance to the quad-copter small scale drones and the propellers fold inwards for parking. The 184 can carry a single passenger and a small compartment for luggage. As you would expect – it is controlled from a remote command centre and it is reported that it will be using the 4G network.

The system is reported to have ‘fail safe’ systems meaning that if anything does go wrong – it should seek to land in the nearest safe spot – this alongside the encryption of communication should start to answer some of the ethical and safety issues that are ever present in discussions on Unmanned Vehicles.

If this is the case, then how far away are we from Unmanned Flying Taxis in the UK?

Unfortunately, for fans for Autonomous Flight, it’s unlikely to be the near future. First and foremost, any vehicle would have to be certified by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and by the UK Civil Aviation Authority – which agencies are responsible might change post-Brexit, but the same process would need to be followed currently.

The vehicle would need to meet the safety requirements, similar to manned aircraft currently – however, even when the vehicle is approved from a safety and certification point of view, it would still need to be integrated into the UK airspace – making other airspace users aware, whether it needs to communicate with Air Traffic Control (likely yes!), as well as the more complex issues of integration with the general public – will it be able to land at any site, only approved sites etc…

There are more questions (as usual!) than answers… however the EHang 184 is not the only development plan out there – Airbus, Uber, Zee.Zero and many other companies are working on plans for pilot-less flying vehicles.

Sources:

IMechE Article

Wired

EHang 184

RAeS Local Branch Lecture – The Design of Small Rocket Motors

Posted on by

The Birmingham, Wolverhampton and Cosford branch of the Royal Aeronautical Society held their monthly lecture meeting at RAF Museum Cosford tonight, with a talk by one of Staffordshire University’s own, Group Captain Peter Mountain, one of the Senior Lecturers in the Faculty of Computing, Engineering and Sciences. His topic? ‘The Design of Small Rocket Motors‘.

 

Small Rockets – as shown by this sub orbital solid fuel rocket.

 
Peter presented to a crowd of around 60 people, mostly branch members and visitors for an hour, introducing them to the world of rocket science. He started by setting out his own background and how his career in the RAF had led to the teaching of rocket design – through the path of calculation and reverse engineering during the Cold War to find out the scope of the threat Russian and Chinese rockets posed.

He then regaled the audience with tales of lunchtime, napkin based calculation sessions to see if the Air Show sales pitch was based in reality. Having warmed his audience up, it was time to break out some background theory and calculations to explain the principles of solid rockets and the calculations required to successfully design the system as well as some of the issues that might be encountered along the way. 

It was then a chance for the audience to bring their questions to Peter, which they did – he handled them well and elaborated; pulling other Staffordshire University attendees, Automotive Senior Lecturer Debi Roberts and MSc student and Branch Student Rep Robert Kameny into the discussion too. The lecture was well received by the branch, who thanked Peter for such an interesting talk.

Leonardo da Vinci – His contribution to Engineering

Posted on by

Leonardo da Vinci was born on 15th April 1452, 564 years ago – how can he still have such an influence and contribution to the world – almost 500 years after his death?

More accurately known as Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci, given that da Vinci is an indicator of birth place, Leonardo da Vinci was an Italian (Florentine) polymath from the 15th Century. A polymath is someone whose expertise spans a large number of different subjects or areas. He is well known for such notable work as the Mona Lisa, The Last Supper and The Vitruvian Man.

Leonardo da Vinci (biography.com)

Leonardo da Vinci (biography.com)

His interests extended far beyond art and anatomy though, branching into architecture, music, botany, cartography, literature, mathematics and engineering. He was, and remains, however renowned primarily as a painter but his technological ingenuity should rightly be revered. He conceptualised armoured fighting vehicles, concentrated forms of solar power and flying machines. While relatively few of his designs were constructed and tested some entered the world mostly unheralded. Some were not even feasible given the level of industry progress at the time.

Tank Design By Leonardo da Vinci - Bortolon, The Life and Times of Leonardo, Paul Hamlyn

Tank Design By Leonardo da Vinci – Bortolon, The Life and Times of Leonardo, Paul Hamlyn

Leonardo’s fascination with the phenomenon of flight led to several flying machine designs such as a flapping ornithopter (an aircraft that mimics the flapping of wings like a bird) and a machine with a helical rotor. Some of his designs were later constructed in the beginning of the 2000’s and it seems he had a mix of successes and some that, required further development.

Flying Machine (Helicopter) http://www.leonardodavincisecrets.com/invention.html

Flying Machine (Helicopter) http://www.leonardodavincisecrets.com/invention.html

Flying Machine (Ornithopter) https://www.tes.com/lessons/ZR0tAYSiEUf6sA/da-vinci-invention-drawings

Flying Machine (Ornithopter) https://www.tes.com/lessons/ZR0tAYSiEUf6sA/da-vinci-invention-drawings

Since a large number of his designs and inventions were never formally published or produced – their influence at the time was lesser – however they have gone on to influence countless generations of Engineers and Designers since.

Capt. Eric ‘Winkle’ Brown – An Obituary

Posted on by

Today the death of Capt. Eric Melrose ‘Winkle’ Brown CBE DSC AFC KCVSA PhD Hon FRAeS RN was announced by his family at the age of 97 following a short illness. He was one of the most famous of all British pilots, holding world records and decorations.

 

Capt. Eric ‘Winkle’ Brown (dailymail.co.uk)

 
He was the most decorated pilot of the Fleet Air Arm and held the world record for the greatest number of different aircraft types flown, 487, as well as the record for the highest number of aircraft carrier deck landings. This only includes general types – the list of different marks would be far higher. He was known as ‘Winkle’ during service due to his diminutive stature, and following his time as a Royal Navy Officer became a test pilot. he achieved several ‘firsts’ in naval aviation. These included the first landings on an aircraft carrier for a twin engined aircraft, a tricycle undercarriaged aircraft and a jet propelled aircraft. It would be impossible to describe and do his life and career justice in anything less than a multi-volume book so please consider these the edited highlights only.

Born in Leith, Scotland in January 1919, he was taken up in a Gloster Gauntlet by his father when he was around 9 years old. He travelled to Germany to see the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, and while there was invited to join the newly formed Luftwaffe at social gatherings. He started at Edinburgh University the following year, studying Modern Languages, with an emphasis on German. He was selected to take part in an exchange student scheme at Schule Schloss Salem, and it was while he was there in Germany that he was woken up in September 1939, with a woman knocking on his door, announcing that “our countries are at war”. he was arrested by the SS soon after and released after 3 days, to be escorted, with his MG Magnette sports car to the Swiss border – they claimed he could keep the car as they “couldn’t get spares for it”.

He returned to the UK and joined the Royal Navy Volunteer Reserve as a pilot, initially serving on the escort carrier HMS Audacity until it was torpedoed and sank in 1941 – he was one of only two survivors from the squadron. Following this he was posted to the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) at Farnborough to share his experience of deck landings. He returned to operational flying with the Royal Canadian Air Force, and also flew with Fighter Command before he returned to the RAE, this started his role flying experimental and captured aircraft. 

At this time, the RAE was the leading authority on high speed flight and as a result Brown became heavily involved in this sort of testing, even testing the Lightning, Mustang and Thunderbolt aircraft for the United States Army Air Force (USAAF). He then became involved with the Gloster Meteor and supersonic research and testing.

Towards the end of the war, given his language skills, Brown was selected to be CO of the team preparing to acquire German aeronautical technology before it was either destroyed or taken by the Soviets. On one mission, he was expected to arrive at a liberated aerodrome, only to find that resistance had delayed the liberation and it was still an operational Luftwaffe base – a surrender was offered and Brown took charge of the airfield and staff until Allied Forces arrived the following day. His language skills meant he was asked to help in the interrogation of the former Bergen-Belsen concentration camp commandant and his assistant following the liberation of the camp.

Following World War II, he commanded the ‘Enemy Aircraft Flight’, an elite group of test pilots who flew captured German and Italian aircraft. This alone made him one of a small group, who were actually qualified to compare the aircraft on both sides. Again, his language skills meant he was involved in the interviews of many Germans, including Göring, Heinkel and Messerschmitt. His involvement and information gained from the Miles M.52 supersonic project, prior to its cancellation allowed the Americans to make the modifications needed for the Bell XS-1 to allow Chuck Yeager to become the first man to exceed Mach 1 in 1949.

His career as a test pilot meant flying aircraft that had killed other men, in 1946 he flew a modified de Havilland DH.108 after a crash in a similar aircraft killed Geoffrey de Havilland Jnr. In recreating de Havilland’s accident conditions he discovered the aircraft suffered a high-g pitch oscillation – he managed to pull out of the situation but believed he survived in part due to his height – de Havilland suffered a broken neck that could have been attributed to the violent oscillation.

In the 1950s he was seconded to the United States Naval Test Pilot School, flying a number of aircraft while there including a reported 36 types of helicopter. He then returned to Germany in the late 1950s working to re-establish German naval aviation. His last appointment in the Royal Navy was in 1967, when he took command of RNAS (now RAF) Lossiemouth. He retired from the Royal Navy in 1970.

 

Capt. Brown at a book signing in 2012 (D M Roberts)

 
His time since has been spent writing, giving lectures, serving as a President of the Royal Aeronautical Society (1982/1983) and promoting aviation history. He has been active in aviation circles right up to and including last month. Having met Captain Brown several times over the years at aviation events, I can tell you, that above all this, he was an extremely pleasant man and a true gentleman in every sense of the word. He was willing to sit and chat while signing books on windy airfields well into his 90s and always had a kind word or comment for anyone willing to stop and talk. He will be sadly missed.

Challenger Disaster: 30 Years On

Posted on by

Aeronautics isn’t just about the Civil and Military Aircraft that fly all over the world on a daily basis – although this tends to be our main focus, it’s also about any situation where flight is achieved and this can include WIG (Wing in Ground Effect) Aircraft and more importantly for this blog entry – Space.

Space, to paraphrase Star Trek, is one of the ‘final frontier{s}’ of human experience. Only the depths of the oceans have been explored less. It is one of the least hospitable places for human life to attempt to explore. This means those who seek to answer the questions of the wider human race by exploring space – put their lives in great danger, relying on the designs of engineers to keep them safe.

30 years ago today, on the 28th January 1986, one of the most well known of all space related disasters occurred. The NASA Space Shuttle orbiter Challenger broke apart just 73 seconds into its initial lift-off from the Kennedy Space Centre as part of a six day mission STS-51-L. All seven crew members died in the disaster, although the exact timing of their deaths following the initial incident is unclear.

The Challenger flight 51-l crew" by NASA - Licensed under Public Domain via Commons.

The Challenger flight 51-l crew by NASA – Licensed under Public Domain via Commons.

Subsequent investigations pointed to the disintegration of the launch vehicle beginning after an O-ring seal in the right solid rocket booster (SRB) failed during lift-off – this caused a breach in the joint of the SRB it sealed. From this, pressurised burning gas from within the solid rocket motor could reach the outside and damage the external fuel tank and field joints. Separation occurred, leading to structural failure of the external tank. At this point aerodynamic forces broke up the orbiter. Fragments from the incident descended to the Atlantic Ocean floor where they were recovered after a lengthy search and rescue operation.

Booster Rocket Breach by NASA - Licensed under Public Domain via Commons

Booster Rocket Breach by NASA – Licensed under Public Domain via Commons

Investigations into the disaster followed and the Rogers Commission was established to report to President Reagan on the causes of the disaster on Challenger’s 10th mission. The commission discovered the O-ring failure and following further study, attributed it to a design flaw, as it could be too easily compromised by a range of factors, one of which was low temperatures and cold weather. Further, it determined the ‘contributing causes’ that led to such an accident being possible. That both NASA and the contractor, Morton Thiokol, failed to respond adequately to the design flaw. That the launch decision making process was also seriously flawed and that the risk from the design issues was known but that there were no checks and balances to protect from such a decision being made. The disaster lead to the grounding of the Space Shuttle fleet for a period of around 3 years. During this time, changes had to be implemented; safety measures, SRB redesigns and new policies on decision making were all part of this process.

Although these changes were made by NASA following the incident, it is often argued that the changes in the management structure and culture have not been deep or long lasting – an argument levelled at NASA once again following the 2003 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. Columbia broke up over Texas and Louisiana on re-entry to Earth’s atmosphere following damage caused by foam insulation breaking off the external tank. Investigations led to the conclusion that NASA had failed to learn lessons from the Challenger disaster and that the same “Flawed decision making process” (Columbia Accident Investigation Board; CAIB) still existed.

So 30 years on, what can we still learn from the Challenger disaster? It is commonly used as a case study in engineering – looking at safety in engineering, ethics, whistle-blowing, communications and group decision-making. The engineer who warned about the effect on the O-rings, Roger Boisjoly, was, prior to his death in 2012, a speaker on workplace ethics and is held as an example of honesty and integrity. As engineers, by studying the disaster and the various complications around the event – we can improve our own understanding of safety, management and ethics within our field.

The History of a Radical Aircraft: The Bugatti 100P

Posted on by

When you hear the name Bugatti, what do you think of? Like most people, you’re thinking of the cars; the Type 35 Grand Prix cars for those with an eye to motorsport and historic cars, or perhaps the modern revivals in the shape of the EB110 and the Veyron. Few, if any, would think of record aircraft.

It was back in the late 1930’s (around 1937/8) that Ettore Bugatti started work on a racer to compete in the Deutsch de la Meurthe Cup Race – what came about from this was the Bugatti 100P – it is unique, for one it is the only aircraft the Bugatti company built, but it is one of the earliest examples of a technology demonstrator. The project had to be put on hold when the Second World War began – and when the German Army advanced in to Paris in June 1940, Ettore had removed the aircraft and relevant drawings rather than let the technology fall into their hands. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the German minister for production and others were aware of the aircraft.

Bugatti 100P at the Mullin Automotive Museum in Oxnard, CA, USA. Image Source www.hercprops.com

Bugatti 100P at the Mullin Automotive Museum in Oxnard, CA, USA. Image Source www.hercprops.com

The aircraft is considered an Art Deco masterpiece – it was designed to set records at speeds above 450 mph. As seen on the images in this article, the aircraft possessed several unique features – things that we might not consider so unique today – but that were definitely ahead of the time. The aircraft had forward-swept wings, the two 8 cylinder Bugatti Type 50 engines were slant-mounted and located behind the cockpit, it had two contra-rotating propellers. Other innovative features include making use of the so-called ‘Meredith effect’ – the idea of pulling cooling air through high-pressure areas and ducting it through a radiator in the right way will cause an expansion effect – this will produce negative drag effects. It even had an automated flight control system – an analog computer system essentially – that was there to prevent pilot error.

After the war, this beautiful aircraft was mostly forgotten until American enthusiasts bought it and, intending to restore it – returned with it to the USA. It was not until it ended up in the US Experimental Aircraft Association’s Museum in Oshkosk, Wisconsin. It was restored and put on display – however, its engine less shell (the engines were sold prior to 1971 when it’s restoration began), is just too fragile to be considered airworthy.

Until recently, the Bugatti was one of the most interesting “what if” stories within aviation. Scotty Wilson, a former Air Force fighter pilot, was determined that it wouldn’t remain a pipe dream – he was determined to build and eventually fly a faithful replica of the Bugatti. People joined his Le Rêve Bleu team (The Blue Dream) from all over the world and the replica airframe was completed.

Preston Lerner from Air and Space Magazine went to see the replica in February 2014, he said;

“I turn and behold an object painted a shade of royal blue so deep it’s almost purple. The airplane is magnificent, a stunning combination of old school and new wave, a V-tail Beech Bonanza crossed with the X Fighter flown by Luke Skywalker, an antique that seems like it somehow came from the future. All I can think is Wow.”

On a wall in the hanger, hangs a photograph of Louis de Monge, the aeronautical engineer that was primarily responsible for the design of the Bugatti – he explored avenues far from the level of his peers at the time – interested in automatic flight control systems and flying wings. It is such a shame that De Monge left no written record of his thinking that went into such a different concept.

The replica is by no means a perfect copy, the wood is a composite called DuraKore, fiberglass replaces doped fabric and the magnesium is replaced to reduce cost and flammability. The most noticeable difference is the Suzuki Hayabusa motorcycle motors – the beautiful blown Bugatti straight eights are essentially unobtainable.

The replica’s first test flight was in August 2015, where it sustained damage on landing – having reached 100 feet high to check the power and control responsiveness.

The Replica Bugatti 100P on its first flight. Image Source: www.gizmag.com

The Replica Bugatti 100P on its first flight. Image Source: www.gizmag.com

Following work to repair the damage, the second flight took place in October 2015 where it made a complete circuit of the traffic pattern at the Clinton-Sherman Airport.

We look forward to seeing the replica take to the skies again.

Sources:

Bugatti Aircraft Association

Air and Space Magazine

Flying Magazine

The Bugatti 100P Replica

 

 

Aviation Nightmare? The Rise of Affordable Drones.

Posted on by

Drones or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) are very much one of the current must have accessories, whether as an interested amateur, or one of the many companies looking to make use of the obvious benefits of drones. The price of drones has been falling steadily – a look at the numbers and range of drones available shows this. From under £20 you can now have access to any number of flying drones and the more you have to spend – the larger, more capable drone you can have.

Dangerous games?! Or useful tool?! Regulation can play a huge part in which side UAVs end up on.

Dangerous games?! Or useful tool?! Regulation can play a huge part in which side Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) end up on.

But what are the implications of the increasing accessibility of UAVs/drones?

What are the dangers?

What precautions can we take to prevent accidents? 

We are very much operating in a world of relative ignorance at the moment – whether as aviation professionals, or as members of the public – we have mostly avoided any major incidents with drones so far. However, left unchecked, we are in danger of an accident waiting to happen.

How serious could this problem be though? The obvious issue is aircraft to aircraft accidents, however, there is also the risk of the drones being used as weapons of terror or assassination before we even consider how they might be used to monitor or spy on people.

Sticking to the obvious aircraft to aircraft risks for the moment, the risk to an airliner from a drone depend upon many factors, any collision between the two types of aircraft is bound to result in damage to both aircraft. The extent of any damage to the airliner will depend on the size of the drone and the location of the strike. Velocity, direction and what part of the flight the aircraft is in can also contribute to the potential damage. Accidents could range from the relatively minor though costly or inconvenient, through to the usually non-fatal but expensive loss of an engine, right through to potentially catastrophic if serious damage is caused to control surfaces, stablisers, tail or cockpit by a larger drone. Smaller drones will be likely to cause damage similar to a bird strike – usually not enough to bring down an aircraft. However as larger drones become easier to access, this could change.

Given their size drones tend to be invisible to air traffic control and radar – this means that they can’t be monitored by these people. This doesn’t mean they are unregulated though, in the US the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) sets the rules on both amateur and commercial drone activity, while in the UK it is the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) who regulate drone activities.

The rules for amateur flight are relatively basic and very much common sense, below follows a rough translation;

  • Stay below 400 ft
  • Keep clear of surrounding obstacles
  • Keep a visual line of sight; direct, unaided visual contact
  • Remain clear of manned aircraft operations
  • No flight near people or properties
  • Must not be more than 55 lb (approx. 25 kg) in the US or 20 kg in the UK
  • Must not be flown in a careless or reckless manner
  • Not within Airport traffic zones or regulated airspace – this depends upon specific regulation and detail

This then changes if the drone is flown on a commercial basis. At this point some form of licencing or permission is needed and this means meeting requirements in terms of airworthiness, flight permissions and pilot licencing. This is known (in the US at least) as Civil Operations.

The final type of drone operation is known (again, in the US) as Public or Governmental Operations – these are limited by federal statue and are considered and determined – depending on the situation, by the FAA, for a Certificate of Authorization. The regulations, conditions and limitations are designed to ensure a level of safety equivalent to manned aircraft flight. The most common uses will be law enforcement, fire fighting, disaster relief, search and rescue and other government operations.

So we can see that, assuming Civil and Public Operations acting within their regulations, it is the general public drones that are potentially the biggest safety threat. There are hobbyists that have been flying RC aircraft and helicopters for years, at recognised sites, under strict regulation – these are not the concern as they are highly likely to understand the need for regulation and guidelines on their flights. It is the general public that is the worry, while there are guidelines and regulations in place – how many people buying drones are aware of them? And how many people, amongst the general public (where hobby drone use can include estate agents to farmers, using them for various tasks) just don’t see their drone as a potential danger?

Ultimately, it may well come down to the users being aware of the regulations, using common sense and policing themselves. It is the mindset that needs changing, we can regulate, make technical fixes and enforce complex rules on airspace all we like – it will not change a thing, without raising awareness and encouraging common sense among the general public.

Listen to the Aviation Week podcast that triggered this blog post Here

The 1985 Manchester Air Disaster – 30 Years On

Posted on by

A memorial service is being held later today (22nd August 2015) to mark the 30th Anniversary of the Manchester Air Disaster in which 55 people died, two were crew members and the remaining 53 were passengers on the British Airtours 737 jet.

131 passengers boarded flight 28M for its scheduled flight to Corfu that day. The pilots heard a loud thud as the Boeing 736 traveled along the runway, their first thoughts being a burst tyre. However, an engine failure had sparked a dangerous chain reaction, leading to a punctured fuel tank. Take-off had to be abandoned and the plane brought to a swift halt, but smoke and flames quickly engulfed the rear of the aircraft – causing panic in the cabin.

The Boeing 737 Aircraft where 55 people died - image sourced from bbc.co.uk news reports

The Boeing 737 Aircraft where 55 people died – image sourced from bbc.co.uk news reports

Nearly all of the victims died as a result of the effects of smoke inhalation as they tried to reach the front exits – one of which had jammed. The investigation by the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) lead to a raft of safety changes.

The AAIB report at the time states the accident cause;

“The cause of the accident was an uncontained failure of the left engine, initiated by a failure of the No. 9 combustor can which had been the subject of a repair. A section of the combustor can, which was ejected forcibly from the engine, struck and fractured an underwing fuel tank access panel.”

One of the first things the investigation found, was that the position of the aircraft, when it finally came to a halt made things far worse – there was a prevailing wind fanning the flames onto the fuselage of the aircraft.

The main recommendations of the report were:

  • In the event of a fire, procedures to be developed to allow/enable the crew to position an aircraft with the fire downwind of the fuselage.
  • Fire extinguishing techniques inside passengers cabins to be reviewed to deal with internal fires.
  • Aircraft cabin materials to be fire resistant, this is to include seat covers/wall/ceiling panels.
  • Onboard water spray/mist fire extinguishing systems to be developed as a priority matter of urgency.
  • A review to examine the existing requirements over “unobstructed access” to exits and whether they need updating in light of this accident.
  • Distribution of experienced cabin crew throughout the cabin.

Many aspects of aviation fire evacuation procedures have changed as a result of this disaster. An aircraft on fire will now always stop upon the runway itself, rather than taxiing away – meaning that passengers are evacuated far more quickly. Far more visible is the removal of a seat on each side next to the over-wing exits to create extra space and minimise potential bottlenecks. The access panels for fuel tanks have also been reinforced.

An overhead shot showing the scale of destruction. Source: Manchester Evening News

An overhead shot showing the scale of destruction. Source: Manchester Evening News

But could such a disaster ever happen again, even with the 30 years of improvements to safety?

Potentially, yes, we can never engineer all the risks out of the system – what we can do however is reduce the likelihood and potential damage from each risk – this reduces the risk and hopefully means that the potential of such an accident happening again is remote.

Sources: AAIB Report 8/1988 Boeing 737-236, G-BGJL, 22 August 1985 Link to Report

MH370 – the mystery – the theories

Posted on by

My earlier article summarised the basic known facts.  Much of this new article is taken from the Royal Aeronautical Society article here http://aerosociety.com/News/Insight-Blog/2007/What-happened-to-flight-MH370 and here is a summary of the main theories of what might have happened:

Theories

1) Depressurisation or toxic fumes – this would explain the change in heading and altitude (to move towards another airfield to land) but not the loss of communications, in either case the pilots could have communicated for a while, and would not have turned the transponder or ACARS off.

2) Hijacking – post 9/11 this is much more difficult than it once was, and the aircraft wasn’t flown to a new destination, or crashed into a building as usual with hijacking, and no sign of concern was shown by the pilots.  If hijacked, why was the ACARS system turned off and why has no group claimed responsibility?

3) Deliberate action by the pilots – no reason for this has ever been identified, if it was a pilot suicide (such as the Germanwings and Egyptair flights) then why did the aircraft carry on flying for another 7 hours?

4) Fire on board – as with the 1998 Swissair MD11 flight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111 a flight deck fire could disable many systems.  The pilots’ initial response would be to turn off electrical systems while they diagnose the problem, which could lead to the radio and ACARS etc being switched off and the lack of communications. They would also turn towards the nearest airport, which could explain the westward turn towards Phuket and Langkawi.  However it would then be strange for the aircraft to carry on flying for another 7 hours if catastrophic damage had been experienced that prevented communications but allowed the aircraft to carry on flying.

5) A combination of two – a fire on board followed by a depressurisation or by  incapacitation of the pilots after they sorted out the source of the fire could lead to the events as known.  This would be unusual but it is equally unusual for a B777 to disappear in such strange circumstances.

Whatever the cause, unless the FDR and CVR or indeed the main wreckage is found, this will remain a real mystery.

Martin Fiddler

MH370 – the mystery – known facts

Posted on by

Details from www.bbc.co.uk

The known facts

On 8 March 2014 a Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 en route from KL to Beijing disappeared in what are still considered to be unusual and very strange circumstances. It took off at at 00.41 and radio contact was lost after a routine call at 01.19.  A routine ACARS transmission was received at 01.07 but the 01.37 transmission was not received, and at around 01.20 the transponder stopped transmitting secondary information such as altitude and speed. At 01.21 the aircraft failed to check-in with ATC at Ho Chi Minh City. At 02.22 the a final primary radar return was received, the aircraft being off-track to the south of Phuket, having turned towards Lankowi.   Seven Inmarsat satellite pings were received between 02.28 and 08.11, giving a rough location to the NW of the Australian coast.  At take-off the aircraft would have had enough fuel for about eight hours flight, so the final communications fit in well with it running out of fuel.  A search commenced, clearly becoming much more difficult after the 30 or so days that the FDR and CVR sonar pinger battery would have run out.

On 29 July 2015, 16 months later, a piece of MH370’s wing washed up on Reunion Island. It was a flaperon, more commonly known as an inboard or high-speed aileron, and being hollow it had floated. It showed signs of impact damage, as would be expected if the aircraft had hit the sea at high speed.  My next article will discuss the various theories.

640_mh370-flaperon-flaperon--heres-what-that-means

Martin Fiddler