5 ms·

Every time I read about seafloor mapping, my mind immediately jumps to MH 370. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370 https://en.wikipedia.

Every time I read about seafloor mapping, my mind immediately jumps to MH 370. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370 A large airliner carrying more than 200 people disappeared, and over the past 8 years, we still have not found the main body of the airplane or the black boxes.

rexreed 4y ago
That's also the first thing I think about. The disappearance of MH370 and the inability to find it combined with sea floor mapping always makes me wonder. I've always fantasized about the idea of autonomous seafloor mapping drones.
- jmyeet 4y ago
  It's really a testament to just how large the ocean is. Remember there's more than twice as much sea than land and we lose things on land too. Things on land might not be under 3 miles of water that takes expensive, specialized equipment in remote locations to actually reach. I do hope for a resolution for MH370 one day but we know the bullet points: it was a deliberate action by the pilot (and/or the co-pilot) to depressurize the plane, run it out into the ocean and (most likely) make a "soft" landing after which it would fill with water and sink. There's alot of evidence for this and no other proposed scenario fits the evidence.
  - EMM_386 4y ago
    > I do hope for a resolution for MH370 one day but we know the bullet points: it was a deliberate action by the pilot (and/or the co-pilot) to depressurize the plane, run it out into the ocean and (most likely) make a "soft" landing after which it would fill with water and sink. There's alot of evidence for this and no other proposed scenario fits the evidence. I'm a certified commercial pilot and I'm researched this incident extensively. That's the most plausible conclusion that I can come to. The precise turning to attempt to evade radar at the start (even the military radars) must have meant extremely precise planning at the start. There are a lot of other cockpit maneuveurs and flip switching you'd have to go to during this phase but I won't get into that. You can depressurize it at altitude to kill the passengers and then put it into the furthest reaches of the ocean. It's a very sad situation all around but I can't find any facts that would point to other alternatives.
    - jl6 4y ago
      What’s the reason we think it attempted a “soft” landing? I always imagined that our inability to find the thing was suggestive of a high speed impact that disintegrated the plane.
      - EMM_386 4y ago
        That part is debatable, nobody knows. Since it was likely on autopilot, it would behave in certain predictable ways. If it was being hand flown once it ran out of fuel, who knows.
        mysterypie 4y ago
        > Since it was likely on autopilot Why do you think that's likely? Because it was a long flight (to wherever it crashed), and pilots tend to use autopilot on long flights? Or is there some other reason? Would the pilot be able to breathe at the altitude he was flying at? I presume he wouldn't have enough emergency oxygen for the entire time it takes to get to the presumed crash area. Given the debris that has washed up on various coastlines, would you assume it was a soft landing or hard crash? What's your take on theory that the plane had a fire and the pilot maneuvered the plane to a high altitude to snuff out the fire, then away from populated areas, then he himself passed away and the plane drifted on its deep ocean course until it crashed?
        jl6 4y ago
        > What's your take on theory that the plane had a fire and the pilot maneuvered the plane to a high altitude to snuff out the fire, then away from populated areas, then he himself passed away and the plane drifted on its deep ocean course until it crashed? Seems busted: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-26640114.amp https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-26640114.amp
GekkePrutser 4y ago
Oh yes just posted something similar, I didn't see this post first. Indeed the same thing I was thinking of, I wonder if this seafloor mapping thing will eventually discover the plane. Though perhaps the resolution is not adequate? Edit: Someone (actual username :) ) just posted above that the grid cells are between 100x100m and 800x800m so that does indeed not sound adequate to detect a 777 accurately, sadly. The whole thing would easily fit into one grid cell of the smallest dimension.
wongarsu 4y ago
The fuselage of a Boeing 777 has a diameter of about 3.7 meters, or about 12 feet. So you're looking for something that's less than 4 meters high, and less than 4 meters wide. If it is more or less intact the wreck might be pretty long, so on a reasonably flat ocean floor you might pick it out at 10 meters resolution, but in less ideal conditions you might need closer to 2m resolution to make it stand out against the background. There are the wings, which are very big, but also very thin, so their usefulness really depends on how they are angled. What we have are pretty good 400x400m maps, and increasingly more 100x100m maps.
- walrus01 4y ago
  Even if we assume the whole fuselage is intact in one piece, with the wings broken off, it's possible that it fell into the mud, silt and soft squishy bottom on some abyssal plain and is more than 1/3rd buried. Making it even harder to locate than a cylinder resting on a rocky surface.
- salty_biscuits 4y ago
  When they were doing the original scans the resolution was set by the diameter of the turbines, the logic being that they would probably be the only thing intact if it hit the water at speed.
- helloworld11 4y ago
  Where in the world did you get that number? The average 777 has a fuselage width of 20 ft, 4 in or 6.20 meters. Nearly twice as large. 3.7 meters is obviously wrong if you've ever so much as glanced at one of these planes in real life or even in a photo.

rexreed 4y ago

That's also the first thing I think about. The disappearance of MH370 and the inability to find it combined with sea floor mapping always makes me wonder. I've always fantasized about the idea of autonomous seafloor mapping drones.

jmyeet 4y ago
It's really a testament to just how large the ocean is. Remember there's more than twice as much sea than land and we lose things on land too. Things on land might not be under 3 miles of water that takes expensive, specialized equipment in remote locations to actually reach. I do hope for a resolution for MH370 one day but we know the bullet points: it was a deliberate action by the pilot (and/or the co-pilot) to depressurize the plane, run it out into the ocean and (most likely) make a "soft" landing after which it would fill with water and sink. There's alot of evidence for this and no other proposed scenario fits the evidence.
- EMM_386 4y ago
  > I do hope for a resolution for MH370 one day but we know the bullet points: it was a deliberate action by the pilot (and/or the co-pilot) to depressurize the plane, run it out into the ocean and (most likely) make a "soft" landing after which it would fill with water and sink. There's alot of evidence for this and no other proposed scenario fits the evidence. I'm a certified commercial pilot and I'm researched this incident extensively. That's the most plausible conclusion that I can come to. The precise turning to attempt to evade radar at the start (even the military radars) must have meant extremely precise planning at the start. There are a lot of other cockpit maneuveurs and flip switching you'd have to go to during this phase but I won't get into that. You can depressurize it at altitude to kill the passengers and then put it into the furthest reaches of the ocean. It's a very sad situation all around but I can't find any facts that would point to other alternatives.
  - jl6 4y ago
    What’s the reason we think it attempted a “soft” landing? I always imagined that our inability to find the thing was suggestive of a high speed impact that disintegrated the plane.
    - EMM_386 4y ago
      That part is debatable, nobody knows. Since it was likely on autopilot, it would behave in certain predictable ways. If it was being hand flown once it ran out of fuel, who knows.
      - mysterypie 4y ago
        > Since it was likely on autopilot Why do you think that's likely? Because it was a long flight (to wherever it crashed), and pilots tend to use autopilot on long flights? Or is there some other reason? Would the pilot be able to breathe at the altitude he was flying at? I presume he wouldn't have enough emergency oxygen for the entire time it takes to get to the presumed crash area. Given the debris that has washed up on various coastlines, would you assume it was a soft landing or hard crash? What's your take on theory that the plane had a fire and the pilot maneuvered the plane to a high altitude to snuff out the fire, then away from populated areas, then he himself passed away and the plane drifted on its deep ocean course until it crashed?
        jl6 4y ago
        > What's your take on theory that the plane had a fire and the pilot maneuvered the plane to a high altitude to snuff out the fire, then away from populated areas, then he himself passed away and the plane drifted on its deep ocean course until it crashed? Seems busted: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-26640114.amp https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-26640114.amp

GekkePrutser 4y ago

Oh yes just posted something similar, I didn't see this post first. Indeed the same thing I was thinking of, I wonder if this seafloor mapping thing will eventually discover the plane. Though perhaps the resolution is not adequate? Edit: Someone (actual username :) ) just posted above that the grid cells are between 100x100m and 800x800m so that does indeed not sound adequate to detect a 777 accurately, sadly. The whole thing would easily fit into one grid cell of the smallest dimension.

wongarsu 4y ago

The fuselage of a Boeing 777 has a diameter of about 3.7 meters, or about 12 feet. So you're looking for something that's less than 4 meters high, and less than 4 meters wide. If it is more or less intact the wreck might be pretty long, so on a reasonably flat ocean floor you might pick it out at 10 meters resolution, but in less ideal conditions you might need closer to 2m resolution to make it stand out against the background. There are the wings, which are very big, but also very thin, so their usefulness really depends on how they are angled. What we have are pretty good 400x400m maps, and increasingly more 100x100m maps.

walrus01 4y ago
Even if we assume the whole fuselage is intact in one piece, with the wings broken off, it's possible that it fell into the mud, silt and soft squishy bottom on some abyssal plain and is more than 1/3rd buried. Making it even harder to locate than a cylinder resting on a rocky surface.
salty_biscuits 4y ago
When they were doing the original scans the resolution was set by the diameter of the turbines, the logic being that they would probably be the only thing intact if it hit the water at speed.
helloworld11 4y ago
Where in the world did you get that number? The average 777 has a fuselage width of 20 ft, 4 in or 6.20 meters. Nearly twice as large. 3.7 meters is obviously wrong if you've ever so much as glanced at one of these planes in real life or even in a photo.