Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 missing

[alent1234]

But if the transponder can be turned off what good is it. We need a system not wired to the cockpit, but something that sends a signal to a central location.

A gps that sends a signal directly to a satellite and then to a head end somewhere on the globe.

latest theory is the pilot had to go under the floor to shut off the engine status transmit thingy by pulling a fuse out. and this wasn't in the manual

the engines send a status if you pay for it, but in this case they only pinged the satellites.

at some point there is still a fuse in the wiring you can pull to shut something off.

i think the name of the movie was Executive Decision. a plane was hijacked and loaded with chemical weapons and sent to the east coast. a secret stealth plane sent a special ops team that boarded the airliner in mid air. and they had to go through the boeing manuals and wire diagrams to control the lights and other parts of the plane

 

[jkcerda]

I am sure the conspiracy nuts are going wild over this.

Image



Or it was a hijacking and they are really good at hiding a 777....

It will hopefully turn up soon.

 

[MacNut]

Image

Too soon?

 

[Crusader007]

Strobe Talbott, ex-deputy secretary of state tweeted this :

How credible is this speculation? What could be the reasoning behind this?

The Times of Israel claims Iran could probably be involved in the hijack...

 

[bradl]

I don't remember that, so I googled it. Holy crap!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

The other thing about that flight: there was definitely a misunderstanding about the transponder code being used, which lead to it being shot down. No excuse for it, but there was that problem. That, outside of the fact that 8 years prior, US hostages were taken on a flight in Iran. Again; no justification, but prior hostilities existed.

What need would a pilot have to turn a transponder off? Should he have any control over it?

Can there be a system that is tamperproof.

When a flight has landed, for airports that do not use ASDE-X, there is no further use for a discrete code to be used for the flight; for all intents and purposes, once the flight arrival clears the runway, the flight has ended, so the pilot can turn off the transponder, freeing up the discrete code that was used.

Also, not all flights operate under IFR; so flights operating under VFR don't require their transponder to be on, or squawking a discrete code. That is where squawking 1200 (in the US) comes in. So there has to be manual intervention in the use of the transponder. Otherwise imagine mess you'd see on the scopes from every single aircraft in, say, the Hudson River VFR corridor in NYC, or the Shoreline miniroute or SFRA at LAX.

I live about 5 miles from the NorCal TRACON in Sacramento. That facility covers the Terminal area (Approach/Departure area for every airport in the NorCal area, from Reno/Tahoe, west to Sacramento, SFO, Oakland, San Jose, and south to Stockton and Modesto. I've been on tours of that facility, and not only listened in on, but watched the scopes of ATC handling traffic into SFO and OAK, as well as the VFR routes through the Class B airspace there. With as much information given on a target by the transponder, it can clutter up their scopes fast.

Plus, it positively identifies each and every aircraft; even those ATC is not controlling or is outside of their sector. That makes locating an aircraft they are providing separation services for harder as well.

This reminds me.. I should schedule a tour of ZOA Center (they are in Fremont). They also run San Francisco Radio, which covers the Oceanic area out as far as Hawaii to Guam.

Too soon?

Yes.. much too soon, especially if lives are lost. Unless they found land, the chances of them surviving is becoming less and less. Plus the fact that it's going on fall/autumn on that side of the world.

BL.

 

[alent1234]

Strobe Talbott, ex-deputy secretary of state tweeted this :

Image

How credible is this speculation? What could be the reasoning behind this?

The Times of Israel claims Iran could probably be involved in the hijack...

the flight had 20 or so employees from freescale semi. maybe someone wanted them?

 

[snberk103]

But if the transponder can be turned off what good is it. We need a system not wired to the cockpit, but something that sends a signal to a central location.

A gps that sends a signal directly to a satellite and then to a head end somewhere on the globe.

Good idea, but changes to airliners are made very conservatively. The new technology has to solve more problems than it creates. A plane missing like this is a very very rare occurrence. Balance the benefit against the potential of increased electrical fires due to changing the wiring. If this new technology caused just one catastrophic fire every 5 years then the solution is worse is than the problem. The last flight with 20 or more people that went 'missing' was in 1970s iirc.

What need would a pilot have to turn a transponder off? Should he have any control over it?

Can there be a system that is tamperproof.

I read one place that the transponder can be turned off in the cockpit, but generally not by the pilots. It supposedly involves getting at a circuit breaker that is behind a panel in the cockpit and is generally accessed by engineers doing maintenance. I don't know if there would be a legitimate reason for a pilot to need access. But consider that this is an incredibly rare occurrence. The wiring changes necessary to make this transponder tamper proof would have to cause literally no extra problems to be a net benefit.

----

I would not be at all surprised to see several changes to new plane designs to make them trackable regardless of the pilot's intentions. This way the wiring can be certified along with the rest of the plane. And of course planes where this things are controlled via software will likely see some changes as well.

But what do I know... I'm not a commercial pilot, I only read about them on TV....

 

[bradl]

Good idea, but changes to airliners are made very conservatively. The new technology has to solve more problems than it creates. A plane missing like this is a very very rare occurrence. Balance the benefit against the potential of increased electrical fires due to changing the wiring. If this new technology caused just one catastrophic fire every 5 years then the solution is worse is than the problem. The last flight with 20 or more people that went 'missing' was in 1970s iirc.



I read one place that the transponder can be turned off in the cockpit, but generally not by the pilots. It supposedly involves getting at a circuit breaker that is behind a panel in the cockpit and is generally accessed by engineers doing maintenance. I don't know if there would be a legitimate reason for a pilot to need access. But consider that this is an incredibly rare occurrence. The wiring changes necessary to make this transponder tamper proof would have to cause literally no extra problems to be a net benefit.

----

I would not be at all surprised to see several changes to new plane designs to make them trackable regardless of the pilot's intentions. This way the wiring can be certified along with the rest of the plane. And of course planes where this things are controlled via software will likely see some changes as well.

But what do I know... I'm not a commercial pilot, I only read about them on TV....

Now.. before going any further here, there is something that needs to be clarified. There is a difference between turning transponder off (meaning, squawking standby/not squawking a discrete code), and disabling the transponder completely. The former can and should be done by pilots; the latter means finding the wires that operate them and ripping them out.

It is not known which was done here, but it pretty much is SOP for pilots to do the former.

BL.

 

[snberk103]

Now.. before going any further here, there is something that needs to be clarified. There is a difference between turning transponder off (meaning, squawking standby/not squawking a discrete code), and disabling the transponder completely. The former can and should be done by pilots; the latter means finding the wires that operate them and ripping them out.

It is not known which was done here, but it pretty much is SOP for pilots to do the former.

BL.

I learn something new every day!

 

[Huntn]

Now.. before going any further here, there is something that needs to be clarified. There is a difference between turning transponder off (meaning, squawking standby/not squawking a discrete code), and disabling the transponder completely. The former can and should be done by pilots; the latter means finding the wires that operate them and ripping them out.

It is not known which was done here, but it pretty much is SOP for pilots to do the former.

BL.

You could be right, I can't speak for all airliners, but from my experience when the transponder is turned to standby it stops broadcasting period. And I'd have to research this but (I've been retired for 1.5 years), I want to say there was a CB for the transponder within the pilots reach, however this was on an Airbus, not Boeing.

 

[bradl]

You could be right, I can't speak for all airliners, but from my experience when the transponder is turned to standby it stops broadcasting period.

You are absolutely correct. This is with every aircraft that has a transponder. Yes, there are those that don't, and could file with a /X, /M, /Y, or /D suffix. Aircraft like the Piper J-3 Cub doesn't have a transponder.

And I'd have to research this but (I've been retired for 1.5 years), I want to say there was a CB for the transponder within the pilots reach, however this was on an Airbus, not Boeing.

From my understanding, this is the same across the board. Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier, Embraer, and the like have similar.

BL.

 

[Tinmania]

to be fair, at the time the persian gulf was a virtual war zone with the USA reflagging Kuwaiti oil tankers with the US flag due to attacks by Iran. and iran sent this plane at the missile cruiser right when their naval and air forces were playing games with it as well

check out KAL flight 800 as well. the russians blew that one up after it strayed into their airspace. theory is that the CIA played games with the location equipment and there was an AWACS following the civilian plane to listen to russian radio messages and see how long it takes them to react

I'm sorry but comparing the two incidents is anything but fair. KAL 800 did in fact stray from its usual flight course--into off-limits Soviet air space. I don't care what "theories" are out there as to why or how it got there, that is where it was shot down.

Iran Air 655 flew its normal flight path. It was routinely less than a 30 minute flight. Iran didn't "send" that aircraft anywhere other than its intended destination. It was in normal radio contact with air traffic control. On the other hand, USS Vincennes, nicknamed Robocruiser, was in Iranian territory when it fired the deadly missile.




Michael

 

[alent1234]

I'm sorry but comparing the two incidents is anything but fair. KAL 800 did in fact stray from its usual flight course--into off-limits Soviet air space. I don't care what "theories" are out there as to why or how it got there, that is where it was shot down.

Iran Air 655 flew its normal flight path. It was routinely less than a 30 minute flight. Iran didn't "send" that aircraft anywhere other than its intended destination. It was in normal radio contact with air traffic control. On the other hand, USS Vincennes, nicknamed Robocruiser, was in Iranian territory when it fired the deadly missile.




Michael

in the straits of hormuz there is no way not to be in iranian territorry

 

[vrDrew]

I'm beginning to believe the plane was deliberately hijacked - probably by one of the flight crew - and flown to central Asia to be used in a terrorist attack at some point in the future.

1) Why did the plane soar up to 45,000 ft? Answer: If the flight crew depressurized the plane at that altitude, passengers not on oxygen masks would lose consciousness within seconds. And be dead in a few minutes.

2) Why the weird looping flight path? An interesting theory I read suggests the pilot got behind another 777, so they could traverse Indian and Afghhanistan airspace without showing up on military radar.

If the plane had crashed, either on land or in the water - we probably would have had some evidence by now. If it had landed at a normal airport, likewise. But of it landed with a cabin full of dead passengers, all the hijackers need to do is cover it with tarps and netting to hide it from satellites - until they are ready to strike.

 

[bradl]

I'm beginning to believe the plane was deliberately hijacked - probably by one of the flight crew - and flown to central Asia to be used in a terrorist attack at some point in the future.

1) Why did the plane soar up to 45,000 ft? Answer: If the flight crew depressurized the plane at that altitude, passengers not on oxygen masks would lose consciousness within seconds. And be dead in a few minutes.

2) Why the weird looping flight path? An interesting theory I read suggests the pilot got behind another 777, so they could traverse Indian and Afghhanistan airspace without showing up on military radar.

If the plane had crashed, either on land or in the water - we probably would have had some evidence by now. If it had landed at a normal airport, likewise. But of it landed with a cabin full of dead passengers, all the hijackers need to do is cover it with tarps and netting to hide it from satellites - until they are ready to strike.

#2 wouldn't happen without some serious consequences.

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

The wake turbulence of being so close behind another similar class aircraft (heavy jet behind a heavy jet) would have some serious consequences.

It was wake turbulence from behind behind a B757 on final for 19R at SNA that killed the founders of In-n-Out Burger.

#1 may also not really be possible without stalling, causing the aircraft to have to descend to recover from it. For it to have continued after going that high, they had to know how to recover from such a stall and continue with the cabin pressurized. A stall from that would have been similar to EYR990, which would have just gone straight down into the water, not continue on further at FL230.

so someone would have known how to recover from such a stall to continue on. That is indicative of hijack prevention.

BL.

 

[Tinmania]

in the straits of hormuz there is no way not to be in iranian territorry

False. The straight borders Iran on one side, with Oman and UAE on the other. Of the 21 miles at its choke point there is a 6 mile wide shipping lane, shared by the three countries. Out of that, only about two miles (the inbound lane) is in Iranian territory. Conversely, the outbound lane is in Oman/UAE territory. Law of sea permits "innocent" passage in both directions through that shipping lane.

I am not sure exactly what point the Vincennes was in in the straight but the US has admitted in court papers that it was in Iranian territory. Even if it was in the 2 mile inbound lane of the shipping corridor shooting down a civilian airliner doesn't exactly make it "innocent passage."




Mike

 

[alent1234]

False. The straight borders Iran on one side, with Oman and UAE on the other. Of the 21 miles at its choke point there is a 6 mile wide shipping lane, shared by the three countries. Out of that, only about two miles (the inbound lane) is in Iranian territory. Conversely, the outbound lane is in Oman/UAE territory. Law of sea permits "innocent" passage in both directions through that shipping lane.

I am not sure exactly what point the Vincennes was in in the straight but the US has admitted in court papers that it was in Iranian territory. Even if it was in the 2 mile inbound lane of the shipping corridor shooting down a civilian airliner doesn't exactly make it "innocent passage."




Mike

my memory was a little fuzzy since i was in 5th grade at the time so i looked it up on wikipedia

iranians fired at a navy helicopter
the cruiser chased the iranian gunboats and fired on the aircraft which was flying straight for it
where is the conspiracy?

 

[vrDrew]

The wake turbulence of being so close behind another similar class aircraft (heavy jet behind a heavy jet) would have some serious consequences.

I don't think he would have to be right behind the preceding 777. He could probably follow 2-3 NM behind, and a few hundred feet above the preceding plane and not have to be too concerned about jet wash. He's not trying to fly in formation - just close enough that military radars are going to assume there is only one plane there - especially if the transponder on the second plane is turned off.

The 45,000 foot altitude is only about 1500 ft above the design limits of the 777. Depending on how much fuel he had on board at the time, I don't think it necessarily means the plane would stall - although obviously the flight envelope gets pretty thin. A skilled pilot could probably hold that altitude for ten or fifteen minutes - long enough to ensure there was no one left alive to give problems when they got to wherever they were headed.

This will probably turn out to be so much hokum, but something odd happened to that airplane.

 

[bradl]

I don't think he would have to be right behind the preceding 777. He could probably follow 2-3 NM behind, and a few hundred feet above the preceding plane and not have to be too concerned about jet wash. He's not trying to fly in formation - just close enough that military radars are going to assume there is only one plane there - especially if the transponder on the second plane is turned off.

minimum safe lateral separation for a heavy behind a heavy is 4nm, if below FL180. That increases to 5nm if above FL180 and below FL600. Otherwise, you may run into problems with wake turbulence.

that's per the FAA JO 7110.65U. I should note that this only applies to US Airspace; every other facility has their own standards when it comes to ATC and separation.

You would have a point about if flying in formation, because then the second transponder would have to be on standby, not off completely. that's why I mentioned the difference between the two.

The 45,000 foot altitude is only about 1500 ft above the design limits of the 777. Depending on how much fuel he had on board at the time, I don't think it necessarily means the plane would stall - although obviously the flight envelope gets pretty thin. A skilled pilot could probably hold that altitude for ten or fifteen minutes - long enough to ensure there was no one left alive to give problems when they got to wherever they were headed.

This will probably turn out to be so much hokum, but something odd happened to that airplane.

I'll give you that. something did happen, and the more time goes by, as well as how many things were botched here, we may never know.

The good news is that with this new area to search, the Aussies told the Malaysians to go sit on the bench, as they are taking over.

BL.

 

[MacNut]

The New York Times is reporting that the computer was programmed to turn the plane off course.

WASHINGTON — The first turn to the west that diverted the missing Malaysia Airlines plane from its planned flight path from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing was carried out through a computer system that was most likely programmed by someone in the plane’s cockpit who was knowledgeable about airplane systems, according to senior American officials.

Instead of manually operating the plane’s controls, whoever altered Flight 370’s path typed seven or eight keystrokes into a computer on a knee-high pedestal between the captain and the first officer, according to officials. The Flight Management System, as the computer is known, directs the plane from point to point specified in the flight plan submitted before each flight. It is not clear whether the plane’s path was reprogrammed before or after it took off.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-flight.html?hp

 

[PracticalMac]

Aircraft like the Piper J-3 Cub doesn't have a transponder.

For those that wonder why:
Aircraft that do not have an electrical system (like the 1935 designed J-3) do not require a transponder.

Even small airplane built today with no electrical system do not need it.

(most aircraft engine uses a Magneto for spark plugs, and only plugs)

The New York Times is reporting that the computer was programmed to turn the plane off course.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-flight.html?hp

My question:
How do they know this?
Copy of plan at airport?

 

[zioxide]

I'm beginning to believe the plane was deliberately hijacked - probably by one of the flight crew - and flown to central Asia to be used in a terrorist attack at some point in the future.

1) Why did the plane soar up to 45,000 ft? Answer: If the flight crew depressurized the plane at that altitude, passengers not on oxygen masks would lose consciousness within seconds. And be dead in a few minutes.

I'm not buying this whole 45,000 ft number that's been thrown around. How do we even know that's accurate? It would be quite difficult if not impossible for a fully loaded 777 to fly that high.

And unless they could stop the O2 masks from deploying altogether, at least some of the passengers would probably manage to get them on.

If the plane had crashed, either on land or in the water - we probably would have had some evidence by now. If it had landed at a normal airport, likewise. But of it landed with a cabin full of dead passengers, all the hijackers need to do is cover it with tarps and netting to hide it from satellites - until they are ready to strike.

I agree with the rest though. As time continues to go on without a trace of this jet, combined with what appears a deliberate attempt to make this plane disappear and avoid radar, the more I tend to think that someone wanted this plane for sinister purposes and it landed successfully in the middle of nowhere.

 

[Huntn]

I'm beginning to believe the plane was deliberately hijacked - probably by one of the flight crew - and flown to central Asia to be used in a terrorist attack at some point in the future.

1) Why did the plane soar up to 45,000 ft? Answer: If the flight crew depressurized the plane at that altitude, passengers not on oxygen masks would lose consciousness within seconds. And be dead in a few minutes.

2) Why the weird looping flight path? An interesting theory I read suggests the pilot got behind another 777, so they could traverse Indian and Afghhanistan airspace without showing up on military radar.

If the plane had crashed, either on land or in the water - we probably would have had some evidence by now. If it had landed at a normal airport, likewise. But of it landed with a cabin full of dead passengers, all the hijackers need to do is cover it with tarps and netting to hide it from satellites - until they are ready to strike.

A retired pilot/aviation consultant said he thought that was a radar anomaly, a distortion, that the 777 would not have been able to reach 45000' because it would not have been able to fly that high. Not knowing the weight of the aircraft as compared to it's max gross weight, based on my experience in the Airbus, what he is saying is reasonable.

 

[vrDrew]

And unless they could stop the O2 masks from deploying altogether, at least some of the passengers would probably manage to get them on.

Let's just assume (for the purposes of discussion) that the disappearance is part of a plot, carried out by one or both of the pilots.

If that is the case, at some point they are going to have to deal with the couple of hundred passengers. Because sooner or later someone on board is going to figure out the plane is not on its way to Beijing. Even if they've disabled the entertainment system with its little moving maps. Someone is going to notice that the sun is in the wrong place, or that instead of paddy fields and factories, they are flying over deserts and mountains. And once they do, it is highly likely that they may try to storm the cockpit - like they did on Flight 93. Or one of the passengers might get a mobile phone to work, and summon an Indian or US fighter plane to come and investigate.

So it becomes imperative for the pilots to silence the passengers. How to do this?

The simplest way would be to gradually depressurize the plane. Let the apparent atmosphere creep up from a "normal" 8000 ft. - to 20,000; - then totally depressurized, to the altitude they are flying at: say 30,000 feet.

Its a red-eye flight, so many people probably wouldn't notice. They'd think they were falling asleep. (The pilots are in the cockpit breathing oxygen through masks. And they have somehow(?) disabled the passenger oxygen masks from deploying.)

At 30,000 feet cabin altitude, most passengers would have passed out. But they wouldn't be dead. And at least some of them would begin to regain consciousness as the plane descended - either to land, or as part of its evasion of radar.

So the pilots take the plane up to 42-45000 feet. And keep the plane there for 10 minutes or so. Long enough to kill anyone not breathing oxygen. End of the chances of the passengers storming the cockpit. And making things much quieter once the stolen plane got to its ultimate destination.

Its a sick, gruesome scenario, I know. But something very strange happened to that plane. And that provides a plausible answer for at least some of the strange things that happened.

 

[bradl]

A retired pilot/aviation consultant said he thought that was a radar anomaly, a distortion, that the 777 would not have been able to reach 45000' because it would not have been able to fly that high. Not knowing the weight of the aircraft as compared to it's max gross weight, based on my experience in the Airbus, what he is saying is reasonable.

It is reasonable that it could fly that high, as the ceiling is 43,100ft. But definitely not at MTOW or MGOW. it would have to burn off a considerable amount of fuel to get that high. However, I will say that 6 hours in should get you at least up to FL390. I base this on transatlantic flights from the US West Coast to, say, London, which B777s can reach that high after burning off 6 hours of fuel, depending on the weight of the aircraft, allotting for passengers, cargo, etc.

I will say this. If under control or radar coverage, the aircraft would have been WAFDOF (Wrong Altitude For Direction Of Flight), as the NEODD/SWEVEN rule ends at the ceiling of RVSM airspace, which is FL410. For RVSM airspace, aircraft can be separated by 1000ft for the direction of flight they are going. For example, FL290 would be eastbound, FL300 westbound, FL310 east, etc. etc., up to FL410 (east). After that, 2000ft vertical separation is required up to and including FL600. So FL450 would be the altitude for eastbound flight. Depending on where they were, they could have encountered opposite direction traffic, which would have been catastrophic.

BL.