Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 missing

[AforAndromeda]

ACARS, Transponder et al.

Hi,

There's obviously a high degree of professional level knowledge here at Macrumors.

Does anyone know for certain whether it is possible to change the 'signatures' of the reporting devices? .. e.g. like copying the signature of a military or small plane

It just strikes me that if you choose a duplicate of an existing one then maybe a plane could temporarily get further on before someone realises that something's amiss..

Anyone know? - particularly if it can be done inflight... like in the cockpit?

 

[Huntn]

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.

The 2 factors would be at what point in the flight are they saying it climbed to 45000, and what they used to determine that. My impression, which could be wrong, is that the 45k is something that they said happened early in the flight which would be unlikely.

TheWire.com: Newest Flight 370 Claim Says Someone Ordered the Plane's Computer to Change Course, If this report is correct, it's looking like catastrophic failure can be eliminated as a theory. They are saying that the aircraft starting turning before the communications shut down.

Flight 370’s Flight Management System reported its status to the Acars, which in turn transmitted information back to a maintenance base, according to an American official. This shows that the reprogramming happened before the Acars stopped working. The Acars ceased to function about the same time that oral radio contact was lost and the airplane’s transponder also stopped, fueling suspicions that foul play was involved in the plane’s disappearance.

 

[chabig]

Hi,

There's obviously a high degree of professional level knowledge here at Macrumors.

Does anyone know for certain whether it is possible to change the 'signatures' of the reporting devices? .. e.g. like copying the signature of a military or small plane?

There is no "signature". It's just a four digit code.

 

[bradl]

There is no "signature". It's just a four digit code.

correct. But to go into further detail, it is a code that is assigned by ATC that identifies that flight. It has to be discrete, so that no-one else in the airspace at that time can have it. If another flight does, it will show up as a conflict on the scopes, as it will conflict with another data tag.

Now, that could be entirely possible, if they know what code another flight in their immediate area is squawking. They would either know that by having ATC (going to go off of US phraseology here) tell the other flight "reset transponder, squawk xxxx" where "xxxx" is the 4-digit code, or they overheard it at the clearance delivery level.

However, that would conflict with other initial reports that the data tag was completely gone, as if the flight squawked standby or had the wires for it ripped out.

So spoofing another flight's data tag is unlikely.

BL.

 

[Tinmania]

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?

Conspiracy? I never said anything about a conspiracy. The Iranians fired at a US military helicopter that was in its territory (imagine that). Then, the over-zealous captain of the Vincennes shot down a civilian airliner that was, in no way, "flying straight for it." Goods lord, the aircraft was climbing.

"Commander David Carlson, commanding officer of the USS Sides, the warship stationed near to the Vincennes at the time of the incident, is reported (Fisk, 2005) to have said that the destruction of the aircraft "marked the horrifying climax to Captain Rogers' aggressiveness, first seen four weeks ago." His comment referred to incidents on 2 June, when Rogers had sailed the Vincennes too close to an Iranian frigate undertaking a lawful search of a bulk carrier, launched a helicopter within 2–3 miles (3.2–4.8 km) of an Iranian small craft despite rules of engagement requiring a four-mile (6.4 km) separation, and opened fire on a number of small Iranian military boats. Of those incidents, Carlson commented, "Why do you want an Aegis cruiser out there shooting up boats? It wasn't a smart thing to do." He also said of Iranian forces he'd encountered in the area a month prior to the incident were "...pointedly non-threatening" and professional"

Michael

 

[AforAndromeda]

correct. But to go into further detail, it is a code that is assigned by ATC that identifies that flight. It has to be discrete, so that no-one else in the airspace at that time can have it. If another flight does, it will show up as a conflict on the scopes, as it will conflict with another data tag.

Now, that could be entirely possible, if they know what code another flight in their immediate area is squawking. They would either know that by having ATC (going to go off of US phraseology here) tell the other flight "reset transponder, squawk xxxx" where "xxxx" is the 4-digit code, or they overheard it at the clearance delivery level.

However, that would conflict with other initial reports that the data tag was completely gone, as if the flight squawked standby or had the wires for it ripped out.

So spoofing another flight's data tag is unlikely.

BL.

Thanks...Interesting.

Just for my clarity, does that mean you could turn the systems off, recode them, and turn them on? - or (because they need to be powered) the ground would see one code go and another reappear?

But could you do it in-flight? As I understand it, turning off one of the unit involves going down into the belly.

 

[kolax]

Thanks...Interesting.

Just for my clarity, does that mean you could turn the systems off, recode them, and turn them on? - or (because they need to be powered) the ground would see one code go and another reappear?

But could you do it in-flight? As I understand it, turning off one of the unit involves going down into the belly.

You can change the squawk code when in standby.

 

[zioxide]

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.

It seems like a plausible scenario but I'm not convinced in this case. Everything I've read about the 777 indicates the way it's pressurization system is designed, there's no way to depressurize the cabin to a pressure lower than 14,000 feet without literally blowing a hole in the side of the plane. That could have happened, but I doubt it.

Seems likely that the 45,000 foot number was just a radar anomaly. That doesn't change the fact though that I think this plane was stolen and landed somewhere to be repurposed for something far more sinister.

 

[bradl]

You can change the squawk code when in standby.

You could even change it when it is in Mode C or 3A (active). You are just inputting 4 numbers. No need to switch it to standby to reset the code, then flip it back on again. Just change the number that needs to be changed, and it's done.

It seems like a plausible scenario but I'm not convinced in this case. Everything I've read about the 777 indicates the way it's pressurization system is designed, there's no way to depressurize the cabin to a pressure lower than 14,000 feet without literally blowing a hole in the side of the plane. That could have happened, but I doubt it.

Seems likely that the 45,000 foot number was just a radar anomaly. That doesn't change the fact though that I think this plane was stolen and landed somewhere to be repurposed for something far more sinister.

There was an incident where two pilots of a CRJ200 (may have even been a 700 or 900) on a ferry flight, decided to test the limits of the aircraft, taking it up to its service ceiling. Some other idiotic maneuvers ensued, causing them to crash; no survivors. For the conditions they were in, FL380 was their limit. The airline subsequently imposed a limit of FL370 for all of their aircraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinnacle_Airlines_Flight_3701

So it isn't too far of a stretch to see an altitude indicated for an aircraft that is at or exceeds their ceiling.

BL.

 

[yg17]

I want some clarification on the whole 45,000 feet theory I keep seeing floating around:

The first thing I'm hearing is that it's not possible to fly a 777 at 45,000 feet - the service ceiling is 43,000 so it never went up to FL45. That makes sense, but on the other hand, aren't a plane's performance numbers conservative? Boeing doesn't want a 777 falling out of the sky because a pilot took it 2 feet beyond it's ceiling. I'm guessing the actual, maximum altitude a 777 could go is considerably higher than 43,000, but that number was chosen to give some leeway, but 2,000 feet of leeway? That I'm not sure about - so, it it possible or not?

Second, let's assume it is possible and they did get to FL45. The theory there is that the pilots (or whoever was flying the plane) took it up there while wearing oxygen to kill everyone else on board. Doing that would necessitate depressurizing the cabin, but why go to FL45 to do that? They could depressurize the cabin at FL35 (the assigned altitude) and kill everyone, it's more than high enough. There's no need to go up to FL45.

 

[justperry]

Been following this topic for a while, it just bothers me that one of my favorite airlines lost this plane.
Another theory.

http://mh370shadow.com/post/79838944823/did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using-sia68-sq68

I flew/fly with MAS many times, overall a very reliable company, actually I like to fly with Asian airlines, overall they give me plenty more than the ones from the west.
Great service, low price, good food and so on.
Been in Malaysia many times for extended periods of time, read the Malay papers most of the time when I was there.

I strongly suggest to read a bit about Malay politics, tonight I saw on telly that Anwar Ibrahim (PKR political party) was again found guilty of sodomy, he's been charged, in jail and later on released because the judge said he wasn't guilty, now a few hours before this MAS flight 370 took of a judge again said he's guilty, the thing is that the captain of flight 370 was actively involved with PKR, kinda fishy if you ask me.

Now, Malaysia is full of incompetent people , but at least they are nice people, that is, to foreigners.

 

[bradl]

I want some clarification on the whole 45,000 feet theory I keep seeing floating around:

The first thing I'm hearing is that it's not possible to fly a 777 at 45,000 feet - the service ceiling is 43,000 so it never went up to FL45. That makes sense, but on the other hand, aren't a plane's performance numbers conservative? Boeing doesn't want a 777 falling out of the sky because a pilot took it 2 feet beyond it's ceiling. I'm guessing the actual, maximum altitude a 777 could go is considerably higher than 43,000, but that number was chosen to give some leeway, but 2,000 feet of leeway? That I'm not sure about - so, it it possible or not?

Second, let's assume it is possible and they did get to FL45. The theory there is that the pilots (or whoever was flying the plane) took it up there while wearing oxygen to kill everyone else on board. Doing that would necessitate depressurizing the cabin, but why go to FL45 to do that? They could depressurize the cabin at FL35 (the assigned altitude) and kill everyone, it's more than high enough. There's no need to go up to FL45.

Like FLG3701, the B772 in use here could fly up to FL450. It can, based on weight of the aircraft (which includes payload), configuration of the aircraft (with/without seats, configured as a passenger aircraft, etc.), and amount of fuel.

Now, what would happen at FL450 is a different story. It just won't fall or refuse to go any higher than its ceiling. You would have similar issues like what happened with FLG3701, like:

• engine flameout and shutdown from stalling,
• contraction of various seals due to cooling from the flameout at altitude, and
• prevention of the rotor turning to restart the engine.

Those, among others, would turn the aircraft into a huge glider, which is why I brought up the aforementioned Gimli Glider incident.

If it did happen, and they didn't override the automatic anti-stall procedures the avionics would make, that would explain the abrupt descent back to FL230, as they would have to reach 300kts TAS to initiate a windmill restart of the engines.

Have a read of what happened with Pinnacle 3701 and you can see how it relates to what might have happened here.

BL.

 

[olup]

Apologies, if this may have been posted before, but I came across this today and found it very plausible and perhaps it does shed a bit of light about what could have happened to that airplane.

He's saying that one of the tires may have caught fire and the pilot tried to look for the closest landing strip/airport, but the plane didn't make it.

https://plus.google.com/106271056358366282907/posts/GoeVjHJaGBz

 

[snberk103]

Another theory I just read …. I think it was the BBCs aviation expert is a very simply one. Basically, the plane had a very serious electrical fire that took out, among other things, the communications. The course change detected was simply the pilot doing what he was supposed to do…. getting the plane on the ground as soon as possible. The course change did (the BBC fellow said) put it on a line towards a very long runway. However, before the pilots could land the plane they were incapacitated and so it just flew on and on until it crashed - from a lack of fuel or because the autopilot was not controlling it.

While this scenario has the advantage of simplicity… I have to assume that the searchers would have thought of this and already searched where the plane could have ended up in this case.

 

[aristobrat]

Another theory.

http://mh370shadow.com/post/79838944823/did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using-sia68-sq68.

Interesting read. Wonder what bradl's thoughts on the feasibility of that would be?

 

[Peace]

Interesting read. Wonder what bradl's thoughts on the feasibility of that would be?

Wouldn't SIA68's close proximity alarm go off ?

 

[fat jez]

Wouldn't SIA68's close proximity alarm go off ?

The link suggests that the proximity alarm is based on receiving a nearby aircraft's transponder signal, the implication being that as the transponder was inactive, it would not have triggered the alarm.

 

[yg17]

Like FLG3701, the B772 in use here could fly up to FL450. It can, based on weight of the aircraft (which includes payload), configuration of the aircraft (with/without seats, configured as a passenger aircraft, etc.), and amount of fuel.

Now, what would happen at FL450 is a different story. It just won't fall or refuse to go any higher than its ceiling. You would have similar issues like what happened with FLG3701, like:

• engine flameout and shutdown from stalling,
• contraction of various seals due to cooling from the flameout at altitude, and
• prevention of the rotor turning to restart the engine.

Those, among others, would turn the aircraft into a huge glider, which is why I brought up the aforementioned Gimli Glider incident.

If it did happen, and they didn't override the automatic anti-stall procedures the avionics would make, that would explain the abrupt descent back to FL230, as they would have to reach 300kts TAS to initiate a windmill restart of the engines.

Have a read of what happened with Pinnacle 3701 and you can see how it relates to what might have happened here.

BL.

Yeah, I remember Pinnacle 3701, that deserved its Darwin Award nomination.

So I understand what might happen when they go up to FL450. But I still don't get why. If the intent is to depressurize and kill everyone on board, they don't need to go to FL450 and risk damaging the plane to do it. FL350 is plenty high to kill everyone.

 

[bradl]

Interesting read. Wonder what bradl's thoughts on the feasibility of that would be?

I would say this:

http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/404462-squawk-codes.html

The idea is that areas that use the same codes should be far enough apart that there is little or no possibility of wrong radar identification.

If more than one aircraft is squawking the same code, ATC will see the conflict, look through the flight strip to see what code was assigned to which aircraft (which would be plainly obvious to see), and ask the offending flight to reset their transponder to squawk the proper code. By setting the transponder to another code already in use, the flight won't just magically show up as a different callsign and target on ATC's display, especially if both aircraft are within the same range of the FIR/sector in question.

Yeah, I remember Pinnacle 3701, that deserved its Darwin Award nomination.

So I understand what might happen when they go up to FL450. But I still don't get why. If the intent is to depressurize and kill everyone on board, they don't need to go to FL450 and risk damaging the plane to do it. FL350 is plenty high to kill everyone.

Think about it this way. If it went up that high and depressurization was going to happen, the oxygen masks would be deployed, causing the passengers to have to put them on.

Now, if there were some foul play going on, the only ones who wouldn't have access to such masks would be those trying to commandeer the plane. At the very least, they would be in a struggle with the pilots to get to them. Otherwise, they would indeed pass out.

So it would be a game of chicken, and a quick one at that: see which one passes out first (pilots or hijackers); whichever one does not pass out gets the mask and control of the aircraft. My guess is that if this indeed did happen, the pilots won out, especially with how they were said to have leveled off at FL230.

BL.

 

[0007776]

Another theory I just read …. I think it was the BBCs aviation expert is a very simply one. Basically, the plane had a very serious electrical fire that took out, among other things, the communications. The course change detected was simply the pilot doing what he was supposed to do…. getting the plane on the ground as soon as possible. The course change did (the BBC fellow said) put it on a line towards a very long runway. However, before the pilots could land the plane they were incapacitated and so it just flew on and on until it crashed - from a lack of fuel or because the autopilot was not controlling it.

While this scenario has the advantage of simplicity… I have to assume that the searchers would have thought of this and already searched where the plane could have ended up in this case.

The more I read about it I think this scenario makes the most sense. And I'd guess there are enough variables that we don't know to make it very difficult to find out exactly where it would have run out of fuel and how far it would have glided from there before crashing that it is still a huge area to search. Searching based off of that assumption may eventually lead to something, but the Indian ocean is big, and what didn't sink is going to be spread out a lot by currents. My guess is if we ever find out what happened to this flight it will be because a piece of it washes up on a beach somewhere.

 

[Huntn]

I want some clarification on the whole 45,000 feet theory I keep seeing floating around:

The first thing I'm hearing is that it's not possible to fly a 777 at 45,000 feet - the service ceiling is 43,000 so it never went up to FL45. That makes sense, but on the other hand, aren't a plane's performance numbers conservative? Boeing doesn't want a 777 falling out of the sky because a pilot took it 2 feet beyond it's ceiling. I'm guessing the actual, maximum altitude a 777 could go is considerably higher than 43,000, but that number was chosen to give some leeway, but 2,000 feet of leeway? That I'm not sure about - so, it it possible or not?

Second, let's assume it is possible and they did get to FL45. The theory there is that the pilots (or whoever was flying the plane) took it up there while wearing oxygen to kill everyone else on board. Doing that would necessitate depressurizing the cabin, but why go to FL45 to do that? They could depressurize the cabin at FL35 (the assigned altitude) and kill everyone, it's more than high enough. There's no need to go up to FL45.

If the plane was heavy (full of payload/fuel) it would not be able to climb to 45k early in the flight, above it's service altitude. At 35k it might have been near it's max cruise altitude.

 

[bradl]

If the plane was heavy (full of payload/fuel) it would not be able to climb to 45k early in the flight, above it's service altitude. At 35k it might have been near it's max cruise altitude.

Agreed. This is where a step climb would be in order: Climb to a given altitude, remain at that altitude to burn off fuel (lose weight), climb to a higher altitude, burn off more fuel, then to what your final altitude would be.

This would be done over a given distance. But let's keep in mind that with 7 hours of fuel onboard from pushing back from the gate, they would be far from MTOW, let alone max. gross weight. They should have been able to reach FL350, let alone FL370 easily with their payload.

BL.

 

[vrDrew]

But let's keep in mind that with 7 hours of fuel onboard from pushing back from the gate, they would be far from MTOW, let alone max. gross weight. They should have been able to reach FL350, let alone FL370 easily with their payload.

The "45,000 feet" figure came from a (NY Times) story suggesting the data came from Malaysian military radar.

Whether the aircraft made it 45,000 feet, or merely topped out a 41,000 isn't significant. (It certainly wouldn't be the first time a military radar gave an incorrect altitude..) What is significant (IMHO) is that it happened immediately after losing its transponder signal and turned sharply to the west - and away from its scheduled course.

There are - again, my opinion - Two theories as to why this happened: The crew was dealing with a fire, ascended to altitude to starve it of oxygen, then attempted to reach an alternate landing site - but failed and crashed in the ocean. Or alternately, the pilots ascended rapidly to ensure the passengers were dead.

I'm skeptical of the in-flight fire theory. Yes: We've all heard the "aviate, navigate, communicate" line. But you would have thought they would have made some attempt to communicate their status. And the total absence of debris anywhere near the flight's scheduled route again argues strongly against this. Even more strong evidence against this is the "Ping" data received by satellite several hours after the course change. If it was an in-flight fire, it would count as the slowest burning one on record.

 

[Gutwrench]

Agreed. This is where a step climb would be in order: Climb to a given altitude, remain at that altitude to burn off fuel (lose weight), climb to a higher altitude, burn off more fuel, then to what your final altitude would be.

This would be done over a given distance.

BL.

What's the purpose of climb and remain to burn off fuel? Why not just dump the fuel you want to reach the weight you seek?

 

[bradl]

What's the purpose of climb and remain to burn off fuel? Why not just dump the fuel you want to reach the weight you seek?

Transatlantic flight, from say, SFO to LHR or LAX-LHR, and you're going to dump fuel? You need the fuel to get to where you need, plus at least an hour's worth for emergency and to get to an alternate airport. You most certainly are not going to dump that.

EDIT: Let me quantify this a little. Take for example that LAX-LHR flight. yesterday, UAL934 took the route of:

LOOP7.DAG LAS BCE EKR BFF FSD RST GRB J522 TVC YXI MIILS N67B VIXUN LOGSU 4900N 5000W 5100N 4000W 5300N 3000W 5400N 2000W DOGAL BEXET BAKUR UN546 STU UP2 OKESI Y3 BEDEK OCK2F

This is before picking up a NAT (North Atlantic Track) track to the UK. In plain English, that route translates to Leaving LAX, to Barstow, to Las Vegas, to over Bryce Canyon Nat'l Park area, to Meeker, Colorado, to Scottsbluff, NE, to Sioux Falls, SD, to Rochester, MN, to Green Bay, WI, across Lake Michigan, to Traverse City, MI, to Killaloe, Ontario. From there, they won't hit Ireland/UK airspace until BAKUR.

If they were to dump fuel to reach that higher altitude, even though there would be less oxygen available to burn the fuel, they still wouldn't have enough to make it across the US/Canada and the Atlantic without stopping to refuel at either Gander, Keflavik, or Shanwick.

BL.