Jump to content

Plane Missing


water ratz

Recommended Posts

So this thought is sure to have been posted somewhere before but when ppl are taking about terrorism and the fact that no one has claimed responsibility what if they have landed it somewhere and are preparing it for a kamikaze type event. Either that or alien abduction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

 

 

 

The system being tracked was not ACARS either. That also got turned off at some point, although I think that one does require wire cutters or the correct circuit breaker pulled to disable it as it is supposed to running all the time.

What they've seen is a Boeing system that can send data to the Boeing factory via satellites. It's kinda like Onstar, you have to subscribe to it for the full service to work. Malaysian didn't subscribe but the system is still on and sending pings saying "here is am" like a cell phone looking for a tower to connect to. I don't know that they could get any specific data from the ping or use it to triangulate position, but that's what they were getting for those last 4 hours after the transponder and ACARS was turned off. That tells me It definitely didn't crash right away and that there was a deliberate attempt to do something to hide the plane and where it was going. If the cabin just had a sudden decompression, all that stuff would have still been on.http://news.yahoo.com/rival-theories-malaysia-flights-disappearance-201057656.html

okay, well that makes sense, I just wasn't sure why something like that could be turned off. I read somewhere that there is a possibility that the black box could also have been switched off so if they do find the plane they may never know what happened.

 

It's all getting a little strange and i've got no idea what to believe with all the changes in the story.

 

I'll just be thinking it over on my flights next week....on Malaysian....

I am pretty sure there is no way to disconnect the black boxes. Besides, they are totally self contained. They are meant to emit an emergency locator beacon for 30 days until the self contained battery runs down. I am pretty sure the data recorders (black boxes, actually they are bright yellow) are located deep in the guts of the airplane and I do not think there would be any way of getting to them. It wouldn't matter anyway. They do do anything other than passively record data while in flight. Only upon a crash do they activate the locating beacon. So they would not have done anything to allow tracking while the jet was flying.

The expert on radio was advocating that the fdr's be wired in such a way that they coukd not be disconnected or depowered like they were in the 9/11 attacks. Im just repeating what I heard. I will try and find a link to the bit.

 

Am I correct in assuming the "transponders" mentioned by bowman81 are different from the FDR and CVR?

 

Which of them can be de-powered, if any?

 

yes. a transponder sends a constant signal with a constant code that lets the controllers know where that code is. IE, if the airplane is assigned a Squawk code of 2138, then when the controllers at each station see 2138 they will be able to identify it as you. Often on a long flight the squawk code may change midroute - at least for little bug smashers. There are also standard codes: 1200=VFR, 7700 = going to heaven, 7600= lost communication, and 7500 is hijack.

 

I know as much as you as far as the FDR/CVR/ACARS. The transponder can be switched off, as JFSB mentioned, so that it doesnt bog up the control towers screen at the airport. The exception to that would be an airport that has ground radar (for lack of the right term) so they can electronically track each airplane's location on the ground, in which you leave it active on the ground. Not all airports will have that capability, though, in which case it is a courtesy to the controllers to turn it off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FLIGHT MH370 SEARCH DATA IN GOOGLE EARTH

 

http://ogleearth.com/2014/03/flight-mh370-search-data-in-google-earth/

 

 

 

 

Inadvertent time travel, preceded by spatial/temporal spasms. The plane is currently 2 miles underground in a Pleistocene formation.

.

Coud allso be in hollode oute vulcannoe no?

Could a parallel universe have immediately swelled up from random cosmological fluctuation according to the multiverse theory and swallowed the flight into its folds, or could ice have built up on an airspeed sensor? Those are both options we are currently considering, Rahman added. Everythings on the table. That is, insofar as anything exists at all, which were also looking into.

 

The bottom line is that we have a sophisticated aircraft fresh off a safety inspection with no prior incident of malfunction, flying in good weather at a cruising altitude, Rahman continued. Why didnt the pilot send a distress signal? Why arent we finding a debris path? What are we to make of the contradictory radar information? Where did the universe begin and can it be said to have a limit or an edge? What is mankinds role in it? Is there a God? If so, what is Gods nature?

 

Its too early to answer these questions right now, but I can assure you that Malaysia Airlines will get to the bottom of it, Rahman added. Our top people are on it right now.

 

http://www.theonion.com/articles/malaysian-airlines-expands-investigation-to-includ,35524/

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

US registered Aircraft manufactured before 2010 have to record 8 hours of data. After 2010 requires 25 hours. Voice recorders require 2 hours but may erase all but last 15 minutes. CFR91.609.

So... any audio from the cockpit at the time of the [presumed] takeover is likely gone forever?

 

The statement is that the last 15 minutes of audio is protected, so just like when your Skip says pull on your sheet you ease?

 

You may want to holster your snark.

 

-- let's presume that the voice recorder retains *all* of the required 2 hours.

-- let's presume the plane flew for 5-6 hours after the takeover, as is currently the theory.

That means that the voice recorder will *not* have any record of cockpit conversations/scuffles/whatever at the time of the takeover.

 

I can use shorter words, if needed?

 

I read a comment on PPRUNE that B777 CVR's can hold several long haul flight's worth of cockpit audio. However, it is a moot point as anyone who managed to switch off all the aircraft comms systems would probably find a way to switch off or disable the CVR as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How much is that plane worth by parts ? Why sell cocaine ? Passengers just collateral damage. Dam ...Sad..

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very hard to figure out where to get info about this flight. The wikipedia page seems to just end. The news all seems to be reaching. The governments seem to be either not telling or just don't know. I guess we just wait. Anyone have a good link (not some paranoid freak)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI Any service like OnStar for a vehicle is controlled 100% by the Co. Selling the service

 

Don't pay your bill (Or don't subscribe) and it won't do you any good (like cable modem at your house)

 

Now if you Do Subscribe they (from the comfort of their Office) can activate it

 

OnStar was Sued because they could listen in on conversations of Non Customers

 

Soooo if the engines had a service that was in place yet Not subscribed to And "The Powers That Be" had 4 - 6 hours to subscribe to the Service

 

Naaaaa they wouldn't have thought of that

 

That would be like the Co. gathering Data on Every Engine 100% of the time and just not sharing it with anyone till Paid

 

It's NOT Lost !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very hard to figure out where to get info about this flight. The wikipedia page seems to just end. The news all seems to be reaching. The governments seem to be either not telling or just don't know. I guess we just wait. Anyone have a good link (not some paranoid freak)?

 

The guys monitoring the engines, I took nearly a week for the fact that the engines kept going for 5 hours after the plane lost contact with the airline?

That makes no sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. Its time to start a pool as to where this jet is. Of course, depending on what happened it might be a two part question: what happened initially and where is it currently. So lets, just keep with the first part. My current guess is the planned went to Myanmar (Burma). Anybody else?

Hydra Island. The pilot was a member of the DHARMA initiative

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very hard to figure out where to get info about this flight. The wikipedia page seems to just end. The news all seems to be reaching. The governments seem to be either not telling or just don't know. I guess we just wait. Anyone have a good link (not some paranoid freak)?

.

 

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/other-asian-australian-south-pacific-airlines/1558464-mh-370-kul-pek-missing-search-operations-ongoing-please-see-wiki-152.html

 

also but a lot more to read

 

summary

We KNOW 4 things.

- The a/c disappeared from secondary radar and stopped communicating. We do not know why or what happened to it.

 

- There is some evidence that it traveled west. But that evidence is not conclusive or sure.

 

- We have not found it despite multiple governmental agencies from multiple countries searching hard.

 

- We have a better idea were it is NOT

 

**** SUMMARY PROVIDED BY MEMBER: rcair1 (Post 77 from thread 23) ****

 

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/6025442#menu102

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Malaysian government is handling this in a very peculiar manner. Apparently they knew the plane had flown back over Penang and still kept the search going in the wrong place for a week. Their military is looking pretty bad right now, nobody saw the radar blip of an unidentified aircraft flying over their country until they checked the tapes again. WTF?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/world/asia/series-of-errors-by-malaysia-mounts-complicating-the-task-of-finding-flight-370.html?action=click&contentCollection=Asia%20Pacific&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

Link to post
Share on other sites

My WAG is he splashed it in the southern ocean. Somehow this feels like an mega-ego driven murder-suicide, and by a guy who wanted to leave a mystery. He doesn't want the crash to be found, so....

 

I agree.

 

If what they are putting out is true then it sure does seem like a suicide similar to Silk Air and Egypt Air. One of the pilots studied both incidents and realized that as long as the plane can not be recovered then his family gets the insurance. Further the flight is full of Chinese and it is a quiet attack on how the Chinese are treating their home grown Muslim population. No plane = no proof of suicide.

 

 

So yes if I was betting, the pilot did everything possible to allude tracking. He then flies the southern track telling passengers initially that they are avoiding weather, then tells them that there is a delay in landing. Finally it is nose down in the deepest trench possible. 14000 feet down on the bottom and way, way out of range of land based maritime aircraft. There is only the one P-8 available and the remaining Indian Tu's that are old as crap that have the range to get into the southern ocean. The one P-8 needs to be refueled several times. So it will take some serious time to get down there and do a search. Even if parts are found floating the search circle is huge and then we even have issues of getting Naval ships to the search location without a Tanker to refuel. At some point the USS Kidd is going to have to get a tanker or turn around. One destroyer and a very few aircraft dropping sonar buoys will have a tough time finding the aircraft on the bottom. I am hearing that the batteries run out in 30 days?

 

The only hope would be enough positions from the satellite fixes to radically limit the area to be searched. Then hope that near the end of the flight the pilot did not turn and fly 20 minutes in a different direction. If so we send the destroyer and aircraft to a much smaller search area there is hope that the pings from the black boxes would be heard.

 

 

If it was a suicide he sure thought through it very well. The logistics alone for a search of the Southern Indian Ocean strictly on the surface is daunting. But also underwater within 30 days. Good luck if you can't narrow down the search area.

Link to post
Share on other sites

how could something like that Jet w empty tanks not Float ??

 

at least the wings break off and float ??

 

Will the Movie be out before the pinging stops ??

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read some where the engines on a 777 are way to big for a ditch at sea. But at this point?? Could have happened.

 

I keep thinking about the fire in the sky to oil rig worker saw. Then a disabled jet goes off in some direction till the engines stall from fuel starvation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard a limit of 1 ticket for those using stolen passports per flight has been put into effect starting tomorrow :o

Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS - the misinformation just in this thread is mind boggling. Let's review:

 

  • Transponders can be turned off easily from cockpit
  • ACARS probably can be disabled from outside the cockpit with a cut wire or pulled CB. But you would have to have a good working knowledge of the B777 to know where to look
  • FDR and CVR are unlikely to be able to be disconnected. Maybe the CVR, but not the FDR.

I was flying from London back to the UAE today (ironically on a 777) and was reading a good article in the UK's Sunday Telegraph on the latest on the MH370 case and there are some very disturbing things coming out. Looks like the link to terrorism is coming out more and more.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10700652/Malaysia-Airline-MH370-911-style-terror-allegations-resurface-in-case-of-lost-plane.html

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10700790/Malaysian-Airlines-MH370-how-much-do-we-really-know.html

 

The 1st link is particularly disturbing and may explain much of the Malaysian gov't's recalcitrance in providing timely information. There may be some serious egg on the face of the Malay gov't and military here.

 

The other thing to consider in their (Malaysia) handling is that they are still a relatively immature and backwaters society. Plus being an Asian culture and having to save face I believed combined to create roadblocks to them getting out timely and accurate info. If they knew of a terrorist plot, they may have gone into "defense mode" and tried to coverup.

 

I think more and more this was a terror plot gone bad, maybe even something like the United Flight 93 where the pax fought back eventually and crashed it.

 

The two main scenarios:

1) Pilots did a Silk Air and crashed it. However, the pilot profiles just don't make any sense for that at all to me.

2) 9/11 style terror plot to run it into the PETRONAS Towers or similar and something went wrong. Maybe the rookie pilots got lost. Maybe when they cut the wire to the ACARS, they killed the GPS nav system as well. Dunno.

 

As to the objection that if it was a terror plot, why hasn't someone claimed responsibility? Valid question, but if the target was the Petronis towers and it failed and the plane is sitting in 14K feet of water right now..... maybe the terror leaders are keeping their mouths shut and letting this be called an accident so they can try again. If they claim they brought it down, then terror is confirmed and world wide airport security goes through the roof again. Their chances to try again are blown. But if its just an "accident", then nothing really changes and they might get to try again.

Interesting links. Thanks

 

I've decided its collusion between the major governments of the world, probably the evil US, to shoot down an airliner to foment fear and suspicion thus ensuring a steady cash flow into weapons development so that generals and admirals can live in rich comfort and continue to molest unsuspecting military women.

 

.......or somali pirates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok terrorism that did not work out or suicide. One of the biggest problems that I have with trying to guess or narrow down the possibilities is trying to decide what information to believe and what to throw out. With the need to have breaking news I am afraid that some of our facts are complete fabrications.

 

One of the thoughts that I originally considered was sudden decompression but based on reported facts that is thrown out. I have to wonder if just like 9/11 years latter many of us will still believe that the Terrorists crossed the Canadian border the day of the hijacking.

 

I could see hijacking or commandeering (the newest term to more narrowly define what happened) but instead of crashing to the ground as Flight 93 did this flight decompresses and flies on until it runs out of gas. Everyone is dead but the plane maintains a straight course on auto pilot.

 

If we just take a small section of the circle that represents where we think the 777 ran out of fuel in the Southern Indian Ocean I have to wonder if we have been able to put any plane or ship there yet. Just setting up the tankers for either is going to take time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we just take a small section of the circle that represents where we think the 777 ran out of fuel in the Southern Indian Ocean I have to wonder if we have been able to put any plane or ship there yet. Just setting up the tankers for either is going to take time.

 

If it takes as long as the Air France search, won't they be seeing the weather get a bit more unsettled as we move into May/Jun???

Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS - the misinformation just in this thread is mind boggling. Let's review:

 

  • Transponders can be turned off easily from cockpit
  • ACARS probably can be disabled from outside the cockpit with a cut wire or pulled CB. But you would have to have a good working knowledge of the B777 to know where to look
  • FDR and CVR are unlikely to be able to be disconnected. Maybe the CVR, but not the FDR.

I was flying from London back to the UAE today (ironically on a 777) and was reading a good article in the UK's Sunday Telegraph on the latest on the MH370 case and there are some very disturbing things coming out. Looks like the link to terrorism is coming out more and more.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10700652/Malaysia-Airline-MH370-911-style-terror-allegations-resurface-in-case-of-lost-plane.html

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10700790/Malaysian-Airlines-MH370-how-much-do-we-really-know.html

 

The 1st link is particularly disturbing and may explain much of the Malaysian gov't's recalcitrance in providing timely information. There may be some serious egg on the face of the Malay gov't and military here.

 

The other thing to consider in their (Malaysia) handling is that they are still a relatively immature and backwaters society. Plus being an Asian culture and having to save face I believed combined to create roadblocks to them getting out timely and accurate info. If they knew of a terrorist plot, they may have gone into "defense mode" and tried to coverup.

 

I think more and more this was a terror plot gone bad, maybe even something like the United Flight 93 where the pax fought back eventually and crashed it.

 

The two main scenarios:

1) Pilots did a Silk Air and crashed it. However, the pilot profiles just don't make any sense for that at all to me.

2) 9/11 style terror plot to run it into the PETRONAS Towers or similar and something went wrong. Maybe the rookie pilots got lost. Maybe when they cut the wire to the ACARS, they killed the GPS nav system as well. Dunno.

 

As to the objection that if it was a terror plot, why hasn't someone claimed responsibility? Valid question, but if the target was the Petronis towers and it failed and the plane is sitting in 14K feet of water right now..... maybe the terror leaders are keeping their mouths shut and letting this be called an accident so they can try again. If they claim they brought it down, then terror is confirmed and world wide airport security goes through the roof again. Their chances to try again are blown. But if its just an "accident", then nothing really changes and they might get to try again.

If they crashed into the towers they would kill mostly muslims. Not really the message they like to send with such a big opportunity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

FFS - the misinformation just in this thread is mind boggling. Let's review:

 

 

  • Transponders can be turned off easily from cockpit
  • ACARS probably can be disabled from outside the cockpit with a cut wire or pulled CB. But you would have to have a good working knowledge of the B777 to know where to look
  • FDR and CVR are unlikely to be able to be disconnected. Maybe the CVR, but not the FDR.
I was flying from London back to the UAE today (ironically on a 777) and was reading a good article in the UK's Sunday Telegraph on the latest on the MH370 case and there are some very disturbing things coming out. Looks like the link to terrorism is coming out more and more.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10700652/Malaysia-Airline-MH370-911-style-terror-allegations-resurface-in-case-of-lost-plane.html

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10700790/Malaysian-Airlines-MH370-how-much-do-we-really-know.html

 

The 1st link is particularly disturbing and may explain much of the Malaysian gov't's recalcitrance in providing timely information. There may be some serious egg on the face of the Malay gov't and military here.

 

The other thing to consider in their (Malaysia) handling is that they are still a relatively immature and backwaters society. Plus being an Asian culture and having to save face I believed combined to create roadblocks to them getting out timely and accurate info. If they knew of a terrorist plot, they may have gone into "defense mode" and tried to coverup.

 

I think more and more this was a terror plot gone bad, maybe even something like the United Flight 93 where the pax fought back eventually and crashed it.

 

The two main scenarios:

1) Pilots did a Silk Air and crashed it. However, the pilot profiles just don't make any sense for that at all to me.

2) 9/11 style terror plot to run it into the PETRONAS Towers or similar and something went wrong. Maybe the rookie pilots got lost. Maybe when they cut the wire to the ACARS, they killed the GPS nav system as well. Dunno.

 

As to the objection that if it was a terror plot, why hasn't someone claimed responsibility? Valid question, but if the target was the Petronis towers and it failed and the plane is sitting in 14K feet of water right now..... maybe the terror leaders are keeping their mouths shut and letting this be called an accident so they can try again. If they claim they brought it down, then terror is confirmed and world wide airport security goes through the roof again. Their chances to try again are blown. But if its just an "accident", then nothing really changes and they might get to try again.

If they crashed into the towers they would kill mostly muslims. Not really the message they like to send with such a big opportunity.
Muslim on Muslim violence? Unheard of!
Link to post
Share on other sites

since all we can do at this point is speculate, im beginning to wonder if this is going to be like the TWA Long Island incident, where the actual possibility exists that someone somewhere knew there was a terrorist plot developing and they shot the thing down. The Malaysians know, we know, the Chinese know, and no one will say anything for fear of causing panic. Im still not ruling out aliens, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never even thought that it was going to be winter in the southern Indian Ocean...... Just add that to the list of issues.

 

The Intel people have got to narrow down the area to an X marks the spot. JBSF can give a ball park figure on how many KC 135 or KC 10s it would take to support just one P8. Keep in mind that at these distances we would end up needing to refuel the refuelers! Then we should have spare refuelers airborne because if an airborne refueler has issues then you have a brand new P8 without fuel in the middle of the ocean. So the Air segment involves a good number of aircraft.

 

The satellite segment is a mystery to me. I can't imagine that the Southern IO is of interest to any nation that has recon satellites of any type.

 

The ship side is a bitch to say the least. The big numbers for range come from slow speeds. Wikipedia will tell you the range of a ship is 2500 miles but that is at 15 knots. So we need a tanker fitted with ship to ship refueling gear. The tanker can only be in one place at one time. Then there are food issues. Other than US and Australian ships nobody in their right mind carries emergency rations and those are at very best for 45 days. So more than likely we use some form of survey ships, freighters, Ocean going tugs and a few Intel gathering ships - converted tugs and trawlers. But all of these are slow. Just getting these types of ship to the X marks the spot will take a lot of time. Some of these ships also need to be fitted with some form of passive sonar to listen for pings from the aircraft on the floor of the ocean.

 

While the Chinese are interested, their at sea refueling gear I believe is not compatable with the NATO gear that the rest of the countries in the area would use. So do not expect some Joint US Navy / Chinese operation either. They can refuel each other but it is tough especially in bad weather.

 

This is a mess. I have never heard of situation like this one. IF and I say IF we need to do a search of the Southern Indian Ocean without a very certain area it could be impossible or very difficult. These two routes that are talked about one north and one south. If they are fairly narrow lines that would help tremendously. If they expand from a center line such that as we go farther the width of the area increases and we don't know where to stop the search (we are not sure when the plane ran out of fuel) The search for wreckage on the bottom becomes more difficult. Floating wreckage will drift so as time passes the search area for floating wreckage is absolutely huge! The bottom search while nothing will drift is still very deep. I have no idea about listening for pings when the pings are 14000 feet down!

 

What I am hoping for is that there is a rhumb line of the track of this aircraft. Then along this line we have an estimate of perhaps an hour or less when the aircraft ran out of fuel. The reports say that once an hour data was pushed out. So if we have a stretch of perhaps 450 nautical miles at a width of 20 miles we have ourselves a doable search area. This is really the best scenario for a search that I can think of.

 

BTW - anyone decided who is going to pay for all of this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they crashed into the towers they would kill mostly muslims. Not really the message they like to send with such a big opportunity.

They would find a way to blame the west.

The left Blames the Right and the Right blames the Left.

 

Personally

  • It was stolen to sell for profit and live on some shithole island and have stolen girls to bang until we find their asses and kill them.

    There are actually people that think they might get away with it.

  • It was stolen to be gone over by engineers and find weaknesses for future terrorists activity. This is front line Tech.

  • China, paid to have it stolen so they could reverse engineer and have front line tech, instead of last years news.

    all the Chinese passengers will be returned to families at prescribed times in the future and everyone else will languish eating rice and fish heads until they die. ps, our government knows :) just kidding about anyone knowing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I write this the logistics that I remember become even worse. Remember I spoke about Sonar Buoys or Sono Buoys? There is just a small wrinkle in that statement. The sono buoys available are classified. They float for a while. The US Navy does not want to have the Chinese get them. So....they would want to use older types....very older types. I am certain that there are very few older types in Malaysia. So that is a C-17 flight....

 

If this was planned as a suicide or disappearance the planner really did their homework.

 

Nobody should respond to this question. There is a report that the 777 went to 45,000 feet twice? Would it be possible to put on oxygen in the cockpit and depressurize the rest of the plane to kill the crew and passengers? Then put it on Auto pilot before the severe cold kills or renders the pilot on oxygen unable to function? I am trying to figure out the report and maneuvering of the 777. I still favor suicide vice terror gone wrong. I do not believe that the aircraft was headed back to the Petonis Towers and took a lot of maneuvers to avoid the Malaysian Air Force.....Serioiusly. The Malaysian Air Force is a joke. Put the Aircraft down to 500 feet and wear a pair of night vision goggles and you could fly up and down the coast without ever seeing a MIG 29! Turn it around and claim an engine issue and they wouldn't have a jet in the air by the time a Tower was on the ground.....I do not buy that scenario at all.

 

The Malay Air Farce is for air shows and not much else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

FFS - the misinformation just in this thread is mind boggling. Let's review:

 

  • Transponders can be turned off easily from cockpit
  • ACARS probably can be disabled from outside the cockpit with a cut wire or pulled CB. But you would have to have a good working knowledge of the B777 to know where to look
  • FDR and CVR are unlikely to be able to be disconnected. Maybe the CVR, but not the FDR.

I was flying from London back to the UAE today (ironically on a 777) and was reading a good article in the UK's Sunday Telegraph on the latest on the MH370 case and there are some very disturbing things coming out. Looks like the link to terrorism is coming out more and more.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10700652/Malaysia-Airline-MH370-911-style-terror-allegations-resurface-in-case-of-lost-plane.html

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10700790/Malaysian-Airlines-MH370-how-much-do-we-really-know.html

 

The 1st link is particularly disturbing and may explain much of the Malaysian gov't's recalcitrance in providing timely information. There may be some serious egg on the face of the Malay gov't and military here.

 

The other thing to consider in their (Malaysia) handling is that they are still a relatively immature and backwaters society. Plus being an Asian culture and having to save face I believed combined to create roadblocks to them getting out timely and accurate info. If they knew of a terrorist plot, they may have gone into "defense mode" and tried to coverup.

 

I think more and more this was a terror plot gone bad, maybe even something like the United Flight 93 where the pax fought back eventually and crashed it.

 

The two main scenarios:

1) Pilots did a Silk Air and crashed it. However, the pilot profiles just don't make any sense for that at all to me.

2) 9/11 style terror plot to run it into the PETRONAS Towers or similar and something went wrong. Maybe the rookie pilots got lost. Maybe when they cut the wire to the ACARS, they killed the GPS nav system as well. Dunno.

 

As to the objection that if it was a terror plot, why hasn't someone claimed responsibility? Valid question, but if the target was the Petronis towers and it failed and the plane is sitting in 14K feet of water right now..... maybe the terror leaders are keeping their mouths shut and letting this be called an accident so they can try again. If they claim they brought it down, then terror is confirmed and world wide airport security goes through the roof again. Their chances to try again are blown. But if its just an "accident", then nothing really changes and they might get to try again.

Interesting links. Thanks

 

I've decided its collusion between the major governments of the world, probably the evil US, to shoot down an airliner to foment fear and suspicion thus ensuring a steady cash flow into weapons development so that generals and admirals can live in rich comfort and continue to molest unsuspecting military women.

 

.......or somali pirates.

 

 

A disgruntled employee could have done this too. So much of the reporting indicates deep knowledge of aircraft systems.

Talking an Adam Lanza level of crazy here, for sure, but it has to be looked at.

 

Meanwhile I suggest they get everything that can down in the southern ocean looking for debris. It's where somebody who wanted an enduring PITA mystery would have gone. Seems like this was structured to create exactly that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

As to the objection that if it was a terror plot, why hasn't someone claimed responsibility? Valid question, but if the target was the Petronis towers and it failed and the plane is sitting in 14K feet of water right now..... maybe the terror leaders are keeping their mouths shut and letting this be called an accident so they can try again. If they claim they brought it down, then terror is confirmed and world wide airport security goes through the roof again. Their chances to try again are blown. But if its just an "accident", then nothing really changes and they might get to try again.

If they crashed into the towers they would kill mostly muslims. Not really the message they like to send with such a big opportunity.
Muslim on Muslim violence? Unheard of!

 

Clean has a good point. Its very possible that even muslim extremists would balk at that message. Might turn the moderates against them even if they do believe that those muslims working in the KL office towers are not true believers.

 

edit: maybe Singapore or Hong Kong? Or more likely Mumbai. I wonder if the Indians shot it down and are keeping mum about it.

It's Farr now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS - the misinformation just in this thread is mind boggling. Let's review:

 

 

  • Transponders can be turned off easily from cockpit
  • ACARS probably can be disabled from outside the cockpit with a cut wire or pulled CB. But you would have to have a good working knowledge of the B777 to know where to look
  • FDR and CVR are unlikely to be able to be disconnected. Maybe the CVR, but not the FDR.
I was flying from London back to the UAE today (ironically on a 777) and was reading a good article in the UK's Sunday Telegraph on the latest on the MH370 case and there are some very disturbing things coming out. Looks like the link to terrorism is coming out more and more.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10700652/Malaysia-Airline-MH370-911-style-terror-allegations-resurface-in-case-of-lost-plane.html

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10700790/Malaysian-Airlines-MH370-how-much-do-we-really-know.html

 

The 1st link is particularly disturbing and may explain much of the Malaysian gov't's recalcitrance in providing timely information. There may be some serious egg on the face of the Malay gov't and military here.

 

The other thing to consider in their (Malaysia) handling is that they are still a relatively immature and backwaters society. Plus being an Asian culture and having to save face I believed combined to create roadblocks to them getting out timely and accurate info. If they knew of a terrorist plot, they may have gone into "defense mode" and tried to coverup.

 

I think more and more this was a terror plot gone bad, maybe even something like the United Flight 93 where the pax fought back eventually and crashed it.

 

The two main scenarios:

1) Pilots did a Silk Air and crashed it. However, the pilot profiles just don't make any sense for that at all to me.

2) 9/11 style terror plot to run it into the PETRONAS Towers or similar and something went wrong. Maybe the rookie pilots got lost. Maybe when they cut the wire to the ACARS, they killed the GPS nav system as well. Dunno.

 

As to the objection that if it was a terror plot, why hasn't someone claimed responsibility? Valid question, but if the target was the Petronis towers and it failed and the plane is sitting in 14K feet of water right now..... maybe the terror leaders are keeping their mouths shut and letting this be called an accident so they can try again. If they claim they brought it down, then terror is confirmed and world wide airport security goes through the roof again. Their chances to try again are blown. But if its just an "accident", then nothing really changes and they might get to try again.

I believe you are wrong about the fdrs though I guess the expert I heard cold be wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks JBSF I always appreciate you lending your experience here. I definitely now see how this could have been terror gone wrong. Erratic flying followed by a straight course until the fuel runs out. We really do not know all of the details so it is tough to put everything together. But I think that the possibilities that you outlined here are close to the truth. At minimum a situation where the passengers may have stormed the cockpit after a hijacking to a series of events that led to depressurization does seem to be a very likely explanation. When the first reports came that there was maneuvering and then a fairly straight line it sounded a lot like depressurization was involved. All I can think of is that business jet with the Golfer onboard followed by Air Force jets across half the country until it ran out of fuel.

 

Good god that 777 is going to be way out there if it ended up at 23000 feet only after 1.5 hours after take off!

 

- To add to your Theory - It would have been smart for the Hijackers to not tell anyone of their plans. To compartmentalize the act. Let the collapsed Petronis Tower speak for itself. With US Law Enforcement now in Malaysia and talking to their leadership it does make sense that we are seeing a quick focus on the pilots. The argument being to quickly investigate and either confirm or be able to show clearly that the Pilots were not likely involved in order to avoid embarrassing theories like mine.

 

- If the 777 runs out of fuel on Auto pilot at 23000 feet with the wheels and flaps up (clean) what happens? I would assume there is still electric power. Does the aircraft not stall but keeps its airspeed above stall speed as it glides down? If so would we have some floating wreckage out there?

Link to post
Share on other sites

came across this little gem

 

Was the plane 'cyber hijacked', using a mobile phone?

A mobile phone or a USB stick could have been used by a hacker to potentially change the plane's altitude, speed and direction by sending radio signals to its flight management system.

Was it possible for hackers to get into main computer network of the plane through the in-flight, on-board entertainment system? Whoever was responsible for the plane's disappearance likely has a 'very sophisticated systems engineering understanding'.

 

and this theory about shadowing another plane seems interesting

 

http://keithledgerwood.tumblr.com/post/79838944823/did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using-sia68

Link to post
Share on other sites

The quantity of derp in this thread is impressive.

 

I personally know two 777 drivers. One is posting here: http://www.catsailor.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=270140&nt=2&page=1 Screen name is Timbo.

 

Facts:

- On the 777 ALL the electronics pass through a compartment that's underneath the cockpit/first class cabin. There have been fires in the EE compartment before.

- CVR and FDR are orange (not yellow) and can be disabled by pulling the circuit breakers. (They need power to operate.)

- When the gas runs out, all power is gone shortly thereafter (generators are run off the engines; APU needs gas too, batteries don't last that long; Emergency Power Assist System (EPAS) has to be deployed manually)

- If the cockpit pressurization altitude sensor goes below 11,000, all hell breaks loose - warning alarms, etc.

- If the cabin pressurization altitude sensor goes below 10,000, the O2 masks drop automatically (but they can be disabled by pulling the CB)

- Pilot's O2 supply lasts 1 hr; pax lasts 15 minutes.

- The Inmarsat that picked up the signals from the plane is geostationary over the Indian ocean. It cannot pinpoint the direction of the signal, only the angle - thus the search area arcs that are currently being checked out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a theory

 

It was stolen, was flown to Pakistan where it will be rebadged and fitted with a suitcase nuke to be set off at a later date.

Better bang for the buck would be a neutron device - Set off at 35,000, it would fry unprotected electronics back to the stone age for many years

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm betting TSA is frustrated to no end by not knowing the proper excuse to use

 

for additional inconveniences and indignities they are ready to put into effect

 

but look for Speculative Preventative Measures to go into effect right away

 

We are Soooo close to Just Plane Not Worth Flyin Commercial

 

If I'm going for more than a Day and Can Drive I'm NOT Flyin (TAHOE, LV)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The quantity of derp in this thread is impressive.

 

I personally know two 777 drivers. One is posting here: http://www.catsailor.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=270140&nt=2&page=1 Screen name is Timbo.

 

Facts:

- On the 777 ALL the electronics pass through a compartment that's underneath the cockpit/first class cabin. There have been fires in the EE compartment before.

- CVR and FDR are orange (not yellow) and can be disabled by pulling the circuit breakers. (They need power to operate.)

- When the gas runs out, all power is gone shortly thereafter (generators are run off the engines; APU needs gas too, batteries don't last that long; Emergency Power Assist System (EPAS) has to be deployed manually)

- If the cockpit pressurization altitude sensor goes below 11,000, all hell breaks loose - warning alarms, etc.

- If the cabin pressurization altitude sensor goes below 10,000, the O2 masks drop automatically (but they can be disabled by pulling the CB)

- Pilot's O2 supply lasts 1 hr; pax lasts 15 minutes.

- The Inmarsat that picked up the signals from the plane is geostationary over the Indian ocean. It cannot pinpoint the direction of the signal, only the angle - thus the search area arcs that are currently being checked out.

 

I read what Timbo posted and now understand the aircraft better so the weak spot is the floor not the walls. He is a 777 pilot and former USAF KC-135 pilot so his information is accurate about the 777.

 

Ok - If I understand this - We have one fixed point. The geostationary Inmarsat. The Inmarsat got data at a known times and angles from the aircraft. So we have two arcs. One arc is north and one is south. How do we not have course, speed and location? The variance is the height of the aircraft. So if I ballpark between 10,000 and 35,000 - 22,500 feet I now have with the fixed point of the Sat, the angle and the distance of the aircraft from the Inmarsat.

 

I am used to doing this from a ship so the 3d aspect may be confusing. I then DR out on the arc from the last transmission for one hour or the time between transmissions. So I should have a search area. The first two points is the last transmission. The final two points are when the Inmarsat should have received a transmission. I say two points because if we only have an angle the variance will increase as the distance from the Inmarsat increases. (Curvature of the Earth)

 

Connect the four points and I have the area where the plane should be.

 

I must be missing something, what is it? Maybe a functioning brain this morning!

 

Because if I get an angle from the fixed position satellite every hour I have a about seven semi- circles to work with. I don't need much more than this. This is similar to only getting a single bearing at the top of the hour for seven hours. Yes I am assuming a few things but this should work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must be missing something, what is it?

A bit harder than that. This is closer to what we (Navy types) call target motion analysis, or the fine art of hunting submarines. Yes, the satellite geo-posit and slant angle, coupled with an assumed altitude, gives you a range to an arc; multiple hits should give you several arcs.

 

However, there are lots of course/speed solutions that will fit a given set of arcs. For example:

1) A series of hits give the same range for an assumed altitude. Possibilities: Aircraft is flying at a steady speed and altitude along the arc, which maintains a given range to the satellite. Or, the aircraft is sitting still. Or, the aircraft is moving away from the satellite and dropping in altitude, essentially flying down the slant path. Or, moving toward the satellite and gaining altitude.

2) A series of hits gives increasing ranges for an assumed altitude. Aircraft may be moving directly away from the satellite at low speed, or moving diagonally away at higher speed. Or flying down the arc and gaining altitude.

 

A graphic to help confuse the situation: tma2.png This shows two very different solutions (course A and course B) that both fit the bearing lines.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its too heavy even if it wasn't ingesting gravel the landing gear would be busted off from sinking into the ground when it landed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

very interesting indeed.

 

and if proved to be true, very clever too.

That was my thought as well. It would be one way to get through India and the 'stans - but to where???

 

Although I would think that radar would pick up the following plane as a separate target from the lead aircraft, unless he was literally right behind em.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

very interesting indeed.

 

and if proved to be true, very clever too.

That was my thought as well. It would be one way to get through India and the 'stans - but to where???

 

Although I would think that radar would pick up the following plane as a separate target from the lead aircraft, unless he was literally right behind em.

Not sure what the capabilities of search radar is anymore but when I was in the service we could pick up multiple targets with about 50 feet of separation and those were much smaller aircraft.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what the capabilities of search radar is anymore but when I was in the service we could pick up multiple targets with about 50 feet of separation and those were much smaller aircraft.

Yabbut... all radars operate under a 'cell' construct. Basically they divide the airspace into pie-shaped wedges in both azimuth and elevation, then bin everything inside that cell into one target. The size of the cell varies by radar frequency, range, processing power, etc - and in many cases, can be as big as a mile on a side. Military grade stuff is typically built to higher resolutions, because you want to know if you get a track split (missile launch from an aircraft). But even high power search radars lose resolution as range increases.

 

TL;DR version: likely possible to do with most civilian radars, especially at long range.

 

If anyone knows the freq, scan rate, and beam size of a typical air control radar we could run the math, just for giggles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

very interesting indeed.

 

and if proved to be true, very clever too.

That was my thought as well. It would be one way to get through India and the 'stans - but to where???

 

Although I would think that radar would pick up the following plane as a separate target from the lead aircraft, unless he was literally right behind em.

Not sure what the capabilities of search radar is anymore but when I was in the service we could pick up multiple targets with about 50 feet of separation and those were much smaller aircraft.

 

Just a thought.... what if the following plane were to tuck in a couple of hundred feet below the lead plane and almost directly underneath... the pilot in the following plane could see the lead plane but not vice versa. And the radar blips might be much closer together -- perhaps leading an operator to assume a glitch. Also, the following plane wouldn't be affected by the wake turb of the lead plane, as well. And if the following plane were flying with all nav lights off directly underneath and slightly back, I don't think its very likely any passengers would spot it, either.

 

Assuming radar has fine enough resolution to differentiate different sizes and classes of aircraft (as I think may probably be so), if one were viewing a screen and saw two returns, both identical 777 aircraft almost on top of each other, who wouldn't think that it was just a glitch?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought.... what if the following plane were to tuck in a couple of hundred feet below the lead plane and almost directly underneath... the pilot in the following plane could see the lead plane but not vice versa. And the radar blips might be much closer together -- perhaps leading an operator to assume a glitch. Also, the following plane wouldn't be affected by the wake turb of the lead plane, as well. And if the following plane were flying with all nav lights off directly underneath and slightly back, I don't think its very likely any passengers would spot it, either.

 

Assuming radar has fine enough resolution to differentiate different sizes and classes of aircraft (as I think may probably be so), if one were viewing a screen and saw two returns, both identical 777 aircraft almost on top of each other, who wouldn't think that it was just a glitch?

 

James T Kirk used a very similar trick to confuse the Romulans into thinking the Enterprise was a "sensor echo" (episode: Balance of Terror).

Apparently 23th century sensors haven't improved all that much from 20th century RADARs. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if that is what happened. It could do the same thing to go into any air space in the world?

 

If you're referring to one plane shadowing another, and if that is what has actually happened, then that would probably be the kind of stunt that could be pulled only once....

 

<edit> that is, if one plane shadowing another produces a double return on a screen, it will never be discounted again as a possible glitch...

Link to post
Share on other sites
And that's just at idle. At TO power, that would be vacuuming up even an asphalt runway.

 

Little known fact - water injection actually gives a gas turbine more thrust (water > steam). Up to a point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

MH370 A different point of view. Pulau Langkawi 13,000 runway.

Smart pilot. Just didn't have the time.

 

https://plus.google.com/app/basic/stream/z13cv1gohsmbv5jmy221vrfyiz3vdhbop04

 

Fits with oilrig workers fire in the sky email.

 

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/other-asian-australian-south-pacific-airlines/1558464-mh-370-kul-pek-missing-search-operations-ongoing-please-see-wiki-166.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not sure what the capabilities of search radar is anymore but when I was in the service we could pick up multiple targets with about 50 feet of separation and those were much smaller aircraft.

Yabbut... all radars operate under a 'cell' construct. Basically they divide the airspace into pie-shaped wedges in both azimuth and elevation, then bin everything inside that cell into one target. The size of the cell varies by radar frequency, range, processing power, etc - and in many cases, can be as big as a mile on a side. Military grade stuff is typically built to higher resolutions, because you want to know if you get a track split (missile launch from an aircraft). But even high power search radars lose resolution as range increases.TL;DR version: likely possible to do with most civilian radars, especially at long range.If anyone knows the freq, scan rate, and beam size of a typical air control radar we could run the math, just for giggles.

Its not like I have an EPL sitting here on the boat, but my memory could allow me to come up with some generic numbers. Btw, you need PW and PRI to determine the range resolution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm betting TSA is frustrated to no end by not knowing the proper excuse to use

 

for additional inconveniences and indignities they are ready to put into effect

 

but look for Speculative Preventative Measures to go into effect right away

 

We are Soooo close to Just Plane Not Worth Flyin Commercial

 

If I'm going for more than a Day and Can Drive I'm NOT Flyin (TAHOE, LV)

I think the State Department issued a travel alert for Tahoe...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I must be missing something, what is it?

A bit harder than that. This is closer to what we (Navy types) call target motion analysis, or the fine art of hunting submarines. Yes, the satellite geo-posit and slant angle, coupled with an assumed altitude, gives you a range to an arc; multiple hits should give you several arcs.

 

However, there are lots of course/speed solutions that will fit a given set of arcs. For example:

1) A series of hits give the same range for an assumed altitude. Possibilities: Aircraft is flying at a steady speed and altitude along the arc, which maintains a given range to the satellite. Or, the aircraft is sitting still. Or, the aircraft is moving away from the satellite and dropping in altitude, essentially flying down the slant path. Or, moving toward the satellite and gaining altitude.

2) A series of hits gives increasing ranges for an assumed altitude. Aircraft may be moving directly away from the satellite at low speed, or moving diagonally away at higher speed. Or flying down the arc and gaining altitude.

 

A graphic to help confuse the situation: tma2.png This shows two very different solutions (course A and course B) that both fit the bearing lines.

Ok, But the assumption of height is almost irrelevant we are talking about being off by a few miles in distance from the Satellite. The only item we do not know is the speed of the aircraft. If I give you the angle and depth of a submarine at three different fixes with the subs course, speed and depth not changing we do not have a course, speed and location?

 

Just like your example the distance between the lines represents speed correct? If I am only missing speed why can't the problem be solved?f In several scenarios the aircraft may have maintained course and speed until it ran out of fuel in the South IO.

 

I remember who you are and your considerable experience solving these types of problems. I would think that the only difference in TMA software would be the distances and the curvature of the earth. Don't we have enough to solve the problem for a greatly reduced search area to start with if we assume a constant altitude and speed from the last known position?

 

Wouldn't the semi circles be closer or farther apart if the speed or altitude changed? Just like your example lines would be closer or farther apart if the speed changes?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I must be missing something, what is it?

A bit harder than that. This is closer to what we (Navy types) call target motion analysis, or the fine art of hunting submarines. Yes, the satellite geo-posit and slant angle, coupled with an assumed altitude, gives you a range to an arc; multiple hits should give you several arcs.

 

However, there are lots of course/speed solutions that will fit a given set of arcs. For example:

1) A series of hits give the same range for an assumed altitude. Possibilities: Aircraft is flying at a steady speed and altitude along the arc, which maintains a given range to the satellite. Or, the aircraft is sitting still. Or, the aircraft is moving away from the satellite and dropping in altitude, essentially flying down the slant path. Or, moving toward the satellite and gaining altitude.

2) A series of hits gives increasing ranges for an assumed altitude. Aircraft may be moving directly away from the satellite at low speed, or moving diagonally away at higher speed. Or flying down the arc and gaining altitude.

 

A graphic to help confuse the situation: tma2.png This shows two very different solutions (course A and course B) that both fit the bearing lines.

Ok, But the assumption of height is almost irrelevant we are talking about being off by a few miles in distance from the Satellite. The only item we do not know is the speed of the aircraft. If I give you the angle and depth of a submarine at three different fixes with the subs course, speed and depth not changing we do not have a course, speed and location?

 

Just like your example the distance between the lines represents speed correct? If I am only missing speed why can't the problem be solved?f In several scenarios the aircraft may have maintained course and speed until it ran out of fuel in the South IO.

 

I remember who you are and your considerable experience solving these types of problems. I would think that the only difference in TMA software would be the distances and the curvature of the earth. Don't we have enough to solve the problem for a greatly reduced search area to start with if we assume a constant altitude and speed from the last known position?

 

Wouldn't the semi circles be closer or farther apart if the speed or altitude changed? Just like your example lines would be closer or farther apart if the speed changes?

 

 

I'll take a stab and say within the readings of "B" the Target could at any point

 

turn away and accelerate substantially

 

And / Or head closer and slow down dramatically

 

And keep ping at the same angles

Link to post
Share on other sites

I should have wrote.

 

If I give you the angle, depth and distance of a submarine at three different fixes with the subs course, speed and depth not changing we do not have a course, speed and location?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I must be missing something, what is it?

A bit harder than that. This is closer to what we (Navy types) call target motion analysis, or the fine art of hunting submarines. Yes, the satellite geo-posit and slant angle, coupled with an assumed altitude, gives you a range to an arc; multiple hits should give you several arcs.

 

However, there are lots of course/speed solutions that will fit a given set of arcs. For example:

1) A series of hits give the same range for an assumed altitude. Possibilities: Aircraft is flying at a steady speed and altitude along the arc, which maintains a given range to the satellite. Or, the aircraft is sitting still. Or, the aircraft is moving away from the satellite and dropping in altitude, essentially flying down the slant path. Or, moving toward the satellite and gaining altitude.

2) A series of hits gives increasing ranges for an assumed altitude. Aircraft may be moving directly away from the satellite at low speed, or moving diagonally away at higher speed. Or flying down the arc and gaining altitude.

 

A graphic to help confuse the situation: tma2.png This shows two very different solutions (course A and course B) that both fit the bearing lines.

Ok, But the assumption of height is almost irrelevant we are talking about being off by a few miles in distance from the Satellite. The only item we do not know is the speed of the aircraft. If I give you the angle and depth of a submarine at three different fixes with the subs course, speed and depth not changing we do not have a course, speed and location?

 

Just like your example the distance between the lines represents speed correct? If I am only missing speed why can't the problem be solved?f In several scenarios the aircraft may have maintained course and speed until it ran out of fuel in the South IO.

 

I remember who you are and your considerable experience solving these types of problems. I would think that the only difference in TMA software would be the distances and the curvature of the earth. Don't we have enough to solve the problem for a greatly reduced search area to start with if we assume a constant altitude and speed from the last known position?

 

Wouldn't the semi circles be closer or farther apart if the speed or altitude changed? Just like your example lines would be closer or farther apart if the speed changes?

 

 

I'll take a stab and say within the readings of "B" the Target could at any point

 

turn away and accelerate substantially

 

And / Or head closer and slow down dramatically

 

And keep ping at the same angles

Yes that is correct. However in the case of an aircraft depth is altitude. Whether the Aircraft is at 10,000 feet or 35,000 feet the difference is 25,000 feet or about 4 nautical miles. That difference is not enough to cause a large variance in the solution. (IMHO) By using 22,500 I should have only 2 miles of variance. Next, in several scenarios if the aircraft ended up in the south IO it may have not changed course, altitude or speed until it ran out of fuel. So until the end of the flight there isn't any variance. There is variance as the angles from the satellite increase. Think of going from a fine line to drawing with your finger as the line that represents the angle from the satellite increases and that line rubs the surface of the ball representing the earth.

 

We may even be able to ballpark the aircrafts speed and possible distance covered based on a signal to the satellite 7.5 hours after it took off. Amount of fuel remaining at the last radar contact and how much would be burned at the assumed height that would keep the plane airborne for the remaining time.

 

 

IF someone just took a joyride changing course all over the place from the last known position and then ditched it five hours later in the IO then this exercise is futile. But if not then we should have a much smaller search area by using the same TMA problem solving techniques.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Satellite represents a Destroyer that is hunting a submarine. The missing airliner is the submarine. We have an angle from the Satellite I believe once an hour. An angle is not a bearing, distance, or anything else. An angle is shown on the earth as something that looks like a circle drawn on the earth. ( it is not an exact circle) We can rule out a good portion of the circle because we know the aircraft did not go to warp speed to the other side of the circle from where the flight disappeared. Either the aircraft went north or south. We know the distance from the Satellite to the circle at each point of the circle because the Satellite stays in one spot above the earth. We should know now when the Inmarsat had contact with the Aircraft...we have a time for each circle.

 

So if other variances can be decreased and we know when the last signal came from the aircraft we have a box to begin the search in.

 

 

BTW - That box is way out there. The start of the box is about five hours away from the last known position. (5 x speed of Airliner) So if the Airliner is only at 400 knots that is still 2000 miles from the last known position. That is only the beginning of the search area. The end of the search area is another 400 miles away. Those two sides of the curvy box do not factor in any variances which exist.

 

However if someone can solve the problem AND get refuelers in place to support the P-8 that is in the area you have a much smaller area to search for wreckage on the bottom - (The pinging flight recorders)

 

According to Wikipedia a P-8 can fly 1200 miles and search for 4 hours before it has to turn around. I have no idea at what height or speed that search is conducted at......it is going to have to tank up and a P-8 is a 737 so it is going to need a lot more gas than a fighter plane. The older P-3 had bunks for the pilots to sleep because in theory we could keep it airborne for 25 hours I believe. This event would be a good chance to show off what a P-8 can do with the use of Air Force tankers and two crews onboard. If I remember correctly the P-8 can manually reload sono buoys. So with no torpedoes on board they can carry a lot of buoys!

 

I am definitely not someone who has hunted submarines! While I have a little bit of knowledge about 3d nav and TMA this is way outside of my experience. So I am encouraging someone who does have the experience to think about this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I believe that there are two US P-3's as well as Australian, New Zealand, Pakistan and a few other countries in the area. However afaik the US P-3s can not refuel mid air.... I may very well be wrong. Please correct me. So while a P3 can get to the edge of the search area it can't stay there very long....I Think...anyone with P-3 experience?

 

I also have no idea what is parked at Diego Garcia. B52, AWACS, Tankers, etc. Not the best use of these aircraft but if there was floating wreckage a B52 might see it. An E-3 AWACS might, maybe get a radar return off of it. The Air Force Aircraft Joint Stars? might get a radar return off of floating aluminum wreckage. The P-8 and the P-3 have been reported to be able to carry an additional Joint Stars type ground searching radar....I have no idea if this might help. The radar is in a long narrow box strung up under the aircraft.....but once again it is reported in Aviationweek and other than that I know nothing about it.

 

Also I need to slim down the time aloft for a P-3 it is around 20 hours .....however that is not after a 2000 mile trip. I think that is at a speed just above stalling with two engines shut down. Normal missions are at most about 10 hours 1200 miles away from the base.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, someone built a 1000 meter runway to land a stolen 777 to land on, then hired a competent pilot to land a plane there.

 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/asia/9840870/Pilots-flight-simulator-focused-on-Indian-Ocean

 

What would a stolen 777 be worth on the black market anyway?

 

Assuming, of course that aliens have not abducted the plane.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Aircraft did take the northern route I must insist that we keep the Alien option open.... My reason is that Alien abduction is one of the better outcomes of the Northern arc. I wonder if there are any other places a 777 could be landed. Any lake beds similar to ours at Edwards AFB?

 

If the report that there was contact between the Inmarsat and the Aircraft 7 hours into the flight that is way into the northern arc or a lot of time doing figure eights. This is why I am thinking southern arc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Next time someone wants to argue that rescuing a sailor at sea is a waste of taxpayer money and that the sailor should repay the search and rescue costs ill remind them of the cost of this search and ask them who they think should pay for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Next time someone wants to argue that rescuing a sailor at sea is a waste of taxpayer money and that the sailor should repay the search and rescue costs ill remind them of the cost of this search and ask them who they think should pay for it.

I'm still trying to figure out who pays for the drunken folk getting cut out of a car wreck, of the unregistered car.

Lets walk before we can run Aye.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not like I have an EPL sitting here on the boat, but my memory could allow me to come up with some generic numbers. Btw, you need PW and PRI to determine the range resolution.

Fully agree you need PW/PRI or PRF to really get it. However, through the magic of Google, I found some stuff for argument's sake.

 

Two military-grade 2-D air search radars, unclassified data.

SPS-40: Teh interwebz say 10 degree horiz beamwidth, 19 degrees vertical, 0.05 NM range resolution. At a nominal 150 NM range, that means your tracking cell is 26 miles wide, 48 miles tall, 100 yards deep. (simple geometry: triangle 150 NM long, 10 degree vertex angle)

 

SPS-49: beamwidth 3.3 azimuth, 11 elevation, 0.03 NM range. Other places say azimuth accuracy is 0.5 degrees, used both. Again at 150 NM, tracking cell is 1 NM wide x 28 NM tall (best case, worst is 8 NM wide), both 100 yards deep.

 

Can you fly a two-ship formation that paints as one? Yup. Especially given that most modern radars don't show raw video.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just a thought.... what if the following plane were to tuck in a couple of hundred feet below the lead plane and almost directly underneath... the pilot in the following plane could see the lead plane but not vice versa. And the radar blips might be much closer together -- perhaps leading an operator to assume a glitch. Also, the following plane wouldn't be affected by the wake turb of the lead plane, as well. And if the following plane were flying with all nav lights off directly underneath and slightly back, I don't think its very likely any passengers would spot it, either.

 

Assuming radar has fine enough resolution to differentiate different sizes and classes of aircraft (as I think may probably be so), if one were viewing a screen and saw two returns, both identical 777 aircraft almost on top of each other, who wouldn't think that it was just a glitch?

 

James T Kirk used a very similar trick to confuse the Romulans into thinking the Enterprise was a "sensor echo" (episode: Balance of Terror).

Apparently 23th century sensors haven't improved all that much from 20th century RADARs. :P

Is that you EDDDD????

Link to post
Share on other sites

A Startlingly Simple Theory About the Missing Malaysia Airlines Jet

  • BY CHRIS GOODFELLOW
  • 03.18.14
  • 6:30 AM

 

8442993762_cee2d98ac2_b-660x440.jpg

Image: Pedro Moura Pinheiro/Flickr

 

There has been a lot of speculation about Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. Terrorism, hijacking, meteors. I cannot believe the analysis on CNN; it’s almost disturbing. I tend to look for a simpler explanation, and I find it with the 13,000-foot runway at Pulau Langkawi.

We know the story of MH370: A loaded Boeing 777 departs at midnight from Kuala Lampur, headed to Beijing. A hot night. A heavy aircraft. About an hour out, across the gulf toward Vietnam, the plane goes dark, meaning the transponder and secondary radar tracking go off. Two days later we hear reports that Malaysian military radar (which is a primary radar, meaning the plane is tracked by reflection rather than by transponder interrogation response) has tracked the plane on a southwesterly course back across the Malay Peninsula into the Strait of Malacca.

The loss of transponders and communications makes perfect sense in a fire.

When I heard this I immediately brought up Google Earth and searched for airports in proximity to the track toward the southwest.

The left turn is the key here. Zaharie Ahmad Shah1was a very experienced senior captain with 18,000 hours of flight time. We old pilots were drilled to know what is the closest airport of safe harbor while in cruise. Airports behind us, airports abeam us, and airports ahead of us. They’re always in our head. Always. If something happens, you don’t want to be thinking about what are you going to do–you already know what you are going to do. When I saw that left turn with a direct heading, I instinctively knew he was heading for an airport. He was taking a direct route to Palau Langkawi, a 13,000-foot airstrip with an approach over water and no obstacles. The captain did not turn back to Kuala Lampur because he knew he had 8,000-foot ridges to cross. He knew the terrain was friendlier toward Langkawi, which also was closer.

Take a look at this airport on Google Earth. The pilot did all the right things. He was confronted by some major event onboard that made him make an immediate turn to the closest, safest airport.

For me, the loss of transponders and communications makes perfect sense in a fire. And there most likely was an electrical fire. In the case of a fire, the first response is to pull the main busses and restore circuits one by one until you have isolated the bad one. If they pulled the busses, the plane would go silent. It probably was a serious event and the flight crew was occupied with controlling the plane and trying to fight the fire. Aviate, navigate, and lastly, communicate is the mantra in such situations.

There are two types of fires. An electrical fire might not be as fast and furious, and there may or may not be incapacitating smoke. However there is the possibility, given the timeline, that there was an overheat on one of the front landing gear tires, it blew on takeoff and started slowly burning. Yes, this happens with underinflated tires. Remember: Heavy plane, hot night, sea level, long-run takeoff. There was a well known accident in Nigeria of a DC8 that had a landing gear fire on takeoff. Once going, a tire fire would produce horrific, incapacitating smoke. Yes, pilots have access to oxygen masks, but this is a no-no with fire. Most have access to a smoke hood with a filter, but this will last only a few minutes depending on the smoke level. (I used to carry one in my flight bag, and I still carry one in my briefcase when I fly.)

What I think happened is the flight crew was overcome by smoke and the plane continued on the heading, probably on George (autopilot), until it ran out of fuel or the fire destroyed the control surfaces and it crashed. You will find it along that route–looking elsewhere is pointless.

lang-660.jpg

Ongoing speculation of a hijacking and/or murder-suicide and that there was a flight engineer on board does not sway me in favor of foul play until I am presented with evidence of foul play.

We know there was a last voice transmission that, from a pilot’s point of view, was entirely normal. “Good night” is customary on a hand-off to a new air traffic control. The “good night” also strongly indicates to me that all was OK on the flight deck. Remember, there are many ways a pilot can communicate distress. A hijack code or even transponder code off by one digit would alert ATC that something was wrong. Every good pilot knows keying an SOS over the mike always is an option. Even three short clicks would raise an alert. So I conclude that at the point of voice transmission all was perceived as well on the flight deck by the pilots.

But things could have been in the process of going wrong, unknown to the pilots.

Evidently the ACARS went inoperative some time before. Disabling the ACARS is not easy, as pointed out. This leads me to believe more in an electrical problem or an electrical fire than a manual shutdown. I suggest the pilots probably were not aware ACARS was not transmitting.

As for the reports of altitude fluctuations, given that this was not transponder-generated data but primary radar at maybe 200 miles, the azimuth readings can be affected by a lot of atmospherics and I would not have high confidence in this being totally reliable. But let’s accept for a minute that the pilot may have ascended to 45,000 feet in a last-ditch effort to quell a fire by seeking the lowest level of oxygen. That is an acceptable scenario. At 45,000 feet, it would be tough to keep this aircraft stable, as the flight envelope is very narrow and loss of control in a stall is entirely possible. The aircraft is at the top of its operational ceiling. The reported rapid rates of descent could have been generated by a stall, followed by a recovery at 25,000 feet. The pilot may even have been diving to extinguish flames.

But going to 45,000 feet in a hijack scenario doesn’t make any good sense to me.

Regarding the additional flying time: On departing Kuala Lampur, Flight 370 would have had fuel for Beijing and an alternate destination, probably Shanghai, plus 45 minutes–say, 8 hours. Maybe more. He burned 20-25 percent in the first hour with takeoff and the climb to cruise. So when the turn was made toward Langkawi, he would have had six hours or more hours worth of fuel. This correlates nicely with theInmarsat data pings being received until fuel exhaustion.

Fire in an aircraft demands one thing: Get the machine on the ground as soon as possible.

The now known continued flight until time to fuel exhaustion only confirms to me that the crew was incapacitated and the flight continued on deep into the south Indian ocean.

There is no point speculating further until more evidence surfaces, but in the meantime it serves no purpose to malign pilots who well may have been in a struggle to save this aircraft from a fire or other serious mechanical issue. Capt. Zaharie Ahmad Shah was a hero struggling with an impossible situation trying to get that plane to Langkawi. There is no doubt in my mind. That’s the reason for the turn and direct route. A hijacking would not have made that deliberate left turn with a direct heading for Langkawi. It probably would have weaved around a bit until the hijackers decided where they were taking it.

Surprisingly, none of the reporters, officials, or other pilots interviewed have looked at this from the pilot’s viewpoint: If something went wrong, where would he go? Thanks to Google Earth I spotted Langkawi in about 30 seconds, zoomed in and saw how long the runway was and I just instinctively knew this pilot knew this airport. He had probably flown there many times.

Fire in an aircraft demands one thing: Get the machine on the ground as soon as possible. There are two well-remembered experiences in my memory. The AirCanada DC9 which landed, I believe, in Columbus, Ohio in the 1980s. That pilot delayed descent and bypassed several airports. He didn’t instinctively know the closest airports. He got it on the ground eventually, but lost 30-odd souls. The 1998 crash of Swissair DC-10 off Nova Scotia was another example of heroic pilots. They were 15 minutes out of Halifax but the fire overcame them and they had to ditch in the ocean. They simply ran out of time. That fire incidentally started when the aircraft was about an hour out of Kennedy. Guess what? The transponders and communications were shut off as they pulled the busses.

Get on Google Earth and type in Pulau Langkawi and then look at it in relation to the radar track heading. Two plus two equals four. For me, that is the simple explanation why it turned and headed in that direction. Smart pilot. He just didn’t have the time.

Chris Goodfellow has 20 years experience as a Canadian Class-1 instrumented-rated pilot for multi-engine planes. His theory on what happened to MH370 first appeared on Google+. We’ve copyedited it with his permission.

1CORRECTION 9:40 a.m. Eastern 03/18/14: An editing error introduced a typo in Capt. Zaharie Ahmad Shah’s name.

Tags: mh370
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

that's the one I was referring to above. Very plausible but no distress beacon (ELT) signals. That plane had two of them I have heard. One in the tail and one in the nose. Unless I'm wrong, they're self-contained and go off with a sudden jolt or when they sense immersion in water, and no, I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express this is just regurgitation from a talking head on CNN.

Link to post
Share on other sites

that's the one I was referring to above. Very plausible but no distress beacon (ELT) signals. That plane had two of them I have heard. One in the tail and one in the nose. Unless I'm wrong, they're self-contained and go off with a sudden jolt or when they sense immersion in water, and no, I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express this is just regurgitation from a talking head on CNN.

yes but that does not mean they were 406 beacons (digital GPS beacons). In private airplanes, anyway, they will sink with the aircraft - not sure about commercial.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

 

that's the one I was referring to above. Very plausible but no distress beacon (ELT) signals. That plane had two of them I have heard. One in the tail and one in the nose. Unless I'm wrong, they're self-contained and go off with a sudden jolt or when they sense immersion in water, and no, I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express this is just regurgitation from a talking head on CNN.

yes but that does not mean they were 406 beacons (digital GPS beacons). In private airplanes, anyway, they will sink with the aircraft - not sure about commercial.

 

The talking head said they were the latest ones.

Link to post
Share on other sites

that's the one I was referring to above. Very plausible but no distress beacon (ELT) signals. That plane had two of them I have heard. One in the tail and one in the nose. Unless I'm wrong, they're self-contained and go off with a sudden jolt or when they sense immersion in water, and no, I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express this is just regurgitation from a talking head on CNN.

Also, I read in the news that the first big turn away from Beijing was entered into the flight computer, not done by hand. That wouldn't work if they pulled all the circuit breakers would it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Announcements