Who dun it?

March 19th, 2014 at 12:57 pm by David Farrar

Well I think it was either the pilot or co-pilot. I can’t imagine the plane could have been diverted without any distress signal, without at least one of them involved.

How awful for the families of those on board, and how intriguing for the rest of us as we all wonder how did it happen.

Tags:

121 Responses to “Who dun it?”

  1. Dr. Strangelove (40 comments) says:

    http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/

    Seems like the obvious explanation.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Peter (1,578 comments) says:

    Here’s a pretty good theory the MSM haven’t yet picked up on. Don’t be so quick to blame the pilots, perhaps.

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

    Edit: Snap!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. kowtow (7,655 comments) says:

    Completly wrong to speculate ,but here goes!

    Pilot lost the plot as his missus left him ,not helped by the Anwar Ibrahim case.

    Co pilot gone to loo ,or the pilot got him out of the cockpit on a pretext.Takes over the plane. Goes for a ride. Runs out of fuel. Crashes in the Indian Ocean.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. metcalph (1,384 comments) says:

    The electrical fire theory is wrong. The plane changed course a few times _after_ the time when the pilots would supposedly be dead from smoke inhalation. Have a look at the arcs map. How does a plane with no pilots get onto either arc if it was travelling in the westward direction over the straits of Malacca?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. mikenmild (10,766 comments) says:

    There are a few holes in the Goodfellow theory:
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/03/18/mh370_disappearance_chris_goodfellow_s_theory_about_a_fire_and_langkawi.html

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. kowtow (7,655 comments) says:

    Dr Strangelove……electrical fire……

    you’ve been watching too many Cold War movies!

    Slim Pickens riding that bomb has got to be one of the best all time movie scenes,ever.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. metcalph (1,384 comments) says:

    A slate rebuttal

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/03/18/mh370_disappearance_chris_goodfellow_s_theory_about_a_fire_and_langkawi.html

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    It depends, did the pilot

    1. key in the course change to get towards a safe landing field.
    2. try and fail to communicate a mayday (because fire has disabled communications).
    3. then losing it because of smoke go up to starve the fire of oxygen.
    4. the plane then stalls and goes down but levels out and remains on autopilot course.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. UglyTruth (4,028 comments) says:

    Pilot lost the plot as his missus left him ,not helped by the Anwar Ibrahim case.

    Doesn’t explain how flight 370 was invisible to commercial radar but visible to military radar.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    On the Slate rebuttal, was the plane unable to land at the island …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. metcalph (1,384 comments) says:

    SPC, the auto-pilot does not make course corrections. It would be totally ridiculous for the pilot to key in a waypoint change for the nearest airport and then input several waypoints beyond that while trying to fight a cabin fire!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Seems like the obvious explanation.

    Or not. When fire strikes, the pilot or co-pilot can issue a Mayday call. That didn’t happen here. Then the plane apparently flew very high (45,000 ft) and very low (5000 ft). That doesn’t seem consistent with a fire.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. metcalph (1,384 comments) says:

    Doesn’t explain how flight 370 was invisible to commercial radar but visible to military radar.

    Because commercial radar uses electronic handshakes to send and transmit data whereas military radar concentrates on the radio waves reflected off the flying object. If the object in question is not sending any data back then it looks dead and thus is invisible to the commercial radar systems.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. thedavincimode (6,539 comments) says:

    John Key, surely?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Peter (1,578 comments) says:

    What if they flipped the plane in and out of autopilot as they struggled to extinguish the flames by flying higher then diving lower? Communications not possible due to fire knocking them out?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. goldnkiwi (1,000 comments) says:

    Why did the pilot have a flight simulator at his home with suitable runways for landing that size plane programmed in? Did he always fly those planes and that route to explain that?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    This is what I’m talking about, a situation where the cockpit was filled with smoke and the pilot issued a Mayday call.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2508606/British-Airways-passengers-heard-pilot-make-Mayday-Atlantic-36-000ft.html

    This flight saw the death of all on board, but again an emergency distress call was made.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/swissair-flight-111-tragedy-still-raw-15-years-later-1.1329919

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. UglyTruth (4,028 comments) says:

    Because commercial radar uses electronic handshakes to send and transmit data whereas military radar concentrates on the radio waves reflected off the flying object.

    The fact that the transponder wasn’t sending data back doesn’t stop the radar from reflecting off the surface of the plane as a standard echo return.

    Commercial radar can definitely show radar returns from objects which don’t have a transponder.

    It’s significant that the MSM has adopted this misleading approach, implying the T7 disappeared because the transponder was switched off.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. RRM (9,478 comments) says:

    http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/imageSnag/Dr_Evil.jpg

    My theory is that someone offered the pilot / copilot payola to take the plane to some fabulous alternative destination that wasn’t on the flight plan.

    But getting there involved doing some creative freestyle flying that was not at all by-the-book, and he fucked it up somehow and crashed it.

    (Either that or the latest electrical fire theory seems credible. A Swissair MD80 crashed in the 90s when onboard internet gear for the passengers started a fire in a cabinet behind the cockpit that killed the vital systems one by one…)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. berend (1,634 comments) says:

    As others have posted: http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/

    May I suggest you wouldn’t have been so quick to blame the pilots if it wasn’t they were from a Malaysian airline???

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. berend (1,634 comments) says:

    For all those why take reported facts seriously:

    1. Everything so far has been disclaimed later.

    2. Military radar is unreliable, it’s WW2 technology.

    3. Plane may not have been at 45,000 feet.

    4. Ping data can only give extremely approximate location.

    5. Supposed course “corrections” based on the above may well be ruled out later.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. berend (1,634 comments) says:

    People: the slate article says: “after the transponder has stopped working.”

    That fact has been RETRACTED.

    Facts: transponder says hello at 11 past (or so), pilot says good night at 21 past, next transponder update at 31 past never arrived.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    May I suggest you wouldn’t have been so quick to blame the pilots if it wasn’t they were from a Malaysian airline???

    Hmmm, Berend, it’s the Malaysian authorities that have suggested the pilots may be to blame. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. metcalph (1,384 comments) says:

    Berend, what was retracted is the statement that the transponder and the ADS-B were turned off at different times. The slate article makes no statement that they were turned off at different times and thus it does not use false information.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. metcalph (1,384 comments) says:

    Supposed course “corrections” based on the above may well be ruled out later.

    Two of the course corrections were observations by Malaysian military radar. Do keep up. And military radar has improved well beyond WWII.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. metcalph (1,384 comments) says:

    Either that or the latest electrical fire theory seems credible. A Swissair MD80 crashed in the 90s when onboard internet gear for the passengers started a fire in a cabinet behind the cockpit that killed the vital systems one by one…)

    People who still say the electrical fire theory is credible quite simply have shit for brains. Look at the map of the plane’s course and the arcs of its final location. You do not get that flight path by simply making a course change to the nearest airport and overshooting.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. berend (1,634 comments) says:

    @metcalph, radar sees a blip, blip doesn’t what it is. They painted something, but what?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. metcalph (1,384 comments) says:

    Why did the pilot have a flight simulator at his home with suitable runways for landing that size plane programmed in? Did he always fly those planes and that route to explain that?

    He had 18,000 hours flight experience. Being slightly insane about flying airplanes is only to be expected at this level of experience.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Ross Nixon (607 comments) says:

    There are credible reports that the plane flew low (was seen and heard by residents) over the Maldives at 6:15am, heading It was flying north to south-west, according to the report.. In the direction of the US-UK Naval base at Diego Garcia.
    The questions now are: was it permitted to land & what are the military hiding?

    “Maldivian news website Haveeru reported that residents of the remote Maldives island of Kuda Huvadhoo in Dhaal Atoll said they saw a “low-flying jumbo jet” around 6.15am (Maldivian time) on March 8, the day when the flight disappeared. It also said the residents reported that that it was a white aircraft, with red stripes across it like the planes operated by Malaysia Airlines.”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. metcalph (1,384 comments) says:

    @metcalph, radar sees a blip, blip doesn’t what it is. They painted something, but what?

    As was explained in the media, the blip was seen by two radar stations (indicating it wasn’t something like a flock of birds). The defense authorities then went through all the planes that were known to be active in the area and ruled them out of contention as the cause. The only aircraft left is flight MH370.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. metcalph (1,384 comments) says:

    There are credible reports that the plane flew low (was seen and heard by residents) over the Maldives at 6:15am, heading south. In the direction of the US-UK Naval base at Diego Garcia.

    There are credible reports of some sort of aircraft but it is not MH370. The Maldives lies nowhere near the arcs and is three hours behind Malaysian time which means at the reported time of sighting, the plane would have been in the air for nine hours whereas it only had seven hours fuel.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. UglyTruth (4,028 comments) says:

    Berend, what was retracted is the statement that the transponder and the ADS-B were turned off at different times.

    Also retracted was Daud’s initial report that the plane has been tracked hundred of km west of its “point of disappearance”.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. berend (1,634 comments) says:

    @metcalph: He had 18,000 hours flight experience.

    That guy loved flying, it would be totally out of character for him to do something insane.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. chris (567 comments) says:

    My father-in-law’s theory is that they’ve hijacked the plane, landed it somewhere in Burma, and are effectively ransoming the passengers in return for the current Malaysian government stepping down. I don’t know anything about Malaysian politics or system of government, but he calls it “democracy with a lower case d” and we do know the government controls the media. Given the apparent lack of co-operation in sharing information with the rest of the world, it could be quite possible the Malaysian government is hiding this. His theory, not mine.

    The flaw in his theory is that surely if the government hadn’t co-operated by now, whoever is holding them hostage would have got in touch with western media.

    My original theory was that it might have been hijacked by Islamic fundamentalists, they’ve landed it, shot all the passengers and will arm it as a flying bomb to use at some stage in the future. Probably not very plausible either.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. georgebolwing (612 comments) says:

    On a balance of probabilities basis, the likely order of causes is:

    1) massive equiptment failure, associated by heroic, but eventually failed, attempts by the pilots to control the plane.

    This remains the most likely cuase of the dissaparence, because it is the most common cause of flights crashing in otherwise unexplained conditions (good weather, no communication). In the absence of any eveidence to the contrary, this is still my first pick.

    2) hijack gone wrong.

    A single person or a small group of people tried to take over the plane for largely private reasons (not terrorism) and something went wrong. This could include a crew member. They either killed the crew or disabled the plane.

    3) terrorism is always a possability, but terrorists kill people for a reason, which is to scare the rest of the population. The complete lack of anyone claiming any interest tends to rule this out. Many terrorist’s attacks have multiple people claiming responsibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    As another commenter has noted, the plane may have been flying low over the Maldives.

    http://metro.co.uk/2014/03/18/flight-mh370-residents-on-remote-island-in-maldives-saw-jet-matching-missing-malaysia-airlines-planes-description-4640688/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Nigel Kearney (864 comments) says:

    I doubt the pilots did it.

    If one of the pilots decided to fly the plane to an alternative destination, I think it’s quite unlikely he would crash or run out of fuel and end up in the ocean instead. It’s much more likely if a hijacker was flying. The pilot may have been forced to disable the transponder. Being highly pissed off at the treatment of Anwar Ibrahim is evidence of clear thinking, not insanity, though I can understand why the Malaysian government would like people to think otherwise.

    I don’t know if the complete absence of communication is consistent with equipment failure. Maybe it is, but you would think there would be redundancy built in so they can at least establish radio contact even if nothing else works.

    I would guess hijacking.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. cha (3,779 comments) says:

    Seems nothing unusual turned up in a search of the pilot’s home.

    http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-malaysia-pilot-search-20140318,0,5072831.story

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. UglyTruth (4,028 comments) says:

    There are credible reports that the plane flew low (was seen and heard by residents) over the Maldives at 6:15am, heading south. In the direction of the US-UK Naval base at Diego Garcia.

    http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/cops-find-five-indian-ocean-practice-runways-in-mh370-pilots-simulator-bh-r

    Although Defence Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein denied yesterday that the plane had landed at US military base Diego Garcia, the source told the daily that this possibility will still be investigated based on the data found in Zaharie’s flight simulator software.

    The simulation programmes are based on runways at the Male International Airport in Maldives, an airport owned by the United States (Diego Garcia), and three other runways in India and Sri Lanka…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    I think Goodfellow is right. Electrical fire makes sense to me.

    Who knows who made the subsequent course changes, but they certainly weren’t consistent with a pilot’s level of skill so presumably the pilots were dead by that stage and the flight controls and communications rendered inoperable.

    Maybe the cabin crew broke into the cabin with fire extinguishers, found the pilots dead then did their best to save the day but to no avail.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    My theory

    Loon or loon has entered flight deck.

    incapacitated / murdered majority of crew.

    Forced a crew member/ members to disconnect hardware.

    Plane course has been altered.

    dead man flying until splash in the big wide ocean.

    To hard to hide from space.

    not that many surfaces big enough to land on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Also refer back to the very credible eyewitness report submitted by the Kiwi oil rigger who reported seeing a plane on fire at the time of 370′s disappearance.

    If there were external flames on the jet it would make perfect sense to rise to 45000 feet in an attempt to starve the flames of oxygen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Ed Snack (1,740 comments) says:

    Here we go again. The first thing is, do we believe what we have been told about this ? The current official story apparently accepted by all governments involved is that the aircraft turned around at about 1:22 am, flew a relatively complex course possibly varied in altitude but that may be an artifact of the radar, it did descend to FL295 when to the West of Malaysia did two further turns through > 90 degrees and was last seen by Malay military radar some 2-300 km out in the Andaman Sea, heading approx NW. Confirmation on this course has been offered by matching with satellite “ping” data, belatedly by Thai military radar, and at the star by Vietnamese radar. Civilian radar is typically considerably less powerful than military as it primarily uses transponder info, so the lack of sighting by standard ATC radar is not surprising.

    After this point we only have the satellite “pings”, it isn’t clear if we have a sequence or if the logs overwrite and we only have the last one. Other data has not been released at this stage and no one has explained this. This data gives the two arcs of location for the last ping.

    Next, in the event of a fire there is no way that the aircraft would deliberately go up & down in altitude to put it out, in the days of fabric covered biplanes maybe, not now. They would go down only and try to land, the nearest airfield of size capable of getting them down. However at least some of the vertical movement reported *may* be a radar artifact from the extreme range, FL450 is nominally outside a T7′s capability especially when still pretty well fuelled up, maybe a zoom climb; can’t be sure on this. One thing the pilots would NOT be doing if they had a fire is making course corrections a t intervals, especially not those noted out off the West Coast. Both were at way-points and were onto specific air “highways”, in other words 99.9% certain controlled flight. If it had a fire the only controlled actions would be to get it down.

    So accept the analysis we have been given, or call it all a mass conspiracy as the US abducts the plane to get at the Freescale contractors (or something, maybe Snowden was on board in disguise). If the aircraft is under proper control off the West Coast, then they haven’t had an emergency, simples.

    If they had a fire and passed out, it must have been a biggie and quick, and yet gone out and left the aircraft basically able to function with an intact SATCOM; and the plotted track is wrong it would have gone straight under autopilot. Confusion or whatever, these theories, if they are to be consistent with what we have been told, must postulate an absolute series of highly improbable events happening rapidly, compounding the unrealism.

    Now, we might be being deliberately misled on the track, but state that with your fire/hypoxia theories please. And if you can, give some speculation as to WHY we’re all being led up the garden path so comprehensively, lizard peoples, US abductions, whatever.

    So where did it go and why ? The unfortunate answer is we don’t know why, hence all the speculation. An overtly political act would seem to be ruled out by the silence, pilot suicide doesn’t have a good fit, hijack maybe, by where to, if it was truly heading North to the various disaffected areas West of China, surely it would be so much simpler to hijack an MAS flight headed West in the first place, that way you could get past/over India perfectly legitimately. Nothing passes the immediate smell test for me, but pilot suicide is at least possible and fits the facts as we have them. They’ll be searching the area off SW Australia from today on, but it’s a big area and they may not see anything left after 10 days or so.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Ed Snack (1,740 comments) says:

    Other comments, just about every flight simulator you can get has canned airfields to land at, DG etc are all “standard” in some systems. I see nothing especially sinister about them being there.

    Scott, the oil rig worker story has been debunked numerous times. He was simply too far away (around 400 km !) to see anything; and particularly too far away to see an aircraft “high in the sky” as he put it. A good intentioned report I don’t doubt, but not MH 370.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. UglyTruth (4,028 comments) says:

    Re: Malidives witnesses

    There are credible reports of some sort of aircraft but it is not MH370.

    How can you be sure about that?

    The Maldives lies nowhere near the arcs

    There is conflicting data about satellite distance arcs:

    Satellite data suggests that the last “ping” was received from the flight somewhere close to the Maldives and the US naval base on Diego Garcia.
    http://www.haveeru.com.mv/news/54067

    and is three hours behind Malaysian time which means at the reported time of sighting, the plane would have been in the air for nine hours whereas it only had seven hours fuel.

    How do you know it only had seven hours fuel? The amount of time depends on the speed of the aircraft and the altitude.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Ed Snack (1,740 comments) says:

    UT, time and distance, DG does not fit, nor does the Maldives. Eye witnesses are unfortunately usually relatively unreliable. The Ping arcs simply don’t go very close to DG or the Maldives, that “data source” you give is incorrect. The Northern arc goes overland from Thailand up to Turkmenistan, the Southern from Southern Sumatra down the Indian Ocean near to West Australia and out into the southern Indian Ocean heading towards Kerguelen and Heard islands. None of that is within a 2,000 miles of the Maldives.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. UglyTruth (4,028 comments) says:

    And if you can, give some speculation as to WHY we’re all being led up the garden path so comprehensively, lizard peoples, US abductions, whatever.

    One theory is that the whole thing is a sideshow to draw attention away from what has happened (and is happening) in Croatia and the Ukraine.

    For example, consider the timing of the disclosure of the mission trillions of defence money:

    On September 10, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference to disclose that over $2,000,000,000,000 in Pentagon funds could not be accounted for. Rumsfeld stated: “According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.”
    http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/trillions.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. UglyTruth (4,028 comments) says:

    UT, time and distance, DG does not fit, nor does the Maldives.

    Kuala Lumpur to Maldives: 2019 miles
    Kuala Lumpur to Bejing: 2698 miles
    http://www.daftlogic.com/projects-google-maps-distance-calculator.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. tas (596 comments) says:

    Pilot suicide. The background checks will be illuminating (e.g. life insurance).

    Re. the fire theory: If the fire incapacitated the pilots within minutes, it wouldn’t leave the plane flying for hours.

    Re. the arcs: Who knows how accurate the data is. It was not designed to locate the source of transmission.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Manolo (13,400 comments) says:

    One theory is that the whole thing is a sideshow to draw attention away from what has happened (and is happening) in Croatia and the Ukraine. For example, consider the timing of the disclosure of the mission trillions of defence money.

    Unrefined bullshit. Can it get any crazier?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. berend (1,634 comments) says:

    Scott Chris: If there were external flames on the jet it would make perfect sense to rise to 45000 feet in an attempt to starve the flames of oxygen.

    Nope, that does not work. When there’s a fire, pilots will land their plan immediately. They’re trained to land it within 15 minutes, or be declared dead (based on real-world figures).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    If there were external flames on the jet it would make perfect sense to rise to 45000 feet in an attempt to starve the flames of oxygen.

    If there were external flames, I’m not sure the plane would have flown for another 6 hours, especially with neither pilot making a distress call. That theory is far-fetched.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    When there’s a fire, pilots will land their plan immediately. They’re trained to land it within 15 minutes…

    They’re also trained to notify traffic control so that rescue services are at the ready when (and if) they land. That didn’t happen in this case which suggests the plane was hijacked.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Elaycee (4,305 comments) says:

    Manolo: Unrefined bullshit. Can it get any crazier?

    Unfortunately, yes. Just stay tuned. UT is on the case…. 8O

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. tas (596 comments) says:

    To the confused comments above: I suggest you read this summary of the facts so far.

    I also suggest reading up on the difference between primary and secondary radar. Primary (a.k.a. military) radar relies on radio waves being reflected off the surface of the plane. Secondary (a.k.a. civilian) radar relies on a transponder on the plane. The advantage of secondary radar is that it is more accurate and includes an identifier and altitude information. The disadvantage is that it doesn’t work if the transponder is switched off (as happened on MH370). Civilian authorities sometimes use primary radar as a backup but mostly rely on secondary radar. The military uses primary radar, because hostile aircraft won’t be carrying transponders!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Ed Snack (1,740 comments) says:

    UT, sure, but I’m sticking with the satellite pings, there’s probably a reasonable margin for error, say 50 km either way, plus more fuel but not an hour’s worth (actually 8:11 is pretty much max endurance time) so could fly at most, say, 1,000 km from the arc at highest altitude. No way they can get from a position on the arc to flying southwards across the Maldives; although if they had 3 hours fuel, maybe. But if they had fuel until then, why no more satellite pings ?

    And you’ve just demonstrated the weakness of the case against some sort of hijack/takeover, you have to postulate a batshit crazy conspiracy to justify ignoring the current broadly accepted flight track.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Ed Snack (1,740 comments) says:

    Tas, secondary radar is only as accurate as the transponder, the other big advantage is range. Primary (radio echo) radar attenuates at the 4th power of distance whereas the transponder based system attenuates on the square of distance. So for the same power level secondary based systems have much greater range; or more typically such systems are considerably less powerful and are therefore less useful in a primary role (which they can also carry out).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. UglyTruth (4,028 comments) says:

    I also suggest reading up on the difference between primary and secondary radar. Primary (a.k.a. military) radar relies on radio waves being reflected off the surface of the plane. Secondary (a.k.a. civilian) radar relies on a transponder on the plane.

    Civilian radar utilizes both primary and secondary radar. Conflating civilian radar with secondary radar obscures the fact that flight 370 should have shown up on civilian radar if the reflected radar signal (ie the primary radar) was strong enough. Apparently flight 370 was near the limits of what could be detected with the primary civilian radar when the secondary signal from the transponder was lost.

    The essential point here is that flight 370 should have become visible to civilian radar if flight 370 turned back toward Malaysia as has been reported. The fact that it wasn’t leads to the AWACS theory…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. UglyTruth (4,028 comments) says:

    UT, sure, but I’m sticking with the satellite pings, there’s probably a reasonable margin for error, say 50 km either way, plus more fuel but not an hour’s worth (actually 8:11 is pretty much max endurance time) so could fly at most, say, 1,000 km from the arc at highest altitude.

    Fair enough, I’m sticking with the possibility that the satellite pings are disinformation.

    And you’ve just demonstrated the weakness of the case against some sort of hijack/takeover, you have to postulate a batshit crazy conspiracy to justify ignoring the current broadly accepted flight track.

    Your problem is that the 9/11 conspiracy is not batshit crazy for the simple reason that there wasn’t a big enough energy source in the MSM version of events to account for the reports of rivers of molten steel and for the fact that the NY site was hot for weeks afterwards.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Elaycee (4,305 comments) says:

    @Ed Snack: Another factor that comes into play is the 3 hour time difference between Male (Maldives) and KL. For a plane to be seen at 6.15am in the Maldives (9.15am in KL) it would have to have been in the air ~9 hours. And apparently the T7 only had 7 hours fuel loaded (6 for the flight to Beijing plus a margin for any diversion). It just doesn’t fit.

    The other point is that the aircraft flew away from KL (~NE) for around an hour before turning back, so that would mean it would have to travel not only the 2700kms (KL to Male) but also the additional 700kms (out and back at an average 350kph including the climb out) which equates to approx 3400kms. On 7 hours fuel…..

    Nah – it doesn’t fit the conspiracy theory either, does it? :P

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. tas (596 comments) says:

    Ed Snack and UglyTruth: I said “Civilian authorities sometimes use primary radar as a backup but mostly rely on secondary radar.”

    It is possible that the pilot of MH370 was intentionally avoiding civilian radar and knew where the civilian radars are located, but didn’t know where the military radar facilities are located. The details of the flight path are not clear, but it has been reported that the plane was flying low to avoid radar.

    Re, the fire theory: I find it hard to believe that a fire disabled all communications systems, the transponder, and ACARS so quickly that no distress call was made, without downing the plane for several hours.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. NoCash (255 comments) says:

    It couldn’t have been a fire or equipment failure, as the ACARS was properly turned off (like shutting down a PC properly) instead off a simple power cut or electrical failure. That alone points to foul play.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. LeftPilot (63 comments) says:

    Crikey dick people. Commercial radar is a complete misnomer of a term and not one used in Aviation.

    Primary Surveillance Radar (PSR) paints the echo of a large object in the airspace on to the Radar display.

    Secondary Surveillance Radar interrogates a Transponder which is carried on board the aircraft. A 4 digit code will be assigned to a flight and the returned interrogation will be displayed on the Radar display once that code has been in-putted. With that code in-putted the radar controller can update the tag with the aircraft call-sign, in this case (MAS370). The display of the Radar controller will then show a tag next to the identified target with thing such as assigned altitude, actual altitude, aircraft type etc.

    Primary Surveillance Radar by civilian Air Traffic Controllers to aide with their Secondary Surveillance radar that can only see aircraft with a functional transponder. It’s been a long time since I have flown myself in NZ but there used to be PSR at Auckland, Ohakea, Wellington and Christchurch. If memory serves the Ohakea PSR was decommissioned around 2004/5.

    Many nations will utilise PSR for the air defence system and these systems may or may not be available to civilian air traffic controllers as is the case in Malaysia.

    So to recap ATC in Malaysia would have only seen the aircraft again if the transponder had been switched on as they only utilise SSR. The military however it seems were asleep and/or unconcerned with the target on their PSR display. If it did indeed cross Malaysia (PSR generally has lesser range than SSR it should be mentioned).

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    Is it possible to land a plane if the pilot has no communications system for contact with the island airfield, nor view of it – unlit and or smoke prevents this?

    Thus the pilot might then try and put the fire out – by going up to deprive the fire of oxygen. A move that places the pilot and those aboard at risk.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. NoCash (255 comments) says:

    SPC – how many times do people have to keep saying that there was no fire. The ACARS was properly turned off (like shutting down a PC properly, instead of simply pulling the power cable out) by someone in the cockpit. It was a foul play, not an emergency situation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Zapper (926 comments) says:

    http://www.911myths.com/html/rumsfeld__9_11_and__2_3_trilli.html

    Ugly Truth, this Rumsfeld story was debunked the moment it first appeared. I mean come on. If it was to deflect from 9/11, ummm, yeah, I don’t think anyone was going to say “Hey, forget that huge terrorist attack! What did Rumsfeld say?” If 9/11 was to deflect from his announcement then, how about he tries not making the announcement at all? After all, you think they can cover up anything?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Is it possible to land a plane if the pilot has no communications system for contact with the island airfield, nor view of it – unlit and or smoke prevents this?

    It might have been light, which is probably why some witnesses in the Maldives said they could clearly see a plane. If they could see a plane and it was the missing plane, presumably the pilot could see an airfield.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Manolo (13,400 comments) says:

    UT will soon be telling us to have faith because Mohammed will come to save us. Long live the Caliphate!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. RightNow (6,676 comments) says:

    I bet it’s a promo stunt for a new season of Lost

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Ed Snack (1,740 comments) says:

    LeftPilot, thanks for the clear exposition, just trying to keep it simple.

    SPC, if a fire is burning because of external oxygen at 35,000, going up to 40-45,000 probably wouldn’t make a difference to the fire and would probably dangerously destabilise the aircraft. Procedures are clear, you don’t go up. If you can’t shut down the source, getting onto the ground is your only hope.

    As long as we accept the ping data, it seems highly unlikely that any fire big enough to kill the crew would leave the aircraft in a condition to fly a further 7 hours.

    Just to add to the cluster fuck, search aircraft based in KL have sat idle all day waiting for Indonesian permission to fly through their airspace to check the top end of the Southern arc off Sumatra.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. berend (1,634 comments) says:

    tas: Re, the fire theory: I find it hard to believe that a fire disabled all communications systems, the transponder, and ACARS

    tas, radio may have worked perfectly, but pilots could have been incapacitated. I.e. plane flew on auto-pilot until it ran out of fuel.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. NoCash (255 comments) says:

    Or Survivor – Indian Ocean

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Judith (7,695 comments) says:

    @ berend (1,583 comments) says:
    March 19th, 2014 at 6:30 pm

    But surely in all those hours the Hostesses and other staff would have checked on the cockpit? Even if the planes communication systems were disabled/damaged, surely someone had a cell phone on board that worked?

    The plane would probably still have crashed, but I’m damn sure if I was on it, and the pilots were dead, then I’d be txting family.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Steve (North Shore) (4,500 comments) says:

    A lot of people on this blog are getting paid to do nothing except be an expert all day.
    All thriving on misinformation provided by the MSM of course.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. RightNow (6,676 comments) says:

    “A lot of people on this blog are getting paid to do nothing except be an expert all day.”

    Yeah, they’re consultants.

    Maybe it’s a Survivor meets Lost hybrid.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Judith (7,695 comments) says:

    @ steve

    I disagree – people are not pretending to be experts, but trying to make sense of the situation by using whatever knowledge they have. It’s actually a human default trait, to try and problem solve.

    The vast majority are curious – this has implications for all of us that travel internationally, and even domestically. Of course people care about what happened.

    Its not like anyone is getting any real sense from the officials, who seem to provide conflicting evidence on a daily basis.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    As for the passengers, the issue is at what point, if any, after communication with the plane ended, were they within range of a cell phone tower?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. NoCash (255 comments) says:

    Judith – cellphones don’t work at cruise altitude and speed (with ground level cell sites), except on planes with satellite relay capability, which MH370 is reportedly not equipped with.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    As for the passengers, the issue is at what point, if any, after communication with the plane ended, were they within range of a cell phone tower?

    Either they weren’t in range, they didn’t realise there was a problem, or they were incapacitated. Without oxygen, they would find it hard to text.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Judith (7,695 comments) says:

    @ NoCash (214 comments) says:
    March 19th, 2014 at 6:45 pm

    Okay, well that rules the cell phone suggestion out – although wasn’t there a report that it was flying extremely low? Would that have affected the cell phone situation?

    I guess from my point of view, as an experienced passenger with absolutely no technological knowledge, I draw on what I know from the Erebus disaster, and to a certain extent, 9/11. On 9/11 passengers managed to get messages out – hence wondering why this hadn’t happened here.

    As far as Erebus is concerned, it pointed out not only how Airlines can make mistakes, but how far they will go to cover their own butts!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Steve (North Shore) (4,500 comments) says:

    Judith, how much real WORK did you and the experts do today?
    How productive? See I work in the private sector where WORK that produces a product is done, I do not have time to comment on blogs all day. If I did, I would probably get the sack.
    Get where I am coming from?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. stephieboy (2,202 comments) says:

    Am putting my money on the the Oil Rig worker’s sighting of that fireball in the sky that provides the real clue.

    http://gawker.com/oil-rig-worker-says-he-saw-flight-370-crash-in-flames-1542226293

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. NoCash (255 comments) says:

    ^ There was no fire. He saw a meteorite.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Judith (7,695 comments) says:

    @ Steve (North Shore) (4,255 comments) says:
    March 19th, 2014 at 6:50 pm

    I have commented on here a few times during the day. But I have also done a full day’s work, and even finished some of next weeks work.

    In my opinion one should never prejudge people on blogs, (and that is not a dig at you), but its really impossible to tell who or what people do for an income or even what their personal circumstances are. I learned the hard way, presuming that people who post all day must be on the dole – and was heavily critical of them. Now that I work by contract at a task I am knowledgeable in and work competently at speed, I now realise that judging people by their number of posts, really isn’t wise.

    Nor is the common suggestion that their employer is paying for their blogging. I’m on contract, I pay my own internet fee.

    Just like you – we clash on so many things, but I’m damn sure if we were sitting at the same bar, we’d probably find we had many things in common too. That’s life, and that’s blogging! :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. stephieboy (2,202 comments) says:

    NoCash,

    He saw a meteorite .? Can you document that.?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. NoCash (255 comments) says:

    Judith – no sure how the 9/11 cellphones worked, perhaps the plane was equipped with satellite relay, or was flying low and very slow (by jetliner standards).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. NoCash (255 comments) says:

    stephieboy – Ed Snack has explained that in detail before. You’re welcome to search the General Discussion over the past few days for his post.

    :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Judith (7,695 comments) says:

    @ NoCash (216 comments) says:
    March 19th, 2014 at 7:05 pm

    Yeah, I realised after your previous answer that there was obviously something that enabled that. This situation is clearly different, either the passengers couldn’t call because there wasn’t the technological equipment to allow them, or they couldn’t call because they were incapacitated, or maybe even, they had absolutely no knowledge of what was going on.

    Another suggestion I heard was maybe there were people on the plane that were keeping the passengers guarded, to stop any action etc.

    It’s all a guess, but increasingly I get the feeling we will never really know.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. stephieboy (2,202 comments) says:

    NoCash, I asked you to provide documentation not someone else’s opinion piece on an earlier thread but this could be it,

    http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/03/18/play/conspiracy-theories-flight-mh370-malaysia-airlines-truth/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+b5media%2Feveryjoe+(EveryJoe)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. UglyTruth (4,028 comments) says:

    If 9/11 was to deflect from his announcement then, how about he tries not making the announcement at all?

    And have the story break at a more inopportune time for him? In doing it this way, by the time the critics get around to addressing the issue it is yesterday’s news.

    After all, you think they can cover up anything?

    Definitely. What is arguable is the amount of time it takes for people to figure it out. To really get the public’s attention it has to be current. If it takes a few years then the people responsible have most likely moved on from their public roles and are less vulnerable to bad press.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. UglyTruth (4,028 comments) says:

    Many nations will utilise PSR for the air defence system and these systems may or may not be available to civilian air traffic controllers as is the case in Malaysia.

    So it remains that the SSR used by Malaysian air traffic controllers will still generate range and bearing data, and that this range and bearing data doesn’t depend on there being a functional transponder on the aircraft, right?

    So to recap ATC in Malaysia would have only seen the aircraft again if the transponder had been switched on as they only utilise SSR.

    Recap? This is the first time you’ve presented the idea that there is no range and bearing data with SSR.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Paul Marsden (987 comments) says:

    In this instance, I’d go for an alien abduction of the earth ship vs a crew conspiracy. The only thing I’m certain of, is that there is a Hollywood movie in the making right now.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. UglyTruth (4,028 comments) says:

    For a plane to be seen at 6.15am in the Maldives (9.15am in KL) it would have to have been in the air ~9 hours. And apparently the T7 only had 7 hours fuel loaded (6 for the flight to Beijing plus a margin for any diversion). It just doesn’t fit.

    The bit that doesn’t fit is the assumption that the T7 only had 7 hours of fuel loaded. The distance between KL and Beijing is 650 miles greater than the distance between KL and the Maldives, so the argument that there wasn’t enough fuel fails outright.

    The other point is that the aircraft flew away from KL (~NE) for around an hour before turning back, so that would mean it would have to travel not only the 2700kms (KL to Male) but also the additional 700kms (out and back at an average 350kph including the climb out) which equates to approx 3400kms. On 7 hours fuel…..

    Fuel isn’t consumed at a constant rate. Fuel is consumed more rapidly after takeoff as the aircraft climbs to cruising altitude. Also the engines operate more efficiently as the altitude increases.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Johnboy (15,011 comments) says:

    As I said last night Pilots did it. Low level flight heading west to stay under primary radar hence spotted at the Andaman Islands and the Maldives at low level then climb to cruise height when out of range of Indian radar to head for destination. Look for aircraft in either Somalia or Yemen where Al Qaeda technicians are already preparing it for it’s next flight! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. NoCash (255 comments) says:

    Just for people wondering why the large arc of two possible flight paths, here’s my attempt at explaining it :-)

    The arc of possible flight paths was estimated based on the delay in receiving the ping signal from MH370. If you are directly below the Inmarsat geostationary satellite at sea level, it would take around 0.12 second for the radio signal to reach the satellite. The further you’re away from the point directly below the satellite, the longer it takes to receive the signal. Obviously the higher altitude you’re at the shorter the path to the satellite and shorter the time for the signal to get there. However, given the geostationary satellite is 35,786 km above sea level, the distance away from that point directly below the satellite makes a bigger difference than the altitude. The cruise altitude of the 777 is 11 km.

    Assuming the comms protocol requires precision time sync between the satellite and the transceiver on the plane, and that each “ping” signal is time stamped and logged. Hence the delay or latency between sending the signal from the plane and receiving it by the satellite can be calculated.

    Now with only one satellite as the reference point, for any given delay in receiving the signal, a big circle with a certain radius can be drawn with the centre at the point directly below the satellite. Considering the potential range of the plane, a large part of the circle can be discarded. As a result, an arc can be estimated covering the northern west and southern west corridors from the point where the plane was last located by radar.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Johnboy (15,011 comments) says:

    Rust, cancer and minus never sleep! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Ed Snack (1,740 comments) says:

    UT, actually as the aircraft gets higher, it uses fuel at a greater rate; however they get proportionately a bit faster so they get a greater range. If you go low and reduce speed you can actually get greater endurance (longer flying time) but less absolute distance at the slower speed. Also, you get typically very good range and bearing data with an active transponder (depends on the mode though, I believe there is a mode with reduced data) in SSR. I understood that “civilian” (that is non-military radar) can be used in primary fashion but typically is not. They would still see close targets without transponders, but according to LeftPilot that may no longer be correct.

    Stephie, as NoCash says, the information is in other threads. Brief recap is the oil rig was approx 400 km from the incident point when the transponder went off. At 400 kms distance the curvature of the earth is such that if he was standing at the very top of the rig’s derrick, and there was no local or distant haze, he *might* be able to see something right down on the horizon if the fire was delayed a short while and the aircraft flew straight ahead. He said he saw something “high in the sky, (he gave a precise horizontal bearing ut no vertical one), so what he saw must have been a lot closer than 400 km. Vietnamese military (I believe, might even have been there ATC in Primary mode, it wasn’t specified) radar has reported it “saw” the aircraft turn away, and it lost contact; if it had continue towards the oil rig it would have come clearly within the Vietnamese radar coverage; it didn’t. Also, it would take time for MH 370 to fly close enough to be seen as it was by McKay, putting his observation time off.

    Ergo, McKay could not have seen MH 370 on fire,nothing works. It is my conjecture that he is an honest observer and saw something as he described, hence the most likely explanation is a bolide or flaming meteorite.

    Judith, the 911 aircraft that was able to use mobiles, I believe it was flying low and relatively slowly in an area with limited mobile towers so people were able to make contact and maintain calls. The limited coverage may be correct for MH 370, but unless the Malaysian newspapers story about possible very low altitude flying is correct MH 370 was probably always too high for mobile calls to be made. It is thought possible that an active phone could have “registered” with a local mobile service, apparently that has been seen from flight levels in the 30′s before. That is a connection similar to the satellite “ping” is made, without data. We don’t know if MH 370 went close enough to check this, data may exist within a Thai or Malaysian system from its transit over the peninsula, it would be a massive job to find such a contact, and the data may have been overwritten already. I rather sadly believe that by that time most of the passengers were unconscious from depressurisation; or dead from the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. LeftPilot (63 comments) says:

    Sorry UglyTruth got a bit disjointed there. I think my brain has been melted by all the question my First Officer was putting to me today.

    So ATC will only get range and bearing data with SSR if the transponder is on (Mode A) or in Alt (Mode C). Mode A will provide position and Mode C will provide position and altitude. If in the off or stdby position ATC will not see the aircraft.

    Although I don’t yet put stock in the theory a fire in the avionics bay which is below the flight deck could take both the transponder and ACARS along with radios offline. For all the control display units in the flight deck there are computer processor modules for these called line replaceable units in the avionics bay.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Johnboy (15,011 comments) says:

    If the pilots did it, as I suspect Ed, they could have sorted the rest of the humanity behind their locked door fairly easily by using the airconditioning to get rid of them hence no cellphone calls.

    Maybe the brief climb to high altitude was to assist that scenario?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. wat dabney (3,685 comments) says:

    Snakes on a plane

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. UglyTruth (4,028 comments) says:

    So ATC will only get range and bearing data with SSR if the transponder is on (Mode A) or in Alt (Mode C). Mode A will provide position and Mode C will provide position and altitude. If in the off or stdby position ATC will not see the aircraft.

    So how do you explain the fact that air traffic controllers can use radar to see objects that don’t have transponders?

    http://www.ufocusnz.org.nz/content/The-world-famous-%E2%80%98Kaikoura-Lights%E2%80%99-sightings/58.aspx

    In late December 1978, a spectacular series of sightings occurred over South Island skies. These sightings initially began on December 21 when the crew of a Safe Air Ltd cargo plane observed strange lighted objects around their Argosy aircraft. The lights, ranging in size to that of a house, tracked them for several minutes before disappearing, and reappearing elsewhere. They appeared on Wellington ATC radar, on the aircraft radar, and were sighted by hundreds of people.

    More recently:

    http://www.openminds.tv/ufo-disrupts-air-traffic-bremen-germany/25621

    According to German news site The Local, the UFO showed up on the radar at Bremen Airport several times between 6:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. on Monday, January 6. But the unidentified object was also reportedly seen by air traffic controllers in the airport’s tower, as well as by police officers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. LeftPilot (63 comments) says:

    UglyTruth that is PSR, it does not require transponders and works off the reflection of the signal from the airborne object. As I said in civilian use PSR and SSR can be in use and furthermore where that happens software will combine the feeds onto the radar display, or scope in olden day terms.

    PSR has a shorter operational range and this is why in civilian use it is used primarily at busy airports. This is to protect busy airspace (control zones and terminal areas) from aircraft that might be operating without a transponder and invisible to SSR and also the traffic collision avoidance systems fitted in our aircraft. In New Zealand, and a lot of countries are heading that way – all controlled airspace is becoming transponder mandatory. This means they can decommission more PSR in civilian use.

    Malaysia has declared that that ATC didn’t have PSR coverage of MAS370. However, the RMAF have said they picked up a target on their PSR. However, I’m sure this would have been at the end of the usable range of that PSR. In saying that you would expect the military spec radar when it doesn’t have civilian use to more advanced.

    As an example. An airport that I fly out of sometimes is dual military/civilian. ATC do not have any radar at their disposal and thus separate traffic procedurally (time and distance calculations utilising position reports from us on the radio). However, there are a number of military satellites and radars which form part of that countries air defence system. So in all likelihood the Defence Force can see us on radar with PSR (I’m assuming one of the installations is) but ATC do not have this information available to them.

    I apologise if I am getting too jargony.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. berend (1,634 comments) says:

    NoCash: Judith – no sure how the 9/11 cellphones worked, perhaps the plane was equipped with satellite relay, or was flying low and very slow (by jetliner standards).

    The 9/11 cellphones worked because the plane was flying very low.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. UglyTruth (4,028 comments) says:

    UglyTruth that is PSR, it does not require transponders and works off the reflection of the signal from the airborne object.

    Thanks for clarifying, from what I’ve read there is some ambiguity regarding these terms.

    From Wikipedia: “Secondary surveillance radar (SSR)[1] is a radar system used in air traffic control (ATC), that not only detects and measures the position of aircraft i.e. range and bearing, but also requests additional information from the aircraft itself such as its identity and altitude.”

    Malaysia has declared that that ATC didn’t have PSR coverage of MAS370.

    OK, but what does that mean, exactly? Does it mean that ATC has no ability PSR ability whasoever, or that their PSR range did not extend to MAS370 at the time that secondary contact was lost? I find it hard to believe that the Malaysian ATC has no PSR ability when it’s clear that ATC in other countries do.

    The point is that if Malaysian ATC is like ATC in other countries then they should have been able to get range and bearing data from MAS370 when the aircraft turned and overflew the country as it flew to the Strait of Malacca.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. stephieboy (2,202 comments) says:

    For all our Aviation ,Technobabble and conspiracy buffs,

    http://s203.photobucket.com/user/maslow25/media/malaysia-gilligans-island-tragedy-airplane-blackbox-nsa-dragnet-distractions_zpsb4987147.jpg.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Sb (58 comments) says:

    UT:

    SSR and PSR have quite different ranges. A system with both mounted on the same rotating system might have 150Km on the PSR and 400Km on the SSR.

    So its quite conceivable that a plane would be tracked by one system and not the other. Additionally quite often there is a SSR without an associated PSR. Thats because SSR are far cheaper to buy and run than a PSR.

    I am simplifying here but SSR is for long range and PSR is for local control area about an airfield. (yes this is not always true but in general it is)

    Additionally it would be unusual for a Military PSR to have Civilian SSR fitted – they have Military SSR which is not compatible with Civilian SSR. ( again not always true but generally true) This means that Military ATC is used to seeing returns without an associated Transponder response. Hence they would not be interested in the fact that a response had no ident associated with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. NoCash (255 comments) says:

    Sb – that perhaps explains why the RMAF didn’t scramble a jet to intercept the MH370 when it was detected on the military radar. Just wondering, why was the MH370 not considered a bogey?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Sb (58 comments) says:

    “Just wondering, why was the MH370 not considered a bogey”

    In a busy international air space you are not going to do that unless you have some reason to suspect that something is going on.

    This plane would not have been the only plane up in the sky at that time.

    To the the Military ATC its just another civilian flight.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Malaysian Airlines declined to purchase a relatively cheap upgrade which might have enabled the missing plane’s whereabouts to be known.

    The airline made an economic decision which compromised passenger safety. I hope the Courts take that into account when they award damages to the victims’ families.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/malaysia-airlines-didnt-buy-computer-upgrade-that-could-have-given-data-on-missing-flight/2014/03/19/40e2484c-af7c-11e3-a49e-76adc9210f19_story.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. UglyTruth (4,028 comments) says:

    Eyewitness reports of a possible sighting of missing Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370 flying near the Maldives have been officially discounted in a statement issued by the Maldives National Defence Force.

    These reports were also confirmed by Malaysia’s Transport Minister, Hishamuddin Hussein.

    “Based on the monitoring up to date, no indication of Flight MH370 has been observed on any military radars in the country,” the statement said.

    http://www.smh.com.au/world/missing-malaysia-airlines-plane-maldives-discounted-as-possible-location-for-mh370-20140319-hvkjq.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. mikenmild (10,766 comments) says:

    This just in:
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/asia/9850222/Objects-linked-to-missing-plane-found

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Tookinator (214 comments) says:

    Pilot is a Cunliffe supporter, then mid flight reads the Herald Digpoll…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. labrator (1,750 comments) says:

    This graphic gives you a good understanding of most of the info that’s available at the moment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    The plane may have crashed hundreds of kilometres south west of Perth. So, if the plane was hijacked, why fly it all that way only to crash it?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. UglyTruth (4,028 comments) says:

    So, if the plane was hijacked, why fly it all that way only to crash it?

    If it was a conventional hijack then something went very wrong with the plan.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    If it was a conventional hijack then something went very wrong with the plan

    Possibly, or maybe the hijackers were suicidal and were never intending to land the plane but instead wanted to make a laughing stock of the airline (or some other rationale)? What are the odds of the plane landing on water (the passengers already dead) and the hijackers escaping?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    The objects were spotted by the satellite 4 days ago, they were over 10 miles apart – they will no longer be where they were because of ocean currents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    Searchers may not be able to hear the sonic ping of the black box if the depth is below 4km and yet the depth in some areas is 5km.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    US Poseidon back in Perth but failed to spot anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. UglyTruth (4,028 comments) says:

    Pilot lost the plot as his missus left him ,not helped by the Anwar Ibrahim case.

    The pilot of the missing Malaysian Airlines plane made a mystery phone call just minutes before flight MH370 took off from Kuala Lumpur, it emerged last night.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2585110/Who-fanatical-pilot-missing-jet-calling-just-minutes-Focus-turns-mystery-cockpit-call-Kuala-Lumpur-airport.html

    Perhaps the pilot decided to embarrass the Malaysian government by returning the plane to Malaysia. What would follow is this was the case?

    There is supporting evidence that the uninterruptable autopilot described by Field McConnell and Joe Vialls has been implemented on all Boeing airliners as McConnell claims:

    The State Department has prepared civil charges against Boeing alleging 94 violations of the Arms Control Act because the company sold commercial airliners without obtaining an export license for a tiny gyrochip that has defense applications.

    http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2002359561_boeingqrs06.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. UglyTruth (4,028 comments) says:

    by James Corbett
    BoilingFrogsPost.com
    March 18, 2014

    As the mystery of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370—the Boeing 777 bound for Beijing that vanished seemingly without a trace—approaches the two week mark, the talking heads of the corporate news networks are becoming increasingly desperate to fill the 24/7 news cycle with meaningless speculation and blather. In their desperation, they have even turned to speculation on a subject long shunned as outlandish conspiracy theory by these very same networks: the possibility of remote control hijackings of commercial passenger jets.

    Whether or not Flight 370 was the victim of such an attack or something different altogether remains to be seen. But the many pieces of the 9/11 puzzle pointing to the use of remote control technologies to pilot the flights on that fateful day, from Raytheon’s test flights of remote-controlled passenger jets to Zakheim’s involvement with a company responsible for remote-control “flight termination systems” to the precision of United 175′s bank angle and turn start time to the presence of the E-4B doomsday planes in the skies that morning, provide a compelling counter-narrative to the tabloid press’ claim that Flight 370 may be the first example of cyber hijacking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.