UKC

Strange that in this day and age a plane with 100's of people on-board can just go missing.

After 24 hours ones any the wiser as to where it is. Must be terrible for the relatives.

In reply to Antigua:

I agree- its unbelievable. all those people

In reply to redsonja:

I'm puzzled by this one, ATC must know when it went off the radar and should be able to narrow the search area down somewhat, even though it's over the sea surely with modern sonar ships and aircraft should be able to find the wreck?

In reply to Al Evans:

And that will happen. When the kit gets to the site. If it came down from 35,000 ft and even more so if it broke up on the way down, the wreckage will cover a vast area

In reply to imkevinmc:

would the wreckage not be floating? that's whats so puzzling. its like that air france plane that disappeared a few years ago. it was ages before they found it

In reply to redsonja:

What about the two passengers with false passports, was this a viable target for terrorists of some pathetic description?

In reply to Al Evans:

that seems to be what they are looking at now. but wouldnt terrorists would usually have admitted it by now?

In reply to Al Evans:


Difficult to think of a reason why the usual suspects would blow up a Malaysian aircraft. There is a huge trade in stolen passports so I would suspect that was nothing to do with terrorism.

The strange thing is that they are saying the aircraft turned back. A sudden catastrophic failure could explain the lack of communication but if they had enough warning and control to turn back then why didn't they radio a message? Although I don't think the Air France plane did either.

In reply to Antigua:

Perhaps I'm being unintelligent here , but why aren't all commercial aircraft fitted with several everything-proof satellite tracking devices , each in a different area of the plane ? Then even if the aircraft broke up on impact , search and rescue would be onto it like a shot .
Surely mankind has devised a bit of technology which can be found even when under water ?
A very tragic incident all the same , especially as the Boeing 777 had a clean safety record until now . With regards to possible terrorism , I can't think why anyone would want to blow up an air Malaysia plane . Most of the passengers were nationals of Asian countries ( not many westerners to target ). Malaysia its self has not set out to aggravate any one people group as far as I know .

In reply to SethChili:
They do have emergency beacons and flight data/voice recorders has pingers for finding underwater.
It's surprising there hasn't been different & competing claims of responsibility even if the real cause has nothing to do with terrorism.

In reply to SethChili:

I guess its not usually an issue. Aircraft are pretty big and don't tend to vanish for long. Also the satellite bandwidth required for every aircraft to constantly beam its location may be excessive. As it is, they are datalinked and send information regularly. This is more than enough to find a downed aircraft under normal circumstances.

I suspect in this, and the Air France, incident a more regular stream of coordinates may have helped. But equally, travelling at 1,000km/h, even with 10 second updates, if you come apart at 36,000ft or suffer something so catastophic to cause a crash, either the wreckage will end up over a large area many miles from the last reported point, and there is a hihg likelihood you might not be transmitting those co-ordinates in the final crucial minutes.

In reply to David Martin:

Ocean currents shift things around so it can be harder to predict where any wreckage might be even if you know the bearing and speed at the point of things going wrong.

One incident that is well documented is the Lockerbie bombing. Contact was lost as the plane crossed the Solway Firth which on the plane's heading of 321deg is about 22 kilometres away. (from Wikipedia) the main part of the plane descended at an angle from its initial altitude of 9400m down to 5800m when its trajectory became near vertical.

The Malaysian plane was out of controlled airspace so wouldn't have been tracked by ATC who would be more concerned with aircraft approaching and departing airports. All commercial aircraft have transponders indicating the details of the aircraft but these do fail - a backup device is available and ATC will request that a crew turn on the backup should the plane become unrecognised and just a simple radar blip.

In reply to a lakeland climber:

Since it's now not looking like terrorists, and experts say a plane like that can't really break up unless there's a bomb and that leaves the lack-or-wreckage riddle unanswered. I can only think of four other possibilities. The first three are: something hit the aircraft: 1. satellite debris, 2. a meteorite, 3. a missile (Seventh Fleet were nearby … i.e a missile could have been fired by mistake). These possibilities could just about work if the aircraft was hit in such a way that it didn't break up e.g one wing came off (which might explain the turn), and the wreckage went into the sea with the fuselage intact…. But the only theory I can get to 'work', really is:

4. The co-pilot committed suicide and took everyone with him. I say co-pilot, because testimony re the Pilot is very complementary: he was very experienced, a complete enthusiast, and cheerful when last seen. But supposing his co-pilot wanted to commit suicide? He could have cut the pilot's throat and then disabled the radio communications. Then flown turned the plane westwards (as they now believe), back toward Malaysia, and crashed it into the jungle clad mountains.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

After engaging stealth mode perhaps? How else would it have disappeared from radar?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

That's brilliant Gordon, it's so wacky I almost hope your theory is correct

In reply to Firestarter:

Umm. ... Theory number 4 collapses )

Soon we're just going to be left with

5. An extra-terrestrial swallowed it whole.

In reply to Firestarter:

Was it on radar or just being picked up via the transponders?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

6. Elvis has it hanging from his bedroom ceiling on a piece of cotton...

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

No 4. is still an option. He could have spiralled the aircraft down to a height below the radar and then proceeded towards the jungle; before crashing.

In reply to dissonance:


If just the latter, my theory no.4 still has some life in it.

In reply to Removed User:


Ah, that's even better. The whole theory works now.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Definately still on radar, and turning circle of an airliner would have been easily spotted. Decrease in altitude coupled with circular flying pattern would have been very noticeable - less whole theory more theory hole!

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

There will be an explanation , and it won't be extra-terrestials. Without wishing to be a total arse, I'm not sure that flippant comments and speculation are appropriate at the moment.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward: Now now, if people find it mildly amusing that a couple of hundred passengers have probably perished who are you to spoil their fun?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Bermuda triangle ET's move to Asia due to sky-high rent increases in the Caribbean?

In reply to David Martin:


Don't understand this, everyone and their dog are constantly sending out their location with GPS enabled phones, no reason a few thousand planes can't do the same.

In reply to redsonja:


The Air France plane was spotted the next day, the fuselage proper later that week.

But yeah terrorists would have claimed it quickly.

Bit of a mystery, if it went into jungle it could be lost but transponders should go off.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

No.4 As in suicide & mass murder has happened before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990

Certainly my favourite theory here. No comms/distress and a long way off course.

In reply to Antigua:

Some interesting reading here about the realities of international airline tracking and just how little information there is available to ATCs about where a large number of planes actually are when out of national airspace.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-03/11/how-to-lose-a-plane-in-2014

In reply to lowersharpnose:

Theory No.5 Courtesy of the v nice Indian guy who runs my local corner shop. Has much in common with 4 - at least the first part. But the Co-Pilot is not suicidal but a terrorist/hijacker, and the whole thing has been carefully planned for years. He's working for an alien regime - North Korea being the most likely. And he flies the plane below radar level and lands safely. All passengers and crew in custody. No claim of responsibility yet because the nutter in charge is just having a bit of a perverse laugh at the expense of the rest of the world, partic. China.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

How about theory 5: hijacked (by crew or passenger) and flown West?

Transponder and other communication devices switched off. If plane had enough fuel to reach Beijing it probably had enough to reach Africa. No show on secondary radar when it was NE of Malaysia, primary radar then shows it W of Malaysia sometime after, presumably after which it was our of radar range. It could have gone the rest of the way invisible.

Then intentionally crashed (aircraft can make a very small hole with few reamins bigger than a football if nose-dived - as per Florida everglades crash) on land, or in the sea (Indian Ocean is probably just as difficult to locate aircraft in as the Atlantic was for Air France). For real conspiracy though, it could potentially have been landed somewhere in the East Coast of Africa...but who knows if there are unmonitored airfields large enough to take fully loaded (but no doubt light on fuel) 777s.
Passengers could presumably be incapacitated by decompressing and satying at altitude long enough for the O2 bottles to deplete.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

The co-pilot seems to have a bit of a track record in dodgy behaviour given his pulling a couple of birds in to the cockpit for a smoke. A few weeks back some African airline was hijacked by its co-pilot. Could have set the precedent and light-bulbs for an errant flight deck crew-member in expanding on it slightly.

At present its certainly a very weird and intriguing disappearance. Hundreds of people vanishing without trace. An aircraft veering entirely from its intended path and overflying the entire Malaysian peninsula (this was evidently noticed....but what actions were taken by those observing?). No wreckage. Apparently no satellite sign of explosions (dunno how effect they are at detecting such a plume). A multitude of surveilance aircraft and massive surface traffic finding nothing.

In reply to Antigua:

My theory, crew and passengers incapacitated due to lack of oxygen (Greek 737). Aircraft has just disappeared into the wastes of the southern indian ocean on autopilot.

In reply to Antigua:

no mention of Oceanic 815. The twitterverse seems to think this is the most likely theory. Which probably says more about Twitter

In reply to butteredfrog:
has just disappeared into the wastes of the southern indian ocean on autopilot.

Would be a very strange thing for the autopilot to do.

In reply to butteredfrog:

Unlikely, even with sudden and massive decompression the crew are going to have had time to make a call to ATC informing them of the fact. By the time the supplemental oxygen runs out (does it run out or is there some form of compressor supplying it?) the plane will have descended to a more suitable altitude. Of course then it would be below the coverage of on-shore radar but it would still be in radio contact.

From what we know (or have been told) so far, all communications from the plane ceased after a particular point in time. This could be either from something catastrophic happening to the plane or deliberate action by the crew. If the former then the plane will have crashed somewhere forward of its last known location, if the latter then the search area becomes effectively determined by the fuel carried. Also if the latter then the plane has to descend fairly quickly to avoid being tracked on radar and to keep away from shipping and other radar facilities, this would limit the area it could fly in.

In reply to FreshSlate:


Anything added to an aircraft airframe has to be so thoroughly tested (and is usually obsolete in technology terms before it ever flies) that I imagine airlines are very much behind the times with this. See how long its taken just to et a whiff of mobile phones being allowed in aviation.

No doubt these scenarios, and especially if pilot suicide is found to be the reason, will lead to cockpit voice recorders uploading in near real-time to cloud/satelites.

In reply to Bob:

was thinking about the Greek airliner crash a few years ago: All communications lost with no indication of a problem. Fighters intercepting the aircraft reported seeing the crew slumped over the controls. Eventually crashed into a mountain in Turkey when it ran out of fuel.

In reply to Antigua:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522

Got it wrong there, it was flying west, it crashed in Greece.

In reply to Antigua:

If a plane crashed into the sea it will mostly sink. Including the acoustics in the black box and any radio transponders. The 'black box' transmits a couple of signals one of which is like a sonar signal. This cannot be detected above water. Although these signals can, in theory be detected many miles away if the box has dropped into a trough in the sea floor, or in an area where there are differing strata s of water temperatures and currents they may not be detected at all. This is one of the methods modern submarines use to hide at sea. Radio signals of the sort used on aircraft - and the black box, cannot penetrate through water. It took two years before the fuselage of the Air France plane was found in the Atlantic a few years back.

As for a distress message if it suffered catastrophic failure. I'm not too sure it would be high on my list of priorities if I was the pilot, even if the catastrophic failure had not ruptured the electronics, I'd be more interested in trying to hang on. If it suffered a catastrophic failure and dropped quickly the pilot + cockpit would be falling so fast I doubt the crew would even be able to move against the acceleration of the descent. I can't think of any catastrophic events where the pilot has been able to send a distress message out, even where the cockpit was ;largely intact until it hit the ground.

If one wing came of the plane, the aircraft would quickly fall out of the sky and not gently descend in a circle as has been described. If it had been accidentally hit by a missile fired from a ship then we'd know about it, sooner rather than later. These things can't be kept quite for ever!! But accidentally hitting a plane? I don't think so! It would not be impossible for the crew to wrongly identify the aircraft for some reason (this has happened once in the Gulf) and then shoot it down - but for what reason?? Its not exactly 'hostile' air space is it?

I believe an aircraft of the size of a 777 needs about 2000meters of runway. I think by now someone would have noticed if one had landed at the few runways that large! They'd be large civilian or military installations. If it was a civilian airfield, people would soon have communicated the fact either from the plane using their own phones or people on the ground. And I doubt the military would be very keen on keeeping quite the fact they'd just had a large civilian aircraft land on their doorstep.

Satellites can pick up small objects quite easily. Think Google earth! Military/'spy' ones can get even better resolution. But there is not blanket 24/7 coverage of all areas. If there wasn't anything pointing there at the time, then it isn't going to be seen.

I'm afraid we'll have to wait and see. It certainly isn't the only aircraft that has completely disappeared without trace, and this includes quite large modern aircraft someof which have taken many months before they have been located.

In reply to Bob:


The passenger oxygen supply lasts about 12 mins. This is enough for the plane to descend to an altitude where supplementary oxygen is not required (about 10000ft iirc). This assumes that the crew is compos mentis and makes the descent. I believe the crew has a dedicated oxygen supply, but I don't know how long that lasts.

In the Greek crash, the crew failed to identify the problem correctly and didn't descend - the plane flew a holding pattern on auto-pilot while the oxygen depleted, and then crashed when the fuel ran out.

In reply to kathrync:
Quite possible the (Greek) crew became disorientated with hypoxia - from the Wikipedia page they seem to have become fixated on what they thought was the problem rather than responding to the ground crew's questions.

From what's reported in the Malaysian case the captain has reported that everything was OK in his final (known) message.

In reply to Antigua:

The worlds "Intelligence" agencies have the technology to simultaneously and covertly monitor the e mails and telephone conversations of billions of people and yet an aircraft with hundreds of people aboard can disappear in mid flight and they haven't got a clue!!!

Methinks they should be spending their money and effort elsewhere!!

In reply to David Martin:


Thanks for your input on this extraordinary riddle. Have been v busy today, so unable to converse.

In reply to mgco3:

Makes me question just how much of what the world's intelligence community is claimed to be capable of is actually true. Its in their own interests if people believe they are far more capable than they really are.

However, if the Malaysian flight has ended up in the water, it is likely miles from a mobile tower and the mobiles themselves either switched off or under-water by now.

Likewise, it takes years to collate satellite imagery so no surprise it can't be found from space. Flying every day over the sea looking at waves hour after hour, its no surprise searchers can't find anything. Its even possible the aircraft, if it was flown in to 60m of water at speed, could be entirely embedded at the bottom of the Gulf of Thailand.

It's difficult to see how an aircraft can sink without leaving something floating - it would have to make a perfect controlled landing in which nothing broke off.

In reply to elsewhere:


Not too hard at all. Since most of the "floaty" bits are inside the fuselage then if the plane nose-dives in to the sea it may well be intact at the point of impact so little debris is likely to escape. This would depend on there being no existing damage prior to crashing.

In reply to a lakeland climber:

I think there's a lot of that yellow foam insulation in the guts of aircraft, not to mention liferafts, luggage, seat cushions, fuel, oil, and, dare I say it, after a few days bodies, which are likely to end up on the surface.

In reply to David Martin:

Is there any carbon fibre on the 777?

Wasn't that why the tail fin was floating after the air france crash?

In reply to IainRUK:

This seems to indicate a fair amount. Not sure how much of it is floaty.

http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~jps7/Aircraft%20Design%20Resources/Structures...

In reply to a lakeland climber:
The "floaty" bits would only remain inside if the aircraft doesn't break up. Air France Flight 447 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 both broke up on impact with water.
Water is one thousand times denser than air and anything but a perfect ditching will rip apart the structure.

In reply to Antigua:
It really is baffling isn't it.

My thought is it can only be a catastrophic in-flight break up. It really confused me when the 'experts' said that in flight break ups "are impossible...they just don't happen". What about TWA-800 or China Airlines Flight 611.

My theory is that this is the same as China Airlines Flight 611 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_611 ). Damage caused by tail strike 20 odd years previous caused metal fatigue that caused an in flight break up (tail fell off).

Have read in several articles that the wing tip of the same plane was damaged in a collision while taxiing...my theory is the wing wasn't repaired correctly and suffered an in flight break up due to metal fatigue. If the wing falls off, the whole plane would fall apart instantly...no time for a distress call.

Hopefully we'll find out soon..must be horrible for the families.

In reply to elsewhere:

The EA flight was an attempted landing after the plane ran out of fuel (and with hijackers in the cockpit), the AF flight hit the ocean at roughly 45degs and left a debris field that had expanded to roughly 200m x 600m after 48hrs.

Until the Malaysian plane or its debris is found then this is all just speculation.

In reply to Antigua:
On the basis of information in the public domain at present the most likely scenario appears to be that something catastrophic happened somewhere near to the handover between Malay and Vietnamese ATC. Perhaps the crew retained some control for some time but the aircraft is likely not far from that point lost in the sea.

That said, looking at who is searching where it would appear there are at least indications it continued west ish after communications were lost, perhaps over Thailand or Malaysia. Why so reticent to explain or disclose what those indications are? Possibly it's sensitive intelligence via back channels from other nations' forces (or even Malaysian military) unwilling to disclose their capabilities. Likely it's inconclusive and messy whatever it is they have. Potentially it's incorrect and domestically embarrassing (eg US military overflights without permission regularly going unchallenged), this possibility is hinted at by the inclusion of the NTSB and FAA in the radar analysis since they may have the contacts required to rule this out. Most likely though there's just a lot of confusion and inconclusive data that each nation potentially involved does not want in the public domain and perhaps does not know how to share safely as it reveals their defence capabilities or lack thereof.

What is less clear is why they're being quite so cagey about the airframe and engine telemetry, what was available to begin with, what was received and when did it cease. Possibly it is just pure confusion and an unwillingness on the part of powerful men covered in medals to say 'I don't know' to the world's media.

If it carried on crippled but flying which is a slim and grim possibility then it could be pretty much anywhere within ~7Hr flying radius. If you discount areas in which it would easily have been detected that is still probably >5% of the earth's surface, most of that deep ocean.

It's an interesting mystery but most of all it's a tragedy for those who've lost people.

jk

In reply to Antigua:

It's pretty obvious what's happened and why nothing has been released yet!

In reply to Ian Black:

Eh?? I think the word 'obvious' is not quite appropriate! Are you implying an accidental missile strike by US Seventh Fleet? It's still more or less inconceivable that there would be nothing floating on the surface and no oil or fuel slick.

In reply to Ian Black:

Tell me please.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

It fascinates me how much influence governments have on us through the media, but sometimes we have to think outside the box. Smoke and mirrors...

In reply to Ian Black:

Oh go on, do enlighten us sheeple mortals who don't have your cutting insights...

In reply to Ian Black:

Fascinating. Care to be more specific?
jk

In reply to Ian Black:

So it is aliens then? Finally, someone has evidence!

In reply to David Martin:

I’m starting to think that by far the most likely explanation for the disappearance of MH370 was that it was shot down by an RIM-66 Standard SM-2 MR (medium range) surface-to-air (SAM) missile, as carried by USS Pinckney, a guided missile destroyer that was on a ‘training mission’ in the South China Sea. On March 8, 2014, this very same USS Pinckney was diverted from its training mission in the South China Sea to the southern coast of Vietnam, ‘to help search for the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370’.

I believe it is the Americans who have said that the oil slick was the wrong type or aircraft fuel or an airliner, and that nothing showed up on their surveillance systems. The whole thing about it turning westward and flying on for hundreds of miles could easily have been a false lead to throw most of the searchers off scent.

Terrifying footage here about the Standard missile:

youtube.com/watch?v=cwDUDd2Gm_I&

In reply to Ian Black:

Perhaps you'll give us a comparable example from your experience?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Erm, any evidence for that, or just you 'thinking' and doing some internet 'research'?

In reply to JayPee630:


Just the latter. But the point is that when you weigh everything up it starts to look like the most possible explanation - and none of the possible explanations quite 'work', except perhaps this one. I.e. no evidence found because a full-scale cover-up has gone underway (or gotten underway, I should say). There is at least quite a lot of circumstantial evidence.

In reply to JayPee630:

I've got a feeling that this is probably what Ian Black is hinting at too, though I don't know why he's being so coy about it.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I love how you are managing to solve the mystery with no experience or evidence, and just some internet reading of dubious value. In that way a thousand moronic conspiracy theories are launched.

In reply to JayPee630:

Oh for goodness sake! I am not solving the mystery, I'm just putting it forward as a strongish possible explanation for one of the biggest riddles in aviation history. I just said: almost no possible explanation quite adds up. Mostly because there has apparently been no trace. Except we now have an oil rig worker a hundred miles away seeing a bright burning object in the sky, plus the satellite footage (strangely withheld for several days) of large chunks of metal in the South China Sea (all miles away from the 'westward over Malaysia' scenario)

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


I assumed it was some sort of parody/joke, rather than a serious, let along "strongish" possibility. What possible reason would the US have for shooting down this plane, and then trying to cover it up. You are in WTC/lunar landing/JFK conspiracy territory .

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Rolls Royce monitor all their engines whilst in flight from Derby. Now we are finding out through the MSM that the engines were working for 4 hours after the transponder stopped working. But the plane had 7 hours of fuel,

The thing that amazes me is that a plane can fly for 4 hours with it's transponder turned off and the military radar defences of these countries didn't pick it up? ( assuming the engine data above is correct )

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Pretty well all technological states have technologies that they would rather other states not know about, or at least not give them an idea of the capabilities of those technologies. So while nation 'A' has a decent idea of what went on and where, it can't say immediately as that would provide too many clues. So, several possibilities are thrown up and lo and behold one of them moves things on.

I don't think this would be going on if there were any chance of survivors.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

It's not one of the biggest riddles in aviation history, it's barely been a few days, let's just wait and see what happens rather than making ill informed and speculative judgements based on ignorance pretending to be knowledge.

In reply to MG:


You are jumping to conclusions, not me. Accidents/mistakes can happen (and have happened before). If this theory is correct (out of about only 4 possible main theories) don't think there has been any conspiracy. Unless you call a cover-up a conspiracy. And of course any country bringing down an airliner by mistake would not want to admit to such a balls up.

What else are we left with. Terrorist bomb. The experts are regarding that as less likely now, as no one has claimed anything; the two possible suspects were apparently escaping to the west and were not terrorists; any motive seems obscure indeed. Catastrophic failure of the airframe: experts have more or less ruled this out 100%. Hijacking and flown to secret destination: very far fetched indeed. Struck by external object: a) satellite debris, b) meteorite - but chances of this seem infinitesimally small.

Doesn't that just about cover everything?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

And pilot/co-pilot suicide has been mentioned, as has some massive miscalculation and disorientation. So a few more...

Anyway, I think I'll leave it to the experts to work out what happened.

In reply to JayPee630:

Yes, let's do that. It wasn't meant to be anything more than a brief survey of logical possibilities. It is a baffling and tragic mystery … as all the experts are saying (not just millions of armchair theorists around the world.)

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Assuming that is exactly a conspiracy. It's the typical thing of assuming all the hundreds of people who must know keep quite and form a water-tight plan to keep the secret in a few hours. Doesn't happen. The US does actually have form in shooting down airliners and it hasn't attempted to cover it up (well not in general terms).


Possible and much more likely than your more fantastic scenarios but I suspect it is a rather more mundane catastrophic failure of some kind.

In reply to JayPee630:



You are such a creep, you are off the scale. It was I who first suggested the pilot/co-pilot suicide scenario on this forum.

In reply to MG:


How is it that a string of experts on the BBC, and not just Boeing employees, have ruled that out as more or less impossible .. with no warning, and no mayday signal?

I'm at work now, so must leave UKC

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

you forgot alien abduction

Anyone remember Payne Stewart's private jet crash?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_crash

Doesn't really fit with the transponders stopping working but an example of hypoxia overcoming the occupants fatally and at speed.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Haha, I haven't read the whole thread, I was commenting on your speculation that it was starting to look like the US had shot the plane down and was covering up on it. Honestly, calm down.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Well *something* unlikely happened so we are speculating about how unlikely an unlikely event occurred. Catastrophic failure of some kind, or terrorist incident, is much more likely than the (first ever?) huge conspiracy-cover-up to actually be true.

Interesting too you assume it was a US ship, rather than say a mistake by one of the other navies operating in rather a tense region.

In reply to MG:

He has evidence though, he posted an old Youtube video of a missile and said it was "terrifying".

In reply to JayPee630:

It wouldn't be the first time the US has shot down an airliner, so not beyond the realms of possibility unfortunately.

In reply to David Martin:

Yes quite, don't know why Gordon is catching flack over this, you can set a system to have safe lanes of approach and fire on everything else. So human error and machine intelligence. I had a friend back in the day who was court marshalled after an unfortunate incident involving a fishing boat and several shells which luckily for all involved missed. No malice, just a mistake.
Something terrible has happened to the plane, we will no doubt find out if they can find the debris. Lets hope it wasn't accidentally shot down as that would just add misery for all concerned.

Cheers

Toby

In reply to David Martin:

In that instance the US vessel, the USS Vincennes, was in the Gulf and was on a semi-war footing (against Iran), the shooting down was as much due to a mixup between civilian and military procedures. The airliner didn't respond to radio messages for example possibly because the crew thought the request didn't apply to them.

In reply to Toby_W:


Well postulating it was shot down is one thing. Postulating it was shot down by a particular boat with a particular type of missile and the US(has to be them, doesn't it?) are now hiding the fact is quite another.

In reply to Bob:

Similar circumstances. Airliner in this case could have already been out of radio contact and not squawking anything, which in the post 9/11 world is every bit as likely to get the forementioned SA missile headed skywards.

Admittedly there is no more evidence in this direction than anything else. But equally, it is therefore every bit as likely. Add the accusations of reticence, conflicting comments, and the high likelihood that flight 93 was shot down, but to this day denied, I'd certainly put a shoot down on a higher likelihood than space junk/meteorite strike.

In reply to MG:

That missile, called the Standard, is absolutely standard for by many western navies, and was also the type carried by the very destroyer that is now helping in the search ... that had been on an 'exercise' with most/all? of the Seventh Fleet in that very area at the time the airliner disappeared. That's all. That's just why I deliberately used the (legally rather derogatory) term 'circumstantial'.

One of the scenarios suggested so far will almost certainly be found one day to be true, however 'unlikely' it now seems. Unless we believe in aliens or the supernatural. I repeat, though, that experts seem to rate a catastrophic failure of the airframe as extremely unlikely.

I'm getting 'flack', I suppose, because some people don't like to look at all possibilities in an even-handed objective way. We see just the same reaction regarding the most likely scenario in the Madeleine McCann case.

In reply to David Martin:

What about the burning object in the sky that was reported by a worker on an oil rig? Of course he could be making it up. But then again he might not, and then there would be the need for a scientific explanation for what he saw burning in the sky.

In reply to Toby_W:
It's not just speculating, but making the statement that that was the most likely cause based on basically no knowledge beyond some internet 'research'.

This kind of event seems to bring out the armchair experts who seem to forget that their explanations are usually based on almost complete ignorance of the subject and access to a fraction of the evidence and information that the experts have.

Interested on your deep investigations on what happened to Madeline MaCann Gordon as well. Have you contacted Scotland Yard to offer your services in solving all these cases?

In reply to JayPee630:

To be fair, the thousands of actual experts have so far failed to find the aircraft, let alone come up with an explanation for where it should be (or even which side of Malaysia it is likely to be on), no less a probable cause.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Arrrgh! Man hears of disappeared jet. Man remembers "something" he saw the other night. Man's imagination puts two and two together to make 26.

How many Loch Ness monsters have been "seen"?

In reply to David Martin:
It's being worked on, give it time. Internet generation just wanting answers now, sheesh.

In reply to MG:

Yup, eye witness accounts of anything are notoriously unreliable.

In reply to Antigua:

For uptodate info follow:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10687223/Malaysia-A...

In reply to JayPee630:

Indeed, its been worked on. But the inability to give even a vague idea of the aircraft's location is getting weird. We're not talking the middle of the Atlantic. This is what should have been a largely over-land flight, in range of primary radar, in a very modern aircraft, over an area full of oil rigs, fishing boats, freighters, pirates, and now P3s and other maritime surveillance aircraft. Imagine if the aircraft had ditched or there was a remote chance of survivors. They would now likely be dead regardless. Its a pretty damning situation.

As the Malaysians have stated, this is unprecedented.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

You think the most likely scenario in the Madeleine Mcann case is that the parents killed her and dumped the body correct? (if my memory serves me)

I doubt many share your "most likely" scenario if that's the case.

The problem with your shooting out of the sky argument by a US ship is the scattered debris over a large area, the silence of all who know, the admission in past similar mistakes, the transponder turning off 4 hours prior to engine telemetry stoppage.

Obviously it is "possible" but hardly worthy of such a detailed guess work analysis until some hard evidence starts pointing towards that eventuality (IMO)

In reply to JayPee630:


Sure, but this one looks very far from vague. As I said, could be an elaborate hoax, but it should surely be taken very seriously, as it stands:

http://sandrarose.com/2014/03/oil-rig-worker-claims-he-saw-missing-malaysia...

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


I saw a burning object in the sky on Monday night, I put that object down to (after watching the tv last night) being a capsule re entry from the ISS. So the worker could well have seen a burning object in the sky but have the days mixed up.

In reply to David Martin:



It seems shambolic. I see now the satelite image release was a mistake!

In reply to mwr72:

Have you read the letter, and seen just how meticulous and carefully written it is? With lots of facts, compass bearings etc. Your suggestion is possible, but unlikely. More likely is that he's reporting as accurately (very accurately) as possible just what he saw and when and where, or it's a carefully constructed hoax.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I saw a burning object in the sky from Friday to Monday. Not sure what it was, but it was big, round, yellow and warm!

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

No, I haven't seen the letter(link?). The object I saw was roughly southwest(the back of our house faces sse) The only compass I have is on the iphone so could possibly get a better reading than southwest.

In reply to mwr72:

I put it above, but here it is again:

http://sandrarose.com/2014/03/oil-rig-worker-claims-he-saw-missing-malaysia...

In reply to mwr72:

This thread is just getting better and better. Have the authorities been informed the best chance of finding out what happened lies with consulting with the posters on UKC?

In reply to JayPee630:

I honestly thought this was a joke thread with a who-can-come-up-with-the-most-outlandish-theory competition to being with. It seems not...!

In reply to JayPee630:

UKC seems as good a source as any.

Or would you prefer some subjects are banned from speculation?

In reply to JayPee630:

I said the object I saw was on Monday night, and that I had attributed it to the ISS waste capsule re entry.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:



I haven't read the whole thread, so thank you

In reply to David Martin:

Haha, no don't be ridiculous, nobody ever mentioned banning anything. I think I'd rather people were just sensible and didn't make statements about the most likely scenario with no evidence or understanding.

And "UKC as good a source as any." Are you seriously suggesting that UKC is as good a source as the experts investigating the incident? Surely not?!

In reply to JayPee630:

No, I was being flippant. And clearly no one here has access to all the information the searchers do and speculation is purely that - uninformed.

But given that we're coming up to week since the aircraft vanished off the map, I think wild speculation is hardly unjustified.

In reply to David Martin:

Wild un-informed speculation is fine, it's the pronouncements of "this is what's most likely" that seems a bit mad!

Worth a read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447

In reply to David Martin:

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/polis/2014/03/12/malaysian-airlines-mh370-what-we-do...

In reply to Antigua:

I know I'm obviously being thick, but do planes not carry a GPS system so they could be pinpointed instead of radar? Even it was switched off you'd have a last known location.


Theory wise, I reckon its Blofeld and he's got it stored in a giant fake crater somewhere.

In reply to Antigua:

interesting snippet from today's Derby Telegraph,

http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/Rolls-Royce-data-says-missing-Malaysia-flig...

In reply to broady:

The airline have now denied that.. all very strange.

In reply to Dave Perry:

Surely in free fall, they'd be weightless?

In reply to crossdressingrodney:


A maneuvering aircraft can temporarily create the effect of weightlessness but one that is out of control, descending or not is very unlikely to.

jk

In reply to jkarran:
Have spent lots of today avoiding work and reading about this, and the informed opinion seems to be that the plane most likely suffered some form of slow decompression and hence hypoxia induced confusion in the crew and passengers, possibly involving a course alteration, and then this was followed by crash into the ocean, possibly a long way from the original route.

In reply to JayPee630:

My first thoughts, when I suggested it further up the thread, everyone said impossible.

In reply to butteredfrog:

Well done then. Let's see what comes in the next days and weeks. It's an interesting event for sure.

In reply to JayPee630:

Time will tell with a little luck. At the moment there just isn't very much at all in the public domain to go on, certainly nothing that points strongly one way or the other.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

Yes, it'd be very disturbing and strange if nothing was ever found, which I guess is possible.

In reply to JayPee630:

That doesn't explain why they would deactivate the transponder though. Equally, I believe primary radar in Vietnam and beyond, would have picked them up along their flightpath and been alerted to their lack of contact. Similarly the aircraft's ACARS would likely have sent reports. So we would have a far better idea of where they are and wouldn't be searching south of Cambodia/Vietnam.

I suppose it would be feasible for hypoxic pilots to slump forward in their seats, against the yoke, and plane to dive, come apart and crash.

In reply to David Martin:

The event that seems to have the most informed weight behind it in what I've read is the pilots getting confused through hypoxia, maybe involving turning off the transponder, and then making some very confused choices and becoming disorientated and making a high speed low angle descent into the ocean a long way off their original flight path.

In reply to David Martin:

would some of the wreckage not float? would it all just sink with no trace?

In reply to redsonja:

Some of the informed opinion seems to be if it hit at speed it might have sunk with little wreckage, and that that there was is now spread out and is a long way from the search area. It is a massive area that's being searched and if they're not even in the exactly right area it might be no surprise that nothing has been found.

Interesting that the US is now moving to search the Indian Ocean due to a 'indication' it has. It seems like of all the bodies involved the US has the most information.

In reply to Antigua:

its really strange and must be dreadful for relatives and friends of all those on board

In reply to JayPee630:

Still seems very odd.

I suspect this view is related to the airworthiness directive on the fuselage skin near an antenna? I can quite understand insidious onset of hypoxia if the a/c didn't pressurise as it climbed above 8,000ft. However there would have been plenty of time to respond to the various bells and whistles going off in the cockpit. But anything untoward here appears to have happened once they were at top of climb, so would presumably have been more dramatic, presumably with mist in the air, sudden cooling, and loud, giving plenty of time to reach for the O2 masks. Two pilots so some redundancy there. Plus no doubt after the Helios crash there are procedures in place for cabin crew to check on the flight deck in the event of masks falling in the cabin and no decent occurring.

Of all the systems to switch off or to standby the transponder seems unlikely. Its probably located in the com radios stack so I guess its possible a hypoxic pilot could start twisting the wrong knobs, and the last time they were heard from was following a hand-off from Malaysian controllers so no doubt some frequencies were being changed at the time.

None of that explains the muted reaction to the aircraft turning back, overflying the mainland and being seen by radar throughout. If it had kept on its current path it would certainly have been noticed. I'm sure after Helios more rigorous procedures would be in place (on top of the already substantial ones) to guard against depressurisation.

In reply to David Martin:

Where on earth do you get the idea that flight 93 was shot down???????

In reply to Dave Perry:

If it suffered a catastrophic failure and dropped quickly the pilot + cockpit would be falling so fast I doubt the crew would even be able to move against the acceleration of the descent.

!?

In reply to Dave Perry:

Seems pretty likely to me. The fact that one engine was found a long way from the wreckage might indicate a heat seeking missile was used which blew the thing off the pylon. There were eye witness reports of a fast moving jet in the vicinity. The general cagyness around the event. Quite understandable it wouldn't be sung from rooftops and quite understandable it would be shot down in the circumstances. Doesn't make for good hollywood film ending though.

In reply to ...:

Cease your idiotic and uninformed speculation. The professionals do it better.

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-...

In reply to David Martin:


Where was the engine found? How far away?

E

In reply to Enty:

Can someone explain the logic of having on off switch on the planes transponder pls?

I can understand military planes wanting to be stealthy, but civil passenger planes?

In reply to digby:


Yep, good old PPRUNE. Have a read of the Jet Blast forum there to get a picture of just how "professional" its readership is. A lot of pilots use PRUNE. So do a lot of spotty flight sim enthusiasts, spotters, and seemingly grown men who sleep under airplane themed duvets.

In reply to Antigua:

Latest news is they just found the Wings - but Mr and Mrs Wing have no idea where the rest of the plane is.

E

In reply to Enty:
6 miles away apparently.

In reply to David Martin:
Any evidence for that?

This is what I found:
"Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards."

In reply to lowersharpnose:

Are you really of the opinion that if you were in a cockpit of a falling aircraft you would still be intent or indeed able to make a distress call??????? Wake up!!! I'm not aware of any aircraft suffering massive failure at great hight has ever managed to make such a call. I can remember the Lockerbie/Air India flight in which the whole cockpit was intact.

In reply to David Martin:

Another troll!!!

When an aircraft crashes in an uncontrolled descent - like that one. Its not really surprising that bits of the aircraft ended up in more than one place. I really do suggest you do some reading up of air crashes. Bits fly all over. Engines are quite heavy and would have plenty of kinetic energy on crashing to break off and carry on moving for a considerable distance as they have done on many other aircraft.

And in anycase, the air to air missiles likely carried by the US planes which were airborne were I believe Sidewinders. You can lift a sidewinder. They aren't too big. And they certainly would not blast a massive commercial engine a long way from the rest of the aircraft.

Pay more attention!

In reply to David Martin:

Perhaps you would like to explain why the americans put armed aircraft into the sky - this was admitted at the time, then try to cover the fact up that they actually used one????

Oh yes, and the fact that their air accident branch found no evidence of missile damage?.

Oh, and despite several passengers using mobiles and describing how the cockpit was about to be stormed none of them reported the fact that they'd just had an engine shot off by a jet? How careless!!!±

In reply to Dave Perry:

No, I was questioning your understanding of the physics.

You wrote:
If it suffered a catastrophic failure and dropped quickly the pilot + cockpit would be falling so fast I doubt the crew would even be able to move against the acceleration of the descent.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:



The transponder? On/off switch? The point? Anyone?

In reply to lowersharpnose:

OK, fair enough. Forget the physics for abit. If the aircraft - or whats left of it descending, spinning or twisting, or spiralling then centrifugal force will prevent crew from being able to move. Theres plenty of evidence of this happening, including two famous WWII bomber crew who successfully survived high altitude explosions and were unable to get out of their aircraft. ("Into The Silk - The story of the Caterpillar Club"

But lets say there's no spinning. Just a dead drop. I don't know about you - but on the very few times I've taken a fall, I didn't quite have the self control needed, as a pilot would need to do anything other than flounder. I can't think of anything less important than making a distress call whilst you are inside a cockpit which is dropping out of the sky, knowing you can;'t do a thing about it and that in a few more seconds you are going to die.

Even if you descend in gentle weightless fashion are you really going to want to make a distress call.

Personally I'd be shitting myself!! Obviously others may be a little more cool!

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
switch it off on the ground for maintenance or when it's not needed

switch off in the air for safety if it short circuits or otherwise malfunctions

if you can't switch off power it is a fire hazard you can't fix

very few things don't have an on/off switch - the only thing I can think of is a heart pace maker!

In reply to Dave Perry:

I would be shitting myself for sure.

Given the lack of wreckage (so far) anywhere near the last reported position along its scheduled route, it suggests to me that the plane did not drop straight out of the sky.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


To switch it on, or off!

The transponder can interfere with radar and radio communications (although you could argue that the whole package should be designed to operate in harmony).

The transponder is not needed on the ground, like say at an airport where there will be lots of other planes with transponders. So it gets turned off to reduce the "radio clutter".

In reply to Hairy Pete:

And a transponder isn't much use if you've just crashed into the ocean and you are now many fathoms deep. They just don't work underwater.

In reply to Dave Perry:
US Airways jet just aborted and crashed on take off at Philly.. everyone OK, just two minor injuries...

Saying burst tire on take off.

In reply to Dave Perry:

I've read plenty about aircrashes. I had mandatory subscription to air safety circulars and took a human factors paper or two in my undergrad years.

In the case of flight 93, the aircraft made a very deep round hole in the ground. They apparently had to excavate some 10m just to get the tail mounted FDR. The whole site is actually very tightly contained.

As for the engines coming off after a missile strike, it' seems entirely plausible. Read up the El Al Amsterdam incident. The pins holding the engines on the wings of that 747 sheared in flight. They are designed to do so in the event of a crash. A sidewinder flies some 2.5x the speed of sound and weighing close to 100kg. That strikes me as plenty enough energy, especially if launched inert, to fly right up the jet pipe and tear all hell out of the pylon and engine. Compare it to the damage the Strela (weighing all of 10kg and half the speed) did to the DHL flight out of Baghdad.

Did it happen this way for sure? Who knows. I'm happy to believe the official version. But I also think there's a high likelihood it was shot down. And if it was, it's unlikely the US govt would have been trumpeting the fact. It a final kick in the teeth: not only did a bunch of guys crash aircraft in to your buildings but it resulted in you having to shoot down one of your own passenger jets. How many times since then have heroic actions (Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman) turned out to be fabrications covering up less than ideal stories or. As with downing airliners in general, they do have priors.

In reply to David Martin:

Imagination runs riot!.

Forgive me if I'm mistaken but the El Al Amsterdam crash was not caused by a missile strike.

The fact that flight 93 made a "very deep round hole in the ground" doesn't mean it was shot down either.

2 + 2 = ????

In reply to David Martin:

There is no flight 93 engine mystery requiring explanation. The engine was not miles away, it was 300 yards away in the direction of travel.

In reply to lowersharpnose:

A bit like the claims that some of the wreckage of the fourth plane in the 9/11 attacks was several miles from the main crash site. When in fact it was only a few hundred yards away on the opposite side of a lake but to get from one to the other you had to drive round the end of the lake hence the several miles.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


There'll be a protective circuit breaker for starters then there'll be various configuration options (ID/frequency/antenna/mode/alt-input-source at a guess) on the control unit.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

Is it in bad taste to start a sweepstake as to what's happened?

In reply to Dave Perry:


Does this ring any bells? "Flight com, I can't hold her! She's breaking up! She's breaking.."

In reply to Turdus torquatus:

"...I can't hold her! She's breaking up! She's breaking..." Thanks for that. It believe it proves my point. That last call they made was in the present tense.

It hadn't actually broken up then. And that was the end of all communications was it not?

In reply to jkarran:


Sure, but I'm questioning Dave Perry's claim that the pilots would be pinned to their seats by the acceleration. I suppose he could have meant that the plane was spinning around or something.

Ah, I see from later posts that his point is more that the pilots might have other things on their minds, which is fair enough.

In reply to lowersharpnose:

Fair enough. All the reporting at the time and shortly after was referring to the engine being found a considerable distance further on. So probably nothing to see here. But it seems to me entirely plausible in this era for errant airliners to be shot down, while at the same time the public statements would probably (for everyone involved) shy away from such an admission.

In reply to Dave Perry:

Never said El Al was shot down. The pylon pins were faulty. Point is, engine pylons are far from bullet proof. A 100kg object flying in to an engine at 2,0000km an hour is far from guaranteed not to knock one off.

In reply to David Martin:

David, if you were a betting man what would your informed option for what's happened be?

In reply to David Martin:


But they haven't shied away from it in the past, when it's happened the forces involved have stood up to defend their decision (mistake). In today's stupidly paranoid world I don't imagine that's changed, I mean we're sadly all now conditioned to consider the very idea a warship/interceptor could have fired on an airliner a reasonable possibility.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

I think it was a possible reason, but surely it would have come out by now if it had happened?

In reply to David Martin:


In the case of Lynch and Tillman they "turned out to be" just that in weeks, maybe months - and both took place in situations where the military very much controlled the info, but we still found out sooner rather than later.

All the 9/11 conspiracies rely on hundreds of people (possibly thousands) knowing and so far not a single one leaking a hint of what 'really happened'.

In reply to TobyA:

Agreed. I don't give any credence to the general 9/11 conspiracies. However, the shoot-down theory did seem plausable in my opinion. It made sense, few people would have known otherwise, etc. Obvious holes are the requirement for an elaborate NTSB coverup.

Jaypee60, as before I reckon its in the water of the Indian Ocean. Or for a more interesting turn of events, parked up in Aftrica somewhere.

In reply to David Martin:
Parked up in Africa would be pretty earth shattering news, can you imagine?! Yeah, the Indian Ocean seems likely. The most convincing guess I heard as to why that the US have moved there is that one of their secret nuclear subs on patrol had pinged it there, and that's why they can't say why they've moved there.

In reply to JayPee630:


That's my point. A cover-up is far riskier (not knowing what others know and what will emerge in the period after) than simply saying what happened and giving justification. If needs must some mid-level commander's head can roll but a full scale cover-up could start a regional war.

jk

In reply to David Martin:


Did it have enough fuel to reach Africa?

In reply to abseil:

I read something that said it did if it flew at cruising altitude but in doing that would have been picked up by radar. If it flew at a lower altitude to avoid radar then it consumes more fuel and it couldn't have reached Africa.

In reply to JayPee630:


Thanks for your reply.

In reply to abseil:

Sorry it's vague! I hate un-informed speculation but can't find the link.

Reading news and opinion today makes it seem more likely that it was a hi-jacking of some kind, either by the pilot or persons unknown, followed by a crash.

In reply to abseil:

Not from an hour north of KL assuming it was only carrying enough fuel for KL to Beijing + maybe 1 to 1.5H worth for contingencies.

The stolen and secretly landed idea is fantasy.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

Yes, just done some more reading and my earlier comment seems to be wrong, not enough fuel to reach Africa apparently.

In reply to jkarran:
Could a warship shoot down an airliner? The answer is yes it could.

Could they have done so by mistake/accident? Not in the sense that they 'accidently' shot the wrong aircraft down'. Modern missiles are programmed to acquire targets and this always involves humans dictating which aircraft they shoot down. There are a couple of exceptions to this (Sea Wolf being one, which can acquire and shoot down its own targets but even that needs a human to input those instructions - and it does not have the range to shoot down a high flying jet)). As far as I'm aware it is impossible for a missile to be aimed at something and acquire another target by mistake..

It is of course entirely possible that the missile was accidentally aimed and fired at this plane. This has happened at least twice to my knowledge.

As has been mentioned above, the USS Vicennes mistakenly identified a radar contact as an Iranian military plane and subsequently shot it down after having made a number of mistakes to correctly identify it. It was of course an Iranian passenger jet and all on board died.

I also believe that during the Falklands war the Argentineans mistook one of their own aircraft for one of ours and this was shot down by a Roland Surface/Air missile - Again a human gave the missile the wrong information

Claims such as these are not new and I recall the Irish proposing the same solution to an AirLingus flight which went missing over the Irish sea in the 1970s. They claimed it could have been shot down by some Uk warships which were on exercise in the Irish sea at the time.

It would be impossible to keep this secret other than a very short time.

Many of the crew on the firing ship would have known what had exactly had happened as would operations room personnel in other warships of that group. Data links keeps shares information from ship to ship so that one warship knows exactly what is happening on other warships. This information would be known to anyone in any operations room at the time.

It is impossible for these sort of things to be kept secret indefinitely, Personnel will talk to others and regardless of attempts by the military or government to keep things secret someone, somewhere will talk. . Eventually someone will spill the beans - you just cannot force servicemen to keep quiet in these circumstances - the practicalities are unworkable. Once the ships are within the coverage of mobile phone networks someone will mention it.

In reply to Antigua:
Landing elsewhere?

I've just quickly spoken to a friend of mine who is an Air France pilot. His view was, "Yes, but...."

You would need 2000m of good concrete runway out of site and in a location impossible to detect aircraft by radar, coming in or out. And in an area totally away from civilians with access to mobile phones or other communication devices. He couldn't think of any where, where those conditions exist (he did not say they do not exist). - Oh he did point out the fact that it would be almost impossible for a large plane like that to land unassisted by ground control for technical reasons I don't fully understand.

Big runways like these are expensive to build and expensive to maintain. Thats why they tend to be in busy places where they can generate income.

So I asked him if it would be possible to land your 777 or whatever, at an occupied civilian or military airport without permission. After he stopped laughing he said it would be extremely foolhardy and possibly even more dangerous than landing at an unoccupied runway, as you would not have the benefit of ground control telling you which runway was free from obstruction and you'd be flying into airspace which by the nature of the large runway needed would be very busy.

And of course lots of people would notice a large airliner on the ground that wasn't meant to be there.

So given the lapse of time can anyone expounding this theory explain why we've not heard anything?

In reply to David Martin:

A sidewinder is not designed to hit its target. It detonates from a standoff distance once it receives a return signal from a laser. Its the shrapnel from the warhead that causes the target to disintegrate and any fuel vapour is ignited in the resultant mess.

In reply to Antigua:

I thought you might like this link.

http://forum.flightradar24.com/threads/7146-Malaysia-Airlines-Flight-Goes-M...

"Its a ghost flight....it never existed...."

In reply to Antigua:

You might want to chat to real pilots here:-

http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/safety/80284-malaysian-777-missing.html

Here there's talk of the plane flying into another dimension!!!

In reply to Dave Perry:

As proved by many, many respected professions, being skilled at something doesn't always make you either sane or not open to believing complete drivel!

In reply to Dave Perry:


I don't think this happened but reading your post I would suggest your friend's training and job may have left him a little 'concrete and electronic-aids' focused. Airliners have been successfully 'landed' on all sorts of soft surfaces and short/ad-hoc 'runways' over the years, usually in some state of degraded airworthiness. Often it seems to be by pilots with plenty of general aviation experience, perhaps more familiar with that seat of the pants style of flying.

Most likely we've not heard anything because it crashed into the ocean.
jk

In reply to JayPee630:

>If it flew at a lower altitude to avoid radar then it consumes more fuel and it couldn't have reached Africa.

I was listening to a US radio show on the missing flight a few days back, the panel was a journo who had been reporting the story and then three guys all from the air industry or air safety - so all technically aware guys. But one thing they said that really surprised me was that you don't have to be super low to not be detected by radar that normally tracks flights - I guess when you're that far away from it at least. I always think of the Jaguars and Tornados that used to fly over my house at few hundred feet when I was a kid as 'low', practicing that to avoid radar - but this guy was talking about only something like half normal cruising altitude and the ATC radars will lose the flight.

In reply to TobyA:

The longer this plane is missing, the more outlandish the theories on what could have happened.

I quite liked this Italian jobesque one..

"Theory AU: It could have been a gold heist. If China was quietly importing a series of gold shipments via Kuala Kumpur on passenger airlines, for example 20-30 tonnes at a time, then this pattern may have become known to various parties who then planned and pulled off a gold heist."

In reply to Dave Perry:

"You would need 2000m of good concrete runway out of site and in a location impossible to detect aircraft by radar, coming in or out. And in an area totally away from civilians with access to mobile phones or other communication devices. He couldn't think of any where, where those conditions exist "

A lot of chatter about Diego Garcia . Never heard of it before today mind you

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

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Yeah, right. Let's just land incognito at the US's prime Indian Ocean base.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Nice one and well spotted!!!

Actually I think that there are thousands of mobile phones there given the amount of service men there. Pretty good radar coverage too given its prime use as military base. I'd guess there are plenty of civilian contractors there though - despite the fact the locals were turfed off..

I think I went there around 1968 on a ship too!

In reply to Bob:

err, I think the talk was more of a terrorist style 9/11 attack on the US. But agree it's a bit "out there" as a theory

In reply to TobyA:

Toby, Generally electro magnetic (radio/radar) transmissions above about 30mhz or so can only travel in straight lines and don't really follow the curvature of the earth (much). Thats why many countries military use airborne radar to aid detection.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

In case it fails and produces incorrect data.
To avoid excess radar clutter on the ground.
In case the unit is damaged and starts smouldering, so it can be turned off.

When you say "transponder" what are you actually referring to?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Now that's a brilliant theory. Great Train Robbery, but in the air. Aircraft is sitting somewhere in the boonies of West Australia or some hastily concreted strip being offloaded. No doubt ivory and other rare animals included.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

They invariably have a standby switch, for the obvious reason that every time you need to change the four digit code, you don't start alarm bells ringing in ATC as you cycle through 7700 or suchlike.

I understand newer units may operate differently though. But nearly everything on flightdeck has an off-switch and absolutely everything will have a circuit breaker at least.

In reply to David Martin:

The BBC are now running with the story that the plane may have flown for hours after last cockpit contact.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26583342

In reply to lowersharpnose:

If that's true then surely the cause can only be either hijack or gradual decompression?

In reply to lowersharpnose:



Fascinating stuff - but what about the engines sending info to Rolls Royce? I thought Rolls got the last signal at 1:30 or something like that?

E

In reply to Enty:

Rolls do monitor the trent engines live (ish). What is more interesting is that Rolls have said nothing on this when they have had a week to comment. Its not like the BBC science correspondent will know what a trent 800 will do if it all goes to shit. Keep on trying to get a message out is what any sensible person/engine would try to do. Dont think it can do this from the ocean floor, but the last message may get sent for some time. Very mysterious.

The american sub hunters will find it.

In reply to phja:

It's certainly looking like the hijack theory (possibly by one of the pilots) is moving into no.1 position. Surely gradual decompression is impossible because then at least some passengers would have been able to send out mobile phone messages?

An alternative is sudden decompression of whole cabin; and plane left barely controllable and pilots struggling on with perhaps some air left in the cockpit? They would have come down low to be able to breathe.

Just inexpert speculation, I know, before someone shoots me down in flames with a UKC SAM missile.

In reply to lowersharpnose:

More interest was a snippet quoted somewhere that the aircraft was apparently following standard routing on its way westward.

There were no further details, but I presume this to mean the aircraft followed an airway, rather than simply shot a bearing westward. This strikes me as very important. The aircraft would have had the flight plan for Beijing in its flight management computer which handles the navigation. If the aircraft had turned west due to an inadvertent action, or if the pilots had punched in an alternative nearby destination, the aircraft would almost certainly have simply headed in that direction and at the last navigation point kept on going in a straight line or possibly entered a hold.

Instead it seems the aircraft may have followed the convoluted set of points a routing normally holds. Programming in a route along an airway involves entering loads of waypoints and is a pretty involved process. Not likely to be done in the emergency descent from altitude following a decompression. It would be the actions of someone deliberately wanting to fly from a to b along the most typical route..

I'm not sure if that was what e news article was implying exactly, but it would point more towards a hijacking/rogue pilot scenario.

In reply to Antigua:
Had a chat to a professional airline pilot friend this afternoon, he flies 787's now, but is familiar with 777's. This is what he said.

Turning the Transponder off on a 777 would have to be a deliberate act. Pilot unlikely to turn off even in a "confused/hypoxic" situation.

The aircraft turned on a westerly heading, under control. The general feeling and rumour in his company is state sponsored hijack, by a certain secret service beginning with the letter M.

(Disclaimer these are his views/company rumours, not mine)

Make of this what you will!

In reply to butteredfrog:

then why not name the organisation?

In reply to IainRUK:


Mumsnet?

In reply to dek:

In one!!!

In reply to IainRUK:

Mossad apparently! come on, get with the programme slick!

In reply to butteredfrog:


Well I never. Didn't know the Israelis had anything against Malaya.

In reply to butteredfrog:






I think I know your friend - he told me last year that he was 100% certain that the family who were shot in the Alps were shot by Mossad.

E

In reply to Antigua:

The plot really has thickened .
The Express and Mirror have consulted their usual 'expert sources '' and now suggest that the aircraft the comunication instruments were deliberately turned off and the jet was flown to a secret location within the old soviet union . Whilst this sounds implausible is is certainly not impossible .
One problem with this is that the aircraft would have passed through several different countries that have decent air defense capability's who would certainly have scrambled fighters to intercept a potentially hijacked aircraft .
We cannot really rule anything out - although maybe alien abductions and a mossad conspiracy are a little far fetched .

In reply to dek:


Mysterons?

In reply to SethChili:
Weird how no passengers at all seems to called someone to raise the alarm, even if just one had been able to even switch on a phone on silent and get one signal out!

A highjacker a could not watch hundreds of people at a time., at least you would not think so,

In reply to Turdus torquatus:


Either way, it did not help my 22 year old sleep much last night, ( or me) she is heading for Siberia just now, left Glasgow early doors, a tad nervous with speculation and talk of hijacks and terrorist groups all over the place.

In reply to Turdus torquatus:

This is certainly shaping up to a dastardly act that only the Mysterons could have pulled off. As usual, a UKC scoop.

In reply to Jim C:

Yes that is the weirdest feature of all . In the 9/11 hijackings the passengers communicated with the outside world quite a lot - and those were the days before mobile phones were such common items .
Also , if the pilots were being forced to fly to a mysterious-unknown-location they could surely have sneakily pushed the distress signal button at some point .
This takes us back to the possibility of the Captain or First Officer deliberately deciding that life wasn't worth living and crashing the aircraft . In which case , why did they turn communications off and continue to fly for up to 7 hours ? If they were suicidal they could just have ditched the aircraft into the sea at any time .....
Confusing .

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:



At least it offers an understandable motive. It is difficult to think of a motive for why either individual passengers or outside organisations would have wanted to divert the plane but without obviously crashing it, landing at a different airport or claiming responsibility.

In reply to Jim C:



If the pilot/s did it then the passengers wouldn't know they were going off course.

In reply to Jim C:



my mates flying Malaysian this week.. tbh as he says, immediately following any incident is probably the safest time to fly..

In reply to Jim C:

I believe to get a signal on a mobile, you need to be within reasonable sighting distance of a phone mast. I doubt there's any in the Malaca sea or the Indian Ocean, Or jungles really.
The 9/11 flights were all over land and quite low too.

In reply to Dave Perry:

Does the engine data relayed to satellite give any indication of position or is it just about engine function?

In reply to Dave Perry:

All the suggestions about why no mobile calls have also missed the option of the passengers all being dead?

In reply to Antigua:

how far away can signals be picked up from the black box flight recorder?

In reply to JJL:

I can only see one scenario that fits all the evidence I've heard: an attempted hijack, with the pilots complicit, went wrong and the plane ditched in the middle of the Indian Ocean. No calls from the plane before it ditched, because since it was a night flight, no passengers realised they were off-course and being abducted until it was way off any mobile reception. And nothing since it ditched, because there were no survivors.

In reply to JJL:

Killing all the passengers does not stop their mobile phones receiving incoming calls.

I am not aware of any calls to passengers being reported as getting through to a ringing phone.

So, out of signal range or all phones destroyed (by crash?).

Here's a new ghoulish hobby for UKCers:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/14/tomnod-online-search-malaysian...

In reply to lowersharpnose:
They know the time the satellite got a ping and they know the range but not the bearing so they're showing maps with concentric circles and saying it was on an arc going north overland or over water south of Indonesia. The latter seems more likely since there were no mobile phone calls.

In reply to redsonja:

Kilometers? I think you have to get a survey ship or submarine to do a search pattern in the right area.

In reply to elsewhere:


On the radio they said it was about 3 kms maximum, less if it was submerged in water.

In reply to IainRUK:

Immediately as in next day, next week or next month?

D

In reply to SethChili: tin foil hat on....

Is it so weird when we learn that 20 of the passengers were staff of a texas based electronic weaponry company Freescale Semi conductor...were they on board as part of the hijack to make the plane electronically invisible and render all phones useless?

Tin foil hat off....as far as I know they are a firm that makes chips for phones/computers rather than weapons but doesn't add anything to the conspiracy

Interesting to see the rumours have apparently been confirmed regarding signals received for hours after the loss of transponder, telemetry and voice.

The reports still appear to be very vague giving little indication as to exactly what signal/data was received, by what/who and what can be determined from that data. Presumably something has either been dug out of the databases of a company that could provide service but wasn't contracted to, or it's come from military intelligence services.

Given the reports that the aircraft was following a recognised airway then continued on one of two radically different routes I can only assume the airway theory comes from primary radar data indicating heading changes at recognised turning points across Malaysia then up the coast toward a split in the airway but no further trace has yet been found on either route. I wonder if that aircraft had flown either route previously and whether routing information like that is stored in the navigation computer to save programming time?

Talk yesterday was of new information from the satellite phone service provider. Given the wildly diverging routes being discussed you might expect a 7hr flight to cross from one satellite's coverage region to another at least once along the route giving some clue to the position and or direction.

If the signals received were merely 'pings' without useful data and they for whatever reason can't be triangulated (as it appears given they can't say which hemisphere it's in!) then the possibility has to exist given it hasn't shown up elsewhere that it ditched crippled but largely intact and subsequently sank hours later. Looking less likely than other options.

The motive for any deliberate re-routing to oblivion appears as obscure as ever. Re-use of the aircraft as a weapon or commercially seems unlikely to impossible given it'll need fuel and ground services to re-launch yet must travel somewhere remote enough not to be spotted. Chartering then hijacking a freighter would be a cheaper, easier and safer way to weaponise an aircraft. Commercial re-use or breaking for parts would be next to impossible given just about every part will be serialised and immediately recognisable. There has been little or nothing said about any possible cargo (or I suppose IP carried by those onboard (is the passenger manifest still incomplete a redacted name?). I suppose that may offer some clue but spiriting away an airliner full of people to steal something or someone seems almost too absurd to consider especially given the planning required and the very short notice. Chances are the crew would not even be aware of any high value cargo until it were loaded. There appears to be no verifiable/credible claim of responsibility for terrorist purposes nor any attempt at ransom. Perhaps the plan went awry whatever it was?

Mobile phone silence could be explained in a number of ways but the only two that work totally reliably is to route well away from any masts or to destroy all the phones. Confiscating phones from 200+ people doesn't work, too many opportunities to hide them and even if you kill everyone the phones will still automatically log into new networks as they become available leaving a trail of breadcrumbs albeit one that must be near impossible to follow across borders. Jamming is I suppose the other plausible option but I'd be surprised if it stopped outgoing signals (jammers swamp the received signal) so that's still not especially foolproof.

Perhaps still the cause is accidental not criminal. The resulting loss and appearance of agency later in the flight is a weird quirk of what happens when everything lines up just right by chance.

I'm quite surprised at how strange the story appears to be getting!
jk

In reply to Submit to Gravity:
I thought the black box pinger was ultrasonic for use underwater.

In reply to jkarran:


Talk yesterday was of new information from the satellite phone service provider. Given the wildly diverging routes being discussed you might expect a 7hr flight to cross from one satellite's coverage region to another at least once along the route giving some clue to the position and or direction.

As I understand it, there is one geostationary sat over the Indian Ocean that the maintainance systems on the plane were pinging, bit like a mobile phone poling a cell tower. From this info they get an idea of longitude and distance too the sat, it does not give them a latitude. Hence two tracks, one NW and one SW.

In reply to elsewhere:


I don't know I'm afraid.

In reply to Antigua:

The people are all alive and the plane is intact.

Latest theory. Hijack.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10687223/Malaysia-A...

In reply to JJL:


Or maybe the hijackers set off a sleeping gas, whilst wearing masks themselves. Worst case a toxic gas.

A ray of hope, would someone make this up?
"The unnamed woman "said she had gotten a missed call from her father onboard, and the number said 'powered off' later when she called back," the Beijing Times reported."

In reply to jkarran:

When you picture you classic gold heist, they usually are pretty elaborate.

In this case, 20 tonnes of gold in the hold destined for China. A pilot, or pilot trained passenger, in on the heist. Possibly a technically trained individual in the electronics bay with knowledge of what to turn off. Another aircraft to rendezvous with in the air so your radar blip doesn't arouse suspicions. Uplift more than the required Beijing fuel on departure allowing you to reach some other destination. Off you go.

Obvious issues: what the pilot could possibly gain out of it? What to do with the passengers? Would a pilot really know all, and how to deal with, the myriad of electronic devices that can track the aircraft?

On the flip side, 9/11, the recent hijacking by a co-pilot, and the difficulty in locating the AF wreckage do make it more obvious to one and all that the image we have of commercial air travel does not necessarily match reality, and there is huge scope for the unimaginable to happen.

Smacks of mission impossible, would make a great film, and the upshot is potentially no one has died.

More likely its at the bottom of the ocean however.

In reply to Jim C:

Gas wouldn't even be necessary. Just depressurise and wait for everyone to drift in to unconsciousness.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

The "Black Box" transmits a sound signal underwater and is powered by batteries. It works in exactly the same way as surface ships (& wales, dolphins, fish etc,m) transmit sonar to navigate and/or detect underwater objects.

Sound underwater travels much further and much faster than air. This is because water is dense and doesn't compress in the same way as air does.

Despite the fact that it is possible to hear & detect the sound from ships & submarines well over hundreds of miles distance with the right equipment many factors limit this.

Like noise in the air, sound can bounce off underwater canyons, cliffs and so on and underwater obstructions can shield and absorb sound. If the black box is now resting in some deep trough on the sea bed, the detection range would be very short and may only be detectable from immediately above on the surface of the water. Sound underwater is greatly affected by salinity and temperature differentials and is often in many layers. Sounds are not able to always cross different salinity/temperature differences. So for example it may be possible to detect a submarine object from 60 miles away at say 600m depth, the same object at 200m may be totally undectable from the same distance. Modern submarines ocean topography and current differences to hide and remain undetected.

The sonar signal emitted by a surface ship is so loud you can hear it. But then the bit of kit which makes it is large and powerful.

The little battery powered imitation in a black box is weak and pathetic in comparison. In good conditions it can be heard many Km away. It bad conditions a surface ship may have to sail directly over it to pick the signal up. The sonar signal cannot be detected above water.

In reply to David Martin:

Great theory. How would you stop the pilots and/hijackers from loosing consciousness too?

In reply to Dave Perry:

Pilots have bottled oxygen in the cockpit. They can also reduce the cabin altitude, so perhaps setting it to 10,000ft or so. Gradual onset of hypoxia for passengers and cabin crew while they themselves stay fine. At 35,000 you could last a minute probably without oxygen.

In reply to David Martin:
You're not suggesting 10,000 ft or so would render the passengers unconscious are you?

I wonder how much oxygen the pilots would have?. I wouldn't have thought it much different from what would be needed for the passengers. I always thought that if a plane is depressurised the passenger oxygen is available automatically as we're told by the cabin crew.

In reply to butteredfrog:
The general feeling and rumour in his company is state sponsored hijack, by a certain secret service beginning with the letter M.



Why would Mossad do this? I'm intrigued. BTW, Malaysia doesn't like Israel, doesn't let Israelis in. But on the other hand most of the passengers are Chinese, and China is (in practice, not theory) a good friend of Israel.

I had a 5 month assignment there recently. Mutual business is going great. The government is a quiet supporter of Chabad (the Jewish outreach group). The Chinese see Jews / Israelis (they don't distinguish) the way they like to see themselves: smart, hard working, believing in education, successful traders, with an ancient culture.

In reply to MikeTS:

Don't know, somebody specific on the passenger list? Something in the cargo? Although to my mind both would be easier to "obtain" on the ground.

In reply to butteredfrog:


Agreed. And this of course would apply to any organisation wanting a person or thing from the flight.
There are so many mysteries in this story.

In reply to Dave Perry:

All aircraft require oxygen around 10,000ft. Passengers of course won't become unconscious at that altitude either. But I presume oxygen masks deploy automatically depending on cabin altitude. So if the pilots were nicking the aircraft its safe to assume they would prefer to incapacitate the passengers through a moderate increase in cabin altitude, probably followed by full decompression. Otherwise they have to allow masks to deploy, wait until the passenger oxygen runs out and deal with any cabin crew attempting to get in to the cockpit when the aircraft doesn't descend as expected.

Likewise, I would be absolutely certain cockpit oxygen is many time more plentiful and reliable than cabin altitude. Cabin oxygen is to keep passengers alive for a descent to safer altitudes in an emergency. Cockpit oxygen is vital to everyone's survival so much more important than that, delivered through a full face mask, and designed for situations where cockpit electronics are producing smoke and fire. Simply, you can afford a few passengers to become unconscious or even die. You can't afford for your pilots to even possibly become incapacitated.

In reply to David Martin:

...wonder how easy it is for someone with airside access to stow away in the electronics bay or some nook or cranny elsewhere in the aircraft?

In reply to David Martin:

How could you hijack a plane nowadays since cockpits are locked?

In reply to MikeTS:

They still get opened to feed the pilots.. pilots use the toilets.. also it could be the pilots..

In reply to IainRUK:

I thought they had two doors. Before they opened the cockpit door they closed the other one? Logically it would be a pilot therefore.

In reply to MikeTS:

its not like you need the door to be opened to tell the pilot you will kill people if they don't do what you say.
The locked door is just another of the knee jerk rules that got introduced, along with scanning xx % of shoes.

In reply to Mikkel:

I agree. The locked doors make sense to prevent pilots being overpowered before they can do anything. So in this scenario there would have beeen plenty of time for the Malaysian pilots to have radioed an emergency.

In reply to MikeTS:
From what they said on the news, I think it was a pilot interviewed, in the first hour after take off they feed the pilots so then is when there is a window..

However I'm not sure on the doors.. on many I thought there were just single doors. By the sounds of the reports it was just one door.

No idea re who.. as it took knowledge you suspect it was one of the pilots but who knows.

In reply to IainRUK:

Before company budget cuts I used to fly in the front of the plane a lot. And even when only one door, there was always care when dealing with pilot needs. Nothing happened unless the whole of the front of the plane was clear of passengers standing around or using the toilets.

In reply to MikeTS:

And I believe the co-pilot of the plane had previously let in a couple of dolly birds so he could impress them.!!

In reply to IainRUK:
I'm sure it's just a single door. While it may be feasible on a 777, an a320/737 wouldn't have room for two doors. So if it's secure enough on one type of plane I can't imagine them being doubled on others. The door have overrides I believe so they can be opened from the outside, and there are clearly opportunities in flight to do so. All the more so given the propensity of the copilot of this flight to invite people in for a smoke anyway!

Besides, if whoever commandeered the aircraft is skilled enough to understand transponders, ACARS, and navigating the aircraft along a substantially long track, they are bound to know the ins and ours of cockpit security.

In reply to MikeTS:

I've spent a lot of time in the jump seat too, pre 9/11, and it was a reasonably relaxed affair once you were behind the upper deck curtain to get in to the cockpit on747s.

With this particular co-pilot it seems even easier if you wore a short skirt.

In reply to MikeTS:


So maybe not the pilots. But other company staff on the flight? Cabin crew? Someone known to the pilots?

In reply to David Martin:

Flew to Seattle from Heathrow 2 years ago, upper deck of a BA 747, the cockpit door was open every time i was out of my seat.

In reply to MikeTS:


Yes, and thanks for that, but I've noticed this kind of security varies very much by airline. BA are really careful, for example, certain others less so.

In reply to Mikkel:

I do think it seemed more relaxed over the past 2 years..

In reply to IainRUK:
The other problem with a hijacking explanation is that nothing has been heard. But, of course, this does not preclude a failed hijacking.
It would be an bizarrely unlikely scenario I think in which anyone is still alive.

In reply to Antigua:

A friend of mine informs me that there is a strong chance the plane has been hijacked - the main tracking systems were turned off by someone in the plane but a secondary system that emits every hour and cannot be turned off easily continued to function for about five hours after it disappeared from radar. In other words it could be sitting on the ground in the Kazakhstan steppes covered in camouflage netting!

Basically this leave a hope for the people on board, time will tell.

In reply to Antigua:

Planes location will be known in certain circles.

Will be Classified.

If Hollywood films are to be believed ,there's enough technology and surveillance wizardry at Langley to watch a seagull taking a shit in the Pacific.

Or watch me typing this.

Surely when the plane deviated from its course ,it must have been watched.until it came to a stop

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

lets hope this is whats happened. but would a hijacker not have owned up by now? there must have been a reason why they did it

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
This has been discussed and dealt with earlier I think, but:-.

a) How did it manage to get to Kazakhstan without being detected by the countries it overflew.

b) Why did no one manage to call on a mobile whilst it was overland?

c) If it has managed to land at some 2000meter long runway, can you explain why no one on the ground appears to have noticed?

In reply to andymac:


*If*


I think there's a tendency to overestimate the extent and effectiveness of our big electronic safety blanket.

jk

In reply to Antigua:

Had a re-read of the more credible info out there and revised my earlier post of how they came up with the arcs shown on the map. From the ping they can triangulate the aircrafts position in relation to the position of the satellite on the ground(sea). This gives two arcs, NW and SE based on the last ping. Fuel and flight time would give a distance along this arc?

R.E. the satellite pings, this is a remote monitoring system that transmits engine and airframe data to RR and Boeing. The airline operating the aircraft can then subscribe to this service.

My question is; would you turn off this system at the aircraft because the airline are not subscribed to it? If turned off at the aircraft why does it still ping the satellite? Would it not be more likely that the engine and airframe data is transmitted and the block is between Boeing's servers and Malaysian Airways?

If this is the case, the location of this aircraft is known and is being "sat on".

Adam

In reply to butteredfrog:


The programme I watched last night said the 'circles' that were possible was one tenth of the total earth surface( if I heard that correctly)

If so, not exactly pinning it down.

In reply to butteredfrog:



Those lines are not possible tracks; they are a single position line based on the estimated altitude angle of the satellite from the radio signal (presumably there are multiple antennae on the satellite).

There was a program on the BBC a while ago about this.The plane owner rents the engines from RR who in turn guarantee they will keep running. So if the remote monitoring detects a problem (above normal vibration, temp, loads of things) it will be sorted by a RR ground crew at the next ariport.

So no it wont be turned off because RR dont want one of their engines to fail. They track them from the uk and have ground crews around the world to service them. This was for newer engines and RR have not ruled this out when the plane was lost over a week ago. RR are yet to say anything.

Cutting mobile phones off is easy.

In reply to RCC:

That's what I said isn't it?

If you then factor in fuel carried and ground speed, in conjunction with the arcs from the earlier pings, that would narrow down the location on the last position lines?

In reply to butteredfrog:


You said that the position was triangulated; which it is not possible to do with a single position line. In any case, fuel and time relies on so many assumptions about speed, altitude and route that it probably doesn't gain you very much.

In reply to RCC:
Triangulated in the vertical, i.e. to give a distance to the satellite's position over the ground.

Drop a line vertically from the satellite to the earth's surface, gives you a side of your triangle and known distance, the time stamps on the pings, allow you to work out the distance of the plane to the satellite, the hypotenuse. This gives you an estimate of distance of the short side of the triangle. Hinge this about the right angle draws the arcs published.

In reply to butteredfrog:


Ok, see what you mean.

In reply to butteredfrog:

So, we have RR engine data that is sent to and collected by satellite. Is the data picked up by more than one satellite? If the info is picked up with timestamps by two satellites then we have a locus and three a location.

In reply to lowersharpnose:

From reading, just data to the one geostationary sat, covering the Indian ocean, hence arcs.

In reply to butteredfrog:

I see, so the satellite is recording the time taken for the signal to travel from engine to satellite.

In reply to lowersharpnose:

Speculation about the plane possibly being "hacked" and flown remotely.

If that ever turned out to be the case, I think my flying days will be over. Fck that for a game of soldiers . Uk based holidays going forward (no bad thing really )

In reply to lowersharpnose:

Don't know if there is any actual engine or airframe data, but the system was pinging the satellite.

#The next bit is guesswork/idle suposition#

My point was, and I think ItsThere agrees, that engine and airframe data would be transmitted, because Boeing and RR want to know. Weather Malaysian Airlines chose to subscribe to that data would be separate to the fact the data is transmitted.

Having this Data would give a lot more accurate picture of the location and condition of the aircraft.

Why would you sit on this info? Buy time to prepare a rescue package? its been done before.

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

Its worth a read anyway if you don't know the story.

Adam

In reply to lowersharpnose:

As I understood it, kind of a rough approximation of GPS, to one sat instead of 6+

In reply to butteredfrog:




Not sure that would be true. From what I have read, all the telemetry data goes through a single communications system that is controlled by the pilots (as presumably are all onboard systems). As I've heard it reported, the system was put into some sort of standby mode, but one in which it checked in with the satellites at regular intervals (presumably so that the system could be started up more easily).

In reply to RCC:

Ah right, that would make sense.

In reply to RCC:

I also read something similar, I wasnt right. RR know something but wont say. The wiki page also suggests that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370 from the flight events timeline.

Even though its a crap source we do know that they still had flight data and evidence it was in the air after the last contact. Vietnam ATC tried to contact it and Malaysia had something on radar. Yet no one sent anything out to check. BBC news now says "confirmed the jet was commandeered" on their website. RR yet to say they didnt get any flight data.

As you say the com system will be contained and maybe one sat link for this system. They cost lots so it wont just be RR using it and the crew should be able to turn it off if there is an electrical fault.

In reply to butteredfrog:
The ACARS system along with other communication devices was turned off after it left the area controlled by Malaysian airspace controllers.

However, Immarsat which has a satellite over the Indian Ocean came up with the two 'Arcs position because even after ACARS is switched off it is still transmits, not a 'ping' but whats referred to as a 'handshake' once an hour. The satellite sends out a transmission to any aircraft within range and even if an Acars enabled plane has its acars gear disabled the satellite can still detect the aircraft as long as its power systems are working. It is this system which confirmed the plane flew on for a further several hours.

But there is no triangulation possible. Only the one satellite, but Immarsat data is capable of identifying the angle at which the satellite would have had to be to transmit data to the plane. It is this angle that has been transcribed into two opposing arcs - one going NW across the Indian ocean and the other SE. It is the NW arc they assume the plane followed because it was seen heading that way on Malaysian military radar.

They can only guess how far it flew along those arcs depending on aircraft speed. And that guess could be out by an by an hour because of the interval between the satellite transmissions. Thats a lot of indian ocean!

In reply to Dave Perry:


......But there is no triangulation possible. Only the one satellite, but Immarsat data is capable of identifying the angle at which the satellite would have had to be to transmit data to the plane. It is this angle that has been transcribed into two opposing arcs - one going NW across the Indian ocean and the other SE. It is the NW arc they assume the plane followed because it was seen heading that way on Malaysian military radar.

Which is what I said! Triangulation in vertical plane. I teach navigation, I know you need more than one sat to give you a Lat/long. However knowing the distance of two sides of a vertically inclined right angled triangle, gives you the third and hence an arc.

I thought the engine data was carried on a different system to ACARS, ItsThere corrected me of this earlier.

In reply to butteredfrog:

I've just re-read your posts and I stand corrected - I took too much notice of your referral to triangulation etc., which made me believe you were thinking of two satellites)

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:



Seriously? Who is speculating? Anyone can speculate anything it doesn't mean it is possible or likely. Even if it were possible, I would think hijacking a plane by traditional means would still be easier and cheaper for most terrorist organisations. Some university students proved it was theoretically possible to 'hijack' a boat remotely but that meant getting close, and confusing its onboard navigation system by spoofing GPS responses, and even then it wasn't fool proof.

I just did a quick back of an envelope calculation and since this plane went missing, 27,000 people have been killed on the world's roads (according to WHO estimates) - that's 100x more than went missing on this flight.

I'm getting on a transatlantic flight in 12 hours - can't say it's even occurred to me once that its even remotely risky. This is a tragedy for everyone on board and their loved ones but its really not something anyone should lie awake at night worrying about.

In reply to yorkshireman:

If you book flights on the right airlines these days, they have a "Would you like to sit next to Liam Neeson?" box that you can tick.

I always tick it--saves a lot of stress.

In reply to butteredfrog:

I dont know if ACARS is on a diff system, but active radar systems/sat links cost lots so I would assume the plane only has one.

In reply to Dave Perry:

My mention of Kazakhstan was to illustrate the distance flown in hours, I didn't actually mean I had any information that it had gone to that country! Sorry, I imagined that was obvious. All I know is that a system had continued to emit for 5 hours after the plane left the radar. It could have headed over the ocean then crashed, but then one wonders what the motive would have been. The implication is the plane went somewhere and presumably for a reason. It could provide a bit of hope, that's all.

In reply to David Martin:








You're not far off the mark...

In reply to Ian Black:


Go on, tell us your theory.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Lets just say in the short term the media are being led a merry dance for good reason.

In reply to Ian Black:


Oh go on, don't be coy.

In reply to Ian Black:


a) How did it manage to get to Africa without being detected by the other countries it overflew (I assume you don't mean its landed on the coast somewhere).

b) Why did no one manage to call on a mobile whilst it was overland?

c) If it has managed to land at some 2000meter long runway, can you explain why no one on the ground appears to have noticed or told someone?

d) Why has the Immarset calculations shown it went West to Africa then? Or have you an answer for that?

In reply to yorkshireman:

In terms of hacking there was apparently an airworthiness directive from Boeing regarding network security on these aircraft. Something to do with other aircraft systems being in the same loop as the inflight entertainment. No idea if this is true or not and no idea how much of an issue it is. Since ADs get issues for the most insignificant of things I imagine it isn't remotely an issue. But then again, until last week, the idea of a 777 vanishing wasn't remotely possible either.

I agree people should be no more afraid of flying than they were two weeks ago. But I can see where the fear comes from. In my mind planes are safe, but for many they are inherently risky contraptions. If you add to that the huge complexity, the fact that you have no control over your life for the duration you are on board, but also the huge expectations that everything is engineered perfectly and operates properly - it's a big trust exercise for many people. When that trust gets blown, it has an impact. Basically, you expect to board a plane with several hundred others and arrive in one piece. If you can potentially die, all together, in once flaming, speeding ball of metal, with the ret of the world having no idea where in the world you are then it's not something to look forward to.

In reply to Dave Perry:
Actually it can't reach Africa. At least not with the fuel load it was supposed to carry. But I've seen nothing reported to say whether it did in fact take the normal fuel load or not.

As for detection, how? Most regular detection is by secondary radar, so with the transponder turned off you are invisible. Primary radar is really the only other meaningful system, but that requires largely line of sight and is mainly very local - ie, around airfields and military installations.

There are lots of disused runways around the world, many I imagine of suitable length though whether they are fit for take offs and landings is anyone's guess. There are many many examples of aircraft landing on far shorter runways than they are suitable for. Runway length is for ideal safe arrangements. If someone is doing a runner with this aircraft, perhaps with no intention of taking off again and possibly no other aim than to get it and it's cargo on the ground in one or two pieces I'd imagine there are no shortages of places to land, albeit under risky conditions. Bt given they've already stolen a $300 million aircraft, I very much doubt sticking to conservative, legalistic, and ideal interpretations of safe runway length as defined in the flight ops manual for their given weight is high in their priorities.

Problem solved by Rup

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/mar/16/rupert-murdoch-tweets-conspira...

In reply to yorkshireman: I said further up thread that the longer this plane was missing the more wild the theories....plane hacking is certainly right up there in fantasy I think and hope.

My post wasn't saying I believe it, I was just musing that if it was ever proven that a plane could be hacked and controlled remotely, then all the security in the world at the airport is not going help, or the skill of the pilots.

It would be a true definition of terrorism, and I for one would not fly comfortably..I might not be rational, (I commute on a motorbike) but it would be a game changer for me. That's all.

I'm still leaning towards gold heist myself in the complete vacuum of information right now . But who the fck knows...not us that's for sure.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I asked further up why the transponder would have an on off switch, and a few of you explained why, although none gave a practical flying reason but I found out that when planes wait on a hold line for take off the pilots are instructed to turn it off so that approaching landing planes do not get distracted by their tcas. Systems warning them of a potential collision.

In reply to David Martin:
Perhaps you can answer these questions to:-

b) Why did no one manage to call on a mobile whilst it was overland, or since landing?

c) If it has managed to land at some 2000meter long runway, can you explain why no one on the ground appears to have noticed or told someone?

d) Why has the Immarset calculations shown it went West to Africa then? Or have you an answer for that?

From personal experience I can assure you that primary radar, given the right location, power and frequency can detect reasonably small planes at distances of 100 or more depending on hight and freedom from land clutter.

Indeed there is a fixed array (radar) within two miles of my home which can detect an orange sized object in outer space.

And as you say in your post airfields have radar. How come they didn't detect it either?.

In reply to Dave Perry:

Mobiles? No idea. Again though, if this is a commandeer/hijacking situation then it has been elaborately planned. Not beyond the realms of possibility then that jamming could be used. Or simply the passengers were incapacitated. All mobiles off in flight with no one awake to turn them on or recharge.

As for no one seeing it, the world is a big place. It could have been put down in the middle of nowhere.

I agree, both points above are contentious and as an otherwise well planned heist are major points of risk to whoever is trying to pull it off. But if you have the balls and the knowhow to hijack an aircraft in the post 9/11 world, to do the necessary to make it vanish from ATC, fly it back across the country of origin, confident there will be no hostile action as you attempt to do so, and so on....then you probably have a pretty good plan on how to get to where you want to go, and what to do then.

The immarsat stuff I don't understand. But I don't think it showed it near west Africa.. More East Africa or another route through Central Asia. And it strikes me as rough and ready extrapolation of position in a circumstance where all other leads have failed. So I wouldn't draw much more than a general "it's not in the gulf of Thailand" from that.

Radar...there's a lot less radar around than we are led to believe. It's been replaced by SSR for the majority of work. You simply don't need to be beaming out waves and dealing with all it's inaccuracies. It also depends on the readiness of the searchers. If the Jindalee network is anywhere near as good as it's supposed to be then we should know exactly where the plane is. But chances are it wasn't even operational at the time, and no doubt if it was it'll be set to look out for high altitude aircraft, ICBMs and suchlike. I imagine as you head up through SE Asia and Central Asia non SSR coverage is patchy at best, with controllers asleep on the job or enjoying a vodka or two..

In reply to Dave Perry:

As an aside, if the passengers were taken alive, how you would feed 230 people for a weeks beyond me. There's no way they could stay on a plane for that long. So the heist theory has to grow more elaborate the longer it goes on for, or the passengers were killed (depressurisation) in flight, or the plane has been deliberately crashed as far away in the Indian Ocean as possible.

For me the later is the most likely.. And if you were of the mindset where you could happily asphyxiate the entire passengers and crew (who you probably knew) then you were probably loopy enough to just go crash in the ocean anyway.

Otherwise it's parked up in some local Tescos car park somewhere waiting to be found when everyone turns up to work tomorrow

In reply to Dave

So the Diego Garcia super duper extraordinary rendition conspiracy theory conveniently answers some of your questions. Plane flies over ocean to remote atol. Plane unloaded, re painted then flown to Eastern us . All done to destabilise China Malaysia relationship. They even claim f16s escorting a civilian jet a few days ago over the us East Coast.

They seem light on what happens to the passengers and how they keep schtum

Would make a great bond movie (if the us were not the villains)
Read more bonkers here,
http://www.sott.net/article/275646-Was-Malaysia-Airlines-Flight-370-redirec...

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Have you not seen the start of cliffhanger... Too soon?

In reply to Dave Perry:


Do you think that they would need 2000m? They landed an ageing 747 at Rand airport in 1000m without using reverse thrust. I would have thought that a light 777 could land on a very short runway, particularly if they didn't mind overrunning a bit.

In reply to RCC:

I don't think. Thats what the Boeing reportedly stated it needed- which I appreciate is a safe margin.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Yes it does Bjartur. Perhaps you can enlighten us on how the plane lands on Diego Garcia with no american service personnel either noticing or phoning home, nor any of the civilian contractors.

In reply to RCC:

Didn't one airline pilot "dead stick" a 737 onto a grass levee a few years ago. They flew it off after an engine swap too. Don't think that was in Boeings manual ether.

In reply to Dave Perry:


Mobile phone jammers are cheap and easily available. This provides an instant stop when activated, giving you time to confiscate any phones passengers may have.

I have no idea what happened to the plane. I would be surprised if the engines had a comms system independent from the satellite and HF long range comms systems of the airframe.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I'm amazed no-one has mentioned "Flight 714". That's how it was done.

(HERGÉ 1968)

In reply to captain paranoia:

Assuming you get your jammer past security in your hand baggage then thats a possibility.

But mobiles are small and easily hidden. I can't believe you'd manage to get every passenger to hand them over.

In reply to captain paranoia:

Of course the jammer would also be sending out an obvious continuos signal which if done in places where there is mobile coverage could easily be located.

You would have expected phone companies and mobile phone users to report this fact.

In reply to Dave Perry:

Not my theory, it has more holes than a colander made of swiss cheese...more a movie script for Nicholas Cage and John Travolta

But until we find some debris, floating suitcase...whatever, then the Tom Clancy wannabies will have a field day.

In reply to Dave Perry:

How good is the mobile phone cover in the region?

In reply to butteredfrog:

Which region are you referring to?

In reply to Dave Perry:
Some info from the news:

The ACARS system's last communication was at 1:07. It was scheduled to communicate again at 1:37, but was turned off before that. It is not known exactly when it was turned off simply after 1:07 and before 1:37.

The last cockpit voice communication was at 1:19 and it was the co-pilot.

The last ping was at 08:11 after that the plane may have had up to 30mins of fuel.

In reply to butteredfrog:
This website will help re mobile coverage
http://opensignal.com/coverage-maps/

Type in country of your choice (Malaysia?) and it shows mobile coverage. Lots of blind spots in that region. Maybe then cross reference the blind areas with airstrips ? Look at australia, very localised mobile coverage

I need to change my phone ring tone to that octave changing one on 24 lol!

In reply to lowersharpnose:

Quality post on PPRUNE:

"I'll tell you what happened.

The pilot removed the co-pilot either forcibly or during a toilet break.
The pilot then recreated the wildest dreams of every airline pilot.
He turned around, flew low over his homeland, zig-zagged all over, climbed to the service ceiling, flew just above the water, tried to evade radar, flew fast, flew slow and had the ride of his soon to end life until the fuel ran out.

18,000 hours of flying every day from A to B took its' toll along with other issues and he did what every pilot wants to do... something they normally can't."

In reply to captain paranoia:


Are you sure it's a complete 'stop'. My understanding is jammers typically work by swamping the receiver front end amplifier with a high amplitude carrier in the frequency range of interest. That forces the automatic gain control (normal part of most radio receivers) to wind down the amplifier sensitivity rendering it insensitive to the proper network signals, just the jammer's dummy carrier. I suppose generating high amplitude noise/interference at the intermediate frequency would have much the same effect on the receiver. The output stage is unaffected, the phone can potentially still transmit. Whether it actually will send anything of any use to a mast while jammed is down to the software on the phone. I'd be a little surprised if jamming 200+ phones renders every last one of them completely invisible to network masts. Of course most will have been switched off or to flightsafe which is to all intents and purposes the same thing.


Me either. There doesn't appear to be any scenario that makes even a little bit of sense which leaves me thinking there is still quite a bit of missing information, what was on the cargo manifest for example.

One thing that is puzzling me is how those satellite 'arcs' have been arrived at. It seems the lines represent positions giving a constant angle of elevation to the satellite, presumably the missing section represents a region covered by more than one satellite and can therefore be ruled out. The outer bounds are possibly the same, double coverage or possibly related to what's known about on board fuel and range.

The thing that puzzles me is why would a satellite have high gain antennas arranged to produce concentric rings of coverage, surely a mosaic of overlapping spots is a more useful and far more conventional beam structure. Perhaps the satellite spins about the earth-satellite axis but that seems odd too, it would mean communications from a fixed point on earth would be continually handed off from one antenna/transceiver to the next in an orderly fashion but surely that'd be a managed, predictable event and would leave a better clue than those huge arcs. Anyone know anything about satellite antenna arrangements that could shed some light?

I'm not suggesting any kind of conspiracy or cover up around this information, just puzzled by why it appears there is only one angle that can be reliably determined from the satellite data if it's related to which antenna/amplifier was handling MH370. Measuring time of flight for the signal would explain it but it would also require the 'ping' to contain an exceptionally accurate time stamp or at least a highly stable, high resolution time stamp and enough previous data points at known locations for calibration. Possible I suppose?

jk

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

The Malaysian team said they are gathering and going through the mobile phone data for the passengers. So far no calls in or out have been found.

In reply to jkarran:

There was an in-depth post on pprune Friday or sat, explaining the contents of the ping. Basically consisting of a unique identifier (sort of an i.p. address), time stamp and a test data packet to confirm the ability to transmit and receive data.

I belive the arcs shown have been calculated from the time stamp of the last ping, factoring in max range to the westward and coverage by another sat to the east.

Adam

In reply to lowersharpnose:

This is interesting

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-could-jets-system-h...

(and with all those freescal semiconductor employees on board?)

Useless conjecture of course. But that could be an interesting "fact" (if true) regarding the entertainment system

In reply to jkarran:



The immarsat 3 satellites have 2 sets of antennas. A series of spot beams, and a global beam that covers the entire region. The type of signal that they use for managing network resources (i.e. the type of communication that is being referred to) uses the global beam.

I guess that the angle that they are talking about is determined either by signal latency, or by some calculation based on reception to transmission strength.

In reply to lowersharpnose:

I wondered about phone coverage, Its rubbish here in East Lancs, I cant imagine its any better over Malaysia and Sumatra (assuming the plane turned to the West). Also if they were staying out over the sea, minimising military radar coverage (northern track), they would be out of range of cell phone masts anyway.

Adam

In reply to butteredfrog:


That would certainly explain the vague nature of the arcs, especially if the pings are handled on orbit by a low bandwidth broad beam antenna before access is negotiated to a narrow-beam, high bandwidth channel (which presumably never happened).

If the position is calculated from time of flight for the signal then I'm surprised the time stamp in the aircraft's packet contains enough data (clock resolution in the nS range) and the ping timing from processor to antenna is predictable enough given the time data was presumably never intended for this kind of reverse position tracking. Because the satellite is so high relatively 100km transmitter displacement (radial to the satellite's over-earth position) on the earth's surface produces a shift of only ~500nS in the signal flight time, not a lot to work with if the system wasn't actually designed to measure this!

jk

In reply to RCC:


Makes sense, cheers.

jk

In reply to jkarran:


Perhaps it was. It might be useful for resource allocation if the network knows that a particular user is leaving (or nearing the edge) one of its coverage regions.

In reply to jkarran:

I was wondering how well can you depend on the integrity of the "ping" timestamp component. Is there any way of altering this onboard? Or is it derived from an external source?

In reply to RCC:


Possible for sure but the high gain regions would presumably have significant overlaps, that would seem to be a more reliable way of determining which picks up the task and when as a signal moves from one region to the next.

jk

In reply to wercat:



I think that the timestamp comes from GPS.

In reply to jkarran:



Sounds reasonable. Really just uninformed speculation on my part, I have no detailed knowledge of the system except as an occasional user.

In reply to jkarran:

That would certainly explain the vague nature of the arcs

I thought the arcs weren't vague. They are long but quite narrow. AIUI, the length of the arcs is because of the minimum/maximum possible speeds.

I think the smooth nature of the arcs implies that the plane was on a steady course.

In reply to lowersharpnose:


As was mentioned earlier. The arcs are not possible tracks; they are a single position line at a single time point.