Missing planes

[maqroll]

I'm not suggesting anything about the two pilots, but from a terrorism angle, Al-Qaeda et al could very well recruit young men to become commercial airline pilots or recruit current pilots who are sympathetic to "the cause". Once they've achieved that objective, they could have a small army of jihadist airline pilots at their disposal.

[Electric Avenue]

Yep not buying that ex pilot drivel. Too simplistic and non sensical. Sounds like the ramblings of a retired pilot / wannabe novelist . Dismiss

[tonyh29]

I'm not suggesting anything about the two pilots, but from a terrorism angle, Al-Qaeda et al could very well recruit young men to become commercial airline pilots or recruit current pilots who are sympathetic to "the cause". Once they've achieved that objective, they could have a small army of jihadist airline pilots at their disposal.

Al- Qaeda couldn't steal a paper aeroplane from an 6 year old boy in a school playground right about now , yet alone a 777

[leviramsey]

the radar question is a very good one. It depends on the type of radar. Traffic control radar is less able to discriminate than perhaps some of the military radars, but we don't know the detail of the various mil radars in the area. Even then , the timing of turning off the IFF and colocation with the other airliner would have to be very precise. It seems unlikely, but possible, to me. I haven't followed the story due to my own travelling and location, but has anyone raised the timing point? Was the IFF lost and then the aircraft disappeared from radar at the location of the SAL flight?

IIRC, IFF and all cockpit-controllable emitters were disabled, then the plane turns to the left, goes up to roughly its service ceiling if not a little higher, goes down again, crosses the peninsula, bounces between a few waypoints and then?

The Ping question. Do you mean an IFF squawk?or a single return on the radar? Or an IFF transponder response. IFF tells you the aircraft ID and altitude. A squawk tells you more. A radar return tells you distance Azimuth + elevation. Levi's point about GPS is not quite accurate, you generally need 5 satellites for an accurate fix, but that's kind of irrelevant, as it tells you where you are, not where someone else ( the missing aircraft) is.

From what I've been able to gather, the pilot disabled ACARS, which will transmit to a ground station with a satellite backup. The satellite link itself, however, was not disabled (for networking types, think of ACARS as an application layer and the satellite link to Inmarsat as a link layer). Every so often, if the plane is out of range of the ground stations, it essentially sends something analogous to a zeroconf claim ("My name is.... and I'd like to claim this transmission slot? Is there anybody already using this slot? If there is, no worries, I will choose another.") to the satellite; this signal also contains the time the plane sent it. Inmarsat was able to recover from their logs those signals, with the times they were received. Delta-t gives you a reasonable idea of distance from the satellite to the plane, then. It's basically GPS in reverse.

Mathematically, three is all you need for a 3 dimensional coordinate fix within a certain error bounds (the epsilon I alluded to). Three spheres with different centers can only intersect at one point in a 3 dimensional space. Due to the error bounds, more than three birds may be needed for a sufficiently small epsilon.

[Cliffy Biro]

The longer it goes on obviously the more speculation and theories and all these articles published by so called experts but i've always thought from the beginning theres probably a much simpler explanation for a pretty extraordinary situation.

[AshVilla]

I personally believe a stray pterodactyl got caught in one of the engines shortly after take off

[maqroll]

Remember this?

 

[tonyh29]

Remember this?

my memory isn't that bad it was only 4 days and in this thread

[maqroll]

I hope I didn't post it 

[Genie]

Personally I think this plane flew into someone else's airspace and didn't respond to comm's so it was shot down.

 

Now nobody wants to own up to it because of the repercussions from the Chinese.

[peterms]

 

 

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

A lot of speculation about MH370. Terrorism, hijack, meteors. I cannot believe the analysis on CNN - almost disturbing. I tend to look for a more simple explanation of this event.

Loaded 777 departs midnight from Kuala to Beijing. Hot night. Heavy aircraft. About an hour out across the gulf towards Vietnam the plane goes dark meaning the transponder goes off and secondary radar tracking goes off.

Two days later we hear of reports that Malaysian military radar (which is a primary radar meaning the plane is being tracked by reflection rather than by transponder interrogation response) has tracked the plane on a southwesterly course back across the Malay Peninsula into the straits of Malacca.

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

The left turn is the key here. This was a very experienced senior Captain with 18,000 hours. Maybe some of the younger pilots interviewed on CNN didn't pick up on this left turn. We old pilots were always drilled to always know the closest airport of safe harbor while in cruise. Airports behind us, airports abeam us and airports ahead of us. Always in our head. Always. Because if something happens you don't want to be thinking what are you going to do - you already know what you are going to do. Instinctively when I saw that left turn with a direct heading I knew he was heading for an airport. Actually he was taking a direct route to Palau Langkawi a 13,000 foot strip with an approach over water at night with no obstacles. He did not turn back to Kuala Lampur because he knew he had 8,000 foot ridges to cross. He knew the terrain was friendlier towards Langkawi and also a shorter distance.

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

For me the loss of transponders and communications makes perfect sense if a fire. There was most likely a fire or electrical fire. In the case of fire the first response if to pull all the main busses and restore circuits one by one until you have isolated the bad one.

If they pulled the busses the plane indeed would go silent. It was probably a serious event and they simply were occupied with controlling the plane and trying to fight the fire. Aviate, Navigate and lastly communicate. There are two types of fires. Electrical might not be as fast and furious and there might or might not be incapacitating smoke. However there is the possibility given the timeline that perhaps there was an overheat on one of the front landing gear tires and it blew on takeoff and started slowly burning. Yes this happens with underinflated tires. Remember heavy plane, hot night, sea level, long run takeoff. There was a well known accident in Nigeria of a DC8 that had a landing gear fire on takeoff. A tire fire once going would produce horrific incapacitating smoke. Yes, pilots have access to oxygen masks but this is a no no with fire. Most have access to a smoke hood with a filter but this will only last for a few minutes depending on the smoke level. (I used to carry one of my own in a flight bag and I still carry one in my briefcase today when I fly).

What I think happened is that they were overcome by smoke and the plane just continued on the heading probably on George (autopilot) until either fuel exhaustion or fire destroyed the control surfaces and it crashed. I said four days ago you will find it along that route - looking elsewhere was pointless.

This pilot, as I say, was a hero struggling with an impossible situation trying to get that plane to Langkawi. No doubt in my mind. That's the reason for the turn and direct route. A hijack would not have made that deliberate left turn with a direct heading for Langkawi. It would probably have weaved around a bit until the hijackers decided on where they were taking it.

Surprisingly none of the reporters , officials, other pilots interviewed have looked at this from the pilot's viewpoint. If something went wrong where would he go? Thanks to Google earth I spotted Langkawi in about 30 seconds, zoomed in and saw how long the runway was and I just instinctively knew this pilot knew this airport. He had probably flown there many times. I guess we will eventually find out when you help me spread this theory on the net and some reporters finally take a look on Google earth and put 2 and 2 together. Also a look at the age and number of cycles on those nose tires might give us a good clue too.

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

Get on Google Earth and type in Pulau Langkawi and then look at it in relation to the radar track heading. 2+2=4 That for me is the simple explanation why it turned and headed in that direction.

Smart pilot. Just didn't have the time.

 

theory from a pilot

 

Except that the last satellite ping was some 7 hours after the plane made the left turn. If it was wanting to make an emergency landing on that island it wouldn't have circled for 7 hours. 

 

 

The pilot who posted a similar suggestion said that if the pilots had discovered a fire or other emergency, they would have been able to set the autopilot to take them in the direction of the nearest airfield.  If they then died or became unconscious, the plane would just carry on (or would the autopilot circle the airport?  I have no idea).  Other pilots are describing a fire in the cockpit as a very big emergency, with little time to deal with it.  There was a cockpit fire in a plane on the ground at Cairo, and despite having firefighters in attendance the cockpit was completely destroyed.

 

The NZ oil rig worker's description of seeing a plane on fire heading in a straight line would fit this scenario, and this explanation sounds perhaps more plausible than some of the others out there.

[CrackpotForeigner]

Mate o' mine flies 777's for Cathay Pacific. Just exchanged a few IM's on FB fwiw.

 

- Showed him that "theory from a pilot" He said: No, I don't think so. Plane turned N/S after crossing Malay peninsula. Wouldn't do that unless someone told it to. And it was tracking airways [?]. Initially climbed to 45,000 ft. Max certified altitude is 43,100 ft. Then descended to 29,500 ft, which is between levels. Typically what you would do if you were diverting across airways. All very strange. Figure it must have been foul play. If they depressurised the cabin at 45,000 ft and turned the pax oxygen off, time of useful consciousness would be measured in seconds [!].

 

I asked him what a 777 can land on. He said anything if you don't need to use it again. I asked him what if you did want to use it again. He said you need a pretty hefty surface to take 351 tons divided by 14 tyres. He pointed me to a Wikipedia page called "aircraft classification number" which shows the 777 to be comparable to the very heaviest of aircraft, even the big Soviet ones. He said the plane would just sink into a normal tarred road surface.

 

Other things he said: "If they landed they would have had to fly north and would have flown through a lot of airspace with primary radar."

 

I asked him if the signals received late on could have passed through water. Somehow without sounding condescending he managed to tell me that radio signals don't pass through water.

 

So not surprisingly he's as baffled as anyone else, and thinks the plane has probably crashed.

[useless]

Hopefully we hear some news soon.

Edited March 18, 2014 by useless

[tonyh29]

 

The NZ oil rig worker's description of seeing a plane on fire heading in a straight line would fit this scenario, and this explanation sounds perhaps more plausible than some of the others out there.

 

 

[CrackpotForeigner]

Lots of nice detail there, but not even an approximate time!?!?

[peterms]

Lots of nice detail there, but not even an approximate time!?!?

 

I gather he had emailed his line manager to report this before the plane was announced missing, and then contacted the officials mentioned in this email.  I guess either or both of those communications may have stated the time.  This one reads more like "Look, I've reported this, perhaps you want to speak to me about it".

[blandy]

 

...Every so often, if the plane is out of range of the ground stations, it essentially sends something..."I'd like to claim this transmission slot? Is there anybody already using this slot? If there is, no worries, I will choose another."... to the satellite; this signal also contains the time the plane sent it. Inmarsat was able to recover from their logs those signals, with the times they were received. Delta-t gives you a reasonable idea of distance from the satellite to the plane, then. It's basically GPS in reverse.

Mathematically, three is all you need for a 3 dimensional coordinate fix ...more than three birds may be needed for a sufficiently small epsilon.

I don't think they had 3 satellites recieve the signal, did they? wasn't it just the one. So no triangulation. Hence why they are searching in a big area.

[leviramsey]

...Every so often, if the plane is out of range of the ground stations, it essentially sends something..."I'd like to claim this transmission slot? Is there anybody already using this slot? If there is, no worries, I will choose another."... to the satellite; this signal also contains the time the plane sent it. Inmarsat was able to recover from their logs those signals, with the times they were received. Delta-t gives you a reasonable idea of distance from the satellite to the plane, then. It's basically GPS in reverse.

Mathematically, three is all you need for a 3 dimensional coordinate fix ...more than three birds may be needed for a sufficiently small epsilon.

I don't think they had 3 satellites recieve the signal, did they? wasn't it just the one. So no triangulation. Hence why they are searching in a big area.

Exactly.

[Xela]

I'm not suggesting anything about the two pilots, but from a terrorism angle, Al-Qaeda et al could very well recruit young men to become commercial airline pilots or recruit current pilots who are sympathetic to "the cause". Once they've achieved that objective, they could have a small army of jihadist airline pilots at their disposal.

 

I think even if that was the right theory, hijacking and crashing a plane from KL to Beijing wouldn't be anywhere near the top of the list. A plane headed from KL to London or Paris or Berlin would make more sense as would trying to bring it down when flying into that city.

 

 

Personally I think this plane flew into someone else's airspace and didn't respond to comm's so it was shot down.

 

Now nobody wants to own up to it because of the repercussions from the Chinese.

 

 

I think this also. Its been shot down and no one wants to admit to it. It may have even been the Chinese who accidentally shot it down, they wouldn't admit to it would they? They have managed to rewrite history before, in Tiananmen Square. 

[Electric Avenue]

You're in a part of the world there where I wouldn't trust or put my faith in many military operations . India / Pakistan / China all capable of monumental size errors