In this day and age for an aircraft to be hijacked, diverted to another airport, land and not be spotted / reported?
I'd have seriously thought not.
If it was a bomb, why has no one claimed responsibility?
Your first scenario is basically impossible. My thought why...
There are a limited number of airfields that can take a 777.
Aircraft load a very precise amount of fuel, the right amount but no more so it couldn't fly for many more hours than originally flight planned to an unplanned destination.
Aircraft are monitored by primary radar - a traditional sweeping dish that dates back to the 2nd WW and secondary radar where the aircraft broadcasts data such as height, speed etc. You can turn he secondary off but can't hide from primary radar.
... but if you have a secret base, disguised as a volcano, ...
Another theory. It was hijacked, then shot down over sea to avoid ground casualties etc?
[quote=peter1979 said]Another theory. It was hijacked, then shot down over sea to avoid ground casualties etc?
You are jivehoneywassisname and I claim my £5.
Don't you mean Kasae?
So it had to be a bomb? Or a meteorite?
I'd assumed that the location of every airliner in the sky was known, all the time. I don't understand how they don't even know where it was when whatever has happened, happened.
Tragic though.
I'm with scaredypants on this one ...
There must have been an even bigger plane that jammed the radar and then opened up a hatch, swallowed the Malaysian plane and took it to an underground sea base or volcano.
Obvious really.
I thought the black box widget thingy emitted a finding signal wotsit.
Or, maybe a Li ens wanted a retro transport device for their abduction collection.
There are big holes in radar coverage, usually over the oceans which is why aircraft fly in strictly controlled airways . Most ATC radar are secondary types so if the aircraft turns off its transponder then it can't be seen.
It would have been carrying enough fuel to reach its destination plus a reserve to enable it to reach a nominated diversionary airport in case of weather etc.
[i]There are big holes in radar coverage, usually over the oceans which is why aircraft fly in strictly controlled airways . Most ATC radar are secondary types so if the aircraft turns off its transponder then it can't be seen.
[/i]
Ah, fair enough (although I'm still a bit surprised "in this day and age etc etc").
Why should a commercial aircraft even have the ability to turn off it's transponder though?
Awful stuff though, hope the families get closure soon.
Or the chinese shot it down, to justify sending out military 'search' ships to occupy the area
😀
Yeah, hilarious 😐
[img] 
[/img]
I'd assumed that the location of every airliner in the sky was known, all the time. I don't understand how they don't even know where it was when whatever has happened, happened
Because they know the rough area it went down but that's a pretty big area and as of yet know crash site or wreckage has been found hence the 'mystery' bit.
Read up on it sheeple!
The pilots had their eyeballs scanned by Royal Mail.
Odd that we can make jokes at the fact that 239 people have potentially lost their lives.
Sad reflection really. Perhaps sticking to respectful OT and factual debate is in order.
Sounds similar to the plane that went down off the east coast of South America a couple of years ago. Can't remember the outcome of that one but if I remember rightly it was some time before they discovered any wreckage and eventually the black box but I believe that foul play was ruled out in the end.
I suspect it was blown up or shot down when it went off course.
If that occurred at 40'000 feet the wreckage will be very widely spread so very hard to spot.
Fingers crossed they find it.
Can't remember the outcome of that one
Pilot error, as it nearly always is!
Well said Kryton.
psling - [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447 ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447[/url]
Kryton - I find it rather healthy that people can deal with a situation like this with a bit of humour and then continue on with their lives without having a day of official mourning every time someone that they had absolutely no connection with dies.
Was AF 447 entirely pilot error? I seem to remember blocked pitot probes and incorrect airspeed readings being at least a contributing factor?
Was AF 447 entirely pilot error?
Yes.
[i] without having a day of official mourning every time someone that they had absolutely no connection with dies. [/i]
That's right, the fact that I didn't know them means that it doesn't matter that they're dead. 😐
You're probably right though, whilst what happened is still unknown and there are hundreds of grieving families waiting to hear what they know will be awful news, we should all have a big laugh about it.
Comedy, obviously, has a great place in helping people get over these things, but there's also a principle of 'too soon'. Which it currently is.
I'm not convinced it did blow-up/disintegrate at 40,000 feet, as there would be stacks of wreckage floating on the surface.
I feels more like it hit the water in one piece, and sank, which is why they can't find anything...?
Obviously none of you have ever seen the documentary Lost.
This will be locked
I feels more like it hit the water in one piece, and sank, which is why they can't find anything...?
In airport 77 they found something
I'm not convinced it did blow-up/disintegrate at 40,000 feet, as there would be stacks of wreckage floating on the surface.
Pan Am 103 debris was spread over some 800 square miles. If it was a bombing, or if it did disintegrate in mid air, it will be very hard to find.
Very sad state of affairs.
It would not have crashed into the sea in one piece, there could be no scenario (unless the pilots did it on purpose) where they wouldn't declare a mayday or emergency beacon before they crashed from 35,000 feet. I don't think it can be reasonably explained apart from a bomb.
The fact that there was no communication from the pilots indicate a sudden, mid air catastrophe, either mechanical or terrorist.
The 'news' management from the airline suggests to me more is known than they are publically stating.
Air France 447 has already been mentioned.
The pilots got in a pickle and flew a perfectly functioning airliner into the sea. No Mayday, no nothing.
Perfectly functioning apart from the pitot tubes. The pilots hadn't been trained on how to deal with that. The dead pilots made ideal scapegoats but the problem lay with the plane makers and the airline IMO.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/crashes/what-really-happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877
Jesus, that's pretty harrowing!
Pop-up ad fail on torso's link. No, I really don't want to book an Air France flight, thanks.
To me it shows a lack of understanding of the basic principles of flight. In both recent 777 accidents pilot error is largely to blame, just look at the AAIB reports to see how in both cases electronic instruments were relied on all too heavily. If it wasn't for the skills of the experienced BA captain there would almost certainly be a tragic end to the heathrow 777 incident.
Oh, and there's some wholly inappropriate posts on here for a situation where there could be a huge loss of life
Was AF 447 entirely pilot error? I seem to remember blocked pitot probes and incorrect airspeed readings being at least a contributing factor?
yes, astoundingly basic pilot error. Okay they were initially confused by the air speed errors but pulling up when your stall warning is going off and the two pilots not communicating at all, the co-pilots were basically unfit to fly that aircraft properly. Unforgivable that they took so many people with them (particularly the guy in the right seat).
Perfectly functioning apart from the pitot tubes. The pilots hadn't been trained on how to deal with that. The dead pilots made ideal scapegoats but the problem lay with the plane makers and the airline IMO
The instruments were showing that they were losing altitude rapidly, and one of the pilots sat there with his stick back the whole time and didn't tell anyone else he was making that input. Yep, pitot tube was an issue, but they still flew an otherwise airworthy plane into the sea scratching their heads at why the instruments were telling them they were dropping.
Air France 447 was completly out of comms range though if I recall correctly, Malaysian MH370 was in comms range, so why silence?
Perfectly functioning apart from the pitot tubes. The pilots hadn't been trained on how to deal with that. The dead pilots made ideal scapegoats but the problem lay with the plane makers and the airline IMO.
Except the pitot tubes worked fine for the majority of the incident, giving the pilots plenty of time to fly a perfectly functioning plane in a sensible manner. For sure there were various issues which made pilot error a bigger issue than it should have been (most notably the lack of mechanical linkage between the sticks, meaning that nobody was aware until far too late that the co-pilot had the stick hard back), but fundamentally the co-pilot's actions were incomprehensible given the ready availability of information on what was actually happening. Oh and the pilots were trained in how to deal with that, but one of them did completely the wrong thing.
the co-pilots were basically unfit to fly that aircraft properly.
That does seem correct. Was that their fault though? It seems to me that their training and or ongoing familiarisation with the way that the aircraft works (eg the alternate law allow a plane to stall) was lacking. It's easy to blame the pilots and I still read it and struggle to understand how they missed such a simple thing as constantly pulling back but that says to me that it's not as simple as it sounds.
The stall warnings stopped. Are you guys blaming the pilots reading stuff from before the black boxes were found in 2011?
There was a documentary on Air France 447 only last week. Well worth watch
[url= http://www.channel4.com/programmes/fatal-flight-447-chaos-in-the-cockpit ]Chaos in the cockpit[/url]
It was a glaring pilot error, basically. Schoolboy stuff. The pilot stalled the plane, all the instruments were telling him he'd stalled the plane. He ignored them, and the plane dropped into the sea
The link I posted has the full transcript of the black box recordings.
The pitot tubes were out for a minute or so. Then:
The Airbus's stall alarm is designed to be impossible to ignore. Yet for the duration of the flight, none of the pilots will mention it, or acknowledge the possibility that the plane has indeed stalled—even though the word "Stall!" will blare through the cockpit 75 times. Throughout, Bonin will keep pulling back on the stick, the exact opposite of what he must do to recover from the stall.
Air France 447 was completly out of comms range though if I recall correctly
No such thing. Aircraft have HF radio which provides global coverage - the reason no distress call was received is because they didn't make one.
[quote=LHS said]Air France 447 was completly out of comms range though if I recall correctly, Malaysian MH370 was in comms range, so why silence?
Air France were having comms problems apparently rather than being out of range.
777's have multiple radios (3 I believe) on different bands + a satellite phone.
The stall warnings stopped. Are you guys blaming the pilots reading stuff from before the black boxes were found in 2011?
I thought the stall warning stopped because the plane went into alternate law because the computer went "you're, like, 30 degrees nose-up at 40 000 feet doing 160 knots*? Something's not right here."
EDIT - Furthermore, I understand that every time the nose dropped to something approaching a flyable angle, the stall warning started again until matey-boy in the righthand seat yanked it back up again.
He ignored them, and the plane dropped into the sea
So either he willfully went against everything that any pilot even at the lowest levels knows (you don't pull back while in a stall) or there's more to it.
I would suggest that the issue I mentioned above where the pilots didn't understand that alternate law meant that the plane would let them do things outside the correct envelope is likely the root cause.
The stall warnings were largely continuous other than the brief moments when they did regain control.
Wouldn't mind betting Putin had something to do with it, just to detract world attention from the Ukraine for a couple of days.
The stall warnings stopped. Are you guys blaming the pilots reading stuff from before the black boxes were found in 2011?
The stall warnings stopped because they'd flown the aircraft into such a deep stall that the computer no longer trusted the information. Plenty of time to correct when the stall warning first went off - I'm not a professional airline pilot, but I'd think my first instinct when a stall warning sounds would be to check the airspeed and rate of ascent and push the stick forwards a bit, none of which seem to have happened. I note that all problems with the pitots were over by the time it stalled. I'm not even really sure you can blame it on lack of training, it was such a basic error - I'm assuming they did at least receive a significant amount of training on what a stall is, why and how to avoid it.
Oh, and all based on information from the black boxes - before those became available I think it was assumed there was a more fundamental technical problem.
I would suggest that the issue I mentioned above where the pilots didn't understand that alternate law meant that the plane would let them do things outside the correct envelope is likely the root cause.
You're probably right about that as a cause, but it doesn't detract from it being a pilot error - no excuse.
it was such a basic error
Again, yes, it is which suggests that it's not as simple as it looks.
Bear in mind that these guys do a large amount of training, what explanation could there be for such a basic mistake?
Its worth watching that documentary clubber. Its really interesting. It seems incomprehensible that 3 experienced pilots would sit scratching their heads, while allowing that to happen. All the time with the plane telling them what the problem was. But that appears to be exactly what happened.
They also ignored procedures regarding handing over the aircrafts controls, so one pilot was pulling the stick up to climb the whole time, while the others thought they had control, and were unaware he was doing it
Yeah, it's a complete mess, no doubt and I guess that really it's the lack of procedures that would have stopped it happening at several points that's the issue I guess. It'd be interesting/scary to know how consistently procedures are followed though, particularly in non-normal scenarios.
It's fun, simple and easy to blame the pilot. It saves the documentary channels from having to go into too much detail because everyone understands 'pilot error'. And It gets everyone else off they hook, the manufacturer, the authority and he company.
It's not that simple. The FO in question didn't go to work to crash the aircraft. Multiple issues combined over many years to culminate in the AF disaster. It is naive and simplistic to say it was 'matey-boy what yanked it into a stall'.
I am not saying that there were not mistakes made on that flight deck, there were plenty especially in the route choice through the thunderstorms and then the initial diagnosis of the issue. It's hard to think straight when you're in the tops of thunderstorms in the ITCZ - I've been there! But it's so much much more complicated than that. The manufacturer and the training department of the airline are equally culpable in my opinion.
Rest assured that those of us who fly an Airbus have learnt from this tragic incident.
Again, yes, it is which suggests that it's not as simple as it looks.
There is a lot to that, I think - might seem pretty obvious from here, but we are all benefiting from a massive amount of hindsight.
Your edit has the crux of it, Pondo. The stall warning came on when the the pilot did the right thing and went off when he did the wrong thing.
The pilots lost speed information, found themselves on manual and with contradictory information. Critcally, even though Air France was aware the problems with the pitot tubes and spurious computer messages they had not retrained all the pilots to cope with the situation.
The suggestion seems to be that they were ignoring the instruments as they didn't trust them (despite them all working perfectly by the time things went wrong) and trying to fly by the seat of their pants - or at least that is the case for one of them, who seems to have been totally confused. Not only that, but he didn't tell anybody what he was doing and ignored instructions. Would have been interesting to have carried out a tox test on him...
The stall warning came on when the the pilot did the right thing and went off when he did the wrong thing.
Only after the situation had been happening for some time - the warning went off because the plane went into an even deeper stall. Had the stick been pushed forwards when the alarm first sounded (at which point the aircraft hadn't actually stalled yet), which seems like the obvious thing to do in pretty much any circumstances, there would have been no problem.
...actually checking the transcript again, the stall warning first went off because they did the right thing, and went back on again when he did the wrong thing again.
we are all benefiting from a massive amount of hindsight.
I'm benefiting from basic knowledge of flight. When the stall warning sounds, the instruments show that your airspeed is low and falling and your altitude is high and rising, you push the stick forwards. As much as you might distrust the instruments, surely you give them a chance of being right first?
if you dont know what you are talking about, talk about something you do?
What happened to the Vietnam Navy report of debris, or the early sightings of two large oil slicks?
be it malfunction or terrorism, its under water somewhere.
Just read that article about AF. Clearly Pilot error, not helped by bad weather...thunderstorm. No reported bad weather this time I think?
It's fun, simple and easy to blame the pilot. It saves the documentary channels from having to go into too much detail because everyone understands 'pilot error'. And It gets everyone else off they hook, the manufacturer, the authority and he company.It's not that simple. The FO in question didn't go to work to crash the aircraft. Multiple issues combined over many years to culminate in the AF disaster. It is naive and simplistic to say it was 'matey-boy what yanked it into a stall'.
Absolutely.
However, AF447 does serve to illustrate that human behaviours are generally a factor in air disasters. Rather than wings falling off, terrorists or alien abduction.
I'm benefiting from basic knowledge of flight. When the stall warning sounds, the instruments show that your airspeed is low and falling and your altitude is high and rising, you push the stick forwards. As much as you might distrust the instruments, surely you give them a chance of being right first?
Sitting here and now, I would and you would - but some chap sitting in that right hand chair who has vastly more experience and training and knowledge than me, he didn't. So when you look at the bare bones, yeah it's easy to say that guy screwed up on the simplest of things, but if he was an idiot, or didn't know what he was doing, he wouldn't have been sitting where he was at the time. Something made him do what he did.
OP in theory it'sossibke but the hijackers would have to turn off the tracking systems on the plane and I'm not sure that's even possible.
The Vietnamese didn't reprt debris just oil on the water and that could have come from anywhere most liley a ship focusing tanks.
The aircraft manufacturers always spin events after such crashes to shift blame/speculation onto pilots etc and away from their product the aircraft.
Sad times for the relatives not having confirmation but it seems inevitable the plane has crashed into the sea.
Would have been interesting to have carried out a tox test on him...
Negative no doubt.
However if he'd been able to benefit from the experience of two other Air France pilots who'd come close to disaster in similar circumstances he'd have known what to do even if he were having difficulty walking straight.
Rest assured that those of us who fly an Airbus have learnt from this tragic incident.
I can imagine it's a frequent test scenario on the simulator.
Klunk - yes exactly
However if he'd been able to benefit from the experience of two other Air France pilots who'd come close to disaster in similar circumstances he'd have known what to do even if he were having difficulty walking straight.
Let me guess - push the stick forwards?
Malaysian MH370 was in comms range, so why silence?
I forget the figures but there was a survey of pilots where a percentage admitted to falling asleep mid-flight, and within that there was a number who reported having woken up mid-flight to find their colleague also asleep.
Edit - infact I've found it - [url= http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/27/us-britain-pilots-sleep-idUSBRE98Q0L820130927 ]half admit to falling asleep, a third of those being asleep while their co-pilot was also asleep[/url]
The pilots can only report what they are aware of, but its also not inconceivable that whatever problem caused the plane to loose control also could have caused a loss of communication
Re the AF plane, yes absolutely a whole series of errors from the aircraft programming which isn't perfect, training from the manufacturer and training from the airline which had holes, weather related problems, lack of adequate rest etc etc. Ultimately every problem apart from the weather is due to humans and they all stack up.
But what I got from my own interpretation of the black box data and CVR (ignoring any documentaries etc) is that ultimately if the pilots had gone back to basic flight training and communicated they could have recovered that aircraft and what should have been a very quick and recoverable event was turned into a completely hopeless situation.
It is of course very easy for us to say that from the safety of our armchairs looking at all the evidence and it is is also hard to stay emotionally detached from making harsh comments in the face of such a glaring error when you think about the poor souls that lost their lives in such a stupid way.
I know it's unlikely but this could be an extra terrestrial grab.
Nobody can say it's not possible.
I know it's unlikely but this could be an extra terrestrial grab.Nobody can say it's not possible.
It's not possible.
I'd also suggest it's unlikely to have been the actions of some kind of terrorist organisation. Firstly, as the culprits would have claimed responsibility for it very soon after the event. Secondly as they'd have done it in such a way to generate media coverage for their cause (ie. not out at sea, where no one can see it).
I reckon it's been hijacked, shot down by China perhaps? With the last known position being shifter somewhat, just like on that Bond film so that nobody would know it was shot down.
It may never have taken off in the first place and may be some kind of massive insurance scam. Whilst we're all speculating, right? 😉
200+ people missing and the folk on here are winking and smiling! well done.
My money is on the aircraft being highjacked, all comms turned of, then the aircraft dived down to 100ft of so - under the radar and then flown to a disused airbase - which would easily take a B777
My money is on the Chinese - look what some lunatics with the knives done last week, butchering 30 odd people in a city centre
That or there is going to be one strange Malayan/Chinese version of Lost with a token European couple who can't conceive
I'm afraid mashiehood that even when catastrophic disasters occur involving massive loss of life, life does go on and sometimes without even the slightest acknowledgement of an incident if there is no personal involvement. At least the incident has been acknowledged here and is being discussed albeit with a few light-hearted throwaways.
I'd also suggest it's unlikely to have been the actions of some kind of terrorist organisation. Firstly, as the culprits would have claimed responsibility for it very soon after the event.
No one claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks for several months, nor did the hijackers leave any note whatsoever explaining their actions.
