[Closed] Missing Malaysian Aircraft - is it possible...

[quote=Bazz ]Has this been done yet?

Thanks for that - I needed a good chuckle.

its the fact that it just does not look like debris any more

Guess what?

aerial reconnaissance

My two theories:

Onboard fire/pilots overcome.

Hijack intent or trying to aim for US base. Shot down.

But that doesn't explain why the aircraft was turned away from any safe landing area and flew for hours with no attempts to communicate before perishing. And a fire on board the aircraft would have brought it down much earlier. The only theory that fits for me is suicide. One pilot took out the other and the aircraft flew for hours with the passengers and crew blissfully unaware until it ran out of fuel. If they were in trouble Why turn right and aim for a remote US base hours away rather than turn left or completely around and and have several suitable landing strips within quick flight time away?

Deliberately aimed at the base?

Silence and misinformation on location/radar before?

Someone knows something. In this day and age for a plane to 'vanish'?!

I think it highlights how out of touch the regulators are. Why do we still have 'black boxes'? If the engine suppliers can monitor engine health in real time, plane status and position can be.

The engine monitoring system works thorugh the aircraft ACMS system and data is transmitted via ACARS, so there is no independant engine monitoring system and the system doesn't continually stream data. Only the very latest aircraft (B787 and maybe A380's) could possibly be capable of doing this assuming there was a global network out there capable of receiving the data being streamed from the aircraft - and storing and managing it. The aircraft was not where it was supposed to be - the regulators are entirely focussed on safety of the operation of the aircraft under normal operational circumstances. They don't have a mandate on the security aspect of the aircraft - maybe they should in this day and age. If someone deliberately wanted to lose an aircraft then clearly it is possible to do so. This is why I personally think that this was done deliberately by one of the pilots rather than a hijacking or technical problem.

If you wanted to lose an aircraft then the middle of a vast empty ocean is the best way to do it. The pilot obviously knew this.

Aerial recon mostly involves the correlation of imagery with electromagnetic sensor data, such as radar, infra red, radio etc. So far Aerial recon has spotted very little of what the satellite images purport to show.

But I'm glad we are agreed that it's more involved than just clicking on a few website images.

yeah I don't think I do agree, Aerial recon is not satellite imaging.
I'm just skeptical, that's all. If you want to believe in some fantasy world they "they" know everything then do go ahead.

So far loads of false conclusions have been drawn in this investigation.

All I want to see is evidence, if they find even 1/10th of that imaged "debris" anywhere near the area where it was spotted and prove it is from mh370 then I will be happy. I am not saying it is not, I'm just saying the evidence is thin.

I think it highlights how out of touch the regulators are. Why do we still have 'black boxes'? If the engine suppliers can monitor engine health in real time, plane status and position can be.

yeah you have to hope that from now on there will be some kind of cloud storage of FDR and CVR for the whole flight.

the latest report is of a debris field of 300 objects up to 15m in size from a thai satelite
[img] [/img]

also the earliest reports of debris were from a french [u]satelite using radar[/u] not just visual

yeah you have to hope that from now on there will be some kind of cloud storage of FDR and CVR for the whole flight

and then you'd have a bunch of theories about the data being hacked or spoofed.

The pilot suicide theory seems the most plausible theory but it does still have some pretty big holes in it still. Once the suicidal pilot disables the other would it not be more simple to either 'jam the sticks forward' and stuff it into the ground/sea as opposed to flying aimlessly south until the fuel runs out. Maybe he just wanted to see some penguins.

It's one hell of a difference between wanting to kill yourself and wanting to kill yourself and 200+ other people. Is there any indication that he was a psychopath?

Pilot suicide- then why keep flying for hours?

It still points to incapacitated pilots or pilots hijacked- forced to keep flying? In alot of cases of hijack the pilot is forced to keep flying whilst the hijacker dithers or considers options? The Ethiopian plane that crashed into the sea was one where the hijacker dithered/changed mind on where to go and the plane ran out of fuel.

Pilot suicide- then why keep flying for hours?

The hole in the theory you've pointed out there is almost exactly the same size as the holes in any and every other half-feasible theory put forward so far.

If you look at jumpers they take ages to decide, we are not talking rational here are we.

yeah you have to hope that from now on there will be some kind of cloud storage of FDR and CVR for the whole flight.

It's quite a leap from hourly messages via a system that can be disabled and a box in the back of a plane with two hours of data on it; to a live stream of data constantly connnected anywhere in the world, on a system that cannot be disabled in any way by the pilot.

Keeping it simple, if the plane flew for several hours, essentially straight, incapacitated crew after a problem (which caused the beacon to be turned off as we've seen in past crashes) seems like the most likely reason. IMO of course.

I rather think the complete lack of any physical evidence of what's happened to MH370 rather reinforces the necessity for black boxes.

So long as you can find them.

Keeping it simple, if the plane flew for several hours, essentially straight, incapacitated crew after a problem (which caused the beacon to be turned off as we've seen in past crashes) seems like the most likely reason.

But the plane made at least 4* turns after the beacon was "turned off". Something must have occured (coincidentally on the margin between Malaysian and Vientnamese air traffic control) that prevented the crew from comunicating in any way with the ground but enabled them to remain in control of the plane (but not enough control to drop altitude and head for a landing strip or controlled landing of any kind) for over an hour before finally heading out over the ocean.

* 1st to divert from planned flight path, 2nd and 3rd after passing over Malaysia as seen on military and 4th to change from last known heading to intersect with arc of satelite.

that's why I wrote 'most likely' not that it's the definitive answer. It still seems the most plausible as it's the simplest. Again IMO. And of course, sometimes the more complex things do happen.

that's why I wrote 'most likely' not that it's the definitive answer. It still seems the most plausible as it's the simplest.

I was pointing out that it's not a simple scenario. The chain of events that would disable all comms but leave the crew able to perform certain elements of control, but not others is incredibly far fetched and needs a lot of subsequent coincidences to hang together.

The "full in control of the plane" scenario is the most likely at the moment. We are missing a motive but physically that is what appears to have happened.

If you are above the South China Sea and wanted to lose the plane you would do exactly what this plane has done. It it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is a duck.

If it was suicide then why not keep flying for as long as you can? Maybe he was in 2 minds about it and wanted to delay the final moments until the very end - or maybe he didn't have the courage to just push the sticks forward. He could have been a real vindictive b'stard and wanted the wreckage and passengers to remain undiscovered for as long as possible. Who knows what his motivations were - personal, religoius, financial? Why do convicted serial murderers like Ian Brady insist on not revealing the location of their victims graves?
Some people are just evil and vindictive because they can be.

[quote=clubber ]that's why I wrote 'most likely' not that it's the definitive answer. It still seems the most plausible as it's the simplest. Again IMO. And of course, sometimes the more complex things do happen.

Well no. The simplest solution is that it followed the planned flight path and landed at Beijing. Because that's what happens 99%+ of the time. Therefore that is undoubtedly the most plausible solution.

OK, this is getting OT but we wouldn't be asking for a solution if it had done that as we'd know the solution. It didn't land in Beijing so we're asking what happened. IMO the simplest solution is what I proposed.

[quote=clubber ]It didn't land in Beijing

It also didn't keep flying "essentially straight" for several hours after the incident, so I reckon my solution is just about as plausible as yours.

IMO the simplest solution is what I proposed.

Except your opinion of what has happened has been overtaken by facts. So we know you opinion is wrong.

If it was suicide then why not keep flying for as long as you can?

One possible explanation is that it allows plenty of time for the cockpit voice recorder to erase everything (it only covers the last 2 hrs) so *if* the pilot has killed/incapacitated the co-pilot and/or the crew & passengers, he can sit there in silence for hours and the CVR will tell investigators absolutely nothing.

Even if there is an entirely innocent explanation (ie everyone overcome with smoke/fumes/zombies) the aircraft has continued flying as a "ghost plane" for hours - chances are there's sod all on the CVR.

If you assume deliberate pilot sabotage, it's been brilliantly done. Go offline at the exact moment you're on an international airspace boundary, confuse the radar then bugger off out the way to about the most remote location on the planet. Even if the crew & passengers are awake enough to realise what's going on they won't have mobile reception so can't let anyone know. All that's lacking is a motive although The Times today was saying that the pilot was deeply affected by the recent break up of his marriage.

aerial reconnaissance
does not equal satellite images. Aerial recon mostly involves the correlation of imagery with electromagnetic sensor data, such as radar, infra red, radio etc. So far Aerial recon has spotted very little of what the satellite images purport to show.

I'll give you that.
It still looks like waves though. The size of the objects found are proportional to the weather on the day...

"essentially straight"

I was referring to the latter part of the flightpath, not the whole of it.

Anyway, I still see it as the simplest solution, you may disagree. That's fine. We don't know. It's conjecture.

So how did they get to the "latter part" of the flightpath, which is hours after it went off the radar? Given a crew and aircraft capable of making all those turns and flying on for hours, why weren't they capable of contacting anybody? It would have to be an extremely specific fire to knock out just the comms systems (oh, and not satcom), but still allow control of the aircraft. Not so simple at all.

What is simple is that there was nothing wrong with the aircraft and it was all done deliberately. If you wanted to "disappear" with a large aircraft then you'd do exactly what they did. Missing an obvious motive is a far lesser hole than there is in any other theory - not given all the recorded instances of people doing weird and mad stuff "without a motive".

but still allow control of the aircraft. Not so simple at all.

But not enough control to attempt to land the plane.

The final turns are after they could have diverted to another landing strip to land the plane.

So the catestrophic series of events hypothesys relies on...

1) All comms being lost exactly on the boundary between Malaysia and Vietnam.
2) Depsite comms being lost (except Satcom) the pilots have enough control to enter a waymarked turn and climb to 40,000 ft.
3) The plane can then fly striaght for 1 hour and decend to 25,000 ft
4) During that hour it isn't possible for the pilots to commuincate in any way or try to land the plane.
5) After an hour the pilots have enough control to carry out two more waymarked turns but still no comms or no ability to try to land the plane.
6) Something unknown then needs to happen to ensure the plane makes at least one final turn but keeps flying.
7) Coincidentally the final direction of the plane is directly towards one of the most remote locations on earth. Fly in almost any other direction and it gets picked up on military radar.

Seems unlikely.

[quote=jfletch ]But not enough control to attempt to land the plane.

Good point. I'd forgotten about that bit.

All these theories people have which rely on a huge series of unlikely events appear to be because they are reluctant to consider the possibility of a person doing something a bit bonkers. Despite that being perfectly normal.

assuming it was the pilot

the flight crew/copilot must have been prevented from interfering in some way that adds more complexity to the suicidal pilot theory

[quote=kimbers ]assuming it was the pilot
the flight crew/copilot must have been prevented from interfering in some way that adds more complexity to the suicidal pilot theory

Not very much. Not given that even pilots sometimes need to use the toilet and the existence of anti-hijack cockpit doors.

If it was a hijack, by the pilot or a passenger, and the other cabin staff or passengers knew about it, wouldn't they have used their mobile phones to send messages? The plane flew back over Malaysia, so you would expect some signal to be available?

Maybe this was mentioned already but ... does the CVR have more than about the last 30 mins on it? If so, then I suppose it may well have nothing more interesting than the bonkers suicidal pilot humming to himself as he heads into oblivion ... ?

Not very much. Not given that even pilots sometimes need to use the toilet and the existence of anti-hijack cockpit doors.

but i thought the cockpit was on a code that the copilot at least also knows

robbespierre - Member
The plane flew back over Malaysia, so you would expect some signal to be available?

Apparently the CVR on 777s runs for 2 hours rather than 30 mins - unlikely to be of any more help though. Given modern technology there appears to be no reason why it wouldn't be possible to make one with a 24hr+ duration which would always capture the whole of a flight (it might be useful to know what was said for the whole flight even for more mundane crashes), but the technology actually in use dates to when the plane was designed, presumably due to the difficulty and expense of certifying stuff like this on aircraft. Not that it's likely to help at all if it can't be found.

[quote=robbespierre ]If it was a hijack, by the pilot or a passenger, and the other cabin staff or passengers knew about it, wouldn't they have used their mobile phones to send messages? The plane flew back over Malaysia, so you would expect some signal to be available?

I thought we'd done that one on this thread? Not much mobile signal at 30k ft when travelling at 600mph inside a metal box, even assuming you're anywhere near mobile coverage.

ha ha ninja edit.

Indeed - point still stands though.

too late to edit mine..

robbespierre » If it was a hijack, by the pilot or a passenger, and the other cabin staff or passengers knew about it, wouldn't they have used their mobile phones to send messages? The plane flew back over Malaysia, so you would expect some signal to be available?

I thought we'd done that one on this thread? Not much mobile signal at 30k ft when travelling at 600mph inside a metal box, even assuming you're anywhere near mobile coverage.

Sorry. But there are 18 pages of this thread and I do have a job 🙂

[quote=toys19 ]

Not very much. Not given that even pilots sometimes need to use the toilet and the existence of anti-hijack cockpit doors.

Really? Presumably not one that any potential hijackers know? Because security through obscurity is very highly rated.

The fact remains that the door is designed to be impossible to break down, so presumably you only have to disable the mechanism by which the door can be opened from the outside if you so inclined.

No reason why a mobile phone wouldn't work on a plane. 40,000ft is only 7 miles so well within the range capability of a mobile phone, so as long as you're flying over a network a mobile phone would work fine.

There cannot be a way to open the door from the outside, not while the aircraft is flying at least. Cabin crew always knock on the door for the pilots to open it from within when providing refreshments. They don't open the door themselves. Also in the Helios air crash the steward who woke up had to break the door down to get into the cockpit. It completely defeats the object for one of the cabin crew to have access. You may as well take the door off altogether.

Please stop talking about how to get past cockpit doors before somebody says something really stupid.

Mobiles don't work on aeroplanes at normal cruising altitudes.

Yes they do.

Film 4 just now is one of our aircraft is missing and movie mix showing termination point also about a missing aircraft.
:0

[quote=wobbliscott ]No reason why a mobile phone wouldn't work on a plane. 40,000ft is only 7 miles so well within the range capability of a mobile phone, so as long as you're flying over a network a mobile phone would work fine.

Except the radiation pattern of the masts doesn't point upwards, as that would waste a lot of power. Also as mentioned above there is the issue of speed creating doppler and sitting in a nice shielding metal tube.

There cannot be a way to open the door from the outside, not while the aircraft is flying at least. Cabin crew always knock on the door for the pilots to open it from within when providing refreshments. They don't open the door themselves. Also in the Helios air crash the steward who woke up had to break the door down to get into the cockpit. It completely defeats the object for one of the cabin crew to have access. You may as well take the door off altogether.

There was an interview in the Guardian the other day with a commercial pilot and stewardess. Both said you can open the doors from the outside. Post 9/11 they put in armoured doors which could only be opened from the inside. But when they realised this might be a problem (Helios, etc) they provided access via keypad. The pilot can override this, but there is still an emergency procedure available to open the door.

No reason why a mobile phone wouldn't work on a plane. 40,000ft is only 7 miles so well within the range capability of a mobile phone, so as long as you're flying over a network a mobile phone would work fine.

Except the radiation pattern of the masts doesn't point upwards, as that would waste a lot of power. Also as mentioned above there is the issue of speed creating doppler and sitting in a nice shielding metal tube.

A plane fuselage is not that attenuating e.g. you can easily make and receive calls whilst taxiing etc. Obviously you're right near a mast as they place them as close as possible to runways to try and get lucrative roaming traffic, as the older GSM phones used to roam to the strongest signal, hence all the operators competed to have the strongest signal by the runways.

UMTS (3G) can only cope with Doppler shifts up to about 250 km/hr which rules out cruising speed, but means when planes stack, you could make a call etc.

Apparently a mobile should be capable of reaching a mast up to 45 miles away, if it's CDMA, 22 if it's GSM

That's the limit of delay compensation rather than link budget. As mentioned before, mobile phone base station antennas radiate outwards and specifically not upwards (to maximise range) which means the link budget in the vertical range is much more limited, hence the range is much more limited.

Left hand side is elevation pattern:

[url= https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2835/13455487875_c798a4b65f.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2835/13455487875_c798a4b65f.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

the pilot wife left him the day before . they had separated for a while but were leaving under same roof .

Regardless of the mechanics of whether a mobile phone would or wouldn't work, the fact is that it was a night flight. By the time the flight went offline, I'm willing to bet that most passengers were asleep and won't have even noticed it going off course. When they woke up (if they ever did, assuming the aircraft was still pressurised), the plane will have been way out over the Indian Ocean and out of range of any signal at all.

[quote=footflaps ]A plane fuselage is not that attenuating e.g. you can easily make and receive calls whilst taxiing etc. Obviously you're right near a mast as they place them as close as possible to runways to try and get lucrative roaming traffic, as the older GSM phones used to roam to the strongest signal, hence all the operators competed to have the strongest signal by the runways.

Given the nearby base stations you mention, the fuselage could attenuate quite a lot and you still get a decent signal. I'd be surprised if there wasn't quite significant attenuation. It's just one small part though - the doppler and the radiation pattern of the base stations are more significant.

If the "facts" given out to the public so far are indeed true then one would have to assume pilot involvement for the reasons already discussed in these 18 pages.

Where are we up to with motivation though? Are there any theories besides "highly disturbed and suicidal"?

Was the possible lucrative patents gain by Lord Rothschild given any serious consideration (I can't find the page, sorry) or written off?

By the time the flight went offline, I'm willing to bet that most passengers were asleep and won't have even noticed it going off course

TBH, when you're on a long flight do you really have any idea where you are, even when you're over land?

Given the nearby base stations you mention, the fuselage could attenuate quite a lot and you still get a decent signal. I'd be surprised if there wasn't quite significant attenuation. It's just one small part though - the doppler and the radiation pattern of the base stations are more significant.

The Doppler mean it wouldn't work period much above 250 km/hr as the modem wouldn't achieve frequency lock, regardless of the signal strength.

If you're interested there are UMTS system which work for plane telemetry eg

They have to use extra HW to account for the excessive Doppler.

Was the possible lucrative patents gain by Lord Rothschild given any serious consideration (I can't find the page, sorry) or written off?

Fair enough. So no other thoughts (besides deranged), however outrageous, as to possible motivation for a pilot to do what most seem to think happened?

Apparently it was orchestrated by the Israelis, as part of a plan to fabricate a lookalike plane and fly it into the Al Aqsa mosque.

According to a man on the internet.

Apparently if the latest estiamtes are correct, then the other "debris" sightings (that were dissed by a bloke on the internet, much to the chagrin of some other experts) are false..

https://twitter.com/WrightUps

The only place I'm aware of that will allow mobile phone calls at cruise altitudes and speeds is roughly a 50 mile radius NW of Athens, due I imagine to the topography and location of the masts.

Over the sea? No chance.

Toys, I don't think that anyone here is saying that the satellite images were positively identified as being 777 debris, or indeed that they were conclusively debris at all. The images were of objects which merited further investigation. What we [i]are[/i] saying is that some bloke browsing on the internet could not realistically discredit the images, especially when other people, who are presumuably trained in the business of photographic interpretation, have already looked at them.

This thread is more interesting than the main media outlet coverage.

Probably because we have more people with scientific understanding on here than all the journos on all the media put together.

Regarding the debris, the chances are that the vast majority of sightings are going to be false leads. Hence those dismissing them based on just what they can see on the internet are going to be proved right. That is until some real debris turns up. It's all very self-fulfilling based on the odds involved.

Reading The Times at lunch, there was a news piece in there saying that some UK based firm of lawyers was "advising" the relatives that the most likely cause was an electrical fire or short causing the crew & passengers to become incapacitated, the aircraft continued flying as a ghost plane until it ran out of fuel and crashed.

They;'re saying this based on having worked on some other aviation cases and because if it's mechanical failure rather than deliberate crew sabotage, it allows them to sue Malaysian Airlines... So no motive there then... 😉

I'm only ribbing anyway, lets face it we don't have a clue, neither do they...

Incidentally, how do we know it climbed up FL430 (or whatever) after the transponder switched off? Was this some sort of height finding primary radar or information from the a/c itself.

I'm starting to think more and more that they are never going to find the plane. If its down that 4,000metre ridge for instance. How will they ever A). Locate the backbox and B). Recover? Once its signals gone- it could be ANYWHERE.

So for now for eternity the Pilots names will be blackened (well if the manufacturers etc are facing uncertainty they'll point to pilot error/interface wont they as 'probable' to protect their future sales opportunities.).

I have sent texts and emails from an aircraft when flying over Europe. OK it was at maybe 25k ft and not 40k ft but I sent and received texts perfectly fine and had a full signal. Also people were making voice calls and texting from the aircraft that crashed when the passengers overcame the hijackers on 9/11, so it is technically possible to use your mobile on an aircraft if you are overflying a mobile network. Also the aricraft was not equipped with an aero-mobile system. Radio masts do not 'point' in any direction. Radio waves radiate in all directions.

I still find it hard to believe that cabin crew can access the cockpit door in-flight despite what the Times says. You can't believe everything you read in the papers. Some airlines may have introduced rules, but it was not mandated as a result of the Helios event as far as i'm aware. It seems utterly pointless to have an armoured door if someone on the passenger side knows the code! I don't think even BA cabin crew are paid enough to sacrifice their lives.

Once its signals gone- it could be ANYWHERE.

I did hear something about possibly recover via passive scanning. I would imagine/hope that it is fitted with something similar to the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RECCO ]RECCO system[/url] used in ski/snow wear which reflects an incoming signal without requiring on-board power.

Radio masts do not 'point' in any direction. Radio waves radiate in all directions.

Hmmm.. They do look quite directional!

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[quote=imnotverygood ]Incidentally, how do we know it climbed up FL430 (or whatever) after the transponder switched off? Was this some sort of height finding primary radar or information from the a/c itself.

I'm fairly sure that's based on primary radar coverage. Military radar does often have some height capability (vertical arrays, or nodding), but we're not being told what it uses or how accurate it is, and I'd imagine we're unlikely to be told. Personally I'd take the accuracy of that height with a pinch of salt - could easily be out by 5-10,000ft. Useful info to know that it might have happened, but I wouldn't be placing to much reliance on formulating a scenario based on that (or ruling anything out because of it).

[quote=wobbliscott ]I have sent texts and emails from an aircraft when flying over Europe. OK it was at maybe 25k ft and not 40k ft but I sent and received texts perfectly fine and had a full signal.

You weren't maybe a bit lower than that, and flying a bit slower (as is often the case with European flights)? Or maybe an onboard transponder?

Also people were making voice calls and texting from the aircraft that crashed when the passengers overcame the hijackers on 9/11

That aircraft certainly was a lot lower and slower.

Radio masts do not 'point' in any direction. Radio waves radiate in all directions.

Radio antennas on masts very certainly do "point" and radio waves only propagate in all directions from an omnidirectional antenna. How do you imagine radar works if it's not possible to direct radio waves? Why do you think you have to point a satellite dish? I'll claim some authority on this issue as I used to work with radio systems.