MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 21

LTC8K6 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:30 am

Quoting tomlee (Reply 347):
It does make sense to turn it off there what doesn't make sense is why turn of ACARS first as some news stories are claiming. It is easier and logical to turn off the transponder first at that prime moment and then shut off the rest of the comms.

It doesn't matter how experienced or knowledgeable the deliberate person was the transponder would have been the first thing to go. Except it was the last thing to go. I'm not saying hijacking is impossible it just seems very unusual and unlikely that a hijacking even by crew would turn the transponder off last at just such a position where no one would notice.

Perhaps ACARS is simply less obvious to the other pilot? Perhaps you can turn off ACARS without your fellow pilot noticing?

sipadan · Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:30 am

Quoting tomlee (Reply 347):
It doesn't matter how experienced or knowledgeable the deliberate person was the transponder would have been the first thing to go. Except it was the last thing to go. I'm not saying hijacking is impossible it just seems very unusual and unlikely that a hijacking even by crew would turn the transponder off last at just such a position where no one would notice.

unless you know what your endgame is and how everything will look to investigators...if total confusion is one of the aims (which it clearly is), then not doing things in complete, logical sequential order actually makes perfect sense...this guy knew what he was doing and knew how utterly and comprehensively confusing this would be everyone. I have every confidence that he thought through all of this in the most minute of detail...of course there is always the unexpected (which could also explain the transponder not going first--fate and opportunity or lack theer of intervening.

wjcandee · Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:31 am

I find it absolutely reprehensible that Malaysian Airlines and their government officials said for literally DAYS that there were no ACARS transmission from the plane. Knowledgeable folks like many here on a.net initially asked about ACARS data and were pointed to repeated statements that there were NO transmissions from the aircraft after the last ADS-B location.

And that was a complete and utter lie. I concede the the ineptitude level of these folks is truly remarkable, but someone had to know how to access the ACARS data, because it took the American investigators like five seconds to determine that it existed.

There is always an initial "fog of investigation" as a lot of pieces of information of various degrees of reliability come in, but there has been enough time now that someone who knows what the hell they are doing should have organized it and presented it truthfully, as the NTSB now does.

There is a significant security concern because this could well be another high-concept, low-tech terrorist attempt, and the idea of taking an aircraft and its passengers "to use later" seems almost a combination of elements of Somali hijacking and Al-Quada terrorism. If there is an Act II to this drama -- wow.

AngMoh · Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:31 am

Quoting Indy (Reply 248):
The thought crossed my mind. But is it realistic? When it comes to a car you can put on a stolen license plate and drive around for a while. Or you could take it to a chop shop and get some money. But a plane this size? There is always the ransom aspect I guess. How much is a plane worth to Malaysia Airlines? What would they pay to get the plane and the passengers back? Certainly possible. I can't imagine it being a straight theft but an elaborate multimillion dollar kidnapping maybe.

All of it is extremely unlikely, but on the other hand the Malaysian Air Force had a year or 2 ago 2 or 3 jet engines (Mirage?) stolen and they were found back in Argentina on the way to Venezuela. Nothing political - just a way to make easy money. So weird stuff does happen...

Quoting bajamatic (Reply 330):

I think they were making much more than smartphones.

"While four passengers who boarded a missing Malaysian jet are under special investigation for stolen and other passport-related issues, twenty passengers were involved in cutting edge electronic technology used for defense purposes, including electronic warfare, such as weapons that can "cloak" or make planes invisible, appearing to vanish."

I guess it works.

They were 20 production engineers responsible for cost cutting of chip manufacturing. They can not design chips, they can't use the chips, they only know how to manufacture them even cheaper than they already were. And on top of that they were Malaysian and Chinese so an American firm would not even let them touch anything defense related. They were just 20 people at the wrong place at the wrong time.

tomlee · Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:33 am

Quoting bajamatic (Reply 351):
I was led to believe from this forum that ACARS isn't always transmitting, that it would have completed a transmission after reaching cruising alt., and not again for 30 minutes. So isn't it entirely possible that ACARS was in fact turned off later, and not before the transponder?

I'm not sure what to believe but the news story stated the US government thought ACARS was deliberately turned off at a separate time than the transponder (10 minutes before roughly) how they know this isn't clear to me. Not to mention the reports of 4 hours of ping reports from ACARS (more likely the satcom modem) is confusing.

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 350):
Cell phones aren't likely to work.

If the hijackers knew to turn things off, then they knew to turn the seat phones off and even the moving map display.

It's a bad thought, but maybe the hijacker(s) went on oxygen, disabled the passenger oxygen, and depressurized the cabin? The re-pressurized and flew on?

Doesn't stop someone with a PLB, satphone, PLB+messaging, GPS with offline map database (me, probably at least a few more similar people in the world as well). Not to mention disabling the displayed map and then turning around secretly will definitely look suspicious to such passengers. (Don't ever intend to use a PLB in the air but in a hijack situation why not try).

flyenthu · Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:34 am

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 350):

Why wouldn't cell phones work? If the events unfolded 40-50mins into flight, you are not exactly close to KL, but not too far either, and just off the coast of Malaysia. There is a decent possibility to pick up cell phone signal to make calls. No one w sat phones either on flight?

LTC8K6 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:34 am

The transponder is the end of any charade. Once you turn off the transponder, your fellow pilot knows you are up to no good. So it would be turned off last in the plan, as it is your point of no return.

LTC8K6 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:36 am

Quoting flyenthu (Reply 358):

IIRC, they reached 35K feet in about 15 minutes. Do cell phones work at 35K feet?

sipadan · Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:38 am

Quoting tomlee (Reply 347):
It doesn't matter how experienced or knowledgeable the deliberate person was the transponder would have been the first thing to go. Except it was the last thing to go. I'm not saying hijacking is impossible it just seems very unusual and unlikely that a hijacking even by crew would turn the transponder off last at just such a position where no one would notice.

also, if the transponder doesn't go off right at handoff, and instead goes off when definitively in Malay or Vietnam airspace, it will diminish the possible confusion inherited by ATC. Of course seeing a plane disappear will be confusing, but if it happens at handoff it will be THAT MUCH MORE SO.

ssteve · Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:40 am

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 356):

They were 20 production engineers responsible for cost cutting of chip manufacturing. They can not design chips, they can't use the chips, they only know how to manufacture them even cheaper than they already were. And on top of that they were Malaysian and Chinese so an American firm would not even let them touch anything defense related. They were just 20 people at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Yes. Certainly among all the passengers on all the planes in the world, a bunch of Freescale engineers aren't going to be anything remarkable.

flyenthu · Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:41 am

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 360):

Yes, I texted pics from SQ 61 over Greenland. The plane had OnAir. Did this plane have wifi? I am not sure.

[Edited 2014-03-13 21:43:21]

UALWN · Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:43 am

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 355):

I find it absolutely reprehensible that Malaysian Airlines and their government officials said for literally DAYS that there were no ACARS transmission from the plane.

Which apparently is true.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 355):
And that was a complete and utter lie.

It wasn't.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 355):
it took the American investigators like five seconds to determine that it existed.

Apparently, it took the American investigators 6 days to determine that the plane kept pinging some satellite. No ACARS message was ever transmitted.

I joined a.net at the time of a freak accident, AF447, and was amazed by the knowledge and critical thinking of some folks here. Not I may well abandon a.net after another freak accident, MH307, after being amazed by the lack of critical thinking and knowledge of some folks here. These 20 threads have been mostly appalling.

[Edited 2014-03-13 21:45:53]

tomlee · Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:43 am

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 359):

The transponder is the end of any charade. Once you turn off the transponder, your fellow pilot knows you are up to no good. So it would be turned off last in the plan, as it is your point of no return.

No transponders can fail, radio's can fail, acars can fail. And what difference does 10 minutes make. It is still the transponder that would be the logical/easier/statically/historically choice in what to turn off first. ACARS probably isn't even safety related so if there was a mech/electrical problem it would be and was supposedly the first to go. (satcom pinging aside until that is cleared up more) and the transponder would fail later if the electrical problems got worse.

Quoting sipadan (Reply 361):
also, if the transponder doesn't go off right at handoff, and instead goes off when definitively in Malay or Vietnam airspace, it will diminish the possible confusion inherited by ATC. Of course seeing a plane disappear will be confusing, but if it happens at handoff it will be THAT MUCH MORE SO.

It happened after hand off not at hand off. In either case they didn't expect contact until two hours later when the tried to reach them and couldn't so it wouldn't matter what order you turn things off just that the transponder is easier to shut off and is the normal thing to turn off in such a case.

nm2582 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:44 am

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 355):
I find it absolutely reprehensible that Malaysian Airlines and their government officials said for literally DAYS that there were no ACARS transmission from the plane. Knowledgeable folks like many here on a.net initially asked about ACARS data and were pointed to repeated statements that there were NO transmissions from the aircraft after the last ADS-B location.

I know that there has been a ton of confusing and contradicting info coming from them, but the presently published info supports their claims.

The most recent WSJ article - the one that says the satellite "pings" do in fact contain location data - makes it clear that the airline did NOT subscribe to Boeing's maintenance program, and as such do NOT have access to this data. Boeing, on the other hand, does. And that's why Boeing is reporting this data - not the airline or government of Malaysia.

LTC8K6 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:44 am

Quoting flyenthu (Reply 363):
Yes, I texted pics from SQ 61 over Greenland. The plane has OnAir. Did this plane have wifi? I am not sure.

I am not sure either, but I am sure that it can be turned off and the pax can be told it "isn't working for this flight".

That would be one more clue. If the plane had WiFi, and it was turned off, it points to a hijack.

[Edited 2014-03-13 21:45:13]

flood · Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:45 am

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 355):
I find it absolutely reprehensible that Malaysian Airlines and their government officials said for literally DAYS that there were no ACARS transmission from the plane. Knowledgeable folks like many here on a.net initially asked about ACARS data and were pointed to repeated statements that there were NO transmissions from the aircraft after the last ADS-B location.

And that was a complete and utter lie.

Sounds like you have some reading to catch up. The satellite pings are not ACARS transmissions.
http://tinyurl.com/mqn2p5l

flyenthu · Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:47 am

Quoting nm2582 (Reply 366):

Would love a link to this article.

tomlee · Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:47 am

Quoting UALWN (Reply 364):

I watched the press conference and it seems like it is more of the media amplifying rumours more than the Malaysian government being inept. Maybe they are not as good as our government at suppressing the media but they didn't seem like they were hiding anything.

Now that the US government is involved hopefully someone will be nice enough to leak the raw information so we can read/review it first hand.

philask · Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:47 am

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 360):
IIRC, they reached 35K feet in about 15 minutes. Do cell phones work at 35K feet?

With almost certainty, no, while some signal may leak up to those altitudes it's way to high for a phone to lock onto a tower (especially once you also consider ground speed), even at 10,000 ft you need to be flying over a densely cell tower covered area to get a usable signal.

LTC8K6 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:47 am

Quoting tomlee (Reply 365):

It happened after hand off not at hand off. In either case they didn't expect contact until two hours later

I think both of those are wrong.

nm2582 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:48 am

Call me an optimist, but I feel like this investigation is starting to come together.

We know that acars and the transponder was switched off.. we now have satellite data with locations which are apparently well west of Malaysia... and we have some primary radar early in the timeline which supports that direction of travel as well.

It seems that the satellite pings occurred at neat one hour intervals, and then ceased; so the plane is probably within 500 miles of that last point.

It will be interesting to see where that final point was at, when the coordinates are released. I would suspect that the three or four coordinates they do have (one from each ping) are more or less in a straight line along a path to the intended destination.

timothy31388 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:49 am

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 367):

MH's aircraft do not have wifi. One aircraft was installed with a wifi device years back, but it was removed soon after.

nm2582 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:49 am

Quoting flyenthu (Reply 369):
Would love a link to this article.

Here you go. I had problems posting the real URL so I had to put it through tinyurl.

http://tinyurl.com/mqn2p5l

Here's the plain text of the link if you want to copy/paste it instead:

online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702304185104579437573396580350-lMyQjAxMTA0MDEwMzExNDMyWj

[Edited 2014-03-13 21:58:57]

[Edited 2014-03-13 21:59:45]

[Edited 2014-03-13 22:00:18]

chaseus1 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:52 am

Quoting tomlee (Reply 357):
Doesn't stop someone with a PLB, satphone, PLB+messaging, GPS with offline map database (me, probably at least a few more similar people in the world as well). Not to mention disabling the displayed map and then turning around secretly will definitely look suspicious to such passengers. (Don't ever intend to use a PLB in the air but in a hijack

Maybe the PAX were incapacitated, either by some depressurization, or even some type of chemical... like ricin or something? Or somehow the hijackers depressurizing plane, and they maybe thought breathing oxygen up front would protect them, and they ran out, and got disoriented.

How quickly could you cause 200+ passengers to pass out in a way they don't catch on? Is it possible? Could the hijackers don oxygen masks ahead of time, then cause the rest of the plane to become a ghost plane, either by depressurizing or by chemical?

I am really leaning toward a botched hijack mission.... just trying to resolve some questions I have in my own theory lol.

mandala499 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:53 am

Quoting flyenthu (Reply 363):
Yes, I texted pics from SQ 61 over Greenland. The plane had OnAir. Did this plane have wifi? I am not sure.

No, this plane does not have onboard wifi or onboard GSM service. It is not equipped for it.

lweber557 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:53 am

Another theory of mine much like my speculation earlier.

In flight fire causes loss off comm/nav systems, possibly 1 by one before anyone realizes there is a fire. Once they do pilots are forced to make emergency decent and ditch into the sea. Pax and rest of crew are already dead because of smoke inhalation in the cabin. (they don't use oxygen for pax in fire emergencies) Because its a night landing on the water it doesnt go well and MH370 breaks into several pieces. They all sink under the sea overnight.

Might sound crazy but not as much as some the other theories I've read like the Chinese hijacking the plane to reverse engineer it or the Malaysian AF blowing to out of the sky and the government picking up the wreckage before anyone else starts searching. Anything can be true though its all speculation at this point.

tomlee · Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:54 am

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 372):
I think both of those are wrong.

If I am not mistaken the last communication was “All right, good night,” and then they were supposed to hand off but didn't. Then hour later when it didn't turn up they reported the flight as missing.

seb146 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:56 am

Someone made a passing comment about the private jet of a golfer crashing where everyone, including both pilots, passed out and died and the jet simply crashed. Could this happen? Why change course and turn the transponders off?

Why do I ask these questions at the end of long threads that will be locked and changed?

Superfly · Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:56 am

Quoting chaseus1 (Reply 376):
How quickly could you cause 200+ passengers to pass out in a way they don't catch on? Is it possible? Could the hijackers don oxygen masks ahead of time, then cause the rest of the plane to become a ghost plane, either by depressurizing or by chemical?

That happened in the movie Airport 1977.
In that case, someone would have had to tamper with the oxygen lines while the hijackers put on gas mask in a lavatory or something. Not sure if an oxygen mask can be brought on as a carry one item.

chaseus1 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:00 am

To reply 381.... I was kinda thinking about them donning the masks in the cockpit after taking the plane, and before knocking the passengers out

[Edited 2014-03-13 22:02:43]

nm2582 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:02 am

Quoting flyenthu (Reply 369):
Would love a link to this article.

Here you go. I had problems posting the real URL so I had to put it through tinyurl.

http://tinyurl.com/mqn2p5l

Here's the plain text of the link if you want to copy/paste it instead:

online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702304185104579437573396580350-lMyQjAxMTA0MDEwMzExNDMyWj

For reference, this is the WSJ article that says the satellite pings did in fact return position data which has established the course of MH370 for at least several hours.

[Edited 2014-03-13 22:03:35]

hamiltondaniel · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:02 am

Quoting chaseus1 (Reply 382):

To reply 381.... I was kinda thinking about them donning the masks in the cockpit after taking the plane, and before knockout ng the passengers out

Ask the Russians about how reliable chemical knockout agents actually are. They show up in movies. They don't show up in real life all that often, and when they do, they seem to kill all sorts of people.

flyenthu · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:03 am

Quoting nm2582 (Reply 375):

Thank you!

chaseus1 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:05 am

Quoting hamiltondaniel (Reply 384):
Ask the Russians about how reliable chemical knockout agents actually are. They show up in movies. They don't show up in real life all that often, and when they do, they seem to kill all sorts of people.

So they do it by deressurizing the plane... or shutting off any capability for passengers to make calls...

I'm just wondering why no passengers made calls, as I think this was a deliberate act now.

nm2582 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:05 am

Random thought:

If the latest WSJ article is true (that we have several hours of position data), how mad would the controlling folks have to be to disable/shut off the satellite pings and then change course again? I.e. to throw off the investigation/search for the aircraft, making people think it crashed into the ocean when in reality it flew on for yet another 2-3 hours AFTER the last satellite ping with position data that Boeing has...

tomlee · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:07 am

Quoting chaseus1 (Reply 376):
Maybe the PAX were incapacitated, either by some depressurization, or even some type of chemical... like ricin or something? Or somehow the hijackers depressurizing plane, and they maybe thought breathing oxygen up front would protect them, and they ran out, and got disoriented.

How quickly could you cause 200+ passengers to pass out in a way they don't catch on? Is it possible? Could the hijackers don oxygen masks ahead of time, then cause the rest of the plane to become a ghost plane, either by depressurizing or by chemical?

I am really leaning toward a botched hijack mission.... just trying to resolve some questions I have in my own theory lol.

I carry a P100+chemical gas mask for work. I'm pretty sure you can force open the emergency oxygen supply (I carry blunt small tools and I doubt the latch is very strong compared to what I have to deal with at work, especially since drop opening and lightweight are priorities) and there are portable bottles as well. Could I realize in time probably not, but I'm sure there are enough paranoid people out there to be "ready". Sometimes I have a gas meter as well so that would alert me in addition to the air pressure dropping as I like recording parameters when I fly (Recording air pressure is easy, always do that my devkit phone has that standard and many devices have barometers as well). Probably not a typical passenger but whatever there are ways.

Although all it would take is one smart passenger with a PLB to ruin their day probably.

Not to mention this a bit far fetched going into chemical/gas attacks.

tomlee · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:08 am

Quoting nm2582 (Reply 387):

Wouldn't they need to refuel first?

KIAS · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:09 am

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 229):
This theory has been discounted as why would that involve the transponder being turned off at the same time. I suppose its possible to "knock it" grabbing for a mask or during a violent move of the plane or something...

No, it has not been discounted. Little has been discounted at this point aside from MAS370 safely landing at PEK. There are several ways a transponder could be disabled aside from someone setting it to STBY.

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 353):
Perhaps ACARS is simply less obvious to the other pilot? Perhaps you can turn off ACARS without your fellow pilot noticing?

No, there isn't an "ACARS switch" on the flight deck one can casually flip with some sleight of hand. To sabotage the system would require opening the main deck access panel and taking a trip down to the E/E bay.

Mind you, ACARS is a system which several pieces of equipment use to send data out. EHM (diagnostic data from the engines) is one example. Weather report requests are another.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 53):
They are saying ACARS(Data Reporting System) went down @1:07AM and Transponders @1:21AM.

If this is accurate - and that's a big if - then it would stand to reason that this wasn't an act of sabotage. Otherwise, someone went down into the E/E bay and disabled ACARS, then they shut off the transponder 14 minutes later. Doesn't add up.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 380):

Someone made a passing comment about the private jet of a golfer crashing where everyone, including both pilots, passed out and died and the jet simply crashed. Could this happen?

It did happen. Payne Stewart was the golfer. He was in a private jet. Also happened to Helios 522, a 737.

flyenthu · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:11 am

Quoting nm2582 (Reply 387):

Wondering along similar lines. Plane had fuel for trip and for two or more additional hours. The satellite pings went on for five hours which is roughly time to PEK, so presumably there might have been fuel for potentially more flying.

chaseus1 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:12 am

I kinda added the chemical idea as an afterthought to my idea of hijackers having cockpit oxygen on then depressurizing the plane... I realize that was a mistake now, but my original thought still stands.

Hijackers in cockpit don masks, then somehow depressurize plane.

A passenger forcing down a mask would not necessarily start the oxygen running I would think.

LTC8K6 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:12 am

Quoting timothy31388 (Reply 374):

So that's one less thing for a hijacker to worry about.

doug_or · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:13 am

Quoting seb146 (Reply 380):
Someone made a passing comment about the private jet of a golfer crashing where everyone, including both pilots, passed out and died and the jet simply crashed. Could this happen? Why change course and turn the transponders off?

Why do I ask these questions at the end of long threads that will be locked and changed?

Metal fatigue related structural failure or bomb causes serious damage to onboard electronics/radios and explosive decompression. Pilot spins heading bug and altitude alerter to initiate decent and turn back toward land, switches to heading and some kind of vertical navigation mode. In panic neither pilot remembers to put on mask (or air hoses to mask were severed by the initial failure/blast. Pilots pass out and autopilot flies aircraft west at slightly lower altitude until fuel is exhausted.

... or not.

tomlee · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:14 am

Quoting KIAS (Reply 390):
If this is accurate - and that's a big if - then it would stand to reason that this wasn't an act of sabotage. Otherwise, someone went down into the E/E bay and disabled ACARS, then they shut off the transponder 14 minutes later. Doesn't add up.

I thought the same thing when reading an article titled US government believes it to be deliberate. When the order is all backwards if true. Disabling ACARS is a lower priority and more complicated and less important to a hijacker or rogue crew compared to disabling the transponder which is far easier to do. Why would it also take 10 minutes between doing this if you took control turning off the hard part first turning off the transponder would be a cakewalk in comparison.

tomlee · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:15 am

Quoting chaseus1 (Reply 392):
A passenger forcing down a mask would not necessarily start the oxygen running I would think.

On the 777 I think there are individual chemical generators in the box. Just pull the pin to activate. Now don't try this on a regular flight as you will get in big trouble trying to do that.

Edit: pull the pin on the metal cylinder. Watch out though if you can pull the pin out the thing is liable to get very hot. Not to mention it is probable that the act of pulling the mask down pulls the pin out of the generator and the only thing the plane does it cut power to the door latch.

[Edited 2014-03-13 22:16:58]

LTC8K6 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:17 am

Quoting KIAS (Reply 390):

If this is accurate - and that's a big if - then it would stand to reason that this wasn't an act of sabotage. Otherwise, someone went down into the E/E bay and disabled ACARS, then they shut off the transponder 14 minutes later. Doesn't add up.

Why couldn't the co-pilot, for example, go into the E/E bay and turn off whatever he could think of, prior to the hijacking?

Couldn't he get up for a bathroom break, and enter the E/E bay?

Or would he be on camera?

Would an F/A question him about going down there?

nm2582 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:17 am

Quoting tomlee (Reply 389):
Wouldn't they need to refuel first?

The flight was scheduled for a duration of 5hrs, 50 minutes; there would have been at least another hour of fuel on board most likely. So you're looking at almost 7 hours of flight duration - and the satellite data only lasts for five.

So I think it's quite possible. Once we have the last known satellite ping location, a new circle can be drawn from that location with a radius of around 900 miles...

tomlee · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:19 am

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 397):
Why couldn't the co-pilot, for example, go into the E/E bay and turn off whatever he could think of, prior to the hijacking?

Couldn't he get up for a bathroom break, and enter the E/E bay?

Or would he be on camera?

Would an F/A question him about going down there?

I can't really think of a good reason for someone to go messing around with the electronics bay midflight without a good reason. Not to mention why do that first as it would possibly expose you to everyone around you. It would be smarter to not care as ACARS clearly hasn't been very effective in the search (it took six days to figure this out maybe). The transponder is the critical thing to take out.

tomlee · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:21 am

Quoting nm2582 (Reply 398):
The flight was scheduled for a duration of 5hrs, 50 minutes; there would have been at least another hour of fuel on board most likely. So you're looking at almost 7 hours of flight duration - and the satellite data only lasts for five.

So I think it's quite possible. Once we have the last known satellite ping location, a new circle can be drawn from that location with a radius of around 900 miles...

Except no one knew about the sat pings until recently they can't exactly go back in time and change their behaviour now.

[Edited 2014-03-13 22:22:03]

MillwallSean · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:24 am

Personally i am quite impressed that the US is happy to tell the world they get info from all Boeings and probably Airbuses that circle our globe. Because thats exactly what the info in WSJ says.
The satellites get info on location, heights etc but this is info MH isnt subscribing to not have access too. its alot more than a ping.

And after what Snowden has already revealed I dont think this comes as a surprise to anyone and its better if the computers that handle this now spend their time processing everything about this particular flight.

Personally I dont mind one bit and Im sure its more countries than the US in on that. I doubt the Europeans dont do the same with their Airbus planes. I bet China, Russia etc is listening very loud though.

flyenthu · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:24 am

Quoting tomlee (Reply 395):

Good points. Why the gap in time between ACARS and transponder shutdowns if becoming invisible is the idea, especially when the transponder dial is right there?

Also, did the plane go off radar just after reaching cruising altitude? Is there any significance to that in light of what we are currently learning?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net