MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 23

AM744 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:00 pm

Quoting 2008matt (Reply 141):
But what's the point if you are about to kill yourself to fly hundreds of miles away so that the plane is harder to find, why would it matter to him how hard the plane is to find?

Doesn't have to make sense. Just for the heck of it, to mess around with people.

Quoting 2008matt (Reply 141):
Unless they are one sick minded human being.

Exactly. Easiest explanation to me so far. To keep everybody on their toes for an extended period of time. Sick indeed, if true.

[Edited 2014-03-14 10:20:07]

aw70 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:01 pm

Quoting max999 (Reply 143):
Which probably means the plane was destroyed or they landed in an airfield so remote there are no cell phone towers nearby. The latter is unlikely.

If the abduction of the plane was pre-mediated (looks like it was), and if it was done with the intent of actually landing it somewhere afterwards (very uncertain at this stage, but definitely possible), then whoever planned this was at liberty of picking a destination airfield without any cellphone comms. The perpetrator(s) had all the time in the world to plan this, and choosing a landing site without cellphone coverage is a very obvious requirement in any non-suicide scenario.

Which means that *if* the plane actually landed somewhere (huge "if"), it is actually likely that it would have been in a location *without* cellphone coverage. Just saying - the perpetrators of this were/are clearly not amateurs. So if they did not use the a/c to commit suicide in some remote spot, it stands to reason they would have thought of this.

[Edited 2014-03-14 10:03:26]

Mir · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:03 pm

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 115):
In the normal course of operations, the pilot who handles comms with ATC is not the pilot in control, correct?
So in the normal course, the F/O would have been in control when the Cap't radioed "All right good night" to Malaysian ATC, right?

That's normally true. But there are a number of reasons why the same pilot would handle communication and control of the aircraft, especially during cruise. If one pilot is handling paperwork, the other might do all the flying and radios. Or if one pilot is having a meal. But there's no real standard on that - the pilot having the meal might still do the radios if they wanted to.

-Mir

oly720man · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:03 pm

Quoting asetiadi (Reply 147):
I believe malaysian government know something that we dont know. Trust me.

Lots of people probably know things and they're not telling, because to tell would let the world know that they have the technology to know such stuff and they don't want people to know about it. If they can detect a plane gone missing then what else can be detected?

Or, really, everyone is completely in the dark.

Caryjack · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:04 pm

Quoting passenger8170 (Reply 69):
I am wondering something about the range of the 777. When I see these maps saying, "Maximum Range" and a huge circle is drawn around where MH370 last was, is that really the max range?

The range rings I've seen on these threads go out to about 2500 miles which is the distance from the airliner's last known position to its scheduled destination: PEK. I don't have the load/range curve in front of me but I believe the maximum range of this airliner with full pax and no cargo is around 7300 nm. I highly doubt the airliner took of with that much fuel but without knowing how much they had and the TOW, we can't say what the max range was. I know the fuel load was discussed but I haven't seen any actual numbers go by. What ever the fuel load was, flying lower with fewer engines means shorter or much shorter range.
Thanks,

Cary

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commerc...777family/pf/pf_rc_singapore.page?

bajamatic · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:05 pm

Quoting aw70 (Reply 135):
I have to assume that the worlds air-defense agencies were not looking for unrecognized aircraft in their airspaces 4+ days ago.

Think about that for a second.... US defense was instantly under the assumption that this plane was inbound for attack, and still are. Until its confirmed that the plane is down, the DoD is looking for it, in the air, inbound.

The next unidentified aircraft to enter US space had better be quick to identify themselves to NORAD's liking.

captainx · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:07 pm

Can a pilot cause a depressurization - yes or no? Perhaps after the last voice mssg, one pilot left the cabin to use the head, was locked out, the rogue pilot (with Oxygen mask on) disabled the comms, depressuriized the cabin killing all including the other pilot, then repressurized the cabin to fly on alone.

pvjin · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:08 pm

Quoting bajamatic (Reply 155):
US defense was instantly under the assumption that this plane was inbound for attack, and still are.

That's rubbish, when the plane was lost from radar it was assumed it crashed.

ranold76 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:09 pm

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 132):
Oh, I believe it's most likely that one pilot incapacitated the other, under this scenario. Flying out of the the deep Indian Ocean can certainly make sense as I and others have suggested, i.e., so that the real cause will never be found sparing family, friends, etc. of the shame of suicide and homicide.

You think someone who is as selfish, cruel, hopeless and evil to kill themselves and 230+ innocent others would care about shaming themselves and their living loved ones? I don't.

[Edited 2014-03-14 10:10:21]

175erj · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:09 pm

Quoting captainx (Reply 156):

Of course he can.

EMA747 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:10 pm

Quoting 2008matt (Reply 141):
But what's the point if you are about to kill yourself to fly hundreds of miles away so that the plane is harder to find, why would it matter to him how hard the plane is to find? Unless they are one sick minded human being.

I was thinking about this too and wondered if it was to make it harder to find to lessen the shame for his family? Just a thought.

Flaps · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:10 pm

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 104):
Even if it was true, answering this call could have been a ruse to mislead the other 777 crew (and by extension, the investigators and us)...

Or the response of a not quite dead yet crew member that still had a headset on????

imatams · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:10 pm

Quoting bajamatic (Reply 155):
The next unidentified aircraft to enter US space had better be quick to identify themselves to NORAD's liking.

Not only US airspace. Next week there's the Nuclear Sucurity Summit here in the Netherlands. Pres. Obama and MANY other world leaders are attending.. Security preperations were at an unprecedentent level already, this will likely increase all that even more..

bajamatic · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:10 pm

Quoting AM744 (Reply 150):
Exactly. Easiest explanation for me so far. To keep the everybody on their toes for an extended period of time. Sick indeed, if true.

This is precisely the mentality of a certain type of serial killer. They play games, offer clues.

N328KF · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:10 pm

Quoting bajamatic (Reply 155):
US defense was instantly under the assumption that this plane was inbound for attack,

Quoting pvjin (Reply 157):
That's rubbish, when the plane was lost from radar it was assumed it crashed.

No, the press, public, and possibly Malaysians, Thai, Vietnamese, and Chinese assumed that. We do not know what the DoD and other US agencies assumed.

[Edited 2014-03-14 10:13:31]

bajamatic · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:12 pm

Quoting pvjin (Reply 157):

So what, government defense agencies, who are looking for threats ANYWAY, saw the CNN report that it "probably went down", and they went for a coffee break? Please. The only thing those guys heard was "fake passport" and "Iranian".

SEA747 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:13 pm

Quoting bajamatic (Reply 155):
Think about that for a second.... US defense was instantly under the assumption that this plane was inbound for attack, and still are. Until its confirmed that the plane is down, the DoD is looking for it, in the air, inbound.

Agreed. I should have been more specific; I'm rather confident in the US Air Defense, but what about the rest of the world?

DeltaMD90 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:14 pm

Quoting captainx (Reply 156):

Can a pilot cause a depressurization - yes or no?

At least on the 737, all you have to do is set the pressurization to manual and open the outflow valve. If that is what ended up happening, I'm sure we'll hear similar groans about making it impossible for the pilots to mess with pressurization just like we have people groaning about the transponder being able to be turned off

pvjin · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:19 pm

Quoting bajamatic (Reply 165):
So what, government defense agencies, who are looking for threats ANYWAY, saw the CNN report that it "probably went down", and they went for a coffee break? Please. The only thing those guys heard was "fake passport" and "Iranian".

I can't see why they would have assumed the aircraft had been hijacked, unless they had access to some special information. At the time aircraft was lost from radar most likely nobody knew it had Iranians with fake passports on board.

I would have been more concerned if Saudi Arabian nationals were on board with fake passports, after all most 9/11 hijackers came from there, not from Iran.

When an aircraft disappears from radar and doesn't reappear the most logical assumption is that it crashed. Airplane hijackings are still very rare compared to crashes.

Of course it's their job to stay alert and look for potential threats, my point is simply that at the time of the disappearance there was nothing to suggest an aircraft hijack any more than in case of AF447 and many other such accidents.

bajamatic · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:19 pm

Quoting SEA747 (Reply 166):

My $.02 is that regardless of whether it was suicide or otherwise, the pilots used tactics to make their flight look as natural and non-threatening as possible because they realized that as soon as the flight goes off radar, military agencies are assuming its a hijack until proven otherwise. SAR agencies assume its a wreck and look for survivors until they learn otherwise. That what they're supposed to do.

max999 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:27 pm

Quoting COEWR787 (Reply 149):
And of course there will be a cell tower close enough to wherever they land that will immediately accept the connection from some random device and connect the call. Many interesting assumptions there in that theory that do not hold true in many parts of the world - specially in remote areas.

Quoting aw70 (Reply 151):
If the abduction of the plane was pre-mediated (looks like it was), and if it was done with the intent of actually landing it somewhere afterwards (very uncertain at this stage, but definitely possible), then whoever planned this was at liberty of picking a destination airfield without any cellphone comms. The perpetrator(s) had all the time in the world to plan this, and choosing a landing site without cellphone coverage is a very obvious requirement in any non-suicide scenario.

Which means that *if* the plane actually landed somewhere (huge "if"), it is actually likely that it would have been in a location *without* cellphone coverage. Just saying - the perpetrators of this were/are clearly not amateurs. So if they did not use the a/c to commit suicide in some remote spot, it stands to reason they would have thought of this.

The airfields which are big enough to safely land a 777 would most likely be near some kind of population. And even in many developing countries, cell phone coverage is widespread enough that small population centers get a cell tower.

The extremely remote and unpopulated locations without cell coverage are not likely to have airfields which are big enough to land a 777.

cabochris · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:28 pm

Quoting 4holer (Reply 144):

Suicide is a bizarre thing, I agree. But to Murder of 240 people, including children is far different, which is what some are floating around here with no basis whatsoever, other than misinformation and a missing avaitor's youtube account.

IMO, atheists believe there is nothing after this life. This is it. Walk the earth, die and then you are gone. Understand? No 100 virgins. No better world to come. The cost way out weighs the benefits.

Other than the slander thrown around here about the crew, nothing has come out that crew had problems like in other murder/suicide pilot events of the past.

SeeTheWorld · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:30 pm

I think that the shift to a terrorism discussion on TV right now supports the potential suicide theory. Since a suicide, under these circumstances, may be impossible to prove (or even find any evidence in the short-term), the White House is going to float this scenario even if they think it is extremely unlikely. They are covering their butts, looking proactive, all the while it's likely something that will only be partially accepted after every other scenario is exhausted. But, a hijiacking/terrorism plot is as likely as the others, sans suicide, which seems most plausible.

Trin · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:33 pm

Quoting cabochris (Reply 172):
IMO, atheists believe there is nothing after this life. This is it. Walk the earth, die and then you are gone. Understand? No 100 virgins. No better world to come. The cost way out weighs the benefits.

Actually, not just in your opinion - that is fact. That is the basis for atheism: to have complete belief and assertion that there is no god/s, no spiritual afterlife, nothing. If you DO believe 'something' happens to us after we die (other than decomposition/mummification), then you are in the very least agnostic, and not atheist.

Unfortunately, the pilot's atheism only lends me to find this mystery even more strange. Atheists tend to be pretty level-headed and realistic, with no idealistic/religious tendencies.

hivue · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:37 pm

Quoting Trin (Reply 174):
Atheists tend to be pretty level-headed and realistic, with no idealistic/religious tendencies.

But not any less prone to suicide.

bajamatic · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:37 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 167):

Here's your fist civilian demanding changes in the cockpit!!

"Steve ‏@avery_clsss 6m

There's no way a pilot or anyone should have the ability to turn off an airplane transponder in-flight #MH370 #CockpitSecurityFlaw"

captainx · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:40 pm

If the rogue pilot depressurizzed the cabin to kill the passengers and the other pilot (who was in the head), there would be no worries about cell phone use when landing at a remote airport.

(However phones could ring if not turned off .... hmmmm)

[Edited 2014-03-14 10:43:51]

boacvc10 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:42 pm

I do agree that no stone should be left unturned for this missing aircraft, but I wasn't expecting Indian authorities to search the eastern coast near Chennai .... for MH370

paparadzi · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:42 pm

Almost a week, and we are still clueless.

I just hope there is a closure to this, soon.

aw70 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:43 pm

Quoting max999 (Reply 171):
The airfields which are big enough to safely land a 777 would most likely be near some kind of population. And even in many developing countries, cell phone coverage is widespread enough that small population centers get a cell tower.

The extremely remote and unpopulated locations without cell coverage are not likely to have airfields which are big enough to land a 777.

To repeat myself, I personally do not consider a terrorism scenario that involved landing somewhere with optional later a/c re-use likely. At all. However, you are making it a bit too easy for yourself with your statements.

The trouble about terrorism is that the perpetrators are at liberty to only strike once everything aligns perfectly for them. And only at a target that happens to present itself really well. Bonus points if they do something completely new that no one was expecting at all, like this event (if it indeed was an abduction-followed-by-a-landing).

The radius in which the a/c could have landed is huge, and involves quite a number of rather inhospitable and/or sparsely populated areas with flat areas that could be prepared to land a 777. And if some organisation was behind this, you would have a team on the ground waiting for the a/c to show up. The airfield does not even have to be in an area without cellphone coverage: you just have to disable/interrupt said coverage for a few hours. And please don't tell me that cellphone tower failures are so rare that one would immediately trigger all sorts of alerts. Especially if it magically went back to normal sooner or later.

Or to put this differently: they potentially had years searching for the right place to put the ship down after abducting it. Chances are that if you were given a lot of time, you'd also be able to find something suitable in the huge radius around the last known position. Sure, such sites are rare - but you have time. Lots of it. And you only give the go ahead once you have found one. If you look at it this way, it pretty much removes the "not likely" angle. At least as far as availability of airfields is concerned.

[Edited 2014-03-14 10:51:30]

[Edited 2014-03-14 10:52:03]

solarflyer22 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:45 pm

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 173):
House is going to float this scenario even if they think it is extremely unlikely. They are covering their butts, looking proactive,

Yeah, I did notice armed guards and bomb inspections at the subway starting on Monday of this week. Doubt its a coincidence.

Quoting hivue (Reply 140):
when the Cap't said "all right good night."

Do we know the captain made the call?

I believe it was confirmed. The last verbal contact was from a flight 30 min trying to hail them on radio when the went off air. The article I saw said the pilot of that plane said all he heard was "Mumbling and Static" but that he felt it was the FO not the Captain on the Comm. There is no solid proof of that though because it wasn't recorded.

I think suspicion on the pilot side has to fall on the co-pilot.
He just transitioned from 737 (maybe he want to kill more people ?). We have pictures of him inviting girls and smoking in the cockpit as well.

Mr. Shah was just too damn good to have done this thing imo. The man was a pure aviator.

hamiltondaniel · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:46 pm

Quoting passenger8170 (Reply 69):

I am wondering something about the range of the 777. When I see these maps saying, "Maximum Range" and a huge circle is drawn around where MH370 last was, is that really the max range? I would compare it to a car: A car has a range of say 350 miles. But, that's if it is traveling at 60mph on a flat road. But, if the driver decreases speed to say 25mph, the range can be extended. Likewise, if there are downhill slopes, the driver can shut off the engine and coast, once again extending the range.

Cruise speed, what these maps are based on, is by definition the most economical speed.

Quoting max999 (Reply 143):
Which probably means the plane was destroyed or they landed in an airfield so remote there are no cell phone towers nearby. The latter is unlikely.

That does not seem totally unlikely to me. Cell networks are still spotty in much of the world.

Quoting bajamatic (Reply 155):
Think about that for a second.... US defense was instantly under the assumption that this plane was inbound for attack, and still are. Until its confirmed that the plane is down, the DoD is looking for it, in the air, inbound.

The next unidentified aircraft to enter US space had better be quick to identify themselves to NORAD's liking.

I don't think there's any indication that the US government immediately assumed the plane had been hijacked, and that it was heading for the US. For the first several days of the investigation everyone thought it was in the Gulf of Thailand, the Americans seemingly included.

IF the aircraft was indeed hijacked, and IF the purpose of the hijack was for later use as a weapon, I doubt the target is in the United States. Given where the plane was, India makes the most sense to me. Still, that is just rampant speculation at this point.

vfw614 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:50 pm

Quoting hivue (Reply 145):

To make it look like a hijacking gone bad?

What's the point? Then it would have made much more sense to send a message to that effect and then switch of communication.

Quoting COEWR787 (Reply 149):
And of course there will be a cell tower close enough to wherever they land that will immediately accept the connection from some random device and connect the call. Many interesting assumptions there in that theory that do not hold true in many parts of the world - specially in remote areas.

OK, as a lot of people seem to subscribe to that theory - why don't you guys list all those airports that...

a) are within MH370's range
b) are in a location where no radar contacts would have been made en route from the last known position
c) are unused (i.e. unmanned so they can be used by terrorists without being noticed)
d) have at least 1.500m of concrete so runway that a 777 can actually land
e) are so remote that no cell phones would work and nobody would have noticed the landing plane
f) can hide a 777 (or its remains if destroyed on the ground)

Looking forward to that list. I am sure it will be rather short.

captainx · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:53 pm

The rogue pilot needed to quickly kill all on board except himself in order to be successful (ie: not to be stormed by alarmed passengers/FAs). You do this by depressuring the cabin when the other pilot is on break, then repressurize it and fly-on.

If the outflow valves were switched OPEN by the rogue pilot, how long could the PAX survive?

Rara · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:53 pm

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 181):
I think suspicion on the pilot side has to fall on the co-pilot.
He just transitioned from 737 (maybe he want to kill more people ?). We have pictures of him inviting girls and smoking in the cockpit as well.

Mr. Shah was just too damn good to have done this thing imo. The man was a pure aviator.

Let's not pass judgement over people who we have really no idea about. So far NOTHING we've heard about either one suggests anything into any direction. Having a flight simulator, inviting girls to the flightdeck, having just transitioned from 737, being an atheist - NONE of this suggests a propensity for suicide or stealing an aircraft, and none of this suggests "pure airmanship" or anything of that sort.

Speculation is great, and that's what these threads are for, but let's leave the personal circumstances of the pilots out of it until anything really seems to be a factor in the event.

[Edited 2014-03-14 11:22:49]

hivue · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:55 pm

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 183):
Looking forward to that list. I am sure it will be rather short.

A list of one would do.

solarflyer22 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:55 pm

Quoting AT (Reply 128):
Could it be that they begun to turn around, after an initial problem, then became incapacitated, and the aircraft continued to fly in the mode/direction it was in? That would comport with the several hours of continued data from the engines. Although it doesn't explain why the transponder was off...

I apologize if this is addressed before. With 23 threads (the largest in A.net history?) it is hard to keep track of all the twists and turns.

Yeah, the short answer is we don't know. If the plane was zig zagging, I am not sure how it would have been configured to do that using auto-pilot by accident. It should have headed toward China. Maybe they passed out as they were entering in waypoints?

The progressive electronic comms failures are tough to explain. My first thought was on-board fire. That would explain the slightly odd progression of failures. Maybe they had an on-board fire that started, damaged keep parts but was then ultimately flamed out but not before pilots became incapacitated. Problem is that the comm systems are all disabled in cockpit. There might have been a disaster inside either by accident or on purpose.

MarcoT · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:56 pm

Quoting N328KF (Reply 122):
Who is the guy who kept doubting reports of satellite data ("FULL STOP")? Does this person wish to retract their statement now? This is big.

it was this (closed) thread html=https://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/6022117/, reply #57

Quote:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 38):
>Why do we have to keep rehashing the same crap? RR has to go through investigators. What information is officially

Right: why we have to continuosly reahash this crap?

In the conference this morning the Malaysian authorities did speak on behalf of RR and Boeing (and that, as someone of your experience
surely know, IS the correct protocol).
I did not see any press release form RR or Boeing lamenting that the Malaysian authorities misrepresented them. FULL STOP.

Nice try:

Rolls-Royce concurs with Malaysia on missing jet's engine data
html=http://news.yahoo.com/rolls-royce-concurs-malaysia-missing-jets-engine-data-100810333--sector.html

You were complaining that Malaysian denials about RR receiveing ACARS engine messages for 4 hourse are suspects and I pointed out that they were speaking in their official capacities on behalf of RR also.

WSJ has changed its story also (but curiously nobody is going to hang them out to dry for their conflicting and unaccurate reports, had it been the Malaysians authorities instead...)

Stop misrepresenting. Something about holes and digging also keeps coming to the mind...

bajamatic · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:57 pm

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 181):
He just transitioned from 737

Probably the first time these pilots flew together. He'd be a good mark if you are looking for a pilot to replace for your own purposes.

I know, I know. Speculation. But man - it's hard not to after 7 days and only one fact!

laddb · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:58 pm

Quoting ThunderboltDrgn (Reply 79):
Here you go:

You can get the file at: http://www.mediafire.com/download/oq4o8ksabditz6m/MH370.kmz

I don't suppose we yet know how much fuel was on board? But I assume the authorities know, and by calculating how much was burned getting to the last waypoint or ping, then a smaller radius can be drawn from there.

I just heard some experts discussing the ping on CNN and they are saying the locations were triangulated, which would confirm that there is no data being transmitted.

SeeTheWorld · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:59 pm

Quoting Rara (Reply 185):
Let's not pass judgement over people who have really no idea about. So far NOTHING we've heard about either one suggests anything into any direction. Having a flight simulator, inviting girls to the flightdeck, having just transitioned from 737, being an atheist - NONE of this suggests a propensity for suicide or stealing an aircraft, and none of this suggests "pure airmanship" or anything of that sort.

Speculation is great, and that's what these threads are for, but let's leave the personal circumstances of the pilots out of it until anything really seems to be a factor in the event.

Why is suicide a taboo scenario with some of you guys? It has happened several times in the past 15 years. Unfortunately, with all we know, it seems most plausible. It's unfortunate, but it has to be seriously considered, at this point, regardless of which pilot it might have been. This sucks, but this is one of the issues which always arises with crashes ... potential pilot error ... It is the nature of the job, and sometimes it is not fair, even when all the facts are out. There is no doubt that everyone involved in this investigation is considering suicide. If we can't consider it, then that is a disappointment.

alhena · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:59 pm

Quoting hivue (Reply 112):

Quoting neoshi (Reply 105):
Media reports that the aircraft transmitted any data beyond the point of last contact are not true."

I would characterize the purported SATCOM handshake "pings" as transmitted "data" (though perhaps not "information"). Not sure what the authorities are trying to say here.

data is layer 7, the "ping" is lower layers, more like layer 2

seat55a · Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:59 pm

New York Times article quotes Inmarsat ("David Coiley, the vice president of the company in charge of the aviation business") as follows

Quote:
Because the pings go over a measurable distance at a specific angle to one of the company’s satellites, the information can be used to help calculate the trajectory and location of an aircraft, he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/wo...laysia-airlines-flight-370.html?hp

This suggests there's no "content" to the transmissions, but we are back to good old triangulation.

N328KF · Fri Mar 14, 2014 6:01 pm

Quoting MarcoT (Reply 188):
Stop misrepresenting. Something about holes and digging also keeps coming to the mind...

No, you were questioning the entire thesis and trying to discount the whole thing. What this shows is that you got hung up on a technicality, and that otherwise the report was correct.

Mitico12 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 6:01 pm

I deduce, thus far, that if all government agencies have cross referenced the passenger manifest, and have determined that there is no one "of interest" on that airplane that is a security threat, that the aircraft either experienced catastrophic circumstances (depressurization, etc.) or that it was comandeered by any one of the MH staff on board.

Landing on obscure airstrips for the purpose of terrorism is all but eliminated if it was an MH staffer or catastrophic.

Flaps · Fri Mar 14, 2014 6:02 pm

Quoting virgin744 (Reply 129):
This one confirmation - if true, sums up my feelings of the Malaysian handling of this whole saga. Inept! Shocking that its taking nearly 1 whole week and they still haven't searched the flight crew's homes for possible evidence of foul play. Utterly disgraceful.

You don't go around searching people's homes without probable cause supported by evidence. Not in civilized countries anyway. Just because the US has become a police state doesn't mean that the rest of the world has to be, Only now is the litttle evidence beginning to point in that direction, Heck I firmly believe the crew was involved but procedures must be followed and until someone comes up with some conclusive evidence to the contrary the crew must be presumed innocent,

jcxroberts · Fri Mar 14, 2014 6:02 pm

This doesn't fit the pattern of past suicides at all in terms of the pilot actions. So I think it's right to skeptical. This appears to be a well planned hijacking for reasons unknown, if we are getting somewhat correct information. And they had considerable help.

hivue · Fri Mar 14, 2014 6:04 pm

Quoting alhena (Reply 192):
data is layer 7, the "ping" is lower layers, more like layer 2

Layer 2 in your photo is called "data link." In any case, data by any other name...

mandala499 · Fri Mar 14, 2014 6:05 pm

Quoting Pihero (Reply 18):
Now some aspects on modern airliners : they are, especially FBW ones incredibly stable. Theyu won't fall out of the sky just because navigation/ Automatic flight computers / incapacited pilots are no longer there. The trajectory would be anyone's guess, though.

OK, you need to watch: http://www.newslook.com/videos/67765...-considers-missing-flight-theories
Between 0:29 to 0:42
(A French version is available here: http://bit.ly/1m4dCXI for an opinion on how Malaysia is having difficulties in handling this)

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 77):
- There are reports that SATCOM pings were heard for up to 4 or 5 hours into flight (or after LOS)

Inmarsat has only confirmed that it received normal communications with the satcom antenna of the aircraft but did not elaborate on where and when.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 77):
- There is speculation that the SATCOM pings contain altitude, heading, speed. From a communications standpoint that does not make sense.

No, just Lat Lon positions...you can also pull these info under AT commands to the antenna if you want.

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 110):

My theory as to why SATCOM pings might contain location data is because they are collected with a wide receiver that covers a lot of area, potentially 1/4-1/3 of the planet, but due to bandwidth congestion over such a large area the return signal needs to be sent with a more focused beam (I believe I read about 200-400km wide?). For that purpose, the sat would need to know where to aim to complete the handshake. Then the actual data would be transmitted over that focused beam.

The spot beams are about 200-400km wide depending on where you are. BUT, that's for SwiftBroadband, BGAN, and FleetBroadband. The aircraft most likely has Aero H+ or Swift64... then it would use the regional beams (3000km or so wide), or if the less / older service, the global beam... which is useless for locating...

N328KF · Fri Mar 14, 2014 6:05 pm

Quoting alhena (Reply 192):
data is layer 7, the "ping" is lower layers, more like layer 2

Presuming that the Inmarsat system sticks to the OSI model, it would be Layer 3. That's where ICMP sits.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net