MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 32

Finn350 · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:21 pm

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 74):
We do not know if these corridors are defined by the last SATCOM ping, or multiple pings.

My understanding is that the arcs published are based on the last ping at 8:11 am. All the points in those two arcs are the same calculated distance from the satellite and represent possible locations of the plane at 8:11 am. The arcs must have been constrained by the maximum range the aircraft could have flown at that point of time from the arcs of the previous ping one hour earlier. If there were not this constraint, instead of two arcs we would have a circle with each point having the same calculated distance from the satellite (and centered on the imaginary position of the geostationary satellite on the earth surface).

There must be similar arcs from the previous pings (at 7:11 am, 6:11 am etc.), but those have not been published.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 74):
It appears the north loci is considered more likely because of primary radar signals that roughly correlate

I would say that both the corridors are of equal consideration. I personally believe on the southern arc.

Gatorman96 · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:21 pm

Quoting hivue (Reply 92):
Why would it no longer be useable? And not being able to contact anybody would imply that nobody would be able to contact -- i.e., find -- it. Truck in some fuel and if there's room to take off...

Assuming the person in command of the aircraft was able to land without damaging the aircraft or ingesting FOD into the engines, I'm not even sure a dry lake bed could handle the weight of a 777. On another note, assuming this was a lone wolf event, how would the perpetrator be able to hold off 239 passengers once the aircraft landed?

Again, thinking big picture, what would be the point of hijacking an aircraft then landing it on a dry lake bed?

[Edited 2014-03-17 09:23:30]

clickhappy · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:23 pm

Does Malaysia assign Air Marshals to their flights?

RightRudder · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:24 pm

Quoting gatorman96 (Reply 102):
Assuming the person in command of the aircraft was able to land without damaging the aircraft or ingesting FOD into the engines, I'm not even sure a dry lake bed could handle the weight of a 777.

Exactly my assumption.

rcair1 · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:24 pm

Quoting flyenthu (Reply 83):
I watched that as well. So, that now opens a new theory that ACARS may NOT have been deliberately switched off before the last verbal message from the copilot to Malaysian ATC at 1:19am. In other words, the theory that the alleged event had already commenced before the last verbal communication was received at 1:19am is now questionable. CNN also implied that ACARS was on because the plane kept sending the pings to the satellite. So, what I glean from this is data transmission part of ACARS got disabled, yet the satellite communication part of ACARS kept working until the pinging stopped. Plot twist??

My opinion - the claims that ACARS was disabled before the transponder were a result of not understanding the system. I think that is now being realized and corrected - it is BTW, what most here have said for some time. So the ACARS was not disabled before the transponder, but simply finished it's last scheduled transmission before the transponder was disabled. The expected update 30 minutes later was not received, so we can conclude that ACARS was disabled (by telling it not to use SATCOM - which can be done from the cockpit) during that 30 minutes.

The SATCOM pings are completely different. They are from the satellite communication systems - one of the systems ACARS can use. Those pings continued hourly till 8:11 though we have not been told if every expected one was received.

This is discussed in detail in the sanity check in reply 74 of this string.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 74):
Sanity Check - 3/17/2014 14:30Z

garnetpalmetto · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:26 pm

Quoting Mouldypete (Reply 100):

Thank you for the sanity checks. So necessary and so clearly laid out.
There is just one small typo I suspect. Did you actually mean to say that the primary radar did NOT identify?

Indeed - and one other typo. "Straight" (ie "Malacca straight") should be "Strait."

flyKiWi · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:29 pm

Quoting gatorman96 (Reply 102):
Assuming the person in command of the aircraft was able to land without damaging the aircraft or ingesting FOD into the engines, I'm not even sure a dry lake bed could handle the weight of a 777.

Exactly what I was thinking as well.

Quoting gatorman96 (Reply 102):
what would be the point of hijacking an aircraft then landing it on a dry lake bed?

Cargo? Throw the aircraft away afterwards? Not easy on a dry lake bed, I know...

(apologies, I know this has been brought up before, and I'm trying to keep up but not following the threads 100%)

rcair1 · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:31 pm

Quoting Mouldypete (Reply 100):
There is just one small typo I suspect. Did you actually mean to say that the primary radar did NOT identify

It is very possible I made a typo - but I can't find it based on this small quote. I've got only about 15 more minutes before that post is locked for editing. If you can tell me the specific line before then, I can try to fix it.

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 101):
My understanding is that the arcs published are based on the last ping at 8:11 am.

Good - do you have a source for that. I've not seen it - but there is no way I can review everything. I'd love to nail that down.

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 101):
There must be similar arcs from the previous pings (at 7:11 am, 6:11 am etc.), but those have not been published.

I would really like to know - it would strengthen the argument for the corridors if the previous pings also matched them.

Thunderboltdrgn · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:32 pm

Quoting gatorman96 (Reply 102):
Again, thinking big picture, what would be the point of hijacking an aircraft then landing it on a dry lake bed?

I don't know but strictly hypothetically speaking, to take something from the aircraft and
put it onto another type of transport, like a truck or something?

rcair1 · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:35 pm

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 105):
Indeed - and one other typo. "Straight" (ie "Malacca straight") should be "Strait."

Fixed - still haven't found the other one.

k83713 · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:36 pm

Quoting clickhappy (Reply 102):

Was asking that before but didn't see anyone answer. However, all their F/A are males, so certainly they would be prepared to resist to possible assault.

[Edited 2014-03-17 09:39:57]

edmountain · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:37 pm

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 104):
My opinion - the claims that ACARS was disabled before the transponder were a result of not understanding the system. I think that is now being realized and corrected - it is BTW, what most here have said for some time. So the ACARS was not disabled before the transponder, but simply finished it's last scheduled transmission before the transponder was disabled. The expected update 30 minutes later was not received, so we can conclude that ACARS was disabled (by telling it not to use SATCOM - which can be done from the cockpit) during that 30 minutes.

The SATCOM pings are completely different. They are from the satellite communication systems - one of the systems ACARS can use. Those pings continued hourly till 8:11 though we have not been told if every expected one was received.

This is discussed in detail in the sanity check in reply 74 of this string.

Given the inconsistencies and apparent confusion on the part of the Malaysians I think now we have to consider everything that we have been told as suspect.

In particular, I now wonder on what basis do they say transponder was "switched off." How do they distinguish between the transponder being switched off versus failure? Subsequent information of the plane undergoing a seven-hour flight after this point speaks against technical problems but with the misinformation we've been fed thus far who knows?

flyenthu · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:40 pm

Quoting hivue (Reply 88):
I think there is no "satellite communications part of ACARS." ACARS just makes use of SATCOM like other things on the plane would (sat phones or whatever).

Quoting tomlee (Reply 87):

Well I think you mean the inmarsat modem kept working while the ACARS system was not working.

Thanks for correcting. Following up on my question, why are they now questioning that ACARS was not shut down before the last verbal from F/O? I just heard that on CNN in their revised timeline. Check the link below, it is from today. It says ACARS disable time unknown.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/15/world/...70-chronology/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I think this has important implications. One, last ACARS transmission at 1:07am does not mean ACARS was shut off at that point. Two, at last communication from F/O at 1:19am, everything was still routine. Then, there was a turn in events right after that. This makes sense because right after that the F/O signed off, did they deviate from flight plan and made that sharp turn to the west. Three, the plane was purposefully made stealth/missing after 1:19am: transponder turned off, and my inference is that ACARS was turned off also after 1:19am. Given that F/Os usually do the ATC handshakes, it seems as a routine task performed by the MH 370 F/O when he greeted good night.

Given this, although too early to say, my opinion is that this flight was routine until 1:19am. No, event before that. Things took a turn after 1:19am after post Malaysia ATC control. F/O just appears to me less involved in the event- this part is just my hunch. I could be very wrong.

[Edited 2014-03-17 09:44:57]

mouldypete · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:41 pm

rcair1 typo

"It was the seventh bullet point down in the First a Synopsis section."

hivue · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:44 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 100):
The arcs must have been constrained by the maximum range the aircraft could have flown at that point of time from the arcs of the previous ping one hour earlier

I think they were constrained by overlapping coverage from other satellites in the constellation which did not pick up any 8:11L signal.

btfarrwm · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:46 pm

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 104):
The SATCOM pings are completely different. They are from the satellite communication systems - one of the systems ACARS can use. Those pings continued hourly till 8:11 though we have not been told if every expected one was received.

Is there a map showing the other approximate ping locations in addition to the arcs that were deduced from the 8:11 AM ping? It might help determine if the plane was travelling at a constant speed/altitude/course (if the pings are relatively evenly spaced) or using its energy to make frequent altitude or course corrections (a more chaotic spacing) that you would expect in an attempt to avoid radar detection.

hivue · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:47 pm

Quoting flyenthu (Reply 112):
Following up on my question, why are they now questioning that ACARS was not shut down before the last verbal from F/O?

Hate to keep being a cynic but it sounds like the authorities didn't know what they were talking about in the first place.

Gatorman96 · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:47 pm

Quoting flyKiWi (Reply 106):
Quoting gatorman96 (Reply 102):
what would be the point of hijacking an aircraft then landing it on a dry lake bed?

Cargo? Throw the aircraft away afterwards? Not easy on a dry lake bed, I know...

Quoting thunderboltdrgn (Reply 108):
Quoting gatorman96 (Reply 102):
Again, thinking big picture, what would be the point of hijacking an aircraft then landing it on a dry lake bed?

I don't know but strictly hypothetically speaking, to take something from the aircraft and
put it onto another type of transport, like a truck or something?

Good thoughts. At this point, it's pretty difficult to write off most theories with the information we have been provided.

Toni_ · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:48 pm

Wow, part 32 already. I only managed to ride along on this "speculation wagon" till part 6, I think. After that I got blown off hardcore as it picked up speed.

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 11):
If anyone has any rational arguments as to why we should not criticize the Malaysian authorities, you are welcome to say so. But culture and inexperience are not valid defences; this is an international incident and they have some of the most experienced people in the world assisting.

In my opinion, you can't just disregard the inexperience that simple. When was the last time the entire world looked at Malaysia with a million-and-one questions after an event of this scale and level of difficulty? Yes, there has been plenty of room for improvement in the way they handled things, but I prefer to cut them some slack. Atleast till this horrible puzzle is (more) complete.

When a country that is more than capable of 'doing 100 miles per hour' during a crisis, is doing anything less than 100, I will be the first to critisize the hell out them. The USA comes to mind after hurricane Katrina (with good ol' G. Dubya Bushmeister telling the director of his emergency management agency that he was doing: "a heck of a job").
With Malaysia we are only now starting to find out where they stand and what they're capable of in a situation like this.

Finn350 · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:49 pm

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 107):
Good - do you have a source for that. I've not seen it - but there is no way I can review everything. I'd love to nail that down.

I don't have a source for that. I believe the earlier satellite pings constrain the last arcs, so in that sense it could actually be said that the last arcs are based on multiple pings.

Quoting Mouldypete (Reply 113):
Thanks for correcting. Following up on my question, why are they now questioning that ACARS was not shut down before the last verbal from F/O? I just heard that on CNN in their revised timeline. Check the link below, it is from today. It says ACARS disable time unknown.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/15/world/...hp_t1

The CNN article you quote is old (published on March 15th) and is based on incorrect statements about ACARS.

This one is much better and clears things up (see also reply 74 which has the timeline):

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/17/wo...aysia-plane-up-to-speed/index.html

hivue · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:50 pm

Quoting gatorman96 (Reply 101):
assuming this was a lone wolf event,

Why assume that? I think the pilot suicide hypotheses are the only ones that could be "lone wolf."

Gatorman96 · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:55 pm

Quoting hivue (Reply 121):
Quoting gatorman96 (Reply 101):
assuming this was a lone wolf event,

Why assume that? I think the pilot suicide hypotheses are the only ones that could be "lone wolf."

These are the only hypotheses, along with a hijack by one or both of the guys in the flight deck, that I've seen thrown around with some legs. That being said, assumptions are all we have at this point in which most will be incorrect in the end.

747megatop · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:55 pm

Quoting clickhappy (Reply 102):
Does Malaysia assign Air Marshals to their flights?

Since Air Marshals work on the premise that one of the pilots is not hijacking the plane their job description will need to be rewritten if MH 370 was indeed hijacked by one of the pilots. Don't know the answer to your specific question though.

DiscoverCSG · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:56 pm

Quoting gatorman96 (Reply 101):
how would the perpetrator be able to hold off 239 passengers once the aircraft landed?

Kill them first by depressurization at 43,000 feet?

Quoting gatorman96 (Reply 101):
what would be the point of hijacking an aircraft then landing it on a dry lake bed?

Quoting thunderboltdrgn (Reply 108):
I don't know but strictly hypothetically speaking, to take something from the aircraft and
put it onto another type of transport, like a truck or something?

Or, to take something from another type or transport, like a truck or something, and put it on the aircraft?

hivue · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:56 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 120):
This one is much better and clears things up

How does that clear anything up? We still don't know if ACARS was disabled prior to the last voice com or after it.

Indy · Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:00 pm

Let us assume for a moment that nobody did anything illegal with the plane. Is there a scenario where the plane suffers a catastrophic electrical failure that still allows the plane to fly but no longer allows the crew to communicate with the outside world? If the crew lost the ability to communicate with the outside world, what would the procedure be? To me the first thing you would want to do is abandon a busy airway. Landing at an active airport would seem to be out of the question. I would basically want to find a clear road to travel on and dig out the maps and start looking for places to park. Perhaps the crew found a safe place to land where there was a greatly reduced risk of encountering another plane. Maybe the plane, passengers and crew are sitting stranded somewhere waiting to be rescued.

Wild speculation. Just trying to think of a scenario that doesn't involve a criminal act. Would something like this be possible or realistic?

L1011 · Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:00 pm

Quoting k83713 (Reply 110):
However, all their F/A are males, so certainly they would be prepared to resist to possible assault.

Malaysia Airlines does have female flight attendants. I've flown with them several times, and some of them were definitely female.

Bob Bradley

PHX787 · Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:04 pm

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 74):
Primary versus Secondary Radar (brief tutorial)

thanks so much for posting this tutorial. it makes so much more sense now that I can understand the radar returns

flyKiWi · Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:04 pm

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 124):
Since Air Marshals work on the premise that one of the pilots is not hijacking the plane their job description will need to be rewritten if MH 370 was indeed hijacked by one of the pilots. Don't know the answer to your specific question though.

Crazy to think of Air Marshals 'policing' pilots as well. Just imagine if the press picked up on it... The very guys (and gals) up front who you trust suddenly being policed by Air Marshals. Crazy world. But seems like it's the reality of things these days.

Boy aviation (and airmen) have come a long way since my great grandfather risked his life to fly into enemy territory when there was a funeral for a fellow pilot. All they did was throw a wreath to show respect for a lost fellow aviator.

Finn350 · Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:05 pm

Quoting hivue (Reply 114):
I think they were constrained by overlapping coverage from other satellites in the constellation which did not pick up any 8:11L signal.

That probably is one additional constraint, but if the overlapping coverage were the only constraint, the southern arc should extend much more to the west, roughly to the same longitude as the northern arc. It is possible that the northern arc is clipped by the AOR-E coverage.

See for example:
http://www.inmarsat.com/wp-content/u...tellite-coverage-November-2013.jpg

Quoting hivue (Reply 124):
How does that clear anything up? We still don't know if ACARS was disabled prior to the last voice com or after it.

No, but the previous article states that "the [ACARS] system was disabled just before the plane flew over the east coast of the Malaysian Peninsula." which clearly is incorrect based on the current information.

EnviableOne · Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:05 pm

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 58):
I don't understand all the disbelief to the pilot suicide theory. Some of these other theories I've read on here are so outlandish, I just can't wrap my head around them. Remember Occam's Razor - I feel it applies here. Or remember what my uncle once told me: "When you hear hoof steps, think horses not zebras."

With the plane being missing so long now, Occam's does not apply I think we are definitely in the realm of Zebras now!!!

I think we are left with a Spock quote. "if we eliminate the impossible, what ever is left, however improbable, must be true"

Viper911 · Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:05 pm

Quoting giopan1975 (Reply 119):
An hour ago a Greek pilot and investigator of very good reputation, Mr. Akrivos Tsolakis, (he was leading the Helios investigation) commented on the issue on TV saying it is highly possible that the airplane has been stolen by a terrorist group with the intention of using it as weapon...He was the only one who dared to express the same opinion a week ago and almost everybody rushed to laugh at him at that time.

Except that it wasn't. If a certain terrorist group will "steal" a plane they will use it right away (9/11). Because now, a good chunk of the world is on the hunt for it, to fly it again and to use it as a weapon they will need to be 100 times more careful and lucky not to be detected, and as we know stealing a 777 is already quite a feat. There is no sense in stealing a plane for future use. If they could hijack this flight they could also easily hijack the aircraft near Beijing or any other city for that matter and crash it over there without risking to be detected in the future.

Viper911

Gatorman96 · Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:07 pm

Quoting DiscoverCSG (Reply 123):
Quoting gatorman96 (Reply 101):
how would the perpetrator be able to hold off 239 passengers once the aircraft landed?

Kill them first by depressurization at 43,000 feet?

I'm sure this has been covered in the previous threads, but I haven't seen it: Do the pilots have the ability to disable the release of the O2 masks or shut off the flow of O2 to the passengers? This seems like a long shot to me.

Indy · Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:09 pm

Quoting flyKiWi (Reply 128):
Crazy to think of Air Marshals 'policing' pilots as well. Just imagine if the press picked up on it... The very guys (and gals) up front who you trust suddenly being policed by Air Marshals.

And who would police the air marshal? Not sure I would want an armed person in the cockpit other than a pilot. If a pilot can go rogue then so can an air marshal. We have to draw the line somewhere. I am perfectly fine trusting the men and women trained to fly the plane. If I get the one in a million scenario where a pilot goes rogue then it was just my time to go.

bennett123 · Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:10 pm

I think that quote is linked to Sherlock Holmes.

nupogodi · Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:10 pm

Quoting Indy (Reply 125):
Let us assume for a moment that nobody did anything illegal with the plane. Is there a scenario where the plane suffers a catastrophic electrical failure that still allows the plane to fly but no longer allows the crew to communicate with the outside world? If the crew lost the ability to communicate with the outside world, what would the procedure be? To me the first thing you would want to do is abandon a busy airway. Landing at an active airport would seem to be out of the question. I would basically want to find a clear road to travel on and dig out the maps and start looking for places to park. Perhaps the crew found a safe place to land where there was a greatly reduced risk of encountering another plane. Maybe the plane, passengers and crew are sitting stranded somewhere waiting to be rescued.

Hahah. There's a NORDO procedure they could follow to land at a controlled airport. Realistically losing comms and transponders and ACARS in ONE electrical failure is so incredibly improbable that it's close enough to being impossible. Only because I studied mathematics will I not call "improbable", "impossible". But for them to have perfectly good authority over the aircraft and the flight systems, seen by the (cleverly picked) FL295 and following waypoints to a major airway intersection, while having no comms and not going STRAIGHT back to KUL, makes that scenario unlikely.

Finn350 · Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:11 pm

Quoting gatorman96 (Reply 132):
I'm sure this has been covered in the previous threads, but I haven't seen it: Do the pilots have the ability to disable the release of the O2 masks or shut off the flow of O2 to the passengers? This seems like a long shot to me

No, but the pilot(s) oxygen supply will outlast the cabin's oxygen supply.

flyKiWi · Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:11 pm

Quoting Indy (Reply 133):
And who would police the air marshal?

Good question.

nupogodi · Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:11 pm

Quoting EnviableOne (Reply 130):
With the plane being missing so long now, Occam's does not apply I think we are definitely in the realm of Zebras now!!!

I think we are left with a Spock quote. "if we eliminate the impossible, what ever is left, however improbable, must be true"

You have attributed a quote to me that I did not write. Please note the "quote selected text" button is *above* the post you are quoting, not below.

Thanks.

giopan1975 · Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:11 pm

Why not steal it for future use?

If a 777 is suddenly spotted in the air with the threat of carrying an atomic weapon then any government would double think of taking it out and would better prefer to get rid of it and out of its airspace ASAP.

DiscoverCSG · Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:12 pm

Quoting Viper911 (Reply 131):
If a certain terrorist group will "steal" a plane they will use it right away (9/11). Because now, a good chunk of the world is on the hunt for it, to fly it again and to use it as a weapon they will need to be 100 times more careful and lucky not to be detected, and as we know stealing a 777 is already quite a feat. There is no sense in stealing a plane for future use. If they could hijack this flight they could also easily hijack the aircraft near Beijing or any other city for that matter and crash it over there without risking to be detected in the future.

But they already know they can fly it undetected (if, indeed, that's what happened). If it's been stolen for future use, it could be that some other component of the plan isn't in place (say, the stolen nuclear weapon they're going to load on it to blow up New York or Tel Aviv or Beijing or Moscow). There's lots of sense in stealing a plane for future use once we've given up looking for it.

Indy · Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:15 pm

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 135):
Hahah. There's a NORDO procedure they could follow to land at a controlled airport.

Thanks for the information. I have no idea how all of this works so I was just speculating and hoping that someone didn't do the wrong thing. I was thinking back to that impossible situation many years ago involving the UA DC10 and the blown engine and the crash landing. I know crazy things can and do happen but I guess the scenario I proposed was far beyond realistic.

Mitico12 · Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:18 pm

Stupid question, but do you think the pilot/perpetrator shut off the following as well:

1. Wing tip/tail tip strobe light
2. Beacon light
3. Wing anti-collision

How about cut off cabin lighting too?

airbuseric · Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:20 pm

Quoting giopan1975 (Reply 139):

Why not steal it for future use?

If a 777 is suddenly spotted in the air with the threat of carrying an atomic weapon then any government would double think of taking it out and would better prefer to get rid of it and out of its airspace ASAP.

That is what is on my mind... they maybe got away with the 777 'invisible' to some place unknown to us at the moment.

If they can disappear invible, they can get airborne invisible probably as well again...

On 24/25 March, in Netherlands (The Hague) there is the Nuclear Security Summit, world leaders (incl. Obama, Putin etc) will all come to attend this major event.

What if... that 777 will be used to carry something 'nuclear' to Western Europe. If come organization claims to fly that 777 once it's airborne and on it's way to Europe already. Governments won't be happy to shoot a missile to a nuclear aircraft over European territory.

There isn't much talk about this yet... but if this 777 case is not cleared up quickly, I foresee that this scenario will be considered.

Edit: typo

[Edited 2014-03-17 10:21:18]

Indy · Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:21 pm

Quoting giopan1975 (Reply 139):
Why not steal it for future use?

If a 777 is suddenly spotted in the air with the threat of carrying an atomic weapon then any government would double think of taking it out and would better prefer to get rid of it and out of its airspace ASAP.

Stealing a plane for future use (if you can steal one) makes perfect sense. You aren't going to get anywhere near a target without getting shot down. So you hide the plane for future use. Maybe repaint it and attempt to operate it as a charter or private jet at a later date. I would think you could fly pretty much anywhere unmolested and you could be at your target before your victims had a chance to realize what was happening and scramble fighter jets as a defense. That jet could be hidden indefinitely. Of course that scenario would mean a very ugly ending for the passengers on flight 370.

Gatorman96 · Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:21 pm

Quoting Mitico12 (Reply 142):
Stupid question, but do you think the pilot/perpetrator shut off the following as well:

1. Wing tip/tail tip strobe light
2. Beacon light
3. Wing anti-collision

How about cut off cabin lighting too?

I believe yes on all three accounts. Not sure about your last question. The F/A's have the ability to control the cabin lighting. Whether or not the pilots can override that system without heading into the E/E bay is another question.

[Edited 2014-03-17 10:22:11]

k83713 · Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:24 pm

Some facts to consider to add to the sanity check summary:

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 74):
They do emit sonic pings if immersed. These will last a minimum of 30 days. We can expect sonar is being used to listen for them.

For that part could be added a short notice that distance of beacon detection would not exceed 2-3 km. Source:

"Beacon (pinger 37.5kHz 160.5dB re 1μPa)

Maximum depth of beacon detection (km)

Normal conditions 1-2

Good conditions 4-5

Localising a pinger from the surface in shallow water is relatively easy, as described above. This task becomes increasingly difficult as water depth increases, however, because the direction is affected by both the horizontal bearing and the depression angle to the beacon (Figure 2). When trying to locate a pinger beacon in deep water, the detection equipment should be installed on a self-propelled underwater vehicle (either an ROV/AUV or a manned submersible). However, this presupposes that the position is already known to within the maximum 2-3km detection range."

http://www.hydro-international.com/i...Deepwater_Black_Box_Retrieval.html

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 74):
Aircraft Type and Fuel State

On the press-conference today it was stated that plane probably had fuel for 30 minutes of flight after last ping detection at 8:11 am.

"The plane had enough fuel to fly for about 30 minutes after that last satellite communication, Ahmad Jauhari said."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...lines-flight-idUSBREA2701720140317

hivue · Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:24 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 129):
No, but the previous article states that "the [ACARS] system was disabled just before the plane flew over the east coast of the Malaysian Peninsula."

So does the video in the last CNN link you provided: "..shortly after takeoff someone likely turned off the plane's communication system called ACARS..."

nupogodi · Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:25 pm

Quoting Mitico12 (Reply 142):
Stupid question, but do you think the pilot/perpetrator shut off the following as well:

1. Wing tip/tail tip strobe light
2. Beacon light
3. Wing anti-collision

How about cut off cabin lighting too?

All of those are trivially disabled from the cockpit, even in the lightest and smallest of aircraft.

flyenthu · Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:26 pm

Quoting hivue (Reply 124):
We still don't know if ACARS was disabled prior to the last voice com or after it.

ACARS would have had to have been disabled after F/O communication. I am convinced that ACARS was disabled between 1:19am and 1:37am when ACARS transmission was expected 30 min after 1:07am. Just because last ACARS message was at 1:07am does not mean that it was shut down at that time.

ACARS and transponders were shut down systematically at close intervals when the plane was deliberately being made stealth/missing after 1:19am.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net