Forum menu
If it was suicide then why not keep flying for as long as you can? Maybe he was in 2 minds about it and wanted to delay the final moments until the very end - or maybe he didn't have the courage to just push the sticks forward. He could have been a real vindictive b'stard and wanted the wreckage and passengers to remain undiscovered for as long as possible. Who knows what his motivations were - personal, religoius, financial? Why do convicted serial murderers like Ian Brady insist on not revealing the location of their victims graves?
Some people are just evil and vindictive because they can be.
[quote=clubber ]that's why I wrote 'most likely' not that it's the definitive answer. It still seems the most plausible as it's the simplest. Again IMO. And of course, sometimes the more complex things do happen.
Well no. The simplest solution is that it followed the planned flight path and landed at Beijing. Because that's what happens 99%+ of the time. Therefore that is undoubtedly the most plausible solution.
OK, this is getting OT but we wouldn't be asking for a solution if it had done that as we'd know the solution. It didn't land in Beijing so we're asking what happened. IMO the simplest solution is what I proposed.
[quote=clubber ]It didn't land in Beijing
It also didn't keep flying "essentially straight" for several hours after the incident, so I reckon my solution is just about as plausible as yours.
IMO the simplest solution is what I proposed.
Except your opinion of what has happened has been overtaken by facts. So we know you opinion is wrong.
If it was suicide then why not keep flying for as long as you can?
One possible explanation is that it allows plenty of time for the cockpit voice recorder to erase everything (it only covers the last 2 hrs) so *if* the pilot has killed/incapacitated the co-pilot and/or the crew & passengers, he can sit there in silence for hours and the CVR will tell investigators absolutely nothing.
Even if there is an entirely innocent explanation (ie everyone overcome with smoke/fumes/zombies) the aircraft has continued flying as a "ghost plane" for hours - chances are there's sod all on the CVR.
If you assume deliberate pilot sabotage, it's been brilliantly done. Go offline at the exact moment you're on an international airspace boundary, confuse the radar then bugger off out the way to about the most remote location on the planet. Even if the crew & passengers are awake enough to realise what's going on they won't have mobile reception so can't let anyone know. All that's lacking is a motive although The Times today was saying that the pilot was deeply affected by the recent break up of his marriage.
aerial reconnaissance
does not equal satellite images. Aerial recon mostly involves the correlation of imagery with electromagnetic sensor data, such as radar, infra red, radio etc. So far Aerial recon has spotted very little of what the satellite images purport to show.
the difference is the satellite is looking straight down, from high altitude, and can effectively see deeper into the water, whereas the aircrew are looking at a chaotic ocean surface, churned up by strong winds, with light reflected off all over the place, white-caps on the wave tops confusing the eye. The satellite is seeing with the equivalent of a polaroid lens.
I'll give you that.
It still looks like waves though. The size of the objects found are proportional to the weather on the day...
"essentially straight"
I was referring to the latter part of the flightpath, not the whole of it.
Anyway, I still see it as the simplest solution, you may disagree. That's fine. We don't know. It's conjecture.
So how did they get to the "latter part" of the flightpath, which is hours after it went off the radar? Given a crew and aircraft capable of making all those turns and flying on for hours, why weren't they capable of contacting anybody? It would have to be an extremely specific fire to knock out just the comms systems (oh, and not satcom), but still allow control of the aircraft. Not so simple at all.
What is simple is that there was nothing wrong with the aircraft and it was all done deliberately. If you wanted to "disappear" with a large aircraft then you'd do exactly what they did. Missing an obvious motive is a far lesser hole than there is in any other theory - not given all the recorded instances of people doing weird and mad stuff "without a motive".
but still allow control of the aircraft. Not so simple at all.
But not enough control to attempt to land the plane.
The final turns are after they could have diverted to another landing strip to land the plane.
So the catestrophic series of events hypothesys relies on...
1) All comms being lost exactly on the boundary between Malaysia and Vietnam.
2) Depsite comms being lost (except Satcom) the pilots have enough control to enter a waymarked turn and climb to 40,000 ft.
3) The plane can then fly striaght for 1 hour and decend to 25,000 ft
4) During that hour it isn't possible for the pilots to commuincate in any way or try to land the plane.
5) After an hour the pilots have enough control to carry out two more waymarked turns but still no comms or no ability to try to land the plane.
6) Something unknown then needs to happen to ensure the plane makes at least one final turn but keeps flying.
7) Coincidentally the final direction of the plane is directly towards one of the most remote locations on earth. Fly in almost any other direction and it gets picked up on military radar.
Seems unlikely.
[quote=jfletch ]But not enough control to attempt to land the plane.
Good point. I'd forgotten about that bit.
All these theories people have which rely on a huge series of unlikely events appear to be because they are reluctant to consider the possibility of a person doing something a bit bonkers. Despite that being perfectly normal.
assuming it was the pilot
the flight crew/copilot must have been prevented from interfering in some way that adds more complexity to the suicidal pilot theory
[quote=kimbers ]assuming it was the pilot
the flight crew/copilot must have been prevented from interfering in some way that adds more complexity to the suicidal pilot theory
Not very much. Not given that even pilots sometimes need to use the toilet and the existence of anti-hijack cockpit doors.
If it was a hijack, by the pilot or a passenger, and the other cabin staff or passengers knew about it, wouldn't they have used their mobile phones to send messages? The plane flew back over Malaysia, so you would expect some signal to be available?
Maybe this was mentioned already but ... does the CVR have more than about the last 30 mins on it? If so, then I suppose it may well have nothing more interesting than the bonkers suicidal pilot humming to himself as he heads into oblivion ... ?
Not very much. Not given that even pilots sometimes need to use the toilet and the existence of anti-hijack cockpit doors.
but i thought the cockpit was on a code that the copilot at least also knows
robbespierre - Member
The plane flew back over Malaysia, so you would expect some signal to be available?
no signal at that height apparently
Apparently the CVR on 777s runs for 2 hours rather than 30 mins - unlikely to be of any more help though. Given modern technology there appears to be no reason why it wouldn't be possible to make one with a 24hr+ duration which would always capture the whole of a flight (it might be useful to know what was said for the whole flight even for more mundane crashes), but the technology actually in use dates to when the plane was designed, presumably due to the difficulty and expense of certifying stuff like this on aircraft. Not that it's likely to help at all if it can't be found.
[quote=robbespierre ]If it was a hijack, by the pilot or a passenger, and the other cabin staff or passengers knew about it, wouldn't they have used their mobile phones to send messages? The plane flew back over Malaysia, so you would expect some signal to be available?
I thought we'd done that one on this thread? Not much mobile signal at 30k ft when travelling at 600mph inside a metal box, even assuming you're anywhere near mobile coverage.
ha ha ninja edit.
Indeed - point still stands though.
too late to edit mine..
robbespierre » If it was a hijack, by the pilot or a passenger, and the other cabin staff or passengers knew about it, wouldn't they have used their mobile phones to send messages? The plane flew back over Malaysia, so you would expect some signal to be available?I thought we'd done that one on this thread? Not much mobile signal at 30k ft when travelling at 600mph inside a metal box, even assuming you're anywhere near mobile coverage.
Sorry. But there are 18 pages of this thread and I do have a job 🙂
[quote=toys19 ]
Not very much. Not given that even pilots sometimes need to use the toilet and the existence of anti-hijack cockpit doors.
I know aircraft engineeers and cabin crew, they all confirm that there is a way to open the door.
Really? Presumably not one that any potential hijackers know? Because security through obscurity is very highly rated.
The fact remains that the door is designed to be impossible to break down, so presumably you only have to disable the mechanism by which the door can be opened from the outside if you so inclined.
No reason why a mobile phone wouldn't work on a plane. 40,000ft is only 7 miles so well within the range capability of a mobile phone, so as long as you're flying over a network a mobile phone would work fine.
There cannot be a way to open the door from the outside, not while the aircraft is flying at least. Cabin crew always knock on the door for the pilots to open it from within when providing refreshments. They don't open the door themselves. Also in the Helios air crash the steward who woke up had to break the door down to get into the cockpit. It completely defeats the object for one of the cabin crew to have access. You may as well take the door off altogether.
Please stop talking about how to get past cockpit doors before somebody says something really stupid.
Mobiles don't work on aeroplanes at normal cruising altitudes.
Yes they do.
Film 4 just now is one of our aircraft is missing and movie mix showing termination point also about a missing aircraft.
:0
[quote=wobbliscott ]No reason why a mobile phone wouldn't work on a plane. 40,000ft is only 7 miles so well within the range capability of a mobile phone, so as long as you're flying over a network a mobile phone would work fine.
Except the radiation pattern of the masts doesn't point upwards, as that would waste a lot of power. Also as mentioned above there is the issue of speed creating doppler and sitting in a nice shielding metal tube.
There cannot be a way to open the door from the outside, not while the aircraft is flying at least. Cabin crew always knock on the door for the pilots to open it from within when providing refreshments. They don't open the door themselves. Also in the Helios air crash the steward who woke up had to break the door down to get into the cockpit. It completely defeats the object for one of the cabin crew to have access. You may as well take the door off altogether.
There was an interview in the Guardian the other day with a commercial pilot and stewardess. Both said you can open the doors from the outside. Post 9/11 they put in armoured doors which could only be opened from the inside. But when they realised this might be a problem (Helios, etc) they provided access via keypad. The pilot can override this, but there is still an emergency procedure available to open the door.
No reason why a mobile phone wouldn't work on a plane. 40,000ft is only 7 miles so well within the range capability of a mobile phone, so as long as you're flying over a network a mobile phone would work fine.
Apparently a mobile should be capable of reaching a mast up to 45 miles away, if it's CDMA, 22 if it's GSM, but of course, there has to be a mast of an appropriate network within those distances, and once the plane's left the coastline well behind, that's it, no towers at sea.
Except the radiation pattern of the masts doesn't point upwards, as that would waste a lot of power. Also as mentioned above there is the issue of speed creating doppler and sitting in a nice shielding metal tube.
A plane fuselage is not that attenuating e.g. you can easily make and receive calls whilst taxiing etc. Obviously you're right near a mast as they place them as close as possible to runways to try and get lucrative roaming traffic, as the older GSM phones used to roam to the strongest signal, hence all the operators competed to have the strongest signal by the runways.
UMTS (3G) can only cope with Doppler shifts up to about 250 km/hr which rules out cruising speed, but means when planes stack, you could make a call etc.
Apparently a mobile should be capable of reaching a mast up to 45 miles away, if it's CDMA, 22 if it's GSM
That's the limit of delay compensation rather than link budget. As mentioned before, mobile phone base station antennas radiate outwards and specifically not upwards (to maximise range) which means the link budget in the vertical range is much more limited, hence the range is much more limited.
Left hand side is elevation pattern:
[url= https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2835/13455487875_c798a4b65f.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2835/13455487875_c798a4b65f.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
the pilot wife left him the day before . they had separated for a while but were leaving under same roof .
Regardless of the mechanics of whether a mobile phone would or wouldn't work, the fact is that it was a night flight. By the time the flight went offline, I'm willing to bet that most passengers were asleep and won't have even noticed it going off course. When they woke up (if they ever did, assuming the aircraft was still pressurised), the plane will have been way out over the Indian Ocean and out of range of any signal at all.
[quote=footflaps ]A plane fuselage is not that attenuating e.g. you can easily make and receive calls whilst taxiing etc. Obviously you're right near a mast as they place them as close as possible to runways to try and get lucrative roaming traffic, as the older GSM phones used to roam to the strongest signal, hence all the operators competed to have the strongest signal by the runways.
Given the nearby base stations you mention, the fuselage could attenuate quite a lot and you still get a decent signal. I'd be surprised if there wasn't quite significant attenuation. It's just one small part though - the doppler and the radiation pattern of the base stations are more significant.
If the "facts" given out to the public so far are indeed true then one would have to assume pilot involvement for the reasons already discussed in these 18 pages.
Where are we up to with motivation though? Are there any theories besides "highly disturbed and suicidal"?
Was the possible lucrative patents gain by Lord Rothschild given any serious consideration (I can't find the page, sorry) or written off?
By the time the flight went offline, I'm willing to bet that most passengers were asleep and won't have even noticed it going off course
TBH, when you're on a long flight do you really have any idea where you are, even when you're over land?
Given the nearby base stations you mention, the fuselage could attenuate quite a lot and you still get a decent signal. I'd be surprised if there wasn't quite significant attenuation. It's just one small part though - the doppler and the radiation pattern of the base stations are more significant.
The Doppler mean it wouldn't work period much above 250 km/hr as the modem wouldn't achieve frequency lock, regardless of the signal strength.
If you're interested there are UMTS system which work for plane telemetry eg
They have to use extra HW to account for the excessive Doppler.
Was the possible lucrative patents gain by Lord Rothschild given any serious consideration (I can't find the page, sorry) or written off?
Sounds like usual anti-Semitic anti-reptilian bollocks. I'm a lowly office monkey who produces nothing of value and all my data is backed up twice.
Fair enough. So no other thoughts (besides deranged), however outrageous, as to possible motivation for a pilot to do what most seem to think happened?
Apparently it was orchestrated by the Israelis, as part of a plan to fabricate a lookalike plane and fly it into the Al Aqsa mosque.
According to a man on the internet.
Apparently if the latest estiamtes are correct, then the other "debris" sightings (that were dissed by a bloke on the internet, much to the chagrin of some other experts) are false..
The only place I'm aware of that will allow mobile phone calls at cruise altitudes and speeds is roughly a 50 mile radius NW of Athens, due I imagine to the topography and location of the masts.
Over the sea? No chance.