Missing Malaysian Aircraft – is it possible…

Home Forum Chat Forum Missing Malaysian Aircraft – is it possible…

Viewing 45 posts - 271 through 315 (of 773 total)
  • Missing Malaysian Aircraft – is it possible…
  • konabunny
    Member

    On thing to remember is the passengers should have had their mobiles turned off as they were on a plane. There may be a few who left them on silent.

    I reckon ten or twenty percent would have had them on.

    Premier Icon theotherjonv
    Subscriber

    someone always forgets to turn off, despite the announcements.

    Premier Icon kimbers
    Subscriber

    do phones still ping towers in airplane mode?
    and im sure plenty of people forgot/ didnt want to turn them off

    andyl
    Member

    oh and to answer a previous question no it’s not really possible to de-pressurise the cabin but not the cockpit. The doors are reinforced after 9-11 but not strong enough for that. The pilots would just wear their masks.

    Cabin air is 10-15 minutes, not sure about cockpit if it is different. I was sure is was in case there is a windscreen failure and even at low altitude the pilots would need masks due to the speed of the air. Should the main air supply fail and the decent takes longer than normal they obviously need to survive and stay awake to give the passengers any hope.

    andyl
    Member

    I reckon ten or twenty percent would have had them on.

    most likely yes.

    Yep, as above, lots of phones would still have been on. Internal flights I’ve taken in Asia have been quite an eye opener with people using their phones pretty openly once in range of land.

    toys19
    Member

    i fly the same domestic route weekly, 4 flights a week. Loads of people leave their phones on. Especially Iphones..

    emsz
    Member

    Seeing as everyone else is guessing….

    Remember a few weeks ago there was a massive stabbing knife terrorist attack in China? Well it was in Kunming, look it up on a map… Yeah?

    Chinese aren’t saying anything are they? They busy blaming Malaysia for all this, I think they shot it down. That’s why there’s no radar no trace, it was hijacked by Chinese terrorists and china ‘sorted’ it

    It’s a rubbish theory

    pondo
    Member

    can you depressurise the passenger cabin and retain pressure in cockpit?

    Further to this, it seems like whatever was done, was well planned – I don’t think it would need the two to be seperate, just the planning to have a supply of oxygen to hand. Then you lower the cabin pressure, and so what if the masks drop? That’ll keep them awake for another ten or fifteen minutes while you make soothing noises over the intercom about “nothing to worry about, just descending now, flight proceeding as normal”, and as long as you’re out of phone range no-one will be any the wiser.

    I think we can discount an actual cabin pressure incident, but it has happened – chills my blood to think about the last few minutes of the cabin attendant… 🙁

    toys19
    Member

    DavidB that is ace!

    Premier Icon Fantombiker
    Subscriber

    question for you clever people…The satellite data (IMSAT?) shows the time the airplane was moving (?). We know that there are 2 arcs, with 2 corridors. So, knowing the plane and the factors related to its speed, fuel load, its precise position should be able to be calculated??? There will be two alternatives on each arc? Or am I being stupid?

    Premier Icon kimbers
    Subscriber

    they dont know the speed, hence the arcs

    Premier Icon midlifecrashes
    Subscriber

    they dont know the speed, hence the arcs

    Or the direction, either at the point of the ping, or subsequently.

    toys19
    Member

    could have made smaller changes in direction many times, and altitude, massivly affecting fuel use. So there has to be a min and max distance. I am so struck by DavidB’s post it seems dead convincing. Here it is again, take a read.

    IHN
    Member

    This is probably going over old ground, but it still seems astonishing to me that it’s even possible to turn off the transponder on a commercial aircraft. Whay would this functionality be available? I’me pretty sure that if I owned an airline which ran lots of very, very expensive planes, I’d want to know where they all were, all of the time…

    andyl
    Member

    everything is on a breaker.

    Would be a bit silly to have an electrical system not on a breaker and then lose an aircraft due to an electrical fire that could have been avoided.

    I agree IHN ^^ trucks and vans can’t turn off the satnav transponders they have so how coe aeroplanes can? I do think the theory linked baove that the missing plane shadowed another is quite credible. The question remains why? and what happened to all the people?

    EDIT: But shirley they would be on seperate breakers and therefore not able to turn both off similtanously?

    Premier Icon crazy-legs
    Subscriber

    This is probably going over old ground, but it still seems astonishing to me that it’s even possible to turn off the transponder on a commercial aircraft. Whay would this functionality be available?

    Every electrical system has cut offs and safety breakers. If it malfunctions, there needs to be a way of shutting it down before it causes any problems.

    Under normal circumstances, you’d just put out an alert call to say that your transponder is offline and identify yourself by other means, the whole point being that you have several redundant backups. But then if you turn those off too…

    Premier Icon mangoridebike
    Subscriber

    That link from DavidB seems fairly believable to my uneducated mind

    Premier Icon peteimpreza
    Subscriber

    They need to turn them off at airports otherwise the systems would be overwhelmed by signals from active transponders on the ground.

    IHN
    Member

    Ah, gotcha. Every day is a school day.

    andyl
    Member

    and the the airport thing. Imagine what a radar screen would look like at Heathrow if they couldn’t turn them off.

    Duffer
    Member

    Edit – beaten to it.

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    mangoridebike wrote:

    That link from DavidB seems fairly believable to my uneducated mind

    I see several people making similar comments. It does look good – apart from a couple of points. Military radar isn’t that rubbish – it would be possible to distinguish two 777s flying in close formation, unless they were literally right on top of each other. It would be almost impossible to fly them in close enough formation to evade detection – they’re not designed to be flown in close formation and the vortices generated by one aircraft would make keeping station in another one (which isn’t designed for that sort of control) pretty much impossible. Remember it was also night which wouldn’t exactly make it any easier.

    The issue about the oxygen has largely already been covered – from what I’ve read the passenger supply is 10-12 minutes chemically generated, and the aircrew have a totally separate system with considerably longer duration fed from a bottle. Also some suggestion that the aircraft was taken over 40,000ft – higher than normal, and a height at which the unpressurised oxygen supply for passengers wouldn’t have been sufficient to maintain consciousness (even with pure oxygen the partial pressure would have been insufficient). So it does seem possible the passengers were deliberately taken out before passing over land.

    toys19
    Member

    Military radar isn’t that rubbish – it would be possible to distinguish two 777s flying in close formation, unless they were literally right on top of each other. It would be almost impossible to fly them in close enough

    I dont think so, at 30km the angular resolution of radar is about 600m. I heard a radar dude on R4 talking about it lunch time. Secondly, the countries it flew over probably don’t have the kit like the ‘mericans do.
    Typical search radars often do not resolve objects less than 1000m apart.
    The only things that can resolve that well are weapons radars and they won’t be deployed as typical skywatch type things.

    andyl
    Member

    I was finding it hard to believe but maybe it was just an elaborate robbery rather than terrorism.

    For the plane or maybe for something in the hold?

    If it did land without killing the passengers through hypoxia then 230 people is a lot to feed and provide facilities for for 10 days 🙁

    Premier Icon crazy-legs
    Subscriber

    I was finding it hard to believe but maybe it was just an elaborate robbery rather than terrorism.

    For the plane or maybe for something in the hold?

    Bit impractical to steal a whole plane though. Since you can’t really sell it, about the only reason you’d want to steal a whole plane is to turn it into some kind of flying bomb which is a pretty terrifying thought. Even then it’s more elaborate than it needs to be – you’ve got the whole hassle of landing it, hiding it, refuelling it and then taking off again on a suicide mission – whereas you can skip steps 1-3 by just doing a 9/11.

    I guess something in the hold is plausible but it would have to be worth a hell of a lot to pull off what is looking like an extremely well planned and very elaborate game of hide-and-seek. If the theory that DavidB posted is halfway correct, that’s an incredible bit of flying in a commercial jet to run what is basically an intercept at night without radar or ATC vectoring you onto the target.

    Premier Icon kimbers
    Subscriber

    edward2000’s link is more plausible than davidB’s by a considerable margin
    but the fact that the fire happened conveniently as the planes was transferring from malaysian to vietnamese airspace seems a bit far fetched to me

    occams razor would suggest that it was the pilot/hijacker who turned off the transponders, turned the plane left and flew off south to ditch in the sea?

    edward2000
    Member

    The trouble with the hijack scenarios is, why go to all the effort to land, hide, refuel and take off on towards their target, as opposed to taking control of the plane and just going straight on to the target. The latter is much easier.

    rkk01
    Member

    That last link doesn’t seem to tally as well as the “intercept theory” link*. That looked scarily plausible… and hypothetically stacks up with the pilot having an elaborate flight sim at home (former flight sim user wondering out loud why a very experienced captain, presumably with works paid for access to state of the art simulators, would need a home made set up…)

    ETA *. Because of the satellite ping data

    tyger
    Member

    Not sure if it’s been mentioned but I’ve heard that the plane may have been carrying something very valuable and that it was a robbery but not for the plane – Thunderball but not for a nuclear weapon. Just a rumour of course??

    Premier Icon crazy-legs
    Subscriber

    Not sure if it’s been mentioned but I’ve heard that the plane may have been carrying something very valuable and that it was a robbery but not for the plane – Thunderball but not for a nuclear weapon. Just a rumour of course??

    I think the problem here is the media, especially the rolling news channels wanting something, anything to talk about therefore coming up with ever more impractical or implausible scenarios so they can drag in some “expert” to interview and pull in the viewing figures.

    The best thing the media could do now is to butt out of it and stop with the wild speculation…

    bikebouy
    Member

    I, like many others, have only watched the news updates. There seem to be many theories and plausible speculation yet I find one aspect missing, Chinese or American military comments.
    Is it possible they know what/where this plane was heading and took action against it, or perhaps are dumbing down knowledge because the truth about its whereabouts is perhaps too disturbing for us to hear??

    Either way this is a very sad and confusing mystery 😐

    dantsw13
    Member

    The chap in Edward2000’s link isn’t quite as knowledgable as he thinks. I’m a current 777 pilot, and some of what he says is plain wrong. I won’t go into specifics, but IMHO he isn’t the authoritative figure he claims.

    butcher
    Member

    What I don’t understand (though I’m sure there’s a logical explanation for it), is for less than £100 I can buy a device for my bike which will tell me exactly where I am, accurate to within a few feet.

    Assuming any such device on an aircraft would be protected from any kind of human interference (would seem sensible – though hindsight is always a great thing), is it just a case of insufficient satellite coverage over the ocean, or difficulties in sending the signal back to base?

    I’d like to think the passengers and crew are still alive, but I reckon it’s much more likely the plane has gone down for whatever reason and our imaginations have gone wild with the lack of information. Something we’re not used to in the information age.

    Premier Icon Tiger6791
    Subscriber

    Found It!

    https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5223891,-0.126281,229m/data=!3m1!1e3

    Why did nobody notice it in Russell Sq?

    (Sat View)

    Premier Icon Tiger6791
    Subscriber

    What I don’t understand (though I’m sure there’s a logical explanation for it), is for less than £100 I can buy a device for my bike which will tell me exactly where I am, accurate to within a few feet.

    Civil plane’s tech works on the fundamental assumption it wants to be found, bit of an oversight really. But it’s all ‘look I’m here’ tech.

    Switch the ‘look I’m here’ off and your buggered

    The chap in Edward2000’s link isn’t quite as knowledgable as he thinks. I’m a current 777 pilot, and some of what he says is plain wrong. I won’t go into specifics, but IMHO he isn’t the authoritative figure he claims.

    Are you Malaysian have you borrowed a plane recently and if so what’s the biking like where you are

    rkk01
    Member

    The pilot writing in the link provided by edward2000 reads as very “analogue era”, if that makes sense…?

    Rockhopper
    Member

    The transponder isn’t intended to be like a GPS tracker for a stolen car – its just so the aircraft can be identified by ATC when its flying in controlled airspace.

    Premier Icon richmtb
    Subscriber

    It was the co-pilot.

    Turns out he was a bit of a shagger, this has been used to coerce him and he hijacked the plane.

    What happened once he had hijacked it is the mystery

    globalti
    Member

    This is the most reasoned, sensible explanation I’ve seen, especially as there’s precedent for this kind of incident:

    https://plus.google.com/106271056358366282907/posts/GoeVjHJaGBz

Viewing 45 posts - 271 through 315 (of 773 total)

The topic ‘Missing Malaysian Aircraft – is it possible…’ is closed to new replies.