Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

Mountainsandh

urajoke wrote: »

About the only sensible post I have seen in about 3000 posts.

I can't wait to get our forum back.

With all due respect to all the regulars, "one thread doth not a forum make" .

If I'm in the Photography forum and a thread really bothers me... I stop looking at it. The only inconvenience is that it's always top of the page, but that's not even really an inconvenience, makes it easier to avoid.


Back on topic, CNN quoted this :

Adding to the intrigue, ABC News reported that the dramatic left turn was preprogrammed into the plane's navigation computer. It's a task that would have required extensive piloting experience to complete.

Finding it very hard to trust CNN info now.

I don't think a crash in the ocean is an obvious outcome now. The possible route and area within reach are so broad that a landing is a real possibility. More than 634 suitable airports within reach, that gives a pretty high chance of a landing, even on an older, less used or disused landing strip.

Calina

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Back on topic, CNN quoted this :

Finding it very hard to trust CNN info now.

Finding it very hard to trust any media now tbh.

2 stroke

dodzy wrote: »

What's really sad is the absence of the pilots/engineers that we're posting here from the outset. Great information on many things flight related and plausible scenarios given. Unfortunately "silly season" has well and truly sunk it's claws into what was an intriguing thread only a few days ago.

I think they got scarce after one of the regulars got a 2 day ban.

Growler!!!

2 stroke wrote: »

I think they got scarce after one of the regulars got a 2 day ban.

I think they got scarce having to repeat themselves every few pages cos people were too lazy to read all of the thread:D

Mountainsandh wrote: »

With all due respect to all the regulars, "one thread doth not a forum make" .

If I'm in the Photography forum and a thread really bothers me... I stop looking at it. The only inconvenience is that it's always top of the page, but that's not even really an inconvenience, makes it easier.

This is more likely to be the reason.

SpaceTime

I was just reading about the pilot's so called 'obsessive support' for Anwar Ibrahim. To me that would actually just point me towards the guy being a liberal rather than some kind of crazy character, but you could understand why he might have been very angry too though.

Anwar Ibrahim leads the opposition coalition in Malaysia which has been effectively a de facto one-party, very conservative state. It's had the same government since 1957.

His party did quite well in 2013 elections, and all of a sudden he got jailed for allegedly having sex with a male political aide (middle aged guy) i.e. Malaysia still has sodomy laws and homosexuality is illegal.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-16440290

But, I think before anyone jumps to conclusions about the pilot's political leanings, I think it's worth reading up on Malaysian politics. The implication that he's some kind of 'fanatic' could be

1) A blatant political manoeuvre by the Government to further smear the opposition (note the PM's involvement in the press conferences)

2) The amount of vague commentary around this would lead people to believe he's some kind of islamic fundamentalist or something like that. However, when you look at what he's supporting he seems to be more likely to be a political liberal seeking reform and change. That's not the kind of person you'd expect to commit suicide or to commit terror acts. It would, to me anyway show that he's got a very strong tie to humanistic / people-focused attitudes.

I would be very careful about just repeating what Aussi tabloids come out with! It looks like a very weakly researched story to me.

Malaysian politics is *VERY* complicated and there are political players directly involved in those press conferences. I would be hugely concerned that someone might be using this as an extension of a smear campaign. So, just read everything with your most cynical glasses on and question all assumptions.

Certainly, rule nothing out at this stage - but definitely don't jump to conclusions that aren't based on hard facts and evidence. Remember, this guy is a real person and has a wife, kids, family, friends, etc who may very well be reading and searching online and seeing his character being assassinated based on political conspiracy theorising.

The One Who Knocks

Jaybor wrote: »

The next theory I suppose will be
Lost
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0411008/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Well if you think about it....

:P

2 stroke

Growler!!! wrote: »

I think they got scarce having to repeat themselves every few pages cos people were too lazy to read all of the thread:D




This is more likely to be the reason.

Well, its the reason he got the ban anyway. Feel sorry for the guy, this was his regular forum and he was quite informative and patient for the first few days. Of course the mods are always right.

folbotcar

There are some seriously silly theories and ideas on this thread but to be fair it's not even the worst I've seen. The fact is that no one really knows unless they were involved in some way. The latest theory seems to be the only one that fits. Someone on the flightdeck switched off all communications and then flew away somewhere.

That leaves two scenarios one is that it ran out of fuel and ditched in which case we may never know because the person who turned off the ACARS will also know how to disable or wipe the FDR/CVR.

If they chose not to leave an explanation. Then that's it. We may never know even if they found the wreckage.

The second scenario is that it landed or crash landed somewhere remote. A small island perhaps?

This could easily remain as big a mystery as Amelia Earhart. Bigger indeed as we really know what happened to her. The only mystery in her case is where.

But for MH370 we have no clue as to the why or the where. We know how or we we think we do. But that's all.

My own silly theory is that it was a hijacking gone wrong. It reminds me of the Ethiopian flight that ditched after a hijacking. The hijackers wanted to fly somewhere which was out of range of the aircraft. The crew tried to convince them otherwise. In the end it ditched just off a beach out of fuel.

There is a chance we'll never know.

Flippyfloppy

Popescu wrote: »

It is extremely unusual for a pilot to built a flight simulator in his home, the only purpose of which is to practice landing at an unfamiliar airport.

Says who?

Flippyfloppy

Popescu wrote: »

Some theories are more plausible than others.


I suspect the United States already know its whereabouts but want it to be located in some conventional manner so as to maintain some confidentiality about.

That's an odd suspicion.

SpaceTime

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Says who?

Based on what I've seen on aviation forums, it would seem that aviation enthusiasts do this all the time and are often quite fascinated by learning about conditions at other airports, particularly ones with challenging terrain or unusual landing requirements.

There wouldn't really be anything very unusual about that if what I've been reading on various aviation forums over the last week is anything to go by!

Popescu wrote: »

I suspect the United States already know its whereabouts but want it to be located in some conventional manner so as to maintain some confidentiality about its capabilities.

Why would the USA do that? It makes no sense whatsoever to delaying finding the aircraft, no matter how they found it.

If they didn't want to reveal their intelligence gathering operations (and I don't think they've anything to reveal as they'd have found it by now if they had any kind of electronic tracking capability). Even if they did, all they have to do is say : Oh we spotted it on a satellite or from a high-flying reconnaissance aircraft.

The NTSB (US National Transport Safety Board), Boeing and also Rolls-Royce have a huge interest in finding this aircraft as soon as possible so they can rule out or correct any issues with the 777 design or the engines.

The conspiracy theories are really running wild on this at this stage.

To me, it just shows the limitations of current 'state of the art' navigation technology and the fact that we probably should have a GPS locator beacon that operates much more effectively than whatever they have a the moment. The technology can't be as expensive or complex as it was 30+ years ago when a lot of these systems were developed.

The simple reality of it is that the 'tracking systems' i.e. primary and secondary radar are navigation systems. They're not really capable of tracking a rogue aircraft that's flown way off established flight paths as they only provide coverage in / near those paths.

sopretty

So I see they are now focusing more on land than the ocean (25 countries involved - what a diplomatic nightmare to co-ordinate!). Also saw some official at the press conference stating that the plane could have been picked up by satellite while on land, provided the plane had electrical power. Hmmmm.......

Also refocusing on pilots/crew and now on ground staff associated with flight also.

Havent seen this posted, so sorry if it already was.

reports of possible debris /suitcases GREEK SHIP ON WAY TO INVESTIGATE




http://www.tovima.gr/society/article/?aid=577455

https://twitter.com/ThisDigitalLtd/status/445176117805056001

http://www.thetoc.gr/eng/news/article/greek-ship-looking-for-lost-plane-debris?rel=newsfeed1

SpaceTime

Jake1 wrote: »

Havent seen this posted, so sorry if it already was.

reports of possible debris /suitcases GREEK SHIP ON WAY TO INVESTIGATE




http://www.tovima.gr/society/article/?aid=577455

I have to say one thing though, Google Translate is giving us amazing access to foreign-language stories!

It's practically getting to the stage (at least for text) of the Universal Translator on Star Trek!

Imagine trying to quote a Greek newspaper 10+ years ago!

pfurey101

dodzy wrote: »

What's really sad is the absence of the pilots/engineers that we're posting here from the outset. Great information on many things flight related and plausible scenarios given. Unfortunately "silly season" has well and truly sunk it's claws into what was an intriguing thread only a few days ago.

Those in the industry know that to speculate is irrelevant and could be painful for the families and friends of those caught up in the incident. And painful for the work colleagues responsible for all aspects for the machine and flight.

They wait for the facts and then work to ensure that no similar incident will ever occure again.

The only thing I would say is that if the one (knowledgeable?) individual is hell bent on carrying out an atrocity - no safe or secure system anywhere could stop him/her.

SpaceTime

pfurey101 wrote: »

Those in the industry know that to speculate is irrelevant and could be painful for the families and friends of those caught up in the incident. And painful for the work colleagues responsible for all aspects for the machine and flight.

They wait for the facts and then work to ensure that no similar incident will ever occure again.

The only thing I would say is that if the one (knowledgeable?) individual is hell bent on carrying out an atrocity - no safe or secure system anywhere could stop him/her.

That's the thing though that I think we forget too. While this is a horrendous, and tragic incident in so many ways, we shouldn't lose perspective. Flying is still incredibly safe - this kind of thing is still very, very, very rare.

2 stroke

Yet another crazy theory strikes me.
Contact was lost around the time of switching atc. It's not imposible that the planes radio was hacked and that the pilot believed that he did switch to Vietnamese atc, and recieved a new set of instructions. These instructions could have come from a saboteur onboard the plane hacking into the communication system, meaning that no one on the ground or on other planes would hear the conversation.

SpaceTime

2 stroke wrote: »

Yet another crazy theory strikes me.
Contact was lost around the time of switching atc. It's not imposible that the planes radio was hacked and that the pilot believed that he did switch to Vietnamese atc, and recieved a new set of instructions. These instructions could have come from a saboteur onboard the plane hacking into the communication system, meaning that no one on the ground or on other planes would hear the conversation.

While anything's possible, it's so unlikely that you could safely rule it out entirely.

Aircraft radio uses quite powerful signals and external antennae that basically broadcast the signal. "hacking it" would be pretty much an impossibility and the hacker would be heard by ground control, military, amateur enthusiasts and other aircraft as the signals are analogue and not encrypted.

Hacking and hackers are becoming a bit of a buzz-word. Many of these systems are just not hackable because they're not computerised, not particularly complicated etc etc.

People seem to confuse safety critical systems with the internet. An aircraft doesn't run systems on computer systems that are online or remotely accessible. It's totally unlike your PC or Mac.

Some of the theories being put on this thread are bordering on the ridiculous at this stage. The idea that someone could hack an aircraft with a mobile device on board is about as implausible as you deciding to hack your dishwasher with an iPhone.
There's nothing to interface with / connect to!

The fact that a system contains computers and software does not mean that a 3rd party has any way of accessing them. Not everything is like your personal computer or the internet.

2 stroke

SpaceTime wrote: »

While anything's possible, it's so unlikely that you could safely rule it out entirely.

Aircraft radio uses quite powerful signals and external antennae that basically broadcast the signal. "hacking it" would be pretty much an impossibility and the hacker would be heard by ground control, military, amateur enthusiasts and other aircraft as the signals are analogue and not encrypted.

Hacking and hackers are becoming a bit of a buzz-word. Many of these systems are just not hackable because they're not computerised, not particularly complicated etc etc.

What I mean is hardwire hacking, by someone onboard the plane, and disconnect the antennae, not what is generally regarded as hacking nowadays.

Ace2007

irishmover wrote: »

I've done a search and couldn't find anyone reporting on '5k' compensation for families. More speculative bull****.

Maybe not compensation, but more condolence payment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370

http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/mas-cash-aid-snubbed-by-kin-of-chinese-aboard-mh370

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1445698/10-chinese-satellites-deployed-search-missing-plane

SpaceTime

2 stroke wrote: »

What I mean is hardwire hacking, by someone onboard the plane, and disconnect the antennae, not what is generally regarded as hacking nowadays.

They would have to seclude themselves very well in what is in reality a small space with not all that many places to hide and to do something like that and have pretty amazing acting skills and deep knowledge of the systems and the route.

Bear in mind that if the pilot flies this route regularly, he will probably know the ATC people in the various centres.

Giving a pilot an instruction to go way off course would also involve some serious explanation. They're not mindless robots flying aircraft nor are they military pilots expecting strange instructions. They'd be HUGELY suspicious of something like that.

All the pilot would have to do is switch frequency and the 'hacker' would become very obvious.

It's still very very implausible.

folbotcar

2 stroke wrote: »

Yet another crazy theory strikes me.

You're dead right, it is a crazy theory. The pilots would have had to give up all common sense and ignore all their training and experience to follow instructions that make no sense to them. Remember the Captain had 18000 hours.

People tend towards the idea these days that aircraft are controlled from the ground. They are not. The pilots fly the aircraft and ultimately make the decisions not some anonymous voice at the end of a radio. Beside as Spacetime says much of those systems are not hackable. Die Hard 2 has no basis in reality.

A far more straightforward plan would be to gain access to the cockpit, put a gun to the pilot's head and tell him what you want. No need for a high tech solution.

SpaceTime

Also, bear in mind that the pilot would be aware that the radio's an open channel. So, if someone were making strange requests, I think he'd be asking them to identify themselves and changing frequency or trying a different means of contacting the ground.

These guys aren't stupid and would be more aware of potential 'hacks' than anyone on here would be.

I mean, if it's one guy on board .. wouldn't the obvious request be to ask to speak to someone else? What's he going to do ? Ask the pilot to hold the line and put on a silly voice?!

Theory doesn't stack up at all.

2 stroke

SpaceTime wrote: »

Some of the theories being put on this thread are bordering on the ridiculous at this stage. The idea that someone could hack an aircraft with a mobile device on board is about as implausible as you deciding to hack your dishwasher with an iPhone.
There's nothing to interface with / connect to!

The fact that a system contains computers and software does not mean that a 3rd party has any way of accessing them. Not everything is like your personal computer or the internet.

I've worked with machinery (not aircraft), that reported operating conditions back to the manufacturer. All could be reprogrammed online, therefore hackable by someone with the right access.

SpaceTime

2 stroke wrote: »

I've worked with machinery (not aircraft), that reported operating conditions back to the manufacturer. All could be reprogrammed online, therefore hackable by someone with the right access.

That's precisely why that kind of machinery isn't used on aircraft, or in ultra-safety critical circumstances like chemical plant control systems where substances could cause a major environmental accident, nuclear power, etc etc.

The level of regulation around aviation equipment is ENORMOUS. These system are validated and revalidated by some of the most safety-concious organisations the world's ever seen.

Not only that, but various intelligence agencies and security agencies would be very much aware of what the risks are and wouldn't allow any such equipment to be used in those kinds of circumstances, particularly after 9/11 etc etc.

It's reasons like this why some of the systems on an aircraft are quite 'primitive' compared to what you might use in other contexts. You don't see lots of online systems or even particularly advanced computers. Everything's kept simple and easily validated.

It's also why they spend huge amounts of time and money validating every component. A new door handle can require massive amounts of testing, never mind a complex computer system.

This is the most risk adverse industry probably in the history of the world, other than maybe nuclear power.

2 stroke

I'm inclined to agree with yous. But for arguments sake, informing the pilot of a political situation in that area of the world, and a threat to his flight, and asking him to burn off most of his fuel before relanding at KL, would not be that unbelievable. Especially if you pulled some circuit breakers and disabled the antennae, preventing ground contact on orher channels.

HereIBe

http://www.bloomberg.com/infographics/2014-03-13/vanishing-planes-mapped-since-1948.html

theKillerBite

If MH370 took the southern corridor, would it not have been picked up by Australian radar?




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jindalee_Operational_Radar_Network

Why have they not released the full ATC transcript, we would then be able to work out who said "All right, goodnight"!!

2 stroke

SpaceTime wrote: »

That's precisely why that kind of machinery isn't used on aircraft, or in ultra-safety critical circumstances like chemical plant control systems where substances could cause a major environmental accident, nuclear power, etc etc.

I hate to disapoint you, but I worked in such an industrial plant. Those pings to Immarsat came as no suprise to me & I'll bet that Boeing can tweak those engines in the air. I wouldn't be suprised if every electronic device on those planes would be programmed to look for updates regularly.

pfurey101

2 stroke wrote: »

I hate to disapoint you, but I worked in such an industrial plant. Those pings to Immarsat came as no suprise to me & I'll bet that Boeing can tweak those engines in the air. I wouldn't be suprised if every electronic device on those planes would be programmed to look for updates regularly.

If Boeing made engines.

The last time I checked - Airbus flight computers update software by changing a card or on a workbench in the workshop - if you are rich enough to have your own Advanced Test Equipment.

Any change to any aircraft component needs to be planned as a job of work, then scheduled, then the component needs to be changed by a licensed engineer with all work recorded against the component and/or the aircraft.