Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

SpaceTime

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.

I hate to disappoint you, but what you've experienced in an industrial plant has absolutely no bearing on what goes on in the aviation sector.
Generic industrial components are not used - Every detail is validated and re-validated and then validated some more to the point of almost being OCD.

I'd be pretty shocked if Boeing were tweaking Rolls-Royce engines without either the manufacture or airline's permission or knowledge too, over a secret and unknown communication channel.
I'd say Boeing would be pretty horrified themselves too.

Literally every last rivet on an aircraft has to be approved and would be fully known about by the various regulatory bodies in different countries. FAA being the most obvious one but there are also European equivalents here that are equally thorough.

HereIBe

ozzy jr

theKillerBite wrote: »

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

Can someone explain how it's one of two flight corridors? What exactly does a satellite pick up that gives them that kind of information?

These satellites cost 100's of millions or even billions to put up in the sky, and the best they can come up with is, "it's somewhere along the red line".

SpaceTime

ozzy jr wrote: »

Can someone explain how it's one of two flight corridors? What exactly does a satellite pick up that gives them that kind of information?

These satellites cost 100's of millions or even billions to put up in the sky, and the best they can come up with is, "it's somewhere along the red line".

All it knows is the signal strength. They can't triangulate it as they've only one satellite above the area.

So, based on how much fuel the plane had and how far it could fly and the signal strength from the satellite, they can work out that corridor.

GPS would use the signal strength to 3 sats.

A Primal Nut

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.

There is no way Boeing or Rolls Royce can make software changes while the plane is in the air. That would be insane.

Airplanes cannot be controlled remotely, only by someone in the cockpit, making them unhackable.

TimeToShine

ozzy jr wrote: »

Can someone explain how it's one of two flight corridors? What exactly does a satellite pick up that gives them that kind of information?

These satellites cost 100's of millions or even billions to put up in the sky, and the best they can come up with is, "it's somewhere along the red line".

Satellites (namely GPS) works based on triangulation, so the plane sends a signal to these satellites and then based on the satellites position in the sky and the position of the plane you can determine the location of the plane. In this case there's only one satellite so they can't triangulate its position very accurately, they can only give a rough estimate and an assumed trajectory.

SpaceTime

You can basically tell how far away from the satellite it was, that's all. So, it's accurate in one dimension only which is why you've got a curved trajectory along a path.

It's still better than nothing though.

NicoleL88

Just spent the last hour catching up with this thread. I have a few days off work and haven been glued to the news and internet for the last 24 hours! This story is absolutely fascinating and I really hope the families receive some closure soon, this must be hell for them.

All the theories (conspiracy or not) are really fascinating to read so thanks to everyone who is throwing in their two cents.

andy_g

Jaybor wrote: »

This thread is now just like all the property threads.
Full of ideas and pulling quotes off this and that source and pretending that posting some idea means that you are somehow knowledgeable.
When actually they are nothing of the sort.
Just like all the people in the property threads who actually did seem to know something about economics have left those threads, so have the pilots and aviation workers here.
Best leave it now til there is hard evidence to say what happened.

Post off topic like this again and your gone. Read the warning in post one.

wretcheddomain

urajoke wrote: »

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

Jesus this topic is a bit like watching Sky news, every theory that could possibly have been dragged up just so that someone can turn around later on and say they thought of it first.

Reality check folks: the captain/copilot did it, it's at the bottom of the sea and we may never know exactly what happened, yes they will find debris but probably not for many months until some fisherman drags it up in his nets.

I can't wait to get our forum back.

This is probably the least sensible post I've seen in about 3,000 posts.

You condemn all the posters for coming up with "theories", when in fact they are "hypotheses", and then provide your own "theory" which just happens to be something that many other posters have written.

Moreover, this is not your forum, and I've never seen anyone claim a forum. This is a forum for all ideas and not reserved for a select few opinions.

It's bordering lunacy that such an ironic post exists for which there is equally little evidence.

I welcome every post that comes across here as even disproving a post helps to increase the knowledge of others.

theKillerBite

HereIBe wrote: »

To turn off the transponder, I think you just need to turn the TCAS dial to the off position. No need to touch the circuit breakers.

Wanderer2010

Since it came out that the transponder etc was turned off on purpose, the focus seems to be entirely on the captain and the co pilot and the 2 or 3 people with the fake passports- what about everyone else? Ruling out the 2 kids, its not a stretch to say that a person with hitherto zero criminal convictions could be an extremist, and possibly working in connection with a fellow terrorist to plan this out for years. How many of the other passengers knew each other, what was their background, etc etc. To focus only on the captain seems very narrow minded. After all, nothing can be ruled out at this stage, including some of that manifesto being very dodgy..

Spanish Eyes

theKillerBite wrote: »

To turn off the transponder, I think you just need to turn the TCAS dial to the off position. No need to touch the circuit breakers.

God that looks so easy to do. Even I could do it!

Is it prone to being accidentally switched to the off position I wonder? Not saying prof pilots would be careless like that, but in an emergency situation with lots of things going on?

Surely there must be more to it than turning a knob?

Does an alarm sound when it's switched off?

theKillerBite

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

God that looks so easy to do. Even I could do it!

Is it prone to being accidentally switched to the off position I wonder? Not saying prof pilots would be careless like that, but in an emergency situation with lots of things going on?

Surely there must be more to it than turning a knob?

Does an alarm sound when it's switched off?

Pilots turn it off after they land, so it's just a normal dial with no alarm sounds etc.

Malaysia Air: When A Transponder Gets Switched Of…: http://youtu.be/OatVLcG8YLw

Flippyfloppy

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Since it came out that the transponder etc was turned off on purpose, the focus seems to be entirely on the captain and the co pilot and the 2 or 3 people with the fake passports- what about everyone else? Ruling out the 2 kids, its not a stretch to say that a person with hitherto zero criminal convictions could be an extremist, and possibly working in connection with a fellow terrorist to plan this out for years. How many of the other passengers knew each other, what was their background, etc etc. To focus only on the captain seems very narrow minded. After all, nothing can be ruled out at this stage, including some of that manifesto being very dodgy..

Background information on all passengers has been requested from their countries of origin- some countries had not responded as of this am.

bladebrew

I'm nearly afraid to post here!
I have seen some crazy theories alright but people are being told no that's not possible when it is,
Here's a fridge sending spam E-mail
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21594955-when-internet-things-misbehaves-spam-fridge

The bit about nuclear systems and chemical plants not being hacked
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet
Stuxnet managed to get into a nuclear plant AND damage it,

And on this flight the hijackers were so stupid they forced the pilot to keep flying until the plane ran out of fuel
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_961

I'm not saying anything like this happened but things being dismissed have actually happened before!
And I don't get the locals only vibe on here, even people with years of experience in aviation don't know what happened!

sopretty

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Background information on all passengers has been requested from their countries of origin- some countries had not responded as of this am.

Yes, further to this, one of the spokespeople went on to say that while the countries themselves hadn't all responded, 'foreign military agencies' have confirmed that they have run a check on all passengers (presumably CIA or Interpol?)

jasonb

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

God that looks so easy to do. Even I could do it!

Is it prone to being accidentally switched to the off position I wonder? Not saying prof pilots would be careless like that, but in an emergency situation with lots of things going on?

Surely there must be more to it than turning a knob?

Does an alarm sound when it's switched off?

Yep, it's that easy to turn off a transponder. But you do have to know

A) That there's such a thing as a transponder and what it does and

Where to find it in the cockpit (you'll notice it doesn't have 'transponder' printed on it)

Obviously, if the pilot / co-pilot (and I do say 'if') are involved in this incident, they'd know what they're doing. If someone else took control, they'd not only have to know how to turn off the transponder (I'm a private pilot and if I found the transponder I'd know how to turn it off), but also how to fly the aircraft (I wouldn't have a notion!).

J.

Duiske

lintdrummer wrote: »

Yes it can be set to manual in flight. No it wouldn't result in decompression; strictly speaking. I'm not familiar with the 777 but the manual function would be coupled with a cabin altitude input. Normally the cabin altitude would be automatically set to around 8500ft, a comfortable level. In manual mode it can be set to any altitude and above 10000ft things get bad in terms of supply of oxygen to the brain and ability to remain conscious.
I said strictly speaking above because you could possibly set cabin altitude to cruise altitude which would effectively depressurise the aircraft but it wouldn't be sudden "explosive" decompression.
Decompression in general will have a greater affect the higher the aircraft is because the pressure difference with ambient will be greater.

Thanks. The reason I ask is that I'm wondering if the pilot could possibly have somehow subdued the co-pilot, or locked him out of the cockpit, and then set the pressure to a high level in order to induce hypoxia in everyone else on the plane. Its already been said on this thread that the cockpit has more time on oxygen through masks than the cabin, think its 2hr supply for cockpit, but only15 mins for cabin.
A suicidal pilot could have done this, then set a course with auto-pilot to somewhere the plane had no hope of reaching and would result in it running out of fuel over the ocean. He could either then have removed his mask at any point and slipped into unconsiousness, or sat there for 2 hours contemplating life until his supply ran out, with the same result. Hypoxia would be an easy way to commit suicide, just like drifting off to sleep. Perhaps he realised that if he wanted to commit suicide this way he would have no choice but to take his passengers with him, but wanted to avoid staying on course and having the plane come down in a populated area ? Could the increase in altitude to 45,000 at one point have been to induce hypoxia quicker because some of those in the cabin, realising what was happening, were attempting to break into the cockpit ?
Turning off comms and transponder could have been in order to avoid confrontation with military.

sopretty

Duiske wrote: »

Thanks. The reason I ask is that I'm wondering if the pilot could possibly have somehow subdued the co-pilot, or locked him out of the cockpit, and then set the pressure to a high level in order to induce hypoxia in everyone else on the plane. Its already been said on this thread that the cockpit has more time on oxygen through masks than the cabin, think its 2hr supply for cockpit, but only15 mins for cabin.
A suicidal pilot could have done this, then set a course with auto-pilot to somewhere the plane had no hope of reaching and would result in it running out of fuel over the ocean. He could either then have removed his mask at any point and slipped into unconsiousness, or sat there for 2 hours contemplating life until his supply ran out, with the same result. Hypoxia would be an easy way to commit suicide, just like drifting off to sleep. Perhaps he realised that if he wanted to commit suicide this way he would have no choice but to take his passengers with him, but wanted to avoid staying on course and having the plane come down in a populated area ? Could the increase in altitude to 45,000 at one point have been to induce hypoxia quicker because some of those in the cabin, realising what was happening, were attempting to break into the cockpit ?
Turning off comms and transponder could have been in order to avoid confrontation with military.

You're talking about murder/suicide here. Much rarer than suicide.

Spanish Eyes

jasonb wrote: »

Yep, it's that easy to turn off a transponder. But you do have to know

A) That there's such a thing as a transponder and what it does and

Where to find it in the cockpit (you'll notice it doesn't have 'transponder' printed on it)

Obviously, if the pilot / co-pilot (amd I do say 'if') are involved in this incident, they'd know what they're doing. If someone else took control, they'd not only have to know how to turn off the transponder (I'm a private pilot and if I found the transponder I'd know how to turn it off), but also how to fly the aircraft (I wouldn't have a notion!).

J.

All the same, given the photo and the information available on the web, everyone now knows where the transponder is and what it looks like.

And how easy it is to turn it off.

A bit unsettling, to say the least.

cml387

There is a body of evidence for pilot suicide, and they have already been mentioned in this thread (Silk Air and Egyptair).

In both cases there was a sudden descent and crash.
I just cannot see how a suicidal pilot would prolong the agony by flying on for hours. It makes no sense.

Captain Chaos

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

All the same, given the photo and the information available on the web, everyone now knows where the transponder is and what it looks like.

And how easy it is to turn it off.

A bit unsettling, to say the least.

Anyone who want to know that info can get it anyway. No big deal really. PC flight sims on the market for the past 10 years or so have fully modeled 3D cockpits with most of the switches and system are fully interactive and very close to the real thing with some of the high end end highly detailed addon pack.

andy_g

cml387 wrote: »

I just cannot see how a suicidal pilot would prolong the agony by flying on for hours. It makes no sense.

Too make it look like an accident.

Growler!!!

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

All the same, given the photo and the information available on the web, everyone now knows where the transponder is and what it looks like.

And how easy it is to turn it off.

A bit unsettling, to say the least.

But. What you won't find is how to get thought the locked cockpit door:)

Flippyfloppy

Duiske wrote: »

Thanks. The reason I ask is that I'm wondering if the pilot could possibly have somehow subdued the co-pilot, or locked him out of the cockpit, and then set the pressure to a high level in order to induce hypoxia in everyone else on the plane. Its already been said on this thread that the cockpit has more time on oxygen through masks than the cabin, think its 2hr supply for cockpit, but only15 mins for cabin.
A suicidal pilot could have done this, then set a course with auto-pilot to somewhere the plane had no hope of reaching and would result in it running out of fuel over the ocean. He could either then have removed his mask at any point and slipped into unconsiousness, or sat there for 2 hours contemplating life until his supply ran out, with the same result. Hypoxia would be an easy way to commit suicide, just like drifting off to sleep. Perhaps he realised that if he wanted to commit suicide this way he would have no choice but to take his passengers with him, but wanted to avoid staying on course and having the plane come down in a populated area ? Could the increase in altitude to 45,000 at one point have been to induce hypoxia quicker because some of those in the cabin, realising what was happening, were attempting to break into the cockpit ?
Turning off comms and transponder could have been in order to avoid confrontation with military.

Mass murder or suicide?

This scenario would mean the pilot stood welcoming all these hopeful, excited and happy passengers inboard, including two infants, will full intents to fly them to their deaths. Doesn't even bear thinking about.

Spanish Eyes

Growler!!! wrote: »

But. What you won't find is how to get thought the locked cockpit door:)

Sorry, that made me smile. :pac:

Tea breaks, toilet breaks, are all chinks in the armour I would have thought.

A cabin crew standing outside is not enough now..... Maybe. I always wondered about the flight crew leaving for comfort breaks, and the opportunity for those who may want to rush in.

Duiske

sopretty wrote: »

You're talking about murder/suicide here. Much rarer than suicide.

Mass murder or suicide?

This scenario would mean the pilot stood welcoming all these hopeful, excited and happy passengers inboard, including two infants, will full intents to fly them to their deaths. Doesn't even bear thinking about.

Rare, but pilots have done it before.

SilkAir Flight 185.

Edit : Probably more accurate to says its suspected that it has occured before.

Xpro

Now the US suspects that plane could have landed somewhere and it could possibly be turned into a cruise missile ( loaded with bombs) for future attacks.

Flippyfloppy

Xpro wrote: »

Now the US suspects that plane could have landed somewhere and it could possibly be turned into a cruise missile ( loaded with bombs) for future attacks.

Link?