Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

A Primal Nut

kippy wrote: »

There were at least 4 calls made from planes on a mobile device in my recollection - so networks most certainly did allow calls from planes in certain situations. I may have been mistake on the texts as I cant find a record of them at the moment.
Point still stands - do you take the chance?

Well if its just a rogue pilot he has no choice only take the chance. It's not like he can ask the flight attendants to take phones off people!

If he knew how to avoid radar for much of the journey he probably has a good idea of how to avoid mobile signals - by flying at high altitudes and avoiding densely populated areas. It would be quite simple.

He is already taking a chance by diverting a plane, turning off transponder etc. There are plenty of other risks he has taken, the idea that a passenger might pick up a mobile signal is one of the easier risks to avoid. Doesn't prove there was more than one person involved at all.

booth70

ABC101 wrote: »

I wonder is there any other military radar other than Malaysia which has picked up the plane?

If India control the Nicobar islands.. they probably would have a military set there. If MH370 flew south west out past Rondo... did the Indonesians pick up anything on their military sets?

India has a naval base in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands......you would think that their radar there would have picked up anything unusual

pugsnotdrugs13

A confirmed hijacking? http://m.perthnow.com.au/news/world/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-traced-seven-hours-after-it-went-missing-as-hijacking-becomes-more-likely/story-fnhrvhol-1226855315871

theKillerBite

Youd suspect that if it was just one of the pilots who went rogue, he wouldn't have been able to control the rest of the plane. Surely the passengers and particularly the flight attendants would have suspected something was up (travelling over water for hours). How did he get away with it for hours without the rest of the plane beating down the door??

K.Flyer

By having other people involved and a couple of machine guns hidden away etc etc.
It now seems to be a very elaborate hi-jack and the possibility of the pilot being involved looks more likely.
I wonder what they will find after searching his house.

Police began searching the home of the pilot of the missing Malaysia Airlines flight this morning, after the country's prime minister confirmed the plane was suspected to have been deliberately diverted.             Police officers arrived at the home of the captain, 53-year-old Zaharie Ahmad Shah, shortly after Prime Minister Najib Razak ended a news conference on the search for the missing plane.

pugsnotdrugs13

Regarding fuel; There was some documentary about ryanairs safety but one of the points was the amount of fuel for the journey is entirely up to the captain, and if they take over the amount of flying time + like 30 minutes of extra time as a reserve they must explain why. All captains fuel usage is recorded and Ryanair have some list that grades the captains on their fuel usage, like a rewards scheme.

Now Malaysia Airlines probably doesn't have the internal competition between captains, but surely it can tell us at the very least how much fuel the Captain of MH370 took?

Peter Flynt

theKillerBite wrote: »

Youd suspect that if it was just one of the pilots who went rogue, he wouldn't have been able to control the rest of the plane. Surely the passengers and particularly the flight attendants would have suspected something was up (travelling over water for hours). How did he get away with it for hours without the rest of the plane beating down the door??

It was the middle of the night

H3llR4iser

SpaceTime wrote: »

In that case, then nothing useful must have been found, or at least nothing useful that they're discussing anyway.

I think a lot of people are vastly overestimating the transmission capabilities of mobile phone handsets too though. They are only capable of producing at an absolute maximum about 1 Watt of transmitted energy and mostly operate at fractions of this level and they're broadcasting on the upper end of UHF and some new systems very low end of microwave frequencies., not HF or VHF like aircraft radio. Mobiles operate typically on 800-2100MHz mostly at 900MHz as the de facto GSM 2G standard.

We're normally using them in nearly line of sight coverage within 1km or maybe up to 5km max of a transmitter site.

You can pick up networks at sea sometimes but that's in ideal conditions when you're standing on the deck of a ship and the transmitter's on the coast somewhere. You're on the ground, and you're not standing in the middle of a fuselage which will act more like a faraday cage, blocking signal reception. Even picking up signals on a train can be tricky sometimes for similar reasons.

The satellite pings are far more likely to reveal some helpful information.

This. I don't understand why people suggest to "track the passengers mobile phones"; At 35.000+ feet, they simply have no reception whatsoever in most cases - try to "forget" to switch your off, and see if you get any reception at cruise altitude. And mind you, this happens in the middle of densely populated Europe, go figure over a stretch of sea.

pugsnotdrugs13

In addition to my last post, (apologies) we obviously know now how much he took to be able to fly for hours upon hours BUT did he give an explanation? Why did he take so much? SURELY this must have been questioned?

bohsboy

Regarding the plane turning around, I have limited flight knowledge but I would be aware and concerned as a passenger if there was such a big deviation in our travelling direction. Surely the cabin crew would have realised this too.

Passengers must have been kept at bay by guns or a threat to explode a "bomb" if they attempted to rush the flight deck.

Happyman42

bohsboy wrote: »

Regarding the plane turning around, I have limited flight knowledge but I would be aware and concerned as a passenger if there was such a big deviation in our travelling direction. Surely the cabin crew would have realised this too.

Passengers must have been kept at bay by guns or a threat to explode a "bomb" if they attempted to rush the flight deck.

They could have been told anything though, could they not. Most people would take a pilots word for what was going on. We're in a hold...diverting etc.
Just thinking in type here.

fits

bohsboy wrote: »

Regarding the plane turning around, I have limited flight knowledge but I would be aware and concerned as a passenger if there was such a big deviation in our travelling direction. Surely the cabin crew would have realised this too.

deck.

Really? would you not think for a night flight like this, most of the window blinds would have been down. How would you know if there was major deviation in direction in a moon free sky over the sea?

theKillerBite

pugsnotdrugs13 wrote: »

In addition to my last post, (apologies) we obviously know now how much he took to be able to fly for hours upon hours BUT did he give an explanation? Why did he take so much? SURELY this must have been questioned?

The last signal received from the plane was 7.5hrs after takeoff.

Though previously U.S. officials believed the flight could have remained in the air for several extra hours, Najib said Saturday that the flight was still communicating with satellites until 8:11 a.m. — seven and a half hours after takeoff. There was no further communication with the plane after that time, Najib said. If the plane was still in the air, it would have been nearing its fuel limit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/jet-was-hijacked-malaysian-official-tells-ap/2014/03/15/ec7397d6-abff-11e3-af5f-4c56b834c4bf_story.html

The planned flight to Beijing was 6hrs.

The flight departed from Kuala Lumpur International Airport on 8 March at 00:41 local time (16:41 UTC, 7 March) and was scheduled to land at Beijing Capital International Airport at 06:30 local time (22:30 UTC, 7 March).

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

Surely the entire plane would be beating down the cabin door to get answers towards the end of the 7th hour.

Tigerandahalf

Silverbling wrote: »

Can you explain why the plane would have fallen out of the sky for those of us who do not know?

Would military pilots be familiar with flying at those heights?

Thanks

I have no background in aviation so what I know I have picked up from this thread. If you go back a few pages a poster explained why.
Basically the air is thinner with less oxygen to power the engines.

pugsnotdrugs13

Would it have had enough fuel after take off, to last known position, to turning around and flying to land such as United Arab Emirates? Or would the reserve have ran dry and the plane is in the ocean?

franglan

theKillerBite wrote: »

The last signal received from the plane was 7.5hrs after takeoff.



The planned flight to Beijing was 6hrs.



Surely the entire plane would be beating down the cabin door to get answers towards the end of the 7th hour.

If the last signal was received 7.5 hours after takeoff that would leave them further than the waypoint in the Indian Ocean where the two directional options are now being presented. Basically my point is that I would have thought flying in a semi straight line it wouldn't take that length of time to get to the middle of the Indian Ocean?

theKillerBite

pugsnotdrugs13 wrote: »

Would it have had enough fuel after take off, to last known position, to turning around and flying to land such as United Arab Emirates? Or would the reserve have ran dry and the plane is in the ocean?

Surely another military power picked up the plane on their primary radar.

Today, Najib also announced that satellites received a transmission from MH370 at 8.11am the same day.

The plane had enough fuel to stay in the air until 8.30am.

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/now-dca-denies-mh370-hijacked#sthash.LoVmdtsM.dpuf

SpaceTime

H3llR4iser wrote: »

This. I don't understand why people suggest to "track the passengers mobile phones"; At 35.000+ feet, they simply have no reception whatsoever in most cases - try to "forget" to switch your off, and see if you get any reception at cruise altitude. And mind you, this happens in the middle of densely populated Europe, go figure over a stretch of sea.

The only scenario they'd be picked up is if the aircraft had broken up and luggage were scattered within 25km of a coast. Some phones are very robust and would survive, not many though.

That or it were hijacked and landed, in which case the hijackers would have searched for phones and disabled or destroyed them.

Satellite antennae on the aircraft pinging Inmarsat are the most likely thing to be useful in terms of locating the plane that and military radar, missile tracking systems, spy satellites etc

We're really going to have to use military systems that I suspect some countries will not want to give details of.

mickmackey1

K.Flyer wrote: »

I wonder what they will find after searching his house.

You mean they're only searching his house now, seven days later??:eek:

irishmover

pugsnotdrugs13 wrote: »

Would it have had enough fuel after take off, to last known position, to turning around and flying to land such as United Arab Emirates? Or would the reserve have ran dry and the plane is in the ocean?

UAE is one of the busiest air spaces in the world. Even with the fuel (I have no idea how much was left) Id highly doubt it went into UAE air space.

Peter Flynt

this is interesting on the Guardian website

12.04pm GMT
The New York Times, quoting American officials and others familiar with the investigation, said radar signals recorded by the Malaysian military appear to show the airliner climbing to 45,000 feet (about 13,700 meters), higher than a Boeing 777’s approved limit, soon after it disappeared from civilian radar, and making a sharp turn to the west.

The radar track then shows the plane descending unevenly to an altitude of 23,000 feet (7,000 meters), below normal cruising levels, before rising again and flying northwest over the Strait of Malacca toward the Indian Ocean, the Times reported.

What I've highlighted sounds to me like a struggle of some sort in the cockpit.

Peter Flynt

Peter Flynt wrote: »

this is interesting on the Guardian website



What I've highlighted sounds to me like a struggle of some sort in the cockpit.

heard someone on TV say this could be the sign an inexperienced (at piloting) hijacker flying

geneva geneva4444

A lot of interesting theories this morning on here. I'm normally more of a facts guy but I'm gonna throw a couple of theories of my own out;

It was pointed out early on that one of the passengers on a stolen Austrian passport, was attempting to get to Germany to seek asylum and re-unite with his mother. When I heard that one of the corridors was leading towards Kaz/Turk region, I looked up Google Earth, drew a line from point of last contact to Germany and guess where that takes you. May just be a coincidence but further to it's potential is the recent case (last month) of a pilot hi-jacking his own plane en-route from Africa (can't recall where) to Italy and bringing it and passengers to Switzerland. That could have given the Iranian man on the stolen passport the idea. I'd love to know if he had used that stolen passport many times before, easy for authorities to check. If not, the timing so soon after the Swiss hi-jack is coincidental to say the least. I've heard that his plan may have been to go to China and China to Germany but he may not have wanted to risk the Chinese discovering the stolen passport, and him being deported back to Iran. My thinking is that he may have had no intention to go to China at all.



Just a quick final point on people questioning would the passengers have noticed they were off course; in the normal course of events, it is amazing what unsuspecting passengers would be prepared to believe from a pilot. Assuming non-acrobatic style flying, a pilot could make a quite significant deviation from filed/planned route and the passengers would be none the wiser at night. For a 6 hour flight to Shanghai, any pilot could stretch that to 8 hours plus citing ATC delays/bad weather etc and still passengers would be none too suspicious. However, if the altitude readouts from the primary track of the aircraft going up to FL450 and back to FL230 and back up again are indeed accurate, that is something that would be noticed as it was over a short time frame. Most passengers would barely feel a 1,000 rate of climb/descent. It would be interesting to find out if the radar track indicates a higher ROC/ROD.

Tigerandahalf

It seems flying at 45,000 feet would lead to a lack of oxygen in the cabin. This could have left the entire passengers onboard unconscious. Whether they would regain consciousness after the plane descended to 23,000 feet who knows. I wonder would oxygen masks have descended in the cabin when the plane went to 45,000?
A poster on here confirmed that even if the masks did descend the passengers would only have access to oxygen for 20 - 30 mins whereas the flight crew would have access for upto 2 hours I think.

irishmover

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

It seems flying at 45,000 feet would lead to a lack of oxygen in the cabin. This could have left the entire passengers onboard unconscious. Whether they would regain consciousness after the plane descended to 23,000 feet who knows. I wonder would oxygen masks have descended in the cabin when the plane went to 45,000?
A poster on here confirmed that even if the masks did descend the passengers would only have access to oxygen for 20 - 30 mins whereas the flight crew would have access for upto 2 hours I think.

Experts said on tv earlier that masks would drop at the level they reached and yes maximum 30mins for passengers. The experts did say that a person would suffocate not go unconscious at that level without a mask. Maybe someone else might know more about that.

Peter Flynt

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

It seems flying at 45,000 feet would lead to a lack of oxygen in the cabin. This could have left the entire passengers onboard unconscious. Whether they would regain consciousness after the plane descended to 23,000 feet who knows. I wonder would oxygen masks have descended in the cabin when the plane went to 45,000?
A poster on here confirmed that even if the masks did descend the passengers would only have access to oxygen for 20 - 30 mins whereas the flight crew would have access for upto 2 hours I think.

Cabin is pressurised.

geneva geneva4444

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

It seems flying at 45,000 feet would lead to a lack of oxygen in the cabin. This could have left the entire passengers onboard unconscious. Whether they would regain consciousness after the plane descended to 23,000 feet who knows. I wonder would oxygen masks have descended in the cabin when the plane went to 45,000?
A poster on here confirmed that even if the masks did descend the passengers would only have access to oxygen for 20 - 30 mins whereas the flight crew would have access for upto 2 hours I think.

Who told you this? Aircraft fly at FL450 all the time. The only reason there would be a lack of oxygen is in the event of a sudden loss of cabin pressure caused by some form of mechanical or structural failure. Other than that there should have been no issues. Boeing triple 7's are in theory limited to a ceiling of FL430 but that is due to performance limitations rather than pressurisation difficulties.

Panda_Turtle

theKillerBite wrote: »

The Airbus A320 that landed in the Hudson was a narrow body jet, a wide body jet would be a disaster if it hit water.

Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961

Widebody water landing in ocean with survivors

dzer2

To be honest the only place I would know if something was wrong on a flight is over dublin airport as I use it about 20 times a yr. Once the plane is up in the air it could be heading over the atlantic rather than england for all I would know. The way this plane turned out over the sea the passengers would never have an idea that they were diverted. How many times have the pilots turned on the seat belt sign and told every one to sit down that they were coming into turbulence. I was once circling Dub for an hour and then told that we were being diverted to shannon to get a bus back. It is not impossible for these passengers to be told they had being diverted to an airport an hour or two away. It is only when they land and disembark that they would know what has happened and at that stage it would be way too late to do anything.

tayto lover

A pilot on the Marian Finucane programme disclosed that aviation companies and engine manufacturers can check the performance of engines in the air. He said he has no doubt that people know where this flight is to about 100 metres.

So why are they not disclosing this?