Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Malaysia Airlines Loses Contact With 777 en Route to Beijing

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Wonder what Boeing Bobby or other pilots think of this Op-Ed piece in today's NY Times from an Aviation Security author who advocates not allowing the transponders to be turned off by the Pilots. He cites the 9-11 flights and now this one that hijackers used turning off the transponders as a way to make tracking the aircraft more difficult.


    Comment


    • Originally posted by BlueMax View Post
      Wonder what Boeing Bobby or other pilots think of this Op-Ed piece in today's NY Times from an Aviation Security author who advocates not allowing the transponders to be turned off by the Pilots. He cites the 9-11 flights and now this one that hijackers used turning off the transponders as a way to make tracking the aircraft more difficult.


      http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/op...ml?ref=opinion
      The only problem I see with this is not being able to isolate the equipment in case of a fault. You can remove the off switch but should still have a circuit breaker.
      AD.com apocalypse survivor. 727 Fan.

      Comment


      • There are more than 570 islands, only 36 of which are inhabited. If the plane had been stolen, this might be the best place to land it secretly, says Steve Buzdygan, a former BA 777 pilot. It would be difficult, but not impossible, to land on the beach, he says. At least 5,000ft (1500m) or so would make a long enough strip to land on. It would be theoretically possible but extremely difficult. With such a heavy aeroplane, using the landing gear might lead to the wheels digging into the sand and sections of undercarriage being ripped off. "If I was landing on a beach I would keep the wheels up," says Buzdygan. But in this type of crash landing, the danger would also be damage to the wings, which are full of fuel, causing an explosion. Even if landed safely, it is unlikely the plane would be able to take off again.
        It is "unlikely" that a 777 could take off from a sandy island beach. How about freaking impossible? This man is a former line pilot? WTF is going on?

        The other 'shadowing' theory, however, makes a bit of sense... A 777 could hang 1000m behind traffic ahead to disguise its radar signature as it overflew several countries. This might even explain the 45,000ft climb, as they would want to descend in behind the other a/c to avoid detection. But it doesn't explain the radar blip that Malaysia claims to have tracked, which was apparently not in the direct proximity to any other target. Unless they had to fly the tracked distance to intercept the other plane and then hide in its signature. It seems, however that this would be quite obvious: a target disappearing in direct proximity to another aircraft's transponder. There has been no mention of that (although I don't think we are getting even half the facts here).

        Comment


        • Originally posted by BlueMax View Post
          Wonder what Boeing Bobby or other pilots think of this Op-Ed piece in today's NY Times from an Aviation Security author who advocates not allowing the transponders to be turned off by the Pilots. He cites the 9-11 flights and now this one that hijackers used turning off the transponders as a way to make tracking the aircraft more difficult.
          You have to be able to disable electronics for smoke and fire reasons.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Evan View Post
            It is "unlikely" that a 777 could take off from a sandy island beach. How about freaking impossible? This man is a former line pilot? WTF is going on?

            The other 'shadowing' theory, however, makes a bit of sense... A 777 could hang 1000m behind traffic ahead to disguise its radar signature as it overflew several countries. This might even explain the 45,000ft climb, as they would want to descend in behind the other a/c to avoid detection. But it doesn't explain the radar blip that Malaysia claims to have tracked, which was apparently not in the direct proximity to any other target. Unless they had to fly the tracked distance to intercept the other plane and then hide in its signature. It seems, however that this would be quite obvious: a target disappearing in direct proximity to another aircraft's transponder. There has been no mention of that (although I don't think we are getting even half the facts here).

            You don't really believe that stuff do you? Watching a bit to much "24"

            Comment


            • Don't know if this has been posted already but:

              A pilot with 20 years of experience provides the best explanation yet on what happened to flight MH370.


              To my non-expert self this seems like a good explanation as to what could have possibly happened.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by United.AirlinesLover View Post
                Don't know if this has been posted already but:

                A pilot with 20 years of experience provides the best explanation yet on what happened to flight MH370.


                To my non-expert self this seems like a good explanation as to what could have possibly happened.
                See my post #862 above:

                Comment


                • Originally posted by BlueMax View Post
                  Wonder what Boeing Bobby or other pilots think of this Op-Ed piece in today's NY Times from an Aviation Security author who advocates not allowing the transponders to be turned off by the Pilots. He cites the 9-11 flights and now this one that hijackers used turning off the transponders as a way to make tracking the aircraft more difficult.


                  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/op...ml?ref=opinion
                  I was wondering for what purpose they were engineered that way. When is it a great idea to purposely silence transponders?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by EconomyClass View Post
                    I was wondering for what purpose they were engineered that way. When is it a great idea to purposely silence transponders?
                    EC, please read this:

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                      You have to be able to disable electronics for smoke and fire reasons.
                      For some reason (lack of knowledge perhaps) the satellite transmitter was not turned of on MH370. Not that it is of much use for tracking the flight from what I've read so far.

                      Comment


                      • This is a good resume of what we think we may know of the flight. Nothing exactly new but the observation that Malaysian Military Radar controllers were apparently asleep at their screens might help explain the embarrassing performance of their Minister of Defence at the Press Conference today:

                        http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/03...erparty_guide/
                        (The comments section is a bit like this one).

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by United.AirlinesLover View Post
                          Don't know if this has been posted already but:

                          A pilot with 20 years of experience provides the best explanation yet on what happened to flight MH370.


                          To my non-expert self this seems like a good explanation as to what could have possibly happened.
                          I can't believe Wired would post that. You see where we are with the media? Nobody seems to care about the obvious.

                          The obvious:

                          - The example cited ( the Nigeria DC-8 ) lifted off, instantly detected smoke on gear retraction and set up for return. MH-370 flew for 40 minutes with no sign of smoke. THIS ALONE MAKES THE THEORY IDIOTIC.

                          - Unlike this DC-8, the 777 has EICAS cockpit warnings for tire pressure and brake overheat as well as avionics bay smoke detection. EICAS is an LCD screen directly in front of the pilots that displays warning messages along with audible alarms for serious issues. If such a scenario occured on takeoff on a 777 the pilots would know about it in moments. THis crew flew for 40 minutes.

                          - In this scenario there would be ample time to transmit a mayday call.

                          - This scenario completely ignores the subsequent waypoint-to-waypoint radar tracks reported by the authorities.

                          It's a totally asinine theory that is, of course, gathering credibility in the interwebs as we speak...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Brainsys View Post
                            This is a good resume of what we think we may know of the flight. Nothing exactly new but the observation that Malaysian Military Radar controllers were apparently asleep at their screens might help explain the embarrassing performance of their Minister of Defence at the Press Conference today:
                            How old are you? Resume of the flight? Is someone looking for a job?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View Post
                              Excellent observations and clarifications of the mis-stated "facts" in the article. I offer an additional one learned from this thread that 777 cockpit has 2 hour oxygen supply to pilots. One would expect that pilots would don their masks in first sighting of smoke (ValueJet 592), thus the writer, a "pilot", writing the pilots were quickly overcome from smoke also doesn't make sense.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                                You don't really believe that stuff do you? Watching a bit to much "24"
                                If you read what I wrote and you just reposted there you would realize that I don't believe that stuff unless the Malaysians are still giving us bogus information about the radar target(s) they tracked.

                                At this point what I most suspect is a botched hijacking, possibly by the F/O, with insane motive and that the a/c is currently at the bottom of the Indian Ocean where it will never be found.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X