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.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Malaysia Airlines Loses Contact With 777 en Route to Beijing
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by BlueMax View PostWonder 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=opinionAD.com apocalypse survivor. 727 Fan.
Comment
-
Originally posted by pierpp View PostThere 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.
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 PostWonder 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 Evan View PostIt 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
-
Originally posted by United.AirlinesLover View Post
Comment
-
Originally posted by BlueMax View PostWonder 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
Comment
-
Originally posted by EconomyClass View PostI was wondering for what purpose they were engineered that way. When is it a great idea to purposely silence transponders?
Comment
-
Originally posted by BoeingBobby View PostYou have to be able to disable electronics for smoke and fire reasons.
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
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 PostThis 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:
Comment
-
Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View Post
Comment
-
Originally posted by BoeingBobby View PostYou don't really believe that stuff do you? Watching a bit to much "24"
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
Comment