Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

boston bean

(36,219 posts)
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 09:01 AM Mar 2014

Missing Malaysia plane flew at 5,000ft and used 'terrain masking' to avoid radar detection

Source: Telegraph, UK


The missing Malaysian Airlines plane reportedly flew as low as 5,000ft and used “terrain masking” to avoid radar detection for almost eight hours after it was apparently hijacked.

As dozens of nations continued to search for the plane, Malaysia’s New Straits Times newspaper reported that the Boeing 777 dropped to low altitude to avoid commercial radars.

Using a manoeuvre typically deployed by combat aircraft, the plane would have burnt far more fuel flying in the denser lower air.

Experts said a sharp drop in altitude – the plane was apparently flying as high as 45,000 feet - would have been noticeable for the passengers, but not deadly.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10702190/Missing-Malaysia-plane-flew-at-5000ft-and-used-terrain-masking-to-avoid-radar-detection.html

106 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Missing Malaysia plane flew at 5,000ft and used 'terrain masking' to avoid radar detection (Original Post) boston bean Mar 2014 OP
Whoever was flying that thing knew what they were doing-- Jackpine Radical Mar 2014 #1
Yup. Agschmid Mar 2014 #2
Knew so much that to avoid radar, instead of staying out in the ocean where, for the most jtuck004 Mar 2014 #44
Everyone would not be "loopy" in 10 seconds. former9thward Mar 2014 #48
What if the oxygen source also blew? What if radio to send distress message was also compromised? MADem Mar 2014 #50
Well that theory would not explain the transponder. former9thward Mar 2014 #53
Latest from airline CEO: transponder shut off 2 minutes *after* the co-pilot's sign-off. JudyM Mar 2014 #68
The amount of contradictory information that has been released is unbelievable. former9thward Mar 2014 #73
Took the words out of my mouth adigal Mar 2014 #97
Earhart did not go it alone, she went with Fred Noonan psychopomp Mar 2014 #99
One thing I have wondered about... sendero Mar 2014 #70
Yeah, good question, sendero. It's a commercial jet, after all, not flying a combat mission. nt JudyM Mar 2014 #71
Ya, and if it wasn't for science and stuff... jtuck004 Mar 2014 #54
Those do not explain the transponder. former9thward Mar 2014 #59
You don't know how it was turned off. Just that it was off. It could have been taken jtuck004 Mar 2014 #62
You don't get it. former9thward Mar 2014 #64
He does not know. There is no alarm when it is switched off or stops working. Unless one jtuck004 Mar 2014 #65
He does know. former9thward Mar 2014 #102
Power can be dropped to it without turning off a switch. That could happen without their knowledge, jtuck004 Mar 2014 #106
Posted above: transponder turned off after signoff. nt Ilsa Mar 2014 #101
And what exactly makes that information more accurate former9thward Mar 2014 #103
Glad you asked! Ilsa Mar 2014 #104
I agree with every word of your post. former9thward Mar 2014 #105
Walker bombs!!! MADem Mar 2014 #66
The amount of oxygen in your lungs at 35,000 feet is much less than at sea level. Thor_MN Mar 2014 #90
The pilots do not need to hold their breath. former9thward Mar 2014 #92
Nice try to divert from your mistake. Thor_MN Mar 2014 #95
Nice try at playing games. former9thward Mar 2014 #96
Never let facts get in your way, do you? Thor_MN Mar 2014 #98
did the 2 communications systems -- ACARS and the transponder -- turn themselves off? magical thyme Mar 2014 #51
It's not complex for a fire or explosion to disconnect, and that could have been caused jtuck004 Mar 2014 #56
then the plane would have crashed in the area where they were looking for it magical thyme Mar 2014 #58
No, it had 3000 miles of fuel. Broken jets have flown for hours and hours jtuck004 Mar 2014 #60
so your electrical fire took out communications but not autopilot. magical thyme Mar 2014 #61
Hey, if one wants to play Peter Pan and imagine pirates, fine by me. jtuck004 Mar 2014 #63
and now I am convinced, by an experienced aviator magical thyme Mar 2014 #74
OMG. A pilot had a flight simulator at home. I think we should do an immediate IT investigation, jtuck004 Mar 2014 #78
no, they did not think it was suspicious he had a simulator. They explained from the beginning magical thyme Mar 2014 #80
Who programmed the turn. The pilot? Before he died? It only takes a few moments. jtuck004 Mar 2014 #83
13000 magical thyme Mar 2014 #85
apparently, via ACARS they know that the left turn was programmed into the computer magical thyme Mar 2014 #76
No, all they know is that is was programmed into the computer. They don't know when. jtuck004 Mar 2014 #77
I realize it could have been done before death. The point is I would expect they magical thyme Mar 2014 #79
Mystery and detective work is fine until they execute the wrong person. jtuck004 Mar 2014 #81
I didn't see anybody beating up on the pilot. magical thyme Mar 2014 #82
We won't be talking any longer. jtuck004 Mar 2014 #84
or an electrical short TorchTheWitch Mar 2014 #69
Interesting. But then we still have the issue of the plane flying in a path to apparently JudyM Mar 2014 #72
Do we? TorchTheWitch Mar 2014 #75
Whoa. Shot down. Life is stranger than fiction. JudyM Mar 2014 #87
the one single thing that has bothered me greatly ever since TorchTheWitch Mar 2014 #88
Creepy. The things we never know... nt JudyM Mar 2014 #89
At such a low altitude how far could it have gone? Agschmid Mar 2014 #3
Not very far - fuel burn at low altitudes is huge. The Velveteen Ocelot Mar 2014 #26
Unless they stopped for a refill. randome Mar 2014 #27
This was my thought as well. eggplant Mar 2014 #55
Elsewhere Kazakhstan has been mentioned. dipsydoodle Mar 2014 #4
Don't know it would have had enough fuel Kelvin Mace Mar 2014 #6
I'm doubtful that they know exactly how much fuel was aboard. boston bean Mar 2014 #9
Fuel is usually tightly controlled as it is very expensive. Agschmid Mar 2014 #11
But if it was well planned and they had someone on the ground helping boston bean Mar 2014 #12
Yup. Agschmid Mar 2014 #16
This is the trouble with conspiracies, however lapislzi Mar 2014 #25
On PPRUNE pilots who have flown that route thought they would have had extra fuel Yo_Mama Mar 2014 #23
not really - it has everything to do with control of the plane TorchTheWitch Mar 2014 #46
Well they certainly know the maximum amount that could have been onboard. Warren Stupidity Mar 2014 #38
China demands Malaysia step up investigation. sufrommich Mar 2014 #5
why did china wait so long to note the plane on the way to Beijing wasn't in their airspace? Sunlei Mar 2014 #7
The next ATC handoff (the one dodged) was to the Vietnamese out of Ho Chi Minh Yo_Mama Mar 2014 #21
Found it.... James48 Mar 2014 #8
My husband said to ask David Copperfield where it was. boston bean Mar 2014 #10
My wife said that as well. diabeticman Mar 2014 #13
sick sense of humors they got.. boston bean Mar 2014 #14
This is speculation by the New Straits Times, not anything official muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #15
It is also being reported on CNN and many other mainstream outlets. boston bean Mar 2014 #18
CNN is just passing on the NST speculation too muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #20
That is fine, but it is newsworthy. boston bean Mar 2014 #22
But the point is the source is guessing themselves muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #33
no one knows what happened, so is nothing news? boston bean Mar 2014 #34
Correct - when no-one knows what happened, a guess is not news muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #35
The fact is authorities are speculating and reporting on that speculation by the media is, boston bean Mar 2014 #36
An unnamed source claims they are speculating muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #37
All sources are unnamed for this news story. Trying to make it seem like these boston bean Mar 2014 #39
No, sources have often been named muriel_volestrangler Mar 2014 #43
Curiouser & curiouser. N/T Paper Roses Mar 2014 #17
New emphasis for search off the coast of Australia. sufrommich Mar 2014 #19
The Oceanic flight in "Lost" started from Australia question everything Mar 2014 #31
This wouldn't make sense... brooklynite Mar 2014 #42
I doubt it is a simple pilot suicide a la Egyptair cosmicone Mar 2014 #24
He could also not want it to be found. Hassin Bin Sober Mar 2014 #28
Perhaps ... he gets immortality with the stunt cosmicone Mar 2014 #29
And like DB Cooper is never seen again. SheilaT Mar 2014 #30
Do they know this for fact? question everything Mar 2014 #32
From what I've read this is being slammed as speculation that there are no facts snagglepuss Mar 2014 #47
it matches reports from malaysian villagers mainer Mar 2014 #40
Where did you see this ? nt sufrommich Mar 2014 #41
Reported here and multiple news sources mainer Mar 2014 #49
Two things I saw this morning - CNN and actual information on Fox News underpants Mar 2014 #45
That stupid newspaper makes headlines out of a guessing game... countryjake Mar 2014 #52
There are satellites that can read a car number plate from space. mackerel Mar 2014 #57
Satellites Calista241 Mar 2014 #93
check out the passenger list TorchTheWitch Mar 2014 #100
Wait. The "evidence" for this is the lack of primary radar contact? Recursion Mar 2014 #67
Some aviation hobby guy has this theory: (shadows other plane) EX500rider Mar 2014 #86
WTH is terrain masking over the ocean? Thor_MN Mar 2014 #91
This is a long-ago OP from a point people were guessing the plane was flying northwest... brooklynite Mar 2014 #94
 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
44. Knew so much that to avoid radar, instead of staying out in the ocean where, for the most
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 02:16 PM
Mar 2014

part, there isn't any, they flew it deliberately back over land just to make it more of a challenge?

I haven't seen anything the plane has done that can't be explained by sudden decompression at 35,000 feet, a hole the size of a door, perhaps, or cargo that blew. If the plane is breaking, and an experienced pilot (and these were experienced, and very good at what they did) got it turned and headed back (that would have been the quickest decision) and lost O2, (which has started more than one fire on board an aircraft, even a 777) everyone is loopy within 10 seconds, dead shortly thereafter, and the plane will just fly on the controls that were set (maybe autopilot if they were trying to fight a fire). Might have been a survivor or two that tried to do something, but no radio, probably no electricity by then, it just flew on and fell out in the Indian Ocean somewhere. A ghost ship.

Which we might find pieces of in the next few months, or not, and then the recovery of the black boxes which will probably take another year or two.

But maybe if we just believe, it will turn out to be pirates ...








former9thward

(31,947 posts)
48. Everyone would not be "loopy" in 10 seconds.
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 02:59 PM
Mar 2014

Do you get "loopy" if you hold your breath for 10 seconds. Especially not the pilots. They have access to plenty of oxygen and are trained to quickly don masks. They would have plenty of time to send a distress message. Also why was the transponder turned off before the pilot gave his final sign off? Your theory would not explain that fact.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
50. What if the oxygen source also blew? What if radio to send distress message was also compromised?
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 04:16 PM
Mar 2014

I didn't take the "ten seconds" literally, but if the a/c oxygen system went away, there are the few bottles but you have to GET to them before you pass out...

former9thward

(31,947 posts)
53. Well that theory would not explain the transponder.
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 04:54 PM
Mar 2014

If its true that the transponder was turned off before the pilot gave his verbal sign off then something was going on and not mechanical. If something dramatic had happened like you suggest it would have happened on the normal flight path and wreckage should have been found since the Gulf of Thailand is very shallow (150 feet and the 777 is 220 feet).

JudyM

(29,204 posts)
68. Latest from airline CEO: transponder shut off 2 minutes *after* the co-pilot's sign-off.
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 10:20 PM
Mar 2014

(CNN) -- New details provide a clearer chronology about what may have happened to Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 between its takeoff and its last known spotting seven hours later.
Malaysia Airlines CEO Ahmad Jauhari Yahya said on Monday that it wasn't clear whether the final words from the cockpit came before or after the plane's data-reporting system was shut down.
Earlier, Malaysian authorities had said the message "All right, good night" came after the system had been disabled.

This was posted about an hour ago.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/15/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-flight-370-chronology/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

This makes it seem even more likely intentional and less likely a mechanical problem.

former9thward

(31,947 posts)
73. The amount of contradictory information that has been released is unbelievable.
Tue Mar 18, 2014, 10:35 AM
Mar 2014

No wonder they can't find it.

 

adigal

(7,581 posts)
97. Took the words out of my mouth
Sat Mar 22, 2014, 04:26 PM
Mar 2014

I have never seen such incompetence or lying in our country when something tragic happens. Now CNN is comparing the loss of this to Amelia Earhart! Really! She was flying a teeny plane, all alone, before there was the technology we have. It's apples and elephants! If I was a family member, goddess forbid, I would be homicidial or suicidal. My thoughts and prayers go to them.

Everyone else is hiding something.

sendero

(28,552 posts)
70. One thing I have wondered about...
Tue Mar 18, 2014, 05:44 AM
Mar 2014

... is why ANYONE can turn off vital equipment like the transponder or other communications equipment. In what scenario would one need to turn this stuff off?

Seems like by making it easy to do so we make it easy to hijack a plane.

JudyM

(29,204 posts)
71. Yeah, good question, sendero. It's a commercial jet, after all, not flying a combat mission. nt
Tue Mar 18, 2014, 10:06 AM
Mar 2014
 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
54. Ya, and if it wasn't for science and stuff...
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 05:09 PM
Mar 2014


At 35,000 feet, as you said, you need supplemental pressurization and/or O2.

If that is lost, you have trouble. According to Linda Pendleton, author of Flying Jets and an experienced pilot and instructor and big jet trainer...

(Note: The page below here, has informative information about jets and physiology)


...
I am always amazed when I ask a class of experienced jet pilots undergoing recurrent training how many have been through the FAA's physiological training program. Usually less than half will have taken advantage of this valuable opportunity. We spend many hours in our carefully conditioned cockpits, only inches from an environment that is incompatible with life. We sit in shirtsleeves, comfortably oblivious to the frigid and rare atmosphere through which our fragile shell moves. Rarely do we think about the temperature outside or the time available to react should our carefully maintained environment fail
...
A rapid decompression is one that occurs in more than one-half second, but less than about ten seconds. This is the type decompression experienced in larger-bodied aircraft and is the more common of the two.
...
Time of Useful Consciosness. The time of useful consciousness is the time your brain is awake enough to be useful and make decisions. This varies from almost indefinite at 10,000 to 9 to 12 seconds above 40,000 feet. An explosive or rapid decompression will cut this time in half due to the startle factor and the accelerated rate at which an adrenaline soaked body burns oxygen.
...


One should feel free to find her web site and argue with her facts.

AND

There is a lot of O2 in that concentrated space, and canisters full of it all around. What if there was a loose cable around those kept for the flight crew? An EgyptAir 777, in a fire CAUSED by their oxygen, burned on the runway after seating and then de-planing all of their passengers, AFTER a pilot emptied a fire extinguisher on it and with a fire department right there. Burned up part of the airport as well.

If anything like this happened on MH370 going to or at 35,000 feet they would just be dead.

AND

It has happened before, in Greece, at a LOWER altitude before they even got to 35,000 feet, which it did with all on board likely dead - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522

AND

Here's a simulation by a pilot in a trainer which shows exactly how it might have happened by accident


AND

If there was a fire, or damage from decompression, there can be electrical shorts and opens all over the place, cables that would control things damaged, etc. Any fire fed by the concentrated O2 would burn fiercely for a bit, then smolder, causing further damage.

And in this case everyone is dead already, so there is no human hand doing anything.

AND

While it may have NOT killed everyone, the passengers should be behind a locked and bolted security door which it should take explosives to get through.
If the pilots are incapacitated, how does one get to the controls?

We can't know if there was an Air Marshall on board, but did the pirate, Captain Hook or someone, take that person out first and then the pilots? Or was the Air Marshall reading the inflight magazines and didn't have time to draw his or her weapon? Or did they have a shoot out like the OK Corral and puncture the O2 bottles and the skin of the airplane and cause a small explosion?

...you might have a point.

If people are going with stories, then I think it was the 80 year old lady in 12C, with the only working O2 on board and her walker bombs. She had confederates that shut the valves on all the O2 bottles before takeoff, and used two shots from her walker bomb to put holes in the sides of the aircraft. When everyone was disabled she used the other two shots to get through the security door to the cockpit and turned the plane around to fly back over the island so they would know she did it, avoiding radar along the way, and then flew it into the ocean.

Makes as much sense as the officials at the airport who brought in a shaman to divine the location of the aircraft before they really started pushing on the pirate story while ransacking the pilot and co-pilot's homes.

I can't find a reason to go with the supernatural yet.


former9thward

(31,947 posts)
59. Those do not explain the transponder.
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 05:39 PM
Mar 2014

It was deliberately turned off before the pilot gave his final verbal sign off to the controllers.

 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
62. You don't know how it was turned off. Just that it was off. It could have been taken
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 05:43 PM
Mar 2014

out mechanically when an O2 canister exploded, or when one of the many lithium batteries decided it was time to start the fireworks.

All they know is when it didn't respond. "They" weren't there.

And no one else knows either. There is no mechanism to tell us that except for sure except the black boxes which we may find one day. Or not.

former9thward

(31,947 posts)
64. You don't get it.
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 05:55 PM
Mar 2014

If any of those things happened the pilot would have reported it. He would not have said "good night." He spoke after the transponder stopped working.

 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
65. He does not know. There is no alarm when it is switched off or stops working. Unless one
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 06:35 PM
Mar 2014

wants to invoke religion or supernatural powers, there is no way that he could have know a signal coming from outside did not get a response from his aircraft.

It may have been apparent in the next few minutes, but by then the airplane is depressurizing and they are trying to turn back, as in the video.

All we know for fact is that it didn't respond, and a few minutes later something else failed. A few radar signals and a satellite picture while it was still flying but before the disappearance. Gone.

Everything else is fiction.









former9thward

(31,947 posts)
102. He does know.
Sun Mar 23, 2014, 10:29 AM
Mar 2014

It is a switch in the cockpit of a 777 that has to be physically turned off by someone.

 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
106. Power can be dropped to it without turning off a switch. That could happen without their knowledge,
Sun Mar 23, 2014, 11:58 AM
Mar 2014

until it gets big enough, and can damage things before then as well as after it is discoverd. It's documented in accident archives.

People still making up ghosts

former9thward

(31,947 posts)
103. And what exactly makes that information more accurate
Sun Mar 23, 2014, 10:30 AM
Mar 2014

that information that released that says exactly the opposite?

Ilsa

(61,690 posts)
104. Glad you asked!
Sun Mar 23, 2014, 11:32 AM
Mar 2014

Absolutely nothing. That's why all of this speculation using heresay and questionable media reports and very imaginative Bond-style rumors, turning on other DUers is a waste of energy. As third parties, we need to wait until we get better information rather than engage in rumor-mongering.

Hopefully, some day soon we'll reasonably know why it went down and the families of the victims can grieve with with some measure of understanding of what happened to their loved ones.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
66. Walker bombs!!!
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 09:48 PM
Mar 2014

I think your theories (even the amusing ones) should not be dismissed out of hand.

 

Thor_MN

(11,843 posts)
90. The amount of oxygen in your lungs at 35,000 feet is much less than at sea level.
Sat Mar 22, 2014, 08:49 AM
Mar 2014

If you hold your breath at sea level (or anywhere short of very tall mountains) there is still enough oxygen in your lungs to keep you conscious for up to several minutes. Rapid decompression to 35,000 feet means there is so little oxygen that your lungs will be effectively pulling oxygen out of your blood. The bodies reaction is to gasp for air, but there is so little oxygen that each breath removes more from your blood stream. Even if you are able to fight the instinct, the oxygen comes out of the blood to balance concentrations between blood and the volume of space in your lungs.

Not a great analogy, but consider carbon dioxide leaving a bottle of warm soda pop when you reduce pressure by opening it. The CO2 leaves the liquid to balance with the concentration in the air. Same process, but different partial pressures and introduction of a tissue interface. Bottom line, holding your breath on the ground is nothing like trying to breath at 35,000 feet.

former9thward

(31,947 posts)
92. The pilots do not need to hold their breath.
Sat Mar 22, 2014, 11:01 AM
Mar 2014

They have plenty of oxygen available to them and are trained to quickly put on masks.

 

Thor_MN

(11,843 posts)
95. Nice try to divert from your mistake.
Sat Mar 22, 2014, 12:34 PM
Mar 2014

Holding your breath on the ground is not the same as being at 35,000 feet. You stated that holding you breath was comparable. Stating an irrelevant fact does not correct your error.

former9thward

(31,947 posts)
96. Nice try at playing games.
Sat Mar 22, 2014, 03:21 PM
Mar 2014

The poster I was replying to said you go "loopy" in ten seconds at that altitude. Either you agree with that idiotic statement or you don't. I suggest you ask your pilot on your next flight if he will go "loopy" if he loses oxygen for ten seconds. If he says "yes" then quickly leave the plane. If you want to continue playing games play by yourself which probably happens a lot.

 

Thor_MN

(11,843 posts)
98. Never let facts get in your way, do you?
Sat Mar 22, 2014, 06:23 PM
Mar 2014

10 seconds may be a tad short, but trying to compare holding your breath on the ground to breathing the atmosphere at 35,00 is completely ignorant.

 

magical thyme

(14,881 posts)
51. did the 2 communications systems -- ACARS and the transponder -- turn themselves off?
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 04:25 PM
Mar 2014

Because the first system was disconnected before the last radio contact. And the second one turned off after the last radio contact.

And apparently the first system is more complex to disconnect than a simple on/off switch.

 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
56. It's not complex for a fire or explosion to disconnect, and that could have been caused
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 05:23 PM
Mar 2014

by loose O2 in the plane (EgyptAir 777 burned to the ground from cockpit O2 AFTER the pilot emptied an extinguisher on it, and with a fire department right there) or cargo, like the "empty" O2 canisters that were shipped a few years ago, except they were full and started a fire. And I have never seen a fire, especially electrical in a complex environment like computers or power control that didn't bring on successive damage.

You've seen a fire or movies about one. Lots of smoke and confusion - even firefighters wear O2 and masks, because people die without them. What if they don't put the O2 on because they are flying the plane or because they misinterpret the alarms? The first case is the simulation below, and the second was an airliner in Greece., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522.

Take note in that first simulation - he skips right over the "cause and effect" of the depressurization and goes right to what they might have done. What if there was a bang, haze filling the plane, people screaming, alarms going off, and the pilots turn the plane to establish a path back, not putting on their O2 (not all do immediately, regardless of what it says in the comic books), and they die. Does everything HAVE to break all at once? What if there is a small fire which takes those things out separately.

That's just easier for me to do vs conjuring up David Copperfield, Captain Hook or James Bond to take over the plane. Still open to other info, just haven't heard it yet from a reliable source.








 

magical thyme

(14,881 posts)
58. then the plane would have crashed in the area where they were looking for it
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 05:27 PM
Mar 2014

and it wouldn't have continued flying for 8 or so hours, pinging the satellite.

 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
60. No, it had 3000 miles of fuel. Broken jets have flown for hours and hours
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 05:41 PM
Mar 2014

with a dead crew and passengers, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522.

Look at this simulation. He does it for a living and says it could happen.



Unless you have wings and bars on your commerical pilots uniform, I'll go with this fella, and this woman - jet pilot, commerical aviator, instructor:

http://www.avweb.com/news/aeromed/181893-1.html?redirected=1

And about a dozen more, but you can do your own homework

On the other hand, the authorities at the airport disagree. The same ones who called in this person to help them divine where the craft was.


I'm not much into religion, so I'll still hang with the commercial pilots opinion.



 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
63. Hey, if one wants to play Peter Pan and imagine pirates, fine by me.
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 05:48 PM
Mar 2014

But once the fire flashed through the oxygen, it goes out. Decompression at 35000 feet leaves no more O2 to feed it with. All it has to do is burn a small section.

So it could easily have broken something, which cause overheating or perhaps an electrical issue that followed a little later. I can't imagine why people find it so difficult to think anything other than all the damage MUST have happened at once, else it must have been Captain Hook.

Especially people who, by and large, think Creationists are unique in being fooled by religion.

 

magical thyme

(14,881 posts)
74. and now I am convinced, by an experienced aviator
Tue Mar 18, 2014, 01:53 PM
Mar 2014

He gives a very good, thorough explanation from a pilot's perspective.

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/

fwiw, I never believed it was fairies or capt. hook. simply remained open to all possibilities until more information came in.

This may even explain the runways found on one of the pilot's simulators.

 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
78. OMG. A pilot had a flight simulator at home. I think we should do an immediate IT investigation,
Tue Mar 18, 2014, 05:39 PM
Mar 2014

Why, those geek types might have computers at home.
And the flight simulator had a runway.
Glory be.
(I say this because they grabbed up his simulator to re-assemble at their HQ to see what kinds of nefarious things he was up to. They thought it was suspicious that a pilot had a simulator. I think it's suspicious that they called in a Shaman to the terminal to help them. Each to his own, I guess).

No, I know you didn't reach for fairies and Captain Hook, but I find it ironic that the pirates in that movie didn't exist until Peter and the Lost Boys imagined them, and the Boys lived a perpetual battle against them.

I feel like I am watching it in real life as I see the stories and comments (not just here) and especially the Malaysian officials, all created from a few data points which no one, not a single person, has any evidence at all of exactly "how" they were done. Just that it was done, and all this other stuff is just icing.

Then again, Hook had a 70 million budget and grossed 300+ million or so, so this is a fertile ground for pirates to be created in, I think.

Oh, and thank you for that link. That's interesting.

 

magical thyme

(14,881 posts)
80. no, they did not think it was suspicious he had a simulator. They explained from the beginning
Tue Mar 18, 2014, 06:47 PM
Mar 2014

first that many people have simulators, especially pilots. And second, that he was involved, iirc, in testing simulation software. So it made sense that he had a simulator. They examined it in the same way that they examined his emails and other information he had at home. I read today that they found nothing to suggest nefarious activity.

As information unfolded, their investigation moved from investigating all passengers to investigation all crew, including maintenance and anybody else who had access to the plane before it took off.

Data from ACARS showed the plane had been programmed to turn. They were hoping to find out who programmed that turn.

 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
83. Who programmed the turn. The pilot? Before he died? It only takes a few moments.
Tue Mar 18, 2014, 06:56 PM
Mar 2014

He pointed it toward a 13000 or 18000 foot runway (I forget) that prevents him from having to climb over mountains. the coordinates are in his head, automatic in case of emergency. He programs it, then dies or is disabled. I can't imagine why that is such a hard conclusion to reach. Pilots train that very simulation all the time.

And they in fact did think the simulator was suspicious, and they took it and re-assembled it to study it. It was reported as such, google it if you want. What it is today I don't care. Still fantasy, and they should have supported him instead of speculating that it was the pilot or co-pilot who died trying to save these people.

The officials are derelict in their duty to promote this crap. I can't imagine what kind of fucked up individual would want to beat up on the pilot and co-pilot without any evidence other than circumstance.

We'll see when they get the black box, if they get the black box, and if are still alive when they do. Might be a while.

 

magical thyme

(14,881 posts)
85. 13000
Tue Mar 18, 2014, 07:02 PM
Mar 2014

the first article I read on the simulator reported that the police had taken it and re-assembled it for study. Either that same article, or the next article I saw, a Malaysian official explained it was in no way suspicious for the pilot to have a simulator.

It's not a hard conclusion to reach. I would expect it was the first thing they would investigate, and as I recall, the initial areas they searched were based on presuming a catastrophic failure.

 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
77. No, all they know is that is was programmed into the computer. They don't know when.
Tue Mar 18, 2014, 05:31 PM
Mar 2014

Could have been done before death, like this...



Now, he just says the plane decompresses. He leaves out the dust, debris, confusion and panic, perhaps fire before or after fed by the O2, all of which comes with a sudden depressurization - perhaps because that's too scary or because you wouldn't be able to see him.

People have data, but they are assigning fanciful meanings to it, I think. We know things went off or on, or appeared on radar. Nearly everything laid on top of that is conjecture because, without some evidence otherwise, we don't know "how". And that's where the stories start.

People have a right to their opinion, and it's not up to me to judge their validity. But I find it interesting that people seem to want to jump to pirate stories before they dismiss the much more common and likely causes.

But the most fascinating part is the need to assign meaning to data that has no meaning. Things don't all just blow up at once. Computers are programmed var ahead of time. The heading it was one is exactly where an experienced and loyal and good and true employee would point it in an emergency, even if his body was telling him that it was dying, as he fought to save the plane.

I think the part I hate the worst, that I find contemptible, is the blame many seem willing to heap on a working stiff pilot and his partner without corroboration.



 

magical thyme

(14,881 posts)
79. I realize it could have been done before death. The point is I would expect they
Tue Mar 18, 2014, 06:41 PM
Mar 2014

would move as quickly as possible toward their nearest landing point, based on what you wrote earlier. Programming the computer would seem to take longer than simply manual steering, but I'm obviously not a pilot so what do I know?

Other news that has (re)surfaced today is that several people in the Maldives reported seeing a large plane fly low overhead and described colors similar to on this plane. Apparently they had reported this earlier on to their local official. Not normal in their area and I don't know what motive they would have to make it up.

On the other hand, I googled the locations of the takeoff location, the landing strip the author of the above article and the Maldives. Moving from an unknown area a bit northeast of Kuala Lampur to make a sharp left turn toward the landing strip the pilot headed toward did not leave a course directly toward the Maldives. OTOH, I realize that I was guessing at where the left turn was made and also guessing at some location on the Maldives, looking at a flat map, not a globe, etc.

I also saw an interview with a retired pilot who has flown that type of plane; he said based on what he'd seen, he believed somebody messed with the plane.

I believe in Occam's Razor. I also would have expected the simplest, most obvious explanation to be the first thing investigated, and iirc the initial area searched covered where they would have landed if they'd gone down immediately. I'm guessing that even if the Malaysian officials didn't think of that first, that somebody else would have suggested it to them.

There is, of course, the possibility that they have data and information they are not sharing with reporters.

Understand, too, that some people just really enjoy a mystery and detective work. One that's unfolding live is irresistable.

Oh, another piece of information that I read today. Apparently ACARS didn't stop functioning totally. Instead, it was relaying information, but intermittantly.

 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
81. Mystery and detective work is fine until they execute the wrong person.
Tue Mar 18, 2014, 06:49 PM
Mar 2014

I am quite sure they have data they are not sharing - I don't know that it's relevant.

I am also quite sure pissing on a worker for doing their job (the pilots) without any evidence otherwise is not only pointless, but a little pathetic - what kind of person need to beat up on someone, without any evidence, who probably died trying to fix a malfunction and save 200+ people?

As well, there is no evidence for pirates, that's all imaginary, sewing together coincidence.

I do know from what we have everything is still explainable by virtue of a malfunction, and there is not a shred of anything except speculation that controverts it.

Not getting in a hurry, prepared to wait for the black box they pull up in 2 or 3 years, when they search hard enough along that final flight path.

It will be instructive.

 

magical thyme

(14,881 posts)
82. I didn't see anybody beating up on the pilot.
Tue Mar 18, 2014, 06:53 PM
Mar 2014

He was investigated, along with all the co-pilot, the passengers and all the rest of the crew. That's a normal investigation...you look at all possibilities.

And he won't be executed because he is presumably already dead.

TorchTheWitch

(11,065 posts)
69. or an electrical short
Tue Mar 18, 2014, 01:53 AM
Mar 2014

In watching the documentary about the SilkAir flight again I noticed something that I didn't the first time... the transponder and ACARS comms went off at different times, and the investigators said that had it been deliberate they would have been disconnected much closer to or at the same time. The fact that minutes passed between one going down and then the other was a clear sign of it NOT being deliberate.

Let's not forget that the engines of the plane power EVERYTHING on the plane. When there is engine trouble some things or a lot of things or horrifically ALL things cease to function at all or cease to function correctly. One of the problems with the design of the DC10 was that though it was capable of flight with only two of the three engines only one of those engines powered ALL all the controls in the plane, so if THAT was the engine that stopped functioning correctly or at all or as in at least one case detached completely from the plane ALL the controls of the plane were lost. An utterly stupid and horrific design flaw.

All it would take to lose comms is a faulty wire or switch or valve or circuit breaker or just engine problems in general rendering some or a lot of controls to cease functioning. No need for a fire or explosion to take out ACARS or the transponder. And for ACARS and the transponder going off at different times spells the OPPOSITE of it being deliberate. In the SilkAir flight the time difference between the transponder going out and the ACARS going out was six minutes. In this Malaysian flight that time gap was reported to be nine minutes, and the first one to go out was reported to be the ACARS comms that requires pulling a circuit breaker and a time consuming checklist to go through just to find it and before the co-pilot's last perfectly calm and normal response.

SilkAir documentary that positively identifies a faulty rudder control widget as causing the crash and that previous data from the flight recorders showed that they were intermittently ceasing to function periodically all on their own in the past 20-something flights the plane took for as little as 4 seconds at a time up to many minutes. Not only that, but in this plane there are no warnings whatsoever that there is anything wrong with the flight recorders...




JudyM

(29,204 posts)
72. Interesting. But then we still have the issue of the plane flying in a path to apparently
Tue Mar 18, 2014, 10:17 AM
Mar 2014

avoid detection. If the pilot lost control altogether (or was unconscious) wouldn't it be strange for the plane to just happen to do this randomly? And the equally odd coincidence of the timing of it all taking place just as it was transitioning into the next territorial air space.

TorchTheWitch

(11,065 posts)
75. Do we?
Tue Mar 18, 2014, 03:59 PM
Mar 2014

The authorities have never been certain that either the military radar or the satellite pings were from the plane in question. Ever. Yet from the very beginning the media reported continually that it WAS the plane in question despite the authorities continually saying they weren't certain it was. Recently it was even reported that they were "over fifty percent" certain it was the plane in question. Now that's a ridiculously low percentage of certainty, and by that wording you can bet that it's somewhere in the immediate neighborhood of fifty percent otherwise they would have quoted the highest percentage that they could.

Everything both the authorities and the media have said is speculation, and quite a lot of ridiculous speculation despite the certainty the media has continually reported that never existed. Did the ACARS really go down or were they just unable to pick it up any longer since the plane was going out of range of civilian radar? Over the expanse of ocean for this flights normal flight path comms are spotty anyway because of civilian radar being unable to detect it outside of their range, and the entire reason that the plane at that time was handed off to the Vietnamese - they knew that the plane was about to exit their range of communication. Nothing nefarious about that and no reason whatsoever to believe that ACARS was shut down or stopped working at all as the most logical explanation is that the plane exited Malaysian range. The only way to know whether or not ACARS stopped working because of a some fault or that it was deliberately turned off is to examine the recordings from the black boxes which they obviously don't have. The ACARS "going down" just as they were leaving Malaysian civilian radar is most likely nothing more than they could no longer pick it up because at that point they were going out of civilian radar range, so of course they wouldn't be able to pick it up, and they KNEW that hence why the plane at that time was handed off to the Vietnamese. But they also know that there is an expanse of ocean where neither the Malaysian radar nor the Vietnamese radar would be able to detect the plane because neither of those civilian radars are capable of far enough range across the ocean so that there is no silent gap between them. They only knew that something had gone wrong when they realized that at the time the plane was expected to enter Vietnamese radar range it didn't and apparently never did.

Yet we're also supposed to believe that this plane was detected on Malaysian military radar as an unidentified aircraft that made very strange maneuvers but the military just sat on their asses and did absolutely nothing. Baloney. Their JOB is to discover what any unidentified aircraft is on their radar that is not expected to be there by putting jets in the air to intercept said unidentified aircraft and determine what it is, why it's there and what is wrong with it and/or what it's doing. There is no possible way to believe that Malaysian military sat around with their thumbs up their asses doing nothing when their JOB is to get in the air and intercept the unidentified craft. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY that they watched this thing on radar they could not identify yet knew was not supposed to be there and did nothing at all. In fact, the more details of what "the aircraft" did in the air the more it sounds like it was a military aircraft with the sort of maneuvers it was doing and the speed at which it was doing them... even that supposed hard left turn just before entering Vietnamese airspace is something that a military jet could do and would do since a military jet entering another country's airspace without authorization would be an act of war, and it is unlikely that a commercial jet even could do a hard turn in the air in the first place without a military aircraft trained pilot and without damage to the plane - they aren't built to withstand such maneuvers and why all commercial aircraft make wide circles in flight in order to turn unless it's a case of some emergency that could still likely cause aircraft damage.

Now we're supposed to believe there was some ghost or many ghosts on the plane since they can't find one single nefarious thing about one single person that was on that plane and these ghosts somehow drove this plane as though it were a military jet capable of such maneuvers all while the military sat on their collective asses doing nothing at all, while not one single person on the ground saw a commercial jet flying low and erratically, while civilian radar was totally inept at picking it up when it supposedly crossed over the entire country and these ghosts were for some reason hijacking the plane with not one single entity claiming responsibility and for no reason other than to drive it till it ran out of gas and dump in in the ocean. Rubbish. I can't even believe that people here are believing such nonsense.

Here we have satellite images from the Chinese showing SOMETHING in the ocean in the area where someone from an oil rig told authorities in detail where he saw a plane of some sort explode in the sky and drop into the ocean yet every bit of it is discounted and in the most ridiculous unexplained way. The detailed information from the guy on the oil rig was just forgotten and never addressed nor explained, and their feeble explanation for the satellite images is simply that they were sent by accident, they looked in that spot and didn't find anything. Huh? Yeah, I can see why they wouldn't have wanted those satellite images to be seen by the public, but what the hell is "sent by accident" supposed to mean? That certainly doesn't say that those images were false or otherwise inaccurate, yet no one is asking these questions. And if they found "nothing" in that spot days later when they finally supposedly checked obviously it either sank or drifted so far from the area that it's no wonder that a fly over "search" found "nothing". CLEARLY it was SOMETHING and there's no question what that something was and where it went should have been identified rather than just blown off as "nothing".

Either that plane had some kind of catastrophe and crashed somewhere off its flight path after it's last voice communication or what is increasingly more likely that it was shot down and all this silly unbelievable rubbish is just a cover up so no one has to admit they shot it down or why nor find any wreckage that would prove it.

JudyM

(29,204 posts)
87. Whoa. Shot down. Life is stranger than fiction.
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 12:02 AM
Mar 2014

It is strange. And now the Thai military picking up info that they are just now revealing because they were not specifically asked. It is all quite odd.

TorchTheWitch

(11,065 posts)
88. the one single thing that has bothered me greatly ever since
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 02:03 AM
Mar 2014

It became known that the malaysian military detected an unidentified aircraft not where it was supposed to be and supposedly sat on their asses and did nothing. Total rubbish. There's no question that had the malaysian air force detected such an aircraft on their radar (and of course they would have since that's their job) that they would have scrambled jets and intercepted the aircraft to find out what it was, why it was there, whether or not there was something wrong with it and what its purpose was yet we're expected to believe this didn't happen. Oh yes, it bloody did. That's their job. There is therefore no possible way that the air force did not intercept this plane or if it didn't it was because it had already plunged into the sea before reaching Vietnam's. Ditto for Vietnam's air force should the unidentified aircraft entered their airspace though apparently it never did.

What we end up with is that the Malaysian military either intercepted the plane and for whatever reason shot it down (and they would have if it could be seen that everyone in the plane was passed out or already dead from a decompression so that there would be no danger of the plane flying into populated areas and crashing) or they would have found no plane but debris from a crash into the ocean. If they discovered that the plane had crashed there would be no reason to not say so and search vehicles would be sent to that area for possible survivors and to recover the wreckage especially the black boxes. But since that never happened then the only thing left is that the air force shot it down, and Malaysia does not want to admit that they did even for a legitimate reason - they most certainly would not want China to have a complete cow due to a shoot down whether legitimate or not. Then of course there is also the possibility that the plane flew on into either Vietnam's or China's own airspace and either of them found it necessary to shoot it down, and neither country would ever admit they did either. Seeing as the plane never appeared to make it into Vietnam's airspace though, the more likely thing was that it was the Malaysian air force.

I just read this a few minutes ago that was part of a conversation with a man concerning various questions as to this missing plane...

http://news.yahoo.com/could-mah730-have-been--swapped--mid-air--haynes-manual-plane-expert-offers-his-theories-135928312.html
Q: Why did the Malaysian air force not scramble their fighters?

A: I actually trained the Malaysian air Force at Kuantan Air Base on the east coast of Malaysia, and they have two MIG-29 fighter aircraft sat on alert 24/7, ready to scramble should an unknown aircraft enter their airspace...why were they not scrambled?

Most countries in this region spend billions of dollars on defense – in particular, air defense – protecting their international airspace and waters.

The Indian Air Force have stated they only turn on their radars on a "need-to" basis – I think that's very unbelievable. I find it almost impossible that a Boeing 777 could be flying over land – whether that's Vietnam, Malaysia, India or further north without anyone seeing it.


And there you have it from someone that trained the Malaysian air force... there is NO WAY that they did NOT scramble jets and intercept that plane. No way at all.

There was a similar incident with the crash of the Helios 522 flight in that there was a failure of some sort, the plane experienced rapid decompression that caused all the passengers and the pilots to lose consciousness except for one flight attendant that realized there was a problem in the cockpit when the plane was not descending once the oxygen masks in the plane dropped. He used what is called "monkey swinging" where a person can move through the plane using those oxygen masks that dropped which passengers didn't use plus the extra masks that drop for the purpose of "monkey swinging" in order to get to a cabinet that held oxygen tanks with about an hour of oxygen in each. By using the oxygen tanks he was able to keycode into the cockpit and get into the pilot seat (the pilot was likely on the floor having passed out while likely attempting to finagle circuit breakers located behind his seat since for whatever technical reason the comms had ceased to function).

Two jets go up with one stationed behind the plane in case it needs to be shot down while the other flies closely along the plane's length in order to look in the windows and try to determine what's going on (particularly with the pilots). The first time the jet doing the looking noticed that all the passengers appeared to be passed out or dead most of whom were wearing their oxygen masks, while the pilot was not seen in his seat, but the co-pilot was slumped over in his and not wearing an oxygen mask (for whatever reason the oxygen masks in the cockpit didn't deploy or they didn't put them on because of some vital emergency that required their more immediate attention). After looking a second time along the plane and then back to the cockpit this time the jet saw a man in the pilot seat who was conscious and appeared to be trying to control the plane and who also acknowledged the jet. Since the plane was headed for a bare hillside, and likely the jet fighters wanted to see if this person in the pilot's seat could get the plane under control they didn't shoot it down but gave an escort until it did crash into that hillside the flight attendant not being able to do anything to save the plane (he was also a recent licensed commercial pilot). All he had been able to do was give a mayday signal that no one could hear because of the comms being non-functioning... they only knew about his mayday signals from the black boxes.

Had that flight attendant also passed out like everyone else leaving no one to attempt to recover the flight, and the plane been heading for a populated area to crash the Greek military would have shot it down and rightly so. Would they have admitted it though? Or just claimed the plane crashed on its own/blew apart in the sky and crossed their fingers in hopes that an investigation didn't show that it was shot down? And if they didn't want it to be found out that it was shot down would they just claim they never flew after it at all when they did or claimed they couldn't find it?

Interesting documentary of the Helios crash...



In watching so many of these crash documentaries what I've found is that authorities ALWAYS want to blame pilot error rather than admit there was something wrong with any part of the plane regardless of the proof. I can't imagine any country's military being willing to admit that they shot down a commercial jet no matter how legitimate.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,614 posts)
26. Not very far - fuel burn at low altitudes is huge.
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 10:57 AM
Mar 2014

So if this is true there's no way it could have flown for 7 hours like some are claiming.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
27. Unless they stopped for a refill.
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 11:20 AM
Mar 2014

[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

eggplant

(3,909 posts)
55. This was my thought as well.
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 05:13 PM
Mar 2014

If they were smart enough to be this evasive, they had a plan. And that likely included refueling and then going who knows where. From their behavior, preserving the integrity of the plane seems like a high priority. I have a feeling they aren't anywhere in the search area.

The question becomes -- who would need a stolen airplane and why?

dipsydoodle

(42,239 posts)
4. Elsewhere Kazakhstan has been mentioned.
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 09:10 AM
Mar 2014

Good luck with searching that country - its the size of western Europe.

boston bean

(36,219 posts)
9. I'm doubtful that they know exactly how much fuel was aboard.
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 09:18 AM
Mar 2014

They say it was such and such... but I think most anything they have been saying up to this point is suspect.

Because if it did have more fuel than they originally reported, they would look incompetent at the best and at the worst look like they were a haven for terrorists.

Agschmid

(28,749 posts)
11. Fuel is usually tightly controlled as it is very expensive.
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 09:22 AM
Mar 2014

There is always enough for the destination + ATC/Weather delays but not that much more.

boston bean

(36,219 posts)
12. But if it was well planned and they had someone on the ground helping
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 09:23 AM
Mar 2014

in the plot, they may not know for sure.

lapislzi

(5,762 posts)
25. This is the trouble with conspiracies, however
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 10:56 AM
Mar 2014

The more people involved, the more likely it is that someone will talk or get found out. The best (or should I say the most effective/successful) conspiracies involve only a handful of personnel and are and tightly controlled.

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
23. On PPRUNE pilots who have flown that route thought they would have had extra fuel
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 10:27 AM
Mar 2014

First, because Chinese flights can get jammed up, so it's standard to carry hours of extra fuel, and second because fuel would have been cheaper in Malaysia for this plane.

But if the aircraft was flown that way for very long at all, it would have been burning fuel very fast and the flight range would be considerably less.

TorchTheWitch

(11,065 posts)
46. not really - it has everything to do with control of the plane
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 02:27 PM
Mar 2014

They have to know exactly hom much fuel is on board so they can make appropriate calculations for take off, in flight control, how long a runway they need for take off or landing, altitude, speed, etc. It's a matter of its weight, not its price.

Planes routinely have a hell of a lot more fuel than is needed to just fly from one place to another since most planes do as many trips from here to there as can safely be done in a day, and refueling after each flight is very time consuming and would screw up take off times.

sufrommich

(22,871 posts)
5. China demands Malaysia step up investigation.
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 09:13 AM
Mar 2014
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/missing-jet/china-malaysia-immediately-expand-search-missing-jet-n54361

I think the Chinese probably have the most to be nervous about if that plane actually landed intact. If it's intact and intended to be used as a weapon of mass destruction,it's most likely going to be used in Asia.

Sunlei

(22,651 posts)
7. why did china wait so long to note the plane on the way to Beijing wasn't in their airspace?
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 09:18 AM
Mar 2014

It's a long flight, hours over china before you finally arrive at Beijing.

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
21. The next ATC handoff (the one dodged) was to the Vietnamese out of Ho Chi Minh
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 10:07 AM
Mar 2014

And they were not slack at all - they were trying to find the aircraft almost immediately.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,271 posts)
15. This is speculation by the New Straits Times, not anything official
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 09:34 AM
Mar 2014
Investigators are poring over the Boeing 777-200ER's flight profile to determine if it had flown low and used "terrain masking" during most of the eight hours it was missing from the radar coverage of possibly at least three countries.
...
"It's possible that the aircraft had hugged the terrain in some areas, that are mountainous to avoid radar detection."

This technique is called terrain masking and is used by military pilots to fly to their targets stealthily, using the topography to mask their approach from prying microwaves. This type of flying is considered very dangerous, especially in low-light conditions and spatial disorientation, and airsickness could easily set in. The stresses and loads it puts on the airframe, especially an airliner of the 777's size, are tremendous.
...
Investigators are also factoring in the extra fuel the aircraft would have burnt in the denser lower air if it had flown "down on the deck" for sustained periods. Pilots agree that MH370 would lose up to about two hours of fuel. Any erratic manoeuvres would have also eaten into the jet's fuel reserves.

- See more at: http://www.nst.com.my/nation/general/font-color-red-missing-mh370-font-plane-flew-low-to-avoid-radar-1.516965#sthash.wkvZVAq4.dpuf


boston bean

(36,219 posts)
18. It is also being reported on CNN and many other mainstream outlets.
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 09:48 AM
Mar 2014

May the source be the New Strait Times, only... possibly.. But since more than one entity is reporting gives more credence.

Which then brings into question exactly how much fuel was on board and does Malaysia have that correct, due to the last ping they have record of. The plane did fly for many hours... That we do know for sure.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,271 posts)
20. CNN is just passing on the NST speculation too
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 10:06 AM
Mar 2014
Whoever was flying the airplane may have flown below 5,000 feet and used mountainous terrain as cover to avoid being detected by radar, the New Straits Times newspaper in Malaysia reported Monday, citing unnamed sources. CNN could not immediately confirm the newspaper's account, which is just one of several as-yet unproven theories about what happened to the jetliner after its last contact with flight controllers.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/17/world/asia/malaysia-plane-up-to-speed/index.html?hpt=hp_c1


I think it all traces back to the unnamed source's speculation. No-one's mentioned 5,000 feet until now; we don't even know what country or ocean that is supposed to have happened in.

boston bean

(36,219 posts)
22. That is fine, but it is newsworthy.
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 10:21 AM
Mar 2014

No one knows what has happened. This is a normal trajectory for these types of stories. All sources are unnamed at this point in time. And it's not always because they are perpetuating a rumor.

All sources are likely to be unnamed at this point in time.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,271 posts)
33. But the point is the source is guessing themselves
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 12:23 PM
Mar 2014

The source is saying people are wondering if they flew low. The whole article is speculation.

boston bean

(36,219 posts)
36. The fact is authorities are speculating and reporting on that speculation by the media is,
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 12:29 PM
Mar 2014

whether you want to agree or not, NEWS.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,271 posts)
37. An unnamed source claims they are speculating
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 12:36 PM
Mar 2014

which is thin gruel. The Telegraph distorted it by claim the low flyign as a fact in its headline. This is speculation and crappy reporting from a variety of people, not news.

boston bean

(36,219 posts)
39. All sources are unnamed for this news story. Trying to make it seem like these
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 12:56 PM
Mar 2014

developments, of what authorities is thinking or speculating is not news, is wrong headed, imho.

It is news. This is what authorities are thinking, speculating, and telling reporters.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,271 posts)
43. No, sources have often been named
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 01:09 PM
Mar 2014

Sometimes it's Malaysian Airlines, or their government, or Inmarsat. When it's a combination of an unnamed source, and admitted speculation (though misreported as 'fact' by the Telegraph) rather than claims, it's not news. It's gossip.

brooklynite

(94,376 posts)
42. This wouldn't make sense...
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 01:07 PM
Mar 2014

Australia isn't on the signal arc for the last know ACARS ping, which goes southwest into the Indian Ocean.

 

cosmicone

(11,014 posts)
24. I doubt it is a simple pilot suicide a la Egyptair
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 10:31 AM
Mar 2014

They could have ditched it right where they were in South China sea.

It was flown so very carefully and astutely for some nefarious purpose. They purposely flew from waypoint to waypoint to blend in with normal commercial traffic and not arouse suspicion.

I would like to speculate that it was landed somewhere in Myanmar or Bangladesh to be used later for a 9/11 style attack.

Hassin Bin Sober

(26,315 posts)
28. He could also not want it to be found.
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 11:36 AM
Mar 2014

Maybe he wanted to commit suicide but not want the black boxes to be found so he flew it wayyyyyy off course.

 

cosmicone

(11,014 posts)
29. Perhaps ... he gets immortality with the stunt
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 11:39 AM
Mar 2014

because he will always be talked about .... but ... he fails at the question, which one of the two?

snagglepuss

(12,704 posts)
47. From what I've read this is being slammed as speculation that there are no facts
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 02:44 PM
Mar 2014

to support this claim. I have no idea but the reporting on this whole thing has become extremely poor.

underpants

(182,632 posts)
45. Two things I saw this morning - CNN and actual information on Fox News
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 02:19 PM
Mar 2014

CNN had a guy who instructs in a simulator - he said that flying at 5,000 feet would be very difficult and very dangerous in mountainous areas. They also mentioned that the tracking equipment was turned of just as the plane would have been entering Vietnam airspace. The perfect time to switch it off if you wanted to get lost.

On Fox they had a former 777 pilot who said that they could switch the passengers to 25 or 35K atmosphere knocking them out. There would have been no need to actually go up to 45K feet.

Just what I heard.

countryjake

(8,554 posts)
52. That stupid newspaper makes headlines out of a guessing game...
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 04:51 PM
Mar 2014

Lots of intelligent people have been speculating all week about how a jet might be able to avoid detection for so long and flying low was exactly one of those conjectures. It may be what happened or it may not be true.

Now the Telegraph makes it look as tho it's a verifiable truth? Using words such as "reportedly", when absolutely nothing has officially been reported yet, no such detail has been confirmed. They've also been trying to make connections between Malaysia's opposition leader, Anwar Ibrahim, and the Flight Captain, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, suggesting that he was a political fanatic who was obsessed with the current government, when no such thing has been verified. Granted, speculation is required in this sort of mystery, but a banner headline from a national newspaper, making such guesses appear to be fact is irresponsible.

Not blaming you for posting it, but that paper gets on my last nerve. I'd never post something from that news source in our Latest Breaking News here.

mackerel

(4,412 posts)
57. There are satellites that can read a car number plate from space.
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 05:25 PM
Mar 2014

The U.S. was able to map Iraq from one end to the other prior to the first gulf war and that's only the technology we know about.

If the 777 did in fact carry on flying, how can 20+ nations not find a 200 ft. jet between them?

Another thing I'm curious about? There were three Americans on board. Some dude from IBM that nobody talks about and two children. Were the two children his children? If they weren't then who were the parents of these "American" children. The parents weren't Americans?

Calista241

(5,586 posts)
93. Satellites
Sat Mar 22, 2014, 12:04 PM
Mar 2014

There is absolutely NOTHING of any consequence near the target area they're currently searching. They're 1500 miles from Australia, and thousands more miles from anywhere else. It's in the deep south Indian ocean. There are no shipping lanes there, no land, no islands, nothing of any interest for anyone.

Satellites are Kings of multi-tasking. In a single orbit, they may be tasked with taking pictures of dozens of different sites from different angles and different fields of view. Moving satellites to search the target area would cost millions of dollars, and could restrict their other operations depending on the required orbit.

Satellites have an extremely narrow field of view, and they are very expensive to move around to change their orientation. There's a reason Google Earth's image of my house hasn't been updated in 7 years. And I live in Atlanta, a reasonably interesting city with lots of stuff to look at, compare, track, what have you.

In addition, for the most part, satellites don't do wide angle fields of view. If you want to look at a 100' by 100' patch of land, a satellite is awesome, but if you want to search 5000 square miles worth of terrain, a satellite is a terrible choice.

As far as the parent's of the two children, I suspect that the parents are immigrants and citizens of another country. The children, if they were born here, would be American citizens while their parents technically are not.

TorchTheWitch

(11,065 posts)
100. check out the passenger list
Sun Mar 23, 2014, 08:09 AM
Mar 2014

#104 - Meng, Nicolechd - age 4

Several other Meng family members on board as well all of whom were Chinese citizens. I'm guessing the child was born in the US thereby automatically becoming a US citizen, and the family had gotten them a US passport.

#171 - Wood, Philip - age 51

#213 - Zheng, Yen - age 2

Several other Zheng family members on board as well all of whom were Chinese citizens. I'm guessing the child was born in the US thereby automatically becoming a US citizen, and the family had gotten them a US passport.

Wood was on the plane by himself with no other family members though he might have known other people also on board such as co-workers.

Passenger numbers are also seat numbers, and the families of the children were grouped in seats together.

http://malaysiaairlines-mh370.com/passenger-list/

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
67. Wait. The "evidence" for this is the lack of primary radar contact?
Mon Mar 17, 2014, 10:11 PM
Mar 2014

That's putting the cart before the horse, don't you think?

EX500rider

(10,810 posts)
86. Some aviation hobby guy has this theory: (shadows other plane)
Tue Mar 18, 2014, 09:47 PM
Mar 2014

It explains the zig-zag of turns the radar picked up and would put her on the northern ping arc from the satellite. ie headed to one of the Stans or western China?

http://mh370shadow.com/post/79838944823/did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using-sia68-sq68

 

Thor_MN

(11,843 posts)
91. WTH is terrain masking over the ocean?
Sat Mar 22, 2014, 08:59 AM
Mar 2014

The only terrain is waves. One could use islands, if there are any, but invoking terrain masking for an over water flight is ridiculous.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Missing Malaysia plane fl...