about the hypothesis that it flew 7 hours: is it possible to fly that long "under the radar" ?
It is using much more fuel at low altitude no ?
Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 is missing
Moderator: Latest news team
Re: Malaysia Airlines says it has lost contact with flight M
My messages reflect my personal opinion which may be different than yours. I beleive a forum is made to create a debate so I encourage people to express themselves, the way they want, with the ideas they want. I expect the same understanding in return.
Re: Malaysia Airlines says it has lost contact with flight M
Why should it fly "under the radar"? If it took the southern part of the arc (which appears now to be the most likely route), it was flying mostly over the Indian Ocean where there are no radars...Acid-drop wrote:about the hypothesis that it flew 7 hours: is it possible to fly that long "under the radar" ?
It is using much more fuel at low altitude no ?
André
ex Sabena #26567
ex Sabena #26567
Re: Malaysia Airlines says it has lost contact with flight M
Australia takes over southern arc of search for missing Malaysian plane
Australia has accepted a request from Malaysia to take charge of the "southern vector" of the search for a Malaysia Airlines jetliner missing for more than a week. Australia has offered additional surveillance resources to bolster the two Australian Orion aircraft already searching for the plane during.
The southern Indian Ocean is one of the most remote places in the world and also one of the deepest, posing potentially enormous challenges for the international search effort.
On Sunday, Australia shifted one of its two Orion aircraft searching for the missing plane further south in the Indian Ocean, at Malaysia's request. The aircraft is now searching the ocean to the north and west of the remote Cocos Islands. The second Orion is continuing to search west of Malaysia.
Australia has a military over-the-horizon radar (OTHR) network, which allows it to observe all air and sea activity north and northwest of Australia for up to 3,000 km (1,860 miles). However, the Jindalee Operational Radar Network (JORN), which has radar capability extending into the Indian Ocean, does not operate on a 24-hour basis.
More from Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/ ... Y320140317
Australia has accepted a request from Malaysia to take charge of the "southern vector" of the search for a Malaysia Airlines jetliner missing for more than a week. Australia has offered additional surveillance resources to bolster the two Australian Orion aircraft already searching for the plane during.
The southern Indian Ocean is one of the most remote places in the world and also one of the deepest, posing potentially enormous challenges for the international search effort.
On Sunday, Australia shifted one of its two Orion aircraft searching for the missing plane further south in the Indian Ocean, at Malaysia's request. The aircraft is now searching the ocean to the north and west of the remote Cocos Islands. The second Orion is continuing to search west of Malaysia.
Australia has a military over-the-horizon radar (OTHR) network, which allows it to observe all air and sea activity north and northwest of Australia for up to 3,000 km (1,860 miles). However, the Jindalee Operational Radar Network (JORN), which has radar capability extending into the Indian Ocean, does not operate on a 24-hour basis.
More from Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/ ... Y320140317
André
ex Sabena #26567
ex Sabena #26567
-
jasonSeattle
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 15 Mar 2014, 18:24
Re: Malaysia Airlines says it has lost contact with flight M
We have seen the arcs on the large scale map that signify the range of places (the corridors or paths) where MH370 was likely to have been at 8:11 AM a few hours after its disappearance, based on satellite pinging.
Now, won't there be some other geographic arcs based on the satellite pinging before 8:11 AM that provide a clue where the jet was likely to have been an hour earlier and two hours earlier?
And doesn't the combination of the different arcs plus some dead reckoning based on the plane's speed narrow the potential locations of the missing plane somewhat?
Now, won't there be some other geographic arcs based on the satellite pinging before 8:11 AM that provide a clue where the jet was likely to have been an hour earlier and two hours earlier?
And doesn't the combination of the different arcs plus some dead reckoning based on the plane's speed narrow the potential locations of the missing plane somewhat?
Re: Malaysia Airlines says it has lost contact with flight M
I was thinking a bit the same! The problem, you don;t know the speed and the stability of the speed of the aircraft...jasonSeattle wrote:We have seen the arcs on the large scale map that signify the range of places (the corridors or paths) where MH370 was likely to have been at 8:11 AM a few hours after its disappearance, based on satellite pinging.
Now, won't there be some other geographic arcs based on the satellite pinging before 8:11 AM that provide a clue where the jet was likely to have been an hour earlier and two hours earlier?
And doesn't the combination of the different arcs plus some dead reckoning based on the plane's speed narrow the potential locations of the missing plane somewhat?
KInd regards
Re: Malaysia Airlines says it has lost contact with flight M
We don't know, indeed...that's the reason why we haven't found it yet. But wat we can do, is make assumptions based on what we do know (eg: history of track & speed) to estimate the most likely trajectory. But I'm confident that is exactly what they are doing...
Re: Malaysia Airlines says it has lost contact with flight M
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ai ... _incidents
I think that China is the big loser here. Or they have downed the airliner accidentally. Or the airliner was hijacked in one way or the other and sent to crash on Chinese soil.
If all of this is deliberate, the question is why. The answer could be: to force China to invest even more in its military aparatus. ( was that not the downfall of the USSR
)
I think that China is the big loser here. Or they have downed the airliner accidentally. Or the airliner was hijacked in one way or the other and sent to crash on Chinese soil.
If all of this is deliberate, the question is why. The answer could be: to force China to invest even more in its military aparatus. ( was that not the downfall of the USSR
)Re: Malaysia Airlines says it has lost contact with flight M
I'm not that confident that they have the correct history of track & speed, surely not during the first week of the search. And even now, with the so called "aircraft flew for 5 to 7 hours after the last contact": that is based upon data from one (private) satellite.teddybAIR wrote:But what we can do, is make assumptions based on what we do know (eg: history of track & speed) to estimate the most likely trajectory. But I'm confident that is exactly what they are doing...
Yesterday, CNN had an interview with Les Abend, editor FlyingMag.com and former 777 pilot. He maintains that some sort of technical problem occured. "I'm not buying that latest satellite information", he said:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/v ... d.cnn.html
(the video will switch to an interview with a NYT journalist, stating that "someone" took over onboard)
Re: Malaysia Airlines says it has lost contact with flight M
A very good article in french, listing all the different media (from all the world) that concider the malysian gov as clowns.
http://www.lesoir.be/496669/article/act ... a-airlines
http://www.lesoir.be/496669/article/act ... a-airlines
My messages reflect my personal opinion which may be different than yours. I beleive a forum is made to create a debate so I encourage people to express themselves, the way they want, with the ideas they want. I expect the same understanding in return.
Re: Malaysia Airlines says it has lost contact with flight M
A question that becomes more and more relevant according to me:
> who could potentially benefit from the cause of the 'accident' not to be reveiled?
eg: when a russian fighter downeda B747 because it infringed their airspace and was considered to be a spy plane, Russia did everything they could to find the CVR & FDR before the US did. That included dropping false pingers in the ocean to sabotage the Western search.
If I'm not mistaking: MH370 was just entering another airspace/control area as it was handed over from one control center to another.
> who could potentially benefit from the cause of the 'accident' not to be reveiled?
eg: when a russian fighter downeda B747 because it infringed their airspace and was considered to be a spy plane, Russia did everything they could to find the CVR & FDR before the US did. That included dropping false pingers in the ocean to sabotage the Western search.
If I'm not mistaking: MH370 was just entering another airspace/control area as it was handed over from one control center to another.
Re: Malaysia Airlines says it has lost contact with flight M
The guy who did this for insurance fraud...teddybAIR wrote:> who could potentially benefit from the cause of the 'accident' not to be reveiled?
Cheers,
Stij
Re: Malaysia Airlines says it has lost contact with flight M
new theory popped up: the airliner would have followed a Singapore airliner westbound...travelling in its shadow.
Re: Malaysia Airlines says it has lost contact with flight M
no need to fly 7 hours for that i thinkThe guy who did this for insurance fraud...
following another plane is a great idea ... but where can you land ?
My messages reflect my personal opinion which may be different than yours. I beleive a forum is made to create a debate so I encourage people to express themselves, the way they want, with the ideas they want. I expect the same understanding in return.
Re: Malaysia Airlines says it has lost contact with flight M
The aerial search for missing Malaysia Airlines MH370 flight has been hampered by refusal from Indonesia to let planes overfly their territory! Thanks for the cooperation...
André
ex Sabena #26567
ex Sabena #26567
Re: Malaysia Airlines says it has lost contact with flight M
Interesting theory regi.
Interestingly, there was a wave of SQ A380's overflying KUL just as MH370 took off from there. But they were way ahead by the time MH370 took its first turn, and it's hard to catch up with an A380 aircraft at cruising speed.
However, I could see that as a possibility, as primary radar can't differentiate between a spot and a slightly larger spot...
One more issue there though is that the formation would need to be built outside of radar coverage, as otherwise there would have been some kind of warning to the shadowed aircraft from ATC, who also have access to primary radar information... even if it's more and more ignored.
Certainly not impossible.
Westbound I doubt it, I'm sure that the Inmarsat data has been processed to see the direction they took, and that only orientation is the issue. In the news we only see the final Inmarsat position but investigators have access to the entire data. If the aircraft would have flown Westbound, the circles of the geostationary Inmarsat would have become smaller and smaller as the aircraft approached the satellites relative position on the ground in the Indian Ocean, and the larger and larger as the aircraft continued West.
The fact that the US Navy is no longer searching there means that they are sure that it either went South or North. By plotting time and speed against distance, they must have a pretty good idea of where it is with a 50% chance between North and South.
That a pilot had a partial self-built simulator at home is not suspicious. In Belgium also many airline pilots have this at home and enjoy it with their colleagues on their time off, with a beer and some snacks...
Suicide is dubious, it's too obvious that insurance wouldn't pay out...
That (one of) the pilots did it is a possibility, but it's also possible that someone was/got in the cockpit at a very early stage in the flight, possibly before even the doors were closed.
After all, before a flight there could be a lot of people going in and out of an aircraft... maintenance staff, airline staff, but also ground staff. It's also not rare for someone to jump seat. A flight dispatcher or someone dressed like one would be one of the last to board, so it would be easy for him to stay onboard...
Interestingly, there was a wave of SQ A380's overflying KUL just as MH370 took off from there. But they were way ahead by the time MH370 took its first turn, and it's hard to catch up with an A380 aircraft at cruising speed.
However, I could see that as a possibility, as primary radar can't differentiate between a spot and a slightly larger spot...
One more issue there though is that the formation would need to be built outside of radar coverage, as otherwise there would have been some kind of warning to the shadowed aircraft from ATC, who also have access to primary radar information... even if it's more and more ignored.
Certainly not impossible.
Westbound I doubt it, I'm sure that the Inmarsat data has been processed to see the direction they took, and that only orientation is the issue. In the news we only see the final Inmarsat position but investigators have access to the entire data. If the aircraft would have flown Westbound, the circles of the geostationary Inmarsat would have become smaller and smaller as the aircraft approached the satellites relative position on the ground in the Indian Ocean, and the larger and larger as the aircraft continued West.
The fact that the US Navy is no longer searching there means that they are sure that it either went South or North. By plotting time and speed against distance, they must have a pretty good idea of where it is with a 50% chance between North and South.
That a pilot had a partial self-built simulator at home is not suspicious. In Belgium also many airline pilots have this at home and enjoy it with their colleagues on their time off, with a beer and some snacks...
Suicide is dubious, it's too obvious that insurance wouldn't pay out...
That (one of) the pilots did it is a possibility, but it's also possible that someone was/got in the cockpit at a very early stage in the flight, possibly before even the doors were closed.
After all, before a flight there could be a lot of people going in and out of an aircraft... maintenance staff, airline staff, but also ground staff. It's also not rare for someone to jump seat. A flight dispatcher or someone dressed like one would be one of the last to board, so it would be easy for him to stay onboard...
Last edited by Flanker2 on 18 Mar 2014, 18:43, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Malaysia Airlines says it has lost contact with flight M
Flight SQ68, which has been in the immediate vicinity of MH370, was another Boeing 777.Flanker2 wrote:Interestingly, there was a wave of SQ A380's overflying KUL just as MH370 took off from there. But they were way ahead by the time MH370 took its first turn, and it's hard to catch up with an A380 aircraft at cruising speed.
For further developments of this theory, see http://mh370shadow.com/post/79838944823 ... sia68-sq68
André
ex Sabena #26567
ex Sabena #26567
Re: Malaysia Airlines says it has lost contact with flight M
That theory should be pretty easy to confirm using primary radar data from India regarding SQ68.
Even if you fly in formation, we're talking a big B777, so you can't really fly very close... the tail of the B777 being huge by itself, it would require to take some distance, making the radar signature bigger than normal.
Also, primary radar with range would be more affected than primary radar detecting from right below, as it would give a much larger signature than normal when detected from the side if the aircraft was below the other.
Technically speaking, it takes quite some time to enter into a formation at such altitudes and cruising speed... and you don't see what type/company/destination aircraft you are following unless you're being fed information from someone on the ground.
At night, as was the case here, this would seem impossible even if you carry some kind of mini-radar or those portable Pcas systems on board and even then it would be very risky as there would be other traffic. You don't see contrails that well at night, and even less the aircraft.
Last but not least, MH370 pax would have been able to see SQ68's wings if they were just below and close enough not to be detected by radar. Also, SQ68 pax could have seen MH370's wings below and behind them, those wings are huge and taking too much distance would have made them detectable by radar.
I think that anything spaced more than 300ft apart would give 2 signatures on a primary radar depending on range from the radar. Anthing less than 300ft could be spotted from either aircraft.
This one is spaced 2000ft below:
So it's possible but it would be very difficult to intercept at night and it's a fine line between not being spotted by primary radars and by the pax aboard both flights, as the aircraft is just huge.
Even if you fly in formation, we're talking a big B777, so you can't really fly very close... the tail of the B777 being huge by itself, it would require to take some distance, making the radar signature bigger than normal.
Also, primary radar with range would be more affected than primary radar detecting from right below, as it would give a much larger signature than normal when detected from the side if the aircraft was below the other.
Technically speaking, it takes quite some time to enter into a formation at such altitudes and cruising speed... and you don't see what type/company/destination aircraft you are following unless you're being fed information from someone on the ground.
At night, as was the case here, this would seem impossible even if you carry some kind of mini-radar or those portable Pcas systems on board and even then it would be very risky as there would be other traffic. You don't see contrails that well at night, and even less the aircraft.
Last but not least, MH370 pax would have been able to see SQ68's wings if they were just below and close enough not to be detected by radar. Also, SQ68 pax could have seen MH370's wings below and behind them, those wings are huge and taking too much distance would have made them detectable by radar.
I think that anything spaced more than 300ft apart would give 2 signatures on a primary radar depending on range from the radar. Anthing less than 300ft could be spotted from either aircraft.
This one is spaced 2000ft below:
So it's possible but it would be very difficult to intercept at night and it's a fine line between not being spotted by primary radars and by the pax aboard both flights, as the aircraft is just huge.
Re: Malaysia Airlines says it has lost contact with flight M
Well, if you want to park it in a deep ocean, it would...Acid-drop wrote:no need to fly 7 hours for thatThe guy who did this for insurance fraud...
Re: Malaysia Airlines says it has lost contact with flight M
After crossing Malaysia at FL290, knowing he would probably be visible on primary radar recordings?
Fly for 7 hours to crash it, while risking that the ELT would activate and make its position known anyway?
The suicide theory just doesn't hold IMO.
As a B777 pilot, he would have plenty of opportunities to park a B777 in the deepest of oceans.
On routes like KUL-PEK, this would not be ideal as most of the flight is over land. If you intend to do that, you choose a KUL-LAX flight and you can burry it anywhere you want in the Pacific Ocean without any chance of anyone ever finding it, and it would make far more sense.
A B777 pilot in Malaysia has great status, earns a good pay and has little chance of needing more money.
Why kill yourself for money if you can't enjoy it, while you can earn that money and enjoy it if you work for it for 10-15 years, doing what you like most?
That simulator is a sign to me that the captain had a real passion for his job.
Suicide...it doesn't make sense to me.
Fly for 7 hours to crash it, while risking that the ELT would activate and make its position known anyway?
The suicide theory just doesn't hold IMO.
As a B777 pilot, he would have plenty of opportunities to park a B777 in the deepest of oceans.
On routes like KUL-PEK, this would not be ideal as most of the flight is over land. If you intend to do that, you choose a KUL-LAX flight and you can burry it anywhere you want in the Pacific Ocean without any chance of anyone ever finding it, and it would make far more sense.
A B777 pilot in Malaysia has great status, earns a good pay and has little chance of needing more money.
Why kill yourself for money if you can't enjoy it, while you can earn that money and enjoy it if you work for it for 10-15 years, doing what you like most?
That simulator is a sign to me that the captain had a real passion for his job.
Suicide...it doesn't make sense to me.
Re: Malaysia Airlines says it has lost contact with flight M
To our airline pilot friends: Would it be possible to intercept a cruising airliner at night with another cruising airliner? IMO this must be very very difficult, as it requires accurate position data without having it visual.
For a fighter jet it's simple, just switch on the radar and you can see any flying objects within 150km.
Give a bit of afterburner and you get where you want to be.
The only way I can see this done for an airliner is if they switch on the transponder with a different squawk than the one assigned for the flight, for short period of times and use their TCAS display to figure out where other aircraft are, to some degree. You can then cross-reference this with data from sites such as FR24 using internet connection and listen in on VHF frequencies of the area to figure altitude of the flying craft at reporting points.
It's still a huge challenge IMO to get a visual and to intercept them, as you don't have excess power to catch up with the aircraft likein a fighter jet. All you can do is hope that their aircraft is flying slow with a low cost index and that you can catch up with it by burning more fuel.
Also, this would be a B772, non-ER, so you have a lot less power available.
Where is the EK B777 driver that takes the nice pictures?
For a fighter jet it's simple, just switch on the radar and you can see any flying objects within 150km.
Give a bit of afterburner and you get where you want to be.
The only way I can see this done for an airliner is if they switch on the transponder with a different squawk than the one assigned for the flight, for short period of times and use their TCAS display to figure out where other aircraft are, to some degree. You can then cross-reference this with data from sites such as FR24 using internet connection and listen in on VHF frequencies of the area to figure altitude of the flying craft at reporting points.
It's still a huge challenge IMO to get a visual and to intercept them, as you don't have excess power to catch up with the aircraft likein a fighter jet. All you can do is hope that their aircraft is flying slow with a low cost index and that you can catch up with it by burning more fuel.
Also, this would be a B772, non-ER, so you have a lot less power available.
Where is the EK B777 driver that takes the nice pictures?