Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

[PilotMan]

The more I read about this the more it sounds like a pilot action, or someone who took the cockpit who knew enough about the plane, like MS flight sim, knowledge to fly it before you crash it.

Log In - The New York Times

SEPANG, Malaysia — Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 experienced significant changes in altitude after it lost contact with ground control, and altered its course more than once as if still under the command of a pilot, American officials and others familiar with the investigation said Friday.


Radar signals recorded by the Malaysian military appear to show the missing airliner climbing to 45,000 feet, above the approved altitude limit for a Boeing 777-200, soon after it disappeared from civilian radar and made a sharp turn to the west, according to a preliminary assessment by a person familiar with the data.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Occam's Razor - it's in the ocean somewhere.

My guess is hijacking gone wrong or Pilot suicide. In the ocean. Feds scouring passengers and air crew for suspects or motive.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

It was the Final Countdown.

Yup. Quality 80's flick.

[mckerney]

Malaysian: Investigators conclude flight hijacked - Asia news - Boston.com

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) — A Malaysian government official says investigators have concluded that one of the pilots or someone else with flying experience hijacked the missing Malaysia Airlines jet.

The official, who is involved in the investigation, says no motive has been established, and it is not yet clear where the plane was taken. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to brief the media.

The official said that hijacking was no longer a theory. ‘‘It is conclusive.’’

[DaddyTorgo]

Maybe hijacked by one of the guys on false passports who was looking for political asylum?

[PilotMan]

It's interesting that this is being floated with no more information being released than what we already knew. The US was the first to postulate this theory that the plane went over the Indian Ocean, the first to let information be passed about the equipment on the plane. Mind you, that information came from Boeing, which was pressed by the US for the information.

I find it curious that now, all of a sudden, after discounting some of this information for the last couple of days, that now they are wholesale going with it, and saying that the information is conclusive.

It's totally in agreement with what I've been saying all along. I just want to know what else they have that makes it totally conclusive. Because nothing that I've read confirms anything.

[JediKooter]

Ok, so what I want to know is, why in the world are pilots or anyone for the matter, allowed to turn off the transponders? Seems like that is something that should always be on and unable to be tampered with.

[PilotMan]

They have to be turned on and off manually. Pilots have to put the unique code in from ATC for them to track the plane correctly. The only time the transponders are on are when the aircraft is moving, from push back to parking. It's just not practical for them to be on all the time. But to answer you, they are required for us, but it's a piece of equipment that is powered that we have to be able to manage in the event of an emergency. I mean it's not like we don't have enough stuff to play with up there. Turning off the transponder is pretty minimal.

[MacroGuru]

Anyone else like having a Pilot on this board!

Between EF27, Dr. Sak, Pilot and several others on this board I love this shit we hear about different industries and careers.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

They have to be turned on and off manually. Pilots have to put the unique code in from ATC for them to track the plane correctly. The only time the transponders are on are when the aircraft is moving, from push back to parking. It's just not practical for them to be on all the time. But to answer you, they are required for us, but it's a piece of equipment that is powered that we have to be able to manage in the event of an emergency. I mean it's not like we don't have enough stuff to play with up there. Turning off the transponder is pretty minimal.

That makes sense, I can definitely see not having it on if the aircraft isn't going anywhere or is being serviced, etc... So is there a possibility that in case of an emergency, the transponder could cause additional problems to the electrical system and that's why a pilot needs to be able to shut it off during flight? It just seems (to me) that would be one thing you wouldn't want anyone to be able to tamper with, especially in the rare cases like Flight 370. I'm sure it would add more costs if it was its own autonomous system though.

[PilotMan]

Honestly JK, not really. I mean when they quit they usually just quit working and don't cause problems. Typically anything powered has the potential for a fire. That's all I was getting at.

The only time they get switched off is changing transponder codes so ATC doesn't accidently have 2 on the same code, and that's just while you are switching. It goes right back on with the new code. Or there are a couple airports when you are landing side by side where you are instructed (by the company) to downgrade the collision avoidance provided you have sufficient visuals on the other plane to avoid having to do a go around due to the Traffic Collision Avoidance System, which is closely integrated with the transponder.

As with anything there are rules regarding everything. Transponders aren't required in large chunks of airspace. They are in any controlled airspace or on an instrument flight plan like all commercial airliners are. But you could take your Cessna up from your farm in North Dakota and fly all over the place never making a radio call and never turning the transponder on and you'd be legal, maybe not smart, but legal.

Keep in mind that if it's automated that it's another thing that could potentially break. Airplanes are more reliable with people being able to manage certain things. If something like that "could" break it inevitably would and that's just one more thing to cost money and delays down the road. It's much easier for a person to simply turn it on and manage it.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

Anyone else like having a Pilot on this board!

Between EF27, Dr. Sak, Pilot and several others on this board I love this shit we hear about different industries and careers.

Don't forget lungs

SI

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Don't forget lungs

SI

He was one of the names I couldn't think of when I made that post, hence the several others.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Honestly JK, not really. I mean when they quit they usually just quit working and don't cause problems. Typically anything powered has the potential for a fire. That's all I was getting at.

The only time they get switched off is changing transponder codes so ATC doesn't accidently have 2 on the same code, and that's just while you are switching. It goes right back on with the new code. Or there are a couple airports when you are landing side by side where you are instructed (by the company) to downgrade the collision avoidance provided you have sufficient visuals on the other plane to avoid having to do a go around due to the Traffic Collision Avoidance System, which is closely integrated with the transponder.

As with anything there are rules regarding everything. Transponders aren't required in large chunks of airspace. They are in any controlled airspace or on an instrument flight plan like all commercial airliners are. But you could take your Cessna up from your farm in North Dakota and fly all over the place never making a radio call and never turning the transponder on and you'd be legal, maybe not smart, but legal.

Keep in mind that if it's automated that it's another thing that could potentially break. Airplanes are more reliable with people being able to manage certain things. If something like that "could" break it inevitably would and that's just one more thing to cost money and delays down the road. It's much easier for a person to simply turn it on and manage it.

Thank you sir! Yes, that's what I was trying to say, I was just stuck on the electrical system for some reason and didn't quite know how to say it.

That's very interesting, I always thought aircraft had their own unique code and didn't know that it was changed depending on certain things. I can see where some not so nice people with the knowledge could use this to their advantage.

Indeed, like a lot of things, if it can break, it will and it will cost money and time even if it was on its own system. Thanks again PilotMan, always nice to learn something new!

[Ryan S]

Speaking as someone who has traveled on 777s fairly regularly, I am glad that this incident appears to have been the result of deliberate action rather than a catastrophic failure. An unexplained accident for one of the safest planes in the sky would not have been good news.

[CU Tiger]

Boeing 777-300

Ok..this is wrong but made me laugh

[terpkristin]

In related news, Inmarsat released an announcement that one of their satellites had picked up some of the "routine signals" from the flight. Seems weird for this to post this as a release.

Inmarsat statement on Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 - Inmarsat

/tk

[Desnudo]

Flight 370 disappearance: Why I think the missing airliner could be in Central Asia.

[Qrusher14242]

I heard the 'pings' they got from the plane could of been from on the ground. So they could of landed before that last one at 8am. I don't know where or why though.

[Apathetic Lurker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Boeing 777-300

Ok..this is wrong but made me laugh

I got a chuckle in too

[Matthean]

"And then the plane went 'Swoosh' through the air."

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Matthean

"And then the plane went 'Swoosh' through the air."

I'd say the press is embarrassing itself. But what does it matter? Most Americans are too stupid to realize it.

[Zinto]

Courtney Love thinks she's found Malaysia Airlines flight 370

Don't worry Courtney Love is scanning satellite images for us.

[stevew]

At least nobody on this forum has suggested that the plane simply flew into space and everyone died.

[PilotMan]

This is a pretty good one.

Russia “Puzzled� Over Malaysia Airlines #MH370 “Capture� By US Navy #prayformh370 | .::Pisau.Net::.

A new report circulating in the Kremlin today prepared by the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces (GRU) states that Aerospace Defence Forces (VKO) experts remain “puzzled” as to why the United States Navy “captured and then diverted” a Malaysia Airlines civilian aircraft from its intended flight-path to their vast and highly-secretive Indian Ocean base located on the Diego Garcia atoll.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

This is a pretty good one.

Russia “Puzzled� Over Malaysia Airlines #MH370 “Capture� By US Navy #prayformh370 | .::Pisau.Net::.

Because we CAN.

[JediKooter]

Silly Soviets. When will they learn?

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I'd say the press is embarrassing itself. But what does it matter? Most Americans are too stupid to realize it.

Cut them some slack, it's really hard to report on things that happen outside of America

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by Zinto

Courtney Love thinks she's found Malaysia Airlines flight 370

Don't worry Courtney Love is scanning satellite images for us.

I think it's more impressive that someone found Courtney Love.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by mckerney

Cut them some slack, it's really hard to report on things that happen outside of America

You forgot this one

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Zinto

Courtney Love thinks she's found Malaysia Airlines flight 370

Don't worry Courtney Love is scanning satellite images for us.

You could probably hide one in her crotch.

[Neon_Chaos]

This has been making rounds on Facebook. Plausible?

A Startlingly Simple Theory About the Missing Malaysia Airlines Jet | Autopia | Wired.com

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

You could probably hide one in her crotch.

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

This has been making rounds on Facebook. Plausible?

[PilotMan]

Much more plausible than a lot of the other crap that has been postulated.

[cartman]

I read that, but to me, if they were incapacitated, then why did the plane continue to follow waypoints? If the plane was flying without anyone at the controls, then it doesn't seem likely that random changes in course would follow the waypoints, as the radar seems to suggest. And if the crew were fighting a fire, it doesn't seem likely that they would be reprogramming the flight control system with a series of waypoints far from their planned route.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

This has been making rounds on Facebook. Plausible?

A Startlingly Simple Theory About the Missing Malaysia Airlines Jet | Autopia | Wired.com

An interesting hypothesis.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by cartman

I read that, but to me, if they were incapacitated, then why did the plane continue to follow waypoints? If the plane was flying without anyone at the controls, then it doesn't seem likely that random changes in course would follow the waypoints, as the radar seems to suggest. And if the crew were fighting a fire, it doesn't seem likely that they would be reprogramming the flight control system with a series of waypoints far from their planned route.

Yeah, I read the theory and then I read the waypoints were entered in. I don't see how a fire would explain taking the time to put in multiple way points.

[PilotMan]

I don't think that they know how many waypoints were loaded in and I don't know enough about the waypoints in that area to know where exactly they were pointed.

You have to put a waypoint into the FMS in order for the autopilot to fly there. In the case of an emergency one of the first things that would happen would be point the plane somewhere safer and go there.

The thing that I also think that people are missing is that the "north" and "south" tracks look like flight paths but they aren't. It simply a non directional point where the plane was a 8a when they got the last ping.

What route it took to get there is irrelevant. All we know is where it was last time it pinged in Malaysia and where it may have pinged a few hours later. Who knows what happened in the middle.

It's certainly possible that the plane just flew along a route far off into the Indian Ocean after the crew was incapacitated. If the autopilot runs out of waypoints to follow it will just continue on that same heading forever.

[DaddyTorgo]

Hey PM - I have a random question for you.

I have a friend who I was talking to this weekend. She was curious (and has no social filter, so apologies for the nature of the question).

All other things being equal (weather conditions, assuming you weren't in the middle of the ocean but would be rescued right away, no landing gear, etc.), would it be easier to make a "non-powered descent"/attempt a controlled-crash onto water or land?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

This has been making rounds on Facebook. Plausible?

A Startlingly Simple Theory About the Missing Malaysia Airlines Jet | Autopia | Wired.com

Makes a hell of a lot of sense to me.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Hey PM - I have a random question for you.

I have a friend who I was talking to this weekend. She was curious (and has no social filter, so apologies for the nature of the question).

All other things being equal (weather conditions, assuming you weren't in the middle of the ocean but would be rescued right away, no landing gear, etc.), would it be easier to make a "non-powered descent"/attempt a controlled-crash onto water or land?

For me, it would be both terrain- and weather-dependent. I'd much rather try to dead-stick something into water than over mountains in fog or in a dense forest. At the same time, even in high winds I'd much rather come down in the middle of a relatively flat cornfield with the landing gear extended than deal with wind-driven waves and risk catching a wing on a water landing. But then again I don't have nearly the experience of PilotMan, so his answer may very well be different.

[Julio Riddols]

If that is really what went down, wow. I wonder how long the passengers had to deal with their inevitable death before it finally came.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

For me, it would be both terrain- and weather-dependent. I'd much rather try to dead-stick something into water than over mountains in fog or in a dense forest. At the same time, even in high winds I'd much rather come down in the middle of a relatively flat cornfield with the landing gear extended than deal with wind-driven waves and risk catching a wing on a water landing. But then again I don't have nearly the experience of PilotMan, so his answer may very well be different.

Yeah. My friend is a little bit...well..."odd" is being kind, but I told her I'd ask.

[PilotMan]

So if I'm correct then you are asking which is easier? To make a landing on land or water all other things being equal?

Ok, the best place for me to land is where I can control the decent and the touchdown the best. In the case of Sully where he had the option to return to LGA, go to TEB or take the river, he chose the river. He didn't think he could make LGA, had never been to TEB and didn't know exactly where it was, and knew that there were tons of things to hit everywhere and that he was going down.

He looked at the river and was able to rectify all the options into "the river looks like my best option."

Like Blackadar said, I'd rather have a big field than try and put it in the water. If Sully had a different airplane the results might have been very different. Those big engines under the wing really worked to stabilize the plane once it hit the water. A plane with the engines at the back would most certainly caught a wing tip and started spinning. That would have been a much uglier landing. But put that same situation on a land and it would have been just reversed. With Sully's Airbus having a more challenging landing (belly landing) on land than the other plane.

Blackadar had a nice answer, I guess mine is pretty much the same. There are always different things to consider that have to be decided in a split second. That's why pilots are constantly thinking of where they will go if the shit hits the fan. That goes for all pilots from private pilots all the way up to ATP-rated pilots like I am.

Sorry this got so long winded.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

So if I'm correct then you are asking which is easier? To make a landing on land or water all other things being equal?

Ok, the best place for me to land is where I can control the decent and the touchdown the best. In the case of Sully where he had the option to return to LGA, go to TEB or take the river, he chose the river. He didn't think he could make LGA, had never been to TEB and didn't know exactly where it was, and knew that there were tons of things to hit everywhere and that he was going down.

He looked at the river and was able to rectify all the options into "the river looks like my best option."

Like Blackadar said, I'd rather have a big field than try and put it in the water. If Sully had a different airplane the results might have been very different. Those big engines under the wing really worked to stabilize the plane once it hit the water. A plane with the engines at the back would most certainly caught a wing tip and started spinning. That would have been a much uglier landing. But put that same situation on a land and it would have been just reversed. With Sully's Airbus having a more challenging landing (belly landing) on land than the other plane.

Blackadar had a nice answer, I guess mine is pretty much the same. There are always different things to consider that have to be decided in a split second. That's why pilots are constantly thinking of where they will go if the shit hits the fan. That goes for all pilots from private pilots all the way up to ATP-rated pilots like I am.

Sorry this got so long winded.

Well played. Makes sense to me. Thanks!!

[dzilla77]

If the pilots pointed the aircraft at that airport, became incapacitated and the plane flew itself into the ocean when it ran out of fuel, would that airport have picked it up on radar?

The problem with this whole situation is that with such few facts, almost anything is plausible.

[Edward64]

If the pilots had time to change flight, wouldn't they have declared an emergency?

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by dzilla77

If the pilots pointed the aircraft at that airport, became incapacitated and the plane flew itself into the ocean when it ran out of fuel, would that airport have picked it up on radar?

The problem with this whole situation is that with such few facts, almost anything is plausible.

You're right. there are no real answers. I'm not saying that this theory is worth spending time on, but it is at least more plausible than governments with the power to vaporize a 777 or aliens. The radar at the at airport might not be able to find planes outside its airspace, which may only be 10 miles. Or it may not have any radar. Many airports do not. I have no idea about this one. The controller would have had some coverage, but when they switched off the transponder they were between stations. They had left one controller and hadn't showed up on the next one yet. That makes the timing of it all really suspect and points to the pilots. They pilots would have had and had access to charts that would have shown them the approximate areas of radar and airspace ownership in the area. That's another reason to suspect the pilots.

Originally Posted by Edward64

If the pilots had time to change flight, wouldn't they have declared an emergency?

Generally yes, but I can make an argument that something big and serious would make that not the case. For one it's the middle of the night. At altitude it's nearly pitch black and there are no visual references. You have moving map with points and that's where you start.

Now you have an emergency that spirals out of control rather quickly. It's not hard to get task saturated in the cockpit if there are a lot of things going on. It's not hard to become so involved running checklists and trying to communicate with the other pilot or even the cabin that you stop everything else. In aviation we have a phrase that you hear from the earliest training. It's "aviate, navigate, communicate." It means fly the plane first and foremost, maintain control. Next, get somewhere. Know where you are, where you are going and where you want to go. Last tell someone.

If you can't do #1 and #2 you'll never get to #3.

Now how does it look with the current crew? The Captain was massively experienced. This was his career and from what we know he was an aviation enthusiast. Chances are, depending on how much time he had in the plane, that there wouldn't have been much that would have gotten him excited and that he could have managed pretty much anything.

The FO was very green by aviation standards. His flight time would be considered pretty low, and pretty low for this type of plane among US pilots. My guess is that he probably had only been a commercial pilot for about 4 years. Plus his age, being young, makes it possible that he is more emotional, impetuous and more of an unknown.

I think that the weirdness that surrounds this is more likely to point to the FO than to the Captain. Time will tell I guess. I do think that a theory of the FO incapacitating the Captain and then taking control of the plane is plausible. I haven't heard anything in the reports that makes me think that 1 pilot with his experience (assuming at least 2-3 years) in the plane, couldn't pull it off.

But that's all we have right now. Lot's of plausible theories and no real answers or really any other facts to go off of. I have a friend who flies out in that area and he thinks it crashed in the jungle somewhere. The jungle is thick enough to conceal it and seriously underpopulated. Personally I still think it's out in the middle of the Indian Ocean somewhere. With currents and time I don't even know how much would be left to find.

[PilotMan]

dola

Here is an interesting read about some things that are at play here that you may or may not be aware of. Pointing the finger at the airline and the country itself as to why we don't know more about this than we do.

Malaysia Flight 370: What Didn’t Happen. | JetHead's Blog

And actually in regard to the cruise industry. The US used to have a shipping and cruise industry but the government allowed companies to register ships in foreign countries and continue to operate here. That undermined the safety programs and the US businesses that had previously operated.

Well you may have heard about a small company called Norwegian Air that is trying to do just that in the US recently. Basically this company is a new offshoot that is going to use US loopholes to get financing and tax breaks to lease 787's from Boeing. They are going to operate the planes out of Ireland to the US. Ireland has literally no aviation regulation compared to the US. Then the company is going to contract out the pilots to a company that hires out of Malaysia. They would do this at a fraction of the cost of current airlines but bypass our whole aviation setup and create a very unfair and uneven playing field for the current legacy carriers in the US. We are trying to fight this "Franken-airline" from being allowed to operate, but it's an uphill climb.



You can help by supporting this petition and send a message to our lawmakers that such a thing puts not only the passengers of the US at risk but also the livelihood of one of the most important industries as well.

#denyNAI | Tell Obama to deny Norwegian Air Shuttle's application to fly into the US

[cartman]

How would they be much different than Aer Lingus, which is another low cost long haul airline based out of Ireland? If they get FAR 129 designation, would also they then have to adhere to FAR 121 regs?