Disappearing Aircraft 5652


I had fairly well concluded that the most likely cause was a fire disrupting the electrical and control systems, when CNN now say the sharp left turn was pre-programmed 12 minutes before sign off from Malaysian Air Traffic control, which was followed fairly quickly by that left turn.

CNN claim to have this from an US official, from data sent back before the reporting systems went off.  It is hard to know what to make of it: obviously there are large economic interests that much prefer blame to lie with the pilots rather than the aircraft.  But if it is true then the move was not a response to an emergency.  (CNN went on to say the pilot could have programmed in the course change as a contingency in case of an emergency.  That made no sense to me at all – does it to anyone else?)

I still find it extremely unlikely that the plane landed or crashed on land  I cannot believe it could evade military detection as it flew over a highly militarized region.  Somewhere there is debris on the ocean.  There have been previous pilot suicides that took the plane with them; but the long detour first seems very strange and I do not believe is precedented.  However if the CNN information on pre-programming is correct, and given it was the co-pilot who signed off to air traffic control, it is hard to look beyond the pilots as those responsible for whatever did happen.  In fact, on consideration, the most improbable thing is that information CNN are reporting from the US official.


Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

5,652 thoughts on “Disappearing Aircraft

1 57 58 59 60 61 182
  • James

    “It is entirely possible for the young co-pilot to have switched off the transponder by accident….” Are you kidding !

    And also ACARS and SATCOM. Jesus he must have been a clumsy bloke.

    “shot out of the sky while the pilot was taking a leak or fiddling with a stewardess in the pilot’s rest cabin”.

    That is just mental.

    “then did a quick turn entirely by accident and began to wander all over the sky”

    Words fail me !

  • Ben-Joseph N. Welch

    Large altitude errors 3.4%

    pg 28-29

    How often does transponder fail?

    http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/03/turning-off-transponders-aviation-security-and-mh370/

    “With the caveat that I am not a pilot, my understanding is that the ability to turn things off in flight is due in part to historical aviation “lessons learned” from onboard fires. Obviously, a fire onboard an in-flight airplane is very bad news, and to the extent that electrical systems have often been the source of such fires, planes are often designed so that pilots can take action to shut off electricity flow to various on-board systems.

    Now, it’s certainly possible to do a risk-based analysis to assess, in this day and age, whether it still makes sense to have the transponder circuit breaker accessible from the cockpit. Even if someone were to conclude that pilot access should be removed (and I am not saying I back that conclusion, just that, it is a possible conclusion someone could make), there would be both mechanical and cultural obstacles to actually implementing that change in the thousands of aircraft in commercial service today.

    I’ve also heard of (extremely rare) cases where transponders malfunctioned in flight and started transmitting the *wrong* altitude. Obviously, that’s worse than no transponder at all. When that happens, the pilot can turn off the transponder and then contact ATC with altitude info – cumbersome, but much better than allowing the malfunctioning transponder to continue to send incorrect info to ATC.

  • Donald

    James – transponders have been switched off by accident in the past, sometimes people even forget to switch them on, it happened not too long ago.

    Pilots do fiddle with stewardesses, the co-pilot has already been proven to have allowed young ladies into the cabin.

    Commercial planes have been shot out of the sky by communists, one even had a sitting US Senator on board.

    When planes get hit by missiles, meteorites or other flying debris they usually do make unwanted twists in mid-air, especially if the plane has depressurized and everybody on board is either injured or dead.

    everything is a possibility until we know the truth.

    This is flight 101 from Australia – Over and out, I’m off to bed 🙂

  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    Australian officials are obliged by commitments to Washington to lie about its ability to gather international communications, missile launches, and radar blips, claiming that it can only listen in to blips 100 kilometers into the Indians Ocean when it has satellite lasers which can cover the whole body of water.

    Canberra is really just a covert satrap of the USA, and it is coming in most handily now.

  • Ben-Joseph N. Welch

    Remote control transponders?

    http://www.janes.com/article/28176/thales-iff-transponders-for-fab-aircraft

    “Thales will supply new identification friend or foe (IFF) transponders to Embraer as part of a modernisation package for Força Aérea Brasileira (FAB – Brazilian Air Force) combat and special missions aircraft.

    Thales announced on 8 October that it had secured a contract – of an undisclosed value – to supply the company’s panel-mounted TSC-2035 and remote-control TSC-2055 transponders to Embraer.

    These will be installed on the FAB’s AMX International A1M combat aircraft and its Embraer E-99A airborne early warning (AEW) aircraft.

    The FAB operates 60 and five of these aircraft respectively, although Thales will deliver a total of 48 transponders.

  • James

    I strongly favour “murder suicide”.
    But… if that is so, then he deeply wanted to hurt MAS and cause a huge problem for the Malaysian Government.
    Hence… he “properly hid” the aircraft.

    Ruling that out, what other reason would you have if you wanted to “properly hide” an aircraft ? As in “crash it” and “hide it”.

    I wonder what “wasn’t” onboard.

  • Ben-Joseph N. Welch

    James; your theory could still be true, but let me ask you…

    Why is it so far-fetched that remote operation is not in play? Have you followed the uninterruptible auto pilot anti-terror superweapon?

    And why is it the transponder access to crew is so important with a 3.4% error rate on altitude as the primary safety concern, other than bypassing during a fire? And why is that so crucial, when the entire idea behind BUAP is protecting the aircraft (crew) from terrorism when there is a cockpit breach. Surely shutting off transponder is the first item on the list, is it not?

  • James

    Ben

    I don’t get what you mean.
    Why does a pilot have control of the circuit breakers on the aircraft he is flying ?

    As for a remote controlled airline.
    The “remote” kills the pilots, pulls the breakers and then re programmes the Flight Director ?

  • Ben-Joseph N. Welch

    James; What I mean is what good is to build a barn to house livestock when you don’t bother to install a door?

    BUAP=barn…..transponder=open door.

  • James

    Ben

    Surely “Why would I want to turn off the transponder”, is the better way of phrasing the question.

    The ole chestnut “terrorism”. But the FDD is “locked”.
    Although that can be “opened”.

    You see it is simple. No one expects that the pilot will crash the aircraft.
    I fly in that rare field where there is “no door” as such. I don’t expect the pax to get up and start waving a knife. And nor do I look at the guy next to me and think “now what’s going on inside his head today”.

    Maybe I should. I don’t know.

  • Ben-Joseph N. Welch

    I assume you pilot private craft. BUAP is switched on by the pilot, or when pressure (break-in) on c/p door precipitates.

    No one expects a pilot to crash his own, it’s true. It’s time to sew that hole up, just in case.

    I know pilots like to have a measure of control, but if you are right, there must be some fail-safe measures taken.

  • James

    Ben

    Yes I fly a “GV”. A gulfstream.

    There’s lots that maybe “at fault” here.
    The airlines are a “business”. They like to “reject” ideas that cost them money.

    I am not a big fan of airlines. Some are good. Some are not. Like all things in life I guess.

  • Ben-Joseph N. Welch

    Oh, I didn’t see the tail-end….” To make it fully independent, the system also has its own power supply, independent of the aircraft’s circuit breakers.”

    So this is already one system which cannot be shut down in a fire emergency. Separate circuit?

    Why wasn’t this done on transponder? Why-why-why?

    Or should I say ‘why ask why?’ 🙂

  • Q

    http://www.aircraftfumigation.com/

    From Ben’s link:

    “Methyl bromide has been responsible for deaths that usually occur from its accidental inhalation during fumigation.”

    http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/haloxyfop-methylparathion/methyl-bromide-ext.html

    http://drightsource.com/company/s/stopest/stopest_aircraft.htmlhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/64598080/Aircraft-Fumigation
    http://www.rentokil.com.my/commercial-customers/fumigation/types-of-fumigants/index.html
    http://www.stopest.com.my/Aircraft-Fumigation-Pest-Control-Services-Pest-Control-Malaysia/

    Used to fumigate aircraft in Malaysia, and for for the containers that go onto planes. Long-haul aircraft mentioned in the last link. Also used on viruses.

  • James

    Ben

    People “private fly” because of safety issues.
    There’s also the “we can go anywhere…and at any time” aspect.

    Should the transponders be tamper proof. I guess so.
    Should data be transmitted “real time” and saved.
    The answers will be yes, but at what cost will this be at ?
    And when ?
    Imagine trying to “retro fit” that system or systems onto aircraft currently in use. Mind blowing. And who foots the bill.
    The airline ? They just put it onto the pax. Will the pax pay ????

    It gets away from “conspiracy” and the “evil unknown world”, but these are facts.

  • Ben-Joseph N. Welch

    James; FAA issues flight Directives all the time, especially on safety issues.

    BUAP was a retrofit, no? Cost is an issue, but what is the search for MH 370 going to cost the airlines in the end.?

  • James

    Ben

    Agree. But how does it effect Iberia ? Or Brit Airways ? Or Emirates ?
    Not their dog in the fight I’m afraid.
    This one is down to “MAS”.

    Lose “one a week” and then it’s a different story.

    FAA do send out directives all the time. Some times “directive madness” sets in.

    As a footnote I seem to recall it was the lawsuits that brought down PanAm in the end.

    But let me find you something. It’s Milton Friedman. He explains it better.

  • James

    Oh… and don’t forget “the airlines” love the Montreal Convention !
    Limited Liability in “exchange” for Presumed Fault.

    I guess they forgot about “the cost of Search and Rescue” and “Recovery”

  • Ben-Joseph N. Welch

    “But how does it effect Iberia ? Or Brit Airways ? Or Emirates ?
    Not their dog in the fight I’m afraid.”

    I’m not sure of the context there. The airline business is a swamp for investors; frequently insolvent and troubled financially (caveat emptor)

    The allegory of the tortoise and the scorpion comes to mind. They all need the tech. Are certain airports not burdened with the idiocy of pax security colonoscopies? That seems an undue expense of dignity for grandma, and expensive for the taxpayer, yet they toodle on with shoe searching.

  • James

    Ben…

    That my friend is a pure “show”.
    So grandma gets stripped naked and has her hearing aid “be boned”.
    And some “minimum wage” baggage handler loads an bag onto the wrong aircraft !

    I should say “…is allowed to load a bag on to the wrong aircraft”

    The system is “crap”. And will it change !

1 57 58 59 60 61 182