Back to Squawk list

MH 370 Flew Extra 4 Hours

Enviado
 
U.S. investigators suspect that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 stayed in the air for about four hours past the time it reached its last confirmed location, according to two people familiar with the details and data automatically downloaded and sent to the ground from the Boeing Co. 777's engines as part of a routine maintenance and monitoring program. (online.wsj.com) Más...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


211ec
William Hunter 7
Please excuse me if my area of inquiry has been covered earlier in this chain, but I have been wondering why transponders in commercial aircraft are not designed so they cannot be "turned off" from inside the aircraft. I have watched news reports and endless talking heads on the topic of this missing aircraft but none I have seen or read has touched on this issue. It would seem axiomatic that shielding the transponder operation from "in flight" tampering would make it easier for the authorities to distinguish incidents involving human intervention from those involving catastrophic system failure.
bovineone
Jeff Lawson 9
Pilots will always be able to pull the circuit breaker to disable a transponder (or any piece of avionics equipment) out of safety, since an electrical fire could necessitate removing power to that instrument. Additionally, commercial aircraft usually have two transponders so one needs to be able to powered off/standby when it is not the active one.
Killer2600
John Doe 4
FAA rules and regulations require that a transponder be able to be turned off for when the plane in not in flight. Also ability to turn off any electrical circuit is imperative as an electrical fire at 30,000 ft is quite different than on the ground - quickly getting out and letting the firemen handle things isn't really possible in the air.

Even if a pilot or hijacker does turn off the transponder it doesn't actually disappear off of radar. It still shows up, the only change is the plane doesn't report who it is and what altitude it's flying at. If killing a transponder actually did make planes immune to detection by radar the military wouldn't have spent billions on stealth technologies.
und1974
und1974 1
John, I agree to some point however if the FAA or other ATC agencies do not use the "old style" radar imaging, i.e. the "blip" or as I was taught, the raw return image, then turning off the transponder would make the plane disappear from the ATC screen. Again, this is only true if our FAA and other ATC agencies do NOT use the raw radar return whic I'm told is the case.

Earlier in this thread I asked if the FAA still uses the "old style" raw radar return in CONJUNCTION with the transponder digital data. I didn't get a reply, or at least one that answered the question.

Stealth technology is attempting to remove, or at least make the raw radar return i.e. the "blip" smaller or completely disappear. This is of course assuming the aircraft has it's transponder turned off.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
Are you forgetting this aircraft was outside US airspace when it disappeared? FAA etal have no meaning in Malaysia. I don't know what their laws and regulations are. Their scheduled destination was Beijing via Cambodia and Vietnam and I don't know their requirments.
und1974
und1974 1
Mark,

Yes, I know it was outside US airspace and the FAA rules do not apply. My main question was if ATC agencies around the world still use the raw radar return or just transponder digital data to "see" aircraft. I was asking if anyone knew if here in the US the control centers still use BOTH the raw radar image AND the transponder digital data/information.

The systems I am familiar with could only use raw radar image that was no further then 60 miles from the transmitter yet the transponder information could be used up to 200 miles away.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
A good question,certainly. I'm not familiar with ATC on that side of the world any more. It used to be that the transponder signal, "primary radar" was an overlay to the blip on the radar screen, a CRT back then. I haven't kept up wit advances.

Transponders are strange critters. I read an account where the back up to AF1 squawked the identity for a Gulfstream as a "cloaking device". I forget where it landed now, but the airport authority was pretty amazed when a 747 made the approach.
glen4cindy
Glen England 2
I am in agreement. I understand what Jeff Lawson is saying about needing the ability to disconnect the electrical power to electrical equipment due to a hazardous condition. But, there should be some way, in an event like this, that tracking is possible. We had a situation in the 9/11 attacks where transponders were turned off, and tracking was not possible. We also have this case now, where it is apparent that vital tracking systems were turned off. One point of reference, we don't find accidents where the NTSB reports: "We found the Flight Data Recorder, but cannot determine what happened during the flight because the pilot turned it off before the flight......" We do find certain things happen that cause some data to be lost because of a power loss right before the crash, but, usually, much data is available. In the same way, there should be some sort of transponder that can signal it position in the same way the transponder does that cannot be turned "off" in the same way that the FDR cannot be turned off.
bovineone
Jeff Lawson 1
The FDR and CVR can both be "turned off" by also pulling the circuit breaker on the electrical panel. I'm sure there are probably instances of pilots pulling the breakers on the CVR when they want to speak off the record, such as the suspected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SilkAir_Flight_185
eutefan
Anson Galyon 1
I can imagine the clutter that would occur on radar scopes if every airplane parked at a terminal was continuously transmitting its location through an always on transponder or similar device.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
In the most perfect of worlds there would be an effective defense against a liar or a thief. We are making progress against thieves, but I don't see any defense against a liar. These people have to first tell a lie before they steal. Meanwhile the aircraft operator called the pilot must have dominion over all his responsibility, the airplane. If I were to bypass one of your circuit breakers in your home how would you stop a fault and possible fire in you electrical system?. The same applies to an aircraft, automobile, truck or railroad train. You'll notice that anything with NO cut off switch or circuit breaker is very low voltage and battery operated for safety. Everybody is talking about the transponder but there is or should be a ELT on board that should activate automatically. That's the mystery to me. where is it?
JimG4170L
Jim Goldfuss 1
When I am on approach, it can get quite unnerving when, seconds from touchdown, the TCAS alert goes off warning Traffic, Traffic, Traffic! Why? Because some guy on the adjacent taxiway awaiting takeoff has his transponder on. The transponder is the source signal for the traffic collision systems in all modern aircraft, issuing warnings of traffic, to commanding course adjustments to avoid traffic. When planes are on the ground, the transponder is no longer needed, and it can interfere with airborne aircraft by sending interfering, and unnecessary signals. Perhaps, one day the programming can change to prevent this interference, but until then, transponders need to be able to be turned off.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
That's lame.

That's merely a reflection of bad design and bad programming.

It does not adequately address the need to know the location of a $250m USD capital investment with hundreds of souls aboard at all times.

All planes need an AirLoJack-type satellite-based GPS-tracking device that continuously communicates location, speed, direction, and altitude at all times to owner (eg. airline) which would display this plane and sl other planes in the fleet on the screens in the ops center.

The device should continue to function for at least 30 days after last power up.

We'd never again get a report of a missing plane. Not even for an hour, let alone days, weeks or months. Instead we'd get a report of an unauthorized diversion, that results in immediate action resulting in saving the aircraft and all souls aboard and/or other immediate resolution of an evolving and escalating situation before it creates problems for many others beyond the soils aboard the aircraft.

Nothing short of this ideal should be acceptable in this day and age.

To deal with any objections the device should be designed and manufactured to high standards (eg. six sigma) so that it would be unlikely to ever be the cause of a catastrophic incident. In addition the device could be placed in a fireproof box, inaccessible to passengers/ crew/ hijackers inflight.
bbabis
Bill Babis 1
I agree with the premise, but you will never stop the absolutely determined. Even if before flight operational checks were mandatory, accomplice ground personnel could rig it to be shutdown in flight by the onboard hijackers and the counter counter-counter game would continue.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
I reject the counter-counter-counter argument as a false strawman argument.

Either the plane shows up on the ops center board prior to departure or not. If not, $250m capital investment with the hundreds of souls aboard doesn't depart on an intercontinental flight over oceans and radar dead zones. Period.

Maybe, a domestic flight that never leaves total and complete radar coverage, being tracked with both active and passive radar.

But the days of sending multi-hundred-million-dollar capital equipment without a $500 satellite tracking device onboard, will soon quickly come to an end.

Put it next to the black 'orange' box, set it and forget it.
swintner
Scott Wintner 1
With the advent of ASDE-X, more and more airports are requiring aircraft to maintain transponder activity on the ground.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Yeah. It makes no sense to turn off transponders on approach to busy airports. There's a higher rusk of collision in busy crowded airspace and while landing on a busy airfield. That's exactly the opposite wrong time to turn off a transponder.

If there are proximity-alert false positives, then the programming needs to be fixed. Not turn off the warning system and transponder that can help avoid unnecessary collisions in crowded airspace over highly developed communities.
clearfortakeoff83
Zach Katona 1
I was wondering the same thing and completely agree with where you're coming from. If the transponder is required to be able to manually shut off, couldn't there at least be a secret code to type in that only a select few know? My only other solution would be to have a back up locator system somewhere in the aircraft that does the same work. That way a situation like the MAS one could be much more preventable.
preacher1
preacher1 1
There have to be options for change for various things inflight and have pilot access. Really don't know how it could be done and under normal conditions would not be a factor. Needless to say, this is not a normal situation.
chalet
chalet 1
What about the https://www.cospas-sarsat.org/ organization, as you know they have several satellites orbiting at different altitudes and sectors receiving ELT transmissions on several frequencies except 121.5 MHz which was discontinued. Do you know if they picked up any signals from MH370 and AF447 for that matter. From my perspective they did not.
Av8nut
Michael Fuquay 0
I agree william. Commercial airliners should not be designed so that there is the possibility of absolute no connectivity to HQ. If I were an airline executive, I would want to make sure there was some sort of GPS/microchip or something hidden away from the pilot's knowledge, so that there would always be some connectivity with home.

I know of trucking companies around here that have installed such devices that transmit to the company, location information about each truck. It's a way of staying on top of all truckers, so they don't make any detours and makes sure they stay on schedule.
preacher1
preacher1 3
You can only prepare or second guess so much
Falconus
Falconus 2
For the trucking: if you don't hire people you can't trust, then you don't need to go all Big Brother on them.

As for the airplanes, I think that it's really poor practice to install something (such as an electrical device that actually does things) on the airplane and hide it from the pilots. It would be saying that "You have final authority over this airplane, and you are responsible for it from gate to gate. Except for that stuff that we can't tell you about. But you're still responsible for it." Plus, having systems tied in with the airplane that you cannot control seems like an extra risk to me. If that transponder started, I don't know, sparking for some reason, you'd want to be able to shut it off. Just saying "oh, it's designed not to do that" only counts as long as it works like it's supposed to.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
I operated a private specialty truck load and bulk company for close to 40 years. At one time or another I had met all my mechanics, operators and drivers and most of the helpers. Not a one had escaped the jail house at one time or another whether for a "domestic dispute" or disturbing the peace, public drunkenness resisting arrest, etc. The only thing I couldn't trust them with was time.I doubt that today's DOT would license them for HAZMAT ops. These folks knew more about the materials they handled than the sales engineers who peddled them. What do you mean by trust?
Av8nut
Michael Fuquay 1
So pilot's have authority to disconnect the flight data recorder "box", if they feel it's a risk to safe flight?

Somehow I would want a little more assurance of the whereabouts of my $250 million property.
Killer2600
John Doe 1
The FDR and CVR are only pulled and viewed when a major incident occurs so there's no incentive for a pilot to turn it off. Also the boxes do little to inform the company on the whereabouts of the plane - the control towers and navigation systems do a better job of that.
skittel
skittel 0
I dont believe the blackbox is on a circuit breaker, as it has it's own internal power source and is located in the tail section typically (since the tail will most likely survive the crash)
bovineone
Jeff Lawson 2
Not true. Both are on a circuit breaker and can be disabled if the pilot is motivated to do so.
glen4cindy
Glen England 1
I want to comment for the possibility that I might be misunderstood. It's not that I believe these devices should be on airlines because of any trust issues. I am going back to 9/11. There have been references to shoe bomb plots that were never carried out in the news. There are things that despite what the NSA does or does not do may be going on that may occur that would allow someone will ill intentions to board a commercial aircraft and breach the cockpit, despite the upgrades that have been made to make this more difficult. Despite those upgrades, there are times, in-flight, where the cockpit door is open. If you have seen the reports, there are airlines that do not have a secondary barrier in place during this time. It has been proven that a cockpit breach is possible when the door is open. If a person, with knowledge of the flight deck does breach the cockpit, while at least one of the pilots is absent, and overtakes the remaining pilot, he would have free reign of that cockpit. That person could then use that knowledge to disable whatever reporting instrumentation possible. This is the reason I suggest there be a "stealth" so to speak reporting device that would receive power independent of pilot control, as does the FDR. It has nothing to do with trust in the people you hire. Just wanting to make myself clear. I am not for "Big Brother" over anyone. I worked for a company that installed GPS locators in all of our trucks, and they could see on the Internet where all of their trucks were in the city at all times. They could see if you went home early, and how long you stopped for lunch, so, I know how that is.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, as far as the trucking, you obviously have never been involved in running a truckline. You check out someone as good as you can, put him out there with $150 thousand worth of equipment, and ever how many $ in shippers cargo and you hope & pray all your hiring efforts have been good. Then you send him out across the country by himself for 2-3 weeks at a time. Now, if you have been successful and hired a good one, you'll all make a little money. But, one of your fleet managers comes to you one day, says we have one missing in action; he has either tin foiled the Qualcomm dome or cut the cable so you can't track him. You start at the last known location, and if you are lucky, you find your truck/trailer in a few days, empty and abandoned. If you aren't so lucky, you never find it and it becomes a chop shop victim somewhere.
yr2012
matt jensen 1
Up until 2001, my brothers and I operated a multi-state, multi-country trucking company. Privately owned and operated we employed 40 drivers with brand new FL120 trucks and Wilson trailers. Drug testing was mandatory - not just by us, but DOT as well.
preacher1
preacher1 2
When I first retired, I got real active in a TL company I had helped co found back in 84. At time we sold in 2012, we had 250 tractors, mostly new Pete's, and about 3:1 trailer ratio, about 30% teams, the rest single drivers, no tractors older than 2 years. Any truck line of any size has what I call a floating cull of about 10%, in other words, somebody you would replace if you could. It is out of this group of bottom feeders that the problems usually come. My sympathies are out to the Hunt's and Schneider's of the world in what they have to choose from just to get a piece of equipment running and producing revenue. As far as the drug testing, it is mandatory for everyone.
Killer2600
John Doe 1
The Aviation industry is far beyond the trucking industry, there's just no comparison. Planes don't need lojack as airports are secure areas with major airports being high-security TSA governed areas, flights are pre-planned with the FAA, Airline, and Pilot all knowing and possessing the same flight plan, and last but not least planes that leave and arrive at airports are all tracked by radar. There's really no slipping one by anyone - you manage to steal a plane radar tracks you, a pilot decides to make a personal detour the FAA sees the deviation from the filed flight plan and immediately asks questions. Basically all the tracking ability is already there, don't need hide a lojack device on the plane.

Most importantly though, a pilot has to be able to cut off all electronics on-board. Shorts, fires, and malfunctioning equipment are serious matters when help and the ground is a long way down.
onceastudentpilot
tim mitchell 1
and yet there is still a missing plane out there that no one has any real idea where it is.
bbabis
Bill Babis 0
Technically, someone does. They've just taken great pains to prevent anyone else from knowing.
tyketto
Brad Littlejohn -1
What about Squawking Standby? what about if your primary transponder fails? Unless squawking VFR, you couldn't have two aircraft with the same discrete code turned on, otherwise, you'll have a conflict over which target is which. So you'd have to have at least one on and one off in case you have a problem. Redundancy.
bishops90
Brian Bishop 4
To quote Dickens - "'Tis a muddle"
canuck44
canuck44 4
If true and the engine data indicates a period of time at altitude and the cell phone information from the families that they kept ringing, then we are most likely to hear "commandeered" becoming more realistic. If that were the case, then there is a chance of recovering passengers alive either by ransom or executive action.

Unfortunately this is still a long shot.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, you have to choose in whom you believe; 3 world stage players with impeccable credential, or the banana republic trying to play on the world stage. You are correct in it being a long shot about the pax but stranger things have happened. The other possibility is still that a whole lot more is known than is being told. A measure of that will be if there is any more insistence or statements from Boeing, RR, WSJ. If not, they were not involved in front line management of this and may have been told to shut up by those that are. It will be interesting, or as one post says above, it bay be the beginning of another Earhart type story.
yr2012
matt jensen 1
As I asked before and received no comments - when did the engine reports to RR stop?
preacher1
preacher1 1
The reports that came out this morning said that they continued for about 4 hours after the last radar report. Another post on here somewhere says the last on was received about 30 min after t/o so who knows.
yr2012
matt jensen 1
So, that means the RR reports were continuing after the transponder and ACARS were volutarily turned off?
preacher1
preacher1 1
Must be a different mode of transmission as it goes by satellite. ACARS is VHF. Apparently unknown to a lot of folks on here. First I had ever heard of it and I flew RR engines for years.
dtmknsn
dtmknsn 1
I read somewhere this A/C had IMARSat capability. So the engine data probably went that way to the satellite but the airline did not subscribe to have the data collected supposedly. So Rolls Royce only knows that the data was sent to a satellite and when. Also there is a range issue for ACARS and IFF/transponders when flying over large expanses of water. The only contact is HF or some kind of sat comms. For every A/C to have continuous sat comms with "somebody" would require a lot of satellites/ground stations, $$$ and more govt regulations. You would still have the problem that someone could flip a function switch to off or pull a circuit breaker. There are many reasons to turn radio transmitting systems to standby/off inflight or on the ground.
yr2012
matt jensen -1
This is truly a banana republic looking for its five min of fame in newspapers and tv. MAS has no clue, and govt even less. Pay no attention to them, as they are covering their collective azzes.
egad
James Hodges 4
It is now obvious that the flight was taken by aliens from outer space and in now on the way to their home, safely in their cargo bay. The aliens will want to keep their captives alive and well for their studies. They will probably even encourage them to reproduce, thereby establishing the first human colony in another solar system, similar to early colonies in what is now The USA, except only friendly beings instead of hostile Indians. No starvation for them. Their loved ones will probably never see them again, perhaps great great grandchildren many years from now. Loved ones take solace in knowing they are part of a great interstellar research project. Perhaps even God (or multiple Gods as different races were aboard) is involved. Cheers. Dr. Jim.
Jen02392
Jenny Morris 1
I don't think you are joking either as after all other possible causes have been eliminated what ever remains however improbable must be the truth. who said that? But we must remember that peoples lives are involved here and we must look to every possibility.
glenkrc
glen krc 0
I think it was Sherlock Holmes.
Jen02392
Jenny Morris 3
Indubitably..
yr2012
matt jensen 1
Of all the presented scenarios - this one makes sense!
ALF8247
Alfred Stone 2
Ladies and Gentlemen, it seems as if my theory might be proven to be correct. A witness whom works on an oil rig saw a plane on fire on this plane flight path. The timing and heading was correct. He sent this information with co ordinates to the authorities in Malaysia. Fire now alarm bells will ring. This is speculation yet I think close to events that might have taken place. This witness claims he saw the fire then after a while, there was no fire. If there was a fire and it was the cause of decompression then this is the reason for the fire to have been extinguished. Maybe the fire was the cause of the decompression by weakening the aircraft skin, or else it damaged the wiring who knows. I think all lost coconscious. Maybe the pilots had lost communications as well other instrumentation such as the transponder etc. What if the pilots were trying to turn the plane back to Malaysia and they themselves lost conscious I know of three plane accidents where the crew and passengers lost consciousness and the plane flew until the fuel ran out. This is what I think that happened, told my family and friends after I heard about the guy on the rig testimony. Just a thought and found to share it with you all.
bbabis
Bill Babis 2
If a fire burned bright enough to be seen from 35,000 ft, it would bring the aircraft down in short order. Along the same lines though, a cockpit fire that compromised several systems or caused the crew to turn off systems may have driven the crew from the cockpit in hopes of fighting their way back in. Unable to take smoke removal measures, the passengers and crew could easily have been overcome regardless of oxygen available. It doesn't take a lot of fire to generate a lot of smoke in an aircraft and if it had abated on its own over time the aircraft could have flown either trimmed or on autopilot until out of fuel.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Oil rig eyewitness of the fireball crash and burn is consistent with an onboard fire, but is not consistent with it then flew on for hours.

There was also no debris found in the vicinity of the fireball/ lost contact /original flight path. A big plane like the 777 would've created a bunch of floating debris.

Plus radar had the plane moving across the Malaysian peninsula, apperently seen by both the Malaysians and the Thai on radar. It's the 'from there' that can potentially more traumatic.
onceastudentpilot
tim mitchell 2
This plane may not be found for at least 5 yrs and by accident by a fisherman or a hunter.
avihais
Martin Haisman 2
Q's I know 9-MRO had Rolls Royce Trent 892 engines. RR can monitor up to the second performance all the 1000 series engines around the world. Can they do it on the 800 series engines? B. Does anyone know the fuel upload of MH370? Therefore they could calculate fuel burn off when under radar and narrow down the search area just in case it was hijacked. get the eggheads to use weather history and calc a scenario for every 1000ft travel under radar. Silly statement they would have done this already.
ppgooding
Paul Gooding 1
Basically a Bayes Theorem sort of process. Used in the Air France case ... which took around two years to bring up the bulk of the wreckage and the data recorders, if I remember correctly.
bbabis
Bill Babis 2
It looks more and more likely to me that the plane is on the ground somewhere in the Middle East or Somalia being readied for its next clandestine mission. The fate of the passengers unknown. Every place I see the range radius published has Beijing on the perimeter. Obviously the plane was not fueled to run out of gas at Beijing. It needed to have enough to fly to Beijing, an alternate airport, and then for some time period after that. In that part of the world, probably at least an hour or more. That would push the radius out to the East coast of Africa and many terrorist controlled areas of the Middle East. As sad as it would be, I would be relieved if wreckage were found and the possibility of a future horrific mission put to rest.
kdurbin
Kris Durbin 2
If the wildest scenario is true, and the plane was hijacked to be taken to a remote location to be prepped for something else bad, then they had to not only get rid of the 255 passengers, but also do so while en route, and disable all of their personal electronics and cell phones before landing. If they did not do this, we would know where they are by now.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
That's a worst case hijacking scenario that would make finding a crashed plane resulting from pilot suicide or mechanical issue a relief.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Yep, but it seems to be emerging as the lead theory, if the deliberate equipment turnoff and all the waypoint turns are true.
antokalaz1
antonio alaniz 1
Bill, you dark bastard :) I didn't even think of that until you mentioned it. I was always thinking, yeah they could have landed it, now they have chips to bargain with. I didn't even consider the possibility that they could be loading that thing full of nastiness and getting ready to plow it into a building....again but with added bang. All speculation but def a dark angle.
bbabis
Bill Babis 1
Sorry Antonio, my philosophy has always been to hope fore the best but plan on the worst, so I always have to think what the worst can be. I'm sure that the 777 can carry a lot of nastiness as you say. The bang would only accentuate the chemicals and radio active waste that are more than available in that part of the world. Israel's and Western Europe's antennas need to be up at high gain right now.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Yeah and now they just came out with a report that lithium batteries were on board in the cargo hold.
onceastudentpilot
tim mitchell 1
new report the plane did in fact go up to FL450 before descending to FL230
bbabis
Bill Babis 1
Not a good sign for the passengers. Obviously they only wanted the plane and not hostages.
sdotripley
Scott Ripley 1
I have debated this and it's unlikely to be on the ground somewhere because unless the entire plane was in on it, someone on that plane would have used their phone to get some sort of message out. And as soon as that plane went anywhere near land, cellular coverage would have kicked in and someone would have received their message. Given that it's night, and IF you had turned off the nav display in the passenger compartment, you might be able to kill the other pilot quietly and turn the plane in some other direction. That buys you some time where people won't be keen to use their phones. But as soon as they realize something is up, they're going to start texting and calling and doing whatever. And even four or five hijackers couldn't get everyone's phone from them. It would be easy enough for a passenger to hide one somewhere.

One thing not debatable is that since two communication devices was turned off 20 minutes apart, it was not completely accidental. Not a decompression, not a break-up. A deliberate plan of some kind.
bbabis
Bill Babis 2
Cell phones just don't connect everywhere. Very very few people have true world phones. This plane is obviously a long way away from where anybody expected to use their phone. Staying at altitude out of coverage until descending into a no coverage area backed up by a cell jammer or two is possible. Obviously, plenty of planning went into this. The only reason the aircraft would have crashed into the ocean would be because of a passenger rebellion that initiated plan B, dive into the water. They went through too much trouble to plan on crashing and flew too far if it were a simple pilot suicide effort. I agree with others that this sounds awful, but it is an awful world. This plane needs to be found quickly one way or the other.
captjimfuller
Jim Fuller 1
actually there is a string of cell towers just south of the 'claimed' military radar track. on the order of 30km. which at that time of night should have a record of registrations from a plane a few 1000ft up. minimum usage time like that would have the receiver AGC's at max. a pax on the left side of the plane & handset in the window would've made it.
bbabis
Bill Babis 1
A few thousand feet up, a slim maybe. Thirty thousand feet, impossible. Still, I hope more information shows up somewhere.
captjimfuller
Jim Fuller 1
oh, for an old analog phone
bbabis
Bill Babis 1
Or some passenger having a SPOT device that they activated.
onceastudentpilot
tim mitchell 1
Maybe they were told if they all turned over their devices no body would be harmed...Surely if they (potential hijackers) started taking people out the passengers would have fought back.
sdotripley
Scott Ripley 1
I don't think enough people would buy that anymore. All it takes is one IM from one phone that said 'HIJACK' or 'DANGER' stuck under a seat or in a bag until it got to land.

Having said that, if the perp HAD killed the pilot and managed to deompress the cabin while he wore a mask, that would knock them out or eventually kill them before they could use their phones. If you can decompress the cabin slowly, people might not even notice until they were too disoriented to do anything about it.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
The chance that at least one device amongst hundreds would be missed in an attempt to collect them all is high. A cell phone jammer or two would be great insurance against communication to the outside. But would only be an issue while flying low over land or near land.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
There is technology to jam local cell phones. If this was a sophisticated hijack, the could well have addressed the cell user failing to turn over their phone. It's paranoid thinking, but is it paranoid enough?
preacher1
preacher1 0
Real big mystery here. If it is a hijacking thing and it is on the ground somewhere, it may already be known and this whole search effort and all a smokescreen, either due to negotiations about the pax or a raid being planned to free them. Or, it could just be a simplistic thing and it be down somewhere and may never be found. Earhart is still a mystery after all these years and there was that NWA flight over Michigan in 1950 that, as late as this decade, has never been found. It is strange though, that with all the technology available today that was not back then, that we could just have a total disappearance without a trace.
onceastudentpilot
tim mitchell 1
Mind boggling because at altitude you would get a blip....Under the radar you would get reports of a low flying aircraft....A few years ago before my brother-in-law passed we were standing in the car porch of the house that I was renting in Grover when all of a sudden we heard a huge roar moving in our direction when we looked up it was a US Airways jet flying at about 3,000 ft evidently on a maint. flight...Someone should have heard or seen something.
dpadhye
dpadhye 1
I think the plane might have flown at low altitude only after making the diversion towards Indian ocean. At that time in night, not many folks are going to notice a plane flying low over ocean unless it flew right over some ships in that area, if there were any.
Wayne47
Would the RR data be able to indicate if the engines stopped because they ran out of fuel? Would the RR data reveal possible route of flight based being able to ascertain the path of the data they received?

It looks like it is plausible that the plane could have made it to Iran...though I would think the US would be monitoring all large aircraft traffic in and out of there but who knows. Would it be possible for the aircraft at some point to assume another identity....such as Iran Air Flight ####?
yr2012
matt jensen 2
This is exactly what I've been asking about for days now. No one seems to have the answer.
FritzSteiner
Fritz Steiner 2
IF -- and it's a big IF -- the engines ran for another four hours as reported, which engine parameters were being measured and transmitted, as well as how, and to whom??

Stipulating that such telemetry evidence exists, if engine rpm was one of the parameters being measured, and the plane landed instead of having crashed, the time at which its descent from altitude began could be deduced from reduced rpm. The land areas that were reachable within the elapsed flight time (takeoff time-to-reduction of rpm time) could be determined. The ocean search areas could thereby be eliminated.

Anyhow, could somebody in the biz please share with us the what this engine telemetry transmission system is all about?

Thanks,

Fritz
yr2012
matt jensen 2
Is this 4 hours a guess or fact?
Wayne47
If this is a hijacking and no ransom demands have been made it does not bode well for the passengers and the plane was taken for some covert purpose.

If an aircraft this large can move trough 2000 miles of airspace with its transponders off unchallenged by any authority it makes a pretty dramatic statement about the US and other countries' air defense capabilities.
preacher1
preacher1 1
You can leave the U.S. out of that looking at the part of the world it happened in, although no more than is being told, we really don't know who has done what.
Wayne47
The US military around the world you would think would be curious about an aircraft this large flying "black" with no transponders on and no radio communications over a long distance.

If this aircraft did go west over the Indian Ocean or any large body of water you would the ships of the US Navy would have been curious. To complete the deception it would not surprise me to learn at some point a heavy jet appeared out of no where on radar squawking and saying it was a know transport carrier or a known airline aircraft.
preacher1
preacher1 2
There again, in a foreign country, they would track anything that might be a direct threat to them but anything else would be the responsibility of the host country, unless through an agreement they were standing alert for a section of airspace. In 1971, I was in South Korea at Kunsan, down on the Southwest corner, right on the Yellow sea. It was not uncommon for an alert to sound at 2AM and split lickety we had fighters airborne to intercept. The base stood on alert 24/7/365 and had responsibility, for the entire West Coast of the Korean Peninsula, both North and South. Naturally, we stayed South of the 38th, although the radar didn't,and the ROKAF had the land border and down along the East Coast based out of Suwon. Down County had a mix of USAF and ROKAF for the far South, but it just all depended on how the agreement with the host nation is structured. Even if it might raise an eyebrow, if it was not a threat, there only duty would be to report it to a higher authority, either up the ladder in Naval Ops and/or the host country responsible for that area.
sandylns
Brian Lager 2
There are a number of airports within the early flight path of MH370. Kuantan would be the closest one and it could also be monitored from Ipoh. If indeed it doubled back to fly over northern Malaya there are a few other airports in play. Alor Setar as well as Butterworth, which is a Malaysian Air Force Base. Penang International, Kota Bahru, all are equipped with up to date modern radar systems etc.
If it flew into the interior of Malaya it could take weeks to locate. Having served there with the RAF I know the jungle is pretty densely forested.
preacher1
preacher1 3
Well, just a couple of points in this whole thing; either there is something known and not being told for whatever reason or these folks are trying to get their five minutes of fame on the world stage and making one big flop at it. That said, regarding alternate airports, all flights have a diversion and Emergency airports on the backside of their flight plan, especially going over water. This just lends credence to the catastrophic failure of some kind or a hijacking. When this thing ever gets over with, it will either be very simplistic or one the dangdest things we have ever see.
CaptainFreedom
CaptainFreedom 1
It happened on US soil not long ago. The pilot flew a C172 from Pelee Island (Lake Erie) in Canadian airspace all the way to Raleigh, NC, where he crashed on the runway. He filed no flight plan to enter US airspace. He simply took off from Pelee and headed WSW. No one noticed. He turned his transponder and radio off. He flew for ~6 hours completely undetected for ~450nm, through Ohio Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennesee, at low VFR altitude. No one noticed. He crash landed on the threshhold of a runway at Nashville International. No one noticed. For hours. An early morning departing flight noticed the smoldering wreckage during takeoff and informed the tower. The point here is, do not assume that planes are being tracked, even in places where they obviously should be. Primary radar would have at least alerted authorities that there is some strange thing in the sky, descending southward from Canada, at 2am. This type of radar appears to have gone the way of the dodo bird, despite its usefulness for initial detection of a UFO.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/nashville-plane-crash-victim-identified-1.2287647
captjimfuller
Jim Fuller 0
could the ability to turn up the intensity of the ARPA data on a ATC screen separately from the intensity of the RF energy return be encouraging a reliance on the computer generated info over the actual "blip" that is the actual aircraft... thus diverting attention away from the unidentified "blip" that could become a serious threat.
preacher1
preacher1 2
idk, and don't know that much about ARPA. You seem to be more than interested in it though. What little I know about it is that there is a necessity to turn it off, especially in a high density traffic area and I don't know if it is used that much other than to look at specific trajectories from time to time. In other words, whatever blip that was showing would have to be causing concern for a controller. While there are reporting points over water, there no full coverage FAA type radar. Airliners have TCAS for avoidance, but there are many areas where a plane is not tracked. It is a crapshoot as to which way this thing went. The only thing I am fairly certain of though is that there is a whole lot here not being told for whatever reason or this is the most inept case of handling this situation that has ever surfaced.
captjimfuller
Jim Fuller 1
I'm using the general term ARPA to include all of the text & graphics ATC computers put on the screen to display data, track and the "bracket" around the "point" of where the a/c should actually be on the screen. a quick Google scan of ATC radar images leads me to believe there isn't any actual "blip" from the RF energy return the operator is actually seeing, unfortunately. So assuming the a/c transponder uses AM modulation (least reliable) the system would hold stale info on the screen for at least a few sweeps before declaring it a lost contact. do they do that? I have a $30k Furuno system that does but it is
egad
James Hodges 1
Captured by Aliens from outer space makes more sense than anything else.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish -1
* not Raleigh, Nashville

A C172 is no 777.

A C172 coming down from Canada could be mistaken for a flock of Canadian geese. But a 777 is huge.

Not that fact should make people feel better about a rogue plane flying about. But it's slight more understandable.
CaptainFreedom
CaptainFreedom 1
sorry I forgot to clean up all of my raleigh references. You points are valid, I simply wanted to clear up any misconceptions that people have regarding to what extent the skies are actually monitored. Most people on this thread are more aware, however the gneral public seems to under some misguided notion that everything in the sky is being electronically monitored and tracked, and this is far from the truth.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Coupled with the fact that the Canadian border is not near as tightly controlled as are our Southern borders from Mexico and South America. No excuse but that is how it is.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 6
The threat from the north is taken seriously, there's a sub by the rock and roll hall of fame in Cleveland...
preacher1
preacher1 2
wopri
Of course you have to watch out for Canadian Bacon....
onceastudentpilot
tim mitchell 1
those geese sure are a threat
SWEATINTHSWAMP
SWEATINTHSWAMP 3
This is the first I've heard of aircraft engine manufacturers (RR) tracks its engines real time. Do all engine manufacturers do this or just RR. How about GE?
TXCAVU
Every Trent 800 is tracked (performance) at Derby UK.
RichPaegel
Rich Paegel 1
Some airlines lease their engines. Referred to as "power by the hour". The lessor tracks engine use from start up to shut down. CADC collects a variety of engine data that is eventually transmitted to MX Control Centers. I did not know that this data is transmitted through an ARINC type system.
preacher1
preacher1 0
To tell you the truth, I hadn't heard of it either. Just about everything has ACARS and that transmits between 1-5 minutes on VHF back to Hq a snapshot of FDR which would encompass the engines.
TXCAVU
They are tracked 24/7.
grpower
gary power 2
Quite they are tracked by Rolls Royce in Derby so they know exactly when the Trents were no longer running
bakeddw
donald baker 2
read lengthy article on acars on wkipedia & it doesn't tell me what i want to know. wouldn't any acars transmission from aircraft have aircraft coordinates in it?
bovineone
Jeff Lawson 1
ACARS data from some airlines can sometimes actually include any or all of latitude, longitude, altitude, groundspeed, airspeed, winds aloft, fuel remaining, outside air temperatures, etc. Sometimes even freely entered pilot text messages intended for ground crew or scheduling teams. However, it varies greatly from airline to airline and avionics manufacturer.
bizjets101
biz jets 1
Last recorded ACARS was to Rolls Royce - sent by the airplane at 01:07L (17:07Z) plane was last officially on radar at 01:20L (17:20Z) the last transmission received from the aircraft indicated all systems were operating normally.

[This poster has been suspended.]

preacher1
preacher1 3
There has to be more here than what is being told for the Westward progression of the search. You just don't move ships & planes around like that unless there is a decent lead to follow. Somebody is telling somebody something but it is not really filtering down to the public. Now, it only had about 6.5 hours of fuel to begin with. Go figger.
yr2012
matt jensen 1
The ship is equipped with side-scanning sonar - which makes sense - it should be easier to find the jet - if it's still in one piece. How deep is the Indian Ocean?
preacher1
preacher1 1
depends on where they look. Some of it is pretty deep, some not so.
preacher1
preacher1 1
If they do find it down over in there, then the theories about what happened will go on for years.
Jen02392
Jenny Morris 1
If the US is looking for a downed plane in the Indian Ocean they are going to find a lot of pieces of Space Shuttle Fuel tanks there, wasn't that the main re-entry splash down point for same?
N441LC
N441LC 1
I got it, a third transponder with a battery that needs to be changed at regular intervals (like an elt battery) But, this third transponder will only operate when weight is off wheels and when both transponders are turned to standby or off. Then the little back up transponder kicks in via harmless battery and says i'm right here with no human intervention.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
The device must be hands off, so it's got to manage it's own battery/ recharging.

This transponder would only to send the info back to ops center. So it could send info any time the plane is powered up, without interfering with TCAS. Then trasmit intermittently while stopped/parked to preserve battery.

It's very important that it's circuitry and hardware is robust and reliable and that it's software management and logic to be robust and reliable. All should be made from quality materials with great workmanship. Not unlike that Hobeywell ELT on that Ethopian plane, but with no fire.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
Catch 22
Why hasn't the ELT signal been picked up? That's an independent system as was described. If a man can service it another can disable it. If it requires a charging circuit the pilot need to be in charge of the circuit.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
With the Asiana emergency slides malfunctioning and with ELTs having an improving but still substantial failure rate in emergencies, suggests to me that some airlines don't maintain all their equipment in proper working order. Ironically slides and ELTs may not be seen as essential equipment because they're functioning or not won't interfere with the ability of the plant to continue revenue flights.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
Then you've just answered you posting above. If it's not going to be maintained and the pilot has the ability to defeat it there is no sense in wasting the fuel to carry the extra pounds. An active ELT would have done exactly what you described above but with a battery that needs recharging or replacing it may not get maintained as essential equipment
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
https://www.aopa.org/Advocacy/Regulatory-,-a-,-Certification-Policy/Regulatory-Brief-Emergency-Locator-Transmitters-ELTs.aspx

It's incredible. An ELT activation rate of 73% to 83% is considered good because earlier generations of ELTs had activation rates under 25% in emergencies. Almost as bad, they had 97% false alarm rate. This only encourages maintenance staff to disable the ELTs altogether, which won't be available when needed.

It would be interesting to analyze which airlines' ELTs have failed and which have worked when needed in emergency situations. That would be illustrative. An airline that disconnects emergency equipment for expediency (which in of itself is bad enough) may also cut other other corners (which may incrwae the chances of an emergency that the plane would then ironically be ill-equipped to handle).
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
You're probably right, but to what end the information. 'Whether to fly or not to fly, that is the question.' Many of the airlines are not in the U.S. and so are out of our control, not under out regulations or laws and did I mention you can't hide from a liar anyway. If the pic has in mind to steal an airplane or crash 9i,there isn't much that cn be done to prevent it. It's the old delema of law enforcement. The can't prevent they can only investigate.

This has gone on too long and some statements are really off the wall. I believe someone knows what happened to the aircraft and where it is and it's a security risk.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
If the world's major intelligence agencies/ militaries, as well as Boeing and Rolls Royce, know exactly where the missing plane has been since departing KLIA, and where it is now; then I see no need for further locating equipment on planes or hardening of equipment.

In that case, I wouldn't be concerned that Malaysia or any other airline doesn't accept the satcom data package. But information about which airlines can always reliably know where their aircraft are in the world, and which can't; should be transparently available. Potential passengers would be able to base their purchasing decision on this publicly available info about airline capability OT lack thereof.

I'd like to know where the plane is, if intelligence agencies know. But I acknowledge, that's not how they operate.

But if no one knows exactly where that plane is, we should look at hardening equipment so that information about the plane's location and condition, could more easily be transmitted for all commercial airliners reliably.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
Well they're looking in the Indian Ocean off Australia and I believe that's a head fake. I think the iron is in the other direction just N of India. I think it shadowed another flight to avoid skin paint radar detection and landed in bin Laden land. I guess one day well know for sure and I hope I'm wrong.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
I hope you're wrong too. I've presented evidence to support your position on one of these threads.

But I'll believe either possibility, but only when I see it.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
I too am reserving a my opinion and final thoughts, but the CNN black hole idea is getting more appealing. :-)
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
CNN block hole theory?

I missed that one. Is that exactly what it sounds like?
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
Yup. The plans flew into a black hole.
N441LC
N441LC 1
Technology must exist or be invented to prevent a jet liner the size of a small city to be able to take off and disappear to do anything it wants. Altitude, speed, and DOT must be transmitted once weight off wheels so radar can clearly follow the aircraft and intercept and or locate. Or switch to autonomous flying aircraft with no flight deck since human pilots are now becoming a threat to defend against. It was hard enough when it was trying to defend agianst the flying public. WTF now?
benaggus
ben Aggus 1
Not to be dark, but can you change cabin elevation from the pilot's seat to an incapacitating level while you wear pressurized oxygen?

A lot of people called from Flight 93 from what I understand. I know this flight was mostly over open water, but if radar data shows it overflying land, I would expect some sort of distress call.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
But unless they were killed from the environment being made unsurvivable, if they were to regain consciousness when descending to lower altitude, that's coincides with when the cell network service would also return.

Incapacitation at high altitide would not necessarily be sufficient to prevent communication. Communication would need to be prevented at lower altitudes that would not need pressurization anyway.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Overflying land at cruising altitude is out of range of cellular networks as cell signal does not reach that high.

If it was an intentional malicious act, it would not be difficult to bring cell phone jamners onto the plane, which would take care of any uncollected cell phone that was used to try to get a message out.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
As far as Flight 93, they were much closer to the ground as it was intended as a mobile explosive fuel delivery vehicle to hit a target on the ground. So cell coverage would reach to their lower altitudes.

I've never myself had my cell phone or other electronic device on during a flight in defiance of FAA rules. But I've heard that others have accidently left their cell phones on and discovered that cell service reaches up to as high as FL100 or higher depending on phone or service provider. But doesn't seem to reach to cruising altitude. So people should shut off their cellular radio signal to preserve their device battery (airplane mode) as the phone ketos trying to kook fif a signal would uses up battery reserve unnecessarily, even while the phone is not being used.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
* phone keeps trying to look for a signal when out of network.
ppgooding
Paul Gooding 1
Cell connection may exist, but that is not the same thing as "service." Service requires a stable connection. At high altitude, the connection has to be reestablished every few minutes from tower to tower, and this feature is pretty iffy, it's often unstable even in a car on the ground.

[This comment was deleted.]

PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Thought I made a typo for a second. It's actually 10k.
onceastudentpilot
tim mitchell 1
you were right...I had a brain fart
tcmarks
Tim Marks 1
Does anyone find the FlightAware data interesting that the A/C was climbing the whole time it was reporting on the transponder? Last reported altitude was FL390. The 777 has a service ceiling of FL430 and with margin an ultimate ceiling of likely FL460-FL480. Is it possible the aircraft climbed too high for nominal control inputs to be responded to and got into stall, slip or spin situation that could be unrecoverable?
onceastudentpilot
tim mitchell 2
Flightaware data isn't always real data....it's an estimation in some cases
tcmarks
Tim Marks 1
4 hours, plus at least 45 minutes flight reserves, so add another 250+nm to the potential distance the flight could have traveled and a bunch of '-stan' countries along with Iran and North Korea are in that range. That is assuming the flight crew maintained 480kts., slowing down to less than 400kts. would also increase the range by another 200-300nm. and now this flight could be anywhere, including Russia.
solitary
solitary 1
Indian Ocean? Good luck. The New Zealand oil rig worker account appears genuine and beleiveable. I think witness accounts hold alot of weight.
yr2012
matt jensen 1
I've been in contact with another pilot who has flown this route before. The intended route is wrong b/c VN charges an overflight fee. The jet must have gone further off the VN coast, near where the oil platform is located.
yr2012
matt jensen 1
When pilot of Narita bound jet contacted the MAS jet on the emergency freq - wouldn't the MAS pilot need to be on same emergency freq?
preacher1
preacher1 0
Well, one would think so but they have also declared that as a hoax.
choppbobby
Robert Burns 1
Just a question from one who is not airplane savvy. Even with the transponder disabled shouldn't the plane still be seen on radar? Just not identified as the plane in question?
preacher1
preacher1 1
ppgooding
Paul Gooding 1
It might be "seen" but not necessarily seen in a way that provides reliable identification. Radar is pretty imperfect, one of the reasons why transponders are used in the first place.
Eddiesno2
Eddiesno2 1
This is probably a dumb question, but why have a black box on the plane when we have things like ACARS that relay information immediately? Does the Black Box record an inordinate amount of information that cannot reasonably be transmitted via satellite and stored?
preacher1
preacher1 2
Well, ACARS does not transmit by satellite, but by VHF, which is slower and it transmits on a timer and I think it only transmits and event. I.E. AF447 transmitted 23 msg from the time it started falling until impact. The black box will record everything the entire length of flight, good and bad.
krafsurjoe
krafsurjoe 1
It's obvious that the whole truth hasn't come out. Somebody has to know something about where it is. I read an AFP article detailing how many countries don't want to release any potential info on radar tracking because it would showcase their defense and tracking capabilities.
jwfuller
Jeff Fuller 1
Reading about 'why' a Transponder would have to be turned OFF (i.e. as a result of fire), wouldn't a $.25 fuse (or even redundant fuses) suffice to electrically disconnect it...?
bovineone
Jeff Lawson 1
Of course there are circuit breakers on all of the avionics, so the pilot can easily reset them in the air if it were to blow (without having to search for a correctly sized replacement fuse), and also to explicitly disable something that is malfunctioning but not short circuiting enough to blow the breaker by itself.

But transponders routinely need to be turned OFF or STANDBY as a part of normal startup and shutdown procedures and when taxiing on the ground (though availability of ground movement radar is increasingly requesting that aircraft keep transponders on while on the ground also).
DanPHaigh
Dan Haigh 1
Can someone disable the ELT on a commercial aircraft while in flight? I understand that MH370 changed direction and flow over the Indian ocean. On CNN they are quoting Senior Officials as saying that it is very likely that the airplane is at the bottom of the Indian Ocean, but the added that the ELT did not go off. So, was that disabled like the transponder. Is that possible?
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
You'd likely have to get physical access to the ELT, open it, and remove the battery. Like in the Honeywell ELT (in that Ethiopian plane) that burned and caused damage to the plane while it was parked at Heathrow.

They're supposed to work automatically. Certainly falling into the ocean is a usage scenario that was envisioned in the design of ELTs. Falling into the jungle too.

Not having ELTs go off (if indeed they were never triggered) in another clue. Either they were tampered with (if that is possible - in flight or prior to departure). Or otherwise, the possibility increases that the plane never did crash.
DanPHaigh
Dan Haigh 1
Ok. Thank you. This is truly a strange situation. I also heard it said on CNN that there are fears that the plane was flown to a remote location to be "re-purposed". I find that to be implausible.
ameriflight
John Warren 1
The ELT cannot be accessed in flight. They are normally mounted in the tail of the aircraft, and can only be accessed by removing an external panel.
AF9A
Jim Keeth 1
So, here is an news story from KOMO in Seattle which finally makes a little sense. Explains Boeing's denial of having any ACARS data because MH doesn't subscribe to that service. But there is a record of "I'm here" satellite pings although no user data was transmitted.
http://www.komonews.com/news/national/Missing-plane-sent-signals-to-satellite-for-hours-250243691.html
Eriq
U Orsini 1
Assuming that the info is true, wouldn't this point to both pilots being suddenly incapacitated (poison gas or some such)?? One changes the heading on the autopilot but is unable to do anything else. Would it run out of fuel about 4 hours later? Would a 777 automatically switch to batteries to send a ground proximity alert? In this scenario noone would be able to, say, deploy the RAT for electric power before the plane crashed...
AF9A
Jim Keeth 1
If the story is true it would help clear up all the confusion about there being or not being any ACARS data and/or satellite tracking data after the transponder and ACARS stopped reporting but there is still data which implies the plane is flying. I don't know anything about it, but the satellite communications provider would probably have to provide data on the "connect requests or pings" which MH or Boeing likely wouldn't have. Sure seems like someone switched off the transponder and ACARS transmitter.
boughbw
Brian Bough 1
Similar but completely different: What about hypoxia? Let us hypothesize that the oxygen monitors fail, so there is no indication that masks are required. There is also no noticeable decompression. In a low oxygen environment, pilots have been known to do some irrational things, turning off the transponder could be one of those things. Changing course could be one of those things...
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 0
Almost anything is possible. But as additional information is determined than likelier possibilities need to be considered before exotic explanations, that require many possible (but not necessary likely) separate parts. The combination of many unlikely separate events happening together is way more unlikely. It's like winning the lottery but in reverse. So possible, but not necessarily likely.
bizjets101
biz jets 1
Oops meant to day it was to Malaysian Airlines not to Rolls Royce!!!
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Does any of the Engine telemetry include location information, even on an occasional basis?
preacher1
preacher1 2
Don't think so, and Sully pretty much echoed that on CBS this morning. They asked him this morning, out of all involved, if he could talk to whoever he wanted about all this, he said he'd want to talk to Boeing and RR both so idk. I think that is kinda like ACARS, it just takes a snapshot of the engines, accumulates them and send about every 30 min or so. ACARS monitors all systems, like FDR, but can be sent on varying transmission times, generally about every 3-5 minutes but sent on VHF, so timing might be a tad erratic.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
I found another post that indicated the engine telemetry is sent via ACARS. If they actually were getting data after the transponder stopped, then ACARS would still be up. Then again, like so much other 'information', that could be incorrect.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
Sully the consulting expert's, raking in the $$$...
Makes me want to put one in the Hudson...
preacher1
preacher1 3
Well, if you got it, flaunt it. Beats the heck out of being a line dawg in the left seat. LOL
Wayne47
It would interesting to know the content of the data RR collected from the jet. For example if the engine performance data included, time, altitude and outside air temperate that could be used used to tell where the aircraft continued on a northerly direction or went in another direction and if there were other changes in direction at various times. One should be able to map the hourly temperature at the flight altitude for the entire 2000 mile radius and determine in what general airspace the plane was traveling.
TXCAVU
Re: Andaman Island landing of an aircraft:

Indian armed forces command at Andaman and Nicobar Islands would help in to prevent smuggling, piracy, drug and gun trafficking, poaching and illegal immigration in the region and especially in the Malacca Strait.

The Andaman and Nicobar Command is commanded by a three-star officer of the Indian Army who reports directly to the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee in New Delhi. Additionally there is a naval air station which is located 300 nautical miles south of Port Blair and is the southernmost air station of the Indian Armed Forces.

B777 headed straight for this island would have been detected by the Command Center & intercepted by aircraft based INS Baaz. All that technology and assets would have had eyes on this suggest route of travel.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Good info, thanks for posting.
The Indian government hasn't said a thing publicly.
You've just made a case for the conspiracy theorists to say "India did it".
BrorMonberg
Bror Monberg 1
It's just a scenario...but everything is on the table now. A catastrophic software malfunction. The system crashed. Pilots struggled to get the lost functions running again but ran out of fuel. This is a fly-by wire aircraft.
ppgooding
Paul Gooding 1
There's no software crash scenario that supports the event timeline.
Elect
Sam Rivers 1
Never mind I like the theory that MH370 pulled up behind SIA68 better ...
Elect
Sam Rivers 1
Does anyone know how hard it is to change the "ident." For the iff squawk ? Then take on a new A/C flight no?? I think ident is hardware. Anyone confirm?
ppgooding
Paul Gooding 1
Making changes such as modification to aircraft transponder or tracking systems in response to an incident like this ... has little chance of being adopted. First of all, it requires rule changes, which have to go through a vetting process, and I don't think the rule would survive the process. In this particular incident, you'd have airlines spending millions to retrofit aircraft just so they'd know where to go find the wreckage. That's not exactly a worthy safety improvement. The change would not have prevented the incident or saved a single life. The change would also require extensive upgrades to ground equipment that gets, and stores, all this tracking information ... additional cost, with no safety added.

My guess is, it will not happen. You are basically out to tell airlines that they have to spend tons of money and endure a rule change because they can't trust their crews. Easier to put stronger locks on the cockpit door and do a better job of screening crews.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
The technology exists* and is relatively cheap.

So solutions will be deployed long before there is time to develop rules about it. What airline will want to be the next one embroiled in such a mess? The airlines and their insurers will get much of the world's fleet fitted some solution while bureaucrats and regulators ponder what to do.

*Note the 'Find my phone' technology in iPhones, OnStar service on GM vehicles, and many other such services like LoJack for finding stolen cars. On planes, such service would have to be able to communicate by satellite to acheice world-wide coverage, including over oceans and at altitude. But all the necessary parts to be able to provide this service exist, including cheap GPS tracking hardware and cheap satellite communications hardware, plus the satellites are already in for both tracking and communicating.

Designing, creating and launching the satellites to make these services available would be difficult if one had to start from nothing. But all these services already exist. So it's just a matter of deploying existing reliable and cheap technology, to protect sone very expensive equipment carrying lots of passengers.
ppgooding
Paul Gooding 0
Absolute nonsense, and it almost certainly will not happen. No technology changes in aviation are cheap. "Solutions will be developed before rules?" What on earth are you talking about? Nothing happens in aviation without rule structures. You might want to take a look at the entire library of Federal Aviation Regulations. Get a cart with wheels, it's big. And you didn't address my central point, which is that this fanciful tracking thing you are talking about would have done exactly nothing to prevent this incident or any such future incident. It would add nothing to safety, whatever. What scenario are you imagining? That the airline would see its flight go off the track and send out the hijack police to pull it over? WTF? Do you really think that a crazed hijacker, crew or non crew, is going to be deterred by a tracking device? Again, WTF??
ppgooding
Paul Gooding 1
You might want to look at how effectively "tracking" dealth with the 911 hijackings. Those flights were tracked down to the inch, in real time, right into the buildings and into the ground. That gives you an idea of what tracking is worth in these situations. There was nothing the people tracking these flights could do. And there won't be the next time, either.
Moviela
Ric Wernicke 1
Is it possible that the plane went to FL450 because the 19 year old hijacker wanted to "what it'll do?"

I have seen no report that would cause me to rethink my opinion that this was wrought by Muslim males between ages 14 to 41 with ties to radical Islam.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
May turn out to be Joel's idea of ghost plane, that keeps going until it runs out of fuel.
preacher1
preacher1 1
That is a plausible theory but does not account for the turn, if it made one or for instrumentation going black
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
I that back. The communications/ transponder systems were shut off independently at separate times, as is being reported by abcnews. Takes away the likelihood of catastrophic failure.

Switches were shut off separately one after the other, so the remaining possibilities are:
1. Hijacking
2. Pilot Suicide

But no one knows where the plane is. After 4-5 of flying, it could be almost anywhere. More specifically anywhere in a very large area tbat extends far into the Indian ocean including the eastern coast of India, as well as the thick jungles of Thailand in the other direction.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Needle in a haystack, whatever happened to it. They never found Earhart. There is another FA post here somewhere that compares it to an NWA flight years ago, that has never been found. It may wind up one of them forever mysteries.
treehouse4rent
Carlos Bea 1
Only now, a week later, the Malay government admits 370 flew directly over one of its cities, population 1.6 million. A city whose direction is opposite where all it's resources were sent.......

A military, who failed to notice or question why the target was there.
und1974
und1974 1
Well looks like what I asked a few days back might have been what actually took place. Someone turned off the transponder and the plane "disappeared" from ATC radar.

I asked if ATC still uses the "old style" aircraft raw return of the radar "blip". I know they use the transponder digital data but what would happen if you turned the transponder off? There goes the aircraft display on the ATC radar screen.
stevooz
steve rogers 1
fed ex knows exactly where there trucks are at all times , they even know when they are backing up , so does ups , go figure ?
boughbw
Brian Bough 1
UPS is tracking FedEx?
cjwerth
cjwerth 1
Is it possible that the plane could have landed somewhere safely without anyone knowing. I would think that would be highly unlikely, but maybe it is possible?
preacher1
preacher1 1
Anything is possible. This is not real probable but it's possible.
bbabis
Bill Babis 1
I guess this will put another feather in the cap of totally autonomous aircraft when we ultimately get there. No pilots to go bad and nothing a passenger can do to gain control. It will solve this problem but undoubtably create others.
ppgooding
Paul Gooding 1
Not going to happen. To buy the "total trackability" suggestion, one has to believe that (a) the entire worldwide aircraft/airline industry and the regulators in all the participating countries have just forgotten or overlooked this possible step, (b) that trackability contributes in any reasonable way to safety, (c) that making this change is without cost, complication, and unexamined possible new problems, (d) that the airlines will sit still for making a change that basically advertises to the world that their planes and crews are so unreliable and so vulnerable that a 24/7 electronic leash is necessary in order to make sure that the remains of murdered passengers can be found quickly when something like this happens, and (e) that the ultimate safety and proper operation of aircraft cannot rest in the hands of crews any more because the world is just too dangerous too trust the principles that have protected ships at sea and airplanes in flight since the beginning of mechanized transportation.

It's a lamebrain idea and it is not going to happen.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
1. Actually it only takes an owner (airline) willing to spend about $500 USD to protect a $250M USD investment. A satellite transponder can be tucked away in an inaccessible location with sufficient battery power to at least last an entire flight (if the power is turned off or cb pulled) or maybe upto 30 days. It need only transmit when moving. To preserve battery power after landing it can sleep and transmit only intermittently. It's location when parked will stay the same until moved again.

2. Also a new rule promulgated by the FAA or both the FAA and EASA would escalate across the industry. Many other jurisdictions would follow suit with not too much delay. Terrorists and passengers would choose which planes to board accordingly.

----

I would think that many flight crews wouldn't be too concerned about any trust issues. They know their employers would put $250M USD in their control without trust. But in case anyone got control of their aircraft, even a colleague, they'd want their whereabouts known (while alive and even after).
nasdisco
Chris B 1
The longer this goes on, the less likelihood we have of anything being found. Its got all the ingredients for another Earhart like story.
sgbelverta
sharon bias 1
A 777 is going to take a fairly long runway to land, and most of those are monitored by manned towers. Even unmanned towers with long runways tend to have people around who would notice a commercial liner landing. With all of the news coverage, I'm sure someone in Iran would have noticed a Malaysia airplane showing up unannounced. In 1989 when SFO was closed due to the earthquake, I remember vividly Air France and Philipine airliners landing at Sacramento airports. I'm sure they were sucking dry at that point, and needed to land someplace ASAP. Just last summer, when SFO was closed due to the Asiana crash, another Air France plane had to land in Sacramento. Comic relief because you'd be hard pressed to find a French speaker here. The taxi drivers were in hog heaven because they got to drive 90% of the passengers to San Francisco.

The only really closed nation where a missing airliner might hide would be North Korea. And I'm very sure they don't want to make China mad. China's their only friend.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, takeoff at MTOW is 8000 and most are not anywhere near that anymore. They could probably land in 6 or less, depending on how configured. Remember the dreamlifter landed/took off at KAAO. It only has 6101. That is not exceptionally long but you are correct in that it ought to be noticed.
hatch
ian hatch 1
Is ADS-B a transponder system or an automatic transmit only System, rather like an IFF intgerrogator, but not looking for replies. If so why a circuit breaker in the cockpit for it, other than the master power CB?
sgbelverta
sharon bias 1
Question--I've read the ping from a black box can be heard 5-10 miles away. Is that vertical or horizontal?
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
The new reports this morning is that the plane may have had 8 hours of fuel which would be higher than what had been mentioned earlier. That opens up an entire slate of new possibilities.
bbabis
Bill Babis 1
It may not have to be refueled before its next trip.
ppgooding
Paul Gooding 1
I don't know of any evidence on the wires so far to support this rank speculation.
Elect
Sam Rivers 1
Anyone know where map of military and civilian search radar locations are for that area of world ... How easy to stay between / under ?

[This poster has been suspended.]

Wayne47
The Chinese could be lying for 3 reasons:

1. They took the plane so they could clone it or at least parts of it.
2. They would prefer people to believe the plane did come apart as the result of a internal failure and not because of any Chinese terrorist activity.
3. There military accidentally shot it down.
preacher1
preacher1 2
And now, adding to the confusion, Boeing is denying all the reports, and it could be as with that NWA flight in 1950 over the great lakes, ain't a piece of it been found yet.
rsfary
Robert Fary 1
This is officially bizzaro world. Feel so bad for the families of thise on board.
hanman6
Michael Tedor 1
With the downsizing of many militaries in Asia, some ex-soldiers have turned to crime. Witness jewelry store heists in Hong Kong carried out with ruthless precision by ex-PLA criminal teams that plan and are in and out so quickly authorities cannot get them. Substitute "piracy" (as in tankers and Straits of Molucca) for "hijack". Now assume you have ex-air force criminals from an Asian country that figure out a 777 is worth hundreds of millions, figure out a way to infiltrate or replace part of the flight crew (maybe not the pilots, maybe the stewards, attendants or whatever), and suppose they find an abandoned airstrip with a long enough runway. What's a used 777 worth to an unscrupulous 3rd world airline? What are the parts worth? Maybe...
TXCAVU
Theory that MH370 was hijacked for later use brings back memories of the B727 that disappeared wiht the pilot in Angola. http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=79461
ekhan5
khan sardar 1
Can static disable aircraft communication systems like TP or radio signals
ipyao
Tony Yao 1
Flew 4 extra hours after switched off XPDR and ACRS?
Where is civil and military ATC?
they can still see the target on radar screen even shot off both XPDR and ACARS.
if not? That mean any aircraft can be entry other country FIR without identify.
that's impossible.
egad
James Hodges 1
Stuff like that is recorded , untouched by human hands, and not very reliably in that part of the world, sort of like the fuzzy pictures on surveillance cams at Wallmart.
jpreston1
Josh Preston 1
Not saying that this isn't a serious situation, but I can't stop thinking about a certain Twilight Zone episode: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Odyssey_of_Flight_33
Jen02392
Jenny Morris 1
Could be Historical Damage? Undetected and waiting to Happen?
preacher1
preacher1 1
???????
Jen02392
Jenny Morris 1
Sorry Was I Off topic?
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Can you be a bit more specific about your comment. Was it a follow up to someone else comment or an original though ir possibly an idea picked up elsewhere.

Some have mentioned the possibility of wing damage from the earlier wing tip involved crash. Is that what you meant.

If that ends up bring the cause, it can problematic. There seem to be alot of wing strikes as ever larger planes move around at ever more crowded airports. These wing crashed planes might prove less reliable.
Jen02392
Jenny Morris 1
I was referring to any previous Damage caused by Lightening, electrical faults can remain undetected even by fault detection equipment, they can become active only when certain Conditions arise, No one knows unless we find the plane and can analyse the black box, I am sure if any anomalous problems arose that they would have been entered into to the aircraft log. Computers crash all the time when spikes in the supply occur even with Surge protection in place.
Jen02392
Jenny Morris 1
Another Theory. Long Shot, I am sure it would be considered, For Whatever reason the Transponder stopped working, a lightening strike, Error or other technical fault including Cabin depressurization, if the plane where to continue on its current heading after autopilot heading hold engaged it would easily reach North Korea Airspace on that heading in about four hours, would it have been shot down by the north Korean authorities and then after realizing this after the fact try to cover it up?
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
Would have to fly through a lot of strictly controlled Chinese airspace first.
Jen02392
Jenny Morris 1
But What if radar handed it off as MH 370? they were expecting it to fly into their airspace anyway and would have allowed passage, although this raises other questions I am at a loss???
Jen02392
Jenny Morris 1
Mind you that airspace I imagine is very closely watched by all parties!

[This poster has been suspended.]

PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
The flight has mostly Chinese and Malaysian passengers and was operating between Malyasia and China by a Malaysian airline. That may somewhat limit the payouts for a majority of passengers, as their rights mat be somewhat limited by international convention. The first world passengers might have slightly more rights, or at least better jurisdictional options.

It would be interesting to get that chap's perspective on the matter.

Most of the reference list seems to be US-based carriers and/or operations to/ from US or both (except the Antarctic crash which almost certainly had lots of first-world tourists in addition to all the Kiwis). First world and Commonwealth courts may allow for more generous compensation.
AngryFishAir
Robert Sobotor 1
Rolls Royce has a center in the UK, I believe, that tracks its engines real-time around the world 24/7 365, from what i understand, via an independent system that pings data independent of the aircraft navigation transponders. The flight that disappeared is reported to have Rolls Royce engines and therefore it is safe to say information is being withheld somewhere.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Does that mean it has its own transmitter system separate from the ACARS system?
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Thanks, that showed up as I hit enter-
so, it appears to use either.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Shoulda researched before replying.
According to the WSJ article below, the engines seem to have tried to establish contact with the satellite system for some time after the transponder dropped out. The article noted that data was not sent, system was in standby mode.

So it uses satellite rather than merged into ACARS.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304914904579434653903086282
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
The article also says that no data was transmitted as none of the companies involved had paid for the optional satellite data transmission subscription fees.
AngryFishAir
Robert Sobotor 1
I wonder about that. If, for example, you do not use the mapping feature on your cell phone it still tracks you you just do not have access to the information. What would be the disincentive for RR tracking the particulars of a multimillion dollar item in the hope of getting extra business if something serious came up and or being that more data is always better in terms of engineering solutions, the incentive to monitor and not report, as is alleged now with this aircraft. is to glean valuable data to use in product development etc.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
The equipment may collect data, which can be useful. Fine.

But to transmit the data continuously every day, someone would have to not only set it up with a satellite data transmission outfit but also regularly pay for all daily continuous usage.

Giving all customers the extra service whether they pay for it or not, takes away all incentive for paying customers to pay. Optional is optional.
AngryFishAir
Robert Sobotor 1
At just past 43:00 a brief discussion of data tracking is given. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfomloUg2Gw
stevooz
steve rogers 1
every plane on this planet should have an independent system that no one pilot or crew or passenger can access , this system would be impossible to turn off , it would be charged by the apu on the ground before each flight , and then again on the next flight and so on ,independent from the black box , the system would be gps based or sat com
SWEATINTHSWAMP
SWEATINTHSWAMP 3
I believe the flight data recorder or black box is the system you are referring to and it is in place.
preacher1
preacher1 2
I think he is talking about to track one though and not just be thee after the fact. I guess tracking could be added but again, it all come down to $
preacher1
preacher1 1
reckon who would pay for it? There is a whole lot of should, could, woulda in here but it all comes down to $
anirbansen
Anirban Sen 1
Do excuse me as I do not belong in the field of avionics or tech. (Am a lawyer by profession). But is there a possibility of designing an RFID connected based buoyant satellite transmitters that could float to the surface in case of an aircraft getting submerged. (See: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/axonn-creates-worlds-smallest-industrial-use-satellite-transmitter-54330282.html). How about something like this put inside a small ball of plastic containing essentially air that would send a beacon/location information to satellites overhead? Is this doable?
risgoh
Ris Goh 1
Maybe the investigators need to start looking at other areas rather than crews and passengers. Maybe they need to start to look at what is in the cargo (from luggage x-rays records) that this plane is carrying. Is there something more valuable than gold in the luggage. With this info maybe they can make a better idea of where this plane might have been "route" to.
Bigboy1942a
Somehow, I cannot get this scenario out of my mind. Highjackers may have taken control of the airplane at the time of its last radar position and made a descent to an altitude of 500'. At that point, they flew the airplane to an airport in North Korea, where it has been landed and placed in a hangar. The crew and passengers are alive and being held hostage. Would this not be something that the impulsive Kim Jung Un may have dreamed up to impress the world with his powers? Maybe it is a Hollywood production scenario but stranger things have happened.
joelwiley
joel wiley 3
If this was a hijack, it was very well planned and executed. I don't see a North Korean group being able to carry off something complex as that. Where would NK find a 777 pilot?
TXCAVU
If the aircraft was the target, likely the passengers/crew would have been liquidated. Easy to do at that altitude.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 2
I might investigate the possibility that after the transponder was shut down the airplane crossed someone's "ADIZ" and they shot it down. After they discovered what it was they "cleaned up" the mess and went quiet because of so many Chinese nationals on board. But all we have is conjecture.
TXCAVU
Ohhh, there is a thought. One constant remains & that is the passengers and cabin crew probably did not survive.
andromeda07
andromeda07 1
Others have commented on these boards about the Malaysian airforce response to a large unidentified plane -- maybe they shot it down themselves and are deliberately misleading the search until people give up. Or what about China? If they didn't know what it was and shot it down, maybe in their own territory, would they admit it now, knowing the plane is loaded with their own people?
bbabis
Bill Babis 1
Everything is on the table Richard, but It probably didn't have the fuel to fly that distance at 500'. Also, the US, Japan, and South Korea are very sensitive about that airspace and it would have had a much higher chance of being seen at any altitude.
preacher1
preacher1 2
I can guarantee you that it would not have gotten past South Korea without an intercept.
TXCAVU
Or Japan. The other fact is that the Indian ocean is deep.
ppgooding
Paul Gooding 1
An intercept is not the relevant possibility. Just a sighting would have been enough to inform us at this point. There were no such sightings.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I can agree with his ego and wanting to do something like that, but the bulk of the pax are Chinese Nationals and I wouldn't think he'd be crazy enough to piss off the only friend that he had left.
TXCAVU
The part that makes me nervous is the prior FO action of allowing others in the cockpit. How easy to plant a beautiful decoy. If invited into the cockpit for the flight, the decoy could neutralize the 2 crew & fly the plane...or allow other(s) in to fly the plane. Back in 2001 there was recruiting of Western individuals for just that purpose.
chefsean59
sean ruddy 1
Could have been a test the first time it happened
bbabis
Bill Babis 1
Good thought. It seems that clearly the cockpit was compromised either from within or outside. Now we need to find out why.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
Point is we don't know anything more than there is a 777 missing. All the information we knew last Saturday. Look at the graph of the flight for the 8th. That's all we know for sure the balance is conjecture.
ppgooding
Paul Gooding 1
Uh, a journey of several thousand miles either over land, or over water bordered closely by the radar capabilities of China, Japan, and South Korea ... with not a single clue left behind that this route was taken? Brilliant deduction.

[This poster has been suspended.]

PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
The above text is plagiarized from the daily ail article that Elizabeth squawked earlier. Ekuzabeth's squawk was downvoted into negative territory and the fake profile below Robin Panday upvoted the above spam promoting someone's proprietary website. Reprehensible behavior.

The investigation of the pilot's political beliefs is not conclusive proof that he hijacked the plane. Roomee purports to be a news source but makes such a indictment without corroboration and based only on initial findings from the investigation looking into his person. His political beliefs are not news to his colleagues and friends. It is convenient that this information comes out over a week after the plane goes missing, exactly when the government officials finally admit that some deliberate act seems to be the cause of the plane going off course.

They spend a week trying to prevent the truth coming out. Now that it has, it seems they're trying to smear the captain with the blame, whether deserved or not.

I wonder if Roomee is part of this Malaysian effort to misinform. Or could they just be opportunist(s) spamming these forums to build up their website traffic. Either way, their behavior is inexcusable.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 0
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/03/13/search-for-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370/6361577/

Malaysians say WAJ is wrong. State they Boeing and RR say last data before last plane contact.

WSJ reports that RR received engine data for about 4 hours past last contact.

There is now credibility on the line for 2 institutions:
1) WSJ
2) Malaysian gov't agency(ies) in charge of the rescue/recovery/investigation of the missing plane
yr2012
matt jensen 2
Malaysian's are acting like redneck bozos. I tend to believe the WSJ reporter.
stevooz
steve rogers 0
sad we have to talk about money , when nasa spent millions and millions to sent three guys to the moon , mean time we cant find an airplane in our back yard , lets ask nasa to spend that money to keep the flying public safe , instead of wondering what other out of this world thing we can explore
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 0
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/03/13/search-for-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370/6361577/

Malaysians say WAJ is wrong. State they Boeing and RR say last data before last plane contact.

WSJ reports that RR received engine dara

[This poster has been suspended.]

Av8nut
Michael Fuquay 1
Whoa, Mike! That's pretty harsh, even if it did cross our minds.

[This poster has been suspended.]

joelwiley
joel wiley 1
as opposed to other terrorists, secular and nonsecular?
You might try selling your idea to Qatar.
JerrySteinberg
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Officials Deny Malaysia Airlines Plane Kept Flying After Losing Contact

What appears to be an unending saga continued with yet another conflicting report in the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, last heard from on Saturday.

Malaysian officials denied a report by the Wall Street Journal suggesting that the aircraft continued to fly for several hours ...

http://www.frequentbusinesstraveler.com/2014/03/officials-deny-malaysia-airlines-plane-kept-flying-after-losing-contact/

Entrar

¿No tienes cuenta? ¡Regístrate ahora (gratis) para acceder a prestaciones personalizadas, alertas de vuelos, y más!