Missing Malaysia Airlines Jet

#451
#451
AirVol said:
Good point. Or the essential DC bus circuit breaker could've been pushed in for transponder.
Click to expand...

DC bus? We're talking about an airliner in Southeast Aisa and you're talking public transportation in Washington.

Get on the same page man!
 
#453
#453
Velo Vol said:
NYT piece expands on the above information

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/12/world/asia/malaysia-jet.html?hpw&rref=world

In short, Malaysian authorities are doing a pretty terrible job.
Click to expand...

At this point if I were the Chinese, the US, shoot, any of the nations involved in this search, I'd be telling the Malaysians in no uncertain terms to come clean and give everything they have on this. This is getting a little unreal. I know the chances of anyone being alive are dropping dramatically, but the families of the victims need some closure on this. And being cryptic and spoon feeding information is hampering efforts in this search.
 
#454
#454
Toujours Pret said:
If the SOB crashed into triple canopy jungle, it's pretty easy to figure that its not at all visible from the air.
Click to expand...

A plane that big doesn't just slip through the canopy, there's going to be a scar in the landscape that would be very noticeable from the air.

Assuming they're looking in the right area.
 
#455
#455
What if the plane was hacked? Maybe this is the first successful full hack of a plane and the worst is yet to come?
 
#456
#456
Can they not retrieve satellite data during that time and track the plane?

Company's do it all the time when 18 wheelers crash. The get the gps tag and pull the data from the satellite.
 
#458
#458
The plane had several hours of fuel. If it was headed toward the Bay of Bengal (away from land radar), who the heck knows where it might have ended up?
 
#459
#459
To those who may know;

Is it possible the US shot it down on accident. Reason I ask is because the plane losing its beacon and was apparently unable to communicate, could it have been considered a threat and the US acted accordingly?
 
#460
#460
Obsessed said:
To those who may know;

Is it possible the US shot it down on accident. Reason I ask is because the plane losing its beacon and was apparently unable to communicate, could it have been considered a threat and the US acted accordingly?
Click to expand...

I don't see why we'd have aircraft/ships with itchy trigger fingers in that region. I also think the practice is to escort aircraft without commo, not shoot them down, especially in areas that are either international or foreign.
 
#461
#461
Obsessed said:
To those who may know;

Is it possible the US shot it down on accident. Reason I ask is because the plane losing its beacon and was apparently unable to communicate, could it have been considered a threat and the US acted accordingly?
Click to expand...

Wasn't anywhere near in a position to be a threat to the US. And I'm not sure we even keep military assets in that specific area anyway.
 
#463
#463
Obsessed said:
To those who may know;

Is it possible the US shot it down on accident. Reason I ask is because the plane losing its beacon and was apparently unable to communicate, could it have been considered a threat and the US acted accordingly?
Click to expand...

China, Myanmar, Viet Nam all would have ratted us out by now.
 
#464
#464
Toujours Pret said:
I don't see why we'd have aircraft/ships with itchy trigger fingers in that region. I also think the practice is to escort aircraft without commo, not shoot them down, especially in areas that are either international or foreign.
Click to expand...

That may vary if said plane was headed toward a populated area.

I know the question may seem dumb to some of you. But I have no military background and no idea how things of that nature work.
 
#465
#465
Obsessed said:
That may vary if said plane was headed toward a populated area.

I know the question may seem dumb to some of you. But I have no military background and no idea how things of that nature work.
Click to expand...

Not a dumb question, it's probably a fairly valid concern although not specifically with our military.
 
#466
#466
Grand Vol said:
Not a dumb question, it's probably a fairly valid concern although not specifically with our military.
Click to expand...

Yep. The genesis of the plan for 9/11 came out of Manila. They were going to hijack a bunch of planes out of Manila and use them to hit targets in the US. After AQ leadership looked at the plan, they decided it would be better to use planes with full gas tanks instead of empty so they changed their points of departure.
 
#467
#467
Obsessed said:
That may vary if said plane was headed toward a populated area.

I know the question may seem dumb to some of you. But I have no military background and no idea how things of that nature work.
Click to expand...

Malaysia has a very advanced fighter fleet, they could've handled it if the situation arose.

As easy as it is to look for treachery of some kind, I am thinking something failed while the aircraft was outside the radar and it simply crashed.
 
#470
#470
Toujours Pret said:
Malaysia has a very advanced fighter fleet, they could've handled it if the situation arose.

As easy as it is to look for treachery of some kind, I am thinking something failed while the aircraft was outside the radar and it simply crashed.
Click to expand...

I actually didn't realize that until now when I looked it up. I knew they had some fighters as most countries do in that region, but they've actually got some serious front line stuff and are looking for more.
 
#474
#474
Grand Vol said:
Basically without transponder signals, those radars wouldn't give good signals though, right? Specific radar dependent of course. But either way, the implication would be the transponders were shut off or suffered a catastrophic malfunction. And being cut off intentionally would mean the crew, as a minimum one, was in on it (not sure if they carried a relief crew on that flight). A catastrophic malfunction could be a variety of things.



I was curious about that, whether the flight data could be sent in real time.



Agreed.
Click to expand...

No, the transponder just helps ATC identify a specific plane on their radar. Specific transponder #'s are given to specific aircraft so that the "blip" on the radar now has a name, it can also calculate altitude and speed.

Lots of private aircraft can fly without transponders and are only required to turn it on if they are required to class of airspace, are IFR, request flight following or are requesting clearance at a controlled airport.

Otherwise your plane is just a blip on the radar screen that they don't care about, or steer other aircraft around.

The plane would still show up and could be tracked by radar without a transponder but depending on how busy the airspace is it would be like watching moths circle a lightbulb and trying to remember which one is which. When theres only one and it's radar connected to the transponder - when it disappears from ATC screens... Buttholes tighten up.

Source: I fly.
 
#475
#475
I would be tempted to think it was some kind of hijacking/kidnapping thing except that no one has come forward with any kind of demand, so that seems unlikely.

If it turned around and flew back over Malaysia, and let's say went down over land, we'd have heard something by now.

Anyone else disturbed by the notion that the transponder went off, but apparently there was tracking going on for some significant period of time as it doubled back and no one bothered to ask why? That may be why the Malaysian Airlines is seemingly so out of sorts --no reaction by anyone to the plane obviously going somewhere it shouldn't and for no apparent reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top