Missing Malaysia Airlines Jet

#476
#476
Septic said:
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.
Click to expand...


Does that include commercial jets?

Per my post above I would have thought that if a commercial jet's transponder went off and the thing turned around someone might have called out to it to ask why.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#477
#477
lawgator1 said:
Does that include commercial jets?

Per my post above I would have thought that if a commercial jet's transponder went off and the thing turned around someone might have called out to it to ask why.
Click to expand...

Yes, commercial jets are a whole 'nuther wavelength of filed IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) versus VFR (Visual Flight Rules). All of them have transponders on, all the time.

Commercial jets file a plan and stick to it - there a number of "highways" in the sky that have on and off ramps. They are vectored using these sky "highways" and they are handed back and forth to different 'centers' that manage the flow on these 'highways'. With out the transponders identifying the commercial jets, the ATC wouldn't know who was who.

Edit: Clarification
 
Last edited:
#478
#478
lawgator1 said:
Does that include commercial jets?

Per my post above I would have thought that if a commercial jet's transponder went off and the thing turned around someone might have called out to it to ask why.
Click to expand...

They would. Immediately.
 
#479
#479
Septic said:
They would. Immediately.
Click to expand...


Ergo my comment that if this is real and the transponder went off but the plane was tracked going backwards someone would have asked. Makes me either dubious about the claim, or wondering if someone failed to do that and it is the reason why things seem so ill-defined.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#480
#480
If transponders are so important in tracking aircraft, why would commercial jets allow pilots (or anyone else) to be able to turn them off?
 
#482
#482
OldandStillaVol said:
If transponders are so important in tracking aircraft, why would commercial jets allow pilots (or anyone else) to be able to turn them off?
Click to expand...

I don't know other than it's an instrument that is not always needed to be on. But certainly would be when a commercial jet is in flight.
 
#483
#483
Septic said:
The transponder shouldn't fail and has redundancies and even the voice comm's have backups as well. Again, it was intentionally switched off or there was a complete loss of power. If it were a hi-jack scenario, there are specific transponder codes that are used to alert that fact.
Click to expand...

If I understand you correctly, the plane sends out a signal which would indicate whether the transponder was turned off voluntarily or under duress?

Kind of like a bank teller sending a signal that there's a robbery?
 
#484
#484
Velo Vol said:
If I understand you correctly, the plane sends out a signal which would indicate whether the transponder was turned off voluntarily or under duress?

Kind of like a bank teller sending a signal that there's a robbery?
Click to expand...

They can send a "squawk" emergency code. I believe there's 3 codes. Hijack, communications, and fuel emergencies.
 
#485
#485
Velo Vol said:
If I understand you correctly, the plane sends out a signal which would indicate whether the transponder was turned off voluntarily or under duress?

Kind of like a bank teller sending a signal that there's a robbery?
Click to expand...

Kind of.. A plane would be assigned a transponder code by ATC to say "4430" to identify your plane. Changing that code during flight would alert ATC that there is a problem. If we changed it after we'd already identified, they'd call us on the radio and tell us to turn it back, NOW. Imagine having another plane in the area with the same "squawk"..

I was on a short final a few months back and when I went to notify the tower the radio was dead and the spare was in the back. Not helpful when your 5 miles out...

Instead of trying to fix the radio, we set the transponder (SQUAWKED) to 7600 which let the tower our communications were out. They acknowledged by turning a light on, on the tower. We landed, it was all good.

If a commercial jet squawked 7500 it would signify a hijack where 7700 would signify another type of emergency.
 
#486
#486
So, Septic, given the limited knowledge at hand, what's your list of possibilities, in order of most likely to least?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#487
#487
So in essence it would actually make sense if they were forced to turn off the transponder or a hijacker turned it off themselves, so no hijack code could be given?

just speaking in hypothetcials.
 
#490
#490
lawgator1 said:
So, Septic, given the limited knowledge at hand, what's your list of possibilities, in order of most likely to least?
Click to expand...

1. I don't even know, this type of Sh\t doesn't happen.


But if I had to guess (given whats been reported) that there was a loss of power or there was a sudden depressurization of the cabin (or both) rendering the crew incapacitated or there was just a depressurization and the plane continued to fly (autopilot) and crashed somewhere where they're not looking.

Remember Payne Stewart? From his Wiki page:


"At 9:33 AM EDT the pilots did not respond to a call to change radio frequencies, and there was no further contact from the plane. The plane was, apparently, still on autopilot and angled off-course, as observed by several U.S. Air Force (and Air National Guard) F-16 fighter aircraft[25] as it continued its flight over the southern and midwestern United States. The military pilots observed frost or condensation on the windshield (consistent with loss of cabin pressure) which obscured the cockpit, and no motion was visible through the small patch of windshield that was clear.
National Transportation Safety Board investigators later concluded that the plane suffered a loss of cabin pressure and that all on board died of hypoxia. A delay of only a few seconds in donning oxygen masks, coupled with cognitive and motor skill impairment, could have been enough to result in the pilots' incapacitation."

This seems more reasonable than a hi jacking and is consistent with the lack of wreckage where it was "supposed" to be.

Edit: Never say never, but I'd wager my new car that it crashed. And I love my new car.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#492
#492
CaVOLfn said:
So in essence it would actually make sense if they were forced to turn off the transponder or a hijacker turned it off themselves, so no hijack code could be given?

just speaking in hypothetcials.
Click to expand...

I would think that what you're saying is plausible, but more likely the transponder was disabled by lack of power.

The pilots could still steer without electrical power since the flight surfaces are hydraulic and not fly-by-wire. I don't imagine it would have been easy though.
 
#493
#493
Septic said:
But if I had to guess (given whats been reported) that there was a loss of power or there was a sudden depressurization of the cabin (or both) rendering the crew incapacitated or there was just a depressurization and the plane continued to fly (autopilot) and crashed somewhere where they're not looking.
Click to expand...

What would cause this at cruising altitude? Some kind of structural failure?
 
#494
#494
Just heard a good theory.

William Shatner and Rod Serling were on this flight. And this flight's destination? The Twilight Zone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#496
#496
I’m starting to think the aircraft was shot down by a Malaysian F/A-18!

Because maybe the plane was headed toward this MAYBE
 

Attachments

  • Petronas-Twin-Towers-Malaysia-205x300.jpg
    Petronas-Twin-Towers-Malaysia-205x300.jpg
    10.6 KB · Views: 87
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#499
#499
I think the next thing to surface will be the maintenance records of the aircraft, if they haven't already.
 
#500
#500
Septic said:
1. I don't even know, this type of Sh\t doesn't happen.


But if I had to guess (given whats been reported) that there was a loss of power or there was a sudden depressurization of the cabin (or both) rendering the crew incapacitated or there was just a depressurization and the plane continued to fly (autopilot) and crashed somewhere where they're not looking.

Remember Payne Stewart? From his Wiki page:


"At 9:33 AM EDT the pilots did not respond to a call to change radio frequencies, and there was no further contact from the plane. The plane was, apparently, still on autopilot and angled off-course, as observed by several U.S. Air Force (and Air National Guard) F-16 fighter aircraft[25] as it continued its flight over the southern and midwestern United States. The military pilots observed frost or condensation on the windshield (consistent with loss of cabin pressure) which obscured the cockpit, and no motion was visible through the small patch of windshield that was clear.
National Transportation Safety Board investigators later concluded that the plane suffered a loss of cabin pressure and that all on board died of hypoxia. A delay of only a few seconds in donning oxygen masks, coupled with cognitive and motor skill impairment, could have been enough to result in the pilots' incapacitation."

This seems more reasonable than a hi jacking and is consistent with the lack of wreckage where it was "supposed" to be.

Edit: Never say never, but I'd wager my new car that it crashed. And I love my new car.
Click to expand...

On a commercial flight, isn't one crew member (pilot or co-pilot) required to on oxygen at all times above 20-25,000 feet?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top