Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: America
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, after all the movie-plot theories, mechanical possibilities, crew conspiracy/suicide suggestions; after all the pings and turns, descents and climbs, and despite volumuous discussions of switch positions, radio phraseology, and aircraft systems, we're still left with nothing more than what we started with:
An extremely reliable airplane, maintained by a reputable airline, flown by a professional, qualified crew, on a normal route with no adverse weather.... that inexplicably doesn't make it to its destination and disappears.
Since everyone has their own opinion as for why, I'll offer mine and make this my final post on the thread.
A security failure at some point resulted in a person or persons, as yet unknown, interfering with the flight crew's performance of their duties, for the purpose of terrorism. The crew died trying to thwart that effort, resulting in the tragic loss of the aircraft and all on board. As for why no group has yet claimed responsibility, they failed. Whatever building or major city was their target is still intact. No terror group will advertise their failures.
An extremely reliable airplane, maintained by a reputable airline, flown by a professional, qualified crew, on a normal route with no adverse weather.... that inexplicably doesn't make it to its destination and disappears.
Since everyone has their own opinion as for why, I'll offer mine and make this my final post on the thread.
A security failure at some point resulted in a person or persons, as yet unknown, interfering with the flight crew's performance of their duties, for the purpose of terrorism. The crew died trying to thwart that effort, resulting in the tragic loss of the aircraft and all on board. As for why no group has yet claimed responsibility, they failed. Whatever building or major city was their target is still intact. No terror group will advertise their failures.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fyi:
ADS-B is only available on the L Transponder on the 777 (with standard fit).
As soon as the R Transponder is selected the aircraft is unable to send ADS-B info.
Disabling ACARS (both VHF and SATCOM) is very easily done via the COMMS pages.
Would be interested to see the parameters of the engines that RR received for a good view hours.
If someone has punched in LITEX & GIVAL into the FMC there is a good likelihood that incapacitation isn't on the cards, more a considerate attempt to go somewhere.
FYI: (that airway is used lots by all airliners to transit over Port Blair towards NE India, VOMF AND VOCF FIRs
ADS-B is only available on the L Transponder on the 777 (with standard fit).
As soon as the R Transponder is selected the aircraft is unable to send ADS-B info.
Disabling ACARS (both VHF and SATCOM) is very easily done via the COMMS pages.
Would be interested to see the parameters of the engines that RR received for a good view hours.
If someone has punched in LITEX & GIVAL into the FMC there is a good likelihood that incapacitation isn't on the cards, more a considerate attempt to go somewhere.
FYI: (that airway is used lots by all airliners to transit over Port Blair towards NE India, VOMF AND VOCF FIRs
Freight God
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: LS-R54A
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jugofpropwash
to try to shadow a 777 would be not possible ( read some pages back ). Also military operators do not look at the blips but track symbols. Depending on the radar you would get two very overlapping symbols (one identified, the second not), drawing attention to the situation.
The best chance to fool the military is to fly like everybody else on a published airway. Chances are best you will not be discovered, even if not automatically identified. Unless there is a very good relationship between military radar and ATC, nobody will raise an alarm in the middle of the night.
to try to shadow a 777 would be not possible ( read some pages back ). Also military operators do not look at the blips but track symbols. Depending on the radar you would get two very overlapping symbols (one identified, the second not), drawing attention to the situation.
The best chance to fool the military is to fly like everybody else on a published airway. Chances are best you will not be discovered, even if not automatically identified. Unless there is a very good relationship between military radar and ATC, nobody will raise an alarm in the middle of the night.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK, South East
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What ACARS reports depends on the 'contract' set up with the recipients signed onto the ACARS reports. The pilot may have no idea what is contracted by the ground systems. If they ask for every waypoint, every vertical speed higher than n fpm and every drift off track more than x.y nautical miles and every change in the active route - they will get that and the pilot will not know that is what has been contracted.
If the pilots haven't logged the ADS onto the FIR ADS address the ACARS will not send position reports. ATC cannot log on to the aircraft without the pilots requesting it first as far as I know.
There seems to be a common misconception throughout this thread that ACARS is sending back position reports constantly. It doesn't.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey mixture? What do you think was in the cargo hold?
Like the mobile phones, the meteorites and every other theory under the earth that has been mindlessly discussed here, my answer is simple.... until proven otherwise by hard facts, the contents of the cargo hold had nothing to do with this incident !
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The hack of simulated aircraft systems with an Android phone may have been an overstated media stunt and perhaps not a possibility with MH 370.
However, as we go more and more digital on the flight deck, this computer and digital comm stuff is a threat surface we really need to consider in my opinion.
However, as we go more and more digital on the flight deck, this computer and digital comm stuff is a threat surface we really need to consider in my opinion.
Well, sure they could perhaps, maybe do something to something.
But how much could they do to safety critical systems ? I suspect the numbers plummet dramatically, if not to zero.
How much could they do to safety critical systems that the flight crew could not overrule by flicking a switch or pulling a CB ? I suspect the number is exactly zero.
Therefore, as you say.... it was an "overstated media stunt". We all know how the media like a good aviation story they can hype up... and what better than an aviation security story for the journos to have a field day on !
Both regulators and the manufacturers looked at his claims and found no issues with aircraft systems.
For the love of...
The very idea that someone could "hack" the aircraft systems is so laughably ridiculous I really don't know why I'm bothering, but for the sake of my sanity... this is impossible in the context of the 777. The T7 was introduced into service in 1995, so you can be sure the computer systems on the aircraft date back to technology from the late 80's at BEST. Most of the worlds so-called hackers weren't even BORN then, let alone have any experience working with a system from this era. This is a proprietary architecture, with no open "network ports" or wireless links or anything accessible. Please stop this rubbish. The Teso guy repeatedly mentioned here, did NOT hack an aircraft - he hacked a PC-based ACARS rehost. So he hacked a PC....
On another oft repeated mis-information, R-R did NOT receive any engine data after the ACARS system was deselected. The SATCOM system continued to receive SATCOM pings.... oh, I give up -> READ THIS:
TMF Associates MSS blog » Understanding ?satellite pings??
Dear POSTERS THAT INSIST ON POSTING THE SAME RUBBISH OVER AND OVER.... like this Keith Ledgerwood blah, blah, blah... please STOP IT. Learn to use the *search* function. It isn't hard and will avoid mindless repetition and save my blood from boiling.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The very idea that someone could "hack" the aircraft systems is so laughably ridiculous I really don't know why I'm bothering, but for the sake of my sanity...
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MSP
Age: 67
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bratschewurst
Had there been a truly robust system for flight tracking in place that reported 3D position every minute or so from takeoff to touchdown:
Welcome | spidertracks
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Milwaukee WI
Age: 72
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Japan Airlines 350 Japan Airlines Flight 350 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Royal Air Maroc flight 630 Royal Air Maroc Flight 630 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Silk Air flight 185 SilkAir Flight 185 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
EgyptAir 990 EgyptAir Flight 990 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linhas Aéreas de Moçambique - LAM 470 LAM Mozambique Airlines Flight 470 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
Regarding the pilot suicide theory: 5 instances in 30 years is statistically equivalent to none at all.
Say there are 100,000 or so pilots working for all the airlines on the planet at any given time. The average suicide rate in countries developed enough to have airlines of any size is, at best, a guess, but 10 per 100,000 would seem reasonable based on this chart (which is based on World Health Organization data from 2011). Given that a large majority of pilots are men, and male suicide rates are generally higher, 10 per 100,000 may even be low.
So, over a 30-year period, there would have been approximately, and at least, 3,000 suicides by airline pilots. 5 of those might have been suicide-by-loaded-aircraft. Statistically that's zero plus noise. And none of those five seem to have involved the kind of advance planning and convoluted thinking that would be required in this case.
No, that's not dispositive. Yes, pilot suicide has to be considered as a possibility, based on what's known to date. But I suspect we would have heard days ago if there was any real evidence to suggest that pilot suicide was really plausible, as opposed to simply one of many possibilities.
It's worth noting, by the way, that Malaysia has the third-lowest suicide rate of the 192 countries listed.
Royal Air Maroc flight 630 Royal Air Maroc Flight 630 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Silk Air flight 185 SilkAir Flight 185 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
EgyptAir 990 EgyptAir Flight 990 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linhas Aéreas de Moçambique - LAM 470 LAM Mozambique Airlines Flight 470 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
Regarding the pilot suicide theory: 5 instances in 30 years is statistically equivalent to none at all.
Say there are 100,000 or so pilots working for all the airlines on the planet at any given time. The average suicide rate in countries developed enough to have airlines of any size is, at best, a guess, but 10 per 100,000 would seem reasonable based on this chart (which is based on World Health Organization data from 2011). Given that a large majority of pilots are men, and male suicide rates are generally higher, 10 per 100,000 may even be low.
So, over a 30-year period, there would have been approximately, and at least, 3,000 suicides by airline pilots. 5 of those might have been suicide-by-loaded-aircraft. Statistically that's zero plus noise. And none of those five seem to have involved the kind of advance planning and convoluted thinking that would be required in this case.
No, that's not dispositive. Yes, pilot suicide has to be considered as a possibility, based on what's known to date. But I suspect we would have heard days ago if there was any real evidence to suggest that pilot suicide was really plausible, as opposed to simply one of many possibilities.
It's worth noting, by the way, that Malaysia has the third-lowest suicide rate of the 192 countries listed.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A security failure at some point resulted in a person or persons, as yet unknown, interfering with the flight crew's performance of their duties, for the purpose of terrorism. The crew died trying to thwart that effort, resulting in the tragic loss of the aircraft and all on board. As for why no group has yet claimed responsibility, they failed. Whatever building or major city was their target is still intact. No terror group will advertise their failures.
Either the passengers are dead, unconscious or unaware what is happening.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
There seems to be a common misconception throughout this thread that ACARS is sending back position reports constantly. It doesn't.
Here is hobbyist software that will plot those ACARS position reports:
PlanePlotter plots aircraft positions, altitudes and times decoded from the message traffic that it receives. These include embedded position reports, AMDAR reports and ADS reports contained in ACARS messages,
Also, see:
Can ACARS send postion, altitude and heading information automatically?
ACARS itself can not, but other systems like the Flight Management Systems (FMS) or ADS-C on board the aircraft can use ACARS to send reports like this automatically, and in some cases they do.
ACARS itself can not, but other systems like the Flight Management Systems (FMS) or ADS-C on board the aircraft can use ACARS to send reports like this automatically, and in some cases they do.
Looking at VHF ACARS logs, some carriers seem to still spit out a periodic position on ACARS, others don't, perhaps like the engine data, depending on the avionics, service providers and level of service purchased.
Commercial versions of ADS-B tracking software may have already rendered this ACARS position reporting obsolete but there is a lot of legacy stuff at a money losing national carrier from my past experience.
@Trackdiamond: Have you EVER worked with ANY aircraft avionics, especially a T7s? Well I have. I worked for many months on a Level D T7 flight sim, which happened to use the AIMS avionics boxes... and a complete bastard they were to integrate. I won't expand on this, except to say that even with access to the source code and all interface diagrams, etc, all that was possible was to stimulate the system. There was absolutely no way to back-door into the system to allow the injection of simulated malfunctions, and other simulator behaviors. So, I'm bloody sure some Johnny with an Android phone is out of luck.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: France
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Various
Apparently according to MAS here was nothing hazardous in the cargo hold. We have no other information, no cargo manifest, rien, nada!
The ping is initiated by the satellite asking the aircraft if it is still active - the aircraft replies to ping only with the statement 'I am live' however that maybe configured in satellite speak. NO DATA is passed. The satellite continues to ask the aircraft on an hourly basis in order to keep the communication line open 'in case' the aircraft wishes to pass data.
There is no confirmation that the last 'reply' from the aircraft was from the ground; However we do know that if the aircraft had landed and the engines were still powered it would 'reply' with an 'I am live'.
The passengers have not responded because why bother taking mobile phones at gun point when you can just 'dump' the cabin and then take the aircraft up to 45000 feet or so (I say or so because primary radar cannot confirm with the parameters it has it was exactly 45000 feet) to make the process faster!
I think the answer is going to be a combination of several scenarios already mentioned on here - amongst the more literate responses. Which ones who knows - but my personal opinion is Murexway at #5488 was pretty close together with a previous poster who also mentioned cabin dumping and once dumped surely the cockpit is going to get pretty cold! Something not even a SIM can prepare you for!
The ping is initiated by the satellite asking the aircraft if it is still active - the aircraft replies to ping only with the statement 'I am live' however that maybe configured in satellite speak. NO DATA is passed. The satellite continues to ask the aircraft on an hourly basis in order to keep the communication line open 'in case' the aircraft wishes to pass data.
There is no confirmation that the last 'reply' from the aircraft was from the ground; However we do know that if the aircraft had landed and the engines were still powered it would 'reply' with an 'I am live'.
The passengers have not responded because why bother taking mobile phones at gun point when you can just 'dump' the cabin and then take the aircraft up to 45000 feet or so (I say or so because primary radar cannot confirm with the parameters it has it was exactly 45000 feet) to make the process faster!
I think the answer is going to be a combination of several scenarios already mentioned on here - amongst the more literate responses. Which ones who knows - but my personal opinion is Murexway at #5488 was pretty close together with a previous poster who also mentioned cabin dumping and once dumped surely the cockpit is going to get pretty cold! Something not even a SIM can prepare you for!
affixed to the inflatable slides which double for rafts in the case of an on water landing.
Are they any actual, documented airlines who have this setup? I'm just really curious now... as I said I have flown on more than 10 aircraft types and have never seen/heard of this setup...
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hacking
I have some experience as an ethical hacker, starting in the 1970s.
1995 era code on an aircraft is perfectly hackable; quite easy in fact.
Now I am not saying this happened. I have no idea what happened. But hacking is not out of the question, even if the code is not accessible over a network.
1995 era code on an aircraft is perfectly hackable; quite easy in fact.
Now I am not saying this happened. I have no idea what happened. But hacking is not out of the question, even if the code is not accessible over a network.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: wales
Age: 81
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
by oldoberon
that quote is of one of my post and your response is fair point
Also you could only shadow from radar in on direction., so if crossing air defence you are still likely to be picked up at radar overlap points.
It does seem unlikely - and extremely difficult if not impossible to actually do - but we've already seen that radar coverage is a bit lax in the middle of the night. If an operator did see what appeared to be a 777 shadowing another 777, what would be his first instinct? I suspect that it would be that he's seeing some sort of echo or ghost artifact, rather than that someone really is trying to do that in a jumbo jet. Chances are, it might be ignored - or that the radar repairman might be called.
that quote is of one of my post and your response is fair point
Last edited by oldoberon; 17th Mar 2014 at 20:30. Reason: to add my original statement
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The SATCOM system continued to receive SATCOM pings.... oh, I give up -> READ THIS:
TMF Associates MSS blog » Understanding ?satellite pings??
TMF Associates MSS blog » Understanding ?satellite pings??