Malaysia Airlines loses contact with plane carrying 239 people

I think the contention is that it was stolen sensitive military equipment... And we stoleit back... So its your fault.

 

Then I'd steal a military jet or contract an air cargo carrier...

 

But otherwise yes, probably my fault.

The 2 guys with the fake passports were just young Iranian guys who were looking to re-settle in Europe.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/...orged-passports

http://www.businessinsider.com/doubts-grow...d-flight-2015-5

Even though we're having a good info security talk, hacks like this makes people's imaginations go wild for no good reason. At most, if the dude thought he had some effect on the aircraft via hacking, he would have no idea what kinds of results to expect from a control movement or power change to be able to connect his actions to it. Even if he did cause something wacky to occur, the pilots would be on top of that shit in a heartbeat and might change their entire plan to land at the next suitable field 600 miles short of the destination depending on the significance or confusion with an uncommanded action rather than shrug it off and keep flying to California... "oh, it's nothing, just a minor indication that our control of the aircraft is questionable. Don't sweat it," lol. Even if one flight crew did nothing, there'd be crews on at least some of those 15-20 incidents that would have declared emergencies on top of writing up malfunctions. If I'm flying a fighter that does something uncommanded that I can't sort out, I'm one or two steps away from either landing or pulling the fun ring and giving it back to the tax payer.

Even though we're having a good info security talk, hacks like this makes people's imaginations go wild for no good reason. At most, if the dude thought he had some effect on the aircraft via hacking, he would have no idea what kinds of results to expect from a control movement or power change to be able to connect his actions to it. Even if he did cause something wacky to occur, the pilots would be on top of that shit in a heartbeat and might change their entire plan to land at the next suitable field 600 miles short of the destination depending on the significance or confusion with an uncommanded action rather than shrug it off and keep flying to California... "oh, it's nothing, just a minor indication that our control of the aircraft is questionable. Don't sweat it," lol. Even if one flight crew did nothing, there'd be crews on at least some of those 15-20 incidents that would have declared emergencies on top of writing up malfunctions. If I'm flying a fighter that does something uncommanded that I can't sort out, I'm one or two steps away from either landing or pulling the fun ring and giving it back to the tax payer.

 

The terminology he used (or that the FBI used, or that the reporter writing the story used) was obviously "different". "fly sideways" "Caused the engine to climb" etc... But, would the pilots immediately notice an increase in an engine RPM for a few seconds? We've had commercial flight crews overshoot their airports by 100 miles because they were asleep at the wheel.

 

Im still not convinced this guy actually steered the plane. Im sure he got in, and he was looking at the data he says he was looking at... But youd really have to be a bit off to start dicking with stuff if you didnt want to die.

 

 

What I havent heard yet is two things.

 

1. Assume its true. Someone can get into the flight controls from the back seats. AND they want to take the plane with nobody knowing. (And the "Nobody knowing" thing seems to be a key... Thats what makes this disaster different than others where planes crashed... No Distress call... No calls from passengers... No wreckage... The plane didnt come apart in mid air, which would explain two out of the three... It kept flying... FOR HOURS...) Assume you're the bad guy. What would you do first? Second? Third?

 

 

2. Same thing, but this time youre the pilot and whatever you just said you would do, starts happening. How would you respond? Remember, a commercial airline doesnt have a "fun ring" and landing choices are limited for a plane that large out over the malaysian straights.

 

 

3. Now... Put them both together and from the OUTSIDE looking in, how much does what happened, look like the above two scenarios?

I am going to agree to disagree

...But, would the pilots immediately notice an increase in an engine RPM for a few seconds?...I'm still not convinced this guy actually steered the plane.

Of course the nav and autopilot systems are making adjustments throughout flight (and/or the pilots are moving the controls to fly the aircraft) to react to ATC instructions, route changes, turbulence, etc. so there's nothing scientific about a dude in the back thinking he got a reaction out of the jet since he's not anywhere near the controls to confirm any of his actions. It's just a guy with a crazy beard that *thinks* he he did something and the jet is doing whatever it's doing to fly.

 

Sure, if RPM was changed from 80 to 82%, a pilot might not see it, but it takes more than that to cause a directional change or a climb/descent, or something audible (I'd add that digital numbers are hard to keep track of visually). Most autopilot systems are also going to fight against small changes up to a certain limit, such that the pilot can apply various inputs up to a certain point and expect the jet to return to its previous state just like the cruise control in a car; i.e. roll past x-degrees and the autopilot either kicks off, gives an aural cue, says no, or otherwise does something. The article implies that he was moving the aircraft -- controlling it enough so that he could see/feel/hear the results of his actions in his seat. If he were to change an engine's RPM (or the computers' control of the engines) to a great enough extent or for long enough to make the aircraft react, then sure, it would be enough to draw pilot attention. If the autopilot systems are shutting off, the pilots would notice, or if the aircraft is bouncing off of their limits, the pilots would notice. Plus, with big RPM changes (that passengers never hear in commercial flying), the noise from those big turbofans could be all over the place, up and down, and people might start freaking out. Remember when you've heard the power gently come back, 120 miles from your destination, and the Captain comes on ten minutes later and says they have started their descent, and then multiply that change in sound by two or three accompanied by motion in your stomach and inner ear. At the extreme of amateur control, those fateful rides into the twin towers for those passengers would have been truly frighting experiences if only for the rough flying that would be unfathomable in an airliner. The engines would be spooling up and down aggressively, the airframe shuddering violently, barfing throughout the back rows getting yawed back and forth so far away from the CG, the wings bending up and down like plastic, people and baggage going airborne and slammed up and down throughout the cabin, total fcuking chaos back there with those scumbags trying to get lined up on the buildings. If they didn't know terrorists were flying, I'm assuming they thought crashing was imminent or that the pilots were fighting some serious problems. I think the Flight 93 rebellion was possible only because it happened long before the flying would have been getting crazy.

 

Although...of note, the sticks and throttles in various Airbus models don't manifest autopilot control or power changes in the actual physical movement of the controls like other jets. The power levers are motionless and the jet flies itself, which is sorta' unnerving for a lot of guys ...and in theory, one less clue that something is up if an uncommanded input is in play. Again, I'm not saying someone is going to hack into the infotainment system and find a way into the flight controls. I'm just saying that it's all a bag of 'trons in an Airbus that is luxurious, but more like an Apple than a PC...the design philosophy's side effect that the more it does for you, the less control you have over it.

 

1. Assume its true. Someone can get into the flight controls from the back seats. AND they want to take the plane with nobody knowing. (And the "Nobody knowing" thing seems to be a key... That's what makes this disaster different than others where planes crashed... No Distress call... No calls from passengers... No wreckage... The plane didn't come apart in mid air, which would explain two out of the three... It kept flying... FOR HOURS...) Assume you're the bad guy. What would you do first? Second? Third?

 

2. Same thing, but this time you're the pilot and whatever you just said you would do, starts happening. How would you respond? Remember, a commercial airline doesn't have a "fun ring" and landing choices are limited for a plane that large out over the Malaysian straights.

 

3. Now... Put them both together and from the OUTSIDE looking in, how much does what happened, look like the above two scenarios?

1. Take control of the radios, nav, autopilot, everything. And/or subdue the pilots and passengers. Lock anyone with a tin-foil hat in the lavatory. Have an exotic plan in mind as to where to go. Conspiracy checklist complete.

 

2. You mean if I were the Captain and the jet started flying out of my hands (due to an in-theory hack)? Aviate. Task myself or the crew to troubleshoot what is happening and regain control of the jet. Navigate. Make sure the jet is pointed in the right direction (we'll assume the "hack" is not allowing that to happen). Communicate. Inform everyone I can find about what is going on through every means possible, UHF, VHF, HF, transponder, satellite, cell phone (unlikely), PA, etc. Then fall into whatever emergency procedures I may be able to apply and follow whatever checklists are applicable. If all else fails, and the jet is going somewhere under someone else's control Hollywood-SciFi-Style I'd be breaking out the screwdrivers, pulling boxes out, yanking cannon plugs, and popping fuses. If I had reason to believe someone on board was causing the problem, it'd be a knife fight or some version of another Hollywood movie from there on out. ...Avoiding any fist fight that results in getting the [big] [fat] [heavy] aircraft into an extreme nose-low attitude that is unrecoverable (based on speed, altitude, and elevator authority).

 

3. I realize that none of it will make sense or appear too ludicrous to be probable, which is why we're still talking about it.

SS, thanks for your input. I haven't followed this at all - what do you think happened? If it's in the ocean deep enough the black box doesn't work?

SS, thanks for your input. I haven't followed this at all - what do you think happened? If it's in the ocean deep enough the black box doesn't work?

The box is either destroyed, out of juice, or locked away on Mars. This is a case where I don't think you need to have so much insight into aviation to come up with a viable theory and the opinions of the board's most experienced aviators can't dig deep enough roots to make any more sense of it than anyone else. The craziest ideas are just as likely as the most sane ideas.

The terminology he used (or that the FBI used, or that the reporter writing the story used) was obviously "different". "fly sideways" "Caused the engine to climb" etc... But, would the pilots immediately notice an increase in an engine RPM for a few seconds? We've had commercial flight crews overshoot their airports by 100 miles because they were asleep at the wheel.

 

Definitely wouldn't notice a small increase in N1 on one of my engines (and for reference the KC-135 uses the F108/CFM-56 engine which is virtually the exact same engine as on a 737 or an A318-321 & A340). But we are one of the only jets out there without auto-throttles so I am generally continuously messing around with the throttles to attempt to stay on airspeed. I am not sure what auto-throttles would do with an external command for an increase in thrust...

 

 

1. Assume its true. Someone can get into the flight controls from the back seats. AND they want to take the plane with nobody knowing. (And the "Nobody knowing" thing seems to be a key... Thats what makes this disaster different than others where planes crashed... No Distress call... No calls from passengers... No wreckage... The plane didnt come apart in mid air, which would explain two out of the three... It kept flying... FOR HOURS...) Assume you're the bad guy. What would you do first? Second? Third?

 

If I wanted to crash or commendeer an airplane remotely you can bet your ass I wouldn't be ON the damn thing when I did it. If there is a possibility of remotely hijacking the damn thing I'd do it from my living room. Not risk the thing crashing with my pink ass in one a passenger seat.

 

And while I guess, in theory, you can mess with anything that has a computer, I don't think it's possible to remotely turn off the ELT. There is a physical switch, yes, but I don't have any software based command to turn the ELT on from my FMS. I "assume" it's the same way on airliners.

 

But the first thing I hijacker would want to do is turn off the communications and associated transponders/ADS-B/SELCAL/etc. Next I'd probably want to slowly depressurize so everyone goes unconscious. Another unknown, because in my jet the pressurization is controlled mechanically (set by the pilots) with no computer input. No idea how it works on a modern airliner.

 

 

2. Same thing, but this time youre the pilot and whatever you just said you would do, starts happening. How would you respond? Remember, a commercial airline doesnt have a "fun ring" and landing choices are limited for a plane that large out over the malaysian straights.

 

I guess the question comes down to can you hijack the autopilot only or can you actually eliminate any pilot commanded inputs during your hack. The first thing I am trained to do if the airplane does something uncommanded is to remove levels of automation. So if the plane turns left when I want it to go right I click off the autopilot. If I have an uncommanded rudder input I remove the powered rudder (Shell77 crash in Kyrgyzstan). But, I hand fly my airplane ALOT more than airline pilots do. Hell my first flight on this last deployment the autopilot didn't even work and I had to handfly the entire 9 hour sortie. That sucked balls. Do airline pilots do that? No idea. But I am sure they are capable of safely hand-flying the airplane to the nearest airport.

 

 

3. Now... Put them both together and from the OUTSIDE looking in, how much does what happened, look like the above two scenarios?

 

I'd venture to say it's never happened...yet.

Maybe some news, it's in french, didn't find anything in english yet.

 

http://www.zinfos974.com/St-Andre-L-aile-e...iee_a88435.html

 

A small piece of an airplane has been found on a beach on the french island La Réunion. It seems that they can ID the piece as the identification number can be read. Another plane (a Piper Aztec) crashed in 2006 near this place, and still hasn't been found. But it seems that this piece is not from this plane, so...

If this is the plane then this evidence supports the previous post and internet claims of people seeing a plane flying over the maldives.

 

On the left is the scheme from B777 (MH370 was a B777) documentation, on the right is the actual piece found on the beach. Pretty close uh!

Damn...

Maybe some news, it's in french, didn't find anything in english yet.

 

http://www.zinfos974.com/St-Andre-L-aile-e...iee_a88435.html

 

A small piece of an airplane has been found on a beach on the french island La Réunion. It seems that they can ID the piece as the identification number can be read. Another plane (a Piper Aztec) crashed in 2006 near this place, and still hasn't been found. But it seems that this piece is not from this plane, so...

 

Here's an article in English as well.

https://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/mysteriou...3--finance.html

 

The diagram you posted of the 777 actuator and the piece do look strikingly similar.

I looked up a diagram of ocean surface currents and I marked (very roughly) where the search has been focused in red, and where the debris piece was found in orange on the map. It seems if the plane was flying southwest and had crashed in the upper/center portion of the Indian Ocean past or near the Maldives, the current might carry debris to toward Madagascar and therefore, the Island of Réunion.

I know the Maldives are closer to Sri Lanka.

Does this look right or did I goof up?

 

 

 

Reading some old articled about the Maldivians (specifically, the island of Kuda Huvadhoo) who saw a large red, white and blue plane fly overhead, it's staggering that the Maldives wasn't looked into more seriously.

 

One theory is that the Maldivian officials said nothing appeared on their radar that could've been a 777 because they didn't want to let on that they had old, outdated and shitty radar equipment.

One theory is that the Maldivian officials said nothing appeared on their radar that could've been a 777 because they didn't want to let on that they had old, outdated and shitty radar equipment.

 

 

If a 777 doesn't show up on your radar it means you don't have radar.

The big ocean/little plane theory usually wins in the end. Here's an image I just made to hopefully convey how f'in big this piece of water is. Think of how long it takes you to drive or fly to various places on the US map and consider the impressiveness of all the land you see flowing beneath you in every direction. Now envision that as water covering an endless desert of lifelessness and you have the worst place to lose a jet...or search for a lost jet. I could be flying 200 miles off the coast of Pakistan, in the cradle of land's embrace, and already have the sinking feeling of being lost forever in the blink of an eye (let alone being 1,000 miles away from land).

 

The big ocean/little plane theory usually wins in the end. Here's an image I just made to hopefully convey how f'in big this piece of water is. Think of how long it takes you to drive or fly to various places on the US map and consider the impressiveness of all the land you see flowing beneath you in every direction. Now envision that as water covering an endless desert of lifelessness and you have the worst place to lose a jet...or search for a lost jet. I could be flying 200 miles off the coast of Pakistan, in the cradle of land's embrace, and already have the sinking feeling of being lost forever in the blink of an eye (let alone being 1,000 miles away from land).

 

 

While I agree the area is huge, superimposing the map of United States of America relative to where it is and placing it on an entirely different latitude is not an accurate comparison.

IE: It is approximately 2,300 miles from Portland Oregon to Ottawa Canada.

If you were to fly from the northern tip of the horn of Africa where Oregon is superimposed towards Thailand relative to where Ottawa is superimposed the distance is approximately 3,200 miles.

Hence a 900 mile discrepancy. Global maps cannot just be flattened out without distorting everything.

Global maps cannot just be flattened out without distorting everything.

That's why if you split Alaska in half Texas becomes the 3rd largest state.

While I agree the area is huge, superimposing the map of United States of America relative to where it is and placing it on an entirely different latitude is not an accurate comparison.

IE: It is approximately 2,300 miles from Portland Oregon to Ottawa Canada.

If you were to fly from the northern tip of the horn of Africa where Oregon is superimposed towards Thailand relative to where Ottawa is superimposed the distance is approximately 3,200 miles.

Hence a 900 mile discrepancy. Global maps cannot just be flattened out without distorting everything.

I know too much about map projections because they're part of my job, so this is only a ball park swag to get a point across. To split hairs, the North-South relations of this overlay would be off by 50-100 miles, which I would chaff off. The East-West relationships would be off by 500-1000. My point is that our perception of getting around such a big area is tough to manage. The wingspan of a 777 on this map would be a fraction of a pixel that we couldn't even see. If I distorted the image of the US such that it demonstrated the East-West mileage to within 50-100 miles, my point would be lost because the picture would no longer be intuitive with the country looking so jacked up. Plus, the area in question would be even more unfathomably large, like you say. Splitting hairs further, no map projection in existence can be perfectly representative.

 

The original point being that people simply can't wrap their brains around how we, as kingly masters of our Earthly domain, could possibly be unable to locate an airplane in this area rather than be humbled by the idea that we might not actually have a realistic perception of this problem and our powerlessness to solve it.

I know too much about map projections because they're part of my job, so this is only a ball park swag to get a point across. To split hairs, the North-South relations of this overlay would be off by 50-100 miles, which I would chaff off. The East-West relationships would be off by 500-1000. My point is that our perception of getting around such a big area is tough to manage. The wingspan of a 777 on this map would be a fraction of a pixel that we couldn't even see. If I distorted the image of the US such that it demonstrated the East-West mileage to within 50-100 miles, my point would be lost because the picture would no longer be intuitive with the country looking so jacked up. Plus, the area in question would be even more unfathomably large, like you say. Splitting hairs further, no map projection in existence can be perfectly representative.

 

The original point being that people simply can't wrap their brains around how we, as kingly masters of our Earthly domain, could possibly be unable to locate an airplane in this area rather than be humbled by the idea that we might not actually have a realistic perception of this problem and our powerlessness to solve it.

 

I understand your point however I did want to clarify the inaccuracy's when comparing distances in the east and west plane as that is where most of the inaccuracy occurs.

 

It amazes me on how many people do not realize how distorted countries and continents become on a world map and then when some think that Greenland is just as big as Africa.

 

 

 

 

So a bag has now washed up that is torn and burnt. Maybe we're starting to see the debris make landfall?

 

 

Confirmed that the piece comes from a Boeing 777. They indeed found a small part of a luggage as well. And two bottles, one in chinese and the other one in indonesian. But bottles on the beach is not an evidence!

Passengers of Malaysian Airlines flight MH370, package drop is now opened at Réunion Island. Please proceed and form a line.