Malaysian airlines plane missing

[Ol Crew Dog]

Interesting website. Although none of those that went missing over North America really count as modern. Not at least in the terms we are speaking about.

CBC is Canadian Broadcasting Company in case you didn't know.

No flames intended.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Ol Crew Dog

[Finn]

There is this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Orient_Airlines_Flight_2501

a few pieces found but that's all.

Jari

[Wayfarer 30]

Everything I see on the websites provided is from around fifty years ago. I mean modern by having at least jet engines. Even the DH comets that broke up a LONG time ago were found. Am i missing something??

[nerdling]

Everything I see on the websites provided is from around fifty years ago. I mean modern by having at least jet engines. Even the DH comets that broke up a LONG time ago were found. Am i missing something??

That was my though also. I mean most of those went missing way before planes were equipped with modern avionics.

[Scooby]

Hi Scooby,

Thanks for the details ! Actually i thought we DID have aircraft on quick reaction duty 7/7 24 hours during the Cold War, and so did the Soviets and several other nations. Wasn't it when they dispatched interceptors when we still had the Norad system (back in the days) on full alert everytime they'd pick up a Bear bomber or any other aircraft from the Soviet Union they'd scramble the fighters from Bagotville or from Labrador or from other bases and from one of the bases that is now closed in northern New Brunswick (back when there were Voodoos there)(saw them in my youth, very low level above the beach, those airplanes were Very active, each time i was in the region or near the base i'd see one or more take off or in the air). I regularly saw SAC and CAF jets above when i was a kid. So i am pretty much sure we had assets ready to take off at a moment's notice back then, because otherwise how to explain all those intercept photos of Bear aicrafts by Nato, US and Canadian aircrafts during those days and even today ?

Correct, we had aircraft on Q duty during the Cold War. We didn't after the Cold War until 911 occurred. I worded my post poorly, but I thought that was a given.

During the 911 attack, only 7 US Norad bases had a total of 14 jets on Alert. Canada had none. The two Otis F-15s that responded were armed, the three F-16s were not.

Later on that day (911) we put missiles on every jet in Cold Lake, including 410s duals. We sent jets off in pairs all over the country. It was a busy day, one that I will never forget. We thought we were going to war.

[Scooby]

Agree, but terrorists also can't wait to jump in front of a camera to claim responsibility for acts of terrorism, no matter the scale of said attack.

Not if they want to repeat the same event on a much larger scale. What if they wanted to hi-jack 20 jets simutaneously and crash them into the ocean in the next day or two? They wouldn't want anyone looking at them or finding the methods of their takeover.

No different than a criminal or serial killer wanting to hide their evidence so they can kill again. There is a reason the person(s) went to great lengths to make sure the aircraft isn't found.

[ThatJeffGuy]

Looks like the fire/alternate strip theory is blown. CNN (FWIW) are reporting the "Good Night" message came after

the course change

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/19/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-flight-path-change/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

[Spectre711]

I understand that during 9-11 at least one or more F-16 were dispatched to try to catch one of the hijacked Boeings but could never catch up with it as it kept going full speed and zigzaging and the plane was too far plus the F-16 cannot stay on afterburners eternally (no super-cruise)(and there are no F-22 bases in quantity sufficient to cover the CONUS, which is a real problem IMO, if they had more they might be able to catch a hijacked plane if ever it happens again). Either that or we need missile bases... to cover the empty spots.

Maybe we need to bring back the 106s!

[zerosystem]

Not if they want to repeat the same event on a much larger scale. What if they wanted to hi-jack 20 jets simutaneously and crash them into the ocean in the next day or two? They wouldn't want anyone looking at them or finding the methods of their takeover.

No different than a criminal or serial killer wanting to hide their evidence so they can kill again. There is a reason the person(s) went to great lengths to make sure the aircraft isn't found.

Gotta remember too, we're trying to apply logic to a group of radical extremists in the case of terrorists.

[Scooby]

Not all scenarios are set, could of turned catostrophic, when you are trying to take care of a problem everything turns into an overwhelming feet to handle them all.

ELT's don't have that great of range, there have bee so many aircraft that have disappeared over the US not to be found for years if ever.

The scenario sounds like he set up for a divert, an experienced pilot is always looking for that alternate for any situation. Look up the Gimli Glider, point in case.

Didn't the 777 have electrical problems and was grounded for a god while a few years back, also battery problems.

This is my opinion as with all but the author does sound credible.

Cheers

The 406 ELTs do have great range, they transmit both VHF and direct to satellite. The 777 is equipped with the most modern 406 ELT available. It should have triggered.

The only thing I don't know is if the tail 406 was fixed to the airframe or if it ejected away from the aircraft in a waterproof float. I know the nose ELT stayed fixed with the aircraft, I can't find details on the tail ELT.

406s are high end, the highest in the industry. It is 50 times more powerful than the 121.5 & 243 ELTs, the signal should be detected within 10 minutes of transmission and the GPS fix is within 100 ft of accuracy.

[Scooby]

That's was my thoughts as well, they had a mishap, turned to an alternate ( thus the 4 punch code) and the mishap escalated to the point of being catastrophic..

Media hype behind this is getting carried away.

Except they punched that code in before the last radio tx.

[Scooby]

http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/map-missing-planes/

The vast majority of those missing aircraft occurred in the 40s/50s/60s, with the newest in 1974. Well before satellites, modern radars, and ELTs. That is like comparing apples to oranges.

Some new agencies even bring up Earhart. Which is laughable when compared to the modern age.

There is too much redundacy in aircraft for everything to fail at once or a fire to take everything out, the emergency bus is usually well protected and if the failures were so catatrophic, there should have been wreckage near-bye the last tx.

[Scooby]

Gotta remember too, we're trying to apply logic to a group of radical extremists in the case of terrorists.

Who are a lot more sophisticated than they use to be.

[Don]

Not if they want to repeat the same event on a much larger scale. What if they wanted to hi-jack 20 jets simutaneously and crash them into the ocean in the next day or two? They wouldn't want anyone looking at them or finding the methods of their takeover.

No different than a criminal or serial killer wanting to hide their evidence so they can kill again. There is a reason the person(s) went to great lengths to make sure the aircraft isn't found.

Again, not that I am saying this theory isn't plausible, and I believe every angle should be considered and investigated, I

just can't seem to buy into it. Far too complicated and I just can't see what a dry run does except tip your hand (despite the arguments against this previously written in this thread). It just doesn't fit terrorists MO and an operation on the scale suggested has to be on the radar (no sick pun intended whatsoever) of the intelligence communities around the globe (yes I can hear the snickers...). But even before 911 we had warnings, but said warnings went ignored because of far too many factors to discuss here. We catch serial killers because they fit a profile. Yes, some can deviate from that profile, and this could be the case here with a terrorist group, but those are rare cases. This could be a one time terrorist operation that went awry, or some catastrophic aircraft failure where everything that could go wrong did go wrong. Who knows? We really don't know much more today then we did a few days ago, relatively speaking. Put it this way, in this instance I don't mind saying that I hope my theory proves to be correct and yours proves to be wrong if you catch my drift. If your theory proves correct... heaven help us!

Don.

[Scooby]

Again, not that I am saying this theory isn't plausible, and I believe every angle should be considered and investigated, I

just can't seem to buy into it. Far too complicated and I just can't see what a dry run does except tip your hand (despite the arguments against this previously written in this thread). It just doesn't fit terrorists MO and an operation on the scale suggested has to be on the radar (no sick pun intended whatsoever) of the intelligence communities around the globe (yes I can hear the snickers...). But even before 911 we had warnings, but said warnings went ignored because of far too many factors to discuss here. We catch serial killers because they fit a profile. Yes, some can deviate from that profile, and this could be the case here with a terrorist group, but those are rare cases. This could be a one time terrorist operation that went awry, or some catastrophic aircraft failure where everything that could go wrong did go wrong. Who knows? We really don't know much more today then we did a few days ago, relatively speaking. Put it this way, in this instance I don't mind saying that I hope my theory proves to be correct and yours proves to be wrong if you catch my drift. If your theory proves correct... heaven help us!

Don.

Not complicated at all, in fact terrorist groups have evolved and are continuing to evolve. They don't have a standard operating procedure. I have a degree in Military Studies from Royal Military College and I completed several courses on terrorism. The terrorist truly is not the stumbling, bumbling idiot who accidently blows himself up in bomb making class anymore (even though a large group just accomplished that lately).

I recently came up with another angle that I haven't heard anyone else suggest yet. The crew and passenger list has been scrutinized with no security alarms raised. What if the terrorists were hiding inside the avionics bay? What if they were on the aircraft before it left the ground. The hatch for the avionics bay is in the cockpit, they wouldn't have to breach the armored door, they are already behind it! On a 777, the avionics bay is huge.

The avionics bay is pressurized, the avionics bay has the transponder and ACARS. If they had access to the avionics bay before take-off they would have also had access to the rest of the aircraft. Therefore they could have disabled the ELTs.

For eight years I was involved with Military Flight Safety, Canada's program is recognized the world over and has been adopted by the USAF, RAF, and many other airforces. We share information with industry and the military, so I have read a lot of investigations over the years (military and civilian). I have a deep education of avionics systems on modern aircraft. There is no way there could have been such a catastrophic event that the crew could not have sent out some sort of message unless the aircraft went down immediately. If the aircraft went down immediately we would have seen debris, the ELTs would have been set off by the high G forces of an aircraft out of control (2.5 gs is all it takes).

Systems are redundant for a reason and aircraft are well designed these days, one of the safest planes in the industry isn't going to have a total malfunction of every safety feature designed in aviation.

I think the bad guys didn't know about the Rolls Royce ACARS data and that is why it wasn't disabled. Unlike the main airframe ACARS data, the RR ACARS is contained on the engines. So they would not have had access to it in the avionics bay. As long as the engines are running, the data is sent. In this case, Malaysia didn't have a subscription but the hardware to commmunicate was still functioning (or so RR says) as the box it is in is still powered. It was pinging but not sending data. To tell you the truth, I didn't know RR engine ACARS data still transmitted a ping either, and I bet a lot of other Avionics Engineers didn't know either. So it is no surprise the bad guys didn't know.

Now this part is only speculation on my part, but I bet RR collects engine data on all their products, including those from organizations who do not subscribe. I bet not all of the info about the pings has been released to the public as RR probably asked for this concession before they revealed the information of the pinging for 7-8 hours.

Nope, if I want to repeat an event on a much larger scale I would want to keep the methods as secret as possible. Terrorists not only operate to create fear, they also want to hurt the economies of the world, if more aircraft go missing without any trace can you imagine what that would do to the international airline industry? It would put it into total chaos.

There are so many aspects of this incident that is so facinating/puzzling. Did you know the 30 IT specialists worked on military radar systems? As well, there was at least one aviation engineer on board the aircraft.

[Don]

Not complicated at all, in fact terrorist groups have evolved and are continuing to evolve. They don't have a standard operating procedure. I have a degree in Military Studies from Royal Military College and I completed several courses on terrorism. The terrorist truly is not the stumbling, bumbling idiot who accidently blows himself up in bomb making class anymore (even though a large group just accomplished that lately).

I recently came up with another angle that I haven't heard anyone else suggest yet. The crew and passenger list has been scrutinized with no security alarms raised. What if the terrorists were hiding inside the avionics bay? What if they were on the aircraft before it left the ground. The hatch for the avionics bay is in the cockpit, they wouldn't have to breach the armored door, they are already behind it! On a 777, the avionics bay is huge.

The avionics bay is pressurized, the avionics bay has the transponder and ACARS. If they had access to the avionics bay before take-off they would have also had access to the rest of the aircraft. Therefore they could have disabled the ELTs.

For eight years I was involved with Military Flight Safety, Canada's program is recognized the world over and has been adopted by the USAF, RAF, and many other airforces. We share information with industry and the military, so I have read a lot of investigations over the years (military and civilian). I have a deep education of avionics systems on modern aircraft. There is no way there could have been such a catastrophic event that the crew could not have sent out some sort of message unless the aircraft went down immediately. If the aircraft went down immediately we would have seen debris, the ELTs would have been set off by the high G forces of an aircraft out of control (2.5 gs is all it takes).

Systems are redundant for a reason and aircraft are well designed these days, one of the safest planes in the industry isn't going to have a total malfunction of every safety feature designed in aviation.

I think the bad guys didn't know about the Rolls Royce ACARS data and that is why it wasn't disabled. Unlike the main airframe ACARS data, the RR ACARS is contained on the engines. So they would not have had access to it in the avionics bay. As long as the engines are running, the data is sent. In this case, Malaysia didn't have a subscription but the hardware to commmunicate was still functioning (or so RR says) as the box it is in is still powered. It was pinging but not sending data. To tell you the truth, I didn't know RR engine ACARS data still transmitted a ping either, and I bet a lot of other Avionics Engineers didn't know either. So it is no surprise the bad guys didn't know.

Now this part is only speculation on my part, but I bet RR collects engine data on all their products, including those from organizations who do not subscribe. I bet not all of the info about the pings has been released to the public as RR probably asked for this concession before they revealed the information of the pinging for 7-8 hours.

Nope, if I want to repeat an event on a much larger scale I would want to keep the methods as secret as possible. Terrorists not only operate to create fear, they also want to hurt the economies of the world, if more aircraft go missing without any trace can you imagine what that would do to the international airline industry? It would put it into total chaos.

There are so many aspects of this incident that is so facinating/puzzling. Did you know the 30 IT specialists worked on military radar systems? As well, there was at least one aviation engineer on board the aircraft.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree as I just can't see this being a large scale terrorist operation in the works. Again, is your theory plausible? As I have posted many times, of course. On that we can agree. But so are a number of others posted here and elsewhere, many with nothing as sinister as a large scale terrorist plot to down 10 or 20 aircraft in a mass hijacking in the next few days, weeks, or months. This event is fraught with bad information, half-truths, missing information, supposition in buckets, Monday morning quarterbacking (by the media, bloggers, theorists, politicians, etc etc), vagaries, enough theories that would fill volumes of espionage novels, bungling, and bumbling on so many levels. It seems to get worse each day. This, coupled with the fact that humans love mysteries, sinister plots, and the unknown means that some might be quick to sensationalize something or see evil operatives/operations in this event that may, in the end, prove to be yet another airliner tragedy of nothing of the sort. But... as has been posted many times... nobody really knows, and no new light seems to be shed to clear up the fog surrounding this tragic event. Sadly, we may never know.

Don.

[Ol Crew Dog]

Except they punched that code in before the last radio tx.

You always look ahead and have a course for your closest possible alternate?

[Ol Crew Dog]

The 406 ELTs do have great range, they transmit both VHF and direct to satellite. The 777 is equipped with the most modern 406 ELT available. It should have triggered.

The only thing I don't know is if the tail 406 was fixed to the airframe or if it ejected away from the aircraft in a waterproof float. I know the nose ELT stayed fixed with the aircraft, I can't find details on the tail ELT.

406s are high end, the highest in the industry. It is 50 times more powerful than the 121.5 & 243 ELTs, the signal should be detected within 10 minutes of transmission and the GPS fix is within 100 ft of accuracy.

Even At the bottom of the ocean ?

[Scooby]

You always look ahead and have a course for your closest possible alternate?

You don't program it into your current route if you aren't in trouble.

[habu2]

... What if the terrorists were hiding inside the avionics bay? What if they were on the aircraft before it left the ground. The hatch for the avionics bay is in the cockpit, they wouldn't have to breach the armored door, they are already behind it! On a 777, the avionics bay is huge.

The avionics bay is pressurized, the avionics bay has the transponder and ACARS. If they had access to the avionics bay before take-off they would have also had access to the rest of the aircraft. Therefore they could have disabled the ELTs.

Not trying to discount your theory, but a couple of questions:

- can the avionics bay access hatch be opened from the inside?

- how were they able to surprise/disable the flight crew without them making some kind of radio call or signal?

I admit I know nothing about the cockpit of a 777... that's why I ask.

[Scooby]

Even At the bottom of the ocean ?

Yes and no, the new 406 will tx underwater on 121.5 & 243 via VHF but will only tx on 406 to a satellite if the antenna is out of the water.

They certainly are less effective underwater and very limited in distance.

The nose ELT is water activated and designed to withstand being crushed underwater.

I don't know much about the tail ELT, I have a feeling it is designed to float.

[Ol Crew Dog]

You don't program it into your current route if you aren't in trouble.

You program all route alternates in the INS so if you need to divert you already have it in memory , one last thing you have to think about.

If he forsaw a problem and figure that the airport stated in the article was the best possible divert I am sure he would have preprogrammed it in there.

[Scooby]

Not trying to discount your theory, but a couple of questions:

- can the avionics bay access hatch be opened from the inside?

- how were they able to surprise/disable the flight crew without them making some kind of radio call or signal?

I admit I know nothing about the cockpit of a 777... that's why I ask.

I don't know about the hatch, but one would think if it wasn't able to open from the inside they could have rigged it so that it would. I know it is hinged.

The radio rack is in the avionics bay too, they could have disabled the radios simply by disconnecting the couplers.

Once in control they could have enabled the radio again to make the last transmission.

[Ol Crew Dog]

Yes and no, the new 406 will tx underwater on 121.5 & 243 via VHF but will only tx on 406 to a satellite if the antenna is out of the water.

They certainly are less effective underwater and very limited in distance.

The nose ELT is water activated and designed to withstand being crushed underwater.

I don't know much about the tail ELT, I have a feeling it is designed to float.

As the ELT go deeper in the ocean the range would be diminished?

If the ELT could float it would still sink under a couple tons of sheet metal?

Been awhile since being around commercial aviation so not up on current satiety devices and locators.

[Scooby]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree as I just can't see this being a large scale terrorist operation in the works. Again, is your theory plausible? As I have posted many times, of course. On that we can agree. But so are a number of others posted here and elsewhere, many with nothing as sinister as a large scale terrorist plot to down 10 or 20 aircraft in a mass hijacking in the next few days, weeks, or months. This event is fraught with bad information, half-truths, missing information, supposition in buckets, Monday morning quarterbacking (by the media, bloggers, theorists, politicians, etc etc), vagaries, enough theories that would fill volumes of espionage novels, bungling, and bumbling on so many levels. It seems to get worse each day. This, coupled with the fact that humans love mysteries, sinister plots, and the unknown means that some might be quick to sensationalize something or see evil operatives/operations in this event that may, in the end, prove to be yet another airliner tragedy of nothing of the sort. But... as has been posted many times... nobody really knows, and no new light seems to be shed to clear up the fog surrounding this tragic event. Sadly, we may never know.

Don.

I understand and agree with you as well.

What I see here is an intentional act. I think this was a suicide or a terror action. The only reason I see flying for 8 hours is to make sure the evidence/cause is not found.