Malaysian Airliner missing?

acrophile said:
Yes.



Look at the error bars. There is no statistically significant increase (that is, no risk increase that can be reliably inferred from the data).



Source, please? Are you sure you're not confusing increased risk per year with increased risk per flight hour? That confusion seems to be the origin of the aviation community's "danger zone" belief, as far as I've been able to tell.
Click to expand...

I agree the small increase above 10,000 is not statistically significant, but it certainly does not go down.

I can't positively cite a source off hand (i've heard this multiple places) but pretty sure I read it in Richard Collins's book "The Next Hour"
 
"The Killing Zone"?

51EiIPHkRML._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg
 
This B777 was simply hijacked and flown 3,000nm away from the search area. No evidence of debris or ELT signal suggest hijacking. The sudden loss of transponder signal is due to turning it off. .

By this time a B777 could be anywhere in the world inside a remote hangar or disguised shelter. Most likely all passengers still alive and well.

Hope the above is the case

José
 
acrophile said:
Look at the error bars. There is no statistically significant increase (that is, no risk increase that can be reliably inferred from the data).
Click to expand...

How are the error bars defined on that particular plot?
 
Piloto said:
This B777 was simply hijacked and flown 3,000nm away from the search area. No evidence of debris or ELT signal suggest hijacking. The sudden loss of transponder signal is due to turning it off. .

By this time a B777 could be anywhere in the world inside a remote hangar or disguised shelter. Most likely all passengers still alive and well.

Hope the above is the case

José
Click to expand...

Ya know.....

I am having the exact same thoughts...:idea:.....:confused:
 
One way to turn 2 stolen passports into 237 stolen passports... Or this airplane is going to pop up and fly into a building somewhere.
 
FastEddieB said:
"The Killing Zone"?
Click to expand...

Does it demonstrate an increased risk per hour of flight time for pilots whose total flight time is in the "zone"? Or does it talk about risk per year instead? Those measures lead to very different conclusions as to the effect of experience on safety.
 
This is reminding me of a Twilight Zone episode. Maybe they are trying to land at Kai Tek 30 years ago...
 
Piloto said:
This B777 was simply hijacked and flown 3,000nm away from the search area. No evidence of debris or ELT signal suggest hijacking. The sudden loss of transponder signal is due to turning it off. .

By this time a B777 could be anywhere in the world inside a remote hangar or disguised shelter. Most likely all passengers still alive and well.

Hope the above is the case

José
Click to expand...

There's enough radar surveillance in that part of the world, they would have left a primary return track unless/until they dropped down to wave-top height - in which case the fuel burn is ugly enough they won't be going too far.
 
airguy said:
There's enough radar surveillance in that part of the world, they would have left a primary return track unless/until they dropped down to wave-top height - in which case the fuel burn is ugly enough they won't be going too far.
Click to expand...

Not over water. With primary radar only it would be hard to differentiate MH370 from other traffic in the area. It could very well be flying on the same corridor as other traffic and blend in.

José
 
How would you hide a hi jacked airliner?
 
Piloto said:
Not over water. With primary radar only it would be hard to differentiate MH370 from other traffic in the area. It could very well be flying on the same corridor as other traffic and blend in.



José
Click to expand...

Yes and no. There is most likely radar paint of the aircraft on a tape somewhere. If not civil, then military. It just takes time to gather the various tapes (some of which may still be at sea) and correlate it all to get a better picture.
 
Does that part of the world use compatible cell phone technology? If it had been hijacked and taken somewhere, as soon as it reached cell tower range we probably would have started hearing from the pax (unless pax were/are unable to call).
 
Matthew said:
Does that part of the world use compatible cell phone technology? If it had been hijacked and taken somewhere, as soon as it reached cell tower range we probably would have started hearing from the pax (unless pax were/are unable to call).
Click to expand...

I get better cell phone reception over there, than over here.
 
The situation being discussed would take someone of with a high degree of knowledge of the aircraft to pull this off. These folks would have essentially had worked for an airline. The amount of technology communicating with ground and space stations in a 777 isn't that easy to "turn off." Yea turn the transponder off, might not be difficult but there are a good amount of other things on there communicating with the outside world. ACARS, SATCOM, CPDLC, just to mention a few.

I speculate that whatever happened happened very quickly.
 
This event is showing us how the world is still big. Yeah you can jump on a plane to Europe and be there in 7 hrs. But there is a LOT of water in between.

Over on airliners.net a guy posted that the Chinese are starting to get annoyed at the SAR operation. They sent 10 higher up to "help" speed things along.
 
ARFlyer said:
Over on airliners.net a guy posted that the Chinese are starting to get annoyed at the SAR operation. They sent 10 higher up to "help" speed things along.
Click to expand...

Of course they are. If they do find the thing at the bottom of the ocean, it will be a great opportunity for some bottom mapping.

Last thing China wants is a bunch of ships (including US ships) parked nearby for a salvage op.
 
Question for you Navy vets or any vets:

Do they keep an AWACS airborne all the time when they are in proximity to foreign waters? What is AWACS role, and how far can they paint the arena?

Would it be improper to say that when one of those puppies is airborne, there is no such thing as an unidentified target?
 
There are some reports that say they are searching new areas including the Strait of Malacca which is WEST of Malaysia. Maybe they have new information that they aren't releasing relating to a hijacking? Also several reports of family calling the cell phones of people known to be on the flight and the cell phones ring a few times but aren't answered.
article-2577185-1C2B22B200000578-233_634x456.jpg
 
eman1200 said:
and W H Y would you hide a hijacked airliner?!?!?
Click to expand...

Because it's big enough to carry a crude third world manufactured nuclear weapon.

Gut the interior, load it up, new paint job with fake numbers, originate out of somewhere as a private business jet (same rough performance numbers, can't tell the difference on civilian radar) and you would be over a major populated city for an airburst before anyone could figure it out.

9-11 taught them that if you go off-course for very long you will be shot down - but a normal descent pattern into any major US airport will allow you to take out a large chunk of the city without ever deviating from your assigned course.
 
Last edited:
airguy said:
Because it's big enough to carry a crude third world manufactured nuclear weapon.

Gut the interior, load it up, new paint job with fake numbers, originate out of somewhere as a private business jet (same rough performance numbers, can't tell the difference on civilian radar) and you would be over a major populated city for an airburst before anyone could figure it out.

9-11 taught them that if you go off-course for very long you will be shot down - but a normal descent pattern into any major US airport will allow you to take out a large chunk of the city without ever deviating from your assigned course.
Click to expand...

I was thinking that as well. Load it up with tons of medical radiation waste, and you have a big dirty bomb. Don't even need an air burst for that.
 
Corpsmaide said:
I heard the US NAVY will be sending a P-3 and Seahawk to help locate
Click to expand...
There are two destroyers enroute, both with SH-60 dets onboard. I have not heard anything specifically about P-3s, but would not be surprised if they sent them.
 
You saying that those pilots of the flight of Japanese Zeroes in 1942 were loading their pants when the 777 popped out behind them?

"Howwy Seeet!"
 
txflyer said:
Question for you Navy vets or any vets:

Do they keep an AWACS airborne all the time when they are in proximity to foreign waters? What is AWACS role, and how far can they paint the arena?
Click to expand...
No. AWACS are specifically tasked. Not always flying.

I don't know what the specific range is (pretty sure it is classified at any rate), but I'd guess it is around 150-200 nm.

txflyer said:
Would it be improper to say that when one of those puppies is airborne, there is no such thing as an unidentified target?
Click to expand...
Just because you have paint on a contact doesn't mean it is automatically identified. You still need other sensors (such as IFF interrogation or radar emission sensors) to identify tracks.
 
airguy said:
Because it's big enough to carry a crude third world manufactured nuclear weapon.

Gut the interior, load it up, new paint job with fake numbers, originate out of somewhere as a private business jet
Click to expand...

Snatching a 777 full of people for this purpose makes no sense. Why not grab an old cargo plane.
 
dell30rb said:
Snatching a 777 full of people for this purpose makes no sense. Why not grab an old cargo plane.
Click to expand...

Two reasons.

First, they get the double-duty of a terror story about a whole plane disappearing.

Second, if they intend on using the aircraft to carry a mass-destruction weapon to a major city, they will only get one chance to get "into the system". They can take off from any of several thousand unmonitored locations and open an IFR plan into the US (or other country) calling themselves a G-IV and nobody will be the wiser until it arrives at it's destination - but the ruse will not work if they have to stop and refuel, which means they need enough un-refueled range to get from Point A to Point B in a single hop, and the 777 gives them a LOT of range for that. Point A where they originate from will have to be someplace they can hide the identity of the aircraft and depart without fear of triggering any sort of radiation detection. An old cargo aircraft would work fine for that part, but there is too much risk of setting off radiation detectors during a fuel stop with customs inspection. The attack would have to take place on descent enroute to the first intended port of entry.
 
Last edited:
Why would anyone hijack an airliner with the purpose of turning it into a weapons delivery system, when you can just buy one on the used/salvage market and avoid drawing attention to your scheme? If you have the dough to build a nuclear bomb, or a dirty bomb, you can afford some raggedy ol' 747 out of Africa or somewhere.
 
Dav8or said:
Why would anyone hijack an airliner with the purpose of turning it into a weapons delivery system, when you can just buy one on the used/salvage market and avoid drawing attention to your scheme? If you have the dough to build a nuclear bomb, or a dirty bomb, you can afford some raggedy ol' 747 out of Africa or somewhere.
Click to expand...

Too many tracks are left when buying one - there is always somebody to point back at the trail, and you could get caught/intercepted via that trail before you get to use it. If you steal it, it's yours without paper - you just have to hide it very well until you want to use it. The troubling part is that once you use it, you stand a very high chance of being discovered. What worries me is that being discovered is not something they are worried about since they don't intend on using the aircraft more than once.

My guess is that the group would make the assumption their moves are being watched and would be caught if they tried to buy an aircraft large enough to transport that kind of payload. The only way to get one that big would be to steal it - either sitting on the ground at an air terminal (exceedingly difficult) or to hijack it and get away with it (only slightly less difficult).
 
Last edited:
Dav8or said:
Why would anyone hijack an airliner with the purpose of turning it into a weapons delivery system, when you can just buy one on the used/salvage market and avoid drawing attention to your scheme? If you have the dough to build a nuclear bomb, or a dirty bomb, you can afford some raggedy ol' 747 out of Africa or somewhere.
Click to expand...

There's still the stolen 727 floating about (potentially). That's a bit scary as well. http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/the-727-that-vanished-2371187/?no-ist
 
I'm sure this conversation is being had very seriously at the FBI, CIA, etc


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top