18 18
quade

DB Cooper

Recommended Posts

G wrote
Quote

Key point 3: ACARS reporting can be disconnected, in a sense,
but does not affect the underlying satellite communications link
so long as the devices involved HAVE NOT been disconnected
which is virtually impossible to do short of removing vital aircraft
functions also, in the 377 (sic).



Source for the statement that the sat comm transceiver can't be turned off without disabling vital aircraft functions?

Aircraft power buss design usually tries to avoid "ganging" flight essential gear with other stuff. Don't know how circuits are divided on the 777.

377
2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amazon

If you turn off the people... they will certainly not respond.

45000' is some pretty thin stuff and you are gone pretty quick.. Its not painful... you just black out.



Many question this because the ascent and descent rates are
beyond 377 flight parameteres and the plane could have began
to come apart. Merely holding altitude at 45k in a 777 could be
very difficult, if not impossible with the fuel this plane was
carrying. The rapid descent (in simulation) results in a violent
spin which pilots report is impossible to recover from in a 777 ..
again, plane begins to come apart and crashes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
377

G wrote

Quote

Key point 3: ACARS reporting can be disconnected, in a sense,
but does not affect the underlying satellite communications link
so long as the devices involved HAVE NOT been disconnected
which is virtually impossible to do short of removing vital aircraft
functions also, in the 377 (sic).



Source for the statement that the sat comm transceiver can't be turned off without disabling vital aircraft functions?

Aircraft power buss design usually tries to avoid "ganging" flight essential gear with other stuff. Don't know how circuits are divided on the 777.

377



TMF Associates blog.

In any event these do not appear to be actions that could be
taken from the cockpit! We are talking about pulling breakers
and/or deactivating systems in the bus bay (access panel
directly behind the cockpit door) or in other areas of the plane
not immediately available in quick time, by anyone ???

This flight apparently had a large shipment of lithium batteries on
board. The possibility of a lithium battery fire in the cargo bay is
being down played by officials for some reason. But, it's being
brought up by just about every pilot who has spoken so far ...
of the interviews Ive heard all week long.

One other aspect of this incident that I wonder about is the
aircraft turning back toward land. That could have been an
effort to get the plane back to an airport fast. Apparently Mayla
military picked up the plane on radar as it crossed back across
Malaysia but didn't report it or communicate with civilian
controllers to inquire what was going on? That maneuver almost
qualifies as a distress maneuver for a civilian aircraft running
heavy, from a preassigned flight. The military didn't notify
anyone or scramble jets to go take a look at it! (Imagine that
happening over American air space!)

Why would a hijackers take the risk of turning back at the
country it has just left, flying over the same territory risking a
military response etc ??? Doesn't add up to me.

Im hoping NASA or somebody has IR images of this plane
somewhere, but who knows ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Newsvine article is being linked out all over the place and my email box is filling up rapidly. 'Gee...where could we possibly be going...' Oh, I don't know. Maybe some Iranian airport on the southern coast or something. Maybe.

I don't think this was a suicide. I think it involved planning and timing. But something went south along the way. Iran offering to help a week later just looks bad, IMHO. Link to that one at the bottom of the article.
I'm outta here. :)



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RobertMBlevins

My Newsvine article is being linked out all over the place and my email box is filling up rapidly. 'Gee...where could we possibly be going...' Oh, I don't know. Maybe some Iranian airport on the southern coast or something. Maybe.

I don't think this was a suicide. I think it involved planning and timing. But something went south along the way. Iran offering to help a week later just looks bad, IMHO. Link to that one at the bottom of the article.
I'm outta here. :)



You're famous! CNN, Boeing, NTSB, and the State Dept may be calling! :S

Good night Ivene -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
georger

***My Newsvine article is being linked out all over the place and my email box is filling up rapidly. 'Gee...where could we possibly be going...' Oh, I don't know. Maybe some Iranian airport on the southern coast or something. Maybe.

I don't think this was a suicide. I think it involved planning and timing. But something went south along the way. Iran offering to help a week later just looks bad, IMHO. Link to that one at the bottom of the article.
I'm outta here. :)



You're famous! CNN, Boeing, NTSB, and the State Dept may be calling! :S

Good night Ivene -

I seriously doubt that. My theory is as good as any other that has been proposed. I only LOOK stupid. :)


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G wrote
Quote

This flight apparently had a large shipment of lithium batteries on board. The possibility of a lithium battery fire in the cargo bay is being down played by officials for some reason. But, it's being
brought up by just about every pilot who has spoken so far ...



Wonder if they were Lithium ion or phosphate batts? Big difference in self ignition dangers.

A raging lithium fire could account for loss of comms (frantic load shedding thinking it might be an electrical fire). Perhaps even an intentional depressurization and a climb to cut down on oxygen which is supportng combustion...But wouldn't they first give a Mayday call?

Imagine you fire the cargo hold fire bottles and it just keeps raging. What do you do? Cockpit smoke could obscure readability of instrument panel and controls.

Read about the Value Jet crash.

Note: "The CDR indicated a progressive failure of the DC-9's electrical and flight control systems due to the spreading fire. "

From Wikipedia.

Quote

On the afternoon of May 11, 1996, Flight 592 pushed back from gate G2 in Miami after a delay of 1 hour and 4 minutes due to mechanical problems.[1] There were 105 passengers, mainly from Florida and Georgia, on board, as well as a crew of two pilots and three flight attendants, bringing the total number of people on board to 110. At 2:04 pm, 10 minutes before the disaster, the DC-9 took off from runway 9L and began a normal climb.

At 2:10 pm, Captain Candalyn Kubeck and First Officer Richard Hazen heard a loud bang in their headphones and noticed the plane was losing electrical power. Seconds later, flight attendant Mandy Summers entered the cockpit and advised the flight crew of a fire in the passenger cabin. Passengers' shouts of "fire, fire, fire" were recorded on the plane's cockpit voice recorder when the cockpit door was opened. Though the ValuJet flight attendant manual stated that the cockpit door should not be opened when smoke or other harmful gases might be present in the cabin, the intercom was disabled and there was no other way to inform the pilots of what was happening. The CDR indicated a progressive failure of the DC-9's electrical and flight control systems due to the spreading fire.

Kubeck and Hazen immediately asked air traffic control for a return to Miami due to smoke in the cockpit and cabin, and were given instructions for a return to the airport. One minute later, Hazen requested the nearest available airport. Kubeck began to turn the plane left in preparation for the return to Miami.

Flight 592 disappeared from radar at 2:13:42 pm. It rolled onto its side and crashed to the ground nose-first in the Francis S. Taylor Wildlife Management Area in the Everglades, a few miles west of Miami, at a speed in excess of 507 miles per hour (816 km/h). Control of the plane was completely lost less than 10 seconds prior to impact and examination of debris suggested that the fire burned through the floorboards in the cockpit, resulting in structural failure and damage to cables underneath the instrument panels. However, it was also just as likely that the crew had become incapacitated by smoke and fumes. As power had been lost to the cockpit voice recorder nearly a minute prior to impact, it was impossible to determine with certainty.[1] Kubeck, Hazen, the three flight attendants, and all 105 passengers aboard were killed. Recovery of the aircraft and victims was made extremely difficult by the location of the crash. The nearest road of any kind was more than a quarter mile (400 m) away from the crash scene, and the location of the crash itself was a deep-water swamp with a floor made out of solid limestone. The DC-9 was utterly destroyed on impact, with no large pieces of the fuselage remaining. Sawgrass, alligators, and risk of bacterial infection from cuts plagued searchers involved in the recovery effort. A group of fishermen witnessed the crash and reported that "The plane was flying in a steep right bank, after which it turned so that the nose was facing downward in a nearly vertical angle. It plummeted into the swamp followed by an explosion, shock wave, and a massive geyser of water." They reported seeing no external damage to the DC-9 or any sign of fire or smoke other than the engine exhaust. A group of sightseers in a small private plane also witnessed the crash and provided a nearly identical account, stating that Flight 592 seemed to "disappear" after impacting the swamp and they could see nothing but scattered small debris and part of an engine near the crash site.



377
2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
377

G wrote

Quote

This flight apparently had a large shipment of lithium batteries on board. The possibility of a lithium battery fire in the cargo bay is being down played by officials for some reason. But, it's being
brought up by just about every pilot who has spoken so far ...



Wonder if they were Lithium ion or phosphate batts? Big difference in self ignition dangers.

A raging lithium fire could account for loss of comms (frantic load shedding thinking it might be an electrical fire). Perhaps even an intentional depressurization and a climb to cut down on oxygen which is supportng combustion...But wouldn't they first give a Mayday call?

Imagine you fire the cargo hold fire bottles and it just keeps raging. What do you do? Cockpit smoke could obscure readability of instrument panel and controls.

Read about the Value Jet crash.

Note: "The CDR indicated a progressive failure of the DC-9's electrical and flight control systems due to the spreading fire. "

From Wikipedia.

***On the afternoon of May 11, 1996, Flight 592 pushed back from gate G2 in Miami after a delay of 1 hour and 4 minutes due to mechanical problems.[1] There were 105 passengers, mainly from Florida and Georgia, on board, as well as a crew of two pilots and three flight attendants, bringing the total number of people on board to 110. At 2:04 pm, 10 minutes before the disaster, the DC-9 took off from runway 9L and began a normal climb.

At 2:10 pm, Captain Candalyn Kubeck and First Officer Richard Hazen heard a loud bang in their headphones and noticed the plane was losing electrical power. Seconds later, flight attendant Mandy Summers entered the cockpit and advised the flight crew of a fire in the passenger cabin. Passengers' shouts of "fire, fire, fire" were recorded on the plane's cockpit voice recorder when the cockpit door was opened. Though the ValuJet flight attendant manual stated that the cockpit door should not be opened when smoke or other harmful gases might be present in the cabin, the intercom was disabled and there was no other way to inform the pilots of what was happening. The CDR indicated a progressive failure of the DC-9's electrical and flight control systems due to the spreading fire.

Kubeck and Hazen immediately asked air traffic control for a return to Miami due to smoke in the cockpit and cabin, and were given instructions for a return to the airport. One minute later, Hazen requested the nearest available airport. Kubeck began to turn the plane left in preparation for the return to Miami.

Flight 592 disappeared from radar at 2:13:42 pm. It rolled onto its side and crashed to the ground nose-first in the Francis S. Taylor Wildlife Management Area in the Everglades, a few miles west of Miami, at a speed in excess of 507 miles per hour (816 km/h). Control of the plane was completely lost less than 10 seconds prior to impact and examination of debris suggested that the fire burned through the floorboards in the cockpit, resulting in structural failure and damage to cables underneath the instrument panels. However, it was also just as likely that the crew had become incapacitated by smoke and fumes. As power had been lost to the cockpit voice recorder nearly a minute prior to impact, it was impossible to determine with certainty.[1] Kubeck, Hazen, the three flight attendants, and all 105 passengers aboard were killed. Recovery of the aircraft and victims was made extremely difficult by the location of the crash. The nearest road of any kind was more than a quarter mile (400 m) away from the crash scene, and the location of the crash itself was a deep-water swamp with a floor made out of solid limestone. The DC-9 was utterly destroyed on impact, with no large pieces of the fuselage remaining. Sawgrass, alligators, and risk of bacterial infection from cuts plagued searchers involved in the recovery effort. A group of fishermen witnessed the crash and reported that "The plane was flying in a steep right bank, after which it turned so that the nose was facing downward in a nearly vertical angle. It plummeted into the swamp followed by an explosion, shock wave, and a massive geyser of water." They reported seeing no external damage to the DC-9 or any sign of fire or smoke other than the engine exhaust. A group of sightseers in a small private plane also witnessed the crash and provided a nearly identical account, stating that Flight 592 seemed to "disappear" after impacting the swamp and they could see nothing but scattered small debris and part of an engine near the crash site.


377

I know WE will avoid all flights out of Malaysia! Memos went out
last week to take the train instead.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
georger

***If you turn off the people... they will certainly not respond.

45000' is some pretty thin stuff and you are gone pretty quick.. Its not painful... you just black out.





Many question this because the ascent and descent rates are
beyond 377 flight parameteres and the plane could have began
to come apart. Merely holding altitude at 45k in a 777 could be
very difficult, if not impossible with the fuel this plane was
carrying. The rapid descent (in simulation) results in a violent
spin which pilots report is impossible to recover from in a 777 ..
again, plane begins to come apart and crashes.

I am so glad you edited at least a couple of the 377's to 777's

I agree that a 377 at 45000 is certainly above where it could fly.
Performance
Maximum speed: 375 mph (603 km/h)
Cruise speed: 301 mph (483 km/h)
Range: 4,200 mi (3,650 nmi, 6,760 km)
Service ceiling: 32,000 ft (9,800 m)

Max cruise: 340 mph (547 km/h)


On the other hand the Boeing 777 was reported from a radar contact to have climbed to 45000. That is a little above the safe service ceiling but I don't think safety was a primary concern in this hijacking. I would also say the stress on the airframe was reduced by reducing the cabin pressure to match the outside air pressure.
Service ceiling
43,100 ft (13,140 m)

Time of useful consciousness at that altitude is pretty short as I have personally experienced in the Alti chamber.
FL 430 9 to 15 sec at 13,106 m or 43,000 feet
FL 500 and above 6 to 9 sec at 15,240 m 50,000 feet


I am betting there was no one there holding an O2 mask to their face saying "put your oxygen mask on, you are going to die, put your oxygen mask on, you are going to die" as you struggle to put on your mask... and finally manage to realize you were out like a light and someone was indeed already holding the damn thing on your face.

Now if you want to reduce the possibility of any passengers doing anything.. just let the air pressure drop slowly while most were sleeping an hour after takeoff. They were supposedly flying at 35K
FL 350 30 sec to 60 sec of useful consciousness 10,668 m 35,000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amazon

******If you turn off the people... they will certainly not respond.

45000' is some pretty thin stuff and you are gone pretty quick.. Its not painful... you just black out.





Many question this because the ascent and descent rates are
beyond 377 flight parameteres and the plane could have began
to come apart. Merely holding altitude at 45k in a 777 could be
very difficult, if not impossible with the fuel this plane was
carrying. The rapid descent (in simulation) results in a violent
spin which pilots report is impossible to recover from in a 777 ..
again, plane begins to come apart and crashes.

I am so glad you edited at least a couple of the 377's to 777's

I agree that a 377 at 45000 is certainly above where it could fly.
Performance
Maximum speed: 375 mph (603 km/h)
Cruise speed: 301 mph (483 km/h)
Range: 4,200 mi (3,650 nmi, 6,760 km)
Service ceiling: 32,000 ft (9,800 m)

Max cruise: 340 mph (547 km/h)


On the other hand the Boeing 777 was reported from a radar contact to have climbed to 45000. That is a little above the safe service ceiling but I don't think safety was a primary concern in this hijacking. I would also say the stress on the airframe was reduced by reducing the cabin pressure to match the outside air pressure.
Service ceiling
43,100 ft (13,140 m)

Time of useful consciousness at that altitude is pretty short as I have personally experienced in the Alti chamber.
FL 430 9 to 15 sec at 13,106 m or 43,000 feet
FL 500 and above 6 to 9 sec at 15,240 m 50,000 feet


I am betting there was no one there holding an O2 mask to their face saying "put your oxygen mask on, you are going to die, put your oxygen mask on, you are going to die" as you struggle to put on your mask... and finally manage to realize you were out like a light and someone was indeed already holding the damn thing on your face.

Now if you want to reduce the possibility of any passengers doing anything.. just let the air pressure drop slowly while most were sleeping an hour after takeoff. They were supposedly flying at 35K
FL 350 30 sec to 60 sec of useful consciousness 10,668 m 35,000

They need to get into the pilot's flight simulator to find out what
simulations he was running ... om his 377. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow! You guys have been busy busy busy.
Sound like some of you actually know these thing and all I am thinking about is those souls on that plane - just gone in a flash.

I came back to see what had happened and to apologize to someone on this thread because I have felt so bad I made a real bad mistake tonight so I hope the person I sent an email to will forgive me.

Homid YOU have a PM. I love all of you guys - take care and HOMID I wrote that PM thru lots of PAIN - I might not be able to repeat it - NOW it is in your ball park......GOT TO GO....EVERY WORD OF IT IS THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO HELP ME GOD.

Homid I think you are on to something! It was ODD you asked me that question and I tried to tell that story before - Mr. H was the one I told it to in detail many yrs ago.

I have briefly touched on it in the thread but not to that extent. If I did it got lost in all of the other stuff. Trust my memory.

I did try to tell the B man the story, but maybe I was telling the wrong person that story....Remember the man who obtained an attorney for another man who wanted to talk to the FBI, but wanted immunity - look it up in the thread - too much pain to remember his name - he contacted the Newpaper wanting to get intouch with me in 2001 - Magie Boule did not think it was important - now I know the man was the man Duane told me about. Even now I can not think of anything but the sound alike. This was the man I wrote about who wanted immunity - and he died in 2004. Now I know I should have contacted him or have had Margie provide a contact for him.

To late now.
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RobertMBlevins

Georger says in part:

Quote

'I know WE will avoid all flights out of Malaysia! Memos went out last week to take the train instead...'



OMG. You made a joke. And it's actually funny. Geez. ;)


(AP) -- There are three pieces of evidence that aviation safety
experts say make it clear the missing Malaysia Airlines jet was
taken over by someone who was knowledgeable about how the
plane worked.

One clue is that the plane's transponder — a signal system that
identifies the plane to radar — was shut off about an hour into
the flight.

Another clue is that part of the Boeing 777's Aircraft
Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) was
shut off.

The third indication is that after the transponder was turned off
and civilian radar lost track of the plane, Malaysian military radar
was able to continue to track the plane as it turned west.

Goglia said he is very skeptical of reports the plane was flying
erratically while it was being tracked by military radar, including
steep ascents to very high altitudes and then sudden, rapid
descents. Without a transponder signal, the ability to track
planes isn't reliable at very high altitudes or with sudden shifts in
altitude, he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
georger

***Georger says in part:

Quote

'I know WE will avoid all flights out of Malaysia! Memos went out last week to take the train instead...'



OMG. You made a joke. And it's actually funny. Geez. ;)


(AP) -- There are three pieces of evidence that aviation safety
experts say make it clear the missing Malaysia Airlines jet was
taken over by someone who was knowledgeable about how the
plane worked.

One clue is that the plane's transponder — a signal system that
identifies the plane to radar — was shut off about an hour into
the flight.

Another clue is that part of the Boeing 777's Aircraft
Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) was
shut off.

The third indication is that after the transponder was turned off
and civilian radar lost track of the plane, Malaysian military radar
was able to continue to track the plane as it turned west.

Goglia said he is very skeptical of reports the plane was flying
erratically while it was being tracked by military radar, including
steep ascents to very high altitudes and then sudden, rapid
descents. Without a transponder signal, the ability to track
planes isn't reliable at very high altitudes or with sudden shifts in
altitude, he said.


You know all those cell phones still ringing from relatives???

Lack of oxygen is a very effective way of shutting a whole lot of people up very quickly. It fits the available evidence of no contact.. not one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amazon

******Georger says in part:

Quote

'I know WE will avoid all flights out of Malaysia! Memos went out last week to take the train instead...'



OMG. You made a joke. And it's actually funny. Geez. ;)


(AP) -- There are three pieces of evidence that aviation safety
experts say make it clear the missing Malaysia Airlines jet was
taken over by someone who was knowledgeable about how the
plane worked.

One clue is that the plane's transponder — a signal system that
identifies the plane to radar — was shut off about an hour into
the flight.

Another clue is that part of the Boeing 777's Aircraft
Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) was
shut off.

The third indication is that after the transponder was turned off
and civilian radar lost track of the plane, Malaysian military radar
was able to continue to track the plane as it turned west.

Goglia said he is very skeptical of reports the plane was flying
erratically while it was being tracked by military radar, including
steep ascents to very high altitudes and then sudden, rapid
descents. Without a transponder signal, the ability to track
planes isn't reliable at very high altitudes or with sudden shifts in
altitude, he said.


You know all those cell phones still ringing from relatives???

Lack of oxygen is a very effective way of shutting a whole lot of people up very quickly. It fits the available evidence of no contact.. not one.

In view of the pilot's emotional situation that evening, I think he hijacked the aircraft and flew it to somewhere northwest of its intended track. Media reports today state that the pilot's wife and three kids had moved out of the house the day before the plane disappeared and that a politician, greatly admired by the pilot, had been convicted in a trial just hours before the airliner took off.

The point when the transponder was turned off, just as the aircraft was being handed off to another country's controllers, is guaranteed to provide a lot of confusion. With the transponder off and with the civilian air traffic control people operating their radars with "skin paint" eliminated, it really will disappear from their screens. Military radars use "skin paint" but they might not have even been on for most of that area at that time of night.

Media reports today indicate that the 777 could land on a 5000 foot runway at landing weight and there are plenty of runways that size just about everywhere. Actually, it could probably make a good landing on a dirt strip.

So my question is which country ended up with another 777 recently?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Media reports today indicate that the 777 could land on a 5000 foot runway at landing weight and there are plenty of runways that size just about everywhere. Actually, it could probably make a good landing on a dirt strip.



Dirt would have to be very hard packed for a successful gear down landing. 777 has a lot of weight and not a lot of tire footprint. Hercs and other rough field capable acft have lots of tires to spread the load out and avoid damaging runway surfaces.

377
2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G wrote
Quote

very skeptical of reports the plane was flying
erratically while it was being tracked by military radar, including
steep ascents to very high altitudes and then sudden, rapid
descents. Without a transponder signal, the ability to track
planes isn't reliable at very high altitudes or with sudden shifts in
altitude, he said.



Some military tracking radars can give reasonably accurate altitude readings using nodding antennas. There is a degradation of accuracy depending on distance and angle. This is a great site for radar tech: http://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/Slant%20Range.en.html

377
2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
377

Quote

Media reports today indicate that the 777 could land on a 5000 foot runway at landing weight and there are plenty of runways that size just about everywhere. Actually, it could probably make a good landing on a dirt strip.



Dirt would have to be very hard packed for a successful gear down landing. 777 has a lot of weight and not a lot of tire footprint. Hercs and other rough field capable acft have lots of tires to spread the load out and avoid damaging runway surfaces.

377



I have seen B-70s land on the dry lake bed at EAFB without any hint of a problem related to the lake bed itself.

I have seen about a dozen X-15 landings on the same lake bed without any difficulties.

And I have seen film of additional B-70, X-15, and Space Shuttle landings there without problems.

Admittedly, you won't be landing on that lake bed for quite a while after the last of the winter moisture has evaporated and things have dried out.

But I'll bet all three of the above aircraft have higher footprint loads per square foot than the 777 at its normal landing weight.

The C-130 was actually designed to land on relatively unimproved dirt strips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The dry lake at Edwards is dry dense and very hard packed. It's almost as good as thick reinforced concrete. That's why it's so useful for test flying. An off field landng isn't such a big deal.

Try landing a 777 on a less dense and dry dirt surface and you'll bury the wheels and probably snap the gear legs.

377
2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robert99 says:

Quote

'In view of the pilot's emotional situation that evening, I think he hijacked the aircraft and flew it to somewhere northwest of its intended track. Media reports today state that the pilot's wife and three kids had moved out of the house the day before the plane disappeared and that a politician, greatly admired by the pilot, had been convicted in a trial just hours before the airliner took off.

The point when the transponder was turned off, just as the aircraft was being handed off to another country's controllers, is guaranteed to provide a lot of confusion. With the transponder off and with the civilian air traffic control people operating their radars with "skin paint" eliminated, it really will disappear from their screens. Military radars use "skin paint" but they might not have even been on for most of that area at that time of night.

Media reports today indicate that the 777 could land on a 5000 foot runway at landing weight and there are plenty of runways that size just about everywhere. Actually, it could probably make a good landing on a dirt strip.

So my question is which country ended up with another 777 recently?...'



I think that may have been the plan, but the plane...for some reason or another...didn't make it to its destination. The Daily Mail is speculating that the pilot was planning to make a protest, maybe to force the release of the political figure you referred to. My feeling is that something went wrong along the way.

I guessed the destination was perhaps Bandar Abbas International Airport along the southern coast of Iran. But I really have no idea for sure.

Must-Have-Black-Boxes

It would be good if this plane was sitting in a hangar somewhere and the passengers safe, but I doubt that's how it all ended. Maybe the pilot just took it out too far over the Indian Ocean and ran out of fuel. Or...the co-pilot fought back and/or some of the passengers tried to get into the cockpit and stop the whole thing. Which may have turned out badly for everyone. I don't know...my Newsvine article was just a theory anyway.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amazon

******Georger says in part:

Quote

'I know WE will avoid all flights out of Malaysia! Memos went out last week to take the train instead...'



OMG. You made a joke. And it's actually funny. Geez. ;)


(AP) -- There are three pieces of evidence that aviation safety
experts say make it clear the missing Malaysia Airlines jet was
taken over by someone who was knowledgeable about how the
plane worked.

One clue is that the plane's transponder — a signal system that
identifies the plane to radar — was shut off about an hour into
the flight.

Another clue is that part of the Boeing 777's Aircraft
Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) was
shut off.

The third indication is that after the transponder was turned off
and civilian radar lost track of the plane, Malaysian military radar
was able to continue to track the plane as it turned west.

Goglia said he is very skeptical of reports the plane was flying
erratically while it was being tracked by military radar, including
steep ascents to very high altitudes and then sudden, rapid
descents. Without a transponder signal, the ability to track
planes isn't reliable at very high altitudes or with sudden shifts in
altitude, he said.


You know all those cell phones still ringing from relatives???

Lack of oxygen is a very effective way of shutting a whole lot of people up very quickly. It fits the available evidence of no contact.. not one.

You've dwelled on this now multiple times - I think the point has been made and already was self-evident!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

18 18