Missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370

[sprinkles]

The plane has not dissapeared from radar

Diego garcia is one of the sites the US uses around the world to recover space shuttles from. They can track the pimple on a donkeys ass from 10000 miles

They know where the plane is....its on diego garcia!

They are just not telling people

Well yes some place like Diego Garcia might be able to track it.

But there's three things:
1. without the transponder you don't really know what you're tracking unless you've actively been following it since some point that you could confirm what it is.

2. Diego Garcia is not the airline flight control radar.

3. Ground radar CANNOT track everything everywhere. The idea that it can is false. Air traffic control has two means of radar, short and long. The short radar is powerful enough to track the plane directly in its airspace, but it has a limited range. When the plane leaves this range it must be tracked by the secondary radar which doesn't necessarily bounce back to the station - the plane receives the radar transmission and transmits back the transponder.

So while it is possible and likely that somebody had the plane on radar, this does not mean that its ATC had it on radar.

 

[sprinkles]

Also to put it in perspective: using radar is like shining a flashlight on something. The beam is directional, requires line of sight, and is effected by distance. They're attempting to bounce a radio signal off of the object and then catch the signal on the return trip and get a location based on what bounces back. Another thing that gets in the way is the curve of the earth - get far enough away and you're over the horizon and they can't very well radar through the ground.

If the beam path is too wide due to distance it is harder to get a good bounce back. If there's something in the way then the radar might not get there at all. There's also a max range for the beam travel time before you encounter a scenario where new pulses are sent out before the previous ones have been returned.

 

[Stu]

Also to put it in perspective: using radar is like shining a flashlight on something. The beam is directional, requires line of sight, and is effected by distance. They're attempting to bounce a radio signal off of the object and then catch the signal on the return trip and get a location based on what bounces back. Another thing that gets in the way is the curve of the earth - get far enough away and you're over the horizon and they can't very well radar through the ground.

If the beam path is too wide due to distance it is harder to get a good bounce back. If there's something in the way then the radar might not get there at all. There's also a max range for the beam travel time before you encounter a scenario where new pulses are sent out before the previous ones have been returned.

This is no time for facts to get in the way of paranoid speculation.

 

[muir]

Also to put it in perspective: using radar is like shining a flashlight on something. The beam is directional, requires line of sight, and is effected by distance. They're attempting to bounce a radio signal off of the object and then catch the signal on the return trip and get a location based on what bounces back. Another thing that gets in the way is the curve of the earth - get far enough away and you're over the horizon and they can't very well radar through the ground.

If the beam path is too wide due to distance it is harder to get a good bounce back. If there's something in the way then the radar might not get there at all. There's also a max range for the beam travel time before you encounter a scenario where new pulses are sent out before the previous ones have been returned.

Diego Garcia is a US military base that is not only used for top secret rendition flights but is also used to help recover space shuttles AND watch objects in outer space; here is some info on its space viewing capabilities:

The GEODSS network, operated by the 21st SW, can track objects the size of a basketball more than 20,000 miles in space, is made up of nine telescopes at three sites: One in Socorro, New Mexico, at the White Sands Missile Range; another on Diego Garcia, a small atoll in the Indian Ocean; and the one Rashid is responsible for on Maui. Together, these sites provide nearly complete coverage of the Earth's geosynchronous orbital belt and deliver nearly 80 percent of all geosynchronous observations.-http://www.afspc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123369595

So knowing the strategic importance of Diego garcia you don;t think that they will be keeping not only a very close visual on any objects moving around the area by air, land or sea (using satellite observation as well) but that they won't also be listening in to all the local radio chatter regarding flight paths, shipping paths and so on?

The people on Diego Garcia know what is going on in their neighbourhood; they will know as fast as anyone else if anything untoward happens (especially after 911)

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]
Yes. They can know and track things. Point being that they don't have to tell anybody. As far as ATC is concerned the plane was lost off their radar regardless of who else could track it.

Also watching objects in space is a whole different ballgame from watching objects flying over the surface. Similarly watching surface objects from space is also has entirely different considerations from how ATC radar works.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]

Or basically the higher altitude something is, the easier it is to get a direct shot at with a radio wave. Something out in orbit is very far above the horizon so that for example with a network of three radio telescopes positioned around the earth, you can survey just about all of space above the atmosphere. However the closer something is to the ground, the closer to the horizon it is - and eventually below the horizon. So any super long range radar network will have low altitude dead spots where the target is low enough to the ground and far enough away that it can hide behind the earth's horizon. In a case like this you either need an installation that is closer to the target, or higher off the surrounding terrain - such as high up on a mountain, an AWACS plane, or a satellite looking towards earth.

Also direct shots to space have to go through much less atmosphere than ground radar which greatly reduces interference from weather and atmospheric bending.

 

[muir]

@muir

Or basically the higher altitude something is, the easier it is to get a direct shot at with a radio wave. Something out in orbit is very far above the horizon so that for example with a network of three radio telescopes positioned around the earth, you can survey just about all of space above the atmosphere. However the closer something is to the ground, the closer to the horizon it is - and eventually below the horizon. So any super long range radar network will have low altitude dead spots where the target is low enough to the ground and far enough away that it can hide behind the earth's horizon. In a case like this you either need an installation that is closer to the target, or higher off the surrounding terrain - such as high up on a mountain, an AWACS plane, or a satellite looking towards earth.

Also direct shots to space have to go through much less atmosphere than ground radar which greatly reduces interference from weather and atmospheric bending.

The US military has all the technology you mentioned and more that we don't even know about

They know what is going on around them. They obsessively track everything which is why the NSA has built supercomputers that monitor and record every phone call, text and email that you make

They monitor everything. They know where the plane is

ACAARS was switched off, the transponder was switched off, no distress call was given. the plane deviated from its course, no 'terrorist' group has claimed responsibility, the plane has been hijaked by people who wanted to dissapear and not for reasons of publicity or to make demands such as terrorist groups carry out hijakings

That's not to say the plane won't be found at sea. When the hijakers are done with the plane they probably will dump it in the sea and may even tip off the searchers

 

[sprinkles]

The US military has all the technology you mentioned and more that we don;t even know about

They know what is going on around them. They obsessively track everything which is why the NSA has built supercomputers that monitor and record every phone call, text and email that you make

They monitor everything. They know where the plane is

ACAARS was switched off, the transponder was switched off, no distress call was given. the plane deviated from its course, no 'terrorist' group has claimed responsibility, the plane has been hijaked by people who wanted to dissapear and not for reasons of publicity or to make demands such as terrorist groups carry out hijakings

That's not to say the plane won't be found at sea. When the hijakers are done with the plane they probabaly will dump it in the sea and mat even tip off the searchers

I'm not denying this. I'm just saying that when ATC says they can't locate the plane, they are probably not lying. Civilian ATC does not have the capabilities of military surveillance and what the military can track and where is often classified.

I'm just telling people that ATC really can lose a plane.

 

[muir]

I'm not denying this. I'm just saying that when ATC says they can't locate the plane, they are probably not lying. Civilian ATC does not have the capabilities of military surveillance and what the military can track and where is often classified.

I'm just telling people that ATC really can lose a plane.

Sure

Military intelligence know all of the loopholes in ATC's system and know how to exploit them

 

[sprinkles]

Sure

Military intelligence know all of the loopholes in ATC's system and know how to exploit them

Anyone could figure out the weaknesses and exploit them if they were so inclined. I mean hell I've been telling them right here. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out.

 

[muir]

Anyone could figure out the weaknesses and exploit them if they were so inclined. I mean hell I've been telling them right here. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out.

No it doesn't much of the info can even be found online

But not anyone can pull off a successful hijack, prevent a distress call, close down ACAARS & transponder and dissapear a plane off ATC radar.....that takes some doing

For example how does a person get into the cockpit and overpower 2 pilots and possibly some other crew whislt preventing a distress call especially now that airline security has tightened up?

 

[sprinkles]

No it doesn't much of the info can even be found online

But not anyone can pull off a successful hijack, prevent a distress call, close down ACAARS & transponder and dissapear a plane off ATC radar.....that takes some doing

For example how does a person get into the cockpit and overpower 2 pilots and possibly some other crew whislt preventing a distress call especially now that airline security has tightened up?

Do something that would make everyone piss themselves in shock for starters. Security could even make a bluff more effective. The fact that something is suddenly happening can stun people into compliance surprisingly easy at times.

 

[muir]

Do something that would make everyone piss themselves in shock for starters. Security could even make a bluff more effective. The fact that something is suddenly happening can stun people into compliance surprisingly easy at times.

Weapons are difficult to get onto planes now so the surprising act would likely be an act of violence carried out using the bodies natural weapons or a pen or something small like that

Bare hand fights are not clinical like in the movies...they are messy and in a confined space it would be difficult for hijakers to overpower the crew and the other passengers decisively using physical force...it would just turn into a big rammy with the passengers and crew winning over eventually through sheer numbers

Also the door to the flight deck is kept locked these days; even if there was a successful hostage situation this would still allow time for a distress call

 

[sprinkles]

Weapons are difficult to get onto planes now so the surprising act would likely be an act of violence carried out using the bodies natural weapons or a pen or something small like that

Bare hand fights are not clinical like in the movies...they are messy and in a confined space it would be difficult for hijakers to overpower the crew and the other passengers decisively using physical force...it would just turn into a big rammy with the passengers and crew winning over eventually through sheer numbers

Also the door to the flight deck is kept locked these days; even if there was a successful hostage situation this would still allow time for a distress call

Sure. I'm not saying it's a definite. But it could be possible. People aren't always brave and willing to fight back.

I've seen a lot of crime and intimidation up close and I can tell you that some people just get scared easy and will do anything you say like putty. Some times just being loud and sudden is enough to get full compliance. Another technique is to startle and intimidate somebody and ask them if they're afraid, to bring the question of fear to the front of their mind and reinforce it, and then suggesting they are weak and cowardly for showing fear just to further drive it home. They begin to panic and cower if weakness is quickly pointed out and reinforced so they don't build any resolve.

Edit:
Also if the ball is rolling further compliance comes much easier when pressure is kept on. For example if they're threatening somebody with a knife or something and the pilot makes the mistake of opening the door, they've got compliance and they can keep it with pressure. Somebody has already started to obey and will likely continue to obey any following demands that are delivered quickly, keeping them in compliant mode and not letting them recover from the shock. It also spreads. If you don't get heroes right away you're less likely to get them at all.

 

[muir]

Sure. I'm not saying it's a definite. But it could be possible. People aren't always brave and willing to fight back.

I've seen a lot of crime and intimidation up close and I can tell you that some people just get scared easy and will do anything you say like putty. Some times just being loud and sudden is enough to get full compliance. Another technique is to startle and intimidate somebody and ask them if they're afraid, to bring the question of fear to the front of their mind and reinforce it, and then suggesting they are weak and cowardly for showing fear just to further drive it home. They begin to panic and cower if weakness is quickly pointed out and reinforced so they don't build any resolve.

You don't become a commercial pilot through a lack of resolve or by being timid or lacking in confidence

You become a commerical pilot by being strong enough mentally to do the job

First of all you have to get past the flight crew, then you have to get into a locked cabin, then you have to overpower two mentally strong pilots who will have gone through crisis training and will have mentally prepared themselves for just such an event before they can send a distress call, then you have to disable ACAARS and the transponder, drop the plane below radar and move it somewhere undetected

That's not easy to do

 

[sprinkles]

You don't become a commercial pilot through a lack of resolve or by being timid or lacking in confidence

You become a commerical pilot by being strong enough mentally to do the job

First of all you have to get past the flight crew, then you have to get into a locked cabin, then you have to overpower two mentally strong pilots who will have gone through crisis training and will have mentally prepared themselves for just such an event before they can send a distress call, then you have to disable ACAARS and the transponder, drop the plane below radar and move it somewhere undetected

That's not easy to do

Hahah.. haha. Pilots are humans, muir. Flight crew too - probably moreso than the pilots.

http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2013/02/01/10-terrible-airline-pilots-hope-to-never-fly-with/

 

[muir]

Hahah.. haha. Pilots are humans, muir. Flight crew too - probably moreso than the pilots.

http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2013/02/01/10-terrible-airline-pilots-hope-to-never-fly-with/

Your article is speaking about 10 rare cases in the thousands of daily flights of pilots who have cracked under the pressure of their job (one of them wasn't even a real pilot!)

Even in the extraordinary case of a pilot cracking under the pressure there is still another pilot who can pilot the plane

For the scenario of a pilot cracking up that pilot would have to not only crack up but turn mass murderer as well as they would have had to overcome their co-pilot in order to switch off ACAARS and the transponder before then crashing the plane kamikazi style and if they wanted to kamikazi why bother switching the transponder and ACAARS off?

 

[sprinkles]

Your article is speaking about 10 rare cases in the thousands of daily flights of pilots who have cracked under the pressure of their job (one of them wasn't even a real pilot!)

Even in the extraordinary case of a pilot cracking under the pressure there is still another pilot who can pilot the plane

For the scenario of a pilot cracking up that pilot would have to not only crack up but turn mass murderer as well as they would have had to overcome their co-pilot in order to switch off ACAARS and the transponder before then crashing the plane kamikazi style and if they wanted to kamikazi why bother switching the transponder and ACAARS off?

I'm not saying the pilots 'cracked up' and did anything. It just shows that pilots are not as pro as you think.

Those are just the ones that got caught being incompetent too. If some of these guys managed to still be pilots after 911 with the supposed strong mental training you speak of, then how many more are just good pilots but not as mentally strong and prepared as you might think? How many pilots are out there flying their planes around, doing a stellar job probably on routine flights, but might crack under adverse circumstances?

 

[muir]

I'm not saying the pilots 'cracked up' and did anything. It just shows that pilots are not as pro as you think.

Those are just the ones that got caught being incompetent too. If some of these guys managed to still be pilots after 911 with the supposed strong mental training you speak of, then how many more are just good pilots but not as mentally strong and prepared as you might think? How many pilots are out there flying their planes around, doing a stellar job probably on routine flights, but might crack under adverse circumstances?

Have you ever flown a plane? I have and that was just a small cessna which was exciting enough. The thought of flying a fullblown commercial flight...you don't get to that stage without going through rigorous training.

Some commerical pilots are even ex-military

Commerical pilots ARE 'pro' it is a high competancy job with a massive responsibility

Because of the gravity of the job there are stringent checks and balances and incompetancy is going to be weeded out pretty quickly

Then as i say there is the back up of a second pilot so for one pilot to crack under the pressure is NOT ENOUGH to crash a plane

We are talking about someone cutting comms, switching off the ACAARS and the transponder and then dropping off radar before a distress signal could be sent....this is HIGHLY UNUSUAL

We are looking at a hijack of some sort. Whether or not a cabin crew member was complicit i don't know but the task of successfully achieving what has been achieved with all the variables involved is not to be underestimated...it has been executed by an expert (likely experts plural)

The son of the inventor of the lear jet who is also an ex CIA pilot has said it is IMPOSSIBLE for the 911 hijakers to have pulled off the manouvres they are supposed to have pulled off that day

These things are high skill events requiring high levels of competency and know how

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]

I haven't flown a real plane. I have flown full realism combat simulators though with every single button in the cockpit being real and necessary. This involves a long checklist to start the plane up, taxi it, follow commands from control on when to take off, from what runway, in what direction. I'd have to follow the CAP flight plan on the MFD, controlling airspeed and minding fuel to manage station times and ETA at each waypoint. Get into a fight and work the radar to try and find what MIGHT be an enemy plane beyond visual range but can still kill you. Locate and fly around SAM sites... some times getting a launch and having to evade and you SEE the missile trail flying by. Then I'd be done and have to return home and get my instructions and clearance to land and actually do so with the jet in one piece, preferably. Some times slightly shot up with parts of the avionics not working. I've done flameout landings. Glided home on BINGO fuel. Emergency landings at alternate airfields.

Maybe not for real but I have some idea.