Malaysian Airlines Flight MH-370 goes missing

Rajiv Lather · Post by **Rajiv Lather** » 17 Mar 2014 20:22

Help needed - can people check on the flight radar if aircraft with sign ZRH* or LSZH* overflew Indian mainland for the relevant time.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Mar 2014 20:22

Whether intended or not MH-370 has terrorized the people on the ground due to the uncertainity.

- No one can trust flight crew even if it is experienced
- Despite 9/11 aircraft makers have transponders that can be switched off!!!
- ACARS data is pretty useless and costs an arm and a leg for airlines to pay for what their own sensors read!
- No once can trust MAS planes coming to land.
- CNN is adding to the anxiety with their pursuit of ratings by their non-stop coverage of non-facts.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 17 Mar 2014 20:27

Bibhas wrote:symontk I guess the original article described it in terms of flightradar24. In flightradar24 they are showing Singapore airlines as SIAxxx on the map. Indigo is IGOxxx.

Thanks, but all kind of misinformation at play

Regarding the duplicate plane and switch, you can play games. Like if MH370 needs to switch the sqwak codes with AAA-XXX aircraft, the AAA-XXX can apply for an emergency landing in a nearby country saying flight difficulties. MH-370 can proceed with sqawk codes of AAA-XXX

Someone mentioned whether they would have to be correct first time, but we don't know whether they have rehearsed it several times. There are several passenger and cargo charters flying around the world anytime

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Mar 2014 20:29

For an alleged hijacking that was planned in complete secrecy - too many stupid things have followed - things that depend on incredibly good luck

1. Flight said good night and switched off transponders and Vietnam ATC which should have expected an incoming flight simply stayed asleep
2. Also asleep were the Royal Malaysian Air Force Su 30s. The radar operators were also asleep
3. Andamans radar was switched off
4. A convenient flight came by going in the exact direction that the hijacker wanted and he simply shadowed it over several countries who simply did not notice two 777 size radar blips flying in formation for several hours. India, Bangladesh, China, Northern Himachal Pradesh, Shitistan, Freedom and Democracy's forces in Afghanistan - no one noticed a thing
5. Flight 370 pilot stayed in close formation with that aircraft in the dead of night. So soooo close that it looked like one radar blip. And no one noticed. A hackjacker on flight 370 turned off proximity warning on the SIA jet. (Hey maybe he jammed all radars as well?)
6. They all landed somewhere and for the last 10 days 250 people have been fed and have been given accommodation to stay somewhere. This organization - requiring a small army of service providers including cooks and transport vehicles were all planned out in utter secrecy and remain totally secret even now. I mean several hundred people involved with caring for kidnapped hostage passengers from a hijacked airliner that was planned in utter secrecy and had incredible luck. Food is being bought and cooked in utter secrecy - several tons of food and water being secretly shipped from a chain of suppliers who simply have not sniffed anything. the cooks and service people have all been sworn to secrecy in months of planning before the pilot took of that night.
7. The aircraft is now hidden near an airstrip that is at least 2km long and is made of airfield quality hardened concrete designed to withstand hammer blows of 200 to aircraft landings. And nobody knows about this

My bullshit meter is so overloaded that it has stopped working.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 17 Mar 2014 20:30

Rajiv Lather wrote:
Lalmohan wrote:
the flight engineer is a computer
(and so is the navigator)
Sir, there is a flight engineer involved, who was one of the passengers. Please read a few posts back.

Not a "flight engineer" but a maintenance engineer for much smaller charter planes. A flight engineer is part of the flight crew but a maintenance engineer is part of the maintenance crew.

Very few commercial aircraft have them these days due to cost considerations. all the new (western) airliners are crewed by a two person pilot crew without the need for the flight engineer. Russian aircraft, larger helos and most large military aircraft generally have a flight engineer

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Mar 2014 20:33

symontk wrote:
Bibhas wrote:symontk I guess the original article described it in terms of flightradar24. In flightradar24 they are showing Singapore airlines as SIAxxx on the map. Indigo is IGOxxx.
Thanks, but all kind of misinformation at play

Regarding the duplicate plane and switch, you can play games. Like if MH370 needs to switch the sqwak codes with AAA-XXX aircraft, the AAA-XXX can apply for an emergency landing in a nearby country saying flight difficulties. MH-370 can proceed with sqawk codes of AAA-XXX

Someone mentioned whether they would have to be correct first time, but we don't know whether they have rehearsed it several times. There are several passenger and cargo charters flying around the world anytime

I suspect that it's not that simple. I am sure we are missing something. If it was that simple then it would be used hajaar times by smugglers and other good folks.

sattili · Post by **sattili** » 17 Mar 2014 20:36

Let me add my bit for the SIA68(or SQ68) CT. Who the flight crew (Pilot/Co-pilot) on that flight? It is possible that they could be buddies to the MH370 crew and just helping their friends a little allowing them sneak up behind or above them and overfly India. This happens all the time in Bangalore....well, atleast with the auto wallahs anyway. If one autorickshaw runs out of gas (CNG mind you) he will hail a buddy who will give dhakka (push) with his leg and both keep driving in close formation through the congested roads.

It would be possible that MH370 actually tunes into the Indian FIR frequency and listens to the instructions given to SQ plane and quietly follows by adjusting their own altitude, speed etc.

Added later: As Shiv mentioned earlier lot of things happened which could not be a coincidence. If MH370 was hijacked then who ever took control of it should have had lot of help from many others.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 17 Mar 2014 20:39

1. I think we can safely keep this tandem-flying aspect out of assumption here; the comparison with air-to-air refueling in case of military heavies is not pertinent because

(a) such an exercise consists of highly trained and experienced air crews which mutually discuss the whole exercise to the last possible detail. There is lot of synergy in such operations between the aircrews and active involvement of both the parties.

(b) Altitude -How easy or difficult is it for two heavies to formate at such altitudes especially if one of them is flying unannounced below the other? It needs to respond in real time to any change in vector, speed or altitude by the other aircraft. And it is not exactly a nimble fighter like Mirage-2000-5 we're talking about here like in the French movie.

(c) Distance - How does the pilot manage to do this on a multi-hour flight across the breadth of a country like India? Doing it for couple of minutes like AAR in a highly controlled exercise is one thing but to replicate this for 5-6 hours is completely different thing.

(d) Radar performance - we need to understand that radars are meant to pick-up objects flying in a tight-formation; and it is fighter sized target I'm talking about here. Remember the movie Top-Gun and how the fighter controller in the carrier initially fails to pick up the correct number of bogies as they are in tight formation? And which become clear only when the bogies fan out? You don't want that to happen in 21st century...it has serious implication in terms of your response to an ingress.

2. Long story short - the Squawk Code spoofing seems more probable. It is quite possible that the aircraft did all the turning because it wanted to get into a particular flight path on which a particular flight with certain transponder code was expected.

If someone made an effort to go the length of high-jacking a Boeing 777, they would not risk that on something which could not be gamed or manipulated in advance.

Here is a map which shows the boundaries of various Flight Information Region (FIR) and location of flight marked on the same - I've used the GPS coordinates from the news report to mark the flight location.

Link to FIR map of the world.

RCase · Post by **RCase** » 17 Mar 2014 20:41

vishvak wrote:
RCase wrote:I have a noob question.

Assuming that the plane was hijacked and rerouted/ landed somewhere with all passengers still alive, wouldn't someone try to turn on their cell phone and try to make contact? There is a possibility that at least some will have international roaming or will be recognizable by mobile networks?
Without network towers to relay/digital signalling, not sure if cell phones can directly communicate even. Satellite phone companies are few and need special equipment with separate standards and battery requirements. example link. Also see power requirements.

If a place has a runway, isn't it more likely it will be in a place with cell coverage? If the route over Tibet were taken, i would assume at least some sporadic coverage of Chinese network(s). I am not assuming people have satellite phones. Recently there was debate in the US on the use of cell phones in planes. This was not a technology issue and I believe was using the existing network towers.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 17 Mar 2014 20:42

The only Uighur passenger on that flight happens to be Flight Engineer and Peechaddy ,working as Asst Prof in Turkish Univ.
http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malay ... ssenger-cr

Besides extensive teaching and research experience in electronics, biomedical, and digital communications, the man had also spent slightly less than a year in 2004 as a researcher at a training and simulation centre in Sweden.

He “designed an integrated future soldier training system based on sensors, communication subsystems and integrated-helmet subsystems and performed simulations for real-time,” according to the CV.
- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malay ... QTzxW.dpuf

And Captain was honing his flying skills in extra time at home.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 17 Mar 2014 20:43

shiv wrote:
1. Flight said good night and switched off transponders and Vietnam ATC which should have expected an incoming flight simply stayed asleep

Actually Vietnam ATC noticed within minutes of the scheduled handoff from Malaysian ATC, and tried to raise the plane. They asked other planes in the area to see if they could contact MH370.

http://www.nst.com.my/nation/general/fo ... e-1.503464

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 17 Mar 2014 20:44

[quote="shiv]
I suspect that it's not that simple. I am sure we are missing something. If it was that simple then it would be used hajaar times by smugglers and other good folks.[/quote]

It is that simple, a country allows another country's aircraft just based on the trust placed on it. That is the probable reason why Malayasian PM talked to Indian and Pakistani PM's

Rajiv Lather · Post by **Rajiv Lather** » 17 Mar 2014 20:49

chaanakya wrote:The only Uighur passenger on that flight happens to be Flight Engineer and Peechaddy ,working as Asst Prof in Turkish Univ...
And Captain was honing his flying skills in extra time at home.

So that makes it a very potent, experienced gang of three. There will be more...

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 17 Mar 2014 20:49

Apparently, if MH370 tried to transponder-spoof, modern radar systems would detect it.
http://www.quora.com/Can-a-commercial-a ... P0&share=1

There is now apparently apart from the programmable code, a difficult-to-spoof permanent code built in to the transponder.

PS: Wiki - additional info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_t ... des#Mode_S

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Mar 2014 20:54

UlanBatori wrote: How hard-coded is the transponder ID to the a/c? Isn't it like the board on the Malloostan State Road Transport Corporation buses, where the board says Kayankulam, but ppl know it's going to Cheruthurutthi, the conductor is just too lazy to change it?

Dunno if this helps. Appears to be for Oirope
http://www.luftfartstilsynet.no/regelve ... le1282.ece

2 THE ICAO 24-BIT AIRCRAFT ADDRESS

2.1 Instances occur of incorrect 24-bit aircraft addresses being installed/hardwired on individual aircraft. This has happened not only on first installation of a Mode S transponder but also when a major modification has been made to the Mode S equipment, and following a change of State of Registration.Incorrect installation, such as setting the address to all zeros, or, inadvertent duplication of an address can pose a severe risk to flight safety. In particular, the airborne collision avoidance system, ACAS II, performs on the assumption that only a single, unique 24-bit aircraft address per airframe exists. The performance of ACAS II can be seriously degraded and in some instances disabled if an incorrect or duplicate address is installed on an aircraft.

2.2 Incorrect or duplicated 24-bit aircraft addresses will also undermine the effectiveness of surveillance services based on SSR Mode S.

2.3 It is essential that aircraft operators comply with the aircraft address assignment procedures of the State regulatory authority to which blocks of addresses have been allocated by ICAO (note 2).

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Mar 2014 20:56

symontk wrote: It is that simple, a country allows another country's aircraft just based on the trust placed on it. That is the probable reason why Malayasian PM talked to Indian and Pakistani PM's

See Arun Gupta's message
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 1#p1611051

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 17 Mar 2014 21:00

And what it says

Normally, the address is never changed, however, the transponders are reprogrammable and, occasionally, are moved from one aircraft to another (presumably for operational or cost purposes), either by maintenance or by changing the appropriate entry in the aircraft's Flight management system.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Mar 2014 21:03

symontk wrote:And what it says

Normally, the address is never changed, however, the transponders are reprogrammable and, occasionally, are moved from one aircraft to another (presumably for operational or cost purposes), either by maintenance or by changing the appropriate entry in the aircraft's Flight management system.

But they cannot be reprogrammed in flight. This is apparently a security measure linked to collision avoidance system. Read the link I posted.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 17 Mar 2014 21:03

It went for maintenance few days back only

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asi ... 28678.html

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 17 Mar 2014 21:04

Also what was the non-xrayed cargo?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Mar 2014 21:05

symontk wrote:It went for maintenance few days back only

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asi ... 28678.html

Still it cannot be changed in flight. If it was MH370 at the beginning of the flight it would stay that way.

Rajagopal · Post by **Rajagopal** » 17 Mar 2014 21:06

ramana wrote:Whether intended or not MH-370 has terrorized the people on the ground due to the uncertainity.

- No one can trust flight crew even if it is experienced
- Despite 9/11 aircraft makers have transponders that can be switched off!!!
- ACARS data is pretty useless and costs an arm and a leg for airlines to pay for what their own sensors read!
- No once can trust MAS planes coming to land.
- CNN is adding to the anxiety with their pursuit of ratings by their non-stop coverage of non-facts.

I agree. it is unthinkable that a transponder is located right next to the pilot with an option to switch it off

The transponder is meant to allow the aircraft to be monitored at all times.

1) Even a small fast food restaurant has a security camera pointing to the cash counter. It's not a bad idea to install a secret cockpit camera that will record and transmit the feed to a satellite. The camera feed would have given clear idea of what is happening inside.

2) i don't believe that such technology does not exist. one can course correct a satellite located 36,000kms away or control the direction of land rover on another planet(Mars).

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 17 Mar 2014 21:08

If you can switch off a transponder inflight, you can switch on another transponder inflight which is inside the aircraft's belly

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 17 Mar 2014 21:08

What is noteworthy is that only the 40 degree arc which corresponds to the last ACARS ping recieved has been publicly revealed. Some reports talk about the aircraft being on the ground when that ping was received, as to how that conclusion is drawn is not revealed. If the locations of the earlier pings is released and thereby their associated arcs, then a more comprehensive picture of the route the aircraft took will be available to the public at large.

It is possible that when MH 370 was out of radar coverage, and/or flying low, that it assumed another transponder code and overflew India/other countries around India and continued northwest. (Whoever is behind it has exhibited comprehensive out of the box thinking so I do not think it far fetched to assume that they had filed another flight plan) Notwithstanding the new transponder code, the pings from the ACARS system however would continue to identify it as MH370 even if it overflew India or other countries. The phone conversations which the Malaysian PM has had with MMS and others and the non release of the arcs of the earlier pings could be seen with reference to this possibility.

Unless it just flew south and the pilot committed suicide.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 17 Mar 2014 21:12

symontk wrote:SIA is an airport code in China. Its also a code for an airline company in US

http://www.theairdb.com/airport/SIA.html
Airport IATA Code : SIA
Airport Name : Xiguan
Type : Airports
Runway Length : 9842 ft.
Runway Elevation : 1572 ft.
City : Xi An
Country : China
World Area Code : 713
GMT Offset : -8.0

__________________________________________
http://iata-codes.findthedata.org/l/128 ... e-Airlines
Airline Carrier Name Silver State Airlines
Carrier Entity 37913
DOT Airline ID 19325
Start Date for IATA Code 1960-01-01
Ending Date for IATA Code 2002-09-30
Region of Operations Domestic
World Area Code U.S.A. (Including Territories And Possessions)
Carrier Group Commuter Carriers
Carrier Group Regional Carriers (including Large, Medium, Commuter, Small Certified)
Unique Carrier Name Silver State Airlines
Unique Carrier Entity 37913
IATA code SIA
Unique IATA Carrier Code SIA

SIA is Singapore Airlines.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 17 Mar 2014 21:14

Its SQ for Singapore Airlines

http://www.airlinecodes.info/iata-code-sq

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 17 Mar 2014 21:19

But there also ICAO code for Singapore airlines in SIA

http://airlinecodes.info/sia/airline-code-sia

But flight numbers are used with IATA codes. And so SIA68 is not Singapore airline flight

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Mar 2014 21:21

symontk wrote:If you can switch off a transponder inflight, you can switch on another transponder inflight which is inside the aircraft's belly

That spare transponder must have been identifying itself as some flight. Which one was that?

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 17 Mar 2014 21:22

harbans wrote:OT alert (ref maps above on this page): Wonder why all these Western Maps including our Aaptard maps show Arunachal in dotted. If one party claims a territory does that imply the claimed region is shown dotted. India then should be claiming Tibet and KM at the minimum.

OT follow up: certainly a worrying trend. This rend is on the same trajectory as entire J&K being shown by some maps as not in India.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 17 Mar 2014 21:23

deleted

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 17 Mar 2014 21:25

shiv wrote:
symontk wrote:If you can switch off a transponder inflight, you can switch on another transponder inflight which is inside the aircraft's belly
That spare transponder must have been identifying itself as some flight. Which one was that?

It need not be switched on first means while take off. It can switched on later when you find a switch aircraft. There is no problem doing that over sea, where none of the radars are looking

Also the second aircraft can switch off and land somewhere declaring emergency or take another approved sqawk code

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 17 Mar 2014 21:28

Re: Switching-off ability of the transponder. Almost all electrical systems should be able to be switched off. This is critical for in-flight fires.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Mar 2014 21:30

UB, I thought from above posts one can't re-program the transponder in flight. The ground sensors will see that.
Is it postulated that a spare transponder with another flight code was turned on?
Spare could be loaded during the maintanence phase ie ground crew is in on the plan.
That would mean the Malay politician sentencing is moot for they would not know when and what the outcome was.
Can we close that leg of the fault tree?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Mar 2014 21:30

I think this "overflying India" is a bogey. Every single flight is tracked by civilian secondary radar and primary military radar and they are cross checked. The air force automatically reacts to a target that is not responding to interrogation. You cannot fly 2 large airliners together and expect only one blip. Radar resolution can see individual rain droplets.

The plane has crashed in the ocean. Everyone is dead. Debris would have spread out hundreds of km by now because of all the bullshiting that has gone on.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Mar 2014 21:35

symontk wrote: It need not be switched on first means while take off. It can switched on later when you find a switch aircraft. There is no problem doing that over sea, where none of the radars are looking

Also the second aircraft can switch off and land somewhere declaring emergency or take another approved sqawk code

I have seen no information to support the idea that this is technically feasible. Identifying Mode S transponders are hard wired to identify the specific flight and are probably linked by hardware codes. They cannot be spoofed to mimic another aircraft in mid flight. I don't buy this line of reasoning.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 17 Mar 2014 21:36

The problem is that such conspiracies require help from many people means there are some rotten apples not just in MAS but also in Malayasian Air transport too

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 17 Mar 2014 21:36

symontk wrote:Its SQ for Singapore Airlines

http://www.airlinecodes.info/iata-code-sq

SQ is flight route code for Singapore Airlines. SIAxxx is call sign assigned by ATC. Check flightradar24.com
http://www.flightradar24.com/2014-03-07 ... .6,99.48/7

Click on any flight with SIA call sign. SQ368/SIA368 is up there and you can see it crossing over pakistan around midnight.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 17 Mar 2014 21:39

SIA may be SilkAir?

rohitvas

1. Long story short - the Squawk Code spoofing seems more probable. It is quite possible that the aircraft did all the turning because it wanted to get into a particular flight path on which a particular flight with certain transponder code was expected.

2. If someone made an effort to go the length of high-jacking a Boeing 777, they would not risk that on something which could not be gamed or manipulated in advance.

Point 2 should be put into the title of this thread as a check on all CTs.
I'll agree that whoever could turn OFF a transponder in flight could also turn another one ON.

So as long as the a/c was in Malaysian ATC if had one transponder, and then, well... they turned on another one at some later time. The detection on Malaysian military radar was a transient event. It may have been transient failure of the "shadow" scam.

The part that seems to hit the H&D of postors here is the possibility of "shadow" all the way across India. I am NOT saying that: over continental India, there are likely to be overlapping radar coverage zones from different directions, so shadow scam cannot be assured to work. Underestimate range of ONE system and u r caught w/ diaper down, surrounded by fighter bases and Akash systems.

And if Indian systems wake up, Paki systems will immediately wake up too. So that is ruled out. Transponder scam may work, but by now they should have discovered (I hope) that the number of flights was N+1 where N is number of scheduled/explained flights.
Q.E.D. No Indiapakistan overflight.
*****************************************
So what if anything did they do with the new transponder and all? Switched it off? They why go to all that trouble? Maybe they flew over Vietnam with new transponder? Would have been discovered by now also (N+1 > N etc)

So only explanation is a govt code, used to land someplace where it was OK to land. So I tend to reject the whole transponder scam as having achieved nothing. (I mean because we have heard nothing so far).
********************************************
Shiv's point about feeding 237 terrified, sick people is well taken, and that bothered me so far. But...
NEW CT FROM UB CT's:

Plane landed. Taken under tarps/ camouflage by staff of 3. Passengers off-loaded under armed guard, taken to S.P.E.C.T.E.R container ship a mile away. Ready, provisioned for 6-month voyage with enough food. No chance (so far) of accessing any communications.
Accommodations on par with cruise ships of the distant past (West Africa - East USA route) where they used to sing:

Amaaazeeeng Grace...

What the pakistan they expect(ed) to do with the plane, I haven't the foggiest notion. You can't just tie it to an oxcart and tip it over a cliff, hain? Any place with a not-so-high cliff over fairly deep ocean, close to a paved road? If it's not the cargo, and they haven't tried a suicide attack so far, then it HAS to be a kidnapping/ piracy act. Somalian pirates/AQ/Uighiristan collaboration?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Mar 2014 21:40

ramana wrote:UB, I thought from above posts one can't re-program the transponder in flight. The ground sensors will see that.
Is it postulated that a spare transponder with another flight code was turned on?
Spare could be loaded during the maintanence phase ie ground crew is in on the plan.
That would mean the Malay politician sentencing is moot for they would not know when and what the outcome was.
Can we close that leg of the fault tree?

Ramana a spare transponder that has the codes for some other flight assumes that the exact flight to be spoofed was already planned out because the code cannot be simply changed at will. And if that spare is switched on there will be two aircraft flying with the same code and both will respond to interrogation with the same code.

That plane has crashed in the ocean and the whole world is in denial.

Rajiv Lather · Post by **Rajiv Lather** » 17 Mar 2014 21:40

shiv wrote:The plane has crashed in the ocean. Everyone is dead. Debris would have spread out hundreds of km by now because of all the bullshiting that has gone on.

There is nothing stopping the Chinese to fly the flag at half mast, announce two days of mourning and everyone can get on with their lives.