Slashdot Mirror


China Deploys Satellites In Search For Missing Malaysia Airlines Flight

EwanPalmer writes "China has begun using its orbiting satellites in a bid to find the missing Malaysian Airlines flight. The Xi'an Satellite Monitor and Control Center is said to have launched an emergency response to search for Flight MH370 after it went off radar over the South China Sea in the early hours of Saturday. The center is reported to have adjusted up to 10 of its high-res satellites to help search for the plane."

142 comments

  1. Check small airports by NotDrWho · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sometimes big airliners can get lost at those.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:Check small airports by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sometimes big airliners can get lost at those.

      While that happens once in a while with US flights, I don't think there are very many airports in that lane where an errant 777 could go unnoticed. The route, as described on the BBC is a very heavily traveled air lane and the flight should have been easily tracked, particularly if it had veered off course.

      No floating debris is perplexing as that should have been soon spotted had the flight broken up.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Check small airports by NotDrWho · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm not joking. If this thing landed at some tiny landing strip in the boonies with a serious electrical problem (or having been hijacked), it could just be sitting somewhere. Not likely, but I wouldn't rule it out.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    3. Re:Check small airports by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      How many 'tiny landing strips' can handle a 777 so damaged that it can't send out a radio distress signal? I would think that the numbers would be vanishingly small.....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Check small airports by NotDrWho · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I didn't say it was a *successful* landing.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    5. Re: Check small airports by Mangapcom · · Score: 1

      If the plane crash and buried into the deep ocean. What is the chance satelit can help? Visual things maybe very limited help. Can the Blackbox signal transmit good signal from the bottom of the ocean? How deep? I think aviation world need to think to use better technology (communication and signaling) in the plane to improve plane safety. Current technology are old

    6. Re:Check small airports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Floating debris is not perplexing.

      Rulebook is try to land on water intact. If you do that your plane is a) both soaked and out of radio horizon anyways b) will sink fast.
      If you do not land perfectly, you will break up, probably just in two pieces. You will also flood and sink. And
      depending on weight, flooding and end-up distribution, there is no guarantee that you will emit significant
      debris from your cabin or hold.

      Sorry to say it but these dudes are goners.

    7. Re:Check small airports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NRO has already located the crash site, they're just figuring on a way to parallel construct it out to the search team who will eventually 'find' it.

    8. Re:Check small airports by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 1

      Maybe the plane is on an alien planet with a bunch of metallic alien stingrays! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

    9. Re: Check small airports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the NWO?

    10. Re: Check small airports by strstr · · Score: 0

      he means NSA because they pretty much got the same capability as the NRO. and there's also the US Air Force and the Geospatial whatever group.

      -_-

      They know where all objects are at all times. Maybe they even crashed the plane with directed-energy like they did all the Bermuda Triangle planes with the Puerto Rican radar field, and covered it up by making it look like an unexplainable paranormal thing, or hardware/equipment malfunction. :D

      http://www.oregonstatehospital...

    11. Re:Check small airports by LifesABeach · · Score: 0

      Chinese using satellites? I was thinking that the chinese thought to look up high. That's were you hide things from children. Makes sense.

    12. Re: Check small airports by mikael · · Score: 1

      If it crashed into the water, it breaks up and stuff floats to the surface. If it glides to the water, it might break up into a couple of pieces:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    13. Re:Check small airports by mjwx · · Score: 0

      How many 'tiny landing strips' can handle a 777 so damaged that it can't send out a radio distress signal? I would think that the numbers would be vanishingly small.....

      In addition to this, there are few places where a 777 could land, safely or otherwise in SE Asia that doesn't have mobile reception or people.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    14. Re: Check small airports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they were able to glide to the surface they should've been able to transmit a distress call.

    15. Re:Check small airports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suppose a meteor strike took out all electrics including radio and navigation, but left the plane flyable (I believe that bird uses hydraulic servos, I don't think that was a fly by wire plane).

      In this kind of supposed event, you've got an experienced cockpit crew having to navigate by dead reckoning but having several hundred miles of fuel on board. They might well have decided to head to territory that they knew well, where they felt they had the best possibility of finding someplace to land or ditch successfully. They may be sitting on some deserted WWII airstrip, or on an empty beach, far from where they disappeared.

    16. Re:Check small airports by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    17. Re:Check small airports by captainpanic · · Score: 1

      I'm totally not an expert, but I do have some questions that the news do not answer:

      If the 777 took a rapid dive to nearly ground level, and then changed course, and continued flying at an elevation of mere meters above the water, would the radars in the area have picked it up? And once such an airplane is hundreds of kilometers off course, would anyone notice if it increases its altitude to a few hundred meters, before attempting a landing on a straight stretch of road somewhere in Cambodia, Borneo (in Indonesia), or Myanmar (aka Birma)?

      I admit that it is unlikely, but then, so is everything else. Can this be ruled out completely?

      Looking at the population density of the area, there is a chance that a low-flying airplane does not attract too much attention. There are bits of land that are very empty.

    18. Re:Check small airports by rapiddescent · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This aircraft had modern rolls royce trent engines - these come with an online 24x7x365 service back to Derby in the UK where all engines that are flying around the world are monitored in close-to real time using an independent comms facility to that of the rest of the aircraft. They will know if the engines powered up/down and what their status was at the last moments before contact was lost. I imagine the Malaysian Authorities are keeping a lot of the data under-wraps at the moment and I would assume that a lot more is known about the aircraft than is being released to the public right now.

    19. Re:Check small airports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has anyone considered they may have crashed in some uncharted island where there are polar bears and some secret possibly-governement-run research facilities involving magnetic sciency stuff and time travel?

      I don't know, but these people may be lost...

    20. Re: Check small airports by distilate · · Score: 1

      They need some time to collect all their drone remains mixed in with the 777 remains before anyone else finds the 777

    21. Re:Check small airports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 777 is fly-by-wire, with some mechanical back-up.

    22. Re:Check small airports by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      Heck, in the middle of the sea they could have skipped the dive and just turned off their transponder and communications. It isn't like air search radar sets are in operation in the middle of the ocean. They could probably overfly large parts of the US without being detected on primary radar (though probably not the borders - not much point in advertising an ADIZ and not having radar).

      If they actually flew at low altitude it would not be picked up by radar unless it was fairly close or airborne. They wouldn't be just a few meters above the waves though - this was at night and that would be a challenge in a military aircraft equipped for that kind of flight (usually including terrain-following radar-assisted autopilots). They could probably have flown 100 feet up though, which would be good enough if not trying to infiltrate an air defense network.

      At low altitude they wouldn't be able to fly all that far - the burn rate at low altitude is considerably higher than at cruise altitude, and the speed is much lower as well.

    23. Re:Check small airports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Malaysia banned Ultraman recently. May be it is a good time to remove the ban and ask Ultraman to save the plane :)

    24. Re:Check small airports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could probably have flown 100 feet up though

      Considering the curvature of the earth, one can fly at 1000s of feet up if one is far enough out on the ocean. There's actually no radar coverage at all just a few hundred miles out in the Atlantic or Pacific.

    25. Re:Check small airports by Talderas · · Score: 1

      The Malaysian military reported a radar signal that was likely the flight over the Straight of Malacca (west coast) rather than the Bay of Thailand which everyone has been focusing on.

      I have a pet theory and it does well explain all the events. This theory is based on the fact that Thailand and Malaysian relations have been sour as of late.

      So here's the facts, at least as I understand it.

      1. Radar contact of the flight was lost over the Bay of Thailand and appeared to be turning (~750km NNE of Kuala Lumpur).
      2. Radar contact was allegedly gained over the Straight of Malacca (~350km NW of Kuala Lumpur).
      3. The flight made no radio contact.
      4. The flight had its IFF transponder turned off.

      The Malaysian/Thailand relations and the "resighting" of the flight over the Straight of Malacca is what will make the rest fall into place. If the plane suffered decompression it would have had to descend to roughly 10,000ft and would have fallen off of radar (1). The apparently turning of the flight path indicates that the flight may have been attempting to return to Kuala Lumpur, however the best way would have likely be to turn to port, fly over Thailand, reach the Straight of Malacca, and fly into Kuala Lumpur (that's conjecture). Turning off the transponder and undergoing radio silence would make it very difficult for Thailand to know this plane from Malaysia was violating their airspace. Thus attempting to avoid further souring of relations between the two countries. Radio contact and the transponder might have been reenabled when they got closer to Kuala Lumpur. However the plane may have been forced to land in the straight before then, possibly in one piece, and had sunk in the Straight.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    26. Re:Check small airports by toddestan · · Score: 1

      But in that case, where are the people? If the plane landed relatively intact, people would evacuate/escape the plane before it sinks, and you would have people and rafts or clinging to their seat cushions which would be spotted (and rescued). Same thing with the plane landing at some rural airstrip - eventually some of the passengers/crew would find a way to contact civilization.

    27. Re:Check small airports by Christopher_T. · · Score: 1

      The current report is that the jet made a real sharp course change and was last on radar over the Straits of Malacca. The Straits are the marine equivalent of a superhighway, being the shortest way between East Asia and India, the Mideast and Europe. There just isn't enough data to make sense of this yet, and I have a suspicion that some of what we think we know is wrong.

  2. Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like there was a very important person of Chinese descent on it.

    1. Re:Hmmm... by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Sounds like there was a very important person of Chinese descent on it.

      Several. Quite a few movers and shakers, including holiday takers. China takes care of its own.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > China takes care of its own.

      True, their own self interest. Seeing how a multinational naval operation coordinates operations is 100 percent something about which they'd be interested.

  3. Thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So - these are Chinese spy satellites? Given the region, hasen't the US got similar facilities in zone?

    Another thought. How low does a plane need to fly to "drop off the radar"? I appreciate that civil radars might have a lower limit (but how many thousand feet?) but how low can the regional military powers see, and would they be telling anyway?

    1. Re:Thoughts by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Nooooo. Not spy, just, y'know, observing ... stuff, yeah observing stuff, that's the ticket. All just hanging around up there, just in case they're needed for something like this.

      Nothing to see here, move along.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Thoughts by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Informative

      Another thought. How low does a plane need to fly to "drop off the radar"? I appreciate that civil radars might have a lower limit (but how many thousand feet?) but how low can the regional military powers see, and would they be telling anyway?

      Radar is line of sight. So a plane at 11000 meters, can be seen about 375 km away from the radar installation, assuming a radar at ground level.

      If your radar is within 200km of the plane, the plane would fall below the radar horizon at about 5km altitude.

      Given the description of the plane's flight path, if it was being tracked by radar from Kuala Lumpur, then "dropped off the radar" would have been closer to 10km altitude than to 5km.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:Thoughts by rossdee · · Score: 1

      "So - these are Chinese spy satellites? Given the region, hasen't the US got similar facilities in zone?"

      You know that satellites don't orbit above a fixed point on the earth. (well except for geostationary ones that are 25,000 milrd up, and generally you want your spy satellites closer than that..

      " How low does a plane need to fly to "drop off the radar"?"

      That depends on how far away from the radar it is. Sonce it was pretty far away, I would expect the radar not to be able to see it if the plane dropped to below 10000 ft, which the crew would try to do if there was sudden depressurization.

    4. Re:Thoughts by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Of course the US has satellites that can look at that part of the world. And they may well be doing so. It's just China is trying to score a couple of PR points by showing that they can act like a Big Important Country and task their surveillance satellites to suit their interests.

      We of course know that they can - spy satellites don't do much good if you can't spy on people. The US is also spending assets in the search. So will everyone else who is involved.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:Thoughts by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      If you look at a map you'll see this flight path takes you past some pretty well monitored territory - though obviously there are a few bugth in the thythtem.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    6. Re:Thoughts by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Of course the US has satellites that can look at that part of the world. And they may well be doing so. It's just China is trying to score a couple of PR points by showing that they can act like a Big Important Country and task their surveillance satellites to suit their interests.

      We of course know that they can - spy satellites don't do much good if you can't spy on people. The US is also spending assets in the search. So will everyone else who is involved.

      Your left shoe is untied.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    7. Re:Thoughts by aphelion_rock · · Score: 2

      Radar is line of sight. So a plane at 11000 meters, can be seen about 375 km away from the radar installation, assuming a radar at ground level.

      If your radar is within 200km of the plane, the plane would fall below the radar horizon at about 5km altitude.

      Given the description of the plane's flight path, if it was being tracked by radar from Kuala Lumpur, then "dropped off the radar" would have been closer to 10km altitude than to 5km.

      Why do they not have satellite location based reporting on the planes providing the planes position every five minutes? Expand the ACARS system to give the position of the plane. This would help the searchers narrow down the location where the plane was lost.

    8. Re:Thoughts by Immerman · · Score: 1

      If military hardware (spy satellites) are being invoked anyway, then I suspect that if the plane were detected by technologies they didn't want to admit to they would use that knowledge to target more admissible sources of evidence.

      As for going under the radar, I expect that a decent sized civilian aircraft probably doesn't have that option, especially over the ocean where *everything* above water is easily trackable (if boats show up on radar, a plane can't fly under it). I haven't been following the details of the story - but if this truly disappeared over the open ocean I think a far more relevant question would be range - from ground level the horizon is only about 50 miles away. Long-range radar as commonly used for air traffic control can apparently push 230 miles, but I suspect that's for high-altitude aircraft only, flying under the radar is much easier when you can hide behind the curvature of the Earth, and even 230 miles is pretty short range by ocean scales.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    9. Re:Thoughts by CKW · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was thinking about this yesterday. Doesn't the vast majority of modern aviation tracking radar systems depend pretty heavily, not just for identification but for returns at all at at long distances, on the planes own IFFtransponders for replies?

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

      Could it not "drop off" the long range radar simply by turning off it's transponder? At that distance the radar return might be low enough that without the transponder response, it'd "disappear"...

    10. Re:Thoughts by NapalmV · · Score: 2

      Radar is line of sight.

      Sure thing?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-horizon_radar
      .

    11. Re:Thoughts by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Yep. That's been true for decades.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    12. Re:Thoughts by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      China is the big and important country. Only the dumbest of the dumb would try to deny.

      Notably US is not dumbest of the dumb, that's why they're shifting their military to counter its growth.

    13. Re:Thoughts by bobbied · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Another thought. How low does a plane need to fly to "drop off the radar"?

      First, Civilian radar depends on transponders, a small transmitted signal from the aircraft that is triggered by the Radar signal. This transponder responds with a "squawk code" (a 4 digit number assigned by ATC) along with some other basic information like altitude. Transponders make it unnecessary to get a "primary" return (i.e. they don't have to get the actual radar signal return) for the aircraft to show up. In fact, most civilian radar installations run with primary returns filtered out because they create visual noise for controllers, because weather and other noise shows up.

      Second, the aircraft in question was at the far reaches of radar coverage. This tells me that a primary return was unlikely. In fact, the radar coverage for this aircraft was expected to end right about where it did. I"m told that radar coverage did not start back up for the next controller for a few min of flying time so a short time out of coverage was expected. They will pull the tapes and review for any primary returns, but I'm guessing this has already been done an it provided little information.

      So, this tells me that something happened to the aircraft during the short time it was outside of coverage. What ever it was, it must have disrupted the flight controls and likely their communications ability, but it seems that the aircraft stayed largely in one piece, at least until it impacts the surface. If it was generally in one piece with say the vertical stabilizer disabled it could have flown a LONG way from the last position report.

      It did NOT break up at altitude. Something rendered the aircraft uncontrollable. A loss of hydraulic pressure or power does this for a 777. Decompression at 35,000 feet can do significant damage to an aircraft's systems, plus it can incapacitate the flight crew in less than 10 seconds. Decompression can do this, without causing the aircraft to come apart in the air. Metal fatigue, fuel tank explosion, small explosive device, uncontained engine failure are all possible things that can cause decompression and all of these have happened before.

      My guess is that they will find the aircraft tens even hundreds of miles away from the last known position, largely in one piece under water. The longer this takes, the further away from where it was last seen it will likely be. This is because they have found nothing yet. Much of an aircraft floats, so it sank in one major chunk with out spreading debris too far. This is not totally inconsistent with past aircraft crashes. KAL 007 flew nearly 20 min in a slow descending circle after being shot down. They will find it in a day or two.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    14. Re: Thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why can a transponder be "turned off" anyway? On a civilian plane there is no reason whatsoever for a pilot to turn off the transponder.

    15. Re:Thoughts by JumboMessiah · · Score: 3, Informative

      IANAATC, but...

      Most center surveillance radars have a range of 200 - 250NM (ARSR-3, ARSR-4, AN/FPS-117, AN/FPS-67B). Secondary beacon radars have a range of about 190NM for 1090ES equipped transponders.

      You are correct in assuming most high altitude center control ops, for aircraft in cruise, rely heavily on MODE-S data. This is transponder data and not primary radar echo return data.

      Terminal radar, the kind you see at your local airport, mostly relies on primary radar data. But at a shorter range (~50NM).

      The reasons for the difference are many, but come down to accuracy and overlap. Center controllers use a mosaic of data from multiple radars that must average primary returns, this leads to slight disagreements on the true location of the aircraft. The MODE-S data is constant though, so it is preferred. In terminal environments, there's usually a single radar set. So the primary data is more useful in terms of accuracy for spacing the aircraft (they can pack them in tighter more safely). Terminal radar sets also have a higher scan rate.

      MH370 was over the Gulf of Thailand and was under coverage of about three different radars. Even if the transponder was turned off, primary return data would still be available for the track. CrimsonAvenger has a valid point, but the last known location of the flight was far off shore and at a cruising altitude. So we could possibly speculate that line of sight was not a big factor.

      There's a lot of big mysteries and speculation at this point, but we just need to give it time. They will eventually find the wreckage and hopefully determine they cause. There are many historical crashes that required more searching than has been applied to MH370 (AF447). In the meantime, grab some popcorn and enjoy the conspiracy theories...

    16. Re:Thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, it's not "spying" until they actually look at the pictures.

    17. Re: Thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a civilian plane there is no reason whatsoever for a pilot to turn off the transponder.

      Obviously you've never fucked up and cut a chord through the edge of someone's Class A airspace without clearance. Extremely stupid, careless, etc. I know, but the one time I screwed up while threading the needle through all of the nearby controlled airspaces, thank powers that be that my transponder was off as I beat feet out of the area.

    18. Re:Thoughts by radarskiy · · Score: 5, Funny

      So NOW do you see the advantage of a flat Earth?

    19. Re:Thoughts by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative

      It did NOT break up at altitude. Something rendered the aircraft uncontrollable. A loss of hydraulic pressure or power does this for a 777.

      A loss of hydraulic pressure or power does not do this for a 777. It has a RAT (ram air turbine) which pops out in such cases. Basically a big propeller which gets turned by the wind as the plane glides at 500 mph and generates enough power rudimentary electronics (including radio) and hydraulic pressure. That's what happened with the Gimli Glider - a 767 mistakenly loaded with insufficient fuel (the original boneheaded imperial vs metric conversion foul-up before the Mars Climate Orbiter). which basically turned into a 100 ton glider when it ran out of fuel mid-flight. The RAT popped out and allowed the crew to control the plane to a safe landing. (Which of course means if this did happen on MH370, the search area needs to be much larger than where they're currently looking).

      Hydraulic failure usually involves structural damage which compromises all the hydraulic lines. Most commercial aircraft have 3 independent hydraulic systems; some have 4. If there's damage which severs lines in all of those systems, the plane can "bleed" hydraulic fluid until there's not enough left to control the flight surfaces. I believe the 777 used a hybrid fly-by-wire + hydraulic system though, where pilot commands are transmitted to the flight surfaces by wire, and a hydraulic pump there moves the flight surface. So severing the hydraulic lines may have killed one control surface, but not all. (Severing the wires OTOH...)

      Anyway, I'm skeptical that it broke up at altitude too. That usually generates a lot of floating debris (papers, luggage, clothing, bodies, etc.) scattered over a wide enough area that the crash area is quickly located. The pingers should be firing away so it's just a matter of one of the search boats traveling within a few miles from the plane's resting location. (KAL007 wasn't located because the Soviets knew from their radar tracks where it went down, and set up decoy pingers far away to get the U.S. and South Korea to search the wrong location).

    20. Re:Thoughts by JumboMessiah · · Score: 1

      Primary return data is most likely available for the initial part of the descent (maybe down to 10,000 AGL), regardless of SSR MODE-S data. The Gulf is covered pretty well radar wise (not counting military sets) Ref: See page 2. The difficulty is collecting, combining, and analysing all the CD2 data from the primary returns. Even then, the general public may not be advised of the outcome of the analysis until well after the search.

      I concur that it did not break up at altitude, otherwise the debris field would of been located relatively close to the flight path.

      Other notable water crashes took many years to determine their final outcomes. I agree with the sentiment, we need to be patient and let the experts do their work.

    21. Re:Thoughts by _merlin · · Score: 1

      First, Civilian radar depends on transponders, a small transmitted signal from the aircraft that is triggered by the Radar signal. This transponder responds with a "squawk code" (a 4 digit number assigned by ATC) along with some other basic information like altitude. Transponders make it unnecessary to get a "primary" return (i.e. they don't have to get the actual radar signal return) for the aircraft to show up. In fact, most civilian radar installations run with primary returns filtered out because they create visual noise for controllers, because weather and other noise shows up.

      That might be relevant if it wasn't in an area heavily monitored by military radar. There is some overlap between where it's expected to be visible on Malaysian and Vietnamese military radar. This does use primary returns, and a B777 is very visible. It must've fallen rather quickly to disappear from military radar so suddenly.

    22. Re:Thoughts by NickFortune · · Score: 2

      So NOW do you see the advantage of a flat Earth?

      OK, You win.

      How soon can you implement changeover?

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    23. Re: Thoughts by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Why can a transponder be "turned off" anyway? On a civilian plane there is no reason whatsoever for a pilot to turn off the transponder.

      It's so they can be re-purposed as bombers in times of conflict.

      --
      No sig today...
    24. Re:Thoughts by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Why do they not have satellite location based reporting on the planes providing the planes position every five minutes? Expand the ACARS system to give the position of the plane. This would help the searchers narrow down the location where the plane was lost.

      I think most airliners do just that. If not equipped with ACARS then they have to do HF position reports with regular frequency. However, I'm not sure how much that applies internationally, it is quite possible that procedures at Malaysian airlines aren't quite what they are with Lufthansa or United.

    25. Re:Thoughts by bobbied · · Score: 2

      I'm somewhat familiar with the RAT system and I'm not discounting it.

      What I'm saying is that we must have had multiple system failures. ALL power or ALL hydraulic pressure (both of which have multiple redundant and independent systems) or possibly an unfortunate combination of partial system failures. Such catastrophic failures should be vanishingly rare, and usually would be the result of a major structural failure and one would expect the breakup of the aircraft would result. In flight breakup didn't happen or we'd have found this thing by now.

      I have two primary theories at this point. First, it's possible there was a windscreen failure or small structural failure near the cockpit that leads to decompression. In the confusion the crew fails or is unable to get their O2 masks in place within the 10 seconds they'd have at 35K feet. If they where flying manually or disconnected the flight director somehow (pushing on the yoke or peddles would do this) the aircraft could fly for quite awhile and end up way off course. As we where almost 2 hours into the flight, it's even possible that only one pilot was in the cockpit. My second theory is that there was an intentional crashing, either by hijacking or suicide. In any case, the aircraft flew for awhile after the incident and impacted the water well away from their expected location generally in one piece.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    26. Re:Thoughts by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I would agree except that apparently they don't know where it is or they would have found it by now. Something tells me that this aircraft headed below radar coverage quickly, then few for quite some ways before ditching. We have no ELT signals which says they are underwater. We have no debris so the aircraft stayed together until impact with the water (or longer).

      Primary paint requires Line Of Sight and if the military radar is ground based this happened in about the worst possible location for coverage. The aircraft would have to be above the horizon to the radar site to be seen by radar. (OK, perhaps even a bit below it, but not by much). Coverage may be great for aircraft at altitude, but they are going to have to be thousands of feet up to be above the horizon for any land based radar where they where.

      This is where the term "under the radar" comes from.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    27. Re:Thoughts by Talderas · · Score: 2

      Malaysian military radar's last signal for what they believe was this flight was over the Straight of Malacca. More specifically it was roughly 300km NW of Kuala Lumpur. The radar signal that showed the plane possible turning around was roughly 750km NNE of Kuala Lumpur.

      If that is true, it means the plane banked port, crossed over Thailand and was probably trying to return to Kuala Lumpur. It likely also touched down on water in one piece and became submerged with a limited debris field. I'm thinking that they'll find it by Friday, submerged in the Straight of Malacca, in mostly one piece.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    28. Re:Thoughts by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Malaysia military reported a radar response for the plane off the west coast of Malaysia over the Straight of Malacca.

      What I suspect is they had a depressurization requiring descent to 10,000ft that dropped them off radar. Then they banked to port, turned off their transponder, flew over Thailand (made easier to not having a transponder on) to reach the Straight of Malacca in order to attempt to return to Kuala Lumpur. Why they didn't turn the transponder back on would be a good question but I bet they landed in water in one piece and was submerged.

      Given that Thailand and Malaysia have had some soured relations recently....

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    29. Re: Thoughts by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Plausible deniability. Civilian planes violating airspace can cause incidents.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    30. Re:Thoughts by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Depressurization would require a descent that could drag the plane below altitude to be detected by radar. The more I look at the situation the more I believe that's what happened combined with the radio silence and IFF transponder being turned off because they were about to violate Thay airspace.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    31. Re:Thoughts by _merlin · · Score: 1

      That still makes no sense. Entering Thai airspace wouldn't be considered a violation for a civilian airliner in distress. Civilian airliners don't have "IFF transponders" either, just the usual aviation transponder. If they suffered loss of pressurisation and were still conscious enough to bring the plane down, the first thing to do would be activate emergency locator beacons, followed by distress call, letting ATC know what you're doing on the usual channel, and making sure your transponder is active.

    32. Re: Thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose in times of conflict the transponders can be "uninstalled" instead.

    33. Re: Thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, the off switch of the transponder is used for covering your careless ass.

      I suppose that's a more noble purpose than making a plane trackable at all times.

    34. Re:Thoughts by iRaze.Raze.Raze · · Score: 1

      The airliners didn`t receive any Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) messages. So ,as you said ,there is a high possibility that ALL power had had lost. Thanks for the insight and lets hope they return safe.

  4. Up to 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Notorious number usually signifying a feel good answer without counting.

  5. Auto-play video on linked article by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's an auto-playing video embedded in the linked article's page - just in case you hate that sort of thing.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Auto-play video on linked article by NapalmV · · Score: 1

      Tools -> Add-ons -> Plugins -> Shockwave flash -> Ask to Activate. Those pesky little things won't ever again auto-play.

    2. Re:Auto-play video on linked article by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Helps to do that for MP4, as well.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    3. Re:Auto-play video on linked article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not an option for me, you insensitive non-Internet-Explorer-using clod!

    4. Re:Auto-play video on linked article by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      There is?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:Auto-play video on linked article by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Well, I just have "Always" and "Never", but no "Ask" :-(

      Of course, your answer seems to assume everyone uses your particular browser. Perhaps you were unaware that there are others out there even if you have never used them?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    6. Re:Auto-play video on linked article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awesome, thanks.

      I can't think of my password for some reason so AC it is!

    7. Re:Auto-play video on linked article by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Good ol' farcebook is ensuring we have the ability to block just about everything in our browsers because they are so damn insidious.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    8. Re:Auto-play video on linked article by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 0

      Yes, there is, your smug sense of self-superiority in having disabled the same notwithstanding.

      "Having Flash disabled," much like "knowing what RMS stands for," are not actually mandatory for being allowed to read Slashdot.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    9. Re:Auto-play video on linked article by antdude · · Score: 1

      Thanks God for my Flash blocker. :)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    10. Re:Auto-play video on linked article by quenda · · Score: 1

      "Having Flash disabled," much like "knowing what RMS stands for," are not actually mandatory for being allowed to read Slashdot.

      That's fine, but unfortunately they are not necessary for posting either.

    11. Re:Auto-play video on linked article by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      stick with Lynx.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  6. They were already deployed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you have misunderstood what the word "deploy" means.

    1. Re:They were already deployed by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Deploy: to remove the ploy from something.
      "Hey, I got too much ploy, who wants to deploy me?"

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  7. Deploys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm pretty sure the satellites were already in orbit.

    1. Re:Deploys? by Quila · · Score: 1

      Once a spy satellite is in orbit, you deploy it for specific tasks. Once a ship is deployed for the Arabian Gulf, it can be deployed to the Indian Ocean without having to first return to port.

    2. Re:Deploys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incorrect. It was initially deployed, it was then redeployed. Quit making shit up.

    3. Re:Deploys? by Quila · · Score: 0

      Deploy: to arrange in a position of readiness, or to move strategically or appropriately

      The start position or status is irrelevant. Either is appropriate in this case.

    4. Re:Deploys? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Yes, but each requires filling out entirely different forms. In triplicate.

      Oh, sorry. I thought these were Indian satellites we were talking about.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  8. Win-win for China by Gothmolly · · Score: 0

    1) China has successfully tested the ability of their stealth interceptor to take down a plane.
    2) China demonstrates near-instantaneous ICBM launch capability.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  9. They'll never find the island it landed on. by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 0

    Unless it happens to flash into this time period. All the passengers are there now, running from polar bears, avoiding smoke monsters - that sort of thing.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:They'll never find the island it landed on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they're lucky they actually died, instead of having to sit through another five seasons of that

    2. Re:They'll never find the island it landed on. by styrotech · · Score: 2

      Time periods? Polar Bears? Smoke Monsters?

      I disagree. The plane is hidden on a deserted volcanic island that's part of the Lesser Sunda Islands in Indonesia.

      The planes occupants (including Mik Kanrokitoff) are currently aboard a flying saucer. Most will reappear in due course suffering from amnesia.

    3. Re:They'll never find the island it landed on. by pradeepsekar · · Score: 1

      The is flight 370 - not 714... :-)

      My best guesses are
      a) The pilot flew the plane at a very low altitude to a deserted island, where there is no mobile signal. Why? We will find out...
      b) The pilot dropped the plane intact into the sea (and hence no debris). Why? No one knows...

      I think we will find out in the next few days...

    4. Re:They'll never find the island it landed on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there are any survivors, I hope they don't starve to death or die from their injury while waiting for rescue.

  10. what about Ben Charles Padilla by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    have they found him or the Boeing 727-223 that he was last on and has not be found.

  11. Why aren't big planes PERMANENTLY monitored? by cpotoso · · Score: 1

    I am not talking RADAR, but rather satellite-linked transponders relaying (at least) once per minute the plane "vitals" (coordinates, velocity, altitude, attitude, cabin pressure and temperature, fuel levels, any error codes or warnings). I mean, this may not be cheap, but it is meaningless cost-wise compared to the operational cost of a plane.

    1. Re:Why aren't big planes PERMANENTLY monitored? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they can have in flight phones, there's no reason not to have this.

    2. Re:Why aren't big planes PERMANENTLY monitored? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Getting the equipment up into orbit is expensive. The next generation Iridium satellites will have ADS-B receivers on them. These satellites will start launching next year, according to http://www.aireon.com/AboutAireon/AnIridiumInnovation.

    3. Re:Why aren't big planes PERMANENTLY monitored? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Because the pilot needs the means to be able to shut off power to any system for safety.

    4. Re:Why aren't big planes PERMANENTLY monitored? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I believe most US airliners do just this. I imagine most EU ones do as well. That is, at least for position - the amount of telemetry might vary based on mode of communications. It might not be as frequent as once a minute, however.

    5. Re:Why aren't big planes PERMANENTLY monitored? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why aren't big planes PERMANENTLY monitored?

      Cost. Sat-comm is not cheap and airlines won't pay that money unless forced.

      Power/weight - means less fuel efficiency and even more costs for the airlines.

      So it's not a "meaningless" cost. When you have a plane traveling hundreds of thousands of miles per year, even a fraction of a cent per mile adds up really quickly.

    6. Re:Why aren't big planes PERMANENTLY monitored? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because NSA prefer to monitor small guys like us :(

  12. Plane is Burma. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The plane was hijacked by the pilots and flewn to burma under the radar and is being parted out.

  13. Distress Beacon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So it disappeared from Radar ! So we thing the plane is "lost".

    Planes have a distress locator beacon that goes off when it detects that something is not right. They are shielded (against explosion/water etc) and have their own independent power supply. Satellites tend to be able to pick these up.

    So what do we not know where the beacon is....because it's not transmitting, or at a depth that can not be detected (think plane crash off Brazil a few years back).

    Perhaps the plane turned of its transponder, and dropped below radar and has landed someplace. Given the interesting passenger manifest issues there is likely more to this then a plane crashing.

    Tin hats please...

  14. International Charter on Space and Major Disasters by kencf0618 · · Score: 1

    It hasn't been activated for Malaysia Airlines Flight 307, nor was it activated for Air France Flight 447 in 2009 --one would think that they'd be all over this sort of thing like a cheap suit. Does anyone know why not? A computer search for a debris field that wasn't there during the previous pass would seem like a no-brainer.

    http://www.disasterscharter.or...

  15. Re:International Charter on Space and Major Disast by MildlyTangy · · Score: 1

    It hasn't been activated for Malaysia Airlines Flight 307, nor was it activated for Air France Flight 447 in 2009 --one would think that they'd be all over this sort of thing like a cheap suit. Does anyone know why not? A computer search for a debris field that wasn't there during the previous pass would seem like a no-brainer.

    http://www.disasterscharter.or...

    One plane going down is a tragedy.
    100 planes all going down at once is a major disaster.

  16. As opposed to by nedlohs · · Score: 1

    their non-orbiting satellites?

    1. Re:As opposed to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Source?

  17. Re:International Charter on Space and Major Disast by Kalriath · · Score: 1

    Simple. This doesn't meet the criteria required to activate a giant global collaboration of space agencies. There needs to be more than 200 people lost to invoke the charter.

    --
    For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  18. Terrorist Attack by Badblackdog · · Score: 1

    Muslim terrorists using stolen passports smuggled a bomb on the plane. The tickets were purchased with cash by an Iranian for the users of the stolen passports. Smells fishy.

    1. Re:Terrorist Attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Source ?

    2. Re:Terrorist Attack by rapiddescent · · Score: 1

      or... a young Iranian guy wants to see his mum in germany and seeks diplomatic asylum.

    3. Re:Terrorist Attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      being a crackpot loony

  19. this is not possible by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    This is absolutely mind-boggling. I'm fairly certain that the US knows were every plane in the air is at any given millisecond. It is IMPOSSIBLE to simply lose a gigantic plane. What the hell does Asia do differently?

    1. Re:this is not possible by quenda · · Score: 2

      The planes are not tracked by simple radar, but by responses. If it stops responding, and is not close to an airport, it is lost.
      It will be found, but the sea is big, and they did not have the courtesy to plummet from the last known location.

    2. Re:this is not possible by MtlDty · · Score: 1

      I was watching the Discovery channel documentary on the 9/11 attacks the other night, and as soon as the hijackers turned off the transponders those planes effectively disappeared. The only way to track them would be with ground based radar. (And I don't think we have too many of those in the ocean).

  20. Problem is there was no distressing call ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rulebook is try to land on water intact.

    That plane, at last tracked, by radar, had achieved the altitude of 35,000 ft.

    The time it takes the plane to plunge down 35,000 ft (let's say it nosedived) still will take couple of minutes - enough time for the pilot (and/or the first officer) to issue at least one distress call.

    But there was no distress call, no nothing. The plane just vanished, just like that.

    But I shouldn't be surprised either. Both the pilot and the first officers were Malays and both of them were graduates of that infamous diploma mill - MARA college, of Malaysia.

    The Malays are "famous" of being negligent in their line of duty - and it shouldn't be a surprise to anybody if it turns out that when that plane started to drop out from the sky, there was no one inside the cockpit as both would have gone out for a "coffee break".

    Ask anyone in Malaysia and they can tell you about the "work ethics" of the Malays.

  21. They do have radar installation near crash site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given the description of the plane's flight path, if it was being tracked by radar from Kuala Lumpur, then "dropped off the radar" would have been closer to 10km altitude than to 5km.

    The KL radar station can not track the plane flying on the South China Sea.

    Looking at the map of the Peninsular Malaya, KL is at the West side of a mountain range, and the plane was flying on the airspace on the South China Sea, which is on right side of the same mountain range.

    Assuming the plane has crashed, and has crashed into the South China Sea on the east coast of Peninsular Malaya, they do have other radar stations - based in Kuantan.

    In fact, in Kuantan they have several radar stations. Some civilians (for aviation, for example), some military, as they have an air force base there as well.

  22. A lot of effort is being expended... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To find this plane.
    China has sent at least 4 navy ships (is the Chinese navy showing off or just to show that "this is their area" and that they can do whatever the US can do?)
    China is deploying satellites.
    The USA has deployed two destroyers with helicopters to the search
    Australia has offered up two P-3C Orions.
    Seems a bit disproportionate.

    1. Re:A lot of effort is being expended... by Archtech · · Score: 1

      Anyone happen to hear of any Aegis ships in the vicinity at the time?

      Just asking.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  23. WiFi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, did this plane have in-flight WiF - if so, when did it go offline, and also why weren't there any tweets from passengers?

    If there was working WiFi, we can probably assume the passengers became suddenly incapacitated. Even a catastrophic decompression would get a "Whoa, my seat totally got blown out of the plane. LOL. OMFG!" before going out of range.

  24. Re:You have neglected a small detail ... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Ignore the gods, ignore the cultures; consider their screaming cries, on the wrong frequency.

  25. Re:International Charter on Space and Major Disast by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

    You don't need global collaboration. There are privately owned imaging satellites with enough resolution 1m to detect anomalous debris floating around.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  26. Where is the US effort? by kyoko21 · · Score: 1

    So the US isn't repositioning its satellites? It seems to me that China these days are doing the things that America used to at the drop of a hat without a whim...

    1. Re:Where is the US effort? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And especially in Asia!
      China is trying to show that it can fulfil the role of the USA in Asia and that the USA is not needed there.

      The conclusion of that is that Asia would look to China as the "regional COP" rather than the USA and that then China would get what it wants ... for example those islands that Japan also wants ... without any competition.

    2. Re:Where is the US effort? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      So the US isn't repositioning its satellites? It seems to me that China these days are doing the things that America used to at the drop of a hat without a whim...

      Who said they aren't? I can't remember the last time the US announced the use of satellite surveillance for just about anything.

      Seems like more of a PR move. I'm sure just about anybody with spy satellites is using them to look for debris. What else are they going to be busy looking at when they're over this region?

    3. Re:Where is the US effort? by coofercat · · Score: 1

      Of course they are - the US satellites watch the Chinese ones and the NSA just tap the Chinese ground link to get the pictures ;-)

  27. Re:You have neglected a small detail ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    The pilot that you're talking about was an awesome guy that frequently posted on flight sim forums, posted youtube videos about how to save you money on your air conditioner and had a daughter, a family. He was a better human being then you'll ever be.

  28. Why then the crews never made any distress call? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A loss of hydraulic pressure or power does not do this for a 777. It has a RAT (ram air turbine) which pops out in such cases. Basically a big propeller which gets turned by the wind as the plane glides at 500 mph and generates enough power rudimentary electronics (including radio) and hydraulic pressure. That's what happened with the Gimli Glider - a 767 mistakenly loaded with insufficient fuel (the original boneheaded imperial vs metric conversion foul-up before the Mars Climate Orbiter). which basically turned into a 100 ton glider when it ran out of fuel mid-flight. The RAT popped out and allowed the crew to control the plane to a safe landing. (Which of course means if this did happen on MH370, the search area needs to be much larger than where they're currently looking).

    IF what happened to the Gimli Glider happened to the MH370 flight, the crews ought to have plenty of time to make the distress call.

    Why then there was no distress call from that plane?

    Could it be that when emergency strike the crews panicked and started praying on their knees to their Allah and forgot to call for help ??

  29. Does that make any fucking sense ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... posted youtube videos about how to save you money on your air conditioner ...

    Save money on air conditioner ?

    WTF ??

    Want to save REAL MONEY ? Forget that fucking air conditioner and take in REAL AIR, instead.

    Yep, that pilot is awesome, alright, and he makes as much sense as any of his *MALAY* "super human".

  30. EPIRB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is EPIRB unreasonable to have in an airplane? Possibly in the black box and triggered at a certain shock level.

  31. statistically unjustified opinion by Martin+S. · · Score: 1

    The vast majority of passports are stolen for mundane criminal purposes not terrorism.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/v...

  32. Better Question: Why Did It Take the PRC this Long by Koreantoast · · Score: 1

    Yes, just in case you haven't been following all the coverage from the last three or four days, the United States has been providing a large amount of satellite data, even leveraging their missile launch detection system to search for possible explosions. The more interesting question is why it took the Chinese this long to provide satellite imagery to search for a plane full of primarily their own citizenry in its own region.

  33. Re:Why then the crews never made any distress call by bobbied · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Could it be that when emergency strike the crews panicked and started praying on their knees to their Allah and forgot to call for help ??

    No. As my flight instructor told me, fly the plane first and if you have time, talk on the radio. If they where busy with multiple system failures the first task is to get control of the aircraft. If you don't have the aircraft under control, talking on the radio is the absolute WRONG thing to be doing unless there is time. ATC is required to ask you all sorts of useless questions and if you are struggling to control your aircraft the last thing you want or need is another distraction. "Nature of your emergency?" "Number of souls on board?" "What are your intentions?" Now if they can help you by suggesting the nearest airport, clearing the runway, getting the fire trucks rolling or getting search and rescue started by all means, get on the radio, but the first thing you do is FLY THE AIRPLANE.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  34. MH370 missing like Mandrake Magic by anddroidtg · · Score: 1

    Much more data being hidden by the govs. It's unlikely by govs to declare publicly the source of data if they reveal it as of now!! All these so called high level officials are just waiting to get a breakthough from the publically known sources!!!............. funny they won,t care for a bird or humans all the same

  35. Re:Better Question: Why Did It Take the PRC this L by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their officials only start working when the angry relatives of the missing passengers start to throw things at them :(

  36. Re:International Charter on Space and Major Disast by Kalriath · · Score: 1

    Except that the comment I replied to was specifically in the context of "Why hasn't the Disasters Charter been activated to find this plane?" and the answer is, "because this isn't a disaster of great enough magnitude".

    Though we're now learning that more than a couple of spy agencies are turning their surveillance resources onto the task (finally! The NSA might be good for something!)

    --
    For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  37. We can find this puppy by RileyDeWiley · · Score: 1

    X-posted on Wired.com and elsewhere. -- Hey, I think we can solve this thing. Start with this model of what went wrong: After the plane got to cruising speed and altitude, some malfunction (in the altimeter, or autopilot, or gyro) caused it to enter a very shallow dive - like about 1/20 a degree shy of perfect horizontal flight. Flying over the ocean on a moonless night would not have offered anyone on the plane any information about altitude, so if the instruments were lying, the flight crew would not have known. The transponder is squawking ident and position but not altitude. After a while, the antenna receiving transponder squawks (back in Malaysia) goes under the horizon (from the plane's perspective), so at this point, the transponder squawks stop. Everybody is saying it was "switched off". It wasn't, it was too low to be heard in Malaysia. This happens at about the point that they would hand the plane off to Vietnam, which has not picked up any squawks or transmissions, perhaps for the same reason. In any case, the Vietnamese ATC folks are not yet tracking the plane. Nobody on or off the plane knows it, but the plane is flying too low, say ~15000 feet instead of 35000. The plane continues several hundred kilometers past the point of last contact and pancakes, either into the ocean south of Vietnam, or in the swampy southern reaches of Vietnam itself. At the moment of the crash, nobody on board suspects any trouble. The plane is not found because it is a long way from the point of last contact, and the searchers (who in that area are Vietnamese) overlook the debris .. or whatever. It's a big globe, after all. The plane would have skipped across the ocean at 700 nautical miles per hour, so who knows what was left of it? Anyway, this boils down to a math problem. The location and height of the transponder tower should be find-able. The presumptive cruise altitude of the plane is known(call it cA = 35000), and we will assume that at the point it entered cruising altitude(call it pC, point Cruise), was correct. The location of the plane at the point when the transponder went dark is known (incidentally, the plane went dark "too soon" for a plane at 35000 - which fits) (call this point pD, for Darkness). Location and height of the tower are known(tL and tH). Use tH, cA, pC, pD and Earth's curvature to solve for the rate of descent (rD). Use pC and rD and azimuth to solve point X. Done. Anyone want to take a stab at it? If this is still around in the morning I might try myself. Been years since I took any math classes though ... RDeW PS. If the plane hit water at a shallow angle at 700 knots, it would shred. Fuel tanks, which trap air and float, would be confetti in Davey Jones' locker. Seat back cushions would be torn to bits by all that metal. There would be nothing big enough for a searcher to see from the air, far less from space.