Slashdot Mirror


Malaysian Flight Disappearance 'Deliberate'

An anonymous reader writes "Malaysia's Prime Minister announced at a press conference that Flight 370, which disappeared a week ago, was diverted as a result of 'deliberate action.' The investigation has now focused in two ways: first, they're looking more closely at the passengers and crew, and second, they've narrowed the search for the plane down to two corridors. One stretches from Kazakhstan to northern Thailand, and the other goes from Indonesia to the southern Indian Ocean. 'That conclusion was based on a final signal from the plane picked up on satellite at 8:11 a.m. on March 8, nearly seven hours after ground control lost contact with the jet, he said.'

The Prime Minister said the plane's communications system and the transponder system were both disabled early on during the flight. The time of the plane's final satellite contact would have put its fuel reserves very low. 'Police on Saturday morning drove into the residential compound where the missing plane's pilot lives in Kuala Lumpur, according a guard and several local reporters who were barred from entering the complex. ... Experts have previously said that whoever disabled the plane's communication systems and then flew the jet must have had a high degree of technical knowledge and flying experience. One possibility they have raised was that one of the pilots wanted to commit suicide."

436 comments

  1. Placing a bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whether this article or the previous one on religion will receive more comments. Probably the religion one but this will give it a run for the money. Guessing 300 comments

    1. Re:Placing a bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it'll be this one. We shall see...

    2. Re:Placing a bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh yeah? I am willing to bet that I will not never ever make a bet in my life.

    3. Re:Placing a bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Apparently you aren't too familiar with the war between the science fanbois and the religious nutters.

    4. Re:Placing a bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if religion is good for your brain, and some muslim criminal masterminds cooked up a plan to hijack this plane, fill it with sarin, and crash it into downtown Beijing, I'd say those were some pretty smart muslims to pull something like this off. This is something straight out of a plot of a movie. If we manage to foil it, there will be a blockbuster movie about it that makes Captain Phillips look like a home movie.

    5. Re:Placing a bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I'm very familiar with that, I just think this story is more "novel" right now because it combines technical curiosity with the "topical" issues of terrorism and geopolitics. The "Religion vs. Science" debate is old hat on /. but the disappearance of an airliner into thin air is practically unheard of. And the circumstances of this incident are fertile soil for speculation.

      This story is already within 15 comments of surpassing the other one, despite starting out with a deficit of several dozen. If that rate keeps up, this story will "win" in the long run.

      [taiwanjohn: posting as A/C to preserve mods]

    6. Re:Placing a bet by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      How's this for a religious headline:

      In other news, another muslim uses a plane to commit suicide.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    7. Re: Placing a bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what I'm getting is that they were abducted by aliens.

    8. Re: Placing a bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they were any aliens accepted by religion we could tie the two threads together.

    9. Re: Placing a bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree

  2. Suicide By Jet Plane by rmdingler · · Score: 2
    It's happened before.

    It sure must take a selfish fuck, but they're out there.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Suicide By Jet Plane by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Every act of suicide is an act of selfishness.

      However, many supposed 'suicides' especially by younger people, are actually just acts of auto-erotic asphyxiation gone wrong. Which are also, very much, acts of selfishness.

      That's right: Little Johnny didn't mean to kill himself. But the family wants it to read as a suicide in the public record.

    2. Re:Suicide By Jet Plane by king+neckbeard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would disagree on that matter. For starters, a suicide might be to provide insurance money for one's family (a la Death of a Salesman), or to protect a state secret ( a la every spy-related work with a poison pill or similar device). More realistically, though, someone may be in a great deal of suffering due to an inoperable condition, and one's loved ones would likely feel better knowing that the one they care about isn't suffering anymore.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    3. Re:Suicide By Jet Plane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you want to commit suicide, why not ditch the plane straight down? Why would you plot a course somewhere into the middle of the Indian Ocean?

      If you didn't want it to look like suicide, why not ditch into rural China? There has to be some way a professional pilot could make it look more accidental.

      What if you're suicidal but still want to troll the entire world?

    4. Re: Suicide By Jet Plane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of this has happened before.
      And it will all happen again.

      http://youtu.be/c5obUPl8frk

    5. Re:Suicide By Jet Plane by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      many supposed 'suicides' especially by younger people, are actually just acts of auto-erotic asphyxiation gone wrong.

      A junior high school classmate of mine managed to off himself that way. He did it outdoors, in some woods, and was found first by children so there was a crowd, including reporters, by the time the police got there. Nobody said anything about "suicide" -- the cops put on a show of hunting for a "crazed sex fiend" until it faded out of the papers.

    6. Re:Suicide By Jet Plane by rasmusbr · · Score: 1

      Well, a person who takes hundreds of people with them in their suicide probably has things going on in their heads that we'd find difficult to understand. Suicidal people sometimes commit suicide in ways that are planned and designed to look like accidents.

      Of course we don't know that it was suicide. It could just have been an unusually unreasonable highjacker who didn't understand that the 777-200 had shorter range than for example Wikipedia lists because it wasn't fully fueled for the relatively short flight to Beijing.

    7. Re:Suicide By Jet Plane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you turn off the transponders, then you probably don't want the remains of the plane or the people to be found. A couple of hours in the air makes the search area too big to find anything. The Indian Ocean is also much deeper than the sea where the plane was originally thought to have gone down. If they don't find the plane, there may never be conclusive proof that it was a suicide or not.

    8. Re:Suicide By Jet Plane by Wycliffe · · Score: 2

      No only that but if you are suffering with an inoperable condition chances are that they'll have to morn your passing
      very soon anyways so it seems less selfish to say goodbye to everyone and save them the extra months of suffering.

    9. Re:Suicide By Jet Plane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most suicides in America are by gun not by hanging.

    10. Re:Suicide By Jet Plane by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 4, Informative

      Of course we don't know that it was suicide. It could just have been an unusually unreasonable highjacker who didn't understand that the 777-200 had shorter range than for example Wikipedia lists because it wasn't fully fueled for the relatively short flight to Beijing.

      That's what I was thinking too. This happened to an Ethiopian Airlines flight that was hijacked back in 1996. The hijackers ignored the captains warning that his aircraft's fuel load was insufficient to get them to Australia where the hijackers wanted to go and eventually he was forced to ditch the aircraft in the sea off the Comoros Islands, due to fuel starvation. He would have probably stood a good chance of pulling off a near textbook belly-landing if one of the hijackers hadn't started wrestling with him for the controls seconds before the aircraft touched down on the water which caused one of the engines to touch the water too soon so the machine broke up. Some 125 out of 175 passengers and crew were killed but more would have died if the co-pilot hadn't kept the hijackers off the captains back for most of the landing. It was a pretty impressive feat of airmanship considering the circumstances.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    11. Re:Suicide By Jet Plane by king+neckbeard · · Score: 5, Funny

      And you end up with a population that's better at auto-erotic asphyxiation.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    12. Re:Suicide By Jet Plane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Clearly it was stolen by North Korea.

      Kim Jong Un was disappointed when he realized the US wouldn't sell him his own Air Force One.
      As such, he did what comes naturally to a despot.

    13. Re:Suicide By Jet Plane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you end up with a population that's better at auto-erotic asphyxiation.

      My kingdom for a mod point! Seriously, people focus too much on the "idiots die, and their genes with them" part of natural selection and not enough on "populations can become more effective idiots". That last part may not have been what Darwin had in mind, but browse Fark.com for Dumbass and Florida tags, and you'll definitely see the trend.

    14. Re: Suicide By Jet Plane by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Suicide is the wrong word. Did you ever see the media call Columbine a suicide? Why are they overlooking the other 238 people that the pilot would have taken down with him if this scenario is the correct one? If the plane was deliberately crashed it was a mass murder, not a suicide.

    15. Re:Suicide By Jet Plane by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      whaa? I don't know anybody who has ever tried that. it sounds crazy.

    16. Re:Suicide By Jet Plane by aevan · · Score: 2

      The pilot seems to think they were suicidal by the way they were talking; they weren't ignorant there wasn't sufficient fuel for the flight.

    17. Re:Suicide By Jet Plane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    18. Re: Suicide By Jet Plane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Likewise, the selfish Islamists looking for their quota of virgins through martyrdom can be called homicide bombers.

    19. Re:Suicide By Jet Plane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of making it look like an accident, what if you only wanted it to look like you were dead? Suddenly lost contact with flight over the ocean? Plane must have 'sploded.

      So many good (and fictional) uses for this. Insurance money, getting out of literal any situation/contract, covert entry into another part of the world, etc.

    20. Re:Suicide By Jet Plane by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      David Carradine as well.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      But I think it is unlikely that the pilots were using kinky bondage to pleasure themselves at 30,000 feet.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    21. Re:Suicide By Jet Plane by Solandri · · Score: 1

      If you want to commit suicide, why not ditch the plane straight down? Why would you plot a course somewhere into the middle of the Indian Ocean?

      Note: I'm extremely skeptical of the suicide theory. If you want to kill yourself, you just go and do it. You don't kill a planeload of passengers with you unless you've got a serious axe to grind. But since we're discussing what ifs...

      What if you're Muslim, and your religion frowns upon suicide? Pointing the plane straight down is kinda like active suicide. Flying a plane into the middle of the ocean until it runs out of fuel, leaving you no way to save it (and yourself) is more like passive suicide. Same difference between putting a gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger, vs. swallowing a hundred sleeping pills. Same end result, except you are not in direct control of what actually kills you in the latter.

      Another angle I haven't seen (haven't seen it much since the 1980s in fact) is the insurance scam. You're in dire financial straits (credit card bills, gambling losses, whatever). You can't see a way out of it but you don't want that burden to fall upon your family. You take out a life insurance policy which would pay for all your debts and then some. Then you kill yourself in a way that seems like an accident. Or in the case of an airliner since they have black boxes, kill yourself in a way that those black boxes will never be found.

    22. Re: Suicide By Jet Plane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The parent poster got a crucial detail wrong: The hijackers killed the first officer almost immediately and thus the pilot tried to convey to the passengers over the PA system that they should do something. A war reporter / cameraman got the hint but failed to convince other passengers to help him fight the hijackers. Consequently the captain flew until the plane was completely out of fuel at which point he then ditched it as good as he could - with one of the hijackers simultaneously fighting with him for the controls. Under those circumstances, any landing from which at least some passengers could walk...uh. swim away from was a feat!

    23. Re:Suicide By Jet Plane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm wondering why they think suicide by jet plane ahead of stealing a plane that costs over $200m when new. Pilots get paid relatively little compared to the value of the machine they operate.

    24. Re:Suicide By Jet Plane by flyingsquid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      BULLSHIT. I don't care how much fucking pain you're in. You want to end your own life? Fine, go right ahead. I believe everyone has the right, and God knows I understand the appeal. I've been there. It's not so much the pain, which is bearable, as the lack of joy or any pleasure in your work, your friends, or your family, and the prospect that it will never end. In that situation, suicide becomes a rational decision.

      But even when things were at their darkest, I never lost sight of one fact: the fact that killing myself was in the end a purely selfish act, and one that would cause a tremendous amount of pain and suffering and trauma. For my friends and my family when they found out, for the people who would find my body hanging by a rope, for the people who would have to go through my things and figure out what to do with them... it was the quickest and easiest way to relieve the suffering, but I never thought for a moment that there would be anything remotely noble about going through with it.

      But if killing yourself is selfish, how much more selfish is it to kill 233 other people- the people who put themselves in your care, in your trust? That's not selfish, that's outright malicious. There is something deeply fucked up, purely malicious, and wholly evil about someone who, in the process of killing themselves, takes other people with them. It's one thing if your life is so fucked up you just want out. But just because you're miserable, what the hell gives you the right to deny other people their happiness? The poor bastards from Iran who just wanted to have opportunities abroad that they didn't have at home, and used those stolen passports... if this was a pilot suicide, no matter how much pain he's in, what gives him the right to deny them their dreams, to take them from their friends and family? If this is in fact a pilot suicide, then I hope there's a Hell, and I hope it's got all nine levels like in Dante, because this guy should straight to the lowest fucking level, the level for people who commit treachery, and there's no amount of suffering that would be too much for a crime like that.

    25. Re: Suicide By Jet Plane by flyingsquid · · Score: 1

      Agreed. If this is in fact a pilot suicide, then it's also a homicide of over 200 people. That's no better- in fact, far worse- than a suicide bomber who kills dozens of unarmed men, women and children by blowing up an explosive vest in a crowded market.

    26. Re:Suicide By Jet Plane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You still have to do something with the 227 passengers and 11 additional crew...that complicates things. Short of killing the other pilot and exiting the plane by parachute, you'd have a difficult time getting rid of all those people so they can't rat you out.

    27. Re: Suicide By Jet Plane by TheSeatOfMyPants · · Score: 1

      For the past several years, most suicide bombers have been involuntary, as the terrorism org ran low on angry young men and switched over to strapping bombs to people that couldn't fight back or fully understand due to psychiatric illness, cognitive disability, or youth. The ones that do it voluntarily are typically angry young adults that see themselves as having no future and relatively easily convinced that they'd be respected &revered as a hero for their sacrifice -- the same sort of patriotic bullshit that was common in the US up through the Vietnam War, as songs like I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixin-To-Die-Rag parodied.

      --
      Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
    28. Re:Suicide By Jet Plane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to commit suicide, why not ditch the plane straight down? Why would you plot a course somewhere into the middle of the Indian Ocean?

      If you didn't want it to look like suicide, why not ditch into rural China? There has to be some way a professional pilot could make it look more accidental.

      Why ditch it in the Indian Ocean? Without a coronial inquest which determines the fated flight was a suicide attempt by either/or pilots, their families are entitled to full payments under death by misadventure.

      Pull the flight recorders, pull the data recorders and there is a much stronger chance of determining pilot suicide and nullifying payouts

      Its taken over a week and nothing is really known, ditching the plane somewhere in the vastness of the Indian Ocean protects the families of pilot suicide, something that has been discussed ad nausea before.

    29. Re: Suicide By Jet Plane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Every act of suicide is an act of selfishness."

      Correction. Every act is an act of selfishness, period. And that is true for every single living organism. Every single thing you do, ever, is for your own benefit. Every single decision you ever make in your entire life is to further your own goals.

    30. Re:Suicide By Jet Plane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sure must take a selfish fuck, but they're out there.

      They are indeed.

    31. Re:Suicide By Jet Plane by Tijaska · · Score: 1

      How come the transponders have an off switch?

    32. Re: Suicide By Jet Plane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yikes. Take a breather.

    33. Re: Suicide By Jet Plane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because sometimes they need to turned off.

    34. Re: Suicide By Jet Plane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you expand on the circumstances when this is necessary? And how the plane is tracked afterwards?

      And perhaps why the transponder doesn't have a triple backup like criticality one spacecraft systems?

    35. Re:Suicide By Jet Plane by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      And just where exactly would you take this $200m plane to sell it? I don't think it will fit in your booth at the flee market.

    36. Re:Suicide By Jet Plane by Occams · · Score: 1

      I think it was probably Somali pirates. Airliners are inevitable part of their business development plan. I am not kidding. It explains why there have been no claims by terrorists. They probably unintentionally lost it in the ocean because flying, navigating, and landing an airliner is a tad more difficult than taking a ship home in familiar waters. Look for it in the Bay of Bengal en-route to Somalia.

      --
      Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
    37. Re:Suicide By Jet Plane by Xest · · Score: 1

      I've pondered this before when I've been stuck for an hour or more on a train on the way home because someone's selfishly decided to commit suicide by jumping in front of a train.

      I've never really understood it, I always saw suicide as an act of desperation, an act you would perform either to take your pain away or to stop yourself being a burden on the world if that's how you feel due to depression etc.

      But if someone is willing to kill others as part of their suicide, or even simply ruin the evening of hundreds of commuters and mentally scar a train driver and a number of police/ambulance workers for life with the vision of their obliterated corpse, I can't help but assume that sometimes when people commit suicide they also do so in a manner whereby they're actually seeking revenge on the world that they perhaps feel was so cruel to them?

      When people end their lives in such a disruptive and cruel manner it no longer seems to be a simple act of escape - I suspect there's much more to it for some people who do that.

      Or perhaps it's simply that we shouldn't expect all people with suicidal tendencies to necessarily think rationally - perhaps in their mind the harm to others isn't even something that ever enters their thought process?

  3. first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Boom.

  4. Three thoughts... by davidmcg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    1. Why are cockpit voices recorded only in the black box? If other data from a plane is constantly being sent for maintenance purposes, while in flight, why do planes not also not relay cockpit voices to some storage system, for just such a situation? CCTV keeps footage for a few hours or a few days, why is this kind of valuable data not also routinely stored? 2. I don't know how low you have to fly a plane to fly "under the radar" but isn't is possible that the pilot or a hijacker flew the plane below radar to somewhere where it is now on the ground? 3. One other possibility: the plane was shot down, and the country that did it, realizing the mistake, is participating in the search to cover up. Militaries have shot down civilian jets before. The Soviet Union and the USA have both done so.

    1. Re:Three thoughts... by alen · · Score: 1

      even the maintenance part is a separate paid service that the airline wasn't paying for. imagine how much the remote voice recording will cost

    2. Re:Three thoughts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure it would count as a mistake. If the hijacker(s) had turned off all the tracking devices, and were flying silent, there's a good chance that they were shot down by one of the countries they flew over. China, for example, might have shot down the plane for fear of terrorism. They might be covering up what they know to save face.

    3. Re: Three thoughts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China doesnt fear attacking terrorists.

    4. Re:Three thoughts... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      The maintenance data stream is also incredibly restricted by bandwidth, so a continuous audio stream at a fidelity which can cover voices in the cock pit *and* instrument activation noises (something people talking about CVR use often miss), you are talking about a data stream that often isn't viable.

    5. Re:Three thoughts... by Albanach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which is a fair point, but it could still broadcast it's GPS location and altitude every five minutes. If I rent a $20,000 dollar car from Hertz it lets them know where I am with their car. Why airlines let planes costing hundreds of millions fly around the globe absent similar technology is surely a little strange?

    6. Re: Three thoughts... by Mitsoid · · Score: 2

      It does...

      The problem is the range of the transponder broadcast is roughly 100 miles (1ghz frequency). When a plane goes off the coast, they quickly go out of range off any listening posts...

      The US and Europe are both working on a new system for taking over water... Using satellite support probably... But for now, after 100 miles out to sea, radar is the primary method of tracking

    7. Re:Three thoughts... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      The problem is that over large tracts of water, transmission range is a huge issue - turning back aircraft traveling toward the US over the Atlantic or Pacific oceans on 9/11 was very problematic because they were out of radio range and the long range communication system had no guarantees on ability.

    8. Re: Three thoughts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it difficult to believe that we have internet on airplanes, but streaming a couple kilobytes of vital data per second breaks the bank.

    9. Re:Three thoughts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >ut isn't is possible that the pilot or a hijacker flew the plane below radar to somewhere where it is now on the ground?

      Unlikely since a jet engine efficiency is significantly less at lower altitude. Also, the denser air at lower altitude impacts ranges.

      Using known flight data up to the point were the transponders where turn off, the range of the airplane can be calculated. This combined with the azimuth from the satellite and the location of suitable runways where a 777 can land should allow for the narrowing of the search areas.

    10. Re:Three thoughts... by Albanach · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Surely the transmission range to a satellite is the same when you're at 35,000 feet whether or not you're above water? REI will sell you a satellite beacon that can ping your coordinates as often as every 2.5 minutes and costs less than $100 with a $99 per year subscription fee for the Immersat service.

    11. Re:Three thoughts... by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

      1. Why are cockpit voices recorded only in the black box? If other data from a plane is constantly being sent for maintenance purposes, while in flight, why do planes not also not relay cockpit voices to some storage system, for just such a situation? CCTV keeps footage for a few hours or a few days, why is this kind of valuable data not also routinely stored?
       

      Streaming material from an aircraft to ground stations would only work reliably over a satellite link which I understand from talking to airline people is expensive but then nowadays they are offering internet on transatlantic flights so it can't be that expenisive. Things like installing CCTV are technically possible but for all manner of reasons including things like: safety assessments, corporate bureaucracy and the fact that aircraft can't be grounded long enough for equipment to be installed for profit reasons (down time, obscene prices of aircraft electronics and other spares) the upgrading of commercial airliners tends to move at a glacial pace. Just for example, there are variants of some Boeing airliner (777 iirc) flying around the world with a bug in their FANS equipment that causes a faulty log-off. This is not a critical issue but it is just bloody annoying for flight control staff around the world. This could be fixed with a simple software update but getting that patch certified, getting an airline bean counter to shell out the money and finally catching the aircraft on the ground long enough to have the patch installed takes a loooooooooooooooooooooooong time.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    12. Re:Three thoughts... by u38cg · · Score: 1

      1 - has been widely discussed in every possible forum for the last week. GIYF, but in short, conservatism, and difficult. 2 - Pretty low to get under defence radar, low enough to be seriously hazard for a plane that size. Made unlikely by 3 - if it was shot down, why did it first turn off systems and then do a 180 and recross Malaysia?

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    13. Re:Three thoughts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1.) Tradition.

      Did you know that the radio planes use to talk to each other and the tower can jam each other and both transmitting parties will think their signal made it. The tech to prevent this has been around since the 60s.

      2.) Not sure about the radar. This is the bit I find most interesting. My guess is someone picked it up (military or civilian) -- I suspect between Civilian, China, India, Taiwan, AU/NZ and the US, the area is pretty well covered and someone did pick it up . But, do they keep historical records and how much. Also, without the transponder, it would just be a blip. Radar picks up all sorts of things birds, weather, etc.....

      3.) I doubt this one. If it did happen, someones intelligence agency would pick up something. The US would love to rat out China or China to rat out India or (insert country ratting out country).

      Clearly Kim Jong Un stole a new Air Force One.

    14. Re:Three thoughts... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      1. Why are cockpit voices recorded only in the black box? If other data from a plane is constantly being sent for maintenance purposes, while in flight, why do planes not also not relay cockpit voices to some storage system, for just such a situation?

      First of all, maintenance data is an additional add-on not part of a normal plane. Second, the maintenance data is only sent when the plane detects a problem and relays it to the airline company. Third, this data is mostly text messages and does not require a lot of bandwidth. Voice or video streaming would require much more bandwidth.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    15. Re:Three thoughts... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      Problem with sat based transmissions is that they require decent weather, otherwise you are out of luck.

    16. Re:Three thoughts... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      It's a lot easier to get under-the-radar than you would imagine, any radar with sufficient resolution to track an individual aircraft is line of sight and the radar horizon isn't that far off. Even modern circuits only have so much sensitivity, transmitters only have so much emmited power so the inverse square law always kicks your ass and the only way around than is to use tighter beams. To get enough range, your pulse repetition rates low enough for the signal to travel to your desired max range and back. Now with a really tight high power beam and a low pulse rate, it's entirely possible for a plane to diaspear between pulses.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    17. Re:Three thoughts... by mikael · · Score: 1

      The cost of satellite communication. You basically still pay per kilobyte. Even a GPRS modem would charge you £10 for 500K. Then you are looking at few thousand pounds per minute of voice data.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    18. Re:Three thoughts... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      1. Why are cockpit voices recorded only in the black box?

      Heck, I don't get why they don't record more than 30min of audio. If they ever do recover the black boxes for this flight there is a good chance the voice recorder won't contain anything at all. Pilots object to being recorded as it basically would mean that their employers could subject everything they do to scrutiny (no water cooler talk, etc). I'm all for making the recordings illegal to access except in the event of an accident, but they really should cover the entire flight.

      I don't know how low you have to fly a plane to fly "under the radar" but isn't is possible that the pilot or a hijacker flew the plane below radar to somewhere where it is now on the ground?

      Depends on where you're going. At sea you can fly at any altitude and be out of radar coverage. Most first-world nations have fairly robust radar coverage of their coastlines for national defense - you're not really going to fly an airliner under that. Poor nations probably have enough coverage to make flying an airliner in difficult. A fighter jet with terrain-following autopilot and radar warning sensors could do it easily enough, but not a 777.

    19. Re:Three thoughts... by sjames · · Score: 1

      I suspect one day all commercial craft will have that telemetry. For now, there's only a limited number of planes (growing fast) fitted with internet connectivity. Once that is nearly ubiquitous, someone will decide to use that connection to send a few packets every 5 minutes. Then that will spread to the rest of the fleet and problem solved. That second step will probably be delayed for fear that some bureaucrat will decide that that makes the internet connection a critical system and ups the ante on it's maintenance and reliability.

    20. Re: Three thoughts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so fast, Who says radar works that far out, Remember, since the end of the cold war, we have dropped much of our coverage of radar depending on the acfts transponder to tell us who you are, and why you are there. Even the air force uses transponders, to interrogate FF signatures.

    21. Re:Three thoughts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have something called "Shortwave Radio" since 1910 and you would know if your brain cells were not wasted on the likes of Node.js. Or equivalent crapola.

    22. Re: Three thoughts... by khallow · · Score: 1

      I gather China doesn't care what it does as long as it doesn't become embarrassingly public.

    23. Re:Three thoughts... by Albanach · · Score: 1

      At 35,000 feet on a jumbo jet, you're usually above the bad weather. If bad weather does appear, most pilots will fly around it.

    24. Re:Three thoughts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cruising altitude (the only place you'd be out of reach of the control tower infrastructure) is well above most weather. Have you never flown in an airplane?

    25. Re: Three thoughts... by flyingsquid · · Score: 1

      It's not unreasonable to say that they should be able to track the plane using satellite. There are a lot of media reports to the effect that it's not quite as easy as Find My iPhone but the technology is there. In fact it should be far easier to locate a plane than an iPhone, because unlike an iPhone, a 777 is a very large piece of equipment with plenty of power, so it's trivial to install satellite communications. So sure, it's true ACARS won't do it, but that's because ACARS is an obsolete system.

      For $150 and a $100 annual fee you can get a portable satellite beacon that broadcasts the position of your trek or your kayak trip every 5 minutes. It's bullshit to argue that it's difficult or expensive to do for an aircraft what you do for your kayak trip, and ridiculous that this isn't already required for every large commercial aircraft. And in fact there's a company- FLYHT Aerospace- that already delivers a system that does real-time black-box reporting via satellite networks. It costs around $100,000 to install during routine heavy maintenance, and it will automatically relay data on position, altitude, heading, fuel use, etc. every few minutes.

      If they had had this technology installed, not only would they know what happened to the plane, they would have known within minutes that the plane had changed course. They could have radioed the pilot, and if he didn't respond they could have scrambled interceptors, and if it still crashed, they could have put rescue helicopters in position to respond. Not having real-time reporting in place cost lives.

      (Disclaimer- I like to play the stock market, so I took a sizeable position in FLYHT).

    26. Re:Three thoughts... by flyingsquid · · Score: 1

      The system already exists; FLYHT Aerospace based out of Calgary sells it for around $100,000. There's been a push for this kind of technology following the loss of Air France 447, when it took almost two years to recover the black boxes and figure out what happened. Warren Buffett's Netjets started installing this technology in 2012 but the larger carriers have been slow to adopt. Presumably after this latest disaster, it will become standard- either the big companies will realize the advantages of being able to track their planes, or governments will make this technology mandatory. It might not have been enough to avert the disaster, but it would have spared a week (or however long it ultimately takes) to find the plane and figure out what happened.

    27. Re:Three thoughts... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Getting stuff like that into aircraft is very expensive. It has to be ruggedized to work in a depressurised and very cold environment. An external antenna has to be added since the hull is a Faraday cage, and they are not cheap. Then it has to be tested and certified for use on aircraft.

      Even if you did all that it probably wouldn't have helped here because there would need to be an off switch. Aircraft turn off most of their transponders and maintenance broadcasts when they are on the ground to avoid swamping the airport in transmissions. It seems like someone deliberately turned off the systems that this aircraft did have.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    28. Re:Three thoughts... by cmurf · · Score: 1

      1. Even on the day of this flight, 99.999989% of flights would not have benefited from such a system. It's a total edge case and simply not worth building infrastructure for.
      2. Perhaps a couple hundred feet above ground, at most. That's not easy to do at 500+mph. If the plane is being taken to a populated area, it will be seen/heard as this level of flight is very unusual. If the plane isn't taken to a populated area, does it have radar at all? Also turbine engines use significantly more fuel at low altitudes, the range would be maybe a quarter it would be at normal cruise altitude.
      3. Blame Canada.

    29. Re:Three thoughts... by schnell · · Score: 2

      REI will sell you a satellite beacon that can ping your coordinates as often as every 2.5 minutes and costs less than $100 with a $99 per year subscription fee for the Immersat service.

      You're referring to the GlobalStar SPOT satellite beacon system (not Inmarsat). It's a neat idea but using this as an example falls victim to the same fallacies as 99% of the other speculation about this topic on Slashdot: people try to transpose their experiences with bandwidth availability on land to over the ocean... which is to say that bandwidth is just so much more rare and expensive there that most people can't imagine how it is.

      It is a truism that telecom providers build their bandwidth where the users are. Have you ever noticed how much worse your bandwidth costs/options are in East Dead Cow Skull Texas vs. Austin? Well, take that and extrapolate it to an area of the world where there is literally no land for hundreds or thousands of miles to hang infrastructure on, and the ONLY users to ever pass through are a few dozen ships or aircraft per day.

      To take your example, GlobalStar SPOT only works within the range of a SPOT Hub because their satellites can't connect sat-to-sat (which is ridiculously more expensive to build). So over the ocean would not work. (A poster above wondered why their $30/day Hertz rent-a-car could be tracked but a $200M airplane couldn't ... for the same reason, because the Hertz car can use cell phone towers.) If the plane was over the continental US then tracking would be no problem but in "the space in between" ... not so much.)

      Long story short, even satellite services (like GlobalStar, Hughes, ViaSat and others) focus their capacity on where the users are. The mid-Oceanic spans and areas like the Arctic, Antarctic and Indian Oceans face the worst and most expensive bandwidth crunch on the planet for the simple reason that almost any investment in serving those areas will be a failure because there just aren't enough vehicles/people there to hang up $250M+ satellites to provide connectivity... and if you do (as Inmarsat and others have), you will find that cheapskate airlines will refuse to pay the requisite costs because, honestly, how often does a plane go down in these areas?

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    30. Re: Three thoughts... by Albanach · · Score: 1

      Okay, so the $100 begin doesn't work. REI have a $300 one that uses iridium with global coverage pour to pole. $50 per month for ten minute location updates.

      Even considering the lie data capacity of iridium, I think it could handle ten minute location updates from the few thousand jets in the air at any one time.

    31. Re: Three thoughts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Internet on planes is provided by cell towers. There are no cell towers in the ocean.

    32. Re: Three thoughts... by Occams · · Score: 1

      NORAD relies on secondary radar for tracking intruders into US air space.

      --
      Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
    33. Re:Three thoughts... by Cramer · · Score: 1

      Fighter's have radar jamming and other "stealth" technology making them very hard to track. And if you really think someone cannot fly a plane into or out of US airspace without a dozen systems watching them, you are a paranoid freak. This sort of crap happens all the time -- smugglers and drug runners do it often enough. ('tho no one is doing it with a 777 :-))

    34. Re:Three thoughts... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Fighter's have radar jamming and other "stealth" technology making them very hard to track.

      US air defenses are designed to defeat Soviet bombers. They don't use "stealth" technology. The US may very well have radar capable of tracking stealthy targets, but if so it is unlikely to make the press. Not sure how this is relevant though.

      The question was whether an airliner could fly under radar coverage. Generally speaking, it probably can't.

      And if you really think someone cannot fly a plane into or out of US airspace without a dozen systems watching them, you are a paranoid freak. This sort of crap happens all the time -- smugglers and drug runners do it often enough. ('tho no one is doing it with a 777 :-))

      I doubt much drug smuggling uses aircraft - at least not ones who aren't on flight plans. Sure, somebody might smuggle something past customs in their airplane that is otherwise operating legally (secret compartments and such). Aircraft simply flying over the border are easy to follow all the way to their destination.

  5. does it add up? by nblender · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Lets say you were a pilot with intent to commit suicide (and take everyone with you; ignoring the sociopathy involved in that)... Why go through the effort of 'hiding' the plane? Turning off the transponder and comms, changing altitude and direction, and flying for a few more hours? The plane was already over the ocean, easy to dive it straight down. Less than a minute and it's done.

    My intuition says that someone wanted a 777 and wanted to hide it.

    1. Re:does it add up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the behavior of the aircraft is very strange if the theory is to be pilot suicide. Why continue to fly for many hours? Why climb to 45000 first? But we've seen a long history of political whitewashing of events around airline crashes, starting with TWA-800 where the official stories were not credible, and did not match evidence and eyewitness accounts.

      It remains to be seen whether the official story in this case will be credible.

    2. Re:does it add up? by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      My intuition says that someone wanted a 777 and wanted to hide it.

      Had to hide the theft to get it.

      But is stealing a plane full of people the easiest way to get a jet?

      It seems like you're asking for an order of magnitude more search and rescue operation versus an empty plane. It seems likely someone wanted the jetload of civilians if taking the plane was the mission.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    3. Re:does it add up? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Landing a 777 takes a significant airstrip. Really significant. Once there, it's not simply a taxi to some secluded spot. If your scenario is true, the plane should be visible by satellite.

    4. Re:does it add up? by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

      Maybe if there was some insurance trickery going on? Say someone on the plane took out a huge life insurance and then hijacked the plane - there won't be any payout if it's a suicide. However if the plane is never found, then no-one can prove it was a suicide or foul play...

    5. Re:does it add up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are overlooking the obvious. A super villian in an enormous, jet powered zeppilin. It is just a matter of time before someone pops up in a video on youtube asking for one million dollars in ransom.

    6. Re:does it add up? by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      I mostly agree with you - I also feel there was some ulterior motive (hijacking / ransom / obtaining the hardware, etc). However, there are still very likely suicide scenarios that could explain the evidence.

      Why do people stand on the edge of a bridge and contemplate for hours before killing themselves? Why do people do "suicide by cop"? Because not many people have the nerve to actively cause their own death. The pilot(s) could have disabled tracking and just kind of flown around for a while (upping the ante and the stakes - trying to get beyond some point-of-no-return), and passively commit suicide by simply sitting back and waiting for the plane to run out of fuel and thus crash. The reason they would have turned off the tracking devices is to prevent intervention of some kind (scrambling military jets to see why the plane was off course and not communicating, etc).

      Then there is also the suicide martyr religious fanatic type situation, where the intention was to not just kill themselves, but take something else out in the process. Does anyone know if Israel was within range of the jet, or if the course deviation took it in that direction?

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    7. Re:does it add up? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      A jetload of citizens seems to be without a great deal of utility. I would think there are significantly less conspicuous means of getting equal amounts of people. I would speculate that, if the passngers were the intended targets, that it was only a few of them that were important to whatever organization staged this operation.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    8. Re:does it add up? by Tom · · Score: 1

      Why go through the effort of 'hiding' the plane?

      So they don't shoot you down. If you wanted to commit suicide in this matter, you probably don't want just the plane, you want to fly it into something (9/11 probably gave you the idea).

      So no, it doesn't add up - unless some nation shot it down and doesn't want to admit it. But that's as much speculation as anything else.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    9. Re:does it add up? by Guy+From+V · · Score: 1

      Getting the craft into the air to any destination whatsoever that seems out of the ordinary would be the single most difficult part of this theoretical heist to pull off, so the people on board would be a contingency to have to deal with just to be able to get the plane.

    10. Re:does it add up? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      But is stealing a plane full of people the easiest way to get a jet?

      Well, assume the pilots were willing to take orders; The job is then easier than going to flight school and it involves less people than hiring a pilot. If you also want the people it's safer than conducting two separate jobs.

      If the pilots have the expectation of being ransomed instead of flown into a building they might well cooperate in the hopes of preserving their own lives as well as the lives of the passengers. Once someone has broken into the cockpit it's easy enough to crash the plane and kill everyone on board without any special knowledge, so there's every reason to suspect that the pilots would cooperate in that scenario.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:does it add up? by sshir · · Score: 1

      Are you sure about this? I mean, if you're not planning for subsequent take-off then your runway may be much - much shorter. Remember, a few months ago, Boeing transport landed in a wrong airport.

    12. Re:does it add up? by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      To answer my own questions, Flight 370 was a Boeing 777-200ER. See the "ER"? That means Extended Range. It has a range of 7,700 nautical miles (compared to the non-ER version with a range of 5,235 miles). The distance from Kuala Lumpur, where the flight originated, to Jerusalem (simply chosen as a place in Israel) is 4,729 miles - well within Flight 370's range of 7,700 miles. Note that the plane first flow north for a while before changing direction, so the overall flight would have been longer than 4,729 miles, which would have put it out of the range of a regular (non-ER) 777. Interesting that the plane that just happened to disappear was an Extended Range version (or are they simply more common? I don't know).

      Also, the final northwest heading was towards the middle east, which aimed it squarely at a number of political / religious hotspots (Israel, Pakistan, Kashmir area, etc) where there are ongoing suicide attacks taking place on a daily basis (Pakistan at the moment). As for the plane actually reaching Israel, that's pretty much impossible. It would have had to have flown over Saudi Arabia / Iran to get there, and surely the unidentified plane would have been intercepted by one of those two countries. Then of course the Israelis would have shot it down for certain had it actually made it close to their border.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    13. Re:does it add up? by rasmusbr · · Score: 1

      Landing a 777 takes a significant airstrip. Really significant. Once there, it's not simply a taxi to some secluded spot. If your scenario is true, the plane should be visible by satellite.

      Well, maybe the highjacker thought that the plane had longer range than it actually had. In that scenario we're looking at painstakingly scanning the ocean with sonar to find the wreckage.

    14. Re:does it add up? by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 1

      The 777 is capable of landing on water. Theoretically you could just land it on the ocean at some pre-determined coordinates, disembark everyone on it, and sink it / tow it (an airplane floats when it's pressurized)

      Why you would want to do that is beyond me though. You certainly can't get it up in the air once you landed it, so someone REALLY wanted what was in the plane (people / cargo).

      Not like a plane has never carried $50 million in diamonds as cargo before http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

    15. Re:does it add up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Landing a 777 takes a significant airstrip. Really significant. Once there, it's not simply a taxi to some secluded spot. If your scenario is true, the plane should be visible by satellite.

      Well, maybe the highjacker thought that the plane had longer range than it actually had. In that scenario we're looking at painstakingly scanning the ocean with sonar to find the wreckage.

      Never going to happen. We don't even have accurate charts for the depth of most of the ocean -- it's just extrapolated from gravity measurements from satellites.

    16. Re:does it add up? by rasmusbr · · Score: 2

      But the plane would only have had enough fuel to fly to Beijing (plus some additional safety margin).

      One possibility is that a highjacker made the same mistake that you did and ran out of fuel over the ocean.

    17. Re:does it add up? by rasmusbr · · Score: 1

      Landing a 777 takes a significant airstrip. Really significant. Once there, it's not simply a taxi to some secluded spot. If your scenario is true, the plane should be visible by satellite.

      Well, maybe the highjacker thought that the plane had longer range than it actually had. In that scenario we're looking at painstakingly scanning the ocean with sonar to find the wreckage.

      Never going to happen. We don't even have accurate charts for the depth of most of the ocean -- it's just extrapolated from gravity measurements from satellites.

      The petroleum industry has some pretty awesome equipment that they use to look for oil and gas. They also maps of much of the sea floor that are way beyond anything that's publicly available. You can certainly find the wreckage given enough time and funding, especially if you can narrow the search area down based on the known facts of the disappearance and create a probability distribution across that search area so that you can search the most probable areas first.

    18. Re:does it add up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My intuition says that someone wanted a 777 and wanted to hide it.

      Kind of like stealing a car, I'm sure it's a hell of a lot easier when the occupants aren't still inside.

    19. Re:does it add up? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Awesome yes. Science fiction awesome no.
      Someone in my workplace found a previously unknown undersea volcano under a well charted shipping channel from some seismic data. Aircraft wreckage without a tight area to search in - now that's a lot smaller and a lot harder to find.

    20. Re:does it add up? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      don't need a runway at all, just plough down a field or dig a huge trench in a beach (or near a beach, for that matter)

      I amused people think a plane needs to have a nice landing. chuck yeager didn't think so, "a good landing is one you can walk away from"

    21. Re:does it add up? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      you can get aviation fuel most anywhere, and just use kerosene if you don't care much about long term

    22. Re:does it add up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "pressurized"? I'd assume that if it's in the water... it would be at sea level, you know, with 14 PSI of air all around.

    23. Re:does it add up? by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Quite a bit further, actually. See here.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    24. Re:does it add up? by rasmusbr · · Score: 1

      you can get aviation fuel most anywhere, and just use kerosene if you don't care much about long term

      But you first have to land somewhere. My point is that if you think you have longer range than you actually have you're prone to end up running out of fuel before you reach your intended destination. No big deal if you're in a car. Very, very bad if you're in a plane over the ocean.

    25. Re:does it add up? by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 2

      The cabin is "pressurized" in the sense that they have 1 ATM of pressure inside it and the pressure inside the cabin won't change even if they go to 40,000 ft -- where the air is so rarified you would pass out without a mask (or die of frostbite, not sure which would happen first).

      Because this is a sealed system it's basically a big balloon. So long as you don't disarm the doors and deflate the balloon, the plane will float. And the plane is designed to have the doors opened and still float for long enough for everyone to disembark

      That's why during the "miracle on the hudson" the plane didn't just go down to the bottom and drown everyone aboard.

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

    26. Re:does it add up? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Retraction, it doesn't require as much as I believed.

    27. Re:does it add up? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Landing a 777 takes a significant airstrip. Really significant. Once there, it's not simply a taxi to some secluded spot. If your scenario is true, the plane should be visible by satellite.

      or a dry lake bed. I suspect there are a lot of those in asia, especially in those muslim countries that most of us have barely ever heard of and exist in a state of near anarchy.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    28. Re:does it add up? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      If an insurance policy didn't pay for suicide, it's unlikely it would pay for acts of war or terrorism either, if you sue for non-payment then you as assume a burden of proof.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    29. Re:does it add up? by mikael · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Climb to 45000 feet, depressurize the plane, kill off the passengers, land the plane somewhere, and you've got a nice delivery vehicle for something explosive.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    30. Re:does it add up? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      That is assuming that would be a goal. But if a country wanted to send spy planes to an area to spy on it without causing an uproar, this would be the perfect opportunity to do so.

      However, assuming the plane itself was the intended goal, it wouldn't be that hard to get it into the air and to a destination. Few civil radar installations can actually tell the difference between the types of planes so simply filing an flight plan under a large private jet, tuning the transponders to represent that private plane, and then entering some air space following the plan would be pretty easy. A radar worker will all the sudden see the plane, look at it's transponder signal, find that there is a flight plan, ignore it.

      As for the people on board, simply tell them bad weather or a volcanic eruption caused them to divert to another location, land and kill them all after they exit the craft. If it is a remote island, even if they run, there is little to worry about the likelihood of a Hollywood hero being in the mix that can Die Hard their way to foiling the plot is minimal.

    31. Re:does it add up? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I saw on CNN that the plane had a number of lithium battery in the cargo hold, it occured to me that if the batteries caught fire, they could have taken out a considerable amount of electrical/electronic cables and the crew were trying to flight back to Kuala Lumpur, by the seat of their pants without instruments or comms. Sure that's baseless conjecture, but so is everything else.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    32. Re:does it add up? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't they make some sort of distress call while the cockpit door is being smashed open? They could even do it silently with a transponder code.

    33. Re: does it add up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pressure doesn't affect buoyancy.

      You are conflating pressure (eg newtons per square metre) with density (eg kilograms per cubic metre).

      And even if the cabin atmosphere was made a perfect vacuum (zero pressure, zero density) the effect on the density of the overall aircraft, and therefore its buoyancy in water, would be negligible.

    34. Re:does it add up? by mschuyler · · Score: 1

      WHY do you have to climb to 45,000 feet to depressurize the cabin? a normal Flight Level of 35,000 feet doesn't have enough oxygen either. There's no need to climb if that's what you intend to do.

      Climbing costs fuel. Descending to 20,000 some odd feet ALSO requires fuel because it costs more fuel to fly at lower elevations. And tHAT lessens the range.

      --
      How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
    35. Re:does it add up? by flyingsquid · · Score: 2

      Lets say you were a pilot with intent to commit suicide (and take everyone with you; ignoring the sociopathy involved in that)... Why go through the effort of 'hiding' the plane? Turning off the transponder and comms, changing altitude and direction, and flying for a few more hours? The plane was already over the ocean, easy to dive it straight down. Less than a minute and it's done.

      My intuition says that someone wanted a 777 and wanted to hide it.

      So first, a potential argument against the suicide scenario is that it would be more rational to simply fly the plane straight down instead of flying on for 7 hours. Of course, if we are talking about a suicidal pilot, then we're talking about someone sadistic and deranged enough to kill 238 people. This is, by definition, not someone who is thinking in terms of what is the most rational response to a given situation, but a deeply fucked up individual. If they're sadistic enough to kill over 200 people and inflict untold suffering on their loved ones, maybe they're also sadistic enough to torment them for seven hours first. We're not talking about a simple suicide here, we're talking about a murder-suicide like Columbine or a suicide bomber.

      Second, if someone wanted to steal a 777 for a terrorist attack, then why haven't we seen the attack? If there's a terrorist plot like during 9/11, then it requires the element of surprise. The more time passes, the more time there is for people to unravel the plot and send in the Special Forces to take out the plotters.

      Third, if it's piracy, why haven't we seen the ransom? If you're a Somali pirate, then once you've got the ship safely in the harbor in Somalia, you send a message to the owners of the ship that you're open for negotiation. Also, if you want to do the piracy thing, you have to find somewhere sufficiently lawless that they won't arrest you when you land. Even a place like Kazakhstan isn't lawless enough; you don't just need a repressive dictatorship, you need a failed state level of anarchy, somewhere like Somalia or the border regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan. And as for selling the plane on the black market, you might be able to pinch and sell a few parts... but this is the most famous airplane in the world right now. there's no way in hell you could sell so much as a rivet if it had the serial number on it.

      Pilot suicide is, unfortunately, the simplest explanation that fits the facts. We've seen it before and it would fit what happened here. For the sakes of the crew and families, I desperately hope that's wrong, but it's been more than a week- if these people were alive, we'd probably have heard by now.

    36. Re:does it add up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The depressurization could have also happened first. If the pilots weren't able to get their oxygen masks on in time (or they malfunctioned), then it might explain why the pilot inexplicably turned the airplane and climbed to 45,000 feet. Something like what happened to Payne Stewart's LearJet.

    37. Re:does it add up? by tragedy · · Score: 1

      The cabin is "pressurized" in the sense that they have 1 ATM of pressure inside it and the pressure inside the cabin won't change even if they go to 40,000 ft

      Close. It's more like .75 to .85 ATM depending on the plane and leaning towards .75.

    38. Re:does it add up? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't they make some sort of distress call while the cockpit door is being smashed open? They could even do it silently with a transponder code.

      That assumes it wasn't opened very rapidly. If someone managed to get an appropriate tool on board, it might not have taken long. Or, it's possible that they were tricked into opening the door. Social engineering is still a great way to bypass security.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    39. Re:does it add up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it interesting that the U.S., U.K. and/or Australians haven't spoken up considering they have airbases ( presumably with radar ) nearby in the Indian Ocean. Namely the Cocos Islands and the Chagos Islands.

    40. Re:does it add up? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

      But why bother using up fuel saving the plane for later use when you can just fly into your target immediately? It's not that easy to land, refuel and take off in a plane that size unnoticed.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    41. Re:does it add up? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      I can think of a few reasons off the top of my head.

      First, Insurance doesn't pay out on suicide. So, once you're gone, your wife and children won't have anyone to take care of. If the plane is not found, that makes it easier to collect on insurance.

      Second, suicide is, in some cultures, a shameful act. Even more-so if you're taking a bunch of people with you. Do you really want to put your surviving relatives through that shame? So I'd want to crash the plane somewhere where it wouldn't be found.

      Third, of course, is doubt. People will stand on a ledge for hours contemplating suicide. By pointing the plane in an unknown direction and letting it fly off into nowhere, I give myself an opportunity to decide if I really want to do this.

    42. Re:does it add up? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Maybe not the easiest, but it's relatively inexpensive.

      Pay off the pilot. Have him fly the plane to wherever. Execute the passengers when you land. Heck, if you want to make it interesting, drown a bunch of the passengers and dump them in the ocean someplace. "We've found bodies from Flight 370!"

      Presto! You now have an airplane.

      The problem with buying an airplane is that there are usually records which will be traced back.

    43. Re:does it add up? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      What are the people going to do? Break into the cockpit? They can't--we added locks on the doors and such because of the terrorists.

      Besides, how would the people know? Don't get me wrong--they'd figure it out eventually like several hours into the flight when they weren't over the airport they were going to land at.

      If you were taking a flight to Hawaii, would you even bother looking out the window? Even if you did, would it be obvious to you that you were off course--enough that you were raise an alarm to a flight attendant? And that the Flight Attendant wouldn't come back with some appropriate double-talk?

    44. Re:does it add up? by cmurf · · Score: 1

      Why specifically a 777? There's a large population of cheap DC-10's for sale. That's a lot less suspicious for Phase I of a two or more phase attack plan than stealing a 777.

    45. Re: does it add up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "First, Insurance doesn't pay out on suicide. "

      Well you're wrong about that, and I should know, for various reasons. Most insurance policies do have a period of time from when the policy is written before they pay on suicide, like a year or two, to eliminate the financial incentive of a hasty suicide. But the blanket statement, that they do not, is just wrong...

    46. Re:does it add up? by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      They would have to prove it was terrorism, which if the pilot is good they may not be able to do 100%, for an unsuccessful attempt at insurance fraud via crashing a plane see Fedex Flight 705

    47. Re:does it add up? by cmurf · · Score: 1

      Getting rid of the evidence that it was a suicide? To do that, you need some erratic flight movements to suggest discoordination/struggle for control, while the flight data record has well over 10 hours of record time the cockpit voice recorder is less than 2 so you need to fly at least two hours after any event/conversation that would hint at the true nature of events in order to overwrite the CVR. And then the flight ends up in the middle of the ocean, ensuring a long search, possibly a search that we give up on, at such depths that any physical evidence is long gone. This is also almost indistinguishable from a non-nefarious but idiosyncratic explanation, that one or both pilots had become pathologically bored flying ordinary easy flights while only being able to simulate what they were really interested in: being heros. They come up with an emergency scenario that would actually test their capabilities. And they failed. This isn't unheard of. Flight instructors regularly simulate emergencies for student pilots, and while rare they do sometimes go too far, or don't recover properly or soon enough and an actual accident ensues.

    48. Re:does it add up? by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1

      Easy way to subdue a plane-load of passengers - strap on oxygen and depressurize the aircraft, then climb it to 45,000 ft (as MH 370 has been reported to have reached that altitude) and then fly at high altitude for several hours. Depressurization requires just a few switch throws on a 777. If that doesn't out and out kill the passengers it would certainly take the fight out of them, assuming that they even realized that they are being hijacked. It was early morning, so maybe everybody just drifted off to sleep after take-off without thinking much of it...No one awake to answer their cell phones either.

      Look up Helios Airways Flight 522. This was an accident where cabin pressurization was accidentally disabled by switching pressurization to manual during at leak test on the ground. As they climbed to altitude the cabin pressure decreased with altitude.
      They flew for hours on autopilot before running out of fuel and crashing into a mountain.

      It is possible that the cabin pressurization on MH370 could have been disabled on the ground, but the ensuing alarms would have meant that at least one of the cockpit crew was in on a hijacking. If someone was smart enough about 777 systems to shut off the several transponders, some below deck, depressurizing the aircraft would have been trivial to accomplish.

      --

      Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

      Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    49. Re:does it add up? by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      But why bother using up fuel saving the plane for later use when you can just fly into your target immediately? It's not that easy to land, refuel and take off in a plane that size unnoticed.

      You're assuming the desired target is within range...

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    50. Re:does it add up? by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      If all you wanted was a plane, there would be a lot easier ways to steal one than taking one with 239 people on board that you'd need to "disappear".

      If you wanted a plane full of hostages (and it wouldn't be the first time), it doesn't make sense that the group responsible hasn't made themselves known. What's the point in taking hostages if nobody knows your demands? The same can be said of any "terrorism" arguments- what's the point if nobody knows who was responsible and why?

      My pet theory (based on nothing more than speculation), is that it was a hostage taking gone wrong. Someone tried to take the plane and fly it somewhere safe before making their announcement and demands. However something goes wrong (not enough fuel to get to safe haven, perhaps) and the plane crashes. The group responsible are now laying low as there's nothing to gain from coming forward, and they're now responsible for 239 deaths.

    51. Re:does it add up? by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      . If someone was smart enough about 777 systems to shut off the several transponders, some below deck, depressurizing the aircraft would have been trivial to accomplish.

      I know someone smart enough about 777 systems...

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    52. Re:does it add up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > you can just fly into your target immediately?

      Because the target is too far away to get to without refueling? Because the explosives (or whatever) you want to put on the plane are sitting at some remote airport waiting for you?

    53. Re:does it add up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've watched quite a few Air Crash Investigation episodes, and as I understand it, an ocean ditching is quite high risk for a large passenger jet due to the large swells it can encounter.

    54. Re:does it add up? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      maybe the plane did land somewhere, not a stretch to hypothesize pilot outwitted scanty patchwork radar coverage of region

    55. Re:does it add up? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      and by "pilot" I mean some pilot, not saying it was the authorized ones

  6. Ter'rists... or ALIEMS? by pla · · Score: 3, Funny

    Damnit Scully, we had it this time! We had it, had them, and those bastards took it away from us!

    They landed on any of a hundred small island airstrips with the full knowledge of the Malay government, and by now that alien's body has made it back to the Pentagon and out of our reach.

  7. It's pretty obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Terrorists took it. They landed it somewhere they could temporarily store it to refuel, repaint and arm it with whatever weapon they plan on using.

    1. Re:It's pretty obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What country are you from so that we can know which terrorists you are talking about.

    2. Re:It's pretty obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      judging by the likelihood of the premise, I bet on Never Never land

  8. Tracking by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It slightly blows my mind that companies (airlines) would buy a piece of hardware that costs hundreds of millions of dollars, which is incredibly mobile and used to travel thousands of miles at a time, with a huge amount of liability (billions potentially), and not include any kind of built in, always-on, hard-wired tracking device. Especially in this day and age. We're just talking about pinging tiny little packets of positional data every few minutes.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Tracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      not include any kind of built in, always-on, hard-wired tracking device

      They experimented with hard-wired positional tracking, but the cables became very long.

    2. Re:Tracking by thoth · · Score: 1

      include any kind of built in, always-on, hard-wired tracking device

      How would you guarantee such a tracking device resists all possible sabotage efforts?

    3. Re:Tracking by chalkyj · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure you need to guarantee it resists all possible sabotage efforts. It just needs to not have an "off" button in the cockpit and be located in an inaccessible area of the aircraft. I assume the answer to this question is simply that the planes involved are probably fairly old, and that new planes do indeed have features like this. If I can buy a car with that sort of feature for anti-theft I'm sure putting it on a plane can't be terribly difficult.

    4. Re:Tracking by tshawkins · · Score: 1

      Put it in end of the wing, try getting at that when the plane is in flight. Self contained, self powered tracker. Run for 7 days on an external charge. No connection to internal systems or power supplies.

    5. Re:Tracking by Schrambo · · Score: 1

      I'm only new to the technology but I do believe ADS-B is the new fangled thing that promises to solve all of the plane tracking problems.

    6. Re:Tracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We already can't guarantee the airplane will never crash either so what's your point?

    7. Re:Tracking by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

      Communication is much easier for a car - you can use the cellular network. Not so much for a plane, where you need to use satellite comms.

    8. Re:Tracking by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      include any kind of built in, always-on, hard-wired tracking device

      How would you guarantee such a tracking device resists all possible sabotage efforts?

      Put it on the outside of the plane.

    9. Re:Tracking by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      How would you guarantee such a tracking device resists all possible sabotage efforts?

      There is no "guarantee" against "all possible efforts" for anything ever, so that is a ridiculous requirement. But you could make it reasonably impervious to sabotage by placing it somewhere inaccessible from inside the plane, and difficult to reach even from outside. Such as the top of the tail fin.

    10. Re:Tracking by SJ2000 · · Score: 1

      Only if it's turned on.

    11. Re:Tracking by jones_supa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How would you guarantee such a tracking device resists all possible sabotage efforts?

      That kind of mindset seems to be common in Slashdot. "If something is not completely perfect, it's completely useless." Many times comes up in security-related articles.

    12. Re:Tracking by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      I would connect it to an internal power supply so that it can run without using the power, but have an independent backup power supply so it can run those 7 days in the event of even intentional sabotage.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    13. Re:Tracking by chalkyj · · Score: 1

      It's harder because putting satellites into space is harder than building cell towers but since both these things have already been done I'm not sure you're making a terribly relevant distinction. Modern aircraft have tracking systems that use satellite networks, the only real question is why is the pilot apparently able to disable it?

    14. Re:Tracking by Tom · · Score: 1

      How would you guarantee such a tracking device resists all possible sabotage efforts?

      Not all possible, but 99% of them: Make it inaccessible from the inside of the aircraft.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    15. Re:Tracking by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      It may be useful to have data capture from internal systems - things like engine temperatures, control positions, etc.

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    16. Re:Tracking by Albanach · · Score: 1

      But the price tags are also differet my several orders of magnitude.

      A GPS tracking device that broadcasts its location via satellite costs $100 plus a small monthly subscription. Obviously that isn't going to have cleared all the regulations for avionics, but it still shows the hardware cost is minimal and there's no need to rely upon cellular networks. Indeed the plane in question was already broadcasting hourly to the irridium network. So that bit of the hardware already exists.

    17. Re:Tracking by tshawkins · · Score: 1

      This is where it all starts getting too complicated again, there are already other systems that do that and they got disabled, when you start adding functionality and connectivity you add significant vulnerability. It should be a very simple standalone, inaccessible device, serving one simple task. Answering the question "where the fuck has my $123 MILLION plane got to".

    18. Re:Tracking by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

      That both things have been done does not mean they're equally easy / expensive. Flying to the moon is harder than walking to the store across the street - both are possible, both have been done, but the effort needed is not the same. In this case cellular modems are much simpler / cheaper than satellite modems, and the data charges are orders of magnitude different. And even then, satellite coverage isn't perfect everywhere. For some examples, take a look at the wikipage for mobile satellite internet:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
      Prices are in the ~5$/MB range, 9.6-60 kb/s bandwidth. There are other "non mobile" and cheaper solutions (which I believe are used for in-flight WiFi) which also provide better bandwidth, but they require a dish which tracks a geostationary satellite. It usually looks like a "hump" on the top of the plane, roughly above the from door of a 737 (at least this is how Norwegian Air Shuttle mounts them) - and I wouldn't want to rely on such a complicated system for emergency comms.

      Also, as far as I understand, most modern aircraft does NOT have satellite *tracking*, but some have ACARS installed, which basically sends automatic status messages back to the airlines maintenance crews (sometimes containing position fixes), and may also be used as a "email" system between the airline, plane, and air traffic control. The missing Malaysia airlines plane (after what I understand) DID have ACARS, but only the HF radio version of it, not satellite.

    19. Re:Tracking by thoth · · Score: 1

      If somebody is willing to ripoff a hundred million dollar plane, as the OP mentions, they are also willing to invest millions in stealing it.
      Your car with an anti-theft device isn't the same reward to effort that motivated people interested in stealing a 777 would be willing to put in.

      So the cost of bypassing the anti-theft device needs to be very large, or there isn't a point in having it.

    20. Re:Tracking by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

      Oh, and you may actually *want* the pilot to be able to disable such systems. As an example, what if it catches on fire?

    21. Re:Tracking by thoth · · Score: 1

      The point is somebody willing to ripoff a hundred million dollars is willing to invest several million doing it.
      If your anti-theft device can't resist millions of dollars of effort, then it is pointless.

      As for putting it outside the plane and whatever, the ring of thieves merely has to bribe an extra person or two in the maintenance hangar and air traffic control, to sign off on a non-functional device and then clear the plane for takeoff. Then the reasonably impervious device is bypassed altogether.

      Again, the asset being protected is worth hundreds of millions. It comes down to how much are you willing to spend to steal it? Google tells me the "list price" of a 777 is around $250 million. Could 5-10 key people splitting 25 million do it?

    22. Re:Tracking by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      Those systems are easy to disable, and difficult to retrieve (for example if you drop the black box into a deep part of the ocean). Where the plane went is useful. Why it went there stops other planes doing the same thing... Or hopefully anyway.

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    23. Re:Tracking by thoth · · Score: 1

      How would you guarantee such a tracking device resists all possible sabotage efforts?

      That kind of mindset seems to be common in Slashdot. "If something is not completely perfect, it's completely useless." Many times comes up in security-related articles.

      Like cryptography, it comes down to the value being protected versus the cost of protecting it. For a 777 worth a quarter of a billion dollars, a couple of transponders located wherever (outside, inside, in the tail fin, wing) would increment the cost of ripping the plane off just a little - mostly by including a few more people to bribe to ignore problems.

      What I'm saying is that given how expensive the asset is, what is the real added value of a few enhancements (all the suggestions boil down to more locator beacons)? I'd argue bypassing a handful of locator beacons would cost less than say $25 million in more bribes and so on, making a 777 theft still profitable.

    24. Re:Tracking by thoth · · Score: 0

      So you've added two or three more people to be bribed to ignore a faulty tracking device - 1 or 2 in maintenance, and someone in the control tower?
      A group bankrolling a $250 million theft attempt, this is small peanuts to work around.

      More info about what happened will help, but at the moment it appears adding a few more beacons on the aircraft would be an illusion of protection. Now if they were super cheap, sure do it. But for a $250 million profit I think you can bypass a hell of a lot of gizmos between training and bribes, if you were willing to invest say 10% of that.

    25. Re:Tracking by chalkyj · · Score: 1

      In what situation would pressing the "off" button on a GPS transmitter that is currently on fire achieve anything? I think in general, a GPS transmitter will do a pretty job of turning off all by itself when its components are on fire. The likelihood of an electrical signal to an electrical device that is currently on fire doing anything at all is very slim, including when that signal is "turn off".

      There are already plenty of components on an aircraft that cannot be turned off by the pilot while in flight. The black box being the blindingly obvious example. They have transmitters that the pilot cannot turn off too, which is where the information in the article comes from. I have read that Malaysian airlines weren't using the transmitter to transmit more detailed information simply because they had not paid the subscription to use this advanced tracking. It seems like it would be helpful if such tracking systems automatically monitored the location of aircraft even if they don't do advanced performance monitoring purely to assist with emergency search and rescue.

    26. Re:Tracking by thoth · · Score: 1

      Simple: is it possible to protect a $250 million dollar asset against, say 10% effort ($25 million) to steal it?
      $25 million pays for a lot of training, bypass devices, and bribes.

      If Slashdot let me edit posts I'd put that in my original: what is the break even point of added cost of incremental protection versus cost of theft? For a $250 million dollar asset, you need a system that at least resists $25 million of theft effort. Otherwise it is an illusion of protection.

    27. Re:Tracking by thoth · · Score: 1

      Put it on the outside of the plane.

      So now you just need to bribe a few extra people to clear a plane for flight with a non-functional tracking device installed by maintainence?

      Folks, we're talking about protection $250 million. If your simple suggestion won't resist $25 million of theft effort, it is worthless, as in it merely provides the illusion of protection.

    28. Re:Tracking by kyrsjo · · Score: 2

      You may want to be able to cut power to the device, not just "switch off" as send an electrical signal which basically means "please switch yourself off".

      Further, it is actually possible to disable the CVR and FDR ("the black box") - just trip the circuit breaker. There may be some battery backup, but this only lasts for ~10 minutes:
      http://books.google.fr/books?i...
      This happened on SilkAir flight 185, which probably was deliberately crashed by its captain:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

      Whether the transmitters which may or may not have been running on this flight where possible to switch off, I don't know - one possible location is actually inside the engine nacelle - so it may have been wired to be always on as long as the engine is running, shutting down when the engine control circuitry looses power. Or maybe the pilot just didn't know about them?

    29. Re:Tracking by dbIII · · Score: 1

      In which case your accomplice on the ground crew removes it or bends it a bit.
      We're not going to solve it here with obvious ideas with obvious countermeasures. Somewhere there has to be a person that is trusted and if that breaks down all bets are off.

    30. Re:Tracking by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      bullshit, most anything of value in this world could be destroyed on the cheap (less than 1% of value) by a band of suicidal thugs

    31. Re:Tracking by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      not hard to understand at all. such systems have been proposed, read about them. the satellites that will have to be launched, the gear that will be installed. billions of dollars and years of time (e.g. Next Gen)

      harsh reality and what people imagine about capabilities of technology are two very different things

    32. Re:Tracking by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      Sorry Thoth, as an answer to this and your other posts:
      How exactly should a bribed ground crew sabotage an external communication systems in a way that they still work before launch (otherwise the plane would not launch) but fail after take off? Regardless of your suspected 25 million dollar bribe.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    33. Re:Tracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just make sure it is in a random portion of the exterior hull of the plane on each plane, and relatively hard to spot from far away(disguised under panels/lights), and impossible to see from the inside, preferably in areas that one would not want to deliberately destroy(in or around the rudder, elevators, flaps, etc). Then disabling it while it flight would be orders of magnitude more difficult/stupid. (Maintenance could be done by people who are secured to know about the location...)

    34. Re:Tracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know what a transponder is?

    35. Re:Tracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that most examples we've seen of this historically, they don't seem to involve so many people, nor would they want to.
      I personally suggest having such a locator relatively randomly placed, to limit the ease by which a maintenance person could just swap it out, and have a computer constantly correlating reported position with known positions to red-flag any craft with such a device with a malfunctioning transmitter.
      Somebody with $25+ million dollars probably doesn't want *a plane* they want *that plane*. And the more people you catch on camera trying to find and replace the security devices the easier it would be to track down who ordered it. If it is just joe blow hijacker pilot, then he may just assume the risk of the transmitter for his purposes, or just not be able to finance the bribing of security cleared maintenance people and the planning ahead of time. Each device like this makes it incrementally harder for whomever to get away with the big heist.

    36. Re:Tracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called "binary thinking", and it's a sign of mental retardation.

    37. Re:Tracking by amxcoder · · Score: 0

      But at least you'd have a trail of people to talk to at that point...

      "Ok, the plane went missing, and the GPS locator thingy-majig wasn't operational."
      Step1: See who was on the maintenance crew and ground crew, and investigate them. Who had access to it since that last known good operation of that peice of equipment.
      Step2: It was cleared and signed off by ATC during the pre-flight check, well lets bring that operator in and investigate and find out why he signed off on it when it wasn't working.

      While maintenance crews could have access to it on the ground if you made only outside access possible. You can still put it in a spot that is not as common to get to, so if a rouge, paid-off insider on the crew had to remove a special hatch that only housed that equipment, and it was located away from other normal maintenance things, then at least someone else might wonder why "Jim" is using the person-lift to access an equipment panel that they're not scheduled to work on that day. Or they could review the CCTV footage from the maintenance hangar to see who did it, if nobody else noticed at the time.

      It's not fool proof, and can't prevent someone from bribing and tampering, but at least make it harder, and it also gives a chain of possible suspects to interview that aren't going to be "lost" with the plane when it disappears.

    38. Re:Tracking by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Just stick it on top of the fuselage. You can't get up there without a crane, and you certainly can't get up there during flight. Sure, anything can be welded on can be removed, but it isn't like terrorists are going to put a crew on a crane while the plane is boarding and not have anybody notice.

    39. Re:Tracking by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      So now you just need to bribe a few extra people to clear a plane for flight with a non-functional tracking device installed by maintainence?

      That isn't as easy as it sounds. Conspiracies never work when they involve many people - sooner or later somebody talks. If you want to bribe the maintenance crew you might have to involve several people, all of whom will be treated as suspects after you commit your crime. How are they going to explain a million bucks in their bank account? Also, the first thing they're going to suspect is that you're probably going to result in 200 people getting killed - how many people are willing to have that on their conscience for some cash?

      It would be like trying to bribe all the employees of a bank to just let you empty the vault. People can only be bribed if their perception of the harm inflicted is compatible with their moral values, and they feel like they're fairly likely to get away with it. Getting info via a bribe tends to be easier. Tampering with safety equipment on a plane is probably going to be rather difficult to pull off.

    40. Re:Tracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what that specific common mentality has to do with the conversation at hand.

      The solution in place was sabotaged and thus stopped working.
      The next person said they should make a solution not vulnerable to the specific problem of sabotage.
      The last person asked how one might go about making it not vulnerable to sabotage.

      You stating a solution doesn't need to be 100% effective against sabotage, seems to go directly against the question asked that was specifically replied to asking how to do exactly that.

      If one wanted to pay you to create a device that turns on a light when a switch is flicked, would you also tell them that "lights and anything light like" is not a requirement of that solution?

    41. Re:Tracking by amxcoder · · Score: 0

      This is like all the sci-fi movies that have billion dollar space ships, that are made with self destruct sequences.

      Or the evil genius that makes some incredible weapon that has a self-destruct switch on it can be blown to bits at the end of the show/movie.

      Putting manual "off" switches for the tracking locators on the plane is about as stupid IMHO.

      The scene in Spaceballs pops to mind, where they go into the room, and there is a sign that says "SELF DESTRUCT BUTTON...Do NOT Press...Unless you Really Really mean it!" I wonder if it says the same thing on the cockpits tracking switch?

    42. Re:Tracking by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      The solution in place was sabotaged and thus stopped working.

      That's not true at all. If you follow the thread back up, Dan East said this:

      It slightly blows my mind that companies (airlines) would buy a piece of hardware that costs hundreds of millions of dollars, which is incredibly mobile and used to travel thousands of miles at a time, with a huge amount of liability (billions potentially), and not include any kind of built in, always-on, hard-wired tracking device. Especially in this day and age. We're just talking about pinging tiny little packets of positional data every few minutes.

      Where do you see a mention there that "a solution in place was sabotaged"?

    43. Re:Tracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A tracking device would have limited usability. There are three ways a flight ends: a landing, a hole in the ground, or debris plus oil slick on the ocean. Unless a rash of in-flight aircraft thefts develops, a tracking device provides no additional information. Sure, locating the debris field quicker would be nice, but that doesn't bring the plane back. Hard to think of a scenario that keeps happening in the real world where a tracker would save the day.

    44. Re:Tracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very easy: Make it operate covertly. As in covertly-as-NSA.

      Covert freuqency, covert location in the ship, covertly powered, spread spectrum, low power, low bitrate, only the Security Department knows of the device.

      Does a German have to tell an American ?

    45. Re:Tracking by vux984 · · Score: 1

      It slightly blows my mind that companies (airlines) would buy a piece of hardware that costs hundreds of millions of dollars, which is incredibly mobile and used to travel thousands of miles at a time, with a huge amount of liability (billions potentially), and not include any kind of built in, always-on, hard-wired tracking device. Especially in this day and age. We're just talking about pinging tiny little packets of positional data every few minutes.

      And then a terrorist uses that simple, always on, pilot has zero control over, beacon system to start positioning drones in the flight path and we'll have bunch of people crawling out of the woodwork exclaiming...

      "It slightly blows my mind that companies (airlines) would install a cheap beacon that the pilot and crew had no control over that literally told every terrorist on the planet where the target was every few minutes...

      Just saying.

      This is reactionist knee-jerk thinking; plane crashes are rare, hijackings rarer still, hijackings where the plane is actually missing even rarer still... It doesn't blow my mind at all that this isn't "standard equipment".

      I also don't have gps transmitting devices on my kids in case they get lost, or kidnapped, or fall down a well either. Yet it would cost only pennies a day. Do you find that mind blowing too?

    46. Re:Tracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      given the size of a 777, a covert satellite txmitter is easy to do than anything covertly in a car. More difficult is defense against satnav jammers.
      Criminals could think of carrying a GPS and/or Glonass jammer with them.

    47. Re:Tracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put it on the horizontal stabilizer and make sure that part is only touched by Security Service Crew.

    48. Re:Tracking by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      The point is somebody willing to ripoff a hundred million dollars is willing to invest several million doing it.

      Not necessarily. There are plenty of very poor people that would be happy to steal a hundred million dollars. The 9/11 hijackers didn't spend millions. They bought 19 $5 boxcutters. They could have been defeated with a $50 lock on the cockpit door.

      If your anti-theft device can't resist millions of dollars of effort, then it is pointless.

      Nonsense. Just because something can potentially be defeated in one particular scenario, doesn't make it "pointless".

    49. Re:Tracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The key is to make device exist and operate covertly, as always in such matters.

    50. Re:Tracking by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      If somebody is willing to ripoff a hundred million dollar plane, as the OP mentions, they are also willing to invest millions in stealing it.

      I dunno, there isn't exactly a black market for stolen jumbo jets.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    51. Re:Tracking by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      Why not just have a separate transponder that is located say on the highest point of the aircraft with something analogous to a Faraday cage below it?

      Unless they're Tom Cruise with special scientology mind powers to do a mission impossible task, they aren't going to be able to do anything to disable it.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    52. Re:Tracking by Tom · · Score: 1

      So you've added two or three more people to be bribed to ignore a faulty tracking device - 1 or 2 in maintenance, and someone in the control tower?

      I said "99%". You came up with the other 1%. Congratulations, here's your cookie, now sod off.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    53. Re:Tracking by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "It just needs to not have an "off" button in the cockpit"

      Note that they find it reasonable that even the current transponder (and the its backup) have an off button in the cockpit.

    54. Re:Tracking by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "a non-functional tracking device"

      The thing about a tracking device is that you can track it.

      The thing about a tracking device at a known location is that you can test the tracking device against that known location.

      The thing about a tracking device with multiple receivers is that you can tell if it is lying to you.

    55. Re:Tracking by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Its not terribly more difficult for other then cars.

      A few years back, a friend's daughter was headed to South America for some missionary work and would be in some what we consider to be dangerous countries (lots of kidnappings, armed rebels or drug cartels and so on). We found UN approved asset tracking devices a little larger then a credit card but about 5 times as thick. Probably about the size of a small smart phone but before those became popular.

      A satellite can ping them, they ping back and a network of satellites coordinate its position. They have several methods of communications including cellular networks. Because it is normally passive, the battery life is on the order of 5 years unless it is transmitting a lot. It's designed to go onto heavy equipment, supply shipment containers and so on so they can be located around the world including in the cargo bay of cargo ships or the middle of a jungle or on a job site in the middle of a big city.

      The thought was that if something happened to her, we could get close to finding her location by locating her belongings and perhaps her too. Of course we would have needed to rely on the authorities to trust us on the claim of location which is why we specifically chose a UN approved device. Thankfully, it was just an unnecessary item she had to lug around as she was quite a bit safer then he initially thought but it put her father at ease.

      There are devices that could go years without power that could be used to locate just about anything. I guess the problem would be people knowing about it because if you know, you can disable or remove. So security by obscurity might be somewhat valid in a case or situation like this. But I would assume it can be done if the costs weren't prohibitive. I think the one my friend used set him back about 5 grand including the monitoring and all for the 9 months she was gone.

    56. Re:Tracking by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I don't think the pilot would turn off the GPS transmitter in case of fire, he would turn off the electrical circuit powering it. Of course that could be dealt with by a battery and a circuit inside the unit that isolates it from the electrical system if it is ever disabled for any reason. I believe that's how the automatic electrical switches work for whole house generators, they isolate the internal circuits from the utility power until the utility power is restored.

    57. Re:Tracking by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Why bother?

      When was the last time an airliner "disappeared"? It just doesn't happen. That's why this is so intriguing. Airliners file a flight plan. In the event of a crash, you follow the flight plan and, 999 times out of a thousand, you find the remains of the airplane somewhere along there. You're flying places where there's plenty of radar coverage. You have insurance on the airliner and you have coverage in the event of a crash.

      So why would you bother with the even minuscule amount of money to add this? It's the equivalent of keeping shark repellent in your car in the event that you have an accident and end up in the ocean where there are sharks.

    58. Re:Tracking by cmurf · · Score: 1

      Because it's useless infrastructure and data collection, even on the day of the flight it was 1 in 93000 planes that went missing in this fashion. Why doesn't it blow your mind there isn't a parachute for every person and piece of luggage on board? We have the technology for everyone to have their own escape module. Should we do that?

    59. Re: Tracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. No security is perfect; it just has to make things harder or increase the probability of recovery. Add in too the cost of searching for a lost plane, like the one that went down a few years ago and took two years to recover: searching costs taxpayer money, so anything that reduces the search area also reduces the overall cost of a disaster even in accidents without sabotage.

    60. Re: Tracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How would you guarantee such a tracking device resists all possible sabotage efforts?"

      Don't tell anyone about it.

    61. Re:Tracking by lgftsa · · Score: 1

      > So you've added two or three more people to be bribed to ignore a faulty tracking device - 1 or 2 in maintenance, and someone in the control tower?

      They'd be the first people to be arrested when the syslog was backtracked on the first day of the search. I'll admit that some people are not the brightest, but looking at a red flag on a computer screen and granting take-off permission anyway is a little beyond belief.

      You'd need a sysadmin or ATC site admin to inject fake data, but that wouldn't survive the satellite data analysis.

      I don't know if it would be possible, but you might be able to have a ghost transponder in another aircraft or on the ground which pretends to be the target. You'd have to be careful to transmit at the correct time and with the correct signal drop-off if you wanted to hide the fakery from the investigation.

      It the investigators managed to get satellite triangulation data, even that wouldn't work.

    62. Re:Tracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      include any kind of built in, always-on, hard-wired tracking device

      How would you guarantee such a tracking device resists all possible sabotage efforts?

      First draft? I'd embed it in the top of the tail of the plane. Have a small antenna stick out of that and give it 12 hours or so of battery backup. Have it squawk the transponder ID on take off and 1x a minute to satellite friendly frequencies. If it was disabled on take off, the tower would immediately know and it can be returned or watched carefully on handoffs. If not, it'll work until the battery dies even if they cut power to it, or someone climbs outside (the 500mph plane).

      Crippling that would require compliance not just on board, but with skilled ground staff as well. If some one wants to short it out 2 hours after take off, they'll need more than wire cutters and a baggage handler badge.

    63. Re:Tracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like total 100% foolproof computer security - there is no solution.
      Thieves already jam car GPS tracking, a plane is just another small step for people with a 200million dollar wishlist..

    64. Re:Tracking by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

      Or simply something similar to what is implemented in laptops and cellphones, which charge & run from the external circuit, and automatically switch to battery power if external power is lost.

      There may still be a legitimate need to switch of power. OTOH, if the chance of fire is *really* low, and the energy stored in the battery is too small to be dangerous, it may still be OK to just switch off external power.

    65. Re:Tracking by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

      Interesting - do you have a link to the device, or the name of the system?

      I know of emergency radiobeacons (which are basically one-way/send-only devices, only activating when triggered) which do have such battery life, and SPOT GPS trackers (which only last for ~2 weeks when in tracking mode / 1 yr standby, and are also one-way devices) - but something that passively listens for satellite comms signals for ~5 years (i.e. operating a satellite radio reciever) for a trigger and is the size of a small cellphone, I've never heard of.

    66. Re: Tracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Black and white thinking is a "cognitive error" or "cognitive distortion" and can be treated with Cognitive Behavior Therapy. The error is that there are usually more than two possibilities.

    67. Re:Tracking by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I don't have a link to the actual device used but it is similar to this except the enclosure was optional and therefore a bit smaller.

      http://iqgistics.com/gps-solut...

      More here
      http://www.globalstar.com/shop...

      This happened about 2004 or so and my friend was the one who purchased and monitored everything as it was his kid. I don't remember it being 11 inches long but I think it was from the same company as the domain looks awfully familiar.

    68. Re:Tracking by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

      Ah, thanks! It seems to be similar to SPOT then (both using Globalstar and both being "send only" devices). Interesting that the battery lifetime is so completely different - this device advertised to last for 7 years on a single battery with 2 messages / day!

      Unfortunately, anything Globalstar seems to be less-than-perfect for aircraft tracking, as their constelation doesn't cover large parts of the world:
      http://www.globalstar.com/en/i...

    69. Re:Tracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I laughed, but I 'spect what the OP meant is that the tracking device is located in some part of the plane that hijackers couldn't get to in the air. (And it would need battery backup.)

  9. Another Saudi Arabian. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is USA so much in love with this gays'-and-women's heads chopping nation? Oil...? Petrodollars? :-]]]]]]

  10. we're all thinking it, I'll come out and say it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    db couper

  11. Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Boom baby boom (dumbass)

  12. This plane was stolen for money. IMHO by Hey_Jude_Jesus · · Score: 0

    A 777-2000 is worth 230 Million dollars. The pilot(s) could sell it for $23 million dollars and live high off the hog. I think every airline better put in an automatic beacon using satellite and/or HF radio to know where every plane is at all times and the pilot(s) can't turn it off. There was another plane stolen in Angola by a mechanic ten years ago. It was never found. I'm sure that guy is living very well also. This is organized crime. IMHO. YMMV.

    1. Re:This plane was stolen for money. IMHO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The pilot(s) could sell it for $23 million dollars and live high off the hog.

      Yes - there's a huge black market in 777s.

    2. Re:This plane was stolen for money. IMHO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's in a chop-shop right now, up on blocks, getting stripped.

    3. Re:This plane was stolen for money. IMHO by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Yes - there's a huge black market in 777s.

      Maybe Kim Jong-Un wants one for his personal, private collection? The legitimate channels for buying one aren't an option here.

    4. Re:This plane was stolen for money. IMHO by FragHARD · · Score: 0

      Well form what I am seeing it is more like 15 mil. for 777's on the black-market... http://vietnam.craigslist.org/...

      --
      FragHARD or don't frag at all
    5. Re:This plane was stolen for money. IMHO by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      The pilot(s) could sell it for $23 million dollars and live high off the hog.

      Yes - there's a huge black market in 777s.

      What about the parts?

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  13. Nuke bomb theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The plane was deliberately stolen and was landed somewhere in the middle east or Africa. It could be at an abandoned airfield or an improvised one in a desert area, hidden in a hangar or hidden by an improvised cover. It is being fitted with a stolen nuclear bomb as we speak. The passengers and crew have most likely all been killed.

    A Boeing 777 200EL has sufficient range to reach the east coast of the USA and deliver the nuke in a suicide strike. The terrorists involved could have maybe purchased or stolen a smaller jet like a Gulfstream. However, even the highest-end Gulfstream does not have sufficient range to reach the USA. A large commercial airliner is perfect for this job.

    Logistical issues such as refueling with Jet-A fuel and hiding the plane from satellite and aerial surveillance would have to be overcome to pull this off.

    If I'm right, God help us.

    1. Re: Nuke bomb theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Except that it is extremely easy to buy (or steal) a used commercial or cargo aircraft without going to all the trouble of hijacking and mass murder and evading the air forces and navies of half the planet. And it would be even easier to sail a nuke-laden yacht into any number of east coast harbors. Why would a terrorist go to all this trouble when there are much easier and less risky ways of accomplishing the goal you describe?

    2. Re: Nuke bomb theory by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      dry run for a bigger attack

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    3. Re: Nuke bomb theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To do so would likely require the searching of the entire aircraft, csrgo included, for mobile phones and other such gps locators. All it takes is one of those to hit a cell tower and its ame over. Military would have the cell information for everybody on that plane and searching for any beacon they would put out.

    4. Re: Nuke bomb theory by stevegee58 · · Score: 1

      dry run for a bigger attack

      The 9/11 conspirators didn't bother with any dry runs and succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
      Terrorists aren't a cautious or methodical bunch; they're audacious. Dry runs are not only for wimps but they also alert your adversary to your intentions.

    5. Re:Nuke bomb theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, even the highest-end Gulfstream does not have sufficient range to reach the USA.

      The above is not true.

      A G-V has intercontinental range with IFR reserves.

    6. Re: Nuke bomb theory by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      batteries on all that crap will run out in two weeks

    7. Re: Nuke bomb theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree at the olympics in 1996 we found a paper bag with pvc pipes inside left near a payphone kiosk at our venue; to me it was an obvious dry-run and happened only a few days befor the attack on the concert at centenial park.

    8. Re: Nuke bomb theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure the 9/11 pilots were humans ? Doesn't cut with Mr Occams razor.

    9. Re:Nuke bomb theory by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      If a middle eastern terrorist had a nuclear weapon, it'd be used on Israel... or maybe Damascus or Riyadh or Tehran.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    10. Re:Nuke bomb theory by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Actually, you're right. Except it will be used to extort money from nations that would rather not be blown up.

      See, there's this guy named Ernst Stavros Blofeld who runs this organization called SPECTRE...

  14. Look for skid marks by mdsolar · · Score: 2

    When a jet lands it lays down quite a lot of rubber. A search for new skid marks on roads near water in countries with poor military radar (Bangladesh?) might indicate where the plane put down. Evidence of a recently placed fuel dump might also be worth a search.

    A 9/11 type attack might be the aim here. I'm wondering how well a carrier group could defend itself against a diving attack. Also, how may of our embassies are close enough to the ocean that the host country Air Force might not have time to react to a low altitude offshore approach?

    1. Re: Look for skid marks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carrier groups have sophisticated defenses that are designed to shoot down small, fast, and maneuverable threats like fighter jets and incoming missiles. A commercial airliner on a suicide run wouldn't get within 50 miles of a carrier before it was shot down.

    2. Re: Look for skid marks by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure commercial aircraft get much closer to carrier groups when the groups get close to flight lanes. In port, distances are more like a couple of miles. Look at Pearl Harbor, for example.

    3. Re:Look for skid marks by u38cg · · Score: 1
      A carrier? From a 777? Extremely easily. Most easily by sitting still and watching it miss you, though I think for safety's sake you'd probably put a couple of holes in it at a safe distance.

      That said, I think your theory has to be a leading contender. This does look like a hijack and in the absence of demands, I can't think of many uses for a spare 777 (though the scrap metal value alone is quite high). Looking at where it has likely ended up, from there it has sufficient range to reach anywhere in the Western world.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    4. Re:Look for skid marks by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      I was wondering about a straight down vertical attack, which might still put bulky debris into the deck even if it were broken up. Based on the last satellite ping, it might be in central Asia now. But if so, I wonder how they got there without flying where they'd be noticed on radar and challenged. Maybe Burma to the Himalayas? Hard to think there is really a radar free path through there.

    5. Re:Look for skid marks by Quarters · · Score: 1

      You're not going to just put a 777 down on some rural 2 lane road. You need a clear 1 mile (or more) straight reinforced runway. Not only is a 777's wheel track too wide for an average road the gross weight of the plane would crush the asphalt (or dirt or gravel) under the wheels. Bare minimum you'd need a fairly modern multi-lane highway. Something like that would be traveled enough that someone would notice a large commercial airliner attempting to land on it.

    6. Re: Look for skid marks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ideally you would want the runway from Fast and Furious 6 which was at least 100 miles long

    7. Re:Look for skid marks by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      This article suggests packed dirt would be OK. http://www.slate.com/blogs/fut... I wonder if the problem would be for continuous use rather than a one time thing? Looks like the landing gear are mounted in the fuselage which is 20 ft wide, so a two lane road with shoulders might work with care. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

    8. Re:Look for skid marks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A carrier group knows about everything going on around it. Systems used to shoot down incoming missiles can be used to shoot down incoming planes. Suicide plane attacks were done in WW2. You think the navy has forgotten about those?

    9. Re:Look for skid marks by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      No, I haven't. But with a civilian transponder set to an identification of a delayed flight, for example, a plane could get too close perhaps. Bin Laden did claim to posses nuclear weapons a while back. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11... So, actual contact with the deck might not needed.

    10. Re:Look for skid marks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point.

  15. Himalayas by HarryCallahan · · Score: 1

    Maybe he wanted to see Mt Everest, close up.

  16. Terrible Links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Both links suck. One is from the NY Times, which is paywalled. The other leads to some generic "select your state" bullshit from the AP. Garbage. Does anyone even TRY to RTFA anymore?

  17. blows my mind by lagomorpha2 · · Score: 2

    "It slightly blows my mind that companies (airlines) would buy a piece of hardware that costs hundreds of millions of dollars, which is incredibly mobile and used to travel thousands of miles at a time, with a huge amount of liability (billions potentially), and not include any kind of built in, always-on, hard-wired tracking device. Especially in this day and age. "

    Most airlines do, just not the Malaysians.

    1. Re:blows my mind by dbIII · · Score: 2

      Get to know just a little bit more about airlines and you'll see that most are converging towards Aeroflot standards (or lack thereof).

  18. Helios flight disaster. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Interesting
    There are very few clues. Some tantalizing pings, between 4 to 6 on the satellites, some delay in transponder being turned off etc are the bare facts on which these elaborate theories are being spun. But I keep thinking about the Helios flight disaster. The maintenance crew had left the cabin pressurization in "manual" mode. The pilot did not notice. The plane warned about cabin pressure. But the pilot was confused and continued to climb to cruise altitude. Deprived of oxygen, all of them died when the oxygen ran out. Pilots never put on the mask and died soon. Plane without pilots, may be with a few passengers alive for half an hour longer, flew on auto pilot for several hours. One crew member, a flight attendant, a former navy diver was seen in the cockpit lugging a (probably empty oxygen) cylinder by the chase planes. Eventually ran out of fuel and crashed in the mountain.

    It is possible somehow both pilots lost control of the plane and it flew on auto pilot, following whatever route was programmed into it.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Helios flight disaster. by robinsonne · · Score: 4, Informative

      But then the transponder would have still been on...

    2. Re:Helios flight disaster. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      If one pilot decides to something funny, and the other pilot figures it out and a tussle breaks out, and if one of them survives, but with serious injury... As I said there are no easy theories ...

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    3. Re:Helios flight disaster. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Is it possible for a malfunction in the cockpit to disable the transponder? Of a control, for example?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Helios flight disaster. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      What about the other ten crew?

    5. Re:Helios flight disaster. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      None of them could even turn on the radio if it was off.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    6. Re:Helios flight disaster. by david_bonn · · Score: 1

      I've been suspecting nearly the same thing.

      Hypoxia can set in within minutes, and people can become extremely confused under its influence. If the pilots were so confused they thought the plane was malfunctioning for some other reason they might have started resetting things by shutting off circuit breakers and inadvertently shut off the transponder. Hypoxia could also explain the very extreme altitude changes that were reported.

      I'm also thinking a fire in the cockpit could have caused nearly the same thing, and if the fire did enough damage that they could no longer control the plane but the autopilot still worked that also would explain most of what we know about the flight. But that seems a little bit or a lot unlikely.

      If it is some terrorist or special operations chicanery then it is really an oddball scheme -- more like a Clive Cussler or Tom Clancy novel than something that would happen in the real world, I think.

    7. Re:Helios flight disaster. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Transponder malfunctions do happen. Normally not a big deal but such a report was posted in the pprune thread discussing this flight because it happened to an Air India 777 just a few days ago. They were within VHF range so they could still talk to ATC. Turning back to your airline's home base due to a transponder (+ other communications) failure would be perfectly logical but that's not a sufficient explanation in this case. Hypoxia makes your cognitive faculties degrade slowly so that long before becoming unconscious, you start to have impaired judgment, which could explain strange actions by the crew. However, both transponder loss and too slow depressurization to notice until you're "stupid" is a very, very unlikely coincidence. Just like hijacking is unlikely when there's no obvious target and no organization taking responsibility either.

    8. Re:Helios flight disaster. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Cabin pressure loss would trigger warnings and drop oxygen masks. I don't know about carbon monoxide detectors. Carbon monoxide is odorless, people don't feel it, pilots might realize they are losing it and try to do strange things. One pilot taking a bathroom break, a small fire, not warm enough to trigger alarms but slow enough to release CO. Disoriented pilot doing strange things or cabin crew flipping switches after seeing collapsed pilots... I tend to think of those as likely scenarios. Not a Dirk Pitt adventure.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    9. Re:Helios flight disaster. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the evidence is that all (including the pilots) were alive at the time of impact, but unconscious. One flight attendant with pilot experience did try to gain control of the aircraft, but they weren't familiar with large jets, or the radio sufficient to call for help.

    10. Re:Helios flight disaster. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that particular instance, there were warnings sounding about the pressurization as they were climbing to cruising altitude at the start of the flight. They had radio contact with engineers on the ground and were trying to troubleshoot the warnings when they passed out and the autopilot kept the plane on course.

      This situation seems very different because the plane flew for quite some time before losing radio contact without any indication of any problems. It may have been a rapid decompression, but they lost all radio contact, transponders and everything, indicating either something very bad happened or a deliberate act. Losing a transponder without crashing would seem to me that it was a deliberate act.

      There are too many strange things happening on this flight to really know what happened. Some things could be considered unlikely, but not enough evidence to rule it out completely so I'm sure we won't really know what happened until they somehow manage to find the wreckage.

      If the transponder was deliberately disabled, I wonder if there was a way to disable to flight recorders too.

  19. It is the Russian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet this is an act of Putin's and the plane is somewhere at an abandoned runway of Kazahstan. They will blame the Chechens for the hijackings helping their Ujgur compatriots against Chinese occupation. Then tomorrow or a few days later (after Crimea wote for secession) Russians will all of a sudden find it, escape the passengers. China will be thankful and will ignore U.N. sanctions against Russia and Russia will have a casus belli for bombing Groznij. But again it is just me making conspiratorial theories. ;-)

    1. Re:It is the Russian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or even simpler: a couple Russian spies took over the plane and scuttled it to make a big news story to distract from Crimea. I don't see Crimea news on my news stations, only some missing plane. Crimea is being invaded by a foreign government and everyone in concerned about a plane.

  20. what economic value in tracking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would a company do this? it doesn't increase revenue, reduce costs, etc. The value of such real time tracking would be exceedingly limited except in a situation like this. And in this situation, the value is somewhat sketchy.. maybe you'd save some search costs because you'd find the wreckage sooner, but everyone's using this as a big training exercise, so they'd be spending that money anyway.

    1. Re:what economic value in tracking? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      We're talking about equipment which even at aviation specs isn't going to be very expensive. The extra phone operators the airline hired to deal with the fallout could probably have paid for it ...

      After the 9/11 transponder shit we should have learned something, sure rewiring the existing transponders would present lots of cost and risk ... but installing a new separate system designed to be relatively low power so it could run on batteries would not.

  21. what is missing is that mutliple govs. know. by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    Look, that area is contentious and has LOADS of satellites flying overhead. IOW, loads of pix were taken. It should be easy enough to subtract the KNOWN flights from those sats. and see what remains.
    BUT, nobody is coming forth with that.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:what is missing is that mutliple govs. know. by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      The revisit time on imaging satellites is limited to weeks or days at best. The swath width of the higher resolution models is too small to conduct an effective search because they're primarily meant to point at known targets and there are huge gaps in coverage. It's not as easy as you think it is and total surveillance doesn't exist quite yet.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    2. Re:what is missing is that mutliple govs. know. by roothog · · Score: 1

      Here's what pictures from satellites look like at 1:00 a.m. over water: Picture

    3. Re:what is missing is that mutliple govs. know. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's what pictures from satellites look like at 1:00 a.m. over water: Picture

      Not all satellites. Here's what the ocean looks like from TerraSAR-X at 1:00 am, or 1:00 pm. or when it's clear or cloudy. http://www.astrium-geo.com/en/... and http://www.astrium-geo.com/en/... Also most sensor platforms have NIR and some have deeper IR bands http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... albeit these are more vulnerable to moisture conditions and at much lower resolutions.

  22. Re: Watch out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Would the US back China if they struck the terrorist country first?

  23. RE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) It is expensive. To get the always-on you need satellite communication, which isn't cheap -- especially if you are taking about doing it for however many thousands of flights in the air. Also, it wouldn't stop a hijacking or intentional act by a pilot. Plus, it would be easy to defeat by breaking the mic's in the cockpit.

    2) Unless the places it is flying over have military radar active at all times, once the transponder was disabled, it wouldn't show up on most civilian radar, as these typically use the transponder response to the radar ping instead of the actual primary radar reflection.

    3) Possible, but unless the country is really, really good, no cover-up will be successful, as Malaysia, and more importantly China, are not going to just let this slide.

  24. The most entertaing theory yet by koan · · Score: 1

    Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (also marketed as China Southern Airlines flight 748 through a codeshare) was a scheduled passenger flight from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, to Beijing, China, when on 8 March this Boeing 777-200ER aircraft “disappeared” in flight with 227 passengers on board from 15 countries, most of whom were Chinese, and 12 crew members.
    Interesting to note, this report says, was that Flight 370 was already under GRU “surveillance” after it received a “highly suspicious” cargo load that had been traced to the Indian Ocean nation Republic of Seychelles, and where it had previously been aboard the US-flagged container ship MV Maersk Alabama.
    What first aroused GRU suspicions regarding the MV Maersk Alabama, this report continues, was that within 24-hours of off-loading this “highly suspicious” cargo load bound for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, the two highly-trained US Navy Seals assigned to protect it, Mark Daniel Kennedy, 43, and Jeffrey Keith Reynolds, 44, were found dead under “suspicious circumstances.”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/2-...

    Both Kennedy and Reynolds, this report says, were employed by the Virginia Beach, Virginia-based maritime security firm The Trident Group which was founded by US Navy Special Operations Personnel (SEAL’s) and Senior US Naval Surface Warfare Officers and has long been known by the GRU to protect vital transfers of both atomic and biological materials throughout the world.

    Upon GRU “assests” confirming that this “highly suspicious” cargo was aboard Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 on 8 March, this report notes, Moscow notified China’s Ministry of State Security (MSS) of their concerns and received “assurances” that “all measures” would be taken as to ascertain what was being kept so hidden when this aircraft entered into their airspace.
    However, this report says, and as yet for still unknown reasons, the MSS was preparing to divert Flight 370 from its scheduled destination of Beijing to Haikou Meilan International Airport (HAK) located inHainan Province (aka Hainan Island).
    Prior to entering the People Liberation Army (PLA) protected zones of the South China Sea known as the Spratly Islands, this report continues, Flight 370 “significantly deviated” from its flight course and was tracked by VKO satellites and radar flying into the Indian Ocean region and completing its nearly 3,447 kilometer (2,142 miles) flight to Diego Garcia. (large enough runway)

    Critical to note about Flight 370’s flight deviation, GRU experts in this report say, was that it occurred during the same time period that all of the Spratly Island mobile phone communications operated by China Mobile were being jammed.
    China Mobile, it should be noted, extended phone coverage in the Spratly Islands in 2011 so that PLA soldiers stationed on the islands, fishermen, and merchant vessels within the area would be able to use mobile services, and can also provide assistance during storms and sea rescues.
    As to how the US Navy was able to divert Flight 370 to its Diego Garcia base, this report says, appears to have been accomplished remotely as this Boeing 777-200ER aircraft is equipped with a fly-by-wire (FBW) system that replaces the conventional manual flight controls of an aircraft with an electronic interface allowing it to be controlled like any drone-type aircraft.

    However, this report notes, though this aircraft can be controlled remotely, the same cannot be said of its communication systems which can only be shut down manually; and in the case of Flight 370, its data reporting system was shut down at 1:07 a.m., followed by its transponder (which transmits location and altitude) which was shut down at 1:21 a.m.
    What remains “perplexing” about this incident, GRU analysts in this report say, are why the

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re: The most entertaing theory yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tom Clancy eat your heart out.

    2. Re:The most entertaing theory yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TLTR;DNR Can someone summarize this?

    3. Re:The most entertaing theory yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tom Clancy jabberwacky output. Not really creative.

    4. Re:The most entertaing theory yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This part makes no sense: Why would “highly suspicious” cargo be unloaded from a US ship to the airplane. Why not just take the "highly suspicious cargo" directly to Diego Garcia?

  25. Re:Watch out by quenda · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whatever country the hijackers are from better watch it because US bombs will be coming there way (especially so if the country has oil or other natural resources)

    So we learned nothing from the 2001 US bombardment and invasion of Saudi Arabia then?

  26. Re:Watch out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're from the Ukraine, and plan to use the plane to deliver a few nukes they didn't hand over in the '90s to Moscow.

  27. Suicide By Jet Plane by Albanach · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you want to commit suicide, why not ditch the plane straight down? Why would you plot a course somewhere into the middle of the Indian Ocean?

    If you didn't want it to look like suicide, why not ditch into rural China? There has to be some way a professional pilot could make it look more accidental.

  28. Stealing an aircraft is rare and difficult. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 0

    Some pilots have defected with their planes. If you do not count it as "theft" of aircraft it is very difficult to steal an aircraft. In my memory only this guy managed to do it. But he had the advantage of becoming invisible if electricity passes through him and he had a remote controlled steel hand too.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Stealing an aircraft is rare and difficult. by roothog · · Score: 4, Informative

      A 727 was stolen in 2003 and has never been found: Wiki

  29. Five Years, On An Island by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps the pilot, or a hijacker wanted to offer once in a lifetime experience for the passengers: stranding on a mysterious island, somewhere in the South China Sea, hiding from a bunch of mercenaries wanting to destabilize China's stock markets and becoming a planefull of mysterious hooded heroes, fighting against those who are failing cities all over.

  30. Plane probably hijacked for jihadi ops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read on Debbie Schlussel how she thinks the plane was probably hijacked by Muslims on board to one of the Jihadi hotspots in the world, like maybe Somalia or Pakistan.

    I agree w/ her basic theory, but think that this was an inside job. The pilots probably turned off the transponders and then flew for the next several hours. They could have gone to a number of nearby Jihadi spots, not necessarily as far as the Kazakh-Turkmen border:

    - Mindanao, Philippines, for Abu Sayyaf/MILF

    - Any Jemiah Islamiya/Lashkar Jihad base in Indonesia, including Aceh

    - Yala, Thailand, which has a Malay backed Muslim insurrection

    - Arakan region of Bangladesh/Myanmar, in support of anti-Myanmar Jihadi activities in the area

    The idea behind it was probably to get such a plane down and study it so that they could figure out how to hijack future such planes and use them for 9/11 style attacks, except bigger in scale. One idea might have been to smuggle the plane into the hands of Jihadis in Pakistan or elsewhere, in return for weapons or other material that could be used in any of the above regions.

    1. Re:Plane probably hijacked for jihadi ops by Chrisq · · Score: 0

      I read on Debbie Schlussel how she thinks the plane was probably hijacked by Muslims on board to one of the Jihadi hotspots in the world, like maybe Somalia or Pakistan.

      i would be very surprised if this wasn't more work of the "religion of peace"

    2. Re:Plane probably hijacked for jihadi ops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, I think I'm going to start using "land of freedom" in quotes to refer to the U.S. This kind of douchebaggery is fun.

    3. Re: Plane probably hijacked for jihadi ops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that Americans don't take exception to the quotes because we see the flaws and hypocrisy. Contrarily, Muslims believe their religion truly is a religion of peace and don't see how it's lies

    4. Re: Plane probably hijacked for jihadi ops by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Except that Americans don't take exception to the quotes because we see the flaws and hypocrisy. Contrarily, Muslims believe their religion truly is a religion of peace and don't see how it's lies

      exactly. Most American's would be amused by the use of quotes where as most Muslims would be annoyed and many would kill you over it.

  31. Worst Case Scenario by Idou · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How hard would it be to make this plane "reappear" as another plane with a flight destination of New York City? It would seem like a legit flight (might have to make another plane disappear, but you have already seemed to master that trick once).

    Of course, by then you have had time to retrofit the plane with your crude nuke you have put together (hell, you have the entire space of the 777 to fit the thing, so it could more primitive than the trinity test. . . ). You could then deviate the flight only at the very last minute to the best possible position to detonate for maximized damage (fighter jets would have no time to respond).

    Probably being paranoid here, but why else would you need a 777 that could only be used for a short time before being discovered?

    --
    Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    1. Re:Worst Case Scenario by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here is some fictional writing I saw on reddit. It is a crazy story....... http://pastebin.com/d97LkvF7

      What is the craziest way the mystery of Flight 370 could end? by Brutussin AskReddit

      [–]z3ndog 423 points 19 hours ago

      Iran's Trojan Horse

      The pilot's wife and 2 kids were kidnapped and the pilot was contacted via his cell 15m before takeoff with pics of his family, tied up, gagged, with knives to their throats by masked bad guys. He was given instructions to turn off the transponder, turn to the west, and allow the 2+ Iranian terrorists (fake passports) into the cockpit.

      Immediately prior, the two terrorists removed a 250W High Power Waterproof OEM Signal Jammer with Omni-directional Antennas from their overhead luggage and activated it, effectively jamming all cell phone transmissions.

      The plane was directed to fly west across Malaysia and then redirected north to Myanmar's (Burma) Hanthawaddy International Airport in the Bago Region; Myanmar which is located about 50 miles (80 km) away from Yangon. This is a remote airstrip that was under construction and not expected to be opened until 2018; however, which was controlled by Syrian Islamists.

      The plane landed without incident and was taxied to a hanger under contruction where it was boarded by more Islamists with fully automatic weapons, including a highly trained Iranian Military pilot and 3 member flight crew. The Maylasian pilot and crew were taken outside and executed in a manner visible to the passengers. The pilot's wife and kids were simultaneously killed and subsequently buried in a remote field after the plane landed.

      The plane's communication electronics were completely disabled (turned off the satellite transmissions that tipped off authorities that the plane had not crashed and in fact this oversight was reported in the news). Once this was completed, the plane lifted off and turned to fly south across the Bay of Bengal and around the tip of India... then turned northwest over the Arabian Sea enroute to Iran. The plane was subsequently landed at Gonbad-e Qabus airport (also underconstruction) in the north eastern section of Iran.

      The hostages were moved to a remote prison to be held indefinitely.

      The plane was stripped of all Malaysian air identification and paint. It was then repainted to the specs of an Turkish Airlines 777 plane. The plane was retrofitted with military grade electronics (including electronic countermeasures (ECM) and radar warning (RWR) systems, chaff/flare dispensers; all pulled from a retired F14 Tomcat based in Iran from 2003). Additionally, the jet was equipped and armed with a fully operational nuclear bomb from Iran's now functional nuclear weapons program using the 240 pounds of 84% enriched Uranium from Natanz. This device was expected to produce a yield of 22 kiloton (40% bigger than Little Boy) and have an effective blast radius of 4.5 miles.

      Only April 14th, the Islamists bribed a local official at Trabzon (TZX) Turkey to enable the swapping of the Turkish Airlines TK 2837 airplane with the nuke equipped 777 that will now utilize the transponder from 2837.

      The plane departed TZX and skipped the scheduled landing in IST. Upon arriving near JFK, the plane's transponder was turned off and rapidly descended to 5000 feet with ECM activated... The FAA repeated the same mistake from 9-11 and doesn't notify NORAD about this anomoly as they investigated the details of the missing flight TK 2837. The plane turned southwest and proceeded across Philadelphia and towards the ultimate destination of Washington DC, where 4 F16's are scrambled from the 1st Fighter Wing at Langley Air Force Base.

    2. Re:Worst Case Scenario by AmbiLobe · · Score: 1

      Yes, this is it : the 777 is computerized, networked, and it is hackable (I speculate). The co-pilot delivered the 777 to the Taklamakan Desert . It was re-programmed to get another ID code for an aircraft. It is expected to be re-fueled and in the air tomorrow. Wales for the Welsh !

    3. Re:Worst Case Scenario by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New York City is worst case? Try Washington DC, or even worse: Moscow. I wouldn't put it past Putin to launch all missiles on se Asia if he's attacked.

    4. Re:Worst Case Scenario by fermion · · Score: 1

      Every part on that plane has a serial number that is registered. At some point, a repair will have to be made, the serial number will be logged, or someone will notice that the number has been filed off, and the plane will be identified.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    5. Re:Worst Case Scenario by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't even need a nuke. A 777 (depending on model) has a range up to 9000 miles and a cargo capacity of up to 400,000 pounds. That's enough to carry 20 MOAB type weapons (each MOAB has the explosive force of 11 tons of dynamite). Airburst that at low altitude over a major city and you're going to cause plenty of destruction. Or just launch them out of the cargo hold one at a time as you're flying.

      The only real trick is getting into the airspace. You can find out the transponder ID and route for a legitimate flight and fake it. You'd only need to deviate during the last few minutes of the flight to carry out the plan. By the time someone realized something was wrong, it'd be too late to do anything about it.

      --
      ~X~
    6. Re:Worst Case Scenario by Idou · · Score: 1

      What if there is exactly just one flight left? How many repairs need to be made then?

      Anyway, I think others have already put a lot more thought into this.

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    7. Re:Worst Case Scenario by Keyboard+Rage · · Score: 1

      In a week time, there's a nuclear summit attended by loads of world leaders in my country. Air defense will consist of two F-16s. World leaders will arrive on specially reserved landing strip and navigate to summit in capital by specially closed off roads, which have one nice point of failure: only the roads are closed off, you can still get very close to the world leaders by standing alongside the road. By faking the transponder IDs the 777 would have enough time to reach my country, and plunge into the building were the summit is held.

    8. Re:Worst Case Scenario by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Look people. Can we knock it off with the "Terrorists attacking New York City" scenarios? If we're going to protect NYC in the long term, we need to start playing up the relative importance of cities we actually wouldn't mind being attacked.

      Can you repost your scenario as an attack on Tallahassee, or Phoenix, or some city in Texas or something?

      NYC is awesome. Sure, the inhabitants get a little arrogant from time to time, but you kinda understand their point. We need to divert the terrorists to somewhere else, somewhere where the country would benefit from a terrorist attack.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    9. Re:Worst Case Scenario by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      There's a ZERO sense to that idea. You might as well put a nuke on a completely unrelated aircraft. It's not like anyone's going to rely on visually IDing a civilian aircraft while it's on its way.

    10. Re:Worst Case Scenario by Idou · · Score: 1

      Can you repost your scenario . . .

      Sorry, I have never seen a "repost" feature on Slashdot (you appear to have been here longer than me, so perhaps you can clue me in on that feature).

      Furthermore, NYC is the most populated, densely packed city in the U.S. If you are going to maximize human suffering from a nuclear blast (or MOAB, per other posters), that is the primary target in the U.S. Since the point of my post was that having your own 777 could allow you to pick the optimal position to maximize damage, I believe my choice of NYC was reasonable.

      We need to divert the terrorists to somewhere else

      I doubt Slashdot posts will be able to divert terrorists . . .

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    11. Re:Worst Case Scenario by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New York City is arguably a better target. It is a financial center and it is significantly denser.

    12. Re:Worst Case Scenario by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      You repost by posting again. You are allowed to do this.

      My point, which appears to have flown above you like an exploding Hindenberg showering corposes all over (sorry, too soon?) is that if the entire world started focussing on a different terrorist target, terrorists would be unlikely to immediately think "Let's kill people in NYC" as their first thought.

      And let's be honest, nobody would miss Tallahassee. Not even those of us in Florida. Rick Scott's an asshole.

      Also Texas, while (obviously) having a lower population density, probably has more people in it than Manhatten. So diverting terrorists there would both make it more difficult for them (more work per person killed) and would ensure that if they did they do the world a few favors by getting rid of the largest number of loudmouthed jerks possible.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    13. Re:Worst Case Scenario by Livius · · Score: 1

      It sounds reasonable but if someone went to that much trouble to steal an airliner, they could have made its disappearance less suspicious.

    14. Re:Worst Case Scenario by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      Cute. But 3 miles isn't going to be good enough if all you've got is a 22 kiloton airburst. The White House, the President, and even all of Congress would be just fine. All you'd do is kill a bunch of civilians in the suburbs.

      http://www.nuclearsecrecy.com/...

      Also, 777s don't have much in the way of visibility except directly ahead. The pilot wouldn't know that a Sidewinder had been fired to set off the flares. Also, an F16 carries an internal 20mm cannon that can't be distracted by flares or ECM. And a 777 is a fairly big and poorly-maneouvering target.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    15. Re:Worst Case Scenario by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I stopped reading when anti-Syrian and anti-Iranian propaganda turned up in this piece of shite.

      Now go to the toilet for a long sitting session, shitboy.

    16. Re:Worst Case Scenario by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How come you people are so afraid of Iran? No one in Iran is interested in attacking the USA. They meddle in local politics, but don't do terrorism. The Iranian government is not half as bad as consistently portrayed in USA media. Really, they don't care about you.

    17. Re:Worst Case Scenario by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why bother doing that when there are easier ways to steal an aircraft? And any organization that can make a dirty bomb must also have enough funds to buy a plane. Not to mention that if that's your intention, why not get a plane that is slightly smaller and easier to hide? A small, corporate jet would do. Not to mention the fact that the effort put into the search correlates highly with the number of different nationalities and total number of passengers on board.

      That kind of plan would be too amateurish for anyone that can hijack and make a plane disappear like this. And if the target was the plane itself, why simply make it disappear without letting the world know the reason for your action. And why spend so many hours doing it instead of crashing it as soon as you have control? There's no value to a terrorist in an attack if nobody knows that it was an attack let alone against whom it was. And even if it were such a perfect plot that nobody except the suicidal hijackers knew about it, an e-mail timer should've triggered and sent something to major news organizations by now.

    18. Re:Worst Case Scenario by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      Maybe making the disappearance suspicious was seen as a benefit. The longer this stays in the news, the better the distraction.

      If everyone thinks that the plane just crashed into the ocean, other big news stories start creeping back to the headlines again.

    19. Re:Worst Case Scenario by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congrats, this *is* the craziest scenario I've read so far!

      Why would Iran, which already has plenty of civilian and military aircraft, need to steal a 777?

    20. Re:Worst Case Scenario by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In theory, you wouldn't need a working nuke device if terrorism is your intention. Just a plane-load of nuclear waste from old medical equipment that would disperse during a crash. Aerosol-zed cobalt-60 (A truck-load of which was IIRC stolen last year in Mexico) would make an entire city uninhabitable for thousands of years.

      I'm personally favoring the hijacking-gone-wrong theory though. You don't need (or really want) to steal such a large, visible plane for terrorist purposes. Unless you intend to crash it immediately.

  32. Malaysia recruits witch doctors to find flight 370 by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Of course! Magic coconuts! Why didn't we think of this sooner?

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/malaysia-recruits-witch-doctors-find-missing-passenger-jet-article-1.1720770

  33. Off button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But the off button does serve a purpose. Sometimes transponders malfunction and send false data to ATC/pilots. In this case, they have to be shut off. I understand that it makes it easier for a terrorist to take control of a plane. but without a way to switch it off if it malfunctions, there could be severe problems flying the plane.

    1. Re:Off button by canadiannomad · · Score: 1

      Not if it is passive from the ATC and pilots point of view. They should be using separate equipment. This device would be for safety/security of the plane, not for the ATC/pilots benefit. If it started giving data that doesn't correlate to known positions it should be red-flagged for maintenance, but in the meantime just recorded and ignored as usual.

      --
      Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
  34. Summary available by spacefight · · Score: 1

    There are tons of rumours spreading in mass media, most of it are not true or are outdated sooner or later. A good writeup is this article on AeroInside.com: http://www.aeroinside.com/item...

  35. But they KNOW it crashed by rjejr · · Score: 1

    First they lose the plane comepltelty, then it's found to maybe still be in one piece for 4 or 5 hours later with the engines still running, and it's over the Indian ocean, o rmaybe not, or maybe Bengal, and maybe it was was 45,000', or 25,000, and all this contradicting info is still coming out SEVEN DAYS LATER. Yet still thru all this all I ever hear any talking head say is - we know it crashed, even if they keep changing what body of water it crashed into. If they've gotten all this wrong before how does anybody know it crashed!?!?

    1. Re:But they KNOW it crashed by PPH · · Score: 1

      Maybe not. Why fly for five hours to commit suicide? If the object is to confuse the search, that will only be temporary. The search will continue until some evidence is found. And crash reconstruction forensics is pretty good. The story will come out.

      Perhaps the aircraft landed someplace. Locals are a lot less likely to report an uneventful landing nearby than an aircraft that dives into the jungle. Take the maximum 5 hour range, draw a circle from the last known position and look for territories with low political stability. I'm pretty sure various countries' military intelligence services have already made a good inventory of abandoned airstrips or other places suitable for landing. Photograph them from satellites and look for activity.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  36. Cui bono? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having stapled my tin foil hat to my head, exactly who benefits from this mystery? I'd say the CIA, which is in the hot seat for spying on their minders. Does the CIA have ECM/ECCM and suitable aircraft? Could they intercept, misdirect and cloak a 777 whilst jamming comms? Could they later 'discover' it to reinforce their importance? Or perhaps they intend to save it for a later false flag operation. It could have reached Diego Garcia. Just saying.......

    1. Re:Cui bono? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Russia. No one is noticing Ukraine. Their invasion is going smoothly and the world says "who cares about millions of Crimean people? There are hundreds of people missing on a plane!"

    2. Re:Cui bono? by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      Russia is a far more likely suspect.

    3. Re:Cui bono? by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Clearly the steel in the staples negates the effect of the tin foil.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  37. Taklamakan Desert by AmbiLobe · · Score: 2

    Look in the Taklamakan Desert, 50 miles South of the Silk Road. Or turn a blind eye to the obvious landing expanse.

  38. It's interesting.... by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...how this airliner is deflecting discussion from Russia, the Ukraine, and the Crimea.

    Just sayin'....

    1. Re:It's interesting.... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you but the Ukraine is still a top news story in the media I look at and listen to.

    2. Re:It's interesting.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus, from those peace talks in Israel.

    3. Re:It's interesting.... by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      Not in the United States mainstream media (CNN, broadcast networks, etc) and that's what matters since the US was really the only major player that cared at all about the Ukrainian invasion.

      Distract the American people, and Russia knows that it can do anything it wants.

    4. Re:It's interesting.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear there was a Russian on the plane..

    5. Re:It's interesting.... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that the US media is in Putin's pocket :)

    6. Re:It's interesting.... by igny · · Score: 1

      No, it is rather interesting how this airliner is deflecting discussion from MtGox's $400-450million lost money... Oh wait, the cost of Boeing 777 is surprisingly close to what MtGox "lost" in his snafu...

      Coincidence? I think not!

      Just giving a hint to the investigators of both cases...

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
    7. Re:It's interesting.... by wasteoid · · Score: 1

      Ukraine is not much further than where the plane might have ended up.

      If some rogue state, such as one in political chaos, with access to a military base and airbase, decided to equip such a plane with a nuclear device ...

    8. Re:It's interesting.... by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      It's a little complex to just be to deflect news coverage form the Crimea, what with all of the shifting tracking data, etc.

      How about: it's interesting how all of this is getting tracking and surveillance talked about in a positive light? A complex scenario would actually be beneficial in rehabilitating the image of the NSA, since they could claim that they're the only guys who could piece the whole story together in the end. Bonus points if the NSA gets to say "this information was supposed to be classified, but it's just too important to the people to keep secret".

    9. Re:It's interesting.... by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

      Not in the United States mainstream media (CNN, broadcast networks, etc) and that's what matters since the US was really the only major player that cared at all about the Ukrainian invasion.

      Distract the American people, and Russia knows that it can do anything it wants.

      Maskirovka.

    10. Re:It's interesting.... by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      Suggesting that Putin knows what stories would knock the invasion of Ukraine off of the headlines.

  39. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yesterday I thought so too, but afaik a plane on autopilot cannot change altitude and course the way this plane did over the last seven recorded hours. If the satellite pings aren't just another piece of desinformation, they establish that the plane was deliberately steered. Beyond that, our guesses are just as good as the findings of bomoh kelapa.

  40. Fuel adds weight and drag by jrminter · · Score: 1

    Several knowledgeable sources have noted that fuel is both expensive and heavy. Extra weight creates drag. Airlines tend to load an aircraft with the amount of fuel required for a flight and a reserve to cover delays that weather and air traffic cause, not filled to the brim.

  41. How would I steal an airliner. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    First I need to get the pilot(s) to cooperate. Then I would file a fake flight plan from Manila to Bangaladesh or Kabul or some place to take place at about the same time. Then smuggle a transponder in a brief case into the plane. It is basically a radio that is all. Switch off the transponder of the main aircraft. Climb/dive to confuse the radar tracks. Manually fly the plane to a different way point. Turn on the fake transponder. Identify the plane with a new call sign and contact Port Blair Andaman Islands air traffic control, continue to execute the fake flight plan.

    After I land, I don't know what I would do with 239 - X number of people in Kabul or Bangladesh.

    Credit for the inspiration: When I was in sixth grade I read a comic where they steal ships. A submarine releases a fog of anesthetic in the path of the ship. One person on board uses oxygen cylinder to escape. When everyone has fainted this guy, radios out claiming to be a different ship (Campbell Cross, I still remember the fake name) coming in for assistance. Meanwhile the pirates board the plane, secure the crew below the decks, repaint the ships name. Radio out saying there are np debris, no ship to be seen. Participate in the grid search and then slink away. The tamil name for the title is "kaatril karaintha kappalkaL" , or ships dissolving into thin air. It was translated from some British comic book. I don't know the name of the original in English. The heros who solve the mystery are Lawrence and Judo David. Can any one help find the original?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:How would I steal an airliner. by ferar · · Score: 0

      The climb to 45000 frets could be just for that, decompress the cabin and let the passengers die without air.

    2. Re:How would I steal an airliner. by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Looks like it could be something called "Code Name: Barracuda or Johnny Nero"

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    3. Re:How would I steal an airliner. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      It is Barracuda. I discovered the dastardly translators had renamed Barracuda as CID Lawrence and Frollo as Judo David. Basically the ships were stolen to provide slave labor to a crazy (is there any other kind?) villain hiding inside a cave of the dormant volcano.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  42. flip the breaker = high degree of technical knowle by raymorris · · Score: 0

    This article repeats an error that bugs me in so many "whodunit" cases. Disabling the transponders would require flipping a circuit breaker, so whoever did so had "a high degree of technical knowledge", the article says. Really? Flipping a circuit breaker off is that hard? The piece must have been written by a Yankee.

    I notice the same thing in other cases - the bad guy built a pipe bomb, so he must have had explosives training. He connected it to a clock, so he must be an expert in electronics. I have yet to see any of these "must have been trained" bad guys do anything I didn't do when I was twelve years old.

  43. Re:Watch out by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 0

    So we learned nothing from the 2001 US bombardment and invasion of Saudi Arabia then?

    Either Ahmadinejad or Assad are beind this one. It doesn't matter that Ahmadinejad is out of power - he wanted to nuke Israel (it doesn't matter if that was a mistranslation). Assad just needs a good bombing anyway (it doesn't matter how he's going to price his oil).

    'Cause Blackwater got BILLS TO PAY (it doesn't amtter that Blackwater changed its name to Xe and then to Academi to cover its tracks). And we've got bombs on the shelf that are getting close to their expiration date! Plus: jobs!

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  44. UFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A flying saucer from outer space full of green and purple aliens did it.

  45. Re:Malaysia recruits witch doctors to find flight by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    Well, the Coconut of Quendor is that from which all magic flows.

  46. Don't rule out technical malfunction by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    Don't rule out that it may have been a technical malfunction. Somewhere it's stated that it was 14 minutes between the disabling of two different systems. An electrical problem that resulted in a fire may very well be the culprit in this rendering the aircraft without any feasible means to communicate and navigate.

    There have also been speculations about structural failure causing decompression.

    Until the aircraft is found we frankly don't have a clue about what happened and everything is speculation. It's always easy to blame the human factor.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  47. Landed on the beach by ehiris · · Score: 1

    It landed on the beach of an island that keeps moving.
    The passengers are all busy pressing a button every day without knowing why.

    Not to mention that there is a Polar bear and a smoke monster on this tropical island, which would make rescue operations very difficult.

  48. Re:Watch out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Either Ahmadinejad or Assad are beind this one.

    Spoken like an American. Have you looked at a map lately? You mention two people that have some worrying local power, talking about something far from their regions of influence.

  49. Re:Watch out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whatever country the hijackers are from better watch it because US bombs will be coming there way (especially so if the country has oil or other natural resources)

    And if the hijackers came from the USA then that would be an own-goal.

  50. Re:Watch out by dbIII · · Score: 1

    What did matter is he was a puppet with very little power making some populist noise to try to increase his support. Wait - don't tell me you thought Iran was a democracy with an elected President able to make serious decisions? Haven't you been paying attention? He could no more nuke Israel than the Mayor of New Jersey could nuke Canada.

  51. Irony of Chinese complaint RE Lack of Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It is ironic that the Chinese government is complaining about a lack of information from the Malaysian government given their record of covering up past incidents (eg: SARS in 2003 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/apr/09/sars.china and the 2009 earthquake http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/chinas-quake-coverup-1678542.html).

  52. Already being done for fishing boats by Clueless+Moron · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Vessel Monitoring System.

    They are required to have these tracking devices by NOAA in the USA. The boats have to pay huge fines if they stray outside their allowed zones and are not allowed to fish without out. If you've ever watched "Deadliest Catch", those boats all have one.

    These devices regularly report the vessel's position via satellite and have internal batteries and no "off" switch. If you do remove power, the device immediately reports it as a power loss event and you have some explaining to do. If you block the GPS antenna it reports that too and again you have some explaining to do. All events are queued internally in flash so they will eventually be sent. If a vessel is not heard from for awhile NOAA all hell breaks loose since the assumption is that it has sunk, so it's in the vessel operator's interest to leave the damn thing alone.

    These devices are quite small, use very little power, and the data throughput is tiny. It boggles my mind that airplanes don't have something equivalent.

    1. Re:Already being done for fishing boats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In a way, they do. Out of +200 passengers, what are the odds someone didn't turn off their cellphone at takeoff? Airplane mode - for sissies.

  53. There's more than one pilot by dbIII · · Score: 1

    The suicide idea falls down when you consider the size of the crew.

    1. Re:There's more than one pilot by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      oh really? stand the thing up and cut the power, no one will be running to the cabin under those conditions

    2. Re:There's more than one pilot by dbIII · · Score: 2

      My mistake - should have added "in the cockpit" for those that are slow to think but quick to post.

    3. Re:There's more than one pilot by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It also falls when you consider that the pilot can simply dump the fuel once he is out past a point of no return and force a crash when the remaining fuel runs out. He could even accelerate that crash by flying faster or slower then optimal speed and altitude.

      777s have knowingly dumped their fuel in the past to make emergency landings and such.

      http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/loc...

    4. Re:There's more than one pilot by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      with three person flight crew, if one goes to the bathroom it's one against one

  54. Re:flip the breaker = high degree of technical kno by PPH · · Score: 2

    Flipping a circuit breaker off is that hard?

    Which breakers?

    You have to have some understanding of the systems involved to know which ones to disable which will leave the aircraft in a flyable state but unable to communicate. The average technologically adept person will probably think of the radio. But then there are three or more different comm types with redundant channels. People familiar with aviation will get the transponder. But if you said ACARS to the average person, they'd probably respond, "Duh??"

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  55. Landing with a large fuel load is bad news by dbIII · · Score: 1

    To add to what the above poster has written, landing with a heavy fuel load is difficult and dangerous so the tanks are not completely filled unless that's what the trip needs.
    For example QF32, an Airbus A380 which had multiple problems due to secondary damage from an engine explosion, was overweight due to a large fuel load and landed very carefully at a decent rate of two and a half feet per second but still blew out some tyres.
    However I'm not a pilot, I'm just relating something from a book written by one.

  56. Re:Watch out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Only republican presidents start wars, especially over oil.

    Democratic presidents issued "stern warnings".

  57. Nuke bomb theory makes no sense by dbIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A fishing trawler has sufficient range to reach the east coast of the USA and deliver the nuke in a suicide strike.

    1. Re:Nuke bomb theory makes no sense by Vladus2000 · · Score: 2

      Typically you want a nuke at altitude for maximum damage. Setting it off on a boat would not have near the radius. Not only do you get good downward force and range from above, the EMP would do damage to a larger area as well. One would hope you couldn't get close enough with no transponder, hopefully we don't find out. Personally, I would consider it a waste to use one at sea level.

    2. Re:Nuke bomb theory makes no sense by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Typically you want a nuke at altitude for maximum damage

      OK then - get the trawler with a nuke delivered by tsunami for just a believable a plot as stealing a 777 to do it.

    3. Re:Nuke bomb theory makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would think a rogue agent sending a trawler with a nuke up to any port in any country regardless of whether it went off or not would have the desired terrorist results.

      Maximum damage? What does a terrorist care if his nuke has a blast radius of 1Km or 4Km? The world would collectively shit its pants regardless.

    4. Re:Nuke bomb theory makes no sense by Xest · · Score: 1

      That and an unidentified/known to be missing airliner flying towards the US just screams "scramble your jets, and shoot me down".

  58. NSA surveillance is good for preventing such thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think again before you think you must have privacy in public against street photographers or privacy against NSA's surveillance, because it is photographers and the NSA who will catch terrorists in the end. If a photographer was able to take pictures of the a hijacker in a place before it takes off, or the NSA was able to intercept some phone calls, such tragedies could have been avoided, like in Anastasia Roupakioti's novel "700 miles".

  59. No radio contact, no hostage ransom request by Greyfox · · Score: 2

    It seems likely that it ran out of fuel and crashed somewhere. A really surreal option I thought about was that all the passengers could have been in on it and wanted to go somewhere else for some reason. That seems very unlikely, but hey, if it turns out that's what happened, I called it!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  60. one breaker by raymorris · · Score: 1

    According to TFA, both systems are on one breaker. Someone would need to check the manual to see which breaker. Either of us could do that in about ten minutes, I'd think.

    1. Re:one breaker by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I'm an aviation enthusiast. I've never been in the cockpit of an airliner. I'm fairly confident I could reprogram the FMS of one in-flight to fly any route I wished. I've done it on flight sims that are fairly accurate, and they all tend to work about the same way. You just program a destination and a route into the FMS.

      Changing the settings on an autopilot doesn't require a genius - which is why half of the guys flying airliners make next to nothing.

      Now, manually landing a 777 is a different matter, unless you have lots of runway to spare (just ask the crew of that flight at SFO). I wouldn't trust myself to do that in real life. On the other hand, given a CatIII ILS I could probably get it to autoland. You won't find one of those on a desert airstrip somewhere if your goal is to steal a plane.

    2. Re:one breaker by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I'm an aviation enthusiast. I've never been in the cockpit of an airliner. I'm fairly confident I could reprogram the FMS of one in-flight to fly any route I wished. I've done it on flight sims that are fairly accurate, and they all tend to work about the same way.

      Did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night as well?

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    3. Re:one breaker by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I'm an aviation enthusiast. I've never been in the cockpit of an airliner. I'm fairly confident I could reprogram the FMS of one in-flight to fly any route I wished. I've done it on flight sims that are fairly accurate, and they all tend to work about the same way.

      Did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night as well?

      Nope. Must be the other guy.

  61. Re:Watch out by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    I think you missed his point in your rush to judge him. He says it's got to be one of them because the Military industrial complex is running out of money.

    Or in other words, it can be anyone in his mind, because one of those two will get the blame in order to generate revenue for a couple companies.

  62. Last ping position by mdsolar · · Score: 4, Informative

    A couple of arcs of position are available from the last satellite ping. To the North, the arc is mostly over land in Western China though Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan are also covered. To the South, the arc is mostly over ocean West of Australia but it crosses Sumatra. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03...

  63. Doesn’t match with the reported facts. by qubex · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That’s a valid (and fairly chilling) reference, but insofar as the two tracking systems/transponders were deactivated at different times and deliberately it seems quite obvious that nothing of a sudden or accidental nature occurred - at least not at the outset of the episode. Of course something catastrophic or at the very least final must have occurred later on because well aeroplanes don’t stay aloft indefinitely.

    --
    "Place me in the company of those who seek Truth, but deliver me from those who believe to have found it."
    1. Re:Doesn’t match with the reported facts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no evidence presented that they were deactivated deliberately, that is a possible theory.

        An explosion that took out the radio and transponder and caused decompression and a fire still looks like the most likely explanation until there is hard evidence. The pilot makes an emergency descent, plots a course back to Malaysia then surcomes to the smoke. The fire later takes out the ACARS but leaves leave the engine monitoring system pinging a satellite until the plane falls into the ocean. Are the later movements really deliberate or just an autopilot struggling to keep a damaged plane in the air or on course?

      It's still possible that they lost the plane and the military radar picked up drug smuggling flight, or a military plane or drone upto something in the area.

      Suicide by pilot in the past has involved moments of despair and flying the plane into the ground. Making a plane disappear and fly out into the middle of the ocean would only make sense for insurance fraud, but there are probably easier ways to fake a crash. And since pilot suicide has happened before they would be checking the pilots medical and insurance records. It's behaviour that looks more typical of psychotic break, but you'd expect that to be noticed in someone in charge of an aeroplane.

      If someone wanted a 777 then there are much easier ways to steal one without killing 269 people. If you wanted to use a 777 that no one knew you had you would have to use it quickly before someone figured out you might have it. If you are a terrorist you need to target an enemy and create terror (even if you are Iranian intelligence and want to keep your role secret), and not just mimic a strange aviation accident.

      So far nothing makes any sense. But hopefully they are looking in the right ocean now and may find out something.

    2. Re: Doesn’t match with the reported facts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's pretty clear that both pilots and the navigator had the fish for dinner. Unfortunately there was nobody else on board who knew how to fly a plane.

  64. Re:Watch out by noh8rz10 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think we invaded iraq and afghanistan, not saudi arabia. but what do I know? I was too busy fiddling with my armaments and armor to see where they were shipping me off to.

  65. Re:Watch out by sumdumass · · Score: 0

    Really?

    James A Polk, a democrat got us into the Mexican American war
    Woodrow Wilson, another democrat got us into World War 1.
    Franklin D. Roosevelt, yet another democrat got us into World War 2
    While Eisenhower was president when the US sent military advisers into French Indochina, it was Kennedy that tripled out presence in 1961 and again in tripling it in 1962 and started our actual intervention into the battles with US troops instead of collaborating with the south on strategy and training it's military.

    Your comment should read only modern democrat presidents issue warnings. You might also say they fail to back them up when someone crosses their red lines and all but that is probably going overboard.

  66. CVR only lasts two hours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Even if we find the jet the voice record has been erased since it's looped over the most interesting part: the takeover.

    This may have been intended: ditch in deep ocean, and CVR is erased if found anyway.

    Also: if the flight lasted hours, why didn't the passengers rebel or at least call on airplane phones like for flight 93?
    Where they incapacited on purpose? (Dump the oxygen while pilot dons a mask)

    Finally why didn't the emergency locators activate when the plane hit the ground/ocean? I heard no theories on this.

    1. Re:CVR only lasts two hours by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Also: if the flight lasted hours, why didn't the passengers rebel or at least call on airplane phones like for flight 93?

      A few reasons.

      First, the flight took off at 1:21AM. Next time you fly a red-eye, check out how many passengers are sleeping.

      Second, the flight was mostly over water. Next time you fly a red-eye over water, check out how many passengers are looking out the window in order to verify that they're flying in the right direction.

      I'm sure they figured it out maybe 5 hours or so into the flight when they weren't actually landing. By then, it was probably a bit too late. And Malaysia Air may not actually have satellite phones on the aircraft. I've never used them, but I don't know if most airliners have satellite phones--I assume they're cellular or some other radio system.

    2. Re:CVR only lasts two hours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The crew (stewardess) would have noticed that the plane had turned, and that one of the pilots did not have supper/breakfast and was not responding. (assuming he was killed by the other).

      In fact, the other pilot would have had to be dealt with right away, and this would have been a giveaway that something went wrong. They were still over land at that point.

    3. Re:CVR only lasts two hours by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Why would they have noticed? And what's to say they didn't receive some cock-and-bull story?

      "Yeah, we're going to be going off the normal path for this flight--airline orders. So if you notice we're over water rather than land, don't worry."

      Oh yeah, some FA is going to tell the Captain of the airplane, "Well, let me see those orders."

      Besides, FAs have usually seen the route. When was the last time you saw an FA gazing out the window? They have better things to do.

  67. Sounds like the beginning of a mystery story to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The plane is just lost.

  68. Here's what really happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The data is hopeless due to backward ass countries. Heres what happened. The plane lost compression. The pilots turned the plane around in an emergency maneuver just before thay passed out. The plane then over-spead ripping the satellite and comms areal snd antennas from the plane, hence mostly lost comms. The plane climbed above 40k feet killing everyone onboard and continued to porpoise ... The plane continued into the Indian Ocean and crashed when it ran out of fuel... Simple.

  69. Worked in the Battle of Endor by lunadude · · Score: 2

    "Shuttle Tydirium, what is your cargo and destination?"
    Admiral Firmus Piett

  70. It's difficult by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well, it's a very difficult problem. There are solutions that can be built and some are actively being worked on, but you are talking about literally thousands of political jurisdictions around the world, a LOT of ocean, and limited ranges of land communication methods of doing this. Data is also an issue. Transponders are shut off periodically today because of data conflicts or confusion. (That's why it's right next to the pilots and isn't hard to shut off.) We also can't predict what functions will work properly in the event of a catastrophic failure. (Which is the most likely event for an aircraft over an ocean)
    It's a lot of work for something that very rarely happens.

  71. Agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think cabin pressure is the most likely explanation myself. Tho I'm puzzled why the transponder would have been turned off in this case, unless an untrained individual was in the cockpit "flipping switches".

  72. Check The Flight Simulator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The pilot had a flight simulator in his home. It would be interesting to know if he had flown the exact hijacked path on his simulator.

    Of course, the government probably already knows this, and knows where the plane is right now. Won't be telling us anytime soon.

  73. Land by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, over land this tracking is easy. Your car can't cross the ocean however. The "hole" in current tracking is being distant out to sea where most failures are going to be catastrophic and such a system may not provide a lot of information anyway. The benefit of such tracking is probably oversold as well. (As it pertains to this investigation) Knowing where the plane sits on the bottom of the ocean provides no answers to investigators. Current tracking already made it clear the plane went off course intentionally. The more realistic benefit to improved tracking is search and rescue, but looking for it to help with investigating the cause of crash incidents is a bit wishful thinking.

  74. Seems like a rogue pilot by Chewbacon · · Score: 2

    I'm inclined to lean toward this being a rogue pilot. Since 9/11 I feel like hijacking a plane is a really bad idea with a low chance of success. Perhaps I have some culture bias; in the United States, I'm sure there would be some opposition to a plane being taken over. Personally, I would assume the worst would happen and I'd be in the opposition. Bias set aside, if the passengers had no indication there was deviation to the flightplan, then there would be no opposition. The most likely way of not arousing suspicion would be if all events transpired exclusively in the cockpit.

    --
    Chewbacon
    The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
    1. Re:Seems like a rogue pilot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Since 9/11 I feel like hijacking a plane is a really bad idea with a low chance of success."

      yep, especially when 9/11 was an inside job carried out by agents within the united states government

    2. Re:Seems like a rogue pilot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm inclined to lean toward this being a rogue pilot. Since 9/11 I feel like hijacking a plane is a really bad idea with a low chance of success. Perhaps I have some culture bias; in the United States, I'm sure there would be some opposition to a plane being taken over. Personally, I would assume the worst would happen and I'd be in the opposition. Bias set aside, if the passengers had no indication there was deviation to the flightplan, then there would be no opposition. The most likely way of not arousing suspicion would be if all events transpired exclusively in the cockpit.

      Passengers or at the very least flight attendants could be aware of a major deviation in course if GPS wasn't on the list of prohibited electronics devices. Unfortunately some airlines recently added these to the banned list in the interest of a very narrow-minded understanding of safety.

  75. Re:Watch out by Chewbacon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "What country is that?" "I dunno, but let's free the shit outta it!" :KABOOM!:

    Look at our ever-climbing debt ceiling. Our government hasn't learned shit.

    --
    Chewbacon
    The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
  76. Someone will use the plane by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    as a diversion by crashing it in the US/UK/etc while Russia uses that time to invade Ukraine and other states. If ist in the US they will be too busy running around like a chicken with a cut off head and none of the allies will touch Ukraine with out US support.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  77. Re:Watch out by Jaime2 · · Score: 1

    That went right over your head. His point was that although most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. We obviously have a history of not attacking the country where the bombers are from.

  78. Re:Watch out by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

    if attackers where targeting China it woudl be them that I woudl be worried about

  79. Slate likes Chinese/Kyrgyz border by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    Slate is suggesting a circuitous path to near Kyrgyzstan. http://www.slate.com/blogs/fut...

  80. It could have been just an elaborate heist by frank249 · · Score: 1

    They have not released the cargo manifest yet. Who knows, there might have been hundreds of millions of dollars worth of diamonds or art or cash/bearer bonds on board. They would not need more than a 5,000 ft runway to land on if they did not plan to take off again. They could even have pulled a 'Thunderball' landing on the water and then camouflaged the plane with nets. This makes as much or even more sense than many of the other theories. If they never find the plane, it will have been the perfect crime.

    --

    Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.

    1. Re:It could have been just an elaborate heist by sshir · · Score: 1

      Maybe D.B. Cooper style heist? That would explain weird altitude behavior: need to lower pressure difference to open doors, set on autopilot, and then jump while westward crossing over Malaysia.

    2. Re:It could have been just an elaborate heist by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      If it were cargo theft, the passengers would be either released or ransomed. It could be attempted cargo theft that went fatally wrong, though.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  81. not so fast by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't believe a word of this without proof. This sounds exactly like what an Asian company would say under the circumstances to cover for non-working hardware that they knew damn well didn't work but didn't fix for monetary reasons. You know, Toyota blaming drivers for braking incorrectly even though it was their software glitch. Certain Japanese nuclear power plant companies are a good example too, lol.

  82. REAMDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this scenario is reminding me a lot of Neal Stephenson's book REAMDE

  83. American Paranioa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ,,mixed with ignorance. A Gulfstream V can do Johannesburg to NY. No need for a 777 and 200 abducted people and their 10000 relatives angrily demanding an explanation.

    Maybe you start employing some proper cops instead of Leading Edge NSA Craputers. Say, cops who respond to reports instead of filing it into Craputer Database 321 and then continuing to listen to Angela Merkel. Would that be a start ?

  84. Re:I'm not saying it was aliens... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1
    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  85. Re:Watch out by twistedcubic · · Score: 1


    ...he wanted to nuke Israel (it doesn't matter if that was a mistranslation)

    You claim a man said something, then you say it doesn't matter if he did not. I find your powers of reasoning quite compelling.

  86. Distraction by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

    Who has the most to gain from the world focusing on a mysterious airliner disappearance and forgetting about the Ukrainian crisis? Vladimir Putin.

    Not saying that he made it happen, but of all the groups out there that have the means to pull something like this off, he's the most likely suspect. Especially with the referendum coming up. A terrorist organization would have already taken credit.

    To be clear, I'm still betting on something catastrophic happening to the plane.

  87. Good try... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...The pilot's wife and kids were simultaneously killed and subsequently buried in a remote field after the plane landed...

    but they haven't been killed at all. They are still available for journalists to talk to should they wish.

    Of course, this simply means that the pilot could have been THREATENED with them being killed. But then he would have had to dispose of the co-pilot and the cabin crew, who would all know that something had gone wrong.

    That can be handled by a minor adjustment. The sabotaging pilot smuggles a gun on board the aircraft. He kills the co-pilot behind his locked door. Then he closes the Fuselage Pressurisation Engine Compressor Bleed Valve, allowing the plane to slowly decompress and puts on an oxygen mask. At some point the falling cabin pressure causes the emergency passenger oxygen masks to deploy. At that point the pilot announces an emergency, asks the cabin crew and passengers to put on masks as says he is descending.

    Instead he ASCENDS (as was noted by radar). The emergency oxygen runs out (or is turned off by the pilot), and the higher altitude ensures that all are dead rapidly. The pilot then descends to breathable altitude, leaves his seat to turn off all other transponders, and flies the plane to Hanthawaddy or elsewhere...

  88. Possible Location by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone needs to check Diego Garcia Airport

  89. More than you would think it seems. by macshome · · Score: 3, Funny
  90. Re:Watch out by Finallyjoined!!! · · Score: 1

    Our government

    Not mine sonny!

    "I dunno, but let's free the shit outta it!" :KABOOM!:

    Saw this in Vietnam........... You ain't gonna win naff all!!!.

    --
    If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
  91. Re:Watch out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do know that Ahmadinejad is no longer the President of Iran, right?

  92. Re:Watch out by Finallyjoined!!! · · Score: 1
    !em kcuF

    if attackers where targeting China it woudl be them that I woudl be worried about

    Are we speaking the same language?

    --
    If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
  93. stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is stupid for a dozen reasons, the biggest of which is that Iran is in fact actively pursuing a detente with the West and is no way aligned with global Islamism (a quick glance at Middle Eastern politics makes this obvious), and the second is that Iran has no nuclear bomb. And finding anyone in Turkey who would cooperate with Iranian "terrorists" is impossible at both ends of the political spectrum, Sunni to secular-leftist.

  94. Re:Watch out by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    Wow, when the truth and facts are a troll due to someone's preconcieved political notions that have no basis in reality, we are in seriously bad shape. The fact is, shit happens and the difference between a D or an R beside a president's name has little to do with them having to deal with it and often war is an inevitable ends to dealing with it. Although war is also seldom used in comparison to the amount of shit that happens.

  95. Re:Watch out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US is swimming right now in all the oil they got out of Iraq and Quwait. Oh wait...

  96. Re:flip the breaker = high degree of technical kno by radarskiy · · Score: 1

    Maybe the hijackers were Slashdot readers.

  97. Why would someone want a passenger plane? by n2hightech · · Score: 1

    The plane was stolen not hijacked or used to commit suicide . If it was hijacked someone would be making demands for the safe return of the passengers. If it was used to commit suicide it would have been crashed and we would have found wreckage. Neither of these have occurred so the only other possibility is someone wanted the plane intact for some purpose. Who would need a plane that size with that range? Who has used planes as weapons? My guess is that the plane was taken by Al Qaeda and flown to Pakistan. It is being loaded with a nuclear bomb from Pakistan, North Korea or a dirty bomb with Soviet nuclear material. There are factions in Pakistan that are still very angry about us taking out Osama bin Laden and would cooperate in striking the US. North Korea recently detonated a test bomb so they have the technology. There is a risk that Soviet nuclear materials have made it onto the black market. The plane has a range of 8861 miles which puts London, New York or DC well within range from Pakistan. All they would need to do is shadow a commercial flight right into the target area. If I lived in any of the possible target cities I would take a vacation.

  98. US investigators like southern satellite arc by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    The article does not say why, but perhaps lack of radar contact along the Northern landlocked arc is the reason. Helpful graphic showing remaining fuel range from last ping arc. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03...

  99. Overlooking the obvious by afghancoastguard · · Score: 1

    The knowledgeable personnel suspected of deliberate action on this flight were the original crew, attempting, without success, to control a crippled aircraft. Cascading comm failures were malfunctions, cause unknown, that appear deliberate from afar. Other, as yet undetermined/cause unknown malfunctions degraded crew-controllable aviation, (50%) navigation (95%) communication (100%) capabilities. Aircraft is in the ocean, location unknown.

  100. Agent-Provocateur Incident gone bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My theory is that this is a Malay government attempt to draw out would-be terrorists using a agent-provocateur scheme. The theory is that they set up a hijacking with the intent of arresting everyone at the last minute and scooping big headlines for themselves.
        But, for some reason, the hijacking actually went through because someone in the lower levels of the security services was trying to do a mini-coup d-état on the leadership of the Malay CIA. The Malay government is seriously embarrassed and everyone involved is trying to cover up as much as possible before the plane is found.

          The BBC had a report of an Iranian traveling with a false passport on the plane. Now this is weird because:
        1) Iran is one of the most corrupt countries on earth, so someone could just bribe an government official there and get a real Iranian passport for the same price as a fake non-Iranian passport.
        2) The BBC reported that this person was 'in transit to Germany'. If so, then why was he in Malaysia? That's like going from San Francisco to Seattle by way of Buenos Aries.
        3) Why would this person be on a plane to Beijing? No one goes to China without a visa and the visa people in China would have known that the passport was fake. Maybe he knew that he would never reach China, so it wouldn't matter that he would have been discovered to have a fake passport at Chinese immigration.
        4) 2) The BBC reported that this person was penniless. If so, then how did he get to Malaysia? And how did he get the funds for a ticket to Beijing?

  101. Solution Unsatisfactory by Heinlein by WarlockD · · Score: 1

    One of the first story's that got me reading his fiction. Why go though all the trouble of building a complex bomb when you can just fill the belly of that airplane with as much radioactive dust and you can and spread it over New York or Washington like a crop duster over a corn field?

    At most they just need to make some panels blow off at low altitude to spread as much as they can. The result would be worst than any bomb. You wipe out a city the size of New York (Washington, etc) and you also make it uninhabitable for 40 to 100 years. Much stronger physiological impact as there is no way you can clean that stuff up for that time. Heinlein talked about using low half life radiation (5 years) so you could just walk back in. I doubt terrorists would be so considerate.

    As a side note, he wrote this thing in the mid 40's. How scare is that shit:P

  102. Malaysian errors or sympathy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the plane was hijacked, the hijackers might know about the weaknesses in Malaysia's air defenses. See the article "Series of Errors by Malaysia Mounts, Complicating the Task of Finding Flight 370".

    The article says, "a [Malaysian] four-person air defense radar crew did nothing about the unauthorized flight. ... As a result, combat aircraft never scrambled to investigate. The plane, identified at the time by Mr. Najib as Flight 370, passed directly over Penang, a largely urban state with more than 1.6 million people, then turned and headed out over the Strait of Malacca."

    Because of this delay, we don't know where the plane is. Maybe the hijackers bribed the air defense radar crew to do nothing about the flight, or maybe some of the radar crew members wanted to help the hijackers.

  103. Re:Watch out by rossdee · · Score: 1

    "Franklin D. Roosevelt, yet another democrat got us into World War 2"

    I thought the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor and sinking all the battleships had something to do with it.

  104. Re:Watch out by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    You mean the bombing we had knowledge of and didn't prevent in order to allow our entry into WWII?

    We could have relaxed our economic policy towards Japan and issued a stern warning instead of going to war with Germany I guess. Well, we did give Japan a stern warning but it didn't work because we demanded the complete withdrawal of all Japanese troops from French Indochina and China. Japan wasn't worried about us until we started clamping down on them economically for their actions in china and surrounding territories and demanding they cease. The US Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, documented in his diary that he had discussions with Roosevelt about how to manipulate Japan "into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves".

    Well, that is we could of until Germany attacked the US which we know they had plans for doing but do not know if those plans were simply provisional contingency plans like we keep on regular basis or an actual strategy they were going to implement at some point in time.

    Anyways, the point still stands. The D and R mean nothing beside a president's name as shit happens and it gets dealt with. The GP was factually incorrect. Democrats get us into war too. Available evidence and history shows us that we could have avoided an attack on Perl Harbor by the Japanese but didn't really want to. To say Roosevelt was only responding is a little naive.

  105. Northwest of Australia seems most likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Plane would be much more likely to go undetected moving south into the ocean rather than north, and wouldn't have that much fuel left if it went straight for the closest ends of the arcs suggested by inmarsat ... i think this map tells the story http://goo.gl/uZsAeE

  106. I would not think so.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You would not fly for hours just to suicide. I doubt he would do it for money since I would think pilots make good money. Maybe they are filming a REAL reality show survivor on some small island. Since people are getting tired of all these fake reality shows.

  107. Deliberate scare mongering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First it was two guys with stolen passports and oh noes an Iranian.. Media makes no attempt to provide regional context for use of stolen passports. Instead they spend their time on "terror" conspiracy theories.

    Then it was pilots with flight sims in their homes are suspicious as are pilots who let girls in the cockpit.

    Now it is someone did it.. someone turned this off, turned that off. This was unusual that was unusual.. an orgy of people seeing what they want to see especially if it keeps eyeballs watching the news and clicking the links.

  108. The engineers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was mention of like 20 engineers from Freescale or somebody on-board. If for example Iran or somebody needed a sudden infusion of brain talent, perhaps they redirected the flight for said group of personnel. That would be feasible based on the other details (direction of last know flight, potential fuel capacity, somebody who might have need of such engineering talent despite embargos.)

  109. Re:Watch out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you missed the point that quenda was making, because it is the same as the point you made.

  110. Are they wrong? by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    In the graphic, an envelope of 1 hour flight distance is shown for each arc. The envelopes for the North and South arcs don't overlap. In fact it looks like would take three hours to get from one arc to the other. Drawing radii from the arc ends to the satellite position, it looks like you'd have to get to Sri Lanka before the arc ends are within an hour's travel distance. But, news reports indicate detection of hourly pings. If similar arcs are associated with the other pings, then there may never be time to jump from one arc to the other if they are never consistent with a position near Sri Lanka, so the Southern arc might be excluded on geometric grounds.

  111. Re: Watch out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FDR cut off oil shipments to Japan.

  112. Shock and awe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the same reason terrorism exists in the first place.

  113. Re:I'm not saying it was aliens... by Gallomimia · · Score: 1

    What a coincidence! That's the island from Lost. They're filming a sequel. It's called "Fucked."

    --
    Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
  114. Why not Pirates? by Occams · · Score: 1

    This kind of hijacking would be a logical move up-market for those Somali pirates who steal ships in the Bay of Bengal. Those bastards would not claim credit for it until they had a deal to negotiate. They probably crashed it in the sea because they found an airliner somewhat more difficult to handle than a ship.

    --
    Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.