missing plane

Bernie174 said:
I said it's a likely cause, and the others are less likely.

What question?
Click to expand...


The one you obviously missed ;) That I'd asked a few times. I suspect from your comments about China not being a common destination for illegal immigrants you'd missed that both the people carrying stolen passports had onward flights from Beijing to Amsterdam and then onto separate final European destinations. Why would that be?, I really don't know. I'd hazard a guess if you had sinister intentions the first flight into Europe would mean you bypassed China's visa checks before boarding but the last leg (amsterdam-Frankfurt, and Amsterdam-Denmark) just loses me.(if you had sinister intentions)
 
Hugh

Now you are assuming. You say,
"Beijing to Amsterdam and then onto separate final European destinations."
Who says there was an intention to go any futher than a couple of 100 miles. In any case, there is no requirement for a visa in China if staying less than 72 hours. So no check for a Chinese visa at KL, and if the intention was to blow the aircraft, then no need to worry about what happens in China anyway. In any case, the impression your question gives is this was directed at an EU Country, if it was terrorism, but of course thats not necessarily so.
But anyway, why go via China if they were up to something? Simple really, indirect flights are usually cheaper than direct. If you don't have a lot of cash, don't want to many checks done, its the obvious route.
 
Bernie174 said:
Hugh

Now you are assuming. You say,
"Beijing to Amsterdam and then onto separate final European destinations."
Who says there was an intention to go any futher than a couple of 100 miles. In any case, there is no requirement for a visa in China if staying less than 72 hours. So no check for a Chinese visa at KL, and if the intention was to blow the aircraft, then no need to worry about what happens in China anyway. In any case, the impression your question gives is this was directed at an EU Country, if it was terrorism, but of course thats not necessarily so.
But anyway, why go via China if they were up to something? Simple really, indirect flights are usually cheaper than direct. If you don't have a lot of cash, don't want to many checks done, its the obvious route.
Click to expand...


I'm confused Bernie, its widely reported the people carrying the stolen passports were flying from Beijing to Amsterdam and then onward to separate destinations. My question was simply why would you book all those further flights if you intended never to arrive at your first destination?

That doesn't imply in anyway anything being directed at an EU country. You're wrong about Chinese visa requirements, a tourist visa is actually quite onerous to obtain, however you can bypass this by getting a 72 hour transit visa (in certain cities) but you need an onward ticket -(not simply a return flight).

It seems a bit pointless TBH
 
The flight deck door is not infallable. It has to be opened in flight to permit crew to go to a toilet or for refreshments to be taken in. El-Al use double doors to overcome this weakness.

The absence of any wreckage whatsoever could suggest that the aircraft was flown a long way after it's transponder stopped transmitting.
 
Hugh

If you book a simple flight to China, then, as you say it's onerous to get a Visa, AND, your visa would be checked by immigration when you leave Malaya. If you are 'transiting', then with an onward ticket, you aren't going to be looked at very closely, you are in effect just going home. So you have answered your own point. If you are going to travel on a hooky passport, you do what you can to draw as little attention as possible. The presumption is that terrorist are not very bright, in fact they are.
 
arclight said:
The absence of any wreckage whatsoever could suggest that the aircraft was flown a long way after it's transponder stopped transmitting.
Click to expand...
It could also indicate massive structural failure at altitude. The Air France crash site was relatively easy to find because it was a large amount of debris in a small area.
The best precedent we have for a large passenger plane breaking up at altitude is PanAm103, which left a 40km x 20km debris field of mostly small debris. Potentially very difficult to locate at sea.
 
Bernie174 said:
Hugh

If you book a simple flight to China, then, as you say it's onerous to get a Visa, AND, your visa would be checked by immigration when you leave Malaya. If you are 'transiting', then with an onward ticket, you aren't going to be looked at very closely, you are in effect just going home. So you have answered your own point. If you are going to travel on a hooky passport, you do what you can to draw as little attention as possible. The presumption is that terrorist are not very bright, in fact they are.
Click to expand...


I realise that Bernie. But why would you then spend money booking flights from Amsterdam to Germany and Denmark?
 
Last edited:
I doubt that long term savings would be high on the list of priorities for a potential suicide bomber...

Taking Ghoti's point, I would think that a mid air explosion of any sort would have resulted in a fairly large debris field and that there's a fair bit of that debris (lifejackets, rafts etc) that is brightly coloured to help it being spotted from the air. I know it's looking for a needle in a haystack but I would have thought that something might have been spotted.
 
arclight said:
The flight deck door is not infallable. It has to be opened in flight to permit crew to go to a toilet or for refreshments to be taken in. El-Al use double doors to overcome this weakness.

The absence of any wreckage whatsoever could suggest that the aircraft was flown a long way after it's transponder stopped transmitting.
Click to expand...
Can transponders be turned off/sabotaged to stop transmitting?
 
arclight said:
The flight deck door is not infallable. It has to be opened in flight to permit crew to go to a toilet or for refreshments to be taken in. El-Al use double doors to overcome this weakness.

The absence of any wreckage whatsoever could suggest that the aircraft was flown a long way after it's transponder stopped transmitting.
Click to expand...

The absence of evidence, is no evidence of absence. Until it has been found. It is pointless speculating further.
 
I know the sea is a pretty big place (and it appears they may have been looking in the wrong sea), but this is the 21st Century. Is anybody else troubled that a plane can just, you know, vanish?

Is it naive of me to assume that there are various bits in a modern plane that contain radio transmitters? I'm imagining something fairly robust (so it can survive a fall from altitude) and pretty small (so it would stand less chance of breaking in an explosion) that would start transmitting on sudden altitude change or contact with salt water. And lots of them to assure redundancy. Really, are they looking for this plane by just, erm, looking for it? Because I've always had my suspicions about the light and whistle on the lifejackets.
 
JonathanRyan said:
I know the sea is a pretty big place (and it appears they may have been looking in the wrong sea), but this is the 21st Century. Is anybody else troubled that a plane can just, you know, vanish?

Is it naive of me to assume that there are various bits in a modern plane that contain radio transmitters? I'm imagining something fairly robust (so it can survive a fall from altitude) and pretty small (so it would stand less chance of breaking in an explosion) that would start transmitting on sudden altitude change or contact with salt water. And lots of them to assure redundancy. Really, are they looking for this plane by just, erm, looking for it? Because I've always had my suspicions about the light and whistle on the lifejackets.
Click to expand...

They do have emergency beacons, but they are not infallible
 
it was said that they found the plane door but just not the plane so by all accounts its broken up mid air it could be any thing from a bomb, total falure,hit by what ever,etc, or even a ufo well ok that ones a bit ott , but until some one comes out and says we could guess all day it is also said it could have been 4 stolen passports
 
hoochy1 said:
it was said that they found the plane door but just not the plane so by all accounts its broken up mid air it could be any thing from a bomb, total falure,hit by what ever,etc, or even a ufo well ok that ones a bit ott , but until some one comes out and says we could guess all day it is also said it could have been 4 stolen passports
Click to expand...

I think it turned out not to be part of the plane..... (I guess if you go looking for debris you're gonna find some)

People seem to think the passports aren't that suspicious. Interview in R4 this morning said that they really aren't as uncommon as you'd hope.
 
BBC news says the same about the passports. Esp in that part of the world.

It's worrying they appear to have started to search a sea to the south and west of takeoff. When the planes route would(or should) of been pretty much due north
 
And this aircraft was involved in an incident a few years ago where the tip of the wing was damaged, it's more that possible something was minutely damage that wasnt discovered at the time that has spread to cause a failure, it wouldn't be the first time
 
Can transponders be turned off/sabotaged to stop transmitting?
Click to expand...

Yes, it can be turned off, from the flightdeck. Can it be sabotaged? depends what you mean, if you had a tame Engineer, then I doubt that it would be difficult to wire it up so it turns off when something else is switched off. But that would take a lot of work and co ordination, which isn't likely.

But even if it is off, all that will achieve is to stop a secondary radar return. Secondary radar sends out as signal that says "hello, who are you". The aircraft transponder then replies "I am squark 1234, I am at 35,000 feet and I am heading 045 degrees at 500 knots". The ATC computer translates the squark code to MH370 and displays that on the screen.

What it does not do is hide the aircraft, instead of information being displayed it produces a raw return, ie there's something there, and it's not squarking. Thats how military Air Defence Radars find things. At that point, had this aircraft still been visible, then ATC would be calling it. More importantly in this context, the Vietnamese would be seeing a raw radar return and like most States, scrambling fighters.
 
So are you suggesting that the transponder somehow stopped transmitting normally, that this caused fighters to be scrambled and that this may have led to an unarmed civillian aircraft being destroyed?
 
Garry Edwards said:
So are you suggesting that the transponder somehow stopped transmitting normally, that this caused fighters to be scrambled and that this may have led to an unarmed civillian aircraft being destroyed?
Click to expand...


Where the hell did he say that?

...or am I missreading something?
 
who needs conspiracy theories when we have TP? :)

My thoughts are - plane has some kind of message deliverers / receivers / gps etc etc... probably several of the passengers have smartphones which pick up satellites etc.. therefore it should be reasonably easy to triangulate...

So far as far as I know, nothing been found... it's at the bottom of somewhere very wet. How it got there without debris though, i have no idea.
 
Tigger.ufo said:
Where the hell did he say that?

...or am I missreading something?
Click to expand...
Bernie174 said:
Yes, it can be turned off, from the flightdeck. Can it be sabotaged? depends what you mean, if you had a tame Engineer, then I doubt that it would be difficult to wire it up so it turns off when something else is switched off. But that would take a lot of work and co ordination, which isn't likely.

But even if it is off, all that will achieve is to stop a secondary radar return. Secondary radar sends out as signal that says "hello, who are you". The aircraft transponder then replies "I am squark 1234, I am at 35,000 feet and I am heading 045 degrees at 500 knots". The ATC computer translates the squark code to MH370 and displays that on the screen.

What it does not do is hide the aircraft, instead of information being displayed it produces a raw return, ie there's something there, and it's not squarking. Thats how military Air Defence Radars find things. At that point, had this aircraft still been visible, then ATC would be calling it. More importantly in this context, the Vietnamese would be seeing a raw radar return and like most States, scrambling fighters.
Click to expand...
VVVV
 
Yes thank you I did read all of Bernies post.

I just couldn't see where it said that an unarmed civillian aircraft was destroyed.
 
Garry

Please read what I said, not what you think I said!

I gave a full answer to the question, including what secondary radar does and what primary radar does, and what happens when a primary radar shows an unidentified track.
At no point have I suggested anything like what you said. It's standard policy in every major country, except New Zealand which doesn't have any, to scramble fights when there is an unidentified aircraft approaching it's airspace. We do it and have been doing it since bloody radar was invented! Apart from 1939-1945 when there was another issue, we have not yet once even fired at an aircraft!

It's called intercept and Identify. As I keep saying to you, go back to the lighting forum and do what you do best, and I'll add comprehension to the already long list of the things you don't do well.
 
Bernie174 said:
Garry

Please read what I said, not what you think I said!

I gave a full answer to the question, including what secondary radar does and what primary radar does, and what happens when a primary radar shows an unidentified track.
At no point have I suggested anything like what you said. It's standard policy in every major country, except New Zealand which doesn't have any, to scramble fights when there is an unidentified aircraft approaching it's airspace. We do it and have been doing it since bloody radar was invented! Apart from 1939-1945 when there was another issue, we have not yet once even fired at an aircraft!

It's called intercept and Identify. As I keep saying to you, go back to the lighting forum and do what you do best, and I'll add comprehension to the already long list of the things you don't do well.
Click to expand...

ooh.. handbags!
 
Bernie174 said:
Garry

Please read what I said, not what you think I said!

I gave a full answer to the question, including what secondary radar does and what primary radar does, and what happens when a primary radar shows an unidentified track.
At no point have I suggested anything like what you said. It's standard policy in every major country, except New Zealand which doesn't have any, to scramble fights when there is an unidentified aircraft approaching it's airspace. We do it and have been doing it since bloody radar was invented! Apart from 1939-1945 when there was another issue, we have not yet once even fired at an aircraft!

It's called intercept and Identify. As I keep saying to you, go back to the lighting forum and do what you do best, and I'll add comprehension to the already long list of the things you don't do well.
Click to expand...

Well answered :p made me grin.
 
Last edited:
I can't help thinking that the radar ops might have noticed a fast moving blip converging with the jet immediately before it disappeared from the radar ... which pretty much rules out it being shot down (unless we think the Americans used an F22 to shoot it down for sh*ts and giggles ... which seems a tad unlikely)
 
Bernie174 said:
Garry

Please read what I said, not what you think I said!

I gave a full answer to the question, including what secondary radar does and what primary radar does, and what happens when a primary radar shows an unidentified track.
At no point have I suggested anything like what you said. It's standard policy in every major country, except New Zealand which doesn't have any, to scramble fights when there is an unidentified aircraft approaching it's airspace. We do it and have been doing it since bloody radar was invented! Apart from 1939-1945 when there was another issue, we have not yet once even fired at an aircraft!

It's called intercept and Identify. As I keep saying to you, go back to the lighting forum and do what you do best, and I'll add comprehension to the already long list of the things you don't do well.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I just get confused sometimes, it's difficult to keep up.
Mostly, you're defending police officers and telling us all that it's wrong to speculate because we weren't there and don't understand the situation.
Now, you're speculating yourself.

Anyway, must get an early night, I have a fight on my hands in the morning, justice needs to be done to a lying, fraudulent uniformed perverter of justice.
 
Garry

there is a huge difference between trying and convicting someone (I think you'll find that I say exactly the same no matter who it is ) based on usually nothing at all, and at best the few details that the press report to suit their own point of view nd a complete ignorance of law, and pointing out logical possibilities of of the cause of an incident to an aircraft.

For example, in answer to the point it can't be terrorism, because there is no claim of responsibility, saying that ain't necessarily so. Or pointing out there are 2 causes for a sudden complete loss of contact, and given the history of that aircraft type, one reason is less lightly that the other. Thats called logic, not speculation. Speculation is a different thing, unlike logic one you excel at.
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
I can't help thinking that the radar ops might have noticed a fast moving blip converging with the jet immediately before it disappeared from the radar ... which pretty much rules out it being shot down (unless we think the Americans used an F22 to shoot it down for sh*ts and giggles ... which seems a tad unlikely)
Click to expand...

Also, it would rely on some country forgetting that they had shot it down.

All the searching that's going on would probably prompt them to remember......
 
Bernie174 said:
For example, in answer to the point it can't be terrorism, because there is no claim of responsibility, saying that ain't necessarily so.
Click to expand...

Also, the expert on R4 yesterday mentioned a case where some terrorists had basically done a dry run at bringing down a plane. They planned to use the same technique in a mass attack but wanted to practise so picked a target in a country that wasn't quite so obvious or hard to hit as the US. Yes, I know how awful that sounds. Also, more plausible than some of the theories.
 
Bernie174 said:
So what's left? 2 people with fake passports, which is a bit odd. While there is no central database of every nicked passport in the world, I'd say from some experience in this sort of thing, possible for one person with a faked passport on board, but 2?
In any case, what right minded person would want to get into China so much they faked a passport?
Click to expand...


mmmm http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26525281
 
Bernie174 said:
Garry

Please read what I said, not what you think I said!

I gave a full answer to the question, including what secondary radar does and what primary radar does, and what happens when a primary radar shows an unidentified track.
At no point have I suggested anything like what you said. It's standard policy in every major country, except New Zealand which doesn't have any, to scramble fights when there is an unidentified aircraft approaching it's airspace. We do it and have been doing it since bloody radar was invented! Apart from 1939-1945 when there was another issue, we have not yet once even fired at an aircraft!

It's called intercept and Identify. As I keep saying to you, go back to the lighting forum and do what you do best, and I'll add comprehension to the already long list of the things you don't do well.
Click to expand...

Bernie at least try and get your facts right.
The Americans shot down Iran flight 655, mistaking it for an attack aircraft, which ultimately led to the pan am flight 103 over Lockerbie
Korean flight 007 in the 1980's, heck there's even thought the British shot down an air Linus flight in the 60's with its experimental rocket program.
It's not very common, but accidental (or deliberate) shooting down of civilian airliners has happened quite a few times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top