Malaysian Plane Missing After Take Off

[Oh Shoot]

....

...."The Telegraph reports that the supergrass said he met the Malaysians...

 

Never saw that word before:

 

"Supergrass is a British slang term for an informer, which originated in London", just for anyone else who wondered.

 

- OS

Edited March 16, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Raoul]

My money says the plane is somewhere in one of the 'stans. I also bet it worries the Russians. That's my theory.

[CQB Elite]

[quote name="Raoul" post="1125171" timestamp="1394931991"]My money says the plane is somewhere in one of the 'stans. I also bet it worries the Russians. That's my theory.[/quote] I don't see how you can hide a 777 without either a gov't satellite spotting it or HUMINT reporting it. FEDEX has about 25 777s in their fleet and my house is sometimes in the glide approach for MEM. Jets are easy to spot.

[Chucktshoes]

Found it! http://vietnam.craigslist.org/for/4372477162.html

[CQB Elite]

[quote name="Chucktshoes" post="1125192" timestamp="1394934355"]Found it![url="http://vietnam.craigslist.org/for/4372477162.html"]http://vietnam.craigslist.org/for/4372477162.html[/url][/quote] Dang Dude! You need to be working for the NTSB, FAA or CIA. Or wait, maybe you do... Uh oh, never mind.... I can't ID you or anything like that..... I'm outa here....... Now I have black helicopters circling my compound.........

[Oh Shoot]

Found it! http://vietnam.craigslist.org/for/4372477162.html

 

Good catch. I bet none of the intelligence orgs even thought to check CraigsList, duh.

 

- OS

[TNMTBik3r]

I just saw that ad posted on Facebook. All the snacks are included, wonder about luggage?

[TMF]

[quote name="Raoul" post="1125171" timestamp="1394931991"]My money says the plane is somewhere in one of the 'stans. I also bet it worries the Russians. That's my theory.[/quote] The airline claim they didnt have enough fuel to make it to India, let alone one of the Stans. Wouldn't know how it would get there anyway without crossing the airspace of a whole lotta countries. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Mike.357]

Been reading that it had plenty of fuel to make it to the "Stans".  

 

Who knows what is true.  So I am not calling you out TMF, just passing along information or misinformation depending.  lol

[Oh Shoot]

The airline claim they didnt have enough fuel to make it to India, let alone one of the Stans. ..

 

Possibilities apparently revised good while ago, I keep seeing maps more like these based on max fuel range:

 

 

I guess I'm not understanding why so many maps are showing just the four hour area after contact instead of the 7 hour max fuel one, though.

 

 

 

- OS

Edited March 16, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[TMF]

[quote name="Mike.357" post="1125269" timestamp="1394943390"]Been reading that it had plenty of fuel to make it to the "Stans". Who knows what is true. So I am not calling you out TMF, just passing along information or misinformation depending. lol[/quote] Okay, last I read the "authorities" claimed that they had less than 4 hours of fuel when they were at their last known location. I guess that has either changed or has conflicting info out there. Like I said before, in the early days of these things there is so much inaccurate data put out which spins off all these nonsensical theories. At any rate, this whole debacle has reconfirmed my opinion that Malaysia is another country of halfwit cavemen. These idiots couldn't find their ass with both hands. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Mike.357]

I firmly believe the Malaysians can find their ass. I also believe they are involved, at some level.

 

People know where that jetliner is.  

 

Does anyone else question the coincidence of the crap going on in the Crimea and this little distraction?

 

Can you say NWO?

[TMF]

[quote name="Mike.357" post="1125277" timestamp="1394945529"]I firmly believe the Malaysians can find their ass. I also believe they are involved, at some level. People know where that jetliner is. Does anyone else question the coincidence of the crap going on in the Crimea and this little distraction? Can you say NWO?[/quote] No, I don't think so. There is always some kind of crisis or international issue which coincides with other big news stories. If Kim Karshittian gets a divorce tomorrow that will distract 3/4 of US media. You could literally spy on every single Americans' digital transmissions and the average American wouldn't care. Distractions aren't required. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Mark@Sea]

The US has an outstanding system of interlocking radar warning nets covering our borders.  Maintaining, coordinating and monitoring these is a non-trivial exercise.  I would be stunned to find that Malaysia has an equivalent system.  Civilian radar has a much shorter detection range - turn the squawk box (IFF) off and the contact drops right off the scope at 1/3 or less the range.  So I'm not surprised that Malaysia lost track of the plane. 

[vontar]

Does anyone else question the coincidence of the crap going on in the Crimea and this little distraction?

 

Can you say NWO?

 

Mean while in other news. 

Report: N. Korea fires 10 missiles

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/16/world/asia/nkorea-missile-launches/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

 

I guess they don't feel they are getting the stand now either.

[Mike.357]

it is too bad NK doesn't have oil,  that guy needs an ass kicking.  If there was oil we'd have been there by now.

[vontar]

Talking about it at work, I can't see any reason why the pilots should have the ability to turn off the transponder. 

 

I believe the transponder helps air traffic control by putting the flight info with the Dot on the screen(I could be wrong, but I know radar should detect them even with out a transponder).  Minus a transponder their should still be a blimp as long at it is in range.

Also seems that anything that doesn't have a transponder should be flagged in the system to be given the highest priority as possible until identified.

[R_Bert]

Talking about it at work, I can't see any reason why the pilots should have the ability to turn off the transponder. 

 

I believe the transponder helps air traffic control by putting the flight info with the Dot on the screen(I could be wrong, but I know radar should detect them even with out a transponder).  Minus a transponder their should still be a blimp as long at it is in range.

Also seems that anything that doesn't have a transponder should be flagged in the system to be given the highest priority as possible until identified.

As I understand it, al *lot* of RF exposure at the gate.  H&S issue.  Apparently those things are pretty high output.

[No_0ne]

Talking about it at work, I can't see any reason why the pilots should have the ability to turn off the transponder. 

 

I believe the transponder helps air traffic control by putting the flight info with the Dot on the screen(I could be wrong, but I know radar should detect them even with out a transponder).  Minus a transponder their should still be a blimp as long at it is in range.

Also seems that anything that doesn't have a transponder should be flagged in the system to be given the highest priority as possible until identified.

Speaking from a US airspace perspective only:

 

There are several valid reasons why the transponders have an "off" switch.  On the ground at or near busy airports, it's often done to reduce the noise and clutter which is inherent to the system.  General aviation aircraft often fly with the transponders off when flying "VFR" in order to not have the hassle of dealing with the ATC system for pleasure or low level flights, this is of course not applicable to airliner operations.  In addition, the system sometimes breaks down, the signals get confused on the radar screens, the altitude info is wrong or conflicting from the encoders, or maybe the transmitter just has a "crash" and needs resetting, this requires turning the power off and then back on, it's usually done at the request of the controllers but may be initiated by the pilots to clear up issues.

 

As for "blips" showing up on radar without the transponder functioning, the whole purpose of the transponder is to help identify, locate and follow the "blips".  Primary radar coverage is very spotty, targets are often hard to see and harder to follow, impossible to identify without the use of the transponder.  There are many areas right here in the US where radar coverage is spotty or non-existent, some of these areas are found in Tennessee as well, especially at lower flight levels.  Even with transponders working, pilots are sometimes asked to "ident", that's a switch which boosts the transponder output temporarily to help the controllers find an aircraft on their screens.  Every one of these examples has occurred to me while flying recreationally in Tennessee; over the oceans in less-developed areas those types of problems are probably worse.

 

Transponders, aviation radar, aircraft navigation and the aircraft traffic control system are poorly understood by the non-flying public, that's completely understandable.  What's different in this situation is that the newscasters don't understand it either, and seem willfully obtuse in their comprehension despite numerous attempts by knowledgeable people to answer questions like "why can the transponders be turned off"?  After a week, the same reporters are still asking the same questions on air, adding to the confusion of the listeners in their attempt to create controversies where none exist.

Edited March 16, 2014 by No_0ne

[Mark@Sea]

  Military radar that can do a 'skin paint' (get a solid return from the aircraft) at, say, 350 miles (aircraft must be at sufficient altitude) puts out enough power to really mess with everything from garage-door openers to cell phones, not to mention blinding civilian radar. (300K watts or better output).

  The IFF - well, think of it this way.  Using civilian radar is like searching for someone at night using a flashlight.  The transponder acts as reflective tape.  When it is on, you can see them much further away.

[R_Bert]

  Military radar that can do a 'skin paint' (get a solid return from the aircraft) at, say, 350 miles (aircraft must be at sufficient altitude) puts out enough power to really mess with everything from garage-door openers to cell phones, not to mention blinding civilian radar. (300K watts or better output).

  The IFF - well, think of it this way.  Using civilian radar is like searching for someone at night using a flashlight.  The transponder acts as reflective tape.  When it is on, you can see them much further away.

I remember the Russian HF "Woodpecker" radar back in the 70s-80's.  That ****ed thing was running megawatts.  Dead band, and you could still hear it.

[Mark@Sea]

Yeah.  Last one I maintained had adjustable output - at the higher end the beam would knock seagulls out of the air (DRT) at a hundred yards easy.  We were required to turn it off within 50 miles of the coast or FAA got downright pissy.

[Raoul]

I firmly believe the Malaysians can find their ass. I also believe they are involved, at some level.

 

People know where that jetliner is.  

 

Does anyone else question the coincidence of the crap going on in the Crimea and this little distraction?

 

Can you say NWO?

 

Or Muslim Chechen separatists. And how about those Iranians with the false passports? I'm just saying...

[Guest TankerHC]

Or Muslim Chechen separatists. And how about those Iranians with the false passports? I'm just saying...

 

 

Naa,  the Iranians with the stolen passports are OK, they are just Iranians, with stolen passports, boarding aircraft, under assumed names, looking for freedom.

[TNMTBik3r]

Investigating the pilot who was a 'political activist'

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/03/16/malaysia-flight-missing-pilots/6484249/

 

 

And looking at a flight engineer as being an accomplice to the pilot. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/03/17/pilots-become-focus-malaysia-airlines-investigation/

 

 

"Authorities are also examining the possibility that the plane flew at an altitude of less than 5,000 feet to avoid radar coverage after it turned back from its planned route to Beijing, the Malaysian newspaper New Straits Times reports.

The newspaper said officials are reviewing the plane’s flight profile to determine whether it used “terrain masking” techniques during the time it disappeared from radar coverage.

"It's possible that the aircraft had hugged the terrain in some areas that are mountainous to avoid radar detection,” an official told the newspaper. “The person who had control over the aircraft has a solid knowledge of avionics and navigation..."