Did Malaysian Airlines 370 disappear using SIA68 (another 777)?

Zaphod58
But at times you would have to be close, as you crossed an antenna.

edit on 3/18/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

Not necessarily. Even if they saw a second blip when you crossed an antenna, if you were shadowing the plane they might just think it was a ghost signal like this and ignore it especially if it was transient which it would be if it's just an effect of crossing the antenna:

en.wikipedia.org...

But I don't think you'd have to fly all that close to avoid a second blip, given the typical resolution of radar displays, but yeah you'd want to be closer than 5000 feet when flying over an antenna.

Also I don't think the flight path in question crossed many antennas, maybe one.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


That's the kicker. Over the wide ocean, the only frequencies likely encountered were low-frequency, long-distance search radars. Unless they were quite close to a naval vessel overflight or something similar, I'm not sure it would be painted by a radar whose frequency would even make the resolution possible. OTHR, say from Diego Garcia, wouldn't be able to tell you the altitude reliably, and the two aircraft five or more miles apart might appear to be a single blip. If someone found the blip interesting and close enough to paint with a regular L-band, they might be able to distinguish the returns (or the gap would need to be closed substantially).
Still, this would go in the "perhaps possible: extremely unlikely" category, imo.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


There are so many variables though, like an AEGIS in the area, or a fighter patrol training. You could never account for them all. This plan relies completely on luck.

This could be it! Great work and way to do your homework on this to the person who put this scenario together. IF this is the case then we are in a bit of a bind, this method to sneak around could be used again in a possible attack on a city with the plane. I hope the air forces and radar operators around the world are vigilant on this possibility.

Question about the flight simulator the pilot had at home. I keep seeing videos on the news about him talking about it on a youtube channel but I can't seem to find it. Has anyone found that channel so we could view the video ?

reply to post by InverseLookingGlass


Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. There have been two or three putting the plane in two or three completely different locations. At low altitude they'd be hard pressed to make it.

You are getting so locked in on Diego Garcia and the US doing it you will end up ignoring everything else if you aren't careful.

~Lucidity
Maybe this had something to do with it:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Maybe it's already been posted here.

No opinions? On whether this weird acting/flying plane (or unspecified aircraft) may have been in on this?

You are getting so locked in on Diego Garcia and the US doing it you will end up ignoring everything else if you aren't careful.

reply to post by Zaphod58


I know. I'm immersed in the all the data coming across news feeds. I'm not ignoring anything or leaving loose threads.

The US has by far the best surveillance network in the world. All data recorded and reviewable. In any case, it's highly likely the USG knows where the flight ended already. There are a few reasons they can/will choose to withhold information.

Some of those reasons are justified.

Thought this may be of interest .... investigators have found that there were five Indian Ocean practice runways in the flight simulator databases on his home PC. These were the following locations:

o Maldives x1
o Diego Garcia x1
o India x 1-2
o Sri Lanka x 1-2

The fact that the aircraft was carrying a large shipment of fruit (coincidence?) suggests that the destination was somewhere where supplies have to be brought in and not grown. There are already eyewitnesses in the Maldives who say they saw a low flying jet.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

I used to play flight simulator games when I was younger (F117 stealth fighter), and flying low was the best way to avoid radar, as well as make an easy landing. Definitely looks like they have been taken somewhere.

reply to post by stormcell


I do not read too much into those locations. I believe it was reported earlier that he often programed the simulator for extreme weather conditions. If the simulator gave any type of failure where the aircraft would have to divert these would be on a track that makes them plausible for an aircraft departing Malaysia for mainland Asia or the Middle East.

They didn't hide in the radar shadow at all because they weren't hijacked.

This thread has one of the best theories yet. If it wasn't a decompression event it was a fire.

A few years ago another 777 suffered a cockpit fire on the ground, and improper wiring was found in the O2 system. Over 300 aircraft were determined to have this wiring. Line number wise this aircraft could be one.

An Ethiopian 787 recently suffered major damage during a fire determined to have started in the ELT. The same unit used on the 777.

Zaphod58
There are so many variables though, like an AEGIS in the area, or a fighter patrol training. You could never account for them all. This plan relies completely on luck.

If the hypothesis is "The pilot deliberately and successfully trailed another airliner at night to mask intent from radar", then the odds are almost zero, I'd agree.
But it's all in how you frame the question, isn't it? What if I say, "Pilot keyed in and followed three successive, yet off the planned course, waypoints ("Vampi", "Gival", "Igrex") and in doing so coincidentally made it difficult to distinguish his aircraft from nearby airtraffic following the same route"? Suddenly, it is much more plausible. The presence of an AWACS or AEGIS, etc over a given space of open ocean is relatively small. Unhappy coincidences happen all the time. Skin paint of an aircraft in a known traffic corridor at the speed and altitude of your typical transoceanic flight are probably going to be ignored by AEGIS or AWACS unless it has done something conceivably hostile. Something to keep an eye on, but we're not exactly on a wartime footing. Same with other nations. I don't think India, for example, would be in a hurry to shoot at a primary return following a known traffic corridor without some actual reason to do so, even if it was not squawking. The signal would still be on the tapes, but if it is, why haven't we heard about it? We've been awfully quiet, officially at least.
I don't think the hypoxia hypothesis is consistent with the stray navpoints. The aircraft would continue on the last course inputted until fuel exhaustion or a CFIT event. I don't think hypoxia would account for the apparently deliberate disabling of the transponder and ACARS. I think depressurization is going to be noticed by most flight crew when the O2 masks start dropping from the ceiling in the cabin. Now, again, strange things happen. A handful of flights (half a dozen) have had slow decompressions in which the crew did not notice in time. So, it's possible.
Main problems: it doesn't explain who keyed in Vampi, Gival and Igrex waypoints or why or why the transponder was off.
Compare those half dozen or so incidents to the relatively large number of "notable" hijackings, and it seems to me that a hijacking is quite a bit more likely. Especially in light of the vacuum of information available at the moment.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Fire makes even less sense than decompression to me.
It takes about five seconds to make sure the autopilot is still operating and you're still on course and two seconds to issue a "pan-pan" or "mayday" over the radio. The odds of losing all modes of communication before noticing the problem are almost nil. I'm sure it has happened, but I cannot think of one single instance that has occurred.
The plane isn't going to fly for three or four hours after a fire. You head for the ground and put it down. The turn towards Langkawi makes sense in that context. The attempt to travel toward Gival or Ingrex afterward make zero sense in case of fire. If the fire/smoke is severe, they'd take a chance ditching. Not one of the passengers used a cell phone to send a "We're on fire. Love you" message as smoke filled the cabin or the plane ditched, etc?

reply to post by _Del_


Helios 522 had a number of pressure warnings, including the masks deploying, and still crashed with one person conscious.

The pilot may have noticed something too late and was able to program an airport nearby that had an easy approach thinking he would be ok and was overcome.

Or the fire theory is right and they were heading for a runway near the Maldives.

reply to post by _Del_


If the fire was out, or knocked down where it appeared to be out, going back to Malaysia or another airport may have seemed too dangerous. The turbulence off the mountains in the area may have convinced the crew that it was too dangerous. Or they wanted a long easy approach since they wouldn't know how bad the damage was.

Fire is always fight first, radio later. Screw five seconds to radio anyone if you are on fire. Then they may have lost long range coms, which would be why they talked to the other plane.

Zaphod58
reply to post by markymint

 

Because at that point in the flight it's too heavy. Airliners don't reach 39,000 feet until late in the flight after they burn off fuel and get lighter.

That's a good point. But I wonder if that's truly beyond its operational limits or not. They've probably been improving their altitude-weight issues since the dawn of Boeing. Still, I really hope the crew are seen as heroes out of all this, making necessary maneuvers, not that they hijacked their own plane...

Zaphod58
reply to post by _Del_

 

Helios 522 had a number of pressure warnings, including the masks deploying, and still crashed with one person conscious.

And the pilot radioed warnings. He didn't disable the transponder and other devices which might locate them.

reply to post by _Del_


Because it was an outflow valve not a structural issue. The 777 has shown signs of cracking near the transponder antenna.

Zaphod58
reply to post by _Del_

 

If the fire was out, or knocked down where it appeared to be out, going back to Malaysia or another airport may have seemed too dangerous. The turbulence off the mountains in the area may have convinced the crew that it was too dangerous. Or they wanted a long easy approach since they wouldn't know how bad the damage was.

So they followed normal traffic corridors toward India via open ocean instead of putting it down on/near the beach or another nearby field? Does not make sense.

Fire is always fight first, radio later. Screw five seconds to radio anyone if you are on fire.

I don't think that has ever happened before. Ever. Can you provide a single instance of this ever occurring? I'll believe the crazy "pilot piggy-backed another airplane at night without nav aids undetected all the way to Pakistan" theory, before I believe that all three of the flight crew were so busy at the first sign of smoke that they neglected to get a "pan-pan" or a "mayday" out.

reply to post by _Del_


Ditch, at night? Hell just let the fire burn. You have as much chance as a ditch in the middle of the night.

If the fire started around the ELT it could have knocked out the transponder and long range coms before they knew it was burning. Would YOU fly coms out, transponder out through busy airspace, or would you head for a low traffic area where there is almost no chance of a traffic conflict?

Zaphod58
reply to post by _Del_

 

Ditch, at night? Hell just let the fire burn. You have as much chance as a ditch in the middle of the night.

In a long haul widebody airplane like the B777 in case of an unidentified source of fire the procedure would be masks on, declear an emergency, and if no suitable runway within 15-20 minutes range ditch it, or put it down in a field or whatever.

Because all documented experience have told us that 15-20 minutes is all you've got before the fire burns trough important hardware/wiring leading to loss of control.