Missing Malaysia 777 flight...

[David Callahan]

 

I don't want to ever land on a secreted runway.

Lol

[Delbert]

 

I'm sorry, when/where was acquisition by Malaysian military radar confirmed?

All the reports I've read indicate that they had the thing on radar.

 

 

Does the US, UK or other countries routinely scramble jets at every UFO sighting?

Are you saying that if a commercial plane left American airspace (say on the way to UK), communication failed and it turned around and flew back over the US, jets would not have been scrambled? I'm sorry, but you must be joking.

[swansont]

All the reports I've read indicate that they had the thing on radar.

 

Then it should be trivial to provide a link or two. I'd read reports that some Malaysian military radars were turned off.

 

Are you saying that if a commercial plane left American airspace (say on the way to UK), communication failed and it turned around and flew back over the US, jets would not have been scrambled? I'm sorry, but you must be joking.

That's a somewhat different scenario than previously described; in this case it's not a UFO, is it? You imply they can tell it's the same plane. The most likely explanation for such behavior is an equipment problem. Turning around and coming back is exactly what you'd expect them to do. Why would that be a call to scramble jets?

 

If a jet makes a turn and stays in a commercial flight corridor, as MH370 apparently did (following commercial waypoints), why would you scramble jets? Does military radar keep track of commercial transponder signals?

[Delbert]

 

Then it should be trivial to provide a link or two. I'd read reports that some Malaysian military radars were turned off.

It seems to be all over the main news reports and so I didn't think it necessary, anyway this link from the UK BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26503141

 

That's a somewhat different scenario than previously described; in this case it's not a UFO, is it? You imply they can tell it's the same plane. The most likely explanation for such behavior is an equipment problem. Turning around and coming back is exactly what you'd expect them to do. Why would that be a call to scramble jets?

 

If a jet makes a turn and stays in a commercial flight corridor, as MH370 apparently did (following commercial waypoints), why would you scramble jets? Does military radar keep track of commercial transponder signals?

I'm sorry, but I can't understand your position. The thing diverted from planned course, turned off communication or it experienced breakdown, and then flew back over land. In view of things these days, what other excuse does one need to scramble jets?

 

As I think I've said previously: say if a passenger plane left here in the UK to fly to the US, and then upon leaving air traffic control location transducers failed or were switched off and turned around and flew back over the UK, it seems to me that jets would've been scrambled with the likelihood of a hot line to number 10 seeking permission to shoot it down.

 

And as for turning back consequent to some sort of emergency system problem or breakdown, all the more reason to intercept it with scrambled jets, I'd say.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Delbert

[swansont]

I'm sorry, but I can't understand your position. The thing diverted from planned course, turned off communication or it experienced breakdown, and then flew back over land. In view of things these days, what other excuse does one need to scramble jets?

Does the military know what the planned course of a commercial airliner is? Or is it just seeing a blip in the commercial airliner corridor?

 

As I think I've said previously: say if a passenger plane left here in the UK to fly to the US, and then upon leaving air traffic control location transducers failed or were switched off and turned around and flew back over the UK, it seems to me that jets would've been scrambled with the likelihood of a hot line to number 10 seeking permission to shoot it down.

 

And as for turning back consequent to some sort of emergency system problem or breakdown, all the more reason to intercept it with scrambled jets, I'd say.

Are the military folks monitoring the transponders? Or are they just seeing a blip in the commercial airliner corridor?

[Delbert]

 

Does the military know what the planned course of a commercial airliner is? Or is it just seeing a blip in the commercial airliner corridor?

 

 

Are the military folks monitoring the transponders? Or are they just seeing a blip in the commercial airliner corridor?

Someone I know is a naval officer, and when on board ship they are constantly monitoring and 'pinging' planes for confirmation of friend or foe.

 

From what I understand, what should've happened is upon leaving one air traffic control and being not acquired by the next control within minutes, communication between the two controls about the lack of contact should've taken place. And with the remaining lack of contact emergency reacquisition procedure activated. And so on from there.

 

And as for the military seeing a plane on radar, indeed, a plane incommunicado without the 'pings' I mentioned above, action should've been taken. I'm just trying to visualise the situation: I say old chap I've got this unidentified and unidentifiable plane thing in my screen. Is it doing much? No, just flying due west.

Some while later: Oh look, everything's okay now because it's disappeared off screen.

 

A total shambles.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Delbert

[swansont]

Someone I know is a naval officer, and when on board ship they are constantly monitoring and 'pinging' planes for confirmation of friend or foe.

Yes, that's IFF. Naval vessels are in danger of being sunk, which can happen via a missile launch from a plane. Land-based radars? Not so much. Missiles from a commercial flight? Probably not considered a risk.

 

Not getting a response simply means it is not known that you are a friendly craft. Which raises the question of how often do the military get a non-response from IFF? If it happens on anything close to a daily basis, then I wouldn't expect anyone to scramble jets, especially a country with a relatively small air force (62 combat jets).

 

Some of the projections I've seen indicate that the plane never re-entered Malaysian airspace. It tracked west across Thailand. Why would Malaysia scramble planes for a flight not over its territory?

 

 

 

From what I understand, what should've happened is upon leaving one air traffic control and being not acquired by the next control within minutes, communication between the two controls about the lack of contact should've taken place. And with the remaining lack of contact emergency reacquisition procedure activated. And so on from there.

 

And as for the military seeing a plane on radar, indeed, a plane incommunicado without the 'pings' I mentioned above, action should've been taken. I'm just trying to visualise the situation: I say old chap I've got this unidentified and unidentifiable plane thing in my screen. Is it doing much? No, just flying due west.

Some while later: Oh look, everything's okay now because it's disappeared off screen.

 

A total shambles.

 

Hindsight is indeed 20/20.

[Delbert]

Yes, that's IFF. Naval vessels are in danger of being sunk, which can happen via a missile launch from a plane. Land-based radars? Not so much. Missiles from a commercial flight?

It seems to me you're missing the point, the aircraft apparently didn't respond to IFF. Perhaps it can be ascertained from my comments I'm prepared to consider all possibilities, but a missile launch from said aircraft! I think that's delving into the highs of hyperbole.

 

As you say, naval vessels can be sunk, but have you considered land based objects can be destroyed - I'm sure we don't have to run over, itemise, all the possible land based consequences.

 

Probably not considered a risk.

Not considered a risk? Now that's an interesting position. We notice an aircraft, indeed, a substantial flying machine not responding to standard responses, in fact completely incommunicado, so it's acceptable to take the view it's not considered a risk!! I suggest we would've had no idea of the risk factor. Russian roulette can be a fatal game to play.

 

I'm sorry, but it's not responding for a reason. As I think we all know, communication apparatus could've failed due an inflight emergency or it could've been deliberately turned off. The plane may have diverted because of the emergency or for a criminal - not to mention terrorist or suicidal - reason. But whatever, it seems to me the situation required investigation, which in view of the absence of communication, the scrambling of jets.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Is this topic still being debated? I haven't seen a single shred of evidence to support any hypothesis beyond some wreckage that was found in the Indian Ocean via satellite. When this thread first popped up in my inbox again recently I thought, "ok, typical UFO speculation", but then it goes from unsupported hypothesis to near claims of malicious intentions and I don't think that that is the case. I don't know much about airplanes but I think that we shouldn't over analyze anything.

[swansont]

It seems to me you're missing the point, the aircraft apparently didn't respond to IFF. Perhaps it can be ascertained from my comments I'm prepared to consider all possibilities, but a missile launch from said aircraft! I think that's delving into the highs of hyperbole.

 

As you say, naval vessels can be sunk, but have you considered land based objects can be destroyed - I'm sure we don't have to run over, itemise, all the possible land based consequences.

 

Not considered a risk? Now that's an interesting position. We notice an aircraft, indeed, a substantial flying machine not responding to standard responses, in fact completely incommunicado, so it's acceptable to take the view it's not considered a risk!! I suggest we would've had no idea of the risk factor. Russian roulette can be a fatal game to play.

 

I'm sorry, but it's not responding for a reason. As I think we all know, communication apparatus could've failed due an inflight emergency or it could've been deliberately turned off. The plane may have diverted because of the emergency or for a criminal - not to mention terrorist or suicidal - reason. But whatever, it seems to me the situation required investigation, which in view of the absence of communication, the scrambling of jets.

 

I'm trying to get you to give me facts, because reasoning will only get you so far. If a plane not responding to IFF is a daily occurrence (i.e. there are a lot of false positive "foe" signals) then scrambling jets is not a reasonable response; it's expensive in terms of money and wear-and-tear on limited resources. If scrambling jets is on the table, then the question is where does the target have to be? Intercepting planes outside your airspace is not necessarily a reasonable response, and intercepting a plane in somebody else's airspace (Thailand's) certainly isn't.

[Delbert]

 

I'm trying to get you to give me facts, because reasoning will only get you so far. If a plane not responding to IFF is a daily occurrence (i.e. there are a lot of false positive "foe" signals) then scrambling jets is not a reasonable response; it's expensive in terms of money and wear-and-tear on limited resources.

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand what you're saying. I'm sure there are numerous instances of non IFF where no action is justifiable; but would they be from an aircraft flying in completely the wrong direction and incommunicado? Somehow I think not.

 

I presume from your comments that a substantial passenger plane flying in completely the wrong direction with all communication switched off, wasn't sufficiently serious a situation to require investigation. Investigation that is from visual interrogation from another aircraft in close escort and possible semaphore communication should cockpit activity be observed. I'm trying to imagine or visualise how much worse the situation would need to be for you to justify investigation.

 

I think we should leave it at that and agree to disagree.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Delbert

[swansont]

They were apparently flying in a commercial corridor, so how does a radar operator know it's "completely the wrong direction"?

 

They were not in Malaysian airspace. How do you justify invading a sovereign country's airspace to "investigate"?

[Delbert]

They were apparently flying in a commercial corridor, so how does a radar operator know it's "completely the wrong direction"?

Well, to go over it again, they failed to contact the next in line air traffic control, turned off or experienced a communication malfunction and then changed course by nearly 180 degrees. Those actions alone should, within minutes, have raised an alarm. Not to mention then being picked up by military radar.

 

I'm sorry yet again, but if that's considered not too alarming and not sufficiently dramatic to warrant action (action at the time), then I hesitate to contemplate possible similar scenarios.

 

And as for what I think you inferred about resources being wasted on such events, how much in resources have they spent thus far in searching, and how much will be spent until the thing is located? Remembering it appears that they haven't even found hair nor hide of the plane thus far. And it seems the only hint they have about it possibly being under the ocean is some calculations on engine pings - apparently the black box pings have been shown to be false. And the truth is they probably don't know for anything like a reasonable certainty it is under the ocean!

 

Unless it somehow landed cleanly on the ocean, I would've thought there should be some wreckage. Having run out of fuel and on glide, would autopilot be able to land it on water, such that it remained in one piece and then sunk?

[swansont]

Well, to go over it again, they failed to contact the next in line air traffic control, turned off or experienced a communication malfunction and then changed course by nearly 180 degrees. Those actions alone should, within minutes, have raised an alarm. Not to mention then being picked up by military radar.

 

I'm sorry yet again, but if that's considered not too alarming and not sufficiently dramatic to warrant action (action at the time), then I hesitate to contemplate possible similar scenarios.

 

 

Hindsight is 20/20, and hindsight bias is a real thing. You still have not explained: is this an actual protocol that is part of their SOP, or is this just your idea of how you think their military should have responded? If the latter, on what experience do you base this? Or is this just a naive model of how you think the military works?

 

The plane turned off its communication after leaving Malaysian airspace, and turned but did not turn back in their direction. Is that an immediate threat?

 

 

And as for what I think you inferred about resources being wasted on such events, how much in resources have they spent thus far in searching, and how much will be spent until the thing is located?

 

Realistically, how credible would that scenario be if you had proposed it before this spring? Even with this, one can't do a cost-benefit analysis without knowing how often transponder/communication failures happen (which you haven't provided), because statistically this is still a very rare event. Just no longer unprecedented.

[Delbert]

 

 

You still have not explained: is this an actual protocol that is part of their SOP, or is this just your idea of how you think their military should have responded? If the latter, on what experience do you base this? Or is this just a naive model of how you think the military works?

Not just my view but also the TV interviewee I mentioned in my reply #49. To repeat: I recall him suggesting that even if they were half asleep, they should've acted within minutes of the plane failing to contact the next air traffic control. I can't recall his expertise, but he was introduced as someone with a particular proficiency in aviation.

 

Unfortunately I can't find any video record of the interview on the net.

 

As for my view that you appear to imply is reeking in hindsight, my position is and was the same as the interviewee above. To the point that I consider it to be the blindingly obvious - I recall muttering at the time of the interview: at last.

 

I'm sorry once again, but it cannot be the case that a passenger aircraft can wander off in a direction in complete contradiction to its flight plan with no action taken by the controlling authorities. The plane may well have been experiencing a malfunction whereby judicious and appropriate intervention being helpful. But the various agents did nothing. Absolutely outrageous.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Delbert

[Bill Angel]

A common factor of large disasters is that there is not a single cause but an accumulation of causes. Sometimes human error combined with faulty equipment and wathever.

I find no reason to kill that many people without any claim.

If it was a hijack, it is a failure.

Anyway I don't see anyone having won anything from this event. It is lose-lose situation.

One factor attributable to human error that may have contributed to causing the loss of this aircraft is the phenomena known as "spatial disorientation". This phenomena has been linked to the crashes of a number of commercial aircraft. Spatial disorientation can especially be a problem with flights at night over water, which was the situation with the Malaysian flight.

IASS 08 SPACIAL DISORIENTATION.pdf

Edited June 5, 2014 by Bill Angel

[Delbert]

A common factor of large disasters is that there is not a single cause but an accumulation of causes. Sometimes human error combined with faulty equipment and wathever.

I find no reason to kill that many people without any claim.

If it was a hijack, it is a failure.

Anyway I don't see anyone having won anything from this event. It is lose-lose situation.

I think if one looks deep enough human error is probably manifest in just about everything; we design the things, build the things, design procedures to operate the things and human hands drive the things - not to mention to make money in the process. It's the number 1 computer that's behind everything.

As for no reason to kill, you or I might not see a reason.

Doubtless a highjack is like setting out on any endeavour, success is not guaranteed.

[TheVat]

The release this week of the Netflix documentary on the MH370 mystery led me to think this thread could stand a little updating.  The Guardian article I'm linking goes over the various theories explored in the docu, ranging across the plausibility spectrum from whackadoodle to sensible, and also looks at the next of kin ordeal the past nine years.  

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/mar/05/flight-mh370-what-happened-mystery-netflix-documentary

And here is a summary (from early 2017) of the found debris, a flaperon etc, and the locations they were found around the Indian Ocean.  I find the debris identifications to be strong confirmation that some theories, like the secret hijacking and landing, or soft water landing then sinking, are clearly wrong.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2017/jan/17/missing-flight-mh370-a-visual-guide-to-the-parts-and-debris-found-so-far