Re: Planespotting
 

If my next door neighbour doesn't move his new yard ornament, I'm calling the Council on the Bastard!

Re: Planespotting
 

Why is turning off the transponder even an option?

Re: Planespotting
 

I'm struggling with the malicious intent aspect. No suicide note and no terrorist group claiming responsibility. Hiding an airline for a later attack, is starting to move into Hollywood territory, to complex.

I think a simpler explanation is the wheel well fire, they head towards a safe harbor, try a high altitude to put it out, but are incapacitated, autopilot keeps it level until it runs out of fuel over the Indian Ocean.

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03...ectrical-fire/

Re: Planespotting
 

I did a quick search and found a rather good answer to this question:

"Basically everything that consumes power on a aircraft can potentially cause interference, short-circuts, or otherwise jeopardize the safety of flight and therefore must be switchable. Sometimes the switch is in the form a button, otherwise by a fuse.

There are several particular reasons that the transponder can be turned off.

If the transponder malfunctions, it may cause interruptions to all ATC surveillance in an area. There have been instances in the past that due to a fault in the transponder it was basically acting as a jammer.

In one particular incident it took a while before the aircraft that caused it was identified and after requesting the pilot to switch of the transponder, secondary surveillance was restored.

Another reason is that when the aircraft is at the gate, the transponder is switched of to reduce the amount of radio transmissions. 100 aircraft on the surface of a large airport can produce a massive Radio Frequency noise, which negatively affect radar systems. When taxiing, radar replies are useful for aircraft identification, hence the transponder is switched on at pushback or engine start.

The focus here and in the media on the transponder in relation to hijacks is a red herring. If an aircraft is hijacked, there are way more important things to worry about than an active radar transponder.
The fact that it is turned off means that hijackers already have access to the cockpit."

Re: Planespotting
 

Thank you. :)

I find it honestly amazing that aircraft aren't tracked every second they are in the air, even when trying to avoid it.

I guess anyone wanting to fly a missile across most of Asia must be pretty upbeat about their chances right now.

Re: Planespotting
 

In general they are. Normal practice is that the transponder remains on when the aircraft is away from the gate. That quote really just explains why the pilots themselves need to have the ability to switch it off in the event of one of the situations mentioned.

A missile though, would likely be picked up by military radar, because their flight trajectory wouldn't necessarily match that of an airliner.

Re: Planespotting
 

My illusions of a man in rolled up shirtsleeves, with beaded sweat on his brow, hunched over a tiny green screen, watching my flight "blip" across the screen whilst he sucks on a Rothmans have been shattered. :(

Joking aside, it would never have occurred to me that anything the size of a jetliner would be able to go unobserved.

Re: Planespotting
 

But with the timing and location of the deviation of the flight as the plane "signed off" with Malaysian ATC, and turned off/ destruction of the transponder, all that would be a remarkable coincidence! :huh: The article is certainly persuasive though.

Re: Planespotting
 

They have much more complicated screens with lots of 'blips' to look at, if that's any consolation.

It would have been observed, but recognised as a jetliner because it seems they kept a fixed altitude, speed and a plausible heading. So if any military radar techs saw it, they'd have watched it for a while, concluded it was a jetliner and let it go.

Re: Planespotting
 

So, Airport '77 then.

Re: Planespotting
 

I agree that many of the theories sound Hollywood like but the plane going to 45,000 feet also appears to be Hollywood. The 777 is certified to go to a maximum of 43,100 feet and when pilots tried to simulate what the Malaysian radar claimed to have seen of quickly going to 45,000 feet and then quickly descending to around 20,000 feet, the plane became uncontrollable, engines flared out, and the plane began to fall apart. Even at a much slower climb and decent, the pilots claimed that the plane was uncontrollable above 43,100 feet and flare outs occurred.

Although it was thought that the Malaysian military had upgraded it's radar recently, the Malaysian government has also put out a statement that the radar indications probably aren't that accurate. If they had the latest radar, all radar data should have been recorded. Therefore I suspect that the radar that tracked that plane was probably old equipment that was not upgraded and the plane likely didn't get above 43,000 feet.

Re: Planespotting
 

Quite right. It's not called a service ceiling for nothing. It's not so much that the plane is certified to go a maximum of 43,100', it simply physically cannot climb any higher than FL431.

Re: Planespotting
 

Indeed - above that heigh your essentially a test pilot.

'Old' radar isn't really the right way of putting it - after the transponder was deactivated, the plane could only be tracked on primary radar, which is just a dumb blip - with no further information. Literally radar waves reflected on the fuselage.

Re: Planespotting
 

So, now the search area has been expanded to about 3 million square miles, or, roughly the size of the lower 48 States.

Good Luck finding the 777, then.

Re: Planespotting
 

And if that wasn't enough of a challenge, the search area is submerged under an average of two miles of water. Furthermore, with the working assumption that it flew until it ran out of fuel, there won't even be much of a slick to mark the crash site. :unsure: