This is just so astonishing.
Contact lost with Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 | 8th March 2014
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
It's an outlandish suggestion. Or perhaps you're one of those nutters that believes it's possible the US shot down that plane in Pennsylvania...
Why? It could well have been shot down.
It's always authors that the daily mail seem to find in these speculative articles.
I suppose it's possible leviathan rose up out the water and swallowed the plane.
Shooting down civilian aircraft followed by cover up attempts has happened before. Hardly surprising if it's the case with this either
It being shot down would not be surprising at all, to be honest if there were good enough reasons i don't see why a cover up would be needed.
However, hacking a plane is far fetched. I'm not well versed enough in technology crap to properly explain why but an engineer who does know what he's on about once told me hacking a plane was like hacking a toaster. It just doesn't work like that. Although it has many windows based systems the system itself is completely 'seperate' and theres no physical way 'in' like with a pc you can use Internet or external software.
I'm sure you could do 'something' to an aircraft's computer system, probably is navigational or Comms system but to actually 'take control' i don't think is possible
However, hacking a plane is far fetched. I'm not well versed enough in technology crap to properly explain why but an engineer who does know what he's on about once told me hacking a plane was like hacking a toaster. It just doesn't work like that. Although it has many windows based systems the system itself is completely 'seperate' and theres no physical way 'in' like with a pc you can use Internet or external software.
I'm sure you could do 'something' to an aircraft's computer system, probably is navigational or Comms system but to actually 'take control' i don't think is possible
Everybody knows leviathans are deep sea creatures.
What was to be the target for this supposed terrorist attack, Diego Garcia itself [presumably somewhere with excellent radar coverage]?
And if not, why take a tour of remote military bases whilst conducting the hijacking of an aircraft with steadily decreasing fuel? Which is before you get to the practicalities of actually hacking a 777.
You would like to think that people wouldn't be so cynical, however it's more likely that this novelist is using his sketchy little theory as a means of enhancing his profile.
And if not, why take a tour of remote military bases whilst conducting the hijacking of an aircraft with steadily decreasing fuel? Which is before you get to the practicalities of actually hacking a 777.
You would like to think that people wouldn't be so cynical, however it's more likely that this novelist is using his sketchy little theory as a means of enhancing his profile.
Didn't the hourly satellite signals confirm that after 8 or 9 hours of flight, it was a certain distance away and they had an arc of where the flight could be. Either over the himalayas if it went north or off the western coast of Aus..
Not near Diego Garcia
Not near Diego Garcia
That's what they want us to believe.
Seriously though, the idea that the plane losing radio contact / switching off beacons etc could have led to a military response isn't surprising. Though if I was in a "hacking attack" frame of mind I'd find it easier to imagine Boeing sticking something nasty in the software that the US military can activate offering an easier conspiracy to buy. It wouldn't even have to blow the plane up just switch off the oxygen.
In fact, I think I'll write a book about it. Maybe get the Daily Mail to advertise it.
Thing is that the US would have shot the jet down AFTER contact had been lost and after it had gone way off course. So if the us navy did shoot it down there would be no reason at all to cover it up. Given the circumstances the moment it appeared to be closing on a us base it would be a legit target and very few people would have blamed the us for taking action.
Just a conspiracy theory that doesn't deserve the publicity, really.
After all, if the US did shoot down the flight, they're deliberately sending their close allies UK (via Inmarsat and Diego Garcia the island) and Australia (who is coordinating the rescue) on a wild goose chase. It's not worth risking UK-US and US-Australia relations for a domestic flight. Alternatively, they've sworn these two to secrecy as well. I don't see the latter as feasible given the Five Power Defence Arrangements between the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore. If that ever gets leaked, the Anglosphere loses all influence in South-East Asia immediately. No prizes for guessing who benefits when that happens.
After all, if the US did shoot down the flight, they're deliberately sending their close allies UK (via Inmarsat and Diego Garcia the island) and Australia (who is coordinating the rescue) on a wild goose chase. It's not worth risking UK-US and US-Australia relations for a domestic flight. Alternatively, they've sworn these two to secrecy as well. I don't see the latter as feasible given the Five Power Defence Arrangements between the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore. If that ever gets leaked, the Anglosphere loses all influence in South-East Asia immediately. No prizes for guessing who benefits when that happens.
If the search continues past another month, ill be on the vessel searching for it. My companies leased Sonars and Profilers to the Fugro discovery and I'm next on the rotation. None of my colleagues have found anything at all so far.
Its sad that people use such a tragedy for an obvious bit of self promotion.
And a plane being "hacked" ffs. Lazy.
There were so many theories out there, dont know what to believe. We will probably never find out, unless someone leaks something. Poor families and relatives, still not knowing what exactly happened.
Finally, some inside information for the RedCafe sleuths. Go on Spiersey
I'll try! Ill be sure to inform redcafe before anyone else
We aren't expecting to find anything now. It's priority search area (unless it's been extended) is almost finished with nothing found.Seems to remember reading somewhere that since 9/11 most planes have some kind of safety mechanism which the control tower can actually take control over the plane. I'm not saying it's probable, but it's not too far fetched. Most planes would constantly connects to the land control and you can simply hack the control tower, hollywood i know, but it's not actually far from impossible with today's technology.
Going by what @Dracula said about hacking a plane being akin to hacking a toaster as the electronic systems are closed circuits with no network access from external sources, I'd say that's nonsense.
Not saying it's simple, but it's not impossible.
It wasn't written in stones, could be just a myth, but technically speaking in simple terms, it's not closed as the whole remote thing is transmitted over the air and as such you can still have the transmission hacked.
You can't hack a fecking steering wheel though.
The whole "remote" thing doesn't exist. That's the point.
Maybe. We don't know for sure. The technology of today is more than capable to do so though
A ground staffer could have installed a remote communication module to control the computer remotely. Extremely far fetched but not impossible
Trust me, i work in a control tower, no such technology exists.
wish it did though, that sounds incredibly fun
Out of curiousity, since now I know you work in one.
Do you really need permission to change altitude?
Can the pilot act on executive decision based on circumstances?
Also, does a plane entering a nation airspace means that they're bound to be controlled by the region's control tower?
1- of course you do. You will have lots of planes at different altitudes so you cant go up or down at hearts content otherwise youll eventually bump into one.
2- yes. The captain is the commander of the vessel. If he wants to do something he'll do it. He will just have to answer to the subsequent board of enquiry if going against atc instructions.
3- firstly, a 'control tower' only controls aircraft in vicinity of aerodrome. a control 'centre' will do everything else, but thats just terminology. Usually yes, go into another country's airspace you wiill be handed over to the respective national control centre using standard handover procedures. There are almost certainly some exceptions to this where another nation will control aircraft in another country, in fact, i think we do for parts of ireland. Its probably done in continental europe too over the smaller countries.
im assuming the first 2 questions were regarding requests from pilots to avoid thunderstorms and the like? Essentially what happens is the pilot will just say to controller 'request turn left/right heading xxx degrees due weather avoidance' or 'request altitude/flight level xxx due weather'. Tirning left/right is generally a lot easier for controller to cope with as usually aircraft are separated vertically rather than horizontally. Which is why requsts for change of altitude are harder. Almost always the request is granted as ee know they wouldnt ask if not important, the only reason we would say no is if by doing so it would result in two aircraft bumping into each other. Yet, as i said before, under serious enough circumstances the pilot could just do what he wants anyway and answer for it later
as if they would tell you if it did, lol.
I've heard from, I think every pilot I know, that the 3rd dimension of altitude is the toughest part of flying when you first start. We are all geared for 2d living on land. And of course your screens are 2d right? How is altitude shown? A number or colour?
On a RADAR screen each aircradt will have a little block of text next to the 'blip'.
It looks like this:
EZY123
120 CC
G350
EZY123 is the 'callsign' of the flight, what we call them (different to the flight number which we dont use).
120 is the altitude/flight level (so this guy is at flight level 120 (12 thousand feet). Next to this number can be an up or down arrow which tells us if the aircraft is climbing or descending.
CC is the destination of the aircraft. This CC refers to EGCC which is the four letter code to Manchester. If it was into heathrow (EGLL) it would have LL there.
the G350 is the ground speed of the aircraft, literally the speed the aircraft is travelling over the earth. This is different to airspeed, which is generally what pilots use when referring to speed, it is the speed of the air over the wings, i.e what keeps an aircraft in the air. For controllers we pretty much only care about groundspeed.
more advanced RADARs can let you get more info in this little text block like 'flight level selected' (literally the flight level the pilot has selected, so we can make sure they are going up or down as far as we told them to) and other stuff but its not very interesting.
I always wondered about ground speed.
Without doing the maths to be precise, if it's travelling at 600mph ground speed, the reality is that if it was actually at ground level it would be doing a lot faster as the distance traveled around a sphere increases the further away from (higher) the sphere you go?
If that's true, is there an optimimum flying altitude? Obviously air gets thinner, friction goes down, I know that colder air is better for fuel economy too and there's something about less oxygen being better for fuel economy but there must be a limit to it when the distance that has to be travelled negates the gains? Or can you keep reaching higher speeds to balance that?
Sorry that's not very clear its 20 thoughts rolling out at once.
I love that terminology, it's as if they'd just bump noses and the pilot who changed altitude would lean out the window and wave to apologise
I think it was George Cariin who had a bit about calling it a near miss when two planes almost collide, to him it was a near hit.I love that terminology, it's as if they'd just bump noses and the pilot who changed altitude would lean out the window and wave to apologise
Ah. that's insightful. Much appreciated count
I know what you mean, and i always wonder the same.
essentially the fuel saving gains from flying between 35,000 and 45,000 vastly outweigh other savings from flying closer to the ground.
planes always want to get as high as possible as quick as possible and descend as late as possible, sometimes meaning they come in too steep and fast to land properly! :-D
Thin air, something to do with oxygen levels and cold temps are good for fuel/engine efficiency
Ryan Air.
Thanks again for the reply, I hope you're not in the tower when you're replyimg to all these posts, although it would explain all the air crashes recently.
Hehe no. You'd be pleased to know phones are banned in the tower.
food however, isnt. You dont want to know how many times a pilot has asked me a question and my gob is full of the chocolate fudge cake from starbucks :-D