Video: Flight 370 turn programmed into cockpit computer?

posted at 10:01 am on March 18, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

The mystery of Flight 370 continues today, with new information that has intensified the focus on the two pilots in charge of the Boeing 777. Sources within the US investigation tell the New York Times that the hard left turn taken by the flight when it broke contact had been programmed into the computer, and not manually executed by the pilots. That strongly suggests that the pilots intended to take the airplane and its passengers, says the NYT, although it’s not known whether the programming was changed in flight or on the ground before take-off:

The first turn to the west that diverted the missing Malaysia Airlines plane from its planned flight path from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing was carried out through a computer system that was most likely programmed by someone in the plane’s cockpit who was knowledgeable about airplane systems, according to senior American officials.

Instead of manually operating the plane’s controls, whoever altered Flight 370’s path typed seven or eight keystrokes into a computer on a knee-high pedestal between the captain and the first officer, according to officials. The Flight Management System, as the computer is known, directs the plane from point to point specified in the flight plan submitted before a flight. It is not clear whether the plane’s path was reprogrammed before or after it took off.

The fact that the turn away from Beijing was programmed into the computer has reinforced the belief of investigators — first voiced by Malaysian officials — that the plane was deliberately diverted and that foul play was involved. It has also increased their focus on the plane’s captain and first officer.

Anyone who did this would have to be familiar with Boeing systems, although not necessarily the 777. This would have another implication — it would probably have delayed alerting passengers to the seizure. Using the computer to accomplish the diversion would allow the plane to change course gently enough not to alarm passengers, keeping them in the dark for at least a while. However, the altitude changes that later took place had to have alerted them at some point.

CNN interviewed one of the reporters, Michael S. Schmidt, on the implications of this discovery:

The two possible tracks for Flight 370 take it northwest and southwest. Thailand’s discovery of the anomaly suggests, at least for the moment, that the flight took the northwest track. That would lead it toward India and the Central Asian republics at the end of its fuel range.

NBC’s Today had more today as well:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Malaysian authorities haven’t covered themselves in glory thus far, so no one still really knows what went on. All we know is that the plane appears to have been taken on purpose, that no one knows exactly what that purpose was, and no one is credibly claiming responsibility for the hijacking. And we may never know more than that.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

gh on March 18, 2014 at 2:02 PM

Maybe you are getting a little too wound up in this mystery.

You could use a chill break before you cement your current profile as what folks will think of you long term.

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 2:06 PM

ZeusGoose on March 18, 2014 at 2:00 PM

I am not defending my sources. I said as much explicitly already.

There is wide speculation on this story. Most of it can be debunked with what has been published consistently in the media.

However, there is some information that appears to be reasonably certain so far. For example, that the pilots were flying the plane when it changed course seems to be almost as certain as the fact that the plane disappeared at all.

Our friend cozmo sh*ts on anything that is not ‘verifiable’ … I see no point in commenting here in that case, so I assume to some degree he is amused by seeing if he can irritate other people. It doesn’t really bother me much. There are far more irritating people commenting here.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM

No one is “fine” at these altitudes.

ZeusGoose on March 18, 2014 at 1:44 PM

I never stated that anyone was “fine” at these altitudes.

The USAF, FCC, NASA, et. al. have done extensive studies and hypoxia starts to occur at 10,000 ft. without oxygen after about 30 minutes or less. Above that, it gets worse. Most airliners are designed with cabin pressurization to maintain a 7000 to 8000 ft. altitude at normal cruising altitudes. Once you exceed those, it becomes questionable.

First, nothing you’ve stated here contradicts anything I wrote.

Second, hypoxia does NOT start for everyone at 10,000 feet. Some people are absolutely fine at 10,000 feet and show no psychological signs of hypoxia at that altitude.

What’s the highest altitude you’ve been to in an chamber?

blink on March 18, 2014 at 1:47 PM

Yes, you specifically stated many people would be fine at these altitudes. In all fairness, you said cabin altitude, which is entirely different than aircraft altitude.

Hypoxia may not START at 10,000 ft. for everyone, but I have been in an altitude chamber taken up to 10K. Some people got goofy after only 5 minutes, others later. By the end of about 30 minutes, we were all loony. The problem is, none of thought we were until they showed us the video later.

Blinky,

Maybe you’re suffering from hypoxia at sea level, since you’re now claiming that you’re not contradicting yourself.

ZeusGoose on March 18, 2014 at 2:21 PM

blink on March 18, 2014 at 2:13 PM

I do not think there is a world-wide conspiracy involved here.

We start from the idea that a plane has disappeared in flight. No-one here observed that. We all read it on the internet or saw it on tv or read it in a newspaper.

So we all agree that some of the things published in the media are true. I normally don’t follow stories like this much but I read a couple of web-sites and saw Bill Still’s speculation before he withdrew it. So I’ve been quite curious about how much he got wrong. Very little so far has been disproven.

So. Yes there could have been another pilot (i.e. someone who could have flown the plane according to the published data about its flight path) but every day there is more and more support for the idea that there was not.

Even when the story is finally resolved, there may be no way to prove or disprove this. So I take cozmo’s position as purely contrarian.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 2:24 PM

ZeusGoose on March 18, 2014 at 2:21 PM

I have read that people have made it to the summit of Everest without oxygen. That’s well over 10,000 feet … but less than 10,000 metres.

OTOH, Los Alamos, at 7,000 feet is the highest I’ve been and I was not very comfortable.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 2:28 PM

So I take cozmo’s position as purely contrarian.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 2:24 PM

That would give you more credit than you deserve.

As for contrarian, you have argued with just about everybody here on this subject for not bowing to your expertise.

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 2:30 PM

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 2:30 PM

There you go again (Reagan).

I have stated explicitly what I believe. You have chosen to put words in my mouth by quoting pieces I have ignored from links I have provided as evidence that my quotes are not made up.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 2:34 PM

gh on March 18, 2014 at 2:34 PM

Well, you certainly ain’t Reagan. But you have argued with more folks here than any body else has. I didn’t put words in anybodies mouth. I just used your own links against you and you don’t like it.

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 2:40 PM

I think he’s just being skeptical of any claim being made – which is where I am, too.

blink on March 18, 2014 at 2:33 PM

Well, no. You both believe the claim that Malaysian Airways Flight MH370 disappeared from it’s planned flight-path about a week ago.

So neither of you is being skeptical of any claim being made. And I would infer that you have some interest in the title of this post by Ed, which some people have pointed out does not have very much validity. OTOH, I invite you to go to a newspaper with a good history of articles (such as the daily-mail ;-) and follow their headlines back to the beginning of this story and see which claims appear to be “fact” and which appear to be “mady-uppy”. It is pretty obvious and you can use prune.org as a reference (although there are 100s of pages by now) as a more reliable bullsh*t detector.

All the hypoxia nonsense comes from rank speculation contradicted by all the evidence. Possibilities as to the pilots on the other hand are as firmly established as parts of the theories of evolution[1].

[1] Chemical evolution of life, specifically those stemming from Urey’s experiments have never been confirmed. Several Amino-Acids have no known non-biological mechanism for their creation.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 2:42 PM

gh on March 18, 2014 at 2:42 PM

Okay, that made almost no sense.

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 2:45 PM

I just used your own links against you and you don’t like it.

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 2:40 PM

You used [my] links against [me]? So you admit that your assh*lery is deliberate. As I inferred. The hagfish is far more reasonable than you. At least it wears pants.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 2:45 PM

gh on March 18, 2014 at 2:45 PM

I thought you were a hagfish sockpuppet.

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 2:45 PM

Okay, that made almost no sense.

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 2:45 PM

Sorry. Ran out of crayons.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 2:46 PM

I thought you were a hagfish sockpuppet.

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 2:45 PM

I have my own sock-puppets.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 2:47 PM

Yeah. That cozmo is a real jerk.

My Little Sock Puppet on March 18, 2014 at 2:48 PM

True. But gh is a bigger a$$hole than cozmo can dream of being.

cr666 on March 18, 2014 at 2:50 PM

Be prepared, I always say. Well, when I was 12 and still a boy scout.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 2:52 PM

ZeusGoose on March 18, 2014 at 2:21 PM

I have read that people have made it to the summit of Everest without oxygen. That’s well over 10,000 feet … but less than 10,000 metres.

OTOH, Los Alamos, at 7,000 feet is the highest I’ve been and I was not very comfortable.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 2:28 PM

You’ve brought some good points.

I’ve lived in Boulder, CO (5300 ft.) and Albuquerque, NM (5500 ft.). I never felt too much distress when I first moved there. But my mother who had early COPD symptoms could barely handle visit those places.

I think there are Peruvians that live in the Andes at about 12000 ft., so you can acclimate. But, unless it’s done gradually, it can have an effect. That’s why all potential military and commercial pilots are taken up in pressure chamber to 10000 ft. At first, you think you’re doing fine. After some amount of time, and the instructor tells you to write a simple phrase on a pad of paper. At first it looks fine. Depending on how long you last, it’s all just scribbles.

That’s why the FAA has strict rules for pilots in the U.S. to fly below 10,000 ft. without oxygen, except for brief periods.

OTOH, I drove through the Eisenhower Tunnel in Colorado that peaks out at just above 11,000 ft. and didn’t die. I thought my car may, even with fuel injectors, but I lived and so do all the others.

I believe the 10K limit is for safety purposes. Depending on the person and the exposure time you are likely to get goofy at that altitude, and as a pilot, that would probably not be a good thing.

ZeusGoose on March 18, 2014 at 2:55 PM

gh on March 18, 2014 at 12:10 PM

Yep, it’s Boeing that’s saying they think the plane is in Pakistan, and it’s being reported by LIGNET.

Of course that doesn’t make it true, but it would seem to invite some serious consideration.

petefrt on March 18, 2014 at 2:56 PM

So you are having conversations with yourself now?

That is more of a lourdes trait than a hagfish one.

I guess some people need sockpuppets.

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 2:56 PM

blink on March 18, 2014 at 2:46 PM

Huh?

Ed’s post assumes one h#ll of a lot more than I am.

What is the point making general vague arguments?

I have spent too much time here again. I hope Boeing says something about the Pakistan thingy soon …

I’ll probably drop in tomorrow if there’s a new post.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 2:57 PM

ZeusGoose on March 18, 2014 at 2:55 PM

Sorry to hear about your mother. I had severe bronchitis my first year of Uni … didn’t bother seeing the doctor but it’s been a pain ever since. I have to be careful going outside. Had pleurisy 4 times now. Antibiotics, codein, and extreme discomfort for about 72 hours.

Still, Kant died of pleurisy before he was my age.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 3:00 PM

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 2:56 PM

lourdes seems to be getting better … there are a few others about though. I like hagfish. She’s quite uninhibited.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 3:02 PM

ZeusGoose on March 18, 2014 at 12:44 PM

Who is LIGNET? Check out its advisory board at http://www.lignet.com/About

Pretty heavy. John Bolton, for openers.

petefrt on March 18, 2014 at 3:04 PM

Okay, that made almost no sense.

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 2:45 PM

.
… that’s a generous interpretation. ;)

PolAgnostic on March 18, 2014 at 3:05 PM

John Bolton, for openers.

petefrt on March 18, 2014 at 3:04 PM

Bolton is plus and minus.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 3:07 PM

gh on March 18, 2014 at 12:47 PM

I see you found the LIGNET board. (I’m just catching up reading the thread.) Yep, pretty heavy hitters, I’d say.

petefrt on March 18, 2014 at 3:08 PM

gh on March 18, 2014 at 3:07 PM

Plus and minus… makes me chuckle. I understand, but I just happen to be a Bolton fan. :)

petefrt on March 18, 2014 at 3:12 PM

petefrt on March 18, 2014 at 3:08 PM

I only looked at the top of the page but when you mentioned Bolton, I went back and scrolled down. Recognized some of the list so I think I’ve been there before.

Hayden, Grenell, Hoekstra, Schoen, and Whittlesey are all people I recognize (not necessarily by name). The rest are all unfamiliar but appear to be sufficiently credentialed.

It is a bipartisan list with members with connections to at least 4 presidents. Not to mention the nice web design, of course.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 3:14 PM

gh on March 18, 2014 at 3:14 PM

Just turned on FNC for updates, but I don’t know how long I can last with that maudlin idiot, Shep Smith. Urp.

General McInerney suspects it’s in Pakistan too.

petefrt on March 18, 2014 at 3:21 PM

blink on March 18, 2014 at 2:30 PM

I’m going to have to call BS on this. There all chamber profiles for airline pilots and even stricter ones for fighter pilots.

They simulate very extreme rapid decompression due to a cabin door or canopy blow-out. At which point, they bring the plane down to a breathable altitude as quickly as possible.

As far as slow acclimatization to high altitudes goes, I’ve already addressed that earlier.

You may know many people who survived those altitudes, but if they claim it was for much more than a handful of seconds, they are all liars.

You can call my experience ‘anecdotal’, except I really did it, so it’s more imperical than anecdotal. I’d put knowing many people who survived certain altitude in a chamber, without citing any time profile a little more anecdotal.

But, I’m not even sure why we’re arguing this point. I think cozmo, you and I agree that we should ignore all this media hype nonsense and let the REAL facts come out.

ZeusGoose on March 18, 2014 at 3:30 PM

blink on March 18, 2014 at 3:27 PM

Well, Ed’s motivation is slightly different from us plebs.

But if one is going to argue about what he posted (which almost no-one here did) then one implicitly accepts any facts about the incident which are required by the new information.

The new information told us that a human had made the course correction … I seem to remember a lot of talk about “hacking” …

gh on March 18, 2014 at 3:31 PM

ZeusGoose on March 18, 2014 at 2:55 PM

I posted this link:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2396283/

and some quotes from it but the internet ate my post … so I won’t bother with the quotes again … sometimes things reappear after the moderators release them …

gh on March 18, 2014 at 3:34 PM

http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2014/03/18/Missing-MH370-maldive-low-flying-jumbo/

Plane seen over the Maldives the morning it disappeared.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 3:38 PM

When all else fails …

PolAgnostic on March 18, 2014 at 3:40 PM

gh on March 18, 2014 at 3:44 PM

Thanks! Starting up my car now and putting on Waze. ;)

Shy Guy on March 18, 2014 at 3:53 PM

Here’s a theory about a less sinister scenario:

A Startlingly Simple Theory About the Missing Malaysia Airlines Jet

Basically an onboard fire, and a desperate attempt to reach a 13,000 foot long runway in western Malaysia, on the Malacca Strait (the island of Langkawi).

But why no distress call? Good question.

Ward Cleaver on March 18, 2014 at 4:00 PM

Ward Cleaver on March 18, 2014 at 4:00 PM

There are a couple of other things too.

One of them is the idea the transponder was turned off at 1:07 but that is just the time of it’s last signal. It was not due to send another until 1:37 so no-one really knows when it stopped.

The other is that I don’t think the course suggested lies on the arc which represents the distance for the last “ping”.

A cabin fire is quite different from an explosion and it’s a good reason to turn things off.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 4:13 PM

The other is that I don’t think the course suggested lies on the arc which represents the distance for the last “ping”.

Looked again. It might lie on that arc. Unfortunately, I saw a story that the Kidd* has been recalled … perhaps everyone is going for the Boeing story.

* us navy vessel (name from memory … known to err)

gh on March 18, 2014 at 4:17 PM

The new information told us that a human had made the course correction
gh on March 18, 2014 at 3:31 PM

No, it didn’t.

db on March 18, 2014 at 4:23 PM

There are a couple of other things too.

One of them is the idea the transponder was turned off at 1:07 but that is just the time of it’s last signal. It was not due to send another until 1:37 so no-one really knows when it stopped.

The other is that I don’t think the course suggested lies on the arc which represents the distance for the last “ping”.

A cabin fire is quite different from an explosion and it’s a good reason to turn things off.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 4:13 PM

My fear is that with so many theories, and the search area being so expanded, that they’ll never find the plane. They need to get everyone together, go through what they have, and decide on a plan of action, instead of going in twenty different directions.

Ward Cleaver on March 18, 2014 at 4:25 PM

No, it didn’t.

db on March 18, 2014 at 4:23 PM

If a new course was punched into the flight management system, that is a change made by a human.

Ward Cleaver on March 18, 2014 at 4:27 PM

The PPRUNE forum discussion is up to 293 pages now (WOW!).

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-293.html

Ward Cleaver on March 18, 2014 at 4:28 PM

If a new course was punched into the flight management system, that is a change made by a human.

Ward Cleaver on March 18, 2014 at 4:27 PM

So if it was done remotely by a hacker (and I’m not saying it was) the change was made by a human, too. I don’t think that’s what you had in mind.

db on March 18, 2014 at 4:29 PM

Pilot comments on wired story:

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=3350629

He finds some things wrong with it. But the author is also an experienced pilot so …

gh on March 18, 2014 at 4:30 PM

So if it was done remotely by a hacker (and I’m not saying it was) the change was made by a human, too. I don’t think that’s what you had in mind.

db on March 18, 2014 at 4:29 PM

The story asserts it was done by a human.

The problem with it being done remotely by a hacker is that the co-pilot said “good-night”, not “we’ve been hacked”. This is also a problem with the fire story.

The thing that going for the crew stealing the plane is that the course change happened exactly between ATC zones. That is necessary for this theory but a coincidence for the others.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 4:35 PM

The problem with it being done remotely by a hacker is that the co-pilot said “good-night”, not “we’ve been hacked”.

Nothing had happened, yet.

db on March 18, 2014 at 4:38 PM

The story asserts it was done by a human.

From the article:

It is not clear whether the plane’s path was reprogrammed before or after it took off.

db on March 18, 2014 at 4:41 PM

gh on March 18, 2014 at 4:17 PM

Yes, the USS Kidd was recalled. The Fox news reporter this morning said it signaled that the US had decided the plane was not there. But I wonder if that’s necessarily true.

petefrt on March 18, 2014 at 4:50 PM

Nothing had happened, yet.

db on March 18, 2014 at 4:38 PM

See the CNN time-line. Things started happening one minute later. Not much time to execute a hijacking. Exactly when it would happen if it were the crew. None of this proves anything. The official search area has been reduced. If it includes the southern Indian Ocean *and* Pakistan then none of the theories have been ruled out either.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 4:55 PM

db on March 18, 2014 at 4:41 PM

It says typed in the cockpit in either case.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 4:57 PM

My fear is that with so many theories, and the search area being so expanded,
Ward Cleaver on March 18, 2014 at 4:25 PM

I don’t have a problem with any theories as long as there is some evidence for them and there is not any definitive contradictory evidence.

I read that the search area was being reduced again. Presumably, because things are being ruled out.

I don’t know about the Kidd being withdrawn. I think it was searching an area closer to Malaysia than is consistent with the plane flying for 7 hours, whether north or south. So that may be a good thing (not wasting resources).

gh on March 18, 2014 at 5:01 PM

It says typed in the cockpit in either case.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 4:57 PM

Also from the article:

For an ordinary flight, waypoints can be entered manually or uploaded into the F.M.S. by the airline.

db on March 18, 2014 at 5:06 PM

db on March 18, 2014 at 5:06 PM

Ok, I read the story elsewhere. However, no-one is suggesting that the airline did it. If it were hackers uploading it, the pilots could override it since they are in the cockpit. Hackers taking over the plane remotely is a bit of a stretch …

gh on March 18, 2014 at 5:12 PM

Hackers taking over the plane remotely is a bit of a stretch …

gh on March 18, 2014 at 5:12 PM

Why?

db on March 18, 2014 at 5:14 PM

Bye folks.

I posted a few new theories that were new to me. I need to wait until tomorrow to see if any of them unwind … it’s getting too complicated for my brain to handle again.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 5:14 PM

Catherine Herridge: (1) The pilot had five Indian Ocean island landing sites programmed into his home simulator. (2) The hardness of the turn West suggests it was done manually, not by the auto pilot. (3) The West turn was done just at the time when the plane was transitioning from one ground control region (or whatever they call it) to another, which is in effect a dead zone where the turn would not be picked up on the ground.

petefrt on March 18, 2014 at 5:16 PM

Bye folks.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 5:14 PM

Oh, oh, I see! Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what’s coming to you! I’ll bite your legs off!

/Just kidding, nice debating with you.

db on March 18, 2014 at 5:17 PM

There was no flight. Colonel Jessup made it disappear.

BobMbx on March 18, 2014 at 5:38 PM

Warning….I teach this stuff and I am being kind.

For those who keep talking about 10,000 feet (MSL)

Sec. 91.215 — ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use.
(a) All airspace: U.S.-registered civil aircraft. For operations not conducted under part 121 or 135 of this chapter, ATC transponder equipment installed must meet the performance and environmental requirements of any class of TSO-C74b (Mode A) or any class of TSO-C74c (Mode A with altitude reporting capability) as appropriate, or the appropriate class of TSO-C112 (Mode S).

(b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped with an operable coded radar beacon transponder having either Mode 3/A 4096 code capability, replying to Mode 3/A interrogations with the code specified by ATC, or a Mode S capability, replying to Mode 3/A interrogations with the code specified by ATC and intermode and Mode S interrogations in accordance with the applicable provisions specified in TSO C–112, and that aircraft is equipped with automatic pressure altitude reporting equipment having a Mode C capability that automatically replies to Mode C interrogations by transmitting pressure altitude information in 100-foot increments. This requirement applies—

(1) All aircraft. In Class A, Class B, and Class C airspace areas;

(2) All aircraft. In all airspace within 30 nautical miles of an airport listed in appendix D, section 1 of this part from the surface upward to 10,000 feet MSL;

(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(2) of this section, any aircraft which was not originally certificated with an engine-driven electrical system or which has not subsequently been certified with such a system installed, balloon or glider may conduct operations in the airspace within 30 nautical miles of an airport listed in appendix D, section 1 of this part provided such operations are conducted—

(i) Outside any Class A, Class B, or Class C airspace area; and

(ii) Below the altitude of the ceiling of a Class B or Class C airspace area designated for an airport or 10,000 feet MSL, whichever is lower; and

(4) All aircraft in all airspace above the ceiling and within the lateral boundaries of a Class B or Class C airspace area designated for an airport upward to 10,000 feet MSL; and

(5) All aircraft except any aircraft which was not originally certificated with an engine-driven electrical system or which has not subsequently been certified with such a system installed, balloon, or glider—

(i) In all airspace of the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia at and above 10,000 feet MSL, excluding the airspace at and below 2,500 feet above the surface; and

(ii) In the airspace from the surface to 10,000 feet MSL within a 10-nautical-mile radius of any airport listed in appendix D, section 2 of this part, excluding the airspace below 1,200 feet outside of the lateral boundaries of the surface area of the airspace designated for that airport.

(c) Transponder-on operation. While in the airspace as specified in paragraph (b) of this section or in all controlled airspace, each person operating an aircraft equipped with an operable ATC transponder maintained in accordance with §91.413 of this part shall operate the transponder, including Mode C equipment if installed, and shall reply on the appropriate code or as assigned by ATC.

(d) ATC authorized deviations. Requests for ATC authorized deviations must be made to the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the concerned airspace within the time periods specified as follows:

(1) For operation of an aircraft with an operating transponder but without operating automatic pressure altitude reporting equipment having a Mode C capability, the request may be made at any time.

(2) For operation of an aircraft with an inoperative transponder to the airport of ultimate destination, including any intermediate stops, or to proceed to a place where suitable repairs can be made or both, the request may be made at any time.

(3) For operation of an aircraft that is not equipped with a transponder, the request must be made at least one hour before the proposed operation.

Now for those talking about FAA requirements on supplemental oxygen.

Sec. 91.211 — Supplemental oxygen.
(a) General. No person may operate a civil aircraft of U.S. registry—

(1) At cabin pressure altitudes above 12,500 feet (MSL) up to and including 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the required minimum flight crew is provided with and uses supplemental oxygen for that part of the flight at those altitudes that is of more than 30 minutes duration;

(2) At cabin pressure altitudes above 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the required minimum flight crew is provided with and uses supplemental oxygen during the entire flight time at those altitudes; and

(3) At cabin pressure altitudes above 15,000 feet (MSL) unless each occupant of the aircraft is provided with supplemental oxygen.

(b) Pressurized cabin aircraft. (1) No person may operate a civil aircraft of U.S. registry with a pressurized cabin—

(i) At flight altitudes above flight level 250 unless at least a 10-minute supply of supplemental oxygen, in addition to any oxygen required to satisfy paragraph (a) of this section, is available for each occupant of the aircraft for use in the event that a descent is necessitated by loss of cabin pressurization; and

(ii) At flight altitudes above flight level 350 unless one pilot at the controls of the airplane is wearing and using an oxygen mask that is secured and sealed and that either supplies oxygen at all times or automatically supplies oxygen whenever the cabin pressure altitude of the airplane exceeds 14,000 feet (MSL), except that the one pilot need not wear and use an oxygen mask while at or below flight level 410 if there are two pilots at the controls and each pilot has a quick-donning type of oxygen mask that can be placed on the face with one hand from the ready position within 5 seconds, supplying oxygen and properly secured and sealed.

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, if for any reason at any time it is necessary for one pilot to leave the controls of the aircraft when operating at flight altitudes above flight level 350, the remaining pilot at the controls shall put on and use an oxygen mask until the other pilot has returned to that crewmember’s station.

For those who are experts on Pulmonology Hypoxia you would be talking about the oxygen–haemoglobin dissociation curve….and I ain’t heard one mention of that subject.

I give sign offs for high altitude operations and feel free to read AC 61-107A. Yes I have been in the chamber.

Carry on!!!!! Google is fine, but experience is better. Again, carry on! Chuckle!!

HonestLib on March 18, 2014 at 6:14 PM

HonestLib on March 18, 2014 at 6:14 PM

isn’t this carrier a part 121 though? never thought to check but it would be unusual if they were not.
their requirements are even stricter, notice this section didn’t include RVSM which 121 caries operate under now in US.

dmacleo on March 18, 2014 at 6:57 PM

HonestLib on March 18, 2014 at 6:14 PM

Dude, you just pruned an entire branch of the conspiracy tree.

That was downright mean.

And geeze gh, how many times are going to threaten to leave? Another bluegills trait.

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 7:08 PM

For those that didn’t get a chance to listen to Rush today.
H/T Free Republic:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3134616/posts

bluefox on March 18, 2014 at 7:32 PM

Anyone raise the possibility of someone hacking the plane’s the environmental and control systems?

Probably improbable, but I thought I would ask the question.

EA_MAN on March 18, 2014 at 7:57 PM

General McInery flat-out stated the plane is in Pakistan.

John the Libertarian on March 18, 2014 at 11:44 PM

John the Libertarian on March 18, 2014 at 11:44PM

Yes, video here.

Opinionator on March 19, 2014 at 1:58 AM

With much more detail here.

Opinionator on March 19, 2014 at 2:25 AM

The “Wired” theory makes sense to me. Fire, pilot quickly reprograms the nav system to get back to an accessible airfield, makes drastic efforts to put out the fire by going up, then the crew and passengers are incapacitated and the plane flies on autopilot in the new direction for hours until it runs out of fuel. Seems to fit, and explains why no passengers have contacted anyone via cellphone.

LASue on March 19, 2014 at 6:43 AM

Let’s see-the Maldive Island “report” has the plane heading south while the Thai “report” has it going north. Could it be that the plane split in two with the two halves flying in opposite directions? Also in heavy drug smuggling areas such as the Thai-Burmese border (I can’t spell the “M” word)there are always unidentified aircraft. And it’s not clear who saw what in the Maldives. Maybe stoned tourists saw an albatross.

Also, shame on Fox News for duplicating CNN in turning this tragedy into a Dallas-type soap opera to satiate the public’s feeding frenzy on this James Bond melodrama come true. the Talking Heads who are making bold predictions on what happened today have added the proper wiggle words (caveats) such as “possibly” or “if” to say “I NEVER REALLY SAID THAT” when tomorrow’s facts do not meet their today’s theories.

BTW LASue’s theory is as good as any.This is not to say that one (or possibly both) pilots are involved. We just don’t know and the only trustworthy data is in a missing black box which may never be found.

MaiDee on March 19, 2014 at 10:02 AM

This whole thing may well be ridiculous. This story seems plausible and the way to go unless something realm actually turns up.

Quartermaster on March 19, 2014 at 9:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3