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

That might not be a good guess. Their national airline was flying a pretty state-of-the-art aircraft. Relatively new too.

Happy Nomad on March 18, 2014 at 11:22 AM

You could be right, that’s why I pointed out I was just guessing.

I’m going more on how clownish the Malaysian government (including military spokesmen) have been acting. Also, I wouldn’t necessarily equate a national airline’s level of sophistication to that of the nation’s military.

That said, even a 1970-era military radar would probably be able to give altitude within +/- 200 ft.

ZeusGoose on March 18, 2014 at 11:46 AM

Correction sothWEST corner of Indian Ocean.

MaiDee on March 18, 2014 at 11:47 AM

No Mayday calls? No cell phone calls? Nothing in the form of communications? Then the engine data communications for several hours.

It’s a good argument, but it seems every one has holes.

Oil Can on March 18, 2014 at 11:25 AM

I recommend you read Mr. Goodfellows entire piece on this. It all fits. Fire in the cockpit, pilots shut down all the electronics. First step anyone does for an electrical fire. Isolate the power source to stop feeding the fire, this would also kill all communications with the exception of the engine pings, from what I gather is a totally separate system that the pilots could not electrically isolate from cockpit . Immediately Set course to the nearest safe haven airport (explains the hard left turn) which happens to put the plane on a direct route to Palau Langkawi an airport with a 13,000 foot strip. Fight the fire.

Events after that are murky but conjecture leads me to believe they were overcome by smoke and asphyxiated and so were the passengers. Mr. Goodfellows entire view of the possible events are at the link.

https://plus.google.com/106271056358366282907/posts/GoeVjHJaGBz

sailwind on March 18, 2014 at 11:47 AM

The plane (or parts thereof) is almost certainly under water-either in the South China Sea or Indian Ocean. If CRAZY PILOT ACTED ALONE THEORY bis correct, the plane is either in the southeast corner of the Indian ocean (keep flying until you run out of fuel in the most remote spot on earth) or if misdirection was the game, it in the deep Pacific somewhere east of the Philippines. In these latter scenarios the plane will probably never be found.

MaiDee on March 18, 2014 at 11:44 AM

Desperately needing this to be so, does not actually make it so.

Did Malaysian Airlines 370 disappear using SIA68/SQ68 (another 777)?

oscarwilde on March 18, 2014 at 11:50 AM

Events after that are murky but conjecture leads me to believe they were overcome by smoke and asphyxiated and so were the passengers. Mr. Goodfellows entire view of the possible events are at the link.

The only problem is that reports now say that the ACARS/transponders was turned off 2 minutes before the last “all’s well, g’nite” communication between the co-pilot and controllers.

Shy Guy on March 18, 2014 at 11:51 AM

The only problem is that reports now say that the ACARS/transponders was turned off 2 minutes before the last “all’s well, g’nite” communication between the co-pilot and controllers.

Shy Guy on March 18, 2014 at 11:51 AM

Which pretty much blows Goodfellow and Sailwinds theory right out of the water…

oscarwilde on March 18, 2014 at 11:53 AM

It needs to be repeated that IF the plane rose to 45,000 feet, depressurizing it would black out anyone on board regardless of whether they were using an oxygen mask. This is basic aviation physiology.

Also, killing the passengers where they sat would leave you with 230+ corpses to manhandle off the plane later on, probably in a state of rigor mortis.

PersonFromPorlock on March 18, 2014 at 11:54 AM

The only problem is that reports now say that the ACARS/transponders was turned off 2 minutes before the last “all’s well, g’nite” communication between the co-pilot and controllers.

Shy Guy on March 18, 2014 at 11:51 AM

That’s been debunked.

db on March 18, 2014 at 11:54 AM

Dead bodies float once decomposition is under way. No way no one isn’t going to notice 200 bodies floating.

CurtZHP on March 18, 2014 at 11:37 AM

In the Indian OCEAN ?!

Tsar of Earth on March 18, 2014 at 11:58 AM

That’s been debunked.

db on March 18, 2014 at 11:54 AM

I CAN’T KEEP UP!

I CAN’T KEEP UP!

I’M GOING NUTSY CUCKOO!!

I NEED TO HIJACK AN ELEPHANT AND STAMPEDE INTO A NEWS AGENCY’S LOBBY OR SOMETHING!

Shy Guy on March 18, 2014 at 12:01 PM

If I was a pilot and I wanted to steal an airplane here is what I would do:

I (or an accomplice maintenance person) would block the altitude sensing port for the oxygen drop down masks. I would fly a red-eye flight so most of the passengers would be asleep. I would climb to cruising altitude. When I was between air traffic control centers (nobody tracking) I would turn off all radios and execute the alternate flight plan I programmed into the flight management system. I would begin increasing the cabin altitude (decreasing cabin pressure) at 300 feet per minute. Starting from an 8-10k ft cabin pressure, it would take about 30-45 minutes for the air pressure in the cabin to drop enough to make the passengers pass out. An hour or two of unpressurized flight and the passengers would all die in their sleep. I would be ok because I would be wearing my pilots oxygen mask, which still works. Then I would land wherever I was supposed to and do what I was going to do.

The passengers would never know what hit them.

tdarrington on March 18, 2014 at 12:03 PM

Did Malaysian Airlines 370 disappear using SIA68/SQ68 (another 777)?

oscarwilde on March 18, 2014 at 11:50 AM

I find that theory to be the most plausible, followed by the system being hacked theory.

db on March 18, 2014 at 12:04 PM

That said, even a 1970-era military radar would probably be able to give altitude within +/- 200 ft.

ZeusGoose on March 18, 2014 at 11:46 AM

1970 era radars were 2D (Range and Bearing) an additional Height finding radar aim at the target was required to determine Elevation. Modern military radars are now 3D (Range, Bearing and Elevation).

RickB on March 18, 2014 at 12:04 PM

It needs to be repeated that IF the plane rose to 45,000 feet, depressurizing it would black out anyone on board regardless of whether they were using an oxygen mask. This is basic aviation physiology.

PersonFromPorlock on March 18, 2014 at 11:54 AM

Wrong answer, the 777 is rated for an operational ceiling of 43,700 feet, 45,000 feet is well within it’s legally required mandatory margin of safety. Unless it was intentionally depressurized the passengers wouldn’t even know they were at 45,000 feet.

oscarwilde on March 18, 2014 at 12:05 PM

I recommend you read Mr. Goodfellows entire piece on this. It all fits.

sailwind on March 18, 2014 at 11:47 AM

I agree.

What’s really frustrating is when normally a good reporter like Megyn Kelly has an experienced 777 pilot on her show both last Friday and last night, with a similar theory of a progressive failure due to fire in Electronics Bay, she refuses to accept such a prosaic explanation. She want’s something juicier to fill up both of those hours with ratings worthy speculation.

Hannity is ten times worse, and Bill O’Reilly thinks it’s terrible that news people are ‘speculating’ so much. As long as we agree with his admitted speculation then we’re in ‘the know’.

This has just turned into a media and internet three-ring circus. Even some of commenters here on HA admit to not understanding much of the technology, but they go on to give a ‘precise’ conclusion of what happened, based on watching too many movies or reading too many novels.

What ever happened to Occam’s Razor? It suddenly turned into the “OhNo Hair Removal System”.

ZeusGoose on March 18, 2014 at 12:09 PM

Boeing Source: Missing Plane is in Pakistan

petefrt on March 18, 2014 at 11:08 AM

Did no-one beside me follow the link petefrt provided ???

This is Boeing saying it is in Pakistan. The Taleban already denied having it (see the daily-mail stories today), which pretty much confirms it in my book.

Can we stop with all the crazy bullsh*t now please?

This story may not pan-out but the MSM and news wires will have it before long and Boeing will have to comment on it.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 12:10 PM

Can we stop with all the crazy bullsh*t now please?

gh on March 18, 2014 at 12:10 PM

Why? Nothing else has.

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 12:11 PM

Actually he was taking a direct route to Palau Langkawi a 13,000 foot strip with an approach over water at night with no obstacles.

sailwind on March 18, 2014 at 11:17 AM

Pulau Langkawi airport is quite close to the last radar contact.

agmartin on March 18, 2014 at 12:17 PM

oscarwilde Interesting theory. One plane masking the ID of the other. At least it would make ca good James Bond movie. Let’s even assume that this ruse is possible.

1 You have 227 passengers either dead or alive. If the passengers are dead, the country aiding and betting the terrorists, is complicit in murder. If the passengers are alive, the host country is complicit in kidnapping.

2 The vast majority of the passengers are Chinese and, unlike Obama, China doesn’t retaliate by just using harsh words.

3 Central Asia is crawling with Chines (and Russian) agents.The hope of keeping this plot secret is not good.

4 If the 227 passengers are alive, what do you do with them? A mass execution of, say, 150 Chinese, would be legitimate grounds for an all out war on that country. If the passengers are let go, then the country involved would be publicly ridicukled by 227 sensational stories.

MaiDee on March 18, 2014 at 12:23 PM

When you get curious about Flight 370 you talk with people on Hot Air about it. When you talk with people on Hot Air about it, you want to fire up FltSim and study the on-board systems and flight path of Flight 370. When you fire up FltSim and study the on-board systems and flight path of Flight 370 the NSA monitors and sends the FBI to haul you away.

Don’t let the FBI haul you away!

hawkdriver on March 18, 2014 at 10:58 AM


LOL! Don’t worry we deliver!

Boeing 777 Automatic Flight Instructions – go to page 24 and NOTE: Fly-by-Wire Flight Control System

Now while Hawkdriver peruses the cool flight capabilities of the autopilot – some thoughts for other commenters:

Everything shown below the dashed line on page 24 of that document below the dashed line is a computer. The various computers talk to the various instrument packages and FLY the plane – ALL the pedals, throttles and such just connect to computers – there is NO mechnical linkage.

Please STOP the “Malaysia shot it down nonsense” -it was flying for 7.5 hours AFTER it turned WEST, it was well outside Malasian air space. This also applies to the “fire on board disabled everyone” theory which DOESN’T hold water for a plane that made multiple altitude and course changes over the 7.5 hour timeline. Pay attention to the DETAILS reported.

Why are we still looking for it? It is effectively the world’s largest DRONE with a lift capacity of 500,000 pounds. If you fill it with almost that much TNT (being used for example purposes ONLY) you would have a modern day V2 capable of flying 7,000 miles and delivering an explosion …

… on the scale of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Do I have your attention NOW?

I wrote this last week when the flight limit was 4 hours – given what we know now – somebody HAS the plane and wants to do something VERY BAD with it.

Boeing was warned that the 777 was hackable

I posted this the other day in AP’s “irresponsible speculation” post:

I don’t think this plane was “hijacked” in any of the traditional meanings. My response was to your scenario #4 re: cargo on the plane.

There is no way trained pilots DIDN’T know the plane had been turned around. The First Officer was “new” enough” (~ 2,000+ flight hours) that he would be a likely “inside job” candidate.

Military radars are routinely recorded so someone has had time to rerun the plane track enough times to be confident (or forced) to admit the new location.

The two Iranians traveling under false passports probably don’t have terror connections … but they could be mules carrying special electronic packages courtesy of Iranian scientists.

Interesting test case – remotely hack the computers on a quarter billion dollar plane and turn it into the world’s largest drone … with the convenience of a rated pilot to go “hands on” if things get glitchy.

Keep the plane … or ditch it somewhere far away from where it is supposed to be?

Ditch it … you’ve sent the message to the folks you wanted to get it.

PolAgnostic on March 11, 2014 at 11:25 PM

.

PolAgnostic on March 18, 2014 at 12:23 PM

Why? Nothing else has.

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 12:11 PM

There was a comment in the daily-mail that a low-flying plane was seen over the Maldives on the day the plane went missing.

Perhaps people can get their maps and calculators out and prove that this means the plan must have ditched over the Indian Ocean …

I don’t care. I will wait until the MSM have had time to find and debunk the story above first.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 12:23 PM

This is Boeing saying it is in Pakistan. The Taleban already denied having it (see the daily-mail stories today), which pretty much confirms it in my book.

Can we stop with all the crazy bullsh*t now please?

This story may not pan-out but the MSM and news wires will have it before long and Boeing will have to comment on it.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 12:10 PM

You seem to be rather fond of your “Daily Mail”. Well, bip-bip, old chap. I consider the best British newspaper a few pegs below our National Enquirer. So, you’re not impressing me yet.

If anything in any form of media confirms it your book, you’re obviously on a steady diet of comic books.

I’ll stop with the BS when this case comes to a conclusive end. Until the ‘reports’ stop changing hourly, and contradicting each other, then it’s all BS to me.

At this point, it’s all become media competition, amateur sleuths and conspiracy nuts.

ZeusGoose on March 18, 2014 at 12:26 PM

In the Indian OCEAN ?!

Tsar of Earth on March 18, 2014 at 11:58 AM

I see your point. But bodies have to start washing up somewhere.

CurtZHP on March 18, 2014 at 12:27 PM

PolAgnostic on March 18, 2014 at 12:23 PM

Why don’t you just learn to read instead of masturbate. You have posted that bullshit over and over. The story from the NYT (and in the daily-mail) is that a HUMAN typed the instructions into the computer.

If the Taliban have it there is no shortage of martyrs to fly the plane.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 12:27 PM

I don’t care. I will wait until the MSM have had time to find and debunk the story above first.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 12:23 PM

Oh, I care. In a way that this could happen again.

And the squawking passes time in what would otherwise be a boring news day (face it, Crimea is over and the US lost, again).

The big question I have is if it is determined that the flight crew was involved, will future flight crews loose any control over the transponders?

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 12:30 PM

ZeusGoose on March 18, 2014 at 12:26 PM

Read what you want. All the newspaper stories are the same. They all come off AP and Reuters. Several papers have monthly limits unless you register. Daily-mail has no registration.

If you feel the need to criticize sources, you might start with this one (posted by petefrt above):

http://www.lignet.com/InBriefs/Malaysia-Hunts-for-Missing-Jet-in-Pakistan-Israel-.aspx

I know nothing about them but it says “Langley Intelligence Group Network” and I know there is an airforce base with a similar name. FWIW.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 12:31 PM

The big question I have is if it is determined that the flight crew was involved, will future flight crews loose any control over the transponders?

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 12:30 PM

It is almost certain that the flight crew took the plane.

Latest stories in the media point out that the co-pilot calmly said good-night. Ignore the b.s. about him not saying “Roger-and-out”. Reading comments from real pilots I understand that is just SOP in hollywood movies.

Also the daily-mail stories (and probably others — to satisfy ObamaGoose) noted that the passenger list has been scrutinised exhaustively and authorities are convinced that there were no other trained pilots on the flight.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 12:34 PM

his story may not pan-out but the MSM and news wires will have it before long and Boeing will have to comment on it.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 12:10 PM

I highly doubt this was a Boeing-supported statement. Probably an employee who asked to not be named. Boeing has a public relations office, and all releases and statements flow through them.

RandallinHerndon on March 18, 2014 at 12:38 PM

oscarwilde Interesting theory. One plane masking the ID of the other. At least it would make ca good James Bond movie. Let’s even assume that this ruse is possible.

1 You have 227 passengers either dead or alive. If the passengers are dead, the country aiding and betting the terrorists, is complicit in murder. If the passengers are alive, the host country is complicit in kidnapping.

2 The vast majority of the passengers are Chinese and, unlike Obama, China doesn’t retaliate by just using harsh words.

3 Central Asia is crawling with Chines (and Russian) agents.The hope of keeping this plot secret is not good.

4 If the 227 passengers are alive, what do you do with them? A mass execution of, say, 150 Chinese, would be legitimate grounds for an all out war on that country. If the passengers are let go, then the country involved would be publicly ridicukled by 227 sensational stories.

MaiDee on March 18, 2014 at 12:23 PM

If you are willing to steal a $250,000,000.00 dollar aircraft, none of those things means a damned thing to you.

As for number 4, not even China would respond like that.

oscarwilde on March 18, 2014 at 12:41 PM

Why don’t you just learn to read instead of masturbate. You have posted that bullshit over and over. The story from the NYT (and in the daily-mail) is that a HUMAN typed the instructions into the computer.

If the Taliban have it there is no shortage of martyrs to fly the plane.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 12:27 PM

.
Let’s ignore your nasty little personal attack …

… and focus on the fact that a HACKED computer system does not differentiate between electronic signals submitted from a keypad between the pilot and first officer seats and the same electronic signals sent from a keyboard controlled by soemone who has HACKED the computer system.

The Taliban is VERY UNLIKELY to have a pilot rated to fly the 777 – unless, as I suggested, one of the pilot’s on board was involved.

An inifinitesimal amount of research into the 777 reveals the modern wonder of computer based systems completely capable of flying the plane.

FYI, if you are flying into anyone of a number of airports around the world under adverse conditions … the regulations require the pilots to let the plane land itself because the plane can do it more safely and with faster “reaction times” than the pilots.

It made me nervous the first time I was on a plane that landed itself. I cannot imagine the conflicting emotions of pilots required to sit back and watch it happen.

PolAgnostic on March 18, 2014 at 12:43 PM

If you feel the need to criticize sources, you might start with this one (posted by petefrt above):

http://www.lignet.com/InBriefs/Malaysia-Hunts-for-Missing-Jet-in-Pakistan-Israel-.aspx

I know nothing about them but it says “Langley Intelligence Group Network” and I know there is an airforce base with a similar name. FWIW.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 12:31 PM

Yes, there is an Air Force Base and Langley, VA is also where the CIA Headquarters are located. However, your link leads to an amateurish website that has nothing to add to this story.

At this point, I’m taking ALL sources with a big grain of salt. If, and when, things finally settle down, then we can all have a more intelligent debate. At this point, bouncing off all the various and conflicting ‘reports’ is just child’s play.

It can be fun, but nothing serious can come of it.

ZeusGoose on March 18, 2014 at 12:44 PM

Boeing has a public relations office, and all releases and statements flow through them.

RandallinHerndon on March 18, 2014 at 12:38 PM

I realize that. That is what I meant above by:

Boeing will have to comment on it.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 12:44 PM

However, your link leads to an amateurish website that has nothing to add to this story.

ZeusGoose on March 18, 2014 at 12:44 PM

Amateurish? Compared to this one. ROFLMAO.

http://www.lignet.com/About

The Langley Intelligence Group Network (LIGNET.com) is a Washington, DC-based service providing global intelligence and forecasting from former CIA, U.S. intelligence and national security officers, drawing on an international network of experts and sources.

Now, of course, they may be lying but they have more credibility with me than someone who is so lazy they can’t click an obvious link before coming up with their witty comeback.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 12:47 PM

PolAgnostic on March 18, 2014 at 12:43 PM

You’re not winning. Quit while you have some shred of credibility left.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 12:48 PM

gh on March 18, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Aren’t you doing the same thing with a place that happens to have a better web designer? Any body can be anything on the internet. Just because they say they are, doesn’t make it so.

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 12:53 PM

Lt. Col. (Res.) Eran Ramot, a former IAF fighter pilot and the head of aviation research at Israel’s Fisher Institute for Air and Space Strategic Studies, however, drew other conclusions.

“It would be very complicated [for someone other than the pilot to have flown the plane],” Ramot said, based on the stunning revelations that the flight not only made a total U-turn from its planned route but also dipped in between radar points for hours and had all of its tracking systems manually turned off. “It takes somebody that knows how to operate an airplane like this.”

Like Yeffet, Ramot believes the plane was being intentionally flown to a secret location, and he went as far as to say he is holding out hope that the 239 passengers and crew who were on board are still alive.

Times of Israel (see Langley link above)

gh on March 18, 2014 at 12:59 PM

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 12:53 PM

If you believe that nonsense why do you even bother? Physician heal thyself.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 1:02 PM

depressurizing it would black out anyone on board regardless of whether they were using an oxygen mask. This is basic aviation physiology.

PersonFromPorlock on March 18, 2014 at 11:54 AM

No.

oscarwilde, I finally got to read that bit about shadowing the Singapore jet. Very interesting. I’m not sure it works, depending on the type of TCAS. But if all his assumptions hold true, then it is plausible – which is more than you can say about some other theories.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 12:31 PM

Langley AFB is in the SE corner of VA. Langley (CIA) is in mid-Virginia. The website is associated with neither.

I don’t see anyone quoting how this US official knows the difference between an auto-pilot commanded turn and a flown turn. Which makes me question the validity of the information.

(I said in the beginning that it might be a hypoxia incident, and the pilots – before they lost consciousness – did very weird things, including turning off comms and selecting a different route in the computer and activating it.)

GWB on March 18, 2014 at 1:04 PM

gh on March 18, 2014 at 12:59 PM

Your latest link directly contradicts what you wrote earlier:

It is almost certain that the flight crew took the plane.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 12:34 PM

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 1:04 PM

whatcat on March 18, 2014 at 1:00 PM

Rapture? That would suck if the pre-millenials were right and these were the only folks that qualified. A whole lot of people would be very wrong.

GWB on March 18, 2014 at 1:05 PM

Now, of course, they may be lying but they have more credibility with me than someone who is so lazy they can’t click an obvious link before coming up with their witty comeback.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 12:47 PM

I did follow your link before my “witty comeback”, so I wasn’t being lazy. Mostly all I saw were a lot of claims of ‘have-beens’ that were once somehow connected to the U.S. intelligence community.

After your 12:47 post, accusing me of being lazy, I did further research. It seems like they may have some legitimacy, but most of their people are more from the political side of the community than the real analysts and field-operatives.

Additionally, upon my initial ‘lazy’ click from your link, I noticed they immediately were asking the user to subscribe. That immediately raised my antennae.

Since you felt the need to call me lazy, even while not knowing that I had followed your link, I’m sure you won’t mind me calling you a presumptuous clown, having never met you.

ZeusGoose on March 18, 2014 at 1:06 PM

If you believe that nonsense why do you even bother? Physician heal thyself.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 1:02 PM

I ain’t taking any of this at face value.

And I also ain’t contradicting myself like those who do jump on the latest theory.

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 1:06 PM

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 1:04 PM

You can’t read. Try again.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 1:07 PM

You’re not winning. Quit while you have some shred of credibility left.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 12:48 PM

.
Ahh, the glib advice of the stymied troll. I wonder how much weight that carries?

PolAgnostic on March 18, 2014 at 1:08 PM

whatcat on March 18, 2014 at 1:00 PM

Rapture? That would suck if the pre-millenials were right and these were the only folks that qualified. A whole lot of people would be very wrong.

GWB on March 18, 2014 at 1:05 PM

Would make sense – CNN was left behind. Though I don’t think people will be taken Boeing 777 plane and all.

whatcat on March 18, 2014 at 1:09 PM

You can’t read. Try again.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 1:07 PM

Dude, maybe you need to try again. The original statement stands.

Especially after the mud you have been slinging.

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 1:09 PM

http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2014/03/16/base-course/

The second image shows the overlap and gaps between radars along a proposed route to an unfriendly airport. Another point: I read somewhere that the pilot was a huge supporter of a political figure who had been imprisoned by the authorities. IIRC, this politico was a Muslim Brotherhood guy.

butch on March 18, 2014 at 1:11 PM

FYI, if you are flying into anyone of a number of airports around the world under adverse conditions … the regulations require the pilots to let the plane land itself because the plane can do it more safely and with faster “reaction times” than the pilots.

PolAgnostic on March 18, 2014 at 12:43 PM

Not really true. You are required to use a system to land the aircraft that meets the conditions. If there is a “0/0″* rated system on board, then you can use that to land. However, the only reason for that is no pilot is considered a “0/0″ system. Most systems that will get you down to land in very adverse conditions have no problem with the pilot flying the aircraft. Most of the push for using the computer to land in those really bad conditions come from the airlines, who have a vested interest in avoiding a diversion where they then have to take care of a bunch of cranky passengers who aren’t where they paid to go.

(You made it sound like you have to use the system and land, and that is not true. I have to use a rated system if I land in adverse conditions, and one or two are rated beyond the capability of the pilot.)

* “0/0″ would be a ceiling of 0 feet, and a visibility of 0 miles. It’s shorthand for “ain’t no way you’re landing in that soup!”

GWB on March 18, 2014 at 1:13 PM

Though I don’t think people will be taken Boeing 777 plane and all.

whatcat on March 18, 2014 at 1:09 PM

You don’t think so? Come on, WWJF? (What Would Jesus Fly) It wouldn’t be an Airbus! ;)

GWB on March 18, 2014 at 1:14 PM

I see your point. But bodies have to start washing up somewhere.

CurtZHP on March 18, 2014 at 12:27 PM

Good lord… the bodies will float for weeks and months, and wash ashore after 3000km, right? The best chance to see one of those bodies would be as digested remains inside of a shark – the ocean is not your local pond or river.

In all this debacle with contradicting information, what I find disturbing is how much nuisances we passengers gets through at the airports, and how little extra safety was implemented on the planes.

A secondary, even a tertiary GPS, not reachable from inside, and independent of the electrical systems (aka batteries) would be in order for each plane. Pings to a satellite network every 5 min, not to ground stations. Not needed to show anything on traffic controller screens, not needed to be turned off ever, just data in some central server at the airline company.

Trucks and taxi companies have them installed on their fleet, but commercial jets cannot afford them? Or is not wanted?

Rookie on March 18, 2014 at 1:16 PM

All I can say is that unless credible (or non-contradictory) evidence turns up soon–which has not happened since the co-pilot? (even that is contradictory) said “goodnight”–turns up soon, this story will soon be on the back pages’ and then disappear entirely– occasionally resurfacing in a Whatever Happened to Amelia Earhart’ type of ‘Discovery Channel special.

MaiDee on March 18, 2014 at 1:18 PM

Please STOP the “Malaysia shot it down nonsense” -it was flying for 7.5 hours AFTER it turned WEST, it was well outside Malasian air space.

Please tell me where the last ping was.

Are planes required to fly in a straight line?

faraway on March 18, 2014 at 1:18 PM

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 1:06 PM

I did not contradict myself. You either misread something or you left your pants somewhere last night.

The only thing I have asserted as probably true is that the pilot was responsible. Bill Still posted a video, within hours of the plane’s disappearance, postulating that the plane was taken by Iran to use as a weapon against Israel. Karl Denninger posted the video at market-ticker.org and posted Bill’s retraction a few hours later.

ALL stories (rather than speculative fantasies — Bill Still’s is an example of such, except that time is showing he may have been close to the truth) are consistent with the pilot (and/or co-pilot) and not a hijacker and not a computer hacker is responsible.

The “Langley” link quotes someone from Boeing. Unless the site is a complete fake, I expect the story will leak into the media and Boeing will be asked about it. I find that link interesting since it is consistent with the first speculation that I read about the incident.

What is frustrating about all the conspiracy and wild speculation is that some of it is based on information which contradicts what has been widely and consistently published. Much of it gets the established time-line wrong and much of it assumes things (suicidal pilot) which appear to be at odds with ALL the stuff appearing in the press (he had a happy home-life etc).

gh on March 18, 2014 at 1:18 PM

blink on March 18, 2014 at 1:17 PM

I think you are giving them too much credit for getting 25% not dead wrong.

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 1:19 PM

The only thing I have asserted as probably true is that the pilot was responsible.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 1:18 PM

From your earlier link. Part that you chose not to quote:

Based on profiling, pilots are unlikely suspects, says Israeli airline’s former security chief; he and other experts believe plane intact

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 1:22 PM

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 1:09 PM

Ok. Crayons again.

“It would be very complicated [for someone other than the pilot to have flown the plane],”

That means he thinks the pilot was flying it. If there is something in the story to show I got that backwards then quote it. I provided a link.

It is almost certain that the flight crew took the plane.

In my world, “flight crew”, means “pilot and co-pilot”.

Ok. What have you got?

gh on March 18, 2014 at 1:23 PM

You can’t read. Try again.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 1:07 PM

Dude, maybe you need to try again. The original statement stands.

Especially after the mud you have been slinging.

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 1:09 PM

Cozmo,

I think gh is just some kind of crazy guy who, while being able to read, doesn’t have the ability to comprehend and assimilate. Therefore, he’ll go hopping around from site to site looking for latest ‘news’, taking it for Gospel, then spewing his latest ‘theory’.

There are people like this (sometimes they’re referred to as idiots, but far be it from me to use such harsh language ;).

I guess it’s best to let these types alone while they play in their own little sandbox of stupidity. Of course, when you make them made, they will likely wet their pants, turning the sand into mud, and then flinging it in anger when adults don’t condone their childish nonsense.

ZeusGoose on March 18, 2014 at 1:23 PM

when you make them made

made should have been mad

ZeusGoose on March 18, 2014 at 1:25 PM

Ok. What have you got?

gh on March 18, 2014 at 1:23 PM

Me? I got nuthin’. I also ain’t posting links that contradict my earlier theories because I will wait until there is some real information.

That way I don’t have to try and remember what theories I cling to.

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 1:28 PM

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 1:22 PM

I did not “choose” not to quote it. I did not read that much of the article. Ok. I went back and read it.

There are two different people in the article. A “security expert” and a pilot. I am taking the pilot’s position.

The two iranians have been eliminated as suspects according to other sources. Perhaps that will turn out not to be true.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 1:28 PM

Not really true. You are required to use a system to land the aircraft that meets the conditions. If there is a “0/0″* rated system on board, then you can use that to land. However, the only reason for that is no pilot is considered a “0/0″ system. Most systems that will get you down to land in very adverse conditions have no problem with the pilot flying the aircraft. Most of the push for using the computer to land in those really bad conditions come from the airlines, who have a vested interest in avoiding a diversion where they then have to take care of a bunch of cranky passengers who aren’t where they paid to go.

(You made it sound like you have to use the system and land, and that is not true. I have to use a rated system if I land in adverse conditions, and one or two are rated beyond the capability of the pilot.)

* “0/0″ would be a ceiling of 0 feet, and a visibility of 0 miles. It’s shorthand for “ain’t no way you’re landing in that soup!”

GWB on March 18, 2014 at 1:13 PM

.
Absolutely accurate and far more detail than I wanted to put in a response to a troll.

PolAgnostic on March 18, 2014 at 1:29 PM

I did not “choose” not to quote it. I did not read that much of the article.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 1:28 PM

Bluegills?

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 1:30 PM

ZeusGoose on March 18, 2014 at 1:23 PM

You’d be quite wrong. I’ve been posting here for a while. There’s much contradictory evidence.

cozmo has been trolling every comment on this story. He admitted it in one of them recently.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 1:31 PM

That dang troll cozmo!

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 1:32 PM

PolAgnostic on March 18, 2014 at 12:23 PM

As to your theory of hacking the plane to hijack it, it’s plausible, but difficult. I doubt you can turn off the comms via a wireless link. So, if it was hijacked in that way, someone would be squealing from the aircraft. That’s the real drawback to the idea.

If you include the pilot, then you lose the need to electronically hijack it.

That’s my basic difficulty with that scenario. (Besides the obvious one of allowing an airplane to be controlled in that fashion. *shudder*)

GWB on March 18, 2014 at 1:33 PM

blink on March 18, 2014 at 1:30 PM

The only people on the flight with any significant number of hours of a 777 were the pilot and co-pilot. The passenger manifest has been scrutinized exhaustively.

It is reported that an air steward also had a simulator at home.

There were two Iranians on the flight ages 17 and 21 (according to the press). Neither of them had any background as pilots or terrorists, that anyone has yet discovered. I believe it has been reported that their families have been contacted.

Some people have objected that the co-pilot did not have enough experience to carry this out by himself and he was 27 with about 10 years experience.

So, yes. It was the pilot and co-pilot who flew the plane. It is a conspiracy theory to think that they were not flying it. Perhaps someone held a gun to their heads but there is no evidence of that yet.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 1:36 PM

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 1:32 PM

You responded ‘yes’ to the question the other day.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 1:37 PM

That’s my basic difficulty with that scenario. (Besides the obvious one of allowing an airplane to be controlled in that fashion. *shudder*)

GWB on March 18, 2014 at 1:33 PM

I seem to remember some folks having the same problem with fly by wire. Concorde and F-16…dang I’m old.

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 1:38 PM

So, if it was hijacked in that way, someone would be squealing from the aircraft. That’s the real drawback to the idea.
GWB on March 18, 2014 at 1:33 PM

Exactly.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 1:39 PM

sailwind, you understand the fact that the course change was programmed into a computer as opposed to being executed manually almost certainly disproves the fire theory, right?

FishingwFredo on March 18, 2014 at 1:39 PM

gh on March 18, 2014 at 1:37 PM

I have confounded so many trolls and know-it-alls during this that I may have.

Heck, I just called cozmo a troll.

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 1:39 PM

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 1:38 PM

Nice “selective” quite. People who live in glass houses …

gh on March 18, 2014 at 1:40 PM

quote

gh on March 18, 2014 at 1:41 PM

gh on March 18, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Huh? What planet are you on?

blink on March 18, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Relying on verifiable information? What a buzzkill.

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 1:43 PM

Based on profiling, pilots are unlikely suspects,

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 1:22 PM

are unlikely =/= are never

Everyone handles altitude differently. I know that many people are perfectly fine at 36,000 feet cabin altitude, so I’m sure some people would still be conscience (even if hypoxic) at 45,000 feet.

blink on March 18, 2014 at 1:27 PM

Definitely not true. You don’t know anyone that is “perfectly fine” at 36,000 feet. Not unless you consider unconscious and dying as “perfectly fine”. If you mean “perfectly fine with supplemental oxygen”, then that is entirely different. And no one is going to be conscious, but hypoxic at 45,000 feet after the first handful of seconds without supplemental oxygen.

GWB on March 18, 2014 at 1:44 PM

I doubt this is true. Everyone handles altitude differently. I know that many people are perfectly fine at 36,000 feet cabin altitude, so I’m sure some people would still be conscience (even if hypoxic) at 45,000 feet.

blink on March 18, 2014 at 1:27 PM

You’re absolutely wrong on this one. No one is “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. At 45,000 ft., you can only survive about 3-5 seconds without oxygen.

I think you better review your facts, or tell us what you’re basing your statements on.

ZeusGoose on March 18, 2014 at 1:44 PM

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 1:43 PM

It won’t work.

Wesley, The Princess Bride

gh on March 18, 2014 at 1:45 PM

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 1:38 PM

Me, too!

the fact that the course change was programmed into a computer

FishingwFredo on March 18, 2014 at 1:39 PM

I’m still wondering how this has been established. I can’t consider it a fact unless you can show me how *anyone* would know.

GWB on March 18, 2014 at 1:48 PM

GWB on March 18, 2014 at 1:44 PM

Ain’t my theory. But one that gh linked to.

I go back to the Egypt Air pilot who committed suicide and took a plane with him. Knowing that, almost anything is possible. By almost, I find the odyssey of flight 33 theory not yet possible.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Yes, dear. At least you are now quoting real fantasies.

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 1:50 PM

Trucks and taxi’s use a system that reports GPS position info via local mobile phone networks. Aircraft that are hundreds of miles away need a satellite system.

blink on March 18, 2014 at 1:20 PM

I know that, I used to maintain them from the network operator side.

Planes can have GPS the same way that taliban have communication – via satellite phone, with the advantage of a stronger signal (towards satellite) while in air, or another personalized solution. Positioning systems should have triple backup, not hard or expensive to implement. One in tail, one on wing, and so on.

Better than combing oceans without a clue in case of disasters, me thinks.

Rookie on March 18, 2014 at 1:51 PM

The Leftists at the NYT know this because…….

alanstern on March 18, 2014 at 1:52 PM

You don’t need to have significant hours flying the 777 in order to have sufficient system’s knowledge of the aircraft.

blink on March 18, 2014 at 1:45 PM

You do need a decent number of hours in the jet (or a real sim – NOT FlightSim) to go somewhere like a remote field and land it. Or you need a whole lot of talent. And luck.

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

blink on March 18, 2014 at 1:47 PM

Here you go:

I know that many people are perfectly fine at 36,000 feet cabin altitude

blink on March 18, 2014 at 1:27 PM

GWB on March 18, 2014 at 1:52 PM

blink on March 18, 2014 at 1:45 PM

I meant by “people”, “experts, quoted in newspaper stories”.

I take newspaper articles, as slightly more authoritative than people who write reams of fantasy based on one “possiblility”.

There is also a “pilots rumour network” bulletin board (prune.org, iirc) which has been used as a resource. But in this case, it was speculation in a newspaper article.

In any case, my point was that it was either both the pilot and co-pilot together or one of them separately. The point about hijacking applies to the case that either one of them doing it solo.

Here is my fantasy scenario, which I posted a few days ago.

The pilot is disgruntled about the political situation and shoots the breeze with the co-pilot some time when together in public. They do this somewhere (in Malaysia or in a foreign country when on a flight together) where someone overhears them and offers them money. They plan the heist and take off at the next opportunity.

There are a number of problems with this. Today, the malaysian government has said that they did not request to fly together. Yesterday they claimed the pilot attended the trial of Anwar Ibrahim hours before the flight. The implication is that the pilot acted alone and spontaneously.

In no way do I really think that is what happened and we may someday know the real story. But it is plausible and fits published facts.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 1:54 PM

As to your theory of hacking the plane to hijack it, it’s plausible, but difficult. I doubt you can turn off the comms via a wireless link. So, if it was hijacked in that way, someone would be squealing from the aircraft. That’s the real drawback to the idea.

If you include the pilot, then you lose the need to electronically hijack it.

That’s my basic difficulty with that scenario. (Besides the obvious one of allowing an airplane to be controlled in that fashion. *shudder*)

GWB on March 18, 2014 at 1:33 PM

.
The latest NYT piece makes me wonder if the comms were ever truly turned off. If Boeing sells a plane as smart as the 777 – which has better avionics than a lot of the second and third tier military planes in use – would they install a “failsafe” GPS locator so they can keep track of their technology?

With regard to my “remote hijack” theory – the two Iranians traveling under stolen passports make perfect mules for carrying on the electronics required to enable the hijack. They are not going to be honest about “did anyone give you anything to carry onto this flight” question. Between checked and carry on luggage, there would be more than enough capacity for a separate comm set up.

And the Iranians have demonstrated first world military capabilities over the last ten years. The MRAP we deployed in Iraq was rendered ineffective by state-of-the-art armor penetration “IEDS” designed, built and deployed from Iraq.

The contrarian argument is that by including the pilot you give yourself the capability to succeed if the “remote hijack” turns out to have glitches.

Iran would also be willing to pay a handsome reward to a pilot that deliverd a fully functional 777 to them.

(Besides the obvious one of allowing an airplane to be controlled in that fashion. *shudder*)

.
There are more than a few REMF’s in D.C. who see “pilotless” planes as the best of all worlds.

PolAgnostic on March 18, 2014 at 1:59 PM

You’d be quite wrong. I’ve been posting here for a while. There’s much contradictory evidence.

cozmo has been trolling every comment on this story. He admitted it in one of them recently.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 1:31 PM

I’ll admit that I’m a newbie, just allowed in during the latest registration drive.

That said, I had been following HA for a long time before that. So, I know cozmo isn’t a troll. I don’t even think you’re a troll.

I just think you’re a person who is so unknowledgeable on this subject, you are forced to hop to the latest ‘news’ story you can find. And then try to justify whatever uninformed ‘theory’ you have based on that.

cozmo and I choose to take the more scientific approach of sitting back and waiting until the wheat is separated from the chaff.

You may not be a troll, but the fervor with which you defend your ‘sources’ certainly makes me question your ability to analyze the situation in a non-emotional manner.

ZeusGoose on March 18, 2014 at 2:00 PM

Why can’t you be more skeptical of all the claims being by supposed experts?

blink on March 18, 2014 at 1:51 PM

This has nothing to do with “claims by experts”. There is no evidence of any other pilots on board. The plane was flown expertly according to all the stories.

The idea that someone else flew the plane is marginally more likely than aliens in a UFO.

cozmo on March 18, 2014 at 1:50 PM

I don’t buy any of the hypoxia bullsh*t. It is the link I quoted “selectively” from. The reason was that I quoted the part I believed as I already explained to you.

gh on March 18, 2014 at 2:02 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3