Airliner missing between Malaysia and Cambodia/Vietnam, terrorism possible

[Biggus]

Well... as far as a dry run... wouldn't it be important for the plane to at least be found so that assessments could be made about how difficult it was to penetrate security, seize the aircraft, etc? If this was a dry run, the perpetrators would only know the external search and rescue response.

Unless they had independent comms equipment. Then they'd have feedback, the adequacy of which I can't really say - I haven't thought too hard about it.

Finally somebody gets it. You are absolutely correct!!!!! trying to use logic when dealing with criminals,terrorist,etc. is total foolishness. To try and use logic and reason on a criminal is just totally "rancid"

I disagree that logic an reason aren't relevant, particularly if someone is calculatedly stealing an aircraft and disappearing. It doesn't account for every single possibility, but it's a good place to start.

Wouldn't surprise me at all. This whole thing is about chasing ghosts, nobody seems to know anything for sure. That is why we should stick with the backrounds of all the people involved, the hardware answers just don't seem to be working out.

You sure about that? The hardware answers are incredibly compelling. We now know that the ACARS radio links were not disabled before last voice contact. We've got a radar track that shows the aircraft turning off to the best possible shot at a safe landing at Langkawi and a bunch of stuff that looks like shutting down systems in the cockpit to eliminate a fire, which they may have managed to do, but not before succumbing to asphyxia or hypoxia.

The hardware answers look far less like terrorism.

More news that makes things less clear.

This is what I was saying yesterday. ACARS radio links weren't disabled prior to last voice contact.

I don't think it would be that simple. A radar contact without transponder data or contact with air traffic controllers is an anomaly and would trigger a response almost anywhere, even on a standard route: people do remember 9/11. Biggus would know more about it than I, but I don't think you could fly close enough to another plane to look like an echo without triggering some serious alarm and complaint from the pilots of the plane you were shadowing.

Wouldn't happen. The transponder not only squawks a pre-designated code for the flight based upon the ATC's instruction, but it also has it's own embedded identification that can't be changed. If there's an aircraft on my primary radar without a transponder, I'm going to make contact one way or another. Normally, you'd expect voice and then either compliance or a declared emergency. If declared emergency, I'd be getting the ACARS data.

If we're talking about flying in close formation to hide your blip inside someone else's blip, that's marginally more likely than being abducted by aliens. It's physically possible to formate on another airliner-type airframe (ever seen a KC-135 refuelling an E-3?), but to hold it there for hours would be difficult, and primary radar would show an even bigger return. To use a crude analogy, the return that the radar operators would see wouldn't be like the normal Rosie O'Donnell sized blip, it'd look like Rosie O'Donnell carrying another Rosie O'Donnell on her shoulders. If I were Malaysia or Thailand, I might not be scrambling my interceptors, but if I were Vietnam, China, India and possibly even Pakistan, I'd be doing something about it.

[anotherguy]

Anyone know where the Sabalan and Kharg are currently in their trip to the US east coast?

[Biggus]

Anyone know where the Sabalan and Kharg are currently in their trip to the US east coast?

There's this report.

“An Australian AP-3C Orion encountered an Iranian frigate during a routine Operation Gateway patrol on 10 March 2013,” said a Defence Department spokesperson.

The Iranian Navy ships were reportedly heading home after a port visit to Zhangjiagang in China and were nearing Sri Lanka when they were intercepted by the Australian aircraft.

[anotherguy]

There's this report.

That's from 2013. This is what I am referring too:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...se-for-concern

I think the plane is underwater, but the potential of the world seeing it airborne again as a weapon exists until disproven.

Definitely reaching, but these ships were laughed off by everyone when their mission was announced. Their public statement that "the mission has a message" is laughable unless the message is to get a tetanus booster. Why send two easily-sunk ships including your largest supply ship to our coast?

As I said, definitely reaching, but I was looking at available information about passengers on board and got to thinking about the two Iranians with stolen passports and what other moves Iran has been making in the world.

[Biggus]

That's from 2013.

Good pickup. It's a very interesting question.

[anotherguy]

Good pickup. It's a very interesting question.

While I haven't done it yet, I would bet that the plot of the known 2013 route of both ships would be interesting when added to the map of the known flight information. Right around a year before MH370 went missing, those two ships were the first ship Iranian naval ships to traverse the Straight of Malacca since 1979.

If I was writing this as a novel, I would be using the Iranian's claim that they identified 370 surface and subsurface vessels on the 2013 mission as a plot piece, but in reality I would guess it means that they saw some boats that they were able to identify as such.

Possibly coincidentally, a Russian SIGINT ship has been in port in both Venezuela and Cuba this month. Presumably to monitor our reactions to the Iranian vessels.

[Biggus]

While I haven't done it yet, I would bet that the plot of the known 2013 route of both ships would be interesting when added to the map of the known flight information. Right around a year before MH370 went missing, those two ships were the first ship Iranian naval ships to traverse the Straight of Malacca since 1979.

If I was writing this as a novel, I would be using the Iranian's claim that they identified 370 surface and subsurface vessels on the 2013 mission as a plot piece, but in reality I would guess it means that they saw some boats that they were able to identify as such.

Possibly coincidentally, a Russian SIGINT ship has been in port in both Venezuela and Cuba this month. Presumably to monitor our reactions to the Iranian vessels.

I've spent a couple of hours considering that it's possible that the Iranian ships were in the area, and what their actions could possibly be should they decide that MH370 was a threat or otherwise a target.

Here's my problem: What armaments would either ship carry that could engage an airliner at 35kft? Both ships have basic AAA, conceivably they might have a few MANPADs, but firing a Strela at a target at FL350 is a bit like attempting to snipe someone a mile away with a .22LR.

So we'd be left with some sort of electronic warfare scenario.

I'm not discounting it, because there were a few other irregularities in the area in terms of transponder discrepancies. Not terribly unusual, but they were all in the same area around the same time.

[anotherguy]

NYT is reporting that first turn that diverted the plane was made via entry into the computer system and not manually.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/wo...AA1F11&gwt=pay

[Biggus]

NYT is reporting that first turn that diverted the plane was made via entry into the computer system and not manually.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/wo...AA1F11&gwt=pay

Still neither here nor there in terms of hijacking vs mechanical issue. Simply punching in the change for the nearest airfields and beginning a movement towards them would look like that.

[slapout9]

I disagree that logic an reason aren't relevant, particularly if someone is calculatedly stealing an aircraft and disappearing. It doesn't account for every single possibility, but it's a good place to start.

I understand that and it is perfectly OK to have that point of view especially with your extensive technical background.

You sure about that? The hardware answers are incredibly compelling. We now know that the ACARS radio links were not disabled before last voice contact. We've got a radar track that shows the aircraft turning off to the best possible shot at a safe landing at Langkawi and a bunch of stuff that looks like shutting down systems in the cockpit to eliminate a fire, which they may have managed to do, but not before succumbing to asphyxia or hypoxia.

The hardware answers look far less like terrorism.

I am not sure about any of this. I simply propose certain theories and then let people comment on them as far as their possible accuracy or inaccuracy.

[TheCurmudgeon]

This is what I was saying yesterday. ACARS radio links weren't disabled prior to last voice contact.

With that change, electrical/computer failures are back on the table.

I actually considered the possibility that the rapid climb (tied to an intentional depressurization) was an intentional attempt to starve the fire of oxygen - as unlikely as that would be. More likely that the radar data is flawed.

The hardware answers are incredibly compelling. We now know that the ACARS radio links were not disabled before last voice contact. We've got a radar track that shows the aircraft turning off to the best possible shot at a safe landing at Langkawi and a bunch of stuff that looks like shutting down systems in the cockpit to eliminate a fire, which they may have managed to do, but not before succumbing to asphyxia or hypoxia.

The hardware answers look far less like terrorism.

Lets say that there was a fire,

1) why no Mayday? Aren't there backup comms systems? Aren't there automatic systems that would communicate a fire on board?

2) why the continued course changes? I suppose the system could have continued to degrade, but it seems odd (assuming there is any credibility to the radar information, a dangerous assumption based on recent events).