Airliner missing between Malaysia and Cambodia/Vietnam, terrorism possible

[carl]

A thought occurred to me. The airplane appears to have been flown into one of the most remote parts of the world's oceans. If it was intentional and not because of an accident, whoever headed it out there must have known how out of the way it was. Why would they have done that?

[Biggus]

Biggus,

As you are about to shift into your winter, when does that transition typically hit? Is there any appreciable effect on the open water out in the current search area (i.e. is there a race against Mother Nature's clock as well?)?

Tough call, I haven't spent enough time on the west coast to really say. I know that it's rough in the search area at the best of times, but I couldn't give you an accurate answer.

A thought occurred to me. The airplane appears to have been flown into one of the most remote parts of the world's oceans. If it was intentional and not because of an accident, whoever headed it out there must have known how out of the way it was. Why would they have done that?

Well, suicide whilst preserving a life insurance policy would probably be a good explanation if it was intentional and malicious.

[davidbfpo]

An explanation from Inmarsat how they concluded the flight ended in the Indian Ocean off Australia:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...own-MH370.html

I note this passage negates the data passed back to Rolls Royce:

..one of Inmarsat’s satellites continued to pick up a series of automated hourly 'pings' from a terminal on the plane, which would normally be used to synchronise timing information.

[davidbfpo]

Apparently Rolls-Royce engines are all equipped with a box that transmits automatically, probably each hour, a variety of data: engine data, position data, instructions and a unnamed function. Airlines are aware the box is fitted and it would be visible in any strip-down, but the box remains R-R property. Malaysian Airlines did not pay R-R for this data to be transmitted, collected and analysed. Some nations insist - legally - that this data be collected.

[slapout9]

A thought occurred to me. The airplane appears to have been flown into one of the most remote parts of the world's oceans. If it was intentional and not because of an accident, whoever headed it out there must have known how out of the way it was. Why would they have done that?

In one case it would be to destroy evidence. This could be true for a pure criminal activity as well as some type of terrorist plan that went wrong. Or to just make a mess, similar to a mass murder type situation where the whole point is to cause pain, which is why being logical is not going to get you very far when it comes to a motive.

[Dayuhan]

Sober assessment of the challenges of finding the airplane:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ssal-task.html

We can speculate all we want on the question of why anyone would deliberately fly the plane into an empty ocean. There remains a strong possibility that it was not done deliberately, that a bungled hijack, fire, or other failure left the crew and passengers dead or incapacitated and the plane ran on its own until the fuel ran out. To me that looks like the "Occam's Razor" explanation, but of course we won't know until the plane is recovered.

This incident could result in the introduction of automated systems that would send alerts or activate independent tracking systems if a pilot s incapacitated. Heavy equipment manufacturers are already introducing systems that monitor operators for signs of fatigue, seems entirely possible to adapt those for aircraft.

I've seen it mentioned that data recorders only record data for the last 60 minutes of flight, and may have erased the relevant sections. Does anyone know why that's the case? Given the state of compact data storage these days it's hard to believe that they can't include enough capacity to record data for an entire flight.

[Biggus]

Apparently Rolls-Royce engines are all equipped with a box that transmits automatically, probably each hour, a variety of data: engine data, position data, instructions and a unnamed function. Airlines are aware the box is fitted and it would be visible in any strip-down, but the box remains R-R property. Malaysian Airlines did not pay R-R for this data to be transmitted, collected and analysed. Some nations insist - legally - that this data be collected.

This link may provide some useful information on the topic.

The system you are speaking of is tied in with ACARS and primarily (and likely only) uses ACARS to report on systems health via a number of different mediums (VHF, HF and SATCOM). There are airline-specific procedures that might or might not force the ACARS system to report by SATCOM only. My understanding is that MAS is not subscribed to the SATCOM reporting feature, but is subscribed to one of the VHF/HF ground based services. I am trying to get my head around why MAS might try to force ACARS into a transmission mode that it isn't subscribed to, and I haven't yet arrived at a satisfactory answer.

I believe we will see some changes in the operation of ACARS as a result of this event. I sincerely hope that whatever changes are made don't contribute to the risk of future losses. Every time I hear a talking head demanding that transponders become a system that cannot be turned off from the cockpit, I feel somewhat nauseous.

I've seen it mentioned that data recorders only record data for the last 60 minutes of flight, and may have erased the relevant sections. Does anyone know why that's the case? Given the state of compact data storage these days it's hard to believe that they can't include enough capacity to record data for an entire flight.

Part of the issue is that while data storage is incredibly cheap generally in comparison to a decade ago, FDR and CVR systems need to be able to withstand fairly massive impact (I believe the spec is in the range of 15+G) amongst other things. Airlines are not known for spending a cent more than they need to these days, unfortunately. I do not doubt that larger data storage equipment that can withstand the demands of FDR and CVR specs exist, but without some sort of legal requirement to upgrade, I doubt that we will see much change. This isn't the first time where such an improvement would be beneficial, and it probably won't be the last.

[flagg]

Sober assessment of the challenges of finding the airplane:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ssal-task.html

We can speculate all we want on the question of why anyone would deliberately fly the plane into an empty ocean. There remains a strong possibility that it was not done deliberately, that a bungled hijack, fire, or other failure left the crew and passengers dead or incapacitated and the plane ran on its own until the fuel ran out. To me that looks like the "Occam's Razor" explanation, but of course we won't know until the plane is recovered.

This incident could result in the introduction of automated systems that would send alerts or activate independent tracking systems if a pilot s incapacitated. Heavy equipment manufacturers are already introducing systems that monitor operators for signs of fatigue, seems entirely possible to adapt those for aircraft.

I've seen it mentioned that data recorders only record data for the last 60 minutes of flight, and may have erased the relevant sections. Does anyone know why that's the case? Given the state of compact data storage these days it's hard to believe that they can't include enough capacity to record data for an entire flight.

Where's Malcolm Gladwell and his Wisdom of Crowds when we need him?

I remember in his book he used the example of the USS Scorpion and the use of bayesian Search Theory/Wisdom of Crowds(specialist).