Missing Malaysia Airlines jet carrying 239 triggers Southeast Asia search

[Scott]

Posts have been removed for a variety of reason, including being off-topic, inflammatory, trolling and those with messed up quotes.

[simon43]

IMHO, this event has demonstrated how aircraft technological design has failed 'to see the wood for the trees'. Many aircraft systems have double or triple redundancy, but they all overlook what can happen when the flight crew (or someone in the cockpit) deliberately try to override these systems.

I'm not saying that this was piloit suicide in this specific case. But previous tragedies have shown the world that pilot suicide is a factual event, (not just on one occasion, but several).

I raised the issue on Prune that too many aviation professionals were thinking with their hearts and not with their brains - eager to defend the reputation of flying professionals. My post was rapidly deleted.

Again IMHO, aircraft comms, emergency and flight systems should be designed 'survive' an attempt at 'pilot suicide'.

Quite how one does that I'm not sure. But it is a bad oversight at the very least and a dangerous liability - especially in a fee-paying public aircraft - to design that aircraft without considering pilot suicide.

Simon

[Credo]

I don't think there is much than can be done if someone plans to commit suicide once they are in the air. An airplane is a machine, it cannot differentiate between a necessary emergency landing and an intentional act of sabotage. Well, it may be able to differentiate, but it can't think or necessarily come up with an alternative plan.

I knew an older lady who was afraid of flying. We all told her not to worry that when it was "her time to go, she would go." She replied, "Yes, but when it is the pilot's time to go, I don't want to go with him."

Until this plane is found and a determination is made, there isn't much that can be done. Planes need to be better traced than they currently are.

[Cobragold]

Saw this on a Malaysian website, they are questioning why the local papers did not get this info.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10710250/Exclusive-The-final-minutes-of-communication-between-MH370-and-ground-control-revealed.html

Also some are saying that the 4 tons of mangosteen on board is unlikely as the local season starts in may.

[Credo]

Let's see....if there were 4 tons of mangosteens on board, then someone would have ordered them, probably a food supplier, which could be verified and someone would have picked them, or packed them...again, something that could be verified.

[canuckamuck]

There were mangosteens at our market 2 weeks ago. But it is true the main season is around May

Edited March 22, 2014 by canuckamuck

[lannarebirth]

24 meter debris, that can't be a container but a lot of stuff is floating in the ocean. Probably not the plane imo.

Sent from my SM-P601 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Some shipping guy said the containers are locked to each other on the ships. So it could be 2 40ft containers.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Containers are connected by twisting cone locks to each other vertically (one on top of the other), They are lashed together transversely. They are not connected longitudinally (end to end).

[webfact]

RT @vaitor: Map: Planned search area today for the six planes as well as the arriving naval vessels - http://t.co/m8K6OA2IVj

[webfact]

MH370 search resumes off Perth coast
By Digital Content

MELBOURNE, March 22 (Bernama) -- Fine weather should aid the search off the West Australian coast for missing flight MH370 as it resumes Saturday, the Australian Associated Press reports.

Spotter planes on Friday spent a second fruitless day scouring a remote stretch of the Indian Ocean, where possible wreckage from the Malaysia Airlines plane had been identified by satellite.

The Australian Maritime Safety Authority is leading the search and says it is still being treated as a rescue operation, two weeks after the jet disappeared.

Two ultra-long-range commercial jets and a RAAF P3 Orion will be the first aircraft to set off for the search zone when they depart Perth about 6am (WST).

The bad weather that hampered search operations on Thursday has cleared.

"The area will have pretty much light surface winds, generally less than about 10 knots.

"We're not expecting any significant weather. Visibility should greatly improve," Bureau of Meteorology forecaster Luke Huntington told ABC radio.

Two merchant ships are assisting in the search and the Royal Australian Navy's HMAS Success is due to arrive at the area on Saturday afternoon. (BERNAMA)


-- TNA 2014-03-22

[GentlemanJim]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I don't think there is much than can be done if someone plans to commit suicide once they are in the air. An airplane is a machine, it cannot differentiate between a necessary emergency landing and an intentional act of sabotage. Well, it may be able to differentiate, but it can't think or necessarily come up with an alternative plan.

I knew an older lady who was afraid of flying. We all told her not to worry that when it was "her time to go, she would go." She replied, "Yes, but when it is the pilot's time to go, I don't want to go with him."

Until this plane is found and a determination is made, there isn't much that can be done. Planes need to be better traced than they currently are.

I must remember that line for the 'fear of flying' programs some of the airlines run, Jeez you lot must be a bundle of laughs "right guy's listen in, no point being scared of flying when it's your time to die your gonna die ok" how you must while away the evening hours

[LennyW]

Of all the world resources, satellites, planes, etc. goes to show, hollywood and all it's nonsense just does not reflect real life, despite many people thinking it does..

With everybody looking and not finding anything yet, this is just not right, some wild theories about the plane heading to one of the stans, landing, and to be used for later use now seems all too real a possibility,

Too many things point to this being a deliberate act, IMHO anyway.

Deliberate disabling of all comm's, Deliberate change of course, Deliberate avoidance of ground radar detection, .....

The US and China do have satellite capabilities that can detect the proverbial needle in a haystack, and their lack of anything concrete to date just makes me feel they are involved somehow, or at the very least they know but for some reason they are not sharing, i just can't help feeling that way with all that has gone on, now that swings back to the back to hollywood ideal, i wish it was over and confirmed one way or another.

If a plane that size can be so easily "lost" perhaps the world is not as safe a place as some so called superpowers would have us believe.

I think with the time that has passed now, the truth will never be known, if it is found in the water then most evidence will have been destroyed, if it is in a remote jungle somewhere it may take years to find and again evidence will be deteriorated and destroyed, if it is being held by some radical group for future use or as a bargaining chip then we will definitely never know the truth.

The whole thing stinks to me, and the longer it goes without any concrete evidence, it points more and more to "involvement" by "agencies" .

Just my rant this morning.

[webfact]

From 'ghostly' to psychic, theories abound on Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

By Michael Martinez, CNN

(CNN) -- As the hunt for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 now focuses on suspicious debris in the southern Indian Ocean, theories continue to evolve on what may have happened to the commercial plane carrying 239 people.

Conjecture by experts now ranges from the other-worldly to the generic.

It's been two weeks since the plane disappeared after a March 8 takeoff from Kuala Lumpur, heading to Beijing.

Theory: Ghost or zombie plane

The newest -- and most provocative -- speculation centers on the so-called "zombie theory" advanced most notably by aviation specialist Clive Irving of The Daily Beast.

Other experts, however, dislike his choice of words: "I really don't like the term 'zombie plane.' That connotes a sinister aspect to it. But, I'd prefer it to call it a ghost plane. But, we have seen things like this before," said William Waldock, a professor at U.S.-based Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.

A ghost plane is one where everyone aboard -- pilots, crew, passengers -- loses consciousness because of a loss of pressurization, an explosion, smoke or fumes, experts say.

Full story: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/21/us/malaysia-airlines-flight-370-theories/index.html

-- CNN 2014-03-22

[draftvader]

Considering the "Zombie/Ghost" theory for a moment. How difficult would be to have the pilots wearing wireless heart monitors that would immediately put the plane into a 10,000 feet cruising altitude if both pilots were unconscious or suffered simultaneous heart attacks. If neither pilot recovered at this point the system could either land on autopilot or be remote piloted in.

Certainly could have helped if some of the theories were correct. It could even be extended to take over control if the pilot did not submit a large (say 50km) deviation from the flight plan through an ATC first.

Certainly the system are available and I know I would pay that little extra for that insurance.

Just a theory for a little debate.

[Asiantravel]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I don't think there is much than can be done if someone plans to commit suicide once they are in the air. An airplane is a machine, it cannot differentiate between a necessary emergency landing and an intentional act of sabotage. Well, it may be able to differentiate, but it can't think or necessarily come up with an alternative plan.

I knew an older lady who was afraid of flying. We all told her not to worry that when it was "her time to go, she would go." She replied, "Yes, but when it is the pilot's time to go, I don't want to go with him."

Until this plane is found and a determination is made, there isn't much that can be done. Planes need to be better traced than they currently are.

I must remember that line for the 'fear of flying' programs some of the airlines run, Jeez you lot must be a bundle of laughs "right guy's listen in, no point being scared of flying when it's your time to die your gonna die ok" how you must while away the evening hours

But when in severe turbulence on long haul flights over the Pacific I hoped that nothing would happen until at least after the meal service was over so at least I would die with a full stomach

[canuckamuck]

Considering the "Zombie/Ghost" theory for a moment. How difficult would be to have the pilots wearing wireless heart monitors that would immediately put the plane into a 10,000 feet cruising altitude if both pilots were unconscious or suffered simultaneous heart attacks. If neither pilot recovered at this point the system could either land on autopilot or be remote piloted in.

Certainly could have helped if some of the theories were correct. It could even be extended to take over control if the pilot did not submit a large (say 50km) deviation from the flight plan through an ATC first.

Certainly the system are available and I know I would pay that little extra for that insurance.

Just a theory for a little debate.

I think it would be possible to transmit pilot's vital signs via ACARs. This would also let the controllers know if there was any drama unfolding in the cockpit.

A dash cam would be useful to add to black box data, except it would be recording the cockpit. Stills could be transmitted on ACARS. The pilot unions would freak out, but the information gained would be invaluable. Add to this GPS tracking units that are self contained and never off. One of which could jettison and float in case of a crash. Wouldn't need to be bigger than a golf ball.

[Chicog]

Interestingly, a bloke from Inmarsat said that you could report a plane's position for $10 a flight.

Not exactly breaking the bank, is it?

A General Aviation expert said on BBC last week that private juts use it. It costs about 1500USD to install and 1 USD/hour to use.

Well from the Inmarsat spokesman, it's a simple modification to the technology already installed on commercial aircraft.

But you're right, he might just be touting for business. However, they must look into it as far as I'm concerned.

It's not just about finding a few bodies, finding the reason behind every single aircraft accident teaches us ways to prevent others.

Added: I believe this is the technology it would use. The data rate is more than enough for a GPS location once a minute.

Classic Services

Aero H

Aero H provides packet data rates of up to 10.5 kbps for ACARS, FANS and ATN communications and up to 9.6 kbps per channel for multi-channel voice, fax and data links through a high gain-antenna – anywhere in the global beams of the I-3 satellites. As well as safety, applications include passenger, operational and administrative communications.

Aero H+

Offers all the features of Aero H, but uses the I-4 regional spot beams and 4.8kbps voice codecs to deliver voice services at lower cost. Outside of regional spot beams, Aero H+ terminals operate in the global beams in the same way as standard Aero H systems. Aero H+ is also available in the full I-4 satellite footprint.

Aero I

Uses intermediate-gain antennas and the I-4 regional beams, providing multi-channel voice and 4.8kbps circuit-switched data services. Aero I packet data is also available in the full I-4 footprint.

Edited March 22, 2014 by Chicog

[GentlemanJim]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Considering the "Zombie/Ghost" theory for a moment. How difficult would be to have the pilots wearing wireless heart monitors that would immediately put the plane into a 10,000 feet cruising altitude if both pilots were unconscious or suffered simultaneous heart attacks. If neither pilot recovered at this point the system could either land on autopilot or be remote piloted in.

Certainly could have helped if some of the theories were correct. It could even be extended to take over control if the pilot did not submit a large (say 50km) deviation from the flight plan through an ATC first.

Certainly the system are available and I know I would pay that little extra for that insurance.

Just a theory for a little debate.

I think it would be possible to transmit pilot's vital signs via ACARs. This would also let the controllers know if there was any drama unfolding in the cockpit.

A dash cam would be useful to add to black box data, except it would be recording the cockpit. Stills could be transmitted on ACARS. The pilot unions would freak out, but the information gained would be invaluable. Add to this GPS tracking units that are self contained and never off. One of which could jettison and float in case of a crash. Wouldn't need to be bigger than a golf ball.

I guess you could always put one of those electric collars around their necks as well to give them a quick shock if they appear a bit too relaxed

Look, we cant even get the unions or companies to agree that all Pilots should have a mandatory breath test prior to being given a 200 million dollar aircraft with 400 passengers (how easy is that, then voilla - no more drunk pilots), so having them rigged to heart monitors is not going to happen any time soon.

If you are going to take control remotely then just do it, the technology is there to take off, travel from a to b and then land, all automatically. Your Pilots could sit in a booth 6000 miles away and pilot remotely, have shift changes, hand over if they feel sick or under the weather and someone can open the door of the booth at any time and check they are behaving themselves, and if they start doing anything untoward then security can drag them out their seats (why not tazer them) and another Pilot can take control. The reason we do not do all that now...the passengers! Passengers do not want to fly in pilotless aircraft, and neither would I. When you have pilots in your aircraft you know there is somebody there with a vested interest in keeping you safe and all alive. If there is a fire or loss of control he/she will do everything possible to keep their own ass alive, and as a consequence yours as well. In a remote piloting scenario if you all crash and burn, the Pilots still go home at night to wifey and the 2.2 kids and say 'bad day at the office honey'. If they can operate predators from 10000 miles away then London to Bangkok with a 747 is a piece of cake. Did you know that the safest possible seat configuration possible in an aircraft is rear facing seats, they would have saved hundreds of lives in the various crashes around the world (note next time how all the cabin crew are in rear facing seats!), and why don't we have rear facing seats? Because even though they can't see where they are going, passengers don't want rear facing seats. In all the studies done passengers say no, yet it would increase your chances of survival in a crash by a very large percentage (those of you who have flown in rear facing seats in certain business class configurations such as BA will also note that as far as the passenger experience goes it doesn't make one iota of difference).

Aviation and flying in general is the safest form of transport in the world. We are so far ahead of any other transport industry when it comes to safety, attitudes, training and regulation. There must be 30 million air movements a year and how many people die annually in crashes. How long has this been going on now with the Malaysia flight? Two weeks at a guess (i cant be bothered to look). It is very bad that 289 lives are almost certainly lost and we need to find out what and why. But in that two weeks at least 450 people have died on the roads in Thailand alone! And there is a fact, statistically you can fly every day for the rest of your lives and the chances are you will never be involved in a major airline incident, in fact, statistically if you are going to die in a crash related to air travel it will be in a car crash on the way to the airport -fact. The airline industry is as a whole incredibly responsible, it is not perfect but we never stop working at it - ever. We cannot legislate for the once in a million brain fart if someone is hell bent on suicide, we try but we can't. I wonder how many motorway pile-ups have occurred because a driver decides to end it all by swerving across lanes and going head on in to a school bus? I don't know, but if a pilot can do that on average once every 200 million flights then I bet car drivers are doing it everyday somewhere in the world. Relax, enjoy your meal, put your seat back and enjoy the flight

Edited March 22, 2014 by GentlemanJim

[mcfester]

How is this for a crazy theory?

There is something very sensitive on board (either cargo or more likely a passenger).

After takeoff plane is commandeered by US, either by people on board or remotely. There are some weird flight movements to be seen on some flight tracking sites in the proximity of mas370 just before it turned around. Could be another plane monitoring the operation.

Mas370 is seen on primary radar flying west, then doing a short stint north towards Phuket, then back west towards Nicobar Islands. All to avoid as much radar detection as possible. Also corresponds with eyewitness accounts from Malaysia.

Then mas370 lands at Campbell Bay airport on Great Nicobar, which is just West of where primary radar loses the plane completely. Runway is very short so plane most likely gets damaged, but regardless can't take off because runway is too short for that.

The target cargo or passenger is then taken of the plane and transported to Car Nicobar island, via helicopter, where a CIA rendition plane is waiting. This plane takes off with the target cargo or passenger and heads to Diego Garcia. It is flying very low to avoid radar. Eyewitnesses see a low flying plane over one of the southern Maldives Islands. This is on route to Diego Garcia and time of sighting fits perfectly as well. They talk of a red striped plane, which fits with a 737-600 rendition plane used by the CIA to transport prisoners.

Mas370 is subsequently towed of the Campbell bay runway into the ocean, which is immediately next to it. At this time another flight passes over and and an eyewitness claims she sees a plane floating of the coast of some island near Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Mas370 is dragged 50 NM northeast to open water and made to sink.

Nearly two weeks later, when people are starting to doubt the Inmarsat sat ping data, and some countries who initially stopped searching in the andaman sea because of Inmarsat data, might be inclined to resume searching there. At that point US decides to remove any and all evidence by blowing the plane -now on the seafloor- to smithereens via a series of controlled demolitions. Hence the recording of a series of strong earthquakes this evening so close to Great Nicobar, yet not on the fault line which runs on the opposite line of that ridge, and measured at only 6-10kms deep.

Now, time to sleep. My brain hurts!

The Russians still havn't sent a background check on their national that was aboard.

[beetlenut]

If I wanted to commit suicide but wanted to hide the fact (so life insurance would still be paid) by preventing any one from getting access to the black box where in the world would be the best place to ditch the aircraft. Right where they are searching now.

[EyesWideOpen]

Interesting about the date regarding the deletion of data......I am assuming that the data referred to is connected with the flight simulation software, which keeps a log file of flights. I still think this

case will be broken by the data on the simulator, providing that the FBI can restore it.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/21/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-hard-drive-deletions/index.html

"(CNN) -- American investigators reviewing a hard drive belonging to the captain of missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 have found that there were deletions of information even closer to the final flight than first indicated by Malaysian officials, U.S. law enforcement officials tell CNN.The forensic search of the computer files by government experts found files were removed even after February 3, the date Malaysian authorities have cited for when some data was cleared from the drive of the captain.

Edited March 22, 2014 by EyesWideOpen

[harrry]

There were mangosteens at our market 2 weeks ago. But it is true the main season is around May

Now if were durians that is another story,

[Chicog]

We cannot legislate for the once in a million brain fart if someone is hell bent on suicide, we try but we can't. I wonder how many motorway pile-ups have occurred because a driver decides to end it all by swerving across lanes and going head on in to a school bus? I don't know, but if a pilot can do that on average once every 200 million flights then I bet car drivers are doing it everyday somewhere in the world. Relax, enjoy your meal, put your seat back and enjoy the flight

It's not going to stop me flying, but these are just a small subset....

http://news.aviation-safety.net/2013/12/22/list-of-aircraft-accidents-caused-by-pilot-suicide/

[GentlemanJim]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Interesting about the date regarding the deletion of data......I am assuming that the data referred to is connected with the flight simulation software, which keeps a log file of flights. I still think this

case will be broken by the data on the simulator, providing that the FBI can restore it.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/21/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-hard-drive-deletions/index.html

"(CNN) -- American investigators reviewing a hard drive belonging to the captain of missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 have found that there were deletions of information even closer to the final flight than first indicated by Malaysian officials, U.S. law enforcement officials tell CNN.The forensic search of the computer files by government experts found files were removed even after February 3, the date Malaysian authorities have cited for when some data was cleared from the drive of the captain.

How many times do you think you would empty your cache to keep your computer running smoothly if it was powering the software behind one of these home made monsters

[boomerangutang]

IMHO, this event has demonstrated how aircraft technological design has failed 'to see the wood for the trees'. Many aircraft systems have double or triple redundancy, but they all overlook what can happen when the flight crew (or someone in the cockpit) deliberately try to override these systems.

I'm not saying that this was piloit suicide in this specific case. But previous tragedies have shown the world that pilot suicide is a factual event, (not just on one occasion, but several).

I raised the issue on Prune that too many aviation professionals were thinking with their hearts and not with their brains - eager to defend the reputation of flying professionals. My post was rapidly deleted.

Again IMHO, aircraft comms, emergency and flight systems should be designed 'survive' an attempt at 'pilot suicide'. Quite how one does that I'm not sure. But it is a bad oversight at the very least and a dangerous liability - especially in a fee-paying public aircraft - to design that aircraft without considering pilot suicide. Simon

I can understand being able to turn off 'auto-pilot' - but there are other devices that should not be able to be turned off. I don't know tech-names, as I'm not a pilot or techie, but an earlier article written by a pilot - made a good case for certain devices (flight data recorder, etc) be tamper-proof. If that had been the case with the Malaysian flight, it would have made a world of difference.

[canuckamuck]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Considering the "Zombie/Ghost" theory for a moment. How difficult would be to have the pilots wearing wireless heart monitors that would immediately put the plane into a 10,000 feet cruising altitude if both pilots were unconscious or suffered simultaneous heart attacks. If neither pilot recovered at this point the system could either land on autopilot or be remote piloted in.

Certainly could have helped if some of the theories were correct. It could even be extended to take over control if the pilot did not submit a large (say 50km) deviation from the flight plan through an ATC first.

Certainly the system are available and I know I would pay that little extra for that insurance.

Just a theory for a little debate.

I think it would be possible to transmit pilot's vital signs via ACARs. This would also let the controllers know if there was any drama unfolding in the cockpit.

A dash cam would be useful to add to black box data, except it would be recording the cockpit. Stills could be transmitted on ACARS. The pilot unions would freak out, but the information gained would be invaluable. Add to this GPS tracking units that are self contained and never off. One of which could jettison and float in case of a crash. Wouldn't need to be bigger than a golf ball.

I guess you could always put one of those electric collars around their necks as well to give them a quick shock if they appear a bit too relaxed

Look, we cant even get the unions or companies to agree that all Pilots should have a mandatory breath test prior to being given a 200 million dollar aircraft with 400 passengers (how easy is that, then voilla - no more drunk pilots), so having them rigged to heart monitors is not going to happen any time soon.

If you are going to take control remotely then just do it, the technology is there to take off, travel from a to b and then land, all automatically. Your Pilots could sit in a booth 6000 miles away and pilot remotely, have shift changes, hand over if they feel sick or under the weather and someone can open the door of the booth at any time and check they are behaving themselves, and if they start doing anything untoward then security can drag them out their seats (why not tazer them) and another Pilot can take control. The reason we do not do all that now...the passengers! Passengers do not want to fly in pilotless aircraft, and neither would I. When you have pilots in your aircraft you know there is somebody there with a vested interest in keeping you safe and all alive. If there is a fire or loss of control he/she will do everything possible to keep their own ass alive, and as a consequence yours as well. In a remote piloting scenario if you all crash and burn, the Pilots still go home at night to wifey and the 2.2 kids and say 'bad day at the office honey'. If they can operate predators from 10000 miles away then London to Bangkok with a 747 is a piece of cake. Did you know that the safest possible seat configuration possible in an aircraft is rear facing seats, they would have saved hundreds of lives in the various crashes around the world (note next time how all the cabin crew are in rear facing seats!), and why don't we have rear facing seats? Because even though they can't see where they are going, passengers don't want rear facing seats. In all the studies done passengers say no, yet it would increase your chances of survival in a crash by a very large percentage (those of you who have flown in rear facing seats in certain business class configurations such as BA will also note that as far as the passenger experience goes it doesn't make one iota of difference).

Aviation and flying in general is the safest form of transport in the world. We are so far ahead of any other transport industry when it comes to safety, attitudes, training and regulation. There must be 30 million air movements a year and how many people die annually in crashes. How long has this been going on now with the Malaysia flight? Two weeks at a guess (i cant be bothered to look). It is very bad that 289 lives are almost certainly lost and we need to find out what and why. But in that two weeks at least 450 people have died on the roads in Thailand alone! And there is a fact, statistically you can fly every day for the rest of your lives and the chances are you will never be involved in a major airline incident, in fact, statistically if you are going to die in a crash related to air travel it will be in a car crash on the way to the airport -fact. The airline industry is as a whole incredibly responsible, it is not perfect but we never stop working at it - ever. We cannot legislate for the once in a million brain fart if someone is hell bent on suicide, we try but we can't. I wonder how many motorway pile-ups have occurred because a driver decides to end it all by swerving across lanes and going head on in to a school bus? I don't know, but if a pilot can do that on average once every 200 million flights then I bet car drivers are doing it everyday somewhere in the world. Relax, enjoy your meal, put your seat back and enjoy the flight

Not a whole lot of that has anything to do with monitoring vital signs of the pilots. or having a video option in case of hijack, or having GPS transmitters that can't be disabled. Any one of these things would have saved the world millions, maybe hundreds of millions dollars this month. And we would know what we wish we knew now. All of this tech is readily available and cheap. And really not very intrusive, these guys are at work, not at the pub.

I understand the pilots would have problem with it, but at the end of the day they are employees, not royalty. and the government can make it law.

[GentlemanJim]

IMHO, this event has demonstrated how aircraft technological design has failed 'to see the wood for the trees'. Many aircraft systems have double or triple redundancy, but they all overlook what can happen when the flight crew (or someone in the cockpit) deliberately try to override these systems.

I'm not saying that this was piloit suicide in this specific case. But previous tragedies have shown the world that pilot suicide is a factual event, (not just on one occasion, but several).

I raised the issue on Prune that too many aviation professionals were thinking with their hearts and not with their brains - eager to defend the reputation of flying professionals. My post was rapidly deleted.

Again IMHO, aircraft comms, emergency and flight systems should be designed 'survive' an attempt at 'pilot suicide'. Quite how one does that I'm not sure. But it is a bad oversight at the very least and a dangerous liability - especially in a fee-paying public aircraft - to design that aircraft without considering pilot suicide. Simon

I can understand being able to turn off 'auto-pilot' - but there are other devices that should not be able to be turned off. I don't know tech-names, as I'm not a pilot or techie, but an earlier article written by a pilot - made a good case for certain devices (flight data recorder, etc) be tamper-proof. If that had been the case with the Malaysian flight, it would have made a world of difference.

So what do you do if you have a piece of electrical equipment shorting out or burning and you can't electrically isolate it? What do you do if the 'remote control over-ride' that some people are discussing has a malfunction after over-riding (the ariel malfunctions or the box does for example) and you have a system that has now locked out the pilots. You are inviting far more potential problems than you are trying to solve.

[Chicog]

IMHO, this event has demonstrated how aircraft technological design has failed 'to see the wood for the trees'. Many aircraft systems have double or triple redundancy, but they all overlook what can happen when the flight crew (or someone in the cockpit) deliberately try to override these systems.

I'm not saying that this was piloit suicide in this specific case. But previous tragedies have shown the world that pilot suicide is a factual event, (not just on one occasion, but several).

I raised the issue on Prune that too many aviation professionals were thinking with their hearts and not with their brains - eager to defend the reputation of flying professionals. My post was rapidly deleted.

Again IMHO, aircraft comms, emergency and flight systems should be designed 'survive' an attempt at 'pilot suicide'. Quite how one does that I'm not sure. But it is a bad oversight at the very least and a dangerous liability - especially in a fee-paying public aircraft - to design that aircraft without considering pilot suicide. Simon

I can understand being able to turn off 'auto-pilot' - but there are other devices that should not be able to be turned off. I don't know tech-names, as I'm not a pilot or techie, but an earlier article written by a pilot - made a good case for certain devices (flight data recorder, etc) be tamper-proof. If that had been the case with the Malaysian flight, it would have made a world of difference.

The saboteur might have been able to pull the circuit breaker but the FDR will most likely still have usable information. Not least that it was turned off.

That's why they are desperate to find it, it's the only real chance of getting answers.

Edited March 22, 2014 by Chicog

[boomerangutang]

IMHO, this event has demonstrated how aircraft technological design has failed 'to see the wood for the trees'. Many aircraft systems have double or triple redundancy, but they all overlook what can happen when the flight crew (or someone in the cockpit) deliberately try to override these systems.

I'm not saying that this was piloit suicide in this specific case. But previous tragedies have shown the world that pilot suicide is a factual event, (not just on one occasion, but several).

I raised the issue on Prune that too many aviation professionals were thinking with their hearts and not with their brains - eager to defend the reputation of flying professionals. My post was rapidly deleted.

Again IMHO, aircraft comms, emergency and flight systems should be designed 'survive' an attempt at 'pilot suicide'. Quite how one does that I'm not sure. But it is a bad oversight at the very least and a dangerous liability - especially in a fee-paying public aircraft - to design that aircraft without considering pilot suicide. Simon

I can understand being able to turn off 'auto-pilot' - but there are other devices that should not be able to be turned off. I don't know tech-names, as I'm not a pilot or techie, but an earlier article written by a pilot - made a good case for certain devices (flight data recorder, etc) be tamper-proof. If that had been the case with the Malaysian flight, it would have made a world of difference.

So what do you do if you have a piece of electrical equipment shorting out or burning and you can't electrically isolate it? What do you do if the 'remote control over-ride' that some people are discussing has a malfunction after over-riding (the ariel malfunctions or the box does for example) and you have a system that has now locked out the pilots. You are inviting far more potential problems than you are trying to solve.

Those are the types of issues that techies and professionals deal with. For every challenge, there can be a solution. If a device (like a redundant flight data recorder, for example) had its own battery pack which could only be accessed by ground crew, then no personnel on-board could mess with it during a flight, and it wouldn't be wired in to the plane's fuse box. Similarly, a device which sent periodic (perhaps every 10 seconds) updates on flight data to ground control. If catastrophic damage took place, like a missile strike, then all bets are off.

[canuckamuck]

IMHO, this event has demonstrated how aircraft technological design has failed 'to see the wood for the trees'. Many aircraft systems have double or triple redundancy, but they all overlook what can happen when the flight crew (or someone in the cockpit) deliberately try to override these systems.

I'm not saying that this was piloit suicide in this specific case. But previous tragedies have shown the world that pilot suicide is a factual event, (not just on one occasion, but several).

I raised the issue on Prune that too many aviation professionals were thinking with their hearts and not with their brains - eager to defend the reputation of flying professionals. My post was rapidly deleted.

Again IMHO, aircraft comms, emergency and flight systems should be designed 'survive' an attempt at 'pilot suicide'. Quite how one does that I'm not sure. But it is a bad oversight at the very least and a dangerous liability - especially in a fee-paying public aircraft - to design that aircraft without considering pilot suicide. Simon

I can understand being able to turn off 'auto-pilot' - but there are other devices that should not be able to be turned off. I don't know tech-names, as I'm not a pilot or techie, but an earlier article written by a pilot - made a good case for certain devices (flight data recorder, etc) be tamper-proof. If that had been the case with the Malaysian flight, it would have made a world of difference.

So what do you do if you have a piece of electrical equipment shorting out or burning and you can't electrically isolate it? What do you do if the 'remote control over-ride' that some people are discussing has a malfunction after over-riding (the ariel malfunctions or the box does for example) and you have a system that has now locked out the pilots. You are inviting far more potential problems than you are trying to solve.

How hard could it possibly be to design a GPS unit that has its own rechargeable battery. It would be like trying to burn up a plane with a cell phone.

The dash cam wouldn't have to be off the grid, and neither would the monitors. But there is no reason why they also couldn't function with rechargeable AAA's. How many fires do those cause?

[balo]

The satellite images are from March 16 . And now the vessels are searching in that area . The debris would have drifted a long distance by now. Why can't they just take new fresh satellite images of the same area today and try to locate the debris and give the coordinates to the search team ?

We have the technology and satellites ready to do this , so why this delay ?

Edited March 22, 2014 by balo