Theories on the missing plane?

[murfvol]

I could buy the Indonesia or Pakistan theory, and I don't think a hangar would be needed. Mesh netting, and lots of it, would suffice. I also think some places don't monitor their radar in hyper-vigilant fashion, so that part of the puzzle might not be a huge issue.

[Volznut]

Turning off the transponder does not make a plane invisible to radar.  Otherwise all military planes could easily be made to be stealthy simply by not having a transponder or just turning it off.  Most ATC ground stations have the capability to track both primary and secondary targets, which are synchronized.  The primary targets are aircraft not equipped with transponders -- the radar reflection off the aircraft skin.  Secondary targets are aircraft with working transponders.  If this aircraft flew anywhere near a ground station, it easily would have been tracked on radar.  I agree with Clockwork that getting to any the places mentioned unnoticed would be difficult, as they would have been near numerous ground stations enroute, and they even would have been visible to the naked eye (and ear) at some point.  Even assuming that the plane actually flew 4-5 more hours, to stay out of radar range it would have had to stay out over the open ocean away from ground stations.  It is a mystery though, so I guess most anything is possible.

Yes I know that, but I do have a question for you. If they are not looking for it, or this plane isn't targeted, could it have escaped detection? The transponder simply cuts it off from the ATC right? If the plane went off ATC radar, and they only have this theory that it flew for 5 more hours just yesterday, is it possible that it could have escaped detection and hidden somewhere because no one was looking for it so far away?

[TheRealOrange]

Yes I know that, but I do have a question for you. If they are not looking for it, or this plane isn't targeted, could it have escaped detection? The transponder simply cuts it off from the ATC right? If the plane went off ATC radar, and they only have this theory that it flew for 5 more hours just yesterday, is it possible that it could have escaped detection and hidden somewhere because no one was looking for it so far away?

I am far from an expert, so....grain of salt and all that.  As I mentioned, most ATC ground stations have the capability to track both primary and secondary targets, and the primary targets are those aircraft not equipped with transponders.  Could it have escaped detection?  Yes, especially if the plane stayed outside of radar range for primary targets.  That is, if the plane stayed out over the open ocean, away from any ground stations, then it would not be easy to track.  Once it got anywhere near a ground station, however, then it would ping the radar system as a primary target.  They would not have to be looking for it.  It would be within range of the system and would be detected as a target.  They would be unable to specifically identify it due to the transponder being off, but they certainly would notice and be concerned about an unexpected large plane within their radar range or in their airspace.  But, like I said, I guess anything is possible with the limited confirmed information that is available.

[PirateVOL]

Turning off the transponder does not make a plane invisible to radar.  Otherwise all military planes could easily be made to be stealthy simply by not having a transponder or just turning it off.  Most ATC ground stations have the capability to track both primary and secondary targets, which are synchronized.  The primary targets are aircraft not equipped with transponders -- the radar reflection off the aircraft skin.  Secondary targets are aircraft with working transponders.  If this aircraft flew anywhere near a ground station, it easily would have been tracked on radar.  I agree with Clockwork that getting to any the places mentioned unnoticed would be difficult, as they would have been near numerous ground stations enroute, and they even would have been visible to the naked eye (and ear) at some point.  Even assuming that the plane actually flew 4-5 more hours, to stay out of radar range it would have had to stay out over the open ocean away from ground stations.  It is a mystery though, so I guess most anything is possible.

Primary radar has a shorter range than secondary.  If you look at the ranges of the various radars (military and civilian) in the area there is not complete coverage, based on altitude.  Also, in today's world uncoded primary returns tend not to be observed in real time, which is probably why the information came out later in the search. 

As for what happened, don't know.  At first I tended to disregard all the "clutter" but there seems to be a growing set of data that indicates that it did turn west and flew for some period of time.  If, in fact, this occured did the aircraft reach its intend destination or did "they" miscalculate and end up in the water.  Currently I tend to believe the latter but assuming "they" did reach their intended destination, for what purpose? 

[TheRealOrange]

Primary radar has a shorter range than secondary.  If you look at the ranges of the various radars (military and civilian) in the area there is not complete coverage, based on altitude.  Also, in today's world uncoded primary returns tend not to be observed in real time, which is probably why the information came out later in the search. 

As for what happened, don't know.  At first I tended to disregard all the "clutter" but there seems to be a growing set of data that indicates that it did turn west and flew for some period of time.  If, in fact, this occured did the aircraft reach its intend destination or did "they" miscalculate and end up in the water.  Currently I tend to believe the latter but assuming "they" did reach their intended destination, for what purpose? 

I understand and agree when considering "in the area."  But, if that plane flew to a destination that included flight over a lot of land mass, I'm less inclined to think it made it somewhere without detection along the way.  It appears that Chinese satellite information may point to a crash in the water, so there is still a lot of looking left to be done.  I'm guessing the plane is at the bottom of the ocean.

[Clockwork Orange]

This has been a great thread. I'm glad people who know more than me chimed in with informed commentary. Good stuff.

[TheRealOrange]

As an aside, back when I was flying a lot, I flew out of an airport within the Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA) around DC.  So, the use of a transponder was required until out of the area.  Well, I generally flew planes with transponders that were automatic, but not always.  I took off from Manassas one time and forgot to activate the transponder even though I had loaded the right code.  Luckily Manassas is a training airport for both pilots and controllers, so the controllers are pretty nice.  After a couple minutes in the air, I got a call from the tower asking if I was "squawking" the correct code.  So, I quickly checked, switched the transponder on and replied with, "Manassas Tower,...I am now."  The controller actually responded with a chuckle and a thank you.   

[murfvol]

What Clock said; information from actual people who know stuff, is quite helpful.

[murfvol]

Pirate also raises a good point? What's the point? If you want to destroy a plane, that's not hard. But, why do you want to take one? What's the goal? It may be someone wanted to make a name for himself.

Also, The Philippines are in reach from Kuala Lampur. There are sizeable areas there ideologically similar to Indonesia.

[Volznut]

Pirate also raises a good point? What's the point? If you want to destroy a plane, that's not hard. But, why do you want to take one? What's the goal? It may be someone wanted to make a name for himself.

Also, The Philippines are in reach from Kuala Lampur. There are sizeable areas there ideologically similar to Indonesia.

Why take one? So you can have a flying bomb, that's why. It is not so easy to hijack a plane anymore, and even if you did, after 9/11 passengers would not sit still and let it happen.

[Volznut]

also...if the plane flew 5 hours in the direction they were going, it could have gone to Pakistan. And we know Pakistan would never harbor terrorists 

[murfvol]

Unfortunately you make a good point Nut. A free plane would make a terrifically effective missile.

[RockyMtnVol]

Under this theory, this was well-planned.  Deviation from set course was in the middle of the night just as the plane was handed off from Malaysia controllers to Vietnamese controllers.  Plane then made a bee-line for open water over the Indian ocean.  Hard to believe they would fail to calculate the fuel needed to reach their destination over open water.

[PirateVOL]

Under this theory, this was well-planned.  Deviation from set course was in the middle of the night just as the plane was handed off from Malaysia controllers to Vietnamese controllers.  Plane then made a bee-line for open water over the Indian ocean.  Hard to believe they would fail to calculate the fuel needed to reach their destination over open water.

depends on the altitude they were flying?  If "they" were flying normal cruise altitudes their planning was good.  If "they" flew low altitudes, say 10,000 feet or lower "they" are hurt two ways because "they" go slower and use more fuel doing so.  If "they" didn't allow for that, assuming they were flying lower and there are reports "they"were,then ...

[RockyMtnVol]

True dat, but the engineer in me says that's not a difficult calculation to make. Also, when flying over the open ocean, they could maintain altitude - only need to go low when approaching land, which may well have been the final destination.

[GreggO]

If terrorists need a plane (flying bomb), they can buy one. There is no need to take it. Now if it was taken, I would believe we already have a good idea where it is. If that's the case, we'll know it after we practice (a lot) and storm the site.


G

[PirateVOL]

True dat, but the engineer in me says that's not a difficult calculation to make. Also, when flying over the open ocean, they could maintain altitude - only need to go low when approaching land, which may well have been the final destination.

Yeah, not difficult if one has the charts.  Spent a lot of time in a previous life figuring out headwinds vs alt vs fuel flow going west bound in a Charlie 130.  Assume a non ATP pilot doing the planning and the mileage, yours or mine, might be different.

[ReVOLver]

Definitely the Langoliers.

[Navol]

Assuming the plane was hijacked, where would you land it? Something the size of a fully loaded treble seven requires a LONG, VERY HEAVY runway to be put down in a "reusable" condition. Not many of those that aren't under close scrutiny. This sounds like the opening of a Tom Clancy thriller.

[volsboy]

It's definitely gonna get interesting. My money is still on "in the drink" though. Why it's there is a different matter.

[PirateVOL]

Assuming the plane was hijacked, where would you land it? Something the size of a fully loaded treble seven requires a LONG, VERY HEAVY runway to be put down in a "reusable" condition. Not many of those that aren't under close scrutiny. This sounds like the opening of a Tom Clancy thriller.

getting it down wouldn't be much of a problem
Getting airborne again, if that was "their" intention would be another issue
 

[Navol]

The way the Malaysian government is handling the whole thing leaves one to wonder if they're hiding something. Malaysian Airlines has the reputation of being a competent,  professional outfit. Can't say the same for their guvvies. We've already had one instance where a veteran airline captain of Islamic faith deliberately crashed his aircraft for Gawd knows what loony reason. The poor families of the "missing" passengers must be going though sheer hell.

[BanditVol]

It seems unlikely to me that it got lost after the transponder turned off.   All planes are equipped with GPS nowadays.   It would also be fairly easy to lose the debris if it stayed aloft for a while after the transponder went off.  The ocean is a pretty wide place.

I still think it's highly likely that it crashed into the ocean.  They should IMO make progress on this, but we will see.

[Volznut]

Assuming the plane was hijacked, where would you land it? Something the size of a fully loaded treble seven requires a LONG, VERY HEAVY runway to be put down in a "reusable" condition. Not many of those that aren't under close scrutiny. This sounds like the opening of a Tom Clancy thriller.

Karachi or Islamabad both have airports that it could land in.

[RockyMtnVol]

That would take cooperation from the Pakistani military at the highest level - I just don't see it. My guess is that satellite photos of Yemen are being closely scrutinized...