murfvol
|
|
« Reply #25 on: March 14, 2014, 04:34:11 EDT » |
|
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.
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The more the words, the less the meaning, and how does that profit anyone?" - Ecclesiastes 6:11
|
|
|
Volznut
|
|
« Reply #26 on: March 14, 2014, 04:40:35 EDT » |
|
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?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
TheRealOrange
|
|
« Reply #27 on: March 14, 2014, 04:53:28 EDT » |
|
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.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
PirateVOL
|
|
« Reply #28 on: March 14, 2014, 05:00:58 EDT » |
|
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?
|
|
|
Logged
|
All men dream: but not equally. Those who Dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds Wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the Dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they May act their dream with open eyes, to make it Possible. This I did. —T. E. Lawrence, The Seven Pillars of Wisdom _________________________________________________________________________________________________ "If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly." - David Hackworth "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet" General James "Mad Dog" Mattis
|
|
|
TheRealOrange
|
|
« Reply #29 on: March 14, 2014, 05:09:13 EDT » |
|
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.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Clockwork Orange
|
|
« Reply #30 on: March 14, 2014, 05:18:31 EDT » |
|
This has been a great thread. I'm glad people who know more than me chimed in with informed commentary. Good stuff.
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Stay patient and be strong, 'cause it's gonna hit. And when it hits, it's gonna hit hard."
|
|
|
TheRealOrange
|
|
« Reply #31 on: March 14, 2014, 05:32:36 EDT » |
|
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.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
murfvol
|
|
« Reply #32 on: March 14, 2014, 05:38:30 EDT » |
|
What Clock said; information from actual people who know stuff, is quite helpful.
|
|
« Last Edit: March 14, 2014, 06:26:19 EDT by murfvol »
|
Logged
|
"The more the words, the less the meaning, and how does that profit anyone?" - Ecclesiastes 6:11
|
|
|
murfvol
|
|
« Reply #33 on: March 14, 2014, 06:27:04 EDT » |
|
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.
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The more the words, the less the meaning, and how does that profit anyone?" - Ecclesiastes 6:11
|
|
|
Volznut
|
|
« Reply #34 on: March 14, 2014, 07:15:48 EDT » |
|
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.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Volznut
|
|
« Reply #35 on: March 14, 2014, 07:30:30 EDT » |
|
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
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
murfvol
|
|
« Reply #36 on: March 14, 2014, 08:36:55 EDT » |
|
Unfortunately you make a good point Nut. A free plane would make a terrifically effective missile.
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The more the words, the less the meaning, and how does that profit anyone?" - Ecclesiastes 6:11
|
|
|
RockyMtnVol
|
|
« Reply #37 on: March 14, 2014, 09:38:28 EDT » |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
PirateVOL
|
|
« Reply #38 on: March 14, 2014, 09:45:13 EDT » |
|
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 ...
|
|
|
Logged
|
All men dream: but not equally. Those who Dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds Wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the Dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they May act their dream with open eyes, to make it Possible. This I did. —T. E. Lawrence, The Seven Pillars of Wisdom _________________________________________________________________________________________________ "If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly." - David Hackworth "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet" General James "Mad Dog" Mattis
|
|
|
RockyMtnVol
|
|
« Reply #39 on: March 14, 2014, 09:50:30 EDT » |
|
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.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
GreggO
|
|
« Reply #40 on: March 14, 2014, 11:23:07 EDT » |
|
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
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
PirateVOL
|
|
« Reply #41 on: March 14, 2014, 11:27:00 EDT » |
|
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.
|
|
|
Logged
|
All men dream: but not equally. Those who Dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds Wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the Dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they May act their dream with open eyes, to make it Possible. This I did. —T. E. Lawrence, The Seven Pillars of Wisdom _________________________________________________________________________________________________ "If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly." - David Hackworth "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet" General James "Mad Dog" Mattis
|
|
|
ReVOLver
Admins
Heisman
Offline
Posts: 43319
|
|
« Reply #42 on: March 14, 2014, 11:28:16 EDT » |
|
Definitely the Langoliers.
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I think this is the most important non-important thing in the world." - Actor and Tennessee fan David Keith on Tennessee football
|
|
|
Navol
|
|
« Reply #43 on: March 15, 2014, 12:28:05 EDT » |
|
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.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
volsboy
|
|
« Reply #44 on: March 15, 2014, 01:10:36 EDT » |
|
It's definitely gonna get interesting. My money is still on "in the drink" though. Why it's there is a different matter.
|
|
|
Logged
|
volsboyinsodak
|
|
|
PirateVOL
|
|
« Reply #45 on: March 15, 2014, 01:21:39 EDT » |
|
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
|
|
|
Logged
|
All men dream: but not equally. Those who Dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds Wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the Dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they May act their dream with open eyes, to make it Possible. This I did. —T. E. Lawrence, The Seven Pillars of Wisdom _________________________________________________________________________________________________ "If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly." - David Hackworth "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet" General James "Mad Dog" Mattis
|
|
|
Navol
|
|
« Reply #46 on: March 15, 2014, 01:42:31 EDT » |
|
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.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
BanditVol
|
|
« Reply #47 on: March 15, 2014, 04:08:41 EDT » |
|
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.
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The speed of our movements is amazing, even to me, and must be a constant source of surprise to the Germans.” G. Patton
|
|
|
Volznut
|
|
« Reply #48 on: March 15, 2014, 04:16:05 EDT » |
|
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.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RockyMtnVol
|
|
« Reply #49 on: March 15, 2014, 09:59:47 EDT » |
|
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...
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|