Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Malay Mystery: Why its possible that MH370 might have been shot down
Pajamas Media ^ | 03/17/2014 | Charlie Martin

Posted on 03/17/2014 8:17:58 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

One of our planes is missing.

That’s basically all we know for certain right now, but more than a week after losing contact with flight MH370, there are a lot of other suggestive bits of information. Unfortunately, a lot of it is, as usual, being reported by news readers who barely understand that you don’t want to keep the pointy end aimed at the ground for an extended time. Here’s some things we do know now.

The first indication of trouble was when the transponder stopped responding to radar. This is the point where newspeople are saying it “dropped off the radar,” so let’s get a little clarity here to start. A transponder is a device that transmits a response. In a plane, the transponder is receiving an interrogation and responding by transmitting a burst of data. The problem with “dropped off the radar” from the start is that all it indicated was that the transponder stopped transponding. Imagine for a second that you’re trying to find someone in the dark. If you have a flashlight, you can use the flashlight, and hopefully see them in the reflected light. This, in radar, is called a primary radar response. It’s a lot easier, though, if the person you’re looking for has a flashlight too, and can turn it on and wave back at you with it. This is what a transponder does, and it’s the major part of what’s called secondary surveillance radar.

When MH370 “dropped off the radar,” the transponder stopped responding. But transponders have an off switch. There are two independent transponders, so it isn’t probable just that it was just a transponder failure.

It didn’t disappear from primary radar, but primary radar is a lot harder to read. They now think that they might have tracked the plane as it turned back, did some vertical excursions, and headed off into the Indian Ocean.

Turning off the transponders didn’t stop all radio transmissions, however. There is an onboard flight telemetry system that kept transmitting for a long time, as much as seven hours. It’s very difficult to crash and have the telemetry transmissions keep going, so the combination is a pretty strong indication that the transponders turned off but the plane kept flying.

Unfortunately, Malaysia Airlines doesn’t pay for the service, so the only responses were pings saying “nothing to say.” But those pings are timestamped, and that means you can estimate the distance from the satellite to the aircraft by the time the signal arrives at the satellite. Now, PJ is ill-equipped to show a three-dimensional picture, so instead imagine a map. There’s one circle centered on the last known position, which is how far the plane could have flown in seven hours. There’s another circle centered on the satellite, which is all the places that are the estimated distance from the satellite. (Strictly, that’s the surface of a sphere, but we can discount the parts of the sphere that are underground.)

This, by the way, is how GPS works: your GPS receives very accurate time signals from several satellites and computes where all the circles intersect; that’s where you are.

The result is something that looks like this:

That line is actually fuzzy, because that distance to the satellite isn’t known as accurately as say a GPS signal would be, but the last transmission does mean the plane was somewhere near that circle when it stopped sending telemetry.

So, now is the part of Malay Mystery in which we speculate.

As far as I can see, there are about four possible explanations.

First, something happened that incapacitated the pilots, and the plane flew on autopilot until it ran out of fuel. This has happened before, in the crash that killed Payne Stewart, although not on a commercial jetliner. The way it apparently happened in the Payne Stewart accident was decompression.

This is fairly unlikely just as an accident on a commercial jet because the pilots have oxygen masks immediately available — but more speculation is coming.

There is a story today that there was a “supergrass” — which is Brit for a highly-placed informant apparently — who described a plot for four or five people to take over a plane by blowing open the cabin door with a shoe bomb. So, let’s imagine that this is what happened. The door blows open, and cabin pressure is lost. The pilots, being a little bit distracted and busy, don’t get their masks on. Everyone passes out — and shortly dies at that altitude. The bodies rattling around in the cockpit cause the plane to make some uncontrolled maneuvers until the autopilot finally stabilizes. I explain the second possibility on the next page.

Second, someone who knew the plane hijacked or diverted the flight. Could be a pilot, could be someone else. (In another piece today/a>, Rick Moran speculates about the captain. I don’t think this seems very likely — guys my age aren’t the most common suicide drivers/bombers/attackers. This guy had a flight simulator setup that he actually bragged about on YouTube, but them a lot of my pilot friends do. My dad had one after he could no longer actually fly. All it’s evidence of is that ther Malaysian captain was an airplane nut, which is what you’d expect of someone with 18,000 hours.)

Now, this hypothetical hijacker basically could have one of several motivations. So possibility 2a is that they wanted to crash the plane. It seems to me that if this is what you want, you don’t fly all day before you do it, so I think this seems unlikely.

Possibility 2b is that the hijackers want the plane itself. In this option they fly somewhere equipped to let a 777 land and take off again. To do that, you need a fairly long runway, 7000 feet or more.

Possibility 2c is that they wanted the passengers as hostages, or — putting on our fiction-writing hats — they want someone or something on the plane and don’t care about the (other) passengers. In that case, they only have to get somewhere where they can land the plane. It turns out that as long as you don’t care about taking off again, that can be done in around 3000 feet of runway.

Possibility 2b — that they wanted the plane and landed — is an unpleasant one. As several people have pointed out, a 777 and a dirty bomb or a North Korean wet-firecracker atomic bomb could make a right mess. But you can bet that there is satellite imagery being taken and analyzed with some urgency — I suspect that an intact plane would have been spotted. (But maybe not, see below.)

So that leads us to possibility 2c, which would make a good thriller sort of movie, which I’ll explain on the next page.
The story opens with the plot to take the plane, and the precipitating event — what Syd Field called “plot point 1″ — is when the hijackers take control. They’re now flying the plane, and they want to land successfully but don’t care about taking off again.

It turns out that arc includes a good bit of Xin Jiang province — which is where the Uyghurs live — as well as Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Pakistan. But to get to those places, you have to fly across a good bit of China.

So, there’s the flight, trying to tiptoe along the frontier to get to a -stan. No transponder, but they’re picked up by primary radar response from Chinese air defenses. CAPT Li, the officer on duty, calls COL Wang, the unit commander. “OMG there’s an unidentified” — transponder’s off, remember — “big plane crossing into our air space.”

In the U.S., we’d intercept and have a look. I’ve got no idea what the terms of engagement might be in the People’s Liberation Army Air Force, but I’m betting they are a little sensitive about unidentified aircraft coming in from the whole Vietnam/Myanmar/South China Sea area. It think it’s entirely possible that COL Wang on his own authority says “so shoot it down.” PLAAF intercepts it and shoots it down, leaving debris and bodies scattered over the terrain.

Then someone, maybe someone in Beijing, puts two and two together — possibly after someone has gotten to the debris field and found something that identifies the plane. Now what?

It’s going to be terribly embarrassing to admit to shooting down a hijacked passenger plane. It would cause everyone involved to “lose face” — and as horrible a cliché as that is, “losing face”, 丢脸 diu4 lian3, “humiliation,” is a very bad thing in China.

Let’s recall that not too long after the disappearance, “unauthorized” satellite pictures were released showing what was said to be debris. That sent searchers off for at least a half day on what turned out to be a wild goose chase.

In my thriller-movie plot, that time would have been spent sending a whole division of the People’s Liberation Army to the crash site, and policing up the debris field.

Now, I don’t know how probable this is. I talked to some of my friends in the intelligence community, and one of them who is more or less a China specialist suggested that if the Chinese had downed the plane, they would instead be exhibiting a lot of belligerence about it, and pointing to their exclusion zones in the South China Sea, saying “don’t mess with us.” Another friend with more of an interest in Central Asia points out that as long as you could expect or extort co-operation from airport personnel, the obvious place to hide a 777 would be an airport. Land, pull into a hangear, easy-peasy.

So this may be just the fiction-writing part of my brain putting out a plot.

It’s sure an interesting plot, however.



TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: china; iran; malaysia; malaysianairlines; mh370; waronterror
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 last
To: CivilWarBrewing

“Are we sure his wife and 3 kids MOVED OUT, or were they KIDNAPPED BY TERRORISTS who ordered Zaharie to fly somewhere or else they’d all be killed????”

That is what I do not understand. The story broke about them leaving the day before, and no follow up as to where they are or went.

But then the pilot attended a political forum the next day before his flight, so obviously he was not worried at that time.


41 posted on 03/17/2014 10:27:15 AM PDT by ImaGraftedBranch (...By reading this, you've collapsed my wave function. Thanks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: pfflier

Question pfflier about the transponders. They can be turned off in the cockpit by the pilot, (or someone else), is what I do not understand. Why? Why have this transponder be even capable of being turned off? Why not have it located deep in the plane’s innards somewhere where it would continue it’s ‘work’ and not be available to in flight shenanigans ? Thanks in advance.


42 posted on 03/17/2014 11:05:36 AM PDT by bobby.223 (Retired up in the snowy mountains of the American Redoubt and it's a great life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: virgil

So far, just about everything the Malaysian government has said has turned out to be lies, including the words “and” and “the.”


43 posted on 03/17/2014 11:09:58 AM PDT by Cyber Liberty (H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Robe

The theory of shadowing another flight to bask in the other plane’s radar’s signature makes a of of sense.

Both planes are 777s. The Singapore Airlines plane could not see the Malaysian Airlines jet because the transponder was off. The Malaysian Airlines pilot could see the Singapore jet and flew behind and below, and it would all show up as one dot to the military radars.

This theory would also explain why the MH370 plane turned to the west, to get in the trough where the pilot knew the Singapore jet was going to travel.

This theory makes a lot of sense. The plane landed somewhere. And it landed over a week ago. The painstakingly slow release of information is deliberate as multiple governments are trying to spin this out , while figuring out what the heck happened.


44 posted on 03/17/2014 11:22:28 AM PDT by exit82 ("The Taliban is on the inside of the building" E. Nordstrom 10-10-12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: virgil

Early TV coverage reported the airliner had a plane closely following it. So something was scrambled or diverted to check it out. Perhaps just a phantom if that is possible because it hasn’t been mentioned since but I don’t watch much TV. Sorry no link or other details.


45 posted on 03/17/2014 11:39:40 AM PDT by mcshot (Their fraud is malignant, deep, unending and perilous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: bobby.223
ATC Transponders are assigned a specific code number by air traffic control (ATC). The flight crew must set the code into the transponder on the airplane when ATC tells them the code as part of routine departure information. That then becomes the planes unique ID to radar. (that explanation is a little simplified)

Turning off the transponder in the cockpit (yes it can be done)is a moot point. If an improper code is set or the transponder is turned off, the effect is the same. The airplane is not as visible to ATC radar. The plane can be seen but is more difficult to see.

The second type of transponder in question is the Emergency Location Transponder (ELT) sometimes called an ELT beacon. It is powered by it's internal battery and must be disabled by manual disconnection. No cockpit switch for this one. Only someone who knows the airplanes unique systems and configuration can do this. This transponder is typically not easily accessible in flight. In most plane it is located in the tail section because it is most survivable structurally in a crash.

46 posted on 03/17/2014 11:39:48 AM PDT by pfflier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: bobby.223

Bobby, the pilot needs to control the transponder at all times. The transponder has four digits. Those digits run from zero to seven. Air traffic control has a finite number of codes that can be assigned. It is a little unusual to change codes during a flight, but not too unusual. I have had as many as seven code changes during one flight. ATC’s computer gets ‘full’ and as I transition from one airspace to another, that local controller asks me to change codes.

Transponders have a four position switch: Off, Standby, On and Altitude (for reporting your altitude to ATC). The pilot needs control because the altitude encoding function might have a problem. He still wants to be identified by ATC, but he has to sacrifice the altitude encoding capability.

And finally, you need to control the power to ANY piece of electronics from the cockpit, either with a switch or a circuit breaker, in case of a malfunction leads to arcing, or overheating and thus an inflight fire.


47 posted on 03/17/2014 12:19:16 PM PDT by CFIIIMEIATP737
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: CFIIIMEIATP737; pfflier

Great info! Thanks guys!


48 posted on 03/17/2014 12:41:50 PM PDT by bobby.223 (Retired up in the snowy mountains of the American Redoubt and it's a great life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

They still use Crays?

I thought the latest supercomputers were IBM?

Ed


49 posted on 03/17/2014 12:46:05 PM PDT by Sir_Ed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Sir_Ed

Probably. It’s just Crays are more easily identified with that line of work. So I was using the term generically ... ;-)


50 posted on 03/17/2014 12:55:10 PM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

after 9/11, we have to be concerned about missing jet liners as we have seen that they make effective weapons. That’s what all the concern is about IMO and it is increasingly looking like that is a possibility, again, IMO.


51 posted on 03/17/2014 9:40:16 PM PDT by RC one (Militarized law enforcement is just a nice way of saying martial law enforcement.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter
Crays are more easily identified with that line of work. So I was using the term generically ... ;-)

Great. You've "Xeroxed" a supercomputer, turned them into Kleenex!

52 posted on 03/18/2014 6:07:42 AM PDT by Lou L (Health "insurance" is NOT the same as health "care")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Lou L
Great. You've "Xeroxed" a supercomputer, turned them into Kleenex!

I also always order "Cokes", even at places I know serve Pepsi ...
53 posted on 03/18/2014 7:02:36 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson