Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MH370 flew as low as 1,500m to avoid detection, says paper

my.news.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 118 posts

Re: MH370 flew as low as 1,500m to avoid detection, says paper

#61

Post by sidww2 »

zaroth wrote: post #55

Would have to be a pretty hardened pilot to take a 777 down to FL 50 and keep her there anywhere except approach. "Experts said flying a Boeing 777 in such a way would be dangerous, stressing the airframe and possibly causing those on board to be air sick and suffer from spatial disorientation." This truly meets the definition of incredible. How could you be that good, but then end up crashing the plane? If you are t…

Unless you're trying to commit suicide. But then why would fly northwards instead of southwards if you want to commit suicide? I've a hard time believing the 5000 ft statement. But if it's true, then well, damn.

Re: MH370 flew as low as 1,500m to avoid detection, says paper

#62

Post by 001sky »

meepmorp wrote: post #41
001sky wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point is a $100 spot device could be added (powered by Li AA's) as a backup system. This would have independent power supply and obviate the "need for cicuit breakers" being accessed. Or something like a lo-jack or whatever. Its completely embarassing to Boeing. Almost as bad as the pilot has a 64mb i phone and the [edit: voice recorders] holds only 2hrs? WTF. An Iphone might not itself survive, but the media allocat…

Where do you get the 2 hour FDR capacity from? I've found references for 17-25 hours.

"And because the recorders keep only the last two hours of cockpit conversation..." (NY Times)

my mistake, meant the CVR [edited above to conform]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/world/asia/series-of-error...

Re: MH370 flew as low as 1,500m to avoid detection, says paper

#63

Post by 001sky »

lutusp wrote: post #56
lfuller wrote: post #26

I may be missing something, but this seems like a very misleading headline. The actual article states that the plane "dropped 5,000 feet (1,500m)" and later that the "twinjet descended 1,500m or even lower". This simply means that the plane descended by a relatively small amount compared to 35,000 - 40,000 foot cruising altitudes, not that it was skimming the ground at 5,000 feet.

Yes, noticed this also, but I think the headline was written by someone other than the source of the article. I think the article is meant to say descended 1500m , not descended to 1500m. Nothing in the article body suggests a descent to 1500m, and that would be a very inefficient altitude to fly a big jet.

This is the article referenced by the guardian, its language is (properly) articulared in much better english.

Kuala Lumpur: Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 dropped to altitudes as low as 1524 metres (5000 feet) using a dangerous flying technique called “terrain masking” to avoid radar in at least three countries, investigators believe.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/missing-malaysia-airlines-jet-ma...

Re: MH370 flew as low as 1,500m to avoid detection, says paper

#64

Post by ern »

DigitalSea wrote: post #10
trhway wrote: post #3

people install satellite security systems on $200K cars. Couldn't airlines do the same on a $100M plane.

You make it sound so simple, when in reality it is anything but simple. Every component in a plane is tested extensively before it can be installed and used. When it comes to electronic components in a plane, things like interference to other aircraft, other components on the plane, power usage and interference to ground devices (radio stations, emergency frequencies, etc) are all tested and considered. Planes are ma…

How do you make sure only the eyes intended to see the data see it and nobody else?

Why isn't this a concern with ADS-B, which allows anyone with the right equipment (or access to a flight tracking website) to track planes in real time?

And cost-versus-risk has been decided in favor of increasing cost (and safety) in numerous aircraft systems already.

Also, if one factors in the cost of one more huge deep ocean search, a few more cents per ticket won't seem so bad. Who pays for these searches and investigations anyway - the airlines or governments (privatizing profits and socializing losses)?

Re: MH370 flew as low as 1,500m to avoid detection, says paper

#65

Post by confluence »

jonah wrote: post #30
confluence wrote: post #15

I'd still bet on ocean crash. Flying low or not, heading across the Bay of Bengal towards land, and you're going to get pinged with military radar.

India claims to not have their military radar on all the time. "Too costly."

Still have to hit landfall. The chance of them threading that needle is low. I highly doubt the south east Asian mainland coast is not fully monitored.

Re: MH370 flew as low as 1,500m to avoid detection, says paper

#66

Post by lutusp »

trhway wrote: post #20
DigitalSea wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make it sound so simple, when in reality it is anything but simple. Every component in a plane is tested extensively before it can be installed and used. When it comes to electronic components in a plane, things like interference to other aircraft, other components on the plane, power usage and interference to ground devices (radio stations, emergency frequencies, etc) are all tested and considered. Planes are ma…

>Cars are stolen everyday, it's a common thing, for planes it is not. from time to time planes crash over ocean and search for black boxes may take years like Air France 447 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Underwate... )

> from time to time planes crash over ocean and search for black boxes may take years like Air France 447 ...

Yes, and in that case, they knew within narrow limits where the plane went down -- the crew were doing what they could to let their position be known. No effort to sneak away with an airliner, as in the present case.

Re: MH370 flew as low as 1,500m to avoid detection, says paper

#67

Post by lutusp »

001sky wrote: post #63
lutusp wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, noticed this also, but I think the headline was written by someone other than the source of the article. I think the article is meant to say descended 1500m , not descended to 1500m. Nothing in the article body suggests a descent to 1500m, and that would be a very inefficient altitude to fly a big jet.

This is the article referenced by the guardian, its language is (properly) articulared in much better english. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 dropped to altitudes as low as 1524 metres (5000 feet) using a dangerous flying technique called “terrain masking” to avoid radar in at least three countries, investigators believe. http://www.smh.com.au/world/missing-malaysia-airlines-jet-ma...

Thanks for this update and clarification.

Re: MH370 flew as low as 1,500m to avoid detection, says paper

#68

Post by [deleted] »

001sky wrote: post #62
meepmorp wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you get the 2 hour FDR capacity from? I've found references for 17-25 hours.

"And because the recorders keep only the last two hours of cockpit conversation..." (NY Times) my mistake, meant the CVR [edited above to conform] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/world/asia/series-of-error...

[deleted]

Re: MH370 flew as low as 1,500m to avoid detection, says paper

#70

Post by gregsq »

lutusp wrote: post #44
gklitt wrote: post #31

What a poorly written article. It twice says that the plane "dropped/descended 1500m," when it should be written "dropped TO [an altitude of] 1500m." (assuming I'm understanding the article correctly). A newspaper should at least have sufficient grammar standards to clearly convey the main point of a story.

> What a poorly written article. It twice says that the plane "dropped/descended 1500m," when it should be written "dropped TO [an altitude of] 1500m." As it turns out, only the headline suggests that the plane descended to an altitude of 1500m, not the article body, which always says the aircraft descended 1500m. The headline includes the words "MH370 flew as low as 1,500m to avoid detection" [emphasis added], but t…

"Descended 1500 meters, or even lower" has less substantive meaning than "descended to 1500 meters, or even lower". The same is true of the other phrase containing the 1500 metre measure. Bad construction, but I'll assume they simply left out the 'to' in both instances.
Post reply on HN