Einstein-Rosen Bridge transported it to ancient Prylaxo Civilization on Sa03-P5 of Sector 401B.
MH370 flew as low as 1,500m to avoid detection, says paper
101–110 of 118 posts
Re: MH370 flew as low as 1,500m to avoid detection, says paper
#102My guess is that the US, Russian, and Chinese militaries have the interest, and operational ability, to track every in-flight commercial jet all over the world. The IR signature alone makes a commercial jet obvious at any altitude as long as the engines are running. So MH370 is probably not lost; its final position is just being concealed by military protocol to avoid confirming satellite capabilities that have, in a…
[deleted]
Re: MH370 flew as low as 1,500m to avoid detection, says paper
#103Would 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…
Military-style nap-of-the-earth flying, à la the raid on the bin Laden compound. Those SOAR pilots surely have practiced this stuff for years. How would a civilian pilot (or hijacker pilot) acquire these skills? Flight simulator perhaps? The pilot had a fancy flight simulator at home. Now, there are plenty of legitimate reasons that a pilot would have a simulator at home, so we can't pin too much to this discovery. L…
As with the "two fake passports" discussion, my rational follow up is "what are the priors?"
If one picks a random similar flight, what's the probability of having people flying with fake IDs/of having a pilot who runs a flight simulator at home?
Re: MH370 flew as low as 1,500m to avoid detection, says paper
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and they do. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_dependent_surveillan... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Communications_Addres... These systems were manually disabled.
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…
> Point is a $100 spot device could be added (powered by Li AA's) as a backup system
Li AAs... without a means of isolating them from the circuitry?
How many aircraft are you prepared to lose through in-flight fires for this 'benefit'? Reference: Ethiopian Airlines 787 fire at Heathrow originating from lithium cells in the ELT.
Who is going to check the battery status at regular intervals?
Who is going to certify and sign-off those checks?
Who is going to be qualified to change those cells?
What interfaces will there be with the aircraft avionics to relay data such as call sign and flight code? How do we protect those connections from overload? There's a reason every single electrical circuit on an airliner can be isolated.
$100 is, frankly, a laughable estimate.
Re: MH370 flew as low as 1,500m to avoid detection, says paper
#105> Today, Reuters reports that the last words from the cockpit of missing MH370 – "all right, good night" – were uttered after someone on board had already begun disabling one of the plane's automatic tracking systems.
> Both the timing and informal nature of the phrase, spoken to air traffic controllers as the plane was leaving Malaysian-run airspace could further heighten suspicions of hijacking or sabotage, it said. I've listened to a fair amount of air traffic control[1] and a phrase like that, especially when signing off of a frequency, is not at all unusual so I don't know why they're focusing on its informality. [1] thanks t…
If you want to practice your radio comms skills or just want some soothing radio chatter to calm your mind, you can get live air traffic control feeds from here:
Indeed, informal greetings like the one mentioned in the article are not at all rare. Real life ATC communication is not the robot-like mechanical talking you might be used to from video games or movies.
Re: MH370 flew as low as 1,500m to avoid detection, says paper
#106My guess is that the US, Russian, and Chinese militaries have the interest, and operational ability, to track every in-flight commercial jet all over the world. The IR signature alone makes a commercial jet obvious at any altitude as long as the engines are running. So MH370 is probably not lost; its final position is just being concealed by military protocol to avoid confirming satellite capabilities that have, in a…
Why would the US deploy such satellites to view the southern Indian Ocean? I could understand deployment in potential areas of interest, but that particular area is about as boring as it gets. My point is that even if those capabilities exist, it's not clear that they would be able to help in this particular case.
It's quite likely that the people in charge of military surveillance will prefer, and succeed, in getting continuous coverage of the entire Earth. Really want to avoid a "Sorry, Mr. President, we don't have coverage there" situation. And anyway, it's State-funded; cost is rarely a key constraint for these systems.
Re: MH370 flew as low as 1,500m to avoid detection, says paper
#107My guess is that the US, Russian, and Chinese militaries have the interest, and operational ability, to track every in-flight commercial jet all over the world. The IR signature alone makes a commercial jet obvious at any altitude as long as the engines are running. So MH370 is probably not lost; its final position is just being concealed by military protocol to avoid confirming satellite capabilities that have, in a…
How paranoid would the U.S. have to be to keep those capabilities that have, in all likelihood, existed since the 1960s secret?
And they don't even to acknowledge their existence. "By chance, a satellite overflew the area. Here's what it saw" plus a blurred picture could be enough.
Re: MH370 flew as low as 1,500m to avoid detection, says paper
#108Honest question. Would it have been possible for the plane to make it to North Korea?
No, too far away -- the possible flying radius after contact was lost has been pretty well established, and North Korea is well outside that radius. Also, when last detected, they were flying in the opposite direction.
See tim333's reply and link. It had enough fuel to reach NK
Re: MH370 flew as low as 1,500m to avoid detection, says paper
#109My guess is that the US, Russian, and Chinese militaries have the interest, and operational ability, to track every in-flight commercial jet all over the world. The IR signature alone makes a commercial jet obvious at any altitude as long as the engines are running. So MH370 is probably not lost; its final position is just being concealed by military protocol to avoid confirming satellite capabilities that have, in a…
How paranoid would the U.S. have to be to keep those capabilities that have, in all likelihood, existed since the 1960s secret? And they don't even to acknowledge their existence. "By chance, a satellite overflew the area. Here's what it saw" plus a blurred picture could be enough.
Well, it's a cold, calculated national security decision made by people who are naturally very secretive. They have nothing to gain (in their view), and something to lose, by revealing capabilities beyond those that are already public.
Re: MH370 flew as low as 1,500m to avoid detection, says paper
#110This article lost me midway second sentence.
"to evade commercial (secondary) radar coverage after it turned back from its flight path en route to Beijing."
Secondary (used by ATC) radar is based on transponders responding (the very thing that was switched off).
Primary radar is usually military and does not need any device being on or off.