- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You mean it's a possible explanation. It's far from definitive and one of only several solutions.
I said it's a likely cause, and the others are less likely.
What question?
You mean it's a possible explanation. It's far from definitive and one of only several solutions.
I said it's a likely cause, and the others are less likely.
What question?
Hugh
Now you are assuming. You say,
"Beijing to Amsterdam and then onto separate final European destinations."
Who says there was an intention to go any futher than a couple of 100 miles. In any case, there is no requirement for a visa in China if staying less than 72 hours. So no check for a Chinese visa at KL, and if the intention was to blow the aircraft, then no need to worry about what happens in China anyway. In any case, the impression your question gives is this was directed at an EU Country, if it was terrorism, but of course thats not necessarily so.
But anyway, why go via China if they were up to something? Simple really, indirect flights are usually cheaper than direct. If you don't have a lot of cash, don't want to many checks done, its the obvious route.
It could also indicate massive structural failure at altitude. The Air France crash site was relatively easy to find because it was a large amount of debris in a small area.The absence of any wreckage whatsoever could suggest that the aircraft was flown a long way after it's transponder stopped transmitting.
Hugh
If you book a simple flight to China, then, as you say it's onerous to get a Visa, AND, your visa would be checked by immigration when you leave Malaya. If you are 'transiting', then with an onward ticket, you aren't going to be looked at very closely, you are in effect just going home. So you have answered your own point. If you are going to travel on a hooky passport, you do what you can to draw as little attention as possible. The presumption is that terrorist are not very bright, in fact they are.
Smokescreen?I realise that Bernie. But why would you then spend money booking flights from Amsterdam to Germany and Denmark?
Can transponders be turned off/sabotaged to stop transmitting?The flight deck door is not infallable. It has to be opened in flight to permit crew to go to a toilet or for refreshments to be taken in. El-Al use double doors to overcome this weakness.
The absence of any wreckage whatsoever could suggest that the aircraft was flown a long way after it's transponder stopped transmitting.
Only if you're a baddie in a Tom Cruise/Bruce Willis film.Can transponders be turned off/sabotaged to stop transmitting?
The flight deck door is not infallable. It has to be opened in flight to permit crew to go to a toilet or for refreshments to be taken in. El-Al use double doors to overcome this weakness.
The absence of any wreckage whatsoever could suggest that the aircraft was flown a long way after it's transponder stopped transmitting.
I know the sea is a pretty big place (and it appears they may have been looking in the wrong sea), but this is the 21st Century. Is anybody else troubled that a plane can just, you know, vanish?
Is it naive of me to assume that there are various bits in a modern plane that contain radio transmitters? I'm imagining something fairly robust (so it can survive a fall from altitude) and pretty small (so it would stand less chance of breaking in an explosion) that would start transmitting on sudden altitude change or contact with salt water. And lots of them to assure redundancy. Really, are they looking for this plane by just, erm, looking for it? Because I've always had my suspicions about the light and whistle on the lifejackets.
it was said that they found the plane door but just not the plane so by all accounts its broken up mid air it could be any thing from a bomb, total falure,hit by what ever,etc, or even a ufo well ok that ones a bit ott , but until some one comes out and says we could guess all day it is also said it could have been 4 stolen passports
should have been
Can transponders be turned off/sabotaged to stop transmitting?
So are you suggesting that the transponder somehow stopped transmitting normally, that this caused fighters to be scrambled and that this may have led to an unarmed civillian aircraft being destroyed?
Where the hell did he say that?
...or am I missreading something?
VVVVYes, it can be turned off, from the flightdeck. Can it be sabotaged? depends what you mean, if you had a tame Engineer, then I doubt that it would be difficult to wire it up so it turns off when something else is switched off. But that would take a lot of work and co ordination, which isn't likely.
But even if it is off, all that will achieve is to stop a secondary radar return. Secondary radar sends out as signal that says "hello, who are you". The aircraft transponder then replies "I am squark 1234, I am at 35,000 feet and I am heading 045 degrees at 500 knots". The ATC computer translates the squark code to MH370 and displays that on the screen.
What it does not do is hide the aircraft, instead of information being displayed it produces a raw return, ie there's something there, and it's not squarking. Thats how military Air Defence Radars find things. At that point, had this aircraft still been visible, then ATC would be calling it. More importantly in this context, the Vietnamese would be seeing a raw radar return and like most States, scrambling fighters.
Garry
Please read what I said, not what you think I said!
I gave a full answer to the question, including what secondary radar does and what primary radar does, and what happens when a primary radar shows an unidentified track.
At no point have I suggested anything like what you said. It's standard policy in every major country, except New Zealand which doesn't have any, to scramble fights when there is an unidentified aircraft approaching it's airspace. We do it and have been doing it since bloody radar was invented! Apart from 1939-1945 when there was another issue, we have not yet once even fired at an aircraft!
It's called intercept and Identify. As I keep saying to you, go back to the lighting forum and do what you do best, and I'll add comprehension to the already long list of the things you don't do well.
Garry
Please read what I said, not what you think I said!
I gave a full answer to the question, including what secondary radar does and what primary radar does, and what happens when a primary radar shows an unidentified track.
At no point have I suggested anything like what you said. It's standard policy in every major country, except New Zealand which doesn't have any, to scramble fights when there is an unidentified aircraft approaching it's airspace. We do it and have been doing it since bloody radar was invented! Apart from 1939-1945 when there was another issue, we have not yet once even fired at an aircraft!
It's called intercept and Identify. As I keep saying to you, go back to the lighting forum and do what you do best, and I'll add comprehension to the already long list of the things you don't do well.
Sorry, I just get confused sometimes, it's difficult to keep up.Garry
Please read what I said, not what you think I said!
I gave a full answer to the question, including what secondary radar does and what primary radar does, and what happens when a primary radar shows an unidentified track.
At no point have I suggested anything like what you said. It's standard policy in every major country, except New Zealand which doesn't have any, to scramble fights when there is an unidentified aircraft approaching it's airspace. We do it and have been doing it since bloody radar was invented! Apart from 1939-1945 when there was another issue, we have not yet once even fired at an aircraft!
It's called intercept and Identify. As I keep saying to you, go back to the lighting forum and do what you do best, and I'll add comprehension to the already long list of the things you don't do well.
I can't help thinking that the radar ops might have noticed a fast moving blip converging with the jet immediately before it disappeared from the radar ... which pretty much rules out it being shot down (unless we think the Americans used an F22 to shoot it down for sh*ts and giggles ... which seems a tad unlikely)
For example, in answer to the point it can't be terrorism, because there is no claim of responsibility, saying that ain't necessarily so.
So what's left? 2 people with fake passports, which is a bit odd. While there is no central database of every nicked passport in the world, I'd say from some experience in this sort of thing, possible for one person with a faked passport on board, but 2?
In any case, what right minded person would want to get into China so much they faked a passport?
Garry
Please read what I said, not what you think I said!
I gave a full answer to the question, including what secondary radar does and what primary radar does, and what happens when a primary radar shows an unidentified track.
At no point have I suggested anything like what you said. It's standard policy in every major country, except New Zealand which doesn't have any, to scramble fights when there is an unidentified aircraft approaching it's airspace. We do it and have been doing it since bloody radar was invented! Apart from 1939-1945 when there was another issue, we have not yet once even fired at an aircraft!
It's called intercept and Identify. As I keep saying to you, go back to the lighting forum and do what you do best, and I'll add comprehension to the already long list of the things you don't do well.