Yeah. On this flight, long story short, they forgot to turn the pressurization on so when they climbed to altitude everybody on board died of lack of oxygen. Plane kept truckin' along and eventually crashed.
The pilots control the airplane, and for the most part, all of the systems. With all respect, what do you think that pilots do? It seems you have an image of a bunch of automated systems that nobody has control over.
While automation has greatly increased, there is still significant requirements for the operator (the pilots) to program, run, and manage those 'automated' systems. There are also overrides in the event of malfunction, so if the automated system is not working correctly the pilots can either switch to a backup automated system, or utilize some sort of manual control.
I was just questioning whether there wasn't some system that prevented that from occuring in certain scenarios - eg) I am sure while the plane is parked at the gate, the pilot can't just retract the landing gear and force the airplane do a belly flop... or can they?
I was just questioning whether there wasn't some system that prevented that from occuring in certain scenarios - eg) I am sure while the plane is parked at the gate, the pilot can't just retract the landing gear and force the airplane do a belly flop... or can they?
Ummm..no?
I agree with you though, I've been saying since 9-11 that once an aircraft is in the air the pilots shouldn't be able to turn off the transponders, even an hour of battery backup in case someone hits the breaker would do the trick. same goes for other systems that crazy people can use and abuse in the name of terror.
But what difference does it make when the transponder was turned off? I don't see what makes it smart or not, I just see it as inconsequential.
And the 45000 ft thing, again I don't see a brilliant intentional plan there. Going to 45000' isn't going to kill anyone without failing the pressurization system, and if you depressurization the airplane you will still make everyone unconscious in short order whether you are at 35000, 41000, or 45000'. So it makes me wonder about the flying skills of whoever was controlling the aircraft at that point, or if there was a struggle for control occurring.
Having said that there was obviously some knowledge and skill in disabling both the transponder and the ACARS system. Reminds me of the 9-11 terrorists in that there was some very good planning, but the skill level was really quite rudimentary, and just enough to drive the airplane at a target.
As Acey said, I wonder if whatever the goal of the hijacking was, the flight was ultimately brought down by passengers trying to overtake the hijackers. Pretty miserable last 4-5 hours for the passengers.
Oh. Well maybe it's not smart then, you would know better than I would. But it definitely seems like it wouldn't happen by accident, so it likely was planned for some reason. Just a better chance at avoiding much attention from any/all air traffic control? Would a non-transponding blip flying for hours in Vietnamese airspace, for example, not attract some attention? Whereas a non-transponding blip in Vietnamese airspace for a few minutes may still attract some attention but now the Vietnamese have to coordinate with Malaysia to see if the blip went into their airspace, and it's not urgent because it's not really their problem if it's not in their airspace etc etc etc and everything is just more confused and time consuming?
I mean, it took investigators several days to definitively determine the plane was even hijacked. That seems pretty successful on the part of the hijackers in terms of covering their tracks.
Only thing for me that points away from the pilots is the lack of a plan. So hijack a 777 with 8 hours of range, then head into the Indian Ocean?
I think this is a hijacker who entered the cabin somehow, then threatened the pilots asking them to fly somewhere. Pilots refuse and maybe there is a struggle back and forth, explaining altitude changes and the course changes. Finally pilots are killed? And the plane is on autopilot headed to nowhere?
I was just questioning whether there wasn't some system that prevented that from occuring in certain scenarios - eg) I am sure while the plane is parked at the gate, the pilot can't just retract the landing gear and force the airplane do a belly flop... or can they?
I see what you are saying, and of course there are systems that prevent the gear from being retracted on the ground.
But it seems you are thinking of a pressurization system that can't be adjusted or overridden by the pilots. Then eventually we would be having the discussion about the system one day malfunctioning, and questioning why there wasn't some sort of an override that the pilots could use to regain control over the faulty automated system.
I think cabins need to be made so that the pilots have no reason to open the doors at any time. Make it a luxury suite for all I care but their doors should never open in flight.
Oh. Well maybe it's not smart then, you would know better than I would. But it definitely seems like it wouldn't happen by accident, so it likely was planned for some reason. Just a better chance at avoiding much attention from any/all air traffic control? Would a non-transponding blip flying for hours in Vietnamese airspace, for example, not attract some attention? Whereas a non-transponding blip in Vietnamese airspace for a few minutes may still attract some attention but now the Vietnamese have to coordinate with Malaysia to see if the blip went into their airspace, and it's not urgent because it's not really their problem if it's not in their airspace etc etc etc and everything is just more confused and time consuming?
I mean, it took investigators several days to definitively determine the plane was even hijacked. That seems pretty successful on the part of the hijackers in terms of covering their tracks.
If they are still radar identified, then Malaysian ATC would be handing off that aircraft to Vietnamese controllers....that would be via voice or possibly some sort of datalink, but either way they would have to get positive response that the Vietnamese controller was taking over responsibility for the airplane. Either way, one or the other or both controllers would be wondering why they just turned their transponder off. Turning off a transponder at any exchange point won't just make controllers forget about the flight. It isn't like there is an opportunity to just get lost there that was exploited.....and I would be surprised if the timing made any significant impact to what happened to this flight.
All in my opinion of course.
I should mention too, the one data set I saw showed the transponder being turned off right at top of climb. That was probably related to the timing of taking over the airplane, and likely just happened to coincide with the transition into Vietnamese airspace.
Last edited by Ryan Coke; 03-15-2014 at 09:02 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ryan Coke For This Useful Post:
I think cabins need to be made so that the pilots have no reason to open the doors at any time. Make it a luxury suite for all I care but their doors should never open in flight.
The thing is these pilots opened the cabin for some pretty Australian girls before so maybe the highjackers used a girl or two to get into the cabin, but yeah I agree.
This is an awesome theory but the first question would be why???
Well, making a massive assumption, if their intent was to imply a crash by turning their transponder off on their planned route, then immediately altering course. If they did this as a red herring, the idea is that they then trailed a jet to mimic it's radar path to further muddy the tracking abilities. The "why" would be because this was a well thought out stealing of a plane.
Again, massive assumption, and based on the distance between the two planes, which I believe was 30 miles, I don't even think it would fool any radar operators. I personally think it's a coincidence, but the above is the general reasoning behind the linked theory.
