Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That was my concern. But as I stated such technology had not yet been installed in commercial aircraft.
I'm skeptical that the tech even exists. Can you land an airliner remotely? With no on board pilot assistance? Seems improbable. Do airliners have forward looking sensors by which a remote controller can orient himself? You'd need that to land. And would this tech disable all on board controls? Seems like if you had hijackers on board, it would be very difficult to wrest total control from them (or from the crew of MH370). They'd still have a lot of influence over the aircraft.
I'm skeptical that the tech even exists. Can you land an airliner remotely? With no on board pilot assistance? Seems improbable. Do airliners have forward looking sensors by which a remote controller can orient himself? You'd need that to land. And would this tech disable all on board controls? Seems like if you had hijackers on board, it would be very difficult to wrest total control from them (or from the crew of MH370). They'd still have a lot of influence over the aircraft.
--
On big commercial airplanes they do have a "autoland" program that will land the plane without any assistance from a pilot. It is rarely used. Unlike my silly last post this is a fact.
I'm skeptical that the tech even exists. Can you land an airliner remotely? With no on board pilot assistance? Seems improbable. Do airliners have forward looking sensors by which a remote controller can orient himself? You'd need that to land. And would this tech disable all on board controls? Seems like if you had hijackers on board, it would be very difficult to wrest total control from them (or from the crew of MH370). They'd still have a lot of influence over the aircraft.
Although it was intended to address security/hijacking. The security concerns about hacking into the system is the reason it hasn't been implemented yet in any airliner. So irrelevant to MH370 crash.
I have been following this case since it happened, and I have sorted most of the hokum out of it.
Several facts:
They didn't know there was anything wrong for over an hour. The plane "disappeared" at the point it was supposed to hand off from Malaysia control to Vietnam control. At that point, the transponder disappeared from the RADAR and the plane never contacted Vietnam. But Vietnam thought the plane just took off late.
Planes routinely disappear from RADAR at that point. They are so far away over the ocean that no land based RADAR can track them.
With the transponders turned off, MH370 became a single blip like the many blips of private planes. Controllers lost it in a sea pf private plane blips. Other systems used to track the plane were also turned off. But one was still working.
When they realized something was wrong, they thought the plane crashed in the ocean. They sent search planes there.
The Malaysian military managed to painstakingly reconstruct most of the path of MH370. But it took them two days to do it using RADAR screen photos. They then realized MH370 went west.
Several days later, people working at a satellite system that receives transmissions from airliners discovered that MH370 kept replying to signals sent by the system for several hours after the disappearance. They then did special computer analysis on those replies and determined that MH370 flew to the south Indian Ocean.
The data recovered suggested the plane was on autopilot during the southward flight.
I saw the press get many things wrong when they investigated this disappearance. All of these are false:
1. "Only one unidentified blip was on the Malaysian military RADAR: It was MH370."
2. "Satellites can be sent to the locations where they are needed for disaster work."
3. "Satellites can hover over any spot on earth as long as they are needed."
4. "Radio will work under water. This includes GPS and cell phones, as long as the electronics stay dry."
5. "Government could have commandeered any equipment needed for the search from private owners."
6. "The plane should be on the bottom below where it came down."
Note that satellites have to stay in their assigned orbits. They can't change course.
Note that most radio does not work under water. Water shorts out the signals.
Boats and planes lost off Miami in the Bermuda Triangle have been found off the Georgia and South Carolina coasts. The Gulf Stream dragged them there.
Wreckage started washing ashore on the other side of the Indian Ocean in 2015. Several pieces have been positively linked to MH370.
The current theory is that the plane made a soft landing on the ocean, then sank until it reached neutral buoyancy. It then followed the undersea currents north and then west, until it hit something that made it fall apart.
The current theory is that the deranged pilot committed suicide/homicide, taking everyone on the flight with him. His wife left him and his favorite candidate was arrested for sodomy. The flight path he took was on his flight simulator.
He had two possible destinations:
- Diamantina Deep, the deepest place in the Indian Ocean. Sink it where nobody will find it.
- New Island Commonwealth, a fictitious island nation that exists only on the Internet.
Note that any form of remote control requires a remote control receiver be installed on the aircraft.
Autoland controls only approach height. It helps the pilot make a gentle landing. It does not control the direction the plane flies.
Last edited by Troubleshooter; 03-12-2021 at 10:42 AM..
I'm skeptical that the tech even exists. Can you land an airliner remotely? With no on board pilot assistance? Seems improbable. Do airliners have forward looking sensors by which a remote controller can orient himself? You'd need that to land. And would this tech disable all on board controls? Seems like if you had hijackers on board, it would be very difficult to wrest total control from them (or from the crew of MH370). They'd still have a lot of influence over the aircraft.
--
Well, it wasn’t an airliner, it was a small plane, and it was a movie. So it’s possible that they just made it up for the movie, but in the movie “hopscotch“ Walter Matthau did that with a small plane — took it off, flew around and did maneuvers, and then landed it. By the way, it’s a wonderful movie everybody should see.
I believe there were pieces of wing which were recovered from the sea?
Apparently, this actual aircraft had an accident with damage to the wing in 2012. What a coincidence.
From the AboveTopSecret thread:
Quote:
Apparently, this Malaysia Airlines 777 is the same aircraft that collided with a China Eastern Airlines A340 on the tarmac while taxiing at Shanghai Pudong International Airport in 2012.
While both were damaged and did not continue their schedules, that doesn't mean that is related to what happened to MH370.
...
Boeing 777-2H6ER registered 9M-MRO suffered wing damage in 2012.
Two previously stolen passports were used on that flight. An Italian and an Austrian both were reported as being safe at home.
The passengers working for the tech company were from Malaysia as detailed (again on the ATS thread)
Quote:
UPDATE [10:04pm]: About 20 top management staff from semiconductor company Freescale Semiconductor were among 38 Malaysians onboard MAS flight MH370. The team comprising senior managers and managers were on their way to China to undergo a month-long course in Beijing. Full story here.
Freescale are one of the worlds first and leading semiconductor manufacturers. Specialising in industrial semiconductors and controllers, including those with military applications. Not only do they provide hardware to companies like Raetheon amongst others, but also have a history of partnership as part of DARPA/defence funded research. Freescale were bought out (in 2006) by a consortium that includes the Carlyle group (Bush sr. et al) and Blackstone
Coming Soon to a Body Near You? World’s Smallest Chip to Be Swallowable
The Internet of Things is coming, but chips need to be more efficient, powerful—and even smaller than they are now. In all categories, Freescale Semiconductor is making waves. And their most recent contribution, the Kinetis KL02, is one of the smallest microcontrollers in the world.
Last edited by ocpaul20; 03-13-2021 at 12:45 AM..
Reason: Freescale
I have been following this case since it happened, and I have sorted most of the hokum out of it.
Several facts:
They didn't know there was anything wrong for over an hour. The plane "disappeared" at the point it was supposed to hand off from Malaysia control to Vietnam control. At that point, the transponder disappeared from the RADAR and the plane never contacted Vietnam. But Vietnam thought the plane just took off late.
Planes routinely disappear from RADAR at that point. They are so far away over the ocean that no land based RADAR can track them.
With the transponders turned off, MH370 became a single blip like the many blips of private planes. Controllers lost it in a sea pf private plane blips. Other systems used to track the plane were also turned off. But one was still working.
When they realized something was wrong, they thought the plane crashed in the ocean. They sent search planes there.
The Malaysian military managed to painstakingly reconstruct most of the path of MH370. But it took them two days to do it using RADAR screen photos. They then realized MH370 went west.
Several days later, people working at a satellite system that receives transmissions from airliners discovered that MH370 kept replying to signals sent by the system for several hours after the disappearance. They then did special computer analysis on those replies and determined that MH370 flew to the south Indian Ocean.
The data recovered suggested the plane was on autopilot during the southward flight.
I saw the press get many things wrong when they investigated this disappearance. All of these are false:
1. "Only one unidentified blip was on the Malaysian military RADAR: It was MH370."
2. "Satellites can be sent to the locations where they are needed for disaster work."
3. "Satellites can hover over any spot on earth as long as they are needed."
4. "Radio will work under water. This includes GPS and cell phones, as long as the electronics stay dry."
5. "Government could have commandeered any equipment needed for the search from private owners."
6. "The plane should be on the bottom below where it came down."
Note that satellites have to stay in their assigned orbits. They can't change course.
Note that most radio does not work under water. Water shorts out the signals.
Boats and planes lost off Miami in the Bermuda Triangle have been found off the Georgia and South Carolina coasts. The Gulf Stream dragged them there.
Wreckage started washing ashore on the other side of the Indian Ocean in 2015. Several pieces have been positively linked to MH370.
The current theory is that the plane made a soft landing on the ocean, then sank until it reached neutral buoyancy. It then followed the undersea currents north and then west, until it hit something that made it fall apart.
The current theory is that the deranged pilot committed suicide/homicide, taking everyone on the flight with him. His wife left him and his favorite candidate was arrested for sodomy. The flight path he took was on his flight simulator.
He had two possible destinations:
- Diamantina Deep, the deepest place in the Indian Ocean. Sink it where nobody will find it.
- New Island Commonwealth, a fictitious island nation that exists only on the Internet.
Note that any form of remote control requires a remote control receiver be installed on the aircraft.
Autoland controls only approach height. It helps the pilot make a gentle landing. It does not control the direction the plane flies.
So many holes in your post, I don't know where to begin.
I will try to take them one at a time.
How did the military analyze "radar screen photos", when the radar was unable to track the flight?
How did the plane send signals to anything(including satellites) if all communication in the plane were turned off?
With all communications turned off, how would anyone know the plane was on autopilot?
Cruising at 35,000 feet, a "soft landing" would be impossible.
Even at descent, the plane would pick up speed, and hitting the ocean at speed greater than 100 Knotts, would shatter the aircraft into a million pieces.
Hitting the ocean from that height, and speed, would be like running into a cement wall.
Using your analysis, the plane supposedly "sunk to neutral buoyancy" level, then floated with the current until it "hit something and broke apart".
If it had anyone, or anything on board at the time of this "hitting something", the contents of the plane would have floated to the surface somewhere.(ie, bodies, clothing, luggage etc.)
Talk about "hokum".
Actually, I do believe the plane landed in the ocean, once it's contents were unloaded on the craft that was used to abduct it, and it's contents.
Until such time as body remains, luggage, and freight onboard the plane are discovered, I will stick with my original comments as to what happened to everything that was aboard that flight.
I think people tend to forget that the military of all countries have far better technology than they let on. I do not believe that any country would ignore any craft or missile coming in from over the sea, so I am sure they all have RADAR which can pick up a gnat flying over the ocean far out to sea. After all, everyone has missiles which can go into orbit and re-enter to drop their payload on any place on Earth. Do we really believe that this 'lost' plane was really lost? If so, then there is a giant hole through which any other country can fly a missile.
In Skunkworks a Personal Memoir of my Years by Ben Rich
in the part on the Blackbird - early 1960's
Quote:
From ninety thousand feet—sixteen miles up—you could clearly see the stripes on a parking lot. Baby, that’s resolution! The main camera was five feet high. The strip camera was continuous, and the framing camera took one picture at a time. Both took perfect pictures while zipping past at Mach 3.
Quote:
Once the U.S. early-warning radar net (so powerful, it could track a baseball-size object from five thousand miles away) picked up a Soviet bomber force streaking toward North America, our Blackbirds could race to meet and intercept them over the Arctic Circle, beyond range of their nuclear-tipped missiles targeted against U.S. cities.
Quote:
Later on, in the late 1970s, when the Russians developed their powerful SA-5 ground-to-air missile that could have knocked us down, they never tried to use it against the Blackbird. That missile was so enormous it looked like a medium-range intercontinental ballistic missile sitting on its pad. Made me queasy just looking down at it through my telescopic sight. But my theory was that the hostiles realized that reconnaissance flights were actually stabilizing. We knew what they were looking at and they knew what we were looking at. If they denied us, we’d deny them. And then everyone would get the jitters. In this game, you didn’t deny access unless you were ready to get serious about preventing it.
...
Quote:
...we will try to get six-inch ground resolution photographically,
All these quotes show we had incredible technology in the 1960's and now all this time later, do you think we dont have better technology?
I think people tend to forget that the military of all countries have far better technology than they let on. I do not believe that any country would ignore any craft or missile coming in from over the sea, so I am sure they all have RADAR which can pick up a gnat flying over the ocean far out to sea. After all, everyone has missiles which can go into orbit and re-enter to drop their payload on any place on Earth. Do we really believe that this 'lost' plane was really lost? If so, then there is a giant hole through which any other country can fly a missile.
In Skunkworks a Personal Memoir of my Years by Ben Rich
in the part on the Blackbird - early 1960's
...
All these quotes show we had incredible technology in the 1960's and now all this time later, do you think we dont have better technology?
This is something we agree on. With all the surveillance how can so many things like people going missing and a lot of crimes go unsolved.
I have a friend that works for a government agency. For many years he has been able to look at anyplace live with a google earth type program. He can pull up where ever you are at and you can wave and watch yourself do it live on his phone screen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Solly says — Be nice!
