[Saanil]

Originally Posted by amit

I am not technically well versed with flying but if MH 370 was flying at 25,000 feet with it's transponder's off & hence undetected by radar then another flight (& ATC on the ground) flying at the same altitude would not know of another aircraft at the same altitude right? In that case there could be a mid-air collision. It's happened many times with radar's working so just wondering how a flight with transponder's switched off could fly for 7 hours and not run into anything?!

I do not have all the details about this case but if there was a mid-air collision - there would have been reports in the media about another plane missing right (passanger/cargo plane or any other kind of plane)? Or is there a huge cover up to hide that fact too? I doubt it though.

[amit]

Originally Posted by Saanil

I do not have all the details about this case but if there was a mid-air collision - there would have been reports in the media about another plane missing right (passanger/cargo plane or any other kind of plane)? Or is there a huge cover up to hide that fact too? I doubt it though.

I am not saying or asking if there was a mid-air collision. What I am asking is can a flight with it's transponder's switched off & undetected by commercial radar's fly for 7 hours without running into another plane?

[udaji]

Originally Posted by amit

I am not saying or asking if there was a mid-air collision. What I am asking is can a flight with it's transponder's switched off & undetected by commercial radar's fly for 7 hours without running into another plane?

All commercial flights stick to known corridors in air. The question of bumping into another aircraft would arise only if the rogue plane got into one of those.

[NetfreakBombay]

Originally Posted by amit

I am not saying or asking if there was a mid-air collision. What I am asking is can a flight with it's transponder's switched off & undetected by commercial radar's fly for 7 hours without running into another plane?

Commercial Radar wont spot a plane if transponders are off. "Primary" radars will, and thats how Military could determine flight path (offline). Usually, Military wont bother with a plane flying around known waypoints and on commercial altitudes.

That is how a cargo plane dropped huge cache of arms in India in 1995.

[HyperRetard]

Originally Posted by NetfreakBombay

That is how a cargo plane dropped huge cache of arms in India in 1995.

The Purulia Arms Drop case?

[amit]

Originally Posted by udaji

All commercial flights stick to known corridors in air. The question of bumping into another aircraft would arise only if the rogue plane got into one of those.

With the transponder's switched off, ATC & other flights would think that the particular corridor is free and would start flying in it. Is that possible?

[sandeepmdas]

Could it be possible to remotely hijack a fly-by-wire jet? Though only one country can do this, the one that makes these systems.

AFAIK the fly-by-wire system eliminates all mechanical linkages between the cockpit and the flight surfaces and instead use electronic linkage that feeds stick movements to the surfaces. If you can replace the feed with your own, theoretically you could be able to fly the aircraft from ground; just like a huge RC airplane?

And using ILS you could be able to land too..

Just a wild thought

[NetfreakBombay]

Originally Posted by amit

With the transponder's switched off, ATC & other flights would think that the particular corridor is free and would start flying in it. Is that possible?

Two things would have prevented that:

1. Plane's own radar would be on, this would help pilot of MH370 locate other planes.
2. Anti-collision Radar in other planes would have alerted pilots

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborn...oidance_system

[shivshanker]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

MH does have ACAR implemented. They just don't broadcast whilst in flight. So when the plane lands and is on the ground, they take a dump from ACARS and process the data on the ground.

Recent news claims that MH does transmit ACARS data back to the base and only in case of MH370 it was stopped intentionally.

Wonder who is correct?

[chennai-indian]

Originally Posted by NetfreakBombay

Regarding India's ability to detect stray planes, a cargo aircraft entered Indian airspace, dropped huge cache of Arms in Purulia and flew away. It was not detected.

That was back in 1995 - Indian air defenses are robust enough now that any intrusion would have been detected and acted upon. Also, in case of Purulia arms drop, it was a plane on a scheduled flight that dropped the arms - not an unknown plane

[NetfreakBombay]

Originally Posted by chennai-indian

That was back in 1995 - Indian air defenses are robust enough now that any intrusion would have been detected and acted upon.

Even recently it was reported that US used part of Indian airspace for flying to abottabad in Pakistan.

Originally Posted by chennai-indian

Also, in case of Purulia arms drop, it was a plane on a scheduled flight that dropped the arms - not an unknown plane

It was a cargo plane, no flight plan would have allowed for flying close to terrain for drops. Even worse, RAW and IB were tipped off in advance by MI-5 of this drop.

Nothing of that sort was done. The R&AW passed on the information in a routine manner to the IB without specifying that it was coming from the pilot through MI-5. The IB, instead of organising the follow-up action, passed it on to the West Bengal police in an equally routine manner. The then chief secretary of the West Bengal government later complained that the IB had sent the information by registered post and that it was received after the air drop had taken place and the aircraft had flown out of India.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/us-choppe.../291015-2.html

http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-sho...20110429.htm#1

[chennai-indian]

Originally Posted by NetfreakBombay

Even recently it was reported that US used part of Indian airspace for flying to abottabad in Pakistan.



[/url]

Source please? No way US could have used Indian airspace without permission.
As for Purulia arms drop, you rightly mention that there was more to it than meets the eye - some kind of politics between center and WB

[Guite]

Reading the last two pages it seems possible that this plane (or any other plane) can fly with transponder off in designated corridor without arousing suspicion, right? So MH370 could have flown 'quietly' over India (or any other country for that matter) and reach some country where it could land on a fairly level strip of land / abandoned air strip / remote road. Is this a theoretical possibility? Pilots on the forum, your comments are enlightening.

[Shadowbane]

Originally Posted by Guite

Reading the last two pages it seems possible that this plane (or any other plane) can fly with transponder off in designated corridor without arousing suspicion, right? So MH370 could have flown 'quietly' over India (or any other country for that matter) and reach some country where it could land on a fairly level strip of land / abandoned air strip / remote road. Is this a theoretical possibility? Pilots on the forum, your comments are enlightening.

Designated airspace or not, when an aircraft enters an airspace, it is asked for it's intentions. If the aircraft is on a scheduled flight plan then it is automatically granted permission to use the airspace and is given its heading and altitude details without any fuss, others state their intention and seek approval to use the airspace. Then the planes are given squawk codes. If any plane, changes its squawk code or deviates from its flight path or doesn't respond, the air force will be called into to action. Unless our systems are faulty, there is no way an aircraft the size of a 777 could pass quietly over India without being detected by our RADAR.

There are theories than the plane made it across the Andamans but we have a Naval base there. If it did, it would have been detected by our Naval RADAR. Either our Navy was napping or the plane dint make it that far. I also read that India’s military RADARs are operated on an ‘as and when required’ basis. Though it sounds foolish, if that is the case then it probably would have made it to the Andamans without being noticed. I atleast hope the RADARs located on our mainland work full-time.

I'm not a pilot but this is what i think and i could be completely wrong.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by shivshanker

Recent news claims that MH does transmit ACARS data back to the base and only in case of MH370 it was stopped intentionally.

Wonder who is correct?

We don't know, at least I certainly don't. There are various different angles to this. How ACARS is implemented by MH is, at least for me, an unknown. What data gets transmitted and how it is transmitted is something that is configurable. So it all depends on MH policies. Whether they choose to use VHF or via satellite link or both is something that can be set in the system. It does affect when data can be transmitted. Obviously over vast stretches of water the likely hood of being in VHF range is remote. Satellite connection are substantially more expensive to use, so if you broadcast a lot of data you're running up a big bill.

What is known, (exactly) is what ACARS capabilities are and for what purpose carriers use it. Mostly for efficiency purpose and a bit for flight safety. I'm not even sure when I read these various reports on news site that who ever writes them up even remotely understands aviation or aircraft systems. There has been news flashes for the last few days about the engines sending data to the manufacturer as well. Do they mean via ACARS or do they mean via some other system? Haven't got a clue.

We will never know until the accident report is released. And even when it is released it will be disputed heavily by all parties concerned. Remember the biggest aviation accident ever, the Tenerife disaster? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster)

583 people lost their lives when two Jumbo jets collided on the runway. To date the involved parties still do not agree who was to blame. They all have the same set of facts. Factually we know precisely what happened, but the interpretation of those facts and what is meant is open for interpretation and so everybody does. Sometimes, new information emerges long after the report has been released. For instance, this Tenerife incident really sparked carriers to look into Resource Crew Management. At the time of the accident and subsequently the investigation very little was known about RCM, so very little attention was given to its possible contributing cause in this case.

Even on a what appears on face value to be a relatively simple straight forward case, specialist could have very different opinions. For instance the infamous Concorde crash in Paris is such a case. Quite a few former Concorde pilots will tell you that when that engine fire started during take off, the pilots at that time should have good enough control and should have been able to get the situation under control, and land. As we know they did not and crashed. When I read their arguments on what the pilots did (as per the investigation report) and what they should have been doing two very different stories emerge.

Given what seems to be happening with this very unfortunate flight you can see it coming once the fact emerges there will be a huge dance around the facts and everybody will make up their own version of the truth. I mean, it is very obvious to the whole world that the search and rescue operation from the minute it started was not what you would call well co-ordinated. Or if it was it was extremely poorly communicated.

As I said many times before, everybody will have their own set of facts and will base their opinion on it and the put that on forum such as this and claim it is a fact. This very sentence being an excellent example of such practice.

Jeroen