[sandeepmdas]

Seems that they will now make it mandatory any automated data communication that originates from an airliner must contain a GPS tag. Had the MH370 ACARS signals been embedded with an independent GPS tag..

Originally Posted by Shadowbane

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.

Operating primary radar on a 24x7 basis is very expensive unless you have a high-value target to protect. It is like installing 12 CCTV cameras in and around an empty building and assigning three people per shift to monitor them.

Secondly, if you operate primary radar continuously the neighboring countries will get the technical aspects of its coverage, bandwidth etc. by merely using an aircraft that acts like an intruder. During the cold war, the Soviets used their gant Tupolev Tu-95 "Bear" aircraft mainly to test the preparedness of the NATO beachfront radar sites and carrier-based radar. See the pic of a TU-95 flying directly over an US aircraft carrier.

The fact is, most countries will test and train their most advanced radar systems only when no other aircraft around and the airspace (that the radar is supposed to secure) has already been 100% secured.

[rsjaurr]

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?

ACARS system was switched off manually in this plane but it had a failsafe mechanism by which it continued to "ping" every hour for about five hours. This is certain as I read it somewhere but I do not remember the link.
Edit-More about the the ACARS here.

Whatever is the reason but I fear the worst has already happened to the plane as well as its passengers. Probably it has crashed into the Southern part of Indian Ocean.

[udaji]

We have at least one commercial pilot on the forum. I am sure he is following this thread. Dear Mr Pilot, why is it that you are even allowed to manually turn off a transponder? What if the system is so programmed as to leave the transponder on at all times? At least while some airspeed is being computed - that way it will not pollute the airwaves while on ground.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by sandeepmdas

Seems that they will now make it mandatory any automated data communication that originates from an airliner must contain a GPS tag. Had the MH370 ACARS signals been embedded with an independent GPS tag..

You can make it mandatory for the airliners, but its not going to help unless you are able to provide a technical solution that can provide 24/7 100% coverage of every spot on earth. The bits on the plane are the easy and relatively cheap part of the solution. The rest of the infrastructure here on earth and in space is the (expensive) part. For starters, who is responsible for this bit?

On the upside and a bit more practical, ADS is becoming mandatory and it does provide GPS information. But again, not every spot on the world is covered. So any plane with a ADS system will be broadcasting its position, altitude and speed continuously, but if there is nothing out there to pick up the signal you will never know its there.

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automat...t_surveillance


Just came across this link; probably the best, most informative I've been able to find when it comes to all these different system

http://tmfassociates.com/blog/2014/03/

Jeroen

[RSR]

Originally Posted by sandeepmdas

Could it be possible to remotely hijack a fly-by-wire jet?

Just a wild thought

Thank you very much for mentioning this! (Since this is a non-automotive topic, the forum does not have a thanks button on this thread.)

It may be a "wild" thought, but it is certainly within the realm of possibilities. What is 100% certain, is that there is no way the aircraft designers, manufacturers, airlines or anyone else is going to admit this - because if they did and it became known to the public, then the airline and allied industries worldwide would be hit very, very hard indeed as many people would simply refuse to travel by air (at least for short and medium distances).

I believe there should be manual back-up controls for certain things even in fly-by-wire aircraft. Then again, if someone had so much control that they could remotely hijack a fly-by-wire aeroplane, then it's perfectly possible that they could alter the system to ensure any manual control/override by the pilots on board is completely disabled.

I do not wish to start a debate about conspiracy theories not related to the MH370 incident in this thread, but remote hijacking is one of the theories put forth by those who refuse to believe the "official version" of the events of September 11, 2001 that has been popularised by the mainstream media.

Another thing to ponder about is the sale of military aircraft to third parties. Let's say a country that has the ability to manufacture advanced fly-by-wire fighter jets has decided to sell some of these (for the money, obviously) to a country which is NOT a time-tested ally, or one in which the regime can change from being a good friend to deadly foe within a matter of days. Should an all-out war between the two countries be initiated by the new regime, do you think the aircraft manufacturing country would prefer to lose its own aircraft, pilots, troops, ships etc. in battles, when they can just flip a few switches and completely disable/destroy the jets that were sold by them to the (new) enemy? The answer is obvious.

So yes, I think it's perfectly possible to remotely hijack fly-by-wire aircraft! It may be quite a common thing, for all we know, and it may have even been used on civilian aircraft.

No one is ever going to admit that they have such a capability, though.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by RSR

[b]
So yes, I think it's perfectly possible to remotely hijack fly-by-wire aircraft! It may be quite a common thing, for all we know, and it may have even been used on civilian aircraft.

Why do you think it is possible? Are you familiar with fly by wire systems. Or is it just a hunch?

Jeroen

[RSR]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Why do you think it is possible? Are you familiar with fly by wire systems. Or is it just a hunch?

Jeroen

I have absolutely no experience with fly-by-wire systems, or with the normal systems on an aircraft, for that matter. I'm no pilot, and have only flown paper planes.

All I'm saying is that it (remote hijacking of an aircraft) should be possible. I don't mean to say MH370 was remotely hijacked (and stolen, crashed etc.) - in fact, I think it's quite unlikely in this case.

You can say it's a hunch that I believe it should be possible. I've offered one explanation for this belief in my previous post, about the fighter jets. I don't believe "certain" countries could buy such fighter jets if the country where it's manufactured did not have the ability to remotely hijack them (I use the term "hijack" loosely here). It's also common knowledge that military hardware/technology supplied to third countries often comes with some "additional" stuff that the buyer didn't pay for, or want. This has been confirmed by an expert on another forum. Some dictators/tyrants around the world are known to have developed a genuine fear of flying, after they assumed that position (I don't blame any phobia for this, since nasty things have frequently happened to such aircraft, or even those which were mistaken for a tyrant/dictator's plane).

If something is possible on a military aircraft, then it should not be too far fetched to believe it's possible on a commercial airliner.

You can call me whatever you want, but I'm not one of those who believe the "official" version of events that happened on September 11. I'm not saying I believe all (or even some) of the aircraft involved were remotely hijacked, but I would not rule out that possibility, however far-fetched it may seem.

Given the nature of humans, and the nefarious levels to which governments, government agencies and super-governmental entities can stoop down to, I think one can only guess the extent of their complete capabilities. They are certainly not going to publicise this in their favourite propaganda channels (read as mainstream media).

I may not be an expert, but I certainly do not see anything in fly-by-wire technology that would prevent it from being used by a system that could enable remote hijacking.

Do you? If so, why?

[lambuhere1]

Source : http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...d-9195320.html

Did jetliner fly into area controlled by Taliban?

The missing Malaysian airlines flight MH370 may have been deliberately flown under the radar to Taliban-controlled bases on the border of Afghanistan, it has emerged, as authorities said that the final message sent from the cockpit came after one of the jet's communications systems had already been switched off.

[girimajiananth]

Originally Posted by lambuhere1

Source : http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...d-9195320.html

Did jetliner fly into area controlled by Taliban?

The missing Malaysian airlines flight MH370 may have been deliberately flown under the radar to Taliban-controlled bases on the border of Afghanistan, it has emerged, as authorities said that the final message sent from the cockpit came after one of the jet's communications systems had already been switched off.

Did it carry sufficient fuel to fly all the way from Malaysia to Afghanistan without having to stop for re fueling ? I wonder why no hijackers have made demands yet .

[searchingheaven]

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?!

Well let me explain it this way. All aircraft follow a certain pattern of flight for a specific route. i.e

1. The moment a aircraft takes off it usually flies 2-3 nm on the runway heading and then is directed/directs itself to a SID(Standard Instrument Departure) waypoint. After that it has designated waypoints(VOR/NDB) to follow during its flight. For example, here is a a Flight Plan between Kualalampur & Beijing flight that any plane can take.









Here, the AGOSA point is a SID. It means that After taking from runway 32L(heading of 326 degrees), it will direct to AGOSA and then onwards to other waypoints. It cannot fly in anyway it wants. The flightplan has to be entered into the MCDU/FMC like this. The autopilot flies this entered plan. STARS are the landing counterparts of SIDS(Standard terminal arrival route)


2. So what Jeroen sir meant is, that if a pilot is experienced, he can avoid these routes easily and go on without having a collision at all.

To those who believe that a fly by wire cannot be hijacked remotely, check this out: Planesploit. It was a old news, almost just at the time i had got my Private Pilot Licence. At that time itself, i was dumbstruck by it. At this moment, i don't even know what to make out of this. The app was pulled down by Google Play immediately(4 mins to be exact), but it proves that anything can happen.

Want to hack a plane? Well, there's an app for that.

PlaneSploit is the work of Hugo Teso, a security researcher and commercial pilot, who claims his app allows users to control a plane from the ground. Using an Android phone (sorry iPhone, Blackberry and Window Phones users), a radio transmitter, flight management software and a little bit of hacking know-how, Teso demonstrated how he changed the flight path of a plane to a crowd on Wednesday during this year's Hack In The Box conference in Amsterdam.

Source of info: I have a Private Pilot license.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by RSR

I have absolutely no experience with fly-by-wire systems, or with the normal systems on an aircraft, for that matter. I'm no pilot, and have only flown paper planes.

No offense, but I find it remarkable that with no knowledge whatsoever you come to very specific conclusions. There is no harm in it, there is no law agains it (thank God for that), but it is remarkable never the less. It is probably best explained by this article how you feel:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/ma...anted=all&_r=0

Originally Posted by RSR

You can say it's a hunch that I believe it should be possible. I've offered one explanation for this belief in my previous post, about the fighter jets.

I'm not aware that there are remote controlled fighters, please do elaborate. I am aware that there are drones. For those of a nerdy disposition here is in interesting anorak fact about those pilots who control those planes remotely. They experience the same levels as stress as pilots sitting in planes going into hostile territories.

I know of a a few cases where former Jet fighters (e.g. phantom F4, F5 have been equipped with remote controlled instrumentation. These fighters were used to tow targets for target practicing. The technology is pretty dated and very very basic.

Originally Posted by RSR

I don't believe "certain" countries could buy such fighter jets if the country where it's manufactured did not have the ability to remotely hijack them (I use the term "hijack" loosely here). It's also common knowledge that military hardware/technology supplied to third countries often comes with some "additional" stuff that the buyer didn't pay for, or want. This has been confirmed by an expert on another forum.

Well it must be true then!! Do share how you validate who is an expert!

Originally Posted by RSR

Some dictators/tyrants around the world are known to have developed a genuine fear of flying, after they assumed that position (I don't blame any phobia for this, since nasty things have frequently happened to such aircraft, or even those which were mistaken for a tyrant/dictator's plane).

I'm amazed, I'm picking up new knowledge on this thread all the time. Please do share these amazing fact. Which have been the top 10 tyrant/dictator planes that have met with these nasty things??? And why isn't that common knowledge?

Originally Posted by RSR

If something is possible on a military aircraft, then it should not be too far fetched to believe it's possible on a commercial airliner.

Well, call me fussy, but I'm not aware of anything happening on military aircraft, other than the fact that we have drones. From drones to remotely controlling commercial airliners we are entering the sphere of not science fiction, but more like complete lunacy.

Originally Posted by RSR

You can call me whatever you want, but I'm not one of those who believe the "official" version of events that happened on September 11. I'm not saying I believe all (or even some) of the aircraft involved were remotely hijacked, but I would not rule out that possibility, however far-fetched it may seem.

Good for you. Which are the parts of the official version you don't believe?? Trust me, I can debunk every single one of them!

Originally Posted by RSR

Given the nature of humans, and the nefarious levels to which governments, government agencies and super-governmental entities can stoop down to, I think one can only guess the extent of their complete capabilities. They are certainly not going to publicise this in their favourite propaganda channels (read as mainstream media).

I agree they probably don't. But then again they always get found out sooner or later. The widely circulated notion that the military don't want to disclose information on what their radars told them is, in my opinion complete and utter nonsense. There are only a few countries in the world that have cutting edge radar technology and none of them are in the region involved, with the possible exceptation of China, of course. Everybody else is just using run of the mill military radars. Nothing special about it whatsoever. So, as far as I'm concerned it is just pretense.

Just like in India where you are not allowed to take photographs at airports or for instance at Leh, Ladakh. It is just the military pretending they have something worthwhile. Whereas everybody knows they haven't got anything special at all. It is all pretense, nothing else. Ego's by sheer lack of funding of new technology.

Originally Posted by RSR

I may not be an expert, but I certainly do not see anything in fly-by-wire technology that would prevent it from being used by a system that could enable remote hijacking.

Do you? If so, why?

I'm no expert either, but I do know a bit about aviation and aircraft systems. I find it remarkable that you make such statements at all. It is really a lack of understanding what it would take to remotely control a 777. None of the onboard systems are even remotely (pardon the pun) designed to take outside commands. Irrespective of how you would actually get access to the relevant systems.

So, no I don't buy the theory that the plane could be remotely hijacked at all. Nor do I believe in a JFK, a 9/11 or a moon hoax conspiracy. At least everything that happened with respect to 9/11 or the moon landing is perfectly scientifically explainable as far as I'm concerned.

Just as an afterthought. I sort of enjoy watching on YouTube Moon Hoax videos', All sorts of people explaining why we did not land on the moon. No offense to anybody, but when you buy into these theories you don't find yourself surrounded by the sharpest minds on the planet I think.

When it comes to this particular incident. I don't think we know any facts really. The one thing I'm convinced off is that from a communication and PR perspective this event will go down in history as the worst managed event ever. Nothing sinister about that as far as I'm concerned. Just hugely incompetent people being paraded in front of the media. I can't even begin to imagine how hard it must be for the families and friends involved.

Jeroen

[Guite]

Originally Posted by RSR

I may not be an expert, but I certainly do not see anything in fly-by-wire technology that would prevent it from being used by a system that could enable remote hijacking.

We are going off topic here but let me budge in anyway and pose a question to you. Kindly refer the schematic diagram posted in post no. 172 in previous page.

How are you absolutely certain that the flight control computer can accept input from remote sources other than the hard wired input from cockpit controls and system sensors? Does the computer has wireless receiver / port that someone can hack into? Like you I am no expert but I doubt the aeroplane designers would put in such a capability. Simply because it will make the plane vulnerable.

[Vid6639]

There is a news article that tries to explain the remote hijacking theory:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014...n_4977688.html

[himavanth_m]

I am not sure if this theory is already shared, but this seems like an interesting argument about the disappearing aeroplane!

http://keithledgerwood.tumblr.com/po...ing-sia68-sq68

[Otomobil]

Originally Posted by himavanth_m

I am not sure if this theory is already shared, but this seems like an interesting argument about the disappearing aeroplane!

http://keithledgerwood.tumblr.com/po...ing-sia68-sq68

Oh my ! His theory seems very convincing, Should this be an actual plan. I would say some one has gone to a great lengths of planning and precise execution.

But come to think of, What would somebody would do with an stolen 777-200ER ?? What's the motive ? I think this will be an expensive mystery to solve.