777 down

[recycled sixtie]

Originally Posted by widebody911

I installed Microsoft Flight Simulator one time; does that mean I'm a on a list now?

If you are a pilot carrying a laptop computer and travelling as a passenger then I would think that you get extra scrutiny which is a good thing. Travelling since 911 has not been easy and likely it is going to get harder...
G.

[widgeon13]

I was with a fellow last night who mentioned the pressure control system in a triple 7 is fully automatic. Not sure if the is an override.

There was also a NYtimes article yesterday that recommended that transponders should not be allowed to be turned off and this would have allowed for better tracking. I'd be interested in the comments of cashflyer and the other pros.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/opinion/out-of-control.html?_r=0&referrer=

[onewhippedpuppy]

There's a constant battle in aerospace between pilot control and automation. The pilot camp wants total control so they can conduct fault isolation, shut down individual systems, and because they all think they are better than computers. Designers and engineers want automation because it removes the human link from the system, allows them to optimize operations, and because they're geeks and like designing cool stuff. Typically the end result is some variety of compromise between the two camps, often times you end up with an automated system that can be disabled and a manual backup for redundancy.

[widgeon13]

Would NOT turning off the transponder made any difference?

[Sunroof]

Figures!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ossiblue]

Originally Posted by widgeon13

I was with a fellow last night who mentioned the pressure control system in a triple 7 is fully automatic. Not sure if the is an override.

There was also a NYtimes article yesterday that recommended that transponders should not be allowed to be turned off and this would have allowed for better tracking. I'd be interested in the comments of cashflyer and the other pros.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/opinion/out-of-control.html?_r=0&referrer=

The most logical argument I've heard as to why the transponders can be turned off came from a commercial airline pilot. He stated that the transponder is turned off as soon as the plane lands and taxis to the terminal because it is unnecessary and it removes the signals from the tower radar, cleaning up the "clutter". As a layperson, that made sense to me. I could not imagine the screens of the controllers with all the flying traffic plus all the ground traffic broadcasting information to their screens.

As far as the post about the competition between engineers and pilots, another commercial pilot voiced that exact sentiment. Essentially he said he would not want anything in the cockpit that he couldn't disable or turn off.

[LakeCleElum]

My wife thinks this is the gospel:

A Startlingly Simple Theory About the Missing Malaysia Airlines Jet | Autopia | Wired.com

I don't buy it myself......

[MarkRobinson]

it could be that simple, won't know until the plane is found

[intakexhaust]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

There's a constant battle in aerospace between pilot control and automation. The pilot camp wants total control so they can conduct fault isolation, shut down individual systems, and because they all think they are better than computers. Designers and engineers want automation because it removes the human link from the system, allows them to optimize operations, and because they're geeks and like designing cool stuff. Typically the end result is some variety of compromise between the two camps, often times you end up with an automated system that can be disabled and a manual backup for redundancy.

Add the argument why the pilots Union DO NOT WANT recording cams. The technology is there but nope, ain't gonna happen.... no ones business to know what else might be going on....

[intakexhaust]

Where's that link about powdered magnesium and chemically explosive clothing / puffy jackets? Passes undetected thru screening. Scary stuff.

[ossiblue]

Originally Posted by widgeon13

Would NOT turning off the transponder made any difference?

Absolutely.

If all else remained the same, the transponder would still show the plane on ATC radar. The turn would be seen on ATC radar in Malaysia and Vietnam. Contact would try to be made. When that failed, surrounding countries would be notified that a plane was flying off course and not responding and to look for it and track it. Planes would be sent up to find the airliner and try to figure what's going on. Basically, the plane would not be missing and it's fate would be known. It might even have to have been shot down and we'd have a completely different mess to deal with.

[cashflyer]

Originally Posted by ossiblue

He stated that the transponder is turned off as soon as the plane lands and taxis to the terminal because it is unnecessary and it removes the signals from the tower radar, cleaning up the "clutter".

This is not in keeping with FAA guidance found in the Aeronautical Information Manual. According to the AIM, transponders should be on, in normal altitude reporting mode (not in standby) any time the aircraft is moving so that ATC can be alert to it's position and keep other aircraft clear when clearing aircraft on taxiways, to terminals, etc.

[yel911]

Courtney Love found it!!

[ossiblue]

Originally Posted by cashflyer

This is not in keeping with FAA guidance found in the Aeronautical Information Manual. According to the AIM, transponders should be on, in normal altitude reporting mode (not in standby) any time the aircraft is moving so that ATC can be alert to it's position and keep other aircraft clear when clearing aircraft on taxiways, to terminals, etc.

Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps I misunderstood the part about taxing. Regardless, his comment about turning it off when it was no longer needed made sense and addressed the question about why the pilot was able to turn it off.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by yel911

Courtney Love found it!!

Now that I know she is on the case, I'm confident we will find an answer.

[widgeon13]

Originally Posted by ossiblue

Absolutely.

If all else remained the same, the transponder would still show the plane on ATC radar. The turn would be seen on ATC radar in Malaysia and Vietnam. Contact would try to be made. When that failed, surrounding countries would be notified that a plane was flying off course and not responding and to look for it and track it. Planes would be sent up to find the airliner and try to figure what's going on. Basically, the plane would not be missing and it's fate would be known. It might even have to have been shot down and we'd have a completely different mess to deal with.

So it still marks on ATC radar just doesn't show the speed, altitude and ID. That is my understanding.

[ossiblue]

One of the biggest problems is all theories are built upon very little data that is indisputable and most of the complex theories are built on data that has been produced by human interpretation.

One of the major criticisms of the posted "Startling simple" theory is that the plane took a zig-zag course to the northwest, once it crossed the Malay peninsula. This is where I, personally, become a bit cautious--I don't trust the zig-zag course as being true. I have found inconsistent reports as to when the Malaysian military radar lost contact--some report before the northwest turn, some near the end of the zig-zag turns. In any case, I've been unable to determine the source of the zig-zag turns other than a often repeated report by Rueters and they are not clear on how solid the report is.

The signals were at the outer limits of Malaysian radar and understanding their meaning is an art as much as a science. The newly released Thai radar reports, which support the flight westward over Malaysia, also claim the signals from the plane were blinking--going off and on. That only tells me the signals are, at best, rudimentary and details derived from them are open to question. I would assume the signals from Malaysian radar would be similarly questionable.

Same with the rapid climb in altitude to 4500 feet and the rapid descent. Questionable. The engine data which seems to show a 40000 foot drop in one minute, questionable.

Yes, it's all we have but we must keep in mind every theory is build on a house of cards and the more complex conspiracies are built on a Empire State Building of cards.

We all have to remember this: There never has been a disappearance where there are no solid clues as to where the plane went down. Even Amelia Earhart's last known position was within an area much smaller than the one now being considered. We're looking at nearly 3million square miles. Air France search area was about 5000 square miles and took two years to find the wreckage. In all other disappearances, there was a general area in which to begin to look. In this case, no one knows even where to begin.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by yel911

Courtney Love found it!!

I love these idiots who think that Google Earth is real time...

[ossiblue]

Originally Posted by widgeon13

So it still marks on ATC radar just doesn't show the speed, altitude and ID. That is my understanding.

Don't know about the speed, altitude but I'm sure the transponder does show the ID. Anyway, if the the plane is still marked on ATC radar by the transponder, it would not be lost and the scenario I posted would, I assume, transpire in some fashion.

[widgeon13]

Originally Posted by ossiblue

Don't know about the speed, altitude but I'm sure the transponder does show the ID. Anyway, if the the plane is still marked on ATC radar by the transponder, it would not be lost and the scenario I posted would, I assume, transpire is some fashion.

Got it, thanks.