• MH370 speculation has become excessive recently. Metabunk is not a forum for creating theories by speculation. It's a forum for examining claims, and seeing if they hold up. Please respect this and keep threads on-topic. There are many other forums where speculation is welcome.

Flight MH370 Speculation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Soulfly said:
External Quote:
Why?
or your suggestion is being 'shilled' against by the posters here for nefarious reasons.
I find this just as disturbing since I never said anything of the such nor did I imply it.
Click to expand...
I should address this as I don't like misunderstandings. You are right you weren't implying the 'shill' angle, that was an unfortunate interpretation on my part because I've been reading ATS a little too long - if you had posted that there it would be understood that you would be hinting strongly at some behind the scenes attempt to cover-up or divert inquiry. This is metabunk though and not ATS, so I understand you just find the idea disturbing on a personal level.

I would reiterate that I think you are being disturbed for the wrong reasons and it's an unnecessary response. Especially on this site, anything put forward that has some real-world science-based objection will be pointed out, hence why those more familiar with the on-board systems and protocol (pilots) are pointing out where the idea falls short.

I don't think it implies that pilots object to the general concept. But it's also understandable that pilots need to have all options available to them in case of unforeseen emergencies and taking away that control can be dangerous.
I'm sure there's a work around available with further thought, but it's natural they point out the shortcomings of any proposal first, so no need to be disturbed. And remember this is a highly visible incident in a field where thousands of flights happen everyday without such a problem.
 
Joe said:
I wouldnt want to pay a dime more for a false sense of security . Whats the point of security when the pilots themselves could be the terrorist ? Or the ground crew ? Or through the food suppliers to airports such as Atlanta s Airport ? If you fly you know the risk which is less then traveling to the airport by car . We spend billions a year on TSA for what ? I leave Melborne Fl I have to go through naked body scanner and separate my liquids and take off my shoes . 2 days later I leave Ronald Reagan airport Near DC and just walk through a metal detector as we did in the seventies and Im done ? I only know of 2 kamikaze airline pilots and the only thing they had in common was their religion .
Click to expand...
I take your paranoia and mistrust in anyone who tells you what you have to do with a grain of salt now. Boohoo you had to take your shoes off. Get over it!
 
Joe said:
I wouldnt want to pay a dime more for a false sense of security . Whats the point of security when the pilots themselves could be the terrorist ? Or the ground crew ? Or through the food suppliers to airports such as Atlanta s Airport ? If you fly you know the risk which is less then traveling to the airport by car . We spend billions a year on TSA for what ? I leave Melborne Fl I have to go through naked body scanner and separate my liquids and take off my shoes . 2 days later I leave Ronald Reagan airport Near DC and just walk through a metal detector as we did in the seventies and Im done ? I only know of 2 kamikaze airline pilots and the only thing they had in common was their religion .
Click to expand...

I actually agree. Personal bias maybe, but it always chapped my ass that we (as flight crew) were required to endure the same charade.

Knowing (as I do) about things that i would never write into a public arena.
 
Pete Tar said:
I should address this as I don't like misunderstandings. You are right you weren't implying the 'shill' angle, that was an unfortunate interpretation on my part because I've been reading ATS a little too long - if you had posted that there it would be understood that you would be hinting strongly at some behind the scenes attempt to cover-up or divert inquiry. This is metabunk though and not ATS, so I understand you just find the idea disturbing on a personal level.

I would reiterate that I think you are being disturbed for the wrong reasons and it's an unnecessary response. Especially on this site, anything put forward that has some real-world science-based objection will be pointed out, hence why those more familiar with the on-board systems and protocol (pilots) are pointing out where the idea falls short.

I don't think it implies that pilots object to the general concept. But it's also understandable that pilots need to have all options available to them in case of unforeseen emergencies and taking away that control can be dangerous.
I'm sure there's a work around available with further thought, but it's natural they point out the shortcomings of any proposal first, so no need to be disturbed. And remember this is a highly visible incident in a field where thousands of flights happen everyday without such a problem.
Click to expand...
What I find disturbing is the idea that there is no solution. That it doesn't matter what is implemented because it can just be circumvented by flipping a switch. There should be no excuses why a planes position can not be known with relative ease after this.

Maybe someone with better researching skills can find this out.

How many incidents have happened which required the transponder to be switched off (in flight) as the solution to the problem?
 
WeedWhacker said:
I actually agree. Personal bias maybe, but it always chapped my ass that we (as flight crew) were required to endure the same charade.

Knowing (as I do) about things that i would never write into a public arena.
Click to expand...
Some people get set in their ways and are unable to see past bias. Also disturbing.
 
Soulfly said:
How many incidents have happened which required the transponder to be switched off (in flight) as the solution to the problem?
Click to expand...

'Soulfly', this is somewhat irrelevant since transponders work in the VHF spectrum and are limited to line-of-sight reception. And also, even if they were designed as you ask, then all that would be needed is for someone with an ulterior motive to change the squawk code. A random four-digit code (out of possible 4,000+) wouldn't attract any particular attention, even if it was received by ground radar stations. Of course, there is that probability that a criminal (in theory) could accidentally choose a code that happened to be the same as another that was already assigned, and in the ATC facility's computer system...OR, this same criminal could just squawk a VFR code (1200 or 1400). Etc.

Perhaps you could answer it though?
Click to expand...

Without some research, I can (off top of my head) envision a scenario where an airplane has, say, unreliable airspeed and another airplane is available to fly formation, as a guide. In that case, for ATC convenience, it would be advisable for only one airplane to have a transponder transmitting. This is but one of those "what ifs?" that were mentioned up-thread.
 
Last edited:
WeedWhacker said:
'Soulfly', this is somewhat irrelevant since transponders work in the VHF spectrum and are limited to line-of-sight reception. And also, even if they were designed as you ask, then all that would be needed is for someone with an ulterior motive to change the squawk code. A random four-digit code (out of possible 4,000+) wouldn't attract any particular attention, even if it was received by ground radar stations. Of course, there is that probability that a criminal (in theory) could accidentally choose a code that happened to be the same as another that was already assigned, and in the ATC facility's computer system...OR, this same criminal could just squawk a VFR code (1200 or 1400). Etc.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you could answer it though?
 
Soulfly said:
How many incidents have happened which required the transponder to be switched off (in flight) as the solution to the problem?
Click to expand...
that's what I was going to say. Perhaps people are misunderstanding you/us.

if that one switch which is already there couldn't be shut off (like you said how many fires have started because of it?) as easily, we wouldn't have wasted a week looking in the wrong area. Yes they would have lost the plane tracking as it went out to sea but we would have known where it wasn't.
and the chances of finding the black box or some clue as to what happened (to prevent further mishaps...perhaps [hail] got stuck in the engine and its something that needs to be fixed on all planes... would be greater. Not perfect, just greater.

Yes the people would still be dead. That isn't the point. Or at least put a fake breaker and the real breaker somewhere only a pilot would know about so we could rule out scenarios.
 
If the transponder had not been turned off it is most likely that two weeks would not have been wasted on wild goose chases to figure out the plane flew out into the Indian Ocean. It wouldn't have told us where exactly, but we would have known where to look a lot sooner. Anyone should be able to see that being able to turn off a planes tracking abilities is now a fundamental flaw in safety.
 
deirdre said:
Yes the people would still be dead. That isn't the point. Or at least put a fake breaker and the real breaker somewhere only a pilot would know about so we could rule out scenarios.
Click to expand...
Pilot wants to commit suicide but then changes mind and lands in ocean in attempt to save everyone but weeks go by with no rescue because "oh well we need to be able to turn that off".
 
Soulfly said:
If the transponder had not been turned off it is most likely that two weeks would not have been wasted on wild goose chases
Click to expand...

Again, we cannot really assert this as a "guarantee" either. As mentioned, a random four-digit code that was not assigned within the relevant ATC computer would show up, but be anonymous for all intents. Keeping in mind that as far as radar is concerned (and line-of sight, remember), the countries bordering the oceans and seas in that region have sophisticated radar that doesn't rely on a transponder. But, for their own security and secrecy rules, they don't divulge the extent of their capabilities publicly.
 
WeedWhacker said:
Again, we cannot really assert this as a "guarantee" either. As mentioned, a random four-digit code that was not assigned within the relevant ATC computer would show up, but be anonymous for all intents. Keeping in mind that as far as radar is concerned (and line-of sight, remember), the countries bordering the oceans and seas in that region have sophisticated radar that doesn't rely on a transponder. But, for their own security and secrecy rules, they don't divulge the extent of their capabilities publicly.
Click to expand...
Okay I get it, you want total control. No need to beat the dead horse as you like to say. You know my opinion.
 
Pilot wants to commit suicide but then changes mind and lands in ocean in attempt to save everyone but weeks go by with no rescue because "oh well we need to be able to turn that off"
Click to expand...

No, this isn't logical at all. IF he (as you are just free-thinking here) "changed his mind" and decided to ditch, there are numerous ways to have communicated and made his location known!! SATCOM, for one! The HF radios, on emergency frequencies. VHF on emergency, to any airplane that was in line-of-sight range (much farther for an airborne transmitter than ground-based). Etc.
 
.
WeedWhacker said:
No, this isn't logical at all. IF he (as you are just free-thinking here) "changed his mind" and decided to ditch, there are numerous ways to have communicated and made his location known!! SATCOM, for one! The HF radios, on emergency frequencies. VHF on emergency, to any airplane that was in line-of-sight range (much farther for an airborne transmitter than ground-based). Etc.
Click to expand...
Okay.. just move on...
 
WeedWhacker said:
'Soulfly', this is somewhat irrelevant since transponders work in the VHF spectrum and are limited to line-of-sight reception. And also, even if they were designed as you ask, then all that would be needed is for someone with an ulterior motive to change the squawk code. A random four-digit code (out of possible 4,000+) wouldn't attract any particular attention, even if it was received by ground radar stations. Of course, there is that probability that a criminal (in theory) could accidentally choose a code that happened to be the same as another that was already assigned, and in the ATC facility's computer system...OR, this same criminal could just squawk a VFR code (1200 or 1400). Etc.
Click to expand...
So basically, no one has any idea of where the plane is when its beyond the line of sight radar systems. The position of these planes when flying over the expanses of ocean or uninhabited land are up to the pilot to radio where they are. That doesn't seem very secure, and it obviously requires a great deal of trust.
 
If it would have been known on the first day, go look in the southern Indian Ocean then there is a much greater chance of rescue than, well now. Like I said it wouldn't have told use where exactly but there wouldn't have been time wasted. The transponder going off enabled this plane to go missing.
 
Soulfly said:
If it would have been known on the first day, go look in the southern Indian Ocean then there is a much greater chance of rescue than, well now. Like I said it wouldn't have told use where exactly but there wouldn't have been time wasted. The transponder going off enabled this plane to go missing.
Click to expand...
And that in there lies the truth Soulfly! Malaysia really screwed this one up, and they obviously weren't prepared to do a real investigation. I bet its not uncommon for a lot of nations who don't have the funding or training to not be prepared in this same situation. As someone noted this isn't a "free" government and they try to keep things under wraps. They should've asked for help immediately, and if I remember correctly Fox news was reporting the day after that they got a tip from the CIA that the plan continued on for 4 or so hours, but it was quickly dismissed and in turn they ended up searching the wrong waters. The reaction time of malaysia could've increased the likeliness of us finding the plane as well.
 
Jason said:
The position of these planes when flying over the expanses of ocean or uninhabited land are up to the pilot to radio where they are.
Click to expand...

Yes, although may very well change in future ( and this will no doubt make 'Soulfly' happy ;) ).

I envision the ADS-B technology to allow more surveillance by ATC when the transponders are out of VHF range.

("What's your vector, Victor?" "Oveur, over." "Roger, Roger." "Dunne!"

That doesn't seem very secure, and it obviously requires a great deal of trust.
Click to expand...

It's worked well for many, many decades.
 
WeedWhacker said:
Once any airplane is more that about 200 miles from an ATC radar antenna, turning it off makes little difference.
Click to expand...
But it was determined that the plane made course changes after the transponder was turned off and was still within range of being able to be tracked. The plane turned south and from the maps most likely flew back over land after making those course changes. In this situation the transponder being on would have greatly helped to determine last vector victor.
 
WeedWhacker said:
Yes, although may very well change in future ( and this will no doubt make 'Soulfly' happy ;) ).

I envision the ADS-B technology to allow more surveillance by ATC when the transponders are out of VHF range.

("What's your vector, Victor?" "Oveur, over." "Roger, Roger." "Dunne!"



It's worked well for many, many decades.
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't this make anyone happy? Besides the it will cost money reason!
 
WeedWhacker said:
Oh, I see you didn't understand when I mentioned the 1st time. The code has to be changeable by the flight crew. This is indisputable.
Click to expand...
I understand perfectly.

So you make it so the code can only be changed on the ground and not in flight. Or is that still giving up too much control for you too?

What excuse is there for that?
 
WeedWhacker said:
NO, because it must be changeable in flight, too.
Click to expand...
Could you explain why?

What happens if someone changes the code (in flight) to something they are not supposed to change it to?
Do red flags not pop up that someone has changed a code for some unknown reason?
What would be the advantage for someone doing harm to change the code instead of turning the transponder off?
 
Soulfly said:
I understand perfectly.

So you make it so the code can only be changed on the ground and not in flight. Or is that still giving up too much control for you too?

What excuse is there for that?
Click to expand...

You'd have to change the entire way transponder codes work, and the entire system of how ATC uses and tracks them, re-train all the controllers, and install new equipment in every plane, and retrain the maintenance crews - all for a relatively minor improvement.

It would be like the UK switching which side of the road they drive on, just so fewer French tourists are killed.
 
Soulfly said:
Could you explain why?
Click to expand...

Because there are only 4096 possible codes. They need to be shared amongst the various regions, and all the planes aloft, and the codes must be unique, with no possibility of two planes in the same region having the same code. Different adjacent regions, and different operating environments, will have different sets of codes, so when you go from one region to another, you change to the code they give you.

If you don't do that, there are not enough codes to go around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder_(aviation)#Transponder_codes
 
Soulfly said:
Could you explain why?

What happens if someone changes the code (in flight) to something they are not supposed to change it to?
Do red flags not pop up that someone has changed a code for some unknown reason?
What would be the advantage for someone doing harm to change the code instead of turning the transponder off?
Click to expand...

First and foremost reason to change is pretty mundane --- code duplication. Say a jet is leaving New York for Los Angeles. Assigned a squawk (let's say) 7035. It departs and is airborne enroute. Two hours later, another flight somewhere in the west (could be anywhere) is assigned the same code (these are assigned randomly as part of your IFR clearance). Second flight takes off, headed eastbound. Eventually those two flights may end up being in the same ATC sector, and thus the same code. Therefore, one is asked to change it. This is done by the controllers.

No red flags, unless 7700 is selected. That is an emergency code. 7600 and 7500 are "Loss of communications" (radio) and "Hijacking", respectively. All three cause specific alerts on the radar screens.
 
Mick West said:
You'd have to change the entire way transponder codes work, and the entire system of how ATC uses and tracks them, re-train all the controllers, and install new equipment in every plane, and retrain the maintenance crews - all for a relatively minor improvement.

It would be like the UK switching which side of the road they drive on, just so fewer French tourists are killed.
Click to expand...
My tiff isn't, "is my idea going to work" but that it is a fundamental flaw and should be fixed. What ever that way is a planes position should be tracked. The resistance to that idea is baffling.
 
WeedWhacker said:
First and foremost reason to change is pretty mundane --- code duplication. Say a jet is leaving New York for Los Angeles. Assigned a squawk (let's say) 7035. It departs and is airborne enroute. Two hours later, another flight somewhere in the west (could be anywhere) is assigned the same code (these are assigned randomly as part of your IFR clearance). Second flight takes off, headed eastbound. Eventually those two flights may end up being in the same ATC sector, and thus the same code. Therefore, one is asked to change it. This is done by the controllers.

No red flags, unless 7700 is selected. That is an emergency code. 7600 and 7500 are "Loss of communications" (radio) and "Hijacking", respectively. All three cause specific alerts on the radar screens.
Click to expand...
Is it really that hard to find a way to make it so no two codes are used on the same day?
 
Soulfly said:
Is it really that hard to find a way to make it so no two codes are used on the same day?
Click to expand...

Well, just speaking to the contiguous USA. Take a look at the number of discrete flights per day: (Compare also to Europe.)

External Quote:
On an average day, air traffic controllers handle 28,537 commercial flights (major and regional airlines), 27,178 general aviation flights (private planes), 24,548 air taxi flights (planes for hire), 5,260 military flights and 2,148 air cargo flights (Federal Express, UPS, etc.).
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061207081929AAgwh5P
 
Soulfly said:
Is it really that hard to find a way to make it so no two codes are used on the same day?
Click to expand...

It's impossible, as there are far more planes flying in a day (80,000+ according to WW's source) than there are codes (<4,000 when special uses are removed)

Anecdotally, when I did my long distance solo, just 400 miles, I'm pretty sure I changed codes at least ten times.
http://mickwest.com/flying_lessons/lesson051.htm
 
WeedWhacker said:
Again...IF it could not be turned off, and they just changed the squawk code, then same result.
Click to expand...
WeedWhacker said:
Well, just speaking to the contiguous USA. Take a look at the number of discrete flights per day. Compare also to Europe.

External Quote:
On an average day, air traffic controllers handle 28,537 commercial flights (major and regional airlines), 27,178 general aviation flights (private planes), 24,548 air taxi flights (planes for hire), 5,260 military flights and 2,148 air cargo flights (Federal Express, UPS, etc.).
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061207081929AAgwh5P
Click to expand...
I think the simple answer is to go to a 5 digit code, maybe that would solve the riddle? Or is the xpndr only capable of having 4 digits entered into it at a time
 
WeedWhacker said:
Well, just speaking to the contiguous USA. Take a look at the number of discrete flights per day: (Compare also to Europe.)

External Quote:
On an average day, air traffic controllers handle 28,537 commercial flights (major and regional airlines), 27,178 general aviation flights (private planes), 24,548 air taxi flights (planes for hire), 5,260 military flights and 2,148 air cargo flights (Federal Express, UPS, etc.).
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061207081929AAgwh5P
Click to expand...
Or how about each plane having their own assigned code from day one until the plane is no longer in service. Is something like that possible. Each plane registers with the FAA or who ever to get their Xpnder code, much in the same way we register vehicles. That number stays with them forever, but you would need at least 5 digits to make that possible or even a 6 digit code
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
'Sighting' over the South China Sea (30/11/2024) - Help Identifying
Replies
6
Views
2K
AngusP
A
Kyle Ferriter
US Army 'Fundamentals of Flight' manual
Replies
0
Views
565
Kyle Ferriter
Kyle Ferriter
BoulderRiver
Brazilian UFO Flap of 1986 - "Night of Lights" / "Official UFO Night"
Replies
14
Views
4K
Gaspa
Gaspa
Calter
20 drones were seen over Køge (Denmark)
Replies
24
Views
3K
ThomasH
T
Mick West
Emails From a Pilot Regarding Starlink and Other Objects
Replies
3
Views
4K
Leekster
Leekster

Latest posts

Trending content

Back
Top