Malaysia Airlines 'loses contact with plane' (and search effort updates)

[Praetor]

Could someone explain how a transponder, being switched off, overrides civilian radar's ability to detect a large aircraft?   It seems it's disappearance from radar doesn't automatically mean it plummeted or disintegrated, and now many believe it just went on, quietly.  Is civilian radar oblivious to non-transponder equipment objects? How can that be safe?

 

there's many reasons why this could happen: in the position where the transponder was turned off (there's some possible explanations for this happening, with either malicious intents and not) there was no primary radar, it's in the middle of the open sea and out of range; also ADS-B went dark at the same time as the transponder.

[Praetor]

I'm of the same opinion as you. Without facts, we may as well pull theories out of a hat. With uncertainty over the aircraft's direction and duration of travel, there is a vast area to cover to find a relatively small amount of wreckage. It is a needle in a proverbial haystack. I don't know much about the 777 systems, but there may be an electrical fault that could have disabled the transponder, ACARS and VHF/HF comms. Many things, such as avionics fires, can cause unusual effects with regards to electronics. Some fault in the wiring could have short circuited some systems. I don't know. The time lag between the loss of ACARS and the loss of transponder is unusual, true, but could be explained by a wiring fault, causing the loss of the initial system, followed by a fire a short time later. This is all total speculation. I have no idea about the 777 systems and how they interact, but coming from an almost entirely electronic aircraft, I know how messy those systems can be.

 

 

thanks for the informative post; the only sure thing this whole situation brought so far is the unreliability and fragility of the various systems in place; we as passengers trust in the whole premise (planes, aircontrol, safety regulations, etc.) as the most safe and reliable as possible, but right now this scenario showed that a 777 can be more stealthy then a F-22 Raptor.

[mudslag]

I'm of the same opinion as you. Without facts, we may as well pull theories out of a hat. With uncertainty over the aircraft's direction and duration of travel, there is a vast area to cover to find a relatively small amount of wreckage. It is a needle in a proverbial haystack. I don't know much about the 777 systems, but there may be an electrical fault that could have disabled the transponder, ACARS and VHF/HF comms. Many things, such as avionics fires, can cause unusual effects with regards to electronics. Some fault in the wiring could have short circuited some systems. I don't know. The time lag between the loss of ACARS and the loss of transponder is unusual, true, but could be explained by a wiring fault, causing the loss of the initial system, followed by a fire a short time later. This is all total speculation. I have no idea about the 777 systems and how they interact, but coming from an almost entirely electronic aircraft, I know how messy those systems can be.

One thing I will say regards terrorism from either passengers or pilots. A pilot will know how to disable ACARS, but an untrained passenger will not. ACARS disappeared before the transponder. Now the transponder can be turned off with ease and anybody who has played flight sim or had a trial lesson in a Cessna will know how to do this. Most people with an interest in aviation will also know how important the transponder is to tracking, but not too many people have heard of an ACARS. So, I ask: if a passenger terrorist took over the aircraft, how did they know that they needed to disable ACARS, and how to do so, but they forgot about the transponder of nearly fifteen minutes? if a pilot terrorist took the aircraft, why did they wait so long to disable the transponder when that is far more useful for providing tracking information? Perhaps there is a different reason the ACARS was the first system targeted to switch off, but I find it odd. So while I'm once again stating that I have literally no idea whatsoever what caused this incident and won't profess to do so until the investigative teams provide their findings, I will say that the degradation in communication from the various systems on board the aircraft are not necessarily indicative of terrorism. I'm not saying it isn't terrorism, just that it's not usually useful to jump to conclusions until the facts are in.

Oh dear! That was actually a good, subtle pun which I didn't notice immediately. Thanks!

Imagine you are in a dark room and you throw a glass of water in a wide arc around you to see if anybody, or anything, is around you (in this scenario, you are in need of fetching a mop and bucket afterwards). Now, some of that water might splash back onto you, and this will tell you that there's something there, but it won't tell you a huge amount except for the general size of the object based on how much water gets splashed back. But imagine that you splashed another person who had orders that, were he splashed, he would splash you back in the same direction with a type of liquid specific to them. This would tell you that there is a person there and also who it is, based on the liquid. Presumably everyone has a towel handy.

Transponders work in to similar way. When a primary radar hits an aircraft, or any object, that radio wave will reflect off of the skin of the aircraft and back to the transmitter on the ground. In the scenario above, the splashback. This gives the radar operator information about bearing and distance, but to receive a more detailed response which includes a unique identifier the transponder operates a secondary surveillance radar - a transmitted signal that sends this information to the ground station upon interrogation by a primary radar. In other words, when the radar on the ground pings the aircraft, the aircraft pings it back with its name and altitude. With the transponder off, the return signal is fully dependant on the strength of the return (which will be less than that of a signal sent from the SSR) and loses quite a bit of information if it does get received.

 

 

 

What I want to know is why is there even an option to turn off those systems in the first place? In this day and age of technology there should be a system that can track all commercial airliners and/or communicate back to the ground every sec they are in flight. 

[The Evil Overlord]

What I want to know is why is there even an option to turn off those systems in the first place? In this day and age of technology there should be a system that can track all commercial airliners and/or communicate back to the ground every sec they are in flight. 

Only a guess, but probably for quick removal/replacement if the part was to become defective in some way

[Praetor]

What I want to know is why is there even an option to turn off those systems in the first place? In this day and age of technology there should be a system that can track all commercial airliners and/or communicate back to the ground every sec they are in flight. 

 

Not all can be disabled. Also they can be disabled for maintenance or in standby because are sending false data.

[bonalste]

What I want to know is why is there even an option to turn off those systems in the first place? In this day and age of technology there should be a system that can track all commercial airliners and/or communicate back to the ground every sec they are in flight.

There's quite a few, but the major one that will hopefully convince you is the ability to isolate the equipment in the case of an avionics fire. Electrical equipment can break and this can lead to fire - a truly horrific thing to have to deal with on an aircraft. By isolating equipment (turning it off) you can mitigate the cause of many possible fires. It's the first non-immediate action to take in the case of an avionics fire.

Other reasons include:

spurious warnings and bad information that is at best distracting, at worst misinforming, either of which can lead to a crash

The avoidance of clutter on the ground at busy airports (this is why the ability to turn off the transponder is so accessible - it is turned off on every single flight upon reaching the gate, so that it doesn't clutter the ground radar for the ground controllers)

A malfunctioning piece of equipment may need to be recycled... turned off and on again. This is how the majority of aircraft issues are resolved, you'll be pleased (maybe) to know

I've had to recycle my transponder and my ACARS more than any other piece of equipment due to them malfunctioning.

There are others, but I can't think of them off the top of my head. Basically, you want the pilots to have the facility for total control over the aircraft and all of its systems. The computers go screwy fairly regularly (comparatively) and it's only the pilot's intervention that stops unfortunate events from happening. One of my most recent flights, I had to take control from the aircraft after the computer misinterpreted the ILS signal and pointed us in the wrong direction - something you don't want to happen when you are low-level landing in the Alps. You don't want to lose the human factor. Machines are fallible. So are humans. Ideally you've got a couple of each in your flight deck to keep each other in check.

[mudslag]

There's quite a few, but the major one that will hopefully convince you is the ability to isolate the equipment in the case of an avionics fire. Electrical equipment can break and this can lead to fire - a truly horrific thing to have to deal with on an aircraft. By isolating equipment (turning it off) you can mitigate the cause of many possible fires. It's the first non-immediate action to take in the case of an avionics fire.

Other reasons include:

spurious warnings and bad information that is at best distracting, at worst misinforming, either of which can lead to a crash

The avoidance of clutter on the ground at busy airports (this is why the ability to turn off the transponder is so accessible - it is turned off on every single flight upon reaching the gate, so that it doesn't clutter the ground radar for the ground controllers)

A malfunctioning piece of equipment may need to be recycled... turned off and on again. This is how the majority of aircraft issues are resolved, you'll be pleased (maybe) to know

I've had to recycle my transponder and my ACARS more than any other piece of equipment due to them malfunctioning.

There are others, but I can't think of them off the top of my head. Basically, you want the pilots to have the facility for total control over the aircraft and all of its systems. The computers go screwy fairly regularly (comparatively) and it's only the pilot's intervention that stops unfortunate events from happening. One of my most recent flights, I had to take control from the aircraft after the computer misinterpreted the ILS signal and pointed us in the wrong direction - something you don't want to happen when you are low-level landing in the Alps. You don't want to lose the human factor. Machines are fallible. So are humans. Ideally you've got a couple of each in your flight deck to keep each other in check.

 

 

Just from an outsiders POV it seems that in this technological age, we should be able to do many of those things without the risk of what we are facing with this current situation. Such as the ability to have those systems turn on/off automatically when needing recycled, maintenance and what not, specially if its on the ground. Also maybe have an auto on/off feature when it's on approach/takeoff, like a dead zone around the airports as to not interfere with the tower and other planes. I understand the concerns with having so many systems open to a domino effect during a fire, it just seems the tech could be made available to prevent situations such as the loss of this plane. Maybe completely isolate the transponder into a self contained unit that's effectively secure from fire as well as preventing the option to turn off, at least during flight. 

[Praetor]

Just from an outsiders POV it seems that in this technological age, we should be able to do many of those things without the risk of what we are facing with this current situation. Such as the ability to have those systems turn on/off automatically when needing recycled, maintenance and what not, specially if its on the ground. Also maybe have an auto on/off feature when it's on approach/takeoff, like a dead zone around the airports as to not interfere with the tower and other planes. I understand the concerns with having so many systems open to a domino effect during a fire, it just seems the tech could be made available to prevent situations such as the loss of this plane. Maybe completely isolate the transponder into a self contained unit that's effectively secure from fire as well as preventing the option to turn off, at least during flight. 

 

unfortunately an airplane is not like a car or a computer; it's much more complex than that, it's bound to very strict regulation and the electronics must operate in very hash conditions. So no, it's not an easy (and cheap) task and since the budget cuts in the airliners are happening everyday it's no wonder some stuff gets slipped away.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

unfortunately an airplane is not like a car or a computer; it's much more complex than that, it's bound to very strict regulation and the electronics must operate in very hash conditions. So no, it's not an easy (and cheap) task and since the budget cuts in the airliners are happening everyday it's no wonder some stuff gets slipped away.

On top of that introducing unneeded complexity into any system is a bad idea. A nice example of that is the Toyota overflow bug that resulted in vehicle acceleration (due to corrupting the stack). Suddenly, the system is automated, malfunctioning at the software level, and you can't flip the switch! What do you do? It could be as trivial as just temporary loss of equipment usage or serious like the plane thinks it is about to crash and force pulls you up forever and ever (assuming some automated system that you couldn't turn off that would force it upon you).

[+Anarkii Subscriber²]

Has the ABC came out and admitted that this is all promotion for the new reboot of LOST yet or what?
 

[Raa]

Has the ABC came out and admitted that this is all promotion for the new reboot of LOST yet or what?

 

Too soon.

[+Anarkii Subscriber²]

Too soon.

Never, its been longer then 10 minutes. 

Also, this:

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/malaysia-confirms-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-was-hijacked/story-fnizu68q-1226855485378

[blerk]

We are talking about long haul flights, here in the UK, lorry drivers aren't allowed to drive for a certain amount of hours without taking a rest/sleep. Now picture a pilot on a 14 hour flight, are you telling me that it's honestly safer to force a sleep deprived pilot to stay awake rather than let the co-pilot (and aren't there 3 flight officers?) keep an eye on things whilst he has a sleep?

 

Keeping in mind that the vast majority of all flights are done on auto pilot anyway?

 

Here is a study done in 2010 on the "quality" of pilots sleep and how this person was recommending airlines did more to help pilots sleep.

 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00140139.2010.506246#.UyMUHPl_t8E 

 

You'd be surprised at the sleep arrangements of pilots. Talking to some captains of a few major legacy (i.e. not low-cost) western airlines, they really don't like their sleep arrangements. It's not unheard of for crew members to sleep in a wardrobe upright, with some pillows and a blanket!

 

A common phrase I hear is (as you alluded to) something along the lines of "It's illegal for lorry drivers in the UK to work the hours we do!"

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

Never, its been longer then 10 minutes. 

Also, this:

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/malaysia-confirms-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-was-hijacked/story-fnizu68q-1226855485378

fwiw, I find your flippancy amusing, but then I do like black humor in general. Let's hope everyone is safe somewhere given the developments (and that Malaysia isn't wrong...).

[bonalste]

Well the Malaysian PM has said it's a deliberate act, which really is interesting. I don't think such a high-profile figure would say that unless they knew some specific information beyond what we know. This really is fascinating. I'm looking forward to reading the accident report. If hijacking is the case, and it sounds like it is if the BBC are reporting it, I really do feel for those passengers.

I understand the concerns with having so many systems open to a domino effect during a fire, it just seems the tech could be made available to prevent situations such as the loss of this plane. Maybe completely isolate the transponder into a self contained unit that's effectively secure from fire as well as preventing the option to turn off, at least during flight.

But then you'd have to do this for every piece of equipment, not just the transponder, including all wiring. It would add huge amounts of weight and really be unnecessarily restrictive. But the major issue with this is that, if I read what you've written correctly, you're suggesting that fire is made so it can't spread between equipment rather than turning any burning equipment off, which would mean the pilots sitting there with a fire churning out smoke and flame for the duration it took for the equipment to burn out. I find that very much backwards.

What you also should remember is the risk factor. The risk of something happening like the incident ongoing at the moment is one in.... many, as this is the first time it has happened. The risk of an avionics fire is still small, but so far has happened far more frequently than terrorists turning off the transponder.

What you should question is many airline's open-door policy. My airline doesn't have such a policy - I'm locked in tight behind a grenade-proof door, which is only opened when I need the toilet. 9/11 changed that for us. It's still common, though, for all over the world to operate with their flight deck doors unlocked or even fully open. I don't understand this as it's an easy change that could do a lot to prevent somebody hijacking an aircraft. That's if it was passengers that took it. If it was the pilot, there's not much you can do. Hell, a pilot just needs to flick his wrist on take-off to cause an accident, so you have to trust that your psychological exams, references and interviews are good enough that you don't get a lunatic at the helm.

[articuno1au]

thanks for the informative post; the only sure thing this whole situation brought so far is the unreliability and fragility of the various systems in place; we as passengers trust in the whole premise (planes, aircontrol, safety regulations, etc.) as the most safe and reliable as possible, but right now this scenario showed that a 777 can be more stealthy then a F-22 Raptor.

Not at all, it's just that military radar and civilian radar are designed to do two very different things.

 

Civilian radar is designed to track designated objects (that is, airliners) with information being provided by the aircraft themselves. Think of a civilian radar system as being primarily an honour code thing. Planes announce where and who they are. It's designed to help with management, not deal with shenanigans.

 

Military radar presumes everybody is a #### stick, and treats everyone like so. It can identify that something is there, but not what (unless it's an airplane broadcasting its info with a transponder).

 

To keep in line with Bonalste's description, civilian radar is like throwing a glass of water and waiting to see what splashes back (in a small area) and who else throws back. Military radar is like having a fire hose, it's designed to get a serious splash back.

The reason the 777 got through so nicely (assuming it actually did) is that it was between the reach of the various fire hoses in the area, and they military radar only got slight bounces back. Further, the 777 had stopped throwing it's own water about, and thus civilian radar couldn't see it.

 

F-22's are more like shields.. They bounces the water off in random directions. Way more stealthy.

 

EDIT:: I'm aware you might not have been serious. Just expanding on the concept :)

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

Seriously, what the crap at this point:  

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10699933/Missing-Malaysia-Airlines-flight-MH370-investigator-denies-claim-plane-was-hijacked.html

 

So the Prime Minister was incorrect?...

:dontgetit:

 

EDIT: it has been awhile now. How are they still giving out conflicting information at this point? It's understandable in the early days of an investigation, but at this point I don't get it...

[Hum]

Sorry, I've been lurking on these forums for a little bit but felt compelled to register to make this point. Pilots get a lot of flak (such as the myth that someone said earlier about 90% of accidents being caused by pilot error - a mixture of fabrication, exaggeration and lack of understanding of event chains and aircraft and crew dynamics) and much of it is unwarranted. Tell me, would you rather your loved ones were flying on an aircraft where two competent crew were well rested because of realistic sleeping regulations, or where both pilots were exhausted because neither was prepared to risk being grounded by admitting it?

Welcome aboard Neowin.

 

Thank you for your informative posts.

 

Yes, I would rather have a pilot take a catnap, when it is safe to do so. ;)

[bonalste]

Well there's lots of conflicting information. For one, that article says that the transponder was turned off before the ACARS, but an earlier report stated that the ACARS/ads-b was turned off 14 minutes before the transponder. I find it worrying, however, that the Malaysian PM would categorically state that investigators say it was certainly a hijacking without having the investigator's agree to this. Why lie? All the more reason for me to stick to what I said earlier - wait for the investigators to say what happened and ignore the politicians and news reporters.

[jasondefaoite]

What they said was someone with flight skills/knowledge commandered the plane. They were specific not to mention the word hijack. Now, to be honest, both have the same meaning to me, but I'm sure there is a subtle difference between the two.

 

Remember they said reports of engine data being received for 4 hours after communciation was lost from the plane was ... "incorrect". Fine, it wasn't engine data, but there was some communication from the plane for 4 hours+ (now it appears to be 7 hours). So they were correct to say it was "incorrect" but they should have explained more yesterday (I'm sure they already knew).

[Hum]

"flyingwithfish" twitter feed, estimate of flight 370 landing location:

 

https://twitter.com/flyingwithfish

[JJ_]

Google maps puts that last way point inside Iran, Isfahan specifically:

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@24.3362325,70.9525826,4z

 

If it is to believed, surely the flight would have been picked up on radar by at least a few of the countries it flew over?

[Richteralan]

After almost a week, this flight "missing" is very very fishy. All these communications and info really don't add up to a simple mechanical/electrical failure.

[Chris123NT]

Google maps puts that last way point inside Iran, Isfahan specifically:

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@24.3362325,70.9525826,4z

 

If it is to believed, surely the flight would have been picked up on radar by at least a few of the countries it flew over?

Not necessarily, the radar over there isn't nearly as sophisticated as the radar systems we have in the west.  It's entirely possible that India, Pakistan et al would have completely missed it if they weren't looking for it.  Hell even Afghanistan probably missed it and there's US bases all over that country.

 

Plus if that trajectory is to be believed, you can clearly see that they very carefully avoided flying over Afghani airspace.

[Hum]

Google maps puts that last way point inside Iran, Isfahan specifically:

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@24.3362325,70.9525826,4z

 

If it is to believed, surely the flight would have been picked up on radar by at least a few of the countries it flew over?

 

 

Iran's nuclear facilities are located just beyond the outskirts of Esfahan/Isfahan.

 

There is a strategy of 'shadowing'.

 

The stolen aircraft flies above a ligit plane in flight, and masks the other from radar.