5 ms·

It's still my guess that the Air Malaysia flight was hijacked - transponder off, flew away from radar range and landed somewhere - it had a lot of fuel when it

It's still my guess that the Air Malaysia flight was hijacked - transponder off, flew away from radar range and landed somewhere - it had a lot of fuel when it disappeared. But yeah, transponder is just a piece of equipment. Jumbo jets can't really hide from radar, though, and if you're flying low enough to do so, somebody is going to notice.

alexeisadeski3 13y ago
If it were simply hijacked and flown "to the edge of radar range" (whatever that means, given the military vessels tracking it in the area independently of the civil air net), you'd expect to see it fly to the edge of radar range then disappear. But it didn't. The Malay flight disappeared within the radar range of at least two independent radar nets. That can happen if a plane were bombed or disintegrated mid air. Maybe.
- snowwrestler 13y ago
  Can you provide some sources for this information? As far as I've been able to tell, the "radar" that news services keep citing is actually the transponder. I've not seen statements that military or other organizations were actually pinging the aircraft with a radar signal from a fixed or airborne antenna.
  - crazytony 13y ago
    I have to sadly agree that it seems like Malaysia had neither military nor civilian radar watching. Either that or they didn't have it recording. They have made vague statements about military radar but nothing conclusive.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      I thought the vague (or rather clear but soon contradicted) statements about military radar were from Vietnam, which was closer to where contact was lost.
      - crazytony 13y ago
        "What we have done is actually look into the recording on the radar that we have and we realised there is a possibility the aircraft did make a turnback," Rodzali Daud, the Royal Malaysian Air Force chief, told reporters at a news conference. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/09/malaysia-airlines-radar-idUSL3N0M605320140309 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/09/malaysia-airlines-... The problem I have with the above statement is that radar is unambiguous. Either the aircraft turned back, continued on, descended rapidly below radar coverage or broke in to bits. They all have different returns so you can't say "it may have possibly..."
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        > The problem I have with the above statement is that radar is unambiguous. Either the aircraft turned back, continued on, descended rapidly below radar coverage or broke in to bits. They all have different returns so you can't say "it may have possibly..." Thanks for the specific statement. I rather have the impression that, especially under less-than-ideal conditions (range, terrain between radar site and target, weather, etc.) radar is not unambiguous.
        alexeisadeski3 13y ago
        Also, even if it had disintegrated... Yud expect a radar (were there coverage) to pickup some of the larger bits right? Isn't a portion of 777 fuselage larger than other entire aircraft?
        crazytony 13y ago
        None of that applies here. Range at 35,000 feet for primary radar systems is over 100NM (~190km). It was a clear night over open ocean using a country's primary early warning and defense mechanism situated along the coast. The US located the cargo door that departed from UA 811 in 1983 using radar analysis to find the part. They could see a 6meter piece of metal fall from the aircraft at 25,000 feet. 100km off shore.
        snowwrestler 13y ago
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    You're right and I am wrong. Editing my post. Edit: Too much time has passed and I can no longer edit my original post. :(

alexeisadeski3 13y ago

If it were simply hijacked and flown "to the edge of radar range" (whatever that means, given the military vessels tracking it in the area independently of the civil air net), you'd expect to see it fly to the edge of radar range then disappear. But it didn't. The Malay flight disappeared within the radar range of at least two independent radar nets. That can happen if a plane were bombed or disintegrated mid air. Maybe.

snowwrestler 13y ago
Can you provide some sources for this information? As far as I've been able to tell, the "radar" that news services keep citing is actually the transponder. I've not seen statements that military or other organizations were actually pinging the aircraft with a radar signal from a fixed or airborne antenna.
- crazytony 13y ago
  I have to sadly agree that it seems like Malaysia had neither military nor civilian radar watching. Either that or they didn't have it recording. They have made vague statements about military radar but nothing conclusive.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    I thought the vague (or rather clear but soon contradicted) statements about military radar were from Vietnam, which was closer to where contact was lost.
    - crazytony 13y ago
      "What we have done is actually look into the recording on the radar that we have and we realised there is a possibility the aircraft did make a turnback," Rodzali Daud, the Royal Malaysian Air Force chief, told reporters at a news conference. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/09/malaysia-airlines-radar-idUSL3N0M605320140309 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/09/malaysia-airlines-... The problem I have with the above statement is that radar is unambiguous. Either the aircraft turned back, continued on, descended rapidly below radar coverage or broke in to bits. They all have different returns so you can't say "it may have possibly..."
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > The problem I have with the above statement is that radar is unambiguous. Either the aircraft turned back, continued on, descended rapidly below radar coverage or broke in to bits. They all have different returns so you can't say "it may have possibly..." Thanks for the specific statement. I rather have the impression that, especially under less-than-ideal conditions (range, terrain between radar site and target, weather, etc.) radar is not unambiguous.
        alexeisadeski3 13y ago
        Also, even if it had disintegrated... Yud expect a radar (were there coverage) to pickup some of the larger bits right? Isn't a portion of 777 fuselage larger than other entire aircraft?
        crazytony 13y ago
        None of that applies here. Range at 35,000 feet for primary radar systems is over 100NM (~190km). It was a clear night over open ocean using a country's primary early warning and defense mechanism situated along the coast. The US located the cargo door that departed from UA 811 in 1983 using radar analysis to find the part. They could see a 6meter piece of metal fall from the aircraft at 25,000 feet. 100km off shore.
      - snowwrestler 13y ago
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  You're right and I am wrong. Editing my post. Edit: Too much time has passed and I can no longer edit my original post. :(