• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

MH370 flew as low as 1,500m to avoid detection, says paper

WCH

WCH

Believer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
31,009
Reaction score
9,029
Location
The Lone Star State.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
MH370 flew as low as 1,500m to avoid detection, says paper

As the search for the missing flight MH370 enters its 10th day with few clues as to its whereabouts, the New Straits Times said today the Boeing 777-200ER dropped 5,000 feet (1,500m) to evade commercial radar detection.

In an exclusive story, the government-backed paper said investigators analysing MH370’s flight data revealed that the 200-tonne, fully laden twinjet descended 1,500m or even lower to evade commercial (secondary) radar coverage after it turned back from its flight path en route to Beijing.

The Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200ER (9M-MRO) disappeared on March 8 with 239 people on board. Malaysian authorities said on Saturday the plane was deliberately diverted and its on-board transmission devices switched off to avoid detection.

Its last contact was at 8.11am north of the Strait of Malacca.


Further indication it was taken.
 
If it did that then the search range would be even smaller.
 
I'm still wondering why if the military saw this plane, they didn't send up jets to follow it?
 
WCH said:
I'm still wondering why if the military saw this plane, they didn't send up jets to follow it?
Click to expand...
Having been there a few times, I can say that Malaysia has a pretty shoddy military, Thailand's isnt that great either. Since they arent on a war footing Im pretty sure whatever they see on their radar (if in fact they did see it) they would probably just pretend it was some glitch or something and not even care. The only high tech military in that region is Singapore's (and they are pretty small) and China (too far).
 
They have their own WTC in the Petronas Towers, so it should have rung alarms if only because there was an unidentified plane on the radar.
 
Manc Skipper said:
They have their own WTC in the Petronas Towers, so it should have rung alarms if only because there was an unidentified plane on the radar.
Click to expand...

Heck maybe the Malaysian military shot down the plane and just don't want to admit it, far more plausible than some of the crazy CT's out there.
 
I'm not buying any of this - none of it adds up, IMHO. And they keep changing the 'evidence they have' and so forth. Maybe it's all the fault of jump-to-conclusion journalists but I don't think anything is 'fact' or 'official'

It's all political tango bruhaha BS and false conclusions.
 
If you can commandeer a ship and get it to Somalia, you can get ransom. If you commandeer an Aircraft, can you take that to Somalia. What is the range of the 777 and would Somalia be possible with the known fuel load? Kidnap and ransom. People and plane.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I'm not buying any of this - none of it adds up, IMHO. And they keep changing the 'evidence they have' and so forth. Maybe it's all the fault of jump-to-conclusion journalists but I don't think anything is 'fact' or 'official'

It's all political tango bruhaha BS and false conclusions.
Click to expand...
Totally agree, the Malaysians have been pretty undependable when it comes to information since they keep changing their story. I dont believe a word they say anymore.

The Daily Mail has speculated that since the main pilot is a fanatical supporter of Malaysian political dissident Anwar Ibrahim perhaps he hijacked his own plane as a sign of protest against the Malaysian government. It sounds plausible since he is one known expert on flying the Boeing 777. Seems his family moved out of his house the day before the flight.

'Fanatical' missing Malaysia Airlines plane pilot pictured wearing political T-shirt | Mail Online
 
WCH said:
MH370 flew as low as 1,500m to avoid detection, says paper

As the search for the missing flight MH370 enters its 10th day with few clues as to its whereabouts, the New Straits Times said today the Boeing 777-200ER dropped 5,000 feet (1,500m) to evade commercial radar detection.

In an exclusive story, the government-backed paper said investigators analysing MH370’s flight data revealed that the 200-tonne, fully laden twinjet descended 1,500m or even lower to evade commercial (secondary) radar coverage after it turned back from its flight path en route to Beijing.

The Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200ER (9M-MRO) disappeared on March 8 with 239 people on board. Malaysian authorities said on Saturday the plane was deliberately diverted and its on-board transmission devices switched off to avoid detection.

Its last contact was at 8.11am north of the Strait of Malacca.


Further indication it was taken.
Click to expand...


Did it descend to 5000ft or did it descend by 5000ft? Those are totally different things.

Also, saying that it descended "to evade commercial radar" is complete conjecture at this point.
 
Mithros said:
Did it descend to 5000ft or did it descend by 5000ft? Those are totally different things.

Also, saying that it descended "to evade commercial radar" is complete conjecture at this point.
Click to expand...
"Flew as low as" means they were a little less than 5000 ft off the terrain.
 
WCH said:
"Flew as low as" means they were a little less than 5000 ft off the terrain.
Click to expand...

That's the headline, but there's nothing in the article to support that. Reporters don't write their own headlines so it's usually a bad idea to stop reading there. But even then, the article is pretty muddy. In this day and age, you should treat every article with more than a few grains of salt.

just a few points
1). Accurate reports have been few and far between on this story.
2). Early reports had the plane flying at 35,000 ft when it lost contact, turning almost 360 and dropping to 29,500. That's a drop of about 5000ft.
3). It seems strange to claim to have radar tracks of a plane that allegedly avoided radar contact. If you had a track that was good enough to pick up a heavy at 5000ft, then why don't you know where the plane is? Also, how do you know that the plane was attempting to avoid radar contact? And better yet, why didn't you do anything about it?
4). Contour following doesn't stress an aircraft when it's over water unless it's sucking in salt water.
5). Someone would have seen or heard a 250 ton aircraft flying over land at 5000ft.

This story might pan out. But my guess is that it's a mistaken headline.
 
Mithros said:
That's the headline, but there's nothing in the article to support that. Reporters don't write their own headlines so it's usually a bad idea to stop reading there. But even then, the article is pretty muddy. In this day and age, you should treat every article with more than a few grains of salt.

just a few points
1). Accurate reports have been few and far between on this story.
2). Early reports had the plane flying at 35,000 ft when it lost contact, turning almost 360 and dropping to 29,500. That's a drop of about 5000ft.
3). It seems strange to claim to have radar tracks of a plane that allegedly avoided radar contact. If you had a track that was good enough to pick up a heavy at 5000ft, then why don't you know where the plane is? Also, how do you know that the plane was attempting to avoid radar contact? And better yet, why didn't you do anything about it?
4). Contour following doesn't stress an aircraft when it's over water unless it's sucking in salt water.
5). Someone would have seen or heard a 250 ton aircraft flying over land at 5000ft.

This story might pan out. But my guess is that it's a mistaken headline.
Click to expand...

Here a bit more ingredients for the steaming pot.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-flight.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0
 
WCH said:
Here a bit more ingredients for the steaming pot.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-flight.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0
Click to expand...

I think that's a safe fact. Someone who knew what they were doing altered course using the plane's on board systems.

IMO that means that the most likely scenario is a complex set of cascading failures that the pilots partially responded to before being incapacitated.

Eg.. crew O2 bottle lets loose, flying into the comms closet and creating a slow depressurization/fire. Pilot/Copilot are already under the effects of the loss of O2 when they notice that there is a problem. This is like trying to respond to an emergency when you are extremely drunk. They try the comms, and find they don’t work. By habit the pilot sets the transponder to standby while dialling an emergency squawk. (Some pilots do this when changing squawks to avoid accidentally cycling through emergency codes) The near incapacitated pilot now realizes what is happening an immediately tries to set a new course back to the nearest airport and breathable air; forgetting to turn the transponder back on in the process. Unfortunately the pilot typed in a course that didn't drop below 10,000 before passing out. The plane flew this mistyped course on autopilot before running out of fuel somewhere in the middle of the Indian Ocean. The plane then nosed over and plunged into the water at high speed, leaving very little debris.

The plane's flight path may also be explained by an autopilot off, no one at the helm scenario.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/16/opinion/palmer-malaysia-flight-370/
 
Last edited:
Do we have any Pilots here at DP? We should have a few Military Pilots.....Right.

Has any asked about all the tracking in the area with those who have flown in and around there?
 
MMC said:
Do we have any Pilots here at DP? We should have a few Military Pilots.....Right.

Has any asked about all the tracking in the area with those who have flown in and around there?
Click to expand...

There isn't much in the way of tracking over the ocean in terms of RADAR, turn off the transponder and even less.
 
I think people are giving radar too much credit in this situation. Ground based radar would not be tracking a plane over open ocean, and I wouldn't expect Thailand or Malaysia to have a robust enough civil defense radar to catch every plane passing over the country. Satellites aren't capable either of tracking a plane in the way most people think.

It's funny in a way, because people trust modern technology so completely that CNN host Don Lemon, when confronted with the notion that the plane "disappeared" from surveillance, thought it a good time to broach the idea that maybe something supernatural had taken place.

No Don, it's just that radar and satellites are not as omniscient as you believe.
 
Quag said:
There isn't much in the way of tracking over the ocean in terms of RADAR, turn off the transponder and even less.
Click to expand...

What about Sats.....I keep hearing a lot of military pilots saying there are many tuned into that area.
 
MMC said:
What about Sats.....I keep hearing a lot of military pilots saying there are many tuned into that area.
Click to expand...

Sats don't act like RADAR and in general they are no "looking" in the middle of the ocean, unless those in charge have decided there is something there to look at.

*edit*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447
Note it took basically 1 day to find any sign of the crash and 5 days for the first pieces to be recovered and 2 years to find the black boxes and the plane didn't deviate from its flight path so the search area was infinitesimal in comparison to what we are talking about here. The world is a huge place and when you aren't even sure where to begin looking it makes it much harder.
 
Last edited:
Quag said:
Sats don't act like RADAR and in general they are no "looking" in the middle of the ocean, unless those in charge have decided there is something there to look at.
Click to expand...

Then what about ship mounted devices? If the plane flew as low as 1500 meters some one might have seen it?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Then what about ship mounted devices? If the plane flew as low as 1500 meters some one might have seen it?
Click to expand...

I suppose they could have but the plane would have to fly near enough to a ship with equipment to do so and the understanding of what it might be. World is a huge place and the chances of that are pretty small, and apparently didn't happen
 
Quag said:
I suppose they could have but the plane would have to fly near enough to a ship with equipment to do so and the understanding of what it might be. World is a huge place and the chances of that are pretty small, and apparently didn't happen
Click to expand...

If it flew that low it could have been seen by a ship.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
If it flew that low it could have been seen by a ship.
Click to expand...

Yes it could and that would have made quite the impression on anyone who saw it but again the ocean is huge so what are the chances?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom