Map shows 634 runways in range of missing Malaysia Airlines plane

THIS map shows the 634 runways across 26 countries that the missing Malaysia Airlines plane could have landed on.

The infographic shows where the plane could be if it had successfully touched at a secret location — one of the many theories floating round as the mystery enters a second week.

Boeing 777s need a runway to be at least 1524 metres long, limiting the number of possible sites.

The map – put together by the Data News team at WNYC – shows all the possible runways the plane could have reached if it had flown for a maximum of five hours.

Map shows 634 runways in range of missing Malaysia Airlines plane



The map above shows all the possible landing strips Malaysia Airlines flight 370 could have landed on. With this said, the media has been saying that the plane was airborne for an extra seven hours upon the hour or two it would have taken to get to Vietnam and turn around again (which is probably unlikely due to fuel). If that claim is true, then the plane could have reached further beyond what is marked on the above map.

Eliminate all the ones in countries with RADAR that would of picked it up if it went far inland, so it would need to be coastal so it could fly in low enough with out causing such a ruckus flying over populated areas below radar.

and I would add countries with "contested" air space, or ones that have a history of conflict who would be paranoid about air traffic.

Id argue that this is ATS....where are the places it could land that are out of the box ideas and not on that map!!!!!!? Like some rushed landing site in the middle of no where.

Good map though OP

Yeah, the plane could be anywhere. If there was an organised group behind the hijacking, i wouldn't be surprised if they had constructed their own landing strip..

That being said, i thought the map above was worth putting on here, as it at least gives us a fair idea of the range of the plane, and where it could be.

Thanks for the comments!

That's about a mile long. I assume it would have to be paved and kept in pretty good in condition for this aircraft to land safely? That might narrow this list down some.

So it could have landed on that alleged chinese remote outpost, interesting. Its most likely that it would stop shorter, but would require a very experienced specialist pilot, which I dont believe is the case.
Narrows the field if nothing else.

reply to post by daaskapital


Successfully navigating TO one of those runways, even if predetermined, is the hard part.

I don't think people realize how hard that would be.

Flying an aircraft at designated speed to a very small point on earth and aligned properly for descent BY ITSELF (or even with help from the port/strip) would be very difficult without on board navigation assistance (which would likely mean tracking).

reply to post by daaskapital


Very interesting !

I read that it could have flown for up to seven and a half hours (according to last ping) and that it could have gone as far up as Kazakhstan...

That would put a few hundred more dots on that map !!

S&F.

reply to post by daaskapital


But does that map include abandoned runways on islands that were used as bases by either the Allies or Axis during WWII?

With all the obvious preparations such a hijacking required, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to extend the length of one to accommodate 4500 feet, which I hear is the minimum length for a 777.

reply to post by masqua


most of those wouldn't be long enough to take a 777, hell some modern airports can't.

That would narrow the search some.

reply to post by daaskapital

the map shows NOT Diego Garcia base....

reply to post by daaskapital


I think all but a few of the landing strips shown in Australia need to be removed because they would not be able to handle a 777. They are all 2 kilometre strips but then again I could be wrong about a 777 not being able to land on a 2 k strip

learnatic
reply to post by daaskapital

 

I think all but a few of the landing strips shown in Australia need to be removed because they would not be able to handle a 777. They are all 2 kilometre strips but then again I could be wrong about a 777 not being able to land on a 2 k strip

they were on the news saying 1km would be enough to land a plane.

Hey does anyone know the software the pilot was using on his simulator?

masqua
But does that map include abandoned runways on islands that were used as bases by either the Allies or Axis during WWII?

It includes the ocean, which would be a hell of a lot safer to crash into than a 70yo airstrip.

reply to post by amraks


1 Interesting to know.
2 Who knows what software but I think this is a furphy anyway. For me the question is why are the 'experts' interviewed on TV are always American, do asian counteries not have aviation experts? What does this tell us? When the US government blames the pilots, I smell a rat. I think they have put a lot of thought into this.

learnatic
I think all but a few of the landing strips shown in Australia need to be removed because they would not be able to handle a 777. They are all 2 kilometre strips but then again I could be wrong about a 777 not being able to land on a 2 k strip

There is a lot of airstrips for farming interests which handle 2-10 seaters. There are quite a few for commercial flights for workers but they're not commercial jet size.

Either way, any airstrip cpable of handling a jet has radar and people with communications more high tech than mail. If it landed you would know about it minutes later.
The North of Australia has some serious radar monitoring, right down to sea level, so I would doubt this is a likely scenario.

reply to post by ressiv


That is very interesting. I reckon that's where it went.

ressiv
reply to post by daaskapital

 

the map shows NOT Diego Garcia base....

Yeah it does, it's the furthest south west dot.
The one that's far further away than all the other options and unlike those has air defence.
The big blue area surrounding the red dots being a far bigger target. Has no air traffic controllers and maint staff with cell phones.