Did Malaysian Airlines 370 disappear using SIA68 (another 777)?

reply to post by wirefly


No existing commercial aircraft can be remote piloted without modification. They say that about Airbus when they have an incident too.

reply to post by DigitalSea


Great theory.

I still think that this plane was remote controlled by someone, most likely a government/military entity. If it was being remote controlled it would not be unforeseeable to still shadow another plane to accomplish this radar invisibility.

I doubt this theory while one of the most logical will be explored openly.

reply to post by InverseLookingGlass


The two most likely ways are the delay time to and from the satellite, and the power of the signal received at the satellite.

reply to post by WCmutant


How was it remote controlled in a way the pilots could not override? What system allowed it?

Zaphod58
reply to post by wirefly

 

No existing commercial aircraft can be remote piloted without modification. They say that about Airbus when they have an incident too.

Zaphod58,

I'd argue that pre-9/11 modification was necessary. I think post-9/11 it's becoming standard. Never forget that the pilots never "fly" the plane except for take off and landing. Once they reach altitude their routes are flown by computer systems. The pilots are only there for "oh #" moments.

This was a Boeing 777-200ER. I don't know when it was built nor do I know when Malaysia Air purchased the plane and from whom. Those would be interesting facts to know.

thomasjveil


Much has been made of the fact the pilot and co-pilot didn't request to fly together, but can a pilot request a particular flight? Would they be aware in advance of a particularly valuable payload?

We have a bidding system where you can bid on how your monthly roster will look like-i.e. what destinations you fly to and sometimes which crew. Depending on your seniority, the more senior(more experienced) you are, the more likely your bids are to be accepted. As you stay longer with your airline and gain more experience, you'll gradually move up the seniority list.

Fascinating thread !

For this theory to be plausible, there are a few things to consider:

1 - Someone (could be plural) had to be preparing this in advance, in order to figure out that SIA 68 would be heading that exact route.

2 - The plane had fuel for 8 hours (not confirmed as far as I know, could have been more?)

3 - To get rid of the passengers but keep assets alive, certain passengers had to be in on this.

Makes a whole lot of people that needed to be in on this plan.

It also seems that agencies are going into a lot of people's history:

In addition to the pilots, other passengers and crew members on board the plane, as well as any ground staff who came into contact with it, are under investigation.

www.cnn.com...

As I said, not meaning this exact scenario happened but this is the best theory I've read so far.

And if this happened as described, well...9-11 will seem to have been a walk in the park compared to what's coming.

Hope this is all wrong and I do feel for the crew and passengers but I sincerely hope that they find a crash site.

DigitalSea
The blocking of passenger seats appears to indicate unusually heavy cargo was being carried on the plane.

Was it heavy cargo, or did they want the extra milage?

reply to post by WCmutant


First point, the 777 entered service in 1995, pre-9/11.

Second point, autopilot, which is what you are talking about, hasn't changed much since before 9/11 and has nothing to do with remote control. All you have to do to disconnect autopilot is push one button and you are under manual control.

The aircraft first flew on 14 May 2002 and was delivered to Malaysia on 31 May 2002.

GPS flaw could let terrorists hijack ships, planes

I posted this in another thread.

reply to post by eisegesis


Except for the minor fact that the computers can be overridden from the flight deck. You might be able to spoof the GPS but you can't spoof the back up navigation systems.

S&F
Great find OP
Makes for a very real possibility!

reply to post by Zaphod58


Zaphod58 - a computer can be hacked while you are sitting at it. A real hacker can infiltrate your computer and make it do what he wants it to do even with you sitting there. The only option you have at that point is to unplug it and disconnect it from the network.

Why do you think this is impossible to accomplish with the computers on an aircraft? Especially given that the systems to remote control airplanes have been in place for about 2 decades.

I find it more interesting that the airplanes that so far seem to be the most susceptible to remote control are Boeing, an American company. All 9/11 flights were Boeing 757-222, -223 or 767-222, -223ER. And strange given Malaysia Air is international has now had a Boeing 777-200ER "hijacked" and disappear.

Convenient that the NSA has been in league with computer and internet companies to monitor us and provide back doors to them. However, you don't think the government wouldn't make a similar request to the largest aeronautical manufacturers?

Even more strange is how much media time this story has taken up. Almost like there is a purposeful smokescreen being placed in the media outlets to distract everyone. It's a perfect craptastic mix of real life suspense, drama, and intrigue. They've gone so far as getting the public involved by letting them use satellites to search ocean areas. The stench is ripe with how great it is that Big Brother has satellites available for the public to "help."

Sorry, but the amount of time the media is spending on this story equals one thing -distraction propaganda. Which means this airplane was hijack/remote controlled by someone that could utilize the media outlets to keep the public distracted with this story -- the government.

**While I find this missing plane interesting, I am now trying to look past it to see what it is they don't want us to see. Because we are being distracted.

Cheers!

reply to post by WCmutant


You really need to learn about aircraft first before you say stuff like that. The flight control computer has a circuit breaker in the cockpit. You think the pilots are going to notice the plane not responding and just sit there? The flight control computer interface isn't the kind of thing that you can take over and there is nothing the crew can do.

Show me conclusive evidence any Boeing plane, they hadn't modified, has been remote controlled. Hell make it any commercial plane.

reply to post by WCmutant


You have a point. Whenever there's a hijacking that gets international attention, it always seems to be a Boeing aircraft that's involved. I hope this is just a coincidence.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Agree.Every piece of equipment in the cockpit is linked to the circuit breakers in the overhead panel.

Does anybody know if Freescale is working on any military projects?

reply to post by Boeing777


The fact that Boeing has some of the most succesful and popular aircraft probably has a lot to do with it.

reply to post by Boeing777


Could be that there a more Boeing commercial aircraft than any other manufacturer?

reply to post by Zaphod58


Ha you beat me to it lol!