MH370 and the Jindalee radar

This threat is on mh370 and the Australian jindalee radar.. How did we miss a 250 ft plane? Answer given: Radar was looking different direction.I am sure it was already talked about this on ATS so I appreciate any information given by members once again or some fresh air..

I would love if anyone could shed some light on this..

So about the radar itself:

www.airforce.gov.au...

Personaly I couldn't accept this explanation as satisfactory(especially because of 9/11). I don't believe nothing about what was said .The only explanation specifically given to AU general public (to my knowledge) was given with a 10 min interview with a guy (not even defence or tech expert) on a morning talk show. They claim the radar was turned opposite direction at the time the plane was in Indian ocean ..This does not make sence if you check the coverage of the radar and the estimated timeframe the plane was in that area it is not possible to miss it. they claim the radar can detect even the smallest fishing boat. I know there was a fiasco some boats slipped the radar once and it was huge huge issue in AU. Also I think it was in the very beginning when the radar was first used. surely the radar people would take extra care now so it doesn't happen again. My estimate is that the window the radar had to detect the plane was about four hours . I am no technical expert so my estimate is vague.

I understand giving out sensitive data is a defense issue . However I believe especially AU families/ friends of AU mh370 passengers deserve to have a peak into it proving them, that in fact it is no lie that it was turned in different direction as I don't see how AU citizen is a big threat to AU defense

so what could be the alternative please add other explanation so far I can think off

1) AU doesn't want to share data and in fact knew the plan

2) Jindalee radar is kind of useless

3) Plane was never flying over Indian ocean.

I believe mh370 shadowed another plane to direction Afghanistan (or near area) and I believed it was remotely hacked
# sorry could have been

The Boeing 777 along with other Boeing models, can in fact be flown remotely through the use of independent embedded software and satellite communication. Once this advanced system is engaged, it can disallow any pilot or potential hijacker from controlling a plane, as the rooted setup uses digital signals that communicate with air traffic control, satellite links, as well as other government entities for the remainder of a flight’s journey. This technology is known as the Boeing Honeywell ‘Uninterruptible’ Autopilot System.

in and the route was changed. my knowledge is that once the autopilot has the flight path it can take of fly and land by autopilot no drama I mean here is an expert confirming this

answers.yahoo.com...

Autopilot still needs other information plugged in to the FMC and other data set on the ND like radar altimeter, and the local pressure setting. On top of that the MCP needs to be placed in to APP mode for the plane to capture the ILS and glide slope.

The plane can not take off by itself, but it can land once all the arrival information is executed.

Doesn't radar scan 360 degrees?

#3

originally posted by: Psynic
#3

And yeah I agree. If it's not #1, #2 AND #3 then it's for sure just #3.

Oh I forgot the most important info. The mechanical levers in the cockpit which control LANDING GEAR and flaps and spoilers would also need to be set in their positions during the descent and then set for landing. Every landing is different so they all go out at different times. So many computer things need to be done which (I guess) could be done remotely, but these mechanical levers I'd be surprised if they could be remotely controlled. So if you want the plane landed in one piece...

a reply to: MimiSia

in and the route was changed. my knowledge is that once the autopilot has the flight path it can take of fly and land by autopilot no drama I mean here is an expert confirming this

This statement made me recall this:

One evening I was sitting in economy class when our jet came in for an unusually smooth landing. “Nice job, autopilot!” yelled some knucklehead behind me. Amusing, maybe, but wrong. It was a fully manual touchdown, as the vast majority of touchdowns are. Yes, it’s true that most jetliners are certified for automatic landings, called “autolands” in pilot-speak. But in practice they are rare. Fewer than 1 percent of landings are performed automatically, and the fine print of setting up and managing one of these landings is something I could talk about all day. If it were as easy as pressing a button, I wouldn’t need to practice them twice a year in the simulator or periodically review those tabbed, highlighted pages in my manuals. In a lot of respects, automatic landings are more work-intensive than those performed by hand. The technology is there if you need it for that foggy arrival in Buenos Aires with the visibility sitting at zero, but it’s anything but simple.

www.askthepilot.com...

So, provided that guy is speaking the truth, it isn't easy by any means to ''autoland''.

As far as the case of MH-370, no debris, no plane, means it could be anywhere

originally posted by: kidcraig
Oh I forgot the most important info. The mechanical levers in the cockpit which control LANDING GEAR and flaps and spoilers would also need to be set in their positions during the descent and then set for landing. Every landing is different so they all go out at different times. So many computer things need to be done which (I guess) could be done remotely, but these mechanical levers I'd be surprised if they could be remotely controlled. So if you want the plane landed in one piece...

Forget the remote hijack story.

It's a strawman.

The plane was hijacked.

K.I.S.S.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

I'm a pilot. I haven't flown a plane with autoland but I like to do it in sims a lot. It's very very easy. I just think if we're talking remote controlled stuff, I'm not sure it could be done. Who knows?

I think he means it's hard because instead of making a visual landing more information is needed to be input. It's still easy.

Do we have any radar experts in the house?

a reply to: kidcraig

this one is 90 - 180 degrees

like this

s1353.photobucket.com...

a reply to: kidcraig

Mh370 manually took off. So it is not impossible to land on autopilot. Any expert information on this: is it possible to shadow a plane and go undetected by air traffic controllers?

a reply to: Psynic

oh sorry I forgot to add please add your # those listed are only mine so far I can think off

originally posted by: kidcraig
Do we have any radar experts in the house?

Sure.

You don't mind that they're U.S.A.F. do you?

originally posted by: MimiSia
a reply to: Psynic

oh sorry I forgot to add please add your # those listed are only mine so far I can think off

I have discussed my theory extensively here: www.abovetopsecret.com...:

a reply to: Psynic

what is the difference between being hijacked remotely and hijacked physically ... sill hijacked

if you mean it was hijacked physically can you give your opinion on how was that done. I am reading your threat but I am a little bit confused can you some up your theory in a quick sentence . I think I understand you but can not completely confirm

originally posted by: MimiSia
a reply to: Psynic

what is the difference between being hijacked remotely and hijacked physically ... sill hijacked

Well in the former a computer hacker breaks into the aircraft's flight control computer using some kind of remote control and takes over the navigation of the aircraft. Basically, science fiction.

In the latter, it can be as simple as the pilot turning off the transponders and radios and making a change in course. Simple.

a reply to: kidcraig

I am not really too concerned with the autopilot if it can take off or land plane so much. I am mainly intersted about the autopilot during mid flight. and it was cyber hacked . i kind of doubt the hackers would be too worried if landing purely on cyber hacked autopilot on first try ,was not such succes.

a reply to: MimiSia

Was there even an official response from Jindalee?

I thought I read somewhere that it wasn't operating at the time, rather than looking in a different direction..

originally posted by: MimiSia
a reply to: kidcraig

I am not really too concerned with the autopilot if it can take off or land plane so much. I am mainly intersted about the autopilot during mid flight. and it was cyber hacked . i kind of doubt the hackers would be too worried if landing purely on cyber hacked autopilot on first try ,was not such succes.

Well, if it had the Boeing or Honeywell uninterrupted auto pilot as a feature then the info on Wiki would suggest it could be remotely "hacked", but we'd assume only by Boeing or someone with the...password?

a reply to: kidcraig

ok about the radar this is 2004

Your classic radar: Conventional radar can "see" a high flying plane 300 km away but at low altitude the range is much less. Objects disappear when they get below the horizon. Jindalee radar:
But "there is nowhere to hide" from the Jindalee system, says WGCDR Gray.
This is because the radar "sees" the craft from above.

or

For the nation, the Jindalee "over the horizon" radar is an increasingly sophisticated tool to detect intruders by sea or air.
For Alice Springs it means 50 families living here, the people running the installation since the early 70s. Its concept hasn't changed since then, but its performance has immensely, says Wing Commander Stephen "Zane" Gray, the commanding officer of the No 1 Radar Surveillance Unit in Adelaide.
"Originally we could see an object the size of a Concord.
"Now we can spot a Cessna 172."

Cessna 172 is 26 feet long