MH370 captain 'deliberately evaded radar' during final moments of doomed flight

a reply to: Moohide


Airliners are flown by the autopilot most of the time. Turned on shortly after takeoff and turned off just before landing. Many have "Autoland" or some such function.

Yes, the AP can be overridden, and that usually turns it off.

a reply to: Moohide

There are fire extinguishers on board all aircraft. If there was a fire similar to the EgyptAir fire, that fire burned through the side of the cockpit, leaving significant holes. The air temperature and lack of oxygen at altitude would have put the fire out once the oxygen in the system feeding it ran out.

Thank you Salander and Zaphod, i was just thinking, reports say the auto-pilot was on for the rest of the journey. This means (to me) that the pilot or co-pilot deliberately turned the plane, then turned the auto-pilot on. They would not do that if it was a fire.

My opinion after all that i have read and seen, i doubt there was a fire and it was a deliberate act of murder-suicide, just my opinion though.

a reply to: Moohide

Actually they might have. That would put the aircraft towards less busy routes so they could worry more about dealing with the fire and less about potential conflicts.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Ok that seems reasonable, theres lots i dont know about emergency procedures on board. I'm now going to read through the Malaysian Safety Investigation Report released 2 weeks ago. I dont expect to find anything new though.

a reply to: Moohide

Emergency procedures boil down to "fly the damn plane". You worry about what's happening on board first, and somewhere way down the list is "talk to the ground".

a reply to: Moohide


There is no proof of course, but I speculate that the flight may have been hijacked electronically, hacked into by way of satellite communications. All modern airliners are very dependent upon satellite communications, much of it by computers.

If hackers can take over control of a modern automobile, why not take over control of a modern airliner?

a reply to: Salander

I didnt think it was possible until i read this from Nov 2017, and also this story about the same Boeing 757. The plane was hacked while still on the runway, details of the hack were classified but they used a combination of radio frequency communications to break in.

A quote from one of the articles: "Boeing observed the test and we were briefed on the results. We firmly believe that the test did not identify any cyber vulnerabilities in the 757, or any other Boeing aircraft.”
"Switching the code in avionics equipment could cost up to about £1 million and take a year to fix", he added.
"Last year it was claimed that hackers could access plane controls while in flight on several major airlines. Crooks could allegedly access Emirates, Virgin and Qatar airlines through the Panasonic Avionics in-flight system, according to cybersecurity researchers at IOActive.

I didnt think this was possible to be honest, but if its true and real, then could the military or someone have done it on 9-11 or any other time before or since 2001. Obviously they had the time and money to investigate hacking a plane and did it on the runway, but proves it can be done. I think, if it can be hacked on the ground it can be hacked in-flight. Scary thought.

a reply to: Moohide

It seems very,very unlikely. Check out the linked article. Sample below.

A connection between the avionics system and the IFE does exist. But there's a caveat.

Soucie and Lemme say the connection allows for one-way data communication only. The systems are connected through an ARINC 429 data bus that feeds information from the avionics to the IFE about the plane's latitude, longitude and speed. The IFE uses this to populate the animated map passenger's can use to track the plane's movement.

"On every airplane it’s done a little differently and is done in a proprietary way," Lemme says. But in each case, the ARINC 429 is an output-only hub that allows data to flow out from the avionics system but not back to it, he says. To talk back would require a second input bus. "I can't think of why there would ever be an interface like this. If it’s out there, I haven’t heard of it."
...
Lemme says this doesn't matter, though. Even if data were transmitted from the inflight system back to the avionics system, the latter would know not to accept it, since rules programmed into the avionics system would tell it that the inflight system is untrustworthy and shouldn't be sending it data.

Link

a reply to: roadgravel

Security experts have obviously been trying to hack planes for years, that means so have other countries experts and terrorist elements as well. On this article from the same site as your link but posted 11 days before, it says about what security researcher with One World Labs, Chris Roberts told the FBI.

He told the FBI that the period in which he accessed the in-flight networks more than a dozen times occurred between 2011 and 2014. The affidavit, however, does not indicate exactly which flight he allegedly caused to turn to fly to the side. He obtained physical access to the networks through the Seat Electronic Box, or SEB. These are installed two to a row, on each side of the aisle under passenger seats, on certain planes. After removing the cover to the SEB by "wiggling and Squeezing the box," Roberts told agents he attached a Cat6 ethernet cable, with a modified connector, to the box and to his laptop and then used default IDs and passwords to gain access to the inflight entertainment system. Once on that network, he was able to gain access to other systems on the planes. Reaction in the security community to the new revelations in the affidavit have been harsh. Although Roberts hasn't been charged yet with any crime, and there are questions about whether his actions really did cause the plane to list to the side or he simply thought they did, a number of security researchers have expressed shock that he attempted to tamper with a plane during a flight.

Whether he did or didnt succeed is up for debate, but with computers there is always a way through or around systems, especially if you are clever enough to know how to create your own software programs to get into the system you want to hack.

A recent example on power stations hacked by Russia -

Russian hackers have won remote access to the control rooms of many US power suppliers, the Wall Street Journal reports. The access could have let them shut down networks and cause blackouts, US officials told the newspaper. The state-backed hackers won access even though command centre computers were not directly linked to the web. The attacks succeeded by targeting smaller firms which supply utilities with other services. The group behind the attacks, known as Dragonfly or Energetic Bear, has been traced to Russia and had racked up "hundreds of victims", said the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The attacks are ongoing, it added. The hackers seem to have used tightly-targeted attacks to compromise the corporate networks of suppliers, The attacks used emails sent to senior staff or sought to make them visit spoofed or hacked social media sites, Once the groups won access, they carried out detailed reconnaissance to familiarise themselves with how plants and power systems worked.

If someone wants to, they will hack anything.

a reply to: Moohide

And it wouldn't be hard for the crew to get control of the aircraft back. It's not like you hack it and the crew is totally locked out and can't do anything.

a reply to: Moohide

One thing many may overlook is that access is not enough. Data has to be created in the correct format and sent to various controllers or other components. Timing has to be correct. It's not a really simple process.

Power stations and aircraft are very different situations.

The 777 has a newer bus. It seems likely that the 757 isn't designed so allow the two way path needed for an attack through the entertainment system.

We don't even know it the man who made the claims is being truthful.

I won't deny that software can get complex and testing is difficult.

Would they leave highly vulnerable system in place? Maybe MH370 is proof?

a reply to: roadgravel
The newer the aircraft, the more hackable. 787s are hackable according to a GAO report but this article makes no mention of the 777.

GAO: Newer aircraft vulnerable to hacking

GAO: Newer aircraft vulnerable to hacking

By Matthew Hoye and Rene Marsh, CNN

Updated 9:53 PM ET, Tue April 14, 2015
Government warning: New planes vulnerable to hackers

Washington (CNN)Hundreds of planes flying commercially today could be vulnerable to having their onboard computers hacked and remotely taken over by someone using the plane's passenger Wi-Fi network, or even by someone on the ground, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office.
One of the authors of the report, Gerald Dillingham, told CNN the planes include the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, the Airbus A350 and A380 aircraft, and all have advanced cockpits that are wired into the same Wi-Fi system used by passengers.
"Modern communications technologies, including IP connectivity, are increasingly used in aircraft systems, creating the possibility that unauthorized individuals might access and compromise aircraft avionics systems," according to the report, which is based on interviews with cybersecurity and aviation experts.
The government investigators who wrote the report say it is theoretically possible for someone with just a laptop to:

-- Commandeer the aircraft
-- Put a virus into flight control computers
-- Jeopardize the safety of the flight by taking control of computers
-- Take over the warning systems or even navigation systems
Dillingham says although modern aircraft could be vulnerable, there are a number of redundancy mechanisms built into the plane systems that could allow a pilot to correct a problem.​

I've been reading the latest report on MH370 and it talks about Boeing's patent on a system that could allow remote piloting of a plane taken over by hijackers, but the plane used for MH370 was delivered in 2002 and that patent wasn't until 2006 and Boeing says it's never been installed in any aircraft yet, though someday it may be when they are sure it's safe. Making that safe and unhackable will be a challenge; I don't know if anything with remote connectivity is really unhackable.

Just realized this is from a few months ago. I have nothing to contribute lol

a reply to: Arbitrageur

That system will never see the light of day. You think it's bad now, when someone decides to snap at work, imagine what would happen if someone had the ability to remotely take over a plane with 400+ people on board.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I hope you're right, because I doubt it can be made hacker-proof. The risks you mention could be mitigated with certain methods, like writing the code so the system needs a retinal scan from the president of the operations division of the airline to enable it and after that it still needs codes two different codes entered by two different employees with certain qualifications to engage it. That way a single person coming unhinged shouldn't have access, but hackers could potentially bypass all that if they connect directly with systems on the plane through say the infotainment system which wouldn't have much security.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The bigger problem is logistics. I don't have current numbers handy, but there are millions of flights every year. Of those, you can count on a couple of fingers the number hijacked worldwide. So, to make it worthwhile, you have to be available to stop potential pilot suicides, and situations like that. That means real time monitoring.

Is there not multiple ground-technicians, hooking-up laptops to a jet's multiple systems, to download performance-data?
Could there be multiple folks connecting to a plane's systems, during maintenance breaks, to upload updates to the various systems?

How many folks physically connect laptops to a 777's systems, and how often?
What if just one of those laptops was loaded with a trojan-horse, and delivered it with or without the tech's knowledge?

If possible: just imagine all of the hacks that could be inserted into various systems.
From unlocking doors, altering flightpaths, turning of tracking systems, etc...?

a reply to: Nothin

All of the data is downloaded through the cockpit, if it's downloaded at all. Most of the time they can pull it up on the displays in the cockpit, or it's sent remotely through ACARS and health monitoring systems. You don't have to actually plug into the aircraft all that often.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks for the quick reply.
So there are occasional hook-ups then, perhaps not too often, but sometimes.

Any news about the reported 777 twin that was hangered in Israel?

777 twin