MH370 and the Jindalee radar

I believe MH370 was either taken over by the 2 Russian passengers, who were after the 20 or so tech savvy people on board, Supposedly those people were in the business of making computer chips for Stealth aircraft. But the plan never went through, because other powers got wise, and shot it either while en route or on the ground refueling, most likely in Somalia.

a reply to: paraphi

some can speculate Aussies can start acting. is there no concern that mh370 could have been next attempt of terrorism on Australia? no Aussie cares about this? if I am Aussie and my family member or friend was on the plane would you not seek answers ? it is easier for Aussies to ->address or riot or sign petition to find out the answers. I gladly participate with anyone who is willing to do so.. but no one?

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: PLAYERONE01
A more realistic theory would be to hack the flight computer while the jet was on the ground and getting serviced between flights, intergrate your hack algorithm program with the flight computer that would overide auto pilot and take control of the jet.
write the program to run the specified rout you choose, kicking in at a specified time you chose, then contact the pilot after he has had enough time to realise he is no longer in control of the situation and inform him to inform the passengers that the flight path has deviated because of bad weather and to wait for further instructions.
then inform him that he will be landing the jet in X amount of time at which point fuel resouces would have been used and escape is futile, he will be given control of the jet to land.
as the majority of high level security hacks inside knowledge and or help is usualy required.

More realistic huh?

Right up there with 'Snakes on a Plane'.

And the pilot sit's in front of the controls as the computer takes over and he is unable to do anything about it.

Shirley you can't be serious?

On second thought 'Snakes on a Plane' made more sense.

This is more along the lines of 'Airplane'.

www.youtube.com...

If you do not understand how easy a re programming hack this would be to pull off then i feel you must not have a great deal of understanding on how the hacking world works.

Lets have a quick look as I am pressed for time at boeings flight computer presentation

www.boeing.com...

Three multipurpose control display units (CDU) provide data display and entry capabilities for flight management functions. These units are the primary interface with an integrated Airplane Information Management System (AIMS).

Integrated Airplane Information Management System (AIMS) provides flight and maintenance crews all pertinent information concerning the overall condition of the airplane, its maintenance requirements and its key operating functions, including flight, thrust and communications management.

you can shill me all you like but an experienced "programer" to write the program to pop as soon as auto pilot kicks in and someone with access to that system to intergrate it could have had a main role in this. just because you dont understand it doesnt mean its science fiction buddy, it happens all around the world, day in day out.

a reply to: Psynic

very wise on behalf of Australia who has zero nuclear threat protection.

very wise for USA and Australia who build Jindalee radar as a nuclear attack shield

very wise to give such a message to a country like north Korea that WA has such a gap in defense. no way they would start getting ideas.

very wise AU to show that USA military bases in Western Australia are totally volnurable to attack (especially the only USA nuke defence port here in Perth and other critical USA millitary bases)

it simply asking for testing out the waters

also that is why china keeps pressuring for release of Jindalee radar data. to expose they were smuggling

a reply to: PLAYERONE01

thank you for the great IT addition

also they would totally share this with your general public no treat to loosing customers to this great piece of information

a reply to: Glassbender777

how did the 2 Russians accomplish that.

given that by April 2003 this rule applied to all airplanes

The FAA rule sets new design and performance standards for all current and future airplanes with 20 or more seats in commercial service and all cargo airplanes that have cockpit doors. Specifically, the rule:
Requires strengthening of cockpit doors. The doors will be designed to resist intrusion by a person who attempts to enter using physical force. This includes the door, its means of attachment to the surrounding structure, and the attachment structure on the bulkhead itself. The FAA rule uses an impact standard that is 50 percent higher than the standard developed by the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. In addition to intrusion protection, the FAA is using a standard sufficient to minimize penetration of shrapnel from small arms fire or a fragmentation device. The agency is providing guidance to operators on acceptable materials. All new doors must meet existing FAA safety requirements.
Requires cockpit doors to remain locked. The door will be designed to prevent passengers from opening it without the pilot's permission. An internal locking device will be designed so that it can only be unlocked from inside the cockpit.
Controls cockpit access privileges. Operators must develop a more stringent approval process and better identification procedures to ensure proper identification of a jump seat rider.
Prohibits possession of keys to the cockpit by crewmembers not assigned to the cockpit.

a reply to: Psynic

also why didn't they choose to stick to the south china sea story would been much easier to believe. it is easier to claim conventional radars made a mistake rather then AU jindalee
also it would be more believable specific currents drifted debris directly into Pacific ocean .good luck searching pacific
geologically they pointed were the sea floor becomes ocean floor apparently it crashed around where the line is but leaning towards the ocean site apparently this section is also
way more deep then the current Indian ocean section they are searching
it can not be so AU is the sole searcher
anyone can continue searching as long as they have $

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

i was not careful with my words and I used a term no drama..big mistake

about the autopilot I didnt do a good job I should have said
mh370 took of manually then turned to autopilot then I should have said from expert point of view it is possible to land purely on autopilot

I also saw the aircraft disasters show on mh370 what was said by Boeing 777 engineers, was that the plane is so highly sofiaticated that even if you had complete failure of systems in cockpits control panel when absolutely nothing is functional and every system of the control panels was damaged to total maximum the boing has a back up system to deal with this and if that one failed completely there is another back up system . all placed in different areas of the plane. these are Boeing-777 back up systems www.angelfire.com...

if there is no response from cockpit or a recognition of cockpit control failure autopilot will remain engaged with original landing instructions given by pilot and therefore capable of landing it self

www.answers.com...

the pilot in your article was a pilot of a Boeing 737
however he said if Boeing 737 had to land on autopilot in foggy wether the system is there for you to use.

a reply to: MimiSia

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.

That's bull poo originating from, and circulates in conspiracy theorist societies.

It is impossible because there's no access point for a hacker to hook up to the airplanes system.
Even for software updates the plane must be on the ground (weight on wheels and no speed), parking brake set, engines shut down, electrical power APU or external, pressurization mode selector set to manual and outflow valve full open, and certain access panels outside the plane open.

When Boeing (or other manufacturer for that matter) design a new plane, they must demonstrate in this time and age that the onboard systems are tamper-proof in order to to get the plane certified.

a reply to: MimiSia

the pilot in your article was a pilot of a Boeing 737
however he said if Boeing 737 had to land on autopilot in foggy wether the system is there for you to use.

I fly the B737, 777 and 787 and non of them is able to autoland without pilot interaction.

You can read here: en.wikipedia.org...

what happens when the autopilot is left in control, alone.

originally posted by: MimiSia
a reply to: Psynic


very wise AU to show that USA military bases in Western Australia are totally volnurable to attack (especially the only USA nuke defence port here in Perth and other critical USA millitary

MimiSia I have lived in Western Australia for 47 years and there WAS only one American base here that is Exmouth, that is no longer an American base so please keep the bullsh$t out of your theories, you are not doing yourself any favours

And there is more to the Jindalee radar that you or anyone else in the world who isn't high enough know of it's capabilities , it's called military intelligence / secretes , hence why they won't admit to poo and they shouldn't either . I bet if any country was pointing a nuke or a group was planing something that radar would know, you do know during the gulf war and any other military operations , pine gap was the place where they direct the guided missiles from don't you

Wally

a reply to: Ivar_Karlsen

When Boeing (or other manufacturer for that matter) design a new plane, they must demonstrate in this time and age that the onboard systems are tamper-proof in order to to get the plane certified.


I guess that is why FAA Orders Boeing to Protect Airplanes from Cyber Attacks.
The FAA is seeking comments on the proposed special conditions by July 21, 2014. So mh370 had completely flawless system an mh370 was in fact certified on this one yet it hasn't been even a requirement prior to July 21 2014(this is not even the definite date )

mobile.esecurityplanet.com...

other cyber attack issue
mobile.esecurityplanet.com...
www.theguardian.com...
www.computerworld.com...

I am also sure everybody would be kindly sharing this information with you and me and with other nations who impose a cyber security issue to eachother

a reply to: auswally

sorry i mixed up
my reply to you.


I am not sure if you can tell that i was being sarcastic .(if no than I explained why in the second post to you.
If you know I was being sarcastic than I just have to add this:

look I understand what you are saying .with the Perth US nuclear port I was referring specialy to the sterling naval base. remember how in 2012 this was discussed: US report looks at basing nuclear fleet in Perth.
now look at it this way if a psycho terrorist decides one day to throw a nuke on WA and they look at possible targets please don't tell me sterling would not be one of them. I am sure they would not extensively research if an agreement was reached or not.
now what do you mean if war broke out no WA military base would be used by USA military as part of defence alliance

a reply to: auswally

And there is more to the Jindalee radar that you or anyone else in the world who isn't high enough know of it's capabilities , it's called military intelligence / secretes , hence why they won't admit to poo and they shouldn't either . I bet if any country was pointing a nuke or a group was planing something that radar would know, you do know during the gulf war and any other military operations , pine gap was the place where they direct the guided missiles from don't you

sorry can you please rephrase this it is a little bit hard to understand

so in your opinion mh370 was visible to the radar or not?

so this is why the sarcasm


and I am basically assuming you are agreeing with psynics theory..

he said mh370 was shot down by (I am assuming he is saying USA or Malaysia because there was a nuke bomb being smuggled( by I am assuming he is saying the pilot who put it into the cargo) and therefore for the better good 290 people were shot Down so this nuke doesn't go into the wrong hands .
and than it was said that tonny abott was happy to lie abd claim mh370 is in southern Indian ocean so nobody gets to find out than there was a decision made that 290 people are better off dead then risking an nbomb (described as a suitcase soviet union bomb )or some nbomb components that were being smuggled to be used for making a nuke making it to their destination .( I still don't understand how and when did USA or Malaysia become aware of such fact in psynics theory) the sarcasm came because
what I can not see happening is the fact that people who know it had to be shot down for "better good" (including obama najib Abbott) would stick to the southern indian ocean location story. i am sure they could come up with a better story to cover this up then involving WA and jindalee radar in it. such as saying something like: labeling pilot terrorist he hated Najib so it would be simply easier to say he was going to get personal revenge on him. also if the nbomb was on plane it would be easier to justify shot down. or sticking to the nz oil rig story nd south china see. it would be more acceptable to claim conventional radar made a mistake then jindalee radar. also the section they pointed out was exactly on the verge where the sea floor would become pacific ocean. and therefore way deeper then current search area and also the debris given specific currents drifted into open pacific therefore almost
no luck to finding it

originally posted by: Ivar_Karlsen


That's bull poo originating from, and circulates in conspiracy theorist societies.

It is impossible because there's no access point for a hacker to hook up to the airplanes system.
Even for software updates the plane must be on the ground (weight on wheels and no speed), parking brake set, engines shut down, electrical power APU or external, pressurization mode selector set to manual and outflow valve full open, and certain access panels outside the plane open.

When Boeing (or other manufacturer for that matter) design a new plane, they must demonstrate in this time and age that the onboard systems are tamper-proof in order to to get the plane certified.

Sure and it's super silly to think anyone could ever override systems that are supposed to by hacker proof. I still remember the time when no one thought you could get a virus by simply opening an email.

People override security checks almost every minute.....Why do you think your anti-virus software has live updates 24 hours a day? It's not impossible, you just don't know the solution. How about a super non-technical solution? The person who does the official software updates and installed some "unofficial" updates.

I also suspect hacking in the AirAsia flight, at the time of the weird updraft, the pilot was trying to disconnect the computer because of computer issues.

The pilots had been attempting to deal with alerts about the flight augmentation computers, which control the A320’s rudder and also automatically prevent it from going too slow. After initial attempts to address the alerts, the flight crew cut power to the entire system, which comprises two separate computers that back up each other, the people said.
While the information helps show how a normally functioning A320’s flight-protection system could have been bypassed, it doesn’t explain why the pilots pulled the plane into a steep climb, the people said. Even with the computers shut off, the pilots should have been able to fly the plane manually, they said.
Airbus discourages pilots from cutting power to systems because electronics in the highly computerized aircraft are interconnected and turning off one component can affect others, John Cox, a former A320 pilot who is now a safety consultant, said in an interview.

a reply to: Ivar_Karlsen

I would expect better answer from you
also thank you for the wiki answer rather then using your educational resources or your pier review on a colleague that admits landing on autopilot is possible such as the pilot from the article above . finaly an expert in house..if I was you it would be my privilege to provide answers cheers to you too hope you not texting from mid air . lol. btw you lucky bugger..when I was young flying first time ever and first time to AU the pilot invited us into cockpit right above shark bay
it is one of my best experiences of my life. I dont know why they picked us.. nothing was said the pilot just wanted to share the view with us.

originally posted by: MimiSia
a reply to: Ivar_Karlsen

I would expect better answer from you

Ok.
Autoland is possible on most medium to large jets. It requires Instrument Landing System on the ground calibrated and certified to a certain category to allow low visibility autoland.
The plane (and pilots) also need to be certified to a certain category autoland, our planes are CAT3-A/B.

To perform an autoland one must put an approach in the FMC, or fly by vectors from ATC, and an active runway with a certified ILS must be selected and executed in order to make the autopilot fly it.
There's also specific system checks to be done before an autoland can be flown.

First step is to set a lower altitude on the Mode Control Panel, or the plane will follow track, but not descend to a lower altitude (like Helios in the wiki link).
One must make sure to slow down the plane and put out flaps, landing gear and activate approach mode, and couple it for autoland, if not the plane will land but not flare (ouch) all of that pilot work.
My point is, the plane won't just autoland itself just like that. It is a lot more work than a visual handflown landing, or even
instrument approach followed by handflown landing.

a reply to: Daughter2

Well, people claims they have hacked airplane systems, but not a single proof from anyone,

And that text you have quoted is an Airbus, completly different systems and system philosophy.

How about a super non-technical solution? The person who does the official software updates and installed some "unofficial" updates.

There are (and always have been) strict procedures in place to prevent that sort of things.
I've never heard of it happening on Boeing airplanes.

a reply to: auswally

also finaly AU even better WA person
can I use you as a role play and ask you some questions?
if your family member/ friend was on the plane whould you be able to move on with your life or would you struggle with incomplete answers (I do have a friend who died however I never had a friend missing)
would you accept the story the radar was looking different direction yet someone is unwilling to proof this . everybody else shared data. would you feel you received justice and real answers? also would you want people to help you seek answers ?also do you as a WA citizen believe that people living here on visa are morally / ethicaly obligated to raise questioning if WA citizen has them? when I watched the morning talk show of with the person explaining about the radar the moderators and audience seemed to be kind of outraged. should I be too ?

a reply to: Ivar_Karlsen

thank you so much for your answer yeay thank you for being here
also can you please tell me if you are able to receive/send e-mails in business class?
ok so can you hint hint your opinion ? is there any general gossip in the office about mh370

i doubt you share but i try..what airline u work for? also any cool tails you have to share/creepy stories/pilot psychology/do u have plane nightmares/passenger stories ?