Air Traffic Control (Aviation Disaster thread)

[Silenka]

Dinosaurs are collecting samples of our primative technology so that they do not underestimate us during the Dino-human wars of the 21st century.

They will be returning to the surface. Prepare your butts.

aw man

Spoiler: show

http://static.bbc.co.uk/images/ic/qe...llpaper_08.jpg

[Mistress Stowastiq]

Alternator/generator failure may require conservative use of avionics - saving energy for safety mechanisms that require power (including landing gear). Can turn off radios but the transponder should still be squaking (7700 for emergencies, 7500 for hijacking). Since all of it was turned off then either there was a complete electronics failure or tin foil hats. But I stumbled on a Forbes article about it and they say -



So I suppose there could be requirements to NOT shut them off on the larger airliners but definitely not smaller ones that may not have backups to the backups.

Ah thank you for that info. Also what is the likelihood that a successful plane theft could have taken place by some crazy hijacker? Successful meaning is it possible that the plane is stolen, safely landed and stored some place covered with camouflage net?

I'm seeing news about a new new satellite ping. I can't tell anymore if it is just re-hyped old news about other pings. Edit: nevermind, fucking cnn..

[Kryssan]

Ah thank you for that info. Also what is the likelihood that a successful plane theft could have taken place by some crazy hijacker? Successful meaning is it possible that the plane is stolen, safely landed and stored some place covered with camouflage net?

I'm seeing news about a new new satellite ping. I can't tell anymore if it is just re-hyped old news about other pings. Edit: nevermind, fucking cnn..

There is a precedent.

Most cases of a plane being jacked involve small aircraft. Larger aircraft usually generate heavy media focus, though most often the plane was able to inform someone that a hijacking was in progress... even if it was the terrorist themselves mistakenly informing air-traffic control. With all the different methods that a person could conceivably get out the message for a jacking-in-progress on a large / multi-passenger transport, it is improbable but not impossible that such an event could / did occur.

Just this year in February, a 'hijacking' occurred with a Boeing 767-300, and the passengers on board were not aware. The co-pilot who conducted the 'jacking' did so when the pilot went to use the head. ATC was informed that the plane intended to land in Geneva, but they were not aware that it was a 'jacking' - they believed it was an emergency landing. Granted, this 'jacking' did not include men with guns or a takeover attempt or even demands; so yeah. ( One should note, Ethiopian Airlines have a tendency or one might say even proclivity for jackings of aircraft... ) I'm pretty sure though that given the nature of the flight's geography and what they initially believed about it they never 'lost' the plane at any point on its flight; I'm not sure what if any precedent exists for that.

It is possible.

[Mistress Stowastiq]

There is a precedent.

Most cases of a plane being jacked involve small aircraft. Larger aircraft usually generate heavy media focus, though most often the plane was able to inform someone that a hijacking was in progress... even if it was the terrorist themselves mistakenly informing air-traffic control. With all the different methods that a person could conceivably get out the message for a jacking-in-progress on a large / multi-passenger transport, it is improbable but not impossible that such an event could / did occur.

Just this year in February, a 'hijacking' occurred with a Boeing 767-300, and the passengers on board were not aware. The co-pilot who conducted the 'jacking' did so when the pilot went to use the head. ATC was informed that the plane intended to land in Geneva, but they were not aware that it was a 'jacking' - they believed it was an emergency landing. Granted, this 'jacking' did not include men with guns or a takeover attempt or even demands; so yeah. ( One should note, Ethiopian Airlines have a tendency or one might say even proclivity for jackings of aircraft... ) I'm pretty sure though that given the nature of the flight's geography and what they initially believed about it they never 'lost' the plane at any point on its flight; I'm not sure what if any precedent exists for that.

It is possible.

Looking at the point where the transponder and all communication shut off, the part where people are speculating it made a left turn, it is possible to fly a plane after that with no outside communication or navigation help? So a plane using no kind of radar or [un-trackable by outside] triangulation device can navigate? I understand that the airspace in that area is not as monitored as the post 911 airspace here in the states and in Europe but I did not know that it was possible for people to even fly a plane without outside navigation help. I know nothing about planes though [clearly :\ ].

[Acevalefor]

Looking at the point where the transponder and all communication shut off, the part where people are speculating it made a left turn, it is possible to fly a plane after that with no outside communication or navigation help? So a plane using no kind of radar or [un-trackable by outside] triangulation device can navigate? I understand that the airspace in that area is not as monitored as the post 911 airspace here in the states and in Europe but I did not know that it was possible for people to even fly a plane without outside navigation help. I know nothing about planes though [clearly :\ ].

VORs, NDB/ADF, VFR with knowledge of the local landmarks, Even something like a tablet/laptop with GPS capability and a flight nav app would give them detailed info for sustained flight without any outside communications with ATCs. Nobody would know anything about the plane's location until long after they were there. Chasing shadows.

[Howie Roary]

just watched some Anderson Cooper and he had some pilot doing a flight sim based on latest released data apparently based on this WSJ article

the tl;dr is due to the conflicting info they're looking at human tampering

[Kryssan]

Looking at the point where the transponder and all communication shut off, the part where people are speculating it made a left turn, it is possible to fly a plane after that with no outside communication or navigation help? So a plane using no kind of radar or [un-trackable by outside] triangulation device can navigate? I understand that the airspace in that area is not as monitored as the post 911 airspace here in the states and in Europe but I did not know that it was possible for people to even fly a plane without outside navigation help. I know nothing about planes though [clearly :\ ].

VORs, NDB/ADF, VFR with knowledge of the local landmarks, Even something like a tablet/laptop with GPS capability and a flight nav app would give them detailed info for sustained flight without any outside communications with ATCs. Nobody would know anything about the plane's location until long after they were there. Chasing shadows.

Ace already noted a few ways. In other realms though, if you assume this was a planned event, you can just go back to the basics. Until the 1980s, all commercial aircraft still flew with navigators.

Additionally, outside of GPS there is INS, or Inertial Navigation Systems. INS predates GPS and while not as accurate, it does not require external communication or interfacing to provide navigation; only the aircraft's equipment is required. I would assume this aircraft is outfitted with some type of INS as a backup to GPS but I am not an airplane expert so maybe someone else will know. There could also be other components of the FMS aboard this craft that could supplement / provide navigation when external help is not available; again, I don't particularly know the specs for this aircraft.

[kuronosan]

Now they're saying "very likely a hijacking".

[Kryssan]

Anyone have any theorycrafting on what happens if this was a hijacking and the passengers are dead not through accidental means? For a really long time the unwritten rule has been "you play in your backyard, we play in ours" when it comes to US - China military relations. The Chinese military / political spectrum could potentially benefit from a 'short victorious war' situation.

Might be a bit early for that sort of theorycrafting, but I can still remember military strategists plotting out a Chinese Formosa Straight action within the next 15 years back in 2001.

[Tajin]

Um.. what?

[Dimmauk]

At SXSW in Austin some Asians had a couple mechs. Sounds like we might have a real life Pacific Rim.

[Kryssan]

Now they're saying "very likely a hijacking".

Different news media sources ( MSNBC, Reuters, NYT ) are saying now that the groups searching for the plane are starting to look in their own areas rather than coordinating because of the conflicting information and thoughts. Also, it seems like the plane potentially made two course changes now - the original course, then SW to Penang, then North / NW ( Malaysian officials statement ) but the US is saying the plane went S after the Penang course change.

Assuming the plane made these course corrections, it would have been flying with / by known waymarkers. Almost everyone now is on the hijacking trend rather than mechanical / other failures.

[Aragon of Odin]

A hijacking with not 1 piece of communication from any of the 200+ passengers/workers on board just seems kind of odd to me. I guess the whole thing is "odd" though, hopefully time will tell.

[Kryssan]

A hijacking with not 1 piece of communication from any of the 200+ passengers/workers on board just seems kind of odd to me. I guess the whole thing is "odd" though, hopefully time will tell.

Well, depending on who you're talking to and how far out you want to jump into the assumptions / rumour mill, there may actually be indication of a struggle in the cockpit ( some of the data points potentially indicate large fluxuations in altitude of the aircraft, which a few people have already jumped on ). As far as I can tell, that's complete speculation / theorycrafting. ( For reference: Malaysian military radar showed the plane climbing to 45,000 feet -- which is above its approved altitude limit -- soon after disappearing from civilian radar screens and then dropping to 23,000 feet before climbing again, the official said. - source CNN )

Again though, it has happened before even this year where the crew / passengers were unaware and / or unable to communicate with the ground. Given the timing involved with 'turnoffs' of equipment in the cockpit, it would seem more and more likely that humans were involved, not random occurrence ( though ofc they're not ruling anything out with the lack of evidence ). With an untrained eye flying on a plane with the hijack occurring by the flight crew itself, what is going to be your first indication that your flight isn't going as planned? Barring drastic changes in flight environments, probably run time - IE; your flight is x hours long and you notice by your watch that you've been in the air for y hours. Investigators are now saying evidence exists that the plane was in the air for up to 7 hours following loss of contact; obviously that would have been noticed by the passengers. Assuming they were conscious; anyone know if it's possible for a pilot to control cabin oxygen levels? Anyway, it's still all theorycrafting.

[kuronosan]

Well, depending on who you're talking to and how far out you want to jump into the assumptions / rumour mill, there may actually be indication of a struggle in the cockpit ( some of the data points potentially indicate large fluxuations in altitude of the aircraft, which a few people have already jumped on ). As far as I can tell, that's complete speculation / theorycrafting. ( For reference: Malaysian military radar showed the plane climbing to 45,000 feet -- which is above its approved altitude limit -- soon after disappearing from civilian radar screens and then dropping to 23,000 feet before climbing again, the official said. - source CNN )

Again though, it has happened before even this year where the crew / passengers were unaware and / or unable to communicate with the ground. Given the timing involved with 'turnoffs' of equipment in the cockpit, it would seem more and more likely that humans were involved, not random occurrence ( though ofc they're not ruling anything out with the lack of evidence ). With an untrained eye flying on a plane with the hijack occurring by the flight crew itself, what is going to be your first indication that your flight isn't going as planned? Barring drastic changes in flight environments, probably run time - IE; your flight is x hours long and you notice by your watch that you've been in the air for y hours. Investigators are now saying evidence exists that the plane was in the air for up to 7 hours following loss of contact; obviously that would have been noticed by the passengers. Assuming they were conscious; anyone know if it's possible for a pilot to control cabin oxygen levels? Anyway, it's still all theorycrafting.

Yea, it is possible to mess with oxygen levels by adjusting cabin pressure.

[Mistress Stowastiq]

Thanks for that info Kryssan and Ace
With all of the "human interference" theory in the news right now and the two possible way-point paths they are speculating the plane could have taken [the route that has Australia in it and the other with Kazakhstan in it], I am wondering how protected most airspace is from random 911 type hijackings using planes as giant projectiles. Ace and Kryssan defined how a plane can fly without outside help but can a plane fly unnoticed into an airspace and go completely undetected by the normal means that we use to keep track of planes in our airspace? Does it require a compliant pilot willing to communicate with the outside world in order to "see" a plane that is flying in your airspace? [Of course not counting seeing the plane with the naked eye.]

I recall the various news stories in the past about random lone planes that were found to be off course, contacted and then guided by fighter jets [F- somethings] to a safe landing place whenever they are flying where they are not supposed to be.. but are these lone planes:

1. Lone plane is spotted by airport monitors or military while flying in airspace that normally requires the communications with local flight control towers? I mean the normal handshakes that planes use when entering and leaving the various points of airspace that pilots encounter when flying a plane and following the rules.
2. Attempt at contact with the lone plane is made.
3. Warnings given to the lone plane to reply.
4. Fighter jets attempt to guide the airplane to land and threaten it/force it to cooperate.

So I am wondering how safe airspace is from these kind of things since it is apparently looking like people can just steal a plane filled with people and vanish. The 911 planes were all noticed, as in when they went off course they were not invisible but were they only visible because they went off course between point a and the next planned communication point? My question is can they tell that a plane is doing something outside of its normal routine flight pattern, if that plane were to begin its course without communicating with the outside and therefore has no routine or known airspace flight pattern to sign in and out of.

Sorry for silly or inane questions, I have child-like curiosity.

Side note, if they find practice routes for those two new way points on the pilot's flight simulator at home, that would be helpful I bet.

[Viena]

What I don't quite get is why radars should lose track of it even though the aircraft's signaling systems were turned off. From my understanding these systems provide additional information to the air traffic controllers and other aircraft, but the lack of them shouldn't prevent radars from detecting the airplane.

[Salodin]

We don't have the entire world under coverage of radar. That far over the ocean, its not impossible to lose coverage for awhile and pilots often talk to other pilots to get info on conditions and what not when they're too far for HQ.

[Kryssan]

Ace and Kryssan defined how a plane can fly without outside help but can a plane fly unnoticed into an airspace and go completely undetected by the normal means that we use to keep track of planes in our airspace? Does it require a compliant pilot willing to communicate with the outside world in order to "see" a plane that is flying in your airspace? [Of course not counting seeing the plane with the naked eye.]

I recall the various news stories in the past about random lone planes that were found to be off course, contacted and then guided by fighter jets [F- somethings] to a safe landing place whenever they are flying where they are not supposed to be.. but are these lone planes:

1. Lone plane is spotted by airport monitors or military while flying in airspace that normally requires the communications with local flight control towers? I mean the normal handshakes that planes use when entering and leaving the various points of airspace that pilots encounter when flying a plane and following the rules.
2. Attempt at contact with the lone plane is made.
3. Warnings given to the lone plane to reply.
4. Fighter jets attempt to guide the airplane to land and threaten it/force it to cooperate.

So I am wondering how safe airspace is from these kind of things since it is apparently looking like people can just steal a plane filled with people and vanish. The 911 planes were all noticed, as in when they went off course they were not invisible but were they only visible because they went off course between point a and the next planned communication point? My question is can they tell that a plane is doing something outside of its normal routine flight pattern, if that plane were to begin its course without communicating with the outside and therefore has no routine or known airspace flight pattern to sign in and out of.

Sorry for silly or inane questions, I have child-like curiosity.

All we have currently is electronic whisps and pings so questions are forefront with everyone. Until we start finding physical evidence it'll likely remain that way, and stay that way until they have people / black boxes to query.

As to tracing aircraft, there are a lot of planes in the air throughout the world at any time. Congestion is high in many locales. Certain regions of course choose not to allow aircraft to fly over them, and would behave in a similar if not more aggressive fashion than what you've described. During the Cold War the Soviet bombers ( actually, the Russians haven't really stopped doing this when they want to make a point ) would do this on purpose. I imagine other countries do it as well. The Chinese only allot / allocate a small percentage of their 'airspace' for civilian traffic, which makes their skies 'congested' because of the number of planes / flights and the limited 'space' allotted to them.

I think as far as civilian aircraft are concerned, mayhap even all aircraft to an extent, you kinda rely on the plane's operators to inform you of its continued existence. If the plane isn't broadcasting, then you're just a shape on a radar / lidar array. If no radar / lidar is nearby, it's mark 1 eyeball and yeah, that plane would have to be flying low and slow or really close to an observer in the air for mark 1. That would be why military planes fly CAP ( combat air patrol ); obviously a military aggressor isn't going to want to notify you of its presence. Most countries in peacetime don't maintain an active CAP though, if anything they maintain rapid response fighters. Unless the plane is flying over active radar or through active patrols, it won't be found in the immediate.

The other thing I would note to you about the 9/11 planes specifically is that they were an example of the terrorists accidentally informing ATC of the events. AA Flight 11, specifically, the terrorists mistakenly broadcast their takeover announcement to not only the plane but also ATC ( they also notedly said nothing about weaponising the plane, but rather they would be returning to the airport - see below ). Additionally, another one of the 9/11 attack planes UA Flight 175 ( with transponder still on, and with personnel onboard using cell phones to talk to the ground ) nearly collided with another aircraft midair ( estimates are a near miss at 300 feet ) with ATC frantically telling the Delta flight to take evasive action. During the event only some of the aircraft deactivated their transponders, but those that did were 'invisible' as well - ATC probably would have just assumed AA Flight 11 was in distress with crew contact lost and its transponder silenced had it not been for the terrorists accidentally broadcasting to them.

Generally with hijacking events of aircraft, the action is to get the plane on the ground in a favourable location for exchanges and to obtain their desired outcomes. That was why before 9/11 the training was always just go along with what they want; after 9/11 when the idea of weaponising planes became a reality all of that training changed.

[Mistress Stowastiq]

We don't have the entire world under coverage of radar. That far over the ocean, its not impossible to lose coverage for awhile and pilots often talk to other pilots to get info on conditions and what not when they're too far for HQ.

Yep, I understand that for instance, Malaysian airspace is not as monitored as say Europe and American airspace and we all have different kinds of regulations for the areas that are not too far out to be monitored. I'm just wondering if they could even see a plane that did not cooperate with the friendly hand shakes going in and out of airspaces and chose to remain totally silent for nefarious reasons. Like if a plane entered your airspace, would it require cooperation or willing communication between both the pilot of the plane and the air traffic controllers in order for that plane to even be seen by them?

Edit, nevermind..I see that Kryssan answered my question. Thank you Your post was very informative!