Discussion in 'Off-topic Zone' started by Achilleslastand, Mar 8, 2014.
If you don't want to be seen because of a terrorist threat you'd want to turn it off.
I've never heard an expert mention that before. I wouldn't think most terrorists would have the capabilities to track a plane by its transponder.
Most wouldn't, but some would.
I don't know of any good reason why a commercial pilot would want to shut off the transponder. Commercial pilots should not have this choice. Shutting the transponder isn't going to make the commercial airliner suddenly go into stealth mode. I suspect manufactures will take that switch away.
Now it is quite possible the transponder in this case failed for other mechanical/electrical reasons.
Now the public can join the search via satellite Click here and start searching
I'm an FAA Airline Transport Pilot, and I can assure you there are plenty of reasons to turn one off. For instance, if the altitude reporting goes out, it will give the controller false indications and the mode C must be turned off. Often times, they malfunction and need to be power cycled. You have no idea what you're talking about.
See what I posted above.
You guys should follow here. There is way too much to post but this is getting really interesting
I fear the passengers are going to be living in some sort of purgatory on a Island for years.
This is getting a little too out there.
That thing could be anywhere. It sounds crazy but is it possible it was hijacked to deliver a large scale weapon to a specific target?
Not sure why it took 5 days for anyone to mention it continued flying for 5 hours after dropping off the map.
That's apparently Rolls Royce's statement.
This thing has got to start picking up. If they aren't hijacking to make demands, it's gotta be for another reason.
That is kind of what I was getting at earlier. The plane was hijacked to deliver a larger attack on something; hence, why possible terrorist's have not claimed any responsibility.
I still believe it is laying on the ocean floor somewhere but anything is possible.
It would have had to run out of fuel off course, right? It all seems too deliberate and orchestrated to actually be that situation.
The timing of the drop off, the 5 hours after where the engines sent data, the mixed reports on direction of flight.
Honestly, finding a wreck may be better than what the alternative could be. An alternative that seems a lot less nutty than just three days ago.
that part about the phones still ringing would seem to indicate that the plane is NOT on the ocean floor.
My phone rings once and then goes to VM when my phone is off.
If they were attractive young women.
US Officials Have 'Indication' Malaysia Airline Crashed into Indian Ocean
By MARTHA RADDATZ | Good Morning America – 27 minutes ago
U.S. officials have an "indication" the missing Malaysia Airlines jetliner may have crashed in the Indian Ocean and is moving the USS Kidd to the area to begin searching.
It will take another 24 hours to move the ship into position, a senior Pentagon official told ABC News.
"We have an indication the plane went down in the Indian Ocean," the senior official said.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said, “It's my understanding that based on some new information that's not necessarily conclusive, but new information, an additional search area may be opened in the Indian Ocean, and we are consulting with international partners about the appropriate assets to deploy.”
Carney did not specify the nature of the “new information.”
Read the rest: gma.yahoo.com/us-officials-indication-malaysia-airline-crashed-indian-ocean-170011087--abc-news-topstories.html?vp=1
I learn something new everyday. I am not a pilot nor have I ever flown an aircraft. I'll take your word for it but you might be interested in some guy named Les Abend who has been a 777 pilot for 29 years and wrote this:
"First, the focus on the airplane's transponders, the device that transmits a discreet signal to Air Traffic Control (ATC) radars, might be misguided. The 777 has two transponders. A failure of one would send a caution message visible to the crew. They would then select the alternate transponder with barely a second thought.
A double failure? Not likely, unless there was a serious electronic systems failure (more on that later).
The only other plausible explanation would have been that the crew moved the knob to the off position. No professional flight crew would knowingly turn off a transponder in flight."
here is the link for the whole article:http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/12/opinion/abend-malaysia-370/index.html?hpt=hp_t4
I admit I don't know what I am talking about. I only go by what I've read from the so-called experts on the news and internet. They all have been saying pretty much the same stuff when it comes to the transponder. Other experts say that you may have to re-toggle (reset) the transponder if it is giving out strange data but there really is no good reason to shut it off unless you want to hide. Not calling you out, just wondering what you think of this pilot with 29 years flying 777s saying: No professional flight crew would knowingly turn off a transponder in flight."
If I'm reading this article right, you are saying one thing and this pilot is saying something else. Sort of like all the info the public is getting about this incident.
No one seems to have the slightest clue
What he means is no one would turn it off as a normal operation. It would only be turned off to troubleshoot a malfunction.