Or that all of those passengers are still alive on some island.

I read a report from a pilot who was in the air in the area around the time that Vietnam ATC started "freaking out" pretty quickly. They contacted other planes in the air to try to establish contact with MH370. So they it was certainly very likely they were in touch with Malaysian ATC immediately.

Question for W0X0F:

Here is a question related to the latest developments in the MH370 investigation, claiming that the plane veering off course was programmed into its computers.

Do you think it is *theoretically possible* to hack a plane? Set aside the idea of remote hacking via a mobile phone or the entertainment system or whatever. Could an attacker potentially pre-install malicious code(s) and firmware(s) into a Boeing 777 various computer systems, which malicious code(s)/firmware(s) would:
- navigate the plane by changing its altitude and direction, while at the same time displaying false information to the pilots so they would think everything is as normal (it's night, over the sea and they have no visual cues of what the plane is doing)
- disable the various comm systems on board
- disable the plane's pressurization system and the deployment of oxygen masks

I am not saying that I think this is what happened, I am not a conspiracy theorist at all. I am only asking: is it *possible* in theory? Or to rephrase my question: are all the aforementioned systems digitally controllable, or can some of them be disabled/altered ONLY manually for example by manually throwing switches? Are there still *purely* analog instruments in the Boeing 777's cockpit which could not be altered by computer code?

edit: I have an IT background and I full well know that hackers cannot do everything Hollywood would like you to believe. However once you have physical access to a computer or device and intimate knowledge of its hardware, it is pretty much always possible to program it to do whatever you want.

Langoliers

yup, that's what happened. i'm 95% sure of it.

Let's assume for a minute that the plane was stolen and taken somewhere either by the pilots acting on behalf of a third party or by hijackers/pirates. What are the most likely reasons for this?

- Taking the plane purely for the value of the plane itself. How easy is it to resell a 777, especially now that the case has generated such a high profile? Taking 200+ people out just to get your goods is not a minor consideration even for most people who are ballsy enough to steal an airliner imo, as well as adding much more difficulty to the job. Seems like there would be much easier and less risky ways of generating the same cash through other criminal means.

- Terrorist group planning to use the plane for sinister purposes down the line such as loading it up with explosives and flying it into a major city. Well before this incident I would have said that this option was unlikely as you simply can't fly a commercial airliner anywhere on Earth without being immediately picked up by radar. This case seems to have proven otherwise so maybe this is a viable option?

- The plane was stolen for it's valuable cargo? I'm sure the authorities have gone on record saying that the cargo was just a load of fruit, but is it possible that there was some extra secret cargo that we can't be told about because of confidentiality/national security issues?

That's about all I can come up with. Any other ideas?

No matter what happened to the plane, passangers are screwed and there is little hope they're still alive imo.

0% -- easier to rob a bank, kidnap a rich Asian businessman for ransom, or a million other things.

0% -- Why steal a passenger jet with 239 people, fly it to nowhere, if goal is to fill it with cargo and crash it into a major city? There are a million ways better ways to get high-explosives into a city, using a boat, lorry, train, or if a big plane is really needed, then a plane designed to carry cargo.

0% -- No matter what is on the plane, there a million easier ways to steal it.

Taking your assumption of hijackers as a starting premise, the aims would be for political gain or simple retribution or just watch the world freak out and eat popcorn, not financial gain, and not because you really needed a 777.

They have some kind of cloaking device and keep landing to refuel then moving around knowing exactly which areas are being searched. For the lulz.

Does a mod want to step in and fix the thread title? It should read Malaysia Airlines "370".

The plane is a 777. Title reads fine.

http://www.airspacemag.com/history-o...371187/?no-ist

here's a really interesting article about a missing US pilot who some agencies have theorized either stole or was robbed of a commercial airliner in Africa.

I dont really think this is what happened to the Malaysian plane but apparently commercial airlines have been stolen for $$ at least in Africa. Either way it's a pretty good article if you're bored.

Precisely, it's the type of Boeing aircraft. 370 is the flight number. You wouldn't say United Airlines Flight 767 for the plane that hit the World Trade Center, same as you wouldn't use it here.

Just trying to clear up any confusion.

Right, that's why nobody is saying that.

Maybe start new thread: Possessive Apostrophe in "Malaysia Airlines' 777 Disappears" Disappears

Simple answer: I don't think it's even remotely possible, especially on a Boeing. The Airbuses are much more of a computerized, digital airplane so I couldn't say for that plane (but still don't think so).

The part where you posit the plane flying a flight plan different from the one being displayed to the pilot would require an entirely redesigned FMS. Also, the other systems (radios, pressurization, O2 masks) are not digitally controlled; they all require someone to flip switches and/or push buttons.

It would be a fine premise for a novel though. It hardly matters if it's something that could happen in the real world.

All,

A little surprised nobody has considered the simple possibility that someone was just really into mangosteens. Gotta be pretty hard to steal a few tons of fruit on the ground.

You can still visit the cockpit while we're on the ground. Time permitting, we often have visitors come up front during boarding. Here's one of my favorites, taken on the ground in Frankfurt. (Note: this pic was originally associated with this post from my other thread, but Apple stopped supporting the photo gallery and the link is no longer good).

This seems the most believable and I see no real flaws with it. Maybe I'm missing something.
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03...ectrical-fire/

I think most of us want to believe it's something else.

I'm not sure what the range is, but I can tell you for sure it's more than two miles. It's not uncommon at all for us to hear an ELT as we fly across the country and quite we often hear the signal for an extended period, perhaps 10 minutes, during which time we've traveled nearly a hundred miles. [It's routine for airlines to keep Comm #2 tuned to 121.5 mHz (the emergency frequency), which is the frequency an ELT broadcasts on.]

When we hear an ELT, we advise ATC and they will sometimes query other planes to see if they are also picking it up (this helps ATC start to narrow down the area of the ELT). The signal to noise ratio for ELTs is high, and by that I mean that most of these are not really downed planes in distress. Many of these signals are from guys testing their ELT in a light airplane. IIRC, tests are supposed to be conducted at 15 minutes past the hour and not done for extended periods.

You've described exactly how this works on normal flights. I'm not sure where the sinister aspect creeps in. We have a flight plan in the FMS. When the plane reaches a waypoint, it turns ("exactly as it reached a waypoint"!!) and then takes a heading for the next waypoint ("turning to the exact heading for another waypoint"!!).

Pretty good article imo housenuts, quoted is most important for me.

It's not that they send the signal to a satellite. Rather, we now have satellites that listen for ELT signals. But to your point, the signal has to be strong enough to be picked up by a satellite in orbit (and, of course, those satellites have some sensitive sensing).

This definitely sounds very reasonable. There is one confusing piece of information coming from the Malaysians in this regard though, that is that supposedly ACARS reported an inexplicable turn in western direction, well before last contact and before ACARS was shut off. Info from the Malaysians has been unreliable and contradictory though, so that may well prove to be false.

Ok, so if it tried to land on Palau Langkawi and failed to, wouldn't its trajectory take it directly over Sumatra? Wouldn't Indonesian radar have picked it up?

Huh? The point is that it started heading to waypoints not on the original flight path, demonstrating the flight computer was altered (as opposed to a hijacker simply grabbing the control stick as in 9/11, for instance).