Airline Pilot Central Forums - Malaysian 777 missing

Nice way to welcome a new guy, and a nice showcase of your Moderator Skills. Let's review:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazster (Post 1603006)

I'm new here so I'm going to duck after posing this question.
Wouldn't you think that after a couple of hours missing, but being detected by primary radar returns as an unidentified aircraft, one of the countries in the area would have scrambled a couple of fighters to find and shadow the "intruder"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer (Post 1603018)

It was the middle of the night.

Most countries do not have fighter pilots on alert, ready to scramble. At least, the US hasn't since about the late 1970s/early 80s, with the exception of post 9-11. I think this has mostly been ended for money. So who has the capability in southeast Asia? China? Maybe on alert, but same limitations at night. If they went southwest? No country with the hardware or money to do this 24/365, really.

Sporadic, if any, radar hits. Launch a jet, or let him sleep?

And if you intercept at night, what do you do? Look at navigation lights? Look at them on NOGs? ( Night Observation Goggles). Call them on 121.5? What if they don't do anything? Shoot down a plane flying straight and level in international airspace?

The last time this was done was when the Russians shot down KAL 007, but they had been tracking an RC-135 that they knew was regularly just off the east coast of Russia, listening and recording. They mixed-up the plots, and followed the wrong plane...a plane that made a 1-degree INS input error, putting them 60 miles inside Russia. (But not when they were shot down).

Civil response -- but is that from an expert? Should Mazster drop his question now because someone who knows everything about intercepts and IDing airplanes has delivered the definitive answer, or is it OK to press with further questions?

(By the way, the RC-135 had returned to base in Alaska many hours before KAL007 flew over Kamchatka and then Sakhalin Island. They didn't "mix up the plots" of the two airplanes -- they just claimed they thought it was the RC-135 as a cover for the shootdown.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazster (Post 1603033)

If nothing else, they could have at least verified movement in the cockpit to dispel thoughts of explosive decompression killing the crew.

Reasonable question, posed respectfully.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazster (Post 1603040)

Very interesting read. I think many questions could have been answered if someone threw some hardware up there to find them...maybe even identify WHO was in the cockpit...or am I watching too many movies.

Still reasonable, posed respectfully.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timbo (Post 1603043)

In the pitch dark? Good luck with that.:rolleyes:

Reasonable counterpoint. (Is Timbo one of those guys who has multiple intercepts and all that stuff. If he answers the question, does that end the conversation?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickair7777 (Post 1603062)

If the people who knew (or suspected) the plane was missing were talking to everyone else.

If it was a location where radar was known to be highly reliable.

If random general aviation flights were not allowed in the area.

If it wasn't international airspace where anyone is free to fly around at will (might not want to accidentally jump somebody else's fighters..tensions are a tad elevated out there with the PRC asserting themselves).

If the country in question even had fighters and crews handy. The US would do it but our defense budget is probably bigger than the rest of the world's combined.

Lot of big "Ifs".

Lots of big "Ifs", but no "Nos" -- so, maybe it's far-fetched, but still possible? (Is rickair one of those guys with all the experience and expertise such that an answer from him is all anyone should ever ask for? If so, how does a new member know that?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATCBob (Post 1603073)

That's not really practical in a small country like Malaysia where a jet can overfly it in 15-20 minutes. By the time they confirmed civilian ATC wasn't working the target, then scrambled their own jets and caught up, it would already be outside their airspace and probably over a different country. Their mission is probably only to look for large formations of targets, and maybe not even that (does Malaysia even have an enemy)?

Actually we did have intercept aircraft on alert pre-9/11. Not many, but there were always some ready. NORAD would scramble them and ATC would work them to the intercept because NORAD at the time only looked outward and didn't have our radar feeds.

Good points. Respectful delivery. Should Mazster stop pursuing his questions because ATCBob has spoken?

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastoff (Post 1603076)

I've flown in that neck of the woods at that hour of the evening. You'd be lucky if someone was even AWAKE at their position to notice something on the radar, let alone scramble non-existent fighters on non-existent alert. Yes you watch too many movies :)

Another useful response, delivered with respect and a little humor -- see the smiley face?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazster (Post 1603101)

Regarding interception...in the Payne Stewart case fighters were sent to try and identify the problem and they could see that the cockpit glass was all frozen and opaque inside, giving them a fairly good indication what the situation was. I still think it would have been worth the effort to try an intercept.

Wow. Mazster has an opinion. He still thinks it would have been worth the effort to try an intercept.

I read much more bizarre ideas than that in the thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer (Post 1603137)

Payne Stewart: daylight.

MH370: Night.

Having flown alongside a lot of tankers at night in my career, I can tell you if the cockpit lights are low, you don't see anything.

If the lights are on high, you can barely see anything.

Short overflight time is an excellent point.

As to the second, yes, I know that; I worked some air defense plans in the mid 90s. Unfortunately, most of our "Continental Air Defense" was more about show than reality. While a handful of jets (maybe 20-24 nationwide, by my count) might be cocked and armed at the few alert shelters we had, I don't think pilots were on 5-minute alert like you saw in 1950s Armageddon movies unless there was reason to believe a Russian attack was imminent. I would guess the response time was closer to 20-30 minutes. Unless he's on alert sitting in the cockpit, it would be generous to estimate he could get from his bed to being strapped-in under 5 minutes; 5 to start and do checks, and 5 more to taxi out. 15 just to be ready to take off.

During that time, a Mach 0.80 target has moved 120 miles.

In the final scene of "Top Gun," Val Kilmer asks Tom Cruise: "Where are you, Maverick?!?!"

Maverick, who was ordered launched by the CAG when the fight hit 100 miles, infamously replies:

"Maverick is supersonic; I'll be there in thirty seconds."

If Mav could really go 100 miles in 30 seconds, that's 200 miles a minute.

(That's Mach 20. Twenty). :rolleyes:

The range of fighters such as F-15s, -16s, and -18s drops precipitously when in afterburner for max-Mach pursuits.

So, while in theory a fighter could chase him down, the reality is, if not launched in a window of opportunity, he won't have enough gas to do it.

Another fair reply delivered in a respectful tone. But, does this mark an end to all questions? Does flying "alongside a lot of tankers" establish the level of expertise and experience to shut down the conversation?

(Did the tanker ever allow UAL T38 Phlyer to fly abeam the cockpit inside the #3 engine? That's a lot closer than chicks in tow, and I can guarantee you the pilot of that airplane can see what's going on inside the cockpit of the big airplane.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazster (Post 1603354)

I don't want to beat a dead horse re an intercept attempt, but if you think out of the box a bit, I believe it could have been ascertained whether or not the plane was being actively piloted. Why couldn't a fighter scare the crap out of someone flying the 777 just to make him move the stick a bit...you would know if it was on AP or not. I'm sure there would have been ways to know the condition of that aircraft.

Without any hard answers to any questions, what's so wrong with thinking out of the box? Like I said, I read much more bizarre theories advanced in this thread. Does it really insult anyone to ask these questions?

(By the way, I don't agree that you would want to do something to "scare the crap out of someone flying the 777." However, one could ascertain whether there is physical damage to the airplane, and from a close vantage point, observe what's going on in the cockpit.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by USMCFLYR (Post 1603361)

Let's take a guess that some of the users responding to your post about interception TTPs have actually performed intercepts on other airplanes and/or have flown in close formation with other aircraft (even large aircraft) and have a fair idea of what could have been accomplished?

Why should he take that guess? And why the condescending attitude -- from a Moderator?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazster (Post 1603378)

OK...educate me USMCFLYER...why is it inconceivable to attempt a maneuver on an intercept that would force a reaction by a pilot in command of the 777...even at night?

Reasonable question -- which you never answered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CBreezy (Post 1603381)

I don't understand what hypothetical world you're living in. Why is this relevant to the discussion?

But wait ... CBreezy earlier said,

Quote:

Originally Posted by CBreezy (Post 1603290)

Asking questions is one thing. Jumping to conclusions is another.

What's wrong now with asking about the feasibility of intercepting the flight to gather facts?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LightAttack (Post 1603382)

USMCFlyer, don't feed the trolls.

Oh, so people who ask questions are trolls?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazster (Post 1603393)

LOL...Obviously you can't answer the question. <BIG GRIN emoticon deleted due to 3 image limit in posts>

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastoff (Post 1603402)

Your question has been answered several times over and ridiculed for its idiocy. In 10 posts you're making quite a name for yourself, and not in a good way.

No, his original question and subsequent followups elicited respectful responses. But now blastoff has concluded that Mazster has been ridiculed, and his questions characterized as idiocy.

Nice contribution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CBreezy (Post 1603405)

I still don't understand why this is relevant. If I recall correctly, Malaysian authorities didn't alert anyone of a problem until after the airplane failed to arrive at its destination. Even if the military tracked the aircraft west, do you really think they have airplanes sitting hot alert? In what magical world do you live in where 3rd world countries can scramble an intercept in minutes at 1am? Why aren't you asking if space lasers could tell if anyone was alive in the airplane?

Wait. Is this the same CBReezy who stated

Quote:

Originally Posted by CBreezy (Post 1603290)

... any conclusions beyond, "it didn't land where it was supposed to" and "something happened to the transponders" is irresponsible.

now concluding that "Malaysian authorities didn't alert anyone of a problem until after the airplane failed to arrive at its destination"? I guess that knife doesn't cut both ways.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazster (Post 1603409)

Sorry but i don't get intimidated. The question was not idiotic and posed in a quite cogent manner. Flippant responses are not necessary. If the moderators don't want me here they can throw me off. Otherwise, I am not here to please you "blastoff" or anyone else of the High and Mighty members of this group. <ROLL EYES (SARCASTIC) emoticon deleted due to 3 image limit in posts>

Obviously on the defense now, and for good reason. He didn't call anybody names or belittle their answers -- but he was called a name and his questions defamed.

(Is name-calling (harassing, intimidating) allowed under the TOS? Or only for idiots and trolls?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastoff (Post 1603428)

Your initial question was respectful, but quickly debunked. Your responses thereafter have been nothing but condescending towards people with your answers. You come for answers but keep pushing when you don't like the answers. Grow up little man.

Add "little man" to the list of insults. No, he has been nothing but patient with the criticisms laid on him until the very last post. His initial question has still not been debunked -- several IFs have been offerered, and several reasons why it would have been difficult, but none to prove it would have been impossible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LightAttack (Post 1603446)

Go back to your mother's basement, troll. Members here have participated in intercepts, been in charge of intercepts, performed accident investigations, flown the 777, been 777 sim instructors, etc, etc, etc. Welcome to the ready room. If you feel harassed and intimidated, stop posting idiotic questions. Take the hint. "Cogent"? We'll determine that.

Occam's Razor is a good place to start. Some of the press worms keep bringing up the "landed somewhere" idea. Really? 250-odd people onboard and every one with a cell phone. Ever 3rd World crap hole has a cell phone system. If it were hijacked and flown somewhere, they would have to had absolute control over the passengers to prevent a cell call from someone. On that basis alone, that can be ruled out.

Hypoxia is a possibility, but all the alarms and alerts would have had to be inhibited for that to have caused complete incapacitation.

Transponder and ACARS turned off (they seem to be certain about that) says it was deliberate by someone. Hijacking by terrorists? 250 passengers sitting by for that? Possible, but unlikely post 9/11. "Hijacking" or "suicide" by one of the crew after one goes to the back to hit the head? Still seems unlikely, but seems the most likely. Still, with the crew member stuck in the back with 250 passengers - how does the guy in the cockpit prevent the door from being breached over many hours?

How do you control or incapacitate the passengers? From the engine data transmission, it was flying for many hours past its last voice transmission. Amazing.

The first paragraph was directed at Mazster -- add more insults -- go back to your mother's basement. "We'll determine [what's cogent]." Oh, really. Exactly who is "We"?

And if there are so many experts on the subject, why doesn't someone step up and say, "This is my expertise, and this is why I don't think it would work"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by USMCFLYR (Post 1603480)

But you are beating a dead horse.
It is ok if you don't want to believe the people who have done such intercepts.
By all means - continue to educate us <WINK emoticon deleted due to 3 image limit in posts>
And exactly what maneuver, in your expert opinion of military aircraft intercepts, would FORCE a pilot in command of a 777 into some sort of reaction (other than an aerial game of chicken of course) and would be both practical and safe for the intercepting pilot?

Again -- who are these people who have done such intercepts?

And why can't you answer Mazster's last question directed to you? (Here's a refresher. He asked, "why is it inconceivable to attempt a maneuver on an intercept that would force a reaction by a pilot in command of the 777...even at night?")

Is it your responsibility as a Moderator to belittle people, or to facilitate constructive conversations and civil discourse? You had an opportunity to express your opinion on the topic, but you skipped right over that to your insult the new guy routine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazster (Post 1603497)

An unfair question...I am obviously not in a position to answer that. I will end my input on this by saying that in researching this, I am not the only one asking the question and that, rather than some of the rude answers offered on this list, the N.Y. Times states that "The existence of the radar data suggests that the Malaysian authorities may have missed a chance to send military jets to intercept, identify and track the plane as it passed over the country. General Rodzali said interceptors were not scrambled because the unidentified plane appeared to be a civilian aircraft and was not seen as hostile." In my opinion, obviously either a mistake or for some other reason intentionally ignored. Additionally, "The current protocols for aircraft off the norm is intercept, identify, contact, direct to an airport, or, failing the aforementioned, shoot down. The Malaysians are trying to tell us that they ignored the 777-200 changing course, going incommunicado, shutting down both transponders, without considering a 9-11 scenario? The MAF has Su27s and MiG29s, both very capable fighters in the interceptor role, whose pilots completed an exercise with the U.S. Navy not too long ago regarding terrorism threats."

Finally the recent Ethiopian flight that was hijacked to Geneva was indeed intercepted (at night) and shadowed to Geneva.

Some of the "know it all" people here chose to offer silly answers and tried to intimidate me for asking and following up on my question. I have seen rudeness before by some of the same...totally uncalled for IMHO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by savall (Post 1603504)

USMC I was simply agreeing that the troll has been fed too much. I just wanted to clarify that in that situation where aircraft were sent up to check, with a known flight path, and good daylight visibility it ultimately served little more than to know the location of the crash.

I reread the article on that yesterday and I believe it said they were flying for 4 hours and within about 20 minutes of losing contact were intercepted, but even then it was only because there was a squadron on a training flight nearby.

I'm not entirely sure the US would send birds up without a 7500 or a distress call immediately let alone Malaysia which has been stated in several posts to not have active squads sitting around waiting to be scrambled.

Rather than engage him on the topic, call him a troll and ignore him. I wonder if there's a name for that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazster (Post 1603505)

And just what idea was I trying to "push"? I asked a question with a couple of follow-ups. You as a "moderator" should see that. <ROLL EYES (SARCASTIC) emoticon deleted due to 3 image limit in posts>

Yes, you as a Moderator should see that he was asking a question, and you as a Moderator should be concerned about fair play in the forums.

Quote:

Originally Posted by USMCFLYR (Post 1603512)

Exactly. Yet when given reasonable answers to your questions from operators/experts - you launch into some 'you guys don't know what you're talking about' rant. Listen Mazster....the answers to your questions were given.

Where did Mazster "launch into some 'you guys don't know what you're talking about' rant"? Here's a hint -- he did not.

Yes, he got some answers, and he asked follow-ups, and he got more answers. Nobody has proven it would have been impossible to intercept the airplane and acquire more information about its fate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by USMCFLYR (Post 1603512)

Yes - possibly. Those of us familiar with press releases can also read between the lines fairly easily and those of us who have flown with/and against other militaries in that part of the world have a feeling about anything coming out of the press. Maybe they did miss a chance.

And this proves what in relation to your questions. Can you find a former (or current) military pilot on the forum who says that an intercept couldn't be made if a fighter was able to be launched? The problem isn't an intercept - even at night. I've made lights out intercepts - I can get there with some work. The problem is what YOU think you can do about it once you are there.

There is little rudeness in the answers to your questions. You asked - they were answered. You continue to push - basically telling people that have done the job that they don't know what they are talking about and now you seemed to have picked up a reputation as a thread troll. If you really wanted to participate in the discussion and have your questions responded too in a serious manner, you took a wrong turn with your responses.

Show us where Mazster has told people that have done the job (whoever the heck they are, I guess we're just supposed to know these things) that they don't know what they are talking about. Reputation as a thread troll? Well, I guess that seals it -- the Moderator calling the guy a troll.

Wrong turn? Point it out, please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by USMCFLYR (Post 1603512)

My standing as a moderator has nothing to do with you questions - asked and answered.
People seem to like to throw that out as if it means something. Sorry Mazster, the bosses here have told us to moderate the TOS and that we are allowed to have our own opinions on subjects and share them with the forum; which I have done in this case. If you feel that someone has violated the TOS, use the report function. If you would like to discuss this further...please contact me via PM.

You don't get it, do you? His comment about you being a Moderator has nothing to do with your having an opinion or the right to express it. Superior to that right is a responsibility to uphold the tenants of fair play. Instead of promoting fair play and civil conversation, you have instead engaged in piling on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jungle (Post 1603544)

We have more than a few people here who have run quite a few day and night intercepts, no ego, but when someone with no experience in these things wants to tell us how it should be done it only offers comedy.
Sorry his feelings got hurt, but not everyone gets a trophy here.

Why don't you note that qualification right under the name, and above the Avatar, so we'll know that when they speak, we're supposed to shut up.

Your condescending attitudes are embarrassing -- not appropriate for a Forum where civil conversation is encouraged.

.