Posted on 03/16/2014 7:20:17 AM PDT by COUNTrecount
“That is my best guess, no better than yours.”
Exactly. This is all in funs and games but we aren’t the ones to solve it. I like the speculation as a mind twist but nothing more.
If I was one of the pax, I’d have tried to record it for history, in notes if nothing else. Nearly everything washes ashore eventually.
I’ve had a peripheral involvement with 777 avionics development myself and am inclined to agree with you.
This from Travis Post 17
>>The hijacker pilot can fly the plane manually, but not by autopilot and not using GPS. He would only have a backup compass to steer by. Everything on a screen can be darkened by the pilot/engineer in the service bay. One plug at a time, the hijacker’s job becomes more and more difficult.<<
My response is a reply to what he wrote using the assumption that it occurs during hours of darkness and the panel is totally dead, which includes the backup systems.
I have no doubts that you’ll solve what happened before anyone else does.
I do agree with your assessment of Sudden Jihad.
It’s simplicity is its strength, and by far is the most reasonable explanation via Occam.
The “to be used later” and even the Diego Garcia angle involves a conspiracy far greater than can be contained by a few individuals.
That’s how I see it. And in a very real sense, “sudden jihad syndrome” is much, much worse for Air Malaysia and other muslim national airlines. If that is the determination, who will want to fly with muslims in the cockpit?
What about the Ram Air Turbine that supplies essential avionics? What about the flashlights that are required to be in the cockpit?
I never said “feel fly”. You look out the window at the horizon. You maintain pitch based on that view.
“I have no doubts that you’ll solve what happened before anyone else does.”
Same back at ya buddy. You’ll tell us all how it works just fine I’m sure.
“What about the flashlights that are required to be in the cockpit?”
Now don’t go putting facts into the discussion, you’ll only make mad those without any.
Let’s not forget that Boeing also put in the...nevermind. Boeing secret I think. Let’s just say the pilot can fly if the entire avionics suite were destroyed somehow.
“He’s not a “flight engineer,” there is no such position on a 777.”
Of course. I know you knew that.
“If I was one of the pax, I’d have tried to record it for history, in notes if nothing else. Nearly everything washes ashore eventually.”
There have been incidents recorded on napkins and all kinds of things found after the fact that helped the investigation. Those little memory cards can survive impact and deep water. I hope whatever happened left enough time to record something useful.
I knew you knew, but I thought somebody else might misunderstand that I understood. Or something.
Howdy, CodeToad. Always a pleasure to cross your path.
I heard the B777 doesn’t even have a Total Electrical Failure checklist because the chance of that is remote to 10 to the power of 9.
Saw that on a pro-pilot forum.
<< As someone that helped create some of the 777 avionics I know for a fact that no part of the 777 flight controls are even attached to another computer or communications system for a hack attack to even be physically possible. >>
Could someone explain how this statement does or does not relate to the .gov bulletin issued last November? The entire premise of the reason this document was published in the FEd Register seems to be because Boeing was approved for a unique computer network setup that made this plane vulnerable to computer security issues.
You answered a definitive “no” also, so I would love to have feedback from you on my previous post.
Who is the flyingwithfish guy? Any idea? He’s quite interesting to follow.
An article that better explains what I’m asking...
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-could-jets-system-have-been-hacked-1439928
“A document filed on the US Federal Register website indicates that aircraft manufacturer Boeing applied to have additional security installed aboard some of its 777 series of airplanes five months ago to prevent onboard hacking of critical computer systems.
Boeing said that it was upgrading the 777-200, 777-300 and 777-300ER series of passenger jet with a new onboard network system.
The concern was that the passenger inflight entertainment system would be connected to critical systems for managing the safety and maintenance of the aircraft.
Passenger seatback entertainment systems come with ethernet and USB ports, which would in theory enable access to a hacker to the critical computer systems.
Boeing asked the Federal Aviation Administration to alter its licence to allow it to add a “network extension device” to separate the various systems from each other.
That would prevent accidental or delibarate tampering with the critical system.”
I’ve often wondered what a ‘Total Electrical Failure’ would look like on a 777? I mean no power from engines, APU, batteries, or the whirlybird?
As you probably know, these systems are rated as far as likelihood of failure, and the power system control is a Level A system. ETOPS was designed in from the beginning with the 777, so accounting for such a failure is probably concluded as going to result in loss of the aircraft.
I am very familiar with that issue and it only relates to Boeing showing that the inclusion of additional networks continues to prove such networks cannot interfere with the flight control and other systems. The federal inquiry does not state that flight controls are at risk as designed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.