2003 Boeing 727-223 disappearance

It seems like they landed it fine but either crashed trying to take off again or just went overboard in demolishing it (when they had 10 tons of cocaine I think they might have been a bit exuberant): http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i6w-doyje...

That was an exceedingly difficult article to read and understand. I've read a few of these lately - more characters and subplots than a period drama.

I am not sure what the solution to the writing dilemma is - exclude everything but a couple of people central to the story, fill in the rest with sidebars, work in an info-graphic...not sure.

What a fascinating story. It's like the difference between startup life and working for IBM or someplace.

What if it starts blasting out interference, or catches on fire? Everything needs a power switch.

Easy as, the pilots are required to turn the transponder off as soon as they land, so planes on the ground don't show up on radar.

Three of the four aircraft hijacked as part of the 9/11 attacks had their transponders turned off:

> Controllers track airliners such as the four aircraft hijacked on 9/11 primarily by watching the data from a signal emitted by each aircraft's transponder equipment. Those four planes, like all aircraft traveling above 10,000 feet, were required to emit a unique transponder signal while in flight.

> On 9/11, the terrorists turned off the transponders on three of the four hijacked aircraft. With its transponder off, it is possible, though more difficult, to track an aircraft by its primary radar returns. But unlike transponder data, primary radar returns do not show the aircraft's identity and altitude. Controllers at centers rely so heavily on transponder signals that they usually do not display primary radar returns on their radar scopes. But they can change the configuration of their scopes so they can see primary radar returns. They did this on 9/11 when the transponder signals for three of the aircraft disappeared.

[1] http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

It's still my guess that the Air Malaysia flight was hijacked - transponder off, flew away from radar range and landed somewhere - it had a lot of fuel when it disappeared.

But yeah, transponder is just a piece of equipment. Jumbo jets can't really hide from radar, though, and if you're flying low enough to do so, somebody is going to notice.

For those that missed it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ben_Charles_P...

I was unable to find the link. Do you mind providing it?

Civil aircraft parts are subject to US embargo. There are however, third party suppliers in Russia that can supply parts to Iran. Iran also has domestic parts productions capability.

The US Government sometimes allows limited parts supplies as part of ongoing negotiations.

I think they would just buy the parts on the black market rather than steal entire planes. As a lot of these old airliners are used throughout the third-world, I'm sure there is a brisk trade in parts. The story itself says they raided another crashed plane for the parts, and that the only thing worth anything on the plane was the engines.

Personally I vote for insurance fraud as (1), then theft for parts as (2). Either case doesn't need a 'proper' landing (ie, one where the plane has to take off again). I'm sure there are plenty of places where you could put a plane down if you didn't need to get it back up again, and then strip it for parts. I'm sure the fuselage will turn up somewhere, someday.

Only the smallest civilian turboprop aircraft would have any hope of landing on a flat-top freighter without arresting gear. Even a BAe-146 would require too much landing distance. A Boeing 777 would be much safer ditching close by a freighter and awaiting rescue of passengers from life rafts.

A US Navy Cruiser (Aegis type) has a maximum radar tracking range of about 200-300NM for an airliner. If they were tracking MH370 then they'd have a good idea where it went down. When AF447 disappeared, there was little Naval activity in the region. When TWA800 went down, the US Navy turned over volumes of radar data to investigators that somewhat confirmed how the aircraft broke apart.

> How are there not satellite photos of the plane changing course and landing on a freighter or something?

(1) Because a 777 has only a slightly better chance of landing on a freighter as a snowball has of landing -- still frozen -- on the surface of the sun, and

(2) Because there isn't satellite video being recorded of every point on the Earth's surface, including the oceans, 24/7, contrary to what one might infer from certain kinds of (deliberately fictional) movies and TV shows.