[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
random

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts]
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 433350)
Message
File  []
close
S01E05-5tviL4u4-subtitled.jpg
433350433350433350
>> No. 433350 Anonymous
3rd January 2020
Friday 10:37 am
433350 spacer
Here we (very likely) go again.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50979463
121 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown. Expand all images.
>> No. 433672 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 7:07 pm
433672 spacer
>>433655

You're not seriously suggesting that it's outlandish to suggest I might have had the idea to monitor the airports if I was actively looking for a foreign fugitive? Come on now.
>> No. 433673 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 7:09 pm
433673 spacer
>>433672

No, I'm suggesting it's outlandish to say that no cock ups happened and that the airport was definitely monitored and if it was monitored they would have definitely found the hypothetical person they were looking for.

You're not saying "to be an effective spy agency the Iranians should have done this" you're saying "the Iranians definitely did this if this situation was real so your situation cannot be real."
>> No. 433674 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 7:14 pm
433674 spacer
>>433673

I'm actually saying it probably wasn't the Iranians, since it would have been so easy to take an alternative route if it was.

And it still doesn't make sense to allow for the possibility that the airport wasn't monitored, that they would have definitely not found the person they were monitoring for, but then to suggest they still somehow figured out that the person was on board a plane as it was boarding or rolling up to the runway etc.

If we're allowing for cock ups, why not just assume there's a really fucking thick soldier with an itchy missile finger?
>> No. 433676 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 7:17 pm
433676 spacer
>>433674

Because we're all smart enough to have assessed that idea and come to the conclusion that yes, it's a possibility but there's no point proffering it as an idea because there isn't much to discuss beyond that. If it was a single soldier (which yes has been mentioned) then great, now what? If it was a spy on the plane it could be a spy from about 150 nations, there could be a dozen reasons his death was important enough to merit the collateral damage, the timing of his departure could be significant and so on.
>> No. 433677 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 7:20 pm
433677 spacer
>>433676

So it's just conspiracy for the sake of conspiracy?

Fucks sake, I was a speculative knob a day ago for suggesting it was a missile at all.
>> No. 433678 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 7:24 pm
433678 spacer
>>433677

At that point the governments of the world hadn't said "yes it was a missle, no we're not going to do anything about it."

I was the one telling that TooMuchToThinklad to fuck off if that makes it any better.
>> No. 433679 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 7:33 pm
433679 spacer
So was this a trigger happy Timothy with a MANPAD or something? If it weren't so appallingly tragic I'd laugh.
>> No. 433680 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 7:35 pm
433680 spacer
>>433679

I don't believe the discussion so far would lead any reasonable person to make such an assertive conclusion.
>> No. 433681 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 8:22 pm
433681 spacer
>>433680

Yes, but anti aircraft missiles don't just magically point themselves at passenger planes and fire. Somebody had to pull the trigger, and either it was a covert secret service operation, by whatever country's secret service, or it was really a massive cock up of an Iranian soldier. Maybe he was just joking around with his mates and randomly pointing his missile launcher at things, and then his fingers hit the wrong button. And anything in between.
>> No. 433685 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 8:33 pm
433685 spacer
>>433681
>a massive cock up of an Iranian soldier

Simple as. An actual accident.
>> No. 433686 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 8:40 pm
433686 spacer
>>433681
>>433685

GCHQ is out in force tonight. I hope you're getting overtime.
>> No. 433687 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 8:46 pm
433687 spacer
There could be a bigger picture emerging now that the West is trying to blame the plane crash on Iran itself, and to use it as part of an effort to ramp up pressure against the Iranian regime.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/10/iran-plane-crash-western-powers-suggest-tehran-downed-ukraine-plane.html

Tactical beginner's mistake by Iran then, to immediately declare it an engine failure, only to be proven wrong by something as basic as eyewitness video off a smartphone.

It still doesn't fit that Iranian soldiers actually would have mistaken a civilian 737 for an enemy military aircraft. Especially since the plane itself was only at 8,000 ft at the time of the likely missile impact. Even against a night sky, you will be able to make out that that's not an enemy aircraft you're shooting at if it's at that altitude. Especially since you will likely have had your sights on it for a few minutes prior, during which time the plane would have been even lower above ground. Doesn't sound like something that would happen to a soldier who's at least trained enough to be trusted with handling a missile launcher.

My best guess is the CIA or some other foreign secret service with ties to the CIA did it. To destabilise the Iranian government, and to distract from the fact that this bizarre standoff between the U.S. and Iran was really set off by the fact that POTUS isn't big on the basic concept of cause and effect.
>> No. 433688 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 10:15 pm
433688 spacer
>Iran Air Flight 655 was a scheduled passenger flight from Tehran to Dubai via Bandar Abbas that was shot down on 3 July 1988 by an SM-2MR surface-to-air missile fired from USS Vincennes, a guided-missile cruiser of the United States Navy. The aircraft, an Airbus A300, was destroyed and all 290 people on board were killed. The jet was hit while flying over Iran's territorial waters in the Persian Gulf, along the flight's usual route, shortly after departing Bandar Abbas International Airport, the flight's stopover location.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
>> No. 433689 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 10:22 pm
433689 spacer
>>433687

It's a theory, and could be possible, but I'm not sure how likely it is that they'd take that action. It seems much more likely it's a cock up from the Iranians, hence the quick response and statement. People on edge, someone made a mistake at some point.
>> No. 433690 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 10:55 pm
433690 spacer
>>433688

There's unfortunately a bit of a history of passenger planes being shot down by mistake. Just take the missile attack on the Korean 747 by the Soviet Union in 1983. Except in that case, the aircraft was actually in and out of Soviet airspace without properly identifying itself, which led the Russians to assume that it was an enemy aircraft. It's not unreasonable to say that the plane's flight behaviour created a false positive in the eyes of Soviet air defence personnel who were trying to judge if it posed a military threat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007

The question why Soviet jet fighters approaching the 747 carried out the air-to-air missile attack despite realising it was a Boeing 747, and quite likely a civilian one, was the subject of heated debate even after the end of the Soviet Union. The biggest factor was probably a poorly structured chain of command, and the people in it not second guessing their actions before carrying them out.
>> No. 433691 Anonymous
10th January 2020
Friday 11:38 pm
433691 spacer
>>433687

This has Vladislav Surkov's fingerprints all over it.
>> No. 433693 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 11:22 am
433693 spacer
Well, now we know.
>> No. 433694 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 11:28 am
433694 spacer
>>433693
The Iranians deserve respect for this. Not just because I didn't have to read this thread nor follow the news to gain more certainty about an occurrence in world affairs than is normally possible, but for the deescalatory nature of the admission.
>> No. 433695 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 11:34 am
433695 spacer
>>433694

It's still bewildering that they thought they would get away with the engine failure excuse.

Somebody had a meeting where they said "Right, we accidentally blew up a passenger airplane. Let's call it engine failure and hope nobody finds out. Let's also not hand over flight recorders to air disaster investigation institutions."

Fucking amateurs.
>> No. 433697 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 11:58 am
433697 spacer
>>433695
"What about the crash site? There might be evid-"
"Clear it before anyone gets here."
>> No. 433698 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 11:58 am
433698 spacer
>>433695
Eh I dunno. Russia didn't "get away" with Little Green Men but I wouldn't call the communication strategy a failure in any regard. It bought a couple of days where some people had to secure certainty about what was happening rather than focusing on how to react.
>> No. 433701 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 12:35 pm
433701 spacer
>>433698
They could have gone 'our investigation is continuing to ascertain the cause of the crash and we are not ruling anything out at this point in time'. Instead the first thing they did was deny it.
>> No. 433702 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 12:39 pm
433702 spacer
>>433680
I await my apology, cockylad.
>> No. 433703 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 12:41 pm
433703 spacer
>>433701
I can imagine a scenario where the top brass didn't know they'd done it and were reluctant to entertain the possibility. That might be arrogant but I don't know it's necessarily amateur. Then again I'm not sure what the Iranian radar etc. capabilities are. Obviously the parties responsible for firing the missile would have been self-interested in covering it up and now their heads might be for the chop. *shrug*
>> No. 433704 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 12:43 pm
433704 spacer
>>433695
I am willing to bet they had some telemetry already from the plane saying that the engine had failed first before it all crashed - that is technically possible and available to the operator and civilian regulators. But what likely happened was the SAM (which exploded next to the plane) took out that engine and half the controls, but it then carried on flying (uncontrolled) for a while. The SAMs are programmed to detonate near the plane, not ballistically target the plane itself.
>> No. 433705 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 1:35 pm
433705 spacer
>>433704

I believe they announced it as an engine failure before the flight recorders were even found in the wreckage.
>> No. 433706 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 1:56 pm
433706 spacer
>>433705
I could look it up but surely someone will know: can any state actor readily decipher a black box or are they encrypted/encoded in some way that only the privileged states can easily read?
>> No. 433707 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 2:24 pm
433707 spacer
>>433706

I think much of the flight recorder consists of raw data from the aircraft's many sensors and control units. It's probably not encrypted, but you will have to have an idea what that data means when you retrieve it from the recorders and want to analyse it.

The cockpit voice recorders for a long time consisted of an endless magnetic tape loop. I think in the really old days it was actually a loop of magnetised iron wire, then it was audio tape, but the most modern voice recorders now of course store the audio digitally.
>> No. 433708 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 2:29 pm
433708 spacer
>>433707
I'd guess there's every chance a country like Iran has taken the time to study the data structures, because they'll naturally posses a bucketload of the things.
>> No. 433709 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 2:32 pm
433709 spacer
>>433706

The applicable standards (ED-112) require the use of plain text. IIRC the regulations do not require any sort of tamper protection for the stored data.
>> No. 433711 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 2:48 pm
433711 spacer
>>433709

>The applicable standards (ED-112) require the use of plain text

So then you pretty much just get an ASCII data dump that you can download or otherwise extract from the recorder?
>> No. 433713 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 4:09 pm
433713 spacer

Annotation 2020-01-11 160603.png
433713433713433713
>>433711

Not him and I've never seen raw flight recorder data but I'm almost positive it'll simply be a string of letters and numbers separated by slashes as that's how quite a lot of information is stored and sent in aviation, from load messages to departure TELEXes to METAR weather reports, they all sort of look like this. I can't imagine them using a significantly more complicated system, when all you really want is data you can plot to graphs.


Would be surprised if it was anymore complicated than a block like /FLAPS 0.93/ALTITUDE 8000/SPD 250/ and so on and so forth, just printed line per line every few seconds.

Hopefully someone else here actually knows/can find the information. It's not an easy thing to google and I'm definitely on a list now.
>> No. 433714 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 4:36 pm
433714 spacer
>>433713

https://www.flightdatacommunity.com/understanding-flight-data/

There's a little bit on it here, and the full standards overview here:

https://www.bea.aero/uploads/tx_scalaetudessecurite/use.of.fdr_01.pdf

Seems like it's not immediately human readable like I thought, but is otherwise pretty straightforward.
>> No. 433723 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 8:22 pm
433723 spacer
>>433714
> Seems like it's not immediately human readable like I thought, but is otherwise pretty straightforward.

Alas, a text based format doesn't always mean human readable, it just means that it's probably all going to be printable ASCII chars. Even protocols that are purely "human readable" and text-based such as HTTP 1.1 can (and do) wrap all kinds of binary insanity up in things like ASN.1/BER/DER encoded as base64 or uuencoded etc.
>> No. 433726 Anonymous
11th January 2020
Saturday 10:57 pm
433726 spacer
>>433723

I did wonder if I just misunderstood the meaning of 'plain text' but I get in computer world that must include ones and zeros.

I do wonder if the average passenger would still fly if they knew how old some of the systems keeping them alive up there are. Come to think of it, do normals even know they're probably taking a 25 year old plane off to spain every year?
>> No. 433731 Anonymous
12th January 2020
Sunday 12:28 pm
433731 spacer
>>433726

>the meaning of 'plain text'

Plain text by a loose definition means anything that isn't in binary format.

For example, when you open a jpeg file in a text editor, it will look like a bunch of random strange characters that don't make sense. That's binary format. Whereas a printer driver file will usually have its instructions spelled out in plain text that is readable and understandable to you. But even a concatenation of just numbers, as long as they are readable that way, counts as plain text.


> Come to think of it, do normals even know they're probably taking a 25 year old plane off to spain every year?

Not the first thing that's your mind while you're on a plane with the prospect of spending a week off your tits in Magaluf with your mates, that's true.

I try to catch what the plaque on the front door frame reads everytime I get on a plane. There's normally a small white plaque somewhere around that area that denotes the plane's model and the year it was built. I've found that most budget airlines have planes that are around 5 to 10 years old; it's rare to get a really old banger, in my experience. That said, I caught a super cheap flight to Rhodes once with Thomas Cook, and their plane just looked in a sorry state, its liveries had obviously been painted over a few times, and the plaque in the front said that it was a good 20 years old and it looked like a beaten up school bus. Then again, the flight was 80 quid one-way. You do get what you pay for in the end.
>> No. 433732 Anonymous
12th January 2020
Sunday 4:48 pm
433732 spacer
>>433731

>I try to catch what the plaque on the front door frame reads everytime I get on a plane. There's normally a small white plaque somewhere around that area that denotes the plane's model and the year it was built.

If you're interested, flight tracking apps (I reccomend flight radar) will give you this information if you know the flight number, and you can see where the plane has been, how often it is delayed, and so on.


It's not too uncommon to see older planes, most of the summer charter fleet planes are 20ish and have had more paintjobs than the Forth Bridge. TUI planes I've noticed in particular have fucking shocking paintwork, you can clearly see the "Thompson" logo they've covered over in on most of them.

A 20 or even 30 year old plane is going to be a Triggers Broom situation anyway, almost every engine and flight control part will have been replaced or serviced a thousand times over.

The yanks are only just retiring their MD80s from 40 years ago, and jet2 still have a couple of 737-200s in their fleet, thoguh you'll only see them on low value regional flights.

Planes on the whole are pretty solid, none of the popular jets strike me as particularly unreliable. The only plane that gives me the heebie jeebies is the BaE Jetstreams. Tiny little fucking prop planes that I can barely stand up in, and I'm short. And they break all the time, there's always something going wrong on them. It's highly amusing to me that the IATA delay code for aircraft technical failure is 41, and the most used BaE plane is the Jetstream 41. Its like they knew.
>> No. 433733 Anonymous
12th January 2020
Sunday 5:24 pm
433733 spacer
>>433732
>Triggers Broom situation
I think I've been keeping the wrong company because I've always heard it referred to as the ship of Theseus.
>> No. 433734 Anonymous
12th January 2020
Sunday 5:58 pm
433734 spacer
Well, this is the first time you've made me acknowledge that I may be flying in a twenty or thirty year old plane, and I don't really care, because I know flying is very safe and heavily regulated, and when a crash does occur it's rarely 'because the plane was old'.
>> No. 433736 Anonymous
12th January 2020
Sunday 6:57 pm
433736 spacer
>>433732

Charter operators don't mind running clapped-out old jets, because they aren't operating very tight schedules. The likes of Ryanair would rather lease a load of new aircraft than deal with delays, cancellations and knock-on disruption due to unscheduled maintenance.
>> No. 433741 Anonymous
12th January 2020
Sunday 8:23 pm
433741 spacer
>>433733

I usually use that one, but wasn't sure how to spell Theseus.
>> No. 433742 Anonymous
12th January 2020
Sunday 8:27 pm
433742 spacer
>>433732

>TUI planes I've noticed in particular have fucking shocking paintwork, you can clearly see the "Thompson" logo they've covered over in on most of them. 

I was able to make out at least three different paint jobs on that plane. The bottom one was undecipherable, but the one on top of that was clearly Condor, Thomas Cook's Dutch (?) subsidiary airline, and then the Thomas Cook logos slapped onto that. To their credit, the headrest covers looked neat, but the seats themselves were really in bad shape, with loose and wonky armrests and seatback trays with missing screws.

I got the flight for 80 quid via a price comparison site, but someone in a seat near me paid more than twice that from what they told me. £180 would have been quite bad value for money that day.
>> No. 433743 Anonymous
12th January 2020
Sunday 8:34 pm
433743 spacer
>>433732

>TUI planes I've noticed in particular have fucking shocking paintwork, you can clearly see the "Thompson" logo they've covered over in on most of them.

The weight of paint has a measurable impact on fuel consumption, so they put it on as thinly as possible. Stripping a plane back to bare metal costs a fortune, hence the shitty overpainted appearance.
>> No. 433748 Anonymous
12th January 2020
Sunday 9:32 pm
433748 spacer
>>433736

This is true as long as you can fix or replace your broken down plane with less than three hours delay. Once you start paying delay compo, things get painful. It costs about 300k to repair/replace an engine someone has driven into on the ground with a truck but it costs 750k to delay 189 passengers by more than three hours.
>> No. 433749 Anonymous
12th January 2020
Sunday 9:36 pm
433749 spacer
>>433743

I do wonder why they don't just use decals, considering how often planes and airlines change hands. Probably there's very good reasons they don't.

The most daft one to me is that the newish Flybe Dash-8's have registrations starting G-PRP_ in reference to their colour scheme, which they're going to lose very soon when they rebrand under Virgin.
>> No. 433750 Anonymous
12th January 2020
Sunday 10:13 pm
433750 spacer
>>433749
>G-PRP_
Is it not in reference to them being turboprops?
>> No. 433751 Anonymous
12th January 2020
Sunday 10:48 pm
433751 spacer
>>433750

It could be, that would be less annoying to me. But it's only the purphuel liveried ones that have PRP in the reg.

The most amusing one flybe have is G-ECOK. Because it sounds like cock
>> No. 433763 Anonymous
13th January 2020
Monday 1:35 pm
433763 spacer

Funny-registration-3.jpg
433763433763433763
>>433751

Not sure I would get on this plane...
>> No. 433764 Anonymous
13th January 2020
Monday 2:00 pm
433764 spacer
>>433751
Not just a cock, but an e-cock.
>> No. 433767 Anonymous
13th January 2020
Monday 3:25 pm
433767 spacer
>>433764

>e-cock

Is that like an e-cig, for when you're trying to wean yourself off real cock?

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password