[2014] Most plausible explanation of mystery of Malasyian Flight 370

[Clemson Fan]

This makes the most sense to me.

https://plus.google.com/app/basic/stream/z13cv1gohsmbv5jmy221vrfyiz3vdhbop04

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

This makes the most sense to me.

https://plus.google.com/app/basic/stream/z13cv1gohsmbv5jmy221vrfyiz3vdhbop04

It only makes sense if you select the data that supports that notion and ignore contradictory data.

Since I don't have access to the primary information I can only go by what has been published in news accounts. From that information, the problems that immediately come to my mind are that based on the available information the plane was not making a bee-line for that airport. Instead it was professionally navigated between known checkpoints on known air traffic corridors - for as long as primary tracking data is available it was following established navigation pathways.

The second problem is that INMARSAT satellite data puts it on one of the two flight paths that are the primary areas of focus. The data can't tell which of the two courses it was on, but based on the data that does indicate which that indicates satellite orientation needed to point the antenna to get a better signal, it narrows the flight path down to one of the two corridors for at least as long as tracking data.

****

It doesn't appear to me that the option laid out is being ignored because it is too simple. It's not being considered because it doesn't square with what is known about the flight path. In fact, I suspect that for the first couple of days, Malaysian officials were wish-casting that something like that is what actually happened. I think they started to come clean and ask for more international help only after it became that clear that none of the simple explanations such as th is worked.

Occam's Razor says that we should always prefer the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions and extrapolations. But it does require that we consider all of the data, not just the data that supports the simple explanation.

 

[Clemson Fan]

Occam's Razor says that we should always prefer the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions and extrapolations. But it does require that we consider all of the data, not just the data that supports the simple explanation.

This is exactly why I think this theory makes the most sense. I think one of the reasons it's not being highlighted is because it's not sensationalistic and it doesn't offer any hope because probably within 15 minutes of whatever occurred probably everybody on that plane was already dead. When you're at altitude and your oxygen supply goes away or if all you have to breath is smoke you'll pass out very quickly and die soon thereafter. There was a golfer, Payne Stewart, who died along with everybody else on his private plane when they lost cabin pressure at altitude. His plane flew for hours silently until it ran out of fuel.

With a hijacking at least there's hope that the passengers are still alive.

I realize it's just a theory and we won't know what hapenned until the plane is found and if it's not found soon we'll probably never know what hapenned. This theory just makes more sense to me then a hijacking or terrorism or suicide which in their own ways don't make much sense. Maybe like the TV series Lost, they crashed on some remote magical island?

If the plane is deep within the southern Indian Ocean like I think it may be, I doubt it will ever be found. Probably years from now we'll see a story of some debris from the plane washing up on some shore.

This mystery will create some wonderful conspiracy theories and rumors for years to come.

 

[ace2000]

I read a intriguing article about it yesterday. A couple of noteworthy events were reported.

His wife and three children moved out of the house just one day before the incident.

And then there's the connection he had with the country's primary opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim - jailed for homosexuality just hours before the jet disappeared. And hours before his flight left Kuala Lumpur it is understood that the pilot attended a controversial trial in which Ibrahim was jailed for five years.

Could be factors?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-trial-jailed-opposition-leader-sodomite.html

 

[Phydeaux]

This makes the most sense to me.

https://plus.google.com/app/basic/stream/z13cv1gohsmbv5jmy221vrfyiz3vdhbop04

Disagree completely with this Goodfellow's theory. Not even close, imho.

Pilot hijacked the aircraft, possibly with the aide of the copilot.. My theory is he landed it, intact, at one of the hundreds of abandoned airstrips within range. Why? Not a clue.

 

[pedro47]

Disagree completely with this Goodfellow's theory. Not even close, imho.

Pilot hijacked the aircraft, possibly with the aide of the copilot.. My theory is he landed it, intact, at one of the hundreds of abandoned airstrips within range. Why? Not a clue.

I also agree with this theory. There are so many abandoned airstrips in the area.

 

[Phydeaux]

Apparently Goodfellow missed the part that systematically, and in a logical order:

The transponder was disabled.
ACARS was disabled.
Communications were ceased.

All while the aircraft was being flown, given data being transmitted by the engines.

The jet was also "terrain hugging". Flying low altitude, and following landscapes as to evade ground radar, for hours. A very skilled pilot was in the left seat.

 

[Clemson Fan]

Disagree completely with this Goodfellow's theory. Not even close, imho.

Pilot hijacked the aircraft, possibly with the aide of the copilot.. My theory is he landed it, intact, at one of the hundreds of abandoned airstrips within range. Why? Not a clue.

No offense, but this is crazy talk. How would they keep over 200 people silent? Nobody on that airplane tried to get a message out with their phones or anything? Why no terrorist or hijacking demands? When the 9/11 planes were hijacked there were hundreds if not thousands of instances where the passengers communicated with loved ones.

IMO, it's much more plausible that there was a catastrophic event and everybody on that plane died in relatively short order. The plane then stabilized itself like it's built to do and then flew on silently in a straight line until it ran out of fuel and dropped into the ocean.

 

[GregT]

This is a truly bizarre circumstance.

I agree with Clemson that the idea raised by Goodfellow is plausible -- and makes the most sense of what could have happened. Emergency on-board, pilot heads to closest large runway, everyone loses consciousness and plane flies on until out of fuel.

However, as plausible as this might be, it is still contradicted by the other data presented (of unknown accuracy) about the change in elevation, flying low to the ground, and when transponders/other were disabled.

Who knows what really happened, and I still have a hard time believing both pilots conspired to hijack the plane, and were able to complete the maneuver and make a jet near the size of football field vanish. Truly bizarre.

I do agree that we will hear conspiracy theories for quite awhile on this one.

Thanks for posting the Goodfellow link, interesting to see.

Best,

Greg

 

[ace2000]

No offense, but this is crazy talk. How would they keep over 200 people silent? Nobody on that airplane tried to get a message out with their phones or anything? Why no terrorist or hijacking demands?

I think it's possible that the original intent was to hijack it by the pilot and then for some reason the hijacking went bad and crashed into the sea. I agree, if it was successful, surely there would be some kind of public demands or at the least, some group taking credit for it.

 

[Clemson Fan]

Apparently Goodfellow missed the part that systematically, and in a logical order:

The transponder was disabled.
ACARS was disabled.
Communications were ceased.

All while the aircraft was being flown, given data being transmitted by the engines.

The jet was also "terrain hugging". Flying low altitude, and following landscapes as to evade ground radar, for hours. A very skilled pilot was in the left seat.

There's no evidence that the jet was "terrain hugging" and following the landscape. There's little to no evidence about how the plane was flown because the transponder and ACARS were disabled and the plane "disappeared" and went silent. In fact, the tertiary system that was doing a periodic "handshake" with the satellite makes it look like the plane just flew in a straight line for 7 hours.

A catastrophic event like an electrical fire makes the most sense IMO. It would lead the pilots to immediately shut down all the electrical systems in a systematic order to try and isolate and control the fire. This would disable the transponder, ACARS and communications. They would then make an immediate turn to try and make a b line to the nearest landable airstrip. However, they weren't able to save the situation and they, as well as everybody else on board, we're overcome with smoke or loss of cabin pressure and probably died within 10-20 minutes of the event. If a jet cabin depressurizes at 30k+ feet any human will pass out within 90 seconds. Most of the passengers were probably sleeping since it was around 1:30 am and they probably just died in their sleep. The jet then stabilized itself like it's built to do and then flew in complete and utter silence with everybody dead for 7 hours until the fuel ran out and it dropped into the ocean.

That scenario IMO logically answers the questions we have about the flight. Things like terrorism, suicide, hijacking, a meteor just raise more unanswerable questions then they answer which is why I don't believe them.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

This is exactly why I think this theory makes the most sense. I think one of the reasons it's not being highlighted is because it's not sensationalistic and it doesn't offer any hope because probably within 15 minutes of whatever occurred probably everybody on that plane was already dead. When you're at altitude and your oxygen supply goes away or if all you have to breath is smoke you'll pass out very quickly and die soon thereafter. There was a golfer, Payne Stewart, who died along with everybody else on his private plane when they lost cabin pressure at altitude. His plane flew for hours silently until it ran out of fuel.

With a hijacking at least there's hope that the passengers are still alive.

I realize it's just a theory and we won't know what hapenned until the plane is found and if it's not found soon we'll probably never know what hapenned. This theory just makes more sense to me then a hijacking or terrorism or suicide which in their own ways don't make much sense. Maybe like the TV series Lost, they crashed on some remote magical island?

If the plane is deep within the southern Indian Ocean like I think it may be, I doubt it will ever be found. Probably years from now we'll see a story of some debris from the plane washing up on some shore.

This mystery will create some wonderful conspiracy theories and rumors for years to come.

Occam's Razor also requires that the theory be consistent with the evidence. And the available is that the plane wasn't being piloted in a manner consistent with heading to the nearest reasonable emergency landing field.

 

[Clemson Fan]

I think it's possible that the original intent was to hijack it by the pilot and then for some reason the hijacking went bad and crashed into the sea. I agree, if it was successful, surely there would be some kind of public demands or at the least, some group taking credit for it.

Some of the very little evidence that we do have is that it appears the jet flew in a straight line for 7 hours after whatever event took place. How do you keep over 200 people completely silent for nearly 7 hours and why keep on flying the plane for 7 hours?

 

[SMHarman]

Apparently Goodfellow missed the part that systematically, and in a logical order:

The transponder was disabled.
ACARS was disabled.
Communications were ceased.

All while the aircraft was being flown, given data being transmitted by the engines.

The jet was also "terrain hugging". Flying low altitude, and following landscapes as to evade ground radar, for hours. A very skilled pilot was in the left seat.

FL20 or so is not terrain hugging, it is 3 miles up in the sky.

Evading ground radar, maybe, by flying a path right down the center of the water between the two countries, but then it flew over the top of Penang which blows that point of evading radar out of the water.

No offense, but this is crazy talk. How would they keep over 200 people silent? Nobody on that airplane tried to get a message out with their phones or anything? Why no terrorist or hijacking demands? When the 9/11 planes were hijacked there were hundreds if not thousands of instances where the passengers communicated with loved ones.

IMO, it's much more plausible that there was a catastrophic event and everybody on that plane died in relatively short order. The plane then stabilized itself like it's built to do and then flew on silently in a straight line until it ran out of fuel and dropped into the ocean.

How to keep 200 people silent. Potentially by turning off the cabin pressurisation system, taking the plane up to FL45 and asphyiating them all while using the pilots tank of oxygen on the flightdeck. That does not silence their phones though unless they were all truly well behaved and all remembered to turn all devices to flight mode.

Flying down at FL20 when most airlines are trying to keep their planes higher in the thinner air to save fuel also reduces the risk of a collision when flying without communication to ATC.

The first turn was programmed into the FMS which is a pretty technical step, you need to know the name of the next waypoint and how to plug that in and set it.

I read another theory that the plan then turned and shadowed a europe bound SG or KLM flight to hide in the radar signature of that plane until it could peel off to the final destination.

I'm of the theory that some of the above happened then the pilot ran out of air before he repressurised the cabin and asphyiated himself and then the plane carried on cruising until it ran out of fuel.

 

[Clemson Fan]

Occam's Razor also requires that the theory be consistent with the evidence. And the available is that the plane wasn't being piloted in a manner consistent with heading to the nearest reasonable emergency landing field.

What if the pilots and everybody else on board died within 10-20 minutes of whatever event that occurred? Given that situation they probably just ran out of time to be able to make a precise maneuver to get them to the nearest emergency landing field. According to Goodfellow's article that sharp left hand turn did in fact at least point the plane toward a airstrip they could land on and they just ran out of time and died before being able to complete the action. The jet then probably just stabilized itself like it's built to do and then just flew silently on for 7 hours until it ran out of fuel.

 

[ace2000]

Some of the very little evidence that we do have is that it appears the jet flew in a straight line for 7 hours after whatever event took place. How do you keep over 200 people completely silent for nearly 7 hours and why keep on flying the plane for 7 hours?

Who knows if they were "completely silent"? There were no cell phone communications, but that may not have been possible in that area.

The other theory out there is that with the quick ascent to 45000 feet, that the passengers and crew would be "knocked out" without oxygen.

 

[SMHarman]

A catastrophic event like an electrical fire makes the most sense IMO. It would lead the pilots to immediately shut down all the electrical systems in a systematic order to try and isolate and control the fire. This would disable the transponder, ACARS and communications. They would then make an immediate turn to try and make a b line to the nearest landable airstrip. However, they weren't able to save the situation and they, as well as everybody else on board, we're overcome with smoke or loss of cabin pressure and probably died within 10-20 minutes of the event. If a jet cabin depressurizes at 30k+ feet any human will pass out within 90 seconds. Most of the passengers were probably sleeping since it was around 1:30 am and they probably just died in their sleep. The jet then stabilized itself like it's built to do and then flew in complete and utter silence with everybody dead for 7 hours until the fuel ran out and it dropped into the ocean.

Yet so far there has been no catastrophic fire (in air) on any 777 in 20 years (see EgyptAir note below). The two 777 crashes have come down to
1) Piloting, the Asiana crew overreliant on ILS landing not able to pilot the plane to the ground without CAT3B funcitioning. Furthermore, the deference to seniority in Asian carriers resulting in lack of challenge to Pilot in Command.
2) Engine / Fuel problem causing Icing on a fuel filter and engine fuel feed problems on final for BA38. Flying high over Nepal caused icing in the fuel.

http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/b777.htm

For an aircraft introduced into commercial service in June 1995 that is a pretty amazing. In the BA incident nobody died, in the Asiana incident only 3 died and I think at least one of them survived the impact made it off the plane and was run over by the SFO fire service as they were driving down the airport to the hull.

Reading the Wikipedia article, maybe something similar to the Egyptair ground problems happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777#Incidents_and_accidents

The type's second hull-loss occurred on July 29, 2011, when an EgyptAir 777-200ER registered as SU-GBP suffered a cockpit fire while parked at the gate at Cairo International Airport.[222] The plane was successfully evacuated with no injuries,[222] and airport fire teams extinguished the fire.[223] The aircraft sustained structural, heat and smoke damage. This aircraft was written off.[222][223] Investigators focused on a possible electrical fault with a supply hose in the cockpit crew oxygen system.[222]

Finding the FDR and CVR will be fairly pointless, it will detail the final couple of hours but not what happened over the South China Sea.

 

[Phydeaux]

What if the pilots and everybody else on board died within 10-20 minutes of whatever event that occurred? Given that situation they probably just ran out of time to be able to make a precise maneuver to get them to the nearest emergency landing field. According to Goodfellow's article that sharp left hand turn did in fact at least point the plane toward a airstrip they could land on and they just ran out of time and died before being able to complete the action. The jet then probably just stabilized itself like it's built to do and then just flew silently on for 7 hours until it ran out of fuel.

I guess you haven't seen this: Late Monday, the New York Times reported that the mysterious turn that diverted the missing flight off of its scheduled route to Beijing was programmed into a computer system on board, meaning it was not executed manually by one of the pilots at the controls.

Senior American officials told the newspaper that someone entered a code into a knee-high pedestal between the pilot and co-pilot.

The revelation lends more credence to a theory by investigators searching for the jet that the Boeing 777 was deliberately diverted. The Times reports it is unclear if the change in course was reprogrammed before or after the plane took off, but the change was likely made by someone in the cockpit with knowledge of airplane systems.Investigators say the jet flew off-course for hours.

There are two pilots on the flight deck. In event of fire, you were correct in that the first order is to fly the aircraft. That's the guy in the left seat. The copilot in the right seats job is to radio a distress.

Now, back to my questions: Do you really think it's plausible that a pre-progammed route was entered since a fire was predicted? Do you think a fire caused the 1. ACAR to be shutoff 2. the transponder to be shut off and 3. prevent a distress call?

Not even close. Of all the theories I've read and heard, this one is the least plausible. Abducted by alien Sasquatch is more likely.

 

[Clemson Fan]

I guess you haven't seen this: Late Monday, the New York Times reported that the mysterious turn that diverted the missing flight off of its scheduled route to Beijing was programmed into a computer system on board, meaning it was not executed manually by one of the pilots at the controls.

Senior American officials told the newspaper that someone entered a code into a knee-high pedestal between the pilot and co-pilot.

The revelation lends more credence to a theory by investigators searching for the jet that the Boeing 777 was deliberately diverted. The Times reports it is unclear if the change in course was reprogrammed before or after the plane took off, but the change was likely made by someone in the cockpit with knowledge of airplane systems.Investigators say the jet flew off-course for hours.

How do you infer that programming the course change into the flight computer, "was not executed manually by one of the pilots at the controls"?

It was very likely that it was indeed one of the pilots that entered the course change into the flight computer. Reports state that this is a 10-20 keystroke maneuver which is fewer keystrokes then writing this sentence. Isn't it more plausible that once whatever emergency started that one of the pilots immediately programmed the flight computer to make that hard left turn to try and make a b line to the nearest landable airstrip?

 

[SueDonJ]

I don't know how anybody not in any way connected to the flight or the airline or the airports in the vicinity or the pilots or … or … or … can be more sure of one theory than any other, not when people who are connected and/or are experts in the field seem to be floundering around unsure of anything!

Before this I never would have imagined that a plane could disappear for more than a day or two. It's mind-boggling that this plane has gone undetected for as long as it has, and it sure has reduced my comfort level with flying. Not to the point where I won't fly, but it's sure making me think about the dangers much more than I did before.

One thing is sure - no matter what the outcome, folks are going to use all this theorizing as justification to not follow the rules about turning off electronics while flying. There are going to be many more, "no way, not until you pry it from my cold, dead hands, I might need it To Save The Day" militant arguments against it.

 

[Clemson Fan]

There are two pilots on the flight deck. In event of fire, you were correct in that the first order is to fly the aircraft. That's the guy in the left seat. The copilot in the right seats job is to radio a distress.

Now, back to my questions: Do you really think it's plausible that a pre-progammed route was entered since a fire was predicted? Do you think a fire caused the 1. ACAR to be shutoff 2. the transponder to be shut off and 3. prevent a distress call?

There's no evidence that the left hand turn was pre-programmed. In fact the evidence points to it being hastily done. To me that seems like something one of the pilots would do in an emergency situation to turn the aircraft towards the nearest landable airstrip.

An electrical fire actually answers your questions quite nicely. What would be the first thing you would do if you were running your microwave and it began to spark? Would you make a distress call to the fire department? Of course not. You would shut the microwave off.

If there was an electrical fire, they would immediately turn all those systems off to try and isolate and stop the fire thus causing those systems to be turned off and communications to be cut off. Once the fire is under control you would then systematically begin to turn things back on and make whatever distress call you're going to make. Obviously they never made it to that point - probably because they were asphyxiated and died along with everybody else on board.

 

[Phydeaux]

How do you infer that programming the course change into the flight computer, "was not executed manually by one of the pilots at the controls"?

It was very likely that it was indeed one of the pilots that entered the course change into the flight computer. Reports state that this is a 10-20 keystroke maneuver which is fewer keystrokes then writing this sentence. Isn't it more plausible that once whatever emergency started that one of the pilots immediately programmed the flight computer to make that hard left turn to try and make a b line to the nearest landable airstrip?[/QUOTE]

I'm not inferring anything since I didn't write this development.

No, it's not plausible at all.

A distress call would have been sent at the moment any smoke or fire was detected. Do you fly, or do you have a pilot in your family?

Back to disabling ACAR, the transponder, and all communicaitons - you seem to have a clear understanding of the protocol pilots of a 777 follow in event of smoke/fire. Please elaborate if you would - what are all of the electronics on the flight deck that are systematically turned off, and in what order? And this is all done before the pilot or copilot radios a distress, right?

 

[ace2000]

There's no evidence that the left hand turn was pre-programmed. In fact the evidence points to it being hastily done.

You should quit while you're ahead.

The first turn to the west that diverted the missing Malaysia Airlines plane from its planned flight path from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing was carried out through a computer system that was most likely programmed by someone in the plane’s cockpit who was knowledgeable about airplane systems, according to senior American officials.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-flight.html

 

[Clemson Fan]

I'm not inferring anything since I didn't write this development.

You mean to tell me that a reporter actually wrote the inference that, "the course change into the flight computer was not executed manually by one of the pilots at the controls."?

Man, that would be some horrible reporting!

 

[Phydeaux]

There's no evidence that the left hand turn was pre-programmed. In fact the evidence points to it being hastily done. To me that seems like something one of the pilots would do in an emergency situation to turn the aircraft towards the nearest landable airstrip.

With due respect, this is absurd. Here's why:

Yes, the course change was preprammed. Re-read the article. The course change WAS NOT automated by the pilots. The aircraft changed its course because the course change was entered into it system ahead of time. Ahead of time means preprogrammed.

Second, there is NO evidence a preprogrammed course change was "hastily done". Where are you getting this??

Third, in an emergency, pilots are not fumbling with auto controls. They're busy flying the aircraft, manually, just as you stated in one of your earlier posts.

Fly much?