This was far more complex than that. They could have simply flown
straight into the South China Sea if that was what they wanted to do.
It is just about all CNN has on the air right now.
You are still only going to be good a few miles from the nearest
tower. You might get a text through at 10 miles but you would need
clear line of sight and more than a little luck.
The pilots have said consistently, cell phones do not work at cruising
altitude (30,000 feet or so).
The indications are that the passengers may not have even known they
were in trouble until they were a ways out into the Indian Ocean.
I am not even sure it is relevant. I would think they would want you
anchored to your seat by that little hose and not causing problems.
10-15 minutes later, those masks stop working.
I am not sure they can but everything is controlled electrically so if
they trip the breaker, it is not going to activate.
That is a design issue that was not considered 15-20 years ago when
they started drawing up the 777
The debris field is still going to be a pretty small patch in millions
of square miles of ocean.
If you smacked in at mach 1, most of that debris is going down with
the ship. What doesn't will be drifting for a while before it is
likely to be spotted. If the plane is in 10,000 feet of water, it is
gone. Someone may stumble on it some day in the future but they will
be looking for something else.
Agreed. More likely the plane had serious trouble like a fire, rose above
45K to put it out and then turned to reach the nearest runway away from big
cities, especially if he knew control was failing.
If the plane was indeed affected by a fire, it's most likely going to be
found in a line that's a straight extension of the last known heading at low
altitude. It was probably a flying graveyard by then, and a tribute to the
automatic piloting abilities of these new airliners. On the NOVA program
about the AF Airbus that crashed, they made a point of saying how
"self-righting" these sorts of planes can be. An asphxiated crew and
passengers would explain the ghost ride of seven hours. Even if they were
still alive they may have even lost rudder and flap controls at that point
and could do very little about their fate.
There's a good chance of finding it in a straight line because it doesn't
make a lot of sense for hijackers to do that but it does make sense for a
crippled plane on autopilot to fly until it ran out of fuel. I suspect that
the wreckage will be found along the line of the last course and at the
point where the fuel would likely have run out. That's at least a smaller
area than the current one they are searching, which they said on the news in
the size of France.
The article in Wired explains the rise and drop in altitude very neatly.
The pilot took the plane up (while turning back) to extinguish flames that
had incapacitated some of the electronics. Then he dropped to 20K feet not
to evade radar, but to get low enough so that the passengers and crew could
Exactly. Excellent point and it explains the drop in altitude.
I want to believe that a pilot with as many hours as Shah did and a love of
flying as evidenced by his home built simulator tried to do all the right
things. Like the crew of Challenger, he may have been trying to save the
plane with his last breath.
I kind of believe that no one was watching the radar screens, not that MH370
was making military-style manuevers to evade radar (which can't really track
over open ocean anyway).
What probably happened is that the autopilot flew the plane after everyone
on the plane asphxiated from the fire. If they ever find the plane, the
above scenario would be supported by melted cables, smoke scarred lungs and
perhaps the cockpit data and voice recorders. I suspect, though, that the
last two hours of the plane's flight will be eerily silent, punctuated only
by automatic warnings as the plane ran out of fuel and then, maybe, the
sound of it hitting the water and breaking up.
One thing it doesn't explain is the latest reports that (a) the big turn was programmed in to
the plane's nav computer, not performed manually, and (b) the co-pilot's transmission "All
right, good night" came some 20 minutes *after* this turn.
Neither of those are consistent with the on-board fire scenario.
To discredit the "Wired" theory, you have to believe that the Malaysians
have all their dates and times right. I'm not so sure considering all the
back-tracking and BS we've been fed. They've already admitted there's not
exactly sure of the times of anything except the last radio transmission.
I'd have to know more about how they were able to distinguish between
"manual" course changes and pre-programmed ones without access to the black
boxes. I smell more BS from a government trying to cover its ass.
Always interesting work in the Register. Still, everyone's speculating,
some more wildly than others because we have to rely on reports from the
Malaysian government, mostly, and their credibility is just about nil.
<<It would be possible to turn off this transmission also, but that would
mean getting into an electronics bay below the cockpit. Our pilot source
didn't even know that such transmissions took place until all this happened,
though he thought that if he had known he could get into the bay via a
locked floor hatch (actually in the forward galley on the 777s he had flown)
and cut power altogether to the satcomms equipment. He adds that if someone
other than the pilots gained access to the electronics bay and interfered
with comms kit, alarms and notifications would have appeared on the flight
deck, so it's all but certain that the pilots were involved in the process -
whether under coercion or not.>>
Interesting items in the above quote. First, a pilot *didn't* know that the
sat comms had to be disabled from an electronics "bay" outside the cabin.
I've read this before. While the writer says that the pilots were involved
in this process, he intimates it was a deliberate act aimed at knocking out
tracking. Unfortunately, pilots disabling circuits in the cabin they
believed to be the cause of a fire also can explain those allegedly
deliberate acts. There's just no satisfactory proof that's what happened.
They also say:
<<The flight never contacts Vietnamese air controllers, and at the same time
the aircraft's secondary-radar transponder is switched off.>>
To me, "switched off" is reaching a conclusion without having all the facts.
If the cabin's filled with smoke from a fire, you might very well find both
events occurring as pilots switch off banks of circuits trying to eliminate
it. Or the transponder circuit burns up. The evidence the Register
presents is certainly not dispositive.
It's almost impossible for any "fact" we think we know to be proven at this
point without the crash debris and the flight recorder to analyze and in
many cases, finding those still doesn't give us all the answers. But the
speculation has value because it at least gives investigators "fuel" to
examine all the possibilities. I know when I am having trouble figuring
something out, the inputs from members of AHR, while usually not being 100%
useful or on topic, often reveal something I failed to think of.
<<The data reporting - and indeed the aircraft's satellite communications
for all purposes - was disabled via processes that would have required
navigating through some menus on the flight deck and selecting options on a
How on earth do they know *how* or *what* disabled those comms without
something like a pilot's ID code being transmitted back to ground or sat as
the code was being entered? Or video of someone punching in a series of
keystrokes? Just like all the other articles, they have to take leaps of
faith (although at least not of time and space and physics as we know it).
The Register keeps repeating things like "having turned off its transponder"
as if their reporter was in the cabin, watching the pilot perform the
action. It's like postings on the internet. Unless you have video of
someone typing the keys that match the words on a post, there's really no
way to know who actually wrote that. When I still had CourtTV I was aghast
at the number of times tech-ignorant judges allowed "evidence" from web
postings and emails that weren't vetted in the slightest and could have
easily been falsified.
The Register article says:
<<However, almost certainly unknown to whoever was directing the airliner's
course, its satcomms equipment was still sending its automated blips each
They've clearly gone with the hijack theory when a number of sites have
(correctly) stated we have no proof of either hijack or malfunction. Just
bunches of clues, some of them slightly better than others but absolutely
none of them proving anything with certainty.
If everyone was dead and the AP was flying the plane, the pattern would be
the same as what we've seen, at least according to a number of articles by
777 pilots that I've read. It would be nice to know exactly how far away
the sat comm equipment is from the rest of the cabin electronics. That way
we could properly evaluate if a cabin fire that was eventually contained,
say from a burning tire, could have reached the transponder and VHF radios,
but not the sat comms.
The people who *seem* to know say that the satcomms are locked into a bay
remote from the cabin. That makes it seem to me more likely that the cabin
electronics got pulled circuit by circuit in an attempt to extinguish what
was probably not even an electrical fire. It could have been a burning tire
that oddly enough retracts right into that area when aloft. At what point
in the flight is the landing gear retracted? That would have some impact on
the credibility of the burning tire theory. (In addition the fact that such
an event HAD occurred before). I've read that newer planes have landing
gear temperature sensors but I don't know if the 777 has them.
<<Prior to departure, the lead mechanic had noticed that the "#2 and #4 tyre
pressures were below the minimum for flight dispatch" and attempted to
inflate them, but no nitrogen gas was readily available, and the project
manager, unwilling to accept a delay, disregarded the problem and readied
the aircraft for dispatch. As the aircraft was taxiing, the transfer of the
load from the under-inflated #2 tyre to the #1 tyre on the same portside
axle resulted "in overdeflection, over-heating and structural weakening of
the #1 tyre." "The #1 tyre failed very early on the take-off roll", followed
almost immediately by the #2. The latter stopped rotating "for reasons not
established", and the subsequent friction of the wheel assembly with the
runway generated sufficient heat to start a self-sustaining fire>>
At this point, speculation is all we have (and the Register has to plead
guilty on at least one count: they began talking about the plane carrying
gold or huge amounts of currency). Speculation's not all bad because we
learn more and more as experts debunk some of the less plausible theories.
Even the wildest theories might spur something to come across something they
had not previously thought of. I still tend to favor the Wired article
if only because it's written by a pilot and he attempts to explain things
that others leave out of their theories (like the rise and fall of the plane
and the re-direction of same - if that even happened!).
To me, the changes of altitude are crucial clues. Yes, they can be signs of
radar evasion (although it doesn't even seem that was necessary since no
jets were scrambled by anyone). But they can also be signs there was a
fire, he climbed to extinguish it and then dropped back down to a minimum
"breathable" altitude because he knew supplemental oxygen ran for a limited
time. All the while he was pulling busses trying to eliminate the cause of
a fire he might not know was coming from the landing gear, not the plane's
avionics. That would have kept him busy enough to not contact ATC with his
current status until it was too late.
One thing I do heartily agree with the Register on: <<there remain plenty of
scenarios in which neither the missing Boeing nor any of the people on board
will ever be found.>>
That would be a shame because we wouldn't gain information we would need to
track the next lost aircraft. All of us are paying for these extensive
search and rescue operations so we all have a least a dog hair or two in the
On Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:48:59 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
I saw a 777 captain on TV stating that ACARS would not have transmitted
those waypoints even if they had been entered. I'm betting this stuff
about the waypoints having been entered early in the trip, the turn
having been initiated before they said goodnight, etc, is BS from the
confused Malaysian officials.
Unless of course there was a hijacker that was competent in the 777.
But so far, there is no evidence of that.
I give that about a .0001% probability. If there was some indication
of a fire, you'd have to be nuts to turn off the VHF radios, ACARS,
transponders. First thing you'd do was inform ATC of the problem.
And if you thought you had a fire, it would be nuts to turn off the working
VHF radio, ending your ability to communicate with ATC. You need want
to get to the nearest airport safely and land.
There's just no satisfactory proof that's what happened.
Again, while I agree it's not 100%, it's close to that this was a
deliberate act. You believe a mysterious fire just happens to cut off
VHF, transponders, ACARS, right at the point where they are handed off
from one ATC to another, over the ocean, with poor radar contact, ie
the perfect spot for a deliberate act? And then with the fire burning,
they didn't request immediate vectoring from ATC to the nearest airport?
Instead they passed airports and flew across Malaysia. Then they passed
the 15,000 ft military airport, did a precise zig-zag to align with normal
flight paths to India and kept going? Oh, and later changed course again,
flying for 7 hours with a burning plane?
All the existing evidence points very strongly to hijacking by either
the crew or someone on board.
Not with certaintly, but foul play by someone on board is by far
the highest probability.
Only if the programmed that route into the autopilot. Now, why would
you program the autopilot to take this bizarre route if you had a fire
or mechanical problem, you'd immediately contact ATC and ask for vectors
to the nearest airport.
It would be nice to know exactly how far away
It just happened to reach all that stuff precisely at the most
opportune point to disappear, ie between Malaysian and Vietnamese ATC
and while in an area where neither country had good radar contact?
And the same magic fire, just happened to incapacitate the crew,
which has plenty of oxygen, yet leave the plane able to fly for
7 hours? Not credible.
What idiots would pull the VHF radio, instead of at least first
telling ATC of their emergency? It's *never* happened before. We had
planes with fires that flew for half an hour, informing ATC, etc.
It could have been a burning tire
Right at the point that you have positive climb, ie right after leaving
the runway. You don't fly for 40 mins, reaching 35000 ft with the gear
down. Good grief.
That would have some impact on
Yeah, the burning tire disabled the VHF, ACARS, transponders, all at
the same time, a few mins after the last transmission where everything
was normal. Sure, I'm buying that. The smoke alarms, fire alarms
didn't go off. No, the fire just all cut off everything, exactly like you
would to make a plane go missing, precisely at the perfect point in the
flight for that to happen.
Total nonsense. For one thing, there isn't just a him. There are
two pilots. I don't know of a single fire in aviation history where
the pilots did not communicate that they had a fire. Again, what idiot,
would turn off the radio, one of the most critical pieces of eqpt that
you need to safely land, just because there is some evidence of a fire?
We've already learned plenty, much of it you would think should have
been learned from 911. Transponders should not be able to be turned off
once the plane is in the air. CVR should have max flight time plus an
hour as min, etc.
I'm with you. A lot of data we're being told about is suspiciously late or
incomplete and its origin is not clear. I think at this point we have to
declare we don't have enough information to state conclusively what happened
to the plane and where it now rests. I saw a segment on 777's that actually
showed how blank waypoints are filled in by the nav computer in certain
It's very possibly that the Malaysian government is just blowing smoke to
make the relatives of the passengers think there's something going on. Has
anyone calculated the area of the possible locations of MH370 in relation to
the surface area of the earth? If it went into a deep part of the Indian
Ocean, there odds are good we may never find it.
Not if smoke was pouring out of the area where they were located.
Not from what I've read pilots say: "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate." Would
it be so nutty to pull busses to the VHF unit if you thought the radio was
the cause of the fire? Would ATC be able to help you in any way from 100
plus miles away? Your comments are counter to what I read all pilots say:
Aviate first, all else is secondary to keeping the plane airborne.
The Goodfellow article in Wired covered that contingency saying most pilots,
especially those with Shah's airtime, wouldn't have to radio to get the
10-20 of the nearest airstrip. They would know it.
There's no satisfactory proof either way. If it was a hijack, and I don't
exclude that possibility, I suspect the target was the Petronas towers. If
the hijackers followed the 9/11 mode, they would have wanted to hit a
building close to the airport to a) minimize the chance of fighters being
scrambled and b) they would hit the building with nearly a full,
long-distance fuel load aboard.
Perhaps Shah realized this and cooperated with the hijackers until he could
ensure that they couldn't use his plane in that way. But the problem with
that scenario is that all the 9/11 events were scheduled for broad daylight
to maximize publicity. For a hijacking this one's definitely got a lot of
traits "outside the envelope."
I've been in a fire and had the telephone cut out as I was speaking to 911
as the 50 conductor business phone cabling melted. Maybe fire investigator
Kurt will weigh in on the unpredictability of fire. If the cabin was
filling with smoke, ATC would have been of little help in getting it out and
I can easily see the pilots being 100% focused on extinguishing the flames
and doing nothing else. It wouldn't be the first plane to fail to radio in
during a dreadful emergency.
According to who? The ever-reliable Malaysian authorities? Why would
hijackers fly over a military airport where scrambled jets might actually
catch up with them?
The fire could have been extinguished by the climb to 45K feet (if that
really happened, we can't be sure) and yet the cabin filled with enough
toxic smoke to kill everyone. Ask Payne Stewart's ghost if that's an
impossible scenario. A modern jet is designed to be very hard to crash, even
if there's serious damage in the cabin. More importantly, why on earth fly
into the deep ocean? There are as many "doesn't make sense" factoids for
the fire theory as there are for the hijack theory and not nearly enough
evidence to proof either case.
But lots of the existing "evidence" comes from the Malaysian authorities who
seem to be playing some sort of perverse three-card monte with the facts. I
don't believe them anymore. It would be an error to believe only the
statements that conform to one theory or another. Here's a winner from the
latest CBS piece:
<<The official said it had been established with a "more than 50 percent"
degree of certainty that military radar had picked up the missing plane
after it dropped off civilian radar.>>
Slightly more than random chance that military radar actually spotted the
plane. Roll the dice.
You would think a 777 flying off-course and over Malaysia would have caused
the Malaysian AF to scramble fighters. They *should* be aware of all
routine commercial air traffic but let a huge jetliner appear and disappear
without challenge? To me, *that's* not credible. Who would have thought
the AirFrance 448 pilot would have kept doing exactly the wrong thing all
the way down to the ocean?
One thing that does support the hijack theory quite clearly are the photos
I've seen of the pilot/co-pilot entertaining guests in the cabin. That
implies that they were not following procedure and signaled to potential
hijackers that a pretty face could get them access. Maybe there was very
valuable cargo that propelled the hijack. The Malaysian government's
weirdness might be explained by that. But we just don't know.
Not sure how you can say it's never happened before. That implies a vast
knowledge of incidents where planes just disappeared without a clue. If the
pilot thought the radio was causing a cockpit fire, I easily see him pulling
that buss. WTF would ATC be able to do for him 20K feet up and a hundred
miles or more away? Aviate, navigate, communicate.
But we've never had a plane this big and modern go missing for so long.
Something about this flight was very different from others. And we won't
know much more about it until the wreckage is found (if ever).
I should have been more clear. At what point in THAT flight was the gear
retracted. Landing gear problems have affected many flights. Sometimes
they won't retract, sometimes they won't deploy. A plane like the 777 might
have sensors that prevent a fiery tire from being retracted because of heat
sensors in the wheels and landing gear. We just don't know and that's
something the flight recorder might tell us. I don't know how long a
smouldering tire takes to break into flames, I've only had a trash bin catch
fire - hours later - because someone dumped their ashtray into it with
The problem with your scenario is that much of it depends on accurate
reporting by the Malaysian government. If they told me the sky was blue I
would have to run outside to make sure. I do not trust them to be either
truthful or accurate and so I don't find their "evidence" nearly as
persuasive as you do.
Maybe it's my experiential bias, but when a witness is impeached over
*anything* substantive in court, their future testimony is very often
tainted, even in a judicial trial. The Malaysian government stands
"impeached" in my mind. Why they seem to now be "creating" data with the
way point revelation is anyone's guess but they have some explaining to do,
<<Today's breakthrough revelation could be retracted tomorrow. For example,
one of the big stories of the weekend has evaporated: Everyone reported,
based on Sunday's official briefing from Malaysian authorities, that the
ACARS system was turned off (or became disabled somehow) before the pilot
(actually the co-pilot) said "All right, good night." That seemed
significant because it suggested deception in the cockpit. But at the
presser today in Kuala Lumpur, the Malaysian briefer walked that back and
said they don't know when the ACARS system shut down. It could have happened
after the "good night" communication>>
We know what we know and it's not likely we're going to learn very much more
unless we find the debris (or the intact plane, perhaps).
Sorry - what you don't know doesn't prove much. A plane whose wreckage was
never found and never communicated an on-board fire could have burned and
crashed. No one can say for sure.
<<Three years later, the Star Tiger, with 31 people aboard, maintained
normal radio communication shortly before entering Bermuda airspace on a
flight from the Azores. The plane, however, never landed, and no distress
message ever emanated from the Avro Tudor aircraft. A five-day rescue effort
located no wreckage, and investigators concluded the fate of the airliner
was "an unsolved mystery."
2. British South American Airways Star Ariel (January 17, 1949)
Less than a year after the Star Tiger vanished in the Bermuda Triangle,
another British South American Airways flight also disappeared in the same
region en route from Bermuda to Jamaica. Although the pilot reported fine
weather conditions, radio contact with the Star Ariel suddenly ceased an
hour after the flight departed. British investigators could not find the
wreckage of the Avro Tudor Mark IV or any sign of the 20 people on board.
Without evidence, investigators were forced to conclude that the cause of
the accident was unknown.>>
Can you say conclusively that there was no cabin fire in the previous two
crashes? Of course not. Just like with MH370, there is not conclusive
evidence to support any theory at this point and a lot of data that's been
modified or retracted.
Here's another and carbon monoxide in the lungs indicates there was very
likely a fire on-board so it's clear there have been on-board fires without
the crew radioing the same.
<<5. Pan Am Flight 7 (November 9, 1957)
The Boeing 377 Stratocruiser that took off from San Francisco to Honolulu
with 36 passengers and 8 crewmembers on the first leg of an around-the-world
flight was the lap of luxury. Passengers aboard the "ocean liner of the air"
enjoyed 60 inches of legroom, reclining sleeper seats, a horseshoe-shaped
cocktail lounge and seven-course dinners that included caviar and champagne.
The Clipper Romance of the Skies was about halfway through the flight when
radar contact was suddenly lost without a distress call from the plane.
After a five-day search, a U.S. Navy carrier spotted floating debris and
recovered 19 bodies nearly 1,000 miles east of Honolulu. Most of the victims
were wearing life vests, indicating that the plane had been prepared to hit
the Pacific Ocean. The aircraft and the remaining 25 people aboard were
never found. Although testing revealed elevated levels of carbon monoxide in
several of the recovered bodies, the Civil Aeronautics Board found "no
evidence of foul play or sabotage.">>
All from: http://www.history.com/news/historys-missing-passenger-flights
pieces of eqpt that
I don't know where to begin with that one. You would turn it off if it was
the possible cause of a fire or was actually belcning smoke. And I doubt an
experienced pilot like Shah needs a radio to land more than he needs a
working stick and working engines. And if Goodfellow is right, we're not
talking about "some evidence" of fire. If it was a bad fire, as he
suspects, it was bad enough that it required Shah to climb to the upper
limit of the plane's capabilities to extinguish it.
Let's see if any of what we've learned translates into action by the FAA's
of the world. The impulse is to do what AIG risk analysts did and declare
this event such an outlier that it should NOT be considered in future risk
calculations, as they ignored the 1929 crash in calculating how bad things
could get. I've read that there are already flight voice recorders with
massive recording space (not hard when 32Gb fits on a thumbnail sized TF
card) for both audio and video. Maybe the best thing MH370 could do for
aviation is stay lost so that the mystery drives forward changes to aircraft
On Saturday, March 22, 2014 8:55:23 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
When smoke has come out in every other airplane incident that
I'm aware of, the crew was always uncertain as to what was
causing it, where exactly it was coming from etc. And the radio
that you just used 2 mins before, that was working perfectly fine,
would seem to be the last thing you'd suspect. Particularly when
it takes 10 secs to send a short mayday.
Yes it would. Look at your own list.
Aviate - From all indicaions, the plane was flying perfectly fine,
level at 35,000 , on course and almost certainly was on autopilot.
There was no immediate crisis that involved controlling the plane.
Navigate - Same as above
That leaves communicate. Can you recall a single other aircraft
crash where it was caused by a fire and the crew did not report it?
Would ATC be able to help you in any way from 100
The plane was flying perfectly fine. By aviating they mean
keep control of the plane, keep it flying, don't focus on the
problem and forget to fly the plane. So, sure, if the plane has
stalled, then I don't expect a mayday. But not when you detect
And do they know that no other planes are in between them and
whatever airport they decide to land at in
the middle of the night? Are they just going to land at an
airport, going in with transponders off, no contact with ATC
to make sure the path ahead is clear, the airport runway is clear,
emergency eqpt is waiting? Makes no sense to me.
There are holes in any of the theories. A nut case is probably
the most likely. A nut case doesn't require that it all be rational.
Suicidal nut pilot or passenger that wanted to make the plane do
a disappearing act seems most likely at the moment. The nut case
fits all the evidence that I've seen. A fire fits almost nothing.
Not necessarily. We've had suicidal hijackings by passengers
before. We've had suicidal pilots put the plane in the ocean.
Doesn't seem such a stretch that you could have that here, but
the person wanted to try to hide what happened as much as possible.
Whatever the reason, if you're nuts enough to kill yourself and
take 239 others with you, I don't see it as being a big stretch
to want to cover it up and make it a big mystery, hoping no one
will ever figure it out. And by nuts, I'm including the possibility
of some deranged terrorist type, not just a pilot gone nuts.
Smoke starting to come into the cockpit is a very serious problem.
But it doesn't mean the plane suddenly can't fly. And it also isn't
just the radio. It's ACARS and the transponder that went off too.
Exactly the things that are needed to make the plane disappear.
According to Les Abend, a 777 pilot who's been spouting your
fire theory on TV, among others. They say there is a Malaysian military
base on the west coast that has an extra long runway and
that's where the plane was headed. To do so, it would have passed
other runways where it could have landed. That makes sense to Abend,
does it make sense to you? You have a plane on fire and instead of
landing where you can, you want to fly the burning plane all the
way across Malaysia? How close they actually came to the base,
IDK, only that it's on the west coast and in the direction they flew.
He'd say yes, because they didn't have a fire. They had a slow
loss of pressure. Their transponder didn't go off exactly at
the point where you'd want it to go off to make a plane go missing,
A modern jet is designed to be very hard to crash, even
It's not hard to crash from a fire. Swiss Air, AirTrans in Fl,
among others. Both of those not only issued maydays, got clearance
for an emergency landing, etc, but stayed in contact with ATC until
the planes crashed.
More importantly, why on earth fly
So that no one will find the plane and solve the mystery. Does a
suicidal nut need more of a reason or even "a" reason for everything
I agree the Malaysians don't have much credibility. But we're not
just dealing with the Malaysians. The NTSB is finally involved and
it does look like most of the basic info is right now. The main part I'm
not convinced on are whether they know that the turn was entered via
waypoints and that it was done early in the flight. And I'm not just
picking stuff that agrees with my nut pilot or hijacker theory. It's
just that most of the data fits with that, almost nothing fits with the
Here's a winner from the
OK. But don't blame that on the Malaysian officials. They have
had the NTSB and the radar manufacturer look at the data too. And
none of them can tell you what it is for sure either. It doesn't
say on the radar screen "MH370". It's just blips from primary
radar, with much of it near the limits of the radar range. They'd
be lying if they said they know for sure it's MH370.
It's a lot more credible than the fire theory. They aren't at war
with anyone. How about the US Navy having an Iranian drone show
up over a US super-carrier, without them seeing it until it was
on top of them? And that's in the Middle East, near Iran, which is
a hot zone.
Who would have thought
It's actually quite common and happens in many accidents.
Sure, make all of Malaysia look like assholes, instead of saying that
the plane had a valuable load that could explain it. Oh, and search
in the Indian Ocean, instead of where the plane could have been landed
to unload the precious cargo. That makes sense to you?
Again, the plane was level at 35,000, on course. There was no
need for aggressive intervention to control the plane that
would have prohibited one pilot from making a brief 10 sec mayday.
As for what they could do for him, they could have given him
an immediate clearance and heading to the nearest airport. They
could have cleared the airspace ahead of him, so that they
wouldn't crash into another plane with 300 people in the middle
of the night. They could have the nearest airport runway cleared
of all planes, even from taxiways, so that a burning,perhaps
partially uncontrollable plane wouldnt' kill more people. They
could have fire equipment and ambulances standing by. But, heh,
let's forget all that and just turn off the radio because we
smell smoke and go our own way.
And you think that's explained by a magical fire that just happens
to occur at exactly the place where it's ideal to make a plane go
missing, ie over water, at the limits of radar, having just been
handed off by Malaysian controllers and where in the next few secs
they would normally have contacted Vietnam ATC? The odds of that
happening at that precise point due to a fire are astronomical
compared to other possibilities that fit the facts.
Good grief. Try focusing on what we do know instead of bizarre
speculation. If the landing gear would not retract normally they
would have informed ATC that they have a problem, not go flying on
course out into the ocean.
A plane like the 777 might
Sure and again, they just flew for 40 mins, out into the ocean,
on their way to Beijing, instead of telling ATC that they have
a problem. Good grief.
We just don't know and that's
You do have NTSB involved at this point. And whatever credibility
they have, it sure beats just making up stuff, like the flaming tire.
If they aren't explaining it now, I wouldn't count much on them
explaining it later. It is their country and they are in control.
Well, that solves that part of it. That was one part that didn't fit
well with any scenario and now that has been corrected. They conflated
"last ACARS transmission" with it being turned off. It is amazing that
anyone there could be that dumb, but there you go. In fact, a few days
ago, you had the head of civil aviation for Malaysia, ie the guy heading
this, insisting that ACARS was turned off at the earlier point, while
the airline CEO was standing right there, saying the version that we
now know to be correct. That is a pretty sad case. And even worse,
you would think as soon as the press conference was over, they would
get together, figure out what was going on, and then come out together
again and clear it up. That guy must be someone's brother in law.
The cockpit transcript has been obtained by the Telegraph. There is
one slightly unusual thing, and one more that is more unusual. Upon
reaching 35,000 ft, their assigned altitude, MH370 reported that to
ATC and ATC acknowledged it. About 5 mins later, MH370 did it again,
which isn't normal, but some are suggesting they might have just forgot
they already did it, weren't sure, etc.
The second thing is more unusual. ATC tell them to contact Ho Chi Minh
ATC on xxx.x. Instead of replying "MH370, roger, contact Ho Chi Minh
xxx.x, good night", ie repeating back, all they say is "all right, good night".
I don't agree. There are other avenues that could aid immensely
here too. The forensic examination of the flight simulator and
computers of all involved. Phone records, insurance policies taken
out, who did the pilot call on that last call from the cockpit, what
was said, etc. At this point, we know close to zero about the family
dynamics, relationships, etc. We also don't know squat really about
the two Iranians, the mysterious Ali who bought them the tickets,
etc. They are high on my suspicous list. But apparently this is
being treated like a MExican illegally crossing into the USA. Soon
as they found out the story was they were using stolen passports
to illegally enter Europe, it was, "Oh, OK, they're just undocumented
immigrants, no problem there".
It could have been taken by aliens too. What we're dealing with
are probabilities. The probability of deliberate human intervention
is way up on the list. The fire idea is near the bottom. The deliberate
action fits perfectly with the precise point in the flight where
the communication and transponders stopped. It explains why ACARS was
turned off. It explains why they were last on military radar performing
a precise zig-zag that aligned them with the flight paths to India.
If it was a fire, why did the plane do that precise zig-zag over the
Straits and align itself perfectly with the route to India? Why was it
even over the Straits, either being flown by hand or with waypoints to
those spots? It was going to India to land there with a fire? Good grief.
What I want to see is not a list of planes where we don't know what
happened. What I want to see is just one where we know that the plane
was brought down by a fire, where the aircraft was in range of radio
contact and where they never issued a single message about the problem.
Just like with MH370, there is not conclusive
Was the plane in radio range at the time? While CO might suggest
a fire, I don't see where they declared a fire to actually have
occured and that it was the cause. CO could come from smoking cigarettes,
sitting in the plane around smokers, etc And note that if the plane
did have a fire, it didn't fly on for 6 hours.
Sure, everything is suddenly bellowing smoke. VHF radio, transponder,
ACARS. All of which were working perfectly a minute ago. And yet the
same suddenly ravaging fire leaves the plane capable of flying, performing
precision manuvers an hour later, apparently capable of recovering from
a stall at 45,000 and but flying off until it runs out of
gas. Show us one fire accident anything like it. And it all just
happens exactly at the point in flight that is the ideal time to
And I doubt an
Sure. It's pitch black out at night. No need to worry about the
other planes in the area that you could run into. No need to
worry that when you get to the airport there is traffic ahead of
you or the runway is occupied, so you have to do a go around in the
burning plane. Or worse, you don't see the other plane pulling onto
the runway until it's too late. Now you've killed 500 people
because you couldn't use the radio for 10 secs.
And if Goodfellow is right, we're not
Yes, the magical fire that was so bad that they had to turn off
the radio, transponders, ACARS. But magically it leaves the plane
able to fly for 7 hours. And if they put the fire out, why in the
world is the plane missing? It was obviously under control at
the Straits. It aligned perfectly, to the exact degree, with the
flight paths to India. That was long after the climb to 45,000.
So what now? Only India has water and a runway?
Well it might be a bit premature to say this, but if the wreckage of
Malaysian Airlines flight # MH370 isn't found in the next 2 or 3 weeks,
it probably won't be found by looking for it. It'll end up being found
by some advanced sonar device 50 or 75 years from now scanning the sea
bed for solidified methane deposits or for thermal vents.
Be prepared for this flight to stay in the "What?!?" bag for 75 years
just like the last flight of Amelia Earhart.
What I can't understand is the families of the passengers in China. I
can understand that not knowing what happened can be frustrating, but
getting mad and yelling won't help any. These families are behaving as
though the Malaysian officials know what happened, but don't want to
tell them, and that doesn't make any sense. In the world I live in, "We
simply don't know yet because we can't find any wreckage or floating
debris." IS a legitimate answer. With those Chinese families behaving
the way they are, it almost makes sense for the Malaysians to send out a
plane to dump a bunch of stuff in the ocean to create a debris field and
thereby satisfy the Chinese families.
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 2:23:15 PM UTC-4, nestork wrote:
I think the families have every right to be mad as hell. The
Malaysian officials have proven themselves totally incompetent in handling
the response to this. The airline hasn't been much better.
The flight goes missing from ATC radar and it takes 11 hours to get
any search plane to where they lost contact with it and first believed
it had gone missing. The spot is only a couple hundred miles from
the coast of Malaysia. In similar cases, searchers were there within
a couple hours.
It takes them a week to figure out that military radar shows a
primary radar contact consistent with MH370, making a u turn and
heading back across Malaysia. A week? Really? You have the radar
screens to play back. How hard is this? And even then for a couple
days they were contradicting themselves, military says the plane did
turn back, civial aviation guy says, no, etc. And during that week, they
refused help from NTSB, FAA, FBI, etc, ie those with experience. So,
they had a bunch of countries deploying ships, planes satellites to
the wrong area. Finally, they let NTSB, radar manufacturers, etc in
on it and within a day, they say that it does look like the plane
turned back. And about the same time, we have the fact that the
sat handshakes place the plane on a circle where it was at 8:11AM,
nearly out of fuel. More progress in one or two days than these clowns
made in over a week. And also, if they had just looked at that
military radar in the first couple hours, determined that there was
a track back to the west, that it could be the plane, then they
could have let the world know that and for the next 6 hours, everyone
could be on the lookout with radar, visually, etc for the plane.
For the last week, the position of the civil aviation head idiot
in Malaysia has been that the waypoints for the turn to the Straits
of Malacca were entered early in the flight, shortly after takeoff
and that ACARS was turned off early in the flight too.
He keeps saying that, with the CEO of the airline saying, all we know
is that the last transmission from ACARS was at that time, which was
when it was scheduled to report and that it didn't report again 30 mins
later when it should have. They had that discrepancy standing side by
side at a news conference. Now, how hard is it to tell when the last
ACARS transmission was and who is right? The airline has the hard data
on that. It's fact, not conjecture. Yet this went on for another
5 days or so. Now, just hours ago, the idiot civil aviation head now
says that they don't know when ACARS was turned off, ie what the airline
CEO was saying is correct. He's also just retracted that the waypoints
for the turn to the west were entered into the autopilot early in the
flight. He now says the last ACARS transmission ~20 mins into the flight
still showed the Beijing waypoints. He's just a total ass. This is
simple stuff. The airline has the ACARS data. Within hours they should
know if any waypoint were transmitted. Yet here we are 2 weeks+ and
this is still coming out? If I was a family, I'd be pissed.
Then you have Malaysian Airlines that knew for hours the plane was
missing. The relatives waiting at Beijing were just left waiting,
staring at a flight board, that flashed "delayed". No one from the
airline came out to talk to them and take them to a secure area where
they wouldn't be hounded by the press. They finally did that, but
only after major damage had been done. It's also only come out in the
last couple of days that the plane was carrying lithium batteries.
I think a fire is unlikely, but previously the CEO when asked what it
was carrying said it had a load of Mangosteens.
The biggest, unforgiveable thing is that the Malaysians refused
to let the NTSB or other international experts in on the investigation.
NTSB does these investigations all the time. One big reason is that
in any crash the countries under law that are involved include the
country that made the airplane. With Boeing as well as business plane
manufacturers in the USA, NTSB is involved all the time. Anyone know
how long it's been since Malaysia had to do a crash investigation?
My guess is decades and those involved that ran it have probably
With those Chinese families behaving
If you had family on the plane and saw the incompetence here,
particulary refusing help from the USA and other countries with
expertise, I think you'd feel differently.
This came out Mar 7
Glenn Beck says 20 of the passengers were semiconductor experts.
The cargo changed from mangosteens to lithium batteries.
It is starting to seem like "The West" is searching for a plane that
was hijacked by the US.
If it was hijacked by the pilots for the value of it's cargo - that
means only one thing.
China's been on a gold-buying binge for the past year - and not on
paper. Taking actual physical possession. Which means gold in the
That, and don't overlook those chinese passengers each bringing back a
kilo or two of gold in their luggage. The Indians are doing it by the
planeload themselves since their gov't put controls on gold imports.
China is in the midst of a liquidity crisis starting about a week or two
ago, and the ultra rich are selling their expensive foreign properties
to raise case.
On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 11:57:15 AM UTC-4, Bob F wrote:
There is a lot of confusion on this and I agree with Robert, it sounds
like more Malaysian official BS. The offician Malaysian govt position is
that the waypoints for the new western course to the left were entered
about 14 mins before where the transponders were turned off. That would
put it about 26 mins into the flight, probably around the eastern coast
But I heard a 777 captain on TV saying that the ACARS system would not
be sending that info, so how would Malaysian officials know? And it
seems very odd that someone up to no good and apparently so knowledgable
about how to make a plane disappear would enter waypoints so early.
Another *huge* discrepancy is that the Malaysian head of civil aviation
insists that the ACARS system was turned off at 1:07, only ~26 minutes
into the flight. Again, that sounds odd, because you would think it
would make more sense to turn it off later, same time as transponders,
etc, not tip your hand. And more significantly, the Malaysian Airline
CEO is clearly disagreeing. He says that the *last ACARS transmission*, which
was a normal scheduled event, occured at 1:07 and ACARS could have been
turned off anytime between then and 1:37 when it should have transmitted
again. They gave these two conflicting versions standing side by side
at the same press conference. And when reporters pressed the civil aviaition
head about it, he just brushed it off and said it was *fact* that it was
turned off like he said. The airline is the one that uses ACARS, not
ATC, the civil aviation officials, etc. You would think the airline would
This is why they have no credibility left. Something like this, if there
is reason to support either version, they should make it known by now.
This is a major thing in the timeline.
And did you see the Chinese mother that came into the press briefing and
was crying, sobbing for answers? They had security people grab her and
roughly drag her screaming and crying from the room. Nice public image.
And then I saw a reporter try to interview any of the families that they
have hidden away in a hotel. A Malaysian Airline security official
turned them away. I can understand that they want to give the families
some privacly, but they also should not have them essentially locked up
so that no one can talk to them at all, even if they want to. If I was
one of the family, I'd just head home by now. Staying locked up in the
hotel doesn't appear to be doing any good.
Some statements of guess ? I have made cell phone calls on land 50 mles
away. Was actually over lake Erie. That was a long time ago. I knew because
I once saw it on my bill, making the connection in a Canadian city. Couple
times it was a free call. That was a long time ago.
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 10:35:29 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
CNN has had a guy in a 777 simulator for a week now and if I learned
anything, it is that a 15 year old kid who studied the book for a few
days could fly a 777 unless the electronics went bad.
This thing is a big video game.
When Mythbusters took on "could a passenger be talked down in an
airliner"? the short answer was "no", if they actually had to fly the
plane but if someone told them what to enter in the flight computer,
no sweat at all. The plane would land itself. Flying from point A to
point B is even easier.
The guy in the simulator on CNN showed that you alter your destination
with a few key strokes and that is where the plane will go.
A number of pilot-written articles imply that the plane can suffer a lot of
damage internally and lost both pilots and still fly a straight and level
course until its fuel runs out. We'll never know what really happened
unless they find the wreckage and even then what it tells us may be
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.