It's very easy sitting at our computers to imagine how easy it would be to
send a mayday call but note how little time it took on the Valuejet flight
to go from "passengers smell smoke" to impacting the Florida swamps at over
500mph nose first:
<<At 2:10 pm, Captain Candalyn Kubeck and First Officer Richard Hazen heard
a loud bang in their headphones and noticed the plane was losing electrical
power. Seconds later, flight attendant Mandy Summers entered the cockpit and
advised the flight crew of a fire in the passenger cabin. Passengers' shouts
of "fire, fire, fire" were recorded on the plane's cockpit voice recorder
when the cockpit door was opened. Though the ValuJet flight attendant manual
stated that the cockpit door should not be opened when smoke or other
harmful gases might be present in the cabin, the intercom was disabled and
there was no other way to inform the pilots of what was happening. The CDR
indicated a progressive failure of the DC-9's electrical and flight control
systems due to the spreading fire.>>
"Progressive failure" is the key here and I have no doubts it could easily
appear that someone is switching off systems manually (and suspiciously)
when in reality the fire is eating its way through the plane's electrical
One thing I've read over and over again is that the worst thing a pilot can
face is an on-board fire. And they are *very* well aware of that fact and
how little time they have to address the cause of the fire and attempt to
extinguish it. I suspect the MH370 pilots were aware that at cruising
altitude in the middle of the South China Sea that Malaysian ATC wasn't
going to be able to do anything to help them extinguish the plane and there
would probably be no survivors if they couldn't recover from whatever was
<<Kubeck and Hazen immediately asked air traffic control for a return to
Miami due to smoke in the cockpit and cabin, and were given instructions for
a return to the airport. One minute later, Hazen requested the nearest
available airport. Kubeck began to turn the plane left in preparation for
the return to Miami.>>
Flight 592 disappeared from radar at 2:13:42 pm. It rolled onto its side and
crashed to the ground nose-first in the Francis S. Taylor Wildlife
Management Area in the Everglades, a few miles west of Miami, at a speed in
excess of 507 miles per hour (816 km/h).>>
Smoke reported at 2:10 and less than four minutes later the plane was headed
nose first in the swamp at maximum velocity.
What I gather from this incident is how very little time pilots have to
fight a serious fire and while it seems such an easy thing to radio for help
it a) may have been impossible if the fire had damaged the radio before
anyone noticed and b) climbing to 45K feet in such a brief period of time
tends to indicate the pilots were fully engaged with something - wrestling
with hijackers or trying to put out a serious fire. We'll never know for
sure unless the wreckage is found
FWIW, here's another factoid that could support Goodfellow's fire theory:
<<"When shipping lithium batteries it is not always clear which mode of
transport will be used. Your shipment may end up on an aircraft, and an
aircraft's fire suppression system may be unable to extinguish all types of
lithium battery fire," Transport Canada says.>>
So there was a hazardous cargo on board the flight fully capable of starting
a fire (a lithium battery fire on the ground took 40 minutes to put out in
Boston). If it took that long for ground crews to extinguish that fire on
the ground, it's very possible that such a fire in flight would have
destroyed the plane.
On Monday, March 24, 2014 1:30:26 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
Thanks for proving my points. They had a major fire.
A - They still declared an emergency, had multiple calls with
ATC and were cleared for an emergency return to the airport.
B - That severe of a fire didn't leave the plane flying for
8 hours. It brought it down in minutes.
Same thing with Swiss Air.
You keep ignoring that this progressive failure just happened to
occur right after they had been told by Malaysian ATC that they were
no longer covering them and they were to contact Vietnam controllers,
where they were at the limits of radar, over the water. In other words,
at the ideal spot to deliberately go missing. And there is no indication
of anything "progressive". Two minutes earlier, they had the "all right,
good night" exchange and then the transponder stopped and no further
voice communication was heard by ATC.
Is that what the ValueJet pilots did? Swiss Air pilots? Just hang
a left turn, without regard for other air traffic that they could
collide with? Gee, I smell smoke. Let's turn off the VHF radio,
the transponders, ACARS, make a sharp turn in the middle of the night
and fly into God knows what instead of making a 10 sec mayday call
that could have cleared the airspace and made Kota Bahru, the closest
airport ready for an emergency landing?
Even if they had to ditch in the ocean, they would want ATC
to know where they are so that rescue could find them. Those facts
don't fit a fire very well, but they sure fit a deliberate dissapearance.
Bingo. And they didn't turn off the transponders either.
A - They still made the mayday call, as well as other communication
with ATC. AFAIK, their transponders didn't turn off and they knew
where to find the plane.
B - They crashed withing minutes, they didn't have a plane that
continued to fly for an hour and a half over Malaysia, make precision
turns that hit waypoints, and then finally align themselves perfectly
with the air routes to India/Mid East and then, if the current theory
is right, make yet another major course change to the southern Indian
Ocean. Or northern arc for that matter. Either way, it did not stay
on it's last radar contact heading. So, what about that? Someone put
the waypoints into the plane to go to Kazakastan or southern Indian
Ocean because the plane was on fire? The progressive failure made it
do that, but left it flyable for 7 hours?
Unless the fire is in the cabin, where you can use a fire extinguisher,
there isn't much they can do to fight a fire, per your own example.
Getting the plane on the ground as quickly as possible, is absolutely critical.
And when you think you have a fire, the key step to doing that is to
declare an emergency so you can go to the nearest airport. And just
going there without informing ATC isn't a good idea, for obvious reasons.
and while it seems such an easy thing to radio for help
I agree it could have destroyed the airplane. I don't agree that it
could have done so without a distress call. The cargo holds have:
halon fire suppression system
There would have certainly been enough notice that something was wrong
to get off a distress message.
And if a fire was "progressively failing systems on the plane",
how do you explain it continuing to not only fly, but to make
precision hits of waypoints over the Straits of Malacca, align itself
at 29K feet with the flight paths to India, etc an hour and a half
later? How do you explain
any of that, when there is an airport at Kota Bahru, which they were
about 140 miles off shore from and could have been at in 20 minutes?
I challenge that last assertion:
<<Lack of a mayday call: No matter an aircraft's location, the crew is
always in contact with both air traffic control and company ground staff.
When flying in remote locations, however, this is often a more involved
process than simply picking up a microphone and talking. Exactly how it's
done depends on which equipment the plane is fitted with, and which ATC
facility you're working with. Flying over open ocean, relaying even a simple
message can be a multi-step process transmitted through FMS datalink or over
high frequency radio.
***In an emergency, communicating with the ground is secondary to dealing
with the problems at hand. ***
As the old adage goes: you aviate, navigate, and communicate - in that
order. And so, the fact that no messages or distress signals were sent by
the crew is not surprising or an indicator of anything specific.>>
Since they were at a hand-off point, communicating with ATC could have
easily involved a change of frequencies - something that might be hard to do
in a cabin filled with smoke.
The AskThePilot site also posted this little item which adds yet another
layer of weirdness to this whole incident. Some people (5) believe the
plane went into orbit and broke up!
<<As for some of the wackier ideas I've been hearing, my favorite is the one
that goes like this: Would it be possible for the 777 to have climbed clear
out of the atmosphere, so high that "it disintegrated," went into orbit, or
otherwise became impossible to track or locate? In normal circumstances I
wouldn't burden the rest of you with an answer to such nonsense, except that
no fewer than five readers already have asked some version of this question.
The answer is no. It is totally impossible for that to happen. At a certain
altitude, a plane's engines will no longer provide enough power and the
wings will no longer provide enough lift. The plane will no longer be able
to sustain flight. All commercial passenger jets have maximum certified
cruising altitudes below 50,000 feet or so. And even this altitude isn't
always reachable. The maximum altitude at a given time depends on the plane'
s weight, the air temperature and other factors. >>
While I certainly can't rule out a hijacking, there's no way to rule out a
fire or other mechanical/electrical disaster in flight. At least not until
the wreckage is found.`
On Monday, March 24, 2014 3:43:17 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
Nonsense. They were in contact with Malaysian ATC on the normal VHF
radio. They were not 1000 miles out in the middle of no where. Every
pilot on TV has stated that all you have to do is push a button on the
control yoke. And even the oxygen masks are outfitted with a microphone.
It depends what the emergency is and what it takes to solve it.
Sure, if the plane is in a sudden stall, has gone violently out
of control, then you're going to deal with that first. But there
is no indication anything like that happened. And even if it did,
it explains no mayday for maybe several minutes. It doesn't explain
no mayday at all, ever, with the plane continuing to fly under control.
It doesn't explain the transponders going off suddenly either.
CNN had a 777 instructor in a flight simulator. He demonstrated
how he would do a max rate emergency descent from 35,000 to 10,000
in response to a sudden decompression, etc. He pointed out that
while he was doing it, he'd be pressing the talk button on the yoke
and informing ATC at the same time.
Oh BS. Per the above example, you can aviate and talk at the
same time. Your own example of ValuJet, that had such a massive fire
that it brought the plane down in just minutes managed to do all
three. So did Swiss Air. And those fires/emergencies were so severe
that they lead to the loss of the aircraft in minutes. This one
flew on for 8 hours. It would have to be one hell of a magical fire.
On the other hand, the known facts fit very well with a deliberate act.
What's the liklihood that a cockpit filled so rapidly with smoke that
they could not change frequencies? And even if it did happen, they
didn't have to change freqs. They had spoken perfectly fine just 2
mins before with Malaysian ATC they could just talk to them, which
would be the best choice anyway. And further, in addition to the
normal frequency, there is a universal emergency freq button right
next to the pilot. One button push and you're on the intl emergency
And yet you're looking to that website for good answers?
I wouldn't rule anything out. But the known facts so far fit very
well with a deliberate act by either a pilot or someone else taking
control of the plane. Almost nothing there fits the fire. The leading
proponent of the fire idea is Les Abend on CNN. But just like you,
he just talks about the few minutes after the loss of contact, as if
that is all that's there. He ignores that an hour and a half later
you have the plane making a zig-zag to waypoints over the Straits of
Malacca, ending with it being perfectly aligned with the flight paths
to India/Middle East. How exactly does your fire theory fit with that?
Or that they went right by Kohta Bahru, where they could have landed,
which was just 140 miles from the point of lost contact. Instead they
go over to the Straits of Malacca and make precise, controlled moves
there? That fits deliberate, it doesn't fit fire.
I doubt their fire proves your point because each cabin fire is remarkably
different. In the case above the intercom burned up. I am sure the radio
circuitry could have burned up just as easily had the fire followed a
different path. In fact, it could have easily been *any* electrical
equipment that burned.
This proves my point, actually. The Valujet crew violated the "Aviate then
navigate then communicate" rule and they ended up cratering in the swamp at
500mph. The MH370 *didn't* call and yet their plane stayed airborne for six
more hours. Seconds count in a cockpit fire, and the relatively
inexperienced crew (compared to Shah's logged flight hours)
made the mistake of calling for help when there was absolutely *nothing* ATC
could have done at that point to help them stay in the air.
Read the Atlantic article and you'll get a true sense of the sort of
pandemonium that occurs when a plane catches fire.
The autopilot in the 777 was probably what kept the plane flying straight
and level long after the crew and passengers had asphyxiated. This isn't
wild speculation - it follows right along with what happened to golfer Payne
Why would a hijacker fly six hours into the middle of the Indian Ocean? Why
has there been no claim by terrorists? There are some big, BIG holes in the
hijack theory that I think you're overlooking.
And you keep ignoring the fact that such an event could easily be nothing
more than a coincidence. If there's one thing accident reconstructionists
learn it's that there are a lot of things that appear connected that really
aren't as well as things that appear unconnected but really are.
There's no proof of nefarious acts any more than there's proof that there
was a fire. You've chosen to base your theory on a lot of assertions and
information from the notoriously inept Malaysian government who was looking
for the plane in the wrong place for over a week. They have little or no
The fire theory is finding new adherents:
<<Aviation experts say that a 'blowtorch' fire that scorched an Egyptair
flight in 2011 could explain the disappearance of MH370 . . . The Egyptair
blaze ignited just before departure when a short circuit caused pipes to
explode in flames. The fierce blaze resulted in the Federal Administration
Aviation ordering repairs to American aircraft, but it's uncertain if
Malaysia Airlines did the same, The Telegraph reported.>>
<< "In simple terms, this fault can cause a blowtorch type fire that will
melt aluminium in a matter of seconds," said James Healy-Pratt, an aviation
lawyer and qualified pilot. . . . There is growing belief that an on-board
fire could explain what happened to the plane, rather than an act of
terrorism . . . The Federal Aviation Authority in Washington and the
European Aviation Safety Agency issued directives to airlines under their
control . . . It required the oxygen hoses on the bulk of the 777 fleet to
be replaced with an alternative which did not conduct electricity . . . "We
believe that in due course, the crew will be regarded as heroes rather than
villains, and we sincerely hope the Black Boxes will contain the data to
back that up, and to prevent further needless loss of life," Mr Healy-Pratt
Read through the examples of how quickly Apollo 1 and Valujet incinerated
and you're realize that two minutes can be a veritable eternity when
dealing with a flash fire.
The pilot of the Egyptair flight noted above talked about how fast the cabin
fire spread. This is something I know a little about because of my dad's
work on nuclear subs. Like airplanes or space capsules, fires on subs (or
in any similar closed space) are incredibly dangerous and can spread
unbelievably quickly - exhausting all breathable air in the space.
Pilots, astronauts and submariners know they have very little time to save
themselves in the event of a bad fire. Time and again they've said that
it's not unusual for a pilot in very bad trouble to not radio in. There is
a scenario that fits both our theories. Someone gains access to the cockpit
with a container of something flammable which they spill over the controls
and set on fire. Would a burning pilot's first concern be to phone home?
Would he even be able to? Doubtful.
The Egyptair failure mentioned the possibility of oxygen hoses rupturing,
which would really cause the flames to flash over the way they did on Apollo
To get a sense of how quickly an oxygen enhanced fire can burn, pay careful
attention to how little time they had between detection of the fire and
6:30:54 The crew members were using the time to run through their checklist
again, when a voltage transient was recorded at 6:30:54 (23:30:54 GMT).
6:31:04 (Ten seconds later) Chaffee exclaimed "Hey!", and scuffling sounds
followed for two seconds. White then reported, "I've got a fire in the
cockpit!". Some witnesses said that they saw White on the television
monitors, reaching for the inner hatch release handle as flames in the cabin
spread from left to right and licked the window. The final voice
transmission is believed to have come from Chaffee.
6:31:10 Six seconds after White's report of a "fire in the cockpit", a voice
cried out, "There's a bad fire!". The sound of the spacecraft's hull
rupturing was heard immediately afterwards, followed by "I'm burning up!"
and a scream.
At 6:31:21, the transmission then ended abruptly at only 17 seconds after
the first report of fire
They had 17 seconds to react to save themselves. That's not a lot of time
to phone home and chat with someone who's probably completely unable to
help. That's why the mantra of "Aviate, navigate, communicate" is drilled
into pilots. With very, VERY little time to react to a life and death
situation, their primary concern is not to call in, but to keep the plane in
the air. If you've got 17 seconds to save yourself, a 5 second transmission
eats up almost 33% of the time you have left. Not a good investment if you
want to stay alive.
No, and they died almost immediately. They're not the poster boys for the
alleged value of phoning home to ATC when there's an on-board fire. As I
said before, it was a "where to find the bodies" transmission and did
nothing whatsoever to save the people on the plane. Experienced pilots work
to save the plane in the very few seconds they know they have in a bad cabin
fire. If "phoning home" doesn't extract too much of a penalty, they'll do
it, probably mostly out of instinct. But you'd be hard pressed to make a
case for why a call to ATC would help them in any material way. FWIW, like
the Challenger and Apollo 1 astronauts, nothing that any of them did was
likely to have saved their lives. They were in deep kimshi from the moment
the incidents began. But they followed fire protocols anyway.
Wow, you're reading an awful lot into very little positive information.
Besides, all those events can be explained by a flash fire, perhaps oxygen
fed, that was burning through systems at different rates. If Shah, with
18,000 hours flying, *knew* where a safe landing strip was, away from
populated areas, why would he have to call to get information he already
He was quite some time away from making an actual landing in the middle of
the ocean and appears to have had much bigger problems than obtaining
clearance for a future event. But we just don't know because we have very
little in the way of truly verifiable facts. We do know they've been
scouring the passenger lists for known terrorists and Shah's flight
simulator and they haven't appeared to come up with anything overly
Yeah, they're expecting to make a safe water landing at night with perhaps
half the cockpit controls on fire. I don't see that as a valid alternative
if the cabin fire theory prevails. And if these hijackers were so astute,
knowing how to shut off complex circuitry at precisely the right time, how
come they appear to have died in the middle of nowhere like idiots?
There is a very rough fit to a lot of the pieces of the hijack theory. At
least as many as there are that tend to support the fire theory and perhaps
more. Either could have happened and no one at this point can prove which
theory (or some other one) is correct. Especially with the many retractions
and "corrections" that have come out of the Malaysian government.
You have no idea, nor can prove, whether the transponder failed, burned up,
was shut off intentionally or was hit by a meteorite. But from the
beginning, news reports just starting saying that "transponder was shut off"
and everyone ran with it. Without a cockpit recording, either voice or
data, or some hard evidence in the debris, no one can say why that
transponder stopped transmitting.
I believe that you're making that assumption because of when it occurred
during the flight (we're not really sure, from what I've read). A cockpit
fire can disable the transponder but so can a pilot pulling busses to locate
the source of a fire. Almost every fact you've considered as proof is
equivocal. It could be explained away by some other cause. That doesn't
make a compelling case.
Let's ask ourselves why someone who knew precisely all the right things to
do at the right times and how to change way points, etc. would go through
all that trouble and then fly straight and level to ditch in the ocean? Why
would they fly under the radar, as has been claimed, if they were going to
kill themselves anyway? Wouldn't terrorists gain by having the RMAF shoot
down the jet? Would the RMAF shoot down the jet traveling over ocean in the
middle of nowhere?
There are more things that don't make sense regarding a hijacking than they
do a cabin fire. The plane had a lithium battery cargo and if there were
substantial pressure changes in the cargo bay, they could have burst. Or
they could have shorted.
They do it by assuming it's electrical in nature and pulling the circuit
busses and reactivating them to see which is causing the fire. That's all
they can do and there's apparently never enough time to do it without taking
some WAGs about what equipment is actually burning. If this was an
oxygen-fed fire, its ferocity can't really be imagined. Even things not
normally very flammable combust in pure oxygen. The information about the
Egyptair fire changes things dramatically in my mind.
and while this source doesn't say it, I remember from Sully's landing that
there have been either very few or no successful ditchings of jetliners in
the ocean at night. They were at 35K feet. It was a long way to the ocean
at night with the likelihood it would have to be a dead stick landing. Good
luck with that.
You're postulating a lot of time to do things that really didn't need to be
done at that very moment. He was still at 35K feet (the Valuejet flight got
into trouble at 11K over land - very different animal) and any airport was a
long way over the ocean. What help would ATC really be if the cabin was
burning up in an oxygen-enhanced flash fire and he knew he probably didn't
have enough time to pull and reactivate busses? He wouldn't waste a second
of time dealing with a clearance issue at least 15 minutes away if the
current emergency was a serious cabin fire. How much runway traffic would
there be at 2AM?
It's explained rather easily. Fire suppression systems extinguished the fire
too late to save the crew and the autopilot did the rest. Payne Stewart's
already proved how a plane can just fly off into the sunset and crash.
Almost everyone who's flown the 777's say they are designed to keep flying
straight and level. Given how stingy the airlines are with CVR recording
time, I'd say they miscalculated what it took to suppress a cargo or cabin
fire and if the pilot was incapacitated, the toxic fumes killed everyone on
the plane because he wouldn't be able to manually vent the toxic cabin fumes
to the outside.
MH370 sure seems to have flown off into the middle of the ocean - unless you
choose to believe that bogus way point stuff from the unreliable Malaysians
and disregard the peer-reviewed Doppler analysis of Boeing, Inmarsat and
JPL. The engine monitor data is far more likely to be correct than some new
"fact" the Malaysian pull out of their exhaust port. To imagine that it
made landfall without detection is stretching facts a little too thin for my
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 7:51:23 PM UTC-4, Metspitzer wrote:
I've been wondering where the other 6 arcs are too, why they
haven't been released and why no one in the media has the brains
to ask. You would think it would certainly help. We know where they
think it was at 2:40AM from last contact with military radar. So,
from there it would have to go to the first arc after that, then the
next and so on. You would think it would help narrow it down and
presumably that's what they've used to the extent they can. Maybe it
lends credence to the southern path versus northern, but I haven't
heard them say that it's based on analyzing the arcs. I'm also sick
of all the media referring to those arcs as "corridors the plane could
have flown in". They aren't corridors. They are just all the possible
locations of the plane at 8:11AM. It didn't and wouldn't have flown
in them, it only had to be on a point on one of them at 8:11AM.
Yet I hear the media talking about how the one "corridor" passes
the tip of Indonesia, so why didn't they see it going by, etc.
Another thing I would have done by now is to take another 777, just
fly it from Australia to the end of that arc and have it there while
it does it's handshake with the satellite. Then confirm that when you
do the analysis of that handshake timing to the satellite, you come to
the same conclusion, ie that the 777 is there on the arc in the southern
Indian Ocean. The way so many things have been wrong, it would be good
to know that something isn't wrong with the analysis of the sat data.
i wonder if a stowaway 1 or more were onboard? perhaps in the equiptement bay?
So they pop up and take over. I thin the plane was highjacked and is safely on the ground somewhere awaiting its next job for the new owners, a terrorist action:(
all airliners should uplink all black box data including voice recordings
to a satellite with all info sent to a data center in real time so no aircr
aft is ever lost again. Extra points for some video feeds looking at engine
s, ahead and to the rear, and one in the passenger cabin. Pilots should be
able to view the videos from the cockpit in emergencies too
the cost of flying, but well worth it, you
think? Just think if only one life could
be saved. And we need armed TSA agents, and
cameras in that bathrooms, and everyone has
to fly nude, and all clothing and stuff is
stowed in the hold.
The US has spy sats that 10 years ago were suggested to read license plate numbers. Spy sats are generally in polar orbit, so they should cover the entire planet
So they should have been able to find aircraft wreckage by now:(
there may be a cover up involved, or more likely the aircraft was stolen, and its in a hangar hidden away somewhere, waiting for terrorist reuse someday........
They may be able to read the license plate of a car you point out but
this is more like trying to find a particular license plate in a place
bigger than Texas and you don't really know where to look.
I am sure they have computers programmed to look for particular
military assets but now they have to program it for junk and they are
not even sure how is shaped.
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 7:34:41 PM UTC-4, email@example.com wrote:
I agree. And whatever max capability an NSA sat has, it doesn't mean it's
in an orbit or can be moved to an orbit that covers the area in question.
They'd have those over places like Iran, Russia, North Korea, China, etc.
but I wouldn't assume they routinely cover everything or that they can
even be redeployed to just anywhere.
Latest news is the Malaysian PM says that based on new
data culled from the satellites that handshaked with the
plane, it went down in the south part of the Indian Ocean,
where there was no place it could have landed. It crashed
and there were no survivors.
The fact that it took this long to get special "ping hunter" hydrophones in
place doesn't speak too well of the Malaysian government's handling of this
affair. It's sad because the window within which the black boxes are still
pinging is closing fast.
The CVD/FDR's and wreckage are the only things that can tell us (reliably)
what happened on that flight. Of course, the plane could turn up somewhere
if the "hijack to repurpose" theory was true, but I think the Inmarsat
data's putting that possibility to bed forever. Maybe that was the eventual
goal if the plane *was* hijacked but I don't think they pulled it off in any
event. Why, then, fly such a long way to ditch in a remote ocean?
Was there valuable cargo on board that was insured? A lot of ships are sunk
for insurance fraud, and many planes have been crashed deliberately so
someone could collect on a life insurance policy. Say, for example, the
plane was carrying millions in gold (allegedly) but someone switched lead
for the gold. They would never want their deception discovered so a deep
Indian Ocean grave would make sense.
Fraudsters who do this kind of crime with with ships sink them in very hard
to get to places. In one case where a ship was allegedly loaded with
expensive (and well-insured) machine parts, salvage divers from the insurers
used a deep-diving submersible to get to the wreck where they discovered it
was filled with rocks, not machine parts. I would bet that insurers with
exposure in this case are already gearing up to do their own search because
something's not quite right about flight MH370.
I'm just hoping that the searchers get as lucky as the passengers were
unlucky but I agree it's not very likely after all the missteps in this
search. The NTSB should have been running the show from day 1 because of
their deep expertise in such matters but we were rebuffed. It must be very
disturbing to professional aviation accident investigators to see time
running out on the pingers because the Malaysia were to proud or afraid to
ask for help.
Thanks, I will. I'm not a journalist so I have a right to speculate why
anyone would hijack a plane to crash it in one of the hardest-to-get-to
locations in the world. People commit crimes for gain or passion. If this
was a crime and not an accident, where's the motive? We know that in the
maritime industry, ship owners scuttle their own ships deliberately to
recover insurance money. So while it's speculative, my thought are based on
what's happened time and again in the shipping industry.
The reasoning behind my speculation is that the first bomb ever placed on an
airplane was done to collect on a life insurance policy on a passenger. The
deliberate sinking of ships to collect on insurance is something that's been
going on for years at a fairly respectable clip. It's accelerated quite a
bit because of the recession and the glut of ships that resulted from a
decade of overbuilding. My reasoning is also based on how oddly the
Malaysian government has been acting. They're hiding something - it seems
If you want really out there speculation try:
<<IBM ENGINEER TAKEN FROM HIJACKED FLIGHT 370 GOT A SELFIE OUT TO THE
This image, which appears black was posted as taken in a dark cell by an IBM
engineer. The picture is black because the cell was too dark, but a critical
piece of information was embedded in the Exif data, the coordinates to Diego
Garcia, where the picture was taken. And it's real, this is NOT a hoax. The
coordinates in the picture indicate that the photo was taken within 3 miles
of what Google officially gives for Diego Garcia. It is NOT EXACTLY what
comes up on Google. It is off a couple miles, so NO ONE GOOGLED THIS, thus
helping to confirm it's authenticity. I don't know how big the island is,
but if it has a runway, that certainly fits.>>
Makes me feel entirely grounded in *my* speculation. (-:
At least I am not basing my conclusions on reports from the Malaysian
government who today admitted they didn't even get the last words of the
flight crew correct.
How can anyone trust one single bit of the data they've put out?
Do you have any idea why hijackers who normally love to have as many press
photos and reports of their handiwork as possible would direct the plane to
remotest places on earth to crash it without taking credit or having anyone
That's the part of the hijack theory that doesn't make sense.
Another pilot with 29 years of flying experience and time in 777's doesn't
agree with the hijack theory:
<<And to what end would one of the pilots want to seize a 777? Once again,
would the purpose really be to run the airplane out of fuel in the middle of
the Indian Ocean?
How about suicide? Death by airplane seems farfetched in this case. Why wait
till the middle of the ocean to make a statement? Why not attempt suicide
immediately after takeoff ... or just prior to landing in Bejing?
Was human intervention involved? Absolutely. But my gut theory as a 30-year
airline veteran is that human intervention was involved to save an airplane
and its passengers in crisis, not to commit foul play.>>
That's my gut theory, too. Something very bad happened on that plane -
perhaps an explosion or an oxygen-fed flash fire - resulting in the death of
all aboard and the autopilot flying the plane into the middle of nowhere.
That brings up the issue of design. Would an autopilot be "dumb" enough to
fly the plane to an area with no place to land within the remaining fuel
range? Maybe the CNN talking heads will tackle that question at some point.
On Monday, March 31, 2014 11:29:49 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
Where was the motive beyond a suicide nut in Egypt Air, SilkAir, both
of which were crashed into the ocean by suicidal pilots? Or the
Ethiopian? 767 that was hijacked by two nuts that held a gun to the
pilots heads and forced them to fly to Australia even though the pilots
told them over and over that it only had enough fuel for a couple of
hour flight in Africa? That went down in the ocean too.
We know that in the
You've truly gone totally mad now. There is no evidence consistent
with a bomb. I agree that the Malaysians have handled this very
poorly. But it's hardly evidence of a cover-up. A recent example
is that they have no changed the wording of the final message from
MA370. What good would it do to make asses of themselves over that?
How would it further a "cover-up"? Same thing we the wrong info that
the waypoints for the Straits had been entered mid-flight. What good
would that do when they know there is a trail of evidence and it's
not going to hold up? Or how about the Minister or Defense/Civil Aviation,
who's leading this, turning around the other day and saying that they
continue to hold the hope of finding survivors, after the Prime Minister
had made a major speech saying the only conclusion is it went down
with no survivors? Being dumb and incompetent explains it, no
And you do realize that NTSB, FAA, Boeing, FBI are all involved in this
now too, right? You think if the Malaysians were deliberately lying,
covering it up, that with all the leaks, you would not have sources
telling reporters that something stinks?
Why do you want to discredit yourself by even posting such total
That's very bad logic.
If you won't try to fit theories to whatever the reported known
facts are, then you have nothing but pure conjecture. I agree that
the Malaysians have done a terrible job at this. But they also have
the NTSB, Boeing, FBI, FAA from the USA, and God knows who else from
various other countries involved now. If they are total making up
fiction, then surely someone would be leaking it, reporting it, etc.
So, you have two choices, either use what we know and change theories
if the facts change, or go totally off into the wilderness.
One possibility would be that it was a test run, to see if they can take
control of a plane like that. Then at a later date, do it to 10 airplanes
and direct them at targets. Testimony came out in the recent NYC trial
that a decade ago Al-Qaeda had plans to do a test of blowing open a cockpit
door and it even involved using a flight out of Malaysia. One could argue
that by doing it, they would have tipped their hand. But so far, nothing
much has apparently changed around the world that would prevent them from
doing it again in the future, before wreckage, FDR, causes are determined,
I've seen him on TV. He quickly went with the fire or mechanical failure.
And none of the dummies on TV have brought up all the huge holes in it.
As to what purpose it would serve, he obviously either doesn't know about
Egypt Air, Silk Air, the Ethiopian 767, etc or chooses to ignore it.
Actually I think he does, but
he's also an editor at Flying Magazine and I've come to the conclusion that
he just won't consider or talk about a pilot being responsible period.
Where did Silk Air go down? Egypt Air? They both did it in the ocean.
Is it that far fetched that another suicidal nut would choose to go one
better and make it the biggest mystery since Emilia Earhart?
As I said, he won't even talk about the possibility of the pilot
being responsible. And no one will ask him to account for all the
data on record that is inconsistent with his theories, eg that it flew
not to the nearest airport, but off into the Straits, still flying,
making normal precise turns, leaving it aligned with flight path to
India, flying another 6 hours, no mayday call, transponders, radios
just happen to fail in the couple of mins when they are between one
ATC and the next, etc. I'd like him to show us a similar catastrophic
failure, consistent with what happened here, that resulted in the
plane flying on for 7 hours, no transponders, etc. He can't. For
the suicidal pilot we have at least two. We also have plenty of
nutty hijacker cases.
It remains a possibility, but from the facts on record, not anywhere
near the probability that it was criminal. Which BTW is how the
Malaysians say they are treating it as of today.
Except that again, it doesn't fit with the flight path. The autopilot
works in one of two ways. Either it will follow a course of waypoints.
Or it will maintain a heading, altitude and airspeed. If it's the former,
someone had to put the route it took, to Australia, into it.
If it's the latter, then the heading to the south had to have been
entered after it was past radar contact, because when it left the Straits
it was on a heading to India. Either of those points to deliberate
That brings up the issue of design. Would an autopilot be "dumb" enough to
Of course it would. If you just set a heading, altitude, airspeed, it
will maintain it until it runs out of fuel or runs into something, eg
a mountain. That's how a basic autopilot works. That is what happened
in the Stuart Payne case that you
brought up. It's very different from what happened here. And you can
certainly tell the plane to fly anywhere, using waypoints, or long/lat.
It's not going to change that because it's low on fuel,
that's up to the pilots.
I did do some of your work for you though. There are a couple of other
possibilities I came up with, one of which is in your mechanical failure,
or fire, etc category.
A - With the hijacking scenario, you keep asking, but why would it
end up where it did? It's a legitimate question. One answer to that
could be that you're assuming (and I was too until now), that the
hijackers were successful in completing their mission. There is the
possibility that they got control of the plane, ie forced the pilots.
Maybe they told them they wanted to fly it to a target somewhere.
And maybe the pilots at some point, decided to fight back, end it,
whatever and it somehow resulted in the plane going on it's course
with the pilots dead, or whatever and the hijackers unable to complete
B - With the mechanical problem theory, while I think it's a very long
shot, suppose you just happened to have a mechanical problem that
killed power to all the avionics for navigation, ie the flight display,
nav computer, etc. And it killed the VHF radars, transponders, ACARS,
etc. But it left the computer control of the aircraft, eg ailerons,
rudder, etc OK. That would leave them in the middle of the ocean,
at night. I'm almost certain these planes also have as a last resort
a mechanical compass and artificial horizon. Using that, they could
have made a left turn to try to go back to Kota Bahru. But without
knowing exactly where they were, they would set some heading, then
have to figure out where they were when over land. IDK what the weather was
that night, except that it wasn't bad or considered as a possible cause.
But was there a cloud layer? Did they descend at some point, trying
to get below it, find Kota Bahru, realized they were off course, then
climbed back up because of concern of mountains, etc?
That still doesn't explain how in the world they would wind up over
the Straits and then fly on what must have been a pretty much straight
course to Australia afterward. So, I say all those combined failures,
winding up where they apparently did, it's low odds that was the cause.
If we had more info and it was accurate on the exact flight path,
altitudes, etc, it could help rule some of this in or out. One key
thing is if it indeed did hit exact waypoints in the Straits. If it
did, then you're 99.99% left with a suicidal pilot or a hijacker.
Another interesting thing. The Malaysians have said that all crew
and passengers have been checked out and nothing found. They said
that means they have asked the respective countries to check them
out and all have replied back that they found no connection to
terrorism, etc. But, how reliable is that? It means, for example,
that they have to rely on the Iranians vetting those 2 Iranians.
With CNN, instead of having 6 talking heads on TV 24/7, why don't
they send a reporter to Iran to start asking some questions about
who these 2 were, who this Ali guy is, etc?
(I took the liberty of renaming the thread
Re: Flight MH370: Malaysian radar, passenger phone contact, high-altitude
to be more specific and adding "OT" to the subject line)
Those are good points. As for pilot suicide, it still seems a little odd
that he didn't just nose dive
soon after takeoff rather than flying until the plane ran out of fuel. Or,
if he wanted to commit mass murder, to crash it into the Petronas Towers.
Both pilots were certainly skilled enough to do that.
To me, heading out on a course to nowhere strongly suggests autopilot doing
its thing until the fuel ran out.
The only problem I see with your statement is that you're concluding that
Silk Air was a pilot suicide and using it to suggest a conclusion about
MH370. But the conclusion you're referring to was an NTSB computer
simulation theory that was NOT sustained in a court of law or supported by
the Indonesian government. Here's what Wiki has to say:
<< SilkAir Flight 185 was a scheduled SilkAir passenger flight from Jakarta,
Indonesia to Singapore, which crashed into the Musi River near Palembang in
southern Sumatra, Indonesia on 19 December 1997, killing all 97 passengers
and 7 crew members on board.
There was immense controversy as to the cause of the crash, which was
investigated by two independent agencies.The Indonesian National
Transportation Safety Committee (NTSC) stated in its report that it could
not determine a cause of the crash due to inconclusive evidence. The
American National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) utilized computer
modeling to conclude that the crash was the result of deliberate flight
control inputs, most likely by the captain. The jury under the Superior
Court in Los Angeles, which was not allowed to hear or consider the NTSB
conclusions, decided that the crash was caused by a prominent issue inherent
in other 737 crashes: a defective servo valve inside the Power Control Unit
(PCU) which controls the aircraft's rudder, causing a rudder hard-over and a
subsequent uncontrollable crash. The manufacturer of the aircraft's rudder
controls and the families later reached an out of court settlement.>>
The trial supported the theory of some catastrophic defect in the airline,
one that had caused previous crashes. The NTSB experts came to a different
conclusion. The Indonesians took the position that the evidence was
inconclusive for either theory. That's one reason I tend to look to
previous incidents on airplanes rather than sketchy radar data and
conspiracy theories about hijackings and pilots committing suicide.
I'll admit there are serious problems with the fire theory, but I still say
absent discovering the wreck or some critical piece of debris, the
likelihood of settling our debate is about as likely as them finding the
cockpit recorders before they stop pinging.
EgyptAir 990 is a different story. Although that outcome is in dispute,
too, the CVR tells a story that seems strongly to support deliberate pilot
action. Unfortunately the 2 hour write-over limit inherent in the CVR (if
ever found) will never tell us the same information about MH370.
<<The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) recorded the Captain excusing himself to
go to the lavatory, followed thirty seconds later by the First Officer
saying in Egyptian Arabic "Tawkalt ala Allah," which translates to "I rely
on God." A minute later, the autopilot was disengaged, immediately followed
by the First Officer again saying, "I rely on God." Three seconds later, the
throttles for both engines were reduced to idle, and both elevators were
moved three degrees nose down. The First Officer repeated "I rely on God"
seven more times before the Captain suddenly asked repeatedly, "What's
happening, what's happening?>>
Still not conclusive proof but very, very suspicious.
Another crash is seems to be very much pilot suicide:
and is much more clearly a deliberate act by the pilot because of data from
There's an excellent overview here of what we know so far based on a meeting
of aviation experts:
<< Aerosociety.com noted that one technical expert pointed out that for
every plausible reason suggested above, there was at least one contradictory
"If it was hypoxia, then who turned MH370 around?"
"If it was a fire, then how did the aircraft continue flying?"
"If it was the flight crew, then why did the cabin crew not intervene?"
The technical expert told the portal that perhaps more than one scenario
occurred simultaneously, such as wiring fire and depressurisation.
However, one thing is for certain, until more evidence is found, nothing can
be proved. - March 29, 2014.>>
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.