The Office of the State Fire Marshal through the Fire Safety Division issues certificates of competency and certificates of registration (commonly referred to as “licenses”) to people and companies engaged in: • • • Applications for New Licenses and Renewals • Applications for new or renewal of these licenses can be found on the page. • • • For information about licensing issues, please contact the licensing desk by phone at 978-567-3700 or by email.

Permits for Aboveground Storage Tanks and Self-Serve Gas Stations Code compliance officers and fire prevention engineers review plans and issue permits for the operation of: • • For questions, contact the Code Compliance Desk at 978-567-3375, or in western Mass. At (978) 567-3813.

Local, state, and wire news and commentary. Photo galleries, business and obituaries. Indoor Kart Race with One-Day License, or $15 for $25 Worth of Pub Food and Soft Drinks at F1 Boston. F1 Boston's staff makes every race a thrilling experience for the racers. They are also trained to keep races fair and safe for each driver. What's your favorite part of your job? Watching our customers get fired up from.

Conspiracy Theories, Transponders, Rogue Pilots and Media Madness. UPDATE: August 2, 2016 SO THIS is what it comes down to.

Earlier this week, the multi-nation team investigating the 2014 disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight 370 announced that the hunt for the missing Boeing 777, which had been concentrated in the southeastern Indian Ocean, was at last being called off. After two years and over a hundred million search dollars, only a few scattered pieces of the jetliner were found, washed ashore on isolated islands, presumably hundreds or even thousands of miles from the actual, unknown spot were the flight met its end. I’m disappointed, but not surprised. I’ve been saying from the start that we should prepare for the possibility of the disaster remaining forever unsolved. It happens this way sometimes. If it helps you feel better, the air crash annals contain numerous unsolved accidents.

What makes this one different, maybe, is that major air crashes are so rare to begin with nowadays. On top of that, we’ve come to expect and demand easy and fast solutions to pretty much everything, with a fetishized belief that “technology,” whatever that even means anymore, can answer any question and fix any problem.

But it can’t. Sometimes nature wins. And that’s what this is about, ultimately: nature. The immensity of the ocean, both in breadth and depth, versus the comparative speck of a 777.

Oh sure, radios, transponders, emergency locator transmitters, GPS, real-time position streaming, satellite tracking. All of that is fallible, one way or the other. The wreckage is out there somewhere, nestled invisibly in some immense undersea fissure or canyon, in the ink-black darkness beneath thousands of feet of seawater. The search vessels may have swept right over it. There are two possibilities, just as there always have been. One nefarious, the other accidental. Out claiming that a computer belonging to flight 370 captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah, a home simulator enthusiast, contained a simulated flight routing, deep into the Indian Ocean, eerily similar to the route believed to have been flown by MH370 after contact was lost.

You can see the two routings, side-by-side, in this graphic. Zaharie’s possible “dry run” is the red one. (Courtesy of Jeff Wise) The similarities are startling — particularly the segment that backtracks northwesterly through the Straits of Malacca.

Still, it’s hard to say how much of a smoking gun this is, because it’s one of many routings that Zaharie had simulated. The latitude and longitude waypoints comprising the route had been deleted from the software and were recovered by computer forensics experts. Was this done correctly? Are the waypoints accurate?

Were they cherry picked among numerous others? What did the other simulations look like, and how many were there?

Without more information, we can’t discount scenarios involving mechanical malfunction. One of the most compelling of these is the possibility of a mishandled cabin depressurization.

High-altitude decompressions can be rapid or gradual, but either way it’s critical that the pilots get their supplemental oxygen masks on immediately. We imagine a situation where they did not, becoming disoriented as they attempted to troubleshoot and organize a diversion back to Kuala Lumpur or some other airport, getting only a partial — or garbled — re-route into the plane’s navigation system before falling unconscious.

Eventually the plane passed the last programmed waypoint, then defaulted to heading mode and wandered off into the southern Indian Ocean until running out of fuel. (Among the proponents of this theory is Christine Negroni, who details such a scenario in her upcoming book,.) Or perhaps they had no supplemental oxygen. On the 777-200, the supply bottle for the pilots is located in a space below and just aft of the cockpit, close to the main avionics bay, through which much of the plane’s communications equipment is routed. Some have speculated that the oxygen bottle could have exploded, knocking out nearby equipment, including transponder and ACARS (this would explain the loss communications data just as the flight was crossing into Vietnamese airspace) and, more critically, causing a decompression. The pilots would have put their masks on, but with only residual oxygen left in the lines, or perhaps none at all, they would quickly have succumbed to hypoxia.

There have been serious incidents with oxygen bottles before, including ones on a Qantas 747. These are plausible theories, yet they haven’t gotten much traction — possibly because they’re plausible, unlike some of the more sensational ideas being passed around. Those ideas will never go away. And barring a small miracle, we’ll never learn for certain what happened. UPDATE: June 26, 2014 WHO VETS THESE THINGS?

In today’s New York Times, it says, “Angus Houston, the retired head of the Australian military who is overseeing the country’s search, said in an interview earlier this month that he assumed the flight would have been on autopilot even if a conscious pilot had been at the controls. That is because a Boeing 777 is a very difficult plane to fly manually.” Those italics are mine. They are mine because the statement is absurd.

If anything a 777 is an easy plane to fly manually. Sure, the autopilot would have been engaged even with a conscious pilot at the controls. Virtually all commercial aircraft have their autopilots engaged during the cruise portion of flight. It has been this way since the 1940s. It has nothing to do with the planes being difficult to fly. It’s because hand-flying a jet for several hours, on a more or less straight course across the ocean, would be incredibly tedious.

Easy, but numbing and exhausting. This is another example of the media relying on outside specialists (military sources, aeronautics professors, researchers and bureaucrats) to comment on commercial airline operations — something they often know very little about. Meanwhile, the latest reports are saying that hypoxia — that is, the crew falling unconscious due to lack of oxygen — appears to be the “best fit” for the MH 370 mystery. How this may have happened, if it did, remains unknown, but possibilities include a cabin breach caused by a bomb or structural failure, or a major pressurization malfunction.

Pilots are trained to deal with such things, and even a total loss of cabin pressure is seldom dangerous. But, they have to respond quickly and appropriately. The hypoxia idea has been there from the beginning (I’m one who’ve been citing it as a possibility, right from day one), but has been lost amidst the more colorful theories of pilot suicide, hijacking, UFO abduction, and so forth. With its occupants unconscious, the jet would have continued on its last programmed routing until running out of fuel and crashing. And no, to answer a question several readers have put forth, the jet would not have been guided via autopilot to a smooth touchdown on the ocean surface. Once the engines quit, the plane would have stayed stable for a certain amount of time, then eventually would have stalled and/or plummeted and crashed.

How much time? It’d somewhat depend on which modes of the autopilot had been engaged, as well as the plane’s altitude and speed. If the engines failed simultaneously (unlikely) the plane would stay aloft somewhat longer. If one engine failed before the other (much more likely), the resulting asymmetrical forces, without a pilot on hand to react, would have been quickly catastrophic.

See the Helios Airways accident in 2005, for an example. UPDATE: May 7, 2014 JUST A FEW THOUGHTS on Matt Wald’s New York Times story, titled To be clear, planes are tracked over the ocean, even in remote, non-radar areas. This is something the media hasn’t been good at explaining.

It’s a semantic discussion to some degree (what does “tracking” mean?), but headlines the likes of “U. Pac File Bypass Proxy For Local Addresses In Williamsville. N. To Consider Ways to Track Planes Over Seas,” and similar phrasings, which have been rampant, give people the impression that once a plane hits oceanic airspace, it effectively disappears until making landfall on the other side. This is not the case, at all. Crews are always in touch with both air traffic control and company personnel on the ground, and both of these entities are following and tracking you. Tranponders aren’t used in non-radar areas, but you’ve also got HF radio, SATCOM, CPDLC, FMC datalink and so forth. Which equipment you’re using to communicate depends where you are and which air traffic control facility you’re working with.

What happened in the case of flight 370, of course, is that all of this equipment stopped working — it was either switched off intentionally, or failed. The plane wasn’t being tracked because the communications equipment was dead. We can and perhaps should argue whether some sort of fail-safe, independently powered locator signal ought to be installed aboard transoceanic aircraft, able to transmit latitude and longitude position, but in normal operations the existing equipment works quite well, and is a lot more sophisticated than people are being led to believe. The Times story also segued into an annoying and misleading discussion about — here we go again — why it is that pilots are able to turn a transponder off. The comments of retired pilot Robert Hilb were especially frustrating. To cut and paste from a prior post (which you can read further down this page) The ability to turn off a transponder exists for three reasons: The first one is operational: to avoid cluttering up air traffic control radar, the unit is turned off when parked at the gate.

We switch it on shortly before taxiing, then switch it off again (actually it’s moved to a standby mode) after docking in. Second, in the interest of safety — namely, fire and electrical system protection — it’s important to have the ability to isolate a piece of equipment, either by a standard switch or, if need be, through a circuit breaker. And third, transponders will occasionally malfunction and transmit erroneous or incomplete data, at which point a crew will “cycle” the device or swap to another unit. Typically at least two transponders are onboard, and you can’t run both simultaneously. Further, there are various transponder subfunctions, or “modes” as we call them — mode C, for example, or mode S — responsible for different data, and these can be turned off separately. In any case, with respect to the missing Malaysia Airlines plane, a discussion of transponders is only partly relevant in the first place. For air traffic control purposes, transponders only work in areas of ATC radar coverage.

Once beyond a certain distance from the coast, the oceans are not monitored by radar, and transponders are not used for tracking. We keep the units turned on because the TCAS anti-collision system is transponder-based, but we rely on SATCOM, ACARS, FMS datalink, and other means for position reports and communications. Thus transponders are pertinent to this story only when the missing plane was close to land. Once over the open water, on or off, it didn’t matter anyway. UPDATE: April 26, 2014 IT’S AMAZING how this story has fallen off the table. The big TV networks (this means you CNN) finally faced up to the fact they couldn’t keep leading, hour after hour, with a story that wasn’t changing. The jet was missing, and it kept on being missing, and here we are in the middle of April and it’s still missing.

Count me among those who feel that this is how it ends: a mystery. The plane is out there somewhere, at the bottom of the Indian Ocean, and in all likelihood we’re not going to find it. Even if the wreckage can be pinpointed, dredging up the black boxes from 15,000 feet of seawater would itself be a monumental task. And even with the recorders salvaged we might not learn what happened. My hunch is that a malfunction, rather than foul play, brought the plane down. A poorly handled decompression, for example, caused by a structural problem or windscreen failure.

Or a catastrophic electrical failure combined with smoke, fire or fumes that rendered the crew unconscious. Granted that doesn’t totally jibe with the evidence, but none of the theories do. Not ruling anything out, including the possibility of a pilot suicide mission. I’m somewhat mystified that more hasn’t been made of the captain’s domestic situation — his failing marriage and, according to some, unusual behavior — in the days leading up to the plane’s disappearance. This is how it goes sometimes. The archives of aviation accidents, rare as they might be, contain numerous unsolved disasters — including aircraft that have never been found or recovered. The fate of Malaysia 370, it looks like, will be added to the list.

UPDATE: April 4, 2014 THE MEDIA really needs a chill pill. And for the love of heaven, would people please stop talking about transponders. National Public Radio host Robert Siegel was on the air yesterday, the latest in a know-nothing chorus complaining about the ability of pilots to turn transponders off, clearly possessing little or no idea how the devices actually work. The ability to turn off a transponder exists for three reasons: The first one is operational: to avoid cluttering up air traffic control radar, the unit is turned off when parked at the gate.

We switch it on shortly before taxiing, then switch it off again (actually it’s moved to a standby mode) after docking in. Second, in the interest of safety — namely, fire and electrical system protection — it’s important to have the ability to isolate a piece of equipment, either by a standard switch or, if need be, through a circuit breaker.

And third, transponders will occasionally malfunction and transmit erroneous or incomplete data, at which point a crew will “cycle” the device or swap to another unit. Typically at least two transponders are onboard, and you can’t run both simultaneously.

Further, there are various transponder subfunctions, or “modes” as we call them — mode C, for example, or mode S — responsible for different data, and these can be turned off separately. In any case, with respect to the missing Malaysia Airlines plane, a discussion of transponders is only partly relevant in the first place.

For air traffic control purposes, transponders only work in areas of ATC radar coverage. Once beyond a certain distance from the coast, the oceans are not monitored by radar, and transponders are not used for tracking.

We keep the units turned on because the TCAS anti-collision system is transponder-based, but we rely on SATCOM, ACARS, FMS datalink, and other means for position reports and communications. Thus transponders are pertinent to this story only when the missing plane was close to land. Once over the open water, on or off, it didn’t matter anyway. UPDATE: April 3, 2014 ACCORDING TO Reason.org, a new Reason-Rupe poll finds 35 percent of Americans think a mechanical problem caused Malaysia Airlines flight 370 to crash; 22 percent believe the pilots crashed the plane intentionally; 12 percent feel it was destroyed by terrorists; 9 percent say the plane landed safely and is in hiding; 5 percent believe the disappearance is related to supernatural or alien activity; and 3 percent think it was shot down by a foreign government. That’s slightly more encouraging than I expected, with some 57 percent of people overall hewing to what have been, from the start, the two most credible avenues of possibility: mechanical problem or rogue crew hijacking.

UPDATE: March 30, 2014 I’VE READ AND HEARD some pretty asinine characterizations of airline pilots before, but rarely have I come across anything as absurd, inaccurate, or irresponsible as what was printed on the front page of the March 28-30 weekend international edition of USA Today. I’m talking about the story by Mahi Ramakrishnan headlined, “Flight Change Blamed on Pilot.” (A slightly different version of this story ran in the March 27th U.S.

Edition.) “The pilot of the missing Malaysia Airlines jet is believed to be solely responsible for steering the flight hundreds of miles off course” begins the story. Right away I feel an ulcer coming on. I find it almost inconceivable that after decades of covering commercial aviation, USA Today would fail to understand there is always a minimum of two pilots in the cockpit: a captain and a first officer. The latter is known colloquially as the copilot, but they both are fully qualified pilots. They both perform takeoffs and landings, and both are certified to operate the aircraft in all regimes of flight. A first officer is not an apprentice. In fact, owing to the quirks of the airline seniority system, it is not unheard of for the first officer to be older and more experienced than the captain..

How many times have I been through this? I’ve explained it repeatedly in blog postings, articles, and in my book. I have no idea how many people have been listening, but in one fell swoop USA Today has misinformed hundreds of thousands of readers. But wait, it gets worse Later in the same story we are told that one of the Malaysian investigators said of the crew, “Only the captain possessed the experience and expertise to fly the plane.” I’m not sure what disturbs me more: that an accident investigator would say such a nonsensical and untrue thing, or that USA Today didn’t have the common sense to vet it.

I can’t believe that nobody on the editorial staff of a paper that runs so many airlines stories, and that caters to travelers, didn’t at least flag this statement for review. The idea that a first officer on a Boeing 777 wouldn’t have the experience or expertise to operate the aircraft on his own is beyond preposterous. Why the investigator would assert otherwise, if in fact the quote was interpreted correctly, I have no idea. The details of the Malaysia Airlines mystery have been subject to enough misinterpretation and general media overboiling as it is.

This puts things over the top, into the realm of total and complete nonsense. And hang on, there’s more The same issue of USA Today, on page 10A, features a letter to the editor by a man from Minnesota named Tom O’Mara. His topic is the tracking of commercial flights. He asks that we “demand that airlines track all their flights from takeoff to landing.” Five dollars per passenger, he submits, ought to be invested in a “tracking system for commercial flights over the ocean.” The problem here is that commercial flights are tracked over the oceans. Air crews must always be in contact with both air traffic control and company dispatchers on the ground.

Most intercontinental aircraft have datalink or satellite communications systems that allow for constant real-time tracking. Of course, this equipment works only so long as it’s powered. A fire, failure, or act of sabotage can render it inoperative — no different, I would presume, from any piece of equipment in any application in any industry. Maybe that’s O’Mara’s point; possibly he’s arguing for some type of fail-safe tracking mechanism that can’t be destroyed or turned off? But he doesn’t say so, and the tone and implication of his letter is simple and clear enough: planes are not tracked. Which is untrue. And here the newspaper again drops the ball, by publishing a letter based on a false premise.

UPDATE: March 27, 2014 THE GRAPHICS ON CNN say “Breaking News” followed by, “There is no new information in the disappearance of flight MH370.” Can’t make this up. Malaysian authorities, meanwhile, have put out the blockbuster announcement that they are confident the plane crashed into the sea. Damn, and all this time I believed the jet was hidden away in a hangar somewhere on a “remote airstrip.” Except of course that plenty of people really do subscribe to such an idea.

And it’s this conspiracy mongering that’s the most discouraging and distracting aspect of this entire story. How it got there we don’t yet know — and we may never know — but there is an extremely high certainty that the plane is in the Indian ocean. This is by far the likeliest possibility, and I wish the TV networks would cease and desist from giving further credence to notions of a kidnapping conspiracy. There is zero evidence to support such a claim, and analytically it makes no sense.

Some buffoon was on Fox News the other night saying, “This has all the makings of a hostage situation.” Actually, it has none of the makings of a hostage situation. Not that I’m shocked that so many people are willing to accept these ideas. What is it about our society nowadays that foments such fanciful and illogical lines of thinking? Meanwhile, here’s a bullet-point look at some of the topics and theories we’ve been hearing about from the start: TRANSPONDERS The media has been throwing this term around without a full understanding of how the equipment works. See my explanation at the top of this post.

“ALL RIGHT, GOOD NIGHT” If I hear one more person attempt to make something of the first officer’s final words to air traffic control — “all right, good night” — I’m going to hit the roof. There is nothing unusual about this salutation. While it sounds cryptic in the context of the ongoing mystery, it’s a perfectly normal sign-off — the kind of thing pilots say to controllers all the time. THE RADAR RUSE I’m talking about, by an aviation enthusiast named Keith Ledgerwood. His hypothesis is that the missing Malaysia Airlines jet had tucked up underneath a Singapore Airlines 777, causing the two planes’ radar signatures to appear as one. Thus disguised, the Malaysia jet flew on, undetected for hours before eventually breaking off and landing at an airfield in?

See that’s what I don’t like about this idea. It fails to offer any explanation as to how, once separating from the Singapore flight, the Malaysia jet could have completed its secret diversion without being seen — to say nothing of why such a difficult and elaborate plot would be put in motion to begin with. It makes very little sense, other than it allows an aviation hobbyist to show off a little, and provides more fodder for a media starved of useful information.

Beyond that, if the Malaysia plane had been directly below the Singapore 777, the latter’s radar altimeter would have shown it. The radar altimeter is a device that displays physical distance, in feet, to an object below. (They differ from a plane’s main altimeters, which reference height above sea level.) In normal operations that object is the ground, but during cruise they commonly pick up crossing traffic, momentarily showing planes as they pass beneath. So, ask the Singapore crew: was your radar altimeter flashing on and off, showing some sort of object below you? FIRE OR FUMES? This theory has gotten a ton of attention thanks to a penned by a general aviation pilot named Chris Goodfellow. He proposes that the flight’s sudden turn off course was a response to an inflight emergency — an intentional deviation forced by an electrical or cargo fire.

While headed for an emergency landing, the crew was overcome by smoke or fumes. Its autopilot on and course reprogrammed, the plane then continued on for a time before crashing.

The theory is described in the headline as “startlingly simple,” though in fact there’s nothing startling about it, and Goodfellow more or less repeats what I said in a post back on March 14th. That a fire would be potent enough knock out communications and incapacitate the crew, yet not destroy the aircraft very quickly, is certainly a sticking point, but neither is it impossible. THE TERRORIST PLOT If indeed this was a hijacking, did the plane land somewhere, as some are suggesting, possibly to be used later as an airborne weapon of some kind, perhaps loaded with a nuclear or biological weapon? I seriously doubt it. Remote as some airports are, the task of stealing and then secretly landing and hiding a 777 would be exceptionally difficult.

But more than that, what sense would it make for a terrorist group steal a commercial jetliner full of passengers from one of the most prestigious airlines in the world, guaranteeing that everybody on the planet will be looking for it? There are hundreds or even thousand of cargo planes and business jets that move around the world each day more or less anonymously, any one of which would do the job equally as well as well, with only a small fraction of the attention.

That’s not to discount the possibility of a hijacking outright, but I can’t imagine the plane actually landed somewhere. As to other motives, remember that the did not begin and end with September 11th, 2001, so it’s important not to view every hijacking through the crucible of the 9/11 template. People hijack planes for different reason. It may even have been a rogue crewmember. REMOTE CONTROL This one is full-on James Bond. We’re told how the plane’s “flight computer,” whatever that is, was hacked, allowing the plane to be flown remotely, like a drone, either to crash it into the ocean or carry it to a secret airstrip somewhere. I’m frustrated by how often this is suggested, because there is simply no way to remotely pilot a Boeing 777 or any other commercial plane.

People seem to have a vastly exaggerated idea of how modern jetliners are flown — that is, they vastly exaggerate the capabilities of cockpit automation, and what a person with access to this automation, whether from inside or outside the plane, would be able to do with it. People read and hear things out of context — simplified explanations and experimental applications of technology — and they extrapolate unrealistically. And it’s not as if the pilots don’t monitor and crosscheck a plane’s progress when its autoflight system is engaged.

We are constantly doing that. If something were messing with one or more of the system’s modes, we’d know it, and could easily disengage that mode and fly using basic course, altitude, or power commands. Worst-case, we can switch the automation off completely and do everything by hand.

WHY NO PHONE CALLS? Some have wondered why, assuming the jet was hijacked, passengers did not place cell phone calls to loved ones, as occurred during the 9/11 attacks. Does the absence of call records suggest the passengers had been incapacitated somehow, or that the plane had met a sudden end? Unless an aircraft is flying low and within range of a cell tower, cellular calling from a plane does not work. Your phone will not maintain a signal. Some airplanes are equipped with special technology that permits calling via satellite or using radio frequencies to transmit cellular calls, but I’m uncertain if Malaysia’s 777s have this technology. Even if they do it could have been intentionally turned off or suffered a power failure, no different from the plane’s other communications equipment.

THE MISSING MAYDAY 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. INTO ORBIT 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. HYPOXIA Could a rapid loss of cabin pressure, perhaps as a result of a fire or some other problem, rendered the flight crew, and possibly everyone else on the plane as well, incapacitated, at which point the plane continued on before eventually crashing. This is conceivable, yes (though maybe no more so than assorted other scenarios). Depressurizations by themselves are perfectly manageable and almost never fatal (see for a story about the time it happened to me), and something that all airline crews train for, but only if the crew understands the problem and does what it’s supposed to do. See Helios Airways.

THE STOLEN PASSPORTS Interpol says the Iranians with stolen passports were migrants hoping to be smuggled into Europe. There are thousands of people jetting around the world on forged or stolen documents, for a variety of shady reasons, but that doesn’t make them terrorist bombers. PILOT EXPERIENCE It’s doubtful this was any factor. The captain of the ill-fated flight had logged close to 20,000 flight hours, a substantial total by any standard. The first officer (copilot), on the other hand, had fewer than three thousand hours to his name.

Pilots in North America — those like me, at any rate, who come up through the civilian ranks — generally accrue several thousand hours before landing a job with a major airline. We slog our way through the industry in a step-by-step process, building experience along the way. Thus it would be unheard of to find a Boeing 777 copilot with such a small number of hours. In other areas of the world, the process is often different. Pilots are frequently selected through so-called ab-initio programs, hand-picked by carriers at a young age and trained from the start to fly jetliners.

We can debate the perils of this method, but I tend to doubt it’s anything more than a side note. Plus, flight hours in and of themselves aren’t necessarily a good measure of a pilot’s skills or performance under pressure. And any pilot, regardless of his or her logbook totals, and regardless of the airline, needs to meet some pretty rigorous training standards before being signed off to fly a 777.

All we know for sure is that a plane went missing with no warning or communication from the crew. The culprit could be anything from sabotage to fire to a bizarre mechanical problem — or, as is so common in airline catastrophes, some combination or compounding of human error and/or mechanical malfunction. And all the while people keep asking “how can a plane simply disappear?” It’s an idea that to many makes no sense in an age of instant and total connectivity. But consider: if somebody yanks the power cord out of your computer, suddenly all the wonderful immediacy and connectivity of the internet is effectively vanished. Similarly, all of the fancy equipment in a 777’s cockpit is only useful if it’s actually running. Thus, together with an absence of primary radar over much of the ocean, the idea that a plane can disappear becomes a lot more conceivable. And no matter who or what is to blame, we shouldn’t let this latest tragedy overshadow the fact that air travel remains remarkably safe.

Worldwide, the trend over the past several years has been one of steady improvement, to the point where last year was the safest in the entire history of commercial aviation. Hopefully their number continues to diminish, but a certain number of accidents will always be inevitable. In some ways, the weirdness of this story speaks to how well we have engineered away what once were the most common causes of crashes.

Those that still occur tend to be more mysterious and strange than in decades past (have a look at the year 1985 some time, for an idea of how frequent large-scale air disasters once were). Meanwhile, it’s fascinating how this story has moved from being one about a presumed airplane crash to, really, a mystery story. It’s the very missing-ness of the plane that the public finds so captivating. If and when the wreckage is discovered, I have to wonder if suddenly people will stop paying such rapt attention. If so, that’s too bad, because the question at hand ought to be what happened on board the jet, not where is the jet.

I say “if and when” because I think people need to reconcile with the possibility that the plane might never be found. I know that sounds absurd in an age where fast and easy answers are taken for granted, but it could very well happen. __________ Malaysia Airlines was formed in the early 1970s after its predecessor, Malaysia-Singapore Airlines (MSA), split to become Singapore Airlines and Malaysia Airlines. Both carriers are renowned for their outstanding passenger service, and both have excellent safety records.

Cabin crews of both airlines wear the iconic, floral pattern “Sarong Kabaya” batik — a adaptation of the traditional Malay kebaya blouse. Malaysia Airlines’ logo, carried on its tails from the beginning, is an indigenous kite known as the Wau.

True story: In 1993 I was in the city of Kota Bahru, a conservative Islamic town in northern Malaysia close to the Thai border, when we saw a group of little kids flying Wau kites. At the time I didn’t realize where the airline’s logo had come from, but I recognized the pattern immediately. It was one of those airline/culture crossover moments that we aerophiles really savor. Related Story.

Often be put! Preserve your entire internet business activities fl insurance logged plus docs sent in inside the proper files. Check out your own mail balances at the very least each day along with file the important ones. Dont always be scared to call your document or maybe folder which has a lengthy brand (within cause). An individual will be able to entry almost any document, folder, computer software and also contact inside thirty a few moments. A lot time frame is usually rescued which includes a clear computer help! The Australian Transport Safety Bureau said SIX WEEKS before the incident, Captain Shah used his simulator to fly a route, similar to the route flown by MH370 into the southern Indian Ocean.

This flies (pun intended) in the face of my theory that Shah was inspired by Anwar Ibrahim. I don’t want to be right.

Like Tom Cruise to Jack Nicholson “I want the truth.” 😉 I am a flight simulator pilot and I must say it would be incredibly boring and pointless to fly for hours over an ocean knowing I would run out of fuel and crash into the water. I’d never do that, unless I was practicing for something. [Cue the ominous “Bum ba dum bum bum.” music.] In August, Malaysian Transport Minister Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai said any decision to resume the search, based on any new data, had to be jointly made by Malaysia, Australia and China. So, what it all means is: 1. Captain Shah planned and executed this.

I don’t know. It is a very tangled web that includes his wife, Freescale Semiconductor, and possibly Islamic terrorism. Malaysia is attempting to ensure that we will never know, by requiring Australia, China and their own country to decide to resume the search. Even if the two other countries would agree, all Malaysia has to say is “No.”. Is this merely a coincidence?

I think I explained this before, but here it is as straight-forward (no pun intended, oh what the heck, I admit I intended it) as I can. Being a Muslim government, male to male sex is a crime in Malaysia. Captain Shah was a supporter and distant relative of Anwar Ibrahim who was a high ranking official, in the Malaysian government. He was Minister of Finance with the ruling party. He fell out of favor and was arrested and imprisoned on questionable charges of sodomy with a male aide.

He was eventually acquitted, but when it became clear he led the opposition party and would likely win the election, his acquittal was overturned and he was returned to prison late in the day on March 7th, 2014. MH370 vanished only hours later on March 8th, 2014. When the Boeing 777 “disappeared” in March 2014, the airline was majority-owned by Malaysia. Information was dibbling out here and there as rumors or tidbits, but they never were straight-forward. Within 5 months, the government took it over completely. Then the cone of silence came down. There are so many basic questions that remain unanswered, but this is a typical stalling tactic of corporations and governments and Malaysia Airlines is both.

They wear people in emotional turmoil down, until they die or crack-up or give up. This is disgraceful. It is the fox watching the hen house; a conflict of interest if there ever was one.

The corporation is accountable to the government and the government is the corporation. When did Captain Shah create that red route on his flight simulator? Surely the file has a date and time stamp. If the date is March 7, 2014, the day Anwar Ibrahim was returned to prison, that is the smoking gun. The plane vanished hours later. The thing that keeps coming back to me is no normal person would create that flight plan in a flight simulator.

My imagination leads me to this scenario. Zaharie Ahmad Shah was politically riled. He was upset that Anwar Ibrahim was returned to prison. He fought with his wife and she left. He was angry at the world. He plotted the flight on his simulator. At the hand-over from Malaysia to China, he asked his first officer to get them some tea.

When the co-pilot returned, Captain Shah refused entry. I know cockpit doors are reinforced, probably with steel and their is a way to get in, if for example the pilot has become incapacitated.

So, I imagine it is somebody rings the door bell, person in cockpit presses the button to unlock the door or denies entry. If neither is done in a minute or so, the door is unlocked. I may be way off base, but that is what I think happened. In other words, someone had to have had “control.”. Patrick Says: “a computer belonging to flight 370 captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah, a home simulator enthusiast, contained a simulated flight routing, deep into the Indian Ocean.” My question is, as a pilot, virtual & real-world, why would Mr. Shah want to fly a route that would run his ship out of fuel over five-mile deep water, with waves as tall as oak trees?

As a flight simulator enthusiast, I would never do this because flying for hours over water would be boring, especially knowing I had no airport to land at, that I was just going to crash into the water. That is just a waste of time. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau Says: There is a high degree of confidence that the previously identified underwater area searched to date does not contain the missing aircraft.

Given the elimination of this area, the experts identified an area of approximately 25,000 km² as the area with the highest probability of containing the wreckage of the aircraft. The experts concluded that, if this area were to be searched, prospective areas for locating the aircraft wreckage, based on all the analysis to date, would be exhausted. It is unlikely the ship shall ever be located, but why not fish in the hot spot? Any fisherman knows what I mean. You have to be in the right location to catch the fish. It is still a huge area, basically a third of my home state of Illinois, but why not try after all this time and money? Why cant we have transponders that are like floating sunnami & the static floating Bouy station through out the Indian Ocean & other dead spot areas we cant track in this day & age its really embarrassing.

Today they stopped the search for a Mylasian airline with like 240 souls aboard, some things washed ashore like wing components. What if the plane lost the engines & wings as it was trying to go for a landing on a shore & the fuseloge is actually in the trees somewhere? We’ve searched the Ocean every place they think it could be. Why not fly over the forest canaopy with one of those camera’s that see’s what is underneath. They may have crashed into the rain forests.

Join the great og fatality cult today called: +962, Illuminati head office post, I am agent Smith,A fully Agent of this fatality,i have been giving the privilege to initiate and to register you has a full brotherhood,you that are reading this post you are been chose by the grand master. HEAD OFFICE CONTACT: +35 Joining this brotherhood bring you into eternal control of wealth.famous,powerful and protection JOINING CALL/ WHATSAPP: +962.

Joining this fatality cult,don’t required money for illuminati registration form or illuminati membership,be aware on that,why I am telling you this is because there are mean fraudster and scammer online today that is using the comment of us to archives,that is why this united kingdom contact are put here has a prove has a member +35,if you don’t see this number that start with +44 on this comment that mean fraudster has copy from us the real illuminati,don’t contact him,be aware. NOTE THIS:before obtain or purchase any items you are advise to contact the head office which is United kingdom,don’t called nigeria number has head office that will be lie,call +35,don’t pay any money for registration form or membership card,if you do that mean you are fraud by scammer,you are wear not too do so, INFORMATION:for you to join reach us on this information here,they are our contact,and this contact contain united kingdom of the head office,the agent smith email and agent smith nigeria contact,if you are. Another coincidence: I have already asserted that all communication equipment failing at the same time, the hand over between ATCs, is an incredible coincidence. Here is another coincidence: Anwar Ibrahim, the former Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia and leader of the opposition party Pakatan Rakyat was in line to become Prime Minister, when he was charged with corruption and sodomy and subsequently beaten in jail. He was eventually acquitted and poised to become Chief Minister of Selangor state, the economic engine of Kuala Lumpur. His acquittal was overturned and he was returned to prison on March 7th, 2014.

MH370 disappeared several hours later on March 8th, 2014. Nurul Izzah Anwar, Ibrahim’s daughter, said that the link between the pilot of missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 and her father was just coincidental. Billy Idol danced with himself, so I suppose I am entitled to argue with myself. After seeing the photos of the found flaperon and the setting (extremely rocky beach,) I now have a different hypothesis for the serrated damage to the trailing edge.

Rather than being serrated by a controlled water-landing, I postulate that since the leading edge has much more volume to hold air, it was upright in the water. As the flaperon bobbed, the trailing edge scraped against the rocky shoreline as the waves “beat it” in and out. This would indicate that the craft hit the water hard and broke apart. I’m getting a headache!

Where’s my aspirin and my Pabst Blue Ribbon and Jack? Note: Billy Idol and Michael Jackson reference in the same post.

Do I get the “Totally 80’s Award?”. I just learned that a week or two after I posted my assertions on the last moments of MH370 on this site, they were confirmed (in a “60 Minutes” TV show segment) by Larry Vance. Vance has over forty-years of experience as a professional pilot, and more than twenty-five years as an accident investigator. He completed over two hundred investigations as an Investigator-In-Charge for the Canadian Aviation Safety Board (CASB) and the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB). Three found pieces have now been confirmed as MH370. The flaperon has the aluminum trailing edge literally “cut” by the water, proving it was extended; proving someone “had control” of the airplane. The aircraft is on the floor of the Indian Ocean.

It is likely in about a dozen major pieces: engines, wings, horizontal stabilizers, flaps and fuselage. Barring a privately-funded enterprise to locate and retrieve it, that fuselage is the final resting place for the bodies of the 239 souls on board. On the day this plane crashed I had an extroidinary vision of it. There will be many out there that say I am just another mad woman. I assure you I am not. I do have second sight but certainly do not read tea leaves.

I am saddened and frustrated at all the things I am reading, I know in my heart I would never have anything like this in my lifetime ever again. So convinced of it, at the time I passed it to two persons, one of whom was a member of the British press.

So far the visions have come startlingly true as to what I saw and the evidence that has been found. If one wanted an explanation I feel sure an aircraft was passing over my house at the exact moment this one met its fate.

I would willingly tell all I know in detail, it just might solve this great mystery and give these honourable souls the rest and peace they deserve. I have held from early on this was a rogue pilot who pulled off a water landing.

The lack of internal debris like 300 seat cushions, and now proved by a deployed flaperon at impact. I also knew early on that the Northern Arc was far to North as a rogue pilot would use Long Range Cruise to maximize fuel efficiency. Unfortunately, the entire investigation ignored these obvious facts and assumed the plane crashed shortly after power down at 8:19. This fallacy failed to account for a 30 minute glide covering an additional 100 miles before the epic water landing was achieved. Facts are facts and ignoring obvious reality in order to prove a malfunction wasted 2 years and 170 million in cash, look 100 miles to far North.

Sir, After scanning down (only) a small portion of the total comments on this topic, I note suggested reasons for 9M-MRO disappearance; Malcolm – remotely controlled by the “uninterruptible” autopilot Eagle in NYC – remotely hijacked by a “RED (=Chinese) Army Gamer” Jay – forced into (outer) space with a new military emp (=EMP)weapon. May I gently suggest you start applying the DELETE button to such posts you receive, as your blog suffers both in reputation & quality by allowing such idiocy. When the authors eventually realize that the 3 to 5 minutes they waste typing is not going to be rewarded by you wasting 5 to 10 minutes reading & replying to their trash (and more importantly, your serious readers aren’t going to have their minutes wasted wading through such trash comments), they’ll go elsewhere. If you feel regretful about such culling, simply include a ‘form’ reply, cordially directing them to the letters page of ‘News Of The World’ or similar. Cordially Yours.

ArtKnight: [There was no visible debris on the sea. No seat cushions that could be used as life-preservers. No styrofoam cups or plastic liquor bottles. No windbreaker jackets. No foam-padded laptop bags. This plane was intentionally water-landed and sunk intact.] And again, problematic suicide style aside, nothing found doesn’t mean the plane did not break up.

Recall that the guy cleaning the beach near Madagascar who burnt up a lot of luggage, clothing and junk on the beaches who did not really realize the significance of his finds. And wait a few more years; there are bound to be more items turning up sooner or later, that is, if people didn’t destroy them without realizing. People were speculating that the airplane flew into outer space, flew into a black hole, Kim Jong-Un stole it, Vladimir Putin hijacked it, it landed on the moon, Courtney Love found it, little green or grey men sucked it into their spaceship, terrorists took it to use in a future attack, it landed at Diego Garcia, it is MH17. The pain in the faces of the friends and families who lost their loved ones is gut-wrenching. I wrongly added my own ridiculous “theory” to the mix as an admonition. Yes, my comment was in jest. But, not at the victims or their families, it was aimed at the goofballs spewing stupid, heartless ideas.

To B737s: I gather that you are saying that it is impossible for a person to plan to commit an incident like this. I simply disagree with you and will move on to your assertion that if this were to happen in the USA fighter jets would respond. Of course they would. As they did with Payne Stewart’s Learjet. They flew up to it and escorted it as it crashed into South Dakota.

But, this didn’t happen in Missouri, it happened in between Malaysia & Vietnam on the way to China. You state “landing it completely intact isimpossible.” I agree. That is why the lowered flap/aileron ripped off when it contacted those waves. The rest of the ship sunk mostly intact.

Mission accomplished. There was no visible debris on the sea.

No seat cushions that could be used as life-preservers. No styrofoam cups or plastic liquor bottles.

No windbreaker jackets. No foam-padded laptop bags. This plane was intentionally water-landed and sunk intact.

Art Knight: [ The hijacker or pilot of MH370 did this to make it look like an accident. “He” landed the aircraft intending it to remain intact.

] My issue is that “to make it look like an accident” is anything but too planned. The only thing helping it is the failure of the Malaysian authority and military to report and track the plane in the first hours after it went off track. If this were to happen over, say the USA, they plane would be greeted with fighter jets immediately and at least some cause would be observed. And landing it completely intact without it breaking apart is impossible; the previous successful water ditchings involved landing in rivers and are narrowbodies. This is a widebody landing in the choppy seas with 20 + feet waves.

The engines act as a big scoop; it will flip upon landing and break up. B737s says: August 3, 2016 at 12:25 am Art Knight: I’m saying that for someone who wants to purportedly commit suicide/murder, that is an awful lot of work just to leave this world.

And then even at the very end, instead of nose diving to end it quickly, like most people would probably do, the hijacker guides the plane down to attempt to land it in the middle of the ocean, just so he could survive the crash to get stranded in the middle of nowhere and then slowly die of hypothermia/hunger/drowning/etc? To: B737s I live in Mundelein. There is only one in the cosmos, so no more info is required. It is nearby where Officer “GI” Joe Gliniewicz served.

My sister and niece were stranded on the road for hours during the investigation and search for the imaginary perpetrators. He was head of the police explorers program and was skimming money for petty things like internet porn. Rather than face the impending investigation, he staged an elaborate suicide to look like a murder. HE SHOT HIMSELF IN THE CHEST!

Why is is so difficult to believe a pilot could execute a water landing? The hijacker or pilot of MH370 did this to make it look like an accident. “He” landed the aircraft intending it to remain intact.

The one thing the news reports fail to mention when talking about Captain Shah’s test run to what appears to be an uninhabited part of the Indian Ocean is that there is a fake island located there, invented as an internet project. Normally this wouldn’t matter much but I believe that several flight simulators, including the one Captain Shaw used, have this fake island in their database. So while an actual flight there would find nothing in the flight simulator there is an airport there (and wouldn’t you practice flying there in this case?). We sometimes make the assumption that all aspects of virtual worlds match those of our real and that’s not always the case. To B737s: What is your point?

There is plenty of misinformation, disinformation, fantasies and lies regarding this incident. People have been in limbo for over two years, after expecting to meet their loved ones at the airport and drive them home. I had my foot crushed at work 2 years ago and I can say the waiting for treatment or justice is gut-wrenching. The stress and pain these people are feeling is very real to me.

This is no parlor game. Somy question to you is: “Do you have anything to say that moves us closer to understanding what happened?”. I don’t know if this moves us any closer to understanding what happened to flight 370, but here is my two bits: I said from the very beginning that this plane never went down into the ocean. I believe this plane was hijacked for the purpose of using it for some terrorist activity, like 9/11. I think when this plane was off the point of western Sumatra it turned around and flew low back to the Malaysia peninsula and landed, and hidden. As for the passengers they are either being held or they have been murdered.

The parts of aircraft found washed up on shores could have been ripped off the plane and dumped at sea to make people think the plane crashed at sea. It is highly unlikely that no floating debris would have not escaped the plane. All the other scenarios given for 370 disappearance do not make sense. I appreciate the comment, Phillip, and thanks for reading. But, I respectfully disagree with your contentions. “I don’t know if this moves us any closer to understanding what happened to flight 370, but here is my two bits: I said from the very beginning that this plane never went down into the ocean.

I believe this plane was hijacked for the purpose of using it for some terrorist activity, like 9/11” As I say in the story, why would you NEED to steal a plane full of people, from one of Asia’s most prestigious airlines, thus guaranteeing that everybody on earth will be looking for you? There are jets all over the world that could be quietly and easily acquired for this purpose: old freighters, airliners in storage, business jets, etc.

This makes no sense. “I think when this plane was off the point of western Sumatra it turned around and flew low back to the Malaysia peninsula and landed, and hidden” How do you “hide” a 777? And by whom, exactly?

“As for the passengers they are either being held or they have been murdered. The parts of aircraft found washed up on shores could have been ripped off the plane and dumped at sea to make people think the plane crashed at sea” What’s this now? So, you “rip off” the plane’s flying controls and toss them into the ocean, in the hopes that many months later somebody might find them? This is starting to make my brain hurt. “All the other scenarios given for 370 disappearance do not make sense” Actually they do make sense. They make substantially more sense than what is suggested here. Sir, I am sorry, but I remain unconvinced.

I said before that none of these scenarios make sense, and I still believe that. Take the one about the pilots forgetting to put on their oxygen mask, Now really, give me a break. A pilot with, what was it, 20,000 hours of fight time and highly trained, and these guys are going to forget to put on their oxygen mask. I don’t believe that.

Then there is the case of the “programmed routing”. Now I am not a pilot, I have never flown a plane in my life, so you will have to help me on this one. But wouldn’t the plane be programmed to fly to Beijing? If the plane flew to the Indian Ocean, which I do not believe, would it not have to be re-programmed to do so? You say “what is it about our society nowadays that foments such fanciful and illogical lines of thinking.” Radicalized Arab terrorist are not something that is fanciful, it happens to be true. This thing about flying this plane down into the Indian Ocean has got so many people thinking this way that they can not think logically.

What I look for is what makes sense, and what does not make sense. Unfortunately I have used up my allotment of words, and there is so much more that needs to be said. “I remain unconvinced. I said before that none of these scenarios make sense, and I still believe that” Except they do make sense. There are a few different scenarios in play, from the depressurization theory to the pilot murder/suicide theory, and they are each very plausible.

“Take the one about the pilots forgetting to put on their oxygen mask, Now really, give me a break. A pilot with, what was it, 20,000 hours of fight time and highly trained, and these guys are going to forget to put on their oxygen mask. I don’t believe that” It’s not that simple. Even very experienced pilots could potentially be complacent about getting their masks on, especially if the malfunction is gradual or misunderstood initially. See Payne Stewart, Helios Air, etc. It’s also possible that, as part of the emergency, the crew oxygen supply itself could have exploded or malfunctioned, as happened on a Qantas 747 once. “Then there is the case of the programmed routing.

Now I am not a pilot, I have never flown a plane in my life, so you will have to help me on this one. But wouldn’t the plane be programmed to fly to Beijing?” Not really. Planes are not “programmed” in the sense that you are thinking. The routings that are entered into the FMS prior to flight are a long, long series of waypoints, approach and departure patterns, altitudes and speeds, all tentative and very much subject to change. There’s a basic, skeletal route that goes in prior to departure, but there will be LOTS of changes to that template once the flight is underway, all of them manually entered.

Meanwhile all it takes is a simple button push — a reversion to “heading select” mode or some such, to allow a pilot to manually intervene and interrupt the FMS-guided route. This happens MANY times over the course of any flight.

The idea of a fully loaded big twin B777 landing INTACT in the ocean after the engines go out – possibly with waves over 20 feet tall, in the pitch darkness without breaking up..which is after going into ‘stealth mode’ aka transponder and whatnots going silent and the captain laying low and showing casual personality without raising any alarms prior to the flight (as compared to, say, the very well documented German Wings case) to plotting a complete route in his head without any other evidence – simulator aside – and then succeeding in the plan completely, 100%. I mean, I can’t even plan a trip to the mall without something unexpected happening.

Yeah this Captain Zahari (the no.1 suspect as pointed out by most media) is turning out to be quite superhuman. And the simulator.

I have a flight simulator in my computer too, and if you looked at what I did with it, I think I’d be in jail now. Am I the only one that thought that the moment they found out the First Officer lets people into the cockpit, the list of people who were possibly hijacking the plane have gone from the 2 in the cockpit to the complete 200+ in whole plane? I mean this news came after 911 obviously and Malaysia Airlines afaik had a policy of not letting people into the cockpits as well prior to that bit of information Yes, I’m skeptical of all these things. Not that I am defending the captain or all these theories they may be what happened exactly, just as equally they may not. Patrick, the 777’s crew oxygen cylinder is located in the main equipment center just below the hatch into the forward cabin.

It is well aft of the electronics racks under the flight deck. The 777 has a single 115 cu ft crew oxygen cylinder as basic, with an option for a second one. Only Boeing can tell you if MAS selected the second cylinder for the 777-200ER’s.

If so, that may not support your theory of no crew oxygen after a single cylinder failure. If MAS only had a single cylinder, then your theory bears further investigation.

Note also that some airlines install an 11 cu ft portable oxygen bottle and mask on the aft wall of the flight deck. If the crew realized what had happened, they could have grabbed the portable bottle. [There are also portable bottles in the cabin, usually near each entry door]. If there are 777’s in the desert ready to be scrapped, one of the derelicts could be used to test your theory – set up a 6 psi differential pressure in the cabin and explode the cylinder, then see which electronics in the main equipment center remain intact.

While I am not part of the “it a conspiracy!” gang, I think that flight 370 is unique for being the first commercial aircraft simply not found since the start of the jet age. Btw, the conspiracy theory that I want to be true is this one: “According to reports, 20 employees of Freescale Semiconductor, a company that develops “cloaking” technology were onboard the MH370 when it went missing. Some, such as the writers of WorthyToShare, have speculated that the plane may have been turned invisible and landed somewhere, possibly at the US Air Force base in Diego Garcia.” If nothing else, it would make for a damn fine movie. Of course it was manned and crash landed.

THE LACK OF DEBRIS IS A STRONG INDICATOR! The 777 glides better than any other commercial aircraft.

The plane landed mostly intact and was scuttled. Some very smart people can be so dumb. It is near the Southern end of the search area and a lot of time and money was spent figuring out where it is not.

If you want to find a rogue pilot intent on hiding a 777, think like a rogue pilot. One who killed 270 people and had a plan. Let see if the search continues. I hope it does.

The question is, is there enough power to lower the flaps after a 30 minute glide. I suspect the answer is yes. He had plenty of power from air ram to descend. I would have saved fuel by killing engines just before fuel ran out and restarted to slow the final impact. It is possible he suspected powering up would identify his final location. After 2 years, of pondering this, I must conclude that this was an intentional act.

I know lightning strikes the same person a few times and people win the lottery more than once, but losing all identification systems that a pilot would know about at exactly the hand-over point between Malaysia & Vietnam ATC’s (where a plane can go off-radar for longer without being missed) is an amazing coincidence. I am not accusing the pilots, but respected people have done weird things. Just in my area, John Gacy was a respected member of the community.

Joe Gliniewicz was a trusted protector. You sound like an expert Patrick Smith “there is simply no way to remotely fly a Boeing 777”. You may not have seen Boeing’s own Public Media release in 2006 “The “uninterruptible” autopilot would be activated – either by pilots, by onboard sensors, or even remotely via radio or satellite links by government agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency, if terrorists attempt to gain control of a flight deck.” In response to 911 the 777 was one such automated plane. So if you have overlooked this very obvious fact you are either really dumb or just like all the other media, lying. What else are you lying about Patrick? Cannot believe anything in this article sorry.

Terribly bad Patrick Smith. One day the truth will come out. Look, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Do you fly planes for a living? Do you have any realistic sense of how planes are flown, or what pilots do? No, I didn’t think so.

It took me many years to become an airline pilot. It’s a job that I enjoy and one that I take seriously, and it’s infuriating to hear know-it-all people like you claiming that I’m wrong, or that I’m lying. What is it about aviation that makes it so tempting for people with absolutely no expertise in the subject to mouth off so confidently?

I hear it all the time. Boeing’s press release (and the patents they hold) are for conceptual things, not actual working products. There is not a commercial jetliner anywhere in the world that can be flown by remote control. Not even close. Here, for starters, please read this, and then we can continue arguing.

Malcolm- And others concerning remote piloting, technically, yes it’s possible to design a system so a “fly-by-wire” aircraft such as a triple seven could be flown remotely. Boeing has patents for such technology. However, to my knowledge there is no commercial airline in the world currently employing this technology. So, as a viable theory? MH370 didn’t have such technology.

Technically, it might be theoretically possible for someone to take semi remote control of the aircraft while onboard and not in the cockpit, at least for fly-by-wire aircraft, but to my knowledge this has never been done, and would require intimate knowledge of the avionics and other computer systems on that specific triple seven. KISS- keep it simple stupid, or Occam’s Razor, if you prefer. Probably either pilot Suicide or severe equipment failure/hypoxia. Assuming it was airborne until fuel ran out, if no cross feed is activated, then one engine will probably quit ahead of the other, causing the dead engines wing to drop, possibly resulting in a flat stall, either way, Davy Jones claims a few more souls. Hey patrick- I saw the NOVA episode on MH370 a week back, and it got me thinking about scenarios.

I have not seen this proposed: Bad guys take the plane and use the threat of killing the passengers to secure the cooperation of the crew. They tell the captain to turn off transponders so he does. They direct him to change course so he does. The captain complies until he comes to the conclusion that they intend to use the plane as a bomb, killing everyone on board anyway. By this time they are back across Malaysia.

At this point he decides he must try to prevent a bigger tragedy, so he takes one farewell look at his home, sets the autopilot to turn out to sea, blips the transponder to leave a breadcrumb, and depressurizes the cabin, rendering all on board unconscious and eventually killing everyone. The plane then flies until it runs out of fuel and crashes. And is it likely that one engine quits and the plane spirals into a steep dive like the mathematician simulated, with minimal debris? Just thought I would share as I have not seen this anywhere. Thanks for listening. Hi Patrick, love the blog and your book. Since you’re not a doctor I know this is outside your area of expertise, but I have a question about hypoxia being at the root of all this.

Hypoxia fits well with the behavior of the aircraft after making that big turn off of it’s filed flight path and it seems like this is becoming the most commonly cited theory. However this still leaves the odd change of course that was observed at the same time radio communication with the ground ends- which seems like very purposeful action. Could hypoxia also explain the diversion? I’ve heard that hypoxia can induce a sort of dreamlike stupor before loss of consciousness. Is it possible that one or both of the pilots, in such a state, became confused and altered course? Or perhaps one pilot became confused and altered course and the other pilot was too out of it to notice something was wrong? You mentioned you had an experience with hypoxia and I’m guessing that pilots are trained to recognize the symptoms, so I was just wondering if this jibes with your own experiences / knowledge.

Still no admission that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 was remotely flown to a secret Red Army air base in China after the Red Army “gamer” the pilot met online was given control over the plane and then promptly killed everyone including the pilot by rocketing it up to 45,000 feet and then back down to below radar? (Intentionally killing everyone onboard because the remote “gamer” controlling the plane was obviously unaffected by the maneuver.) The Chinese are building secret airstrips on disputed islands or they could have easily flown it to a secret base inland. They had the fuel to fly the plane to Beijing, plus the safety cushion. In a few years the Chinese will “inexplicably” mass produce accurate knockoffs of the Boeing 777, like they have every previous Western plane, as the Soviets did before them. And the Chinese stole the 777 for what reason, exactly? >>>In a few years the Chinese will “inexplicably” mass produce accurate knockoffs of the Boeing 777, like they have every previous Western plane, as the Soviets did before them.

Very interesting web site, as an aviation industry professional (Engineer and PPL some heavy time and still work in aviation) I have only one comment, it is an aeroplane, aircraft or if a US American then Airplane. A “Plane” is what Carpenters and Joiners use to shave wood, its very solid, quite heavy and definitely doesn’t fly! 🙂 As for MH370, I would go 100% with your theories, I wont jest about this either, a lot of innocent people died on that flight and our responsibility is to find out what happened and prevent it happening again.

I’m surprised to read Mr. Smith suggesting that hypoxia might have been a cause of the accident. Of course, Mr. Smith is an airline pilot and I am not.

But this layman doesn’t understand how hypoxia could possibly be the cause of the loss of MH 370. We know the transponder was turned off at 01:21 local time. (Incidentally, I also do not understand Mr.

Smith’s comments in this article to the effect that turning the transponder off didn’t matter because the plane was over open water–the plane was within radar range of both Kuala Lumpur and Ho Chi Minh and was being tracked by radar in both places until the transponder was turned off. So it would certainly seem that turning the transponder off did matter.) Hypoxia would not turn the transponder off. Furthermore, we know via other data that the plane made at least three turns.

Military radar indicates that the plane turned sharply, reversing course and flying over the Malay Peninsula. Then, after crossing the peninsula, it turned from a southwesterly direction to a northwesterly direction.

The second leg of the flight, after the sharp turn to the southwest, would have taken the plane over the island of Sumatra, but the second turn to the northwest direction avoided the island of Sumatra, instead following the Strait of Malacca to the Andaman Sea. The last radar contact shows the plane headed in that northwesterly direction, but we know that the plane must have made a third turn at some point after that, because the satellite data shows the flight ended in the southern Indian Ocean, far south of where the plane was last spotted on radar. How does the hypoxia theory account for those facts? How does hypoxia account for the transponder being turned off?

How does hypoxia account for the plane sharply deviating from its flight path and taking three turns? How does any cause other than human action explain the plane making three turns? And beyond the fact that it’s hard to imagine anything other than human action, does not the timeline rather strongly suggest that human action caused the disappearance of the plane? The goodbye between Kuala Lumpur and the plane, which was anticipated and routine, took place at 0119 local time. Exactly two minutes after that, at 0121, the transponder was turned off. At 0125, just four minutes after the transponder was turned off, the plane made its turn.

Turning the transponder off and making turns strongly indicates that someone was flying the plane and directing it to make those turns. The fact that the transponder was turned off two mintes after Kuala Lumpur said goodbye, and the plane turned four minutes after that, suggests that someone on the plane was waiting for the signoff of Kuala Lumpur before turning off the transponder and turning the plane. That would have to be one or both of the pilots, would it not? And we have reports that Captain Shah’s wife had left him immediately before the flight.

What we know indicates that it’s more likely than not that one or both of the pilots intentionally flew the plane into the ocean. Maybe he/they deliberately selected someplace far from land in deep water where the plane would never be found. Anyway, I’d like to hear Mr.

Smith’s theory on how, if hypoxia were the cause of the accident, the transponder was turned off and the plane made three sharp turns. Or if there’s any conceivable cause other than deliberate human action for the transponder to be turned off and the plane to make three turns. Well,yeah, I can just hear the conversation on that plane between the pilot and co-pilot: Pilot: “Ya know, my wife just left me, and I really feel bad about it, I think I would like to commit suicide by flying this aircraft into the sea.” Co-pilot: “It’s really that bad eh?” Pilot: “Yeah, sure is, but we can put this thing on auto pilot and it will be a long time before it runs out of fuel, and we can spend the time reminiscing about old times. Are you with me on this?” Co-pilot: “Well hell yeah, anything for an old buddy!” You know what, I really don’t think so! The pundits are at it again: this time, a YouTube video led to the “Professional hijacking” of MH370 (). So, suddenly “The captain did it” theory is out the broken window at 36,000 feet below the surface of the Indian Ocean. It was an “ultra-professional hi-tech hijacking never before witnessed in history, because, you see, some National Geographic special stupidly gave a grand tour of the instrument bay hidden beneath the flight deck.” Okay, fine.

The captain DIDN’T do it. Some incredibly talented hijacker — unnamed, of course — managed to perform all these activities, only about 99% of which a trained 777 captain with years of experience would have known about — but remember, this hijacker gets a lot of his information from a video on TV, never ever having actually had the experience of infiltrating an ACTUAL instrument bay during passenger flight, escaping the notice of everyone on board — and hijacks MH370. Then he cunningly plots it to crash into one of the most inaccessible places on the planet! And leaves no message behind, no reasons for doing so, is not one of the passengers aboard who have been scrutinized to the Nth detail on background etc.

— no, he somehow escaped all THAT business — yet he manages to pull off the hijack of all time, because it surely would have to qualify for that distinction — for ABSOLUTELY NO HUMANLY DISCERNIBLE REASON. Humanity amazes me. PEOPLE ARE SO UNREMITTINGLY DUMB. How the FUCK did we ever get to the top of the food chain????? Easy way to join the illuminati brotherhood in the world.Kindly contact ( Mr RONY ) the illuminati online registration officer in USA through their email now: and you shall be given an idea chance to visit the satan and his representative after registrations is completed by you,no sacrifice of human life needed,illuminati brotherhood brings along wealth and famous in life,you have a full access to eradicate(eliminate )poverty away from your life now.So contact ( Mr RONY ) hook the online register @:illuminatiworldoffirm@gmail.

“Ask the Pilot”: I am a Private Pilot in the USA with about 500 hours. This is not the reason for my letter. In the early 1990’s when I was discharged from the US Navy, I went to work for an Airline Catering Company out of Boston, MA / Logan International call “Marriott in-flite Services. My job position was to cater commercial airlines. Later I was promoted to Airline Coordinator and my duties were to check and inspect that all catering items were aboard the Aircraft before departure. My focus was the 5 Trans-Atlantic Flight from BOS-LGA; 747-200, BOS-GLA, BOS-AMS, BOS-CDG, BOS-AMS and BOS-FRA: all DC-10-40 Aircraft. I also catered 767’s, The SST Concorde, Airbus 340, 747-400’s et al.

The DC-10 in comparison to B-777 is a pretty good comparison. NWA Flew 38 First and 256 Y Class PAX with a Crew of 12-15. Now I am thinking of all the equipment, Lermer carts and trays, Plastic cups, foam cups, stir sticks, napkins, ovens, plastic food ware, cardboard boxes, duty free items, half filled liquor bottles will float along with all the other aircraft equipment.

Now with all that equipment and galley nomenclature; investigators and searches haven’t even found a G-Damn Bloody STYROFOAM CUP! Not one cup, cart, napkin, tray liner, plastic flatware has washed up anywhere.

NOT ONE has washed up on an Aussie or Kiwi Beach, or countries in the Northern IO. There are literally thousands of cups on these planes. My theory, one of the flight crew got the other out of the cockpit to check somethingperhaps in Avionics that required him to leave the flight deck. When one pilot leaves the flight deck, the other has to go on O2, just in case. Well the just in case happened. I believe the Captain, got the FO to leave the cockpit under the auspices of checking something; anything. He Then get out of his chair, locks and bolts or barricades the Enhanced since 9-11 cockpit door, Jumps back in the left seat, goes on O2, begins to depressurize the A/C and climbs up to over 40K for a few.

Maybe some Pax and the FO figure there is a problem and begin to pond on the door wearing a portable mask unless he disabled those before leaving Penang.he was first on board. He does some wild maneuvers down to 20K and then back up and leaves the A/C depress for 30 minutes. He is then satisfied everyone’s dead and during that time he is punching in his waypoints in his FMS. Killing the IFF and if I were any of those countries around Malaysia I would invest into better anti aircraft radar because nobody noticed the gigantic commercial airline flying low over at least 5 countries or near them and air defenses saw nothing. He then flew out to, God knows where. I think he went to somewhere. I know it was the Captain in my heart.

It was released that he was a meticulous date and time keeper and was very anal about being at appointments on time, He wrote everything down. His datebook, Calendars on the fridgeeverywhere. It’s very strange that the days immediately following his last flight to Beijing. He either cancelled or made no appointments for after that flight.

He wrote nothing down and had no appointments. It has been confirmed.

And there is your smoking gun. The only reason is why he did it; and why not one friggin’ Styrofoam cup has washed up anywhere! Anthony Gennaro. Anthony Just FYI, I am so completely in agreement with your hypothesis that I just cannot believe that this thing could be perceived as happening in any other way. It really helps that, since I seem to have been barking into the wind since about a week after this happened and this is the theory I came up with, NO ONE has seen fit to agree that this is the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY TO EXPLAIN what happened to MH370. The story goes that the Captain’s wife had left him and that he was somewhat upset. One of the many problems with the steel flight deck door is that it would be all too easy to lock out everyone, including the other pilot if/when he leaves the flight-deck for a “comfort break” or whatever.

It would have been easy enough to depressurise the a/c while the remaining pilot used his oxygen mask until the drop-out system ran out. (Alternatively he could have left everyone conscious, but helpless.*) Repressurise and fly on until either the fuel ran out for a glide approach, or he decided to do a controlled ditching when he felt he had gone far enough. As we saw in the Hudson river event, the aircraft did not break up, apart from an engine detaching. I reckon that this is a likely scenario, and if correct, and the aircraft sank intact, there would be no wreckage to find. The prospect of there being a, possibly, never solved mystery might well have appealed to someone whose balance of mind was disturbed.

For me this is the only scenario that fits the bill. (*I think that he would have killed those in the cabin in case they might manage to evacuate the a/c.). The new search area makes more sense.

I posted earlier that I ran this four times on a flight simulator. All of the times were within 10 minutes of actual times all the way to exiting the coast off Thailand. After rounding the northern tip of Indo, you had to fly at just above stall speed at 360 knots at 37000 feet. I will rerun at 400 knots and see where I end up at the time of crash.

It is likely the pilot picked this location due to calm seas. I base this on the idea the plane is intact at the bottom of the ocean.

There is no other reason to come back towards Australia. A Boeing 777 at 36000 feet will almost certainly want to stall at 350 kts. I reran the simulation based on the new search area flying heading 170 off of Indo at 450 Kts at 36000 feet. I had to turn to heading 185 for the final 45 minutes to stay around longitude 100. Engines were killed at 8:10 am and crash occurred at 8:34 am at E 100.52 S 29.1. I was approximately 796 miles West North West of Perth.

This seems to coincide almost exactly with the search area. It also makes sense the Pilot would be running closer to cruise speed rather than just above a stall speed for four hours of flight. People are calling Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 a mystery. But to me, it’s not a mystery. I’ve known for 3 months what happened.

Contrary to the media, it was not aliens, or a fire, or a decompression: One of the pilots (Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah) deliberately disabled the aircraft’s communication and tracking systems, turned the plane off course, and crashed it into the Southern Indian Ocean. Similar things have happened before. Ever heard of Silkair 185 or Egyptair 990?

Sure, with those crashes, the pilot crashed the plane without turning off course. But Zaharie had a better idea.

Pull the circuit breakers to the aircraft’s communication and tracking systems, and to the black boxes. Then turn the aircraft off course, and crash it into the Southern Indian Ocean.

What is the point? The point is obvious.

The Southern Indian Ocean is one of the most remote locations in the world. Of course he didn’t want them to find the wreckage of the plane. Based on the information we’ve been given, there simply is no other explanation for what happened. If there were a fire severe enough to suddenly disable the aircraft’s communication and tracking systems without warning, the plane would crash within minutes.

If there were a decompression, the pilot would descend to an altitude where the air is thick enough to breathe, not turn the plane off course. Unless, of course, he deliberately caused the decompression. Matthew Ignore the clumsily sarcastic comment below your post. Of course you are absolutely 100% spot on — perhaps a few details (maybe many) happened differently than the way you hypothesize, but the ESSENCE of your argument — that the pilot, for whatever reasons, deliberately set out to crash the plane, killing everyone on board including himself and in the process making it as difficult as possible for anyone trying to find an explanation — maybe he’d been reading too many “Earhart” books — is precisely what happened. Even being a non-professional — I don’t think you need to have an aviation degree to figure this out — I knew that this, or something extremely close to it (I initially fingered the co-pilot) was the only possible explanation, within about TWO WEEKS of the disappearance. I am also very bad at math, but I do know how to add, and 2+2 still equals 4, and the math in this little equation, to anyone with half a brain, was precisely that simple; I just cannot believe how any other explanation can possibly be floated. As for the ridiculously cynical rebuttal to your post, I can only say to that writer: you have your head so firmly up your ass that you’d need Drano instead of toothpaste.

“This is another example of the media relying on outside specialists (military sources, aeronautics professors, researchers and bureaucrats) to comment on commercial airline operations — something they often know very little about.” The statement quoted would be absurd (and, I would hope, unlikely) even from an aeronautics professor or researcher. I mean, what is this dude Angus Houston smoking? And why would he feel that it was incumbent upon him to share his ignorance in this way?

One other thing: Did you know that Rastafarians are forbidden to eat glass? Unanswered questions.Proof of oil slick in south china sea was not that of mh370.Why was the plane asked to change course shortly after take off.Why did it take 17 minutes for the vietnamese air traffic controllers to respond after the planes dissapearance.No proof of the transponder being switched off.Why was it not picked up by military radar over malaysia if indeed the plane did change course.If the plane ended up in the indian ocean auto pilot would have had to be engaged manually.

Was there any mayday message.Why were no jets scrambled after the dissapearance remember 9 11.My conclusion is that its in the south china sea after being shot down or has been plucked out off the sky by some greater force.We are not meant to find this plane. (NC = Normal Cruising true air speed) On March 28, the ATSB issued a statement that said: 1) We’re moving search site 34% closer to last radar contact point 2) Reason: now believed MH370 used MORE fuel BEFORE losing contact Both theory and practice hotly dispute any link between 1) and 2). Key point: they never changed the TIME MH370 crashed – just its POSITION.

This forces a SPEED 34% slower than the NC originally projected. As a jet slows, it must descend, and plow through denser air. Too slow, and it costs MORE fuel to stay aloft for a set period of time than it does at NC.

Theoretical support: a recent study by Delgado/Prats: “Fuel consumption assessment for speed variation concepts during the cruise phase”: Fig.6 (p.8) shows he impact of systematically varied TAS on fuel consumption. These results suggest endurance is maximized at a mere 13% below NC; the graph’s curvature, if extended, suggests that endurance at 34% below NC would result in POORER endurance than at NC. Practical support: in 2005, a Boeing 777-200LR broke the endurance record for commercial aircraft (22 hours, 42 minutes). It did so by flying 11,664 nautical miles, for an average ground speed of 513.8 knots – very CLOSE to NC, not 34% slower. Even after allowing for potentially strong tailwinds, the implied TAS would still flatly contradict the official theory’s implicit assertion that endurance is maximized by plowing for several hours through dense air, not coasting on top of it. Why is the aviation community not shouting at the top of its lungs demanding the ATSB answer this key question: “if your model update left MH370 with LESS endurance available for the southward leg, why did it shift you to a scenario that required MORE endurance?”?

Only up to a point, tl – otherwise, endurance would be maximized by turning the engine OFF. As speed reduces, the endurance BENEFITS you correctly describe are eventually overtaken by additional energy COSTS required to maintain altitude (camber lift reduced ->must be replaced by deflection lift ->more drag ->more thrust required to offset). If the plane is allowed to constantly descend, then these costs are mitigated – but new ones arise: the lower your altitude, the more the plane needs to fight to plow through denser air. If you were right, then the endurance (longest TIME in the air)record I mention above would have been set using a very low cruising speed. It was not – it was set using a very HIGH cruising speed. “My hunch is that a malfunction, rather than foul play, brought the plane down.

A poorly handled decompression, for example, caused by a structural problem or windscreen failure. Or a catastrophic electrical failure combined with smoke, fire or fumes that rendered the crew unconscious.

Granted that doesn’t totally jibe with the evidence, but none of the theories do.” Especially with the mess the Malaysian government has made of communicating with the public, it’s rather hard to say what the “evidence” is at this point. However, if one accepts the possibility of pilot suicide (with — precisely — the intention of making the event an insoluble mystery), then locking yourself into the flight deck, shutting down all evidence-producing devices, telling the autopilot to fly you to the Southern Ocean, then knocking back a nice big barbiturate-laced vodka or three makes a sick sort of sense. And God knows there are plenty of nuts out there. I reran my initial simulation and I wanted to share my results.

Mind you this included all of the known altitude and turns from known data. I ran it with the mind set of a rouge pilot. Specifically I flew just below maximum speed for a given altitude thinking that a rogue pilot would want as much distance as possible. That put me 10 minutes ahead of last radar contact off the coast of Thailand. I remained at 4500 feet from coast of Thailand to NW coast of Indo.

Afterwards, I flew at a slower speed than previous run. 385 knots, 37500 feet in altitude and a heading of 180, (Due South), after rounding NW Indo. That put me into the search area right on time. It was eerie watching the sun rise with SW Indo slipping away behind me. When I reached 3 1/2 hours from shark bay and had 2/12 hours of fuel, I knew I was at the point of no return.

I ditched at S25 E94 at 8:37 am. Nothing in my simulation raised any inconsistencies with all publicly released data. I think the search is right on target and will locate the final resting place with in a few months. Whatever happened to that plane, it doesnt make any sense (stating the obvious) compared to other “similar incidents”. Because; 1 – Malfunction; This can still be the case. Something might have happened which cut off all communication and they kept struggling with the plane until it crashed. They may have lost all vital instruments which explains the erratic change in altitude and heading.

To navigate at night with no instruments and absence of a horizon and landmarks is extremely difficult, if not impossible. It doesnt take long until you dont have a clue about heading and which altitude you`re. 2 – Hijacking; Either the hijackers succeeded or the pilots and/or passengers were in control after fighting them off. Lets pretend the hijackers were in control and the plane were in good shape and all instruments and communication were still working.

Like Patrick have mentioned several times; why are there no one taking responsibility for the hijacking? Why did they hijack a plane without knowing they could acually fly it and land it safely somewhere? Of course, the whole point of the hijacking could be just to crash it and kill everyone onboard (suicide hijacking).

But they didnt have to keep flying for several hours before crashing the plane. Lets pretend the pilots were in control after the attempted hijacking. They would, if they could, turn around or land at the nearest airport.

No words from the pilots. Or, both the hijackers and the crew were eliminated and some poor passengers did what they could for as long as they could.

3 – Pilot suicide/hijacking; All he (or they) had to do was turn off the autopilot and crash the plane. No need to fly around for several hours, changing heading and altitude and eventually decide enough is enough and crash the plane. If the pilot(s) wanted to hijack the plane and take it to a destination of their choice, they already knew the fuel status and how far that would take them instead of running dry in the middle of nowhere. All 3 theories creates a lot of questions.

But I dont think we can rule out any of them as more or less unthinkable at this point. The first officer would not know how to navigate from the stars at night, but the captain would (although he would probably be rusty). However, out of over 200 passengers, do you seriously believe NOBODY would have a GPS-equipped phone? They could ask and get any number of them, place them behind the windshield and see their position constantly — battery life doesn’t mean a thing, since you wouldn’t turn on unused phones, just those you are using, and switch once the battery dies.

Plenty of methods of navigation were still left to them. “However, out of over 200 passengers, do you seriously believe NOBODY would have a GPS-equipped phone?” Seriously, I believe most phones today have GPS. Even more seriously; I find it hard to believe they would collect all phones and throw them on the “dashboard”, one by one till the battery ran out, and navigate successfully. Driving around in your Lexus looking for a Jack in the Box is one thing. Navigating a B777 is something else.

Best case scenario; the phone would tell you where you were, you still have no clue about heading, speed and altitude. GPS gives you position if you are in sight of 3 satellites. If you are in sight of at least 4 satellites, it also provides your altitude. GPS also gives you speed, but even if it didn’t, you could compute it yourself. Finally, new phones usually have a compass.

Other than that, a compass is something so low-tech that you could slap it together at the very least, but I imagine the plane has it. Finally, you can compute heading just by looking for some standard features in the sky (I don’t know the reference points in southern sky, but it’s Polaris in the North). At worst, if you do have a position reading, take two readings and compute the angle between your N/S and E/W heading and you have your heading. Many airplanes already have carbon fiber wings, which are light and extremely strong. Im not sure what material the 370 had. The wings are the most likely part to float as it is, depending on damages on impact of course.

The whole plane could actually float in perfect conditions, remember the Hudson landing. Although it wont float forever, obviously. Wings are designed to make the plane fly, not to make to plane float 😉 Altitudes and use of fuel is correct. The lower the altitude, the more fuel it burns. If you wonder why, you can google it.

Too much to explain here 🙂. If the wings don’t disintegrate on contact with water and the fuel tanks were empty, they will float for weeks since the fuel tanks are filled with nitrogen at that point (regulations require tanks must be filled with inert gas as they are emptied). However, wings usually do disintegrate and the fuel tanks fill with water quite rapidly. — Oh, and “plane at lower altitude uses more fuel” is inaccurate or wrong. It will use more fuel per unit of distance covered, but this is simply because the plane flies slower at the same engine power setting. Second, the plane will actually use a lot more fuel for takeoff at higher altitudes. Please be as precise as possible.

This really helps prevent unnecessary communication issues. I am convinced that 777 is nearer land. I feel, that, similar to Swissair 111, there was a failure of the entertainment equipment so that perhaps it caused a fire where the smoke made it impossible for the pilots to see or breathe and that before they ditched, they tried to get rid of fuel and land somewhere on the peninsula. Perhaps it is in an uninhabited bit of land, or nearby in shallower water. What I would like to know is have small boats been all around the perimeters looking for debris. I have not had any answer to this at all. It makes sense to me, but I am willing to be corrected.

I finally got a chance to fly the route on a flight simulator using a 777ER. I was amazed at how all of the times lined up almost perfectly. I am now convinced the pilot was making a run towards Antarctica. He knew he would never make it but expected to get to the Southern Imarsat ping arch where the search was originally. His descent to 5K used up a ton of fuel. Must have known Malaysia or Thailand were looking for him as evidenced by radio chatter.

I was also amazed that after you round Indo, put your heading at 180 (Due South) you end up exactly where they are looking for it. My speed at 450 knots brought me to the search area an hour early so speed was likely 400 knots from Indo to crash site. That is a very slow speed designed for fuel economy.

I still believe he landed intact as the reason for no wreckage. I find it hard to believe that anyone, let alone a pilot could think this is anything but a in flight hijacking. No amount of malfunction can account for multiple turns to avoid Thailand and Indonesia and ending up off of Australia. Even the pilot of this plane new better than to go near Indo. If they had flown over it would have been seen. Instead it went around. This is a pilot hijacking or passenger hijacking.

If we find the plane at the bottom intact like I think we will it will prove no malfunction. Just really bad intent. Possibly it was a hijacking.

Like I said, I’m not ruling anything out. Terrorist groups don’t hijack planes in order to disappear them intact at the bottom of the ocean. That makes no sense, strategically, and would be extraordinarily difficult to coordinate and pull off.

Terrorism is always low-tech, low-risk (look at September 11th). And if it was one of the pilots again, what’s the point? If you’re on a suicide mission, why not simply crash the damn plane into the ocean, right then and there, like the EgyptAir pilot apparently did. Instead, you embark on a long, elaborate, convoluted mission, flying for several hours, all for the purpose of not being found? This charade is to hide an embarrasing situation and is well beyond anything Malaysia could conjure up, ie to bury 370 in the deepest part of the Indian O with it’s imagined dying pings. What is the embarrassment to Malaysia?

Is it the civil radar plot of MH370 showing an unidentified target moving at 2,500mph and then stopping? That while MH370 does a few sharp turns, but NOT back, instantly drops to sea level, shoots forward and disappears! Is THIS the information that they cannot release to the public because then they would be the laughing stock as unidentified targets do NOT exist? IF this radar plot is a fake, then Malaysian MUST show us the original to prove that.

There is NO proof MH370 went South. The statement by Inmarsat that they had analysed inmarsat RF signals using doppler shift analysis is a lie. The RF signal is almost certainly not recorded (only the extracted data such as aircraft identity) so there was nothing there to be analysed. That is why Inmarsat had refused to turn up at THEIR briefing.

NO miltary radar plot from Malaysia, Thailand nor Indonesia, nor satellite data has been presented to confirm this large target heading S, or even back over Thailand, S of Phuket. Of interest is that CNN, Al Jazeera, The Indpendent UK, Daily Telegraph UK and Straits Times are blocking all commenters from posting the link to the civil radar plot or even discussion on the plot. Ufos and ets?

Before you fall down laughing, or uncomfortably want to scream fraud, fake or nutters because nasa, seti and astronomers tell us there are NO ufos under intelligent et control flying around here. Google Larry King, CNN, Ufos shut down missile silos in US, UK and USSR. Google Wikipedia. Valentich, Cessna ufo abduction, Melbourne, Australia. (Full radio transcript recorded). Open IF this was a ufo/et abduction, they may all be alive, but not coming back anytime soon. I am a Rtd Airline Training Captain with multiple UFO sightings.

In 1972 we carried Govt(?) UFO report forms in our Nav Boxes, (Super VC10s out of Nairobi, Kenya). I am quite comfortable with the ufo phenomena.

I was the Pilot Union’s rep. At all aircraft accident investigations in the 4 countries that owned the airline. That function was to ensure pilots got a fair hearing, even if deceased. Why was my comment censored on the last posting? I post it again. If it gets censored again I guess I need to add askthepilot to the censors list.

This is just a charade to hide an embarrasing situation, well beyond anything Malaysia could conjure up, ie to bury 370 in the deepest part of the Indian O with it’s imagined dying pings. What is the embarrassment to Malaysia? Is it the civil radar plot of MH370 showing an unidentified target moving at 2,500mph and then stopping? That while MH370 does a few sharp turns, but NOT back, instantly drops to sea level, shoots forward and disappears! Is THIS the information that they cannot release to the public because then they would be the laughing stock as unidentified targets do NOT exist? IF this radar plot is FAKED, then Malaysian must give us their actual for comparison.

There is NO proof MH370 went South. The statement by Inmarsat that they had analysed inmarsat RF signals using doppler shift analysis is a lie. The RF signal is almost certainly not recorded (only the extracted data such as aircraft identity) so there was nothing there to be analysed.

That is why Inmarsat had refused to turn up at THEIR briefing. NO miltary radar plot from Malaysia, Thailand nor Indonesia, nor satellite data has been presented to confirm this large target heading S, or even back over Thailand, S of Phuket. Of interest is that CNN, Al Jazeera, The Indpendent UK, Daily Telegraph UK and Straits Times are blocking all commenters from posting the link to the civil radar plot or even discussion on the plot. Ufos and ets? Before you fall down laughing, or uncomfortably want to scream fraud, fake or nutters because nasa, seti and astronomers tell us there are NO ufos under intelligent et control flying around here. Google Larry King, CNN, Ufos shut down missile silos in US, UK and USSR. Google Wikipedia.

Valentich, Cessna ufo abduction, Melbourne, Australia. (Full radio transcript recorded). Open IF this was a ufo/et abduction, they may all be alive, but not coming back anytime soon. I am a Rtd Airline Training Captain with multiple UFO sightings. In 1972 we carried Govt(?) UFO report forms in our Nav Boxes, (Super VC10s out of Nairobi, Kenya). I am quite comfortable with the ufo phenomena.

I was the Pilot Union’s rep. At all aircraft accident investigations in the 4 countries that owned the airline.

That function was to ensure pilots got a fair hearing, even if deceased. After weeks of thinking, watching, reading And knowing absolutely nothing about flying I have come to a horrendous conclusion. Something happened on the flight that left the person(s) in control of the plane 2 choices. Attempt to land (or crash) on terra firma with the new knowledge or belief that this would result in a catastrophe with many thousands killed OR 2. Sacrifice the lives of everyone on board to save the lives of thousands and avoid catastrophe. So take the plane and the source of the potential catastrophe as far away from land and populated places as possible.

Whoever it was chose the second option. In my previous comment I was not attempting to provide an explanation for why this plane crashed or if even that the plane had crashed because of a rogue or mentally disturbed pilot.I was simply providing my opinion based on the assumption that the plane had in-fact been unlawfully commandeered. The plane would have been flown either manually or on autopilot for the seven hours until it crashed supposedly in the Southern Indian Ocean. Someone on the plane must have noticed that something was amiss because the fact is the plane never made it to China and was in the wrong position and heading in the wrong direction for the majority of the flight. The passengers could have noticed that it was still pretty much dark when the plane went down when the sun would have risen over Beijing and it would have been about seven o’clock there. The erratic flight profile of the plane suggests that it was being flown by an experienced pilot who was trying to avoid radar contact. It was just the timing of the accident, given that it had occurred just days after another pane had been hi-jacked and the constant media scrutiny given to the hi-jack theory that prompted me to give my account for what may have happened.

Again, we will only know what actually happened once the black boxes and the wreckage of the plane is located and an investigation is launched. The media has really been unprofessional in how they have handled this disaster. They attempt to make out reasons why this plane may have crashed without fully understanding how aircraft work and how planes are tracked in flight. But to me the vast majority of possible mechanical failures seem unlikely as the plane continued on for several hours and no distress signal was received.

Only a Helios flight 522 repeat type scenario involving the pressurization of the jet or a catastrophic electrical failure could explain the strange movements of the plane or the lack of distress signal. We will just have to wait ans see what the investigators find if and when this plane is located. I have been watching the search for flight 370 with fascination and interest. The smarts brought to bear appear to be impressive, and for weeks it seemed the searcher were “almost there”. All along it occurred to me that maybe we ought to do what engineers do when they have great uncertainty. Model and simulate. The modeling seems to have gone well, but with no results yet.

With each day, the aircraft’s signature (footprint?) in the Indian Ocean fades. Is it practical to set up one of the many jets in the “airplane graveyard”, fit it with engines and guidance, certified for flying. Then, fit the plane with all the GPS transducers and data recorders possible, and allow the unmanned aircraft flying out to sea unmanned from Australia, to run out of fuel, (as we believe 370 had done) over the Indian Ocean. If properly instrumented, we would at a minimum have some idea of the nature of the impact, the spread of the debris field (remember everything is instrumented) over a period of ninety days. Similarly we could track the oils, fuel, etc.

And see how long it takes until it is subsumed by the sea. Expensive, but not greatly so, considering the knowledge that might be gained. Comments or critiques welcome. Yes, that could be an interesting exercise to see what you see.

I had a related idea a couple weeks ago when the pings were the news. Since the geosynchronous satellite has a slight worble in its so-called ‘stationary’ track, they could use that worble along with the Doppler Effect to determine which direction that plane really went. I wondered how helpful it might be to have aircraft queued up to head both north & south from the last waypoint and let them loose when the satellite arrived at the same point in its path as it was on the night that MH370 went missing. But if the captain had flown the plane of course, there were seven hours between the plane being deliberately taken off course and crashing into the Indian Ocean. One question i have is why did no-one try to o anything to take back control??

The passengers on United 93 during the 9/11 attacks used a trolley to smash the cockpit door down and tried to regain control of the plane. Couldn’t the passengers have done that here?? I know that the door is built to be bullet proof and designed to be hijacker proof but something must have been done by the crew. And where was the first officer or the cabin crew member who is supposed to stand guard when one pilot is out of the cockpit.

It’s beginning to look like this is a copy of the Ethiopian Airlines 702 hijack this year where the first officer took the plane to Geneva (i think, might be wrong) after the captain went out of the cockpit and the first officer somehow either disabled or tampered with the cockpit door locking system and flew it to Geneva. This should have served as a wake up call but obviously the corrupt so called ICAO safety organization did not pay enough attention and so here we are a month and a bit later after a plane carrying 239 innocent people which has crashed and whose wreckage still has not been located. Think about the lives and the millions which could have been saved if the ICAO had taken the Feb. 2014 incident seriously.

I love aviation for all its beauty and engineering marvels but I sometimes think that there are those at the top who are trying undermine the public’s confidence in the safety of air travel to keep their pockets full. This was a completely avoidable disaster that should not have any place in our modern aviation era. I would welcome other fellow users thoughts on my opinion.

– One question i have is why did no-one try to o anything to take back control?? We dont know what happened on that plane. Maybe someone did try? Its impossible to try to figure out what really happened up there. – Think about the lives and the millions which could have been saved if the ICAO had taken the Feb. 2014 incident seriously.

You have to remember that flying is still THE safest way to travel, by far. Each day there are thousands of successful arrivals and departures around the world. The list would be endless (and impossible) if the industry were to protect itself from any hypothetical threat. Just because there was one nutty pilot doesnt mean that this is something likely to happen again anytime soon. And if there really is another nutty pilot out there, Im pretty sure he would figure out a way to hijack or bring down a plane, no matter what ICAO did to prevent it. I heard someone on tv suggesting that pilots should not be able to plan or even know who they were flying with.

The pilots flying together would be a secret until they met for preflight briefing so that two pilots were unlikely to plan a hijack or something else. I almost fell off my couch. This is typical media stuff and only adds to the public hysteria. Pilots are the last thing to worry about and its incredibly unjust to suspect them based on one nutty pilot. What do we think of your opinion?

We think its a fail. An epic fail. And you are probably trolling us As a conclusion, it shows baseless assumptions and retarded development – unless you know something that no one else knows. At this point, we don’t know how much of the deviation is due to mechanical failure, emergency event, pilot error, or malfeasance by a pilot or someone else. So it is an assumption to say the it was deliberately flown off course. Likewise, it is still an assumption that it has crashed in the Indian Ocean. That has yet to be proven or even indicated by any debris.

You even argue against yourself when you point to the fact that no wreckage has yet been located. Why do you believe that no one tried to do anything to take back control?

What do you base this conclusion on? Maybe they tried unsuccessfully? Maybe they were all MIA as well? Or even if they were successful, if sleeping passengers woke up and tried the trolley trick that you proposed, who knows if any of them knew how to operate a jet? So-called taking control may not have made any difference if no one had spent years learning the control system of a 777-200ER. How do you know that either of the pilots left for the loo – much less that it was the Captainas you imply?

How is any of this beginning to look anything at all like Ethiopian Airlines 702 other than what you are inventing? What information did you hear/see about what actually happened on-board MH370?

Where you there? Are you the only known survivor? What do you know about what the ICAO did or did not do after Flight 702?

That incident happened 2/17/17 and missing flight MH370 departed 19 days later on 3/8/14. Did you really expect that an international agency would have implemented some reactionary, worldwide plan in only 19 days? And imposed such a plan on hundreds of private businesses (airlines) such that those companies would have retro-fitted thousands of planes and/or trained tens of thousands of employees? Failing to do all that, it is now your contention that the ICAO is a corrupt organization? You should be starting to see why your guessing looks to show retarded development of the conclusion, if not the concluder.

Its another assumption that there are 239 innocent people. Sure, some, even most, might be innocent. But here you are arguing against yourself again. Unless you believe that a rogue pilot who deliberately takes a plane off course, and looks himself in the cockpit is himself innocent, then how do you get to 239? Do you have any idea how business, finances, and economics work?

Really, even the slightest idea?? Those at the top of the airline industry line their pockets when passengers are paying fares and flying more and more. But when planes go missing, the opposite happens. Some people lose faith in the airline safety which suggests that they will take fewer flights meaning that the airlines earn less revenue and lower profits. Also, losing a $250,000,000 asset does nothing to help fill the pockets of those on top. In fact, it does the exact opposite.

Since the company now has to replace that vehicle, they have much less money with which to help themselves. Have you been watching? Does this missing plane make it more likely that Malaysian Airlines will A) give their CEO a big raise; or B) go out of business? Thanks for guessing – unfortunately, that is not what this website is about. The next time you are tempted to respond, you might want to get some sense first. It could even be helpful to read Patricks book Cockpit Confidential so you do look like such a noob. With this new co-pilot’s cell phone was turned on but no calls made — it made me think he turned it on in hopes of being tracked but didn’t make call because somebody was watching/controlling him.

I recently watched a netflix doc on the kennedy plane the went down by Martha’s vinyard. In the doc it was really convincing that it was sabatoge by an unidentified second pilot.

Apparenty fuel gage was turned to off which wouldn’t be necessary for a nose dive suicide. The nose dive also occured immediately following last time Kennedy Made contact with — an air tower – or whatever they are called. Watching the doc rekindled the idea that with Malaysia flt somebody intentionally rerouted plane immediately after the last contact because it would give them biggest window of time before somebody noticed they were not in contact. And also took the plane as far away from where it might be found as possible in homes of making discovery of black box as unlikely as possible. There was talk of a murder as possible motive early on — that somebody(s) with a lot of tactical power wanted somebody(s) on that plane dead — and this was elaborate way of getting it done with no evidence. Pretty elaborate.

But also effective if that was it. Obviously I have no idea what was going on in that plane or in the cockpit.

But the thing about his cell phone trying to get connection is something very different from making a phone call (if that was ever tried). The plane might have been low enough to be able to pick up a signal, but the speed is what makes it hard, if not impossible, to get a stable connection. Im not sure if you compared Malaysian flight with the Kennedy accident in any way, but that plane was flying much lower and slower, so in that case it would be possible to use a cell phone. Patrick has already explained this time and time again. The co-pilot wouldn’t be be able to make any cell phone call at all nor have any reception.

Cell phone towers only have a range of a couple miles, that’s why in a city you see lots of cell towers everywhere; big, small, visible, hidden, on top of buildings, on top of businesses, etc. They were flying over the ocean most of the time far from any cell tower reception. And even over land, at normal cruising altitude of 30,000 feet, that’s 5.6 miles from the ground far away from any cell tower reception.

I heard an interesting (crazy?) story last night on CNN. This Australian guy whos been on CNN lately, mid 60`s, grey hair and glasses (looks like a character from The Muppet Show – no offence). They were talking about the cell phone signal picked up from one of the pilots. He then said its highly possible since he once received a text message at 35000ft when flying from Perth to Melbourne.

Now, first of all, when youre flying between Perth and Melbourne, close to 70% of the flight is over the ocean. In addition to that, there is a lot of rural areas before you approach any of those cities.

Based on cell phone coverage maps in Australia, there are not many spots along that route you would pick up a cell phone signal. Much less at 35000ft. He didnt say which carrier he flew with, but a wild guess would be Virgin or Qantas.

Both of them have cell phone service on some of their planes. But those signals are coming from satellites. NOT from cell towers on the ground. I would be surprised if he dont know the difference. If it was that easy, why would airlines spend tens of millions of dollar for satellite cell phone service onboard? Too bad thats all he said and no one even questioned him.

Im sure Ive spent close to 5000 hours at FL350 and I have never seen a single dot on my signal bar. Heck, I usually lose the signal once they close the door at the gate.

Q: How does the autopilot behaves if the engines are running out of fuel? Does it still try to keep flight level/direction programmed. ->this would result in a stall situation i assume since speed will go down without engines running. And as far as i remember autopilot will then switch off if situation cannot be handled anymore, right? OR will the autopilot keep the aircraft in a stable flight situation still?

->this would result in a nose down, keeping at least the programmed direction and a minimum speed level to avoid stall. To cloak an aircraft would be extremely difficult. Firstly how would the equipment be brought on-board the aircraft? I would also assume that this equipment would need to be assembled or otherwise readied for it to begin working. And then once the aircraft has been smuggled what then? Leave it on the the tarmac to rot??

Use it for another terrorist attack? What about the crew and passengers? You could shoot them or keep them prisoner but you would need to keep them away from any communication from the outside world. It would be an extremely difficult task to pull off, especially considering that if the plan fails it will cause great embarrassment to your country or organisation and lead to a long and bitter legal case and possible sanctions and other prosecutions. Better of cloaking one of your own fighter planes and flying it over North Korea and bombing Pyongyang to show off your technology.

I have this wild imagination,coupled with aviation and ATS background which prompts me to say: It is some state sponsered technology test where technology ” How to make a object/ aircraft untraceble by Radar and communication System”. U will surely agree that this would be very useful defence tool for any country. We already have low flying stealth aircrafts which cannot be tracked by radar. We have jammmers which when activated would not allow any onboard eqpt to be tracked. The amount of expertise required and the planning to execute it requires consistent short-term testing of technology and huge coverup exercise on media. Only state sponsered programme can do this and what are few lives of common men in pursuit of technolgy superiority. You know, ever since stealth technologies first started developing the priority were to hide it.

The less your enemy know the better. Add that if someone had the resources to make such a good stealth, jamming technolgy possible, if they were intelligent people they would test the equipment in a controlled enviroment.

It’s not like you can’t buy or lease a big jet airliner to test your tech. Why be so dumb as to cause an incident to draw the attention of all the world? You’d only see such stupid plan or behavior from a cartoon villain failing to read the evil overload list. That makes sense, going forward. But I just don’t understand why EPIRB technology, which has been around for a long time and is used on every ship, hasn’t already been deployed on airplanes.

Ejecting the black box (and making it buoyant) seems like a major modification. But a little locator beacon popping off under 4 meters of water would have greatly helped searchers find both Malaysian Airlines 370 and Air France 447, I think. It’s lightweight, tried, and true technology (and I suspect relatively cheap.) It seems like a no-brainer, and usually when a solution seems like a no-brainer, there’s a pretty sophisticated reason it isn’t being done. (At least when it comes to airplanes.). >Ejecting the black box (and making it buoyant) >seems like a major modification. And it wouldn’t help at any rate.

You kind of expect and want the black box to stay with the wreckage. >But a little locator beacon popping off under 4 meters >of water would have greatly helped searchers find both >Malaysian Airlines 370 and Air France 447, I think. >It’s lightweight, tried, and true technology >(and I suspect relatively cheap.) Agreed. Obviously it would drift away after some time, but in the short time after the flight is lost, it would still be possible to locate it very accurately. HOWEVER, that assumes you are looking in the right location.

In the case of MH370, it’s not clear whether it would help. Even if it had 100+ km range, you would still need to be at least fairly close by to detect it. The search shifted to southern Indian Ocean after a week, meaning the beacon could have been quite a distance from the impact site. Now, I don’t really know if it’s possible, but GPS receivers are ubiquitous today.

Would it be possible to add one to such a beacon and have it record its location every hour or so, starting with the moment when it is released from the plane and acquires signal? Once it’s finally retrieved, it would clearly indicate where the impact was and how the ocean currents moved it from its original position. >It seems like a no-brainer, and usually when a solution >seems like a no-brainer, there’s a pretty sophisticated >reason it isn’t being done. (At least when it comes >to airplanes.) I thought the same thing. But then again, there were suggestions to add surveillance cameras to planes and record footage from them on another black box.

The weight of the whole system (minus the armor on the box itself) would be around several kilograms, and the cost would be pretty much negligible, so it makes sense. But it also makes sense to record more than just last two hours of flight deck conversations. As I understood some articles, there will only be two hours’ worth of voice recordings, which is fairly useless if there indeed was a struggle in the first hours of flight. I mean, come on, a cheap SD card can hold several months’ worth of speech with compression, down to maybe a few days if good quality is desirable. Honestly, with some advances in aviation technology, it’s usually outmoded when introduced and while upgrades could be made cheap and efficient, they are never carried out. Another question: When KAL 007 was shot down over the Soviet Union in 1983, the Americans had top secret radar that they gave to the investigators which had tracked the plane when it was shot down.

This is thirty years later and we still didnt know where the plane was until last week or so. I know that the transponder wouldnt have given information as there is a lack of radar coverage over large streches of the oceans. However there are hundreds of satellites orbiting Earth of which some are operated by several of the South Asian nations. Having an un-identified aircraft flying over this region would have triggered alarm bells in several countries radar stations.

Either these countries are pathetic in their tracking capabilities or they are very relunctant to share information. Surely one or two satellites would have picked up something that night. Despite the limitations of tranponders and other tracking software, nothing simply disappears without a trace.

On the IFE system on aircraft, you can see the exact position of the aircraft as it continues on its flightpath. However, i would assume that this can be disabled or tampered with to avoid panicing the passengers. There was nothing out of the ordinary about this plane and it had an experience captain and first officer. Either something is amiss or this is a very sad and tragic combination of coincidences and errors. What if the plane is never found?? I mean until now we’ve haven’t even had a single sighting of any wreckage.

The black box pinger’s will run out in about a day or so and without them the plane will become much more difficult to find. I wonder if the rescuers will ever stop looking for it even if it takes 5 or 10 years. If it is never found then it will become the greatest modern aviation mystery ever. One criticism i do have is why the countries involved namely India, China, US and Australia aren’t deploying more assets in the region?

It took only one day to send warships to counter the Chinese offensive in the South China Sea. If the Chinese and US work together the plane could be found today. Three questions: If transponders are easily interchangeable, plane to plane, it is even possible that the plane that was on the original ATC secondary radar wasnt MH370. That there is a two-minute space of time at the time right before departure that there was no contact and assumption that the plane which takes off with code sign of MH370 is actually MH370.

And that this distraction plane had to turn away from entering Vietnam airspace, because Vietnam would have caught on to the fact that it wasnt a 777. There was one early report from Malaysian airlines on the first day that the plane never took off. Given that pilot’s flight simulator had a Diego Garcia landing, but since it is so top secret, how likely is it for these kinds of games to have such a destination?

For anyone out there who has flight simulator game, can you say how common or easy it is to get Diego Garcia settings on your flight simulator game? Are we falsely assuming that it is a landing spot whose details are public information in games? Found a strange connection. So many techies on board, including 30 defense contractors, one of whom is/was a China Telecom executive of China who had just participated in the C&MA (construction and maintenance agreement) signing for Sea-Me-We 5, a submarine cable planned to run from Asia to Europe. And in the recent past months, ASEAN Defense Minster Meetings and ASEAN Defense Industry Collaborative were laying out an ASEAN defense minister-to-defense minister direct phone line (possibly through submarine cables) in the event of an emergency. Strange connection between so many defense contractors on board, a kind of Southeast Asian military industrial complex in development, and the defense ministers who had built up a direct working relationship.

It is possible that there was desirable information or military technology on board. It is possible that there were state secrets on board that would have made it to China if the plane wasnt stopped.

Anyone see more to these connections than mere coincidence? I won’t comment on your first paragraph since it’s ridiculous conjecture with no basis in reality.

The flight identified itself as MH370, no question about it. There’s a fair chance there were some plane spotters who have picked it up. >Given that pilot’s flight simulator had a Diego Garcia >landing, but since it is so top secret, Top secret? There, along with pictures and a detailed map. It even has an IATA designation. It’s on Google maps, along with high-resolution satellite picture.

It’s far from inconspicuous. >how likely is it for these kinds of games >to have such a destination? AFAIR, MS FSX includes quite a number of airports, Diego Garcia is not in the default installation, but it’s not hard to find it.

Google: microsoft flight simulator x fjdg >For anyone out there who has flight simulator game, >can you say how common or easy it is to get Diego >Garcia settings on your flight simulator game? >Are we falsely assuming that it is a landing spot >whose details are public information in games? Ridiculous assertion. DG is an interesting spot, a very easy runway in an interesting location with the added bonus of being a military airport. >Found a strange connection.

So many techies on board, >including 30 defense contractors, Where did THAT come from? Last I heard there were 20 Freescale top secret scientists, and nobody even used the phrase “defense contractor” until I debunked the theory on CNN’s website. You’re really grasping for straws here. >one of whom is/was a China Telecom executive of China >who had just participated in the C&MA (construction >and maintenance agreement) signing for Sea-Me-We 5, >a submarine cable NOTHING STRANGE ABOUT THAT! There are literally THOUSANDS of submarine cables in the world with hundreds added every year. FYI, it’s not some secret technology and it’s not a cable to, I don’t know, pull submarines with! >planned to run from Asia to Europe.

This one had me guffaw. I know many Americans aren’t very handy with a map, but a submarine cable running from Asia to Europe? You’re either trolling, or you’re very, very stupid. Really, do yourself a favor and invest in an atlas. >And in the recent past months, ASEAN Defense Minster >Meetings and ASEAN Defense Industry Collaborative >were laying out an ASEAN defense minister-to-defense >minister direct phone line (possibly through submarine cables) Seriously? Let me offer an analogy that has exactly the same information value: I drive to work every day (possibly using a public road). >in the event of an emergency.

Strange connection >between so many defense contractors on board, a kind >of Southeast Asian military industrial complex in >development, and the defense ministers who had built up >a direct working relationship. For countries with a long history of bitter struggles and whose indigenous technology is rather lacking, forcing them to purchase weaponry from more developed countries, this is really a long shot. >It is possible that there was desirable information >or military technology on board.

Here’s a non-exhaustive list of other things that may have possibly been on board as well: – guns – drones (hey, a quadcopter counts as a drone) – stealth planes (so stealthy that nobody noticed them) – a nuclear reactor – a nuclear bomb – big foot – Elvis – alien corpses – live aliens Feel free to add your own. The fact that something may (or may not) have been on board doesn’t mean a thing unless you have proof it was.

And I’ll stop here, I won’t comment on the last two sentences in a futile attempt to keep myself sane. But an unidentified plane flying toward Diego Garcia would be considered as hostile just as any unidentified plane flying toward a US target would be – Correct? Unlikely the officials at Diego Garcia would have allowed it to land at Diego Garcia because there was no logical reason for it to be in the area and it would be too risky to whatever assets the US has on the ground at Diego Garcia- Correct? I have been doing some reading into what happens when aircraft stray into restricted US airspace and the US is quick to take action in every case.

They do their best to ensure a good outcome for all but are clear that they won’t stand for a plane heading for a major city or significant target. In the case of a big airliner, ridiculously off course with nowhere else to land in the Indian Ocean the US Military wouldn’t have a lot of choices of what to do with the plane – perhaps escorting it to a less perilous Australian airport when, sadly, the plane ran out of fuel well before making land. This scenario would certainly explain the miracle of how the Australians shifted the search area and almost immediately were rewarded with the pings. After all, with almost 4 million dollars sunk into the search by the US perhaps it was time to put the charade of searching to an end by providing a little inside information. Kind of explains the lack of wreckage too – there was lots of time to tidy up the surface before the search finally dropped to the south. A Chinese ship, the Haixun 01, has reported picking up some ‘pings’ in the search area. It is not yet known whether this is related to MH370, but the nature of the signal is such that a black box is suspected.

I suspect a maintenance issue rather than pilot error but then my opinion is worth nothing. As always there will be a chain of events that lead up to the accident and this is now the most difficult air crash investigation to date. I hope enough of the wreckage is found especially the data and cockpit voice recorders. We all need to know what went wrong so we can stop it happening again.

Patrick Theories aside I have a legitimate question about something. On FlightAware it shows outbound from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing information on consecutive days for aircraft serial number 9M-MRO and 9M-MRQ but no return flights out of Beijing to any destination for these planes show up.

However, FlighAware shows both of these planes flying out of Kuala Lumpur on the very next day, 24 hours later, back to Beijing. There are other planes that show this happenstance, but not many. I understand that the route identifier would change (9M-MRO is not always MH370) but the plane serial number ID for the transponder wouldn’t change, right?

9M-MRQ is also shown flying into LA on January 27 but on January 29 it is departing out of Kuala Lumpur again without any flight information showing how it got back home. I know part of that is time zones, but it seems weird that it is tracked by the transponder leaving Malaysia but not returning. There was no flight scheduled officially by Malaysia Airline from LA to anywhere for that plane. Would airlines fly a plane back empty and that is why they don’t show up on FlightAware? It seems really expensive – would they fly it back with cargo only instead? I don’t think you understand how transponders work. Transponders do not identify a particular aircraft.

They are not a fingerprint of a specific plane. They identify a FLIGHT, based on the four-number CODE that the crew enters into the transponder.

And that code is always different. Air traffic control identifies you via this code, NOT THE TRANSPONDER ITSELF. You could swap transponders from plane to plane, flight to flight, and it would make no difference. Your code is different, day to day, flight to flight. In fact the code will often change OVER THE COURSE of a flight.

Thanks – the transponder thing seems complicated. Why does the code change over the course of the flight – is it geographic? What does 9M-MRO refer to? Is that specific to the plane itself or does that change from flight to flight? I have really enjoyed reading your essays and your story about the exploding toilet was pretty hilarious. You have a really great way of explaining things in an entertaining way. I am a nervous flyer and all of the information about turbulence really resonates with me.

Thanks for that! My husband will be particularly grateful to you next time we fly.

>>Why does the code change over the course of the flight – is it geographic? That’s the best way to describe it, yes. As you move from one air traffic control sector to another, controllers will sometimes give you a fresh four-digit code. Not always though it’s common, especially on domestic flights, to complete a whole flight without a code change.

Other times, particularly on transoceanic flights, your code might be assigned two or three times as the flight progresses. Over the ocean or when crossing other non-radar areas, we dial in a generic default code — “2000.” >>What does 9M-MRO refer to? Is that specific to the plane itself or does that change from flight to flight? That’s the plane’s registration. Think of it like a license plate. It’s painted on the back of the fuselage. 9M is the prefix for Malaysia.

(N is the prefix for the United States.) Registrations will often change over the course of a plane’s lifetime. How do you explain the actual route changes after it turned around.

If the problem happened before they turned around and incapacitated them before they could land why isn’t the plane in the Andaman Sea, the Bay of Bengal or crashed somewhere in India. That is pretty much where the plane was pointing after the turn? Not sure if the fact that the plane made a nifty turn to avoid Indonesian airspace has been debunked but if not, how did that happen. And if not that, how was the turn to the south made? Strange my comment regarding Diego Garcia is awaiting moderationthats never happened on here before:/ I read this from someone on another site its a very logical written piece: Look at nothing but the facts, strip away all opinion and gossip, and all theory.

Considering just verifyable data – factual data from the day and the following day only: Pubilic radar is consistent with the only reputable eyewitness, who saw “a burning plane” in the sky just NNE of where it was “last heard from” on public radar (like 5 mins after it disappeared from radar view). Then nearly a week later to this, media report on military analysis of corporate satellite data that had become available all of a sudden; (This means the official statement concerning the military satellite data that nobody has as yet seen). These military satellite reports cannot and must not be believed until there is hard factual evidence of it. The public radar data is the only universally agreed source of verifyable information, and so a factual investigator must discard the media gossip. Here’s something for the weekend, a theory that fits nicely (and if it doesn’t, just change it a bit): The plane didn’t crash. Rather, it went through a time-space wormhole and moved back in time four thousand years, flying to Beijing and crash-landing on a field there.

Consider how similar Beijing and Boeing are 777 is a lucky number for the Chinese The passengers and crew are revered by the locals, and with their gadgets and knowledge of technology, they create the Chinese civilization. Instead of searching in the Indian Ocean, there should be full-scale excavations done in Beijing to uncover the plane and, undoubtedly, the burial grounds of the passengers. First of all, why would a captain, who has spent almost his entire life at the controls of an aircraft suddenly decide to commit suicide? His colleagues described him as a quiet, passionate person who loved his job. I find it difficult to understand why they would be so heavily demoised without any clear proof. The planes flight path also raises some questions. The plane had first ascended to 45,000 feet before descending to around 25,000 feet.

In order to survive hypoxia the person in command would have needed to have access to the oxygen masks and have guts of steel to fly through the most dangerous airspace in the world with a high chance of miscalcualtion by a hot-headed military controller and get shot down. I think who ever did this was either doing it to test the South Asian air dfenses in preparation for an attack or or to send a political message. Nobody flys a plane into the ocean for nothing. Maybe the North Koreans or Americans are involved in a this so called “tragedy.” All in all it may just be a classic case of human error or technological malfunction.

Assumptions: 1. The plane that was lost on primary radar was the same one that was picked up on secondary radar. 100% belief in Inmarsat, even though there is a chance of error, and without any other competing view.

Plane ended in the Indian Ocean. Northern corridor search ended based on 100% belief in Inmarsat. Lives are lost without hard proof. Focus on only four areas of possibilities – terrorist, hijacking, personal problem, and psychological.

Pattern: First stating conclusion and then search for and collect evidence that fits that conclusion. First limited parameter of possibilities, and not consider other possibilities. Except would some bored radar tech watching so many commercial plane blips flying along the commercial corridor REALLY notice one extra plane. If you look at the radar map it looks like there are 12 planes heading through that corridor at any given moment even at that time of night.

If MH370 didn’t stray off the approved flight plan and if it stayed at 295 with it’s transponder off it was more or less invisible to other commercial flight traffic and to ATC. Really, would anyone really have “seen” it? I doubt very much that the radar operators are looking for anything other than something deviating from the path or sneaking in another way. I doubt also they pay a lot of attention to changes in flights due to weather, maintenance etc either, IF they even get that information. I think the only reason the Malaysian military even took note of it AFTER THE FACT when they were asked was that it was slightly outside the usual route. It wasn’t until it reached the coastline that it would have got in line with the others, virtually hiding in plain sight. If, of course, it didn’t go south and get intercepted heading in the general vicinity of Diego Garcia and dealt with by the US as a hostile intruder.

Except would some bored radar tech watching so many commercial plane blips flying along the commercial corridor REALLY notice one extra plane. If you look at the radar map it looks like there are 12 planes heading through that corridor at any given moment even at that time of night. If MH370 didn’t stray off the approved flight plan and if it stayed at 295 with it’s transponder off it was more or less invisible to other commercial flight traffic and to ATC. Except you’re thinking about ATC. I specifically mentioned military radar. You’re assuming it was going along a commercial corridor.

There is no indication that this happened in this flight. The military do ignore all commercial planes, but one flying with its transponder turned off should raise an eyebrow and YES, they WILL notice “one extra plane” if it’s showing up as a huge red blip on their radar. The plane did not identify itself as “MH370” on anyone’s radar so it would have been an object of interest to any radar operator. To do otherwise is dereliction of duty and as I mentioned, it’s a grave offense in any military in the world. This will no doubt be downplayed and hidden, but I fully expect the radar operators will be, or already have been, dishonourably discharged — quietly. If it went to Diego Garcia, it would have crashed some hour or two short of reaching the runway.

End of story. Actually, I did reference both. ATC wouldn’t have seen the plane because no transponder transmission and it was not flying a normal altitude so no other planes would have eyes on it and Military radar did actually see it – the were simply not alarmed by it because it was just another commercial plane flying another commercial route. No one has been able to tell me if military radar techs actually match up the little blobs flying along the commercial routes with the flights, including delays or last minute schedule changes. Just one more little blob flying along, not causing any trouble or cause for alarm. Go and have a quick look at a flightracker and you can see how easily this plane could have just slipped into the stream considering the stream is pretty much right at the place where the plane went either North or South. Not hiding under or over another plane, just cruising along with them.

Remember, the Malaysians didn’t even raise the alarm until long after this flight would have crashed or landed so nobody would have been looking for one extra flight on an already crowded commercial flight path. Nothing fancy. And this wouldn’t have been a couple of guys acting alone either – there would have been people waiting for it at the final destination because you wouldn’t steal a 777 just for a joyride. Plus, still no debris. 8 million people are searching on Tomnod and still nothing in the water. Granted, it’s a big ocean but you would have thought someone would have identified something other than dead jellyfish and cast off fishing gear by now.

But as I understand it now, the theory is that the plane landed much like the Miracle on the Hudson except nobody got out of the plane and deployed the life rafts so it just sunk, completely intact. Having said that, based on the math and conjecture which has everyone searching the southern Indian Ocean, although that shifts on the daily recalculation of the suppositions, I still contend if an uncommunicative, commercial airliner was heading generally in the direction of Diego Garcia or for that matter, Australia, there would have been serious consequences. It is inconceivable that it could have slipped past a high-test military facility un-observed. And if it was observed what’s the harm in saying where it is, unless of course, you put it there. That is a lot of ugly public opinion to wear no matter how you spin it.

Also, current math has them searching beyond Diego Garcia on spec – what makes you think it crashed well before the island and why is the search not centered there? It’s no wormhole theory I give you that. >Actually, I did reference both. ATC wouldn’t have seen the plane because no transponder transmission and it was not flying a normal altitude so no other planes would have eyes on it Wrong, they would have seen it, just without flight data. >and Military radar did actually see it – the were simply not alarmed by it because it was just another commercial plane flying another commercial route. So, let’s say you want to bomb Bangkok.

You just take a B-52, fly a commercial route to Bangkok, drop your bomb load and nobody suspects a thing? Take a 777 and fly it into a building (aka 9/11).

You’re seriously thinking that a plane with a transponder off is “just another commercial plane” not worth investigating? You’re deluding yourself to fit a theory. >No one has been able to tell me if military radar techs actually match up the little blobs flying along the commercial routes with the flights, including delays or last minute schedule changes. Just one more little blob flying along, not causing any trouble or cause for alarm. Of course they see transponder communications. The second a transponder is off, the plane should become highlited as an object of interest. >Go and have a quick look at a flightracker and you can see how easily this plane could have just slipped into the stream considering the stream is pretty much right at the place where the plane went either North or South.

Not hiding under or over another plane, just cruising along with them. You did NOT just recommend fr24, did you? That would be just silly! See how many question marks (“?”) you can spot. Normally there’s just one per several dozen, or even less.

Those question marks are always of interest! >8 million people are searching on Tomnod and still nothing in the water.

Granted, it’s a big ocean but you would have thought someone would have identified something other than dead jellyfish and cast off fishing gear by now. You’ve no idea. You really underestimate the scale of the search. Let me suggest something to you: Go out and find a cricket in your city’s lawns, but do not look closely until you think you have seen one — then take a closer look. But not instantly, but slowly, like take 10 minutes before you’re close enough to see it. Chances are it will be gone. THAT’s closer to the scale of what’s being looked for in Tomnod.

>But as I understand it now, the theory is that the plane landed much like the Miracle on the Hudson except nobody got out of the plane and deployed the life rafts so it just sunk, completely intact. Hudson was still and the A320 is a narrowbody.

B777 is a much larger widebody plane and the only ever successful ditching of a smaller widebody — a 767 — was performed eighteen years ago, and it was in very calm sea. To date, nobody else ever successfully ditched a widebody and certainly not in the Indian Ocean while it was autumn and where waves are several meters high. The difficulty of this is unbelievable and simply descending onto water is not going to work.

>Having said that, based on the math and conjecture which has everyone searching the southern Indian Ocean, although that shifts on the daily recalculation of the suppositions, I still contend if an uncommunicative, commercial airliner was heading generally in the direction of Diego Garcia or for that matter, Australia, there would have been serious consequences. It is inconceivable that it could have slipped past a high-test military facility un-observed. That’s why it was never close to DG. Again, you’re underestimating the size of the Indian Ocean. Yes, it is smaller than Pacific or Atlantic, but it is still inconceivably huge. The plane had fuel to go to Beijing plus maybe 400 miles.

Where the plane deviated, there was ~700 more miles to DG than to PEK. How do you think it could have gone to DG on the reserves it had?

>And if it was observed what’s the harm in saying where it is, unless of course, you put it there. That is a lot of ugly public opinion to wear no matter how you spin it. Also, current math has them searching beyond Diego Garcia on spec – what makes you think it crashed well before the island and why is the search not centered there? You’re thinking of old data. They revised their search area based on fuel estimates precisely because the first one was too far away for the plane to have been there.

>It’s no wormhole theory I give you that. I’m seriously wondering if you didn’t recognize the sarcasm there. You’re wrong about the northern corridor assumption.

It was finally ruled out as soon as all relevant countries denied the plane could have entered its airspace undetected by military radar. And don’t give us any crackpot theories how the plane was stealthy or how some countries didn’t detect it. Thailand does not have OTH radar capabilities and their radar operators have been foolish to have allowed an unidentified aircraft in their airspace and not raise any alarm. Potty Racers 3 New Space Missions Hacked Zombie. There is another assumption involved with accepting the southern corrider assumption: We/you/media/authorities/everybody seems to ASSUME that all relevant countries are TELLING THE TRUTH when they denied that the plane could have entered their airspace. For example, if some state agency planned and paid for such a maneuver, then why would we expect them to tell the truth and say that they detected the plane?

There is another assumption involved with accepting the southern corrider assumption: We/you/media/authorities/everybody seems to ASSUME that all relevant countries are TELLING THE TRUTH when they denied that the plane could have entered their airspace. For example, if some state agency planned and paid for such a maneuver, then why would we expect them to tell the truth and say that they detected the plane?

Because we’re not talking about one country, but several. It would have been impossible for the plane to get to China without flying through the airspace of several other countries along the way. At least one other country would have detected it and they would have absolutely no vested interest in lying, since they would be interested in uncovering the motives of the final destination country.

Hold up a minute. There are several countries located on the northern corridor that MH370 could access without flying over any other country. For example, the most obvious would be northern Myanmar (Burma) which is a direct flight into their airspace. Eastern Thailand is also on the northern corridor and that’s an easy zip-zag back in. Also look at eastern India (Aranchal Pradesh). Sure, it could be a tricky flight path but you can get there flying only over India.

Furthermore, it hasn’t been confirmed that the westbound flyover of the Malay peninsula is really MH370. East of the peninsula, the following countries lie on the Inmarsat ping map and are readily accessible via direct flight w/o violating anyone else’s airspace: Cambodia, Vietnam, & Chinaas well as Malaysia (Borneo) and Indonesia (Borneo, Java). I’m with you on the unreliability of the reporting of the truth from those nations. First of all they don’t really want anyone to know what their capabilities are, up and down the scale. Second, who wants to admit they were the dummies who watched this plane fly right past them and didn’t have the slightest idea it shouldn’t have been there. Also, is every second of radar transmission saved for later review? Can you actually go back and count the airplanes after the fact to see if there was an extra little blip?

If not, do you want to be the technician to tell your superiors that you really weren’t paying that much attention? If you are that nation and you can rewind the tape, do you really want to tell the world that, your bad, you weren’t actually paying that much attention? I would also guess there is some alarm that gives you the heads up if somebody veers off the main path – I mean, your new car can now tell you somebody has slipped into your blind spot so I would guess your radar system might not completely make you rely on your own keen focus in the middle of the night, so really, do you actually need to count them up ALL the time? After all, what are the chances that somebody was going to try to slip a big old commercial airliner past you in the middle of the night.

Not possible. I guess everyone’s money is on the worm hole thing. >I’m with you on the unreliability of the reporting of the truth from those nations.

First of all they don’t really want anyone to know what their capabilities are, up and down the scale. They’re perfectly fine with having everyone overestimate their capabilities. Plus, Thailand released the information very reluctantly and only after an official inquest.

>Second, who wants to admit they were the dummies who watched this plane fly right past them and didn’t have the slightest idea it shouldn’t have been there. Also, is every second of radar transmission saved for later review? Can you actually go back and count the airplanes after the fact to see if there was an extra little blip?

There’s raw data available usually. And it’s specifically to review whether the operators were diligently performing their duty.

>If not, do you want to be the technician to tell your superiors that you really weren’t paying that much attention? If you are that nation and you can rewind the tape, do you really want to tell the world that, your bad, you weren’t actually paying that much attention?

Thailand was already criticized for it, and the operators are going to be severely reprimanded for ignoring a plane that shouldn’t have been there in the first place. >I would also guess there is some alarm that gives you the heads up if somebody veers off the main path – I mean, your new car can now tell you somebody has slipped into your blind spot so I would guess your radar system might not completely make you rely on your own keen focus in the middle of the night, so really, do you actually need to count them up ALL the time? After all, what are the chances that somebody was going to try to slip a big old commercial airliner past you in the middle of the night. Not possible.

If this was USA, Canada, a country in Europe*, Russia, China, India, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, etc., then yes, they are paying attention and no, they will not allow an airliner to slip past. Plain and simple. However, you are talking about countries that are in constant chaos and reorganization. This is a severe hamper to its normal operations. *) And even then, you can’t presume too much.

I mean, the Polish official (military) airliner crashes in Russia and the local government is upholding the official Russian version that has been proven, time and again, incorrect or flat out wrong on several key facts, it never launched an investigation of its own, leaving it all to Russians, and some of the people directly responsible for the disaster were promoted rather than discharged, so who knows? Just the facts please (and dont call me Shirley): 1. According to the new official transcript, MAS370 self identifies by voice as “MAS 370” but later when handing off from Lumpur Tower and Lumpur Approach changes to “Malaysian three seven zero” – and after that the voice doesnt change back or interchange those terms. Question: Is it indicative of someone else communicating, or is it strange to use one or the other terms? 20th minutes and 40th minute I read somewhere that the cockpit is “sterile” for the first 20 minutes of flight (sorry, I dont know what that means to be a sterile cockpit), and then accessible by the flight crew at the 40th minute.

If this is true and we we look at the time on the transcript, we can see that the 20th minute is between the two redundant calls about FL350, and the then the so-called turning off of the transponder happened right before or right after the 40th minute. Question: Is there any clue here? There is the long silence between 01:01:19 when ATC tries to communicate, and 01:07:55 when MAS370 finally responds, however MAS370 had always been quick in earlier responses. This six minute silence sounds peculiar and could possibly be the time when any hijacking was going on. Question: Aside from hijacking, what could the pilot have been doing to not respond for so long? If one pilot was busy for example in the bathroom, wouldnt the other pilot be around to speak up?

The Lumpur Radar (Area) transcript looks off. How is it that at 12:46:51 both MAS370 and ATC were talking at the exact same time? I guess they were talking over each other’s voice? Can a pilot sync up the transcript along with the flight radar, and see if anything seems off? I read about ACAR as well as another system called AHM, which sent out pings for different things, ACARS for events like departure, cruising altitutde throttle back, and landing gear deployment. And AHM pings sent based on regular time intervals, as opposed to being trigger by flight events. As we are being withheld information about all the pings, could it be that the last ping and the last partial ping are representing different systems?

Could it have therefore be an indication of landing gear being deployed? Thanks so much! About that letter talking about tracking and as pointed out by you Patrick, planes are already tracked and his argument is pointless anyways. Since you need a system onboard the airplane to send data or status and those will alwasy have the risk of malfunction, damaged or tampered with. There are patents, proposals for systems like cloudsourcing where planes track or keep tabs on each other creating a network, but that won’t change a thing since those systems are onboard the airplanes and subject to the same risk as when tracking with VHF or satellite. And covering any comments asking if VHF/Sat fail, why radars can’t keep track of planes over the ocean.

It’s because of the curvature of the Earth, once an airplane is a certain distance in the middle of the ocean thanks to the curvature the airplane will be out of sight from the radar. And really with all this media coverage, the following acronym would be the most fitting, MEDIA = Mass Erradicating & Destroying Intelligent Arguments. REMOTE CONTROL This one is full-on James Bond.??? «Boeing last week received a US patent for a system that, once activated, removes all control from pilots to automatically return a commercial airliner to a predetermined landing location. The “uninterruptible” autopilot would be activated – either by pilots, by onboard sensors, or even remotely via radio or satellite links by government agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency, if terrorists attempt to gain control of a flight deck.

21, 2006 By: John Croft Washington DC “??????? Patent – Nov.

28, 2006 – No.: 7,142,971 B2??????? Not science fiction. The US used remote control to land pilotless planes on aircraft carriers during atomic tests in the pacific in the 40’s and 50’s. In 1984, the FAA did a remote control crash test of a Boeing 720. The 777 is a fly by wire aircraft, so remote control is a lot easier – all you need is access to the flight computer which controls the plane. Impossible to hack a flight computer you say?

Here’s a BBC story: ‘Security researcher Hugo Teso was able to “hijack” the systems to feed false navigation information to a simulated jet that made it change course.” (April 2013 – a year ago) So if an amateur can do it with parts bought off ebay, what can the government do with unlimited funding? Probably a lot more than most of us would care to know.

I’m getting fed up with this stuff. And there is no such thing as a “flight computer which controls the plane.” People seem to believe in some proverbial “computer” that does all the work. I don’t understand what this is. And that Hugo Teso experiment, which I blogged about (see the blog archive), was a contrived and controlled experiment. Regardless it changed the plane’s course.

The pilots would then change it back. Or they could ignore the FMS and fly using basic course commands. Or they can disconnect the autopilot totally and steer by hand. And even if you could carefully control the jet’s course, speed, and altitude, and somehow couple it onto an ILS approach (this would entail hacking into several separate systems), you still couldn’t get the gear down or configure the thing for landing.

And what exactly does any of this have to do with the Malaysia Airlines flight? I’m getting fed up too, with silly statements like: “no such thing as a “flight computer which controls the plane.” Fly by wire has been around for some time. “Fly-by-wire (FBW) is a system that replaces the conventional manual flight controls of an aircraft with an electronic interface.

The movements of flight controls are converted to electronic signals transmitted by wires (hence the fly-by-wire term), and flight control computers determine how to move the actuators at each control surface to provide the ordered response. The fly-by-wire system also allows automatic signals sent by the aircraft’s computers to perform functions without the pilot’s input, as in systems that automatically help stabilize the aircraft.[1]” (Wikipedia) I don’t quite understand why you would make such statements, but I suppose you have your reasons. Fly by wire basically replaces cables. But, the paragraph above, if taken literally, does not mean what you think it means. To the layperson it sounds pretty impressive, with phrases like “flight control computer” and “automatic signals,” but you’re not seeing the bigger picture.

The 767 I fly — an early-80s era jet without fly-by-wire technology — has three “flight control computers,” none of which “fly the plane.” It also has the means to “perform functions without the pilot’s input” such as trimming and speed control when the autoflight components are engaged. Now, if you were really going to hack into a FBW system, about the best you could hope for is rendering the plane uncontrollable more or less instantly. I can’t imagine there would be a way to steer or guide the plane with any accuracy. We’re talking about basic maneuverability inputs to the ailerons and elevators. And if you could steer or maneuver with any precision, how would you then interface these raw guidance commands with any sort of actual navigation or altitude changes? The FMS has nothing to do with any of this, so you’d need to hack that too. Which wouldn’t work, because the pilots can easily and instantly disconnect everything from the FMS and use simple course (heading) commands, either via an autopilot (I believe there are three autopilots on the 777; same as the 767.) or entirely manually.

And we haven’t even gotten to power (thrust) control yet. Is the autothrottle system hackable too? Control over pitch and bank isn’t going to be useful if you haven’t got control over thrust also. The autothrottle system is entirely separate.

And if it’s acting weird, the pilots can simply switch it off. They could also fight against any rogue control inputs — unless, somehow, you’ve completely disconnected the steering column and trim controls from the FBW servos. And finally you’re going to somehow get this thing on the ground? Have you also hacked into the LNAV function and the ILS frequency selector?

And how are you going to adjust the flaps and slats for lower speeds, deploy the landing gear, and so on? These are mechanical controls. Did it ever occur to you that maybe you’re reading and hearing things out of context — simplified explanations and experiemental applications of technology, and that you’re extrapolating unrealistically? Because that’s exactly what you’re doing. In terms of how planes actually fly, how the automation works, and what pilots do, it’s pretty clear that you don’t know what in the world you’re talking about. That’s not an insult. I wouldn’t expect you to know or to really understand this stuff unless you were a professional pilot.

What is it that makes people such know-it-alls when it comes to flying? Everyone is a fucking expert, to the point where a non-pilot will actually argue with a pilot about the basics of flying. I’m hardly the best or smartest pilot on earth, but it took me 25 years to get where I am, and here I am being told by people who don’t fly, and who aren’t pilots, how wrong I am about how planes fly and what pilots do. I wouldn’t claim to know how to perform brain surgery, or how to operate a nuclear power plant, and even if I’d read extensively about those topics, I doubt that I’d go arguing with a surgeon or a nuclear technician based on what I’d read on Wikipedia. Is it possible, that due to some technical problem, fire, smoke, or similar,the crew was incapacitated, the plane continued on auto pilot, and then made a soft automatic landing in the sea without breaking up, similar to the landing of the jet on Hudson River? It would then sink slowly to the bottom of the sea, without leaving debris floating on the surface. Or if it crash landed, could it break up in such a way, that the main fuselage remains intact, wings and engines breaking off, but everything sinks to bottom of sea without leaving floating material on top?

The autopilot will not glide an aircraft and it cannot perform ditching. So rule out this possibility. Assuming the plane glides on its own, it will hit water and to quickly summarize your theories: 1. Soft landing in rough ocean: Impossible.

Breakup into large parts. I suppose it could happen, but it would be the best bet for the search operations.

Third theory, however, is more plausible. When a plane runs out of fuel and is not controlled, it will enter free-fall. There’s no real terminal velocity for an aircraft, since it will disintegrate before achieving Vt. Therefore, the aircraft will break up before hitting the surface at high speed, and this impact will cause any large parts to break up into debris. I got sent this on email a few days ago I didn’t know wether to laugh or cry. This will be soon made into a film by Paul Greengrass with either Matt Damon or Mark Wahlberg in the lead. There’s a new conspiracy theory going around about the disappearance of Malaysian Flight MH 370.

It goes like this: When the Americans were withdrawing from the Afghanistan, one of their command and control systems (used for controlling the pilotless drones) was hijacked by the Taliban, while the American transport convoy was moving down from one of the hill-top bases. The Taliban ambushed the convoy and killed two American Seal personnel, seized the equipment/weapons, including the command and control system which weighed about 20 tons and packed into six crates. This supposedly happened in Feb 2014. What the Taliban wanted was money, by selling the system to the highest bidder. The Chinese were very eager for the technology. Just imagine if the Chinese could master the technology behind the US’s command and control system, rendering the American drones useless!

The Chinese sent a team of top defense scientists to check the system and then agreed to buy it from the Taliban. Sometime in early March 2014, the Chinese scientists and the six crates of equipment made their way to Malaysia, thinking that it was the best covert way to avoid detection.

The cargo was then kept in the Chinese embassy under diplomatic protection. Meanwhile the Americans got the assistance of Israeli intelligence, and together they were determined to intercept and recapture the cargo. The Chinese calculated that it would be safe to transport it via civilian aircraft so as to avoid suspicion. After all the direct flight from KL to Beijing takes only 4 1/2 hours, and the American would not hijack or harm the civilians on board. So MH370 was the perfect carrier. There were five American and Israeli agents on board who were familiar with Boeing operation (the two “Iranians” with stolen passports could have been among them.

When Flight MH370 was about to leave the Malaysian air space and reported to Vietnamese air control, an American AWAC jammed their signal, disabled the pilot control system and switched over to remote control mode. That was when the plane suddenly lost altitude momentarily. How could the AWAC can do it?

Remember 911 incident? After the 911 incident, all Boeing aircraft (and possibly all Airbus) are installed with a remote control system to counter terrorist hijacking. Since then all Boeings can be remote controlled by ground control tower. A similar remote control system is used to control the pilotless spy aircraft and drones. The five American/Israeli agents soon took over the plane, switched off the transponder and other communication systems, changed course and flew westwards. They did not fly east to Philippines or Guam because the whole South China Sea air space is covered by Chinese surveillance radar and satellites.

The Malaysian, Thai and Indian military radars actually detected the unidentified aircraft but did not react. The plane flew over North Sumatra, Andamans, Indian ocean and then landed in the Maldives (some villagers saw the aircraft landing).

It refuelled and continued to Garcia Deigo, the American air base in the middle of Indian Ocean. The cargo and the black box were removed. The passengers had been eliminated through oxygen starvation. The MH370 with the dead passengers were then flown (via remote control) and crashed into South Indian Ocean, making it look like the plane eventually ran out of fuel and crashed, and putting the suspicion on the captain and copilot. The Americans put up a good show, first diverting attention and search efforts in the South China Sea while the plane was on its way to the Indian Ocean. Then they came out with conflicting statements and evidence to confuse the world. The Australians were their accomplices.

The amount of effort put up by China, in terms of the number of search aircraft, ships and satellites, searching first the South China Sea, then the Malacca Straits and the Indian Ocean is unprecedented. This indicates that China was very concerned, not because of the Chinese civilian passengers, but because of the high value cargo and its eight top defense scientists. Perhaps we will find out in a future episode of Wikileaks. You lost me four times. When you mentioned that the Taliban somehow captured a drone control system.

There’s no such system, other than human pilots flying the drones using standard military comms. True, the drones can be automated, but then they don’t rely on any signal from a base. When you mentioned that the Chinese would master the technology behind controlling drones and making them useless. It’s not like drones are some derelicts left behind by aliens that you would need to ‘master’ in order to control them. They could just switch the frequency and encryption and call it a day.

Then, I presume the control system is heavily encrypted and protected against tampering and any attempt to recover data from it would render it useless. Anyway, I would actually expect the US to do two things in such a case. First would be a new stuxnet straight at the military heart of the Chinese.

Second would be leading the Chinese to believe they can control drones remotely only for the system to spectacularly fail when they actually use it in combat. Remotely controlled airplanes. What a load of bollocks. Eight top defense scientists. Those Freescale workers?

Were they Chinese or American defense scientists after all? A suggestion: don’t buy a new car or Freescale will remotely control it and drive you off a cliff in it to keep you quiet. [IRONIC MODE = OFF] The fact that there is an unanswered question just means that a question is not answered. Sometimes is our own ignorance, other that for some specific reason/interest not all information is disclosed, etc. Of course, mystery experts, conspiracy theorists and priests dwell well on those gaps. The apparent contradiction you mention, pings vs. Velocity, to me (and I’m not at all an expert so corrections are welcome) is not.

You did not miss the part of the pings being absolutely identified with the missing aircraft, but you did miss the part where the pings do not provide absolute aircraft position (otherwise most probably the plane would have been found already). Those pings indicate that the plane was within a satellite cell (how big cells are? Probably many miles). Such data comes from a single source (it cannot be triangulated with another source for further accuracy and corrections) and furthermore, estimated velocity is calculated using the Doppler effect. There is nothing wrong, the science is pretty sound on this, but again we are working with estimates and ranges and not with absolute values. So to me, there is no mystery or conspiracy on those calculations being corrected or improved. [IRONIC MODE = ON].

I hate what passes for reporting in this mystery. We all heard about pings.

I guess I missed the part about the pings being absolutely identified with the missing aircraft. It certainly was assumed but I personally never heard it expressed explicitly. Next we have the new search area based on new estimates of the speed of the aircraft. Okay, flying faster, comsuming more fuel. How does this jibe with the seven hourly pings reported?

If it went down sooner than previously estimated are there now excess pings attributed to the this aircraft and what does that say about the new estimates? Again I have not heard any reporter or expert comment on this. Questions relating to the sudden loss of flight MH 370 1.Could the pilots of a modern Boeing 777-200 get lost if their computer navigation system suddenly failed in flight & could this explain why the plane turned around/got so drastically off it’s intended course? 2.could the pilots have been trying to re-boot the computer systems if the computer tried to send computer error messages and how long would this take to be restored/recovered?

Could a 777-200 still fly on auto-pilot if the pilots were overcome by a in flight fire? If the flight crashed could the wreckage be at a depth of 20,000/30,000 feet in an ocean trench and if so how would the black boxes survive being submerged in a depth so deep & for how long? Could the same/similar errors that downed Air France flight 447 have reoccurred in the case of the disappearance of flight MH370, And if so how will the truth ever be known if they can’t find the wreck site? How safe is the Boeing 777 series of airliner following the recent crashes of Asiana airlines flight 214 & British airways flight 38 & Malaysian airlines flight MH370?

They would have to be really bad pilots for that to happen. They knew they were on the right track, and if their navigation systems suddenly reported they weren’t, they would have been aware whether their plane was turning during that time! A pilot wold have to comment on this. But if the course was not changed, the plane would have continued on to PEK and entered a holding pattern there.

See Helios Flight 522. Yes it could. Yes, the black boxes would be recoverable. FDR and CVR use solid state storage and they are remarkably resilient. Even old magnetic tape was reliable in case of catastrophes, though. People have the misconception that if a human being can’t survive somewhere, any technology will not survive these conditions, either. Weather was excellent in their primary flight path, and even though it was already autumn where MH370 is believed to be resting, if the crew was disabled, the plane could not fly, etc., human error would not be a contributing factor (as opposed to AF447).

It is still very safe. No fatalities in BA38 and its root cause was resolved. Asiana was caused by human error. Even if MH370 turns out to be an aircraft malfunction, it is still very safe to fly (although Airbus A340 will then take the crown of being the safest plane in civilian service). However, this is just statistics.

You can never rule out human factor and the fact that in some cases the passengers were just very lucky (e.g., the plane they took unexpectedly exploded the next day, luckily killing nobody), and the plane will still retain its excellent safety record. 1.Could the pilots of a modern Boeing 777-200 get lost if their computer navigation system suddenly failed in flight? There are procedures to follow if such a thing happened. And it would be very unusual for there to be no secondary sources of navigation.

In the area where the MH flight was last seen, there would have been basic VOR and other nav sources available. Worst case, even a total FMS/IRS/GPS failure over the open ocean, we carry supplemental info that provides basic course instructions. 2.could the pilots have been trying to re-boot the computer systems? What does “re-boot the computer systems” even mean?

A 777 isn’t a MacBook Pro. Could a 777-200 still fly on autopilot if the pilots were overcome by a in flight fire? I suppose it depends on the fire. It also depends what you mean by “autopilot.” People love lumping all of a plane’s automation capabilities into that one word.

How safe is the Boeing 777 series of airliner following the recent crashes of Asiana airlines flight 214 & British airways flight 38 & Malaysian airlines flight MH370? Well, the 777 has been in service since 1995, and this is the first large-scale, presumably catastrophic event. And it may not have been an accident. Could a 777-200 still fly on auto-pilot if the pilots were overcome by a in flight fire? What was in the cargo someone did not want it to reach Beijing?

Why China sent so many ships for SAR? How many Chinese Govt. Staff – Engineers / scientists on the flight? What was the cargo? The flight had enough fuel 8Hrs to reach Diego Garcia and looks like it did head there as the people of Maldives saw the low flying aircraft. The passengers and crew would have become unconscious if the flight was deliberately plunged from above 30,000ft.

The Hijackers with the unconscious passengers and crew could have flown it to Diego Garcia to unload a precious cargo. Then refuel the aircraft and remotely control it to fly from there to remote Indian Ocean with timed explosives Where no one can find or salvage it. Boeing/US Air Force has the capability of remotely flying aircrafts and Boeing Engineering has done it too. That is why US sent very little support for SAR.

It must be the work of CIA the creators of Osama Bin Laden. Technology wise who has the expertise to do this – US Defense. Sorry to the good citizens of US – THE COMPANY is capable of doing anything under the sun being financed well without questions.

Pity the souls of the dead – my deepest condolences to the aircraft staff and the passengers. And nature will make someone pay by natural disasters. Its the rule of nature no nation can avoid. God Bless Their souls. Amazing what some people will do for a good mangosteen, huh?

But seriously, let’s go over some of your assertions, since some of the points are pure speculation, and it doesn’t make sense to comment on them. Well, ~160 passengers aboard were Chinese, Beijing was the destination and China is the greatest local power, and the only one able to field so much equipment. More practically, this is an immense opportunity to practise and test their maritime patrol skills. Diego Garcia is 8 hours away, and the plane had 7h30m worth of fuel, less if you account for the hour that already passed, all under optimum conditions. DG is British territory leased out to USA, there’s hundreds of people there, it’s not like you can land a plane there without anyone knowing and rest assured there would be at least one whistleblower. Maldives are at least a two hour diversion away from DG.

If the plane was flying low and over Maldives, it would have never made the distance to DG, let alone Maldives. Why would the plunge be necessary? And if the passengers and crew would become unconscious, why wouldn’t it affect the hijackers? It’s not like a 777 has provisions for plugging in a g-suit. Add to that the fact that a 777 is not a fighter jet (gee, are you surprised?) and it’s not designed to withstand significant forces acting on it. Passenger jets have been known to disintegrate during uncontrolled descent and the scenario you are suggesting is worse for the airframe. I can’t even imagine why the hijackers would need to get people on board unconscious.

If they managed to overpower all passengers and crew that would prevent them access to the flight deck and had nefarious motives, they could probably kill everyone aboard with their bare hands. Why refuel and fly out? Why not just cut down for scrap and and melt it down?

There’s risk that it IS going to be found and that this ruse would be detected. USA has the ANZUS treaty and under its considerations, the Indian Ocean is Australian responsibility.

US has a token presence there and there are no carriers available for an operation. What the US did send is quite a lot already, though. P-8 Poseidon is just entering service with US Navy as the most sophisticated ASW platform to date and is probably the best bet for the search. In fact, I’m sure that Boeing would love to have this plane find the first actual debris from MH370 and put it in the limelight for finding it. There, I just suggested another party to the conspiracy.

Knock yourself out tying Boeing into your tapestry. Check this out. Basically it reads – the International Business Times reported that the billionaire Jacob Rothschild ( Illuminati member )is now the sole owner of a patent semiconductor for Freescale, who had just happened to have launched a new radar electronic warfare system days before Flight 370 vsnished.Four co-owners of the patent plus 20 employees, mostly engineers, were onboard, now missing. Freescale shareholders include Carlyle Group of private equity investors with past advisors including former US President George Bush Snr and ex British Prime Minister John Major.

Carlyle’s clients include Saudi Bin Laden group company owned by the family of Osama Bin Laden..Frightening connections but the debunkers I guess will continue to scoff and mockI would love to be proved wrong in my suspicions believe me! That ridiculous assertion again? Did you know Freescale is more than a defense contractor and that their defense contracts are a tiny speck in their profits, with automotive electronics being the greatest contributor of revenue? Regarding FS employees on board, do you realize that to actually work in the defense industry, the person must be cleared to work with top secret tech, and that usually requires US Citizenship? I’m not a US citizen, I work for a company that serves defence contractors and US military, and I can’t even take a glimpse at their service requests, much less check any details, and you’re suggesting a foreign national would work on military technology? On what planet?

Did you even read the patent? Do you know what it entails? The patent is for a new method of laying out dice on a silicon wafer to optimize the number of obtained circuits. It’s not rocket science and the patent is one of many methods that you can apply mathematics to the question of the optimal layout. Second, do you realize that Freescale had full rights to the patent one way or another? The four Chinese inventors named in the patent are not its owners!

The assignee, Freescale, is. Furthermore, all technology companies protect their assets by requiring all inventions patented by the employee during his course of employment to be transferred fully to the employer (which usually entails a monetary reward). The deaths of these passengers changes nothing in terms of patent ownership, licensing or allowed usage. Third, there’s no certainty that any of the four inventors were actually aboard MH370, even though you can match their names with the manifest. However, the manifest makes no mention of the employer whatsoever.

With over a billion Chinese people, you would expect some of their names to duplicate. In fact, due to their naming conventions, there were no fewer than 5 individuals with exactly the same name on the plane!

What’s frightening is that some people will believe any ridiculous conspiracy theory that fuels their paranoia. Possible scenario: As the flight cross the south china sea. Some people emerge from the flight saying they are from CIA and wants the captain and copilot to move away and they take control because the plane has X in it. Given the gravity of the situation the crew agrees 2. A highly trained fighter pilot(or group) turns of all communication systems and takes the plain to a secret facility without anyone being let known.They make sure to make the least noises in any radars 3.

The one thing they forget is the hourly ping tracked by the UK based private company. The plane is either destroyed or taken to an unknown airstrip or military base 5.US joins the rest of the world for a massive hunt.while they know what really happened. One must notice that satellite data about possible debris is coming from nations like china,japan,UK and even Indonesia and no such info from a country who probably owns and operates the largest number of satellites!. 6.US send in highly trained FBI agents with a secret motive to sabotage the investigation with false data or know how much the investigations by the other countries are progressing. My approach to this is more about removing what didn’t happen based on the available information rather than attempting to determine what did happen without information. Personally, I think there is a lot to be determined from what initially occurred around the Malaysian peninsula.

Events that were dismissed by Malaysian authorities even when they happened and have not been revisited since are important. Firstly, around 8 separate police reports of a low flying large aircraft were made by locals around the 1.20am time at Marang Beach on the east coast of Malaysia and a couple more at Bachok beach, around another 150km north. I see these events as rather significant as they suggest that the plane flew directly back down its initial course from the IGARI waypoint to KLIA, then at the coast line turned right and flew in a north westerly direction to intercept a vector between the IGARI – VAMPI waypoints before continuing on the already identified VAMPI, GIVAL, IGREX path before turning south. The interesting aspect here is that to fly up the east coast of Malaysia would be fundamentally a manual task as there are no waypoint to track to or from. I would also suggest that as the plane was already much closer to KLIA than Langkawi there was no attempt to get the plane down due to some structural event. Even adding to the Canadian pilot article where he suggested that the plane would have gone for Langkawi as the terrain was lower is false. The geographical elevation along a vector from IGARI to Langkawi is almost identical to one from IGARI to KLIA, and KLIA would have much better support for an emergency.

So I would suggest the path taken would indicate nothing critically wrong with the plane that needed immediate attention or disabled the pilots or systems. Furthermore, for a flight that turned so far south, the route taken around the Malaysian peninsula strongly indicates a deliberate intention to be avoided. 1) it crossed the peninsula at the Malay, Thai border which, would tend to not alert the ATC of either country, then proceed to make a very wide berth around a very active surveillance of Indonesian airspace. All up, very deliberate and with a fully functional plane. Suicide of the pilot would also seem something to be ruled out. Far too complicated a flight path and avoidance of detection for someone interested in ending it all. Someone with grown children who most likely would not wish a legacy of his actions to forever remain with his children.

At his age, people mellow out. You have strong views and persuasions but tend not to be so intent on such drastic actions. As for being a strong supporter of the Malaysia opposition; many Malaysian would be strong supporters and want to see an end to the cronyism and corruption that exists today; and anyone who attended Anwar’s trial would not have been surprised at the decision albeit disappointed. If you were to make a political statement with the plane, there are some much better places you could have crashed the aircraft to get attention. So a quick summary, for me, is that there was nothing wrong with the plane ad it was deliberately flown where it went, and the pilot was not responsible for any suicide mission.

Beyond that, it just becomes theories and guesses but I.