People who are advancing or dismissing the theory of pilot suicide based on such things as religion or lack thereof, being into flight simulator and all the other variables have to remember that anyone who is intent on doing something that will result in their death does not think and reason the same way that most other people think and reason. Its like when a person takes a handful of aspirin and winds up in the hospital because they "tried" to kill themselves. Those people are crying out for attention. The person who is really intent on doing so will, in most cases, never be seen beforehand as someone who would. It seemingly comes out of nowhere, until it is examined afterwards and things begin to surface that makes it understandable as to why it happened. This goes for people who commit "common" suicide, and those who die in the process of doing something for a "higher purpose" such as religious or political beliefs. Until the aircraft is located, or unless some sort of drastic revelations about the crew are realized, everything and anything is on the table.

In the last 24 hrs, the few facts that we have are starting to make sense.
The bizarre scenarios with their cohort of sightings/sat images, ..are fading away, e,g. how come not a single debris between Malaysia and Vietnam if a catastrophic event forced an immediate crash.

What we simply have is an aircraft that has become uncooperative. It is flown by folks that know what they are doing (flying wise) but do not want for the time being to be identified, understood and tracked. They may have made a mistake at 01:30 when answering a voice call from another 777 ahead of them with static, mumbling, ... but that mistake was their last.

Primary radar pings west of Malaysia with no transponder response make total sense. The plane is flying like a commercial airliner over standard routes but with a failed transponder. ATC does not see it, military probably think it is a civilian aircraft with a problem and ignore it.

Then come hourly health messages sent by the on-board satcom (I proposed that mechanism yesterday morning to reconcile WSJ article with Malaysia's briefing). It is not clear whether they contain location messages ( I read conflicting statements on that issue). If they don't that is really too bad and we can most likely blame it on the high price of a bit transmitted over the scarce L-band spectrum attached to a satellite global beam. I still think that location info may be there if Inmarsat4 (not 3) was used and some on-board equipment had an occasional need to transmit over one of the satellite's spot beams.

SAR have a difficult task when searching for an aircraft that wants to be found. But if that aircarft DOES NOT WANT TO BE FOUND, it becomes an incredibly daunting task.

Quoting Trin (Reply 98):

Could you be so kind as to poke a couple of holes in the argument please?

How are you so sure that the aircraft is not on land?

Quoting Mouldypete (Reply 103): Could you be so kind as to poke a couple of holes in the argument please? How are you so sure that the aircraft is not on land?

I really don't have the time to, but for starters the entire first third of the article sounds like an advertisement for 'FlightRadar24', and at the end is this little gem of a statement:

"All the other possibilities like terror attack, hijack or mid air disintegration etc. have been eliminated by now."

I suggest they go global to all news sources with their breaking story of being able to debunk and 'eliminate' the hijacking/terror possibilities, as the international community is currently trending towards THOSE theories being the most plausible and, therefore, the writers of the article need to let everyone know that they can categorically dismiss them, and show their reasoning why.

Also, in the case of Kenyan Airways 257, the wreckage was found (and states by the article was found) approx. 48 hrs after the plane went missing. We are *substantially* removed from a timeframe like that for MH370, and this comparison is at best elementary and at worst obtuse.

ALSO, the Malaysian peninsula is dotted with small communities and larger cities, along with roads. We are NOT talking about a deserted island with no communications here. A crash of a craft as large as the 777 would have undoubtedly been noticed.

If you cannot see the rest of the 'holes', then I cannot help you.

[Edited 2014-03-14 09:08:40]

[Edited 2014-03-14 09:10:41]

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 101): They may have made a mistake at 01:30 when answering a voice call from another 777 ahead of them with static, mumbling, ... but that mistake was their last.

Not true.

Even if it was true, answering this call could have been a ruse to mislead the other 777 crew (and by extension, the investigators and us)...


David

Hmmm... what is this AVHERALD update about a primary target being located? And jet fuel found...
Edit: Oh, it's a radar target.

"In the afternoon of Mar 14th 2014 Malaysia's Transport Minister re-iterated, that there was a primary target seen indeed, it may be MH-370 but could be any other aircraft too. It can neither be confirmed nor ruled out that this radar target was MH-370. As result the search areas are being widened into the Indian Ocean beyond Andaman Islands to the west as well as to the east further into the South China Sea. Two oil slicks have been discovered near the position of last contact, one of these oil slicks contained jet fuel, however, it is not clear whether this jet fuel comes from MH-370 or not. Malaysia is sharing data that would normally not be shared with the public in the interest of national security. Media reports that the aircraft transmitted any data beyond the point of last contact are not true."
Source: http://avherald.com/h?article=4710c69b&opt=0

[Edited 2014-03-14 09:12:12]

As the days go by, it's more and more likely something is being withheld. The area where the plane disappeared has blanket coverage from both the US and China as it is highly contested. The Malacca straights carry like 25% of the world's tonnage. It is not a remote outback and neither country needs to rely on Malaysian radar.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 104): Quoting BackSeater (Reply 101): They may have made a mistake at 01:30 when answering a voice call from another 777 ahead of them with static, mumbling, ... but that mistake was their last. Not true.

It's hard to keep up with the details, so I will ask: This report from an anonymous captain has been neither confirmed nor refuted, right?  

Not sure if this was posted before but inmarsat confirms that they received signals from MH 370
- http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...tomated-signals-from-mh370-397034/

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 101): Then come hourly health messages sent by the on-board satcom

I think it's very clear now that no EHM messages were sent after the last reported one that happened shortly before the transponder quit.

My theory as to why SATCOM pings might contain location data is because they are collected with a wide receiver that covers a lot of area, potentially 1/4-1/3 of the planet, but due to bandwidth congestion over such a large area the return signal needs to be sent with a more focused beam (I believe I read about 200-400km wide?). For that purpose, the sat would need to know where to aim to complete the handshake. Then the actual data would be transmitted over that focused beam.

I believe this is plausible because trying to use a focused receiver to collect the handshakes and make assumptions about their location would take up valuable bandwidth for 'garbage' like keep-alives (e.g. not the data they are paid to transmit).

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 79): - There are subsequent primary radar returns west over Malacca Straight. - Since it is primarily radar - a reflection - we do not know that it is the accident a/c. - We STILL do not know if it was a track (multiple returns) or a few points returns.

First, thanks a lot for your summaries!

I'm fairly sure that the airforce chief, in the press conference of day 3 (or day 4, it was the one with the correction of the misquoting, which created a bit of bruha here) stated explicitly that those return came up upon reviewing the radar tapes.

I also remember that it was a few returns, not a track. In any case not someone tracking it live on radar.

Quoting neoshi (Reply 105): Media reports that the aircraft transmitted any data beyond the point of last contact are not true."

I would characterize the purported SATCOM handshake "pings" as transmitted "data" (though perhaps not "information"). Not sure what the authorities are trying to say here.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 104): Even if it was true, answering this call could have been a ruse to mislead the other 777 crew (and by extension, the investigators and us)...

Indeed, could be a ruse, depending who was in the cockpit at that time and what freedom they had.

First time posting. After ~10 years of lurking it was finally time to chime in.

While I still hold out hope that the MH-370 hasn't been used for less than honest intentions, lets operate under the following assumption: The plane was intentionally hidden, and flown to a remote airfield.

One thing that I have not seen mentioned: This would have been six plus days ago. Searching now may be completely useless as the plane could have re-fueled, offloaded passengers and cargo, and be who-knows-where by now. I have to assume that the worlds air-defense agencies were not looking for unrecognized aircraft in their airspaces 4+ days ago.

It's for these reasons alone I hope that plane did ditch/crash simply because the longer we go without evidence to the contrary, the more worried I become about the real intentions.

Can any commercial pilots shed some light here:

In the normal course of operations, the pilot who handles comms with ATC is not the pilot in control, correct?
So in the normal course, the F/O would have been in control when the Cap't radioed "All right good night" to Malaysian ATC, right?

Assuming that's true, how common would be, on a transcontinental flight, for the crew to trade control in the first 40 minutes.

What I'm getting at, ultimately, is whether it would be at all interesting if we were to learn that comms prior to "all right good night" were made by the F/O and not the Cap't.

Quoting hivue (Reply 112):

Yeah I think the best we can conclude now with all the conflicting info is: MAYBE.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 98): Simple question - why? You and your passengers will be dead anyway. Why would you go at such great lenghts for the same end result?

last minute doubts maybe?

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 101): ATC does not see it, military probably think it is a civilian aircraft with a problem and ignore it.

Is this standard? Meaning that if military ATC tracks a civilian aircraft in trouble they just ignore it?

Quoting JimJupiter (Reply 107):

Now I haven't found a source about contradicting or confirming of this.

http://www.nst.com.my/nation/general...lished-contact-with-plane-1.503464 still hasn't been retracted or corrected. Hmm

If the response was mumbling and with much static, it could be that they were at the edge of VHF range.

But am I right in the assumption that this VHF transmission should have been heard by other crews?


David

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 115): Assuming that's true, how common would be, on a transcontinental flight, for the crew to trade control in the first 40 minutes.

They'd do it for something as simple as a bathroom break

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 118): If the response was mumbling and with much static, it could be that they were at the edge of VHF range. But am I right in the assumption that this VHF transmission should have been heard by other crews?

If there were others on the same frequency they'd have heard it. But, there is no way to know that transmission came from MH370, if it even occurred. Comms can be noisy in the best of times.

Quoting 757gb (Reply 90): Maybe, but although I don't remember the exact words, he did make a specific reference such as "that's what should have been done from the start..."

A curious things to say, since they've been searching also in the Straits of Malacca / Andaman Sea since day 2, and they've announced it too... There was quite a discussion here, with people calling them to task for 'wasting SAR resources', go figure...

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 115): What I'm getting at, ultimately, is whether it would be at all interesting if we were to learn that comms prior to "all right good night" were made by the F/O and not the Cap't.

Am I correct in thinking that the timing of events would indicate that, if a flight crew member actually is responsible for all this, it would have to be the one making the "all right goodnight' call to ATC? There wouldn't have been enough time for a takeover of the plane between the call and the transponder going dead.

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 108): Not sure if this was posted before but inmarsat confirms that they received signals from MH 370

Who is the guy who kept doubting reports of satellite data ("FULL STOP")? Does this person wish to retract their statement now? This is big.

Moderators please, open new topic for MH370 theories.
This one is one big headache to folllow if someone want's to be up to date on search efforts.
Please keep facts and fantasy in separate threads, thanx

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 118): Now I haven't found a source about contradicting or confirming of this.

Thanks, me neither. I'm sure I read something about officials (where from?) rejecting this as incorrect, but the online "news" reports on this are a giant haystack...   

Quoting hivue (Reply 121): Am I correct in thinking that the timing of events would indicate that, if a flight crew member actually is responsible for all this, it would have to be the one making the "all right goodnight' call to ATC? There wouldn't have been enough time for a takeover of the plane between the call and the transponder going dead.

Someone please correct me if this is inaccurate, but at handoff this shortly after take-off both should crew members have been in the cockpit? I would assume one pilot might step out for a minute only after communication has been established on the next center?

If both pilots are likely to have been on the flight deck it would seem to indicate something other than a hijacking or pilot commandeering.

Quoting RDUDDJI (Reply 89): If it's a suicide, why bother flying for another 4 hours after switching off the transponder

Probably because it's harder to find a plane in water that's 15,000 feet deep, and in an area hundreds of miles away from where a suicidal pilot would know searchers would be looking, than 100 feet deep and right on the plane's flight path.

Quoting MarcoT (Reply 92): This is not correct.

It is correct, however you want to qualify the earlier statements some people made here. The bottom line is the plane was flying. That's the point.

Quoting AYVN (Reply 123): Please keep facts and fantasy in separate threads, thanx

How would the figure out what needs to go in which thread?  

Whilst I agree that foul play seems increasingly likely, is a hypoxia- or otherwise induced incapacitation of the crew completely ruled out?

Could it be that they begun to turn around, after an initial problem, then became incapacitated, and the aircraft continued to fly in the mode/direction it was in? That would comport with the several hours of continued data from the engines. Although it doesn't explain why the transponder was off...

I apologize if this is addressed before. With 23 threads (the largest in A.net history?) it is hard to keep track of all the twists and turns.

“The investigation into the pilots is ongoing,” he said in response to another question, but said they have not yet searched their homes.

This one confirmation - if true, sums up my feelings of the Malaysian handling of this whole saga. Inept! Shocking that its taking nearly 1 whole week and they still haven't searched the flight crew's homes for possible evidence of foul play. Utterly disgraceful.

Quoting AT (Reply 128): Whilst I agree that foul play seems increasingly likely, is a hypoxia- or otherwise induced incapacitation of the crew completely ruled out?

With no airplane to study they cannot rule out anything that might have happened on it.

Quoting AT (Reply 128):

Probably that's possible, some reports said they were following some airway though but who knows, the pilots could have just set a heading that followed that airway before passing out.

Quoting RDUDDJI (Reply 91): So you think both pilots had a suicide pact? Or one pilot offed the other before crashing the plane? If it's a suicide, why bother flying for another 4 hours after switching off the transponder... Not saying it didn't happen, just saying it doesn't make sense to fly for another 4 hours if the plan is simply to kill everyone...

Oh, I believe it's most likely that one pilot incapacitated the other, under this scenario. Flying out of the the deep Indian Ocean can certainly make sense as I and others have suggested, i.e., so that the real cause will never be found sparing family, friends, etc. of the shame of suicide and homicide.

Has tomnod actually publish images of the east and west part of KL?

If this thing wound up in the Sunda/Java Trench, we may never find it.

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

Quoting SEA747 (Reply 114): One thing that I have not seen mentioned: This would have been six plus days ago. Searching now may be completely useless as the plane could have re-fueled, offloaded passengers and cargo, and be who-knows-where by now. I have to assume that the worlds air-defense agencies were not looking for unrecognized aircraft in their airspaces 4+ days ago.

Not that I consider this to be likely, but it is sort of creepy that whoever did this stole a 772-ER, of all types of plane. With "ER" being the important thing here. Fully fuelled, but otherwise empty save for two lunatics on the flight deck, and with a single nuke in the cargo hold, this plane could easily reach most sensitive places on the planet from wherever it might have initially ended up at. Which does set it apart from most other planes that could have been stolen (the even more capable -LR version is much rarer).

But as I said, I do not buy this, as everyone who would be a really good potential target (US, Israel) has very good airspace defences, and would now be waiting for something like this to show up. And not let any unidentified airliner get anywhere near their premises. Add to that the small but rather significant issue of where to get a nuke from. And the fact that it would be infinitely easier to just use a less conspicuous means of delivery - a car, truck, pretty much anything except for a *huge* stolen jetliner. So the whole angle of the plane having been stolen for weaponisation purposes makes very little sense, really. For every conceivable way the thing could be used as a weapon, there are other means to inflict the same sort of damage with orders of magnitude less effort and risk to the organisation doing it.

Except, perhaps... bear in mind that if we are considering such scenarios, we are basically trying to understand the motives of total lunatics.

Maybe, just maybe, someone has decided that it's time to do something with a jetliner again. You know, for old time's sake, to repeat the sort of fun they had at the WTC. Irrespective of the fact that there would be much easier ways to blow up whatever it was they had in mind. Maybe it just has to be a jet for these dudes, for some insane reason that would make Dr. Freud's hair fall out. With our species, it's sometimes really hard to see where the attribute "sapiens" comes from.

But, to repeat: I do *not* consider any of this to be plausible. This was just trying to think one particular train of thought to its end.

(This comment was already made in a simpler form earlier, in reply to a post that was later deleted by the moderator. Which took the earlier version of this comment with it.)

Quoting flyorski (Reply 125): Someone please correct me if this is inaccurate, but at handoff this shortly after take-off both should crew members have been in the cockpit? I would assume one pilot might step out for a minute only after communication has been established on the next center? If both pilots are likely to have been on the flight deck it would seem to indicate something other than a hijacking or pilot commandeering.

If one pilot "hijacked" while the other pilot was outside the cockpit, how on earth could he continue for four hours? AFAIK, there are ways for the cabin crew (and a locked-out pilot) to access the flight deck by force if necessary, so surely they would not have sit in the cabin for four hours and waited how things developed. Same applies if one pilot overpowered his colleague on the flight deck - a reasonably alert flight crew would have noticed a sudden change of course and the lack of communication from the flight deck.

So if the flight indeed was taken over and continued for a couple of hours, a hijacking by passengers seems to be more plausible.

However, I still believe that some sort of emergency is the most plausible explanation. Crew turned around, the emergency resulted in a loss of communication first and then developed into a Helios 522-scenario - and the flight continued until it ran out of fuel.

Quoting hivue (Reply 121): Am I correct in thinking that the timing of events would indicate that, if a flight crew member actually is responsible for all this, it would have to be the one making the "all right goodnight' call to ATC? There wouldn't have been enough time for a takeover of the plane between the call and the transponder going dead.

Quoting flyorski (Reply 125): Someone please correct me if this is inaccurate, but at handoff this shortly after take-off both should crew members have been in the cockpit? I would assume one pilot might step out for a minute only after communication has been established on the next center?

That's what I'm getting at - both pilots should have been on the flight deck when the Cap't said "all right good night." Since the transponder went dead, it appears, almost immediately after, it would suggest if this was a crew initiative that the Cap't was in control and the F/O either was incapacitated or a participant.

My original question, then, was how common is it for pilots to trade control and comms duty in the first 40 minutes of a transcontinental flight? My guess would be "not very common (though by no means unheard of)". If that's correct and if we were to learn that F/O was handling comms prior to "all right good night" it would suggest that the F/O was incapacitated prior to "all right good night" cause in the normal course he and not the Cap't would have been the one signing off with Malaysian ATC.

Again, I have no idea who was handling the prior comms. I'm just saying that might be an interesting bit of information if the assumptions above carry any water.

Quoting virgin744 (Reply 129):

Probably they need search warrant etc...don't know how does it work in Malaysia and how long does it take? I don't know whether they can just break in his house and start looking for stuff as a raid.

Also they might say anything about this yet unless they reach to conclusion, in background official people must be involved in looking in both pilots.

Quoting AYVN (Reply 123): Moderators please, open new topic for MH370 theories. This one is one big headache to folllow if someone want's to be up to date on search efforts. Please keep facts and fantasy in separate threads, thanx

Yes please. The few pieces of new information here are hard to find buried amongst the 100's of "how to hijack" a plane posts.

Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 137): when the Cap't said "all right good night."

Do we know the captain made the call?

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 126): Probably because it's harder to find a plane in water that's 15,000 feet deep, and in an area hundreds of miles away from where a suicidal pilot would know searchers would be looking, than 100 feet deep and right on the plane's flight path.

But what's the point if you are about to kill yourself to fly hundreds of miles away so that the plane is harder to find, why would it matter to him how hard the plane is to find? Unless they are one sick minded human being.

Quoting AT (Reply 128): Could it be that they begun to turn around, after an initial problem, then became incapacitated, and the aircraft continued to fly in the mode/direction it was in?

I was thinking of that too (i am not prepared to blame the crew, especially with theorires that this was done on purpose by one or more crew mwmbers). However, I still don't understand how no part of the aircraft has been spotted with half the world looking for it.

Quoting SEA747 (Reply 114): While I still hold out hope that the MH-370 hasn't been used for less than honest intentions, lets operate under the following assumption: The plane was intentionally hidden, and flown to a remote airfield.

It's highly unlikely the plane landed safely. The first thing anyone would do if they landed in a strange place is turn on their phone...there were 239 passengers on board and many people would have done that. This is just natural behavior.

As soon as the phone connects to a cell tower, we would know where the plane is. However, the Wall Street Journal reported that China Mobile and other phone companies attempted to locate the cell phones of the passengers and were unable to find them. Which probably means the plane was destroyed or they landed in an airfield so remote there are no cell phone towers nearby. The latter is unlikely.

Even if the passengers were asleep or knocked out when the plane landed, they would have eventually woken up and pulled out their phone. Or if someone pointed a gun at the passengers, at least one person's survival instincts would have kicked in and at least attempted to send a message or make a call.

[Edited 2014-03-14 09:59:58]

Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 117): Quoting vfw614 (Reply 98):Simple question - why? You and your passengers will be dead anyway. Why would you go at such great lenghts for the same end result?last minute doubts maybe?

Suicide is a bizarre thing, and while people who take their own life are clearly not thinking clearly, at the same time we often see them brilliant and coldly logical in how they commit themselves to the act. In other words, they make the decision to take their life, but know, sometimes by experience, that our self-defense instinct is strong, and can chicken out. So they short circuit that instinct by doing an act that does not cause death directly, but puts them in a position that death is inevitable. Such as "suicide by cop", people who wander into the cold winter weather beyond a point that they can change their mind and make it back to safety, stepping off the roof or bridge and letting gravity do the deed, or, maybe, flying a plane over the ocean beyond the point that they have the fuel to successfully return...

Hell, if it was the pilot, maybe he also wanted to "real world" a situation he'd done in the simulator, such as coffin corner or overspeed limits...

Quoting 2008matt (Reply 141): But what's the point if you are about to kill yourself to fly hundreds of miles away so that the plane is harder to find,

To make it look like a hijacking gone bad?

Quoting hivue (Reply 140): Do we know the captain made the call?

It's been reported that the Cap't made the call. Granted, a lot of things have been reported that have subsequently been unreported, but this seems like a fact that would be hard to mess up unless you were just making it up completely:

http://www.examiner.com/article/mh37...h-s-last-words-from-mh370-revealed

This is a huge potential hijacking because if the plane did turn around then there is no reason why the captain didnt make any kind of contact. But at the same time... my god... how in the world u lose a 300 million dollar plane without any notice or clue. I believe malaysian government know something that we dont know. Trust me.

Quoting max999 (Reply 143): Or if someone pointed a gun at the passengers, at least one person's survival instincts would have kicked in and at least attempted to send a message or make a call.

I've heard of people who can text intelligently with the phone in their pocket.

Quoting max999 (Reply 143): It's highly unlikely the plane landed safely. The first thing anyone would do if they landed in a strange place is turn on their phone...there were over 250 passengers on board and many people would have done that. This is just natural behavior.

And of course there will be a cell tower close enough to wherever they land that will immediately accept the connection from some random device and connect the call. Many interesting assumptions there in that theory that do not hold true in many parts of the world - specially in remote areas.