MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 32

btfarrwm · Mon Mar 17, 2014 2:55 pm

Quoting ushermittwoch (Reply 40):
Okay, not sure if this has been brought up, but apparently the captain was a big supporter of the opposition and the FO was the son of a government bigwig.

That seems like a better motive for kidnapping, not murder.

Burkhard · Mon Mar 17, 2014 2:55 pm

So now we are again at the situation that the ACARS was disabled after the F/O said good bye, which means that gain every of the million speculations may be true, from complete failure of electrity over cockpit fire...

I have the impression that the theory of a captain or F/O getting mad, or killing each other, or fighting, or working together with a Hijacker, is something that all authorities would love to be the case. Nobody who is still alive would be to blame, no airline officials, no maintenance crew, no airport security, nor foreign terror group, no Boeing, no RR, no chaotic SAR - the perfect outcome.

hivue · Mon Mar 17, 2014 2:56 pm

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 48):
Do we know what kind of transmission they were expecting?

Good question. If there was a transmission that routinely would have come in at that time and it did not, that could suggest that ACARS had been shut down. As I mentioned above, it seems like someone should be able to clarify this whole issue pretty easily.

MarcoT · Mon Mar 17, 2014 2:56 pm

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 11):
I completely disagree with that. In *prepared* statements, one by the Prime Minister, they said they definitely know that ACARS was disabled outbound off the east coast, leading everyone with any sense to believe that this must have been a deliberate act by people who were in control of the aircraft at that time. This was widely reported as fact.

How fast do we forget...

From thread 21, post 13:

Quote:

US officials believe ACARS was shut down ten minutes before the transponder.

"Two U.S. officials tell ABC News the U.S. believes that the shutdown of two communication systems happened separately on Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. One source said this indicates the plane did not come out of the sky because of a catastrophic failure."

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...hed-indian-ocean/story?id=22894802

If it weren't for US leaks (assuming they are correct), what would we know?

So the ACARS thingie was one of the oh-so-truthful US leaks that, thankfully, help force those pesky infid Malaysians to come clean... Indeed...

Maybe the ABC News sources were just leaking (incorrect or misunderstood) infos passed to the US from the Malaysians side. Maybe not, and they were leaking US originating infos, now apparently revelead not entirely correct...

It seems that there's the possibility that yesterday the Malaysians said what they said relying on received wisdom after all...

MarcoT · Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:00 pm

Quoting capri (Reply 32):
From a DHS source, “based on a current intel briefing I feel confident saying we have a 75% chance of not finding a trace of #MH370”

The fishy twitters things sounds more and more like the prophecies of Nostradamus...

Das Flugzeug · Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:01 pm

I haven't posted here in a long time, but this sad story has me intrigued. Has anyone read this blog entry below? Seems like a plausible theory to me as a layman. Thoughts?

http://keithledgerwood.tumblr.com/po...airlines-370-disappear-using-sia68

slinky09 · Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:08 pm

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 41):
At this point if you're not sure it has been brought up, 99.9% chance it has been brought up.

That is just about the only confirmed fact in all of these threads!

liquidair · Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:08 pm

Seems like the Malaysian airlines spokesman is taking the landing in Taliban controlled areas seriously....

http://www.bing.com/r/1A/JLabJ?a=1&m=EN-GB

it can't be that crazy a theory if they're actually considering it.

nupogodi · Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:09 pm

Quoting MarcoT (Reply 53):
So the ACARS thingie was one of the oh-so-truthful US leaks that, thankfully, help force those pesky infid Malaysians to come clean... Indeed...

Actually, "Marco", it was not a leak but it was stated directly by the Prime Minister of Malaysia in a prepared media statement where no questions were allowed. You'd know if you were paying attention. Hold your snark and I'll hold mine.

ROSWELL41 · Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:10 pm

I don't understand all the disbelief to the pilot suicide theory. Some of these other theories I've read on here are so outlandish, I just can't wrap my head around them. Remember Occam's Razor - I feel it applies here. Or remember what my uncle once told me: "When you hear hoof steps, think horses not zebras."

MarcoT · Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:13 pm

Quoting ushermittwoch (Reply 40):
Okay, not sure if this has been brought up, but apparently the captain was a big supporter of the opposition and the FO was the son of a government bigwig.
Seems like a good enough motive, imho. No real need for further speculation.
Why not just kill the FO, well, this way, it makes the whole situation way more dramatic and mysterious.

Someone (maybe even more than one person) already suggested an even more linear story along this line:

There's an altercation. Someone lose it and do something that alas cannot be undone. He cools down, realize what he have done ('Blood, is that blood on my hands?' or something) and then...

Ok, far fetched and a bit melodrammatic, but a lot more believabe that all the whacko conspiracy theories out here...

Finn350 · Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:15 pm

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 48):
Do we know what kind of transmission they were expecting? I thought next transmission would be at landing. Apologies if this has been already discussed.

I remember reading in one of the numerous threads here that ACARS might be configured to the send four Engine Health Reports: take-off, climb, cruise, and landing. It might be that the climb report was at 1:07 am, and the cruise report was configured to be sent 30 minutes after the climb at 1:37 am. If it is not the cruise report it might be some ACARS related handshakes every 30 minutes. However, I don't have factual information how ACARS communications operate.

Edit: quote corrected due to renumbering of the replys

[Edited 2014-03-17 08:22:43]

[Edited 2014-03-17 08:23:12]

hivue · Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:15 pm

Quoting Das Flugzeug (Reply 55):
Seems like a plausible theory to me as a layman.

The shadowing other planes idea has been discussed in earlier parts.

hivue · Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:17 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 61):
Quoting hivue (Reply 47):Do we know what kind of transmission they were expecting? I thought next transmission would be at landing. Apologies if this has been already discussed.

That's not my quote. You need to be sure to click the correct "Quote Selected Text" box.

Finn350 · Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:19 pm

Quoting MarcoT (Reply 60):
There's an altercation. Someone lose it and do something that alas cannot be undone. He cools down, realize what he have done ('Blood, is that blood on my hands?' or something) and then...

Ok, far fetched and a bit melodrammatic, but a lot more believabe that all the whacko conspiracy theories out here...

I believe that if the disappereance indeed is a hijack by a pilot it was well planned in advance. The pilot must have thought out how to incapicatate the other pilot, what communications has to be switched off, how to fly as far as possible from primary radar coverage, where to crash/ditch the plane etc.

k83713 · Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:23 pm

Quoting ROSWELL41 (Reply 59):

Need to know for sure before falling into that. See, ancient people thought stars are just painted on the blanket around Earth, and Earth rests on three whales. It's easy because it suits their understanding. Nevertheless, there can be another mechanics behind, for which not enough information to explain it...

hivue · Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:23 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 61):
However, I don't have factual information how ACARS communications operate.

And some of us are wondering if the Malaysian authorities do either.

glbltrvlr · Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:29 pm

Quoting David L (Reply 4):
I was addressing a pretty solid reason that the WSJ has been able to beat the press conferences to the punch.

Jon Ostrower writes for the WSJ on aviation matters. He's extremely knowledgeable and well regarded in the industry and has many very good sources. If Jon reports something that later turns out not to be true, it won't be due to lack of diligence.

AirbusBoeing · Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:31 pm

One of the scenarios being suggested is that probably the pilot hijacked the plane, turned off the comm and flew west, and then maybe even north west and land in Afghanistan, or whatever country it might be.

I feel that if that was the intention of the pilot, and he had been planning this for a long time, why would he do this on this flight, wouldn't he do it when he was assigned one of the European route flights. That way he wouldn't have to do all the evasive maneuvers for 5-6 hours.

P.S. My assumption, of course being that international flights' pilots are rotated on different routes continuously.

MarcoT · Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:33 pm

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 58):
Actually, "Marco", it was not a leak but it was stated directly by the Prime Minister of Malaysia in a prepared media statement where no questions were allowed. You'd know if you were paying attention. Hold your snark and I'll hold mine.

I fully know. The point, that you missed, is that it first came to light as a leak from 'US officials' on the 13th and that we don't have a way to know if the statement made yesterday was predicated upon *their* infos or infos passed to them, like the above mentioned fact could (note the could) support. But sure they alone are taking the blame for that...

LTC8K6 · Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:33 pm

The only way this plane landed anywhere would be with the help of a government, imo.

It's under water as far as I am concerned. I can't see any government getting involved.

Just a matter of time before evidence of the crash shows up.

k83713 · Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:35 pm

Quoting AirbusBoeing (Reply 68):

So why he didn't take his wife, kids and FS rig with him?

11Bravo · Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:40 pm

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 58):
Actually, "Marco", it was not a leak but it was stated directly by the Prime Minister of Malaysia in a prepared media statement where no questions were allowed. You'd know if you were paying attention. Hold your snark and I'll hold mine.

The ACARS issue is complex and I don't pretend to understand it completely. What I do understand completely, however, is that various "Malaysian Authorities" have been very unreliable and sporadic sources of accurate information. Their performance, particularly that of the Malaysian Air Force, has been extremely poor. It now seems the ACARS was disabled sometime between the transmission that was received at 1:07 and the next expected transmission at 1:37. It might have been disabled either before or after the final voice communication (1:19) and the final transponder data (1:21)

tomlee · Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:40 pm

Quoting enilria (Reply 31):
They've had over a week to search their vast trove of internet data.

Problem is the internet makes a new vast trove of data every second in a week unless your in the business of constantly buying datacenters and more storage space you can't actually store all that traffic. Not even Google, Microsoft, Netflix attempt to store that much information and if your just slurping down network traffic so much data is going to have to be stored your going to have to get rid of a lot of it as to not fill all your disks. They basically have a CVR on the internet but it at most can store a few days of everything they touch and metadata for far longer. But without the actual data the meta-data capture stuff isn't useful unless there is something else to go on. I'm not even sure you could run dedup on storing that much network traffic not to mention storing encrypted data is not compressible and you really have to pick and choose what to keep.

Basically monitoring the internet requires immense resources and even then you can only really keep a small bit of it for long. Most of the traffic is uninteresting but takes up most >99% of the data so they are literally looking for little gold specs in river rapids with a big bucket.

rcair1 · Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:40 pm

Sanity Check - 3/17/2014 14:30Z
There is (will be) a link to this post in my profile under "homepage"

•	3/17/14 14:30Z update since last Sanity Check.
•	The facts have not changed much. The a/c has not been found.
•	I've tried to be as factually accurate as I can - but I'm not an expert in each system - so if there factual errors please advise.
•	I've added a time-line section and expanded on the fire, ELT and updated Theory/Conspiracy Theory sections
•	I think I have clarified the ACARS was disabled part
•	Loaded updated corridor maps.
•	Added a/c information.

First a synopsis

•	The ship took off normally and headed on course to Beijing
•	The last ACARS transmission was 01:07 local.
•	The last comms were "All right, good night" transmitted to Malaysia ant hand-off to Vietnam control. Vietnam was not contacted. It has been reported it was the First Officer's voice.
•	NOTE: Saying "good night" or "so long" or "see you" or "Go Broncos" (okay not that one) is very common for hand-offs.
•	The transponder stopped transmitting at 1:21 - loss of secondary radar.
•	There are reports of a climb to 45K, uneven descent and some changes in altitude. Since this is based on primary radar - altitude data is somewhat uncertain. The last has been reported as 29,500ft but that seems in dispute.
•	There are subsequent primary radar returns west over Malacca Strait and then north west. Since it is primarily radar - a reflection - it does identify the a/c, however it has been correlated with SATCOM pings so confidence is high that the returns are from MH370
•	SATCOM system pings continued for 7+ (last ping at 08:11 local) hrs after LOS (loss of signal)
•	SATCOM pings do not locate the aircraft but based on correlation to signal strength there are two loci that indication aircraft distance from the Satellite.
•	These are not paths and I have changed my language to reflect that. They represent a distance from the satellite.
•	Loci one is north over Andaman Sea, Bay of Bengal as far as Kazakhstan/Turkmenistan and is consistent with primary radar.
•	Loci two is south over the India Ocean west of Australia. We've had no reports of radar signals in that area.
•	The last SATCOM ping was at 8:11 am Malaysian time. At that time it would be dark on the north radius and light over the south radius.
•	Best data I have is SATCOM pings are hourly - so the 8:11 ping could be up to 1 hour before the aircraft stopped 'pinging'.
•	We have no ELT signal detected.
•	While authorities (Malaysian) have not confirmed this is a hijacking or purposeful event - it is believed that is highly likely by most, however, motivation is unknown.
•	Debris reported by Greek oil tanker has already been reported as not relevant.
•	Recent reports attributed to the FBI that the plane 'could have landed' and sent a satellite signal from the ground appear to be just confirming what we already knew - that the SATCOM pings could come from an a/c in flight, or powered up on the ground..
•	There have been no reports that a Rolls Royce EH report was sent upon landing.

Time-line (from CNN)

•	1.07 am - Last ACARS transmission.
•	1.19 am - Last verbal communication "All right, good night" from the plane; believed to be the co-pilot
•	1.21 am - Transponder switched off
•	1.30 am - Civilian (primary) radar lost contact
•	1.37 am - Expected ACARS transmission; not received
•	2.15 am - Last military primary radar contact
•	8.11 am - Last (hourly) satellite handshake

ACARS

•	ACARS is an automated aircraft communication system that transmits a/c information, primarily maintenance information, to maintenance facilities like the airline, Boeing, Engine Manf, etc.
•	ACARS is NOT a flight system - it is not needed for safe flight.
•	ACARS is a subscription service and costs money. All indications are the MH370 was subscribed only to engine health monitoring and data from that is sent to Rolls Royce.
•	ACARS communicates via VHF or SATCOM (and maybe Wifi at the gate). The communications channel depends on availability and is independent of the ACARS.
•	ACARS can be instructed not to use SATCOM or VHF from the Cockpit. This would effectively stop ACARS from sending data. Access to the EE bay is not required.
•	While it has been widely reported that ACARS was "disabled before the transponder", that claim seems to be incorrect. We think it is a misunderstanding based on when the last ACARS was received and the next expected.

ACARS data from MH370

•	The ACARS system sent 2 engine health reports to Rolls Royce, both prior to the LOS event.
•	The Rolls Royce page indicates that a 'snapshot' of engine data would be sent at: takeoff, climb, cruise and landing. We know 2 ACARS Engine Health reports were received, so that would be consistent with the 1st two.
•	The last engine health report was received at 1:07am. The next was expected at 1:37 am and was not received. This indicates that the transmission of ACARS data was disabled between 1:07 and 1:37, but not when during that period.
•	The Engine Health report received prior to LOS had 'interesting' altitude data/fluctuations including 40K drop in a minute. That data is suspect.
•	Since no "landing" report was received, then either the ACARS communication was disabled, or the a/c did not land.
•	We have not heard if ACARS would send a report upon fuel starvation flame-out.

SATCOM

•

SATCOM is a communications channel - Satellite Communications. It is a radio system that uses satellites to communicate various information.

•

SATCOM is not ACARS - it is one of the channels ACARS can use.

•

The SATCOM system on MH370 was connecting to Inmarsat 3 satellites. In the area covered, the only satellite with coverage is IOR.

Big version: Width: 720 Height: 516 File size: 199kb

•

Since only 1 satellite has coverage, no triangulation is possible. All that can be determined is distance from the satellite. This has been used to define 2 potential loci were the a/c could have been.

•

North Corridor

Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 768 File size: 114kb

.

•

South Corridor

Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 768 File size: 71kb

•

We do not know if these corridors are defined by the last SATCOM ping, or multiple pings.

•

We cannot distinguish if the a/c was flying or parked on the ground (powered up) when these pings were sent.

•

We have not been told how the distance from IOR was estimated - it could be signal strength or time of flight (signal propagation time).Opinion: as an EE I think signal strength is unlikely - it would depend on things such as a/c orientation. Time of flight - which is how GPS works - seems more likely.

•

NOTE: While these may appear as paths - they are not. They are simply a set of potential locations based upon ping data. The aircraft could have been in a constant standard turn circle somewhere along one of the loci (red lines) and the satellite could not tell. We only know it was somewhere along those lines.

SATCOM Pings

•	The SATCOM system sends (or responds to) periodic 'pings' to/from the satellites (hourly). These 'pings' are a network communication that says "I am here."
•	SATCOM pings are not communicating a/c status, they are part of the communications channel. They are akin to registration pings on a cell system.
•	The last pings were detected at 8:11am Malaysia time. This does not mean the aircraft went down or landed at this time, only that the last ping was 8:11. Source I've seen indicate the pings are hourly - but that is not confirmed.
•	SATCOM pings provide no aircraft heading, speed or altitude information, however, distance from the Satellite can be estimated, and ONLY distance.
•	Based on analysis of the SATCOM pings by Inmarsat, two possible corridors have been predicted based upon a radius from the satellite picking up the pings.
•	SATCOM pings would be sent as long as the system (aircraft) was power up and withing coverage area. So, on the ground, if powered up (thanks to mandala499).
•	People have asked if SATCOM pings could come from a crashed plane if the right parts survived.
•	Very unlikely. The system is not self contained, the equipment, power and antennas are separate.
•	Recent news about the fact that the plane could have landed really appears to be just a restatement of known data.
•	Specifically - the SATCOM pings could have been sent from an aircraft powered, but landed - or from an aircraft in flight.
•	Again: These pings to not contain ANY data about the aircraft position, speed, altitude, etc.
•	The 'location' data inferred from the SATCOM pings is based analysis of those signals which gives an approximate distance from the satellite to the a/c.
•	Since the satellite is in geosynchronous orbit (~22,000 miles), the difference in distance between a flying aircraft and one on the ground is probably not measurable.

CRV/FDR Data

•	The CVR (cockpit voice recorder) and FDR (flight data recorder) do not transmit data in flight.
•	They do emit sonic pings if immersed. These will last a minimum of 30 days. We can expect sonar is being used to listen for them.
•	The CVR reportedly is a 120 minute CVR so it would contain only the last 120 minutes of flight (presuming it did not fail or was turned off prior to that).
•	I don't have data form the recording time of the FDR, but it is typically much longer.

ELT

•	The ELT, or emergency locater transmitter is mounted in the rear of the aircraft - difficult to access in flight.
•	The ELT is battery powered - independent built in power source. It is this source that is suspect in causing the 787 fire at Heathrow.
•	The ELT will be trigged by G forces in a crash. It will not operate under water.
•	The ELT can be triggered from the cockpit - it is a hardwired switch not dependent on computer systems.
•	The ELT transmits on the guard frequency (VHF) and on 406MHz to satellites. If it had been triggered, satellites would have heard it and been able to locate the a/c. That is isn't purpose in live.

Primary versus Secondary Radar (brief tutorial)

•	Primary radar is based on the original military usage. It sends out a strong (KW to MW) signal and looks for a reflection from something.
•	Primary radar provides distance and location. Comparing returns speed can be determined. Strength of return can indicate size.
•	Stealth a/c and ships are designed to absorb or miss-direct the reflection so primary radar cannot see them.
•	Primary radar does not depend on the transponder, so turning off a transponder will not make an a/c disappear from primary.
•	Primary radar is less prevalent than secondary - and more typically military tho ATC's do use it.
•	Secondary Radar is really not Radar in the defined sense. It is directional communication.
•	In secondary radar a directional signal is sent out (much less powerful than primary). Any a/c with a transponder that receives it will respond (the transponder responds) with information about the aircraft.
•	Combined with the direction of the outgoing beam, the time of flight information and returned information, the a/c location and identity (and other info depending on the mode) is returned.
•	Secondary radar is the primary method used by ATC.
•	If the transponder fails or is turned off - secondary radar will not see the a/c.
•	In the case of MH370
•	The transponder was turned off - so the a/c disappeared from secondary (ATC) radar.
•	A target was tracked west, then northwest using primary radar. That target was correlated with SATCOM pings help determine it was MH370.

Way-point Tracks

•	The use of way-points to the navigate are conjecture. They happen to line up with the direction indicated by the primary radar returns and Inmarsat data to the north.
•	While many believe the aircraft was under control - we cannot conclude if these way-point were used, or just coincidentally along the path.
•	A 777 can be programed to follow a series of way-point automatically - this is normal operating procedure and a 777 pilot would need no extra practice/training to do it. (Relevant to pilot flight simulator ownership)

Airworthiness Directive

•	The airworthiness directive about corrosion near the SATCOM antenna does not apply to this ship.
•	The ship DOES have SATCOM - but uses a different antenna

Cargo and Lithium Battery Fires.

•	There are reports that the cargo in MH370 did not receive normal X-ray screening.
•	There are also statements that the shipment held nothing hazardous or remarkable.
•	There are reports of a shipment of lithium batteries on the a/c and that perhaps they caused a fire.
•	The hold of a passenger a/c like the 777 is protected with Halon and detectors - so a fire in the hold would be detected.
•	The EE bay is not so protected.
•	Therefore some think a fire could have occurred and been suppressed. This does not directly explain loss of comms.
•	Opinion: as a firefighter, I doubt this. The fire would destroy the a/c. However, those on the forum with more knowledge of these systems disagree

Aircraft Type and Fuel State

•	The aircraft was a Boeing 777-200ER. MTOW 656,000 lbs, 301 3 class passengers (standard Boeing Config - does not reflect MH specific config.)
•	The aircraft could land in 6000 ft, or much less at high risk. As little as 3000ft has been stated, but it could not take off from there.
•	The aircraft would need a hard surface to land - this is heavier that has been done on steel matts.
•	It is reported the aircraft 45 to 60 minutes extra fuel. This would amount to about 7-7.5 hrs of fuel. This is a normal amount for this route.
•	The figure at this link show max range for the 777-200ER. NOTE: MH370 was not fueled for this range. http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/com.../777_range_singapore.pdf

Search Areas (including those that have be halted)

•	Along the planed route. I believe searching in this area is ending or decreasing based on new data indicating the a/c is not there
•	West over the Malacca strait
•	North west of Malacca strait
•	Along the two loci predicted by the SATCOM pings which continue north to Kazakhstan/Turkmenistan and south to the India Ocean.
•	These are huge search areas - I do not have a good handle on what assets are deployed where
•	It appears the north loci is considered more likely because of primary radar signals that roughly correlate.
•	I would expect review of primary radar west of Australia is in process if not done.

Mobile phones

•	We continue to have lots of discussion on "mobile phones" - can the connect in flight, etc.
•	We don't have any reports or evidence of that any passenger or crew mobile phone has registered with any network.
•	Until we have that data or reports - I believe the mobile phone discussions are not useful.
•	UPDATE: This subject continues to be discussed. But, we have had no reports of cell phones registering with towers - we are in a loop here.

Theories and Conspiracy Theories

•	Currently, it seems most believe there is some positive action here - hijacker or crew based.
•	Opinion: Mostly, I believe this is because a mechanical failure that selectively terminates communication, incapacitates the crew/passengers, but then allows the a/c to fly on uncontrolled for 7 hours seems unlikely.
•	There are lots of theories out there - some clearly "conspiracy based" some just factual. Often it is hard to distinguish.
•	Here are a few.
•	A fire broke out that incapacitated passengers and crew - but allowed to aircraft to fly on it's own till starvation.
•	Corollary to this - the fire would have to disable comms, or cause the crew to disable comms in an attempt to fight it.
•	Corollary to this - the fire drove the pilots out of the cockpit.
•	Corollary to this - the fire disabled comms, nav and systems, and the crew - still alive - got lost trying to return.
•	The a/c was hijacked and flown to a remote strip to be used in a future terrorist act.
•	Corollary to this - The breadth of the countries searching alone makes this problematic, but it is not impossible.
•	The aircraft "shadowed" either a KLM or SIA aircraft to hide from radar then turned off the track and landed.
•	Questions raised - lot of discussion about if this was possible.
•	A mechanical failure depressurized the a/c and disabled the crew/passengers either rapidly or without their knowledge.
•	Corollary to this - What disabled comms?
•	One of the pilots hijacked the plane to commit suicide. (See Pilot Conspiracy below).
•	The plane was hijacked, either with or without crew involvement.
•	Despite the belief this is incident required human actions - we have no evidence of that. Rather - no other theory seems credible.
•	Freescale engineers have been hijacked for sensitive US data. Opinion: As an engineer who has worked with Freescale - I find that unsupportable. Companies send groups of employees around all the time. While many companies have policies about the # of executives on a flight - that typically is not enforced on regular employees.
•	There was something in the Cargo worth stealing - which is why it was not screened. This would require involvement of lots of people on the ground. Why not steal it on the ground.
•	The plane was full of undeclared gold.Gold is very heavy - what would you declare the cargo as?
•	The US hijacked the 777 using on board FBW technology to fly it like a drone to Diego Garcea (this one wins the insanity case).
•	Related: There has been a claim by counter terrorist expert that this could be a "cyber hijack" - a malicious attack of a FBW a/c. I don't know where to go with this - only reporting it because I'm trying to stay ahead of the next craze. Opinion: (speaking as an EE) this is the stuff dreams are made of (bad dreams).

Pilot Related Conspiracy Theories (some of this is my opinion).

•	The crew and passengers are a focus of investigation. Particularly the crew, because of the difficulty of managing an external cockpit intrusion.
•	The pilot has received a lot of attention because: 1) He supports opposition politics, 2) He has a mongo flight simulator, 3) There are rumors of family problems (debunked).
•	To address the data on a few of these:
•	1) The pilot supports opposition politics and may have been at a trial of the opposition leader (confirmed 'ordinary' member of opposition party). Opinion: What is the motive for suicide in this case?
•	2) The pilot has a very fancy flight simulator. People claim he used it to for this. Opinion: A 777 pilot does not need to train for the flying done - he knows how to do that stuff already. What he needs it planning for violent action/takeover. A flight simulator is no help.
•	3) There are rumors of family problems reported from China. This has been reported as untrue.

IN summary what we know is. (This has NOT changed)

•	The a/c disappeared from secondary radar and stopped communicating. We do not know why or what happened to it.
•	There is evidence from SATCOM and Radar that the a/c traveled west - then most likely north west.
•	Hourly SATCOM signals show the a/c was operating till at least 8:11am Malaysia time, over 7 hrs total flight time
•	We have not found it despite multiple governmental agencies from multiple countries searching hard.

Additional thoughts.

•	A hijacking or positive intervention by human agency seems likely.
•	The erratic altitude and course may indicate a struggle on board.
•	While we would like to believe the a/c landed safely somewhere, that seems unlikely to have happened unobserved.

That is all.
Respectfully Submitted - rcair1

[Edited 2014-03-17 09:33:40]

David L · Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:45 pm

Quoting glbltrvlr (Reply 67):
Jon Ostrower writes for the WSJ on aviation matters. He's extremely knowledgeable and well regarded in the industry and has many very good sources. If Jon reports something that later turns out not to be true, it won't be due to lack of diligence.

Perhaps "beating to the punch" is a UK thing. I was referring to the news reports appearing chronologically before the official statements not necessarily being an indication that the press reports were "forcing" the investigators to reveal information they hadn't planned to release.

Thunderboltdrgn · Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:47 pm

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 74):
Sanity Check - 3/17/2014 14:30Z

Excellent stuff rcair1.

I think this mostly old news even if the article is fresh;

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...es-southasia-idUSBREA2G10320140317

[Edited 2014-03-17 08:48:13]

3rdGen · Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:48 pm

How could anyone suggest that he landed at an airport without anyone knowing? Its ridiculous.

Quoting AirbusBoeing (Reply 68):
One of the scenarios being suggested is that probably the pilot hijacked the plane, turned off the comm and flew west, and then maybe even north west and land in Afghanistan, or whatever country it might be.

Which Airport in Central Asia is accessible for a B777 to land at without the knowledge of local authorities? If you're going to suggest this then you might as well add all the possible hollowed out volcanos with secret runways which one can land at. Last time I checked the Jepp chart there were 3 or 4 nice ones just off the west coast of Australia!

There is NO way this airplane has landed at a airport in one piece, simply NO way. There is no runway long enough, out of site of government authorities anywhere in the world where this aircraft could let down without someone knowing! And I know of no government that has any beef with Malaysia to want to take on the Malaysian government by helping a rogue pilot hijack a Malaysian Airlines plane.

This plane must have crashed somewhere, its just a matter of time until someone finds it.

solarflyer22 · Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:49 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 64):
I believe that if the disappereance indeed is a hijack by a pilot it was well planned in advance. The pilot must have thought out how to incapicatate the other pilot, what communications has to be switched off, how to fly as far as possible from primary radar coverage, where to crash/ditch the plane etc.

That was my point of view as well. It seemed a little too pre-meditated. If they recover the wreckage and the CVR and FDR have been disabled and contain nothing usable it would also indicate something pre-meditated as well. I suspect neither recorder will have much valuable information.

capri · Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:50 pm

the question that all agencies are working on in my belief is if it really landed there is a big problem to solve other than, look we found it and they are all dead, but the outcry from the world will be: what was taken off it and what could be done with" quickly the media will forget about the finding of the plane ans start talking about the heist, so all agencies trying to figure where is this "cargo" before it goes out of control

that is IF we follow the theory about the "cargo/assets/people/documents(paper//digital)" hijacking and it becomes true, some agencies know more than the others I tend to believe and are not sharing

[Edited 2014-03-17 09:22:53]

RightRudder · Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:54 pm

Not to be overly picky, but is it still refered to as the cockpit? We are in the digital age and I have not heard one media station mention it in the correct, present day term.

jox · Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:55 pm

Many here focus on the (lack of) available airports to land on. I have too little knowledge of the geography in the tentative areas. Are there dry lake beds, like those in the Mojave desert etc? Landing on such an area could then be a possibility, but hiding the plane would be even harder than at an airport.

tomlee · Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:55 pm

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 78):
That was my point of view as well. It seemed a little too pre-meditated. If they recover the wreckage and the CVR and FDR have been disabled and contain nothing usable it would also indicate something pre-meditated as well. I suspect neither recorder will have much valuable information.

Well them being disabled is valuable information in itself. Which is another reason CVRs should record as long as the FDR as flash memory is pretty good at the whole memory density thing as to not allow people to just let it loop around to effectively disable that channel.

flyenthu · Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:59 pm

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 74):
Time-line (from CNN)
• 1.07 am - Last ACARS transmission.
• 1.19 am - Last verbal communication "All right, good night" from the plane; believed to be the co-pilot

I watched that as well. So, that now opens a new theory that ACARS may NOT have been deliberately switched off before the last verbal message from the copilot to Malaysian ATC at 1:19am. In other words, the theory that the alleged event had already commenced before the last verbal communication was received at 1:19am is now questionable. CNN also implied that ACARS was on because the plane kept sending the pings to the satellite. So, what I glean from this is data transmission part of ACARS got disabled, yet the satellite communication part of ACARS kept working until the pinging stopped. Plot twist??

hivue · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:01 pm

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 74):
Hourly SATCOM signals show the a/c was operating till at least 8:11am Malaysia time, over 7 hrs total flight time

And that length of time would strongly suggest actively controlled flight by a person(s), right? No struggle for control of the aircraft would be likely to last 6+ hours.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 74):
It appears the north loci is considered more likely because of primary radar signals that roughly correlate

Which suggests the person(s) implied above did not intend to fly the plane out into the middle of the ocean till it ran out of gas and thus be lost with no hope of anyone ever finding it.

Thanks again for the great summary. (I agree with your current insanity award.)

tomlee · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:02 pm

Well it seems like some countries along the northern route are responding with the expected,

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/mis...-missing-plane-its-airspace-n54581

in which they did not detect and confirmation of US/RUS bases with substantial radar capabilities. All they need to do is get every country along the arc to double check with their own primary radar or that of foreign military bases. China is one of the largest parts of the northern arc so double checking their own radar records would be useful. It shouldn't take too long to exclude the northern route and focus things down to the southern less monitored area.

btfarrwm · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:02 pm

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 74):
1) The pilot supports opposition politics and may have been at a trial of the opposition leader (confirmed 'ordinary' member of opposition party). Opinion: What is the motive for suicide in this case?

According to this article in the Mirror, the captain's "opposition views" were PRO-democracy. And the "opposition leader" he supported was jailed for being a homosexual. That's not exactly the profile of someone who would seek asylum from islamic extremist groups.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...sian-airlines-flight-mh370-3248001

tomlee · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:03 pm

Quoting flyenthu (Reply 83):
yet the satellite communication part of ACARS kept working until the pinging stopped

Well I think you mean the inmarsat modem kept working while the ACARS system was not working.

hivue · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:04 pm

Quoting flyenthu (Reply 83):
what I glean from this is data transmission part of ACARS got disabled, yet the satellite communication part of ACARS kept working until the pinging stopped.

I think there is no "satellite communications part of ACARS." ACARS just makes use of SATCOM like other things on the plane would (sat phones or whatever).

Gatorman96 · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:04 pm

Quoting jox (Reply 81):
Many here focus on the (lack of) available airports to land on. I have too little knowledge of the geography in the tentative areas. Are there dry lake beds, like those in the Mojave desert etc? Landing on such an area could then be a possibility, but hiding the plane would be even harder than at an airport.

Not sure off the top of my head about dry lake beds, but what would be the point to hijack an aircraft and then land it somewhere where the aircraft is no longer usable with no way to contact anybody?

jox · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:06 pm

Quoting gatorman96 (Reply 89):
Not sure off the top of my head about dry lake beds, but what would be the point to hijack an aircraft and then land it somewhere where the aircraft is no longer usable with no way to contact anybody?

You could take off from the dry lake as well.

11Bravo · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:06 pm

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 74):
Sanity Check - 3/17/2014 14:30Z

Thank you so much for continuing to place this info in each thread. I think your information summaries are maybe the best source of information I've seen anywhere including major news agencies.

hivue · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:07 pm

Quoting gatorman96 (Reply 89):
then land it somewhere where the aircraft is no longer usable with no way to contact anybody?

Why would it no longer be useable? And not being able to contact anybody would imply that nobody would be able to contact -- i.e., find -- it. Truck in some fuel and if there's room to take off...

capri · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:07 pm

Quoting tomlee (Reply 85):
in which they did not detect and confirmation of US/RUS bases with substantial radar capabilities. All they need to do is get every country along the arc to double check with their own primary radar or that of foreign military bases. China is one of the largest parts of the northern arc so double checking their own radar records would be useful. It shouldn't take too long to exclude the northern route and focus things down to the southern less monitored area.

most importantly what they should look for is follow every flight that night and see IF another blip separated off it at certain point of the route to confirm or bury this plausible theory about "shadowing"

RightRudder · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:08 pm

Quoting jox (Reply 81):
Many here focus on the (lack of) available airports to land on. I have too little knowledge of the geography in the tentative areas. Are there dry lake beds, like those in the Mojave desert etc? Landing on such an area could then be a possibility, but hiding the plane would be even harder than at an airport.

The runway (strip/area) would need at least 3 things. It needs to be long enough, wide enough, and dense enough to sustain that weight.

Thunderboltdrgn · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:09 pm

Quoting jox (Reply 90):
You could take off from the dry lake as well.

perhaps but from where would you get enough fuel to this remote lake bed,
to refuel the aircraft if you want to use it again?

[Edited 2014-03-17 09:11:01]

hivue · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:10 pm

Quoting btfarrwm (Reply 86):
That's not exactly the profile of someone who would seek asylum from islamic extremist groups.

You mean "someone who would seek asylum with islamic extremist groups?"

hivue · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:13 pm

Quoting thunderboltdrgn (Reply 96):
perhaps but from where would you get enough fuel to this remote lake bed,
to refuel the aircraft if you want to use it again?

From wherever you could. This is exactly the kind of thinking I, if I was stealing an airliner to use later for some terrorist thing, would want my pursuers to be thinking.

edmountain · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:19 pm

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 51):
So now we are again at the situation that the ACARS was disabled after the F/O said good bye, which means that gain every of the million speculations may be true, from complete failure of electrity over cockpit fire...

Indeed, this revelation (or clarification) is in fact a huge step back.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 74):
Time-line (from CNN)
• 1.07 am - Last ACARS transmission.
• 1.19 am - Last verbal communication "All right, good night" from the plane; believed to be the co-pilot
• 1.21 am - Transponder switched off
• 1.30 am - Civilian (primary) radar lost contact
• 1.37 am - Expected ACARS transmission; not received
• 2.15 am - Last military primary radar contact
• 8.11 am - Last (hourly) satellite handshake

The only reasonable conclusion seems to be that the event started by 0121h; everything else is on the table. The following scenarios seem possible:

Event begins prior to 0119h; last verbal communication is a ruse. This would seemingly implicate the co-pilot if he indeed was the source of the last transmission. Cockpit intrusion with the transmission made under duress is also possible.

Event begins between 0119h and 0121h. This does not seem like a large window of opportunity for a hostile cockpit intruder to overcome the crew. Technical malfunction is however a possibility. A rogue pilot/co-pilot overcoming his colleague is a possibility too.

It would be helpful to know what communications occurred prior to the final communication at 0119h as that might provide clues as to which scenario is more likely.

mouldypete · Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:19 pm

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 74):

Thank you for the sanity checks. So necessary and so clearly laid out.
There is just one small typo I suspect. Did you actually mean to say that the primary radar did NOT identify?

And on a related subject. I recall a very early report that the Vietnamese authorities alerted Malaysia to the possible turn around of the a/c. I mention this because watching Sky News just now, an "aviation expert" wondered aloud why the Vietnamese radar had not seen the flight.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net