Quoting Lizzie (Reply 143): Clearly the plane being piloted by someone with malign intent is a possible explanation for the behaviour of the plane,

Lady, do you think I posted the simplistic architecture above just to be a wise ass ?
In this case, psychology or not, you totally miss my point.

It does, in a simple form , indicate where an event can happen and what the implications of said event(s) could be. No need to be too specific.

So now that the pingers have gone silent, do you think they'll let other boats back in to drop their own drones?

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 82): But then what do I know - I'm just a former law professor. Just like Pihero has 40 years experience flying commercial aircraft and training others to fly them. Just like Zeke has years of experience as a commercial airline pilot in the region. We're obviously all frauds compared to those who have no relevant experience or expertise ....

Lets admit that the most adamant commentators here all come with a particular bias. I have never known anyone whose background is piloting a plane (although there may be someone; I have just never heard from him/her!) who wants to admit that pilot error or intentional actions by a pilot caused such an incident. Likewise, I can see that someone else, from a different background, may think that is the obvious conclusion, and refuses to accept any arguments otherwise.

In this instance - until we can prove otherwise - it may be acceptable to speculate on any number of scenarios, but not to deny the possibility of others. Reasoned people can always disagree, but everyone should consider and evaluate - without prejudice - the possibility that almost anything could have caused this tragedy. To disregard and debase a theory you simply don't agree with is wrong. Nothing can be ruled-out a this point.

Except those Bermuda Triangle theories...
  

Quoting Pihero (Reply 76): Quoting aftgaffe (Reply 53): (1) is it possible for a fire or other malfunction to take out ACARS, comms, transponder (with emphasis on ACARS) but not a/p? I'm not going to answer that. You have to find it by yourself, the reason being it could lead to an endless discussion on my scenario. So, do your own research ( I have no illusion about it... )

Pihero, this isn't really fair to 99.9% of the readers of this thread. Speaking only for myself I cannot do the research you propose, because I do not have the basic knowledge or technical resources needed.

We have to explain what certainly looks like a course directed by intelligent control. Even the simplest course possible looks like that.

If I understand your position, you are saying the pilots were not technically capable of changing the result due to some technical fault. But, all the combinations of technical faults that are proposed seem to be either not severe enough (some control or comms would be available), or far too severe (immediate crash).

I have actually read all of the posts in all of the threads, God help me, but could have missed the crucial hint somewhere...

Quoting Pihero (Reply 149): Yes, the maths for the average speed between these two *radar blips* is fine...

333kts is a simple approximation, using the law of cosines to correct for the 16 degrees between the two radials, we would get an average speed of 351kts.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 149): To me, if these radar blips were to be credible, they should have shown a continuous track...

If the a/c had been flying high, the track would be continuous because the a/c RCS is very large for a modern military radar. However, by assuming a climb profile all the way, the radar returns not only confirm that assumption but also give us a strong indication as to what the a/c must have been doing in order to produce the published observables.

When I built the original scenario in thread 43 without knowing the average speed, I proposed
- 36nm from the radar, returns are strong and consistent. The plane must be flying at 1,000ft or higher
- 67nm out. returns weaken and disappear 97nm out. Therefore the plane must be flying around 5,000ft at that point.
- 167nm out, the aircraft reappears because it is climbing through 18,000ft
- 220nm, radar contact is lost as would be expected with the aircraft around 32,000ft

Then in post 178 of thread 44, I added:
Looking at the data further, I suggest that the suddenly weakening radar returns on radial 295 between approx. 36 and 67 nm out are due to the fact that the low rate of climb of MH370 at that point roughly matched the rate of increase of the minimum target altitude for the radar to detect it. Essentially the target was teetering on the edge of visibility for its altitude. I estimate its rate of climb to be around 125ft/nm. I know, every pilot speaks about ft/min but I do not want to guess the speed at that point. Let's just say that if its ground speed had been 300kts, the rate of climb should have been around 650ft/min.

Clearly, that rate of climb could not have been maintained the whole time because:
- the airplane once out of radar visibility would not have reappeared later because it was not climbing fast enough
- the airplane could not have reached 32,000ft 200 miles out.

I therefore estimate that at about 12,000ft, about 142nm from Penang on the radial 295, the rate of climb was probably doubled to about 250ft/nm (maybe in the range of 1,200 to 1,400 ft/min).

Can a 777 climb at those rates at those altitudes? what are the max climb rates with 40t of fuel on-board at that time? I do not know. My guess is that at low altitudes it should easily climb at better than 2,500ft/min

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 154): Can a 777 climb at those rates at those altitudes? what are the max climb rates with 40t of fuel on-board at that time? I do not know. My guess is that at low altitudes it should easily climb at better than 2,500ft/min

Your answer is in the firsqt part of the flight.
Time from take off to 35000.
It's there for all to see.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 155): Your answer is in the firsqt part of the flight. Time from take off to 35000.

Yes, except that:
- there was more jet fuel on board
- when you fly commercially, I assume you have recommended engine settings, better fuel economy, better for engine life? Later, whatever entity was flying the plane may not have cared much about the longevity of the two Trent engines. BTW, that's another reason to turn off ACARS, otherwise a red flag might have registered on the screens of the Rolls Royce monitoring center in Derby.

[Edited 2014-04-14 01:44:50]

Quoting seat55a (Reply 153): Pihero, this isn't really fair to 99.9% of the readers of this thread. Speaking only for myself I cannot do the research you propose, because I do not have the basic knowledge or technical resources needed.

I respect your honesty... but it isn't shared by verybody on this thread.

Quoting seat55a (Reply 153): We have to explain what certainly looks like a course directed by intelligent control. Even the simplest course possible looks like that.

..which is, according to my little diagram, addressing only the first - and most visible, vulnerable to criticism - part of the diagram : the pilot.

Quoting seat55a (Reply 153): If I understand your position, you are saying the pilots were not technically capable of changing the result due to some technical fault.

My theory ? I haven't really proposed any. Except some aspects contradicting the *foul play* proponents.

As a matter of fact, we cannot establish a sure-fire theory at this time. We can shoot down the most outlandish ones, though.
As - also- a matter of fact, we do not really need to delve into the arcane workings of the different systems.

Let me put it in similar terms in an everyday situation :
You and a TV program you want to watch :
the diagram becomes
YOU ---> remotes to the decoder and remote to the TV set ---> Decoder ---> TV set and then your program.
1 - you can know how the remotes work or you're illiterate on this aspect.
2 - the remotes could be malfunctioning or out of batteries
3 - the decoder : is it plugged in / malfunctioning ?
4 - the TV set : is it plugged in / connected to the decoder / malfunctioning ?
So in order for you to watch your favourite program, these four blocks have to be OK and working harmoniously together.

I posit that the weakness of the foul play theories - and the scenari that are derived from them - only address the pilot aspect...
What an extraordinary scientific method !   

Quoting Pihero (Reply 149): To me, if these radar blips were to be credible, they should have shown a continuous track... But that's my conclusion.

I strongly believe that the image showing the military radar plot is genuine and the green track shows MH370 radar echoes that night. Any scenario we consider realistic should be consistent with this flight track, be it a pilot suicide or a mechanical failure or something else.

It is my understanding that the interpretation of this radar plot led the investigators to conclude the plane flew faster than originally expected, or in other words consumed more fuel in the first part of the flight. That led to moving the aerial search area further northeast along the Inmarsat 'last ping arc' and identify the 'highest probability track' where the Ocean Shield has detected the acoustic pings.

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 156): Yes, except that: - there was more jet fuel on board

Come on !
The aircraft reached 35000 ft less than 20 minutes after takeoff : average 1750 ft/min
That's with a heavy aircraft, a level acceleration from 250 kt to the climb speed, a slowly decreasing vertical speed due to altitude effect... and very probably with a thrust derate.

1750 ft/min at low levels, that's just over the capabilities of a piston twin.
That doesn't help your scenario, I'm afraid.

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 158): I strongly believe that the image showing the military radar plot is genuine and the green track shows MH370 radar echoes that night.

Having seen live what military radars can do and what an operator's screen look like, I'd tend to disagree.
A blip is a very definite pinpoint and a track a very thin line.!
The *green track* could also be a time picture of many flights over one hour or more.
If your theory was correct, the blip would be at the end of the track... here, it is in the middle of a clutter, which can't be it's track.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...aysia-airlines-flight-live-3219331

"A survey of Malaysians in the wake of the search for the missing flight MH370 has revealed a rising level of mistrust.

According to news portal the the Malaysian Insider, more than half of people surveyed believe their government is hiding information about the missing jet.

Fifty-four percent said the government was not being transparent about the passenger jet's disappearance. Only 26% said they believed the government was being truthful on the Malaysia Airlines plane, while 20% were unsure, the survey said."

Do the people have reason to mistrust the government? We don't really know if they're hiding anything. Or is it just the media provoking the public again?

Quoting Pihero (Reply 150): Lady, do you think I posted the simplistic architecture above just to be a wise ass ? In this case, psychology or not, you totally miss my point.

Yes, I am almost certainly missing your point, as you are almost certainly missing mine.

But if someone misses your point, accusing them of assuming you are being "a wise ass" doesn't really help.

I am struggling to understand your point, as I also struggled to understand the point of your PM. Perhaps it is a language problem.

But to try to clarify my own point: given that there seems to be a considerable body of evidence suggesting that the plane's behaviour was that of an aircraft being intelligently manoevered, rather than undergoing an undirected cascade of catastrophic failures, it makes sense to look at explanatory theories that invoke human behaviour.

And potentially relevant human beings include the pilots.

I don't think this is a controversial point, so either you have misunderstood me, or I have misunderstood you.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 157): My theory ? I haven't really proposed any.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but when someone says "work it out for yourself" this often means "I think I know."

Quoting Pihero (Reply 157): I posit that the weakness of the foul play theories - and the scenari that are derived from them - only address the pilot aspect...

For the other aspects there are some basic facts:

1. The control surfaces and engines were working and controlled well enough to keep the aircraft flying.
   
2. The aircraft could hold a course and make turns similar to normal on-course turns.
   

These facts seem to lead to a conclusion (A) that the physical and command/control structure of the aircraft was not too badly hurt.

But

3. Communications and squawks stopped
4. The actual course and turns were not those of the expected routing

If we exclude foul play, then (3) and (4) don't easily fit with conclusion (A) - it seems that a significant physical or electronic problem must have occurred.

So the facts put us in a logical corner, and this is where I need someone with experience and knowledge to suggest a reasonable escape from this corner. What is the technical explanation that makes sense of 1, 2, 3, 4?

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 145): And fish is the plural of fish! English is weird, but in the case of "scenario", it does stick to traditional rules.

The word "scenario" isn't Latin. It's Italian, was imported into English in the nineteenth century and uses an anglicised plural with the suffix "s".

Source: Cambridge English dictionary

Yes, 1 fish, 2 fish, 1 sheep, 2 sheep and most important of all here 1 aircraft, 2 aircraft

Quoting wingbuff (Reply 161): Do the people have reason to mistrust the government?

In how many countries do you see the following kind of thing going on?

Quote: A Malaysian court has sentenced opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim to five years in jail after overturning his acquittal on sodomy charges. ... "It's truly a dark day for the Malaysia judiciary which has shown itself incapable of standing up straight when national political issues are in play in cases before them," Phil Robertson, deputy Asia head of group Human Rights Watch, said after the verdict.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26479642

It would not be too surprising if the people of Malaysia did not trust their government, would it?

Quoting Lizzie (Reply 162): given that there seems to be a considerable body of evidence suggesting that the plane's behaviour was that of an aircraft being intelligently manoevered

Lizzie, it certainly looks as if the aeroplane was being flown by a human pilot up near Malaysia. But autopilots are designed so that, in the absence of any inputs from the pilot, they maintain the last set course, speed, and altitude.

Therefore it appears to be entirely possible - even likely - that the aeroplane was under human control early on. But that further on, on the long straight southward 'flight to nowhere,' the pilots were in some way incapacitated, and the autopilot was doing the flying. And then the fuel ran out........

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 165): Lizzie, it certainly looks as if the aeroplane was being flown by a human pilot up near Malaysia. But autopilots are designed so that, in the absence of any inputs from the pilot, they maintain the last set course, speed, and altitude. Therefore it appears to be entirely possible - even likely - that the aeroplane was under human control early on. But that further on, on the long straight southward 'flight to nowhere,' the pilots were in some way incapacitated, and the autopilot was doing the flying. And then the fuel ran out........

Yes indeed. That is what it looks like.

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 165): Therefore it appears to be entirely possible - even likely - that the aeroplane was under human control early on. But that further on, on the long straight southward 'flight to nowhere,' the pilots were in some way incapacitated, and the autopilot was doing the flying. And then the fuel ran out........

Then... please explain why you think why someone would have placed it in that course-to-nowhere? If the pilot(s) - whoever that might have been at that point - wanted to save the plane, why intentionally program it to fly into the most remote path possible?

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 165): But that further on, on the long straight southward 'flight to nowhere,' the pilots were in some way incapacitated, and the autopilot was doing the flying. And then the fuel ran out........

I know it was mentioned earlier on (I think it was somewhere back around part 20) that if left to its own devices the plane would roll to the side, descend etc etc.
However what I'd like to know (and I don't THINK this was explicitly discussed) is how much correction would actually be needed to keep the aircraft going where you want it to. Would it just be a nudge with the knee occasionally?
Looking at this video it doesn't look like there's a lot of room to play in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HYRITT4CsI

Quoting Pihero (Reply 160): Having seen live what military radars can do and what an operator's screen look like, I'd tend to disagree. A blip is a very definite pinpoint and a track a very thin line.!

To me the plot looks like there are hundreds of individual small green 'blips', and the 'blurring' of the track might reflect the positional variation (uncertainty) of the individual blips.

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 167): Then... please explain why you think why someone would have placed it in that course-to-nowhere? If the pilot(s) - whoever that might have been at that point - wanted to save the plane, why intentionally program it to fly into the most remote path possible?

I don't think anyone has an explanation at this point.

Which leaves us with unexplained human behaviour, or plane behaviour that looks like human behaviour but isn't.

I take Pihero's point that the route from IGARI to the first ping-point may have been more direct than some of the radar data appear to suggest, but can any of the aviators explain the turn south (or even north) without human intervention, whether without life-saving or life-distroying intentions?

We know there were two big turns I think, over the Gulf of Thailand and somewhere around the top end of Sumatra (and I'm still hoping for someone to explain why those turns look like right turns on the BFO plot, if they were actually from northeasterly to westerly and from westerly to southerly respectively) - is there a non-human-intervention candidate explanation for either of those?

And, if not, is there are life-saving candidate explanation?

Quoting Pihero (Reply 160): Quoting Finn350 (Reply 158): I strongly believe that the image showing the military radar plot is genuine and the green track shows MH370 radar echoes that night. Having seen live what military radars can do and what an operator's screen look like, I'd tend to disagree. A blip is a very definite pinpoint and a track a very thin line.! The *green track* could also be a time picture of many flights over one hour or more. If your theory was correct, the blip would be at the end of the track... here, it is in the middle of a clutter, which can't be it's track.

I really hope I can convince everyone interested that the Military Radar Plot shown in Beijing is not only genuine but also a crucial item in the search for an explanation.

I found the chart I was working from and a copy of which was initially posted by Mandala499 (post 82, thread 43) on 23 March.
Although it lacks the item needed to compute average speed, it is of better quality that the snapshot provided by Finn350.

My interpretation of the slide is that it is a sequence of dots (as expected) but immediately followed by a tag to the right of the dot. If you look closely you will see the dots (including their absence within the white circle). The yellow bands are the result of superimposing all the tags, too close to one another.

Here is the slide:

Quote: WarrenPlatts Reply 121Thread 53 Really, of all the people on board, only Captain Shah had both the motive (hatred for the Malaysian and probably Chinese governments) and opportunity (he was the pilot) to intentionally crash Flight 370.

Quote: I want to do the best I can in order to exact revenge, effect change, demonstrate the incompetence of the corrupt Malaysian government, start political dialog.

Quote: WarrenPlatts Reply 126 Thread 53 True. But the copilot was a young guy about to get married. He seemed to be a happy go-lucky sort. He was supposedly related to higher ups in the Malaysian society. Born with a silver spoon. Everything handed to him. Not a pro-democracy activist. No gay friends thrown in jail.

Quote: WarrenPlatts Reply 214 Thread 53 I am not married to the malicious intent hypothesis. I think that's also as much about the Malaysians trying to cover their own arses as it is about sensationalism.

Very perspicacious of you good sir!. (the drinks trolly is on me)  

Here's my take: Everything up front is NORMAL.No unnecessary Mojo.Nothing is planned on the level of 9/11.When the opportunity presents itself, it provides the opportunity to carry out one's Modus Operandi.Everything chillax.The person in control of the aircraft has the power to make calculated decisions with ease.

Question: Am I right in suggesting that prior to decompression at 43,000ft approx, that all additional way-points and 'flight levels' could be entered into FMS and executed via autopilot?.To the extend of final heading?.

If so,I'm sold.

Quoting p51tang (Reply 172): prior to decompression at 43,000ft approx

Please provide the evidence for this.

Quoting p51tang (Reply 172): "I want to do the best I can in order to exact revenge, effect change, demonstrate the incompetence of the corrupt Malaysian government, start political dialog."

Probably pointing out that this quotation from Warren Platt's post was pulled out of his backside.

Wouldn't like anyone to google it and think it was written by Captain Shah.

Or for that matter that any of the rest of the gobbledy gook about "secular, utilitarian ethics" or "atheistic philosophy" makes any sense whatsoever.

*growl*

Being an atheist doesn't make you a suicidal terrorist any more than being a theist does.

[Edited 2014-04-14 05:35:53]

Quoting Lizzie (Reply 174): Being an atheist doesn't make you a suicidal terrorist any more than being a theist does.

I think the atheist angle keeps getting brought up to stop people claiming it was another Islamic terrorist attack.

Without bothering to research, I'd hazard a guess that an atheist terrorist would be less likely to kill themselves to prove a point. Take Ted Kaczynski (edit: i.e. the Unabomber) for instance. He didn't blow himself up or get himself gunned down. He sent mail bombs as anti-technology "rants". Now taking out a plane would be something that could be used to prove that kind of point, but I'm sure they'd much rather take it down with a stinger missile during take off or landing. Or being Malaysia and Beijing take out an industrial area. If they were trying to that, I'm pretty sure they'd want to see the effects of it (i.e. see technology be shown to be not-good or see a "bad politician" get what the terrorist thinks they deserve etc).

Of course if we go down the path of it being some watching what happens, then we'd need to start looking into the pilots of the previous flight and debate about what they had their fingers in, and what wires they'd have to yank to cause problems for the next flight but not their own.

[Edited 2014-04-14 05:57:05]

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 116): Ignorance - please enlighten me! Cicero - whom you profess to be conversant with (in the original Latin I presume) - once remarked that only the ignorant argue with insults.

"In hominem dicemdum est igitur, cum oratio argumentationem non habet." Pro Flacco, 10, 23.

Quoting seat55a (Reply 163): So the facts put us in a logical corner, and this is where I need someone with experience and knowledge to suggest a reasonable escape from this corner. What is the technical explanation that makes sense of 1, 2, 3, 4?

Oh ! Please, Pleeeeeease !
Put these four points alongside my little simplistic diagram. you're close to my point.

... and put them - and it - alongside the details of the 777 cockpit that you will find at Jerome Meriweather's 777 site.

Question 1 : What's in a cockpit ?
Question 2 : Where is it in a cockpit ?
Question 3 : What is not in a cockpit ?
Question 4 : Where is it, if not in a cockpit ?

Quoting Lizzie (Reply 162): if someone misses your point, accusing them of assuming you are being "a wise ass" doesn't really help.

Never accused anyone of that crime. Was only talking to myself.

Quoting Lizzie (Reply 162): I don't think this is a controversial point, so either you have misunderstood me, or I have misunderstood you.

...Whatever...

Quoting Pihero (Reply 177): Oh ! Please, Pleeeeeease ! Put these four points alongside my little simplistic diagram. you're close to my point.

Oh dear.............

Another thread on an important subject that is now going nowhere............

Different theories about. Poor crew. Poor pax.

[Edited 2014-04-14 07:31:39]

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 171): My interpretation of the slide is that it is a sequence of dots (as expected) but immediately followed by a tag to the right of the dot. If you look closely you will see the dots (including their absence within the white circle). The yellow bands are the result of superimposing all the tags, too close to one another.

That's my interpretation as well. Presumably at the circle they are too low to be seen by radar. If my trig is still working, that would put the plane at an altitude below 10,000 feet within the circle.

I might be stating the obvious, but looking at the decompression scenario, it would seem like decompression hit (by whatever mechanism) between Pulau Perak and the white circle, the pilot descended manually, stayed at a breathable atmosphere for ~5 minutes, and then the aircraft ascended. At this point, the passenger O2 would be consumed and there would be no visual cue that there was a problem in the cabin. If the pilots also removed their masks then they would become incapacitated, but they have alarms to indicate high cockpit altitude.

So, my questions would be:
-What would standard procedure be if you have a decompression event with airframe intact; do you disengage autopilot and fly manually, or do you just adjust the altitude setpoint in the FMS?
-If you manually adjust the altitude, will that be overridden when you hit your next waypoint?

Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 180): I am not going to explain why, you go google why its not a pinpoint 200nm from that antenna.

and at 89 nm before you tag it, does it look like Ali Baba's lamp ?  

Quoting Pihero (Reply 178): Was only talking to myself.

As you had quoted my post, and addressed it "Lady..." I mistakenly assumed you were talking to me  

Serves me right for abrogating to myself a form of address to which I am not entitled. I am a merely a commoner. (I do have a PhD though.....)

Hey noobies, Pihero is perfectly aware of the plural of "scenario". It's a bit of an inside joke on a.net to refer to plurals with the suffix "-ii", and that started with the word "Airbii".

I would also suggest that debating with aviation experts, without any demonstrated domain knowledge, may result in being confused for for the aft end of an equine presence. Should one still feel that their supreme gifts are bypassed by the rest of us, why not volunteer for the SAR effort? Being towed in the Indian Ocean behind HMS Echo could be a blast!

In conclusion I would like to express gratitude to Pihero, Kaiarahi, Mandala, rfields5421, Zeke and many others for their generosity in posting on this thread .   

Quoting comorin (Reply 184): Hey noobies, Pihero is perfectly aware of the plural of "scenario". It's a bit of an inside joke on a.net to refer to plurals with the suffix "-ii", and that started with the word "Airbii".

I guess you mean noobii then.

Quoting comorin (Reply 184): many others for their generosity in posting on this thread

And a shout out to rcair1 for his summaries in the first 30 threads.

For anyone who may be interested, Duncan Steel's blog has got some nice updated images. These, from the 10th April, provide different perspectives on the satellite ping radii and possible routes that MH370 might have taken.

http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/647

Each of the possible routes assumes a constant speed, modelled on 300, 350, 400, 450 and 500 knots.
Only some possibilities that fit the pings, of course, and we cannot be certain of a constant speed or a linear trajectory between the satelite radii.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 186): And a shout out to rcair1 for his summaries in the first 30 threads.

Summaries that somebody also found "self-indulgent" or something like that.  

Quoting Lizzie (Reply 174): *growl* Being an atheist doesn't make you a suicidal terrorist any more than being a theist does.

Nor does being an atheist make one any less likely to be a suicidal terrorist versus a theist--Richard Dawkins' cargo cult, junk science notwithstanding.

Fact is Captain Shah had very good reasons IMO to be extremely pissed off at the Malaysian government--owner of Malaysian Airlines. That translates to motive. That does not entail that he hijacked his own a/c, but he did have a motive to strike back at the authorities. Also, going through a divorce with kids involved can be one of the most traumatic events in a man's life that he will ever experience. He wasn't scheduled to fly. He must have been exhausted, unable to get proper sleep, and at the end of his emotional rope no matter what happened that night. He really shouldn't have been on that airplane that night. YMMV

But like I said, I am not married to the malicious intent hypothesis. If the actual crash site is within the current search area, that is consistent with a programmed route flying from waypoint EMVAS through waypoint IKASA.

But other scenari are also possible: e.g., maybe something quite similar to the Boeing 777-200ER Malaysian Airlines a/c that was flying from Perth to Kuala Lampur, where a burned out sensor caused a cascading software malfunction that caused the autopilot to go haywire, sending the aircraft unexpected up to FL410, where it stalled, dived, recovered, shot up another 2,000 feet. That's actually rather similar to the first events with MH370, only this time it could have been much worse.

They might have lost all electronic navigation capabilities, and were forced to fly manually, navigating by dead reckoning and their magnetic compass alone. I'll bet they don't keep paper charts in a B777 cockpit, so they didn't even have a map to go by, and would have had to rely on their memories for basic geography.

To get to the current search area, they would have to be flying rather slow to be consistent with the "ping rings". This is consistent with flying low under the cloud deck to look for city lights.

So they could have got horribly lost. They might have thought to fly south and pick up some city lights in Indonesia or Malaysia, but were further west than they thought. They could have been further confused by squid fishing fleets that generate extremely bright lights.

Again, with no airspeed indicators, they would have little idea of their actual ground speed, and could be going faster than they realized, causing their dead reckoning track to be massively in error. Eventually they would realize they missed Indonesia and would turn to the east. Squid fishing lights over the horizon might cause them to persist in the wrong direction, or cause strange turns, further confusing the DR track. At some point, they might have thought to try for Cocos Island, but missed it. Eventually they got sucked too far out into the ocean to make it back to shore.

Who knows? We weren't there.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 189): I'll bet they don't keep paper charts in a B777 cockpit, so they didn't even have a map to go by, and would have had to rely on their memories for basic geography.

You will not find the cockpit of a commercial airliner WITHOUT paper charts and maps always to hand in it. Sorry.

Quoting comorin (Reply 184): In conclusion I would like to express gratitude to Pihero, Kaiarahi, Mandala, rfields5421, Zeke and many others for their generosity in posting on this thread .

Don't forget about 7BOEING7....

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 4): Quoting Pihero (Reply 3):So I ask a very simple question : Could there be in the aircraft a place where all the above features are gathered, so that an electrical fire could disable them - and both pilots - at the same time or in a cascade-type of event ? Yes, and the airplane would have crashed into the sea at that point +/-.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 189): Nor does being an atheist make one any less likely to be a suicidal terrorist versus a theist--Richard Dawkins' cargo cult, junk science notwithstanding.

Statistically, it arguably does. And being an admirer of someone who has specifically condemned suicidal terrorism, makes it even less likely IMO. People are more likely to be admirers of those whose views they share.

As for "cargo cult, junk science" - what your views of Richard Dawkins as a scientist have to do with his views on the evils of suicidal terrorism, I have no idea, but I hope we can agree (you, me, and Dawkins, and quite possibly Captain Shah) that crashing planes on purpose is, indeed, evil.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 189): Richard Dawkins' cargo cult, junk science notwithstanding. Fact is Captain Shah had very good reasons IMO to be extremely pissed off at the Malaysian government--owner of Malaysian Airlines.

The use of, "Fact is" and "I(n)M(y)O(pinion)" in the same phrase is perhaps symptomatic of junk science too?

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 189): Fact is Captain Shah had very good reasons IMO to be extremely pissed off at the Malaysian government--owner of Malaysian Airlines. That translates to motive.

Motive to commit suicide? I'm very pissed off with the Spanish government right now. Beware of my next flights...

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 189): Richard Dawkins' cargo cult, junk science notwithstanding.

"Junk science" really? "Clinton Richard Dawkins, DSc, FRS, FRSL is an English ethologist, evolutionary biologist, and writer. He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford and was the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008." Who are you to call his science "junk"?

Anyone else getting really tired of the "would he or wouldn't he based on the fact he liked Dawkins" thing? Plenty of people like Dawkins.

Yes the aircraft behaved in what appears to be a controlled manner, yes it suggests someone familiar with the T7 was driving at least for a little while when it changed course, yes there was a recent political brouhaha in the country, that does point to a limited number of people within the pressure vessel but absolutely nothing definitive can be said. Anything further is just blowing hot air. You can't make a freakin' psychological assessment of someone based on media reports in the wake of a tragedy. You're all wasting your time.

[Edited 2014-04-14 09:21:07]

I think the whole Dawkins thing is silly too. Killing a bunch of innocent people is exactly the opposite of what Dawkins would want. That's not to say the Captain didn't do it, but I think doing it for Dawkin's "militant atheism" is extremely unlikely

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 193): Statistically, it arguably does.

I can think of a large number of suicidal terrorists attacks by people in the name of religion.

To those we might add the Japanese kamikaze attacks, but their targets were not civilians and the attacks were part of a war, and so arguably not acts of terrorism, and we do not know whether they were atheists or not. Certainly many were not. They were, moreover, under military orders.

I cannot think of a single example (although you might) of an atheist taking part in a suicidal terrorist attack, i.e. an attack against civilian targets in which the attacker would hims/herself be killed.

So, statistically, yes, I think that being an atheist would make suicidal terrorism less likely. But we do not know (or I do not) whether Captain Shah was an atheist. All I read was that he was an admirer of Richard Dawkins, who was an outspoken and outraged critic of the 9/11 suicidal-terrorist attacks.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 197): I think the whole Dawkins thing is silly too. Killing a bunch of innocent people is exactly the opposite of what Dawkins would want. That's not to say the Captain didn't do it, but I think doing it for Dawkin's "militant atheism" is extremely unlikely

Yes, exactly. That's why I linked to Dawkins' article on how evil the 9/11 attack was. But WarrenPlatts by some strange turn of logic seemed to think that made it even more likely.