MH370 New Report Likely Confirms Flameout

777Jet · Fri Dec 11, 2015 1:02 am

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 99):
Nobody said it can't happen under any circumstances.

Yet they are implying that a lack of clear motive, which has existed in other pilot suicide instances, makes pilot suicide unlikely:

Quoting abba (Reply 76):
And in all other cases clear motives have been found. Not in this.

The implication that the above makes a pilot doing it scenario unlikely is utter nonsense, almost as much as the following:

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 99):
But quite obviously it never did.

So you think it is quite obvious that the Captain didn't do it?

We all know that you don't think that the Captain did it yet you fail to provide a more likely scenario.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 99):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 98):
This goes against the 'first time for everything' principal and sounds like total and utter nonsense.

This "principle" does not exist and would be total and utter nonsense.

So you don't think that everything that has happened had to happen for a first time?

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 99):
Some things really can't happen, therefore they can't happen a first time.

Of course some things can't happen.

But everything that has happened had a first time.

If you think that people are not capable of just doing something without making their motive known then engaging in a discussion with you is a waste of time.

Plenty of people keep things to themselves.

Just because there is no known clear motive for the Captain -(and that's only if you ignore his political interests and the Anwar verdict as a possible motive)- does not make the scenario 'unlikely'.

[Edited 2015-12-10 17:06:54]

oxymorph · Fri Dec 11, 2015 2:07 am

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 99):
Nobody said it can't happen under any circumstances. But quite obviously it never did.

Yeah, obviously.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 99):
This "principle" does not exist and would be total and utter nonsense. Some things really can't happen, therefore they can't happen a first time.

Well, I suppose my dog won't fly off to Neptune tomorrow, but it's very well within the realm of possibilities that a pilot goes rogue, goes dark, steals a plane, murders the pax, and tries to disappear...

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 100):
Of course some things can't happen.

My dog just grew wings and departed for Neptune.

lancelot07 · Fri Dec 11, 2015 2:08 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 100):
Yet they are implying that a lack of clear motive, which has existed in other pilot suicide instances, makes pilot suicide unlikely:

Well, a lack of a motive after 20 months of investigation very strongly suggests that a motive does not exist, and that DOES make suicide unlikely. It is still not completely impossible, and the investigation may have missed a motive.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 100):
So you don't think that everything that has happened had to happen for a first time?

Everything that actually HAD happened, happened for a first time once, yes - no problem there. BUT i do not agree to "everything happens for a first time" in the FUTURE. It is the "everything happens"-part that is so wrong. Some things just never happen because of the laws of nature. And you are implying that it happened already without presenting any evidence.

We all know Murphy's law: If it can go wrong, it will. But what if it can't go wrong ? By definition, it can't and therefore it won't.

777Jet · Fri Dec 11, 2015 3:23 am

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 101):
Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 99):
This "principle" does not exist and would be total and utter nonsense. Some things really can't happen, therefore they can't happen a first time.

Well, I suppose my dog won't fly off to Neptune tomorrow, but it's very well within the realm of possibilities that a pilot goes rogue, goes dark, steals a plane, murders the pax, and tries to disappear...

And it's also within the realm of possibilities that if a somebody just goes over the edge and dose what we are talking about, they are not going to leave behind a clear trail of motives or a letter saying why - especially if they are leaving behind family.

The other issues is that even if some kind of note or letter was left behind, there is no guarantee it is read or known about by anybody other than the person who finds it. I can't think of the case name (non aviation anyway) but there was a revenge murder / suicide case in the US many years ago in which the suspect left behind a letter saying what they were going to do (did do) and why. The current partner got rid of the letter and admitted to not knowing anything / acted surprised. I can't remember why, but later, the partner admitted to destroying the letter because they didn't want to have the stigma associated with being the partner of a murderer. They revealed what was written and the reasons but that could have been made up anyway, who knows. Nonetheless, the motive was only discovered then.

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 101):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 100):
Of course some things can't happen.

My dog just grew wings and departed for Neptune.

That must be a first

What departure route did your dog take so we can set a precedent for this?

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 102):
Well, a lack of a motive after 20 months of investigation very strongly suggests that a motive does not exist, and that DOES make suicide unlikely. It is still not completely impossible, and the investigation may have missed a motive.

Again, there's just a lack of a crystal clear motive that is known about.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 102):
Everything that actually HAD happened, happened for a first time once, yes - no problem there. BUT i do not agree to "everything happens for a first time" in the FUTURE. It is the "everything happens"-part that is so wrong. Some things just never happen because of the laws of nature.

And what law of nature stops a pilot from going on a suicide mission?

What law of nature stops somebody from doing something horrible only unless they have made their motive known to everyone?

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 102):
And you are implying that it happened already without presenting any evidence.

Again, you're saying that people won't do something until a clear motive in known about, which is nonsense.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 102):
We all know Murphy's law: If it can go wrong, it will. But what if it can't go wrong ? By definition, it can't and therefore it won't.

So are you saying that a pilot can't take their own plane?

Even after several examples of it happening have been discussed in this thread?

[Edited 2015-12-10 19:26:18]

lancelot07 · Fri Dec 11, 2015 8:39 am

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 101):
My dog just grew wings and departed for Neptune.

Wings will not do the job.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 103):
And what law of nature stops a pilot from going on a suicide mission?

Self-preservation.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 103):
Even after several examples of it happening have been discussed in this thread?

Several cases, all with clear cut motives or known mental issues - none without.
Except for 1 relief FO all much younger pilots, no successfull careers.
No case of flying around for hours. No case of running out of fuel. (But both has happened in the case of e.g. HCY 522!)

You have to assume a lot of firsts, making a long shot so much longer. It is not completely immpossible, but the probability is very low.

YoungMans · Fri Dec 11, 2015 10:38 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 98):
Only because when I used the words / terms that you previously used, and that underpin your pet scenario, you said:Quoting YoungMans (Reply 81):
They are your words, not mine. Which is incorrect. They were your words / terms. I was pointing out when you used them.

Okay, okay, I stand corrected.
I have to point out, though, that any kind of 'foul play' is not my pet scenario; not in any sense.
Put differently, I consider it no more likely than any of the other theories of possible causes.

It's interesting, though, that I seem to be the only one mentioning this as a possibility; when there are probably quite a few A.netters, perhaps sitting on the fence, who certainly wouldn't reject the idea out of hand.
(This is the conclusion I came to after reading many of the comments over time in previous threads.)

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 99):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 98):
This goes against the 'first time for everything' principal and sounds like total and utter nonsense.
This "principle" does not exist and would be total and utter nonsense. Some things really can't happen, therefore they can't happen a first time.

An interesting philosophical debate ....
Whilst it may not be a principle as such, for anything that has happened there would be a first time.
Then again, nothing can ever happen exactly the same as before.
At least the time will be different and, quite likely, the location. So, things may be similar to what has happened before; at best they can only be very similar.

This leads me to my theory again and the question arising out of that line of thought ....
Has there ever been a case, in aviation, with serious foul play? The kind that I'm talking about?
In other words, have there been precedents? Not necessarily where an airliner actually crashed but maybe where an aircraft was tampered with, held up or whatever may have been the case.
It probably wouldn't have made the main-stream news.

The kind of foul play I'm talking about would be, for example, where different letter agencies from different countries or private entities are warring it out amongst themselves. And as the saying goes, an airliner, passengers or not, that happens to be in the way may, unfortunately, become the proverbial collateral; if that is what it takes.

And, since that was mentioned or asked, if any such foul play did occurr, I wouldn't believe it for a minute that such an agency would send its highly trained agents on Kamikaze missions; they just wouldn't do it.
That's another reason why the SIO is out of the question .... unless ....
Unless the submarine that was mysteriously on site, to help listen for those underwater pings, was there for a different reason. The mind boggles ....

abba · Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:21 pm

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 98):
You are basically implying that: when X happens there has always been a clear motive. So, when there is no known clear motive X can't happen.

This goes against the 'first time for everything' principal and sounds like total and utter nonsense.

I can't see why you think it is so unlikely for somebody to do something without having a motive that is known to others.

Well - there is a first thing to everything - even though "first times" are very rare occurrences indeed. However, when we discuss likelihood it matters quite a bit as it is relevant whether an imagined chain of events follow a known and common pattern or not.

The fewer the established patters and the more exceptional the circumstances that needs to be included in an explanation, the less likely it becomes.

777Jet · Sat Dec 12, 2015 4:19 am

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 102):
Some things just never happen because of the laws of nature.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 104):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 103):
And what law of nature stops a pilot from going on a suicide mission?

Self-preservation.

Self-preservation didn't prevent the other pilot suicide cases.

lancelot07 · Sat Dec 12, 2015 4:50 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 107):
Self-preservation didn't prevent the other pilot suicide cases.

It has been overcome by powerful motives, something that is completely lacking here.

MH370 New Report Likely Confirms Flameout

RE: MH370 New Report Likely Confirms Flameout

RE: MH370 New Report Likely Confirms Flameout

RE: MH370 New Report Likely Confirms Flameout

RE: MH370 New Report Likely Confirms Flameout

RE: MH370 New Report Likely Confirms Flameout

RE: MH370 New Report Likely Confirms Flameout

RE: MH370 New Report Likely Confirms Flameout

RE: MH370 New Report Likely Confirms Flameout

RE: MH370 New Report Likely Confirms Flameout

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net