Quoting 777Jet (Reply 47): Yeah... right... Obviously you haven't paid attention to the possible motives discussed in the MH370 threads.

you may not believe it, but i paid close attention. What are these so called possible motives? He did not like The Gouvernement. So do approx 50% of westerners, and probably The same proportion of pilots everywhere. If this were a sufficient Motive we would habe dozens of suicide crashes each day!
Otherwise: no debt, secure and well paid job, and a happy life. Not a trace of a motive !

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 47): I think Malaysia should foot 100% of the search bill given that it is their aircraft that is being searched for.

That is an incredibly short sighted attitude to take.

The successful investigation of every accident has immeasurably helped the entire industry as a whole become safer. What if their aircraft went down because of a mistake made by Boeing or at any one of the dozens of places that the particular aircraft flew during its lifetime?

What if it went down because of the actions of a non Malaysian? Off of the top of my head, I can think of dozens of reasons why Malaysia could possibly be exonerated of blame in the MH370 accident...all of which will remain completely plausible to one degree or another, until the wreckage is found.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 50): Otherwise: no debt, secure and well paid job, and a happy life. Not a trace of a motive !

Sure! A normal case of suicide can almost certainly be ruled out of the reasons you point out here. There is nothing in the persons life that is even remotely similar to the known or suspected suicide pilots.

But what about a politically motivated suicide? Is it reasonable to be believed that the captain's action (if he did it) could have been politically motivated (e.g. by the miscarriage of justice against Anwar Ibrahinm?) Could the point of the disappearing have been that one of the pilots (the captain) wanted to make a strong political statement and in the process sacrifice himself?

Terrorist acts that involve the terrorist being killed is not to be considered as a suicide in the ordinary sense. None of the terrorists who tries to kill as many people as they can and accept to die in the process do it because they really want to die. Killing themselves is not the point! Rather they consider their terrible acts as a kind of self-sacrifice in the course of a higher goal - often (not always) supported by some idea about some reward after death.

However, in order to make such a self sacrifice meaningful for the one to do it and having it work according to intention, the very point is to make it as big and as spectacular as possible by - unfortunately - killing as many or as prominent people as they can possibly get away with or by hitting something with deep symbolic meaning (World Trade Center, Pentagon, The White House from 9/11 all fits that bill). In order to have your message heard as clear and loud as possible, terrorist acts are spectacular. Why sacrifice your life to send a message no one hears?

Now, if the MH370 ended up in the Petrona Towers on its way to China.... Well - It didn't. It just disappeared. If this was a terrorist act performed by the pilot it would be a terrorist act of one of its kind!!!

Save for the fact that the entire case does not fit the bill of a suicide terrorist, the key-person doesn't fit the bill either. The typical radicalized suicide terrorist is a young person. Often a newly convert (40% of the cases). Often they are at the edge of the religious tradition. Suicide terrorists are rarely coming from established tradition - even not the most conservative mosques. They are usually radicalized on the street or in informal groups. They often have had huge problems in life - e.g. many of them have been convicted criminals before becoming radicalized.

More could be said here. However, this should be more than enough to say that the captain doesn't fit the bill. I believe, therefore, that we with a very high level of confidence can exclude that scenario as well. It would be a one of its kind terrorist act performed by a one its kind terrorist. It is not impossible. However, Occam's Razor works in this case rather well....

Quoting abba (Reply 49): I am aware that you and others have done your very best to come up with a likely motive relating to the Anwar Ibrahim (mis)trial. None of it is very convincing in particular when we consider the way the MH370 disappeared.

I am not here to convince anybody about anything. I've stated my reasons as to why I think scenario X ticks the most boxes IMO like others have done, as well as debated some various points. However, if you believe that I am supposed to be convincing then you have failed that very point yourself because you have not provided anything convincing. Your arguments do not change the weight I give to the Captain did it theory. Your failure to provide a *more likely scenario* also doesn't help.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 51): Quoting 777Jet (Reply 47): I think Malaysia should foot 100% of the search bill given that it is their aircraft that is being searched for. That is an incredibly short sighted attitude to take.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 51): What if it went down because of the actions of a non Malaysian? Off of the top of my head, I can think of dozens of reasons why Malaysia could possibly be exonerated of blame in the MH370 accident...all of which will remain completely plausible to one degree or another, until the wreckage is found.

At the moment it's Malaysia's lost property that is being searched for.

As it stands they are only footing half of the search bill because my stupid government is being generous.

I agree that Malaysia could very well be exonerated, but as it stands, they should be funding all of this IMO.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 51): The successful investigation of every accident has immeasurably helped the entire industry as a whole become safer.

Agreed there.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 51): What if their aircraft went down because of a mistake made by Boeing or at any one of the dozens of places that the particular aircraft flew during its lifetime?

That is exactly why I doubt you will see the USA give any funding towards the search in the future if more funding is needed for the search to go on.

Quoting abba (Reply 52): I believe, therefore, that we with a very high level of confidence can exclude that scenario as well.

With only a "very high level of confidence"?

Quoting abba (Reply 52): It would be a one of its kind terrorist act performed by a one its kind terrorist. It is not impossible.

It sure is possible  

Quoting abba (Reply 52): However, Occam's Razor works in this case rather well....

Then what does Occam's Razor indicate to you the most likely scenario is?

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 53): Your arguments do not change the weight I give to the Captain did it theory.

But they should ! What he writes makes a lot of sense.
One of the cornerstones of the "the Captain did it"-theory was controlled ditching to minmize floating debris. With the conclusion about flame out on both engines this cornerstone is shot to pieces. You have to adapt your theory to an ever more far-fetched version, just like the Kazakhstan- or Diego-Garcia- or South China seas - crowds had to when the flaperon was found. Not very promissing for a theory.

btw, we do not know if Zaharie was ever informed about the verdict in the trial against Ibrahim. But we do know that he was not originally assigned that flight. He would have had to implement a plan the is becoming more and more complicated with very little to no advance notice - in itself extremely unlikely.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 53): Your failure to provide a *more likely scenario* also doesn't help.

More likely scenarios have been discussed for many of 80 threads before.
We know as a fact, that at least 2 passengers boarded with stolen passports. There might have been more, and less harmless.
We know as a fact, that the cockpit door was not always locked on MH flights, see the photos by the 2 South African girls with the FO. There have been stunning young ladies who were terrorists.
A hijack gone sour is a possibility.

We also know as a fact, that there have been a few cases of fire and/or fumes with 777s. And are we sure that MH maintenance is any better than Air Asia's ?

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 54): More likely scenarios have been discussed for many of 80 threads before.

Not really. Other possible scenarios have been discussed but none as likely as the Captain did it scenario IMO (and in the opinion of others including pilots / former 777 pilots who have regular articles published FWIW).

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 54): One of the cornerstones of the "the Captain did it"-theory was controlled ditching to minmize floating debris. With the conclusion about flame out on both engines this cornerstone is shot to pieces. You have to adapt your theory to an ever more far-fetched version,

The ending of the Scenario was not its cornerstone. Even if the latest assumption is correct, it does not change the likelihood of the Captain being responsible. It only changes the way he may have chosen to end the flight. The plane could have been nose dived in the end after fuel exhaustion in a manner similar to the way other pilot suicide flights have ended.

Here is another possible ending to the Captain did it scenario.

Quoting awthompson (Reply 40): Now the scenario could be that he simply depressurized the plane 'again' and let himself 'drift off' painlessly through hypoxia somewhere along the final leg to the south Indian Ocean once he was sure his goal was now unchangeable.

Quoting BryanG (Reply 20): The Ethiopian 961 ditching actually happened in shallow coastal waters, not the deep ocean... and it also would have gone a lot better if the hijackers hadn't been fistfighting with the captain at the last minute while he was trying to bring the plane in.

IIRC, the left wingtip actually struck a submerged coral reef ... this, in addition to the water resistance offered by the left engine, pretty much tore it apart. Hitting pieces of the planet never is a good thing.

Costa Cruises tried it with a 110,000 ton ship and didn't fare so well. Airplanes much less so.

Quoting n126dl (Reply 23): In what scenarios does the APU have to be running at take-off?

My understanding is, there are generator inop scenarios that mandate APU to make up for the loss of generational capacity.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 53): Your failure to provide a *more likely scenario* also doesn't help.

The reason being that I keep an open mind...

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 53): It sure is possible

But again - extremely unlikely. It is also possible that the reason I can't find my wallet right now is that some thief has come down through the chimney (as the doors are locked from within) and stolen it. Well, I believe that I have just forgotten where I put it....

There is yet another reason why "the pilot did it" is extremely unlikely. Sure we have perhaps as many as three cases of commercial pilots deliberately crashing their plans. Now compared to all crashes throughout history this is rather few. So based on this statistic evidence the pilot did it is on its own merit very unlikely.

Now time that with the likeliness of a person with none of the ordinary suicide motives nevertheless committing suicide... and add that a person not fitting the typical terrorist nevertheless committing a terrorist act that again must be timed with the likelihood of a terrorist committing an act of terror that is very untypical for terrorists...

Now - if we compare the likeliness of the pilot did to some technical-design-procedure-piloting mistake (a la AF447) we are talking 2-3 percent (at the most) versus 97-98 percent in favor of the later (and then I am generous). Remember, thief do climb chimneys. You cannot exclude it!

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 55): Other possible scenarios have been discussed but none as likely as the Captain did it scenario IM

Then you forget another thing: A modern airplane - including the 777 - is an extremely complex system. There are many - in themselves unlikely - possible reasons including unforeseeable pilot behavior (AF447). However, due to the system being highly complicated all these on their own very unlikely reasons are - due to their shear number - combined much more likely than the pilot did it even if that - on its own - might be more likely than each of the other.

Or to put it in another way: there are no other single reason that have claimed three commercial aircraft (to my knowledge) save for deliberate pilot action. So it is the most likely single reason. However, the likelihood of some other - perhaps once in a millennial - reason is much bigger simply because there are so many of them due to the complexity of the system. Therefore most aircraft crashes due to very, very unlikely reasons!

Quoting litz (Reply 56): IIRC, the left wingtip actually struck a submerged coral reef ... this, in addition to the water resistance offered by the left engine, pretty much tore it apart.

Ethiopian 961 was no where near wings level when the left wingtip touched the water. IMHO if he had entered the water wings level the outcome would have been entirely different.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 34): Analogies should not be drawn from the incident on the Hudson River; the conditions at the different sites are simply no comparison to what might have happened to MH370 on the SIO.

So lets look at another ditching (not on a nice calm river) -- a US Navy P-3 with a runaway prop/engine fire (not ideal ditching conditions) ditched in the North Pacific in 25 foot swells ripping a wing off -- 14 of 15 onboard made it out of the aircraft which sank rapidly. A survivable dead stick landing in a 777 is not out of the question -- bigger airplane, slower speed.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 54): One of the cornerstones of the "the Captain did it"-theory was controlled ditching to minmize floating debris.

I seriously doubt anybody with the flying experience of the Captain would have pinned all of his complex and convoluted plans on making an intact ditching into the ocean.

Whether or not the captain was responsible, it seems very likely that someone was...solely based on the complex route it took to get to the South India Ocean. That was not random. Everything after that could have been programmed since it was basically a straight line.

Quoting abba (Reply 58): So lets look at another ditching (not on a nice calm river) -- a US Navy P-3 with a runaway prop/engine fire (not ideal ditching conditions) ditched in the North Pacific in 25 foot swells ripping a wing off -- 14 of 15 onboard made it out of the aircraft which sank rapidly. A survivable dead stick landing in a 777 is not out of the question -- bigger airplane, slower speed.

People also survived the Ethiopian ditching. People also survived the Tuniter ATR crash in the Med. The thing is, those planes broke apart.

I think the chance of a 777 dead stick ditching into an ocean and remaining intact is infinitesimally remote and the odds that anybody would actually hinge any plan on an intact ditching are even more remote.

Quoting abba (Reply 57): Sure we have perhaps as many as three cases of commercial pilots deliberately crashing their plans.

From searches on line or from memory:

JAL 1982

RAM 1994
SilkAir 1997
EgyptAir 1999

LAM 2013
Potential MH370 2014
Germanwings 2015

It would seem to me that it's a relatively recent phenomenon, and an almost annual one of late (were MH370 to be found to be pilot suicide). Regardless, it's not necessarily unheard of, and like any such deed it will inspire others to do the same.

-Dave

Quoting abba (Reply 57): Quoting 777Jet (Reply 53): Your failure to provide a *more likely scenario* also doesn't help. The reason being that I keep an open mind...

I also keep an open mind.

I just believe that some scenarios are more likely than others; believing this does not mean that one does not still have an open mind  

Quoting abba (Reply 57): There is yet another reason why "the pilot did it" is extremely unlikely. Sure we have perhaps as many as three cases of commercial pilots deliberately crashing their plans. Now compared to all crashes throughout history this is rather few. So based on this statistic evidence the pilot did it is on its own merit very unlikely.

You are applying statistics to the greatest aviation mystery of all time? Great!

BTW there are more than three pilot suicide cases...

Quoting abba (Reply 58): Therefore most aircraft crashes due to very, very unlikely reasons!

Humans are always involved, one way or another  

Sometimes it is the pilot.

And sometimes the pilot does it intentionally.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 61): Quoting abba (Reply 57): Sure we have perhaps as many as three cases of commercial pilots deliberately crashing their plans. From searches on line or from memory: JAL 1982 RAM 1994 SilkAir 1997 EgyptAir 1999 LAM 2013 Potential MH370 2014 Germanwings 2015 It would seem to me that it's a relatively recent phenomenon, and an almost annual one of late (were MH370 to be found to be pilot suicide). Regardless, it's not necessarily unheard of, and like any such deed it will inspire others to do the same. -Dave

FedEx Flight 705 as well.

Luckily the crew stopped that nut job Auburn Calloway but IMHO that flight can come under the pilot suicide category given Calloway's job at the time and also despite the plane making it back (thank God).

Calloway's actions against colleagues are evidence of how sick some cockpit crew can be...

[Edited 2015-12-08 01:13:11]

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 61): AL 1982 RAM 1994 SilkAir 1997 EgyptAir 1999 LAM 2013 Potential MH370 2014 Germanwings 2015

JAL 1982 is not suicide. The captain was later in court considered not guilty by reason of insanity. He is by the way the only known case of a plane crashed due to a pilot going insane.

Otherwise we might say 5, then, if we also include LAM Mozambique and Royal Air Maroc - which both involve rather small planes with few pax (ATR 42 / 40 pax and Embraer 190 / 27 pax). Nevertheless, still a very small proportion of the overall number of fatal air crashes over the last many decades and many of them being contested. And interestingly enough, all incidents involves a sudden crash. Nothing even remotely similar to what we see in the case of NH370. Even if it were not an act of terror it would also be very unusual as a suicide act.

And again: airplanes do usually not crash due to likely reasons, but because of unlikely ones even if pilots and their actions are often very much part of the loop. But a pilot being incompetent, wrongly trained or what have you - is not the same as a pilot deliberately killing of WB full of pax.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 62): FedEx Flight 705 as well.

Calloway was a passenger in the jump seat on that flight, so i'd count it as attempted hijack, not pilot suicide.
He intended to crash the plane into Fedex-Headquarters.

But yes, there were more than 3 cases. And ALL have at least 2 things in common.
1. a compelling motive that was very quickly discovered.
2. nose down and crash at the first opportunity.
None of these 2 points apply to MH370 ! And in none of the confirmed cases did the perpetrator do anything to avoid traces, such as debris.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 55): The ending of the Scenario was not its cornerstone.

Sure it was. In the first place, it was presented as the reason why the plane went to the SIO at all.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 55): Not really. Other possible scenarios have been discussed but none as likely as the Captain did it scenario IMO (and in the opinion of others including pilots / former 777 pilots who have regular articles published FWIW).

I will not dispute that pilot suicide would be the most comfortable solution for the industry, and maybe to the public as a whole. One roque pilot, a tragedy - but nobody has to worry from now on.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 64): Calloway was a passenger in the jump seat on that flight,

Only because he was a company employee; a colleague of those he attacked.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 64): so i'd count it as attempted hijack, not pilot suicide.

Whilst he was off duty, he was still a company flight engineer; part of the cockpit crew group; a 'pilot'.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 64): He intended to crash the plane into Fedex-Headquarters.

Correct.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 64): Quoting 777Jet (Reply 55): The ending of the Scenario was not its cornerstone. Sure it was. In the first place, it was presented as the reason why the plane went to the SIO at all.

No, it wasn't.

The timing / location / and duration of flight before the plane went silent, the last voice heard, as well as the route close to the border, the turns around the Captain's hometown of Penang, and the final turn just after radar coverage ended, as well as the piloting skills needed to execute such a plan, were the cornerstone(s) of the scenario. How the flight ended doesn't really matter. What was done was done...

Good night.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 64): In the first place, it was presented as the reason why the plane went to the SIO at all.

Amongst a lot of the sarcasm and rubbish here on A.net, there are also (thankfully) really thoughtful comments; yours is one of the latter. Why?
In the aftermath of MH370 there seems to be an underlying guiding of public opinion.
Almost as if certain people do know more than they let on or are willing to publicly acknowledge; because, most likely, they are not at liberty to reveal any of the real truths.
Think of all the obfuscation, conflicting messages and the weird start of the response in the earliest phases.
And the SatCom (luckily) coming back on-line just as the plane (supposedly) leaves radar coverage.
Is that coincidence or what?

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 65): The timing / location / and duration of flight before the plane went silent, the last voice heard, as well as the route close to the border, the turns around the Captain's hometown of Penang, and the final turn just after radar coverage ended, as well as the piloting skills needed to execute such a plan, were the cornerstone(s) of the scenario. How the flight ended doesn't really matter. What was done was done...

All that you mentioned are valid ticks in the boxes to make a case that 'the Captain did it'. No question there ....
Although, personally I believe too much is made of it that the Captain was last heard from on the radio.
However, your list, plus all the other items of importance we know, could just as well indicate a case of very serious foul play. And I'm not suggesting here some small-time terrorist-hijacker with a bomb in his pants.
If it was serious foul play, we would have to look a lot further and in areas other than just aviation; because it would have been a sophisticated professional type of operation.
Highly likely that there wouldn't yet have been any precedent of this magnitude.

And the longer it takes for them to find 9M-MRO, if they find it at all, the more it is likely or at least could point to that kind of professional operation. The flaperon would simply be a diversion tactic, part of the plan.

With that in mind I'm also starting to hope that they will find something soon in the SIO.

after following the last 75 odd threads, where did Warren(Platts) go? did u lot scare him away? I looked at this thread hoping he might have an opinion   

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 65): The timing / location / and duration of flight before the plane went silent, the last voice heard, as well as the route close to the border, the turns around the Captain's hometown of Penang, and the final turn just after radar coverage ended, as well as the piloting skills needed to execute such a plan, were the cornerstone(s) of the scenario

The plane went silent when supposedly the radio frequencies were changed. Maybe a short, resulting in an electric fire? Or some other mishap with or without relation to radio frequencies.
Penang would be the logical airfield for an emergency landing, as has been mentioned before by pilots. Enough distance for the descent, and extremely well known to the captain.

It is highly doubtful that one of the pilots knew where Malaysian and Thai radar coverage ended - this information sure is classified, but they certainly could not have known if Indonesian radar on Sumatra was on or off, much less the Australian look over the horizon radar system. They escaped radar coverage. But they could not know that.

I would expect any pilot of airliners to have the necessary piloting skills for a few turns. We don't know about any maneuvers demanding special skills - running out of fuel certainly doesn't.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 66): Amongst a lot of the sarcasm and rubbish here on A.net, there are also (thankfully) really thoughtful comments; yours is one of the latter.

Thanks !

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 66): The flaperon would simply be a diversion tactic, part of the plan.

Putting a damaged flaperon into the SIO and hoping it will be found somewhere -let alone a small island where they clean beaches- would be a futile operation. It's an expensive operation with some risk of detection, and it is highly unlikely that the flaperon will be found. The probable result is it will sink or be washed ashore somewhere in Africa or Madagascar, where they don't clean beaches and never find it. And even more important: There is no upside even if the operation succeeded.

Quoting cougar15 (Reply 67): after following the last 75 odd threads, where did Warren(Platts) go? did u lot scare him away? I looked at this thread hoping he might have an opinion

Warren Platts was last seen posting about the barnacles on the flaperon, a field in which he seems to have significant knowledge.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 68): Warren Platts was last seen posting about the barnacles on the flaperon, a field in which he seems to have significant knowledge.

cheers, I guess we just need to be patient for him to finish his maritime investigations! I look forward to his opinion for further discussions amongst us on this Forum!  

Quoting abba (Reply 63): Otherwise we might say 5, then, if we also include LAM Mozambique and Royal Air Maroc - which both involve rather small planes with few pax (ATR 42 / 40 pax and Embraer 190 / 27 pax).

So now "size matters" in airline crashes???

Quoting abba (Reply 63): Nevertheless, still a very small proportion of the overall number of fatal air crashes over the last many decades and many of them being contested

Well, we can certainly look over "the last many decades" and that would be true, or we could look over the last 20 years and it'd be less true, or we could look over the last 3 years and it'd be even less true.

Quoting abba (Reply 63): Nothing even remotely similar to what we see in the case of NH370.

Fine. I was just clarifying your facts. I have no dog in this fight, so you guys can carry on with the discussion.

-Dave

People are usually "drunk".In order to solve this one,we will need to drink many glasses of water. Yes, the plane is indeed under somebody's control from the moment it turns back, up to the final turn south.Then the plane continues on its own with a load of dead passengers and crew.It seems like a plan gone wrong.But whose plan is it?
Is it necessarily a malevolent plan? It all depends on how one wants to interpret it...

[Edited 2015-12-08 12:09:30]

Quoting cougar15 (Reply 67): after following the last 75 odd threads, where did Warren(Platts) go? did u lot scare him away? I looked at this thread hoping he might have an opinion

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 68): Warren Platts was last seen posting about the barnacles on the flaperon, a field in which he seems to have significant knowledge.

He told us that the kind of barnacles attached to the flaperon could give precise clues as to where it started to drift and the timing of that drift journey.

sadly he has not told us his findings.

The probability of finding the wreckage is IMHO less than 1 percent on the next 5 years, the search area is huge and the probability of having a good assessment of the REAL area where it went down is very low... I´d love to be proven wrong, but I am not counting on it...

TRB

You wrote this:

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 66): However, your list, plus all the other items of importance we know, could just as well indicate a case of very serious foul play. And I'm not suggesting here some small-time terrorist-hijacker with a bomb in his pants. If it was serious foul play, we would have to look a lot further and in areas other than just aviation; because it would have been a sophisticated professional type of operation.

in the same post just after you wrote this:

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 66): Amongst a lot of the sarcasm and rubbish here on A.net,

Under a sophisticated operation involving serious foul play on the YoungMans scale it makes no sense whatsoever to take the plane to the SIO, unless the operation somehow failed / went wrong.

But you don't think the plane went to the SIO, right?

You think the handshakes were spoofed, or the data was made up, right?

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 66): Amongst a lot of the sarcasm and rubbish here on A.net,

Which does your scenario come under?

Sarcasm or rubbish?  

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 66): And the SatCom (luckily) coming back on-line just as the plane (supposedly) leaves radar coverage. Is that coincidence or what?

Another important point.

If only we knew why...

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 68): The plane went silent when supposedly the radio frequencies were changed. Maybe a short, resulting in an electric fire?

I haven't ruled that out.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 70): Quoting abba (Reply 63): Otherwise we might say 5, then, if we also include LAM Mozambique and Royal Air Maroc - which both involve rather small planes with few pax (ATR 42 / 40 pax and Embraer 190 / 27 pax). So now "size matters" in airline crashes???

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 70): Quoting abba (Reply 63): Nevertheless, still a very small proportion of the overall number of fatal air crashes over the last many decades and many of them being contested Well, we can certainly look over "the last many decades" and that would be true, or we could look over the last 20 years and it'd be less true, or we could look over the last 3 years and it'd be even less true.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 70): Quoting abba (Reply 63): Nothing even remotely similar to what we see in the case of NH370. Fine. I was just clarifying your facts. I have no dog in this fight, so you guys can carry on with the discussion. -Dave

Great!

So now somebody who thinks that size matters in airline crashes and who uses statistics to solve the greatest aviation mystery of all time has pushed away a more knowledgeable member...  

I appreciate your contributions to this thread, Dave.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 70): So now "size matters" in airline crashes???

Well, I do think there is some difference between a 777 and a ATR42 and it also makes a difference whether we are dealing with a reputable airline where you can trust safety procedures (including the medical monitoring of pilots) are being followed or not. And I am pretty sure that a person like Herminio dos Santos Fernandes ending up as the culmination of his career flying ATRs in Mozambique somehow cannot be really compared to the captain of MH370. However, 3 or 5 does not make a huge difference. However, he had a clear motive for his suicide as his wife were about to leave him. http://www.herald.co.zw/mozambique-pilots-private-life-under-probe/

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 70): Well, we can certainly look over "the last many decades" and that would be true, or we could look over the last 20 years and it'd be less true, or we could look over the last 3 years and it'd be even less true.

Sure it period does matter. If you choose a period of one day you can make it 100%. So your argument is nonsense save for pointing out that you should always be careful as to how you select your period. And it this case it makes the most sense so simply say the period of the modern jet age. When this start is, then, a matter of discussion. But whether you say 1970 or 1980 does not change the picture much.

Quoting abba (Reply 74): Well, I do think there is some difference between a 777 and a ATR42

What does the aircraft have to do with pilot suicide? Perhaps I'm missing your point?

Quoting abba (Reply 74): it also makes a difference whether we are dealing with a reputable airline where you can trust safety procedures

True. Germanwings wasn't a reputable airline. Ditto SilkAir. Definitely shady outfits.

Quoting abba (Reply 74): 3 or 5 does not make a huge difference.

You do realize that I only pointed out that there were more than 3 for clarification, right?

Quoting abba (Reply 74): However, he had a clear motive for his suicide as his wife were about to leave him.

What if there isn't a clear motive? What if they were that private or diabolical or mentally ill?

Quoting abba (Reply 74): So your argument is nonsense

Ok, please stop. I wasn't arguing anything. I simply listed the incidents to clarify the totals, then after you countered I just added a point of view. Why do you have to come on so strong over simple trivia?

Quoting abba (Reply 74): And it this case it makes the most sense so simply say the period of the modern jet age.

What does the jet age have to do with anything? Again, maybe I'm missing your point?

Look, if the topic is pilot suicide, one point of view is - as you might say - that there have been very few crashes due to pilot suicide. Fair enough. Another point of view might be - MIGHT BE - that it seems to be a more recent phenomenon and not something you can look back at historically and draw any conclusions from.

But again - I'm not advocating anything one way or the other. You said "Only 3", I clarified, and it seemed to have gone downhill from there. If you find what I stated as somehow offensive to a particular point of view, I certainly apologize. That was not my intention at all.

-Dave

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 75): rue. Germanwings wasn't a reputable airline. Ditto SilkAir. Definitely shady outfits

Du you know what this kind of pseudo argument is called?

Germanwings and SilkAir were and are certainly very reputable airlines. And that is why I include them. An airline as Air Mozambique can be discussed. Do you agree? Royal Air Maroc also belongs to the list of airlines I will not fly.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 75): You do realize that I only pointed out that there were more than 3 for clarification, right

5 in all including the most problematic ones that you will usually not count. 3 on reputable airlines.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 75): What if there isn't a clear motive? What if they were that private or diabolical or mentally ill?

There are examples of mental illness JAL 350. And motives - such as financial or medical and other private matters - are thoroughly investigated. And in all other cases clear motives have been found. Not in this. As to the diabolic: I am not a fundamentalist Christian nor am I superstitious. I, therefore, do not believe that demons make pilots crash planes. And if they did it wouldn't count as a deliberate act.

However, people claiming that demons make then do tings usually suffers from schizophrenia. People having such mental illnesses will not be able to fly reputable airlines as they will have medical procedures in place to prevent it. However, I man not sure about airlines such as Air Mozambique and Royal Air Maroc which is a reason not to include them.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 75): I wasn't arguing anything.

???

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 75): What does the jet age have to do with anything? Again, maybe I'm missing your point?

As a relevant period.

[Edited 2015-12-08 22:52:12]

[Edited 2015-12-08 22:56:27]

[Edited 2015-12-08 23:02:54]

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 75): What does the aircraft have to do with pilot suicide? Perhaps I'm missing your point?

One would assume to have better qualified, more experienced and higher paid crews on large planes than on small regional jets, with a successfull career and a more stable life.

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 72): the search area is huge and the probability of having a good assessment of the REAL area where it went down is very low...

Aha! We've come full circle to someone who clearly hasn't read the ATSB documents that started this thread. The area is huge, but the likelihood of the plane being in the search zone is greater than 90%. The chance of it being found is excellent. Think of the search as mowing a football field onto which one rock has been randomly tossed. Your chance of finding the rock with the mower (clunk!) is excellent, even if it takes you many hours of mowing. Just because you've been mowing for a long time doesn't lower those odds.

Quoting abba (Reply 76): 5 in all including the most problematic ones that you will usually not count. 3 on reputable airlines.

Quoting abba (Reply 76): People having such mental illnesses will not be able to fly reputable airlines as they will have medical procedures in place to prevent it.

http://nypost.com/2012/08/09/jetblue...t-has-psychotic-episode-in-prison/

Ok, so we can only consider certain crashes as relevant? Got it.

In response to "reputable", is JetBlue not reputable?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...five-years-276-returned-skies.html

This article discussed a multitude of pilots experiencing mental illness or concerns thereof, and talks about the challenges the industry faces with such problems. For example, pilots hiding their mental illness from their employer due to fear of losing their careers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...ilots-mental-health_n_6958024.html

US pilots discuss lack of screening.

http://www.wired.com/2015/03/no-way-screen-every-pilot-mental-illness/

This article discusses the inability to fully screen everyone and that "depression and mental illness can strike at any point in life".

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...al-illness-after-germanwings-crash

This article makes it sound like airlines in Europe (and likely everywhere) have up until now not fully vetted potential pilots for mental illness.

I guess I'm just not clear how you have such confidence in "reputable airlines" when "reputable airlines" have not been fully screening for mental illnesses until apparently very recently. Germanwings, Jetblue, SilkAir, etc.

Quoting abba (Reply 76): Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 75): I wasn't arguing anything. ???

You said "my argument is nonsense". Please clarify, or please retract, but to just give me question marks is just adding insult to injury.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 77): Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 75): What does the aircraft have to do with pilot suicide? Perhaps I'm missing your point? One would assume to have better qualified, more experienced and higher paid crews on large planes than on small regional jets, with a successfull career and a more stable life.

I understand that point - thank you for clarifying for me. However, it doesn't seem to make much of a difference in the crashes I listed. Additionally, the articles I linked to would seem to imply that there is an underlying risk of more such tragedies, regardless of the carriers size or reputation.

Quoting abba (Reply 76): As a relevant period.

I'm not clear on how you decide what is relevant in such a discussion as if you look at the crashes that I listed (you can list others if you wish - I ignored private planes, for example) you can see that it's been a more recent phenomenon.

Having said all that - once again - I'm really not "arguing" or advocating ANYTHING in regards to MH370. I just took issue with your choice of statistics to include because they seemed selective. I'm getting the impression through our dialogue that you have a specific criterion - perhaps evolving - that you believe we should be sticking to for consideration. I am glad we can start to understand this so that the conversation is more constructive.  

-Dave

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 79): This article makes it sound like airlines in Europe (and likely everywhere) have up until now not fully vetted potential pilots for mental illness.

Seems so, yes.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 79): Additionally, the articles I linked to would seem to imply that there is an underlying risk of more such tragedies, regardless of the carriers size or reputation

When you don't screen you will not find suspects. The more you screen, the more suspects you will find. And with the growth of the airline industry, you will find even more.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 79): For example, pilots hiding their mental illness from their employer due to fear of losing their careers.

A more senior pilot will have to hide it for longer. In case of Zaharie Shah for a very long time.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 79): I'm not clear on how you decide what is relevant in such a discussion as if you look at the crashes that I listed

Jet age is a fairly reasonable time period. Before, you had only very rudimentary investigation methods and no flight recorders.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 68): Putting a damaged flaperon into the SIO and hoping it will be found somewhere -let alone a small island where they clean beaches- would be a futile operation. It's an expensive operation with some risk of detection, and it is highly unlikely that the flaperon will be found. The probable result is it will sink or be washed ashore somewhere in Africa or Madagascar, where they don't clean beaches and never find it. And even more important: There is no upside even if the operation succeeded.

For someone on a pensioner's income, yes, it would be expensive. For an organisation dealing regularly with millions of $$'s, it would merely be a question of which account to book it against.
If indeed, and notice I say 'IF', we are dealing with a case of sophisticated foul play, the operation may have been a complete success - in the perpetrators mind that is.
The 'upside' (for the perpetrator) would be that the public is none the wiser about what really happened and still believes 9M-MRO to be in the depths of the SIO.

Why anyone would have done anything like it, if that is what happened, is anyone's guess.
Except for those who the operation would have been directed against; if it happened that way.
And it may well be that they, too, would not want the public to know if they can help it.

Is it possible that the flaperon was planted? Of course it is.
The exact how and why are simply additional questions about detail.
Maybe it was intended for the flaperon to be found during the big SAR operation. And imagine this ....
Had the searchers found it at that time, it would have, in anyone's mind, automatically confirmed that MH370 ended in the SIO. Beyond all reasonable doubt, as the saying goes; case closed.
Now it just dragged on a bit longer, costing a few more millions, and will soon be closed regardless.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 73): Under a sophisticated operation involving serious foul play on the YoungMans scale it makes no sense whatsoever to take the plane to the SIO, unless the operation somehow failed / went wrong.

They are your words, not mine.
I wouldn't know what makes sense to a ruthless perpetrator nor do I know what he would have wanted to achieve; if, and I say it again, if that is what has happened.

On a different note though, quoting from my own reply ....

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 66): In the aftermath of MH370 there seems to be an underlying guiding of public opinion.

I'm surprised to find that there wasn't a single comment, either for or against my observation.
Does this mean that most A.netters agree or, the opposite, is it so unthinkable that it doesn't warrant any mention?

Now let us for a moment suppose that there is a plot by a very rich and sinister organization:

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 81): The 'upside' (for the perpetrator) would be that the public is none the wiser about what really happened and still believes 9M-MRO to be in the depths of the SIO.

The public would not be wiser without the flaperon. The ocean is huge, an unsuccessfull surface search that only begins 3 weeks after the accident is no surprise. Neither would an unsuccessfull undersea search raise a lot of eyebrows.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 81): Maybe it was intended for the flaperon to be found during the big SAR operation. And imagine this .... Had the searchers found it at that time, it would have, in anyone's mind, automatically confirmed that MH370 ended in the SIO.

It is extremely unlikely that is was planted then AND not found then AND washed ashore in a tiny island on which beaches are cleaned.
Sure, planting it on La Reunion is a possibility, but that induces a fairly high risk of detection of a plot - a huge downside, for very little upside. IF such a plot existed, it has done its job by stealing the aircraft - mission accomplished. (Or not accomplished, if it indeed was a hijack gone wrong - but doing funny things with flaperons won't change that.)
And the sinister organization still would have to fake a lot of data, Inmarsat and others.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 81): I'm surprised to find that there wasn't a single comment, either for or against my observation.

Most of the time, you don't have to guide opinion. Herd instinct will do the job.

Even very rich and sinister organizations want some bang for their buck.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 78): You said "my argument is nonsense". Please clarify, or please retract, but to just give me question marks is just adding insult to injury.

What you wrote is plain nonsense. Now you claim it is not an argument. So please explain what is is then? I am confused.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 79): I'm not clear on how you decide what is relevant in such a discussion as if you look at the crashes that I listed (you can list others if you wish - I ignored private planes, for example) you can see that it's been a more recent phenomenon.

What? OK so you do not see any difference between a private pilot using his plane to kill himself and an airline pilot using the WB he is entrusted to kill several hundred people for whose safety his is responsible? If that is the case I certainly hope that you are not entrusted even a driver's license. You don't deserve serve it. Please go and explain your view - clearly expressed in your post - to all those who have lost their loved ones on the MH370.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 79): Having said all that - once again - I'm really not "arguing" or advocating ANYTHING in regards to MH370.

???? Well I am not either. I am arguing against your friend 777 and others who based on very little evidence and even less understanding of aviation and and less so of the complexity of the 777 argue that the pilot most certainly did it. Their arguments are flawed. And not only that. They are immoral. They blame a dead person for having committed a terrible crime (well you apparently don't care much - see above) without convincing evidence and the person so blamed is not able to defend himself. Perhaps he did it. Nothing so far really indicates that he did it. And as long as we have no good reason to believe that he did we should not make him an evil criminal. None have deserved that. But perhaps you also disagree on this point. I wouldn't be surprised.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 78): US pilots discuss lack of screening.

I am not claiming that screening for mental illness cannot be better in the West. But do you think that there is any screening in Mozambique - and please explain which screening that takes place here - and when you are at it you can include Maroco as well.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 80): Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 79): I'm not clear on how you decide what is relevant in such a discussion as if you look at the crashes that I listed Jet age is a fairly reasonable time period. Before, you had only very rudimentary investigation methods and no flight recorders.

Yes indeed - but I understand that PlainsNtrains want to have a period of two years so as to make an argument about nothing.

[Edited 2015-12-09 07:26:30]

[Edited 2015-12-09 07:27:49]

[Edited 2015-12-09 07:29:14]

[Edited 2015-12-09 07:30:03]

[Edited 2015-12-09 07:32:29]

[Edited 2015-12-09 08:00:48]

Quoting abba (Reply 83):

Please use the quote button more carefully. You are attributing to me words that I never wrote.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 84): lease use the quote button more carefully. You are attributing to me words that I never wrote.

Sorry for that. It has now been corrected.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 80): The more you screen, the more suspects you will find.

All screening techniques for some select criteria show false positives and false negatives.
The problem with screening for some very rare condition is that false positives work on the
full complement of screened persons while the false negatives only work on the microscopic
target group.

example:
10ppm of a group are positive.
your method shows 20% false positives and 20% false negatives.


of all persons screened 20% will be (falsely) tagged positive.
another 8ppm will be tagged (correctly) positive.

20.000008% of your group are tagged positive.
.. while 0.000008% are "truly" positive. congratulations!

To increase fun your cleared group still has 2ppm bad eggs )

Invariably you are therefore swamped in false positives.
then nutjobs tend to be resourcefull and able to hide their condition.
i.e. 20% false positives probably is a nice dream, nothing more.

Some people think they have the exclusivity on conspiracy theories. Not so:

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 68): Warren Platts was last seen posting about the barnacles on the flaperon, a field in which he seems to have significant knowledge.

Well, what are the odds of that? That a person who is an expert on barnacles has been discussing the disappearance of MH370 for months, is very agitated about the case, and then we find a the plane's flaperon and the important part of the evidence is ... barnacles.

I call that too big of a coincidence. Warren must have been part of the secret operation that hijacked MH370, landed it in Kazakhstan to employ the passengers in a secret farming operation, sold the 777 frame for parts, and then went on to grow exactly the right type of barnacles in his aquarium to plant the flaperon in Reunion.

Farming is, after all, hard work in Kazakhstan.

The 777 parts were sold to BA for repairing minor smoke damage in their 777.

 

For avoidance of doubt, obviously this is stupid theory and I don't believe any of it, but only equally stupid to some of the ones presented in the series of threads about MH370. In reality, either one of the pilots performed a desperate suicide act, or some tech went badly wrong in the plane. Most likely we'll know when we find the plane. And we will...

Quoting WIederling (Reply 86): The problem with screening for some very rare condition is that false positives work on the full complement of screened persons while the false negatives only work on the microscopic target group.

A very good point !

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 87): Warren must have been part of the secret operation that hijacked MH370, landed it in Kazakhstan to employ the passengers in a secret farming operation, sold the 777 frame for parts

Coming to think of it, they probably landed it in India and sold it wholesale to Air India.
It is a core truth of a.net that AI is desperately cannibalizing even new planes for spares  

And I agree, they will find the plane - and at least in broad terms determine the cause. But we have to be patient !
The search area is approximately 10 times as large as the search area for AF447, about the size of Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia or Ohio, and that search took almost 2 years.

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 87):

Some senior people ex-govt and military from US and Israel, see it as being somehwere, Iran by Israeli and Pakistan by US, the US guy insists its reliable information.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 88): that search took almost 2 years

Not really. It was suspended for about 18 months and then better equipment / technology became available.

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 87): In reality, either one of the pilots performed a desperate suicide act, or some tech went badly wrong in the plane.

This is the weakness of "the PIC did it" crowd. As Mandala499 pointed out many threads ago (and was promptly ignored), the FO also had skeletons in the closet. But personally, I'd avoid the word "suicide" - there are lots of things short of suicide that could have been screwed up. For example, cascading tech issues followed by incapacitated PIC and panic / wrong procedures by an FO still under training. For what it's worth, I've lived it. I was right seat on a C130 into Saigon towards the end of the war, shrapnel up through the cockpit floor, commander slumped over the yoke, I thought he'd been hit but he'd suffered a mild heart attack. I'm not sure how I did anything right for the next 15 minutes, but we landed, somehow (unlike MH370 alas).

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 75): Quoting abba (Reply 74): However, he had a clear motive for his suicide as his wife were about to leave him. What if there isn't a clear motive? What if they were that private or diabolical or mentally ill?

Exactly.

Just because a *clear motive* might not yet be known to the public doesn't mean that there wasn't a motive; one that only the perpetrator would be aware of.

Some people are very, very private and keep many things to themselves.

Quoting abba (Reply 76): There are examples of mental illness JAL 350. And motives - such as financial or medical and other private matters - are thoroughly investigated. And in all other cases clear motives have been found. Not in this.

Irrelevant.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 78): The area is huge, but the likelihood of the plane being in the search zone is greater than 90%. The chance of it being found is excellent.

I hope you are correct but I am not as optimistic.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 78): Think of the search as mowing a football field onto which one rock has been randomly tossed. Your chance of finding the rock with the mower (clunk!) is excellent, even if it takes you many hours of mowing. Just because you've been mowing for a long time doesn't lower those odds.

Correct, but in your analogy you would be 100% certain that the rock is somewhere on the football field because you knew you put it there. Of course you will eventually find it.

If the assumptions that the calculations underpinning the extended priority search area are incorrect then the search could be in the wrong area to begin with.

9M-MRO might be just outside the search area by a kilometer and it therefore could just be missed.

The priority search area is no where close to being a 100% given like the football field when you know the rock is there.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 81): Quoting 777Jet (Reply 73): Under a sophisticated operation involving serious foul play on the YoungMans scale it makes no sense whatsoever to take the plane to the SIO, unless the operation somehow failed / went wrong. They are your words, not mine.

But these are your words, not mine:

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 66): very serious foul play.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 66): sophisticated professional type of operation.

I knew expected to write this but: I would really want Warren Platts to give info on the barnacles...

Sadly he is apparently gone.

TRB

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 80): A more senior pilot will have to hide it for longer. In case of Zaharie Shah for a very long time.

Of course. Although mental illness can come on later - I don't think it has to be a life-long condition, but I defer to medical professionals on that.

Quoting abba (Reply 83): What? OK so you do not see any difference between a private pilot using his plane to kill himself and an airline pilot using the WB he is entrusted to kill several hundred people for whose safety his is responsible?

Sigh. When did I say anything about private pilots? You seem to discount the ATR crash, as an example. That is not a private aircraft. For what it's worth, there are numerous private aircraft suicides, none of which I included in my list.

Quoting abba (Reply 83): But perhaps you also disagree on this point. I wouldn't be surprised.

Why are you so insulting?

Quoting abba (Reply 83): I am not claiming that screening for mental illness cannot be better in the West. But do you think that there is any screening in Mozambique - and please explain which screening that takes place here - and when you are at it you can include Maroco as well.

Why include Morocco? You already discounted that crash as irrelevant.  

Quoting abba (Reply 83): Yes indeed - but I understand that PlainsNtrains want to have a period of two years so as to make an argument about nothing.

Again, you are being incredibly disingenuous in a conversation that frankly is insulting on multiple levels. I don't "want" anything. I'm merely discussing different ways of looking at it. If your feathers are ruffled by the suggestion that the pilot did it in MH370, rest assured that I am not making that case. If your feathers are ruffled by the suggestion that a pilot might sometimes find his aircraft a suitable way to both end his life and make a statement, rest assured that I agree that it is a very, very rare occurrence.

Honestly, Abba, if you would quit insulting my posts and instead simply disagree with something, you might find this dialogue to be much more fulfilling.

-Dave

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 91): Irrelevant.

Very relevant as it will reveal if here might have been a major private issue that could have served as a motive. If there were major problems in his marriage, with his finances, with his health or any other similar kinds of private problems that is usually a motive for suicide, it would have been known.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 93): Honestly, Abba, if you would quit insulting my posts and instead simply disagree with something, you might find this dialogue to be much more fulfilling.

Perhaps you should listen just a little bit more, then, to your own preaching. You are yourself very insulting indeed. Perhaps you should also re-read what you actually write and reflect a little bit about its implications.

Now if you go further in analysis of the 5 suspected cases of airline pilots committing suicide using their equipment to do so, it is also noteworthy that 3 of the five is from relatively poor countries on the continent of Africa. While there is only one from Europe and one from Asia. This is in particular important when taking into consideration that immensely many more aircraft are operated and immensely many more pilots work outside Africa. So, if you ask the question: how often do pilots outside Africa deliberately crash their plans, the answers is: Almost never!

Quoting abba (Reply 94): Perhaps you should listen just a little bit more, then, to your own preaching. You are yourself very insulting indeed. Perhaps you should also re-read what you actually write and reflect a little bit about its implications.

Preaching? lol Well, after re-reading everything I wrote, I'm not clear how we got here. From reading back, I think you have set the tone of the dialogue, and you are welcome to disagree. Suffice it to say, it isn't worth everyone's time in this thread listening to us go back and forth. Carry on with your discussion and have a great Thursday.

-Dave

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 91): But these are your words, not mine: Quoting YoungMans (Reply 66): very serious foul play. Quoting YoungMans (Reply 66): sophisticated professional type of operation.

You are quoting there just a few selected words from whole sentences, which then give the quotes a totally different meaning. Politicians tend to do that a lot - quoting out of context!
Seeing that this issue is not going to go away, let me be as clear and concise on this as I possibly can.

Looking at the information we have, there is a possibility that the cause for the disappearance of MH370 may have been some form of serious foul play. I use 'foul play' for want of a better and more fitting term.
It certainly would not have been terrorism in the usual sense.
Had it been that, most likely we would have found out sooner or later because that kind of perpetrator tends to look for the usual 15 minutes of fame.

The kind of foul play I suspect would be way more sophisticated and well-planned than the recent bombing of the Russian airliner in Egypt.
And here again, and only this once now, I'll bring up my qualifier: If that is what happened.

Who would the perpetrators be for that kind of foul play?
I don't know.
Whoever it might have been, he, she or they would have had to be highly trained, possibly well armed and they would have had to have the right connections in the right places; and of course access to plenty of funds is a must.
And they also would have had to have what are, in their eyes, very good reasons; unless the perpetrators themselves were cold-hearted mercenaries who simply did as they are told.
The automatic question then would be, who gave them the orders.

Is that so unthinkable or unbelievable?
I don't think so; not in today's world (age) of highly advanced capabilities and greed.
Such foul play is also not unbelievable in today's ruthless world of corporate and real politics, where the public is all too often led to believe the opposite of what is actually happening.

We can be sure, though, if there was such a sophisticated perpetrator, there also would have had to be an opposition, someone or some entity the perpetrator was trying to outdo or work against. East versus west would come to mind, one corporation against another could have been possible, it could have been a payback for something or it might have been a warning.
The possibilities in the world of that kind of perpetrator, business or politics would be endless.
And again, too, if there is or was such an opposition, it may not at all be in their interest to go public with any of this.

So, in the case of MH370, are there indicators for such foul play?
Indeed there are or, to be more precise, there could be.
The early response to the incident, and how it all progressed from there on, could all be one big indicator; if one was to look at it properly and check it out. *)
The aircraft going dark at IGARI was too neat and perfect when looked at it as a possible first link in the foul play chain.
The SatComs coming back on line, just as radar coverage ends, definitely appears too neat and too right on time.
(This one item may well be the biggest give-away.)
The obfuscation by various authorities, real or perceived, could have been a lack of coordination, behind the scenes, what to tell the public or not. And the withholding of information would most likely be still going on, now.
That's why we hear nothing more about the barnacles, or so it seems. I wonder why ....
*) They say, the best way to hide something is in plain sight.

Is it possible that foul play was the cause of the disappearance of MH370? Yes, of course ....
Just as any of the other theoretical causes was possible; or not.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 96): Who would the perpetrators be for that kind of foul play? I don't know. Whoever it might have been, he, she or they would have had to be highly trained, possibly well armed and they would have had to have the right connections in the right places;

It would have to be a state. And it would have to have a lot of connections to a lot of "right" places. Too many to stay quiet.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 96): And they also would have had to have what are, in their eyes, very good reasons; unless the perpetrators themselves were cold-hearted mercenaries who simply did as they are told.

No even remotely possible reason has appeared.
And mercenaries are not kamikaze, they want to survive.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 96): Is that so unthinkable or unbelievable?

Yes.

Quoting abba (Reply 94): Quoting 777Jet (Reply 91): Irrelevant. Very relevant as it will reveal if here might have been a major private issue that could have served as a motive. If there were major problems in his marriage, with his finances, with his health or any other similar kinds of private problems that is usually a motive for suicide, it would have been known.

I said irrelevant to the following:

Quoting abba (Reply 76): There are examples of mental illness JAL 350. And motives - such as financial or medical and other private matters - are thoroughly investigated. And in all other cases clear motives have been found. Not in this.

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.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 96): You are quoting there just a few selected words from whole sentences, which then give the quotes a totally different meaning.

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.

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.

Nobody said it can't happen under any circumstances. But quite obviously it never did.

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.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 98): 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.

Because it never happened ? Probability is obviously extremely low.