Log in:  

Register

Malaysian Flight 370?

Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Moderators: Eshnar, Irondan, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

What happened to Malaysian Flight MH370?

Catastrophic failure along flightpath
39
13%
Plane kept flying, eventually crashed way off course
40
13%
Terrorism, of some sort
37
12%
Pilot error of some sort
33
11%
Pilot sabotage of some sort
42
13%
Hijacking - crashed (landed?) far away
47
15%
Didn't you see Airport '77?
34
11%
Wormhole
40
13%
 
Total votes : 312

07 Mar 2016 18:05

Same chap as found the flaperon has found another bit, in the same spot, as might have come from MH370:
MH370 mystery: new item possibly found on Reunion Island

To be released tomorrow:
Malaysia Airlines MH370: Report may shed new light on aviation mystery
User avatar StyrbjornSterki
Member
 
Posts: 907
Joined: 18 Jul 2010 22:00

23 Jul 2016 13:35

MH370 Pilot Flew a Suicide Route on His Home Simulator Closely Matching Final Flight

New York has obtained a confidential document from the Malaysian police investigation into the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 that shows that the plane’s captain, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, conducted a simulated flight deep into the remote southern Indian Ocean less than a month before the plane vanished under uncannily similar circumstances. The revelation, which Malaysia withheld from a lengthy public report on the investigation, is the strongest evidence yet that Zaharie made off with the plane in a premeditated act of mass murder-suicide....
User avatar StyrbjornSterki
Member
 
Posts: 907
Joined: 18 Jul 2010 22:00

Re:

23 Jul 2016 16:18

StyrbjornSterki wrote:MH370 Pilot Flew a Suicide Route on His Home Simulator Closely Matching Final Flight

New York has obtained a confidential document from the Malaysian police investigation into the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 that shows that the plane’s captain, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, conducted a simulated flight deep into the remote southern Indian Ocean less than a month before the plane vanished under uncannily similar circumstances. The revelation, which Malaysia withheld from a lengthy public report on the investigation, is the strongest evidence yet that Zaharie made off with the plane in a premeditated act of mass murder-suicide....


Which also explains the lack of wreckage if he dived into the sea at speed. After this amount of time and sea currents and bad weather in the indian Ocean the wreckage will be scattered to all points of the compass probably and in small pieces.
movingtarget
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,216
Joined: 05 Aug 2009 08:54

25 Jul 2016 15:57

"Good" posts. Doesn't surprise me at all, I am sad to say. Occam's Razor, or just common logic, dictated this, or something close to it, was the most likely outcome.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,160
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

03 Aug 2016 22:32

movingtarget
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,216
Joined: 05 Aug 2009 08:54


23 May 2018 15:39

Search for MH370 to end next week, Malaysia says
By Joseph Sipalan
23 May 2018 — 7:14pm

Kuala Lumpur: The search for Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 by a private US firm will end next Tuesday and there will be no more extensions, Malaysian Transport Minister Anthony Loke said on Wednesday...
User avatar StyrbjornSterki
Member
 
Posts: 907
Joined: 18 Jul 2010 22:00


25 May 2018 00:42

I don't post much anymore, but wanted to comment as there have been quite a few articles surrounding this. The general assumption isn't that the pilot (captain most likely) didn't cause the aircraft to crash, which is what has been implied in a lot of headlines, but that he was likely unconscious, or virtually brain dead, like most of the passengers, when the plane finally went down. The dispute is that 60 Minutes (Australia) pondered whether the captain had retained consciousness throughout the flight, when it's unlikely he did.

I can understand why searches have been called off. It's 99% likely we know what has happened, and finding the wreckage will only confirm it, with likely nothing but cockpit noise, then some alarms on the CVR, and FDR showing the plane running out of fuel after being on autopilot for hours with zero controlled input. They have known for some time that the captain almost certainly locked out the first officer and anyone else, depressurized the cabin, changed course, shut the transponder off, and let the jet fly south into the deep, remote ocean before going down. He researched this on his own home computer, then deleted the files (found anyway), before taking this action. It's a tragic, ugly thought, and would be tough to prove in court, but it's by far the most likely scenario. The numerous bits of debris have confirmed where the plane likely went down, and damage to the debris indicated it crashed on it's own, likely in a steep dive, after running out of fuel.

Maybe in 5, 10 years some exploration or salvage crew will search and find the wreckage, but as I said, I am all but entirely confident it won't alter anything I've just written.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,160
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

Re:

25 May 2018 02:29

Alpe d'Huez wrote:I don't post much anymore, but wanted to comment as there have been quite a few articles surrounding this. The general assumption isn't that the pilot (captain most likely) didn't cause the aircraft to crash, which is what has been implied in a lot of headlines, but that he was likely unconscious, or virtually brain dead, like most of the passengers, when the plane finally went down. The dispute is that 60 Minutes (Australia) pondered whether the captain had retained consciousness throughout the flight, when it's unlikely he did.

I can understand why searches have been called off. It's 99% likely we know what has happened, and finding the wreckage will only confirm it, with likely nothing but cockpit noise, then some alarms on the CVR, and FDR showing the plane running out of fuel after being on autopilot for hours with zero controlled input. They have known for some time that the captain almost certainly locked out the first officer and anyone else, depressurized the cabin, changed course, shut the transponder off, and let the jet fly south into the deep, remote ocean before going down. He researched this on his own home computer, then deleted the files (found anyway), before taking this action. It's a tragic, ugly thought, and would be tough to prove in court, but it's by far the most likely scenario. The numerous bits of debris have confirmed where the plane likely went down, and damage to the debris indicated it crashed on it's own, likely in a steep dive, after running out of fuel.

Maybe in 5, 10 years some exploration or salvage crew will search and find the wreckage, but as I said, I am all but entirely confident it won't alter anything I've just written.


The odd thing is that the parts found have been quite large but obviously the debris trail over so much time over such a large expanse of ocean with storms and whatever means it was probably dispersed before they could ever find enough to track the rest of the wreckage.

I'm sure the controversy about the other Malaysian Airlines plane that was shot down over Ukraine will continue even with the release of the official report. Unlikely they will receive compensation such as the victim's families received eventually from the Libyan government re the Lockerbie disaster. If the Russians ever admit to it as an accident, they will want something in return for compensation, some sort of political leverage which seems unlikely at the moment or any time soon.
movingtarget
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,216
Joined: 05 Aug 2009 08:54

12 Jun 2018 17:56

I just picked up a copy of "MH370, Mystery Solved," by Larry Vance, published just this year. Vance was a crash investigator for the Canadian government for more than 30 years, lead investigator in more than 200 crashes and assisted in several hundreds more. Significantly, he was lead investigator in the crash of Swiss Air 111, an MD-11 that crashed into the North Atlantic off Nova Scotia after multiple system failures left the pilots with too narrow of a margin for error and they lost control. I refer to it as 'significant' because uncontrolled crashes into the sea are infrequent, so this the Swiss Air crash gave Vance the rare opportunity to go to school on the clues presented when such a crash happens. By all accounts he is one of the world's preeminent air crash investigators.

I think in an earlier post I linked to this video from an Australian 60 Minutes television show first aired in 2016. Mr. Vance is featured several times in it. In this film he covers analysis of the flap and flaperon, and his conclusion was exactly the same then as now. There have been additional pieces of wreckage from other areas of the aircraft recovered as well but the evidence from none of them contradicts Vance's earlier conclusion.

By the time of the 60 Minutes episode Vance already had had subject matter experts examine the flap and flaperon and they determined that both showed damage consistent with being in the extended position during a water landing. The flaps can't be extended unless both of two conditions are met: 1) someone moves the flap selector switch in the cockpit and 2) the flap actuating hydraulic system is pressurized. And there's no hydraulic power available unless at least one engine is operating. So there definitely was a functioning hand in the cockpit, probably with a similarly functioning pilot attached to it, and there still was fuel in the tanks.

So it didn't run out of fuel and crash, a pilot landed it (at least somewhat) softly on the water.

Before you go there, no, the loss of one engine will not force a commercial aircraft to land. All multiengine commercial aircraft must be able to continue to climb even if one engine fails at the instant it leaves the runway on takeoff, the point of flight at which the a/c is at its heaviest. Climbing requires thrust in excess of what is required to maintain level flight, so the loss of the thrust from one engine will not force a commercial a/c to land.

Vance also makes a big to-do of what he calls "the first anomaly," referring to the loss of response from MH370's transponder. Because a functioning transponder, which essentially is a wireless transmitter that broadcasts with an self-identifying code whenever swept by radar, makes an aircraft "visible" at distances far beyond those at which it could be seen entirely by radar signal bouncing off it and returning to the transmitter (known as the "primary return").

So switching a transponder off is just the sort of thing you'd do if you were preparing to disappear an airplane. Even if it malfunctions or catches fire, there's a spare transponder powered from a separate electrical circuit, so loss of the primary is no excuse for losing signal.

One minute and six seconds after MH370's final radio transmission, someone turned off the transponder and failed to switch on the back-up. The recording of that transmission still exists. There was no smoke alarm sounding and no indication of stress in the pilot's voice, and it is not possible that a battery fire in the cargo hold -- which has its own independent fire detection and suppression system -- could begun after the transmission, spread to the cockpit and disabled the transponder in so brief a time. Roughly two minutes after the transponder was switched off, MH370 reversed course and flew back over Malaysia.

Fifty-odd minutes later, military radar spotted MH370 well off-course, heading roughly WNW off the north end of Indonesia. That was the last time it was known to have been in radar contact.

Not quite seven hours after take-off, computers in MH370's Rolls Royce jet engines communicated with a maintenance company's satellite over the Indian ocean. Analysis indicated that that response came from somewhere roughly to the west of Australia, more than 2000 nautical miles south of Malaysia. This occurred more than one and one-half hours after the fight's scheduled time of arrival in Beijing, so MH370 would have been running on fumes. The RR engines where scheduled to check in again after another hour later but did not.

The forensic evidence from the flap and flaperon has direct implications to the cause of the "first anomaly." Because if MH370 was deliberately landed in the ocean after more than seven hours of controlled flight but before fuel exhaustion, there can be little doubt but that a pilot both turned off the transponder and flew the plane off-course.

Vance also goes through the alternate theories, at least the credible ones (he didn't waste time discounting CNN's resident idiot Don Lemon's "black hole" theory) and points out where each fails to satisfy some uncontested fact. The rogue pilot theory -- and only the rogue pilot theory -- fits with all the uncontested facts without any massaging.

He makes no effort to implicate either pilot but since the captain's home flight simulator bore evidence that he had rehearsed a flight path similar to that which MH370 is known to have flown, he suggests that it also is possible that whoever ditched the plane might also have studied the topography of the ocean floor and selected a landing location that specifically would make discovery of the airplane less likely, some place deep and rugged.

I paraphrase the author's "Summing Up" rather than quote to avoid copyright issues (page 299 in the eBook). The only possible scenario that satisfies all of the accepted 'facts' is that of a pilot deliberately flying the jet off-course. He adds that the official investigated concluded differently, that MH370 fell victim to fuel exhaustion while flying unpiloted, but Vance suggests they appear to have been trying to force their conclusion on facts that do not support it.

The book is written very much like an accident investigation report, dry and clinical, primarily a lengthy list of facts and diagrams accompanied by explanation, but Vance does offer some few "opinions," which probably are better characterised as the deductions of an experienced investigator. He thinks the pilot endeavoured to ditch in the ocean with as little damage as possible because doing so would minimize the size of the debris field, which also would lessen the possibility of the crash site ever being discovered. His team collected more than two million pieces of debris from Swiss Air 111, which is one reason he is unequivocal in stating that MH370, with fewer than 30 pieces of debris ever having been found, and with two of those pieces bearing witness to a controlled water landing, had to have performed a reasonably successful ditching in the ocean.

And since no one yet has found the werckage, the rest of the plan also seems to be working.
User avatar StyrbjornSterki
Member
 
Posts: 907
Joined: 18 Jul 2010 22:00

13 Jun 2018 03:28

SS, thanks for this summary. But if the pilot wanted to crash the plane intentionally, why would he care if the crash site was discovered? There was that flight out of Spain a few years ago where the crash was concluded to be a suicide, and in that case there wasn't any effort AFAIK to hide what happened. If someone is at the point where he not only wants to commit suicide, but doesn't care that he kills many other people along with himself, why would he care if this is concluded by investigators later?

A psychopath, such as a mass shooter, might want to kill a large number of people at one time, but he wants other people to know that he committed the crime, and generally tries to avoid being killed himself. On the other hand, someone who doesn't distinguish between his own death and that of others is not someone who would care one way or another if his act were discovered.

There seem to be other problems with this explanation, if I understand it correctly. There were two pilots flying the plane. If one of them turned off the transponder, then took the plane off course, why wouldn't the other be aware of this and try to stop him?
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,741
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re:

13 Jun 2018 11:20

Merckx index wrote:SS, thanks for this summary. But if the pilot wanted to crash the plane intentionally, why would he care if the crash site was discovered? There was that flight out of Spain a few years ago where the crash was concluded to be a suicide, and in that case there wasn't any effort AFAIK to hide what happened. If someone is at the point where he not only wants to commit suicide, but doesn't care that he kills many other people along with himself, why would he care if this is concluded by investigators later?

A psychopath, such as a mass shooter, might want to kill a large number of people at one time, but he wants other people to know that he committed the crime, and generally tries to avoid being killed himself. On the other hand, someone who doesn't distinguish between his own death and that of others is not someone who would care one way or another if his act were discovered.

There seem to be other problems with this explanation, if I understand it correctly. There were two pilots flying the plane. If one of them turned off the transponder, then took the plane off course, why wouldn't the other be aware of this and try to stop him?


The only explanation could be that the pilot locked the other pilot out of the cockpit on his break but usually there is a flight engineer as well so who knows ? The German pilot with mental health issues that flew his plane into the mountain a few years ago did exactly that. He put the plane into a dive while the other pilot was on his break. That was a smaller plane with only two cockpit crew I think. I think since the German disaster the protocol with cockpits has changed. I don't think a pilot can lock out another pilot now or that was what was being proposed with the modern planes. A door operated by a key code only known to the cabin crew.
movingtarget
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,216
Joined: 05 Aug 2009 08:54

Re: Malaysian Flight 370?

13 Jun 2018 22:41

The 767 was the last Boeing with a station for a flight engineer. Computerization largely made the human FE redundant. Human crewmembers are a fixed cost and the airlines are eager to eliminate every one they can. The "glass cockpit" allows a concentration of all the dials, indicators and warning lights into a space small enough that a single individual can monitor them all. MH370 only had two crewmember stations in the cockpit.

The authority of the captain of an aircraft is not so far removed from that of a ship's captain. He might not be God, but he'll do until God arrives. This is not mere airline tradition, it is codified by aviation law. In the interest of flight safety, the captain has the authority to exclude anyone he chooses from the flight deck, with the exception in some countries of security personnel for certain high-ranking government officials, but including the FO. He could simply have ordered the FO out and it would have been his duty (and legal obligation) to comply.

If he wanted to be more diplomatic about it, a captain can easily manufacture any number of reasons to get the FO out of the cockpit and the FO would comply, if he knows what's good for him. A request from the captain is an order delivered with a smile. It could be as easy as waiting until he knows food service is underway, then telling the FO to go get him a cup of coffee because the knows the flight attendants all are busy tending to the pax. Or tell the FO that he lent his favourite pen to the head FA and she didn't give it back, and ask him to go get it from her (captains are notoriously "thrifty" like that).

For that matter, by law there is a fire axe in the cockpit. Since he was going to kill the FO anyway but the FO had scuppered his plans by declining to leave the cockpit, why not just split his skull and be done with him? Tell him you're leaving to get it yourself ("You have the airplane"), then tell him to radio ATC and ask if there have been any pilot's reports of turbulence in the next hour of their flight path. While he's distracted scanning instruments and talking to ATC, bury the axe in the top of his head.

We don't know who did it, much less why, and if the plane is never found, it almost certainly will remain that way. I'd say that pretty well explains the motivation for ditching in as remote a location as possible.
User avatar StyrbjornSterki
Member
 
Posts: 907
Joined: 18 Jul 2010 22:00

01 Aug 2018 16:04

The Malaysian government have released their final report. They are discounting any possible involvement of the flight crew because they can't find any evidence of it, electing to blame instead "the possibility of unlawful interference by a third party."

So because they (claim to) find no evidence of the involvement of "A," some "B" (whose existence is unproved) must have been responsible.


And William of Ockham spins in his grave.
User avatar StyrbjornSterki
Member
 
Posts: 907
Joined: 18 Jul 2010 22:00

01 Aug 2018 16:17

Their conclusion doesn't really pass the smell test.
The poster formerly known as yespatterns.
User avatar GraftPunk
Member
 
Posts: 755
Joined: 21 Feb 2017 21:15
Location: High Desert Steppe

02 Aug 2018 00:47

i think it has to be an open verdict. They don't have enough information or wreckage. Someone turned the plane around but it makes no sense to turn the plane around and fly for so much longer if the idea was suicide or terrorism. It would have been ditched into the sea in SE Asia but it ended up off the Western Australian coast. Whatever record the pilots had it seems one of them has either had a mental episode or they both decided for political reasons. If it was planned by a terrorist group they would have definitely claimed it was their doing after the plane went missing. Publicity is always important for terrorists. Obviously no answers for the relatives just more questions. Why the pilots even needed to turn the plane around is strange. Crash anywhere into the ocean a long way from shore and the plane won't be easy to find. Look how long it took to find the Air France plane in the Atlantic even after finding considerable wreckage and having a good idea of where it crashed.
movingtarget
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,216
Joined: 05 Aug 2009 08:54

03 Aug 2018 16:54

In some countries, or some airlines, no one can be in the cockpit alone. If one pilot leaves, a deadheading pilot or flight attendant must come into the cockpit and sit in the jump seat until the pilot returns. This was not a rule with Malaysian airlines during the time of this crash. Cockpit Resource Management training indicates that a FO can override a captain, but only if the captain is doing something in error. As Strybjorn noted, there are many ways a captain could get rid of a FO, as even with CRM rules, the captain is still the ultimate authority of the aircraft. So having him ask the FO to do something trivial is certainly within his power, and presuming everything appeared normal, and the plane was just flying along, the FO would have no reason to question it.

No, the "official" result doesn't pass a smell test, it's one of political convenience. John Cox was right when he said in the big picture they must find the aircraft, as expensive and time consuming as it may be.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,160
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

Previous

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

Back to top