This Is The Most Plausible Theory For The Plane's Disappearance We've Heard Yet...

BI ^ | 3-18-2014 | Henry Blodget

[blam]

This Is The Most Plausible Theory For The Plane's Disappearance We've Heard Yet...

Henry Blodget
Mar. 18, 2014, 6:01 AM

Over the past 10 days, investigators and observers have come up with ever-more elaborate theories for what might have happened to Malaysia Airways Flight 370.

What was originally assumed to have been a tragic mid-air explosion or mechanical problem soon bloomed into a criminal investigation of a meticulously planned hijacking, commandeering, or otherwise stealing of a fully loaded commercial 777 in mid-air.

The perpetrator(s) knew the plane so well, one of the latest theories goes, that they climbed through a trap door outside the cockpit to reach circuit breakers necessary to shut down one of the communication's systems. They shut down the transponder. They made the plane disappear and fooled the world into thinking it had crashed. They flew one of two "arcs" for 7 hours — a "southern route" over the Indian Ocean on which, eventually, they crashed the plane in the ocean in a complicated suicide, and a "northern route" in which, perhaps, they slipped past land-based radar, flew to a destination in central Asia, and landed, perhaps preparing to use the plane again soon for a terrorist attack or other mission. This latter plan was executed so flawlessly, one observer theorized, that Flight 370 slipped in behind another commercial airliner for much of the route so as not to be noticed on radar.

The pilots' houses have been searched. Terrorist connections have been probed. Passenger backgrounds and possible motives have been scrutinized. And still, 10 days after the plane disappeared, we know nothing.

Perhaps that's because we're overthinking it.

A few days ago, a former pilot named Chris Goodfellow articulated an entirely different theory on Google+.

This theory fits the facts.

And it's the most plausible yet:

(snip)

[Tzfat]

Yes. Oceanic controllers are little more than flight followers.

[hoosiermama]

Trying to get in head of pilot
If I were bringing a plane with electrical outages and none working landing gear carrying hundreds of passengers
1. Land at nearest airport or return to original
If that is not an option : plan B
2 after I’d flown around a while to dump/use fuel
3. Not land in ocean where plane would sink
4 Stay away from heavily populated areas to diminish ground deaths
5 Find a nice sandy beach to belly land on

[bigdaddy45]

Here’s why i’m not buying terrorism. The whole point of terrorism is to terrorize... not just the people on the plane, but everyone else. There is an agenda, or a point to be made, no matter how misguided. But if you just hijack an airplane and fly it into the ocean with no one else knowing, its not terrorism. It’s suicide and murder.

[Tzfat]

I agree. I tend to think it was to steal the aircraft, or the passengers. It either didn’t work out and they crashed, or the aircraft is going to be used for something else later.

[BatGuano]

True, “closest airport” is a simple selection. But, after donning the O2 masks, accomplishing the immediate action checklist and determining what the best course is, the pilot should have squawked 7700 to let ATC know that his airplane was declaring an emergency. ATC then would not necessarily give vectors but clear conflicting traffic from the aircraft in distress.

BUT, the transponder was turned off! This is the mystery.
It has been 14 years since my last flight. This incident is a hell of a way to recall all the info that has drifted out of my mind. Didn't the 777 have a third VHF radio dedicated to transmitting data to Inmarsat?

Three years on the 777, 2200 generally peaceful hours.

[holden]

It's extremely unlikely if not impossible that someone aboard Singaporean Flight 68, another B777 flight very near to where Flight 370 diverted, for example, would notice an aircraft in trail that's trying not to be seen. If MH370 stayed 2000' below and 1/2 mile behind,--no chance.

HF

[AmusedBystander]

It may comes a shock to the average passenger, but airline pilots really do have every passenger's life in their hands. Our skill and training are the only thing keeping you safe in situations like this. A May Day call to ATC won't help.

What airline do you work for since I don't want to ever fly with you based on your answers in this post? Any pilot who doesn't issue a mayday while contemplating an emergency landing would be wasting valuable time to get responders prepared to search, fight fire, etc.

[lowtaxsmallgov]

But wouldn’t you at least squawk 7700? That takes about 0 seconds.

It doesn’t make any sense...

1:19 a.m. Everything fine, co-pilot calmly says “Good Night” to Malaysia ATC during handing off
1:21 a.m. Transponder goes out, no more comms...

[Conscience of a Conservative]

“Conflicts with latest report that one of the transponders was turned off before the pilot’s last sign-off to ground control.”

I thought that report had itself been debunked/retracted. Apparently, the transponder’s last ping was before the pilot’s sign-off, but that transponder only ‘pings’ every 30 minutes.

[Tzfat]

How do you squak 7700 on a transponder that is on a bus that is unpowered with an electrical fire etc?

[Tzfat]

Funny. If you fly, you've already flown with many just like me. You see, those that determine what is, and is not safe, sit in the front window seats, not passenger seats.That's why we get paid, and passengers pay - for what we know and do, not for what the average consumer thinks they know about aircraft safety.

I have declared emergencies a few times, but I am quite confident that I did it AFTER I made sure my aircraft, crew, and passengers did not need something more pressing. No one was arguing that a May Day should not have been made, only that a May Day call is not something needed immediately, if something (like a fire, or smoke) is more important. And there are several plausible reasons for no squak or May Day, that any airline pilot would find reasonable.

ARFF (Airport Rescue Fire fighting) take minutes to dispatch. Remember, we land at airports, where there are people standing by to help. Waiting to tell ATC risks nothing in that regard.

[holden]

Cockpit Resource Management

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate

Autopilot should handle the AVIATing, but the captain (or 1st officer if that becomes a delegated duty) must give this sufficient, multi-tasked attention to assure it's not been compromised, presumably related to the smoke emergency, and keeps the a/c upright and (NAVIGATE) flying toward the selected nearest acceptable airport on a reasonable altitude profile.

If I had just diverted 239 people, a $250M airplane, and my own little behind to a somewhat remote SE Asian island, I think it prudent that the captain (while he's immediately giving full attention to finding the source of the problem) let the non-flying pilot (1st officer, usually) give six seconds of attention to COMMUNICATing with ATC to have them get us sufficient rescue materiel on site to handle us when we "arrived".

"Center, 370 Heavy, May-Day, May-Day, diverting nearest due for flight deck smoke of unknown origin" (and listen for the acknowledgement, only then turning full attention to resolve the emergency or other assigned duties). Let ATC do the work to simulate what my NAV equipment is going to tell me is the nearest acceptable runway and follow my descent. I'd talk to them again only if I deem I have time.

HF

[lowtaxsmallgov]

Close. Yes to “debunked”, but you’ve got flight data system confused with transponder. ACARS pings a database of information every half hour; the Transponder is real-time but communicates very limited who/where data.

Near as I can tell, the time line goes something like this...
1:0? a.m. Computer has been reprogrammed for course change (according to NYT)
1:07 a.m. ACARS “pings” data release, including changed course
1:19 a.m. Everything fine, co-pilot calmly says “Good Night” to Malaysia ATC during handing off
1:20 a.m. Plane begins change of course
1:21 a.m. Transponder goes out, no more comms...
1:22 a.m. Plane disappears from Thai radar
1:28 a.m. Thai military radar picks up unidentified craft (not flying NNE)
1:37 a.m. Expected ACARS 1/2 hour “ping” does not occur, and never does again
2:15 a.m. Malaysian military contact over Pulau Perak

If the NYT report is correct - that the 1:07 ACARS reported an amended flight plan, with the change to be executed at just the moment comms went down, and just moments after signing off with Malaysian ATC - then I do not know how to reconcile this with a random mechanical event.

[Ozark Tom]

When seconds count and help is... a long time away; yep, have fate in your own hands.

[BuckeyeTexan]

FYI.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigeria_Airways_Flight_2120

When the landing gear was retracted, “burning rubber was brought into close proximity with hydraulic and electrical system components”, causing the failure of both hydraulic and pressurisation systems that led to structural damage and loss of control of the aircraft.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Aviate, navigate, then communicate. Yes?

[deport]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3134616/posts?

Rush Limbaugh and a pilot who called in with regards to the crash. It may or may not
be of interest to you.

***
RUSH: — misinformation. Now, I have a scenario here that I ran into by another pilot,
a former pilot. I don’t know if he flew the 777. His name is Chris Goodfellow, and
he put this theory of his up on Google Plus. It is a theory rooted in simplicity. It
does not involve your theory, but I want to get your thoughts on it.

****

[Tzfat]

Absolutely.