A couple of questions for those with more knowledge of the facts of this case and aviation generally than me. How do they know the co-pilot made the final transmission? Have they identified his voice and/or was it made from his microphone as opposed to the pilots? Has murder/suicide been ruled out, i.e. a scenario where one of the pilots kills/incapacitates the other, steers the plane on a certain direction, reprograms a course to “nowhere” and then offs himself? Why is that scenario any less plausible than the fire-in-the-cockpit theory, especially given the lack of a distress call?
To protect the controllers, and to get "EVERY FACT POSSIBLE" for an incident/accident investigation, everything an air traffic controller does (in the United States and in the USAF) is recorded (radio, radar, and all documents are kept for a minimum time set by regulations.
"How do they know the co-pilot made the final transmission?
Have they identified his voice and/or was it made from his microphone as opposed to the pilots?"
I can guess that they played back the voice recordings from the control facility (center) in Malaysia, and his company supervisor identified his voice from the tapes.
"Has murder/suicide been ruled out,i.e. a scenario where one of the pilots kills/incapacitates the other,
steers the plane on a certain direction,
reprograms a course to “nowhere”
and then offs himself? "
I can only guess that the answer is "yes" for most, but "no" for some.
The breaking up of a marriage and his wife taking his children is a powerful burden on his mind.
But I'd be watching her and the children, just in case that it's a "false flag" and she makes a sudden unannounced departure out of Malaysia.
The pilot was also upset about his favored political leader being sentenced to 5 years in prison,
and his motivation was to cost his government as much as possible.
Revenge tends to lean more toward doing damage to others and not to himself, because he would want to see the results of his actions (just my opinion).
"Why is that scenario any less plausible than the fire-in-the-cockpit theory, especially given the lack of a distress call?"
The "Fire-in-the-cockpit" theory, was addressed in Hannity's interviews, and the answer was inferred, and not directly announced.
A fire would not allow the extended flight time of several hours after the transponder was turned off, and would consume the aircraft and expedite its disintegration quickly in the air.
Fires in an aircraft flying at 540 knots rapidly spreads once the outer airflow starts to feed the fire.
Now,
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR SOME NEWS REPORTER TO ASK AN "ACARS" EXPERT:
Reference the ACARS equipment on board the Boeing 777: IF the ACARS box was removed from that aircraft and taken to another aircraft
and flown to another airport
and then powered up on a test bench or in another aircraft with it's antenna hooked up,
WOULD IT "PING" OR "HANDSHAKE" the Satellite with the same identity markings of the original Boeing 777 that it had been removed from ?
AND IF this was done, could it be done in such time as to "PING" OR "HANDSHAKE" the Satellite within the same hour time limit as the other pings or handshakes ?
Or is this impossible, even if you use battery power to keep the ACARS box active?
Or IS this some technical information that SHOULD BE KEPT SECRET ?