Sorry, gotta disagree.
They turn the plane, and then 10 minutes later, they say “good night” to the tower and don’t mention that they have a fire they are dealing with?
If it is a situation so dire they have to divert the flight, yet they don’t mention word one to the tower about it makes no sense.
You are too trusting of so called journalists who have spent more time in conjecture than reporting facts. The timeline is important, but perhaps we don’t know the precise sequence of events.
“Sorry, gotta disagree.
They turn the plane, and then 10 minutes later, they say “good night” to the tower and don’t mention that they have a fire they are dealing with?
If it is a situation so dire they have to divert the flight, yet they don’t mention word one to the tower about it makes no sense.”
Plus, it made at least two additional course corrections out over the Straits of Malacca after the original westward turn. Someone was controlling the plane and it was responding accordingly. No fire.
Either that or there is some misreporting on the time of either the sign-off or the diversion, with the sign off actually occuring first. If you look at a time zone map, Vietnam and Cambodia are North East of Malasia, but in an earlier time zone, which is screwy.
>> They turn the plane, and then 10 minutes later, they say “good night” <<
That’s an absolutely critical fact or non-fact, to wit:
If the report you cite is correct, then the smoke-in-the-cockpit theory is blown to smithereens.
But so many non-facts about the case have already been reported that we oughta hold off until we get better info as to the “true fact” about the timing of that turn.
The fire and cascading system failure theory bothers me. I just don’t think the plane would stay in the air for 7-8 hours with a fire and multiple system failure, and dead pilots, etc,etc, etc. It would crash long before it got to the southern ocean.