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]

No. We fight fires with fire suppression systems. But a fire may not have been the cause. Avionics smoke, might come from an electrical fire, but the fire in that case is not the most critical thing - it is the smoke. Then assuming you can see with a mask on, it is the damage to aircraft systems, first by arcing etc, lastly by actual flame. Modern airliners are so electric, this scenario causes the worst nightmares for pilots - a catestrophic electrical failure. In some airliners, you risk becoming no more than a lawn dart - with no remaining systems. It is the crews job to land ASAP, and run procedures to isolate systems quickly.

[Tzfat]

Yes, airman behavior is what we observe and train for. Again, how could ATC help you if you are on fire? Send up a ladder? There are NUMEROUS actual accidents that show that smoke in the flight deck has a devastating effect on communications, and ultimately survivability, because it is difficult or impossible to even communicate with your fellow pilot.

[Tzfat]

This may have been terror, however, your assertion that the lack of a May Day call is somehow conclusive that it was terror- simply because you, an amateur, with zero experience, think it logical, is even more absurd.

[Tzfat]

Think of it this way: clanging smoke or fire alarm goes off. You quickly scan the EICAS to find out where, while simultaneously ripping off your headset and donning a full face mask.

Your fellow pilot is doing the same, but you can't tell, because you can't see him in the dense smoke. You rip off the smoke shield from your mask so you can see the EICAS display again. For a moment you can clearly read, AVIONICS BAY SMOKE. Then the shield is clouded by soot. You rip another shield off off, and start reading the EICAS checklist. You try to transfer aircraft control to your first officer, but you can't find the speaker control in the thick smoke and you can't risk taking off the mask to shout, "you have the aircraft!" as you struggle to begin doing the checklist items in smoke so dense, you can barely see the switches, much less the EICAS screen itself.

So, you think with every airline pilot's memory of the ValueJet crash, where that crew barely had time to don oxygen masks before the flight deck visibility was ZERO and where they crashing within minutes, you would care two bits about letting some Vietnamese controller that you had a fire? Evidence of real events say that most of the time you will not get a emergency declared until the fire is OUT.

[don-o]

your assertion that the lack of a May Day call is somehow conclusive that it was terror-

I was enjoying the exchange, and hoping to learn, until you put words in my mouth. Do not do that. It damages your credibility.

[don-o]

Again, how could ATC help you if you are on fire? Send up a ladder?

Have best options on plan to get on the ground?

[Ronald_Magnus]

Airline cockpits have a powerful smoke removal system. Whether or not smoke would be so voluminous that the system would not be able to keep up with it is another question.

[Dan(9698)]

Would the pilot being tailgated question it and call it in?

When the Air Force intercepts and follows a target they get 1000 feet below and a short distance behind the other plane. They cannot be seen there.

[hoosiermama]

Thanks for the detailed answer

[don-o]

Is that the scenario of the Valu Jet that crashed in the Everglades? (I know I could do my own research, but thought you might know this.)

[Tzfat]

Tell that to the ValuJet crew.

The QRH I used very day, has 8 pages for Avionics Smoke, it is 36 point font so it can be POSSIBLY read - but at the top of the procedure it says, AT ANY TIME IN THIS PROCEDURE, IF SMOKE BECOMES DENSE, IMMEDIATELY TURN TO PAGE 7: SMOKE REMOVAL. On that page, it tells you to turn on certain fans, turn certain fans, and if still dense descended IMMEDIATELY to FL100 OR MEA. Then it tells you to REDUCE SPEED TO 250 KTS, OPEN COCKPIT WINDOW.

[Tzfat]

Have best options on plan to get on the ground?

We don't NEED ATC to get on the ground. Again, with time, we declare an emergency, but that is the last thing we worry about in critical situations like a fire or smoke on the flight deck.

[Tzfat]

Is that the scenario of the Valu Jet that crashed in the Everglades?

Close. The DC9 does not have EICAS, so they were likely reading from a QRH checklist. They made ONE turn to the left to return to land and then augured in. Both pilots had their masks on. They estimated that the smoke was so dense, the checklist were likely unreadable. They did not even have time to open a flight deck window.

[tophat9000]

How is one airliner going to see another airliner behind them?..an airliner can not see directly behind and below from cockpit or cabin or with the radar

[Tzfat]

The Air Canada fire was on a DC9 as well. That happened at cruise altitude when a lavatory flush motor burned up. The crew tried to isolate the short in a complex series of steps from their check list. They continued at cruise altitude for a number of minutes before they decided to descend and land. At that time they declared and emergency and descended to land at Cincinnati. After they landed, the aircraft was engulfed in flames and even the airport fire fighters were unable to save a number of passengers that did not get out in time.

The investigation found the crew partially to blame because they treated the fire as a troubleshooting exercise, instead of immediate action. For 30 years, airline pilots have been trained differently when it comes to cabin and flight deck fires. As the article correctly states, the priority is maintain control of the aircraft and immediately turn toward a safe field, then fight the fire, and last to communicate. Ideally, we train our crews that the pilot flying can also coordinate diversion with ATC, but that assumes a normal means of communication. Wearing a mask is a big issue.

In this case, since the transponder may have been off because an electrical bus was off line because of an avionics fire/smoke, it is likely that the number 1 radio is on the same bus (in the A320 series that I fly, #1 VHF and #1 transponder are on the same bus).

[tophat9000]

It does fit if the electrical fire was in the radios first..there was on report of another airliner made contact when Vietnam aircraft control did not get a reply from them and got a very heavy static and garbled reply they thought from the copilot

[hoosiermama]

How do these procedures compare to the satalitte arc ?

Are there any small island large beaches in the area they could have belly landed on?

[hoosiermama]

Would the fact that they were between towers have anything to do with the lack of mayday ?

[don-o]

Good stuff. Thanks.

So, at what point do you think this fire broke out? Do you buy into the tires catching on fire at takeoff?

[Tzfat]

Personally, I think it is most likely terrorism. The smoke theory is a good one though, and in that category I would lean more toward avionics. A tire, especially a nose tire (because they rarely catch fire), is unlikely to cause flight deck asphyxiation.