In 1970, during the Suez Canal War, Israeli bombers would slip past Egyptian radar by flying close behind commercial airliners heading for Cairo. But that was more than four decades ago. Could that work today?
Simple, and accounts for everything.
Makes no sense that the passengers wouldn’t have called their loved ones if there was a fire/smoke on board.
Seven hours and they don’t call anyone? Right.
Most logical explanation yet at link. It would also explain the visual from the guy on oil rig
Two problems with this theory,,,,
First, if there was an electrical fire that didn’t instantly engulf the cockpit, why didn’t the crew communicate? In the SwissAir disaster off Nova Scotia a few years back, the crew declared an inflight and turned toward Halifax, communicating with air traffic controllers. There was no radio traffic from MH 370 after the final “good night” exchange—and that was followed by the shutdown of transponders and other communications systems. Sounds more like a deliberate act (as part of a hijacking) and not part of an in-flight emergency.
Secondly, this latest theory about MH 370 suggests the cockpit crew was overcome by smoke, yet the situation stabilized enough for the jet to continue flying, on auto-pilot—for another 5-7 hours. Obviously, all fires are different, but if it was electrical in nature, it would tend to follow the example of SwissAir Flight 111, which grew progressively worse, affecting many of the electrical panels in the cockpit and forcing the captain to leave his seat to fight the flames.
This new theory also doesn’t really account for the zoom to 45,000 feet, either. If engine failure was imminent, you’d climb as high as possible, giving you more time/distance to make an emergency landing. But the pilots would also be aware of the limits of the emergency O2 supply in the cabin (about 8 minutes), so they would not have remained at altitude for an extended period (as MH 370 apparently did, likely in a planned move to kill the passengers).
Still too many holes in “crew overcome while fighting a cockpit fire theory.” Best evidence still points to a deliberate act, led by one/both of the pilots or an outside hijacker with enough knowledge of the 777 (and the airline) to commandeer the jet, kill the crew and passengers, and set if off on its desired course.
Two questions on that: One, are there no fire suppression systems? And if there are, would they not send out some kind of automated signal indicating they were triggered? Presumably if there are in-frame fire suppression systems, that would be one of the first things the crew activated.
Also, tire fires have a really distinctive smell, as do electrical fires, and they aren’t even close to each other. The smoke is different too: electrical fires produce very thin smoke, based on the generally-nonflammable substances involved, whereas a tire fire produces thick black smoke. I find it difficult to believe that the crew would not be able to detect the difference, and would randomly start shutting off electrical systems despite no indication of any malfunction in them (indicators failing or producing obviously-spurious readings, systems going off-line, or system warning lights coming on).
Another theory, but too many facts don’t fit it. (at least based on what the public has been told)
I’ll ask the obvious question: Has a tire ever caught fire on takeoff? And a followup: Why would the Captain NOT radio “Smoke in the cabin”?
I read folks saying that he’s “too busy” to declare an emergency. That is ridiculous on its face. Flying a plane IS multitasking.
How might smoke from the burning tyre enter the cockpit and cabin if the cockpit and cabin are pressurised, and the landing gear bay is not?
1. Why no "MAYDAY" call? Perhaps it was given and no one heard it?
2. I think pilots in the cockpit have emergency oxygen masks with bottled oxygen that would allow them to operate even with smoke in the cockpit.
3. If the pilots were incapacitated and the plan on autopilot, why did it climb to 45,000 feet and then dive? It should've continued on the same path and altitude.
Oh well, this has given the 0bama regime some cover for their foreign policy blunders (Ukraine and Venezuela - when was the last time you heard about Venezuela?), but American's attention spans are growing shorter, so it's time to move on.
Doesn’t account for the changes in elevation, although I presume an ascent to very high altitude could be an attempt to snuff out a fire.
For some inexplicable reason, I keep thinking “Canadians”... something to do with Canadians.
1] Pings between plane and satellite show it a certain distance from the satellite during 5 hourly pings -- the last one painting the infamous north-south arc from Kazakistan to west coast of Australia.
The previous 4 hourly pings probably show it at a similar distance and that it did not cut through that arc on its way to Pakistan but was somewhere along that arc for some 5 hours.
2] The pings indicate that the landing gear did not go down -- thus a more than likely a ditch into the ocean of the southern arc.
Look at reply #48 on this Free Republic thread.
MH370 flew as low as 1,500m to avoid detection, says paper
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3134031/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3134031/posts?page=48#48
Report: Greek Ship Sent to Investigate Possible Plane Wreckage in Straights of Malacca
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3133830/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3133830/posts?page=78#78
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