The Best Flight 370 Scenario So Far - Theory of an actual pilot

Zaphod58
reply to post by Libertygal

 

The government owns either 40 or 48% of the airline. A mechanical failure adds them to the lawsuits, and the lose a lot. A hijacking is easier to defend.

I agree. I posted about this in another thread. They have already publically discussed (first time I have ever seen that) what the payout will be under each circumstance. Ie: hijacking vs mechanical failure. Most of the Chinese on board, it was stated, had bought travellers' insurance, which would pay out in case of a mechanical failure, but not in the instance of tereorism. Which, I am presuming, a hijacking would likely be classified under 'terrorism'.

I also predicted that whatever resulted in the lowest payout was going to end up being the end result, even if it had to be "crafted" to appear as such.

People, the world over, are smarmy. That's just a fact.

I don't remember if I posted this here or another thread.

An early build Triple (77 or 78) suffered major damage in a cockpit fire on the ground. The cause was faulty wiring in the crew oxygen system.

It was determined that 380 Triples were delivered similarly. This was number 404. It's not clear which ones were included.

Boeing recommended but didn't require a fix.

reply to post by xmaddness


Despite the fact that this scenario may very well be what took place. the airline does not want to pay all that money and insurance. they will have the official story as it being a hijack because insurers do not cover hijackings.

will everything be broken to the size of your hand if the plane hits the water from 25,000- 500- feet off the ground?

it it ran out of gas and nosed dived into the ocean there would be nothing left but if it ran out of fuel it would then spin apart and spreade out over a good area and there would be floating debris.

Does this scenario fit with the oil rig workers description of seeing a plane on fire ?

Time and heading ?

If so would seem to add a fair bit of weight to the fire in flight theory.

Zaphod (and others) - does the 777 have any automatic fire extinguishing systems ?

Assume there are portable extinguishers ?

Specifically in the landing gear bays - what is the best course of action for a pilot if a fire in that area, drop the gear or would that make it worse ?

While one of the best explanations I've heard so far, I think it pertinent to point out that in the sequence of known events so far, the left turn was made into the FMS (Flight Management System computer, on the pedestal/center console), and confirmed by the ACARS system, BEFORE the copilot (Ok, First Officer) said his goodnight signoff to ATC when he would have had to change frequencies. In the scenario described in the OP, this would mean the FO would have had to given no hint something was wrong when he knew there was. Or that the Captain and FO thought the problem was so small as to not need to be relayed, but I can't imagine this happening to a professional airline crew. Just the fact that they made a course change mid-flight means they should have notified someone (Enroute ATC? )

reply to post by chunder


There are extinguishers that can be activated in the cockpit for engine fires, and some now have cargo hold suppression systems I believe. Other than that it is hand held extinguishers.

Altitude is one way to fight it. The lack of oxygen will knock the fire down.

reply to post by JJRichey


Any links confirming that as from what I have read it is only supposition that the turn wasn't made manually ?

Pivotal point if confirmed.

Either way I assume any subsequent altitude change would have been under manual control - would that be likely whilst still on the same heading ?

I mean either the plane was being flown under manual control after the turn with altitude changes (in which case who knows what course it took) or it was on autopilot and continued in level flight on a straight course (or via waypoints) - does that make sense ?

reply to post by xmaddness


I was told that the plane was on autopilot before and during the two left turns and a radio report by the copilot that everything was OK.

reply to post by chunder


I was told by someone in the DOT that pings indicated the airplane was on autopilot during the two left turns.

chunder
Does this scenario fit with the oil rig workers description of seeing a plane ?

He was 370nm from the last known position so he physically would not have been able to see the aircraft even if it were on fire.

reply to post by sorgfelt


It was on autopilot to allow the crew to fight the fire. As for the timing, the timeline was confirmed by the Malaysian government, who has a very important interest in this being a hijacking.

I saw this theory on the net just a few minutes ago and I thought it was a really well written and convincing. I'm glad it got posted on ATS.

reply to post by xmaddness

There really is no point in speculating further until more evidence surfaces

I like your theory, however do not agree with this phrase.
Because if it is not true, and the plane was stolen, then we can be under cautious and that can lead to a possible disaster.
i think that we need to higher our defense to code red red red, until your excellent theory is confirmed.

JJRichey
While one of the best explanations I've heard so far, I think it pertinent to point out that in the sequence of known events so far, the left turn was made into the FMS (Flight Management System computer, on the pedestal/center console), and confirmed by the ACARS system, BEFORE the copilot (Ok, First Officer) said his goodnight signoff to ATC when he would have had to change frequencies.

The fact that the co-pilot (FO) sent the all is well signal AFTER the left turn has puzzled me as well.

In this situation I wonder if the following would still be plausible.

1) Pilot detects some minor alarm or malfunction in a non critical system.
2) The pilot, in an abundance of safety decides to punch in the coords for the emergency airport, just in case something is wrong and not just a false positive. The Left turn occurs.
3) The pilot then leaves the cockpit to investigate the alarm.
4) Co-pilot signals the all is well as they leave the airspace ATC.
5) All hell breaks loose as the pilot finds a fire.


This scenario seems plausible to me, but I would need the input of a veteran pilot to see if there is some SOP (standard operating procedure) which would not allow this scenario from taking place.

Remember, the culture there is to never present doubt in oneself about your abilities or be seen as weak. This may be why the ATC got the all clear, even though something may have been wrong.

How many times in life have we seen something go completely wrong and the person never asks for help because they are too afraid to look weak.

It's true that sometimes simple is best. It's a good theory, and aircraft failure is bound to happen every now and then.

But if this really were that simple, then why after so many days is there not one single piece of debris to be found. Sure it may have sank into the depths of the ocean by now, but surely something would have been found during this reportedly largest, multinational search (both air and sea).

Simple is good sometimes. But was 9/11 simple?
We know what the shadow government is capable of. If they wanted to make that plane disappear off the face of the Earth, they could use military explosives. The explosives used in 9/11 turned the towers into dust, who is to say they couldn't do that to the plane. And why couldn't they have blackmailed the pilots to follow their orders, if they wanted to keep the plane for whatever they wanted that was on it? Also, on 9/11 the second aircraft that witnesses saw was not the commercial airline that was reportedly used. Witnesses say it was a military plane. For whatever future plan they have, they now have a commercial plane at their disposal.

I'd like to think that your simple theory is the one that turns out, I hope it is. But all this happening at the same time as whats happening in Ukraine, makes me wonder if this is all unfolding into one big disaster.

reply to post by chunder


ktla.com...

A law enforcement official, who has been briefed, said the path change was programmed by the pilot at least 12 minutes before the copilot signed off, telling ATC, "All right, good night".

Seems that answers both of our questions. Granted, the OP sounds like a great theory, but the timeline is now nonsensical. It just doesn't come together with a fire, the loss of comms, and the turn, and "all right, good night". It's not sensible.

The article goes on to state that experts are arguing that it could be part of a pre-programmed flight plan programmed in, in case of emergencies, or something more nefarious.

I guess that is where it leaves us, as well. In attempting to fit all these pieces together, we must, as other have done, look at all angles.

This is why they are examining the psychology, friends, religion, family and social history of the pilot and copilot. The things that have come to light can really lead one to think in any direction, unfortunately.

If one chooses to stay with only the actions in the plane that day, and not include the other actions in their lives, their actions exclusively lead one to be suspicious, if only for the fact of that last sign of not signalling a problem.

However, if you look at it, as I tried to ascribe earlier, that it was a hidden signal, then he was sending a clue.

Would the copilot usually be the one to sign off?

Why no comments about the change in the flightplan? This is not merely an oversight.

He gave no verbal signals he was under duress, yet, the mere fact that he did not, in itself, should be suspicious.

Why no comms from passengers? One can only imagine their comms must have been seized upon, or shortly after, takeoff. Things happened too rapidly, that someone should have been able to reach ground with a message.

This also makes sense why no passengers attempted to overtake. They felt outnumbered. The amount of people to seize comms without even one sneaking out a call or text, even dialing a number and leaving the phone on speaker, had to be several. This was a large group involved. Far beyond the pilot and copilot.

Now, considering what we are given to now be facts, one can coclude only one of two things.

1. The copilot was under duress and hoped his good night call would be deemed suspicious, be seen as a call for help
Or
2. He was a part of something nefarious, and was signing off to simply end any further contact.

Basing it off of those two conclusiins, one has no choice then, but to begin to consider the above mentioned things of their personal lives, which is why they investigation has gone the way it has.

Both into their personal lives, to attempt to determine personal responsibility, as in, did the pilots do it?

Or, research on the passengers and any links to terrorism or nefarious acts on their behalf that could have led the pilots to act under duress.

And so, here we are today, attempting to decode the nearly impossible.

Throw into the mix the fact we all know the Malaysians are cheap and don't wish to pay out a red cent more than they absolutely must in insurance, they have every motive to lie and deceive, and with hold information, and misdirect, which is exactly what they have done the entire time. Each thing they say must be scrutinized, and backed up by other sources to be believed.

I just hope they find it with the black box in tact.
Lots of questions and speculation .. no answers.
I don't think they'll find any passengers alive.
(but I've been wrong before .... so who knows).

Libertygal
Each thing they say must be scrutinized, and backed up by other sources to be believed.

edit on 19-3-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)

Fully agree, not just Malaysian officials either - which is why we shouldn't take the word of an anonymous "law enforcement officer".

Another bit in that linked article didn't make sense, that Thai military radar tracked the flight on it's normal course, then lost it for 6 minutes, then picked up an unidentified return heading towards the Straits of Malacca where they followed it for some time.

Obviously if true the Thai military are looking back through data recordings so why did they lose it for 6 minutes, wouldn't it have still given a primary return even if the transponder was switched off. Did it just happen to change course in a blind spot.

I'm not convinced any course or altitude change or timeline of events can be trusted at this stage.

Isn't it absolutely amazing how right after the plane went missing, it was insisted that it didn't transmit ACARS data (for several days), so we had to wait for the black box.

Now, not only do we know with absolute certainty that the new course was programmed, we know down to the minute WHEN it was programmed. And no one finds that too convenient?

What happened to "don't trust governments/media"? People have bought their story hook line and sinker.

They are now saying the turn was gradual NOT sharp which is what the autopilot would do.
After all this time they STILL have yet to say EXACTLY what happened at what time.
When did the climb to 45000 happen??
The dive to almost 0?
Now we have a fishing boat in that area that claims it was flying very low to the water at that time.
After the turn did it drop to avoid radar?

The fact that the turn was programmed before the last comments AND the fact of the perfect timing of the planes action is very incriminating.
This was timed perfectly to happen in between the hand off to another countries controllers to buy as much time as possible to disappear. This fact PROVES it was NOT some fire it was planned intentionally to take place exactly at this time.