Posted on 03/18/2014 5:14:03 AM PDT by 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)
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
We don’t really care much about letting all you folks know what is happening until after we have a situation under control. That includes ATC. It is LAST on our checklists.
not ridiculous if the assumption holds that the fire itself is the cause for lack of coms. Electrical panel fires in aircraft are not uncommon. and the theory is that the fire was burning these circuits up therefore unusable.
How do you think a burning tire would change the engine diagnostics?
“Wouldn’t you think the pilots would have signaled a distress call. Come on.”
Exactly. They also would have used oxygen if there was only smoke in the cabin.
Determining altitude with a radar strikes me as similar to trying to measure a fly’s wings with a yardstick.
When I look at the theory, is there enough O2 to sustain a tire fire at 35K ft? I honestly don’t know, this is not my field.
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.
see post 42 please
Airliners don't have rear view mirrors, so I doubt the pilots would have seen anyone behind them and it would be difficult for any of the passengers to look back and see anything.
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.
Yes, I however avionics bay fire is more plausible. They could have put out the fire and still succumbed to smoke
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).
Not buying it. Not issuing a mayday would in itself be negligent. If conditions were that bad that a ditch in the ocean was eminent, they could have given some indication that they were doomed.
Think about it. The article states that someone had methodically turned of several navigation aids. And I don’t think turning off a transponder would be protocol. And then reprogrammed the computer to execute a turn.
With two pilots on board, a mayday call would be doable. I would not be surprised it these jets had a switch one could hit in an emergency to automatically send a distress signal.
Oxygen in the cabin is on 12 minutes oxygen generators. Flight deck has a separate system with bottled O2
But don’t radars/planes have collision warning?
Cell phones don’t work above 4000 feet. Try it sometime
your assumption is that the fire in or below the fuse panel did not disable coms. it’s very possible that the last radio transmission was just before the cons were burning up, then they were unable to communicate.
occams razor hints that this simple fire theory is highly probable
I don't think it has to. My understanding is that the possible tracks the plane may have flown are based on signal strength readings made by by the receiving satellite. Analysts look at the strength of the received signal and deduce an approximate distance of the transmitter from the satellite.
It is plausible. I am an Airbus captain at a major US airline. A May Day call is not high on the list if you are fighting a fire, believe me. Some times we can get it out sometimes we are simply too busy at first. Especially with O2masks on.
Another theory, but too many facts don’t fit it. (at least based on what the public has been told)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.