Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
My theory is that it landed safely in a hostel territory somewhere and will be used against the USA in another 9/11. Any thoughts?
I'd be surprised if they could fly a 777 into US airspace without being noticed (even with transponders off, etc) and shot down well in advance of getting near any major city.
 
I'd be surprised if they could fly a 777 into US airspace without being noticed (even with transponders off, etc) and shot down well in advance of getting near any major city.

Agreed. For them to even get over here, they'd have to pass within range of Kadena Air Base (Okinawa), Andersen AFB (Guam), two Atolls (Wake and Midway Islands), and Hickham AFB (Honolulu) to even reach the mainland USA.

BL.
 
Could be. Weird that a pilot intent on ditching the plane at sea would fly it for so much longer after turning off the transponder (based on ground radar and reports of the automated reporting system on the airliner pinging satellites for hours after its last reported contact with air traffic controllers).

How about if he took out a couple million dollars of insurance which would not pay out for suicide and he was trying to hide what he was doing.
 
My theory is that it landed safely in a hostel territory somewhere and will be used against the USA in another 9/11. Any thoughts?

If it landed safely with a plan to use it in a future attack it is highly unlikely that it would be against the US, as if that were the case it would make more sense to take a plane that is closer to the US it would be almost impossible to fly a plane halfway around the world without someone noticing it.

At this point I wouldn't completely rule out the flight being hijacked and landed somewhere, although I still think it is unlikely.

----------

How about if he took out a couple million dollars of insurance which would not pay out for suicide and he was trying to hide what he was doing.

I feel like if that was the case someone would have look into that and we would be hearing about one of the pilots having a big insurance policy.
 
I still think this could be suicide by Pilot. Possible scenario. One of the pilots leaves cockpit to go to the bathroom. Other pilot locks himself in the secure Cockpit turns of Various systems like tranponders etc to hide his location, turns aircraft in completely different direction so that it would be difficult to
locate and then ditches it in the sea.

If pilot suicide, how much does it matter if the plane is found or not, unless the pilot has a sick sense of humor? So it would not really matter if the transponder was turned off or not. Regarding the term "ditch" a controlled landing in the water, pilots usually try to ditch a plane if the goal is to live. If to die, its "auger in". ;)

My theory is that it landed safely in a hostel territory somewhere and will be used against the USA in another 9/11. Any thoughts?

Speculation yes, but not grounded with any evidence to call it a theory.
 
Last edited:
If pilot suicide, how much does it matter if the plane is found or not, unless the pilot has a sick sense of humor? So it would not really matter if the transponder was turned off or not. Regarding the term "ditch" a controlled landing in the water, pilots usually try to ditch a plane if the goal is to live. If to die, its "auger in". ;)



Speculation yes, but not grounded with any evidence to call it a theory.

Agreed. I should have said speculation instead of theory. I hope my speculation is completely wrong...
 
There is no way this plane carrying 300 people could have landed on some island without someone saying something.

I do have a theory.

The plane lost some electrical components and turned around to go back and then got off course and crashed into the ocean.
 
Agreed. I should have said speculation instead of theory. I hope my speculation is completely wrong...

Interesting enough there was a guy on TV today talking about hijack scenario like an inside job, and how they could try to avoid radar and that most likely it would require someone with really good working knowledge of the aircraft, not someone had just flown a simulator (which I assume was a reference to the WTC attack). I know of no evidence so it just sounded like he was running what-ifs through his head.

There is no way this plane carrying 300 people could have landed on some island without someone saying something.

I do have a theory.

The plane lost some electrical components and turned around to go back and then got off course and crashed into the ocean.

This is one of the stronger guesses imo. At night, over the ocean, possibly an undercast (although I don't know what the weather was), electrical/nav systems go kapluey, possibly related onboard fire (something similiar that happened to Swissair 111) they get lost and eventually run out of gas. As I recall the Swissair flight crashed before it ran out of gas. There the crew spent too much time messing with the issue instead landing immediately.
 
Flight Data Recorders record up to twenty five hours of data, in a continuous loop. If they only started recording when a crash occurred, investigators would be unable to tell what led up to the incident.
As already pointed out he meant the locating system is activated during a crash. However, that is not true if the submergence sensor is not triggered. A crash on land for instance will not generally trigger the underwater location beacon.



Michael
 
How about if he took out a couple million dollars of insurance which would not pay out for suicide and he was trying to hide what he was doing.

That might work, if he was diagnosed as terminal with some disease.

Perhaps it's a good thing that Walter White wasn't a pilot. ;)


<Lover of dark humour. Sue me.> :p

If pilot suicide, how much does it matter if the plane is found or not, unless the pilot has a sick sense of humor? So it would not really matter if the transponder was turned off or not?

Because if the plane is never found, any insurance would have to be paid-out.

There would be no way that they could prove suicide.
 
I still think this could be suicide by Pilot. Possible scenario. One of the pilots leaves cockpit to go to the bathroom. Other pilot locks himself in the secure Cockpit turns of Various systems like tranponders etc to hide his location, turns aircraft in completely different direction so that it would be difficult to
locate and then ditches it in the sea.
A 777 has more than 2 people in the cockpit does it not?
 
Interesting enough there was a guy on TV today talking about hijack scenario like an inside job, and how they could try to avoid radar and that most likely it would require someone with really good working knowledge of the aircraft, not someone had just flown a simulator (which I assume was a reference to the WTC attack). I know of no evidence so it just sounded like he was running what-ifs through his head.



This is one of the stronger guesses imo. At night, over the ocean, possibly an undercast (although I don't know what the weather was), electrical/nav systems go kapluey, possibly related onboard fire (something similiar that happened to Swissair 111) they get lost and eventually run out of gas. As I recall the Swissair flight crashed before it ran out of gas. There the crew spent too much time messing with the issue instead landing immediately.


From the WSJ:

"If multiple communication systems aboard Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 were manually disabled, as investigators increasingly suspect happened, it would have required detailed knowledge of the long-range Boeing Co. 777's inner workings.

"The first loss of the jet's transponder, which communicates the jet's position, speed and call sign to air traffic control radar, would require disabling a circuit breaker above and behind an overhead panel. Pilots rarely, if ever, need to access the circuit breakers, which are reserved for maintenance personnel."

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...0001424052702304914904579439653701712312.html
 
From the WSJ:

"If multiple communication systems aboard Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 were manually disabled, as investigators increasingly suspect happened, it would have required detailed knowledge of the long-range Boeing Co. 777's inner workings.

"The first loss of the jet's transponder, which communicates the jet's position, speed and call sign to air traffic control radar, would require disabling a circuit breaker above and behind an overhead panel. Pilots rarely, if ever, need to access the circuit breakers, which are reserved for maintenance personnel."

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...0001424052702304914904579439653701712312.html

The question boils down to "if". If it can be determined that the transponder was secured on purpose versus a serious compounding malfunction, this would point to foul play, but would not preclude a crash.
 
I think it depends on the specific model. When I fly from JFK to Hong Kong (a ~16 hour flight) it seems like they have 3-4 in there, at least when it first takes off.

It depends on flight time. Longer flights like yours have extra pilots to relieve other pilots due to the length of flying time. This flight was about 4-6 hours and would only require two.
 
I think it depends on the specific model. When I fly from JFK to Hong Kong (a ~16 hour flight) it seems like they have 3-4 in there, at least when it first takes off.

I think that is just for longer flights so one set of pilots can sleep when the other set flies, and switch off partway through the flight. Not sure of where the cutoff is for how long a flight can be without needing an extra crew though.
 
The Malaysian government is now claiming a hijacking.
INVESTIGATORS have concluded that one or more people with significant flying experience hijacked the missing Malaysia Airlines jet, switched off communication devices and steered it off-course, a Malaysian government official involved in the investigation said this afternoon.

The claim comes after seven days of fruitless searches for Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, and after revelations suggesting the plane made several course corrections after the cockpit’s last known contact with air traffic control.

The official, who is involved in the investigation, told the Associated Press no motive has been established, and it is not yet clear where the plane was taken. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to brief the media.

The official said that hijacking was no longer a theory. “It is conclusive,’’ he added.

Malaysia’s prime minister is expected to brief the media later today.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...370-was-hijacked/story-fni0xs63-1226855315871

And also,

SEPANG, Malaysia — Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 experienced significant changes in altitude after it lost contact with ground control, and altered its course more than once as if still under the command of a pilot, American officials and others familiar with the investigation said Friday.

Radar signals recorded by the Malaysian military appeared to show that the missing airliner climbed to 45,000 feet, above the approved altitude limit for a Boeing 777-200, soon after it disappeared from civilian radar and turned sharply to the west, according to a preliminary assessment by a person familiar with the data.

The radar track, which the Malaysian government has not released but says it has provided to the United States and China, showed that the plane then descended unevenly to 23,000 feet, below normal cruising levels, as it approached the densely populated island of Penang.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/world/asia/malaysia-military-radar.html
 
The Malaysian government is now claiming a hijacking.
That helps explain the weird flight path, but doesn't help any with locating it. I hope they landed it somewhere, but no ransom/demands yet seems odd (but I guess I'm thinking about old-school hijackings).

I can't imagine what the family members who have relatives on that flight must be feeling. One week and still no closure.
 
I think it depends on the specific model. When I fly from JFK to Hong Kong (a ~16 hour flight) it seems like they have 3-4 in there, at least when it first takes off.

It depends on flight time. Longer flights like yours have extra pilots to relieve other pilots due to the length of flying time. This flight was about 4-6 hours and would only require two.

I think that is just for longer flights so one set of pilots can sleep when the other set flies, and switch off partway through the flight. Not sure of where the cutoff is for how long a flight can be without needing an extra crew though.

Two functional crew, two jump seats which can be occupied by spare pilots or jump seaters.

----------


So it's a secret where it went. Hmmm.
 
I think it depends on the specific model. When I fly from JFK to Hong Kong (a ~16 hour flight) it seems like they have 3-4 in there, at least when it first takes off.

most modern aircraft only require 2 pilots: the captain and the FO. The last models of aircraft that required a third person (flight engineer) would be the DC-10, or B727. The MD-10 and MD-11 are basically the DC-10, but retrofit with newer avionics that eliminated the need for the flight engineer. Now, jumpseats and replacement crew are a different story altogether.

BL.
 
Press Conference now by Malaysian PM. The plane is believed to have deliberately flown towards a different direction. Amusing that it may have flown towards Kazakhstan.
 
Last edited:
Press Conference now with Malaysian PM. The plane is believed to have deliberately flown towards a different direction. Amusing that it may have flown towards Kazakhstan.

Yeah, definitely NOT the work of terrorists right? :rolleyes:

The act of deliberate action means this whole incident has something to do with either the pilots or the passenger on board.

People using stolen passports alone speaks volumes about their intentions.

Just praying for the safety of all the passengers. It has already been a week, and with every day passing, their survival seems more and more..... unlikely.
 
There was an interesting program on TV in the UK last night with a panel of experts including pilots, crash investigators etc. One of the pilots had an interesting theory "of course it is only speculation like the rest of us". His view was that there might have been "sudden de-compression". The pilot then turned the aircraft around before passing out and the aircraft then continue to fly itself.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.