1. MH370 speculation has become excessive recently. Metabunk is not a forum for creating theories by speculation. It's a forum for examining claims, and seeing if they hold up. Please respect this and keep threads on-topic. There are many other forums where speculation is welcome.
    Dismiss Notice
  1. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    I'm an not saying that. The problem with this incident is that it defies logic in the first place.

    I have a "most likely" scenario for the events currently revealed, but it is also speculation.

    In my mind, the most likely source of new information in the short term, will come from police sources, not aviation sources.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    I saw
    I saw this again and although AS they were maneuvering for the Approach to Orly Airport (been there, many times) it seemed that the actual visibility AS REPORTED for that Runway required them to use CAT III procedures. This can happen....a fog can limit visibility for a runway, AT an airport, while the REST of the city is clear!!
     
  3. Keith Beachy

    Keith Beachy Active Member

    I think the best speculation; putting in the wrong waypoint, and the pilots failed to do more than sit, letting the autopilot take them nowhere. I hate putting in data in the aircraft systems, I like to fly using the old method of paying attention; as I put in the wrong credit card number and my bill bounced...

    And the article.
    Wrong.
    Have to agree with Mick. We flew right next to Taipei airspace, and they were watching, and when we touched the border, they launched on us; but at .8 MACH, they are not going to catch us with F-5s, unless they use all their fuel and flameout as they shoot. The boarders are where they are watching. You could fly on the deck, but the fuel will not take you as far.

    Who is hiding this evidence? Is it on the plane.
     
  4. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    I think (correct me IF I'm wrong) that you may be laboring under a misconception that commercial airliners are "easily" taken-over by ground-based sources....and then "Remotely-Controlled"?

    I can assure you that this is NOT POSSIBLE!
     
  5. sharpnfuzzy

    sharpnfuzzy Member

    I am not, I'm merely referring to airport aids such as ILS. They don't take control of the plane, they just help the onboard systems navigate.
     
  6. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    It is ALSO important to point out that ANY runway....or 'airstrip' in the vernacular that YOU used....HAS to have a fully functioning ILS, before ANY airplane has even a hint of a "chance" at Auto-Landing"!!!!

    PLEASE click on the link....it leads to Wiki....yeah....BUT? IT is informative. I could also teach you about aviation....but I'd like to charge a fee for my time and effort. Sorry.....been a pilot for (now) over forty years. Over 20,000 hours total time.

    NOW? Pay to learn.....
     
  7. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    YES!!! You are correct!!! I apologize if I have any foot-in-mouth-(posting)-disease from before~!!!!
     
  8. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Yeah....lemme tell you about a (former) Captain....DC-10, this is "pre"-GPS positioning veryfying....this is OLD SCHOOL INS!

    Airplane was in Sydney. "Someone" entered the latitude....but not South....he put in NORTH. The machine senses the Earth's rotation, of course....BUT? IN Sydney the INS units were R&Rd....so, they had no "memory" from previous position info.

    Since the three INS units DID NOT KNOW what hemisphere they inialized in......(The Earth rotates the same. Upper or lower hemisphere!!)

    They sensed the rotation, and "assumed" they were in Northern Latitudes....THEN, airplane takes off....from Sydney to Hawai'i.

    ALL THREE INSs immediately show nonsense....BUT? This Captain continues on....using headings from the computer-generated Flight Plan (which every airline pilot reading this will know and understand),,,,,

    THIS story might be "true"? Might be slightly "embellished"....(BUT always funny to relate.....we called him "Magellan".

    Like I said....this "might" be just a "story".... but to fellow pilots? We always get a chuckle out of it.

    (PS: Flight landed safely at destination....Honolulu).....
     
  9. those who had all the logistics to fly to Kazakhstan unnoticed would sure be able to land the plane manually, so all this autopilot discussion is purely for educative purposes(I also learned something along the way) :)

    it does but they should put priority on what least defies logic... and what I think was the original plan(diverting to another country) already happened, just 2 weeks before MH370
     
  10. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    I'm sorry....Airplanes are not "magical beings"...they are machines, and governed by the same laws of physics that all of us must deal with.

    MH370 was thousands of miles (thousands of Kilometers) away from Kazakhstan!!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    One HUGE problem with this whole Kazak thing, its at the very limit of MH370's range, so to get there is would have had to go in a straight line. This means the plane would have over flown the air space of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Uzbekistan before reaching Kazakhstan. There is also a chance it would have gone near or over Nepal, China, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. Even if the plane did have the range to take a more round about route, Kazakhstan is a land locked nation, it would have had to cross the air spaces of one or more other nations to get there.

    Now even though the planes transponder was switched off or knocked out it would still been visible to military radar. (Indeed the Malaysian military tracked the plane for a full hour after the transponder ceased to function) For a start India and Pakistan are not the best of neighbours so any aircraft crossing that frontier only visible to military radar is going to get spotted and investigated by one side or the other. It's also got to cross Afghanistan, a bleeding war zone, entering the country from Pakistan airspace, over a boarder that is still watched to try to stop the Taliban slipping over it.

    Also bear in mind that once it appeared something was wrong all the military radars in the area would have been on the alert, just in case it was a 9-11 type scenario. It would have been spotted long before it reach Kazakhstan.

    Therefore the whole Kazak thing must be total twaddle/
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  12. derwoodii

    derwoodii Senior Member

    as tagged and named title i expect & welcome Jeff Wise to be along soon to enlighten us on the topic & as for flying over many airspace controlled country's & borders unnoticed,,,, ask the souls of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 1983
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. I know it's not there(and there is not even chance) just that autoland discussion is unnecessary because of that :)
     
  14. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    Curious, so where did it initially head for? Antarctica? Tierra del fuego, the long way?
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2015
  15. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    Its been quite a while since I worked on ground based Nav Aids but that what I thought would be needed.
     
  16. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    No....(lol)....once he (they) realized that the INS was giving them "garbage"....they just flew the headings from the Flight Plan....the FP had been computer-generated based on predicted winds aloft. They "faked" the position reports to Air Traffic Control....all the way to Honolulu. Of course, once within roughly 200 miles of the VORs in Hawai'i? They could easily correct navigation-wise.

    (Hence....nickname "Magellan")

    The ONLY reason this event ever came to attention? A 'whistleblower' (at least, that's the "story" as I have heard it). I DO know it's a true story....the details may have been embellished.....BUT? KNOW that following the computer Flight Plan from Sydney to....oh, I dunno....Honolulu?

    KNOW that pilots like to make stories......(**)

    Perfectly easy. It's just a matter of using the magnetic compass, really....EVERY airplane has one!! (Just ask Mick West!).

    IN FACT? Minor bit of trivia.....what commercial passenger airliner jet has a "rear-view mirror" in the cockpit? Well, the DC-9/MD-80 series....BECAUSE.....the compass (the "Wet compass", as pilots call it) is located BEHIND the pilots....it is printed "backwards" so it can be READ in the mirror, above the instrument panel.

    AS I SAID.....EVERY airplane MUST have a compass...a "wet compass" (sometimes called a "floating" compass). USUALLY it's located up front, within the pilot's eye-sight. The DC-9/MD-80 cockpit design presented a challenge....so, McDonnell-Douglas engineers came up with a creative solution. Hence, the mirror and the "backwards" compass....BEHIND the pilots' heads.

    Just a little-known tidbit.....

    (**)I will leave with this, more recent....USAIR 1549.....A-320 departed LaGuardia, and encountered a HUGE flock of Geese. Now....modern jet engines can take one, even TWO birds.....but BOTH engines of the A-320 ingested MULTIPLE large Geese....and engine failure....BOTH engines were failing.

    Long story....Captain Sullenberger (known as "Sully") successfully ditched his airplane into the Hudson River....no loss of life.

    REASON I mention this is? Inevitably some wit came up with a "drink" to name after him, Capt. Sully.....

    ...recall please that his airplane had TWO engines, flew into a flock of Geese and he ditched into a river....


    The drink is "TWO SHOTS of Grey Goose.....and a 'splash' of water'.

    Now....I did NOT make this up!!! I heard it, and felt it was worth sharing......



    EDIT....USAir 1549 full ATC transcript (edited).....NOTE that it is USAirways....which is NOW owned and merged into American Airlines. The "Cactus" call-sign that they use on the radio stems from the fact that an older airline called "America West" had the call-sign "Cactus" for many years.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2015
    • Informative Informative x 1
  17. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    USAir was bought by "America West"....America West had the ATC (Air Traffic Control) call-sign of "Cactus"...(THIS happened because originally their ATC Call-Sign was "America-West"......AND it caused great confusion in radio communications because of the similarity to "American Airlines". Hence, "America West" was forced to use a different "call-sign"..."Cactus"....THEN they bought USAir....AND the operating protocols OF "America West" were imposed on USAir....so, the "USAIR" radio call-sign was retired....they became "Cactus" for ATC purposes.

    I know this is complicated for non-pilots....it's just the way the airline "biz" works......
     
  18. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    AT THIS POINT? The whole "mess" is now owned by American Airlines.....so the "Cactus" call-sign is no more....once a merger in the airline "BIZ" is complete, the acquired companies eventually are "re-trained" to the basic protocols and SOPs, or "Standard Operating Procedures" per the FAA-imposed guidelines and Standards. AFTER that, then all flights change to the "new" ATC radio protocols....because ALL of the pilots have been "re-trained" per the over-all airline's standards.

    Whew!! Hard to explain....hope it makes sense!
     
    • Like Like x 2
  19. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    Sure, makes sense. Recall I worked for Transport Canada as Nav Aids & Comm tech. One picks stuff up from ATC and FSS. Then I worked for a public broadcaster and had to charter small float planes to service remote transmitters. Hours in flight conversing with pilots and again one picks things up. ( well not a lot of talking in flight on DHC2 or DHC3 piston but there was preflight and, all too often, weather delays.)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Calvin California

    Calvin California New Member

    I'm new to this forum, so forgive my missteps as I get to know the intricacies, etc...

    You are correct, there is no "clear evidence". There are things that do point to it, however.
     
  21. Calvin California

    Calvin California New Member

    The behavior of the plane from 1:07 to 2:37 indicates human intervention in the flight plan. Suggests, implies, makes possible...quibble over semantics. It is possible, based on the evidence we know of, that the plane was hijacked.
     
  22. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    It's also possible that I took it!



    (that specific mention, alone, may qualify the "NoParty explanation" as having more evidence than the "Hijackers did it, explanation") :p
     
    • Like Like x 1
  23. Calvin California

    Calvin California New Member

    Not so, based on the evidence. But, that post was definitely funny!
     
  24. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    Well, humor often involves a bit of exaggeration...but not much is needed in this situation.

    There are circumstances here that are hard to explain...
    so some people simply decide that we do have evidence of hijacking...that we don't really have.

    And nonsense like:
    "Flying along borders, a Georgia banjo player told me, is a good way to avoid being spotted on radar"
    should be a tipoff that this new theory is just fantasy...
     
  25. why else would the plane go around Indonesia? The PIC took probably the only possible route to get from IGARI to IO unchallenged.
     
  26. Rob

    Rob Member

    Apart from the many issues you guys already brought up with Jeff Wise' theory (that MH370 landed at Baikonur Cosmodrome), it appears to suffer from one other major issue :
    A flight towards the north does not match the doppler shift of the Inmarsat handshake pings :

    http://www.inmarsat.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Inmarsat-Differential-Doppler-Study.pdf

    I think that doppler data was the primary reason to look towards the south.
    Did anyone find an argument how Jeff Wise deals with that inconsistency in doppler data for his theory ?

    Meanwhile, a "south bound" theory by Simon Hardy has gotten some interest in the media,
    and I think this theory makes a lot of sense :

    http://www.flightglobal.com/features/mh370/

    It uses the Inmarsat handshake data, and ONLY assumes constant heading and speed after the Panang turn.
    It results in a projected crash position on the south side of the arc that is being searched,
    slightly north of the center arc.

    If you guys think this theory benefits from some discussion, we can start a new thread for it.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  27. Trailspotter

    Trailspotter Senior Member

    Just before the anniversary of its disappearance, the BBC News site published a piece on Flight MH370: Could it have been suicide?, addressing both questions:
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2015
    • Agree Agree x 1
  28. "Someone was looking at Penang. Someone was taking a long, emotional look at Penang. The captain was from the island of Penang."

    this is assumption, it's not confirmed if there was a significant change in altitude and even if there was - "Someone was taking a long, emotional look at Penang." is pure sensationalism

    "It flew in and out of the countries eight times,"

    this is also assumption, it's more probable that he flew along thai border but inside malaysian territory because thai ATC would very probably interrogate the aircraft if it strayed into their airspace, he didn't have any reason to cut the border 8 times because it would just increase chances of interrogating/interception, so it's silly theory

    "If you look at the output from Malaysian 370, there were actually three turns not one. "

    What three turns is he talking about? I can't see any of that on the radar trace provided.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  29. Trailspotter

    Trailspotter Senior Member

    @Stevan Gvozdenovic
    I am neither the proponent of a pilot suicide theory, nor very interested in the speculations about possible causes of MH370 disappearance. My post above was just to point out that such a serious news outlet like BBC could not resist the temptation to present that particular theory.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  30. occams rusty scissor

    occams rusty scissor Active Member

    The pilot suicide theory just doesn't sit right with me either. Why bother taking the plane to altitude? And if he's acting strangely wouldn't his offsider get a bit suspicious about what was going on? Admittedly I'm not a pilot (never had the grades...not that I'm bitter...) however it would seem odd that the copilot would just sit idly by and let the captain pull some dumb moves "hey I've always wanted to try a barrel roll in one of these things..." without even so much as an emergency call.

    There is nothing about a hijack theory by Russia/Mossad/Reptilians et al that particularly makes a good case either. Unless someone wanted to try a repeat 9/11 style incident. But even then, surely some jihadist or assorted crazies would have stuck their hands up to claim it?
     
  31. sharpnfuzzy

    sharpnfuzzy Member

    Presumably the other pilot would have to have been either incapacitated or locked out of the cockpit for this (speculated) plan to succeed. Similar to what is postulated to have happened in the crash of SilkAir 185.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  32. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    "sharpnfuzzy" makes a good speculative point in response to "occams rusty scissor" (post #70).

    I realize it has been roughly one year so far in this mystery. AND that it is sometimes just noise when speculating...but, certain factors indicate human interaction with the AutoPilot and FMS (Flight Management System) based on some of the down-linked data, that is automated on that sort of modern airliner.

    Has anyone any knowledge of either Pilots' life insurance details? Has this been brought up as yet, as a possible motive for a "fake" suicide?
    (I ask because in most instances life insurance policies will NOT pay out on a confirmed suicide). Perhaps this is an avenue to explore?

    Following on with this (albeit) speculation: IF one of the two pilots exits the Flight deck (usually for biological reasons, such as to go to the lavatory) on the modern airliners the lone pilot on the Flight Deck can certainly, if so inclined, lock the door to prevent entry. EVEN when a crewmember knows the entry code, there is a 'Hard-Lock' feature. For security reasons, I will spare some details. But, those in the airline biz know this.

    The lone Pilot has complete control...(I fear that my speculation may fall-apart here...I was about to suggest that this lone pilot could raise the cabin altitude to induce hypoxia, whilst having many hours' of O2 available to him. But, this fact wasn't down-linked by the automatic monitoring systems via ACARS, as far as I know). Still, being barricaded being a secure Flight Deck door? This would be a heinous, selfish and in-human act of course.

    Just 'spitballing' here (as the phrase goes....).

    Only reason I thought to bring this up, here, is because of this (possible) hint to MH370 debris:

    MH370 napkin found on Australian beach.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  33. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    Not according to this...

    "Some have floated the idea that the pilot might have decided to commit suicide or deliberately crash the plane as part
    of a complex insurance scam. But the report said, 'there is no record of him having secured a life insurance policy.'"

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...tors-find-no-proof-of-rogue-pilot-theory.html
     
    • Like Like x 1
  34. occams rusty scissor

    occams rusty scissor Active Member

    So in this instance (and without wanting to cause opsec issues) would there be any way for flight crew to raise an alarm to ATC? Are there any auxiliary comms outside of the flight deck for a scenario where hijackers lock flight crew out?
    I just find it strange that there was no alarm, no mayday call etc. but again I'm just working off very little knowledge of what goes on in the flight deck.

    I saw that story about the napkin being found and wondered if they'll be able to determine its origin. From what I saw it is a generic refresher towelette, but maybe there's a batch number they can match.
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2015
  35. occams rusty scissor

    occams rusty scissor Active Member

    It seems a complicated (and spectacularly selfish) way to suicide though. Of course that completely overlooks the fact that a suicidal person is not in a good frame of mind in the first place.
     
  36. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    The only incident I know of where anything like that happened was the case of Pinnacle 3701. Where the crew on a ferry flight (no passengers or cargo) decided to see if they could get their Bombardier CRJ-200 to its service ceiling of 41,000ft with catastrophic results. The aircrew received a Darwin Award for that stunt.
    http://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2004-11.html
     
    • Like Like x 1
  37. Rob

    Rob Member

    Before we resort to more speculation, I'd like to double-check a few more facts :

    Although the transponder of MH370 was switched off very quickly (over the China sea, and the first indication that something was not right) one thing that baffles me is this Inmarsat communication, which decidedly remained ON down to the very end.

    Maybe the experienced pilots on this forum could comment : what does a pilot have to do to switch off Inmarsat communication ? Is there a switch on flight deck of a 777 ?
    Or do you have to leave the cabin to switch off that system ?
     
  38. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    Most pilots would not have known about this aspect of the Satcom system before this incident . I certainly didn't.

    Switching it off would probably require shutting down the AC bus it operates from. That is a major change to the system.

    Otherwise you'd have to get below the flight deck, into the electronics compartment and know where to find the box.

    As far as access to Satcom is concerned, the head Flight Attendant on our aircraft can make calls from the main cabin if required. It would've interesting to know if MAS is the same.
     
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
  39. well it is possible that he didn't know that too, but I suppose if he really wanted to hide the aircraft forever he would inform himself much better (Satcom isn't military secret and the info is publically available) which leads me to the conclusion that he had some airport as his planned destination and wanted the aircraft to be invisible (for civilian ATC) only temporarily...
     
  40. Ray Von Geezer

    Ray Von Geezer Senior Member

    Can you explain that a bit more please? I'm not really following the logic.

    Assuming you're talking about a deliberate act by the pilot or pilots, why would they be less likely to bone up on this other system if they wanted to land at some airport and disappear than they would if, say, they planned to crash it into the sea?

    Or are you conjecturing that the plan was to land the plane somewhere it would subsequently be discovered, but something else went wrong before it could?

    Ray Von