• 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.

Flight MH370 Speculation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remote take over in theory now

http://www.news.com.au/travel/trave...ged-via-computer/story-fnizu68q-1226857475351


am i the only one who still thinks it was dynamic cockpit cabin depressurization, both pilots incapacitated the electrics damaged or or fail over short time. Auto controls take it off and away north or south the locked door prevents any access and the crew / passenger soon succumb to cold & low O2...... out of fuel its in the water off OZ or India.
The claim of an in inside job or take over seem beyond practical or capable. Stop looking at the pilots MO find the guy who screws on the flight deck windows.
 
Pete Tar said:
Some people really consider times like this their moment to shine.
I don't know why they just don't take up novel writing.
Click to expand...
I don't think the idea that it could be loaded with a nuke is that extraordinary. I'm sure the thought has crossed minds in the intelligence community. If the plane is intact, its use as a weapon of some kind is the only reason I can see of no one claiming responsibility thus far. They haven't claimed responsibility because they are not done yet.

The idea Iran, or any other nation with an air force and possible nuclear capabilities needs to hijack the plane to deliver its nukes is though.
 
derwoodii said:
Remote take over in theory now
Click to expand...

Well, we can dismiss that immediately, it is nonsense. Oh, reading the article more carefully, I see the headline is a bit misleading.

am i the only one who still thinks it was dynamic cockpit cabin depressurization, both pilots incapacitated the electrics damaged or or fail over short time. Auto controls take it off and away north or south the locked door prevents any access and the crew / passenger soon succumb to cold & low O2...... out of fuel its in the water off OZ or India.
Click to expand...

You're perhaps not the 'only one', but I can assure you that scenario is highly implausible.

The "Auto controls" aren't autonomous. It is impossible for just the cockpit to become un-pressurized, and not the entire airplane.
And, without too much detail, the Flight Deck door could be opened by any other crew member if the pilots inside were incapacitated.
 
WeedWhacker said:
Well, we can dismiss that immediately, it is nonsense. Oh, reading the article more carefully, I see the headline is a bit misleading.



You're perhaps not the 'only one', but I can assure you that scenario is highly implausible.

The "Auto controls" aren't autonomous. It is impossible for just the cockpit to become un-pressurized, and not the entire airplane.
And, without too much detail, the Flight Deck door could be opened by any other crew member if the pilots inside were incapacitated.
Click to expand...
that's quite a bit of detail
 
It would be almost impossible to fly in the sort of tight formation required to present as one blip on a Air defence radar screen. Yes I know about 747's and C17's doing air to air refueling, but that is never done at 35,000 feet for good reasons. Formation flying requires the wingman to have a performance margin on the lead aircraft. This does not exist at 35,000 feet. The sort of intercept required to get even close to the SIA aircraft, at night, in order to get into formation is beyond most pilots. Neither of these pilot had military formation training either.

Turning the transponder off also turns the TCAS off. So the pilot would be down to a visual intercept on a dark night at 35,000 feet? No chance in the world.

I give this one zero credence.
 
Last edited:
WeedWhacker said:
It is impossible for just the cockpit to become un-pressurized, and not the entire airplane.
And, without too much detail, the Flight Deck door could be opened by any other crew member if the pilots inside were incapacitated.
Click to expand...

I am suggesting that the whole plane suffered the dynamic depressurization from the flight deck back knocking out electric and other critical coms. The flight crew suffered fast unable to call mayday and the cabin crew passengers same effect in 15 minutes time. Its to cold dark windy and low o2 to gain entry. How do you open a locked door against 900 click -60 c winds in the pitch black in less than 3 minutes or holding your breath.

The plane flew on auto. Seems thou the auto pilot is not that capable so my position may be low probability.
 
Thailand finally said something:
Thai officials said radar equipment in southern Thailand detected the plane. Malaysian officials have said the plane might ultimately have passed through northern Thailand, but Thai Air Chief Marshal Prajin Juntong told reporters Tuesday that the country's northern radar did not detect it.

If it would be too hard to fly close enough to be one blip on the radar, would there be a chance the radar operator would be not alarmed if there were 2 blips close to each other? false echo or something like that? Taking a nap?
 
derwoodii said:
I am suggesting that the whole plane suffered the dynamic depressurization from the flight deck back knocking out electric and other critical coms. The flight crew suffered fast unable to call mayday and the cabin crew passengers same effect in 15 minutes time. Its to cold dark windy and low o2 to gain entry. How do you open a locked door against 900 click -60 c winds in the pitch black in less than 3 minutes or holding your breath.

The plane flew on auto. Seems thou the auto pilot is not that capable so my position may be low probability.
Click to expand...

A flight deck window out would not create high wind pressure against the door. There would be a lot of swirling air in the cockpit, pressure on the door would be fairly neutral, IMO.

PS: Which way do those doors open?
 
Last edited:
What I think happened is the flight crew was overcome by smoke and the plane continued on the heading, probably on George (autopilot), until it ran out of fuel or the fire destroyed the control surfaces and it crashed. You will find it along that route–looking elsewhere is pointless. .... Get on Google Earth and type in Pulau Langkawi and then look at it in relation to the radar track heading. Two plus two equals four. For me, that is the simple explanation why it turned and headed in that direction. Smart pilot. He just didn’t have the time.
Content from External Source
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/
 
This morning the "news" included a statement that a "computer" had been used to reprogram the direction of flight and that only an experienced pilot would have been able to enter the commands in that supposed computer to change the heading. I have no idea what they were talking about in that regard. I'm not sure they did either.
 
Hama Neggs said:
This morning the "news" included a statement that a "computer" had been used to reprogram the direction of flight and that only an experienced pilot would have been able to enter the commands in that supposed computer to change the heading. I have no idea what they were talking about in that regard. I'm not sure they did either.
Click to expand...

Another example of imprecision in reporting due to a lack of thorough aviation knowledge.

The "computer" being referred to is simply the FMC (Flight Management Computer) which is the "heart" of all modern airliners. It coordinates with the navigation database, and inputs from other computers (like the Air Data Computer, 'ADC') for performance calculations, etc.
 
Hama Neggs said:
This morning the "news" included a statement that a "computer" had been used to reprogram the direction of flight and that only an experienced pilot would have been able to enter the commands in that supposed computer to change the heading. I have no idea what they were talking about in that regard. I'm not sure they did either.
Click to expand...

The actual autopilot seems fairly simple:

Early theories were that the pilots adjusted the heading here before they passed out. Presumably that would just be as simple as turning the middle knob.

I see references to a "route manager" (activated by the LNAV button), but mostly on simulator forums.
 
Mick West said:
The actual autopilot seems fairly simple:
Click to expand...

Yes, indeed. The FMC also integrates the inputs from the MCP (what you have pictured).

FMC:


Or more precisely, the CDU (Control Display Unit) to input and read info to/from the FMC (the physical computers themselves are of course down below in the avionics bays).
 
WeedWhacker said:
Another example of imprecision in reporting due to a lack of thorough aviation knowledge.

The "computer" being referred to is simply the FMC (Flight Management Computer) which is the "heart" of all modern airliners. It coordinates with the navigation database, and inputs from other computers (like the Air Data Computer, 'ADC') for performance calculations, etc.
Click to expand...
They talked about a number of "keystrokes" needed to change the aircraft's heading and how only an experienced pilot would be able to do that.
 
WeedWhacker said:
Another example of imprecision in reporting due to a lack of thorough aviation knowledge.

The "computer" being referred to is simply the FMC (Flight Management Computer) which is the "heart" of all modern airliners. It coordinates with the navigation database, and inputs from other computers (like the Air Data Computer, 'ADC') for performance calculations, etc.
Click to expand...

And the FMC is controlled by a CDU (Control Data Unit) (the keyboard and screen). So yeah, the FMC is probably the "computer" they are referring to.

Example use in a simulator.
 
Hama Neggs said:
They talked about a number of "keystrokes" needed to change the aircraft's heading and how only an experienced pilot would be able to do that.
Click to expand...

Well, as mentioned, this is due to their unfamiliarity. To change the heading, it is only a matter of turning a knob, and selecting a "mode"...referring to the MCP image that Mick posted. (#178)
 
Hama Neggs said:
An earlier report, days ago, referred to just that central knob being needed to dial in a new heading.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that is correct...caveat, it depends on the "mode" the A/P is using for roll control, though. IF in any mode other than "HDG SEL", then the knob has no effect. The little black button in the center of the HDG knob is a push-to-activate the SEL mode.
 
WeedWhacker said:
Yes, and that is correct...caveat, it depends on the "mode" the A/P is using for roll control, though. IF in any mode other than "HDG SEL", then the knob has no effect. The little black button in the center of the HDG knob is a push-to-activate the SEL mode.
Click to expand...
At any rate, and experienced pilot would know that and not have to use the more complex method to change headings, yes?
 
Hama Neggs said:
At any rate, and experienced pilot would know that and not have to use the more complex method to change headings, yes?
Click to expand...

Yes....in addition, the FMC doesn't have an heading inputs anyway. Most of the FMC info is the navigation database. You define the flight plan, waypoints and such (for enroute segments), SIDs and STARs for departure and arrival procedures, and Instrument Landing procedures too...then, once those are selected in the FMC, the MCP is used to "tell" the A/P and Flight Director what you, the pilot, want it to do.

But again...simple heading commands are merely a function of the MCP.
 
WeedWhacker said:
Yes....in addition, the FMC doesn't have an heading inputs anyway. Most of the FMC info is the navigation database. You define the flight plan, waypoints and such (for enroute segments), SIDs and STARs for departure and arrival procedures, and Instrument Landing procedures too...then, once those are selected in the FMC, the MCP is used to "tell" the A/P and Flight Director what you, the pilot, want it to do.

But again...simple heading commands are merely a function of the MCP.
Click to expand...
I don't know if they were intending to imply a more complex maneuver or just a heading change. I'm not sure they knew that either. They just want to supply all the "news" they can muster. :rolleyes:
 
Pete Tar said:
So the plane is turned with a knob, not the control stick?
Click to expand...

If you are flying with the autopilot, yes. Normally you turn by the yoke and rudder pedals.



Like in car, speed is controlled by the accelerator pedal, unless you are using cruise control, and then it's by the cruise control lever/buttons.
 
Mick West said:
Normally you turn by the yoke and rudder pedals.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind, though, the rudders are generally not used when airborne (unlike in smaller light airplanes). There just isn't that much adverse aileron yaw, and the "always on" Yaw Dampers take care automatically if need be. Remember the tragic American Airlines A-300-600 crash in November, 2001. (Flight 587). First Officer was simply too aggressive, and used unnecessary rudder inputs for what he perceived was required in a wake turbulence encounter.

However when on the ground, the Nose Wheel steering is tied into the rudder pedals (just like most light airplanes) and is used for higher-speed ground operations...but for sharper turns at slow taxi speed, there is a tiller (usually on the left only, but many wide bodies have one for the F/O as well). This provides a much larger range of nosewheel travel, 65 to ~70+ degrees either side (depending on specific airplane**).

Finally, rudder can be used in flight in crosswind situations during landings. Just as you do in smaller airplanes.

** Example, the B757 N/W has a steering angle range of 65°, while the B777's is 70°.
 
Last edited:
Technical discussions aside, it seems like media consensus is that the flight was rerouted by a skilled person, do the aviation pros here disagree?
 
ralph Leo said:
Technical discussions aside, it seems like media consensus is that the flight was rerouted by a skilled person, do the aviation pros here disagree?
Click to expand...

No. This is why some "speculations" about some sort of major catastrophe resulting in pilot incapacitation seem completely off the table as hypotheses.
 
Cairenn said:
Someone else posted this and there were no comments on it. I would like get some. It is nice and fairly simple.

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/
Click to expand...

Well...firstly the article gets it wrong when citing the Nigeria Airways crash, and proposing that the nose wheel tires on MH370 "overheated". In the Nigeria airplane's case, it was two Main tires, but nose wheel tires simply do not carry that much load to be affected by sidewall flex heat build-up.

The article also says this:
Yes, pilots have access to oxygen masks, but this is a no-no with fire.
Content from External Source
And this is not accurate. Airliner O2 masks can seal tightly, and provide positive pressure of 100% oxygen. There are also smoke goggles (and some more advanced designs which have a full-face visor and mask combined into one).



The article does mention a "smoke hood" and these have been required equipment for many years...called a "PBE".


The intent of the PBE is for one(or more) crew member (and cabin crew are trained to use them also) to have mobility and protection if fighting a fire.

I also caught this sentence:
Ongoing speculation of a hijacking and/or murder-suicide and that there was a flight engineer on board ...
Content from External Source
And this makes me doubt the author's familiarity with the facts. Since we know (A) the B777 does not have a flight engineer position, nor need and, (B) the crew list was published many days ago.

I'm predisposed to discount this person's speculations, and some of his commentary is sorta accurate, while elsewhere he just gets too much wrong. He referenced SwissAir 111 (which could be a scenario suffered by MH370), but he called the airplane a "DC-10" when in fact it was an MD-11. A bit pedantic on my part perhaps, but like he wrote: "2 + 2 = 4".
 
I was just getting ready to share that as it seems to make the most sense of all the theories ATM, however it does get more difficult to not lean toward the possibility of a hijacking type of scenario the longer this plane remains missing. The odds of having an entire 777 just vanish with no sign of the aircraft after this much time has got to be infinitesimal. As far as the flight engineer and the murder suicide thing goes; I heard that a few days ago myself, and have read that on other forums (non conspiracy related). Between the conflicting reports, rumors, and the media just driving this into the ground with little hard evidence it's no wonder that people get confused. Maybe the plane was hijacked, maybe it crashed due to equipment failure, maybe it was stolen, maybe this, maybe that. While it's interesting to speculate, the reality is that it's not worth much until you have evidence that tells us something better than where the plane might be or could have gone to. The ocean is a big place, and the search area only seems to get bigger. I'd like to see this plane found, but I don't think full search efforts will carry on forever, so this could end up being a mystery for the ages.
 
WeedWhacker said:
I also caught this sentence:
Ongoing speculation of a hijacking and/or murder-suicide and that there was a flight engineer on board ...
Content from External Source
And this makes me doubt the author's familiarity with the facts. Since we know (A) the B777 does not have a flight engineer position, nor need and, (B) the crew list was published many days ago.

I'm predisposed to discount this person's speculations, and some of his commentary is sorta accurate, while elsewhere he just gets too much wrong. He referenced SwissAir 111 (which could be a scenario suffered by MH370), but he called the airplane a "DC-10" when in fact it was an MD-11. A bit pedantic on my part perhaps, but like he wrote: "2 + 2 = 4".
Click to expand...
my recollection is that the 'flight engineer' was a passenger, but of course don't quote me. with all those plane simulator games out there..really..how hard would it be for a passenger to change a heading?
 
deirdre said:
my recollection is that the 'flight engineer' was a passenger, but of course don't quote me. with all those plane simulator games out there..really..how hard would it be for a passenger to change a heading?
Click to expand...

Last question first: Easy, but they would have to get access first.

RE: A "flight engineer". On long-haul flights in two-person flight decks there will be either one or two (depending on length of flight segment) augmented crew who are pilots, and must be type-rated on the equipment (referring to U.S. regulations). I'm sure that ICAO rules are similar.

However, the Kuala Lumpur - Beijing flight was under 8 hours block-to-block, so no augmented crew is needed. Here is the full crew list:


I see the two pilots labeled as "Tech Crew" (must be a Malaysian Airlines term). The remainder are cabin crew. 10 Flight Attendants sounds about right for the B777 operated internationally.
 
This satellite image is being reported locally - I thought i'd seen something about it here but can't find anything.




The Hindu said Anoop Madhav Yeggina had been scurrying through innumerable images of DigitalGlobe Satellite QB02 over the past few days until he stumbled upon an image which almost took his breath away.
The 29-year-old, like tens of thousands of others around the world, was involved in the crowd-sourcing project to find the missing plane.
Content from External Source
 
MikeC said:
This satellite image is being reported locally - I thought i'd seen something about it here but can't find anything.




The Hindu said Anoop Madhav Yeggina had been scurrying through innumerable images of DigitalGlobe Satellite QB02 over the past few days until he stumbled upon an image which almost took his breath away.
The 29-year-old, like tens of thousands of others around the world, was involved in the crowd-sourcing project to find the missing plane.
Content from External Source
Click to expand...

Here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/mh...lane-over-andaman-islands-on-mapbox-map.3304/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Mick West
Emails From a Pilot Regarding Starlink and Other Objects
Replies
3
Views
994
Leekster
Leekster
Z.W. Wolf
Claim - The Brother of Nick Davies (AKA Phuket Word) Speaks
Replies
5
Views
1K
Mendel
Mendel
H
Claim: "50/50 chance" Saudi spy knew of 9/11, aided hijackers
Replies
25
Views
3K
Oystein
Oystein
I
The 1976 Iran F4 UAP/UFO case
2 3
Replies
114
Views
12K
Rick Robson
R
NorCal Dave
Meta Materials From UFOs
2 3 4
Replies
134
Views
23K
Gary C
Gary C

Latest posts

Back
Top