5 ms·

>>as soon as MH370 disappeared from secondary radar, it turned sharply to the southwest, flew back across the Malay Peninsula, and banked around the island of P

>>as soon as MH370 disappeared from secondary radar, it turned sharply to the southwest, flew back across the Malay Peninsula, and banked around the island of Penang. From there it flew northwest up the Strait of Malacca and out across the Andaman Sea, where it faded beyond radar range into obscurity. That part of the flight took more than an hour to accomplish and suggested that this was not a standard case of a hijacking.>> What about this suggests that this was not a standard case of hijacking?

jgwil2 7y ago
From the article: > Was this a hijacking? A hijacking is the “third party” solution favored in the official report. It is the least painful explanation for anyone in authority that night. It has immense problems, however. The main one is that the cockpit door was fortified, electrically bolted, and surveilled by a video feed that the pilots could see. Also, less than two minutes passed between Zaharie’s casual “good night” to the Kuala Lumpur controller and the start of the diversion, with the attendant loss of the transponder signal. How would hijackers have known to make their move precisely during the handoff to Vietnamese air traffic control, and then gained access so quickly and smoothly that neither of the pilots had a chance to transmit a distress call? It is possible of course that the hijackers were known to the pilots—that they were invited into the cockpit—but even that does not explain the lack of a radio transmission, particularly during the hand-flown turn away from Beijing. Both of the control yokes had transmitter switches, within the merest finger reach, and some signal could have been sent in the moments before an attempted takeover. Furthermore, every one of the passengers and cabin-crew members has been investigated and cleared of suspicion by teams of Malaysian and Chinese investigators aided by the FBI. The quality of that police work is open to question, but it was thorough enough to have uncovered the identities of two Iranians who were traveling under false names with stolen passports—seeking, however, nothing more nefarious than political asylum in Germany. It is possible that stowaways—by definition unrecorded on the airplane’s manifest—had hidden in the equipment bay. If so, they would have had access to two circuit breakers that, if pulled, would have unbolted the cockpit door. But that scenario has problems, too. The bolts click loudly when they open—an unambiguous sound that would have been familiar to the pilots. The hijackers would then have had to open a galley-floor hatch from below, climb a short ladder, evade notice by the cabin crew, evade the surveillance video, and enter the cockpit before either of the pilots transmitted a distress call. It is unlikely that this could have happened, just as it is unlikely that a flight attendant held hostage could have used the door keypad to allow sudden entry without firing off a warning. Furthermore, what would the purpose be of a hijacking? Money? Politics? Publicity? An act of war? A terrorist attack? The intricate seven-hour profile of MH370’s deviation into oblivion fits none of these scenarios. And no one has claimed responsibility for the act. Anonymity is not consistent with any of these motives.
- mbostleman 7y ago
  Yes, but none of that relates to the hour long series of turns that ended with the plane pointed towards the Indian Ocean. The quote I pasted referred to these events as not being indicative of a standard hijacking. Maybe it was just a poorly worded conclusion. There are definitely other reasons - primarily the anonymity and lack of any money changing hands.
  - jgwil2 7y ago
    Good point. Maybe he's just referring to the fact that the diversion was timed to coincide with the handoff, and not the entire series of maneuvers.
  - mannykannot 7y ago
    The "hour-long series of turns" themselves suggest that it was not a hijacking - one would expect a hijacked airplane to head towards its intended destination, regardless of the motive for the hijacking. It does not seem likely that the path was intended to avoid detection, as it crosses Malaysia and was within range of Indonesian radar throughout that period, and it is rather implausible to suggest that these posited hijackers both wanted to be stealthy, yet chose a route that had no chance of achieving it. If these posited hijackers wanted their arrival at their intended destination to be a surprise, their best hope of achieving it would be to stage a hijacking on a flight close to that destination. I guess one could suppose that this is the only flight the posited hijackers could hijack (suggesting help from insiders at the airline), and that the flight was intended to stay away from land as far as possible, but where, especially with that final turn, were they going? If their destination was, as has been suggested, Kazakhstan, they could hardly hope to avoid detection later in the flight. Nor would they be likely to suspect that the reporting of the disappearance of the flight would be delayed by hours. The author did not say that this track proves it was not a hijacking, he wrote that it already "suggested that this was not a standard case of a hijacking."

jgwil2 7y ago

From the article: > Was this a hijacking? A hijacking is the “third party” solution favored in the official report. It is the least painful explanation for anyone in authority that night. It has immense problems, however. The main one is that the cockpit door was fortified, electrically bolted, and surveilled by a video feed that the pilots could see. Also, less than two minutes passed between Zaharie’s casual “good night” to the Kuala Lumpur controller and the start of the diversion, with the attendant loss of the transponder signal. How would hijackers have known to make their move precisely during the handoff to Vietnamese air traffic control, and then gained access so quickly and smoothly that neither of the pilots had a chance to transmit a distress call? It is possible of course that the hijackers were known to the pilots—that they were invited into the cockpit—but even that does not explain the lack of a radio transmission, particularly during the hand-flown turn away from Beijing. Both of the control yokes had transmitter switches, within the merest finger reach, and some signal could have been sent in the moments before an attempted takeover. Furthermore, every one of the passengers and cabin-crew members has been investigated and cleared of suspicion by teams of Malaysian and Chinese investigators aided by the FBI. The quality of that police work is open to question, but it was thorough enough to have uncovered the identities of two Iranians who were traveling under false names with stolen passports—seeking, however, nothing more nefarious than political asylum in Germany. It is possible that stowaways—by definition unrecorded on the airplane’s manifest—had hidden in the equipment bay. If so, they would have had access to two circuit breakers that, if pulled, would have unbolted the cockpit door. But that scenario has problems, too. The bolts click loudly when they open—an unambiguous sound that would have been familiar to the pilots. The hijackers would then have had to open a galley-floor hatch from below, climb a short ladder, evade notice by the cabin crew, evade the surveillance video, and enter the cockpit before either of the pilots transmitted a distress call. It is unlikely that this could have happened, just as it is unlikely that a flight attendant held hostage could have used the door keypad to allow sudden entry without firing off a warning. Furthermore, what would the purpose be of a hijacking? Money? Politics? Publicity? An act of war? A terrorist attack? The intricate seven-hour profile of MH370’s deviation into oblivion fits none of these scenarios. And no one has claimed responsibility for the act. Anonymity is not consistent with any of these motives.

mbostleman 7y ago
Yes, but none of that relates to the hour long series of turns that ended with the plane pointed towards the Indian Ocean. The quote I pasted referred to these events as not being indicative of a standard hijacking. Maybe it was just a poorly worded conclusion. There are definitely other reasons - primarily the anonymity and lack of any money changing hands.
- jgwil2 7y ago
  Good point. Maybe he's just referring to the fact that the diversion was timed to coincide with the handoff, and not the entire series of maneuvers.
- mannykannot 7y ago
  The "hour-long series of turns" themselves suggest that it was not a hijacking - one would expect a hijacked airplane to head towards its intended destination, regardless of the motive for the hijacking. It does not seem likely that the path was intended to avoid detection, as it crosses Malaysia and was within range of Indonesian radar throughout that period, and it is rather implausible to suggest that these posited hijackers both wanted to be stealthy, yet chose a route that had no chance of achieving it. If these posited hijackers wanted their arrival at their intended destination to be a surprise, their best hope of achieving it would be to stage a hijacking on a flight close to that destination. I guess one could suppose that this is the only flight the posited hijackers could hijack (suggesting help from insiders at the airline), and that the flight was intended to stay away from land as far as possible, but where, especially with that final turn, were they going? If their destination was, as has been suggested, Kazakhstan, they could hardly hope to avoid detection later in the flight. Nor would they be likely to suspect that the reporting of the disappearance of the flight would be delayed by hours. The author did not say that this track proves it was not a hijacking, he wrote that it already "suggested that this was not a standard case of a hijacking."