5 ms·
I don't know why there's still so much speculation as to what happened on this flight because it seems clear there's really only one explanation that fits the e
by cletus 5y ago
I don't know why there's still so much speculation as to what happened on this flight because it seems clear there's really only one explanation that fits the evidence: after leaving Malaysian airspace the pilot executed a series of maneuvers and turned the plane over the Indian Ocean where it either made a soft landing, filled with water and sank or crashed into the ocean. Given the minimal debris, it seems the soft landing may be more plausible.
The maneuvers, radio silence and timing of leaving Malaysian airspace all point to deliberate action. There are questions here like what happened to the cockpit crew.
As for the passengers, the most likely explanation I've seen is that the cabin was depressurized and hypoxia likely eliminated that problem.
Why? The most likely explanation is suicide-by-plane much like the Germanwings incident. It seems like this was even more premeditated such that a lot of effort was made to make sure the plane wasn't found, likely this was so the pilot's family would get a settlement as the pilot's actions couldn't be ruled a suicide without the black box.
Literally nothing else makes sense.
I don't know how long the black box can retain information, particularly given it's likely ~4km under the ocean and by now has been for years. It's a shame the extensive (and expensive) efforts to locate the wreck have all failed. The search area is remote and deep making search operations difficult and expensive.
This too seems to be by design.
It also seems quite likely that investigators having the pings from the plane to narrow down the search area was a flaw in that plan. The pilot was likely unaware of this possibility, which again is more evidence of deliberate action.
I do hope this can be settled one day.
- Zealotux 5y agoSoft landing is unlikely as the pieces found seems to be pretty damaged, they also found pieces from inside the cabin: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37820122 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37820122
- flir 5y agoBut if it broke up in the air/on the surface, wouldn't we expect a lot more debris? It's all very odd.
- foldr 5y agoI can't claim any expertise, but I don't think we would. The Indian Ocean is vast, so it's no surprise that we didn't find any floating debris in the rough region of the presumed crash site. Then it's a question of how much of the debris would eventually wash up on shore in a location where someone would notice it. It's also unlikely that a 777 would succeed in making a 'soft' landing in the open ocean. It's not totally impossible in favorable conditions with a skilled pilot, but the odds are against it.
- scoopertrooper 5y agoI think this is more likely a situation akin to Saudia Flight 163 or Helios Airways Flight 52. The plane had a fire onboard, which either disabled the transponder or the pilots deliberately disabled power to it as part of fighting the fire. They then turned towards their alternate, but poor crew resource management, the stress of dealing with the problem, and hypoxia impaired their judgement, so they missed their alternate. Eventually, the hypoxia incapacitated both pilots and the plane flew on autopilot till it ran out of fuel. The most likely source of ignition would be the consignment of lithium batteries it was carrying. A similar situation brought down UPS Airlines Flight 6 and probably Asiana Airlines Flight 991.
- SiempreViernes 5y agoExcept in all your examples the pilots spoke to air traffic control announcing they were experienced problems, and there is no plausible reason for why they wouldn't send out a distress call: if your plane is on fire you really wish someone could help you. In the case of your fire examples, beyond just speaking to ATC, the planes returned to ground (landing or otherwise) within half an hour. In contrast, MH370 stayed in the air at least 6 hours past the last communication from the pilots, who did not try to contact ATC at any point after leaving their expected flight path.
- saberdancer 5y agoTo be fair, they are trained to handle the emergency first and talk second (The axiom “Aviate, Navigate, Communicate” teaches pilots to fly the airplane first, then navigate, and once the situation is under control, communicate.). If it was a rapid situation and co-pilot was not available it's not impossible that the call was not made. More damning is the timing of the transponder being turned off. It happened on ATC switchover.
- smashah 5y agoDuring pilot training, you're taught to use the axiom when time is slim and there's a lot to do. There's no way to aviate for 6 hours straight on an airliner and not have time to communicate. The mayday call takes all of 10 seconds to make for a single person. Sully was in a time crunch and still communicated which isn't a super human feat.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- GordonS 5y ago> I don't know how long the black box can retain information, particularly given it's likely ~4km under the ocean and by now has been for years. Is there a reason why black box telemetry isn't sent live during the flight? Even if the data the box records is too high frequency (too much data) to send over the air, I would have thought it would be possible to send it less frequently.