12 ms·
MH370: A different point of view
This seems like a simpler explanation.
- keepontruckin 13y agoI took a flight on a 777 from Dulles to London a couple years ago. A few hours into the flight the captain announced a suspected cabin fire and the smell of smoke in the cockpit. The crew shut off all the circuits they didn't need to fly the plane, the captain took a left turn, and we made an emergency landing at Reykjavik. Just sayin'.
- jebus989 13y agoSure. But a gas leak recently brought down two buildings in Harlem and that's akin to someone posting, "we had a gas leak and I just called the gas company, they switched it off. Just sayin". Point is: things don't always go to plan, and successfully avoiding disaster once does not necessarily set a precedent.
- jpalomaki 13y agoI guess the point was that turning off transponders and other things could have been the crew's reaction to suspected fire. Obviously the radio messages do not go along well with this theory. On the other hand I'm at least a little bit confused about what pieces of information about the case have been confirmed and what is just from "anonymous sources".
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- keepontruckin 13y agoMy post was simply to share useless aviation information in a show of solidarity with everyone else, but it would be more accurate to say it was akin to someone saying "we had a gas leak over the middle of the ocean, at night, it was dark and sweltering and smelled like smoke and everyone was freaking out but they made us stay inside for a couple more hours until we finally landed on a runway lit up by emergency vehicles and evacuated the building. Just sayin'."
- jebus989 13y ago"Akin" in that your second version has the complete opposite tone and implicit meaning to your original post?
- keepontruckin 13y ago"Implicit meaning?" I never meant to say a fire in-flight is no big deal, if that's what you inferred. I hope you never experience one or anything like it, but if you do my advice is to try to stay calm and not to call the gas company.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- haberman 13y agoYou could just as easily take the same facts and say: "I took a flight on a 777 where there actually was a cabin fire (or at least the crew thought so). But our pilot never lost contact with the ground and we landed safely -- we certainly didn't disappear for over a week, fly far beyond our emergency landing opportunity, or perform bizarre evasive maneuvers. Just sayin'."
- keepontruckin 13y agoOf course.
- hauget 13y agoThe big thing that's been bothering me about the hijacking hypothesis is that there's no clear logical motive behind it. This indeed makes more sense than anything else I've read so far.
- meritt 13y agoSadly logic isn't required in the media. "Cabin fire" isn't nearly as exciting as "Eight days after Flight MH370 vanished, Malaysian authorities are seeking diplomatic permission to investigate a theory that the Boeing 777 may have been flown under the radar to Taliban-controlled bases on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan"
- chrisyeah 13y agoI agree. And the fact that this article's author is also a pilot ("We old pilots were always drilled...") makes his thesis even more trustable.
- InclinedPlane 13y agoWhat do you mean? There's plenty of motive for hijacking, just as always. Especially a flight filled with Chinese civilians headed to China. There has been a rash of terrorist attacks within China recently from Xinjiang separatists, including several different mass stabbing attacks just this year which have claimed dozens of lives. One might hypothesize that terrorists managed to take control of the airplane and divert it only to have the passengers counter-attack and then in the chaos that followed either control of the plane was lost and not able to be recovered or it was intentionally crashed. Even with reinforced doors it would not take very long for highly motivated individuals to breach them, whether that's the attackers or the passengers or whomever. I'm not saying that anything of the sort is likely but similar things have happened before.
- username42 13y agoI had the same idea. This remains the most plausible theory (IMHO) I have heard since the beginning.
- easytiger 13y ago
- chris_wot 13y agoMH370 might have entered into a blackhole and come back as a dove. What's with all this speculation?!?
- tomelders 13y agoSo you're saying the best way to figure out what happened to MH370 is to do nothing, don't think, don't have any ideas, in no way make any effort to interpret the facts as they present themselves or try to fill in the blanks with educated guesses? Nice plan.
- chris_wot 13y agoI'm curious how idle speculation has been helpful in finding the plane in any way?
- tomelders 13y agoI'm curious how an army of people from military and civil aviation organisations, including radar operators, Satellite Image analysis, air accident investigators, air traffic control and pilots, have been helpful in finding the plane in any way. This is an unusual situation, and none of the facts seem to make any sense. Who care's who is trying to make sense of what happened? If I was one of those passengers, I wouldn't be on the other end thinking "You know, I hope no one on the internet tries to figure out where I am".
- chris_wot 13y agoYou don't have to be curious. They are using data and have sent crews out looking for the plane. They have experts in their field coordinating the search. People who have expertise in radar, Satellite Image analysis, air accident investigations, air traffic control and actual ability to fly a plane. I was merely commenting that it's funny how there is one story that MH370 may have snuck under radar by shadowing another 777, and this article says there was a fire. Perhaps the fire caused the crew to shadow the 777? Or maybe the 777 caused the cabin fire? I am, of course, being facetious. But when they do eventually find MH370, it's unlikely it would have been because of speculation on the Internet.
- pastullo 13y agothis is actually a not that bad theory. The question is: have they already scanned that area?
- tsaoutourpants 13y agoAccording to the author, the plane may have continued on auto-pilot after the crew had been killed by smoke inhalation. It's a large area to search.
- sschueller 13y agoThis could also explain the climb to 45,000 feet if the plane was on auto pilot and the fire was messing with the instruments.
- TheAnimus 13y agoNot likely. The Pitot static systems (which are redundant) on a 777 are very far aware from the transponders. So this fire that magically spread all the way across that, somehow allowed auto pilot to have enough elevator control, change the engine power, but not realise it was hitting the ceiling, then was able to calmly decent from an above service ceiling height? Incredibly unlikely set of events.
- confluence 13y agoThose were primary radar readings which aren't accurate at range.
- wikiburner 13y agoThis doesn't explain the zigzagging trajectory of the plane after its disappearance: Indeed, soon after MH370 disappeared, reports emerged that recordings of Malaysian military radar returns showed an unidentified track that could correspond to the flight turning left onto a westward course and descending. At the time it was difficult to assess the validity of that claim. It’s been bolstered, however, by a Reuters report earlier Friday stating that Malaysian military radar showed the flight following a course westward over the Malay peninsula and then heading out over the Indian Ocean, passing specific navigational waypoints as it went. According to the report, this latter portion of the flight followed an unusual zigzag trajectory as it worked its way toward the north and west. This is a very inefficient way to get from one place to another, but it had some consequences that may have been useful for whoever was in control of the airplane. For one thing, by navigating between well-traveled waypoints, the plane would have seemed to military radar operators to look just like all the other well-behaved commercial traffic traveling over that stretch of ocean. “That’s going to seem like unsuspicious traffic,” says Maarten Uijt de Haag, a professor of electrical engineering at Ohio University. Had the plane left the well-traveled routes and struck out on its own, it would have been far more conspicuous. Another consequence of the zigzagging trajectory is that, like a fox crossing back and forth over a stream to eluding a pack of hounds, it obscured where exactly it might be heading. http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/03/14/mh370_disappearance_if_the_malaysia_airlines_plane_isn_t_in_the_indian_ocean.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/03/14/mh370_dis...
- Implicated 13y agoor the climb to 45k
- rplnt 13y agoIf it was outside fire (tire), wouldn't it die out in higher altitude?
- ams6110 13y agoPossibly explaining the climb to 450? To remove more oxygen from the depressurized compartments to try to smother the fire? I don't know if this is a legitimate fire-fighting technique for an aircraft though (i.e. somehing that the flight crew would have been trained to do).
- johnw 13y agoOne big hole in this theory is that its been widely reported [1] that a transponder was switched off before the pilots last radio contact. The pilots would have had no reason to pull the breakers before the last communication if they weren't already aware of a fire. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/17/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-flight.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/17/world/asia/malaysia-airlin...
- wikiburner 13y agoDamage from an electrical fire on board could possibly explain the first transponder going out, even if the crew wasn't aware of the fire yet.
- libria 13y agoSo, is there a publically traded company that makes fireproof transponders? Because I have this hunch...
- gnaffle 13y agoIf so, they would probably already have seen other faults as well, and at the very least have a warning about the transponder being disabled. Their last communication made no mention of any problems.
- leoc 13y agoYou'd imagine that the transponder going out would immediately bring up a fault warning in the cockpit, though, even if the fire itself had somehow not been detected. But I suppose a sufficiently bad bug in the flight systems might be invoked to cover that.
- cornholio 13y agoAnother massive hole is that the closest airport ,at the point where communication was lost, was Sultan Mahmud in Kuala Terengganu. Long runway, approach directly from sea, can accommodate a 747 according to Wikipedia. There is no justification to go to Langkawi which is on the other side of the Malay Peninsula.
- _nedR 13y agoOne problem with the theory: The first communication system was shut down before the pilot's last message 'All right, good night'. If it had been an accidental fire that caused the pilot to cycle the systems, I would imagine the last message would have been more along the lines of "Holy Smokey Bear, the plane's on fire!"
- whyleyc 13y agoSee wikiburner's comment: Damage from an electrical fire on board could possibly explain the first transponder going out, even if the crew wasn't aware of the fire yet
- tom_morrow 13y agothe last ACARS message was received before the ATC goodbye. the next ACARS message was scheduled to be sent after the goodbye, but it was never received. the time when the ACARS was disabled would be within this window.
- spartango 13y agoThe NYT is saying that some Malaysian government officials are confused about how ACARS works, leading to the confused reporting. The above comment is accurate: the last ACARS message was received at 107, and the next one was expected at 137. The voice communication was logged at 119. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-flight.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/world/asia/malaysia-airlin...
- userbinator 13y agoThe part about tire fires producing "horrific incapacitating smoke" seemed a bit odd to me --- the landing gear are located outside the pressurised part of the fuselage.
- rosswilson 13y agoRead about Nigeria Airways Flight 2120 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigeria_Airways_Flight_2120 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigeria_Airways_Flight_2120). An under-inflated tyre caught fire during take-off, the plane took off unaware of the fire, when the landing gear was retracted the fire spread burning through electrical and hydraulic lines. A fire "outside of the pressurised part of the fuselage" doesn't mean the same didn't happen here.
- VolatileVoid 13y agoSure, although the NationAir DC-8 tragedy was a different jet. The 777 is significantly more advanced and I believe has some sort of fire detection in the wheel well; they would have known very shortly after takeoff if there was smoke. Unless we're saying that the fire immediately disabled the ability to communicate the fact that there WAS a fire to the pilots... ...but that seems unlikely too, because I imagine the 777 has backup systems that would alert pilots in case a system as critical as the fire detection equipment in the wheel assembly was not responding. I'm not saying the fire scenario is impossible; I'm still erring on the side of this being a tragic systems failure, and not a malicious act. I just think it might be entirely unlike anything we've seen in the past.
- mh370 13y agoLook how close it went to the airport... it flew right past it because of the fire? http://findmh370.tumblr.com/ http://findmh370.tumblr.com/
- checker659 13y agoThis does corroborate the oil rig worker's account of a seeing a plane burning midair.
- joshgel 13y agoDidn't he say that he saw it crash and that they didn't find it where he claimed?
- checker659 13y agoThey haven't found anything yet, so not sure what to make of that.
- confluence 13y agoThat report was falsified.
- whyleyc 13y agoSource ?
- CamperBob2 13y agoSeems obvious enough that a plane that's visibly on fire isn't going to fly very far.
- clwen 13y agoIf fire was the problem, why didn't the pilot just land by sea?
- confluence 13y agoYou clearly don't understand how unsurvivable water landings are.
- jrockway 13y agoThis video demonstrates what actually happens when a widebody airliner attempts to land on the ocean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE2Yn0cipTY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE2Yn0cipTY 767s are bigger than A320s and the ocean is a lot rougher than the Hudson.
- tzs 13y agoThat video demonstrates what happens when you try to land in the ocean while you are fighting with hijackers which causes a sudden dip to one side, when you happen to be over a coral reef for the engine on that side to hit. Even with that, the crash was quite survivable. A large number of the fatalities were due to drowning, because people inflated life rafts while still inside, which blocked them in so they drowned when the plane sank. This is probably not a good crash to use as a baseline for predicting what would be typical for an ocean landing attempt.
- chloraphil 13y agoI believe it was people inflating their vests inside, not rafts.
- robryan 13y agoI assume you could probably hit the water at an even lower speed than that without stalling the plane before you got there?
- 13y ago
- pitt1980 13y agoFinding Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 is a problem google could solve by crowdsourcing the search on the google doodle They could use an algorithm to generate different satellite images through the possible search images as the google doodle, they could put a toggle button, 'anything look like a plane or wreckage here?' Yes/no. For every yes, show it to more people, see if they agree I’m sure google has better algorithm experts to figure out what the best images to show are than I can figure out, but google can find that plane I've already submitted this to google via email at proposals@google.com as suggested on http://www.google.com/doodles/about http://www.google.com/doodles/about I suspect there are people on HN who are fewer degrees of seperation from who figures out the google doodle than I am though If you happen to be one of those people, who might be able to send a personal email, or send a text, or make a phone call to someone who could advocate for that being the google doodle, I would appreciate that needless to say, if google was able to help solve this mystery, I would imagine that would be pretty good publicity for the company Thanks for your consideration (sorry for the spam) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7414422 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7414422
- sleepyhead 13y agoDoesn't make sense. Langkawi is on the other side of the country. There are airports on the north east side of Malaysia.
- Shivetya 13y agoof course a fire is a great way to get the pilot/copilot to open the door - "smoke in cabin"... I think the other guys theory about a second triple 7 better than this.
- confluence 13y agoThis is what I've been saying for the last couple of days. The cool thing with watching this story develop in real time is understanding how fucking incompetent conspiracy theorists are. From confusion on how ACARS works, to the limits of radio comms, to the organization of the plane's electrical system to their complete misunderstanding of how accurate primary radar readings are at the edge of range. These people aren't qualified to speculate in the slightest. If you don't know what you're talking about: shut the fuck up. By default I disbelieve all conspiracy theories, unless overwhelming evidence is forthcoming, because their proponents don't know shit.
- PaulRobinson 13y agoSequence of events this implies when coupled with other information: 1. Electrical fire starts, takes out ADS-B transponder, pilots unaware and continue the flight as normal 2. They radio a goodbye as they leave ATC, still unaware of anything which means that a fire has taken out a transponder and they are unaware of that fact 3. The fire is discovered. The crew put on full-face oxygen masks and the pilot makes for that airport either by dialling in a bearing into the autopilot or disengaging it and flying for it. 4. They attempt communication but fail because the systems are out due to the fire At that point, we then have a lot of things to consider: was it pilot input or autopilot that took them to FL450? When did the pilots lose the ability to land, either because of control surface damage or because they were incapacitated? In the event of being alive but unable to fly the aircraft because control surfaces were no longer responsive to cockpit or autopilot input, is there anything else they could/would do other than do some maths and work out when the inevitable crash was coming? If they could control some surfaces but not others would they use that to buy themselves more time, e.g. climbing to ceiling (FL450), or would they get low quick? This theory raises quite a few questions then, but it's a perfectly valid hypothesis: the issue for me around it is understanding why the pilots didn't go on to make the landing suggesting loss of control or their own lives by that point. The only way we'll get to understand that is by finding the black box which of course would explain the whole thing anyway. This theory also suggests a likely ditching or crash into the water, and if that were the case then I would expect sonar operators over a large part of the region to hear the black box locator, pretty much as they did with the Air France crash.
- confluence 13y agoIt's a pretty massive area and the boxes might be trashed.
- JelteF 13y agoThose boxes are built to be untrashable.
- confluence 13y ago
- bedhead 13y agoIn every instance of cabin fire, even ones where the fires spread extremely quickly and are eventually fatal such as SwissAir and ValueJet, the crew contacted the ground. And this was the case even when co-pilots were literally out of their seats actually fighting the fires. Yet every single time the ground was alerted about an emergency. This is what veteran pilots do. Also, for a fire to destroy the multiple electronic systems so as to render the transponder and comms useless, the smell of smoke would've almost certainly been recognizable long before the damage was complete. In this case, the pilots would have alerted the ground. It was the pilot and/or co-pilot acting deliberately. I would bet my life on it.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- bedhead 13y agoRegarding that, I only know what I've read from commercial pilots and heard from a family member who's a commercial pilot in the last week, though I appreciate the accusatory tone. Besides, the circumstances make no sense...how would the fire be severe enough to destroy all major communications of the plane, then somehow extinguished, yet the plane not only didn't crash but flew aimlessly for another 6 hours? I suppose it's possible somehow but sure seems far-fetched.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
- garg 13y agoIt's hard to believe that there are no communication failovers. A fire in the cabin should not mean a loss of contact with the rest of the world.
- wil421 13y agoThis is probably the most intelligent explanation I have heard. Everyone wants to make this into some Hollywood action movie with terrorists, kidnappings and sneaking through airspace.
- pcurve 13y agoThis author isn't helping the cause either. He is going as far as calling the pilots "heroes". He is grandstanding just like other journalists. One would think that cabin smoke was one of the first scenarios experts considered.
- coherentpony 13y agoGreat analysis. Still, it falls under the category of "wild speculation" until the plane is found.
- OhHeyItsE 13y agoExcept that the left turn was pre programmed into the flight computer. http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-rep-peter-king-sen-chris-murphy/story?id=22914614 http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-rep-peter-kin... "KERLEY: The prime minister confirming the report by ABC News the communications gear was deliberately shut down. Now we have learned from a source close to the investigation that whoever was controlling the plane preprogrammed that sharp left turn right off of the flight path, convincing investigators that someone was in control of the jetliner, either a rogue pilot or a hijackers."
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- matt-attack 13y ago> Yes, pilots have access to oxygen masks but this is a no no with fire. Anyone know why?
- evan_ 13y agoA guess- oxygen feeds fire. I believe that on-board oxygen is not stored in tanks but rather generated as a chemical reaction on-demand, so if they don't start the O2 flow they would not risk feeding the fire.
- nlh 13y agoI'm guessing because concentrated O2 is extremely flammable and would be fuel for a fire, when the opposite would be needed. Rapid fire-suppressant systems basically work by sucking all of the oxygen from the room/space as quickly as possible.
- bdonlan 13y agoThe flight deck O2 masks are specifically designed to provide positive pressure to avoid smoke inhalation in the event of a fire. There's no real reason not to use them - if the fire is close enough that it would matter you're already dead.
- nlh 13y agoMakes sense to me. Thanks for clarification.
- KMag 13y agoO2 isn't flammable and doesn't provide fuel unless the oxidant is something very electronegative like fluorine. In most fires, oxygen is the oxidizer, not the fuel.
- royprins 13y agoWhen I was considering a similar scenario, I looked at the airports around there and found Kota Bharu to be much closer. The runway may not be similar in length, but if your plane is on fire, you would not be picky. It is at least 200km closer than Langkawi. The flight path was also close to Kota Bharu, so one theory does not exclude the other. Maybe somebody with more knowledge of an autopilot can offer some insight: what happens is you overshoot your programmed target? With it go in a holding pattern? Would the autopilot disengage? Or will the plane continue on its course?
- goodcanadian 13y agoApparently, the autopilot can put it into a holding pattern: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522 Whether or not it would, I suppose, would depend on how it was programed.
- ttcbj 13y agoI have no specific knowledge of airplane systems, but I wonder if the airplane's computers could have been hacked to produce the disappearance? It would explain why so much effort would go into the planning, with the plane then appearing to be dumped in the indian ocean. The hacker would not have been on the plane, and the indian ocean is deep enough to make recovery and diagnosis of the hack difficult. It might explain how such a precisely timed sequence of events occurred. I wonder if someone on HN has an understanding of what kind of safeguards go in to preventing a fly-by-wire system from being compromised. Presumably systems like communication, cabin pressure, navigation, etc are separated. Perhaps some of them are not software-based, and thus could not be compromised (but maybe their power could?) It seems really unlikely, but so do most other theories.
- hockeybias 13y agoThe Ledgerwood theory makes more sense to my completely amateur ears... http://keithledgerwood.tumblr.com/post/79838944823/did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using-sia68 http://keithledgerwood.tumblr.com/post/79838944823/did-malay...
- prodev42 13y agoi agree with the story, however the author did not write the possibility that the plane could be shot down by air force and was covered up within those 5 hrs that they failed to report. also i heard somewhere the captain used to live around that airport and is familiar with it..thats why he decided to go there.
- supremum 13y agoWow that was the most lucid piece I've read about the incident - also good to have found somewhere to point my crazy conspiracy theory family to :)
- uptown 13y agoThis theory still doesn't explain the lack of any debris. Perhaps some will float to occupied regions at some point - but not everything sinks or burns.
- elwell 13y agoBut how often do two passengers use stolen passports to board the plane?
- NamTaf 13y agoNot infrequent enough in SEA that you are surprised at <1% of your pax using them.
- alexeisadeski3 13y agoThe autopilot until fuel exhaustion theory doesn't explain how it ended up on this line: http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/73602000/jpg/_73602229_possible_plane_area3_624(3).jpg http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/73602000/jpg/_73602229...
- darkhorn 13y agoI we 100% sure that the plane turned to west? This line aligns with; where the plane lost, and where the oil platform worker noticed a fire on the sky. May be the plane was on the sky, or on the water why pinging?
- alexeisadeski3 13y agoHuh?
- huangc10 13y agothis theory follows the keep it simple rule. though simple, it doesn't apply here. I'm sure experts have already looked into the option of simply turning "left".
- cyanhat 13y agoWhy would the satellite logistics system get shut down but still continue to send hourly pings?
- cyanhat 13y agoWhy would the satellite logistics system get shut down but still continue to send hourly pings?
- blasterleb 13y agoThis nytimes article mentions that a satellite picked up four or five signals from the airliner, about one per hour, after it left the range of military radar. The only information which can be deduced from those signals is the angle of the plane to the satellite. From the last transmission 7.5 hours after take off they were able to draw an arc on the map which corresponds to the deduced angle(see article). If we draw an arc for each of the last five transmission, and if we assume an average speed of the plane wouldn't their pattern suggest a certain direction of flight?
- greatsuccess 13y agoI agree with the OP that "ghost plane" is an option here but I doubt it, here's why. All the "evidence" of the planes route after transponder failure is speculative and inconsistent with regard to other facts presented by the same people. So while we are ignoring the obvious, what happened to the report that the engine data transmitted said the plane dropped 40,000 feet in less than a minute? That evidence was dismissed by the experts as not possible. Its quite possible actually if it was steered straight into the ocean at well below the max speed of the aircraft. So we have all these ridiculous IMO flight path rumours, and the statement that ACARS was turned off and yet also transmitted pings for 7.5 hours. (Note that first it was 20 minutes, then 4 hours, then 6 hours, then 7.5 hours). I believe the turn itself may have happened but it may not have since we have no hard data to support it. Whats much more likely than this plane being in the Indian ocean is that those looking for it in the south china sea simply missed it. An as an excuse for missing it, they are now patching together wild fantasies based on speculative data piled on top of speculative data that frankly from a technical standpoint makes zero sense. Im not buying any of this. But Ghost plane is a possibility due to a fire, perhaps an electrical one or a bomb going off that disabled the plane and killed the passengers. Let's not get carried away anymore on this. We dont know but this speculation is 100% bullshit.
- zarzuelazen 13y agoSurely a fire would have caused the plane to crash in 10-15 minutes, it certainly wouldn't have gone on flying for 6+ hours more! The previous cases of on-board fires I read about all have the plane crashing or landing within 20 minutes of the first systems failures.
- eplanit 13y agoCourageous captain dealing with a cabin fire radios "all right, good night" ???
- grimmfang 13y agoThe 777 aircraft reports ACARS (Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System) every thirty minutes and it is typical of pilots flying overseas to squawk transponder code 2000 immediately after signing off from the regional ATC. If a secondary radar was not listening to the 2000 frequency it would have no record of the plane in that region. So, if the plane did go down in the 30 minute block between the ACARS transmission, AND AFTER the sign off, it would easily explain the radio silence, because the plane wasn't silent, it just wasn't transmitting & was not visible to secondary radar. Obviously, this means the plane had to go down very quickly (because it had so much altitude) and while being a consolidated mass (blown up or shattered planes scatter debris which are easily identified). It's very possible they suffered from an electrical failure from a fire, but it's much more plausible there was some control surface failure. For example in Alaska Airlines 261's case the horizontal stabilizer jack-screw failed unconstraining the entire horizontal stabilizer causing the plane immediately dive 31,000ft and hit the water in under 5 minutes.
- mightytravels 13y agoHow many (remote?) airports in the Maldives are good enough to land a 777? Seems like the perfect remote spot for landing a plane! Torsten @ http://www.mightytravels.com http://www.mightytravels.com