5 ms·

It seems that something intentional brought the flight off of the original flight plan.

Steko 13y ago
Intentional =/= terrorist hijacking/pilot suicide/random heist theory. A pilot trying to save an aircraft does things intentionally.
- lisper 13y ago
  But a pilot trying to save an aircraft does not turn off the transponders.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - peedy 13y ago
    What if that was a part of the failure?
    - lisper 13y ago
      There are no failure modes that disable both transponders along with all the rest of the comm gear and all the passenger cell phones that still leave the plane in an airworthy condition.
      - tlrobinson 13y ago
        Do cell phones even work at 30,000+ feet? Over the ocean? (No) There was a theory posted here earlier that it was a fire that initially took out the transponder and possibly comms.
        lisper 13y ago
        Many theories have been posted. The only one consistent with the known data is an inside-job hijacking with an intentional cabin depressurization to incapacitate the passengers and non-pilot crew. The fact that the plane has not been found is very strong evidence that it did not crash. If it crashed on water, some debris would most likely have been found by now. If it had crashed on land, someone would have noticed the resulting fire. The in-flight fire theory is not plausible because the 777 is fly-by-wire. A fire severe enough to knock out the comms would almost certainly have taken out the fly-by-wire system as well. And no, cell phones don't work at 30k over water, but they do work at 10k over land. Like I said above, the fact that no wreckage has been found is very strong evidence that the plane landed intact. At some point during that process the plane would have almost certainly come into range of a cell phone tower somewhere.
        tlrobinson 13y ago
        "intentional cabin depressurization to incapacitate the passengers and non-pilot crew" Isn't that what the oxygen masks are for?
        lisper 13y ago
        Yes, but it's possible they can be switched off (I don't know). But even if they can't, the oxygen supply is only enough for an emergency descent. Again, I don't know the exact numbers, but the time until the oxygen is depleted is surely measured in minutes, not hours.
        Steko 13y ago
        > The only one consistent with the known data is an inside-job hijacking False, nothing here is inconsistent with a mechanical problem. When the NTSB/FAA come out and say they've ruled out mechanical problems let me know. > The fact that the plane has not been found is very strong evidence that it did not crash. Almost everyone believes it has crashed. When the NTSB/FAA say otherwise let me know. > A fire severe enough to knock out the comms would almost certainly have taken out the fly-by-wire system as well. This seems like random speculation. Some of those systems would turned off by the flight crew intentionally as they go down a checklist.
        alexeisadeski3 13y ago
        @lisper: >The fact that the plane has not been found is very strong evidence that it did not crash. If it crashed on water, some debris would most likely have been found by now. The current "most likely water crash" area has only started being searched today.
        lisper 13y ago
        Finding debris doesn't require an active search. There are a lot of boats out there on the ocean (I'm actually on one even as I write this) and this incident has gotten a tremendous amount of publicity. If the plane crashed on the water I would think that a fishing boat would have found a seat cushion or something by now.
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  A pilot trying to save an aircraft does not leave the plane on autopilot, does not turn off transponders, does not avoid landing at the closest possible airport, does not maintain radio silence. It would take an even more bizarre set of circumstances than hijacking to explain the behavior of the plane as we know it so far.
  - Steko 13y ago
    Autopilot: pilots leave controls to deal with fire. Transponders: disabled to deal with fire or as a result. Closest possible airport: the one the plane turned towards was arguably the best one to go for. Radio silence: disabled by fire.
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      But that's not nearly as exciting as a terrorist plot. /s
    - CamperBob2 13y ago
      Trouble is, there are multiple separate radios they could use, both HF and VHF. A fire that takes out the transponder and all of the radios and still leaves the aircraft capable of flying for hours seems pretty unlikely. Fr. Occam is pacing back and forth and stroking his beard on this one, that's for sure.
      - kreeben 13y ago
        It seems to me the most plausible explanation at this point is a hostage situation, not a mechanical failure. Where is the debris? And it can't be a heist to steal a plane. Oh, it's gonna be easy, we just need to kill 250 people, no big deal. There must be easier ways to get hold of a plane. It seems media has ruled this out on the basis "there have been no ransom demand". But there will be. I'd say within a week. Occam?
        CamperBob2 13y ago
        No reason to think we'd be privy to a ransom demand, for that matter. The appearance of bumbling incompetence on the Malaysians' part may just be a facade.

Steko 13y ago

Intentional =/= terrorist hijacking/pilot suicide/random heist theory. A pilot trying to save an aircraft does things intentionally.

lisper 13y ago
But a pilot trying to save an aircraft does not turn off the transponders.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- peedy 13y ago
  What if that was a part of the failure?
  - lisper 13y ago
    There are no failure modes that disable both transponders along with all the rest of the comm gear and all the passenger cell phones that still leave the plane in an airworthy condition.
    - tlrobinson 13y ago
      Do cell phones even work at 30,000+ feet? Over the ocean? (No) There was a theory posted here earlier that it was a fire that initially took out the transponder and possibly comms.
      - lisper 13y ago
        Many theories have been posted. The only one consistent with the known data is an inside-job hijacking with an intentional cabin depressurization to incapacitate the passengers and non-pilot crew. The fact that the plane has not been found is very strong evidence that it did not crash. If it crashed on water, some debris would most likely have been found by now. If it had crashed on land, someone would have noticed the resulting fire. The in-flight fire theory is not plausible because the 777 is fly-by-wire. A fire severe enough to knock out the comms would almost certainly have taken out the fly-by-wire system as well. And no, cell phones don't work at 30k over water, but they do work at 10k over land. Like I said above, the fact that no wreckage has been found is very strong evidence that the plane landed intact. At some point during that process the plane would have almost certainly come into range of a cell phone tower somewhere.
        tlrobinson 13y ago
        "intentional cabin depressurization to incapacitate the passengers and non-pilot crew" Isn't that what the oxygen masks are for?
        lisper 13y ago
        Yes, but it's possible they can be switched off (I don't know). But even if they can't, the oxygen supply is only enough for an emergency descent. Again, I don't know the exact numbers, but the time until the oxygen is depleted is surely measured in minutes, not hours.
        Steko 13y ago
        > The only one consistent with the known data is an inside-job hijacking False, nothing here is inconsistent with a mechanical problem. When the NTSB/FAA come out and say they've ruled out mechanical problems let me know. > The fact that the plane has not been found is very strong evidence that it did not crash. Almost everyone believes it has crashed. When the NTSB/FAA say otherwise let me know. > A fire severe enough to knock out the comms would almost certainly have taken out the fly-by-wire system as well. This seems like random speculation. Some of those systems would turned off by the flight crew intentionally as they go down a checklist.
      - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
        @lisper: >The fact that the plane has not been found is very strong evidence that it did not crash. If it crashed on water, some debris would most likely have been found by now. The current "most likely water crash" area has only started being searched today.
        lisper 13y ago
        Finding debris doesn't require an active search. There are a lot of boats out there on the ocean (I'm actually on one even as I write this) and this incident has gotten a tremendous amount of publicity. If the plane crashed on the water I would think that a fishing boat would have found a seat cushion or something by now.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
A pilot trying to save an aircraft does not leave the plane on autopilot, does not turn off transponders, does not avoid landing at the closest possible airport, does not maintain radio silence. It would take an even more bizarre set of circumstances than hijacking to explain the behavior of the plane as we know it so far.
- Steko 13y ago
  Autopilot: pilots leave controls to deal with fire. Transponders: disabled to deal with fire or as a result. Closest possible airport: the one the plane turned towards was arguably the best one to go for. Radio silence: disabled by fire.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    But that's not nearly as exciting as a terrorist plot. /s
  - CamperBob2 13y ago
    Trouble is, there are multiple separate radios they could use, both HF and VHF. A fire that takes out the transponder and all of the radios and still leaves the aircraft capable of flying for hours seems pretty unlikely. Fr. Occam is pacing back and forth and stroking his beard on this one, that's for sure.
    - kreeben 13y ago
      It seems to me the most plausible explanation at this point is a hostage situation, not a mechanical failure. Where is the debris? And it can't be a heist to steal a plane. Oh, it's gonna be easy, we just need to kill 250 people, no big deal. There must be easier ways to get hold of a plane. It seems media has ruled this out on the basis "there have been no ransom demand". But there will be. I'd say within a week. Occam?
      - CamperBob2 13y ago
        No reason to think we'd be privy to a ransom demand, for that matter. The appearance of bumbling incompetence on the Malaysians' part may just be a facade.