5 ms·

This whole section seems implausible: > It’s not possible to spoof the BFO data on just any plane. The plane must be of a certain make and model, 17equipped wi

This whole section seems implausible: > It’s not possible to spoof the BFO data on just any plane. The plane must be of a certain make and model, 17equipped with a certain make and model of satellite-communications equipment,18 and flying a certain kind of route19 in a region covered by a certain kind of Inmarsat satellite.20 If you put all the conditions together, it seemed unlikely that any aircraft would satisfy them. Yet MH370 did. If your goal was stealing a large airplane, I think there's easier ways of doing that. If your goal was getting at the cargo or the passengers, it's highly probable that doing it on the ground is also much easier.

Arnt 12y ago
You know, an airplane completely disappearing IS implausible. Airplane crashes leave debris. Finding much of the plane isn't likely, but finding absolutely nothing if you search in the right place is a stretch. Like looking for straws in a haystack and not finding even one. http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/emirates-clark-sees-mh370-investigation-deficiencies http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/emirates-clark-s... says it well.
kpil 12y ago
Here's a simper theory: Some kind of structural failure caused a fire and possibly also a decompression - or the other way around. While following the procedure to handle the problem ( disable AP, descend, turn back, shut down the damaged avionics) the pilots lost consciousness and the plane eventually leveled out and kept flying until it run out of fuel. While it's not likely that something punches a hole in an aeroplane and simultaneously sets it on fire, either from the inside or the outside, it's more likely than any crazy conspiracy theories I've seen so far, including the article.
- stef25 12y ago
  I guess this indeed the most plausible theory. But then how plausible is it that no debris was found? Too much time went by, the area is too big for us to notice?
  - kpil 12y ago
    The ocean is huge. They didn't look in the right place initially. The area that needs to be searched may be as large as half of USA. I do not know how far debris scatters, and how fast it will sink.
guard-of-terra 12y ago
Also: why would hijackers need (and indeed rely on) auto-landing? They would capture perfectly good pilots along with the plane.

Arnt 12y ago

You know, an airplane completely disappearing IS implausible. Airplane crashes leave debris. Finding much of the plane isn't likely, but finding absolutely nothing if you search in the right place is a stretch. Like looking for straws in a haystack and not finding even one. http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/emirates-clark-sees-mh370-investigation-deficiencies http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/emirates-clark-s... says it well.

kpil 12y ago

Here's a simper theory: Some kind of structural failure caused a fire and possibly also a decompression - or the other way around. While following the procedure to handle the problem ( disable AP, descend, turn back, shut down the damaged avionics) the pilots lost consciousness and the plane eventually leveled out and kept flying until it run out of fuel. While it's not likely that something punches a hole in an aeroplane and simultaneously sets it on fire, either from the inside or the outside, it's more likely than any crazy conspiracy theories I've seen so far, including the article.

stef25 12y ago
I guess this indeed the most plausible theory. But then how plausible is it that no debris was found? Too much time went by, the area is too big for us to notice?
- kpil 12y ago
  The ocean is huge. They didn't look in the right place initially. The area that needs to be searched may be as large as half of USA. I do not know how far debris scatters, and how fast it will sink.

guard-of-terra 12y ago

Also: why would hijackers need (and indeed rely on) auto-landing? They would capture perfectly good pilots along with the plane.