Malaysian Flight 370

[HawkDsl 50]

 

 

anybody shooting it down

 

I would think thats out because systems were turned off... of which the only purpose would be to make one vanish from the grid.

 

 

As far as the sim goes... Everything he's done in the sim can be pulled, thats no biggie. Of course 3000 landings and take offs from St. Martins, and trying to land a 777 at Luka will tell them nothing. Flight plans would be the only data that would be useful.

 

If it turns out this is a good old fashioned robbery of some sort, then what a super noob if he left the get away plan on his comp.

 

At any rate..  It'll get solved.

[mike2060 4]

So the focus seems to be on the pilots now. They searched their homes and of course, everyone knows the captain had a sim.

 

I don't necessarily believe this but some have speculated they he could have used the sim as a trainer for this mission. Wouldn't they be able to determine this pretty quickly by looking at the FS log book (also potential locations for the aircraft)? Being a T7 captain, I highly doubt he would have used the FS flight planner but are there other data that can be pulled from FS to see what he was doing with the sim?

 

Would they even have the knowledge to look at the log book? Or even the saved game files or .PLN files?

[exodus1977 37]

I've seen some reports (really, speculation) that the plane could have landed with the future intent of using it as a weapon.  I have to admit that while this first sounded very odd, the most recent information regarding very precise flying after loss of contact makes one wonder.  I mean, if the person in command (whoever that might be) wanted to crash... then point the nose down. Why fly over distinct way-points and take other action that suggests evading detection?

 

Anyway, those who are considering the landing theory are focused on locations where it could land. But let me change the question around...

 

Assuming the plan was to land the plane and re-purpose it as a weapon, that would require a lot of jet fuel.  According to Wikipedia, the -200ER has a fuel capacity of 45,220 US gal. How easy would it really be to purchase/steal, transport and store 45,000 gallons of Jet A fuel? 

[tsa737 6]

Here is an interesting article that depicts runways within the range of MH370. Though I am not certain that the hard packed dirt runway comment at the end is true.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/03/15/mh370_the_634_runways_where_malaysian_airlines_flight_could_have_landed.html

[xplanery 250]

 

 

I mean, if the person in command (whoever that might be) wanted to crash... then point the nose down.

Not if you want to hide the evidence for some reason. In that case flying the plane into somewhere in Indian Ocean & crashing it there would be the best option. 

 

The motive for that could be insurance money / wanting to save relatives/family from shame perhaps?

 

 

Assuming the plan was to land the plane and re-purpose it as a weapon, that would require a lot of jet fuel.  According to Wikipedia, the -200ER has a fuel capacity of 45,220 US gal. How easy would it really be to purchase/steal, transport and store 45,000 gallons of Jet A fuel? 

 

That's all quite impossible without some government involvement. If such a group had government backing why on earth would they bother to hijack this 777? They could just buy some old 747 wreck under fake company name & use that for the attack. 

[duckbilled 310]

Would they even have the knowledge to look at the log book? Or even the saved game files or .PLN files?

That's kind of what I was getting at. IF the captain was a bad actor and he was practicing his evil mission on his sim, the sim's files may contain valuable evidence. I could see US authorities handing over the HD to MS or LM for analysis. I'm not sure the Malaysian officials would do the same.

[IUBrian 151]

If such a group had government backing why on earth would they bother to hijack this 777? They could just buy some old 747 wreck under fake company name & use that for the attack.

Seems to be a far easier means of stealthily acquirining a passenger plane; I can't find any flaw with this logic.

[exodus1977 37]

Not if you want to hide the evidence for some reason. In that case flying the plane into somewhere in Indian Ocean & crashing it there would be the best option.

 

The motive for that could be insurance money / wanting to save relatives/family from shame perhaps?

 

I can't quite get on board with that. Really, how many aircraft crashes have remained undiscovered or an absolute mystery--in "modern" aviation history? None?  One would have to assume if you crashed a 777 with hundreds of people, it will be found eventually. As far as insurance... that doesn't make sense either. If there is a specter of intentional wrong-doing, that voids coverage. Insurance only covers negligence-- not intentional or criminal acts.

 

 

 

That's all quite impossible without some government involvement. If such a group had government backing why on earth would they bother to hijack this 777? They could just buy some old 747 wreck under fake company name & use that for the attack.

 

Well, I still don't know about the stealing/re-purposing theory... but with what you suggest... the party would have to buy a plane plus fuel. (A single 747 engine alone is worth something like $8 million).  Plus a 747 doesn't have the range if you want to hit certain targets.  If you just have to buy the fuel to top off a T7, its about $160,000. Again, my point is that such a purchase would have to go noticed.  They way the US monitors money transfers post 9/11. I think the fuel is hard enough. A single company with no air assets purchasing a 747... that might cause concern.

[IUBrian 151]

As far as insurance... that doesn't make sense either. If there is a specter of intentional wrong-doing, that voids coverage. Insurance only covers negligence-- not intentional or criminal acts.

 

If the pilot/co-pilot had a beneficiary on his life insurance policy, they'd get nothing if it was a suicide. If the cause is undetermined, plane never found, etc., or if it can't be determined that the specific person with the policy was at fault, they would possibly still receive the proceeds. He may have just underestimated the ability of the plane to continue to send information after he turned things off.

[Christopher Low 5,354]

 

I'd lay better than even odds it was the one of the two people in the cockpit having a meltdown and wanting to go out in spectacular style, sad, tragic, and simple.

 

If one of them had a "meltdown", why did they decide to fly on for another 5 hours?

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

 

 

If one of them had a "meltdown", why did they decide to fly on for another 5 hours?

 

Flying on for 5 hours would completely erase the flight voice recorder as they are on a 4 hour loop and increase the chances of the jet never being found to create what is becoming the greatest mystery in aviation history.

 

If that plane is never found people will spend the next 100 years speculating and searching for it.

[xplanery 250]

 

 

I can't quite get on board with that. Really, how many aircraft crashes have remained undiscovered or an absolute mystery--in "modern" aviation history? None?  One would have to assume if you crashed a 777 with hundreds of people, it will be found eventually. As far as insurance... that doesn't make sense either. If there is a specter of intentional wrong-doing, that voids coverage. Insurance only covers negligence-- not intentional or criminal acts.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_Boeing_707-323C_disappearance

 

This one at least, sure it was a cargo plane, still a jetliner. Nobody ever found a trace of it, crashed somewhere in Pacific Ocean. 

 

Normally investigators have at least some idea where to look at, when the aircraft flies a pre-assigned route or at least remains within radar coverage.

 

Now the plane could be anywhere around Indian Ocean, unless they find some more location info that's just HUGE area to try to find an aircraft from. Compared to this the AF447 search operation could be like a piece of cake. 

 

Yea I guess buying used 747 would take some millions of dollars, but then again stealing a 777, getting it refueled & paying all the involved to stay quiet wouldn't be cheap either. I don't believe in that theory anyway. 

[IUBrian 151]

Flying on for 5 hours would completely erase the flight voice recorder as they are on a 4 hour loop and increase the chances of the jet never being found to create what is becoming the greatest mystery in aviation history.

 

If that plane is never found people will spend the next 100 years speculating and searching for it.

Exactly - why go into a high school or college campus and shoot random people and then shoot yourself? As illogical as it may seem, sometimes people want to "go out" spectacularly. Flying your plane into the ocean has been done. Making it disappear? Now that's something that people are going to remember.

 

And yes, ensuring there's no cockpit audio, and/or making sure the data recorder is never found may play a role as well.

[january 19]

The answer to this puzzle, surely, is that the T7 was sucked up into the Polar Vortex, never to be seen again.

Which, of course, was caused by global warming.

On the other hand, there are many examples of highly secret hostage negotiations going on for weeks, months and years.

(Or perhaps CNN is really behind it all.)

january

[exodus1977 37]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_Boeing_707-323C_disappearance

 

This one at least, sure it was a cargo plane, still a jetliner. Nobody ever found a trace of it, crashed somewhere in Pacific Ocean. 

 

Normally investigators have at least some idea where to look at, when the aircraft flies a pre-assigned route or at least remains within radar coverage.

 

Now the plane could be anywhere around Indian Ocean, unless they find some more location info that's just HUGE area to try to find an aircraft from. Compared to this the AF447 search operation could be like a piece of cake. 

 

Yea I guess buying used 747 would take some millions of dollars, but then again stealing a 777, getting it refueled & paying all the involved to stay quiet wouldn't be cheap either. I don't believe in that theory anyway. 

 

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that 707 crash.