MH370: A Startlingly Simple Theory

[Matt P]

From Lew Rockwell site today:

"A lot of speculation about MH370. Terrorism, hijack, meteors. I cannot believe the analysis on CNN – almost disturbing. I tend to look for a more simple explanation of this event."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/03/chris-goodfellow/the-malaysian-jetliner-a-non-conspiracy-theory/

You've heard the simplest explanation is usually the most likely...this one is from a pilot's perspective.

Matt

[araucaria]

You've heard the simplest explanation is usually the most likely...this one is from a pilot's perspective.
If you’re looking for simplicity, the simplest explanation is that it just vanished, period.

But that is no explanation. And we need an explanation. And what we are finding is the limits to explainability. Normality and likelihood have been thrown out the window; the more outrageous the explanation, the better it seems to fit. Ouch!

Whatever the outcome of this particular event, this is where we are at: coming to terms with the inexplicable. No one has ever explained anything to my full satisfaction. Where do we go from here? :)

[araucaria]

This was discussed yesterday on the main thread - more than once actually.





If inclined, you can read more here: http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/
This sounds pretty interesting but in the comments section, you will find a link to this with objections:
http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/20pcyo/written_by_another_pilot_a_logical_explanation/

[xerius]

Is it not so simple as well that people near that area could easily report any crashing plane within that vicinity and including the Malaysian Navy could easily validate and check it. But there is none in the news therefore this did not happened since the Malaysian government and other countries are still searching for a wider area.

[Atlas]

This was discussed yesterday on the main thread - more than once actually.

I posted this:




Jeff Wise says Goodfellow’s theory is wrong:

While it’s true that MH370 did turn toward Langkawi and wound up overflying it, whoever was at the controls continued to maneuver after that point as well, turning sharply right at VAMPI waypoint, then left again at GIVAL. Such vigorous navigating would have been impossible for unconscious men.

Goodfellow’s theory fails further when one remembers the electronic ping detected by the Inmarsat satellite at 8:11 on the morning of March 8. [...] Without human intervention it simply could not have reached the position we know it attained at 8:11 a.m.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/03/18/mh370_disappearance_chris_goodfellow_s_theory_about_a_fire_and_langkawi.html

[ghostrider]

A simple math equation , take the amount of fuel , average speed , and range of that plane from the point of origin , now you have a circle of probability that will tell you where it could be ... mph+fuel+mpg= distance it could travel without refueling ...adding of course how far it could glide when the fuel runs out ...

[Redstar Kachina]

..........

[araucaria]

The plane landed in Pakistan - confirmed nearly a week ago behind the scenes.
Well, Boeing would say that. They are hardly going to say it crashed owing to a structural fault and all 777s need to be grounded until further notice.

[Atlas]

777 PILOT: I’m Sorry, But I’m Just Not Buying The SmokeThe-Cockpit Theory (http://www.athensreport.com/777-pilot-im-sorry-but-im-just-not-buying-the-smokethe-cockpit-theory/)

I am a professional pilot with type ratings in the DC-9 (MD88, MD90), B757, 767 and 777 and I served as a Captain at a major US international airline. I feel I have some insight to add to the discussion about MH370.

[...]

I do not believe, based on what we know now, that there was smoke or a fire. Why? Because there is no indication of fire, or smoke in the cockpit, during the time the aircraft was still in contact, and there is no indication of “fire” behavior in the aircraft’s flight path. Additionally, normal emergency protocols train the crew to immediately don and wear full face O2 masks (the B777 is equipped with them), and designate one pilot to fly and talk to everyone (Aviate & communicate) while the other pilot runs the checklist and fights the problem. The plane made a sharp left turn, towards land, soon after ATC communication was lost. This was shown to have been pre-programmed into the FMS by the pilots.

The “flying pilot’s” job in an emergency such as this would be to point the airplane at the closest acceptable runway, announce to the world the nature of the emergency (ATC) and request help, and begin a descent so that at some point during the process, an attempt to vent the smoke from the cabin could be done.

Basically, none of this was done. This leads me to believe that there was no emergency of this type. For this type of emergency to be in play, it indicates that the cockpit crew would have had to willfully refused to follow their training and checklists to combat the emergency.

Airborne smoke and fire emergencies are extremely serious, and are trained for by every airline crew in the world. In the wake of SwissAir 111, which crashed off the coast of Nova Scotia, we know that a flight crew has a very limited period of time in which they must land the plane before disaster… only 14 minutes in the SwissAir tragedy… yet MH370 continued to fly for more than 7 hours after contact was lost. This is yet another clue that points away from an in flight physical, mechanical or other type of emergency.

There is evidence that Malaysia Air crews often allowed passengers onto the flight deck during flight, which is an indication both of lax safety and security procedures to my western way of thinking, but may be totally permissible at Malaysia Air. The FO had allowed some pretty girls to sit in the cockpit during a flight last year. His Captain did not protest. This anecdotal info could lend credence to the idea of hijackers gaining access to the flight deck after takeoff.

To my eye, a fire/smoke emergency does not fit what we currently know.

Neither does a missile, engine failure, structural failure, loss of pressurization or any other kind of “accidental” failure. This looks and sounds like a “planned event,” not an “unforeseen emergency.” Mistakes can occur, and the sad truth is that we don’t know what we don’t know… but until something comes to light that supports an “emergency” situation, the simplest and most logical explanation is that someone took control of that airplane and diverted it from it’s planned course and destination.