What Really Happened to Malaysia’s Missing Airplane (military, Navy, commercial)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Definitely a "design flaw" where pilots are able to turn off the locator beacon on a commercial plane.
Your post is what deserves the
Presumably, you mean the transponder. That is what was turned off on Flight 370.
A transponder can malfunction. A malfunctioning transponder broadcasting out erroneous location data in crowded skies is a problem, no? Good thing there's an OFF switch.
As with all electrical devices, the possibility of a short in a transponder exists. A shorting device is a fire hazard. Good thing there's an OFF switch.
Air traffic control will, on occasion, have cause - usually in crowded skies near an airport - to tell a pilot to turn off the transponder. Good thing there's an OFF switch.
Did you really think they just decided to put an unnecessary off-switch on transponders for no particular reason?
So was it the Captain or First Officer? And how did he disable the other members of the crew in the cockpit?
There was only one and the captain could have sent him to do something or waited until he left then closed and locked the door. Or silently slit his throat from behind.
There was only one and the captain could have sent him to do something or waited until he left then closed and locked the door. Or silently slit his throat from behind.
For some reason I was thinking those big planes flew with a Captain, First Officer, and Engineer.
There is a Rule that whenever Captain or First Officer go out of the cockpit for Toilet Break or some other matter, somebody from the Crew will come in and sit in the Cockpit for that duration of Time.
This was not enforced in that Luftansa flight but all Asian Airlines, including Malaysian Airliens, used to follow that Rule.
This rules out this reasoning that Captain locked out the First Officer.
I don't like how it simply dismisses the chance that control could have been seized from the electrical equipment bay, not offering any explanation why other than to say it would take "pages".
Heree is a nice video showing this bay where all the computers and control devices are located. From here, you have even more access and control than from the cockpit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5qNEkjtJbs
Amazingly, this bay is unlocked and can be accessed from the passenger cabin.
In the forward galley area near the L1 door and flight deck, a small access panel sits below the carpet which acts as the gateway to the 777’s electronics and engineering bay. The bay, referred to as the ‘E/E bay’, contains many of the 777’s extremely sensitive systems. A recently posted YouTube video, below, shows how shockingly easy it is to access the E/E bay, and how seemingly little has been done to keep people out. https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2014/0...et-of-the-777/
There is a Rule that whenever Captain or First Officer go out of the cockpit for Toilet Break or some other matter, somebody from the Crew will come in and sit in the Cockpit for that duration of Time.
This was not enforced in that Luftansa flight but all Asian Airlines, including Malaysian Airliens, used to follow that Rule.
This rules out this reasoning that Captain locked out the First Officer.
I don't think it "rules it out". The co-pilot could have stepped out first or the pilot could have physically shoved a small Asian flight attendant out the door then slammed it shut. It wouldn't matter that they knew in a split second what he had done. Or the captain - one of the most experienced and respected in the airline - could have given the co-pilot a direct order to go check something in the cabin.
There is a Rule that whenever Captain or First Officer go out of the cockpit for Toilet Break or some other matter, somebody from the Crew will come in and sit in the Cockpit for that duration of Time.
This was not enforced in that Luftansa flight but all Asian Airlines, including Malaysian Airliens, used to follow that Rule.
This rules out this reasoning that Captain locked out the First Officer.
As I understand it that rule was not put in effect until a year after, when yet another commercial airline suicide occurred. Even then, recently it looks like it was abolished.
So it's not relevant to this case, the captain would have been alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia
I don't like how it simply dismisses the chance that control could have been seized from the electrical equipment bay, not offering any explanation why other than to say it would take "pages".
I read that as well in the past, but in terms of remote hacking (as the technology was built into those planes at the time). The only explanation is that "no that can't happen, it would take pages to explain why", and that's from Boeing engineers. Now the remote bay I would expect safeguards to be put in place, but remote hacking would be something new. I still think pilot suicide is the most likely but I would like to hear more about the remote hacking possibility.
As I understand it that rule was not put in effect until a year after, when yet another commercial airline suicide occurred. Even then, recently it looks like it was abolished.
So it's not relevant to this case, the captain would have been alone.
I read that as well in the past, but in terms of remote hacking (as the technology was built into those planes at the time). The only explanation is that "no that can't happen, it would take pages to explain why", and that's from Boeing engineers. Now the remote bay I would expect safeguards to be put in place, but remote hacking would be something new. I still think pilot suicide is the most likely but I would like to hear more about the remote hacking possibility.
European Airlines were content on not having two person in cockpit and now they are going back after that Germanwings incident.
But Airlines in Asia - like Malaysian Airlines - have been practising this for years. From my own personal experience, I have seen this in various Indian and Middle East carriers.
But why? Why would either a senior captain or junior first officer do this and why with hundreds of other people?
None of this story makes sense to me.
I do not buy this whatsoever. We are assuming that our Western stigma of suicide applies to other cultures & peoples when we say that 'Malaysia authorities want to downplay the suicide factor'.
What if the 'suicide explanation' was actually preferable to another valid suspicion that might place great liability on the airline or a government? Something involving a bungled flight plan that encroached on restricted airspace or pilot error that resulted in the same.
Or even if not, what would incur more liability; pilot failure or a mechanical failure also involving ground-control failures?
One potential eyewitness account involving a British sailor en route to Thailand. Initially, she believed the plane had been shot down but now is leaning more towards a mechanical failure where the pilots attempted several times to make an emergency landing but could not establish ground contact for an open runway:
Somehow, I am getting the feeling like the suicide plot is the lesser, not the greater; of evils. It would not be that way here but this did not occur here, either.
European Airlines were content on not having two person in cockpit and now they are going back after that Germanwings incident.
But Airlines in Asia - like Malaysian Airlines - have been practising this for years. From my own personal experience, I have seen this in various Indian and Middle East carriers.
People will try to make phone call even if something bad is going on for few seconds. Everyone has a cellphone. Did any tower detect signal ??
Many of these theories ("why didn't....") were discussed in previous threads and summarily explained and discounted, so this is all a rerun to me. I remember many of us explained that "why weren't cell phones used" and it starts getting into Captain Obvious territory - the obvious part being is that cell phone have extremely limited range, which is why we have cell phone towers virtually on every square mile in the US. I would be very skeptical of that cell phone story, otherwise it would be better publized.
The article explains it in more detail:
One potential eyewitness account involving a British sailor en route to Thailand. Initially, she believed the plane had been shot down but now is leaning more towards a mechanical failure where the pilots attempted several times to make an emergency landing but could not establish ground contact for an open runway:
British sailor had too many pints of Guinness. So the pilot instead decided to fly to Diego Garcia some 2,000 miles away, over open water, simply to make an emergency landing? Tell me why that doesn't make sense. I know the answer but let's see if you can figure it out. The UFO theory makes more sense.
Last edited by Dd714; 08-21-2019 at 01:17 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
