27 thoughts on “The Missing Airplane”

  1. Occam’s razor suggests the fire scenario. A lot fewer assumptions to be made. Perhaps they will find something in the south Indian Ocean, perhaps not.

    1. In the case of a fire in the cockpit, I can see a very good reason to use the FMS; the pilots might not wish to occupy burning seats, but instead opt to put the plane on a course towards runway via the FMS course change knob and then turn their attention to fighting the fire. I’m just suggesting that this is possible, not that I think it’s what happened. (as for what I think actually occurred, I’m firmly in the “I don’t know” camp).

      As for any information (such as the FMS change being in the ACORS dump) if it’s coming from Malaysian sources (at least until some time has passed), I find that reason to view it with a skeptical eye; for whatever reason, there have been many inaccuracies from them that are later walked back.

  3. The electrical fire theory sounded good until I got to the comments and pilots pointed out that it doesn’t fit what’s known. For example, there was a much closer airport for an emergency landing than the one suggested, and someone was punching in all those waypoints that MH370 followed, which would definitely not be done during an emergency.

    The theory that the plane shadowed another 777 through Indian airspace and beyond is very interesting.

  4. Here’s a large PDF file on the accident investigation from the EgyptAir Boeing 777-200 cockpit fire that happened at Cairo airport in 2011. If there were a fire, this type seems more likely than a front landing gear fire. The missing plane is a 777-200ER so it is bound to be pretty similar to the EgyptAir plane.

    I’m not saying this was the cause, just that it seems a more likely fire scenario. About the only thing I can think of that would cause a nose gear fire would be bad bearings or inadequate lubrication. When landing gear catch fire, it’s more commonly those wheels with brakes.

    1. Larry, that PDF is IMHO gold. I encourage everyone to have at least a skim.

      In a nutshell, what we have here is a cockpit fire on the same make and model as the missing plane. A fire whose cause was not, with certainty, determined. A fire that, by its nature, provides a plausible scenario to what happened to the missing plane.

      First, let’s remember how little we actually know; there’s a boatload of it. For example, the reported altitude changes. This data has to come from primary radar (it’s after the transponder was off) yet it’s being reported as if accurate to within a few hundred feet. That’s baloney; a primary radar (skin paint) can give you an altitude estimate, not a hard fix, and that estimate is less and less certain as you approach max range. So, we really don’t know.

      Likewise, we don’t know that the reported course (flying from way-point to way-point) is true.

      Further, a great deal of official info coming out of Malaysia has later been walked back, so I’m somewhat disinclined to take information from that source as writ – better to view it a bit skeptically until confirmed from other sources.

      So, is the EgyptAir fire a plausible cause for the known data that we have? I think it could be. (I’m not saying that it is, just that it sounds possible). This fire involved the cockpit oxygen system, and did major damage to the cockpit electrical and structure. It also breached the pressure structures, so at altitude would have caused decompression.

      With fire in the seat area, the crew would be inclined to change course with the FMC (via the course change knob, not programming it) towards an emergency alternate and then focus on fighting the fire instead of remaining at the controls and burning to death. The fire, if like EgyptAir, has taken out their cockpit O2 system, and is also the comms system (as it apparently did on Egyptair). The transponder is in the same area of the console, but also, the Egyptair fire spread to the lower equipment bay (which is where the ACORS is). So, no comms, the AC is on a manual heading on the FMS, and then, like the Egyptair fire, burn-through causes a depressurization. Not fast at first, but enough. It probably wouldn’t matter if the crew noticed or not, they would have less than half a miniute of usefull concousness (assuming they weren’t already impaired by the smoke) The crew has no O2, and soon are unconscious.
      Did the passenger O2 masks deploy? Doesn’t really matter; they couldn’t do anything (the masks effectively tether them in place) and that system would (even if unaffected by the fire) last only about 14 minutes. At 35,000 feet, brain damage and death soon follow. The plane, still on FMC manual mode, flies on, on a course of about 253 degrees true (from the vanishing point to the confirmed primary radar hit over Pulau Perek islet in the middle of the north end of Malacca Strait). It holds course, speed, and altitude, passing over the northern tip of Sumatra, and keeps going until either the fire takes out the FMC or some other vital system, or until fuel exhaustion.

      As a variant, what if the fire took out the FMC over Pulau Perak, and the flight path become erratic? That would explain some of the claimed later radar hits.

      I’m not saying this is what happened, but I see nothing to rule it out yet, either.

  5. I’m starting to think MH370 mystery is the scientific minded equivalent of March Madness bracketology. People are throwing up theories trying to see if theirs makes it to the final 4 and wins it all. There are a lot of interesting theories. In the interim, the information is so sketchy that it’s difficult to make a guess with any realistic level of certainty. Whatever scenario wins out, my opinion is the plane and the passengers onboard didn’t make it.

      1. Are you kidding? As the 9 realms align, that baby was just going in and out of space and time. You certainly can’t rule out Loki being at the controls.

  6. Since the cockpit voice recorder only saves the most recent 2 hours, it’s entirely probable no one will ever know what happened in the cockpit when the systems were shut down. On a somewhat more morbid note (from a commenter at Pournelles), we know what the planes range was, but if the passengers were offloaded, the range goes up quite a bit. Probably unlikely since unless it was done over water and each one was weighted (with what?) they’d be leaving behind a substantial breadcrumb trail.

    1. I don’t believe that’s true any more. Pilots elsewhere have claimed that a CVR can record several complete flights these days. It’s not as though that’s a lot of data.

      However, if the plane landed and was abandoned (e.g. they were kidnapping the passengers or stealing the cargo), the bad guys could have wiped it.

  7. For some odd reason my thoughts keep suggesting Bangladesh. This is based on nothing solid at all except that it seems to be somewhat on the last projected heading of the plane. Maybe this is good for a laugh for somebody.

  8. What’s really bugging me is the assumptions I see in the press that if the plane landed intact, it needed a runway to do so. That’s a false assumption, provably and obviously false.

    What’s harder to land (and less resistant to damage); a Shuttle, or a 777? The Shuttle landed in only three places. Only one of them (Kennedy) was paved. Edwards and Northrup Strip aren’t. A lot of other aircraft have likewise landed on dry lakebeds and salt flats – that’s why Edwards is a test center: a runway miles wide and long can be handy when things go wrong.

    Personally, if the hijack (no matter by whom or why) scenario hasn’t been ruled out, I’d be looking at satellite shots of dry lakebeds in Turmenistan and the adjacent area – there are plenty of them. You probably wouldn’t see the plane it it’s hidden (say under a very large camo tarp) or has moved on, but you’d see the tracks on the lakebed. Even if those have been brushed over, you’d see a discontinuity with the rest of the lakebed compared to historical shots (such as on Google Earth). I’m not suggesting that a lakebed or salt flat landing is what occurred, merely that I’ve yet to see anything to rule it out.

    1. I was rating the dry lake bed landing as a high possibility for a while, now I think it’s more likely the plane went South, there’s just nothing from radar or ground observations that points to the North-West course, and no cell phone connections reported.

      So I think one of the pilots decided to end it all (most likely the copilot if it was him who signed off to KL).

      1. The thing is, I think either route (north or south) is possible; nothing so far weighs against either one.

        Cell phones? They only work (except sat phones) when there’s a cell tower in the area. They worked from planes on 9-11, but those flights were lower and slower than normal altitudes and speeds, plus back then a lot of people had analog phones (far less temperamental on range and speed issues). Also, if the plane was taken, and whoever took it didn’t want need the passengers, the simple thing to do would be to kill them, and depressurizing the plane for a while would do so. (the 777 uses a bottled O2 system, not oxy generators, for the passenger masks, and that supply can be shut off from the cockpit).

        Radar? The “Tailgating” theory is one possibility, so is flying low when in proximity to known primary radars. Plus, they might see something, but they won’t know for sure what. Remember that A-10 Warthog that broke formation while on an armed training mission in Arizona? It took them weeks to trace it to Colorado, and they never did find the bombs. They also never found a cause, even after they finally found the wreckage. They had guesses, but nothing sure.

        1. “They worked from planes on 9-11”

          I don’t know whether it’s true, but I’ve read elsewhere that the people on the hijacked flights used seat-back phones, not their cell phones. I don’t believe there were any installed on this plane.

        2. Low flying jumbos rattle the windows, and fly slowly, high flying jumbos are easy to see on radar. The tailgating theory is just strange, it’s very hard for one jumbo to catch another without the two coordinating.

        3. The plot drawn up by Keith Ledgerwood shows the aircraft crossing the Malayan peninsular over Thai territory, but the aircraft was tracked by Thai military radar and: When asked why it took so long to release the information, Montol said, “Because we did not pay any attention to it. The Royal Thai Air Force only looks after any threats against our country.” He said the plane never entered Thai airspace and that Malaysia’s initial request for information in the early days of the search was not specific.

          My bold.

          http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/03/18/malaysia-airlines-search-cockpit-checked-in-12-minutes-after-course-was/

    2. Um, except for the first few flights, the shuttle landed on the 15,000 ft CONCRETE main strip every time it landed at EAFB. Nobody likes to land on even the best lakebed because they are still a lot dirtier than concrete and have a much higher risk of FOD.

      Note this says nothing about the 777, just clearing up some shuttle inaccuracies.

      1. Cthulu,

        You’re right. It did land on the concrete strip at EOFB for many of its landings there.

        This would be very embarrassing for me if, by some chance, I had a framed picture of it doing just that hanging a few feet from this computer. Thankfully though, I’ll admit to no such thing.

  9. Courtney Love looked to have a pretty good guess, with an fuel slick and an object and everything.

    Guardian Link

    Of course Kurt Cobain would’ve found it by now.

  11. Problem with the fire theory is that I cannot imagine the pilots would NOT have sent a mayday call first. Possibly with a position or a quick synopsis of The Plan. Something like:

    “Mayday (3 times) flight 370…fire on board…. headed for Newark airport”

    Or some such. Only takes about 3 seconds.

    It is conceivable that the fire ate through the Comm wires before they knew there was a fire and could make the call, but I think the odds are against that.

    1. There’s this widespread myth that the first thing pilots do when they get into trouble is to get on the radio. Actually, that’s one of the last things they do. The rule is “aviate, navigate, communicate.” Fly the plane, work the problem and when you have a chance, call out. There’s little to nothing those people on the ground can do in the first mintues of most emergencies other than clear airspace if you need to make an emergency course or altitude change.

    2. Gregg, yep. So we have a fire that disables, in order, the transponder, acars, the radio, and the pilots, but leaves the autopilot functioning and the plane intact enough to stay in the air for 7+ hours.
      Quite a fire.

  12. Any speculation that doesn’t include the fact that the engines ran for 7 hrs after the ground lost contact is wrong.

  13. Anyone know what a 777 does unpiloted if it runs out of gas?

    I’m wondering if the autopilot would hold it in a stable glide and land it as gently as possible.

    If that 24m object is a big chunk of the fuselage (maybe from behind the wing back) people, if not killed before the crash, might have survived the impact.

    If it is a chunk of the fuselage, the existence of such a large piece would suggest a survivable impact.

Comments are closed.