[Closed] Missing Malaysian Aircraft - is it possible...

How about you provide some reasonable doubt if you think there is some? In this case that would be providing a plausible explanation of aircraft failure resulting in the known evidence, as I asked for above...

So if they DO find the plane (Bits of) but not the Blackbox- down near Australia its safe to assume that the people onboard were overcome with smoke etc no?

If it was pilot action- he wouldn't fly to nowhere. He'd chose somewhere/have an agenda.

reasonable doubt if you think there is some

yes, there is very little evidence either way
Science does not work by proving something did not happen, where is the evidence that it was a deliberate act? Or that it was an accident? There is not any in either case, it is inconclusive. You just cannot draw any conclusions from what we know.
I dunno where you get your beyond reasonalbe doubt from. I previoulsy showed you that they were not sure that the comms were turned off before or after the last radio contact, which you accepted. I think that was what you based your idea that it was defo deliberate. Otherwise it is all conjecture. I see no evidence that it was deliberate or not.

[b]Again, convince me.[/b] You are so convinced, what is it that convinces you? What am I missing that you can see?

So if they DO find the plane (Bits of) but not the Blackbox- down near Australia its safe to assume that the people onboard were overcome with smoke etc no?

If it was pilot action- he wouldn't fly to nowhere. He'd chose somewhere/have an agenda.

Who knows. It's impossible to know what the state of a pilot who'd choose that course of action is, mentally speaking.

He'd chose somewhere/have an agenda

what if he chose the middle of the indian ocean...

yeah I reckon if you are suffciently mental enough to take over the plane with a view to ditching it, you might be mental enough to do something unpredictable like fly to australia.

[quote=hora ]If it was pilot action- he wouldn't fly to nowhere. He'd chose somewhere/have an agenda.

The whole point is that pilot action is the only way to end up where they did.

The evidence we have is that the plane made a number of controlled turns, in between which it followed a steady course and followed exactly the course you would choose if you intended to avoid detection (for as long as possible) and end up in the middle of nowhere. It also flew on for hours. All after the transponder and ACARS stopped transmitting and there were no more voice comms (despite the satcom clearly working) all coincidentally happening at the point where it would take longest to be missed.

What I was suggesting is beyond reasonable doubt is that this was not the result of aircraft failure. I do not have to provide an explanation of what actually happened for that assertion. Let's just for a moment consider what you are suggesting if aircraft failure is actually a plausible scenario:
The failure is of sufficient severity to take out all other comms, yet leave the satcom sending keep alive messages. This all happened so fast that it was impossible for the crew to send a distress message. The crew were either disabled or unable to control the aircraft. Yet the failure isn't sufficient to stop the aircraft flying for hours largely flying straight and level and making a number of uncommanded turns, each of which it recovers from to straight and level flight rather than going into a spin.

There is no feasible aircraft failure which would result in that - the vast majority would not allow the aircraft to continue flying for hours. There is no possible failure mode which would result in uncommanded turns of the type recorded. In contrast the only thing we are missing from the scenario of deliberate pilot actions is a motive and I could find plenty of examples we know about of people doing unlikely things. In order to have reasonable doubt that this was not a result of aircraft failure there would have to be a plausible scenario where it is as a result of aircraft failure. There is not one.

I'm still not sure why people place so much importance on the lack of obvious motive. This does not have equal weight with the physical impossibility of any other scenario.

I pretty much agree with aracer - still think it could have been hijacked by somebody semi-trained. Lack of motive just means we haven't understood someone's motive yet.

I agree, I'm not concerned about lack of motive. I also do not think that striking out the idea of pilot suicide because he didn't do it straight away is valid either. Jumpers spend hours deciding wether to go or not. He/she may well have vaccilated until the fuel ran out.
I guess reading aracers post, his assumptions are the most plausible. BUT they are still assumptions. We know very little. We do not know that they were deliberate turns.
As an avid flying phobic I have read many many NTSB/AAIB reports and can tell you that truth is stranger than fiction.
Given that flight safety is so locked down and there are protections, procedures and redundancy in palce. Whn a plane crashes by accident the causes are often very obscure.
So all I am saying is, whislt Aracer is enjoying his sense of certainty, I am happy to leave my mind open that it might have been aracers theory or some other incredible/black swanish that caused this incident.

[quote=toys19 ]We do not know that they were deliberate turns.

We know that they look like deliberate turns and that there is no known aircraft failure mechanism which would result in that.

or some other incredible/black swanish that caused this incident.

That's the thing - any other possibility is incredible. We come back to my post at the top of this page - to some extent we can never be totally certain about anything - even eyewitnesses are unreliable. It's also worth bearing in mind that in courts of law, an awful lot of evidence is "circumstantial". Is there actual reasonable doubt - with emphasis on the word "reasonable"?

Though it's nice to be able to have a sensible debate on this, and I don't think there's actually much difference in our positions 🙂

Though it's nice to be able to have a sensible debate on this, and I don't think there's actually much difference in our positions

yeah I agree, I think we just place more weight on different things.

Like I am not sure that this is true, it sounds more of an assumption to me

that there is no known aircraft failure mechanism which would result in that.

it would have to be pretty coincidental that through some failure mechanism it navigated itself throuhg a couple of well knwon waypoints

Could these turns have been made by the autopilot? i.e. I'm thinking crew incapacitated/dead for some reason and autopilot continues on to bogus waypoints (either by user error, system fault or deliberate interference).

Could these turns have been made by the autopilot? i.e. I'm thinking crew incapacitated/dead for some reason and autopilot continues on to bogus waypoints (either by user error, system fault or deliberate interference).

Exactly.

So the pilot programmed the autopilot to take the plane into the Indian Ocean and then there was an unrelated disaster that killed him, the crew and passengers? Stretches belief a bit.

[quote=atlaz ]So the pilot programmed the autopilot to take the plane into the Indian Ocean and then there was an unrelated disaster that killed him, the crew and passengers? Stretches belief a bit.

Indeed - that would involve both the pilot doing something weird AND the plane having a failure which incapacitated everybody and took out the comms (but left the rest of the avionics alone).

Though I think Graham is actually suggesting the autopilot following a course which hadn't been programmed into it. At which point we're into the realms of an incredible number of coincidences where the aircraft fails in a very specific way, taking out some systems, having unprecedented and unrepeatable faults in others, leaving some running perfectly and incapacitating the crew whilst it's at it. All resulting in the aircraft doing exactly what a pilot wanting to disappear would do. I suppose it s possible, but it fails the "reasonable" test. What's more I don't think anybody has identified a mechanism for the autopilot to generate a new route all by itself - certainly not one which actually keeps the plane flying.

I was mainly just wondering if autopilot might explain the turns and continuing flight, while there was no radio comms etc going on.

No idea what the scenario would be that lead to that situation obviously, but for speculation sake:

1) some kind of weird system failure (or deliberate attack) that incapacitates the crew/passengers and damages/corrupts the navigation equipment causing autopilot to follow a bogus course.

2) psycho crew member kills crew, sets autopilot for the middle of nowwhere then tops himself, leaving the passengers to their fate and unable to enter the cockpit.

3) zombie outbreak on board. Pilot realises that without a handy Brad Pitt they are all doomed, so heroically sets course to take them away from civilisation before the undead break down the door.

3) zombie outbreak on board. Pilot realises that without a handy Brad Pitt they are all doomed, so heroically sets course to take them away from civilisation before the undead break down the door.

Definitely this one.

It's certainly more plausible than option 1.

I freely admit option 1 is extremely unlikely to be a purely accidental system fault (though that doesn't mean it should be ruled out completely).

I am slightly concerned about the attempts to recover the black boxes though. As we know that a Zombie outbreak was the most likely cause of the crash and that the undead can't drown, trying to reach the wreck risks unleashing a zombie apocalypse upon the world.

They are so far down I'm assuming that the Abyss aliens have dealt with them.

I was mainly just wondering if autopilot might explain the turns and continuing flight, while there was no radio comms etc going on.

[quote=pondo ]Helios 522 shows that this is possible, but it doesn't explain the course the plane flew.

It shows it's possible for an aircraft to keep flying with an engaged auto-pilot when the crew are disabled - but then we knew that already, as that's what the auto-pilot is supposed to do. It's only the latter part which is problematic.

The only way to change the FMC routing the aircraft will follow, is by manual entry by the pilot.

What is possible, is that some new waypoints were entered by a pilot, before being overcome by fumes/decompression.
When the plane reaches the last waypoint in the flight plan, it will continue to fly on the last heading.
It is possible that the last leg entered by a pilot before being overcome was in the direction of the southern ocean, without having ever intended to fly there.
As magnetic variation changed over a long period, the ac would have gently turned on the curved flight path seen on most of the graphics.

It is possible that the last leg entered by a pilot before being overcome was in the direction of the southern ocean, without having ever intended to fly there.

This.

As magnetic variation changed over a long period, the ac would have gently turned on the curved flight path seen on most of the graphics.

Not this. The curved line on most of the graphics shows range from the satellite (which was much further west) when contact was lost ie. the aircraft *crossed* that line shortly before it ditched.

As magnetic variation changed over a long period, the ac would have gently turned on the curved flight path seen on most of the graphics.

I think you'll find that's just an artifact of mapping a sphere onto a flat plane.

The only way to change the FMC routing the aircraft will follow, is by manual entry by the pilot.

That is a very definite statement.

What prevents other people changing it? It is securely-protected in some way? Password, key, voice ID? Is the system itself secure and tamperproof at all times (i.e. when the plane is on the ground)? Is it impossible for the system to be faulty (i.e. multiple redundant systems) or does it rely on pilots being conscious to spot issues?

The flight management computer (FMC) of a modern airliner is a standalone computer, with the only data input for navigation via a keypad. There simply isn't any way of manipulating it externally.

If you take a magnetic heading to a point 500nm away in the southern ocean, and fly on that magnetic heading for 500nm, you will miss the point you were aiming at, due to changes in magnetic variation.

Elliptical, you are talking about the arcs showing the satellite range - I am talking about the arrows showing the likely flight path of the ac.

Actually, having just checked a chart, the southern ocean is one of the few places on the planet with little change in magnetic variation - much more relevant somewhere like the North Atlantic.

The flight management computer (FMC) of a modern airliner is a standalone computer, with the only data input for navigation via a keypad. There simply isn't any way of manipulating it externally.

Presumably the pilot can alter it, so are you saying another crew member couldn't change it?
A hijacker couldn't put a gun to the pilots head to change it?
There is no possibility that such a computer could be tampered with while the plane was on the ground (i.e. say dodgy firmware installed on it)?

Anybody in the cockpit could change it. IMHO external hacking isn't possible.

A hijacker with knowledge of flying could do it if they gained access to the flight deck, exactly what happened on 9/11 I believe

IMHO external hacking isn't possible.

Professionally speaking I'd say it is certainly [i]possible[/i], but I agree it is very unlikely.

Well there is an airgap, which is usually considered one of the best forms of security, but not infallible, no.

Yeah I didn't mean someone could hack it from the ground as the plane was flying (assuming it is properly air-gapped). I was more thinking about the potential for someone maliciously tampering with the flight/navigation software while the plane was on the ground (e.g. dodgy maintenance engineer).

Extremely unlikely, but not impossible.

Still think it was a zombie outbreak though.

If anybody managed to hack the software on the ground prior to flight, it would be pointless, as the pilots would just disconnect the autopilot and fly manually.

The only vaguely plausible explanation for the unusual entry of waypoints is a nutter pilot, or an aviation trained hijacker on the flight deck. Hopefully they find the CVR so we can find out.

I think it was an outbreak of snakes on the plane; everyone was running around, screaming and distracted, until the plane flew into the sea.

More likely than some of the tosh in the media!!

heard an interesting titbit this morning.

the pings heard were at 33 KHz not at the 37.5 KHz that the black boxes should operate at.

guess what operates at 33 KHz...

Mobile phones?

Is it the resonating frequency of 650b wheels?

close.

your common echosounder, probably found on every ship in the world.

jam bo - Member

close.

your common echosounder, probably found on every ship in the world.

So they were chasing the other search ships?

So in summary, they still have no idea where the plane is / was / will be.

Is disappoint.

I'm sticking with my original theory.

Aliens.