Flight 370

What do you guys think REALLY happened?

I've heard some crazy conspiracy theories! One even being that aliens or a meteorite took down the plane.

The families of those on that plane stand by their word that the Malaysian government is covering something up.

I don't know what to believe.

What are your thoughts on this—

I still think it's underwater in the Gulf of Thailand, close to where it had last contact with air traffic control.

Catastrophic failure, IMO.

Posted by seraph
Inmarsat and the AAIB already determined that the plane is now a rather inefficient submarine.

The Southerly route has been confirmed by the two above organizations working together, which places the airliner in water.

HOW it got into the water is still open to speculation, but the way the plane flew suggests a catastrophic event. Which is the way most planes end up in water.

Not quite all:
Flight 1549

I would not be surprised if the motivation was deliberate.

I can understand why the families are beyond pissed though.

We're on the outside looking in so of course statements with words like "probability" & "likelihood" are more acceptable to us, whereas the family doesn't wanna hear that. They want definite proof. Understandable, considering the gov's "probability" theories have switched up so many times!!!

In some of their public statements, the gov. talked about being just as "sure" about the probability of the plane being hijacked with those people still being alive.

If the Malaysian government were covering something up, I'm not sure exactly what they'd be covering up.

Some are thinking that the "cover up" is that these governments haven't really been searching like they claim. Why not? B/c they don't want to spend the money for all this searching, if they truly believed from the beginning that the plane was in the water. They think the gov. is just saying they are still searching bc hearing that is more comforting for the families

Ugh I just don't know.

I'm not ruling out some validity to some of the conspiracy theories though. The 1 thing that doesn't add up is that there was no mayday call. For these pilots to have had over 30+ years of experience, it doesn't seem reasonable that they didn't literally have 2 seconds to give the mayday call. They're trained to give that call even if they've got little time, & even if they already know their inescapable fate.

2 seconds are precious when you are crashing. Most pilots are too busy trying to save their ass rather than phoning home.

Posted by djbuck1
Speculation: Depressurization caused hypoxia, disabling the crew and passengers while the aircraft flew on until it ran out of fuel. This happened with a Helios 737 in 2005, and on quite a few smaller aircraft including Payne Stewart's Learjet in 1999. What this theory does not answer is why the aircraft's transponder was shut off.

Perhaps that was part of the systems failure leading up to depressurization.

I think it is so sad..but something is suspicious...SMH

Posted by Wynter
2 seconds are precious when you are crashing. Most pilots are too busy trying to save their ass rather than phoning home.

They're trained to give a mayday call regardless of the circumstance. Just like some pilots have their finger on the button that would deploy their parachute, while at the same time scrambling to try to fix the problem with the plane.

Transponders don't accidentally turn themselves off. Dozens of aviation experts have confirmed that for that specific style of plane, it would be impossible for it to have turned off without it being deliberate from the pilots. Knowing this makes the lack of a mayday call more significant.

In those other crashes where there was no mayday call, the transponder wasn't turned off.

Anyone reading the thread (over 8000 posts, and 12million views) at pprune.org about this incident?

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost.html<BR>
Some of the posts are from actual real pilots. lol

Posted by krysrenee7

Posted by Wynter
2 seconds are precious when you are crashing. Most pilots are too busy trying to save their ass rather than phoning home.

They're trained to give a mayday call regardless of the circumstance. Just like some pilots have their finger on the button that would deploy their parachute, while at the same time scrambling to try to fix the problem with the plane.

Transponders don't accidentally turn themselves off. Dozens of aviation experts have confirmed that for that specific style of plane, it would be impossible for it to have turned off without it being deliberate from the pilots. Knowing this makes the lack of a mayday call more significant.

In those other crashes where there was no mayday call, the transponder wasn't turned off.

click to expand

No, they are trained to fly the airplane.
Aviate
Navigate
Then Communicate.

Posted by seraph
- uciating in the extreme. But there is no other "proof" that can be provided until the plane is salvaged - either in big chunks or in little bits and pieces. In addition to that, Inmarsat and the AAIB have provided strong evidence for a very likely outcome. But the families, in their current state, cannot be expected to stand back and consider all this in a relaxed manner. So the charge of "murder" is an emotional one - it's baseless; Malaysian Airlines didn't throw the plane into the water. The main grievance is that the airline didn't release information in a timely manner, and in a manner that is sensitive the families' situation. But Malaysia lacks the experience, the search & rescue and technological infrastructure, and the kind of socially-minded system to do justice to their situation and address these needs. So they half-assed it. But it didn't change what happened.

There is, in effect, nothing to cover up. We already know that the Malaysian government handled this like amateurs. If they're "covering up" further incompetence, then that's certainly an issue, but it still doesn't change - and couldn't have changed - what happened to this plane.

I agree that this is true IF the truth ends up being that the plane crashed b/c of mechanical or pilot errors.

They haven't ruled out a hijacking. They're simply saying that when it comes to a hijacking VS. a crash, the probability & likelihood is now in the favor of it crashing. Huge difference. The only thing that's changed is the percentage of probability in favor of it being hijacked.

They're purposely making sure not to say they know exactly for sure what happened b/c they don't. 1 theory just seems more credible than the other at this point. Again, that's not the same as "They know for sure what happened." In fact, the experts keep repeatedly telling us that they want to make that distinction clear.

But if the plane was hijacked and/or landed, the possibility for passenger survival is def. there. There have been many incidents where passengers have survived hijackings. There have also been incidents where passengers have survived plane crashes...maybe not in the Indian ocean lol but nonetheless the aspect of surviving even the worst plane crash actually has some credibility & isn't uncommon.

Posted by Wynter

Posted by krysrenee7

Posted by Wynter
2 seconds are precious when you are crashing. Most pilots are too busy trying to save their ass rather than phoning home.

They're trained to give a mayday call regardless of the circumstance. Just like some pilots have their finger on the button that would deploy their parachute, while at the same time scrambling to try to fix the problem with the plane.

No, they are trained to fly the airplane.
Aviate
Navigate
Then Communicate.

click to expand

My father was a pilot in the Air Force for 27 years. If giving an immediate mayday call wasn't something they were trained to give, thousands of pilots all over the world wouldn't also be questioning why there was no mayday call. They're questioning it b/c they were trained to give that call. When they say they were trained to give a mayday call in addition to navigating & trying to fix things, they aren't making it up lol They really were trained to give that call despite the circumstances.

Doesn't mean that it's always possible, especially persay the plane explodes in mid air. However, remember that this specific kind of plane is considered 1 of the most safest b/c of its electrical/mechanical abilities to alert pilots AND air traffic control whenever there's a problem with any part of the plane. If the engine is about to blow or if a sensor stops working, they will get the notification 1st, which is what buys a lot of these pilots extra time to troubleshoot the problem.

The fact that the plane gave no pre-warning (goes against its very engineering design) & the fact that the transponder was deliberately turned off is the reason why hijacking/suicide theories even have any credibility in the 1st place. So yes, when you consider all the rest of those details, the fact that there was no mayday call is very significant.

Even if the problem turns out to be fixable, they still give that mayday call just in case.

The mayday call has 2 purposes:
1. To let air traffic control know that there is an unfixable problem that will most likely lead to a devastating fate
AND
2. To let the air traffic control know that there is a dangerous problem, even if it turns out LATER that the problem was fixable. If they're unsure, they are trained to give that call regardless. They give that call even if they're 100% uncertain of the plane's fate.

Any experienced airline pilot will tell you that.

Posted by seraph
A hijacking assumes that the plane is on land somewhere. Inmarsat and the AAIB placed the plane in the water. The information from these two sources is considered highly credible, and Inmarsat's data is known for its integrity.

If there was a hijacking, they ended up with the plane in the water. Hijack Fail.

If they survived, then it's been almost 20 days with NO contact with people. Given the established path of the plane, they turned back over a track that took them back over Malaysia or Thailand, and the satellite evidence so far places the plane *past* those landmasses and over the ocean. So if there are survivors, they are bobbing about right now in the water. FOR ALMOST 20 DAYS. And any land is very far away from where they would be.

From what we know from Inmarsat and the AAIB, if you want to assume a sinister motive, or a hijacking, that's fine . . . no matter the motive, a lot of data has been crunched to show that however it happened, this plane isn't anywhere on dry land. You can assume that a dragon wanted to have sex with it and tried to rub up against the fuselage in midair, and that's fine too . . . because it caused that plane to end up in the water.

All of this will only have any meaning, however, if we look to probabilities rather than mere possibilities. Because even the most absurd idea can count as a "possibility."

I get what you're saying. Trust me I do.

All I'm saying is that there is a difference (even if a small one) b/w high probability vs. FACT. There is a difference.

The AAIB also at 1 point were in high favor of the plane being hijacked. They were just as credible an agency when they spoke on that high probability at the time too.

Reasonable doubt & 100% certainty are 2 different things. That's why the gov. is being very careful with their words. There have been countless times when a credible agency had it all wrong. Probability is not the smoking gun itself. Finding the wreckage & the black box and examining all the data would be "certain." Until then, probability is just that...An expert's opinion on what most likely happened. They could be wrong, hence the reason even their "opinion" has changed more than once.

Trust me, I don't think those people are alive either. I believe the plane crashed. However, I've kept in mind, as the experts have advised us to, that probability can also change given any new information, & that probability & fact are 2 different things.

I think where we're clashing is in the way I took how you were coming off. It came off like you were 100% sure that the plane had crashed just based on probability alone. All I'm saying is that in this specific case, their rankings for probability have constantly changed, & a part of that reasoning is b/c multiple "credible" radar systems have been WRONG.

So although I don't blame them for thinking their radar is more accurate, I also don't blame those who are tired of getting their hopes up only to find out that these credible agencies keep changing their tune, even though they "swore" the likelihood of something completely different just days earlier.

Get what I'm saying now? lol Like I said, I agree with you that the plane is probably at the bottom of that ocean 😢 So sad

Its sad to think that somewhere at the bottom of the ocean there's a plane full of drowned bloated passengers suspended in a watery time warp. If my mum or brother was on that plane it would eat me up inside.

It really does my head in that we can send probes to mars and men to the moon but we can't locate a plane at the bottom of the ocean....Or design a plane with built in flotation devices or with some parachute procedure landing.

I know the chances of a crash is very slim but this search is fucking ridiculous...a simple GPS tracking device would be fucking incredible would totally blow this whole situation out of the water.

Posted by seraph
Yes, I think we're on the same page as to location. Motives.... I'm more open about that. But I'm leaning heavily toward a catastrophic event that the pilots tried to manage but could not.

I def. see what you're saying. What made me want to point out the difference b/w "strong possibility" vs. "fact" is that a spokesperson just made an announcement today talking about how a lot of the frustration/confusion is coming from people who are confusing "probability" with "proof." They've even said themselves that until they have 100% definite proof, their probability theories should be respected & considered credible, but also taken with a grain of salt. Why? Bc new information, credible or not, changes probability instantly.

They have said themselves that radar picked up on what they may be aircraft debris, but they also said the same thing about their "radar" 4 days ago & found absolutely nothing. Their "guess" was that it was plane wreckage. They concluded then that their expertise + radar analysis was more than "likely" correct, BUT again they were wrong.

It doesn't mean they're not a credible agency nor does it mean their radar is stupid lol it just means that witness testimony is NOT the same or as credible as actual DNA evidence (i.e wreckage). And since they themselves are saying that we have to carefully distinguish the difference, I feel that it's in my best interest to do the same.

I understand the families frustration though. The same agencies that said the probability of hijacking was higher than the probability of a crash is the very same agency who switched its tune the very next day.

So it's understandable that the families & viewers watching this unfold feel kind of tossed around a bit. This case has taken so many unexpected twists/turns it's not even funny!! When we 1st heard about "radar" we were all like omg finally!! But then we found out the radar sightings were not of the plane like previously thought/reported.

Then experienced experts said the transponder was deliberately turned off 14 minutes before the "alright goodnight" comment from the pilot. They said they used credible/reliable data analysis to come to that conclusion. But 3 days later, they said, "oops, actually that was not the case!" lol

I def. see where the non-credible agencies are getting it wrong, but I also see where these credible agencies have been wrong time & time again too. When a non-credible agency is wrong, no one is surprised. But when a credible agency is wrong, it's like whoa wait, what is really going on here?!!!

The way these news reporters are reporting these stories is not helping either. I can't tell you how many times an expert has had to interrupt a reporter to remind them that speculation & fact are different things. It's like these reporters want you to think that each "new development" is the smoking gun, when in fact, new evidence, although significant, is just tossed in a big pool of other possibilities.

The experts seem just as confused as everyone else lol and that's ok. After so many false alarms it's like ok look, don't tell me that something is "fact" until you actually find the wreckage lol

Scarriest way to die, at sea.

Posted by geminicandIe
Man, some of these conspiracy theories online seem CRAZY!

Or are they?:/

I don't know what to think anymore. I am afraid they will wash their hands off of it all and call off the search, and with days ticking for that black box to be found, we might never know. Which is truly disturbing.

Also, people online are saying that this is created to cover up some bigger issues happening in the world, to distract people so to say. Or that someone wanted this plane down and gone, for whatever reason or importance.

That's the scary part.

The "cover up" theory is never too far fetched when you're talking about the government lol The government's middle name is COVER UP!

They cover things up all the time.

What's the most disturbing to me is that all these agencies/experts are coming forward claiming credibility & accuracy in their own analysis/technology, but how is that so when they've all come to completely different/opposite conclusions?

Cant keep track of hijacked 9/11 planes
can't find missing flight

can find Bin Laden
can find Sadam Houssain in a hole.


Doesn't add up folks.

Posted by SanchoElMejor

Posted by TURNDOWNFORWHAT
Cant keep track of hijacked 9/11 planes
can't find missing flight

can find Bin Laden
can find Sadam Houssain in a hole.


Doesn't add up folks.

9/11 happened over a decade ago when technology wasn't as advanced, and it's a lot harder to search the ocean than land. It adds up. Plus, if the plane crashed into a mountain in the ocean, it is likely in a million pieces.....

click to expand

NORAD would pick up any plane off course. in 2001

Posted by SanchoElMejor
I think the plane crashed because the pilot and copilot were drunk.

Weren't they having a little party in there? I heard they had some ladies in the cockpit and pictures are/were circulating...

Posted by SanchoElMejor

Posted by aquapiscescusp

Posted by SanchoElMejor
I think the plane crashed because the pilot and copilot were drunk.

Weren't they having a little party in there? I heard they had some ladies in the cockpit and pictures are/were circulating...

Honestly, the more I read about it, the more I'm convinced that these were just really bad pilots. That isn't uncommon for the area...

I think the event with the oncoming plane was easy to manage, yet they turned it catastrophic with their lack of training.

What's the whole thing with Malaysia not giving us all of their information while we waste millions of dollars searching for this plane anyway?

click to expand

I agree with their standards being quite low compared to US and Canada.

You said it, poor aviation security --

Posted by seraph
Maybe David Icke can tell you.

Flying Lizard people with missiles?

If that's your guess

Both the Malaysian & United States government have both agreed that the pilots were experienced, competent, & "up to par" pilots. They established their level of competence early on in the investigation & have ruled out incompetence. Their mental state is in question but that's bc mental state & aviation competence are 2 different things.

Some of the best pilots in the world have gone down with their planes. A plane crash doesn't always = incompetent pilot.

Malaysia's radar/satellite capabilities may not be as advanced, but pilots who fly all over the world, (including into the U.S.) have to have certifications proving that they have been properly trained & are up to par with FAA standards. The same works for doctors. A doctor in Pakistan can't just come over here & practice medicine. He'd have to be specifically trained/certified in accordance to the standards created by state/federal legislature in the United States.

People assume that if a pilot is from a different country that they must only fly in that specific country lol U.S. pilots enter overseas airspace all the time. And our pilots have to be competent to not only fly our planes but also theirs! This is the reason why the pilots who primarily fly overseas typically have 10xs more experience than the pilots who don't.

Posted by geminicandIe
Or terrorist act by someone, but they should claim responsibility by now.

I doubt it was an act of terrorism. It seems that the most viable options are:
1. Suicide mission or
2. Mechanical failure so sudden that it caused the plane to disintegrate OR kill all on board before the pilots had the chance to give the mayday call

The suicide mission aspect of it doesn't really make sense though. The pilots didn't request to fly together, so if 1 of them was on some crazy sh***t, the other pilot would've alerted air traffic controllers. What are the odds that 2 complete strangers who have never flown together before would agree to kill themselves? The odds of that are in the millions. The suicide mission theory is possible mainly b/c the pilot could've killed the copilot immediately, preventing him from alerting air traffic control.

They don't have to verbally give a mayday call. They have multiple ways of doing so, including typing in a specific code

I think mechanical failure of a huge proportion caused that plane to go down. Whatever happened, seemed to happen very quick. If the plane was dropping & rising viciously at different altitudes, then that suggests that all passengers on board were already dead, including the pilot before it went down. The fact that it conveniently flew until it was due to run out of gas suggests that the plane was doing erratic things bc of the lack of human intervention. If the pilots had a suicide mission, he wouldn't have done all the extra dramatics. He would've just plunged it into the ground or sea.

The fact that it flew at 12,000 feet at 1 point in time suggests that the passengers COULD HAVE absolutely used any of their electronics to alert their families/the FAA of what was going on. The fact that not 1 single call or text went out suggests that they were already dead at both 40,000 feet & 12,000 feet

Oh good lord.

I've read several accounts from experienced pilots who aren't the least bit surprised with what happened.

They do not immediately send out a distress call. They said that getting control of the situation and figuring out the next plan to safely get to the ground are priority. Contacting the tower is secondary to handling the situation.

One guy in particular said he wasn't surprised that the plane took the turn it did, as it was in line with heading to the nearest airport to get the plane on the ground.

Something catastrophic happened- enough to knock out the transponders, and enough to let it fly for another 7 hours unattended.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was another instance of what happened in the past- something happened on board, the pilots and passengers were rendered unconscious, and the plane crashed eventually. The shitty part is that it took place over a body of water.

The flight that crashed off the coast of Brazil took some time, too. It crashed in...what 2009? Wasn't completely found until 2011? Same idea happened, except it was pilot error. They found bits of debris which helped zero in on an area, they found more debris and bodies, and it took some underwater remote control subs to find the rest of the plane and most of the bodies- took a few years to get to that point.

This was just off the coast, too. If the Malaysian flight did indeed crash in the Indian ocean, that's gonna be a bitch to find.

Also, the Malaysian gov't is full of old school, prideful asshats. They seemed more concerned with their image than being completely straightforward. It's why so much time was wasted initially. They were more concerned trying not to look like the disorganized, inexperienced fools that they really are.

Right? I will never understand these people who go off on conspiracies immediately after something terrible has happened.

The extent that it all went to during the Sandy Hook shootings was ridiculous.

get a load of this idiot

i mean seraph for the rest of you fools

Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370: Captain Shah was in 'No State of Mind to be Flying' After Family Break-Up

Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah, the pilot of the missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, was said to be "terribly upset" after his wife Faizah Khan decided to leave him, and was in "no state of mind to be flying," a close friend and fellow pilot revealed.

Shah's close friend, under condition of anonymity, told The New Zealand Herald that the 53-year old pilot could have taken the passenger jet for a "last joyride."

The friend said: "He's one of the finest pilots around and I'm no medical expert, but with all that was happening in his life Zaharie was probably in no state of mind to be flying."

Shah's friend had spoken to him on several occasions in the last year and the source said the pilot was obsessed by "three Fs" - Food, Family and Flying.

Shah and his wife, though separated, lived under the same roof. However, the pilot was reportedly seeing another woman.

Shah's separated wife, the mother of his three children, is likely to be questioned by Malaysian authorities about the possibility of her husband's suicide being behind the jetliner's disappearance.

Based on the routing, signalling and communications data transmitted from the aircraft, investigators are gravitating towards the suicide mission theory.

"The personal life of Zaharie Shah, however, is far more complex and is in the process of being unravelled," an investigation source told Malaysia Chronicle.

Shah has been under increasing scrutiny over the vanished airliner in the last week. It was earlier alleged that his political views could have prompted some kind of rogue behaviour.

Posted by seraph
The suicide theory is weak, at best. There's no evidence of any other mental or emotional issues. No suicide note, nothing to suggest any problems.

Reaching a little too far with this one.

Additionally, every other source claims that they've found nothing wrong at all.

At any rate, this sort of speculation about *motive* is all academic until the wreckage and recorders are recovered.

To be fair all their theories are weak b/c they haven't found any evidence to suggest that something else other than suicide happened.

@Rockyroad: Aviation experts have already concluded that the transponder was deliberately turned off. In most other aviation crashes, no matter what happened to the plane in mid air or once it hit the ground/sea, did the transponder turn itself off. Fire will NOT turn the transponder off just like it won't destroy the black box

They already know that the transponder was turned off 14 whole minutes BEFORE the pilot said, "alright, goodnight." If the plane was already smashed to the point of clogging the transponder, the pilots would've already been dead. But they weren't. They know that for a fact.

That fact just made the investigation that much more puzzling.

I find it interesting that a satellite found over 300 pieces of debri in the ocean.

I kind of agree with 1 expert. He said that in no other ocean plane crashes were there that many pieces of debri sprawled together. He said at most, they've found 4-10 pieces. This makes sense b/c there are only a few pieces of a plane (seats, life jackets, etc.) that will technically float once dismantled or torn apart. If that plane burst into 300 pieces, 75% of those pieces would've been underwater by now.

They're not sure if the 300 pieces of debri they've spotted are from the plane, but they're leaning more towards it being cargo that fell off from a ship. That theory makes more sense.