Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 djones520 wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:
Pilot suicide is probably more likely than a terrorist act...

Pilot suicide makes no sense at all. Planes like that have two pilots, and I can't imagine the suicidal pilot going with a plan that requires murdering their co-pilot to take control of the plane, taking another 200+ people with them, and not even bothering to leave an obvious suicide note. If you're just going to kill yourself and not make a big dramatic statement with it then there are much easier ways to die.

A suicidal pilot doesn't need to kill or incapacitate their co-pilot. If you put a plane into a sudden steep enough dive for example it becomes an unrecoverable position.
Granted pilot suicide has only happened a few times in recent history, but there are still a couple of documented cases where pilots purposely crashed their jets and killed everyone else on board in the process.

The main point is that while unlikely, pilot suicide is still more probable in this case than an act of terrorism. (and if turns out to be terrorism, then it's likely got to be the world's worst ever attempt at it...)

How does that account for the total loss of contact though? Even in an irreversible dive, there would have been enough time for the copilot to send out a mayday.

I've been reading that multiple agencies are starting to think an in air disintegration is the most likely explanation right now, and those require bombs.

If you were looking at a blank slate, statistically you'd probably be right, but it's not a blank slate. We have certain bits of info, so it moves the scale around, and with what we know, suicide is hardly the most likely option.

Honestly I doubt it's a case of pilot suicide as there's only been what, like 2-4 cases in the past 30+ years? Basically just saying that it's more likely in this case than an act of terrorism...
The whole 'stolen passports' thing could more likely be the result of drug traffickers than terrorists, as IIRC, opium & heroine are big drugs in southeast Asia.

Mid air disintegration doesn't actually require a bomb however. Again, if I recall the cause properly, that flight which disintegrated just off New York's cost just before/after the year 2000 was caused by a spark in the fuel tank which caused an explosion and led to the entire plane coming apart in the air as it was heading out over the coast. (the one where eye witnesses claimed a missile strike took out the plane)
Granted the airline industry has supposedly worked to correct the fault that led to the wiring system sparking in the fuel tank, but, it's not impossible that something similar could've happened again here.

There's also the possibility of the plane's structure becoming compromised during take-off and a small stress fracture or tear in the plane's body finally becoming something much more serious & catastrophic as the plane hits different altitudes/air pressures.
Though again, not nearly as likely in this case as it's something more typically seen in planes used more or less for short haul domestic flights which can be taking off/landing half a dozen times or more in a single day, rather than the long range haulers like this plane.

@Experiment, Kind of like that plane where the. Cabin roof just tore away in flight?

Experiment 626 wrote:
A suicidal pilot doesn't need to kill or incapacitate their co-pilot. If you put a plane into a sudden steep enough dive for example it becomes an unrecoverable position.

But a 777 isn't exactly a fighter jet. You aren't going to go from straight and level flight to an unrecoverable dive before the copilot can start fighting back, screaming on the radio, etc. And if you start speculating about planning out the perfect way to get the copilot out of the way instead of just an impulsive "I'm tired of life" then it doesn't make any sense that they wouldn't leave a suicide note.

They appear to have found a window from the plane, thought this is still indeterminate.

 Peregrine wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:
A suicidal pilot doesn't need to kill or incapacitate their co-pilot. If you put a plane into a sudden steep enough dive for example it becomes an unrecoverable position.

But a 777 isn't exactly a fighter jet. You aren't going to go from straight and level flight to an unrecoverable dive before the copilot can start fighting back, screaming on the radio, etc. And if you start speculating about planning out the perfect way to get the copilot out of the way instead of just an impulsive "I'm tired of life" then it doesn't make any sense that they wouldn't leave a suicide note.

I don't particularly believe in the suicide possibility. That said, in such a scenario, the copilot could've been asleep, in the can, whatever.

Problem with in air disintegration theory is that they should then have found more debris over a larger area.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Problem with in air disintegration theory is that they should then have found more debris over a larger area.

agreed.
what I find interesting is that the plane appears to have made at least an attempt to turn back if the radar reports are true.
the real puzzler is: if they had time to turn back then why was no mayday sent?

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Problem with in air disintegration theory is that they should then have found more debris over a larger area.

agreed.
what I find interesting is that the plane appears to have made at least an attempt to turn back if the radar reports are true.
the real puzzler is: if they had time to turn back then why was no mayday sent?

Maybe there was something wrong with their equipment and they could not send a mayday?

My company has people in and out of Kuala Lumpur on a regular basis, so I was watching this news report most of the weekend. Fortunately, I haven't heard anything from my boss about our people being on board (he who would know), so I'm taking this as no news is good news for us, at least.

What a horrible thing to happen.

If you were a terrorist, wouldn't you claim the credit?

The only terrorists I can think of would be the Chinese separatists no?

its weird that no wreckage has been found yet.

I'm not saying it was aliens, but...
Maybe The pilot spilled coffee on the controls?

 Frazzled wrote:
If you were a terrorist, wouldn't you claim the credit?

Not necessarily. Usually credit is claimed as quickly as possible and as publicly as possible, but in some instances credit is not what is being sought but rather just the sense of uncertainty and unease that something might have been a terrorist act.

The only terrorists I can think of would be the Chinese separatists no?

In terms of what? Operating in Malaysia? Operating in Asia at large?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
If you were a terrorist, wouldn't you claim the credit?

Not necessarily. Usually credit is claimed as quickly as possible and as publicly as possible, but in some instances credit is not what is being sought but rather just the sense of uncertainty and unease that something might have been a terrorist act.

Gotcha, truth that. That always seemed a poor plan though as planes crash on their own, but I only destory bathrooms with Mexcian food bombs so I might not be on the same mental wavelength as them.

The only terrorists I can think of would be the Chinese separatists no?

In terms of what? Operating in Malaysia? Operating in Asia at large?

I was thinking either in Malaysia or China, but again you're right. It could be others. What others?

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Problem with in air disintegration theory is that they should then have found more debris over a larger area.

They have to first figure out where exactly to look first, and with the facts that the plane appears to have pulled a U-turn, yet they don't how which direction it was made in, makes finding the likely crash site about as easy as finding a needle in a haystack that's lost in a blizzard at night!

There's also the possibility that the plane hit the water mainly intact and came apart under water. And considering the number of ocean trenches in that part of the world, they may never find it. The black box pingger has a battery that'll keep sending it's ping for about a month, but if it's buried under wreckage, or at the bottom of a trench, then it's range at the surface would be severely reduced. (to the point you might literally have to stumble within a few hundred yards of the crash site.)

 Iron_Captain wrote:
agreed.
what I find interesting is that the plane appears to have made at least an attempt to turn back if the radar reports are true.
the real puzzler is: if they had time to turn back then why was no mayday sent?Maybe there was something wrong with their equipment and they could not send a mayday?

The chances of both the radio and the transponder failing at the same time are pretty slim.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
If you were a terrorist, wouldn't you claim the credit?

Not necessarily. Usually credit is claimed as quickly as possible and as publicly as possible, but in some instances credit is not what is being sought but rather just the sense of uncertainty and unease that something might have been a terrorist act.

Gotcha, truth that. That always seemed a poor plan though as planes crash on their own, but I only destory bathrooms with Mexcian food bombs so I might not be on the same mental wavelength as them.

It really is dependent upon the group in question. Some might just be trying to show "Look we can do this" to not just the world, but its members and other groups that they might be trying to align themselves with. That is when you will see groups claiming responsibility--or in some extreme cases where it is something BIG, all kinds of groups will take responsibility whether they had a hand in it or not.

The only terrorists I can think of would be the Chinese separatists no?

In terms of what? Operating in Malaysia? Operating in Asia at large?

I was thinking either in Malaysia or China, but again you're right. It could be others. What others?

Well there are a large number of Pakistani terror groups, Kashmiri groups, etc.

What is interesting though is that one of the travelers using a stolen passport is reported to have been black/African, which might point to some kind of Islamic terror group link given the number of those groups in Africa(more particularly though--Somalia).

Am I the only one thing, if you're going to be a terrorist, at least hit targets you're whining about? Me no comprende.

So good old trusty CNN is reporting that the tickets the stolen passports traveled on were purchased by an Iranian national.

 d-usa wrote:
So good old trusty CNN is reporting that the tickets the stolen passports traveled on were purchased by an Iranian national.

They've also ID'd one of the guys with the stolen passports, but they haven't publicly made it available.

One I first heard about this story this song instantly came into my head. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_r35aOhZ-M

At this moment I'm thinking some kind of mid-air failure is most likely. The plane would have been quite heavy with fuel that far into it's journey and.. even though it's pretty unlikely from what we have read about the 777's track record, it appears to me more likely at this time than a terrorist attack considering all of the circumstances surrounding it.

djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So good old trusty CNN is reporting that the tickets the stolen passports traveled on were purchased by an Iranian national.

They've also ID'd one of the guys with the stolen passports, but they haven't publicly made it available.

They'd booked onward flights, and apparently at least one of them was African? The lack of anyone claiming credit so far also makes me think it is less likely (not impossible) that it is a terrorist group.

It might be of course that CNN does have something, but is being a bit more cautious after the business with the Boston bombing.

Frazzled wrote:Am I the only one thing, if you're going to be a terrorist, at least hit targets you're whining about? Me no comprende.

I've read there is a certain amount of antagonism between hardline Muslims in Malaysia, and secular and religious groups in government. Might be something there? If it was a strike against China (there were predominantly Chinese nationals on the plane) why destroy a Malaysian Airlines plane?

Seaward wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
agreed.
what I find interesting is that the plane appears to have made at least an attempt to turn back if the radar reports are true.
the real puzzler is: if they had time to turn back then why was no mayday sent?Maybe there was something wrong with their equipment and they could not send a mayday?

The chances of both the radio and the transponder failing at the same time are pretty slim.

I've just read that the turn the plane was making was consistent with its flight plan, so perhaps not indicative of anything going on at all?

Another theory is that the transponder could have been turned off from the airplane.

CNN being cautious after the Boston Bombing? They then went on to completely butcher the Naval Yard shooting. CNN just doesn't give a damn about facts anymore.

At any rate, I saw that there was a claim of responsibility, but right now it's being treated as someone just looking for fame, and not really credible.

 Pacific wrote:

djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So good old trusty CNN is reporting that the tickets the stolen passports traveled on were purchased by an Iranian national.

They've also ID'd one of the guys with the stolen passports, but they haven't publicly made it available.

They'd booked onward flights, and apparently at least one of them was African? The lack of anyone claiming credit so far also makes me think it is less likely (not impossible) that it is a terrorist group.

Actually credit IS being claimed by the same Chinese Muslim group that performed the mass knifing last week.

Where are you reading that Kan? Why on earth would they destroy a plane from a national airline of a predominantly Muslim state?

 Pacific wrote:
Where are you reading that Kan? Why on earth would they destroy a plane from a national airline of a predominantly Muslim state?

Because some Muslims don't like other Muslims. But I make no guess on why this plane went down.

 Pacific wrote:
Where are you reading that Kan? Why on earth would they destroy a plane from a national airline of a predominantly Muslim state?

It was posted on Saturday on the BBC, but it might have been gone now because of confirmation/denial or something.

So looks like Terrorism might be on the back seat again as far ar theories go.

One of the "stolen passport" passengers was ID'd as an 19 year old Iranian that was trying to emigrate to Frankfurt. They have not ID'd the other passenger that was traveling on a stolen passport, but since they previously reported that they were both purchased by an Iranian national I am guessing that both passengers were emigrants.

So, no updates? Apparently the window wasn't a window after all, so as of this moment there has been no evidence as too what happened to the aircraft.

Im still wondering why no distress call was made especially if the craft attempted to turn back.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Im still wondering why no distress call was made especially if the craft attempted to turn back.

I think I have read somewhere that the "turn back" was the regular route as per the flight plan they filed, but I'm not sure how accurate that is.

The passports could very well be red herrings.