Interesting hypothesis that would square with this:
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/03/a-hypoth...
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/03/a-hypoth...
"Losing Helios 552 might be a freak accident, but if decompression and a locked door led to the loss of MA370 as well, then this would be a new threat that will now have killed 360 air travellers—many times more than have died as a result of hijackings since 9/11.
Is it appropriate to employ anti-hijacking measures to prevent violent hijackings a couple of times per decade, if they run the risk, as a side-effect, of crashing in-service airliners a couple of times per decade?"
That's funny! When has there ever been a proportionate response to the threat of terror? The response to 9/11 was so over the top and all out of proportion to such an mind-boggling degree that the idea that they would address this is a bit ridiculous. Even if hundreds of thousands die to prevent one plane being hijacked, it would all be justified as just what needs to be done to fight TWOT. National Security!!
Any way I agree that the spending after the 9/11 is insane and unecessary.
In a similar scenario, everybody onboard the Malaysia Air flight might have been dead or in a coma for the entire duration of the emergency, so it probably wouldn't have made any difference if the cockpit door could be opened from the cabin or not (which might turn out to be a misguided concern anyway since there's a cabin crew access code).
That sounds extremely unlikely. Standard procedures for equipment checks in plane are usually done at 9 sigma standards, i.e. they involved numerous checks by different people. We're not talking about an amateur doing maintenance at home during the weekend. And I doubt there would be a single oxygen source in the cockpit since airplanes are usually built with multiple redundancies.
I don't really buy that one. Plus the plane did not make it to any military radar either - so where did it fly for 5 hours?
Thanks for calling me out on that, you're right.
Did it cross your mind that it could be a combination of them? Drop the accusatory tone when you don't understand the content.
International flights have higher standards due to extended distances from emergency landing sites. An old plane is not exempt from the check standards, but the age certainly means that there is an increased probability of failures.
>If so, at what airframe age, or travel standard, or aircraft size does that kick in?
Again, sarcasm is really unhelpful when it's just a result of you lashing out at a comment you didn't understand.
Do you not see the irony in writing an accusatory reply to me? ;-)
To your main point, I understand the content; I do, however, resent people boldly stating "that can't happen, it's too unlikely," only to then say "Oh, right, yeah, if you exclude old planes, domestic flights and blah blah blah blah blah."
I do concede that it would be more helpful if I was less of an arse about it though.
Plus, it's possible that the pilots had too much faith in the "9 sigma" system, hence misinterpreting the numerous warnings the aircraft gave them.
Numbers prove us wrong every day.
Also, how low of an altitude would it have to fly to avoid radar? Maybe they dropped down to a thousand feet and changed course?
We only know what we are told, when it comes from military sources...
What are the odds that that one botched O2 tank happens to be on a flight with high altitude decompression?
It's not really a question of "what's the chance that this will break in 30 years." It's a question of the part's function, the added complexity/failure points it adds to the design, and the chances that the added complexity will exacerbate flaws in management when it all goes haywire.
If that was really the case, planes would be failing every single day and air crashes would be as common as train wrecks and car accidents. It's far from being the case, so it says a lot as to how reliable planes are made to be, and how serious the maintenance is done on planes. Besides, companies have no incentive to skip on safety checks because they know a crash would have immediate, and serious impact on their image and direct sales of tickets.
"There are a number of troubles with that theory Charles, one of which is that the plane should have followed its intended course and stayed on radar by passive reflection, but it is certainly also one of my favourite theories right now.
The lack of debris near where it disappeared from the radar opens the door to more "interesting" theories, such as kidnapping or theft.
First of all, identifying planes by transponder code is not hard ID.
It would be perfectly possible for co-conspirator plane to fly transponder-less up to the target plane, take over the transponder code, and fly decoy on the official route, while the MH370 goes elsewhere.
That means that the point of "last contact" doesn't tell us anything but the existence of an electronic device acting like a transponder at that time and place.
Turning the transponder off and tailing another transpondered plane very closely is another way to disappear from ATC without plastering the surface with debris and then you are also more or less free to go wherever you want, until somebody visually spots two planes very close.
The decoy plane does not need to be the same size, so the probability of such visual detection would be low.
Therefore, suspecting foul play, we don't have any trustworthy information about the planes whereabouts after the last visual sighting of the plane.
It would be interesting to know if there were any high-value targets on that plane, amongst the passengers or in the cargo.
If the cargo was the interesting bit, killing off all the passengers by dropping pressure and oxygen is trivial.
One interesting nugget is the rumour that "passengers phones are still ringing".
That's sufficiently implausible that nobody would take it seriously and actually follow the SS7 data.
But if true, it would be explained by the plane sitting somewhere at the edge of a jungle, for instance on the remains of an old WW2 strip, passengers dead, and cargo gone."
When was the last time a criminal killed ~240 people in order to steal some loot?
The solution proposed would, at best, be extraordinary; flippantly adding mass murder makes it absurd.
It wasn't the cargo; the only reason to hijack the plane would be either the people or the plane or both. Or, it was an accident.
Exactly.
Even if we want to be horrible about it and suggest beating up and possibly killing ground worker(s), that's a waaaaaaay off killing 240+ people on an airplane.
Since we know nothing, a lot remains open, but that is some of the most bizarre conjecture I can imagine. A 777 flies at an altitude and velocity because it is optimal. Arrive at the right altitude and location, spoof a transponder, and replicate a believable velocity?
Who could do that? The US, Taiwan, China, Japan? And yet, if any of those used something like an Aegis class missile cruiser to launch something we haven't heard of before, it would still be absurd, since this will draw more attention and resources devoted to investigating the cause than even something like the murder of JFK if it is a big enough mystery.
Someone with the resources of a nation state (most likely necessary to spoof and replace a 777 at cruising altitude) could also figure out other ways to assassinate a person that are less likely to be sufficiently investigated to decipher.
But, given the position that the plane disappeared, it is IMO impossible to fly to North Korea without being detected.
My conclusion is thus: No conspiracy.
Of course, it could have been flown someplace else.
Since transponders are trivial to spoof and interception is a matter of coordination and a radar, you're looking for anyone who has a plane that can fly ~500kts at ~35000 feet for a while. So...pretty much anyone who can afford an old Gulfstream 3 or Boeing 707. John Travolta, for example. Nation state not required.
_Flight 714_[1]
http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2014/03/13/Missing-MH3...
So, if something like this theory happened, why didn't someone in the main cabin use their phone to call home?
Unless everyone suddenly lost oxygen at the same time...
If rapid decompression occurred, there could have been panic in the plane, making it difficult to establish any kind of communication. Who knows...