MAS370 Was Shot Down

[Illya Kuryakin]

"With the servicemen being free citizens able to point out a coverup, it would be very difficult for the military to hide this. When they've tried, the truth eventually comes out."

Is that what Ed Snow den was counting on? If I were free citizen american (or canadian for that matter) servicman who knew something embarassing of that magnitude I would put myself and family first and keep my mouth shut.

Yup
Illya

[MrWings]

If I were free citizen american (or canadian for that matter) servicman who knew something embarassing of that magnitude I would put myself and family first and keep my mouth shut.

There will always be courageous people, like Snowden, who are willing to speak out. History has proved this.

[CFR]

"Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead". - Benjamin Franklin

Having been in the military and then working my entire career with DND, I can say with some confidence that secrets most often eventually get out. And the more people who know, the faster they get out!

Movies and TV give far more credit to the ability of organizations to keep secrets than is deserved.

What I find interesting is it is usually the same people that label government and military as incompetent boobs, that then claim these same boobs can expertly manipulate a situation (responding in minutes, globally) to contain the spread and to bury the info for all time.

If the answer comes out, I suspect it is going to be far simpler than most of the speculation. I often wonder what the predominant theory would have been if Air France 447's black boxes had never been found. And by the way, they never sent a distress call even though the aircraft was fully functional. Had it not been for ACARS data they may have simply disappeared and today we would be speculating that MAS370 was another Air France!!!

[crazy_aviator]

In a decompression, what are the chances that even 1 of the crew could not figure out how to operate his mask? Quite unlikely !

[imarai]

What a gawd awful thread this is..

[Gino Under]

The B777 has a number of interesting ADs. Some, repetitive throughout the aircrafts lifespan. The thought of a decompression or un-commanded stabilizer movement not entirely out of the question. Of particular interest is the one regarding the Aft Pressure Bulkhead.

"what are the chances that even 1 of the crew could not figure out how to operate his mask"

It's easy to speculate and all theories seem to be possible but I prefer the more basic. If this aircraft suffered a sudden explosive decompression at high altitude ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE including the assumption that both pilots failed to don their masks and quite possibly didn't use 100% and may even have succumbed to hypoxia. Allowing the aircraft to fly on autopilot until fuel exhaustion.

Loss of control is a complete possibility.
A turn off the airway following a decompression also reasonable.
Any turns left or right in an upset recovery are also possible.

I point to them because the ADs warn that loss of control is not only likely but possible should either occur.
Anyone care to speculate on the crews ability to handle startle, fear, and any unexpected events like these during flight over water in the middle of the night while trying to grasp what's going on???

No one. Not one person, except David Learmont of Flight magazine, has even mentioned Airworthiness Directives. Even Mr. Learmont poo-pooed their applicability. I find that shocking, especially since Malaysian has had an inflight incident in Austrailia with one of its own B777-200s that almost resulted in a loss of control.
I should think CNN would be all over this.

Shot down? Possible. But, not likely.

Gino Under

[MUSKEG]

What part of " someone turned off the transponder" do you not understand???

[MrWings]

How does one determine that the transponder was turned off vs a transponder failure, especially without any physical evidence?

[boeingboy]

argh................

[Gino Under]

MUSKEG

What part of "catastrophic failure" don't you understand? I'll help you work through it if you like.
In 1985 JAL lost a B747 due to a pressure bulkhead failure. It affected many systems onboard that made the aircraft impossible to control, but don't take my word for it, read the report for yourself. It's an interesting read. This might have also happened to MH370 as it relates to the AD I mentioned in my previous post.

You might also consider further research WRT the 777. The ADIRU through internal failure (the air data part) can cause a transponder failure. It's in the B777 manual if you'd care to read that while you're at it.

BTW
There's more than one way for a transponder to cease operation. Switching it off is one way. But, we won't have the answer as to why this one stopped operating until we have the physical evidence, as already suggested.

Gino Under

[MUSKEG]

Let me see if I can follow your thought line Gino. A 747 (note completely different design) has a rear bulkhead failure which ultimately caused it to crash. The 777 has never had an accident caused by failure of the rear bulkhead but hey, it could happen. Ok I get that. Coinciding with the failure of the bulkhead the ADIRU also decides I'm done, to bad so sad. Now inspite of the catastrophic failure WHICH you state makes the aircraft uncontrollable it continues to fly for hours before eventually running out of fuel and crashes. Hmmmm. I'm sure the 777 manual also states that if #1. Transponder fails turn on # 2. Oh by the way, that black car that just drove by slowly -------- yup CIA

[Gino Under]

MUSKEG

Your sarcasm is lost on me. Sorry, I don't respond well to someone who comes across as having insufficient experience in aviation to carry out an intelligent discussion or debate.
CIA? Seriously?

As suggested in my previous post some reading might go a long way in broadening your knowledge and comprehension of things that MAY be more relevant to this mystery and which could provide a reason for this unique disappearance but it doesn't mean either of us suggest "our" theories are necessarily spot on or fluff. I leave it to your imagination, not sarcasm, but either way it's going to take some creative thinking in the absence of fact whenever we choose to speculate.

I'm speculating.

Someone didn't necessarily intentionally turn off the transponder whether it was 1 or 2.
I can certainly explain how this plane might have ended up with an unconscious crew and pax with the AT and AP engaged in basic modes till it ran out of fuel. CNN just hasn't called me in yet to shoot my mouth off.

By the way, I missed your explanation why the FAA issued the Aft Pressure Bulkhead AD for the B777? I'm curious to know whether you even took the time to read it or not.
If you did, it wouldn't take much to imagine possible scenarios and reasons for any crew to have more than they could handle due to whatever might have resulted from this kind of failure, especially if it resulted in structural damage, loss of control and/or systems failures leading to a big splash.
Actually, Boeing pressure bulkheads are pretty much the same design. Circular. Not egg-shaped or oval. Circular. The model isn't necessarily relevant.

CIA?

Ask me to explain my theory, answer a question, the basis for my imagination or whatever. But, let's not waste our time on sarcasm.

Bazinga!

Gino Under

[boeingboy]

Gino,
Just what was the flight path of MH370? and how does that compare to JAL123?

They don't. plain and simple. Jal did not and would not continue flying for hours on end - hell - it was barely controlled flight. The odds this accident was caused by structural failure of any kind are extreamly remote. Don't forget the FMC was most likely programmed before the xponder went dead and the plane was being navigated for a while after stuff went south.

[CFR]

Was not the JAL bulkhead failure traced to an incorrect repair? Is the same situation present on the MAS aircraft?

In the end all aircraft accidents can be blamed on the fact that gravity sucks.

[Tom H]

Well everyone has a different take away

What I get from what Gino Under has brought forward is this

1) There are a number of known ADs on the B777, one specifically for the aft bulkhead

This would make all the ADs, but particularly the aft bulkhead AD points of suspicion for a major structural failure which could lead to loss of control by the flight crew, sudden decompression and other nasties.

I have also read, but not in depth, relating to cockpit fires (two that I have read of) on the B777 (you can pull up the stories on line) that in different circumstances would have led to major disasters (nice to be lucky once in a while).

One, the other or a combination of both could just as easily be the speculated cause as anything else, but the ADs already have a tracking record making them a little more worth researching till other evidence surfaces.

2) Crew reaction, incapacitation, fatality
Who knows how any combination of crew will act in a case of major failure or multiple failures leading to a disaster? No one as everyone and every combination of people acts differently in that situation...seen it myself in non aviation circumstances.

And lets not forget how quickly the final stages of the Peggy's Cove disaster over came the crew at the end.

The short version is there is simply not enough information to draw a conclusion or exclude any possibility at this time (and even some of the "so called" accurate information keeps changing).

At this point Gino's explanation makes as much sense as a "shoot down" or aliens and the CIA.

Speculation is just speculation till the information improves.

In my highly biased personal opinion

[Gino Under]

Your correct in asking how the flight path and behaviour of JAL 123 are even remotely the same as MAS 370. They're not. But the similarity is in the structural failure of the aft bulkhead. One through an improper repair, the AD the result of possible web cracks or damage.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design that may be registered in the United States at some time in the future, this AD is being issued to detect and correct cracks or damage to the web of the aft pressure bulkhead, which could enlarge if undetected, leading to rapid decompression of the airplane and consequent possible loss of flight critical systems.

Anyone know the maintenance practices of MAS? An airline in financial distress. Certainly not required to be compliant with this AD as it is issued by the FAA. They'll need the bulkhead to answer that.

I'm saying that without imagination (usually wild imagination) this is a possibility which could have lead to who-knows-what and without evidence is just as speculative as being shot down.

boeingboy

Thanks.
The FMS is useless to any aeroplane that isn't engaged in LNAV. My assumption is that it flew from point x with AP engaged in basic modes and auto throttle.

TOM H

Thank you. I totally agree with your comments.

Cheers
Gino Under

[boeingboy]

So there is an AD on the aft blukhead.....so what? There are mulitple AD's on every aircraft out there, on just about evey component, system, and part. Most of them don't amount to a hill of beans in the grand scheme of things, and every one of them mentions possible doomsday predicitions. Loss of control, runaway engines, etc...

If the aft bulkhead blew out - it did not lose control like JAL 123 and like the AD says is possible it flew foe hours, hence my earlier referance. Jal lost control because the repair failed - and the amount of air that left the plane literally blew the tail off taking structure and hyd lines with it. Even so - the JAL crew was able to radio a problem and fight with it for 30 min. None of that happened here.

I could tell you this very airplane had a couple of engine changes in the past and many many repairs thoughout the aircraft. To structure, wiring, controls, etc......Why not an engine falling off because it was changed wrong? I could aslo point out many accidents that support lots of theories, but none of them are like this.

The only 2 senarios that make any sense right now are a hijack (similar situation to Ethiopian Airlines 961) or a suicide, and those theories have issues too.

[Tom H]

So there is an AD on the aft blukhead.....so what? There are mulitple AD's on every aircraft out there, on just about evey component, system, and part. Most of them don't amount to a hill of beans in the grand scheme of things, and every one of them mentions possible doomsday predicitions. Loss of control, runaway engines, etc...

If the aft bulkhead blew out - it did not lose control like JAL 123 and like the AD says is possible it flew foe hours, hence my earlier referance. Jal lost control because the repair failed - and the amount of air that left the plane literally blew the tail off taking structure and hyd lines with it. Even so - the JAL crew was able to radio a problem and fight with it for 30 min. None of that happened here.

I could tell you this very airplane had a couple of engine changes in the past and many many repairs thoughout the aircraft. To structure, wiring, controls, etc......Why not an engine falling off because it was changed wrong? I could aslo point out many accidents that support lots of theories, but none of them are like this.

The only 2 senarios that make any sense right now are a hijack (similar situation to Ethiopian Airlines 961) or a suicide, and those theories have issues too.

With so little factual (and unchanging) information right now I could come up with at least 6 possible scenarios...but to what end?

I don't know what has happened and I'm not about to speculate...except that the whole thing stinks with the ever changing information, route changes etc.

If it looks like BS and smells like BS it is very likely to be BS.

In my highly biased personal opinion

[Gino Under]

So, what do you think might have happened to 123 if it had been cruising at FL380 instead of climbing through FL230?

No investigation into this mystery is going to rest on only two theories. So on this point lets just agree to disagree. Theories are developed by creativity tied to at least some cornerstone of possibility even if suspicions are found in an AC or AD. I don't discount many of the wild possibilities I've heard over the last month but my own curiosity is focused on this being far less sinister than some believe or imagine.

I've been around long enough to know how many and with what regularity ADs are issued which is why I was interested in them. This is were I found some surprising and certainly interesting information about the B777.

In my estimation, if the FAA Airworthiness Inspectors see fit to analyse and assess risk and result to the point where it necessitates an AD for operator compliance then there is likely something to it. Some of these ADs on the B777 surely aren't to be taken lightly. Especially when a B777 operator, Malaysian, have already been involved in an investigation following an inflight incident with a B777 as a result of an uncommanded pitch up during a climb out of Perth. The result of a failed ADIRU. Which, by the way, also happened to an A330. Should these ADs or others be summarily disregarded?

Maybe they are BS. I personally don't think they are.

Here's to your health,
Gino

[Caracrane]

Lot's of candidates for NTSB.

[boeingboy]

So, what do you think might have happened to 123 if it had been cruising at FL380 instead of climbing through FL230?

Exactly the same thing that actually happened. Complete loss of control. The aircraft didn't simply travel in a straight line. It was up, down, turning in circles. etc........It would have crashed in very short order. As would 370 if this happened.

No investigation into this mystery is going to rest on only two theories. So on this point lets just agree to disagree. Theories are developed by creativity tied to at least some cornerstone of possibility even if suspicions are found in an AC or AD. I don't discount many of the wild possibilities I've heard over the last month but my own curiosity is focused on this being far less sinister than some believe or imagine.

+1

However - you seem to be discounting other evidence that throws this to the bottom of the list as far as causes go. Each to his own, but good discussion is the result of different theories

I too am open to all possibilities, but as I said earlier the 2 possibilities I think could be the cause seem to have the fewest arguments at this point.

[Tom H]

So, what do you think might have happened to 123 if it had been cruising at FL380 instead of climbing through FL230?

No investigation into this mystery is going to rest on only two theories. So on this point lets just agree to disagree. Theories are developed by creativity tied to at least some cornerstone of possibility even if suspicions are found in an AC or AD. I don't discount many of the wild possibilities I've heard over the last month but my own curiosity is focused on this being far less sinister than some believe or imagine.

I've been around long enough to know how many and with what regularity ADs are issued which is why I was interested in them. This is were I found some surprising and certainly interesting information about the B777.

In my estimation, if the FAA Airworthiness Inspectors see fit to analyse and assess risk and result to the point where it necessitates an AD for operator compliance then there is likely something to it. Some of these ADs on the B777 surely aren't to be taken lightly. Especially when a B777 operator, Malaysian, have already been involved in an investigation following an inflight incident with a B777 as a result of an uncommanded pitch up during a climb out of Perth. The result of a failed ADIRU. Which, by the way, also happened to an A330. Should these ADs or others be summarily disregarded?

Maybe they are BS. I personally don't think they are.

Here's to your health,
Gino

Gino

You are misinterpreting what I am saying...

It is not the ADs or the other rock solid provable evidence that is BS.

It is the ever changing stories...and this incident is rife with them.

Who said what, what altitude, the ACARS was shut off when, the turns were or were not imputed when and on and on...that is the BS...the ever changing stories.

And the media is not helping

In my highly biased personal opinion

[Gino Under]

Tom H

Thanks for clearing that up.

Once again, I'm in agreement with your "biased" opinion. A lot of it does sound like BS.
That's why I prefer to examine other possibilities (however speculative) and come up with my own BS.

Gino Under

[CFR]

Boeing stated that the Malaysian Airlines 777 was not covered by the AD re bulkhead cracks as the cause of the issue (routing an antenna cable through the bulkhead?), was not done on the Malaysian plane.

WRT to the cockpit fire AD, it was issued to US registered planes in 2012 with 18 months to comply so they should all be complete. Tried to find the specific AD on the Malaysian Civil transport site, but gave up as it is not organized well. AD's for various AC that I could find, seemed to simply parrot the US ones, with the same compliance times.

[Gino Under]

CFR

Not all states of registry comply with or have to comply with FAA issued ADs. Those who choose to consider them have their own time schedules.
Canada, Europe, Australia to name a few, choose to comply.
So... I'm not sure how MAS deals with them at a time when they're financially strapped. I suggest financial risk analysis comes into play at some point.

Just my analysis of the ADs I'm reading through.
I'm not sure of the Boeing tail number were looking at, they mention types of 777 but I'll check,again for specific ranges of production aircraft.

Thanks

Gino Under