Flight Malaysia MH370

Katie59

The film was deliberately dramatized, a conspiracy is no more likely than the Apollo landings being faked, there are still those that believe in that.
A few years ago a German Wings pilot deliberately flew his airliner into a mountain, it was easy, he locked the flight deck door when the other pilot went to the loo, then flew stealing towards the mountain. All over in a few minutes, in that case he had been treated for depression, and owners Lufthansa paid millions in compensation.

Flew straight

The film was deliberately dramatized, a conspiracy is no more likely than the Apollo landings being faked, there are still those that believe in that.
A few years ago a German Wings pilot deliberately flew his airliner into a mountain, it was easy, he locked the flight deck door when the other pilot went to the loo, then flew stealing towards the mountain. All over in a few minutes, in that case he had been treated for depression, and owners Lufthansa paid millions in compensation.

BlueBalou The guy on the beach who found pieces of aircraft didn't "just happen to be there". He consulted experts re tide patterns and currents to find out where any wreckage might be washed up.

However, I still found it implausible that he kept on finding pieces.

I watched it, it’s horrifically fascinating, those poor passengers and crew.
Certainly I think that the conclusion is probably the best reason so far but so many things don’t add up like the strange bloke finding most of the pieces of aircraft - he definitely didn’t seem quite plausible to me with his explanation of how he just happened to be there.
I guess we’ll never know.

Bodach

"That would seem then to point towards the jamming by AWACs theory."
No. Jamming doesn't work like that, and anyway, the whole idea of US Armed Forces cold-bloodedly shooting down a Malaysian airliner with innocent 239 souls on board is unthinkable. Wouldn't happen.

Nor would the stupid theory of Russians shooting it down over Kazakhstan, even if they did it would not go unnoticed. The plane could have hijacked and hidden somewhere in SE Asia but we know it wasn't because it continued flying for 7 hours after it changed course

"That would seem then to point towards the jamming by AWACs theory."
No. Jamming doesn't work like that, and anyway, the whole idea of US Armed Forces cold-bloodedly shooting down a Malaysian airliner with innocent 239 souls on board is unthinkable. Wouldn't happen.

Bodach

Chestnut

Secondly that the plane was still being flown by the airline pilot when it turned off course.
The plane took a very unexpected turn at exactly the moment it was between two countries, so one country's air traffic control had not handed over to the second at that point. Therefore the flight could turn and skim along this 'no contact' corridor and escape detection until further south. Only the pilot could have calculated this very clever manoeuvre.

When one air traffic control centre (ATCC 1) is handing over control of an aircraft to another (ATCC 2), the procedure goes as follows. ATCC 1 contacts ATCC 2 and passes over all the details of the aircraft, such as position, height, heading, speed, and the SSR Code which highlights the aircraft on both ATCCs' radar screens. Once ATCC 2 are happy that they have identified the aircraft on their radar screens, they will inform ATCC 1 about the radio frequency on which they wish to talk to the aircraft. ATCC 1 then ask the aircraft to call ATCC 2 on that frequency. The aircraft will acknowledge the frequency to ATCC 1, and will then call ATCC 2 on that frequency. Once the aircraft is talking to ATCC 2, then control officially passes. So the aircraft is never in a 'black hole' during the handover/takeover process, and I am mystified as to why the Vietnamese ATCC did not contact their Malaysian colleagues when MH370 failed to call them on the new frequency and disappeared off radar... Or , more likely they did, but that was not covered in the TV programme's narrative, which gave the impression that the alarm was raised some time later.

That would seem then to point towards the jamming by AWACs theory.

Hypoxia has been mentioned. On all airliners the flight crew have control of cabin pressurization, they can depressurize in flight. The emergency oxygen in the cabin lasts around 10 mins, the flight deck has a separate system, lasting much longer, maybe 1 hour plus.
Loss of cabin pressure is rehearsed in simulators routinely, emergency would have been declared.
Most likely one pilot left the flight deck, the cabin was depressurized at altitude only the pilot flying was left alive with his oxygen mask on, he set the final course on auto pilot and died himself when oxygen ran out

Nothing complicated, no evidence to say it didn't happen just like that.

Chestnut

^Secondly that the plane was still being flown by the airline pilot when it turned off course.^
The plane took a very unexpected turn at exactly the moment it was between two countries, so one country's air traffic control had not handed over to the second at that point. Therefore the flight could turn and skim along this 'no contact' corridor and escape detection until further south. Only the pilot could have calculated this very clever manoeuvre.

When one air traffic control centre (ATCC 1) is handing over control of an aircraft to another (ATCC 2), the procedure goes as follows. ATCC 1 contacts ATCC 2 and passes over all the details of the aircraft, such as position, height, heading, speed, and the SSR Code which highlights the aircraft on both ATCCs' radar screens. Once ATCC 2 are happy that they have identified the aircraft on their radar screens, they will inform ATCC 1 about the radio frequency on which they wish to talk to the aircraft. ATCC 1 then ask the aircraft to call ATCC 2 on that frequency. The aircraft will acknowledge the frequency to ATCC 1, and will then call ATCC 2 on that frequency. Once the aircraft is talking to ATCC 2, then control officially passes. So the aircraft is never in a 'black hole' during the handover/takeover process, and I am mystified as to why the Vietnamese ATCC did not contact their Malaysian colleagues when MH370 failed to call them on the new frequency and disappeared off radar... Or , more likely they did, but that was not covered in the TV programme's narrative, which gave the impression that the alarm was raised some time later.

I had seen detailed programmes too Chestnut, but lithium batteries, hidden compartment under the floor, destination Khazakstan etc etc were new to me. Not saying I was convinced by them, but keeping an open mind.
The one thing I was not convinced by was the man turning up in Réunion and being filmed finding "debris" so quickly.

Yes, sorry, I suppose you could say that. It's just that I've heard so much about it before in these other programmes, all the various experts talking, all the families talking, people scouring the beaches looking for parts, etc. etc. and all very detailed.

PS. Chestnut You don't have to watch it, obviously, but at the moment you are arguing about a programme you haven't actually seen.

Chestnut I watched some previous programmes on this topic only recently, but the NF documentaries cover more facts and go into more detail.

Wasn’t there something about a trap-door that led down into an ‘engine room’ ?

Sparklefizz

Chestnut Have you watched the programme yet?

As I said, last year I watched two very detailed programmes about this (or was it three?) which went into everything. Obviously if new evidence has arisen since then which proves what actually happened then fair enough. But I don't think anything is proven. I will try and watch the programme tonight and I just hope it has something new because I feel like this will be groundhog day if I'm watching the same stuff all over again.

I've always thought they wanted to create the biggest aviation mystery of all time, and that is certainly what it is. That's just my opinion but I've seen nothing to prove otherwise.

Where is the evidence for this? What do you base this on?
It's just a wild theory.

Events don't have to be "proven otherwise" ... they have to be proven in the first place.

Chestnut Have you watched the programme yet?

Exactly my thoughts Katie59. To me it seems planned and deliberate. It's no good trying to ascertain someone's mental state because anyone planning this would keep their thoughts deeply hidden. I've always thought they wanted to create the biggest aviation mystery of all time, and that is certainly what it is. That's just my opinion but I've seen nothing to prove otherwise.

Have you watched the programme Katie59? I didn't think any of the "planned by...." explanations were really convincing. I would like to have known more about hypoxia and possible systems failure. Also wonder if we have heard the full story about the lithium batteries?

It was probably planned to be the “Marie Celeste” of aviation total disappearance, trying to avoid tracking radar the aiming for a deep remote part of the ocean, whoever was in control carefully planned it.

I thought there were far too many talking egos and the time given to them got in the way of a proper measured overview. I didn't think there was enough credible evidence presented to say where the plane ended up and whether the wreckage was definitely from that plane.
A lot of the theories failed the "why would you" test. Even if you could fly the plane from under the floor etc.....

Chestnut

^Secondly that the plane was still being flown by the airline pilot when it turned off course.^
The plane took a very unexpected turn at exactly the moment it was between two countries, so one country's air traffic control had not handed over to the second at that point. Therefore the flight could turn and skim along this 'no contact' corridor and escape detection until further south. Only the pilot could have calculated this very clever manoeuvre.

Presumably anyone with experience of flying commercial aircraft would be just as aware of this as the two pilots assigned to the plane and would certainly know that the pilot had ceased contact when he said "Good night" to them.
Then there is the jamming theory which stopped all contact.
Blaming the pilot is just too simple. If he had problems there might be a possibility but he hadn't.

I’m watching it now - nothing else interesting on terrestrial TV

Blame the pilot.?

There is no other way that the known track changing at the beginning of the incident other than the pilot or some other person deliberately changing course. After flying west for some time changed course to south and flew on most likely on autopilot, until fuel was gone.

We will never know exactly the chain of events, other than someone deliberately flew MH370 into the ocean

ExperiencedNotOld

I don’t think a chestnut is going to change her fixed opinion. It’s what makes discussions on this site sooooo rewarding - not. I was on the verge of quitting, and have now decided to go as I can no longer tolerate such people. For all those willing to proper discuss, farewell.

Oh dear, I thought discussion was about giving your opinion, so what's the problem? Happy to change my opinion if there is evidence to prove it wrong.