MH370: Malaysian Airlines Flight to Beijing carrying 239 people is lost over sea.

[TenEightyOne]

I'd say might be intact, not must.

The identification was on military radar and some Reuters reports have mentioned that the military "tracked" it. The absence of any AIFF is a signal in itself, either the signal's been seen when the data was revisited or it simply wasn't thought to be important at the time.

I don't know if the route it was taking was an airway, if so then an aircraft that looks like an airliner and is flying at the normal altitude/cruise of an airliner on an airway used by airliner... it probably wouldn't arouse too much suspicion, it would be ATC's problem more than a military monitoring station.

 

[Keef]

That would appear to rule out sudden catastrophic mechanical failure, as it would mean the plane flew around 500 km (350 miles) at least after its last contact with air traffic control, although its transponder and other tracking systems were off.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/11/us-malaysiaairlines-flight-idUSBREA2701720140311

The transponder has nothing to do with the airplane's visibility on radar. All the transponder does is report altitude and identity for display on the controller's radar screen.

The only way anything can disappear from radar is if it literally disappears because aliens, disintegrates and disperses, leaves the radar beam's range by going below it, behind terrain, too far away, or is covered by a radar pulse jammer. Two methods, either remote jammer using complicated math to cover a certain area, or a jamming aircraft flying in between the radar source and the plane to be hidden and as it jams each rotating radar pulse it hides itself and anything behind it.

EDIT: After reading the article again, it mentions that the airplane's "tracking systems" would have prevented civilian radar from identifying it - which is true - but not military radar - which is not true. The only thing the military could tell is that it's not military. Military transponders speak their own language in addition to civilian language, while civilian transponders don't speak military language at all, so whether it was on or not they wouldn't have been able to identify it as anything besides non-military.

The only effective ways that military radar could see the plane but not civilian radar is either if there was no civilian radar coverage in the area or the frequencies were jammed. The idea that the plane overflew the Malaysian peninsula without being seen by civilian radar is ridiculous and the idea that somebody was jamming the plane's target is ridiculous. As far as I can tell the only practical way to get from one side of Malaysia to the other without being seen by civilian radar is to go over Thailand, assuming there is no civilian radar service in that area.

EDIT: Civilian radar stations in the US have a fair-reception radius of about 250 miles. This is what it looks like:

It's probably reasonable to assume that radar coverage in that region of Thailand basically doesn't exist.

 

[TenEightyOne]

After reading the article again, it mentions that the airplane's "tracking systems" would have prevented civilian radar from identifying it - which is true - but not military radar - which is not true. The only thing the military could tell is that it's not military. Military transponders speak their own language in addition to civilian language, while civilian transponders don't speak military language at all, so whether it was on or not they wouldn't have been able to identify it as anything besides non-military.

They can, military radars will normally be set to identify any civilian traffic they may encounter. For most major countries the military would actually take over from civilian ATC in the event of an emergency. They're as capable of doing that from mobile ground/sea stations as from fixed bases.

In this case the transponder had stopped so the 'target' would be broadcasting no identification which would be very suspicious.

It's probably reasonable to assume that radar coverage in that region of Thailand basically doesn't exist.

The region has a very busy network of air routes and, to the east, some of the most hotly disputed air territory in the world.

That's one of the other things that doesn't add up, there would have been plenty of people who should have 'seen' it, especially if it did fly back over land.

Malaysia airforce chief denies lost jet veered west

He's not quite denying it according to the article (Reuters), but playing it down and saying it's unconfirmed.

It makes sense that it didn't get to there for the reasons that Keef, I and others have said... but beyond the disappearance itself there's something very strange going on.

 

[photonrider]

I'd say might be intact, not must.

I can understand that position; it's a safe bet. However, by 'intact', I meant in 'one piece'. In the absence of a single piece of debris at this point in time that couldn't be found by around 34 aircraft and 40 ships searching for so long, I have to assume that the hoofbeats are those of horses and not zebras. If I hear that they found even an ounce of kapok I might change my mind.
This is what deepens the mystery.
If there was any debris found by now, half the world that is interested in this story will lose interest in it. (Yawn . . so it was just another plane crash . . .lol . . co-pilot was a loser, etc, etc ....)

There is no sign of any existence of the aircraft at this point in time. Not a nut, bolt, or even oil-slick to be found. No debris, no sign of any damage to the aircraft.
Could the plane have landed on the water and floated - even for awhile? Yes, they have the capacity to do that.
Could it have sunk after that? Yes. But a landing at sea like that would be a marvel of piloting - and there still would be some damage to the plane. We have to remember, though that the ocean is a very, very large place - searching for a bit of debris in there is a logistical nightmare. Maybe the plane is not intact at the moment, but they haven't found any debris connected with its possible disintegration - that is a fact.
But why were no cellphone calls made? The cellphones belonging to the passengers can still be called - and there is no answer.
These are just the beginnings of several dozen questions in everyone's mind.

The only thing the military could tell is that it's not military. Military transponders speak their own language in addition to civilian language, while civilian transponders don't speak military language at all, so whether it was on or not they wouldn't have been able to identify it as anything besides non-military.

This is what I was trying to say. The ping they noted belonged to a large non-military craft in that area. It wasn't identified officially as the flight, and in fact the military themselves would not, AFAIK, been able to identify if that blip belonged to that particular flight either, but only as an unidentified flying object.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

http://www.nst.com.my/latest/font-c...ont-fishermen-find-life-raft-near-pd-1.509222

MISSING MH370: Fishermen find life raft near PD

A group of fishermen found a life raft bearing the word “Boarding” 10 nautical miles from Port Dickson town at 12pm yesterday.

One of the fishermen, Azman Mohamad, 40, said they found the badly damaged raft floating and immediately notified the Kuala Linggi Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA) in Malacca for assistance to lift the raft as it was very heavy.

"We managed to tie it to our boat as we feared it would sink due to the damages," he said.

When the MMEA boat arrived, the fishermen then handed over the raft into their custody.

However, a Kuala Linggi MMEA spokesman said the raft sunk into the sea while they were trying to bring the raft onboard.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

There are reports that the Americans warned airliners of a potential flaw in the 777 that could cause a "slow decompression". This would potentially explain why the aircraft went off-course as they slowly went into a state of hypoxia, and why the pilot who contacted them could only hear indistinct muttering over the radio. But it does not explain why the transponder would be switched off - unless the pilots lost consciousness first and a passenger tried to take control of the plane, accidentally switching it off. They may have even turned the plane off-course, as the transmission was made an hour before the transponder cut out.

 

[Grayfox]

There are reports that the Americans warned airliners of a potential flaw in the 777 that could cause a "slow decompression". This would potentially explain why the aircraft went off-course as they slowly went into a state of hypoxia, and why the pilot who contacted them could only hear indistinct muttering over the radio. But it does not explain why the transponder would be switched off - unless the pilots lost consciousness first and a passenger tried to take control of the plane, accidentally switching it off. They may have even turned the plane off-course, as the transmission was made an hour before the transponder cut out.

"IF" there was a slow decompression the cabin pressure warning would have sounded, if it did and the pilots turned it off and ignored it the airlines need to be investigated.

 

[niky]

There would need to be a failure of the warning system, too, right?

 

[Grayfox]

There would need to be a failure of the warning system, too, right?

There are back ups to those systems as well.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

"IF" there was a slow decompression the cabin pressure warning would have sounded, if it did and the pilots turned it off and ignored it the airlines need to be investigated.

And if that decompression was so slow, it's possible that the pilots may have thought the alarm system was broken and shut it down. Given that the transponder was also shut off, it's conceivable that they might have tried to shut those systems down and restart them.

 

[Grayfox]

And if that decompression was so slow, it's possible that the pilots may have thought the alarm system was broken and shut it down. Given that the transponder was also shut off, it's conceivable that they might have tried to shut those systems down and restart them.

Pilots should never ignore such a warning, don't know if there is a digital way to read the pressure in the cabin.
There would also be some kind of second warning to a very low cabin pressure.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

There are reports that the Americans warned airliners of a potential flaw in the 777 that could cause a "slow decompression". This would potentially explain why the aircraft went off-course as they slowly went into a state of hypoxia, and why the pilot who contacted them could only hear indistinct muttering over the radio. But it does not explain why the transponder would be switched off - unless the pilots lost consciousness first and a passenger tried to take control of the plane, accidentally switching it off. They may have even turned the plane off-course, as the transmission was made an hour before the transponder cut out.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/mi...e-raft-reportedly-found-malacca-strait-n50616

There is the article for those interested so whoever said structural erosion gets a cookie cause they were spot on 3 days before anyone else freakin said it. I'm starting to agree with @TenEightyOne that they should just follow this thread for info or whoever said it, I think it was him correct me if I'm wrong though.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I didn't say they ignored it. I said they might have heard the alarm as the pressure started to drop and followed the usual procedures for such a warning. When they found no immediately apparent cause for the alarm, they may have tried to restart the systems to try and correct what they thought was a fault.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I didn't say they ignored it. I said they might have heard the alarm as the pressure started to drop and followed the usual procedures for such a warning. When they found no immediately apparent cause for the alarm, they may have tried to restart the systems to try and correct what they thought was a fault.

Who are you talking to...?

 

[Mike Rotch]

There would also be some kind of second warning to a very low cabin pressure.

You mean like face masks dropping from the ceiling of the passenger compartment/ panicking passengers/ panicking passengers texting loved ones whilst the plane flew on with passed out pilots?

Nope.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Who are you talking to...?

Grayfox. You posted before I could.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Grayfox. You posted before I could.

It all makes sense now. Thanks

 

[photonrider]

http://www.nst.com.my/latest/font-c...ont-fishermen-find-life-raft-near-pd-1.509222

The raft, like many other likely pieces of debris they found, is not related to this plane. The technology they have now - especially in the military of most of the countries involved - is such that they can possibly spot a tennis ball floating in the ocean. The ocean is strewn with debris of all sorts. When they find likely-looking debris it has to be authenticated. At this point in time not one piece of the plane or even an object from the plane has been found.

Obviously the military involved can influence the search, especially if they have information unknown to the civilian efforts - and this is possible because the various countries involved in the search and rescue have incredibly complex global surveillence systems that they can put to use. That they can never confirm these findings because of the classified nature of these systems makes it more complicated.

The plane was 'cruise-climbing'. A pilot friend of mine explained this to me over dinner one night when I was grilling him on various aspects of his job. His usual MO in flying, after take-off, was to get to cruising altitude as quick as possible - and let the plane fly itself from there. This is usually around 30,000 feet. Because the plane loses fuel as it flies, it tend to gain altitude (hence 'cruise-climbing.') In between take-off and landing, the plane is usually on auto. This is actually one of the safest periods in the plane's flight.
This is the time in less-terrified times (and most probably still in less-terrified airline systems) that the pilots actually get up and walk about or invite people over to the cockpit - and I've been into the cockpit by invitation myself (though again, that was pre-9/11 - and while flying KLM Business class.)
In fact, a change from auto to manual handled incompetently can lead to a plunge into the sea - the Air France flight that plunged into the ocean comes to mind.

So . . . the plane leaves shortly sometime after 12.00 - starts to do what pilots would usually do (head for cruising altitude) reaches this altitude, and while still cruise-climbing just blinks out of existence. This is the best we know.
There is some corroboration about the plane suddenly veering from its course before blipping out, but the event ends right there.
There was apparently no time for any communication after that moment and the moment the plane was (seemingly) incapacitated.
This puts the plane right at the spot where communication failed. This is where the debris should be. But nada.

Then - the military says: no - the plane was still being flown (off the radar as such), and was spotted several hundred miles away from where they first lost communication. With no proof of it. Then retracts the observation. Back to square one.

Even with all power to the engines gone, a plane like that should be able to glide at least a hundred miles from cruising altitude. That takes time.
There would have been several other ways to communicate to people on land even if all the planes official com sys was down during that time. Nothing.
An explosion would have been spotted by satellite. Nothing showing (and of course no debris patch.)


This leads me to believe that the plane is either still intact (and well-hidden from our perceptions) - or we're looking in the wrong place for debris - and rationally, it's more likely the latter.

Strangely enough, another missing flight comes to mind - the missing flight of UMC Mazda car manufacturer Upali Wijaywardena, whose flight disappeared (along with him) on a routine run from Malaysia to Sri Lanka . . . in the middle of February thirty years ago. Never found. Still a mystery.

 

[Grayfox]

You mean like face masks dropping from the ceiling of the passenger compartment/ panicking passengers/ panicking passengers texting loved ones whilst the plane flew on with passed out pilots?

Nope.

Like a second master warning alarm.

 

[jimipitbull]

This leads me to believe that the plane is either still intact (and well-hidden from our perceptions) - or we're looking in the wrong place for debris - and rationally, it's more likely the latter.

Interesting, there are reports of passenger's mobile phones still ringing at times


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Malaysia-Airlines-MH370-plane-crash-live.html

 

[photonrider]

Yes, the phone-call issue has become one of the better-known 'conspiracy' theories. No one really knows what's happening; there are interviews being shown on TV for instance where friends and relatives of passengers say they call the phone and there is a ringing tone - but what do they mean 'ringing' tone?
The phones are never answered. Nor has anybody called. This is what I call a 'slap-in-the-face' mystery; one that has rational minds fleeing the scene, or coming up with the most wildest of 'educated guesses'.
Everyday that goes by without a single sign of debris is what challenges the intellect. It is closure, I would think, that many people, including relatives and friends, are looking for.
At this point in time, full closure seems bleak.

 

[Blitz24]

Yes, the phone-call issue has become one of the better-known 'conspiracy' theories. No one really knows what's happening; there are interviews being shown on TV for instance where friends and relatives of passengers say they call the phone and there is a ringing tone - but what do they mean 'ringing' tone?
The phones are never answered. Nor has anybody called. This is what I call a 'slap-in-the-face' mystery; one that has rational minds fleeing the scene, or coming up with the most wildest of 'educated guesses'.
Everyday that goes by without a single sign of debris is what challenges the intellect. It is closure, I would think, that many people, including relatives and friends, are looking for.
At this point in time, full closure seems bleak.

It just gets stranger. Is it possible that the calls could be intercepted and redirected elsewhere? Very unlikely but I assume it can be done.

 

[niky]

It just gets stranger. Is it possible that the calls could be intercepted and redirected elsewhere? Very unlikely but I assume it can be done.

If you've got a forwarding number, calls could be rerouted there. But then, there should be someone to pick up.

If these reports are true, it's an absolute trifle to ask the cellular carriers' Malaysian roaming partner/s to trace the cell site the calls are being routed through.

Or it should be.

I'm imagining phones strung up in trees surrounded by a field of debris in dense tropical rainforest. Not a pretty sight, but seemingly the most likely, at this point.

 

[Sanji Himura]

I found this on the Yahoo splash page this morning, and took a screen cap:



Yahoo took it amongst themselves to draw a flight plan based on the information available. However, what if the game was hijack, and officials are not letting us know what they should as far as that oil slick is concerned? Now keep in mind that I am not an artist with a PC, but:

Follow the thin black line to Pulau Perak. Once again, I know that planes can't turn that quickly, so this is an approximation.

 

[Grayfox]

View attachment 127069

Follow the thin black line to Pulau Perak. Once again, I know that planes can't turn that quickly, so this is an approximation.

Issue is the oil was not from the plane(so were told.)

And planes can turn that "Quick" since the distance drawn by yahoo is still large in real scale.

 

[Keef]

http://www.nst.com.my/latest/font-c...ont-fishermen-find-life-raft-near-pd-1.509222

Each life vest (one for each occupant) and each life raft enough to carry all occupants) must have a locating beacon light on them, at least for US-based airplanes according to FAR Part 121.339. Whether or not these were actually deployed is another story, but they're positioned in the plane so as to take as little time as possible to deploy in a ditching situation.

Obviously the military involved can influence the search, especially if they have information unknown to the civilian efforts - and this is possible because the various countries involved in the search and rescue have incredibly complex global surveillence systems that they can put to use. That they can never confirm these findings because of the classified nature of these systems makes it more complicated.

I personally think the military should be questioned as well. The officer spoke pretty confidently before he retracted his statements and didn't bother offering any info on how the target managed to get to the other side of Malaysia. There are ways to get a plane from here to there without being seen by radar and it requires some complicated military technology.

The plane was 'cruise-climbing'. A pilot friend of mine explained this to me over dinner one night when I was grilling him on various aspects of his job. His usual MO in flying, after take-off, was to get to cruising altitude as quick as possible - and let the plane fly itself from there. This is usually around 30,000 feet.

Many airline pilots in the US engage autopilot as low as 500 feet. The entire route is already planned in the FMS. All the pilots need to do is adjust the auto speed to create a climb. In US airspace, there is a speed limit below 10,000 feet of 250 knots so the pilot will have 250 set in the autopilot, but still on takeoff thrust, which means the plane will be climbing to slow itself to that speed.

Because the plane loses fuel as it flies, it tend to gain altitude (hence 'cruise-climbing.') In between take-off and landing, the plane is usually on auto. This is actually one of the safest periods in the plane's flight.

Cruise climbs are not allowed anymore. Since the advent of Flight Levels, pilots must request ATC clearance to climb or descend.

This is the time in less-terrified times (and most probably still in less-terrified airline systems) that the pilots actually get up and walk about or invite people over to the cockpit - and I've been into the cockpit by invitation myself (though again, that was pre-9/11 - and while flying KLM Business class.) In fact, a change from auto to manual handled incompetently can lead to a plunge into the sea - the Air France flight that plunged into the ocean comes to mind.

Even in the old days, at least one pilot was required to be in the cockpit at all times. Obviously this doesn't assure that the FO doesn't have a heart attack , fall on the yoke, disengage autopilot...oh man would that be fun.

Even with all power to the engines gone, a plane like that should be able to glide at least a hundred miles from cruising altitude. That takes time.

About 100 miles at a glide ratio of 17:1 which is on the low-end for airline jets. The 777 is probably closer to 20:1 but I can't seem to find it anywhere. Gliding 100 miles from 35,000 feet takes approximately 25 minutes.

This leads me to believe that the plane is either still intact (and well-hidden from our perceptions) - or we're looking in the wrong place for debris - and rationally, it's more likely the latter.

I'm agreeing with this. I actually think it's more likely that some ridiculous operation to jam the airliner's radar target was conducted than that it just magically disappeared from radar without any evidence. But of course, they could simply be looking in the wrong spot. Given the ocean currents, it could be getting progressively wronger.

I found this on the Yahoo splash page this morning, and took a screen cap:

View attachment 127064

Yahoo took it amongst themselves to draw a flight plan based on the information available. However, what if the game was hijack, and officials are not letting us know what they should as far as that oil slick is concerned? Now keep in mind that I am not an artist with a PC, but:

View attachment 127069

It's an interesting idea but the only way for it to get there without being seen by civilian radar is if there simply isn't radar coverage in that region or it was hidden. I can't find a radar coverage map of Malaysia to know whether it could scoot through a gap or something.

 

[TenEightyOne]

@photonrider , that's good write-up!

The plane was already at cruising height (in this case around 35,000 feet). From that position it could glide about 150miles at max.

The thing is though... it couldn't, and here's why; that's a plane in perfect condition. To be in the situation of making a dive in 'emergency' conditions (no other way to describe the loss of systems that has to have happened) then you have a very sick plane.

Control inputs are minimal (control authority remains on the 777, I cheated and rang a friend at Boeing ) but the efficiency of the aircraft in flight is massively reduced. To add to that reduction the pilots are flying by sight; in a jetliner 330kias looks exactly the same as 220kias, all you can do is try to 'feel' the plane.

Then you have to consider that you're not on the ground, you're in a body of air that may itself be moving in a completely different direction from you at a hundred miles an hour. That makes your possible dive area an ellipse until you get to low-altitude weather (air is 'sticky' near the surface and is much more still).

That area will all have been considered in the first hour, and many many times more since then.

Some things still don't add up. Planes don't just disintegrate and a platform like the 777 is particularly safe. It's had incidents where its systems and backup have turned it from a potential crash to a 'report'.

The reports about the radar plots are conflicting and confusing, there's a lot at stake politically and militarily too. No one wants to show each other their radar data because it might show what they're doing, and what they can see. The questions of political territory seem to have been put aside (aircrew are aircrew) but the effects are still (imo) being seen at the organisational level.

@prisonermonkeys I know that for Etihad if the masks deploy then one of the flight crew has to continue to wear one above 10,000ft even if the warning is repealed. That suggests that someone at Etihad has identified a risk of exactly what you describe - a perceived reduction in risk leading to the masks being discarded.

@Keef you're both right, it's still called a 'cruise climb' once you've cleared the mandatory stage. ATC will direct you to an altitude (normally at a point on the centerline) and tell you to expedite. You'll already know the climb slope (in cities it's very steep to get your engines high as quickly as possible). Then you'll make a normal operational climb at 'cruise' where you require less power and start trimming the plane. Most planes will have been at autopilot from about 2,000 feet before the original ATC climb-point.


I still think that the only options that fit the data we have are human intervention or sudden physical destruction. The first still seems the more likely of the two but lots and lots of things still don't add up.

 

[Keef]

@Keef you're both right, it's still called a 'cruise climb' once you've cleared the mandatory stage. ATC will direct you to an altitude (normally at a point on the centerline) and tell you to expedite. You'll already know the climb slope (in cities it's very steep to get your engines high as quickly as possible). Then you'll make a normal operational climb at 'cruise' where you require less power and start trimming the plane. Most planes will have been at autopilot from about 2,000 feet before the original ATC climb-point.

ATC procedures are probably slightly different around the world. The only ones I'm familiar with is in the US.

If no departure procedure is in use, ATC will clear you to altitudes in steps. I know how to copy ATC clearances because I do it from time to time. Here's an example of one I'd get in my local area: "N691SP, cleared to Griffing Sandusky via As Filed, climb and maintain 3,000 feet, expect 7,000 feet 10 minutes after departure, squawk yada yada, departure frequency yada yada yada." In a similar non-DP takeoff, this airliner would have been given more appropriate altitudes (climb and maintain 8,000 feet, expect FL350 10 minutes after departure). Rarely does it actually take 10 minutes to receive further instructions - they say that so that if you lose communication you know that after 10 minutes you automatically climb whether they told you to or not.

If a DP was in use (and probably was given the class of airspace at that airport) ATC would include in the clearance a published DP, which already includes minimum climb rates and minimum altitudes at fixes, as well as a cruise altitude to expect after 10 minutes. The pilots copy the clearance as usual and plug the DP into the FMS so it's in the system and AP is ready to take it from there. Turn some knobs, flip some buttons, take off, press AP at 500 feet, sit back and stare at some gauges. That's how that works.

My point here is that "cruise climb" is a proper aviation term which refers to a procedure no longer in use.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Fair comment. His assertion that the climb was still taking place after two hours is erroneous regardless of his terminology though

All ATC is, afaik, a version of the same thing. Your initial clearance is from the threshold to altitude-on-centerline, then you normally maintain until ATC give the next instruction or you request otherwise. All pretty much as you describe, ten minutes for ATC to get back to you would be causing some real sweats.

The difference is that you and I probably sometimes fly out of fields where there's just one old lady with a radio, and then of course it's slightly different.

I was just looking at the details of the loss of Upali Wijewardene's learjet in 1983. Similar area, similar loss of contact... but otherwise I think that 'crash' was something altogether different.

 

[Exorcet]

@photonrider , that's good write-up!

The plane was already at cruising height (in this case around 35,000 feet). From that position it could glide about 150miles at max.

The thing is though... it couldn't, and here's why; that's a plane in perfect condition. To be in the situation of making a dive in 'emergency' conditions (no other way to describe the loss of systems that has to have happened) then you have a very sick plane.

It depends. Having all your systems knocked out means you can still be at 100% aerodynamically. Gliding is a function of lift to drag ratio, as Keef said the 777 could be around 20:1 as long as cruise speed is maintained. Knock it down to 15 if you want to induce some error from the pilots. At 35,000 ft that's still almost 100 miles

Control inputs are minimal (control authority remains on the 777, I cheated and rang a friend at Boeing ) but the efficiency of the aircraft in flight is massively reduced. To add to that reduction the pilots are flying by sight; in a jetliner 330kias looks exactly the same as 220kias, all you can do is try to 'feel' the plane.

I'm not completely sure on the failure modes of all systems on the aircraft, but I'd think they'd probably have altitude and indicated air speed, the latter alone would let them glide effectively (though obviously can't give them a direction).

Some things still don't add up. Planes don't just disintegrate

They do, it's just rare. The USAF got scared a few years ago when a F-15 flew apart for no reason midair. It turns out there was an undetected structural fault that just needed enough time to show itself.

It's a strange situation for sure, but you can't really rule anything out yet.