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

[photonrider]

@photonrider , that's good write-up!

You flatter me, TenEightyOne - from reading through the discussion it's obvious you've forgotten more about aviation than I would have ever learned - I'm speaking from a strictly lay perspective, though one with a passion for anything that flies. As Jay, mentioned, I was more talking about a situation where the plane was in a steady, slow climb (colloquially termed cruise-climbing') and on auto. My conversation with that pilot took place more than twenty years ago - and no doubt a lot has changed since then - flying is not the pleasure it used to be, and tension over terrorism has pervaded the airline industry with a stigma it may never shake off - even though the technology for better air travel increases.

The current news about the images discovered on China's spy satellites is more consistent with where we would have expected the plane to be - and the size of the debris discovered is more in keeping with this situation. Obviously the Chinese could have come up with this news earlier - but once again it seems like the military and civil are divided by the head-shrinking world of politics and national security.

This seems like a turning point in the search, and maybe the first proper glimmer of light at the end of this tunnel.

 

[TenEightyOne]

If you're at 500 knots, at 30,000 ft, your AoA is not going to be 25 degrees. If that is what those three instruments read (if available) then something was wrong.

If you're at 500knots you're going to notice a drop in cabin pressure and slight reduction in the number of wings

The only way the 777 would have zero usable speed indications is if somehow all the independent pitot tubes were taken out (ice being most likely, but that's only temporary and very uncommon on the Boeing heated pitot tubes), even if all AC power sources failed (including APU, RAT etc) the ISFD has it's own DC battery source.

That's got me thinking... in our scenario where the plane keeps flying it has lost power to the transponders, everything. Why would the pitot tubes still be heated? If there's power anywhere in the aircraft the pilots are going to be bussing a radio into it straight away. Maybe the pilots had zilch information at all and got "bottom effect" trying to fly out of it? Still doesn't quite add up, just thinking aloud

@photonrider thank you, but I wouldn't go that far It's interesting, as you say, that the Chinese may have withheld this. I wonder if they've tried to steer the Malaysians and become frustrated at their lack of success?

 

[photonrider]

It's interesting, as you say, that the Chinese may have withheld this. I wonder if they've tried to steer the Malaysians and become frustrated at their lack of success?

At this point all we know is that while they might have captured the images earlier, they may have not scrutinised all the data, or having done so earlier may have had to go through a massive military vetting process before releasing the information. What bothers me is the size of the debris discovered. Where would I fit such large pieces so that it would come from a 777? Or are these just clumps of debris? As well - the South China seas are a dumping ground - could this be another red herring?

Still - at this point, this fresh piece of evidence is something that will be focused on; who will get to it first? We can only watch the news . . . or this thread.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I don't think it will come to be anything, I really think the focus should be mainly placed in the Andaman Sea or at the least Gulf of Thailand. They've been in that area for 5 days, and for them to now find wreckage is strange, I guess parts could have floated up to the surface since days can pass in these scenarios before wreckage is found.

 

[photonrider]

http://globalnews.ca/news/1202910/oil-rig-worker-saw-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-go-down-report/

Graphic of actual e-mail sent by oil-rig worker.

At work now, but a quick check brought this up. Maybe the pieces of the puzzle may come together eventually.

 

[Jay]

It could be a pain to land. I'm not convinced that it would be very difficult to point it in a general direction and go.

Indeed, I was just pointing out that the pilots would be hampered to fly the plane but general control still remains, maneuvers will just have to be more thought through and deliberate. Adding to that if the fuselage or any part of the aircraft has any damage that may cause stability issues it would also be much harder to deal with in mechanical modes.

That's got me thinking... in our scenario where the plane keeps flying it has lost power to the transponders, everything. Why would the pitot tubes still be heated? If there's power anywhere in the aircraft the pilots are going to be bussing a radio into it straight away. Maybe the pilots had zilch information at all and got "bottom effect" trying to fly out of it? Still doesn't quite add up, just thinking aloud

That's a good thought, it is still doubtful the pitot tubes would suddenly ice up anyway unless they were in a lot of cloud especially if the aircraft is moving fast. Icing is rare at cruise altitudes (30k+).

 

[ProjectWHaT]

http://globalnews.ca/news/1202910/oil-rig-worker-saw-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-go-down-report/

Graphic of actual e-mail sent by oil-rig worker.

At work now, but a quick check brought this up. Maybe the pieces of the puzzle may come together eventually.

My dad says it looks like its at the same place as the debris the Chinese found.

 

[TenEightyOne]

My dad says it looks like its at the same place as the debris the Chinese found.

A couple of hundred miles off. Top pic is the location of the sighting (check the previous page of this thread for more info), second is the location of the Chinese 'find'.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The Times saying that cracks had been reported in the airliner.

If true, that is extremely significant. What's more significant is that the article says the FAA warned Boeing of cracks in the skin around the SATCOM link.

That's on a main power bus (can't take out the whole bus but can begin a linear fire) and, most importantly, broadcasts the aircraft auto-telemetry. Blowing that out would give you a scenario where you may be able to fly for a distance but you could have serious power and comms issues.

Of course the flip-side is that the story could seem genuine simply because the journalist knows what they're talking about and has created a decent theory. Certainly I haven't seen the FAA advice myself, I'll go check their bulletins now.



(Fair use, this is the paper's published 'rush' of tomorrow's cover)

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The Times saying that cracks had been reported in the airliner.

If true, that is extremely significant. What's more significant is that the article says the FAA warned Boeing of cracks in the skin around the SATCOM link.

That's on a main power bus (can't take out the whole bus but can begin a linear fire) and, most importantly, broadcasts the aircraft auto-telemetry. Blowing that out would give you a scenario where you may be able to fly for a distance but you could have serious power and comms issues.

Of course the flip-side is that the story could seem genuine simply because the journalist knows what they're talking about and has created a decent theory. Certainly I haven't seen the FAA advice myself, I'll go check their bulletins now.



(Fair use, this is the paper's published 'rush' of tomorrow's cover)

Doesn't that have to do with all 777 being warned of the same issue that was suppose to go into affect next month

 

[TenEightyOne]

Possibly so. It doesn't seem limited to the SATCOM link if this is the directive in question, it refers to potential weakness in panels that have had "scribe lines" applied, etchings that guide painting/decaling of the aircraft.

I'm not an aircraft painter, maybe someone is and they can help us out with the detail

EDIT: Like so many other things about this that I still don't quite understand... given that this directive is in plane sight (hurr hurr) on the FAA site, the papers in most countries are aware of it... why isn't it more of an issue on the wider news in general? Maybe it's a liability thing, Boeing would sue their asses if it turned out to be a hijacking but they'd cast aspersions on the design?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Possibly so. It doesn't seem limited to the SATCOM link if this is the directive in question, it refers to potential weakness in panels that have had "scribe lines" applied, etchings that guide painting/decaling of the aircraft.

I'm not an aircraft painter, maybe someone is and they can help us out with the detail

Yeah me neither, I'm just in lowly aero engineering

I feel though in all seriousness that what we're talking about here was a general warning to all fleets carrying 777 aircraft and not sure anything specific regarding this airplane is known or was known prior to it flying off Saturday.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Indeed it's a general warning (well, it's an airworthiness requirement so more strongly enforced than that) but it does go to an identified set of circumstances that can lead to airframe weakness.

Without the plane though, like we keep saying, no news. I'm guessing that it's not in the new search area, it's been light there for a good few hours and I'd expect rescue planes to have been on station for first light...

 

[niky]

Been light here for half-a-day, already.

And if that's really the plane... all this criticism over the Malaysian Air Force not releasing data on the flight goes out the window. The plane wasn't anywhere near land...

 

[Crash]

Though a mid-air explosion would be a scenario that fits the most of the circumstances that we know about now, I have a few issues with that article.

Fundamentally, if the fuselage skin over the SATCOM area cracked and ruptured over such a small area, I believe it would cause rapid decompression, but shouldn't be violent enough for a plane to blow up (See the Southwest 737 Classics).

As I've said before in a previous posts. Fuselages are designed to arrest crack growth in order to prevent complete loss of structural integrity in an emergency situation. Yes, there are certain areas of the fuselage that are more dangerous to have fatigue cracks that rapture than others due to the loads involved over the area (ie. in the forward or aft pressure bulkheads, or in the wing-body join area), but where the SATCOM antenna is, up top in the constant contour section of the fuselage, is one of the least dangerous. These are probably some of the least stressed areas of the fuselage, and you want it to fail there if it ever fails, as that poses the minimal risk to the aircraft's structural integrity.

In any rate, the skin, stringers, frames, and other fuselage structures are designed together to limit crack propagation. Once a crack is found, once a doubler plate is properly installed, then you're good to go.

At the end of the service life of a commercial airplane, you have no idea the number of doublers and triplers that are installed all over the place, in order to fix cracks that were found.

That's on a main power bus (can't take out the whole bus but can begin a linear fire) and, most importantly, broadcasts the aircraft auto-telemetry. Blowing that out would give you a scenario where you may be able to fly for a distance but you could have serious power and comms issues.

It should still fly for a while, at least long enough time needed to reach South Vietnam and land somewhere. I don't know if the reports of the plane heading out to Malacca Strait are still valid, but if so, they are wayyyy off course for an emergency landing.

Doesn't that have to do with all 777 being warned of the same issue that was suppose to go into affect next month

It's most of the 777 models, but it looks like this doesn't include the 200ER (the model of the missing plane) or the 2F.

Possibly so. It doesn't seem limited to the SATCOM link if this is the directive in question, it refers to potential weakness in panels that have had "scribe lines" applied, etchings that guide painting/decaling of the aircraft.

I'm not an aircraft painter, maybe someone is and they can help us out with the detail

EDIT: Like so many other things about this that I still don't quite understand... given that this directive is in plane sight (hurr hurr) on the FAA site, the papers in most countries are aware of it... why isn't it more of an issue on the wider news in general? Maybe it's a liability thing, Boeing would sue their asses if it turned out to be a hijacking but they'd cast aspersions on the design?

It's only in areas of lap joints, butt joints and cargo door hinges. This directive doesn't look like it applies to the acreage of the skin panels themselves. I'm pretty sure there's no lap joints on the top of the 777 fuselage where the SATCOM would sit, and so this directive wouldn't apply to that area.

I'm not sure how the painting process would cause a scribe line anyways. I've seen planes being painted and I can't think of anything in the process that would cause a scribe line in those specific areas. Generally (at least from the factory), a few base coats are applied, and then the actual decals and liveries are applied over the base coat. The base coat should protect the aluminum from scribed or etched lines, and I just don't see the minimal bump from another coat of paint from a livery foreground be any sort of significant stress concentrator.

Also, here's an article that I think helps clarify the directive.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Thanks @Crash

 

[photonrider]

As a terrorist act, this incident would make no sense at all.

Terrorism is a politico-commercial bsusiness, heavily financed and globally advertised. If this was a terrorist act, and while giving the scope of the event the fact that it would have taken a huge amount of assets to engineer, even a small-time terrorist organisation that would have done this would also have had their gloating selfie videos plastered all over Youtube by now, demanding their piece of land and claiming how smart they were to pull off such a trick.

In other words - if it was a terrorist act, the fact that there has been no claim as yet could only mean future complications in the scenario that could involve everything fom psychological warfare to protecting their element of surprise for further, and then final, acts of the same sort.
To put together a scenario of terrorism behind this would mean more than a mess of spaghetti code.

As a mechanical failure of some sort that lead to a catastrophic fragmentation is more likely, but only if we eliminate some pieces of the puzzle.
And some telling 'coincidences' and matters of routine that didn't take place.

Factor in the inspection on the plane that was supposed to take place - in fact a concern about sudden depressurization. Did that take place; was the ship deemed air-worthy? Do we keep this piece or discard it?

Factor in the fireball that was seen in the sky. Likely location. But was it really only seen by one person in that whole area? And the report doesn't cover what the fireball really did. Still, this piece fits the catastrophic-event angle.

Factor in the debris. How far would it have drifted before and after it was captured on satellite? Are the calibrations correct? Is there a problem with the math? The pieces seem too big. What pieces off a 777 would be that big and also float?
This piece is already attached to the piece that says the Chinese may have doctored the shots to mask the technology behind the capture, but have some kind of clearer information that makes them confident enough to release the location. This is a piece that looks like it fits . . . and we are now in a position to check its reality.
If any of that debris is verified authentic - then this piece suddenly becomes the center of this whole puzzle - because then it is a piece that we know belongs to the puzzle.

But, factor in the transponder that was shut off - and at at what point in the flight: the border where they were to be handed off. This piece doesn't fit the catastrophic-event angle, but more one of foulplay. (Remember we have already ruled out terrorism.) Transponders don't shut themselves off. And Boeing is well-known for building the finest planes in the world. (The 777's disaster record, if you take out pilot error, is insignificant when you consider the amount of them in service by a great number of airlines who use it to shuttle millions of passengers a day; it's one of the safest planes in the world. We must keep in mind that this was an older plane, yet the back-up systems that Boeing builds into its planes are well-known and respected in the industry. These planes are safe as houses, when maintained. Maybe safer.) Therefore it is very unlikely that the back-up transponder also went down simultaneously. Looking at all the likely scenarios around this piece it seems more than likely it was shut down manually.

This wouldn't affect the plane's interior environment or anyone on the plane; the effect caused by shutting it down would be known only to the crew, and maybe not even the whole crew - that it rendered the plane stealthy to a point. At this point taking the plane lower than local radar would render it even more invisible (though quite loud and large to any shady local trawling the shallow depths there.) From this point anything can happen to the plane.

Because the plane's transponders were shut off at the hand-off, and there was a lull in the communication between transmissions, this time was taken to fly the jet somewhere else, before it was missed.
What happened after that?
Was it landed on the ocean and scuttled?
Or landed at a particular strip that was pre-made for such a conclusion, before the next step of the act?
All this supports foulplay of some sort.
What piece (or lack of pieces) is it that goes against the idea of disintegration after foulplay? Well . . . the lack of pieces of wreckage of course - which is why identifying that debris is key before we go on to find what caused the disintegration.

We can hazard on the MO of foulplay, or a hijacking, before a possible disintegration that took place, or, a secret and successful landing, but by whom on the plane?
And if it was foulplay of some sort (kidnapping, theft, revenge, or the act of a dysfuntional individual) then if the debris that has been spotted is not from the plane - is the jet still in one piece? (We like to believe that, because that would give a better chance of its occupants survival.)


Then again - the complete lack of communication from anybody on the plane during that time? Not one e-mail, text, shout-out in any electronic fashion from the plane? That's a missing piece.

And a puzzle piece that has the right shape but looks transparent, and so we must discard: - the spotting of a large plane similar in its basic physical signature on radar also in the vicinity west of the hand-off. Fits the puzzle but no picture to it.

At this point only the new debris find could paint us a better picture of what to expect as answers.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It's only in areas of lap joints, butt joints and cargo door hinges. This directive doesn't look like it applies to the acreage of the skin panels themselves. I'm pretty sure there's no lap joints on the top of the 777 fuselage where the SATCOM would sit, and so this directive wouldn't apply to that area.

I'm not sure how the painting process would cause a scribe line anyways. I've seen planes being painted and I can't think of anything in the process that would cause a scribe line in those specific areas. Generally (at least from the factory), a few base coats are applied, and then the actual decals and liveries are applied over the base coat. The base coat should protect the aluminum from scribed or etched lines, and I just don't see the minimal bump from another coat of paint from a livery foreground be any sort of significant stress concentrator.

Also, here's an article that I think helps clarify the directive.

Good stuff! Way out of my area of expertise I was referencing the Times article that said the cracking was around the SATCOM, I said the directive wasn't limited to that which the article implied... I should have gone on to say that it didn't even include it!

I can't find any other directives for the 777 structure around that time so I think the papers have a duff lead... and that's why it's not being taken up on a wider scale.

The paper must have mentioned SATCOM because that's where the real mystery is, even if the PIC/FO passed out the plane should have continued to broadcast ACARS. I just find it inconceivable that it either flew without regaining any kind of power and not being seen, or that it eventually exploded over sea without any wreckage so far being visible. Crashing into land would make it more difficult to find of course.

We have to assume that the "facts" are all plausible of course, at the moment the world seems to be looking at the Malaysian coordination of the rescue effort as if it was a little lacking.


EDIT: The actual SATCOM directive - I gave a bum steer earlier based on the dates I'd seen for the directive. This is it, and it's pretty clear that preventative action is needed. There's no reason to think that Malaysian Airlines didn't take that action, obviously. @Crash , over to you! I could design the system but I couldn't build anything to put it in

 

[Jordan]

According to a source from the Wall Street Journal, Boeing and Rolls-Royce receive live telemetry data from 777 engines in 30 minute intervals. Apparently, the data from Flight 370 indicates the plane kept flying over four hours after the transponder was disabled.

Neither Boeing nor Rolls-Royce will make an official statement about the data, and for some reason this hasn't been announced by the authorities.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304914904579434653903086282

 

[photonrider]

When you take that piece, Jordan, and add to it the fact that the pilot had a full-blown flight simulator in his home, I'm getting a skipper who piloted his plane to quite another destination - maybe a flight he practised a lot.

Irrespective of who flew the plane, and to where, I'm still hoping for a safe passage for all concerned.

 

[TenEightyOne]

According to a source from the Wall Street Journal, Boeing and Rolls-Royce receive live telemetry data from 777 engines in 30 minute intervals. Apparently, the data from Flight 370 indicates the plane kept flying over four hours after the transponder was disabled.

Neither Boeing nor Rolls-Royce will make an official statement about the data, and for some reason this hasn't been announced by the authorities.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304914904579434653903086282

I went over this (like a geek) at quite some length, it was inconceivable that the plane could continue without any power... which is how it would have to be for ACARS to cease (the system referred to above).

The authorities have already said that the aircraft didn't continue to broadcast telemetry, I need to go and see if I can find the source of that though.

The "human intervention" theory is still a possibility and I'd say it's increasing, especially as there has to be a reason why this news hasn't been in the public domain.

I also just read that searchers still haven't found anything in the newest search area (the Chinese satellite-located 'wreckage'.

I'll add; if they have that data then they knew exactly what it was doing. There are a number of ways of reverse-engineering all kinds of data from the normal ACARS feed. All kinds of strange theories don't seem so strange all-of-a-sudden.

@photonrider That aircraft normal went KL > Beijing > KL > Mumbai > KL (and so on) and he may have rotated to other routes. That doesn't mean much though because there's no reason why any 777 pilot wouldn't be able to land at any suitable airport simply by following international procedures, or make an emergency landing at an un-suitable one. I like the sound of his flight-sim rig though

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Whatever it was that the Chinese satellites spotted, they can't find it now.

Neither Boeing nor Rolls-Royce will make an official statement about the data, and for some reason this hasn't been announced by the authorities.

The only scenario that I can think of to make sense of this is that the authorities believe the plane was hijacked - whether by passengers or crew - and has landed somewhere. They are making a show out of searching for the plane, waiting to see what the hijackers do. This implies that they have a fair idea as to where it could be, but don't want the hijackers to know.

As to why they might be doing this, I can only assume they want to avoid another Entebbe. Possibly if they think the plane has landed somewhere sensitive, like Myanmar

 

[TenEightyOne]

As to why they might be doing this, I can only assume they want to avoid another Entebbe. Possibly if they think the plane has landed somewhere sensitive, like Myanmar

If that plane's in Boutum Sakor then I've won the film rights for sure.

It all adds up, locate the plane via non-public means, despatch a special operation to do what needs to be done.

Perhaps the Chinese are in on the operation given their undoubted expertise at covert operations in the region. Ahem. They're very visibly helping to point randomly at different bits of sea and shout...

 

[photonrider]

@photonrider That aircraft normal went KL > Beijing > KL > Mumbai > KL (and so on) and he may have rotated to other routes. That doesn't mean much though because there's no reason why any 777 pilot wouldn't be able to land at any suitable airport simply by following international procedures, or make an emergency landing at an un-suitable one. I like the sound of his flight-sim rig though

Here's more information on that angle.

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/...eek-spends-off-days-on-flight-simulator-at-ho

However, I meant if I was a commercial pilot who wanted to fly under the radar, or scuttle the airplane, or land at a jungle strip, I would do some practising first. Whether he was piloting or not, whether under duress or not, it is now more than likely that the plane, as I surmised earlier, could have been flown for quite some time stealthily. And landed.

Factor in satellites than can stop-motion debris, but cannot see planes disappear from the sky . . .

 

[TenEightyOne]

Wall Street Journal say "At one briefing, U.S. officials were told investigators are actively pursuing the notion that the plane was diverted "with the intention of using it later for another purpose."

Immediately one thinks of the last nefarious purpose that a stolen airliner was put to. Is it conceivable that in this evolution of that type of attack the organisers would try stealing a plane, then covertly launching a suicide mission with it at their convenience?

Right now I'd believe anything, nothing adds up and as things are eliminated only the craziest possibilities seem to remain. As time goes on it seems less and less likely that it just exploded without searchers finding any debris.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Immediately one thinks of the last nefarious purpose that a stolen airliner was put to. Is it conceivable that in this evolution of that type of attack the organisers would try stealing a plane, then covertly launching a suicide mission with it at their convenience?

If this was a bad thriller, the terrorists would hijack the plane, wait until the search stopped, then take to the air and switch the transponder on so that MH370 appeared on radar. The world would race to find it, only for it to be revealed that this was a distraction while collaborators carried out the real attack.

 

[TenEightyOne]

If this was a bad thriller, the terrorists would hijack the plane, wait until the search stopped, then take to the air and switch the transponder on so that MH370 appeared on radar. The world would race to find it, only for it to be revealed that this was a distraction while collaborators carried out the real attack.

Or a non-sub-write Clancy. One of his novels has Ryan becoming President after terrorists fly a 747 into... the Capitol Building? The White House?

Anyway, it's not the novel where Princess Diana fires an AK-47 from a speedboat.

Let's say the plane really has been landed somewhere. What's the likelihood that at least one of the superpowers now know exactly where? Pretty high, I'd say.

 

[niky]

Depends on how good the satellite cameras are. If you print gigantic photos of jungle canopy on your two mile long concrete runway, think they'll notice?

I could see that working. Cut a clearing that's irregular in shape so that shadows don't show up as a straight line, and pave it over and paint the concrete to resemble jungle canopy. Have potted trees ready around the edge of the clearing, ready to move in after the plane lands, to keep up the illusion in the face of fly-by searchers.

 

[axletramp]

How about pilot suicide? I thought this was an interesting read from a random guy on FB which may or may not have some merit:

Shortly after the news broke about the disappearance of Malaysian Air Flight 370 it became apparent that the absence of any wreckage or mayday call raised the question of whether this could be another case of the little focused on phenomenon of pilot suicide.

The lack of any mayday call (and the fact that the transponder signal was also lost at altitude) points either to a catastrophic failure of the airframe during cruise (considered to be the safest part of the flight), a hijacking or the intentional turning off by one of the crew of the transponder and the ACARS so as to mask a deliberate controlled flight into terrain.

The break up of an aircraft in mid-air would lead to a wide debris field composed of relatively large parts of the aircraft. Many parts of an aircraft, including metallic sections, will float for some considerable time. Many of us have seen the images of large parts of an airliner being recovered from the water such as large tail fin from Air France flight 447 that crashed into the Atlantic.

If however an aircraft hits water at considrable speed the resulting damage to the airframe is substantial and very little, especially sections of any noteworthy size, is left.

Consider the images of the 2 aircraft that flew into the World Trade Center on 9/11. What do you remember seeing coming out of the other side? Apart from a large fireball there were no real sections of aircraft so to speak. And the interior of those buildings were made of some solid walls and empty space. Controlled flight into water at speed is similar to controlled flight into terrain.

A hijacking is equally unlikely. Firstly there is not much of a motive to target a Malaysian Airlines plane filled mostly with Chinese nationals. Secondly, since 9/11 the security on board is much tighter with the cockpit door locked and armored. Finally, no one has come forward to claim responsibility.

Pilot suicide is rare but certainly not unheard of. The two most famous cases were Silk Air 185 which crashed into the Musi River near Palembang in southern Sumatra, Indonesia on 19 December 1997, killing all 97 passengers and 7 crew members, and Egypt Air 990 which crashed into the Atlantic Ocean about 60 miles south of Nantucket Island, Massachusetts, killing all 217 people on board.

With Egypt Air 990, the NTSB found the crash was caused by deliberate action of the Relief First Officer, the primary theory is that he committed suicide. Supporting their deliberate-act conclusion, the NTSB report determined that no mechanical failure scenario could result in airplane movements that matched those recorded by the flight data recorder.

With Silk Air 185 the Cockpit Voice Recorder indicates that once the aircraft had established it’s cruise phase of the flight the captain left the cockpit. Shortly after the CVR stopped recording. Subsequent test showed that an audible click would be heard if the circuit breaker to the CVR had tripped but not if it was manually pulled out. NTSB investigators hypothesised that this was so that the Captain could concoct a pretense for First Officer to leave the cockpit before pulling the FDR circuit breaker which would have triggered warning lights on the console. The NTSB, by use of computer modelling, concluded that the crash was the result of deliberate flight control inputs, most likely by the captain.

Potential motives for the crash included recent financial losses by the captain of over $1m from his share trading account, his obtaining an insurance policy on his life the previous week as well as several recent disciplinary actions on the part of the airline and his possible grieving over the loss of three squadron mates during his military flight training, which occurred 18 years earlier on the exact date of the crash. He is also reported to have had several conflicts with his first officer and other co-pilots who had questioned his command suitability.

Other cases include more recently Mozambique Airlines Flight TM470 went down on November 29th, 2013 in a remote area of Namibia. Data from the cockpit voice recorder indicate that just minutes before the crash, the co-pilot left the cockpit for the bathroom, and returned to find the door shut. The flight data recorder indicates that the captain manually changed on the autopilot rom 38,000 feet to below ground level. He also retarded the engine throttles to idle and manually selected the maximum operating speed -- a contradictory action that makes little sense. The voice recorder shows that someone, likely the first officer, pounded on the cockpit door before the crash. There was no mayday call from the experienced captain. Possible motives are the unverified rumors which suggest he may have had marital problems, and that a son had died.

There is also Royal Air Maroc in 1994 and Japan Air Lines in 1982 along with 3 other cases that involved military aircraft.

We may never know the outcome but unfortunately, pilot suicide should not be overlooked as a possible cause.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Certainly money and resources aren't a limitation as this is a large-scale operation.

WSJ shows a map giving a potential flight range based on the length of time that the transponder was reportedly active. It's not correct because it's circular... they haven't taken into account wind drift at cruising altitude which could potentially add a 300-ish-mile offset over 4 hours cruising (dependent on heading, obviously).

The potential overall range if it kept flying beyond that is even greater as the plane was fuelled for Beijing and would therefore have had more range as a mandatory precaution.

@axletramp there are certainly some credible theories in there. For 11/9 I'd say that the aircraft actually hit a container full of fluid, if you look at the delay from the impact at one side to the pressure ejection at the other you can imagine the kind of awful pressures that the remaining body of the aircraft was piling into.

The SilkAir findings are relevant in terms of human intent but very out-of-date in a technical sense. From memory that was an analogue 737 I think?


Anyhow, here's the WSJ map I referred to;