JCC The Airline Disaster Thread

Wild thought, and appreciating that terrorism is a publicity stunt, but: if it was taking hostages specifically for ransom, it'd make sense to get the hostages off the plane and into the hinterlands of some godforsaken corner of a country ending in -stan before you start telling people you've got them or posting up grainy youtube videos showing the person captured.

Admittedly this means the plane has to land somewhere and debark everyone which really narrows down the available sites and plausibility of the scheme, but on the rough history, when you take over an aircraft, telling The Authorities that you control the plane all but guarantees a rather climactic scene featuring gentlemen with guns on your plane shortly thereafter, or an anticlimactic scene where you wind up walking rather shamefacedly off the plane and to jail. I can't think of the last occasion when a hostage situation on a tarmac somewhere turned out well for the terrorists?

 

Yankee: That's rather chilling. Although it occurs to me that stealing a plane that shall never be found is terrorism enough in itself. I mean, when a terrorist attack happens, at least you know it happened, that it's over. This is just the sword hanging over a head and never dropping.

Four hours it flew after it disappeared? I mean, what?

 

The last major hijacking ended totally peacefully.

I actually had this very conversation a few days ago. Basically, the gist is: no group of passengers is willingly going to accept a hijacking from the passenger class any longer after 9/11, as "the good ol' days" are gone and the chances of a satisfactory resolution for the passengers at that point are... not good. However, if a member of the flight deck hijacks the plane, chances are still pretty good to "end well," as was evidenced just about a month ago...

 

I stand corrected on the "major hijacking" part, but I can't find any other recent instances of a pilot hijacking his own flight (and that WSJ article mentions a crash in 1999 the NTSB believed the co-pilot intentionally caused), so what makes you think it's likelier to "end well"?

Back to the wild theory that the aircraft isn't simply somewhere in the Indian Ocean and was put there by the usual pilot error, design flaw, poor maintenance, combination, etc. Don't 777's require international airports? And even if it were possible to land on some dirt runway in... western Australia (not a lot of locations within its range, unless Terroristland has in-flight refueling capability), isn't it rather hard to hide a giant thing that has garnered international headlines for the past week? "Hey, a big Malaysian passenger jet just landed at my little rural airport. *shrug* I guess you don't see that everyday."

 

No, no... I think you misunderstand. At no point do I think this one will end well, but I also don't think the plane was hijacked. My only point was that pilots or copilots are unlilely to hijack planes and cause harm. Possibly, but unlikely. Passengers likely couldn't stop it in any case (as most modern airplanes still have lavatory facilities for flight deck crew out of the cockpits), but that's my general take.

No passenger group would accept other passengers hijacking the plane at this point, period. Too much risk after that "social contract" was ended on 9/11.

The EgyptAir pilot likely committed suicide, btw -- not a hijacking -- and was a single, isolated instance AFAIK in modern air travel.

Having said all that, I think it's generally pointless to speculate on what exactly happened at this point until we... know what happened. My current opinion is that everyone is dead somewhere and something happened to cause it. Which is terrible.

 

Like I said, I think the terrorism theory seems pretty far-fetched, but at this point, all the theories seem a bit far-fetched.

 

Well, when the passengers and crew take exception to a hijacking, you can end up with the hijackers putting the plane into the ground. Or ocean, as may be. The United 93 scenario. I think it's premature to buy into any theory at this point on so little information, but "failed hijacking resulting in a struggle for control of the plane and subsequent crash" is consistent with what little we do know, which is about the best you can say for any theory at this point. And if the hijacking was the result of an organized terror plot, the fact that it failed, and that the rest of the organization probably knows as little as we do about what exactly happened and why, may explain why nobody's rushed to take credit for it. If it is terrorism, it's more likely that scenario than secret terrorists mysteriously stealing a plane for nefarious purposes, or hostage-holding, or whatever, and successfully putting it down undetected.

 

If they were taking hostages for ransom, I'd be surprised that they picked that airline unless they knew a rich person (or persons) was aboard. I'd think it more likely they'd pick a plane with mainly Europeans or US persons instead.
BBC London had an ex-pilot who now does pilot training on this morning theorizing about the possibility of depressurization (explosive or otherwise) being a cause. Said if the plane was on autopilot it could have flown for some time given enough fuel and nothing to disrupt the autopilot.

 

I'm surprised no crazy religious nuts have claimed that this is a sign of the end times because Jesus caused the plane to disappear.

 

I'm surprised no Tea Partiers have come out and said "Obama caused this" yet. But then again, I haven't been on Twitter in a few days, so maybe they have.

 

Just found this site that crowdsources sat images of the area in hopes of finding anything... anyone know if its legit? http://www.tomnod.com/

 

It's actually a marketing stunt for the new Godzilla movie.

 

Malaysia Airlines Expands Investigation To Include General Scope Of Space, Time

 

That's not a common feature in airplane engines, but it is possible. I just found out about that capability a couple of years ago when I was getting my airplane mechanic license. AFAIK, only Rolls Royce engines are normally equipped with the telemetry link.

As for the slow onset of hypoxia, that happens occasionally on small business jets, but I find it hard to believe that a jumbo jet with all the latest cutting edge bells and whistles would have that kind of accident. And it doesn't explain why the transponder would be switched off.

 

Actually, its not without precedent.

Helios Airways Flight 522

Having said that, this is the kicker. Both the IFF transmitter and the engine telemetry downlink were apparently turned off in flight. That also most makes it sound like somebody was trying to steal an airliner. If so, the obvious question is why? In theory, four hours is enough time to get to an airport, land, refuel and take off again. Assuming that its still intact, it could be anywhere in the world by now.

 

Not saying you're not technically correct, but there is a vast difference between a 737-300 last produced in 1999 and a 777-200LR first produced in 2006...

 

Remember the plane that got missing for 50 years?
Wondering if they are looking in the wrong area.

Still so far too many contracdictons in this case.

 

For those who thought the hijacking theory yesterday was a bit "out there":

Was Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 Redirected to Diego Garcia?

 

Oh, my dear and fluffy L-rd...

 

Not to mention one that had its pressure system switched off and one that didn't.

 

I saw a story on CNN's website yesterday about it so I assume it is.

Just watching today's news conference on BBC News. It's been a week now - I wonder how much longer they will go on without finding anything definite?

 

Two new bits of actual news.

The plane sent signals to satellites for several hours after it disappeared.

Military radar tracking suggests the may have been deliberately flown toward the Andaman Islands

 

So if this was a hijack - and a successful one at that - why hasn't anyone called claiming responsibility and/or asking for ransom/demands?

 

Because they still plan to do something with the plane.

 

If you're thinking what I'm thinking...that's truly a scary notion. Especially if we're talking about a plane with a disabled transponder that could potentially be flown anywhere....and into anything.

I'm no expert, but I truly hope that horrible notion is impossible in this day and age.