All Malaysian Flight 370 could be still alive and kicking

[Swisaw]

There is no doubt this flight was hijacked and there was a ship or submarine was waiting for it at the place where landed or crashed in the sea. So either the hijackers and the target, which they were after, came down by parachute to be picked up by the waiting submarine/ship or when the plane crashed to the sea every one picked up by the waiting submarine or ship. This must be the true story.

 

[simon field]

Why have you ruled out pilot suicide?

 

[Swisaw]

Why have you ruled out pilot suicide?

Pilot suicide? if so he would have crash it immediately.

 

[simon field]

Maybe, but maybe not.

You're making wild guesses, as am I.

Only difference is I wouldn't say 'that's what must have happened'

 

[Nuno]

There is no doubt this flight was hijacked and there was a ship or submarine was waiting for it at the place where landed or crashed in the sea. So either the hijackers and the target, which they were after, came down by parachute to be picked up by the waiting submarine/ship or when the plane crashed to the sea every one picked up by the waiting submarine or ship. This must be the true story.

Who benefits?

 

[imutual]

There is no doubt this flight was hijacked and there was a ship or submarine was waiting for it at the place where landed or crashed in the sea. So either the hijackers and the target, which they were after, came down by parachute to be picked up by the waiting submarine/ship or when the plane crashed to the sea every one picked up by the waiting submarine or ship. This must be the true story.

Absolutely. And it's surely Spectre that's behind it. Or, as Sean Connery might say, Shpectre

 

[lynxus]

While I'm only guessing like others. I cant see any valid reason to dump a plane into the ocean as a terrorist operation?

It could be a simple fact that like others have said, the plane may of lost hull integrity and everyone died. It then flew by itself into the ocean after running out of fuel.

This said.
There are some things that make me wonder.

Why were transponders and communications cut off?
These things send all kinds of data out of them ( including engine details to the makers in real time )
So why did this go off?
Surely if there was enough damage to break, something would been found on the ground?

I personally believe that it was just a terrible accident.
We will know for sure over the coming years however it wont be easy due to the location of the debris.

 

[Nuno]

Charlie Stross puts forward a reasonable hypothesis:

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/03/a-hypothesis.html

 

[Spock]

Swisaw your hypothesis is about as credible as the plane being sucked up into a mothership and taken to the far side of the galaxy.

 

[Paul Brooke]

And what is wrong with that exactly Spock? ... lol

 

[MASSEY]

I could understand it being hijacked and taken if there was expensive cargo on board, below the passengers. But they wouldn't have crashed it into the sea would they? lol.

 

[123Simples]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...egations-resurface-in-case-of-lost-plane.html

And then when you have the plane, you empty out the cargo hold, pop in your dirty nuclear bomb, refile a new flight plan, change the transponder, and then put the thing back up in the air with the passengers on board again, and fly to a city you would like to devastate.

 

[Swisaw]

1- All communication and ID signals went off, which would have been possible only manually, by human hands.

2- After communication and ID signals went off, the plane was flying in a manner to avoid detection.

3- during the last hour of the flight, the plane was autopilot driven.


These three points prove the plane was under manual control, driven by a pilot, until left to the autopilot. this means the plane was in perfect mechanical order until the moment flew or crashed into the sea. In other words the plane was driven to that area under human controls, but why? Because something like a ship or submarine was waiting for them at the area.This implies that the plane was hijacked and flown to that area because a ship or a submarine was waiting for it.


But way it was hijacked? I can put two reason for it:


1- to kidnap a VIP or VIPs. Who were the Iranian passengers? were they ordinary people or nuclear scientists?


2- Air Piracy. Did the flight carry a big cargo of gold or diamond or hard currency?


Passenger identity checks, in this case, don't prove anything. Let me to tell you the story of two Israeli spies. The first one was an Israeli penetrated into Egyptian Army as an army officer. He was promoted in the Egyptian Army as a military expert with a license to see all secrets of Egyptian army. He was the eyes of Israeli secret service in the heart of Egyptian Army for years. After 6 days war between Arabs and Israel, he left safe and sound. Another one exactly like this one penetrated into Syrian army. But this one caught after years of spying and executed. So the ID of the passengers don't prove if all passengers were thew same people as identified by their ID of each or known by other people.


But why the plane put on the autopilot on the last hour? Could this be because the pilots parachuted down to a waiting submarine or ship with their accomplices and the targets, which they were after? Or was it easier to land it on the sea? Were the pilots real Malaysian pilots or could they have been disguised as the two Malaysian pilots?


So definitely it was a hijack. If the target was a VIP or VIP and the plane autopilot driven to land on the sea, if not all some passengers could have been rescued. If the pilots with their supporters and target/s parachuted down the rest of the passengers would have ended in the sea. If it was air piracy, the same fate would have faced all passengers. Air piracy of this sort is possible when the loot is worthwhile and have technical know how.

 

[Excel Expert]

Although I would agree that terrorism (state sanctioned or not) is not to be ruled at this stage I think the "James Bond" scenario is totally far fetched.

A deliberate landing in the sea so a ship could be ready to extract certain people/property is impossible to predict.

There is as of yet zero indication of an auto pilot being used or not. For autopilot to work it would need to communicate with satellites for its position or they would have to communicate with radio way points. Either way it would give the authorities confirmation of where the plane was as well. The only communication from the plane was from an automatic maintenance system.

Not sure if these planes still have the gyroscopic mechanical autopilots, if they did then autopilot was possible using that and it wouldn't have given their position away.

A far more likely terrorist / hijack scenario is the terrorists took the plane over quietly and forced the pilot to fly to height where mobile phones were useless and then gathered up the passengers phones. They then flew down to 5,000 feet got the pilot to put it on autopilot and incapacitated everyone in the cockpit. They then parachuted out with their "target" well before they aircraft crashed.

It could be that there were no hijackers on the ground and this was a cyber hijacking by hackers. It has been long rumoured that hackers could take control of such a plane.

Basically at this point it all boils down to guess work. It could be suicide by one of the pilots, it could be a terrorist plot, it could be some catastrophic onboard failure of systems. No one knows, so there is no point in declaring "there is no doubt this was a hijack".

 

[Swisaw]

They then parachuted out with their "target" well before they aircraft crashed.

We agree on that. But according to what has been disclosed the plane flew very low after they put off communications and ID signals. According to uk Inmrasat, which found the path of the plane, the plane was flew on the autopilot on the last hour flight. Cyber hijacking is possible with unmanned planes but I am not sure if it is possible with a commercial flighst like flight 370. Before the liberation of Iraq, Iraqis claimed they had forced a US drone to land safe and sound. They shew the picture of the drone. It was obvious they cyber-hijacked it with the use of Old Communist Russia cyber programs. The sharp turn of the plane against flight path indicates there was no technical fault.

 

[Excel Expert]

I'm not saying they did that though. All I'm saying is if there was terrorist involvement that scenario is far more likely than having a great big ship waiting for an aircraft to crash. They have no control over how a plane crashes, who lives, who dies or if their target sinks to the bottom or not.

I'm yet to be convinced it was terrorists, cyber hijackers, pilot suicide or some freaky malfunction - there is simply not enough information to pull a conclusion from.

Inmrasat have not declared when or if the flight was on autopilot at all - they simply did not have that information. Every so often the plane "pinged" the satellite to try to upload its maintenance data. Their subscription to the service had been allowed to expired so the satellite just didn't answer the planes request to hand shake. All Inmrasat have based their findings on is when the plane pinged the satellite and where the satellite was in space at that time (hence the large arc everyone was searching). Further study in the tiny changes of frequency that ping was sent over allowed them to further pin point where the aircraft was.

They simply didnt have any data from the plane.

It is impossible to say if and when the plane was on autopilot.

 

[MASSEY]

If a ship or submarine was waiting it would most probably have been found on satellite images by now, or detected by military equipment / submarines and ships already in the same area.

When you look at the estimated route the plane took, it looks as if there was intent to avoid more developed countries like Japan and Australia that would have almost certainly detected it if it continued towards the North Pacific.

I think terrorism is a strong possibility. But usually these terrorists (primarily muslims with the exception of the IRA) generally kill masses of people and themselves so they can sit with allah munching on 72 grapes.

You don't kill all those people with the intention of surviving.

 

[Excel Expert]

There is a more state sanctioned form of terrorism where the object of the exercise is to grab someone or something, rather than blowing things up. So there could have been people on board who forced the craft down to the 5,000 so they could parachute out with someone or something they had grabbed.

It seems more likely than a suicide lets blow everyone up sort of terrorism as they would have probably gone for a more immediate and more news grabbing action such as nose diving it in to the sea there and then or flying it in to a building or built up area.

If there was a take over of the plane it was ultra efficient and professional. No radio signals, all the satellite communications turned off and no attempts at mobile phone calls. Sort of indicates if there was terrorists on board they took it over they locked it down with military precision and efficiency. Would terrorists that were planning on just killing everyone for the sake of it put that much effort in to a lock down? Could they be that organised?

Add to that the route away from prying eyes and it certainly looks deliberate and professionally carried out. That of course still does not mean terrorists, the pilots would know to do this as well.

 

[stockdam]

Before making wild speculation like this I'd suggest you do some research or talk to somebody who knows something about aircraft.

A large aircraft cannot ditch into the sea without huge risk. The sea is generally not flat due to waves or swell and the chances of clipping a wing or smashing into a large wave are big. The result is a crash where survival is a lottery.

Large commercial aircraft are not designed for people to jump out of. If you jump out of the forward door then you risk hitting the wing (you fly "backwards" relative to the plane. If you jump out of the back door then you risk hitting the tailplane.

How did they smuggle parachutes past security?

Forget what you see in movies and do some research before coming up with pure speculation.

 

[StaffingAgency]

As Stockdam says, it is extremely hard to parachute out of a commercial aircraft given the location of the doors in relation to wings, tail, and those big engines that will suck you in.

Not to say it can't be done of course.

Unconnected, but anyone hear about the Spanish responding to a reported aircraft crash today off the Canary Islands, only for it to end up being a ship?

 

[stockdam]

As Stockdam says, it is extremely hard to parachute out of a commercial aircraft.............

Not to say it can't be done of course.

Yes it may be possible but it's not something that has been tested before. As a pilot you would be very aware of the risks. There would be easier ways to kidnap somebody than jumping out of an aircraft with no prior knowledge of whether it is low risk.

 

[StaffingAgency]

Skydiving has been done from an airliner, but not many times at all. Though never heard of any being done from a 777.

 

[StaffingAgency]

Look up D B Cooper from a hijacking in 1971, and Kevin Mullenger who both skydived from a 727.

The outcome of D B Coopers jump is unknown. Kevin however survived and I am sure videos can be found on youtube.

Edited to add - It is worth adding that a 727 has a door on the underside, and it is that fact that makes its exit safer than on other models where wings and engines get in the way.

 

[Excel Expert]

I'm not saying this is what happened at all, what I'm saying if terrorists are involved it is a far more likely scenario than ditching in the sea near a waiting ship - which is of course a complete lottery.

Jumping out of a modern plane is not as difficult as you imagine. The rear doors after the wing are lower than the tail so jumping from these is possible. There are also all the other non-passenger doors. Cockpit escape hatches - normally above the cockpit but some planes have them in the floor. They are not designed for parachuting, they are more of an on the ground fire exit.

Cargo doors may also be accessible from the passenger quarter with pre-knowledge. There is also usually a rear facing door / emergency exit from under the rear of the tail which would be perfect for parachuting from. From what I can see from photos there is an opening there but I'm not sure if that is maintenance or if it has access to the main area.

Again I'm not saying this is what happened, I'm just saying out of the terrorist theories that are floating about this one seems to fit the best. That doesnt mean it fits the overall scenario more than a fire or pilot suicide - it just seems to be the best fitting terrorist scenario to date.

BTW I spent my 5 years apprenticeship as a draughtsman designing platforms to access passenger and military jets. All of the above door types I have described above exist in the majority of passenger planes. However I left that trade before 911 so things may well have changed and I never actually worked on a 777

 

[Excel Expert]

Also the parachuting out scenario is based around a state sponsored act which would mean highly trained special forces being employed. As I said it is just a possible terrorist scenario that happens to fit the circumstances, it is not me declaring this is what happened. All the other scenarios and theories are just as relevant including pilot suicide etc

 

[Swisaw]

Please click the following link. You will read expert views, which prove the plane was professionally knowledgeably commandeered to its last destination.


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/0...ery_the_iel_regi_pubdinnerparty_guide/?page=1

 

[MASSEY]

How do we know stocky? Maybe they cut a hole in the roof and jumped off the roof of the plane, towards the back so the wings wouldn't clip them?

 

[stockdam]

How do we know stocky? Maybe they cut a hole in the roof and jumped off the roof of the plane, towards the back so the wings wouldn't clip them?

Yes maybe they smuggled an aceteline torch onboard together with some parachutes and some weapons. Maybe they also got support from some aliens too. Who knows. If you want to come up with daft speculation then why stop there? Speculate away but maybe bring in some facts to back up what you are saying.

 

[Swisaw]

You can parachute through any doors. There is no risk of hitting any thing because you are moving at the speed of the plane, parallel to it, the moment you leave the plane. By the time your horizontal speed becomes slower than the speed of the plane you have fallen far from the plane.

 

[Jeff FV]

You can parachute through any doors. There is no risk of hitting any thing because you are moving at the speed of the plane, parallel to it, the moment you leave the plane. By the time your horizontal speed becomes slower than the speed of the plane you have fallen far from the plane.

That's not true, the moment you leave the aircraft you begin to decelerate in the horizontal direction as you now no longer have any force propelling you in that direction, unlike the aircraft. Plus the airflow around an aircraft will have an effect. Sadly there are many cases of aircrew striking the aircraft when exiting and trying to parachute away. This is why the first act of an ejector seat is to propel the aircrew up and away from the aircraft.

My theory, for what it is worth, is that there was a problem with the aircraft, either decompression or oxygen failure, which caused the pilots to turn back and descend. However, they became incapacitated/unconscious and the aircraft systems flew the plane for several hours before it ran out of fuel and crashed into the sea. This doesn't, however, explain the comms. issue: my only guess is a combination of system failure and the pilots in a confused and suffering from hypoxia making the wrong selection and turning of the wrong things.

J

 

[Swisaw]

Today Malaysians were hoping against hopes to find some survivals. is this a clue for a sort of contacts with hijackers?

 

[Excel Expert]

Swisaw - The report you link to is just another bunch of self proclaimed experts putting theories together. That is all that is out there at the moment. They simply do not have any real data on the last part of the flight and they are only projecting where the plane crashed based on the last known data. They have already had to revise where they think it crashed due to an unknown speed / acceleration variable.

Although it is possible to parachute out of any plane door, you just do not drop like a brick from the door. Unless the plane slowed down greatly the plane would have been flying between 200 and 300 mph. That means even getting past the wind blast is a challenge.

If you jump from a side door in front of the wings there is a really good chance you wont make it past the wing. The air behind the wing is full of vortexes etc and in some planes even directed towards the tail to make the tail more effective. Again, a fair chance of meeting the tail at speed.

A roof jump would also mean probably meeting the tail at speed.

If there was a parachute jump it would need to be from under the aircraft. Apart the big "if" about their being terrorists the next big "if" is if they had access to a door under the aircraft.

I'm of the theory that it was either suicide or some sort of failure on board. Apart from the comms issue the biggest flaw I see in that theory is why the planes automated systems took a southbound path when they had been programmed to fly to China. When the autopilot gets switched on it works out where it is and changes course accordingly, which means if it was engaged it should have headed back to China

 

[Swisaw]

This is for the benefits of Excel Expert:

Regarding autopilot, the man from inmarsat on TV said the last hour speed of the flight was autopilot speed. So his company and the other company involved assumed the plane put on autopilot during last hour flight.

If autopilot programmable, then you can program it to fly the plane to any direction. These hijackers were highly technically qualified and professionals and have taken proper training to do this job.

You can take any thing in the plane as long as not lethal. You can take parachute or anything else. Your baggage scanned only to detect explosives and liquid. Other means used to detect drug and similar thing by smell.

All your objections to parachuting are valid, nevertheless it is still possible to parachute out safely. The hijackers have taken every tools they needed to plane. They have disguised each tool as trading sample. The had about eight hours of flight. They could have made anything they needed inside the plane from plane fixtures. They could have made a sort of sling shot powered by a spring to kick them out of the plane safely. I don't know about planes but they could have put the engines off and let the plane to glide to parachute out safely.

All the disclosed information indicate that the plane was commandeered to the middle of the ocean. If it is commandeered it must have been hijacked. If you hijack a plane why are you taking it to the middle of ocean if something like a ship or submarine is not waiting for you.

 

[StaffingAgency]

Swisaw - I thank you for bringing some entertainment to these long days.

Also that link you posted earlier, is worthless now given it's age and what has been discovered in the time since it was posted online.

 

[Excel Expert]

The man from Inmarsat was talking nonsense then because they still dont know what speed or path the plane was flying in the last hour. They based its projected position on its last known speed and heading based on ground radar readings. They then had to revise their projected position by a 1,000km when they were given more data from other radars.

Two things not to forget here

1. Inmarsat has zero actual data from the plane. All they have is its rough distance from their satalitte as it flew over (hence the huge arc). They have further refined this by studying the tiny fluctuations in the frequency of the aircraft pinging their satellite. They never received positional, speed or headings from the plane its self.

2. As a result they have only ever had projected paths and speeds.

The man from Inmarsat was talking out of turn if he indicated that they knew its speed and path for the last hour.

Totally agree that you can take anything on a plane, however I suspect a parachute going on as hand luggage would raise a few eyebrows. However if it was a terrorist operation I doubt they would have been brazen enough to carry it on themselves and it would have been pre-planted. So still possible

I'm not even going to bother with the A-Team approach to getting out of an aircraft. That is beyond daft.

If the plane was commandeered it was done well before it got to the Indian ocean and just after take off. Two clues behind that one

1. It wasnt supposed to be anywhere near the Indian Ocean in the first place - it was basically meant to be flying away from the Indian Ocean

2. It took two unplanned turns before it even started to head over the ocean. One back over Malaysia and then towards India. Before then flying south.

 

[Swisaw]

This didn't happen because of natural technical faults and pilot confusion and disorientation. Because the pilot at least could have sent an S.O.S.

Either Inmarsat got it all right or wrong. If their assumption of autopilot is wrong their rest of the information will be wrong. In other words their assumption that the plane went to Indian Ocean is wrong. So all the search so far have been done were waste of time and done at the wrong place.

Why a parachute raises suspicion? if you are checking passengers luggage and find a parachute, do you bother to ask the passenger why he carries a parachute. However if I need a parachute in the plane for parachuting out after hijacking it, as highly proficient, I wouldn't take the parachute as one piece, I take it in multiple pieces disguised as some thing quiet different. After hijacking I assemble it.

The black box should have all answers if found. But I suspect that it has been disabled so that it can not be found.

 

[Matt1959]

well I've been following PPRune forum since this thing blew up and there are 1000's of posts with many ludicrous suggestions there but not one suggesting a passenger took a parachute onto the areoplane in kit form then assembled it before jumping out of the plane over the indian ocean. Seriously come on....

I go for some kind of depressurisation knocking out passengers and crew then autopilot to the end...

the truth is invariably boring...

 

[Excel Expert]

LOL Assemble a parachute on a plane? Do you know how much room you need in order to pack a parachute? It is a job done on a hanger floor because it needs precision and a lot of room.

You seem to be making things up now. What SOS? The aircraft simply went dark with no further communications at all other than the maintenance equipment trying to handshake with a satallite and getting refused.

Why is that Inmarsat either got it all wrong or all right? Especially when I can not find a single report backing up your claim that Inmarsat claimed any knowledge of it being on autopilot or not. There has been lots of speculation about if it was on autopilot or not but nobody knows and nobody has made any claims to that effect.

This is what Inmarsat actually said

The new method "gives the approximate direction of travel, plus or minus about 100 miles, to a track line", Chris McLaughlin, senior vice-president for external affairs at Inmarsat, told Sky News. "Unfortunately this is a 1990s satellite over the Indian Ocean that is not GPS-equipped. All we believe we can do is to say that we believe it is in this general location, but we cannot give you the final few feet and inches where it landed. It's not that sort of system."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/24/flight-mh370-inmarsat-aaib-analysis

Although it sounds highly likely autopilot was on, no one has a clue as to if it was on or not.

Matt - I'm behind either the suicide theory or a disaster of some kind on board. The later theory has some flaws in it because of the path it took. Two seemingly deliberate turns and two seemingly deliberate changes in altitude would indicate the crew had time to send an SOS and that it wasnt an instant decompression thing.

Even if all the electrics were out, they would have still had battery powered radios at their disposal and hundreds of mobile phones on board. Perhaps they dropped to 5,000 feet to get mobiles to work so they could get a message out?

 

[Swisaw]

LOL Assemble a parachute on a plane? Do you know how much room you need in order to pack a parachute? It is a job done on a hanger floor because it needs precision and a lot of room.

Yes you can assemble parachute in a plane if you have been trained to do it and the parachute pieces made for this purpose.

You seem to be making things up now. What SOS? The aircraft simply went dark with no further communications at all other than the maintenance equipment trying to handshake with a satallite and getting refused.

I said that for a reason. If it was a natural technical fault there would have been time to send SOS. If it was decompression communication and ID signals wouldn't have stopped.

Why is that Inmarsat either got it all wrong or all right? Especially when I can not find a single report backing up your claim that Inmarsat claimed any knowledge of it being on autopilot or not. There has been lots of speculation about if it was on autopilot or not but nobody knows and nobody has made any claims to that effect.

This is what Inmarsat actually said

The new method "gives the approximate direction of travel, plus or minus about 100 miles, to a track line", Chris McLaughlin, senior vice-president for external affairs at Inmarsat, told Sky News. "Unfortunately this is a 1990s satellite over the Indian Ocean that is not GPS-equipped. All we believe we can do is to say that we believe it is in this general location, but we cannot give you the final few feet and inches where it landed. It's not that sort of system."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/24/flight-mh370-inmarsat-aaib-analysis
Although it sounds highly likely autopilot was on, no one has a clue as to if it was on or not.

I saw and heard Inmarsat speaker on TV saying the autopilot was on because the last hour speed was the speed of a plane autopilot driven.

Matt - I'm behind either the suicide theory or a disaster of some kind on board. The later theory has some flaws in it because of the path it took. Two seemingly deliberate turns and two seemingly deliberate changes in altitude would indicate the crew had time to send an SOS and that it wasnt an instant decompression thing.

Even if all the electrics were out, they would have still had battery powered radios at their disposal and hundreds of mobile phones on board. Perhaps they dropped to 5,000 feet to get mobiles to work so they could get a message out?

That is a very quick change of mind. Now you think SOS was possible. could you make your mind please?

Now you admit the plane was commandeered and support suicide theory. But if it was a suicide act it would have been possible only by a collective suicide act, which is impossible. So only one theory left, which is the theory of coerced commandeering, hijacking.

 

[Swisaw]

well I've been following PPRune forum since this thing blew up and there are 1000's of posts with many ludicrous suggestions there but not one suggesting a passenger took a parachute onto the areoplane in kit form then assembled it before jumping out of the plane over the indian ocean. Seriously come on....

I go for some kind of depressurisation knocking out passengers and crew then autopilot to the end...

the truth is invariably boring...

Yes you can make a parachute in a kit form and take it inside an aeroplane when you have an inventive mind and desperate to get something.

If it was depressurization, why communication and ID signals went off. Some times ago I saw the real story of an an American passenger plane. On high flying altitude, the top half of the body separated from the body and completely decompressed. The plane sent SOS and at the end landed with all on board safe and sound.