Malaysia Airlines 777 - Missing

[FICU]

Would someone on the ground be able to spot an engine fire on a jet at 35,000 feet if it was directly above let alone 50-70 km away? Hmmm...

[Castorero]

Wow. The nutters are really out in force now. Russia somehow hijacked the plane through satellites using technology that doesn't exist. Somebody tried to fly the plane into an aircraft carrier at night without knowing where the carrier was (it's not like their locations are made publicly available) and the plane was shot down; that would be like flying across Canada to try to hit a specific field without knowing where that field was in the first place, and it was also moving around while you were en route. Even if they weren't trying to hit the carrier, apparently the USN would have shot them down anyway, because they have a tendency to fire wildly at unknown radar targets flying at 35000 feet; there's absolutely, definitely a correlation between an Iranian airliner being shot down while flying directly over an American naval ship that was sitting just outside of Iranian waters in the middle of the Iran-Iraq War, and a ship sitting in international waters nowhere near a hostile county blazing away into busy international air routes because they got a PSR return without a corresponding transponder code. Of course it's all some grand conspiracy, and not only are the searchers totally incompetent while anonymous internet posters know exactly where to look, but the governments of China and Vietnam are the only reliable sources of information! I say we take B52 and all the other wackos, put them in a row boat in the South China Sea, and let them prove whether their hypotheses are true.

Gee whiz, Diadem you are not that gullible? I know sarcasm and trying to make light around a very bad event is difficult to convey on a forum, but dont take my "drone" remark too seriously. In fact, I would like to retract it altogether now that the Largactil has done it's job and I see things more clearly.

Suffice it to say that some very sharp minds on this forum may have already hit the nail on the head as to what may have transpired, and I doff my hat in the direction of Complexintentions, in particular.

I generally don't wish to get drawn into the speculation field after an aircraft accident and I will not make an exception in this case for two simple reasons, the main one being that I am totally ignorant of the complexities of the B777 , after all I still toil around aircraft with engines designed around 1929, the other is that better minds than mine are engaged fulltime on this problem and I would just look foolish sooner than later if I opened my mouth in a serious vein.

I will say this though, I do enjoy reading all the posts on the subject, even the ones that come from left field.

I do have enough Largactil left that I am more than happy to share it around, B52, gimme a call...

[GyvAir]

Sure, the Chinese image 2-4 days later might still be determined a piece that fell off the plane ... who knows.

Can you think of any piece or combination of pieces totalling 22x24 metres that you could remove from a B777 in flight and expect it to continue flying? And that's just one of three items pictured.
And as far as what was pictured in those satellite images being wreckage, I'm sure we've all seen photos of the reconstruction of Swissair 111 and TWA800.
The big pieces of 111 were dining room table sized. TWA800 slightly larger, but far from 22 metres in any dimension, I'm fairly sure.

[pdw]

FICU, it sounds like there is evidence now that both engines were fine. We're almost 70km away from the skydome in Toronto and on a sunny day we can see the dome is partly closed when the sun is shining on the white roof.

Think your right if it was directly above, might not even notice it (we're right underneath an air route). Would'nt it be different though on a clear pitch black night seeing a fireball just above the horizon looking out across an expanse of ocean from the height of an oil platform ?

[pdw]

Can you think of any piece or combination of pieces totalling 22x24 metres that you could remove from a B777 in flight and expect it to continue flying?

The fact it was even considered as a piece from this 777 from upwind of its location attests to the idea the plane's route/airway and position was closer to where the email says. This debris has since been ruled out as being part of the plane (that door is closed).

[boeingboy]

Does anyone know what cargo it was carrying? I had read a rumor when this all started that it had quite a bit of gold onboard. Mind you - I have heard nothing of that since the first day or two.

If it did - maybe it's kind of a modern day D.B. Cooper...........

Just a thought.

[GyvAir]

The only thing I've been seeing come up in recent days regarding cargo is the question of potentially dangerous items that may have been onboard, specifically lithium ion batteries. The dangerous goods question is somewhat moot at this point though, as they seem confident that the plane flew on for over 7 hours.

[Gino Under]

It’s been an interesting week following this mystery, especially if you follow it on CNN.

Good gawd! The imagination and creativity that is going into the reporting is interesting, to say the least.

I’m trying to stick to the more credible commentators, the aviation experts but I’m surprised at some of the musings and suggestions they’re offering on this event as well.

Sgt. Friday in the now classic television series Dragnet, used to say “The facts ma’am. Just the facts.” I wonder if it’s time to start sticking to facts and drift away from some of the wilder speculation. But let’s be honest, it’s fun to speculate and guess. Isn’t it?

The first fact we know about this specific aircraft is that in 2005 it sustained damage to the outer right wing tip. This needs to be born in mind although it now seems unlikely that it lead to a catastrophic in-flight breakup. It’s possible, but may not be as likely as I first thought. Finding the wreckage will put that idea to rest one way or another. I believe it’s more credible than a hijacking or terrorist intervention. Even pilot intervention. What? Is one of the pilots going to try and sell it on eBay?

Something else we know is this.
In 2005, two widebody aircraft suffered unexplained in-flight pitch events. An A330 and a B777. The Boeing 777 when climbing through FL380, en route to Kuala Lumpur, reported that they observed a low airspeed warning on the aircraft’s EICAS. Then the crew got instrument indications that the aircraft was approaching the overspeed limit and the stall speed limit simultaneously. The aircraft pitched up and climbed to approximately FL410 and the indicated airspeed decreased from 270 kts to 158 kts. The stall warning and stick shaker devices also activated. The captain disconnected the autopilot and lowered the nose of the aircraft. The autothrottle commanded an increase in thrust which the captain countered by manually moving the thrust levers to the idle position. The aircraft pitched up again and climbed 2,000 ft. The captain notified air traffic control (ATC) that they could not maintain altitude and requested a descent and radar assistance. The crew was able to verify with ATC the aircraft speed and altitude. Both left and right autopilots caused the aircraft to bank and the nose to pitch down, so the captain decided to fly the aircraft manually. The flight made an ILS approach to Perth's runway 03. The wind at Perth was gusting from the north-west with moderate turbulence below 3,000 ft. During the approach, the aircraft warning system indicated a windshear condition but the crew continued the approach and landed the aircraft without further incident.

Apparently, the crew of the missing MAS flight were relatively new to the B777 and may or may not be aware of these events.

What we need to know is that an anomaly existed in the component software hierarchy that allowed inputs from a known faulty accelerometer to be processed by the air data inertial reference unit (ADIRU) and used by the primary flight computer, autopilot and other aircraft systems.
OTHER SAFETY FACTORS:
- The software anomaly was not detected in the original testing and certification of the ADIRU.
- The aircraft documentation did not provide the flight crew with specific information and action items to assess and respond to the aircraft upset event.

The B777 involved in that 2005 incident was a Malaysian B777-200.

The FAA issued an Airworthiness Directive regarding ADIRUs but we must remember that most, not all authorities comply. Did the Malaysian DGCA check to see if MAS complied with this AD? This is an airline in financial distress and I wonder how the risk analysts at that airline determined the compliance cost benefit when making a decision.

Boeing issued two FCOM Bulletins for the B777. ADIRU Heading Error Anomaly and Flight Control Anomaly. Perhaps the B777 crews could comment as to whether or not these bulletins are still in effect?

An interesting thing about the ADIRUs is the number of system inputs it affects. One of them is the cabin pressurization control via the outflow valve relative to cabin altitude. A failed ADIRU can command the outflow valve fully open. Could an ADIRU failure have taken this aircraft to 45,000 feet along with some very confusing instrument, autopilot and autothrottle behaviour to have the outflow valve automatically dump the cabin?

Air Data Inertial Reference Units (ADIRU) are closed source proprietary "Black Box" devices. There are few manufacturers of the devices which creates a situation where there is little public knowledge about the device operation. Every airplane relies on the proper functionality of an ADIRU for supplying flight information to the instrument panel as well as auto-pilot systems. The information fed from these devices needs to be extremely reliable and when they fail the results are catastrophic.

The Air France Flight 447 is one of the most popular examples of what happens when there is a failure in the ADIRUs. On June 1st 2009, it was flying from Rio de Janeiro to Paris when is disappeared out of radar coverage over the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. The aircraft had flown through a thunderstorm, and there was no distress signal. Turns out the pitot tubes that sense the airspeed of the plane had frozen over while in the storm. This caused the autopilot to disengaged automatically and the pilots were unable to maintain a sufficient speed to stay in the air due to the incorrect airspeed readings in the cockpit. This cause all 228 people aboard to plummet into the ocean below. Does that necessarily mean an aircraft that experiences an ADIRU failure has to plummet or does it depend on other factors, such as aircraft state. i.e., not stalled

Another well known example is the Qantas Flight 72 that was flying from Singapore to Perth, Australia on October 7th 2008. The aircraft had the autopilot on when the pilots received a warning of the irregularity with the accelerometers angle of attack in the ADIRU. This cause the autopilot to disengage automatically and the pilots were able to return the plane back to the required altitude where they re-engaged the autopilot. Just minutes later the aircraft made a sudden uncommanded rapid descent of 650 feet (-0.8g) before the pilots were able to take control and return the plane back to a level flight, re-engaging the autopilot. A few minutes later another rapid descent of 400 feet (-0.2g) happened before the pilots took control to manually fly the plane for the remainder of the flight. These two rapid descents threw passengers, crew members, and unrestrained objects around the cabin and crashing into the overhead luggage compartments. The pilots declared a state of alert, which later got updated to a mayday due to the amount of injuries and condition of the cabin.

If the crew found themselves in a hypoxic state and failed to put oxygen masks on then they along with the passengers fell asleep and potentially asphyxiated. If one of the pilots in a hypoxic state reverted to something he may have learned early in his flying career and switched the transponder off rather than use the radio page of the FMS to squawk 7700 and failed to turn it back on, or make a radio call, it could answer some questions.

What kind of behaviour might we expect from a marginally out of control B777? How long would it fly? An erratic and unexplained flight path including a sudden turn in a random direction? Would ACARS still transmit aircraft data including engine performance?

I accept my imagination might be questionable but despite its industry lead in many areas, Boeing hasn’t gotten everything perfect and neither has Airbus. Honeywell might have some peaked interest in this event as well if it turns out to be the catastrophic failure of their ADIRU that may have contributed to what’s probably going down as one of the most memorable aircraft accidents in history. But one things for sure. We won’t know anything until they locate the aircraft and the recorders. Wherever they are.

Gino Under

[CFR]

Well it seems to becoming very clear that this loss was no accident.

Here's my spin. Folks aligned with a group such as this: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/d ... eath-plane (the flight was bound for China and the passengers were predominantly Chinese) carry out a successful hijack with an intended diversion to ??? where they will be held for ransom demands of ???. The reception committee is waiting, accommodation/security for the passengers has been arranged and demands are ready to be sent out once the plane lands. But then the passengers who have been told that they will be safe, remember the 911 hijackings and after a fear filled 5 or 6 hours, screw things up for the hijackers by attacking the cockpit a la United Airlines Flight 93, and in the resulting melee the plane goes down. The "Reception Committee" has no idea what has happened (unless it crashes within sight of the destination) and after sufficient time passes they realize they have no plane to meet and no assets to exchange, so they disappear and no demands go out.

At least as good as every thing else being bandied about!

In the end, regardless of whether we ever know exactly what happened (my bet is that someone will know, but the general public may never know the true story) I am very saddened to know that a lot of people spent an number of very frightening hours before having their lives ended by the action of others. I have no sympathy for those who try to effect ideological change or make a personal public statement via suicide where it involves innocent lives and hope that those involved have either already paid the ultimate price or will do so in the future!

While I do not fear flying, since 911 I have moved my seat choice from window to aisle and have vowed I will never go out as a sheep.

[FICU]

FICU, it sounds like there is evidence now that both engines were fine. We're almost 70km away from the skydome in Toronto and on a sunny day we can see the dome is partly closed when the sun is shining on the white roof.

Think your right if it was directly above, might not even notice it (we're right underneath an air route). Would'nt it be different though on a clear pitch black night seeing a fireball just above the horizon looking out across an expanse of ocean from the height of an oil platform ?

Have you seen how lit up oil platforms are at night? Not good night vision off of one of those and an engine fire is no fireball. A fully engulfed 777 would be a fireball.

[B52]

BoeingBoy,
I don't care what you think of me but I do object when you start defaming me with "Conspiracy Theories" but that will win you brownie points on AvCanada where political correctness beats facts any day.

Now, I'll answer your post.
The TWO (not three) different PHOTOGRAPHED Evidence of debris were found EXACTLY where the water current and wind would have transported the debris from about 5nm north of the last transponder signal.


The ONLY witness was NewZealander Michael McKay, who saw it explode. His bearing is accurate enough, his distance of 50-70K was an easy error to make when it was hundreds of Kilometers away and very visible from 100m above the ocean to a Fireball at 35,000 feet. His line of sight was not a straight line but curved over the Horizon. (Watch all the morons post to the contrary)

Michael did not KNOW it was plane. He observed a FireBall, that he later realized was the plane exploding.

The Imarsat picture shows, the last "PING" as they call it, coming from, right over where the last transponder signal was seen. Imarsat apparently have a time wrong, They have NO track showing over the Indian Ocean. That's speculation, fabrication, and or delusions. Readers can check for themselves

Now, CNN are NOW defaming the Pilots. We all should stick up for these two innocent pilots.
As a result of CNN / Press, Malaysia has searched their homes and alluded they are mentally ill or connected with a highjack.
How tragic. There is NO evidence to support that. Spare a thought for their families and yourself if your
777 had a structural failure and disintegrated.


I've actually been in touch with many of the Journalists, and indirectly with the 7th Fleet of the US Navy and a
US representative in Vietnam. My concerns were treated seriously but they appear to be following instructions
that come from reports on CNN rather than science or facts.

I've also tried with many others to get in contact with Michel Mckay. He appears to have gone to ground.
His employer did however vouch for him, and confirmed information with many journalists directly.

Vietnam said it was going to meet him. No word of that meeting.
They sent a search aircraft to his described location except it was WRONG.
He said 270 degrees, 50-70K but it was several hundred K, not 50-70 that was impossible for him
to estimate.

I have no problem in identifying to any reasonable request. I'm also known by at least a few people
on this forum who from years of contact, one way or another, recognize my style and subject matter.

I am NOT alone. I notice none of the sane members of AvCanada can my posts on this subject.
I'm posting FACTS, not opinions.

Opinions, are like rear ends, everyone has one.

Facts ipso facto

B52,
You are losing all credibility with me. You seem to be nothing more than some consipiracy theorist, those people make up some situation that is made up out of there own ignorance. Any evidence to the contrary is dismissed right away or ignored completely.

The 3 different sightings of debris are hundreds and hundreds of miles apart and in different directions, in the most polluted waters in the world.

Your "witness" said the fire was 15 secs at altitude and the "plane" was in one piece. He never saw anything impact the surface. His position was almost 200 miles east of the last known position. Even at 50 miles away - no one could tell it was a plane.

Debris would travel a lot more than 5 miles if it did break up, and there would still be tons of it floating around.

There is very strong evidence to suggest the plane did fly for hours and that it was navigated by a skilled person during that time.


Here is my new theory.

Mr B52 joins 6 months ago and blends in to the rest of the Avcanada people but is really part of the group that is behind this. When events start taking place that authorities start closing in on the plane, his friends beg him to buy them more time. Comes on the internet insisting everyone else is wrong and we should look here. Stop waisting money he begs and go look over here.

If any investigators are looking through these forums - maybe start with B52?

Now tell me why this is no less plausible than anything else?

[boeingboy]

The TWO (not three) different PHOTOGRAPHED Evidence of debris were found EXACTLY where the water current and wind would have transported the debris from about 5nm north of the last transponder signal.

Really? You should learn to read and follow cordinates

"In the night of Mar 9th 2014 Vietnam's Search and Rescue Control Center released a photo of a part floating in the Gulf of Thailand, that despite darkness was discovered by a Twin Otter Aircraft of Vietnam's Coast Guard at position N8.792 E103.374 about 31nm southsouthwest of Tho Chu (editorial note: 114nm north of the last radar contact position)"

"Late Mar 12th 2014 China's State Administration of Science (SASTIND) reported, they discovered three large objects sized 13x18, 14x19 and 24x22 meters at position N6.7 E105.63 (121nm eastsoutheast of the last known secondary radar position), all three objects within a radius of 20km (11nm) and published the satellite images, taken on Mar 9th 2014 at 11:00 Beijing time"

So - 2 debris fields, photographed on the same day, hundreds of miles apart and in opposite directions. What magical world do you live in where these are part of the same plane? You are right though - there were only 2 photographed, but what about the Cathay crews report? I suppose since it doesn't fit with your theory - it didn't matter.

"Hong Kong's Air Traffic Control Center reported on Mar 10th 2014 around 17:30L (09:30Z) that an airliner enroute on airway L642 reported via HF radio that they saw a large field of debris at position N9.72 E107.42 about 80nm southeast of Ho Chi Minh City, about 50nm off the south-eastern coast of Vietnam in the South China Sea and about 281nm northeast of the last known radar position."

[boeingboy]

I've actually been in touch with many of the Journalists, and indirectly with the 7th Fleet of the US Navy and a
US representative in Vietnam. My concerns were treated seriously but they appear to be following instructions
that come from reports on CNN rather than science or facts.

Really???

This is the funniest thing Ive read.

[trey kule]

"Facts". The facts I read here are what is being provided by the media.

The sense I get from all the misinformation being propagated (not to mention the wild speculation that follows) is that there is a purposeful effort to confuse those that just have to know.....right now.

As an example, if you change your search parameters based on data received from whatever source, it seems very odd you would release that you are looking in two places. I suspect there may be a reason for that, but we will have to wait to see.

All the people and organizations, governments etc., actually involved, I would expect are under incredible pressure to provide gossip material to the massive have-to-know-now crowd, and that, in fact, might just be counter productive to locating the aircraft.

There is really no need to speculate. I would anticipate that with the massive resources committed, the mystery will be resolved. Not one post here mentioned the "fact" that various senior people who would be in the know, said they did not know. You think they would have the sense to read pprune and avcanada.

Now back to enjoying the conclusions derived from all these facts. This is such a great learning experience

[ogopogo]

The Satelite "PINGING" by Imarasat shows it ENDED in the same area as where the Transponder Stopped.
(B52)

Huh? I am confused now.

Exactly what is the evidence that supports the fact that the flight flew for several more hours after they lost Mode C approaching the coast of Vietnam?

Serious question.

[pdw]

We'll see in a couple of hours if the Greek ship Elka Athena finds anything significant there northbound out of the the strait of Malacca.

[pdw]

Have you seen how lit up oil platforms are at night? Not good night vision off of one of those and an engine fire is no fireball. A fully engulfed 777 would be a fireball.

I agree it must be huge flames to be seen from that far ... and hard to believe a plane would keep flying after that ...

For one thing , judging by the Sim-setup at the home of this PIC (news info/photo), he would have been definitely been as current as anyone who could manage to fly a plane like that successfully after such an emergency (whether accidental or not).

Seen out of one of the windows of the oil platform, and depending how lit up that room is ... the peripheral lighting from the rest of the rig wouldn't necessarily affect the sighting of that fire negatively ...

[7thirtyseven]

Don't trust the New Zealander. He is probably an Ork, agent of Sauron.

[halfmilevis]

The past week has been an unbelievable series of events filled with fact, interpretation, theory and loads of bull being conveyed by the media to the public. I originally had decided not to post in this thread because I, like many other, don’t know much about the advanced systems on the 777. That being said, the intent of this post is only to convey my distain to whoever the female CNN reporter was on TV last night explaining that the captain of the 777 who had a flight simulator at home is “extremely odd behavior and not normal”. I admit, when I was younger, I enjoyed headed home from school and hopping on the sim with my friends, flying around the world, and, I learned a ton to boot! I find this reporters remarks to be insane! Just because this guy enjoyed his life of aviation to the degree where he took it home with him and enjoyed flying with friends at home doesn’t mean he’s at home “training” to crash an airplane… for Christ sake, has she forgotten that he flies a REAL one? If your at the point in your career where your a captain on a 777, you probably dont need to train at home privatly...Way to go CNN, filling the general public’s mind with more crap than they already know what to do with…

To my fellow AVCANers, keep on chiming! It’s this kind of conversation that allows people who know the systems of the 777 to put in valid information and not just listen to the hogwash being put down by the media!

Cheers,

HMV

[zulutime]

Reports suggest the aircraft climbed to 45000 ft thn descended to 23000 then possibly climbed again to 30000 ft. If the transponder was turned off, by all reported accounts, then where would the altitude information be coming from. There is a suggestion the ACARS continued to "ping" for several hours. Does ACARS provide altitude reporting? Didn't think so but I have no personal knowledge one way or the other.

[goingmach_1]

I am not a airline guy at all. My career is biz aviation. I do fly a very modern and long range aircraft, to destinations around the world. So I do have the experience to discuss the basics of air navigation and aircraft sub-systems. We have ADS-C, and CPDLC installed on our aircraft. I know what ACARS is, but we don't have that equipment.

My question to those who operate these aircraft in a airline environment: Who gives the fuel load to the re-fuelers? I'm going to hazard a guess here and say a Class "A" dispatch will work up a fuel load and advise the fuelers, but can the Captain add more fuel? With that many passengers on a triple 7, what is the max fuel load, in hours? Seems to me a 777, can fly a lot farther than 8 hours on a tank of fuel.

If the crew was in on this whole scenario, what if they topped up the tanks prior to departure?

What runway did they take-off on? Would it be long enough to get a maxed out 777 off the ground?

[Diadem]

Hi Diadem... "an aircraft carrier at night without knowing where the carrier was (it's not like their locations are made publicly available) " ...any nearby fishing boat with a GPS could tell you.

Carrier groups don't just let civilian civilian boats hang around them, particularly after the USS Cole incident. Besides, how would that info be transmitted to an aircraft flying over the Indian Ocean from a boat with no corresponding aviation communication equipment?

..."targets flying at 35000 feet" ....world trade center...approx. 1700ft.
....and remember... this was done with a couple of box cutters...

What the hell are you talking about? What does 9/11 have to do with anything? I was talking about the hypothesis that the plane was shot down by the USN while in cruise at 35000 feet, which is totally unrelated to a hijacking.

blazing away into busy international air routes because they got a PSR return without a corresponding transponder code. "

I assume they'd have a closer look first...

Yes, they would, which is what makes the idea that they just shot the plane down totally ridiculous. Even when Payne Stewart's plane wasn't responding to ATC and it was intercepted, it wasn't shot down. The idea that the US military destroyed an airliner in international airspace over the ocean with nothing around because it didn't have a transponder code is patently ridiculous.

Michael did not KNOW it was plane. He observed a FireBall, that he later realized was the plane exploding.

So he saw something, and after hearing the news reports about a missing aircraft his memory conflated that with an aircraft exploding. He saw no such thing, it was a figment of his imagination. This is a phenomenon which is frequently encountered with eye-witnesses, such as those who claim a plane was on fire before it hit the ground; the investigation finds no evidence of this, it's just that the witnesses saw fire after the crash and their memories were altered by that.

Imarsat

It's INmarsat. Inmarsat. Not Imarsat. It's been posted hundreds of times in this thread. If you can't even get that one tiny fact right, then why should we listen to you on anything else?

Now, CNN are NOW defaming the Pilots. We all should stick up for these two innocent pilots.

Ah yes, the sacred cow of aviation: "Pilots never do anything wrong". Every time there's an accident that was obviously pilot error, or even an intentional suicide, there are those who refuse to accept that the pilots were in any way responsible. Usually the accident reports shut them up, but sometimes they keep on yelling that the investigators were biased or paid off or something. In the case of B52, the inability to accept that the pilots might be responsible is preventing him from considering anything other than a bomb or catastrophic failure; looking in the Indian Ocean is tacit acceptance that the plane was intentionally flown by someone with flying experience and knowledge of the region's airspace, and that would mean admitting that one or both of the pilots was responsible. Guess what? That's usually the case. Pilots cause more accidents than anything else, so grow up, get past your bias, and start considering the evidence instead of religiously, fervently adhering to your own preconceptions.

[Gino Under]

From The Australian newspaper 6 days ago, quote

AIRCRAFT manufacturing giant Boeing said yesterday it was too early to tell whether the missing Malaysian Airlines aircraft might have suffered autopilot problems that hit another of the carrier's 777 fleet in 2005.

While aviation experts described both Malaysia Airlines and the Boeing 777 as having a solid safety record, an incident on a flight between Perth and Kuala Lumpur led to a safety alert being issued for 777s worldwide.

It's too early for Boeing and Honeywell to tell because the FDR/CVR haven't been recovered.
The Captain had Microsoft Flight Simulator on his computer. Wow!! That's sinister.

Why aren't the commentators and experts pursuing this ADIRU issue with much more interest than fantasizing over hijacking or sabotage? Simple, sensationalism sells.

This part of the world is exclusively with few exceptions procedural IFR. You don't fly over any nation in that region without state issued over flight clearances. Any radar target without authorization or identification will be intercepted. Why haven't some of those countries identified as possible landing sites spoken up?

Want some interesting reading?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive ... t-447.html

Gino Under

[wallypilot]

Wow...some amazing theories.....this was unlawful intervention in some way or another. Whether AQ, or suicide, or some other thing. I find it very hard to believe this was a mechanical issue. The military radar returns over the Malay peninsula after the transponder was turned off, and the satellite pings from the engine monitoring system point to something sinister. Time will tell. Hopefully they find it soon to shed some light on this mystery.

[co-joe]

I'd agree that you probably can't sell a 777 on e-bay, but I bet you could strip it and part it out considering there are a thousand of them in service...

That said I'm still sticking with Putin as the mastermind, but via some other country where he has friends and searching hangars would be impossible...