LightAttack

That General is off his meds. A shame.

I agree. None of it makes sense, but crew involvement/hijack makes the most sense compared to the other theories, and hijacking doesn't fit as much as the other. As Edward G Robinson says in Double Indemnity, "No soap, Mr. Norton":

Double Indemnity - Keyes Talks Suicide Statistics - YouTube

Sorensen

Soon we will move from where to how and why.
One thing is for sure, there will be a movie about this flight one the dust has settled.

SyGunson

My first post on this forum and I have only read up to page 48, so please excuse me if this has been posted earlier, anyhow chocks away...

Has anybody canvased the idea of what happened to Egyptair Flight 667 in 2011 had also happened to MH370 at 35,000ft?

An electrical fire (ie arcing) in the avionics bay occurred at the gate on Flight 667. This burned through an oxygen feed line beside the co-pilot's position.






Given the fact that MH370 last turned 40 degrees west at IGARI before the transponder feed disappeared (in a radar black spot area) is it not reasonable to assume the aircraft continued nearer the coast of Vietnam?

Oil rig worker Mike McKay sighted an aircraft to the west of his position in flames for 10-15 seconds before the fire went out.

What if pilots had already turned back due to an electrical fault and took a heading for Djakarta or Singapore and whilst dealing with electrical failure were suddenly confronted by fire in the cockpit?

Such a fire could have melted the fuselage skin like a blow torch and evacuated the pilot's emergency oxygen in seconds. This is like a cascading failure where pilots were pre-occuppied with one failure followed by a different type of failure.

Any thoughts please?

abelenky

This theory doesn't readily support the plane flying on its own for several more hours.

The problem so far with *any* theory is that they all match some facts, and are totally contradicted by other facts.

I suspect one of two things will eventually happen:
The truth will be totally surprising and unexpected, or some of the "facts" we think we know will turn out to be dead wrong.

Airhoss

I agree 100% with your last statement. However in regards to your first. Why couldn't it continue to fly along with a dead crew? Whatever did happen is so far into the margin of almost impossible statistical probability. I am not discounting anything even remotely plausible.

As has been mentioned we won't know until we have an airframe,VCR and for. Until then it's all swag.

MEMA300

If the aircraft had a fire like the EgyptAir 777 and killed the crew it would not fly on for hours or hours. At least I do not think the aircraft would stay together for that long. At some point when you get a whole in the nose of the aircraft with all the drag it either becomes aerodynamically unstable or begins to slowly break apart.

Airhoss

Agreed if it makes a big enough hole.

Ftrooppilot

CNN just reported that a 777 flying in the "STRATOSPHERE" could glide over 200 miles after "the engines quit".

A U-2 with about a 24/1 glide ratio at best L/D speed could glide about 168 miles from 35,000 feet.

Got to add this to the "black hole" and "alien abduction" theories.

F4E Mx

Hopefully they have examined the aircraft maintenance records to see if the ADs have been complied with and examined some aircraft in the fleet to determine that the maintenance has been done and the parts replaced vs pencil-whipping after the fact. On the oxygen line AD note, ALPA wanted the compliance time reduced to 12 months instead of 18. United Airlines management wanted the compliance times extended to two years.

galaxy flyer

If a fire like Egyptair's , the fuselage, under pressurization and flight loads would have failed quite quickly. I don't see it flying for hours.

If you look at the stats for air carrier accidents durn cruise flight, suicide or terrorism is foremost. Three suicides in the last 15 years--Egypt Air, SilkAir and LAM last year in Mozambique.

GF