Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Peter B

Another MH370 theory

140 posts in this topic

G'day Moderators: I'm not sure whether this thread belongs here or in True Crime or even somewhere else. Please move it as you see fit.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/the-case-for-pilot-zaharie-ahmad-shahs-hijack-of-flight-mh370/news-story/955ed1c640c91e85a9f660fdf7ed5248

Soon after the revelation that MH370 flew for more than seven hours to the southern Indian Ocean, I realised only an accomplished pilot could have managed this feat. The ATSB has ignored information coming from sources that should be considered expert.

Simon Hardy, a former British Airways B777 captain, wrote a book that almost conclusively identifies [pilot] Zaharie [Ahmed Shah] as responsible for the hijack of MH370 and its flight to the southern Indian Ocean, which likely ended as a controlled ditching as per Boeing flight manual procedures.

The author of the article describes himself as a B777 pilot with thousands of hours of experience. I have no reason to doubt his conclusions but I also don't have the expertise to judge them. So I thought I'd start a thread here for people to discuss what the author has to say.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we Go Again with He Said, She said, They Said, No proof Said ! :tu:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that earlier and blew it off as more hype. They have no clue what really happened and are just reaching for any answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Soon after the revelation that MH370 flew for more than seven hours to the southern Indian Ocean, I realised only an accomplished pilot could have managed this feat. The ATSB has ignored information coming from sources that should be considered expert.

Or an aircraft on autopilot......

Cz

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't read the article (pay-to-view, at least in Oz) but although I agree that we do not have any answers and it is all speculation, the 'hijack by aircrew' theory is possible and doesn't contradict any of the known facts.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't read the article (pay-to-view, at least in Oz) but although I agree that we do not have any answers and it is all speculation, the 'hijack by aircrew' theory is possible and doesn't contradict any of the known facts.

Same here in Canada.... given the quoted claim of incredible flying skills required to fly in presumably a straight-ish course for seven hours, I wouldn't worry about missing out on anything important....

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or an aircraft on autopilot......

Cz

Yes, only an expert pilot could do this:

A Boeing 777 autopilot tutorial... it's really hard, it runs for 5 minutes and 28 seconds.

Edited by Occams Razor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

G'day Moderators: I'm not sure whether this thread belongs here or in True Crime or even somewhere else. Please move it as you see fit.

http://www.theaustra...9f660fdf7ed5248

The author of the article describes himself as a B777 pilot with thousands of hours of experience. I have no reason to doubt his conclusions but I also don't have the expertise to judge them. So I thought I'd start a thread here for people to discuss what the author has to say.

Who could doubt anyone who is flogging a book.

The 777 autopilot looks pretty easy to me:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they had flown another aircraft over the route suggested by the Inmarsat data as a positioning reference they would have found it months ago.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've followed this disappearance on an airline pilots' chat site and the consensus is that the autopilot could easily fly the airplane until it ran out of fuel. The controversy is what happens after that, whether the autopilot would continue to hold the plane in a level attitude until it hit the water in a (literally) dead-stick ditching, or try to do so but build up errors until the plane hit the water hard enough to disintegrate.

Which of these is true I don't know, but I note that the experts have no problem with the airplane flying itself for as long as the fuel lasted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pcs found ? Wonder How Long Until we know If its 370 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pcs found ? Wonder How Long Until we know If its 370 ?

You forgot to give us a link to the story....

http://www.dailymail...iner-MH370.html

'Villagers found the wreckage, measuring about 2metres wide and 3metres long (6.6 by 9.8 feet),' he said.

The find has sparked speculation in the Thai media that the debris could belong to MH370, which disappeared with 239 people on board during a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing in March 2014.

There has been no official confirmation that the wreckage belongs to a plane.

The barnacle-covered piece of metal has some identifying features, which should help narrow down whether or not it came from a plane.

The number ‘323’ is printed near its ragged edge, as pointed out by the villagers. Elsewhere, the numbers '307' and '308' are printed.

On the reverse side of the shard, a red wire can be seen dangling over what appears to be a serial number 'SG5773-1'.

The edges of the piece of metal appear to reveal a 'honeycomb' structure, which is widely used in aircraft and rockets due to its light weight.

According to Patthikongpan, local fishermen said it could have been under the sea for no more than a year, judging by the barnacles on it."

30837F3200000578-3413660-image-a-52_1453580453120.jpg

30837F3900000578-3413660-image-a-51_1453580449371.jpg

30837F4B00000578-3413660-image-a-53_1453580500609.jpg

ETA...

For some reason the images aren't showing up for me, but you can see them at the article...

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a video of the wreckage.

It's possible it could be from 370, but someone commented on the video that it's also possible it could be from a Japanese H-IIA rocket. This section of the wreckage shown at 0:46 does look more like a part from a rocket, imo, but I'm definitely no expert...

yTTYGiL.jpg

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An awful lot of English for it to be a Japanese rocket. My guess is that it is from a large aircraft due to its size, and from the baggage area of the fuselage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever it's from it hasn't been in the water very long given the lack of barnacles. The flaperon found had more than whatever this is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same here in Canada.... given the quoted claim of incredible flying skills required to fly in presumably a straight-ish course for seven hours, I wouldn't worry about missing out on anything important....

Cz

I can't read the article (pay-to-view, at least in Oz) but although I agree that we do not have any answers and it is all speculation, the 'hijack by aircrew' theory is possible and doesn't contradict any of the known facts.

Simple. Google the headline, or if unavailable, the first sentence. Click the resultant link and voila. No paywall.

Edited by Abaddonire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An awful lot of English for it to be a Japanese rocket. My guess is that it is from a large aircraft due to its size, and from the baggage area of the fuselage.

Actually, no, that's not an awful lot of English. English is widely used in Japan and, given that the launch vehicle is targeted at the global launch community, it makes sense that there would be some use of English in the numbering of parts, serial numbers, and locations on a launch vehicle.

Another thing to note is the presence of large bolts

lFYcS2i.jpg

and the absence of streamlining and surface / flush mounting

lU5hi9U.jpg

6nDwpgB.jpg

and this structure

a0YQRXh.jpg

on what appears to be the external surface of the part, imo, precludes it from being from the exterior of a modern aircraft.

Aircraft bodies are streamlined and utilize flush mounted panels with either rounded rivets or countersunk / flush screws.

The use of bolts in the above pictures on the exterior of a modern aircraft would create an undesirable amount of drag with a corresponding decrease in fuel economy. On a launch vehicle, such things are not as major a concern.

Cz

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, no, that's not an awful lot of English. English is widely used in Japan and, given that the launch vehicle is targeted at the global launch community, it makes sense that there would be some use of English in the numbering of parts, serial numbers, and locations on a launch vehicle.

Another thing to note is the presence of large bolts

lFYcS2i.jpg

and the absence of streamlining and surface / flush mounting

lU5hi9U.jpg

6nDwpgB.jpg

and this structure

a0YQRXh.jpg

on what appears to be the external surface of the part, imo, precludes it from being from the exterior of a modern aircraft.

Aircraft bodies are streamlined and utilize flush mounted panels with either rounded rivets or countersunk / flush screws.

The use of bolts in the above pictures on the exterior of a modern aircraft would create an undesirable amount of drag with a corresponding decrease in fuel economy. On a launch vehicle, such things are not as major a concern.

I agree, way too much drag.

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you think it is from ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you think it is from ?

With those big ass bolts, it certainly is not from any airframe for the reasons noted above.

My guess would be superstructure of a ship.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Sure Not part of 370 . :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have to go with everyone else about this I was on a plane in October and on a airbus I had a window seat right at the wing so I looked at it hard to the finest detail everything I looked at was smooth and counter sunk screws so I am trying to decide what this was off of or was it a set up piece ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of a patrol boat or hovercraft maybe...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never seen anything like that on a ship. I think the rocket is a good contender, specifically a fairing from a JAXA H-IIB launch vehicle.

Have a look at the fairing near the base; not dissimilar to what we see (large images).

http://104.131.251.9...4d8fab1e5af.jpg

http://blog.selparis...20_dsc_0172.jpg

http://senews.jp/wp/...iib_fairing.jpg

https://farm8.static...08323cb8a_o.jpg

Edited by Obviousman
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.