Malaysian airliner Terrorist attack gone awry

[Obviousman]

I can say with absolute confidence and knowledge that the jihadist threat is ongoing and relentless. They want to bring down an airliner.

And there are instances of mechanical failures, improper servicing and pilot error almost on a daily basis. There is nothing to suggest your hypothesis is any more valid than any of those scenarios.

This is why professionals do not speculate without some basis for that speculation, without some type of fact to offer a path to explore.

Edited March 8, 2014 by Obviousman

[JVG]

I think some of you are jumping to conclusion's. It looks like your mind is made up to what is fact and what is not. The main issue is that 239 lives are lost (when it is confirmed) I pray it won't be.

[Obviousman]

The plane disappeared from radar, that does not just happen unless something catastrophic happens.

Incorrect. What if the pilots deliberately flew the aircraft into the sea? The radar: was it primary or SSR? I'm guessing it was secondary and if so then simply switching of the transponder makes the aircraft disappear.

Edited March 8, 2014 by Obviousman

[Einsteinium]

I'm sorry but yes they do. There have been instances in the past:

JAL 123

Turkish Flight 981

BEA 706

Aloha Flight 243

TWA 800

China 611

and not to mention all the initial losses with the Comet 1.

Notice that none of those are 777's. 777's are one of the safest aircraft in the world for a reason, and you cannot draw comparisons between it and these other instances. None of those were in flight explosions besides perhaps the TWA-800. You are comparing apples to oranges here. Comet 1 had serious mechanical flaws, and it was the FIRST airliner ever in commercial use. I can't take you seriously if you are going to bring up totally irrelevant events with outdated flawed airplanes from decades ago.

[toast]

Even if the 777 is a safe A/C by statistic, a lost due to technical failure is possible.

At the current stage of investigations, we now nothing other than some facts those

do not cause an A/C crash.

Terrorists attempt to take over plane and fail

Speculation, so the question mark is missing.

Edited March 8, 2014 by toast

[Einsteinium]

Incorrect. What if the pilots deliberately flew the aircraft into the sea? The radar: was it primary or SSR? I'm guessing it was secondary and if so then simply switching of the transponder makes the aircraft disappear.

What if the pilots deliberately flew the aircraft into the sea? Now that is quite a claim. I just watched a segment on CNN that the pilot on this flight was actually shown in a CNN clip, and interviewed by CNN. According to CNN he was a highly competent pilot who was extremely enthusiastic about flying. He was being watched over by a senior pilot. You are suggesting that this pilot AND senior pilot suddenly just decided to nose dive into the ocean? That is the most asinine thing I have heard in a long time.

[Dumpnuts]

You do realize that this particular plane (the one missing, not the model) is not without it's history of fault. First off it's 12 years old. That makes it, in a generalized manner, middle aged. It also has suffered some damage already in the past.

In a report, the BEA highlighted that missing Boeing 777-200 -- which features registration number 9M-MRO -- was involved in a "ground collision between two aircraft" at Shanghai Pudong International Airport on August. 9, 2012.

The other jet was a China Eastern Airways Airbus A340-600, according to the report.

According to The Associated Press, a tip of the Malaysian Airlines plane's wing broke off. No one was injured.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/missing-jet/missing-malaysia-airlines-jet-had-ground-collision-2012-n47706

[Einsteinium]

Even if the 777 is a safe A/C by statistic, a lost due to technical failure is possible.

At the current stage of investigations, we now nothing other than some facts that

are not deciding an A/C crash.

Speculation, so the question mark missing.

Ahhh good point! There should be a question mark there, you are correct Toast thanks for pointing that out....now to figure out how to change it...

I don't think I can change it. If a Mod would please change the description to include a question mark at the end, I would appreciate it.

Edited March 8, 2014 by Einsteinium

[simplybill]

And there are instances of mechanical failures, improper servicing and pilot error almost on a daily basis. There is nothing to suggest your hypothesis is any more valid than any of those scenarios.

I wasn't proposing that jihadist activity is the ONLY possibility. I was making the point that jihadist activity continues to be a clear and present danger.

It's been, what? 12 hours since the plane went off the radar? To my knowledge, no one has claimed responsibility. The jihadist angle appears to be unlikely at this point.

[Einsteinium]

You do realize that this particular plane (the one missing, not the model) is not without it's history of fault. First off it's 12 years old. That makes it, in a generalized manner, middle aged. It also has suffered some damage already in the past.

Thanks for sharing that. Another piece of the puzzle perhaps.

[Still Waters]

A Vietnamese search plane saw two possible oil slicks in the area, although there was no confirmation they were related to the disappearance.

Asked whether terrorism was suspected as a reason for the plane's disappearance, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak said: "We are looking at all possibilities, but it is too early to make any conclusive remarks."

A senior US official told NBC News: "We are aware of the reporting on the two stolen passports. We have not determined a nexus to terrorism yet, although it's still very early, and that's by no means definitive."

http://www.bbc.co.uk...d-asia-26496673

[Einsteinium]

The only likely two options we have are:

1. Catastrophic mechanical/structural failure of some kind, the first of its kind to happen on a 777.

2. Terrorist attack

I think that #2 is more likely only because of the 777's track record, the point in its flight that it crashed (safest point of flight, least likely point to have catastrophic mechanical/structural failure), and the fact that 2 people were on board who boarded using stolen passports, which means that we know that 2 people on board were likely criminals at the least.

[Obviousman]

What evidence? One of the safest planes in the world disappeared during the safest part of its flight. No communication, nothing. So this means some kind of catastrophic event occurred. That is my evidence.

A mechanical failure or something of that nature is highly highly unlikely, because it is a 777. The fact that it was flying in a region known to harbor lots of extremists (terrorists), and the fact that 2 people were aboard that plane who boarded with stolen passports.

That is my evidence. Airplanes don't just fall out of the sky, something happened, and given that a catastrophic failure is extremely extremely unlikely on a 777 (actually, has NEVER happened before), This is evidence that a terrorist attack is a plausible scenario. The weather was not bad, the weather was actually very good for flying at that time, so it is highly unlikely that any sort of bad weather is to blame.

All I am doing is putting the pieces we know of together and developing a hypothesis that I consider to be likely based on what we know.

You are speculating without evidence - and misplaced speculation at that. There have been a number of 777 incidents:

BA38 - Fuel starvation of engines due to ice crystals forming (previously mentioned)

An EgyptAir cockpit fire in 2011 - it was on the ground but the cause was never conclusively determined. It is believed to be related to the oxygen system.

Asiana 214 - Runway contact leading to a hull loss.

I haven't confirmed it as yet, but it looks like the radar contact was via ADS-B - which means if they switch off the aircraft transmitter, there is no radar contact.

[Obviousman]

The only likely two options we have are:

1. Catastrophic mechanical/structural failure of some kind, the first of its kind to happen on a 777.

2. Terrorist attack

I think that #2 is more likely only because of the 777's track record, the point in its flight that it crashed (safest point of flight, least likely point to have catastrophic mechanical/structural failure), and the fact that 2 people were on board who boarded using stolen passports, which means that we know that 2 people on board were likely criminals at the least.

If you say:

"It could have been a terrorist event"

then I'll totally agree with you.

If you say:

"It is likely a terrorist act"

then I'll totally disagree with you because you have no evidence on which to base this.

[Einsteinium]

You are speculating without evidence - and misplaced speculation at that. There have been a number of 777 incidents:

BA38 - Fuel starvation of engines due to ice crystals forming (previously mentioned)

An EgyptAir cockpit fire in 2011 - it was on the ground but the cause was never conclusively determined. It is believed to be related to the oxygen system.

Asiana 214 - Runway contact leading to a hull loss.

I haven't confirmed it as yet, but it looks like the radar contact was via ADS-B - which means if they switch off the aircraft transmitter, there is no radar contact.

None of those incidents involved a crash. You cannot compare them to the incident we are talking about.

ADS-B is not radar contact, it uses GPS and transmits its position to others. So there would be no 'radar contact' if ADS-B was the only thing that was tracking the aircraft's position.

I listed the facts in a previous post, and then listed my speculations. I well understand the difference and I have never made the statement that my speculations are facts in any way. I never stated the the 777 was immune to issues, no man made mechanical thing is immune to issues. I only stated that the 777 is one of the safest airliner airplanes ever flown. It's track record speaks for itself.

I am seeing the term radar being used in various sources, which suggest that actual radar contact with the plane was tracking the plane and not just ADS-B, but I will reserve judgment on that until more facts come out.

[Einsteinium]

If you say:

"It could have been a terrorist event"

then I'll totally agree with you.

If you say:

"It is likely a terrorist act"

then I'll totally disagree with you because you have no evidence on which to base this.

You have every right to disagree with me. I have repeatedly said that in my opinion it is likely a terrorist act. This is my opinion based on my own judgement of the factual evidence. I very well could be wrong, and indeed I hope I am wrong. Nobody wants terrorist attacks.

[Einsteinium]

You are speculating without evidence - and misplaced speculation at that. There have been a number of 777 incidents:

BA38 - Fuel starvation of engines due to ice crystals forming (previously mentioned)

An EgyptAir cockpit fire in 2011 - it was on the ground but the cause was never conclusively determined. It is believed to be related to the oxygen system.

Asiana 214 - Runway contact leading to a hull loss.

I haven't confirmed it as yet, but it looks like the radar contact was via ADS-B - which means if they switch off the aircraft transmitter, there is no radar contact.

Asiana 214 was entirely human error. You cannot compare that to the integrity of the 777 aircraft design itself.

[Obviousman]

BTW - why haven't you included a shoot down? It may have been shot down by Vietnamese military aircraft; the aircraft was entering Vietnamese airspace.

[Einsteinium]

BTW - why haven't you included a shoot down? It may have been shot down by Vietnamese military aircraft; the aircraft was entering Vietnamese airspace.

Sure that could possibly be a scenario. But why? Why would they shoot down a civilian aircraft and why haven't they come forth and stated it was them? What do they have to gain shooting down a civilian aircraft. It just does not seem likely to me.

Besides, why am I supposed to think of everything. If you have a theory, bring it to the table, this is a forum of open discussion, not me dictating to you what happened. Jeesh.

[Czero 101]

So far the only facts you have are:

- aircraft has gone missing

- fuel / oil slicks sighted in the area of the last known position of the aircraft

- 2 men with stolen passports

- very good safety record for the 777

- that area of the world is a known "trouble spot" (for lack of a better term)

Those facts alone are not enough for you to correctly surmise that a terrorist attack is "likely". Logically, the most you can say with any certainty is that it was a possibility without any conclusive evidence.

Some of the other scenarios that have been presented and that you have seemingly dismissed out of hand are just as possible to have occurred as your "terrorist plot" idea. You don't get to hand-wave them away just because your pet terrorist theory seems to make more sense to you

It is still far too soon and there is not enough solid evidence to be speculating that a terrorist attack was anything more than "possible".

Cz

[Obviousman]

Another non-terrorist scenario: we already have an instance of a cockpit fire in the 777 which is suspected of involving the electrical system and oxygen system; what if circumstances conspired to make this happen again but this time in flight? A sudden cockpit fire; radios are disabled by the fire before a MAYDAY could be transmitted; uncontrolled fire leads to loss of control and impact.

Edited March 9, 2014 by Obviousman

[Obviousman]

Sure that could possibly be a scenario. But why? Why would they shoot down a civilian aircraft and why haven't they come forth and stated it was them? What do they have to gain shooting down a civilian aircraft. It just does not seem likely to me.

Besides, why am I supposed to think of everything. If you have a theory, bring it to the table, this is a forum of open discussion, not me dictating to you what happened. Jeesh.

Because it is a CONSPIRACY. A Vietnamese spokesman was quoted as saying the aircraft had crashed into the sea; later he clarified the statement to "may have" crashed into the sea. If we apply 9-11 standards to this, he's trying to cover his knowledge that it crashed because they shot it down.\

Edited to add: See how much fun it is to speculate in the absence of any real facts?

Edited March 9, 2014 by Obviousman

[Czero 101]

What if the pilots deliberately flew the aircraft into the sea? Now that is quite a claim. I just watched a segment on CNN that the pilot on this flight was actually shown in a CNN clip, and interviewed by CNN. According to CNN he was a highly competent pilot who was extremely enthusiastic about flying. He was being watched over by a senior pilot. You are suggesting that this pilot AND senior pilot suddenly just decided to nose dive into the ocean? That is the most asinine thing I have heard in a long time.

And yet it can happen, can't it. In fact, it has happened... many times...

http://news.aviation...-pilot-suicide/ (descriptions snipped for brevity)

On November 29, 2013, LAM Flight TM-470 crashed in Namibia following ‘intentional actions by the pilot’, according to investigators. All 33 passengers and crew were killed.

The following is a list of airliner accidents involving (possible or rumored) pilot suicide, compiled from the Aviation Safety Network files. General aviation aircraft are not included.

26 September 1976 – 12 fatalities

A Russian pilot stole an Antonov 2 airplane directed his aircraft into the block of flats in Novosibirsk where his divorced wife lived. (ASN Accident Description)

22 August 1979 – 4 fatalities

A 23 year old male mechanic who had just been fired ... (ASN Accident Description)

13 July 1994 – 1 fatality

A Russian Air Force engineer stole the aircraft at the Kubinka AFB to commit suicide. ... (ASN Accident Description)

21 August 1994 - 44 fatalities

A Royal Air Maroc ATR-42 airplane crashed in the Atlas Mountains shortly after takeoff ... (ASN Accident Description)

19 December 1997 – 104 fatalities

Silk Air Flight 185, a Boeing 737 en route from Jakarta, Indonesia to Singapore, crashed in Indonesia following a rapid descent ... (ASN Accident Description)

11 October 1999 – 1 fatality

An Air Botswana captain who had been grounded for medical reasons... (ASN Accident Description)

31 October 1999 – 217 fatalities

Egypt Air Flight 990, a Boeing 767, entered a rapid descent ... (ASN Accident Description)

29 November 2013 – 33 fatalities

LAM Flight 470 entered a rapid descent ... (ASN Accident Description)

Deliberate crash by a pilot, while rare, is still just as possible an explanation as your "terrorist plot" idea.

Cz

[Sunshine Hoosier]

It's just horrible news. I first seen it when I went onto yahoo news to read about the Ukraine incident and spent the better time of an hour gather up all the information I could on the flight news.

[Space Commander Travis]

Before we can make any determination of a cause - and therefore prevent it happening again - you need to have facts. Right now I can posit that it was a small meteor that struck the cockpit area causing a catastrophic breakup of the aircraft. That's as good as any other theory. Or that a problem with the cabin bleed air caused rapid onset hypoxia; one of the flight crew did start to recognise the problem but passed out before being able to go onto oxygen. In his attempt to get on oxygen he kicked off the autopilot and the aircraft stalled and went into a fatal dive. Again, no evidence to support that but nothing to dismiss it either. Or that one of the flight crew 'stole' the aircrew, with passengers, to be delivered to his master, an evil genius who needs the passengers for a devious experiment.

Making hypotheses without any facts to support them is just hot air.

I'm reminded of the Aeroflot A310 that went down from high altitude because the pilot's kids were at the controls and had disconnected the autopilot ... or the Lauda Air 767 that went down because one of the thrust reversers suddenly deployed. Curious things can always happen.