Ditching in the Middle of the Ocean, Part 2: Answers

After I put up my post on Tuesday, some people questioned why I would even pose such a question whose premise is so unlikely. The reason is that at present there seem to be only two possible end-of-flight scenarios for MH370:

  1. Flying south on autopilot, the plane ran out of fuel shortly after 0:11 and thereafter plunged into the sea at high speed, hitting the surface near the 0:19 ping arc. This is what I would call the mainstream default view; it is implicitly endorsed by the ATSB and the Independent Group, and is the justification for the current subsea search area.
  2. A conscious pilot flew the plane until fuel exhaustion—possibly along a curving path—then guided it to a soft landing (the “ditching” scenario) beyond the current search area.

Scenario 1 has largely been discounted by the failure of the seabed search (the Australians cling to hope that the wreckage will turn up in the extended search area, which should be completed within the year; if it does not they have admitted that they are out of ideas). Scenario 2 would explain the lack of wreckage on the seabed and the scarcity of surface debris; the idea is that the plane could have come to rest on the surface largely intact and then sunk in one piece, leaving little floating debris.

The condition of the Reunion flaperon might also be evidence for ditching, given its relatively intact condition. Some have surmised that the aft portion was ripped away at the moment of impact with the water. (Fans of scenario 1 propose that the flaperon could have been ripped of by aerodynamic forces during a very high-speed descent, and then fluttered intact the surface while the rest of the plane hit the surface at near-Mach speed at was smashed to smithereens. This would explain why the flaperon is intact, but not why the subsea search has failed.)

As I pointed out in the original post, an inherent problem with the ditching scenario is that it is an intentional act that dooms the pilot to a prolonged death. Indeed, while pilot suicides are rare, ditching suicides are so far unknown. It woud be like committing suicide by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge while wearing a parachute.

So how to explain such an occurrence? Here are some of the answers that commenters came up with:

— To hide the crime. First-time commenter @Rob (welcome!) wrote: “If you plan to make the plane disappear into the SIO, and you choose to stay aboard for 6 more hours, this suggests that you personally wanted to make sure the plane was properly ‘ditched,’ maybe to prevent a lot of debris from showing up.” @Jason Skidmore proposed that the disappearance was “some new form of terrorist-type attack.. If the plane is never found, and no one knows what happened it’s going to be pretty tough to prevent it in the future.” PRO: If a perp were to fly the plane into the remotest part of the ocean and ditch it so that it would come to rest intact and sink to the bottom of the ocean without leaving a trace, they would go to their deaths knowing that they had created the greatest aviation mystery of all time. Wrote @Kikeena: “Ever since the 4th century BC people have recognised that others will commit a criminal act to become famous. Herostratus destroyed the temple of Artemis for fame, though he was killed by the authorities to try to quiet the story. I think the reward for Zaharie was in the planning and execution. Suicide wasn’t the main motive, though he was prepared to die in persuit the fame of creating a mystery. And waiting the 6 hours to land the plane would be exhilerating.” CON: They wouldn’t be around to enjoy this knowledge, and if their goal was to become famous by generating an unsolvable mystery, their success undercuts that goal, because no one knows they did it. If, on the other hand, their aim was to achieve some terroristic objective, e.g. to show the bankruptcy of the UMNO regime, the fog of mystery is too vaporous to do so. To put it another way, no one has visibly benefitted from the disappearance of MH370. Also, I wouldn’t put much stock in a plan that requires a 777 to ditch successfully in the open ocean—a manifestly dangerous and perhaps impossible feat.

— Botched hijack. @Zoe drew a comparison to Ethiopian 961, in which hijackers told the pilots to fly to a destination that lay beyond the plane’s fuel reserves; when the plane ran out of fuel, the pilots managed a semi-successful ditching. PRO: Only scenario based on historical precedent. CON: Requires hijackers to be numbskulls, which is contra-indicated by the sophisticated nature of the turnaround portion of the flight.

— Chickened out. This one I came up with by myself. The idea is that Zaharie decided to kill himself, and turned off the cockpit voice recorder by isolating the left AC bus so that it wouldn’t record the sound of him killing his copilot. But then he found himself unable go through with his plan to dive the plane into the sea, and instead just kept flying. Too scared to go home, too timid to nosedive into the sea, he just kept going, maybe turning the plane now and again as if starting to head for home and then thinking better of it. Finally, the plane ran out of fuel, but he was still too scared to face that deadly final plunge, so he eased the plane down into the water. PRO: Seems pyschologically plausible, to me anyway. CON: The acceleration and careful maneuvering post IGARI, as described in Victor’s recent guest post, doesn’t exactly smack of timid indecision.

— Schizophrenia/Hypoxia. It being so hard to find a rational motive for the disappearance of MH370, perhaps it was carried out by someone who had lost their mind, perhaps as a result of hypoxia or a psychotic break. PRO: Removes the need for a motive. CON: Commenter @Roberta wrote that she has personally known people who underwent psychotic breaks: “They are generally unable to function at a very basic level when they are going through a true psychosis.  They have literally “lost their mind” and often do not recognize loved ones, cannot take care of themselves and cannot speak with any clarity about very simple things. This includes psychosis caused by schizophrenia, bipolar mania and depression. Statistically psychotic breaks rarely lead to suicide. Most psychotic people don’t have their shit together enough to make and carry out a prolonged suicide plan, let alone fly a Boeing 777 and precisely know when and how to turn off ACARS, when to fly high or low to avoid primary radar, etc.” Hypoxia produces even more severe incapacitation and is unlikely to leave pilots in a state of steady semi-consciousness for six hours.

— To meet a ship or sub. There was something valuable on board the plane that plotters wanted to steal untraceably, so they arranged for the plane to ditch in the vicinity of a getaway vessel. PRO: Writes commenter @agreen: “No detection by radar or satellite and deep waters to dispose of the plane.” CON: As @alex immediately pointed out, it would be sketchy to plan such a transfer right at the limit of the plane’s fuel reserves. Also, as noted above, a plan that depends on successfully ditching a 777 in the open ocean seems fundamentally flawed.

138 thoughts on “Ditching in the Middle of the Ocean, Part 2: Answers”

  1. @VictorI:

    Thanks for your imaginative reply, but I wouldn’t expect MAS 777’s to go to places where no ground support is available. Maybe privately owned 777’s do?

  2. Here is an interesting video of a paraglider jumping from a plane at 4000 m:


    Again, per the FI, Shah was a paraglider:
    “He had spinal injury on 28 January 2007 in a
    paragliding event.”

    One of the interesting aspects of Saucy Sailoress Kate Tee’s account was her description of lights on the water which she attributes to a flotilla of ships. As the jump would have been at night and probably over water, the lights could have been to provide a visual target and to recover the jumper.

    This is all pure speculation, of course.

  3. Who did this flotilla belong to would be interesting to find out. I had assumed an over land parachute jump as the risk of injury by sea creatures probably undesirable.

  4. @ dave brough…..that simply put makes sense…..would those two little islands be Ile Amsterdam and Ile St. Paul ( both French, I believe….H m m m)

  5. @JS,

    One more thought regarding your cabin hijacker scenario (in addition to using a cheap ADS-B receiver to verify that the transponder was turned of).

    The hijacker could communicate with the cockpit via a handheld VHF transceiver over the 121.5 MHz emergency channel. You can buy such a device at $100:


    Some remarks:

    * The hijacker would know immediately if the pilots sent a Mayday and could warn them against doing it
    * With a bad antenna the hijacker would be heard only in the cockpit or maybe nearby planes
    * With a good antenna the hijacker could communicate directly with ATC and interceptor jets
    * If the pilots thought it’s a joke the hijacker could ask a captive steward to explain the situation over the radio
    * The radio could be used to pretend there were accomplices on the ground

    Note that with a cheap GPS device the hijacker could verify that the plane is going exactly where he wants.

    In short, a well-prepared hijacker may be in a better position if he stayed in the cabin.

  6. @Ron – agree on most points, except:

    Why use a cheap GPS device when you can just demand that the satellite be turned back on? The IFE is all that’s needed to determine if the pilot is complying or not. It has speed and altitude, and if you are jumping to a support team below, they can see your plane.

  7. @ Gysbreght @Victorl

    Regarding the parachute option, there may be an option to jump out of door 3 (left or right) if the plane moves at low speed. Door 3 is behind the wing, and drag force calculations suggest that (at low speed) you should be able to get out safely if you do a careful jump (run, jump, and roll into a ball) should give enough momentum to clear the door side, avoid a collision with the tail, and not get burned up in the jet exhaust fumes.

    The big problem is to open that door.

    I read up on that and it is not easy.
    The cabin needs to be de-pressurized, or else you can’t even overcome the pressure lock.

    But even when de-pressurized, the door will open only 1.5 inch or so, due to the airflow that will push the door backward. The plane would have to make some really odd maneuver (stalling to virtual standstill) to be able to open that door.

    And I maintain that the E&E hatch is a death trap.
    The opening is tiny, and the airflow so strong that if you stick a ladder out (or a leg) that it will snap off clean, even at relatively low speed.
    Jumping out of that hatch is near certain suicide in my opinion.

    So, at this point, compared to parachuting out of the plane, Victor’s “auto-land at Banda Aceh” does not sound so outlandish any more….:o|

  8. Another option would be to manually pop-out an entire cargo bay door.

    However, I’m not sure how that trick can be pulled off from the inside, nor do I know if the cargo containers would then also be pulled out, and neither can I explain why no debris (like that cargo door or the cargo containers) was found in the Malacca Strait.

    Not to mention that such an action (pulling a cargo door) would have an effect on the drag of the plane and thus its range for the remaining 6 hours of its existence as an airplane.

  9. One burning question that I read conflicting arguments about and that applies to both the parachute scenario, and any “end of life” scenario including Victor’s ” Banda Aceh” stop scenario :

    What are the constraints on the 777-200 flight control (auto-pilot) system ?

    Can you program this plane to fly only in one direction and at a set speed (standard auto-pilot) ?
    Or can you program it to fly along a set number of waypoints ? And if so, can you set altitude and speed for each of these legs between waypoints ?

    And even more challenging : From WHERE can you program the flight path of a 777-200 ? Is that only from the flight-deck, or can you do this from the E&E bay as well (using the maintenance computer) ?

  10. Rob Posted August 25, 2015 at 3:34 AM: “What are the constraints on the 777-200 flight control (auto-pilot) system ? ”

    You are actually talking about distinctly different systems. In the highest level of automation, the Flight Management Computer (FMC or FMS) controls the Autopilot (AP) and Autothrottle (AT), and the AP controls the fly-by-wire Flight Control Computers System (FCS), which commands the hydraulic actuators that move the flight control surfaces elevator, stabilizer, rudder and ailerons.

    The ATSB June 2014 report describes how the FMC and AP can be managed by by the pilot. The Geoffrey Thomas video shows how the pilot can control the AP independent of the FMC. The pilot can also command the airplane’s motion more or less as any other airplane with the control wheel, rudder pedals and thrust levers.

  11. @Lauren H,

    Sorry so late to get back, have been away.

    APU on ground hours for international flights are normally around 1.5 to 2 hours; however at main base between 4 and 8 is not uncommon (sometimes even more).

    Engines and APUs are subject to various overhaul requirements; operators will normally change out engines to ensure reliability (you don’t want a 5 year old engine next to a 5 year old engine if there is a known problem around 5 years; so you put that engine on another aircraft). If one fails the other is younger.

    The APUs are used for a different purpose than the engines so hours will be different to the engines.


  12. (you don’t want a 5 year old engine next to a 5 year old engine if there is a known problem around 5 years; so you put that engine on another aircraft)

    nah, you just do not put that engine on any aircraft in that case

  13. @Rob
    When you referred to the plane having to do “an odd maneuver (stalling to virtual standstill)” would it be possible this maneuver could cause the left engine to temporarily lose power and re-boot ACARS?

  14. kind of new….. so forgive my question’s naivete,but,can someone out there list 8 or nine things that we hope to find on the two black box’s that would greatly help in solving this mysterious mystery…thank you in advance

  15. @George

    The mystery of Where the plane is will (hopefully) be solved with the finding of said black boxes.

    Many clues from the wreckage, in addition to what’s on the black boxes, will (hopefully) help solve the mystery of Why the plane is there.

    If the CVR is blank, which I think the consensus would say is likely, then (hopefully) the FDR will give insight into the technical behavior of the plane- at least until the point when the FDR itself may have been powered off.

    Suffice it to say there should be enough information gleaned from multiple sources to determine if it was an accident or deliberate.

    Let’s hope they find those boxes.

  16. @ orion…thanks again for reply….its my take that these data recorders have a “loop” capacity, memory/time capacity …the CVR might be static, silence, nada…anyway i hope we dont have to wait for a death bed confession from someone ” in the know”……………

  17. @George,

    Both recorders will stop operating when both engines and the APU have run out of fuel, as they are not powered by the batteries or the Ram Air Turbine (RAT). Until that time, the DFDR (Flight Data Recorder) will record many flight parameters, the status of all critical systems, all inputs on the flight controls, operation of any switch or selector and the selected values, any system failures or warning messages annunciated in the cockpit, etc. The DFDR records 25 hours of operation, so it will also contain data for an earlier flight.

    The solid state cockpit voice recorder (SSCVR) has a recording capacity of at least two hours in standard quality and thirty minutes in high quality. The voice recorder system receives flight deck sounds and flight crew communications.

  18. @gysbreght thanks….interesting…. ..does the APU have its own isolated/dedicated fuel supply, or is it tapped into the starboard, or port motors fuel tank(s) ..? ? if it is on its own juice supply how much longer do you think it would operate and supply electricity ( 24 vdc ? or ac) to the APU…supposing , just supposing, everything ran out of gas within minutes of each other, the plane shouldn’t just fall out of the sky….it would …could…glide from altitude, maybe 34,000′,36,000′, up to 43,000′ another 100-120 NM…..my point being, like you mentioned…no power to the recorders for that time window…total silence…? ? We will PROBABLY never know what went on in the last 20 some odd minutes…..

  19. @George Connelli:

    The APU get fuel from the left main fuel tank that also feeds the left main engine. When that tank is empty, only the fuel remaining in the plumbing between the wing tank and the APU in the tail remains, allowing a few minutes running for the APU.

  20. @Susie,
    I am not the right person to ask, but I am not aware of any maneuver that the plane could make that would stop an engine (that has a fuel supply).

  21. @Rob, Gysbreght
    embarrassing as it is, I now understand a stall has nothing to with an engine, should have learned about that before my ignorant post.

  22. If MH370 ended with a controlled ‘ditch’, some human must have been in control.

    And the counter argument also has merit : If no human was in control at the end of MH370’s life, then the plane would have crashed uncontrollably.

    The evidence we have suggests that somebody turned on the power (at least to the left AC bus system) at 18:25.

    And in the 6 hours thereafter decided not to use the SATCOM system that came on-line with that left AC bus.
    Also, this person, who was alive at 18:25, did NOT attempt to communicate with the outside world, NOR decided to switch the SATCOM system off in the 6 hours thereafter.

    Which suggests that the perpetrators LEFT the aircraft shortly after 18:25.

    If they did, it DOES explain why the Inmarsat pings suggest a constant heading an uncontrolled ditching in the far south SIO.

    But if they did NOT, and actually somebody in control of the plane was still alive all through the 6 hours, for a controlled ditch, then that person may NOT have been following a straight line, and may instead have followed a curved path, and a last-minute controlled ditching, possibly at the Northern end of the IG’s assessment of the intersection of fuel exhaustion curve and the 7th arc, North-West of Australia:


  23. Since the current search areas assume that the plane was flying a straight path, assuming nobody was aboard to control it, while at 18:25 somebody alive switched on the left AC bus, it is REALLY important that we figure out if the perpetrators left the plane shortly after 18:25 or not.

    That is why I looked at ways to parachute out of a B777.

    The regular passenger doors don’t work : Even when the cabin is de-compressed, the airflow will push the doors backward (closed) with vigorous force, allowing just a 2″ “bleeding” opening.

    The forward E&E bay hatch is so tiny and the outer airflow so strong, that it will snap-off any ladder or leg that is pushed outside. A mere death trap, and sure suicide if you want to get out this way,

    Front and rear cargo bay doors are also not an option : These doors open to the outside, and even if you could open them from the inside (which is far from certain) they would rip off the fuselage and cause serious damage to the fuselage and possibly the engines.

    There is only ONE ideal door to exit from by parachute :

    The aft Bulk Cargo Door.

    This is a plug door that is operated manually and purely mechanical (no system in place that restricts you from opening it while in flight), and it opens inward (making sure the door does not get destroyed, ripped out, or tear off your arms, when you open it).

    And, lo and behold, that bulk cargo door has a lever on the INSIDE !

    See page 19-15 in this report :

    Which means you can open this bulk cargo door on a 777 ANY time as long as the fuselage is decompressed.

    This door is large enough, safe enough, and accessible from the inside, for a parachute jump.

    The only problem is how to get to the bulk cargo area.

    Now, it turns out that, on a 777, there is a hatch from the passenger level to the aft cargo bay.

    This hatch is located in the lavatory of the door 3R area (economy class).
    This hatch was used for 777’s that had an optional attendants rest module in cargo bay.

    That is the first “unknown” for this theory : Does this hatch in the right-forward lavatory of of door 3 row exist on all 777 ER models, including MH370, or did 9M-MRO not have this hatch ?

    Some experts suggest that ALL 777’s have this hatch from the doors 3 row down to the aft cargo bay :

    Once you made it through that hatch, you are in the front part of the aft cargo bay, however there are more obsticales :

    Looking at MH370’s cargo loading sheet (in the Factual Information report) :

    page 106 shows that some containers with “measurement” equipment by Agilent and some containers filled with mangosteen are blocking your way to the aft bulk cargo area.

    If this cargo would have been loaded on pallets, it would have been easy to make it to the aft bulk cargo area. But with containers, it is a lot harder. Here is an image of what you are up against :

    You may have to use the spare space on the side of the cargo bay, to make it to the bulk cargo door area.

    In summary :
    For exiting (by parachute or so) a 777 in flight, you need to de-pressurize the fuselage, decent from the passenger deck to the aft cargo bay using the door 3 row (lavatory) hatch that may or may not be there, then find your way to the rear end of the plane past the obstructing containers (which we know were there) to the bulk cargo door area.

    Once you made it there, you are home free,
    You can open that door when the cabin is depressurized, and then jump into a black hole (for MH370 it was in the dead on night at this time) hoping that whoever was supposed to pick you up out of the ocean below are actually there.

    Not for the faint of heart, but theoretically it seems not entirely impossible to exit from MH370 alive before the plane takes its long trip without human control….

  24. The mental shock at asphyxiation of passengers during an emergency situation to put out a fire might cause the pilot to behave in a manner of desperation that left him not sending out a mayday, over flying Langkawi, and flying off into eventual oblivion. The fact that he ditched the plane at the end means that it was never a premeditated suicide, but maybe an inevitable consequence of not having any other choice after accidentally killing his passengers and crew.

  25. @Peter Davidson, It’s hard to imagine how a pilot could accidentally asphyxiate his passengers–if there is a fire on board a plane, the crew will try to get it back on the ground ASAP, there would be no time for worrying about such things.

  26. If you take the initial part of Chris Goodfellows theory, then tack on that copilot went aft to investigate, whilst Pilot took plane to 40,000+
    Discovering that air masks failed and everyone outside cabin is dead.
    Pilot then goes into mental shock, fails to then turn electrics back on, fails to mayday, and flys over Langkawi to which he had initially turned as per Goodfellows theory. Then just buggers off into the dark void avoiding detection and flying off with his mental demons tormenting his soul imagining that he never now return but could not bring himself to actual suicide, to fly until he could not fly anymore.

  27. The issue we are exploring is if there is the scenario where the perpetrator left the plane before sending it on an autopilot “ghost” flight into nowhere.

    The only safe way out of a 777 in flight appears to be to parachute out of the bulk cargo door, as explained above.
    For that scenario, the perpetrator(s) would need to have access to the aft cargo area, which may be possible with a hatch in the main cabin floor near door 3R.

    One unknown about a way out of the plane is if this hatch near door 3R was really there in MH370’s 9M-MRO or not.

    Originally, Boeing installed this hatch to provide operators with a way to install an modular crew rest area in the aft cargo bay, for long haul flights.And remove that module for shorter flights.

    The way this works is nicely explained, with pictures, by this guy here :

    and the previous link I mentioned :
    also explains this option (of an optional cabin crew rest module in the aft cargo bay) at page 19-4.

    So this hatch was there on the ‘classic’ 777 (200 and 300) models.

    However, since the early 2000’s, new planes could also be equipped with a permanent crew resting area in the ceiling at the rear.


    Now, I’m still trying to find out exactly where the entrance (staircase) would be on these newer 777 models, but permanent crew rest compartments would render a hatch down to the aft bay obsolete. So I’m not sure if Boeing installed a hatch on 9M-MRO or not.

    Jeff, is there any way in which we can find out if 9M-MRO had a permanent crew rest area in the ceiling, or was a ‘classic’ style with option to install a crew rest area container in the aft cargo bay ?

    Or what kind of floor hatches 9M-MRO had installed ?

  28. OK. It is confirmed that 9M-MRO is a ‘classic’ type 777-200, with a hatch to a removable “crew rest” module in the aft cargo bay, And in fact, it had that module installed on this flight :

    page 14 says :

    There is a cabin crew rest area in the aft cabin lower lobe.
    Access is through a compartment door adjacent to Door 3R.

    So there was a sure way to access the aft cargo area from the main deck.
    After that, you only need to find your way through the containers (see page 106 in the Factual Information report above) :

    – 400 kg of Agilent measurement equipment at row 33,
    – 1228 kg of mangosteen at row 41,
    – then climb over the pallet with cabin crew bags at row 43,
    – through another container with 540 kg of Motorola walkie-talkie accessories an chargers at row 44.

    It only takes a couple of strong guys to open these containers, empty them by moving contents of boxes and crates in there aside, and open the aft side of the container, to find your way through that aft cargo area to the bulk cargo area and the mechanically operated door that provides your (parachuting) ride home.

  29. Couple of more facts that I found out, and I warn you that it will become increasingly interesting :

    First about that crew resting module.
    The pictures in this post :
    suggests that :

    1) The crew rest module consists of two parts (so it can be loaded through the narrow aft cargo door), where the front part takes up an entire LD6 container space, and the aft part takes up about half of an LD6 container space.
    So the crew rest module will occupy TWO container rows, which would be the front two rows in the aft cargo area in MH370, which are rows 31 and 32.
    This is consistent with the loading info from the cargo sheet at page 106 of Factual Information
    which shows the front two rows (31 and 32) void.
    2) There is a panel (above the aft lower bunk bed) that you can remove from the aft section of the crew resting module, which will give you access to the lower cargo area.
    3) The ‘AFT’ section (which would end up in row 32) of the crew rest module occupies only HALF a container row.
    This means that once you made it out of the crew resting module, that you have a couple of feet of space to move around (and to open and unload the Agilent containers in row 33 for your access to the bulk cargo area.

    This means that YES, there IS a guaranteed way to get from the crew rest area to the rear bulk cargo area.

    Next thing is about that hatch to get from the main deck to the crew resting module, which is (as stated before) behind a door in the lavatory area next to door 3R.

    On the 777-200 main deck floor plan, you can see that hatch marked with an X behind that door next to door 3R :

    When you open that door (marked “crew only”), you will see the hatch and the staircase down into the lower lobe crew resting module. It will look something like this :

    Note that there is no ‘lock’ or so on that hatch.
    So if the door is unlocked, you can get in.
    And once you are in, if you want to prevent anyone from coming after you, you would need to hold it physically in place. More about that later.

    Third item is this : Fire safety regulations require that for this crew rest module, there should be an emergency exit.
    This document :
    already talked about that when they state (on page 19-4) :

    There are two hatches that give access to the LLAR. The hatch in floor of the entrance enclosure gives usual access to the module. There is a second hatch in the ceiling of the LLAR that gives emergency exit.

    So I started looking for that second hatch, back to the main deck. In this picture :
    you can see the lining between the module and the ceiling on the left side of the module, above the front upper left bunk bed. And, yes, the emergency hatch in the main floor that connects to that is also visible in the 777-200 floor plan :
    This floor hatch to the crew rest module floor hatch is marked in the main deck floor plan by an X as well.
    It is located right next to chair 27D. Sounds familiar ?
    Yes. That was what I was thinking.

    Forth item is this :
    The crew rest module (with two unlocked access hatches) has 5 bunk beds AFAIK, and at least one ‘transition’ area. According to aviation regulations there should thus be at least 6 oxygen masks in that compartment.

    That would provide enough oxygen for two people (on two hatches) to last for about 60 minutes…

    Whoever controls these two hatches to the crew resting area controls the aft cargo bay, and the bulk cargo door.
    And that bulk cargo door is the ONLY safe way out of the plane while in flight.

    Nuf said for now.

  30. Ditching after running out of fuel: this could have been done on porpouse in order to make the wreckage to be harder to find. No fuel, means no leak going up to ocean surface.

  31. The “Chinese Martyrs’ Brigade” claimed responsibility for MH370. On Sunday 9 March, they sent an email to journalists across China reading: “You kill one of our clan, we will kill 100 of you as pay back”. More than 100 of the passengers onboard MH370 were ethnic Chinese. A perceived desire for violent revenge, accompanied by no other ambition, also underlied the Kunming Railway Station attack almost exactly one week prior, during which more than another 100 ethnic Chinese lost their too. The violent aerobatic U-turn maneuver at IGARI very arguably permanently incapacitated everybody aboard, besides the hijackers, by 1:25am. Everything afterwards was an elaborate getaway, escaping by masquerading as normal-looking commercial air traffic… until they reached FMT, pointed the escape vehicle south, and bailed out to flee the scene. A perceived desire for violent revenge against “oppressive” ethnic Chinese adequately explains MH370, and its wider political milieu.

    Note, that “100 for 1” may echo the famous phrase of ancient Chinese General Sun Tzu, “hundred weight against one grain”. And, “Chinese Martyrs Brigade” has “7 7 7” letters… and, in addition to the Kunming RW attacks the week previous, would represent the 2nd of a combined terrorist offensive taking the lives of over “200” Chinese citizens.

  32. In a ditching scenario, the hijackers partially repower the plane, specifically the left main bus, logically to energize cabin lighting, to aid their escape through the crew rest module to the aft cargo bulk doors. But, say the right main bus breaker is still open… And, say, the right engine — which FI says had as Deferred Maintenance a large hole in the underside of the cowling — fails first…

    How would all of the pulled circuit breakers affect power-flow to the SDU, when one engine (maybe the starboard?) flamed out first?? Could all of the open circuits cause the SatCom to reboot, even though one engine was still providing full thrust??

  33. What if Jeff Wise is almost completely correct? What if the “schizophrenic” Dr. Jeckyll & Mr. Hyde, who methodically hijacks the airplane to incapacitate all others aboard… and then, hours later, tries to gently soft-land the plane to save survivors’ lives…

    was, in fact, two different (groups of) people? The first being the hijackers, the second being groggy survivors gradually coming to as sunlight streamed into their eyes through open windows ?? Or, as warning klaxons jolted them from torpor into adrenaline-enabled action ?

    Two different behavioral MOs, to subdue human life vs. to prolong the same… implies two different psychological profiles, from two different (groups of) minds and individuals ?

    Hijacking + ghost plane + human controlled glide are actually all mutual compatible.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.