• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Very plausible (and non-spectacular) missing B777 theory

Mick

SOH-CM-2025
[SIZE=+1]This was forwarded to me by a friend who's a retired Air Force and airline transport pilot. I find the theory pretty compelling, as did he, and it perfectly fits old Occam's razor: the simplest explanation that fits all the facts is most likely correct.

Here's the post:

Just got this in.....not what the news wants to hear because it shows the pilots doing their job and lacks all the conspiracy sensationalism --

[/SIZE] Subject: MH370


It amazes me all the crazy theories there are about the missing plane. it gets worse every day. I wanted to share the best explanation I've heard so far. I hope that you agree.



**************



viewattachment




Chris Goodfellow believes the pilot of the missing Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370 was taking a direct route to Palau Langkawi airport, pictured, after an in-flight emergency. (Google Earth)



A lot of speculation about MH370. Terrorism, hijack, meteors. I cannot believe the analysis on CNN – almost disturbing. I tend to look for a more simple explanation of this event.



Loaded 777 departs midnight from Kuala to Beijing. Hot night. Heavy aircraft. About an hour out across the gulf towards Vietnam the plane goes dark meaning the transponder goes off and secondary radar tracking goes off.



Two days later we hear of reports that Malaysian military radar (which is a primary radar meaning the plane is being tracked by reflection rather than by transponder interrogation response) has tracked the plane on a southwesterly course back across the Malay Peninsula into the straits of Malacca.



When I heard this I immediately brought up Google Earth and I searched for airports in proximity to the track towards southwest.



The left turn is the key here. This was a very experienced senior Captain with 18,000 hours. Maybe some of the younger pilots interviewed on CNN didn’t pick up on this left turn. We old pilots were always drilled to always know the closest airport of safe harbor while in cruise. Airports behind us, airports abeam us and airports ahead of us. Always in our head. Always. Because if something happens you don’t want to be thinking what are you going to do – you already know what you are going to do. Instinctively when I saw that left turn with a direct heading I knew he was heading for an airport. Actually he was taking a direct route to Palau Langkawi a 13,000 foot strip with an approach over water at night with no obstacles. He did not turn back to Kuala Lampur because he knew he had 8,000 foot ridges to cross. He knew the terrain was friendlier towards Langkawi and also a shorter distance.



Take a look on Google Earth at this airport. This pilot did all the right things. He was confronted by some major event onboard that made him make that immediate turn back to the closest safe airport.



For me the loss of transponders and communications makes perfect sense if a fire. There was most likely a fire or electrical fire. In the case of fire the first response if to pull all the main busses and restore circuits one by one until you have isolated the bad one.



If they pulled the busses the plane indeed would go silent. It was probably a serious event and they simply were occupied with controlling the plane and trying to fight the fire. Aviate, Navigate and lastly communicate. There are two types of fires. Electrical might not be as fast and furious and there might or might not be incapacitating smoke. However there is the possibility given the timeline that perhaps there was an overheat on one of the front landing gear tires and it blew on takeoff and started slowly burning. Yes this happens with underinflated tires. Remember heavy plane, hot night, sea level, long run takeoff. There was a well known accident in Nigeria of a DC8 that had a landing gear fire on takeoff. A tire fire once going would produce horrific incapacitating smoke. Yes, pilots have access to oxygen masks but this is a no no with fire. Most have access to a smoke hood with a filter but this will only last for a few minutes depending on the smoke level. (I used to carry one of my own in a flight bag and I still carry one in my briefcase today when I fly).



What I think happened is that they were overcome by smoke and the plane just continued on the heading probably on George (autopilot) until either fuel exhaustion or fire destroyed the control surfaces and it crashed. I said four days ago you will find it along that route – looking elsewhere was pointless.



This pilot, as I say, was a hero struggling with an impossible situation trying to get that plane to Langkawi. No doubt in my mind. That’s the reason for the turn and direct route. A hijack would not have made that deliberate left turn with a direct heading for Langkawi. It would probably have weaved around a bit until the hijackers decided on where they were taking it.



Surprisingly none of the reporters , officials, other pilots interviewed have looked at this from the pilot’s viewpoint. If something went wrong where would he go? Thanks to Google earth I spotted Langkawi in about 30 seconds, zoomed in and saw how long the runway was and I just instinctively knew this pilot knew this airport. He had probably flown there many times. I guess we will eventually find out when you help me spread this theory on the net and some reporters finally take a look on Google earth and put 2 and 2 together. Also a look at the age and number of cycles on those nose tires might give us a good clue too.



Fire in an aircraft demands one thing – you get the machine on the ground as soon as possible. There are two well remembered experiences in my memory. The AirCanada DC9 which landed I believe in Columbus Ohio in the eighties. That pilot delayed descent and bypassed several airports. He didn’t instinctively know the closest airports. He got it on the ground eventually but lost 30 odd souls. In the 1998 crash of Swissair DC-10 off Nova Scotia was another example of heroic pilots. They were 15 minutes out of Halifax but the fire simply overcame them and they had to ditch in the ocean. Just ran out of time. That fire incidentally started when the aircraft was about an hour out of Kennedy. Guess what the transponders and communications were shut off as they pulled the busses.



Get on Google Earth and type in Pulau Langkawi and then look at it in relation to the radar track heading. 2+2=4 That for me is the simple explanation why it turned and headed in that direction.



Smart pilot. Just didn’t have the time.








 
First reasonable theory...

I think this very plausible... most of the other theories break the first rule of research...
you start with a null hypothesis... not a pre-determined goal to prove a theory right...
rather the opposite... try to prove it wrong... and then... if the results show the
theoretical statistical possibility that something is due to something... you just MIGHT
know what is what...
in other words... you don't start by trying to prove that x causes y...
if you do... is like adding 2 plus 2 and coming out with 5! Like surmising that
marihuana leads to hard drugs.... The only research population available is heavy
drug users... how did they start... an overwhelming majority started with maryjane...
ergo... it leads to harder drugs.. well folks, to prove that you would have to
check everyone who ever smoked a joint... and that is impossible... even Clinton
will tell you that... he smoked by did not inhale... lol....
the fault here is that you don't formulate a priori what causes what ....
you have to start by stating the problem right... and sorting out what is what...
Some people even the preposterous idea that the plane was flown to Diego Garcia...
(obviously not even knowing that it is a USAF/USN base leased from the UK... I've
stopped there for refueling in military flights)
Bravo for this old pilot... at least he does not assume a hijacking, or suicidal pilot, etc.
he just sorts out likely common problems leading to a sudden L turn... and
slowly concludes that... MAYBE... just MAYBE... there could be a simpler explanation...
it still is JUST A THEORY... the facts might either NEVER be known... or found out
by pure SERENDIPITY....

Cheers,
 
This theory has been floating around since very early in the speculation over this mystery. I agree that it fits several details that we think we know. On another forum that I visit some pilots poked various holes in it (that the author even included the option that the fire might have destroyed actual fight control surfaces calls his knowledge of modern airliner constuction into question, a fire originating in the nosegear well would have destroyed the aircraft long before it could reach the wings or tail). The problem I have with this scenario is how did the flight continue for several hours after the fire? Would the fire or the crew disable all electronic systems except the autopilot? That would suggest the crew didn't simply "pull all the busses" or that the fire was very selective in what it burned up.

It is true that a lot of the avionics are housed in the lower nose near the nosegear well, so it makes an interesting theory. It just seems hard for me to accept that all comm gear would be lost yet leave the flight data computers and autopilot systems intact. That starts to dull Occam's razor a bit for me.

Of coarse this assumes the satellite data is correct and the plane did fly for seven-plus hours after the mishap, whatever it was.

I tend to dismiss the conspiracy theories and do believe that when/if this is solved it will turn out to be some sort of system failure or failures, I'm just not ready to hang my hat on anything specific yet.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top