This event is the biggest aviation mystery of all time. Discussion has died out due to no new evidence/decelopments. However, pieces of the aircraft have been found, so we know that it didn’t “land at a secret air base.” Obviously it is somewhere in the SIO.

I am of the belief that it was a rogue criminal action by the Captain. Please don’t attack me for this viewpoint, as it can not be ruled out at this time. I just don’t see how the aircraft can have a fire big enough to knock out all systems/transpodner yet strangely change course/altitude and fly on autopilot in the opposite direction for another 6 hours. This theory is supported by what was found on Zahari’s home simulator.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/ ... lator.html

Complicating things is the now questionable accuracy of the inmarsat data. If this data was not accurate, the search may have been conducted in the wrong area. This is a colossal waste of money, time, and resources.

I think as we approach the 5 year mark, it would be appropriate to have a fresh discussion on this topic. I am open to any new theories...but please, no emotional posts. Lets stick to the facts.

Do we have to? Reopening up MH370 will bring up quacks, especially one in particular...

Honestly there's no conclusive proof of anything including pilot suicide/murder. And MH370 will be found when technology improves somewhat that we're able to search the depths of the ocean more conclusively.

I believe it will be found by accident, if it is ever found. Someone searching for something else, or prospecting for oil or mineral deposits will stumble upon it.

Judging by what has recovered so far, it may well have broken up on impact. Some pieces would have sunk to the bottom, and others would float around, being worn by the weather and eventually corroding or breaking apart. From what we know it is also in literally the most remote part of the world for humans. If I were to guess, I'd guess an isolated piece or two may wash up, but the bulk of the wreckage will never be found.

Somebody will stumble upon the wreckage a few decades into the future and the James Cameron of that time will make a Hollywood movie out of it

Did it take a couple of years to recover a United 727 wreckage in a lake in the midwest region?

September11 wrote:

Did it take a couple of years to recover a United 727 wreckage in a lake in the midwest region?

Slightly different scenario as the FAA were aware of the location of flight UA389 that crashed into the lake.

N7036U Boeing 727-22 that was only three months old was on route from LGA to ORD as UA389 when it crashed into Lake Michigan on the 16 August 1965 20m (32km) east of Fort Sheridan, Illinois. The aircraft crashed into an area of the lake where the depth was about 577ft.

Know one knows the location of flight MH360 so recovering it in a similar manner to flight US389 is not really comparable.

SEPilot wrote:

I believe it will be found by accident, if it is ever found. Someone searching for something else, or prospecting for oil or mineral deposits will stumble upon it.

^ This. It'll probably be found somewhere no-one, or remembering all the wild speculation from the threads about it at the time very few people, expected it to be.

The Titanic was found 73 years after it sank. The necessary technology didn’t exist at the time. I think MH370 will be a similar story. Its discovery will no doubt make big news sometime in the future. Maybe even after we’re all gone.

CitizenJustin wrote:

The Titanic was found 73 years after it sank. The necessary technology didn’t exist at the time. I think MH370 will be a similar story. Its discovery will no doubt make big news sometime in the future. Maybe even after we’re all gone.

I would concur with this view. The current technology is not sufficient to locate the aircraft. Perhaps within the next 20-30 years the necessary technology will be in place.

glideslope900 wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

The Titanic was found 73 years after it sank. The necessary technology didn’t exist at the time. I think MH370 will be a similar story. Its discovery will no doubt make big news sometime in the future. Maybe even after we’re all gone.

I would concur with this view. The current technology is not sufficient to locate the aircraft. Perhaps within the next 20-30 years the necessary technology will be in place.

The location of the TItanic was known with reasonable precision. The Titanic was a steel ship that only broke into a couple of large pieces.

The location of MH370 is not known with any precision. MH370 likely broke up into many light weight pieces that drifted and sank over a wide area.

There isn't a likely a singular MH370 to find in practical terms, which presents a hypothetical challenge to finding "it".

robsaw wrote:

glideslope900 wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

The Titanic was found 73 years after it sank. The necessary technology didn’t exist at the time. I think MH370 will be a similar story. Its discovery will no doubt make big news sometime in the future. Maybe even after we’re all gone.

I would concur with this view. The current technology is not sufficient to locate the aircraft. Perhaps within the next 20-30 years the necessary technology will be in place.

The location of the TItanic was known with reasonable precision. The Titanic was a steel ship that only broke into a couple of large pieces.

The location of MH370 is not known with any precision. MH370 likely broke up into many light weight pieces that drifted and sank over a wide area.

There isn't a likely a singular MH370 to find in practical terms, which presents a hypothetical challenge to finding "it".

This is true, it will most likely be in many more pieces than the Titanic, and the location is unknown.

However, judging by the condition of the flaperon recovered, and the scenario of a rogue pilot controlled ditching, the aircraft may have been relatively intact and sank to the ocean floor which would explain the lack of debris on the surface.

Seems like the main news in recent memory is that intact ditching and/or the southern route projection are nearing exhaustion/exclusion status. Other than that I'm not sure what else has been released publicly. It's possible current technology could find the remains of the aircraft if we had unlimited time and money, but I personally don't want another dime of taxpayer funds spent on this search. If anyone wants to find this aircraft bad enough let them pay for it with private funding and sell the story afterward.

Is anyone still looking for it...? Tough to find something not being looked for in the most remote part of the globe for humans. I may be wrong but I am not aware of any operations still searching for MH370.

CitizenJustin wrote:

The Titanic was found 73 years after it sank. The necessary technology didn’t exist at the time. I think MH370 will be a similar story. Its discovery will no doubt make big news sometime in the future. Maybe even after we’re all gone.

As I understood it, the hunt for Titanic was largely an accident. Robert Ballard was trying to build a deep sea submersible to find the Titanic, but ran out of funding. Robert approached the US Navy and the Navy agreed to fund it - if he would also use it to track two US nuclear submarines that sank. They also used the hunt for the Titanic wreckage as a cover story to keep the Soviets at the time from figuring out what was happening.

After accomplishing their primary mission of finding the USS Scorpion and USS Thresher, they had 12 remaining days to find the Titanic. The rest is history.

satx wrote:

Seems like the main news in recent memory is that intact ditching and/or the southern route projection are nearing exhaustion/exclusion status. Other than that I'm not sure what else has been released publicly. It's possible current technology could find the remains of the aircraft if we had unlimited time and money, but I personally don't want another dime of taxpayer funds spent on this search. If anyone wants to find this aircraft bad enough let them pay for it with private funding and sell the story afterward.

How has the controlled ditching theory or southern route been excluded? I’d love to see evidence of that.

Also, finding the cause of this accident can save lives in the future. Is that not worthy of continuing the search? Governments waste much more money on non essential items.

glideslope900 wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

The Titanic was found 73 years after it sank. The necessary technology didn’t exist at the time. I think MH370 will be a similar story. Its discovery will no doubt make big news sometime in the future. Maybe even after we’re all gone.

I would concur with this view. The current technology is not sufficient to locate the aircraft. Perhaps within the next 20-30 years the necessary technology will be in place.

Err, how long does aluminum stay in-tact submerged in seawater? There might not be much left of it by the time its final resting place is explored. The titanic was made of steel...

In any case, if deep sea mining becomes a thing private industry might find it financially worthwhile to map and explore the seafloor in remote waters.

glideslope900 wrote:

How has the controlled ditching theory or southern route been excluded? I’d love to see evidence of that.

Not yet but they're starting to run out of viable places to search under the presumed flight plan. If that were not the case they'd still be searcing today.

glideslope900 wrote:

Also, finding the cause of this accident can save lives in the future. Is that not worthy of continuing the search? Governments waste much more money on non essential items.

All evidence thus far is that the 777 remains one of the safest aircraft ever made, while MH has shown themselves to be a surprisingly careless flag carrier. Multiple governments have already spent more than two million dollars per casualty on the search and found nothing of forensic or evidentiary value. If that sounds like money well spent to you then perhaps you should start a crowd funding project and bankroll the next hundred million yourself.

Someone get that Paul Allen ship that’s locating all of the lost WWII wrecks on it.

I hate to speculate or stir up conspiracies. But given the solid evidence of recovered flaperons and my unqualified expertise from watching pretty much every air crash documentary. I’d say MH370 is in mostly big pieces, if not one.

satx wrote:

glideslope900 wrote:

How has the controlled ditching theory or southern route been excluded? I’d love to see evidence of that.

Not yet but they're starting to run out of viable places to search under the presumed flight plan. If that were not the case they'd still be searcing today.

glideslope900 wrote:

Also, finding the cause of this accident can save lives in the future. Is that not worthy of continuing the search? Governments waste much more money on non essential items.

All evidence thus far is that the 777 remains one of the safest aircraft ever made, while MH has shown themselves to be a surprisingly careless flag carrier. Multiple governments have already spent more than two million dollars per casualty on the search and found nothing of forensic or evidentiary value. If that sounds like money well spent to you then perhaps you should start a crowd funding project and bankroll the next hundred million yourself.

We can not discount the possibility that they looked in the right area but missed the aircraft.

Also, what do you mean “the presumed flight plan?” The whole point is that the plane deviated from it’s flight plan. If you are referring to the inmarsat data, we don’t even know if it is correct.

I agree the 777 is very safe...I was just pointing out that we could learn a lot from this event if the plane was found. Perhaps something that would change the industry and save lives.

IAmGaroott wrote:

Someone get that Paul Allen ship that’s locating all of the lost WWII wrecks on it.

I hate to speculate or stir up conspiracies. But given the solid evidence of recovered flaperons and my unqualified expertise from watching pretty much every air crash documentary. I’d say MH370 is in mostly big pieces, if not one.

1) I'm no expert and also I'm not sure, but isn't the Paul Allen ship layed out for shallow ocean waters? I think they found most wrecks in the Coral Sea where the big fights between the Japanese and US forces in WW2 happened.

2) Look at the crash photos from the recent Atlas Air 767 crash near houston. You basically see an aircraft ripped apart totally. But still, single peaces seem to have come off intact while the aircraft hit the shallow lake nosedown. I think every crash investigator would tell you that you can not plan how such big objects disintegrate. Also the recent crash (emergency landing in the ocean) near Opa Locka shows that even a ditch in the ocean can result in the aircratf being ripped apart. An ocean, even on a quiet day, is not the Hudson river. I think since the "landing on the Hudson" everyone on Anet has wrong assumptions about ditching a jet aircraft on a water surface.

I remember MH 370 very vividly as it was the week I started my new job. Makes for a good reference.
I believe it will eventually be found, obviously. Most probably after we are not here, but still possibly before.

It's not my favourite subject as I've always hated conspiracy theories, but rogue action remains the most likely cause.

Regards.

B8887

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

Honestly there's no conclusive proof of anything including pilot suicide/murder.

As defined by the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, 'evidence' [or 'proof'] is that which increases (or decreases) the likelihood of a proposition. The fact that an eerily similar suicide mission was found on Zahari's home simulator is an exceedingly strong piece of evidence which cannot be so easily dismissed. Once can claim, "there's no conclusive proof of anything," but I submit that that's applying an unhealthy level of skepticism which can never be certain of anything.

dik909 wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

Honestly there's no conclusive proof of anything including pilot suicide/murder.

As defined by the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, 'evidence' [or 'proof'] is that which increases (or decreases) the likelihood of a proposition. The fact that an eerily similar suicide mission was found on Zahari's home simulator is an exceedingly strong piece of evidence which cannot be so easily dismissed. Once can claim, "there's no conclusive proof of anything," but I submit that that's applying an unhealthy level of skepticism.

As much as I would love to believe that Zaharie did it (I never liked his cause & the politician he supported), I can't take the so-called evidence as anything other than circumstantial. I'm pretty sure that if one were to survey thousands of flight simulator pilots who just happens to be actual pilot, one might find similar "missions" as well on other machines too.

dik909 wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

Honestly there's no conclusive proof of anything including pilot suicide/murder.

As defined by the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, 'evidence' [or 'proof'] is that which increases (or decreases) the likelihood of a proposition. The fact that an eerily similar suicide mission was found on Zahari's home simulator is an exceedingly strong piece of evidence which cannot be so easily dismissed. Once can claim, "there's no conclusive proof of anything," but I submit that that's applying an unhealthy level of skepticism which can never be certain of anything.

Eerily similar to what? Or you know something the rest of us don't? You have the definite answers as to where the plane is or where it went?
And that flight found on his computer, was it the only flight that was found there? Or one of thousands of flights to different destinations maybe? That would make a hell of a difference.
Just sayin' what logic dictates...without defending or accusing the good Captain.

Jouhou wrote:

glideslope900 wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

The Titanic was found 73 years after it sank. The necessary technology didn’t exist at the time. I think MH370 will be a similar story. Its discovery will no doubt make big news sometime in the future. Maybe even after we’re all gone.

I would concur with this view. The current technology is not sufficient to locate the aircraft. Perhaps within the next 20-30 years the necessary technology will be in place.

Err, how long does aluminum stay in-tact submerged in seawater? There might not be much left of it by the time its final resting place is explored. The titanic was made of steel...

In any case, if deep sea mining becomes a thing private industry might find it financially worthwhile to map and explore the seafloor in remote waters.

The depth of the water within the search area is around 15,000 feet(nearly 3 miles down). It’s very cold at those depths which may help preserve the remains longer. After all, we still find WWII planes in much warmer, shallow water.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

dik909 wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

Honestly there's no conclusive proof of anything including pilot suicide/murder.

As defined by the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, 'evidence' [or 'proof'] is that which increases (or decreases) the likelihood of a proposition. The fact that an eerily similar suicide mission was found on Zahari's home simulator is an exceedingly strong piece of evidence which cannot be so easily dismissed. Once can claim, "there's no conclusive proof of anything," but I submit that that's applying an unhealthy level of skepticism.

As much as I would love to believe that Zaharie did it (I never liked his cause & the politician he supported), I can't take the so-called evidence as anything other than circumstantial. I'm pretty sure that if one were to survey thousands of flight simulator pilots who just happens to be actual pilot, one might find similar "missions" as well on other machines too.

“I'm pretty sure that if one were to survey thousands of flight simulator pilots who just happens to be actual pilot, one might find similar "missions" as well on other machines too.”

A mission to nowhere in the desolate, cold, and extremely inhospitable Southern Ocean? Maybe he wanted to see if he could make it to Antarctica? Nope — doesn’t add up. I’d think Pilots would practice routes between airports — not a wave in the ocean. Maybe he wanted to see how long the fuel would last, and the location of his his final resting place. Previous cases of inflight fire were relayed to ATC, informing them of their situation. Fires don’t destroy a plane immediately, and there’s time to get something out. Even the famous Swiss 111 that caught fire over the Atlantic was able to speak with ATC prior to the crash — “smoke in the cockpit, smoke everywhere.” In my opinion, fire isn’t the cause. I’m basing my views on numerous cases where pilots were able to communicate.

Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

As much as I would love to believe that Zaharie did it (I never liked his cause & the politician he supported), I can't take the so-called evidence as anything other than circumstantial. I'm pretty sure that if one were to survey thousands of flight simulator pilots who just happens to be actual pilot, one might find similar "missions" as well on other machines too.

Please forgive me, but your first clause betrays an inability to remain objective; it therefore becomes much more difficult to take seriously your classification of the evidence as 'circumstantial.' It's not enough to simply cast doubts into the air and hope that they land upon something; if you want reject what was found on his home simulator as being merely 'circumstantial,' then you need to offer some concrete examples of this happening elsewhere..

MalevTU134 wrote:

Eerily similar to what? Or you know something the rest of us don't? You have the definite answers as to where the plane is or where it went?
And that flight found on his computer, was it the only flight that was found there? Or one of thousands of flights to different destinations maybe? That would make a hell of a difference.
Just sayin' what logic dictates...without defending or accusing the good Captain.

Eerily similar to the flight path and last known location of MH370, etc. It's all in the article linked in the OP of this thread.. And, why would you think that I have all the definite answers as to there the plane went ? I never made any such claim. I'm merely making an inference from this one piece of evidence which, whether we like it or not, has the most explanatory power.

"Logic dictates," etc. etc. etc.

dik909 wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

As much as I would love to believe that Zaharie did it (I never liked his cause & the politician he supported), I can't take the so-called evidence as anything other than circumstantial. I'm pretty sure that if one were to survey thousands of flight simulator pilots who just happens to be actual pilot, one might find similar "missions" as well on other machines too.

Please forgive me, but your first clause betrays an inability to remain objective; it therefore becomes much more difficult to take seriously your classification of the evidence as 'circumstantial.' It's not enough to simply cast doubts into the air and hope that they land upon something; if you want reject what was found on his home simulator as being merely 'circumstantial,' then you need to offer some concrete examples of this happening elsewhere..

MalevTU134 wrote:

Eerily similar to what? Or you know something the rest of us don't? You have the definite answers as to where the plane is or where it went?
And that flight found on his computer, was it the only flight that was found there? Or one of thousands of flights to different destinations maybe? That would make a hell of a difference.
Just sayin' what logic dictates...without defending or accusing the good Captain.

Eerily similar to the flight path and last known location of MH370, etc. It's all in the article linked in the OP of this thread.. And, why would you think that I have all the definite answers as to there the plane went ? I never made any such claim. I'm merely making an inference from this one piece of evidence which, whether we like it or not, has the most explanatory power.

"Logic dictates," etc. etc. etc.

To be fair, be was saying that he wished Z had done it, because he did not like him, but the evidence was nothing more than circumstantial. While I disagree with this view, it doesn’t make him bias in favor of Z. Rather, it’s the opposite.

If a large plane goes missing for 24 hours that means it has crashed and people will not survive ground impact at 800 kmph or so...

CitizenJustin wrote:

The Titanic was found 73 years after it sank. The necessary technology didn’t exist at the time. I think MH370 will be a similar story. Its discovery will no doubt make big news sometime in the future. Maybe even after we’re all gone.

Didn't work for Amelia Earhart's plane so far...

CARST wrote:

IAmGaroott wrote:

Someone get that Paul Allen ship that’s locating all of the lost WWII wrecks on it.

I hate to speculate or stir up conspiracies. But given the solid evidence of recovered flaperons and my unqualified expertise from watching pretty much every air crash documentary. I’d say MH370 is in mostly big pieces, if not one.

1) I'm no expert and also I'm not sure, but isn't the Paul Allen ship layed out for shallow ocean waters? I think they found most wrecks in the Coral Sea where the big fights between the Japanese and US forces in WW2 happened.

2) Look at the crash photos from the recent Atlas Air 767 crash near houston. You basically see an aircraft ripped apart totally. But still, single peaces seem to have come off intact while the aircraft hit the shallow lake nosedown. I think every crash investigator would tell you that you can not plan how such big objects disintegrate. Also the recent crash (emergency landing in the ocean) near Opa Locka shows that even a ditch in the ocean can result in the aircratf being ripped apart. An ocean, even on a quiet day, is not the Hudson river. I think since the "landing on the Hudson" everyone on Anet has wrong assumptions about ditching a jet aircraft on a water surface.

1) The Paul Allen ship found the USS Indianapolis which is over 3mi deep (1 deeper than the Titanic).

2) I just made that assumption because the only parts found would have been fully extended for a water landing. But it also calls to question, how was luggage found? Like I said, I’m no expert. I’d love for it (or at least the landing gear) to be found in my lifetime, just so we know.

Walaneh wrote:

If a large plane goes missing for 24 hours that means it has crashed and people will not survive ground impact at 800 kmph or so...

Unless you were on Oceanic Airlines Flight 815

If you're really interested in conspiracy theories, every piece of debris recovered from the South Indian Ocean so far - with the exception of the flaperon - is small enough to fit into a suitcase. And the flaperon apparently didn't have the expected pattern of marine growth on it given the length of time it was supposed to have floated at sea. I'm not sure if I believe the implication of that or not - it's not my theory.

It's really an extremely deep mystery, and not just because the aircraft is probably still most likely to be at the bottom of one of the most remote oceans on Earth. I've read enough competing theories about it to have no idea at all which is the most plausible any more.

But the British South American Airways 'Stardust' was eventually found, fifty years after it disappeared leaving no trace other than a strange radio message which remains undeciphered even today, so who knows...

My own belief is that there was a catastrophic cockpit fire like that which destroyed an EgyptAir 777 on the ground, and very likely (coincidentally) an EgyptAir A320 over the Mediterranean, but in the case of MH370 which left the aircraft just about flyable. But I know there are major objections to that as well.

I wonder if the PRC will want to do new searches as many lost on MH 370 were their citizens, wanting to know the answer of what happened as well as try out new technology they have access to.

Still, this is a heartbreaking loss and will likely be one of the great unsolved mysteries and conspiracies in history. One has to wonder how those on the flight were still alive or dead from a intentional act or component failure that led to decompression.

Hopefully, from the loss of MH 370, we have learned or considered ways to prevent such an event again by better human monitoring of aircraft locations from ground radar, improve aircraft tracking technology or keep out troubled pilots from the cockpit. To me one of the biggest issues with MH 370 are the gaps of ground tracking of it a short time of its scheduled departures. About the time of its apparent change in course, the military ATC was either not working at their stations or not reasonably concerned about a high flying civilian aircraft. In the recent past when aircraft go off course, their transponders shut down, inability of ATC to contact the plane in question, other aircraft are sent out (usually military) to locate and determine their location. This is done to determine if an act of terrorism is underway, if the plane is damaged, the pilots incapacitated and to make sure don't crash in a populated area presuming the people inside the plane are dead (i.e.: Helios, golfer Payne Stewart). Perhaps if there was better ground tracking of MH 370, military aircraft could have been sent up, possibly determine what may have happened or at least follow its track so could have been located and recovered.

CitizenJustin wrote:

I’d think Pilots would practice routes between airports — not a wave in the ocean. Maybe he wanted to see how long the fuel would last, and the location of his his final resting place. Previous cases of inflight fire were relayed to ATC, informing them of their situation. Fires don’t destroy a plane immediately, and there’s time to get something out. Even the famous Swiss 111 that caught fire over the Atlantic was able to speak with ATC prior to the crash — “smoke in the cockpit, smoke everywhere.” In my opinion, fire isn’t the cause. I’m basing my views on numerous cases where pilots were able to communicate.

Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

I agree. I just can't envision a scenario where a fire was able to knock out human control input of the airplane, but didn't take down the aircraft itself and allowed it to continue flying for another 6+ hours. If you look at relatively recent examples of catastrophic inflight fires, that being Swissair 111, UPS 6, and Valujet 592, in all three instances control failure as a result of fire damage is the primary reason for control of the aircraft being lost and its eventual impact with the ground. I can't envision a similar scenario with MH being any different.

I don't think much of the controlled ditching theory either. If you were hellbent on killing yourself, why would you drag it out for 8 hours and then consciously *ditch*? Or if you wanted your suicide to look like some bizarre accident out in the middle of nowhere, why not just depressurize the aircraft immediately, pass out, and let the plane fly on? Any way you slice it, there's no reason to try to ditch the aircraft in a controlled manner. If you went to the trouble to fly the aircraft that far out to kill yourself AND you were still conscious, why would you care whether the aircraft was intact?

I'm in "the pilot did it" camp. Only because I have read so many reasons why the other large theories could not be possible. But I can not fathom how he could have handled the co-pilot and all the passengers. I also find it hard to believe he could have pulled it all off with such little time to make his game plan. If I recall correctly, he was called to fly last minute.

Maybe it was not nearly as complex as everyone speculates. I have always wondered if it were possible to make a logic chart to narrow down the most likely cause. For example, asking pointed questions with yes/no answers and progress to the next question accordingly. Was it fire? Yes/no. Was it decompression? Yes/no. And then progress with the next logical question until a viable theory is put into place. A group think tank. On this forum it couldn't happen, since every other response is a jab at the next guy lol.

Whether it is the man behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll,or the secret service being involved in a car crash in a French tunnel, conspiracy theories are everywhere and some love to believe in them or come up with ever more complex explanations. Sometimes the truth might actually be far more ordinary but it doesn't sell papers or books, or give experts their 15 minutes of fame.

Personally I'm of the "intentional actions of the pilot" group as there are a number of odd things that don't appear to have an explanation, but I'm also of the mind that maybe another Helios type incident occurred. Im not sure they'll find it purely because we don't really know where it is. Can we learn lessons? Sure we can to the point where a plane can't just disappear like this again, intended or otherwise.

But I've read an interesting book about the Southern Cloud, one of the planes operated by ANA (Australian National Airways) and Charles Kingsford Smith during the late 1920s/30s. She was on a domestic flight from Sydney to Melbourne in 1931 and disappeared in poor weather. No one really knew where it disappeared and there was only a rough idea of where it might be. Eyewitnesses said they heard it here or there, and so much information contradicted itself and hindered the search. Despite extensive searches nothing was ever found. 27 years later a worker working in the forest came across some wreckage by chance. Most of it had perished in the fire but a few items and objects survived. But for that one person walking a bit further off the path, it might have been another 10, 20, 30 years before it was discovered if at all. If they do find the MH370, then it might be by accident.

Even then we may well never know what really happened. But it will rekindle the conspiracies and stuff in the meantime.

The worst bit is for the relatives and the lack of closure or knowledge of what happened to their loves ones. Wild rumours and speculation doesn't really help.

But I would encourage a read of the Southern Cloud story as there are some parallels all be they are 80-90 years apart, but it helped the Australians to develop better navigational aids and processes as a result in the meantime. Its eventual discovery in 1958 partly laid to rest some of its mystery, although it was put down eventually under a "probable cause" as that was never fully established.

We will see what time brings for MH370. Hopefully something positive.

777PHX wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

I’d think Pilots would practice routes between airports — not a wave in the ocean. Maybe he wanted to see how long the fuel would last, and the location of his his final resting place. Previous cases of inflight fire were relayed to ATC, informing them of their situation. Fires don’t destroy a plane immediately, and there’s time to get something out. Even the famous Swiss 111 that caught fire over the Atlantic was able to speak with ATC prior to the crash — “smoke in the cockpit, smoke everywhere.” In my opinion, fire isn’t the cause. I’m basing my views on numerous cases where pilots were able to communicate.

Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

I agree. I just can't envision a scenario where a fire was able to knock out human control input of the airplane, but didn't take down the aircraft itself and allowed it to continue flying for another 6+ hours. If you look at relatively recent examples of catastrophic inflight fires, that being Swissair 111, UPS 6, and Valujet 592, in all three instances control failure as a result of fire damage is the primary reason for control of the aircraft being lost and its eventual impact with the ground. I can't envision a similar scenario with MH being any different.

I don't think much of the controlled ditching theory either. If you were hellbent on killing yourself, why would you drag it out for 8 hours and then consciously *ditch*? Or if you wanted your suicide to look like some bizarre accident out in the middle of nowhere, why not just depressurize the aircraft immediately, pass out, and let the plane fly on? Any way you slice it, there's no reason to try to ditch the aircraft in a controlled manner. If you went to the trouble to fly the aircraft that far out to kill yourself AND you were still conscious, why would you care whether the aircraft was intact?

Perhaps a ditching to ensure the plane isn’t shattered into a million pieces and sinks in large pieces. Zahari was an aviation nut, perhaps he also saw the controlled ditching as a challenge. Flying on for 6 hours ensured the plane would be in a remote location that is basically unrecoverable. Perhaps his goal was to create the biggest aviation mystery of all time.

It also should be noted again here that the loss of contact occurred during ATC handoff, the opportune time to make the plane go rogue. Furthermore, there appeared to be evasive maneuvers to avoid radar detection. Zahari could have had coordinates ready after study of radar coverage somehow, and simply put them into the FMS after incapacitating the FO.

Maybe not in any of our lifetimes. Northwest 2501 crashed into Lake Michigan in 1950 and its never been found.

Walaneh wrote:

If a large plane goes missing for 24 hours that means it has crashed and people will not survive ground impact at 800 kmph or so...

Really???

I'm expecting it to land safely any day now, maybe the pilots just got lost for a few years, happens to us all! surely a matter of when not if for it's arrival at KUL.

CitizenJustin wrote:

The Titanic was found 73 years after it sank. The necessary technology didn’t exist at the time. I think MH370 will be a similar story. Its discovery will no doubt make big news sometime in the future. Maybe even after we’re all gone.

The Titanic’s wreckage is a massive hulk of steel hundreds of feet long that went down in a known area. Malaysia’s jet is god-knows-where and in about a million tiny, disintigrating pieces.

I don’t think they’ll ever find anything meaningful, personally.

Bradin wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

The Titanic was found 73 years after it sank. The necessary technology didn’t exist at the time. I think MH370 will be a similar story. Its discovery will no doubt make big news sometime in the future. Maybe even after we’re all gone.

As I understood it, the hunt for Titanic was largely an accident. Robert Ballard was trying to build a deep sea submersible to find the Titanic, but ran out of funding. Robert approached the US Navy and the Navy agreed to fund it - if he would also use it to track two US nuclear submarines that sank. They also used the hunt for the Titanic wreckage as a cover story to keep the Soviets at the time from figuring out what was happening.

After accomplishing their primary mission of finding the USS Scorpion and USS Thresher, they had 12 remaining days to find the Titanic. The rest is history.

The location of the USS Thresher was known immediately. The USS Skylark was on the surface when the Thresher reported "experiencing minor difficulties." It imploded and sank to the bottom in six main pieces. The water depth was over 8000' feet, but parts were recovered at that time by a submersible during the subsequent investigation. This submarine sank on April 9, 1963: one of the crewmen was a graduate of the high school I was attending at the time.

fishmeal wrote:

Bradin wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

The Titanic was found 73 years after it sank. The necessary technology didn’t exist at the time. I think MH370 will be a similar story. Its discovery will no doubt make big news sometime in the future. Maybe even after we’re all gone.

As I understood it, the hunt for Titanic was largely an accident. Robert Ballard was trying to build a deep sea submersible to find the Titanic, but ran out of funding. Robert approached the US Navy and the Navy agreed to fund it - if he would also use it to track two US nuclear submarines that sank. They also used the hunt for the Titanic wreckage as a cover story to keep the Soviets at the time from figuring out what was happening.

After accomplishing their primary mission of finding the USS Scorpion and USS Thresher, they had 12 remaining days to find the Titanic. The rest is history.

The location of the USS Thresher was known immediately. The USS Skylark was on the surface when the Thresher reported "experiencing minor difficulties." It imploded and sank to the bottom in six main pieces. The water depth was over 8000' feet, but parts were recovered at that time by a submersible during the subsequent investigation. This submarine sank on April 9, 1963: one of the crewmen was a graduate of the high school I was attending at the time.

They also had a pretty good idea of where Scorpion was using SOSUS to triangulate it's position based on the sounds of it breaking up.

If this plane was supposed to be found it would have been found already.

bhxalex wrote:

I'm expecting it to land safely any day now, maybe the pilots just got lost for a few years, happens to us all! surely a matter of when not if for it's arrival at KUL.

You never know...

glideslope900 wrote:

robsaw wrote:

glideslope900 wrote:

I would concur with this view. The current technology is not sufficient to locate the aircraft. Perhaps within the next 20-30 years the necessary technology will be in place.

The location of the TItanic was known with reasonable precision. The Titanic was a steel ship that only broke into a couple of large pieces.

The location of MH370 is not known with any precision. MH370 likely broke up into many light weight pieces that drifted and sank over a wide area.

There isn't a likely a singular MH370 to find in practical terms, which presents a hypothetical challenge to finding "it".

This is true, it will most likely be in many more pieces than the Titanic, and the location is unknown.

However, judging by the condition of the flaperon recovered, and the scenario of a rogue pilot controlled ditching, the aircraft may have been relatively intact and sank to the ocean floor which would explain the lack of debris on the surface.

Wasn't there also part of an interior bulkhead panel found? Wouldn't that indicate a break-up? I think it's in may pieces and will likely never be found. Just my

Reading many of the posts over time, I get the impression many don’t comprehend the size and remoteness of the search area. Given a choice between a conspiratorial cover up or well intentioned search teams missing small pieces of wreckage in a vast ocean, I’d put my money on the later.

If the search vehicle was a plane instead of a boat, the height above surface would be the same as the cruising altitude of a turboporop. From a cabin window, the horizon is about 100km away.

The search area of 217,000 km2 covers the same as the amount of land you would see from the window of a turboprop on a five hour flight.

I have flown on the world’s loneliest air routes over the southern oceans between Australia/New Zealand and Africa/South America. The isolation is of an almost indescribable scale. Prior to MH370, I told my partner that if I was ever on a flight that went down in that part of the world, expect nothing to be found due to the isolation and extremely difficult search logistics.

Malaysian government is open to new search:

"Ocean Infinity mounted a "no cure, no fee" search for the plane in the southern Indian Ocean in January 2018 that ended in May without any clue on where it could have crashed.

But the company's CEO, Oliver Plunkett, said in a video shown at the public remembrance event at a mall near Kuala Lumpur that the company hopes to resume the hunt with better technology it obtained in the past year."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/five ... 70-n978606