Airliner missing between Malaysia and Cambodia/Vietnam, terrorism possible

[AmericanPride]

If we accept the deliberate diversion or take over of the aircraft, I think that in large part precludes the Indian Ocean theory unless we also accept a technical failure or navigation error in conjunction.

(1) If the plane was hi-jacked for future use or extortion, where in the Indian Ocean is a viable landing area?
(2) If the plane was hi-jacked and deliberately crashed, why not immediately instead of ~7 hours later?
(3) Possibly there was a failed hi-jacking attempt, trapping one or both of the crew in the cockpit? But why not return to an airport and why the maneuvers to the Indian Ocean?

Also, as everyone mentioned, the Indian Ocean is big. Really big. If you wanted to make a plane or its passengers or its cargo disappear, crash it into the Indian Ocean. That's just speculation - assassination or sabotage. Since every theory is on the table, it's also possible that the passenger and cargo manifests were forged. Either with fake listings, or missing listings, or added listings. Why was the US quick (day 2 or 3?) to suggest the plane was hi-jacked for a future operation? Was a similar early assessment released after Air France disappeared?

I agree with the statement that the governments are either lying or staying closed-mouthed for the time being. That's partly because there are 10+ countries involved so there's a lot of moving pieces. But that doesn't have much explanatory power for the apparent disorganization of the Malaysian government, the almost-obstructionist involvement of China in the early phase of the search (why the rush to failure?) and America's tight noose around specific information. I think CNN or New York Times cited a "classified analysis" of the plane's potential location a few days ago, which means we're only getting part of the story.

Clandestinely downing a plane has precedence. So does accidentally or deliberately shooting down an aircraft and then later denying it. Why move valuable cargo by plane instead of boat, which is more secure? Perhaps the movers had no access to a boat. Maybe a group involved in proliferation or the movement of some other dangerous cargo. Or perhaps a small quantity on a person or persons or their luggage which would making sea transit impractical? Motive here would focus on Beijing, which is relatively quiet now.

I think technical failure including a fire and rapid or explosive decompression is also a viable theory, but that would be hard to square with the claims of "maneuvers" by the aircraft which suggest control of the plane, but we don't know the details of those maneuvers as far as I know.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I am largely with American Pride. I tried running through the most probable explanations but the event timelines, lack of wreckage, and lack of further communications( except via systems that could not be shut off from the cabin) keep leading me back to human action, probably with the assistance or complicity of one of the crew.

If the pilot wanted to make a political statement why not leave that statement somewhere publicly? It is possible that the very complicated plane had a cascading series of electrical failures that resulted in the death of all aboard before they could call for help, but The actions of the plane after the last communication would indicate intelligent design.

So, barring my most recent "sky net" theory that the plane became self aware and killed everyone on board, I am left with the question of "why this plane?" Cargo makes the most sense. If all you wanted was the cargo all you have to do is get the plane down in one piece. But what are the odds that this crew would get this particular cargo unless this flight was a normal "milk run" for whatever they were after. The second possibility is to use the plane to carry something else, which means you have to get it safely down and then back up. Then the question becomes " why a 777?" A smaller jet would be easier to land and take off again. Your options for landing strips increase. What is the advantage of this type of plane? Cruising range comes to mind. But beyond that ?

[Biggus]

If we accept the deliberate diversion or take over of the aircraft, I think that in large part precludes the Indian Ocean theory unless we also accept a technical failure or navigation error in conjunction.

(1) If the plane was hi-jacked for future use or extortion, where in the Indian Ocean is a viable landing area?
(2) If the plane was hi-jacked and deliberately crashed, why not immediately instead of ~7 hours later?
(3) Possibly there was a failed hi-jacking attempt, trapping one or both of the crew in the cockpit? But why not return to an airport and why the maneuvers to the Indian Ocean?

Also, as everyone mentioned, the Indian Ocean is big. Really big. If you wanted to make a plane or its passengers or its cargo disappear, crash it into the Indian Ocean. That's just speculation - assassination or sabotage. Since every theory is on the table, it's also possible that the passenger and cargo manifests were forged. Either with fake listings, or missing listings, or added listings. Why was the US quick (day 2 or 3?) to suggest the plane was hi-jacked for a future operation? Was a similar early assessment released after Air France disappeared?

I agree with the statement that the governments are either lying or staying closed-mouthed for the time being. That's partly because there are 10+ countries involved so there's a lot of moving pieces. But that doesn't have much explanatory power for the apparent disorganization of the Malaysian government, the almost-obstructionist involvement of China in the early phase of the search (why the rush to failure?) and America's tight noose around specific information. I think CNN or New York Times cited a "classified analysis" of the plane's potential location a few days ago, which means we're only getting part of the story.

Clandestinely downing a plane has precedence. So does accidentally or deliberately shooting down an aircraft and then later denying it. Why move valuable cargo by plane instead of boat, which is more secure? Perhaps the movers had no access to a boat. Maybe a group involved in proliferation or the movement of some other dangerous cargo. Or perhaps a small quantity on a person or persons or their luggage which would making sea transit impractical? Motive here would focus on Beijing, which is relatively quiet now.

I think technical failure including a fire and rapid or explosive decompression is also a viable theory, but that would be hard to square with the claims of "maneuvers" by the aircraft which suggest control of the plane, but we don't know the details of those maneuvers as far as I know.

You make some excellent points. Your third question, about having a pilot trapped in the cockpit doesn't compute, because he alone would have access to the radio circuit breakers. Simpler to suggest that the hijackers killed the pilots early on, had no idea how to use the FMS properly, cracked the sh!ts after a few turns despite killing the pilots, managed to work out how to turn the FMS autopilot off, dialled a heading into the autopilot and hit HDG mode assuming they'd hit landfall again soon.

Something important in relation to the technical failure part of your post: The appearance of human control does not always equal actual, real time human control, at least not in the way that you might normally think about it. Human control could also mean that the aircraft is following the plan in the FMS. That FMS is normally programmed as part of the pre-flight process, but it can be changed on the fly. AFAIK an ACARS message is generated when the plan in the FMS is changed, but it might also do so every time it passes a waypoint too. The important part is that you don't need a person sitting in the cockpit to have a flight appear to be human-controlled.

It would be oh-so-easy to find yourself in an emergency situation where you need to get out of the airway *now* whilst you deal with a critical event, to hit the MCP alt setting, hit a few waypoints in the FMS that aren't that important except to buy you time to deal with the actual problem (including target alt data which you might just bang in numbers that sound about right), and then finally get around to actually addressing the real issue. Only now, hypoxia has overcome you, you haven't selected a low enough alt on the MCP to bring you out of it, and because you didn't detect the hypoxia when it actually started setting in, half of the stuff you've actually punched into the FMS is increasingly error-prone and longterm unhelpful.

[Biggus]

I am largely with American Pride. I tried running through the most probable explanations but the event timelines, lack of wreckage, and lack of further communications( except via systems that could not be shut off from the cabin) keep leading me back to human action, probably with the assistance or complicity of one of the crew.

Except that they could be cut off from the cabin. SATCOM datalink stuff is accessible in the E&E bay. If you've taken the cockpit, it's not hard to go down and sort that out. If you're savvy enough to know how to shut down the VHF and HF ACARS data links in the cockpit, the second thing you do is going to be accessing the E&E. I have a hard time accepting that inconsistency.

What is the advantage of this type of plane? Cruising range comes to mind. But beyond that ?

Range and payload.

A better question might be, why MAS? Ask it from both points of view.

1. Why would you transport something incredibly valuable on what is probably one of the sketchiest national carriers in the reasonably-developed world?

2. Why would you pick an MAS flight to China to hijack?

[AmericanPride]

Why would you transport something incredibly valuable on what is probably one of the sketchiest national carriers in the reasonably-developed world?

I'm not familiar with MAS, but here are some possibilities: the perpetrators (individually or as a group) have assets, relationships, or access to MAS personnel, information, and/or resources. How is security handled in Malaysia? Verification of cargo? What were the previous stops of this particular aircraft and who had access to it during those times?

Why would you pick an MAS flight to China to hijack?

It depends. Perhaps China was their final destination. Perhaps China was a target (but why hi-jack the aircraft so early into the flight?).

Other questions: if it was a political statement to hi-jack the aircraft, the Indian Ocean is the last place to go. Hi-jacked aircraft don't go silent for seven hours and then disappear; whether it's an attack or extortion. If there was a target, why take over the plane in the middle of the flight; why not closer to the target? On 9/11, 3 of the 4 aircraft were overtaken within 30 minutes of take off and near their targets. The take over of the fourth aircraft was delayed but not significantly.

Here's something else to consider: the aircraft was diverted at the furthest point on its route from any country. And it was then directed on the most direct route to the most barren area with the minimal amount of exposure, crossing the Malaysia peninsula at its thinnest point and into the open ocean. That would seem to suggest that the controller of the aircraft did not want to be found.

[TheCurmudgeon]

A better question might be, why MAS? Ask it from both points of view.

1. Why would you transport something incredibly valuable on what is probably one of the sketchiest national carriers in the reasonably-developed world?

2. Why would you pick an MAS flight to China to hijack?

So that would lead one to believe that Cargo was not the target, so we are back to the plane.

As for number 2., I would have to assume that it is because they are such a sketchy company and they had the type of aircraft I wanted in the general locality I needed it to be.

You said something else that made me think. Could this have been perpetrated by ground crew who inserted a series of per-programed commands into the computer?

Something important in relation to the technical failure part of your post: The appearance of human control does not always equal actual, real time human control, at least not in the way that you might normally think about it. Human control could also mean that the aircraft is following the plan in the FMS. That FMS is normally programmed as part of the pre-flight process, but it can be changed on the fly. AFAIK an ACARS message is generated when the plan in the FMS is changed, but it might also do so every time it passes a waypoint too. The important part is that you don't need a person sitting in the cockpit to have a flight appear to be human-controlled.

In certain respects, if I wanted to accomplish this type of pre-programmed action, then the first thing you would want to do was to cut off the transmission of data from the plane that indicated something was amuse in the computer system. If the commands were already there, could they accomplish all of the actions necessary to disable the pilot/copilot and have the plane run a pre-established route on its own?

[AmericanPride]

Another issue: the aircraft produced a series of signals, some of which included airspeed and altitude. I would think plotting this series on a map would strongly indicate the directional intent of the aircraft; Kazakhstan and the southern Indian Ocean are in opposite directions from the last known position of an aircraft travelling West. I have yet to see a media report conducting that basic analysis - and as far as I know, that information has not been released. If the aircraft was lost for an 'innocent' reason or due to terrorism, why would this information not be released immediately? Are there sources and methods concerns involved?

[former_0302]

Another issue: the aircraft produced a series of signals, some of which included airspeed and altitude. I would think plotting this series on a map would strongly indicate the directional intent of the aircraft; Kazakhstan and the southern Indian Ocean are in opposite directions from the last known position of an aircraft travelling West. I have yet to see a media report conducting that basic analysis - and as far as I know, that information has not been released. If the aircraft was lost for an 'innocent' reason or due to terrorism, why would this information not be released immediately? Are there sources and methods concerns involved?

Yeah, this is what gets me. Presumably, they have the arcs for all of the RR satellite pings, and if you overlay them all on the same map, with the plane's last known position, it should be pretty easy to come up with the possible routes to the north or south.

Those pings came every hour, and the last was at 0811, right? So you take the last known position of the plane, at 0215 (when it supposedly was lost on radar), then look at the arc from 0311 and determine the points on that arc where it is possible the plane could have been given its last position. Do the same for all the arcs up to 0811 and you should have a very good idea of where the plane is. There would be two possibilities (north or south), but that information should help to determine that as well. If the pings indicate a straight line at constant speed, it probably went south. If they indicate a broken course, it probably went north.

At least, that's my armchair theory...

[Biggus]

I'm not familiar with MAS, but here are some possibilities: the perpetrators (individually or as a group) have assets, relationships, or access to MAS personnel, information, and/or resources. How is security handled in Malaysia? Verification of cargo? What were the previous stops of this particular aircraft and who had access to it during those times?

Good points to raise. These are all unknowns at this point. I'm sure it'd be possible to track the movements of the aircraft prior to this flight, but we'd probably be talking about an enormous number of people with access to it.

It depends. Perhaps China was their final destination. Perhaps China was a target (but why hi-jack the aircraft so early into the flight?).

Which is the question that ultimately gave me reason to disregard the Uighar gentleman onboard. Given the availability of good handheld GPS, let alone a $25 USB radio receiver and a bit of knowledge about ADS-B, going for active control before making past the first line of defences on mainland China makes little sense.

Other questions: if it was a political statement to hi-jack the aircraft, the Indian Ocean is the last place to go. Hi-jacked aircraft don't go silent for seven hours and then disappear; whether it's an attack or extortion. If there was a target, why take over the plane in the middle of the flight; why not closer to the target? On 9/11, 3 of the 4 aircraft were overtaken within 30 minutes of take off and near their targets. The take over of the fourth aircraft was delayed but not significantly.

This assumes a successful takeover. It's a reasonable assumption to make. Assuming the cabin population are still alive, I'd expect at least one text message to be sent out from a captive, even if the message was composed without coverage. Normally it'd just sit in the outbox until it picks up a tower, and the route surely would have come close to a tower somewhere.

Here's something else to consider: the aircraft was diverted at the furthest point on its route from any country. And it was then directed on the most direct route to the most barren area with the minimal amount of exposure, crossing the Malaysia peninsula at its thinnest point and into the open ocean. That would seem to suggest that the controller of the aircraft did not want to be found.

We don't yet know enough about it's actual route, though. We have a few strong possibilities for where it ended up, but there's no real data as yet to make the call.

[Biggus]

You said something else that made me think. Could this have been perpetrated by ground crew who inserted a series of per-programed commands into the computer?

It's pretty remote in likelihood and not particularly secure from the crew knowing about it. A flight plan could be created and saved, made inactive and later made active by someone sitting in the cockpit during the flight. If I were doing the preflight checklist and noticed that someone had saved a plan to a strange destination that MAS didn't fly to, I'd be inclined to ask a few questions. It probably depends on the Captain though. He might think nothing of it, because he'd be the one that would be normally responsible for activating a flightplan on the FMS.

In certain respects, if I wanted to accomplish this type of pre-programmed action, then the first thing you would want to do was to cut off the transmission of data from the plane that indicated something was amuse in the computer system. If the commands were already there, could they accomplish all of the actions necessary to disable the pilot/copilot and have the plane run a pre-established route on its own?

Essentially, yes. If you have the knowledge to process a new plan in the FMS and you have the ability to get into the cockpit and know which circuit breakers to pull to kill the radios, yes. But if you've got this knowledge, why not kill the SATCOM datalink? It doesn't really compute.

[AmericanPride]

Here's another question, inspired by Biggus' comments: what explains the lack of communication from the passengers? From the last communication at the point of diversion, the aircraft proceeded West over the Malaysian Peninsula. I'm assuming that had messages or phone calls been sent, that would have been the window - if there was a takeover of the aircraft or mechanical problems of any kind noticeable by the passengers, I think it's a reasonable assumption that a message of any kind may have escaped before the aircraft reached the Indian Ocean. Again, citing 9/11, many passengers and crew made phone calls to family, friends, and even the airline company from the cabin within minutes of the hi-jacking. MH370 had seven hours from its last communication.

So, (1) either the passengers were not aware of the diversion, (2) or the passengers did not have access to their communication devices (was there wifi or airphones available on the flight?). If (2), then actions from the hi-jackers would suggest either the communication devices were collected or the passengers were sufficiently intimidated or monitored. That, in turn, would suggest a fairly sized team of perpetrators; at least one to fly the plane and several more to monitor and control the passengers. Even with 4 hi-jackers on a flight during 9/11, many passengers/crew still managed to make phone calls within minutes of the event.

[Biggus]

Another issue: the aircraft produced a series of signals, some of which included airspeed and altitude. I would think plotting this series on a map would strongly indicate the directional intent of the aircraft; Kazakhstan and the southern Indian Ocean are in opposite directions from the last known position of an aircraft travelling West. I have yet to see a media report conducting that basic analysis - and as far as I know, that information has not been released. If the aircraft was lost for an 'innocent' reason or due to terrorism, why would this information not be released immediately? Are there sources and methods concerns involved?

As far as I know, the data produced by ACARS after the radio datalinks went down contains no such information. Just a series of pings, effectively checking that the connection still existed.

I think by now anyone reading this thread knows that I am not entirely sold on the hijacking explanation. I'm going to posit my one and only hijacking motivational theory for the day. I'm not enough of an Asia-Pacific expert to judge the reasonableness of the theory: It's a probe.

For terrorists, get some cannonfodder with a little training, possibly a comms system independent of the aircraft, do a dry run and disappear the evidence. Watch as more and more not-really-openly-talked-about stuff becomes public knowledge, learn about the likely responses, wait a year or two and press on with the real mission.

For an operation by a country, send an airliner over a huge chunk of the neighbourhood, watch how everyone reacts, see if you can pick anything up about their capabilities that you don't currently know.

I'd go with the terrorist angle, having independent comms systems onboard would probably explain a bit about why the US was so quick to start suggesting things were amiss, especially in the light of the fact that the ACARS datalink didn't get disabled until after last voice contact.

[Biggus]

Here's another question, inspired by Biggus' comments: what explains the lack of communication from the passengers? From the last communication at the point of diversion, the aircraft proceeded West over the Malaysian Peninsula. I'm assuming that had messages or phone calls been sent, that would have been the window - if there was a takeover of the aircraft or mechanical problems of any kind noticeable by the passengers, I think it's a reasonable assumption that a message of any kind may have escaped before the aircraft reached the Indian Ocean. Again, citing 9/11, many passengers and crew made phone calls to family, friends, and even the airline company from the cabin within minutes of the hi-jacking. MH370 had seven hours from its last communication.

So, (1) either the passengers were not aware of the diversion, (2) or the passengers did not have access to their communication devices (was there wifi or airphones available on the flight?). If (2), then actions from the hi-jackers would suggest either the communication devices were collected or the passengers were sufficiently intimidated or monitored. That, in turn, would suggest a fairly sized team of perpetrators; at least one to fly the plane and several more to monitor and control the passengers. Even with 4 hi-jackers on a flight during 9/11, many passengers/crew still managed to make phone calls within minutes of the event.

Well, it was a red-eye flight over a great deal of terrain that lacked mobile phone towers. In-cabin SATCOM was unavailable, and even if it was available, both it and onboard wifi (which would probably be unavailable anyway) is something that can be disabled in the cockpit in such a way as to not arouse real suspicions. It's probably also not terribly hard to do a 'this is your Captain speaking, we've encounted a delay at Beijing and we'll be up here for a couple more hours' type of message and not have too many questions asked.

Also worth mentioning that in parts of Southeast Asia, it's not hard to acquire a mobile phone blocker.

But yes, there are times when voice contact by phone is possible from an airliner. It's not perfect, it's very hit-and-miss, and text contact would be far far easier to do with any reliability whilst conveying any meaning.

[AmericanPride]

Well, it was a red-eye flight over a great deal of terrain that lacked mobile phone towers. In-cabin SATCOM was unavailable, and even if it was available, both it and onboard wifi (which would probably be unavailable anyway) is something that can be disabled in the cockpit in such a way as to not arouse real suspicions. It's probably also not terribly hard to do a 'this is your Captain speaking, we've encounted a delay at Beijing and we'll be up here for a couple more hours' type of message and not have too many questions asked.

Also worth mentioning that in parts of Southeast Asia, it's not hard to acquire a mobile phone blocker.

But yes, there are times when voice contact by phone is possible from an airliner. It's not perfect, it's very hit-and-miss, and text contact would be far far easier to do with any reliability whilst conveying any meaning.

That would suggest then that the take over the aircraft was (relatively) non-violent and uneventful. So we're back to the crew - people who have access to the cockpit.

[Biggus]

That would suggest then that the take over the aircraft was (relatively) non-violent and uneventful. So we're back to the crew - people who have access to the cockpit.

Not necessarily. I'm pointing out the possibility that it could happen. Twelve crew working on the flight, plus an MAS engineer, as I understand.

It doesn't discount the violent takeover in any way, merely an alternative where you get a bunch of compliant hostages for several hours. If there's no other chance to take the cockpit than violent action at the right moment, then that's what it takes. Mobile phone jammer set to 'active', roll on the opening door as a pilot steps out to go to the toilet. If you're quick, lucky and know where to find the crash-axe, you could be in there, armed and fairly bloody in seconds. It's just a lot easier if a crew member or MAS employee did it and concealed it for the remainder of the flight.

Edit: Still not squaring with the still functioning ACARS satellite uplink though.

[AmericanPride]

So, if this was a deliberate act (and successfully executed), who gains under each proposed scenario?

[TheCurmudgeon]

I think by now anyone reading this thread knows that I am not entirely sold on the hijacking explanation. I'm going to posit my one and only hijacking motivational theory for the day. I'm not enough of an Asia-Pacific expert to judge the reasonableness of the theory: It's a probe.

For terrorists, get some cannonfodder with a little training, possibly a comms system independent of the aircraft, do a dry run and disappear the evidence. Watch as more and more not-really-openly-talked-about stuff becomes public knowledge, learn about the likely responses, wait a year or two and press on with the real mission.

For an operation by a country, send an airliner over a huge chunk of the neighbourhood, watch how everyone reacts, see if you can pick anything up about their capabilities that you don't currently know.

I'd go with the terrorist angle, having independent comms systems onboard would probably explain a bit about why the US was so quick to start suggesting things were amiss, especially in the light of the fact that the ACARS datalink didn't get disabled until after last voice contact.

I thought about the "dry run" scenario, or more likely, a dry run that went wrong.

I know you are apt to defend the pilot/copilot, but they are the two who would be in a position to understand the aircraft and know when/where to take control. It could have been a passenger who was familiar to the pilot or copilot or it could have been someone who had psychological control over either of them. In any case, having either the pilot or copilot in on the scheme (or an unwilling dup) reduces the complication of the plot.

If not the pilot copilot then a crew member or a ground crew member who had set things up for someone else to execute once in the air, but you have to get access to the cockpit without the pilot/copilot sending a coded message that they were in trouble. But every time you add people you add the possibility of being found out or things going wrong. The fewer, the better.

The most likely scenario from there is that the cabin was depressurized, the plane flew to where the air is thin, and everyone without oxygen died. Not sure that is even possible, but it eliminates any issues with the passengers. I suppose the ground crew could have even disabled the oxygen mask system, but I am not sure that is possible.

Any of these scenarios limits the number of people willing to do this. Not many common thieves or even governments are willing to kill over 200 people. Yes, I am assuming that they are dead, and that killing them was part of the plan. This is a dangerous and risky operation for any government or crime syndicate when you probably could accomplish the same thing on the ground (as in the Brussels Diamond heist).

It smacks of someone who knew quite a bit, but not everything. A mechanic might have understood the nature of the Sat comm and disabled it early on. Of course, they might have just forgot or missed the opportunity. Terrorist error, so to speak.

And yes, I am speculating, but, unless 1) it was a terrorist group who wanted the plane to fly into something (say, in India) and things went wrong over the ocean, or 2) it was a terrorist group who wanted the plane itself for a future mission, I am almost ready to go with mango eating space aliens.

[TheCurmudgeon]

One other thing, if it was a terrorist group and things went wrong, then why not take credit for the kill?

You keep quite if you are not done yet.

It could be a dry run, but if there were terrorists on the plane it was a dry run where they died in the end (assuming the plane did not land somewhere) then I would have to question what type of terrorist would go in for that?

I have to be careful, because I am the first to argue that trying to impute logical motives to terrorists activities is probably not your best option. You have to think like them. But even they would not be willing to kill off a fellow terrorist unless there was gain in it somewhere.

Time traveling, mango eating space aliens - got to be the answer.

[AmericanPride]

Well... as far as a dry run... wouldn't it be important for the plane to at least be found so that assessments could be made about how difficult it was to penetrate security, seize the aircraft, etc? If this was a dry run, the perpetrators would only know the external search and rescue response.

[slapout9]

I have to be careful, because I am the first to argue that trying to impute logical motives to terrorists activities is probably not your best option. You have to think like them.

Finally somebody gets it. You are absolutely correct!!!!! trying to use logic when dealing with criminals,terrorist,etc. is total foolishness. To try and use logic and reason on a criminal is just totally "rancid"