IGX

DARTH wrote:Never mind what an airline pilot pilot, a real fucking expert says. Never mind what another aviator said who linked me this article, never mind what one of the guys on this page,who was in combat aircrews say's "Makes a ton of sense to me."

No Steve hears it on CNN and therefore GOSPEL, it must be one of the more sexy scenarios. Hey it might be terrorism, or theft or a pilot gone batshit? But before you go into Jack Bauer land, you might want to consider a more likely scenario?

This guy again. He's wrong for at least 87 reasons, but I applaud his ability to shoehorn the facts into his preconceived notions and to get everyone and their brother reporting some idea that popped into his head randomly.
This is the single stupidest theory about MH370 because it is contradicted by reality.
When there is an in-flight fire, every training reference agrees that the highest priority is to get the aircraft on the ground as soon as possible. The only reason to bypass a closer airport for a farther one is because the closer airport is unsuitable for some reason. Bypassing Khota Baru for Pulau Langkawi, 300 miles distant, would therefore be insanity.
That aside, there is incontrovertible evidence that the aircraft was detected on radar far to the northwest of Pulau Langkawi, having maneuvered carefully to get there, and evidence from Inmarsat that the plane was intact and powered up six hours and fifty minutes after the transponder went off. The only way we can consider this theory is by discounting reality.
This theory represents the absolute worst of the cult of personality. One brave, good and true retired pilot salutes another brave pilot's valiant struggle to save his passengers from disaster, so goes the 'gut feeling'.
It is a fairy tale. We should discount it completely for that reason alone. We are too easily manipulated to trust such things. This tale should, instead, set off alarm bells in everyone's head. The fact that it does not implies only that we are too immature to live in a technological world.
Edit: I note that he has amended his original article to account for the Inmarsat data, so that now we have a 'smart fire' that is somehow bad enough to kill everyone aboard, disable all of the communications equipment except the SATCOM, but somehow not disable the autopilot, then put itself out and allow the aircraft to continue for almost seven hours.
Also, apparently "oxygen is a no-no" when there is a fire. That's right, I remember it from the section of the 777 POH entitled "In-flight Fire--The Oxygen No No". That is the part that says the pilot must die of smoke inhalation rather than donning an oxygen mask and saving the plane.

This article is frighteningly ignorant, and the author claims to be a pilot? The 777 has completely separate electrical buses. A left and a right. To claim that both were shut down together and this fire magically disabled both while also disabling every antenna, uhf, vhf, and ontop of that, also the acars satellite, is ignorant. Not to mention the 2 separate main buses, it also has an emergency backup bus.
If this author (wont call him a pilot due to his ignorance) was correct, then BOTH engines would have had to be on fire and shut down, and the rat some how did not extend to supply emergency power. The worst part about this "theory" is that electrical buses supply EVERYTHING to the 777 especially the flight controls since it is a fly by wire system along the lines of the Airbus.
I am sorry but this is the most ridiculous claim. The simple theory is they were hijacked at cruising altitude and forced to divert and not make any communication. Then either a fight to retake ended in a crash or they tried making it to an alternative destination and either did land or ran out of fuel before making it.

Exactly. The author here uses Swiss 111 as an example to prove his point... except for the fact that the pilots radioed an emergency. Disproving his theory with another fact.

I totally agree. Everything on a 777 has a redundant safety backup, usually several, for every system on the plane. If there were an electrical fire it couldn't have taken out all of the systems at once, meaning that the pilot would have had ample time to radio a distress signal and state his intent to land at the airport mentioned in the article. The only two theories that make sense given the known circumstances are pilot suicide or some sort of attack on the plane.

Cool theory and all, except malaysia airlines pilot tend to pick Penang as an alternate if he is that side. From point of missing there are a few closer and longer runway like Kota Baru, Terangganu, Alot Star, etc. Langkawi has terrain on one side of the runway. If I recall correct, Langkawi is not open 24h

This article is complete, 100% speculation and screams of arrogance and condescension. There are a ton of holes in his theory as well, and it's extremely ignorant of him to believe that the head investigators haven't thought of an electrical fire.

Surprisingly, none of the reporters, officials, or other pilots interviewed have looked at this from the pilot’s viewpoint:

How the fuck does he know that? Does he really think that the investigators/officials/other pilots didn't consider a cabin fire as a leading possibility? I remember when the story first broke out, not many people were saying it was a hijack. People were thinking cabin fire and decompression. The hijacking theory came about 3-4 days after it disappeared. He thinks he knows better than people who have direct access to all the information surrounding this crash, and has 'no doubt in his mind' that the others are wrong. What a load of bullcrap. His theory is no more close minded than those who are convinced it has landed or was shot down.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:Pfffft, someone knows more than they're letting on.

T>1200 wrote:The latest theory is, the debris may have sunk. In the ocean. A team of analysts is investigating whether debris may have sunk. In the ocean.

Seems extraordinarily unlikely!