Malaysia Jet missing-Officials conclude crash in Indian ocean/all lives presumed lost

[Acey]

Yes CTV, publish an article about Canadians who "believe they have found the answer" by hypothesizing murder-suicide, a leading theory since day 1. Let me know when they find the airplane.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Acey

Yes CTV, publish an article about Canadians who "believe they have found the answer" by hypothesizing murder-suicide, a leading theory since day 1. Let me know when they find the airplane.

Could be wrong but they have determined it was murder-suicide by examing piecies of the plane that have been found no?

[MoneyGuy]

Watched an Aussie documentary and murder-suicide seems to be the leading theory. I'm buying that.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Could be wrong but they have determined it was murder-suicide by examing piecies of the plane that have been found no?

I'm not sure you can examine a piece of the wing and conclude murder-suicide.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by nik-

I'm not sure you can examine a piece of the wing and conclude murder-suicide.

And yet, that's what they did...

By examining the marks on the wreckage, they theorized that the flaps had been down when the airplane hit the water. This would mean that the plane had entered the water at a relatively low speed.


"We would call that a controlled ditching into the water. And the only way that could happen is if somebody was flying the airplane. In particular, if somebody selected the flaps to be in the extended position."


And if the flaps were extended, it meant the engines were still running and that the plane had not run out of fuel.
"I believe with 100 per cent certainty that the airplane entered the water in a controlled ditching with the flaps extended," said Vance.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/mh370-flight-...rash-1.4665938

[Scroopy Noopers]

^ weird.... someone with actual experience in this came up with a conclusion based on evidence.

[Raekwon]

Personally I would be going full speed nosedive If I was going to commit Murder/Suicide

[nik-]

Controlled ditching isn't indicative of murder-suicide though, it's indicative of something trying to save a plane. Why would you slow down if the point was to kill everyone and yourself?

[Fuzz]

I'm not sure I buy the conclusion though. If the flaps were extended in a "controlled ditch" would it not also support the conclusion that the pilot attempted to water land as gently as possible? If he was trying to crater the plane, why not hit the water as fast as possible? The fact of the flap position, to me anyway, tends to disprove the murder theory.

[Raekwon]

Just remember how far off course they were, that is why they came to the conclusion of suicide. Basically saying the plane and pilot were in control the whole time and knew where and what they were doing.

[Acey]

Yeah it seems like ditching at slow speed with flaps is a sure fire way to make sure somebody survives. Or halfway down he decided to maybe not kill everybody and threw the flaps out as a consolation prize? To reach a "100% conclusion" that it was a slow ditching based on nearly zero evidence, is whatever... great. You have experience in the field. To conclude with certainty that murder-suicide was the intent based solely on that sliver evidence is where it falls apart IMO, especially given the precedent of proven murder-suicides where pilots crashed into mountains or the water at high speed, obliterating the aircraft.

Originally Posted by Raekwon

Just remember how far off course they were, that is why they came to the conclusion of suicide.

I haven't forgotten, but where's the airplane? They're 100% sure? Okay. This is a revolutionary development in the investigation of air crashes, assuming murder-suicide for anybody that's way off course...

[GoinAllTheWay]

I think the theory regarding the flaps being deployed was to prevent from smashing the plane into millions of pieces and having wreckage washing up everywhere. I guess a lower speed impact would keep more of the plane intact and letting it sink to the bottom and disappearing forever.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

I think the theory regarding the flaps being deployed was to prevent from smashing the plane into millions of pieces and having wreckage washing up everywhere. I guess a lower speed impact would keep more of the plane intact and letting it sink to the bottom and disappearing forever.

That's an entirely valid theory and indeed possible, that this was murder-suicide and a significant additional effort made to conceal it as such.

Just to draw that conclusion at 100% with almost zero evidence has me like

Especially when in other crashes, with far more evidence, the NTSB and other safety boards have listed the cause as merely "probable" murder-suicide.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Acey

Yeah it seems like ditching at slow speed with flaps is a sure fire way to make sure somebody survives. Or halfway down he decided to maybe not kill everybody and threw the flaps out as a consolation prize? To reach a "100% conclusion" that it was a slow ditching based on nearly zero evidence, is whatever... great. You have experience in the field. To conclude with certainty that murder-suicide was the intent based solely on that sliver evidence is where it falls apart IMO, especially given the precedent of proven murder-suicides where pilots crashed into mountains or the water at high speed, obliterating the aircraft.



I haven't forgotten, but where's the airplane? They're 100% sure? Okay. This is a revolutionary development in the investigation of air crashes, assuming murder-suicide for anybody that's way off course...

Well "100% conclusion" is just stupid. But very little of the plane has come to shore...that would suggest it didn't smash into the ocean at high speed and into millions of pieces...it either floated down or was controlled down and broke up into a couple of pieces and sank.

I still think the best bet was the plane was on auto pilot and cabin pressure switch was off (slowly kill everyone by hypoxia) and the plan just eventually ran out of fuel and glided down. The flaps appearing down doesn't sway me from my opinion. (based on watching every mayday episode ever)

[Acey]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Well "100% conclusion" is just stupid. But very little of the plane has come to shore...that would suggest it didn't smash into the ocean at high speed and into millions of pieces...it either floated down or was controlled down and broke up into a couple of pieces and sank.

Yes to rephrase/clarify that initial post, my issue is not with the notion of a slow ditching but rather the assumption that said ditching was, with 100% certainty, a murder-suicide attempt. I just don't see how there's enough evidence to make that leap.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Acey

Yes to rephrase/clarify that initial post, my issue is not with the notion of a slow ditching but rather the assumption that said ditching was, with 100% certainty, a murder-suicide attempt. I just don't see how there's enough evidence to make that leap.

I think just based on the past incidents and evidence we do have that murder-suicide is very likely - i just doubt that the pilot hung on until the end did a controlled landing with flaps down... Ten thousand miles off course...but i suppose if you are that crazy than anything is possible...

Again just my opinion.

[para transit fellow]

This premise that the engines had to still be turning to drop the flaps is false. The gimli glider, the miracles on the Hudson, and air transat's luck to deadstick on the Azores are three examples of flaps to be deployed via backup systems that can be engaged when the engines quit.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

This premise that the engines had to still be turning to drop the flaps is false. The gimli glider, the miracles on the Hudson, and air transat's luck to deadstick on the Azores are three examples of flaps to be deployed via backup systems that can be engaged when the engines quit.

Curious as to where you're getting that information, because it's wrong... so here we go.

Gimli nor Azores were able to deploy flaps (just slats on the 330 got out) due to lack of hydraulic pressure. The ram air turbine, the little propeller that drops down to provide limited flight control; it cannot provide the hydraulic pressure required to move the massive flaps on a 777. Sully, however, was able to deploy flaps 2 for the A320 on the Hudson. What's funny is Airbus says they shouldn't have even been able to deploy due to lack of pressure, but the FDR data says they maintained sufficient pressure to deploy them anyway. My guess is that because they hit the water so soon after the geese that pressure hadn't yet bled off. I don't know a lot of Airbus stuff. Gimli got nothing for flaps. Just a bit of slat extension.

So to sum up, under normal circumstances, zero of the 3 types you mentioned can properly deploy flaps with no motors turning, and add the 777 to the list.

In general, airliners are such a varied breed... it's hard to make blanket statements. My friend's Tesla can drive itself. My Honda Civic cannot. That's about how similar a 777 is to the modern Airbuses you mention, and the geriatric early 1980's model 767 at Gimli.

[Ryan Coke]

Sully started the APU (auxiliary power unit). His electric hydraulic pumps were working because of that.

The assumption is that if the engines weren’t running it was because of fuel starvation, which would preclude starting the apu. It if there was still fuel then the apu would provide electrical power to run the electric hydraulic pumps, allowing flaps to be extended.

[Acey]

Yeah I didn't know if Sully had got his APU online in time. I should probably read the report for that accident. So yes, there's a distinction to be made between the Hudson which had gas, and Gimli/Azores which cannot run the APU as they have no gas.