MH370: The Plane That Disappeared (Netflix)

[XelaM]

Has anyone seen this new Netflix documentary about MH370?

It's just unbelievable that in our time a passenger plane can just disappear without a trace.

I find the conspiracy theories in that documentary totally bizarre, but I also feel very sorry for the pilot's family who has effectively been scapegoated without any real evidence that he brought the plane down. If it was a murder-suicide why would he fly for another 8 hours instead of just crashing into the ocean where he was? It makes no sense. It's also an insane coincidence that two of Malaysian Airlines planes suffered tragedies in the space of just a few months in 2014 - nothing to do with any mechanical issues on the planes.

it could be that it’s sensible for two people to authorise turning off the transponder, but I don’t know if there are reasons that would be more trouble than good.

Problem with that specific idea is that the aircraft/flight deck design has to cater for single pilot operation, either to allow individuals short physiological breaks 🤐or in case one pilot becomes incapacitated 😯.

You also have to able to power down selected equipment quickly as part of many smoke/fire/fumes procedures.....

......Install a "two people needed to be turn this off" device of some sort and sods law says........🤔

.

@notimagain fair enough!

@SheilaFentiman

Hi again,

I alluded to ICAO looking at increasing tracking rates in the wake of this incident in a post yesterday. I've finally found at least one of their reports on this that might be of interest to yourself and maybe others:

www.icao.int/safety/globaltracking/documents/aircraft%20tracking%20task%20force%20report%20and%20recommendations%20-%20final.pdf

The 'documentary' was absolute trash. I'm not an aviation expert like some on here, but have read some of the linked articles previously and listened to the audible podcast. The only explanation that can plausibly account for what happened is that someone onboard took decisions and actions to make it so. Nothing else works...and then you're really left with just one person with the knowledge and ability to do it.

@notimagain thanks!

I'm flying to Lanzarote this afternoon. As there is no entertainment on BA short haul I've downloaded this to my tablet to watch. It was only when I saw this thread it occured to me that I've made rather an odd choice ....

Just for fairness:

It's maybe worth being aware that (just as pretty much two crew airliner) the co-pilot had the same type of licence as the captain (Air Transport Pilot's Licence -ATPL) and will have very recently done the 777 type rating course - technical training in ground school on the aircraft systems plus a concentrated period in the simulators.

Co-pilots often seem to be thought of as simply being "the pilot's" or the captain's assistants but that's not the case. They are qualified on the aircraft in their own right, they simply haven't done a command upgrade course at the airline they are working for.

Yes, and in both previous pilot murder/suicide cases mentioned on this thread, it was the co-pilot that crashed the plane

Yes absolutely understand about the co pilot, but I suppose I meant in this particular case it just didn't seem plausible (looking at all of the evidence) that it could be him.

IMHO the evidence says it is plausible - not saying he did it but you have to accept the possibility.

He certainly appears to get a bit of a free pass sometimes in the court of public opinion simply because he was young and "only the co-pilot".

So was Lubitz (Germanwings co-pilot).

The MH co-pilot was a reasonably experienced short haul pilot, TBF not a stellar amount of hours (just under 3000 I think) but he will have done a lot of sectors around that part of the world prior to converting to the 777, so he knew the region and it's ATC.

He'd recently gone through 777 ground school, then simulators, and was at the back end of his line training and so he would certainly have more than enough technical knowledge to disable the systems in question and handle the 777, both manually and via autopilot.

Just to be clear this isn't me trying to point the finger at him rather than the captain but if one of the operating flight crew was responsible for unlawful interference with the flight then it's unfair just to assume that it must have been the captain...

I don't disagree that it's possible, and it's not because Zaharie was the captain that I think it most likely him. It's just the whole evidence together that I think makes it the most likely evidence - the flight simulator, the skill needed to turn the plane, reports on his mood etc etc. Of course the co pilot is the only other real possibility, I just don't think the overall evidence points to him.

Garbled argument advice, but hopefully you get my drift!!

Above even ffs

I get what you are saying but I'm not sure about the "reports on his mood" I vaguely remember were rumours in the MSM around the time of the accident but there's a whole chunk of the safety report (see page 37 onwards) covering both the captain's and the co-pilots behaviours, both reported and as observed on CCTV:

"The PIC’s ability to handle stress at work and home was reported to be
good. There was no known history of apathy, anxiety, or irritability. There
were no significant changes in his lifestyle, interpersonal conflict or family
stresses.

1.5.11 Behavioural Events
There were no behavioural signs of social isolation, change in habits or
interest, self-neglect, drug or alcohol abuse of the PIC, FO and the cabin
crew."

reports.aviation-safety.net/2014/20140308-0_B772_9M-MRO.pdf

I would strongly disagree with is any idea that the co-pilot wouldn't have "the skill needed to turn the plane,"

Any co-pilot with a 777 rating on the licence would have the skills needed to perform any postulated possible turns, climbs, descents mentioned in the report and elsewhere....

The handling skills/tolerances required of both captains and co-pilots on checks/type ratings are identical. Being the captain is more about decision making ability and responsibilities under the law, not so much being an ace aircraft handler.

Weakened and watched the Netflix doc after all.

I don't think I learned anything new.

Can someone confirm whether the flaperon found on that island was actually attributed to mh370? I'd assumed that it was proven initially to have belonged to the missing plane but the Netflix doc seemed to contradict this (as the ID plate was not attached and therefore the identification was inconclusive after all). 🙄

Haven't seen the doc, but they are right about the plate being missing - however page 435 of the main Safety Report (plus one of the appendices) tells a more complete story:

"Only the parts washed ashore on La Reunion Island (the right flaperon),
Tanzania (part of the right outboard flap) and Mauritius (a section of the left
outboard flap) were confirmed to be from MH370. Although the name plate
was missing, which could have provided immediate traceability to the
accident aircraft, the flaperon was confirmed to be from the aircraft 9MMRO, by tracing the identification numbers of the internal parts of the flaperon to their manufacturing records at EADS, CASA, Spain.

reports.aviation-safety.net/2014/20140308-0_B772_9M-MRO.pdf

Also from the Australian Operational Search report, page 103 :

"The examination revealed a range of part and serial numbers marked on internal components of the item which were compared with the manufacturer’s records to confirm that the item was the right flaperon from the B777 aircraft operating flight MH370"

apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2017-10/apo-nid112656.pdf

@ageingdisgracefully

Apologies, belatedly realised I hadn't tagged/directed my reply ^^ back to you.

@notimagain exactly. Which is why I’m always stumped when people refer to the ‘missing MH370 plane’ after this. It’s not missing as such. Surely not every single piece of a plane which has obviously exploded apart on impact needs to be recovered and rebuilt before the plane is not deemed to be ‘missing’. What is not ascertained is the pinpoint that occurred, because that area of the ocean is so large/deep, but not sure what the relevance of that is now we know it went down and in what ocean.

Thank you so much, notimagain

I watched this and found it fascinating. I am quite concerned about that hatch in the plane that isn't locked though. Anyone could go in there and tamper with things.

Also it's baffling why a plane would just fly 6 more hours until the fuel ran out. Makes me think maybe everyone on board was possibly unconscious. It doesn't make sense.

“Also it's baffling why a plane would just fly 6 more hours until the fuel ran out. Makes me think maybe everyone on board was possibly unconscious. It doesn't make sense.”

I think it’s believed that everyone, bar possibly one or two, was unconscious or dead for most of the flight. If not, presumably they would have taken action to break down the cockpit door.

@Bepis

I watched this and found it fascinating. I am quite concerned about that hatch in the plane that isn't locked though. Anyone could go in there and tamper with things.

In theory they could, but the hatch area is in full view of cabin crew so anybody inclined to tamper would be relying on nobody intervening ...and FWIW any tampering would be restricted to perhaps disabling systems by pulling circuit breakers, being down there doesn't allow you to actively control much if anything and certainly doesn't allow somebody to take control of the aircraftand start steering it around the sky.

Also it's baffling why a plane would just fly 6 more hours until the fuel ran out. Makes me think maybe everyone on board was possibly unconscious. It doesn't make sense.

Well I think it's pretty much been assumed for a long time now that most people on board were unconscious and if you buy into this being a deliberate act that's easily explained: One option is somebody on the flight deck put their oxygen mask on, then depressurised the aircraft (that can be done with the operation of maybe two or three switches). Unlike the oxygen supply to the flight deck (which will last multiple hours) the emergency supply of oxygen to passengers and crew is relatively short lived, a few minutes for the passengers, maybe an hour, tops, for the cabin crew.

The aircraft had fuel for 6 hours plus at cruise altitude at the point of disappearance. Without any human intervention and depending on what autopilot modes had been last selected the autopilot would hold height, speed and either fly a programmed flight patch (as per the Helios 522 accident back in 204) or fly a fixed/heading until the fuel runs out.

Assuming to the pilot did it, and wanted to disappear without trace, it strikes me that he got a bit lucky with the relative incompetence of various parties such as ATC, Malaysia Airlines and the Malaysian military. If anyone had been a bit more on the ball, while he couldn't have been stopped, there could have been a lot more information gathered.

I’m not sure. Even if the alarm
had been raised between ATCs after 5 minutes ( as I think it was supposed to be) rather than 20 as actually happened, the natural presumption was a failure or crash near where comms went dark.

This is what I am leaning towards also. It seems to carefully executed to be an accident of some sort. I don't believe it was the pilot though.