Join Simon Calder’s mailing list for valuable travel tips and cost-saving deals at no cost.
Get Simon Calder’s Travel email
The loved ones of the 239 individuals who were on the Malaysia Airlines flight that went missing are commemorating ten years since they last saw their family members. The quest for clarification and closure persists.
Malaysia’s government announced on Sunday their potential plans to resume the search for the missing plane. This comes after an American marine robotics company suggested a new exploration, beyond their initial search location in 2018.
Philip Baum, a renowned expert in aviation security, has provided The Independent with a list of the top five potential scenarios that he deems to be the most probable. These scenarios will now be analyzed.
Pilot-assisted suicide
The main attention has been on Captain Zaharie Shah, the 53-year-old pilot in command of MH370, who flew from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with 227 passengers and 11 crew members under his supervision.
According to popular belief, Captain Shah purposely prevented the first officer from entering the flight deck. He turned off the communication systems that were meant to maintain contact between MH370 and air traffic controllers. He then put on an oxygen mask and intentionally caused the aircraft to lose air pressure. The high altitude, comparable to Mount Everest’s, would result in the passengers and remaining crew experiencing a lack of oxygen (hypoxia) and eventually leading to their demise.
According to the theory, the captain flew the aircraft along the border of Thailand and Malaysia in order to avoid drawing attention from military forces. He then changed course and headed south to a destination where he believed it would be impossible to locate the aircraft.
The official report states that there were no previous instances of apathy, anxiety, or irritability. It also mentions that there were no major alterations in his daily routine, conflicts with others, or stress within his family.
The initial officer, 27-year-old Fariq Abdul Hamid, was flying a Boeing 777 without a supervising captain for the first time. He had only flown the aircraft five times before. The investigation revealed that his work ethic and competence were noted as being satisfactory. It is doubtful that someone with such minimal experience with the aircraft could successfully carry out such a strategy.
Regrettably, there have been several instances where pilots caused crashes intentionally, such as the recent devastating loss of Germanwings flight 9525 from Barcelona to Dusseldorf. In this case, the co-pilot took his own life and the lives of 150 others. However, it is unprecedented for the crash to occur such a significant amount of time after the pilot’s actions.
he pilot’s intent to take control in order to land, survive and flee.
Although there is no known previous occurrence of this theory, it is possible that one of the pilots had intended to safely land or crash land the aircraft, but failed and became hypoxic along with the other passengers. However, it is hard to imagine a potential reason for undertaking such a bold mission.
Additionally, the investigators determined that there is no proof to indicate that the pilot in command (captain) or first officer had recently encountered any alterations or challenges within their personal relationships or that there were any disputes or issues between them.
There were no financial challenges or upcoming bankruptcy, nor were there any recent changes in insurance coverage or behavior among the crew.
The investigators examined the radio discussions of both pilots and concluded that there was no indication of anxiety or stress.
Furthermore, the last document states: “Disabling the automatic release of oxygen masks from the cockpit is not feasible.” The emergency masks are programmed to deploy if there is a significant decrease in cabin pressure, allowing the passengers and crew a window of time to attempt communication with ground control.
If a traveler or someone from the flight staff takes control
There is a high number of passengers and 10 cabin crew members on board, making it possible for various motives to exist. Kuala Lumpur International Airport had standard measures in place for aviation security. However, as the tragic incidents on 9/11 demonstrated, passing through a security checkpoint does not guarantee that a passenger is not a threat to the safety of the aircraft and its passengers.
A total of 227 individuals were onboard, including three children and two infants. The majority of passengers were from China, followed by Malaysia.
Two passengers from Iran were using passports that were stolen from an Italian and Austrian. However, it seems that they were actually undocumented immigrants trying to reach the Western world rather than having any harmful intentions.
The entire cabin crew, consisting of 10 individuals, were married and had children. This can suggest that it would have been unlikely for them to have hijacked the aircraft.
Taken over from a remote location through a highly skilled cyberattack.
This is where plausible hypotheses and implausible conspiracies start to overlap.
In 2003, Boeing filed for a patent allowing for remote control of aircraft to prevent hijacking attempts. The patented feature, known as the “uninterruptible” autopilot, could be activated by pilots, onboard sensors, or through remote radio or satellite connections by the airline or government in the event of a forced takeover of the cockpit.
“This activated system would prevent pilots from making any inputs and eliminate the possibility of anyone on board interrupting the automatic takeover. Therefore, the personnel on board would be unable to be coerced into following the instructions of unauthorized individuals.”
On the other hand, this technology could empower criminals on the ground to hijack the aircraft.
However, the company informed investigators that they have not utilized the patented system or any other technology to remotely operate a commercial airplane. Additionally, Boeing stated that they are not aware of any of their commercial aircrafts incorporating such technology.
The report states that there is no proof to back the claim that the aircraft 9M-MRO (also known as MH370) was remotely controlled, as such technology was not used on commercial planes.
Show your support for independent journalism by attending events hosted by The Independent.
Seized by a stowaway
Is it possible that someone could have gotten on the plane before the passengers and crew, either to commit suicide or with the goal of landing at a destination like Christmas Island, which is 1,000 miles away from Western Australia?
According to Philip Baum, there is a theory that ranks as the second most probable explanation after pilot suicide. Baum has proven that there is a space beneath the floor outside the flight deck door that could conceal a person. If this person were to stow away in that area, they could also disable the transponder, causing the aircraft to disappear.
In the field of aviation, there have been numerous instances where former employees with a vendetta have sought revenge against airlines. It is plausible that one of these individuals could be at fault, however, there are several reasons to doubt this theory and the likelihood of it being true is very slim.
The individual responsible would have required entry to the plane prior to its preparation for takeoff from Kuala Lumpur. They would have had to subdue the flight attendants, 227 travelers, and both pilots in order to gain control of the aircraft. Additionally, they would have needed to ensure they were not noticed upon their disappearance, which coincided with MH370’s vanishing.
Furthermore, it is challenging to determine a reason. No extremist organization has made a credible statement asserting responsibility for the hijacking of MH370 for political or propagandistic motives.
These theories can only be tested once the aircraft is located.
Rephrase: This information is from independent.co.uk.
