What occurred to MH370? Examination of five potential explanations.

Ten years have passed since the loved ones of the 239 individuals on the disappeared Malaysia Airlines flight lost their family members. The quest for resolution persists.

The Malaysian government announced on Sunday that they are considering restarting the search for the missing flight, after an American company that attempted to locate the plane in 2018 suggested a new search area that goes beyond its original search area.

Aviation security expert Philip Baum has provided The Independent with his assessment of the five most probable scenarios. Let’s examine each one.

There has been a lot of attention directed towards Captain Zaharie Shah, the commander of the aircraft. At the time of the flight MH370, he was 53 years old and in charge of flying from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing. On board were 227 passengers and 11 other crew members under his responsibility.

One popular belief suggests that Captain Shah prevented the first officer from entering the flight deck. He turned off the communication systems, which were meant to maintain contact between MH370 and air-traffic controllers. Then, he put on an oxygen mask and caused the plane to lose pressure. As the plane reached an altitude even higher than Mount Everest, the passengers and remaining crew would eventually succumb to a lack of oxygen (hypoxia).

According to the theory, the captain deliberately altered the flight path of the aircraft to avoid attracting attention from either Thailand or Malaysia’s military. He proceeded along the border of both countries before heading south to a remote location where he believed the aircraft would never be discovered.

The official report states that there were no recorded instances of apathy, anxiety, or irritability. In addition, there were no notable alterations in his daily routine, conflicts with others, or familial pressures.

The initial officer, Fariq Abdul Hamid, was 27 years old. This was his initial Boeing 777 mission without the guidance of a training captain, and he had previously piloted the aircraft only five times. According to the investigators, his skills and professional demeanor were reported to be satisfactory. It appears improbable that someone with such minimal familiarity with the aircraft would be capable of executing such a scheme.

Unfortunately, there have been multiple incidents where suicidal pilots have caused crashes – such as the recent tragedy of Germanwings flight 9525 from Barcelona to Dusseldorf. In this case, the co-pilot purposely crashed the plane, causing the deaths of 150 people. However, it is rare for the crash to occur so long after the pilot’s initial actions.

Though there is no clear evidence to support this idea, it is possible that one of the pilots intended to safely land or ditch the plane, but failed due to lack of oxygen and became incapacitated along with the other passengers. However, it is hard to imagine a reason for undertaking such a bold mission.

Additionally, the examination concluded that there is no proof indicating that the pilot in command (known as the captain) and first officer had undergone recent changes or difficulties in their personal relationships, or that there were any disputes or issues between them.

There were no financial difficulties or possible bankruptcy, no recent purchases of insurance or changes in behavior for the crew.

The investigators also analysed both pilots’ radio conversations and say they detected “no evidence of anxiety or stress”.

The final report also states that it is not feasible to prevent the automatic release of oxygen masks from the cockpit. These masks are designed to drop automatically in case of a major decrease in cabin pressure, giving passengers and crew a chance to communicate with the ground.

Due to the high number of passengers and 10 cabin crew members, there is a variety of potential motives. Standard security protocols were implemented at Kuala Lumpur International Airport. As demonstrated by the tragic 9/11 incident, passing through a checkpoint does not guarantee that a passenger is not a threat to the safety of the aircraft and those onboard.

227 passengers in total were on the plane, including three children and two infants. The majority were from China, followed by Malaysia.

Two individuals from Iran were using passports that had been reported as stolen from an Italian and an Austrian. However, it is believed that they were actually illegal immigrants seeking to enter Western countries and not posing any harmful motives.

All ten members of the cabin crew were married and had children, leading some to believe that they were not likely to have hijacked the aircraft.

This is where practical theories and unrealistic conspiracy theories start to come together.

Boeing obtained a patent in 2003 for a system where aircraft could be remotely controlled to prevent hijackings. The patent proposed an “uninterruptible” autopilot that could be activated by pilots, sensors on the plane, or via radio or satellite by the airline or government in case of an attempted takeover of the cockpit.

“The activation of this system would prevent pilot inputs and inhibit any interruptions from individuals onboard, ensuring that the personnel onboard cannot be coerced into complying with the demands of unauthorized individuals.”

The opposite scenario is that individuals on the ground could potentially use this technology to seize control of the aircraft.

However, upon investigation, the aircraft manufacturer informed investigators that they have not utilized the patented system or any other technology to remotely control a commercial aircraft. They are also not aware of any Boeing commercial aircraft that has integrated such technology.

The report states that there is no proof to validate the notion that remote control of the aircraft 9M-MRO, also known as MH370, was possible or occurred as the necessary technology was absent from commercial aircraft.

Did someone potentially enter the aircraft before the passengers and crew, either with the intent of carrying out a suicidal mission or to land at a destination, such as Christmas Island, located 1,000 miles northwest of Western Australia?

Philip Baum’s theory ranks as the second most probable explanation, following pilot suicide. He pointed out that there is a space beneath the floor near the door to the flight deck that could potentially hide a person. This individual could also disable the transponder, causing the airplane to become undetectable.

In the aviation industry, there have been instances of disgruntled former employees intentionally harming airlines. While it is a possibility, there are several compelling reasons to doubt this explanation and the likelihood of it occurring is very slim.

The person responsible must have been able to enter the aircraft before it was prepared for takeoff in Kuala Lumpur. They would have had to outmaneuver the crew, 227 passengers, and two pilots in order to gain control of the aircraft. Furthermore, they would have had to escape unnoticed at the same time as MH370’s disappearance.

Furthermore, it is challenging to determine a motive. No terrorist organization has made a substantial statement claiming responsibility for the takeover of MH370 for political or propaganda motives.

These theories can only be tested once the aircraft is located.

Unable to reword.