I acknowledge that the table above does not contain all the known facts, or all the suggested potential scenarios. I also acknowledge that it is possible to debate which of the boxes deserve a checkmark (✔). Please do not get distracted by the contents of the table. I ask you to follow along and allow it to demonstrate how this analysis tool works, and to show how it can be useful in an actual investigation analysis situation.
The left column (going down) is used to list the known facts. The top row (going across) is used to list potential scenarios that could have caused the event. The checkmark (✔) in the intersecting boxes means that it is possible/probable to connect the known fact back to the potential lead event.
In working with this methodology, you must consider that when you have gathered all the known facts, there is only one scenario at the top that will allow a checkmark (✔) in every box in its column, and that is the scenario that actually happened. If you have an empty box in the column under a particular scenario, then either you have an incorrect fact (you have to reassess its validity), or that scenario did not happen, and can be disregarded.
As we examine various scenarios below, you may find it helpful to construct your own table for MH370 where you can add more columns for other potential scenarios, and a longer column of known facts. You are doing real investigation work when you have to decide what you will add as a known fact. Seeking out and validating facts is the most fundamental activity in professional investigation work.
In the end, for each potential scenario, the table will show either an unbroken column of check marks, or a dead end with empty boxes.
This is a good opportunity to explain what leads to so much of the inaccurate writing and commentary regarding aircraft accidents. What typically happens is that people come up with a scenario that (if they used a table above) would string together a number of checked boxes. Then, they present that scenario as a possibility for what happened. What they fail to recognize is that if they were actually using a table that had all of the known facts included, their scenario would reach a point where they would get to empty boxes. People who do not use a method, such as the table above, do not recognize that the empty boxes are there.
Here is an example of how that happens, using the scenario of a cockpit fire in MH370. Is it possible that a catastrophic cockpit fire could disable a transponder? The answer is yes – so give that a checkmark. Is it possible for such a fire to disable an airplane’s communication systems? The answer is yes – so give it a checkmark. Is it possible that the airplane could make several turns at high altitude with an ongoing fire? The answer is yes – so give it a checkmark. Is it possible for an oxygen leak to increase the severity of an in-flight fire? The answer is yes – so give that a checkmark. Is it possible for a fire to cause an airplane to depressurize? The answer is yes – so give it a checkmark. Is it possible for a fire to disable a flight crew? The answer is yes – so give that a checkmark.
With all these checkmarks lining up, the individual doing the research becomes convinced they have discovered what happened, or at the very least what could have happened. In the absence of proof showing where the empty boxes would be in the table, people can come to believe that their scenario “probably did happen”, and convince others.
It is important to realize that someone who is presenting a scenario that theoretically could happen is not actually providing proof that it did happen, no matter how meticulous his or her research might appear. In the absence of accurate factual information from the official investigation (which is what we see from the MH370 investigation), any theory with reasonable looking logic is as good as the next one.
Inevitably, unless someone is working with the scenario that actually happened, their scenario will have boxes that cannot be given a checkmark. Some cannot find the empty boxes for their scenario because they choose to disregard any fact that does not fit with it. Others do not discover the empty boxes because they simply do not have the expertise to recognize what all the facts are, or how to assess them.
No matter what method is attempted to assess the facts, it can only work if the inputted facts are correct. The official MH370 investigation team went astray when they accepted the unpiloted airplane theory as a fact. They went further astray when they calculated that before entering the water the airplane was in an unpiloted high-speed dive. Then they went completely astray when they incorrectly assessed that the flaps were retracted (up) when the airplane entered the water.
In examining theories that have been proposed for what happened to MH370, it is not my intention to single out any particular individual for their attachment to any specific theory. From what I have read, for any given theory that has been proposed by an individual, there are many others who have expressed their support or opposition.
Below, I have attempted to group the collective thinking on each general theory into one descriptive narrative – for the purpose of assessing its validity.
Some people support the theory that an onboard fire disabled MH370. Various origins for a fire have been proposed, including lithium-ion batteries in the cargo compartment, a malfunctioning windscreen heater, and an oxygen leak in the cockpit.
As part of the MH370 investigation, it would be standard practice for the investigators to look at the potential for an onboard fire. In particular, investigators would examine all potential fire initiation sources, looking for any potential threats to the safety of the airplane. If any safety deficiency is identified, they have a responsibility to make that deficiency known, so that proper protections can be put in place.
For MH370, working through a standard investigation process can dismiss a fire scenario as the lead event. We can work through that process here – the same process that would be followed by a professional investigation team. We will look first at the potential for a lithium-ion battery fire to be the lead event; that is, the first event in a chain of events that led to the disappearance of MH370.
Our fire scenario starts with the initiation of a fire in a cargo compartment containing the batteries. Our objective, as we work our way through this scenario, is to try to connect this fire initiation to the first known anomaly in MH370, which was the disappearance of the airplane’s transponder signal. In other words, for this hypothesis to be validated, we must be able to construct a chain of events that link the cargo compartment fire directly to the transponder signal failure. That is standard investigation practice.
The cargo compartments are below the passenger cabins, down in the belly of the airplane. We know that in the B777, all the cargo compartments have very sophisticated fire protection. The protections include both aural and visual fire warnings in the cockpit, and fire suppression and containment systems built into the cargo compartments.
So now we have an investigation question – if there was a lithium-ion battery fire in a cargo compartment, is it reasonable to assume that the cargo compartment fire detection system would detect that fire almost immediately, and activate the aural and visual warnings in the cockpit? The answer is yes – it is reasonable to accept that a lithium-ion battery fire in a cargo compartment would very quickly produce aural and visual warnings in the cockpit.
We know that when the pilot was making his final radio transmission, there were no fire warnings in the cockpit. We know that because the pilot’s voice was very calm, and he had not been alerted to any fire. We know that on the ATC recording of that call, there was no sound of an aural fire warning in the background. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that there was no lithium-ion battery fire in a cargo compartment when the pilot was making his last radio transmission.
The transponder signal from MH370 disappeared from radar screens less than two minutes after this final radio transmission. So here is another investigation question: is it possible that in less than two minutes, a fire could ignite in a cargo compartment, and propagate to where the heat from that fire could disable the transponder? Let me give you the quick answer – no. That is not a reasonable assumption, as explained below.
Within the official investigation team, all potential fire scenarios would be examined in great detail. Here is a condensed version of how professional investigators would conduct their analysis.
Investigators would know that there was a large shipment of lithium-ion batteries on board MH370. They would know that lithium-ion battery fires are self-sustaining, and that they burn very hot, and that they are not easily extinguished. They would know that the cargo compartment was designed to withstand a flame source of 1,700°F for at least five minutes. They would assess how long a lithium-ion battery fire would take to penetrate through the purpose-built fire-resistant cargo liner in the B777. If they were unsure (after checking the certification testing documents), they would conduct their own testing.
From a safety perspective, if they had any doubt about the ability of the fire protection systems in the cargo compartment to function as designed, they would recommend recertification. If they felt that the certification standards were not high enough, they would recommend enhanced standards.
They would know that a lithium-ion battery fire could not be extinguished by the cargo compartment’s halon fire suppression system. For the purpose of following the scenario (by assuming it actually happened), they would accept that a lithium-ion battery fire actually escaped from the cargo compartment. They would then look for potentially flammable materials in the B777 that could support the spread of the fire from the area of the cargo compartment to the nearest electrical wiring needed to allow the transponder to function.
They would be aware that no critical wiring needed to support services in the cockpit (including the transponder) are located in the vicinity of the cargo compartments. They would know that before the fire could affect any critical wiring, the fire would have to spread extensively into other parts of the airplane, including into critical wiring in the forward section of the airplane.
They would do testing to determine how long it would take for a propagating fire to spread all the way to where it could affect critical aircraft wiring, including wiring that supports the functioning of the transponder.
They would assess the type of wiring used to power the transponder. In particular, they would test the wire’s resistance to heat and fire. They would determine that the protective covering on such wiring is exceptionally resistant to heat and flames. In certification, aircraft wires are assessed as pass/fail by being exposed to the flame from a Bunsen burner. The testing is very stringent.
Investigators would know that before a fire could cause the loss of the transponder signal in MH370, the fire would have had to burn through the protective covering on the wire to expose the copper conductor inside. The exposure of the copper conductor would cause the wire to short circuit, and trip a circuit breaker. They would know that even after the fire had propagated all the way to where the wiring was located, it would take at least several minutes for the fire to burn through the wire’s protective covering.
Again, the above is only a summary of how investigators would assess the potential for a lithium-ion battery fire to have been the lead event in the disappearance of MH370. It is easy to see that such a scenario does not fit with the known facts. It would take much longer than two minutes for a fire to start in a cargo compartment and spread to where it could expose the conductor of a critical wire supporting the operation of the transponder.
We can look at another potential fire scenario that gained some support. In this scenario, the fire started from a defect in the windshield. The fire initiation was followed by pilot actions, and system defects, that led to the fire being greatly intensified by the introduction of oxygen.
Heat from the fire caused the circuit breakers for the transponders and communications radios to trip, and drove the pilots from the cockpit. The fire eventually caused a breach in the pressure vessel, and the airplane depressurized. Through all this, the autopilot remained functional. The pilots, who were injured, could not make the airplane descend to a survivable altitude, but they were able to aim the airplane south over the ocean. Then, they succumbed to hypoxia.
This is a textbook example of a scenario (as discussed previously) that can generously be viewed as “theoretically possible”. Some might view it as improbable, because it is based on a number of complicated actions and factors that had to come together simultaneously. But in the absence of proven alternatives, some people view it as credible.
In reality, there is not a single piece of hard evidence to prove that this scenario actually happened. It is the same for any of the other fire theories. Each of these theories depends on there being an unpiloted airplane at the end of the flight. The evidence proves that none of these fire theories are possible, because at the end of the flight the pilot was alive and functional, and he was controlling a fully functioning airplane all the way to the ocean surface.
Some people support the theory that MH370 disappeared after a passenger or passengers on board hijacked it. Once they gained control, they dictated and controlled each subsequent event, all the way to the end of the flight.
The case for a passenger hijacking is very weak, and the arguments against it are strong. However, there is no specific evidence to unequivocally reject it. Therefore, to investigate it we must follow a standard investigation process. There are at least three different hijacking scenarios that have support from some MH370 investigation enthusiasts.
The first is a scenario where a passenger or passengers onboard MH370 hijack the airplane by gaining access to the cockpit.
The second scenario involves one or more passengers gaining access to the airplane’s onboard flight computers, which are located in the electronics and equipment bay. The compartment housing the electronics and equipment can be accessed from inside the passenger cabin through a hatch door in the floor aft of the cockpit. This scenario suggests that hijackers entered the compartment, and used sophisticated electronic equipment they had smuggled on board to take control of the airplane.
The third scenario involves remote hacking into the airplane. The perpetrators remotely hacked into the airplane’s flight management systems, thereby controlling and navigating the airplane remotely.
Let us first look at the possibility of a hijacking by a passenger or passengers who were on the airplane, and gained access to the cockpit. (For simplicity of writing, I will refer to one male hijacker – the investigation process would be the same if there were more than one hijacker.)
Passenger doors on airline airplanes are exceptionally robust. Once the cockpit door is closed for flight, the only way the door can be opened is if a pilot unlocks it from inside the cockpit.
The first thing to be looked at when assessing a potential passenger hijacking is timing. We must show a direct link between our “cause” (in this case the hijacker), and the first known anomaly (the disappearance of the transponder signal). Remember that it was less than two minutes from when the pilot made his final radio transmission until the transponder signal disappeared. In fact, the first transponder anomaly occurred only one minute and six seconds after the pilot’s final radio transmission. We must assess the likelihood of a hijacker being able to access the cockpit, and disable the transponder, in that short of a timeframe.
Another factor in this passenger hijacking theory is that the hijacker would have to be very knowledgeable about airplane operations, and have very specific knowledge about operating a B777. The hijacker would have to know that disabling the transponder would make the airplane disappear from radar. Also, the hijacker would have to know how to keep the pilots from taking subtle actions that would alert air traffic control about the hijacking.
The investigation authorities claimed that they conducted background checks on everyone on board MH370. They contend that no one on board had a background that would give them specific knowledge about airplane operations. If that is true, then the only two people on board MH370 who were capable of operating and flying the airplane were the two pilots. Therefore, in this passenger-hijacking scenario, we must assume that the hijacker forced the MH370 pilots to keep flying the airplane, and to follow his orders.
Let us return to how this hijacker could gain access to the cockpit. We can envision how the cockpit door might have been opened momentarily. Perhaps a pilot opened it to allow access by a flight attendant. Perhaps one of the pilots had to leave the cockpit to use the washroom. Remember the timing – the hijacker would have had only about one minute to gain access through the cockpit door, and then to gain control of the airplane, and then to have the pilots shut down the transponder, and then to have the pilots start a turn to reverse course.
Because of the timing, you would have to assume that when the cockpit door was opened, the hijacker was nearby, and ready to attack. Only people in the first class section of the airplane would be in a position to have quick access to the cockpit door area. The hijacker would have to be nearby, and watching for that door to be opened. Most certainly, the cockpit door would not have been opened if any unexpected passenger were lurking nearby.
In this passenger hijack scenario, here is what would have to happen within a timeframe of something less than one minute. The hijacker would have to force his way into the cockpit. Then the hijacker would have to gain full control over both pilots. Then the hijacker would have to order the pilots to disable the transponder. Then the pilots would have to comply. At the same time, the hijacker would have to order the pilots to immediately start a turn to reverse course, and the pilots would have to comply.
Remember that in this scenario, these activities took place at the exact location where there was a handoff between air traffic control agencies. At this location, air traffic control monitoring of the airplane was at a minimum. It would be a tremendous coincidence if a ready and waiting hijacker were fortunate enough to have the cockpit door open at that most suitable location.
You would have to assume that the hijacker knew enough about airplane systems to know that the transponder is the electronic link that allows air traffic control to see the airplane on radar. You would have to assume that the hijacker knew how to ensure that the pilots actually complied with his request, and switched the transponder off. You have to assume that the pilots complied with the hijacker’s request, and they did so because they knew that he would recognize it if they simply switched to another transponder, or otherwise failed to comply. The pilots would know of many ways to send information from the airplane to ATC that would be unknown to an unsophisticated hijacker. Nevertheless, nothing more was heard from MH370.
You would have to assume that the hijacker also knew specifically to order the pilots to disable the ACARS communications system. Remember that in the factual sequence of events, the ACARS failed to send a scheduled routine position report that should have been sent about 16 minutes after the transponder signal disappeared. In this passenger-hijacking scenario, we can assume that the hijacker ordered the pilots to disable the ACARS, in addition to disabling the transponder.
Disabling the ACARS in the cockpit is not something that pilots would ordinarily or routinely do. There is no reason to do so. There is not one specific switch to turn the ACARS off. To disable ACARS requires very specific knowledge, and more than one action by the pilot. This suggests that if there was a passenger-hijacker dictating the events, that hijacker was someone who had sophisticated knowledge about the operations of a B777, and in particular about the ACARS.
From the factual sequence of events, we know that about one hour after the ACARS first missed its expected routine update, it came back online. However, it did not return to full functioning, in that it still failed to transmit its expected routine reports. Once it was disabled, there is no way for the disabled ACARS to come back online unless someone turns it back on. Again, turning the ACARS back on cannot be done by simply selecting an ON switch; it requires specific and sophisticated knowledge, and more than one action. There is no reasonable explanation for why a hijacker would order the pilots to turn the ACARS off, and then allow them to go through the process of turning it back on.
We then must assume that the hijacker dictated the specific route that the airplane followed, starting with the initial turn to reverse course, and including its other turns, and its eventual long flight to the southern Indian Ocean. We then must assume that the hijacker ordered the pilots to carry out a controlled ditching on the ocean surface, and we must assume that the pilots complied.
As I stated earlier, this hijack theory cannot be dismissed by definitive and unequivocal evidence. Each element of it is theoretically possible. However, when assessed from start to finish, it is highly unlikely that all of the elements described above could come together without intervention.
To get an even greater appreciation for how unlikely a passenger-hijacking scenario is, we need only look at how much less complicated it would be for a pilot to take the actions instead of a hijacker.
It is not realistic to propose that a hijacker had the ability to direct the pilot to accurately fly any specific course, especially one designed to avoid military radars. Even if you accept that premise, it is not realistic to propose that in the dark of night a hijacker would be able to follow the airplane’s progress to ensure it was going to where he had directed the pilots to take it.
It would be easy for the pilots to confuse the hijacker, and take the airplane in a different direction. If they were hijacked, the pilots would want to attract attention from ATC. They would want to fly over land, and in particular, would want to avoid flying so far from land that they would have no option but to end up in the ocean.
In this proposed passenger-hijacking scenario, the pilots would still be flying the airplane. The pilots would most assuredly take action once they recognized that without their intervention the airplane would end up in the ocean. They would not sit idly by and allow the airplane to fly for hours out to sea. The pilots would have options.
One option would be to cause the airplane to suddenly depressurize. They could do this with a single switch selection. Rapid decompression would allow an opportunity to neutralize the hijacker. Given the pilots’ familiarity with the airplane and the cockpit, and the hijacker’s lack of familiarity, the pilots would have a distinct advantage. They would be able to get themselves on oxygen, and continue to function. Meanwhile, in the confusion, the hijacker would quickly succumb to hypoxic symptoms.
Of course, this depressurization would also affect the passengers, but once the hijacker was neutralized the pilots could quickly restore the pressurization and descend the airplane to get oxygen levels back to where hypoxia would no longer be an issue.
Another option for the pilots would be to disable the cockpit lighting, and manually fly the airplane into a condition with high G-forces, or negative G-forces. Again, the pilots would have a distinct advantage in the darkness and confusion. This could be done in combination with depressurization.
I will not attempt to list all of the options that might be available to pilots in this type of passenger hijacking scenario. There are two things that are certain. One is that any pilot, including the pilots of MH370, would take whatever actions were available and necessary to avoid flying the airplane to an unavoidable fatal outcome. The second is that if MH370 were a passenger hijacking, it would not have ended with the pilots conducting a controlled ditching in a remote part of the southern Indian Ocean.
We can now look briefly at the other two proposed hijack scenarios we had mentioned earlier. There is support for a theory that some passengers hijacked the airplane by gaining access to the airplane’s onboard flight computers, which are located in the electronics and equipment bay (under the floor below/behind the cockpit). The hypothesis is that the hijackers took control of the airplane by using sophisticated electronic equipment they had smuggled on board.
Every professional airplane accident investigator, and every professional pilot, and every professional airplane designer, and every professional maintenance engineer, and everyone familiar with operating airplanes, knows that this hijack scenario is completely unrealistic. Computers in the electronics and equipment bay are used only for maintenance diagnostics. They are designed to function only when the airplane is on the ground.
To be able to fly and navigate the airplane from the electronics and equipment bay would require a complete redesign of the airplane, and a complete rebuild of its flight control systems. It is both naive and preposterous to propose that such a major redesign could be replaced by some type of electronic wizardry hacked into a system that could not possibly react to it.
For this scenario to be true for MH370, one would have to accept that passenger-hijackers forced their way into the electronics and equipment bay shortly after take off, and they were able to work there without challenge or interference, and that the pilots failed to notice their devious activities while they were reprogramming the cockpit functions and flight controls, and that the pilots therefore did not inform air traffic control of any irregularities, and that the pilots made no attempt to divert the flight to get the airplane back on the ground, and that within something less than thirty minutes after take off, the hijackers were ready to disable the transponder, and to take complete control of the airplane from the pilots, and that the hijackers caused the airplane to reverse course, and that in that short timeframe they somehow reprogrammed the airplane to fly a circuitous route to avoid radar detection, and then to fly far out into the southern Indian Ocean, and then to extend the flaps, and then to carry out a controlled ditching. You would have to accept that the passenger-hijackers knew that their efforts would result in their own deaths, and the deaths of everyone else on board.
I am compelled here to add some comments about wild theories such as this electronic hijacking theory. It is frustrating to watch as these types of stories gain traction on the internet, and get media attention. Even though they have no basis in fact, they garner interest because they provide intrigue and entertainment, especially when attached to a tragic event such as MH370. At the same time, they are a source of misinformation that can needlessly concern people about the safety of air travel.
A tragic consequence of stories like this is that they have real and lasting negative effects on the families and loved ones of those who perished in the airplane. I have witnessed this consequence first hand, and the damage is real, and it can be heartbreaking. There are versions of this particular hijacking theory that claimed that the airplane landed safely at some remote location, and that the airplane’s occupants were captive, but alive.
Regardless of whether the motivation to present such a story is personal gain, or notoriety, or a misguided attempt to inform, it is inhumane and shameful to promote such an implausible scenario while ignoring the mental anguish it could inflict on such vulnerable people.
The third hijack scenario mentioned earlier involves remote hacking into the airplane, where the perpetrators gained control of the airplane’s flight management systems from some remote location. The discussions above about onboard hijacking should suffice to discredit any remote hijacking theories. Such theories can be dismissed, their only value being as entertainment for conspiracy theorists and fans of science fiction.
Some people support the theory that MH370 disappeared because of a mechanical malfunction. In a thorough investigation, investigators always look for potential mechanical deficiencies in the type of airplane under investigation. They look for any deficiency that could pose a risk to the airplane type (in this case, the entire fleet of B777s). In any investigation, the search for such deficiencies can lead to safety improvements, even if they find a deficiency that they are unable to connect directly to the event.
To investigate the likelihood of a mechanical malfunction as the lead event in the disappearance of MH370, we must follow a standard investigation process. As has been stated previously, there is a difference between finding a potential safety deficiency (something that theoretically could happen), and connecting that potential deficiency to the actual sequence of events that led to the loss of the airplane.
We can refer back to the table with the known facts in the far left column, and the potential lead events across the top. You will recall that only the column with the true and actual lead event at the top will allow a checkmark (✔) in every box.
The first known anomaly with MH370 was the disappearance of the transponder signal. At the same time, the airplane started its turn to reverse course. Our investigation to look for a potential mechanical malfunction lead event must find a way to connect the mechanical failure directly to these first anomalies.
It is easy to imagine how a mechanical or electrical malfunction could have caused the transponder signal to be disrupted. For example, hypothetically, there could have been an electrical short circuit, or simply a failure in one of the components supporting the operation of the transponder.
It is not so easy in this hypothetical scenario to imagine why the pilots were unable to restore the transponder signal. The B777 has a significant amount of redundancy in its transponder system. The airplane has more than one transponder, and there are numerous paths for electrical power to reach each transponder.
To continue our investigation process, we can look past the first known anomaly to the next known events, and examine them in the context of the hypothetical mechanical or electrical malfunction. We know that after the transponder signal stopped, the airplane remained flyable. We know this because the airplane continued to fly for several more hours.
We know that regardless of the nature of the hypothetical malfunction, the pilots were not completely disabled. We know this because they not only reacted to the transponder malfunction by reversing course; they reprogrammed the navigation system to execute several turns.
With this hypothetical mechanical or electrical malfunction, we also have to account for the fact that the pilots were still functioning at the end of the flight, where there was an intentional and controlled ditching. For any hypothetical mechanical or electrical malfunction to be valid, it must be able to be connected not only to the first known anomaly, but also to each of the subsequent events, all the way to the end of the flight.
The proponents of a mechanical or electrical malfunction have theorized that the same (initial) malfunction that caused the transponder signal to disappear also caused the airplane to depressurize. The representative storyline goes like this – the malfunction occurs – the first reaction by the pilots was to turn the airplane around – the performance of the pilots was degraded by hypoxia – they mistakenly reprogrammed the flight management system to follow the new track – and then the pilots succumbed to hypoxia.
This sequence, of course, would lead to MH370 being an unpiloted airplane. We have proof that the unpiloted airplane theory is not correct. The fact that MH370 was under the full control of a pilot at the end of its flight puts to rest any potential that the entire sequence of events started with a mechanical or electrical failure.
In my view, there is no need to go through any more of the numerous other theories involving a mechanical or electrical fault as the lead event in the disappearance of MH370. The storyline for each of these theories includes the pilots being disabled, and there being an unpiloted airplane, and we know that is not true.
There is support for a couple of different theories involving direct damage to the airplane. One theory involves military action (the airplane was damaged by military firepower). The other involves direct damage from a bomb that exploded on board.
Once again, to prove that one of these theories is correct requires that it be tied directly to the first known anomaly, which was the transponder going offline (less than forty minutes into the flight).
To try to account for the subsequent navigation of the airplane (after the bomb/missile), these theories describe some sort of valiant struggle by the (injured) pilots to maintain control of the airplane. Supposedly, the pilots were able to guide it through the various known turns, including the turn southbound to fly over the ocean. The airplane was depressurized because of the damage, and the pilots eventually succumbed to hypoxia, leaving an unpiloted airplane.
Those types of scenarios are invalidated by the proof that there was a controlled ditching at the end of the flight. We could stop with that, but I will offer more on this issue to continue with the theme of showing how investigation analysis is done.
Even without the evidence of a controlled ditching, there are other factors working against these bomb/missile theories. For example, investigators would take into account that the airplane remained flyable, and the autopilot remained functional, despite the extensive damage that was supposedly inflicted to the airplane.
To accept either of these hypotheses, you would have to believe that the autopilot could remain engaged and functional, while at the same time the transponder (with all its backups), and all the communication radios (with all their backups), and the ACARS, had all been disabled by a missile or bomb.
To believe that is a very big stretch. You would have to believe that engaging an autopilot is somehow comparable to engaging a mechanical lever, akin to engaging the big lever that starts the rotation of a carousel ride. Autopilots do not work like that. A modern autopilot is a sophisticated computer, which is connected to a network of other computers and sensors that feed it with complex and vital information. If invalid inputs are introduced, or are perceived anywhere in the system, the autopilot’s default is to disconnect. It defaults to “OFF” to prevent it from following potential bogus inputs. It cannot be re-engaged until the bogus inputs are eliminated by a maintenance technician.
Investigators would also assess the soundness of that part of the bomb/missile theory that proposes the pilots steered the disabled airplane to where it could do no harm. That theory plays to the dramatic scene of a pilot steering a crashing airplane away from a schoolhouse, but it does not in any way fit the context of a bomb/missile scenario for MH370.
In such a scenario, the MH370 pilots would have stayed over land, where there would have at least been a chance of finding an airport, or of crashing with survivors. There is no way they would have intentionally set their airplane on a course over the ocean, on a course to certain death. Without any question or doubt, they would have taken any and every action within their power to try to save their passengers.
With that, any scenario involving military firepower, or an onboard bomb, can be dismissed. No such theory can account for what actually occurred regarding MH370, and especially for the deliberate pilot actions that were taken.
There are other theories that have gained support, but for each of them, counter-arguments can be made using logic similar to that used above. There would be little to gain by detailing each of the proposed theories, but to satisfy the curiosity of some readers, I will touch upon a few of them.
Terrorism can be dismissed using the same investigative logic used to dismiss the hijacking theories. The use of some form of secret weapon can be dismissed using the same investigation logic used to dismiss a bomb, or a military shoot down.
Some people support theories based on witnesses seeing lights on the airplane as it flew over in the darkness. Anyone who stole the airplane, and was smart enough to turn the transponder and ACARS off, would also be smart enough turn off all the outside lighting. In the darkness, there would be no lights for witnesses to see.
There is no chance the airplane landed at the United States airbase of Diego Garcia, or at any of the many other landing places that have been named; such propositions are not worthy of comment.
An abduction of the airplane by individuals carrying out some sinister government plot can be dismissed using the same sound logic used to dismiss abduction by aliens. That same sound logic can be used to dismiss the theory that the airplane was sucked into a black hole. If you choose to disagree with using sound logic, you can look to the many experts who use none of it.