Kusamoto

Howdy folks. So, I'm new around here and I admit this may have been brought up somewhere in the 51-page thread, but I wanted to bounce my personal theory off everyones' collective skulls. First, I admit I'm not a pilot, but I've had an infatuation with flight since I was...hrm...4? 5? Somewhere around there. Every chance to get in a plane I take, and anything involving aircraft I read, watch, or take part in whenever possible.

Anywho...here's my theory based on the (scanty and subject to change minute by minute) evidence and what I have studied. To me, it really sounds like hypoxia based on the time contact was lost and the subsequent actions of the flight crew. The most logical explanation is a slow loss of cabin pressure due to a) mechanical failure, b) design faults with the pressurization systems, or c) human error (Helios flight 322 as an example for how this can happen) that snuck up on the crew and caused everyone on the plane to become anoxic. It would also handily account for the inexplicable behavior of the flight officers in climbing, descending, and turning onto a new heading (or programming one in), turning off the transponder, mubling incoherently into the mic when called by another plane, and any other number of wacked-out things the human brain does when deprived of oxygen.

Also, I was surfing around some forums on AvSim and a lot of the participants there were reporting that the 777 seemed to have problems pressurizing correctly when departing from high-altitude runways. Now, KL is sea level, so not sure if that would cause a similar problem, but it seems like it would have been reported by now if so, so I doubt that's the issue. The likliest cause in my mind is either some sort of maintenance problem or human screw-up, especially considering the vast majority of crashes seem to revolve around the common denominators of human error or equipment failure.

That's my best guess speculation, anyhow. Everyone on that flight was hypoxic 60-90 minutes in, and most likely in irreversible comas when it ran out of gas and coasted into the water at 450 knots 5ish hours later.

Opinions? Rebuttals? Derision? Hit me, I can take it.

**EDIT** Hey, look....there's actually 100 pages in this thread and a few posts that touch on this. I'm observant...

polarbreeze

Hmm, there would have been a warning in time for the crew to take corrective action wouldn't there?

Kusamoto

Possibly yes, but only if it was one that was understood. In the Helios example, the crew received a presurization warning a few minutes before reaching cruising altitude, but the warning itself didn't make any sense because of the context (if memory serves, it was a pre-flight warning that had no business going off while the plane was in flight, and the master caution that occured right afterwards further muddled the situation), and the plane was acting normally for that portion of the flight. If the pilots, both of which had thousands of logged hours, got a warning that was misinterpreted or plain ludicrous for the situation, they may not have recognized what was happening until it was too late.

snowbunnytx

The (full) transcript is posted in the other thread and it makes a LOT more sense than the leaked transcript which was doubly translated.

"cancel SID" is cancel standard instrument departure (in other words, the routine departure out of KLIA and instead after taking off on 32 R (320 degrees or northwest) turn "right" for IGARI.

http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/acronyms/#s

is of use in understanding this.

I see absolutely nothing unusual in the full transcript.

snowbunnytx

If that's true, and the pilots were hypoxic, I see no way they could have flown the route that has been reported. (I'm now phrasing everything hypothetically because so many things have been retracted!) We've discussed the possible turn-back to Palau Langkawi, but if that setting had been made, the crew almost certainly could have radioed a pan pan pan; and the aircraft would have circled PL until it ran out of fuel, rather than turning to the south. The plane would have also immediately dropped altitude to raise the oxygen level for the pax.

The number of mishaps (lack of pressurization, fire, etc) that are needed to explain the flight's path and lack of contact via radio + loss of ACARS + loss of transponder - yes, it could have been a perfect storm but the probability of all those failures occurring as they did is low enough that deliberate pilot action has a higher probability. Search for Palau Langkawi and you'll find many posts on this subject.

Kusamoto

And I'm not saying it couldn't have been deliberate pilot action. It very well could have. But the problem with that theory is we always return to motive or, in this case, lack therof. By all accounts, both the captain and first officer were dedicated pilots and family men. Hell, the first officer was getting married in a few weeks. These don't seem like people that have an abundance of reason to knock one of the other out and purposefully ditch a plane in the middle of god-awful nowhere. And if they were going to do that, why the incredibly convoluted route? Wouldn't they just nose down and ride it in like Slim Pickens?

As far as direct radio contact and declaring at least a pan-pan-pan, well, you got me. Maybe they were troubleshooting before declaring and there was an acceleration of pressure loss? Maybe they were already starting to become generally hypoxic when signing off for the night? Could there have been some kind of localized electrical failure in certain systems that would affect pressurization and possibly knock out some of the warning systems, as well? Having never sat left seat, I can't say if this is even plausible in an aircraft as automated and advanced as a 777, but I suppose it could happen under the right circumstances.

What I do know is some of my buddies in various services who have talked about altitude chamber/rapid decompression training. When generalized hypoxia starts to set in, the most insane, outlandish things start sounding not only reasonable, but imperative to your misfiring brain. I can see a scenario where one or both pilots, hypoxic, disoriented, and confused, start a series of actions that lead to the transponder being shut off, the flight computer badly reprogrammed, the extreme changes in altitude, and so on. I think that's not only possible, but plausible.

Does my theory take an awful lot of dominoes to fall to be right? Sure. But so does the "vengeful/depressed/extremist pilot" one. They're both pure speculation based on wholly inadaquete data. Heck, even "the plane was abducted by aliens from Xenaris V" is a viable theory until disproven by data at this point. Until someone manages to dredge up the remains of the plane, FDR, and CVR, we're never really going to know...

gordies

As we come to the end of the 4th week, and no confirmed debris, it is no wonder the conspiracies just grow and grow.

A 'smooth' ditching is highly unlikely given the nature of the roaring forties, but is it at all possible that the interpretation of the radar data is just plain wrong, and this 777 is hiding in one of the 'stans?

There has still been no explanation as to why MH370 'allegedly' turned sharp right behind an SIA 777 to follow the northern arc.

Is shadowing another 777 too extreme a possibility?

Misinformation, I believe, is rife, and isn't it appalling that Malaysia have only just released the actual cockpit transcript that immediately shows a discrepancy to what was previously reported?

I am way out there with the conspiracy theorists, and I believe MH370 did shadow the SIA flight and then veered off somewhere to hide. It is the relatives I feel for as there is no concrete information as yet, and I think it is going to be quite some time before any is available.

RadioGirl

There's a fundamental human tendency to want an explanation, even if you have to invent it yourself. Inevitable but not very helpful.
It was satellite data, not radar, that indicated the southern route. At this point, believing in the northern route requires that you assume (a) all those countries missed it on their national defense and air traffic controls radars, (b) no one, after four weeks, has seen the plane and told anyone else about it, and (c) Inmarsat are either lying or incompetent. In theory, ANYTHING is "possible" but the northern route seems very unlikely under the circumstances.
The flight was headed north, then turned west (a left turn) and then south (another left turn). Where does a "sharp right" turn come into it?
Again, seems unlikely. The MH370 pilot would need to know exactly where to expect to catch up with the other plane which would require knowing exactly when it took off. Have you ever been on a long-haul that took off exactly on schedule? Pilots on this thread or the other one have said that flying in the dark, without radio support, close enough to be a single radar target would be extraordinarily difficult.
Like others above, I see some differences but not any startling revelations in the transcript as released. Is there some sinister difference between "all right, good night" and "good night Malaysia 370"? I think it was mentioned that the earlier transcript had been doubly translated (English - Malaysian - English?) which could explain small differences.
Misinformation, as you said, is rife.

Xyzzy

In addition, given that the aircraft seems to have crossed Malaysia without anyone batting an eye I think there was no need for shadowing another aircraft while flying up the Malacca Strait to evade detection. Besides, radar info from before any such shadowing would give away the ruse.

bimmerdriver

In this scenario, there should have been a signal from the emergency locator beacon, which there was not, which points to the likelihood that there was an uncontrolled landing, resulting in airframe breakup and rapid submersion of non-buoyant debris.

ExpatExp

The difference in scale between the ocean and any debris field is absolutely massive. Any debris field, even a large one, would be so small as to be insignificant compared to the size of the ocean.

Given how long it took to come up with the locations to search, I'm not at all surprised that nothing has been found.

Sorry, can't tell if you addressed this, but in addition to the criteria you mentioned it would also assume a calm sea. No idea what the sea state was at the time of the incident.

bimmerdriver

And sadly, the longer it takes to locate debris, the more difficult it will be, because it will drift and disperse. If you assume 2 knot current, 3 weeks of drift is 1008 nautical miles. Wherever the aircraft went down, the debris field has drifted a long way.

Kevin AA

Finally, some real NEWS. The fake news ("we spotted a piece of garbage in the ocean") got old real fast. Real news ("we may never know") is greatly appreciated.

Of course it would be nice to know the real reason, but more importantly, people need to be told that we may never know. At some point you have move on with your life.

Flaflyer

It’s a theory, here on the Speculation thread. It might not be highly likely, but we are not Vegas odds makers taking bets. A theory only needs two things.

First, it must be possible and follow basic things like the laws of science. This rules out any theory that uses aliens, ghosts, divine intervention, time travel, worm holes, Bill Shatner’s little buddy on the wing, or similar things to explain what happened.

Second, it must fit, however improbable, within all the facts known to the public, and not contradicted by a single known fact. The ideas in my post fit both criteria.

As for ditching, before Sully how many here would bet money someone could land a jet on the Hudson in winter and have all the passengers survive with barely a scratch? The Ethiopean plane hit the water banked, with one engine contacting first, causing a cartwheel which was not good for it’s landing. Sully hit the Hudson wings level with both engines hitting the water at the same moment. The plane landed straight, with no cartwheel, intact, and floated.

Sure the Roaring Forties are rougher than the Hudson, but it is possible a plane could ditch in one piece once in a while. This by luck could have been the one time. It may not be probable but it is possible.

RatherBeOnATrain

Sullenberger had a lot of experience flying gliders before his Hudson landing:

WSJ Blog: The Middle Seat Terminal
Pilot Chesley ‘Sully’ Sullenberger: What Role Did Glider Flying Play?
January 16, 2009, 3:00 PM ET

Did anyone on MH370 have experience flying gliders?

Also, you might find the story of Air Canada Flight 143 interesting: Gimli Glider (Wikipedia) Its Captain was also an experienced glider pilot.