Four plausible scenarios for Malaysia Airlines flight MH370

It has been more than 10 days since Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, a 777-200ER, deviated from its intended route during a flight from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia to Beijing, China. Since then, no trace of the aircraft has been found, and the fate of the 227 passengers and 12 crew members is unknown. Some of the circumstances around the disappearance of the aircraft, especially the lack of any communication from the aircraft after it radically changed course, has led to speculation in the media and elsewhere about why the aircraft went missing.

Although there is currently no physical evidence from the aircraft or data from the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder (the black boxes) that can help investigators and the public understand what happened and why it happened, there is a substantial amount of other information, including radar data and data relayed from the aircraft to a satellite, that provide insights into the general kinds of situations that the crew may have had to deal with.

The investigation into the disappearance of the flight is still in the earliest phases, but that has not prevented the media and the public from speculating about what happened to the flight. While many possible scenarios have been put forth by the public and the media, some are much more plausible given the available evidence. Based on that evidence and a comparison with a number of past accidents, incidents, and acts of sabotage or hijacking; the following four scenarios are consistent with what is known about the behavior of the flight.

1. Hijacking not involving the crew - One or more of the passengers hijacked the plane against the wishes of the flight crew and cabin crew.
2. Hijacking involving the crew - One or more flight crew or cabin crew members hijacked the plane, possibly with the help of one or more hijackers from among the passengers.
3. An extraordinary situation involving one or more aircraft systems - The deviations from the expected route and departures from normal procedures, including turning off transponders and other systems, could have been done by the crew in order to deal with a situation that put the aircraft at extreme risk. It is very likely in such a situation that a crew would exercise both initiative and creativity and take whatever steps were necessary, including disengaging, reconfiguring, or shutting down numerous systems, in order to maintain control of the aircraft.
4. Inaction from the crew - The 777 has a complex flight control system that in some circumstances may be able to keep the aircraft in controlled flight without further input from the crew, even if no specific flight plan had been programmed by the crew, until the jet's fuel is exhausted.

Combinations of scenarios
It is possible that none of these general scenarios explain what happened. It is also possible that flight MH370 went through two or more of these scenarios, such as a hijacking followed by extraordinary attempts to regain control of the aircraft. Should additional information, specifically the information from the black boxes, become available, that information will likely clarify what actually took place.

Why would the crew not communicate with ATC? Pilots, no matter what kind of aircraft they may be flying, are taught to have three general priorities in an emergency. The first is to aviate, or to maintain control of the aircraft. The second is to navigate, which is to determine both one's location and intended flight path. The least important of these three priorities is to communicate, or to let someone else, including air traffic controllers or the cabin crew, know your plans or your needs.

The fact that the crew did not speak to air traffic controllers or to other aircraft after deviating from their flight plan could be do to many causes, including malfunctioning communications equipment or because they were not allowed to do so. It is also conceivable that there were attempts to communicate, but that no one heard them.

What is needed to understand this event Ideally, if the aircraft is recovered intact, and all of the crew and passengers are alive, there will be plenty of evidence from witness statements, black box data, and even from the personal electronic devices of passengers, and this evidence will likely answer all of the key questions surrounding this flight. However, even this ideal scenario won't include all of the relevant data because the cockpit voice recorder only records roughly the last two hours of cockpit conversations and radio communications, so there would be no recorded cockpit conversations from the early phases of the flight when the aircraft deviated from its flight plan.

If there are no crew or passengers available for interviews, it may become very important for the investigating authorities to recover as many potential recording devices such as tablets and mobile phones that may have been carried by passengers and crew members. These devices may provide direct or indirect evidence of what went on during the course of the flight.

Resources

• How far Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 could have flown
• Stolen passports and Malaysia Airlines flight MH370
• Dr. Curtis 16 March 2014 Radio New Zealand interview (14:11)
• Dr. Curtis 15 March 2014 BBC interview (8:58)
• Dr. Curtis 13 March 2014 BBC interview (7:23)
• Other 777 events

---

BBC radio interview from 13 March 2014 discussing the possibility that the aircraft continued to fly for several hours.

---

NTN 24 La Tarde interview from 13 March 2014 discussing the investigation (Spanish)

---

NTSB to investigate near miss involving a 777 over San Francisco

The NTSB has launched an investigation into a nearly catastrophic collision between a United 777 and a small private aircraft over San Francisco last weekend. The NTSB estimates that the two aircraft missed each other by less than 300 feet.

At about 11:15 a.m. PDT on March 27, United Airlines Flight 889, a B777-222 (N216UA) carrying 251 passengers and 17 crew members on a flight to Beijing, China, had just departed from San Francisco International and was climbing through about 1,100 feet when both air traffic control and the aircraft's collision avoidance system reported air traffic nearby.

The flight crew saw a small aircraft, an Aeronca 11AC (N9270E), in a hard left turn traveling from their 1 o'clock to 3 o'clock position. The first officer interrupted the climb and leveled out the aircraft. Both crew members reported seeing only the underside of the Aeronca as it passed to within an estimated 200-300 feet of the 777.

After the encounter, the flight crew continued to Beijing without further incident.

You can listen to this edited recording of transmissions among air traffic controllers and the two involved aircraft (Source: LiveATC.net).

Midair collisions that result in passenger deaths on large jet airliners are very rare events. According to AirSafe.com's list of midair collisions, the last midair involving a jet airliner was a 29 September 2006 collision between a Gol Linhas Aereas 737-800 and ERJ135 Legacy 600 executive jet over Brazil. All on board the 737 were killed, and everyone on the ERJ135 survived.

The last airliner midair in the US was a 31 August 1986 collision between an Aeromexico DC9-32 and a Piper Archer over Cerritos, CA. All occupants of both aircraft were killed. More recently, a private plane and a sightseeing helicopter collided over the Hudson River near New York, killing all on board both aircraft.

Photo credits: Drewski2112 (777), Wikipedia (Aeronca)

Letting kids talk on ATC radio not smart, but also not dangerous

Last month, an air traffic controller on two occasions brought a child to work at the control tower at JFK Airport in New York and allowed the child to radio instructions to pilots. By now you have probably heard the exchange between one of the children and a jet on the ground at JFK. Clearly, having a child talking to an aircraft is out of bounds, and the FAA has responded by suspending both the controller and the controllers supervisor pending an investigation of the incident. Like the deliberate crash in Austin and the accidental crash in East Palo Alto discussed previously by AirSafeNews.com and Plane-Crash-Videos.net, audio played an unexpected role in the JFK incident.

Air traffic control transmissions and LiveATC.net
Unlike cockpit voice recordings, which are rarely released to public, transmissions between aircraft and air traffic control can be heard by anyone with the proper equipment. In the old days, one had to be in the local area with a specialized video. Today, thanks to the Internet and a worldwide network of enthusiasts, it is easy to listen to just about any air traffic control transmission. In the last few weeks, one web site, LiveATC.net, has provided the public with recordings of one of the two children at JFK, and the eerily normal conversation the Austin suicide pilot had with ATC shortly before his death. The simple lesson is that any conversation with ATC can be recorded, and if the recording is particularly controversial, it will be widely available to the entire world.

Access differences between cockpits and control towers
Access to airline cockpits and air traffic control towers in the US are subject to many restrictions, with airliner cockpit access being extremely restricted during all phases of flight, and it is very difficult for anyone other than crew member or government official. Control towers on the other hand don't have severe restrictions, and having visitors in the control tower or other ATC facility is a common occurrence.

How dangerous was it to have a child on the radio?
The JFK incident, although good for a few scary headlines, was a clear violation of the rules, but probably not a violation that put aircraft at risk. The child was apparently having a routine conversation with an aircraft that was on the ground, with the air traffic controller directing what the child said. There was no indication that the pilots were told to do anything that was in any way risky.

Is audio surveillance a good thing?
Had the JFK incident happened 15 years ago, it is very likely that anyone other than the the pilots and air traffic controllers tuned to that frequency would have heard it. If the public found out about it, it would not have been through a recording, but through a second or third hand story that would likely escape the attention of the mainstream media.

In contrast with the past, the future will likely have more, and not less private audio surveillance from the likes of LiveATC.net. If you are a pilot or air traffic controller, the safe assumption is that anything that gets broadcast can be recorded. Given the ongoing improvements in computers, storage, and search technology, it would be safe to assume that one day transmissions would not only be recorded, but also accessible and searchable online.

Whether this kind of surveillance is good or bad isn't important. It is a reality that is happening now, and will likely continue to happen in the future. Given these trends, the best advice to any pilot or air traffic controller is to be careful of what you say on the air.

Audio of both incidents on February 16 and 17th
The the following video, courtesy of AirBoyd.tv has audio from both days. Day two starts at around the three minute mark. Clear space is edited out. The radio scanner that recorded the audio clips the audio between both tower channels as it's recorded, so not every word exists on this audio recording. This is the reason for missing audio in some sentences.

NTSB to Open Up Public Docket on Northwest Airlines A320 Overflight in October 2009

Detailed information from the NTSB investigation into the October 21, 2009 incident involving the distracted Northwest Airlines pilots have been released to the public. The incident, which resulted in a large amount of media attention, occurred when the pilots of Northwest Airlines flight 188 was out of contact with air traffic control for about for 77 minutes while cruising from San Diego to Minneapolis.

The Airbus A320 (N03274) overflew Minneapolis by more than 100 miles before re-establishing radio contact with air traffic controllers and landing at the destination airport. There were no injuries to the 149 aircraft occupants, or damage to the aircraft.

Overview of Final Stages of the Flight

Reportedly, one of the reasons why the pilots did not respond to radio calls was because they were using their laptop computers in the cockpit and were distracted. While using laptops in the cockpit is allowed by the FAA, use of personal computers in the cockpit was not allowed by Delta (which owns Northwest). Both pilots were dismissed by the airline, and the FAA revoked their licenses.

Included in the docket will be factual reports from several of the NTSB-led groups involved in the investigation, including the Operations Group, Air Traffic Control Group, Survival Factors Group, Cockpit Voice Recorder Group and Flight Data Recorder Group. The docket will be available on Wednesday morning, December 16th. To view the contents of the docket, visit the the public docket page for this incident.

Related Information
Northwest Flight 188 public docket page
Previous AirSafeNews.com Incident Update
Original AirSafeNews.com article on this incident
Delta Airlines Statement 26 October 2009
FAA air traffic control transcripts and audio recordings
NTSB Update from 26 October 2009