Malaysians Announce Flight 370 Crashed into Indian Ocean

AINsafety » March 24, 2014
A Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200 takes off from Zurich. (Photo: Aero Icarus)
March 24, 2014, 9:05 AM

This story is an update of an article posted March 21.

Malaysian authorities have concluded that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 crashed in the southern Indian Ocean, far from any land mass that could have presented the crew with a chance to land, according to a statement issued Monday by Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak. New satellite data confirms the conclusion, said Razak during a media briefing in Kuala Lumpur, referring to new guidance given to the Malaysian government by the UK’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch and satellite group Inmarsat.

“This is a remote location, far from any possible landing sites,” he said. “It is therefore with deep sadness and regret that I must inform you that, according to this new data, Flight MH370 ended in the southern Indian Ocean.”

More than two weeks after Flight 370 disappeared from civilian radar screens over the Bay of Thailand, the search for the proverbial needle in a haystack had yielded nothing but a lot of second-guessing, conjecture and theories based on information that might or might not prove credible. Last week authorities redirected more search assets to the southern Indian Ocean, to an area some 1,500 miles southwest of Perth, Australia, after commercial satellite images showed two floating objects that analysts determined might have been debris from the missing airplane. Over the weekend, Chinese authorities released satellite images showing a 72-foot-by-43-foot object in the area, and a French satellite detected more “possible debris.” On Monday Chinese and Australian search airplanes spotted more debris in the area but as of press time hadn’t identified the nature of it.

As crews from several countries, most notably the U.S., Australia and China, continued the search this week using military surveillance airplanes, attention again turned toward technologies that might have made the search far more manageable, if only the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) had acted on recommendations in the final report from French investigators on the 2009 crash of Air France Flight 447 in the South Atlantic.

The report from the French Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses (BEA) included recommendations for a requirement that all airliners regularly transmit flight parameters such as position, speed and altitude during flight. It also proposed systems that would eject the flight recorders from an airplane in distress before it crashed and modifications to flight data recorders that would provide automatic data transmission immediately upon detection of an emergency.

While pundits from around the world speculate on various scenarios about what might have happened to Flight 370, authorities in Malaysia continue to search for hard evidence from the flight simulator seized by police from the home of the 777’s captain. So far they haven’t found any sign that the captain planned a flight path away from the intended route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, although Malaysian officials, with the help of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, continue to attempt to retrieve data deleted from the simulator’s memory.

Meanwhile, an investigation into the backgrounds of all the crewmembers and passengers aboard the flight has so far yielded no evidence of terrorist connections or of any possible motive for sabotage.

Until Monday the search for Flight 370 spanned more than two million square miles. Authorities operated on the basis of evidence that the airplane’s satcom system continued to transmit for six-and-a-half hours after Malaysian military radar detected the airplane some 200 miles northwest of the island of Panang off the Western coast of the Malay peninsula. Based on the satellite information, they plotted two separate “corridors” from where the satcom system sent its last “ping” at 8:11 a.m. on March 8, one extending north from northern Thailand to the border of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, the other extending from Indonesia south into the far reaches of the southern Indian Ocean. However, none of the countries within the northern corridor had reported any evidence of an unidentified airplane traveling through its airspace on the morning Flight 370 went missing. That fact, along with new satellite evidence of two possible tracks southward toward the last plotted location of the unidentified floating debris, prompted authorities to concentrate resources in the southern Indian Ocean and, finally, conclude on Monday that the airplane did, in fact, crash there.  

Photo: Wikipedia Creative Commons, Aero Icarus under license.

FILED UNDER: 
Share this...

Comments

No Avatar
rjholding
on March 23, 2014 - 9:35am

I have been trying make sense of this situation since it began.   With the great advance in avionics over the years and having the experience of flying the Gulfstream 450 and 550 for the last several years of my career as a PIC, which ended in April 2008, I can envision the capability of one being able to program in an alternate route in case of emergencies.  I can also imagine this alternate emergency route being flown automatically if certain failures occurred, although I don't know if this capability exists in todays avionics or if it would be a good idea or not.  I also am not aware of the avionics capability of the 777, but I don't think it had this capability.

Let's say they had a sudden depressurization and the crew became incapicitated.  If the avionics had this automatic emergencey route capability and an alternate route was programed to fly a route that would do the least damage to people and structures on the surface, hence the southern Indian Ocean route might be programed in the Long Range Navs.  But....How does one explain the transponder and sattelite communications being manually turned off?  Why would that occur if not being hijacked by terrorists?  And if they were hijacked, why would there not be some politcial statement from them to get as much mileage as possible from the evil event?   Why would that route by flown never to be heard from again because of the remoteness of the route?

My only conclusion at this point is someone, either a crewmember, or a passenger that took control of the aircraft, had a death wish and had no concern for anyone onboard or the company(s) involved, OR... a terrorist statement or a ransom demand has been kept from the public.  This terrorist statement could have been in the form of possibly stating that many more incidents similar to this one were coming in the future resulting in a panic-ed public and a sure killer of business!

 

Please Register

In order to leave comments you will now need to be a registered user. This change in policy is to protect our site from an increased number of spam comments. Additionally, in the near future you will be able to better manage your AIN subscriptions via this registration system. If you already have an account, click here to log in. Otherwise, click here to register.

 
X