What happened to missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370? Five theories evaluated

Sign up to Simon Calder’s free journey electronic mail for professional recommendation and money-saving reductions

Get Simon Calder’s Travel electronic mail

As the households of the 239 victims onboard the missing Malaysia Airlines jet mark ten years since they misplaced their family members, the seek for solutions continues.

On Sunday, Malaysia’s authorities mentioned it could renew the hunt after an American marine robotics firm that attempted to discover the airplane in 2018 proposed a recent search, increasing from the location it initially scoured.

The revered aviation safety professional, Philip Baum, has given The Independent the 5 doable situations that he believes are most certainly. Here, every is evaluated.

Pilot-assisted suicide

Many individuals have centered on the plane’s commander, Captain Zaharie Shah. He was 53 years outdated when he took the controls of MH370 and departed from Kuala Lumpur, vacation spot Beijing. In his care have been 227 passengers and 11 different crew members.

A typical concept is that Captain Shah locked the primary officer out of the flight deck. He switched off the communications methods that have been designed to preserve MH370 in contact with air-traffic controllers; donned an oxygen masks; and depressurised the plane. At an altitude larger than Everest, the passengers and different crew would quickly perish from from oxygen deficiency (hypoxia).

The captain then, the idea goes, flew the plane alongside the frontier between Thailand and Malaysia to keep away from elevating the curiosity of the army on both aspect, earlier than turning south to a location the place he believed it could by no means be discovered.

But the official report says: “There was no known history of apathy, anxiety, or irritability. There were no significant changes in his lifestyle, interpersonal conflict or family stresses.”

The first officer was 27-year-old Fariq Abdul Hamid. He was on his first Boeing 777 mission and not using a coaching captain overseeing him, and had flown the plane solely 5 occasions earlier than. The investigators mentioned his “ability and professional approach to work was reported to be good”. It appears unlikely that somebody with such restricted expertise of the plane would have the ability to pull off such a plan.

While sadly there have been plenty of crashes perpetrated by suicidal pilots – most lately the tragic destruction of Germanwings flight 9525 from Barcelona to Dusseldorf, through which the primary officer killed himself and 150 others – by no means has the next crash been so delayed from the second of seizure.

Hijacking by the pilot with the intention of touchdown, surviving and escaping

While it’s troublesome to discover any precedent for this concept, it’s possible that one of many pilots meant to land or ditch the plane in a survivable state however bungled it and was incapacitated by hypoxia together with the others onboard. Yet it’s troublesome to conceive of a doable motive for such an audacious mission.

Besides, the investigators concluded: “There is no evidence to suggest that the PIC [pilot in command, ie captain] and FO [first officer] experienced recent changes or difficulties in personal relationships or that there were any conflicts or problems between them.

“There had been no financial stress or impending insolvency, recent or additional insurance coverage purchased or recent behavioural changes for the crew.”

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

In addition, the ultimate report notes: “It is not possible to deactivate automatic deployment of the masks from the cockpit.” The oxygen masks are set robotically to drop within the occasion of a extreme fall in cabin stress, which might have given the passengers and crew a while to strive to talk with the bottom.

Hijacked by a passenger or member of cabin crew

Given the massive variety of passengers onboard, in addition to 10 cabin crew, there’s a variety of doable motives. Standard aviation safety measures have been in place at Kuala Lumpur International Airport. As the tragic occasions of 9/11 confirmed, the actual fact of getting handed by way of a checkpoint doesn’t imply that the passenger poses no menace to the plane and the individuals onboard.

There have been a complete of 227 passengers (together with three kids and two infants) on board, with nearly all of them from China, adopted by Malaysia.

Two Iranian passengers have been travelling on passports stolen from an Italian and an Austrian respectively, however they seem to have been unlawful migrants who have been eager to attain the West moderately than harbouring any malicious intent.

All 10 members of cabin crew have been married with kids, which some have mentioned implies they have been unlikely to have hijacked the plane.

Hijacked remotely in a complicated act of cyberterrorism

This is the place possible theories and unfeasible conspiracy theories start to converge.

In 2003, Boeing took out a “Patent on Remote Control Take-over of Aircraft”, designed to foil hijack makes an attempt. “The ‘uninterruptible’ autopilot envisioned by the patent could be activated, either by pilots, onboard sensors or remotely via radio or satellite links by the airline or government agencies if there were attempts to forcibly gain control of the cockpit.

“This system once activated would disallow pilot inputs and prevent anyone onboard from interrupting the automatic takeover. Thus, the personnel onboard could not be forced into carrying out the demands of any unauthorised person(s).”

The converse is that criminals on the bottom could be enabled by such know-how to take over the plane.

But the plane maker advised investigators: “Boeing has confirmed that it has not implemented the patented system or any other technology to remotely pilot a commercial aircraft and is not aware of any Boeing commercial aircraft that has incorporated such technology.”

The report concludes: “There is no evidence to support the belief that control of the aircraft 9M-MRO (operating as MH370) could have been or was taken over remotely as the technology was not implemented on commercial aircraft.”

Seized by a stowaway

Could somebody have boarded the plane prior to the passengers and crew, both in a suicidal mission or with the intention of touchdown at, say, Christmas Island, 1,000 miles northwest of Western Australia?

This is a concept that Philip Baum sees as second-most doubtless after pilot suicide. He has demonstrated that there’s an underfloor space simply exterior the flight deck door which might conceal an individual. Such a stowaway might additionally deactivate the transponder, making the plane “disappear”.

There are many circumstances in aviation of ex-employees with a grudge concentrating on airways. It is feasible that such a person was accountable. But there are various arguments towards such a situation, and the chance appears extraordinarily low.

The perpetrator would wish to have had entry to the plane earlier than it was readied for departure from Kuala Lumpur. They would wish to have overcome the cabin crew, 227 passengers and two pilots to take over the plane. And they would wish not to be missed once they disappeared similtaneously MH370.

In addition, it’s troublesome to give you a motive. No terrorist group has give you a severe declare to have taken management of MH370 for political or propaganda functions.

Only if and when the plane is discovered can these theories be examined.