In every instance of cabin fire, even ones where the fires spread extremely quickly and are eventually fatal such as SwissAir and ValueJet, the crew contacted the ground. And this was the case even when co-pilots were literally out of their seats actually fighting the fires. Yet every single time the ground was alerted about an emergency. This is what veteran pilots do.
Also, for a fire to destroy the multiple electronic systems so as to render the transponder and comms useless, the smell of smoke would've almost certainly been recognizable long before the damage was complete. In this case, the pilots would have alerted the ground.
It was the pilot and/or co-pilot acting deliberately. I would bet my life on it.
What does it take to switch to a new ATC? AFAIK they were in the process of switching to the Vietnamese ATC and in fact the last message was a "good night" to the Malaysian ATC. Could the process of switching to the new ATC mean that they were left without communications in the deciding minutes?
> From 1990 to 2010 there have been 18 major accidents involving in-flight fire (Flight Safety Foundation) These accidents resulted in 423 fatalities.
> In the late 1990s the rate of diversion in the United States on average was more than one aeroplane each day diverted due to smoke (Shaw, 1999). Fortunately, it is rare for a smoke event to become an uncontrolled in-flight fire. Later data collected by IATA estimates that more than 1,000 in-flight smoke events occur annually, resulting in more than 350 unscheduled or precautionary landings (International Air Trasport Association, 2005). In-flight smoke events are estimated at a rate of one in 5,000 flights while in-flight smoke diversions are estimated to occur on one in 15,000 flights(Halfpenny, 2002)
Presuming they lost the battle, instrumentation/ap would drop out. Eventually, the fire would burn through the cockpit (see pictures above) and depressurize the a/c. Fire would then go out. Engines would keep going.
Eventually, someone will correlate wind directions with any required in-flight cg changes (fuel tanking) not being completed and I won't be surprised if a pattern emerges.
Interesting. Except is it really possible for a 777 that just had its entire avionics destroyed by a fire and a total loss of cabin pressure at 35k feet to maintain relatively level and straight flight? If the fire is really that catastrophic, I would reckon the plane would crash soon thereafter. It would also be unprecedented (as far as I know) to have the crew aware of a fire and unable to alert the ground (either because the comms were inoperative or the pilots were incapacitated). Also, another pilot is now claiming he established radio contact with 370 at 1:30, but that it was "mumbled" and brief. I guess the radio was working and there was a butt in the seat?
I dunno. Who am I kidding, it's all circumstantial at this point.
EDIT: I'm not sure if the Cairo incident is a good example of how quickly a fire can overcome a crew. They were on the ground with the jetway still connected, so it's quite a different situation.
Well, didn't maintain level and straight flight. The damage would probably not be as bad as Egypt Air, because any small hole would immediately depressurize the a/c, whereas EA kept burning for 20 minutes.
Well it should not be too difficult to locate maintenance and build records to determine if such an issue could have existed with the this plane and if it were corrected or not.
However as someone pointed out, could it really continue to fly at this point, let alone where did the debris go?
Regarding that, I only know what I've read from commercial pilots and heard from a family member who's a commercial pilot in the last week, though I appreciate the accusatory tone. Besides, the circumstances make no sense...how would the fire be severe enough to destroy all major communications of the plane, then somehow extinguished, yet the plane not only didn't crash but flew aimlessly for another 6 hours? I suppose it's possible somehow but sure seems far-fetched.
We know at least that the last voice contact with the plane occurred after the transponder stopped, and no one mentioned a fire. If a fire killed the transponder, it would have had to have done so without alerting the pilots in any way. Then killed the comms very shortly thereafter, again with no prior warning.
At the time of my reply your comment is 10 minutes old.
That means you've been able to read the exact same posts as I have been reading in this comment section. Comments from experienced pilots, one of whom explicitly states it's impossible for everything we know to have happened to just "happen by accident".
It's reasonable to downvote your crusade, you're hogging a whole page with it.[1]
Also, for a fire to destroy the multiple electronic systems so as to render the transponder and comms useless, the smell of smoke would've almost certainly been recognizable long before the damage was complete. In this case, the pilots would have alerted the ground.
It was the pilot and/or co-pilot acting deliberately. I would bet my life on it.