roaringmouse

Currently it seems to be unknown if it was the Capt or FO who last made communication (or perhaps someone else?).

This is an interesting suggestion about the possibility of a "cyber-hijack".

GarryP

Which is great, except if the pilot or copilot are still there and trying to control the plane, they can turn off the computer. When I looked at that before, to make that scenario work you need physical access to the aircraft, cockpit, computer racks, etc. to rewire things. The only way a remote cyber attack can work is if there isn't time to turn off the computer and regain control (eg it's landing or taking off).

Shard

It seems unlikely that both the captain and copilot would be suicidal. One, possibly, but not both.

scrubbedexpat098

Pehaps they were married

BadgeIsBack

Bit of a bummer if they were! Based on the court case the pilot attended, it would all fit.

GarryP

It wouldn't be the first time one has 'dealt with' the other to take control of a plane. You can lock them out of the cockpit, or clock them over the head with a fire extinguisher. Then there is the fire axe kept in the cockpit....

Shard

Didn't think of that.

GarryP

Ooo, the press conf has just said they think it was the co-pilot who said the final "goodnight" - which puts a very different light on thing.

Shard

As in, it was the co-pilot wot dunnit?

GarryP

More complicated than that, they are basically admitted that they misled people now - and that the ACARS was turned off sometime between the final transmission and 30 mins later. That means it COULD have been after the signoff.

Malaysian cockup again.

Shard

Do you mean that both tracking systems could have been turned off at the same time (as opposed to the 20 minute gap)?

BadgeIsBack

I don't see it as a cockup - if I was the Malaysian airline I would be saying nothing on the basis you have 100millions of people who spend their days reading the internet and googling a/c systems alll with their own ideas.

At various times, they would be damned if they said anything and damned if they didn't. Patience is a virtue in these scenarios.

cresta57

No it isn't! 100% truth & honesty would have saved multiple countries from the futile task of searching empty sections of ocean, while any potential survivors bob about in life rafts starving & dying due to ineptitude, half truths & blatant dishonesty.

Shard

+1

BadgeIsBack

But they probably did not know themselves initially - and did not want people panicking or jumping to conclusions. Resources need to be allocated somewhere initially. They were probably stuck between causing panic and saying something too soon - and saying too little when they were unsure and before leads were exhausted - and most will still be panning out. This is the problem with the internet age - all of a sudden everyone is an expert.

They did the right thing to search the right and obvious areas first- and besides they might not have been privvy to other info until later on when other agencies came to assist and part of dealing with other agencies is to respect their protocols and protect their information channels especially if they are corporate or commercially sensitive. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. Remember it's hard enough without an oil slick and breakup. I'm not sure (if at all) when the search goes from an airline responsibility to other agencies.