Didn't you watch "Lost" ?

You have a plane out of radar range over an ocean, so it's easy to lose it between radio check ins. Plus if you think about all the planes in the US that crash and are lost in the mountains it isn't that amazing that a plane from a third world country crashes into the ocean. All it takes is a problem that takes out the radio and causes loss of control. Someday they'll find the black boxes if the search gets close enough and the water isn't too deep.

D.B. Cooper is back... He has upgraded too...

@ Al

I wasn't alluding to the identity/nationality of any perpetrator of the presumed "foul play." I only suggested that there was/is indeed a perpetrator.

As numerous others have pointed out, airliners don't disappear with only an oil slick unless someone wants them to disappear.

Alright, let's not fool ourserlves any longer. We're all thinking the same after all:

Aliens.

Would aliens leave an oil slick?

Actually, airliners do disappear with just an oil slick if they don't break apart and sink to the bottom. Hell, the Arizona is still leaking oil and if the water were deeper, she would be completely submerged. Now if a craft much bigger than an airliner and designed to float could theoretically sink to the bottom of then ocean floor with nothing but an oil slick, so coulda airliner.

This is probably a more genuine question than the others we're seeing here - aren't most airplanes equipped with GPS? In that case establishing the plane's historical position should be somewhat easier. I did some searching online but found nothing conclusive on the issue.

Anyone here know more about GPS than I do?

I've been told separately that GPS is fairly essential to modern flight navigation.


FULL DISCLOSURE: I know nothing about airplanes, and essentially nothing about GPS.

GPS doesn't tell you the plane's position, it tells the plane it's own position. That is different than a GPS locator radio. If it has that, though, then it still has to be within radio contact range and not all routes are, especially in the Pacific.

The difference is receiver versus transponder. I don't know that airplanes (especially non-FAA or Eurozone ones) have transponders.

@steephie22, upon reading your list, my first thought was you had forgotten to list "raptor attack". (Yes I'm an avid xkcd.com reader.)

The crew would have made radio contact with someone before the airplane went down, unless the crew was incapacitated. Like I said, I'm predicting foul play. The location and circumstances are WAY too convenient.

@gun - You made teo major faulty assumptions. You assume they were in range for radio contact and that a second rate country's airlines would be 100% operational. Radios fail even on major airlines. On a rinky dink little airline out of a rinky dink country, the equipment is often sub par and the passengers take their lives in their hands

Draugnar, Malaysia Airlines is a major carrier with a $4.3bn dollar turnover. It has over 100 aircraft in service and flies over 230 international and domestic routes. They haven't had a notable crash or accident since 1995. Their most recent reportable incident was a relatively minor software fault on one of it's 777-200ER's, back in 2005, which was dealt with very professionally by the pilot, who landed the plane without incident.

I happen to agree with you that there is currently no evidence of "foul play" and that Gunfighter is making faulty assumptions. However it is not sensible for you to describe Malaysia Airlines as "a rinky-dink little airline". They are a major carrier with a good safety record.

@ Draugnar and Jamiet99uk

Faulty assumptions? Come on, the airplane went down into the world's "hottest" (in terms of current events) body of water without a trace 120 seconds before it was supposed to be handed off to Vietnamese controllers with two stolen passports on board. It's called critical thinking.

That's a whole hell of a lot of coincidences.

Lets also not forget that the this type of plane has had 1 crash since it's been used. It has the best safety rating of any plane in existence and has gone the longest time without an issue.

I think there is a *small* amount of evidence of foul play, although nothing close to consequential. What strikes me as most important is that the plane apparently made a U-turn without any radio mention of same. This seems more consistent with foul play than with anything else. Additional Bayesian evidence may include the fact that we're talking about a Boeing 777, an *exceptionally* safe airplane that seems extremely unlikely to break up spontaneously. (But who knows, of course, if the maintenance staff missed something, or if the pilots manhandled it as in the case of Air France 447).

I should have said "nothing close to conclusive" in my first sentence, above.

I would say that two people getting on the flight with stolen passports, while not conclusive, should raise a lot of red flags.

That's true, JMO, except we have no idea how common that is. For all we know, there are people with stolen passports on every flight out of Malaysia. There are quotes in the press to suggest that might not be inconceivable, and I simply don't have a good sense or prior belief what the frequency of that is likely to be. (There are lots of motives for flying with a stolen passport other than terrorism, presumably).

But yes, I agree it's disquieting, and governments do seem to be taking it very seriously.

Occam's Razor = The hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is the best.

To assume that a Boeing 777 (as others have pointed out, arguably the safest plane in the world) simply dropped out of the sky without making radio contact with ATC is absolutely ridiculous and would only be caused by catastrophic failure of numerous aircraft systems.

That's not really true, GF. It could be caused by a single crack that had not been detected.

I don't think Occam's razor is that relevant here.

@ Gunfighter: "...and would only be caused by catastrophic failure of numerous aircraft systems"

It would only require the catastrophic failure of *one* system.

You have literally no idea what has happened here. Your "hypothesis" is constructed *entirely* from assumptions.

'You have literally no idea what has happened here. Your "hypothesis" is constructed *entirely* from assumptions.'

That's not fair, jamie. As jmo and I pointed out, there are *some* pieces of evidence that fit most comfortably with the foul play hypothesis.

I'm no expert but what I heard on the news was that people flying with stolen passports is quite common in that part of the world. If this is true, then it is just one piece of evidence and not a huge red flag.

Regardless, it is rather suspicious.

The plane was clearly taken down by Earth Radiation.

@ semck83

A single undetected crack might cause explosive decompression but it wouldn't cause the plane to disappear without the crew being able to alert ATC.

@ Jamiet99uk

"Your "hypothesis" is constructed *entirely* from assumptions"

As is yours, and yours involves a lot more moving parts. I'm just saying that the two passengers with stolen passports were hijackers. You're suggesting that a Boeing 777 dropped out of the sky with nothing more than an oil slick without alerting ATC, a scenario that would require numerous redundant aircraft systems to catastrophically fail at the same time.

They released the name of the pilots:
Wi Tu Lo
Sum Ting Wong
Ho Li Fuk