

MH370: A different point of view - beaner
https://plus.google.com/106271056358366282907/posts/GoeVjHJaGBz
This seems like a simpler explanation.
======
wikiburner
This doesn't explain the zigzagging trajectory of the plane after its
disappearance:

 _Indeed, soon after MH370 disappeared, reports emerged that recordings of
Malaysian military radar returns showed an unidentified track that could
correspond to the flight turning left onto a westward course and descending.
At the time it was difficult to assess the validity of that claim. It’s been
bolstered, however, by a Reuters report earlier Friday stating that Malaysian
military radar showed the flight following a course westward over the Malay
peninsula and then heading out over the Indian Ocean, passing specific
navigational waypoints as it went.

According to the report, this latter portion of the flight followed an unusual
zigzag trajectory as it worked its way toward the north and west. This is a
very inefficient way to get from one place to another, but it had some
consequences that may have been useful for whoever was in control of the
airplane. For one thing, by navigating between well-traveled waypoints, the
plane would have seemed to military radar operators to look just like all the
other well-behaved commercial traffic traveling over that stretch of ocean.
“That’s going to seem like unsuspicious traffic,” says Maarten Uijt de Haag, a
professor of electrical engineering at Ohio University. Had the plane left the
well-traveled routes and struck out on its own, it would have been far more
conspicuous.

Another consequence of the zigzagging trajectory is that, like a fox crossing
back and forth over a stream to eluding a pack of hounds, it obscured where
exactly it might be heading._

[http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/03/14/mh370_dis...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/03/14/mh370_disappearance_if_the_malaysia_airlines_plane_isn_t_in_the_indian_ocean.html)

~~~
Implicated
or the climb to 45k

~~~
nl
Plenty of weird reasons to climb like that[1]. I think people dramatically
underestimate how mechanical and/or electronic system failure combines with
human misjudgement to make things operate in entirely unpredictable ways.

I've never been involved in an air crash investigation, but I have done many
system outage investigations. The majority of them[2] involve a failure of a
hardware/software system, followed by manual intervention done without
complete information. The number of times I've seen small problems escalate
dramatically by the combination of automatic systems and manual intervention
is enough to make me assume accident when something like this happens.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Final_rep...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Final_report)

[2] Ok, the majority that don't involve the deployment of new software.

~~~
mmcnickle
Completely agree. I'm surprised that, especially on HN, the large number of
people who won't apply Occam's Razer to the situation.

I imagine that most air accident investigations begin like this; confused,
competing information from numerous sources of varying reliability. Just with
the internet and 24h news, everyone is following along with each revelation
(see also the Pistorius trial).

Give it some time, let the investigators work and report their findings. I'd
be very surprised if it's not a combination of system failure and human error
in reacting to the failure.

~~~
einhverfr
> I imagine that most air accident investigations begin like this; confused,
> competing information from numerous sources of varying reliability.

Not to mention that but when things happen on the plane, pilots are given
confused, competing from numerous sources. This is why I assumed it was an
accident (like Air France 447) at first.

> Give it some time, let the investigators work and report their findings. I'd
> be very surprised if it's not a combination of system failure and human
> error in reacting to the failure.

That was my first impulse too. Google "IEEE Automation Paradox Air France
447." However, this is really hard to square with the engine information. So
you have three possibilities: the plane flew an uncommanded course on
autopilot for 5 hours following an accident, the flight data is wrong, or it
is a hijacking.

In this case an investigation is hard because there is so little information.
It took until the black boxes were recovered from AF447 to determine what
happened there. Here? We don't even know where the plane is, much less the
relevant recorders.

------
bedhead
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.

~~~
hindsightbias
An Egypt Air 777-200 had a cockpit fire on the ground. This would complicate a
reponse.

[http://www.avherald.com/h?article=44078aa7&opt=0](http://www.avherald.com/h?article=44078aa7&opt=0)

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.

~~~
bedhead
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.

~~~
hindsightbias
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.

Cockpit window heater fires:

[http://archive.chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2010/06/us-
boeing...](http://archive.chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2010/06/us-boeing-
cockpit-fire-cause-not-fixed.html)

------
PaulRobinson
Sequence of events this implies when coupled with other information:

1\. Electrical fire starts, takes out ADS-B transponder, pilots unaware and
continue the flight as normal 2\. They radio a goodbye as they leave ATC,
still unaware of anything which means that a fire has taken out a transponder
and they are unaware of that fact 3\. The fire is discovered. The crew put on
full-face oxygen masks and the pilot makes for that airport either by dialling
in a bearing into the autopilot or disengaging it and flying for it. 4\. They
attempt communication but fail because the systems are out due to the fire

At that point, we then have a lot of things to consider: was it pilot input or
autopilot that took them to FL450? When did the pilots lose the ability to
land, either because of control surface damage or because they were
incapacitated? In the event of being alive but unable to fly the aircraft
because control surfaces were no longer responsive to cockpit or autopilot
input, is there anything else they could/would do other than do some maths and
work out when the inevitable crash was coming? If they could control some
surfaces but not others would they use that to buy themselves more time, e.g.
climbing to ceiling (FL450), or would they get low quick?

This theory raises quite a few questions then, but it's a perfectly valid
hypothesis: the issue for me around it is understanding why the pilots didn't
go on to make the landing suggesting loss of control or their own lives by
that point. The only way we'll get to understand that is by finding the black
box which of course would explain the whole thing anyway.

This theory also suggests a likely ditching or crash into the water, and if
that were the case then I would expect sonar operators over a large part of
the region to hear the black box locator, pretty much as they did with the Air
France crash.

~~~
Arjuna
_" The only way we'll get to understand that is by finding the black box which
of course would explain the whole thing anyway."_

I appreciate that there are technical challenges and costs associated with the
following idea, but it would be quite an interesting project to create a
system that would transmit Flight Data Recorder (FDR) information to a ground
location.

Off the top of my head, it would need to be flexible, perhaps recording more
detailed telemetry in cases where cellular networks were available, to being
able to provide critical, but perhaps less-detailed telemetry, in cases where
only satellite communications were available. In addition, data monitoring
systems could be programmed with the intelligence to transmit more detailed
telemetry in the event of an anomaly (e.g., the "left turn" with regard to
MH370). This would be an attempt to find the right balance of data fidelity,
with regard to available transmission capabilities and associated costs.

Sadly, as it is now, we are left with relying on essentially locating the
proverbial "needle in a haystack" with regard to locating the FDR. Another
example is the case with AF447 [1]. Although the FDR was recovered, it was not
until nearly 2 years after the incident.

My heart goes out to those that lost loved ones. Not having closure is an
extremely painful and difficult process to endure.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447)

~~~
tlrobinson
Alternatively, why don't planes have floating EPIRBs
([http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distress_radiobeacon](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distress_radiobeacon))
or even floating black boxes? They could be attached to one or more points on
the plane where they're likely to be released if wreckage sinks.

~~~
ricardobeat
Black boxes do have an ELT. If the plane had crashed it's likely they would
have been found it already.

------
keepontruckin
I took a flight on a 777 from Dulles to London a couple years ago. A few hours
into the flight the captain announced a suspected cabin fire and the smell of
smoke in the cockpit. The crew shut off all the circuits they didn't need to
fly the plane, the captain took a left turn, and we made an emergency landing
at Reykjavik. Just sayin'.

~~~
jebus989
Sure. But a gas leak recently brought down two buildings in Harlem and that's
akin to someone posting, "we had a gas leak and I just called the gas company,
they switched it off. Just sayin".

Point is: things don't always go to plan, and successfully avoiding disaster
once does not necessarily set a precedent.

~~~
jpalomaki
I guess the point was that turning off transponders and other things could
have been the crew's reaction to suspected fire. Obviously the radio messages
do not go along well with this theory. On the other hand I'm at least a little
bit confused about what pieces of information about the case have been
confirmed and what is just from "anonymous sources".

------
johnw
One big hole in this theory is that its been widely reported [1] that a
transponder was switched off _before_ the pilots last radio contact. The
pilots would have had no reason to pull the breakers before the last
communication if they weren't already aware of a fire.

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/17/world/asia/malaysia-
airlin...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/17/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-
flight.html)

~~~
cornholio
Another massive hole is that the closest airport ,at the point where
communication was lost, was Sultan Mahmud in Kuala Terengganu. Long runway,
approach directly from sea, can accommodate a 747 according to Wikipedia.
There is no justification to go to Langkawi which is on the other side of the
Malay Peninsula.

~~~
VolatileVoid
Never underestimate "pilot familiarity." In an emergency, a pilot is going to
favor an airstrip he/she is familiar with over an unknown one. Perhaps the
captain was more familiar with Langkawi?

~~~
tom_morrow
apparently the co-pilot was fresh off his 777 training which occurred on
Langkawi.

------
OhHeyItsE
Except that the left turn was pre programmed into the flight computer.

[http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-rep-peter-
kin...](http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-rep-peter-king-sen-
chris-murphy/story?id=22914614)

"KERLEY: The prime minister confirming the report by ABC News the
communications gear was deliberately shut down. Now we have learned from a
source close to the investigation that whoever was controlling the plane
preprogrammed that sharp left turn right off of the flight path, convincing
investigators that someone was in control of the jetliner, either a rogue
pilot or a hijackers."

------
_nedR
One problem with the theory: The first communication system was shut down
_before_ the pilot's last message 'All right, good night'. If it had been an
accidental fire that caused the pilot to cycle the systems, I would imagine
the last message would have been more along the lines of "Holy Smokey Bear,
the plane's on fire!"

~~~
tom_morrow
the last ACARS message was received before the ATC goodbye.

the next ACARS message was scheduled to be sent after the goodbye, but it was
never received.

the time when the ACARS was disabled would be within this window.

~~~
spartango
The NYT is saying that some Malaysian government officials are confused about
how ACARS works, leading to the confused reporting.

The above comment is accurate: the last ACARS message was received at 107, and
the next one was expected at 137. The voice communication was logged at 119.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/world/asia/malaysia-
airlin...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-
flight.html)

------
confluence
This is what I've been saying for the last couple of days.

The cool thing with watching this story develop in real time is understanding
how fucking incompetent conspiracy theorists are. From confusion on how ACARS
works, to the limits of radio comms, to the organization of the plane's
electrical system to their complete misunderstanding of how accurate primary
radar readings are at the edge of range. These people aren't qualified to
speculate in the slightest.

If you don't know what you're talking about: shut the fuck up.

By default I disbelieve all conspiracy theories, unless overwhelming evidence
is forthcoming, because their proponents don't know shit.

------
wil421
This is probably the most intelligent explanation I have heard. Everyone wants
to make this into some Hollywood action movie with terrorists, kidnappings and
sneaking through airspace.

~~~
pcurve
This author isn't helping the cause either. He is going as far as calling the
pilots "heroes". He is grandstanding just like other journalists.

One would think that cabin smoke was one of the first scenarios experts
considered.

------
chris_wot
MH370 might have entered into a blackhole and come back as a dove.

What's with all this speculation?!?

~~~
tomelders
So you're saying the best way to figure out what happened to MH370 is to do
nothing, don't think, don't have any ideas, in no way make any effort to
interpret the facts as they present themselves or try to fill in the blanks
with educated guesses?

Nice plan.

~~~
DrJokepu
Well it definitely won't be bloggers and armchair investigators who figure it
out. Unfounded speculation is irresponsible and immature behaviour the very
least.

~~~
davidw
Some people seem to enjoy it as a sort of creative challenge, it seems, which
I guess doesn't really hurt anyone (I don't envision the victims' families
reading these threads). That's fine as far as it goes, although these threads
always seem to branch out into bizarro conspiracy theories about the Mossad
trying to smuggle the Reptilians' sacred crystals into Liechtenstein and
wondering about why the "all-powerful, all-seeing" governments are hiding what
they know about it.

~~~
aurumpotest
Why don't you envision the victims' families reading this sort of thread? If I
were the relative of somebody on that plane, I'd be reading every single
article and thread I could, trying to keep the hope of finding them alive,
alive. Surely I'm not the only one?

------
hauget
The big thing that's been bothering me about the hijacking hypothesis is that
there's no clear logical motive behind it. This indeed makes more sense than
anything else I've read so far.

~~~
InclinedPlane
What do you mean? There's plenty of motive for hijacking, just as always.
Especially a flight filled with Chinese civilians headed to China. There has
been a rash of terrorist attacks within China recently from Xinjiang
separatists, including several different mass stabbing attacks just this year
which have claimed dozens of lives.

One might hypothesize that terrorists managed to take control of the airplane
and divert it only to have the passengers counter-attack and then in the chaos
that followed either control of the plane was lost and not able to be
recovered or it was intentionally crashed. Even with reinforced doors it would
not take very long for highly motivated individuals to breach them, whether
that's the attackers or the passengers or whomever.

I'm not saying that anything of the sort is likely but similar things have
happened before.

~~~
username42
I had the same idea. This remains the most plausible theory (IMHO) I have
heard since the beginning.

------
userbinator
The part about tire fires producing "horrific incapacitating smoke" seemed a
bit odd to me --- the landing gear are located outside the pressurised part of
the fuselage.

~~~
rosswilson
Read about Nigeria Airways Flight 2120
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigeria_Airways_Flight_2120](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigeria_Airways_Flight_2120)).

An under-inflated tyre caught fire during take-off, the plane took off unaware
of the fire, when the landing gear was retracted the fire spread burning
through electrical and hydraulic lines.

A fire "outside of the pressurised part of the fuselage" doesn't mean the same
didn't happen here.

~~~
VolatileVoid
Sure, although the NationAir DC-8 tragedy was a different jet. The 777 is
significantly more advanced and I believe has some sort of fire detection in
the wheel well; they would have known very shortly after takeoff if there was
smoke. Unless we're saying that the fire immediately disabled the ability to
communicate the fact that there WAS a fire to the pilots...

...but that seems unlikely too, because I imagine the 777 has backup systems
that would alert pilots in case a system as critical as the fire detection
equipment in the wheel assembly was not responding.

I'm not saying the fire scenario is impossible; I'm still erring on the side
of this being a tragic systems failure, and not a malicious act. I just think
it might be entirely unlike anything we've seen in the past.

------
royprins
When I was considering a similar scenario, I looked at the airports around
there and found Kota Bharu to be much closer. The runway may not be similar in
length, but if your plane is on fire, you would not be picky.

It is at least 200km closer than Langkawi. The flight path was also close to
Kota Bharu, so one theory does not exclude the other.

Maybe somebody with more knowledge of an autopilot can offer some insight:
what happens is you overshoot your programmed target? With it go in a holding
pattern? Would the autopilot disengage? Or will the plane continue on its
course?

~~~
goodcanadian
Apparently, the autopilot can put it into a holding pattern:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522)

Whether or not it would, I suppose, would depend on how it was programed.

------
mh370
Look how close it went to the airport... it flew right past it because of the
fire?

[http://findmh370.tumblr.com/](http://findmh370.tumblr.com/)

~~~
whyleyc
Yes, if the fire had incapacitated the pilots and the plane was on autopilot.

------
grimmfang
The 777 aircraft reports ACARS (Aircraft Communications Addressing and
Reporting System) every thirty minutes and it is typical of pilots flying
overseas to squawk transponder code 2000 immediately after signing off from
the regional ATC. If a secondary radar was not listening to the 2000 frequency
it would have no record of the plane in that region. So, if the plane did go
down in the 30 minute block between the ACARS transmission, AND AFTER the sign
off, it would easily explain the radio silence, because the plane wasn't
silent, it just wasn't transmitting & was not visible to secondary radar.

Obviously, this means the plane had to go down very quickly (because it had so
much altitude) and while being a consolidated mass (blown up or shattered
planes scatter debris which are easily identified). It's very possible they
suffered from an electrical failure from a fire, but it's much more plausible
there was some control surface failure. For example in Alaska Airlines 261's
case the horizontal stabilizer jack-screw failed unconstraining the entire
horizontal stabilizer causing the plane immediately dive 31,000ft and hit the
water in under 5 minutes.

------
sleepyhead
Doesn't make sense. Langkawi is on the other side of the country. There are
airports on the north east side of Malaysia.

------
blasterleb
This nytimes article mentions that a satellite picked up four or five signals
from the airliner, about one per hour, after it left the range of military
radar. The only information which can be deduced from those signals is the
angle of the plane to the satellite. From the last transmission 7.5 hours
after take off they were able to draw an arc on the map which corresponds to
the deduced angle(see article). If we draw an arc for each of the last five
transmission, and if we assume an average speed of the plane wouldn't their
pattern suggest a certain direction of flight?

------
pastullo
this is actually a not that bad theory. The question is: have they already
scanned that area?

~~~
tsaoutourpants
According to the author, the plane may have continued on auto-pilot after the
crew had been killed by smoke inhalation. It's a large area to search.

~~~
sschueller
This could also explain the climb to 45,000 feet if the plane was on auto
pilot and the fire was messing with the instruments.

~~~
TheAnimus
Not likely.

The Pitot static systems (which are redundant) on a 777 are very far aware
from the transponders. So this fire that magically spread all the way across
that, somehow allowed auto pilot to have enough elevator control, change the
engine power, but not realise it was hitting the ceiling, then was able to
calmly decent from an above service ceiling height?

Incredibly unlikely set of events.

------
uptown
This theory still doesn't explain the lack of any debris. Perhaps some will
float to occupied regions at some point - but not everything sinks or burns.

------
alexeisadeski3
The autopilot until fuel exhaustion theory doesn't explain how it ended up on
this line:

[http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/73602000/jpg/_73602229...](http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/73602000/jpg/_73602229_possible_plane_area3_624\(3\).jpg)

~~~
darkhorn
I we 100% sure that the plane turned to west? This line aligns with; where the
plane lost, and where the oil platform worker noticed a fire on the sky. May
be the plane was on the sky, or on the water why pinging?

~~~
alexeisadeski3
Huh?

------
prodev42
i agree with the story, however the author did not write the possibility that
the plane could be shot down by air force and was covered up within those 5
hrs that they failed to report.

also i heard somewhere the captain used to live around that airport and is
familiar with it..thats why he decided to go there.

------
zarzuelazen
Surely a fire would have caused the plane to crash in 10-15 minutes, it
certainly wouldn't have gone on flying for 6+ hours more! The previous cases
of on-board fires I read about all have the plane crashing or landing within
20 minutes of the first systems failures.

------
checker659
This does corroborate the oil rig worker's account of a seeing a plane burning
midair.

~~~
joshgel
Didn't he say that he saw it crash and that they didn't find it where he
claimed?

~~~
checker659
They haven't found __anything __yet, so not sure what to make of that.

------
mightytravels
How many (remote?) airports in the Maldives are good enough to land a 777?
Seems like the perfect remote spot for landing a plane! Torsten @
[http://www.mightytravels.com](http://www.mightytravels.com)

------
ttcbj
I have no specific knowledge of airplane systems, but I wonder if the
airplane's computers could have been hacked to produce the disappearance? It
would explain why so much effort would go into the planning, with the plane
then appearing to be dumped in the indian ocean. The hacker would not have
been on the plane, and the indian ocean is deep enough to make recovery and
diagnosis of the hack difficult. It might explain how such a precisely timed
sequence of events occurred.

I wonder if someone on HN has an understanding of what kind of safeguards go
in to preventing a fly-by-wire system from being compromised. Presumably
systems like communication, cabin pressure, navigation, etc are separated.
Perhaps some of them are not software-based, and thus could not be compromised
(but maybe their power could?)

It seems really unlikely, but so do most other theories.

------
elwell
But how often do two passengers use stolen passports to board the plane?

~~~
NamTaf
Not infrequent enough in SEA that you are surprised at <1% of your pax using
them.

------
Shivetya
of course a fire is a great way to get the pilot/copilot to open the door -
"smoke in cabin"...

I think the other guys theory about a second triple 7 better than this.

------
supremum
Wow that was the most lucid piece I've read about the incident - also good to
have found somewhere to point my crazy conspiracy theory family to :)

------
garg
It's hard to believe that there are no communication failovers. A fire in the
cabin should not mean a loss of contact with the rest of the world.

------
coherentpony
Great analysis. Still, it falls under the category of "wild speculation" until
the plane is found.

------
cyanhat
Why would the satellite logistics system get shut down but still continue to
send hourly pings?

------
eplanit
Courageous captain dealing with a cabin fire radios "all right, good night"
???

------
matt-attack
> Yes, pilots have access to oxygen masks but this is a no no with fire.

Anyone know why?

~~~
nlh
I'm guessing because concentrated O2 is extremely flammable and would be fuel
for a fire, when the opposite would be needed. Rapid fire-suppressant systems
basically work by sucking all of the oxygen from the room/space as quickly as
possible.

~~~
bdonlan
The flight deck O2 masks are specifically designed to provide positive
pressure to avoid smoke inhalation in the event of a fire. There's no real
reason not to use them - if the fire is close enough that it would matter
you're already dead.

~~~
nlh
Makes sense to me. Thanks for clarification.

------
clwen
If fire was the problem, why didn't the pilot just land by sea?

~~~
confluence
You clearly don't understand how unsurvivable water landings are.

~~~
jrockway
This video demonstrates what actually happens when a widebody airliner
attempts to land on the ocean:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE2Yn0cipTY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE2Yn0cipTY)

767s are bigger than A320s and the ocean is a lot rougher than the Hudson.

~~~
tzs
That video demonstrates what happens when you try to land in the ocean while
you are fighting with hijackers which causes a sudden dip to one side, when
you happen to be over a coral reef for the engine on that side to hit. Even
with that, the crash was quite survivable. A large number of the fatalities
were due to drowning, because people inflated life rafts while still inside,
which blocked them in so they drowned when the plane sank.

This is probably not a good crash to use as a baseline for predicting what
would be typical for an ocean landing attempt.

~~~
robryan
I assume you could probably hit the water at an even lower speed than that
without stalling the plane before you got there?

~~~
victorhooi
The plane ran out of fuel.

The hijackers, who were apparently young, stupid and intoxicated - forced the
pilot to try to fly to Australia, even though the pilot said they didn't even
have enough fuel to make it 25% of the way.

The plane ran out of fuel off the coast of Africa, and the engines died.

The pilot used a Ram Air Turbine (basically using airspeed to drive a turbine)
to provide emergency power so he could land.

However, I assume the hydraulics didn't work at this stage, hence he couldn't
use the flaps to slow it down.

------
huangc10
this theory follows the keep it simple rule. though simple, it doesn't apply
here. I'm sure experts have already looked into the option of simply turning
"left".

