Ten years after losing their loved ones, the families of the 239 victims of the missing Malaysia Airlines plane mourn and continue to search for answers.
On Sunday, the Malaysian government said it may restart the search after a U.S. marine robotics company that had previously tried to find the plane in 2018 proposed a new search that would expand even further beyond the original search site.
The respected aviation safety expert Philip Baum has The Independent the five possible scenarios that he considers to be the most likely. Each of them is evaluated here.
Pilot-assisted suicide
Many people have focused on the plane’s commander, Captain Zaharie Shah. He was 53 years old when he took control of MH370, departing from Kuala Lumpur for Beijing. In his care were 227 passengers and 11 other crew members.
A popular theory is that Captain Shah locked the first officer out of the cockpit. He turned off the communication systems that were supposed to keep MH370 in touch with air traffic controllers, put on an oxygen mask and depressurized the plane. At an altitude higher than Mount Everest, the passengers and the rest of the crew would soon die from lack of oxygen (hypoxia).
The captain, the theory goes, then flew the plane along the border between Thailand and Malaysia to avoid attracting the attention of the military of either side, and then turned south to a place where he would probably never find the plane.
But the official report states: “There is no known history of apathy, anxiety or irritability. There were no significant changes in his lifestyle, interpersonal conflicts or family stress.”
The first officer was 27-year-old Fariq Abdul Hamid. He was on his first Boeing 777 flight without a supervising captain and had flown the plane only five times before. Investigators said his “skills and professionalism were described as good.” It seems unlikely that someone with so little experience with the aircraft could pull off such a plan.
Although there have unfortunately been a number of crashes caused by suicidal pilots – most recently the tragic crash of Germanwings Flight 9525 from Barcelona to Düsseldorf, in which the first officer killed himself and 150 others – there has never been such a long delay between the moment of seizure and the subsequent crash.
Hijacking by the pilot with the intention of landing, surviving and escaping
Although it is difficult to find a precedent for this theory, it is possible that one of the pilots intended to land or crash the plane in a survivable condition but botched this and was incapacitated by hypoxia along with the others on board. Still, it is difficult to imagine a possible motive for such a daring mission.
In addition, the investigators concluded: “There is no evidence that there have been any recent changes or difficulties in the personal relationship between the PIC (Pilot in Command) and the FO (First Officer), or that there have been any conflicts or problems between them.”
“There were no financial burdens or impending insolvency, no new or additional insurance cover had been taken out, and there had been no recent changes in the crew’s behavior.”
Investigators also analyzed the radio conversations of both pilots and stated that they found “no evidence of fear or stress.”
The final report also states: “The automatic deployment of the masks cannot be deactivated from the cockpit.” The oxygen masks are set to automatically deploy in the event of a sharp drop in cabin pressure, which would have given passengers and crew some time to try to communicate with the ground.
Kidnapping by a passenger or a member of the cabin crew
Given the large number of passengers on board and the 10 flight attendants, there is a wide range of possible motives. Standard aviation security measures were in place at Kuala Lumpur International Airport. As the tragic events of September 11 showed, the fact that the passenger passed through a checkpoint does not mean that he or she does not pose a threat to the aircraft and the people on board.
There were a total of 227 passengers on board (including three children and two infants), the majority of whom were from China, followed by Malaysia.
Two Iranian passengers were travelling with passports stolen from an Italian and an Austrian, respectively. They were apparently illegal immigrants who had no malicious intentions but were desperate to reach the West.
All ten members of the cabin crew were married and had children, so some reports say it is unlikely that they hijacked the plane.
Remotely hijacked in a sophisticated cyberterrorism attack
This is where plausible theories and impractical conspiracy theories begin to collide.
In 2003, Boeing filed a patent for a “remote aircraft takeover” designed to thwart hijacking attempts. “The patent’s ‘non-interruptive’ autopilot could be activated either by pilots, onboard sensors, or remotely via radio or satellite links by the airline or government agencies in the event of attempts to forcibly gain control of the cockpit.”
“Once this system is activated, the pilot can no longer make any inputs and it is no longer possible for anyone on board to interrupt the automatic takeover. This means that the personnel on board cannot be forced to comply with the demands of an unauthorized person.”
In turn, such technology could give criminals on the ground the ability to take control of the aircraft.
But the aircraft manufacturer told investigators: “Boeing has confirmed that it has not implemented the patented system or any other technology to remotely control a commercial aircraft, and it is not aware of a single Boeing commercial aircraft that incorporates such technology.”
The report concludes: “There is no evidence to support the belief that control of aircraft 9M-MRO (operating as MH370) could have been or was taken over remotely, as the technology is not implemented in commercial aircraft.”
Picked up by a stowaway
Could someone have boarded the plane before the passengers and crew, either on a suicidal mission or with the intention of landing on, say, Christmas Island, 1,000 miles northwest of Western Australia?
Philip Baum considers this theory to be the second most likely after a pilot’s suicide. He has proven that there is an underfloor area directly in front of the cockpit door where a person could hide. Such a stowaway could also deactivate the transponder and make the plane “disappear”.
In aviation, there are many cases where former employees hold grudges against airlines. It is possible that such a person is responsible. However, there are many arguments against such a scenario and the probability seems extremely low.
The perpetrator should have had access to the plane before it was prepared for departure from Kuala Lumpur. He would have had to overcome the cabin crew, 227 passengers and two pilots to take over the plane. And he should not have been missed when he disappeared at the same time as MH370.
Moreover, it is difficult to establish a motive. No terrorist group has made a serious claim that it took over flight MH370 for political or propaganda reasons.
Only when the plane is found can these theories be tested.
