Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370: The most probable facts

[Mich the Tester]

Surely we exist in a higher plane that fleas?

Not if the plane's 3000 metres under the sea.

[sasguru]

In other words, pluck a random improbable theory out of thin air and then try and make the facts fit it.

I don't expect a complete dunce like you to understand probability

Here is a selection of theories and some likely probabilities, based roughly on previous incidents:

1. Mechanical issues - 75%
2. Malicious intent - 25%
3. Malaysians shooting down the plane 0.001%

[Troll]

A fire on board, like Swissair 111 which crashed off Nova Scotia in the 90s.
This either disabled all the comms (ACARS, transponder etc) or the pilots disabled them while looking for the fault and were then overwhelmed by events.
The plane crashed in the Indian Ocean somewhere.

RIP passengers and unfairly maligned crew

Bolloxs - fire was caused by newly installed electronic gaming equipment, pilots were in contact with ground stations for 10 minutes after the first Pan Pan call until crashing into the ocean

I did read that - but what if the catastrophic event (fire or hydraulic failure) simply left the plane out of control after a certain point ( or out of control because of pilot incapacitation - smoke could have caused them to be unconscious and the fire could have then gone out).

There was a Nippon Air 747 that crashed into a mountain many years ago due to hydraulic failure - it was essentially out of control and exhibited many changes in lateral, horizontal and vertical direction, without actually going into a dive and crashing into the ground.

It lost it's hydraulic fluid due to a botched aft pressure bulkhead repair by Boeing performed for a previous tail strike, the failure and explosive decompression also detached the whole of the vertical stabiliser ultimately making the aircraft un-flyable, the fact that it managed to continue for 32 minutes after the decompression is a testament to the skill of the pilots as other crews recreating the scenario on simulators have been unable to keep the aircraft aloft for so long
But for 32 minutes they were in contact with ground controllers while seeking alternative landing sites

So both incidents pilots were in communication with the ground pretty for much for the full duration of the emergency

Statistically speaking what are the odds on someone being so spectacularly wrong on posting something as fact?

You take being a to depths previously unplumbed
HTH

[sasguru]

fact
/fakt/

noun
1.
a thing that is known or proved to be true.
"the most commonly known fact about hedgehogs is that they have fleas"
synonyms: reality, actuality, certainty, factuality, certitude;


I'm not convinced by the hedgehog flea example. Do all hedgehogs have fleas?


I suppose facts can be improbable, so they can be probable too. However I think in this case we're still talking hypotheses rather than facts.

Fair enough, wrong phraseology.
But trying reading a book on quantum theory, there are some very improbably facts there.

[shaunbhoy]

Here is a selection of theories and some likely probabilities, based roughly on previous incidents:

1. Mechanical issues - 75%
2. Malicious intent - 25%
3. Malaysians shooting down the plane 0.001%

All of which are just speculation, and of no more import than the theories of many others.
The difference being that most others are not trying to ram their ill-informed guesswork down the throats of all and sundry.
A flurry of wild googling on your part does not a plausible prognosis make.
You'd realize that if you were not as dense as mahogany.

[Old Greg]

I don't expect a complete dunce like you to understand probability

Here is a selection of theories and some likely probabilities, based roughly on previous incidents:

1. Mechanical issues - 75%
2. Malicious intent - 25%
3. Malaysians shooting down the plane 0.001%

What is a likely probability as opposed to a probability? What is the likelihood that those probabilities are correct?

[sasguru]

Bolloxs - fire was caused by newly installed electronic gaming equipment, pilots were in contact with ground stations for 10 minutes after the first Pan Pan call until crashing into the ocean

It lost it's hydraulic fluid due to a botched aft pressure bulkhead repair by Boeing performed for a previous tail strike, the failure and explosive decompression also detached the whole of the vertical stabiliser ultimately making the aircraft un-flyable, the fact that it managed to continue for 32 minutes after the decompression is a testament to the skill of the pilots as other crews recreating the scenario on simulators have been unable to keep the aircraft aloft for so long
But for 32 minutes they were in contact with ground controllers while seeking alternative landing sites

So both incidents pilots were in communication with the ground pretty for much for the full duration of the emergency

It was probably random that the Nippon plane was in the air at all for 32 minutes. And they hit a mountain not the ground, meaning the plane didn't immediately dive to the ground.

As for the comms, in these 2 cases the pilots could use them, there are scenarios were they might not be able to.

mechanical failure is still more probable than malicious intent since no one has yet explained what the point of that malicious intent was

[Old Greg]

[QUOTE=sasguru;1909953]

Bolloxs - fire was caused by newly installed electronic gaming equipment, pilots were in contact with ground stations for 10 minutes after the first Pan Pan call until crashing into the ocean

It lost it's hydraulic fluid due to a botched aft pressure bulkhead repair by Boeing performed for a previous tail strike, the failure and explosive decompression also detached the whole of the vertical stabiliser ultimately making the aircraft un-flyable, the fact that it managed to continue for 32 minutes after the decompression is a testament to the skill of the pilots as other crews recreating the scenario on simulators have been unable to keep the aircraft aloft for so long
But for 32 minutes they were in contact with ground controllers while seeking alternative landing sites

So both incidents pilots were in communication with the ground pretty for much for the full duration of the emergency

It was probably random that the Nippon plane was in the air at all for 32 minutes. And they hit a mountain not the ground, meaning the plane didn't immediately dive to the ground.

As for the comms, in these 2 cases the pilots could use them, there are scenarios were they might not be able to.

mechanical failure is still more probable than malicious intent since no one has yet explained what the point of that malicious intent was

Isn't a mountain the ground?

[sasguru]

What is the likelihood that those probabilities are correct?

I have simply used a frequentist interpretation - actually Option 1 should include in it pilot error.

[sasguru]

Isn't a mountain the ground?

The point is that a plane with hydraulic failure can fly at altitude for a while.