Welcome to Vanishing Skies, the podcast that delves deep into the unsolved mystery of MH370.
I'm Ed Skerritt, and together with my co-host, Maryland Skerritt, we're here to explore the
theories, test them, and present our findings based on unique, detailed information. Our theory
offers a definitive solution to the location where the plane may have ditched in the ocean.
Thank you, Ed. In this week's episode of Vanishing Skies' Unsolved Mystery of MH370,
we titled this episode, A Pilot, a Hijacker, or a Ghost, and we will delve into the speculation
surrounding various theories regarding the disappearance of MH370. Before discussing our
theory, it's essential to dismiss these theories for their lack of relevance and logic.
This episode took longer than we expected, because we made some interesting discoveries
while putting together the approach we took to understand just what happened that night.
We want to make this podcast to be more about not just finding the plane,
we want our listeners to know just how everything works together.
Maryland, today we've got a special segment lined up, featuring a pilot who,
after a mere 10 years, seems to have finally caught up with what many of us figured out from
the get-go. It's like watching a magic trick unfold in slow motion, where the magician finally
realizes the disappearing act was right under his nose all along. So, before we dive into his
revelation, let's take a moment to appreciate the journey from Crash to Splashdown, and how
sometimes the simplest explanation is just that. Simple. On March 19th, 2024, it's titled
MH370 10 Years On. It was written for the 10th anniversary since the plane went missing.
10 years ago. This month, Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappeared during a routine flight
between Kuala Lumpur and Beijing. The wreckage was never found. There's a solid chance the
wreckage will never be found. That's unfortunate, but there are clues to work with. And those clues
have, over time, led me to believe that the plane was intentionally brought down by one of the pilots,
most likely the captain, in an act of murder suicide. It was ditched somewhere in the Indian
Ocean, landed, if you will, on the surface of the sea, where it sank to to the bottom and rests today,
undetected, but mostly intact. Early on, I was open to a number of theories popular at the time,
fire, depressurization, and so on. Accidents. I've come around since then. My opinion is
based on the evidence, both as it exists and, just as importantly, doesn't exist. If we assume an
accident, we must also assume the plane crashed into the ocean. We know from electronic satellite
pings that the jet continued on for some time after its last appearance on radar, having suffered
some catastrophic malfunction that rendered the crew dead or unconscious. The thinking goes,
the plane continued on autopilot until running out of fuel, at which point the engines failed.
Without pilots to control the glide, it plunged into the sea. The problem with this idea is the
absence of pieces. There is no way for a jetliner to crash gently into the ocean. A Boeing 777,
in an out-of-control impact, would have effectively disintegrated, producing tens of thousands of
fragments, aircraft parts, human remains, luggage, and so on. Much of this debris would have sunk,
but much would not have. Eventually, born by currents, it would have washed up. So why didn't it?
A small number of pieces did come ashore, but that's the thing. Of the few parts recovered,
almost all of them are consistent, not with an out-of-control crash, but with a controlled
and deliberate ditching. Even the most textbook ditching at sea is going to cause serious damage
and the likely shedding of parts. The Flapperon discovered in 2015 on Reunion Island, for example,
and the trailing edge flap that washed up on Mauritius, both from the same wing. Except maybe
the tanks didn't run dry and the plane went somewhere else. What if that was the intent
all along? To vanish. Those pings are still important and give us hints. Chances are the
actual location of the wreckage isn't far away, but it's far enough away to have missed it.
I've been saying from the start that we should prepare for the possibility of the plane not
being found. It happens this way sometimes. If it helps you feel better, the air crash
annals contain numerous unsolved accidents. What makes this one different, maybe, is how we've come
to expect easy and fast solutions to pretty much everything these days, with a fetishized belief
that technology, whatever that means anymore, can answer any question and fix any problem. Oh, sure.
Radios, transponders, emergency locator transmitters, GPS, real-time position streaming, satellite
tracking, but all of that is fallible one way or another. Sometimes, nature wins, and that's what
this is about. Ultimately, nature. The immensity of the ocean versus the comparative spec of a 777.
It's out there somewhere, in the ink-black darkness beneath thousands of feet of seawater.
We'll probably never find it. Here's a summary of the key observations from the article,
emphasizing the pilot's belated realization of the plane's fate. After a decade of speculation,
the pilot in this article finally acknowledges what many overlooked. The plane likely ditched
into the ocean. This simple yet long-denied truth became apparent when considering the lack of debris.
How many obstacles needed to be removed before he came to the most obvious conclusion? Since we
did not see these distractions like so many, we thought we can show our listeners the process.
Despite the initial assumption that everyone perished early in the flight, the absence of
wreckage pointed to a different scenario. It's a reminder that sometimes, the most straightforward
explanation is the correct one, even if it takes years for some to see it. Imagine trying to solve
a complex puzzle without understanding its pieces. That's essentially what happened with the investigation
into MH370's disappearance. From the moment we're born, humans are natural problem solvers.
Our world as we know it might not exist without the human nature instinct in recognizing understanding
and solving. Throughout our lives, we continue to tackle problems big and small, always striving to
fix what's broken and make things better. It's this innate drive to solve puzzles that keeps us
engaged and constantly learning. Investigators failed to simplify the problem, instead grouping
all theories together and getting stuck. This just complicated the problem. It's like the example
of trying to fit a round peg into a square hole, much like what may have occurred in the MH370
investigation. This emphasizes the importance of tackling problems with a clear, logical approach,
focusing on straightforward solutions rather than overcomplicating things.
Before we continue, I want our listeners to know that we have some intriguing insights to share
later in this episode. We'll be delving into the mysterious disappearance of Malaysia Airlines
Flight 370, reconstructing this tragic event. However, we'll only be discussing information
that can be confirmed with other sources. Sources such as radar recordings provide the
direction the plane was traveling, while dispatcher tapes offer additional insights. However,
the core information we're using to recreate the flight path comes directly from the plane itself.
Data from the Inmarsat satellite provides crucial details, including the plane's GPS location,
which is invaluable. This data, generated at takeoff, is key to understanding the plane's
whereabouts at different times during all three phases of the flight. Inmarsat satellite data
is instrumental in closing the gap and proving the plane's location. In fact, we'll be explaining
everything in its simplest form to make it easier to follow the sequence of events. As we run through
the timeline and share our interpretation of what happened, remember to follow along but avoid the
pitfall of overlooking the obvious, like the pilot who took 10 years to realize certain clues.
Our goal is to paint a clear picture, supported by all the necessary paperwork to verify its
accuracy. Think of it as exploring a possibility. Much of what we'll explain is already quite
plausible and doesn't require extensive proof because it's simply evident.
Did you know in April 2014, Reason.org conducted a poll that revealed these results? It represents
what the majority of people surveyed believed really happened to the Malaysian flight. I'm
not surprised by the results. This poll reported 35% of Americans respondents believe a mechanical
problem caused the crash, while 22% suspect intentional actions by the pilots. It's intriguing
to see how these theories vary. 12% think terrorists were involved, 9% believe the plane landed safely
and is in hiding, 5% consider supernatural or alien activity, and 3% even suggest a foreign
government might have shot it down. The numbers are indeed eye-opening, but it's crucial to remember
that just because a theory has more believers doesn't make it more likely.
One problem we are looking to improve is public opinion. The MH370 investigation became overwhelmed
by public opinion based on baseless speculation. This is why these same theories exist 10 years
later with no real answers. A theory doesn't mean a hunch or a guess. A theory is a system of
explanations that ties together a whole bunch of facts. It not only explains those facts,
but predicts what you ought to find from other observations and experiments. It's intriguing
to see the variety of opinions in the poll regarding what happened to the plane. When someone says
they believe the plane was crashed intentionally by the pilots, it makes you wonder what their belief
is based on. Are they influenced by media narratives or do they have other sources guiding
their opinion? It's a reminder of how public opinion can often be shaped by media reports,
emphasizing the importance of critical thinking and seeking diverse perspectives. It's crucial
to clarify that our theory regarding the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 mystery is not just another
speculative idea. It's grounded in facts, evidence, and thorough analysis. Unlike many other theories
out there, our approach is unique. We are confident in the conclusions we've drawn, which is why we
created this podcast to explain the information we've used, how we've used it, and why our theory
stands out among the rest. The significance of approaching an event like this with the right
tools and mindset is so crucial. Ed, I'm curious, what approach did you take? I wanted to delve
deeper into the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 mystery. Like everyone else, I was presented
with the same information, but what sets my approach apart is a combination of factors.
Firstly, my extensive experience working in an industry that mirrors the complexities of aviation
gave me a unique perspective. Secondly, my dyslexia means I don't always follow traditional
investigative steps. This unconventional thinking led me to a starting point that many might overlook,
human error. My research and analysis consistently pointed towards this crucial factor, shaping
the foundation of my investigation. After my independent investigation yielded findings starkly
different from those of the expert investigators, I found myself doubting my conclusions. Determined
to validate my theory, I revisited the available evidence, meticulously scrutinizing every detail.
I realized that to be confident in my findings, I needed to provide concrete evidence that supported
my unconventional conclusion. Let's assume there was smoke that entered the cabin killing everyone
on board. This scenario explains the loss of communication, but it does not explain the reason
the plane made the unauthorized turn after passing waypoint Igari. Such assumptions can be highly
misleading and diverts attention from more plausible explanations. Let's consider a scenario where you
have two choices. The first choice has a 4% chance of being correct, while the second choice boasts
an 85% chance of a successful outcome. The difference between these odds is striking. In the first
scenario, the odds are heavily stacked against you. You would think that with the lack of concrete
information, the investigators would have started by looking at causes that are more likely to happen.
I believe most accident investigators should focus on human error as the primary cause,
unless there's compelling evidence pointing to another explanation.
Making assumptions about highly unlikely scenarios, especially when a plane diverts for
an unknown reason similar to what happened with MH370. So while it's intriguing to see where public
opinion leans, it's also a reminder to consider all possibilities and not just go with the crowd.
This led to a lack of focus on the most obvious clues. The theory of smoke incapacitating everyone
on board is not supported by any substantial evidence. When we look at the statistics, aviation
accidents account for only 4% of all documented incidents. This suggests that these theories,
with their low probability, are not credible explanations for the disappearance of MH370.
Instead, we focus on the human factor which accounts for 85% of aviation incidents.
Our investigation has led us to believe that a combination of factors,
including the inexperience of the first officer, contributed to the tragedy. The first officer,
being a student pilot, was likely overwhelmed by the responsibilities of flying at night and
making critical decisions under pressure. This is based on factual information that moves us
forward in our process to the truth, not personal feelings based on instinct alone. Clues may be
overlooked because of your instinct has doubt. You might not even explore what could have been
valuable information. What if it was the only key you had to solving the problem?
While there are many theories surrounding the disappearance of MH370, with our focus still
remaining on human error and the lack of proper training and supervision, this theory provides
a more plausible explanation for the tragedy than any of the other theories proposed. The Australian
Transport Safety Bureau initially proposed that a hypoxia event was the most likely cause of the
disappearance based on analysis of satellite data. However, no definitive cause has been determined.
I just want to look at one article that was published four months after the plane went missing.
On Friday, June 27, 2014, Independent News wrote article titled, MH370,
Passengers were already dead from suffocation by the time plane hit the ocean. Report finds,
This article starts off presuming everyone died before the plane crashes in the Indian Ocean.
The 239 passengers and crew on the missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 most probably
died from suffocation before the plane crashed into the ocean. Officials investigating its
disappearance in Australia have released a new report concluded that the cabin ran out of oxygen,
causing fatal hypoxia in everyone on board. No new evidence from within the Boeing 777 has emerged,
leaving the Australian Transport Safety Board to compare the flight with previous disasters
to draw their conclusion. Given these observations, the final stages of the unresponsive crew,
hypoxia event type, appeared to best fit the available evidence for the final period of MH370's
flight when it was heading in a generally southerly direction, the report said. Investigators say
what little evidence they have suggests the plane was deliberately diverted thousands of kilometers
from its scheduled route before eventually plunging into the Indian Ocean. The report narrowed down
the crash site from thousands of possible routes while noting the absence of communication,
the steady flight path, and a number of other key abnormalities in the course of the ill-fated
flight. The report narrowed down the crash site from thousands of possible routes while noting
the absence of communication, the steady flight path, and a number of other key abnormalities
in the course of the ill-fated flight. A story by Mahirama Krishnan headlined, Flight Change Blamed
on Pilot. The pilot of the missing Malaysia Airlines jet is believed to be solely responsible for
steering the flight hundreds of miles off course. USA Today would fail to understand there is always
a minimum of two pilots in the cockpit, a captain and a first officer. The latter is known colloquially
as the co-pilot, but they both are fully qualified pilots. They both perform takeoffs and landings,
and both are certified to operate the aircraft in all regimes of flight. A first officer is not
an apprentice. In fact, owing to the quirks of the airline's seniority system, it is not unheard of
for the first officer to be older and more experienced than the captain. Stories like this
increases doubt telling your instincts to not accept a fact based on the aviation statistical
data, information based on the aviation industry, and the problems within it. Clues like this not
only proves probable, it says it's more likely than not. It's about moving forward into understanding
the solution. A pilot sharing his knowledge on why having two pilots in the cockpit is so crucial
for safety. Both the captain and the first officer are equally trained and qualified,
and having two sets of eyes and hands reduce the risk of one pilot missing something,
the other can catch it. This redundancy significantly reduces the risk of human error. However,
it's also essential to look at the statistical data that underpins the entire aviation industry.
Statistics are not just numbers, they are used to paint a comprehensive picture of safety and to
identify areas where improvements are needed. For instance, the same data that reveals aviation
as the safest mode of transportation also helps identify specific issues within the industry.
These statistics serve a dual purpose. They show that overall flying is incredibly safe,
thanks in part to the rigorous training that both captains and first officers undergo.
At the same time, they are instrumental in pointing out safety concerns and guiding the
creation of new regulations to address these issues. By analyzing accident reports and near
misses, aviation authorities can develop and implement safety measures that further enhance
the safety record of the industry. This brings us to the end of one more episode with this
thought in mind. In essence, while personal opinions provide valuable insights into daily
operations and perceptions within the industry, statistical facts offer a broader, more objective
view. They highlight both the successes and the areas needing improvement, ensuring that the aviation
industry continues to evolve and maintain its status as the safest mode of transportation.
So, while the pilot's perspective on the value of two pilots is crucial, it is the statistical
data that ultimately drives safety advancements and regulatory changes, ensuring that every flight
is as safe as possible. Thank you for letting us be your host today. I'm Marilyn Skerritt, along with
Ed Skerritt. Hope to see you back for our next episode. You've been listening to the podcast,
Vanishing Skies, the Unsolved Mystery of MH370.