[Bromskloss]

Does "manipulated" simply mean that something was turned off? This is what I can find in the report:

> Although it cannot be conclusivel y ruled out that an aircraft or system malfunction was a cause, based on the limited evidence available, it is more likely that the loss of communication (VHF and HF communications, ACARS, SATCOM and Transponder) prior to the diversion is due to the system s being manually turned off or power interrupted to them or additionally in the case of VHF and HF, not used, whether with intent or otherwise.

> Similarly, the recorded changes in the aircraft flight path following waypoint IGARI, heading back across peninsular Malaysia, turning south of Penang to the north -west and a subsequent turn towards the Southern Indian Ocean are difficult to attribute to any specific aircraft system failures. It is more likely that such manoeuvres are due to the systems being manipulated.

[everdev]

Manipulated = flown by hand

The leading theory is that auto-pilot and other systems were disengaged and the craft flown to it's doom in a mass murder-suicide

[DonaldFisk]

The authors of the report couldn't find any reasons why either of the pilots, or anyone else on board, might do this though.

[everdev]

Yeah, it's a true mystery. The recovered wreckage seems to suggest a remote Indian Ocean crash site and I don't think there were any other plausible explanations for why the plane diverted so drastically from it's intended course outside of human intervention.

Malfunctions haven't produced this type of diversion before or since.

[djerthro]

Multiple dispositions possibly point to what is essentially unknowable.

Why did the plane deviate from its course with no alarms? With multiple crew in the cabin, who among them would have missed the plane's course adjustment? Why did they miss the adjustment? If they didn't fail to notice it, did they cooperate, knowingly? If not, why were alternate communications not used? Were the people responsible incapacitated? If they were incapacitated, how did that go unnoticed in general, and cause further alarm, and alternate communications? Could there have been a threat of violence?

Basically, what I'm driving at is that one might expect at least one stray cell phone call in distress while over land, even if abrupt and short, with no discernable information conveyed.

Taking into account an air tight disappearance, it doesn't reflect the type of lone wolf depressive suicide like the European incident that crashed into the mountain. Other options include: botched hijacking that failed to ransom hostages; or sledgehammer as fly swatter, with possibly an entire plane destroyed to target an individual of interest, signs pointing to state actors.

[everdev]

A few theories:

1. The pilot waited until they we're alone in the cockpit then disabled all communications and locked the door. Possibly with a fake story over the intercom that kept people unsuspicious until away from land (diverting around some bad weather, etc.)

2. The pilot killed the co-pilot and then diverted the plane, same as above.

With a hijacking/ransom, the perps want to communicate, so I think that's out.

State actors is the only other one that makes sense to me, but it's still a murder-suicide by human hand.

[teniutza]

Why would someone (pilot?) wanting/planning/executing a mass murder-suicide deviate so much off course? There's a lot of water en-route. The suspected "author" could have crashed anywhere in the Yellow Sea, East China Sear or South China Sea with relatively minor deviation.

On the other hand, assuming such an hypothesis, crashing into water far away from the route would "explicitly" decrease the chances of finding the wreckage and thus the black box.

[foxyv]

Maybe to make sure that life insurance pays out?