> I´ve seen very strange results during simulators when trying to solve emergencies, and all where very capable pilots. After all airplanes are very complex systems working in very different scenarios. Corrected procedures and system fixes are constant even on models that have been flying for 20+ years.
The initial behaviour of the plane around the time the transponders went out seems very possible to explain in terms of a less-than-perfect response to a sudden emergency. But how could one square a) making a series of direction and altitude changes over a longish period of time, well after the initial incident, b) no attempt to communicate at the same time and c) at most, limited damage to the plane's systems with d) no foul play? It seems that at least one of those has to give...
You´ll be amazed how fast you can start screwing things at a cockpit once you have an unknown emergency or even worst a known emergency that you have misunderstood. Just deselecting the wrong button (for example disconnecting a generator and a cross tie connector), will put you in manual control, with all the cockpit lights and half the instruments off, several alarms ringing... not a desirable situation even for an experienced pilot. You are able to forget to communicate, to navigate, you are able to crash to a mountain because you are looking at a flashing light, I can´t find a good example outside of aviation to make you understand the feeling to look at a panel and not knowing what the hell is going on.
At simulators we practice all the normal emergencies, that will cover you 99,5 of the times. Most emergencies are simple, but some times something that is not known even to Boeing happens. Or it´s a simple emergency but you take the wrong steps. This happens more frequently to pilots who passed a lacking instruction method (like the one I describe that´s happening at china), but can happen to anyone.
The Air France crash was due to a no emergency situation (they just needed to keep altitude, and engine thrust selection to keep a normal flight and recover the instruments) that was converted in to a crash due to a misinterpretation and wrong piloting skills.
Sure, I understand this. The mystery is that the plane was (apparently!) making turns over a period of at least nearly a couple of hours, well after any initial pants-on-fire emergency (or panic misreaction like Air France), with not even a peep on any of the radios, the transponders, or the ELT.
I still think that it´s some kind of hijacking, but there is the possibility that the crew started screwing themselves while working on an emergency, and then getting lost at sea.. Not the most probable but possible.
The initial behaviour of the plane around the time the transponders went out seems very possible to explain in terms of a less-than-perfect response to a sudden emergency. But how could one square a) making a series of direction and altitude changes over a longish period of time, well after the initial incident, b) no attempt to communicate at the same time and c) at most, limited damage to the plane's systems with d) no foul play? It seems that at least one of those has to give...