PETALING JAYA: The disclosure by Malaysia Airlines that the missing MH370 was carrying highly flammable lithium-ion batteries in its cargo hold has re-ignited speculation that a fire may have caused its disappearance.
An aviation security expert, Billie Vincent today affirmed his belief that flames started in the cargo hold of MH370, destroying the aircraft’s communication systems, then filling the cabin with toxic fumes.
The former head of security for the US Federal Aviation Administration said this would have overwhelmed the passengers but may have given the pilots a chance to divert the aircraft for an emergency landing.
“The data released thus far most likely points to a problem with hazardous materials.
“This scenario begins with the eruption of hazardous materials within the cargo hold – either improperly packaged or illegally shipped – or both,” he was quoted as saying in Air Traffic Management, a dedicated magazine and website which covers the ATM and the related communications, navigation and surveillance industry.
Vincent had insisted from the outset that rather than portraying the crew of the missing Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 as saboteurs, the pilots struggled heroically to save the aircraft until overcome by smoke from a catastrophic cargo fire caused – or exacerbated – by its highly flammable lithium battery cargo.
Vincent dismissed the likelihood of a bomb being detonated on board which would have ruptured the pressure hull of the aircraft, citing the fact that the series of ‘pings’ would indicate that Flight 370 flew for up to seven more hours.
Vincent said a fire could have started in the cargo hold progressively and serially destroyed the aircraft’s communications systems.
The toxic fumes could have quickly overwhelmed the passenger cabin and the cockpit where at least one of the flight crew managed to don an oxygen mask allowing them to turn the aircraft back to either Kuala Lumpur or Langkawi.
Flight 370 is reported to have climbed to 45,000ft which Vincent believed could have been due simply to the inability of the flight crew to clearly see and set the controls for a return.
Hijacking, sabotage improbable
Vincent said that it was possible that control could have been regained and the aircraft sent back to a lower altitude of around 23,000 ft – which was a diversion altitude set by aircraft manufacturers to prevent a fire taking further hold and which both allowed better survivability while venting the avionics bays.
“The airplane then continues flying until no fuel remains and crashes – most likely into the ocean as there has been no report of any Emergency Locater Transmitter (ELT) signal which can be received by satellite if the crash was on land,” said Vincent.
Vincent also said that other scenarios involving hijacking and sabotage were improbable.
“There is no indication that either of the pilots was criminally involved in the disappearance of this airplane. Neither has Malaysia released any data indicating anything amiss in the security clearance of the passengers for this flight.
“The one question raised about the two passengers travelling on stolen passports has been cleared indicating that they were planning on illegally claiming refugee status in another country, probably Germany,” he said. Vincent is also the author of ‘Bombers, Hijackers, Body Scanners, and Jihadists’.
Why radio silence?
However Vincent’s theory about a fire in the plane did not convince everyone.
Air Traffic Management quoted several air accident investigators as saying that there were still some anomalies in such a scenario such as the complete radio silence of MH370.
“In every inflight fire where the aircraft crashed, the situation deteriorated rapidly, ultimately overcoming the aircraft’s ability to fly such as the UPS 747-400 lithium-ion battery fire in Dubai; the Valujet 594 chemical oxygen generators in the forward cargo hold; SwissAir 111 electrical system fire in overhead void space and the South African Airways Boeing 747 cargo fire in 1987,” said one expert.
In each case, he noted that the crew had sufficient time to communicate with air traffic control before the aircraft crashed even though the fire intensified rapidly, igniting nearby materials.
In each case the fire also rendered the aircraft unflyable, with the exception of SwissAir which stayed airborne longer as the crew attempted to burn off fuel.
A second reason that threw doubt on a cargo fire scenario is that the pilots of Flight 370, if they followed proper emergency procedure, would have both been using emergency oxygen masks, protecting them from toxic gas.
“There are microphones in the masks, so they would have advised air traffic control of their intentions as they attempted an emergency return,” he said .
Finally, there also remain doubts as to whether – even if the autopilot remained engaged – an aircraft would be capable of flying for seven hours.
“A catastrophic end should have happened much sooner, even if they tried to depressurise the cabin to reduce the fire.”
MAS CEO Jauhari’s flip-flop
Yesterday, Malaysia Airlines disclosed that the aircraft was carrying some lithium ion batteries, which are deemed “dangerous” cargo and can overheat and cause fires.
These batteries have been responsible for 140 incidents on planes in the last 23 years according to the US Federal Aviation Administration, including one when a UPS cargo plane crashed during an emergency landing in 2010.
But Malaysia Airlines CEO Ahmad Jauhari Yahya said that the batteries, which are used in laptops and mobile phones, were packed and carried in accordance with regulations and were unlikely to have posed a threat.
Responding to a question at a press conference yesterday, Jauhari said: “We carried some lithium-ion small batteries, they are not big batteries and they are basically approved under the ICAO (The International Civil Aviation Organisation) under dangerous goods.
“They (lithium-ion batteries) are not dangerous goods per se, but in terms (of) they are (being) declared as dangerous goods under ICAO.”
He insisted they were checked several times to ensure they complied with the guidelines.
“Airlines do that all the time, it is not just Malaysia Airlines. These goods are being flown by many airlines as cargo anyway, (which) is based on ICAO’s ruling,” he added.
Jauhari’s disclosure on the lithium batteries came four days after he had denied the aircraft was carrying any dangerous items and nearly two weeks after the plane went missing.
When asked earlier this week if there was hazardous cargo on board, Jauhari said no, adding that it was carrying “three to four tonnes of mangosteens”.
The revelation has thrown the spotlight back on the theory that the Boeing 777 may have been overcome by a fire, rendering the crew and passengers unconscious after inhaling toxic fumes.
