Was it the pilot or was it the plane? MH370 mystery goes to court

The debate over the biggest aviation mystery this century will be fought out in a US courtroom.

The debate over the biggest aviation mystery this century will be fought out in a US courtroom where aircraft manufacturer Boeing may argue that a rogue pilot brought down Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 rather than any ­inherent mechanical defect in the Boeing 777.

The civil action, launched by aviation lawyer Mary Schiavo from US firm Motley Rice on behalf of the relatives of 44 of the 239 people who perished, could also apply more pressure on Boeing to contribute to a fund established by the families aimed at renewing the search for the aircraft.

Ms Schiavo, a former US ­Department of Transportation ­inspector-general and a regular commentator on CNN, lodged the suit against Boeing in a South Carolina court at the weekend on ­behalf of Gregory Keith, a special administrator for the relatives of three US citizens or permanent residents lost on MH370 and 41 Chinese victims.

The suit, publicly revealed yesterday on the third anniversary of MH370’s disappearance, alleges the crash of MH370 “was caused or partially caused by defects in the design, manufacture and/or ­assembly of the aircraft”.

The suit states the failure to ­locate the plane caused a “lack of finality and an enduring mystery that has caused unprecedented levels of economic and non-economic losses, emotional and physical pain, distress and mental pain and suffering to those lost on the plane and to their families”.

MH370 vanished on a scheduled flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on March 8, 2014, with its radar transponder turned off and radio communications cut 40 minutes into the flight, after which, primary radar and automatic satellite tracking shows, the aircraft doubled back over Malaysia and flew up the Malacca Strait until turning on a long track to the southern Indian Ocean.

The plaintiffs’ case focuses on an alleged complex series of failures and adverse events starting with an electrical fault and fire ­disabling communications on MH370 and leading to decompression of the aircraft, with the ­pilots unable to fully regain control, ultimately leaving the plane flying on autopilot at high altitude until it ran out of fuel and crashed.

The scenario is similar to a theory developed by former RAAF supply officer, retired Ansett logistics manager, private pilot and amateur aviation investigator Mick Gilbert. In Mr Gilbert’s narrative, a windshield fire caused by an electrical fault becomes a conflagration when one of the pilots’ oxygen hoses comes loose, damaging the radio and controls, and leading to rapid decompression, with the pilots, possible seriously injured or with one dead, only able to make limited manoeuvres before they run out of oxygen. Mr Gilbert’s work was described as well-researched by respected US former airline pilot and air crash investigator John Cox, who has placed equal weight on the probability of a series of adverse mechanical events, and pilot hijack.

Most airline pilots and air crash investigators, however, believe Mr Gilbert’s scenario involves too many highly improbable events happening in a particular ­sequence, and think it unlikely the pilots would have flown the aircraft for an extended period of time during the emergency without issuing a distress call.

The majority of professional aviation opinion holds that Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah ­hijacked his own plane, killed the passengers and remaining crew by depressurising the aircraft while he remained on a long oxygen supply, and flew the aircraft to the end.