Most rational hypothesis on missing Malaysian 777 so far

[DanTex]

1. It sounds convincing but there are a few issues with it.

First of all, it doesn't square with the satellite ping that places along that large arcs based on the distance from the satellite. If it just kept going west after that first turn, then it wouldn't have been anywhere close to the ping arcs.

Also, there was a pretty good debunking of this posted on Reddit. Of course, we don't know the level of expertise of either Chris Goodfellow or this Reddit poster, so who knows, but the Reddit guy seems to make some good points.

http://www.reddit.com/r/MH370/comments/20sasb/very_concise_debunk_of_chris_goodfellows_theory/

SIGH I don't know who Chris Goodfellow is, but just having a "Class 1 License in Multi-engine planes" and 20 years experience does NOT qualify him to speak with authority on 777 systems and trans-oceanic airline operations. Heck, when I learned to fly in Canada, I had the same certifications. Mr. Goodfellow misses the mark on real-world operations, as evidenced by statements he makes in this article.
As an MD88 Captain for a major US airline, I have some pretty good experience to draw from but I certainly wouldn't want to stray into the realm of 777 systems and become another self-professed "expert" in the speculation frenzy we are seeing with regards to this incident. But some things are just really basic, and Mr. Goodfellow makes quite a few assumptions.
Where do I start?
"When I saw that left turn with a direct heading, I instinctively knew he was heading for an airport". Um, why? Why can you make that statement? There are a whole host of reasons why the aircraft FMS was programmed to make a turn. You say yourself just a paragraph or two later that "There is no point speculating further until more evidence surfaces...". Aren't you in fact "speculating"? We have far too many "speculators" as it is. The fact is, we can speculate all day as to the "who" and "why", but it's all pointless. The fact is, the aircraft turned west, away from it's planned northerly track. Why? It could be many things, but you can't say with any certainty that "he was heading for an airport".
Mr. Goodfellow states that an electrical fire first response is to "pull the main busses and restore circuits one by one until you have isolated the bad one". Actually, the first response is to don the oxygen mask and put on the smoke goggles (or some aircraft have masks/goggles in one unit). Mr. Goodfellow says "Yes, pilots have access to oxygen masks but this is a no-no with fire." GOOD LORD. He has NO IDEA what he's talking about. What are the pilots supposed to do? Hold their breath and work the checklist?? He is probably confusing the use of PASSENGER oxygen masks which, in the event of a fire in the cabin, we are trained to NOT manually deploy. Why? Because PASSENGER oxygen masks MIX cabin air with oxygen...thus, passengers would breath smoke regardless, and you're just providing oxygen to an environment where fire exists...that is bad. But with COCKPIT oxygen systems, the masks are FORCED PRESSURE and 100% oxygen is available. Yes, you ABSOLUTELY don the oxygen masks THEN work on isolating the source of the fire/smoke. Otherwise, the pilots are breathing smoke and, in no-time, the entire flight is doomed (he should know that.)
...