Last updated Thursday, November 27, 2014 02:28pm

APRIl 26 — I am very upset over MAS employees being held hostage in Beijing by the relatives of the passengers of MH 370. I am upset because they are blaming the wrong people. The loss of the plane is due to the makers Boeing.

How can Boeing produce a plane that is so easily disabled? Normally it is entirely possible for the crew, the pilots and co-pilots to communicate even with KLIA. Maybe the captain did not want to. But surely the co-pilot would want to inform ground stations that the plane was not flying according to the scheduled route.

The passengers may not notice but the co-pilot would. So would the cabin crew. They are all trained to deal with emergencies if not immediately, at least later.

But none of them seemed to have tried. It must be because the whole communication system has been disabled. It must take some effort if the pilot tried to disable the system. The co-pilot would notice and for his own life he would have tried to do something. Was he disabled? Were all the crew members and the passengers disabled?

The flight of all passenger planes can be tracked even on a personal mobile phone. I can do it on my phone. If the plane landed I can watch it landing and taxiing. I can even get information on any plane anywhere — what make and model, who it belongs to and where it is flying from and its destination.

I believe there are equipments on the plane which allows it to be tracked — probably by Global Positioning System.

Sophisticated cameras on the spy-satellites operated by some countries can actually photograph a man on the ground and even identify him. Surely the cameras can see and photograph a 63-metre aircraft.

But the aircraft disappeared completely. I think on everyone’s mobile it has disappeared. Some equipment on the aircraft must have been disabled. Even the backup must have been disabled.

Boeing built this aircraft. Boeing must explain how all these means of tracking the plane can be disabled, can fail. Either Boeing technology is poor or it is not fail-safe. I would not like to fly in Boeing aircraft unless Boeing can explain how all its system can fail or be disabled.

Remote control technology is now very sophisticated and powerful. Is it true that Boeing has installed remote control equipment on the aircraft to prevent hijacking? If it did why did it not direct the aircraft to land safely? Is it possible for third parties to take control of the aircraft remotely?

When a plane crashes on land or sea there would be debris or oil slick. None has been found so far. Can it be that the plane remained intact on crashing and sank with no trace and no one launching the lifeboat doors as we are told all these aircrafts are equipped with?

Can one believe this plane quietly floated down into the raging sea and sank conveniently in the deepest part (7miles deep) of the Indian Ocean?

It is standard practice that when a plane crashes, a team of experts would arrive at the scene soonest so as to find the cause of the crash. Boeing and the authorities in the manufacturing country should be looking out for the plane. Maybe the plane type should be grounded. But Boeing has shown no interest and had said practically nothing.

MAS has been flying numerous kinds of aircrafts and has a good record. The pilots are well-trained. Even if the pilot wants to commit suicide the co-pilot and the cabin crew would not allow him to do so without trying something. But no one, not even the passengers did anything. Maybe it is because they have been somehow incapacitated.

Boeing must answer all these questions. Boeing must demonstrate possible ways for the communications system to be disabled. Boeing must accept responsibility for building an aircraft that can disappear in mid-air so completely.

MAS is not at fault, lax security or not. MAS flew a plane fully expecting it to perform the task. But the plane has somehow behaved differently. Who is responsible? Not MAS but certainly the makers of the plane — Boeing Aircraft Corporation. — chedet.cc

* Dr Mahathir Mohamad is Malaysia’s fourth prime minister.

** This the personal opinion of the writers or their organisation and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malay Mail Online.