Inference -- And Fearless Prediction Again -- The Co-pilot did it!

Update:  I made this inference two days before any authorities did.

Update 2: 2 days later, authorities now say that the last voice transmission came from the co-pilot validating this earlier prediction.

As part of my job, I teach computers to make inferences.  I have an inference engine in my head.  Four days ago, using a well-reasoned argument, I inferred that the missing Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370, under a certain set of circumstances, was probably in the Indian Ocean. (See the entry two posts below this one.)   Today, it was announced that the USS Kidd is in fact searching the Indian Ocean, because telemetry signals indicated that the plane flew for hours after the transponders went silent.  The inference looks to be largely correct.

I have another inference to make.  New facts have come up.  Radar and ACARS (engine reporting to the satellite) data shows that it wasn't a random left turn.  The aircraft turned at specific GPS waypoints.  The only way that this could happen, was that either the autopilot was programmed that way, or a someone watched for the waypoints, and manually followed them.  Only a professionally trained pilot would know how to do this.

So that leaves two scenarios.  Either a professionally trained pilot hijacked the airplane, or the pilot or co-pilot did it.  The cabin door to the cockpit is reinforced so that if there was a hijacker, he would either have to break into the cockpit or sneak his way in.  We do know that the young 27 year old co-pilot was a loose cannon who invited women to fly in the cockpit, so that could be how the hijacker got in.  However, if that was the case, the older 52 year old pilot would have sounded the alarm and somehow issued a mayday - even as he was being killed.

The extreme knowledge of turning off the transponders, and then no mayday and then the plane flying for hours is very strange.  In any inferential reasoning, the rule of Ockham's Razor comes into play.  Ockham's Razor is a tool of logic.  It is referred to as the tool of parsimony.  Essentially, if there are two equally valid explanations for an event, we must take the simplest one.

The simplest explanation here, is that for whatever reason, be it mental illness, religious fanaticism or whatever, the co-pilot took over the plane, and flew it into the ocean.  When it is all said and done, there is a very very high probability that it will turn out this way.  The second most probable event is a hijacker, but I am betting that the co-pilot did it.