But the bottom line is that every time the public get on an aircraft, they put their trust and lives in the hands of pilots with absolutely no idea just how skillled, trust worthy or mentally balanced they are.
A bit like getting in a taxi or on a bus or driving amongst other road users. What do you propose? Certainly in the Western world airline recruitment of pilots certainly contains elements which assess the psychological profile of a prospective pilot.
There is no knowledge either of just how well the aircraft has been maintained. Virtually every aircraft takes to the skies with a list of deferred faults which can cause problems in an emergency.
Which is why I fly with established airlines with a proven track record and where the culture tends to be one where corruption, nepotism and lack of accountability is not endemic.
The fact that a large aircraft can just disappear or that another 911 type scenario could have been enacted with apparently no chance for the passengers to intervene just serves to demonstrate that profit and not public safety is the primary concern for airlines.
Complete nonsense.
The public have been browbeaten into behaving like cattle and subjected to ridiculous security procedures, which have been proven to be singularly ineffective in preventing bombings and hijackings, all in the interests of maximising profit, by giving the impression that aviation has been made safer.
So how many similar 9/11 type events have occurred since the change in the security regimes?
It hasn't and if MH370 has served to demonstrate anything, it is that it still only takes one thing to go wrong for a flight to end in disaster.
What went wrong then? Nobody yet knows so any theory you have is based on conjecture not fact.