Newly emerged details concerning Malaysia Airlines flight 370’s electrical system indicate that whoever took over the plane was technically sophisticated, possessing greater knowledge of Boeing 777 avionics than most commercial line pilots. They also suggest that the plane’s captain, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, was not responsible for taking the plane.
The new information comes via Michael Exner, a satellite industry veteran who has been one of the most prominent independent experts investigating the airliner’s disappearance. Several days ago Exner gained access to a major US airline’s professional-grade flight simulator facility, where he was able to run flight profiles accompanied by two veteran 777 pilots. “This is a state-of-the-art 777 simulator, level D, part of one of the most modern training facilities on earth,” Exner says.
A little background. As is well known, approximately forty minutes after its departure from Kuala Lumpur for Beijing, someone turned off all communications between MH370 and the outside world. Around the same time the plane turned sharply to the left and headed back over the Malayan Peninsula. Among the systems that were shut off were satellite communications; the transponder; and two automatic reporting systems, ACARS and ADS-B. The plane went dark just as it entered the space between two air-traffic control zones and was temporarily unmonitored, a sign that whoever planned the diversion wished to avoid detection and was well versed in international air traffic control procedures.
For approximately the next hour, MH370’s progress was visible only to military radar. The plane flew straight and fast between established navigational points, indicating that the aircraft had not suffered mechanical accident. At 18.22 UTC the plane was heading west out into the Indian Ocean when it passed out of range of military radar. At that point, the plane became effectively invisible. Shrouded in night, with approximately six hours’ fuel aboard, the plane could have reached any point within a 3000-mile radius and no one on the ground would have been any wiser. But it did not stay dark. Less than a minute later, MH370’s satellite communications system was switched back on.
Over the span of several minutes, between 18.25 and 18.28, the Satellite Data Unit (SDU) transmitted a flurry of brief electronic messages with Inmarsat satellite 3F-1, which occupies a geosynchronous orbit above the Indian Ocean. In a report issued this June, the Australian Transport Safety Board stated that the signals were “generated as part of a Log-on sequence after the terminal has likely been power cycled.”
Until now, it has not been publicly known how such a power-cycling could have taken place.
At the simulator facility, Exner reports, he was able to confirm “that there is no way to turn off the primary power to the satcom from the cockpit. It is not even described in the flight manuals. The only way to do is to find an obscure circuit breaker in the equipment bay [i.e. the Electronic and Equipment bay, or E/E bay, is the airplane’s main electronic nerve center].” Both of the pilots accompanying him told Exner that “pilots are not trained to know that detail.”
Why the satellite communications system was turned back on is unknown. The system was never used; no outgoing telephone calls were placed, no text messages were sent, and two inbound calls from Malaysia Airlines to the plane went unanswered. Aproximately every hour for the next six hours, however, a geostationary communications satellite sent electronic handshake signals, and the SDU aboard the plane responded, confirming that the system was still active and logged on. Though the signals contained no messages per se, the frequency at which they were sent, and the time it took to send and receive them, have been used to determine the plane’s probable direction of travel.
The fact that the SDU was turned back on provides a window into the circumstances of the hijack. For one thing, since the SDU integrates information from other parts of the plane’s computer system, we know that the plane’s electronics were substantially functional, and perhaps entirely so. Second, the fact that the perpetrator (or perpetrators) knew how to access this compartment and how to toggle the correct switches suggests a high degree of technical sophistication.
Further evidence of the hijacker’s sophistication comes from the fact that they also managed to turn of the ACARS reporting system. This is can be done from the cockpit, but only by those with specialized knowledge. “Disabling it is no simple thing,” Emirates Airline CEO Tim Clark told Der Spiegel recently, “and our pilots are not trained to do so.”
For all its importance, the 777 E/E bay is surprisingly accessible to members of the flying public. The hatch, generally left unlocked, is set in the floor at the front of the first class cabin, near the galley and the lavatories. You can see a video of a pilot accessing the E/E bay inflight here. (In Airbus jets, the hatch is located on the far side of the locked cockpit door.) Once inside, an intruder would have immediate physical access to the computer systems that control communication, navigation, and flight surfaces. A device called a Portable Maintenance Access Terminal allows ground crew to plug into the computer system to test systems and upload software.
The security implications of leaving the plane’s nerve-center freely accessible have not gone unnoticed. Matt Wuillemin, an Australian former 777 pilot, wrote a master’s thesis on the vulnerability in June 2013 and submitted it various industry groups in the hope of spurring action, such as the installation of locks. In his thesis, Wuillemin notes that in addition to the Flight Control Computers, the E/E bay also houses the oxygen cylinders that supply the flight crews’ masks in case of a depressurization event and the controls for the system that locks the flight deck door. “Information is publicly available online describing the cockpit defences and systems located within this compartment,” Wuillemin notes. “This hatch may therefore be accessible inflight to a knowledgeable and malevolent passenger with catastrophic consequences.”
Wuillemin reports that, among others, he sent his thesis to Emirates’ Tim Clark. A vice president for engineering at Emirates responded that the airline did not perceive the hatch to be a security risk, since the area is monitored by cabin crew and surveillance cameras. Wuillemin notes that cabin crew are often called away to duty elsewhere, and that the surveillance cameras are only routinely monitored when someone is seeking entry to the cockpit; he adds:
Emirates considered the possible requirement for crew to access the area should there be a ‘small’ in-flight fire. Research indicated there is no procedure, checklist or protocol (manufacturer, regulator or operator) to support this latter position. In fact, Emirates Operations manuals (at that time) specifically prohibited crew accessing this area in flight. Emirates amended the Operations manual recently and re-phrased the section to ‘enter only in an emergency’.
The fact that someone must have entered the E/E bay during MH370’s disappearance diminishes the likelihood of one of the more popular MH370 theories: that the captain barred himself in the cockpit before absconding with the plane. Even if he locked the copilot on the far side of the door and depressurized the cabin to incapacitate everyone aboard, emergency oxygen masks would have deployed and provided those in the cabin with enough air to prevent Zaharie from leaving the cockpit before the next ACARS message was scheduled to be sent at 17:37, 18 minutes after the flight crew sent its last transmission, “Goodnight, Malaysia 370” at 17:19.
It’s conceivable that Zaharie could have acted in advance by leaving the cockpit, descending into the E/E bay, pulling the circuit breakers on the satcom system and then returning to the cockpit to lock himself in before making the final radio call and diverting the plane to the west, depressurizing the cabin, and waiting until everyone was dead before returning to the E/E bay to turn the SDU back on. But if his goal was to maintain radio silence he could have achieved the same effect much more simply by using cockpit to controls to deselect the SDU without turning it off.
As it happens, Wuillemin’s efforts to draw attention to the potential hazards afforded by unlocked E/E bay hatches proved too little, too late. MH370 went missing just two months after he submitted his work to the Australian government.
From the most recent Plane Talking column of Ben Sandilands:
This is Boeing’s response to a request made [by Ben]last Friday 7 November (on the US side of the dateline) for a commentary on matters raised in this post on Plane Talking and on the Jeff Wise website.
Further to your inquiry about access to the electronics bay on 777s, we’re not in a position to offer any comment at the moment. This is consistent with accident investigation protocols where parties to the investigation agree not to comment ahead of a finding.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/11/12/boeing-unwilling-to-comment-on-777-security-issues/
The stonewall on this issue continues.
Victor
Nihonmana: The core of my arguement is that any larger, multi-lateral action to contain any sort known threat produced by a hijacking involving terrorism would have by now likely produced the sort of leak to which you refer, or even some sort of official announcement. A cloaked investigation to expose a conspiracy to weaponize the aircraft at a later time would be ‘covered’ under this argument. That we haven’t witnessed either a leak or an official ancouncement is telling: nobody would appear to be all that concerned.
As for Malaysian being the likely intended destination for the diversion, I believe that i covered this in previous posts. My point then is that the ‘pall of silence’ regading the loss of MH370 further indicates that this is a matter intrinsic to Malaysia, which in turn further supports that the aircraft was not bound for Iran or the Maldives, but rather Malaysia. The initial premise is that all aircraft are hijacked with a destination in the mind of the hijacker. Thus do I likewise discount (but not wholly rule out) that the SIO was the intended destination; the terminus of the flight (reasonably well indicated to be the SIO) and the intended destination have been too easily conflated in many circles, and then by some very bright people.
Bruce Lamon: you perceive there to be indications of approaches to airports to perhaps faclitate a (faliled) landing in response to an in-flight emergency. Consider the overflight of the airports, rather, as perhaps indicating a (failed) attempt to land as an objective of a hijacking.
Victor: there is a good story to be found in the fact that Boeing et al stand to be offered some protection from exposure to liablity in the event that the remains of the aircraft are never found. I am loathe to be cynical here, but I would imagine that Boeing and others are well advised to keep their respective pie holes shut for the moment.
Victor – I reckon there is deep embarrassment in various quarters atm, but if it shows up in the SIO your landing is looking good IMO. There will be a good reason to ditch it down there, or ditch something down there.
Rand – regarding the silence – could it be a case of the barn door banging in the wind?
Jeff ,
Again , thanks for a stimulating post . Aren’t you contradicting yourself by having stated in so many words that the plane cannot be flown from inside the E/ E ? I think a previous post said that a high jacker could take away control from the pilot . But I don’t think someone could actually fly the plane solely from within the E/E , could he ?
@bodysurfer, did I say in so many words that the plane cannot be flown from inside the E/E bay? I didn’t intend to. At this point we just don’t have enough information to say for sure, but my suspicion is that it’s at least technically possible (if not likely easy) to take control from the E/E bay.
Matty: I hear you, but from what I can tell, it appears that there would be a dozen deputies with shotguns waiting outside the barn for whatever to emerge.
You raised the issue of Khorasan and US concerns regarding their plans to weaponize aircraft yourself. It is either: 1. there presently is covert pursuit of perps associated with a larger plot re MH370; or 2. the US authorities have satisfied themselves that they need not be all that concerned that an airliner has gone missing without any physical evidence as to its ultimate disposition. My guess is that they were on it right away as indicated by the White House indicating the SIO (most likely from Malaysia or the AAIB having provided the ATSB with the Inmarsat analysis), and then, satisfied, they left Malaysia to do its thing in terms of the investigation. The US remains concerned regarding the integrity of civil aviation and discovery of the fault in the system, while I assume that they will await the recovery of the remains of the aircraft before they play their cards, seeking answers.
This is a very good blog. Congrats to Jeff and to the many intelligent, calm contributors.
I have spent a few hours reading much of what is in here about MH370. It seems (most?) everyone had become convinced that the plane went down in the South. But I have now come across some comments which seem to question that conclusion.
I have always wondered if the Inmarsat data (which isn’t available in its entirety, as many have pointed out) should be trusted in so far that it can provide a firm conclusion about direction, speed and altitude. My understanding is that the only truly reliable info that can be parsed is whether or not the object is getting closer or further away from the radar source (the single satellite).
Is there a consensus here that the plane actually flew south?
Thanks.
@G3, I think it would be fair to say that there is a consensus on that topic. Of course, if the history of science teaches us anything, it is that the consensus does not always turn out to be right.
Rand – playing dumb with Khorosan was tactical and fruitful, announcing that a plane had been stolen sends the perps underground? Scary part is(to me)that there need not be too much wrong with the data for that plane to have sailed across India on a civil route, and we know that once you get away from the China-Pakistan borders things relax a lot over there. In that event the horse would have bolted. As I remember at least, south was a better fit, without quite feeling like an Italian suit. And it took some trial and error? The SIO leg suddenly does make sense to me if it landed though, as the sole perp thing is a diminishing prospect?
What I have been meaning to ask, and hoping it’s not going over old ground – do we know what depressurization/cold does to the SDU, if anything?
Thanks, Jeff.
Ouch — “consensus” + “science” + blogs = the type of loud, obnoxious flame wars by trolls of which I am so tired. Hence my respect for the tone you have set in here. You have well-managed the discourse of a contentious topic like MH370…or global warming.
An open mind, a desire for hard data, a willingness to allow for various interpretations…without a knife fight. Hallelujah!
May I ask — Is the seeming consensus due to the data (i.e. Inmarsat’s “new” way to interpret the signals) or due to the unlikelihood of flying undetected over land if going northwards? Or due to the combination of both?
I thought that Inmarsat had even admitted that their interpretation of the data was untried until now. Hence the several arcs showing the possible locations of the plane during those handshakes. Thus, after plugging in expected, assumed speeds, altitudes, fuel consumption, etc., the logical last arc “crash” site is somewhere near where they are presently searching…especially if you remove the idea of overland flight.
Is that a correct understanding of the reasoning behind the consensus?
Thanks.
@G3, yes, I’d say that’s right.
Thanks again, Jeff.
I have a theory that I’d appreciate being debunked. I originally came up with it only because I wanted to have my own “fun” theory early on, when so many ideas were being thrown about. It was basically tongue-in-cheek…at first.
I still think the idea is a long shot, but I am not convinced that the official story holds water well anyway. Lots of leaking holes, it seems…as you guys have demonstrated. So how about we try this…..
Assumptions:
1. Hijacker(s) with sophisticated knowledge, planning
2. Not a suicide (nor a loss of control)
3. Flying over land was too risky
4. Hijackers and goods/people needed to be off-loaded (The Plan)
5. Plane had to be ditched, hidden…never to be found…or at least, not for a long while.
I hope nothing above is considered to be crazy or outlandish. In fact, some of the entries here seem to support at least some of these assumptions. In toto, these assumptions are simply and logically apt for the basic theory that this was a hijacking (vs the theories of suicide or a string of weird events).
So if there was a sophisticated plan and the hijacking did NOT go awry, then how could it be “successful”? Numbers 4 and 5 above are the hurdles, then.
Let’s go back to the facts.
a) There is only one Inmarsat satellite which covers the north-south corridor from the Bay of Bengal all the way south. This is a unique section of the globe wherein this is the situation. Everywhere else there are two or three satellites (read: easy triangulation) or there are a multitude of very active radar systems (mostly over land).
b) From the Malaysian northern coast to the Bangladesh southern coast there is little radar coverage from the ground, military or otherwise…especially at night, on weekends and offshore. Even if anyone detected a commercial jet, it could easily be flying in a standard, typical path…and would be ignored.
c) Once flying past the Bay of Bengal and going overland, the plane would enter military-sensitive territory…and fly over more sensitive radar locations…where competing eyes are watchful.
d) Going to Diego Garcia is wayyyy too risky for the US government to try (if they were in on this). No way any story could be justified in front of the global audience.
e) There are few, if any, island runways long enough, tough enough and remote enough in this corridor to allow for an unnoticed arrival and take off…or any islands vast enough to hide a plane and everything/everybody.
Is all of this fairly non-controversial so far? For a hijacking theory (vs a suicide or outright aviation failure)?
The only thing missing is where to land and take off. That’s the sticking point for this theory (if one assumes that the Inmarsat data released really isn’t conclusive about location).
I have an answer for that. But let’s see if we can even get this far without condemnation or ridicule. Is that okay?
And the huge hurdle to begin with is — is there enough irrefutable proof that the plane did not head north instead of south after flying back over the Malay peninsula?
Thanks.
@G3: I don’t think you can ignore the satellite data, which has the plane going to the SIO. However, I have proposed a (highly)speculative hijack/unload scheme that is consistent with the satellite data, as well as sighting in the Maldives. The scenario can be found on this site at the link below. I suggest you read it. It might give you some other ideas.
http://jeffwise.net/mh370-scenario-with-a-landing-at-banda-aceh-by-victor-iannello-august-23-2014/
Victor
FWIIW…Paul insists he could land a 777 at KBDU (4000 foot runway) under the right conditions. I watched him land at SFO in the simulator and he came to a dead stop in 3000 feet (20,000 lbs of fuel on board). So 10,000 foot runways are nice, but not required, especially at sea level.
landing on comet confirmed!
@ airlandseaman:
How about taking off from a 4000 ft runway?
Thanks Victor. A good read and please know that I have already been paying attention to your other posts.
We have very similar approaches and ideas.
I still can agree that the plane went down somewhere in SIO. But here’s a different idea than Banda Aceh — Chittagong’s Shah Amanat International airport in Bangladesh. Simple Wikipedia and Google Earth searches will support the following concept —
The plane flew north, over water, far enough from the coast line, flying a normal path. It landed in the early am, just like other commercial jets do. Its livery is very similar to Bangladesh’s Biman airline, which lands there consistently. The sizes of the planes are similar. The timing of the landing is a normal one.
The runway is perfect, the airport does not have working cctv cameras and is famous for being lightly policed…if at all. There are only a few flights, so the airport is often deserted aside from the few needed ground crew personnel. No resident (there aren’t many near-by) would take note. Water on three sides of the airport, so little cross traffic on land.
This has been a major transportation hub for gold smuggling. Gold could be the goal of the hijacking…or could be the grease that enabled the bad guys to do what they needed/wanted.
Chittagong is pretty wild. A HQ for radical Islamists. Later on the same day of the hijacking/landing a key minister was to have a big PR event in downtown Chittagong and the police/army were there, distractedly getting prepared and even less presented at the ports. There are bombings and assassinations in Chittagong. It is a smuggling entry point for SE Asia. Lots of bad guys.
Land, unload, add fuel, take off, turn left and fly a straight line southward to the area near the SIO location where the data says the plane went down.
The big question is: Can someone remotely do a take-off and turn…or get the plane airborne and get out via a loading bay?
Anyway, that’s my crazy idea…which seems less crazy as time passes.
I am not married it, so I won’t be insulted by (civil) attempts to debunk it.
Thanks.
@Victor thanks for publishing your theory, makes sense to me…
@G3: I don’t see how MH370 could have flown to Bangladesh and satisfied the satellite data along the way.
@Victor
Yes, this is a problem. Yet I question the validity of the data.
In fact, isn’t “the data” actually the interpretations of the raw data? I thought Inmarsat was admittedly using a novel approach to the interpretation this kind of raw data? After all, last I knew, a single radar is highly limited in what it can conclusively tell you.
I also have noted there are reasonable questions about the lack of transparency…including the release of ALL of the raw data gathered from the satellite…by Inmarsat and various authorities.
Anyway, I am not able to make a technical analysis…which is why I put this theory in front of this group. Does the data indeed conclusively rule out alternative travel/time lines? I can’t tell.
Thanks.
@airlandseaman: A much shorter runway might be possible, but an ILS-equipped runway would be preferred, especially at night, I would think. Also, the 18:40 BFO data indicates a southerly course at that time.
I just went back and watched the GoPro video of the Short Field TO and Landing at SFO. We were off in 3000 feet and stopped in 2000 feet. Paul has been telling me this is possible since May, but I was skeptical, until I witnessed it in the simulator. Of course, distances would be longer if there was a lot of fuel on board, or the runway altitude was higher.
Based on my sim experience, a VFR landing would be very easy. No ILS needed as laong as the WX was good.
@Victor
Sorry, but to add…..
In this very blog I have seen reasons to question the data.
No signals from the crash
No black box signals
No debris or oil slick on the water
No wash-ashore debris
The very place the data…then the revised data…gave a location…then a revised location…has shown zero traces for any crash landing in the ocean. There. Or even near “there”.
So I ask if anyone can edify me on the reliability of the data and its interpretations? I sincerely don’t know. I can just see the logic of the skeptics.
Thanks.
Keep in mind, runway length is not the only requirement. Weight bearing capacity is a big deal too. You can land a 777 in a short distance, but the gear will sink into the ground unless the runway has a high load bearing capacity. Grass or 2-4 inches of asphalt is OK for lighter planes, but at least 6-12 inches of reinforced concrete would be needed for a 777 to land and take off again.
@airlandseaman
Isn’t the type and condition of the runway also important?
Thanks.
@g3 — I thought the original calculations by DS showed a good fit for a northern route.
@airlandseaman: Another consideration is that a landing at Banda Aceh would permit an autoland, which now reduces the required skill level required for the pilot, which may be an issue if the plane was hijacked.
@G3: If we throw out the satellite data, the realm of possibilities becomes enormous. I have worked with the satellite data enough to believe that it is not faked or spoofed. If faked, Inmarsat would have to be involved, and I just don’t believe that is likely.
Plus ça change – or M.O.(Modus Operandi)?
By Emily Crane for Daily Mail Australia
Published: 19:42 EST, 3 November 2014
“The lead agency behind the search for the missing MH370 flight has warned it will be forced to undertake fewer investigations after cutting 12 percent of its staff due to $2 million budget cuts.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s annual report detailed losing more than 200 years of combined corporate and investigative experience in the same year as the disappearance of MH370 and the shooting down of MH17.”
Ben Sandilands (@planetalking) in 2009:
“The audit recommends that Australia sufficiently fund its air safety investigator, the ATSB so that it can investigate all rather than a selection of significant accidents and incidents and fulfil its ICAO treaty obligations in that regard.”
http://t.co/eopnSYiYtp (hat tip: @PAIN_NET1)
Rand: I’ll respond to yours later.
Off topic, but not.
“We do not convince people to buy an idea or thing, but rather we lead them to want a thing or service. What I had forgotten is that, whether you’re selling backpacks, advice or fractional ownership of a jet, people buy emotionally, then use facts and data to back up the decision to buy. I never forgot it again.”
http://t.co/znfaOld1pi
#LOVESurfers
G3,
You’ve been voicing many of the doubts I’ve had since I first heard the plane flew for hours after it “disappeared”. The longer the search goes without finding any wreckage, the more credible the notion that it’s intact, somewhere.
So just to see if anyone has further ideas of where the “gold”/precious cargo ended up?
G3 – If you look at the route MH17 was meant to take it’s basically the northern route in reverse. It had a plane a minute in front and another behind, and that’s pretty normal on these routes, it’s like a highway. As long as you stick to the beaten track. In India they have some touchy areas but such routes are well defined. If there is anything at all wrong with the data the field opens up dramatically. It’s up there with debris and the 18.25 reboot as an uncomfortable topic. There is no license to crunch numbers if you can’t put the mind at ease about them, but they are the only evidence we have for a SIO crash. There are some pretty well positioned acoustic ocean sensors down there at Perth and Cape Leeuwin that didn’t register anything local and not so much as a bobbing lifejacket. I’m well outside the box, but your chances of dwelling here go up if you have not invested any toil on those numbers. If you have it’s getting close the the business end – and I’ll say again I’m relaxed about being wrong.
@Matty – Perth,
“A minute in front or behind” at 500kts is just over 8.3N, at 400kts around 6.7.
According to wikipedia (so it must be true) ;o) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake_turbulence,
a safe distance between super and heavy aircraft is around 6NM, increasing to 7NM between super and large.
It appears, the safety margin is not very large here and could easily be eliminated by failure to maintain safe distance.
Do we know of any planes in front of MH370 around loss of contact? If yes, what was their distance/time separation?
Maybe, “the incident” around loss of contact was a temporary loss of control, possibly with damage, induced by wing tip vortices of a leading super or heavy aircraft?
Cheers,
Will
Rand,
Just getting back to you here. Yes of course you could be entirely right with the intended destination and situation being intrinsic to Malaysia. I was thinking along the lines though of destination Malaysia due to fire or some other unknown on board emergency and they made a beeline for the nearest airports but for some reason could not land, and destination elsewhere due to hijacking and delivering goods or use of plane for future purposes or whatever. Maybe the hijackers’ original destination was elsewhere but that got thwarted by our pilots in the Straits and they attempted a landing back in or near Malaysia but they did not win out at least as far as getting it down in Malaysia. We don’t know if they got it down in Indonesia or elsewhere.
Wasn’t there some report of gold missing from somewhere soon after MH370 went missing? I don’t have the link to it, just remembering someone posting it somewhere, perhaps Victor? If it was gold or some other valuable cargo then how did it get on there in the first place and did they check the banking and financial records of all the ground crew who handled MH370? And if there was a landing somewhere and a refueling then those refuel”ers” need to start talking.
MuOne,
Interesting you say that because early on in this Mary Schiavo I believe had thought it could have been a stall. Does what you describe above constitute a stall in aviation and is a stall a temporary loss of control? A stall is not engine related, correct or no?
@Cheryl. Find my speculative scenario at:
http://jeffwise.net/mh370-scenario-with-a-landing-at-banda-aceh-by-victor-iannello-august-23-2014/
The scenario includes a sophisticated hijacking via the EE bay, a landing at Banda Aceh,and gold cargo. The scenario attempts to reconcile the satellite data, Kate Tee’s sighting, and the Maldives sightings.
Victor
Cheryl, Myron:
I know that Victor has explored gold rumours and also posted re that here, I believe.
FYI — I got some interesting information back in May and began chasing it down recently with some airline folks in the US and in Asia. Hoping for more information soon.
“Authorities discretely searching for approx. 1 ton of missing gold since MH370 disappearance…airport cargo folks told to ‘look for gold being shipped as something else’ (such as lithium batteries)… This source supposedly saw a security alert and is in Chicago region. Maybe just parallel thinking and/or a consensus forming. Theory is gold was disguised as MH370 lithium battery cargo, but was never loaded. So to conceal the theft plane had to disappear, which it has.”
@Cheryl,
I am no expert and have to leave a definitive answer to the actual experts.
But I think stall means loss of lift due to failed/failing air stream over wings, whether due to lack of air velocity or turbulence or whatever.
I imagine, that such “stall” could play a role in wing to vortex interactions. (Again, not an expert).
Since vortices are highly localized/have sharp boundaries, one can imagine that for a brief time only one wing would be affected. A lack of lift on one, but remaining lift on the other wing would create a huge lift imbalance wing to wing and tend to try to put a plane into a (partial) roll.
There are several videos available online, which show this effect in action for landing aircraft.
Cheers,
Will
@Nihonmama
> Theory is gold was disguised as MH370 lithium battery cargo, but was never loaded. So to conceal the theft plane had to disappear, which it has.”
Great. Now we no longer have to flirt with the equally absurd lithium cargo fire scenario.
BTW, I have heard (through sources in the know) that Mangosteen has seen a marked rise in value on the Somali market. This would explain the ‘terroristS’ hijacking the a/c just in case it proves that THERE WAS NO GOLD, ANYWHERE.
The ‘sophisticated terrorists’ are seemingly of an unprecedented adroit stealth. Just extraordinary in capability, knowledge, execution (impeccable timing) and silence (simply chatterless chaps they are). Must be the Khat.
@ Nihonmama : what you are describing is termed “cognitive assonance ” . We often feel a need to justify our reasons for choosing to ourselves . The converse is cognitive dissonance wherein we justify our deselection of something or someone .
Has anyone explained why someone on board would intentionally turn off the SDU and turn it back on a few minutes later ? No matter which scenario you ascribe to , I cannot fathom the benefit to whomever was in control of the aircraft .
Also , I am not fully informed about the respective parties’ comittments to fund the future search . Irrespective of current stated comittments , I have a feeling that the PRC would lose face with its own citizens if it did not continue search efforts for years if necessary . It is flush with cash and has not hesitated to shell out millions on endless ” maritime safety patrols ” near a myriad of contested reefs and uninhabited rocks in waters most would agree do not fall within its territory .
Spencer, Bodysurfer:
“Must be the Khat.”
I’ll say.
@airlandseaman: both search vessels seem to be turning NW at the end of each pass, instead of your (much more logical, to me) recommendation that they spiral outward from the 7th arc. If Mike C.’s map is accurate, Discovery is just doing the 7th arc right now, here on pass 5 (because it started pass 1 roughly 5 miles SE of it)…?
I’m just now realizing the simple model which drove the stats I posted yesterday assumed pre-exhaustion heading was perpendicular to the arc – but at s38, it certainly wasn’t. So, while I may still have a good overall distribution, its centre will be slightly shifted, depending on whether the turn is left or right. If MH370 corkscrewed RIGHT, the distribution is centred NW of the arc; if left, SE.
So perhaps the ATSB’s decision to start Discovery’s search SE of the 7th arc tells us the ATSB thinks it corkscrewed LEFT…?
Regardless, they have made a potentially very costly error by not using your pattern.
@Nihonmama
>I’ll say.
Just go easy on the stuff. It’s been known precipitate delusional thought. We wouldn’t want that.
Thanks for the concern Spencer.
Or should I say, Luigi?
Nihonmama: Lol!
Bodysurfer: one means of reconciling the SDU/AES being first powered down and later powered up at 18:25 was to suggest that the two distinct behaviors can perhaps be attributed to two different parties. That is, one party powered down the SDU prior to the diversion at IGARI while another party restored power at 18:25. Whatever events occurred aboard the aircraft, it thereafter was soon rendered pilotless, and so began its long drone-flight to a terminus in the SIO.
@bodysurfer and @Rand: Another means of reconciling that the SATCOM was first powered down and later power up was that the two events occurred before and after hijackers had control of the cockpit.
@Nihonmama
Who would be holding the gold if it didn’t get put on the flight ? And then the hijacking was for not ?
@Nihonmama: The theory that the gold was never loaded on the plane and the plane was then made to disappear I think is viable. In any scenario involving gold, I think there is implied complicity on the part of some personnel in MAS ground operations.
The problem with all these speculative scenarios is absent a whistle blower or a witness, I don’t see how we can prove anything, especially since Malaysia, the lead investigator, is doing its best to suppress the release of any evidence, and the US, UK, and Australia are remaining silent about the investigation.