by Sabine Lechtenfeld
Note: On the comment thread for “Northern Routes and Burst Frequency Offset for MH370” last week Sabine (posting under the handle @littlefoot) made a very cogent observation about the use of speculative scenarios in cases like the disappearance of MH370. She’s given me permission to reprint it here. — JW
Note #2: Language of paragraph 3 modified per Sabine’s request –JW
Getting into a potential perp’s (or group of perps’) mind is a very worthwhile exercise. And that approach has been sorely lacking in the official search. One can argue that this is not their business; it’s the criminal investigation’s job. But even if we would have an ounce of trust in the handling of the case by the Malaysian authorities (I don’t), this argument is very flawed.
Most people agree by now that we’re looking at a crime rather than an accident or disaster (although some argue it might’ve been a combination of both: a hijack gone wrong which leads to a runaway plane).
If the evidence gathered in a preliminary investigation leads to a criminal investigation, a competent handling demands the construction of several possible scenarios featuring plausible perps who might’ve had a valid motive. The next question is how those perps could have tried to achieve their goals. Then you can revisit the available data (radar tracks, handshakes, performance limits, fuel supply, credible eyewitness accounts if there are any) and try to determine if there are any scenarios which fit the known data. If there are no plausible scenarios which fit the available data then you have to question the validity of those data. Fuel-and performance-limits are pretty unassailable. Radar tracks are already in a weaker category and need to be carefully looked at. And Victor and others have shown that the sat data most likely can be manipulated–which doesn’t mean of course that it actually happened. But such a scenario needs to be checked.
The current search has it mostly backwards. The available data were used to determine where it was physically possible for the plane to come down. That was combined with a few assumptions which are very debatable: the plane was flown solely by autopilot and came finally down because the fuel ran out. The question of who were the perps, what could’ve been their motives and how would they most likely have tried to achieve their goals was totally left out, thus leading to an impossibly large search area. And this area isn’t even especially compatible with any logical scenarios. Nor was it ever backed up by a scrap of physical evidence.
In this sense the investigation was indeed deeply flawed to begin with. I don’t blame the investigators that they had a preference for a Southern scenario–the sat data seemed to hint into that direction. But their “destination-SIO-with-autopilot-at-cruising-speed/height-terminated-by-fuel-exhaustion” scenario doesn’t make sense if we assume this was an accident. And it doesn’t make a lot of sense if we assume that we’re dealing with a crime.
The backward method–the place where the plane came down will eventually lead us to the wreckage which will then tell us what actually happened–is only practical if there is enough physical evidence to lead the investigators to a relatively narrow area of impact. As the sole approach it simply doesn’t work with MH370. There isn’t even enough evidence that the plane really crashed. Even the satellite data taken at face value only allow that conclusion if coupled with a set of unproven assumptions. So far the physical evidence doesn’t support these assumptions: no ELT signals, no wreckage and not a scrap of drifting debris after more than a year of searching in the designated areas.
@Brock, thanks.
May I point out that – while I don’t necessarily subscribe to it – that the scenario of a cover up needs to be included in the list of potential crimes having been committed in connection with mh370’s vanishing act?
@Littlefoot: belief in a cover-up – to at least SOME degree, by at least ONE stakeholder – is so widespread, it’s almost not worth surveying, because your result will depend greatly on the arbitrary threshold you establish. And it is a plausible side effect of almost ANY direct cause – even accident (if negligence was a factor), so the simple question (cover-up: Y/N) isn’t likely to point us toward any particular cause or perp.
Over 7 months ago, I said I thought it was “reasonably safe to conclude that this search is covering up either…
…guilty knowledge, or
…embarrassing ignorance.
Let’s dig deeeper, and find out which, whose, and of what.”
7 months later, all we’ve seen is 7 more months of zero debris failing to wash up on down-current shores, and 7 more months of media manipulation. We simply cannot afford to give these folks another year before demanding a full-scale audit. The risk that this has been a fake search is simply too great.
Why take a survey, when we can simply audit search leaders, and find out for SURE?
@Brock
I may regret asking, but how to you get the US Government as a prime suspect? This isn’t Iraq, is it.
Also, are you really suggesting hauling Ashton and co. down to the local police station and leaning on them? The expert committees in the investigation may get a bit thin if that is how you treat them.
{Jeff, this may be the quick summary you asked}
never seen such recap before, but found it today, possibly relevant here now:
http://www.examiner.com/article/the-mystery-of-mh370-is-it-one-giant-cover-up
IF(???) this biggest mystery is/was really catching some audience, then the “climate change”, both environmental and political CAN be the WHY, IMHO – but the same as NASA sed that journey to MARS needs to be done TOGETHER, solution of migrations too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE
(not studied deeply if numbersusa.org is honest that they are not generally against imigrants; but the video is great)
@Brock, I should have been more specific. I’m fairly certain that some degree of cover up is the reason for us still bumbling around more than a year after the plane apparently sailed out of our familiar dimensions – and we can’t even agree in which direction the plane went. What I can’t believe atm is that we’re looking at a multinational cover up with the US being the prime suspect and mastermind. Since I’m not American I don’t have my horse tied to the stable of any nation here. I simply fail to see a strong enough reason for initiating such a strange chain of events. If anyone comes up with a motive powerful enough for a nation to engage in such a wide spread conspiracy I might change my mind.
Because stranger things have happened.
For some reason I stumbled last evening over an affair which started 1980 and on which the book still hasn’t been quite closed after all these decades. I’m talking about the shoot down of Itavia Flight 870 most likely by an air-to-air missile near the island of Ustica in the Mediterranean. If you can read German I would recommend to read the German Wikipedia version which differs substantially from the English version. You can try Google mangle in order to get an idea. It’s hair raising and shocking, especially if you look at the list of suspicious individual deaths over the years connected with the affair. Even the for many Germans traumatic accident during the Ramstein show of aerobatics might be connected to the Ustica crash. Probably not all listed deaths were connected to the original shoot down, but there are too many for simply ignoring any connections. I should add that German Wikipedia entries are normally fairly sober and without too much imagination. They aren’t prone to cater to a fringe crowd. That’s why I take this version very seriously. I don’t want to imply that this event has parallels to mh370, but it shows that high level cover ups with many factions from different nations involved do happen once in a blue moon – hopefully not more often than that.
@littlefoot
i said that before, it reminds me to the parallels in the investigation of MH370. There is this reluctance to coperate with the public, threats against investigative journalists and a lot of “Troll-labor” in the internet blogs. All those “coincidences”, where any learner police commissioner would raise his eyebrows until they get stuck.
@brock, @littlefoot:
I have convinced myself the disappearance was an act as a result of some threat linked someway to Malaysia’s national security. The SIO search is a diversion to let Malaysia handle their affairs. The other countries are just helping with the “SIO” diversion as this threat possibly is worse than a change of existing govt… I suspect MH370 is detained somewhere in Malaysia.
@Richard (& littlefoot: Two “crimes” are at issue: act (e.g. abduction, shoot-down, accident) and cover-up (e.g. fake search). I deem the US a prime (but not the only) suspect for the LATTER; The suspect list is much longer for the former, and is certainly LESS likely to involve the US government.
Why would I deem the US a prime suspect behind a fake search? Well, we need an actor who a) is powerful enough to pull something like this off, and b) has lied to us about MH370. Oz as puppet further narrows the list of likely puppeteers.
Iraq has nothing to do with the logical argument, except perhaps as precedent for what this actor is CAPABLE of in pursuit of keeping up geopolitical appearances.
I hope I’m wrong. Let’s find out, by turning over stones, and VERIFYING the many odd tales we’ve been told.
No, sadly, I don’t think Andy Sipowitz is available to lean on Mr. Ashton. What I propose is a virtual & very PUBLIC version of the local police station: we band together and demand public accountability from the agencies who’ve dodged it, until the MSM can no longer ignore us. We then challenge the members of, say, the JIT to (identify themselves, and) submit to a live Q&A with unfiltered Q’s posed by a truly informed & adversarial media.
If MH370 was an averted terrorist attack , an international cover-up is entirely plausible. Putin annexed Crimea, the Gaza Israel conflict itensified, and ISIS (ISIL) was on the rise. What would have happened if a 9/11 style terror attack had been revealed to the public? More escalations? From the viewpoint of international security and stability, the fabrication of radar and satellite data is presumably justified. This might be the simple truth behind the mystery, and if it is, it will naturally never come to light. What speaks against this scenario, however, is the extended and expensive search. You would think they would have ended it earlier by pulling out the planted fragment of a wing, or so.
Personally, I think the incident is intrinsic to Malaysia, but other countries are well in the know and use their knowledge for their own goals.
@Brock
I wish ATSB could get Fugro to actually finish off the original 60000sq.km. rather than messing round 80km from the arc in the far South. At this rate the high probability area just inside the arc could be the very last area searched.
Joyce would get Ashton out – no evidence, Habeas Corpus. He’d walk.
@Brock
I think if any cover up is happening it would be the Maylay’s for one of two reasons.
1. Sheer incompetence
2. Perp had on going demands after the turn @ Agari, then the Panang run, then headed out to sea.
But to drag the U.S. into it, is being paranoid. Unless your going to outright accuse that nation of wrong doing. No one can accuse the Maylay’s for that matter. Where’s the evidence? I’m sure the finger pointing will be going on long after she’s ever found and when she is, it’ll deepen. Then the “Ah Ha’s!!” will begin & the whirlwind of new fingers will be flying in all directions again.
@Chris, @Brock:
I suspect us only provided some advisory for quickly hiding MH370. They came up with the SIO as a wild goose chase to throw off the real issues within Malaysia.
@Chris Butler:
Sensible post. Thank you.
Interesting discussion.
My feelings are that if it was Malaysia covering it up they would have messed that up as well and there’d be leaks by now.
The most compelling factor implicating US would be a Russian “we know what you did last summer” calling card on MH17.
As horrifying as it sounds there could be “reasons” why in someones mind not arriving at your destination and dissappearing is some sort of “acceptable cost” in a risk/reward scenario so horrific it beggars belief.
If we look at the “lets roll” case in 9/11 the passengers willingly gave their lives as heros to presumably try and avert an even greater disaster, perhaps the slim chance of pulling it off and getting back to a safe landing was also in their minds, but they were brave and if the perps in that case had landed them on the White house or a nuclear reactor – who knows what might have happened.
The puzzling thing is that in this scenario we could probably “handle the truth” as we did in that scenario.
I would like to see a full Kepner Tregoe powersolve on the flight top to bottom.
How much data comes out of ECMS on a normal flight before the plane reaches the end of the runway?
At what point in a normal flight out of KL does all the mobile phones disconnect from their towers?
Data mine the Call records under FOI for everyone on the plane? (Just the meta data) 😉
Agree with the author …… there is alot more that could be done here.
@lpb, interesting that you see mh17 as a calling card and written on it is: “we know what you did in March”.
My thoughts went in this direction also last year. But I absolutely can’t see, how that would implicate the US?
Personally I believe that mh17 was either shot down by the Ukraine itself with one of their older BUK-systems or they tricked the pro-Russian rebels into shooting down exactly that plane. IMO Russia had nothing at all to gain from shooting down mh17, while the Ukraine benefitted considerably from sanctions against Russia and more aid from the Western allies. But if they were responsible for the downing of the plane, why did they pick mh17? There are a few possibilities:
– it was a tragic coincidence. That’s the official stance. Can’t be excluded, I have this quote in my head: “the universe is rarely so lazy…”
– the Ukraine had to pick one airliner for their plan and choose mh17 for the greater emotional impact because of the earlier tragedy. That is a distinctive possibility and shouldn’t be dismissed.
– it was indeed a message to the Russians, that they won’t get away scot free with the abduction of mh370. The world at large might blame the Russians now for the demise of the wrong plane but that accusation would not hit an innocent.
– someone really was targeting MAS – maybe even Malaysian factions – because they wanted to run the financial ailing MAS into the ground in order to restructure and collect insurance money. If that was part of a plan it certainly worked.
Re:MH17 – I wonder if it’s shooting down was in retaliation for loosing a few high level Putin cronies ? Malaysia sure jumped into action trying to settle that dispute (seemed to me as such) it shows how they can act if they were serious in recovery of mh370
@Gysbreght
Just can’t believe international distrust & concern regarding this matter. THEN the international mistrust regarding the Truth. While one can understand the “what if’s” of it all, why blame to U.S…..I just don’t get it. Even in this forum folks think & are convinced, that we, the U.S. had something to do with the disappearance of 227 passengers & 12 crew members flies so far into the flight of reality.
Littlefoot –
I thought this forum was for MH3-370.
Yet we find ourselves breaching MH17 & other human computations, mixed with other accusations.
@Chris Butler
My guess is that the US had nothing to do with the plane going missing in the first instance but IF there has been a coverup then may be involved in that and maybe for good reason – who knows. Given the technology, know how and resources that the US has and its usual fairly high profile around the world, its hard to believe they don’t know more; maybe they do know more but it hasn’t been made public. There were 3 US citizens aboard after all. I think us Aussies could do with some help at this stage; I very much appreciate the work being put in by those actually searching out in those awful conditions and the contribution of the IG and other analysts but think the top management have not done so well (as per some of Brock’s comments). Anyway, I think we all have the same goal in mind, to help in some small way and I do appreciate the fact that Jeff’s site gives the opportunity to be frank with our views.
@PM
Well Said!!!
While I , at times, try to deal with the disappearance of MH-370 & the BS. Just tired of the U.S. involvement & 007 BS.
@Chris, yes, it sure is a thread for discussing mh370. But if we believe -and I don’t exclude the possibility – that mh17’s demise is somehow connected with mh370, then it does make sense to discuss it. Because if it is connected then you have two cases to draw some information from.
Personally I don’t believe in such a mind boggling coincidence. But the connection could be weak and after the fact – for example if mh17 was picked for the notoriety of mh370 by some overexcited rebels, or – if the Ukraine was responsible – for the greater emotional impact.
While I agree with you and l also can’t see any strong hints pointing to the US being implicated somehow, the argument that the US simply won’t do such a thing as killing 200+ people or cover up the deed is very flawed and just based on emotions. It’s hard to imagine anyone who is not a terrorist doing this, as long as we can’t pin down the motive. Others say Zaharie – or the pilots would never do this. But as long as we’re still in the dark about the motive it’s hard to say suspect X or Y would never do this.
@PM, yes, well said about Jeff’s site giving all views and angles a chance to be presented. In the end we all hope the truth will emerge eventually – although the chances seem to decrease as time goes by.
There have been a number of incorrect statements elsewhere on this blog about the improbability of the MH370 and MH17 disasters happening to same airline so I offer the following interpretation.
a. We don’t need to consider any probability for MH370 disaster. It happened to Malaysia Airlines and past events are not relevant to calculating the probability of future random events (the chance of getting a 7th head after tossing 6 heads in a row is still 50%).
b. So the only question is what was the probability of a Malaysian Airlines aircraft being shot down in Ukraine, if it was a random event.
c. Statistics in the Guardian newspaper show that Malaysia Airlines operated 5.3% of the flights through the danger zone of Eastern Ukraine in the week before the disaster. So the random probability of a Malaysian aircraft being shot down in that particular event was ~5%.
d. The normal statistical test for ruling a random cause for events is 0.01% (3 sigma) so a 5% probability is not close to passing that test; 5% probability events happen rather frequently.
This doesn’t prove MH17 wasn’t targeted, but a random causation cannot be ruled out on rational grounds.
Sorry, that should have been “0.1% (3 sigma)” in the last post.
Richard Cole, Your analysis is correct if one assumes that a plane is to be shot done over the Eastern Ukraine, randomly, by accident. But such a thing to have taken place at all is unprecedented, and the unlikeliness of it needs to be figured into the probability calculation. It has been widely claimed in the Western press that the Donetsk rebels acquired a Buk and for some reason fired it off blindly. I find it extremely implausible that the Russians would have handed over such a sophisticated and dangerous piece of equipment to a) someone who didn’t know how to use it b) wasn’t in their direct chain of command. You may disagree, but the fact is that the “incompetent rebel” claim is not one that Russia itself has made, but that others have offered on its behalf.
In other words, the question isn’t, “Assuming that a commercial plane is shot down while in transit over eastern Ukraine, what are the odds that it’s a MAS 777?” but, “Assuming that a commercial plane comes to grief suspiciously in the next four months, what are the odds that it’s a 777?”
So, to circle back to my larger point about MH370, there are three major data points that are problematic for any SIO end-point scenario — any one of which might not be fatal taken on its own, but which in combination shed serious doubt that the plane went south:
1) The fact that the SDU was powered down and up or tampered with in some other way. This is a huge, huge problem that I have not seen any SIO theorist respond to effectively. After 15 months not a single person has offered any hypothesis at all for why a suicidal pilot would bother with this. I have heard people speculate that he might have wanted depower and repower something else on the left AC bus, but no one has gone so far as to suggest what that could conceivably be. Also, people have tried to find other, non-deliberate causes of SDU reboot, and failed. So the uncomfortable truth is that all SIO analysis is based on signals from a piece of equipment that we know to have been tampered with.
2) The lack of debris. We’re seeing a lot of contortions from people trying to explain why it’s not surprising that no debris has turned up, but the fact of the matter is that both search officials and independent researchers who strongly supported the SIO endpoint voiced absolutely confidence that their models were correct and the debris would be found. The contortions reached their nadir this past week with the Chen et al debacle. Let’s be blunt: SIO predictions were wrong. This is how science works: when you make a prediction and it’s incorrect, you pick yourself up and move on.
3) MH17.
@Richard Cole
Nice work. Stat folks such as yourself leave me envious.
Here’s one for ya. Given the history, both resent & past. What are the chances of my flight ending at the hands of a pilot with suicide in mind?
Littlefoot – Is there any truth to the rumor that Russia had high ranking officals in the skies that day & the Ukraine THOUGHT they were bring down a Russian a/c?
OR…drunken idiots who didn’t know what they were doing!!
@Jeff & Richard Cole
Regarding water landings. When going to Wiki to look back at US Airways Flight 1549 (Sully). When you scroll down the page it mentions another a/c that ditched in the Neva river in Russia (1963 Aeroflot Tupolev Tu-124 Neva river ditching ) In both of these cases the a/c basically remained intact with no loss of life. While I do concede that these weren’t 777’s, but given the robust nature of the 777, why would it seem so inconceivable that she be ditched w/o debris? Let us not forget, Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah possessed a type rating instructor & type rated examiner since 2007 and had 18,365 hours of flying experience.
I jump in with my take.
– Because ditching on a relatively calm river with outside references for height and closure rate differs considerably from ditching in open waters of the SIO
– even if the aircraft remains relative intact it sheds the lightweight parts on the outside of the fuselage and the wings like flight control surfaces, flaps, fairings, engine cowling and gear doors. Those ieces could be bug and they float.
I jump in with my take.
– Because ditching on a relatively calm river with outside references for height and closure rate differs considerably from ditching in open waters of the SIO.
– even if the aircraft remains relative intact it sheds the lightweight parts on the outside of the fuselage and the wings like flight control surfaces, flaps, fairings, engine cowling and gear doors. Those pieces could be big and they float.
@RetiredF4
It’s hard to believe the outcome. But to me & IMO, it’s sadly the only explanation. Water landings historically have been successful., depending on the circumstances.
RetiredF4 – I picture a light aluminium skin designed to cut the air ploughing into ocean swell at ditching speed. The result is bits of plane – to me.
Chris – America is not the villain here, it’s a bystander and they are entitled to protect their interests. As close defence partners with Australia they have the opportunity to divert whatever assets they chose to the issue and opted to stay out of the search when at the stroke of a pen could have diverted possibly the best expertise and resources. They wouldn’t be obliged to for a moment, but by staying disengaged they are indicating(to me)to not really have an iron in this fire. I’m just tempted to draw some conclusions from that – all speculative.
Here is the reply from Prof Chen to questions raised by me and others:
http://www.math.tamu.edu/~gchen/mh370.pdf
Chris – I’ve never thought it had anything to do with DG. Going there in a determined and unauthorized way just guarantees the destruction of the plane – and it would be justified.
@jeffwise: well said, sir.
Jeff,
My point has nothing to do with whose finger was on the trigger or the probability of it being in Ukraine or even happening at all. If it hadn’t happened we would not now be saying how strange it is that an aircraft _wasn’t_ shot down in Ukraine, so we only need to consider the case that a shoot down happened.
Thus the null hypothesis being tested is that given the MH370 disaster happened and that a shoot down happened in Ukraine, what was the chance that a Malaysia Airlines aircraft was that victim, if that victim was selected at random (by whomever), i.e. the target was mistaken. The answer is 5%. The victim’s aircraft type is not relevant, if it had been a Malaysia Airlines A330 or A380 (if they fly that route) then the World reaction would have been the same. Perhaps you would have dismissed the coincidence because it wasn’t a B777, but I doubt it.
Rubbish. The open waters of the SIO are seldom so smooth that they offer no visual reference for judging height and closure rate. Even then there is a radio altimeter and (I believe) a synthetic voice calling out the height at regular intervals below 100 ft.
That is also not true in general. In the case of US Airways flight 1549 the airplane hit the water at high vertical speed without hardly any flare. The high-energy impact caused substantial damage to the underfloor structure in the aft fuselage, and serious injuries to several passengers and a member of the cabin crew. One of the engines separated and sank, the other remained attached to the airplane. On both engines the cowlings were damaged but remained attached to the engines. Flight control surfaces, flaps, fairings, and gear doors remained attached to the airframe. The NTSB report on the accident does not mention any floating debris.
Gysbreght, RetiredF4, all,
The notion of the roaring 40s being seldom smooth is a fallacy. They are regularly very smooth around that time of year.
I have participated in the Melbourne to Hobart yacht race every year for the last 10. It takes between 3-5 days (on the relatively slow boat I crew). It spans latitudes 37 to 42. It starts on Boxing day, i.e. 3 month earlier in the year than MH370’s flight.
In 8 out of the 10 races, I sailed, we were becalmed for part of the race, bobbing around on the proverbial milkpond. This happened several times at the higher latitudes around 42.
My point is, there are weather systems moving west to east delivering nasty to benign conditions on a rather regular and repeatable basis, frequency roughly weekly. Seas build in the bad stuff, seas recede in the calm stuff, regularly resulting in minimal seas (milk ponds)
A couple of days or so of heads up would be enough for a 777 pilot to head towards the benign stuff, if intending to ditch in the SIO. From memory, there was a big fat long lasting High in the SIO leading up to around March 8, 2014. That spells “milk pond”. However, ther were also two fronts moving through part of the region in question as well, which would have caused some more significant seas.
There were regions down there, where one should expect and probably find a milk pond. IMHO, finding a spot suitable for a Sully type ditching is not out of the question.
I am not subscribing to that level of planning or intent having happened. However, I do not accept the “roaring fourties rough seas” argument to dismiss the possibility of a Hudson River style succesful ditching.
Cheers
Will
Although the impact damage was caused by the high descent rate, the report is very clear about the cause and the probabilities that other pilots could do better.
“However, the training did not highlight the visual illusions that can be associated with landing on water, as noted by the accident captain during postaccident interviews when he stated that landing on water was more difficult than landing on a runway due to “a much more uniform visual field, less contrast, and fewer landmarks.” Specifically, when ditching or making a forced landing on water, a pilot is susceptible to the height perception illusion (the pilot perceives a greater height above the terrain than actually exists because of a lack of contrast or visual references)”
@Gysbreght
The radar altimeter and callout will not help there, for a successfull flare ample visual references are needed.
“The NTSB concludes that the flight crewmembers would have been better prepared to ditch the airplane if they had received training and guidance about the visual illusions that can occur when landing on water and on approach and about touchdown techniques to use during a ditching, with and without engine power.”
“Postaccident flight simulations indicated that attaining the Airbus ditching parameters without engine power is possible but highly unlikely without training. Further, attaining the parameters may not prevent a significant fuselage breach for a number of plausible conditions.”
One of them is:
“Attaining the touchdown flight conditions at night or when other poor-visibility conditions exist would likely be very hard to accomplish given that, in a flight simulator in daylight conditions, the touchdown flight condition targets were only achieved once out of 12 attempts, even by pilots who were aware of the importance of maintaining sufficient airspeed, were fully expecting the dual-engine failure to occur, and knew that their failure to accomplish the maneuver would not be life-threatening.”
“The NTSB further concludes that, during an actual ditching, it is possible but unlikely that pilots will be able to attain all of the Airbus ditching parameters because it is exceptionally difficult for pilots to meet such precise criteria when no engine power is available, and this difficulty contributed to the fuselage damage.”
The ditching in the SIO without debris ( to prove why there is no debris) assumes the perfect ditching by the perfect crew in perfect sea state.
Some in this discussion group see the actual hudson ditching as failure and an assumed possible ditching in the SIO as a normality. My input was to provide some insight in the task of performing such a stunt from the cockpit view, but I probably failed. I will change my POV when you can provide enough prove otherwise.
@RetiredF4:
The NTSB makes many relevant observations on the difficulties experienced by the pilot in this ditching. However, the point is that none of these difficulties, or all of them taken together, preclude a successful ditching in the SIO. (Thank you, MuOne). One of the NTSB’s observations is that a pilot made aware of those difficulties would have a better chance of success.
@Richard Cole: I agree with your statement that if a plane flying over Ukraine was randomly chosen, there is a 5% chance that the chosen plane would be an MAS plane. I also agree that this does not prove that MH370 and MH17 are related.
However, the 5% probability is sufficiently low that a possible correlation between the two events should NOT be dismissed. It is a sufficiently low probability such that a possible link between the two should be investigated. After all, that is the purpose of an investigation: to uncover more facts that increase or decrease the probability of a particular scenario.
Don’t you agree that a scenario that only has a 5% chance of occurring randomly deserves additional attention?
@ Gysbreght
However, the point is that none of these difficulties, or all of them taken together, preclude a successful ditching in the SIO. (Thank you, MuOne). One of the NTSB’s observations
So we are back to square one. I judged the possibility of a successfull landing without debris to 10% in my first post, and you judge it how high?
What other facts can you or others provide that a ditching without debris took place except the missing debris? There are lots of other possibles for the missing debris, all discussed in length here and on other blogs and forums.
With the missing debris a successful ditching without debris cant be proved. That’s turning in circles.
@Richard Cole,
If your question is: how likely was it that of all airliners crossing the rebels’ territory a MAS plane would be shot down, then your calculations are correct.
However, if you change the premise and ask: How likely was it that MAS would lose two planes within 4 month because of a crime, then you get totally different numbers.
Statistics can only answer the questions that have been asked.
Your example of a coin toss is actually very illuminating. If you have made already 6 coin tosses and got 6 eagles, and you then ask the question: how likely is it that I get another eagle, then the answer clearly is 50%.
If you ask however: how likely is it that I toss the coin 7 times in a row and get 7 eagles the answer is obviously not 50%. Otherwise all lotteries in the world would be bankrupt 😉
It all depends on what you define as the relevant event and the likelihood of a specific outcome.
Is the event tossing the dime just once (and then it doesn’t matter how often you have tossed the dime before, because you know the results already)?
Or is the event tossing the dime 7 times in a row?
But even if we accept your question as the correct one: how likely was it that in a shoot down event over the Ukraine mh17 of all planes would be hit? Even then the numbers warrant a closer look, since only an investigation has the chance to find out if there is really a connection. Statistics are never able to provide a proof one way or the other. They are only a crutch which helps to decide if an investigation is worthwhile.
Agreed, so let’s end this discussion. It’s gone far enough and, for me, has served its purpose.
My reasons for opposing the notion that a ditching in the SIO without breakup can be simply dismissed as impossible, “insane”, or “ludicrous”, are explained in my post in the other thread on June 8 at 8:00 AM.
@Victor
Of course it is worth investigation, as I said in the first post the statistical analysis does not prove that MH17 was not targeted, just that on the statistics a random shootdown explanation cannot be ruled out and no one can come to a conclusion based solely on the event itself. Quite how anyone will investigate any events involving Russian forces remains to be seen.
@littlefoot
I am wary of applying statistical analysis to choices that are not random in nature, clearly whoever shot down MH370 doesn’t get up every day and throw dice to decide if they will shoot something down, or there are not so many shooters that an event can treated statistically. However, to make the point again, there was nothing special about Malaysia Airlines to start with so the statistical question (if asked) should be what was the chance of _any_ one airline experiencing two such events in a four month period. That probability is many times larger than picking one airline in particular.
@Richard Cole: You said, “Of course it is worth [investigating].”
Thank you for saying that. I am glad you remain open-minded about whether or not there was Russian involvement in the incident. I do not have an opinion yet on this matter, but I do think it is a reasonable angle to pursue without being branded a kook.
@Richard Cole, you are right. We could ask as well how likely it is that any airline will experience two such disasters within 4 month. That was exactly my point. The calculated chances depend entirely on the questions we ask in the first place. I’m sure there are more possibilities.
In the end Victor’s statement is important for me. Those who think one should consider the possibility that the two events are connected in order to find meaningful answers shouldn’t find themselves relegated into the conspiracy corner. The numbers certainly don’t warrant that.
@Victor: “I do think it is a reasonable angle to pursue without being branded a kook.”
@Littlefoot:
“Those who think one should consider the possibility that the two events are connected in order to find meaningful answers shouldn’t find themselves relegated into the conspiracy corner.”
Nihonmama
Posted July 21, 2014 at 5:57 PM
(“The Triple-Disappearing Airplane”)
“Hi littlefoot:
“why the plane’s captain choose a route within the corridor, which differed from the previous days.”
1. ”Minutes before the crash caused by a missile strike, the AI pilots had also heard the controller give the Malaysian aircraft MH17 what is called ‘a direct routing’”.
(The Times of India)
2. “All flights, including MH17, were being escorted by Ukrainian military jets [SU 27] over E Ukraine” (The Aviationist – David Cenciotti)
“Question no one seems to want to explore: are #MH370, MH17 & AirAsia linked?”
https://twitter.com/nihonmama/status/570749661109227521
Sitting on the periphery, watching it all…
MuOne – interesting observations about the Sydney to Hobart yacht race and the sea states you find there. I have a query though – the search is about 5000 miles away on the other side of the Australian continent – are these regions that comparable?
I thought that passage heading west of Africa was about the worst in the world and you sounding like a sailor I thought I would ask.
@nihonmama, I’m considering the points you named very seriously. While I do believe that mh17 was indeed shot down by a ground-to-air missile, it’s still an open question how this came about and who is ultimately responsible for this.