The discussion prompted by last week’s blog post raised some interesting issues that I think are worth discussing in further detail.
First, I wrote last week that “At 18:22, MH370 vanished from primary radar coverage over the Malacca Strait. Three minutes later—about the amount of time it takes the Satellite Data Unit (SDU) to reboot—the satcom system connected with Inmarsat satellite 3F-1 over the Indian Ocean and inititated a logon at 18:25:27.”
Commenter LouVilla earlier today laid out the issue with more clarity, writing:
MH370 flew out of radar range @18:22.12 UTC. All of a sudden @18:25.27 UTC, the AES sent an Login-Request to the satellite. This are 03:15 Minutes between this two events. When the AES is without power supply for a while and reboots after power is available again the AES needs approximately 02:40 Minutes to sent an Login Request (ATSB Report Page 33). 03:15 minus ~ 02:40 = ~ 35 seconds. So, the perpetrator must activated the left bus again at around 18:22.47 UTC, 35 seconds after MH370 flew out of radar range.
The close sequence of these events does, in my mind, raise the possiblity that they are connected. How would a perpetrator know that he has left radar coverage? Among the possibilites would be a) some kind of radar-energy detector (like that used by automobile speed-trap radar detectors) brought on board by the perpetrators, or b) prior scouting by allied agents. This latter idea would be far fetched for a suicidal pilot but quite feasible for, say, Russia, which spends quite a lot of time probing the radar coverage of its NATO neighbors.
Of course the timing might just be a coincidence.
A second point I’d like to address is the idea that Zaharie or Fariq might have de-powered the satcom by isolating the left AC bus. One problem with this scenario, as I’ve previously mentioned, is that it would be difficult for a pilot to know just what else they would be taking off line in isolating the left AC bus. I later realized that I had underestimated the problem.
In a fascinating blog post on Flight.org an airline pilot who goes by the handle “Ken” describes going through a simulated left AC bus failure in the course of a training session. He notes that among the systems lost were Window Heat (Left) and a Primary Hydraulic Pump (Left). “No biggie,” he writes, but adds that in addition:
…there are a whole host of ancillary services lost. Many of these are reflected by the amber lights on the overhead panel. Having looked at the roof – you later discover even then that it’s not the whole story. In this particular scenario we decided to return to KLAX. Part of the return process was fuel jettison down to maximum landing weight. Guess what? Without the Left Bus – the main tank jettison pumps are failed. You’ll be advised of this… when you start the fuel jettison. I didn’t give this a second thought… but the discussion we had afterwards that included a talk about this little quirk of the Boeing EICAS/ECL was interesting. There are no EICAS/STATUS messages to advise you of everything you’ve lost, and in many cases, until you attempt to use something that’s failed – you won’t know about it. Older aircraft used to publish a Bus Distribution List (Electrical and Hydraulic) so that you’d know exactly what you’d lost with a particular electrical bus failure – but not on the 777. My fellow pilots were vaguely disturbed by the lack of information.
It’s not impossible to imagine that one of the pilots cooked up a plan that involved switching off the satcom by isolating the left AC bus, but to do so they would have had to do intensive research into the issue. And even then, they would have to have grappled with the fact that in doing so they might disable other systems that they weren’t aware of. All told, this would be a complicated and risky strategy. And to what end? If the satcom was deselected for ACARS and the IFE was switched off (both of which are easily accomplished from the cockpit) then there would be no reason for a pilot to fear that the satellite would give away his position.
Another suggestion that has been made is the idea that the co-pilot, having been locked out of the cockpit, went down into the E/E bay and started pulling circuit breakers at random, hoping that in so doing he would succeed in de-powering the flight deck door lock, and instead power cycled the satcom by mistake. I don’t think this makes much sense, since a) this would require to know that such a circuit breaker exists in the E/E bay, but not know where it is, and b) I just can’t imagine a trained airplane pilot pulling circuit breakers at random.
In general I think we should resist any explanations that require complicated series of actions to take place as a result of a random series of happenstances. Boeing 777s are not Rube Goldberg contraptions; they are multiply redundant and extremely robust. Neither a fast-moving fire nor a panicked copilot are likely to remove the exact components at exactly the right time (and then replace them at exactly the right time!) by chance alone.
Finally, I think it’s time to raise a very important issue regarding the search of the southern Indian Ocean. Last week, I wrote that the search had failed. Some people took umbrage at this suggestion, pointing out that the original 60,000 sq km area has not yet been searched. To that, I say fair enough. Perhaps I jumped the gun. I’m willing to go along with those who say that we need to wait until the entire 120,000 sq km are searched. But then what?
For many, the matter will have been laid to rest: if the plane is not there, then it did not go there. It will be time to scratch the “ghost plane” hypothesis off the list and move on to see what other options are on the table. Well and good–this is how scientific investigation moves forward.
However, I am concerned that some people might refuse to come along. Already some commenters have pointed out that there may be crevasses into which the debris could have sunk, or underwater hills in whose sonar shadow the wreckage may be lurking. Or maybe there was a gap between the search swathes. These are all valid points, but they are also points that the Fugro searchers are certainly well aware of. They know exactly what part of the seabed each sonar image covers. They can tell where the gaps are, and they can send UAVs to probe the shadows and the gullies. Their entire mission hangs on them covering every square inch of the designated area, precisely so that that when they’re finished no one can say, “well, you only covered 99.99 percent, therefore we don’t know it isn’t down there.”
We all have to be open-minded about the data, no matter how fervently we may believe that our personal hypothesis is correct. It’s unsportsmanlike to call on the ATSB to search a particular ocean, at great expense and effort, and then when they’ve spent the money and time say, “Well, I don’t believe in your result, you probably screwed it up.”
We can be skeptical about the authorities’ handling of the investigation–I’m sure none of us would be here if we weren’t–but at the end of the day we have to have some basic faith in the honor and competence of the investigators. Otherwise, we just have to throw our hands in the air and declare that nobody knows anything.
When I spin my yarn at little longer, the pilot didn’t want to ditch, but after both engines had flamed out there was no other option.
@StefanG :
“have you ever looked at the latest videos of Fugro Explorer in a search? Waves there regularly get higher than 10m, it’s impossible to land a seaplane intact in those conditions let alone an airliner.”
On March 8th 2014 there was Beaufort 7 in the current search area when i remember correctly.
MH370 /crashed/ditched whatsoever under this
conditions……
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-m_AKncvCs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-m_AKncvCs
This
@Victor
Dare I say it… There’s always altitude.
@Stevan G
My 2 cents. I’ve also put some thought into the question of “is there more radar after 18:22.
The only logical conclusion I have come up with so far is that there isn’t any. It’s based on the sole premise that both the official and independent solutions have pretty much seemed to be in “lock step” as the analysis and search has evolved. If there were secret radar data post 18:22 that was being withheld (either Thai or especially Indonesia), it would seem the official solution set would be ‘better informed’ and might be discerned as subtly ‘guiding’ the direction of independent analysis and verification. Instead it seems to be much more of a collaborative effort, for example, with the IG pointing out the significance of the 18:40 BFO, etc.
Gysbreght:
I think your “elementary flight mechanics” are rusty. A simple sanity check using the basic conservation of energy formula indicates that for a lossless change in altitude from 600 kts to 300 knots the altitude gain would be 11,953 feet. Including losses, that might be more like 10,000 feet. But certainly not 650 feet.
One could convert that much kinetic energy to potential energy w/o pulling more than 2 Gs, so you are correct that the wings would not necessarily come off, but you better be a good stick to try this.
@Gysbreght
“When I spin my yarn at little longer, the pilot didn’t want to ditch, but after both engines had flamed out there was no other option.”
But what would he want to do there, fly to Antarctica?
@Loui
Beaufort 7 is about the average for that area at that time of the year, the plane would be ripped off in those waves.
@orion
officials of both Indonesia and Thailand haven’t said their radars have been turned off at the time, just that MH370 has not violated their airspace
to me that indicates that they have seen it at least in spots
@StevanG
Indonesia:
I’d have to double-check, but I think their official statement was more along the lines of “it was not detected in our airspace.” Regardless, I have no doubt that if MH370 were at cruising altitude, then it would have lit up the screens of Indonesia’s installations at both Lhokseumawe and Sabang. There would have been no debate over Early vs. Late FMT, as coverage appears to extend well past Great Nicobar. IMO they were turned off or even recorded over on a loop.
Thailand:
I fully agree that Thailand detected MH370- both on the ‘front-end’ and the ‘back-end’ of the flight. On the ‘front-end’, they are reported to have a detection at 17:28, even a couple of minutes before the FI indicates that Malaysia did. On the ‘back-end’, with regard to the Lido tracks, Phuket and Butterworth are the most likely candidates on a very short list of possible sources.
As Don points out, all of these military radars in question are modern and sophisticated, integrated radar tracking systems. In fact, he just posted that the Thai system is:
“The RTADS-III network is the export version of that used jointly by the USAF & FAA around the USA’s perimeter.”
IMO, even with a temperature inversion over the Straits that night, a 777 aircraft flying at cruising altitude would not have dropped off the screen during the Lido ‘blind circle’ at either Phuket or Butterworth, as it would be well within range for tracking.
@Jeff
While I agree that considering the SDU reboot at 18:25 is important, I think it is prudent to construct some “logical categories” for the cause. Things happen for a reason (I know I am hung up on this seemingly childish point of view in the face of a storm of analytics. BTW, I am a big fan of analytics as well.) A set of categories which spans (mathematical notion) the space of possibilities is for the reboot to be:
1> An element of the crime – that is a necessary and planned event.
2> An artifact of the crime – that is something that was perpetrated as a result of the crime, but not planned or intended by the perpetrators.
3> A random system glitch.
While 3> cannot be excluded, let’s take it off the table since it has a neutral impact relative to any further implications.
For 1> to be the reason there has to be some motive to divert the aircraft to obtain either the aircraft itself or something on it. Thus far no one has been enable to construct such a motive. In fact, one could argue persuasively that such a motive does not exist. It is interesting in this regard to look at a list of aircraft hijackings going back to the 1930’s. Most of the events on this list have a stated motive. Just looking the list over might jog some additional thinking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings
Category 2> is difficult to quantify because it involves speculating how other people might react to that situation. Speaking for myself, I would regard it as a moral obligation to the both the PAX (entrusted to my care) and my employer to make an attempt to foil the diversion if I were a member of that flight crew. One can only guess how the actual members of the flight crew would behave.
I hypothesize that 2> is the most likely explanation. If someone comes up with a plausible motive for the hijacking, then the spotlight shifts to 1>.
So, take your own pick – element/artifact/glitch.
Re: “Window Seal” video
Full disclaimer, I have not read any of Z’s social media stuff, etc., as personally I try to keep an open, objective mindset while looking at the physical evidence. You could say I’m still on the fence with a few theories, including the Suicide concept.
Against my better judgement, however, I clicked on the Window Seal video and was amazed to see just how REVEALING it actually was!
Especially regarding the proper way to fix a rotten window seal. I would have totally used silicon- and cleanup would have been hell.
Seriously, that is the most politically BENIGN video I have ever seen. Unless you guys see a metaphor between the Rotten Rubber Authority, allowing the seeping Watery Corruption into Malaysia’s family dwelling, and a Lone Wolf handyman’s fight to tar the cracks – then I must have missed something.
In fact, we use our recycling stack of newspaper EVERY time we have a painting project around the house. Those were simply the headlines in the news at the time the video was taken.
Perhaps more of an impact for me was, for the first time, actually seeing and hearing the man which has been so demonized – even in some scenarios which I still consider. Maybe the video is more of a humanizing format, but it now seems even less likely that the articulate, soft-spoken, humble man in that video would be responsible for such a horrific plan.
So… now I’m back to not clicking on those links.
@orion
“Indonesia:
I’d have to double-check, but I think their official statement was more along the lines of “it was not detected in our airspace.””
yupp they were adamant about it, and that’s basically the same what I have written
after all the pilot didn’t have any reason to violate their airspace and provoke their reaction when he could just fly around, that’s why I believe them there
@DennisW, with regard to a motive, you should definitely look into the excellently written Kindle Single, The Plane That Wasn’t There. It suggests that the plane was abducted as a demonstration of technical prowess by Russia. Great summer beach reading and makes a great gift, too.
Self-promotion aside, I agree that we should take #3 off the table, but for a different reason: things don’t “just happen.” They happen for a cause, and since the AES is a carefully engineered system those causes should be explicable (by official accident investigators if not by us.)
I also agree that #1 or #2 could be the case, though so far no one has been able to come up with a scenario that would fit #2. Specifically, what system would you want to take offline, then bring back, on the left AC bus? I’m not convinced that we’ve managed to fully enumerate what these systems are. Again, the official investigators should know…
@StevanG
“yupp they were adamant about it, and that’s basically the same what I have written”
“did not violate airspace” and “was not detected violating airspace” seem similar, but yet have a vastly different set of possible solutions.
The second version is technically ambiguous – leaving open the possibility that it was not detected because it was inoperable.
If I were seemingly caught with my pants down, I would also be very adamant about painting the scenario as ambiguously possible.
@airlandseaman:
Sorry, not rusty. Conservation of energy has nothing to do with it, nor flight dynamics, it is simply kinematics. You know the relation between height, vertical speed, and vertical acceleration?
@orion
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/03/26/govt-insists-mh370-did-not-fly-indonesian-airspace.html
yet they can’t be 100% sure because if it went in a low level flight it probably wouldn’t be detected by radar but at altitude they seem to be sure it didn’t violate their airspace
He probably didn’t want to go anywhere in particular. He was caught in the consequences of his actions, running away from it like a deer caught in the headlights of an approaching car at night.
He may have been unable to use the autopilot or sophisticated navigation aids. For example, if the captain in the EE bay pulled the circuit breaker of pitot heating, the flight control system would revert to secondary mode, the autopilot disengages and cannot be reengaged unless pitot heat is restored.
@Gysbreght and @airlandseaman: You’re both right. Conservation of energy and kinematics apply, and both should give you the same answer if properly applied. However, that is easier said than done.
The lift force is generated perpendicular to the air velocity relative to the wing, which is not exactly vertical since the plane is not flying at constant altitude, so it is not simply a matter of applying kinematic equations in the vertical direction without regard to inclination relative to the vertical.
Since the lift force is perpendicular to the air velocity, it does not change the total energy. The total energy either increases or decreases based on the balance of thrust and drag (the net force parallel to the motion relative to air) as applied over a distance. If you assume they balance more or less, or you neglect both, then total energy should be conserved.
In his 1:40 AM, 07/15/2015 post, Don said he thought the “hourly” timer is more like 60 min ± 256 seconds. Let’s say the whole AES was shutdown at 17:20:36 when the signals from transponder stopped. (The transponder itself was shut off shortly thereafter.) Within 256 seconds of an hour later, the timer sent a reboot signal in order to transmit the handshake. That would mean the reboot was initiated automatically about one hour after it was shut down. Any takers or did ALSM try this in the simulator and find there was no automatic reboot?
@Cheryl – About a year ago, I posted that I detected an American accent in the, “Good night Malaysian Three Seven Zero.” If you are Cheryl#1 on DS, you agreed.
There has been some discussion here recently regarding the repetition of the “maintaining level three five zero” at 17:01:17 and again at 17:07:56. Do you detect the same accent for both or one of these communications? Based on accents, do you believe it was the same person reporting the altitude both times?
BTW – Pitot heat is typically powered by 115VAC.
@LaurenH: To be clear, the timer is in the GES at Perth. If the last communication received was at 17:07, then the no-activity timer would have timed out around 18:07. The GES cannot transmit a “reboot” signal to an AES that is not logged on, and the “log-on interrogation” initiated by the GES is not a reboot signal. It is just a request for the AES to respond if it is still logged onto the network.
@VictorI – Thank you for again teaching me another aspect of this mystery. I appreciate your guidance. A reread of the Inmarsat paper would have shown me that P-Channel is GES to AES and R-Channel is AES to GES.
@Orion, it’s a mistake IMO not to read Zaharie’s social pages. If you have a suspect in a criminal investigation one should try to learn as much as possible about his background- and Zaharie has to be a prime suspect together with the copilot simply because the pilots had the best opportunity to abduct the plane. It won’t do to say: ” oh, I don’t want to be prejudiced”.
His social pages clearly show him as a man in a crisis who seemed to have been up to something. The question is: what exactly? Personally I doubt that it was suicide. I also have difficulties to see him as a cold blooded murderer. But who knows. Reading his social pages I have to conclude that he was undergoing a change and he was ready for some kind of action.
I agree with you btw: when I see his picture or his videos I can’t help liking the guy. I don’t want him to be involved. But that’s totally subjective. The cold facts make it more likely that he was involved. Or he was assigned to the flight deliberately as a convenient scapegoat. That’s a very real possibility, too. But even then his social pages and his activities matter and demand attention.
As to the Window Seal video, I disagree with you that there is nothing peculiar about it. I find plenty of VERY strange things in there, especially since I have renovated our kitchen myself a couple of weeks ago and used newspapers for protection as well. Let me just say: what Zaharie did with the newspapers is strange IMO. But I won’t go into detail here because it’s so difficult not to read something into it from hindsight.
@Cheryl, I’m also a little puzzled re: the accent. Maybe Zaharie had less if an accent what he did his daily flight routine speak. But I would like to hear more from you about it.
@Gysbreght
“He probably didn’t want to go anywhere in particular. He was caught in the consequences of his actions, running away from it like a deer caught in the headlights of an approaching car at night.”
Up to FMT it looked like a well executed plan to me.
But you might be right that he was caught in consequences of his actions, it seems he wasn’t really ready for it…
in @LouVilla’s link to a photo of Shah sitting in front of his flight simulator screen – does anyone recognize that runway seemingly jetting out into the ocean and if there are any clues to the region being displayed?
@littlefoot
“he was ready for some kind of action” is statement I agree with, ya; but, I also lookedback for his FB account recently, and not found anything too radical in fact – truth is, Malaysia is different country and culture, for many years under anti-US dictature and there are probably some inertial frustrations even with current leadership; and such situation is common in other parts of world too – for me, quite important thing seen was this, back in april 2014:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_8ENC7ASHg
Followup to Contrails
Blast from the past here. Back on April 23, when there were a plethora of discussions regarding the possible detection of contrails from MH370 in satellite imagery, I wrote the following regarding the “RELH” values tablulated in the data files available at:
arlftp.arlhq.noaa.gov/pub/archives/gdas1/
“I presume that these RH values refer to liquid H2O …”
Turns out I was wrong. The proper explanation is as follows:
http://ready.arl.noaa.gov/gdas1.php
“NCEP outputs relative humidity with respect to water for temperatures greater than or equal to zero degrees Celcius (0C), with respect to ice for temperatures less than -20C, and a blend between -20C and 0C. ARL does not modify NCEP’s values.”
I was interesting in knowing the RH values at various possible cruising altitudes in the vicinity of the alleged contrail detections. The temps at these altitudes are all less than -40, which means that the RH values in the GDAS files are all w.r.t. ice, not water. How did I get it wrong? Turns out that this critical bit of documentation was not available on the ARL website in April. It was added sometime between May 13 and May 25. You can check it yourself using the Wayback Machine. I wonder if someone was monitoring conversations here …
What this means is that, based on the GDAS files from ARL, the humidity values were actually lower than what I thought they were, and at no point on the flight path of MH370 (Southern Route) were conditions conducive to the formation of persistent contrails.
Have any of the proponents of a Northern route done any equivalent search for contrails?
@LouVilla: “On March 8th 2014 there was Beaufort 7 in the current search area when i remember correctly.”
Thanks for sharing your recollection; I’ve been looking for that data, without much success. Do you have a source for this? Even if it isn’t available now, do you recall where you may have read it?
Ideally, I’d like to verify sea states up and down arc 7, to finally and mercifully euthanize the “intact ditch” hypothesis.
@falken, could you be a bit more specific about the video of Obama’s press conference with Malaysia’ prime minister? What was interesting for you?
I was struck by something else: when I researched something very different I found out that Malaysia’s prime minister spent a few days of the Christmas season with Obama in Hawaii playing golf! I found that very strange. Why would Obama spend his free time with that sleazy and corrupt politician? It wasn’t even a state visit. It was privat.
Lauren H.,
Yes I am the same Cheryl #1 from the Duncan Steel site and blog. Yes I remember and do still agree with you the last line spoken in the audio recording does sound American and is devoid of a foreign accent.
Regarding your question of the repeated “maintaining flight level 350” lines, the first one to me sounds like Captain Zaharie. The second one is questionable and has the slur of the flight number in it as well. I am not entirely sure it is the same voice, some aspects of it sound similar some sound different and they are about 7 minutes apart.
@Brock
the sea is usually calmer the norther you go however it doesn’t have to be like that every time of course
http://www.oceanweather.com/data/
@Cheryl, I’m flabbergasted that this voice analysis turns out to be so difficult. One should think this should be settled in no time. But I’m also surprised a bit about the lack of accent. But Zaharie’s family purportedly identified his voice – although his brother-in-law wasn’t sure. Has everybody gone mad? Can’t even the simplest things be settled with any certainty?
All, I’m an avid reader of this blog but haven’t had the opportunity to contribute thus far..
However, on the radar coverage issue, I have had a conversation with a very well informed expert that the radars, both civil and military across Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia are not necessarily well maintained. Calibration testing on some of the radars in question may not in some cases occurred for years (when it should occur at least yearly as I understand). Optimal radar performance requires routine calibration and maintenance. My contact opined that some of the radars were so far out of calibration they’d be lucky to have seen MH370.
So precisely predicting radar coverage on the basis of officially published data or algorithms is highly questionable. Operational military radar sites from most countries will not reveal detections that indicate the limits of their radar’s performance. Even detection of incursion by foreign military aircraft will not necessarily be released to protect knowledge of the radar’s performance envelope.
Environmental factors can alter an individual radar’s performance – particularly at the limit of its range.
So I think it is fair to say:
1. that deep insider knowledge would be required to know the precise operational performance of individual civil or military radars.
2. Incursion testing by foreign countries will not necessarily elicit precise radar performance information.
3. Changing environmental factors may result in slight variations in individual radar performance.
Revealing the performance of a range of military and civilian radar performance data to a perpetrator would require a reasonably high level source with access to that range of protected information.
Cont..
Based on this, I believe that it is almost impossible for a perpetrator to unaided deliberately time the AES logon request to precisely coincide with the radar flying out of radar range @ 18:22.12 UTC. Even if they had all the requisite technical knowledge and experience to do so.
To deliberately achieve such a precisely timed power up of the AES @18:25.27 UTC would in my view require the use of:
4. of some sort of radar detector to confirm you are out of range,
5. Some form of cloaking/jamming, or
6. Rapid decent out of line of sight.
I understand radar detectors are directional and would therefore require power and pointing aft. Technically feasible, but not necessarily easily achieved. Further, the perpetrator would have had to prior test the radar detector against the relevant radars because the detectors in the radar might be more sensitive than those in the radar detector.
There is also a possibility that a military style radar warning receive could be used to perform that function, but the complexities associated with doing so would, in my view, make it so remote as to deem it not worthy of consideration.
6. Wins my vote.
Cheryl/Lauren – I’ve noticed that intl English if you like is becoming Americanized. You see the accent creep in a lot but mainly in the younger ones.
@littlefoot
The FI unequivocally says the ALL transmissions from MH370 after airborne were Zaharie.
This is collaborated by 2 other sources, his family and his colleagues.
For MH370 ‘facts’, this is AS GOOD AS WE GET.
Can we allow for the very reasonable inference based on the above that it was him?
No, because some would simply prefer it not to be. Pathetic.
@littlefoot
as we are currently far from our mysterious reboots, OK, there is link below, quite fresh, about Malaysian PM and corruption – all the links inside interesting too – there is some their local warfare it seems, and isnt obvious who is good and who bad, but as I firmly trust Mr. Obama, then I trust this guy too, particulary when listening him in person; simply my own instinct says something, not easy to describe… And you probably answered yourself already – there is some deep cooperation with US, but generally with entire world from him. May be some psychologist can analyze the press conference on each topic separated, their behavior, honesty, …; you know, for some reasons, they can even not say whole truth always (euphemism), but I dont know, sure. Its all about my own feelings of souls of all such guys directly, without any desinterpretation and miswording by ANY media, which is priceless, IMHO – and, in fact, I think that there are happening many “mysterious reboots” worldwide these days too; but good for me not be involved anymore in too much deeeplinking of any “synchronicities” around (LOL – I absolutely dont believe in any astrology, numerology, conspiracy theories, and similar nonsenses – only rational things matters – honestly, MH370 case is deeply irrational)
http://www.smh.com.au/national/malaysian-prime-minister-najib-razak-denies-corruption-claims-20150715-gid19m.html
@Spencer, can’t you ever conduct a sensible conversation without throwing in derogatory adjectives?
The question if Zaharie spoke the last words or not have nothing whatsoever to do with the question if he was the perp or not. For all we know the perps might’ve been in the e/e bay after all. It’s neither damning nor exculpatory to have spoken the last words.
On the whole I also believe it must’ve been him. Who else should have been in there before everything started to get turned off? It’s still surprising, though, and not very confidence inspiring that even little things like who spoke the last words and what did he say are so hard to settle. Remember, first we were informed that the copilot spoke the last words and said “Alright, good night”.
@falken
” but as I firmly trust Mr. Obama, then I trust this guy too, ”
I think you shouldn’t trust any politician.
Since we have been talking of BFO spoofing, what if 18:22.12 UTC does not signify the end of Malaysian PSR range but rather the beginning of some sort of electronic radar jamming?
@littlefoot
I apologize for my usage of a word deemed to be derogatory. It was out of abject frustration. I’ll try to do better.
It’s just somewhat maddening, as I’m sure you’ll agree, that this issue continues to be called into question…both in the overall sense of a lack of clarity and trust about anything and everything, and specifically on this thread as well.
I agree it not an indication in and of itself of anything.
I think it was just assumed Fariq was on comms, thus the first report (and some bs about another pilot on VHF recognizing the voice as Fariq, even though this is neigh impossible because he didn’t even know him LOL).
All of this is emblematic of Malaysia’s incompetence and disinformation campaign. Sigh.
@Spencer, I agree heartily with your last sentence. The Malaysian authorities are the opposite of trustworthy and confidence inspiring. But I fail to see what they are hiding if Zaharie was the sole culprit. That would be ideal for them. Nothing is their fault – except maybe the sluggishness of their airforce. And who wants to vote for an opposition whose supporters are mass murderers? If Zaharie was the lone perp they got their out-of-jail card. So why all those obfuscation?
@littlefoot
that’s what I don’t understand too..but then again I’m not Malaysian and I’m not familiar with their mentality
LouVilla,
Wow, is it possible Zaharie was cryptically mapping out on Youtube what he would eventually carry out? He starts the aircon video next to the simulator with the photo of the airplane landed on something that looks to be in the middle of water, a fish known to waters in Australia is swimming under the simulator (I cannot find that part but take your word on it), there are newspaper headlines about issues he stressed about on social media ending with a drowning in the window video, and there are temperature numbers in the aircon video similar to numbers on the data log?
Is there anything you found in the ice maker video?
It’s eerily coincidental and I agree his social media posts need to be looked at. It all could be innocent and nothing on Youtube, but then again it could be something. I hate to think so for one who seems to have such a giving and helping nature to him, but one never knows what lurks in the human psyche.
@StevanG
“I think you shouldn’t trust any politician”
why? 🙂 I trust primarily in myself, but what you sed is one of stereotypes to change – they are 24/7 observeed in public and everywhere around is too much fear and hate and arrogance and stupidity, often hidden
If you want to know in what I dont trust at all, then here it is – stupid scientology-like manipulative brainwashing trainings and teir dumb victims 😉
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
@littlefoot
At it’s MOST basic (I don’t care to delve into nuance here) logic, the regime would have to answer WHY it is that THIS soft-spoken, affable and strident activist for democratic reform would have undertaken such a drastic measure?
I’m sure you can at least see how this would be a tad bit problematic for the thugs running the country?
@Cheryl
“Is there anything you found in the ice maker video?”
Yes.
*Pure speculation*
Between Minute 00:00 – 02:13….
In the Video “icemakercomplet” we can see a a cigarette box on the table with the inscription “Smoking kills” which is half-hidden by a screwdriver.
After Minute 02:13……
He made a cut in his video on Minute 02:13 and after that all of a sudden we can see reading glasses placed on the table where the glasses look towards the cigarette box.
This could mean : “Do not look at me but look where the glasses looks what tells you what a genius i am”
The glasses look in the direction of the cigarette box with the inscription “Smoking kills”. When you read the word “kills” in reverse from right to left it spells “SLLIK” or “SLICK”
That could mean he thought himself he was so clever,smart,professional,simply a genius.
All the items of his icemaker on the table could also mean we should look to all the wreckage of the aircraft which will crash on it´s way towards Antarctica.
Antarctica = Icemaker !
Scary !?
Lets take a look :
http://www.file-upload.net/download-10769956/Icemaker-Observation.pdf.html
@Lou Villa
I failed to notice the placement of the glasses.
Anyhow, though I’m certainly vulnerable to confirmation bias,
ALL of this is beyond surreal. Scary? Ah, yeah, pretty freaking scary!!
And his fondness for all these ‘prank’ videos. Oh boy.
@Brock
I got my information from here….
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/03/08/0000Z/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-263.68,-46.42,1208/grid=on
…to look for wind speed at the ocean surface.
@Gysbreght,
650 ft is a nonsense.
Here is one example I found…an Airbus 330….
The captain took control, setting Take-off and Go-around power and subsequently re-establishing a power attitude combination for straight and level flight at FL310. The aircraft had lost 4,400 feet in 27 seconds, registering a maximum rate-of-descent of approximately 15,800 feet per minute. The g-forces during the event ranged from -0,58g to +2.06g during the recovery.
@Flitzer_Flyer:
You obviously don’t understand the physics of airplane maneuvers.
Inmarsat BTO data https://twitter.com/MikeChillit There is something Jeff Wise should look closer into.