By Victor Iannello
Don’t be fooled by claims of the red tape causing the delay in the determination of the provenance of the flaperon.
Boeing and the NTSB were parties to the investigation when the flaperon was first brought to Toulouse. It is very unlikely that the Spanish subcontractor ADS-SAU did not immediately turn over all documentation when requested by Boeing. The investigators had to know soon after the start of the investigation what the provenance of the part is, whether or not that determination was made public.
I have said before and continue to believe that there was an attempt to delay the release of the results of the investigation in parallel with planting a seed of doubt regarding the provenance of the part. Just look at the series of events this week. First the claim that Spanish vacation schedules have delayed the identification of the part. Then the claim that the identification was not possible. This was followed by the claim that the flaperon was certainly from MH370.
The pattern of leaking contradictory or false information to the media from off-the-record sources continued in full force this week. I believe this is a story in its own right that should be getting a lot of attention. Perhaps when enough journalists are made to look foolish by reporting contradicting statements, their “reputation instincts” will kick in and compel them to dig deeper.
We who are following this incident should demand that more facts be fully disclosed. Technical reports should be released so that we are not parsing statements from a judge-prosecutor to understand the true meaning of what was written. And journalists should not blindly report statements without attribution.
@Flitzer
Right, but the LEO’s are not always available. I did query Ack Avionics (ELT manufacturer) relative to concerns about in flight operation. Just got the reply below.
begin cut-paste//
The LEO satellites are traveling about 17,000 mph wouldn’t affect the doppler much but might cause inaccuracy on the cross track. That’s why GPS is much better. Don’t know why you would want to turn it on in the air?
Mike Akatiff
end cut-paste//
My primary concern at the time was the Doppler processing. I did not mention the reason for my question. Hence, the query about turning it on in the air.
Cabin depressurization and temperature
It is often stated that cabin depressurization will lead to dramatic cooling. This is certainly true in case of fast depressurization, due to adiabatic cooling of air in the cabin as it expands. This is the point of the article RetiredF4 mention.
However, if the depressurization is slow compared with the air recirculation time in the cabin, heat energy stored in the air at any one instance is not a crucial factor. If the engine bleed air system continues to function, the circulating air temperature can be maintained indefinitely. There is also non-negligible heat produced by humans.
As a practical proof, recall that in Helios flight with decompression, a flight attendant was observed entering the cockpit more than 2 hours after contact was lost. So it seems entirely possible that the aircraft was slowly depressurized and whoever was in control remained alive using O2 masks.
@Mike:
Engine bleedair is hot because it was compressed in the engine compressor. Is it still hot after expansion to ambient pressure?
@Mike,
i was responding to your suggestion, that a depressurization of the cockpit could have been done by a deliberate placed explosive. My intention was to show, that this would be not a suitable option for prolonged further flight by providing ample reference.
In my reference two decompression scenarios where tested, one is a 1m2 hole and one with a 0.1 m2 hole. How big a hole would be blown by your suggested explosive?
The helios B737 expierienced no rapid decompression due to fracture of the hull, but after maintenance the pressurization system was left in the manual mode. The outflow valves, which control the pressurization, were left to 1/3 open, so not enough pressure was built. There was still some pressure being kept, but not enough. The O2 masks deployed as advertised when the cabin exceeded 14.000 feet, while the aircraft climbed through 18.000 feet. At what altitude the cabin was when flying ar FL340 is not known. We could though assume the same pressure differential.
The other problem I mentioned is decompression sickness after prolonged unpressurized flight without oxygen prebreating and continued oxygen breathing during the remainder of the flight. . See the reference below.
http://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media/dcs.pdf
@VictorI:
In your paper “Some Observations on the Radar Data for MH370” dated August 18, 2015, you write:
“If the aircraft did fly at a steady M = 0.84, then the timestamps for some of the PSR contained in the Factual Information (FI) [1] are offset by about 35 s.”
Your recent email to the Malaysians repeats that statement.
I’m intrigued by that statement because I didn’t find that offset in my own simple analysis of the radar data. I re-read your paper several times for an explanation of that offset, but couldn’t find it. Could you please elaborate how that offset is derived? A plot or table of distance travelled over ground versus time would be helpful. Thanks in advance.
@Gysbreght: I took the last known position, extrapolated forward based on my speeds and path, and determined that at the times of interest, there was an offset between my calculated position and the position I estimated from the PSR data. The times of interest were the start and ends of the PSR path segments. It is somewhat subjective because I can only visually estimate the position of the segment endpoints as the graphical resolution is not high. Now, it may be that the Mach number was varying over this interval, and that produced the offsets. That was my initial assumption. But the variation in Mach number seemed too high, especially since the overall path (up until the last radar point at 18:22) was consistent with M0.84 at FL340. I cannot state with certainty there was a time offset, and perhaps other analysts come to different conclusions. That’s why I posed it as a question.
@VictorI:
You also write: “The speed was adjusted so that two points are pinned in time and space: the left turn at 17:23:38 UTC, and the last radar point at 18:22:12 UTC.” Why 17:23:38 UTC?
I think the FI statement “At 1721:13 UTC [0121:13 MYT] the Military radar showed the radar return of MH370 turning right but almost immediately making a constant left turn to a South Westerly direction.” should be ignored. It is ambiguous (right or left turn?) and it happens to coïncide with “the last secondary radar position symbol of MH370 was recorded at 1721:13 UTC”.
A 180 deg turn at 1 deg/s starting at 17:21:53 fits perfectly to the radar data and the red track, if the impossible right-angle ‘turn’ is ignored.
@RetiredF4
It seems that to realize a relatively gentle depressurization one would need a hole about the size of the out-flow valve, roughly
10×20 cm^2. As the pressure drops, the valves will close in trying to compensate.
@Gysbrecht: 17:23:38 is the time of the sharp turn assuming the graphic is correct and the ground speed prior to the sharp turn was 473 kn. You advise to ignore the statement in the FI about the turn and the image. Perhaps you are right. That is the reason that I presented the questions. If we had the raw radar data, we wouldn’t have to guess.
@VictorI:
Thanks for your clarification of the underlying assumptions.
Can we deduce that there will be no big flaperon announcement? Not even a barnacle one. And maybe speculate as to why it’s tightly held? Because they can some will jump in and say but that won’t go to the heart of it. Plane crash….my a##
FYI to all: The Russian passenger was a deep water diver. Deepwater divers know a thing or two about pressurization & depressurization, & associated problems.
@CliffG
I think all russian and nearby passengers (actually their backgrounds) have been scrutinized by US intel, they would find out if there was any connection.
@Matty
My guess is we will not hear another word on the flaperon. Your government spent $100M+ in a “good faith” effort searching in the wrong place. The year will end, and the search will be called off. It will be hoped that Aussie tax payers will move on with their lives, miserable as they may be.
The reality is the aircraft is nowhere near the current search area, and any evidence of that will be repressed. I am resigned to the fact that the aircraft will never be found.
@Matty – Perth
You are probably right with your comment “Plane crash…my a##”
@the French
Nous attendons. S’il te plaît dépeche toi.
@ AM2 – well, pardon my French….. @ DennisW – keep the faith baby…sooner(er)…than later(er) …
We had discussed passengers being able to see the change in flight direction on the map display. Would the in-flight entertainment system also include the flight map display? This way passengers would not be able to follow the flight path. Who inside the cockpit would have the best access to the system?
Transcript from 4 Corners report.
CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Around the same time, Four Corners understands someone inside the cockpit began interfering with the in-flight entertainment system.
And a second key data messaging system also stops transmitting: the Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System, ACARS.
http://english.astroawani.com/malaysia-news/mh370-search-resumes-strategies-improve-tiong-lai-74916
Hi Susie,
I had to go check out what the “World Communication Forum” was all about. Seems like it is about message “packaging” for communicating to the masses.
One of the speakers, Allan Mayer, had this in his bio:
//
He has also provided individual strategic counsel to the likes of Halle Berry, Toni Braxton, Erin Brockovich, Tom Cruise, Johnny Depp, Snoop Dogg, Eminem, Brian Grazer, Brad Grey, Ron Howard, R. Kelly, Tommy Lee, Rush Limbaugh, Ron Meyer, Conan O’Brien, Michael Ovitz, Steven Spielberg, Harvey Weinstein and the cast of “The Simpsons.”
//
Funny stuff considering the Malay messaging relative to 9M-MRO.
The French have made no announcement and are under no pressure to make one either by the look of it. But how it hit the water says a lot about what happened. This not important to the media who race off to catch the next bit of celebrity sideboob. While various govts look the other way. If I had a family member on that plane I would be tempted to shoot people so what is it about this plane?
Don,
Re: “The ADIRU is provided with redundant 28V DC supplies including the hot battery bus (it cannot be re-aligned in the air so the objective is to maintain its power supply).”
How ADIRU is tuned on the ground? Does it set initial position based on GPS readings?
Why can’t it be re-aligned in the air using data from GPS?
Re: “…the R-MMR is powered by the AC Standby bus (the AC Standby bus has fall back supply from main battery or via RAT through an inverter).”
Would the right GPS be powered instantly from the battery, or switch takes some time in case the right IDG goes down while APU is not on?
@Matty
We have all seen this movie a few times – at work, at home, with friends,…
The number one reason for not sharing information always boils down to people believing that knowledge is power, and sharing information diminishes their power. The only way to stand toe to toe with a superior intellect is to withhold information. Just the way it is.
@Dennis
Yes, as pathetic the source and content, it seemed worthy of a link due to the rarity of fresh MH370 news. Do you feel unburdened by your resignation that this plane will not be found? I’m just not willing to let them win yet by acquiescence, whomever they are, the ones responsible for taking these lives in such a brazen manner
@Suzie
The link was good. I have a Goggle Alert set for “flaperon” so I got an email shortly after your post.
Relative to “unburdened” I don’t know what to say. I am obviously a very interested third party, but have no skin in the game directly or any standing with the various agencies and governments involved. I think the best description for my mood is “frustrated”. Like Victor and others, I am very annoyed by the filtering and withholding of information relative to this event. I would like to do more, and I have the time to do more, but lack of access to information is crippling.
Trip / Sharkcaver / Oleksandr,
While I agree with Oleksandr that basically we have no way of pinpointing the exact time the AES or satcom link was disabled or let us say “interrupted,” 4 Corners leads us to believe that the IFE was interfered with by human touch, and circa the time the other comms went out. Yet, the FI states that there was no evidence that the AES was logged off from the cockpit or it would have been in the GES logs.
The ATSB states that the IFE depends on a satcom link, so the technical experts here can correct if wrong but I would assume then if the AES was jammed or not functioning then all of the functions available through the IFE (on demand, movies, moving map/Airshow, etc.) would not be available?
Each airline brands their own IFE and Malaysia Airlines’ brand was Select (AVOD)
3000i. That is according to Wikipedia’s listing: Select (AVOD) on A330-300, Boeing 737-800 (MX), Airbus A380 and B777-200ER.
Also in Wikipedia it states that the IFE was implicated in SwissAir Flight 111. If someone is disabling or “interfering’ with the IFE that early on in the flight I wonder what that implies, similar scenario to SwissAir with smoke in cockpit, disable moving map so PAX don’t see turn, disable entire AES so satphones for PAX if available on that flight, or cockpit satphones don’t function,?????
Also from Wikipedia some info on how the IFE’s are set up:
To meet safety regulations due to voltage leaks and arcing in the mileage of wiring, the IFE is set up independently from the aircraft’s main power source and processor. By separating the power supplies and data links from that of the aircraft’s main processor, in the event of a failure the system is self-sustained and cannot alter the functionality of the aircraft.
The main IFE manufacturers seem to be Rockwell Collins (Airshow), Panasonic Avionics (iXplor2), Honeywell Aerospace (JetMap), Thales Group, LiveTV, etc. I cannot find MAS’ brand Select and what if any of those mfgrs. provides Select.
There is also an AdonisOne, wireless moving map by Paradigm Technologies, which displays a moving map on any portable Wi-Fi device, which may pertain to what Sharkcaver was saying about being able to use his tablet in flight?
Can anyone technically explain if the AES failed or there was some power failure, and this IFE is set up to be self-sustained in a failure, what exactly does that mean regarding the playing of the moving map feature?
Cheryl,
It was Panasonic according to FI.
Don,
I recall somebody, perhaps you, mentioned that AES tolerance to the Doppler shift is approximately 1 KHz. Is it correct?
Although ADIRU appears to be an extremely reliable thing in terms of the power supply, redundancy checks, etc., I see one potential vulnerability gap – at certain point it must be initialized/re-initialized. And if it is possible on the land, why isn’t it possible in the air? Can reboot of some other hardware units trigger re-initialization of ADIRU in the air using GPS as the source of position and ground speed data?
Duncan Steel has generously created a webpage with my questions regarding the radar data:
http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/1987
Anybody that seriously studies the radar data and the radar capabilities in the region will conclude that there are major inconsistencies and questions that remain unanswered.
Unfortunately, the press is either unwilling or incapable of understanding the concerns that have been identified and pressing Malaysia for answers. We don’t have a lot of quantitative data for this incident, so what little we have deserves a lot of scrutiny.
@Victorl
Would it be helpful to send your email to 25-30 reporters around the globe with previous MH370 coverage?
@Dennis
It seems a horrifically successful strategy, hold the true facts and channel the bogus to disguise their origin.
Hard to fathom why, this managed prevention of truth but knowledge IS power and there is a surplus of smarts here.
It’s about finding a way to break through the barrier and solve this thing because there is not a chance the perps can (could) compete with the combined intellect on these pages
@Susie Crowe: If I were to write and release a press release with the title “Investigator Says Radar Data Not from MH370”, and included some nice graphics and some light, easy-to-understand scientific references, it would probably be widely picked up because most of the stories on MH370 are just re-packaged press releases. Instead, I posed a number of questions without explicitly stating that the radar data is false, because frankly I question, but do not yet reject, the radar data.
While this is approach is more intellectually honest, it almost guarantees that the story will not be widely covered, if at all. My intention was that some of the more knowledgeable journalists, like Jeff Wise, Christine Negroni, Florence de Changy, Ben Sandilands, Miles O’Brien, Richard Quest, and David Soucie, would understand the importance of these questions and pursue them. At least one of these journalists said he or she would. We’ll see.
Independent researchers like the ones that contribute here can form a special relationship with journalists. It is naïve to expect the journalists to dive into the technical details the way some of us have done. It is also naïve to expect the independent researchers to develop the list of international contacts with the authorities that many of the journalists have. So, there is a natural synergy between the two groups that we should encourage.
@Dennis: re: info is power: well said.
And power is (eventually) corruption. And corruption is (eventually) destruction.
People often accuse advocates for disclosure – whether whistleblowers on the inside, idealistic citizens like many of us, or well-funded, hard-nosed investigative journalists (thinking back to the bygone era in which those actually, you know, existed) – of trying to “bring down” governments.
It is precisely the opposite. The core strength of western governments is their relative openness. I for one petition for the airing of the dirty laundry of superpowers only when I’m in the mood to PRESERVE the current balance of world power.
If I ever wanted to bring western power to ruin, I’d stop trying to hold it accountable – and start campaigning for Donald Trump.
@Victor: I praised and promoted your e-mail on Twitter when it came out, but was remiss in not doing so in this forum. Questions – huge questions – remain unanswered with respect to the military radar coverage of MH370. Thank you for presenting them so well. I wish I had your gift for forceful diplomacy.
Other topics with comparably huge unanswered questions:
– fuel/performance limit analysis
– surface debris drift analyses & searches
– “confirmed” acoustic ping detection
– “confirmed” co-pilot cell phone ping
– history of the Inmarsat signal data log (including its chain of custody)
I think we can move the truth into the light even further/faster by investigating these. If officials fail to disclose THESE models/”who knew what when” info, we KNOW they’re hiding something to do with the PLANE; the withholding of military radar can always hide behind the skirts of national security interest.
Cheryl, you tagged me in so I will respond on bits I can answer.
“4 Corners leads us to believe that the IFE was interfered with by human touch”
You need to understand, while 4 corners has been a cornerstone of investigative journalism in this country in excess of 20 years, it is not always correct. No one else has made this claim to my knowledge, but worse, 4C hasn’t backed up that claim up with any evidence. I put it in the same mass media hyperbole basket that this event has been suffering from, from day one.
I understand there is a desire for factual evidence, but you need to question all media (and for that matter, officialdom) statements that are made.
“Yet, the FI states that there was no evidence that the AES was logged off from the cockpit or it would have been in the GES logs”
A formal log off would generate a recorded log. An informal log off (power cut for instance) would not. So I see no reason a technical or nefarious action on behalf of the AES could not be behind “going silent”. As per most of this case, we are left with a void of data to extrapolate what actually occurred.
“The ATSB states that the IFE depends on a satcom link, so the technical experts here can correct if wrong but I would assume then if the AES was jammed or not functioning then all of the functions available through the IFE (on demand, movies, moving map/Airshow, etc.) would not be available?”
Parts of the IFE would require a satcom link. Satphone, Inet. Airshow? etc. I don’t see how on demand movies and the like, which I assume are stored internally aboard the A/C would need satcom, unless a failed satcom link failed the whole system.
“Also in Wikipedia it states that the IFE was implicated in SwissAir Flight 111. If someone is disabling or “interfering’ with the IFE that early on in the flight I wonder what that implies, similar scenario to SwissAir with smoke in cockpit, disable moving map so PAX don’t see turn, disable entire AES so satphones for PAX if available on that flight, or cockpit satphones don’t function,?????”
Swissair IFE was implicated with fire. If someone was interfering with IFE onboard MH370, I can see no similar scenario. Playing with power/data circuits shouldn’t cause a fire, unless a catastrophic surge was introduced. Very, very unlikely. You could potentially disable the satcom side of IFE, but to induce a fire by such methods…aint going to happen IMO.
“Can anyone technically explain if the AES failed or there was some power failure, and this IFE is set up to be self-sustained in a failure, what exactly does that mean regarding the playing of the moving map feature?”
No. No one can explain if AES failed or there was some power failure. As FI acknowledge, a formal log off would produce evidence of such. We have no formal log off event recorded. So an AES fail/power fail/tampering is possible. The arinc 629 data bus could have failed or been interfered with, rendering parts of the satcom useless, but would not generate a log of a formal shutdown. It may not have shutdown at all, just been data deprived. However the fuzzy BFO’s seem to indicate a power fail to me. Due to multiple redundancies and isolations incorporated into aircraft systems, I would believe the IFE can not backfeed into critical A/C systems in the event of failure. What that would mean for airshow is that in the event of data loss, pax would lose moving map. The A/C doesn’t fly or navigate by airshow.
“There is also an AdonisOne, wireless moving map by Paradigm Technologies, which displays a moving map on any portable Wi-Fi device, which may pertain to what Sharkcaver was saying about being able to use his tablet in flight?”
No. My tab has its own moving map software and maps, uses its own internal gps, and does not use any wifi or external data sources. You can achieve the same result with a handheld GPSr or even your cars Garmin Nuvi or equivalent. All you need to achieve thus is a valid GPS signal and the right maps for the software. I am going offshore on Sunday. Would you like me to perform any experiment for you on the way?
@Brock McEwen: Thank you for your help in getting the word out. And I agree that it will be difficult to get more details about military radar data.
There was an interesting story written by Chris Pocock on the website AINOnline.
The contention that MH370 “turned back” over the South China Sea, crossed the Malaysian peninsula, turned again over Penang and headed over the Andaman Sea stems from the analysis of primary radar recordings from the ATC radars at the KUL ACC and at Kota Bahru on the east coast of Malaysia, as well as apparently the air defense radars operated by the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) south of Kota Bahru at Jerteh, and on Penang Island off the west coast. However, the Annex 13 report does not identify the military radars, continuing a pattern of withholding sensitive defense information made evident during government briefings at the time of the disappearance. Four days after MH370 disappeared, it became evident that the RMAF air defense system had failed to identify and track MH370 in real time, causing authorities to limit the search to the South China Sea until then.
Mr. Pocock is one of the few reporters that understands that in the FI, Malaysia has not met its disclosure obligations as required by Annex 13.
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2015-03-25/new-mh370-report-reveals-radar-procedural-failings
Mr. Pocock states: ” Four days after MH370 disappeared, it became evident that the RMAF air defense system had failed to identify and track MH370 in real time, causing authorities to limit the search to the South China Sea until then.”
This directly contradicts a statement by the then Malaysian MOT, Mr. Hishammuddin. I don’t even believe this is controversial.
It is clear that the RMAF tracked MH370 in real time .The only debatable matter is whether in fact they knew it was MH370, or if it was truly ‘unidentified’, as Mr. Hishammuddin claims (funny, however, that they knew quite a few characteristics about this “UFO”. In fact, that knew enough about it to classify it as a non-threat (friendly). As well, they knew it was from Malaysian FIR, says Mr. Hishammuddin. One wonders then, if what Mr. Hishammuddin says is true, how it possible that they didn’t know it was MM370?
Certainly they knew by the morning to mid-day hours. Therefore, one can safely presume they knew it was last seen flying NW (18:22) up the straight.
It is difficult, if next to impossible, to believe that a) they did not know it was MH370, and b) that it was indeed possibly in the SCS. The narrative as we have been fed is phony, and apparently Mr. Pocock has not yet fully grasped this, despite his otherwise commendable work.
I’m starting to believe this may not have been the black swan cascade I once believed. Too many oddities as I peer deeper.
Oleksandr,
Thank you on Panasonic.
Sharkcaver,
Question “all” media, I think not. The media has been horrible in this from the beginning and most not even worthy of questioning. Four Corners was one of the few who put out a televised documentary on this, and one of the better ones. I never said Four Corners was right, I said they “lead” us to believe and then compared that to what was in the FI and ATSB. One of the many questions compiled on the Duncan Steel site over a year ago was how does Four Corners know this about the IFE interference, because yes they offer NO explanation for their statement to date.
I agree about AES, fail/tampering seems to fit and seems to steer away from pilots if no formal logoff, but could be pilots pulling power to it deliberately either nefariously or non nefariously. Deliberate still could mean non nefarious.
In SwissAir it was that very frayed wiring where arcing and exposed wires caused the fire. There is a video of it somewhere on Youtube. How do we know there was not smoke in the cockpit on MH370? I never said playing with power circuits or data causes a fire, it may be a way to isolate one though going through some frantic check-list? You misinterpreted what I said.
It was I who brought the IFE into the forefront on Duncan Steel over a year ago and questioned if the PAX saw the moving map. I guess that all depends on what time the AES went out which no one can answer.
The identity of presumed suspects involved in the disappearance of MH370 has not been disclosed by the governments involved in the investigations.
Yet, in the immediate aftermath of the plane’s disappearance, despite the media’s extensive coverage of the 2 stolen passport holders who travelled on MH370, it is less well known that actually FOUR passengers were being investigated.
REMINDER: MH370 was code-sharing this flight with China Southern Airlines.
– FOUR PASSENGERS UNDER SUSPICION (08 Mar 2014)
“the identities of four people on board, including two using stolen passports, were being investigated. The four under suspicion had all bought their flight tickets through China Southern Airlines, said a security official.”
“Malaysia’s Transport Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said authorities were looking at four possible cases of suspect identities.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10685413/Malaysia-Airlines-crash-terror-fears-over-stolen-passports-used-on-missing-plane-MH370.html
– TWO OF THESE PASSENGERS FROM THE SAME EUROPEAN COUNTRY (10 March 2014):
Malaysian investigators, assisted by the FBI, are focusing efforts on the identities of four passengers in particular – two travellers using the stolen Austrian and Italian passports, and two passengers using European passports, possibly Ukrainian.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-cctv-footage-clue-to-mystery-pair-who-boarded-missing-airliner-with-stolen-passports-30077662.html
– AND LATER….ALL PASSENGERS CLEARED? (22 MARCH 2014)
‘Foreign intelligence agencies last week completed a second round of vetting of each of the passengers, including two Iranians travelling on false passports, and cleared them all. Only a Russian passenger – who is not believed to be suspect – apparently remained to be fully vetted, because authorities in Moscow have been preoccupied with the crisis in Crimea.
Ukraine finally vetted its two passengers earlier last week.’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10716866/Malaysia-Airlines-MH370-Finger-of-suspicion-points-at-pilots-as-Chinese-satellite-spots-debris.html
QUESTION: So what could have put the 2 Ukrainians on the suspects list THE DAY AFTER the plane disappeared?
It may have something to do with the fact that their tickets were booked through the China S.Airlines codeshare flight.
*IF* there were reservations on separate flights that fly during the same time period; multiple reservations from the same origin or destination on the same day; reservations with connections that depart before the arrival of the inbound flight; or improper cancelling and reservations of seats, all for the same passenger(s), then these actions may have been flagged in a report that is automatically generated on a daily basis.
COULD THIS BE WHY THE MALAYSIAN MINISTER HINTS AT THE IDENTITY OF THE SUSPECTS ON BBC ? (10 April 2014):
Question from BBC: ‘Many are now saying that the cost of finding MH370 may already be more than the cost of finding the AirFrance plane which cost about 160 million dollars. It seems like you may be hoping or you’ve been told that each country will pay their part in this global investigation..?
(without hesitation Malaysian Minister Hishammuddin Hussein replies) How much is Ukraine costing everybody? … how much has it been for Syria?.. how much has it cost (the middle east in dollars & lives). Here it is peanuts….”
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26969192
orianna,
How can we be sure RMAF was not shut down at that time and did not see it in real time?
Perhaps Mr. HH was just doing a “CYA” spin because it was too embarrassing to say they missed it, so saying they deemed it commercial and non-hostile covers them for not going up there to have a look or get it down or assist right at the time of the traversing.
If it was in real time, they let it slide. Just more of the obfuscating or saving face it seems. To me it still seems unclear if seen in real time or not.
Cheryl,
For the record, I never said that you said anything. I did however, pass comment on those direct quotes from your post in which you sought answers to. Maybe you would like to read again? I was not having a crack at you.
@CliffG, Fascinating, thanks, I hadn’t realized that the Ukrainians had been the subject of extra scrutiny early on.
@CliffG your last link hits; I think never saw it before, but body language of all the malaysians was really interesting all the time
@Cliff G,
Interesting stuff. In the week following MH370’s disappearance, there was a trove of information on the two Iranians. Pictures, CCTV stills, quotes from friends and relatives, detailed travel itineraries to and from KL, phone calls, Facebook posts. The two Ukranians? Nothing. Other than the strange report of a man claiming to be a relative of both men.
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/najibs-words-not-reassuring-say-families-of-mh370-passengers
@VictorI:
The thought may have already occurred to you, but if you consider Figure 3 “Flight path shown to the NOK on March 21, 2014” of your paper “Questions about the Radar Data for MH370” dated September 24, 2015 to be a “not-to-scale” visualisation of a verbal description, then the sharp turn after IGARI depicted in Figure 2 of the ATSB report from June 26, 2014 could actually be the track of MH370 crossing over itself, the 270 deg RH turn being just ouside the radar range.
@Victor – this is question 15 from your post on Duncan Steel. You seem to indicate that there were 2 aircraft when you ask about MH370 and the unidentified aircraft. Were there 2 aircraft on the same radar image? Or are you referring to mh370 as the unidentified aircraft?
15. The radar images presented to the public to date show no other traffic. What other traffic was in the vicinity of MH370 and the unidentified aircraft?
@CliffG
Interesting thought on ticketing with Southern China Airlines. I have lived in Shanghai full time for the past 8 years and travelled extensively throughout SE Asia. I am currently in US. Chinese airlines do not ask for a lot of inflormation from western passengers. Malaysia Air asks for quite a bit of information (see their website). Chinese airlines do not change ticket prices once they are set, unlike US ailines. So you can buy a ticket the day before for the same price as 2 months before. They also allow last minute changes at no charge. I would be very interested in knowing when those tickets were purchased and the ticketing history of the Ukrainian passengers. The background I had seen on the Ukrainians showed them to be very skilled.
Why on earth would the Iranians try to enter China with false passports? It would not end well unless they had someone on the inside.
@Gysbreght: Exactly. The sharp turn could be a loop that was “snipped”. That would also help with some of the timing offset I identified. Or perhaps there was no data captured between disappearance from SSR after IGARI and the re-appearance on Kota Bharu’s PSR and the entire turn as depicted with the sharp turn was a guess. Or perhaps the sharp turn was created by two aircraft with crossing tracks.
Malaysia has the answer to these questions and is deliberately withholding the raw radar data. In my mind, this has not received enough attention. That is why I created the list of 15 questions.
@Trip: We cannot be sure that the unidentified target that was captured after MH370 fell off SSR was indeed MH370. Even the Malaysians had trouble making that association, and the Thais have been careful in their wording to never make that assertion. We need to see the raw data, including identifying which radar sites captured which data, instead of blindly assuming that Malaysian statements are correct. I believe that collectively we have the technical skills to interpret the data.
The BBC interview ist interesting.
Hishammudin Hussein compares the MH370incidient to Ukraine and Syria.
“How much is Ukraine costing everybody?” he asked. “How much has it been for Syria and it’s still unfolding? How much does it cost the people of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Iraq? Not only in dollars and cents but in lives. Here it is peanuts.”
The costs are ‘lives’. The MH370 costs are “peanuts”.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26972045
Dennis,
“The only way to stand toe to toe with a superior intellect is to withhold information”.
Well said. I like it. Thanks.