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.
Lauren H/Oleksandr:
The RAT does not supply power to the AES. The AES requires 115VAC from the left main AC bus. But the APU can power the whole aircraft, and it comes online only a few seconds after the RAT deploys. It takes 02:40 for the AES to make its first logon transmission after power is restored to it.
Note that all this has been hashed out here and in numerous other places since June 2014. It was well explained in the ATSB June 26th and October 8th documents.
@George
not so fast… imagine that its better for all to discover something; but it could be insane too, you know
Has anyone else solved @GeorgeLucas’ riddle?
The Southern Indian Ocean is antipodal to North America. His hypothesised ditching point is antipodal to the geographic centre of those continental United States.
(my tweet)
also if you shift one letter from SIO it becomes IOS…so Apple must be involved
please
@Stevan
keep calm, it was only a moment of relief in middle of this long long journey; honestly, question is, if isnt better to stay silent and just wait for them, ya, my apologies
but – you know, along with U-turn, just these days, transcendece fairy-tale trailers started
– may be I am really only insane and know nothing finally, but dont think so, look around
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=93&v=QheoYw1BKJ4
@ JSK-……………very good…am proud of you….
@ Falken- sorry if i’m a little slow on the uptake….but could you “expound” on that a little….waiting on pins and needles…..we might just be on to something here….excuse me for a minute …gotta go find my blood pressure meds…
Returning to an unsolved problem from a few months ago.
From Factual Information: “The Mode S symbol of MH370 dropped off from radar display at 1720:36 UTC …”
Despite much speculation here and elsewhere, I don’t think anyone came up with a clear idea as to how that would happen. In particular, there was a gap of 37 seconds before the radar symbol for MH370 itself disappeared. I now have a possible explanation.
By way of backdrop, Mode S transponders of type used on MH370 are backwards compatible with older Mode A/C (a.k.a. ATCRBS) transponders. Normally, if a Mode S transponder is interrogated by a Mode S radar (a.k.a. sensor), it responds with Mode S format messages, while if it is interrogated by an older ATCRBS radar, it will responds with Mode A or C
messages as appropriate. What would cause a Mode S transponder to respond to a Mode S radar with a Mode A or C message?
The answer is given in the “Terrain and Traffic Collision Avoidance System Pilot’s Guide” from ACSS, 2008. Figure 3-2 shows a diagram of a typical Mode S transponder, which closely resembles the Bendix/King transponder of a B-777. Table 3-1 lists the operation mode for each setting of the Mode Selection Switch. For all modes other than STBY and ALTRPTGOFF, the transponder operates in all of Mode S, Mode C, and Mode A. I presume that, in these modes, Mode S messages would normally be sent. ALTRPTGOFF (Altitude reporting off), however is different – it only operates in Mode A (which send the 4-digit squawk identifier).
Thus, my conjecture is that someone tried turning off the transponder but turned the mode control switch only 3 positions left, leaving it in “ALT RPTG OFF” mode for about 30 seconds, causing the Mode S symbol to drop, before switching it to “STBY”, at which point the radar symbol also disappeared.
Let’s see if the URL survives mangling:
“http://uaecis.com/files/T2CAS/T2CAS Pilots Guide Rev4.pdf”
I see that Mr Chillit, the Magic Magician, and Creator of Curious Cartoon Graphics is at it again. This time he is making all sorts of wild accusations of errors in plotting the 7th arc. He doesn’t seem to appreciate that the location of the 7th arc depends on whether the measurement assumes an aircraft altitude of 35,000ft, or whether the assumption is sea level. Of course there is a difference…of about 16Km…precisely the difference he claims exists between the JACC arc and that used by the IG. In fact there is no error here. I’m sure both the JACC and the IG know precisely which arc they are talking about, but clearly Mr Chillit doesn’t.
Oh, there is more…he is now wanting a step-by-step”how to” to figure out how to interpret the BFO numbers. Well Mr Chillit, a number of very detailed spreadsheets have been published over the last year or more illustrating exactly how these calculations are done. Some are able to be downloaded from Duncan Steel’s website.
Feel free to download and have a play yourself Mr Chillit, as others have done. There is nothing secret, but it is not as simple as plugging numbers into a magic formula. But, if you are struggling to understand the BTO calculations then I fear that the BFO interpretation may be beyond your mathematical capabilities.
Please stop the wild and completely inaccurate accusations. These just continue to illustrate your complete ignorance of the mathematics.
@sk999, That’s a very plausible conjecture, thanks for that. In the timing of events at this point in the flight–the shut-off of ADS-B and the transponder about one minute after “Good Night, Malaysia 370” and just six seconds after IGARI, and the shutdown of the AES in the same time frame–provide compelling evidence that someone was attempting to steal the plane as stealthily as possible.
This greatly reduces the range of possible scenarios.
@Jeffwise
Agreed.
If we go on from rhere, the next logical question would be: Was it an
– inside job?
– outside job?
– outside job with inside help?
– outside job with forced inside help?
What hints are present for either one?
@sk999 Thanks for showing a way that the transponder switching was done intentionally rather than through a malfunction. It appears that someone was awake and acted intentionally.
This means that the plane was deliberately flown outside of radar detection until they were in open water, when it was switched back on. A 7 hour suicide always seemed implausible.
Intent implies motive. I have mentioned Ibrahim’s imprisoment that same day as one possibility. Zaharie could have demanded Ibrahim’s release in exchange for the plane. I know Zaharie’s wife said he didn’t go to court that day but he still had an active interest in the party. His wife didn’t appear to be active in the party, so he may not have wanted to have her involved in his plan. There is also the possibility of Uighur involvement. Any other motives?
Either there were a dozen involved in the conspiracy or one pilot. If it was a conspiracy we will hear about it eventually. The co-pilot could have been subdued (mumbling and static in the background on call to plane). He flew slow and low while they stalled for time on the ground. The flaperon still has more to tell us.
China and Malaysia are both very sensitive to outside interference. China being so quiet is very suspicious. They wouldn’t remain quiet without a reason.
@Retired F4, I think that for many people the simplest and most logical assumption is that Zaharie was the culprit, with Fariq a distant second. After all, how could an outsider break through the door and take over the cockpit in just a minute, without the pilots sending out a “hijack” squawk? The problem with the Zaharie/Fariq scenario is that when you have a plane, you don’t need to steal a plane. What I mean is, if you’re Zaharie and you want to commit suicide, you don’t have to cook up an elaborate scheme to sneak away. Just auger it in. If you want to disappear and commit suicide, just go dark at IGARI and fly out over the Pacific. If you want to force the Malaysian government’s hand with a ransom scenario, you don’t need to disappear at all, since presumably you’re just going to call them up and make your demands.
For me, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that someone other than the pilots wanted to sneak away with a plane and take it in a specfic direction–namely to the west.
@jeff
“@sk999, That’s a very plausible conjecture, thanks for that. In the timing of events at this point in the flight–the shut-off of ADS-B and the transponder about one minute after “Good Night, Malaysia 370″ and just six seconds after IGARI, and the shutdown of the AES in the same time frame–provide compelling evidence that someone was attempting to steal the plane as stealthily as possible.
This greatly reduces the range of possible scenarios.”
you don’t find plausible that he just wanted to fly over Malaysia unchallenged, mock the government and land in a 3rd country?
@StevanG, It seems to me that the motive of secrecy and stealth is directly contradictory to a motive of public shaming of the government. To put it another way: If Zaharie’s idea was to make a statement, I think he would have made a statement.
Actions do not speak louder than words when the actions are unknown.
@Jeffwise
For me, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that someone other than the pilots wanted to sneak away with a plane and take it in a specfic direction–namely to the west.
Again agreed, with some aditional thoughts. It is hard to believe that in an inside job the crew acted together. They had been different personalities to the point, that they shared nothing in common. How could they act together in such a sneak away and to what reason? So we would have to assume, that a pure inside job was the deed of one of the pilots against the will of the other one. That on the other hand would have been an early pointer for the rest of the crew and finally to the passengers that something was going badly wrong. Why did nobody pick up on the idea to use the portable ELT over a period of more than 6 hours? Would that point to some help from somebody in the cabin?
The access on ground to a 777 for an complete or partial outside job does not look that difficult. The two external access hatches to the EE-bay (in front and aft of the nosegear) seem to be unsecured in the same way like the hatch from the EE- bay to the cabin. So the only protection against an unauthorized intruder to the heart of the aircraft (the EE-bay with access to the cabin and forward cargo hold) is the airfields perimeter defence and about 2.80 meters height from ground to the hatch.
I’m not saying it was like that though, and my information concerning the ease of access might be wrong, but worth looking into it.
@Jeffwise
When you were considering various scenarios for possible flights to Kazakhstan – I believe most of these involved three Russian hijackers sitting in the cabin which then gained access to the EE bay around 17:15.
This always seemed to me, to be very difficult for them to pull off. The crew would alert the pilots or the pilots would see the EE bay hatch light access status light change and hopefully issue a squawk in time.
What if sophisticated Russian hijackers gained access to the EE Bay well before MH370 departed ?
They could have be disguised as cabin maintenance people,or could have breached the airport security fences, or could have been hiding on a preceding flight.
Where did MH370 arrive from ?
How long was it waiting at Kuala Lumpur ?
RetiredF4 – worth remembering that in SE Asia there are widespread Islamist networks in the Armed services, police forces, public services, everywhere really. Both Indonesian and Malaysian govts are very aware of it so access to the plane through any such agencies is a possibility. At least two Indon pilots are thought to have joined IS – one a 737 pilot. In that KL aviation scene there would be some bad elements.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/indonesian-pilot-radicalised-by-islamic-state-posed-in-front-of-opera-house-20150708-gi87iv.html
Could the disappearance of MH370 have been orchestrated by NON-STATE actors with a stake in the expansion project of the EU?
While Germany is known as the economic engine of Europe, France has considered itself from the time of Napoleon as the political head of Continental Europe. More recently, France has been leading the EU project, including the expansion of the EU all the way to the borders of Russia. But while the expansion of the EU couldn’t come fast enough for Washington, the French and the Germans have been much more cautious in their approach because the consequences are much greater for them than for the US.
The expansion of the EU into Ukraine was to be done step by step, and with a wary eye on Russia. This slow and deliberate process was sidestepped when the EU-Ukraine economic treaty was abruptly rejected by the pro-Russian govt. in Kiev. Angry pro-Western Ukrainian protestors, supported by the US, toppled the pro-Russian govt. and installed a pro-Western govt. in Kiev.
These actions by the pro-Western Ukrainians were perceived as a threat to the security and identity of the ethnic Russians who make up the eastern part of Ukraine. And Russia perceived the threat of NATO expansion right up to it’s borders.
So Russia reacted by annexing Crimea from Ukraine. And with Russian support, the ethnic Russians of eastern Ukraine declared themselves to be independant republics.
These secessionist, independant republics would fall under the category of NON-STATE actors. And individual Russians who supported their diaspora Russians in Ukraine may also be categorised as NON-STATE actors.
Could the disappearance of MH370 have been orchestrated by NON-STATE actors to achieve 4 goals which are:
– distract the world’s attention from Crimea,
– relieve public pressure on Washington to react to the Ukraine crisis for long enough to let Russia consolidate gains,
– demonstrate willingness to use ‘outside the box’ tactics that serve as a warning,
– and have plausible deniability of responsiblity
By making MH370 disappear and distracting the world’s attention, were NON-STATE actors trying to acheive the Geopolitical aims of their masters?
Thus, when France launched an investigation into the disappearance of MH370 independantly of the Malaysians, it may not only have been looking out for the interests of four of it’s own citizens who disappeared. Could it also been looking out for the interests, and future of Europe?
@jeffwise, RetiredF4
Assorted thoughts/questions assuming the radar data are correct:
1. No doubt Zaharie had the expertise to fly the plane (dark) in that manner up to and including westward of the Malacca Strait but did Fariq have that expertise?
2. Complete conjecture but maybe Zaharie was flying the plane in the first hour or 2 under duress from hijacker(s) or otherwise perhaps hijackers with a lot off flying expertise in a 777 themselves (…very unlikely I should think)
3. The strangest thing known so far about the passengers/cargo is the mangosteens IMO, so that might be something far less innocuous.
4. Perhaps a hijacking was foiled (by whom?) somewhere NW of the Malacca Strait, but how to explain the mysterious reboot? I think we have covered all these questions before (over and over) but I will just list them.
a) if flying westwards to wherever… could it not continue “dark” or was there a necessity to bring some vital systems back online?
b) is the ISAT data correct?
c) was there a planned/forced landing?
d) assuming the passengers and other crew had not survived… was the plane then flown to fuel exhaustion with a gentle as possible ditching so the pilot could perhaps be rescued?
AM2/All – we keep seeing recycled the idea that Fariq was some sort of a beginner? He was a trained pilot who is able to take charge of things if need be. The young men flying our combat aircraft are about his age – are they capable of flying the same route all by themselves? The plane didn’t do anything exceptional apart from divert without permission. Is this right?
@CliffG, Highly, highly interesting. As it happens I spent some time this past weekend with a journalist who has spent a lot of time in Central Asia and is something of an expert on the former Soviet Union. I told him about my spoof idea and he spent a good deal of time pondering it, then said that he didn’t think that the order to do such a thing would come from Putin, but that power in Russia is more decentralized than people realize, and that some faction might have carried it out as an attempt to curry favor with the central administration; he drew the analogy of the murder of Boris Nemtsov, the opposition journalist murdered in Red Square allegedly by a Chechen mafia boss. “Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?” The downing of MH17, then, might have been an attempt my another faction to jump on the bandwagon.
It seems to me that this is much the same idea that you’ve articulated so well.
I’m keeping my fingers crossed that next month’s Dutch report on MH17 will shed some light.
@AM2, Indeed, the reboot poses a problem to any “unsuccessful hijack” scenario: it seems fairly clear that someone intentionally restored the plane’s ability to communicate with the outside world, yet did not use it. And the failure of the SIO seabed search strongly implies that someone was conscious and at the controls until the end. Whatever happened those last six hours, then, appears to have been the result of an ongoing intentionality.
Rendezvous with a getaway vessel may sound far-fetched, but far-fetched is all we’ve got anymore.
@Matty
OK- thanks for your input that Fariq would have been well capable. You said “The plane didn’t do anything exceptional apart from divert without permission.”, it appears that the route in the early period was carefully chosen to avoid detection and whether the plane was flown about like a fighter jet (as earlier reported) is probably anyone’s guess.
@AM2, Jeff Wise,
The reboot, then ghost flight, in an unsuccessful hijack scenario could be explained by booby-trapping the comms, a sort of insurance by perps against being found out in case of loosing control.
The hijacking could have been planned to have no comms at all. In that case, an attempt to restore comms would only happen, if they’d lost control and the controlling party trying to communicate the hijack to authorities.
From a perp’s point of view, the mission had to end in catastrophy to wipe out any evidence.
Cheers,
Will
the difference between fiction and reality is that fiction must be plausible (attributed to Mark Twain). A lot of the mh370 story (and mh17) would not seem out of place in a SPECTRE caper. Theft of aircraft with secret demand for some unknown ransom (Thunderball) or return of something. When ransom or return is not forthcoming, 2nd aircraft is attacked to demonstrate resolve.This all seems to have a lot to do with Malaysia, Malaysia Airlines, and the Malaysian government.
In most detective stories, someone asks cui bono (to whose good, who benefits). Perhaps instead of (or in addition to) following the airplane, some enterprising reporter should start looking at the money trails.
Just a thought.
P.s. Not saying there is a mh370 and mh17 connection. Just that if it appeared in fiction, it would not be considered implausible.
Could Zaharie or Fariq have done all of this by himself? In other words could 1 person have done this? This would mean one pilot was able to incapacitate the other. If not a pilot, how many others would it take? We know the plane continued to report engine data for 7 hours. To me it seems that someone was waiting for something. Jeff’s scenario of Kazahkstan, or other landing still works if we consider that the flaperon was planted. And finally, could mh370 and mh 17 be connected in any way? Mention above of Crimea brings up the possibility. Could mh 17 be payback for a plan gone wrong?
From the beginning, it was highly suspicious that the American & Western media jumped all over the story of a suddenly missing airliner on the other side of the world in Asia, when the dominating headlines just prior to that event were about Russia’s recent annexation of Crimea. The missing MH370 received wall to wall coverage on US TV, and yet, there were very few Westerners on board that plane. Instead, the passengers were mostly Chinese, which evokes in the mind of the average US viewer the exotic-orient, the geographic as well as the emotional distance from the actual event.
The disappearance of a large aircraft travelling between 2 well known destinations along a predefined route saturated with radar and satellite coverage was unusual, but it was rational to assume that the plane would turn up soon enough, either in one piece with all passengers safe, or found to have crashed with no survivors.
But when no debris could be found, the lack of information, coupled with memories of the 9/11 attacks triggers feelings of unresolved tension in the minds of the US viewers.
The ‘missing-ness’ was played up by the US media to it’s maximum effect, resulting in the reprioritizing in the minds of the TV viewers of what the significant issues of the day should be.
Suddenly Russia and Ukraine became less important when there was a missing aircraft ‘out there’ somewhere.
All this begs the question, why would the US media be complicit in this?
And how did the perpetrators and their principals know that this was how the media would react?
The US media went along with this because Russia invading Ukraine was not a US issue, but an embarrassing foreign issue which needed to go away in a hurry, the same way that it suddenly thrust itself onto the world stage. It was a foreign issue which threatened and embarassed the world-view and global order that the liberal elites of US and Europe have constructed for themselves and their populations. The populations were told that Russia is no longer a Cold War existential threat because the West won the Cold War, and Russia was the loser. But Russia upended the facade that Liberal Democracies had won the day by clamping down on democracy within it’s borders after it’s own brief flirtation with it, even as the EU raced to expand and absorb East European countries with promises of prosperity, countries which were formerly under the Russian boot, and which could possibly fall under it again. And China had shown the world that prosperity was not exclusive to democracies. Furthermore, in a post colonial world, the threat of invasions was almost anachronistic. The mere hint of a US response was sufficient to keep most countries within their borders, even as Iraq found out the hard way in Kuwait. But the US had embarrased itself with the 2003 invasion of Iraq under false pretenses. So Russia too was now actively asserting itself outside it’s borders in Ukraine, but without any pretenses, and the US could only stare and seethe in silence. In short, Russia was acting counter to all the narratives that the liberal elites and their media was putting forth, and embarrassing them. It was in the US media’s interest to make Russia look bad, but making Russia look unbeatable was definitely not in their interest, and a Russia that invades and annexes part of another country sure looked unbeatable. So the media was eager to change the top story, and do it quick.
Now coming back to MH370, how did the perps know that the media was going to react this way? The media could have chosen to play this as a second story, and kept the spotlight on Russia with the main headlines, but that didn’t happen. So unless the perpetrators were in cahoots with the US media, the only plausible answer could be that the media was primed to react in a specific way in certain situations, and the perpetrators or their principals knew about this. To obtain this level of insight and confirmation of the potential reaction of the US media to a ‘black swan’ event like the MH370 disappearance during the Ukraine crisis would require access to the highest echelons of the US media. The level of media sophistication or political clout required to access those circles in the US media are only matched by the equally sophisticated technical means used to divert the MH370. It could be argued that the perps who actually carried out the disappearance of MH370 were NON-STATE actors following simple technical instructions. But the planning requires access to Boeing 777’s, and comprehensive knowledge in various areas including electronics, engineering, international relations, and law to mention just a few, and it would be naive to believe that all this was planned by NON-STATE actors in East Ukraine alone.
When looking at the known data, assuming they are correct, we have a change of flight behaviour somewhere after last radar contact and assumed final turn south. Imho there was no conclusive explanation brought forward for this change of flight behaviour and flight path other than spoof of data or the hijacking gone wrong under a hijacking scenario.
What about the possibility that the goal of the hijacking was completed at that time (whatever that goal was) and the rest of the flight served the purpose to let the evidence disappear? The EE-bay doors could be used for departing the plane by chute under autopilot mode and reduced speed and altitude. Kates sighting comes to mind, a vivid description of an yet unexplained sighting of an aircraft. For the further evaluation of the ISAT data there has then to be considered an unpressurized and unheated aircraft, although I do not know wether that would influence the accuracy of those datas.
@Jeff
“@StevanG, It seems to me that the motive of secrecy and stealth is directly contradictory to a motive of public shaming of the government. To put it another way: If Zaharie’s idea was to make a statement, I think he would have made a statement.
Actions do not speak louder than words when the actions are unknown.”
he didn’t succeed to land and he didn’t want to disclose his location before landing, nothing unusual I think?
takeoff from KL -> send copilot out -> turn around IGARI -> turn off comms transponder & ACARS -> fly along FIRs -> land on an island in IO -> make the statement
seems like a plausible plan that went wrong near the end
@RetiredF4, @StevanG, @MuOne: Both the hijack-went-wrong and bailed-out-hijackers scenarios necessarily leave us with a plane that is a ghost ship during the final hours. Other widely considered scenarios, such as hypoxia and fire, also end with a ghost ship.
The large number of plausible scenarios that reply on a ghost-ship end game is, I think, the primary reason that the ATSB and the IG were so committed to the original 60,000 sq km search area. Simply put, if MH370 had ended up as a ghost ship, its flight would have terminated in this area and its wreckage would have been found by now. That fact that is hasn’t allows us to greatly narrow the range of possible scenarios. (BTW achieving this cost the Australian taxpayer upwards of $100 million and counting, so they have my gratitude.) Unfortunately, the possibilities that remain are all rather odd.
@CliffG, Having been inside the belly of the media beast as all this was going down, I can offer a personal perspective. As you may know, I started going on CNN within a week of MH370s disappearance, and served as on-air “Aviation Analyst” for several months. The decision to go all-in on MH370 coverage was a decision by the network’s head, Jeff Zucker. Zucker had inherited a network that had lost its way and was slipping in the ratings, getting routinely pummeled by Fox News. Zucker needed to boost ratings and capture the zeitgeist, and he clearly saw MH370 as a way to do that. Nobody jumped on the story as whole-heartedly as CNN. Indeed the network receieved a fair bit of mockery for its obsessiveness, not least by Jon Stewart. But CNN’s singlemindedness was not merely the result of Zucker’s monomania. Based on what producers told me, my understanding is that several times the network started to pull back from the story, only to find its ratings falling. In other words, the public wanted the story in a way that no one anticipated, even Zucker. That’s why they kept hammering at it for months: ratings.
I’ve posited myself that the motive for MH370 might have been to distract the world public from Crimea. It certainly had that effect, though probably more so in some countries that others. The thing to remember, though, is that it’s famously difficult to anticipate what is going to capture the public’s attention (cf. William Goldman’s oft-quoted line about Hollywood: “Nobody knows anything.”) So I don’t think it’s plausible that the over-the-top coverage of MH370 was the result of any kind of liberal elite conspiracy; rather, I see it as a gambit that played out far more successfully than the perps could have imagined.
I agree with your final point: I don’t think that, if MH370 was taken as part of a Russian operation, its perps could have just come from within eastern Ukraine. Whoever did it would have had to have had access not only to special forces but to state-level satellite and aeronautical resources.
@jeffwise
The $100m investment by the Australian government is I believe a forecast and legitimate investment regardless of MH370. Painful as it might be to bring that $100m investment forward there is a secondary benefit of appearing to support partner nations in a time of need. Win win!
Probably off topic: We have a new Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, here in Australia. When the dust clears we may see some variation to the policy re: the search for MH370.
correction: Malcolm Turnbull is now Prime Minister designate, after a leadership vote.
@Jeff
” Both the hijack-went-wrong and bailed-out-hijackers scenarios necessarily leave us with a plane that is a ghost ship during the final hours.”
nope, hijack-went-wrong didn’t have to end with ghost ship
I believe the plane ditched under very strange circumstances and possibly someone took over controls from Zaharie
why no comms I don’t know, maybe they were switched off in E/E bay and they realised it when it was too late
no life rafts could be explained by sinking very fast
@RetiredF4, All
Your bailed-out and ghost-ship hypothesis is very interesting.
What is the maximum altitude and speed that the bail-out could occur at (with sophisticated equipment) ? Would 30,000 ft, 360 knots be possible ?
For the (~5 hour) ghost-ship part would the plane necessarily need to be in an AP mode ?
Or, could it simply be in some constant throttle mode and stay in the air for 5 hours ?
(The speed, direction, and altitude would vary throughout the 5 hours. Eventually it would lose altitude and crash with/without fuel.)
For the AP mode, if there was a westerly wind (40 knots from 240 deg), and without human input – could it fly in a ‘straight’ line for 5 hours to 38S 86 E ?
@RetiredF4: The possibility of an exit around Aceh, North Sumatra, via the E/E bay is a scenario that I and others have considered. The lights on the water that Kate Tee saw could have been marine vessels for recovering the jumper. I find Shah’s hobby of paragliding also intriguing as he might have had the skills to pull this off.
Even at relatively low speeds (< 250 knots), I don't know whether it would be possible to descend out the aircraft via the E/E door, even with the hydraulic ladder kit installed. I don't think it would have been possible to extend the flaps for flying at slower speeds because the retraction of the flaps requires manual intervention.
After a slow and low excursion to facilitate the jump, a path following BEDAX-SouthPole would match the BTO and BFO data.
That would also mean the aircraft should be found near the 7th arc at around 37.24S latitude. Although this latitude has not been searched as thoroughly as latitudes further south, to date there are no signs of the aircraft in this vicinity.
This seems like a lot of work for a distraction. A simple explosive device andywhere else in the world could have had the same effect. With no credit and no plane, something went wrong in any possible scenario. What do we really know? Motive is the key.
Hijacking is not a motive in and of itself. If someone wants to claim hijacking, the reason for hijacking needs to be articulated. So far no has identified anyone or anything on the plane worth taking. The plane itself can be purchased online via any number of aircraft brokers.
Hijacking makes absolutely no sense.
Correction: In my last post I referred to a latitude of 37.24S. It should have been 34.24S.
@all
The pattern of actions after 0:21
In a quite chilling documentary of the disappearance of flight MH370 , the german tv news outlet n-tv cast a big shadow on the iniquitous “excuses” of MAS HQ and many Trolls about the plain wrong information given to HCM ATC by MAS HQ and about the entirely inacceptable and unwarranted delay of declaration of emergency and SAR after the loss of all comms after IGARI. Experienced professionals confirmed that this inactivity would never happen in the first place and also should never take so long.
After HCM ATC was not able to establish any communication with MH370 he wasted much time -20 min- before he called MAS HQ. And MAS gave him plain wrong positional data. There is no explanation for these facts until today. And the only conclusion to this end can be, that there was outside assistance for the disappearance and a unforgivable delay for any search efforts and reactions by the malaysian military.
The former admiral in command of the malaysian navy confirmed, that there definitely and indusputable the duty for the RMAF to intercept the rogue plane seen on the radar screens.
This documentary proved all the Trols wrong, who here and on DS-Blog overwhelmed us with the fairy tales of malaysian airforce hardly being able to find the switch for turning their radar on, or the dumb story of MAS HQ letting an intern answer calls from ATC and give projections.
The attitude of many people towards these known facts feels, as if they are trying to bend and twist all known rules in effect, to deflect from the conclusion, that there was a seemingly major operation ongoing.
The fact, that the plane ended somewhere in the indian ocean does not mean, that the spoof theories were wrong. E.g. The plane could just have circled west of Sumatra and sent spoofed data to the satellite until to the end, or maybe it spent its fuel on a low and slow route direction to Djakarta etc.
I go with Sir Clarke here: The plane was taken and someone knows more, than is published. Since the tensions between china and other asian states like japan or vietnam became very serious just on the height of the crimea crisis, politics might indeed be involved here. China is boycotting the tripartite meetings over MH370. This is indeed not just a petty trifle. ITs an ongoing game, that can end up in a wargame.
FYI: starting Sept.12, I think Mike Chillit moved the position of the 7th Arc he plots on all his detailed “search progress” plots (for which, it must be said, he deserves tremendous credit for troubling to compile).
I think the version he abandoned was a few (3-5?) km inside of the ATSB/ISAT/IG Arc7 @FL(0), which I think is itself best represented on his charts by an imaginary arc passing through his plotted points labeled “Exner” and “Cole”.
I think the arc he switched TO is a reasonably accurate version of Arc7 @FL(350).
https://twitter.com/MikeChillit/status/642747796819460096
I say “think” each time because Mr. Chillit…
– never even MENTIONS the arc’s altitude (required for proper plotting),
– calls its non-circularity a suspicious distortion instead of a natural result of Earth’s non-sphericality, and
– has frequently and fundamentally misinterpreted the signal data in general
…so divination of intent is a tricky business.
I only draw attention to the sudden change in apparent coverage symmetry (inside vs outside arc7 @FL(0)) to ensure serious analysts don’t misattribute it to recent search activity. Inside the arc, actual progress remains curiously slow, and cumulative coverage curiously poor – as Richard Cole’s excellent tweets document.
Even though Mr. Chillit “blocked” me on Twitter months ago for being too “IG-like”, I would describe his signal data analysis much more tactfully had I not just gone back and read some of the slander he has hurled at IG members. I disagree frequently with the IG, but continue to salute their signal data acumen in particular, and their professionalism in general.
Mr. Chillit: thank you very much for deeming me too “IG-like”. I take it as a high compliment.
@Victorl
Your question was
I don’t think it would have been possible to extend the flaps for flying at slower speeds because the retraction of the flaps requires manual intervention.
From the B777 FCOM:
In the primary mode, the flap load relief system protects the flaps from excessive air loads. If flap airspeed placard limits are exceeded with the flaps in the 15 through 30 positions, LOAD RELIEF is displayed and the flaps automatically retract to a position appropriate to the airspeed. Load relief bretraction is limited to flaps 5. When airspeed is reduced, the flaps automatically re-extend as airspeed allows. Re-extension is limited to the commanded flap position.
If a flap overspeed exists, load relief prevents flap extension beyond the 5, 15, 20, or 25 positions until airspeed is sufficiently reduced. Flap load relief is
available only in the primary mode. The EICAS flap display indicates an intransit flap condition and shows actual flap position. The flap lever does not move during flap load relief operation. Load relief for slats is not required in the primary mode.
So yes, imho a bail out would be with flaps at low speed and why not jumping at 10.000′? Above O2 would be required.
@RetiredF4: That is very useful information. Thank you.
Flap Limit Placard, Flaps extended speed limits. (FCOM 9.10.9)
FLAP LIMIT
1 – 255K
5 – 235K
15 – 215K
20 – 195K
25 – 185K
30 – 170K
Brock McEwen:
TNX for the kind words for the IG.
I looked at Kenedy/Chillit’s latest map:
https://twitter.com/MikeChillit/status/642747796819460096
It is clear he deliberately (or ignorantly?) plotted the IG surface arc (arc assuming an altitude of 0 feet) and the ATSB 35K arc (arc assuming an altitude of 35,000 feet) in an attempt to show they do not agree. These 2 arcs are approximately 5NM different. In fact, the IG 35K arc and ASTB 35K arc are within meters. Chillit knows this, or should know this. He also incorrectly labels the inner arc the “Mike Exner ARC”; it was computed by me using Barry Martin’s spreadsheet, developed in collaboration with over a dozen IG people. He knows that too, but has tried to target me personally in many attacks, thus his choice of labels. Barry’s spreadsheet and the arcs I derived from it have been in the public domain for many months and validated by many independent researchers.
fwiw, the D B Cooper bailout parameters were 160kts indicated, 10000ft, flaps30, gear down and locked, air stairs down. This configuration was used by the CIA diluting the Vietnam War for 727 jump insertions.
the mh370 parameters seem too high to be safe to me.