After a Boeing 737 operating as Flydubai Flight 981 crashed in the Russian city of Rostov-on-Don Saturday, preliminary accounts suggested that the plane had clipped a wing or struck the ground with its tail while attempting to land in stormy weather. Indeed, in a story published later that day, RT.com quoted Rostov region governor Vasily Golubev as saying, “The plane was descending and then suddenly dived down. Experts say this was an air pocket that dragged the plane to the left of the runway center. And the plane debris were scattered to the left as well.” Obviously, there is no such thing as an “air pocket.” But it makes intuitive sense that a plane attempting to land in high, gusty winds might succumb to shear at low altitude and low airspeed as it nears touchdown. But this, it appears, is not what happened at all. Frequent contributor Victor Iannello has created a graphic based on ADS-B data transmitted by the plane during its final moments. What it shows is that the plane had descended to land, then aborted the landing and climbed, accelerating as it went. It had already gained 3000 feet altitude and reached a speed of 200 knots when it suddenly plummeted from the sky. Here’s the data in graph form:
This security-camera footage offers a visual sense of what happened:
Mar19 #Rostov, #footage of FZ981 crash, view from Aleksandrovka micro-ds @Eisenhoden pic.twitter.com/TqIdvOmMys
— English Lugansk (@loogunda) March 21, 2016
What happened? Authorities on the scene have found the black boxes and hopefully will have answers soon. For the time being, some have speculated that the plane encountered severe windshear or a microburst, causing it to stall and plummet. But the plane’s descent was nose-down at high speed, so the pilot should have been able to at least attempt to pull up. Personally, I’m reminded of AA587, which crashed in 2001 on takeoff from Long Island after the pilot flying applied to much rudder after encountering wake turbulence from the plane ahead of him on climbout, causing the vertical stabilizer to rip off; the plane dived nearly vertically into the ground. If something similar happened here, parts of the tail should be found at some distance from the main wreckage. Another case that may offer parallels was Kenya Airways Flight 507, which crashed in 2007 while on climbout in bad weather. The pilot lost situational awareness while the autopilot was only partially engaged, the plane entered into an increasingly steep bank, and plunged into the ground. What’s different in the present case is that the plane impacted right on the runway it had been trying to climb away from, implying that it stayed on the same heading the whole time. (That is to say, it hadn’t gone into a roll.) Another unusual aspect of the case was the fact that the pilots had been holding for two hours before making a second landing attempt. I asked Phil Derner, an aircraft dispatcher and aviation expert, for his take. He replied:
For me, as a dispatcher, 1 hour is my max to let an aircraft of mine hold. It’s just a waste of gas; might as well divert and wait for conditions to improve. Shit, even fitting an additional 2 hours of holding fuel to a flight is tough as it is, and then to burn it away in a hold? Also, I only let my flights sit in a holding pattern if I think they WILL get it. If conditions don’t look to be improving right away, I won’t even have them hold…I divert and would rather have them wait it out on the ground. It saves gas, and is safer on the ground. But then again, I don’t know all of the conditions they were facing, what conditions were at their alternate airports, etc. There are so many variables and we just don’t have a lot of info, so it’s tough to determine or judge. But 2 hours….damn.
Meanwhile, on an unrelated topic, I might as well put up a picture of the latest piece of aircraft debris, this one found on a beach in South Africa. Not many details forthcoming yet, but it’s worth noting that MH370 was equipped with two Rolls-Royce Trent 800 engines. 
A quick glance at there not-very-high-res images suggests that the piece is roughly similar in appearance to the two pieces recently found in Mozambique, though perhaps somewhat more discolored/weathered. Apparently the piece is on its way to Malaysia.
UPDATE: Here’s another picture that @Susie provided a link to in the comments section:
Brian,
Re: “All ELTs operate by “satellite”.”
This appears to conflict with FI, or I misunderstand something.
Re: “Today the ELTs transmit data bursts on 406 Mhz.”
I mean what is allowable deviation from 406 MHz?
@victor
Science does not exist in a vacuum. If were to ask one of my group leaders why his group was doing something, and replied that while he cannot articulate a reason, he is confident a reason exists, it is unlikely I would find that answer acceptable.
The IG’s steadfast refusal to include motive or causality in their scenarios is a huge flaw. Frankly, I don’t pay much attention to spreadsheets anymore.
Brian, RetiredF4,
FYI. Citation from FI, p.32:
“The slide raft mounted ELT will only be available when the slide rafts at doors 1 Left or 4 Right are deployed. The ELT transmission is not satellite enabled. The transmission signal is on 121.5 MHz and 243 MHz which may be monitored with air, sea and
ground-based receivers.”
This contradict to your statements. Am I missing something?
@Paul Smithon
Talking about radar after the transponder switch only primary radar could detect MH370. Civilian primary radars are used for short range terminal control, to a range of max 60NM.
Military primary radar is used for area surveilance up to 200 NM.
Effective detection range of primary radars is limited besides environmental factors mainly by the position of the antenna and the altitude of the target. Looking at pictures with the maximum range of the radar type does not help there. Some information about max range can be found in the factual information starting at Page 2.
Civil ATC will only use secondary radar, the primary radar being a backup and the returns blanked out in order to declutter the scope.
Primary radar will not operate at max power output / max range all the time, but work with a signal strength to achieve the best result witin the primary area of responsibility and not at its greatest achievable range.
Military primary radar will not work 24/7 in peace time conditions. Equipment has to be serviced, personell has to get rest time. If there is no military traffic scheduled military radars might not be manned or only limited manned., or even switched off. If there is no threat expected, there is no need to waste man and equipment hours. Military operations have to follow some economical reasoning like other business have to, not to the same extreme though.
This applies for all countries except with active or impending hostilities present or countries with sensitive borders. None of that applies to Malaysia in the year 2014.
It is therefore reasonable, that there is no more usefull radar material available then the published one.
@Oleksandr,
no, you are right. I did not specify the failed transmission to SARSAT to the ELT’s of the rafts, but to the existing portable ELT in the forward cabin. I was not clear about that though. But a signal on the commonly monitored Emergency frequency UHF 243.0 or VHF 121.5 would be heard by air and maritime traffic within some time frame and distance. It is an unmistakenly distinguished signal.
@Retired F4
Re my previous post; I was referring of course to the I.G. in my first para. They are an example of what happens when you take a stance based on apparently well-meaning but misplaced, irrational emotion instead of factual evidence, and then compound it to the n’th degree with confirmation bias.
@Oleksandr – in regards to your particular response to ROB at 3:45…”..why would he need to fly as far as possible ? as far as possible from what…? ?” i would ( most respectively ) like that to read….” as far as possible to what…? ?
@Rob
I knew that you could not adress myself, I have stepped back from my favorite theory some time ago. There is no sense to run further forward after hitting a wall. You seem to running ahead with your theory the same way, while accusing the IG of doing the same.
Concerning the other part we are nobviously not in agreemnent. It is hard to give up a job you love, but pilots are prepared for it if it does not come due to health issues or due to be phased out by some arm chair decision. This fate hits all other working people some day, I know of no statistic that they are prone to become mass murderers.
I agree that being a pilot has changed to be an job like any other one, at least that’s what the bean counters intend to make it in order to pay less money with more and more work hours. We could ask Andreas L. of German wings how happy he was with that development, how desillusioned he got. Unfortunately he and his passengers are no longer with us.
Sha Zahaire was not effected by this change, like the pilots of his generation. He had no reason to turn against his company and against his passengers and crew. He would have had all possibilities to make an political statement without harming those people and their relatives while achiving nothing at all.
@Oleksandr,
Yes, you are correct. The slide raft ELTs apparently transmit only on 121.5 and 243 Mhz. Previously [up until about 5 years ago] 121.5 was also monitored by satellite, but that is no longer the case. So 121.5 and 243 are used primarily by search crews/aircraft looking for survivors.
i meant ( most respectfully )
@Retired F4. Thanks for reminders on PSR range. My assertions on what was detectable by which radar takes into account primary detection range inclusive of possible terrain masking. The assertions that the aircraft was detectable (for extended periods of time and often at quite close range) still stand.
In my book, any decent hypothesis comes with predictions that ought to follow if it were true (cf Higgs boson…). The “mainstream narrative” has failed that test insofar as its implicit predictions (detectability by multiple radar) are manifestly absent.
Coming up with further (inherently unlikely) explanations for multiple unfulfilled predictions does not persuade me any further. It simply squares and cubes the improbabilities inherent in the thesis in question – until it becomes very unlikely ^3 At which point reasonable folks should re-visit the initial assumption – in this case the veracity of the radar narrative.
I might add one [more] odd thing missing from the FI. Thai military were quoted explicitly and verbatim at media briefings (two separate senior spokesmen) that they detected a non-normal radar target returning from circa IGARI, heading towards K (+/- subsequent turn at Butterworth). Yet the FI says (in so many words) that the Thai’s didn’t have anything much because weren’t paying much attention.
This seems very strange since a) the Thai’s clearly did have intermittent radar detection of a non-normal radar target b) this evidence could have been used to corroborate the flight back to Kota Bharu, if indeed that is what had happened. So why was this evidence – clearly relevant to the fate of the lost aircraft – wilfully disregarded by the FI?
@ROB
“I was referring of course to the I.G. in my first para. They are an example of what happens when you take a stance based on apparently well-meaning but misplaced, irrational emotion instead of factual evidence, and then compound it to the n’th degree with confirmation bias.”
Now that is hilarious!
Project much? The IG are the ones limiting themselves to the factual evidence available, whereas your scenario is almost entirely hypothetical.
(Kudos on your trolling skills… top notch.)
@Paul
The Higgs boson and it’s mass we’re first articulated by Homer Simpson. Some physicist subsequently took credit for it as physicists are prone to do.
On the same episode Homer found a counter example to Fermat’s last theorem, predicted how the universe would evolve, and proved the Riemann Conjecture.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03216/simpsons_3216501b.jpg
@Phil
Well there you go Phil. I think that proves my point.
I.G. = where you end up when you’re in blinkered by confirmation bias!
Plane changes course the moment the Captain signs off (essentially at the FIR boundary) behaves exactly as you would expect if the plane was commandeered but oh no, this cannot be foul play, it has to be some kind bizarre and unique kind of mechanical or systems failure, because professional pilots don’t behave like that.
Plane tracks along another FIR boundary, maintaining radio silence and with transponders off, Satcom switched off, but navigation systems and engines functioning normally. Pilots are struggling with multiple failures!
Miraculously the Satcom SDU is re-energised, but still no communications from the plane.
Plane is seen navigating via waypoints, purely coincidental!
Plane tracks in a straight line into a remote part of the SIO and makes a controlled ditching (witness flaperon, flap fairing, stabilizer fragment, all from the RH side) but nothing from inside the cabin, still no communications, so must have been flying with no one at the controls. So where is the plane now then? Certainly nowhere near the 7th arc.
Flaperon clearly detatched during a controlled ditching but no, it must be flutter! Good old confirmation bias works its magic yet again, blinding them to the obvious.
Wazir – any scenario that has the BTO’s as it’s backbone won’t make much sense and that is life for an MH370 researcher. There are different levels of confidence in them(BTO’s) but no one will guarantee them. Most feel it non-constructive to even contemplate it, and so you have to furnish the scene one way or another with convoluted motives and circumstance. Some IG folks simply say they “prefer not to speculate” on why it’s down there but by default you can pretty much see what they are saying. The pilot had no choice but to provide some radar data if he wanted to head that way. The pings on the other hand are weird factoring in the reboot, and I don’t buy the idea that they had no idea about pings. Even artillery pieces are connected to a satellite, why not a freakin 777?? Any thickhead would assume that much. One bit of debris on Australian shores – apart from a towelette – and I will bow to the BTO’s.
@matty
I feel pretty good about the ISAT, both BTO and BFO. Also the IG analytics are first class. One certainly can find no fault there. The assumption of certain flight dynamics is a weak point, and they all understand that.
I am not going to bag on the IG for anything besides a failure to consider a motive. If motive is included it is hard to maintain the current search area without pilot suicide or some bizarre sequence of failures. Can’t rule either of those out, but I don’t think either one is correct, and I prefer to consider other possibilities.
@Paul Smithson
@Retired F4. Thanks for reminders on PSR range. My assertions on what was detectable by which radar takes into account primary detection range inclusive of possible terrain masking. The assertions that the aircraft was detectable (for extended periods of time and often at quite close range) still stand.
Well, in that case lets discuss it in detail. It is best we do this step by step. You tell me the part of the flightpath you are unhappy with and I’ll explain my POV. Then we carry on to rhe next segment.
You may ask Jeff for my email to discuss it in private, if you like.
@ROB
Merely pointing out the glaring irony in your statement.
While I don’t disagree with your suppositions (e.g. timing of diversion, navigation appears intentional, engines appeared to be functioning normally, etc…) none of them are in fact… facts.
I don’t think the IG ruled out foul play or anything else… as far as I’ve seen, their approach merely adheres to the “facts” (satellite data) as opposed to any suppositions about motive at all.
I question why anyone feels the need to convince the IG they are mistaken in the first place. They are not the accident investigators, they are casual observers like anyone else… they just happen to possess a different skill set than yours.
It is entirely their prerogative to proceed in this manner, as it is yours to proceed in yours; no need to accuse anyone of confirmation bias while ignoring one’s own.
@phil
Yes,I agree with all that except the casual observer part. I sense a fair amount of passion here.
Everyone needs to be challenged. That is the nature of inquiry. Unfortunately it is difficult to challenge the people running the investigation. We can’t even get full disclosure much less challenge their actions.
DennisW, Rob, RF4,
If I was investigating the human faction in this in Malaysia I would aggressively “cherchez la femme” in order to get a picture of Zaharie’s true mental state, whether that includes a wife and/or a wife/girlfriend. Those intimately close to him should have a pretty good inkling of his mental state. For example if what his brother-n-law says is true that he was repairing that bathroom door the afternoon of the flight and was informed by his wife of the court decision, then what was his reaction to the decision when she told him? And since “she” told him, I take it that he wasn’t waiting with baited breath for the outcome, could it be that the guy got some sleep since he was going to commandeer a red-eye to Beijing? I don’t know it’s only speculation but to me it sounds like normal, everyday activity prior to the flight.
And according to the FI, they reviewed footage of him on past flights and prior to this very flight, all behavior was the same.
Also on the Facebook page of his friend, or who I am assuming is/was his good friend, she has a hand drawing of the plane from early on. On it is written “Pray For MH370, We Love You, Please Come Back.” Hmmmmm, if he was so suicidal then there would be no hopes from those close to him of him coming back so is this perchance telling us indirectly that something unforeseen happened to them?
I suppose it’s possible he sacrificed it all for the cause but one would have to weigh “the cause” vs. all the good things he had and did in life. There is still nothing nefarious proven on his part, yet.
@Bobby: for the Oct./’14 published range limits at 5K altitude increments: the speed of each is inferrable from the distance and time of each – both of which can be extracted to within reasonable precision from the graphs.
By comparing the two figures to each other, you can even deduce that the different hypothetical speeds were applied from the constant 18:22 radar reading, rather than from the variable FMT times (18:28 and 18:40).
@RetiredF4. Thanks, you’re a gent. I’d be delighted to. You can reach me by dropping me a line on the “discuss”/”contact” page at http://www.findMH370.com
@Dennis W. Top notch! Homer Simpson is the best 🙂
@Brock. For the range of (radically different) path models varying by heading and speed, did they ever publish their “goodness of fit” / residuals? I cannot imagine that this range of possibilities can provide anything more than a very approximate fit to BTO, nevermind BTO+BFO.
@Cheryl
When someone is planning an act of this kind, the last thing they are going to do is betray any emotions beforehand. We are dealing with a calculating individual who was completely focussed on achieving his goal once he had decided to embark on it.
When someone commits suicide, the normal reaction of acquaintances and loved ones is shock, disbelief and denial.
I have also read the interviews of people who knew the pilot. A journalist interviewed his daughter who said he seemed “distant and cranky” for the three weeks prior to his disappearance. A close friend is also told a reporter that in his view, he should have been flying, being devastated by the break up with his wife. So who do you believe. Suicide is a taboo subject in our society, which is natural enough.
@Cheryl
I meant his friend said he should Not have been flying.
@Dennis
You’re right about not being able to challenge those running the search. They are completely closed to any rational, logical argument from outside their own ranks. It’s pretty obvious now that they planning to pack up and go home.
Rob,
From what I have read the daughter had lashed out at that and refuted it. Also what break up? The brother-in-law denied any divorce rumors I believe in the 4 Corners piece. His wife did not leave him, she merely routinely stayed at another residence every time he flew and the media had a field day with that one.
I disagree in the sense that if he was despondent and suicidal then no one better than the women he was intimate with to see signs of it. If planning a political act that may be a different case. And if he was troubled over a marriage then still no one better than the wife to confirm it.
Jeff, Dennis, Victor…
Regarding debris drift, a correlation should be noted: the relatively heavy Flapperon ended up at Reunion circa July 29, 2015, with lots of obvious bio mat’l. In contrast, all three pieces that ended up on the African coast 6-7 mo later, were much lighter and all three had much less obvious bio. (I did receive an email from an official at ATSB confirming that they did find lots of small scale bio material and it is being analysed now). We know that short term variable wind and more long term ocean currents combine to drive the path, so this apparent density dependence is not a surprise.
@Cheryl
kindly please, can you try to run something like “what-if”, back and forth, analysis (psychology/linguistic) of the interview noted by ROB (he seems to me quite glued to his own view only, though) using as input variable Zahrie Shahs probable motives and ass output his mental state during last three weeks before the flight? I mean his own decision or if he can be hired by someone else – to execute some very important specific (for him or others) flight plan; and I mean that another variable can be the outcome, to hide or kill all the crew/pax… Simply how his behavior could change with all that we have about him. For me it seems this single interview has many answers and I simply suppose from scratch that he was hired to execute something important by someone else, not necessarily with bad outcome, but also almost without any possibility to refuse and that he will never accept to kill anybody, in any cynical cost/benefit scenario.
So inputs.. who: he/authority why: hide/kill
http://malaysianreview.com/45973/faizah-khan-kapten-zaharie/
(I read it now in english by bing-translator)
@airlandseaman: As I have previously said, I have no doubt that the ATSB will conclude that the timing, location, and condition of the recently recovered debris are consistent with the current search zone. If the details of those results, e.g., the estimated drift paths and the recovered marine life, are ever released, they need to be independently researched as we have with other evidence.
Although the ATSB has been open and helpful compared to the Malaysian and French investigators, all evidence has to be independently challenged and understood. The condition of the parts, independent of the difference in size compared to the flaperon, was certainly a surprise to many of us.
Airlandseaman,
RE: “Regarding debris drift, a correlation should be noted: the relatively heavy Flapperon ended up at Reunion circa July 29, 2015”
Two important corrections:
– Not correlation (yet), but trend.
– We don’t know when the Flaperon ended up at Reunion. I don’t know why so many smart people fail to recognise that ‘reporting’ date is not ‘arrival’ date.
http://i.imgur.com/RQKWpEL.jpg?1
STBY = off
ALT RPTG OFF = Mode-A [ ID, loc, vel ]
XPDR = Mode-C [ + alt ]
TA/RA = Mode-S [ + TaCAS ]
https://www.reddit.com/r/MH370/comments/28otnj/adsb_data/
FI document
time transponder setting
———————————-
to 17:19 Mode-S
17:20-21 Mode-A [C,S disabled @ IGARI turn +15deg]
from 17:22 off
Perhaps the pilot tried to twist the transponder dial to the off/standby position, at IGARI at 1:20am whilst beginning to bank to starboard…
However, only after the turn was completed at 1:22am did the pilot notice that the dial was one click shy of fully off, and so reached out to rotate one more click.
The 17:50 FAW data-point looks like an embellished “mode-S” version of the 17:20 “mode-A” data-point, albeit with the PRE-turn heading of 25deg…
Although the data-point seems spurious, it still suggests something special about the turn, at IGARI, to 40deg NW heading, 40min into the flight, being the time/place/context of the deviation away from normal flight.
Gradual disabling of the transponder may be noteworthy. What if the pilot had disabled all transponder functions at 17:20… would they have turned some other direction ??
@airlandseaman, Thanks for the update, Mike. Very interesting. Please let us know if your sources come through with any positive IDs on the marine life. This should be a fairly straightforward matter, with DNA tests available to backup visual identification by experts.
@Olexandr, how often does it need to be repeated that the state of the barnacles tells us: the flaperon can’t have been at this beach more than a few hours when it was picked up. The pictures clearly show that the barnacles were still alive. This was confirmed by the barnacle expert Jeff consulted back in August 2015. If the flaperon had beached multiple times these open ocean barnacles would’ve died or been removed by birds and crabs and they would’ve been superseeded by local barnacles should the flaperon have hung out in the waters of La Reunion for some time. Johnny Begue confirmed that the barnacle population on the flaperon wasn’t local. It was something he hadn’t seen before. Therefore we can be pretty sure that the finding date is identical with the arriving date of the flaperon. This has been quietly accepted btw, as all stories about the flaperon having been seen before and used as a fish-deboning table were quietly dismissed as incompatible with the evidence of the barnacles.
@ALSM
Positive news on the marine life. Thx.
@Dennis, so far this is neither positive nor negative news. There had to be a bio film, even if the pictures didn’t show it. Otherwise we will have to accuse the Malaysians of having killed it off 😉
Remember, Blaine conducted a floating experiment with his piece and Liam Lötter told us that the piece was heavily water-logged when he found it. If the pieces haven’t been rinsed and dried by the finders the development of bio-smear was inevitable. Also, unless our so far hypothetical planters were either incredibly stupid or very cheeky, they would’ve brought the debris into contact with ocean water for a period of time. A certain amount of biofouling develops within days. There are complete underground handbooks for forgers out there which describe in detail how to prepare and age artifacts in order to pass them as valuable antiques or use them for salting archeological sites.
So far we can’t prove that this happened with the alleged mh370 debris. All I’m saying is that there are some red flags and that it can be done. The know-how can be easily acquired.
@Littlefoot
You are right, of course. I tend to be very gullible, even in old age. I am just glad that the marine life issue has not been ignored as Chester’s comments led me to believe.
I also think Victor is correct. That is the forensics will be biased toward supporting the current search area. I suppose I would have a similar bias if I were employed by the ATSB. It is human.
@ ROB: You are your own worst enemy…
@ ROB & Cheryl: Those sorts of back-and-forth regarding someone else’s mind that we cannot read are the worst sort of speculations: they are not helpful at all: they are both a priori, armchair arguments meant to rule out alternative theories. They cannot carry the weight you want them to.
We all know that there were controlled flight inputs up to and probably including FMT. The only question of any practical import is whether there were any controlled flight inputs at the very end.
Neither one of your a priori arguments can rule out one scenario or the other because they can’t be proved one way or the other; similarly, you could actually be right, and yet get the ending wrong.
For example, Cheryl could be right about Zaharie: but Jeff Wise could be right that Putin is somehow behind loss, but wrong that there was spoofing: there could have been sophisticated hijack, but instead of north to Kazakhstan, they could have gone to SIO rendezvous with Russian nuclear sub. The hijackers then take off with whatever they are after, and sub and airplane both disappear beneath waves. Russians know it be able to sneak in quiet attack sub into the SIO because no reason to go there–not covered by patrols, passive sonar, nor satellites.
And in any case, speculations about Zaharie’s state of mind are icecold coffee by now. What we should be focusing on in order to answer the question of controlled-flight-inputs-at-the-end-or-not are the meager, empirical evidence that has come to light since: (1) the feckless underwater search; (2) four debris objects; (3) the big fact that a lot more objects have not been–and probably will not be–found. IMHO YMMV
Talk of ‘motives’ has popped up again so I’ve knocked this up in 20 minutes or so. Pure conjecture I know but mostly based around stuff that has been said on here:
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Motive: Suicide
Potential suspects: Capt Zaharie Shah working alone
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Motive: Political statement and/or embarrass or bring down the Malaysian government
Potential suspects: Capt Zaharie Shah working with Malaysian accomplices on board and possibly on the ground (elements within the Malaysian military/Opposition may also be complicit).
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Motive: International Terrorism
Potential suspects: Al-Qaeda or a regional affiliate, Chinese Martyr’s Brigade (?) Slamming a 777 into Diego Garcia would’ve been a massive coup for AQ after being more or less decimated over the years. Enough to grab the limelight (and followers) away from ISIS and take centre-stage once again. But remember, no one ever wants to claim responsibility for plots that fail!
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Motive: Ordinary Military shootdown
(accidental or intentional)
Potential suspects: Australia, China, US, India, Malaysia, Thailand-US
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Motive: Extraordinary/Unprecedented Military maneuver (i.e. using a highly sophisticated/classified ‘weapon’)
Potential suspects: US, China
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Motive: Steal onboard cargo
Potential suspects: China, Russia
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Motive: Steal the aircraft itself
Potential suspects: Mafia/arms dealers with high-level professional contacts (ie within the military, aviation etc) or rogue elements within these industries themselves wanting to sell the aircraft on the black market to a terror group. $320 million for one year’s work, split between 20 people (for argument’s sake) $16 million each – beats a desk job (!)
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Or a combination of any of the above and thus a combination of suspects.
@Dennis
To clarify, by casual, I did not mean dispassionate. I would agree there are clearly a lot of passionate commenters here (I try not to be one of them… quite the opposite, in fact). I also absolutely agree everyone should be open to challenge.
The point was, the IG are not the authority; a talented group, no doubt, that may even have the ear of the actual investigators… but they are not the authority and more than you or I, so why anyone feels compelled to disparage them is beyond me (and they shouldn’t waste time disparaging others, either). I give them great credit for their openness and advancing everyone’s understanding of how things work, and odds are, they and the ATSB are interpreting things correctly, and questions of motive are probably irrelevant in the goal of finding the plane (since the math points the way).
That said, I think there’s a finite chance that the data may be misinterpreted post-reboot due to changes within the system that are unknown (i.e. tampering of the system during the hour-plus dark period). I know they have said the data *appears* to be consistent, but unfortunately, we don’t know what we don’t know.
@airlandseaman: over time, we have now seen every single set of official evidence-based findings – radar, acoustic pings, range limits, BFO, LANL seismic, surface drift, deep sea imaging fidelity – drift significantly BACKWARDS on provenance, precision, or both.
Why on earth should we still take on blind faith anything any of the JIT’s many minions tell us?
A third-hand, unverified and unverifiable account of the only kind of “evidence” that COULD be claimed without fear of contradiction (too “small scale” for the high-rez honeycomb close-ups, eh?….what crushingly bad luck for those who smell nothing bad about this investigation, and wish to dispel all the unfounded skepticism of the “JW nuts”) just won’t cut it any more.
Littlefoot,
Apparently you did not pay attention to the environment where the flaperon was found. You forgot about a simple possibility that the flaperon could stay in the water for a while due to its weight after it hit Reunion coast.
Sorry, your arguments that all the pieces were found almost immediately when they beached are extremely improbable and childish.
If you are to take account of nefarious actions in the air:
I cant believe all the pre-occupation with Zaharie. I don’t buy it. There is no evidence to support it, only speculation – Rob. You seem hell bent on including facts that may not actually be facts at all. You are using speculation to support your belief. Not that that is a wrong thing to do, but to categorically assert for the 32nd time this is fact, is in fact wrong. Oxymorph with a kinder online nature?
I also don’t buy why Hamid was also not capable. Sure, it was his first non check flight. But if you believe the narrative as presented, he could easily fly that route if needed. He was type rated after all. Sure, Zaharie may have been the last voice heard, but the FO has to be given equal rights. They were both capable of flying this supposed journey unassisted if required.
That being said, I don’t buy the fact it had to be the crew, alone. It could certainly be the crew under threat or duress. The hijacking of MS181 a couple of days ago, should prove that a jacking is still capable of being performed in this “age of security”.
So if you want to finger someone directly as fact, a more comprehensive argument is needed than what the last two years of “facts” has produced.
239 people had potential on MH370 to divert flight.
the official ivestigation has ruled out those onboard. correct me if that conclusion has changed.
@Phil
I am actually a big fan of the IG, but I still enjoy “poking” them from time to time. They have been the best source of a template for the analytics for those of us who care to indulge in them.
Still, the joke involving Heisenberg, Godel, and Chomsky walking into a bar is a good metaphor for how different poeple are conditioned to view things in very different ways.
@littlefoot – A portion of the text he text of my Aug. 21, 2015 post follows:
In a posted clip of an interview with Johnny Begue (the person who found the flaperon) he said when he first found the flaperon, it was partially in the sand and partially in the sea. It hadn’t washed up onto the rocks but was carried there by Begue and a friend.
The interview was in French but I clearly understood that a portion was “in the sea.”
@Sajid UK EUMM & “working together” sounds good
@Sharkcaver:
Hamid is beyond suspicion because so little is known about him. He didn’t protect his window sill with newspapers that ‘prove’ his guilt.
@gysbreght
Shah is “good” for the crime, IMO. Only a matter of time until he is pinned on it.
Too many PC posters here, but I suppose that is a sign of the times. If it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it probably is duck.