Hot on the heels of a reported possible MH370 piece in South Australia, news reaches us that Blaine Alan Gibson has found three pieces of suspected MH370 debris in Madagascar. This article says, in part:
Three new fragments which could have come from Malaysia Airlines Flight 270 were discovered on the morning of Monday, June 6, on the Island of Nosy Boraha, in the northeast of Madagascar…
These fragments were found by Blaine Alan Gibson, an American businessman, while he was accompanied by a from the France 2 TV show “Complément d’enquête.” They were on a long, almost deserted beach near the village of Sahasifotra, where tons of waste arrive every day from the Indian Ocean.
One piece in particular, 77 cm wide by 50 cm, apparently made by composite materials, strongly resembles another fragment which Gibson found in February on the coast of Mozambique.
” These two fragments are very very similar: the same paint color, the diameter of the attachment holes is identical. and on the back the texture is the same. I believe that it is a piece from MH370,” Blaine Alan Gibson told our colleagues. Two other parts were also found, a smaller panel with the inscription “FB” as well as another plastic part which could be the frame of an economy class seat’s video screen.
UPDATE 6/9/16: Here’s a screengrab of a YouTube video showing a Malaysia Airlines 777 economy class seatback (thanks to reader @sk999). The coat hook in particular looks like a good match for the third piece.
Here’s an even better shot, via @BBCwestcott. Note the color of the fabric around the “COAT HOOK” button:
@keith – a poster had previously pointed out that the coat hooks appear on either sides of the seat depending on the seat location. It is on the side away from the aisle. Economy is set up AB-DEFGH-JK. In the case of center seat F the hook is on the left.
Depending on whether the fabric on this piece of debris is blue or teal, the debris piece belongs to one of about 30-40 seats. All are F, G, or H. Colors alternate between blue and teal in groups of several rows.
So the hook and fabric color at consistent with the plane’s configuration.
One thing about that hook and plastic frame for entertainment screen it that the sizes seems to be abit off between that person’s video and the debris piece. Like maybe the debris came from a smaller aircraft ??
@ Ge Rijn – that is very sad. I have not travelled a lot – furthest to Germany and Italy – but from what you describe, I fear you and Jeff are probably right.
I guess we may find out if someone from the group of next-of-kin recognises something, or not. It doesn’t sound very likely though now.
But at least Blaine is trying, which is commendable.
Thanks JS, I had only got to P4.
Wish I had the time and money to do what Blaine’s doing!
Re: debris: why have officials not taken charge of shoreline searches in general, and liaising with next of kin over recovered personal effects in particular?
I think anyone helping to solve the mystery is noble. Though “vigilante justice” is always dangerous, I can’t even fault folks like BG for attempting it. What I cannot accept is a set of officials who deem it acceptable to sit back and let the internets sort it all out for next of kin.
Personal effects should be filtered through careful forensic analysis first, to minimize the risk of falsely raised hopes, and wild goose chases.
Jeff is 100% correct: the oceans are chock full of human detritus – BG’s attempts may well prove fruitless. But regardless of his oft-bizarre shunning of others seeking only a collegial discussion of his many findings, I think that, if we are assigning blame, here, we ought not to ignore official search & investigation leaders, who seem to be inviting such behaviour, by doing absolutely nothing.
Re: “pin it on the pilot”: I think the FAA should either publish hard evidence of wrongdoing, or stop torturing the surviving members of a family in grief. Not picking on the FAA, here – that’s more of a general rule of thumb I like to apply to accusations of mass-murder levelled at people who cannot defend themselves. I’m quirky that way.
@David
{OZ (in a latter post than the one of mine you read) made a correction to what he said, (which you may have missed seeing),
so perhaps that is partially the reason for his response to you.}
In regard to APU, when the left engine quit, I tend to think the
pitch down and bank would preclude the APU starting then running
(if at all) more than 10 or 10s of seconds (even if assisted by
some gravity feed of fuel in the APU fuel line). Looking at a
picture of the APU, the APU fuel line appears to pass by only
a (water trap type) fuel filter – there does not appear to be
any Fuel Surge Tank / Swirl Pot at the APU end of the APU fuel
line. (P-1342 Mini Pack.pdf)
So, the DC fuel pump at the wing tank is unlikely to get
enough fuel (constantly) covering its intake port to be able to
pressurize the APU fuel line. (Do you know of any picture of the
wing tank which shows that intake port to be sitting in a ‘deep channel’ in the tank?)
@DennisW
“1> The plane flew due West from Igari to arrive at the 18:25 range ring on time (I mistyped 17:25 earlier).
2> The plane was flying due South “near” the equator at 19:40.
3> The drift studies relative to the recovered debris strongly suggest a terminus at or North of ~30S.”
basically that’s it, and while we can’t explain lack of comms in a fairly good way it’s questionable whether it was qualified pilot or someone else trying to undertake a semicontrolled ditch, a lot of things could happen between SATCOM reset and ditching
@Ge Rijn – In order to consider any exterior damage and/or engine INOP condition, you need to reconcile the suspected fuel endurance (to 00:17) to the AP/BTO/BFO ranges.
@Lauren H @Rob
I thought of that. Asked it before how long this B777 could fly on on one engine.
I assumed it could be a possible lenght of time reaching 00:17 on one engine. One engine uses less then two or the same maybe if it has to compensate completely for the other one.
Considering a left engine shut down and damage to the left wing a veering off to the left (east) could fit a curved flight path like @Oleksandr proposed. Which could fit AP/BTO/BFO ranges. Lower speed and altitude due to such a scenario would also contribute to a more northern crash area imo.
@Rob
I doubt it. A SDU re-log-on also occured at 00:19. This is generaly contributed to the flame out of an engine and start up of the APU. In this case there was a power interuption not overcome by back up batteries.
Could have happened the same if the left engine with IDG was taken out at 18:25?
This is basicly my question.
@jeffwise
re RT – you know, some US PromaxBDA media contest awarded their works, including such kind of humor in “RT_2035” video, for me simply the best – what else…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THrZZ95i8zQ
@Ge Rijn
No, because the RH Main AC bus would automatically feed power to the LH bus, quickly enough to prevent the SDU from going off line and rebooting.
Do you understand?
@falken
Off topic as usual but enjoyed the clip a lot 😉
@Rob
One thing I understand almost for sure now; you’re not on that spectrum.. 😉
Assuming impossible unintended interrupted power supply to the SDU in all circumstances a reboot won’t be possible in your opinion. Still it happened twice at least in one occasion at 00:19 highly likely caused by the shut down of an engine and the starting of the APU.
According to LRC FCOM data, at same altitude the fuel consunption nper NMi with one engine inoperative (OEI) is about equal to that with both engines operating (AEO). However, with one engine inoperative the airplane is restricted to lower altitudes than the more efficient cruise altitudes available with both engines operating. The following chart illustrates this:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6talbuutc2lu0pl/AEO_OEI_fuelrange.png?dl=0
“Considering a left engine shut down and damage to the left wing a veering off to the left (east) could fit a curved flight path like @Oleksandr proposed.” At speeds well above the minimum control speed the airplane is fully controllable with one engine inoperative. If it followed a curved flight path it was not caused by the OEI condition.
@Ge Rijn
@All
Just adding a bit to the shoot down theory.
Was going to post quite a while back about ‘Scrambling Fighters’; but thought against it.
I don’t think MA had the capability to do it. It takes a big effort to get fighter jets in the air.
I’ve been there and done it.
You just cannot walk up to these planes and fly of into the sunset/up.
You need a team of support people from all trades.
You have to arm the weapons etc. The fighters are not left around fully armed;
certain safeties have to carried out. ATC as well.
A dedicated crew has to be available 24/7. Cost and available personnel
make it a difficult operation.
MA mightn’t have but Ind.A might!
Europe is a different thing all together, All living in close proximity and
always lots of tension. e.g. Sweden-Russia.
Just my thoughts. Keep on searching and let calmness prevail.
@Tom Lindsya
Do you know anything about that matter or do you just guess?
Air policing is besides training for wartime the main task of air defence fighter units. normal readiness time (from alert to takeoff) will be between 10 and 20 minutes.
QRA MIG 29 demonstration to the press 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkUwA6G7zB4
@Ge Rijn
Great to get the diagnosis! Thanks to you, I can now lead a normal life. I just cant tell you how much that means to me.
Goodbye, and good luck
Rob
I too question BG on this. If this is MH370 debris where the hell has it been for 2 years?
If this is mh370 debris then there should be fragments or contents still inside the items. Noone carries an empty bag on board unless they just bought it? It is.unlikely people would leave bags unzipped too given the amount bags shift around in the cabin.
Yes the first finders could have unzipped and removed contents but would this really have removed all traces of the items use? Is there pen on the inside of.the pencil case. Do the flip flops have tags still on.
If these items were stock dump, where is the evidence they were part of the stock. Are there any adhesive residues or price tags still evident?
There are a lot of questions I’d like to ask BG.
@RetiredF4
Probably more of a assessment on their current form.
Mr H comment “ we knew the aircraft was friendly” so we didn’t send up fighters ( approx. saying)
But could have said that on the spur of the moment; but maybe they couldn’t .
The time it took to get organised for the emergency wasn’t too good, something over four hours.
The Egyptians in 15min.
True the demo you quote, but was probably in the planning for quite a time, under under ideal conditions.
I must admit I haven’t been keeping up with their setup and should have done little more research.
This countries get this equipment but seem to find it difficult to keep everything together.
I think Indonesian AF is more twice as big as Aus. but I read recently that two years ago 80% of the equipment was out of service. Aus has got some good gear but how do you deploy it over 50,000 kilometres of coastline.
Now I will guess, (until I can find out more info). Could Aus scramble fighters this situation?
On the whole situation (while I am here might as well add a bit more)
To me that first hour or so from goodnight is critical in dictating what the aircraft was going to do
and where it would end up. Nothing new that statement I know, but until all the parties are going to
release more info as most posters would agree they are sitting on it.
Anyway must get back to some of my work.
Cheers Tom L
@Crobbie and Brock,
If all of these pieces check out, one really does have to wonder why there is no official beach search going on. Presumably a finder has no obligation to return any of these pieces, and yet any of them could contain evidence – either residue or damage – that may indicate exactly what happened.
The fact that the agencies are allowing debris to be collected with no apparent interest is highly suspicious to me. Do they not care what happened? Do they already know? Is the rampant speculation good for them?
What exactly is going on that beachcombers are finding 5 pieces of plane while underwater teams have spent months finding nothing?
@@@@@@Jeff said – To put it more bluntly, the idea that any of this stuff in any way can be presumed to come from MH370, or indeed is in any way likely to come from MH370, is pure bonkers.@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Jeff I don’t want to seem rude, but the fact that airplane parts “”were”” also found in this same area, it doesn’t necessarily rule them out as bonkers. To be fair, you’ve had some wild theories and ideas too. I think if any of the items can be identified by family members would be extremely helpful. I mean seriously, no other evidence is out there (except the data & debris found to date) to even rule in or rule out anything. If any or all of these items can be ruled out, then move on to the next thing. I don’t think we can just say off the top of our head it is dismissed. That has happened far too often in this case don’t you think?
Anyhow I think that 54 items is a lot of items to quickly dismiss as not likely, I think its fair to give it time to see if the likelihood of any of the items to be viewed can be identified as coming from mh370.
The clues in this case have been very few and far between. We now know the plane did crash, but the bigger question is where??? That is the Million$ question that I hope can be answered in my lifetime.
They have to continue the search, from the perspective of many I’ve been following seem to think the plane crashed much further north than the current search area. I believe that all the debris found so far is indicative of a more northern search.
Cheers
Bugsy
@Crobbie
Well, we don’t know how long it sat on the beach before he gathered
it up – and none of it looks like anything that would interest the
local beachcombers. Reunion flaperon find was July 2015, Mossel
Bay S.A. RR engine panel was in situ 23 Dec 2015 (Schalk Lückhoff
pic)… things can float for a long time, heck, there was a WW1
German submarine that floated about the Pacific for 4 or so years.
Possibly these finds could be useful (in the event any items are
from 9M-MRO), is if they found traces of smoke (particles) from
the plastics on the flight deck.
Drift studies? The only drift studies I believe will ultimately
prove of any use are those done of the time period of weeks after
the crash, like this;
http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/2385
Oops, that german submarine floated for 2 or so years…
http://uboat.net/wwi/fates/japan.html
Reference the Malaysian non-launch of fighters, I wonder if
the posters debating that are aware that there is something
called the FPDA;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Power_Defence_Arrangements
that has acted and continues to act as a deterrent for
attacks against (for want of a better word) ‘mainland’
Malaysia. Therefore the Malaysians can slumber peaceably, in
the belief that if things start to fall & explode on their
land, the Australian military is very likely to be getting
involved. That Agreement is regarded as serious in Australia
(- not like, for instance, the arse paper that the US seems to
have used on which to sign with Ukraine the Budapest
Memorandum on Security Assurances, if Ukraine should ever be
a victim of an act of aggression within its existing
borders…)
@OZ, buyerninety. OZ , a couple of words were missing from my last post. In the second line in place of, “a thence” should read, “a pilot thence” and mid-way down in place of “(as fuel supply)” should have read “(as fuel supply failed)”. These missing words complicated what I said, though the theme was as before.
I will summarise it for you. You asserted that the APU fuel pump would not deliver residual fuel in time for an automatic relight attempt to be successful after exhaustion of ‘normal’ fuel, the engine thence being shut down. However the view I have put is that the APU pump would prime the engine fuel manifold well before shut down for the engine to access. I had earlier implied that should you not agree with my view – which had some supportive reasoning – you might offer contrary evidence, though you have not as yet.
I doubt we will get any further with this and it most probably has no import anyway (which I went into a way back). Therefore I suggest leaving it be.
@buyerninety. Thanks for attempting to explain the OZ response.
The ATSB assumption is that aircraft pitch would prevent the APU firing up for at least 2 minutes, including auto-starting, using residual fuel in the left tank (you will notice they make no mention of fuel in the line). If all this fuel were accessed by the APU the estimate is that it would run for a maximum of 13:45 mins. See pages 8 & 10 of:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5747317/ae2014054_mh370-definition_of_underwater_search_areas_3dec2015_update.pdf
Leaving aside the effect of an left engine relight I think this assumption is based on simulator runs and have no reason to query it for my part.
As to the APU fuel pump suction siting, the diagrams I have seen imply it is separated horizontally from left main fuel tank suctions and more to the tank’s rear. While that would explain the residual fuel, the evidence is hardly definitive. I have encountered no mention of a sump in the manuals.
To my mind there are many attitudes the aircraft could be in when the left tank becomes depleted of normal tank fuel and in fact the availability of any residual fuel does suppose that the aircraft is in a cruise attitude, about 1 deg nose up, part of the general ATSB thesis. If it had been in a powered descent for example, with a pilot on board, there might have been nil residual fuel at all.
@Brock: I have great respect for your work. Could I please alert you that it has been reported online that the Malaysians are actively searching for debris in Africa. According to (Transport Minister) Liow Tiong Lai there is a ‘complete program’. See Skynews 31 March 2016 “Malaysian reps in Mozambique and South Africa in Mh370 search”.
I doubt that if additional debris was being found under the ‘complete program’ that any picture of it would find its way onto the internet. Or that it would automatically progress through Malaysia to Aust. Perhaps because the Aussies report weekly and have numbered the debris sequentially, we err in assuming that nothing else has turned up. The Malaysians have said that they will report according to Annex 13, and that doesn’t include internet photos of debris.
@Get Rijn: I find your work expanding on the military shooting theory to be compelling. That FMT and its profound effect upon the behaviour of the flight deserves the analysis that you and Oleksander and others have done. Please keep working!
I note the online reports concerning three Indonesian intercepts, and especially the Australian Cessna that was almost shot down. See news.com.au ‘Australian pilots let go after Indonesian airforce nearly shot their plane down ‘. The Indonesian pilot says that an initial instruction to the Aussies to head to Ambon was ignored and “if they still ignore us, automatically we will shoot the plane’ with their locked missile of their Sukhoi fighter jet. Later, ” Major Wanda Suriansyah said the aircraft would have been blown away had it not obeyed… ”
This is 6 months after Mh370. This policy may be normal and widespread for the region – my own country too, especially after 9/11. In relation to Mh370, I am not sure of whose airspace the FMT is in, or whether another country along N571 might have been getting concerned.
@all: I look forward to your analysis of the Final Report. Please don’t leave due to some slight, you will be needed. Regards to all.
@Jeff: enjoyed your book, Thank you.
Just a thought here, but a lot of those items, especially the Angry Birds bag, would be pretty easily spotable on video coverage of the passengers at the airport as they entered. Possibly as they entered, went through security, bag checks, etc.
I don’t know about airport security nor how much video has been saved, but does anyone think it’s a plausible idea to check the footage and try to match an item up?
@David/buyerninety,
The auto-relight function is activated whenever an engine is at or below idle with the FUEL CONTROL switch in RUN. When the EEC detects an engine flameout, the respective engine ignitors are activated.
The APU dc fuel pump also turns on when there is no pressure in the left engine feed manifold and the left engine is not operating. The engine not operating is when the ENGINE FAIL caution comes on….when the engine speed is below idle.
The automatic operation of the APU dc fuel pump has nothing to do with the auto re-light function; it is there for the crew to initiate a quick engine relight of the left engine with the loss of both engines and all AC power.
You seem confused between auto re-light (flameout recovery) and autostart; they are not the same.
OZ
@Gysbregt
Thank you for answering and the diagram.
So on one engine I understand maximum range would be less then with two engines due to lower fuel efficiency on restricted altitude up to ~27.000ft and TAS would be restricted to ~400kt at ~27.000ft?
Power asymmetry and drag by the shut down engine and also some wing damage on that side would be fully compensated by the AP enabling the plane to remain on a set straight heading?
Just to check if I understand your info well enough can you confirm this?
@ Billy,
Yes, I thought about that yesterday when the objects appeared online, however I believe (and I may be wrong) that footage of the passengers boarding is one of the contentious things being argued over by the authorities and NOK.
I think I read that they wish to see it, but are not being allowed to do so.
This was a while back. If someone has better info, perhaps they could correct me?
I’ve certainly not been able to find any footage from boarding – though I’ve checked a few photos from ‘these were the victims’ articles online, and can’t see any immediate links to the items.
@OZ
Not to mingle in your discussion but I have a question:
Do I understand you well when you say the APU will automaticly start when the left engine stops operating even when the right engine is still operating?
Yes, for the conditions indicated: !80 tons, ISA temperature, LRC speed. The airplane could fly slower or faster. For example at holding speed the fuel cosumption per NM would be 13% – 18% greater than at LRC.
“Power asymmetry and drag by the shut down engine and also some wing damage on that side would be fully compensated by the AP enabling the plane to remain on a set straight heading?” – Yes, depending on the extent of ‘damage’ of course.
Another possible item found:
http://www.clicanoo.re/527751-un-nouveau-debris-suspect-retrouve-sur-le-littoral-de-bras-panon.html?platform=hootsuite
I’ll have a go at translating in a mo.
First bit:
This Tuesday morning,before commencing his duty? around 7h30, Simon Dary, something or other for the association of fishermen of (small fish type), was walking on the pebble beach at the level of the rocky river, on the coast of St Benoit. It’s there in his regular/familiar place that he came across a large piece of debris, 1.5m long by 1.5m wide, which, he says, he immediately thought was a sliding door of an aircraft. Described as a polystyrene and fibreglass material, the piece would be covered with red and white paint, with some lettering which was more or less gone. Simon Dary also noticed the presence of crustaceans similar to those which coated the confirmed debris retrieved from St Andre last July.
(to be continued)
The police, immediately contacted, took away the piece. Could this piece have come from the plane which disappeared more than two years ago? The examination of this piece will confirm this or not within the following days. As a reminder, in the last few months, other pieces of debris, which the investigators have confirmed came from the missing plane, have been found in Mozambique. Other also examination have been found in bla bla bla.
(ca y’est.)
@Gysbregt
Thank you.
One more small clarification/confirmation asked..
To remain on LRC speed the plane has to slow down in those circumstances?
Sorry, keyboard doing flips – others also under examination have been found in SA, Madagascar etc.
I DID NOT use Google translate. This is the work of my own fair hands : ) and an online dictionary for the tricky bits. ahem.
Also I have to say to the untrained eye that piece looks nothing like 150×150, but that’s what it says. It might be 150 long. And it looks like there are two pieces anyway.
@Ge Rijn: Sorry, I don’t understand your question.
@Gysbregt
Then I did not understand your answer well.
I’ll try again..
You say at holding speed fuel consumption per NM would 13% to18% greater than at Long Range Cruise (speed).
I’m probably wrong but when I think of ‘holding speed’ it’s a speed you want to hold not considering fuel efficiency. I mean if you want to hold a speed of 400kt which you had with two engines after losing one engine, this might be more fuel consuming than chosing a LRC speed based on one operating engine after such an event.
Would this LRC speed be slower than the holding speed in such a case?
@Susie
It certainly doesn’t look like a door of an aircraft.
It seems to be made of one solid piece of polyester without any honeycomb.
Polystirene like this (you can see humps of it) is used as an isolating material but not in aircraft like a B777 as far as I know.
The hince-part doesn’t look aircraft material either.
The curved shape and material looks more a piece from a polyester boat of some kind.
@Ge Rijn: The FCOM gives fuel consumption for two speed schedules: LRC and Holding. Both consider ‘fuel efficiency’ but use different criteria for defining efficiency.
LRC speed corresponds to approximately max. range per unit of fuel.
Holding speed corresponds to approximately maximum time (endurance) per unit of fuel, but can be limited by the maneuver speed, which observes a minimum safe margin to the stall speed. Holding speed is generally slower than LRC speed, it is the lowest speed a competent pilot would intentionally fly the airplane at.
If the airplane was flying with two engines operating at an altitude that can be maintained with one engine inoperative, with LRC as the selected speed schedule, it would probably maintain LRC speed without pilot action after failure of one engine.
@Tom Lindsay
Concerning QRA some text copied about the QRA with the MIG-29 at Kuantan Base (WMKD) from a blog. Not the original source, but better than only assumptions.
“During the media visit, reporters were given various demonstrations from an airfield attack scenario, QRA launch of the Fulcrums, a visit to the Skn 320 – the Sector 2 AD operational room and the QRA ordnance bunkers. No pictures were allowed during the visit to the Skn 320 and the QRA bunkers. Also toured were the airbase’s spanking new ACMI complex and the Fulcrum simulator building.
Despite its impending retirement, the 17th Squadron Fulcrums remained on QRA duties with at least three aircraft available 24/7. As part of the media visit, a pair of Fulcrums demonstrated its QRA role in interdicting the C130 Hercules carrying the press personnel and “escorting” it to land at Kuantan air base. The Fulcrums also demonstrated their QRA take-off from their hangar at the far north of the base.
Rodzali said even if the Government decided to fund an outright buy, they may also need to lease the same fighters before the new aircraft are inducted into service.
“It will take at least three years for the new aircraft to be put into service so in the meantime, between the end of 2015 t0 2018, we may need to lease to cover the gap in our air defence.”
The FPDA treaty can be considered as a paper tiger during peace time. The only aircraft assigned due to this agreement are APC 3C Orion aircraft for maritime operations at Butterwortn.
@ GeRijn
Ah well. Back to the drawing board…: )
@Susie
It’s just my guess nothing more. Who knows. The pictures are not that well too.
At least people seem to be more alert but hopefully not every piece of wreckage, bag or shoe faintly looking like maybe to be from this aircraft found on those thousands km of shoreline will get media attention before looked at more seriously.
If so I’m afraid you’ll might get very busy with reporting ‘new debris’ in coming times 😉
I don’t mind, it is more interesting than ironing.
A newspaper is reporting that it has been decided that the item is not from an aircraft. It seems I woke Jeff up on twitter for no good reason, for which I must apologise.
http://www.linfo.re/la-reunion/faits-divers/696184-riviere-des-roches-le-debris-retrouve-n-appartient-pas-a-un-avion
I wish something would wash up in Margate.
@Ge Rijn
my pleasure; in fact, although often marked off-topic, in my crazy scenario I consider them “on”, while understanding that its mad and fiction and fantasy, perhaps; the BGs personal effects (new meaning of this word for me) are interesting; good for families to check them, sure; for anybody will be good something solid, anything, but no more lies; UK lets go with us; our current local polic(e/y) war? crazy as hell too…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBjQ9tuuTJQ
@Susie
Who knows within a year or two something interesting will wash up on the shores of Margate, maybe even sooner 😉
At least this piece must have been the fastest one confirmed till now not from mh370 😉
I’m in to this now so I’ll go on till reasonable arguments (or Jeff) come to stop me..
@Oleksandrs latest diagram with description of events (provided by Victorl) posted a few days ago suggests at the end of the SATCOM call (18:40:56) the plane was allready heading a more south direction at 3512m altitude.
I assume that SATCOM-call-ending might probably have been during that turn and ’emergency descent’, not at the end of it. So it probably turned further and descended further.
Could it have dived under the Indonesian Atjeh radar flying around Sumatra and out of Indonesian airspace and after that gaining altitude again?
If so this could also be a reason imo the Indonesian militairy stated they did not see MH370 ‘in their territory’. And then they did not lie..
Offcourse I rather prefer comment.
Australian officials left in a hurry after the meeting in Malaysia and declined to speak to the media:
https://twitter.com/oceankoto