60 Minutes Australia on Secret Malaysia Report

Here’s a link to the report broadcast today on Australian 60 Minutes about the search for MH370. Part 1:

Part 2:

Discussion after the jump…

The main thrust of the piece is that an independent air-crash expert, Larry Vance, has looked at photographs of the Réunion flaperon and decided that their relatively intact state, and the lack of debris from inside the aircraft, means that the plane must not have impacted the water at high speed, as would be expected if the plane ran out of fuel as a “ghost ship” and spiralled into the water. He interprets the jagged trailing edge of the flaperon as evidence that it was deployed at the moment of impact and was worn away when it struck the water.

I find it discomfiting when people say that the mystery of MH370 is not mystery at all–that they are absolutely confident they know the answer. Vance undercuts his credibility, I feel, by taking this stance. There is indeed a strong argument to be made that the plane must have been under conscious control to the very end; to me the most compelling is simply that the plane has not been found in the current seabed search zone. However it is less clear that someone attempted a ditching. What the show does not mention is that debris from inside the aircraft has indeed been found, suggesting that the fuselage could not have survived the impact and sunk to the bottom of the ocean intact. Indeed, the program doesn’t mention the other debris at all, with the exception of the Pemba flap, which is the other relatively intact large piece. The fact that most of the debris found so far is rather small is to me indicative of a higher-energy impact. But I have no strong opinion one way or the other; I feel that proper experts must look at the debris close up to determine what forces caused it to come apart.

The program cites the recently revealed flight-sim data from Zaharie’s computer as further evidence that the plane was deliberately piloted to fuel exhaustion and beyond. For the first time, the program showed on screen pages from the confidential Malaysian report. The producers of the show reached out to me as they were putting the program together, and asked me to comment on some of the data they had accumulated. Here are the pages of the document that they showed on-screen:



It’s worth noting that these pages offer a summary of the recovered flight-sim data which are described in greater detail and accuracy elsewhere in the confidential Malaysian documents. Here is a table showing a subset of what the documents contain:

Detailed parameters

Note that the numbering systems for the two data tables do not match. (Please do not ask me to explain this.) I suggest that for the purposes of discussion, the point saved at Kuala Lumpur International Airport be called point 1; the three points recorded as the flight-sim moved up the Malacca Strait to the Andaman Islands be called 2, 3, and 4; and the points over the southern Indian Ocean with fuel at zero be called points 5 and 6.

Zaharie 1-4

In order to understand the fuel load numbers in the second table, I made some calculations based on the fuel loads in a real 777-200ER. I don’t know how closely these match those in the flight simulator Zaharie was using. If anyone can shed light I’d be happy to hear it.

Fuel calcs

Worth noting, I think, is that the fuel difference between point 4 and point 5 is enough for more than 10 hours of flight under normal cruise conditions. The difference between these points is 3,400 nautical miles, for an average groundspeed of less than 340 knots. This is peculiar. Perhaps the flight-sim fuel burn rate is very inaccurate; perhaps the simulated route between the points was not a great circle, as shown in the second page of the report above, but indirect; perhaps Zaharie was fascinated by the idea of flying slowly; or perhaps points 5 & 6 come from a different simulated flight than 1 through 4. Readers’ thoughts welcome.

Also note that neither the locations nor the headings of points 1-4 lie exactly on a straight line from 1 to 4, which suggest perhaps that the route was hand-flown.


866 thoughts on “60 Minutes Australia on Secret Malaysia Report”

  1. This image shows the waypoints that might have been followed in the simulation, where the first four coordinates are labeled P1 – P4.


    After departing KLIA, airway R467 was followed to GUNUP, and then R466 was followed until just before the FIR boundary between Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) and Jakarta (Indonesia). This is important because it suggests that even in the simulation, there was an intent to avoid airspace controlled by Indonesia. The aircraft then turned towards VAMPI around P3, which is consistent with the simulation heading of 315 deg. After passing VAMPI, the aircraft proceeded on N571, passing MEKAR, NILAM, and IGOGU, and then turned on N877 at LAGOG. Before reaching waypoint DOTEN (not shown), the aircraft began turning towards the south, passing coordinate P4 during the turn. The destination was McMurdo Station.

  2. While I personally believe in a hybrid closure = slide-ditch in preparation ( flaps lowered et al) to high impact dive in culmination ( after change of intent and/or ingestion of narcotic), hence the incriminating outboard flap ( slide ditch) + relative absence of debris ( high impact) plus a more northerly ending given the erratic way by which the plane was flown across Malaysia hence extensive fuel burn…

    there is room for slide-ditch afficiandos to contemplate the following especially if a prearranged pick up is on the menu:

    “Starting from 2014, Russia is going to expand its strategic submarine patrol area of the World Ocean, a source in the Russian General Staff told Itar-Tass agency. The statement comes as the Russian Northern Fleet – the country’s most powerful – is celebrating the 80th anniversary since its foundation in 1933.

    Once the nuclear-powered Borei-class submarines are put into service, the Russian Navy “will not only continue the patrolling of the Arctic, Atlantic and Pacific Oceans,” but also return to the regions in the southern hemisphere which were patrolled by Soviet subs until the dissolution of the USSR in the 90s. ”


    Starting 2014????mmm………sounds mind bogglingly Clancyesque but who knows?

  3. @VictorI

    But why go all that way NW before turning south?

    The route would have been clear of Indonesia’s radar (and FIR) well before P4.

  4. As someone who made a clean break from this addiction I find myself flushed out by this discussion, and people’s apparent refusal to let go of arguments and theories.

    ‘Ridiculous’ analysis based on photo’s by Mr Vance? Wrong. It was hinted by the French ages ago that the flaperon was deployed when it hit the water, and Foley admits to having seen such analysis provided by the French. He talks about a “possibility” but in the current climate I substitute that word for conclusion. Foley did not mention the “F” word(flutter) when he could have because it’s just not in their vocabulary. The analysis has been done and while we have not seen it we can deduce where it was headed.

    Dennis – “the truth is out there” is far more interesting than the truth being “right there”. For a long time I didn’t want to believe Shah responsible but what next; someone hacked his simulator, then his plane.

  5. @Wazir

    Russian submersibles are notoriously easy to track. They make a lot of noise. Acoustic arrays off San Diego and Maine know where they are at all times. May as well have a balloon tied to them.

    Like most things built in Russia, there is a strong umbelical to the “blacksmith” era. Their stuff works, however.

  6. @Matty – Perth

    Albeit DennisW’s “welcome home” has a different connotation than mine

  7. @dennisW

    Dude, you are in gunslinger mode these days? Why the angst and vitriol, man?What’s up with the FBI put down? The IRS or the Feds on yer back or something or is the Trump -Clinton puppet show tiresome? Just kidding so don’t take things seriously but it would be good idea to chill out!!

    Here are some ripostes :

    1. Russkie Submarines:

    “We cannot maintain 100% awareness of Russian sub activity today,” retired Adm. James Stavridis, a former NATO supreme allied commander and current dean of the Fletcher School, told CNN. “Our attack subs are better, but not by much. Russian subs pose an existential threat to U.S. carrier groups.”

    2. The FBI

    a. PHRCFL has provided them with enhanced computer forensic capabilities and the opportunity to leverage the resources of the FBI, including current training and technology, priority service, and additional manpower assistance on search warrants. The PHRCFL was timely in completing forensic examination requests and the exam results met the expectations of the PHRCFL’s partners. These participating agencies said that they would recommend the PHRCFL service to other law enforcement agencies.

    b. Chicago’s RCFL was established in 2003 and consists of five FBI employees and 13 examiners from agencies including the Chicago Police Department, Cook County Sheriff’s Office, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. It is the only digital forensics lab in Illinois to be accredited by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board.


    By the way, the RCFL is a FBI initiated and sponsored thingy. Excepting privacy violation related issues and people like j Edgar Hoover who made the FBI infamous for the wrong reasons, they have been doing a sterling job albeit on low incomes. Occasionally they trip up like everybody else as exemplified by Orlando but even then he was on their radar.

    Bottom line is they doing a good job and you should be proud of them . Remember I am not blowing wind up any arses 😀 but giving creds where it’s due, that’s all.


    Welcome back 😀


    By the way sad that Jason Day lost. Nice guy though.

  8. @Wazir

    Stavridis is looking for funding. As is everyone these days. No better way than to create panic with an impressive title like supreme commander. “Existential threat”?? Do you really believe a government employee even understands what that means?? Funny shit.

    I am not on a rant. Just trying to inject a note of reality into a discussion that has clearly gotten out of hand.

    If the FBI was so on top of things why did they have to pay $1.5M to a third party to crack an iPhone?

  9. @Gloria: please ignore Ja’s comment. Your scenario ticks far more boxes than do most of the scenarios bickered over in this forum – including the latest, which still only explains lack of debris on Oz shores if you stretch the debris drift modelling results until they fit.

    I don’t endorse your scenario (recommend links to support remote control claim) – but neither do I dismiss it. The good news is that BOTH you and Jay agree on one thing: a full public enquiry will prove each of you RIGHT.

    @All: so let’s get to the public enquiry, already. I mean, what on earth are we waiting for?! Let’s drain the pool, and find out who’s been swimming naked.

    The only reason I can think of for opposing a full public audit of search leadership is a) having something to hide, or b) being a paid agent of those who have something to hide.

  10. @Brock

    It is one thing to demand it (full disclosure) as you have consistently done.It is quite another on the implementation end which you have been quiet on. What do you want us to do, exactly?

  11. @Victor: It is true I should not have implied “game error” was your ONLY supplied reason.

    If I suitably amend the question (“your”–>”one of your”), will you supply hard evidence to support the “game error” reason?

    To save time: I’ll request hard evidence to support the other three reasons, as well. And any more reasons you add to the list.

    The default explanation of these selected sim data points – until hard evidence to the contrary is presented – should be that points 5 and 6 – because the fuel isn’t even close to matching that predicted by your waypoints – are from a DIFFERENT sim run. Support for this is as follows:

    1) the FBI concluded “nothing sinister” in March, 2014.
    2) the ATSB to this day seems to agree: “no evidence” of planning
    3) search leadership (those whose decisions the ATSB carried out) would benefit from a MANUFACTURED reason to explain its lack of success to date
    4) the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt is an important principle

  12. @Matty – Perth / @Gloria

    Matty, your reasoning ended where Gloria’s began.

    It is the next possible direction for us who have a hard time pinning this on Shah, alone.

    Wasn’t someone in here pointing to his FB page some articles ago? Some food for thought there.

  13. If the actual file names were MK22 and MK25 likely they were two different flights, both going down to McMurdo Station on FSX. If Zaharie or who ever was playing at the time saved the flights, Zaharie might have just deleted the unsuccessful or incomplete flights on the 3rd Feb 2014. Zaharie had been upgrading the simulator in 2013 for motion simulation. He never completed it.
    April is the last it was heard of. And if that flaperon had been extended in a ditching attempt, I would think it would have ended up in bits when the engine detached. It looked more like wind flutter damage, but I am no expert. I was disappointed in the 60 minutes program, their standards of journalism seem to have dropped if that was the best they could come up with, it was lacking on the investigation bit. But thanks for all the info Jeff, and the uploads, I forgot to watch it.

  14. @Dennis: thanks for asking.

    I feel we should boycott as much air travel as our careers and personal lives can afford, until such time as the JIT and all its agencies disclose all data and models which guided every search decision (no matter how major or minor) – in detail sufficient to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the search for MH370 was at every stage conducted in good faith.

    We were promised transparency and accountability. They haven’t delivered. To coerce it out of them, we are “fining” the airline industry, because it is their assurances of safe skies the JIT’s pathetic dissembling is undermining.

    Public cynicism – and outrage over being lied to – about MH370 still runs deep and strong. Few outside online echo chambers like this one even buy the opening premise: that the world’s combined surveillance resources took a ZERO on tracking it to begin with. If a website were established to tally up all “foregone flights” by ticked off citizens, I think many people would be surprised by the cumulative impact.

    And how quickly the airlines might then lever action out of world governments.

  15. @All
    Richard Godfrey has a new paper posted on the Duncan Steel site revisiting hydrophone data recorded on Oct 8 2014. He found a signal that his analysis indicates a high speed impact between 30 and 33 degrees on the 7th arc…

  16. @Trond: re: trailer vs. full program: I was told in another forum that the segment ABC chose to pull was an interview with Grace Subathirai Nathan (whose mother was on board MH370) – she was calling for release of the full cargo manifest.

  17. @Brock – why did they pull the segment, it was very strange it appeared in the trailers, so not to see it on the actual program was very disappointing and did NOT go un-noticed by the world watchers either. Does anyone know why they pulled that segment, who made that call I wonder??

  18. In the 60 Minutes piece it was strange that Vance did not acknowledge the internal parts found…I was wondering if his interview was conducted earlier in the year or something.

  19. @Kenyon

    Kenyon, what you say about the bezel requiring a high speed impact, is wrong to the point of being unintentionally misleading.

    As pointed out by others on this site, eg. GE Rijn, a ditching would be a relatively violent event. The messed up interior of the Asiana B777 after its argument with the sea wall coming into San Francisco provides an example of how the inside of MH370 could have looked after ditching. Another thing, the seat back bezel is a relatively item to dislodge. Imagine an unrestrained passenger being thrown forward against the seat in front, during ditching. Not a very pleasant thought I know, but there wouldn’t have been any seatbelt checks, emergency drills, crash positions run through on this occasion.

    So it’s very possible that the seat back bezel and the Rodrigues panel both floated out through opened/forced in Door R1

  20. @middleton

    Interesting about the FSX Reward Flights. Having read the pages you linked they seem to be more of a beginner activity? Would an experienced pilot be playing around trying to get rewards?

  21. @Rob. “I never, ever said he simulated the 7th arc, so you definitely understand me Wrong. All I said was I believe he set up the 2nd logon.” I think I did understand you. By simulate I mean replicate the appearance of, not emulate; using switches to give the same indications as. It is unclear what he would gain by simulating he had run out of fuel or why he would assume that would be the interpretation, since he would have assumed that his course, speed and altitude, ie fuel consumption rate would not be known. Then there is the lack of IFE log on. Was that deliberate?

    “The pilot cannot switch off the ELT from the cockpit, it is a self contained unit, with its own battery power.” A ‘Reset’ position is to the left of the ‘Armed’, itself to the left of ‘On’. Were the ELT switch secured there against the spring loading to the Armed position, the ELT would be inoperative. It might transmit a test signal after being moved there but I do not think that would constitute an alert.

  22. @Matty Perth

    Yes, welcome back. I don’t think Jeff will be very happy though. He thought he had seen the last of you. This is a rather lonely place at the moment, for anyone promoting truth rather than fiction.

    When I read Larry Vance’s comments (60 minutes) about the flaperon trailing edge damage being consistent with water erosion durin a ditching, I had a distinct feeling of deja vu. In an email to the ATSB SSWG last autumn (one of many over the past two years) I described to them how the flaperon was clear evidence of a controlled ditching – I used the term “hydrodynamic erosion” to explain the state of it’s trailing edge.

    They very quickly wrote back to me to tell me (in so many words) that this hadn’t been proven, and that the end of flight scenario was still “up fo grabs”, to use their words. It was about the time they had their first public spat with Byron Bailey.

    They have been doggedly sticking to the high speed spiral descent, all this time, and now things a beginning to unravel. Not an enviable position, but they are just government employees (as Dennis has pointed out, many times) serving out their time

    I get the feeling I’ve outstayed my time on this forum, so will break off now. It’s been messing with my health, anyway. Jeff, breathe a deep sigh of relief.

  23. VictorI posted July 31, 2016 at 8:35 PM: ” R466 was followed until just before the FIR boundary between Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) and Jakarta (Indonesia). This is important because it suggests that even in the simulation, there was an intent to avoid airspace controlled by Indonesia. ”

    Why is that important? Didn’t he simply follow an air route that is fairly standard in that direction?

    If avoiding the Jakarta FIR was that important, he could have turned south at LAGOG and fly due south until past S2°E92°.

  24. @DrBobbyUlich. I note the fuel saved quantities are not enough but I had best explain further the principle since it might be an improvement which could be made to your and other like models.I was not addressing gravity change with latitude but rather the potential energy change as an aircraft reduces its distance to the earth’s centre. The work entailed is force by distance, ie aircraft weight by the distance closer, in this case 20,000 ft, which is also the loss of its PE. The work done on the aircraft will be this in transiting from the equator to the search latitude. In effect the aircraft is heading downhill, the earth’s surface retreating at the same rate, the aircraft altitude then remaining constant. Because of the “downhill” gradient the work being done by gravity overcomes a little drag and hence saves fuel. That is the quantity I mentioned and it is quite easy to do the sums if L/D is known.
    If the models do not allow for this they should because it is non-trivial, as my (indicative)800 lbs suggests. This is roughly 30 miles (at altitude) worth.
    I hope that further explanation helps.

    About APU fuel consumption, I post the figures just in case of use (see below):
    You will notice that it is about three times the 2 lb in 55 secs the ATSB quotes. Intake door drag is immateriel to the ATSB’s twin engine out APU run time and might have entailed trials to establish. On the drop box figures, I would rather not be asked why the extent of the variation with AUW; but there it is.

    “But doesn’t the RAT deploy when the main engines quit whether or not the APU is running? And I seem to recall that the SDU would not be powered by the RAT. If this is correct, then there would not have been a reboot of the SDU and no 00:19 log-on, right?” The RAT deploys when: both engines have failed, or; both AC buses are unpowered, or; all three hydraulic pressures are low. So yes it would deploy. And yes it would not power the SDU, though that would be powered still by the APU. So as you say there would not have been an SDU reboot and I can think of no other unmanned source for that. Supposing there isn’t one I must withdraw that suggestion!
    Not much of one.

  25. @sk999: You wrote “+YVel is -sin(pitch)*Vtot”.

    I’m not sure that is correct. I would think that YVelWorld is the vertical speed, positive upwards. It is equal to Vtot*sin(FPA), where FPA = flight path angle (FPA) relative to the horizontal plane (positive up), and
    Vtot = sqrt(XVel^2 +YVel^2 + ZVel^2)

    Then Pitch (+/- down/up) = – (FPA + AoA) where AoA is Angle of Attack.

  26. @David

    The reboot of the SDU at 0:19 occured but the the expected logon to the IFE did not.
    Based on this they concluded the airplane crashed before this expected IFE-logon.

    But if the IFE was switched off some time before the SDU logon would there be a logon to the IFE during the SDU logon starting at 0:19?

    By the way I got a link maybe to your interest. About galvanic corrosion between aluminium and carbon fiber.
    With salt water as a conductor the corrosion rate of aluminium attached to a big carbon surface is very high:


  27. @airlandseaman

    To me Larry Vance makes the honest impression he does not know about the Rodrigues piece or the monitor mounting at all. He doesn’t mention the Pemba-piece also.

    I would like to know when this interview with him was taken.
    I have the strong impression now it was taken before those finds.

  28. @David RE:” the potential energy change as an aircraft reduces its distance to the earth’s centre.”

    Did you consider how the earth got the shape it has?

  29. @Rob. Further on ditchings Rob, in case any of this is of interest, the flaperons will operate as ailerons from 2 to 8 degrees if the flaps are housed. On flaps being lowered the flaperons will droop progressively with them up to 33 degrees, unless the flaps are powered by electrics in which case the flaperonsy stop at 20. When under hydraulic power (centre system) the flaps will retract under load relief to an appropriate position, to a minimum of 5 degrees. They will not do this when electrically powered.
    Presumably they could go to 5 in a powered ditching if quick enough.

    @Ge Rijn. IFE connection failure is not an issue if switched off before as you say. Beyond my ken whether that would have have been evident in the logon, though presumably not.
    Thanks for the corrosion tip. Will take a look.

  30. @Lauren H. “The FCOM notes maximum conditions to avoid flutter so it is possible for flutter to damage control surfaces as seen in this photo:” . Interesting photo, which has some similarity of look to the part flap. Would you advise the FCOM details please? Cannot find it.

  31. @Gysbreght

    Maybe a question you know the answer on:
    Is it possible to deploy the outboard flaps during cruise speeds?

  32. @David RE:” Intake door drag is immateriel to the ATSB’s twin engine out APU run time”

    That probably explains why the ATSB’s APU fuel flow is less than the figures in your table.

  33. @ALL

    One final thing: how amusing it is to watch ALSM, Richard Godfrey, VictorI, DS and co of the IG performing almost impossible feats of gymnastics in an increasingly desperate effort to keep their “uncontrolled impact, no pilot suicide, aerodynamic flutter” scenario alive, despite ever mounting evidence to the contrary.

    The ATSB have been taking succour from the IG, as they provided a much needed bolster to the ATSB’s no pilot input at the end scenario. Illogical, I know, but that’s the way has turned out.

    This is not sour grapes BTW. just setting the record straight

  34. @ Gysbreght. “That probably explains why the ATSB’s APU fuel flow is less than the figures in your table”.Thanks that is what I was trying to say. The sentence missed a couple of words, viz….Intake door drag is immateriel to the ATSB’s twin engine out APU run time and THEIR CONSUMPTION RATE might have entailed trials to establish…..

  35. I believe that the idea of “part detachment” has been suggested before, but please bear with me.

    1. Wing parts found (thus far) are all retractable control surfaces originating from one side.
    2. The Reunion and Pemba finds are (very approximately and with wide confidence intervals) indicative of drift origin to the north.
    3. The SA piece (and possibly MZ pieces if they went around S end of Madagascar) are more indicative of drift origin to the south.
    4. Flaperon exhibits damage that “might” have originated from flutter [or from ditching “flaperon-extended”, or from running up and down a stony beach in the surf].

    Question 1. Is it conceivable that control surfaces on RIGHT wing could have been stuck in extended position and been torn off by air speeds beyond their design envelope (resulting in drift origin well to the north and possibly “inside” 7th arc).

    Question 2. If such damage did occur, would the aircraft be able to keep flying? If so, what would that kind of damage do to the ability of the plane to hold track/heading/course?

    This scenario could conceivably address two oddities while still permitting “ghost flight” and non-ditch scenario a) ragged flaperon edge b) diversity [divergence?] of debris finds.

  36. To add to my previous, does the 777 FMC have capability to maintain stability / compensate in case of control surface failures (see below) although it “remains a rarity on commercial aircraft”

    “Another challenge for pilots who are forced to fly an aircraft without functioning control surfaces is to avoid the phugoid instability mode (a cycle in which the aircraft repeatedly climbs and then dives), which requires careful use of the throttle.

    Because this type of aircraft control is difficult for humans to achieve, researchers have attempted to integrate this control ability into the computers of fly-by-wire aircraft. Early attempts to add the ability to real aircraft were not very successful, the software having been based on experiments conducted in flight simulators where jet engines are usually modelled as “perfect” devices with exactly the same thrust on each engine, a linear relationship between throttle setting and thrust, and instantaneous response to input. More modern computer systems have been updated to account for these factors, and aircraft have been successfully flown with this software installed.[1] However, it remains a rarity on commercial aircraft.


  37. @Jay
    What are you banging on about? [rest of post about “Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot” deleted by JW. This is a famous myth. If you have credible information about it, post a link.]

  38. @ROB

    Now is not the time to be sadistic. They are doing their best. One side of the arguments does not favor the other side of the case.

  39. @Paul Smithson:

    RE your quote from wikepedia: Both parts, in particular the second paragraph, are in need of correction.

  40. Thanks, @Gysbreght. Please elucidate. I’d be glad to have your opinion on whether this sort of scenario is remotely conceivable. I note that even if it is, it would still face multiple additional challenges. I’m really just raising it out of curiosity as a logical possibility…

  41. @Paul Smithson, I don’t think there is any credible evidence of flutter. This is any idea that was generated within the IG as an attempt to keep alive hopes that the aircraft would be found close to the 7th arc, and since that hasn’t happened, I think the idea can safely be discarded. I don’t think the idea found much uptake beyond the IG at any rate.

  42. @Jeff. Depends on what speed the aircraft reached? Enough and bits would have been shed but that depends on the aircraft behavior unmanned in a dive.
    Aside from speed and the flutter envelope though the question is what bits would have been shed first and whether that is consistent with the flotsam. Many parts coming from the one wing would be a count against, though besides a ditching a wing breaking off might explain it.

  43. @Jeff. From my amateur armchair, agreed that flutter is only one possibility and inconclusive. The reason that I raise the point again is the “discordant” drift origin inference and the “both from RHS” aspects.

    The question that I am asking is not whether you think it is likely but whether it is possible that a/c could continue flying on AP after loss of control surfaces.

  44. Re pulled segment from 60 minutes, ATSB reluctance of volunteering info and Foley’s seemingly resigned pushback onto the Malaysians.

    I recall seeing a copy of an official gag order on Australian media (probably via Ben Sandilands or wikileaks?) with regards to reporting on corruption allegations/investigations involving several high ranking South East Asian officials (“former and current PMs of Malaysia” being mentioned to quote some of them).

    Who knows, maybe there is some big quagmire interweaving all the goings on, MH370, 1MDB, rumors of missing gold, billions going into Radshit’s account, Australian media and officials being coy and delivering surprising ommissions in their reporting. There is some smell of “hands being tied behind some backs” and itching to get more info out.

    I am with Brock, lets keep giving them a hard time and demand full disclosure. Call out the inconsistencies and make that itch unbearable. There ought to be some proud souls in the know, who want or for their own sanity, need to set the records straight.

    Ah, before I forget, Matty-Perth, good to see you back.

  45. @Jeff Wise

    I think then it can only be concluded the outboard flap was deployed when it seperated.
    And when it’s impossible this can be done in cruise flight or speeds above its structural failing limits the only conclusion then can be it was deployed at lower speeds in advance of a ditching attempt.

    Then both outboard flap section and flaperon seperated due to impact forces of the water.
    It’s what I thought all along but still needs confirmation by the ATSB.

    Maybe interesting to assume then also the inboard flaps had to be deployed and most probably also pieces from those broke away.
    If a piece of those gets found the case would be settled also IMO.

  46. @Bugsy
    Typo…I was getting magnetic declinations from an on-line calculator and Oct 15 2014 was the earliest date for the model.

Comments are closed.