Last month Robyn Ironside, the National Aviation Writer at the News Corp Australia Network, published what struck me as an extremely important article in the Daily Telegraph about the work of scientist Patrick De Deckker, who had obtained a sample of a Lepas anatifera barnacle from the French judicial authorities and conducted an analysis to determine the temperature of the water in which the barnacle grew. A snippet:
The same 2.5 centimetre barnacle was used by both French and Australian examiners — but different techniques applied. “For my analysis, I used a laser to create little holes of 20 microns, over the length of the barnacles. In all we did 1500 analyses,” said Professor De Deckker.
Intrigued, I reached out to Ironside, asking if she could tell me more about De Deckker’s work. She very graciously did just that, and shared this extremely interesting nugget, a verbatim quote from De Deckker:
The start of the growth was around 24 degrees (Celsius) and then for quite some time, it ranged between 20 and 18 degrees (Celsius). And then it went up again to around 25 degrees.
This is surprising. The graphic above shows the water temperature in July 2005, which I take to be a rough proxy for the water temperature in March 2014. (I would be extremely grateful if someone could extract granular sea-surface temperature maps for March 2014 to July 2015 from NASA or NOAA databases available online.) It shows that the waters in the seabed search area are about 12-14 degrees Celsius. To find 24 degree water would mean trekking 1000 miles north, above the Tropic of Capricorn.
It has long been known that Lepas anatifera do not grow in waters below about 18 degrees Celsius, and that in order to begin colonizing the flaperon (if it began its journey in the search zone) would have had to first drift northwards and wait for warmer months and warmer latitudes. What’s peculiar is that this particular Lepas would have to have waited a good while beyond that, until the flaperon arrived in water six degrees above its minimum. As I’ve written before, Lepas naupali are common in the open sea and in general are eager colonizers of whatever they can glue their heads to.
Peculiarity number two is that after this period of initial growth the flaperon then found its way into significantly colder water, where most of its total growth took place. What’s weird is that every drift model I’ve ever seen shows currents going through warm water before arriving at Réunion. Where the heck could it have gone to find 18-20 degree water? And how did it then get back to the 25 degree waters of Réunion Island, where it finished its growth?
I’m frankly baffled, and am appealing to readers to ponder historical surface temperature data and drift models to help figure out what kind of journey this plucky Lepas might have found itself on.
@JeffWise – I’m just saying that even if an ELT was activated, it could have easily sunk while awaiting the satellite.
@Dennis
“We disagree on the flight crew and ELT use issue.”
I agree that we disagree.
“First, the flight crew had no reason to believe the location of the aircraft was not known. ”
The flight crew consists of the pilots and the cabin crew. At least the pilots knew that they were dark on ATC radars, as the operating transponder is the means to become visible on secondary radars. That is basic knowledge.
“If I was on a hijacked aircraft it would not occur to me that in this day and age the location of the aircraft was not being actively tracked.”
For the cabin crew, distanced from the pilots by hijackers or a rouge pilot, the ELT would not be means to communicate position, but to communicate a severe life threatening event with their flight. Especially in a hijacked situation activating the switch in a well accessable and unsuspicious cabinet would be a neat idea, or do you disagree?
“Secondly, the flight crew would not be trained to use the ELT as an emergency locator in the event of a hijacking.
That would be an extraordinarily improbable event, and outside the use profile of the ELT.”
While the primary reason for the requirment to carry an ELT on board is the location of the aircraft in case of a crash, it’s use in a hijacking with imminent danger for the life of passengers onboard, other flights in the air and people on ground is not prohibited and without other options a prudent thing to do. In the end you have to use what you have, available and what would work.
“I can see training for the ELT’s intended usage which is not for communicating aircraft location while in flight.
To toggle a switch from off to on does not require special knowledge or training. To recognize dangerous and life threatning events like hijacking does require training, and I assume all flight crew have basic knowledge to handle such situations and use all the tools which are available.
We are not talking about an event where such a decision to use the ELT had to be made within seconds or minutes, we talk about hours. I would assume that to be ample time to look for alternatives to praying, even untrained ones like activating an ready available ELT.
For me as a former pilot it is unthinkable that a complete crew of pilots and flight attendants would be hostage on an hourlong flight to a watery grave without searching for options to communicate and hereby forgetting the most obvious tool, the ELT in the cabinet, where my personal things are stowed on each flight. This bares any logic. But the world has changed obviously. The adherence to SOP’s and increasing reluctance to take responsibility for steps beyond that book may hinder common sense.
RetiredF4:
In common usage in commercial aviation, the term “flight crew” (navigants techniques in french) does not include the cabin crew (navigants commercial).
@Johan@Lauren
The Malays are not even acknowledging that the FO’s cell phone established a tower connection. My guess is that if we had access to the “tower dump” for that time period it would show that many cell phones from the flight established a tower log on. Why this information is being kept secret is hard to understand.
Lauren H
If the IFE was activated at 18:28, as indicated by the IFE logon, then the passengers would have had access to email & SMS if they were still alive, and the IFE/Seat Power switch was left on.
It’s not possible know for sure if any passengers were still alive by 18:28. I believe the pilot switched the IFE/Seat Power switch off shortly after 18:28, having left it on by mistake when he reconnected LH main AC bus and reenergized the SDU at about 18:24.
@Dennis, Retired4, Lauren:
To me it sounds like the passengers and crew would have been incapacitated early if one of the pilots did it, or at gun point if a hijack. The idea of a meticulos plan by Z doesn’t rhyme with 238 raving people behind a door. The idea of several people managing to bring guns onboard seems less likely to me. And the pilot/crew ought to have found opportunity to make some kind of contact with the ground. A turn with the excuse that the “other” pilot had suddenly died would not work either since a crew member probably would have expected to be joining the captain in the cockpit. A hijack with no “agenda” other than going silent and disappearing is mostly silly. A fast murdering of all passengers seems not fully fool proof either. But in likelyhood, given the details, a violent take-over by Z or (less likely) the FO, weighs over for me right now. Otherwise one would have to construe very peculiar combinations of events (technical incidents in combination with drunk or berzerk passengers, extended revenge murder-sucide by passenger, heart failure and electric fire, military agenda gone wrong, artillery fire and shell shocked pilots, unintentional depressurization of the cabin from take off, elaborate sabotage to bring MAS out of business, or a pretty crazy, suicidal hijacker etc. (The fact is that if this is a “workplace shooting” we might have to look again at all of the cabin crew, and perhaps some passengers, as it may equally well be someone else than Z (except for the flying part of it). The guilty one ought to be someone who wouldn’t want it to be known (except to the select few the revenge was carried out against).
Or have I missed something?
@Johan
The vast majority of the PAX would be docile in the face of an announcement by the pilot that he is diverting the plane, and that they will all be safe if they behave themselves.
My belief is that the plane and PAX were bargaining chips in a political negotiation that did not work out. What else is there really?
1> Z showed no signs of suicidal behavior
2> If Z wanted to commit suicide he could have done it without murdering 200+ people.
3> The Malays made no attempt to organize S&R activities in the hours after IGARI. They knew what was going on.
4> Loitering Northwest of Penang supports the “waiting for results” thesis.
When the negotiations failed, Z did the pre-planned flight to nowhere. He had no choice. You have to complete the threat in order to be taken seriously the next time.
Very simple. Very clean. That is what happened. Mechanical failures, scorched panels, flaming batteries, compromised wiring,… are all a bunch of rubbish.
@DennisW:
I buy your first paragraph, to some extent, although “most” is some too few. I have difficulties believing in the political hijack. Z was not a politically minded person. There would be no reason for the Malay to deny tha fact or hide the demands (or make some new ones up), especially not afterwards. A hijacker would know, even Z, that you need to go public with demands to put pressure behind them. No one would expect the Malay to accept extortion with regard to court deciscions. Z would have had nowhere to go afterwards, and political asylum in Australia (or anywhere else outside of Afghanistan or similar places) would have been unlikely after a hostage situation. There would have been no “next time” for Z. And how could he count on that he could keep 238 people docile behind a door?
I admit there are no major signs of him being suicidal, but are there signs he was political? Killing 200 innocent people makes more sense as an extended suicide than it does as a (liberal?) political act which asks for repetition. It is a (first and last) manifestation of allmighty power and agency as opposed to powerlessness and insignificance (impotence). It is a ruse with no return ticket.
@DennisW
You said “all a bunch of rubbish”. Right on the button, there.
1) You say that Z showed no signs of suicidal tendencies.
That is the Malaysian official line, as noted in a document of 550 plus pages of mostly padding and waffle, entitled Factual Information. But they would say that wouldn’t they. I have read of numerous suicide cases over the years, which took associates and loved ones completely by surprise. It is a recognized (and very unfortunate) fact that people intending to commit suicide often deliberately and skillfully disguise their intentions prior to the event.
2) You said that if Z wanted to commit suicide, he could have done it without murdering 200+ people. The Germanwings co-pilot could have committed suicide without murdering 150 innocent people. There are other examples, many other examples.
3) You said the Malays made no attempt to organize SAR. I say hardly surprising, knowing how bumblingly inefficient they are. They were taken completely off guard, in the middle of the night. Most of them were probably asleep. The Malaysians were not geared up for such an event. What they cherish most is a quiet life.
4) You assert he “loitered northwest of Penang”. Absolute, unadulterated cobblers, to use the Shakespearean vernacular. There os no good evidence he loitered anywhere, or that any negotiations were taking place.
The only bit you got right is the preplanned flight to nowhere. Z preplanned a flight to nowhere, and skilfully carried it out.
Having said all that, I still think you are a superb blogger, one of the very best, frank, honest and very entertaining. 🙂 I hope I haven’t offended you in any way.
@ Dennis If Z were negotiating with the Malays and the negotiations ‘failed’, why would the Malays not say ‘we don’t negotiate with terrorists’ and as a result this crazy person, Z committed this terrorist act?
One reason could be the ‘missing’ cargo. Independently of the diversion of the plane, the cargo could be of a nature that its existence is an embarrassment to the Malaysian government. The disappearance of the plane may be unrelated to the cargo but the Malaysian government does not want the plane found because the cargo then could also be found. The Malaysian government is then happy thwart search efforts.
Not so clean. Not so simple. But perhaps possible.
@Shadynuk
Good question relative to the Malay behavior. I don’t have a good explanation for it. Yours is as good as any at the moment. The Malays are hiding something. I just don’t know what it is or why.
The fact that they have still not picked up Gibson’s debris is incredibly negligent.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/16/mh370-debris-madagascar-malaysia-not-collected
The fact that they have so casually dismissed the data found on Shah’s simulator is astonishing. Keeping that data secret, and not sharing tower dumps is equally puzzling.
This search begs for new leadership. It shows how opaque the curtain of a sovereign state really is.
@ROB
🙂
I actually feel some compassion for you. The fact that no debris has been found on Western Australian beaches has to be a difficult burden.
The disinterest and obfuscation of the Malays is typical, they were probably at a loss for what to do, at the time, when/if they realized something was wrong. A chain of incompetence, waiting for some authority to think through the problem, when nothing came it just continued to be a kind of wait see situation. Really that is how the place functions.
Avoidance and obfuscation, played out via the media for all the world to see.
Nice people not problem solvers. Problem solving has for decades been farmed out to various expat experts. Malay culture does not cultivate stepping up the the plate, taking control or being responsible. If they have collected more information, understanding, data, subsequently they may just hope the entire thing will fall from interest, eventually the problem goes away or is accepted. Malaysian government, MAS cannot underestimate the families of the Chinese passengers, the majority, who culturally do not forget other countries acts against them.
As for Z story:
How does a short, nerdish, unfit guy kill all the passengers and the rest of the crew? By boring them to death with his youtube video. He was a nice guy, committed to career, family and community work.
What he carry an machine gun on board, or a hand gun secreted away somewhere. Enough poisons to sedate everyone as if everyone is going to be drinking a spiked beverage. Also the cabin long, divided into sections…. so what, he comes out blazing, a handgun. Like really what is going to happen in that situation.
Or, locked in the cockpit and everyone on board just passively accepting the turn back, and continued flight in the wrong direction. The rest of the crew would know if they were still alive and if they are dead, everyone is. But how?
Look at the sunset/sunrise comparison
In the SIO sunrise at 5 am and gosh, just happens to be on the wrong side of the plane, and an hour earlier than it would have been in Beijing, indicating they have been, are, flying in the wrong direction and are in the wrong longitude.
My phone compass works even in flight mode.
Something bigger than a suicidal pilot happened to that plane.
Just went back a few days to see what was posted since my last visit found this:
“Jeff Wise
Posted September 14, 2016 at 6:56 AM
@Gloria, I’ve edited your previous comment to remove speculation about the Uninterruptible Autopilot. I like to think that this forum is a very large tent, but I must exclude phantasmagorical speculation.
Consider this a first warning.”
Hmm interesting response, telling to say the least.
@Gloria
Gee Gloria, that is really convincing. You comment incessantly one day, then suddenly stop after Jeff responds with a “warning” to you,
Two days pass before you and your attitude return with 2 posts. It is only THEN, you go “back a few days to see what was posted” and discover (wow) the “Hmm interesting response,” (really?) from Jeff. As a new commenter, if you are randomly going to jump in and out, it seems only logical and courteous to familiarize yourself with missed subject manner before re-inserting yourself. IMO. Jeff’s gatekeeping mild admonishment was only that and not the least bit “interesting”.
@Susie Crowe,
It is weekend, more time between work to post. I did not see the warning until after the two posts above when I went back over the pages looking for something relevant. Informative, as it is to contextualist the content of my future posts, keeping to what we are allowed to post on here, censorship and all that.
@Wazir @Rob – Thank you for responding. I can only concur. Though circumstantial as of now, Z’s role in all of this cannot be ignored. The problem IMO with a terrorist act is that MG would have revealed such off the bat. If people are trumpetted from their beds in the middle of the night, have to scramble to get to locations to negotiate with whoever, i doubt it would have been swept under the carpet. Suicide motivations are probably the most difficult to fathom. Reality is, most do not show outwardly signs, at all. Which is why people are often completely baffled after the fact, not seeing any indications of it happening. @DennisW, your posts always make me smile:). I know well not to try and steal your tractors:). A valid point you make though is, the murdering of 200+ people. This also crosses my mind everytime we spar theories around on this blog. It’s a tough one.
@Keffertje
It is probably lost on most here, but tonight is a full moon night. It is crystal clear at my ranch, and I spent awhile sucking down a few brews watching it rise. I am still amazed and baffled by the moon illusion. It is, indeed, very striking.
@DennisW…I almost choked on my morning coffee reading your post. It is pitch dark here and too early for an awesome brew, though sometimes tempting. I can only be envious of your location:) Don;t turn into a wolf!!
Correction:
I wrote: “There would be no reason for the Malay to deny the fact or hide the demands (or make some new ones up), especially not afterwards. ”
Should have been: “There would be no reason for the Malay to deny the fact or hide the demands (or nothing stopping them from making some new ones up), especially not afterwards.”
@DennisW: And as Keffertje states here above it would probably be hard to cover up what happened that night if there were negotiations.
And more: the murder is not impossible (psychologically) but it would be more probable (socially/psychologically) if someone else than Z did it. The difficulties we have are mirrored by the ones the authorities of some 5-7 countries are having, so I wouldn’t think too much about that.
This is of course all in good humour from my side, but you know that. I won’t steel your tractor either, :-).
@Rob, My work, necessitates me to fly a LOT. The IFE in my experience is not always reliable especially when it comes to using the in-seat phone (business class). This could also be a KLM issue since they are always behind when it comes to IFE or implemented a cheap version. Idk. At 30k+f altitude phones simply do not work, though phones may perhaps try and connect to towers. I have had messages welcoming me to Iceland when flying over the country at 35kft. Though BC passengers have use on an in-seat phone, they are cumbersome and difficult to use, if they work at all. Apart from having to look up how to use the damn thing, you need to punch in a whole sequence of numbers and swipe a credit card (which you have to have handy). All in all, it takes time to use that phone if there is a satelite connection and usage will not go unnoticed by people around you. It would be interesting to know if passengers tried to connect in addition to the FO. That would reveal a lot IMO.
@DennisW:
Full moon in Stockholm last night also, just above the horizon to the east. Now It’s … soon seven a.m. so I will catch a couple of hours more sleep. Cheers anyway.
@Keffertje @Wazir Roslan
Think this over. If something like this occured, a hijack with failed negotiations, the government and its military would never have allowed the plane to fly on to some place unknown taking the risk of an attack on some city or other place.
The plane would instantly become a national and international threat.
With failed negotiations the only option left would be to shoot the plane down by their own or another warned military.
Therefore the whole idea makes no sence IMO.
@Johan, I trust pilots implicitly. It would never cross my mind to doubt anything they would do or say, in flight. In that sense its hard to reconcile a person who is wired to do everything possible to save his passengers under any circumstance, all of a sudden would do the opposite. Food for thought:). There is much we don’t know and where we all agree, MY is hiding something. It’s slap in the face obvious.
@Ge Rijn
How can you shoot a plane down if you do not where it is?
@Ge Rijn, Valid point. Where I stumble with a hijacking/terrorist event is that perpetrators want fame, notoriety, publicity and will scream from every rooftop that a government didn’t give in to their demands. They will claim such an event and with great pride too. Thinking through such an event taking place on board would have resulted in chaos and panic , for these perpetrators would be ruthless in executing thier plan. And overpowering both pilots is like planning the unplannable. They would have to have been very lucky, IMO to assume it would all come together within minutes after the last sign off.
According to official accounts the plane is in the air long enough for the fuel to run out.
If Z was suicidal, why not ditch the plane long before it is supposed to have gone down and long before sunrise in the region. It would still be very hard to find in the Indian Ocean. Long before the passengers and crew are aware. That story just does not fit to any logical set of events. The passengers need to have been subdued.
The tech experts on board, not just Freescale group but the expat engineers and other technical experts active in the region, so often on those Asian flights. Look at the skill sets, jobs of the passengers on board. If they were stuck for hours on a plane with massive systems failure, what steps would their combined efforts be to mitigate the situation if no alert people via any means. Again this does not fit very well as some of them would have known how to improvise what was available to make contact. Or did they?
If a plane glides to a controlled landing on water, how long will it float?
I read different times on various sites, 30 minutes plus. The protocol for a water landing is in place and part of the inflight safety video or demonstration of every flight I’ve taken, so it must be anticipated that there is time for an intact plane to float and passengers to exit. Z would have been simulator skilled enough to do this.
The plane was subject to a group hijacking, how else to kill or control the passengers in the various sections of the plane. In this highly orchestrated scenario, one of the hijackers was able to fly, land, the plane. The length of time on the plane, when it was, allegedly, airborne would have allowed them to find any cargo they wanted, if that was part of the scenario and take the plane to waters far away before controlled landing and escape.
@DennisW
The Malaysians admitted they trackted the plane real time from IGARI over mainland-Malaysia till out of Butterworth radar-reach at 18:22.
They declared they did not scramble jets because they did not regarded the plane as a threat. So IMO they knew where the plane was at least in the first hour after 17:21 till 18:22.
If Zaharie or another hijacker took control over the plane IMO he would not wait with announcing his demands till after crossing the most dangerous possible interception part of the flight over Malaysia-mainland and within radar-reach of Malaysia/Indonesia/Thailand and possibly India (he would not have know or anticipated/gambled radar staion would be switched off).
His best protection against being intercepted and a shoot down would be to declare his demands soon after 17:21.
The Malaysian government and military shure would have alerted surrounding countries and all radar-stations who possibly could see the plane, including Diego Garcia and Australia if they not already intercepted the plane themselves before 18:22.
All radar-eyes would be switched on and watching in all directions the plane could possibly go after 18:22.
In a case like this it could not have dissapeared unnoticed IMO.
For me it’s still hard to believe the Malaysians did not regarded the plane as a threat, did not intercept it and let it fly on to an unknown destination without alerting other countries. I don’t buy it.
Something is wrong there.
Something crucial is kept secret by the Malaysians IMO.
@Gysbreght. “What you describe is APC (Aircraft-Pilot Coupling), formerly referred to as PIO (Pilot-Induced Oscillation.” I do understand that the phugoid has a longer period (in the glider on approach about 16 secs it seems), which is why I added a correction to my error. Yes, even so, a pilot induced oscillation is what it was. The erroneous connection with a phugoid was however incidental in my describing it as a “distant cousin of stick fixed vs free”, a theme which followed. Also I meant ‘in phase’ when I said ‘out of’ which I am glad you overlooked (and I imagine also you meant NTSB when you said ATSB).
I note that the BEA raised comments about the NTSB’s findings, included at the Report’s p194. “The high AoA played a positive role in this event”, and amplifies this as reducing the risk of a stall and reducing cockpit workload. RetiredF4’s, “…or until stall in alternate law without protections”.
Thanks for your expansion of pitch compensation for bank angle.
@Ge Rijn. “Then there would be also the possibility the ELT’s did not activate because impact speed/ forces did not exceed 4.5feet/sec 2.3G I suppose?” Does 4.5 ft/sec mean descent rate? What of normal landings? The Sullenberger ditching report, descent at ditching 12.5 ft/sec, makes no mention of ELT activation or non; and if not why not since it could recur remotely? An oversight?
I notice the NTSB held a public hearing into this accident and ICAO/the Malaysians might take note.
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1003.pdf
@Lauren H. “Therefore, even if the ELT’s were activated upon impact, there is the possibility they could have sunk by the time the satellite was close enough to detect the signal”. As I understand it the distress signal would go out after fifty seconds. The location takes longer. On this and satellite location this might help:
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/25/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-flight-370-beacons/
@Gysbreght. Second last para, “The high AoA protection….”
@Ge Rign
“The Malaysian government and military sure would have alerted surrounding countries and all radar-stations who possibly could see the plane, including Diego Garcia and Australia if they not already intercepted the plane themselves before 18:22.
All radar-eyes would be switched on and watching in all directions the plane could possibly go after 18:22.
In a case like this it could not have dissapeared unnoticed IMO.”
At that time of night, no one of the middle men or lower down the pecking order will be alerting anyone, they would have been stuck in a no action, don’t know what to do mode. There were probably a number sleeping on the job. Malays cultural least line of resistance or responsibility prevails. Maybe in the middle of the day someone high enough to action this would have done so but not in the middle of the night.
The US in Giego Garcia may have been alerted or more likely spotted the rogue flight themselves. They’d be highly unlikely to wait for information from Malaysia, to act if they thought there was a threat.
What if there were no demands by the hijackers (not Z), the purpose of the hijacking was a professional government (which govt, to be speculated) hit. Or the plane was destroyed to avert some possible military action by the hijackers. Looks more like a hit to me.
@David
I assume an instant decelaration is meant with exceeding a higher vertical/horizontal speed of 4.5ft/sec resulting in +2.3G.
Something like driving your car against a wall with 10 miles/hour.
I assume a succesfull ditching like the Hudson-ditch did not exceeded this deceleration and G-forces and therefore the ELT’s were not activated.
Speculating this would still be a possibility in the case of MH370.
Although regarding the found debris this is highly unlikely ofcourse.
@David:
Thanks for your reply. Somewhat ashamedly I must admit that I never read the BEA comments in full. I agree with every word of those comments. In my view the BEA comments underline that the NTSB really went out of its way to protect the flight crew from any suggestion of criticism.
@Gloria
I mean in case of a hijacker HE would have contacted ATC or another authority soon after IGARI.
In a case like this I can not imagine no one was alerted enough to take immediate action. Even not in Malaysia.
@Keffertje
The story of the First Officer’s cellphone connection is intriguing. The story leaked out a few days after the event, if my memory serves me, before many people had got a handle on what happened. Knowing what we know now, it would be entirely reasonable to believe that Hamid would have done all he could to alert the outside world, after being locked out of the cockpit, but would have been highly speculative at the time the story broke. Having discovered that the Satcom was down, Hamid would have tried to connect with his cellphone. The story goes that his phone made only a momentary contact, because of the aircraft’s altitude and speed. It makes me think the story probably is genuine – you know the saying, there’s no smoke without fire?
When you consider the mayhem and panic that would have broken out in the cabin following depressurization (Yes, I believe it was most probably deliberately depressurized by the pilot) you can possibly understand why it was only Hamid’s phone that tried to connect.
I take your point about the problems with IFE satellite phones. The business class phones on MH370 were seat to seat only, according to FI. Seems crazy doesn’t it. Hardly a selling point, but knowing Malaysia Airlines, quite possible. Evidently, the BC passengers had email and SMS connectivity, only.
@Ge Rijn:
I share your description concerning the outcomes of a hijack. If Malaysia knew who hijacked the plane and what the demands were they would have (awoke and) acted accordingly. Then the plane would have been a threat. A terrorist org. would have announced their demands through the media simultaneously, and, probably regardless of that, the plane would have been shot down if the demands were of a terrorist nature and negotiations failed. If demands of a more civil nature had been expressed by Z or some Malaysian group, jets would have scrambled if negotiations were failing, to follow the planes movements. For Z, even the risk of a shooting down would in my eyes make him less probable. And he’s not the verbal type, and pecking order logic and perhaps “subjects status” would inkline MAY to shoot him down when demands were announced. (He might have asked to get job back though).
The most likely scenario thus is that no demands were verbalised and that the pilot exploited the confusion arising and civil service men possibly hesitating to call on superiors. This is interesting in itself: it is in that case of course a “not-hijacking” while the officials still have mote and gravel in their eyes trying to make deciscions. If the MAY scenario as told is believable then their first big issue was that the plane could get that far without them having jets in the air and ground-to-air batteries manned and ready. Afterwards that part is not what stands out as the big deal (after all it is an airliner with a trusted captain that turns back, seemingly trying to save the situation), but that they lowered their guard and took for granted he would eventually try to land — and that their emergency focus would be on that spot (also as they trusted, perhaps, the pilot to be in control). He seems to have kept them in a less than highest alert until the FMT. And judging from this the culprit seems most likely to be a Malaysian subject wanting to get back on MAS and MAY (or possibly on someone onboard without the world fully understanding who did it). Either that or something bigger, but no political or terrorist hijacking.
@DennisW
Thank you for being so considerate.
I envy you the apparently crystal clear skies over your CA ranch. Is there any light pollution, or are you out in the “sticks”?
I have big problems with cloudy weather, light pollution and very poor atmospheric seeing. I have lost count of the times I’ve lugged my 12in Dobsonian out into the back yard (I found a fixed observatory to restricting, view-wise) only to find the Moon looked as it would if viewed from the bottom of a swimming pool.
@GeRijn, and @Wazir, was it?:
So when an interviewee or source in an early article says that ‘Z was not in any condition to fly’ he is also suggesting that MAS should’ve allowed Z some sick leave, or met him concerning other wishes regarding his professional situation, isn’t he?
But then again, wouldn’t the police investigation have unearthed something of this order?
@GeRijn:
Correction: “regardless of that, the plane would have been shot down if the t h r e a t s were of a terrorist nature and negotiations failed.”
Possessive tense apostrophes where applicable. (We don’t have that.)
No one can say if other passengers’ phones connected. That information has not been released. Only it wouldn’t proof much as not all passengers tend to switch their mobiles off.
If the FO’s phone connected, that probably means there was no sudden event incapacitating everyone in the cabin. The alleged contact was over Penang, which was well after the initial diversion. There is no indication a connection had been established already at Malaysia’s east coast. Switching on one’s mobile phone wouldn’t be the first thing to do in that situation, you’d first alert the cabin crew, for example. Either there was no depressurisation at all or the crew managed to get a hold of their portable oxygen bottles, and why wouldn’t they? That would have given them time, say, two hours or more. Then there is the question of what happens to the temperature and whether or not any hijacker could survive that long, even if on unlimited oxygen supply. That oxygen system is in the avionics bay and therefore vulnerable to tampering. Returning to the main land is also risky, and the reboot counter-indicates there was an alleged plan to make the plane disappear forever rather than to reach some destination.
The satellite data indicate no pilot inputs at some point after the FMT. I find it unlikely a suicidal hijacker would not have changed direction during several hours of flight or tried and ditched the aircraft to prevent debris from floating on the ocean. If the recent debris finds indicating a fire are genuine, I suspect something else may have happened during the latter stages of the flight, effectively turning it into a ghost flight. Perhaps there was an attempt to regain control of the aircraft and some of the crew went into the avionics bay and did something with unforeseen consequences. Perhaps some other problem occurred. Once locked mechanically, it is probably difficult for anyone to reenter the cockpit.
@Re Gijn
“@Gloria
I mean in case of a hijacker HE would have contacted ATC or another authority soon after IGARI.
In a case like this I can not imagine no one was alerted enough to take immediate action. Even not in Malaysia.”
Why would any hijacker contact anyone if it was a hit or capture for other reasons. We cannot presume that every hijacking has political motive. In this day and age I think it is more likely military or business or a mixture of both motives.
As for alerting Malaysia….
One has to spend only a short time living in Malaysia to get a handle on the social and political landscape there. It is a place where expats love living, the lifestyle and opportunities.
Don’t try to fix something or deal with a problem, that is a very convoluted and frustrating experience as people pass the buck or tell you something they think you want to hear.
Sure people talk about corruption but generically it is, under the table payments for favor in development contracts. The place has seen massive development in the past three decades.
As far as radical politics is concerned, Malays have the political power in a Muslim country and represent about 60% of the population but they are also very laid back in their orientation to life. They get all manner of perks and opportunities, in education and government jobs as sons of the soil (Bhumiputra). Zaharie was of this class, so even if he supported the opposition leader it is always the case that a Malay will be in power, have political advantage. This is how the balance is achieved with the ascendant group.
Chinese Malaysians have the economic power as they have achieved higher socio economic status through their generational entrepreneurial and business skills as well as their higher level of motivation coming from behind the field. Slightly the underdog but a very happy group from the vantage point of economics.
The smaller group, Indian Malaysians they represent about 10% of the population and they are the ones generally protesting for a better deal or bigger slice of the pie or more influence. All the protest marches in KL, during my time there were orchestrated by Indian Malaysians. They have no more or less opportunity than the Chinese Malaysians but they are just more vocal about their glass being half empty.
As for Zaharie, there is no rational basis, in relation to Malaysian politics and society for an act of this magnitude by Z extremely unlikely and a distraction from who the real perpetrators might have been.
There is no evidence that he was not up to the job and every indication, witnesses to confirm that he was more than able.
@Johan
In case no demands were made by Zaharie or another hijacker and the assumption was made Zaharie and the plane possed no threat (how could they know Zaharie was at the controls without identification and communication?) it’s still very strange.
They decided not to scramble jets (as stated by Malaysia) when MH370 passed over mainland-Malaysia. Declaring with this statement they knew at that time this was MH370 or at least a passenger-airliner that was not flying where it should and did not communicate by any means.
At that time not scrambling jets and not raising high alert in those circumstances is very strange.
If a not communicating, off course, transponders off, roque airliner is not regarded as a threat after 9/11 what then they do regard as a threat?
Okey, maybe they thought it was going to try to land on Penang and waited till it arrived there and alerted Butterworth military base there.
Seeing it passing Penang must have led to immediate action. They must have been prepared to scramble jets from Butterworth immediately as a last resort.
Also this did not happen according to Malaysian officials. Instead they let the plane fly out of radar-range without alerting any surrounding country and the risk of the plane being used as a flying bomb anywhere within ~3000 miles.
I don’t believe this. No military and government are as unorganized and stupid as that. They must be hiding something crucial.
@Ge Rijn
Finally someone who gets it. First they deemed it non-hostile to now wanna blame the pilot and get this out of the world.
@Ge Rijn
Refusal to clarify questions like (according to the FI)…
– why report their system said the plane was over Cambodia when that wasn’t the planned route, while others said it disappeared from that system
– why don’t call before it was already in Indian airspace and not try again a few more times, not even when foreign nations called in and urged them to contact the plane
– why say the ACARS text message did reach the airplane when it apparently didn’t
– why say the plane never left KL airspace when everyone allegedly thought it flew on for hours
– why did the military not communicate they reportedly spotted a plane allegedly in distress but not attempting to land
– why go to sleep when made aware the plane is actually missing
– why did the new controller at 3 am barely seem to have been informed about what happened
– why not raise an international alert within five hours of the the disappearance when reasonably the situation did warrant immediate reaction
– why was the rescue activation document not endorsed with an official stamp
…doesn’t look very transparent either.
I feel the information that MH370 was flying over Cambodia in particular obfuscated the issue of which national ATC was responsible to tackle the case. If nothing else, better communication could perhaps have allowed to track the plane as it was flying within, or close to, JORN radar range.
@Gloria
You seem to repulse every suspicion concerning Zaharie. Which is your good right ofcourse and informative with the arguments you bring lately.
But I think it’s impossible to ignore there was at least one person on the plane who was ‘up to the job and more than able’ as you mention in another context.
It’s unavoidable he is a suspect. But to blaim him without undeniable waterproof evidence isn’t fair I agree.
For ‘suicide’ there often is no ‘rational’ basis which ‘normal’ people can comprehend.
For the ones who commit ‘suicide’ their motivations and actions though can be very rational (and often are).
The Germanwings co-pilot planned his suicide thoughtfull and carefully. The 9/11 attackers also with different but in a way also psychotic motives and thoughts.
You, as no one else, can look in the mind of Zaharie at that time.
How often do you hear or read; ‘we never expected him or her to commit suicide, or becoming a ‘suicide-attacker’?
I sure hope it’s not what happened.
That there was a sudden technical failure or a hijack and he tried everything to save the plane and all occupants.
But all odds are still against scenarios like this IMO.
If you can show proof otherwise I’m sure everyone is glad to hear about it.
@Ge Rijn
If the Malays tracked the plane in real time as it flew over the Malay peninsula why did they spend the first search efforts in the South China Sea? The “real time” story is nonsense. They did not even look at the radar data until Inmarsat informed them the plane continued to fly until fuel exhaustion. The simple truth is that the Malays did not have a clue where the plane was at after IGARI.
Still, that does not excuse them from alerting their neighbor states which they apparently did not do.
Let me tell a story.,let’s assume it was shot down cue burn marks. Possible locations:
A. The north malacca straits near penang. Indonesia radar sees it but prefers to keep quiet due to diplomatic niceties.
Hint: the ambivalent official statements regarding radar detection
B. Off Sumatrra or over the Java sea. Again not seeing a plane as in (A) above jives in well with notion of keeping it under wraps
C. Off Exmouth or near CI due to sovereign space intrusion. Hint: Hence no detection by Exmouth or JORN
All of the above are absurd cos satellite detection would have been unavoidable unless satellite owners consented to play ball.
Me? I prefer suicide with ghost flight after onboard emergency an increasingly distant second. So why the above? Cos some folks like that stuff 😀
Why no one directly involved acknowledges suicide ?
Cos it’s a cultural – religious thingy over there. Even Silkair 1997 was vehemently consented.
And the other big hole in my shoot down tale above?
ISAT data. That’s what