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.
#vehemently contested
A couple of logic points from the MH370 TV documentary on YouTube:
1. If it was a Hijack plan but the plan went wrong or fell apart, then it could be very difficult to understand the intended outcome or motive
2. Also crashing into South Indian Ocean in 1987 was South Africa Air #295 it was on fire.
@Nederland
Yes, even more questions you raise that point to hiding what actualy happened.
Then I come back again to an old scenario I suggested that could explain all the mist and reluctance to share information and the unwillingness to collect debris by the Malaysians. And their early eagerness to declare the plane was lost in the SIO with no survivors.
-They did scramble the plane from Butterworth after passing Penang.
They catched up with it just before 18:22 and shot at it after no contact could be made.
-They hit the left engine taking it out and damaged other parts causing the plane to descent rapidly and vanishing from radar suddenly at 18:22.
-The taken out left engine and other damage triggered the log-on at 18:25.
-The jets followed the plane with a burning left engine till they had to return to base due to range-limits.
-They assumed and reported the plane was brought down but it wasn’t. It flew on with a burning left engine and turned to the south further north/west on lower altitude.
-After the turn the engine-fire ended and the plane flew on with one engine on a lower altitude with lower speed till fuel exhaustion.
-The Malaysians then confronted with their failure (by the Inmarsat-data) to bring the plane down and have taken the wrong decisions before, did- and still do everything to hide this ’embarrasing’ scenario.
@DennisW:
Most probably because they wanted to divert attention and guilt away from themselves and buy time and get to the wreck before the Chinese (or anyone else). It does not necessarily mean that they didn’t know about the radar data they had, but which at that time perhaps was not considered unequivocal in terms of evidence in the face of NoK and world community.
And that is not necessarily to consider as suspect.
@Johan
As usual, I prefer simple explanations. I really believe they did not have any idea where the plane went after IGARI until many days after the incident. As far as getting to the wreck first is concerned, the Malays have zero capability to do an underwater search much less collect wreckage at depth.
“Clueless” fits much better with what we now know about the Malays.
@DennisW
The Malaysian minister declared the military saw the plane passing mainland-Malaysia and decided it was not a threat. Therefore they declared they did not scrambled jets.
Such a statement and decision can only be made if the plane was tracked real-time IMO.
@Ge Rijn, @Nederland:
I agree it is fishy. It could be that they simply trusted Z to be doing the right thing. And that it was obvious to them that it was him flying. But what you say about (not) trying to contact the plane is devastating, it points to a pre-planned behaviour (or gross neglect in terms of not alerting superior officers).
As I tried to ask about a while also, I would like to know when passengers’ smartphone and ipad and laptop activities ended, before IGARI, and why. When Satellite communication was lost, or when the plane was to high up? What happened to texts or e-mails sent after that point? Has not anyone among NoK received anything?
@DennisW
“They did not even look at the radar data until Inmarsat informed them the plane continued to fly until fuel exhaustion.”
I tend to disagree with that. It is true that there were conflicting opinions by different generals on that question in the days following the disappearance. Some said it was deemed “non-hostile” or “commercial”, implying that it was tracked at the time.
But Reuters quoted a number of military and civilian sources agreeing that the military in Penang was informed of the missing aircraft and did track it in real time.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-malaysia-airplane-investigation-idUSBREA3A0NS20140411
Hishammuddin confirmed this to four corners.
In an important press statement from 1 May 2014 he reiterated this:
“As stated previously, Malaysian military radar did track an aircraft making a turn-back, in a westerly direction, across peninsular Malaysia on the morning of 8 March. The aircraft was categorised as friendly by the radar operator and therefore no further action was taken at the time. The radar data was reviewed in a playback at approximately 08:30 on 8 March.”
http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/full-text-of-hishammuddins-press-statement-on-mh370-on-may-1-2014
The Lido picture also indicate there was a lack of coverage some distance off Penang. This could be because the operator switched from short to long range. Neil Gordon also thinks the final blip was recorded on long range. This indicates active tracking. Neil Gordon also thinks there was a video record of the radar rather than a digital backup of data. I wonder wether this is done regularly or just in exceptional cases. The Lido picture indicates that blips were recorded just off Penang. This could confirm the Reuters report that the military was informed at around 2 am, when MH3070 was just off Penang.
@Ge Rijn
You are hopeless. Explain why the initial search was conducted in South China Sea.
Your opinions completely lose credibility if you do not reconcile them with actual events.
@DennisW:
I still believe it was rational from their point of view to try to buy time and compile information about what they knew and where the plane finally went. They would in a very natural way want to try to be on top of things and control the flow of information and the finding of the wreck, and get there before media and other nations to look their best. In part it is about safeguarding MAS’ rep. but also enhancing their working conditions probably.
@Johan
At the time of the event the Malay’s new virtually nothing except that the lane did not report to next ATC handoff and it was Viet Nam who informed them of that.
They did not know the plane flew West. In fact they continued to believe the plane was on course due to the extrapolations of the flight tracking program which continues to plot a plane’s course in the absence of actual ACARS data. Apparently this went on for more than an hour as some junior tech watched breadcrumbs being sent by a flight path extrapolation program.
There was no “compiling” of any data. You cannot compile data you do not have. They were simply dazed, confused, and clueless. You people are attributing much more knowledge to the Malays than they had. Simple fact is the plane turned West, and they did not know about that for several days afterwards.
@Ge Rijn, Johan
Alternatively to the scenario that Malaysia attacked the plane (which for many reasons seems to be far-fetched) and are therefore trying to cover it up, perhaps this is interesting:
“But what you say about (not) trying to contact the plane is devastating, it points to a pre-planned behaviour (or gross neglect in terms of not alerting superior officers).”
I’m also sometimes asking myself the question: what if (in theory) someone or a group on the ground was aware of a planned diversion/hijacking. In that case some amount of misinformation/confusion may have seemed helpful.
I’d think that Malaysia should at least try and clarify some of the more surprising reactions to the disappearance.
Take for example the first satphone call. It seems to have occurred just after MH370 left KL airspace, was perhaps descending, and after the reboot took place. But the FI gives no indication that anyone reported that connectivity was established but the call went unanswered, even though this seems significant information. It also raises the question of why no further attempts were made for the next hours.
Hishammuddin has ruled out complicity on part of Malaysian authorities:
“These allegations include the extraordinary assertion that Malaysian authorities were somehow complicit in what happened to MH370. I should like to state, for the record, that these allegations are completely untrue.” (5/4/2014)
While it is indeed unlikely that the authorities per se were complicit in the disappearance, suspicions that, in most general terms (voiced for example by 4corners), one or more individuals may have been so, have not so far been ruled out conclusively imo.
I, for one, find it difficult to understand why Malaysia should have such a hard time to admit the main stream theory of pilot suicide if indeed they had evidence for that. It may be more difficult to admit serious mistakes, or even something worse, by a group rather than a single individual. Just a thought.
@DennisW
Consider the comments @Nederland and @Johan give.
@Nederland supplies the actual events and @Johan gives the motives.
You know the Malaysians were already soon quite aware of the Inmarsat-data long before they canceled the search in the South China Sea and in the Malacca straight.
They soon knew it could not be there but let the search go on anyway for many days. That should ring a bell but not with you?
You think those Malaysians are stupid third-world country dumbos?
I don’t think so at all.
If something what I described happened they would take every opportunity to delay searching in the area where actualy things happened.
@Ge Rijn
I give up discussing anything with you.
@DennisW:
Didn’t you defend hijack theories with negotiations ten posts ago? It seems odd if MAY was speaking to a plane they believed to be in China by then.
But, trying to scale it all down as much as possible, I am not a foreigner to the idea that MAY didn’t know anything about norhing, and that this has been their main problem and embarrasment. After all there are thousands of departures, and the high-command can’t watch them all. You can’t protect yourself from this type of event, at least not after take-off. You can only rely on the system and ATC doing their job and pushing the right buttons.
Well. Sormeone will find reason to speak against this too. Some already have, above. It is funny, perhaps MAY officials won’t share their information with a central authority until they have cleared it with their own superiors and been invited to come personally with a government car.
@DennisW
In this scenario it could even have ended up near Christmas Island…
Closing open discussions won’t help finding the truth. Time will tell.
@Johan
“Didn’t you defend hijack theories with negotiations ten posts ago? It seems odd if MAY was speaking to a plane they believed to be in China by then.”
You are late to the party.
I have never stated negotiations were taking place with the aircraft. My contention has always been that third parties in KL were doing the negotiating while Shah held the aircraft hostage waiting for results.
Guys it’s getting unseemly. Please calm down 😀
New MH370 Report Reveals Radar, Procedural Failings
by Chris Pocock
March 25, 2015, 2:23 PM
This calculation of the flight path of MH370 after it disappeared from secondary radar screens, derives from an analysis of recorded traces of primary radar returns.
One year after the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, a factual document issued by the Malaysian Ministry of Transport to fulfill its obligations under ICAO Annex 13 has shed new light on the partial primary radar traces obtained after MH370’s secondary surveillance radar mode ceased to function. It also exposed failings in communications and procedures at Kuala Lumpur (KUL) Area Control Centre (ACC) and Malaysia Airlines (MAS) Operations Control Center (OCC). The director-general of the country’s Department of Civil Aviation (DCA), Dato Azharuddin Abdul Rahman, elaborated on the findings with a long presentation during a conference at the Langkawi International Maritime and Aerospace Exhibition (LIMA) last week.
The contention that MH370 “turned back” over the South China Sea, crossed the Malaysian peninsula, turned again over Penang and headed over the Andaman Sea stems from the analysis of primary radar recordings from the ATC radars at the KUL ACC and at Kota Bahru on the east coast of Malaysia, as well as apparently the air defense radars operated by the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) south of Kota Bahru at Jerteh, and on Penang Island off the west coast. However, the Annex 13 report does not identify the military radars, continuing a pattern of withholding sensitive defense information made evident during government briefings at the time of the disappearance. Four days after MH370 disappeared, it became evident that the RMAF air defense system had failed to identify and track MH370 in real time, causing authorities to limit the search to the South China Sea until then.
Selex and predecessor company Alenia Marconi Systems supplied the radars. They have supplied five of the six RMAF air defense radars, and most of Malaysia’s ATC radars, radios and control centers. To supply the ATC equipment, Selex Systemi Integrati has participated in a joint-venture partnership with Malaysian company Advanced Air Traffic Systems (AAT) since 1994.
The crucial last radar traces of what is said to be MH370 were recorded by the relatively modern RAT-31DL radar on Penang, controlled by RMAF personnel at nearby Butterworth airbase on the mainland. From replayed recordings, investigators have concluded that MH370 headed northwest toward waypoints Vampi and Mekar, which lie at the limit of the Penang radar’s range. Azharuddin said at LIMA that neighboring nations “have confirmed from their radar that MH370 did not fly over their airspace.” When queried by AIN how he could assert that with any certainty, given the poor performance of Malaysia’s own radar operators, the DCA director-general declined to comment.
The new report also reveals that MAS OCC misled KUL ACC by suggesting that the aircraft was still flying, until admitting two hours after it disappeared that they were relying on the Flight Explorer application that was not providing real-time tracking. A source close to MAS told AIN that the OCC did its best to contact MH370 via the satcom systems on other company aircraft during that time. The report notes that the battery powering the underwater locator beacon (ULB) of the flight data recorder (FDR) had expired. MAS admitted that it did not replace the device due to “a maintenance scheduling oversight,” but noted that the FDR was co-located on the aircraft with the cockpit voice recorder (CVR), whose ULB battery had not time-expired.
Not until four hours after the disappearance did KUL ACC alert the KUL Aeronautical Rescue Coordination Centre (ARCC). Another hour passed before the ARCC issued the distress message that launched the search for MH370. The report also reveals that the watch supervisor at KUL ACC was asleep at 0523L, even though his staff had been dealing with a missing airliner situation for the preceding three hours.
Azharuddin told the LIMA conference that the search of the priority area in the southern Indian Ocean specified after analysis of the MH370’s satcom “handshakes” is 50 percent complete and could conclude in May. He described the difficulties of the underwater search in some detail and did not express optimism. He listed eight lessons learned, including the need for real-time global tracking of commercial aircraft; a review of ATC procedures on handing over aircraft between flight information regions; improved civil/military airspace coordination; an increase beyond 120 minutes in the recording time of CVRs; an extension of the transmission life of the ULBs in FDRs and CVRs; a review of emergency response plans; and improvements in the handling of the media and the next-of-kin.
@Ge Rijn, @Nederland:
Remember that a suicidal pilot, particularly, will hide those tendencies to everyone, as confessions in that direction immediately would risk having him grounded, at least according to his own and normal logic. That that was not the case in the GermanWings’ tragedy is, hopefully, another matter.
@DennisW, @Ge Rijn:
Be friends now. We are getting somewhere. Is Jeff sleeping?
@DennisW: on negotiations.
My apologies. You already know that I think that would have become known to the public, at least afterwards.
And this is an admission of sorts from the Malays PM
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/5212664
Still hijacking theories, politics etc are all ancillary asides IMO for it appears a straight forward case of suicide unless the mystery woman is hinting at something by not disclosing the final communication between the two.
Cryptic when she reacts coyly with a don’t know . Do they both, as party operatives, know something we don’t?
Just to throw in:
The search was extended into the Malacca Strait quietly from day one and officially by 10 March.
https://twitter.com/501Awani/status/443007706735968257/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Not drifting too deep into conspiracy theories, one possibility is that Malaysia wasn’t very sure whether or not the tracked radar blip was indeed MH370, even though this somewhat contradicts the military statements above, but to be fair the first place to look would be the point of loss of contact, especially since there was no indication that the unknown object came down in the Strait of Malacca and the waters there have dense ship traffic. Only after the Isat data were confirmed, it became clear that MH370 had indeed diverted.
@Wazir:
Thanks for that one! It will save some ink and some blisters.
@Wazir: on Z’s woman friend.
I wouldn’t hold my breath.
@Wazir
“This calculation of the flight path of MH370 after it disappeared from secondary radar screens, derives from an analysis of recorded traces of primary radar returns.”
My long standing contention is that the radar data is completely superfluous relative to knowing that the aircraft turned and flew almost directly West. (Of course, someone like Gysbreght or Oleksandr will point out that the path was not directly West, but had a small kink to the South.) Of course, anyone with a brain will discard that modifier simply because it has absolutely no influence on the conclusion.
The distance from IGARI to the 18:25 range ring requires a West flight path at near normal 777 cruising speed in order to arrive at the 18:25 ring on time. We (the collective we) have not derived one useful inference from the radar information (I don’t call it data, because we don’t have any radar data – just an embarrassing and incorrectly labeled graphic).
@Dennis re search in the china sea
The primary radar track was not watched life, at least not the first part until Penang, but derived from recording. I think the evidence for that is pretty conclusive.
Why did they start the search in the south china sea then? The answer is simple. What they observed on the primary radar track was an unknown target wich could have been MH370. But as this was single sourced info (primary radar only) and not a continuous track, a solid conclusion to dismiss a search in the south China sea could not be made. From the facts available all pointed to a crash at the last reported position, a severe emergency with all loss of power and communications and a nearby sudden crash. There was no capacity and necessity to start the search at two areas from the beginning. The china sea won over the other scenario, which pointed to an aircraft unknown in its identity, but obviously in excellent shape to fly at variable speeds, variable altitudes and without any signs of some kind of emergency.
Later scrutinity in evaluating the radar data and absence of wreckage in the south china sea hardened the case for the unknown target being MH370, not crashed but flying on radar evading routing to the northwest.
The later surfaced ISAT data closed the case then, the unknown had to be MH370.
@RetiredF4
Exactly my thoughts.
The Malays had no idea where the plane was at in the hours (and days) after IGARI. To suggest scrambling of interceptor aircraft is just completely ludicrous.
@DennisW: on negotiations II
If negotiations were taking place by way of a third party, wouldn’t the second party still immediately alert flight control and the military to ascertain that the threats were real etc?
@Johan
“Remember that a suicidal pilot, particularly, will hide those tendencies to everyone, as confessions in that direction immediately would risk having him grounded, at least according to his own and normal logic.”
As long as there is no credible motive and the case too bizarre for a pilot suicide scenario, I don’t take it for granted that the plane was diverted for the purpose of committing suicide. We are moving in circles: if this was a suicide, why not just crash; if it was concealed suicide, why risk detection by radar/satellite tracking (reboot), scrambled jet, passenger/crew insurrection etc. Remember that in the Germanwings case it took few days for the media to come up with a credible motive, whereas in this case all they found out in two years is that the pilot had a friend.
@Johan
The loss of contact with the aircraft would certainly be a compelling argument that the threat was real. The fact that Malaysia had to get this information from the Vietnamese is a bit sad.
@Johan
Thanks for your concern. I try but with people who display obvious devaluating tendycies sometimes it’s not easy to not become a bit sarcastic.
And then I still try to keep it polite.
It’s a blog on the edge. We’ll be fine.
At least I’ll be.
And I will not deny I have those tendycies myself also occasionaly..
If MH370 was tracked in real time from around 2 am onwards (as reported by Reuters and later confirmed by Hishammuddin, although he does not give the exact time) as it had already left Penang, that doesn’t leave much time to react imo. The question is why was it not reported earlier to the military in the first place that the plane had gone missing. Another question is what video recordings were available when the flight path was reviewed on the next morning before the search commenced. The Malacca Strait was a second focus from day one (albeit a quiet one at that time):
“Following further discussion up the chain of command, the military informed the Acting Transport and Defence Minister Hishammuddin Hussein at approximately 10:30 of the possible turn-back of the aircraft. The Minister then informed the Prime Minister, who immediately ordered that search and rescue operations be initiated in the Straits of Malacca, along with the South China Sea operations which started earlier in the day.” (1/5/2014)
@RetiredF4
I think your explanation regarding MH370 holds some water but not to why no action was taken on an unidentified aircraft that did not communicate and was regarded not a threat and not a reason to scramble jets.
This conclusion and decision could only have been taken if they tracked an unidentified aircraft real time.
If they regarded it not a threat because it was probably a passenger-airliner with a reliable pilot at the controls this is ridiculous.
Than you might as well have no military surveillance at all.
@Retired4:
It is a good point. I have no trouble with that if we accept MAY were “clueless”.
We’re back at, seemingly, an unglamorous extended sucide by a presumably middle-aged male MAS employee / Malaysian subject either trained as a pilot and/or holding the pilot at gunpoint. Or a ruined businessman, life-insurance holder, fatally ill amoral sun-mystic with flight-Sim experience and good knowledge about military installations, flight control routines and air surveillance — and the capability to get a weapon of some dignity onboard (at least if not a pilot). I guess you can pick most of that up from youtube.
Btw, why was the plane stated to be in Cambodian airspace? Not even the flight projector pointed to that. Or is that the standard answer by any Malaysian night ATC officer waking up after sleeping over his keyboard?
@Johan, Not sleeping! Following along.
@Wazir, Thanks for the Chris Pocock report, very interesting. I’d never seen that.
@DennisW, You’ve said before that the primary radar data post 17:21 has no value, and I just can’t understand why you’d say that. The fact that the plane skirted Thai airspace and flew along an airway up the Malacca Strait gives some indication of the mindset and capabilities of those who controlled it. For starters.
@all, The level of embarrassing detail in the Factual Information report about what happened on the ground in the wake of MH370’s disappearance — Malaysia Airlines personnel asleep on the job, ops using Flight Explorer to track their own — smells to me like an honest (if insufficiently detailed) account of what happened. The idea that this was narrative was invented from whole cloth, and that in fact there were negotiations going on with a terrorist group, is outlandish and wholly unsupported.
BTW I spent a bit of time trying to understand MAS OPS’ belief that the plane was in Cambodia. It wasn’t pointed that way, it wasn’t filed to fly that way, and it didn’t routinely take a route that brought it through Cambodian airspace. I reached out to Flight Explorer and to a former MAS OPS employed but received no replies.
@Ge Rijn
“This conclusion and decision could only have been taken if they tracked an unidentified aircraft real time.”
They are lying is the other conclusion one could draw. IMO, the correct conclusion. No country will admit they were asleep at the switch. All indications point to a non-real time observation.
There is no possibility that MH370 could have been missed by Indonesian radar either. Yet, what they coyly say is that they did not see the aircraft in their airspace. Which leaves open the questions – did they see it outside their airspace, and was the radar active at the time? Intentional weasel wording.
@Ge Rijn: on the u.f.o.
I had that same thought. Esp. if there was a hostage situation going on, but in any case a missing airliner, it is hard to understand how come an unidentified bleep on a radar screen would render no action. Presumably they don’t have access to primary radar, but then it becomes a bit useless. “Oh 60 bleeps all over all the time, it is probably civil aviation.”
@Ge Rijn @Dennis
From the perspective of the Malayan military they may have dealt initially with two seperate events, MH370 on its route without com and a live detected primary radar target outbound Penang. They might have dealt with the unknown, might even have sent fighters after it with or without success. Nobody asked them yet.
They made the connection of both intially unrelated events much later. Otherwise the statements in the 4 corners interview do not mane much sense.
@Jeff
“@DennisW, You’ve said before that the primary radar data post 17:21 has no value, and I just can’t understand why you’d say that. The fact that the plane skirted Thai airspace and flew along an airway up the Malacca Strait gives some indication of the mindset and capabilities of those who controlled it. For starters.”
I never said the radar data had no value. What I said on several occasions is that it is superfluous to the conclusion that the plane flew West.
Having said that, I would probably be inclined to say the radar data has no value if you pressed me on the issue. Certainly I cannot point to a single benefit we (again the collective) have been able to derive from it. The flight path from the Penang area to the FMT is still a hotly contested topic. Not by me, I simply gave up on it.
Probably for some the radar data does reinforce the notion that the Inmarsat data is correct. That has value.
The radar data post 17:21 as represented in the DSTG report indicate an unusual (to put it mildly) manoeuvre resulting in a turnback, followed by a period of more or less straight flight without autopilot. I just can’t understand why anybody would ignore that.
@DennisW
Yes, IMO too the Indonesian reaction was a diplomatic one. When declaring this, they did not lie probably. MH370 did not cross Indonesian FIR in the Malacca straight and probaly also not afterwards turning south and with that did not enter their airspace also.
They (the Malaysians) could be lying about an unidentified aircraft tracked across Malaysia but for what use? I think by declaring something like that they only subject themselves to difficult questions as why they did not do anything about it.
All primary radar-data from IGARI till Penang and communication about it is not available as far as I know. Like so many crucial data (at least to the public).
So it will remain speculating for the time being I’m afraid.
@Jeff
A Great Circle route from IGARI to Beijing goes over the Western part of Cambodia. In fact, being in Cambodia is consistent with the times the false bread crumbs were being followed.
@Jeff:
Thanks for watching over us.
And that seems like a question that it might be difficult to get a good answer to.
@Ge Rijn:
I am worried two good brains will lock on bad things. But everything suggests you have managed very well before. There are bigger things at stake as I know you are very well aware of.
Ein Räthsel ist Reinentsprungenes. Auch der Gesang kaum darf es enthüllen.
@Gysbreght
Ignoring and trying to infer something useful from information are two very different things. Tell me, please, what you have found useful in the radar “data” relative to finding the aircraft.
@DennisW: Your scenarios are invariably based on the preconceived idea that Z did it. The radar data make that highly unlikely, to put id mildly.
@Jeff
MAS apparently blamed the Cambodia misinformation on a software glitch
https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/261725
But this somehow presupposes that the controllers were unaware of the borders of their neighbor countries.
“In addition, although the system’s map showed that MH370 was supposed to be in Vietnamese airspace at the time, the map label for Vietnam was missing when zoomed in.
“The word ‘Cambodia’ was displayed by the flight-following system on the screen when zoomed-in, leading Malaysia Airlines to deduce that the aircraft was flying in Cambodian airspace.” ”
I would be curious to know if that can be confirmed independently.
The statement is also somewhat at odds with that of another MAS employee who said that the system he accessed on his laptop did not show MH370:
http://www.strategic-risk-global.com/exclusive-lessons-from-malaysia-airlines-mh370-and-mh17/1417686.article
@Gysbreght
Preconceived? I’ve had more that two years to think about it. The simulator data was the last shoe to drop (and make a loud noise when it hit the floor) in that regard despite your best efforts to show that it is meaningless.
I have no idea why you think the radar data exonerates Shah other than the notion that it might indicate sloppy piloting. I assume that is what you are alluding to.
Das ist schön gesagt Johan 😉
@DennisW:
Besides, my interest is in understanding what caused the loss of the aircraft. Finding the wreckage is only a step in that direction, and may not even provide the answers that will solve the mystery.