One minute after MH370’s flight crew said “Good Night” to Malaysia air traffic controls, and five seconds after the plane passed waypoint IGARI at 1720:31 UTC, the plane’s Mode S signal disappeared from air traffic control screens. As it reached the border of the Ho Chi Minh Flight Information Region (FIR) approximately 50 seconds after that, the plane made an abrupt 180 degree turn. The radius of this turn was so small, and the ground speed so low, that it appears to have been effected via a semi-aerobatic maneuver called a “chandelle.” Similar to a “box canyon turn,” this involves climbing under power while also banking steeply. The maneuver offered WWI pilots a way to reverse their direction of flight quickly in a dogfight.
Chandelles are not a normal part of commercial 777 operation. They would not be used by pilots responding to in-flight fire.
The fact that such an aggressive maneuver was flown suggests that whoever was at the controls was highly motivated to change their direction of flight. Specifically, instead of going east, they wanted to go west.
At the completion of the left-hand U-turn the plane found itself back in Malaysia-controlled airspace close to the Thai border. It flew at high speed (likely having increased engine thrust and dived from the top of its chandelle climb) toward Kota Bharu and then along the zig-zaggy border between peninsular Malaysia and Thailand (briefly passing through the outer fringe of Thai airspace) before making a right-hand turn south of Penang. We know this “based mostly on the analysis of primary radar recordings from the civilian ATC radars at the Kuala Lumpur (KUL) Area Control Centre (ACC) and at Kota Bahru on the east coast of Malaysia; plus (apparently) the air defense radars operated by the RMAF south of Kota Bahru at Jerteh, and on Penang Island off the west coast,” according to AIN Online.
At 18:02, while over the small island of Pulau Perak, the plane disappeared from primary radar, presumable because it had exceeded the range of the radar at Penang, which at that point lay 83 nautical miles directly behind the plane. Then, at 18:22:12, another blip was recorded, 160 miles to the northwest.
The most-asked question about the 18:22 blip is: why did the plane disappear then? But a more pressing question is: why did it reappear? If the plane was already too faint to be discerned by Penang when it was at Pulau Perak, then how on earth could it have been detected when it was three times further away?
One possibility is that it was picked up not by Malaysian radar, but by the Thai radar installation at Phuket. An AFP report from March 2014 quoted Thailand’s Air Marshal Monthon Suchookorn as saying that Thai radar detected the plane “swinging north and disappearing over the Andaman Sea,” although “the signal was sporadic.”
At 18:22, the plane was approximately 150 miles from Phuket. This is well beyond the range at which Penang had ceased being able to detect the plane. What’s more, when the plane had passed VAMPI it had been only about 120 miles from Phuket. If it hadn’t seen the plane when it was at VAMPI, how was it able to detect it when it was 30 miles further? And why just for a momentary blip?
I don’t believe that, as some have suggested, the plane climbed, was detected, and then dived again. As Victor Iannello has earlier pointed out, the plane was flying at around 500 knots, which is very fast, and suggests a high level of motivation to be somewhere else, not bleeding off speed through needless altitude changes.
I propose that what happened at 18:22 was that the plane was turning. Entering into a right bank, the plane would turn its wings temporarily toward the Phuket radar station, temporarily presenting a larger cross section. Then, when the plane leveled its wings to straighten out, the cross section would shrink, potentially causing the plane to disappear.
Why a right bank? The diagram at top is an annotated version of one presented in the DSTG’s “Bayesian Methods” book. The vertical white line is the 18:25:27 ping arc. The orange line represents the path from the 18:22:12 radar detection to the first ping arc. It is 13 miles long. To travel 13 miles in 3.25 minutes requires a ground speed of 240 knots. Prior to final radar return, MH370 was traveling at approximately 490 knots. A plane can’t slow down that quickly without a radical climbing maneuver, which can be dangerous at cruise altitude (cf Air France 447.)
If it had continued at its previous pace, the plane would have traveled 26.5 miles in that time — enough to carry it to the unlabeled yellow thumbtack. Or, to turn to the right and take the path shown in green.
I don’t mean this path to seem so precise and deterministic; there are errors associated with both the position of the ping arc and the radar return. The ping arc, for instance, is generally understood to have an error bar of about 10 km. If the ping arc radius is 10 km larger, and the radar hit location stays the same, then the heading will be be 336 degrees instead of 326 degrees; if the ping radius is 10 km smaller, the angle will be 310 degrees, representing just a 20 degree right turn from a straight-ahead path.
It does not, however, seem possible that the combined radar and ping-arc errors will allow a scenario in which the plane continued on its VAMPI-to-MEKAR heading and speed. As the “Bayesian Methods” book puts it, “the filtered speed at the output of the Kalman filter is not consistent with the 18.25 measurement, and predictions based purely on primary radar data on this will have a likelihood very close to zero.” Neil Gordon confirmed to me in our conversation that something must have changed.
Dr Bobby Ulich, in his recent work examing different flight-path scenarios, has also concluded that the plane turned north at this time. He looked at a southern turn, too, but observed that “the left-hand turn… needs a turning rate higher than the auto-pilot bank limit allows.”
Looking at the over picture of MH370’s first hour post-abduction, we note that:
- The timing of the silencing of the electronics was coordinated to within several seconds to the optimum time to evade detection.
- The 180-degree turnaround maneuver was highly aggressive.
- The plane’s course allowed it to remain in Malaysian airspace. After Penang it stayed closer to the Indonesian FIR (lower black line) than the Thai FIR (upper black line).
- Post diversion, the plane was traveling at high speed, faster than normal cruise flight. This suggests that whoever was flying it was motivated to escape primary radar surveillance–they wanted to get away.
- When last observed, MH370 was likely making a turn to the northwest, in the general direction of Port Blair in the Andaman islands. This is consistent with Air Marshal Monthon Suchookorn’s assertion that Thai radar detected the plane “swinging north and disappearing over the Andaman Sea.”
The overall shape of the flight path from IGARI to 18:25 is U-shaped, curving around Thai airspace. In the Malacca Strait it remained closer to the Indonesian side than the the Thai side. It is possible that the turn at 18:22 resulted from a compromise between two goals: to stay beyond the detection range of the radar station at Phuket, and to travel in a northwesterly direction.
It is widely believed that, since the plane presumable ended up in the southern Indian Ocean, the flight up the Malacca Strait was undertaken in order to avoid penetrating Indonesian airspace en route to the southern ocean. If this were goal, and the person flying the plane should have turned to the left at 18:22, onto a westerly or west-southwesterly heading.
The fact that they did not suggests that, whatever ultimately transpired aboard the plane, the goal prior to the “final major turn” was a destination to the northwest, and that the reason the plane flew southwest from IGARI before turning northwest was to avoid Thai airspace and radar surveillance.
Lauren H,
“The fact that there were two SIO fuel exhaustion points on ZS’s computer makes it probable that ZS was involved.”
Absolutely no. If he had thousands of points stored on HD due to exploration of various scenarios across the globe, why would someone be surprised to find two suspicious points in the SIO by cherry-picking? And also it is not a fact that these points are authentic, keeping in mind very suspicious circumstances how and when this information or disinformation was leaked to the public.
@RetiredF4
You say in better words what I meant to say.
A scenario like this could explain a lot about the eagerness of the Malaysian governement to declare very early the plane was lost in the SIO with no survivors and their reluctance to share detailed information and later not putting serious effort in collecting and investigating debris.
They even delayed the search for a week knowing it was not in the South Chinese sea or in the Malacca Straight.
To me this is very suspisious. Those guys are no dumbos. They could be covering their asses.
I don’t buy such stupid amateurism from those guys.
It could probably be our arrogant western perception those ‘third world countries’ are dumb and stupid and don’t know what they are doing. IMO this would be a major misconseption.
The last important pieces where handed straight to the ATSB. Obviously to me by a lack of trust in the Malaysian investigation.
@LaurenH
It was explained before by several experts flying on on one engine at lower altitude (~25.000ft) and lower speed (~400kt) would not make a lot of difference in fuel consumption but only on range.
The plane would have ended more north from the current search area.
Regarding my thank you to ATSB for the prompt prelim. report on the burnt parts, also thank you to Malaysia for their apparent cooperation in this matter as well as Blaine Gibson for working so hard to find evidence.
@Oleksandr
To my knowledge circuit breakers can not be pulled in the cockpit but left and right main buses/IDG’s can be isolated and backup-generators can be selected. I cann’t find reference at the moment but maybe someone can confirm this (I’ll look for the reference later if asked).
Circuit breakers can only be pulled in the E/E bay I understand. That’s a possibility but when it also can be done in the cockpit there is no need for it I assume.
keffertje,
Re “Do you believe a single person could have managed both a repowering and sudden manoevre at the same time?”
No, I think this is very unlikely.
@Keffertje @Oleksandr
If a hijacker/pilot chose to do so I think it’s likely.
First repower and right after this make a sudden manouvre. A steep descent with a bank could explain this one radar return Jeff talks about in his topic.
@Ge Rrijn – Let’s say there was 35.6mt fuel remaining at 18:22, 10 nm past MEKAR (GW:210mt). Per FCOM, two tables on page PI.23.9 Engine INOP, this 777 would fly 1800nm (about 300 nm past CI curved to met BTO’s) at 10,000 feet in 5h44m using about 33.8mt fuel.
Yes it had the endurance to fly 5h55m but the range is 1000nm less. Certainly any wreckage in this area would have come to shore around Indonesia rather than the east African coast.
MH370 flew on two engines until around 00:00-00:15 and on one engine until 00:17. During this period (00:00-00:17), fuel consumption on one engine was approximately the same as on two engines.
@LaurenH, I think it’s important to understand that no normal person knew anything about aircraft SDU’s before MH370. Only people with a very specific engineering background.
@Oleksandr
@Ge Rijn
I got clarification from Don Thompson a little while ago, on the role of backup generators.
A backup generator cannot provide power to either or both the main AC busses. A backup generator can only supply power to one or both of the transfer busses. If there is only one AC generaror working(APU included) a backup generator powers one transfer bus. If there are no AC generators working, a backup generator can power both transfer busses. The two transfer bussed feed their respective left and right DC busses, through transformer/rectifiers, to maintain DC power to instruments, autopilot and nav equipment, VHF radios, and controls, to allow the plane to be flown safely to the nearest available airport. Only one backup generator can operate at any one time, because they share a single converter.
Under normal conditions, The AC busses also feed power to the two transfer busses, but when a backup generator is feeding power to one or both transfer busses, the circuit breaker(s) linking transfer bus to main AC bus automatically open to prevent the backup generator powering the main AC bus. The backup generator has a very limited output, compared to a main IDG generator or the APU, and is thus restricted to maintaining essential DC power to keep the aircraft flying.
L
“During this period (00:00-00:17), fuel consumption on one engine was approximately the same as on two engines.”
Where does this come from?
@Jeff Wise
I’m sure willing to believe that.
Then the SDU repowering and log-on would have been a side-effect of reconnecting a main bus or starting of the APU.
Could you agree on this?
@Ge Rijn, Right. Or being deliberately started by someone with a high level of technical expertise.
@Lauren H
you said:
“The fact that there were two SIO fuel exhaustion points on ZS’s computer makes it probable that ZS was involved.”
Yes, absolutely correct. A lot of people have a hard time grasping this fact even those with previous training in probability that should know better. It is all the more damning considering the pattern of behavior exhibited by Shah.
@Gloria, @Matty
Thanks Gloria for real insider info, it somewhat confirms my expectations about Malaysia fetched from articles during last 3 years; Matty started your nice replies, while I am not following his somewhat neo conservative worldview; and its not unrelated, as Zahries motive and political views was discussed since start; I agree that he looks more as global citizen and whole Malaysia is quite nice country, close enough still to UK as former colony; everything related to MH370 case are data, turnable potentially into informations; thanks again
https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/tags/malaysia/
@Oleksandr
you said:
“Absolutely no. If he had thousands of points stored on HD due to exploration of various scenarios across the globe, why would someone be surprised to find two suspicious points in the SIO by cherry-picking?”
Do you ever hear of a defense attorney arguing that the fingerprints of his client on a murder weapon are irrelevant since his client’s fingerprints are on tens of thousands of other items? No, you never hear that, because not even an attorney is that stupid.
@Oleksandr
We don’t even know if SDU reboot was intentional or not, it could be just the consequence of someone tampering with E/E bay.
There was an electronic engineer on board who could try something together with copilot (who was likely locked out of cockpit at that moment).
They maybe tried to find the C/B to unlock the cockpit door but accidentally switched SDU on (or any of the other possible scenarios).
If true they maybe also f*cked up the navigation which would explain why they didn’t reach their intended destioation.
Nederland
Posted September 22, 2016 at 7:01 AM
Resin layers more likely to be found on a boat.R
I tend to agree. Fig 1 of debris report #4 has two features which should look familiar to anybody who has ever done some epoxy filling and fairing work on a boat.
At the top of the piece there are two teardrop shapes. These could indicate the application of resin which was too thin/runny to a sloped surface, which consequently ran downwards, while still liquid, then was sanded flat after it hardened.
In the brown section to the right, one can see several (at least three) layers of glass fiber cloth with irregular boundaries. This is typical of sanding/fairing a layered structure.
Both conclusion together, applying resin to a surface in a sloped, or near vertical, orientation, plus evidence of sanding through several layers of laid up glas fiber cloth, would seem to point to repair or fairing work on a boat, may be a fin such as a rudder, skeg, keel or foil, rather than work on an aviation panel.
I’d presume that such repair work would not be found on any commercial airliner. A damaged part would rather be replaced with a new one.
@Oleksandr
“I am not sure if mobile private satcom phones would work (due to Doppler) – probably Dennis can comment on this. Such private sattelite phones would likely use the same Inmarsat network, and most likely all the records were already checked.”
The satellite phones in common use today use Globalstar or Iridium not Inmarsat. Both Gloabalstar and Iridium are low earth orbit systems. Goes are not preferred for voice communication because the delay due to the distance involved is so large that you are forced to say “over” when you are done talking so that the person on the other end does not start talking before you are finished. That is the reason the commercial overseas calls always use underwater cables not satellites. Satellites are only used for video and data where latency is not a concern.
Doppler would be a concern. I have checked the Iridium and Globalstar systems up to 100mph or so, and they seemed to work fine. However, that is not a guarantee they will work at 500mph.
@TBill,
“Thanks to ATSB for giving prompt feedback on the burnt parts. We need to juxtapose prelim findings against Blaine’s discovery video, he implies burning is definite, 777 source near definite, and location in the aircraft is probably EE bay, thus suggesting cause of accident was fire. So Blaine prematurely shifted into interpretation mode. He is still extraordinary person helping but we just need to be careful.”
Gibson and the ATSB share a common trait, they are both inept, and prone to blowing smoke around. I don’t have to provide examples relative to the ATSB for anyone who can read. In Gibson’s case claiming copyright protection on material that any attorney would know does not qualify for copyright protection casts him into the dumbo category. My guess is that his firm underwrote some or all of his expenses for the search just to get him out of the office.
@Oleksandr – From FCOM PI.21.3, GW180, FL250 fuel burn per engine is 2853kg/hr or 5706 total. Engine INOP table PI.23.8, GW180, FL250, total fuel burn is 5475kg/hr or roughly the same as 5706kg/hr. If you apply an Engine INOP burn time of, let’s say 4 minutes, the difference is just 15kg.
Yes, the actual GW was closer to 175mt at the time and we don’t know the altitude, but trying to compare apples to apples the two burn rates are close to being the same, specially if you add the APU fuel burn to the Engine INOP rate.
@Dennis
If your comment about Gibson’s funding/motivation is not pure snark — I see no reason to believe that he isn’t just what he presents — a hobbyist blowing through a financial windfall on travel and adventure.
Per “ineptness” of ATSB –they very properly jumped on the “burnt” pieces H370] because, however unlikely Gibson’s interpretation, it bore on air safety. That, rather than Malaysian politics or NOK ‘closure’ is how they see their remit.
@ikr
Then explain the claim of copyright protection. You can’t have it both ways – that is interpret what you consider good attributes and ignore the nonsense. Pure objectivity is the basis for my claims relative to both Gibson and the ATSB.
I would not characterize the ATSB activity as “jumping” on anything. We have still to get any word from them on a number of promised outputs. I cut them a lot of slack relative to the notion that they are respecting Malaysia’s position as being the source of public information. That slack is wearing very very thin, however. Especially relative to the release of the simulator drive forensics.
My interest is in finding the aircraft plain and simple. I have no interest in winning popularity contests on this or any other forum. I call it exactly like I see it, and also hold my statements to evidentiary litmus testing. When that testing shows an anomaly I give it proper attribution, and make whatever corrections are needed.
we could use more “promised outputs” from other involved interests such as Boeing. Being that their aircraft was involved in this disappearance that automatically places onus on them included the suppliers of any subsystems to come forth with any information.
@MH
Why should Boeing care? There was no problem with the airplane. It would be like a cattle rancher being held accountable for someone choking on a piece of steak. Boeing has better things to do for their shareholders – me being one of them.
If the ATSB lacks the ability to do simple forensics, it is time to upgrade the ATSB (goes without saying, actually).
@DW – it can’t be proven one way or the other that the known set of problems with the B777 caused the disappearance. But with Boeing and their shareholder’s attitude to address problems is totally unbelievable.
@MH
When you are dealing with the Malays or the ATSB it is easy to to toss a bunch of money in the toilet. Basically you are dealing with a bunch of bozos. There is no end to how much effort can be wasted. Why even get sucked into that?
If it were a competent agency asking vectored and pertinent questions the attitude would be different.
It truly is not Boeing’s problem, and i would not blame them in the least for not picking up the phone when the ATSB called. I would not.
@MH
…more
It is very clear that the ATSB has been in a cover their ass mode for the last year. They are not in a problem solving mode at all. Anyone who has been in their situation can easily pick up on that nuance.
If the Australian public buys into that, which they probably will, life will go, salaries will be paid, and nothing will be remedied.
@DennisW. “Do you ever hear of a defense attorney arguing that the fingerprints of his client on a murder weapon are irrelevant since his client’s fingerprints are on tens of thousands of other items?”
Graphic as ever thank you. However do you hear of a man being found guilty of killing another with a beer bottle if his fingerprints are found on a beer bottle?
@DW – no “..more” protecting Boeing’s “ass(es)” and “your investments”.
Australia(ATSB) probably was dragged into this mess as the other players made up the SIO storey. no wonder these players want ZS hung and case closed.
@MH
Damn right. I don’t usually toss money in the toilet. We have the Aussies for that.
I have no financial interest in hanging Z. It is simply the obvious conclusion for anyone with a brain.
@DW – highly doubtful that will help find it in the SIO or your CI theory.
@MH
I have no idea what you meant by your last post. My guess is that you ran out of anything intelligent (by your standards) to say.
Growing up and living in Asia was an incredible experience. Like when the taxi meter was always conveniently kaput. Cursing in Malay or Chinese did wonders for the meter was promptly resurrected from the dead. There would be no shame on the part of the driver for being caught in a lie. Just a shrug and a sheepish smile. It’s no different with the MY government in this case. They are lying and hiding something.
@Keffertje
Yes. of course. Despite Gloria’s rants on the opposite side of that opinion. The Malays are into this up to their necks.
Hard for me to understand the widespread Malay sympathy on this blog – not only are they inept at handling anything on a world stage, they are liars and corrupt.
@Ge Rijn or anyone
re: large flap section recovered off the Tanzanian coast
From ATSB Debris report 3. “A date stamp associated with one of the part numbers indicated manufacture on 23 January 2002 (Figure 2), which was consistent with the 31 May 2002 delivery date for 9M-MRO.
All of the identification stamps had a second “OL” number, in addition to the Boeing part number, that were unique identifiers relating to part construction. The Italian part manufacturer recovered build records for the numbers located on the part and confirmed that all of the numbers related to the same serial number outboard flap that was shipped to Boeing as line number 404. Aircraft line number 404 was delivered to Malaysian Airlines and registered as 9M-MRO.
Based on the above information, the part was confirmed as originating from the aircraft registered 9M-MRO and operating as MH370.” Source: Australian Transport Safety Bureau
Someone else (I think) queried this already – sorry if I have missed the answer. ATSB do not say they had checked that this flap section was on 9M-MRO on that flight and had not been replaced since the original build. If it was checked then how…given MY’s records were destroyed? Would Boeing have separate records?
It seems the re-boot could be viewed as confusing only if considering Z as the perpetrator. Assuming the plane was hijacked (I lean toward cargo being the impetus), and based on the information below, then the question would be, why not the re-boot?
Referring to Jeff’s The Mysterious Reboot of JUL 09 2015:
Some people…..have raised the possibility that the SDU was power-cycled because someone wanted to turn something else off and back on again. The crucial question then becomes: What else is powered by the left AC bus? It wasn’t easy to find out, but after some careful digging, IG members were able to determine that the other systems fed by the AC bus are:
TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System)
Cockpit door lock
The centre tank override and jettison pumps
Some galley equipment
IFE (in-flight entertainment system)
One of the high-frequency radios
The main passenger cabin lighting system (the night, cabin and cross-aisle lights remain powered)
The hijacking scenario has been unable to hurdle the absent claim for responsibility. If the catalyst was the cargo, a shroud of secrecy would stymie any responsibility bravado.
This plane was on the tarmac for almost 9 hours before take-off and we have had zero information relayed or discussed for applicable security procedures.
The cargo is probably the least discussed aspect with the most limited available information. The reclusive full manifest has never been released nor a reason given for why it has not. There has been no discussion that I have seen in 2 1/2 years pertaining to cargo shipments and their protocol.
For me, the plausibility of the plane’s disappearance being dependent on the cargo and instigated from a covert operation has much more feasibility than Z’s solo murder/suicide.
All the coordinated moves are much easier accepted, if executed from a level of associated sophistication from agencies that train accordingly.
@Falken
The evidence against ZS is perhaps circumstantial but when analyzing each piece separately in the entire chain of events they strongly implicate him. Even more so, when other scenario’s/evidence is being ruled out.
“All that glitters is not gold”, don’t let visible appearances fool you too quickly.
.
@Susie, If you are planning (1) an elaborate hijacking, (2) a suicide/murder or (3) a cargo heist, you would not want anyone to be able to communicate to the outside world. No e-mails, no phones, no text messages using IFE. That would be at the top of my “need to disable” list.
@DennisW 🙂
I can assure you that Malaysians, no matter how nice and affable they can be, will NEVER show you the back of their tongue. It takes years to unravel and see through that façade. With this background in mind, you can imagine how traumatized I was the first time boring strangers would unburden their boring life story at a boring airport in under 3 minutes. MY is hiding things and that’s why they are lying.
@AM2. “ATSB do not say they had checked that this flap section was on 9M-MRO on that flight and had not been replaced since the original build”. Yes this has been noticed but has gone unresolved. Please notice that that is the way their report conclusion reads in the body of it it says that, “the part was confirmed as originating from the aircraft…… operating as MH370.”
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2014/aair/ae-2014-054/
They would be able to say this only if assured that there was no record of replacement and records held were sufficient for this assurance.
The impression I retain is that the burnt records were minor. In any case I would think that any flap replacement would entail an entry in the MR1 Technical Log and signing off there, if not on job cards and log cards. Maybe some workshop job cards were burnt but that would not mean there would have been no record sufficient for the assurance.
I would not see why or how Boeing would have a record though I suppose someone could research all demands and receipts for flap replacements with all potential suppliers, including refurbishers but that seems unnecessary.
@David
Yes, thanks for your answer. I am being pedantic but from my quote above at 12:52 AM “Based on the above information…” indicates to me that they may not have checked on replacement records. So IMO none of the items of debris has yet been irrefutably confirmed as from 9M-MRO on flight MH370.
@DennisW
Attachment of a copyright symbol and/or notice to pictures does
not connote any negative motive. Mr Gibson is simply taking the
reasonable step of ensuring he is able to assert copyright. Why?
In the event;
-of say, an air crash investigation book making a zillion dollars
& using his pictures, he may want to claim a piece of that.
-of say, someone publishing a book attempting to prove negative
motives on his part & using his pics , he may want to sue them
for non-attribution, and possibly misuse, of his pictures.
-of say, a mainstream media outlet using his pics, and their
lawyers later trying to claim HE used THEIR pictures (such
things happen).
Therefore, attachment of copyright is more in the nature of a
reasonable, precautionary legal move. It is somewhat easier for
a litigant to prove they attached their copyright, and somewhat
more difficult for a defendant to prove they didn’t know certain
pics had a copyright attached (attached in the legal sense), if
the actual pictures HAVE both a copyright symbol and notice
visible thereon.
I believe this is not the first time this matter of copyright
attachment has been raised as an indicator of negative motive –
it does not strengthen anyones argued position when they do so.
@DennisW wrote: “My interest is in finding the aircraft plain and simple. I have no interest in winning popularity contests on this or any other forum.”
You know who did it.
You know why he did it.
You know that CVR and DFDR do not contain anything that you don’t already know.
Why are you interested in finding the aircraft?
@AM2. Yes, just as you say and they really should have mentioned the records check rather than just leaving it implied.
@Keffertje
Hi, Noticed your comments and opposite view, sure, while making my own oppinion too; you cant even imagine how much I was paranoid to recheck everything from many sources, and I must admit, that I always felt like Najib and Hishammuddin are hiding something, ya – but WHY? thats the question
Sharlene from martinlit.com might have have advised her client Blaine to use a copyright notice.
Gibson repeatedly contradicts himself.
In earlier reports Gibson claims he lets the evidence lead the way and does not draw conclusions. In his recent interview he is concluding there was a fire onboard, from the EE bay and it was most probable debris was from MH370.
Why didn’t Gibson turn the evidence over and leave it to experts? Why did Gibson travel to Australia, line up interviews for himself, draw conclusions about an on board fire and the location of that fire, all done before handing over the debris to officials?
@Keffertje
@ALL
Why did he want to switch off the SATCOM? How about this:
First, to set the scene. Jeff is confident that the pilot could not have known anything about SATCOM ping rings, or of INMARSAT’s newly acquired ability to log BTO and BFO data for every flight. I agree with Jeff. So what was it about SATCOM that he wanted disabled until is was out of radar range (yes, radar range -more on that in a moment)? There is only one thing left, as far as I can tell; the inevitable phone call or calls from MAS. Z was an experienced B777 captain. I think he understood enough about SATCOM to realize that a call from MAS would flag that he was still airborne, even if it went unanswered, if the SATCOM was up an running at the time.
For the first hour there would be a risk of being tracked on primary radars. He regarded it as only a slight on, being well aware of the general unpreparedness of the Malay, Thai and especially the Indonesian authorities, in this area.
He planned for the plane to suddenly disappear off the ATC radar screen, as if had been blown up by a terrorist bomb, such as happened on Pan Am flight 103, or suffered a catastrophic structural failure.
If MAS had been on the ball, and tried to contact the crew on the satellite phone, and SATCOM was still up and running, they perhaps would have noticed that the plane was actually still in the air, even if the call went unanswered. Their suspicions could have been roused, and they might have urgently contacted the region’s Military Authorities and asked them to scour the skies for a sign of the plane. He had worked out in advance that he would be safe from any primary radar threat once he had gotten past NILAM, so he gave it a minute, counted a slow “one potato, two” and reconnected the LH AC bus.
By the time the Malaysians had realized perhaps something very strange had happened, it would be far too late, he would be on his way into the remote SIO, and oblivion. It would be as if the plane had disappeared into thin air.
As it happens, the first MAS phone call didn’t go out until 18:40.
@Kaz Lee, you wrote, “Why did Gibson travel to Australia, line up interviews for himself, draw conclusions about an on board fire and the location of that fire, all done before handing over the debris to officials?”
The context of Blaine’s announcement was that recent developments have made a “ghost ship” scenario increasingly unlikely. That means that the plane was actively piloted to the final phase, and hence that its disappearance was a deliberate act. The list of possible perpetrators is a small one: Zaharie or a sophisticated hijacker. Some influential MH370 researchers, including Mike Exner and Blaine Gibson, have been trying to keep alive the idea that the disappearance might have been spurred by an accidental cause, such as a fire.
It has long been clear, to me and many others, that a fire could not explain the turn around at IGARI, or literally anything else that happened thereafter. Its appeal as an explanation lies largely in the fact that it allows one to imagine the universe of possibilities is larger than it actually is. This door was in the process of being shut for good when Blaine announced that he had made this find. There was no strong reason to believe that the piece came from MH370, or that it had been burned, let alone that it showed evidence of a fire in the E/E bay, yet lo and behold there was Blaine on TV with Geoffrey Thomas declaring that they had evidence that MH370 had been brought to grief by a fire in the E/E bay.
It is yet another example of Blaine showing an uncanny knack for finding the evidence he needs, when he needs it.
@ROB
It does make sense to me, especially since the operation centre can ping the aircraft via SATCOM to verify it is still connected. That was supposed to happen once ACARS was silent for more than half an hour (i.e. 1:37 am or shortly after, on this, FI, p. 43).
But how do you explain that the potential hijacker then decided to reboot?
@ROB:
I get the creepy feeling he also wanted MAY to know he was still in the air. He would have known that they would have known. That’s a commercial breaker for any dramatization based on a true story.