Last week we discussed what we know about the first hour of MH370’s disappearance, based on primary radar data and the first Inmarsat BTO value. Today I’d like to talk about the BFO data and what it can tell us about MH370’s fate.
As longtime readers of this blog well know, the Burst Frequency Offset (BFO) is a type of metadata that measures how different the frequency of an Inmarsat signal is from its expected value. It is an important value to a communications satellite operator like Inmarsat because if the value gets too large, the system will be operating outside its approved frequency limit. One cause of such a change would be if a satellite begins wandering in its orbit, which indeed was the case with MH370. The fact that the Satellite Data Unit (SDU) aboard MH370 did not properly compensate for drift in the Inmarsat satellite overhead is the reason the BFO data contains a signal indicating what the plane was doing.
While each of the BTO values recording during the seven “pings” tells us fairly precisely how far the plane was from the satellite at that time, the BFO data points taken individually do not tell us much about the plane was doing. Taken together, however, they indicate three things:
- After the SDU logged back on with Inmarsat at 18:25, the plane took a generally southern course. If we didn’t have the BFO data, we wouldn’t know, from the BTO data alone, whether the plane followed a path to the north or to the south (see above.)
- The plane had turned south by 18:40. The BFO value at the time of the first incoming sat phone call at 18:40 indicates that the plane was traveling south.
- At 0:19:37 the plane was in a rapid and accelerating decent.
However, as I’ve previously described, if all of these things were true, then the plane would have been found by now. So at least one of them must be false. In the course of my interview with him, Neil Gordon said that the ATSB is firmly convinced that #3 is true, and that as a result he suspects that #2 is not. Specifically, he points out that if the plane were in a descent at 18:40, it could produce the BFO values observed. Thus it is possible that the plane did not perform a “final major turn” prior to 18:40 but instead loitered in the vicinity of the Andaman Islands or western Sumatra before turning and flying into the southern ocean. If this were the case, it would result in the plane turning up to the northeast of the current search area. An example of such a route has been described by Victor Iannello at the Duncan Steel website.
It is worth nothing that such a scenario was explicitly rejected as unlikely by the Australian government when they decided to spend approximately $150 million to search 120,000 square kilometers of seabed. The reason is that it was deemed unlikely that the plane would just happen, by chance to be descending at the right time and at the right rate to look like a southward flight. For my part, I also find it hard to imagine why whoever took the plane would fly it at high speed through Malaysian airspace, then linger for perhaps as much as an hour without contacting anybody at the airline, at ATC, or in the Malysian government (because, indeed, none of these were contacted) and then continuing on once more at high speed in a flight to oblivion.
Well, is there any other alternative? Yes, and it is one that, though historically unpopular, is becoming imore urgent as the plane’s absence from the search area becomes increasingly clear: the BFO data is unreliable. That is to say, someone deliberately altered it.
There are various ways that we can imagine this happening, but the only one that stands up to scrutiny is that someone on board the plane altered a variable in the Satellite Data Unit or tampered with the navigation information fed back to the SDU from the E/E bay. Indeed, we know that the SDU was tampered with: it was turned off, then logged back on with Inmarsat, something that does not happen in the course of normal aircraft operation. It has been speculated that this depowering and repowering occurred as the result of action to disable and re-enable some other piece of equipment, but no one has every come up with a very compelling story as to what that piece of equipment might be. Given the evident problems with the BFO data in our possession, I feel we must consider the possibility that the intended object of the action was the SDU itself.
When I say BFO tampering has been “historically unpopular,” what I mean is that almost everyone who considers themselves a serious MH370 researcher has from the beginning assumed that the BFO data was generated by a normally functioning, untampered-with SDU, and this has limited the scenarios that have been considered acceptable. For a long time I imagined that search officials might know of a reason why tampering could not have occurred, but I no longer believe this is the case. When I questioned Inmarsat whether it was possible that the BFO data could have been spoofed, one of their team said “all Inmarsat can do is work with the data and information and the various testings that we’ve been doing.” And when I raised the issue with Neil Gordon, he said, “All I’ve done is process the data as given to me to produce this distribution.” So it seems that the possibility of BFO spoofing has not been seriously contemplated by search officials.
If we allow ourselves to grapple with the possibility that the BFO data was deliberately tampered with, we quickly find ourselves confronting a radically different set of assumptions about the fate of the plane and the motives of those who took it. These assumptions eliminate some of the problems that we have previously faced in trying to make sense of the MH370 mystery, but introduce new ones, as I’ll explore in upcoming posts.
@DennisW:
Thanks. I had an itch telling me that if there were geos spy satellites I would have heard that mentioned somewhere at least once.
@DennisW,@Johan:) ….I was banging my head against the wall…and then voila Dennis came through:)
@Johan
Satellites are really not my thing so I am afraid I cannot help.
Regarding discussion forums – useful but information must be confirmed elsewhere. For example, it looks like Anas might have been a First Officer rather than a Captain, so it is not at all clear that Z replaced him, they may have been rostered to fly together.
@PaulC @Keffertje
It were not my words I copied the article.
MAS denied there was a shift in pilots but admitted they had a pilot named Anas Mazlin.
The supposed pilot Zaharie replaced.
Anas Mazlins wife posted on facebook the day MH370 vanished.
The post and facebook-account were deleted shortly afterwards and the subject soon disapeared into the dark.
It might have been all fake but to post something like this on facebook the day MH370 vanished makes no sence if it’s not genuine IMO. It was never cleared or explained afterwards to my knowledge.
That pilot and his wife were never asked to make a (public) statement about this by anyone as far as I know.
@Keffertje
On the contrary. It would be wise IMO Zaharie’s wife would not mention this for it would only bring more suspision on Zaharie.
Another reference:
http://mymorningshout.blogspot.nl/2014/03/mh370-another-speculation-captain.html
@Keffertje
Goodness you do like putting words in my mouth!
Of course nobody can produce an example! It was a very secret cargo – which is why it does not appear on the manifest, it was something additional.
China thought they had it but other powers knew about whatever it was and were interested too – which is why it all went wrong. There was more than a single plan on the plane.
The disclosed cargo is straightforward – no argument! But there was something else, not disclosed, which is why the plane was heavy.
Why does the FI report provide the wrong alternates? Answer because the fuel load was calculated for a heavier plane than the weight disclosed and they needed to justify the fuel load by reference to distance – they could not admit to the extra cargo. The actual alternates (see FI page 9) were much closer and the extra fuel was actually needed to fly the extra weight of the undisclosed cargo.
@Keffertje
I am perfectly happy to continue this conversation but please check the discrepancy in the alternate airports (on pages 9 and 30 of the FI) and tell me why page 30 contains information that they must have known was wrong when they wrote it.
@PaulC, I checked the FI, and the flightplan alternate airports differ. I have no explanation for that though. An expert could perhaps shed light on that. Or maybe someone just put ir into the report based on fuel load. The flight plan included the closest airports, which i would think is correct. I am not putting too much credence into that discrepancy unless more information becomes available. But where we might agree is: MY has shown they are liars and deceivers of the 1st order. In that light, anything can be hidden from us that we don’t know about.
@Keffertje
Thank you for that.
My explanation is that Z calculated the fuel load based on the page 9 flight plan and the actual TOW. By removing the ‘mystery cargo’ from TOW shown on page 30, the report compilers had no way to justify the fuel load except by creating mythical alternates (one is 1hr 45mins away on a 5hr 34min flight!) that justified the load by virtue of distance rather than weight.
There is no mention anywhere in the FI concerning any change to the flight plan.
The FI alternates have entered the ‘mainstream’ and for example, are mentioned by wiki in their main MH370 page.
You are right that we agree about MY – I would have added incompetent.
@Keffertje
You said “I was banging my head against a wall and then voila… Dennis came through”
I’m so glad it turned out ok for you 🙂
@Ge Rijn 🙂 Facebook is litterally infested with crazy people, and crazy comments and many of them lies, to get attention. It’s the new International enquirer. of fabricated nonsense. Z’s wife would have had a much stronger defense if her husband had been called to captain that flight, that day or just hours before. Premeditation would have been more difficult to argue., IMO.
@Rob, Yes, I was able to stop at that point:) and I gave an utterance of relief being able to sunbathe safely in the garden with no hovering satellites spying on me….:)
@PaulC
Just a thought, I may be wrong but I was led to believe it was the Captain’s responsibility to ensure the correct amount of fuel was uplifted. Fuel is an expensive item for airlines. They are particularly concerned about unnecessary fuel being carried on a flight, as unnecessary fuel weight burns fuel. Pilots are closely monitored, and they get it in the neck if they carry unnecessary fuel.
Me being squarely in the “Z done it” camp, I would have thought he would have had his intended journey in mind when he was considering how much fuel to ask for. And I wouldn’t expect any of this to be reflected in the FI, being the cynic that I am on anything the Malaysians put out.
@Keffertje
There is another reference to the alternates on page 100 of the FI.
The last entry on page 99 is:
At 2232:00 UTC [0632:00 MYT] KL ARCC issued a DETRESFA message (Figure 1.18C).
And Figure 1.18C is shown below it on page 100.
The same “- ZBAA0534 ZBTJ ZBSJ” appears as was noted in the flight plan.
@Rob, High Five :)…nudge nudge, wink, wink, sigh sigh……Z dunnit:)
@all
I am also very curious about how Z got assigned to this flight.
By next day 9-March we had a Moon in the sky, so 8-March was potential window of opportunity for the disappearing airplane trick, not to mention with Sun in the sky in the SIO.
Do I understand Z’s prior flight was to Australia for vacation ? And what route would that have taken (over SIO?)?
@ROB
There have been suggestions that airlines were ‘tankering’ fuel in and out of Beijing as it was expensive there – but I have seen nothing from anyone saying:Yeah, we did that too”, so I have left that one on the ‘speculation’ side of the balance sheet.
If ‘Z did it’, why would he care, knowing it was his last flight, what the bean-counters might say afterwards? As far as I can determine it is the sole responsibility of the Captain to order the fuel and whatever he orders, is what he gets – no questions asked! So why not just “fill her up” – he could have gone much further…
@ALL
The DETRESFA message I just mentioned to @Keffertje on page 100 of the FI report holds another interesting item.
The final line starts: -E/0710 = “Endurance of 7 hours and 10 minutes”
So where does the stated 7 hours and 31 mins endurance originate?
@ALL
OK answered my own question! Searched the document for ‘endurance’ and got this from page 1:
The Captain ordered 49,100 kilograms (kg) of fuel for the flight that gave an endurance of 07 hours and 31 minutes including reserves. The planned flight duration was 05 hours and 34 minutes.
Was 7:31 needed to ‘match’ the last ping???
@Paul Smithson
I wouldn’t think that the fuel temp in the tank would not be an issue but in the 3rd paragraph after the “Accident” heading on Wikipedia article it said “…Ice adhered to the inside of the fuel lines, probably where they ran through the struts attaching the engines to the wings…”
Fuel restriction would be noticed when the course change required more thrust.
Might also explain erratic flight after the turn-back towards Penang?
I did find a phd thesis on fuel freezing that found that the heat exchanger fix wasn’t the complete answer. I will try to find it again…
@ALL
One more thought – the stated endurance of 7:31 also needed to include the flight duration to the farthest alternate (which was stated on page 30 to be Hangzhou at 1:45).
BUT if the farthest alternate was actually Shijiazhuang (which would have been less than 45 mins)… the REAL endurance was actually 6 hours 31 mins – so 7 hours 10 mins is already an overestimation.
Can someone please help/refute as my head is beginning to hurt!
@PaulC
He wouldn’t have said “fill her up, I’m flying into the sunset”. For one thing, any suspicious behaviour before he began the takeoff roll, would have been a no no, and secondly and most importantly (bearing in mind I’m firmly in the Z dunnit camp) I’m convinced he planned the flight path in advance. He knew roughly how much fuel he would have to play with on this KL to Beijing trip, and he aimed for a specific area of the SIO, to rendezvous with Sun elevation, to permit a controlled ditching. He would need to check out the ocean swell before taking the plunge. But that’s just my take on things.
@PaulC
The calculated flight time from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing is 5 hours, 53 minutes.
http://www.travelmath.com/flying-time/from/Kuala
@Keffertje, @PaulC:
You (what you wrote about MAS) make me think of the commentator to the article in The Australian that DennisW makes fun of on his webpage, who stated that he after reading the article had come to embrace the “unresponsive investigator theory”.
Paul — although someone is probably beating me to it — what exactly, how exactly would you phrase the issue with the fuel and the alternate airports? To make sure you are getting through. It looks fishy but needen’t be. But it might take some knowledge about MAS praxis etc.
@All
I’m having to sign off for the evening, as my significant other is imposing a curfew.
@ALL
OK, I’ll try one more!
Page 30 of the FI states:
“Total departure fuel after refuelling was 49,700 kg”.
It then states:
“The investigation estimated that the aircraft would have had 41,500 kg fuel remaining after 41 minutes flying from KLIA to IGARI.”
At page 46 of the FI report is ‘Table 1.9A ACARS Position Report’. According to this table, at 17:01UTC the plane was at 34,998ft with 44,500kg of remaining fuel. Five minutes later (at 17:06UTC) it was at 35,004 feet with 43,800kg of fuel remaining. Thus in 5 minutes, 700kg of fuel was used – 140kg per minute at cruise altitude.
16 minutes later it arrived at IGARI and had used another 2,300kg – 143.75kg per minute.
Assuming the flight continued to consume fuel in a cruise at 140-144kg per minute (in fact let’s take the lower rate of 140kg per minute), then the 41,500kg remaining fuel at IGARI would last for 296 minutes. Say 5 hours.
To achieve a total endurance of 6 hours 31 mins would require an average fuel burn of 118kg per minute.
Would someone with knowledge of 777 burn rates please comment.
@DL
Thanks for that. MH370 estimated the duration that day to be 5hr 34 mins – guessing here but I suspect known wind speeds on the day will make a difference.
@PaulC
Check out an earlier writeup in this blog relative to fuel flow. BTW, I cannot reconcile your times based on a final ISAT transmission at 00:19 UTC and a take off time of 16:42 UTC. The difference is 7:37.
http://jeffwise.net/2015/04/29/guest-post-northern-routes-for-mh370-ending-at-airports/
@Johan
I’ll try.
Page 30 of the FI states:
“Fuel burn and endurance will be discussed in the Final Report” – so I am trying to bash out some estimates (one problem is we do not know the actual diversion point).
Page 30 of the FI states:
“…forecast recorded remaining fuel of 11,900 kg at landing, including 7,700 kg of diversion fuel”
The claimed alternates were Jinan and Hangzhou with stated fuel requirements of 4,800kg and 10,700kg -so 7,700 is the average of these. 4,200kg was various contingencies. BUT this is all nonsense at these were not the alternates! The real alternates were Tianjin and Shijiazhuang, both of which are much closer than Jinan. So let’s forget about trying to do any calculations on the basis of kg and look at time – bin the above numbers!
The FI would have you believe that the endurance calculation is something like this (let’s assume the diversion point was at 5hrs):
Estimated flying time – 5hr 34
Maximum diversion time – 1hr 45
Less time from diversion point – (0hr 34)
Contingencies etc – 0hr 42
Total endurance – 7hr 31
BUT, when Z was doing his calculation, using the real alternates, it would have been more like this:
Estimated flying time – 5hr 34
Maximum diversion time – 0hr 45
Less time from diversion point – (0hr 34)
Contingencies etc – 0hr 42
Total endurance – 6hr 31
Goodness knows how the DETRESFA 7hr 10mins fits into all of this!
The JIT had to show at lease 7hr 31mins or the pings made no sense but flying time to the real alternates was much less than they said.
@DennisW
Thanks for that. I will read that blog carefully.
Re 7:37 – you may recall (perhaps with a smile) that I think the ISAT was all spoofed – the guy who did it was sitting in 29A!
@PaulC – Towards the end of the flight, the total fuel burn for both engines was around 5,000kg/hr ±1,000kg/hr. Before finding the FCOM, I used a Delta Airlines manual for fuel calculations. For a “rule of thumb” it said that fuel weight at landing is typically 25,000lbs (enough for holding plus diversions) I believe that MH370 only had slightly more than 25,000lb “reserve.”
While tankering is used to offset high fuel cost at the destination, the price in Beijing would have had to have been about 15% higher to make it worthwhile.
@Rob – Not only did Hardy use 0.84M ground speed, he excluded ALL wind effects so there is no way his “spots” could be correct.
BTW, I understand that when Kennedy faced down Khrushchev, US spies had reported that these missile systems were not yet operational.
@Paul C
I think ISAT spoofing is very unlikely. In fact, I regard the existence of the ISAT data to be serendipitous. I seriously doubt anyone gave any thought to it or how it might be used prior to the flight.
@Johan
I should have said that both scenarios start with the same amount of fuel. The difference in endurance is accounted for by a much heavier plane than the FI admits – my ‘mystery cargo’. Z knew the actual TOW.
@Johan
The US Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) has elements in geostationary orbit. Whether it has any capability to detect SAM launches (or indeed southgoing B777s) in its staring modes was much discussed. Its exact capabilities are classified, of course.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/fbac1hookeszpma/SBIRSnew54.pdf?dl=0
@GeorgeT,PaulS
Interesting re: the BA38 777 accident due to water ice crystals plugging specifically the Rolls Royce engine input lines after a very cold flight. Seems unlikely in this case due to warmer fuel at start-of-flight, but put it down as another thing to rule out.
@DennisW
Allow me to speculate a little. Inmarsat has known about the wobble of the IOR satellite for some time. As such I am quite sure they will have previously considered the consequences for a number of different applications. The wobble is getting worse, so how long until they need to make allowances for it etc. etc.
Now the application of Doppler in respect of MH370 was certainly clever but it was not extraordinary – other satellites must have encountered the same problem. Perhaps some military satellites, requiring higher precision than Inmarsat, use the technique as a matter of course.
So working backwards, someone who knew about the effect could have produced the spoofed data.
The issue I still ponder on is how they also spoofed the encryption. I assume there must be end to end encryption so that Inmarsat’s Perth station can identify the SDU from which they are receiving data. I currently assume it was a fairly old standard and possibly not so hard to hack.
@PaulC:
Nice work. There are and might be some unknown variables there, but hopefully someone can answer. And follow Dennis’s rec above. The fuel has naturally been around in the discussions since day one. But you suggest Z added an hour of fuel to his kerosene order to carry a heavier load and taking it longer?
Or he knew he would then have to pay for an hour less of kerosene in Beijing for the return flight? (As has been suggested?)
Regarding the alternate airports there might be legit and sound reasons for the pilot preferring them, but the margin on the fuel might still be another matter. Two hours diversion sounds a lot. And the contradiction in the FI might be harmless, or not. But that doesn’t look good.
Keep at it!
@Lauren H
Many thanks for that.
If we take your “Towards the end of the flight, the total fuel burn for both engines was around 5,000kg/hr ±1,000kg/hr” that is approximately 100kg per minute.
So if we start at IGARI at 140kg per minute and assume a linear decrease until flameout, the average burn will be 120kg per minute.
Using the stated 41,500kg remaining fuel at IGARI, that would give us 345 flying minutes from IGARI. Add on the 41 minutes to IGARI and you get 386 minutes, or 6hrs 26mins endurance – compared with my 6hrs 31mins. Pretty close!
In any event, we get nowhere near 7hrs 31mins, which we would need if we were still going to be around for the last ping.
@Lauren H
Just as a small after thought, if we took your 100kg per minute for the ENTIRE flight from IGARI, that would give us 415 mins flying time from IGARI. Add on the 41 mins to IGARI for a total endurance of 456 minutes – 7hrs 36mins. Or only 5 more minutes than we are being asked to believe…
Do you believe it?
@Richard Cole:
Thanks, so there is a (red) eye in the sky after all. How good it had an acronym that was easy to remember. It might give a more unambiguos indication in colder and darker parts of the earth — being infrared? @Koffertje, be warned!
I in a sense — having seen too many movies when my kids were small — was also interested in knowing whether it could have happened that the two unfortunate planes were out flying when there were no (non-geostationary) satellites nearby. When speaking about sleeping Indonesians.
@Paul C
There is no meaningful encryption on the ISAT data. That has been a bone of contention for other reasons.
The Inmarsat voice data itself has a GMR type encryption that has been easily hacked:
http://www.darkreading.com/risk-management/dont-trust-satellite-encryption-say-german-researchers/d/d-id/1102642?
The raw data associated with the BTO and BFO is unencrypted as far as I know. Of course, there are a number of protocols associated with the link itself, but these would not present an encryption problem per se.
While I do not believe spoofing would be insurmountable, especially for a well-funded nation state, I would have difficulty believing it was anticipated that the aircraft would be tracked in that fashion.
@DennisW, @Paul C, The pieces of wreckage with marine life on them are now under intense scrutiny. If analysis shows that they drifted in a natural manner from the eastern Indian Ocean in approximately 15 months, then I think a spoof is unlikely. However, the analysis is incompatible with natural drifting, then a spoofing will be all but assured.
@PaulC – Yes, some of us have estimated 35,600 kg of fuel at the 18:22 last radar position. If fuel exhaustion was around 00:17, you get an average burn rate very close to 100kg/hr for that portion of the flight.
@PaulC
It it not clear whether Z bid on that flight or if there was a last minute pilot change.
Someone with this knowledge can verify whether schedules are finalized the month before they begin. It seems odd that Anaz Marlin’s wife could have been that oblivious to her husband’s schedule if he had not been scheduled to fly that night.
It would be interesting to know how many times Captain Zaharie had flown that red eye flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing and if he bid for that flight. It was my understanding seniority trumps when selecting schedules, a red eye flight for a guy in his 50’s, does not seem a suitable pick.
It was said Captain Zaharie, with his 30+ years employment with Malaysian Airlines, had a tremendously strong allegiance to his job and the airline.
Could he have been used as a pawn, duped by someone at a high level, to think his experience and skills were being utilized for a righteous reason according to a plan?
Is it possible he was told to include the co-pilot but only after take-off?
A fabrication would be a way to achieve compliance until it was no longer possible
@Richard Cole
Nice catch on SBIRS. The “high” satellites are, indeed, geos. The following information, published in the Oct 2015 issue of Aviation Week, is behind a sign in wall, so I have cut and pasted the relevant statements below.
begin cut-paste//
Sbirs data has also been used by U.S. intelligence officials as they continue to unravel the mystery of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (MH370), another 777-200ER, that disappeared in March 2014 while en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing. According to information from Malay military radar, the aircraft is thought to have crossed the Malayan peninsula and possibly crashed into the Indian Ocean. A flaperon belonging to the aircraft later washed up on the French overseas territory of Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean. The aircraft is thought to have flown in an area not highly trafficked, making it easier for Sbirs to find and track the heat signature of a 777-200ER.
Officials at the 460th declined to articulate their role in the search, and U.S. intelligence is unlikely to advertise if and how its data was used, for fear of revealing its capabilities. But Jackson says the team did participate by providing technical data to the intelligence community.
end cut-paste//
Jackson above is Col. Mike Jackson, Operations Group Commander.
Obviously the “high” SBIRS segment is not going to really “image” anything, but is reportedly capable of tracking plumes and the like. It is not clear that it could track a commercial airliner, but my guess is that it could track the heat signature. It is possible given that so much is known about the flight path pre-FMT, that SBIRS was able to pick it out, and track it to its terminus.
@DennisW
TBH if it was not encrypted, spoofing is a doddle (especially for a well funded nation state).
@Jeff
I still do not understand how that flaperon was covered with marine life on every side … and what was that white rectangle? I await news with great interest – do you have a time-frame?
@Richard Cole
…more
The wording above “providing data to the intelligence community” does not mean to the Malays, the Chinese, or the ATSB. What it means is the real spooks who would be worried about 9M-MRO and its disposition. My guess is they know damn well it splashed down somewhere and is no longer a threat relative to being used as a weapon or the cargo being recovered. There would be absolutely no incentive to share this information.
Helps to explain the indifference on the part of the US and the British governments.
@PaulC, I’m working an angle that I’m hope will bear fruit this month. Fingers crossed.
@DennisW, Do you really think the US would have watched MH370 track all the way to its splashdown, and let the Australians throw $130 million away looking in the wrong place? That would be pretty cold.
@Dennis While you are on the topic of ‘spoofing’ with others, perhaps you can comment on the possibility of the BFO data having been spoofed ‘after the fact’, that is, not in real-time but by someone hacking into an Inmarsat database and altering the data. If the data was indeed spoofed (by any means) the list of candidates cannot be terribly long.
@Susie Crowe
I really believe that Z was not involved in any plot at all – he just got caught up in the middle of something that happened once the plane was in the air. He was said to be fanatical about the 3Fs – flying, family and food and I am quite happy to believe it.
Your point about seniority and the red-eye is interesting – as I understand it, he was very highly regarded at MAS; this was an important flight, so they put one of their best people on it.