Two men, strangers to one another, go into the cockpit of an airplane and lock the door behind them. They take off and fly into the night. One radios to ATC, “Good night, Malaysia 370.” One minute later, someone puts the plane into a turn. It reverses direction and disappears.
Question: Did one of the men take the plane?
For many, it’s inconceivable that there could be any other answer than “of course.” Moreover, that since the details of the incident suggest a sophisticated knowledge of the aircraft, the perpetrator could obviously only be the man with the vastly greater experience — the captain. As reader @Keffertje has written: “Though I try to keep an open mind to all other scenarios, the circumstantial evidence against ZS simply cannot be ignored.”
For others, blaming the captain without concrete proof is immoral. There are MH370 forums where the suggestion that Zaharie might be considered guilty is considered offensive and hurtful to the feelings of surviving family members. Even if one disregards such niceties, it is a fact that an exhaustive police investigation found that Zaharie had neither psychological problems, family stress, money problems, or any other suggestion that he might be suicidal. (Having broken the story of Zaharie’s flight-simulator save points in the southern Indian Ocean, I no longer think they suggest he practiced a suicide flight, for reasons I explain here.) And far from being an Islamic radical, he enjoyed the writings of noted atheist Richard Dawkins and decried terror violence. And he was looking forward to retiring to Australia. If he was trying to make the Malaysian government look bad, he failed, because in the absence of an explanation there is no blame to allocate. And if he was trying to pull off the greatest disappearing act of all time, he failed at that, too, since the captain would necessarily be the prime suspect.
So did Zaharie do it, or not?
This, in a nutshell, is the paradox of MH370. Zaharie could not have hijacked the plane; only Zaharie could have hijacked the plane.
I’d like to suggest that another way of looking at the conundrum is this: if Zaharie didn’t take the plane, then who did? As has been discussed in this forum at length, the turn around at IGARI was clearly initiated by someone who was familiar with both aircraft operation and air traffic control protocols. The reboot of the SDU tells that whoever was in charge at 18:22 had sophisticated knowledge of 777 electronics. And the fact that the plane’s wreckage was not found where autopilot flight would have terminated tells us that someone was actively flying the plane until the end. But who? And why?
If Zaharie did not do it, then one of the passengers and crew either got through the locked cockpit door in the minute between “Good night, Malaysia 370” and IGARI, or got into the E/E bay and took control of the plane from there.
If we accept that this is what happened, then it is extremely difficult to understand why someone who has gone to such lengths would then fly themselves to a certain demise in the southern Indian Ocean. (Remember, they had the ability to communicate and were apparently in active control of the aircraft; they could have flown somewhere else and called for help if they desired.)
Recall, however, that the BFO values have many problems. We get around the paradox of the suicide destination if we assume that the hijackers were not only sophisticated, but sophisticated enough to conceive of and execute a spoof of the Inmarsat data.
Granted, we are still left with the issue of the MH370 debris that has been collected from the shores of the western Indian Ocean. Many people instinctively recoil from the idea that this debris could have been planted, as a spoof of the BFO data would require. Fortunately, we don’t have to argue the subject from first principles. Detailed physical and biological analysis of the debris is underway, and should be released to the public after the official search is called off in December. As I’ve written previously, several aspects of the Réunion flaperon are problematic; if further analysis bears this out, then we’ll have an answer to our conundrum.
@Paul Smithson: In your post of 10:40 AM I didn’t quite understand your a) b) c) and d). Let’s go back a bit further:
The airplane departed on a standard instrument departure (SID). At 1642:53 UTC Lumpur Departure cleared MH370 to climb to FL180 and to cancel the Standard Instrument Departure (SID) clearance by tracking direct to waypoint IGARI. I believe there are essentially two ways to comply with that route change.
Given the distance to IGARI, I think the appropriate way would have been to go to the CDU and execute a “direct to” instruction to the waypoint IGARI in the active flight plan. The FMC would then have constructed a track from present position to IGARI, and the turn towards BITOD would have started before the airplane reached IGARI.
The other way would be to rotate the heading selector on the FMP to the heading towards IGARI and to engage HDG SEL. It would then have been necessary to re-engage LNAV before reaching IGARI to smoothly join the flight plan route after IGARI. Perhaps that was done after passing IGARI or not at all.
“On another note, viewed at high level of zoom, what did you make of the “flechette” markings along both the secondary radar trace pre-disappearance?”
When I googled on “flechette” I only got returns for dart games. i didn’t see darts on the ATSB radar trace.
@Trond @All
One poster above (Trond?) made the comment that HiJacking by outsiders is quickly gaining momentum as the suggested cause of MH370. I am not aware of this trend, but here is recent post by Mike Chillit:
http://www.seventharc.net/2016/10/14/mh370-terror-claim/
It is an “accurate” March 9, 2014 claim that MH370 was intentionally flown, as a political act, to an unfindable location, and there are no survivors. That exactly what Prime Minister Razak said, rather definitively, a full 2-weeks later on March 24.
This claim is either a hoax, true, or a cover-up planted by the actual perps, I suppose.
@all
I am suggesting this recent Fugro path is directly over Dordrecht Hole…not sure it is scanning or just coincidence, but if it was me, I’d sure be trying to snap a few sea bottom radar photos while I was in the vicinity (pic courtesy Mike Chillit’s Twitter site).
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvBbB8-UAAA7jUP.jpg
@all
From the first day, i say, it is a hijack with a bad end. Refresh your mind with : baddhu.wordpress.com
About the u-turn: Z turn a bit to the right first to make a bigger circle to the left give the impression, go back to KLIA under the pressure of the hijacker. When the plane arrive under 5 000 feets ( under radar) he turn right pointing west direct to Kota Barhu and than north to Bangkok. The plane never cross the peninsula.
Z try to alert peoples at Kota Barhu in vain.
Where is the resting place is more important than how this event happen.
Sometime computer are useless !
With my compassion
@TBill
Sure agree. To just take that sonar scanner through that Dordrecht Hole.
I think it’s just returning to Fremantle but on his way back and forth it could be worthwhile.
It’s only ~7000m deep.. Too deep probably..
@Gysbreght
Great! Then that or those Mode S Lat/Long(s), (which you didn’t quote but
which you therefore imply are accessible), will have to be sufficient for
DrB at present to extrapolate from.
On a different point, you suggested during the last topic that Shah would
simply have needed to twist the heading knob to set the aircraft on a
different (e.g.to Penang space) course. (For brevity, you perhaps omitted
to say that he would have to disengage the autopilot?)
If done in a flight sim environment where you start the sim off at a place
in the air, yes, I understand you could do that. If, however, you had the
flight sim or actual FMC with an active route DEP/ARR airports set (as
MH370 had WMKK ZBAA), you would have to disengage the autopilot or the
autopilot would complain about the new heading and display “LNAV is
selected on the MCP and the airplane is not within the capture criteria of
the active leg, or the current heading does not intercept the active leg.”
Given that the active route was taking you to Beijing, whilst your ‘twisted’
new heading is taking you in an opposite direction, this message is not
surprizing.
The point I am making is that it is somewhat more complicated than simply
twisting to new heading, at least if you want to re-engage the autopilot –
and surely you want to re-engage the autopilot, to allow you to deal with
a problem without the added distraction of either pilot or FO having to
be hands-on flying the aircraft.
So there would be a bit more complication, where you would have to program
a substitute route (say to KENDI), and make the substitute route the active
route, then re-engage the autopilot – that’s how I understand how it works,
anyway.
@Oleksandr
Regarding your forward wheel well theory, there are more probable theories
than a tyre explosion, such as (.technical theory barred by J.W.) ..
@Ge Rijn
I don’t believe Matt M stopped because of topic change, he stopped posting
a bit before topic change, probably to take a break for a few hrs/days.
@Jeff
Yes, I vaguely remember a single medium post by Brock somewhere in the last
topic, it was probably as you imply non-MH370 relevant, which is why I
simply can’t remember its’ exact content.
Actually, I’m AMAZED you even noticed it, COMPARED to the incessant torrent
of posts, of near zero useful information content, that I have to wade
through from Johan and Kaffertje. Like Matt M, I then have to take a break,
because it becomes like the reply the Irishman gave when asked why he kept
hitting himself in the head with a hammer;
“Because it feels so good when it stops”.
@Normand: “The plane never cross the peninsula.”
I am in agreement! Your flight path in the GoT seems correct.
@Gysbrecht. My a,b,c all relating to events over the space of 10 minutes in IGARI area and after. According to flight plan (inclusive clearance direct IGARI) should have been:
– approach IGARI on heading ~026
– begin the IGARI turn about 16 secs before reaching the waypoint
– come out (~16s after waypoint) on ~058 heading BITOD.
Instead, what the graphic seems to suggest is:
– approach IGARI on heading 026
– begin to make a turn, getting “stuck” at about 040
– continue 035 or 040 for ~4Nm
– then the sharp turn
On the return towards Kota Bharu and beyond you then have progressive (curve) heading changes, so it doesn’t look like a WPT-WPT navigation.
@MH
Let’s talk the time.
Why all think only as computer. Many think only auto-pilot?
Z disengaged the auto-pilot at 1:05 to make this nice turn back. He know this corner of the sky very well. He try to save everybody.
@Gysbreght. With regard to second comment “flechette” I’m talking about this:-
https://www.dropbox.com/s/40wuinsjw2goc4j/Screen%20Shot%202016-10-18%20at%2017.45.23.png?dl=0
@ALL
(I’m joking, J.W. didn’t bar discussion in my post above
of any technical theory, sorry J.W., don’t know how it happened,
perhaps you let Aaron out of the drawer and he read buy and thought it was Sy…)
Cheers
@Normand – I think he tried to get back to Kota Bharu but maybe something forced MH370 back to the north GoT.
@buyerninety: “you perhaps omitted to say that he would have to disengage the autopilot?”
No, he didn’t have to disengage the autopilot. The autopilot is controlled by the MCP. With LNAV/VNAV selected on the MCP the autopilot and autothrottle receive their instructions from the FMC. Pushing the Heading/Track Select (SEL) Switch (inner) on the MCP changes the autopilot roll mode from LNAV to HDG SEL. The AFDS then controls roll to fly the selected heading or track (bank is limited by the bank limit selector to 25 degrees or less).
@Paul Smithson:
Thanks for the screenshot. “What are these?” – I’ve no idea. When I brought this up months ago someone mumbled something about pixels and resolution and referred to a discussion within the IG, which didn’t quite convince me.
” if further analysis bears this out, then we’ll have an answer to our conundrum.” — JW
If only. No matter what new evidence or analysis comes forth, each will twist it towards their own means…and so onward we go…
@buyerninety:
I am here. I listen. I have similar experiences. We probably all have. I did some wading here above. I will try to be a bit more discriminate.
On the other hand, if it really makes you feel good to stop hitting yourself, who would I be to refuse you the hammer?
@Paul Smithson:
I still don’t get your “getting “stuck” at about 040”. Perhaps you mean about 068 ?
(The track IGARI-BITOD is 059).
@ all autopilot/MCP/VNAV/LNAV enthusiasts
My 777 captain friend stands by his assertion that MCP will take completely over from the FMC in the event of route discontinuity. However, you’ll all be happy to know that he and I will both head into the sim in December to confirm this when he does his recurrency. Will report back what we learn. Maybe even post a vid if I’m allowed to.
In the meantime, I’m sticking with what I said.
@Matt M
Two questions then:
1. Can you guarantee that the software implementation in the SIM is exactly the same as that in a real B777 of 2002 vintage.
2. What happens if the last setting of the MCP heading was at 90deg [say] to the current course being flown?
@BrianAnderson
1) It will be a Level D full motion sim set up for a major US airline and if that’s not good enough for ya then you should go rent your own sim.
2) I’ve already addressed the fact that any prior heading dialed into the MCP is irrelevant to any post-discontinuity MCP takeover.
@ Paul Smithson I am with you on these radar tracks . I would suggest that a real aircraft could not change direction so rapidly ! Unless Newton’s laws of motion were suspended (again). When seeing the zoomed images it looks like a cut and paste job of tracks added in small intervals to produce the resultant trace . Why the large gap on the return trace ? After re listening to the ATC tape it seems fake also.Nothing seems quite right with the voice accents after permission to take off with weird office noises in the ATC control room !!
https://www.atsb.gov.au/mh370-pages/updates/operational-update/
Expected completion now Jan/Feb. AUV/ROV developments.
@Buyerninety, Despite the fact that you felt it necessary to play your comments over the cushion of a billiards table in a quote to JW, I will show the cojones to address you direct. I read everyone’s posts with much interest since it gives different perspectives on different theories. Us other readers also wade through pages and pages of technical malfunction theories even if the probability is near zero and everyone chooses to ignore the complete lack of communication – the Achilles heel of many ideas thrown around. Apart from the fact that I am new to this blog, I do not pretend to be a pilot, mathematician or physicist so perhaps the “other” human side of things is of less interest to many but it at least gives a different perspective to those that are hell bent and stuck in their own theories or worse, try and make the data fit their theories. This may be of zero interest to you, your prerogative of course, then simply don’t read the posts.
@ Gysbreght, I too appreciated your comment that the handover between Malaysian and Viet airspace may be an unfavourable place to hijack a plane, as you are expected to establish contact at an agreed time. So the weakness is in the approximate 20 minutes taken for the Vietnamese in chasing the plane up, when no contact was made. Was this a factor that was specifically targeted? Are the Viets known to be slow in doing this, compared to others in the region? Could previous ATC recordings show either pilot ‘gaming’ certain ATC shifts, to see how long it takes until ATC prompts contact? What was the usual behaviour for the two pilots? Just another thing for the 1000 page police report to address… Sorry if irrelevant.
@Keffertje:, @buyerninety:
I’ll subscribe to that. That’s another way of putting it.
@Cofee:
Good points. I think that handover might be the focus of even more thought and investigation.
@Matt M
I wouldn’t have expected other than a qualified Level D sim, and I didn’t need a smart-ass answer. But you haven’t answered the question.
Another question: How will you verify precisely what happens to the control mode at the discontinuty? i.e. how do you distinguish between LNAV and MCP operation at that point – – before you touch anything.
@Jeff,
There’s no real need for me to say again what so many have already said on numerous occasions but I’ll say it anyway: we all owe you an enormous debt of gratitude for hosting this forum. It’s obvious that doing so has not always been easy and your deftness of touch as moderator has been an object lesson – to me, at any rate – in how to get it right. I’m just disappointed that in the case of Brock you’ve not kept to your usual high standard in this regard.
Adopting a hermeneutic of suspicion as regards any and all ‘official’ narratives concerning MH370’s fate and terminus seems to be something that most posters – and, I suspect, many ‘lurkers’ – do. It’s effectively a sine qua non for admission to a frequently contrarian community such as this one. That Brock has often adopted a hermeneutic of extreme suspicion may not be to everybody’s taste here. But it’s what he does and he does it very well. It certainly doesn’t make him a troll.
Matt Moriarty,
You wrote: “However, you’ll all be happy to know that he and I will both head into the sim in December to confirm this when he does his recurrency.”
I was looking for such an opportunity for nearly a year, and your input would be much appreciated. May I ask you to conduct the following experiment:
1. ADIRU fails.
2. DO NOT enter new heading on POS INIT page.
3. Disengage the AP, and then re-engage it again when the bank angle <5 deg (during turn, for example).
According to B777 FCOM, the AFDS will roll to wings level as the bank angle is <5 deg. However, it will not switch to HDG HOLD after that because it is not available until the reference heading is entered on POS INIT. I expect that under these conditions the aircraft will permanently stay in the ATT (attitude) mode. In other words the aircraft would simply maintain its attitude, and a pitch mode selected on the MCP.
The purpose of this exercise is to confirm possibility of a flight in the persistent ATT mode. Thanks in advance.
@Brian Anderson
While we’re waiting for the sim results, l have some thoughts on the subject:
I understood that at a discontinuity, the autopilot reverts to heading hold (magnetic) and maintains the heading at the last waypoint, irrespective of any previous MCP settings. ATC heading instructions are in magnetic, runway headings are in magnetic, and if you’re in a tight spot, at can fall back on the cockpit compass.
In seems that flying in true heading mode is rarely required in practice except near the poles, where a compass (fluxgate or liquid) could be gyrating madly. I’m really just talking out loud here, as I’m sure you know this, anyway, but it makes me feel better.
If a pilot wanted to fly true heading, he would have to switch to true at or after the last waypoint. Apologies, if I ramble.
@Matt Moriarty, It’s exciting that you’re going to be accessing a Level D simulator, thanks for sharing that info with us. BTW, here’s a question for you: what emergency procedure checklist items, if any, call for the isolation of the left AC bus?
@Cofee, @Gysbreght, The reason that the timing of the vanishing is so suspicious is that it took place at a time and place, over the open ocean between Malaysia and Vietnam, in which the plane was briefly under the responsibility of no controller and was in an area in which radar coverage was spotty. Thus, it was not being actively observed by anyone, and if anyone happened to note its primary return flicker and vanish, it wouldn’t be viewed as grounds for concern.
Add in, of course, the fact that this happened in the middle of the night, when ATC’s vigilance might be expected to be low–and indeed, was.
@Mark Fox, I appreciate your kind words. You state your concerns well. Let me try to address them.
First, let’s be clear about Brock’s agenda. He is an intelligent and well-educated person, capable of putting his arguments forward in a lucid, reasonable-sounding way. He is clearly well-liked. However, if you’re familiar with the corpus of his work, you’ll understand that Brock’s core belief is that MH370 was shot down by the United States. Because none of the evidence that has come to light supports this view, and is in fact strongly counterindicative of it, Brock has concluded that all the information that has been released by the investigative authorities–radar track, ping arcs, BFO, everything–is part of a vast multinational conspiracy.
This is fairly obviously a dead-end line of inquiry, but to keep the flame alive Brock has decided that the best way forward is to press for an “audit” of the investigators. The idea being, I suppose, that though the conspiracy to fool the public about MH370 has involved a seamlessly coordinated conspiracy of every Western government, the will of the people expressed through a sufficiently forceful petition would be enough to unravel the whole thing.
Brock’s mission is so absurd, and he has prosecuted it with such relentless vigor, that I am suspicious that his motives are sincere.
My overall view of the MH370 mystery is that it is like the first ascent of Everest: it will be extremly difficult, but not impossible. Having to short-rope people like Brock, whose motive is to undermine every productive step toward the truth, adds an extra unnecessary burden that is just not worth shouldering.
@Jeff Wise: “Thus, it was not being actively observed by anyone, and if anyone happened to note its primary return flicker and vanish, it wouldn’t be viewed as grounds for concern.”
ATC radars usually suppress primary returns to get rid of ground clutter. When MH370 did not check in with HCM ATC at the expected time and HCM saw the secondary return disappear from the radar screens that was cause for concern and should have been anticipated by the culprit. That HCM took 20 minutes before calling KL ATC was unfortunate but unlikely to have been part of a plan.
If the plane had checked in as expected, it would have taken even longer for ATC to notice the disappearance of the secondary radar return.
@JeffWise,
Not sure where, or how, to start here…
Your post of October 19th, 2016, 7:18 AM, a quite elaborate post.
I am tempted to start with “how, the very, dare you!”…
You clandestinely ban Brock from your forum. It takes a moderating oversight by you (a reference to a Brock post remaining undeleted), and lurkers paying attention and question, for you to come clear about a ban of an eminent contributor.
Now, after banning Brock (read: denying him the right/opportunity to defend himself), you proclaim his agenda to be, his core believe to be, whatever.
It is your blog. You could have debated him. You could have redacted him, you could have banned him in the open, as you did with numerous contributors before. Yet you apparently chose to delete his posts, hoping to get away with it unnoticed.
No such luck, I guess. It has diminished your blog. I have ignored your distractors for a while. I am thinking of switching camps. You are starting to sound and act like the cartoonographer, aka Mr Chillit.
hello all, it seems democratic approach is complicating here… what about nice game of chess?
@Gysbreght @Jeff wise
I was also wondering about the ATC. Not from a Vietnamese perspective but from KL ATC.
The controller responsible for MH370 was certainly not asleep for he had contact with ‘the captain’ (still in dispute..) one minute before it vanished from secundary radar.
I imagine he must have been sitting in front of his radar-screen looking at it that minute. He must have noticed MH370 vanished from that screen.
I figure there was not that much traffic in that time of night that could have distracted him.
Any responsable ATC-operator would have been alerted to the highest level immediately when a plane vanishes unexpected from the screen.
This is what they’re trained for; to spot irregularities and act upon it immediately.
I read the chief-operator on duty was asleep at the time and was only alerted at 3.00 AM.
I think this is very hard to believe.
That KL ATC must have been in high alert and tension. Not in a mood to leave that chief-operator to sleep for some hours more.
Even more when contacted by HCM ATC 20 minutes later.
There’s something wrong there IMO.
Unless there’s another logical explanation I don’t know of.
If some one goes to sleep for a while in a night-shift (which I can imagine) with such a responsible position he would have insisted to be awakenend if something unusual happened.
And even if not, a responsible controller who also did not want to get fired would have done everything to alert just anyone.
A plane vanishing unexpected from the screen must be the worst nightmare of any ATC-controller.
If there is no other logical explanation the Malaysian Government must be hiding something here IMO.
@Jeff Wise. Thanks for the explanation about Brock McEwen and your statement he was/is probably not trolling.
I agree his contributions where generally only focussed on conflicting/confusing the known facts to serve his own assumptions against all odds.
He sure is not he only one..
Still I think a voice like his was and is contributing on a blog like this.
National sentiments shouldn’t be a criterium as long someone comes with founded arguments from a different perspective.
It will keep the other ones sharp at least 😉
@JW you say:
The reason that the timing of the vanishing is so suspicious is that it took place at a time and place, over the open ocean between Malaysia and Vietnam, in which the plane was briefly under the responsibility of no controller and was in an area in which radar coverage was spotty. Thus, it was not being actively observed by anyone, and if anyone happened to note its primary return flicker and vanish, it wouldn’t be viewed as
grounds for concern.
Add in, of course, the fact that this happened in the middle of the night, when ATC’s vigilance might be expected to be low–and indeed, was.
Your view is perfect: The hijacker choose this airport, this pilot, this time and day. Also he know well the fact about the dead zone btw Malaysia and Vietnam. I remember about a 777 british pilot say: if i have to thief a 777, this is the best place in the world to make that just because the black hole btw these two country. You have 10 minutes to disapear without trace.
Imagine: you have the best plane,the best pilot of 777 and for the first time Z have the chance to drive this big bird without the autopilot.
Don’t try to make the same with the limit of the autopilot, it is not possible.
Maybe some of you are thinking about my post and blog: this guy is a bit crazy… we will see this at the end of this story.
@MuOne, I wasn’t trying to be clandestine about banning Brock, rather I felt he deserved a more delicate touch than my usual summary mode of execution. He chose to talk about it on VeritasMH370, as is his right, so there certainly hasn’t been any great degree of secrecy surrounding this minuscule scandal. Don’t imagine I take any pleasure from this sort of housekeeping–it’s time consuming, energy-sapping, and by far the least fun part of maintaining a blog.
Maybe being a moderator here, and having to deal with the incessant complaints of people like Brock, has made me more sympathetic to the plight of the ATSB.
Or maybe its just that as you get older you identify less with the teen rebel in the back row and more with the homeroom teacher who sends him to the principal’s office.
@JW, don’t loose your time with someone don’t understand what’s a blog. It is not a classroom. It is a place to exchange idea to help, not to ruin the effort.
Forget the Egotrip of many here and continue your nice work Jeff.
@Normand
What do you suggest?
The hijacker chose all the perfect circumstances you say.
‘Zaharie had the chance to drive the bird without autopilot’
You state Zaharie hijacked the plane?
What do you know that others don’t to make this suggestion?
More factual details please.
@Normand, Thank you.
SIAP – a new posting on Duncan Steel for anyone who cares to read it. The drift info at the end is interesting.
http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/2839
Ge Rijn,
“I agree his contributions where generally only focussed on conflicting/confusing the known facts to serve his own assumptions against all odds.”
Sorry, but I strongly disagree with this. And I absolutely agree with MuOne’s assessment of the situation. I jumped in because I don’t like when someone is being blackmailed using not very honest methods. Take for example the drift studies, reviewed by Brock – an extremely important contribution. Just letting you know, so you can make a fair judgement on your own.
@all
Bumped into this disturbingly accurate prediction by former NTSB Greg Feith that MH370 may never be found. He said that back in March 2014.
https://leehamnews.com/2014/03/31/mh370-wreckage-probable-cause-may-never-be-found-says-ex-ntsb-investigator/
Regarding the Flight Data Recorder turn-off methods, apparently Boeing was/is silent on how a pilot can turn that off. But it is apparently believed, for the 777, that Boeing took the “OFF switch” out of the cockpit, thus necessitating EE Bay access to turn that data recorder off. Voice recorder can apparently be turned OFF from cockpit.
However, Feith says even if the FDR was turned off, we would still have the data up to the point it was turned off. But of course he “predicts” we will not find it anyway.
@Ge Rijn,
Z is not the hijacker. This is the most experiment pilot able to drive manualy this big bird. Like a father, he try to save all aboard.
I don’t suggest anything, i know because i experienced this event in a sense. For me it is just a compassion experiment a the world size. If you know what’s consioucness is you know this is more powerfull than a simple computer. Read a bit about Patanjali and the yoga sutra. The answer is there.
Go and read my last blog at : baddhu.wordpress.com
about white papers on MH370. You understabd this is not a coincidence if more than two years earlier i have say what i have seen this day and two weeks later.
FACTUAL: i am laughting about fact. You and all other have reject the real fact (witness for exemple) and keep only the computer data.
For me, i have no doubt about this event and this why i maintain always the same from the first day.
Wonder why in RichardG’s paper there wasn’t consideration for Subang as an acceptable diversion landing airport. I remember a contributor noted the landing of a Russiancrimeboss aircraft at time mh370 disappears
@JW, You are nice to a fault and cannot please everyone. High trees catch much wind. IMO, you are doing a great job dealing with a lot of people that seem to have their monthly cycle simulteanously, idk.Seems to be a guy problem :). Expecting incoming from buyerninety!
@Keffertje
October have a super moon!
Special month
@Normand 🙂 Good. Hopefully MH370will be found with a full mon, since it dissapeared on a moonless night!